Iran engages Pakistanis in armed border conflict, Pakistani casualties taken - Polidicks

[QUOTE=trotskygrad;34416304]inb4 pakistan shifts some of it's artillery from the Indian border to the Iranian border. Pakistan loves them some border Arty duels.[/QUOTE] People dont read shit anymore.

[QUOTE=doonbugie2;34419009]The title isn't sensationalist, it sums up the article perfectly. Iran engages Pakistanis in armed border conflict, Pakistani casualties taken.[/QUOTE]"Engages" implies both sides were aggressors.

[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;34419159]"Engages" implies both sides were aggressors.[/QUOTE] It doesn't imply anything, its a dictionary word. Engages means to attack or get involved with someone.

And it begins...

[QUOTE=doonbugie2;34419178]It doesn't imply anything, its a dictionary word. Engages means to attack or get involved with someone.[/QUOTE] You don't get what sensationalism means, do you? The title of this thread gives off the implication that both sides were being aggressive and as such using armed individuals. Key words? Engages, armed border [b]conflict[/b] and casualties taken. Words frequently used in relation to actual battles. Oh, may I ask what you think conflict means? Don't try to defend it. It was obviously your intent to create the title like that.

[QUOTE=Antdawg;34419340]You don't get what sensationalism means, do you? The title of this thread gives off the implication that both sides were being aggressive and as such using armed individuals. Key words? Engages, armed border [b]conflict[/b] and casualties taken. Words frequently used in relation to actual battles. Oh, may I ask what you think conflict means? Don't try to defend it. It was obviously your intent to create the title like that.[/QUOTE] Your accusations are unfounded, I intended to create a informative title. The only way you could have thought otherwise is if you can't read the article itself.

As much as i am against war and conflict in general, Iran really is starting to push it's luck.

Was listening to this when I saw the Headline :v: [video=youtube;bjlBCAx6330]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjlBCAx6330[/video] Well done, Sensationalist Headlines.

Its okay! Pakistan still loves Iran [quote] [B]Pakistani Official Reiterates Brotherly Ties with Iran[/B] Speaker of Pakistan's Khyber-Pakhtunkhaw Assembly Kiramatullah Khan described Iran and Pakistan as two Muslim nations with brotherly ties, and urged for the further expansion of cooperation between the two states. [/quote]

[QUOTE=LunchboxOfDoom;34412689]Well that was a dick move. They were just livestock traders, FFS.[/QUOTE] Well that was a dick move when the americans overthrew their government in the 50's and replaced it with a west-friendly dictator, this leading to the revolution that led to today's iran

[QUOTE=DarkCisco;34422055]Well that was a dick move when the americans overthrew their government in the 50's and replaced it with a west-friendly dictator, this leading to the revolution that led to today's iran[/QUOTE] Not that any part of your post has anything to do with the issue that border guards killed a bunch of livestock traders, but actually, Operation Ajax was coordinated between the United Kingdom's MI6, the United States' CIA, and the Iranian monarchists who supported the Shah- NOT just the United States, as convenient as it may be to forget this fact. The only reason why the United States even bothered to participate was because Prime Minister Churchill directly requested the Eisenhower Administration to join in (Truman had been against intervening in Iran at all, FYI, something Churchill was not at all happy about). [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat[/url] And by the way, that west-friendly dictator did the right thing for his country and stopped being so friendly to us in the late 1950s after his rule had been firmly established. He continued a lot of the policies and practices his father had originally began. Not only did he re-nationalize Iran's oil industry (which is what had gotten Dr. Mossadegh into trouble in the first place), but he also started educating his people and began modernizing the country's legal system (even extending suffrage to women, much to the disdain of the fundamentalist Islamic political groups in the country) and systems of infrastructure. He also established the first systems of both universal health care and public welfare in Iran. This isn't even commenting on all the technological and industrial research projects he funded (in some cases, using his own personal finances) that brought the country its first petrochemical plants, power plants, steel plants, automobile manufacturing plants, and dams. You might find this interview that he did with the BBC exactly 38 years ago tomorrow to be of interest: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imil1iIpIYA&feature=related[/media]

[QUOTE=DarkCisco;34422055]Well that was a dick move when the americans overthrew their government in the 50's and replaced it with a west-friendly dictator, this leading to the revolution that led to today's iran[/QUOTE] I hate that people always assume that because the CIA did it every American was totally behind it.