Lieberman: U.S. should consider military strike against Iran

again, nothing the person you cited (whom you still havent named or provided sources/references/links for) refutes anything the article says. what exactly is "bunk" about the article? i havent seen you refute anything it said.

i think you owe me an apology for this statement. and actually, you owe me a "thank you" for helping with your poor reading comprehension. and for the 4th time, do you have a link about how the guy is working for the frenchies, like you said. where is your source?

did you look into hezbollah and see that iran is not the only country supplying them, as you alleged? or look into saudis arming the sunni insurgents who are killing americans in iraq? or see that none of the 9/11 hijackers were iranian? did you look into the actions of the cia in the 50's in overthrowing a democratically elected leader in iran and setting up a brutal dictator who killed thousands? as someone who goes around saying "kill" the iranians it would seem like you should know this stuff. its pretty basic info. did you look into wahhabism and see that it is a very extreme form of islam that is taught in saudi arabia?

you really got sidetracked with trying to debunk this article (even though you have offered nothing to actually debunk it) but back to my main point, lots of countries in the middle east are doing far worse than iran, and some of them are even our allies whom we are giving billions in aid to. why should we just "kill" the iranians? how come you dont want to "kill" other countries who are doing worse?

and at the very least, our government should not be supporting countries like saudi arabia and pakistan.

 

so because i post an article to back up my position i am not "thinking for myself"?

ok...

so when you started the thread with an article talking about how lieberman wants to attack iran were you "thinking for yourself"?

why the double standard?

 

ROXRAN is slow so I will help. His bio from the GW website:

Link

For the record, I did not read you as trying to claim he was a senior US official. ROXRAN was just trying to make you look bad and jumped to the wrong conlcusion.

 

again, what is "bunk" about the article? you have yet to offer one iota of evidence that it is "bunk" other than desperately clinging to the words of some random person who posted in the comments section of the article which you claim is bunk. and as i already pointed out, nothing the person said (can you give me their name at least for "accountability and validity"?) contradicted anything in the article, so i dont see what you are even arguing about.

if you want "cross reference support" i could post more articles about the jundullah and our governments support of them, but im sure you would discount those as well and call them "bunk" without offering any proof that they are. plus, the article had plenty of specific evidence and there was a name cited as well as multiple government sources. you see, often people in government cannot be quoted directly so the reporter will say "government official" or "intelligence officer". it happens all the time. i cant believe this is a new concept for you.

you have done nothing to debunk anything the article says. still waiting on that. what exactly is "bunk" about it? please tell me.

and are you ready to apologize for falsely accusing me of making up stuff regarding debat (the "cited name of consequence for accountability and validity" that you said wasnt there).

are you ready to admit that iran is not the only country supporting hezbollah, as you falsely claimed?

are you ready to admit that none of the 19 hijackers were iranian (again, you should have known this already - im very surprised that someone who wants to "kill" iranians had to be told that none of the hijackers were iranian).

are you ready to admit that saudis are supporting the insurgency which is killing americans?

are you ready to admit that our government orchestrated the overthrow of irans democratically elected leader in order to set up a brutal dictator who killed thousands?

again, you really got sidetracked with trying to debunk this article (even though you have offered nothing to actually debunk it) but back to my main point, lots of countries in the middle east are doing far worse than iran, and some of them are even our allies whom we are giving billions in aid to. why should we just "kill" the iranians? how come you dont want to "kill" other countries who are doing worse?

 

thanks. yes roxran, is very slow. a simple google search brought this info up, but i just wanted roxran to provide his source. pretty funny/sad that he couldnt do it.

based on his credentials seems like this guy might actually know what he is talking about.

and i wasnt trying to claim anything about the guy. i just quoted the info about him in the article. roxran has very poor reading comprehension skills as evidenced by his attempt at claiming i said he was a government official or whatever he was doing. the only person he made look bad was himself.

 

Wow, I feel stupid because you typed "conclusions". How can jo mamma name anyone specifically if the article did not?

Again, he cannot do something beyond what the article did so it appeared to me that he repeated who ABC cited. Further, with your grammar logic you might as well argue that he said Debat was also a member of US and Pakistani intelligence...they are mentioned in the SAME sentence, too. JO MAMMA BE BUSTED!!!!!!!!!!!

Anyway, I was just trying to provide perspective as someone who read his post but didn't have anything to do with the argument or bias towards either of you. Not trying to "prove" you lose, ROXRAN, it just seems you misread him but won't let it go.

 

I would say you are misreading a comma separated list. The items on the list are 1. u.s. intelligence
2. pakistani intelligence
3. Alexis Debat, a senior fellow on counterterrorism at the Nixon Center and an ABC News consultant
4. a senior U.S. government official

At least, that is my reading of it.

 

you should look into not being an idiot.

might be a wise life choice.

 

http://www.connpost.com/localnews/ci_6126214

 

I don't even think it is possible for one person to be all of those things at the same time...so what is obvious and logical to you do not seem to be the same in reality.

 

link?

again, in all this time arguing w/ me you have not provided one iota of evidence to prove the article is bunk. the random person who wrote in the comments section of the article did nothing to prove the article is bunk (are you going to name this person or provide links/sources for their claims?) just because you say its bunk doesnt make it so.

funny that you would say this when your entire argument regarding the article is clinging to someone who posted in the comments section of the article and you dont cite their name for accountability and validity, cross reference support or specific meaningful evidence.

why the double standard?

 

for the love of god, can you really be this dumb? i thought we figured this out already a couple pages ago. again, the comma after the "abc news consultant" part indicates that the senior u.s. government official is a seperate person. if i was still talking about debat then the comma would not have been there. it would have said "abc news consultant AND a senior u.s. government official". plus, i dont think someone would be allowed to work for the government and hold the other two positions mentioned. are you really this dense? its something that anyone w/ a basic understanding of 3rd grade english could understand. why is everyone able to see this but you?

and you never named anyone. you quoted someone who posted in the comments section of the article in question w/out providing their name (for "accountability and validity") and offered "absolutely no specific meaningful evidence to be found or even meritible cross reference support".

why the double standard?

 

again, the article quotes u.s. officials, who often are not allowed to be named. so why is terrorism expert debat not a "cited name of consequence for accountability and validity", but some anonymous person who posts in the comments section of the article valid to you? especially when you have not even named or provided "cross-reference support" for their claims. and especially when the person doesnt even disprove any claims made in the article. what are you even arguing about?

why the double standard?

again, you have offered absolutely NOTHING to prove anything in the article is "bunk". just because you say something is "bunk" doesnt make it so. even the person whom you are clinging to with regards to the article does nothing to debunk it. you have really lost it dude.

so im a "trained parrot" when i quote an article (which you asked me to do), but you are not when you quote someone who posted in the comments section of the article. you have not named this person for "accountability and validity" nor provided any "cross reference support" or "specific meaningful evidence" for any of their claims, which didnt even contradict anything in the article anyway. do you consider yourself a "trained parrot" too?

why the double standard?

again, the comma after the "abc news consultant" part indicates that the senior u.s. government official is a seperate person. if i was still talking about debat then the comma would not have been there. why is it that everyone understands this but you?

only to you. can you really be this dumb? im going to try to explain it to you as if you were 8 years old - true, this still might be over your head, but its worth a shot.

IF i was trying to say debat was a senior u.s. official as well it would have read "a senior fellow on counter terrorism at the nixon center, an abc news consultant and a u.s. official". see, the comma would not have been placed after the "abc news consultant" part and there would have been a comma before it. does that clear it up at all junior?

you have really gotten caught up in trying to disprove this article, but you have yet to provide anything to actually do so. you seem to have really gotten sidetracked with this to the point of not even making sense or being logical with your arguments. in all this time you have offered NOTHING to debunk the article and instead are just arguing over grammar. that seems to be all you have left, so if you want to keep clinging to this go right ahead - its kind of fun and entertaining watching you loose it. im happy to oblige!

are you ready to admit that iran is not the only country supporting hezbollah, as you falsely claimed?

are you ready to admit that none of the 19 hijackers were iranian (again, you should have known this already - im very surprised that someone who wants to "kill" iranians had to be told that none of the hijackers were iranian).

are you ready to admit that saudis are supporting the insurgency which is killing americans?

are you ready to admit that our government orchestrated the overthrow of irans democratically elected leader in order to set up a brutal dictator who killed thousands?

again, you really got sidetracked with trying to debunk this article (even though you have offered nothing to actually debunk it) but back to my main point, lots of countries in the middle east are doing far worse than iran, and some of them are even our allies whom we are giving billions in aid to. why should we just "kill" the iranians? how come you dont want to "kill" other countries who are doing worse?

 

are you chiding others for spelling errors?

OH NO YOU DID'NT!!!

did you mean "their" part

did you mean "its part"? you dont need the apostrophe when "it" is a possessive pronoun - your spelling would imply "it is".

i think you mean "your other comments are just about non-sensical". you were speaking of a plural so you dont say "is".

dont you mean "yourself"?

see above

dont you mean "grammar"

i dont know "hold" it seems either!

i generally dont like to play spell police b/c i misspell stuff all the time, but if you are going to go after others i feel compelled to point out your errors too.

and rimbaud's looked like an honest error while you misspelled "yourself" twice, indicating you really dont know how to spell it.

 

It is OK, no need to defend my bad typo. It clearly shows that I do not belong in this thread as I cannot keep up.