abb3w: Of course, bombing it into a radioactive parking lot technically isn't a land war, but there are separate reasons why that would be a bad idea.

Sorry, was fudging a bit in order to make the headline work.

as long as we don't gamble with a siciliian while death is on the line, we should ok

Because sweet heart-wrenching independent films about the hardships of living in Iran would be obfuscated by the fact that now WE are causing the hardships?

I'm not a big fan of Israel, but to contradict the author:

1. There's no good end state.

And end state for Israel on this issue would be to outlast the extremist government in Iran. A more moderate government from an Arab Spring style resolution would put them in a much more secure position.

Whose army will our government use to attack anywhere?

/They're kinda busy right now.
//And because Irak ended so swell and A-stan is going so well.
///Adults in charge? Hmm?

The Iranians see this as a religious war and we should too. If we approach this not through physicial intimidation (which they're totally up for, the freaky bastards) but through religious intimidation, we can win with minimal financial expenditure or loss of life. Just gently parachute a 55 gallon drum of pig entrails into the Jamkaran Mosque in Qum or the Tomb of Fatimah (Iran is just jam-packed with religious sites) with a note: "You have five days to destroy all centrifuges and other nuclear materials-related equipment and put them on display for our review or, next time, no parachute." I guarantee, faced with a direct threat to their religious sensibilities, they will fold. Die of radiation poisoning after a nuclear exchange with Israel? They're willing to take the chance. Scrubbing pig guts off of their holy sites and themselves? Now that's terrifying.

Because war rarely benefits the working class. If war does benefit the working class that was just an unintended consequence of capitalists raping the national coffers.

So I'm getting confused here. GOP was against warfare in Bosnia-Herzagovinia, Somalia. They were against going after bin-Laden. * Clinton era
They were for going after bin-Laden, invading Afghanistan and Iraq. * Bush era
They were against assisting with Libya, killing bin-Laden, or going after the Christian terrorists. * Obama era
Now they are, again, for warfare to invade Iran.

Sooo... what'd I miss here?

Um... we're already involved in a land war in Asia. I'm not sure that advice would be the best deterrent.

It's pretty farking complicated actually.

If anyone remembers the Stuxnet virus that forced Iran to disable their reactors, the virus specifically targeted a Siemen's component of the reactor.

IE. Germany is helping them develop their nuclear technology. With Germany having such political clout in Europe right now, who knows how Europe will side.

Russia is also helping them develop nuclear technology.

China wants their oil. And is currently super-pissed about being kicked-out of Libya's oil-fields. And Sudan, the regime there is pro-Chinese, so Sudan got split in two and the South (the part with the oil) now has a pro-West government.

/Popcorn.

6. John McCain might sing.

ORLY TITS: Um... we're already involved in a land war in AsiaAfghanistan. I'm not sure that advice would be the best deterrent you can fight in Afghanistan and hope to EVER win.

Just added some specificity

dryknife: 6. John McCain might sing.

7. John Ashcroft might sing.

coeyagi: dryknife: 6. John McCain might sing.

7. John Ashcroft might sing.

8. Karl Rove might rap.

Holy fark, are people still thinking we're going to invade Iran? Gods dammit people are stupid.

It's not going to happen. The lefty pussifists and the righty warmongers need to read that sentence as many times as it takes to get it in their heads.

Iran != Iraq

Different problems... different solutions. Even if W was still in office.

Unless a strike succeeded in permanently crippling the Iranian capacity to produce and weaponize fissile material, the grass would only grow back again

So don't do a half-ass job. Got it.

No one can prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon

Does the author remember 7 June '81? What's today's date?

But denying Iran a weapon means more than taking away the toys; it means changing the national calculation and motivation of a power that

When a child is playing with a loaded gun, you don't sit back and wait for the little farker to grow the hell up, you take it away from him.

There are severe costs to the United States.

What's the cost of one of these little joy-buzzzzers popping off in say D.C., NY, or Los Angeles?

It will legitimize and popularize Iran in the Middle East.

Just like sadam is a real popular and effective leader today.

coeyagi: ORLY TITS: Um... we're already involved in a land war in AsiaAfghanistan. I'm not sure that advice would be the best deterrent you can fight in Afghanistan and hope to EVER win.

Just added some specificity

Last guy who did win in Afghanistan was Alexander the Great.

PanicMan: coeyagi: dryknife: 6. John McCain might sing.

7. John Ashcroft might sing.

8. Karl Rove might rap.

9. Grover Norquist might break out the ukulele.

Mouldy Squid: coeyagi: ORLY TITS: Um... we're already involved in a land war in AsiaAfghanistan. I'm not sure that advice would be the best deterrent you can fight in Afghanistan and hope to EVER win.

Just added some specificity

Last guy who did win in Afghanistan was Alexander the Great.

Yeah, Afghanis are something like 25-1.

//mountains - how do they work?

clambam: The Iranians see this as a religious war and we should too. If we approach this not through physicial intimidation (which they're totally up for, the freaky bastards) but through religious intimidation, we can win with minimal financial expenditure or loss of life. Just gently parachute a 55 gallon drum of pig entrails into the Jamkaran Mosque in Qum or the Tomb of Fatimah (Iran is just jam-packed with religious sites) with a note: "You have five days to destroy all centrifuges and other nuclear materials-related equipment and put them on display for our review or, next time, no parachute." I guarantee, faced with a direct threat to their religious sensibilities, they will fold. Die of radiation poisoning after a nuclear exchange with Israel? They're willing to take the chance. Scrubbing pig guts off of their holy sites and themselves? Now that's terrifying.

I'm going to assume for a second you're not a troll and respond by telling you how retarded you are.

You know what kind of thing never works? Getting people all riled up about religion. It didn't work when we tried to encourage religious zealotry to keep the communists out, and it won't work to hold their religious sites and dietary requirements hostage.

Let's say that works and they abandon all the centrifuges. Then the next generation grows up and wants to learn about history. Americans? Didn't they threaten to desecrate everything we believe in? Let's go form a compound to deal with this.

This is not even taking into account all of the peaceful Muslims in countries we have no qualms with (including those in our country).

Well now I'm ranting... I guess it would have been easier to just tell you you're retarded and stop there.

OhMyTVC15:
Well now I'm ranting... I guess it would have been easier to just tell you you're retarded and stop there.

Yup. He's a retard because he actually suggested that threatening a bit of minor religious vandalism would somehow alter the foreign policy of nation states. It's the dumbest thing I've read on Fark in months, and that's saying a lot.

coeyagi: PanicMan: coeyagi: dryknife: 6. John McCain might sing.

7. John Ashcroft might sing.

8. Karl Rove might rap.

9. Grover Norquist might break out the ukulele.

10. Noam Chompsky might write another book.

El_Swino: OhMyTVC15:
Well now I'm ranting... I guess it would have been easier to just tell you you're retarded and stop there.

Yup. He's a retard because he actually suggested that threatening a bit of minor religious vandalism would somehow alter the foreign policy of nation states. It's the dumbest thing I've read on Fark in months, and that's saying a lot.

If by "minor" you mean "internationally conspired and carried out by a foreign military power" and if by "somehow alter" you mean "make things better than how they are currently", than you seem to have the gist of what he's trying to imply, and should be able to construe why it's dumb.

coeyagi: PanicMan: coeyagi: dryknife: 6. John McCain might sing.

7. John Ashcroft might sing.

8. Karl Rove might rap.

9. Grover Norquist might break out the ukulele.

10. And then there will be dancing....

OhMyTVC15: El_Swino: OhMyTVC15:

If by "minor" you mean "internationally conspired and carried out by a foreign military power" and if by "somehow alter" you mean "make things better than how they are currently", than you seem to have the gist of what he's trying to imply, and should be able to construe why it's dumb.

What I mean is that he said the most retarded thing I've read on Fark in months. You really do have a tendency to rant, don't you?

El_Swino: OhMyTVC15: El_Swino: OhMyTVC15:

If by "minor" you mean "internationally conspired and carried out by a foreign military power" and if by "somehow alter" you mean "make things better than how they are currently", than you seem to have the gist of what he's trying to imply, and should be able to construe why it's dumb.

What I mean is that he said the most retarded thing I've read on Fark in months. You really do have a tendency to rant, don't you?

My mistake. I thought I detected sarcasm in your Boobies.

OhMyTVC15: I'm going to assume for a second you're not a troll and respond by telling you how retarded you are.

You know what kind of thing never works? Getting people all riled up about religion. It didn't work when we tried to encourage religious zealotry to keep the communists out, and it won't work to hold their religious sites and dietary requirements hostage.

Let's say that works and they abandon all the centrifuges. Then the next generation grows up and wants to learn about history. Americans? Didn't they threaten to desecrate everything we believe in? Let's go form a compound to deal with this.

This is not even taking into account all of the peaceful Muslims in countries we have no qualms with (including those in our country).

Well now I'm ranting... I guess it would have been easier to just tell you you're retarded and stop there.

Yes, but do you think it would be effective? I think it would. Frankly, I'd rather be a live citizen of a country whose leadership has been humiliated than an irradiated corpse after a nuclear exchange with Israel. You apparently disagree. Or maybe you take the Iranians at their word: they have NO intention of building atomic bombs, not intention of using them against the Zionist Entity or the Great Satan. I have to ask, are you Muslim? Because your arguments only make sense in the context of "please don't do that effective thing you're planning, it will prevent us from committing that crime we've been working on."

This article assumes that just because we are not at war with Iran that Iran is not at war with us. An inaccurate assumption. The enemy gets a vote.

OhMyTVC15:
My mistake. I thought I detected sarcasm in your Boobies.

"Muslims are pathologically terrified of pigs" is a myth popular with American hicks. It has little basis in reality and serves mainly to identify the proudly ignorant. It's perfectly acceptable to point and laugh at the hayseeds who cling to this sort of fantasy.

clambam; Or maybe you take the Iranians at their word: they have NO intention of building atomic bombs, not intention of using them against the Zionist Entity or the Great Satan.

Everyone with more than half a brain knows that if Iran lifted a finger against Israel, they'd be in deep trouble. It's suicide and they KNOW it.

They have NO reason to attack Israel, especially now, since Israel is even more isolated diplomatically than Iran (good work Bibi). Plus with US troops leaving Iraq, they can roll in with their reconstruction money and start a good partnership with the Iraqi Shia. Plus they're getting cozier with the Saudis, with less threats between the two.

Which is all good news for Iran AND good news for the region.

Just bad news for the US and Israel. Well, fark the US it's not their neighbourhood and fark Israel if it wants to continue to be the craziest most paranoid and belligerent dick in the neighbourhood.

HotIgneous Intruder: Whose army will our government use to attack anywhere?

The US Air Force's strategic bomber force has some free airplanes and the Navy's cruise missile submarines and fast attack submarines don't really have much to do in Afghanistan.

deadcrickets: So I'm getting confused here. GOP was against warfare in Bosnia-Herzagovinia, Somalia.

Umm, Bush in '92 is the one that started Somalia.

clambam: The Iranians see this as a religious war and we should too. If we approach this not through physicial intimidation (which they're totally up for, the freaky bastards) but through religious intimidation, we can win with minimal financial expenditure or loss of life. Just gently parachute a 55 gallon drum of pig entrails into the Jamkaran Mosque in Qum or the Tomb of Fatimah (Iran is just jam-packed with religious sites) with a note: "You have five days to destroy all centrifuges and other nuclear materials-related equipment and put them on display for our review or, next time, no parachute." I guarantee, faced with a direct threat to their religious sensibilities, they will fold. Die of radiation poisoning after a nuclear exchange with Israel? They're willing to take the chance. Scrubbing pig guts off of their holy sites and themselves? Now that's terrifying.

You don't know what you're talking about. If the Iranians were primarily motivated by religious chauvinism, then they wouldn't be such bosom buddies with China, India, or Russia, nor would they be regional competitors with Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. If Religion were their primary motivation, they'd have tried to wipe out the Alawite Baathist heretics(that's double heresy!) running Syria, instead of supported them for decades on end. If religion was the end-all-be-all for them, then the Iranian army would have flooded across the Iraqi border the first time Sunni extremists blew up a shiate holy site. Iranian foreign policy is determined by their self-interest. They don't see this as a "religious war"; in fact, they don't see it as a war at all considering that "war" implies aggression on both sides and they aren't taking aggressive steps against anyone. In regards to the US and Israel, they have taken steps to stymie their goals in the region, but never just to stymie them. Everything Iran has done -through supporting local proxies pursuing their own interests- has been done in pursuit of their own objectives, objectives which have often conflicted with our own. When they do not, as in Afghanistan, Iran has been more than willing to work with the US.

What they see is 1) the persistent aggression that's been directed against their government by the US and Israel since they overthrew our murderous puppet, the shah, 2) a history of increasing agitation over the last decade to deprive them of nuclear energy as a viable power generation source, even though they have consistently adhered to IAEA regs and inspections, and negotiated a series of fuel exchange treaties with third parties like Brazil and Turkey (which the US has sabotaged repeatedly) 3) that the Israeli right both controls their government (and hence their nukes) and is becoming increasingly unhinged, to the point that Israeli intelligence and military officials are publicly warning of their plans to attack Iran, 4) That the Obama admin is comfortable with the concept of military intervention, 5) that the US doesn't attack countries have nuclear bombs. That is their calculus; not this unreasoning superstitious fantasy you've concocted. I mean seriously, if they thought like you claim they do, Israel and the US would have toppled them long ago, instead of being consistently out-maneuvered.

jakomo002: clambam; Or maybe you take the Iranians at their word: they have NO intention of building atomic bombs, not intention of using them against the Zionist Entity or the Great Satan.

Everyone with more than half a brain knows that if Iran lifted a finger against Israel, they'd be in deep trouble. It's suicide and they KNOW it.

They have NO reason to attack Israel, especially now, since Israel is even more isolated diplomatically than Iran (good work Bibi). Plus with US troops leaving Iraq, they can roll in with their reconstruction money and start a good partnership with the Iraqi Shia. Plus they're getting cozier with the Saudis, with less threats between the two.

Which is all good news for Iran AND good news for the region.

Just bad news for the US and Israel. Well, fark the US it's not their neighbourhood and fark Israel if it wants to continue to be the craziest most paranoid and belligerent dick in the neighbourhood.

^^. Good analysis.

Heron:


If religion was the end-all-be-all for them, then the Iranian army would have flooded across the Iraqi border the first time Sunni extremists blew up a shiateShia holy site.


Bah, I always forget what the filter here does to that noun form. FTFM.

Heron : What they see is :

Forgot a big one. The Iranians offered the Americans a HUGE deal, essentially saying if you're so worried about our 20% enriched uranium, you can farking have it. The US declined.

The only thing you saw about Iran around that time was that hilarious "plot" with the forgetful Iranian car salesman trying to hire a Mexican drug runner to murder a Saudi diplomat. (???)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/julian-borger-global-security-blog/20 1 1/oct/10/ahmadinejad-nuclear-offer-obama

Ahmadinejad made this latest offer in the press, first with an interview with the Washington Post in mid-September, and then with the New York Times a week or so later. The essence of the deal, the Iranian president told the Times' Nicholas Kristof, was: "If they give us the 20% enriched uranium this very week, we will cease the domestic enrichment of uranium of up to 20 percent this very week."

clovis69: deadcrickets: So I'm getting confused here. GOP was against warfare in Bosnia-Herzagovinia, Somalia.

Umm, Bush in '92 is the one that started Somalia.

Clinton also decided to visit Somalia. The point is they vacillate back and forth in their views on war.

clambam: OhMyTVC15: I'm going to assume for a second you're not a troll and respond by telling you how retarded you are.

You know what kind of thing never works? Getting people all riled up about religion. It didn't work when we tried to encourage religious zealotry to keep the communists out, and it won't work to hold their religious sites and dietary requirements hostage.

Let's say that works and they abandon all the centrifuges. Then the next generation grows up and wants to learn about history. Americans? Didn't they threaten to desecrate everything we believe in? Let's go form a compound to deal with this.

This is not even taking into account all of the peaceful Muslims in countries we have no qualms with (including those in our country).

Well now I'm ranting... I guess it would have been easier to just tell you you're retarded and stop there.

Yes, but do you think it would be effective? I think it would. Frankly, I'd rather be a live citizen of a country whose leadership has been humiliated than an irradiated corpse after a nuclear exchange with Israel. You apparently disagree. Or maybe you take the Iranians at their word: they have NO intention of building atomic bombs, not intention of using them against the Zionist Entity or the Great Satan. I have to ask, are you Muslim? Because your arguments only make sense in the context of "please don't do that effective thing you're planning, it will prevent us from committing that crime we've been working on."

Oh come on is this serious? I have to be a Muslim to oppose desecrating Muslim religious sites? Do I have to be a Christian to oppose burning churches?

Or perhaps you're insinuating that I'm a Muslim extremist, which would mean you're even stupider than I first thought.

As previously noted, Iran isn't dumb enough to actually attack Israel. And your idea of what the word "effective" means is very skewed. When your actions yield more fodder for anti-American, Anti-western factions that use religion as a recruitment tool in the long run, I'd say their the opposite of effective.

clambam: OhMyTVC15: I'm going to assume for a second you're not a troll and respond by telling you how retarded you are.

You know what kind of thing never works? Getting people all riled up about religion. It didn't work when we tried to encourage religious zealotry to keep the communists out, and it won't work to hold their religious sites and dietary requirements hostage.

Let's say that works and they abandon all the centrifuges. Then the next generation grows up and wants to learn about history. Americans? Didn't they threaten to desecrate everything we believe in? Let's go form a compound to deal with this.

This is not even taking into account all of the peaceful Muslims in countries we have no qualms with (including those in our country).

Well now I'm ranting... I guess it would have been easier to just tell you you're retarded and stop there.

Yes, but do you think it would be effective? I think it would. Frankly, I'd rather be a live citizen of a country whose leadership has been humiliated than an irradiated corpse after a nuclear exchange with Israel. You apparently disagree. Or maybe you take the Iranians at their word: they have NO intention of building atomic bombs, not intention of using them against the Zionist Entity or the Great Satan. I have to ask, are you Muslim? Because your arguments only make sense in the context of "please don't do that effective thing you're planning, it will prevent us from committing that crime we've been working on."

You were dropped on your head repeatedly as a child, weren't you?

Heron: clambam: The Iranians see this as a religious war and we should too. If we approach this not through physicial intimidation (which they're totally up for, the freaky bastards) but through religious intimidation, we can win with minimal financial expenditure or loss of life. Just gently parachute a 55 gallon drum of pig entrails into the Jamkaran Mosque in Qum or the Tomb of Fatimah (Iran is just jam-packed with religious sites) with a note: "You have five days to destroy all centrifuges and other nuclear materials-related equipment and put them on display for our review or, next time, no parachute." I guarantee, faced with a direct threat to their religious sensibilities, they will fold. Die of radiation poisoning after a nuclear exchange with Israel? They're willing to take the chance. Scrubbing pig guts off of their holy sites and themselves? Now that's terrifying.

You don't know what you're talking about. If the Iranians were primarily motivated by religious chauvinism, then they wouldn't be such bosom buddies with China, India, or Russia, nor would they be regional competitors with Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. If Religion were their primary motivation, they'd have tried to wipe out the Alawite Baathist heretics(that's double heresy!) running Syria, instead of supported them for decades on end. If religion was the end-all-be-all for them, then the Iranian army would have flooded across the Iraqi border the first time Sunni extremists blew up a shiate holy site. Iranian foreign policy is determined by their self-interest. They don't see this as a "religious war"; in fact, they don't see it as a war at all considering that "war" implies aggression on both sides and they aren't taking aggressive steps against anyone. In regards to the US and Israel, they have taken steps to stymie their goals in the region, but never just to stymie them. Everything Iran has done -through supporting local proxies pursuing their own interests- has been done in pursuit of their own objectives, objectives which have often conflicted with our own. When they do not, as in Afghanistan, Iran has been more than willing to work with the US.

What they see is 1) the persistent aggression that's been directed against their government by the US and Israel since they overthrew our murderous puppet, the shah, 2) a history of increasing agitation over the last decade to deprive them of nuclear energy as a viable power generation source, even though they have consistently adhered to IAEA regs and inspections, and negotiated a series of fuel exchange treaties with third parties like Brazil and Turkey (which the US has sabotaged repeatedly) 3) that the Israeli right both controls their government (and hence their nukes) and is becoming increasingly unhinged, to the point that Israeli intelligence and military officials are publicly warning of their plans to attack Iran, 4) That the Obama admin is comfortable with the concept of military intervention, 5) that the US doesn't attack countries have nuclear bombs. That is their calculus; not this unreasoning superstitious fantasy you've concocted. I mean seriously, if they thought like you claim they do, Israel and the US would have toppled them long ago, instead of being consistently out-maneuvered.

+1

HotIgneous Intruder: Whose army will our government use to attack anywhere?

/They're kinda busy right now.
//And because Irak ended so swell and A-stan is going so well.
///Adults in charge? Hmm?

The idea that our military is overstretched is pure propaganda.

Repeat after me: The armed forces of the USA haven't engaged in total war since Vietnam, and our country hasn't been fully mobilized for war since WW2.

There is no comparison between what we do to spare civilian lives recently and what we could do with our most devastating weapons and tactics. Bless our troops for the sacrifice they make to spare lives, and woe be to the country that meets our military's teeth because someone thought we were too "overstretched" to invade somewhere.

Read about Patton's blitz with the help of the XIX TAC, and imagine Abrams and Warthogs using the same tactics against an enemy arguably inferior in many ways to the German defense of that day.

Don't support the Pentagon's bloated budget with fairy tales of US tactical weakness.

clambam: Yes, but do you think it would be effective? I think it would

Stop being stupid. Pig is not kryptonite to Muslims. It doesn't melt them, weaken them or cause them to vanish into the ether. Lots of Christians find the Koran offensive, do you think that leaving copies of the Koran in evangelical churches would do anything more than create a bit of trash and annoy parishioners?

coeyagi: Mouldy Squid: coeyagi: ORLY TITS: Um... we're already involved in a land war in AsiaAfghanistan. I'm not sure that advice would be the best deterrent you can fight in Afghanistan and hope to EVER win.

Just added some specificity

Last guy who did win in Afghanistan was Alexander the Great.

Yeah, Afghanis are something like 25-1.

//mountains - how do they work?

Second Anglo-Afghan War. Read about it.

Freakman: This article assumes that just because we are not at war with Iran that Iran is not at war with us. An inaccurate assumption. The enemy gets a vote.

Find yourself hiding from the Persians in an attic, quite often?

BSABSVR: Freakman: This article assumes that just because we are not at war with Iran that Iran is not at war with us. An inaccurate assumption. The enemy gets a vote.

Find yourself hiding from the Persians in an attic, quite often?

Me? No. I'm not a Saudi Arabian Ambassador to the United States. I did capture a few Iranian-made EFVs in Baghdad back in '08 though. If Quds Force blowing up Americans isn't war against the US, what is?

Syphilis_Smile: coeyagi: Mouldy Squid: coeyagi: ORLY TITS: Um... we're already involved in a land war in AsiaAfghanistan. I'm not sure that advice would be the best deterrent you can fight in Afghanistan and hope to EVER win.

Just added some specificity

Last guy who did win in Afghanistan was Alexander the Great.

Yeah, Afghanis are something like 25-1.

//mountains - how do they work?

Second Anglo-Afghan War. Read about it.

Yeah, a war fought to force the Afghanis to host a British diplomatic mission that ended with the Afghanis still in control of internal sovergnity and the withdrawal of British troops. The only thing the British gained was control of Afghan's foreign policy which didn't really matter anyway since the only people the Afghanis could treat with were the Ottomans, the British and the Russians. Please note that tthe whole point was to one up the Russians in the Great Game since the Russians had sent a forced diplomatic mission themselves.

Not seeing a whole lot of "win" there. Pretty much all it did was get a lot of Afghanis and Brits killed and changed nothing in the geo-political scheme. Reminds me of the current Afghani mission where we went in and kicked a whole lot of ass but were completely unable to actually control the territory and so turned it over to the locals to manage their own sovergnity.

So I suppose if you consider the current fiasco a success, I can see how you think the Second Anglo-Afghani war to be a success too.

Wow, using Muslim religious concerns about exposure to pig entrails is apparently such a bad idea that we shouldn't even think about it? It's totally disproved! Don't even bring it up! Even though the Israelis have used the same idea to prevent suicide bombings on buses.

Let's see, what else can I glean from these comments? OK, apparently the Iranians have absolutely no intention of weaponizing their nuclear materials, so again, how dare I mention the possibility? But even if they did, they would be totally justified in doing so since evil Israel and America are out to get them. The Iranian long range missile program is purely for self-defense and they would never use their proxies in Gaza or Lebanon to deliver a nuke to Israel. Again I have to ask (you didn't answer) are you Muslim? Because you're certainly apologists for them.

clambam: Wow, using Muslim religious concerns about exposure to pig entrails is apparently such a bad idea that we shouldn't even think about it? It's totally disproved! Don't even bring it up! Even though the Israelis have used the same idea to prevent suicide bombings on buses.

Let's see, what else can I glean from these comments? OK, apparently the Iranians have absolutely no intention of weaponizing their nuclear materials, so again, how dare I mention the possibility? But even if they did, they would be totally justified in doing so since evil Israel and America are out to get them. The Iranian long range missile program is purely for self-defense and they would never use their proxies in Gaza or Lebanon to deliver a nuke to Israel. Again I have to ask (you didn't answer) are you Muslim? Because you're certainly apologists for them.

So you were dropped repeatedly on your head when you were a child. That's what I thought.