It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Iran to Bush: Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 03:32 PM
link   
Iranian President thinks he is Clark Gable.

Maybe he's seen Gone With The Wind, too many times.

Now I think war with Iran is inevitable.

It is President Bush who has been pushing UN to deal with Iran.

so, on Friday April 28, yesterday in a speech to thousands of Iranians, he said the US cannot stop Iran from building a nuke power station. I think he meant a nuke.

He was claiming that it was an Iranian right to be armed, just as it is right of every Americans to bear arms.

President Ahmedinejad said he does not fear UN threats, and in a message to President Bush, he said he doesnt give a damn about Bush concerns over the Iranian nuclear program.

effectively he said:

"Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn", that's what Ahmedinejad message was to President Bush.

In top 100, thats number 1.

Now, I think the Godfather has to make him an offer he can't refuse.


Dont give a damn

CNN

Guardian


AFI Top 100





[edit on 29-4-2006 by mr conspiracy]




posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 04:32 PM
link   
.

So ......... " He was claiming that it was an Iranian right to be armed, just as it is right of every Americans to bear arms ".

Yes. Ok. I'm waiting for the punch line.

So far, it sounds a perfectly reasonable comment.

Are you questioning that Iran has the same right to arms as the US ?

Do you expect anyone to disgree that Iran has the same right to arms as the US?

You're aware, aren't you, that George W. Bush HID at his mommy's rather than risk his skin? You're aware, no doubt, that Cheyney his at HIS mommy's FIVE TIMES rather than risk HIS skin?

Yet these are the 'heroes' who don't mind risking OTHERS skins.

You remember, no doubt, that Bush sat on his bum, holding a kid's book and looking only FAINTLY BORED, as Americans chose to jump from the 93rd floor rather than be burnt to death? Do you remember seeing any concern or pain on Bush's face as they were jumping? Do you remember how that 'genius' then REVEALED to the nation that he ALREADY KNEW that people were being burnt alive in the Towers, because he'd ALREADY SEEN IT ALL on his vehicle's tv ----- AFTER which, he went into the school, sat down, picked up a book and pretended to 'know nothing'.

Bush and his Isreali thug mates have been PROVOKING other nations --- including Iran -- for years.

Yet, did you realise that the US comprises only FIVE PERCENT of the world's population?

That five percent has a big mouth, or at least its Isreali-dominated phoney president does. Yet that SAME big-mouth RUNS and HIDES when the stuff hits the fan. WHERE was he for hours after 9/11? Oh, yeah, he was hiding again.

Wouldn't you MUCH RATHER have the president of Iran, instead of Bush? No, come on, be honest. Wouldn't you rather have a leader who waits until his country has been hit --- before he starts hitting? Wouldn't you rather have a leader who tells bullies that if THEY hit his people, then HE will hit them? Wouldnt' you rather have a leader with a brain, who cared about his people's welfare and future? Yes, sure you would.

At the moment you have a half wit who's sent your job overseas, so that he can keep his Big Business buddies happy. You have a leader who rips you off every time you go for a tank of gas. You have a leader who can't even provide you decent health care or education for your kids.

Worst of all, you have a leader who is doing his best to get you and your family blown sky high.

Yeah. I agree with Iran. I agree it has at least as much right to arms as the US.

Get rid of Bush before he kisses any more Israeli backside and ends up getting you killed and hated by the entire other 95 percent of the world.

Or, perhaps Mr. Conspiracy (age ? ) will stop working his mouth and get himself down to the recruitment office to ask for a job sitting on the nose cone of the nuke that Bush has been threatening for YEARS to send to Iraq ???? Go on, Mr.Conspiracy ---- go to meet your maker in style, and then you'll get to meet the REAL god-father !!!!



posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 04:36 PM
link   
Actually the Iranian leader is right you know, at least using that type of reasoning.

But we all know that the US and Israel are the ones dictating the reasons as why we can not trust Iran with nuclear capabilities.

So as far as the US stands they are. . . dangerous, evil, irresponsible and wants the destruction of Israel.

I guess putting it this way it does make sense at least for the US.



posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 05:03 PM
link   
Iran to Bush?

More like Iran to the rest of the world?!
Iran to the impotent United Nations?! Hello?!!

Oops, that would obviously be excluding the genocide condoning (Sudan) and arms-supplying Chinese and Russians?!
Here's the Chinese stake in this: $100b Iran-China energy deal ready to be signed: Chinese ambassador, among continued arms sales to Iran.

The Russian stake is continued arms sales, nuclear technology transfers, and getting Iran apart of the Russian-Chinese alliance, where Russia will seek to become the dominate oil kingpin, threatening the OPEC oligarchy.


The IAEA is apart of the United Nations, which is thus representative of the world. Not only is Iran defying the UN, it is and has been defying the UNSC and the IAEA. But hey, why, exactly, is Iran defying the United Nations? It is not because of that alleged U.S. and Israel dictating, it is because Iran knows that the defunct and corrupt United Nations is useless and weak, lacking the backbone to put its own foot down. Hell, all one has to do is look at the Sudan issue to see the obvious--more than 200,000 murdered and over 2,000,000 refugees and the United Nations is where to stop what has been going on for over three years? Like the UN is going to do anything worth a merit in regards to Iran, huh? Iran knows this...


Umm, and Marg:


But we all know that the US and Israel are the ones dictating the reasons as why we can not trust Iran with nuclear capabilities.

Nope, nada, not accurate because as typical, you, as with others here with selecto-vision, keep continually failing to include the EUROPEANS or the UK in that alleged "we all know that the U.S. and Israel" bogus formula. Like, huh?! :shk:
This IS more than a U.S. and Israel only matter, Marg, period.

But as of today, in more WAFFLING by Iran in there continued "Defy" one day, "Reconsider" the next day mode, today they have indicated, Iran to Allow Nuke Inpections to Avoid Security Council Sanctions, which is not going to get the chance to fly because of the ridiculous demands that Iran included.

But hey, you and others keep supporting these terrorist supporting and sponsoring Mullah's in their quest for the 'peaceful intent' nuclear weapon. How convenient,eh? Marg, how about lets just hand out the candybar called nuclear weapons to every nation on the face of this planet and pray the world stays a happy place? That would suit you, as others here, just fine, would it not?





seekerof

[edit on 29-4-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by SeekerofHell, all one has to do is look at the Sudan issue to see the obvious--more than 200,000 murdered and over 2,000,000 refugees and the United Nations is where to stop what has been going on for over three years?


While this is off-topic, since you are using this as the basis of the defunct nature of the UN, I'll have a few words....

1. It is the African Union who is in charge of maintaining the situation in Darfur. But, they do not have adequate funding to enforce a cease-fire, and thus, a lack of adequate troops and supplies.
news.bbc.co.uk...

2. As well, funding by donor countries has significantly dropped to aid the 2,000,000+ refugees. The World Food Programme just recently announced they will no longer be able to feed everyone at least 2,000 calories worth of food a day.
news.bbc.co.uk...

3. One more note, the UN Security Council just passed sanctions on four suspected of genocide in Sudan. Just recently, there have been calls in the US to augment the UN peacekeeping force.
www.iht.com...
allafrica.com...

Conclusion: You can't place blame on the United Nations. It is the world that has turned its back on Sudan.

Notes: For anyone who does not know about the situation in Sudan, which the MSMs have blanked out of the news, here is a quick Q&A:
news.bbc.co.uk...

[edit on 29-4-2006 by Jamuhn]



posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn
Conclusion: You can't place blame on the United Nations. It is the world that has turned its back on Sudan.

Excuse me, Jamuhn, but three things here:

1) I can and will blame the United Nations all day long, and rightly so.

2) Is not the defunct and impotent United Nations representative (a mass representing international body) of the world? Accordingly, the United Nations and the "world" are synonymous, thus your conclusion above quoted is flawed.

3) Sudan is a test for the United Nations, who stated "Never Again," just as Iran and continued proliferation is a test for the defunct and impotent United Nations, as well as the Europeans.




seekerof

[edit on 29-4-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Iran to Bush?


But hey, you and others keep supporting these terrorist supporting and sponsoring Mullah's in their quest for the 'peaceful intent' nuclear weapon.


Pardon my ignorance Sekeer but where in any of my post do I Support terror and sponsor Mullah's?

I thing you own me an apology with that very low down comment Sir. I guess when it comes to People like you and others if we disagree I mean me and others we are supporting Terror and sponsor Mullahs.

Do you ever sit down and read what you write? it does sound very short minded ATS is all about denying ignorance and finding the truth.

Occurs in one sided view in your mind you only can see one way.

But perhaps you forget that Iran wants his nuclear capabilities but so already, NK, India, Pakistan and now our own backyard Brazil and very soon even Venezuela.

How convenient that you seem to forget that and just pick what seems to fill your fancy.



How convenient,eh? Marg, how about lets just hand out the candybar called nuclear weapons to every nation on the face of this planet and pray the world stays a happy place? That would suit you, as others here, just fine, would it not?


Perhaps you should open your eyes and stop narrowing your view and see that. . . is a lots of undesirable nations that already Are in the nuclear path.

But again conveniently Iran is the target.

Deny ignorance Sekeer.

You seem an intelligent person but with a very narrow view of what is going on in the world.


US is going to target Iran I have no doubt in my mind with or without UN blessing.

Why don't you ask me what I feel about that? or you are just in the attacking mood.

Well I have not problem with that. . . see.

But we all know that Iraq and Iran next is in the path to the oil wars that our administration is wagging with those two nations.

And that is the fact that you seems to ignore.



posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

Originally posted by Jamuhn
Conclusion: You can't place blame on the United Nations. It is the world that has turned its back on Sudan.
Excuse me, Jamuhn, but three things here:
1) I can and will blame the United Nations all day long, and rightly so.


Of course you have the right to claim anything you want, as all opinions inevitably have that right. But, that doesn't stop the opinion arising from confusion, ignorance, or prejudice. As well, what is with the, "can and will attitude"? I'm not trying to stop you from posting anonymously on an Internet message board. I'm merely pointing our the faults of your assertions, deal with it if you need to. Stubborness can easily be a vice, by the way.



2) Is not the...United Nations representative...of the world? Accordingly, the United Nations and the "world" are synonymous, thus your conclusion above quoted is flawed.

Actually they're not synonymous, your reasoning is too simplistic. The United Nations has the infrastructure through troops and the WFP to help Sudan, as well as the AU having such, but it is the donor countries refusing to provide funding and determination to tackle the Darfur crisis. Thus, there is a major lack of inequity between the two through non-representational funding within the WFP and AU.



3) Sudan is a test for the United Nations, who stated "Never Again," just as Iran and continued proliferation is a test for the defunct and impotent United Nations, as well as the Europeans.

Actually Sudan is a test for the African Union seeing as this is their first peacekeeping job. And as the AU seems to be failing, you are starting to see a larger UN role. Your opinion that there is also a test for Iran is based on the assumption that they consider it a threat large enough worth tackling. Also, what exactly do you consider Iran a test for? A test for what you would like to see happen?

[edit on 29-4-2006 by Jamuhn]



posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn
Of course you have the right to claim anything you want, as all opinions inevitably have that right. But, that doesn't stop the opinion arising from confusion, ignorance, or prejudice. As well, what is with the, "can and will attitude"? I'm not trying to stop you from posting anonymously on an Internet message board. I'm merely pointing our the faults of your assertions, deal with it if you need to. Stubborness can easily be a vice, by the way.

What is up with the "confusion, ignorance, or prejudice"?
The United Nations is the one that failed to act early enough to the Sudan crisis. The United Nations can well be blamed for a multitude of late reactionary measures in regards to the Sudan crisis. I am not the only one who thinks and gives opinion such an opinion, mainstream media and crisis and conflict scholars have reported accordingly, so does that "confusion, ignorance, or prejudice" apply to them, as well, Jamuhn?





Actually they're not synonymous, your reasoning is too simplistic.

The United Nations IS a world body that represents the actions, decisions, and opinions of the member states, Jamuhn. Again, the United Nations and the "world" are synonymous, despite how "simplistic" that may be to you.





The United Nations has the infrastructure through troops and the WFP to help Sudan, as well as the AU having such, but it is the donor countries refusing to provide funding and determination to tackle the Darfur crisis. Thus, there is a major lack of inequity between the two through non-representational funding within the WFP and AU.

Seems to be a "world"=United Nations problem then, eh?




Actually Sudan is a test for the African Union seeing as this is their first peacekeeping job.

Your correct, I forgot to mention the Arab League and regional African confederations, etc.




Your opinion that there is also a test for Iran is based on the assumption that they consider it a threat large enough worth tackling.

Hello?! "Worth tackling"?!
The matter was brought before the United Nations, thus it IS now their matter to tackle. "Worth" has no merit when it is brought before the UN by nations and the IAEA. "Worth" would only apply to evidences, etc.




Also, what exactly do you consider Iran a test for? A test for what you would like to see happen?

Iran is a test for the United Nations and Europe, period.
If the United Nations cannot deal with the Iran situation, then its relevance drops another notch, just as with the North Korean situation, and just as with the Sudan situation, among other world "NEVER AGAIN" situations, like Bosnia, etc.






seekerof



posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 06:21 PM
link   
Iran would no be allow to have nuclear weapons and US and the present administration will make sure of that.

With or without the UN blessing US will target the nuclear plants in Iran very soon.

Stay tunned because it will be coming to a channel near you.



posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Pardon my ignorance Sekeer but where in any of my post do I Support terror and sponsor Mullah's?

It was an implied question, and since it got your attention, do you?




I thing you own me an apology with that very low down comment Sir.

Very well, since you did not get the "implied"--my apologies, ma'dam.




I guess when it comes to People like you and others if we disagree I mean me and others we are supporting Terror and sponsor Mullahs.

Is that an "implied" question, Marg?
Do you not then owe me an apology with the above low down comment?

Pot calling the kettle black comes to mind here, Marg....




Do you ever sit down and read what you write? it does sound very short minded ATS is all about denying ignorance and finding the truth.

Keep talking, Marg. I will likewise ask you the very same question.
Another Pot calling the kettle black moment, huh?




Occurs in one sided view in your mind you only can see one way.

And another like moment?
The fact here is that you get like this when someone challenges your own line of thinking, which is what I did. My bad....




But perhaps you forget that Iran wants his nuclear capabilities but so already, NK, India, Pakistan and now our own backyard Brazil and very soon even Venezuela.

Excuse me but Pakistan, North Korea, India already have nuclear weapons.
Iran, Brazil, and Venezuela do not, hence the situation being brought forth before the UN--hence the topic, Marg.




How convenient that you seem to forget that and just pick what seems to fill your fancy.

See above.





Perhaps you should open your eyes and stop narrowing your view and see that. . . is a lots of undesirable nations that already Are in the nuclear path.

Your supporting voice in preventing the continued proliferation of nuclear weapons is and/or are where, exactly, so as I can read and cherish them?





But again conveniently Iran is the target.

The topic IS Iran and its continued defiance of the UN and IAEA?





Deny ignorance Sekeer.

Does this apply to you, as well or is this simply rhetoric better categorized as a pot calling the kettle black moment?




You seem an intelligent person but with a very narrow view of what is going on in the world.


And you would be what in relations to intelligence and YOUR worldview?




US is going to target Iran I have no doubt in my mind with or without UN blessing.

As have the Europeans, the UK, and Israel.




Why don't you ask me what I feel about that? or you are just in the attacking mood.

Anwser or respond then.
I do know enough about you that I am sure that the Iranian situation should never, ever involve the use of military force, correct? Thus, the two years the Europeans spent trying to resolve the Iran situation go to waste, the IAEA and the UN become further defunct, eh?




Well I have not problem with that. . . see.

Neither do I, see? Hence me not asking the question in the first place.




But we all know that Iraq and Iran next is in the path to the oil wars that our administration is wagging with those two nations.

Umm, no, "we all know" is an absolute inferring that EVERYONE ON THIS PLANET KNOWS," and hello?!, that is not the case.




And that is the fact that you seems to ignore.

Fact?
Your credible evidence to suggest such is where, exactly?
Your "facts" are quite different from my "facts," especially when the US does not get oil from Iran, but China will soon. Thus, China and Russia, as pointed put in my original post, have more of a vested interest in Iran than simply the US, Israel, the Europeans, the UK, the United Nations, and the IAEA. And that is one among many facts "that you seems to ignore."





seekerof

[edit on 29-4-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by SeekerofI am not the only one who thinks and gives opinion such an opinion, mainstream media and crisis and conflict scholars have reported accordingly, so does that "confusion, ignorance, or prejudice" apply to them, as well, Jamuhn?

We all know of the opinions we see in MSM or other places, such as Michael Moore, Bill O'Reilly, or Ann Coulter. Considering such, if you don't have any sources, this doesn't offer much credence to your position. Though, I can quote a few more sources to the contrary, if you like?

[edit on 29-4-2006 by Jamuhn]



posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Iran would no be allow to have nuclear weapons and US and the present administration will make sure of that.

You ignoring the efforts of the Europeans and the UK to not allow Iran nuclear weapons?




With or without the UN blessing US will target the nuclear plants in Iran very soon.

You have become a soothsayer now?




Stay tunned because it will be coming to a channel near you.

Let me know the channel when you do, k?







seekerof



posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
The United Nations IS a world body that represents the actions, decisions, and opinions of the member states, Jamuhn. Again, the United Nations and the "world" are synonymous, despite how "simplistic" that may be to you.

Like I said before, the UN has the structures set up for such conflits. It is the representatives and the governments of member states that refuse to act. Tell us what structures would need to be set up that would allow actions to take place? Any structure you come up with would still be subject to the whims of nations just as the UN is. That IS the problem.





Your opinion that there is also a test for Iran is based on the assumption that they consider it a threat large enough worth tackling.

Hello?! "Worth tackling"?!
The matter was brought before the United Nations, thus it IS now their matter to tackle. "Worth" has no merit when it is brought before the UN by nations and the IAEA. "Worth" would only apply to evidences, etc.

Hello to you too. Exactly, "worth tackling." Were all those UN resolutions condemning human rights abuses in Israel worth tackling? No. There are a multitude of resolutions adopted that have never been enforced with anything serious. The world threatens and a country calls their bluff. It happens all the time. If this were a measure of failure, then many individual countries could be regarded as such as well.



Iran is a test for the United Nations and Europe, period.
If the United Nations cannot deal with the Iran situation, then its relevance drops another notch...

You have your opinions...Like I said, if the situation is as serious as you try and play it out to be, the UN and/or Europe will act, even if by some strange chance they are defeated. Otherwise, you can just deal with the fact that you are simply an observer in the process of world politics.
...
As well, in Sudan, the real root of the problem is in the lack of will for member states to act. The UN merely acts as a forum for them to play out their whims.

[edit on 29-4-2006 by Jamuhn]



posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn
Yea, like Michael Moore gives his opinion...?

Which you believed hook, line, and sinker, Jamuhn?





If you don't have any sources, this doesn't offer much credence to your position. Though, I can quote a few more sources to the contrary, if you like?

Please do provide more, cause when you do, I will point out the common denominator here: the defunct and impotent United Nations and its lack of action. Bet.





Like I said before, the UN has the structures set up for such conflits. It is the representatives and the governments of member states that refuse to act.

The member nations can be persuaded to act by the United Nations, Jamuhn.
The problem here is that the United Nations is tooooooo busy watching to do any real actions to STOP what is happening in Sudan. What good then does all those conflict and resolution analysis' make when the main overseeing organization--the United Nations--fails to heed or implement them?





Tell us what structures would need to be set up that would allow actions to take place? Any structure you come up with would still be subject to the whims of nations just as the UN is. That IS the problem.

The problem is the defunct, corrupt, and impotent United Nations.





Exactly, "worth tackling." Were all those UN resolutions condemning human rights abuses in Israel worth tackling? No. There are a multitude of resolutions adopted that have never been enforced with anything serious.

Now why is that, Jamuhn?
Why does the United Nations lack the ability to enforce?
Will the United Nations lack the ability to enforce anything over the Iran situation?
The use of the United Nations then becomes what, besides a world forum which lacks the ability to do anything without the 'will' of its members?
Thus the United Nations selectively addresses and enforces that which is choosen, correct?





The world threatens and a country calls their bluff. It happens all the time. If this were a measure of failure, then many individual countries could be regarded as such as well. As far as I know, a measure of failure for a country, and probably

Hitler called the worlds bluff how many times?





You have your opinions...Like I said, if the situation is as serious as you try and play it out to be, the UN and/or Europe will act, even if by some strange chance they are defeated. Otherwise, you can just deal with the fact that you are simply an observer in the process of world politics.

Just as you?
Thus your correcting me of my opinion makes you and your opinion what, exactly?





As well, in Sudan, the real root of the problem is in the lack of will for member states to act. The UN merely acts as a forum for them to play out their whims.

Correct.
I will just continue to blame the United Nations, which those member nations are apart of, and spout "NEVER AGAIN."








seekerof

[edit on 29-4-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

Originally posted by Jamuhn
Yea, like Michael Moore gives his opinion...?

Which you believed hook line and sinker, Jamuhn?

Uhhhh, no...Here I thought you were discussing, not making feeble attempts at petty insults implying gullibility.

You have turned this into a circular argument in which you would clearly like to focus on rhetoric and insults. I do not have anything further to talk with you about as you are merely looking for an argument and a massage for your ego. So, I'll leave you to your reading of third-rate neo-conservative blogs.

--Jamuhn Out--

[edit on 29-4-2006 by Jamuhn]



posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn
Uhhhh, no...Here I thought you were discussing, not making feeble attempts at petty insults implying gullibility.

We are discussing.
Circular logic is irrelevant, especially when what I mentioned holds kernels of truth, Jamuhn:

Originally posted by Jamuhn on 21-6-2004
C'mon man, have you even seen the movie yet, or do you automatically assume there is no factual basis in the movie because thats what the White House said? I'd recommend watching the movie and the making a decision.

My understanding was that the premise for the movie was that the Bush family had financial ties with al Qaeda prior to 9/11. Not to mention that the government officially helped al Qaeda in the past as well as Iraq.
Plus, it is interesting that before Bush was elected, members of the Bush administration released, including Cheney, published a paper complaining how the Taliban won't let them build an oil pipeline through their territory, together with the nationalization of Iraq's oil. Many countries helping with the oil-for-food program. etc. etc.
Basically we created the problem and now we are trying to solve it because of 9/11. 9/11 has anomalies of its own as Michael Moore points out (I suspect) such as the survival of a terrorist passport while the rest of the plane was pretty much destroyed, how convenient?
Terrorists supporting Michael Moore films...

...hook, line, and sinker...




You have turned this into a circular argument in which you would clearly like to focus on rhetoric and insults.

See above, k?






I do not have anything further to talk with you about as you are merely looking for an argument and a massage for your ego.

Thats cool, but do not fault my ego, cause it is blazingly apparent that it was your ego that got damaged, thus your reaction.





So, I'll leave you to your reading of third-rate neo-conservative blogs.
But of course, your having a pot calling the kettle black moment yourself, jamuhn?
Let me remind you of what you have just said about my mentions than you can apply such a mention to your own, k?


Originally posted by Jamuhn
Uhhhh, no...Here I thought you were discussing, not making feeble attempts at petty insults ........You have turned this into a circular argument in which you would clearly like to focus on rhetoric and insults.


Yeah, I hear ya....




seekerof "out"

[edit on 29-4-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 07:48 PM
link   
I stand by my comments Seeker, there is nothing there that would suppose accepting Moore's assertions "hook line and sinker."


Thats cool, but do not fault my ego, cause it is blazingly apparent that it was your ego that got damaged, thus your reaction.

To psuedoquote yourself, I "can and will" fault your ego...



But of course, your having a pot calling the kettle black moment yourself, jamuhn?

What do you expect when you reduce the conversation to petty insulting? If you take the first insult, of course I have to have the last...


[edit on 29-4-2006 by Jamuhn]



posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
I thing you own me an apology with that very low down comment Sir. I guess when it comes to People like you and others if we disagree I mean me and others we are supporting Terror and sponsor Mullahs.



Didn't you know? if you are against the war in Iraq, against the idea of Israel killing Palestinians, against the idea of Israel having Weapons of Mass Destruction, against the idea of not allowing Iran nuclear power, and against the idea of cutting off economic aid to the Palestinian people you are considered Pro-terrorist by him.
So basically if you are not Anti-Arab,Anti-muslim, Anti-Iranian and Pro-war you will be labeled anti-semitic,pro-islamic and pro-terror. God forbid you ever dare accuse israel of threatening anyone in any way shape or form even though they have been accusing and threatening Iran of attempting to acquire WOMD since 1998 and even though its obvious who's defense this is all being done in the name of. He does not consider Israeli threats of destruction or border crossings as being hostile in any way shape or form. Deny ignorance in this case is extremely recommended as he is trying to deny it heavily himself. Just ignore what he accuses because its bogus. You go right on thinking freely as you want Marg..no matter what propaganda someone tries to hand you. Most of this stuff is standard CAMERA propaganda anyway. I like to think with my own mind.



posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 07:59 PM
link   
I still love ya, Jamuhn, but we better get back on topic before we get one of those lovely moderator u2u's.


My best to you, as always Jamuhn.







seekerof



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join