• Israel Lobbyist suggests False Flag attack to force the U.S. into a war with Iran
    160 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Mike42012;37816700]It may be the worst, most stark, striking event in the history of forever, it would still not deserve as much attention as it was getting at the time.[/quote] Okay, so, let me get this straight, an attack which claims over 3000 lives, destroys part of the military headquarters of the US, destroys two vital buildings in world trading, in the middle of a city that has never experienced anything more then small scale bombings, committed by a terrorist organisation that has been on top of the US' shit-list for about 10 years and launched a global war against the perpetrators and you want to tell me that's not significant and doesn't garner the attention it got? Are you fucking mental? With this... I say this through gritted teeth, "logic", you can say the holocaust was a false flag because it garnered so much attention. [quote]It was rampant, the American populace was completely agreeing with whatever policy was made, whether or not it took a toll on their human/civil rights.[/quote] Because they were scared and angry. I mean, it's as if they're country was attacked or something, shit i dunno what the fuck they were going on about like wtflol [quote](PATRIOT Act, even the very word is testament to the over-publicizing of the event)[/quote] The patriot act was heavily resisted since day one. Not just in the public but in government. I admit the Senate gave a wimpy protest, but 66 members of the house voted against it. Let me explain something very basic here that you're missing. It's the public who publicises these events. Governments respond, and as they should. So if you're implying there is a conspiracy because of it's attention, then you're implying the American public is also involved with the conspiracy. [quote]Yes, I am, because that is one of the key points of the other side of the argument. Implying that history is not to be question is a fallacy. I could deny the holocaust, I could deny WWII outright, I could deny all African history, it would still be a valid statement, there would still have to be counter-arguments. However, in most of those cases, we have had a massive amount of evidence from both sides, the aggressors in WWII, and the defenders. Which makes it easy to decide.[/quote] Okay, we have massive amounts of evidence for 9/11. What's your point? [quote]The point I'm trying to make is that when you deny the questioning of history, you open the doors for conspiracy.[/quote] Conspiracy is usually bullshit. About 9 times out of 10 it's just nonsense. [quote]What would happen if 9/11 was a massive inside job, and people were outright denied, legally, to question it? That would mean the government, people in power, would be able to get away with a lot more shit without fear of retribution from the populace.[/quote] Yeah well it's not. [quote]What is happening in 9/11's case is similar, although unproved, we are declined by our peers when we question the validity of the event. That is wrong. It is an upset to debate. It should not EVER happen.[/quote] It is proved. I mean, just because YOU can't look it up doesn't mean it isn't there. That's your own fucking fault. [quote]I couldn't care less about the whole 'truther' debate, however, when you threaten debate itself, you are making a massive mistake and retarding the entire arguments growth. The point of arguing these topics, is to reach a sound, intellectually reasoned conclusion. We can't do that if you outright deny the other side any ground, and insult the people putting forth claims to the contrary of your argument.[/QUOTE] It's a tired fucking debate. Truthers have been proven wrong on every corner of their shitty arguments. There is NOTHING left.
[QUOTE=Devodiere;37816769]does this guy not even realised that prove me wrong is a fallacy? stating something with a complete non-sequitur and pushing the burden of proof to the other person?[/QUOTE] It's not, at least when he starts it off with; [quote] Okay, right there is where you have the burden of proof. Look it up, I'm morally in the right for waiting for you lunatics to present something solid other then "well you're just stuck up" [/quote] I give him proof, however slight, and he provides a counter. He hasn't. [QUOTE=Devodiere;37816769]the patriot act is beneficial to the us government because it gives them more power. if the patriot act was only passed due to the social changes from 9/11 and the BIG assumption that they wanted to bring this kind of thing in beforehand, you have two paths. the first is that they made use of the circumstances and it was caused by other factors. the second is that THEY DID IT THEMSELVES, THEY WANTED TO BRING IN THE PATRIOT ACT SO THEY ORCHESTRATED 9/11 THEMSELVES. with occams razor, which is more logical?[/QUOTE] 'They let this happen, and then used it to their advantage' is a simpler path. It's easier to do, easier to argue, and it allows them to publicize it, and milk it to their benefit easier, too. There's no definite two-way-street.
[QUOTE=Mike42012;37816802] I give him proof, however slight, and he provides a counter. [/QUOTE] you gave me the patriot act lmao. Yeah, a shitty ineffective piece of legislation that was protested heavily proves 9/11 was an inside job.
Can somebody tell me how lobbying is not bribing?
[QUOTE=Mike42012;37816802]It's not, at least when he starts it off with; I give him proof, however slight, and he provides a counter. He hasn't.[/quote] you aren't providing anything else, just pushing it back to him. you don't even have proof, just your own puny little counter. [quote]'They let this happen, and then used it to their advantage' is a simpler path. It's easier to do, easier to argue, and it allows them to publicize it, and milk it to their benefit easier, too. There's no definite two-way-street.[/QUOTE] oh good, you're not a complete retard and understand more than garbage. remember that we're ignoring the obvious issue in why would they try to get something like that through initially unless THEY HATE YOUR FREEDOMS. a favourite issue of mine is incompetence vs malice, one is where they couldn't have stopped it, the other they didn't want to. with the US' countless intelligence agencies decentralised to fuck, air controllers asking if it was a drill rather than being told not to do anything, the obvious absurdity in them wanting to kill 3000 people and ruin a big part of their trade just to start a war that achieved nothing, and you start to wonder what kind of imagined malice or hidden agendas could there be. and then you realise its completely retarded to think anyone plans anything and the world is something other than a million different forces pushing on each other with little uniformity or control.
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;37816790]Okay, so, let me get this straight, an attack which claims over 3000 lives, destroys part of the military headquarters of the US, destroys two vital buildings in world trading, in the middle of a city that has never experienced anything more then small scale bombings, committed by a terrorist organisation that has been on top of the US' shit-list for about 10 years and launched a global war against the perpetrators and you want to tell me that's not significant and doesn't garner the attention it got? Are you fucking mental?[/QUOTE] Yes, it's significant. However, it was used to the advantage of the government. And it was over-publicized, take a look at the sensitivity people have towards this issue today, namely you, you think that people would give a fucking shit if it wasn't? It would fade just like the 1993 bombings did. [QUOTE=Governor Goblin;37816790]With this... I say this through gritted teeth, "logic", you can say the holocaust was a false flag because it garnered so much attention. [/QUOTE] That's not the point I'm making. Where the fuck did you get 'false flag' from? I didn't debate that we used it to attack the mid-east, I debated that it was used to their advantage to get a lot of stupid shit passed that wouldn't have passed normally if it didn't happen. They then prolonged the publicizing of the event to keep the advantage, and make a few more shitty systems, DHS, TSA. [QUOTE=Governor Goblin;37816790]Because they were scared and angry. I mean, it's as if they're country was attacked or something, shit i dunno what the fuck they were going on about like wtflol[/QUOTE] Yeah, which means they were also susceptible to radical changes that[I] wouldn't have passed [/I]if it didn't happen. [QUOTE=Governor Goblin;37816790]The patriot act was heavily resisted since day one. Not just in the public but in government. [/QUOTE] 357-66 is not [B]heavy[/B] resistance. The act was rushed through congress, and it had little time to be redrafted, if at all. [QUOTE=Governor Goblin;37816790]I admit the Senate gave a wimpy protest, but 66 members of the house voted against it. [/QUOTE] I agree, but of the 357 that voted for it, how many do you think actually went through the entire thing and visualized the effects it would have. [QUOTE=Governor Goblin;37816790]Let me explain something very basic here that you're missing. It's the public who publicises these events. Governments respond, and as they should.[/QUOTE] Of course, but the prolonged public publicizing worked to their advantage, so I can't see how they wouldn't want to keep it going. [QUOTE=Governor Goblin;37816790]So if you're implying there is a conspiracy because of it's attention, then you're implying the American public is also involved with the conspiracy. [/QUOTE] Indirectly. [QUOTE=Governor Goblin;37816790]Okay, we have massive amounts of evidence for 9/11. What's your point?[/QUOTE] The point is that any conspiracy should be validly argued out without moral restraint until we reach a sound conclusion. [QUOTE=Governor Goblin;37816790]Conspiracy is usually bullshit. About 9 times out of 10 it's just nonsense. [/QUOTE] Yep, but I'm not arguing total conspiracy, I'm arguing them used an event that they may or may not have had prior knowledge of, to get a lot of shit past congress that they wouldn't have otherwise. [QUOTE=Governor Goblin;37816790]Yeah well it's not. [/QUOTE] You aren't getting the fucking point through your skull. You are giving me anecdotal evidence that our government is allowed to get away with stuff like the PATRIOT act because morons don't allow a two-sided debate, they simply provide 'No' as the answer. Of course it wasn't a fucking massive inside job, the point I was making is that 'IF PEOPLE ARE DENIED THE ABILITY TO QUESTION IT, IT ALLOWS THE GOVERNMENT TO GET AWAY WITH A LOT MORE SHIT WITHOUT FEAR OF RETRIBUTION'. [QUOTE=Governor Goblin;37816790]It is proved. I mean, just because YOU can't look it up doesn't mean it isn't there. That's your own fucking fault. [/QUOTE] Similar and unproven in the sense that we can't prove that the government was over-publicizing it. However, we can still question that, and you not giving other people the [I]chance[/I] to question it is a fucking retarded thing. [QUOTE=Governor Goblin;37816790]It's a tired fucking debate. Truthers have been proven wrong on every corner of their shitty arguments. There is NOTHING left.[/QUOTE] I couldn't care less about the whole 'truther' debate, however, when you threaten debate itself, you are making a massive mistake and retarding the entire arguments growth. Again, the point I'm making is when you do shit like; [quote] Please punch your mother for giving birth to you. [/quote] You actually give people a reason to argue, however wrong they are. [editline]27th September 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Devodiere;37816877]oh good, you're not a complete retard and understand more than garbage. remember that we're ignoring the obvious issue in why would they try to get something like that through initially unless THEY HATE YOUR FREEDOMS.[/QUOTE] They hate select people's 'freedoms'. I don't really think they give a fuck about you, or any other common person. But it gives them leverage against people who actually have any amount of power. Look at Manning, Assange. 'Yep let's just make them terrorists now we can do whatever we want with them' [QUOTE=Devodiere;37816877]a favourite issue of mine is incompetence vs malice, one is where they couldn't have stopped it, the other they didn't want to. with the US' countless intelligence agencies decentralised to fuck, air controllers asking if it was a drill rather than being told not to do anything, the obvious absurdity in them wanting to kill 3000 people and ruin a big part of their trade just to start a war that achieved nothing, and you start to wonder what kind of imagined malice or hidden agendas could there be. Yeah, the whole incompetence v. malice thing. It's not really warranted if you argue that they could have had prior knowledge of 'an event' and not specifically, 'an event where people are going to fly an aircraft into a building and then you'll start a war, and then you'll achieve nothing, and then we'll be back to square one'. Because obviously they didn't have prior knowledge that all that shit was going to happen. But they could've had knowledge that 'something' would've happend, and when it did, they took advantage of it. [QUOTE=Devodiere;37816877]and then you realise its completely retarded to think anyone plans anything and the world is something other than a million different forces pushing on each other with little uniformity or control.[/QUOTE] Yeah it's not. The world may be a million different opposing forces, but I'm pretty sure you can still affect them quite a bit if you're the biggest one.
Be nice, folks. Disagreeing doesn't make the other person a bad person. You may however get banned regardless for being a truther. There are a few opinions here which may result in banning, and that is one of them.
I'll resume tomorrow, it's 12PM.
[QUOTE=Mike42012;37816906]Yes, it's significant. However, it was used to the advantage of the government. And it was over-publicized, take a look at the sensitivity people have towards this issue today, namely you, you think that people would give a fucking shit if it wasn't? It would fade just like the 1993 bombings did.[/quote] I'm not 'sensitive' to the issue. I'm acknowledging it's significance. You know what the difference between the 1993 bombings and 9/11 is? in 1993 only 6 people were killed and the parking garage was damaged. In 2001, over 3000 people were killed, and about 9 buildings were severely damaged or completely destroyed. Are you so fucking dense that you cannot see the difference. That's like comparing apples to the fucking holocaust. [quote]That's not the point I'm making. Where the fuck did you get 'false flag' from? I didn't debate that we used it to attack the mid-east, I debated that it was used to their advantage to get a lot of stupid shit passed that wouldn't have passed normally if it didn't happen. They then prolonged the publicizing of the event to keep the advantage, and make a few more shitty systems, DHS, TSA.[/quote] You do realise all that shit was passed in reliance and direct response to 9/11, right? It wasn't an excuse, it was an ineffective response. You're arguing semantics for the rest of the post. what are you even fucking arguing. There is LITERALLY no point to this.
[QUOTE=GunFox;37816943]Be nice, folks. Disagreeing doesn't make the other person a bad person. You may however get banned regardless for being a truther. There are a few opinions here which may result in banning, and that is one of them.[/QUOTE] is advocating mass murder not one of those opinions
[QUOTE=Kopimi;37816967]is advocating mass murder not one of those opinions[/QUOTE] You are basically a dick to everyone in this section. Your post history is one long string of insults and feeble arguments. This is your warning. Continue making every disagreement personal and attacking the intelligence of the opposing side and you will be banned.
[QUOTE=GunFox;37816999]You are basically a dick to everyone in this section. Your post history is one long string of insults and feeble arguments. This is your warning. Continue making every disagreement personal and attacking the intelligence of the opposing side and you will be banned.[/QUOTE] aren't you making it personal by calling me a dick and insulting my post history
[QUOTE=GunFox;37816999]You are basically a dick to everyone in this section. Your post history is one long string of insults and feeble arguments. This is your warning. Continue making every disagreement personal and attacking the intelligence of the opposing side and you will be banned.[/QUOTE] I'm geniuenly curious as I've never heard this before. But what do you constitute as "making it personal"? And how is that a bannable offence?
[QUOTE=Kopimi;37817008]aren't you making it personal by calling me a dick and insulting my post history[/QUOTE] I know, I am lowering myself here. Clearly a more aggressive stance is necessary. Stop derailing and return to the topic.
[QUOTE=GunFox;37817030]I know, I am lowering myself here. Clearly a more aggressive stance is necessary. Stop derailing and return to the topic.[/QUOTE] Gunfox, lets be fair here, this is all stemming from a topic about 9/11 false flagging. The thread is intensely derailed already.
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;37817028]I'm geniuenly curious as I've never heard this before. But what do you constitute as "making it personal"? And how is that a bannable offence?[/QUOTE] When it stops being a discussion about the topic and starts being about the user. Rather than actually provide any facts or opinions, you just start insulting the user on the opposing side. [QUOTE=Governor Goblin;37817039]Gunfox, lets be fair here, this is all stemming from a topic about 9/11 false flagging. The thread is intensely derailed already.[/QUOTE] A discussion about false flag attacks in a thread about a suggested false flag attack is pretty reasonable to me. If either you or Kopimi have any concerns, you can PM me.
[QUOTE=GunFox;37817042]When it stops being a discussion about the topic and starts being about the user. Rather than actually provide any facts or opinions, you just start insulting the user on the opposing side.[/QUOTE] A lot of threads devolve into that and I will admit it's annoying, but you're the first person I've seen to threaten mod action against it.
[QUOTE=GunFox;37817030]I know, I am lowering myself here. Clearly a more aggressive stance is necessary. Stop derailing and return to the topic.[/QUOTE] yes master right away master [QUOTE=Mike42012;37816906]I couldn't care less about the whole 'truther' debate, however, when you threaten debate itself, you are making a massive mistake and retarding the entire arguments growth.[/QUOTE] i actually agree with you the problem is that nobody is actually doing that, they're just shutting down truthers because they're wrong, not because they're "afraid of debate". if one of them decides to embarrass themselves by posting some conspiracy theory we'll stop telling them to leave and just prove them wrong
[QUOTE=Mike42012;37816906] Yep, but I'm not arguing total conspiracy, I'm arguing them used an event that they may or may not have had prior knowledge of, to get a lot of shit past congress that they wouldn't have otherwise.[/QUOTE] This is arguing 4 things that you'd need to prove before making that claim: 1 - Government had foreknowledge of 9/11 - which it didn't. 2 - They had a desire to place these plans in effect prior to the attack - they didn't 3 - The content of these legislations had actions in it that seem out of place and are related to something pre-9/11 - it's not 4 - These legislations were made as a result of pre-9/11 things the government wanted to tackle so the legislation took an overwhelming offensive approach as opposed to a defensive approach. - Which it didn't.
[QUOTE=Devodiere;37816691]pakistan has nuclear weapons is islamic and israel doesnt give a shit about them,[/QUOTE] and you think it was an easy task for pakistan to develop nuclear weapons, and got away with it with no sanctions or isolation whatsoever? they even got threatened by Henry Kissenger "“give up your nuclear programme or else we will make a horrible example of you’" it is stupid to think that they (israel ) have total and absolute control over the world, but its also stupid to think that they are not influencing or affecting foreign polices at all. [quote]In 1981, after Israel's attack on Iraq's Osiraq nuclear reactors in the 1980s, a similar plan to attack Pakistan's Kahuta Research facility by using Indian airfields was foiled, when the Pakistan Air Force got alerted beforehand, and took preventative measures[/quote] [quote]Pakistan’s nuclear capability is a constant eye sour for India, Israel and the West – each for its own reasons.[B] India and Israel even contemplated Air attack against Kahuta in 1980’s.[/B] I was heading the PAF’S Air Defence command at the time and was personally briefed by, Air Chief Marshal MA Shamim about the Indian and the Israeli Air forces joint plan to attack our nuclear complex at Kahuta. I was given specific instructions to make the Air Defence of Kahuta impregnable, as the top most priority. I met Dr. Qadeer Khan several times during that period and soon we had every Air Defence element from radar to high and low level missiles and fighters on alert to meet the Indo-Israeli challenge. [/quote] [URL]http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/national/28-May-2012/the-ultimate-deterrence[/URL] Also to claim that Israel doesnt give a rat's ass about pakistan and its all a conspiracy is rather dumb. in the six day war, pakistan provided support to the arab nations by provided pilots from their army, who managed to shoot down like half of the downed aircraft. [quote]During this conflict the PAF sent personnel to Egypt, Jordan and Syria to support the Arabs in their battle against the Israelis. PAF pilots managed to shoot down ten Israeli aircraft, including Mirages, Mystères and Vautours, without losses on their own side. The PAF pilots operated with Egyptian, Jordanese and Iraqi combat aircraft[/quote] [quote]How safe are Pakistan’s nuclear assets By Shahid R. Siddiqi Sunday, 14 Feb, 2010 | 01:00 AM PST | INDIA’S explosion of its nuclear device in 1974 drew only a customary “show of concern” from the western powers. But Pakistan’s nuclear programmeme, initiated in response to the Indian acquisition of nuclear weapons, evoked immediate and “serious concern” from the same quarters. Ever since, Pakistan has been under immense pressure to scrap its programm while the Indians remain uncensored. That western attitude was discriminatory can also be seen by the religious colour it gave to Pakistan’s bomb by calling it an ‘Islamic bomb’. One has never heard of the Israeli bomb being called a ‘Jewish Bomb’, or the Indian bomb a ‘Hindu Bomb’, or the American and British bomb a ‘Christian Bomb’ or the Soviet bomb a ‘Communist’ (or an ‘Atheist) Bomb’. The West simply used Pakistan’s bomb to make Islam synonymous with aggression and make its nuclear programme a legitimate target, knowing full well that it merely served a defensive purpose and was not even remotely associated with Islam. With India going nuclear soon after playing a crucial role in dismembering Pakistan in 1971 and enjoying an overwhelming conventional military superiority over Pakistan in the ratio of 4:1, a resource strapped Pakistan was pushed to the wall. Left with no other choice but to develop a nuclear deterrent to ward off future Indian threats, Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto declared: “Pakistanis will eat grass but make a nuclear bomb”. And sure enough, they did it. Soon, however, both he and the nuclear programme were to become non-grata. Amid intense pressure, sanctions and vilification campaign, Henry Kissinger personally delivered to a defiant Bhutto the American threat: “give up your nuclear programme or else we will make a horrible example of you’. And a horrible example was made of Bhutto for his defiance. But he had enabled Pakistan to become the 7th nuclear power in the world. This served Pakistan well. India was kept at bay despite temptations for military adventurism. Although there has never been real peace in South Asia, at least there has been no war since 1971. Ignoring its security perspective, Pakistan’s western ‘friends’ refused to admit it to their exclusive nuclear club, though expediency made them ignore its ‘crime’ when it suited their purpose. But driven by identical geo-strategic interests in their respective regions and seeing Pakistan as an obstacle to their designs, Israel and India missed no opportunity to malign or subvert Pakistan’s programme. Due to its defiance of Indian diktat, Pakistan is for India an obstruction in its quest for domination of South Asia and the Indian Ocean region. Israel’s apprehension of Pakistan’s military prowess is rooted in the strength Pakistan indirectly provides to Arab states with whom Israel has remained in a state of conflict. Conscious that several Arab states look up to Pakistan for military support in the event of threat to their security from Israel, it is unsettling for Israel to see a nuclear armed Pakistan. Israel can also not overlook the fact that Pakistan’s military is a match to its own. The PAF pilots surprised Israeli Air Force, when flying mostly Russian aircraft they shot down several relatively superior Israeli aircraft in air combat in the 1973 Arab-Israel war, shattering the invincibility myth of Israeli pilots who believed themselves to be too superior in skill and technology. The Pakistanis happened to be assigned to Jordanian, Syrian and Iraqi air forces on training missions when the war broke out and, unknown to the Israelis then, they incognito undertook combat missions. After successfully destroying Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981, Israelis planned a similar attack on Pakistan’s nuclear facilities at Kahuta in collusion with India in the 1980s. Using satellite pictures and intelligence information, [B]Israel reportedly built a full-scale mock-up of Kahuta facility in the Negev Desert where pilots of F-16 and F-15 squadrons practised mock attacks. [/B]According to ‘The Asian Age’, journalists Adrian Levy and Catherine Scott-Clark stated in their book ‘Deception: Pakistan, the US and the Global Weapons Conspiracy’, that Israeli Air Force was to launch an air attack on Kahuta in mid-1980s from Jamnagar airfield in Gujarat (India). The book claims that[B] “in March 1984, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi signed off (on) the Israeli-led operation bringing India, Pakistan and Israel to within a hair’s breadth of a nuclear conflagration”. [/B] [B]Another report claims that Israel also planned an air strike directly out of Israel. After midway and midair refueling, Israeli warplanes planned to shoot down a commercial airline’s flight over Indian Ocean that flew into Islamabad early morning, fly in a tight formation to appear as one large aircraft on radar screens preventing detection, use the drowned airliner’s call sign to enter Islamabad’s air space, knock out Kahuta and fly out to Jammu to refuel and exit. [/B] [B]According to reliable reports in mid-1980s this mission was actually launched one night. But the Israelis were in for a big surprise. They discovered that Pakistan Air Force had already sounded an alert and had taken to the skies in anticipation of this attack. The mission had to be hurriedly aborted. [/B] Pakistan reminded the Israelis that Pakistan was no Iraq and that PAF was no Iraqi Air Force. Pakistan is reported to have conveyed that an attack on Kahuta would force Pakistan to lay waste to Dimona, Israel’s nuclear reactor in the Negev Desert. India was also warned that Islamabad would attack Trombay if Kahuta facilities were hit. The above quoted book claims that “Prime Minister Indira Gandhi eventually aborted the operation despite protests from military planners in New Delhi and Jerusalem.” McNair’s paper #41 published by USAF Air University (India Thwarts Israeli Destruction of Pakistan's "Islamic Bomb") also confirmed this plan.[B] It said, “Israeli interest in destroying Pakistan’s Kahuta reactor to scuttle the "Islamic bomb" was blocked by India's refusal to grant landing and refueling rights to Israeli warplanes in 1982.” Clearly India wanted to see Kahuta gone but did not want to face retaliation at the hands of the PAF.[/B] Israel, on its part wanted this to be a joint Indo-Israeli strike to avoid being solely held responsible. The Reagan administration also hesitated to support the plan because Pakistan’s distraction at that juncture would have hurt American interests in Afghanistan, when Pakistan was steering the Afghan resistance against the Soviets. Although plans to hit Kahuta were shelved, the diatribe against Pakistan’s nuclear programme continued unabated. Israel used its control over the American political establishment and western media to create hysteria. India worked extensively to promote paranoia, branding Pakistan’s programme as unsafe, insecure and a threat to peace. The fact is otherwise. It is technically sounder, safer and more secure than that of India and has ensured absence of war in the region. The US invasion of Afghanistan provided another opening for Indo-Israeli nexus to target Pakistan’s strategic assets. This time the strategy was to present Pakistan as an unstable state, incapable of defending itself against religious extremist insurgents, creating the spectre of Islamabad and its nuclear assets falling in their hands. Suggestions are being floated that Pakistan being at risk of succumbing to extremists, its nuclear assets should be disabled, seized or forcibly taken out by the US. Alternatively, an international agency should take them over for safe keeping.[/quote] eh just saw the off-topic thing, sorry for that.
[QUOTE=trotskygrad;37815847]Israel makes better weapons Their universities are also MUCH better. So no they are not more "retarded"[/QUOTE] Afaik Iran has the highest percentage of people enrolled in higher education and the most women enrolled then any other ME country. I think they also have the most universities. Not sure the quality but Israels are probably better.
[QUOTE=Chernarus;37817509]Afaik Iran has the highest percentage of people enrolled in higher education and the most women enrolled then any other ME country. I think they also have the most universities. Not sure the quality but Israels are probably better.[/QUOTE] Have you heard they banned women out of majority of faculties in their Univesities? That screams of high education standards and overall decency of said country.
[QUOTE=gudman;37817986]Have you heard they banned women out of majority of faculties in their Univesities? That screams of high education standards and overall decency of said country.[/QUOTE] Nope because I don't live in Iran thus it isn't relevant to me. All I know is they have the highest women enrolment which is pretty ironic.
[QUOTE=Gundevil;37808902]War makes money, how do you think the Great Depression ended?[/QUOTE] If War makes money then where's the money that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan produced?
[QUOTE=Chernarus;37818016]Nope because I don't live in Iran thus it isn't relevant to me. All I know is they have the highest women enrolment which is pretty ironic.[/QUOTE] Well, [URL=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19665615]not anymore[/URL].
[QUOTE=gudman;37818041]Well, [URL=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19665615]not anymore[/URL].[/QUOTE] It still proves my point, there are more women in school then men. I never suggested anything else.
Remind me why lobbyism is considered legal again?
[QUOTE=ser770;37818093]Remind me why lobbyism is considered legal again?[/QUOTE] Because Freedom.
it's a double-edged sword. of lobbying was illegal then a minority of people with one cause, say journalists demanding transparency or gay activists demanding gay marriage, couldn't do anything to put their ideas into action.
[QUOTE=Chernarus;37818073]It still proves my point, there are more women in school then men. I never suggested anything else.[/QUOTE] Yeah, and it also says that government apparently isn't too happy with this fact and wants things to change.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.