elaborate because one doesn't comprehendPug wrote:
Ok, follow it thru now.rammunition wrote:
only supported because the Ayatollah saw an opportunity to pounce on the angry created against the shah and the west.
No overthrowing of Gov in 50's = No angry Iranians,
Compare and contrast.
Using:
-relations with the Israel
-russia
-US
-europe
-power status in middle east
Compare and contrast the differences you believe would have occurred if the scenario you purport had occurred.rammunition wrote:
elaborate because one doesn't comprehendPug wrote:
Ok, follow it thru now.rammunition wrote:
only supported because the Ayatollah saw an opportunity to pounce on the angry created against the shah and the west.
No overthrowing of Gov in 50's = No angry Iranians,
Compare and contrast.
Using:
-relations with the Israel
-russia
-US
-europe
-power status in middle east
OkPug wrote:
Compare and contrast the differences you believe would have occurred if the scenario you purport had occurred.rammunition wrote:
elaborate because one doesn't comprehendPug wrote:
Ok, follow it thru now.
Compare and contrast.
Using:
-relations with the Israel
-russia
-US
-europe
-power status in middle east
Relations with Israel - would have been better, a DEMOCRATIC leader would have tried to improve ties, just like the Egyptians. Also no doubt a left winger would have got in, unlike today, so international ties as a whole would have been better.
Russia - May not have been as close as they are today, the isolation with the west has only forced them to go to Russia.
US - As the first answer, if you don't punch someone you won't get punched back. Relations no doubt in my mind would have been better.
Europe - Irans relations atm are50/50 with Europe, some good relations and some bad. It depends on the leader whoever it may have been if democracy wasn't ruined 50 years ago
Power status - Who knows, as above, depends on leader.
But one thing for sure there wouldn't have been a ayatollah
I like that answer better than "no angry Iranians" Thank you
Interesting that ramm assumes no right winger would've come to power in his fantasyland.
The Islamic revolution didn't magically appear in 26 years under the Shah. It was simmering away for quite some time. There is no guarantee that it wouldn't have occurred otherwise or that fundamentalist leadership wouldn't have been elected with the demographic shift in the population that would have occurred regardless of the Shah being in power or not.
As to the US/Iran relations...who is doing the punching? I'm fairly certain that had the Iranians not held our citizens captive for 444 days at the start of the revolution there, our relations would've gotten off on a much better foot. Perhaps if Iran weren't sponsoring terrorist organizations hell-bent on killing our people, our relations would've gotten off on a much better foot. Perhaps if Iran didn't refer to us as "the Great Satan" all the time...
Iran isolated itself, tbh. They chose to look inward after the revolution as part of their focus on the Islamic Republic. That doesn't lend itself to good relations with anyone.
The Islamic revolution didn't magically appear in 26 years under the Shah. It was simmering away for quite some time. There is no guarantee that it wouldn't have occurred otherwise or that fundamentalist leadership wouldn't have been elected with the demographic shift in the population that would have occurred regardless of the Shah being in power or not.
As to the US/Iran relations...who is doing the punching? I'm fairly certain that had the Iranians not held our citizens captive for 444 days at the start of the revolution there, our relations would've gotten off on a much better foot. Perhaps if Iran weren't sponsoring terrorist organizations hell-bent on killing our people, our relations would've gotten off on a much better foot. Perhaps if Iran didn't refer to us as "the Great Satan" all the time...
Iran isolated itself, tbh. They chose to look inward after the revolution as part of their focus on the Islamic Republic. That doesn't lend itself to good relations with anyone.
“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
Pointing a finger aka naming another country as "satan" or similar is not exclusively done by Iran and you use the phrase "perhaps" like it's your favorite lollipop in combination with Iran ... perhaps if the US didn't alienate itself so much it wouldn't have so many enemies ...FEOS wrote:
Interesting that ramm assumes no right winger would've come to power in his fantasyland.
The Islamic revolution didn't magically appear in 26 years under the Shah. It was simmering away for quite some time. There is no guarantee that it wouldn't have occurred otherwise or that fundamentalist leadership wouldn't have been elected with the demographic shift in the population that would have occurred regardless of the Shah being in power or not.
As to the US/Iran relations...who is doing the punching? I'm fairly certain that had the Iranians not held our citizens captive for 444 days at the start of the revolution there, our relations would've gotten off on a much better foot. Perhaps if Iran weren't sponsoring terrorist organizations hell-bent on killing our people, our relations would've gotten off on a much better foot. Perhaps if Iran didn't refer to us as "the Great Satan" all the time...
Iran isolated itself, tbh. They chose to look inward after the revolution as part of their focus on the Islamic Republic. That doesn't lend itself to good relations with anyone.
A quarrel is most often two sided FEOS
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Exactly my point, Varegg.Varegg wrote:
A quarrel is most often two sided FEOS
“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
alienate: translation- not bending to the self interests of other nations, who can do nothing about it.Varegg wrote:
Pointing a finger aka naming another country as "satan" or similar is not exclusively done by Iran and you use the phrase "perhaps" like it's your favorite lollipop in combination with Iran ... perhaps if the US didn't alienate itself so much it wouldn't have so many enemies ...FEOS wrote:
Interesting that ramm assumes no right winger would've come to power in his fantasyland.
The Islamic revolution didn't magically appear in 26 years under the Shah. It was simmering away for quite some time. There is no guarantee that it wouldn't have occurred otherwise or that fundamentalist leadership wouldn't have been elected with the demographic shift in the population that would have occurred regardless of the Shah being in power or not.
As to the US/Iran relations...who is doing the punching? I'm fairly certain that had the Iranians not held our citizens captive for 444 days at the start of the revolution there, our relations would've gotten off on a much better foot. Perhaps if Iran weren't sponsoring terrorist organizations hell-bent on killing our people, our relations would've gotten off on a much better foot. Perhaps if Iran didn't refer to us as "the Great Satan" all the time...
Iran isolated itself, tbh. They chose to look inward after the revolution as part of their focus on the Islamic Republic. That doesn't lend itself to good relations with anyone.
A quarrel is most often two sided FEOS
Last edited by lowing (2009-10-07 04:35:02)
Free your mindlowing wrote:
alienate: translation- not bending to the self interests of other nations, who can do nothing about it.
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
But the US is Satan.FEOS wrote:
Perhaps if Iran didn't refer to us as "the Great Satan" all the time...
They need the US the same as America needed communists and flying saucers to be scared of.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
I have, that is why I think the way I do. I do not need dependency form you or anyone else. No better definition of free can be made.Varegg wrote:
Free your mindlowing wrote:
alienate: translation- not bending to the self interests of other nations, who can do nothing about it.
I'm pretty sure that if Western countries didn't meddle in Iran so much (from during WW2 onwards) they probably wouldn't be so pissed off, turning to Islam so heavily as drive them on.FEOS wrote:
Interesting that ramm assumes no right winger would've come to power in his fantasyland.
The Islamic revolution didn't magically appear in 26 years under the Shah. It was simmering away for quite some time. There is no guarantee that it wouldn't have occurred otherwise or that fundamentalist leadership wouldn't have been elected with the demographic shift in the population that would have occurred regardless of the Shah being in power or not.
As to the US/Iran relations...who is doing the punching? I'm fairly certain that had the Iranians not held our citizens captive for 444 days at the start of the revolution there, our relations would've gotten off on a much better foot. Perhaps if Iran weren't sponsoring terrorist organizations hell-bent on killing our people, our relations would've gotten off on a much better foot. Perhaps if Iran didn't refer to us as "the Great Satan" all the time...
Iran isolated itself, tbh. They chose to look inward after the revolution as part of their focus on the Islamic Republic. That doesn't lend itself to good relations with anyone.
They elected Mossadeq(sp) who nationalised the oil, but Britain didn't like that and with American help toppled him and installed the Shah. That guy ruled like a cunt (for some reason) and so people started to hate him and the West. Then eventually they have their Islamic revolution and the rest is history (well it was all history but)
You can't really blame them for getting so pissed off at the West (and everyone, really, including the Soviets probably), and then with that new form of Islam comes the hate towards the West even more for all the Israel/Palestine shit (if they didn't turn so heavily towards Islam they probably wouldn't have given a shit about Israel/Palestine, that's the only connection they have to that conflict, religion) and it all just builds up from there.
Then again they could've had a revolution without all the bullshit hardcore Islamism, but that's what they turned to to get them out of their hole.
Not being a global cunt really has nothing to do with being dependent on other nations or not ... besides that you prolly know the US is more dependent now on goodwill from outside its border than ever before ...lowing wrote:
I have, that is why I think the way I do. I do not need dependency form you or anyone else. No better definition of free can be made.Varegg wrote:
Free your mindlowing wrote:
alienate: translation- not bending to the self interests of other nations, who can do nothing about it.
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
When did i say no right winger would have come into power??? Can you read??? Are you blind???FEOS wrote:
Interesting that ramm assumes no right winger would've come to power in his fantasyland.
The Islamic revolution didn't magically appear in 26 years under the Shah. It was simmering away for quite some time. There is no guarantee that it wouldn't have occurred otherwise or that fundamentalist leadership wouldn't have been elected with the demographic shift in the population that would have occurred regardless of the Shah being in power or not.
As to the US/Iran relations...who is doing the punching? I'm fairly certain that had the Iranians not held our citizens captive for 444 days at the start of the revolution there, our relations would've gotten off on a much better foot. Perhaps if Iran weren't sponsoring terrorist organizations hell-bent on killing our people, our relations would've gotten off on a much better foot. Perhaps if Iran didn't refer to us as "the Great Satan" all the time...
Iran isolated itself, tbh. They chose to look inward after the revolution as part of their focus on the Islamic Republic. That doesn't lend itself to good relations with anyone.
I said there would have been a more higher chance a left winger would have come into power.
Who's doing the punching??? well the US/UK threw the first punches when they decided to ruin the DEMOCRACY IN IRAN for oil. Whats happened since is a result of it. All those things you mentioned are a result of hatred produced because of what the US/UK did.
A global cunt? Ask Kuwait, Saudi , Somalia, Bosnia etc, if we were global cunts, the list is endless. Problem really is, you want to pick and choose how the US will use its own resources. We do not exist and function by your leave, contrary to popular opinion.Varegg wrote:
Not being a global cunt really has nothing to do with being dependent on other nations or not ... besides that you prolly know the US is more dependent now on goodwill from outside its border than ever before ...lowing wrote:
I have, that is why I think the way I do. I do not need dependency form you or anyone else. No better definition of free can be made.Varegg wrote:
Free your mind
Really? link me to all the goodwill and finacial aid, and food drops and medical services the US recieves from other nations, because I am not aware.
So, the Islamic extremist parts can't be blamed for anything? Ok.rammunition wrote:
When did i say no right winger would have come into power??? Can you read??? Are you blind???FEOS wrote:
Interesting that ramm assumes no right winger would've come to power in his fantasyland.
The Islamic revolution didn't magically appear in 26 years under the Shah. It was simmering away for quite some time. There is no guarantee that it wouldn't have occurred otherwise or that fundamentalist leadership wouldn't have been elected with the demographic shift in the population that would have occurred regardless of the Shah being in power or not.
As to the US/Iran relations...who is doing the punching? I'm fairly certain that had the Iranians not held our citizens captive for 444 days at the start of the revolution there, our relations would've gotten off on a much better foot. Perhaps if Iran weren't sponsoring terrorist organizations hell-bent on killing our people, our relations would've gotten off on a much better foot. Perhaps if Iran didn't refer to us as "the Great Satan" all the time...
Iran isolated itself, tbh. They chose to look inward after the revolution as part of their focus on the Islamic Republic. That doesn't lend itself to good relations with anyone.
I said there would have been a more higher chance a left winger would have come into power.
Who's doing the punching??? well the US/UK threw the first punches when they decided to ruin the DEMOCRACY IN IRAN for oil. Whats happened since is a result of it. All those things you mentioned are a result of hatred produced because of what the US/UK did.
Let's look at this example. Gulf War '91. Coalition forces stage in Saudi Arabia at the Saudi's requests, to help defend Saudi Arabia's northern border from an Iraqi invasion. Bin Laden (a Saudi) had offered his help to the government, who chose the British, Americans and French instead. So Bin Laden gets all pissed about that and launches some terrorist attacks all the way up to and beyond 9/11.
So if the Iranian's hate the west because of what happened in the 50's, because we apparently destroyed their country, then why does old Bin Lid hate us when we tried to protect his native land and buy the oil that fuels its economy? Could it be because he's a hateful extremist nutjob?
The 1979 Revolution may have come about because of the Shah, but all of the nutty assholes they've had in charge, and their funding of terrorist groups like Hezbollah has been of their own doing, not the west's. Hell we even bailed them out of their own hostage situation in 1980.
i've said this before and will mention it again, injustice breeds extremism.M.O.A.B wrote:
So, the Islamic extremist parts can't be blamed for anything? Ok.rammunition wrote:
When did i say no right winger would have come into power??? Can you read??? Are you blind???FEOS wrote:
Interesting that ramm assumes no right winger would've come to power in his fantasyland.
The Islamic revolution didn't magically appear in 26 years under the Shah. It was simmering away for quite some time. There is no guarantee that it wouldn't have occurred otherwise or that fundamentalist leadership wouldn't have been elected with the demographic shift in the population that would have occurred regardless of the Shah being in power or not.
As to the US/Iran relations...who is doing the punching? I'm fairly certain that had the Iranians not held our citizens captive for 444 days at the start of the revolution there, our relations would've gotten off on a much better foot. Perhaps if Iran weren't sponsoring terrorist organizations hell-bent on killing our people, our relations would've gotten off on a much better foot. Perhaps if Iran didn't refer to us as "the Great Satan" all the time...
Iran isolated itself, tbh. They chose to look inward after the revolution as part of their focus on the Islamic Republic. That doesn't lend itself to good relations with anyone.
I said there would have been a more higher chance a left winger would have come into power.
Who's doing the punching??? well the US/UK threw the first punches when they decided to ruin the DEMOCRACY IN IRAN for oil. Whats happened since is a result of it. All those things you mentioned are a result of hatred produced because of what the US/UK did.
Let's look at this example. Gulf War '91. Coalition forces stage in Saudi Arabia at the Saudi's requests, to help defend Saudi Arabia's northern border from an Iraqi invasion. Bin Laden (a Saudi) had offered his help to the government, who chose the British, Americans and French instead. So Bin Laden gets all pissed about that and launches some terrorist attacks all the way up to and beyond 9/11.
So if the Iranian's hate the west because of what happened in the 50's, because we apparently destroyed their country, then why does old Bin Lid hate us when we tried to protect his native land and buy the oil that fuels its economy? Could it be because he's a hateful extremist nutjob?
The 1979 Revolution may have come about because of the Shah, but all of the nutty assholes they've had in charge, and their funding of terrorist groups like Hezbollah has been of their own doing, not the west's. Hell we even bailed them out of their own hostage situation in 1980.
There are many reasons why Al Qaeda had attacked the U.S. One reason is Bin laden got pissed at seeing the U.S in Saudi Arabia.
Quote
Bin laden in 1996 and 1998 both demand the end of the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia. In the fatwa issued in 1998, bin Laden and others wrote: "For more than seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples"
Counter-terrorism expert Richard A. Clarke explains in his 2004 book, Against All Enemies, that U.S. foreign policy decisions including "confronting Moscow in Afghanistan, inserting the U.S. military in the Persian Gulf", and "strengthening Israel as a base for a southern flank against the Soviets" contributed to al-Qaeda's motives.
end
What Iran has become today is as a result of the ayatollah expoliting the situation of the Iranians anger due to the shah, the US puppet.
look at this scenario. If you move houses and one day you punch your neighbour because he/she has a better car than you what do you expect he/she to do??
Attack back, report it to others, hold hate against you etc.
Alright then, so if one event caused by country A that means a significant, perhaps unwanted change in country B, then everything after that event is the responsibility and fault of country A? Regardless of whatever action country B takes over the years by itself.rammunition wrote:
i've said this before and will mention it again, injustice breeds extremism.M.O.A.B wrote:
So, the Islamic extremist parts can't be blamed for anything? Ok.rammunition wrote:
When did i say no right winger would have come into power??? Can you read??? Are you blind???
I said there would have been a more higher chance a left winger would have come into power.
Who's doing the punching??? well the US/UK threw the first punches when they decided to ruin the DEMOCRACY IN IRAN for oil. Whats happened since is a result of it. All those things you mentioned are a result of hatred produced because of what the US/UK did.
Let's look at this example. Gulf War '91. Coalition forces stage in Saudi Arabia at the Saudi's requests, to help defend Saudi Arabia's northern border from an Iraqi invasion. Bin Laden (a Saudi) had offered his help to the government, who chose the British, Americans and French instead. So Bin Laden gets all pissed about that and launches some terrorist attacks all the way up to and beyond 9/11.
So if the Iranian's hate the west because of what happened in the 50's, because we apparently destroyed their country, then why does old Bin Lid hate us when we tried to protect his native land and buy the oil that fuels its economy? Could it be because he's a hateful extremist nutjob?
The 1979 Revolution may have come about because of the Shah, but all of the nutty assholes they've had in charge, and their funding of terrorist groups like Hezbollah has been of their own doing, not the west's. Hell we even bailed them out of their own hostage situation in 1980.
There are many reasons why Al Qaeda had attacked the U.S. One reason is Bin laden got pissed at seeing the U.S in Saudi Arabia.
Quote
Bin laden in 1996 and 1998 both demand the end of the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia. In the fatwa issued in 1998, bin Laden and others wrote: "For more than seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples"
Counter-terrorism expert Richard A. Clarke explains in his 2004 book, Against All Enemies, that U.S. foreign policy decisions including "confronting Moscow in Afghanistan, inserting the U.S. military in the Persian Gulf", and "strengthening Israel as a base for a southern flank against the Soviets" contributed to al-Qaeda's motives.
end
What Iran has become today is as a result of the ayatollah expoliting the situation of the Iranians anger due to the shah, the US puppet.
look at this scenario. If you move houses and one day you punch your neighbour because he/she has a better car than you what do you expect he/she to do??
Attack back, report it to others, hold hate against you etc.
Hmm, then perhaps we should blame the British for its war with America, which led to U.S. independence, which led to the America we have today, which led to the introduction of the Shah, which led to the 1979 revolution, which led to the Iran of today. So really, its the fault of the British all those years ago, if we are to follow your idea that those who created the original situation are responsible for everything that follows.
I think we or Israel are going to bomb them...
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
yes and no. Its the fault of country A as whatever action country B takes is after what country A has done. It will be on the minds of the citizens of country B and their decisions will be based on what country A did (you confused, i am lol).M.O.A.B wrote:
Alright then, so if one event caused by country A that means a significant, perhaps unwanted change in country B, then everything after that event is the responsibility and fault of country A? Regardless of whatever action country B takes over the years by itself.rammunition wrote:
i've said this before and will mention it again, injustice breeds extremism.M.O.A.B wrote:
So, the Islamic extremist parts can't be blamed for anything? Ok.
Let's look at this example. Gulf War '91. Coalition forces stage in Saudi Arabia at the Saudi's requests, to help defend Saudi Arabia's northern border from an Iraqi invasion. Bin Laden (a Saudi) had offered his help to the government, who chose the British, Americans and French instead. So Bin Laden gets all pissed about that and launches some terrorist attacks all the way up to and beyond 9/11.
So if the Iranian's hate the west because of what happened in the 50's, because we apparently destroyed their country, then why does old Bin Lid hate us when we tried to protect his native land and buy the oil that fuels its economy? Could it be because he's a hateful extremist nutjob?
The 1979 Revolution may have come about because of the Shah, but all of the nutty assholes they've had in charge, and their funding of terrorist groups like Hezbollah has been of their own doing, not the west's. Hell we even bailed them out of their own hostage situation in 1980.
There are many reasons why Al Qaeda had attacked the U.S. One reason is Bin laden got pissed at seeing the U.S in Saudi Arabia.
Quote
Bin laden in 1996 and 1998 both demand the end of the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia. In the fatwa issued in 1998, bin Laden and others wrote: "For more than seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples"
Counter-terrorism expert Richard A. Clarke explains in his 2004 book, Against All Enemies, that U.S. foreign policy decisions including "confronting Moscow in Afghanistan, inserting the U.S. military in the Persian Gulf", and "strengthening Israel as a base for a southern flank against the Soviets" contributed to al-Qaeda's motives.
end
What Iran has become today is as a result of the ayatollah expoliting the situation of the Iranians anger due to the shah, the US puppet.
look at this scenario. If you move houses and one day you punch your neighbour because he/she has a better car than you what do you expect he/she to do??
Attack back, report it to others, hold hate against you etc.
Hmm, then perhaps we should blame the British for its war with America, which led to U.S. independence, which led to the America we have today, which led to the introduction of the Shah, which led to the 1979 revolution, which led to the Iran of today. So really, its the fault of the British all those years ago, if we are to follow your idea that those who created the original situation are responsible for everything that follows.
But there is the point on how long can country A be blamed for. Lets look at Iran, I somewhat blame the US/UK for the revolution in 79 and same with the hostage crisis. I don't blame them on the current political situation as leaders have come and gone over the years.
Ahh, so Bin Laden is always right. That's why the world supports him completely.rammunition wrote:
Quote
Bin laden in 1996 and 1998 both demand the end of the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia. In the fatwa issued in 1998, bin Laden and others wrote: "For more than seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples"
Honestly...plundering its riches? So money wasn't exchanged?
no one is saying he is right, its just that Americans think they have done nothing wrong and were attacked for no reason.Pug wrote:
Ahh, so Bin Laden is always right. That's why the world supports him completely.rammunition wrote:
Quote
Bin laden in 1996 and 1998 both demand the end of the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia. In the fatwa issued in 1998, bin Laden and others wrote: "For more than seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples"
Honestly...plundering its riches? So money wasn't exchanged?
We were guilty of nothing more than selling Levi's jeans and spreading McDonald's throughout the world. Along with those products comes free thought and new ideas that undermine religions. Yes, that makes us bad people.rammunition wrote:
no one is saying he is right, its just that Americans think they have done nothing wrong and were attacked for no reason.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
but the question is...was it a good reason?rammunition wrote:
no one is saying he is right, its just that Americans think they have done nothing wrong and were attacked for no reason.
aka lots of Osama supporters worldwide...when's the next rally?
Have you seen this, the greatest thread ever on this forum???JohnG@lt wrote:
We were guilty of nothing more than selling Levi's jeans and spreading McDonald's throughout the world. Along with those products comes free thought and new ideas that undermine religions. Yes, that makes us bad people.rammunition wrote:
no one is saying he is right, its just that Americans think they have done nothing wrong and were attacked for no reason.
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 8#p2032818
More than Levi's jeans and McDonalds