SeVeR

shatafakup, brits pwn you commie trannies

pony, are you English by any chance? i know someone else who goes by that name.

Properties within a disaster zone are undoubtebly cheaper on average than ones which are not. The poor don't have a choice.

sounds like Manic Street Preachers

SVS: And you're a !@#$%^&*ing idiot. Why? Because you don't read my posts. Why? Because you said this: So what you missed is this: Agreed. However with no evidence of nuke production and no known desire from Iran to have nukes we are entertaining a possibility that has just as must credit as considering America to be after world domination. You would tell me there is no known desire from America to conquer the world and no evidence that they are doing such a thing, and as a result you'd tell me America don't want that. Of course neither of us can be absolutely certain, but why entertain a possibility with no evidence? So get of your high horse SVS, and shut the !@#$%^&* up because dismissing an opinion makes you unable to counter it properly. And in hundreds of years this has not happened, even in the last 60 years since Israels creation there has not been a massacre of Jews. Would you say this supports all the points in my last post which you haven't countered?

Astro: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5367892.stm I posted this link when i brought this issue up again a couple of days ago. Its not my fault you didn't read it. 1. There are 25,000 Jews in Iran and the majority live respectful lives without opression. 2. They are proud of being Iranian. 3. They don't want to leave for any reason, even if mistreatment were to take place. 4. They have a representative in parliament! 5. The father of Iran's revolution, Imam Khomeini, recognised Jews as a religious minority that should be protected! Please read the page thoroughly, the five points i've posted are the ones that stick out as completely contradictory to your opinions about Iran. I did, you just ignored the link. No wonder people like SVS are spurting crap about me, you guys won't even look at my sources. What are your sources Astro? And by the way i would fully expect lots of Jews to leave Iran to go to Israel upon its creation. That doesn't mean they're oppressed, that means they like the idea of a Jewish state and want to live among Jews. NBV: Agreed. However with no evidence of nuke production and no known desire from Iran to have nukes we are entertaining a possibility that has just as must credit as considering America to be after world domination. You would tell me there is no known desire from America to conquer the world and no evidence that they are doing such a thing, and as a result you'd tell me America don't want that. Of course neither of us can be absolutely certain, but why entertain a possibility with no evidence? SVS: Great comeback there, if i ever look as dumb as you just did i'll be sure to double post aswell.

If you read the link i just cited you'd know that Jews are not oppressed. In fact they are quoted as saying they don't want to leave at any cost for any reason. If you like, here are some quotes from the page: "About 25,000 Jews live in Iran and most are determined to remain no matter what the pressures - as proud of their Iranian culture as of their Jewish roots." "Because of our long history here we are tolerated," says Jewish community leader Unees Hammami, who organised the prayers. He says the father of Iran's revolution, Imam Khomeini, recognised Jews as a religious minority that should be protected. As a result Jews have one representative in the Iranian parliament." Even a representative in parliament! So in other words its the complete opposite to what you've just said so i'm gonna need some sort of source before i consider what you're saying. Just read the link i posted, Jews are treated well and won't leave for any reason. Its the Zionists who the Iranians dislike, Jews as a people live reasonably well and certainly want to stay in Iran, that shows great understanding from the Iranians if they can differentiate between Zionists and Jews without lumping them all into one group, they show very little racism and i find that admirable. Thats ok, maybe SVS will jump on this and say that Microsoft Word is against our discussion because i'm not being factual enough. I know, just it happened with Iraq, now Iran, and i'm wondering who is next to be strung up in the press to justify a war. America could probably go to war with Iran now and get away with it. I think the only limitting factor is how many countries they can fight at once. Hopefully Iraq is his last war.

Opinions as facts? Like saying "no-one reads your posts"? I've called you a hypocrite at least five times in the last month and here we go again... in the space of one sentence. Does everything you say get piped in through the ears and regurgitated by the mouth because its difficult to believe how someone could become this hypocritical whilst being capable of independent logical thinking. I mean common... in the same god!@#$%^&*ed sentence! I gotta say though this one was the funniest, its effectively saying "The reason why i'm presenting this critical opinion of you as an absolute fact is because you keep posting opinions as absolute facts". Go criticise yourself and while you're at it dig yourself a hole, shoot yourself in the foot and throw !@#$%^&* at a fan. Iran never expressing a desire for nukes in addition to there being no evidence that Iran want nukes is grounds for saying they don't want nukes. To consider them wanting nukes would no different than considering America in a plot for world domination and attempting to impose sanctions or possible military action as a result. You would say that there is no evidence and no known desire by America for such a thing, much like i'm saying the same about Iran now. You can't just take a remote unsubstantiated possibility as a reason to punish. So yes, we can never be absolutely certain but when there is no evidence, why is the issue even being raised? Raised by America... a country that has lied in a recent report to incriminate Iran, a report condemned by the UN as dishonest. It doesn't take a genius to put those pieces together. Next we'll be saying Venezuala want nukes and it'll be all over the news for the simple reason that its wanted there to keep the option to invade that country open.

I don't think they were commies but no-ones perfect. Still as we say in England "i would ave"

Agreed. Good thing Iran don't want nukes, aren't making nukes and have never expressed a desire to have nukes. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5367892.stm Iran's not the racist, terrorist, !@#$%^&*-hole you've been led to believe. I used this point before, citing sources of Iran's significantly large Jewish population, receiving no reply other than "you're blind to think they won't massacre everyone". Not only that, but Astro, you didn't make much of a reply to the points in my last post.

Delic has always been the best noob in subspace.

I agree that for our own personal safety we should stay in Iraq. But then again, for the same reason we should have never gone there in the first place. Its a pity that many of us can say that now isn't it? 100,000 civilians dead, 3000 US soldiers dead, and many of us are saying "why the !@#$%^&* did we even go there?".

Don't give a crap. This figure-head Satan has done more for Bush's war on terror than he has for his own Jihad.

Bush makes the decisions, its his fault. I seriously do not think you can p!@#$%^&* the buck onto intelligence agencies if you happen to select reports based on minority opinion. If 95% of the intelligence community (including the UN and the International Atomic Energy Agency) is telling Bush that Iran aren't purifying weapons grade plutonium while 5% say they are then you are either a liar or an incredible doofus to act on that 5% that BTW still needs to be scrutinized and proven before threatening another nation. We don't want either of those people in charge of the greatest country in the world. No liars and no idiots, whichever is true. However its certain that Bush hired Hoekstra to write this report, the man is afterall appointed by Bush to do this sort of thing. Oh and btw, Hoekstra is the same guy who said that 500 WMDs had been found in Iraq, a claim he announced on (you guessed it) Fox News.

Are you fecking kidding me?

Those two trannies on Springer this morning were hot as !@#$%^&*...

Yes, i never suggested otherwise, spawning should be in the center (sorry for the typo). Maybe at first it would be best to remove north, at least until the population gets bigger.

What you've always had in 17th is two populations of players: 1. Those who fly around aimlessly and kill 2. Those who base. Unfortunately those who base are split across the map. With a small pop this creates a vicious circle of fewer people playing followed by the game getting less interesting for those who still are playing and so on. So what i propose is bringing the bases closer together but keeping the centre. You bring all the basers into closer proximity for a more enjoyable fast paced game. Then as a result you'll probably get the aimless killers coming in to try and get cheap kills in that area also. Something like this: I don't know if someone else has been thinking the same sort of thing, but its what i think will work. Then you could make the flagging game more high-priority without detracting from the soccer too much.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/5360742.stm With 3D TV it'd be like the pornstars are in the room having sex right in front of you! ...Interactive TV could be brought up to a whole new level.

A number of thoughts entered my head after reading those logs: 1. Not funny. 2. Why did i waste my time? 3. Delic, how many conversations do you have saved on your computer and do you read them back to yourself over and over again at night whilst jerking off into a pillow?

Zig: Who says that faith and a lack of education are not linked; Certainty destroys curiousity does it not? Apache: He has to not insult them. If he does then he shouldn't insult them further by apoligising for the violence and not the comment. NBV: Um NBV... i don't here them saying it alot, i hear us saying it. Again wtf, they don't choose to be born into religious families.

Exactly, so would you conclude that the American government chose to fulfill their agenda by selecting unsubstantiated information and passing it off as factual when knowing that there is contradictory information out there that has far more evidence to prove its worth? (lying in the most broken down form imaginable) Still it's pretty hard to find a way of getting any evidence for weapons grade enrichment in Iran... i can't imagine an intelligence report standing up to any serious scrutiny that says such a thing. This is afterall why the UN called the US's report dishonest (lying). So Astro, is there any doubt now that the US's "political agenda" is to incriminate Iran for possible future wars? Whether it be through direct falsification or by passing the buck through the intelligence services? I beg to differ. Bush's speeches, the big issue of "stopping Iran getting nukes" when they've never indicated they want that, the seemingly incriminating US report branded by the UN as dishonest. In my opinion Bush is doing everything to justify going to war in future, whether he ultimately decides to or not. I think that's grounds for hate. It comes with having nuclear power plants that some of the stages for nukes are in place. It's America's lack of trust based on contrasting worldviews that has created the issue of nukes. Actual destruction? Quotes please. But when you say "the people of Iran" you are being far too general. Some people probably do say that, and who is to say they don't have good reason. Its a matter of: do we kill em or make peace by recognizing our wrongs and putting them right (the tried and tested way). I'm not talking appeasement, i'm talking about reversing our wrongs in anyway possible. Its Bush who is turning this into an "ideological struggle" against evil terrorists for the simple reason that he doesn't want comprimise. He doesn't even talk to Admadinejad despite the many attempts by the Iranians to engage in diplomacy. I don't excuse Islamic extremism, i despise it as much as Christian extremism. I asked you in the last post about what extremism you think i embrace because all you are doing here is connecting my agreement with Iranian opinion as extremist. Have i said anything extreme? I've told you how i think things should be resolved with the dissolution of Israel, the recognition of wrongs followed by compensation and apology.... this is all very unextreme if you believe the creation of Israel was wrong (and you don't have to be extreme to believe that). I don't think Hezbollah are extremist, and neither are those who fight against the US in Iraq. Those who preach anti-US and anti-Israel sentiment are also no more extreme than people like Bush who preach the opposite. In fact i would compare your opinion that they call for our destruction every Friday to the more extremist opinions of the US by Iranians. By calling them extremists many like you would happily see their deaths just like those in Iran who are as extreme as you would see the opposite situation.

Any culture in the developing world would do the same. It just so happens that alot of the developing world is Muslim. And Astro is right, centuries ago we were at that level of religious, social and economic development.

Ail: Holy crap dude... assume much? Astro: You mean like America admitting they want to incriminate Iran to open the door to possible military action in the future? They wouldn't do that either, but i think America's done more to "let slip their intentions" haven't they. Iran has never indicated they want nukes, America has clearly indicated they're willing to lie to incriminate Iran. Oh common... are you gonna believe the American intelligence services are that stupid? And to top it all of they did the same thing with incriminating Iraq! With the same excuse you're using now! Stupidity is no excuse. Are you gonna sit back and tell me that America, a country that is digging harder than anyone to find dirt on Iran, is going to be ignorant to the facts about Iran? Or will you believe the far more probable conclusion that they are lying to incriminate a country they hate... with their own intelligence report as proof (UN calling it dishonest) with the additional evidence that they've done it before. How blind can you be to believe that? They have a right to nuclear power, they don't have a right to launch nukes at anyone. We don't deserve nuclear annihilation. We do deserve peace. Ok you're extremophobic, but if you say this: "These people hate the West and call for our destruction every Friday after prayers", then that makes your extremophobia into Islamophobia. What extremism do i embrace Astro?

True, blindly stating the obvious neither answers my point or makes one. So will you admit there is no evidence to suggest Iran want nukes? They are creating radioactive material for use in nuclear reactors. Will you admit there is no evidence that they are enriching material to weapons grade purity? The US government has said they are enriching to weapons grade without any proof whatsoever. Will you admit the US government is attempting to incriminate Iran with this lie? I'm trying to keep it short and simple until you answer these questions without sidetracking the argument. Just answer either yes or no+reason. You're the paranoid Islamophobic idiot who thinks these "people" will kill you for no reason. More gross generalisations of an entire section of the world.