magekillr

Are most Americans governor? Are most Americans running for VP? Do most Americans have the possibility of becoming President if a 72-year old cancer survivor kicks it or retreats to the hospital? No. And also, as idiotic as a lot of Americans are, I highly doubt that 51% of Americans couldn't name another Supreme Court Case, and I also doubt most Americans didn't think about the Iraq War until 2006.

Wait, "she might be?" No, there's no "might," it's a definite not. She doesn't read any newspapers even though she has a degree in journalism, she never thought about the Iraq War until 2006, she doesn't know what the Bush doctrine is, she has no grasp of any policy position, she can't name a single Supreme Court case other than Roe vs. Wade, etc etc. All she can do is speak parrot, and repeat buzz words. Notice in her resignation speech today. She mentions the troops. Erm, no offense, but wtf do the troops in Kosovo have to do with your resignation? Maybe she mentioned them because she wants Alaska to secede like Kosovo did. It's not even like she said, "and on this holiday, I'd like to mention the troops..." She's talking about them for political buzz words; "oh! She cares about the troops. Palin '12!" I mean, a lot of politicians do this (Barack Obama included), but not when they're making their resignation speech. She's just a moron; a sheltered, idiotic, crazy, wing-nut moron with 560k+ supporters on FB. Good job, America!

Well, as much as I like to be vindicated, I don't want to be vindicated by this. As some of you might remember on another post on these boards, I had said that I believed al Qaeda was getting its money from the Saudis, and that it would be all too ironic, considering the US gives so much money to Saudi Arabia; it's like the US was funding terrorism. Other people didn't agree with my theory because of the disdain Osama bin Laden has for the Saudi Family, but I thought the evidence was there, and I just had a gut feeling about it. Well, it appears I was correct, and the United States has been trying to cover it up: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/24/world ... sts&st=cse The United States has tortured people for links to terrorism, and it has prosecuted charities caught funding al Qaeda and other extremists. Why won't the US publicly go against the Saudis? Because of oil...just like everything else.

http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2009/06/w ... erage.html As'ad speaks the truth.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/n ... -election/

Keep this in mind: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... -Iran.html Blast from the past, but it's very important to note.

Mousavi really isn't much better than Ahmadinejad, and Obama said that plainly in his CNBC interview. Some people were pissed, but really, it's true. Nonetheless, he would be better than Ahmadinejad. Anyway, the extreme leftist in me has to post this. I don't agree with all of it, namely that he doesn't believe the election was stolen without a shadow of a doubt (my reasons are not that Ahmadinejad won by an overwhelming majority, but other smaller things): http://www.counterpunch.org/dimaggio06182009.html

[yt]MrdRwOlmIxI[/yt] NOTE! NOT for the faint hearted. A woman is shot, and then bleeds to death in the video above. They're apparently dropping water mixed with a chemical down on the people to give them the sensation that scalding water is touching the skin.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and- ... :blogunit1

http://narcosphere.narconews.com/thefie ... -war-youth

Yes. It's [bleep]ing annoying, isn't it? Be glad you don't live here and have to deal with this constant obsession with what's good for America. Here's Yglesias making that point: http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archi ... n-iran.php

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plan ... -iran.aspx On a slight tangent from this article, it always does shock me when gun nuts who think we need to be prepared to "rebel" against a government who might take us over think they stand a considerable chance against the military. The way, in today's world, to achieve a "revolution" is through non-violence. Looking at the Velvet Revolution to Tiananmen Square to the Orange Revolution to whats happening today in Iran, they're all betting that the security forces will still have humanity left in them, and side with the people, turning against the state. Shooting at them with your own fire arms will only force the state to take more extensive measures to quell the violence, and not win over any of their armed forces.

mmm, Here's a picture you can use: And I typically make blog runs, go on Digg, and then look for articles from regular news sites.

A history lesson: http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2009/6/17/03040/0325

Lol....Wow, just wow. Anyway, an interesting observation: http://trueslant.com/joshuakucera/2009/ ... bout-iran/

Why would we intervene? Why do neoconservatives STILL not get it? Thank God Obama won on this issue alone, thank God: http://www.cnbc.com/id/31393724/page/2/

Not just yet: http://occident.blogspot.com/2009/06/co ... ction.html And: http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/ ... sted-iran/

It's more of a dictatorship shared among a high council of theocrats, rather than one supreme leader. Ali Khamenei is the "supreme leader," though. Some videos, although I must warn you, many of them are gruesome. If you want to know what's happening, watch; if you'd like to see fantasy, watch cable news: [yt]or-1QYKWaPU[/yt] Protester in Tehran gets killed by Basiji [yt]TKgz6huzHGY[/yt] Iranian dead boy carried by crowd Tehran rally Mousavi [yt]BXlOKLCx_Yg[/yt] Police Riot Beating Women and Man in Streets of Tehran And finally, President Obama's Statement On Iranian Presidential Election: [yt]oMsCydE5ab0[/yt] Perfect response, absolutely perfect.

Sane: http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/06 ... -about-us/ Sane: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090615/ap_ ... us_iran_27 Insane: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archiv ... 018630.php

Do you believe it was? All I'm reading at the moment is some funny business with shutting down facebook/texting services. It's a far cry from flat out election rigging, though. From what I could tell based on the election polls, there was little to indicate that the result seen was surprising. I also get the impression that the polls are mostly unreliable in the first place, so I don't see any evidence at this stage that the elections were rigged. http://www.juancole.com/2009/06/stealin ... ction.html http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/n ... ction.html The hard-line right had around 20% support in 2001...according to the result, they've become 63% in 2009. I mean, really? It's obvious it was rigged, and there's evidence of rigging in 2005 as well.

No news if this protester is dead or not yet. He was a university student at Isfahan Technical University. Youtube HD Video - This video will cause high CPU usage, to view the video in a lower quality, please click here. They are yelling "Death To The Dictator!" They are also chanting "I will fight, I will fight, I will take back my vote!" http://twitter.com/change_for_iran Youtube HD Video - This video will cause high CPU usage, to view the video in a lower quality, please click here. Protesters.

Lots of stuff. 1.) Zionism and anti-semitism in Europe in the late 19th century and beginning of the 20th century. 2.) The end of the Ottoman Empire. 3.) The bias towards Israel in 1948 during the first partitions, whereby the Arabs attacked Israel and lost even more land. 4.) The 6-day war. 5.) Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza. 6.) 1953 overthrow of the Iranian democracy by the British who were aided by the US. 7.) Partitions between India and Pakistan from the British empire, and the displacement of peoples in Kashmir. 8.) Funding of the Mujahideen by the Carter admin, which was exponentially escalated by Reagan. 9.) Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. 10.) The abandonment of the Afghan people by the United States, who left their nation to rubble once the Soviets retreated, offering nothing for infrastucture, education, and health care. 11.) Leaving the Mujahideen armed. 12.) The Iraq War. 13.) The continued bias towards Israel since 1948, which has escalated ever since Reagan by every administration following--including Obama's. However, Obama's balance is much like Carter's, and a breath of fresh air, despite the bias (their our ally, of course there will be bias). 14.) Labeling Iran in the "Axis of Evil." 15.) No Palestinian State with defined borders...after 60 years. More stuff, but mostly the earlier stuff. Trapical's post was a good explanation, but I worry that people will take it like a lot of Islamophobes and pro-Westerners do: tribalism is the "problem" with the region. Of course it's something to do with it, but it sounds like the same argument against the North American "savages."

I was surprised no one made a thread about this until now. I've been following this election very closely for a few months, and this is the one thing I was worried about. For one, it only gives Islamophobes like Daniel Pipes more power by allowing him to back up his narrative that Muslims are evil people who essentially should be killed. Well, he doesn't go that far publicly, but put it this way: he wants Muslims who work for the US government to have special "followers" who watch everything they do, and everywhere they go. Now he can say, "See? None of them have a true democracy; they're just animals bent on killing Americans." It won't gain too much support, but it could catch on. For two, people are going to blame this on Obama's outreach, saying any future outreaches are "pointless;" some may even BLAME the results on the outreach. For example, take Mitt Romney this morning: I mean, get real, Mitt. For three, it makes talking with Iran, and Obama's task, substantially more difficult. Now he's got to talk with some hardliner instead of a "reformer" (Mousavi is only "moderate" compared with Ahmadinejad), and now getting Israel to be rational and reasonable is harder. With Mousavi, of course the decisions about Iran's nuclear program wouldn't be any different as the Ayatollahs make the decisions--nor should they be, as they have the right to nuclear power--but you'd have someone who wasn't calling for Israel to be blown off the planet, you'd have someone more willing to engage the West even if for only PR, and you'd have someone who might engage the two leading faces of Iran into something more moderate; such as talking about the nuclear program, which Ahmadinejad has said is a done and closed deal. A holocaust denier as head of state only gives Israel's ridiculous talking points merit...sadly, as Iran would never launch a full out war on Israel. It's just a bad situation in general. However, some people here are saying it might boil over. Meh, it might, but I think it will definitely be more substantial than just a few days of protest and that's it. What we're seeing here is a country with 60% of youths who will not forget what happened to their country, when for the first time in history an American president publicly announced while in office of the US's involvement with the 1953 coup--on an international stage for the matter. What I'm seeing is much more than just a protest of an election. This is a protest on their Parliament and how their politics operate completely. It was a fuse, and the leaders of Iran thought their people would just roll over. I don't think we'll see another Revolution, but the government will never be treated the same, and things were never this chaotic SINCE the 1979 overthrow. It will be interesting, and horrifying, to watch.

Because you are clearly trying to bait people into flaming you betting that you will be more studied then they are so you can try to justify your ego by winning a debate on the internet perchance? I'm not trying to bait anyone into flaming me; I'm making a point against torture. It's called playful humor, or, being facetious; sarcasm? It's a form of argument.

Why do people compare facetiousness with trolling on this forum? It's really the only forum that cannot recognize the difference.