[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Thanks Chu, I agree with you but I’ve yet to be called “trick” and have an inane hip hop video posted at me. :)[/quote]
Well you’ll know you’ve arrived when that happens to you.[/quote]
That would be good but I’m kinda hoping my excessive hostility may yet earn me a Louis Farrakhan sermon.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]method_man wrote:
It’s annoying how the rest of the world eggs us on (us being the US) to fight countries that do not directly threaten American citizens.
[/quote]
Who’s ‘egging you on’ dickhead? Evidence or fuck off.
It’s come out that the highest officials in Sharon’s government advised Bush AGAINST invading Iraq in 2003. I already told you this dickhead. Address the evidence I have provided or fuck off.[/quote]
Telling me to fuck off. That wasn’t very “white” of you, lol. Do you want to debate or just insult me and use profanity at me from the safety of your keyboard?
Actually I did post an article, but lets examine yours:
First off Sharon didn’t make a public statement either way. So here we have some second hand things he supposedly say:
Publicly, Sharon played the silent ally; he neither criticized nor supported the Iraq adventure. One reason for his relative silence was Washingtonâ??s explicit request that Israel refrain from openly backing its invasion of an Arab country or in any way intervening, lest its blessing damn the United States in Arab eyes.
But sometime prior to March 2003, Sharon told Bush privately in no uncertain terms what he thought about the Iraq plan. Sharonâ??s words â?? revealed here for the first time â?? constituted a friendly but pointed warning to Bush. Sharon acknowledged that Saddam Hussein was an â??acute threatâ?? to the Middle East and that he believed Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction.
Yet according to one knowledgeable source, Sharon nevertheless advised Bush not to occupy Iraq. According to another source â?? Danny Ayalon, who was Israelâ??s ambassador to the United States at the time of the Iraq invasion, and who sat in on the Bush-Sharon meetings â?? Sharon told Bush that Israel would not â??push one way or anotherâ?? regarding the Iraq scheme.
According to both sources, Sharon warned Bush that if he insisted on occupying Iraq, he should at least abandon his plan to implant democracy in this part of the world. â??In terms of culture and tradition, the Arab world is not built for democratization,â?? Ayalon recalls Sharon advising.
Be sure, Sharon added, not to go into Iraq without a viable exit strategy. And ready a counter-insurgency strategy if you expect to rule Iraq, which will eventually have to be partitioned into its component parts. Finally, Sharon told Bush, please remember that you will conquer, occupy and leave, but we have to remain in this part of the world. Israel, he reminded the American president, does not wish to see its vital interests hurt by regional radicalization and the spillover of violence beyond Iraqâ??s borders.
Sharonâ??s advice â?? reflecting a wealth of experience with Middle East issues that Bush lacked â?? was prescient. The American occupation of Iraq has ended up strengthening Iran, Israelâ??s number-one enemy, and enfranchising militant Shiâ??ite Islamists. A large part of Iraq is slipping into the Iranian orbit. Iraqâ??s western Anbar Province is increasingly dominated by militant jihadi Sunnis who could eventually threaten Syria and Jordan, the latter a strategic partner and geographic buffer for Israel.
If he really said that, he was onto something, but I think there is more evidence here:
http://www.codoh.com/zionweb/zionpgiraq.html
Did the Zionist Lobby Drive the U.S. Into the Iraq War?
By Paul Grubach
At a March 3, 2003 anti-war forum in Reston, Virginia, Rep. James Moran (D-Va.) told a crowd of about 120 people, “If it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq, we [the United States] would not be doing this.”
The White House, several congressional Democratic leaders, the Republican Jewish Coalition, and the National Jewish Democratic Council condemned Moran’s remarks. Much of the mainstream media also chimed in with their condemnations of the seven-term congressman, and ultimately, he was forced to apologize.
In the 3/24/05 issue of the widely circulated and highly influential US News and World Report, editorialist Gloria Borger criticized Moran and attempted to rebut his claims.1 The article is very important because it expresses in a very simple way the ideological line put out by much of the mainstream media as to why, allegedly, one should not blame the Jewish-Zionist lobby for helping to drive the US into the Iraq war.
As we shall soon see, it was in fact the Jewish-Zionist power elite and their Gentile allies that were behind this push for war with Iraq. Although the evidence in support of this claim is abundant, it is rarely discussed in the mainstream US media tribute to the ability of the Jewish-Zionist power elite to tailor and even censor the news.
Before reading my rebuttal, I strongly urge the reader to study the Borger article so as to get a first hand understanding of her arguments. The essay begins by giving an account of what was said by critics of the Iraq war, like Congressman Moran and Pat Buchanan, about Jewish-Zionist involvement in the drive for an invasion of Iraq. In a tone of condemnation, Ms. Borger sarcastically claims: “In this conspiratorial world view, these men [the Jewish, neoconservative Iraq war architects] have a master plan connived years ago to do Israel’s bidding and get rid of Saddam Hussein.”
The major architect of the Iraq war, Paul Wolfowitz, did formulate a plan to invade Iraq years before it took place in 2003. In 1977, Wolfowitz was put to work on the Limited Contingency Study. Its ostensible purpose was to examine possible areas of threat in the Third World. Even as far back as the late 1970s, he claimed Iraq was a direct military threat. As Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia points out, the Limited Contingency Study laid the groundwork for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.2
The respected online source further points out that Wolfowitz’s attachments to Jewish-Zionist agendas are deep and go back a long way, even into his teen years good evidence that his plan for a US invasion of Iraq and the interests of Israel are linked.3
Borger herself offers evidence that these pro-war functionaries had a plan to invade Iraq years before the actual invasion took place. She writes: “But what of those Jewish neoconservative hawks lurking inside the [Bush] administration? Didn’t some of them write memos in the late 1990s calling for, among other things, the overthrow of Saddam? Yes.” Thank you Ms. Borger for bolstering my case.
Borger mentions Pat Buchanan’s comments in a very negative tone: “…it was a polemic in his magazine declaring that a small cabal of neoconservatives with ties to the administration are willing to ‘conscript American blood to make the world safe for Israel’.” In her view, Buchanan’s statements are self-evidently false, and they should be utterly rejected by every intelligent American
The war is in fact to a very large extent about Israel interests, as before the war began, former Supreme Allied NATO Commander, General Wesley Clark, admitted as much to a respected British news source. He acknowledged that President George W. Bush’s war plans serve, first and foremost, Jewish-Zionist interests. Being privy to the thoughts and beliefs of those in the highest levels of government, his comments carry authoritative weight: "Those who favor this attack now tell you candidly, and privately, that it is probably true that Saddam Hussein is no threat to the United States. But they are afraid at some point he might decide if he had a nuclear weapon to use it against Israel."4
Furthermore, after the war was in progress, the American general in charge of American forces in Iraq, General Tommy Franks, revealed that the protection of Israel was a major reason as to why the US went to war. In the words of a Jewish Telegraphic Agency press release: “The threat of a missile attack on Israel was one reason justifying a pre-emptive strike against Iraq, Gen. Tommy Franks said.” 5
Borger continues. “Never mind that if it were up to the Israelis, the United States would be looking toward regime change in Iran or Syria.” In other words, the invasion of Iraq is not about Israel’s interests, because the Israelis would want the US to take action against Iran or Syria.
The Israelis were, and are, in fact pushing for US action against Iran. For example, in the June 25, 2003 issue of the pro-Zionist and highly influential Wall Street Journal, former prime minister of Israel Shimon Peres insisted that the US, Europe, Russia and the U.N. should take serious action against the Iranian nation.6 The Jewish-Zionist ADL, which is a de facto agent of Israel, is now pushing for the world to act against Iran.7
Borger continues. “And never mind that this cabal is actually a bunch of predictable hawks who also urged action in Kosovo and Bosnia on behalf of Muslims. Forget all that.”
Here, I believe, is a formal statement of her argument. “These (largely Jewish) neoconservatives pushed for military action in Kosovo and Bosnia aggressive military actions that in no way serve Israel’s interests. Therefore, it is not fair to say that they pushed for military action against Iraq for Israel’s interests.”
This is highly misleading, if not patently false. The Jewish political scientist, Benjamin Freedman, revealed a major facet of the neoconservative agenda. He pointed out how in recent times Jews have played a decisive role in conservative Republicanism and neo-conservatism. Ginsberg reveals what lies behind the conservative mask: “A number of Jews ascertained for themselves that Israeli security required a strong American commitment to internationalism and defense. Among the most prominent Jewish spokesman for this position was Norman Podhoretz, editor of Commentary Magazine. Podhoretz had been a liberal and a strong opponent of the Vietnam War. But by the early 1970s he came to realize that continued American support for Israel depended upon continued American involvement in international affairs - from which it followed that American withdrawal into [isolationism] represented a direct threat to the security of Israel. This was one major reason that Podhoretz broke with liberals…”
Thus, one of the main contentions of neo-conservatism is that a highly interventionist US foreign policy in areas other than the Middle East will safeguard the interests of Israel. If the US pursues an overall interventionist foreign policy it will be more likely to intervene on Israel’s behalf if the Zionist nation needs it.
This evidence directly undermines Borger’s claim. Just because the hawkish neocons advocated military action in Kosovo and Bosnia "military actions that do not overtly serve Israel’s interests in no way disproves the theory that their advocacy of the US invasion of Iraq was for Israel’s welfare. Their overall aggressive, interventionist agenda in areas other than the Middle East is ultimately tied to the welfare of Israel.
In her ongoing attempt to discredit the theory that the Zionist lobby drove the US into the Iraq war, she asks this rhetorical question: “Still, doesn’t Bush’s long-standing preference for Sharon have more to do with his disgust with Yasser Arafat than his deep affection for Richard Perle?”
Bush’s dislike of Yasser Arafat may have played a role in driving him into the neoconservative camp, but monetary contributions from Jewish Republicans undoubtedly also played a role in driving him into the pro-Iraq war, pro-Zionist camp. As Jewish scholars S.M. Lipset and E. Raab note, one quarter of Republican Party contributions come from Jewish sources.9
Furthermore, Bush’s main advisors and top men are members of the ardently pro-Zionist, pro-Israel Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA). Undoubtedly this also played a significant role in prodding Bush to accept Richard Perle’s Zionist agenda for Iraq.
The distinguished British journalist, Robert Fisk, pointed out in the respected British news source, The Independent, that: “Only The Nation among all of America’s newspapers and magazines has dared to point out that a large number of former Israeli lobbyists are now working within the American administration, and the Bush plans for the Middle East–which could cause a massive political upheaval in the Arab world–fit perfectly into Israel’s own dreams for the region. The magazine listed Vice-President Dick Cheney–the arch-hawk in the US administration–and John Bolton, now undersecretary of state for Arms Control, with Douglas Feith, the third most senior executive at the Pentagon, as members of the advisory board of the pro-Israeli Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (Jinsa) before joining the Bush government. Richard Perle, chairman of the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board, is still an adviser on the institute, as is the former CIA director James Woolsey.”
Fisk continues: “Michael Ledeen, described by The Nation as one of the most influential ‘Jinsans’ in Washington, has been calling for ‘total war’ against ‘terror’–with ‘regime change’ for Syria, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the Palestinian Authority. Mr. Perle advises the Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld–who refers to the West Bank and Gaza as ‘the so-called occupied territories’…”
Continuing with this line of thought, Fisk adds: "Jinsa’s website says it exists to ‘inform the American defense and foreign affairs community about the important role Israel can and does play in bolstering democratic interests in the Mediterranean and Middle East’. Next month, Michael Rubin of the right-wing and pro-Israeli American Enterprise Institute–who referred to the outgoing UN human rights commissioner Mary Robinson as an abettor of ‘terrorism’–joins the US Defense Department as an Iran-Iraq “expert.”
Fisk then reveals the Jewish director of Jinsa: “According to The Nation, Irving Moskovitz, the California bingo magnate who has funded settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories, is a donor as well as director of Jinsa.”
Finally, Fisk points out that President Bush will not reveal to the American public the influence Jinsa has on his foreign policy: "President Bush, of course, will not be talking about the influence of these pro-Israeli lobbyists when he presents his vision of the Middle East at the United Nations…"10
In her further attempt to disprove the hypothesis that Bush and his pro-Zionist colleagues lied the American public into the Iraq war, she proclaims: “Let’s face it: Bush is no conniving conspirator. If anything, he’s a deeply unsubtle man who forms visceral and stubborn assessments of leaders” and Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong II are at the top of his bad-guys list.
Contrary to what she writes, new evidence suggests that Bush is indeed a conniving conspirator that attempted to lie us into the Iraq war. According to a recent AFP press report: “US military intelligence warned the Bush administration in February 2002 that its key source on Al-Qaeda’s relationship with Iraq had provided ‘intentionally misleading data,’ according to a declassified report.”
The article continues: “Nevertheless, eight months later, President George W. Bush went public with charges that the Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein had trained members of Osama bin Laden’s terror network in manufacturing deadly poisons and gases.”
Commenting upon this sad state of affairs, Democrat Carl Levin was forced by the evidence to state the obvious: “This newly declassified information provides additional dramatic evidence that the administrations pre-war statements were deceptive.” 11
Furthermore, Kim Jong II’s North Korea, a dangerous enemy of the US, has publicly admitted that they have nuclear weapons.12 Yet, Bush did not order an invasion of North Korea. But Bush did order an invasion of Hussein’s Iraq, “a nation that did not have nuclear weapons that could threaten the US. The one country that Hussein’s Iraq did pose a threat to was Israel,” further evidence that Bush’s pro-war Iraq policy serves the interests of Israel.
Once again, in an attempt to discredit the hypothesis that the Zionist lobby prodded the US into the Iraq war, Borger claims, with a rhetorical question, that the president’s advisors were not fooled by Zionist functionaries to go to war with Iraq. “Were the president’s top advisers hoodwinked?,” Borger asks.
The president’s top advisers were not “hoodwinked” or “bamboozled” into driving the US into the Iraq war. As we showed previously, these advisers are all men with an ardently pro-Zionist, pro-Israeli outlook, and they are members of the ardently pro-Zionist JINSA. These Bush advisers are actively involved with pro-Zionist interests.13
Borger goes on to quote Saddam’s Deputy Prime Minister, Tariq Aziz: “The reason for this warmongering policy toward Iraq is oil and Israel.”
Aziz has it perfectly correct. One of the main reasons for the war was oil for Israel. From another respected Internet news source, we read: “[The] minister for national infrastructures [of Israel] Joseph Paritzky was considering the possibility of reopening the long-defunct oil pipeline from Mosul to the Mediterranean port of Haifa. With Israel lacking energy resources of its own and depending on highly expensive oil from Russia, reopening the pipeline would transform its economy.”
The article continues: “It is understood from diplomatic sources that the Bush administration has said it will not support lifting UN sanctions on Iraq unless Saddam’s successors agree to supply Israel with oil.” The authors add this most cogent observation: "All of this lends weight to the theory that Bush’s war is part of a master plan to reshape the Middle East to serve Israel’s interests. Haaretz quoted Paritzky as saying that the pipeline project is economically justifiable because it would dramatically reduce Israel’s energy bill."14
Borger then lists what she claims is the real reason why the US went to war with Iraq: “So when a White House aide suggests that this president believes that confronting tyranny is in our interest and coincides with our values, we say there must be more to it. If confronting tyranny is truly the reason as to why Bush wants war, then we should expect that he would have threatened Israel just as ardently that he threatened Iraq. For decades, Israel has exercised tyrannical oppression over the Palestinian people, but Bush has not declared war on Israel. He is allied with Israel.”
If confronting tyranny was a reason as to why Bush goes to war, then we should expect that he would have invaded North Korea, an oppressive Stalinist entity and enemy of the US that does have weapons of mass destruction.15 But Bush never ordered an invasion of North Korea. Of course, North Korea does not directly threaten Israel. Bush chose to invade a nation that did not have any weapons of mass destruction that threaten the US. Saddam’s Iraq posed a threat to Israel. All of this is further evidence that a primary motive to invade Iraq was for Zionist-Israeli interests.
Finally, Borger reveals to her readers “the truth.” Jewish-Zionist forces are not in any way to blame for driving the US into the Iraq war: “Here is what is true: Jewish Americans hold no monolithic view about a possible war with Iraq. One survey conducted by the American Jewish Committee shows that 59 percent of Jews approve of a possible war while 36 percent disapprove, numbers that mirror the public at large.”
Here is what she is arguing. While a majority of Jews were in favor of the war, slightly more than a third of Jews opposed the war. So you cannot blame all Jews for driving the US into the Iraq war. Furthermore, since the relative percentage of Jews who favored the war were similar to the relative percentages of non-Jews who favored going to war with Iraq, you cannot blame the Jewish Community for driving the US into the Iraq war.
Since the Jewish Community in general wields a disproportionate share of the power and influence in the US, it is not fair to compare the percentages of Jews who favored the war with the percentages of non-Jews who favored the war, show they are similar, and then conclude that the Jewish-Zionist lobby played no major role in driving the US into the Iraq war. Since the Jewish-Zionist Community has a disproportionate share of political power and influence in the US, their wishes, activities and agenda often play a more significant role than that of the public at large. So, by the mere fact that a majority in the Jewish Community favored the war is highly significant in a political sense because they have a disproportionate share of the political power in the United States.
In all fairness, it must be emphasized that all American Jews were not and are not in favor of this war, and the entire American Jewish community is not responsible for driving the US into the Iraq war. And furthermore, there are a number of Jews who are ardently opposed to this war and they openly condemn Bush’s pro-war policies. But the fact of the matter remains is that certain powerful groups of Jews with strong Zionist sympathies in collusion with powerful pro-Zionist non-Jews did in fact drive the US into the Iraq war because it served Zionist-Israeli interests.
Borger then goes on to admit that, yes, these Jewish neoconservative hawks did write memos in the late 1990s calling for the overthrow of Saddam’s regime. But these memos, she claims, should not be looked upon as George Bush’s reason and master plan for invading Iraq. According to Borger, they have no significance whatsoever, because George Bush has told the American people that the reason he invaded Iraq was to bring to an end the tyrannical regime of Saddam Hussein for the welfare of the world. To believe otherwise, Borger continues, “is to believe that George Bush is a liar.” According to Borger’s view, Bush is honest and he told the American people the truth as to his real reasons for invading Iraq.
As stated previously, we now have evidence that George Bush’s pre-war statements were knowingly deceptive, and that he may very well have lied the American people into the Iraq war.16
Borger then goes on to quote one of the spokesmen and luminaries of the Jewish-Zionist Community, Elie Wiesel, as to the “real” reason why the US invaded Iraq. The great Holocaust guru argues that appeasing Saddam Hussein would not have led to peace. To the contrary, in order to spare the world further horror and oppression, the US had to destroy Saddam’s regime. In order to bolster his argument, the great moral beacon then invokes the Hitler analogy: “Had Europe’s great powers intervened against Adolf Hitler’s aggressive ambitions in 1938 instead of appeasing him in Munich, humanity would have been spared the unprecedented horrors of World War II.”
As the political psychologist Kevin MacDonald has noted in his work, this is an age-old Jewish tactic clothing sectarian Jewish interests in universalistic moral rhetoric in order to make it more appealing to the non-Jewish world.17 If Wiesel were truly interested in ridding the world of dictatorial oppression, he would be calling for sanctions against his fellow Jews in Israel for their oppression of Palestinians just as he called for war against Hussein’s Iraq.
Gloria Borger’s article shows how pro-Zionist functionaries in the US media mislead and bamboozle their readership in order to protect Jewish-Zionist interests.
http://www.codoh.com/zionweb/zionpgiraq.html
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
No shit. That’s why you should’ve listened to Israel and not invaded Iraq, not intervened in Libya and not ‘egged on’ the fucking Arab Spring. Your own fucking president is responsible for this shit. Not Israel. And who is the “warmonger?” FRANCE is pushing for intervention in Syria. That’s who the warmongers are right now dickhead. Your phoney black President and the French.[/quote]
Unless you are not an American this “black” president is as much yours as he is mine, unless this is your racist insinuation that just because he is “black” he is “my” president? Was Bush a “white” president? And guess what? Both sets of “white” Bush presidents got us involved in these brutal, endless, pointless and debt climbing wars in the first place. At least we agree on the Iraq war being a waste.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]
If you want your country to attack Iran or any other place in the Middle-East, go ahead. So are you Asian or what?
Gee trick, you’re not even original. And some how I picture you speaking vewy vewy ba eeegwish…
Don’t you get it yet dumbfuck? He’s American.[/quote]
Location: Japan. So is he a white boy living in Japan chasing those Asian women because he has a small dick? Ask pushharder, he obviously places his lipstick on it every night.
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]method_man wrote:
It’s annoying how the rest of the world eggs us on (us being the US) to fight countries that do not directly threaten American citizens.
[/quote]
Who’s ‘egging you on’ dickhead? Evidence or fuck off.
It’s come out that the highest officials in Sharon’s government advised Bush AGAINST invading Iraq in 2003. I already told you this dickhead. Address the evidence I have provided or fuck off.
No shit. That’s why you should’ve listened to Israel and not invaded Iraq, not intervened in Libya and not ‘egged on’ the fucking Arab Spring. Your own fucking president is responsible for this shit. Not Israel. And who is the “warmonger?” FRANCE is pushing for intervention in Syria. That’s who the warmongers are right now dickhead. Your phoney black President and the French.
Don’t you get it yet dumbfuck? He’s American.[/quote]
Hey Sex,
Nice to see you reach a higher level of frustration now and then! 
But I don’t think this guy is worthy of engagement. Hell, both Push and I clearly stated my nationality, and he’s still asking about it…
And did you see his assertion that somehow blacks predominance in pro sports had some relevance to possible outcomes in slave rebellions? WTF?
Sadly, it’s pretty obvious that hatred and bigotry are what fire his engine, and the best we can hope for with his kind is an eventual derailment…[/quote]
You needed those guns to keep us down, ride, just like those racist white pigs need their guns to rule over us now. We dominate boxing because toe to toe, you know us black guys are kicking your asses.
[quote]method_man wrote:
Telling me to fuck off. That wasn’t very “white” of you, lol.
[/quote]
Who says I’m white? I could be ‘black Irish.’ And telling people to fuck off crosses all racial barriers. So fuck off.
Well neither really but I will respond to your wall of text when I get some time if only in the interests of setting the record straight for posterity.
EDIT: Actually no I won’t. You just posted an article that makes reference to what I was saying then a load of utter bollocks that quotes “the distinguished British journalist Robert Fisk” amongst other people. Like I said, fuck off.
[quote]method_man wrote:
Unless you are not an American this “black” president is as much yours as he is mine, unless this is your racist insinuation that just because he is “black” he is “my” president? Was Bush a “white” president? And guess what? Both sets of “white” Bush presidents got us involved in these brutal, endless, pointless and debt climbing wars in the first place. At least we agree on the Iraq war being a waste.
[/quote]
No I’m not American. And I said ‘phoney black’ not black. I’m not suggesting Mr Obama is racially inferior or anything like that - just saying that from looking at his mother and hearing about his father’s tribe I would hesitate before describing him as ‘black.’ As to your second point, yes Bush I and II were both white - not sure if I’m supposed to accept responsibility for their actions because of this? Personally, it doesn’t interest me in the slightest what colour you are, what you smell like or what rock you crawled out from under. I just don’t like you.
For all the posters in Get a Life and the other sections that love to scream “racist” at the top of their lungs whenever anything annoys them…
You would think one of them would show up here and ask Mr. Method why he is being such a racist asshole?
/just curious
//nobody is this racist, I am guessing it’s another HeadHunter sock puppet, or the Mod’s would have shut him down by now.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
For all the posters in Get a Life and the other sections that love to scream “racist” at the top of their lungs whenever anything annoys them…
You would think one of them would show up here and ask Mr. Method why he is being such a racist asshole?
/just curious
//nobody is this racist, I am guessing it’s another HeadHunter sock puppet, or the Mod’s would have shut him down by now.[/quote]
The hordes would truly have descended if his words would’ve been spoken by a white man.[/quote]
I’m guessing that DarkNinja would have threatened great amounts of anal rape.
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]method_man wrote:
Location: Japan. So is he a white boy living in Japan chasing those Asian women because he has a small dick?
[/quote]
Ha ha ha!
All those years in the ghetto and THIS is the best you can do, chump?
Pitiful.
Ain’t no way your occupation is “rapper,” unless the motherfucking shower counts, too.
And BTW, if we were “live” I’d invite you to slap any “boys” you think you see, but as it is I think I’ll just go on laugh’n at your dumb ass.[/quote]
If we were face to face, motherfucker, you wouldn’t be insulting me. We both know that. If you did, I would have told you to shut the fuck up before I split your wig, trick. And if you kept on running your mouth, I would have knocked out your teeth with my fist.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
For all the posters in Get a Life and the other sections that love to scream “racist” at the top of their lungs whenever anything annoys them…
You would think one of them would show up here and ask Mr. Method why he is being such a racist asshole?
/just curious
//nobody is this racist, I am guessing it’s another HeadHunter sock puppet, or the Mod’s would have shut him down by now.[/quote]
Actually others keep bringing the race issues and slavery up. Keeping a thread on topic in this place is impossible.
Here you go this will bring it back on topic. It is more than likely that the Iranians had help from the Russians or Chinese to steal that drone because it is a major intelligence coup to have that kind of access to our stealth technology. They should have done whatever it took to destroy it but our government doesn’t have the balls.
The way the Israelis are seeing this is that the Obama administration like other any Democrat administration easily loses it’s nerve. This debacle is probably going to convince the Israelis that they need to stop bullshitting around waiting for Washington to lead and take care of business themselves.
http://www.debka.com/article/21550/
Iran exhibits US drone undamaged. US and Israeli intelligence shocked
DEBKAfile Special Report December 8, 2011, 7:25 PM (GMT+02:00)
Iran exhibited the top-secret US stealth drone RQ-170 Sentinel captured on Sunday, Dec. 4. Its almost perfect condition confirmed Tehran’s claim that the UAV was downed by a cyber attack, meaning it was not shot down but brought in undamaged by an electronic warfare ambush.
This is a major debacle for the stealth technology the US uses in its warplanes and the drone technology developed by the US and Israel.
The state of the lost UAV refutes the US military contention that the Sentinel’s systems malfunctioned. If this had happened, it would have crashed and either been wrecked or damaged. The condition of the RQ-170 intact obliges the US and Israel to make major changes in plans for a potential strike against Iran’s nuclear program.
Earlier Thursday, debkafile reported:
The Obama administration’s decision after internal debate not to send US commando or air units into Iran to retrieve or destroy the secret RQ-170 stealth drone which fell into Iranian hands has strengthened the hands of the Israeli faction which argues the case for striking Iran’s nuclear installations without waiting for the Americans to make their move.
Senior Israeli diplomatic and security officials who followed the discussion in Washington concluded that, by failing to act, the administration has left Iran not only with the secrets of the Sentinel’s stealth coating, its sensors and cameras, but also with the data stored in its computer cells on targets marked out by the US and/or Israeli for attack.
debkafile?s military sources say that this knowledge compels the US and Israel to revise their plans of attack for aborting the Iranian nuclear program.
Like every clandestine weapons system, the RQ-170 had a self-destruct mechanism to prevent its secrets spilling out to the enemy in the event of a crash or capture. This did not happen. Tehran was able to claim the spy drone was only slightly damaged when they downed it.
The NATO spokesman claimed control was lost of the US UAV and it went missing, a common occurrence for these unmanned aircraft.
The enigmas surrounding its capture continue to pile up. How did Iran know the drone had entered its airspace? How was it caused to land? Most of all, why did the craft’s self-destruct mechanism which is programmed to activate automatically fail to work? And if it malfunctioned, why was it not activated by remote control?
Thursday, Dec. 8, The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal reported that from Sunday, Dec. 4, when Tehran announced the stealth drone’s capture, the Obama administration weighed sending special commando forces into Iran from bases in Afghanistan to bring the downed aircraft back to Afghanistan or blow it up to destroy the almost intact secret systems - either by a sneak operation or by an air strike.
Iranian officials said the drone was detected near the Iranian town of Kashmar, 200 kilometers from the Afghan border and presumably moved to a military or air base inside the country. The NYT disclosed that the special force would have used “allied agents inside Iran” to hunt down the missing aircraft, the first time Washington has admitted to support from “allied agents” operating covertly in Iran.
In the end, the paper quoted a US official as explaining that the attack option was ruled out “because of the potential it could become a larger incident.” If an assault team entered the country, the US “could be accused of an act of war” by Tehran.
The Obama administration’s internal discussion on how to handle the loss of the high-value reconnaissance drone was followed tensely in Jerusalem. The decision it took against mounting a mission to recover or destroy the top-secret Sentinel was perceived in Israel as symptomatic of a wider decision to call off the covert war America has been conducting for some months against Iran’s drive for a nuclear bomb ? at least until the damage caused by RQ-170 incident is fully assessed.
A senior Israeli security official had this to say: ?Everything that?s happened around the RQ-170 shows that when it comes to Iran and its nuclear program, the Obama administration and Israel have different objectives. On this issue, each country needs to go its own way.?
[quote]Sifu wrote: . . . .
[/quote]
I agree, they should have a detonator on board to destroy it or something. It’s an intelligence coup for Iran, Russia and China.
and so much for pics or stfu. . . . .
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]method_man wrote:
Actually others keep bringing the race issues and slavery up. Keeping a thread on topic in this place is impossible.[/quote]
[/quote]
LOLOLOL
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]method_man wrote:
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]method_man wrote:
Location: Japan. So is he a white boy living in Japan chasing those Asian women because he has a small dick?
[/quote]
Ha ha ha!
All those years in the ghetto and THIS is the best you can do, chump?
Pitiful.
Ain’t no way your occupation is “rapper,” unless the motherfucking shower counts, too.
And BTW, if we were “live” I’d invite you to slap any “boys” you think you see, but as it is I think I’ll just go on laugh’n at your dumb ass.[/quote]
If we were face to face, motherfucker, you wouldn’t be insulting me. We both know that. If you did, I would have told you to shut the fuck up before I split your wig, trick. And if you kept on running your mouth, I would have knocked out your teeth with my fist.
[/quote]
Yeah, maybe.
Or maybe you’d be wondering what the fuck just hit you.
I guess we’ll never know, huh?
BTW, you can shove your righteous indignation about being “insulted” up your ass, “trick.” You’re just as guilty of that as anyone. You come on here all full of hatred and attacks and then bitch like a little girl when you get some back?
I repeat, pitiful.
And I’m now bored with your little boy threats, so I’m out of here, “ride.” [/quote]
Biting on my style… Nothing worse than white boys trying to act black, especially since 50 years ago they wanted to lynch us from trees. You need to go back to your little Sesame Street projects,trick.
Well this got stupid.