lfnetwork.com mark read register faq members calendar

Thread: Saddam executed - what now for Iraq?
Thread Tools Display Modes
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Old 12-30-2006, 09:45 PM   #1
Nancy Allen``
Banned
 
Nancy Allen``'s Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,948
Saddam executed - what now for Iraq?

With Saddam Hussein put to death by hanging one wonders where Iraq goes from here? Could peace be brought now that the tyrant had been done away with? Will he be seen as a myrter and fresh waves of violence spread throughout the country and the Middle East? Going by recent news the answer could very well be the latter, as 73 I think it was had been killed in retalliation to Saddam's execution, but I would like to hear your thoughts.
Nancy Allen`` is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 12-31-2006, 01:36 PM   #2
Dagobahn Eagle
First Strike Tester
 
Dagobahn Eagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Bergen, Norway
Posts: 3,513
Current Game: First Strike
Thumbs down

I don't see how this'll improve Iraq's situation whatsoever. It'll raise the morale of some, lower that of others, and infuriate many. But one thing it'll not do is bring peace to Iraq.

I won't discuss whether or not the hanging of Saddam Hussein was acceptable, as a thread already exists covering this subject.

Dagobahn Eagle is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 12-31-2006, 02:11 PM   #3
igyman
Tension!
 
igyman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: White City
Posts: 3,412
Current Game: Trine Enchanted Edition (PC)
Forum Veteran Helpful! Contest winner - Fan Fiction 
I completely agree, this will not mean improvement of Iraq's situation. It just means more of Bush's control over Iraq.

igyman is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 12-31-2006, 02:33 PM   #4
Char Ell
Force Enlightened
 
Char Ell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 2,368
Current Game: The Old Republic
LFN Staff Member Folder extraordinaire Forum Veteran 
I don't think Saddam's execution did anything to promote peace in Iraq. And the timing of the execution probably couldn't have been much worse with the Islamic holiday period and all. Sounds like Shiite's interpreted Saddam's execution as a wonderful thing while the Sunni's see it as a slap in their face and another reminder that Sunni's no longer exercise complete control in Iraqi affairs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by igyman
It just means more of Bush's control over Iraq.
Care to explain your reasoning for making this statement or are you just mindlessly Bush-bashing again? I understand you really don't like George W. but I really don't see how the execution of Saddam Hussein increases Bush's ability to "control" Iraq, as if he has much control to begin with. If anything Saddam's execution will only destabilize Iraq further which I'm pretty sure Bush doesn't want.


Want to battle against cancer and other chronic diseases? Join Team LFN!


Char Ell is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 12-31-2006, 03:35 PM   #5
Det. Bart Lasiter
obama.png
 
Det. Bart Lasiter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: `(.)~
Posts: 7,997
Current Game: all
Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Finally I can get a good night's sleep. I would stay awake for hours wondering if that animal would escape and murder me and the rest of my family. And I bet every single Iraqi in the world feels the same way.



"No, Mama. You can bet your sweet ass and half a titty whoever put that hit on you already got the cops in their back pocket." ~Black Dynamite
Det. Bart Lasiter is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 12-31-2006, 04:17 PM   #6
TK-8252
Get Cloned.
 
TK-8252's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by igyman
It just means more of Bush's control over Iraq.
Bush didn't order his execution. The hanging was an Iraqi thing. And if you think Bush has control of Iraq, let alone control of anything (certainly not Congress anymore! ), that's not the case.
TK-8252 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 12-31-2006, 05:25 PM   #7
Windu Chi
Banned
 
Windu Chi's Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Getting revenge on that traitor, Anakin.
Posts: 882
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``
With Saddam Hussein put to death by hanging one wonders where Iraq goes from here? Could peace be brought now that the tyrant had been done away with? Will he be seen as a myrter and fresh waves of violence spread throughout the country and the Middle East? Going by recent news the answer could very well be the latter, as 73 I think it was had been killed in retalliation to Saddam's execution, but I would like to hear your thoughts.
I think he would be seen as a martyr, and a new level of hell will break loose in Iraq.
I saw that video from what CNN showed, it looked like common people off the street hanged his ass.
It already looks like a disguise genocide is in progress, I don't think it will get any better there,
Nancy.
I'm not very optimistic about the situation there.
Windu Chi is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 12-31-2006, 05:58 PM   #8
Totenkopf
English spoken in What
 
Totenkopf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: What?
Posts: 4,787
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Member The Walking Carpets Guild Member Forum Veteran 
Fact is, SH would have been executed as long as it was up to the Iraqis themselves. No new government in Iraq would've had enough Sunni members to avoid that fate. Frankly, since the UN did nothing (except possibly profit) about SH, there is no reason that anything like the WC should have had influence or jurisdiction over how Saddam's case was disposed.

Seems to me that a lot of the people who fear Iraq's descent into anarchy ought to step up and volunteer to help stabilize the situation. Might it cost them their lives to do so? Probably. It would mean more, though, than just being meely mouthed and criticizing everything else. Much will depend on how much Iraq is supported, both by the US and the rest of the world. Given it's proximity to Iran and Syria, I think that it could end up somewhat like Lebanon. Iran is ultimately the key. If Iran can be kept under control, then much funding for the terrorist element in Iraq can be choked off sufficiently to achieve something with a better shot at being lasting. [Of course, SA would have to knuckle under too, as it is a source of copious funding to terror groups, no doubt partly as a kind of payoff to leave SA alone] That however, would require greater cooperation on the parts of Russia (whose supplying nuke help to Iran) and the PRC. Neither appears predisposed to do anything constructive.
Totenkopf is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 12-31-2006, 07:37 PM   #9
TK-8252
Get Cloned.
 
TK-8252's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,850
I do find it odd how many people now say that if only pesky Iran would get out of the way then Iraq would be fine. As if somehow Iran is the true problem with Iraq, and that it's not that the Iraqis just hate each other for their ethnic differences. Kind of like how when the Sunni insurgents were the problem, everyone said that they're just Saddam loyalists that will be crushed as soon as Saddam is gone.

Why is it that it's always some other party's fault that Iraq is a mess, and not ours, or the Iraqis? It's either Iran, Syria, Saddam, whatever. The truth is that it's both our fault and the Iraqis fault. These sectarian tensions already existed - Sunnis hated Shi'ites, and that's how its always been there. Bush and the majority of the U.S. government was so ignorant of other cultures that they didn't even know what the differences are between Shi'a and Sunni Muslims. We invaded and took out the system that was in place to keep order. Now, they're cutting each other's throats. Iran has nothing to do with it. Syria has nothing to do with it. Saddam has nothing to do with it. This is a religious war between two rival sects, allowed to take place due to our invasion.

Don't blame other nations for the situation in Iraq. We can only blame ourselves and the Iraqis. I have yet to see any evidence that other nations are behind the violence in Iraq.
TK-8252 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 12-31-2006, 08:54 PM   #10
Totenkopf
English spoken in What
 
Totenkopf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: What?
Posts: 4,787
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Member The Walking Carpets Guild Member Forum Veteran 
Seriously, TK, if you think there are no outside influences (beyond the US and UK), then you are extremely naive. You do understand that it's in the best interests of nations like Iran and Syria that Iraq dissolves completely into failure (at least from their perspective)? Perhaps you should do more research. The middle east is drowning in despotism and the despots are in no hurry to see that change, at almost any cost it seems.
Totenkopf is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 12-31-2006, 09:45 PM   #11
TK-8252
Get Cloned.
 
TK-8252's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
Seriously, TK, if you think there are no outside influences (beyond the US and UK), then you are extremely naive. You do understand that it's in the best interests of nations like Iran and Syria that Iraq dissolves completely into failure (at least from their perspective)? Perhaps you should do more research. The middle east is drowning in despotism and the despots are in no hurry to see that change, at almost any cost it seems.
Yes, it is very much in the interest of Iran to see the U.S. bleed in Iraq, and a Shi'a-dominated Islamic government emerge. Both of these things are happening. But all this talk I hear of "Iranian agents" and such seems to be nonsense. It's likely that Iran contributes to the political strife in Iraq. However, to think that Iran is behind the VIOLENCE in Iraq is what is truely naive. Know the history of that region - Shi'ite Muslims and Sunni Muslims have always been enemies in Iraq. The true people behind the violence in Iraq are the Imams. People like al-Sadr. They are the ones encouraging young men to abduct, torture, and kill people based on their ethnic differences. No Iranian agents required.
TK-8252 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 12-31-2006, 10:55 PM   #12
Totenkopf
English spoken in What
 
Totenkopf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: What?
Posts: 4,787
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Member The Walking Carpets Guild Member Forum Veteran 
It's not a question of needing Iranian agents to fan the flames. More like Iranians making sure the supply of gasoline for the fire remains steady. The rest is a given. So long as rich and ambitious power brokers like the Iranians feed the flames, they won't die down any time soon. That's the point in mentioning such connections.
Totenkopf is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 12-31-2006, 11:00 PM   #13
TK-8252
Get Cloned.
 
TK-8252's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
It's not a question of needing Iranian agents to fan the flames. More like Iranians making sure the supply of gasoline for the fire remains steady. The rest is a given. So long as rich and ambitious power brokers like the Iranians feed the flames, they won't die down any time soon. That's the point in mentioning such connections.
So then what's the solution? Attack Iran? That'd really stabilize the region!
TK-8252 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-01-2007, 01:28 AM   #14
Totenkopf
English spoken in What
 
Totenkopf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: What?
Posts: 4,787
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Member The Walking Carpets Guild Member Forum Veteran 
Compared to what? Doing nothing and holding your breath?
Totenkopf is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-01-2007, 01:31 AM   #15
Samnmax221
I never Kipled
 
Samnmax221's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: My hovercraft is full of eels
Posts: 5,784
Current Game: Sex with women
Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
So then what's the solution? Attack Iran? That'd really stabilize the region!
Wouldn't need to, Ahmadinejad is about as popular over there, as Bush is here. He's on his way out.
Samnmax221 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-01-2007, 01:42 AM   #16
TK-8252
Get Cloned.
 
TK-8252's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
Compared to what? Doing nothing and holding your breath?
Okay then tell us why we should attack Iran then. Tell us why the U.S. has the authority to attack another country without provocation. Tell us what act Iran has committed that would justify an attack, and the ensuing chaos, destruction, and death that would follow.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samnmax221
Wouldn't need to, Ahmadinejad is about as popular over there, as Bush is here. He's on his way out.
Exactly. The Iranians aren't so happy about the fact that they're living in poverty while their leader tries to take on the world. Thankfully, Iran IS a democratic, or at least semi-democratic society. Attacking them would be absolute insanity. The sanctions that are in place are working, as we saw from the elections that recently took place in Iran. People in Iran don't like the trouble that Ahmadinejad is getting them into.
TK-8252 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-01-2007, 03:43 AM   #17
Totenkopf
English spoken in What
 
Totenkopf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: What?
Posts: 4,787
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Member The Walking Carpets Guild Member Forum Veteran 
Whoa there big fella, you're getting ahead of yourself. I say that the OPTION should not be taken off the table. Not the same thing as saying....."Charge, damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" Technically, the USSR was a democratic society. Only problem was that all candidates were CPSU members. Iran bears serious scrutiny.
Totenkopf is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-01-2007, 04:43 PM   #18
Nancy Allen``
Banned
 
Nancy Allen``'s Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,948
Give TK an A for his accurate insight into Iraq, Iran and the Middle East. If Ahmadinejad is holding talks with America then the hope is there to bring about democracy. On the other hand Iran has appeared hell bent on the genocide of the Jews, so certainly if we are to uphold Israel's right to exist then Iran has to be watched carefully. I would like to add, war opposers, that from all appearences Saddam largely kept the Shi'ites and Sunnis under control. With him gone it's open slather, they have free reign to try and wipe each other out.

My thoughts on the hanging itself. I'm glad Saddam has been done away with, he deserved it for his attempted genocide of the Kurds, but to celebrate the way some have is rather tasteless. Regardless of what support Iraqis have for it to Saddam loyalists he will die a myrter and they will in all liklihood redouble their efforts to drive out the occupying forces.
Nancy Allen`` is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-01-2007, 04:58 PM   #19
Spider AL
A well-spoken villain...
 
Spider AL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Help, help, I'm stapled to my workstation.
Posts: 2,162
Quote:
Originally posted by Nancy Allen``:

With Saddam Hussein put to death by hanging one wonders where Iraq goes from here? Could peace be brought now that the tyrant had been done away with? Will he be seen as a myrter and fresh waves of violence spread throughout the country and the Middle East? Going by recent news the answer could very well be the latter, as 73 I think it was had been killed in retalliation to Saddam's execution, but I would like to hear your thoughts.
The terms of your question aren't really meaningful. The question presumes that the execution of Saddam is a significant event, but while I'm sure it was significant for Saddam, it really wasn't significant for Iraq as a country.

Saddam essentially lost any power and influence he ever possessed when the US and UK illegally invaded Iraq. Saddam really hasn't been a concern since his capture. His execution will have no positive effect on Iraq, and every intelligent person agreed that his execution would have no positive effect on Iraq well before he was hanged. It was obvious.

So "what now for Iraq?" the same thing as before Saddam was executed. Since it's obvious that the US and UK aren't willing to put the kind of monstrous amounts of cash into Iraq as would be necessary to effect true repair... we should just leave. Our presence is illegal, immoral and in practical terms it's a focus for violence. We should respect Iraqi wishes, and leave. Without putting more of our puppets into power, of course.

Quote:
Originally posted by Nancy Allen``:

On the other hand Iran has appeared hell bent on the genocide of the Jews, so certainly if we are to uphold Israel's right to exist then Iran has to be watched carefully.
Iran doesn't have the capacity to destroy Israel, Nancy. Israel has one of the largest armies in the world, and it's the only country in the region with a (massive) nuclear deterrent.

Add continued US/UK backing for Israel into the equation, and you have to come to the conclusion that you're just repeating neo-con propaganda with this "Iran's a danger to Israel" line.

-

Quote:
Originally posted by igyman:

I completely agree, this will not mean improvement of Iraq's situation. It just means more of Bush's control over Iraq.
I understand your sentiments Igy, but people both anti-war and pro-war have to stop obsessing over Bush. He's one individual, he is NOT a mastermind by any measure, he is not influencing US policy in any meaningful way, and never has done. Amoral neoconservative policy has been in place since the 1980s in its current form, well before Bushie, and frankly US foreign policy has always been amoral in one way or another.

Bush (or any other political figurehead worldwide) is a nobody, he's an irrelevance to any discussion of policy.

-

Quote:
Originally posted by jmac7142:

Finally I can get a good night's sleep. I would stay awake for hours wondering if that animal would escape and murder me and the rest of my family. And I bet every single Iraqi in the world feels the same way.


Very good.

-

Quote:
Originally posted by Totenkopf:

Fact is, SH would have been executed as long as it was up to the Iraqis themselves. No new government in Iraq would've had enough Sunni members to avoid that fate.
1. Saddam was villified on the basis that his actions broke international laws. Therefore the only way to try him for those crimes- morally speaking- would have been in a court sanctioned by the institutions that define international law. If you're in favour of lynch-mobs, fine. But they're not moral.

2. The court was not convened by the Iraqi people, it was convened by a US/UK puppet regime that was not democratically elected by any stretch of the imagination. The election of this puppet junta was not democratic, as the US vetted the candidate list. That taints the election, the government and any decisions said government makes.

Quote:
Originally posted by Totenkopf:

Frankly, since the UN did nothing (except possibly profit) about SH, there is no reason that anything like the WC should have had influence or jurisdiction over how Saddam's case was disposed.
1. The UN did what was necessary, it checked that Saddam was not a danger to his neighbors or to us. It emerged that he was neither a danger to his neighbors nor to us, and that he had not possessed any major weaponry since the 1991 conflict. These conclusions were upheld by the US's own report into Iraqi weapons, AFTER the recent invasion.

Ref: https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq...004/index.html

2. The US allegations that you're referring to concerning the oil for food programme were never substantiated. It was a clear attempt on the part of the neo-cons to sully the reputation of the high levels of the UN, which were criticising the US and UK for their illegal international aggression against Iraq at the time. And as previously noted, evidence was uncovered by investigative journalists to suggest that whatever oil-smuggling was going on, the US government was knee deep in it.

Ref: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/d9d4d8b0-64f...00e2511c8.html

3. Saddam was armed and funded throughout the nineteen-eighties by the US and UK precisely so that we could profit from his violence and his aggression against our ideological foes. Even IF the allegations of high-level UN profiteering were substantiated, (which they have not been) it's a bit rich for you to complain about someone else using Saddam for their own ends, when the US was doing it for over a decade.

Quote:
Originally posted by Totenkopf:

Seems to me that a lot of the people who fear Iraq's descent into anarchy ought to step up and volunteer to help stabilize the situation. Might it cost them their lives to do so? Probably. It would mean more, though, than just being meely mouthed and criticizing everything else.
The US sanctions against Iraq (and bombings of Iraq) crippled the Iraqi economy and caused untold death and suffering. The US/UK invasion of Iraq has destroyed what little quality of life the Iraqis had left, has totally destabilised a country which was no threat to its neighbors or to us, has caused islamic fundamentalists to gain new power in Iraq (Saddam was a staunch secularist, far more so than many leaders in the region) and of course we have killed over half a million Iraqi people by the most damning estimate.

All US/UK damage. So who has responsibility to clean up the mess? We do, of course. The US and the UK. Have we made any serious attempt to clean up the mess? Nope. Some of the US money that was meant to fund reconstruction has been spent on spurious contracts for US businesses, and the rest has been... how shall we put this... misplaced. To the tune of nine billion dollars US.

Ref: http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/me...30/iraq.audit/
Ref: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...403034,00.html

And frankly, it would take more than a paltry few billions to rebuild a country in the state that Iraq's in. After all, it took over a decade for us to destroy it.

So frankly, I think your assertion that everyone else should chip in more money and manpower than they already are to clean up our mess... is ludicrous in the extreme.

As for your anti-Iranian rhetoric, it's nonsense.

For one thing, Iranian involvement in Iraq has been overestimated by neoconservatives, according to at least one senior US intelligence official in Iraq. Brigadier General John Custer stated in November on CNN: "If I could snap my fingers and move Iran out of the picture, it wouldn't change -- it wouldn't end the conflict, it wouldn't drastically change the conflict. It's not decisive."

Ref: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP...itroom.02.html

And secondly of course, even if Iran WERE the evil empire you like to make them out to be, (which they are not,) it would be our fault if they nefariously gained control of Iraq and used it for EV0L!!!11 (sic) Because we destabilised the country, and anyone with a brain could have predicted the ill effects of that destabilisation.

-

Quote:
Originally posted by TK-8252:

These sectarian tensions already existed - Sunnis hated Shi'ites, and that's how its always been there. Bush and the majority of the U.S. government was so ignorant of other cultures that they didn't even know what the differences are between Shi'a and Sunni Muslims. We invaded and took out the system that was in place to keep order.
Indeed TK, these sectarian tensions DID exist prior to our invasion. But they simply weren't as pronounced as the neoconservatives want us to believe. There was intermarriage between Shi'ite and Sunni muslims, there was plenty of interaction between the factions in daily life. Only when we invaded were extremist elements able to take some control of the factions and REALLY start trouble.

It's not merely the fact that Saddam did a good job of keeping tensions under wraps, (which he did,) it's that our invasion actively INCREASED tensions, it didn't merely release existing ones. Once again, we have a subtle neo-con dodge, that makes our contribution to Iraq's problems sound smaller than it actually was. Don't let them get away with anything, not even the smallest inaccuracy!


[FW] Spider AL
--
Hewwo, meesa Jar-Jar Binks. Yeah. Excusing me, but me needs to go bust meesa head in with dissa claw-hammer, because yousa have stripped away meesa will to living.
Spider AL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-01-2007, 05:41 PM   #20
Nancy Allen``
Banned
 
Nancy Allen``'s Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,948
Just tell me, does every single one of your posts have to be arrogant and condescending? Because I have not seen one that isn't, not one.
Nancy Allen`` is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-02-2007, 12:00 PM   #21
Jae Onasi
Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem
 
Jae Onasi's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 10,916
Current Game: Guild Wars 2, VtMB, TOR
Alderaan News Holopics contributor Helpful! LucasCast staff Veteran Fan Fic Author 
Sunnis and Shi'a have been fighting for centuries, and it doesn't look like they're terribly interested in stopping soon. It was going on before Saddam and will likely continue for some time.

'Iranian agents' isn't quite the right way to look at it. It's 'Shi'a agents who happen to be Iranian' because religion drives politics there as much as, if not more than, nationality. It's natural for Iranian Shi'a to want a neighbor with a similar mindset. If they're stirring up the Iraqi hornet's nest to get it, however, that's a problem.

I don't know that all of Iran is bent on the destruction of Israel, even if Ahmadinejad has made his feelings well known. In fact, Ahmadinejad's very vocal stance on the matter (among other issues) is likely what's driving his popularity down. Most Iranians aren't too excited about making active enemies out of their neighbors after what happened in the Iran-Iraq war, nor do they want to take on the world with only Venezuela as their ally.


From MST3K's spoof of "Hercules Unchained"--heard as Roman medic soldiers carry off an unconscious Greek Hercules on a 1950's Army green canvas stretcher: "Hi, we're IX-I-I. Did somebody dial IX-I-I?"

Read The Adventures of Jolee Bindo and see the amazing Peep Surgery
Story WIP: The Dragonfighters
My blog: Confessions of a Geeky Mom--Latest post: Security Alerts!
Love Star Trek AND gaming? Check out Lotus Fleet.

Jae Onasi is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-02-2007, 06:01 PM   #22
Windu Chi
Banned
 
Windu Chi's Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Getting revenge on that traitor, Anakin.
Posts: 882
Cool Guy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi

I don't know that all of Iran is bent on the destruction of Israel, even if Ahmadinejad has made his feelings well known. In fact, Ahmadinejad's very vocal stance on the matter (among other issues) is likely what's driving his popularity down. Most Iranians aren't too excited about making active enemies out of their neighbors after what happened in the Iran-Iraq war, nor do they want to take on the world with only Venezuela as their ally.
Don't underestimate people full of hate, Jae.
If they develop a fission bomb, I bet they will try to use it.
But Israel airforce probably will bomb them to dust before they launch it, unless terrorists get a hold of it, in which there will be hell to pay.
Ahmadinejad and some of his allies in Iran, who still doubt the Holocaust, are hell-bent on making Israel a sea of blood.
They can't be trusted, unless the citizens there somehow get rid of the religious Ayatollah government.

Last edited by windu6; 01-02-2007 at 06:16 PM.
Windu Chi is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-02-2007, 06:11 PM   #23
Nancy Allen``
Banned
 
Nancy Allen``'s Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,948
It's true that Iran was where they held the Holocaust denial conference, that they held a "Holocaust cartoon contest" in reply to the Mohammed cartoons, that through his comments and actions (such as telling America to change it's policies on Israel) it seems Ahmadinejad is hell bent on the genocide of the Jews. It may be neo con, extreme right wing kook, Butcheress of Abu Gharib to criticise Iran and Ahmadinejad over Israel, by the same token I truely hope Jae is correct in her statement that Ahmadinejad is in the minority of how Iran thinks.
Nancy Allen`` is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-05-2007, 07:40 PM   #24
Spider AL
A well-spoken villain...
 
Spider AL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Help, help, I'm stapled to my workstation.
Posts: 2,162
Quote:
Originally posted by Nancy Allen``:

Just tell me, does every single one of your posts have to be arrogant and condescending? Because I have not seen one that isn't, not one.
I reject utterly the notion that my posts are arrogant, or condescending. I disagree with you and others on many issues, but that does not make me condescending. I think that many of the ideas expressed by you and your fellows are sheer nonsense, but that does not make me arrogant.

I try to present logical argument and factual evidence to show that those arguments I disagree with... are fallacious and wrong. That is not arrogance nor condescension. If you don't like it, that really is your problem, and not mine.

However, never let it be said that I'm closed-minded. If you want to go to my first post in this thread, and edit it so that it is no longer what you would call "arrogant", and then PM me the edited version, I will surely look at it carefully and dispassionately evaluate the changes you make.

Quote:
Originally posted by Nancy Allen``:

It's true that Iran was where they held the Holocaust denial conference, that they held a "Holocaust cartoon contest" in reply to the Mohammed cartoons, that through his comments and actions (such as telling America to change it's policies on Israel) it seems Ahmadinejad is hell bent on the genocide of the Jews. It may be neo con, extreme right wing kook, Butcheress of Abu Gharib to criticise Iran and Ahmadinejad over Israel


Feel free to criticise the attitude of Iran's government. I'll join you in criticising that. But what you said was different. You stated that we should "watch" Iran, because it posed a genuine threat to Israel's existence. And that's just silly. It's like saying:

"we should watch that horse carefully, because it poses a genuine threat to that elephant's existence."

In this analogy, the horse is Iran, the elephant is Israel. Iran doesn't have the capacity to rival Israel's military might, which is considerable. Israel is one of the best armed countries on the planet. The Iranian government can bluster all it likes about obliterating Israel... but it simply isn't capable of the act in question, barring some insanely freak occurrance. And it's just parroting neo-con propaganda to suggest otherwise.

Of course, the same could be said of Palestine. Israel is in no danger of being obliterated by the Palestinians, no matter how often our governments try to paint the Israel vs. Palestine conflict as an "even match".

It so isn't. But I digress...
-

Quote:
Originally posted by Jae Onasi:

Sunnis and Shi'a have been fighting for centuries, and it doesn't look like they're terribly interested in stopping soon. It was going on before Saddam and will likely continue for some time.
There have always been sectarian tensions between Sunni and Shia muslims. That is obvious fact. But the idea that our respective governments encourage us to believe: that Sunni and Shia in Iraq were just itching for the slightest opportunity to kill each other... is not supported by much in the way of hard evidence.

For example: when Saddam's Baath regime was weakened during the eighties, Shi'a muslims had several opportunities to start an uprising. And they were encouraged to do so by Iranian Shia propaganda. But the Iraqi Shia were in the main loyal to the Iraqi government under Saddam, and there was no overthrow of the Baathists.

No, as stated before, the only reason there is serious sectarian violence in Iraq now, is because we not only OPENED the religious can of worms, we also put extra worms in before opening it! We didn't merely release existing tensions (which would be bad enough), we actively exascerbated them. Our fault, plainly and simply.

Quote:
Originally posted by Jae Onasi:

'Iranian agents' isn't quite the right way to look at it. It's 'Shi'a agents who happen to be Iranian' because religion drives politics there as much as, if not more than, nationality.
Strictly speaking, this statement is grossly incorrect. According to experts, power and money are driving the current Iraqi strife, and religion is merely a convenient excuse.

The aforementioned US intelligence chief, Brigadier General Custer, stated in 2005 that concerns of money/power was driving the insurgency. Religious ideology, he said "doesn't feed the kids".

He stated further that 95% of those insurgents that US forces had captured or killed were Iraqi Arab Sunnis. He also stated in another interview (as noted in my last post) "If I could snap my fingers and move Iran out of the picture, it wouldn't change -- it wouldn't end the conflict, it wouldn't drastically change the conflict. It's not decisive."

So much for the dastardly Iranian Shia influence.

Also in June 2005, General John Vines (at the time, a senior commander of coalition forces in Iraq) stated of the Iraqi domestic insurgency: "These insurgents don't have an ideology except violence and power."

Robert Fisk often reports from Iraq on the confusion that many normal Iraqi people feel when they're told by westerners that what they're experiencing is a "Sunni/Shia civil war". He notes that prior to our illegal invasion of the nation, Sunni/Shia relations weren't all that bad, considering their divisive religious schism.

All in all, it's easy for people to parrot neo-con propaganda on the subject. Because that lets us off the hook. The major problem in Iraq... is us.

Whatever way you cut it, whichever way you look at it, it's us. So Saddam's execution? It's an irrelevance. It's a showpiece, as was his illegitimate trial. It just distracts people from the truth.


[FW] Spider AL
--
Hewwo, meesa Jar-Jar Binks. Yeah. Excusing me, but me needs to go bust meesa head in with dissa claw-hammer, because yousa have stripped away meesa will to living.
Spider AL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-06-2007, 02:59 AM   #25
Nancy Allen``
Banned
 
Nancy Allen``'s Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,948
So you say, however people have written to me complaining about the arrogance and condescending tone of your posts. If I can just bring up Atheism for a moment Atheism may be something a lot of people want, even need, and they would benefit greatly from it, yet they are scarred off because of the way some present Atheism. Truth be told only the very best of us can see faults in ourselves.

Anyway enough of that. With Iran, the threat had been made, and with Palestine the threat is real and currently exists, not to destroy Israel as Ahmadinejad wants, but to attack Israel, to kill innocent men women and children with no concern for whether or not people from other countries are involved, in Palestine's case with no concern that it is brother killing brother, Jew killing Jew. Do we ignore it?

And on topic, I read that on New Years a boy in America watched the execution of Saddam and then imitated him, hanging and killing himself when it went wrong. Surely this would have to be the greatest tragedy of the former Iraqi leader being put to death.
Nancy Allen`` is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-07-2007, 02:43 PM   #26
Spider AL
A well-spoken villain...
 
Spider AL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Help, help, I'm stapled to my workstation.
Posts: 2,162
Quote:
Originally posted by Nancy Allen``:

I read that on New Years a boy in America watched the execution of Saddam and then imitated him, hanging and killing himself when it went wrong. Surely this would have to be the greatest tragedy of the former Iraqi leader being put to death.
The fact that a man has been effectively executed by a lynch-mob is a tragedy in itself, whether the man was guilty is not relevant to the question.

The fact that unrest among Sunnis in Iraq increased following Saddam's execution is a tragedy, as will be any extra violence perpetrated during this increased unrest.

The boy hanging himself in the US is also a tragedy.

But frankly, I find the idea of handing out points and keeping score, and otherwise deciding which of these tragedies is "the greatest"... to be in extremely poor taste. I also find the fact that you automatically consider the only one of these tragedies to occur on US soil to be "the greatest"... to be very telling.

Quote:
Originally posted by Nancy Allen``:

With Iran, the threat had been made, and with Palestine the threat is real and currently exists, not to destroy Israel as Ahmadinejad wants, but to attack Israel, to kill innocent men women and children with no concern for whether or not people from other countries are involved,
Here you tacitly admit that neither Iran nor Palestine has the capacity to destroy Israel. That's good, we can move on.

As for your stereotyped analysis of the violences committed by Palestinian individuals, it's one-sided. I personally don't agree with the targetting of civilians under ANY circumstances. And so as a moral man I must automatically acknowledge that while some Palestinian militants have killed Israeli civilians, Israel as a state, through their vast military might, has killed MASSES of Palestinian civilians. And intentionally so. Israel has as a state committed many more awful atrocities than Palestinians have as individuals. And that's to be expected, since they're essentially a brutal occupying force on non-Israeli lands.

Quote:
Originally posted by Nancy Allen``:

in Palestine's case with no concern that it is brother killing brother, Jew killing Jew. Do we ignore it?
I'm not sure what you mean by "jew killing jew". Palestinians are mostly muslims, with some christians... and a few of the jewish faith that Israel doesn't recognise, as a rule.

As for whether we "ignore it" or not... Well, by perennially (and exclusively) supporting Israel's atrocities, we are actively contributing to the horrible situation in the middle east. Which is worse than ignoring it.

Quote:
Originally posted by Nancy Allen``:

So you say, however people have written to me complaining about the arrogance and condescending tone of your posts. If I can just bring up Atheism for a moment Atheism may be something a lot of people want, even need, and they would benefit greatly from it, yet they are scarred off because of the way some present Atheism.
Well since you haven't sent me that PM containing the constructive specific criticisms that I asked for, I have no choice but to dismiss your assertions of "arrogance" as merely self-serving and malicious.

As for this comment on atheism, it's the same weighted nonsense that you dragged out in the atheism threads, and it was comprehensively picked apart in those threads. If I were you, I would have left such a bedraggled old off-topic assertions in those threads. They certainly won't be addressed by me in this one.

Quote:
Originally posted by Nancy Allen``:

Truth be told only the very best of us can see faults in ourselves.
Ahhh, how true. How true.


[FW] Spider AL
--
Hewwo, meesa Jar-Jar Binks. Yeah. Excusing me, but me needs to go bust meesa head in with dissa claw-hammer, because yousa have stripped away meesa will to living.
Spider AL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-07-2007, 03:58 PM   #27
Nancy Allen``
Banned
 
Nancy Allen``'s Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,948
Natalie Portman is Israeli by the way, and a staunch supporter of it.

With whatever Iran and Palestine plan to do to Israel, or the Middle East or America, even if they do not have the capacity to destroy any of them they have the capacity, now, to destabalise countries and any political or peace movement. If they can somehow put together a nuclear weapons program such as Iran, or Ahmadinejad, would like to, they can desabalise them that much more. I really don't know where you get the idea that Israel is perpetrating atrocities against Palestine, I really don't. Maybe you feel that they should not retalliate against suicide bombings or kidnappings. Maybe you're upset that Israel's alligence with America is evidence that it works, or that it's with America. Or maybe you simply feel that Israel has no right to exist, full stop.

As for your request to give a blow by blow account of every arrogant and condescending comment you've made I recall no such request, and even if I did I wouldn't waste my time satisfying your ego doing so. People see it plainly, enough so for the mods to be on your back about it, which is good enough for me.
Nancy Allen`` is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-07-2007, 06:27 PM   #28
Spider AL
A well-spoken villain...
 
Spider AL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Help, help, I'm stapled to my workstation.
Posts: 2,162
Well, Nancy's post contained nothing on-topic, so while I will address her points, I will begin by sharing this interesting on-topic editorial by Jerry West, a Canadian dissident:

Justice: not served but denied, By Jerry West

It gives a most informative timeline for Saddam's career, and US/UK involvement in his reign of terror, the first Gulf war, the illegal invasion of Iraq and Saddam's subsequent illegal trial and execution.

-

Quote:
Originally posted by Nancy Allen``:

Natalie Portman is Israeli by the way, and a staunch supporter of it.
Ah well, if some actress who appeared in some Star Wars films says Israel's in the right, it MUST be so. Especially considering how great her performance was.

Honestly, this comment of yours has to be the single most hilariously irrelevant comment I've ever read or heard on the topic of Israel's conduct. I mean, I like one or two of Portman's performances on film... but I don't look to entertainers to inform my political views, and I encourage you to avoid doing so as well.

Quote:
Originally posted by Nancy Allen``:

With whatever Iran and Palestine plan to do to Israel, or the Middle East or America, even if they do not have the capacity to destroy any of them they have the capacity, now, to destabalise countries and any political or peace movement.
Ah, then you DEFINITIVELY admit that neither Iran nor Palestine has the power to destroy Israel, or even rival Israel in terms of military strength. Directly contradicting your earliest statements in this thread.

That's good.

Quote:
Originally posted by Nancy Allen``:

I really don't know where you get the idea that Israel is perpetrating atrocities against Palestine, I really don't.
But you WOULD know, if you ever obtained your news from any sources other than rabid neoconservative sources.

For instance: An Israeli human rights group (not a Palestinian one) B'Tselem, released a report just last month, (entirely based on their own field work) stating that in the year 2006:
  • Israeli forces had killed at least 660 Palestinians, at least 322 of whom were verifiably non-combatants, 141 of whom were children.
  • By contrast, in 2006, Palestinian militants (despite their most dedicated efforts) had killed only twenty-six Israelis. 17 of whom were civilians, 6 of whom were military personnel.
In case your calculator isn't working, that's a ratio of over 25 to 1. That's not a "conflict". It's a one-sided massacre. Which we are indirectly responsible for.

Source: Reuters.

-

That's a recent death toll. Let's look at some other Israeli crimes.

How about hundreds of Palestinian children being held without trial in Israeli prisons in the same population as Israeli adult criminals, being abused, being used for forced labour and being harshly interrogated by Israeli security services, all in violation of international law and common decency?

Check. (Defence for Children International)

How about Israeli destruction of the homes of tens of thousands of innocent Palestinian civilians?

Check. (The UN)

I mean, I could go on all night. I wish it weren't, but the list of Israeli war crimes and atrocities is almost endless. That's just a few for you to mull over.

Quote:
Originally posted by Nancy Allen``:

As for your request to give a blow by blow account of every arrogant and condescending comment you've made I recall no such request,
Oh really? Then you can't have been reading very carefully. In post #24, only four posts up, paragraph three, I stated:

"However, never let it be said that I'm closed-minded. If you want to go to my first post in this thread, and edit it so that it is no longer what you would call "arrogant", and then PM me the edited version, I will surely look at it carefully and dispassionately evaluate the changes you make."

You not only failed to meet this simple, constructive request, you ignored it completely. That's answer enough. Weak arguments + malice = non-specific and generalised unfounded accusations.

Unless you decide to make your criticisms constructive, I'm not going to pay any further attention to them.

Quote:
Originally posted by Nancy Allen``:

People see it plainly, enough so for the mods to be on your back about it
What? I don't think I've even received a PM from a mod since I joined the forum in 2002. What in the world gives you the idea that "the mods" are "on my back"? Strange.


[FW] Spider AL
--
Hewwo, meesa Jar-Jar Binks. Yeah. Excusing me, but me needs to go bust meesa head in with dissa claw-hammer, because yousa have stripped away meesa will to living.
Spider AL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-08-2007, 06:39 PM   #29
Nancy Allen``
Banned
 
Nancy Allen``'s Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,948
Wow, just wow.

I wonder if you would have gone on your little tirade if Natalie Portman wasn't Israeli. With that you have really proven every thing I said, and seeing as the mods having to deal with this BS (yes mine as well) is a weekly and sometimes even daily occurence, I have placed you on my ignore list, and encourage others who you upset with your statements to do the same.
Nancy Allen`` is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-08-2007, 10:49 PM   #30
Det. Bart Lasiter
obama.png
 
Det. Bart Lasiter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: `(.)~
Posts: 7,997
Current Game: all
Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``
Wow, just wow.
So far, it seems you don't have an argument. You've stated your opinion, then started to attack Spider's e-credibility. From what I've seen, he is the only one in this little back-and-forth of yours that isn't simply calling the other names.

Also, nearly every one of Spider's posts is a wall of text, I'm sure he would have typed just as much had the actor been Ewan McGregor or Samuel L. Jackson.



"No, Mama. You can bet your sweet ass and half a titty whoever put that hit on you already got the cops in their back pocket." ~Black Dynamite
Det. Bart Lasiter is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-08-2007, 11:09 PM   #31
ET Warrior
PhD in horribleness
 
ET Warrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Evil League of Evil
Posts: 9,405
LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``
I wonder if you would have gone on your little tirade if Natalie Portman wasn't Israeli.
It seems on my reading that a very small portion of his post was even addressing the Natalie Portman issue, and it seemed that his section on that had VERY little to do with her nationality, as opposed to the idea that we should base our own moralities off of celebrities, just because they happen to be famous.



ET Warrior is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-08-2007, 11:18 PM   #32
Nancy Allen``
Banned
 
Nancy Allen``'s Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,948
Of course. Oliver Stone may well be one of the great directors but in my mind he's a ****wit to say that terrorism is a problem we can live with, with all sympathy to his feelings towards Bush. Famous person or not when they are wrong I'll say so, and when they are right I'll support them. The same goes for Israel, when they are wrong such as when they fought Hezbollah or their current plans to nuke Iran, I'll say so. So here goes: Israel will really win people over by planning a nuclear attack on Iran...yeah right of course they won't. Such actions will only make them the target of international scorn. That doesn't mean I don't support Israel, just some of their actions.
Nancy Allen`` is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-08-2007, 11:55 PM   #33
Windu Chi
Banned
 
Windu Chi's Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Getting revenge on that traitor, Anakin.
Posts: 882
Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spider AL


It gives a most informative timeline for Saddam's career, and US/UK involvement in his reign of terror, the first Gulf war, the illegal invasion of Iraq and Saddam's subsequent illegal trial and execution.
I'm more for revenge, I say the people deaths he was responsible for, the families should've had the pleasure of watching him boil in a acid bath.
Why they laugh at his suffering, as he dissolves to his skeleton, but I think I have collected a enough darkside points for today.

I wonder if that was the demon Hitler being killed, would Spider consider his trial and execution illegal?
Man, how I wish it was Adolf Hitler, being put to death, for I can watch that thing's death over and over again as I eat nachos and sip a pepsi, oh wait, I have collected more darkside points.

Last edited by windu6; 01-09-2007 at 12:12 AM.
Windu Chi is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-09-2007, 12:07 AM   #34
TK-8252
Get Cloned.
 
TK-8252's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by windu6
I'm more for revenge, I say the people deaths he was responsible for, the families should've had the pleasure of watching him boil in a acid bath.
Why they laugh at his suffering, as he dissolves to his skeleton, but I think I have collected a enough darkside points for today.

I wonder if that was the demon Hitler being killed, would Spider consider his trial and execution illegal?
Man, how I wish it was Adolf Hitler, being put to death, for I can watch that thing's death over and over again as I eat nachos and sip a pepsi, oh wait I have collected more darkside points.
What shameful things to say.

To suggest that we resort to the very same kinds of torture used by Hitler and Hussein for some kind of sick, twisted, and repulsive pleasure - just as they did - is simply reprehensible.
TK-8252 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-09-2007, 12:16 AM   #35
Windu Chi
Banned
 
Windu Chi's Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Getting revenge on that traitor, Anakin.
Posts: 882
Cool Guy

Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
What shameful things to say.

To suggest that we resort to the very same kinds of torture used by Hitler and Hussein for some kind of sick, twisted, and repulsive pleasure - just as they did - is simply reprehensible.
I was saying the families should've been given that choice.
But you don't understand, so forget about it.
Windu Chi is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-09-2007, 12:18 AM   #36
TK-8252
Get Cloned.
 
TK-8252's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by windu6
I was saying the families should've been given that choice.
Why? Shouldn't we live in a civilized society instead?
TK-8252 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-09-2007, 12:34 AM   #37
Windu Chi
Banned
 
Windu Chi's Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Getting revenge on that traitor, Anakin.
Posts: 882
Cool Guy

Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
Why? Shouldn't we live in a civilized society instead?
Look, man I said forget about it.
I like to have revenge on my enemies, you seem not to.
The families should've had their choice of revenge punishment.
So, forget about what I said.
Windu Chi is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-09-2007, 03:39 AM   #38
MasterRoss08
Junior Member
 
MasterRoss08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 344
Quote:
Why? Shouldn't we live in a civilized society instead?
Yes we should but what should we do with these people that ordered
and support these terrorist acts on people that are living life like
anyone else?


The Force is strong with this one!
Clans im in: JKLE(Jedi Knight and Mots)
TR ( Star Wars Battlefront2
Sites: www.Resistancegaming.net
http://members.lycos.co.uk/jkle/
MasterRoss08 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-09-2007, 03:50 AM   #39
Nancy Allen``
Banned
 
Nancy Allen``'s Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,948
Great question. I think you can guess what my answer is but surely others have diffirent ideas.
Nancy Allen`` is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-09-2007, 08:08 AM   #40
Spider AL
A well-spoken villain...
 
Spider AL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Help, help, I'm stapled to my workstation.
Posts: 2,162
Quote:
Originally posted by MasterRoss08:

Yes we should but what should we do with these people that ordered and support these terrorist acts on people that are living life like anyone else?
We should do something civilised to them, if we really are civilised people.

Take Saddam as an example:

We should have tried him in a legal court, a court that was set up under international law. That would have been civilised.

We should have charged him with ALL his crimes, not merely the few crimes that he carried out without our direct assistance. That would have been very civilised.

And of course, if we really were civilised we wouldn't have invaded Iraq in the first place. Killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians just for financial and political profit is DISTINCTLY uncivilised.

-

Quote:
Originally posted by Nancy Allen``:

Wow, just wow.

I wonder if you would have gone on your little tirade if Natalie Portman wasn't Israeli. With that you have really proven every thing I said, and seeing as the mods having to deal with this BS (yes mine as well) is a weekly and sometimes even daily occurence, I have placed you on my ignore list, and encourage others who you upset with your statements to do the same.
1. Jmac and ET were quite correct, my earlier post had nothing to do with Natalie Portman, except for one paragraph expressing my mirth that you would even mention Natalie Portman in a debate on Middle-Eastern atrocities.

2. I think, in fact, that I have logically dis-proven everything you have said, rather than "proving" it as you claim. And the fact that you have offered no counter-arguments in the last three posts would seem to bolster my assertion. Take Israel's atrocities for instance. You denied there were any, I showed there were many, you had no response except to ignore me. People can draw their own conclusions.

3. I consider it the most immature form of cop-out to ignore things just because they "upset you". You will never find out the truth by ignoring people who disagree with you, and to do so reveals a lack of interest in the truth.

4. Having said that, I doubt that your inability to see what I type will affect your ability to absorb what I type, as you never seemed to absorb a single thing I posted in the past even when you could read it.

So in my estimation, our respective situations are not worsened by your action. C'est la vie.


[FW] Spider AL
--
Hewwo, meesa Jar-Jar Binks. Yeah. Excusing me, but me needs to go bust meesa head in with dissa claw-hammer, because yousa have stripped away meesa will to living.
Spider AL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Go Back   LucasForums > Network > JediKnight Series > Community > Senate Chambers > Saddam executed - what now for Iraq?

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:23 PM.

LFNetwork, LLC ©2002-2011 - All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.