If it was possible it would have been good to to use him to discredit his fellow terrorists. Having him eating pork and boozing it up would have been a though
If it was possible it would have been good to to use him to discredit his fellow terrorists. Having him eating pork and boozing it up would have been a though
Thats true :lol:
As strange as it sounds I always like the thought that someone like that could be changed and become a normal good person.
I'm aware it's pretty much unrealistic but it's a nice thought at least. :laugh:
If it was possible it would have been good to to use him to discredit his fellow terrorists. Having him eating pork and boozing it up would have been a though
Thats true :lol:
As strange as it sounds I always like the thought that someone like that could be changed and become a normal good person.
I'm aware it's pretty much unrealistic but it's a nice thought at least. :laugh:
In his view, Osama bin Laden was good. Most people do not view themselves as evil. It all depends on your position.
:plus: for KILL.
Why is there a lowercase "i" in the middle of that formation? :orly:
If OBL was in a jail cell somewhere, regardless of his mental status, his followers would be out taking hostages and demanding his release. The only place he is no longer a threat is in a pineapple under the sea.
If OBL was in a jail cell somewhere, regardless of his mental status, his followers would be out taking hostages and demanding his release. The only place he is no longer a threat is in a pineapple under the sea.
Osama bin Laden should be held liable for his own actions, not those of his followers. They have free will; they can choose to follow or not follow his teachings. What matters is how much of a threat bin Laden was personally to the US and other countries.
:plus: for KILL.
Why is there a lowercase "i" in the middle of that formation? :orly:
? i can't see it :dunno:
there shouldn't be :screwy:
KILLKILL
KILLKILL
KILLKILL
KILLKILL
KILLKILL
KILLKILL
KILLKILL
*snip*
If OBL was in a jail cell somewhere, regardless of his mental status, his followers would be out taking hostages and demanding his release. The only place he is no longer a threat is in a pineapple under the sea.
Something I was just wondering.
Say in a hypothetical scenario , Osama Bin Laden had gone insane (ok MORE insane :laugh:) and was no longer his former self therefore not a threat.
Would there still be a reason to kill him?
Personally I think he should be locked away to avoid him regaining his former self , but idk.
Was just something that popped into my head. :P
Something I was just wondering.
Say in a hypothetical scenario , Osama Bin Laden had gone insane (ok MORE insane :laugh:) and was no longer his former self therefore not a threat.
Would there still be a reason to kill him?
Personally I think he should be locked away to avoid him regaining his former self , but idk.
Was just something that popped into my head. :P
OK, for the sake of argument, say that I was perfectly sane and tortured your whole family to death while you watched and heard their screams of agony, but I left only you alive.
Then say I tortured 3000 others to death under similar circumstances.
Then I went on the run and evaded arrest for ten years, but I got Alzheimer's Disease shortly before I was captured.
Wouldn't you still want me to fry for what I did to your whole family and the other 3000 people?
The concept of killing killers may never sit right with me either, though have never had such things touch home so consider myself to be fortunate in my point of view.*snip*
The fact that you'd potentially see a man in that kind of mental state dead honestly makes you as bad as he was imo.
The fact that you'd potentially see a man in that kind of mental state dead honestly makes you as bad as he was imo.
The concept of killing killers may never sit right with me either, though have never had such things touch home so consider myself to be fortunate in my point of view.*snip*
The fact that you'd potentially see a man in that kind of mental state dead honestly makes you as bad as he was imo.
The fact that you'd potentially see a man in that kind of mental state dead honestly makes you as bad as he was imo.
I think that might be a touch hyperbolic ???
It's not so much killing killers , it's the advocation of killing someone who is in actuality no threat due to hatred and vendetta is what I have a problem with.Yes, understood you were differentiating between the two, though have trouble making this distinction myself.
But I do agree with you , two wrongs have never and will never make a right.It's one of those views that don't see changing, but easily see how it could change.
It's not so much killing killers , it's the advocation of killing someone who is in actuality no threat due to hatred and vendetta is what I have a problem with.Yes, understood you were differentiating between the two, though have trouble making this distinction myself.But I do agree with you , two wrongs have never and will never make a right.It's one of those views that don't see changing, but easily see how it could change.
The concept of killing killers may never sit right with me either, though have never had such things touch home so consider myself to be fortunate in my point of view.*snip*
The fact that you'd potentially see a man in that kind of mental state dead honestly makes you as bad as he was imo.
It's not so much killing killers , it's the advocation of killing someone who is in actuality no threat due to hatred and vendetta is what I have a problem with.
But I do agree with you , two wrongs have never and will never make a right.The fact that you'd potentially see a man in that kind of mental state dead honestly makes you as bad as he was imo.
I think that might be a touch hyperbolic ???
At the risk of sounding stupid I'm afraid I'm unsure what "hyperbolic" means. ???
The concept of killing killers may never sit right with me either, though have never had such things touch home so consider myself to be fortunate in my point of view.*snip*
The fact that you'd potentially see a man in that kind of mental state dead honestly makes you as bad as he was imo.
It's not so much killing killers , it's the advocation of killing someone who is in actuality no threat due to hatred and vendetta is what I have a problem with.
But I do agree with you , two wrongs have never and will never make a right.The fact that you'd potentially see a man in that kind of mental state dead honestly makes you as bad as he was imo.
I think that might be a touch hyperbolic ???
At the risk of sounding stupid I'm afraid I'm unsure what "hyperbolic" means. ???
From Wikipedia:
Hyperbole (pronounced /haɪˈpɜrbəliː/ hy-PUR-bə-lee[1]; from ancient Greek ὑπερβολή 'exaggeration') is the use of exaggeration as a rhetorical device or figure of speech. It may be used to evoke strong feelings or to create a strong impression, but is not meant to be taken literally.
I actually know of a similar type ( ok its not similar) situation
I know someone that was a horrible person. She was a dreadful alcoholic that abused and neglected her children, and let other people hurt her kids. She was really a dreadfully mean and wretched person with anger issues, and she was also a thief and a whore and basically a horrible person. Well, after 40 years of this, the booze kind of rotted her brain. Now she is 60, barely remembers her name, and kind of just lives day to day with no memory of what happened. She is on psych medication now and doesn't drink anymore. She is just a normal sad person now that doesn't have drunken rage explosions anymore, and has no memory of anything she has ever done.
Should she be forgiven ? Should she be punished for what she has done even though she doesn't remember ?
Isn't evilness all about intentions ?
And what intention, past or present ?
I actually know of a similar type ( ok its not similar) situation
I know someone that was a horrible person. She was a dreadful alcoholic that abused and neglected her children, and let other people hurt her kids. She was really a dreadfully mean and wretched person with anger issues, and she was also a thief and a whore and basically a horrible person. Well, after 40 years of this, the booze kind of rotted her brain. Now she is 60, barely remembers her name, and kind of just lives day to day with no memory of what happened. She is on psych medication now and doesn't drink anymore. She is just a normal sad person now that doesn't have drunken rage explosions anymore, and has no memory of anything she has ever done.
Should she be forgiven ? Should she be punished for what she has done even though she doesn't remember ?
Isn't evilness all about intentions ?
And what intention, past or present ?
I would pity someone like that. Reading between the lines she seems to have 'suffered' albeit of her own accord. the only reason i feel differently
about bin laden is i don't see any sign of him suffering, i don't see anything human in him at all.
The woman in your story eris does come across as human. All those bad things she done, the drinking, they are all things that we humans do
when life ain't a stroll in the park. Punish her? no. no point. she has already done it by the sound of it. sad. :(
After thought...
When Callaway said about 'if he killed my family' that really does make me want to
kill him, and i think i would still want to kill him no matter how pathetic and fragile
i found him to be. My family to me, is me and my little boy and when i look at him,
and the thought of anything happening to him, and if i then think of someone
deliberately harming him, i just know i would want revenge.
After thought...
When Callaway said about 'if he killed my family' that really does make me want to
kill him, and i think i would still want to kill him no matter how pathetic and fragile
i found him to be. My family to me, is me and my little boy and when i look at him,
and the thought of anything happening to him, and if i then think of someone
deliberately harming him, i just know i would want revenge.
After thought...
When Callaway said about 'if he killed my family' that really does make me want to
kill him, and i think i would still want to kill him no matter how pathetic and fragile
i found him to be. My family to me, is me and my little boy and when i look at him,
and the thought of anything happening to him, and if i then think of someone
deliberately harming him, i just know i would want revenge.
Think of it this way though
Osama and Al Quaida are fueled / obsessed with hate.
If you are so determined to kill someone even though they are a wea dribbly old man , a shell of their former self......what does that make you?
Does it make you "right" or as bad as them?
In Europe killing people is considered "bad" no matter the circumstances. In America you have a more realistic view.
In Europe killing people is considered "bad" no matter the circumstances. In America you have a more realistic view.
Do most really feel that way or are they just trying to be PC
In Europe killing people is considered "bad" no matter the circumstances. In America you have a more realistic view.
Do most really feel that way or are they just trying to be PC
I actually think many people feel so for real.
In Europe killing people is considered "bad" no matter the circumstances. In America you have a more realistic view.
Do most really feel that way or are they just trying to be PC
I actually think many people feel so for real.
I see trouble in your future
Just makes me a Mom i guess.After thought...
When Callaway said about 'if he killed my family' that really does make me want to
kill him, and i think i would still want to kill him no matter how pathetic and fragile
i found him to be. My family to me, is me and my little boy and when i look at him,
and the thought of anything happening to him, and if i then think of someone
deliberately harming him, i just know i would want revenge.
Think of it this way though
Osama and Al Quaida are fueled / obsessed with hate.
If you are so determined to kill someone even though they are a wea dribbly old man , a shell of their former self......what does that make you?
Does it make you "right" or as bad as them?
a wea dribbly old man , a shell of their former self.
Its just a "what if", man. :snowman:
I think that people should be responsible for their actions, and "I didnt mean it" or " I am a different person now" is all bullshit excuses.
In Europe killing people is considered "bad" no matter the circumstances. In America you have a more realistic view.
Do most really feel that way or are they just trying to be PC
I actually think many people feel so for real.
I see trouble in your future
So do I. :-\
OMG, JUST REALISED
I AM BEING COMPARED TO BIN LADEN
FOR SAYING I WOULD KILL SOMEONE
THAT KILLED MY CHILD?
omfg BIN LADEN :runaway:
I think that people should be responsible for their actions, and "I didnt mean it" or " I am a different person now" is all bullshit excuses.
a wea dribbly old man , a shell of their former self.
So far this assertion of yours has not been backed by anything like proof or fact. I am not even sure how you arrived here. Al Qaeda has proclaimed OBL their leader, up to and including on the day he died.
Well maybe not "right" but not as bad as them either. I don't see how killing him even as "a shell of their former self" could even compare to orchestrating and promoting the
killing of thousands of innocents..
Sorry guys, I voted nuke. ;)
After thought...
When Callaway said about 'if he killed my family' that really does make me want to
kill him, and i think i would still want to kill him no matter how pathetic and fragile
i found him to be. My family to me, is me and my little boy and when i look at him,
and the thought of anything happening to him, and if i then think of someone
deliberately harming him, i just know i would want revenge.
My niece lived in New York City and was across the street from the World Trade Center when 9-11 happened and she had to walk for miles to evacuate.
She wasn't injured, but if she had been any closer she easily could have been, so I take this more personally than some people might.
Bin Laden ordered the hijackings (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,137095,00.html) and I believe that he was also the civil engineer who figured out just how high up on the buildings the airplanes full of jet fuel should crash to cause the greatest structural damage.
I think he was a man who needed killing. There's no evidence that he was decrepit or feeble-minded when he died.
right haven't had a chance to catch up with this thread so excuse the late response.In Europe killing people is considered "bad" no matter the circumstances. In America you have a more realistic view.
Do most really feel that way or are they just trying to be PC
I actually think many people feel so for real.
I see trouble in your future
So do I. :-\
I fail to see how thinking killing resolves things , it doesn't, I mean what started WW1? Franz Ferdinands murder.
right haven't had a chance to catch up with this thread so excuse the late response.In Europe killing people is considered "bad" no matter the circumstances. In America you have a more realistic view.
Do most really feel that way or are they just trying to be PC
I actually think many people feel so for real.
I see trouble in your future
So do I. :-\
I fail to see how thinking killing resolves things , it doesn't, I mean what started WW1? Franz Ferdinands murder.
There are many people and countries in the world who would not think twice about using force to accomplish their goals whether it's taking
over another country or enforcing their religion being ready to defend yourself against such actions or future actions is the only way to survive.
If killing is what needs to be done so be it they will not hesitate.
You've misread me.
I compared your ideaolgy of murdering someone in said mental state as "right" to something bin laden would do (murdering someone that is not threat and nothing to gain from his/her killing)
QuoteYou've misread me.
I compared your ideaolgy of murdering someone in said mental state as "right" to something bin laden would do (murdering someone that is not threat and nothing to gain from his/her killing)
thats good! cus you know, since i got rid of the beard, i look nothing like him
(http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a73/missteresabrown/jokes4/OsamsBinLaden2Lrg_1.gif?t=1304701879)
np mate....and you learned another language
wtf does 'cthulhu' mean?
np mate....and you learned another language
wtf does 'cthulhu' mean?
Cthulhu , is a world destroying squid like creature , I'm not sure which religion it comes from though. :P
np mate....and you learned another language
wtf does 'cthulhu' mean?
Cthulhu , is a world destroying squid like creature , I'm not sure which religion it comes from though. :P
It sounds like it could be a 'cult' thang
...will it sing? if it likes to sing it may be 'Baptist' - they are 'fun'
what gender is this squid-creature?
i think the reason folks interfere in other folks shit is not always clear - although they usually claim it is to prevent
some kind of 'suffering' to the people!
The chances of us getting involved, i think, boils down to wether or not oil is involved :dunno:
The chances of us getting involved, i think, boils down to wether or not oil is involved :dunno:Yes. Does seem that way anymore.
I know that the soldiers going into Iraq were of the understanding that hey were liberating the citizens and they were upset at the way they were received by the citizens, who were rather displeased at the attempts and had not felt a resounding need for liberation as it turned out.You mean like how many of the women don't mind their status in their society? Baffles me too, but do agree the minding of own business is an option which deserves consideration; not like we don't have our own problems to worry.
The chances of us getting involved, i think, boils down to wether or not oil is involved :dunno:Yes. Does seem that way anymore.I know that the soldiers going into Iraq were of the understanding that hey were liberating the citizens and they were upset at the way they were received by the citizens, who were rather displeased at the attempts and had not felt a resounding need for liberation as it turned out.You mean like how many of the women don't mind their status in their society? Baffles me too, but do agree the minding of own business is an option which deserves consideration; not like we don't have our own problems to worry.
Have to ask...anybody know what the UN is there for?
i mean what do they do?
Not sure exactly what the point about women in their society has to do in context with what I wrote or if in fact there was a point there at all.Maybe just misunderstood you.
Oh, see you edited your post. There's quite a bit of western opinion on what 'should be' in middle eastern society, so yes maybe on a similar track after all.Not sure exactly what the point about women in their society has to do in context with what I wrote or if in fact there was a point there at all.Maybe just misunderstood you.
Oh, see you edited your post. There's quite a bit of western opinion on what 'should be' in middle eastern society, so yes maybe on a similar track after all.Not sure exactly what the point about women in their society has to do in context with what I wrote or if in fact there was a point there at all.Maybe just misunderstood you.
One thing I was wondering is at what point is invading another country pre-emptively in respect to what they may or may not do to another country or for different ideals, a good thing.
If for example there is a civil war between two ethnic divisions in a country, ought that be a good enough reason to invade? If there is an uprising against a leader, ought that too be a good enough reason to invade? If there is Weapons of Mass Destruction intel that gets proved incorrect, is that good enough reason to stay once invaded?
I am not trying to be a smart-arse and The Americans, Australians and Brits all have had a hand at such acts. I say at what point is it better simply allowing a country to sort out its own problems as bad as they may be or as different as we may view things from them?
One thing I was wondering is at what point is invading another country pre-emptively in respect to what they may or may not do to another country or for different ideals, a good thing.
If for example there is a civil war between two ethnic divisions in a country, ought that be a good enough reason to invade? If there is an uprising against a leader, ought that too be a good enough reason to invade? If there is Weapons of Mass Destruction intel that gets proved incorrect, is that good enough reason to stay once invaded?
I am not trying to be a smart-arse and The Americans, Australians and Brits all have had a hand at such acts. I say at what point is it better simply allowing a country to sort out its own problems as bad as they may be or as different as we may view things from them?
The Weapons of Mass Destruction intel was actually eventually proven correct.
Iraq had 550 metric tonnes of yellowcake uranium, which was discovered, guarded, and quietly shipped to Canada in 2008 in a top secret mission so as not to alert people who might want to steal it. (http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2008/07/05/saddam-uranium.html)
Why are weapons of mass destruction ok with Amercian but not other countries? This one has me beat?It's directly related to position within the United Nation's Security Council.
The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, also Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT or NNPT) is a treaty to limit the spread (proliferation) of nuclear weapons. The treaty came into force on 5 March 1970, and currently there are 189 states party to the treaty, five of which are recognized as nuclear weapon states: the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, and China (also the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council).
Why are weapons of mass destruction ok with Amercian but not other countries? This one has me beat?It's directly related to position within the United Nation's Security Council.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_TreatyQuoteThe Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, also Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT or NNPT) is a treaty to limit the spread (proliferation) of nuclear weapons. The treaty came into force on 5 March 1970, and currently there are 189 states party to the treaty, five of which are recognized as nuclear weapon states: the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, and China (also the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council).
There's some fabulous conspiracy theories out there concerning the existence of the UN, but it's purpose and ultimate goal is supposed to be world peace. It's a very interesting and detailed article, Sir, which touches on the logic of the questions you ask. I don't really claim to know what's fair or okay about nuclear warfare.
One thing I was wondering is at what point is invading another country pre-emptively in respect to what they may or may not do to another country or for different ideals, a good thing.
If for example there is a civil war between two ethnic divisions in a country, ought that be a good enough reason to invade? If there is an uprising against a leader, ought that too be a good enough reason to invade? If there is Weapons of Mass Destruction intel that gets proved incorrect, is that good enough reason to stay once invaded?
I am not trying to be a smart-arse and The Americans, Australians and Brits all have had a hand at such acts. I say at what point is it better simply allowing a country to sort out its own problems as bad as they may be or as different as we may view things from them?
The Weapons of Mass Destruction intel was actually eventually proven correct.
Iraq had 550 metric tonnes of yellowcake uranium, which was discovered, guarded, and quietly shipped to Canada in 2008 in a top secret mission so as not to alert people who might want to steal it. (http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2008/07/05/saddam-uranium.html)
How many weapons of mass destruction did they have? The quote you referenced IF it can be believed mentions they have uranium. (So does Australia) How many weapons of mass destruction do they have. (How many too does America have? Why are weapons of mass destruction ok with Amercian but not other countries? This one has me beat?)
One thing I was wondering is at what point is invading another country pre-emptively in respect to what they may or may not do to another country or for different ideals, a good thing.
If for example there is a civil war between two ethnic divisions in a country, ought that be a good enough reason to invade? If there is an uprising against a leader, ought that too be a good enough reason to invade? If there is Weapons of Mass Destruction intel that gets proved incorrect, is that good enough reason to stay once invaded?
I am not trying to be a smart-arse and The Americans, Australians and Brits all have had a hand at such acts. I say at what point is it better simply allowing a country to sort out its own problems as bad as they may be or as different as we may view things from them?
The Weapons of Mass Destruction intel was actually eventually proven correct.
Iraq had 550 metric tonnes of yellowcake uranium, which was discovered, guarded, and quietly shipped to Canada in 2008 in a top secret mission so as not to alert people who might want to steal it. (http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2008/07/05/saddam-uranium.html)
How many weapons of mass destruction did they have? The quote you referenced IF it can be believed mentions they have uranium. (So does Australia) How many weapons of mass destruction do they have. (How many too does America have? Why are weapons of mass destruction ok with Amercian but not other countries? This one has me beat?)
From looking it up, apparently 550 metric tonnes of yellowcake would have yielded enough highly enriched uranium for 142 nuclear bombs.
Apparently Saddam Hussein was working very hard to get the gas centrifuge technology (http://www.exportcontrols.org/centpart1.html) to refine yellowcake into highly enriched uranium.
I think that the US has around 5000 nuclear warheads.
Do you think that the world as a whole would have been safer if Iraq under Saddam Hussein had 142 nuclear bombs as well?
One thing I was wondering is at what point is invading another country pre-emptively in respect to what they may or may not do to another country or for different ideals, a good thing.
If for example there is a civil war between two ethnic divisions in a country, ought that be a good enough reason to invade? If there is an uprising against a leader, ought that too be a good enough reason to invade? If there is Weapons of Mass Destruction intel that gets proved incorrect, is that good enough reason to stay once invaded?
I am not trying to be a smart-arse and The Americans, Australians and Brits all have had a hand at such acts. I say at what point is it better simply allowing a country to sort out its own problems as bad as they may be or as different as we may view things from them?
The Weapons of Mass Destruction intel was actually eventually proven correct.
Iraq had 550 metric tonnes of yellowcake uranium, which was discovered, guarded, and quietly shipped to Canada in 2008 in a top secret mission so as not to alert people who might want to steal it. (http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2008/07/05/saddam-uranium.html)
How many weapons of mass destruction did they have? The quote you referenced IF it can be believed mentions they have uranium. (So does Australia) How many weapons of mass destruction do they have. (How many too does America have? Why are weapons of mass destruction ok with Amercian but not other countries? This one has me beat?)
From looking it up, apparently 550 metric tonnes of yellowcake would have yielded enough highly enriched uranium for 142 nuclear bombs.
Apparently Saddam Hussein was working very hard to get the gas centrifuge technology (http://www.exportcontrols.org/centpart1.html) to refine yellowcake into highly enriched uranium.
I think that the US has around 5000 nuclear warheads.
Do you think that the world as a whole would have been safer if Iraq under Saddam Hussein had 142 nuclear bombs as well?
Honestly I don't think any country having nuclear weapons is safe. I would not credit America being any more vigilant than Iraq or Russia or North Korea or India or whomever.
Again though I do see you saying about ingredients for nuclear technology but you did kinda say that the Iraq having weapons of mass destruction claim was true. Where were the weapons? Lotta Iraqui citizens died in the liberating invasions and a lot o troops committed and killed on basis of the claims.
Where were the weapons of mass destruction (Not the ingredients or the research)?
Oh as to another country having about 2% of what the US has in nuclear weapons? I say I am a bit more concerned with the 5000 tbh. Do you think I ought to be more afraid of an extra 142 nuclear weapons or 5000 nuclear weapons allready at a country's disposal?
One thing I was wondering is at what point is invading another country pre-emptively in respect to what they may or may not do to another country or for different ideals, a good thing.
If for example there is a civil war between two ethnic divisions in a country, ought that be a good enough reason to invade? If there is an uprising against a leader, ought that too be a good enough reason to invade? If there is Weapons of Mass Destruction intel that gets proved incorrect, is that good enough reason to stay once invaded?
I am not trying to be a smart-arse and The Americans, Australians and Brits all have had a hand at such acts. I say at what point is it better simply allowing a country to sort out its own problems as bad as they may be or as different as we may view things from them?
The Weapons of Mass Destruction intel was actually eventually proven correct.
Iraq had 550 metric tonnes of yellowcake uranium, which was discovered, guarded, and quietly shipped to Canada in 2008 in a top secret mission so as not to alert people who might want to steal it. (http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2008/07/05/saddam-uranium.html)
How many weapons of mass destruction did they have? The quote you referenced IF it can be believed mentions they have uranium. (So does Australia) How many weapons of mass destruction do they have. (How many too does America have? Why are weapons of mass destruction ok with Amercian but not other countries? This one has me beat?)
From looking it up, apparently 550 metric tonnes of yellowcake would have yielded enough highly enriched uranium for 142 nuclear bombs.
Apparently Saddam Hussein was working very hard to get the gas centrifuge technology (http://www.exportcontrols.org/centpart1.html) to refine yellowcake into highly enriched uranium.
I think that the US has around 5000 nuclear warheads.
Do you think that the world as a whole would have been safer if Iraq under Saddam Hussein had 142 nuclear bombs as well?
Honestly I don't think any country having nuclear weapons is safe. I would not credit America being any more vigilant than Iraq or Russia or North Korea or India or whomever.
Again though I do see you saying about ingredients for nuclear technology but you did kinda say that the Iraq having weapons of mass destruction claim was true. Where were the weapons? Lotta Iraqui citizens died in the liberating invasions and a lot o troops committed and killed on basis of the claims.
Where were the weapons of mass destruction (Not the ingredients or the research)?
Oh as to another country having about 2% of what the US has in nuclear weapons? I say I am a bit more concerned with the 5000 tbh. Do you think I ought to be more afraid of an extra 142 nuclear weapons or 5000 nuclear weapons allready at a country's disposal?
So, you think that Iraq under Saddam Hussein was no more volatile than the US government, for example?
You are only counting intact completed weapons as Weapons of Mass Destruction, as opposed to the means to manufacture such Weapons of Mass Destruction if Saddam Hussein had not been stopped, while I was counting holding a stockpile of the uranium necessary to make such weapons along with the gas centrifuge technology to make nuclear weapons of Mass Destruction.
I believe that Saddam Hussein did hold some chemical weapons of Mass Destruction, since he used them on the Iranians and the Kurds.
Saddam Hussein vs George Bush? Hard choice. What would Saddam Hussein do with advanced weapons of mass destruction? What is Kim Jung Soon (sp?) doing? Would they have done the same? Was Hussein as bad as Kim or was Bush as bad as either? We won't find out naturally what will happen. I do fear those 5000 nukes more though.The countries of the Security Council have made agreement to refrain from the use of nuclear warfare except in the event of retaliation of nuclear attack. These countries aren't very likely to breach this agreement and lose world trust. Uranium enrichment programs kept secret from the UN break treaty agreements and don't suggest pure intentions.
Soddom was thick as fuck, and an evil cunt, but his days were over. :orly:
Soddom was thick as fuck, and an evil cunt, but his days were over. :orly:
Your children who follow you in later generations and foreigners who come from distant lands will see the calamities that have fallen on the land and the diseases with which the LORD has afflicted it. The whole land will be a burning waste of salt and sulfur—nothing planted, nothing sprouting, no vegetation growing on it.
Your children who follow you in later generations and foreigners who come from distant lands will see the calamities that have fallen on the land and the diseases with which the LORD has afflicted it. The whole land will be a burning waste of salt and sulfurnothing planted, nothing sprouting, no vegetation growing on it.Yay. I'm not the only one here who likes to do that.
Your children who follow you in later generations and foreigners who come from distant lands will see the calamities that have fallen on the land and the diseases with which the LORD has afflicted it. The whole land will be a burning waste of salt and sulfur—nothing planted, nothing sprouting, no vegetation growing on it.Yay. I'm not the only one here who likes to do that.
KILLKILL KILLKILL KILLKILL KILLKILL KILLKILL
KILLKILL KILLKILL KILLKILL KILLKILL KILLKILL
KILLKILL KILLKILL KILLKILL KILLKILL
KILLKILLKILLKILL KILLKILL KILLKILL KILLKILL
KILLKILL KILLKILL KILLKILL KILLKILL KILLKILL
KILLKILL KILLKILL KILLKILL KILLKILLKILLKILL KILLKILLKILLKILL
KILLKILL KILLKILL KILLKILL KILLKILLKILLKILL KILLKILLKILLKILL
KILLKILL KILLKILL KILLKILL KILLKILLKILLKILL KILLKILLKILLKILL
np mate....and you learned another language
wtf does 'cthulhu' mean?
Cthulhu , is a world destroying squid like creature , I'm not sure which religion it comes from though. :P
KILLKILL KILLKILL KILLKILL KILLKILL KILLKILL
KILLKILL KILLKILL KILLKILL KILLKILL KILLKILL
KILLKILL KILLKILL KILLKILL KILLKILL
KILLKILLKILLKILL KILLKILL KILLKILL KILLKILL
KILLKILL KILLKILL KILLKILL KILLKILL KILLKILL
KILLKILL KILLKILL KILLKILL KILLKILLKILLKILL KILLKILLKILLKILL
KILLKILL KILLKILL KILLKILL KILLKILLKILLKILL KILLKILLKILLKILL
KILLKILL KILLKILL KILLKILL KILLKILLKILLKILL KILLKILLKILLKILL
Yes, but what do you really think? :zoinks: