oh okay.rammunition wrote:
how is that defending them? Its acknowledging the REASON for the attacks. The US aint innocent. Its better than the "they hate our freedom" bullshit thats spread. Im a realist not one how slips into a fairytale full of crap
Its the reason they attacked though. Just because i acknowledge the reason for the attacks doesn't mean i support them.Pug wrote:
oh okay.rammunition wrote:
how is that defending them? Its acknowledging the REASON for the attacks. The US aint innocent. Its better than the "they hate our freedom" bullshit thats spread. Im a realist not one how slips into a fairytale full of crap
So then you agree that the REASON for the attacks was valid, cited Osama's quote for attacking as the valid reason, but don't agree with him.
Makes perfect sense...
well...give this one a shot then....Pug wrote:
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?
imo to Osama and co and whoever was affected by the reason given, yes.Pug wrote:
well...give this one a shot then....Pug wrote:
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?
Well, then...you agree with Osama.rammunition wrote:
imo to Osama and co and whoever was affected by the reason given, yes.Pug wrote:
well...give this one a shot then....Pug wrote:
but the question is...was it a good reason?
aka lots of Osama supporters worldwide...when's the next rally?
To the people unaffected, i.e. me, you and eveyone in the west, no.
its not all black and white. Problem is you americans think everything isPug wrote:
Well, then...you agree with Osama.rammunition wrote:
imo to Osama and co and whoever was affected by the reason given, yes.Pug wrote:
well...give this one a shot then....
To the people unaffected, i.e. me, you and eveyone in the west, no.
I do not think it was a good reason.
That doesn't mean anyone is a denial, it just establishes you as a troll.
wtf...rammunition wrote:
its not all black and white. Problem is you americans think everything isPug wrote:
Well, then...you agree with Osama.rammunition wrote:
imo to Osama and co and whoever was affected by the reason given, yes.
To the people unaffected, i.e. me, you and eveyone in the west, no.
I do not think it was a good reason.
That doesn't mean anyone is a denial, it just establishes you as a troll.
Last edited by Pug (2009-10-08 12:43:00)
make a thread, i'll engagePug wrote:
Based on the greatest thread ever...
...you are promoting the US as the greatest terrorist nation ever.
There has been several questions attempting to debate whether or not some of the items in the thread where justified, or whether they are in fact, terrorist acts.
So...my challenge to you, is to prove all of the items on the list are in fact, terrorism. Secondly, you will need to define terrorism, just in case we the definition is "because I said so".
That is a debate.
Not "you are in denial"
the thread is closed because it exposed the terrorists that America is to the BF2s community.Pug wrote:
You made a thread. People questioned it. You ignored their questions. I'd start in that thread.
judge some of theseruisleipa wrote:
There is no terrorism. There is only FREEDOM FIGHTING!*
Hell yeah!
*actually, bombing a country that has not attacked you may be considered terrorism, as opposed to the aforementioned freedom fighting.
Last edited by rammunition (2009-10-08 13:02:10)
You seem confused. Particularly if you think left wingers are any more interested in peace than right wingers (or vice versa). Peace and war are states entered into based on national interests, as viewed through the prism of one's ideology. Neither side has a corner on the peace (or war) market.rammunition wrote:
what? you seem confused, i stated that if the UK/US hadn't ruined democracy in Iran a left winger ,in the 50 years gone, would have gone into power. I didn't say a right winger wouldn't have. Left wingers are more interested in peace as you know. You are forgetting Iran was a democracy. *sigh*
You speak with utter surety of things that you cannot in any way be sure of. The Islamic revolution in Iran was brewing before the Shah took power, and may very likely have taken place whether he was in place or not.rammunition wrote:
Those things are done by a government/ayatollah, had there been voting, who would have stood NO CHANCE of getting into power. As i've said before injustice breeds extremism.
evidence to the "islamic republic" growing prior to the shah getting into power?FEOS wrote:
You seem confused. Particularly if you think left wingers are any more interested in peace than right wingers (or vice versa). Peace and war are states entered into based on national interests, as viewed through the prism of one's ideology. Neither side has a corner on the peace (or war) market.rammunition wrote:
what? you seem confused, i stated that if the UK/US hadn't ruined democracy in Iran a left winger ,in the 50 years gone, would have gone into power. I didn't say a right winger wouldn't have. Left wingers are more interested in peace as you know. You are forgetting Iran was a democracy. *sigh*You speak with utter surety of things that you cannot in any way be sure of. The Islamic revolution in Iran was brewing before the Shah took power, and may very likely have taken place whether he was in place or not.rammunition wrote:
Those things are done by a government/ayatollah, had there been voting, who would have stood NO CHANCE of getting into power. As i've said before injustice breeds extremism.
Pretty difficult to find.rammunition wrote:
evidence to the "islamic republic" growing prior to the shah getting into power?FEOS wrote:
You seem confused. Particularly if you think left wingers are any more interested in peace than right wingers (or vice versa). Peace and war are states entered into based on national interests, as viewed through the prism of one's ideology. Neither side has a corner on the peace (or war) market.rammunition wrote:
what? you seem confused, i stated that if the UK/US hadn't ruined democracy in Iran a left winger ,in the 50 years gone, would have gone into power. I didn't say a right winger wouldn't have. Left wingers are more interested in peace as you know. You are forgetting Iran was a democracy. *sigh*You speak with utter surety of things that you cannot in any way be sure of. The Islamic revolution in Iran was brewing before the Shah took power, and may very likely have taken place whether he was in place or not.rammunition wrote:
Those things are done by a government/ayatollah, had there been voting, who would have stood NO CHANCE of getting into power. As i've said before injustice breeds extremism.
the shah came into power in 1953 if im correct, from the wiki page it states "Shia cleric Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini — first came to political prominence in 1963 when he led opposition to the Shah and his "White Revolution" "FEOS wrote:
Pretty difficult to find.rammunition wrote:
evidence to the "islamic republic" growing prior to the shah getting into power?FEOS wrote:
You seem confused. Particularly if you think left wingers are any more interested in peace than right wingers (or vice versa). Peace and war are states entered into based on national interests, as viewed through the prism of one's ideology. Neither side has a corner on the peace (or war) market.rammunition wrote:
what? you seem confused, i stated that if the UK/US hadn't ruined democracy in Iran a left winger ,in the 50 years gone, would have gone into power. I didn't say a right winger wouldn't have. Left wingers are more interested in peace as you know. You are forgetting Iran was a democracy. *sigh*
You speak with utter surety of things that you cannot in any way be sure of. The Islamic revolution in Iran was brewing before the Shah took power, and may very likely have taken place whether he was in place or not.
The secular-clerical rift goes back much farther than the 1970s.
Wow you're selective in your reading.rammunition wrote:
the shah came into power in 1953 if im correct, from the wiki page it states "Shia cleric Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini — first came to political prominence in 1963 when he led opposition to the Shah and his "White Revolution" "FEOS wrote:
Pretty difficult to find.rammunition wrote:
evidence to the "islamic republic" growing prior to the shah getting into power?
The secular-clerical rift goes back much farther than the 1970s.
nothing to suggest he was planning the revolution prior to the shah coming to power, in fact it only confirms he took political engagement to oppose the shah's polices
All of which was prior to the CIA/MI-6 operation that deposed Mossadegh and re-instated the Shah...which you claim started everything. Which clearly isn't the case, since there was a fundamentalist-secular rift that was gaining traction well before that.Shi'a clergy (Ulema) have had a significant influence on some Iranians, who have tended to be religious, traditional, and alienated from any process of Westernization. The clergy first showed themselves to be a powerful political force in opposition to Iran's monarch with the 1891 Tobacco Protest boycott that effectively destroyed an unpopular concession granted by the Shah giving a British company a monopoly over buying and selling Tobacco in Iran.
Decades later monarchy and clerics clashed again, this time monarchy holding the upper hand. Shah Pahlavi's father, army general Reza Pahlavi, replaced Islamic laws with western ones, and forbade traditional Islamic clothing, separation of the sexes and veiling of women (hijab).[37] Police forcibly removed and tore chadors of women who resisted his ban on public hijab. In 1935 dozens were killed and hundreds injured when a rebellion by pious Shi'a at the most holy Shi'a shrine in Iran [38] was crushed on his orders.[39][40][41]
interesting, may have not started everything but it gave the religious leaders a bigger voiceFEOS wrote:
Wow you're selective in your reading.rammunition wrote:
the shah came into power in 1953 if im correct, from the wiki page it states "Shia cleric Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini — first came to political prominence in 1963 when he led opposition to the Shah and his "White Revolution" "FEOS wrote:
Pretty difficult to find.
The secular-clerical rift goes back much farther than the 1970s.
nothing to suggest he was planning the revolution prior to the shah coming to power, in fact it only confirms he took political engagement to oppose the shah's policesAll of which was prior to the CIA/MI-6 operation that deposed Mossadegh and re-instated the Shah...which you claim started everything. Which clearly isn't the case, since there was a fundamentalist-secular rift that was gaining traction well before that.Shi'a clergy (Ulema) have had a significant influence on some Iranians, who have tended to be religious, traditional, and alienated from any process of Westernization. The clergy first showed themselves to be a powerful political force in opposition to Iran's monarch with the 1891 Tobacco Protest boycott that effectively destroyed an unpopular concession granted by the Shah giving a British company a monopoly over buying and selling Tobacco in Iran.
Decades later monarchy and clerics clashed again, this time monarchy holding the upper hand. Shah Pahlavi's father, army general Reza Pahlavi, replaced Islamic laws with western ones, and forbade traditional Islamic clothing, separation of the sexes and veiling of women (hijab).[37] Police forcibly removed and tore chadors of women who resisted his ban on public hijab. In 1935 dozens were killed and hundreds injured when a rebellion by pious Shi'a at the most holy Shi'a shrine in Iran [38] was crushed on his orders.[39][40][41]