GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum
Page 2 of 3 < 1 2 3 >
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum (https://gfy.com/index.php)
-   Fucking Around & Business Discussion (https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   Who thinks Israel and Iran will start to launch missiles at each other ? (https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=1047737)

halfpint 11-30-2011 03:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by L-Pink (Post 18595775)
How about tonight? I'll go out and buy some candles. Shave my balls and make a pitcher of appletinis.
Sounds good to me :thumbsup should we invite Juicy and make it a threesome two pairs of shaved balls is better than one pair Im think I could handle both

moeloubani 11-30-2011 03:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by L-Pink (Post 18595682)
Anyone that thinks the way we defeated Japan in WW2 was a terrorist action is an idiot.

.
Quote:
Definition for terrorist attack:
Web definitions:
a surprise attack involving the deliberate use of violence against civilians in the hope of attaining political or religious aims.
I don't know why you would call someone an idiot if all they are doing is using the definition of terrorist attack to call a terrorist attack a terrorist attack.

Don't be mad at me, be mad at the English language and the US for launching the largest terrorist attack ever.

cordoba 11-30-2011 03:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucy - CSC (Post 18595249)
Iran hasnt attacked anyone for over 300 years. They are a threat to nobody. Israel will probably shoot a few missles at themselves and then attack Iran pretending it is in self defense.




They are doing their best to kick start a war with America fighting it for them.
For most of the last 300 years they were surrounded and dominated by the British, Ottoman, and Russian empires. Still managed the odd incursion into India.

L-Pink 11-30-2011 03:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by moeloubani (Post 18595936)
I don't know why you would call someone an idiot if all they are doing is using the definition of terrorist attack to call a terrorist attack a terrorist attack.

Don't be mad at me, be mad at the English language and the US for launching the largest terrorist attack ever.
Bombing Japan was not a terrorist attack. Idiot.

.

moeloubani 11-30-2011 04:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by L-Pink (Post 18595953)
Bombing Japan was not a terrorist attack. Idiot.

.
Why not? It fits the definition of a terrorist attack perfectly.

Just you saying it wasn't doesn't make that true. The attack fitting the definition of a terrorist attack exactly does make it a terrorist attack.

cordoba 11-30-2011 04:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by moeloubani (Post 18595961)
Why not? It fits the definition of a terrorist attack perfectly.

Just you saying it wasn't doesn't make that true. The attack fitting the definition of a terrorist attack exactly does make it a terrorist attack.
Agreed.

Whether or not it was justified, killing 100,000 civilians for no other purpose but to terrorise the population into submitting is terrorism.

MetaMan 11-30-2011 04:11 PM
Fuck Israel. War mongering fucks.

The Torah says that the jews should not return to the homeland until God comes and tells them so. Good thing they can use the "holy land" and religion to benefit themselves whenever they want.

Grapesoda 11-30-2011 04:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by halfpint (Post 18592802)
Just been reading this on RT

So who thinks this will end up with these two slinging missiles at each other ?


Iran threatens 150,000 missile response to Israeli Jerichos

Saber-rattling rhetoric in the Middle East is reaching new heights. Israel is reportedly deploying its long-range Jericho missiles around Jerusalem, while the Iranian defense minister threatened massive missile retaliation against Israel.
The threat to launch ?150,000 or more? missiles was voiced by Brigadier General Ahmad Vahidi on Sunday as he was delivering a speech before army volunteers. Earlier Iranian officials threatened retaliation against both Israel and NATO, should an attack on Iran be carried out.

Meanwhile Israel is reportedly deploying its own missiles around Jerusalem and in the West Bank. The missiles carried into position by military tracks resemble the Jericho missiles, says Aaron Klein, head of the Jerusalem bureau for WorldNetDaily, citing several eyewitness accounts.

More here

http://rt.com/news/missile-tossing-iran-israel-457/
persian hasn't won a war since BEFORE 490bc

Caligari 11-30-2011 04:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bm bradley (Post 18595994)
persian hasn't won a war since BEFORE 490bc
Which is not a long period of time considering the beginning of humankind when aliens came down and diddled apes;)

.

porno jew 11-30-2011 04:28 PM
just because i want to define "apple" as "a mechanical device used to toast bread, especially by exposure to electrically heated wire coils" does not make it true.

Just Alex 11-30-2011 04:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by L-Pink (Post 18595953)
Bombing Japan was not a terrorist attack. Idiot.

.
Sure it was, idiot

Terrorism is the systematic use of terror, especially as a means of coercion. In the international community, however, terrorism has no universally agreed, legally binding, criminal law definition.[1][2] Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for a religious, political or, ideological goal..

It cause nothing but TERROR in Japan and around the world.

CDSmith 11-30-2011 04:34 PM
Fifty pointless wars.

datingleads 11-30-2011 04:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by moeloubani (Post 18595961)
Why not? It fits the definition of a terrorist attack perfectly.

Just you saying it wasn't doesn't make that true. The attack fitting the definition of a terrorist attack exactly does make it a terrorist attack.
Ever thought about how many lives would have been lost if the nukes hadn't been dropped?

Just Alex 11-30-2011 04:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by porno jew (Post 18596017)
just because i want to define "apple" as "a mechanical device used to toast bread, especially by exposure to electrically heated wire coils" does not make it true.
All depends who makes up that definition and makes it true or not.
Im sure if Jews got atomic bomb dropped on them we would never hear the end of it. Somehow Japas moved on and we don;t hear them bitching about it on every occasion.

porno jew 11-30-2011 04:41 PM
Nonetheless, Hoffman himself believes it is possible to identify some key characteristics of terrorism. He proposes that:
By distinguishing terrorists from other types of criminals and terrorism from other forms of crime, we come to appreciate that terrorism is :
ineluctably political in aims and motives
violent ? or, equally important, threatens violence
designed to have far-reaching psychological repercussions beyond the immediate victim or target
conducted by an organization with an identifiable chain of command or conspiratorial cell structure (whose members wear no uniform or identifying insignia) and
perpetrated by a subnational group or non-state entity.

Just Alex 11-30-2011 04:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by porno jew (Post 18596047)
Nonetheless, Hoffman himself believes it is possible to identify some key characteristics of terrorism. He proposes that:
By distinguishing terrorists from other types of criminals and terrorism from other forms of crime, we come to appreciate that terrorism is :
ineluctably political in aims and motives
violent – or, equally important, threatens violence
designed to have far-reaching psychological repercussions beyond the immediate victim or target
conducted by an organization with an identifiable chain of command or conspiratorial cell structure (whose members wear no uniform or identifying insignia) and
perpetrated by a subnational group or non-state entity.
Really, one of of looking at at.. Oh and how great, that excludes any wrong doing by jewish state or United states. But right below it and more importantly:

A definition proposed by Carsten Bockstette at the George C. Marshall Center for European Security Studies, underlines the psychological and tactical aspects of terrorism:

Quote:
Terrorism is defined as political violence in an asymmetrical conflict that is designed to induce terror and psychic fear (sometimes indiscriminate) through the violent victimization and destruction of noncombatant targets (sometimes iconic symbols). Such acts are meant to send a message from an illicit clandestine organization. The purpose of terrorism is to exploit the media in order to achieve maximum attainable publicity as an amplifying force multiplier in order to influence the targeted audience(s) in order to reach short- and midterm political goals and/or desired long-term end states

Just Alex 11-30-2011 04:49 PM
Im sure porno Jew and Super Bozo know a lot more than this idiot but I'll quote this chump anyway. Btw, P-Jew you do have science degree, right?

Quote:
State terrorism has been used to refer to terrorist acts by governmental agents or forces. This involves the use of state resources employed by a state's foreign policies, such as using its military to directly perform acts of terrorism. Professor of Political Science Michael Stohl cites the examples that include Germany?s bombing of London and the U.S. atomic destruction of Hiroshima during World War II. He argues that ?the use of terror tactics is common in international relations and the state has been and remains a more likely employer of terrorism within the international system than insurgents." They also cite the First strike option as an example of the "terror of coercive diplomacy" as a form of this, which holds the world hostage with the implied threat of using nuclear weapons in "crisis management." They argue that the institutionalized form of terrorism has occurred as a result of changes that took place following World War II. In this analysis, state terrorism exhibited as a form of foreign policy was shaped by the presence and use of weapons of mass destruction, and that the legitimizing of such violent behavior led to an increasingly accepted form of this state behavior

Dcat 11-30-2011 04:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Richard_ (Post 18595881)
one could say they created this very mess
Sure, if by "they" you mean British Petroleum.

When the Iranians "elected" Mosaddeq, he threw Anglo-Iranian (British Petroleum) out of the country. Anglo-Iranian had controlled Iran's oil industry since 1913, under terms very disadvantageous to Iran, and to top it off, they were also stealing a lot of the oil too.

It wasn't long after Mosaddeq threw them out (and nationalized Anglo-Iranian) that Anglo-Iranian (BP) orchestrated a MI5/CIA coup against him to take back control of the oil. They then installed the Western puppet Shah, and under Anglo-Iranian's orders had Mosaddeq tried as a traitor, imprisoned him for 3 years, and put him under house arrest until his death.

After the Iranians ousted the Shah in 1979, and got back control of their country/oil, they have been fighting to keep it from Western interests ever since.

Now British Petroleum wants control of that oil back. :Graucho

porno jew 11-30-2011 04:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Alex (Post 18596063)
Im sure porno Jew and Super Bozo know a lot more than this idiot but I'll quote this chump anyway. Btw, P-Jew you do have science degree, right?
argumentum ad verecundiam.

Just Alex 11-30-2011 05:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by porno jew (Post 18596076)
argumentum ad verecundiam.
Ironically.. Perfected by your people.. :1orglaugh

Caligari 11-30-2011 05:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by porno jew (Post 18596017)
just because i want to define "apple" as "a mechanical device used to toast bread, especially by exposure to electrically heated wire coils" does not make it true.
http://www.appletoaster.com/wp-conte...letoaster2.jpg

btw Hoffman is a fucking spook, perfectly qualified to define terrorism.


.

Fletch XXX 11-30-2011 05:43 PM
lol @ toaster

moeloubani 11-30-2011 06:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by porno jew (Post 18596017)
just because i want to define "apple" as "a mechanical device used to toast bread, especially by exposure to electrically heated wire coils" does not make it true.
not my definition it's what came up when i searched define: terrorist attack

porno jew 11-30-2011 06:09 PM
your definition is simplistic and misleading.

porno jew 11-30-2011 06:10 PM
it's pointless to argue over since there are literally hundreds of definitions.

moeloubani 11-30-2011 06:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by porno jew (Post 18596198)
your definition is simplistic and misleading.
Quote:
Originally Posted by porno jew (Post 18596200)
it's pointless to argue over since there are literally hundreds of definitions.
Again it isn't my definition. It is the first one I saw the first one Google brings up when I search for a definition of 'terrorist attack'. You're right it is pointless to argue especially when one of us just takes the first one he sees and the other goes out to find one that agrees with what he thinks.

Solace 11-30-2011 06:47 PM
I would be looking to the side giving their missile's religious names as the instigating party. It is time people look at things a bit more objectively. That and calm the fuck down.

Rochard 11-30-2011 06:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Alex (Post 18596026)
Sure it was, idiot

Terrorism is the systematic use of terror, especially as a means of coercion. In the international community, however, terrorism has no universally agreed, legally binding, criminal law definition.[1][2] Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for a religious, political or, ideological goal..

It cause nothing but TERROR in Japan and around the world.
There is a staggering difference between a terrorist act and a world war. Defining terrorism as "violent acts which are intended to create fear" is way too vague.

This would mean that any time a husband smacks his wife, it's a terrorist incident - which clearly it is not. At the same time, any type of warfare would be considered a terrorist act. Clearly, during WWII when we bombed a factory that build ball bearings for tanks this was a military action, not a an act of terrorism.

Did it cause terror in Japan and around the world? It sure did. But so did Sputnik.

Just Alex 11-30-2011 07:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard (Post 18596265)
There is a staggering difference between a terrorist act and a world war. Defining terrorism as "violent acts which are intended to create fear" is way too vague.

This would mean that any time a husband smacks his wife, it's a terrorist incident - which clearly it is not. At the same time, any type of warfare would be considered a terrorist act. Clearly, during WWII when we bombed a factory that build ball bearings for tanks this was a military action, not a an act of terrorism.

Did it cause terror in Japan and around the world? It sure did. But so did Sputnik.
Last timed I checked Sputnik did not kill thousands of people and damaged lives of unborn generations. Thats like comparing September 11th attack and microwaves. But hey, that GFY - board that is filled with keyboard geniuses.

Rochard 11-30-2011 07:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by moeloubani (Post 18595923)
I guess my sarcasm flew right over your head.
It sure did.

Quote:
Originally Posted by moeloubani (Post 18595923)
I meant that as a retort to you saying that just killing people ends the problems they cause.
Very true. If the Iranians kill the Jews and the Jews kill the Iranians, I guess they won't be fighting any more.

Quote:
Originally Posted by moeloubani (Post 18595923)
Israel threatens Iran more often than Iran threatens Israel. When is the last time Israel was attacked by Iran? Nuclear scientists have been assassinated in Iran by Israelis but when did Iranians kill an Israeli? Whose threats do you take more seriously, Iran, a country that hasn't started a war in ages and has no nuclear weapons or Israel, a country that is constantly at war, constantly doing things that are in violation of international law and and a country that threatens the entire world with its destruction should they fall (saying specifically they have nuclear missiles aimed at Europe)?
I don't recall ever hearing the Prime Minster or President of Israel threatening Iran with it's destruction. Can you show me, from a real news source, where either one said that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by moeloubani (Post 18595923)

But what is especially funny is that you are making fun of Iran for saying 150,000,000 missiles when they didn't say that at all. Learn to read and especially learn to read before you start using a point in an argument.
Holy fucking shit - did you really say I need to learn to read? Clearly you didn't read the news yesterday:

Quote:
Iranian Defense Minister General Ahmad Vahidi said Israel would be attacked with 150,000 missiles if it launches any military action against the Islamic Republic, the Iran Independent News Service reported Sunday.

Speaking before 50,000 army volunteers in Bushehr, the minister said "Iran is not Iraq or Afghanistan, if the Americans make the mistake and attack Iran, we will show them how to fight,? adding ?Israel has to be punished for what it has done to the Muslims in Palestine and Lebanon."
(news link)

Trust me when I tell you, I know how to read. I'm pretty fucking confident that I have more college degrees than you.

Rochard 11-30-2011 07:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Alex (Post 18596278)
Last timed I checked Sputnik did not kill thousands of people and damaged lives of unborn generations. Thats like comparing September 11th attack and microwaves. But hey, that GFY - board that is filled with keyboard geniuses.
I was mocking you.

By your definition, smacking my wife is a violent act that puts fear in her. I'm going to do that tonight when I smack her ass with my hand. Does that make me a terrorist?

Just Alex 11-30-2011 07:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard (Post 18596291)
I was mocking you.

By your definition, smacking my wife is a violent act that puts fear in her. I'm going to do that tonight when I smack her ass with my hand. Does that make me a terrorist?
Its not my definition, you dolt.
Some professor of science defined it for simpletons like yourself. :1orglaugh

And smacking wife is called spousal abuse, but you would call it family therapy and education.... Unless its one of your people that's getting smacked around.

Redrob 11-30-2011 08:44 PM
Personally, I'd watch my skies very closely if I was Iran.

The major Western powers have recalled their ambassadors.....and, I presume their families.......and, informed staff members.

If all is too quiet, be sure to watch the skies.

k_rock 11-30-2011 09:19 PM
This better not happen because this could divide my beer league soccer team in two factions. Persians and Jews be kickin ass on the pitch.

Rochard 11-30-2011 09:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Alex (Post 18596299)
Its not my definition, you dolt.
Some professor of science defined it for simpletons like yourself. :1orglaugh

And smacking wife is called spousal abuse, but you would call it family therapy and education.... Unless its one of your people that's getting smacked around.
The original post I quoted you said "terrorism has no universally agreed, legally binding, criminal law definition.". That's just the problem. Terrorism has no real definition, and it's definition changes from country to country and even further depending on what side your on.

But you cannot call a military force bombing a country that it's at war at an act of terrorism. Smacking around your wife is spousal abuse, not terrorism, and bombing a city is an act of war. The surprise attack on Pearl Harbor wasn't a terrorist attack; It was a military strike against a military target. Hiroshima was an Army depot, and Nagasaki had important war related industrial targets including factories building bombs and naval ordnance, as well as other military equipment.

When a military force drops a bomb it's not an act of terrorism, it's a act of war.

Learn the difference.

moeloubani 11-30-2011 10:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard (Post 18596282)
It sure did.



Very true. If the Iranians kill the Jews and the Jews kill the Iranians, I guess they won't be fighting any more.



I don't recall ever hearing the Prime Minster or President of Israel threatening Iran with it's destruction. Can you show me, from a real news source, where either one said that.



Holy fucking shit - did you really say I need to learn to read? Clearly you didn't read the news yesterday:



(news link)

Trust me when I tell you, I know how to read. I'm pretty fucking confident that I have more college degrees than you.
:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Here is some examples of Israel threatening Iran:

http://edition.presstv.ir/detail/63279.html
http://news.antiwar.com/2011/02/16/i...warship-claim/
http://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/i...hp?q=node/5644
http://articles.cnn.com/2008-06-06/w...ns?_s=PM:WORLD
http://www.infowars.com/israels-peres-threatens-iran/
http://rinf.com/alt-news/politics/is...truction/2913/
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...396791,00.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ear-plans.html

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard (Post 18596474)
The original post I quoted you said "terrorism has no universally agreed, legally binding, criminal law definition.". That's just the problem. Terrorism has no real definition, and it's definition changes from country to country and even further depending on what side your on.

But you cannot call a military force bombing a country that it's at war at an act of terrorism. Smacking around your wife is spousal abuse, not terrorism, and bombing a city is an act of war. The surprise attack on Pearl Harbor wasn't a terrorist attack; It was a military strike against a military target. Hiroshima was an Army depot, and Nagasaki had important war related industrial targets including factories building bombs and naval ordnance, as well as other military equipment.

When a military force drops a bomb it's not an act of terrorism, it's a act of war.

Learn the difference.
Of course Pearl Harbor wasn't a terrorist attack, it was a military installation that was attacked. Hiroshima and Nagasaki may have had factories in them that made weapons but just because some guy in New York is making shell casings it doesn't make a nuclear attack on New York and the resulting civilian casualties justified.

An attack on civilians with the intent to terrorize them or their government into doing something is a terrorist attack in war or outside of war it doesn't matter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard (Post 18595735)
What did Iran threaten this morning? That they will destroy Israel with one hundred and fifty million missiles? That's sheer comedy right there. I don't think all of the countries in the world have one hundred and fifty million missiles combined, but it's comical how they beat their chests like cavemen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard (Post 18596282)
Holy fucking shit - did you really say I need to learn to read? Clearly you didn't read the news yesterday:

(news link)

Trust me when I tell you, I know how to read. I'm pretty fucking confident that I have more college degrees than you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard (Post 18596282)
Quote:
150,000 Iran missiles awaiting to welcome Israel
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard (Post 18595735)
What did Iran threaten this morning? That they will destroy Israel with one hundred and fifty million missiles? That's sheer comedy right there. I don't think all of the countries in the world have one hundred and fifty million missiles combined, but it's comical how they beat their chests like cavemen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard (Post 18596282)
Trust me when I tell you, I know how to read.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard (Post 18595735)
one hundred and fifty million missiles
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard (Post 18596282)
Quote:
150,000 Iran missiles awaiting to welcome Israel
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard (Post 18596282)
Holy fucking shit
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard (Post 18596282)
I need to learn to read
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard (Post 18595735)
That's sheer comedy right there.

Just Alex 11-30-2011 10:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard (Post 18596474)
The original post I quoted you said "terrorism has no universally agreed, legally binding, criminal law definition.". That's just the problem. Terrorism has no real definition, and it's definition changes from country to country and even further depending on what side your on.

But you cannot call a military force bombing a country that it's at war at an act of terrorism. Smacking around your wife is spousal abuse, not terrorism, and bombing a city is an act of war. The surprise attack on Pearl Harbor wasn't a terrorist attack; It was a military strike against a military target. Hiroshima was an Army depot, and Nagasaki had important war related industrial targets including factories building bombs and naval ordnance, as well as other military equipment.

When a military force drops a bomb it's not an act of terrorism, it's a act of war.

Learn the difference.
Dumbo, Its not me who needs to learn something...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism

Quote:
Professor of Political Science Michael Stohl cites the examples that include Germany?s bombing of London and the U.S. atomic destruction of Hiroshima during World War II. He argues that ?the use of terror tactics is common in international relations and the state has been and remains a more likely employer of terrorism within the international system than insurgents." They also cite the First strike option as an example of the "terror of coercive diplomacy" as a form of this, which holds the world hostage with the implied threat of using nuclear weapons in "crisis management."

Dooooh

http://whatwouldmomsay.com/blog/wp-c...-retarded2.jpg

Rochard 11-30-2011 10:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Alex (Post 18596532)
So because one professor says so I have to believe him?

If that's the case, then every bomb any country has ever dropped has been a terrorist act - and a lot of people are in trouble.

moeloubani 11-30-2011 11:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard (Post 18596539)
So because one professor says so I have to believe him?

If that's the case, then every bomb any country has ever dropped has been a terrorist act - and a lot of people are in trouble.
Every bomb with the intention to kill and terrorize civilians is a terrorist attack.

Just Alex 11-30-2011 11:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard (Post 18596539)
So because one professor says so I have to believe him?

If that's the case, then every bomb any country has ever dropped has been a terrorist act - and a lot of people are in trouble.
Oh no, no, no, no... Because you said it WE have to believe it. Remind me what kind of degree in Political Science you have? Oh wait, your degree came with catchy phrase "Would you like some fries with that ?". :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Good bye, I'm done with you.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:37 AM.
Page 2 of 3 < 1 2 3 >
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123