Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

SubGeniux · Jan 24, 2005, 12:04 PM

Oh my, we must be getting close to the US, um, "liberating" Iran. God forbid that actual Iranians have a voice about whether or not they need liberating, or any other matter.

What gives with the US calling others 'the hotspot of tyranny"? I mean, last I heard, the US had one of the worst human rights records out there, they continually provoke others, and they have WMD. Oh wait, this s about blowing Israel's **** and doing their bidding. I mean, it's not like Israel has WMD and threatening other cvountries in the region.

So when does the rest of the sane world invade the US? Oh wait, this is all just cr@p spewed out by them to pretend that Iran is an actual threat, but in fact they need to pacify anynation that dare to contradict US foreign policy.
So ****ing transparent that it's not funny anymore.

Now that's what I call democracy.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/4202617.stm

BoomStick · Jan 24, 2005, 12:16 PM

Oh I get it, this is a thinly veiled hate Israel thread.

You really had me convinced with the US having the worst human rights records.

SubGeniux · Jan 24, 2005, 12:21 PM

Originally posted by BoomStick:
Oh I get it, this is a thinly veiled hate Israel thread.

You really had me convinced with the US having the worst human rights records.

Who is doing the treatening? The US last week said that they fear Israel mounting a strike againtst Israel, but hery, why don't we do it instead.
Fcukin fannies. This thread is a not so thinly disguised attack on the US and Israel,

Let's hear it for American freeeedomsssss!!!!!!!!!

ThinkInsane · Jan 24, 2005, 12:30 PM

Originally posted by SubGeniux:
Who is doing the treatening? The US last week said that they fear Israel mounting a strike againtst Israel, but hery, why don't we do it instead.
Fcukin fannies. This thread is a not so thinly disguised attack on the US and Israel,

Let's hear it for American freeeedomsssss!!!!!!!!!

They fear Israel attacking Israel? Is Israel mad at it's self?

Salah al-Din · Jan 24, 2005, 12:32 PM

Freedom of the Press� only exists in the West as long as the media follows what the politicians/aristocrats want. Nothing new here.

BoomStick · Jan 24, 2005, 01:26 PM

That was a most ignorant, blanket statement coming from a "progressive thinker".

We call your statements like that a fistfull of stupid.

Hey Geniux, learnt to speel.

The Oracle · Jan 24, 2005, 06:11 PM

Originally posted by Salah al-Din:
Freedom of the Press� only exists in the West as long as the media follows what the politicians/aristocrats want. Nothing new here.

When's the last time you picked up a paper, particularly in the US? It's full of opinions blasting Bush and his administration.

The press gets bent out of shape if pols don't agree with them. Not the other way around.

Curios Meerkat · Jan 24, 2005, 06:42 PM

When's the last time you picked up a paper, particularly in the US, that offered a different perspective on the Iranian reality?

ThinkInsane · Jan 24, 2005, 08:12 PM

After reading the article, I can't find anything that supports your thread title. A baseless accusation by an Iranian gov. official? Maybe the word "allegedly" would have been useful in your title. Or some kind of facts that back up the allegation.

Curios Meerkat · Jan 24, 2005, 08:32 PM

It's the title of the linked article.

ThinkInsane · Jan 24, 2005, 09:07 PM

Ah, so it is. I hadn't even noticed that. Well, then I take back what I said to SG and I know say the same to the BBC. They damn well should know better. show me proof, and I'll join in on calling BS. Otherwise, these are just unsubstantiated allegations, and should be presented as so.

Sherwin · Jan 24, 2005, 09:21 PM

Originally posted by ThinkInsane:
Ah, so it is. I hadn't even noticed that. Well, then I take back what I said to SG and I know say the same to the BBC. They damn well should know better. show me proof, and I'll join in on calling BS. Otherwise, these are just unsubstantiated allegations, and should be presented as so.

With all due respect, it does look like the BBC are reporting it as "unsubstantiated". No need to ask why they're bothering to report anything unsubstantiated, mind - we have to remember that the BBC is more than a little biased towards the left... ...if they report unsubstantiated ramblings from certain groups in a certain way, they hook the unknowing into their anti-Bush vendetta.
This thread is a perfect example of that process in action: they hooked SubGeniux easily.

Nicko · Jan 25, 2005, 02:36 AM

Originally posted by Sherwin:
With all due respect, it does look like the BBC are reporting it as "unsubstantiated". No need to ask why they're bothering to report anything unsubstantiated, mind - we have to remember that the BBC is more than a little biased towards the left... ...if they report unsubstantiated ramblings from certain groups in a certain way, they hook the unknowing into their anti-Bush vendetta.
This thread is a perfect example of that process in action: they hooked SubGeniux easily.

Um, they probably just didn't pay their bill. Not like its hard to rehost somewhere else anyway.

Sherwin · Jan 25, 2005, 06:26 AM

Originally posted by Nicko:
Um, they probably just didn't pay their bill. Not like its hard to rehost somewhere else anyway.

Exactly. So why did the BBC run the story? Why aren't all the other web sites who've been told to take a hike by their ISP (for not paying their bill) reported about by the BBC?

Answer: This one fits in with their anti-Bush agenda.

spacefreak · Jan 25, 2005, 12:19 PM

Originally posted by Sherwin:
Exactly. So why did the BBC run the story? Why aren't all the other web sites who've been told to take a hike by their ISP (for not paying their bill) reported about by the BBC?

Answer: This one fits in with their anti-Bush agenda.

Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a winner!