http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/phttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/5363098.stmrogrammes/5363098.stm

Quote :

"Iran's growing regional influence Iran is now a regional superpower, and ever since the Islamic revolution in 1978-9, we in the West have consistently misunderstood it. On 9 January 1979, a couple of weeks before his triumphant return to Iran, I interviewed Ayatollah Khomeini at his base in exile outside Paris. In the interview, Khomeini sketched out Iran's entire future: the eradication of the monarchy, universal suffrage and the ban on "corrupt" Western influences. And he outlined his attitude to Western countries like Britain and the US. "We intend to reject a relationship which makes us dependent on other countries," he said. "We have bitter memories of the British, because they ensured that Reza Shah (the last Shah's father) came to power, and for half a century we have been under the domination of this man and his son." Heightened position For almost 30 years, the West has concentrated on the religious, fundamentalist aspect of Iran's Islamic Republic. We have forgotten that Khomeini's revolution was also a declaration of independence from British and American control. Now, thanks to several different factors, Iran has suddenly reached a new level of power and influence. The sky-rocketing price of oil has put a lot of money into its pocket. The overthrow of Saddam Hussein by the US has swept Iran's local rival off the chessboard, and free elections in Iraq have brought the Shia majority to power. Iraq, weakened by the immense violence which has followed Saddam's overthrow, now regards Shia Iran as the dominant partner in the relationship. Finally, after eight years of ineffectual government by the moderate reformist President Mohammed Khatami, Iran suddenly has an loud, idiosyncratic, fundamentalist president who cannot be ignored. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has gone back to Ayatollah Khomeini's principles, and he wants to establish Iran's independence further by turning Iran into a nuclear power. Relations with Israel The US and Israel are seriously worried. President Ahmadinejad insists that Iran is simply setting up a civil nuclear power industry, and that the US has no right to stop it. But the American-based scholar Vali Nasr, author of The Shia Revival, believes he plans to go further: "He really wants to be one screwdriver short of a nuclear weapon," he said. Israel's justice minister, Meir Sheetrit, is certain that Iran plans to build a nuclear bomb. "They are fighting against the free world," he says, "and I'm warning not only Israel but all Europe and all democratic countries. Otherwise it could be too late." But, if President Ahmadinejad wants to attack Israel, there are simpler ways than building a nuclear bomb. Iran's close ally, the Lebanese Shia movement Hezbollah, armed and trained by Iran, launched a highly successful brief war against Israel. A guerrilla movement, well supplied with low-tech weapons, out-fought and outmanoeuvred a big conventional army using tanks, planes and artillery. Modern alliances By encouraging and arming Hezbollah, Iran has managed to create an anti-American front between Shia and Sunni Muslims in many parts of the Middle East. Instead of the old Sunni-Shia hostility, there is a new unity. Nowadays, you can see pictures of Hezbollah's leader, Hassan Nasrallah, in shops and streets and houses from Cairo to Amman to Jerusalem. According to Prince Hassan of Jordan: "The populism of Ahmadinejad and Hezbollah is an alternative to civil society in the Middle East. "By recruiting the poor and disenfranchised, they are closer to people's needs than governments are. Which is why they have this enormous following." Pro-Western governments in the Middle East may not like it, but there is nothing they can do. American influence in the area is visibly declining. Their own positions are distinctly weaker. President Ahmadinejad has put Iran at the forefront of all these changes. For him, it is all part of the same process that Ayatollah Khomeini started, 27 years ago, when he overthrew the American- and British-imposed Shah."

So, uh, Soap Box. Now what do we do?

9/20/2006 4:57:25 PM

Speaking of Iran, does anyone know where to find a transcript of Ahmadinejad's speech to the UN? And Chavez's as well?

9/20/2006 5:00:51 PM

I'd say that any way possible, we need to decrease our dependency on middle eastern oil. If we did that, they could go back to brutalizing each other and we could just ignore it again.

9/20/2006 5:03:57 PM

McFag, I'm not saying we shouldn't reduce our dependency (or eliminate it)

But do you really think that they'll just chill out when their economy is raped? I think, if anything, it'll give them more incentive to create nuclear weapons and try to get aid for not using them.

9/20/2006 5:16:18 PM

I don't think even middle eastern nations are dumb enough to actually use a nuclear weapon. Any one of them that did would be immediately deleted from Earth.

9/20/2006 5:17:48 PM

I agree. The assessment that they might want to come within a screwdriver of one makes sense to me, though. Taunting us on the world stage seems more likely than a direct affront.

9/20/2006 5:21:07 PM

Quote :

"I don't think even middle eastern nations are dumb enough to actually use a nuclear weapon."

I'm not totally convinced of that.

9/20/2006 5:23:33 PM

I don't think they want to reveal the full destructive potential of the West.

A lot of places in the world wouldn't exist if we were willing to stop at nothing to wipe them out.

9/20/2006 5:25:24 PM

It's the nations, though. He said the nations.

All that has to happen is an Iranian-backed terrorist organization gets in possession of a nuke. That's what (^) he's saying.

9/20/2006 5:27:46 PM

I assume Iran wouldn't be able to shrug and grin about a nuclear strike if we knew they were indirectly responsible.

9/20/2006 5:28:51 PM

And what I'm observing is that these terrorist organizations highly resemble intelligence organizations. I wouldn't be surprised if information manipulation was on their radar to many degrees of understanding and implemntational capacity.

They could implicate other, non-Iranian backed organizations. Or to be more dramatic (if they're operationally capable), other intelligence services. In other words, use smoke and mirrors to make a nuclear detonation seem like it was another nation's fault.

9/20/2006 5:36:48 PM

If it comes to that, I think Iran will be directly responsible i.e. Iran itself will unabashedly launch a nuclear strike.

Mohammad Taghi Mesbah Yazdi is Mahmud Ahmadinejad's spiritual advisor. He belongs to Hojjatieh, which believes in the eventual coming of Muhammad al-Mahdi during Yawm al-Qiyamah, an end of days sort of event.


Yazdi has stated that nuclear weapons have legitimate religous uses.


I'm concerned that Ahmadinejad and Yazdi may use nuclear weapons to do God's work and hasten along the Yawm al-Qiyamah. Put another way, I think Ahmadinejad is a fucking nut who would have no qualms about dropping bombs.

[Edited on September 20, 2006 at 5:59 PM. Reason : ]

9/20/2006 5:58:24 PM

Quote :

"if anything, it'll give them more incentive to create nuclear weapons and try to get aid for not using them."

this...this right here, is what i WANT to happen

i want them to do EVERYTHING possible to give the US as much justification for fucking them up as possible

Quote :

"I don't think they want to reveal the full destructive potential of the West."

amen...i fucking dare them to do something

[Edited on September 20, 2006 at 7:33 PM. Reason : .]

9/20/2006 7:29:42 PM

i hope we go into world war 3 and have another baby boom period

9/20/2006 8:10:56 PM

I'm frightened to speculate as much, but if I think of it deterministically (think like a detective), it looks to be headed that way. Their extremists want this to be about Islam vs. Christianity for reasons we're all aware of. Our extremists want to engender Islamaphobia through it for politically expedient reasons. It's easy to win votes on American anti-intellectual xenophobia; and votes, I posit, are no recognition of sound policy. Moreso, a recognition that one party or set of ideologues gains authority to decide which social "boogeymen" to draw out in order to inform debates about policy. This becomes a PR, or as I've seen it, a marketing battle.

The Islamic faith increasingly appears to replace this former dark linguistic slot held by many other cultures in the American consciousness. A permanent slot whose occupants have changed through history, and included Mexicans, Chinese, Blacks, Atheists, Communists, Nazis, Catholics, Jews, and Japanese people. These are the dreaded "Brand X" categories of our culture. This precedent is too old not to be recognized by now.

Generationally, we scapegoat particular cultures and recast them according to whatever historically convenient dyes we decide they deserve. Omit a fact here, substitute a lie there. Presto change-o, we've got a new enemy to confuse us while more of our money is wasted in our names. Evidently, I've learned, by no entity who's demonstrably concerned about or informed about our enemies.

Perhaps another WWIII is looming. Our intellectual snickering over the matter may finally need to die down long enough to consider the hypothesis...

9/20/2006 9:30:47 PM

What, exactly, is our generation scapegoating onto Islam?

9/20/2006 9:43:34 PM

^ A WAR

9/20/2006 9:45:14 PM

In so many words.

More specifically: Intrusions of liberty at home. Civilian deaths abroad. Massive abuses of federal funds. Continuing intelligence failures of epic proportions.

9/20/2006 9:54:46 PM

For my part, I was concerned about crazy Muslims before the current administration. I don't really care much for your implication that current world events are being orchestrated by the US, while Muslims are somehow being unfairly blamed, or scapegoated as you put it. Maybe you don't read the same news I do, but Muslims seem to be fairly active participants in world events.

I suppose you'll say that I'm just another victim of "American anti-intellectual xenophobia."

9/20/2006 10:07:27 PM

Ahmadinejad: The Hitler of our Time

9/21/2006 12:07:53 AM

haha, hardly

9/21/2006 12:10:45 AM

people like who, who discount the true evil of some of these people, are why i sometimes fear for this country.

9/21/2006 12:11:28 AM

its people like you that i worry about

you dont give iran enough credit

9/21/2006 12:14:02 AM

^^^^^ Why limit it to crazy Muslims? If crazy Christians can inflame the situation, and I'd argue they have, why not put any blame on them? In my description they have a interactive effect on one another.

And your preferences are noted, but I've found no models to suggest world events aren't largely being orchestrated by the U.S. and her allies. Nor have I found any evidence that your view represents anything but scapegoating. Fundamentalist Islam doesn't represent non-fundamentalist Islam. Much in the same way that the "bad news" out of Iraq doesn't represent the only news from Iraq.

[Edited on September 21, 2006 at 9:03 AM. Reason : ...]

9/21/2006 9:02:45 AM

Its not quite as simple as ignoring and letting them brute each other. The world is simply not that big anymore. I do agree that we need to get off middle eastern oil and speed up investment in alternate fuels and technologies so that the US can once again be in the forefront of the next technical revolution. We should also probably look to withdrawing from Iraq. The Status Quo isn't working.

9/21/2006 9:55:44 AM

And that's why I think we're on a dangerous footing for confronting Iran. Enforcing and maintaining the Status Quo has become a political liability for at least two years because of the President. This makes our diplomatic approach confronting Iran look to be a pretty long-lasting thing...

9/21/2006 11:33:04 AM

Quote :

"crazy Christians"

Which crazy Christians?

Quote :

"I've found no models to suggest world events aren't largely being orchestrated by the U.S. and her allies"

Lack of evidence against the US orchestrating world events is proof of the US orchestrating events?

A scapegoat is someone who bears blame for something in which they're actually blameless. I want to be clear: You are telling me that Islamic terrorists--al-Qaida, fundamentalists, Islamofascists, whatever you want to call them--are being falsely maligned?

Quote :

"Fundamentalist Islam doesn't represent non-fundamentalist Islam."

I'm well aware of this. I'm not so shallow as to believe that ALL Muslims are fundamentalists. But thanks for assuming that I am.

9/21/2006 11:42:46 AM

Quote :

"A Tanzarian: Which crazy Christians?"

The extremist ones who look forward to the rapture in their own lifetimes.

Quote :

"A Tanzarian: Lack of evidence against the US orchestrating world events is proof of the US orchestrating events?"

No. Don't go beyond what I said. I said that I've found no models to suggest world events are largely being orchestrated by the U.S. and her allies.

Quote :

"A Tanzarian: A scapegoat is someone who bears blame for something in which they're actually blameless. I want to be clear: You are telling me that Islamic terrorists--al-Qaida, fundamentalists, Islamofascists, whatever you want to call them--are being falsely maligned?"

Not entirely. You're making poor distinctions.

I'm telling you that Islam implies a far broader category of people than the radical Islamists, or even Wahhabists like Al Qaeda, make up. Limit your argument if you don't want to be scapegoating by attributing blame to 100% of people for the actions of less than 1% of them.

9/21/2006 1:26:23 PM

Quote :

"The extremist ones who look forward to the rapture in their own lifetimes."

I am unaware of any crazy Christians working to obtain a nuclear weapon in order to hasten the Rapture. I am, however, aware of

Quote :

"About 1,000 clerics and religious scholars at a meeting in eastern Pakistan demanded the removal of the pope for making "insulting remarks" against Islam, and warned the West of severe consequences if it didn't change its stance regarding Islam. Pope Benedict XVI "should be removed from his position immediately for encouraging war and fanning hostility between various faiths" and "making insulting remarks" against Islam, said a joint statement issued by the clerics and scholars at the end of their one-day convention in the eastern city of Lahore. The "Pope, and all Infidels, should know that no Muslim, under any circumstances, can tolerate an insult to the Prophet (Muhammad).... If the West does not change its stance regarding Islam, it will face severe consequences," it said."

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/09/21/pakistan.pope.ap/

These are religious leaders making direct threats against non-Muslims.

-----

Quote :

"I said that I've found no models to suggest world events are largely being orchestrated by the U.S. and her allies."

That is not what you said. You said:

Quote :

"'ve found no models to suggest world events aren't largely being orchestrated by the U.S. and her allies."

Which one is it?

-----

Quote :

"Limit your argument"

Quote :

"I was concerned about crazy Muslims"

que?

9/21/2006 4:35:44 PM

^ Why not crazy people? I should've said broaden it. My bad.

Quote :

"A Tanzarian: I am unaware of any crazy Christians working to obtain a nuclear weapon in order to hasten the Rapture. I am, however, aware of"

Why would they have to? We've got plenty on our own shores.

Quote :

"A Tanzarian: These are religious leaders making direct threats against non-Muslims."

Right. They look pretty fucking nuts to me, too. What's your point?

Quote :

"A Tanzarian: Which one is it?"

I'm glad you view them as a contradiction. Because I don't. I do wish I would've re-quoted myself correctly, though. Anyway, I don't really find the idea that the U.S. and its allies are single-handedly dominating the chessboard. There are other national and economic coalitions at work, too. It's difficult to say either side's orchestrating things anymore than the other.

[Edited on September 21, 2006 at 4:42 PM. Reason : ...]

9/21/2006 4:41:10 PM

the argument equating christian "extremists" with islamic facists is ridiculous and usually only made by those who wish to somehow divert attention from the seriousness of islamic facism in our world today. this is all that matters:

who do the islamic facists want to kill?

if you cant answer that, then youre being a good little liberal and dodging the truth, or youre just plain dumb.

9/21/2006 4:45:30 PM

My point is that I limited my discussion to "crazy Muslims." You then accuse me of scapegoating the entire Islamic faith.

Quote :

"I'm glad you view them as a contradiction. Because I don't."

You can't tell the difference between those two sentences? The first one says I have not found any evidence that the US is not orchastrating world events. The second one says I have not found any evidence that the US is orchastrating world events. Those two sentences have two clear and distinct meanings, unless you can explain how the word "not" doesn't really mean "not."

Incidently, at what point do these couple of bad Muslim apples become a very significant portion of the entire Muslim faith? The previous story mentioned 1,000 clerics and religious scholars who probably have a 100 or so members in their respective mosques. That's a lot of people. All in one country.

[Edited on September 21, 2006 at 5:00 PM. Reason : ]

9/21/2006 4:59:02 PM

When those Islamo-fascist say "the West" they don't really know what they're talking about. They assume we're all just a bunch of Islam-hating Christians who pray every night for their destruction, and the rise of Christianity (an assumption they don't have to jump too far to make, judging by a lot of people's comments).

This is a huge problem that needs to be dealt with, but the means of dealing with it aren't by labeling them all with a broad-stroked brush of whackos.

Our Christians aren't as nutty as their muslims, but that's because we have our gov. to do the dirt work. You won't find too many Christians shedding a tear for dead muslims, because most of them supported the war anyway, and that's a part of war. The Islamo-fascist don't have the backing of the most powerful military in the world, so they resort to suicide bombs and guerilla attacks to do their work. But even those suicide bombers, who feel they're doing the work of God, are being manipulated by a leader whose motives are more political, just like the Christians who feel their elected representatives enable the work of God, are being manipulated for political means.

The issue is far more complicated than "us vs. them" or "Muslims vs. the world." Look back on history and try to find any war with motives so simplistic. There is an interplay of politics, economics, and social aspects at work, and the respective gov.s have their own motives in portraying it one way or another. The apparent nuttiness of the Muslims doesn't come about on its own, their leaders paint the moves of all western nations as attacks on their religion and society and safety.

Could the problem be fixed by stomping out all opposition in the violent manners of war? Sure it can. Is this the "right" thing to do? I don't think so. The conflicts aren't going to be resolved without violence, but all-out violence isn't the only answer.

Look at Thailand, they are poised to restructure their gov., with no blood spilled. Similar types of movements are possible, with the right support, in other third world countries.

9/21/2006 6:09:16 PM

We are very historically short-sighted. We are not just dealing with some rogue nation who may get a hold of nukes. Ofcourse the Persians want a commanding role in the region.

Being a part of the nuke-owner frat gives you bargaining some bargaining power. And i don't think any country above rogue nation status will use nukes willy nilly. They will think long and hard before they do something preempt with such a weapon.

9/21/2006 6:30:09 PM

It's amusing how tightly you guys (and most americans as well) have been so tightly spun into thinking it's an issue of christianity vs islam. That is not even a major part of why they hate us. We (our current policy) can only lose from here on out.

9/21/2006 7:34:35 PM

your right cathocutie....religion has little to do with it..all those terrorists screaming about how "allah is great" and believing they are doing the work of god are not drivin by religion at all


its amazing how your braindead liberal terrorist-sympathizing mind has been duped into believe this crap

9/21/2006 8:05:28 PM

of course they are very religious peoples, but they do not hate us for the simple reason that we are not Muslim.

I am not even a liberal so you are just spaz-blabbering randomness.

9/21/2006 8:31:48 PM

really??

its incredible how your liberal mind cant see the truth??

they hate us because we are christian americans...the koran says they have to kill us...we are infidels...and to people as uneducated as many muslims in the ME are...thats reason enough to try to kill us

9/21/2006 8:34:05 PM

Quote :

"The issue is far more complicated than "us vs. them" or "Muslims vs. the world." Look back on history and try to find any war with motives so simplistic. There is an interplay of politics, economics, and social aspects at work, and the respective gov.s have their own motives in portraying it one way or another. The apparent nuttiness of the Muslims doesn't come about on its own, their leaders paint the moves of all western nations as attacks on their religion and society and safety. "

9/21/2006 9:18:16 PM

are they all pretty hardcore muslims over there??

is their holy book the koran??

what does the koran say??

9/21/2006 9:20:27 PM

Quote :

"are they all pretty hardcore muslims over there?? is their holy book the koran?? what does the koran say??"

You want me to characterize more than a billion people in a single sentence? How do YOU know they they are all "pretty hardcore muslims over there?" Your simplistic description of their society shows how shortsighted you are. People who think like you on their side are the ones we call fanatics.

The Koran says some screwed up stuff, but so does the Bible.

9/21/2006 9:24:14 PM

your inability to see the forest for the trees is worrying...

and no...nowhere in the bible are christians commanded to present non christians with Jesus Christ and then kill them if they refuse him...

9/21/2006 9:27:42 PM

I doubt most muslims hate the US because the US "is not muslim."

The current middle eastern mood is thanks to the massive incompetence of the Bush administration.

9/21/2006 9:33:43 PM

hmm....amazing....it seems there was large amounts of dislike long before the incompetance of the Bush administration....

see: both WTC attacks
: USS Cole
: etc...

they have hated us for ALOT longer than bush has been around....keep trying

9/21/2006 9:35:37 PM

Quote :

"your inability to see the forest for the trees is worrying... and no...nowhere in the bible are christians commanded to present non christians with Jesus Christ and then kill them if they refuse him... "

You are only seeing the trees, but no forest (or something...).

Your position would seem to imply that the only way to solve the problems we are having is to eliminate the muslims, which is ridiculous.

9/21/2006 9:48:26 PM

my position is that...as with all wars in all of history...someone must win this one

9/21/2006 9:50:55 PM

Quote :

"Randy: the argument equating christian "extremists" with islamic facists is ridiculous and usually only made by those who wish to somehow divert attention from the seriousness of islamic facism in our world today."

* Note: Belief applies only if you believe you live on a one-sided chessboard.

Quote :

"Randy: who do the islamic facists want to kill?"

The same people that capitalist fascists, and marxists fascists, and papist fascists and all other fascists have wanted to kill: people they could not exercise dominion over.

Stop me if you've heard this one.

---

Quote :

"A Tanzarian: My point is that I limited my discussion to "crazy Muslims." You then accuse me of scapegoating the entire Islamic faith."

And I'm recognizing that I mistyped. You did limit your argument, and you're still scapegoating the entire Islamic faith. I should've said expand your argument. The fact that crazy Muslims are a problem doesn't give crazy Christians a free pass to inflame the debate or catalyze Armageddon. Seventy-one percent of us identify as Christian. The History Channel just said that (I'm watching, special about Heaven).

We need to start looking at this situation in a Kennedy-esque way. Forget everything else about Kennedy except what he said about escalating tensions. "Each increase of tension has produced an increase of arms; each increase of arms has produced an increase of tension." This refers to the prisoner's dilemma scenario with nuclear weaponry in his day, but I'd argue today the issue is more of ideological hegemony.

Certainly there are dangerous Islamists who should be dealt with. Likewise, the reigns on civilian control within our own policymaking need to begin somewhere. Effectively unchecked consolidation of power is a dangerous thing, as the Challenger and Discovery crews could attest--if they were alive today--within any organizational structure (society, company, government agency). If left without the reigns of true authority being yanked by the public once in a while, our foreign policy drifting can become a dangerous liability.

The strategy of increasing tensions is upon us again, and we're left with nothing but diplomatic means as a rational tool to use on the international stage. What will our ideological figureheads lead us into?

Quote :

"A Tanzarian: You can't tell the difference between those two sentences? The first one says I have not found any evidence that the US is not orchastrating world events. The second one says I have not found any evidence that the US is orchastrating world events. Those two sentences have two clear and distinct meanings, unless you can explain how the word "not" doesn't really mean "not.""

Sure I can. I haven't really seen any evidence either hypothesis is significantly more credible than the other. The U.S. and her allies attempt to maintain and expand their sphere of influence, and the Islamist fundamentalist movement attempts to maintain and expand its sphere of influence. Likewise, the Russio-Chinese sphere of influence begins to rival that of ours.

Limiting the argument in this case doesn't lead to sound descriptions. We certainly try to orchestrate world events. So do other nations. Different ones are successful in different times. Or do you deny the existence and influence of intelligence operations?

Fuck, moron made my point for here.

Quote :

"A Tanzarian: Incidently, at what point do these couple of bad Muslim apples become a very significant portion of the entire Muslim faith?"

I'm not sure. But then, I'm not the one simplifying the danger to Muslims. I'm punctuate it with fundamentalists of all kinds.

Quote :

"A Tanzarian: The previous story mentioned 1,000 clerics and religious scholars who probably have a 100 or so members in their respective mosques. That's a lot of people. All in one country."

The crazy Muslims sure are scary. How many crazy Democroatic-Christians tune into the $700 Club? Each side inflames the other (it's not one way).

ssjamind makes the point I'm talking about. He just goes a screwdriver farther. I'd say Iran doesn't want nukes. They just want us to think so. Just like Saddam did.

9/21/2006 9:55:34 PM

Quote :

"moron: You are only seeing the trees, but no forest (or something...). Your position would seem to imply that the only way to solve the problems we are having is to eliminate the muslims, which is ridiculous. "

Quote :

"trikk311: my position is that...as with all wars in all of history...someone must win this one"

Haha, are you joking? You think the goal of our "war on terror" should be to eliminate enough of the 1 billion or so muslims in the mid-east to cause the religion to buckle?

If I were a muslim, I wouldn't need religion to hate you, if that's how you felt about me.

Man, you are nutty... if even a fraction of conservatives think like you, the future is in far worse shape than I imagined.

9/21/2006 10:01:52 PM

Quote :

"You did limit your argument, and you're still scapegoating the entire Islamic faith. I should've said expand your argument. The fact that crazy Muslims are a problem doesn't give crazy Christians a free pass to inflame the debate or catalyze Armageddon."

Where did I say that crazy Christians should get a free pass? And I'm still scapegoating! Holy shit, you're as bad as TreeTwista...you think you know what others believe. But you don't. Stop trying to paint everyone else as a crazy Christian out to kill every single Muslim.

Quote :

"The crazy Muslims sure are scary. How many crazy Democroatic-Christians tune into the $700 Club?"

Please explain to me how watching the 700 Club is equivalent to flying planes into buildings, or beheading people, or suicide bombs. I'm really curious.

Sure, Christians inflame Muslims and vice versa. However, part of being a mature member of society is having the self-control to not fly off the handle EVERY SINGLE GODDAMN TIME ANY SLIGHT WHATSOEVER IS PERCIEVED.

Quote :

"Sure I can. I haven't really seen any evidence either hypothesis is significantly more credible than the other."

This is the first thing you've said that makes sense regarding this. But it's still not what you originally said. Way to cover, though.

Quote :

"I'd say Iran doesn't want nukes."

I'd say that Ahmadinejad disagrees with you.

[Edited on September 21, 2006 at 10:51 PM. Reason : ]

9/21/2006 10:46:47 PM

Quote :

"Haha, are you joking? You think the goal of our "war on terror" should be to eliminate enough of the 1 billion or so muslims in the mid-east to cause the religion to buckle? If I were a muslim, I wouldn't need religion to hate you, if that's how you felt about me. Man, you are nutty... if even a fraction of conservatives think like you, the future is in far worse shape than I imagined."

haha...you think people are nice and will do whatever it takes to get along...haha...you must be out of your mind...its a good thing people like you arent in charge or we would all be dead or praying to allah 5 times a day...if people like you are in charge...man..are we screwed

Quote :

"The crazy Muslims sure are scary. How many crazy Democroatic-Christians tune into the $700 Club? Each side inflames the other (it's not one way)."

dude...come on....

[Edited on September 21, 2006 at 10:58 PM. Reason : asdf]

9/21/2006 10:50:37 PM