that's mean
watGod Save the Queen wrote:
Arent we missing one of the florida keys?KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
I bet Crimson Jihad becomes a nuclear power before Iran does.
now there are more developments in the Iran/Israel issue.
The barbaric beats in the white house have now given Israel a long range radar, which may suggest Israel can now attack Iran and are more confident in stopping any Iranian missiles coming into Israel in retaliation
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle … 641570.stm
The barbaric beats in the white house have now given Israel a long range radar, which may suggest Israel can now attack Iran and are more confident in stopping any Iranian missiles coming into Israel in retaliation
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle … 641570.stm
It said nothing about attacking Iran. All it said was that Isreal can better defend itself. WTF is wrong with that?rammunition wrote:
now there are more developments in the Iran/Israel issue.
The barbaric beats in the white house have now given Israel a long range radar, which may suggest Israel can now attack Iran and are more confident in stopping any Iranian missiles coming into Israel in retaliation
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle … 641570.stm
Malloy must go
This means that Israel can now go attack Iran, knowing if Iran lauched a few missiles they can now stop them. Read this link of Israel asking America for permission to attack Iran.deeznutz1245 wrote:
It said nothing about attacking Iran. All it said was that Isreal can better defend itself. WTF is wrong with that?rammunition wrote:
now there are more developments in the Iran/Israel issue.
The barbaric beats in the white house have now given Israel a long range radar, which may suggest Israel can now attack Iran and are more confident in stopping any Iranian missiles coming into Israel in retaliation
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle … 641570.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/se … estinians1
Neither Israel nor Iran have the capability to attack each other conventionally with any significance. Israel hasn't got a chance in doing this without US support. And the US won't support an Israeli attack on Iran as it would basically wipe out every gain made in Iraq and Afghanistan and it would turn the region into a fireball.
But, and correct me if I am wrong here, didn't the first link you provided state that the U.S. wouldnt condone any attacks on Iran by Isreal? I mean, there are plenty of countries with missile defense systems. It is kind of the norm. It seems to me you are just pissed of again and are providing links after the previous link fails to support your argument.rammunition wrote:
This means that Israel can now go attack Iran, knowing if Iran lauched a few missiles they can now stop them. Read this link of Israel asking America for permission to attack Iran.deeznutz1245 wrote:
It said nothing about attacking Iran. All it said was that Isreal can better defend itself. WTF is wrong with that?rammunition wrote:
now there are more developments in the Iran/Israel issue.
The barbaric beats in the white house have now given Israel a long range radar, which may suggest Israel can now attack Iran and are more confident in stopping any Iranian missiles coming into Israel in retaliation
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle … 641570.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/se … estinians1
Malloy must go
America not support Israel???deeznutz1245 wrote:
But, and correct me if I am wrong here, didn't the first link you provided state that the U.S. wouldnt condone any attacks on Iran by Isreal? I mean, there are plenty of countries with missile defense systems. It is kind of the norm. It seems to me you are just pissed of again and are providing links after the previous link fails to support your argument.rammunition wrote:
This means that Israel can now go attack Iran, knowing if Iran lauched a few missiles they can now stop them. Read this link of Israel asking America for permission to attack Iran.deeznutz1245 wrote:
It said nothing about attacking Iran. All it said was that Isreal can better defend itself. WTF is wrong with that?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/se … estinians1
LOL, isn't that what they said during the Lebanon war in 2006 but were at the same time providing weapons and bombs???
If you belive anything America says then you need to wake up
Jesus Christ. You post a link that does not support your statement, that's what I am saying. I know that the US supports Israel you fucking astronaut, everyone does. My two year old knows that but I want you to justify what you are posting. Once again, your posts are anti US spam because you complain once again but the evidence you are providing supports nothing you are saying. And btw, all I am doing is asking questions that you provided in your link. So, you do realize that when you insult me for asking such "dumb" questions you are making an ass out of yourself? I got into an argument with myself once, it was tiring and I don't know who won so I feel your pain.
Last edited by deeznutz1245 (2008-09-30 04:55:31)
Malloy must go
Don't make me draw up the RPG-29's Iran supplied again, I'm actually getting tired of pointing that fact out every time.rammunition wrote:
America not support Israel???deeznutz1245 wrote:
But, and correct me if I am wrong here, didn't the first link you provided state that the U.S. wouldnt condone any attacks on Iran by Isreal? I mean, there are plenty of countries with missile defense systems. It is kind of the norm. It seems to me you are just pissed of again and are providing links after the previous link fails to support your argument.rammunition wrote:
This means that Israel can now go attack Iran, knowing if Iran lauched a few missiles they can now stop them. Read this link of Israel asking America for permission to attack Iran.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/se … estinians1
LOL, isn't that what they said during the Lebanon war in 2006 but were at the same time providing weapons and bombs???
If you belive anything America says then you need to wake up
Sing it: Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran.
Okay, the "Crimson Jihad" flew past me, since my eyes still have crusty sleep-stuff in them, but the Florida Keys remark pegged it for me. Are we so lacking in classic movies that True Lies makes the list?.:ronin:.|Patton wrote:
watGod Save the Queen wrote:
Arent we missing one of the florida keys?KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
I bet Crimson Jihad becomes a nuclear power before Iran does.
I should think Iran has a whole heap of chemical and biological weapons, REAL WMD, not the made up ones.Neither Israel nor Iran have the capability to attack each other conventionally with any significance.
A few canisters of Anthrax or VX dropped on the few major Israeli population centres would screw them a bit I think.
Pretty much.Israel hasn't got a chance in doing this without US support.
At this point, with Duhbya certain to be remembered as the most disastrous President the US has seen, I don't suppose he's concerned about trifles like world war 3.And the US won't support an Israeli attack on Iran as it would basically wipe out every gain made in Iraq and Afghanistan and it would turn the region into a fireball.
It was his intention to ignite the region, its surprising its taken this long.
Fuck Israel
Yeah, guess all those chemical bombs Saddam used on the Iranians back in the 80's were figments of imagination and he thought best not to stash for the future because they might be dangerousDilbert_X wrote:
I should think Iran has a whole heap of chemical and biological weapons, REAL WMD, not the made up ones.Neither Israel nor Iran have the capability to attack each other conventionally with any significance.
A few canisters of Anthrax or VX dropped on the few major Israeli population centres would screw them a bit I think.
From the subtitle of your linked story:rammunition wrote:
This means that Israel can now go attack Iran, knowing if Iran lauched a few missiles they can now stop them. Read this link of Israel asking America for permission to attack Iran.deeznutz1245 wrote:
It said nothing about attacking Iran. All it said was that Isreal can better defend itself. WTF is wrong with that?rammunition wrote:
now there are more developments in the Iran/Israel issue.
The barbaric beats in the white house have now given Israel a long range radar, which may suggest Israel can now attack Iran and are more confident in stopping any Iranian missiles coming into Israel in retaliation
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle … 641570.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/se … estinians1
What's your point?US president told Israeli prime minister he would not back attack on Iran
“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
the point is the U.S say one thing but do they other, like mentioned during the Lebanon massacre in 2006 the U.S acted like they wanted a ceasefire when in fact they were arming the zionazi's.FEOS wrote:
From the subtitle of your linked story:rammunition wrote:
This means that Israel can now go attack Iran, knowing if Iran lauched a few missiles they can now stop them. Read this link of Israel asking America for permission to attack Iran.deeznutz1245 wrote:
It said nothing about attacking Iran. All it said was that Isreal can better defend itself. WTF is wrong with that?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/se … estinians1What's your point?US president told Israeli prime minister he would not back attack on Iran
my point again, the U.S may have said they won't back Israel but they will do so behind closed doors, and then come in front of the media "condemning" this or that
The 'Zionazi's'?
You ought to be ashamed of that remark.
You ought to be ashamed of that remark.
You're new here so lemme help you;Kuffar wrote:
The 'Zionazi's'?
You ought to be ashamed of that remark.
Don;t waste your time with ram.
lol, fair enough.
How do the two things have any relation to one another?rammunition wrote:
the point is the U.S say one thing but do they other, like mentioned during the Lebanon massacre in 2006 the U.S acted like they wanted a ceasefire when in fact they were arming the zionazi's.
You draw a link where there is none.
You can help a friend defend themselves while still saying that they need to find another way of solving the problem.
And nice spin there..."Lebanon massacre" and "zionazi's".
Got anything other than a post by you that substantiates that claim?rammunition wrote:
my point again, the U.S may have said they won't back Israel but they will do so behind closed doors, and then come in front of the media "condemning" this or that
“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
BIG LOL!!!! I just watched True Lies the other day!! Why dont we go after those guys???KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
I bet Crimson Jihad becomes a nuclear power before Iran does.
And Israel is a "big boy" and can fend for itself. . . . . If they want to bomb Iran then let em'! Bottom line Iran is a menace in the region and would love nothing more to aquire and USE a nuke whenever they see fit. They arent rational nor are they a model member of the international community. If Israel feels threatend or knows that Iran is close to developing the most powerful weapon known to man, then fuck it! Let the bombs drop and the bodies hit the floor!
FEOS, honestly...I wouldn't even bother.FEOS wrote:
How do the two things have any relation to one another?rammunition wrote:
the point is the U.S say one thing but do they other, like mentioned during the Lebanon massacre in 2006 the U.S acted like they wanted a ceasefire when in fact they were arming the zionazi's.
You draw a link where there is none.
You can help a friend defend themselves while still saying that they need to find another way of solving the problem.
And nice spin there..."Lebanon massacre" and "zionazi's".Got anything other than a post by you that substantiates that claim?rammunition wrote:
my point again, the U.S may have said they won't back Israel but they will do so behind closed doors, and then come in front of the media "condemning" this or that
He'll try and blame anything on the US, even if he has no evidence whatsoever.