TranceAddict Forums

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Two things...
Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »


Posted by Cyrus King on Jan-01-2003 02:13:

quote:
Originally posted by Yoepus
And who are you to say that our president is an ape?

Remember Canadains, are shields for saddam!


Its one thing to say A person is an ape.... and its another thing, as a president, proclaiming nations as evil.... He is no more intelligent than a bonobo chimp... and im not the only one who thinks that. Do you think George Bush deserves the respect of the global intellect? It would be a sad day if he does.

How the fuck did he win the presidency


Posted by Arbiter on Jan-01-2003 12:44:

quote:
Originally posted by Cyrus King
How the fuck did he win the presidency


By cheating, of course.


Posted by Yoepus on Jan-01-2003 18:32:

quote:
Originally posted by Cyrus King
Its one thing to say A person is an ape.... and its another thing, as a president, proclaiming nations as evil.... He is no more intelligent than a bonobo chimp... and im not the only one who thinks that. Do you think George Bush deserves the respect of the global intellect? It would be a sad day if he does.

How the fuck did he win the presidency


look my point was just at how dumb of an argument you made.

The USA can make a matter of chosing who is evil with a matter of opinion. I can do the exact same thing, and so can you. The government as a matter of opinion considers a certain 3 countries in this world part of an axis of evil.

They are as much free to do this, as your matter of opinion allows to call Bush a bonobo chimp, and part of an animal kingdom usually not associated with humans.

Neither case means the opinions are correct, but none the less both you and the USA government can express these opinions as they wish.

Furthermore, I believe the USA government backs up its opinion with more reasoning, logic, and proof, then your current opinion. But, well thats just my opinion.


Posted by Cyrus King on Jan-01-2003 21:37:

quote:
Originally posted by Yoepus
look my point was just at how dumb of an argument you made.

The USA can make a matter of chosing who is evil with a matter of opinion. I can do the exact same thing, and so can you. The government as a matter of opinion considers a certain 3 countries in this world part of an axis of evil.

They are as much free to do this, as your matter of opinion allows to call Bush a bonobo chimp, and part of an animal kingdom usually not associated with humans.

Neither case means the opinions are correct, but none the less both you and the USA government can express these opinions as they wish.

Furthermore, I believe the USA government backs up its opinion with more reasoning, logic, and proof, then your current opinion. But, well thats just my opinion.


How can i put this in simple terms...

You president is regarded as a stupid man becuase he says stupid things like 'the axis of evil'. And you cant justify this axis of evil with "rational" explanations becuase there arent any. You just dont call nations evil!

That is why Bush is ill perceived.
And you talk as if this Axis of evil actually exists..LOOOOL


Posted by intrinsic on Jan-02-2003 02:49:

quote:
Originally posted by Cyrus King
You just dont call nations evil!


I have to agree, that was the dumb on his part..... i put my head down in shame when i heard that.


Posted by malek on Jan-02-2003 03:03:

quote:
Originally posted by Cyrus King
And you talk as if this Axis of evil actually exists..LOOOOL


ROTFL HAHAHAHAHAHHA MY GOD now that you put it that way !! haahaha


Posted by Yoepus on Jan-02-2003 04:53:

I do believe the Axis of Evil exist, for the fact that the American government, which is the world's most powerful country today, says it exists. Be this true, right or wrong, does not change the fact of the focus of the US government and its views of these countries.

I don't understand why you all seem to laugh your hearts out like doped individuals at this notion. Oh wait yes I do.


Posted by malek on Jan-02-2003 05:09:

axis of evil means countries that are evil(duh) and are planning together to do evil evil things... hehehe never heard of Saddam and his crew meeting with the NK crew to take on the world... hahaha


Posted by Cyrus King on Jan-02-2003 05:12:

quote:
Originally posted by Yoepus
I do believe the Axis of Evil exist, for the fact that the American government, which is the world's most powerful country today, says it exists. Be this true, right or wrong, does not change the fact of the focus of the US government and its views of these countries.



Oh yeah.. I forgot.... anything the US government says is the truth..Duh.. im so stupid..

From now on.. i will beleive everything george bush says... becuase he's not evil.. he is smart....YAAAAAAAAAAAAY


For gods sake Yeopus... read what you just wrote!


Posted by Yoepus on Jan-03-2003 00:55:

quote:
Originally posted by Cyrus King
Oh yeah.. I forgot.... anything the US government says is the truth..Duh.. im so stupid..

From now on.. i will beleive everything george bush says... becuase he's not evil.. he is smart....YAAAAAAAAAAAAY


For gods sake Yeopus... read what you just wrote!


Sorry, I think you and ahlamalek are right here I didn't state my point exactly as I meant it:

What I was getting to that the axis of evil is a fact. Its a fact because it was created by the US government, and if its wrong, right, or what not, its still a fact and attitude created by the US government.

Furthermore I personally believe it is also true. These three nations do co-operate in many ways, altough I wouldn't consider it a strong and hardend alliance between the three parties. Yet Iraq and Iran both directly support terrorists and co-operate with each other to this end. And North Korea further is helping both Iraq and Iran in their pursuit for their own nuclear weapons, and sells them also conventional arms as well. My last point is not based on any hard evidence, and therefore can be called a conspiracy. But I think it is this conspiracy that the US government also believes.


Posted by hardcore trancer on Jan-03-2003 07:05:

quote:
Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0

Now about history of Iran and Iraq...Why did it started? Well, in 1953 Iranian shah (i don't know what's the english term for it, but the original term sounds like this) with help from CIA has overthrown Mossadeghs nationalist regime. They did it because Mossadegh nationalised British Petroleum company in Iran. As shah was supported by british and american secret services, he repayed that debt by giving the US and Britain exclusive rights for it's oil. Well, Iran started to get a lot of money from this oil, and decidet to turn to nuclear energy. There was a plan of making 20 reactors by 1995, which would make Iran almost completely independent of it's oil. Iran was very serious about it and already had contracts with the european manufacturers of nuclear reactors. Pakistan at that time also tried to turn to nuclear energy, but CIA started a revolution there which led to the hanging of Bhutto, the leader of Pakistan at that time. The US wasn't happy about it at all, of course.Also at that time, the british wanted Iran to sign an agreement that for the next 25 years, Britain would be the only country to get their oil. Iran, ofcourse wanted to export oil not only to US and Britain, but to other european countries as well. The british then started to buy less oil than Iran manufactured, and that in turn started an economic crisis in iran. Radical islamic elements with support from CIA started to bring unrest in the country. At the same time they talked shah into being more represive of the people, which made more and more people angry. The result was an islamic revolution in 1978, whose fundamentalist leader Homeini were unable to continue the nuclear program. Oil prices skyrocketed and brought many countries on the verge of being bankrupt. The reason for this was to stop the world toward progressing to nuclear energy, which would make them independent on the US and Britain controlled oil reserves. Additionaly at that same time a nuclear incident in Harrisburg appeared, and the report about it on 3.8.1973 stated sabotage or intentional carelessness as the reasons of the accident.



wooooooooooow great info M8,even I didnt know about some of that stuff!!thanks for the great info

quote:
Originally posted by Yoepus

Furthermore I personally believe it is also true. These three nations do co-operate in many ways, altough I wouldn't consider it a strong and hardend alliance between the three parties. Yet Iraq and Iran both directly support terrorists and co-operate with each other to this end. And North Korea further is helping both Iraq and Iran in their pursuit for their own nuclear weapons, and sells them also conventional arms as well. My last point is not based on any hard evidence, and therefore can be called a conspiracy. But I think it is this conspiracy that the US government also believes.


mmmm I wonder when will Fu#$% Bush come after Iran??.I know we are next, it is so abvious.I swear to god I will go back to Iran and defend my counrty.mmm I wonder what will their excuse is gonna be to attack us??WOMD??terrorism??threat to Isreal or American people??
mmmm oh wait how come Isreal can have all these fancy weapons to attack the Palastinians??self defence??ya right,I will never believe that!!
arent they breaking the law??
why cant UN go to Isreal for inspection huh??ooooh wait because they are no threat to the Us??ooh but if they are threats to to the Arab world thats fine.

I relly cant take this shit, it is time for the world to wake up and see whats going on,and do something before Bush destroys the whole world.


Posted by malek on Jan-03-2003 07:18:

the world is waking up, faster than you believe... its all a matter of time.


Posted by hardcore trancer on Jan-03-2003 07:21:

quote:
Originally posted by ahlamalek
the world is waking up, faster than you believe... its all a matter of time.


aaaaaah man I really hope you are right.hopefully before Bush decides to nuke everyone!!


Posted by malek on Jan-03-2003 07:24:

if he ever does that, he will unleash the wrath of the whole world, not only arab and muslim countries... nuking is not accepted nowadays. except maybe those crazy zionists


Posted by hardcore trancer on Jan-03-2003 08:06:

You know sometimes I think to myself how many people have to suffer or die so that something could be done to stop it.Or why do innocent have to die in a country(Iraq) because some idiot(Bush) said Saddam wanted to kill his father??soo hey lets go bomb the country.
and whats with this whole changing the regime in Iraq??I really dont think the Iraqi people want a country like U.S. to run their country,I mean I sure dont want that happen in my country.
lets not forget that there is no such thing as a perfect government,and I sure dont believe that U.S. is perfect in any way!!so Why pin point Iraq??ooh so u gonna say well Saddam kills his own people with WOMD,mmmm lets see how they got it first,mmmm from U.S. maybe??if Saddam is a mad man, why was the U.S. guv working with him when they killed my people Using Bio,chemical weapons??
what??Saddam wasnt mad beofore,and now he is??I dont think so.
ooh and another intresting thing I noticed,these days you absolutly hear nothing about Afghanistan,unless a U.S. troop dies or something.I wonder why??ooh and why are they still there??Dont tell me they are still looking for Bin Laden, because thats just bullshit.WAKE UP THE GUY IS GONE.so what is really U.S up to there??peace keeping??rebuilding Afghanistan??or perhaps they're just there to stick their nose in eveyones business.
I gotta tell you guys Iam really scared for my country.I mean look at whats going on around there:
there are American troops in Turkey,Afghanistan,Saudi Arabia,Kuwait,Iraq(soon)and all over persian gulf.god help us..
When I think about the amount of money U.S. spends in millatery makes me so sick and angry,if they could spend that money in a more useful way like Kyoto the world will be a better place for the next generation.But unfortunatly I know that wont happen.
How will this world come an end I ask myslef??I think us humans will destroy ourselves,and as long as we have people like Bush running the world, that sad reality will happen sooner that we can Imagine!!

it is year 2003,and I pray only one thing to god, and thats peace all over the world.


Posted by Cyrus King on Jan-03-2003 08:44:

quote:
Originally posted by Yoepus
What I was getting to that the axis of evil is a fact. Its a fact because it was created by the US government, and if its wrong, right, or what not, its still a fact and attitude created by the US government.


I think you do not know the definition of FACT. Consult a legitimate dictionary. First you say "this axis of evil" is a fact BECUASE the US says so?!?!? and then you go on to say whether or not that fact is right or wrong...."its still a fact and attitude created by the US government" What the fuk?

quote:

Furthermore I personally believe it is also true. These three nations do co-operate in many ways, altough I wouldn't consider it a strong and hardend alliance between the three parties. Yet Iraq and Iran both directly support terrorists and co-operate with each other to this end. And North Korea further is helping both Iraq and Iran in their pursuit for their own nuclear weapons, and sells them also conventional arms as well. My last point is not based on any hard evidence, and therefore can be called a conspiracy. But I think it is this conspiracy that the US government also believes.


So you therefor admit you believe in illogical conspiracies? How come you think these countries enforce terrrorism..... How has Iran... being very quiet and minding its own business encourage terrorism.... you beleive things without educating yourself first.
Yoepus...stop being ignorant.

And its pretty stupid how Americans think these nations enforce terrorist activities when the ONLY nation in the world ever charged with Terrorism by the International court of justice is the United States.


Posted by Cyrus King on Jan-03-2003 08:47:

Another thought provoking and enlightening article.





Operation Provoke War
by Maria Tomchick




In recent weeks, the Bush administration has stepped up efforts to destabilize the Iraqi government, while aggressively deploying troops and ships in a manner that could provoke an attack from Iraq � and provide an excuse to start a war.

Over the weekend of December 14 to 16, the U.S. hosted a conference in London of Iraqi exiled opposition groups. The 300 delegates, closely monitored by U.S. diplomats and advisors, chose a council of 65 people to function as a liaison between the U.S. and the Iraqi people after Saddam Hussein is deposed. The conference was led by U.S. Special Envoy Zalmay Khalilzad, who shepherded the Afghani conference in Bonn that set up the new government in Kabul. Clearly, the Bush administration is gearing up to do in Iraq what they've already done in Afghanistan (never mind that the UN inspectors haven't finished their job yet).

The Pentagon, meanwhile, has set up a special radio station to broadcast anti-Saddam propaganda to the Iraqi people. The station went on the air December 12, after U.S. planes dropped half a million leaflets over Iraq with the name of the station and the five frequencies where it can be heard. Between bursts of Arabic music, the station intones: "People of Iraq .... the amount of money Saddam spends on himself in one day would be more than enough to feed a family for one year." The station also directs messages at the Iraqi military in an effort to spur a military coup.

The CIA has been up to its own dirty tricks, too. Earlier this year, Congress and the Bush administration allocated $200 million to the CIA to "fight the War on Terrorism." The CIA has been using a lot of that money in Iraq, giving sacks of cash to tribal leaders in rural areas near Baghdad, in an effort to buy the loyalty of Sunni tribal leaders who have backed Saddam Hussein in the past. Of course, the CIA is assiduously avoiding the Shiite tribes in southern Iraq, who haven't forgotten how the CIA sold them out after the Gulf War, promising to help them rise up and overthrow Saddam, but then abandoning them to be massacred.

Turkish TV has also reported the movement of U.S. trucks with supplies into northern Kurdish regions of Iraq. The U.S. supported the Kurds soon after the Gulf War by establishing the Northern No-Fly Zone, which prevented Saddam from bombing rebellious Kurdish factions. But U.S. support goes far beyond that: supplies are now being moved into the Kurdish regions, and U.S. personnel are helping to train Kurdish rebels, while scouting the best sites for landing strips and operational bases for the upcoming war.

In addition, the CIA and the Pentagon are recruiting Kurds and exiled Iraqis to serve (ostensibly) as interpreters, guides, and support staff for an invasion. Hungary has agreed to host a new $9 million training facility for some 3,000 Iraqi exiles. Some of these men may be trained to fight. While the Pentagon has fiercely denied that any weapons training will be done, they haven't explained, however, why the training has to be done in Hungary and not on U.S. soil. Considering that the Pentagon and CIA have kept captured Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters isolated at "secret" bases in foreign countries to avoid scrutiny by the Red Cross, the U.N., and human rights advocates, the fact that Iraqi exiles will be trained in an Eastern European country is suspicious, to say the least.

In the meantime, U.S. troops and warships are being deployed in a way that could draw Iraqi fire. Some 12,000 U.S. troops have been conducting long-running military exercises in Kuwait; over the Christmas holiday, they spent 5 days engaged in live-fire exercises just a few miles from the border with Iraq. At the same time, U.S. and British warships participating in the sanctions blockade have become more aggressive in recent weeks, moving into Iraqi territorial waters, even into the mouth of Khor Abd Allah estuary. The danger here is that a warship may collide with an Iraqi mine or meet an Iraqi vessel and begin a shooting war � which may be just the excuse the Bush administration needs in order to start an all-out war.

Certainly, Bush has quietly given the order to step up the bombing campaign over the no-fly zones. In the past, U.S. planes targeted only Iraqi radar and anti-aircraft weaponry. But now the pilots are "being given a more 'meaningful' list of targets," according to Reuters reporter Peter Graff. The list includes command bunkers, communications equipment, and unspecified "other targets" (presumably infrastructure or military posts that would be bombed in the upcoming war). In addition, the planes are hitting their targets more frequently and with heavier bombs.

And so the air war has already begun, on the sly, ramping up slowly so no one will notice right away. This is, after all, the preferred modus operandi for the Bush administration. The U.S. press has largely overlooked the increased bombing in favor of printing quotes from Donald Rumsfeld and Colin Powell about the Iraqi weapons declaration, and Dick Cheney's reassurances that the U.S. is not interested in overthrowing Saddam.

But U.S. actions are telling a different story. Just two days after Christmas, George Bush called up 2 aircraft carrier battle groups, 2 amphibious assault teams, and several dozen Air Force jets to serve in the Gulf � an additional 25,000 troops to add to the 50,000 U.S. personnel already there. The timing of his order is in keeping with Bush administration moves to hide the pace and details of its war planning from both the U.S. public and the international community.

Colin Powell, asked by an AP reporter about current U.S. efforts to oust Saddam Hussein, replied: "It remains our policy to change the regime until such time as the regime changes itself." Indeed.

The Bush administration is deeply involved in destabilizing the Iraqi government. In effect, the air war has already begun, in secret, without a formal declaration and without a vote from the U.N. Security Council. And the U.S. is attempting to spark a ground war with its provocative military exercises and violations of Iraqi territory.

Meanwhile, the only English-language press coverage has been in the form of wire service articles that U.S. newspapers are largely ignoring. Without critical media coverage here in the U.S., the Bush administration is free to play out its hand, which is intended to spark a military response from Iraq that will make it easy to shift U.S. opinion in favor of a ground war. It could be the Gulf of Tonkin, all over again


Posted by hardcore trancer on Jan-03-2003 09:02:

This is a great article and scary and disturbing in the same time, and since alot of people dont know that all this is happening as we speak makes it even more scary.
God help all the Iraqi people.

once again thanks cyros king for the article.


Posted by Cyrus King on Jan-03-2003 09:05:

quote:
Originally posted by hardcore trancer
This is a great article and scary and disturbing in the same time, and since alot of people dont know that all this is happening as we speak makes it even more scary.
God help all the Iraqi people.

once again thanks cyros king for the article.


No problem

It is very scary how many things are kept away from the airwaves in North America....its all part of a propaganda scheme that is following a specific agenda. Thank god for the Internet these days.


Posted by hardcore trancer on Jan-03-2003 09:10:

quote:
Originally posted by Cyrus King
No problem

It is very scary how many things are kept away from the airwaves in North America....its all part of a propaganda scheme that is following a specific agenda. Thank god for the Internet these days.

ya thank god to internet,without it we all would have been brainwashed with CNN bullshit.


Posted by Yoepus on Jan-03-2003 17:27:

quote:
Originally posted by Cyrus King
I think you do not know the definition of FACT.


I think you don't. Go look up the TERM "creation of fact(s)". It is creating a fact by wanting to make it fact. Simple no?

An example; In Kosovo, a serbian provience. Ethnic Albanians made it a fact that the provience be demographically skewed of their own ethnicity over Serbian ethnicity which was the majority before the war.
Similarly, it was the creation of 'facts' on the ground that Israel made new settlements and intergrated Jerusalem after the 1967 war.
Or that Nasser stoped the freedom of navigation in the straights of tehran to Israeli shipping before the 1967 war.

quote:
So you therefor admit you believe in illogical conspiracies? How come you think these countries enforce terrrorism..... How has Iran... being very quiet and minding its own business encourage terrorism.... you beleive things without educating yourself first.
Yoepus...stop being ignorant.


You asked me a question, no I do not admit I believe in illogical conspiracies. I believe in logical ones
Now don't tell me that I am ignorant or unreasonable for this belief, espeically when you latter go on posting a conspiratorial article of your own. My 'conspriacy' is not far fetched. Iran IS a supporter of terrorism. This is a fact. Indeed, Iran is the #1 supporter of Hezbullah a recongnized terrorist group that acts against western targets. Also what is known is that Hezbullah finances and equipement are usually transfered via Iraq to Syria and then Lebanon from Iran. From here I alluded to an alliance they might have. As Iran and Iraq usually do not co-operate on all terms. Iran also sent the infamous 'karine A' shipment to the Palestinian Authorithy last spring. Aside from that Iran is developing a nuclear weapons program with the aid of the Russians and North Koreans. This is also well established, even in mainstream media.

So here, this is how the 'ignorant' me believes that the "quiet and minding its own business Iran", might, just have say umm a little, tad of involvement in terrorism? Ya i know blatently stupid huh?

Grow up.


Posted by Izzy on Jan-03-2003 17:41:

quote:
Originally posted by hardcore trancer
I wonder what will their excuse is gonna be to attack us??WOMD??terrorism??threat to Isreal or American people??


yes to all of above.

firstly someone posted the cnn link showing the 'secret' nuclear plants iran has. in general i want to know your impression, do you personally belive iran is NOT trying to seek a nuclear warhead? on what basis?

anyways iran is not a clean country by any chance ... those who fail to see it are only blinding themselves
quote:

From Amnesty International:

"In an unprecedented clampdown on freedom of expression and association, at least 34 journalists, writers and human rights defenders were questioned, detained and tried; some were tortured. At least 12 were imprisoned, usually after unfair trials."

"Deeply flawed trial procedures, especially in Revolutionary Courts and the Special Court for the Clergy, continued."

"Torture and ill-treatment, including the judicial punishments of flogging and amputation, continued."

http://www.web.amnesty.org/web/ar20...AN?OpenDocument


quote:

From Human Rights Watch:

"Earlier, on January 30, the Supreme Court rejected the appeals against conviction of ten members of the minority Jewish community in Shiraz who had been sentenced to prison terms in 2000 for allegedly maintaining contacts with Israel, considered a hostile foreign power. None of the group were released."

"Law enforcement authorities made increased use of public executions and corporal punishment, often after only cursory trial proceedings."

"The independent press, before it was closed down in mid-2000, had sought to expose the connections between certain state institutions and the clandestine underworld of death squads and enforcers"

http://www.hrw.org/wr2k2/mena3.html


iran sold illegal contrabands, through the Karine A
http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0l0k0
http://www.ict.org.il/articles/arti...m?articleid=421

theres tons more evidence i can cite (from CIA and IDF) directly linking the government to terrorist orginizations (mainly hezbollah, but also factions in palestine) but i imagine you would just off shoot it as conspiracy junk.


Posted by Cyrus King on Jan-03-2003 20:35:

quote:
Originally posted by Izzy
yes to all of above.

firstly someone posted the cnn link showing the 'secret' nuclear plants iran has. in general i want to know your impression, do you personally belive iran is NOT trying to seek a nuclear warhead? on what basis?

anyways iran is not a clean country by any chance ... those who fail to see it are only blinding themselves




iran sold illegal contrabands, through the Karine A
http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0l0k0
http://www.ict.org.il/articles/arti...m?articleid=421

theres tons more evidence i can cite (from CIA and IDF) directly linking the government to terrorist orginizations (mainly hezbollah, but also factions in palestine) but i imagine you would just off shoot it as conspiracy junk.


Its funny how your links are only those of Isreali and US based organizations....ummmmmmmm BIAST?????

Again... why is it then that the US is the only country in the world to be charged with terrorism by the International court of Justice? Explain that?

And with Iran and their Nuclear reactor...please explain how the US cannot simply ask their Russian counterparts who are building the plant what it is "really" being used for?

What ive see here is that your media has really INTILLED FEAR as an element in their international (espescialle middle eastern) news coverage. IT is this fear that has made many Americans... regretfully after september 11th... begin to accuse and criticize anyone they think could be up to no good. Its really pathetic how you think these nations are out to Terrorize the world...that they are building Nuclear bombs so they will blow people up.. meanwhile the only nation ever to utilize nuclear weapons as a killer was your nation in WW2 over Japan.

Have you been to Iran???? have you seen the lack of electricity that is there? NO...but you have to continue arguing for your governments stupid accusations becuase you live in the US.


Posted by Cyrus King on Jan-03-2003 21:33:

quote:
Originally posted by Yoepus
I think you don't. Go look up the TERM "creation of fact(s)". It is creating a fact by wanting to make it fact. Simple no?

An example; In Kosovo, a serbian provience. Ethnic Albanians made it a fact that the provience be demographically skewed of their own ethnicity over Serbian ethnicity which was the majority before the war.
Similarly, it was the creation of 'facts' on the ground that Israel made new settlements and intergrated Jerusalem after the 1967 war.
Or that Nasser stoped the freedom of navigation in the straights of tehran to Israeli shipping before the 1967 war.



You asked me a question, no I do not admit I believe in illogical conspiracies. I believe in logical ones
Now don't tell me that I am ignorant or unreasonable for this belief, espeically when you latter go on posting a conspiratorial article of your own. My 'conspriacy' is not far fetched. Iran IS a supporter of terrorism. This is a fact. Indeed, Iran is the #1 supporter of Hezbullah a recongnized terrorist group that acts against western targets. Also what is known is that Hezbullah finances and equipement are usually transfered via Iraq to Syria and then Lebanon from Iran. From here I alluded to an alliance they might have. As Iran and Iraq usually do not co-operate on all terms. Iran also sent the infamous 'karine A' shipment to the Palestinian Authorithy last spring. Aside from that Iran is developing a nuclear weapons program with the aid of the Russians and North Koreans. This is also well established, even in mainstream media.

So here, this is how the 'ignorant' me believes that the "quiet and minding its own business Iran", might, just have say umm a little, tad of involvement in terrorism? Ya i know blatently stupid huh?

Grow up.


fact ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fkt)
n.
Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.

Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.
A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.
Something believed to be true or real: a document laced with mistaken facts.
A thing that has been done, especially a crime: an accessory before the fact.
Law. The aspect of a case at law comprising events determined by evidence: The jury made a finding of fact.

Idiom:
in (point of) fact
In reality or in truth; actually.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Latin factum, deed, from neuter past participle of facere, to do. See dh- in Indo-European Roots.]
Usage Note: Fact has a long history of usage in the sense �allegation of fact,� as in �This tract was distributed to thousands of American teachers, but the facts and the reasoning are wrong� (Albert Shanker). This practice has led to the introduction of the phrases true facts and real facts, as in The true facts of the case may never be known. These usages may occasion qualms among critics who insist that facts can only be true, but the usages are often useful for emphasis.

Source: The American Heritage� Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright � 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
[Buy it]


fact

\Fact\, n. [L. factum, fr. facere to make or do. Cf. Feat, Affair, Benefit, Defect, Fashion, and -fy.] 1. A doing, making, or preparing. [Obs.]

A project for the fact and vending Of a new kind of fucus, paint for ladies. --B. Jonson.

2. An effect produced or achieved; anything done or that comes to pass; an act; an event; a circumstance.

What might instigate him to this devilish fact, I am not able to conjecture. --Evelyn.

He who most excels in fact of arms. --Milton.

3. Reality; actuality; truth; as, he, in fact, excelled all the rest; the fact is, he was beaten.

4. The assertion or statement of a thing done or existing; sometimes, even when false, improperly put, by a transfer of meaning, for the thing done, or supposed to be done; a thing supposed or asserted to be done; as, history abounds with false facts.

I do not grant the fact. --De Foe.

This reasoning is founded upon a fact which is not true. --Roger Long.

Note: TheTerm fact has in jurisprudence peculiar uses in contrast with low; as, attorney at low, and attorney in fact; issue in low, and issue in fact. There is also a grand distinction between low and fact with reference to the province of the judge and that of the jury, the latter generally determining the fact, the former the low. --Burrill Bouvier.

Accessary before, or after, the fact. See under Accessary.

Matter of fact, an actual occurrence; a verity; used adjectively: of or pertaining to facts; prosaic; unimaginative; as, a matter-of-fact narration.

Syn: Act; deed; performance; event; incident; occurrence; circumstance.


Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, � 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.


fact

n 1: a piece of information about circumstances that exist or events that have occurred; "first you must collect all the facts of the case" 2: a statement or assertion of verified information about something that is the case or has happened; "he supported his argument with an impressive array of facts" 3: an event known to have happened or something known to have existed; "your fears have no basis in fact"; "how much of the story is fact and how much fiction is hard to tell" 4: a concept whose truth can be proved; "scientific hypotheses are not facts"


Source: WordNet � 1.6, � 1997 Princeton University


fact



Fully Automated Compiling Technique



Source: The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing, � 1993-2001 Denis Howe

fact
The kind of clause
used in logic programming which has no subgoals and so is
always true (always succeeds). E.g.

wet(water).
male(denis).

This is in contrast to a rule which only succeeds if all its
subgoals do. Rules usually contain logic variables, facts
rarely do, except for oddities like "equal(X,X).".

(1996-10-20)
Source: The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing, � 1993-2001 Denis Howe



But YOU are refering to the US's idea about nations as "FACTS" that they are true becuase they are created by the government.. Creating a Fact isnt significant here becuase there are biases to creating facts....like Hitlers "facts" about the Jews..or Osama's creation of facts about the Western world.

And how do you know Iran is making Nuclear weapons.. through CNN satellite pictures...LOOOOOOOOOOL

and with the Karine-A incident...that ship could could have been anybody's...shipping off from different nations...
Read this and take a more neutral perspective before believing anything a government WANTS you to beleive!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/St...,636888,00.html


Posted by hardcore trancer on Jan-03-2003 21:46:

quote:
Originally posted by Izzy
yes to all of above.

firstly someone posted the cnn link showing the 'secret' nuclear plants iran has. in general i want to know your impression, do you personally belive iran is NOT trying to seek a nuclear warhead? on what basis?

anyways iran is not a clean country by any chance ... those who fail to see it are only blinding themselves


Yes to all the above??
what about Isreal??they have WOMD and yes they are threat to the arab world.SO I think UN should start some inspection there too, but no that wont happen,since Isreal is with America.

listen I was born Iran,I lived there,and Iam telling you that we need that nuclear reactor.Do u understand??Iran has lack of electricity.
the way u are talking here is as if Isreal and and America are suuuuch great nations.THERE is no FU@#$% wasy that Iam gonna belive that crap for a second,for god sakes they are destroying middle east.what America is trying to bring peace to middle east??
by invading countries and changing regims??killing thousands so that they could kill one man??


Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.