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.

(Yahoo)   Iran upgrades to Photoshop CS6   (ca.news.yahoo.com) divider line 70
    More: Scary, Iran, Israel Radio, IRNA, International Institute for Strategic Studies, military technology, ballistic missiles, Ahmad Vahidi, military strike  
•       •       •

16999 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Aug 2012 at 2:36 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



70 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-04 05:24:47 PM

liam76: Twelver theology doesn't want stability.


Twelver theology also does not depend on humans having to start WWIII.
 
2012-08-04 05:26:11 PM
The former head of Israel's intelligence service Mossad Efraim Halevy on Thursday said on Israel Radio he "would be very worried about the next 12 weeks," if he were Iranian.

Wow. Unsolicited threats against another country. And this is legal under international law how?
 
2012-08-04 05:26:56 PM
The Iraq was due to Saddam overpumping oil in the 90s. Remember that sweet, sweet 75 cents a gallon gas? That was Iraq, driving the price down. The oil companies were "suffering" so we took him out. His switching from US Dollars to Euros to do his oil business certainly didn't help. That threatened the supremecy of Wall Street and the US dollar. Look at the axis of evil, what do they use to sell oil? Not US dollars (anymore) We installed him and he could've done any damn thing he wanted to except those two things.
 
2012-08-04 05:32:22 PM

schubie: Sid_6.7: schubie: They point to the crime rates that show towns such as the one I grew up in that have laws that every homeowner must also own a gun have lower murder rates. And hell, I think they're right.

How big a town did you grow up in? I live in a town of just over 3,000, and we have an incredibly low crime rate, and only 10 police officers.

Also, do you support the idea of the government requiring everyone to purchase a gun? What about being required to carry that gun? Because if everyone must own one, but most leave them in the home, then it would be pretty easy to obtain quite a few firearms by breaking into houses when people are not home and finding the guaranteed firearm.

Kennesaw "It's the law in Kennesaw" GA. About 30,000. I'm not a big fan of guns and don't want one and don't want the government telling me to have one but I do know some high school dirtbags who had a little burglary ring didn't do it in Kennesaw for fear of being shot.


Is there really an edict requiring the entire adult population of a town to purchase a handgun for the sake of protection? That would be like requiring them to purchase a product that they did not want and penalizing them for failure to comply- maybe in the form of a non-gun owner tax or something.

Never happen! Not in my America... uh.. nevermind.
 
2012-08-04 05:38:14 PM

schubie: The Iraq was due to Saddam overpumping oil in the 90s. Remember that sweet, sweet 75 cents a gallon gas? That was Iraq, driving the price down. The oil companies were "suffering" so we took him out. His switching from US Dollars to Euros to do his oil business certainly didn't help. That threatened the supremecy of Wall Street and the US dollar. Look at the axis of evil, what do they use to sell oil? Not US dollars (anymore) We installed him and he could've done any damn thing he wanted to except those two things.


faqsmedia.ign.com

There. I took the bait and resonded precisely as predicted I would.
 
2012-08-04 05:56:53 PM
Look, Futurama's one of the greatest shows ever made but I'm right. I'm right in every way and you can't deny that. You can't say why you think we are occupying Iraq. You can say you think it's because Saddam was using the weapons we sold him against the Kurds, you could say it was because W wanted to show HW he was tougher than your average cheerleader, you could say we were just being dicks and are going to take the oil. And maybe we will, eventually but it was TO CUT THE SUPPLY OFF so that oil companies would make their history making profits. So you're paying for the war and the oil. Nice, huh? That's not even considering the hundreds of thousands of dead people. How many did Saddamn kill?

Let me really blow your mind about Afghanistan. You ever play Risk? Do you notice it's the way to get from East to West and everyone since Alexander has been trying and failing to conquer it? Well, we're no different. We want to build and control an oil pipeline. So we're occupying the place as best we can. Did you know a lot of your more rural Afghans think we're the farking Soviets? We are paying billions of dollars to do this. We could've just traded and bought the pipeline but we had to kill people. Really make those fighter jets useful. And no, we're not a lot more discriminate with our bombing then your average suicide asshole at a market.
 
2012-08-04 06:02:44 PM
"The freedoms they enjoyed under a Western-backed government"
This is the most twisted rendition I have probably ever encountered. Like, Iran wasn't free under Mossedegh?
 
2012-08-04 06:37:43 PM

Somacandra: The former head of Israel's intelligence service Mossad Efraim Halevy on Thursday said on Israel Radio he "would be very worried about the next 12 weeks," if he were Iranian.

Wow. Unsolicited threats against another country. And this is legal under international law how?



Izzy's talking tough again. Playing politics to make Obama look bad because they think Romney will make a better water schlepper.

When Izzy threatens Iran, Iran threatens to retaliate - speculators shiat and the price of oil/gas/food/everything goes up.

Remember how we were pushing $4.00/gal earlier this year? It was largely because BibiNet was shooting its mouth off about Iran.

Remember how oil prices recently retreated? BibiNet was being quiet for a few months, wasn't it?

Now it's beating the war drums again - largely for political purposes - but the effect will be the same Bibi's MOUTH will cost Americans BILLIONS - just like his MOUTH has already done so far this year.

And you can bet that CERTAIN people with the "inside scoop" on when BibiNet will howl will play the markets "just right", making a killing when oil prices rise, and again when they fall.

cache.stratrisks.comdealbreaker.com

If you're going to raise hell make political hay, there's no reason your friends shouldn't profit at the same time, right?

RIGHT?

Some Americans whine because we give Israel Billion$ in cash, Billion$ in aid, and Billion$ more in "loans" (that they never have to pay back), but what about the money that Israel and their threats cost us in the form of higher oil/gasoline/diesel prices?

The US consumes about 350 MILLION gallons of gasoline EVERY DAY. So if BibiNet's threats cause speculation to go wild, and prices go up by, say 20 cents per gallon as a result (conservatively)*, what does that translate to?

About $70 MILLION per day, EVERY DAY.

How much has that cost us, not only as taxpayers, but as CONSUMERS, so far this year? How much has it cost you PERSONALLY?

And yet we have Romney and Obama in a knock-down drag-out competition to see who can better kiss Israeli ass?

Who the fark is running the USA, and whose interests are they serving?


*Note that I estimated only 20 cents per gallon - ridiculously conservative because, of course, there are other factors that have caused oil prices to jump this year (Euro, etc), but no one in the know will deny that the Israel-Iran tension has been a MAJOR factor in that increase. Of course, spinmeister pundits always place the blame on a country whose name starts with the letter "I", but no one dares blame Israel.


;-)
 
2012-08-04 07:53:57 PM

clowncar on fire: schubie: LDM90: schubie: It's weird how 99% of Republicans think that America is safer as long as everyone has a handgun but they won't let Iran have nukes. They're surrounded. Look at Pakistan and India. Before they got their nuclear bombs thousands of people died in little border skirmishes and attacks. Now they've chilled the fark out and it's not b/c they've matured or something.

Republicans like our President?

Yeah, and it's stupid. I know we've been trained to hate Iran since they overthrew our Shah but every Iranian I've ever met is super cool, secular and usually ridiculously attractive. The US and UK have been farking with them decades including shooting down their passenger planes, I think it's natural that some of them would be a little death to America. Yet I've never met an Iranian who thought that.

I lived in Iran from 76-78. I've only met a few Iranians that i did not get along with then or even now.

The problem is the 30+years of programming going on inside of that fish bowl since. School does not teach us to hate them as a people. Our distrust is more based on the religious extremism they embraced over the freedoms they enjoyed under a Western backed goverment, and the political rhetoric of destruction that is far more pronounced than any good that has come out of that country. Your government is a representitive of your people. One thing for sure: you talk nonsense like the anihilation of Israel, crush anything that looks like opposition, and babble on about the gates of Paradise- you're bound to raise a few eyebrows in the great society of nuke holders.

That aside, most college aged people you meet tend to be untainted by politics and tend to be pretty cool no matter where they come from.


"Western-backed government"

That makes everything OK. The shah was a kindly father to his people. Being western-backed and such. Then the crazy extremists came along for no apparent reason and destroyed the happy paradise that is a western-backed government. For no apparent reason.

When will these primitive savages learn.

But at least our hands are clean. At least Saddam/Noriega/Mubarak/list-goes-on-and-on wasn't western-backed.
 
2012-08-04 08:01:55 PM

clowncar on fire: You only allow them to have nukes once they hace demonstarted they value their own lives as much as we value ours. Strapping bombs onto your waist (i refer to the region at this point- not Iran specifically) and wandering into crowds of non-military citizens for the purpose blowing them to bits does not help their cause at the moment.

I'm more comfortable with out any weapons being in the hands of the "death is but a doorway to Paradise" crowd- which is probably why any uber-religious group or person should beforbidden ownership of weaponry.


Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth.

These people are not blowing themselves up BECAUSE of their religion, that does play some part into it yes, but that is not the main driving reason. I paid attention in history class, I don't remember Muslims sending fire ships into New York Harbor in the 1880's. I don't remember suicide car bombings in the 1930's. I remember some piracy off their shores and that was about it. If religion was the DRIVING force we would have seen these past events, but we don't.

The reason they attack us today is because for the last 50 years we have been meddling in their internal affairs. We have installed/propped up dictators who have brutalized and oppressed their people for decades. They know that until the US has been driven from the region they will not have self rule. The purpose of 9/11 was to get the US more deeply involved and more easily attacked. They have told us their goals repeatedly, bankrupt the US Soviet Union style to force it to leave the region forever.

Why the suicide attacks? Because the US supported/influenced tyrants have made life so miserable that these people have nothing to lose. If they lined up as a regular army they know they would get slaughtered, so why not just go for a suicide attack and do far more damage. Either method ends in death. Self rule is worth dying for, so they make the very rational choice to sacrifice themselves for the future of their people to have the ability to rule themselves. If the roles were reversed you'd see Americans lining up around the corner to strap on the bomb belts for the same reasons and you and I would be cheering them on for their bravery and sacrifice.

People shriek on and on about how Muslims want to impose Sharia law onto the west, and then in the same breath talk about how they are going to impose western values onto the Muslim world, not once stopping to see the hypocrisy.

As for bombing civilians, once needs to remember that there are 2 ways to win a war:

1. Destroy your enemies ability to wage war, either militarily or economically.
2. Destroy your enemies political will to fight.

There are no rules in war. If you are not willing to accept that then don't go to war in the first place and don't pursue foreign policy that will result in war. We may try to put some lipstick on that pig with the Geneva Conventions and what not, but it's nothing but window dressing to hide the ugly reality. If you want to win and think you can do that by bombing school buses and shopping centers then you'd be an idiot not to. History doesn't care who had the moral high ground, only who won.

I personally don't want to go to war and thus want to peruse policies that will minimize any chance of war. I want a foreign policy of national DEFENSE, not offense.

Bin Laden has told us, REPEATEDLY and PUBLICLY, WHY he is attacking us. In case you've never looked for it.

1. U.S. support for Israel that keeps Palestinians in the Israelis' thrall.
2. U.S. and other Western troops on the Arabian Peninsula.
3. U.S. support for Russia, India, and China against their Muslim militants.
4. U.S. pressure on Arab energy producers to keep oil prices low.
5. U.S. support for apostate, corrupt, and tyrannical Muslim governments.

Nothing inherently religious there.

Whether or not you agree with those motivations or believe they are true or not, THAT is why they are attacking the US. The propaganda "TEY HAT US FUR UR FREEDOOM" doesn't even pass the smell test and is demonstrably false with even a little digging.

It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle. - Sun Tzu, The Art of War.
 
2012-08-04 08:04:09 PM

Kibbler: That aside, most college aged people you meet tend to be untainted by politics and tend to be pretty cool no matter where they come from.

"Western-backed government"

That makes everything OK. The shah was a kindly father to his people. Being western-backed and such. Then the crazy extremists came along for no apparent reason and destroyed the happy paradise that is a western-backed government. For no apparent reason.

When will these primitive savages learn.

But at least our hands are clean. At least Saddam/Noriega/Mubarak/list-goes-on-and-on wasn't western-backed.



Makes ya prad ta be an Uhmericun, don' it?
 
2012-08-04 08:23:36 PM

Somacandra: liam76: Twelver theology doesn't want stability.

Twelver theology also does not depend on humans having to start WWIII.


Depend? No, fit quite nicely, yes.
 
2012-08-04 09:19:32 PM

clowncar on fire: schubie: LDM90: schubie: It's weird how 99% of Republicans think that America is safer as long as everyone has a handgun but they won't let Iran have nukes. They're surrounded. Look at Pakistan and India. Before they got their nuclear bombs thousands of people died in little border skirmishes and attacks. Now they've chilled the fark out and it's not b/c they've matured or something.

Republicans like our President?

Yeah, and it's stupid. I know we've been trained to hate Iran since they overthrew our Shah but every Iranian I've ever met is super cool, secular and usually ridiculously attractive. The US and UK have been farking with them decades including shooting down their passenger planes, I think it's natural that some of them would be a little death to America. Yet I've never met an Iranian who thought that.

I lived in Iran from 76-78. I've only met a few Iranians that i did not get along with then or even now.

The problem is the 30+years of programming going on inside of that fish bowl since. School does not teach us to hate them as a people. Our distrust is more based on the religious extremism they embraced over the freedoms they enjoyed under a Western backed goverment, and the political rhetoric of destruction that is far more pronounced than any good that has come out of that country. Your government is a representitive of your people. One thing for sure: you talk nonsense like the anihilation of Israel, crush anything that looks like opposition, and babble on about the gates of Paradise- you're bound to raise a few eyebrows in the great society of nuke holders.

That aside, most college aged people you meet tend to be untainted by politics and tend to be pretty cool no matter where they come from.


It's always the old people. Farkin' superstitious stubborn old people.
Unfortunately, our brains seize up before our bodies do, and the misplaced trust we have in the so-called "wisdom" of the older generation keeps us going to war, retards civil rights, scientific advances and makes our justice and political systems a joke.
 
2012-08-04 10:05:26 PM
Title mentions Photoshop CS6 and so far not one photo in this thread. Subby lied.
 
2012-08-04 11:35:16 PM
I'm always amazed at how many people support nuclear proliferation just out of spite for Israel. Humanity was lucky in the 20th century - let's not go there again.
 
2012-08-04 11:45:16 PM
Amusing fact I read on the Wikipedia article for the Iranian airline downing: American warships chased Iranian ships into Oman's waters. Both backed down and left after being challenged by Oman's Royal Navy.

I mean that's gotta be the greatest military victory in Oman's entire history.
 
2012-08-05 02:51:50 AM

Amos Quito: When has Iran ever proposed the "annihilation" (as in nuclear-destruction-kill-all-Jews) of Israel? (which is what you're impyling, of course)

Direct quote, please.



Well, would you consider an official banner on the nuclear-capable ballistic missile on the main military parade in the capital a direct quote? Then, here you go, 2007 parade:
"Banner on side of Shahab-3 Missile says: "Israel should be wiped out of the face of the world". Some of the missiles had banners saying, "Israel should be wiped off the map" and "We will trample America under our feet" ,"Death to America" and "Death to Israel." The banners and verbal attacks prompted a number of European military attaches, from France, Italy, Greece, and Poland, to leave the parade. One diplomat is quoted as saying, "there was a common position among the European Union members that, if the military parade included any slogans that attacked our allies, we would leave."

More quotes? I'm happy to oblige:

President Ahmadinedjad:
2012: "Anyone who loves freedom and justice must strive for the annihilation of the Zionist regime in order to pave the way for world justice and freedom."
2005: speech in which he used a Persian phrase that translates literally as "wiped off the page of time."
2006: "Israel will be 'wiped out'."
2006: "Iranian president: Destroy Israel". " Destroy Israel, End Crisis"
2006: "Ahmadinejad's call to destroy Israel draws French condemnation".
2008: "Zionist Germ of Corruption Will Be Wiped off"

Ayatolla Khamenei:
"'Kill all Jews and annihilate Israel!' Iran's Ayatollah lays out legal and religious justification for attack"

Those are just a few, you can easily google them and verify. I don't think Iran can be any clearer on a specific intention to destroy Israel with WMD.
 
2012-08-05 04:55:20 AM

romandesign: Amos Quito: When has Iran ever proposed the "annihilation" (as in nuclear-destruction-kill-all-Jews) of Israel? (which is what you're impyling, of course)

Direct quote, please.


Well, would you consider an official banner on the nuclear-capable ballistic missile on the main military parade in the capital a direct quote? Then, here you go, 2007 parade:
"Banner on side of Shahab-3 Missile says: "Israel should be wiped out of the face of the world". Some of the missiles had banners saying, "Israel should be wiped off the map" and "We will trample America under our feet" ,"Death to America" and "Death to Israel." The banners and verbal attacks prompted a number of European military attaches, from France, Italy, Greece, and Poland, to leave the parade. One diplomat is quoted as saying, "there was a common position among the European Union members that, if the military parade included any slogans that attacked our allies, we would leave."

More quotes? I'm happy to oblige:

President Ahmadinedjad:
2012: "Anyone who loves freedom and justice must strive for the annihilation of the Zionist regime in order to pave the way for world justice and freedom."
2005: speech in which he used a Persian phrase that translates literally as "wiped off the page of time."
2006: "Israel will be 'wiped out'."
2006: "Iranian president: Destroy Israel". " Destroy Israel, End Crisis"
2006: "Ahmadinejad's call to destroy Israel draws French condemnation".
2008: "Zionist Germ of Corruption Will Be Wiped off"

Ayatolla Khamenei:
"'Kill all Jews and annihilate Israel!' Iran's Ayatollah lays out legal and religious justification for attack"

Those are just a few, you can easily google them and verify. I don't think Iran can be any clearer on a specific intention to destroy Israel with WMD.


now tell us all the humanitarian and pleasant gestures by Israel which shows them to be poor innocent victims in all this who have never done anything wrong ever.
 
2012-08-05 08:09:57 AM

Amos Quito: Somacandra: The former head of Israel's intelligence service Mossad Efraim Halevy on Thursday said on Israel Radio he "would be very worried about the next 12 weeks," if he were Iranian.

Wow. Unsolicited threats against another country. And this is legal under international law how?


Izzy's talking tough again. Playing politics to make Obama look bad because they think Romney will make a better water schlepper.

When Izzy threatens Iran, Iran threatens to retaliate - speculators shiat and the price of oil/gas/food/everything goes up.

Remember how we were pushing $4.00/gal earlier this year? It was largely because BibiNet was shooting its mouth off about Iran.

Remember how oil prices recently retreated? BibiNet was being quiet for a few months, wasn't it?

Now it's beating the war drums again - largely for political purposes - but the effect will be the same Bibi's MOUTH will cost Americans BILLIONS - just like his MOUTH has already done so far this year.

And you can bet that CERTAIN people with the "inside scoop" on when BibiNet will howl will play the markets "just right", making a killing when oil prices rise, and again when they fall.

[cache.stratrisks.com image 606x379][dealbreaker.com image 260x318]

If you're going to raise hell make political hay, there's no reason your friends shouldn't profit at the same time, right?

RIGHT?

Some Americans whine because we give Israel Billion$ in cash, Billion$ in aid, and Billion$ more in "loans" (that they never have to pay back), but what about the money that Israel and their threats cost us in the form of higher oil/gasoline/diesel prices?

The US consumes about 350 MILLION gallons of gasoline EVERY DAY. So if BibiNet's threats cause speculation to go wild, and prices go up by, say 20 cents per gallon as a result (conservatively)*, what does that translate to?

About $70 MILLION per day, EVERY DAY.

How much has that cost us, not only as taxpayers, but as CONSUMERS, so far this year? How much has it cost you PER ...


I don't understand these insanely drastic reactions to the gas price whenever Middle Eastern stability fluctuates slightly. Most people don't understand the percentages when it comes to who supplies oil to the US. I think the average misconception is that the Middle East holds America's nuts in a vice grip by supplying the majority of oil. In reality, Canada supplies the USA almost twice as much oil as the entire Persian Gulf. The majority of imports, in fact, come from the Western hemisphere (including South America).

If 100% of oil from the Middle East were cut off tomorrow (an unlikely situation), gas prices would probably go up 200% overnight as rich idiots in suits shove their fists into their market puppets and Kermit-flail dramatically. In reality, roughly 85% of the supply would remain stable.

Americans need to realize that no matter how much people in the Middle East might hate you, we Canucks have your backs (at least, until the oil sands run dry).
 
2012-08-05 09:58:41 AM

dready zim: romandesign: Amos Quito: When has Iran ever proposed the "annihilation" (as in nuclear-destruction-kill-all-Jews) of Israel? (which is what you're impyling, of course)

now tell us all the humanitarian and pleasant gestures by Israel which shows them to be poor innocent victims in all this who have never done anything wrong ever.


Now, it's your turn to find me a direct quote where Israel has threatened to wipe anoher countrly from a a map! All Israel ever wanted is to be left at peace and recognized as a legitimate country by its neihbours. Somehow they prefer war, even palestinians prefer war to having their own state. War is more important to them than just recognizing Israel and denouncing terrorism, which is all they have to do to get their state.

Israel is not a victim any more. Jews were reliant on others - thanks, it has ended with 6 million victims and a nation nearly wiped out. Now do you think they can afford a real possibility of that happening again? You asked for quotes - you got quotes, which means you are totally ignorant of the state of affairs in the region but that doesn't stop you fro passing judjement. Iran is a very real threat, because they said so countless times, and MAD doctrine can't work against people willing to sacrifice their and their people's lifes for religious motives. MAD works for people who share basic moral values and who don't want war and their children to die. If they are sure that their children will go straight to heaven and a following war on islamic world will bring 12th imam's coming closer -- you can't afford to allow them means to do a second Holocaust.

Israel was very restraint on Iran amd has waited pationately for sanctions and diplomacy to work (which were doomed from the start - that was obvious to anybody who knows middle east), and has waited perhaps too long already for a military option. Iran is essentially in the state of war with Israel through its proxy Hesbollah, waging war from Lebanon, armed, trained, largely staffed and directly commanded by Iran. Now if you were a head of state, which enemy was actively engaged in a war and on the verge of ackuiring nuclear weapons, and which has clearly and in a span of years has stated that it will use nukes to wipe your state off the face of the earth (not as an answer for your strike, mind you, but in their own initiative) - would you have any other option but to destroy their nuclear program, if at all possible by your armed forces?
 
Displayed 20 of 70 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report