If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Time)   Wacky Middle-Easterners think Israel was responsible for 9/11, Saudi Arabia will bail out the U.S. economy in exchange for a U.S invasion of Iran, and - get this - Obama is a secret Muslim   (time.com) divider line 211
    More: Dumbass  
•       •       •

9798 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Dec 2008 at 3:22 PM (5 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



211 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2008-12-03 04:54:45 PM
BlorfMaster: You forgot to add the whole fanatic religion into that mix.

Be nice if nations could sit down and debate out problems in a wise and intelligent way, but its sort of hard to when you got the invisible sky wizard telling you to kill people.


That comes in under the "semi-intelligent" part.
 
2008-12-03 04:57:40 PM
Theological Farker: A Tout Le Monde: I'm no theological scholar, but if you must pray (5) times a day and fore go a lot of trivial things just to be eligible for a shot at heaven, my guess is that flat out denying your faith would be pretty bad.

Thus the secret Muslim thing makes no sense, even from a theological standpoint.

Except for the jihadists clause that any rules can be broken for the purpose of killing infidels.


This, and the whole thing about it being OK to lie in the service of Islam.

Here's a stoopid argument, that stoopid people make... I am just reporting here, this is not in "my own voice"

1.Terrorists Muslims think it is a virtue to lie if it enables you to win against the enemy.

2. IF someone like Obama was a secret Muslim, he'd most likely be a Terrorist Muslim.

3. If Obama is Secret Terrorist Muslim, he'd say he wasn't.

4. So, the fact that Obama says he ISN'T a Secret Muslim provides evidence for the view that Obama is not only a Secret Muslim, but that he is a Terrorist, too.

5. What's he gonna do, say "oh yeah, you caught me. I am secret Muslim lol"

6. Ergo, Obama is a Terrorist.

And then they'd copypasta stuff like this:


http://www.ci-ce-ct.com/Feature%20articles/02-12-2002.asp
The role of Deception in Islamic terrorism

Tradecraft. Persona. Deception. Disinformation. Cover: Western operational terms and techniques. But, Islamic terrorists have their own terms: taqiyya (pronounced tark-e-ya) : precautionary dissimulation or deception and keeping one's convictions secret and a synonymous term, kitman: mental reservation and dissimulation or concealment of malevolent intentions...

Taqiyya and kitman or 'holy hypocrisy' has been diffused throughout Arabic culture for over fourteen hundred years since it was developed by Shiites as a means of defence and concealment of beliefs against Sunni unbelievers. As the Prophet said: 'he who keeps secrets shall soon attain his objectives.'

The skilful use of taqiyya and kitman was often a matter of life and death against enemies; it is also a matter of life and death to many contemporary Islamic terrorists. As so often in the history of Islam, a theological doctrine became operational.

During the Spanish inquisition, Sunni Moriscos attended mass and returned home to wash their hands of the 'holy water'. In operational terms, taqiyya and kitman allowed the 'mujahadeen ' to assume whatever identity was necessary to fulfill their mission; they had doctrinal and theological and later jurisprudential sanction to pretend to be Jews or Christians to gain access to Christian and Jewish targets: 'the mujahadeen can take the shape of the enemy'.

Taqiyya is common to both Shiite and Sunni Muslim discourse and has significant implications for understanding Islamic fundamentalism and terrorist operations. The theory and practice of counter terrorism would be counter productive, indeed pointless, and even harmful, without reference to taqiyya and kitman and the crucial role of deception ranging from Islamic jurisprudence to Al Qaeda training manuals, which carry detailed instructions on the use of deception by terrorists in Western target countries.

According to Christian ethics lying is a sin; In Islamic jurisprudence and theology, the use of taqiyya against the unbelievers is regarded as a virtue and a religious duty.
 
2008-12-03 04:58:53 PM
I enjoy a good conspiracy theory almost much as a middle easterner (NOBODY loves a conspiracy theory more), and the Saudi bailout theory is not too shabby.
 
2008-12-03 05:00:38 PM
whidbey: the money is in the banana stand: I love how you always feel like you are making these grandiose arguments when they are pretty much always smarmy 1 liners you overheard at a Whole Foods.

Like I said, you might actually try DEBATING my points.

You know? Using EVIDENCE to back up your points instead of yelling at me like I'm some Philistine?

You really should give it a go...if you're constitutionally capable of such an act.


You should try doing the same. All I have seen from you are complaints. You said, "I'm the kind of pacifist that would like to see this country actually WORK towards peace for once instead of constantly living for war." What makes you think this country (that includes you since you can vote) is constantly living for war? Seriously, how many people do you think would rather go to somewhere they can't even identify on a map in order to kill someone for no particular reason, than watch TV or fark? You over-embellish which makes your argument? point? weak. I feed the homeless every year during Christmas, but you know I am war hungry right!? Starting off your "argument" by generalizing and putting down humanitarian efforts isn't a good way to start. The US isn't living for war, however its leadership makes some poor decisions. You should try to debate specific wars and instances, which would make you appear credible. I would probably agree with you that most were stupid, but that hardly makes us an evil nation trying to impose our will onto any hapless victim.
 
2008-12-03 05:03:00 PM
give me doughnuts: It would be nice, but since nations are comprised of human beings (violent semi-intelligent primates), it is also unrealistic.

Disagree. Consider how much civil reform we've brought to this country alone in the past 50 years.

We can "wage" peace with the same exact effort we wage war. It's up to us.
 
2008-12-03 05:04:54 PM
Smeggy Smurf: make me some tea: Obama is a secret Muslim

I'm thinking we can use this misconception to our advantage somehow. AmIright?

Nope. They'll see him as somebody to kill for forsaking Islam. His mere existance will make things worse. If everybody recalls, they like to kill those that leave Islam.

Thanks libertards. You elected the very person guaranteed to get us attacked again.


Well now, to be fair, it was Bush who said "Bring it on!"
 
2008-12-03 05:05:02 PM
the money is in the banana stand: whidbey: the money is in the banana stand: I love how you always feel like you are making these grandiose arguments when they are pretty much always smarmy 1 liners you overheard at a Whole Foods.

Like I said, you might actually try DEBATING my points.

You know? Using EVIDENCE to back up your points instead of yelling at me like I'm some Philistine?

You really should give it a go...if you're constitutionally capable of such an act.

You should try doing the same. All I have seen from you are complaints. You said, "I'm the kind of pacifist that would like to see this country actually WORK towards peace for once instead of constantly living for war." What makes you think this country (that includes you since you can vote) is constantly living for war? Seriously, how many people do you think would rather go to somewhere they can't even identify on a map in order to kill someone for no particular reason, than watch TV or fark? You over-embellish which makes your argument? point? weak. I feed the homeless every year during Christmas, but you know I am war hungry right!? Starting off your "argument" by generalizing and putting down humanitarian efforts isn't a good way to start. The US isn't living for war, however its leadership makes some poor decisions. You should try to debate specific wars and instances, which would make you appear credible. I would probably agree with you that most were stupid, but that hardly makes us an evil nation trying to impose our will onto any hapless victim.


I don't get it. You're asking a troll to appear credible?
 
2008-12-03 05:05:05 PM
globalwarmingpraiser: TwistedFark: globalwarmingpraiser: But you NEVER notiuce the good things we do. The humanitarian aid, the disaster response, these are good things, usually done by our military.

Sorry, but there doesn't need to be equal time for pats on the back.

I've actually never understood this line of thinking personally. It's like saying, "Why must you always complain about Pol Pot, can't you see he gives his mother flowers?" So to me it seems as nothing more than a fairly contrived way to silence criticism.

The US is for the most part a force for good in this world. We are not perfect, but we try to do what is right.


It has not been since the end of the second world war. 3 major imperialist wars and several smaller ones. (I'm being generous about Gulf War 1 and the Korean War), CIA terrorism, assassination and interference in Latin/South America, excessive and blatant pollution and environmental damage and a very unequal trade and economic policy towards the third world. The US has been committing evil deeds since before it's foundation but in the absence of European imperial powers and their evils, the US filled the vacuum (and soon China will fill ours)

The bad news is the US bombs and invades poorer nations killing millions, the good news is the US tends to get it's ass righteously kicked in the end to the cheers of the world.
 
2008-12-03 05:05:58 PM
the money is in the banana stand: You should try to debate specific wars and instances, which would make you appear credible.

I do. All the time.

I would probably agree with you that most were stupid, but that hardly makes us an evil nation trying to impose our will onto any hapless victim.

Actions speak louder than words, and our actions appear to indicate that we don't trust people to make decisions about their own futures.

We don't appear to be about "democracy" given our legacy. There's plenty to criticize, so much that it overshadows what "good" we do.
 
2008-12-03 05:06:46 PM
motobvious:

Why do you think I'm a troll?

Serious question.
 
2008-12-03 05:07:48 PM
globalwarmingpraiser: whidbey: globalwarmingpraiser: That doesn't mean we are a threat, it means we are powerful. When we start nuking other countries, or conquering coutries with a planof actually keeping them call me.

Too bad the rest of the world disagrees with you.

Heck, even your own fellow citizenry would like to have a word with you.

Still think I'm the extremist here?

Pacifism is an extreme, and a bad one. So, yes.


I think all extremists should be killed.
 
2008-12-03 05:08:41 PM
whidbey: motobvious:

Why do you think I'm a troll?

Serious question.


Extreme troll is being extreme?
 
2008-12-03 05:08:44 PM
Axolotl: I think all extremists should be killed.

Wow, now THAT is an extreme position.

So you'll step to the front of the line, then?
 
2008-12-03 05:10:56 PM
whidbey: give me doughnuts: It would be nice, but since nations are comprised of human beings (violent semi-intelligent primates), it is also unrealistic.

Disagree. Consider how much civil reform we've brought to this country alone in the past 50 years.

We can "wage" peace with the same exact effort we wage war. It's up to us.


But I thought WE were the biggest threat to peace in the world?

You can only "wage peace" if all sides are willing to do so.

Take a look at the history of the world for that same past 50 years. In how much of that half-century, how many days have there been where one country was not actively engaged in some sort of violence with another?

Hint: she can count that high on her fingers.
i249.photobucket.com
 
2008-12-03 05:11:53 PM
loki see loki do: DROxINxTHExWIND: loki see loki do: DROxINxTHExWIND:

The fact that some imaginary Super Power in an alternate universe may not be "as good" as America does not in any way justify any of America's unlawful or amoral actions.

Thank goodness! Now every mother standing up in court saying her worthless murderous son was always a such good boy can now sit the fark down and shut the fark up.
===========================================

Not sure what being a character witness has to do this, but ok.

Seems to me you were suggesting that there is no such thing as mitigating circumstances. That a lifetime of good deeds can not in someway balance an evil deed.

===========================================

Ohh, so you're the kind who thinks that it was cool for Bush to lie us into Iraq because he's given lots of aid to Africa. No, a lifetime of good deeds does not excuse an evil deed. Only moral relativist think that way.
 
2008-12-03 05:12:15 PM
skhval_factory:

...good news is the US tends to get it's ass righteously kicked in the end to the cheers of the world.


Citation? And by that, I don't mean I want a picture of you wearing an Elton John t-shirt with a banana up your ass hot linked for the world to cheer to.
 
2008-12-03 05:12:27 PM
whidbey: the money is in the banana stand: You should try to debate specific wars and instances, which would make you appear credible.

I do. All the time.

I would probably agree with you that most were stupid, but that hardly makes us an evil nation trying to impose our will onto any hapless victim.

Actions speak louder than words, and our actions appear to indicate that we don't trust people to make decisions about their own futures.

We don't appear to be about "democracy" given our legacy. There's plenty to criticize, so much that it overshadows what "good" we do.


A lot of American patriots point towards our small and latae assistance in WW1 and WW2 to make up for countless other utterly vile actions. Canada helped in both wars from the beginning and they never committed any terrorist attacks against Chile
 
2008-12-03 05:12:36 PM
give me doughnuts: But I thought WE were the biggest threat to peace in the world?

We are. But we can change that.

You can only "wage peace" if all sides are willing to do so.

There's no reason why peace can't be any more contagious than war, so I disagree.

Take a look at the history of the world for that same past 50 years. In how much of that half-century, how many days have there been where one country was not actively engaged in some sort of violence with another?

Your point?
 
2008-12-03 05:14:33 PM
Could someone please inform the troll formerly known as Czarangelus, currently masquerading as whidbey that I don't feed trolls unless they show me some boobs first?

KTHX.
 
2008-12-03 05:14:43 PM
skhval_factory: imperialist wars

Your credibility = 0
 
2008-12-03 05:16:24 PM
give me doughnuts: skhval_factory: imperialist wars

Your credibility = 0


seconded.
 
2008-12-03 05:16:34 PM
Pollexabator wrote:
'I too am a sekrit Mooslem, so I can't WAIT for January 20th. You "informed" and "open-minded" people will be in for a show on that day, Allah willing.'

Gozer the Traveler... will come in one of the pre-chosen forms. During the rectification of the Vuldrini, the traveler came as a large and moving Torg! Then, during the third reconciliation of the last of the McKetrick supplicants, they chose a new form for him: that of a giant Slor! Many Shuvs and Zuuls knew what it was to be roasted in the depths of the Slor that day, I can tell you!
-- from http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087332/quotes
 
2008-12-03 05:16:58 PM
motobvious: skhval_factory:

...good news is the US tends to get it's ass righteously kicked in the end to the cheers of the world.

Citation? And by that, I don't mean I want a picture of you wearing an Elton John t-shirt with a banana up your ass hot linked for the world to cheer to.


Both the rest of the western world and the third world were both very pleased with the end of Vietnam. Europe was politically mobilized in opposition to the US interference as were the people and most rightfully stayed out and didnt help the US. Popular opinion worldwide was obviously against the US killing millions across southeast asia. Europe was at the end of it's decolonization period and most people saw imperialism at that time as a morally wrong thing to do (except the few remaining true right-wingers)
 
2008-12-03 05:18:10 PM
give me doughnuts: skhval_factory: imperialist wars

Your credibility = 0


Why do you say that?

The argument could be made that all of our military operations since WWII were of an imperialist nature. We were trying to control resources or policies in each of the given areas.

How is that NOT imperialism?
 
2008-12-03 05:18:44 PM
give me doughnuts: skhval_factory: imperialist wars

Your credibility = 0


That's exactly what they were to anyone outside the US. Why do you think nobody had the stomach or spirit to join the US?
 
2008-12-03 05:19:00 PM
whidbey: give me doughnuts: But I thought WE were the biggest threat to peace in the world?

We are. But we can change that.

You can only "wage peace" if all sides are willing to do so.

There's no reason why peace can't be any more contagious than war, so I disagree.

Take a look at the history of the world for that same past 50 years. In how much of that half-century, how many days have there been where one country was not actively engaged in some sort of violence with another?

Your point?


That, and all of human history, argues strongly against your point of view.
 
2008-12-03 05:19:38 PM
motobvious: Could someone please inform the troll formerly known as Czarangelus, currently masquerading as whidbey that I don't feed trolls unless they show me some boobs first?

Again, how exactly is it that I'm trolling?

I believe what I say, and I'm not saying any of this to evoke a reaction.

What is your definition of "troll," and why do you think I fit that definition?
 
2008-12-03 05:20:18 PM
For what it's worth for those who are interested:

I recently talked to my cousins (who live in Iran) about what people there thought of Obama.

They said the young ones are very optimistic and look forward to what his administration will be able to do as far as US/Iranian relations

The older generation is "meh" because they're more or less jaded with politics, and think that anyone in the game is full of crap.

They know that his father was Muslim and he isn't. The youth see that as cool, the older people see that as selling out.
 
2008-12-03 05:20:28 PM
give me doughnuts: Take a look at the history of the world for that same past 50 years. In how much of that half-century, how many days have there been where one country was not actively engaged in some sort of violence with another?

Your point?

That, and all of human history, argues strongly against your point of view.


That's a pretty lazy assessment, and it doesn't "argue strongly" against anything. You might try that one again.
 
2008-12-03 05:22:11 PM
DRTFA, or the thread, but I just wanted to say that's the first time I literally choked because of a headline.
 
2008-12-03 05:23:38 PM
whidbey: give me doughnuts: skhval_factory: imperialist wars

Your credibility = 0

Why do you say that?

The argument could be made that all of our military operations since WWII were of an imperialist nature. We were trying to control resources or policies in each of the given areas.

How is that NOT imperialism?


There's the whole lack of an empire. Britain had an empire. Japan had one. Us, not so much.
 
2008-12-03 05:29:37 PM
give me doughnuts: whidbey: give me doughnuts: skhval_factory: imperialist wars

Your credibility = 0

Why do you say that?

The argument could be made that all of our military operations since WWII were of an imperialist nature. We were trying to control resources or policies in each of the given areas.

How is that NOT imperialism?

There's the whole lack of an empire. Britain had an empire. Japan had one. Us, not so much.


Because phsyical empires (with colonies) were defeated by 19th and 20th century tactics. Britain and France lost their colonies one by one to popular resistance and asymmetric warfare and no group of people is going to allow themselves to be taken over by a western power like that again without a serious fight.

Because that form of empire is now almost obsolete, the definition changes to the global interference by a unilateral force (US and occasionally an ally) Iraq is not a de jure colony of the US but people there are still going to revolt against the occupation by a foreign power.
 
2008-12-03 05:29:57 PM
give me doughnuts: There's the whole lack of an empire. Britain had an empire. Japan had one. Us, not so much.

Oh we're definitely not an empire. We just act like one.

We've perfected the art.

We don't need to actually colonize countries like the empires of yore, just control their resources through puppet governments.
 
2008-12-03 05:30:17 PM
Go read the Shock Doctrine and then feel shame.

Or, hell, go to the National Security Archives at George Washington University and read some of the American history you are either entirely unfamiliar with or are willfully ignorant of.


http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB123/index.htm

Those are just the Kissinger files. Watch with American pride as Kissinger tells Alexander Haig "He wants a massive bombing campaign in Cambodia. It's an order, it's to be done. Anything that flies on anything that moves."

FOIA for the win.

There must be an explanation in there somewhere how this is not a genocidal attack, right? I mean, by ANYTHING THAT MOVES he meant EXCEPT CIVILIANS, right? I mean, he must have just totally forgot that part, right?

No, he didn't. It's called a terrorist attack, and it's why the USA can be considered a rogue state.
 
2008-12-03 05:31:48 PM
jakomo002: No, he didn't. It's called a terrorist attack, and it's why the USA can be considered a rogue state.

Once again, it takes a CANADIAN to set us straight.

They don't listen to what Americans like me are saying...;)
 
2008-12-03 05:33:26 PM
give me doughnuts: There's the whole lack of an empire. Britain had an empire. Japan had one. Us, not so much.

You've apparently locked yourself into the 18th century definition of empire. More importantly than anything I could say, the people that actually make policy (new window)the people that actually make polic (new window), they think you're wrong too.

The aide said that guys like me were 'in what we call the reality-based community,' which he defined as people who 'believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. 'That's not the way the world really works anymore,' he continued. 'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality - judiciously, as you will - we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."
 
2008-12-03 05:34:25 PM

I don't see why people are so shocked to hear Obama is a Muslim. Lots of celebrities are Muslim, Will Smith converted while he filmed Ali until the Scientologists got him, Prince Charles did, Cat Stevens.

Muslims can even claim Neil Armstrong as one of their own.


Armstrong and his two fellow astronauts, Aldrin and Collins, saw an object on the Moon's horizon... At first, no one on Earth believed them: how could there be a book on the Moon and music in airless space? But the "music" was also heard on Earth over the radio transmission, and the "book" was photographed.

It is believed that the book the astronauts saw on the Moon is the prototype of the earthly Koran that exists in the heavens.

But all this information was classified.


"That voice. That's what I heard when I first stepped on the Moon, hearing it is giving me goose bumps!... O Allah! I found You not on Earth, but on the Moon!... I stepped onto the Moon without praying, but now I will pray, you can consider me a Muslim." So the first person to walk on the Moon, American astronaut Neil Armstrong, became a Muslim.


Link
 
2008-12-03 05:35:31 PM
And that's me butchering a link twice. Fark doesn't seem to want it, so here's the copy/paste version of the source link: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/17BUSH.html
 
2008-12-03 05:35:37 PM
That's some crazy sh*t, beoswulf...
 
2008-12-03 05:43:32 PM
whidbey: jakomo002: No, he didn't. It's called a terrorist attack, and it's why the USA can be considered a rogue state.

Once again, it takes a CANADIAN to set us straight.

They don't listen to what Americans like me are saying...;)


Canada (aside from the internment of Natives and japanese internment camps they copied from their southern cousins) is really an example of what Americans think the US really is.
 
2008-12-03 05:46:27 PM
cui bono?
 
2008-12-03 05:52:42 PM
whidbey: give me doughnuts: Take a look at the history of the world for that same past 50 years. In how much of that half-century, how many days have there been where one country was not actively engaged in some sort of violence with another?

Your point?

That, and all of human history, argues strongly against your point of view.

That's a pretty lazy assessment, and it doesn't "argue strongly" against anything. You might try that one again.


And your point of view is backed up with what? Hopes and dreams?



skhval_factory: Because that form of empire is now almost obsolete, the definition changes to the global interference by a unilateral force (US and occasionally an ally) Iraq is not a de jure colony of the US but people there are still going to revolt against the occupation by a foreign power.

By the same argument, Germany is a U.S. "colony."


Now, if you will excuse me, I have to go get ready to sue some more of the poor and down-trodden on behalf of the corporations that you think actually run the country.
And they are probably owned by Jews, so by proxy I'm oppressing Palestinians.
 
2008-12-03 05:56:39 PM
 
2008-12-03 06:03:55 PM
give me doughnuts: whidbey: give me doughnuts: Take a look at the history of the world for that same past 50 years. In how much of that half-century, how many days have there been where one country was not actively engaged in some sort of violence with another?

Your point?

That, and all of human history, argues strongly against your point of view.

That's a pretty lazy assessment, and it doesn't "argue strongly" against anything. You might try that one again.

And your point of view is backed up with what? Hopes and dreams?


Again, take a look at the progress in the past 50 years alone. Of course there's a possibility we can turn this around and work for peace.

You're just a pessimist. The overwhelming majority of the civilized world believes otherwise. We believe we can solve our problems through peaceful means.
 
2008-12-03 06:04:12 PM
whidbey: Axolotl: I think all extremists should be killed.

Wow, now THAT is an extreme position.

So you'll step to the front of the line, then?


www.combatstocks.com

Here, your sarcasm meter needs new ones.
 
2008-12-03 06:05:53 PM
Mr. Horse: Here, your sarcasm meter needs new ones.

So he's not going to step to the front of the line, then?
 
2008-12-03 06:16:35 PM
skhval_factory:
A lot of American patriots point towards our small and latae assistance in WW1 and WW2 to make up for countless other utterly vile actions. Canada helped in both wars from the beginning and they never committed any terrorist attacks against Chile


I don't remember the Brits or the Russians doing much of note about the Japanese, at least not until we had started distracting them away from western China.
 
2008-12-03 06:19:05 PM
give me doughnuts: There's the whole lack of an empire. Britain had an empire. Japan had one. Us, not so much.

The point of an empire is to have as much political and economic control over a colony for the least amount of effort and money possible. Large colonial administrations and armies like the Raj and 19th century Africa are expensive to maintain and act as a lightning rod for local dissatisfaction. Even the British eventually learnt that it's far better to just send a couple of "advisor" to whisper into the local ruler's ear, backed by the threat of overwhelming force than to set up direct rule.

Iraq is a great example of this. In the 80's Saddam was America's best friend because he fought against the Iranians, who had dared to overthrow a US installed government. Unfortunately Saddam went rogue when he attacked Kuwait and had to be removed, even if it took a decade to do it.

The lesson is simple: do what the US says and you get to hold power, defy the US and you get regime changed.
 
2008-12-03 06:20:02 PM
whidbey:
The argument could be made that all of our military operations since WWII were of an imperialist nature.


The argument could be made that the sun is really made up of a giant ball of yellow Peeps.

I seem to remember Korea being a UN action.
 
2008-12-03 06:28:39 PM
This text is now purple: The argument could be made that the sun is really made up of a giant ball of yellow Peeps.

*shrugs*

Whatever gets you through the night. I actually HAD an argument, not some snarky ridiculous comment waiting in the wings. Like you did.

I seem to remember Korea being a UN action.

Wow you must be ancient.

Seriously, though, UN action or not, it's notable that it was an unpopular conflict that had to be repackaged as a "police action" to fool the public.

It set a very unfortunate precedent of not properly declaring wars.
 
Displayed 50 of 211 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report