Weesa Gonna Die

Post by **Lyion** » Mon Aug 21, 2006 2:19 pm

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/200 ... w_doo.html

This year, August 22 marks the holy day on the Islamic calendar that is the day of reckoning for Shiites. Some Shiite sects believe that August 22 could correspond to the end of the world. And just today, after much hype, Iran has announced that it will continue to develop its nuclear program. To followers of Iranian President Ahmadinejad, this is a well-timed affront to Israel, the United States and the world. The United Nations had given Iran until the end of the month to respond, but Ahmadinejad had made it clear to all Iranians and the world that he intended to respond on the eve of August 22.

Spazz · Post by **Spazz** » Mon Aug 21, 2006 3:03 pm

Are you seriously telling me you think iran is gonna nuke us tomorrow?

Post by **Lueyen** » Mon Aug 21, 2006 3:23 pm

spazz wrote:Are you seriously telling me you think iran is gonna nuke us tomorrow?

Us? No, but I'm guessing Israel wouldn't be out of the question.

Post by **Lyion** » Mon Aug 21, 2006 3:28 pm

No, but I'm getting a kick out of the media's reaction to this.

Lionking · Post by **Lionking** » Mon Aug 21, 2006 3:43 pm

-1,000 goat points for the Jar Jar reference.

Tikker · Post by **Tikker** » Mon Aug 21, 2006 3:58 pm

-100000000000 goat pts for recognizing a jar jar reference

Guntaag Gorefeast · Post by **Guntaag Gorefeast** » Mon Aug 21, 2006 4:00 pm

Give me all your goats or Kaiine's myspace gets it.

Spazz · Post by **Spazz** » Mon Aug 21, 2006 5:43 pm

Maybe well get real lucky and they will all nuke each other out of existance

Narrock · Post by **Narrock** » Mon Aug 21, 2006 6:25 pm

spazz wrote:Maybe well (sic) get real lucky and all the arab countries will nuke each other out of existance (sic) and Israel will walk away unscathed

Wow, I finally agree with Spazz on something...

Spazz · Post by **Spazz** » Mon Aug 21, 2006 7:28 pm

No i meant what i said fuck isreal.

The Kizzy · Post by **The Kizzy** » Mon Aug 21, 2006 9:12 pm

I have always wondered what (sic) meant

Maeya · Post by **Maeya** » Mon Aug 21, 2006 9:14 pm

Spelling incorrect, I think. It's for when you quote someone it shows that you know they spelled it wrong, but you're leaving it as is to preserve the original quote, and not just making a silly typo.

If I remember correctly from my English class.

Phlegm · Post by **Phlegm** » Mon Aug 21, 2006 9:20 pm

Maeya is correct. It is italicized and placed within square brackets [sic] to show incorrect spelling when quoting verbatim.

The Kizzy · Post by **The Kizzy** » Mon Aug 21, 2006 9:22 pm

oh, thanks.

Post by **Lyion** » Mon Aug 21, 2006 9:26 pm

sic is short for "Spazz typed this"

The Kizzy · Post by **The Kizzy** » Mon Aug 21, 2006 9:29 pm

heheh that was funny

Narrock · Post by **Narrock** » Tue Aug 22, 2006 12:22 am

Yup, Maeya is right. But I used parenthesis instead of brackets.

Narrock · Post by **Narrock** » Tue Aug 22, 2006 12:32 am

spazz wrote:No i meant what i said fuck isreal.

No you don't, but don't worry about it because I made the correction for you. :P If you are really thinking "fuck israel" then you know nothing about Israel and the problems/struggles they've been having for years.

I used to say "you're stupid" just for giggles and to piss you off, but now I really mean it... you're friggin stupid. Seriously. Go see a shrink, you retard. Then when you're done seeing a shrink start doing some online research about Israel. In just a short time you will see the truth, and then you'll come back here and re-quote the correction I made for you, and then you'll write QFT in bold lettering and also post this icon: :hiphop:

Now hop to it. :google:

is your friend.

Post by **Arlos** » Tue Aug 22, 2006 12:56 am

I have, obviously, no argument with Israel's right to exist, but I do find some of their actions highly questionable. Honestly, in the end, how much difference is there between a 6 year old getting killed by a suicide bomber and a 6 year old getting killed when an Israeli gunboat shelled a birthday party on the beach? Dead is dead, and I can guarantee you neither family is going to care about the "legitimacy" of the bomb or shell that killed their little girl.

I agree that Israel is an ally, and we need to support them, but that support comes with a price. They have to know that if they act in certain ways then that support could be moderated or cut off. ie, they must not be given carte blanche to act however they please, regardless of the provocation. Indeed, it is the appearance that we DO give Israel said carte blanche that causes us a significant percentage of our problems with the muslims.

I know that some of the reasons you support them are biblically based, and that's fine for you on a personal level, of course. I just feel that basing geopolitical decisions on biblical issues is hardly, how shall we put it... pragmatic.

-Arlos

Markarado · Post by **Markarado** » Tue Aug 22, 2006 1:07 am

I have, obviously, no argument with Israel's right to exist, but I do find some of their actions highly questionable. Honestly, in the end, how much difference is there between a 6 year old getting killed by a suicide bomber and a 6 year old getting killed when an Israeli gunboat shelled a birthday party on the beach? Dead is dead, and I can guarantee you neither family is going to care about the "legitimacy" of the bomb or shell that killed their little girl.

You really don't? You've really gone off the deep end then. Even coming from you this is surprising. One girl died from an attack aimed at civilians. The other died from an accidental hit on civilians.

Post by **Arlos** » Tue Aug 22, 2006 1:26 am

What is the end result of both incidents? A dead little girl, who was completely innocent. What difference then the means? Dead is DEAD.

Do you think that the parents of the muslim kid on the beach care whether it was from "an attack aimed at civilians" or "an accidental hit on civilians"? Would YOU care which it was if it was your mother that got blown up? I sure as hell wouldn't. Put yourself in the shoes of that little girl's father. Is your grief going to be assuaged 1 iota because it was an "accidental hit on civilians"? I think not.

Sometimes you have to look past the ideologies and the methodology of events, and look at what the end results are. I want BOTH little girls to never have died, I don't much care what killed them.

-Arlos

Gargamellow · Post by **Gargamellow** » Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:53 am

those people been killin each other for yrs

p.s. guess we are in deep "shite"...aye lyion? BAHAHAHAHHA :rofl:

Guntaag Gorefeast · Post by **Guntaag Gorefeast** » Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:05 am

Perhaps, imho we are in deep shi'ite

numatu · Post by **numatu** » Tue Aug 22, 2006 12:00 pm

So in the end, the little boy raped, murdered, and eaten in the basement of some Dahmer clone is the same as the little boy who died on the freeway in an accident.

No.

You're ignoring intent.

Intent is how punishments from laws are decided. Intent + action is, in actuality, the crime.

The kid killed from shelling is the consequence of guerrilla warfare from fundamentalist civilian murderers that hide in the population. This is also known as the tragedy of war. The kid blown up on a bus by a brainwashed religious zealot whose sole purpose was to do so, is the catalyst that caused the boy's death on the beach by the shell. Not the shell.