|
|
Deleted by topic administrator 02-22-2008 04:14 PM
|
|
Wad
03-10-2007
02:58 PM ET (US)
|
You guys are fucking idiots to believe such hypocrisy, you want to find nuclear arms, biological and chemical weapons. Fucken look at isreal, dancing after the wtc collapse. What a bunch of shit, iran's gonna take over the world, israel already owns it.
|
|
erica1222000@yahoo.com
03-09-2007
08:26 PM ET (US)
|
hi mom how are you
|
| |
Messages 17-16 deleted by topic administrator 07-21-2006 08:56 AM |
|
Frank
07-04-2006
02:09 AM ET (US)
|
Let's start killing iranians and north koreans now.
|
|
Frank
04-01-2005
03:33 PM ET (US)
|
Iran with an Islamic terrorist theocratic government can not be trusted to have nuclear Energy. It is the one country in the world that can not be trusted unless there is a regime change.
Here is an exmple why: TEHRAN, Iran -- Some 200 masked young men and women gathered at a Tehran cemetery Thursday to pledge their willingness to carry out suicide bomb attacks against Americans in Iraq and Israelis.
The ceremony was organized by the Headquarters for Commemorating Martyrs of the Global Islamic Movement, a shadowy group that has since June been seeking volunteers for attacks in Iraq and Israel.
A spokesman, Ali Mohammadi, described the group meeting Thursday as the "first suicide commando unit," though another official has claimed members already have carried out attacks in Israel.
"Sooner or later we will bury all blasphemous occupiers of Islamic lands," Mohammadi said.
-----------
If only 200 show up out of a population of 60 million, doesn't that also demonstrate they're scraping the bottom of the barrel now?
What do you do when 200 terrorists are ready to die for their cause?
Accommodate them.
I'm sorry but the ideology of Islamofascism is a culture and religion stuck in the darkness of the 12th Century that has not undergone a period of reformation or enlightenment. This is no religion of peace that sanctions the slaughter of innocents.
(Islamonazism and Islamofascism are terms used to describe the use of Nazi and/or fascist terminology, beliefs and propaganda by Islamic religious and political leaders, generally manifesting itself in calls for the destruction of the world and it's "infidels" (non-Muslims) in general.)
Iran,a known terrorist state is very close to having a nuclear weapon. We can worry about "Iranian democracy" later. First comes the safety of America,our allies and our interests. Destroy the mullahs...strike Iran now!
The future of Iran has major strategic policy consequences for the US in this region. A majority of the Iranian people who consider themselves Persian and not Arabic, would overthrow this radical Islamic theocracy if given a chance
The fact remains that Ameica's war against Islamic terror is the whole world's war against Islamo_Fascism and Islamic terrorism.
The fact is that Islam is pure evil dressed up as "peaceful" by some muslims.
Deal with the facts. Muhammad child raped a 9 year old little girl when in her own words was still playing with her dolls.
Then there is Muhammad slaughter of the entire male population of a tribe in Medina. Not to mention his muslims terrorist being told to kill his political enemies including an old man and a women with children. because those bad folks made fun of his pagan moon god cult.
Then there is Muhammad's muslim terrorist killing and stealing from Mecca caravans during the pagan Ramadan. They were told to bring back 20% of the stolen goods to Muhamhead to please allah of course.
And how do you like the koran telling men to beat their wives? It even tells the kind of stick to use.
Then there is the koran's promises of virgins, endless drunkeness (rivers of wine) and homosexual peophilia (young boys as fine as pearls).
Islamic terrorism is based on Islam as revealed through the Qu’ran.There is no difference between Islam and Islamic fundamentalism, which is a totalitarian construct.
In Islam All infidels are to be converted, enslaved or killed.As long as the Koran exists, Islam will continue to oppress, murder, enslave, threaten, lie and terrorize innocent people.
When I think of what type of people order their followers to commit murder, I only can think of organized crime bosses or corrupt political figures. Ayatollah Khomenni comes to mind. How would an Iranian be treated if he spoke out about Khomenni ? Amnesty International just reported that many political prisoners have been executed in Iran.
His fundamentalist Islamic regime had other dissident Iranians murdered all over the world. These murderous Muslims represent exactly what Muhammad was all about. They follow Muhammad's methodology: kill those who are a threat to your credibility and power over others.
Hizbollah and other Islamic terrorist groups for example knows exactly what they are doing. They know it is cold-blooded murder that they are committing upon Muhammad's request.
With the Islamic terrorists , "enemy personnel" can be anyone from an English Hi humanitarian worker in Iraq, an Indian Kafir(Infidel who doesn't believe in Allah), a Russian,A communist, An Algerian muslim kid, a Dutch filmmaker(van Gough) or Jewish toddler. In short, the enemy is anyone not a Muslim(or sometimes a muslim) who does not believe the world is destined to be ruled by Islam.
|
|
Taylor Lewis
02-22-2005
03:08 AM ET (US)
|
It's not just Russia and Pakistan that have renegade nuclear scientists, South Africa too.
There's another Quicktopic form on Iran and atomic bombs. http://www.quicktopic.com/29/H/2WKph6eAFDhX
This forum has the author of a book on Iran's nuclear option giving his opinions.
|
|
Tony Thompson
05-23-2004
05:53 AM ET (US)
|
Yes,all of you are right! NK is a big threat with nuke program. But, NK can't do anything umless China says `go'
NK might have a few nuke arms, while China has thousands,targeting SK,Taiwan,Japan our important allies, and above all, USA ourselves!
How can I compare this amazing number with NK? China is targeting the US with hundreds nuke arms!!!
In a short run, NK is the biggest threat,perhaps. But we should never forget China, behind the screen of NK.
|
|
Anyone But Bush
03-04-2004
02:16 PM ET (US)
|
http://anyonebutbushtshirts.com
|
|
Dave from Korea
08-19-2003
04:26 AM ET (US)
|
Unlike many Korean I have had up to by neck with NK. Yes a war might kill many people ( last estimate 2million) but think about the lives you would be saving on the other side.
The two korea have been at war for 50 year and at this rate for another 50 maybe. But one has to think NK has several nukes but in another 50 years it might have hundreds and then the death toll will not be 2million but much more.
So i say they started is lets finish it, lets get rid of NK and start from scrach. NK will never give up its only money maker and the US can not give in to NK demands. So lets no waste so NK makes more lets finish this. It been waiting to happen for 50 years. Mr Bush finish what the US start today, don't leave the Koreas in limbo for another 50 years.
Dave Seoul
|
|
Billy
02-13-2003
10:59 AM ET (US)
|
Most of the opposition to a potential war with Iraq is not about Iraq, it's about George W. Bush.
|
|
Dan Shockley
02-13-2003
10:00 AM ET (US)
|
Here's the point that some are making: we should NOT ignore Iraq so it can have nuclear weapons that can reach the US, too, and focus our attentions on a country that already can nuke us. To those who disagree: good thinking, genuises. That's the kind of attitude that gave us this problem in the first place. Maybe the US can handle stopping Iraq from getting ICBMs tipped with nukes AND work diplomatically on the N Korea situation at the same time. Big difference, though: Bush is trying to NOT antagonize N Korea, and is trying to drum up support to ATTACK Iraq before they get those weapons. Scarier thought: Iraq only needs the ability to hit Israel. They will HAVE to defend themselves, and then Saddam may be able to get other Arab countries to side WITH him. Anyone else want to wait until Saddam has that ability? Come on, people, think! Edited 02-13-2003 10:02 AM
|
|
Chris Adams
02-12-2003
10:32 PM ET (US)
|
On Wednesday, February 12, 2003, at 07:14 PM, QT - Rob McNair-Huff wrote:
> Thanks for the follow up Chris. Unfortunately, according to news
> reports tonight, China is not interested in pushing North Korea
> any further at this point, so it looks like it is time for the
> U.S. to start paying attention. And by paying attention I don't
> mean getting ready to launch a war on North Korea now. I mean
> engaging in high level dilplomatic dialogue with the North
> Koreans...
Ugh - I hadn't seen that about China stepping down. Unfortunately, there don't seem to be any options if North Korea doesn't have a sudden change of outlook - nobody really trusts the North Korean government to negotiate in good faith. If they aren't willing to go for some sort of international monitoring there aren't exactly a lot of options.
Chris
|
Rob McNair-Huff  02-12-2003
10:14 PM ET (US)
|
Thanks for the follow up Chris. Unfortunately, according to news reports tonight, China is not interested in pushing North Korea any further at this point, so it looks like it is time for the U.S. to start paying attention. And by paying attention I don't mean getting ready to launch a war on North Korea now. I mean engaging in high level diplomatic dialogue with the North Koreans... Edited 02-12-2003 10:37 PM
|
|
Chris Adams
02-12-2003
09:52 PM ET (US)
|
On Wednesday, February 12, 2003, at 12:59 PM, QT - Rob McNair-Huff wrote:
> In short, Bush chose to ignore the most critical threat while
> his obsession with what by all accounts looks like a much lesser
> threat from Iraq stole all of his limited attention.
I don't see any signs that it's being ignored. It's just that there isn't a good, quick option. North Korea's nuclear program was never stopped, so the opportunity to prevent it from being a threat was over well before Bush was elected - probably even before Clinton came into office (did Bush Sr. actually finish anything?).
At this point they've made it clear that the U.S. is serious about finishing any war North Korea starts and the best option is seeing if the diplomats can use that support to come up with a compromise. That seems to be exactly what's going on - there won't be much press about negotiations until everyone is ready to go public but it's obvious that there are a lot of quiet negotiations going on. Fortunately, the situation is quite different from Iraq because North Korea has powerful neighbors who can apply a great deal of pressure. Iraq could push anyone in the Gulf around with the possible exception of Iran - North Korea would have plenty of problems with South Korea, let alone Russia, China, or India.
The Chinese in particular appear to be taking an active role and I think it's wise to let them take the lead - they have better relations with North Korea, and the approach avoids upsetting Chinese-US
relations by trying to take charge over what they might consider a local problem. If nothing else, it gives the intelligence types more time to figure out what weapons exist, where they're kept, and the best way of eliminating North Korea's delivery systems if that becomes necessary. The only real military option is a massive first-strike to disable missiles and artillery - an undertaking which could go wrong in so many ways that you'd only try it if war was inevitable. Since it doesn't involve invasion it's not even going to conflict too much with an Iraq campaign - that would rely on stealthy aircraft which won't be needed in Iraq after the initial few days; since North Korea's army isn't well-suited for an invasion and South Korea's rather hardened, missile strikes are a lot more worrisome than an invasion.
It looks exactly like they are handling two major problems about as well as they can - exhausting the non-military possibilities and, since there's no good military role in North Korea short of a potential nuclear war, acting quickly to prevent Iraq from posing the same problem in a couple years.
Chris
|
|
|
New Topic
My Topics
Views:
2445
(Unique:
931
) / Subscribers:
2 | What's this?
