Saudi Arabia flexing its muscles in Middle East

Something is stirring in Saudi Arabia. Gone is the historically conservative, don't-rock-the-boat, tip-toeing approach to the big, strategic issues of the Middle East. In its place has come a new, assertive attitude that is seeing the oil-rich kingdom set off on previously untried and potentially risky ventures. In Yemen, the Saudi military has now been at war with Houthi rebels for more than four months. In Syria, Saudi patronage for Islamist rebels opposed to the government of President Bashar al-Assad has been stepped up dramatically - and, on the Iran nuclear deal, well-placed Saudi sources have let it be known that if they assess Tehran as likely to acquire nuclear weapons in the future, then Saudi Arabia will go down the same path, triggering a Middle Eastern arms race.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-33825064

As I have said, its not just Israel who is at odds with the Iran deal.
With Saudi money about to take a down turn in two years, I suspect we might see Saudi have a conventional war with Iran.

didge wrote:In Syria, Saudi patronage for Islamist rebels opposed to the government of President Bashar al-Assad has been stepped up dramatically...

I gather this means ISIL, only it's too sensitive an issue to reveal them by name in the western media.

This is what I mean when I say that we don't even know who is the enemy. Why ISIL? Indeed, why Iran? Why are any of them "our" enemy? Why are any of them "our" friends? We're like, wanting to get involved and no one is paying attention to us. We weren't invited to the dance.

We are basically irrelevant to those in the Middle East. It's just not our fight.

Original Quill wrote:

didge wrote:In Syria, Saudi patronage for Islamist rebels opposed to the government of President Bashar al-Assad has been stepped up dramatically...

I gather this means ISIL, only it's too sensitive an issue to reveal them by name in the western media.

This is what I mean when I say that we don't even know who is the enemy.  Why ISIL?  Indeed, why Iran?  Why are any of them "our" enemy?  Why are any of them "our" friends?  We're like, wanting to get involved and no one is paying attention to us.  We weren't invited to the dance.

We are basically irrelevant to those in the Middle East.  It's just not our fight.

You are a human being and anytime as a human we can do something we should/
Claiming something is not your fight gives up on others, who do need our desperate help.
Today they claimed a quarter of a million have now died in Syria and we all still quibble over action based on how other countries react and not what is the right thing to do. To claim something is not your fight makes humans actually be from a different group, when again we are all one species. What you propose Quill is a view only caring for one set of humans. Americans.

Didge wrote:You are a human being and anytime as a human we can do something we should/Claiming something is not your fight gives up on others, who do need our desperate help. Today they claimed a quarter of a million have now died in Syria and we all still quibble over action based on how other countries react and not what is the right thing to do. To claim something is not your fight makes humans actually be from a different group, when again we are all one species. What you propose Quill is a view only caring for one set of humans. Americans.

Unfortunately, we have only two choices: 1) hand out cookies and doughnuts; or 3) go in and kill people. Somehow, the food option seems to be feckless.

But, if we go in and kill people, we have to decide whom we want to kill. Or, conversely, who do we want to save? We don't have any friends in the fight.

The news media wants us to hate ISIL; unfortunately, ISIL is on the same side as al Qaeda, on the one hand, and Saudi Arabia on the other.

And these guys are opposed to Iran. Maybe we should help out Iran. Oppps...maybe not. We've got them under sanctions, remember? They want a nuclear bomb.

What then? Send the kids to their room? Wherever you put them, they will find a way to cause trouble. They both have an axe to grind, and we don't have a dog in the fight (talk about a great mixed metaphor!).

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:You are a human being and anytime as a human we can do something we should/Claiming something is not your fight gives up on others, who do need our desperate help.  Today they claimed a quarter of a million have now died in Syria and we all still quibble over action based on how other countries react and not what is the right thing to do. To claim something is not your fight makes humans actually be from a different group, when again we are all one species. What you propose Quill is a view only caring for one set of humans. Americans.

Unfortunately, we have only two choices: 1) hand out cookies and doughnuts; or 3) go in and kill people.  Somehow, the food option seems to be feckless.

But, if we go in and kill people, we have to decide whom we want to kill.  Or, conversely, who do we want to save?  We don't have any friends in the fight.

The news media wants us to hate ISIL; unfortunately, ISIL is on the same side as al Qaeda, on the one hand, and Saudi Arabia on the other.  

And these guys are opposed to Iran.  Maybe we should help out Iran.  Oppps...maybe not.  We've got them under sanctions, remember?  They want a nuclear bomb.

What then?  Send the kids to their room?  Wherever you put them, they will find a way to cause trouble.  They both have an axe to grind, and we don't have a dog in the fight (talk about a great mixed metaphor!).

Your argument fell down when you said we only had two choices.
Now we have no choices because there is nothing to stop Iran producing Nuke weapons now.
Its actually ISIS that want to have as much media time as possible. Most rationally sound minded people do not need the media to understand ISIS are committing atrocities, daily. Iran is led by a group of religious fundamentalists. Such people have little reason, they go by commands found in an ancient book. This deal has ensured another Nuke arms race/ Obama, who I respect, really screwed up here.
We had sanctions in place when we should have gone after their leadership elite with sanctions. Iran has had much unrest, which only the people within can bring about a change.

Cuchulain wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Unfortunately, we have only two choices: 1) hand out cookies and doughnuts; or 3) go in and kill people.  Somehow, the food option seems to be feckless.

But, if we go in and kill people, we have to decide whom we want to kill.  Or, conversely, who do we want to save?  We don't have any friends in the fight.

The news media wants us to hate ISIL; unfortunately, ISIL is on the same side as al Qaeda, on the one hand, and Saudi Arabia on the other.  

And these guys are opposed to Iran.  Maybe we should help out Iran.  Oppps...maybe not.  We've got them under sanctions, remember?  They want a nuclear bomb.

What then?  Send the kids to their room?  Wherever you put them, they will find a way to cause trouble.  They both have an axe to grind, and we don't have a dog in the fight (talk about a great mixed metaphor!).

Your argument fell down when you said we only had two choices.
Now we have no choices because there is nothing to stop Iran producing Nuke weapons now.
Its actually ISIS that want to have as much media time as possible. Most rationally sound minded people do not need the media to understand ISIS are committing atrocities, daily. Iran is led by a group of religious fundamentalists. Such people have little reason, they go by commands found in an ancient book. This deal has ensured another Nuke arms race/ Obama, who I respect, really screwed up here.
We had sanctions in place when we should have gone after their leadership elite with sanctions. Iran has had much unrest, which only the people within can bring about a change.

I'm confused. Who do you want us to back, ISIL or Iran?

Original Quill wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:


Your argument fell down when you said we only had two choices.
Now we have no choices because there is nothing to stop Iran producing Nuke weapons now.
Its actually ISIS that want to have as much media time as possible. Most rationally sound minded people do not need the media to understand ISIS are committing atrocities, daily. Iran is led by a group of religious fundamentalists. Such people have little reason, they go by commands found in an ancient book. This deal has ensured another Nuke arms race/ Obama, who I respect, really screwed up here.
We had sanctions in place when we should have gone after their leadership elite with sanctions. Iran has had much unrest, which only the people within can bring about a change.

I'm confused.  Who do you want us to back, ISIL or Iran?

Go back?

We never really left.
The point is to not center on the disaster on the Iraq war. No matter who would have invaded, for arguments sake Russia, this would have not prevented the escalation of sectarian violence between Sunni and Shia extremists In Iraq and Syria where for years we have seen violence from both quarters. That was always going to happen based of, the preceding decades of violence. This is now more than anything turning into a coward proposal on not to act based off a situation which would have eventually happened anyway. Where a Government would have formed further hate by the opposition's actions and even worse kill people over.

Cuchulain wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I'm confused.  Who do you want us to back, ISIL or Iran?

Go back?

We never really left.
The point is to not center on the disaster on the Iraq war. No matter who would have invaded, for arguments sake Russia, this would have not prevented the escalation of sectarian violence between Sunni and Shia extremists In Iraq and Syria where for years we have seen violence from both quarters. That was always going to happen based of, the preceding decades of violence. This is now more than anything turning into a coward proposal on not to act based off a situation which would have eventually happened anyway. Where a Government would have formed further hate by the opposition's actions and even worse kill people over.

So, you think we should back ISIL against Bashar al-Assad?

What about when ISIL and Iran go at it, as they are gearing up for right now?

Original Quill wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

Go back?

We never really left.
The point is to not center on the disaster on the Iraq war. No matter who would have invaded, for arguments sake Russia.
This would have not prevented the escalation of sectarian violence between Sunni and Shia extremists In Iraq and Syria.Where for years we have seen violence from both quarters. That was always going to happen based of,f the preceding decades of violence. This is now more than anything turning into a coward proposal on not to act based off a situation which would have eventually happened anyway. Where a Government would have formed further hate by the opposition's actions and even worse kill people over.

So, you think we should back ISIL against Bashar al-Assad?  

Nope.
I think we should take both out of the equation.
The only reason Iran and Saudi have starting to roll up their sleeves is because,l they now fear more thier nationms faith system. You need Control on power in regards to the religious groups of hate filled rhetoric they promote daily against the west. Now the US.  Their propaganda machine has worked wonders, its called submission. Again there is nothing now that can prevent Iran from building an arsenal of Nukes.

Cuchulain wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

So, you think we should back ISIL against Bashar al-Assad?  

Nope.
I think we should take both out of the equation.

You think we should defeat both Saudi Arabia and Iran? We are already taking on Iran. And I think if we take on ISIL, we will back ourselves up the ladder and eventually be confronting Saudi Arabia. So, you may be right in fact, if not in design.

But the question remains: Why?

Original Quill wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

Nope.
I think we should take both out of the equation.

You think we should defeat both Saudi Arabia and Iran?  We are already taking on Iran.  And I think if we take on ISIL, we will back ourselves up the ladder and eventually be confronting Saudi Arabia.    So, you may be right in fact, if not in design.

But the question remains: Why?

Defend?
Wrong word again, I think we should enact freedom for them, not something tied by faith.
I do not think of defeating anyone conventionally, we were defeating them when they came crawling to the table/
The facts is the US capitulated and not for any good reasons, but for ratings.
You still provide the worst reason to do nothing against ISIS, when we can,

Cuchulain wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You think we should defeat both Saudi Arabia and Iran?  We are already taking on Iran.  And I think if we take on ISIL, we will back ourselves up the ladder and eventually be confronting Saudi Arabia.    So, you may be right in fact, if not in design.

But the question remains: Why?

Defend?
Wrong word again, I think we should enact freedom for them, not something tied by faith.
I do not think of defeating anyone conventionally, we were defeating them when they came crawling to the table/
The facts is the US capitulated and not for any good reasons, but for ratings.
You still provide the worst reason to do nothing against ISIS, when we can,

The word wasn't 'defend' but 'defeat'.

Didge wrote: I think we should enact freedom for them, not something tied by faith.

How do you 'enact freedom' for someone?  What physical steps do you take?

If you are to prohibit or limit 'faith' is there anything else you would exclude or limit?  Speech?  Ideas?  Actions?

Didge wrote:I do not think of defeating anyone conventionally, we were defeating them when they came crawling to the table/

When was that?

Didge wrote:The facts is the US capitulated and not for any good reasons, but for ratings.
You still provide the worst reason to do nothing against ISIS, when we can.

"When we can..."  What?  You didn't finish the sentence.

But since you raised it, what was the purpose that "the US capitulated'?  I assume you are talking about the 10-years war of 2003-2013.  What was the purpose of that war?

I am interested because no one has ever given an adequate explanation of that war (it wasn't WMD's, we found out).  Was it religious?  Was it oil?

Not talking about the Iraq war in regards to capitulation,
That is just you being desperate again, failing to understand what they have capitulated over. You have this utterly daft view this has to lead to war each time when it does not when the sanctions were working and could have been more hard hitting against individuals within Iran. It was already causing discontent which you are so far removed from understanding. Like I say there is now nothing to stop Iran producing nuke weapons. With such a regime which has an ideology of martyrdom and extreme views, leads to a very distinct possibility of witnessing a nuclear war within our lifetime

Cuchulain wrote:Not talking about the Iraq war in regards to capitulation,
That is just you being desperate again, failing to understand what they have capitulated over. You have this utterly daft view this has to lead to war each time when it does not when the sanctions were working and could have been more hard hitting against individuals within Iran. It was already causing discontent which you are so far removed from understanding. Like I say there is now nothing to stop Iran producing nuke weapons. With such a regime which has an ideology of martyrdom and extreme views, leads to a very distinct possibility of witnessing a nuclear war within our lifetime

Iran was already producing nuclear weapons.  No one on this side caused that.  It has a life of its own.  That was why sanctions were imposed on Iran by the international community.  The sanctions were not working to curtail Iran's drive for nukes. It seems to me you are dithering and twiddling your thumbs while Iran goes right ahead and progresses toward a nuclear weapon.

So now, what changes would you make, or steps would you take so that Iran wouldn't produce nuclear weapons?  The sanctions were not working.  You reject the agreement.  You say that war is not an option.

Do you have any plan or idea at this point?

Original Quill wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:Not talking about the Iraq war in regards to capitulation,
That is just you being desperate again, failing to understand what they have capitulated over. You have this utterly daft view this has to lead to war each time when it does not when the sanctions were working and could have been more hard hitting against individuals within Iran. It was already causing discontent which you are so far removed from understanding. Like I say there is now nothing to stop Iran producing nuke weapons. With such a regime which has an ideology of martyrdom and extreme views, leads to a very distinct possibility of witnessing a nuclear war within our lifetime

Iran was already producing nuclear weapons.  No one on this side caused that.  It has a life of its own.  That was why sanctions were imposed on Iran by the international community.  The sanctions were not working to curtail Iran's drive for nukes.

So now, what changes would you make, or steps would you take so that Iran wouldn't produce nuclear weapons?  The sanctions were not working.  You reject the agreement.  You say that war is not an option.

Do you have any plan or idea at this point?

So what you are saying is that we should appease such radical countries, when such a government sent children into minefields, lying to them that they would go straight to heaven if they gave their lives for a cause? Please explain how they abused the rights of children when they allowed them to wrongly believe as they did by fighting and dying?
Please explain that to me Quill how you reason with such idiots?

Cuchulain wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Iran was already producing nuclear weapons.  No one on this side caused that.  It has a life of its own.  That was why sanctions were imposed on Iran by the international community.  The sanctions were not working to curtail Iran's drive for nukes.

So now, what changes would you make, or steps would you take so that Iran wouldn't produce nuclear weapons?  The sanctions were not working.  You reject the agreement.  You say that war is not an option.

Do you have any plan or idea at this point?

So what you are saying is that we should appease such radical countries, when such a government sent children into minefields, lying to them that they would go straight to heaven if they gave their lives for a cause? Please explain how they abused the rights of children when they allowed them to wrongly believe as they did by fighting and dying?
Please explain that to me Quill how you reason with such idiots?

What is the opposite of appeasement? Your idea is that appeasement is the opposite of war; that is how you justify war: Let's not appease...let's go kill them! So in order to avoid appeasement, you favor perpetual war.

I take an opposite approach: until we have a plan, let's not go in like a bull in a china shop. Peacemakers don't go in with candy and doughnuts. They go in with guns. Why? Because they intend to kill people. So, now we have peacemakers intent on killing people, and you think that will result in peace.

I can almost guarantee that peacemakers with guns will not achieve peace. They will become someone's enemy. We saw it in Korea. We saw it in Viet Nam. We saw it in Bosnia. We saw it in Somalia. We saw it in Iraq, and we saw it in Iraq II and Afghanistan. They shoot back and they convince a sizable portion of the world that we are the problem. America was associated with Korea, Viet Nam, Bosnia, Somalia, Iraq I, Iraq II and Afghanistan...and in every one of those conflicts America came out being called the aggressor--very often, by Brits.

Here we are at the threshold of another proposed war and we have no plan. Save the children, people scream from the back benches. Go in with guns and kill the bad muthur-fookers, and save the innocent, good guys, for god's sake! But you can't even distinguish the so-called bad muthur-fookers from the innocent and the children. And as soon as you think you can identify the good guys, you hear them saying kill, kill, kill those other guys!

So, even the 'good guys' don't see you as the peacemakers, but as simply another force to be used in their perpetual civil war. How did you get into that situation? You didn't think. You didn't have a plan. You barely have a purpose.

What a fucking left wing twat.
Again I ask you how is nation that sends children to their death through martyrdom a nation to trust?
Its a simple question  even for a left wing idiot such as yourself. Its idiots like you that allows Hitler to gain strength and power because you wish to appease. There is again nothing now to stop Iran making Nuke weapons but only a left wing idiot would see otherwise. Iran would have no hesitation  of using such weapons against Israel based on Martydom. It shows how far removed the left is on understanding such a bad ideology

Cuchulain wrote:What a fucking left wing twat.
Again I ask you how is nation that sends children to their death through martyrdom a nation to trust?
Its a simple question  even for a left wing idiot such as yourself. Its idiots like you that allows

Who is trusting anyone?

Cuchulain wrote:Hitler to gain strength and power because you wish to appease.

Let's leave history aside; you obviously know nothing about it, Archie.

Cuchulain wrote:There is again nothing now to stop Iran making Nuke weapons but only a left wing idiot would see otherwise. Iran would have no hesitation  of using such weapons against Israel based on Martydom. It shows how far removed the left is on understanding such a bad ideology.

You and your right-wing nut-jobs are as much responsible as anyone. The RW has been behind every war since WWII and they still haven't solved the problem. What brilliant war-plan do you have in store for us this time?

How do you plan to stop Iran from obtaining Nukes?

Answer the question you left wing idiot.
How is a nation to be trusted that sends children to their deaths? I am glad we do not listen to appeasers like you as we would all have little freedom. This is what you left wing idiots do not understand. The freedoms we have and you defend countries that are against such freedoms, why is that? Were you born stupid? I could forgive being born stupid

Well not surprised by such a left wing reply full of stupidity and no answer to the points made

QUILL, do unto others as they would do to you,
only do it first!!




Nuke 'em.

WARNING: GRAPHIC PHOTO SOME MAY FIND UPSETTING




How about if there was something in Iran who was saying nuke you Nicko, you'd call them all kinds of scum.  You don't even class them as human do you?   You disgust me.   You have just wished this on people:

nicko wrote:QUILL, do unto others as they would do to you,
only do it first!!


Nuke 'em.

by rights than everyone gets to nuke western nations as ONLY the west has used nukes against others
Hypocrite expect others to have more honor than you

sassy wrote:How about if there was something in Iran who was saying nuke you Nicko, you'd call them all kinds of scum.  You don't even class them as human do you?   You disgust me.   You have just wished this on people:

Typical low life terrorist supporting scum
You disgust most people and say nothing of the fact Iran has vowed to wipe out all Israeli's and finish what Hitler was not able to do. Does it mean I want to wipe out the Iranians? No, but scum like you would back the Iranians wiping out the Jews, because of your love for terrorists. At least Nicko sees that they are a threat and a danger to the sanctity of life and that they follow a daft ideology which you appease at every opportunity.

I don't think Saudi will attack anyone without the permission of the U.S.

Cuchulain wrote:

sassy wrote:How about if there was something in Iran who was saying nuke you Nicko, you'd call them all kinds of scum.  You don't even class them as human do you?   You disgust me.   You have just wished this on people:

Typical low life terrorist supporting scum
You disgust most people and say nothing of the fact Iran has vowed to wipe out all Israeli's and finish what Hitler was not able to do. Does it mean I want to wipe out the Iranians? No, but scum like you would back the Iranians wiping out the Jews, because of your love for terrorists. At least Nicko sees that they are a threat and a danger to the sanctity of life and that they follow a daft ideology which you appease at every opportunity.

Oh I get it, you understand the sanctity of life by wishing to nuke people

sassy wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:



Typical low life terrorist supporting scum
You disgust most people and say nothing of the fact Iran has vowed to wipe out all Israeli's and finish what Hitler was not able to do. Does it mean I want to wipe out the Iranians? No, but scum like you would back the Iranians wiping out the Jews, because of your love for terrorists. At least Nicko sees that they are a threat and a danger to the sanctity of life and that they follow a daft ideology which you appease at every opportunity.

Oh I get it, you understand the sanctity of life by wishing to nuke people

Where did I back nuking people?
I only stated Nicko can see what is a danger and that such an ideology would have no hesitation in using them

Sassy, why do you take things that I say so seriously?

Because what you say is serious.  You might like to pretend that you don't really think it, but it's obvious you do.   I find it utterly repugnant that someone would even suggest the nuking of others, that the very words would not bring into your mind a picture that would make you heave.

Cuchulain wrote:

sassy wrote:How about if there was something in Iran who was saying nuke you Nicko, you'd call them all kinds of scum.  You don't even class them as human do you?   You disgust me.   You have just wished this on people:

Typical low life terrorist supporting scum
You disgust most people and say nothing of the fact Iran has vowed to wipe out all Israeli's and finish what Hitler was not able to do. Does it mean I want to wipe out the Iranians? No, but scum like you would back the Iranians wiping out the Jews, because of your love for terrorists. At least Nicko sees that they are a threat and a danger to the sanctity of life and that they follow a daft ideology which you appease at every opportunity.

Defending self confessed scum like Nicko? How low have you gone?

You'd probably defend Smelly these days too. Lol!

nicko wrote:QUILL, do unto others as they would do to you,
only do it first!!




Nuke 'em.

How's this any different to what Smelly used to say?

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:



Typical low life terrorist supporting scum
You disgust most people and say nothing of the fact Iran has vowed to wipe out all Israeli's and finish what Hitler was not able to do. Does it mean I want to wipe out the Iranians? No, but scum like you would back the Iranians wiping out the Jews, because of your love for terrorists. At least Nicko sees that they are a threat and a danger to the sanctity of life and that they follow a daft ideology which you appease at every opportunity.

Defending self confessed scum like Nicko? How low have you gone?

You'd probably defend Smelly these days too. Lol!

Nicko is no scum you pathetic little runt.
He has served his country, unlike you who no doubt has little loyalty to Britain.
Your only loyalty is to some imaginary deity.

Self confessed scum like Nicko, the only scum on here is a self confessed under cover wannabe terrorist like yourself, fcuking idiot!

nicko wrote:Self confessed scum like Nicko,     the only scum on here is a self confessed under cover wannabe terrorist like yourself, fcuking idiot!

When was the last time I said a country and its innocent people should be nuked? Or in any way, murdered?

I just have to go up a few posts to see you say just that.

You are that scum that lies under the barrel, not just at the bottom.

Cuchulain wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Defending self confessed scum like Nicko? How low have you gone?

You'd probably defend Smelly these days too. Lol!

Nicko is no scum you pathetic little runt.
He has served his country, unlike you who no doubt has little loyalty to Britain.
Your only loyalty is to some imaginary deity.

He's a vile little bitch who wants to nuke innocents and you're defending him. You're a hypocrite, as well as sanctimonious and arrogant.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

nicko wrote:Self confessed scum like Nicko,     the only scum on here is a self confessed under cover wannabe terrorist like yourself, fcuking idiot!

When was the last time I said a country and its innocent people should be nuked? Or in any way, murdered?

I just have to go up a few posts to see you say just that.

You are that scum that lies under the barrel, not just at the bottom.

If Iran gained nukes they would have no hesitation in using them.
This is a country which instills an ideology of one which cares little for the lives of humans. This is a nation that sent children into mine fields to clear them, stating they would meet Allah. This is not a people that cares for the sanctity of life. Does that mean we should nuke them, if they obtain such weapons? No, but we should certainly use conventional means before they have the ability to use Nuke weapons. Israel will ensure that happens before they ever obtain one. An ideology as backward which lies to people claiming a better life in the next is creating the worst child abuse to children.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

Nicko is no scum you pathetic little runt.
He has served his country, unlike you who no doubt has little loyalty to Britain.
Your only loyalty is to some imaginary deity.

He's a vile little bitch who wants to nuke innocents and you're defending him. You're a hypocrite, as well as sanctimonious and arrogant.

Oh do pipe down you idiot, he never meant it which he clearly said afterwards.
Calling people a bitch is also very lame, but then you do have the mentality of a 2 year old.

Wow a thread full of such hatred, and everyone unable to see their own

Nems wrote:Wow a thread full of such hatred, and everyone unable to see their own

Blah blah blah blah

Cuchulain wrote:

Nems wrote:Wow a thread full of such hatred, and everyone unable to see their own

Blah blah blah blah

Dear god more flounce than a flamenco dancer

Nems wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

Blah blah blah blah

Dear god more flounce than a flamenco dancer

God does not exist, so you are talking to yourself dumbass.
Go back to making your money sucking cock

Cuchulain wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

When was the last time I said a country and its innocent people should be nuked? Or in any way, murdered?

I just have to go up a few posts to see you say just that.

You are that scum that lies under the barrel, not just at the bottom.

If Iran gained nukes they would have no hesitation in using them.
This is a country which instills an ideology of one which cares little for the lives of humans. This is a nation that sent children into mine fields to clear them, stating they would meet Allah. This is not a people that cares for the sanctity of life. Does that mean we should nuke them, if they obtain such weapons? No, but we should certainly use conventional means before they have the ability to use Nuke weapons. Israel will ensure that happens before they ever obtain one. An ideology as backward which lies to people claiming a better life in the next is creating the worst child abuse to children.

"If"?

You clearly prefer to be on a war footing and murder innocents, rather than talk peace.

At least the some U.S. are seeing sense. Just the right wing new-con nazis and you think the same. And degenerates like Nico.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:


If Iran gained nukes they would have no hesitation in using them.
This is a country which instills an ideology of one which cares little for the lives of humans. This is a nation that sent children into mine fields to clear them, stating they would meet Allah. This is not a people that cares for the sanctity of life. Does that mean we should nuke them, if they obtain such weapons? No, but we should certainly use conventional means before they have the ability to use Nuke weapons. Israel will ensure that happens before they ever obtain one. An ideology as backward which lies to people claiming a better life in the next is creating the worst child abuse to children.

"If"?

You clearly prefer to be on a war footing and murder innocents, rather than talk peace.

At least the some U.S. are seeing sense. Just the right wing new-con nazis and you think the same. And degenerates like Nico.

Innocents.
Conventional will be against Iran's facilities not civillians.

The US is an appeaser, where the majority of the country is against the polcy as its a waste of space. There is nothing to stop Iran now building Nukes

Iran follows a irrational ideology, has called for the extermination of tghe Jews and destruction of the west. You may want to learn from history where people have made good on their threats.

Cuchulain wrote:

Nems wrote:

Dear god more flounce than a flamenco dancer

God does not exist, so you are talking to yourself dumbass.
Go back to making your money sucking cock

How very un PC of you!
Are you saying that those that suck cock for a living should be discriminated against
Oh my god you hate filled bigot.

Nems wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

God does not exist, so you are talking to yourself dumbass.
Go back to making your money sucking cock

How very un PC of you!
Are you saying that those that suck cock for a living should be discriminated against
Oh my god you hate filled bigot.

Not at all as I am sure you enjoy yourself in your job.
Are you a sperm gurgler?
Is not hate Nems, I told you that you wanted war, you will get this daily.
You only have yourself to blame

Cuchulain wrote:

Nems wrote:

Dear god more flounce than a flamenco dancer

God does not exist, so you are talking to yourself dumbass.
Go back to making your money sucking cock

Lol! Not like you to be homophobic.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

God does not exist, so you are talking to yourself dumbass.
Go back to making your money sucking cock

Lol! Not like you to be homophobic.

LOl do you think Nems is a man?


Ha ha ha ha

That has made my day.....

Cuchulain wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Lol! Not like you to be homophobic.

LOl do you think Nems is a man?


Ha ha ha ha

That has made my day.....

Ah, so you're just a plain old fashioned mysoginist.

That's much better.

Cuchulain wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Lol! Not like you to be homophobic.

LOl do you think Nems is a man?


Ha ha ha ha

That has made my day.....

Just to be sure: you are a man, right?