A possible solution to the Middle East problem....

[daftone]

Some strategically aimed nuclear bombs would be a better solution and probably the only one that would work...

No that would irradiate the area and make it hard to get the oil. What we need is bio weapons. Release some plagues in the area, wipe out the populations and the oil is ours.

[Archangel Tyrael]

Gothicshark you just make the stereotypes about jews come truth. That's a shame, I thought you weren't on that level.

Oh well, that's it I guess. You think you know something about Muslims/Islam/Situation on the Middle East, but reading your posts is almost like watching fox news.

---------- Post added 2012-09-19 at 06:08 AM ----------

I honestly am lost at words... how can you lie with such proficiency?

How can you be this dishonest to every person on this board?

Wow... Just wow.

Infracted: Please, refrain from insulting other posters personally.

[Shadylol]

It's not as easy as "just stop using oil".

There are alternate sources of energy, but one big thing I've heard is trying to convince all the people to buy the new alternate fuel cars, then on top of that convincing all the people to sell the alternate fuel. I doubt that'll happen until the rising gas prices make it cheaper by comparison.

That's what people don't seem to understand. It's easy to be an idealist, especially if you're young, but realistically, switching to an alternative energy source that would replace oil is not in the financial interest of the people in charge

[Archangel Tyrael]

If you have a Nuclear Power station, you can get Weapons grade materials. If you can put a low orbit satellite in space you can make nuclear missiles. Iran has both.

(1) According to the US intelligence community



Iran hasn’t got an active nuclear weapons programme
Israeli intelligence agrees with this view




(2) The US intelligence community set out this view in a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) in November 2007. It remains the view of the US intelligence community today.





(3) The November 2011 IAEA report on Iran’s nuclear activities did not state that Iran has an active nuclear weapons programme, contrary to the impression given in much of the media commentary on it.





(4) Iran has declared to the IAEA 15 nuclear facilities (including its uranium enrichment plants at Natanz and Fordow) and 9 other locations where nuclear material is customarily used. These sites are all being monitored by the IAEA. In its February 2012 report, the IAEA confirmed for the umpteenth time that there was no diversion of nuclear material from these facilities.





(5) After the publication of the November 2007 NIE, US military action against Iran was off the agenda. President George Bush wrote in his memoir Decision Points: “How could I possibly explain using the military to destroy the nuclear facilities of a country the intelligence community said had no active nuclear weapons program?”


When the report was published, a White House spokesperson said:



“The IAEA does not assert that Iran has resumed a full scale nuclear weapons program … .”



See White House: IAEA Report Doesn't Change Assessment Of Iran's Nuclear Ambitions by Marc Ambinder, National Journal, 8 November 2011 [13].



On 10 November 2011, Professor Paul Pillar wrote of the IAEA report:



“Despite references in the surge of report commentary about new evidence on this or that aspect of the subject, the report told us nothing of importance to policy on Iran that was not already well known.” [14]



(Professor Pillar retired from the CIA in 2005 after 28 years service, his last post being National Intelligence Officer for the Near East and South Asia).



On 23 January 2012, Peter Jenkins, the UK’s ambassador to the IAEA from 2001 to 2006, wrote of the report’s findings in the Daily Telegraph:



“The IAEA says that prior to 2003 Iran researched some of the know-how needed for a weapon, and that further research may have taken place in the years since. The IAEA has not reported evidence of attempts to produce nuclear weapons, or of a decision to do so.” [15]



On 22 February 2012, Hans Blix, former head of the IAEA, wrote of the reports report’s findings in the New Statesman:



“The IAEA did not … conclude that Iran was making a weapon or had taken a decision to make one.” [16]


-

It's interesting that you know more than the Government of the USA and some of its Intelligence units.

H-E-H-E.

---------- Post added 2012-09-19 at 06:16 AM ----------

And there is more. Iran’s nuclear facilities are open to IAEA inspection. By contrast, Israel’s nuclear facilities are not (apart from a 5MW reactor supplied by the US in 1955, located at Nahal Soreq). Strangely, unlike Iran’s, Israel’s nuclear facilities are never described as “secret”.



The Security Council has demanded that Israel open its nuclear facilities to IAEA inspection. On 19 June 1981, in resolution 487, it called



“upon Israel urgently to place its nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards”. [18]



Israel has ignored the resolution for over 30 years – and, unlike Iran, it has not been sanctioned.


-

Oh God guys, we better destroy Iran, it's too dangerous for all of the world THEY BE TERRURIRSTS I TELL U !!!111

[Shadylol]

Oh God guys, we better destroy Iran, it's too dangerous for all of the world THEY BE TERRURIRSTS I TELL U !!!111

Neither of you has accurate information on what military intelligence knows about Iran. There's no point in arguing, because you're both just guessing

[Beavis]

"One million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail."
- Rabbi Yaacov Perrin (NY Daily News, Feb. 28, 1994, p.6)

At Goldstein's funeral, Rabbi Yaacov Perrin claimed that even one million Arabs are "not worth a Jewish fingernail".[21][22][23]

^ a b Kraft, Scott (1994-02-28). "Extremists Pay Tribute to Killer of 48 at Funeral". Los Angeles Times: p. A1.
^ a b Brownfeld, Allan C. (March 1999). "Growing Intolerance Threatens the Humane Jewish Tradition" . Washington Report on Middle East Affairs: 84–89. Retrieved 2011-04-11.
^ a b Emran Qureshi, Michael Anthony Sells (2003). The new crusades: constructing the Muslim enemy. Columbia University Press. p. 129. ISBN 0-231-12667-0.

Well, you've certainly done a bang up job of sourcing your previous quote by adding some completely unrelated quote instead. Two thumbs up.

[Gothicshark]

Gothicshark you just make the stereotypes about jews come truth. That's a shame, I thought you weren't on that level.

Oh well, that's it I guess. You think you know something about Muslims/Islam/Situation on the Middle East, but reading your posts is almost like watching fox news.

---------- Post added 2012-09-19 at 06:08 AM ----------

I honestly am lost at words... how can you lie with such proficiency?

How can you be this dishonest to every person on this board?

Wow... Just wow.

1. you do not know me. Do not assume anything about me.
2. I almost married a Muslim from Iran, sadly it was their family not mine that had an issue.
3. I am a screaming Liberal, and a realist. You are so filled with only one side of the story you can't see the lies anymore. If I want to quote someone, I show the video of them saying it, otherwise it never happened. This is the internet I can pull up false quotes all day long. "That was a big wiener!" - Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (24 May 2008) just because I say its a quote doesn't make it real. Same with newspaper headlines.

Doesn't make it real.
4. Your constant hate for Jewish people is clear, I do not hate Muslims, I hate all fundamental religions, especially any that advocate violence, which Islam does.
5. Notice when talking Radicals I call them Islam, and when I talk about Muslims I use a different tone. This is not an accident. I am making it clear it is not all Muslims, only Islamic Fundamentalists. I also hate Westboro Baptist Church, but not all Christians. Hell my mother converted to Baptist in 1980 (as I said ancestrally Jewish not religious)
6. Also I am a LGBT person and any nation which says I should die because of how I was born really gets under my skin.

---------- Post added 2012-09-18 at 11:39 PM ----------

**wikiquote**
-

Oh God guys, we better destroy Iran, it's too dangerous for all of the world THEY BE TERRURIRSTS I TELL U !!!111

You realize that Wikipedia is not a creditable source right? no respected university in the nation will accept a wiki quote reference especially in material used for debates or scientific inquest.

see: http://www.dukechronicle.com/article...pedia-resource

Also until 50 years after the fact you will not know what the American Intelligence community has unless there is a public inquiry by the Senate.
Also since I date Iranians often I would definitely not want America to go to war there, also I would hate it if Isreal did a first strike. The majority of Iranians are Muslim, and are tired of the totalitarian Islamic rule. On a side note Iran does 1 good thing which I find rather Amazing really, LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bi Trans) sure if you are LGB you risk being hung, but male T's can have gender reassignment on the cost of the state. So in this Iran is the most T friendly nation in radical Islam.

[Mormolyce]

Actually, with the exception of Iran and Iraq, the countries that are most friendly to the West tend to be the ones with the most oil. The ones we have problems with are the ones that don't have oil.

Heh, the people who are in power in those countries are friendly to us. Ie, the ones who know which side of their bread is buttered. Example: Saudi Arabia, homeland of Osama bin Laden and 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers. One of America's biggest allies in the Middle East lol. Incidentally, of the remaining 4 there were 2 from the UAE, 1 from Lebanon and 1 from Egypt. Not one was from any of the countries we actually invaded. And Osama was ultimately killed in Pakistan, another major ally.

So the ones "we have problems with" is kind of a subjective term.

[Deleted]

yet it's the western oil companies that boycott every research regarding alternative energy....welcome to the real world! profit and patriotism cannot coexist.

[Beavis]

Heh, the people who are in power in those countries are friendly to us. Ie, the ones who know which side of their bread is buttered. Example: Saudi Arabia, homeland of Osama bin Laden and 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers. One of America's biggest allies in the Middle East lol. Incidentally, of the remaining 4 there were 2 from the UAE, 1 from Lebanon and 1 from Egypt. Not one was from any of the countries we actually invaded. And Osama was ultimately killed in Pakistan, another major ally.

So the ones "we have problems with" is kind of a subjective term.

I'm sure the opinion of an entire nation can be discerned from the decade old actions of some tiny fraction of it's population. Wake me up when our embassy in Riyadh or the Abu Dhabi is attacked by an angry mob of Salafists.

[Deleted]

This escalated pretty quickly. This might have been an interesting subject for discussion, but there is simply too much discussion of religion (something which the site rules list as a topic which should not be discussed on the forums) to keep it open. The bringing up of religion in the OP didn't help to guide the thread down a constructive path.

Closing.