Look at it this way: American Muslims are equally or less violent than American Christians. Let's compare religions within one country, instead of across the globe - maybe that way we'll have some consistency?
-konfusion
-konfusion
Scientology.
Just thought I'd mix things up. Looks like the OP is stretching for even more of the already copious amounts of Anti-Christianity shit thats floating around everywhere.
Just thought I'd mix things up. Looks like the OP is stretching for even more of the already copious amounts of Anti-Christianity shit thats floating around everywhere.
No, the west in general carved up the middle east. Specifically the Brits and French. Then when their power waned in the embers of WWII, the US filled the mantle of unwanted regional busybody. About then the UN created the state of Israel - to the universal disagreement of the Arab world. In the interim the US sponsored numerous coups in Iran to keep the Shah in power or stop the oil being nationalised (expressly against the popular will of the people), ultimately failing. The west in general, including notably the US, armed and aided Saddam Hussein (expressly against the popular will of the people, as assumed by the fact that Sh'ia and Kurds form a distinct majority of Iraqis). When he gassed his 'own' people at Halabja no western nation batted an eyelid. When it became expedient to use this as part of the case for war in 2003 those that eventually participated jumped on the 'Halabja' bandwagon. Where do you think he got chemical weapons eh? Did he pull them out of his ass or something? The US provided hundreds of billions of US taxpayers money to arm the sworn enemy of all Arabs - Israel - an expansionist nation who believe in ridiculous nonsense written in a 4000 year old book that tells them that they need to displace those that live in the region and take the land for their own. In 1957 the west, most specifically the Brits and French, prompted Israel to attack Egypt when Egypt rightly nationalised its Suez Canal. This drove Egypt into the hands of the Soviets. The US currently arms Saudi Arabia to the teeth, raising regional tensions, in part in order to ensure that the deeply unpopular House of Saud does not fall. The fact that you seem to be able to glibly ignore the impact of western meddling in their affairs since the breakup of the Ottoman Empire is quite perplexing. I could go on for hours about other specific incidents about how our meddling has fucked the place up and undermined the will of the people but I don't have time. I wonder how the place would have turned out if there was no oil there?Lotta_Drool wrote:
The US invaded Iraq at the end of the Ottoman Empire and made the Middle East a bad place?
Cameron, Nothing you said in that post is the truth.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-04-01 02:14:42)
Try North Korea.CameronPoe wrote:
No, the west in general carved up the middle east. Specifically the Brits and French. Then when their power waned in the embers of WWII, the US filled the mantle of unwanted regional busybody. About then the UN created the state of Israel - to the universal disagreement of the Arab world. In the interim the US sponsored numerous coups in Iran to keep the Shah in power or stop the oil being nationalised (expressly against the popular will of the people), ultimately failing. The west in general, including notably the US, armed and aided Saddam Hussein (expressly against the popular will of the people, as assumed by the fact that Sh'ia and Kurds form a distinct majority of Iraqis). When he gassed his 'own' people at Halabja no western nation batted an eyelid. When it became expedient to use this as part of the case for war in 2003 those that eventually participated jumped on the 'Halabja' bandwagon. Where do you think he got chemical weapons eh? Did he pull them out of his ass or something? The US provided hundreds of billions of US taxpayers money to arm the sworn enemy of all Arabs - Israel - an expansionist nation who believe in ridiculous nonsense written in a 4000 year old book that tells them that they need to displace those that live in the region and take the land for their own. In 1957 the west, most specifically the Brits and French, prompted Israel to attack Egypt when Egypt rightly nationalised its Suez Canal. This drove Egypt into the hands of the Soviets. The US currently arms Saudi Arabia to the teeth, raising regional tensions, in part in order to ensure that the deeply unpopular House of Saud does not fall. The fact that you seem to be able to glibly ignore the impact of western meddling in their affairs since the breakup of the Ottoman Empire is quite perplexing. I could go on for hours about other specific incidents about how our meddling has fucked the place up and undermined the will of the people but I don't have time. I wonder how the place would have turned out if there was no oil there?Lotta_Drool wrote:
The US invaded Iraq at the end of the Ottoman Empire and made the Middle East a bad place?
Cameron, Nothing you said in that post is the truth.
No. North Korea was meddled with from the Cold War.
How about Sudan?
Last edited by nukchebi0 (2008-04-01 02:27:12)
12 years of ONW is "not batting an eyelid"?CameronPoe wrote:
When he gassed his 'own' people at Halabja no western nation batted an eyelid.
And, as you state later, we also provide hundreds of billions of US taxpayers' money to (not just to arm, mind you...same with Israel) sworn enemies of Israel (ie, Saudi Arabia).CameronPoe wrote:
The US provided hundreds of billions of US taxpayers money to arm the sworn enemy of all Arabs - Israel - an expansionist nation who believe in ridiculous nonsense written in a 4000 year old book that tells them that they need to displace those that live in the region and take the land for their own.
Really? Is Egypt a Soviet satellite state now? Didn't Egypt actually engage in peace talks (successfully) with Israel? Aren't they now at peace with Israel...and have been for twenty-odd years?CameronPoe wrote:
In 1957 the west, most specifically the Brits and French, prompted Israel to attack Egypt when Egypt rightly nationalised its Suez Canal. This drove Egypt into the hands of the Soviets.
Um...I thought the US only armed Israel to the teeth?CameronPoe wrote:
The US currently arms Saudi Arabia to the teeth, raising regional tensions, in part in order to ensure that the deeply unpopular House of Saud does not fall.
Probably no one would give a shit about the place...similar to other places in the world no one gives a shit about. It's called national interests...and energy resources are a vital national interest to every single developed or developing nation on the planet.CameronPoe wrote:
I could go on for hours about other specific incidents about how our meddling has fucked the place up and undermined the will of the people but I don't have time. I wonder how the place would have turned out if there was no oil there?
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
ONW started in 1997. Halabja happened in 1988. And in the immediate aftermath the US attempted to place the blame for Halabja on Iran!!!FEOS wrote:
12 years of ONW is "not batting an eyelid"?
But a fraction of what Israel gets. A tiny drop in the ocean in comparison. The fact is the US is arming and aiding all and sundry in the region, whether or not those nations political values reflect those of the US. Hardly a recipe for peace and prosperity.FEOS wrote:
And, as you state later, we also provide hundreds of billions of US taxpayers' money to (not just to arm, mind you...same with Israel) sworn enemies of Israel (ie, Saudi Arabia).
Egypt turned to the USSR for military aid in the face of western support of Israel. That only ended when it was evident to Egypt that the USSR was not capable of helping in their fight against the Israelis in 1973.FEOS wrote:
Really? Is Egypt a Soviet satellite state now? Didn't Egypt actually engage in peace talks (successfully) with Israel? Aren't they now at peace with Israel...and have been for twenty-odd years?
PS A government being at peace with another government doesn't always equate to a people being at peace with another people. Egypt is another one of those undemocratic states given piles of economic aid by the US - a nation whose political values do not reflect those of the US.
No, they arm lots of nations, irrespective of their political values. But you won't ever see them arming any nation with the means to defeat Israel.FEOS wrote:
Um...I thought the US only armed Israel to the teeth?
Exactly. No one would give a shit. It would be probably a slightly more advanced region than Africa. I personally do not agree and will not agree to economic or resource imperialism. I find it immoral, especially given the pain and suffering it generates and the hypocrisy it necessitates. If we can't get by on our own merits and our own resources then we shouldn't be taking that out on others. Our prowess in the field of science should lead us to become more energy efficient and to harness new forms of energy, rather than spilling blood for oil.CameronPoe wrote:
Probably no one would give a shit about the place...similar to other places in the world no one gives a shit about. It's called national interests...and energy resources are a vital national interest to every single developed or developing nation on the planet.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-04-01 03:50:40)
No the hypocrisy is your spouting off about how meddling and terrible we all are, yet enjoy all of the rexources that the west has acquired from the ME. In order for you to maintain this position, you damn well had better be peddling a bike everywhere, working by candlelight, and cooking over a campfire. and get the fuck off that computer!!CameronPoe wrote:
Exactly. No one would give a shit. It would be probably a slightly more advanced region than Africa. I personally do not agree and will not agree to economic or resource imperialism. I find it immoral, especially given the pain and suffering it generates and the hypocrisy it necessitates. If we can't get by on our own merits and our own resources then we shouldn't be taking that out on others. Our prowess in the field of science should lead us to become more energy efficient and to harness new forms of energy, rather than spilling blood for oil.
I'm just stating facts about why the west has acted the cunt over the past few decades. I'm not pretending that I'm not part of that evil western empire. I would much prefer to live in a world where Arab nations were afforded parity of esteem and we traded goods, services and resources as equals. I recognise my own flaws and the flaws of the west in this regard. I and we all have blood on our hands. I can talk freely of our flaws, it appears that you have difficulty with it.lowing wrote:
No the hypocrisy is your spouting off about how meddling and terrible we all are, yet enjoy all of the rexources that the west has acquired from the ME. In order for you to maintain this position, you damn well had better be peddling a bike everywhere, working by candlelight, and cooking over a campfire. and get the fuck off that computer!!
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-04-01 04:01:09)
Meh shit happens, at least the ME has something to sell to the world, or it might have ended up like Africa (will eventually). Either way is happened and is going to continue happening, that's just how the world works. Besides look how well somewhere like Dubai does, it relies almost solely on Western tourists now that its oilfields are running out. Major difference is that Dubai accepts Western culture within its own and they've come off pretty well from it. The ME has to realise that if they want to get anywhere in the world they have to co-operate with the west whether they like it or not.CameronPoe wrote:
I'm just stating facts about why the west has acted the cunt over the past few decades. I'm not pretending that I'm not part of that evil western empire. I would much prefer to live in a world where Arab nations were afforded parity of esteem and we traded goods, services and resources as equals. I recognise my own flaws and the flaws of the west in this regard. I and we all have blood on our hands. I can talk freely of our flaws, it appears that you have difficulty with it.lowing wrote:
No the hypocrisy is your spouting off about how meddling and terrible we all are, yet enjoy all of the rexources that the west has acquired from the ME. In order for you to maintain this position, you damn well had better be peddling a bike everywhere, working by candlelight, and cooking over a campfire. and get the fuck off that computer!!
Many Islamic and Arab countries where the US isn't continually meddling are doing quite well and getting on quite amicably with the rest of the world. My parents didn't end up in orange jump suits when they went to Egypt a couple of years ago and I know people who claim Morocco and Algeria are nice hospitable places to visit. As Cam has stated before the places where trouble brews most often usually have huge societal imbalances in terms of either power balance or poverty.M.O.A.B wrote:
Meh shit happens, at least the ME has something to sell to the world, or it might have ended up like Africa (will eventually). Either way is happened and is going to continue happening, that's just how the world works. Besides look how well somewhere like Dubai does, it relies almost solely on Western tourists now that its oilfields are running out. Major difference is that Dubai accepts Western culture within its own and they've come off pretty well from it. The ME has to realise that if they want to get anywhere in the world they have to co-operate with the west whether they like it or not.CameronPoe wrote:
I'm just stating facts about why the west has acted the cunt over the past few decades. I'm not pretending that I'm not part of that evil western empire. I would much prefer to live in a world where Arab nations were afforded parity of esteem and we traded goods, services and resources as equals. I recognise my own flaws and the flaws of the west in this regard. I and we all have blood on our hands. I can talk freely of our flaws, it appears that you have difficulty with it.lowing wrote:
No the hypocrisy is your spouting off about how meddling and terrible we all are, yet enjoy all of the rexources that the west has acquired from the ME. In order for you to maintain this position, you damn well had better be peddling a bike everywhere, working by candlelight, and cooking over a campfire. and get the fuck off that computer!!
My bad. What I meant was the NFZ over N Iraq...which started shortly after the end of the Gulf War in order to protect the Kurds.CameronPoe wrote:
ONW started in 1997. Halabja happened in 1988. And in the immediate aftermath the US attempted to place the blame for Halabja on Iran!!!FEOS wrote:
12 years of ONW is "not batting an eyelid"?
And the US is the only country selling arms to countries in that area? I thought not.CameronPoe wrote:
But a fraction of what Israel gets. A tiny drop in the ocean in comparison. The fact is the US is arming and aiding all and sundry in the region, whether or not those nations political values reflect those of the US. Hardly a recipe for peace and prosperity.
Military aid is a key part of diplomacy, whether we like it or not.
So the fact that Mubarak has been democratically elected by his people makes it an undemocratic state? Weren't you the one who kept pointing out that Chavez and Ahmadenijad had been democratically elected so people shouldn't take issue with them? But when it's Egypt, who is actually at peace with Israel, it's different.CameronPoe wrote:
Egypt turned to the USSR for military aid in the face of western support of Israel. That only ended when it was evident to Egypt that the USSR was not capable of helping in their fight against the Israelis in 1973.
PS A government being at peace with another government doesn't always equate to a people being at peace with another people. Egypt is another one of those undemocratic states given piles of economic aid by the US - a nation whose political values do not reflect those of the US.
Strangely enough, so do other countries...particularly European ones.CameronPoe wrote:
No, they arm lots of nations, irrespective of their political values. But you won't ever see them arming any nation with the means to defeat Israel.FEOS wrote:
Um...I thought the US only armed Israel to the teeth?
So your country does not use any oil from the ME? Or products made outside Ireland's borders? Or made inside Ireland with materials from outside Ireland?CameronPoe wrote:
Exactly. No one would give a shit. It would be probably a slightly more advanced region than Africa. I personally do not agree and will not agree to economic or resource imperialism. I find it immoral, especially given the pain and suffering it generates and the hypocrisy it necessitates. If we can't get by on our own merits and our own resources then we shouldn't be taking that out on others. Our prowess in the field of science should lead us to become more energy efficient and to harness new forms of energy, rather than spilling blood for oil.FEOS wrote:
Probably no one would give a shit about the place...similar to other places in the world no one gives a shit about. It's called national interests...and energy resources are a vital national interest to every single developed or developing nation on the planet.
How is protecting the flow of petroleum from the ME--for everyone, not just the US--"taking it out" on anyone there?
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Chavez didn't prevent anyone else from running in the election. He got elected on the basis of genuine popular support. Ahmedinejad, and Mubarak, got elected having disallowed numerous candidates from standing. As such both of their 'democratic' processes are flawed.FEOS wrote:
So the fact that Mubarak has been democratically elected by his people makes it an undemocratic state? Weren't you the one who kept pointing out that Chavez and Ahmadenijad had been democratically elected so people shouldn't take issue with them? But when it's Egypt, who is actually at peace with Israel, it's different.
See my response to lowing a few posts up.FEOS wrote:
So your country does not use any oil from the ME? Or products made outside Ireland's borders? Or made inside Ireland with materials from outside Ireland?
How is protecting the flow of petroleum from the ME--for everyone, not just the US--"taking it out" on anyone there?
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-04-01 06:04:21)
Doesn't sound like Mubarak is nearly as dictatorial as you claim, considering he has been elected to office according to Egypt's consitution and has enacted reforms to make the choice of president more inclusive...to include changing Egypt's constitution.CameronPoe wrote:
Chavez didn't prevent anyone else from running in the election. He got elected on the basis of genuine popular support. Ahmedinejad, and Mubarak, got elected having allowed numerous candidates from standing. As such both of their 'democratic' processes are flawed.FEOS wrote:
So the fact that Mubarak has been democratically elected by his people makes it an undemocratic state? Weren't you the one who kept pointing out that Chavez and Ahmadenijad had been democratically elected so people shouldn't take issue with them? But when it's Egypt, who is actually at peace with Israel, it's different.
So Mubarak has been just as democratically elected as Chavez. Since Ahmedinejad doesn't actually have the power in Iran, we'll throw him out of the discussion.
Then please say "the west" as opposed to (as you normally do) the US. It would cause less confusion about what you mean.CameronPoe wrote:
See my response to lowing a few posts up.FEOS wrote:
So your country does not use any oil from the ME? Or products made outside Ireland's borders? Or made inside Ireland with materials from outside Ireland?
How is protecting the flow of petroleum from the ME--for everyone, not just the US--"taking it out" on anyone there?
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
FEOS wrote:
Doesn't sound like Mubarak is nearly as dictatorial as you claim, considering he has been elected to office according to Egypt's consitution and has enacted reforms to make the choice of president more inclusive...to include changing Egypt's constitution.
So Mubarak has been just as democratically elected as Chavez. Since Ahmedinejad doesn't actually have the power in Iran, we'll throw him out of the discussion.
Point taken on the other matter. I regard Britain, France and Russia as dimly in terms of imperialism as I do the US.Wikipedia wrote:
No one runs against the President due to a restriction in the Egyptian constitution in which the People's Assembly plays the main role in electing the President of the Republic.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-04-01 06:26:54)
CameronPoe wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Doesn't sound like Mubarak is nearly as dictatorial as you claim, considering he has been elected to office according to Egypt's consitution and has enacted reforms to make the choice of president more inclusive...to include changing Egypt's constitution.
So Mubarak has been just as democratically elected as Chavez. Since Ahmedinejad doesn't actually have the power in Iran, we'll throw him out of the discussion.Point taken on the other matter. I regard Britain, France and Russia as dimly in terms of imperialism as I do the US.Wikipedia wrote:
No one runs against the President due to a restriction in the Egyptian constitution in which the People's Assembly plays the main role in electing the President of the Republic.
Note the highlighted parts.Wikipedia also wrote:
President Mubarak has forged his reelection in a referendum for successive terms on four occasions: in 1987, 1993, 1999. The results of the referendums are of questionable validity. No one runs against the President due to a restriction in the Egyptian constitution in which the People's Assembly plays the main role in electing the President of the Republic. However, in February 2005 Mubarak passed a constitutional amendment allowing parties directly running against the incumbent president. As expected, he was re-elected.
After increased domestic and international pressure for democratic reform in Egypt, Mubarak asked the largely rubber stamp parliament on February 26, 2005 to amend the constitution to allow multi-candidate presidential elections by September 2005. Previously, Mubarak secured his position by having himself nominated by parliament, then confirmed without opposition in a referendum.
Strange that you didn't include the text that followed what you quoted from Wikipedia.
Last edited by FEOS (2008-04-01 06:47:45)
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
And you neglected to mention this:FEOS wrote:
Note the highlighted parts.
Strange that you didn't include the text that followed what you quoted from Wikipedia.
The election which was scheduled for September 7, 2005 involved mass rigging activities, according to civil organizations that observed the elections. Reports have shown that Mubarak's party used government vehicles to take public employees to vote for him. Votes were bought for Mubarak in poor suburbs and rural areas.
Dr. Ayman Nour, a dissident and candidate for the Al-Ghad party, contested the election results, and demanded a repeat of the election. He was subsequently imprisoned.
"The United States is deeply troubled by the conviction today of Egyptian politician Ayman Nour by an Egyptian court. The conviction of Dr. Nour, the runner-up in Egypt's 2005 presidential elections, calls into question Egypt's commitment to democracy, freedom and the rule of law. We are also disturbed by reports that Mr. Nour's health has seriously declined due to the hunger strike on which he has embarked in protest of the conditions of his trial and detention. The United States calls upon the Egyptian government to act under the laws of Egypt in the spirit of its professed desire for increased political openness and dialogue within Egyptian society, and out of humanitarian concern, to release Mr. Nour from detention."
Actually, I didn't neglect it. It pretty much mirrored Chavez's election stuff.
So we're in agreement that Mubarak is just as democratically elected (or at least just as in line with his country's constitution) as your boy Chavez?
So we're in agreement that Mubarak is just as democratically elected (or at least just as in line with his country's constitution) as your boy Chavez?
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Chavez' election was declared free and fair by numerous international monitoring groups, including your very own Jimmy Carter. He is becoming more and more despotic by the day but the last election was nothing at all like that of Egypts. Do you honestly believe the right wing in Venezuela would have won the election? Also, Chavez has no history of imprisoning his political opponents. Maybe he might develop one, but right now there is no such thing. Also Chavez didn't ban anyone from running, unlike in Egypt where the Muslim Brotherhood were banned from running. As such, the democratic process in Venezuela was far more open and far fairer than in Egypt as at the last time an election was held in either country.FEOS wrote:
Actually, I didn't neglect it. It pretty much mirrored Chavez's election stuff.
So we're in agreement that Mubarak is just as democratically elected (or at least just as in line with his country's constitution) as your boy Chavez?
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-04-01 07:49:10)
wouldnt you ban an organization that was responsible for assassinating your president?
CameronPoe wrote:
Chavez' election was declared free and fair by numerous international monitoring groups, including your very own Jimmy Carter. He is becoming more and more despotic by the day but the last election was nothing at all like that of Egypts. Do you honestly believe the right wing in Venezuela would have won the election? Also, Chavez has no history of imprisoning his political opponents. Maybe he might develop one, but right now there is no such thing. Also Chavez didn't ban anyone from running, unlike in Egypt where the Muslim Brotherhood were banned from running. As such, the democratic process in Venezuela was far more open and far fairer than in Egypt as at the last time an election was held in either country.FEOS wrote:
Actually, I didn't neglect it. It pretty much mirrored Chavez's election stuff.
So we're in agreement that Mubarak is just as democratically elected (or at least just as in line with his country's constitution) as your boy Chavez?
Hardly a ringing endorsement...certainly far from "far more open and far fairer".Wiki wrote:
The Carter Center monitored the election; their report stated that, due to lack of transparency, Consejo Nacional Electoral (CNE; "National Electoral Council") partiality, and political pressure from the Chávez government that resulted in early elections, it was unable to validate the official CNE results.[32] However, they concluded that the presidential election legitimately expressed the will of the people.[33]
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
I'm sure it wasn't squeaky clean but it certainly was more open, all-inclusive and representative of the will of the people as per 4 international monitoring committees although the last point could be contested.FEOS wrote:
Hardly a ringing endorsement...certainly far from "far more open and far fairer".
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-04-01 08:53:59)
The Tanzim al-Jihad group assassinated Anwar Sadat.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
wouldnt you ban an organization that was responsible for assassinating your president?
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-04-01 09:11:05)
just an offshoot of the brotherhood.CameronPoe wrote:
The Tanzim al-Jihad group assassinated Anwar Sadat.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
wouldnt you ban an organization that was responsible for assassinating your president?
Well...some "Christians" have done this and worse.Lotta_Drool wrote:
Watch the video on the following link.
http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1729.htm
Discuss what is wrong with Christians that they would make such hateful videos.
HOWEVER, Christianity is not about Christians, it is about Jesus. What was his example? What did he say & more importantly do?
Ghandi was asked why he didn't become a Christian. His response,"I love your Christ, but do not care for your Christians." Christianity is about following Christ.
Me as a Christian, I admit I am not a perfect example of Jesus either, but I strive to become like him in my action & character. Not so I receive eternal life, but because I desire to obey Him.
It's not just the US. Lots of British weapons over there - especially if that Typhoon deal goes ahead (might even have happened already - I haven't been paying attention).CameronPoe wrote:
Well you should have a fairly accurate idea of what they could do - you sold them every weapon they own.... Just as well there's an Atlantic Ocean, a Mediterranean sea and a 3000+ nuclear arsenal separating the two of ye (just in case any of those kids turn nasty). That's the problem with you dumb cons - you arm your potential enemies because you're so fucking short-sighted.Lotta_Drool wrote:
Yes, I should just not worry about it. I mean what could 19 Muslims in Saudi Arabia do to hurt me in the USA.