Rob W 0 Posted June 5, 2006 Share Posted June 5, 2006 In the interests of keeping the thread going, I'll play Leazes Mag. To anyone who's posted since his last effort, I say this: Typical response of a left-wing do-gooder. You're just like...err....the Chemical Brothers. There is an unseen enemy in this country trying to do us in, but you are all too blind to see it. What are we going to do when they get a nuclear weapon. Will you finally pull your head out of the sand? About what I'd expect from a kiddie's forum. Erm. Iran. And bombs. And stuff. Maybe NOW I've opened your eyes. 144957[/snapback] not bad, not bad.... do you do Leazes at Fancy Dress parties?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted June 5, 2006 Share Posted June 5, 2006 When Leazes continually goes on about Iran nuking Israel (not that I approved for one minute the hateful comments made by the Iranian leader re: wiping Israel off the map) I think he forgets that the Israelis are the only country in the region with the nuclear bomb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17623 Posted June 5, 2006 Share Posted June 5, 2006 we have H bombs, the yanks have them, the russians, the chinese, pakistan , india, israel, probably n korea - even the FRENCH have them FFS no wonder the Iranians are baffled 144973[/snapback] I love the indignation that EVEN THE FRENCH have them! Funny too how Leazes makes a fool out of himself with every single post, but can't see it. Mind, the joke is wearing a bit thin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob W 0 Posted June 5, 2006 Share Posted June 5, 2006 we have H bombs, the yanks have them, the russians, the chinese, pakistan , india, israel, probably n korea - even the FRENCH have them FFS no wonder the Iranians are baffled 144973[/snapback] I love the indignation that EVEN THE FRENCH have them! Funny too how Leazes makes a fool out of himself with every single post, but can't see it. Mind, the joke is wearing a bit thin. 144983[/snapback] we should have invaded France in 1959 and STOPPED them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted June 5, 2006 Author Share Posted June 5, 2006 we have H bombs, the yanks have them, the russians, the chinese, pakistan , india, israel, probably n korea - even the FRENCH have them FFS no wonder the Iranians are baffled 144973[/snapback] I love the indignation that EVEN THE FRENCH have them! Funny too how Leazes makes a fool out of himself with every single post, but can't see it. Mind, the joke is wearing a bit thin. 144983[/snapback] Wierd that Renton, because every time a bomb goes off in this country, or an asylum seeker that shouldn't be here committs an offence - especially serious ones - that makes me right and you wrong. Hey, but you know best .... keep reading your books they are obviously working. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted June 5, 2006 Author Share Posted June 5, 2006 (edited) When Leazes continually goes on about Iran nuking Israel (not that I approved for one minute the hateful comments made by the Iranian leader re: wiping Israel off the map) I think he forgets that the Israelis are the only country in the region with the nuclear bomb. 144976[/snapback] Why doesn't Israel use their nukes Alex.....whereas other countries in that area will when they get them ? Simple question, I hope you can find a book with the answer As GF says....we are still waiting for you clever guys to come up with a solution, because you don't REALLY think they will negotiate without major concessions...leading to more demands for more concessions... Edited June 5, 2006 by LeazesMag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted June 5, 2006 Share Posted June 5, 2006 When Leazes continually goes on about Iran nuking Israel (not that I approved for one minute the hateful comments made by the Iranian leader re: wiping Israel off the map) I think he forgets that the Israelis are the only country in the region with the nuclear bomb. 144976[/snapback] Why doesn't Israel use their nukes Alex.....whereas other countries in that area will when they get them ? Simple question, I hope you can find a book with the answer As GF says....we are still waiting for you clever guys to come up with a solution, because you don't REALLY think they will negotiate without major concessions...leading to more demands for more concessions... 145071[/snapback] Daft hypothetical question. But I'll answer if you can tell me how you know they'll do that then? Given the other countries you mention would be effectively ensuring their own destruction if they did so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted June 5, 2006 Author Share Posted June 5, 2006 When Leazes continually goes on about Iran nuking Israel (not that I approved for one minute the hateful comments made by the Iranian leader re: wiping Israel off the map) I think he forgets that the Israelis are the only country in the region with the nuclear bomb. 144976[/snapback] Why doesn't Israel use their nukes Alex.....whereas other countries in that area will when they get them ? Simple question, I hope you can find a book with the answer As GF says....we are still waiting for you clever guys to come up with a solution, because you don't REALLY think they will negotiate without major concessions...leading to more demands for more concessions... 145071[/snapback] Daft hypothetical question. But I'll answer if you can tell me how you know they'll do that then? Given the other countries you mention would be effectively ensuring their own destruction if they did so. 145072[/snapback] No, the question was "why don't Israel use their nukes on their enemies " ? "other countries will use them when they have the same capability" is not really a question....but a statement, which if proved true, will then lead to the question "who are the real warmongers around here " and then "why didn't we stop them while we could" Think about it, or borrow Renton's book as he's intelligent, and knows what he's talking about . And - what about a solution, seeing as I asked, and you clever guys think you have the answers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 34167 Posted June 5, 2006 Share Posted June 5, 2006 Leazes Mag would make a brilliant Viz character. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted June 5, 2006 Author Share Posted June 5, 2006 Leazes Mag would make a brilliant Viz character. 145078[/snapback] Starring Renton and Alex as the Modern Parents Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckypierre 0 Posted June 5, 2006 Share Posted June 5, 2006 When Leazes continually goes on about Iran nuking Israel (not that I approved for one minute the hateful comments made by the Iranian leader re: wiping Israel off the map) I think he forgets that the Israelis are the only country in the region with the nuclear bomb. 144976[/snapback] Why doesn't Israel use their nukes Alex.....whereas other countries in that area will when they get them ? Simple question, I hope you can find a book with the answer As GF says....we are still waiting for you clever guys to come up with a solution, because you don't REALLY think they will negotiate without major concessions...leading to more demands for more concessions... 145071[/snapback] Daft hypothetical question. But I'll answer if you can tell me how you know they'll do that then? Given the other countries you mention would be effectively ensuring their own destruction if they did so. 145072[/snapback] No, the question was "why don't Israel use their nukes on their enemies " ? "other countries will use them when they have the same capability" is not really a question....but a statement, which if proved true, will then lead to the question "who are the real warmongers around here " and then "why didn't we stop them while we could" Think about it, or borrow Renton's book as he's intelligent, and knows what he's talking about . And - what about a solution, seeing as I asked, and you clever guys think you have the answers. 145076[/snapback] what the fuck are you on? Im still waiting for your solution Leazes seeing as you've been asked for it numerous times now. So go on, you first... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted June 5, 2006 Author Share Posted June 5, 2006 When Leazes continually goes on about Iran nuking Israel (not that I approved for one minute the hateful comments made by the Iranian leader re: wiping Israel off the map) I think he forgets that the Israelis are the only country in the region with the nuclear bomb. 144976[/snapback] Why doesn't Israel use their nukes Alex.....whereas other countries in that area will when they get them ? Simple question, I hope you can find a book with the answer As GF says....we are still waiting for you clever guys to come up with a solution, because you don't REALLY think they will negotiate without major concessions...leading to more demands for more concessions... 145071[/snapback] Daft hypothetical question. But I'll answer if you can tell me how you know they'll do that then? Given the other countries you mention would be effectively ensuring their own destruction if they did so. 145072[/snapback] No, the question was "why don't Israel use their nukes on their enemies " ? "other countries will use them when they have the same capability" is not really a question....but a statement, which if proved true, will then lead to the question "who are the real warmongers around here " and then "why didn't we stop them while we could" Think about it, or borrow Renton's book as he's intelligent, and knows what he's talking about . And - what about a solution, seeing as I asked, and you clever guys think you have the answers. 145076[/snapback] what the fuck are you on? Im still waiting for your solution Leazes seeing as you've been asked for it numerous times now. So go on, you first... 145097[/snapback] So go on, you first..... Now now, such abuse from someone so intelligent ... tut tut.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sima Posted June 5, 2006 Share Posted June 5, 2006 How do you know that other countries will use nuclear weapons ffs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 6766 Posted June 5, 2006 Share Posted June 5, 2006 When Leazes continually goes on about Iran nuking Israel (not that I approved for one minute the hateful comments made by the Iranian leader re: wiping Israel off the map) I think he forgets that the Israelis are the only country in the region with the nuclear bomb. 144976[/snapback] Why doesn't Israel use their nukes Alex.....whereas other countries in that area will when they get them ? Simple question, I hope you can find a book with the answer As GF says....we are still waiting for you clever guys to come up with a solution, because you don't REALLY think they will negotiate without major concessions...leading to more demands for more concessions... 145071[/snapback] Daft hypothetical question. But I'll answer if you can tell me how you know they'll do that then? Given the other countries you mention would be effectively ensuring their own destruction if they did so. 145072[/snapback] My concern with the whole issue is that, those countries political leadership will think that by destorying Israel and or nuking the west, Allah will take them to heaven. Earthly things like living and breathing and mutually assured destruction are not in the equation. Worryingly, an American friend of mine said, in response to a point I made about the USA using nukes, in an email conversation with me "GWB and this administration doesn't care, they believe Jesus will come and save them" Same problem different fundamentalism Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17623 Posted June 5, 2006 Share Posted June 5, 2006 My concern with the whole issue is that, those countries political leadership will think that by destorying Israel and or nuking the west, Allah will take them to heaven. Earthly things like living and breathing and mutually assured destruction are not in the equation. Worryingly, an American friend of mine said, in response to a point I made about the USA using nukes, in an email conversation with me "GWB and this administration doesn't care, they believe Jesus will come and save them" Same problem different fundamentalism 145133[/snapback] Good point, there are fundamentalists on both sides. Bush believes in the rapture so isn't too concerned by little things like the environment or world war 3. However, I'm hopeful that the real powers behind the Bush dynasty aren't quite so insane. Having said that a nuclear Iran would be a disaster and a real cause for concern. But I'm confident that that scenario can be avoided without the use of ground troops, which would be a catastrophe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted June 5, 2006 Author Share Posted June 5, 2006 My concern with the whole issue is that, those countries political leadership will think that by destorying Israel and or nuking the west, Allah will take them to heaven. Earthly things like living and breathing and mutually assured destruction are not in the equation. Worryingly, an American friend of mine said, in response to a point I made about the USA using nukes, in an email conversation with me "GWB and this administration doesn't care, they believe Jesus will come and save them" Same problem different fundamentalism 145133[/snapback] Good point, there are fundamentalists on both sides. Bush believes in the rapture so isn't too concerned by little things like the environment or world war 3. However, I'm hopeful that the real powers behind the Bush dynasty aren't quite so insane. Having said that a nuclear Iran would be a disaster and a real cause for concern. But I'm confident that that scenario can be avoided without the use of ground troops, which would be a catastrophe. 145159[/snapback] And the president of Iran is really concerned by little things like the environment or world war 3. Still, I'm sure that the President of Iran might be voted out at the next elections. Or maybe he will show some responsibility if, or when, they do develop nukes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 I think it's a misconception that these so-called fundamentalist leaders in Islam have no concern for themselves and wouldn't mind their martyrdom as Allah will ensure their passage to paradise etc. The reason I think this is because they tend to be cowards who rely on the actions of others who they have convinced to do these horrible deeds. You don't get the militant mullahs blowing themselves up. Rather they encourage impressionable, misled youths to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 34167 Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 My mother's mates with a muslim wifey (perish the thought, Leazes!), and she reckons a lot of these young kids can barely read and are just brainwashed into thinking that the Qu'ran says X, Y and Z, and go off and act on that basis. Canny sad if it's true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17623 Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 My concern with the whole issue is that, those countries political leadership will think that by destorying Israel and or nuking the west, Allah will take them to heaven. Earthly things like living and breathing and mutually assured destruction are not in the equation. Worryingly, an American friend of mine said, in response to a point I made about the USA using nukes, in an email conversation with me "GWB and this administration doesn't care, they believe Jesus will come and save them" Same problem different fundamentalism 145133[/snapback] Good point, there are fundamentalists on both sides. Bush believes in the rapture so isn't too concerned by little things like the environment or world war 3. However, I'm hopeful that the real powers behind the Bush dynasty aren't quite so insane. Having said that a nuclear Iran would be a disaster and a real cause for concern. But I'm confident that that scenario can be avoided without the use of ground troops, which would be a catastrophe. 145159[/snapback] And the president of Iran is really concerned by little things like the environment or world war 3. Still, I'm sure that the President of Iran might be voted out at the next elections. Or maybe he will show some responsibility if, or when, they do develop nukes 145185[/snapback] Once again you attribute words to me I have never said and refuse to answer yourself. This despite me saying that I personally think the prospect of Iraq is a terrifying one. For once will you answer a straight forward question, one that I have already answered, do you think we (the allies) should invade Iraq. Simple yes or no will suffice. Can you actually answer this, or yet again are you going to prove yourself too thick to read a post? Incidentally, I was reading an interesting commentary in one of my fancy dan papers yesterday which more or less said Bush isn't so much a lame duck president but a dead duck president. Apparently there is no way there will be any military conflict with Iran, either on the ground or by air. The main reason for this is money - the US can't afford to open up a new front. Also, experts reckon to do so the price of a barrel of oil would automatically double over night. Perhaps Leazes knows better and they should have asked him first though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob W 0 Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 I see "sources close to MI5" are saying that it wasn't THEIR dodgy intelligence behind this raid.................. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted June 6, 2006 Author Share Posted June 6, 2006 (edited) My concern with the whole issue is that, those countries political leadership will think that by destorying Israel and or nuking the west, Allah will take them to heaven. Earthly things like living and breathing and mutually assured destruction are not in the equation. Worryingly, an American friend of mine said, in response to a point I made about the USA using nukes, in an email conversation with me "GWB and this administration doesn't care, they believe Jesus will come and save them" Same problem different fundamentalism 145133[/snapback] Good point, there are fundamentalists on both sides. Bush believes in the rapture so isn't too concerned by little things like the environment or world war 3. However, I'm hopeful that the real powers behind the Bush dynasty aren't quite so insane. Having said that a nuclear Iran would be a disaster and a real cause for concern. But I'm confident that that scenario can be avoided without the use of ground troops, which would be a catastrophe. 145159[/snapback] And the president of Iran is really concerned by little things like the environment or world war 3. Still, I'm sure that the President of Iran might be voted out at the next elections. Or maybe he will show some responsibility if, or when, they do develop nukes 145185[/snapback] Once again you attribute words to me I have never said and refuse to answer yourself. This despite me saying that I personally think the prospect of Iraq is a terrifying one. For once will you answer a straight forward question, one that I have already answered, do you think we (the allies) should invade Iraq. Simple yes or no will suffice. Can you actually answer this, or yet again are you going to prove yourself too thick to read a post? Incidentally, I was reading an interesting commentary in one of my fancy dan papers yesterday which more or less said Bush isn't so much a lame duck president but a dead duck president. Apparently there is no way there will be any military conflict with Iran, either on the ground or by air. The main reason for this is money - the US can't afford to open up a new front. Also, experts reckon to do so the price of a barrel of oil would automatically double over night. Perhaps Leazes knows better and they should have asked him first though. 145237[/snapback] tut tut..a man of your intelligence sinking so low as to hurl insults....I hope luckyluke has noticed who is abusing who here... My reply has been stated. Read it. Shame you read, or say you do, but don't understand what is read unless its in your little book your fancy dan lecturer told you to read. Your bias in your reply is amazing. The first paragraph is about Iran, and the madman running the country, yet you totally miss it out and only make a comment about Bush ? You really think the west ought to appease these people at every turn don't you ? I liked your pompous comment about being "confident it wouldn't resort to sending troops in" BTW ? Is this "confidence" from first hand info, or just a wild hope ? Do you have the same "confidence" that your methods of appeasement, an open immigration door, and allowing the bombers to hide behind their "rights" will prevent the escalation of terrorism and bombing of innocent civilians in the UK ? Ref your comments about oil. Did you read my comment about the 2nd Iraq war being inevitable due to the fact that it wasn't finished the first time, or do you think we should have allowed Saddam to continue flouting the ceasefire agreement and taking the piss out of the whole world and the ceasefire agreement - the simple fact is what they should have done is just gone back in and finished it without needing an excuse, whether that be the growing suspicion of having weapons or the oil. But you would have jibbered on whenever they went in to finish it. Did you agree with the first war BTW ? Or do you think invading another country can be solved by diplomacy ? At what point do you think Iran is going to say to itself "we have enough weapons now" and behave responsibly without turning its head to look at Israel ? Edited June 6, 2006 by LeazesMag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 Leazes taking the moral high ground re: abuse The above has what to do with the police raid in London btw? Serious question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 34167 Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 He's brought out the Fancy Dan lecturer insult now. Page 5 is pretty early to be resorting to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sima Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 How do you know that other countries will use nuclear weapons ffs? 145122[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17623 Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 My concern with the whole issue is that, those countries political leadership will think that by destorying Israel and or nuking the west, Allah will take them to heaven. Earthly things like living and breathing and mutually assured destruction are not in the equation. Worryingly, an American friend of mine said, in response to a point I made about the USA using nukes, in an email conversation with me "GWB and this administration doesn't care, they believe Jesus will come and save them" Same problem different fundamentalism 145133[/snapback] Good point, there are fundamentalists on both sides. Bush believes in the rapture so isn't too concerned by little things like the environment or world war 3. However, I'm hopeful that the real powers behind the Bush dynasty aren't quite so insane. Having said that a nuclear Iran would be a disaster and a real cause for concern. But I'm confident that that scenario can be avoided without the use of ground troops, which would be a catastrophe. 145159[/snapback] And the president of Iran is really concerned by little things like the environment or world war 3. Still, I'm sure that the President of Iran might be voted out at the next elections. Or maybe he will show some responsibility if, or when, they do develop nukes 145185[/snapback] Once again you attribute words to me I have never said and refuse to answer yourself. This despite me saying that I personally think the prospect of Iraq is a terrifying one. For once will you answer a straight forward question, one that I have already answered, do you think we (the allies) should invade Iraq. Simple yes or no will suffice. Can you actually answer this, or yet again are you going to prove yourself too thick to read a post? Incidentally, I was reading an interesting commentary in one of my fancy dan papers yesterday which more or less said Bush isn't so much a lame duck president but a dead duck president. Apparently there is no way there will be any military conflict with Iran, either on the ground or by air. The main reason for this is money - the US can't afford to open up a new front. Also, experts reckon to do so the price of a barrel of oil would automatically double over night. Perhaps Leazes knows better and they should have asked him first though. 145237[/snapback] tut tut..a man of your intelligence sinking so low as to hurl insults....I hope luckyluke has noticed who is abusing who here... My reply has been stated. Read it. Shame you read, or say you do, but don't understand what is read unless its in your little book your fancy dan lecturer told you to read. Your bias in your reply is amazing. The first paragraph is about Iran, and the madman running the country, yet you totally miss it out and only make a comment about Bush ? You really think the west ought to appease these people at every turn don't you ? I liked your pompous comment about being "confident it wouldn't resort to sending troops in" BTW ? Is this "confidence" from first hand info, or just a wild hope ? Do you have the same "confidence" that your methods of appeasement, an open immigration door, and allowing the bombers to hide behind their "rights" will prevent the escalation of terrorism and bombing of innocent civilians in the UK ? Ref your comments about oil. Did you read my comment about the 2nd Iraq war being inevitable due to the fact that it wasn't finished the first time, or do you think we should have allowed Saddam to continue flouting the ceasefire agreement and taking the piss out of the whole world and the ceasefire agreement - the simple fact is what they should have done is just gone back in and finished it without needing an excuse, whether that be the growing suspicion of having weapons or the oil. But you would have jibbered on whenever they went in to finish it. Did you agree with the first war BTW ? Or do you think invading another country can be solved by diplomacy ? At what point do you think Iran is going to say to itself "we have enough weapons now" and behave responsibly without turning its head to look at Israel ? 145327[/snapback] Apologies if I have missed it. Do you think we should invade Iraq, yes or no. Please answer one or the other, and we can discuss it. If you have already said what you would do, please link to it. This post is completely irrelevant to the present day situation, I haven't got the time to get side tracked by the confused ramblings of your mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now