Nato kills 90 including 40 civilians in Afghanistan

Goose you obviously went out of your way to find posts on other forums after I specifically referred to this forum. Also, id like you to tell us specifically what you searched for for that to be "the first muslim forum you found". In fact, even a search for a selection from the body of text shows only this forum (DP) as containing that text.

Not only does that prove my point, that Muslims on this forum generally fully support any abomination so long as it's committed by a Muslim, but also the level of dishonesty you are willing to sink to, in that you went and selected the evidence based on whatever conclusion you had already come to. Don't worry though, people often do that when they are wrong.

In the time between you hunting down contrived evidence new has defended the mafia like execution of a woman In a stadium full of people no doubt for the crime of not knowing her place. So that's more evidence for my point.

Ya know that sinking feeling you have in the pit of your guts? that's the realisation that you have picked the wrong side to cheer for.

 

Well I specifically said "broaden your horizon". There is a world beyond DP.
Regardless, it seems this forum has less tolerance than even the most fanatic muslim as I am getting infractions for the most unbelieveable things such as posting pictures of Taliban attrocities. I'm outta here.

 

The main purpose of invasion was to establish long term presence near Central Asia, for its natural resources, be it oil or gas and to keep china in check to strengthen the hold over the world

saying that they "they protected those who attacked us" is just an excuse for the attack , now it has been 8 years since you are there ? what further goals you want to achieve?

and about Iraq, again the reasons were same, if really you invaded iraq out of love for their neighbors then I can bet that in africa there are many more countries who are always fighting and disturbing the neighbors, ever thought about looking that way ?

@North I will also like you hear your pov about the questions that I placed

 

Well done, you found some obscure forum in which a few people condemned acts such as throwing acid in the faces of children. Try finding something similar on here.

By the way, i asked you what you searched for for that to be the "first muslim forum you found". could you post the specific term which you searched for that returned that forum as the no1 result, ya know, just so we can clarify that your intention was honest inquiry and not a crusade to find evidence for the conclusion you had already come to.

We want to kill every last member of the taliban. As long as these sub humans are executing women in football stadiums or throwing acid in children's faces we will be there to put bullets in them.

 

This is all so just because you say so?

No, we didn't love their neighbors. We care so much about the stability of the middle east for those same reason these countries that helped us fight Iraq do:
Saudi Arabia,  United Kingdom,  Egypt,  France,  Syria,  Morocco,  Kuwait,  Oman,  Pakistan,  United Arab Emirates,  Canada,  Qatar,  Bangladesh,  Italy,  Australia,  Netherlands,  Niger,  Sweden,  Senegal,  Spain,  Bahrain,  Belgium,  South Korea, Afghanistan,  Argentina,  Czechoslovakia,  Greece,  Poland,  Philippines,  Denmark,  New Zealand,  Hungary,  Norway.

Those are all the countries that gave support to fight Saddam when he invaded Kuwait. (ok some of those countries helped because they had more immediate concerns -- they were afraid they'd be next)

The reason the middle east is important is because the world's economies run off of oil and having a nutball going around invading and consolidating power and oil resources is not a good thing for the world.

Yeah, it's about oil, so what. Caring about oil is not evil. Modernity depends on oil. All the progress of the world and our ever increasing standard of living, all made possible because of oil. Most of the good that's done in the world these days is also made possible because of oil.

Here's a post that I always thought was brilliant, hope he doesn't mind me posting it.

 

Yes we cared so much about these countries that we propped up dicators and monarchs, against what our founding fathers believed in. WE also completely obliterated democracy in a country that is very important to the geopolitical arena in the middle east (IRAN) and caused the suffering tens of thousands of people in iran by the SAVAK, irans brutal secret policy who were trained and equipped by no other than OPPS the cia and general norman schwarzkopf. Yep we did some very great things around the world. We not only put a dictator and tyrant (the shah) into power but we also armed him to the point that iran became the worlds 6th largest army at the time, using its military might to bully any weaker country that didnt agree with our own policies.

I know you wont argue this anymore logicflux, but the facts are there, and this is only one country I studied. Yes very nice record we have there lol. My rainbow colored glasses came off a long time ago.

Throughout the history of the world, the strong have oppressed the weak. Lets not deny this. Empires have been doing this for many years under the disguise of helping others. Roman empire did it, greeks did it, persian empire did it. No person with a mind of their own can deny this fact.

I believe that one day we will rise above all of this petty greed and lust for absolute power and start thinking about teh value of the brotherhood of man and of human beings. We are all special. We just need to start respecting each other more.
god bless

 

We? Oh, you mean everyone else. Why don't you join the army if you're such a hard man.

Oh wait you won't... Cos you're a 16 year old internet atheist warrior with acne. My bad!

The fact is, these people aren't worth the blood of our soldiers.

 

Keep repeating that over and over pong, because apparently all you have to do is repeat something over and over again obsessively to make it true. While you're at it why don't you try repeating over and over that you're a multi-millionaire with above average intelligence and that you've had sex with a girl, a supermodel even.

I don't want to argue anymore pong, because it's useless. But if you're unwilling to let the subject go I'm not going to sit by and let you distort the truth and proclaim "victory" over me in every off-topic thread. I feel like I'm back in third grade.

I've done shown conclusively that there was a communist presence in Iran in the early fifties, that the commies in russia were trying their best to dominate the world(largely through proxies), that mossadeq was not a democratic hero but rather was power hungry which lead to run-ins with the shah and his politically calculated resignation even before we got involved and which later lead to him getting "emergency powers" from the parliament and then later attempting to dissolve the parliament via a rigged election.

It's all there in the documents that you linked to yourself, but you refuse to or are unable to comprehend the facts. I honestly don't think you care about the facts, pong.

You've been parroting the "what about 1953" line ever since I've been participating in this forum, but you've never really went much deeper. Now that we've gotten into a debate, it's obvious that you didn't even know the most basic facts of what happened. You didn't even know that Eisenhower was in on it, something that anyone would learn after reading about the incident for 5 minutes.

You got schooled on the facts and it hurt because your staple line has always been "what about 1953?". So after you got proven wrong your whole little world was in jeopardy of crumbling around you.

But to keep that from happening I guess you've decided to compensate by making every single thread about me and the incident. Who are you trying to convince pong? Me? DP P&R? Or yourself? Anyone with a 3rd grade reading level and an ability to journey outside of the confines of wikipedia knows that the coup didn't happen as you assert that it did.

And sure, if you're going to participate in a coup you should probably have people on the inside who's participating in it with you. But let's be clear, the UK and US didn't "knock over" an elected government. They replaced someone who was striving for dictatorial powers and they could not have gotten him dismissed without the people of Iran. The change of power was quite possibly legal and achieved with the help of many of mossadeqs enemies within Iran. Mossadeq, like probably most Iranian politicians/officials throughout history, was a power hungry man incapable of making rational decisions and he had a lot of enemies.

If we hadn't helped Iran to get rid of Mossadeq it probably would have happened anyway, except it may have been the actual Tudeh(Communist) Party who was involved in the coup, had we not acted first.

Persians? Hmm. Whatever happened to them?

But seriously, the more I read about Mossedeq the more he reminds me of Ahmadinejad.

 

Again Logicflux you can try to distort the facts all you want and make excuses, but the thread is all there for people to see. Actually most of my posts are additional facts to your responses.

Now look at this folks. Logicflux says that it would have happened anyways. Thats like saying that if hitler wouldnt have caused the holocaust it would have happened anyways. That is one of the most rediculous and infantile responses on any forum. My posts have citations, and footnotes in the content that the links lead to. The reason why you didnt want to go through them is because u knew you were wrong and that is when you went into your childish rampage. Whenever I see a post about 1953 that is posting a half-way picture of it all I have to post a rebuttal.

Now posting that very cute pic of the tyrant ahmadinajad(whatever his name is) will not change the facts.
You have go through my other posts, but the last one really got you didnt it. I thought it was a masterpiece also.

The iranian protesters deserve posts like my last post on my thread because enough people suffered at the hands of our governments policies towards mossadegh in iran in 1953. If you care to really debate we can just pull this info back on my 1 day old thread here on dp and the schooling can start again, but im guessing you have better things to do like posting childish images. You p[robably believe they will cause people to stop reading the facts. You said you owned me? Would you like to go back over the thread post to post and check the rebuttals?
No? Thats exactly what I thought. Now please go back to posting humorous images.
My nephew just started learning how to do that.

 

No, it's like saying Hitler wouldn't have perpetrated the holocaust and the world wouldn't have been thrown into a war if we had payed attention to what Hitler was doing and not appeased him early on.

I can post a pic of another Iranian Tyrant if you want?

The people of Iran may have suffered a military invasion by Britain in 1952 if we had not been in the middle trying to get them both come to mutually favorable terms. Ultimately we probably helped Iran, by helping them avert war with Britain(which would have crushed Iran) and by giving them aid to help their failing economy which Mossadeq was contributing to.

Pong. What else can I do to prove that there was a communist party in Iran backed by the Soviets who were poised to take over the country? The reason I decided to bow out of that thread is because I can only produce facts. I can't make you see sense and accept them. And honestly, apparently, my time is more valuable than yours. I shouldn't be responding to all these childish jabs you're taking at me outside of that thread, but I can't sit back and let your lies go unchecked either.

I want people to read the facts, that's why I put a link to one of my posts in my signature. Here it is: http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=12384982&postcount=51 .

In that post are credible links to authorities on the subject, including original government documents from the CIA and State Department.

And I'm actually fine if people draw a different conclusion from the facts than I have, as long as they are educated on it and are not approaching the subject with an emotional bias as you are.

You want to believe the US had the worst intentions, and you want everybody else to believe it. That's why you have kept bringing the subject over and over even when it was irrelevant.

 

Our side are doing a good enough job at slaughtering these filthy animals without my help. Your side could use some help though, fancy signing up? Didn't think so.

 

That last post was for thraxed, and anyone else who supports throwing acid in a childs face.

 

You drunk? Because i don't support the war, i'm with them right? LOL...I value our troops more than to waste their lives over some primitive idiots on the other side of the world. But please do continue being an internet warrior...it's entertaining.

 

Sorry illogical flux, in case you forgot why you stopped posting in my thread , then ill remind you. I debunked you on every one of your points. The brits cheated iran out of most of the money in the measely little contract that they allready made with them. Your full of it if you think that britain would have attacked iran. Do you want to get into that also?

Your just angry cause i slam dunked you on every point and that is why your not posting on that thread anymore so we can leave all the relative points of how i crushed you easily on this debate.

If the brits invaded iran the soviets would have came right in and that would have been ww3. The brits arent that stupid and at that moment our government would have probably aided the mossadew government just to stop the retarded british government from invading.

3. That was only one reason the iranian government suffered financially, the other reason was the bs embargos the brits and america enforced on iran.

4. again there was no tudeh or soviet threat here. It was a fabrication as i proved when i produced links to a cia memo that claimed that the us and britain knew that the tudeh was no threat to take over iran and the iranian army alongside the tribes would have crushed that rebellion easily as there wereno tudeh with tanks and few with weapons.

Go back and prove that I didnt supply links to a cia memo buddy. This is why you quite. If i didnt provide any credible facts you would have nailed me once and for all and you wanted to do that but the truth stopped your bs lies.


Let start with the facts:
1. British struck a deal that ripped the iranians off by taking 84% of the oil revenue and giving only 16% back to iran. In this deal individual iranians got rich very quickly while the iranians were in poverty.


2. The british never even gave the iranians the 16% that they owed them and the number came out to 5%. Everyone else was getting 50-50 but the brits wanted it all. American government called them pigheaded brits.

illogicflux there i snothing you can do to convince me that the usa intervened because they were afraid of the soviet threat cause the cia memo i provided links to showed the exact figures and this cia memo was written by donald wilber and he was the main guy that drew up the plans to operation ajax.

Another slam dunk.

You keep saying you dont want to respond to me, yet you keep doing it.
The more you respond, the more the dp people here can view these facts
lets go to teh final post and my major slam dunk which caused you to rant and rave and throw a hissy fit like kid and scream that this isnt fair.

here is the final page of that thread.

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=1475953&page=3 for anyone to see the complete facts

Finl post was the trouncing on facts!!!!!

We can go through the facts again on my thread and i can slamdunk you again on the facts, I just cant understand why you cant take stox's lead and stop posting . He knew that talking about hitchens would make him look ignorant and you should know this here also.

Why do you think the iranian crisis happened? When one of the hostages screamed at one of the hostage takers " why are you doing this to us , we never hurt you" one replied that you took our freedom away from us in 1953. The world know the facts show it all and even the top planner for ajax admitted it. I have to take it back stox is much more intelligent now.
Stox your a step above (just a step)

and here is another link to the cia memo by donald wilber

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?p=12404720#post12404720 Look at the bottom above the image of the guy getting slam dunkedkkkkkkk.
This cia memo is extensive and also shows the majlis accepting bribe from the brits and our government.

Go through it logic and tell me which part made sense. You can read the document cant you?

This cia memo gives a much more extensive story on ajax .

Madaline albright even said it was a huge blunder. plus on top of that you still think we saved the americans from a brit invasion ? hehehehehe, what we saved the brits from is getting agood chunk of iranian oil which our government got, if you even bothered to read the deal after.

I have given all of these facts to you, but lets go one further. Why dont you find yourself a few iranian college students and ask them about mossadegh. I have many if you would like to talk to them? Or do you consider them terrorists, or backward people also?

 

Our soldiers signed up to fight. At the moment the fight they have is against filthy barbarians who think throwing acid in a childs face is an acceptable protest against them getting an education, and they are doing a magnificent job killing hundreds of them every week.

Are you suggesting we turn a blind eye to such barbarism?

 

Probably not. The US/Britain didn't want to fight the Soviets and vice versa. No one wanted world war three. Well, actually world war three was being fought. It was strongest western powers versus communism and it's widening sphere of influence, or maybe you can just consider the fight against communism as an extension of WWII.

The only thing you proved is that the Truman administration didn't think Tudeh was a threat. Administrations differ on opinions like this all the time. I trust the judgement of a general like Eisenhower over the opinion of Truman and Truman's Secretary of State. Eisenhower knew the Russians. Besides by the time Eisenhower took office, the crisis had deteriorated further and the situation in Iran had become more critical.

The British made all of the up-front investment, took the risk, and had built all the oil development infrastructure in Iran.

The cia documents that detail the operation were for internal purposes and I think were classified for more like four decades.

But you also have the state department reports. You're the conspiracy nut type so you might think the CIA and State Department cooperated in a plan to create documents that would seal their story for the public some 40+ years after they were created, but I don't think those two agencies would have coordinated something like that.

There really isn't a such thing as The United States Government. It's mostly just an ad-hoc collection of agencies doing their own thing. The State Department created these reports for higher-ups to see to help inform them on the situation and help them make decisions. The views changed during the Eisenhower administration. This is how things work here, it's one of the reasons why we have elections quite commonly.

Mila Kunis. That's who'd I'd will into my bedroom if I were you.

I tried to quit responding once. Then you started mentioning me in every thread and saying you debunked me. WTF am I supposed to do? I'm seriously thinking of contacting a mod and asking them to step in before I get banned.

No it wasn't!!! You're deluded!!!

stox is playing it smart. He's taking a breather while you become obsessed with me. I'm honestly trying to come up with a plan to get you to become more obsessed with him again. It feels like my IQ is decreasing every day that I go back and forth with you like this -- like I'm being pulled into the intellectual marsh.

Here's the opening of that document:

WTF? Freudian slip? That wouldn't be the first one you've made.

Are they your family? This seems really personal for you pong.


Now I know how you got your nickname.

Your turn.

 

Logicflux I got the 2 cia documents mixed up. OK the ny times cia document was to show the corruption of the majlis and that they were being paid off by the cia.
Here is the post from my massive slam dunk of you on the original thread with both the cia citation and the Foreign Office citation. The archives of the British Foreign Office which are are kept in the Public Record Office in London, England. This is both the british foreign intelligence and cia showing that the tudeh forces of 20,000 were no match for the army and the tribes that were with the army. 477 members in the armed forces definately did not constitute a threat looooooooooooooooooool. against a 129,000 trained militia and all their tanks when 477 of these members were not part of any tank division.
The first one has citations to a 1981 !!!! cia document and british documents and the fact that the secretary of state said it was all a smoke screen.
The only delusional one here logicflux is you. The cia also staged rallies with people dressed in tudeh uniformes trying to inflate the tudeh problem.
All in the name of oil dude.
Youve been ponged, and your window of copy and pasted facts are closing very fast. Soon you will know what the iranian people have known for many years. And actually no Im not iranian, if you paid any attention to my posts it would be very hard for a catholic to be iranian einstein. lol

((((Declassified Documents/1981/CIA/ Doc 276)))))


http://www.geocities.com/thelasian/1953-coup-Iran-CIA.html

http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2009/01/a-stir-of-echoes.html
They also knew that the Tudeh, even though the largest political organization, was in no position to seize power (F0 371/Persia 1952/ 98597; FO 371/Persia 1953/104573; Declassified Documents/1981/CIA/ Doc 276). Despite 20,000 members and 110,000 sympathizers, the Tudeh was no match for the armed tribes and the 129,000-man military. What is more, the British and Americans had enough inside information to be confident that the party had no plans to initiate armed insurrection. At the beginning of the crisis when the Truman administration was under the impression a compromise was possible, Acheson had stressed the communist danger and warned if Mossadeq was not helped the Tudeh would take over (FO 371/Persia 1051/1530). The Foreign Office had retorted that the Tudeh was no real threat (FO 371/ Persia 1952/98608). But, in August 1953, when the Foreign Office echoed the Eisenhower administration’s claim that the Tudeh was about to take over, Acheson now retorted that there was no such communist danger (Roosevelt, 1979, 88). Acheson was honest enough to admit that the issue of the Tudeh was a smokescreen.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'état
Secretary of State Dean Acheson admitted the “`Communist threat` was a smokescreen” in responding to Pres. Eisenhower's claim that the Tudeh party was about to assume power.[41]
Throughout the crisis, the “communist danger” was more of a rhetorical device than a real issue — i.e. it was part of the cold-war discourse ...The Tudeh was no match for the armed tribes and the 129,000-man military. What is more, the British and Americans had enough inside information to be confident that the party had no plans to initiate armed insurrection. At the beginning of the crisis, when the Truman administration was under the impression a compromise was possible, Acheson had stressed the communist danger, and warned if Mossadeq was not helped, the Tudeh would take over. The (British) Foreign Office had retorted that the Tudeh was no real threat. But, in August 1953, when the Foreign Office echoed the Eisenhower administration’s claim that the Tudeh was about to take over, Acheson now retorted that there was no such communist danger. Acheson was honest enough to admit that the issue of the Tudeh was a smokescreen.[41]

As part of the post–coup d'état political repression of the Tudeh, the Western-installed government of the Shah revealed that the party had 477 members in the Iranian armed forces but none that were members of the tank divisions, stationed around Tehran, that might have participated in the coup d'état.[42]
41.^ a b The 1953 Coup in Iran, Science & Society, Vol. 65, No. 2, Summer 2001, pp.182–215
42.Abrahamian, Ervand, Iran Between Two Revolutions, Princeton University Press, 1982, p.92

 

wow!
stox, admit it

You want to kill them not because of the love of their women and kids, but because of the self-grown hate against Muslims that you have

Obviously
If you really loved women and kids how could support carpet bombing the country and killing thousands including women and children (that too to save the women)?

If you really loved women and kids why would you keep silence over the horrific acts which are committed by zionist isreal ?

If you really loved women and kids why would you support attack on afghnaistn which has a tiny population why not africa and india , why not check their human right records ?

this is real insane logic that you chose to kill thousands as you want to save few from public whipping ?


more women and children were killed by the war that was started by you then the acts which taliban were doing, what is more horrific ?

 

Muslims do piss me off. I don't want to kill them though. As for the taliban, yes i want every last one of them killed.

I understand that you will defend them, regardless how heinous their crimes are, simply because they happen to be members of the same cult as you. I mean, after all, you have even defended child rape because it's committed by a muslim, so the chances of you standing up against muslims disfiguring children with acid is very slim.

As for the distinction between throwing acid in a childs face the very unfortunate fact that children sometimes get inadvertently killed in war. well, if you can't tell the difference between accidentally killing someone and deliberately throwing acid in their face in order to deliberately blind and disfigure them you are more messed up in the head than we gave you credit for.

 

Guess, this does not leave much more room for discussion
As when you are blinded by hate the logic takes a backseat (as is evident from your post above)

However I do appreciate your honesty in admitting that