US Secretary Of Defense: Iran NOT Trying to Develop A Nuclear Weapon

LoL. Try bashing the Saudis in Saudi Arabia, or cheering Israel in Gaza. You would wind up in a shallow grave. Thanks for highlighting another difference.

 

How about bashing Israel in Israel, what would happen?

Here's a story about Palestinian Jewish Rabbi who was tortured by Israel for being against the state of Israel and Zionism:

[video=youtube;DIT9sLz29iQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIT9sLz29iQ[/video]

 

Sorry, was that an admission that the Saudis, the Palestinians, and most Arab middle eastern nations have no free speech? It sure sounded like it.

 

There's no such thing as free speech.

 

Why they don't stop doing those destructive things. It's not helping the world. They just thinking of their own power.

 

Not the first time, take a look at this. Only ZIONISTS want to create State of Israel: -

[video=youtube;8O3FinFIyiI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8O3FinFIyiI[/video]

 

What a brutal crackdown, thanks for bringing it up.

 

I'm just curious what kind of democracy that the U.S talk about when it comes to Israel? And if the U.S is really the ally of Israel, how could the treat the American people like that?

 

The US does not care about democracy, never has.

If you speak the truth they will shut you down regardless if you're American or Jewish, you have to be censored.

 

Watching you contradict yourself is entertaining. Mars Attacks!

 

How is it contradicting ? I said there's no such thing as free speech, meaning speech is not free.

 

OK, a dumber version of Mars attacks.

 

ROFL ! If there's a much dumber version for that movie it will be hilarious !

 

I think you missed the point I was trying to make, but yes you're right, there's nothing I can do about it, nor do I want to do anything about it. I have better things to do than try to curve your appetite for Israeli hatred.

In Libya, the U.S. didn't declare war. They were working with NATO supporting the rebel forces. That's not the same as a declared war. Re-read what I had said. I asked in which countries were we in an actual declared war. That would be Afghanistan. We are at war with terror though, which is maybe what you're eluding to as such a bad thing. If a country is harboring terrorists, then there will be some action, however it most likely won't be an all out war with a full on incursion.

And America is not in love with war. Most people in America don't want to be at war. However, the world has somehow felt that it's America's job to police the world from threats as the U.N. doesn't actually do much if anything most of the time other than appear as a figurehead. Apparently, it's ok for countries to harbor terrorists and Al Qaeda, because if you intervene to stop terrorist threats then you are somehow warmongers that love war.

Then my final question would be, what would be the proper response to ridding a country of terrorists once all diplomatic channels are exhausted? This is a question I would like for you to answer without turning this around and finger pointing and ignoring it altogether. It most likely won't get responded to directly and that is fine as it is out there for all to see.

 

Then don't complain about my posts as you have done numerous times.

Doesn't matter if they were working with NATO or space aliens, war is war, and your country cant get enough of it.

Why is it any of your business if terrorists exist on some remote location on the other side of your world? Fair enough to go to Afghanistan to find Tim Osman the man who was behind 9/11, but he's dead now, so why exactly is the US still in Afghanistan?

I agree that most Americans don't want to go war, but they had the chance to elect someone who will not maintain the status quo, so they are responsible.

Even before 9/11, the US was actively involved in the middle east and in many other places. I don't like it when people like you try to censor me when I talk about America and its wars.

 

You say there is no such thing as free speech. Then you say that you can 'freely' speak out against Israel and nobody can do anything about it (free speech). Then finally, you say that if you speak out you will be shut down, which goes against what you were saying about yourself speaking out and against me not being able to do anything about it, hence contradictions all.

Apparently I'm finding I should seeing as you don't understand people's reasoning.

Somehow this is the same thing. Quit using a strawman.

I'm not going to go so far as say that you are in favor of terrorists existing because that would be crazy, but why do you seem ok with them anywhere in the world?... And why is it our business? If you can't figure that you then you may a bit lost. If terrorists are attacking our country, why wouldn't we get involved? And if we are part of the U.N. and terrorists are attacking our allies, why wouldn't we get involved?

The answer to your second question is in the last paragraph. (Hint: Osama was a high ranking official in what terrorist organization and which region are they located in?)

Americans can only vote for the choices that are out there. Politicians, for the most part, all pander to what the people want to hear. At no point did a candidate say that they want to go starting wars across the globe. You can't possibly blame Americans for this can you?

Who is censoring you? Is disagreeing synonymous with censoring? If it is, I don't think we got the tps cover sheets with our memos. So by that logic if disagreeing = censoring, you don't like it when people disagree with you in their own way.

And by the way, you never did answer my bolded question. Are you afraid your answer will reveal something about your attitudes or do you honestly not have an answer? You have failed in every post that I have read to actually respond in kind to the logic that other people promote to you. Instead you use strawman arguments, you finger point, you resort to figurative name calling like you would in school ("there's nothing you can do about it." - your words), and accusations. Can you just once respond to what is asked or said with an argument that is directly on topic?

 

You are taking my words out of context, on this forum I can be as anti-Israel as I want. But in Israel if you was to go against Zionism in a public place you will be shut down and censored. No contradictions there.

I said there's no free speech, which is true, speech costs something its not free. Is there freedom of speech? There is limited freedom of speech but not absolute freedom of speech.

So you finally agree the US is addicted to war? good.

Which terrorist attacked you? Tim Osman the CIA agent? Please.

Oh yes I do, they are to blame, they elected the war presidents so they are to blame.

You are basically asking me to be silent about the atrocities committed by the US and Israel. The first thread I made on this forum, you complained and said something like "take your rhetoric somewhere else", and you continue try to shut me down on this thread with your first post, I quote " I would for once like to see you make a positive post that has nothing to do with the things I've just listed.", you cant censor me sunfyre, its not going to happen. Feel free to challenge me, but don't tell me to be silent.

 

First off, let me say that this post, maybe more than any confirms what I have been stating that you don't actually answer the questions and now you have resorted to putting words in mouths. I have never laughed so hard as when I read this, at least today. lol. At no point did I EVER say that I agree that the U.S. is addicted to war. That has been planted there by you right here, in the above post. In contradiction, I have been arguing that we have been against that. You didn't even take something out of context. You simply implied something I never actually said in words, nor eluded to. A new high for you. And I particularly love the "good" at the end, despite it not being what I said, as if you scored some sort of victory in proving a point that doesn't even make sense.

Seeing as I have to explain all of my points to you, I'll proceed. Was Osama linked to the Taliban or not? Yes. Are the Taliban linked to Afghanistan by living and practicing within their borders? Yes. Regardless of whether he was involved with the CIA is irrelevant as people can turn their loyalties when they achieve power.

This one is awesome as a blanket statement to include all Americans despite the reasoning I have provided against. These include people that didn't even vote FOR those presidents or that were fooled, as anyone can be, by said presidents promising they wouldn't go to war, but did anyway. I suppose people are mind readers where you're from and you've never made a mistake before.

Well at least you've admitted to your rhetoric. That's good. And in subsequent posts I've disagreed with you and you still say that is attempting to silence you.

And since I still haven't received an answer to the now million dollar question, let me ask again. What would you recommend a country do to remove terrorists that have either directly attacked that country or their allies when ALL diplomatic avenues have failed or been exhausted?

I ask this because for one, you keep eluding and evading answering that. By answering, you won't be crucified, I just want to know. Secondly, you say that we are addicted to war and basically shouldn't fight anyone, because terrorists should be left alone on their side of the world; so I am wondering what the U.S. should do to remove the terrorist threat from that country once diplomacy has failed and the country decides to just harbor the terrorists anyway?

 

So how do you explain this:

Tim Osman was in Pakistan, not in Afghanistan. The US wasted 9 years in Afghanistan (and continue to do so) while Mr Osman was in Pakistan. Why still in Afghanistan? Is it the lithium, opium? what is it? It clearly has nothing to do with a bunch of terrorists.

How about I disagree with you reasoning? Is that possible?

If as you say that most Americans do not agree with the wars, then they always had (and still have) the ability to overthrow their government, but they don't, so they are responsible because its their tax dollars at work.

9/11 could have been avoided by not creating America's 51st state (Israel) in the heart of the middle east. If you want another terrorist attack on your soil, you need to keep meddling into the affairs of other countries as Dr Paul rightly says.

The second part of your question you will have to make more specific.

 

It's ironic to see Hollywood make movies about corrupt government or evil empire and the majority of the people in the movies were afraid to do something about it when in fact, it's exactly what happen in the US right now. They attacked other countries without negotiation or anything and then they try to find excuses of their action. And the Americans keep saying that their government is evil but afraid to do anything about it. But when people talk bad about their country, they say the world is against them. Mikaël, I don't think you can change their mind. I applause your effort though.