IRAN'S Nuclear Capability

Talk about everything else besides Stratovarius here in English. Please try to put more serious topics here, and silly topics in the Spam section.
Locked

Is Iran's nuclear capability a concern?

Hell Yes--it might cause WWIII!!!
11
23%
Somewhat
8
17%
Not at this point--just watch&see!
9
19%
None at all--Ever!
6
13%
The World should just mind its own damn business!!!
13
28%
 
Total votes: 47

TimoTolkki
Sr. Member
Posts: 859
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2002 9:51 pm

Re: IRAN'S Nuclear Capability

Post by TimoTolkki » Fri Jun 01, 2007 2:46 am

miditek wrote:
TimoTolkki wrote:I find nothing funny in both Germanys lebensraum and the US "lebesnraum".
I agree that the general concept of lebensraum is not humorous. However to insinuate that the US is somehow in want or need of said lebensraum, whether it be territorial or otherwise is in my opinion, political theater which is so far off-Broadway that it ends up in Hoboken! :lol:
In the context, as I explained it, that is my opinion.

User avatar
miditek
Sr. Member
Posts: 2045
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 4:59 am

Re: IRAN'S Nuclear Capability

Post by miditek » Fri Jun 01, 2007 3:07 am

Well, let's check the other side of the story, and I've provided sources from both the U.S. State Department, as well as Amnesty International- hopefully a little something for everyone.
TimoTolkki wrote:Why not. Here are the figures of the Human Rights reports by the countries (of course you forgot your own). The figures signify the number of the reports in the database of Amnesty:

USA 14 000
Iran 7 930
Iraq 6 820
Lebanon 4 380
Syria 4 230
Saudi Arabia 3 630
Russia 1 520



Well, the links I posted were in response to your assumption that some of the more brutal aspects of Sharia were not being practiced in the countries who's reports were posted. I posted on Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia, and you posted on the USA. I guess that all the bases are covered now, and that this should provide something interesting for everyone.

TimoTolkki wrote:I don´t know exactly where his hatred for Islam comes from, but I hope it´s not "support our troops" type.

It's always fascinating to see how a discussion about the political pitfalls and dangers of Sharia and the radical mullahs that are still practitioners of it fourteen centuries later could so easily morph into another visit to Islamophobiastan.
TimoTolkki wrote:From the way you write about the Muslims, it is very easy to draw conclusions like that. If it´s not like that, then that´s good.


I personally feel that people should at least take a closer look at what's going on right now. I've discussed the very same things with many Muslims, many times. I think that you might be surprised at how intelligent and thoughtful that many of them are. I simply don't consider Assad, Ahmandinejad or Bin Laden to be among them.

Your hair would probably stand on end if you'd ever heard my Syrian friends' account of what happened to the entire population in the city of Hama, at the hands of Hafez Assad's gang. They would tell you that, in their opinion, he was no Muslim, but essentially a secular, Baa'thist fanatic, not very different than Saddam Hussein.

I once asked the eldest of several brothers about Assad the younger, just prior to his ascension to power. I mentioned, "He's an Oxford trained ophthalmologist, so certainly he can't be as bad as his father, right?" When he replied, my friend simply laughed, although a in a bittersweet type of way, and said, "That's exactly what they want you to believe."

So the money spent at Oxford went a long way to burnish the younger Assad's image, as opposed to that of his positively brutal father.

In fact, they are not even permitted to worship in Mosques "back home", (or "overseas" as they call it), with the sole exception of very specific and limited Mosques that are approved by the ruling Alawite sect.
All of the inhabitants of Hama were destroyed by Hafez Assad for defiance of this rule.
Κύριε ἐλέησον

TimoTolkki
Sr. Member
Posts: 859
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2002 9:51 pm

Re: IRAN'S Nuclear Capability

Post by TimoTolkki » Fri Jun 01, 2007 8:09 am

I personally feel that people should at least take a closer look at what's going on right now.
And what is it that is going on?
I've discussed the very same things with many Muslims, many times. I think that you might be surprised at how intelligent and thoughtful that many of them are.
I don´t have any doubts about that.
I simply don't consider Assad, Ahmandinejad or Bin Laden to be among them.


Ahmandinejad I would care so much about. It´s mostly provocative, he knows what he is doing and he doesn´t have any real power in Iran.
Assad I don´t know and Bin Laden...well who knows about him and his role at the end of the day.
Your hair would probably stand on end if you'd ever heard my Syrian friends' account of what happened to the entire population in the city of Hama, at the hands of Hafez Assad's gang. They would tell you that, in their opinion, he was no Muslim, but essentially a secular, Baa'thist fanatic, not very different than Saddam Hussein.
Nothing makes my hair stand on end anymore my friend. The cruelty of a human race is too much to bear.
And now all things aside, I would like to hear your opinion about your own countrys actions after the II world war. I am very interested in hearing this,so would you please.

User avatar
miditek
Sr. Member
Posts: 2045
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 4:59 am

Re: IRAN'S Nuclear Capability

Post by miditek » Fri Jun 01, 2007 4:10 pm

TimoTolkki wrote:Nothing makes my hair stand on end anymore my friend. The cruelty of a human race is too much to bear.
I think what I meant was to hear it from people that actually lived there (Syria), and who actually lost friends and loved ones is what made it seem a whole lot more real to me.

One thing you might want to consider is some advice that I once received from my someone. He said that "a person should try their best not to worry about things over which they have no control." I know, it's certainly much easier said that done, but still very good advice. You really seem to bear the weight of the world on your shoulders at times. (I know, I've got a lot of room to talk.)
TimoTolkki wrote:And now all things aside, I would like to hear your opinion about your own countrys actions after the II world war. I am very interested in hearing this,so would you please.
I'll be glad to, but in the meantime, I just got an emergency call from a client, so could you be just a bit more specific on what opinions you wanted regarding post-WWII America? Are you speaking in general terms, or do you mean political, economic, defense/military related? I'll let you know after I get this "fire" put out on my end.
Κύριε ἐλέησον

User avatar
Carcass
Sr. Member
Posts: 1174
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 10:41 am
Location: Finland

Re: IRAN'S Nuclear Capability

Post by Carcass » Sat Jun 02, 2007 1:37 am

The question is that can economic, political and military factors be separated. :?

User avatar
miditek
Sr. Member
Posts: 2045
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 4:59 am

Re: IRAN'S Nuclear Capability

Post by miditek » Sun Jun 03, 2007 4:00 am

TimoTolkki wrote:Nothing makes my hair stand on end anymore my friend. The cruelty of a human race is too much to bear. And now all things aside, I would like to hear your opinion about your own countrys actions after the II world war. I am very interested in hearing this,so would you please.
Part I.

For a general overview, my opinion of America's post-WWII activities is what I would consider to be a mixed bag, although I certainly believe that the good far outweighs the bad, while at the same time, I will concede to you that my country is obviously not perfect.

For starters, I feel that the Marshall Plan, the Berlin Airlift, and the eventual formation of NATO were all very wise and effective long-term foreign policy achievements. I also believe that General Douglas MacArthur proved to be an outstanding military governor during the occupation of Japan, and that he and his staff planted the seeds of democracy in a country where democracy never existed before. The same can be said for American (and Allied) administration of post-war Germany.

The post-war U.S. in the 1950's and early 1960's was widely regarded as the "Golden Age" of America, and I would be inclined to agree. It was a time of significant overall peace and prosperity. I feel that the outcome of the Korean War was quite acceptable, as the independence of SK was preserved, and NK troops have not dared to cross the DMZ (at least en masse) for over fifty years now.

I do feel that the US providing assistance of any sort to the regime in Pyongyang merely props it up, which in turn, prolongs the suffering of the people living under Kim's grip, and as such, is a completely ridiculous policy. One need not worry about a 1 million man army that has insufficient rations to give to the quartermaster corps for
distribution to the troops.

I feel that US involvement in Vietnam (Indochina) was completely avoidable, and that the French requests for U.S. assistance during the First Indochina War should have been denied. In fact, if the U.S. had applied some real intelligence, they would have used the country's significant political influence to pressure the French to abandon their colonial ambitions, and to accept the fact that France's place in the world was indeed not on the same level as the U.S. or the Soviet Union. Uncle Ho had approached the White House with pleas for assistance to help get rid of the French, and when we refused, he went straight to Chairman Mao, who was only too happy to oblige. By this point, we had lost any hope of any additional political influence over Ho, even though the Vietnam War would not officially begin until years later.

The Bay of Pigs invasion was good intentions that were plagued by poor planning, allotment of resources, and extremely inept execution of available military and paramilitary assets. The Cuban Missile Crisis proved to the world (and not to mention Khrushchev) that President Kennedy "had a pair" so to speak, and that the United States would not tolerate interference in our sphere of influence, particularly the reality of nuclear ICBM's on an island only ninety miles off of the Florida coast. I felt that this was one of President Kennedy's best moments.

Turning attention inward to the new internal policies of the 1960's, we saw the advent of the Civil Rights movment in America, as well as the Great Society and the War on Poverty. The results here have been mixed as well. Minorities have made significant gains in this country since that time, although now, minorities receive preferential treatment in many aspects of society, which does little or nothing to address the real issues. Over $5 trillion dollars have been spent on the War on Poverty and the Great Society since the 1960's, and since then, the overall numbers of the poor have grown significantly, which proves the fallacy and farcial nature of those programs, in as far as their benefits to American society as a whole. The original goal- that of creating a permanent underclass with which to provide a dependent constituency to continue voting in leftist politicians year after year has, in fact, proved to be a startling success.

As the 1960's continued, so did America's growing involvement in Vietnam. There was no shortage of men and material, and moreover, the US never lost any major ground, aerial, or naval battle there, unlike the French, where over 10,000 surrendered at Dien Ben Phu. However, I do believe that Johnson's and McNamara's micromanagement of the war was completely ridiculous, and cost many American lives unnecessarily. Wars are fought to be won, and not lost. If you commit, then you should either do it to win, or stay out.

During this time we saw, of course, a new style of traitorous reporting on the war, that played straight into the propaganda machine in Hanoi, and years later, NVA General Giap confirmed this during interviews that were broadcast on American television. I also feel that Eisenhower's warning of the military/industrial complex actually did come into play here, somewhat, as the right's defense contractor clients certainly benefited from the war, and until the 1968 presidential elections, democrats in Congress also maintained power by mobilizing the radical anti-war left.

This post briefly touches upon a great deal of events that occured during the first half of the post-WWII years in America. I'll include a second part, that will bring us up to speed from the end of the Vietnam era to the present day in another post sometime soon.

To be continued...
Κύριε ἐλέησον

User avatar
miditek
Sr. Member
Posts: 2045
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 4:59 am

Re: IRAN'S Nuclear Capability

Post by miditek » Mon Jun 04, 2007 5:14 am

Carcass wrote:What's the definition of spiritual? I never figured that out. Someone who rejects materialism? Who thinks independently? Doesn't listen to authorities? Doesn't drive a car? Beats me... guess there are as many definitions as there are spiritual people.
There are many definitions that could be assigned to the word, spiritual. One of the best descriptions that I've ever seen is by NY Times bestselling author Joel C. Rosenberg, which describes the spiritual journey of his family, which spans several generations, three continents, as well as two different religions, in addition to agnosticism.

Q. Joel, would you tell me more about your spiritual journey?

A. This is by far my most frequently asked question. I appreciate it every time, for it goes to the core of the things that matter most in life. In 2005 I posted on my Web site a response to the many e-mails I receive every week on this topic. Here is an excerpt from that response:

joelrosenberg.com/ezekiel_q13.asp


This is a fascinating read, and I hope you'll find it to be informative, at least. As Joel states, spirituality is not just what we believe, but how we live, and most importantly, how spirituality can bring about the most astonishing changes in the lives of those that allow God to quietly do his work in each of us. Again, the link above shows how religion, agnosticism, reconciliation, and spirituality affected multiple generations of an entire family.

Another interesting story of spirituality and of reconciliation- this time from a Muslim monarch-
King Mohammad VI of Morocco.

joelrosenberg.com/ezekiel_q12.asp

In fact, Joel has some fascinating stories, recollections, and commentary in the entire Ezekiel 38-39 FAQ section at his website.

Joel's descriptions of attending university in Israel to study Hebrew are simply fascinating, at how he felt completely in awe as he first stepped foot into the Holy Land. In fact, nearly every Christian and Jew that I've ever known that has been there said that they've never felt such a powerful spiritual presence, and have never felt closer to God, than in Israel itself. Even my last employer and his wife had essentially identical stories.
Κύριε ἐλέησον

User avatar
NeonVomit
Sr. Member
Posts: 4628
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 5:36 pm
Location: London, UK

Re: IRAN'S Nuclear Capability

Post by NeonVomit » Mon Jun 04, 2007 2:32 pm

Do you believe the press should always support the government, or should seek the truth? Is anyone who speaks out against the government a traitor? Of course confidential military matters are probably best not exposed by the press, and there is a lot that is best left unsaid.

But bottom line, I believe America had no buisiness in Vietnam, the whole 'red scare' rubbish was proved to be a sham. Could the war have been won? Most probably, it was a failure due to awful planning and strategy. Should the war even have taken place? That is the important question and the answer is no. America should've stayed out of it instead of trying to make it some sort of 'warning' to other countries considering Communism.
"Beneath the freezing sky arrives Winter's Verge..."

http://www.wintersverge.com


I'm going to hell, and loving the ride!

User avatar
miditek
Sr. Member
Posts: 2045
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 4:59 am

Re: IRAN'S Nuclear Capability

Post by miditek » Mon Jun 04, 2007 3:30 pm

NeonVomit wrote:Do you believe the press should always support the government, or should seek the truth? Is anyone who speaks out against the government a traitor? Of course confidential military matters are probably best not exposed by the press, and there is a lot that is best left unsaid.
I think that the press needs to use common sense at times, particularly during a time of war, which unfortunately, it often does not. There is such a thing as abuse of the freedom of the press. Exposing confidential military and/or covert operations to the public is not based on a "right to know", and in fact, is considered treason in the US.

For instance, what do you think would have happened if Raeder and Doentiz had discovered that the British Secret Service had cracked the enigma code? Same rule applies when the US cracked the Japanese naval code. As I'd said before, Churchill once said to Stalin, that in war, the truth is so precious that it must be accompanied by a bodyguard of lies.
NeonVomit wrote:But bottom line, I believe America had no business in Vietnam,


And Ho would never have waged war against the US, had the US been a friend, and used it's influence to get the French to give up the fantasy that it's colonies still wanted or needed them. The Vietnam war was lost even before it started, in the political sense only.
NeonVomit wrote:the whole 'red scare' rubbish was proved to be a sham.


Try telling that to the 2 million people that were killed by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, or the South Vietnamese that were sent to the reeducation camps and the bamboo gulags in the North. Also try telling the 20-30 million victims (each!) of Stalin and Mao that Communism wasn't such a bad idea. If the red scare was rubbish, please provide evidence otherwise that the Communists didn't kill tens of millions and then enslave tens of millions more. Such a notion sounds suspiciously similar to Holocaust denial.

Where's your proof? Would you discredit Solzhenitsyn's "The Gulag Archipelago" as a work of fiction?
Κύριε ἐλέησον

User avatar
NeonVomit
Sr. Member
Posts: 4628
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 5:36 pm
Location: London, UK

Re: IRAN'S Nuclear Capability

Post by NeonVomit » Mon Jun 04, 2007 7:26 pm

miditek wrote:
Try telling that to the 2 million people that were killed by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, or the South Vietnamese that were sent to the reeducation camps and the bamboo gulags in the North. Also try telling the 20-30 million victims (each!) of Stalin and Mao that Communism wasn't such a bad idea. If the red scare was rubbish, please provide evidence otherwise that the Communists didn't kill tens of millions and then enslave tens of millions more. Such a notion sounds suspiciously similar to Holocaust denial.
You can say that about anything. You can cite the situation in Africa as a direct result of globalisation and colonialism. You can claim the atrocities commited by Augusto Pinochet as the fault of US foreign policy, as you could the Turkish invasion of Cyprus in 1974.

The Red Scare was the the fear of other countries adopting communism as a form of government. The collapse of the USSR painted out that there was no threat to the West from Communism. A nice idea in theory, but utterly impossible to implicate. And today? There are no truly Communist countries left in the world. You can call China a Communist country if you really want to though, despite having gone against virtually every single aspect of it and having a healthy (if regulated) market economy. North Korea is so surreal as to be another planet. Cuba clings onto Communism for as long as Castro lives and breathes, which won't be for that much longer. There might be a few other countries which still adhere to Communism, but none that are worth mentioning.

And now we get *drumroll* the Islamofascists! Convenient how one big scare drops out, another one conveniently pops up to take its place.

Was I denying that Stalin and Mao did horrible things? What idiot would deny that? You didn't get propaganda about what they were doing to their own people however, you got propaganda about how they were going to come over in their atheistic hoards and enslave us all.

The Vietnam war was not needed to 'show the Commies who's boss' (and if it was intended as such, I must say it was a pretty badly failed attempt). The Vietnam war was not needed for anything. 'Oh no look what the evil Communists are doing to the other Vietnamese!' We've seen time and time again that just because horrible things are happening within a country, it is not enough of a reason for the US to get involved, not unless there are political or economic gains to be made.
Exposing confidential military and/or covert operations to the public is not based on a "right to know", and in fact, is considered treason in the US.
Like the whole Plame affair, right?
"Beneath the freezing sky arrives Winter's Verge..."

http://www.wintersverge.com


I'm going to hell, and loving the ride!

User avatar
miditek
Sr. Member
Posts: 2045
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 4:59 am

Re: IRAN'S Nuclear Capability

Post by miditek » Wed Jun 06, 2007 12:48 pm

Tehran gang arrests three Finns in the Persian Gulf
foxnews.com/story/0,2933,278395,00.html

I guess the EU will send a strongly worded letter of reprimand to Ahmanutjob on this latest incident.
Κύριε ἐλέησον

User avatar
browneyedgirl
Sr. Member
Posts: 27236
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2002 6:00 pm
Location: Starfall
Contact:

Re: IRAN'S Nuclear Capability

Post by browneyedgirl » Wed Jun 06, 2007 2:56 pm

miditek wrote:Tehran gang arrests three Finns in the Persian Gulf
foxnews.com/story/0,2933,278395,00.html

I guess the EU will send a strongly worded letter of reprimand to Ahmanutjob on this latest incident.
I guess the Finnish authorities will just ask the Iranians nicely, "Please, oh Please, let our people go!" ;)






IRAN ARRESTS 3 FINNISH MEN ON PERSIAN GULF FISHING TRIP
Wednesday, June 06, 2007

HELSINKI, Finland —  Iran has arrested three Finnish men who allegedly strayed into its territorial waters during a fishing trip in the Persian Gulf, Finnish government officials said Wednesday.
The three men, employed by Nokia Siemens Networks, were seized Saturday near the island of Abu Musa off Dubai and were being held for questioning.
"We have been in contact with Iranian authorities. They said the three men are fine and are being cared for," Foreign ministry councilor Pasi Tuominen said.
No other details were immediately available.
Iranian revolutionary guards detained 15 British sailors and marines after seizing their ship on March 23 in what Tehran claimed was Iranian waters in the Persian Gulf. Britain insisted the crew was in Iraqi waters at the time. The 15 were released after nearly two weeks in captivity.
"Your life is yours, and yours alone. Rise up and live it!"

Bob: I don't believe in God.
Archangel Michael: That's OK, Bob, because He doesn't believe in you, either!~Legion~

TimoTolkki
Sr. Member
Posts: 859
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2002 9:51 pm

Re: IRAN'S Nuclear Capability

Post by TimoTolkki » Wed Jun 06, 2007 3:24 pm

I guess the Finnish authorities will just ask the Iranians nicely, "Please, oh Please, let our people go!" ;)
With diplomacy yes. Finns are not known to be very eager to go on warpath if not forced.
It does include a lesson for "some" other nations: "Don´t go fishing to wrong places"!!

User avatar
browneyedgirl
Sr. Member
Posts: 27236
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2002 6:00 pm
Location: Starfall
Contact:

Re: IRAN'S Nuclear Capability

Post by browneyedgirl » Wed Jun 06, 2007 3:42 pm

TimoTolkki wrote:
I guess the Finnish authorities will just ask the Iranians nicely, "Please, oh Please, let our people go!" ;)
With diplomacy yes. Finns are not known to be very eager to go on warpath if not forced.
It does include a lesson for "some" other nations: "Don´t go fishing to wrong places"!!
IMO, the Iranians will not hurt these fishermen. Muslims have a tradition that if they are kind to someone, even under arrest, that means they will not harm them.
Patience is the key here.

Why were they fishing in this place? ??? Aren't there plenty of fish in the seas around Finland?
Of course, the fishermen just made a mistake&IMO, this is a totally different type scenario than the British situation.
"Your life is yours, and yours alone. Rise up and live it!"

Bob: I don't believe in God.
Archangel Michael: That's OK, Bob, because He doesn't believe in you, either!~Legion~

User avatar
miditek
Sr. Member
Posts: 2045
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 4:59 am

Re: IRAN'S Nuclear Capability

Post by miditek » Wed Jun 06, 2007 4:04 pm

browneyedgirl wrote: Why were they fishing in this place? ??? Aren't there plenty of fish in the seas around Finland? Of course, the fishermen just made a mistake&IMO, this is a totally different type scenario than the British situation.
Unless I'm mistaken, these guys were employees of Nokia, and I think that they were actually working in Dubai. They probably went out on a charted boat for a bit of R&R (rest and relaxation) just as anyone would while on their day off.

While I agree with Tolkki that the Finns probably aren't looking to go on the warpath, I will say that Iran is once again testing the waters, so to speak, to see what they can get away with, and then use the Finns for propaganda purposes. In other words, the Iranians will essentially turn an unprovoked kidnapping of civilians into a PR coup to "prove" how "humane" that they are.

The more that Iran perceives weakness among the western powers, then the more provocations will occur. If the US Coast Guard has detained these people under similiar circumstances, there would be widespread international condemnation, and at least to me, proves the overall hypocrisy of the situation.

I wonder why Iran hasn't decided to "act like they've got a pair" (which they don't), and go after bigger game, such as a US Navy destroyer? A US Coast Guard cutter? Or even a little PT (Patrol Torpedo) boat? Any opinions on that one?
Κύριε ἐλέησον

TimoTolkki
Sr. Member
Posts: 859
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2002 9:51 pm

Re: IRAN'S Nuclear Capability

Post by TimoTolkki » Wed Jun 06, 2007 4:19 pm

Funny, but this brought to me an incident from the last tour when we came from Canada to USA and crossed the border by tourbus.
So we went to the customs and this huge black guy is acting extremely strict and told he´s gonna check our bus. So we waited and in about 15 minutes he comes back holding an orange looking extremely pissed off. It was hard to keep a straight face when he angrily asked the question: "what do you think this is"?!! To which our tour manager answered, well it´s an orange.
Turned out that there was some law that you cant bring oranges to USA from Canada (there were kiwis,bananas and apples too) and the surreality of the whole incident knowing that at the same time Baghdad was under heavy Tomahawk attack was just something that was very hard for me to comprehend.

User avatar
browneyedgirl
Sr. Member
Posts: 27236
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2002 6:00 pm
Location: Starfall
Contact:

Re: IRAN'S Nuclear Capability

Post by browneyedgirl » Wed Jun 06, 2007 4:24 pm

Yeah, it seems a banana would've been more dangerous! :D


Seriusly, it must've been some kind of health or import law. ???
"Your life is yours, and yours alone. Rise up and live it!"

Bob: I don't believe in God.
Archangel Michael: That's OK, Bob, because He doesn't believe in you, either!~Legion~

User avatar
miditek
Sr. Member
Posts: 2045
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 4:59 am

Re: IRAN'S Nuclear Capability

Post by miditek » Thu Jun 07, 2007 4:08 am

@BEG is right about this one. It probably was an FDA (US Food & Drug Administration) edict that prohibited the import of certain fruits and vegetables from certain places from time to time. I've seen lots of stories in the news where one country will ban the product, due to health concerns. Here's a sample:

Japan agrees to ease US beef ban
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3947767.stm

This was in the wake of the mad cow hysteria, although I do believe that if the Japanese government had reason to suspect that some of the meat was contaminated, then they did what they felt was necessary to protect it's citizens.

Now as far as Stratovarius' adventure with ICE (US Immigration and Customs Enforcement) is concerned, this may have been due to one of those bans on foreign imported fruits or vegetables due to a fear that some fruit may have been infected with the Mediterranean fruit fly eggs, larva, etc.

In short, the fruits at the EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency) fired off a politically charged letter to the always paranoid US FDA, who in turn sent the rules or warnings to the vegetables working over at ICE, and there you go. (How's that for bureaucracy?)

ICE inspectors on the Canadistani border have jobs that are for people that would otherwise be, ummm, unemployable. :lol: (Sort of like the guards at the Hamilton Country Jail).
Κύριε ἐλέησον

User avatar
miditek
Sr. Member
Posts: 2045
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 4:59 am

Re: IRAN'S Nuclear Capability

Post by miditek » Thu Jun 07, 2007 12:32 pm

Syrian politician: War with Israel is coming
foxnews.com/story/0,2933,278832,00.html

Olhmert should step aside. Bring Bibi Netanyahu back!
Κύριε ἐλέησον

User avatar
NeonVomit
Sr. Member
Posts: 4628
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 5:36 pm
Location: London, UK

Re: IRAN'S Nuclear Capability

Post by NeonVomit » Thu Jun 07, 2007 1:52 pm

Fox news, now there's a reliable, unbiased source! I thought Ohlmert lost his popularity because of war anyway...
"Beneath the freezing sky arrives Winter's Verge..."

http://www.wintersverge.com


I'm going to hell, and loving the ride!

User avatar
browneyedgirl
Sr. Member
Posts: 27236
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2002 6:00 pm
Location: Starfall
Contact:

Re: IRAN'S Nuclear Capability

Post by browneyedgirl » Thu Jun 07, 2007 2:32 pm

I think that was just a case of "yapping at the mouth" from that Syrian guy. :err:
IMO, I believe these Mid-East leaders are drinking too much of that strong Turkish coffee! :nervous: They need to just go to a belly-dance bar&relax, or something! :err:
"Your life is yours, and yours alone. Rise up and live it!"

Bob: I don't believe in God.
Archangel Michael: That's OK, Bob, because He doesn't believe in you, either!~Legion~

TimoTolkki
Sr. Member
Posts: 859
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2002 9:51 pm

Re: IRAN'S Nuclear Capability

Post by TimoTolkki » Sat Jun 09, 2007 11:45 am

I would like very much to hear Miditek´s account of America up until this very day after tbc in his post.

User avatar
miditek
Sr. Member
Posts: 2045
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 4:59 am

Re: IRAN'S Nuclear Capability

Post by miditek » Sat Jun 09, 2007 7:49 pm

TimoTolkki wrote:I would like very much to hear Miditek´s account of America up until this very day after tbc in his post.
Client engagements and related work have kept Miditek extremely busy (and a bit stressed) this week, but let's take a few minutes to examine some of the highlights of post-Vietnam War America.

But first, an epilogue to Part I, and some of the events to consider. America was going through radical social changes at the time at home, with the civil rights movement, as well as protests to the Vietnam War. America rose to President Kennedy's challenge, and NASA eventually put a man (or actually two men) on the moon with Apollo 11, in addition to subsequent missions. Despite nutty innuendos and assertions of critics such as Till Lindemann & Company, NASA actually did deliver the goods as advertised.

America also aided her ally, Israel, during the Six Day War, and even more importantly, during the Yom Kippur War. Even though Israeli intelligence knew in advance of the pending attack, Israeli PM Golda Meir was under enormous pressure from the White House and the State Department not to launch preemptive attacks on her enemies, or risk losing support.

To make a long story short, even during Israel's darkest hour and when defeat seemed imminent (in fact, Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Dayan even sent a communique' to Meir that said, 'It is over. The Third Temple is lost. We must invoke the Samson Option now, Madame Prime Minister.'), a steady stream of US F-4 Phantoms were being flown in to Israel as replacements for heavy losses, and immediately were repainted with the Star of David and then sent back into battle. The Pentagon was also on high alert as it appeared that Soviet intervention was quite likely. It is my opinion that God would not soon forget, nor would he not reward America for following His will, as America used it's great strength to help tiny Israel survive, and even thrive in an area surrounded by those that wished to destroy her. I was in complete agreement with this policy at that time, and even moreso now.

Pt II.

As the US began to deescalate the war in Vietnam, and eventually withdrew, it seemed that the fallout of the war, along with the lingering effects of the Arab oil embargo, inflation, and a general sense of malaise seemed to indicate that the Great Republic was becoming somewhat stagnant. All sorts of Women's movements (ERA), environmental movements, and the like began. I remember this time from my childhood, and it did seem that at the time, the US was just not the same as it had been previously. We also had the Watergate scandal, which brought down a presidency. One highlight, I think, of that administration, was the opening and overall normalization of relations with China.

When the Carter administration took power, things seemed to take a turn for the worse. I think that President Carter was certainly well intentioned, but completely inept at dealing with the country's growing internal problems. Interest rates and crime continued to soar, and there was a general sense of anxiety in the country. One highlight that I can think of from the Carter administration were the Camp David Accords, which led to a peace treaty being signed between Egypt and the State of Israel. This is something that Egyptian President Anwar Sadat later paid for with his very life.

I was in school at the time of that news, and remember feeling very upset with that particular event. I considered Sadat to be a very brave man, and still regret that his life was cut short. He was very popular here in America, as I recall, as was Israeli PM Menachem Begin. I also remember the Iranian Hostage Crisis, in addition to the failed rescue attempt, Operation: Eagle Claw, which ended in disaster, and virtually ensured that Carter would not return to the White House. One silver lining to that little black cloud was the decision to create and implement SOCOM (Special Operations Command later on, and also helped to lay the groundwork for what would be known as "the Reagan Revolution).

After the Carter economic and foreign policy debacles, Reagan then took the White House by a landslide, and went on to a second term. Reagan sought to restore America's confidence, and I must say that both his humor, as well as his enthusiasm, were quite contagious! Although there was a recession early in his first term, eventually, the US economy started roaring at an unprecedented pace. The US Embassy hostages were released just moments before Reagan was sworn in, and I definitely remember the morale of our country began to soar! Reagan's tax cuts also contributed to economic growth, and I also recall that the President was a staunch ally of Israel. He also had found a kindred spirit in conservative British PM Margaret Thatcher. At last, America was back! Many of our enemies feared President Reagan, which also helped US morale very much. America had had about enough of being the world's punching bag, so to speak, and I recall a time of great enthusiasm that it seemed that, once again, our opportunities seemed limitless.

This was the beginning of the Conservative Revolution, as well as an escalation of the Cold War. President Reagan resoundingly condemned the downing of KAL flight 007 (which killed U.S. Representative Larry McDonald, D-GA) by the Soviet Union, and denounced the Soviet Union as "The Evil Empire". I also recall Reagan's speech in Berlin where he challenged Gorbachev to "tear down this wall", which I am sure that resounded quite positively throughout both West Germany, as well as their cousins in East Germany. (How quickly they forget!) Reagan was not content to allow the status quo to continue, and actively worked to undermine Communism wherever he could. The US began placing more tactical and short range nuclear weapons in Europe, much to the chagrin of the Greens Party, which somehow conveniently forgot the fact that the Soviets had over 50,000 T-72 and T-80 tanks that, if unchecked, could have easily overwhelmed Western Europe. With these policies, I was in complete agreement.

For anyone that wishes to denigrate America's post-war policies in Europe, it is important to consider what would have happened had we not kept a sizeable military presence there for decades after the war. It is easy to condemn our country for the Cold War policies, but it is essential to realize that the Soviet Union certainly would have had no problem adding Western European states to its sphere of influence (case in point, the Russians did invade Vienna, and radio transmission interceptions of the Red Army also showed that Stalin had designs on Denmark, that is until Eisenhower diverted US infantry divisions there). The Cold War policies kept the Soviet Union from occupying the rest of Europe (and whom but America could have done this?), in addition to reassuring Soviet concerns that Germany would be back again, in a very short time, and more powerful than ever, was simply not going to happen. Not on our watch. And why should America have been responsible for this? To my mind, this proves once again that Europe lacked the political skill and not to mention military means to provide security for the Western part of the Continent. Again, this responsibility fell primarily on America, and secondarily to Britian, under the auspices of NATO.

In fact, I've often wondered why America even bothered to help out both during and after WWII in Europe. Why not let the Facists and the Communists simply destroy each other on that failed, blood-soaked continent- I've often wondered, but that is merely a random thought. I believe that the US did indeed take the moral high ground, and did what was necessary to defend the Western democracies, all the way up until we saw the fall of the Berlin Wall, as well as the fall of the Soviet Union. I did not agree with the US policy of having essentially unarmed peacekeepers in Lebanon, and then set themselves up for the disaster when a Hezbollah suicide bomber killed 241 U.S. Marines in Beirut. Reagan then pulled out all the peacekeepers, which led to even further problems. This was a political debacle of the highest order, despite the fact that the WWII era battleship USS New Jersey unleashed punishing volleys of fire against Syrian positions, even killing one of their generals. There was very little "worldwide condemnation" of Syrian occupation and interference of the "Soverign State" of Lebanon, but when Israel went in to punish thugs such as the PLO and Hezbollah, the complaints went nearly unabated.

There were other foreign policy debacles then, such as the Iran-Contra affair, which I agree, were not exactly shining moments in American foreign policy.

It now appears that I am out of time, due to current work schedules, and hope to post a Part III, which will deal with my take on the Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II administrations, as time permits, but for now, I must get back to the tasks at hand.
Κύριε ἐλέησον

User avatar
NeonVomit
Sr. Member
Posts: 4628
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 5:36 pm
Location: London, UK

Re: IRAN'S Nuclear Capability

Post by NeonVomit » Mon Jun 11, 2007 3:49 am

This probably has to do with sleep deprivation, but I found this utterly side-splitting when I found it and couldn't not post it

Image
"Beneath the freezing sky arrives Winter's Verge..."

http://www.wintersverge.com


I'm going to hell, and loving the ride!

User avatar
miditek
Sr. Member
Posts: 2045
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 4:59 am

Re: IRAN'S Nuclear Capability

Post by miditek » Mon Jun 11, 2007 4:46 am

NeonVomit wrote:This probably has to do with sleep deprivation, but I found this utterly side-splitting when I found it and couldn't not post it.


Why not post an al-Qaeda recruiting poster instead? It would be far more honest and significantly less hypocritical than that cartoon. Here's a real news event that was widely publicized which will show the nonsensical nature of that cartoon, and provides irrefutable proof of the anti-American propaganda that it actually is:

Fort Dix Terror Plot Thwarted
cbs3.com/slideshows/local_slideshow_128110633

Surgeon General's Warning:
Doing your homework before taking on Miditek regarding the Great Republic can seriously reduce your chances of being Pwned! (The next time, that is.) :D
Κύριε ἐλέησον

User avatar
NeonVomit
Sr. Member
Posts: 4628
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 5:36 pm
Location: London, UK

Re: IRAN'S Nuclear Capability

Post by NeonVomit » Mon Jun 11, 2007 3:12 pm

miditek wrote:
NeonVomit wrote:This probably has to do with sleep deprivation, but I found this utterly side-splitting when I found it and couldn't not post it.


Why not post an al-Qaeda recruiting poster instead? It would be far more honest and significantly less hypocritical than that cartoon. Here's a real news event that was widely publicized which will show the nonsensical nature of that cartoon, and provides irrefutable proof of the anti-American propaganda that it actually is:

Fort Dix Terror Plot Thwarted
cbs3.com/slideshows/local_slideshow_128110633

Surgeon General's Warning:
Doing your homework before taking on Miditek regarding the Great Republic can seriously reduce your chances of being Pwned! (The next time, that is.) :D

<---------------------------------------------------------- <above post

............. :( <--- miditek


Went right over your head didn't it?

The Fort Dix terrorist 'attempt' was hilarious in its ridiculously poor planning and methods. I think this cartoon was a dig at that.

Calm down, not everything in the world is anti-American propaganda (except that OPEC conspiracy, of course). I posted that cartoon after being awake for 20 hours and finding it funny, not really any other deeper reason.

Pwned? No, you just came across as pompus. Who's pwned?
"Beneath the freezing sky arrives Winter's Verge..."

http://www.wintersverge.com


I'm going to hell, and loving the ride!

User avatar
miditek
Sr. Member
Posts: 2045
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 4:59 am

Re: IRAN'S Nuclear Capability

Post by miditek » Mon Jun 11, 2007 4:26 pm

NeonVomit wrote:
miditek wrote:
NeonVomit wrote:This probably has to do with sleep deprivation, but I found this utterly side-splitting when I found it and couldn't not post it.


Why not post an al-Qaeda recruiting poster instead? It would be far more honest and significantly less hypocritical than that cartoon. Here's a real news event that was widely publicized which will show the nonsensical nature of that cartoon, and provides irrefutable proof of the anti-American propaganda that it actually is:

Fort Dix Terror Plot Thwarted
cbs3.com/slideshows/local_slideshow_128110633

Surgeon General's Warning:
Doing your homework before taking on Miditek regarding the Great Republic can seriously reduce your chances of being Pwned! (The next time, that is.) :D

<---------------------------------------------------------- <above post

............. :( <--- miditek


Went right over your head didn't it?

The Fort Dix terrorist 'attempt' was hilarious in its ridiculously poor planning and methods. I think this cartoon was a dig at that.

Calm down, not everything in the world is anti-American propaganda (except that OPEC conspiracy, of course). I posted that cartoon after being awake for 20 hours and finding it funny, not really any other deeper reason.

Pwned? No, you just came across as pompus. Who's pwned?
I think that I can quite clearly see what the cartoon was insinuating. If you'll check the dialog in the very first frame, it very clearly indicates what I consider to me a mockery of the official US concerns that if US forces pull out of Iraq now, then al-Qaida operatives currently on the ground in Iraq will then "follow us home", and that the only way that they can get over here is to crawl across the Sahara and then swim the Atlantic.

Both of those assertions are completely ridiculous, particularly when one considers that there are a great deal of foreign fighters already in Iraq, such as Syrians, Saudis, Yemenis, Chechens, etc., in addition to Persian operatives from Iran's Revolutionary Guards, and some of these Iranian operatives remain in US military custody.

Does this mean that all of these foreign fighters jumped on a magic carpet and flew into Baghdad? No, and that is just as ludicrous a notion as what the cartoon itself implies. Furthermore, if cartoon was indeed a jab at the ineptness of the Fort Dix conspirators, don't you think there would have been at least some references to the CD or DVD that was dropped off at the photo store, where an alert clerk decided to turn the materials over to the FBI, and then having the FBI arrest the conspirators after it was made aware of these plans?

No references to the jihadists attempting to buy heavy weapons and assault rifles from FBI undercover operatives? I can see absolutely no reference, obvious or implied, regarding the thwarted attack on Fort Dix. Also, I don't think that pompous is the correct description here, I'd say that PO'd would be at least a bit more accurate.

Nothing America does can please you.

Nothing Israel does can please you.

America and Israel are the only countries that come to mind that I ever see you criticize, while at the same time you minimize or otherwise dismiss the atrocities of other countries and terror groups as "shooting fish in a barrel.", and I must be blunt here; it does make me wonder at times what you really are thinking, and where your sympathies actually are.

I've heard no outcry from you about indiscriminate shelling by the Lebanese army into the Palestinian refugee camps against al-Qaida fighters holed up there, but if it were the IDF that were doing the shelling there would be a great deal of pompous protests coming from you now, wouldn't there?

I also have yet to hear your definition of what you would consider the political definition of the current regime that is in power in Iran now.

On a positive note, I actually think that you're an intelligent and pretty good guy, and also a very good musician, but as an American, I can find nothing amusing about jihadist plots to attack America, and find cartoons that try to minimize what we consider to be legitimate concerns regarding this to be extremely offensive and annoying. Would you laugh at cartoons of a repeat performance of Kristalnacht happening here after the next big terror attack? (For the record, I don't think that you would, but such a scenario is very likely).

Al-Qaida is a worldwide network, and believe me, if they want to get in (and the Fort Dix plot clearly shows that they are already here), they certainly have the resources and the wherewithal to do just that.
&#922;&#973;&#961;&#953;&#949; &#7952;&#955;&#941;&#951;&#963;&#959;&#957;

User avatar
NeonVomit
Sr. Member
Posts: 4628
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 5:36 pm
Location: London, UK

Re: IRAN'S Nuclear Capability

Post by NeonVomit » Mon Jun 11, 2007 5:30 pm

miditek wrote: I think that I can quite clearly see what the cartoon was insinuating. If you'll check the dialog in the very first frame, it very clearly indicates what I consider to me a mockery of the official US concerns that if US forces pull out of Iraq now, then al-Qaida operatives currently on the ground in Iraq will then "follow us home", and that the only way that they can get over here is to crawl across the Sahara and then swim the Atlantic.
You're taking it too seriously. I thought it was funny, in a stupid way.
Does this mean that all of these foreign fighters jumped on a magic carpet and flew into Baghdad? No, and that is just as ludicrous a notion as what the cartoon itself implies. Furthermore, if cartoon was indeed a jab at the ineptness of the Fort Dix conspirators, don't you think there would have been at least some references to the CD or DVD that was dropped off at the photo store, where an alert clerk decided to turn the materials over to the FBI, and then having the FBI arrest the conspirators after it was made aware of these plans?
Why bother referring to that? It wouldn't fit in and it would've lessened the overall silliness of the comic
No references to the jihadists attempting to buy heavy weapons and assault rifles from FBI undercover operatives? I can see absolutely no reference, obvious or implied, regarding the thwarted attack on Fort Dix. Also, I don't think that pompous is the correct description here, I'd say that PO'd would be at least a bit more accurate.

Nothing America does can please you.

Nothing Israel does can please you.

America and Israel are the only countries that come to mind that I ever see you criticize, while at the same time you minimize or otherwise dismiss the atrocities of other countries and terror groups as "shooting fish in a barrel.", and I must be blunt here; it does make me wonder at times what you really are thinking, and where your sympathies actually are.
You're so far off the mark it's not even funny any more. America and Israel are countries I hold to higher standards than most others. How many times have I voiced my concerns over N Korea? I don't even need to get started about Burma, Turkmenistan or our good buddies China. What's the point of harping on about human rights abuses in Russia and Belarus? Everyone knows that. Just because I don't beat the same dead horse as Amnesty International, the UNHCR and Human Rights Watch and countless other organisations that condemn the aforementioned countries and many other at every opportunity, it doesn't lessen what's going on there.

The reason I am so disappointed with America's treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Gharib (however you spell it) is because such behaviour is not expected of them. I truly, deeply believe that Amecica is one of the greatest nations on earth and the American ideals are something each country should aspire to. I can't really make it any more clear than that.

But when I see America or Israel acting in a way I would've expected from North Korea or Uzbekistan, I think you can understand my sadness. I thought holding prisoners indefinately without charge or trial on a flimsy pretext was something the Burmese military regime would do, not the 'Great Republic' as you called it.
I've heard no outcry from you about indiscriminate shelling by the Lebanese army into the Palestinian refugee camps against al-Qaida fighters holed up there, but if it were the IDF that were doing the shelling there would be a great deal of pompous protests coming from you now, wouldn't there?
The major, major difference between the current events and those of last summer is that it is Lebanese forces taking action within the borders of Lebanon. Who could claim they are acting in an inappropriate manner? It is the Lebanese government dealing with a matter within its own territory. If they had been in a position to take on Hezbollah last summer (the Lebanese army has undergone a massive modernisation and training program since then) you wouldn't have heard a word of protest with me. I am not a fan of foreign intervention, unless it is requested. Siniora has vowed to crush the militants and I am 100% behind him. If he had had the power and ability to make the same vow against Hezbollah last year, I would've been equally supportive.
I also have yet to hear your definition of what you would consider the political definition of the current regime that is in power in Iran now.
Tricky. It is a 'dictatorship' of 12 (or is it 13?) clerics in the Council of Experts, led by the Supreme Leader. Elections are held, but candidates are vetted and approved by the council. The president is an attention-drawer, which is why I pay little or no attention to what he says since he holds no real power.

So, I consider it a dictatorship with some trappings of democracy. Do I want them to have nuclear weapons? I'd rather no country got any more. But I would feel a bit less apprehensive if say, Japan aquired nuclear weapons.

I don't think anything will happen, because I know that the long-term goal of the Iranian government is to increase its influence in the region, particularly in Iraq, not start an 'end of days' nuclear war (which would result in them taking out what, 2-3 major cities? in return for their entire nation reduced to a glass field... somehow that does not make any political sense at all). You seem to think the country is run by religious-crazed madmen when it is not, you're not giving them nearly enough credit. Religious fundamentalists yes, but they are also very, very politically savvy and I think you're severely underestimating them in that field.
On a positive note, I actually think that you're an intelligent and pretty good guy, and also a very good musician, but as an American, I can find nothing amusing about jihadist plots to attack America, and find cartoons that try to minimize what we consider to be legitimate concerns regarding this to be extremely offensive and annoying. Would you laugh at cartoons of a repeat performance of Kristalnacht happening here after the next big terror attack? (For the record, I don't think that you would, but such a scenario is very likely).
I also have an extremely morbid and heavy sense of humour. You really, really don't want to know some of the stuff I find funny. Offensive? I love offensive humour. As long as it's all a joke, I'm all good with it.
Al-Qaida is a worldwide network, and believe me, if they want to get in (and the Fort Dix plot clearly shows that they are already here), they certainly have the resources and the wherewithal to do just that.
On September 11, 2001, I was in the living room practising some piano when I got a text message from a friend telling me that a plane had crashed into the Empire State Building. Usually this friend liked to make up stories, so I turned the tv on to confim it was rubbish. The shock did take about a day or two to wear off.

Trust me, everyone in Europe is very, very aware of foreign and home-based terrorism, we've had to deal with it here for a very long time, much longer than America has. Trying to pretend it doesnt exist is pointless, to say the least. The IRA, Baader-Meinhof gang, ETA, November 17th, Sardinian seperatists, Algerian extremists, I could go on for a long time about the threats faced (and in some cases still currently facing) Europe on the terror front.
"Beneath the freezing sky arrives Winter's Verge..."

http://www.wintersverge.com


I'm going to hell, and loving the ride!

User avatar
browneyedgirl
Sr. Member
Posts: 27236
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2002 6:00 pm
Location: Starfall
Contact:

Re: IRAN'S Nuclear Capability

Post by browneyedgirl » Mon Jun 11, 2007 6:48 pm

<ahem>

I read on a news site yesterday which stated that Iran was building in number its fleet of ships patrolling its bay. The bay which almost half of the world's WORLD'S crude oil is transported through.
What this build-up could mean, I don't know. But, I still think in time there is going to be a serious ruckus in the MidEast. The place is a powderkeg. I know, DUH! :) But, I think we all will live to see something overwhelmingly devestating occurring over there, in addition to the Iraqi War happening now. It won't be so damn funny then! But, of course, the 'ol USA(and Israel) will be the handy scapegoat as usual, no matter what. And, btw, getting rid of Bush isn't going to be the pat answer some of the world is looking for, either. Its nowhere near that simple.
"Your life is yours, and yours alone. Rise up and live it!"

Bob: I don't believe in God.
Archangel Michael: That's OK, Bob, because He doesn't believe in you, either!~Legion~

User avatar
miditek
Sr. Member
Posts: 2045
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 4:59 am

Re: IRAN'S Nuclear Capability

Post by miditek » Mon Jun 11, 2007 9:55 pm

miditek wrote:I think that I can quite clearly see what the cartoon was insinuating. If you'll check the dialog in the very first frame, it very clearly indicates what I consider to me a mockery of the official US concerns that if US forces pull out of Iraq now, then al-Qaida operatives currently on the ground in Iraq will then "follow us home", and that the only way that they can get over here is to crawl across the Sahara and then swim the Atlantic.
NeonVomit wrote:You're taking it too seriously. I thought it was funny, in a stupid way.
miditek wrote:Does this mean that all of these foreign fighters jumped on a magic carpet and flew into Baghdad? No, and that is just as ludicrous a notion as what the cartoon itself implies. Furthermore, if cartoon was indeed a jab at the ineptness of the Fort Dix conspirators, don't you think there would have been at least some references to the CD or DVD that was dropped off at the photo store, where an alert clerk decided to turn the materials over to the FBI, and then having the FBI arrest the conspirators after it was made aware of these plans?
NeonVomit wrote:Why bother referring to that? It wouldn't fit in and it would've lessened the overall silliness of the comic
I really did not like that cartoon, and still do not agree with your assessment of it. It p---ed me off, but there is little point in me continuing to harp on it, and I'll get over it. You've got your opinion, and I have mine. However, if you say that it was all in good fun, I'll simply have to take your word for it and move on. No hard feelings,ok? :)
&#922;&#973;&#961;&#953;&#949; &#7952;&#955;&#941;&#951;&#963;&#959;&#957;

Locked