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.

(Jerusalem Post)   Iran is building 16 new nuclear processing plants and announces discovery of large new uranium deposits. Totally for peaceful purposes, of course   (jpost.com) divider line 234
    More: Scary, Atomic Energy Organization, Iran, uranium deposits, uranium enrichment, Danny Ayalon, Caspian Sea, Sea of Oman, mining  
•       •       •

2515 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Feb 2013 at 1:21 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-02-23 10:32:25 AM  
if they want a nuke then eventually they're gonna get one.  we can slow them down, make it really expensive...but in the end, if Iran wants a nuclear weapon (or a couple of reactors) they'll get one.

what we need to decide is how we're going to deal with that reality.
 
2013-02-23 10:49:21 AM  
A nuclear Iran is good for the Middle East.  There is no power balance in the region, as the US-Israel alliance dominates the region.  That is why it is so unstable.  A counterforce in a nuclear Iran will force Israel to start treating it's neighbors as equals, as they are.

The reason Israel is so terrified of a nuclear Iran is the above.   They don't want to see Muslim states as equals, they want to dominate them.
 
2013-02-23 10:49:24 AM  
They've been six months away from acquiring a nuke for like 15 years.
 
2013-02-23 11:01:49 AM  

Weaver95: if they want a nuke then eventually they're gonna get one.  we can slow them down, make it really expensive...but in the end, if Iran wants a nuclear weapon (or a couple of reactors) they'll get one.

what we need to decide is how we're going to deal with that reality.


I say we negate reality and help them out.
 
2013-02-23 11:30:58 AM  
I don't think it matters if Iran gets a nuke. While they play the zealot card now and then, Iran would realize how much it would lose if they actually used one. They aren't stupid or crazy.

Best Korea on the other hand might, I am led to believe, turn one over to al qaeda. May even pay for them to do it and they don't have a lot to lose.

/waves at NSA
 
2013-02-23 11:39:56 AM  
I wonder if the uranium they have just happens to look like green glass.

/I know it doesn't look like green glass, but if their fighter plane is any indication of their other projects, then their uranium also takes down Superman.
 
2013-02-23 11:40:40 AM  

GAT_00: A nuclear Iran is good for the Middle East.  There is no power balance in the region, as the US-Israel alliance dominates the region.  That is why it is so unstable.  A counterforce in a nuclear Iran will force Israel to start treating it's neighbors as equals, as they are.

The reason Israel is so terrified of a nuclear Iran is the above.   They don't want to see Muslim states as equals, they want to dominate them.


You're forgetting that Israel is not Iran's principle enemy in the region. Will you think it's a great idea when Saudi Arabia starts building a bomb?
 
2013-02-23 12:00:51 PM  

b2theory: GAT_00: A nuclear Iran is good for the Middle East.  There is no power balance in the region, as the US-Israel alliance dominates the region.  That is why it is so unstable.  A counterforce in a nuclear Iran will force Israel to start treating it's neighbors as equals, as they are.

The reason Israel is so terrified of a nuclear Iran is the above.   They don't want to see Muslim states as equals, they want to dominate them.

You're forgetting that Israel is not Iran's principle enemy in the region. Will you think it's a great idea when Saudi Arabia starts building a bomb?


Then you would not only have a balance against Israel, but you'd have a parity among the Muslim sects.

Nukes make war less likely, not more. When a fight over a piece of land can lead to total annihilation, you wonder a lot more if that land is worth it.
 
2013-02-23 12:01:06 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: They've been six months away from acquiring a nuke for like 15 years.


I suspect they will still be six months away IN 15 years.
 
2013-02-23 01:25:40 PM  
I'll get worried when they perfect a burrowing missile that's launched from impenetrable bunkers dug under mountains.
 
2013-02-23 01:26:22 PM  

Weaver95: if they want a nuke then eventually they're gonna get one.  we can slow them down, make it really expensive...but in the end, if Iran wants a nuclear weapon (or a couple of reactors) they'll get one.

what we need to decide is how we're going to deal with that reality.


Wait.... Your saying that if some country really, really, really, really wants something no force for good, be it sanctions or monetary in nature; can stop them from getting it?

/ it's almost like prohibition doesn't work in any form
 
2013-02-23 01:27:17 PM  
GAT_00: Nukes make war less likely, not more.


an armed society is a polite society...
 
2013-02-23 01:27:38 PM  
One can almost hear the Israeli bomber jets revving up their engines right now.
 
2013-02-23 01:27:45 PM  

iheartscotch: Weaver95: if they want a nuke then eventually they're gonna get one.  we can slow them down, make it really expensive...but in the end, if Iran wants a nuclear weapon (or a couple of reactors) they'll get one.

what we need to decide is how we're going to deal with that reality.

Wait.... Your saying that if some country really, really, really, really wants something no force for good, be it sanctions or monetary in nature; can stop them from getting it?

/ it's almost like prohibition doesn't work in any form


but zero tolerance does
 
2013-02-23 01:29:27 PM  
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-02-23 01:30:37 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: They've been six months away from acquiring a nuke for like 15 years.


That would be in George Bush months, in reality it would be more than 5 years.

/I think I just trolled.
 
2013-02-23 01:33:10 PM  
Also, one must consider the source is not totally un-biased and has, in the past, been a tad... creative... with their stories.
 
2013-02-23 01:33:48 PM  

GAT_00: A nuclear Iran is good for the Middle East.  There is no power balance in the region, as the US-Israel alliance dominates the region.  That is why it is so unstable.  A counterforce in a nuclear Iran will force Israel to start treating it's neighbors as equals, as they are.

The reason Israel is so terrified of a nuclear Iran is the above.   They don't want to see Muslim states as equals, they want to dominate them.


You know, I would like to agree with you.  I'd be inclined to do so if I didn't know that culture there.  If Iran suddenly found themselves with decent nuclear missile capability, it'd go something like this.  "We're gonna take back that land we're 100% sure Israel stole from us.  If you resist we'll nuke your capital."  We might give in one or two times, then it's going to be nuclear war over something silly.
 
2013-02-23 01:33:49 PM  
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-02-23 01:34:07 PM  

clipperbox: GAT_00: Nukes make war less likely, not more.


an armed society is a polite society...


Oh snap...
 
2013-02-23 01:35:37 PM  

clipperbox: GAT_00: Nukes make war less likely, not more.


an armed society is a polite society...


I'm just going to leave this here..

s3.amazonaws.com
 
2013-02-23 01:35:48 PM  

GAT_00: Nukes make war less likely, not more.


It was true in the cold war era when only the superpowers possessed nukes. But now that any crazy motherfarker can have one, and in a country where the constitution declares the nation's goal as eradicating an other nation, not so much.
 
2013-02-23 01:37:15 PM  

clipperbox: GAT_00: Nukes make war less likely, not more.


an armed society is a polite society...


Yup, its hilarious watching derp spewing about precious gun rights in one thread and wargarbl about how iran cannot be allowed to have nuclear capabilities in the next.
 
2013-02-23 01:37:43 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: They've been six months away from acquiring a nuke for like 15 years.


/thread
 
2013-02-23 01:37:57 PM  
OK world, give it a rest. Iran is going to get it's nukes and there is nothing you can do about it short of nuking them or going for a bigger version of the Afghan / Iraqi clusterfark. Also: Iranian nuke? BFD. Look what happened when Pakistan and India both got nukes: A big fat bucket of nothing.

This entire "OMFG Iran haz nukes" is just hype and fear-mongering. Ease up. Let it go. It's not the end of the world.

upload.wikimedia.org

/but you might want to ask yourself why some people keep trying to turn this into such a big thing
 
2013-02-23 01:39:37 PM  
i thought i saw this on Happy Days one time
 
2013-02-23 01:41:16 PM  

BumpInTheNight: clipperbox: GAT_00: Nukes make war less likely, not more.


an armed society is a polite society...

Yup, its hilarious watching derp spewing about precious gun rights in one thread and wargarbl about how iran cannot be allowed to have nuclear capabilities in the next.


I thought it was funny for the exact opposite stances... but I guess we each have to find our own comedy.
 
2013-02-23 01:41:48 PM  
Obama and Hilary have made this world such a safer place.
 
2013-02-23 01:42:47 PM  

Uncle Tractor: but you might want to ask yourself why some people keep trying to turn this into such a big thing


No need to.

This is about control of the region, plain and simple.  And under the current regime,  Iran with nukes will be even less willing to do what the US-based power structure wants.

Just like Iraq.

t1.gstatic.com
 
2013-02-23 01:43:36 PM  

GAT_00: A nuclear Iran is good for the Middle East.  There is no power balance in the region, as the US-Israel alliance dominates the region.  That is why it is so unstable.  A counterforce in a nuclear Iran will force Israel to start treating it's neighbors as equals, as they are.

The reason Israel is so terrified of a nuclear Iran is the above.   They don't want to see Muslim states as equals, they want to dominate them.


And you think that these states will suddenly, after thousands of years of being mortal enemies for reasons they aren't even entirely clear on, see each other as equals once they have the ability to kill millions of each other at one time instead of just hundreds or thousands?

Yeah. Sure. Go with that. Even if they don't actually start nuking each other immediately we'll just be treated to a hundred years of nuclear dick-waving on a scale that makes the Cold War look like a middle-school lunchroom argument.
 
2013-02-23 01:43:38 PM  

Hrist: You know, I would like to agree with you.  I'd be inclined to do so if I didn't know that culture there.  If Iran suddenly found themselves with decent nuclear missile capability, it'd go something like this.  "We're gonna take back that land we're 100% sure Israel stole from us.  If you resist we'll nuke your capital."  We might give in one or two times, then it's going to be nuclear war over something silly.


Iran is not going to nuke Israel. Why? Because 20% of the israeli population is muslim. Not only that, the fallout from a nuke in Israel will almost certainly end up in a muslim country or five ...or maybe in Europe. The iranian leaders might be crazy, but they're not that crazy. After all, they've managed to stay in power ever since 1979(?).
 
2013-02-23 01:44:18 PM  
F*ck I really need to look at who I'm responding to before I post.
 
2013-02-23 01:44:32 PM  
hey Israel, go fight your own damn wars.
 
2013-02-23 01:45:43 PM  

Uncle Tractor: OK world, give it a rest. Iran is going to get it's nukes and there is nothing you can do about it short of nuking them or going for a bigger version of the Afghan / Iraqi clusterfark. Also: Iranian nuke? BFD. Look what happened when Pakistan and India both got nukes: A big fat bucket of nothing.

This entire "OMFG Iran haz nukes" is just hype and fear-mongering. Ease up. Let it go. It's not the end of the world.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 450x600]

/but you might want to ask yourself why some people keep trying to turn this into such a big thing


Simply put:  There are quasi-religious roots to EVERY power structure, including America's.  Most of these belief systems agree on one thing:  The crusades did happen, and there hasn't been a winner yet.  "christians" and "jews" think "muslims" are muddy apes who wipe their asses with their bare hands.  "muslims" think "christians" and "jews" are the bane of existence, and left to their own devices, will devour the world whole with no remorse.  I suppose at it's core, the "christians" and "jews" believe the same about the "muslims".

Thing about it is this:  No one has the balls to call a spade a spade.  It's racism.  You look and think differently, so you aren't equal.  My way is the best way, you are scum.  That's it.  All of this theatre is just to keep PC appearances.  The crusades will never end.  It's just a world wide, jet-setting pilgrimage now.  But both sides have groups who feel the need to protect their respective sheep.
 
2013-02-23 01:46:54 PM  

ElLoco: I thought it was funny for the exact opposite stances... but I guess we each have to find our own comedy.


There's people cheering for Iran to get nukes?  I don't even think the Irianian people want that to happen.
 
2013-02-23 01:47:51 PM  

Nemo's Brother: Obama and Hilary have made this world such a safer place.


Not sure if herp or derp.
 
2013-02-23 01:48:26 PM  

Hrist: GAT_00: A nuclear Iran is good for the Middle East.  There is no power balance in the region, as the US-Israel alliance dominates the region.  That is why it is so unstable.  A counterforce in a nuclear Iran will force Israel to start treating it's neighbors as equals, as they are.

The reason Israel is so terrified of a nuclear Iran is the above.   They don't want to see Muslim states as equals, they want to dominate them.

You know, I would like to agree with you.  I'd be inclined to do so if I didn't know that culture there.  If Iran suddenly found themselves with decent nuclear missile capability, it'd go something like this.  "We're gonna take back that land we're 100% sure Israel stole from us.  If you resist we'll nuke your capital."  We might give in one or two times, then it's going to be nuclear war over something silly.


Much in the same way the USSR proclaimed that the rest of the world would join Communism and would do so at the barrel of a gun if necessary.

Oh wait.

It was effectively a religion then, and there were no nukes exchanged, even when we came very close to blows.  There's no reason to believe that it will be different this time.

When the war can easily hit you, and a nuke is very hard to survive by digging deep enough, then you worry about your own neck when you go to war.

clipperbox: GAT_00: Nukes make war less likely, not more.


an armed society is a polite society...


Saying nukes work like guns is like saying that a cell phone has the same processing power as a supercomputer because they are both computers.
 
2013-02-23 01:48:29 PM  
What boggles my mind is what is taking so long.  Iranians know that sooner or later, the US is going to elect a leader that will make "have a war with Iran" the primary foreign policy, much like W's "have a war with Iraq" policy.  They know how many Iraqis died from that.  They know the only way to stop it is to have real nuclear weapons.  But while they seem to be working on it, 12 years later they still haven't set one off (it took the US less than 4 with 1940s tech, and nobody to buy any parts from).

It looks like the Iranians are even more frightened of having a bomb than being conventionally invaded.  I can only assume that once they get it, the Iranians think that sooner or later somebody is going to lob one at Israel and start a nuclear war.  If you've ever heard of the Iran-Iraq war, it was said to be a meat grinder similar to WWI.  I can't imagine anyone looking at that and thinking, I'll take that to having nukes.
 
2013-02-23 01:49:12 PM  
"Hey!  We have articulate speech, linear print and critical thinking!"

"Yeah, but those motherf*ckers speak differently and pray to a different god."

"Let's use science, chemistry and metallurgy to race each other over the cliff to Armageddon!"

"Woo!"
 
2013-02-23 01:49:51 PM  
Dear Iran,

Let the central banks in and only sell oil in USD. We can can convince our moronic population to go to war over wearing white on Labor Day if we fell like it.

Sincerely,

USA *

*A subsidiary of Israel Corp.
 
2013-02-23 01:51:10 PM  

GAT_00: Saying nukes work like guns is like saying that a cell phone has the same processing power as a supercomputer because they are both computers.


Only if you don't change the complexity of the program they're tasked to run to match.  Adding guns to fight between two people greatly increases the odds of one or maybe even both not surviving it.  Nukes are the same for nation states.
 
2013-02-23 01:52:57 PM  
Iranian's are absolute *experts* at making the world safe.

nuclear arms are where it's at.
it's what i want my children to be hugged with (i'm a sex offender and i'm not allowed to hug them myself)
 
2013-02-23 01:52:59 PM  

BumpInTheNight: GAT_00: Saying nukes work like guns is like saying that a cell phone has the same processing power as a supercomputer because they are both computers.

Only if you don't change the complexity of the program they're tasked to run to match.  Adding guns to fight between two people greatly increases the odds of one or maybe even both not surviving it.  Nukes are the same for nation states.


Yes, if we freely twist comparisons to make bogus points.
 
2013-02-23 01:57:49 PM  

GAT_00: BumpInTheNight: GAT_00: Saying nukes work like guns is like saying that a cell phone has the same processing power as a supercomputer because they are both computers.

Only if you don't change the complexity of the program they're tasked to run to match.  Adding guns to fight between two people greatly increases the odds of one or maybe even both not surviving it.  Nukes are the same for nation states.

Yes, if we freely twist comparisons to make bogus points.


Hey you're the only trying to imply that just because the cool heads of the US and Russia of ages past can keep from using their arsenal of nukes that the crazy sand people still fueding over invisible sky wizards are all good for nuclear capabilities as well.
 
2013-02-23 01:59:15 PM  

BumpInTheNight: crazy sand people still fueding over invisible sky wizards are all good for nuclear capabilities as well.


What about the crazy G-OPeople feuding over their respective invisible sky wizards?  If Romney were in the White House, he would have been announcing some kind of plan by now, guaranteed.
 
2013-02-23 01:59:23 PM  
I have a hard time believing they haven't already bought the nukes they want.
 
2013-02-23 02:03:28 PM  

Makh: I have a hard time believing they haven't already bought the nukes they want.


Craftsman's pride. No craftsman worth his salt would just break down and buy something that he's been working years and decades to create for himself.

I'll give Iran a thumbs up for that, if for nothing else.
 
2013-02-23 02:03:47 PM  
Stops reading at "Jerusalem Post".

We get it, Jews. We're supposed to do something about this. Now, please stop bombarding us with war propoganda. I'm sure your US politicians will eventually get around to it.
 
2013-02-23 02:04:14 PM  

Weaver95: what we need to decide is how we're going to deal with that reality.


Maybe start treating them like an actual foreign nation instead of throwing an infantile temper-tantrum and getting all our UN buddies to sanction them because they had the effrontery to want to govern themselves instead of living under the iron thumb of our little puppet dictator?

You know, negotiate trade agreements, take our differences to the treaty table with them instead of sabotaging them indirectly, maybe share our civilian nuclear technology since they do in fact have a legitimate need for it instead of making their only route to modern power generation motherfarking Russia of all nations?

Like, not approach things in the stupidest way mathematically possible for once in the history of western civilization, is what I'm basically suggesting here.
 
2013-02-23 02:05:21 PM  
We need immediate military action to counter this immediate threat.

Think about it, why would a media outlet ever exaggerate a foreign threat? It would be harm their credibility. Israeli publications would be even more vigilant about describing an accurate picture of the Iranian threat because crying wolf is against their interests/
 
2013-02-23 02:06:10 PM  

traylor: But now that any crazy motherfarker can have one


That's anything but the truth.  These devices are and will always be large, complex and relatively easy to detect, making any sort of two-bit terrorist wanting one very unlikely to know how to handle it, let alone deploy it successfully.  They also lack the resources to make them, and who'd sell them one?  Even the most megalomanic tinpot dictator is unlikely to part with a nuke because dictators have something to lose.  Flaunting one may impress the masses but they're enthralled anyway; they may demand concessions from other countries but they're already wealthy anyway.  The upside is minimal and the downside (if I actually use the damn thing) is that Dragonchild's Great Imperial Palace will be turned into a radioactive parking lot.

Note I am NOT resorting to any sort of naive, kumbaya assumptions about human nature or intelligence.  Humans are basically stupid assholes.  I do believe North Korea wants a nuke, but the reason why North Korea would never deploy a nuke is because their dictators are greedy, selfish assholes at heart, and greedy people don't take risks if there's nothing to gain.

You know why Iran is hot for a nuke?  Because they saw what the U.S. did to Iraq, and they know they're next.  Iraq didn't have nukes and the GOP, being the Internet Tough Guys they are, went in basically knowing that they'd be largely unopposed.  Now the GOP is beating the war drums over Iran, so Iran knows they have to get a nuke before the U.S. invades them for, well, the assumption they have one.  Note the U.S. never invaded Pakistan even after knowing bin Laden was there.  We went in with a few SEALs who took the guy out leaving the power structure intact (despite their treachery), which is much preferable to the full-blown invasion treatment Iraq got.

If I was a country, I'd want a nuke too -- for the single, sole purpose of scaring the shiats out of the GOP.  You basically just get the thing and sit on it.  Mutually Assured Destruction works, but only if it's mutual.  It won't stop the various elite squad skirmishes, but governments that have nukes are basically immune to invasion.
 
2013-02-23 02:07:28 PM  
I thought STUXNET took care of that problem for us already?
 
2013-02-23 02:07:40 PM  
They must not have any hippies over there getting in the way of progress
 
2013-02-23 02:08:17 PM  
We are a bunch of f*cking hypocrites in America. We don't want anyone to have weapons yet we can have the most deadly weapons in the world. because that makes sense
 
2013-02-23 02:08:39 PM  

oldfarthenry: One can almost hear the Israeli bomber jets revving up their engines right now.


If I was Iran I would that 30,000 Iranian Jews on every site
/For shiats and giggles
 
2013-02-23 02:11:13 PM  

drjekel_mrhyde: oldfarthenry: One can almost hear the Israeli bomber jets revving up their engines right now.

If I was Iran I would put that 30,000 Iranian Jews on every site
/For shiats and giggles

FTFM
 
2013-02-23 02:15:20 PM  

GAT_00: A nuclear Iran is good for the Middle East.  There is no power balance in the region, as the US-Israel alliance dominates the region.  That is why it is so unstable.  A counterforce in a nuclear Iran will force Israel to start treating it's neighbors as equals, as they are.

The reason Israel is so terrified of a nuclear Iran is the above.   They don't want to see Muslim states as equals, they want to dominate them.


Wow. GAT straight to the derp-mobile. Saudi Arabia has already been deemed the chosen one  http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/13/us-saudi-arabia-arms-deal  .

Which is good because they respect international agreements on nuclear proliferation. Iran doesn't like that so along with NKorea and others they're proliferating nukes and upending the balance of power which leads to conflict. Iran doesn't like being in a subordinate position, but too farking bad. Maybe they should play be the rules if they want to be trusted with being the custodians of their realm. SArabia is playing by the rules and the Emirates in general have a very positive relationship with the West.

SArabia trusts the West's promise that we wont let Iran overtake them so SArabia isn't pursuing nukes. We should not break that promise.
 
2013-02-23 02:17:09 PM  

Vectron: Stops reading at "Jerusalem Post".

We get it, Jews. We're supposed to do something about this. Now, please stop bombarding us with war propoganda. I'm sure your US politicians will eventually get around to it.


Did you see the article about how we never call our mothers anymore?  The article went on to mention that she understands that we can be too busy to call the only person who was in labor for hours with such pain and how her back was never the same.  Not to mention her figure, you think she can eat like that now?  No, it's fine.
 
2013-02-23 02:17:20 PM  
And because of those deposits they just gained MVP status for trade and are our new best friends... just like they were during the 1970s.
 
2013-02-23 02:19:51 PM  

rappy: We are a bunch of f*cking hypocrites in America. We don't want anyone to have weapons yet we can have the most deadly weapons in the world. because that makes sense


It's called a monopoly of force and it's a central tenant to societal peace.
 
2013-02-23 02:19:57 PM  

TiiiMMMaHHH: clipperbox: GAT_00: Nukes make war less likely, not more.


an armed society is a polite society...

I'm just going to leave this here..

[s3.amazonaws.com image 720x519]


... because crazy is crazy.  Criminal != crazy.
 
2013-02-23 02:20:48 PM  
I know this isn't going to be popular, but, Iran has the right to nuclear weapons. They have the right to process nuclear material to make weapons and finally, America is the only country on the entire planet that's used nukes in anger against another country. I'm not saying we should be happy but, Russia has nukes, and it's not like they're friendly towards the west, China has nukes and again they're not fans of us, and finally North Korea has nukes. Iran isn't in the business of making us happy. They're in the nuclear war business. If America has them, and by their track record they're more of a threat to the world than Iran is, then most countries also have the right to possess nukes. It's just the way it is.

Yep, it's not going to sit well with a lot of Americans.
 
2013-02-23 02:21:58 PM  

dragonchild: traylor: But now that any crazy motherfarker can have one

That's anything but the truth.  These devices are and will always be large, complex and relatively easy to detect, making any sort of two-bit terrorist wanting one very unlikely to know how to handle it, let alone deploy it successfully.  They also lack the resources to make them, and who'd sell them one?  Even the most megalomanic tinpot dictator is unlikely to part with a nuke because dictators have something to lose.  Flaunting one may impress the masses but they're enthralled anyway; they may demand concessions from other countries but they're already wealthy anyway.  The upside is minimal and the downside (if I actually use the damn thing) is that Dragonchild's Great Imperial Palace will be turned into a radioactive parking lot.

Note I am NOT resorting to any sort of naive, kumbaya assumptions about human nature or intelligence.  Humans are basically stupid assholes.  I do believe North Korea wants a nuke, but the reason why North Korea would never deploy a nuke is because their dictators are greedy, selfish assholes at heart, and greedy people don't take risks if there's nothing to gain.

You know why Iran is hot for a nuke?  Because they saw what the U.S. did to Iraq, and they know they're next.  Iraq didn't have nukes and the GOP, being the Internet Tough Guys they are, went in basically knowing that they'd be largely unopposed.  Now the GOP is beating the war drums over Iran, so Iran knows they have to get a nuke before the U.S. invades them for, well, the assumption they have one.  Note the U.S. never invaded Pakistan even after knowing bin Laden was there.  We went in with a few SEALs who took the guy out leaving the power structure intact (despite their treachery), which is much preferable to the full-blown invasion treatment Iraq got.

If I was a country, I'd want a nuke too -- for the single, sole purpose of scaring the shiats out of the GOP.  You basically just get the thing and sit on it.  M ...


Unless you take the pure size of the country in question.  Lets just say hypothetically that the U.S. wanted to invade Iran.  Even a Nuke capable Iran.  Assuming we fully commit to the war with all of our force to bare. The U.S. could steamroll all known military installations w/in a week.  The first wave would have to be strategic attacks on ICBM launch sites, I believe this could be done in a day or two.  Worst case scenario, Iran gets off a couple ICBM's and MAYBE they even hit their target.  National tragedy day, everyone mourns and it becomes another 911, and suddenly everyone is on board for a prolonged campaign in the middle east again.  Iran loses in every scenario, and U.S. endures even a direct hit.
 
2013-02-23 02:22:16 PM  

TiiiMMMaHHH: clipperbox: GAT_00: Nukes make war less likely, not more.


an armed society is a polite society...

I'm just going to leave this here..

[s3.amazonaws.com image 720x519]


Wow, that would be so true. True that is if the mass shootings didn't occur where local, state and federal law prohibits the open, concealed or otherwise carry of any firearm.

But they do. They occur precisely in places where the bad guys(tm) know that law abiding citizens cannot take arms. They occour in workplaces where you'll get fired if you have a weapon, schools, and other 'safe zones' where no guns are allowed.

If these sub-human murderous swine really wanted to kill big numbers, they'd try sporting events, concerts or other locations where you don't even have to aim over-much. The Aurora shooter was an exception to the rule. He actually went someplace where he knew there would eb a target-rich envrionement. But even then he used darkenss to protect himself from anyone who might have shot back.

And why don't these attacks occur at sporting events, concerts, etc? Because there's armed security there. And armed security might perforate you before you can get away or cause too much damage. But think of the hundreds of potential targets in the crowd waiting to get into a college football game, as an example. Or in the lines waiting to get into a concert. Yet it's schools that get targeted. you get what, 20 or 30 targets then place locks down and the police swarm it. But at least you're safe til they get there because nobody is armed the. They can't be. By law.

Oh, and the laws against high-capacity magazines? I got news for you. There's also laws against Murder. How's that workin' out for ya?
 
2013-02-23 02:24:08 PM  

Hrist: GAT_00: A nuclear Iran is good for the Middle East.  There is no power balance in the region, as the US-Israel alliance dominates the region.  That is why it is so unstable.  A counterforce in a nuclear Iran will force Israel to start treating it's neighbors as equals, as they are.

The reason Israel is so terrified of a nuclear Iran is the above.   They don't want to see Muslim states as equals, they want to dominate them.

You know, I would like to agree with you.  I'd be inclined to do so if I didn't know that culture there.  If Iran suddenly found themselves with decent nuclear missile capability, it'd go something like this.  "We're gonna take back that land we're 100% sure Israel stole from us.  If you resist we'll nuke your capital."  We might give in one or two times, then it's going to be nuclear war over something silly.


Iran is in Persia, and does not abut Israel.  Iraq, on the other hand, has been warring with Iran on and off for millenia.
 
2013-02-23 02:26:46 PM  
Well if it's anything like that picture of their new jet,ahahahah holy shiat it looked terrible even if it was a mock up,then I expect it'll unleash a horror of poorly photoshopped mushroom clouds.
 
2013-02-23 02:30:57 PM  

indarwinsshadow: I know this isn't going to be popular, but, Iran has the right to nuclear weapons. They have the right to process nuclear material to make weapons and finally, America is the only country on the entire planet that's used nukes in anger against another country. I'm not saying we should be happy but, Russia has nukes, and it's not like they're friendly towards the west, China has nukes and again they're not fans of us, and finally North Korea has nukes. Iran isn't in the business of making us happy. They're in the nuclear war business. If America has them, and by their track record they're more of a threat to the world than Iran is, then most countries also have the right to possess nukes. It's just the way it is.

Yep, it's not going to sit well with a lot of Americans.


Yes, the U.S. used them and learned from that mistake.  ...Iran does have the right to develop Nukes for whatever their ambitions are.  Such is the privilege of any sovereign nation.  But so too, does any other nation have the right to choose to impede that progress.  If I'm playing a game of chess, I'm not going to simply allow my opponent to get a pawn across the board to get a queen just because I have one and they don't.
 
2013-02-23 02:32:44 PM  

Thallone1: TiiiMMMaHHH: clipperbox: GAT_00: Nukes make war less likely, not more.


an armed society is a polite society...

I'm just going to leave this here..

[s3.amazonaws.com image 720x519]

Wow, that would be so true. True that is if the mass shootings didn't occur where local, state and federal law prohibits the open, concealed or otherwise carry of any firearm.

But they do. They occur precisely in places where the bad guys(tm) know that law abiding citizens cannot take arms. They occour in workplaces where you'll get fired if you have a weapon, schools, and other 'safe zones' where no guns are allowed.

If these sub-human murderous swine really wanted to kill big numbers, they'd try sporting events, concerts or other locations where you don't even have to aim over-much. The Aurora shooter was an exception to the rule. He actually went someplace where he knew there would eb a target-rich envrionement. But even then he used darkenss to protect himself from anyone who might have shot back.

And why don't these attacks occur at sporting events, concerts, etc? Because there's armed security there. And armed security might perforate you before you can get away or cause too much damage. But think of the hundreds of potential targets in the crowd waiting to get into a college football game, as an example. Or in the lines waiting to get into a concert. Yet it's schools that get targeted. you get what, 20 or 30 targets then place locks down and the police swarm it. But at least you're safe til they get there because nobody is armed the. They can't be. By law.

Oh, and the laws against high-capacity magazines? I got news for you. There's also laws against Murder. How's that workin' out for ya?


Your entire argument is that the perps of mass shootings are aiming for the highest body count when in fact the only one mentioned that was actually going for body count rather then pyscho-revenge against a specific group was the aurora shooter...who you even admit did not target a crowd based on their inability to retaliate.

Nice try, derp again.  Guns are a stupid thing to have casually floating around a modern society.
 
2013-02-23 02:33:06 PM  
Didn't Lil Kim just set off a nuke test and directly threaten the USA.....nobody gives a shat
 
2013-02-23 02:34:14 PM  
Mean while North Korea is testing actual nuclear weapons along with delivery systems and have stated that using them on the US is the purpose of these weapons and we are technically still at war with them. But yet, we do nothing about it. What make Iran's program so much more dangerous?
 
2013-02-23 02:36:57 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: Iran is in Persia, and does not abut Israel. Iraq, on the other hand, has been warring with Iran on and off for millenia.


Shhh... he knows that culture there.
 
2013-02-23 02:40:21 PM  

ElLoco: Craftsman's pride. No craftsman worth his salt would just break down and buy something that he's been working years and decades to create for himself.


I think it's about bragging rights. That's all nukes are good for these days -- bragging rights for third world shiatholes. That, and deterring US invasions.
 
2013-02-23 02:42:04 PM  

GAT_00: A nuclear Iran is good for the Middle East.  There is no power balance in the region, as the US-Israel alliance dominates the region.  That is why it is so unstable.  A counterforce in a nuclear Iran will force Israel to start treating it's neighbors as equals, as they are.

The reason Israel is so terrified of a nuclear Iran is the above.   They don't want to see Muslim states as equals, they want to dominate them.


Err umm...

My concern is that Iran has no apparent controls on what leaves its borders. Much like Pakistan. We spend a boatload of cash on Pakistan to keep their nukes in place, and that's hard enough.

I'm not keen on paying Iran to do the same.
 
2013-02-23 02:42:41 PM  

A Terrible Human: Well if it's anything like that picture of their new jet,ahahahah holy shiat it looked terrible even if it was a mock up,then I expect it'll unleash a horror of poorly photoshopped mushroom clouds.


Well our trillion dollar ones are grounded right now
 
2013-02-23 02:45:10 PM  

Cream of Meat: Didn't Lil Kim just set off a nuke test and directly threaten the USA.....nobody gives a shat


Oh shiats are given, but let me remind you of the Serenity Prayer:

God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
The courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference.
 
2013-02-23 02:46:43 PM  

drjekel_mrhyde: A Terrible Human: Well if it's anything like that picture of their new jet,ahahahah holy shiat it looked terrible even if it was a mock up,then I expect it'll unleash a horror of poorly photoshopped mushroom clouds.

Well our trillion dollar ones are grounded right now


Grounded does not mean disabled. Its a safety thing. Those precautions can be removed as the need increases.
 
2013-02-23 02:48:27 PM  

rappy: We are a bunch of f*cking hypocrites in America. We don't want anyone to have weapons yet we can have the most deadly weapons in the world. because that makes sense


That's right, it makes sense because we're not bug farking nuts crazy.  There now, crawl back under your rock and we'll let you know when the shooting stops.
 
2013-02-23 02:50:02 PM  

indarwinsshadow: I know this isn't going to be popular, but, Iran has the right to nuclear weapons. They have the right to process nuclear material to make weapons and finally, America is the only country on the entire planet that's used nukes in anger against another country. I'm not saying we should be happy but, Russia has nukes, and it's not like they're friendly towards the west, China has nukes and again they're not fans of us, and finally North Korea has nukes. Iran isn't in the business of making us happy. They're in the nuclear war business. If America has them, and by their track record they're more of a threat to the world than Iran is, then most countries also have the right to possess nukes. It's just the way it is.

Yep, it's not going to sit well with a lot of Americans.


There's these things called treaties. A bunch of countries get together, and work out the wording. Then, if they agree to it, they can ratify it internally.
Much like the laws in your city, these 'treaties' are how we all get along on this little planet.

Something called the Nonproliferation Treaty might be a valid concept here.
1. If you don't already have them, you may not pursue the construction of a nuclear weapon
2. If you already have them, you must work to reduce your inventory
3. If you already have them, you must not assist others to get them

Interestingly, such a treaty might contain specific wording to allow a signatory nation to back out. Iran (or some version of Iran) signed on to this 'treaty'.
If they wish to pursue building nuclear weapons, let them declare so publicly.
 
2013-02-23 02:51:05 PM  

drjekel_mrhyde: Well our trillion dollar ones are grounded right now


You mean the new one that is still in development? Oh, the horror!
 
2013-02-23 02:56:22 PM  

YouPeopleAreCrazy: drjekel_mrhyde: Well our trillion dollar ones are grounded right now

You mean the new one that is still in development? Oh, the horror!


For the past 15 years?
 
2013-02-23 02:56:40 PM  

Blairr: rappy: We are a bunch of f*cking hypocrites in America. We don't want anyone to have weapons yet we can have the most deadly weapons in the world. because that makes sense

It's called a monopoly of force and it's a central tenant to societal peace.


Or, it could be that just because I have a gun doesn't mean it's a good idea for the drunk and crazy crackhead down the street to own one.  There's nothing hypocritical about that.
 
2013-02-23 02:59:37 PM  

mizchief: Mean while North Korea is testing actual nuclear weapons along with delivery systems and have stated that using them on the US is the purpose of these weapons and we are technically still at war with them. But yet, we do nothing about it. What make Iran's program so much more dangerous?


Do you really believe we are doing nothing about it?
 
2013-02-23 03:00:28 PM  

vygramul: Blairr: rappy: We are a bunch of f*cking hypocrites in America. We don't want anyone to have weapons yet we can have the most deadly weapons in the world. because that makes sense

It's called a monopoly of force and it's a central tenant to societal peace.

Or, it could be that just because I have a gun doesn't mean it's a good idea for the drunk and crazy crackhead down the street to own one.  There's nothing hypocritical about that.



It's crazy crackheads all the way down.
 
2013-02-23 03:00:53 PM  

Makh: I have a hard time believing they haven't already bought the nukes they want.


No one sells nukes.
 
2013-02-23 03:02:18 PM  
We have already decided that only the US can be allowed to have uranium at will, and that all the other nations on Earth must get our permission first. Did Iran not get that memo?
 
2013-02-23 03:05:16 PM  
You're a bunch of f*cking sheep, you know that? You f*cks will buy anything they feed to you
 
2013-02-23 03:05:43 PM  

Uncle Tractor: Iran is not going to nuke Israel. Why? Because 20% of the israeli population is muslim. Not only that, the fallout from a nuke in Israel will almost certainly end up in a muslim country or five ...or maybe in Europe. The iranian leaders might be crazy, but they're not that crazy. After all, they've managed to stay in power ever since 1979


The Iranians don't give a flying fark about the 20% of muslims living in Israel or elsewhere. They didn't give a flying fark when Hizballah, iran's proxy terrorist organization,  was bombing northern Israel and hitting Arab villages. They especially don't give a fark since they are non-shiate muslims.

It's not as if muslims slaughtering other muslims is such a rarity in the past or at this moment in the Middle East.

GAT_00: A nuclear Iran is good for the Middle East.  There is no power balance in the region, as the US-Israel alliance dominates the region.  That is why it is so unstable.  A counterforce in a nuclear Iran will force Israel to start treating it's neighbors as equals, as they are


Yeah it's not as if Iran arms, trains, funds and support various fundamentalist terrorist organization with 'death to Israel' as a primary objective (not to mention Iran's own calls for Israel's destruction) and there is no risk whatsoever of any weapons of any kind leaving their borders. No sir.
I also suggest looking at other countries in the middle-east, not Israel. Start with Saudi-Arabia. If you think nukes in the hands of Iran's mullahs will bring stability to a region like the Middle-East where countries (other than Israel) have been fighting each other for centuries or before when they were a bunch of arab tribes slaughtering each other, than you should get some kind of award for your naiveté.
 
2013-02-23 03:07:55 PM  

rappy: You're a bunch of f*cking sheep, you know that? You f*cks will buy anything they feed to you


No kidding.  Someone says, "Israel is behind this," and people believe it.
 
2013-02-23 03:08:32 PM  
25.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-02-23 03:11:26 PM  

J. Frank Parnell: [25.media.tumblr.com image 720x655]


Why is Israel red on that map?
 
2013-02-23 03:12:46 PM  

dragonchild: traylor: But now that any crazy motherfarker can have one

That's anything but the truth.  These devices are and will always be large, complex and relatively easy to detect, making any sort of two-bit terrorist wanting one very unlikely to know how to handle it, let alone deploy it successfully.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitcase_nuke
 
2013-02-23 03:16:02 PM  

vygramul: Makh: I have a hard time believing they haven't already bought the nukes they want.

No one sells nukes.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Israel

Actually, they do sell them, and then they get stolen as well when they wont sell.
 
2013-02-23 03:16:22 PM  

yet_another_wumpus: But while they seem to be working on it, 12 years later they still haven't set one off (it took the US less than 4 with 1940s tech, and nobody to buy any parts from).


The US' first nukes were made during the administration of a progressive, pro-science President.  Regressive religious fanaticism does have its few upsides.
 
2013-02-23 03:16:36 PM  
www.wizevents.com
 
2013-02-23 03:17:12 PM  

vygramul: J. Frank Parnell: [25.media.tumblr.com image 720x655]

Why is Israel red on that map?


Because it's showing where U.S. Military bases are...oh wait...must just be the 51st State labeling.
 
2013-02-23 03:17:33 PM  

George Babbitt: dragonchild: traylor: But now that any crazy motherfarker can have one

That's anything but the truth.  These devices are and will always be large, complex and relatively easy to detect, making any sort of two-bit terrorist wanting one very unlikely to know how to handle it, let alone deploy it successfully.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitcase_nuke


Suitcase nukes are quite high tech.  There's a reason the first nuke was so big we had to modify a B-29 to carry it.  Of course, "suitcase" is really kind of an exaggeration.
 
2013-02-23 03:18:25 PM  

George Babbitt: vygramul: Makh: I have a hard time believing they haven't already bought the nukes they want.

No one sells nukes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Israel

Actually, they do sell them, and then they get stolen as well when they wont sell.


I don't see where someone sold Israel a nuclear weapon.
 
2013-02-23 03:18:32 PM  
Country that has been continually meddled with by the US federal government since 1952 might be seeking the only thing that will stop the US federal government from farking with them. Then again it hasn't worked out that way for Pakistan.

I got a new way of 'dealing' with Iran. Leave them alone. That's all they want. Not to be farked with any more.

Want the present government of Iran to meet its natural demise? Leave them alone and then offer trade of any and all consumer goods.

Problem solved.

But people in the US government and some other governments (including the present government of Iran) need a problem to maintain their power. Thus this problem won't get solved.
 
2013-02-23 03:19:36 PM  

George Babbitt: vygramul: J. Frank Parnell: [25.media.tumblr.com image 720x655]

Why is Israel red on that map?

Because it's showing where U.S. Military bases are...oh wait...must just be the 51st State labeling.


It's amazing how many people assume that Israel provides some kind of base for us for imperialism.  Israel doesn't do anything of the sort.  At least, not in an tangible manner.  It's all just vague hand-waving.
 
2013-02-23 03:20:03 PM  

YouPeopleAreCrazy: indarwinsshadow: I know this isn't going to be popular, but, Iran has the right to nuclear weapons. They have the right to process nuclear material to make weapons and finally, America is the only country on the entire planet that's used nukes in anger against another country. I'm not saying we should be happy but, Russia has nukes, and it's not like they're friendly towards the west, China has nukes and again they're not fans of us, and finally North Korea has nukes. Iran isn't in the business of making us happy. They're in the nuclear war business. If America has them, and by their track record they're more of a threat to the world than Iran is, then most countries also have the right to possess nukes. It's just the way it is.

Yep, it's not going to sit well with a lot of Americans.

There's these things called treaties. A bunch of countries get together, and work out the wording. Then, if they agree to it, they can ratify it internally.
Much like the laws in your city, these 'treaties' are how we all get along on this little planet.

Something called the Nonproliferation Treaty might be a valid concept here.
1. If you don't already have them, you may not pursue the construction of a nuclear weapon
2. If you already have them, you must work to reduce your inventory
3. If you already have them, you must not assist others to get them

Interestingly, such a treaty might contain specific wording to allow a signatory nation to back out. Iran (or some version of Iran) signed on to this 'treaty'.
If they wish to pursue building nuclear weapons, let them declare so publicly.


Why?

In secret or in public, they can do as they choose. Treaties don't really mean anything after all. It's just a piece of paper that's unenforceable. Look at America's reaction to Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Even though without 100% solid proof of WMD or collusion with the terrorists who perpetrated 9/11 (and what about the duplicity of Saudia Arabia and Pakistan...your country hasn't ever taken either of those countries to war), America invaded Iraq and killed the people, the president, and the legitimate gov't. And have yet to answer for it. Your country invaded another country without provocation. So, again treaties aren't worth much are they?
They have the same rights as everyone else. America sure doesn't ask permission from anyone. Why should Iran?
 
2013-02-23 03:20:11 PM  

George Babbitt: dragonchild: traylor: But now that any crazy motherfarker can have one

That's anything but the truth.  These devices are and will always be large, complex and relatively easy to detect, making any sort of two-bit terrorist wanting one very unlikely to know how to handle it, let alone deploy it successfully.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitcase_nuke


A suitcase nuke is hardly the device needed to seriously attack a country.  Sure if you had a bunch of them you could do some damage sure, but bring down a country....I think not.  1st world governments have more hit points than that.
 
2013-02-23 03:20:45 PM  
 
2013-02-23 03:25:53 PM  

indarwinsshadow: They have the same rights as everyone else. America sure doesn't ask permission from anyone. Why should Iran?


They don't.  But like I said before, so too do other governments have the right to try and impede that progress.
 
2013-02-23 03:25:59 PM  

George Babbitt: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitcase_nuke


Try reading your own citations.  The "suitcase nuke" is a term popularized by corporate media wanting to sell a scare.  The weapons are technically small enough to fit in a suitcase -- a BIG suitcase -- but they are still extremely heavy.  The bare warhead -- with no deployment technology whatsoever -- weighs 50 pounds and had a yield of 0.2kt.  Tack what you'd need to actually deploy the thing and it goes up to 100 pounds -- not exactly your typical carry-on, yet not much more destructive than a well-designed car bomb.  It's experimental tech, only first-world nations have them and there are massive downsides in trying to get one.

That's all from your own link BTW.
 
2013-02-23 03:27:57 PM  
Too bad for everyone else.

Sovereignty is Sovereignty .

Build whatever you want and utilize your own resources.

As long as nothing goes into the air, you're golden.  If you start going all missile-launchy, you're screwed, and someone else is going to take over your country.
 
2013-02-23 03:28:33 PM  

vygramul: George Babbitt: vygramul: J. Frank Parnell: [25.media.tumblr.com image 720x655]

Why is Israel red on that map?

Because it's showing where U.S. Military bases are...oh wait...must just be the 51st State labeling.

It's amazing how many people assume that Israel provides some kind of base for us for imperialism.  Israel doesn't do anything of the sort.  At least, not in an tangible manner.  It's all just vague hand-waving.


I should have ticked the sarcasm button on, sorry.

You're right, there is no benefit to the U.S. that comes from the 'alliance' with the the 'State of Israel'.
 
2013-02-23 03:28:58 PM  

George Babbitt: http://www.theinsider.org/news/article.asp?id=2658


We were talking about the selling of an actual nuke.  Not plans, yellowcake, advice, or building a nuke plant for someone.
 
2013-02-23 03:29:22 PM  

vygramul: Makh: I have a hard time believing they haven't already bought the nukes they want.

No one sells nukes.


Watch a movie for once, and get some culture. Errybody knows they sell those things like used cars in the Eastern block. Not to mention those unaccounted ones in the desert Israel misplaced (Ben Whofleck will save us from Iran and the Nazi terrorists though).
 
2013-02-23 03:30:37 PM  

George Babbitt: vygramul: George Babbitt: vygramul: J. Frank Parnell: [25.media.tumblr.com image 720x655]

Why is Israel red on that map?

Because it's showing where U.S. Military bases are...oh wait...must just be the 51st State labeling.

It's amazing how many people assume that Israel provides some kind of base for us for imperialism.  Israel doesn't do anything of the sort.  At least, not in an tangible manner.  It's all just vague hand-waving.

I should have ticked the sarcasm button on, sorry.

You're right, there is no benefit to the U.S. that comes from the 'alliance' with the the 'State of Israel'.


I didn't say there was no benefit.  But I will grant it's been a weird history, from the US threatening embargo in '56 to the US becoming it major arms supplier after the '67 war.
 
2013-02-23 03:30:39 PM  
They'll need some of this
s7.postimage.org
Oh, so mellow..
 
2013-02-23 03:35:33 PM  

Kimpak: indarwinsshadow: They have the same rights as everyone else. America sure doesn't ask permission from anyone. Why should Iran?

They don't.  But like I said before, so too do other governments have the right to try and impede that progress.


I agree with you that other gov'ts (those friendly toward American interests) do have that right. Canada for instance is being invited by Admiral Bill McRaven, commander of the U.S. Special Operations Command to join a global task force to fight common interests. Personally, I strongly disagree with any force that superscedes Canadian interest or fails to protect Canadian international policies. I think it would be used to re-enforce American business interests.
 
2013-02-23 03:36:32 PM  

drjekel_mrhyde: For the past 15 years?


Yes. Building high tech stuff takes time.

A380 Design start, 1988 First flight, 2005
Eurofighter Formal proposal, 1979. First flight, 1994
etc, etc, etc for pretty much every other military and commercial aircraft deployed in the last 40 years.
 
2013-02-23 03:39:23 PM  

indarwinsshadow: In secret or in public, they can do as they choose. Treaties don't really mean anything after all. It's just a piece of paper that's unenforceable.


I seem to remember someone else, often quoted here, saying that. And being soundly ridiculed for it.
 
2013-02-23 03:40:28 PM  
The nukes dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki only did about a 1 mile radius of heavy damage, and those were wooden buildings. If even the biggest nuke ever made was dropped on a city it would have much less effect on modern concrete and steel buildings. Nukes aren't nearly the world enders you see in movies. Would be far simpler to just use lots of conventional explosives if you want to do as much damage as possible.

/obligatory
 
2013-02-23 03:43:41 PM  

YouPeopleAreCrazy: I seem to remember someone else, often quoted here, saying that. And being soundly ridiculed for it.


And that was a work of imaginative fiction too, Soundly debunked.
 
2013-02-23 03:43:59 PM  

J. Frank Parnell: The nukes dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki only did about a 1 mile radius of heavy damage, and those were wooden buildings. If even the biggest nuke ever made was dropped on a city it would have much less effect on modern concrete and steel buildings. Nukes aren't nearly the world enders you see in movies. Would be far simpler to just use lots of conventional explosives if you want to do as much damage as possible.

/obligatory


Please tell me you are either joking, being intentionally obtuse or simply re-posting copy pasta I haven't seen before.
 
2013-02-23 03:47:49 PM  
"Peace will come when the Arabs love their children more than they hate us."

I'd like to suggest a corrollary: "Nuclear war will happen when the leaders of a state enjoy the perks of power less than they hate another."

Which is to say that I believe that nuclear weapons are the great fixative, which is why the Iranian regime is fixing them. Once the Iranians have the bomb, no more jasmine revolutions, no more stuxnet- everything switches over to preventing nuclear war by making sure that the governments of the nuclear powers remain as stable, with well organized C3 systems, as possible. However....

My father was an officer in the US West German command, in charge of nuclear artillery... in his opinion, nuclear ambiguity, especially with regards to command structures, is the great threat to world peace.

 So there's a line of deterrence- if a nuclear command appears to be too unstable or de-centralized, it suddenly goes from being deterrence to an incentive to attack so as to knock out a perceived attack.

 At a certain point, we're going to have to develop a strategic doctrine for reacting to anonymous terrorist nuclear strikes...and at that point, it's either fast extinction (instant nuclear war) or slower extinction (tit for tat retaliations gradually escalating to armageddon).

 Right now, it's a race between climate change and nuclear winter as to what will be the capstone on the great achievement of humanity: The Sixth Great Extinction.
 
2013-02-23 03:48:12 PM  

A Shambling Mound: J. Frank Parnell: The nukes dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki only did about a 1 mile radius of heavy damage, and those were wooden buildings. If even the biggest nuke ever made was dropped on a city it would have much less effect on modern concrete and steel buildings. Nukes aren't nearly the world enders you see in movies. Would be far simpler to just use lots of conventional explosives if you want to do as much damage as possible.

/obligatory

Please tell me you are either joking, being intentionally obtuse or simply re-posting copy pasta I haven't seen before.


I'm rather curious myself.
 
2013-02-23 03:49:52 PM  

J. Frank Parnell: The nukes dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki only did about a 1 mile radius of heavy damage, and those were wooden buildings. If even the biggest nuke ever made was dropped on a city it would have much less effect on modern concrete and steel buildings. Nukes aren't nearly the world enders you see in movies. Would be far simpler to just use lots of conventional explosives if you want to do as much damage as possible.

/obligatory


Cluster nukes?
 
2013-02-23 03:50:04 PM  
If they were serious about peaceful nuclear power, they'd choose thorium and the world would have to shut up.
 
2013-02-23 03:51:08 PM  
Nukes are only bad when the U.S. has them.
 
2013-02-23 03:52:47 PM  

J. Frank Parnell: The nukes dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki only did about a 1 mile radius of heavy damage, and those were wooden buildings. If even the biggest nuke ever made was dropped on a city it would have much less effect on modern concrete and steel buildings. Nukes aren't nearly the world enders you see in movies. Would be far simpler to just use lots of conventional explosives if you want to do as much damage as possible.

/obligatory


Majority of people die from flash burns in the secondary radius. People are just affraid of the radioactive dust.
 
2013-02-23 03:54:14 PM  

A Shambling Mound: Please tell me you are either joking, being intentionally obtuse or simply re-posting copy pasta I haven't seen before.


It's all true. I've written it out a few times here before, which is why i added the '/obligatory', but i am considering just copy/pasting it in the future.

If someone can prove to me that nukes are just like they are in movies, with a single nuke leveling a city, please go ahead, but in reality it's a lot like the hollywood myth that guns make people fly backwards and do backflips when shot.
 
2013-02-23 03:54:26 PM  

drjekel_mrhyde: A Terrible Human: Well if it's anything like that picture of their new jet,ahahahah holy shiat it looked terrible even if it was a mock up,then I expect it'll unleash a horror of poorly photoshopped mushroom clouds.

Well our trillion dollar ones are grounded right now


Well do the jet the US have look like this?
i.imgur.com
I mean look at that. There is also a video of it "flying" but it doesn't show the take off or landing and it seriously looks like an rc plane.
 
2013-02-23 03:54:50 PM  

vygramul: George Babbitt: vygramul: Makh: I have a hard time believing they haven't already bought the nukes they want.

No one sells nukes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Israel

Actually, they do sell them, and then they get stolen as well when they wont sell.

I don't see where someone sold Israel a nuclear weapon.


The French and the British both supplied all the means to build nukes.
 
2013-02-23 03:56:40 PM  

George Babbitt: vygramul: George Babbitt: vygramul: Makh: I have a hard time believing they haven't already bought the nukes they want.

No one sells nukes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Israel

Actually, they do sell them, and then they get stolen as well when they wont sell.

I don't see where someone sold Israel a nuclear weapon.

The French and the British both supplied all the means to build nukes.


That's not the proposition being discussed.  The assertion was that people would sell nukes, obviating the need for the means.  No one sells nukes.
 
2013-02-23 03:57:21 PM  

Kimpak: George Babbitt: dragonchild: traylor: But now that any crazy motherfarker can have one

That's anything but the truth.  These devices are and will always be large, complex and relatively easy to detect, making any sort of two-bit terrorist wanting one very unlikely to know how to handle it, let alone deploy it successfully.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitcase_nuke

A suitcase nuke is hardly the device needed to seriously attack a country.  Sure if you had a bunch of them you could do some damage sure, but bring down a country....I think not.  1st world governments have more hit points than that.


It's not like a nuke needs to create a giant hole to destroy lots of acreage...
 
2013-02-23 03:59:06 PM  

dragonchild: George Babbitt: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitcase_nuke

Try reading your own citations.  The "suitcase nuke" is a term popularized by corporate media wanting to sell a scare.  The weapons are technically small enough to fit in a suitcase -- a BIG suitcase -- but they are still extremely heavy.  The bare warhead -- with no deployment technology whatsoever -- weighs 50 pounds and had a yield of 0.2kt.  Tack what you'd need to actually deploy the thing and it goes up to 100 pounds -- not exactly your typical carry-on, yet not much more destructive than a well-designed car bomb.  It's experimental tech, only first-world nations have them and there are massive downsides in trying to get one.

That's all from your own link BTW.


You're average grunt is required to carry a 50 pound ruck sack in basic. Two guys = 100 pounds.
 
2013-02-23 03:59:37 PM  
The problem that comes up when these tinpot countries like NK and Iran get nuclear weapons is response time. You know there's a chain of command and responsibility for those things once they're developed and added to the military hardware of that country. If only the Dear Leader, for example, has the codes and authorization, if he vanishes in a fireball then the nuclear weapons are useless. So someone down the command line also has launch authority with the order to do so if the Dear Leader suddenly blows up or whatever.

Now suppose there's a power shortage in Iran that blacks out Tehran. The responsible commander is suddenly out of communication with his superior; if tensions are high with other countries, he doesn't know if there was a surprise attack that 'decapitated' their nuclear control authority. What does he do? I think the more likely country to pull the trigger in that case would be NK; they are so paranoid and isolated just about anything could set them off over there. It's not hard to think that Iran could get that way as well if their weapons get deployed.

/that scenario is why there's a direct phone line between the WH and Kremlin
 
2013-02-23 03:59:46 PM  

vygramul: George Babbitt: vygramul: George Babbitt: vygramul: J. Frank Parnell: [25.media.tumblr.com image 720x655]

Why is Israel red on that map?

Because it's showing where U.S. Military bases are...oh wait...must just be the 51st State labeling.

It's amazing how many people assume that Israel provides some kind of base for us for imperialism.  Israel doesn't do anything of the sort.  At least, not in an tangible manner.  It's all just vague hand-waving.

I should have ticked the sarcasm button on, sorry.

You're right, there is no benefit to the U.S. that comes from the 'alliance' with the the 'State of Israel'.

I didn't say there was no benefit.  But I will grant it's been a weird history, from the US threatening embargo in '56 to the US becoming it major arms supplier after the '67 war.


I miss Ike.
 
2013-02-23 04:02:20 PM  

vygramul: George Babbitt: vygramul: George Babbitt: vygramul: Makh: I have a hard time believing they haven't already bought the nukes they want.

No one sells nukes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Israel

Actually, they do sell them, and then they get stolen as well when they wont sell.

I don't see where someone sold Israel a nuclear weapon.

The French and the British both supplied all the means to build nukes.

That's not the proposition being discussed.  The assertion was that people would sell nukes, obviating the need for the means.  No one sells nukes.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/23/israel-south-africa-nucl ea r-weapons

"Revealed: how Israel offered to sell South Africa nuclear weapons"
 
2013-02-23 04:04:14 PM  

J. Frank Parnell: A Shambling Mound: Please tell me you are either joking, being intentionally obtuse or simply re-posting copy pasta I haven't seen before.

It's all true. I've written it out a few times here before, which is why i added the '/obligatory', but i am considering just copy/pasting it in the future.

If someone can prove to me that nukes are just like they are in movies, with a single nuke leveling a city, please go ahead, but in reality it's a lot like the hollywood myth that guns make people fly backwards and do backflips when shot.


Why does it need to level the city? It disrupts all regular emergency services, communication, and causes massive death via flash burns and primary blast radius. Plus the added hotness of halflife. A conventional bomb does little to cause devistation outside its primary blast radius. Its the added nasty secondary shiat that scares people obviously.
 
2013-02-23 04:04:15 PM  

Any Pie Left: If they were serious about peaceful nuclear power, they'd choose thorium and the world would have to shut up.


Israel has been doing their best to con the US (or whoever) into BOMBING THE SHIAT out of Iran for over 20 years. The nukes are just their endlessly recycled excuse for age-old blood lust.

The animosity between "Israelites" and "Persians"  goes back thousands of years (see the Biblical book of Esther)

Coincidentally, TODAY begins the Jewish holiday of PURIM, which (coincidentally) commemorates the Jews' victory over PERSIANS that (supposedly) wanted to do them wrong oh so long ago.

Old hatred dies hard - and Israel STILL has a hard-on for Iran.

Purim. Today. Coincidence.
 
2013-02-23 04:04:29 PM  

YouPeopleAreCrazy: indarwinsshadow: In secret or in public, they can do as they choose. Treaties don't really mean anything after all. It's just a piece of paper that's unenforceable.

I seem to remember someone else, often quoted here, saying that. And being soundly ridiculed for it.


I'm not sure what you're talking about. Without a frame of reference it just looks like --blank---- to me. I never said you had to agree. I said what I said because most of you are American, or American supporters. You only see one side of the argument (your own) without considering that other countries will pursue their own interests contrary to what you wish or want. And their policies are no more hostile that America's pursuit of it's foreign policies and business interests.
 
2013-02-23 04:04:58 PM  

ElLoco: Makh: I have a hard time believing they haven't already bought the nukes they want.

Craftsman's pride. No craftsman worth his salt would just break down and buy something that he's been working years and decades to create for himself.

I'll give Iran a thumbs up for that, if for nothing else.


which is why i don't buy Operating Systems
 
2013-02-23 04:06:11 PM  

Amos Quito: Any Pie Left: If they were serious about peaceful nuclear power, they'd choose thorium and the world would have to shut up.

Israel has been doing their best to con the US (or whoever) into BOMBING THE SHIAT out of Iran for over 20 years. The nukes are just their endlessly recycled excuse for age-old blood lust.

The animosity between "Israelites" and "Persians"  goes back thousands of years (see the Biblical book of Esther)

Coincidentally, TODAY begins the Jewish holiday of PURIM, which (coincidentally) commemorates the Jews' victory over PERSIANS that (supposedly) wanted to do them wrong oh so long ago.

Old hatred dies hard - and Israel STILL has a hard-on for Iran.

Purim. Today. Coincidence.


Jews were almost exterminated by fantics in WWII, and face a legitimate threat by Iran. I don't blame them for wanting to protect their people. But tying it to Purim? Dude, break out the tinfoil.
 
2013-02-23 04:06:40 PM  

George Babbitt: vygramul: George Babbitt: vygramul: George Babbitt: vygramul: Makh: I have a hard time believing they haven't already bought the nukes they want.

No one sells nukes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Israel

Actually, they do sell them, and then they get stolen as well when they wont sell.

I don't see where someone sold Israel a nuclear weapon.

The French and the British both supplied all the means to build nukes.

That's not the proposition being discussed.  The assertion was that people would sell nukes, obviating the need for the means.  No one sells nukes.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/23/israel-south-africa-nucl ea r-weapons

"Revealed: how Israel offered to sell South Africa nuclear weapons"


There's an awful lot of conjecture in that.  There's plenty of reason to think Israel and South Africa developed nuclear weapons cooperatively.
 
2013-02-23 04:06:42 PM  
iran is stupid enough to detonate a nuke or two. i dont want them having nuclear devices. israel wont stand for it either nor will any of the other powers that beits ok. stuxnet 2.0 is ready.
 
2013-02-23 04:08:03 PM  

Amos Quito: Any Pie Left: If they were serious about peaceful nuclear power, they'd choose thorium and the world would have to shut up.

Israel has been doing their best to con the US (or whoever) into BOMBING THE SHIAT out of Iran for over 20 years. The nukes are just their endlessly recycled excuse for age-old blood lust.

The animosity between "Israelites" and "Persians"  goes back thousands of years (see the Biblical book of Esther)

Coincidentally, TODAY begins the Jewish holiday of PURIM, which (coincidentally) commemorates the Jews' victory over PERSIANS that (supposedly) wanted to do them wrong oh so long ago.

Old hatred dies hard - and Israel STILL has a hard-on for Iran.

Purim. Today. Coincidence.


I'm sure you believe it.

And just like every other bigot, you know Jewish holidays better than most Israelis.
 
2013-02-23 04:08:44 PM  

George Babbitt: vygramul: George Babbitt: vygramul: Makh: I have a hard time believing they haven't already bought the nukes they want.

No one sells nukes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Israel

Actually, they do sell them, and then they get stolen as well when they wont sell.

I don't see where someone sold Israel a nuclear weapon.

The French and the British both supplied all the means to build nukes.



Kennedy fully intended to put a stop Israel's nuclear ambitions.


But times change.
 
2013-02-23 04:11:04 PM  

indarwinsshadow: Jews were almost exterminated by fantics in WWII, and face a legitimate threat by Iran. I don't blame them for wanting to protect their people. But tying it to Purim? Dude, break out the tinfoil.


He's a bigot, dude.  Amos shows up in just about any thread that mentions Jews.  He claims he's anti-Zionist, but his hostile commentary can be found well outside threads that have anything to do with Israel.
 
2013-02-23 04:11:43 PM  

George Babbitt: You're average grunt is required to carry a 50 pound ruck sack in basic. Two guys = 100 pounds.


Because the best way to deploy a weapon is to split it into two parts?
 
2013-02-23 04:18:40 PM  

J. Frank Parnell: A Shambling Mound: Please tell me you are either joking, being intentionally obtuse or simply re-posting copy pasta I haven't seen before.

It's all true. I've written it out a few times here before, which is why i added the '/obligatory', but i am considering just copy/pasting it in the future.

If someone can prove to me that nukes are just like they are in movies, with a single nuke leveling a city, please go ahead, but in reality it's a lot like the hollywood myth that guns make people fly backwards and do backflips when shot.


I can't "prove" anything to you because no one has ever detonated a modern nuclear weapon in a population center, but at least now I know you're just being intentionally obtuse. Thank you for the clarification.

Read this, maybe it will help: The effects of a nuclear attack on the Rio Grande valley
 
2013-02-23 04:20:15 PM  

indarwinsshadow: I'm not sure what you're talking about. Without a frame of reference it just looks like --blank---- to me. I never said you had to agree. I said what I said because most of you are American, or American supporters. You only see one side of the argument (your own) without considering that other countries will pursue their own interests contrary to what you wish or want. And their policies are no more hostile that America's pursuit of it's foreign policies and business interests.


An international treaty. Does it actually mean something (an agreement between countries), or is it 'just a piece of paper'?

Countries A, B, C, and D sign a piece of paper that supposedly benefits them all in some way. When it becomes inconvenient, can Country C just blow it off with no repercussions? Or should Country C officially tell A B, and D that they are blowing it off?

Do international treaties mean anything? Do laws mean anything?
 
2013-02-23 04:32:31 PM  

vygramul: Amos Quito: Any Pie Left: If they were serious about peaceful nuclear power, they'd choose thorium and the world would have to shut up.

Israel has been doing their best to con the US (or whoever) into BOMBING THE SHIAT out of Iran for over 20 years. The nukes are just their endlessly recycled excuse for age-old blood lust.

The animosity between "Israelites" and "Persians"  goes back thousands of years (see the Biblical book of Esther)

Coincidentally, TODAY begins the Jewish holiday of PURIM, which (coincidentally) commemorates the Jews' victory over PERSIANS that (supposedly) wanted to do them wrong oh so long ago.

Old hatred dies hard - and Israel STILL has a hard-on for Iran.

Purim. Today. Coincidence.

I'm sure you believe it.

And just like every other bigot, you know Jewish holidays better than most Israelis.



www.jpost.com

Actually I didn't realize that Purim begins today until I saw the "special logo" at the top of TFA.

/And Israelis are about as likely to "forget Purim" as Americans are to forget New Years
//Gonna' be a lot of drunken Jews tonight
/// Blessed be Mordechai, cursed be Haman!


Shalom and cheers!
 
2013-02-23 04:32:39 PM  

Kimpak: mizchief: Mean while North Korea is testing actual nuclear weapons along with delivery systems and have stated that using them on the US is the purpose of these weapons and we are technically still at war with them. But yet, we do nothing about it. What make Iran's program so much more dangerous?

Do you really believe we are doing nothing about it?


Nothing effective. This has been going on since before we attacked Iraq under the guise of going after weapons of mass destruction. Seems like our priorities are out of order.
 
2013-02-23 04:35:49 PM  

dragonchild: George Babbitt: You're average grunt is required to carry a 50 pound ruck sack in basic. Two guys = 100 pounds.

Because the best way to deploy a weapon is to split it into two parts?


"The bare warhead -- with no deployment technology whatsoever -- weighs 50 pounds and had a yield of 0.2kt.  Tack what you'd need to actually deploy the thing and it goes up to 100 pounds."

You think a bomb as to be fully assembled long before it is detonated?
 
2013-02-23 04:35:57 PM  
But do they have aluminum tubes?
 
2013-02-23 04:36:18 PM  

TappingTheVein: The Iranians don't give a flying fark about the 20% of muslims living in Israel or elsewhere. They didn't give a flying fark when Hizballah, iran's proxy terrorist organization,  was bombing northern Israel and hitting Arab villages. They especially don't give a fark since they are non-shiate muslims.


The iranian government, you mean?

Maybe not, but they do care about not being the first country to nuke / irradiate another muslim country. They also care about not irradiating Europe (crazy but not republican crazy).

It's not as if muslims people slaughtering other muslims people is such a rarity in the past or at this moment in the Middle East anywhere on the planet Earth.

FIFY
 
2013-02-23 05:06:34 PM  

vygramul: It's amazing how many people assume that Israel provides some kind of base for us for imperialism.  Israel doesn't do anything of the sort.


Not on behalf of the US, anyway.

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-02-23 05:13:52 PM  
Israel is like Lucy with the football.

images.wikia.com

Israel  told W. Bush that if Saddam was gone, they would feel secure enough to create a Palistinian state. He saw it as the road to peace. Of course they had no intention. They played that scmuck like a fiddle.

Once we have "regime change" in Iran,(you heard it here first) Israel well want us to go after Putin. They will want the Jewish oligarchs reinstated to control that country's resources again. Their enemies list is endless.
We need to say "enough".
 
2013-02-23 05:14:55 PM  

Uncle Tractor: vygramul: It's amazing how many people assume that Israel provides some kind of base for us for imperialism.  Israel doesn't do anything of the sort.

Not on behalf of the US, anyway.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 386x480]


We're really lowering the bar for "imperialism".  Hardly anyone couldn't be accused of it, which renders the term meaningless.

Not that I approve of what's going on there.
 
2013-02-23 05:26:38 PM  

Uncle Tractor: Maybe not, but they do care about not being the first country to nuke / irradiate another muslim country. They also care about not irradiating Europe (crazy but not republican crazy).


Yeah because it's not like Iran ever fought any muslim countries or killed any muslims eh ? right  ?
let's give the fundamentalist muslims the benefit of the doubt.

Hey at least you understood the stupidity of your 'they won't fire at Israel because 18%' comment.

Uncle Tractor: It's not as if muslims people slaughtering other muslims people is such a rarity in the past or at this moment in the Middle East anywhere on the planet Earth.

FIFY


Spoken truly like someone who doesn't have a clue about middle-Eastern history. Hell, even current events.
 
2013-02-23 05:30:38 PM  
 
2013-02-23 05:34:16 PM  

TappingTheVein: Uncle Tractor: Maybe not, but they do care about not being the first country to nuke / irradiate another muslim country. They also care about not irradiating Europe (crazy but not republican crazy).

Yeah because it's not like Iran ever fought any muslim countries or killed any muslims eh ? right  ?
let's give the fundamentalist muslims the benefit of the doubt.


You do know the difference between fighting the same kind of war the world has seen for the past forever and actually nuking someone, right?

No?

Hey at least you understood the stupidity of your 'they won't fire at Israel because 18%' comment.

...And once again we see that you are incapable of participating in an adult conversation.

Spoken truly like someone who doesn't have a clue about middle-Eastern history. Hell, even current events.

Yes, because wars are only happen in the ME.
 
2013-02-23 05:50:19 PM  

Uncle Tractor: You do know the difference between fighting the same kind of war the world has seen for the past forever and actually nuking someone, right?

No?


Keep putting your faith in islamic fundamentalists who had no qualms slaughtering hundreds of thousands of their fellow muslims. Islamic fundamentalists who use proxy terrorist organizations for their 'Jihad' to avoid direct blame.

Sure i know the difference and unlike you i'm not a naive idiot having lived in the middle east for close to 4 decades.

Uncle Tractor: ...And once again we see that you are incapable of participating in an adult conversation.


Judging by your ignorance regarding the 'but they won't hurt other muslims!' i'd say you are incapable of participating in any conversation about this, period.

Uncle Tractor: Yes, because wars are only happen in the ME.


My post was specifically about your stupid comment of 'muslims won't hurt other muslims'. if that wasn't clear enough for you, too bad.
 
2013-02-23 06:09:29 PM  
Let them get a bomb.
If they're dumb enough to use it, they'll get what's coming to them.
 
2013-02-23 06:13:26 PM  

TappingTheVein: Sure i know the difference and unlike you i'm not a naive idiot having lived in the middle east for close to 4 decades.


You may have lived there, but did you ever actually interact with any of the natives?

Judging by your ignorance regarding the 'but they won't hurt other muslims!' i'd say you are incapable of participating in any conversation about this, period.

My post was specifically about your stupid comment of 'muslims won't hurt other muslims'. if that wasn't clear enough for you, too bad.


i560.photobucket.com
 
2013-02-23 06:27:09 PM  

Uncle Tractor: You may have lived there, but did you ever actually interact with any of the natives?


If that's a serious question than you're either a troll or a bigger idiot than i thought.

Uncle Tractor:  [i560.photobucket.com image 500x357]

You seem to be having a difficult time accepting the fact that your claim about 'muslims won't hurt other muslims' was retarded. Is that some sort of denial mechanism ?
 
2013-02-23 06:32:53 PM  

Uncle Tractor: TappingTheVein: Sure i know the difference and unlike you i'm not a naive idiot having lived in the middle east for close to 4 decades.

You may have lived there, but did you ever actually interact with any of the natives?

Judging by your ignorance regarding the 'but they won't hurt other muslims!' i'd say you are incapable of participating in any conversation about this, period.

My post was specifically about your stupid comment of 'muslims won't hurt other muslims'. if that wasn't clear enough for you, too bad.

[i560.photobucket.com image 500x357]


They may well be but you don't seem to be one of them.  I might suggest you look up Mali or specifically Timbuktu.   A glaring recent example of Muslims (fundies) v. Muslims (moderates)
 
2013-02-23 06:44:34 PM  

Uncle Tractor: vygramul: We're really lowering the bar for "imperialism".

the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas;broadly: the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence<unionimperialism>

Hardly anyone couldn't be accused of it, which renders the term meaningless.

Eh, what?


There aren't a lot of countries that haven't been guilty of that in the last 200 years.
 
2013-02-23 07:22:38 PM  

GAT_00: b2theory: GAT_00: A nuclear Iran is good for the Middle East.  There is no power balance in the region, as the US-Israel alliance dominates the region.  That is why it is so unstable.  A counterforce in a nuclear Iran will force Israel to start treating it's neighbors as equals, as they are.

The reason Israel is so terrified of a nuclear Iran is the above.   They don't want to see Muslim states as equals, they want to dominate them.

You're forgetting that Israel is not Iran's principle enemy in the region. Will you think it's a great idea when Saudi Arabia starts building a bomb?

Then you would not only have a balance against Israel, but you'd have a parity among the Muslim sects.

Nukes make war less likely, not more. When a fight over a piece of land can lead to total annihilation, you wonder a lot more if that land is worth it.


"Well it must be worth it if you are going to such lengths to keep us from it!"
 
2013-02-23 08:09:56 PM  

indarwinsshadow: I know this isn't going to be popular, but, Iran has the right to nuclear weapons. They have the right to process nuclear material to make weapons and finally, America is the only country on the entire planet that's used nukes in anger against another country. I'm not saying we should be happy but, Russia has nukes, and it's not like they're friendly towards the west, China has nukes and again they're not fans of us, and finally North Korea has nukes. Iran isn't in the business of making us happy. They're in the nuclear war business. If America has them, and by their track record they're more of a threat to the world than Iran is, then most countries also have the right to possess nukes. It's just the way it is.

Yep, it's not going to sit well with a lot of Americans.


Of course.... we have the right to not do business with them. We also have the right to pressure our trade partners to cut ties with them. We have the right to exclude them from the international banking system and freeze their assets they put in our banks.

Iran may be forced to decide if they want an economy or nuclear weapons.

It isn't a good thing that the world has nuclear weapons. It is worse if they spread. We can/should do something to stop that. Otherwise I agree with you.
 
2013-02-23 09:47:56 PM  

GAT_00: Nukes make war less likely, not more. When a fight over a piece of land can lead to total annihilation, you wonder a lot more if that land is worth it.


Your assumption depends on the first key prerequisite of Mutually Assured Destruction being fulfilled - that people who are sane and rational are in control of a nuclear weapon in the first place. 

The danger of a Nuclear WEAPON armed Iran is not that they scare the Israelis or upsets the balance of power, it's that they don't fulfill that prerequisite. Even a place like North Korea, for all it's posturing, doesn't have a religious cabal which is well known for supporting ideological and religious terrorism through deniable sources in neighboring countries in charge.

Secular Governments typically don't believe that God wants them to purge the non-believers from the face of the earth, or if they do, they have checks and balances in place to ensure the person who says it's God's will is kept in check.
 
2013-02-23 09:52:52 PM  

BronyMedic: GAT_00: Nukes make war less likely, not more. When a fight over a piece of land can lead to total annihilation, you wonder a lot more if that land is worth it.

Your assumption depends on the first key prerequisite of Mutually Assured Destruction being fulfilled - that people who are sane and rational are in control of a nuclear weapon in the first place. 

The danger of a Nuclear WEAPON armed Iran is not that they scare the Israelis or upsets the balance of power, it's that they don't fulfill that prerequisite. Even a place like North Korea, for all it's posturing, doesn't have a religious cabal which is well known for supporting ideological and religious terrorism through deniable sources in neighboring countries in charge.

Secular Governments typically don't believe that God wants them to purge the non-believers from the face of the earth, or if they do, they have checks and balances in place to ensure the person who says it's God's will is kept in check.


Pakistan and India have nukes, if you want to be worried about nukes, worry about Pakistan.  Iran is an easy decade away... They still haven't got enrichment up to speed...
 
2013-02-23 09:58:41 PM  

dragonchild: George Babbitt: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitcase_nuke

Try reading your own citations.  The "suitcase nuke" is a term popularized by corporate media wanting to sell a scare.  The weapons are technically small enough to fit in a suitcase -- a BIG suitcase -- but they are still extremely heavy.  The bare warhead -- with no deployment technology whatsoever -- weighs 50 pounds and had a yield of 0.2kt.  Tack what you'd need to actually deploy the thing and it goes up to 100 pounds -- not exactly your typical carry-on, yet not much more destructive than a well-designed car bomb.  It's experimental tech, only first-world nations have them and there are massive downsides in trying to get one.

That's all from your own link BTW.


You didn't read the link very well. It's not experimental tech. It's been around since the 1950s, in the US, with the SADM. And it's quite a bit more destructive than a car bomb, actually. Car bombs have heat, blast wave, and shrapnel. That's it. With a nuclear munition, especially a miniaturized one, you have radiation exposure, radioactive fallout, and radioactive debris to worry about.

It doesn't even have to be an actual nuclear weapon. "Dirty Bombs" worry Emergency Responders and planners so much because  they're easy to make, and it's not hard to obtain mid-level to high level radioactive material. Any hospital or radiation therapy center will have them. Old X-ray machines in dentist and doctors offices as well.

In addition, you have the sheer psychological terror inflicted by a nuclear weapon, of any size, on a public which is ill educated about radiation and it's effects. It wouldn't matter if someone set up a bomb that damaged one building. You'd have tens of thousands of people clogging up the healthcare system in that area, and the emergency response systems out of panic and fear.
 
2013-02-23 10:09:24 PM  

BronyMedic: Even a place like North Korea, for all it's posturing, doesn't have a religious cabal which is well known for supporting ideological and religious terrorism through deniable sources in neighboring countries in charge.



Good point.

Israel, OTOH...
 
2013-02-23 10:13:40 PM  

Amos Quito: Good point.

Israel, OTOH...


Even Israel, with it's posturing and bad behavior towards the Palestinians, is run by relatively rational people. They're not going to make a first strike with a nuclear weapon.

That's the running trend today with the current geopolitical situation that unites every nuclear-armed country. No one is insane enough to press the button, because they know doing so would mean the end of their country, if not the entirety of humanity itself. In addition, nuclear-armed countries have had 50+ years of experience and near-disasters to open lines of communication and negotiation to avert a nuclear strike from a computer error or terrorist attack. Even India and Pakistan, for all their shared hatred, have this.

The North Koreans basically use theirs for saber rattling and posturing, and end up getting smacked down by the Chinese when they get too uppity.
 
2013-02-23 10:48:26 PM  

BronyMedic: Amos Quito: Good point.

Israel, OTOH...

Even Israel, with it's posturing and bad behavior towards the Palestinians, is run by relatively rational people. They're not going to make a first strike with a nuclear weapon.

That's the running trend today with the current geopolitical situation that unites every nuclear-armed country. No one is insane enough to press the button, because they know doing so would mean the end of their country, if not the entirety of humanity itself. In addition, nuclear-armed countries have had 50+ years of experience and near-disasters to open lines of communication and negotiation to avert a nuclear strike from a computer error or terrorist attack. Even India and Pakistan, for all their shared hatred, have this.

The North Koreans basically use theirs for saber rattling and posturing, and end up getting smacked down by the Chinese when they get too uppity.



Are you saying then, that Iran's obtaining nukes might get Israel to stop overtly threatening them?
 
2013-02-23 11:08:15 PM  

indarwinsshadow: Amos Quito: Any Pie Left: If they were serious about peaceful nuclear power, they'd choose thorium and the world would have to shut up.

Israel has been doing their best to con the US (or whoever) into BOMBING THE SHIAT out of Iran for over 20 years. The nukes are just their endlessly recycled excuse for age-old blood lust.

The animosity between "Israelites" and "Persians"  goes back thousands of years (see the Biblical book of Esther)

Coincidentally, TODAY begins the Jewish holiday of PURIM, which (coincidentally) commemorates the Jews' victory over PERSIANS that (supposedly) wanted to do them wrong oh so long ago.

Old hatred dies hard - and Israel STILL has a hard-on for Iran.

Purim. Today. Coincidence.

Jews were almost exterminated by fantics in WWII, and face a legitimate threat by Iran. I don't blame them for wanting to protect their people. But tying it to Purim? Dude, break out the tinfoil.


Reminds me of someone

Streicher's was the most melodramatic of the hangings carried out that night. At the bottom of the scaffold he cried out "Heil Hitler!" When he mounted the platform, he delivered his last sneering reference to Jewish scripture, snapping "Purim-Fest 1946!".
 
2013-02-23 11:12:41 PM  

Amos Quito: Are you saying then, that Iran's obtaining nukes might get Israel to stop overtly threatening them?


Because that stops Iran and North Korea, to use examples, from threatening the US, and stops China, various tiny Baltic states, and the Chechens from threatening Russia, right?

I'm saying that it's a pretty weak excuse to justify them having the most destructive weapons on the face of the earth in the hands of a group of people who have no secular checks and balances should they decide God suddenly supports Ahmadinajad's crazy banter. Nuclear proliferation is not the answer to international squabbles. Even Israel, despite never officially admitting to it's nuclear weapons stockpile, is of the opinion that it's a  last resort weapon, under the control of a secular government which has multiple checks built into it.

Something that has the potential to spark off the end of humanity on a global should not be treated like a toy you're jealous of the neighbor kid having.
 
2013-02-23 11:47:31 PM  

BronyMedic: Amos Quito: Are you saying then, that Iran's obtaining nukes might get Israel to stop overtly threatening them?

Because that stops Iran and North Korea, to use examples, from threatening the US, and stops China, various tiny Baltic states, and the Chechens from threatening Russia, right?

I'm saying that it's a pretty weak excuse to justify them having the most destructive weapons on the face of the earth in the hands of a group of people who have no secular checks and balances should they decide God suddenly supports Ahmadinajad's crazy banter. Nuclear proliferation is not the answer to international squabbles. Even Israel, despite never officially admitting to it's nuclear weapons stockpile, is of the opinion that it's a  last resort weapon, under the control of a secular government which has multiple checks built into it.

Something that has the potential to spark off the end of humanity on a global should not be treated like a toy you're jealous of the neighbor kid having.


Worried about (something) sparking off the end of humanity???

Then perhaps you should read this.


QUOTE:


Some have written about the "Samson Option" as a retaliation strategy. In 2002, the Los Angeles Times published an opinion piece by Louisiana State University professor David Perlmutter which Jewish author Ron Rosenbaum writes "goes so far as to justify" a Samson Option approach[27]:

Israel has been building nuclear weapons for 30 years. The Jews understand what passive and powerless acceptance of doom has meant for them in the past, and they have ensured against it. Masada was not an example to follow-it hurt the Romans not a whit, but Samson in Gaza? What would serve the Jew-hating world better in repayment for thousands of years of massacres but a Nuclear Winter. Or invite all those tut-tutting European statesmen and peace activists to join us in the ovens? For the first time in history, a people facing extermination while the world either cackles or looks away-unlike the Armenians, Tibetans, World War II European Jews or Rwandans-have the power to destroy the world. The ultimate justice?[28]

In 2003, a military historian Martin van Creveld, thought that the Al-Aqsa Intifada then in progress threatened Israel's existence.[29] Van Creveld was quoted in David Hirst's "The Gun and the Olive Branch" (2003) as saying:

We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets for our air force. Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: 'Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother.' I consider it all hopeless at this point. We shall have to try to prevent things from coming to that, if at all possible. Our armed forces, however, are not the thirtieth strongest in the world, but rather the second or third. We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under.[30]

Ron Rosenbaum writes in his 2012 book How the End Begins: The Road to a Nuclear World War III that in the "aftermath of a second Holocaust" Israel's surviving Dolphin-class nuclear missile submarines would retaliate not only against Israel's attackers, but "bring down the pillars of the world (attack Moscow and European capitals for instance)" as well as the "holy places of Islam." He writes that "abandonment of proportionality is the essence" of the Samson Option.[31]

In 2012, in response to Günter Grass's poem "Was gesagt werden muss" ("What Must Be Said") which criticized Israel's nuclear weapons program, Israeli poet and Holocaust survivor Itamar Yaoz-Kest published a poem entitled "The Right to Exist: a Poem-Letter to the German Author" which addresses Grass by name. It contains the line: "If you force us yet again to descend from the face of the Earth to the depths of the Earth - let the Earth roll toward the Nothingness." Jerusalem Post journalist Gil Ronen wrote that this is seen as referring to the Samson Option, which is the strategy floated by Ariel Sharon and others of using Israel's nuclear weapons, possibly damaging the entire world, if Israel faces annihilation.[32]


END QUOTE


You're worried about WHO?


/These asshats are serious
 
2013-02-24 12:50:16 AM  
AAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

Sampson Option?

BWAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAA!

Some people will believe Anything!
 
2013-02-24 01:17:58 AM  
Amos Quito: The Sampson Option

Even if Israel had the intention of carrying out what it is purported to have planned, it has no ability to do so, technologically or logistically. Israel does not have a strategic delivery platform for it's nuclear weapons - no way to deliver then via an IRBM or ICBM to the countries supposedly targeted outside the middle east. The only weapons they DO have, which they wont admit to, are Air-dropped bombs and short range missiles launched from diesel-electric submarines and F-15E fighter aircraft, which have a combat range of less than 1000 miles with a nuclear loadout.
 
2013-02-24 01:20:01 AM  

BronyMedic: Amos Quito: The Sampson Option

Even if Israel had the intention of carrying out what it is purported to have planned, it has no ability to do so, technologically or logistically. Israel does not have a strategic delivery platform for it's nuclear weapons - no way to deliver then via an IRBM or ICBM to the countries supposedly targeted outside the middle east. The only weapons they DO have, which they wont admit to, are Air-dropped bombs and short range missiles launched from diesel-electric submarines and F-15E fighter aircraft, which have a combat range of less than 1000 miles with a nuclear loadout.


I especially like how Moscow will be targeted by the sub.
 
2013-02-24 05:05:35 AM  

sno man: I might suggest you look up Mali or specifically Timbuktu.   A glaring recent example of Muslims (fundies) v. Muslims (moderates)


Yeah ... except I didn't say "muslims won't hurt other muslims." That's TTVs strawman. What I said was they wouldn't want to nuke or irradiate muslims. Not the same thing.
 
2013-02-24 05:08:10 AM  

TappingTheVein: You seem to be having a difficult time accepting the fact that your claim about 'muslims won't hurt other muslims' was retarded. Is that some sort of denial mechanism ?


You may now link to the post where I made that claim.
 
2013-02-24 05:21:20 AM  

Uncle Tractor: Yeah ... except I didn't say "muslims won't hurt other muslims." That's TTVs strawman. What I said was they wouldn't want to nuke or irradiate muslims. Not the same thing.


Except that's not true. Just like Christianity, Islam has various mainstream  sects, and various cults and social movements as well. Many of them hate each other with a glaring passion. In addition, much of the Persian and Arab world is still under tribal divisions. Members of one tribal linage will proudly hate another tribal linage. This, for example is why when one sect, tribe, or family linage - gains power - they tend to be tyrannical and overbearing to the others in a country. See Hussein's Iraq for a great example of this.

Anyone who thinks someone in the Middle East wouldn't bomb or nuke another because they're fellow Muslims is seriously deluded on the state of politics in that area of the world.
 
2013-02-24 05:44:44 AM  

BronyMedic: Anyone who thinks someone in the Middle East wouldn't bomb or nuke another because they're fellow Muslims is seriously deluded on the state of politics in that area of the world.


Bomb, yes. That happens every day. Nuke? No. Nukes aren't like most bombs. If they were, Pakistan and India would have swapped nukes years ago.
 
2013-02-24 06:25:57 AM  

Uncle Tractor: Bomb, yes. That happens every day. Nuke? No. Nukes aren't like most bombs. If they were, Pakistan and India would have swapped nukes years ago.


India and Pakistan are kept in check by every other nuclear power around them, and they have a long and colorful history of killing each other as well. Their governments are (in the case of Pakistan at least at the moment) relatively secular, and to a point are willing to at least talk things over before one of their border posts shoots up another.

Even in the Middle East proper, the only thing that keeps the Arabs and Persians civil with each other is the fact there's money under those sands, and the foreign influence it can buy.

If you think they wouldn't use weapons of mass destruction on eachother to maintain the status quo of power over there, I'd point over to the Syrians and their posturing with what is the world's largest ACTIVE offensive military stockpile and chemical weapons program.
 
2013-02-24 07:04:00 AM  

BronyMedic: If you think they wouldn't use weapons of mass destruction on eachother to maintain the status quo of power over there, I'd point over to the Syrians and their posturing with what is the world's largest ACTIVE offensive military stockpile and chemical weapons program.


Nukes have only been used *twice*, and not at all since WWII. Also, chemical weapons aren't nukes.

BronyMedic: If you think they wouldn't use weapons of mass destruction on eachother to maintain the status quo of power over there, I'd point over to the Syrians and their posturing


They haven't used them yet. When the syrians stop posturing and actually use those WMDs, it'll all be over for them.
I'm not losing any sleep over future iranian nukes and neither should you. It's futile anyway. If the iranians want nukes, they'll have nukes, and there's nothing anyone can do about it.
 
2013-02-24 07:26:03 AM  

Uncle Tractor: Nukes have only been used *twice*, and not at all since WWII. Also, chemical weapons aren't nukes.


*sigh*

Nukes have only been used twice in human history because it was all it took to demonstrate the horrific power they possessed. In addition, the US was the only nuclear kid on the block for years afterwords. It took the Soviets stealing our tech and reverse engineering it to have their own, and at that point both countries began to play along on the grand scale, while still fighting proxy wars in second and third world countries, because it was the only way they could do so and not cause the extinction of all life on Earth.

Again. You're assuming you're dealing with SANE, RATIONAL people here. Not people who believe that God wants them to kill the nonbelievers, and paradise awaits them for their deeds in the afterlife.

And chemical weapons are considered akin to using a nuclear weapon for the purposes of Russian and United States nuclear doctrine for retaliation. At any rate, they're also considered abhorrent, and their use a crime against humanity.
 
2013-02-24 08:08:25 AM  

Uncle Tractor: You may now link to the post where I made that claim.


Sure thing.

If you think muslims will not attack (nuke, bomb, drown, slaughter, etc..) other muslims you are an idiot. Plain and simple.
 
2013-02-24 08:12:41 AM  

BronyMedic: Again. You're assuming you're dealing with SANE, RATIONAL people here


And that is exactly the point where Uncle Tractorfails. Like many westerners who know jack shiat about arab middle-eastern mentality.
 
2013-02-24 08:25:08 AM  
BronyMedic: Again. You're assuming you're dealing with SANE, RATIONAL people here. Not people who believe that God wants them to kill the nonbelievers, and paradise awaits them for their deeds in the afterlife.

Good things the iranians aren't like that, then. They've held on to power since the revolution, so they can't be completely batshiat crazy.

And chemical weapons are considered akin to using a nuclear weapon for the purposes of Russian and United States nuclear doctrine for retaliation. At any rate, they're also considered abhorrent, and their use a crime against humanity.

As bad as chemical weapons are, they're not on the same level as nukes.
 
2013-02-24 08:29:46 AM  
What you claim I said: "You seem to be having a difficult time accepting the fact that your claim about 'muslims won't hurt other muslims' was retarded. Is that some sort of denial mechanism ?"

TappingTheVein:
Uncle Tractor: You may now link to the post where I made that claim.

Sure thing.


"Iran is not going to nuke Israel. Why? Because 20% of the israeli population is muslim. Not only that, the fallout from a nuke in Israel will almost certainly end up in a muslim country or five ...or maybe in Europe. The iranian leaders might be crazy, but they're notthatcrazy. After all, they've managed to stay in power ever since 1979(?). "

IOW, you're just making shiat up again. Have fun playing with your strawmen.

If you think muslims will not attack (nuke, bomb, drown, slaughter, etc..) other muslims you are an idiot. Plain and simple.

As I've said over and over; I'm talking about nukes. Pretending that I said "muslims won't hurt other muslims" only proves, again, what a dishonest POS you are. This is why talking with you is a waste of time.
 
2013-02-24 08:32:10 AM  

TappingTheVein: And that is exactly the point where Uncle Tractorfails. Like many westerners who know jack shiat about arab middle-eastern mentality.


In contrast to you, who just makers shiat up as you go along? I don't care how long you've lived in the ME. Your "knowledge" of the people there sounds like something belched out by some Fox News bimbo.
 
2013-02-24 09:27:20 AM  

BronyMedic: You didn't read the link very well. It's not experimental tech. It's been around since the 1950s


That doesn't mean it's not still "experimental".  Both Russia and the U.S. made a few, just to see if they could, but the results weren't anything to write home about, so they didn't get too far past the experiments.

BronyMedic: With a nuclear munition, especially a miniaturized one, you have radiation exposure, radioactive fallout, and radioactive debris to worry about.


For a suitcase bomb?  You really, really don't understand how nuclear weapons work.  Will there be fallout?  Yes, but I'd worry more about smoke inhalation.

BronyMedic: "Dirty Bombs" worry Emergency Responders and planners so much because they're easy to make, and it's not hard to obtain mid-level to high level radioactive material.


Probably because they don't understand physics.  I do.  The worry about a dirty bomb is that 99.99% of the damage will be done by the media.  Oh, radiation poisoning will kill a few people, but the same few would've died if the bomb was a mixture of C-4 and nails because of their proximity to the blast.  It's not like all nukes create this magical cloud of death that has no correlation to blast yield whatsoever.

I mean, hey, if you wanna hide under your bed worried about backpack nukes, go ahead, but if you're gonna spread your fear like a disease then STFU.  You're far more likely to get killed by your own food because of the USDA falling down on the job.
 
2013-02-24 09:43:26 AM  

Vectron: Israel told W. Bush that if Saddam was gone, they would feel secure enough to create a Palistinian state. He saw it as the road to peace. Of course they had no intention. They played that scmuck like a fiddle.


Looks like you're the one who got played.
 
2013-02-24 10:16:48 AM  

Uncle Tractor: IOW, you're just making shiat up again. Have fun playing with your strawmen.


How does pointing exactly how the basis of your statement is completely wrong 'making shiat up' ?

Uncle Tractor: As I've said over and over; I'm talking about nukes. Pretending that I said "muslims won't hurt other muslims" only proves, again, what a dishonest POS you are. This is why talking with you is a waste of time.


Last time i checked 'nukes' falls into the category of 'hurting'. As i already explained.
As usual you are a naive ignorant Useful Idiot who has no clue what the hell he's talking about.

Uncle Tractor: In contrast to you, who just makers shiat up as you go along?


Oh yes, i made it up that muslims have no problems slaughtering other muslims in any means at their disposal. Especially if they are islamic fundamentalist nutjobs.

Uncle Tractor: Your "knowledge" of the people there sounds like something belched out by some Fox News bimbo.


Typical response of a naive westerner who can't seem tocomprehend that other cultures no not conform to what he perceives as normal and rational.
 
2013-02-24 10:53:37 AM  

TappingTheVein: Uncle Tractor: IOW, you're just making shiat up again. Have fun playing with your strawmen.
How does pointing exactly how the basis of your statement is completely wrong 'making shiat up' ?


In the way that you're still making shiat up.

Last time i checked 'nukes' falls into the category of 'hurting'. As i already explained.
As usual you are a naive ignorant Useful Idiot who has no clue what the hell he's talking about.


Let's see if I can explain it to you: Nuking someone means hurting them (obviously). Hurting someone does not mean nuking them. You already know this, of course, but you're a lying POS so you're probably just going to keep on farking that chicken.

Have fun with that.

/I'd draw you a venn diagram, but you're not worth the effort
 
2013-02-24 11:17:18 AM  

Uncle Tractor: In the way that you're still making shiat up.


You, of course, didn't answer the question.
Again: How does pointing exactly how the basis of your statement is completely wrong equals 'making shiat up' ?

Uncle Tractor: Let's see if I can explain it to you: Nuking someone means hurting them (obviously). Hurting someone does not mean nuking them. You already know this, of course, but you're a lying POS so you're probably just going to keep on farking that chicken.


How can you keep ignoring the facts when they are presented to you, very clearly,  that muslims have no problems whatsoever to slaughter each other in the most horrific means at their disposal ?
Is admitting that they do cracks up some of that adorable naiveté ? is admitting that sanity and rationality are not the forte of  islamic fundamentalists nutjobs too stressful for you ?
 
2013-02-24 12:14:10 PM  

Uncle Tractor: TappingTheVein: Uncle Tractor: IOW, you're just making shiat up again. Have fun playing with your strawmen.
How does pointing exactly how the basis of your statement is completely wrong 'making shiat up' ?

In the way that you're still making shiat up.

Last time i checked 'nukes' falls into the category of 'hurting'. As i already explained.
As usual you are a naive ignorant Useful Idiot who has no clue what the hell he's talking about.

Let's see if I can explain it to you: Nuking someone means hurting them (obviously). Hurting someone does not mean nuking them. You already know this, of course, but you're a lying POS so you're probably just going to keep on farking that chicken.

Have fun with that.



Same ol' shiftless Tappy.

Always lying around.
 
2013-02-24 12:21:38 PM  

TappingTheVein: Uncle Tractor: In the way that you're still making shiat up.

You, of course, didn't answer the question.
Again: How does pointing exactly how the basis of your statement is completely wrong equals 'making shiat up' ?


In the way that you've done no such thing.

Uncle Tractor: Let's see if I can explain it to you: Nuking someone means hurting them (obviously). Hurting someone does not mean nuking them. You already know this, of course, but you're a lying POS so you're probably just going to keep on farking that chicken.

How can you keep ignoring the facts when they are presented to you, very clearly,  that muslims have no problems whatsoever to slaughter each other in the most horrific means at their disposal ?


My original claim was that the iranians would not want to nuke Israel because of it's large muslim minority, and because the fallout would go to Europe or other muslim countries.

...Which you use to claim that I've said "muslims won't hurt each other." You're a liar, IOW.

Is admitting that they do cracks up some of that adorable naiveté ? is admitting that sanity and rationality are not the forte of  islamic fundamentalists nutjobs too stressful for you ?

...And now you're moving the goal posts.
 
2013-02-24 12:35:45 PM  

BronyMedic: Uncle Tractor: Bomb, yes. That happens every day. Nuke? No. Nukes aren't like most bombs. If they were, Pakistan and India would have swapped nukes years ago.

India and Pakistan are kept in check by every other nuclear power around them,


Any nuclear power with the range to keep India and Pakistan in check also have the range to reach Israel and Iran.
 
2013-02-24 12:38:58 PM  

TappingTheVein: BronyMedic: Again. You're assuming you're dealing with SANE, RATIONAL people here

And that is exactly the point where Uncle Tractorfails. Like many westerners who know jack shiat about arab middle-eastern mentality.


There's a lot more rationality than we give people credit for.  That being said, what scares me is not the Osama bin Laden leader-types.  They're actually pretty cowardly.  But if a childless Mullah on his deathbed decides he wants to be remembered for being The One who destroyed Israel (and as bad as the retaliation would be, Islam would still exist, and Israel would not)...
 
2013-02-24 12:42:17 PM  

Uncle Tractor: As bad as chemical weapons are, they're not on the same level as nukes.


Chemical weapons are really bad, and are usually considered red-lines for pretty much every nation on the planet.  But you're right - nothing changes the game like a nuke.  It's a whole other plane of human experience, and we really don't know what even a minor nuclear exchange would look like or do to us.  (Hiroshima and Nagasaki are like a firecracker compared to today's grenades.)
 
2013-02-24 12:50:48 PM  

Amos Quito: Same ol' shiftless Tappy.

Always lying around.


I can post all your anti-semitic rants, lying bullshiat and "zionists" conspiracy theories but i'll probably crash the Fark server.
Did i ever tell you that i consider your 'zionists are behind JFK's murder' as a favorite of mine ?
 
2013-02-24 01:01:49 PM  

Uncle Tractor: In the way that you've done no such thing.


Besides providing proof for my statement, yes you're absolutely right..

Uncle Tractor: My original claim was that the iranians would not want to nuke Israel because of it's large muslim minority


Which, as i explained in detail, is utter bullshiat.

Uncle Tractor: and because the fallout would go to Europe or other muslim countries


You mean other non-shiate muslim countries ? oh i'm sure they can manage.
And you, of course, choose to ignore the parts where i mention how Iran will never use such a weapon themselves.

Uncle Tractor: ...Which you use to claim that I've said "muslims won't hurt each other." You're a liar, IOW.


"Iran is not going to nuke Israel. Why? Because 20% of the israeli population is muslim. "
-Uncle Tractor

Your evil twin posted that gem ?

Uncle Tractor: ...And now you're moving the goal posts.


How does pointing out how you have no farking clue about the issue equals 'moving the goal posts'?
I only mentioned your lack of understanding of the rationality involved about 3 times now.
 
2013-02-24 03:02:45 PM  

TappingTheVein: Uncle Tractor: ...Which you use to claim that I've said "muslims won't hurt each other." You're a liar, IOW.

"Iran is not going to nuke Israel. Why? Because 20% of the israeli population is muslim. "


"Iran is not going to nuke Israel because 20% of the israeli population is muslim" is not the same as "muslims won't hurt each other." It never has been and it never will be, and you know it. Bolding it makes no difference.
 
2013-02-24 03:30:20 PM  

Amos Quito: Learn the difference between "Semites" and Zionists, Tappy.


Always hilarious coming from Fark's resident anti-semite.
You mean like you blamed the jews for the deaths in Holodomor ? "rationalizing" the slaughter of jews by Ukrainians as revenge against the jews ?
Farking hilarious anti-semitism bullshiat but the icing on the cake was when a  Lithuanian  farker posted that you are talking nonsense.

Blaming the jews for their own slaughter is classic anti-semitism. Especially when pulling that kind of lying bullshiat out of your ass.

Amos Quito: Theories" implies that they are merely conjecture, and not based on historically accurate evidence.


You mean like your conspiracy bullshiat based on out of context quotes ?

Amos Quito: How much memory do you believe your imaginary "files" might require?


You must hate google site search with a passion. With it i can pull out all your anti-semitic gems:

Amos Quito: The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion ? based on fact! we can't discredit that fine piece of work just because a tiny bit of it is a forgery..

Amos Quito:The Holocaust was a zionist conspiracy! You see there was this zionist scheme..

Amod Quito:The revolution in Egypt ?  It was Israel all along. A Mossad job.

Amos Quito: some more Zionists Holocaust scheming.

Did you know that Google was founded by jews ? this is part of the conspiracy!

Amos Quito: sometimes wonder if your delusions run so deep that you actually believe them.


Amos Quito: Israel is behind JFK's murder.

Tell us again how the Jews caused WWI and WWII, are behind 9/11, JFK's murder but do it in your distinctive style by insinuating only so when people call you out on your anti-semitism you can roll your eyes and say 'but i never said that!' like a retarded child.  <--- a prevention clause, because predictable anti-semite is predictable.
 
2013-02-24 03:33:56 PM  

Uncle Tractor: "Iran is not going to nuke Israel because 20% of the israeli population is muslim" is not the same as "muslims won't hurt each other."


Yes, yes it is. Unless you meant that the 20% of muslim population are not muslim.
You farked up, royally. Why is it so hard to admit it ?
 
2013-02-24 05:52:16 PM  

TappingTheVein: Amos Quito: Learn the difference between "Semites" and Zionists, Tappy.

Always hilarious coming from Fark's resident anti-semite.
You mean like you blamed the jews for the deaths in Holodomor ? "rationalizing" the slaughter of jews by Ukrainians as revenge against the jews ?



There was no mention of "Jews" anywhere in that post, Tappy. Are you suffering from dementia, or simply pathological liar?


TappingTheVein: Farking hilarious anti-semitism bullshiat but the icing on the cake was when a Lithuanian farker posted that you are talking nonsense.



And now a link to a post where vygramul is answering DavidVincent? Are you suffering from dementia, or simply pathological liar?

TappingTheVein: Amos Quito: Theories" implies that they are merely conjecture, and not based on historically accurate evidence.

You mean like your conspiracy bullshiat based on out of context quotes ?


And as "evidence" you link to one of your own posts (with links to more of your own posts - with links to yet more of your own posts) - ring around the rosies, Tappy?  Are you suffering from dementia, or simply pathological liar?


 

TappingTheVein: Amos Quito: How much memory do you believe your imaginary "files" might require?

You must hate google site search with a passion. With it i can pull out all your anti-semitic gems:



LOL, Tappy.  Are you suffering from dementia, or simply pathological liar?


 

TappingTheVein: Amos Quito: The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion ? based on fact! we can't discredit that fine piece of work just because a tiny bit of it is a forgery..


And now a link to a 120 post thread where I said nothing even remotely similar to what you claim, Tappy? Starting to look more like pathological liar.


TappingTheVein: Amos Quito:The Holocaust was a zionist conspiracy! You see there was this zionist scheme..


And (again) as "evidence" you link to one of your own posts (again with links to more of your own posts)  as "proof", Tappy? Yep, starting to look more like pathological liar.


TappingTheVein: Amod Quito:The revolution in Egypt ? It was Israel all along. A Mossad job.


CORRECTION: "a CIA/Mossad controlled "changing of the guard". But congratulations on finally saying something  semi-relevant, Tappy.  Stopped clock syndrome?


TappingTheVein: Amos Quito: some more Zionists Holocaust scheming.


AAANNND yet (again) as "evidence" you link to one of your own posts (again with links to more of your own posts)  as "proof", Tappy? Yep, starting to look more like pathological liar.


TappingTheVein: Amos Quito: Israel is behind JFK's murder.



You really believe that Israel was behind the assassination of JFK, Tappy? Sounds like a wild-eyed theory to me.


Do you know why I reposted ALL of your (worthless) links in my reply? Because they are worthless, Tappy. Your accusations are a hollow and impotent as your cranium.

I'm still not quite sure whether you're a pathological liar or simply delusional, but you certainly seem to be frustrated.

Ever considered anxyolitics? Maybe antipsychotics?
 
2013-02-24 06:04:23 PM  

TappingTheVein: Uncle Tractor: "Iran is not going to nuke Israel because 20% of the israeli population is muslim" is not the same as "muslims won't hurt each other."

Yes, yes it is. Unless you meant that the 20% of muslim population are not muslim.
You farked up, royally. Why is it so hard to admit it ?


Who do you think you're fooling?
 
2013-02-24 06:16:42 PM  

dragonchild: That doesn't mean it's not still "experimental".  Both Russia and the U.S. made a few, just to see if they could, but the results weren't anything to write home about, so they didn't get too far past the experiments.


Actually, the SADM and it's slightly larger cousin, the MADM, were deployed from 1962 to 1970 with US Special Operations Forces in Europe. They were not just experiments. The Davy Crocket system was used from 1956 to 1968 in West Germany, as well, deployed with the 55th and 56th infantry platoons of the 82nd Airborne. NATO forces on the Euro-Soviet borders also utilized nuclear anti-tank mine designs that were miniturized.

The Soviets had their equivalents in service until the early 80s. The difference is that the US and NATO know where all of these are. The soviets have lost around a thousand nuclear warheads of ALL design types since the 1990s and the breakup.

dragonchild:For a suitcase bomb?  You really, really don't understand how nuclear weapons work.  Will there be fallout?  Yes, but I'd worry more about smoke inhalation.

No, you really don't know how Nuclear weapons work, do you? Any nuclear detonation will produce a massive local burst of gamma radiation which will be just as lethal to unshielded people as the overpressure wave will be. You also have Alpha and Beta to worry about, from inhalation and dermal exposure specifically. What you mention as "smoke inhalation" is the effect of fallout - namely the massive amounts of Alpha and beta particles produced.

dragonchild: Probably because they don't understand physics.  I do.  The worry about a dirty bomb is that 99.99% of the damage will be done by the media.  Oh, radiation poisoning will kill a few people, but the same few would've died if the bomb was a mixture of C-4 and nails because of their proximity to the blast.  It's not like all nukes create this magical cloud of death that has no correlation to blast yield whatsoever.

I mean, hey, if you wanna hide under your bed worried about backpack nukes, go ahead, but if you're gonna spread your fear like a disease then STFU.  You're far more likely to get killed by your own food because of the USDA falling down on the job.


Yeah, that's nice you "understand physics and all", but that's the whole point about using a dirty weapon, long term heath effects and short term panic. The fact that you're pointing and laughing at people who don't know as much as you ignores the reality of the situation. Panic can be just as powerful a destructive weapon as a nuclear missile.

As far as "fear of suitcase nukes", the fact of the matter is that miniaturized nuclear weapons have been in existence for the last 50 years, and used for the exact purpose that YOU claimed they didn't exist for outside of a lab. Yes, they ARE a concern to emergency planners because of the amount of devastation they can inflict because they were designed specifically for that. The SADM was designed to destroy large buildings, power plants, dams, and other major infrastructure sites that are generally considered "secure".
 
2013-02-24 07:01:47 PM  

Uncle Tractor: Who do you think you're fooling?


Why do you keep insisting that you didn't say something when the post where you did say it is right here ?
 
2013-02-24 07:12:28 PM  

TappingTheVein: Uncle Tractor: Who do you think you're fooling?

Why do you keep insisting that you didn't say something when the post where you did say it is right here ?



Pathological Liar - Definition

Pathological liar refers to a liar that is compulsive or impulsive, lies on a regular basis and is unable to control their lying despite of foreseeing inevitable negative consequences or ultimate disclosure of the lie. Generally lies told by a pathological liar have self-defeating quality to them and don't serve the long term material needs of the person. Therefore pathological lying is lying that is caused by a pathology, occurs on a regular basis, is compulsive or impulsive & uncontrolled, and has self-defeating, self-trapping quality to it.

[...]

Lots of great info there, Tappy.

I suggest you print it and take a copy to your therapist.


/Good luck
 
2013-02-25 03:23:13 AM  

Amos Quito: Lots of great info there, Tappy.

I suggest you print it and take a copy to your therapist.


Hard not to notice how you gave up on trying to squirm your way out of the anti-semitic conspiracy extravaganza and instead focused on  Uncle Tractor's reading comprehension problems.

Oh and FYI: "Iran is not going to nuke Israel. Why? Because 20% of the israeli population is muslim " means Iran is not going to attack muslims. This is kindergarten level reading comprehension so i understand why you both seem to have a difficult time with this.
 
2013-02-25 04:19:05 AM  
TappingTheVein:
Oh and FYI: "Iran is not going to nuke Israel. Why? Because 20% of the israeli population is muslim " means Iran is not going to attack muslims.

No, it means Iran isn't going to nuke muslims. "Nuke" is not synonymous with "attack." You need to work on your reading skills.

 This is kindergarten level reading comprehension so i understand why you both seem to have a difficult time with this.

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-02-25 05:56:24 AM  

Uncle Tractor: No, it means Iran isn't going to nuke muslims. "Nuke" is not synonymous with "attack." You need to work on your reading skills.


And you need to finally grasp that rationality and sanity are not the strong points of islamic fundamentalist nutjobs and when they can they will attackin any means at their disposal. Any means, that include nukes, chemical weapons, anything.

Especially, and i'm sure you had no farking clue about this, when said muslims belong to what they perceive as worse than infidels (shia vs. sunni). We are talking about people with the mentality of joy over  blowing themselves up for the chance of murdering women and children, like i said you are extremely naive if you think they will hold back when they have their hands on the most powerful weapon, especially, and this is something you have a very hard time getting, when they themselves won't attack but use one of their proxy jihadist terrorist organizations.

And yes when you said Iran won't nuke (attack, harm, mutilate, insert whatever, it doesn't matter) them because of a large population of muslims, you had no farking clue what you were talking about.
 
2013-02-25 07:26:07 AM  

TappingTheVein: And you need to finally grasp that rationality and sanity are not the strong points of islamic fundamentalist nutjobs and when they can they will attackin any means at their disposal. Any means, that include nukes, chemical weapons, anything.

Especially, and i'm sure you had no farking clue about this, when said muslims belong to what they perceive as worse than infidels (shia vs. sunni). We are talking about people with the mentality of joy over  blowing themselves up for the chance of murdering women and children, like i said you are extremely naive if you think they will hold back when they have their hands on the most powerful weapon, especially, and this is something you have a very hard time getting, when they themselves won't attack but use one of their proxy jihadist terrorist organizations.

And yes when you said Iran won't nuke (attack, harm, mutilate, insert whatever, it doesn't matter) them because of a large population of muslims, you had no farking clue what you were talking about.


Nuke is not synonymous with attack. Never has been and will never be, and there is nothing you can do about it.
 
2013-02-25 07:34:25 AM  

Uncle Tractor: Nuke is not synonymous with attack. Never has been and will never be, and there is nothing you can do about it.


Again, with visual aids:

And you need to finally grasp that rationality and sanity are not the strong points of islamic fundamentalist nutjobs and when they can they will  attackin any means at their disposal.Any means, that include nukes, chemical weapons, anything.

Especially, and i'm sure you had no farking clue about this, when said muslims belong to what they perceive as worse than infidels (shia vs. sunni). We are talking about people with the mentality of joy over  blowing themselves up for the chance of murdering women and children, like i said you are extremely naive if you think they will hold back when they have their hands on the most powerful weapon, especially, and this is something you have a very hard time getting, when they themselves won't attack but use one of their proxy jihadist terrorist organizations.
 
2013-02-25 08:29:04 AM  

TappingTheVein: And you need to finally grasp that rationality and sanity are not the strong points of islamic fundamentalist nutjobs and when they can they will  attackin any means at their disposal.Any means, that include nukes, chemical weapons, anything.


Spin like a top if you want, bold it, underscore it, big it, it won't change the fact that you seem to think "nuke" is synonymous with "attack." No amount of dodging, goalshifting, strawmen, ad hominems, belittling, or like tactics will change that fact.

You farked up, plain and simple. Nuke is not synonymous with attack.
 
2013-02-25 09:49:32 AM  

Uncle Tractor: Spin like a top if you want, bold it, underscore it, big it, it won't change the fact that you seem to think "nuke" is synonymous with "attack."


Look, this is very very simple.
If it kills the infidel, it's all good. Nuke, as horrific as it is including all the applications of it, everything as i explained 345 times now, as long as it defeats the infidels is A-OK,
Especially, and this is a very very important point so pay close attention, if they (the iraninas) are not the ones using it because they have a habit of using proxy jihadist terrorist organizations to carry out their "jihad".

You're simply too naive to comprehend this sort of mentality and not aware of the ruthless horrific cruelty muslims have no problems committing on each other. Do some research on what is happening right now in Syria, it's a good clue.

Uncle Tractor: You farked up, plain and simple. Nuke is not synonymous with attack.


And you need to finally grasp that rationality and sanity are not the strong points of islamic fundamentalist nutjobs and when they can they willattackin any means at their disposal.Any means, thatinclude nukes, chemical weapons, anything.

Notice the including nukes part ? is it too subtle for you ?
And to think this little debate started when you made the hilarious comment that iranians won't attack (Nuke, Burn, Annahilate, insert whatever, it doesn't matter) Israel because of the 20% of muslims there. Farking hysterical.
 
2013-02-25 11:01:42 AM  

TappingTheVein: Look, this is very very simple.


Yes, it is very simple: You think "nuke" is a synonym for "attack."
 
2013-02-25 11:18:27 AM  

Uncle Tractor: Yes, it is very simple: You think "nuke" is a synonym for "attack."


No, i'm saying they'll have no issues with using this weapon. I explained about 14 times.
And you made the stupid statement about not attacking/nuking/burning/ etc.doesn't matter, because they are muslims, indicating that you have no farking clue.
 
2013-02-25 01:04:39 PM  

TappingTheVein: No, i'm saying they'll have no issues with using this weapon. I explained about 14 times.
And you made the stupid statement about not attacking/nuking/burning/ etc.doesn't matter, because they are muslims, indicating that you have no farking clue.


This is what you claim I said:

TappingTheVein: 'but they won't hurt other muslims!'


...But this is what I actually said:

Uncle Tractor: Iran is not going to nuke Israel. Why? Because 20% of the israeli population is muslim. Not only that, the fallout from a nuke in Israel will almost certainly end up in a muslim country or five ...or maybe in Europe. The iranian leaders might be crazy, but they're not that crazy. After all, they've managed to stay in power ever since 1979(?).


In short; you made shiat up, you got caught making shiat up, and now you're squirming like a hagfish trying to rid itself of excess slime.
 
2013-02-25 01:22:38 PM  

Uncle Tractor: In short; you made shiat up, you got caught making shiat up, and now you're squirming like a hagfish trying to rid itself of excess slime.


Yes, i made it up that you said "Iran is not going to nuke Israel. Why? Because 20% of the israeli population is muslim".
 
2013-02-25 02:58:34 PM  

Amos Quito: TappingTheVein: Amos Quito: Learn the difference between "Semites" and Zionists, Tappy.



Wow. You're a whole bunch of crazy, you know that right? If you're smart, and it appears you're semi intelligent, you'll go and get some professional help for whatever the hell is wrong with you. You're really not normal at all?
 
2013-02-25 05:11:35 PM  

TappingTheVein: Uncle Tractor: In short; you made shiat up, you got caught making shiat up, and now you're squirming like a hagfish trying to rid itself of excess slime.

Yes, i made it up that you said "Iran is not going to nuke Israel. Why? Because 20% of the israeli population is muslim".


upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-02-25 05:37:03 PM  
Uncle Tractor:  [upload.wikimedia.org image 320x193]

i.qkme.me
 
2013-02-25 10:37:44 PM  

indarwinsshadow: Amos Quito: TappingTheVein: Amos Quito: Learn the difference between "Semites" and Zionists, Tappy.


Wow. You're a whole bunch of crazy, you know that right? If you're smart, and it appears you're semi intelligent, you'll go and get some professional help for whatever the hell is wrong with you. You're really not normal at all?



I have to question: On what input did you base you assessment?

Tell you what, friend, if you you disagree with some (all?) of my observations, why not name some specifics, and we'll discuss them individually, and in their rational/historical context.

Otherwise just read the linked threads and the references I provide therein for your personal edification.

Mmmkay?

:-)
 
2013-02-26 09:58:35 AM  

Amos Quito: indarwinsshadow: Amos Quito: TappingTheVein: Amos Quito: Learn the difference between "Semites" and Zionists, Tappy.


Wow. You're a whole bunch of crazy, you know that right? If you're smart, and it appears you're semi intelligent, you'll go and get some professional help for whatever the hell is wrong with you. You're really not normal at all?


I have to question: On what input did you base you assessment?

Tell you what, friend, if you you disagree with some (all?) of my observations, why not name some specifics, and we'll discuss them individually, and in their rational/historical context.

Otherwise just read the linked threads and the references I provide therein for your personal edification.

Mmmkay?

:-)


You're kidding right? You know you're not normal. No one in their sane mind blames one group for all of the worlds ills. It's not just ludicrous, it's an illness. I don't have to diagnose you. In my job as a police officer, I meet messed up people everyday. They don't know they're messed up, but everyone else does. It's a sad situation. You don't know how mentally ill you are, you just assume the problem is everyone else. I'm not putting you down when I say you should go an talk with someone. You really should. There's lots of free help available at hospitals and help lines. You'd feel better, and maybe get the help you need. You don't realize how ill you are.
 
2013-02-26 11:06:45 AM  

indarwinsshadow: You're kidding right? You know you're not normal.



LOL! Define "normal". Thanks.


indarwinsshadow: No one in their sane mind blames one group for all of the worlds ills.



LOL!  Which "group" do you presume I "blame"? And for which "ills"? Please be specific.


indarwinsshadow: I don't have to diagnose you. In my job as a police officer

...


I hope you're joking here. If you are a "police officer", you're a piss-poor example. The stuff of nightmares, dude. I asked you above to cite specific examples of my observations that you feel may be incorrect or "crazy", and we'll discuss them - you know - examine the EVIDENCE. But instead you belch out further unfounded accusations so ludicrous that you make Tappy sound rational.

If you ARE a cop, you should turn in your badge post-haste. God only knows how many lives you've destroyed with your reckless and unprofessional methodology and behavior.

Again I ask, on what "evidence" are you basing your assessments? Find specifics - not Tappy's inane mumblings, but material that I have written that you believe to be incorrect or historically inaccurate, and we'll discuss.

Otherwise kindly STFU, troll.

And if you ARE a cop, for God's sake quit, as you clearly lack the minimal observational skills and sound judgement necessary to carry out your duties in the public interest.

Have a nice day!
 
2013-02-26 11:10:59 AM  
Not a troll Amos. I see people like you everyday. I don't get upset when they yell at me, and no, you aren't a normal guy. Haven't you read some of the replies back to your insults. You can't be that ignorant that it doesn't bother you or make you wonder? I really sincerely hope you do get some help. Good luck, I mean that.
 
2013-02-26 12:07:39 PM  

indarwinsshadow: Not a troll Amos. I see people like you everyday. I don't get upset when they yell at me, and no, you aren't a normal guy. Haven't you read some of the replies back to your insults.



Ah, there we are.

As I presumed, you haven't bothered to read anything that I have written, but are basing your assessments solely on the shrieks and howls of others who don't appreciate certain subjects being broached, and certain facts brought to light. When I ask these "critics" to rationally discuss these facts, they inevitably decline to do so and opting instead for baseless accusations, misquotes / misinterpretations, and, like you, launching ad hominem attacks.


indarwinsshadow: You can't be that ignorant that it doesn't bother you or make you wonder?



I am  a student of history. If you actually read the material I write, you will see that it is all fully cited and referenced, and that my sources are unbiased and impeccable. Certain historical facts may tend to irritate those dogmatically obsessed with one ideological / political agenda or another. That these (predictably) gibber and howl has no bearing on the legitimacy of the observations.

Facts are facts. Why should their impotent indignant rage "bother" me?

And yes, I do derive a bit of morbid pleasure from biatch-slapping these lying, libelous whiners with a bit of snide sarcasm.

Is that wrong?
 
2013-02-26 01:01:59 PM  

Amos Quito: I am  a student of history. If you actually read the material I write, you will see that it is all fully cited and referenced, and that my sources are unbiased and impeccable


Ok, that made me fall off my chair laughing. You mean all the lying bullshiat anti-semitic conspiracy nuttery ? man.. thanks for the laugh.
Where did you study history ? Klan University ?

indarwinsshadowis right. Maybe therapy will do you good. How about going to an AA(*) meeting.

/*Antisemites Anonymous
 
2013-02-26 01:25:37 PM  

TappingTheVein: Amos Quito: I am  a student of history. If you actually read the material I write, you will see that it is all fully cited and referenced, and that my sources are unbiased and impeccable

Ok, that made me fall off my chair laughing. You mean all the lying bullshiat anti-semitic conspiracy nuttery ? man.. thanks for the laugh.
Where did you study history ? Klan University ?

indarwinsshadowis right. Maybe therapy will do you good. How about going to an AA(*) meeting.

/*Antisemites Anonymous



LOL!

You're always good for a laugh, Tappy.

I would invite you to discuss your spittle-strewn allegations, but you have repeatedly shown (including in your "discussions" with Uncle Tractor in this thread) that you are incapable of rational discourse, and immediately launch in to tirades of misquotes, misrepresentations, outright lies and/or fantastic fabrications - apparently deluding yourself into believing that the oft repeated lie becomes "truth".


/Keep on posting, Poster Child
 
2013-02-26 02:34:41 PM  

Amos Quito: I would invite you to discuss your spittle-strewn allegations, but you have repeatedly shown (including in your "discussions" with Uncle Tractor in this thread) that you are incapable of rational discourse


Um, sir, your anti-semitic conspiracy bullcrap is posted right here in this thread for all to see, in details, with proof against your lying anti-semitic bullshiat.
Don't seek professional help. I like my anti-semites crazy as shiathouse rat.

Amos Quito: immediately launch in to tirades of misquotes, misrepresentations, outright lies and/or fantastic fabrications - apparently deluding yourself into believing that the oft repeated lie becomes "truth".


Which is exactly what you did as explained in details in my posts. I'll add 'psychological projection' to the diagnosis.
 
2013-02-26 02:50:08 PM  

TappingTheVein: Amos Quito: I would invite you to discuss your spittle-strewn allegations, but you have repeatedly shown (including in your "discussions" with Uncle Tractor in this thread) that you are incapable of rational discourse

Um, sir, your anti-semitic conspiracy bullcrap is posted right here in this thread for all to see, in details, with proof against your lying anti-semitic bullshiat.
Don't seek professional help. I like my anti-semites crazy as shiathouse rat.

Amos Quito: immediately launch in to tirades of misquotes, misrepresentations, outright lies and/or fantastic fabrications - apparently deluding yourself into believing that the oft repeated lie becomes "truth".

Which is exactly what you did as explained in details in my posts. I'll add 'psychological projection' to the diagnosis.



And as "proof" Tappy  ONCE AGAIN links to one of his OWN POSTS that link to MORE of his own posts which in turn link to MORE of his own posts ...


i.snag.gy


What TappingTheVein might look like.
 
2013-02-26 03:10:17 PM  

Amos Quito: And as "proof" Tappy  ONCE AGAIN links to one of his OWN POSTS that link to MORE of his own posts which in turn link to MORE of his own posts ...


Nope, i gave detailed proof for your insane anti-semitic conspiracy bullshiat, it's right here in this thread. Keep lying to yourself it it helps, i don't mind.
I gave links to my own posts earlier because i already refuted and explained your lying anti-semtic bullshiat in detail, later i provided direct links for the challenged reader.

You, of course, chose to ignore that part.

AmosQuito looks like a combination of:

www.rickross.com

And this:

guardyoureyes.org
 
2013-02-26 03:17:29 PM  
TappingTheVein:

Amos Quito:


I'm starting to think the two of you are the same person i.e. Sybil, Norman Bates or Gollum. Nobody argues this much with someone they know will never agree with them. You should really ignore each other if you are truly two different 'real' people.
 
2013-02-26 03:24:53 PM  

George Babbitt: Nobody argues this much with someone they know will never agree with them.


You do if they are a great source of amusement.
Real anti-semites are rare on Fark and  his anti-semitic bullshiat conspiracies are a delight.
 
2013-02-26 06:41:01 PM  

George Babbitt: TappingTheVein:

Amos Quito:

I'm starting to think the two of you are the same person i.e. Sybil, Norman Bates or Gollum. Nobody argues this much with someone they know will never agree with them.



Tappy doesn't disagree with me, George. He knows I'm right, and that's what pisses him off.

:-)


/Besides, he's more entertaining than worm farm
//Nowhere near as intelligent
///But more entertaining
 
Displayed 234 of 234 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report