Originally posted by sh76 It's nice to have the luxury of being able to make benefit of the doubt dubious assumptions about crazed religious fundamentalist leaders.
The Iranians have been running rings round the Americans for 30 years. I am rather inclined to interpret relentless references to their alleged insanity as an attempt to disguise this fact.
Originally posted by FMF The Iranians have been running rings round the Americans for 30 years. I am rather inclined to interpret relentless references to their alleged insanity as an attempt to disguise this fact.
Perhaps. But I wouldn't be willing to bet anything I wouldn't want to lose on the rationality of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Would you?
Originally posted by sh76 Perhaps. But I wouldn't be willing to bet anything I wouldn't want to lose on the rationality of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Would you?
I'm willing to bet stuff I wouldn't want to lose on the U.S. killing 250,000 innocent Iranians, in a short space of time, at some point in the next decade. So would the Iranians, I bet. And I bet that's why they may well be trying to secure nuclear weapons for themselves. I think Iranian rationality is a far more pressing issue than Iranian irrationality.
Originally posted by FMF I'm willing to bet stuff I wouldn't want to lose on the U.S. killing 250,000 innocent Iranians, in a short space of time, at some point in the next decade.
I'll take that bet.
If, by October 5, 2019, the US has not killed 250,000 or more innocent Iranians within a "short space of time" (oh, what the heck, I'll give you the whole decade), I win. If the US has killed 250,000 or more innocent Iranians, you win.
If, by October 5, 2019, the US has not killed 250,000 or more innocent Iranians within a "short space of time" (oh, what the heck, I'll give you the whole decade), I win. If the US has killed 250,000 or more innocent Iranians, you win.
What do you propose as stakes?
I humbly suggest you two agree on what the meaning of the word "innocent" is. Are the thugs gunning down Iranian civilians in the street innocent?
Originally posted by sh76 I'll take that bet. If, by October 5, 2019, the US has not killed 250,000 or more innocent Iranians within a "short space of time" (oh, what the heck, I'll give you the whole decade), I win. If the US has killed 250,000 or more innocent Iranians, you win. What do you propose as stakes?
Your pile of comic books for my pile of history books. 😀
Originally posted by Sleepyguy I humbly suggest you two agree on what the meaning of the word "innocent" is. Are the thugs gunning down Iranian civilians in the street innocent?
The 250,000 innocent Iranians would be ones who are not gunning down Iranian civilians in the street. Who'd mourn the demise of the latter? But I've never seen the U.S. exercising much in the way of discrimination from 30,000 ft.
Originally posted by FMF Your pile of comic books for my pile of history books. 😀
If the New York Daily News is to be believed then Ahmedinejan is just an assimilated version of a Jewish moniker and Ahmedinejans posturing is nothing more than the ramblings of any would be convert who goes hard so as not to arouse any suspiscion!
Originally posted by kmax87 If the New York Daily News is to be believed then Ahmedinejan is just an assimilated version of a Jewish moniker and Ahmedinejans posturing is nothing more than the ramblings of any would be convert who goes hard so as not to arouse any suspiscion!
Originally posted by FabianFnas Is it still anyone who doesn't believe that Israel doesn't have nuclear mass destruction weapons?
Is there anyone who believes that they(the Israeli's) would not exercise more restraint in using that weapon if the need arose?. In terms of likelyhood, which country is more likely to get carried away(Iran or Israel) and let the radiation envelop the region?
Originally posted by kmax87 Is there anyone who believes that they(the Israeli's) would not exercise more restraint in using that weapon if the need arose?. In terms of likelyhood, which country is more likely to get carried away(Iran or Israel) and let the radiation envelop the region?
Well, so far Israel has killed thousands of Palestinians and the Iranians have killed...uh... nobody.
Originally posted by kmax87 Is there anyone who believes that they(the Israeli's) would not exercise more restraint in using that weapon if the need arose?. In terms of likelyhood, which country is more likely to get carried away(Iran or Israel) and let the radiation envelop the region?
Don't you think Israel ever will use their nuclear weapons?
If so, why do they have them in the first place?
Why are everyone afraid that Iran will use their (eventual) nuclear weapons?
If Iran - NO ?
Then Israel - NO !
...in consequence.
06 Oct '09 01:26
anyone still believe Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons?
Back to Top