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)   Bombs Away: Canada shut its embassy in Tehran on Friday, severed diplomatic relations and ordered Iranian diplomats to leave, accusing the Islamic Republic of being the most significant threat to world peace, eh   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 174
    More: Interesting, Islamic Republic, Tehran, Iranians, Islamic, diplomats, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, hostage crisis, Fars News Agency  
•       •       •

2183 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 Sep 2012 at 12:05 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-08 10:07:26 AM

Zeno-25: What are all Jews, Muslims, and Christians going to fight over when the city is a pile of radioactive rubble?


They'll find something.

In the meantime, I'd rather go with a less-severe option - the "We Are Sick Of Your Shiat, So Grow The Fark Up And Play Nice Or We Kill You All And Take Your Stuff" Doctrine.

It works like this:

All sides concerned have until 9/11 of my first term as President for Life to lay down their weapons and figure out a way to co-exist in peace.

In the meantime, any imam, grand mufti, jihadi-wannabe, priest, bishop, cardinal, rabbi, rebbe or whatever who so much as farts in our general direction in protest can consider themselves targeted for assassination and their houses of worship seized and converted into bars, gay bars, outrageously flaming gay bars with ladyboys dressed as Abraham, Jesus and Mohammed dancing in cages, strip joints, bordellos, sex-toy emporiums, or shrines devoted to bacon and pork products in general.
 
2012-09-08 10:14:18 AM

Alphax: UN Peacekeepers in Israel? That doesn't sound like fun.


The UN has a history of letting people who REALLY want to fight, fight. When Egypt wanted to re-militarize the Sinai in May of '67, the UN simply pulled out, despite the '56 peace terms required consultation with Israel and, iirc, a vote in the UN. I'm not confident that they would be an effective barrier.
 
2012-09-08 10:16:28 AM

sprawl15: Mentioning Drew's real name will get you banned for a week.


Well, Abd al Rahman bin Louisvilleabad (aka "Drew") can sit on it and spin, IMO.
 
2012-09-08 10:16:43 AM

MacEnvy: I've been concerned lately (not in the troll way) that Israel is going to launch a major offensive in the next couple of months against Iran. Obama will have 3 choices as I see it:

1. Pull a Romney and offer material assistance to Israel, backing up their stance and activities.

2. Decline to help, but offer neither condemnation nor aid.

3. Condemn any actions against Iranian civilians and stay out of the fray.

None of those helps him in November. Netanyahu would be pleased with the first, and this is certainly the Romney course. The latter two place him on the defensive politically for nutjob evangelicals.

I don't see how it could end positive for him politically. I really, really hop Israel can keep in in their pants for a couple of months.


Does anyone else think the only way Obama can smooth his way out of this is to preemptively and publicly observe that Netanyahu and Romney are IRL buddies and to find any major offensives launched by Israel between now and then to be rather suspect in motivation? Well, maybe have someone acting as Obama's proxy actually say it?
 
2012-09-08 10:16:44 AM

mediablitz: My Facebook is blowing up, after the guitarist from Forbidden posted an Alex Jones piece of craptasticness that The President and the Queen of England told Israel to go ahead and bomb Iran. With the claim that the head of the joint chiefs announced it.

The hilarious part is his starting off with "I don't normally 'like' Alex Jones, but this sounds credible".

Over 100 comments with no one saying "uh. how about the proof that the joint chiefs are okaying this?"

It's funny to watch "fans" just swallow shiat without question.


Alex Jones will say some version of this every few months, perhaps with different actors ("The Bilderbergs have given Israel the green light...") because there's a good chance that, should Israel (or the US) strike, he'll have just said it recently, and being right once will wipe out being wrong for a decade. It's the Ron Paul strategy. And their supporters eat it up.
 
2012-09-08 10:18:13 AM

Brian_of_Nazareth: OK, cool conspiracy moment...

Maybe Stevie-boy knows an attack is coming and doesn't want to be picked as the intermediary between Iran and the US. I know the Iranian Mullahs have no reason to love us (wait, weren't there more people in the embassy a moment ago?), but I think they probably trust us to play it straight.


You must have missed the most recent American re-write of that bit of History. It turns out it was the CIA that got the hostages out. The Canadians were meerly stooges on the sidelines, doing what the big bad CIA guys told them to.

America realy has become rather pathetic of late.
 
2012-09-08 10:18:45 AM

mediablitz: give me doughnuts: King Something: Just how desperate is Israel to start World War Three!?

They aren't. They're just scared shiatless that they'll find out about Iran's first successful nuclear weapons test when Tel Aviv turns into a big glowing cloud.

Yes, just like North Korea dropped the bomb on South Korea. And Pakistan dropped the bomb on India.

farking fear mongering. Always a safe bet with the easily frightened.


One can construct a rationale for Iran to nuke Israel that doesn't make sense for NK, although some sense for a possible future Pakistan, because Pakistan isn't run by the extremists yet.
 
2012-09-08 10:22:38 AM

falcon176: give me doughnuts: King Something: Just how desperate is Israel to start World War Three!?

They aren't. They're just scared shiatless that they'll find out about Iran's first successful nuclear weapons test when Tel Aviv turns into a big glowing cloud.

bullshiat Israel wants to go to war so bad, just not by themselves, they want daddy to come hold their hand, so that's why they're going to start it before November to force Obama to help or not get re-elected


It's more complicated than that. Israel kind of needs our help to do it to begin with. Mostly our diplomatic help. Because they're not going to violate Iranian or Iraqi or Turkish airspace to do it. It's not that they would be afraid of being shot down by those guys, but because the diplomatic fall-out is the thing that prevents them from doing it already.

So they can't just do it and hope Obama helps militarily, because then it's too late, they've lost the diplomatic battle.
 
2012-09-08 10:24:29 AM

Gyrfalcon: that bosnian sniper: King Something: Seriously, Iran has access to tech older than the AK47, touch-tone phones and color televisions, and Israel is butthurt over it.

...not to mention Iran has, and has had for over three decades, capability to build and stockpile chemical, biological, and radiological weapons, not to mention the capability to deploy these weapons directly or through sponsored terror groups...all with the additional caveat RBC weapons are all easier, cheaper, and faster to produce and stockpile, with dramatically less chance of getting caught doing it by the international community before it's too late.

And, somehow this doesn't seem to be a problem. Nor has Iran actually attempted to use its already existing WMD capability as pro-Israel folks would say they would do at the drop of a hat.

What the hell is a "radiological weapon?" A dirty bomb? A nuke? Or just some fancy scary word politicians like to use when the country in question doesn't have real nukes but they want some kind of support for a war nobody wants?


Radiological weapons spread radioactive material around a populated area (thus rendering it uninhabitable and causing a farkload of medical issues for those who happen to be in the affected area) without triggering the nuclear chain reaction associated with atomic or modern nuclear weapons. It is an actual technology that thankfully hasn't been used much.

Dirty bombs are designed to induce a nuclear chain reaction and still leave quite the elevated radioactive fallout in the area it is used, straddling the line between "respectable" nuclear weapons (designed solely to create a bigass explosion but minimize the fallout people experienced at Nagasaki and Hiroshima) and straight up radiological devices.
 
2012-09-08 10:25:26 AM
No one is going to launch anything. The cost of an invasion and war with Iran would easily be 10x what we spent on Iraq. It is all posturing.
 
2012-09-08 10:26:44 AM
I should not that basically anyone with access to nuclear material and explosives, even without benefit of any real understanding of nuclear chain reactions, can create a radiological device. It does take some skill to construct even a "dirty bomb".
 
2012-09-08 10:27:19 AM

Gyrfalcon: that bosnian sniper: Gyrfalcon: What the hell is a "radiological weapon?" A dirty bomb? A nuke? Or just some fancy scary word politicians like to use when the country in question doesn't have real nukes but they want some kind of support for a war nobody wants?

Yeah, more or less. The distinction's drawn around whether the weapon's primary method of dealing damage derived from nuclear reactions, or not. Nuclear weapons do, but radiological weapons do not. Dirty bombs would be the most common radiological weapon, though there are weapon designs that use nuclear reactions to spread lots and lots of fallout, that would also qualify as radiological weapons.

Ah. So, a fancy word for a dirty bomb. I love military strategists.


In the part of the defense community of which I was a member, "dirty bomb" meant a weapon that didn't have a nuclear reaction but was intended to spread highly radioactive shiat around.

It's a more complex clean-up scenario, but really not any more damaging than the bomb to begin with. The threat is almost entirely psychological.
 
2012-09-08 10:31:26 AM

rynthetyn: I'm 32 years old. For almost all of my lifetime, the US has either being involved in a military action or threatening to get involved in military action. One of my earliest memories was watching news coverage about the marines in Lebanon in the very early '80s. Another early memory was discussing Gaddafi with friends, never mind that we were in kindergarten or first grade at the time. Grenada, Panama, Gulf War I, Bosnia, Somalia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Gulf War II, Electric Boogaloo, we've been pin balling from one part of the world to another for far too long. We've been in a perpetual state of war for so long that we don't even know what peace is anymore.


Don't make the mistake of thinking there's a binary state. There's peace, there's war with no civilian engagement, and then there's REAL war, where civilians feel the results. What we have now has been referred to "peace" by most historians for the Pax Brittanica and Pax Romana and so on.
 
2012-09-08 10:32:43 AM

Aye Carumba: that bosnian sniper: Aye Carumba: That would be the politically correct thing to do in a close election, he would draw moderate support from the right, he's not going to lose the left over a well executed military exercise...

...you missed the part of the DNC last week when the delegates damn near staged a walkout after the "Jerusalem" plank was re-added to the Democrats' platform, didn't you.

I caught the Bin Laden is dead over and over, thanks. And in the end, the delegates cast their nomination, Jerusalem or not, O is the candidate.

And candidate or not, Jerusalem will be nuked as a direct result of our inaction, so who cares who owns what street, as if the delegates really cared.

And by nuked, I mean widespread mass killings of civilians in a metropolitan city like Jerusalem with extreme disregard for humanity as opposed to nuking a nuclear nuke factory that would have produced that nuke, deep under a mountain if you could somehow penetrate all the rock, which is the kind of nuking that O should have on his options table at this stage of the hypothetical prenuclear war.


Don't forget that Israel also is a democracy and that those who supported Netanyahu and his party essentially would be choosing this fate, or should have realized this on their own Election Day.
 
2012-09-08 10:33:09 AM

Girion47: I wonder what it'd be like to be alive when the U.S. isn't involved in a war, I'm 29 and I've yet to see it.

 
2012-09-08 10:36:21 AM

Girion47: I wonder what it'd be like to be alive when the U.S. isn't involved in a war, I'm 29 and I've yet to see it.


It would depend upon your own meaning of "involved in a war" but by my meaning you have not been paying attention.
 
2012-09-08 10:36:26 AM

Gulper Eel: Zeno-25: What are all Jews, Muslims, and Christians going to fight over when the city is a pile of radioactive rubble?

They'll find something.

In the meantime, I'd rather go with a less-severe option - the "We Are Sick Of Your Shiat, So Grow The Fark Up And Play Nice Or We Kill You All And Take Your Stuff" Doctrine.

It works like this:

All sides concerned have until 9/11 of my first term as President for Life to lay down their weapons and figure out a way to co-exist in peace.

In the meantime, any imam, grand mufti, jihadi-wannabe, priest, bishop, cardinal, rabbi, rebbe or whatever who so much as farts in our general direction in protest can consider themselves targeted for assassination and their houses of worship seized and converted into bars, gay bars, outrageously flaming gay bars with ladyboys dressed as Abraham, Jesus and Mohammed dancing in cages, strip joints, bordellos, sex-toy emporiums, or shrines devoted to bacon and pork products in general.


I have a friend who said that we should make it clear that if anyone does anything like 9/11 again, we will invade Mecca, take it apart brick by brick, transport it to Las Vegas, and reassemble it as a brothel/casino.
 
2012-09-08 10:39:12 AM

chuckufarlie: Girion47: I wonder what it'd be like to be alive when the U.S. isn't involved in a war, I'm 29 and I've yet to see it.

It would depend upon your own meaning of "involved in a war" but by my meaning you have not been paying attention.


Pragmatistic bazinga!
 
2012-09-08 10:41:17 AM

chuckufarlie: Girion47: I wonder what it'd be like to be alive when the U.S. isn't involved in a war, I'm 29 and I've yet to see it.


Well, I'm almost 39, and let me tell you youngsters - gather 'round now - back in the day we used to read in Orwell's 1984 about Oceania continuously alternating between fighting Eastasia and Eurasia, and think it was completely implausible. Today, you can drop in any of the "*stans", Iraq or Iran into the story, and it seems bizarrely prescient.

At least we're allied with Turkey, and we always will be.
 
2012-09-08 10:41:26 AM

Ricardo Klement: Gulper Eel: Zeno-25: What are all Jews, Muslims, and Christians going to fight over when the city is a pile of radioactive rubble?

They'll find something.

In the meantime, I'd rather go with a less-severe option - the "We Are Sick Of Your Shiat, So Grow The Fark Up And Play Nice Or We Kill You All And Take Your Stuff" Doctrine.

It works like this:

All sides concerned have until 9/11 of my first term as President for Life to lay down their weapons and figure out a way to co-exist in peace.

In the meantime, any imam, grand mufti, jihadi-wannabe, priest, bishop, cardinal, rabbi, rebbe or whatever who so much as farts in our general direction in protest can consider themselves targeted for assassination and their houses of worship seized and converted into bars, gay bars, outrageously flaming gay bars with ladyboys dressed as Abraham, Jesus and Mohammed dancing in cages, strip joints, bordellos, sex-toy emporiums, or shrines devoted to bacon and pork products in general.

I have a friend who said that we should make it clear that if anyone does anything like 9/11 again, we will invade Mecca, take it apart brick by brick, transport it to Las Vegas, and reassemble it as a brothel/casino.


Your friend should stop smoking Meth.
 
2012-09-08 10:44:52 AM

wippit: You guys don't see the strategy?

Canada severs ties with Iran. Other countries see one of the G8 do this and follow suit. Iran, the #4 oil producer, doesn't sell oil to these countries. Canada, the #3 producer, does. More money.

People don't want Canada's oil. Decide to switch to nuclear. Canada, the #1 producer of uranium, sells them uranium. More money.

It's all about the Bordens.


Added bonus, those new Bordens are made of oil-based plastic


We Canuckistanis are a crafty lot
 
2012-09-08 10:51:45 AM

Crotchrocket Slim: Ricardo Klement: Gulper Eel: Zeno-25: What are all Jews, Muslims, and Christians going to fight over when the city is a pile of radioactive rubble?

They'll find something.

In the meantime, I'd rather go with a less-severe option - the "We Are Sick Of Your Shiat, So Grow The Fark Up And Play Nice Or We Kill You All And Take Your Stuff" Doctrine.

It works like this:

All sides concerned have until 9/11 of my first term as President for Life to lay down their weapons and figure out a way to co-exist in peace.

In the meantime, any imam, grand mufti, jihadi-wannabe, priest, bishop, cardinal, rabbi, rebbe or whatever who so much as farts in our general direction in protest can consider themselves targeted for assassination and their houses of worship seized and converted into bars, gay bars, outrageously flaming gay bars with ladyboys dressed as Abraham, Jesus and Mohammed dancing in cages, strip joints, bordellos, sex-toy emporiums, or shrines devoted to bacon and pork products in general.

I have a friend who said that we should make it clear that if anyone does anything like 9/11 again, we will invade Mecca, take it apart brick by brick, transport it to Las Vegas, and reassemble it as a brothel/casino.

Your friend should stop smoking Meth.


Why? Because it sure sounds doable.
 
2012-09-08 10:52:15 AM

Aye Carumba: Plenty of disincentives for them to do that for decades, retaliatory action that any US president since has at his disposal and would have used. By softening the line, the deterrent doesn't work as well.


...but I thought Iran was a rogue state ran by zealots, for which no amount of sanctions, embargoes, and determent would work if Iran got access to WMD's!
 
2012-09-08 10:54:34 AM

that bosnian sniper: ...but I thought Iran was a rogue state ran by zealots, for which no amount of sanctions, embargoes, and determent would work if Iran got access to WMD's!


...deterrence. Derp. Me needs coffee.
 
2012-09-08 10:55:38 AM

Fuggin Bizzy: chuckufarlie: Girion47: I wonder what it'd be like to be alive when the U.S. isn't involved in a war, I'm 29 and I've yet to see it.

Well, I'm almost 39, and let me tell you youngsters - gather 'round now - back in the day we used to read in Orwell's 1984 about Oceania continuously alternating between fighting Eastasia and Eurasia, and think it was completely implausible. Today, you can drop in any of the "*stans", Iraq or Iran into the story, and it seems bizarrely prescient.

At least we're allied with Turkey, and we always will be.


sorry, young man, but your comparison of Orwell's book and fighting the "stans" is completely wrong. Orwell was talking of massive world wars, not a war against a "stan" or two. Eastasia was basically one half of the world and Eurasia was the other half.
 
2012-09-08 10:55:55 AM

Ricardo Klement: Crotchrocket Slim: Ricardo Klement: ...

I have a friend who said that we should make it clear that if anyone does anything like 9/11 again, we will invade Mecca, take it apart brick by brick, transport it to Las Vegas, and reassemble it as a brothel/casino.

Your friend should stop smoking Meth.

Why? Because it sure sounds doable.


That's why.
 
2012-09-08 10:57:37 AM
As a Canuck, this worries me. The timing is strange, and it's Israel that's beating the war drums, not Iran.

This smells fishy.
 
2012-09-08 10:59:53 AM

chuckufarlie: sorry, young man, but your comparison of Orwell's book and fighting the "stans" is completely wrong. Orwell was talking of massive world wars, not a war against a "stan" or two. Eastasia was basically one half of the world and Eurasia was the other half.


No, we just fight concepts like "Cawmewnersms" and "Turr", with Interchangeable Rogue State (i.e. a "-stan") playing the role of Emmanuel Goldstein.
 
2012-09-08 11:04:55 AM

chuckufarlie: Eastasia was basically one half of the world and Eurasia was the other half.


Sorry, you're completely wrong. If Eastasia was one half of the world, and Eurasia was the other half, what the hell was Oceania? What the hell was Oceania, Bart?

This really wasn't supposed to be in-depth analysis of classic literature. It's FARK on a Saturday morning. I was sort of making a joke (you know, referring to a 29-year-old as a youngster when I'm only ten years older), and casually pointing out some parallels I see between current events and 1984. I disagree I'm "completely wrong" - war was a constant underlying theme of that book, and the U.S. finds itself today in a "war forevermore" mindset. The war drums never stop anymore.

But...I've already written too much on the topic, for FARK on a Saturday morning.
 
2012-09-08 11:09:35 AM

Fuggin Bizzy: Ricardo Klement: Crotchrocket Slim: Ricardo Klement: ...

I have a friend who said that we should make it clear that if anyone does anything like 9/11 again, we will invade Mecca, take it apart brick by brick, transport it to Las Vegas, and reassemble it as a brothel/casino.

Your friend should stop smoking Meth.

Why? Because it sure sounds doable.

That's why.


So the threat has the virtue of credibility. That's the best kind of threat.
 
2012-09-08 11:10:26 AM

falcon176: give me doughnuts: King Something: Just how desperate is Israel to start World War Three!?

They aren't. They're just scared shiatless that they'll find out about Iran's first successful nuclear weapons test when Tel Aviv turns into a big glowing cloud.

bullshiat Israel wants to go to war so bad, just not by themselves, they want daddy to come hold their hand, so that's why they're going to start it before November to force Obama to help or not get re-elected


Nobody in Israel wants war.

Best case, they force Iran to delay nuclear weapons, but they woudl also cement the fanatical leaderhip for the netx fifty or so years, never mind uniting Shia and Sunni's against them even more strongly.

How does that help them in the long run?
 
2012-09-08 11:12:06 AM

starsrift: As a Canuck, this worries me. The timing is strange, and it's Israel that's beating the war drums, not Iran.

This smells fishy.


When has Isreal not been beating the war drums?
 
2012-09-08 11:20:43 AM

Fuggin Bizzy: chuckufarlie: Eastasia was basically one half of the world and Eurasia was the other half.

Sorry, you're completely wrong. If Eastasia was one half of the world, and Eurasia was the other half, what the hell was Oceania? What the hell was Oceania, Bart?

This really wasn't supposed to be in-depth analysis of classic literature. It's FARK on a Saturday morning. I was sort of making a joke (you know, referring to a 29-year-old as a youngster when I'm only ten years older), and casually pointing out some parallels I see between current events and 1984. I disagree I'm "completely wrong" - war was a constant underlying theme of that book, and the U.S. finds itself today in a "war forevermore" mindset. The war drums never stop anymore.

But...I've already written too much on the topic, for FARK on a Saturday morning.


What part of the word "basically" do you not understand? At any rate, the war in the book was on a much larger scale than what is going on now.
 
2012-09-08 11:20:46 AM

Ricardo Klement: So the threat has the virtue of credibility.


No. This is me mocking you.
 
2012-09-08 11:24:41 AM

Don't Troll Me Bro!: starsrift: As a Canuck, this worries me. The timing is strange, and it's Israel that's beating the war drums, not Iran.

This smells fishy.

When has Isreal not been beating the war drums?


That wasn't exactly my point, which was: Harper's pointing the finger at Iran, when it's Israel that's the cause for concern.
 
2012-09-08 11:25:00 AM

that bosnian sniper: chuckufarlie: sorry, young man, but your comparison of Orwell's book and fighting the "stans" is completely wrong. Orwell was talking of massive world wars, not a war against a "stan" or two. Eastasia was basically one half of the world and Eurasia was the other half.

No, we just fight concepts like "Cawmewnersms" and "Turr", with Interchangeable Rogue State (i.e. a "-stan") playing the role of Emmanuel Goldstein.


Just because some right wing politician screams for wars all over the place does not mean that we are going to war all over the place. There have always been people screaming for wars against countries that they perceive as a threat, it has rarely resulted in a war.
 
2012-09-08 11:26:05 AM

Ricardo Klement: Crotchrocket Slim: Ricardo Klement: Gulper Eel: Zeno-25: What are all Jews, Muslims, and Christians going to fight over when the city is a pile of radioactive rubble?

They'll find something.

In the meantime, I'd rather go with a less-severe option - the "We Are Sick Of Your Shiat, So Grow The Fark Up And Play Nice Or We Kill You All And Take Your Stuff" Doctrine.

It works like this:

All sides concerned have until 9/11 of my first term as President for Life to lay down their weapons and figure out a way to co-exist in peace.

In the meantime, any imam, grand mufti, jihadi-wannabe, priest, bishop, cardinal, rabbi, rebbe or whatever who so much as farts in our general direction in protest can consider themselves targeted for assassination and their houses of worship seized and converted into bars, gay bars, outrageously flaming gay bars with ladyboys dressed as Abraham, Jesus and Mohammed dancing in cages, strip joints, bordellos, sex-toy emporiums, or shrines devoted to bacon and pork products in general.

I have a friend who said that we should make it clear that if anyone does anything like 9/11 again, we will invade Mecca, take it apart brick by brick, transport it to Las Vegas, and reassemble it as a brothel/casino.

Your friend should stop smoking Meth.

Why? Because it sure sounds doable.


Only if you're a methhead. It's a farking retarded idea, one that would cause more problems than resolve. Even suggesting this is tantamount to declaring war on Islam.
 
2012-09-08 11:26:34 AM

Don't Troll Me Bro!: starsrift: As a Canuck, this worries me. The timing is strange, and it's Israel that's beating the war drums, not Iran.

This smells fishy.

When has Isreal not been beating the war drums?


The government of Israel (notice the spelling) has not always been beating the war drums. And talking about war (or beating the drums) is not the same as actual war.
 
2012-09-08 11:27:07 AM

liam76: Nobody in Israel wants war.


Netanyahu and the Likud government's been banging the war drums and rattling its sabres against Iran since it took the Knesset. This was part of its platform in 2009. Its coalition includes Shas and Yisrael Beiteinu, which are also both right-wing parties that are extremely hawkish, particularly against Iran.

These people were voted for in a free and fair election.

Don't give me that "nobody in Israel wants war" crap, because if nobody in Israel wanted war we'd have seen a Kadima/Labor coalition, instead of Likud/Shas/YB.
 
2012-09-08 11:28:28 AM

Crotchrocket Slim: Ricardo Klement: Crotchrocket Slim: Ricardo Klement: Gulper Eel: Zeno-25: What are all Jews, Muslims, and Christians going to fight over when the city is a pile of radioactive rubble?

They'll find something.

In the meantime, I'd rather go with a less-severe option - the "We Are Sick Of Your Shiat, So Grow The Fark Up And Play Nice Or We Kill You All And Take Your Stuff" Doctrine.

It works like this:

All sides concerned have until 9/11 of my first term as President for Life to lay down their weapons and figure out a way to co-exist in peace.

In the meantime, any imam, grand mufti, jihadi-wannabe, priest, bishop, cardinal, rabbi, rebbe or whatever who so much as farts in our general direction in protest can consider themselves targeted for assassination and their houses of worship seized and converted into bars, gay bars, outrageously flaming gay bars with ladyboys dressed as Abraham, Jesus and Mohammed dancing in cages, strip joints, bordellos, sex-toy emporiums, or shrines devoted to bacon and pork products in general.

I have a friend who said that we should make it clear that if anyone does anything like 9/11 again, we will invade Mecca, take it apart brick by brick, transport it to Las Vegas, and reassemble it as a brothel/casino.

Your friend should stop smoking Meth.

Why? Because it sure sounds doable.

Only if you're a methhead. It's a farking retarded idea, one that would cause more problems than resolve. Even suggesting this is tantamount to declaring war on Islam.


no, it is not tantamount to declaring war on Islam. It was a statement by ONE person on a website. It was not the statement of an official government official.
 
2012-09-08 11:31:12 AM

chuckufarlie: Crotchrocket Slim: Ricardo Klement: Crotchrocket Slim: Ricardo Klement: Gulper Eel: Zeno-25: What are all Jews, Muslims, and Christians going to fight over when the city is a pile of radioactive rubble?

They'll find something.

In the meantime, I'd rather go with a less-severe option - the "We Are Sick Of Your Shiat, So Grow The Fark Up And Play Nice Or We Kill You All And Take Your Stuff" Doctrine.

It works like this:

All sides concerned have until 9/11 of my first term as President for Life to lay down their weapons and figure out a way to co-exist in peace.

In the meantime, any imam, grand mufti, jihadi-wannabe, priest, bishop, cardinal, rabbi, rebbe or whatever who so much as farts in our general direction in protest can consider themselves targeted for assassination and their houses of worship seized and converted into bars, gay bars, outrageously flaming gay bars with ladyboys dressed as Abraham, Jesus and Mohammed dancing in cages, strip joints, bordellos, sex-toy emporiums, or shrines devoted to bacon and pork products in general.

I have a friend who said that we should make it clear that if anyone does anything like 9/11 again, we will invade Mecca, take it apart brick by brick, transport it to Las Vegas, and reassemble it as a brothel/casino.

Your friend should stop smoking Meth.

Why? Because it sure sounds doable.

Only if you're a methhead. It's a farking retarded idea, one that would cause more problems than resolve. Even suggesting this is tantamount to declaring war on Islam.

no, it is not tantamount to declaring war on Islam. It was a statement by ONE person on a website. It was not the statement of an official government official.


Ricardo Klement is suggesting that the US etc. levy this threat; if this became the official stance of anyone that would most definitely stir up a bee's nest of unpleasantness that is utterly unnecessary. Otherwise the threat has no teeth and is just the ramblings of the uninformed on Fark on a Saturday morning (in which case all the more reason to flame him and his idiotic friend).
 
2012-09-08 11:33:07 AM
Okay if Ricardo Klement was bringing up his friend's idea as one that is utterly retarded I withdraw my flames
 
2012-09-08 11:34:02 AM

Fuggin Bizzy: Ricardo Klement: So the threat has the virtue of credibility.

No. This is me mocking you.


That's mature.
 
2012-09-08 11:34:47 AM

that bosnian sniper: Don't give me that "nobody in Israel wants war" crap, because if nobody in Israel wanted war we'd have seen a Kadima/Labor coalition, instead of Likud/Shas/YB.


Hell, for that matter now that I think of it, if nobody in Israel wanted war don't you think any one of Kadima's several no-confidence votes against Netanyahu specifically over Iran policy would have gained traction?
 
2012-09-08 11:35:12 AM

Crotchrocket Slim: Okay if Ricardo Klement was bringing up his friend's idea as one that is utterly retarded I withdraw my flames


I was bringing it up because it was amusing. I don't think anyone seriously suggests the action or even the threat is wise.
 
2012-09-08 11:36:59 AM

Ricardo Klement: Crotchrocket Slim: Okay if Ricardo Klement was bringing up his friend's idea as one that is utterly retarded I withdraw my flames

I was bringing it up because it was amusing. I don't think anyone seriously suggests the action or even the threat is wise.


Gotcha and my apologies. I've seen a few too many people unironically making such suggestions online, mea culpa.
 
2012-09-08 11:42:17 AM

chuckufarlie: What part of the word "basically" do you not understand? At any rate, the war in the book was on a much larger scale than what is going on now.


Nothing's obscure on FARK, but everything's obscure to you, I guess. Why do think I called you "Bart" just now? Because I'm farking around. That's the kind of thing I do on FARK on a Saturday morning. You're taking this way too seriously.

/Remember the time he ate my goldfish, and you lied to me and said I never had any goldfish? Then why did I have the bowl Bart? Why did I have the bowl? ~Milhouse
 
2012-09-08 11:47:39 AM

chuckufarlie: that bosnian sniper: chuckufarlie: sorry, young man, but your comparison of Orwell's book and fighting the "stans" is completely wrong. Orwell was talking of massive world wars, not a war against a "stan" or two. Eastasia was basically one half of the world and Eurasia was the other half.

No, we just fight concepts like "Cawmewnersms" and "Turr", with Interchangeable Rogue State (i.e. a "-stan") playing the role of Emmanuel Goldstein.

Just because some right wing politician screams for wars all over the place does not mean that we are going to war all over the place. There have always been people screaming for wars against countries that they perceive as a threat, it has rarely resulted in a war.


It's not like you actually SEE any war in 1984, and it's not like any of the people in the book see or hear about the war in specific detail. They just know they're in a STATE of war.

Similarly, we're always at war with terror. Or communism in the past. Or -stan.
 
2012-09-08 11:47:53 AM

Crotchrocket Slim: Ricardo Klement: Crotchrocket Slim: Okay if Ricardo Klement was bringing up his friend's idea as one that is utterly retarded I withdraw my flames

I was bringing it up because it was amusing. I don't think anyone seriously suggests the action or even the threat is wise.

Gotcha and my apologies. I've seen a few too many people unironically making such suggestions online, mea culpa.


I blame Poe's Law.
 
2012-09-08 11:48:20 AM

that bosnian sniper: Aye Carumba: Plenty of disincentives for them to do that for decades, retaliatory action that any US president since has at his disposal and would have used. By softening the line, the deterrent doesn't work as well.

...but I thought Iran was a rogue state ran by zealots, for which no amount of sanctions, embargoes, and determent would work if Iran got access to WMD's!


It is. The deterrent works in that Allah would be greatly upset if Iran failed to destroy Israel completely and were subsequently destroyed, no virgins for you.

Chemical agents are bad, but there is no certainty of complete annihilation. With an arsenal of nukes, that completely changes the equation, at which point a first strike is imperative regardless if it results in self-destruction.
 
Displayed 50 of 174 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report