RE: Saudi and Iran

RE: Saudi and Iran (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

bounty44 -> RE: Saudi and Iran (1/17/2016 3:44:10 AM)
if you go back and look more carefully comrade misnamed in uk, my post neither mentioned politics nor was built on any American political premise. it was a information consistent with what phydeaux was posting, and more in particular, a response to Thompson's inane question to him about yale. you consider that "political grandstanding?" does it matter who on here posts that information? the information is out there as a representative of reality no matter who posts it.

MrRodgers -> RE: Saudi and Iran (1/17/2016 7:55:44 AM)
I fail to see the timely relevance here. The US backed and even installed ruthless dictators during the cold war (and historically/commercially throughout history) as long as they took our money and stayed out of bed with the soviets and to keep resources [and profits] private. Now we back who we choose (even Kuwaiti and Saudi elitist whores) in order to ensure the copious flow of oil. We took down Saddam's desire for a Euro based oil exchange, a Qaddafi desire for a gold based oil exchange. We support (even helped create) a western banking cartel, even pass tax incentives to ensure wall street has plenty of our money (billion$/week) to gamble with and also provide taxpayer insurance against their greed and venality. IT'S ALL about the fucking MONEY !! And always will be. Just keep it partisan and real hey ? [sic] Next question.

thishereboi -> RE: Saudi and Iran (1/18/2016 2:45:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 if you go back and look more carefully comrade misnamed in uk, my post neither mentioned politics nor was built on any American political premise. it was a information consistent with what phydeaux was posting, and more in particular, a response to Thompson's inane question to him about yale. you consider that "political grandstanding?" does it matter who on here posts that information? the information is out there as a representative of reality no matter who posts it. Well it was about Yale until he realized how stupid that sounded. Now he's switched it to military academies to try and cover his ass.

bounty44 -> RE: Saudi and Iran (1/18/2016 4:05:33 AM)
ah---given that he believes we went into the Korean war because of tungsten, and that the US was the aggressor in WWII, maybe that makes a little more sense...if warped thinking is your thing.

thompsonx -> RE: Saudi and Iran (1/18/2016 8:00:23 AM)
ORIGINAL: thishereboi Well it was about Yale until he realized how stupid that sounded. Now he's switched it to military academies to try and cover his ass. Only a graduate of the university of dumbass would believe that I have backed off from that statement in the least. I simpy added to it. Now if there is some part of that statement that eludes your tiny little head perhaps you might get a grown up to explane it to you.

thompsonx -> RE: Saudi and Iran (1/18/2016 8:06:26 AM)
ORIGINAL: bounty44 ah---given that he believes we went into the Korean war because of tungsten, Look at the dividing line between the two countries and see if you can figure out why the little pimple deviating north of the paralles includes the tungsten mines. and that the US was the aggressor in WWII, Perhaps comrade, if you were to get a grown up to read my post to you and explane them to you you would not spout such stupidity and become aware that I said no such thing. What I have said is that the usa had plenty of warning of the time and place of the japanese attack and did nothing to stop it. What I have said is that the usa played a minimal role in the defeat of the axis powers.

thishereboi -> RE: Saudi and Iran (1/19/2016 2:28:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 ah---given that he believes we went into the Korean war because of tungsten, and that the US was the aggressor in WWII, maybe that makes a little more sense...if warped thinking is your thing. good point

Phydeaux -> RE: Saudi and Iran (1/19/2016 9:46:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers I fail to see the timely relevance here. The US backed and even installed ruthless dictators during the cold war (and historically/commercially throughout history) as long as they took our money and stayed out of bed with the soviets and to keep resources [and profits] private. Now we back who we choose (even Kuwaiti and Saudi elitist whores) in order to ensure the copious flow of oil. We took down Saddam's desire for a Euro based oil exchange, a Qaddafi desire for a gold based oil exchange. We support (even helped create) a western banking cartel, even pass tax incentives to ensure wall street has plenty of our money (billion$/week) to gamble with and also provide taxpayer insurance against their greed and venality. IT'S ALL about the fucking MONEY !! And always will be. Just keep it partisan and real hey ? [sic] Next question. Its all about power. Money derives therefrom.

thompsonx -> RE: Saudi and Iran (1/20/2016 3:57:05 AM)
ORIGINAL: thishereboi ORIGINAL: bounty44 ah---given that he believes we went into the Korean war because of tungsten, and that the US was the aggressor in WWII, maybe that makes a little more sense...if warped thinking is your thing. [/quote] good point As long as you keep your hat on perhaps no one will notice[8\|]

thompsonx -> RE: Saudi and Iran (1/20/2016 3:58:30 AM)
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Its all about power. Money derives therefrom. Money can't buy power?????[8\|]

Phydeaux -> RE: Saudi and Iran (1/20/2016 2:03:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Its all about power. Money derives therefrom. Money can't buy power?????[8\|] Power can always get money. Money doesn't always get power. Often, but not always. The current democratic primary is a pretty good example. Hillary is burning through 8.5 million over three months ending in september; Sanders $1 million. And yet the momentum is with sanders. Once can also argue all that money isn't goingto be much help when she's indicted either.

Tkman117 -> RE: Saudi and Iran (1/20/2016 2:40:45 PM)
For once I actually agree with you [:D]

Politesub53 -> RE: Saudi and Iran (1/22/2016 4:37:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux You don't even have the balls to be honest, or to live up to your name. 1. I never said individual saudi's, or saudi charitable institutes did not fund terrorism against the US. 2. I didn't say the House of Saud didn't fund terrorism. 3. I said - the documentation has never existed that tied the Saudi's to terrorism against the US. 4. I also never said bush wasn't an idiot; never said he shouldn't have done more against terrorism. What I said was that Clinton dropping his pants - and the ensueing uproar caused him to drop the ball and not act against an emerging threat. What record does clintons have - overthrowing libya (now a bastion for ISIS), doing nothing to bring the outstanding murderers of ambassador stevens to justice, Helping the muslim brotherhood bring egypt to the brink of civil war (MB = terrorist organization), and not capturing Osama Bin laudin when sudan offered him to Clinton for 25 mil. Like most of your bullshit posts, you are moving the goalposts. You said saudi Arabia doesnt fund terrorism, now you are denying it, or trying to confuse the reader with the lie that Saudi Arabia isnt the House of Saud.......... Where the fuck do you think the name comes from, you halfwit. As for me not being polite to you, or Bounty come to that, you had both best get used to it, because at least I am straght talking and not a patronising wanker like either of you.

Phydeaux -> RE: Saudi and Iran (1/22/2016 6:35:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux You don't even have the balls to be honest, or to live up to your name. 1. I never said individual saudi's, or saudi charitable institutes did not fund terrorism against the US. 2. I didn't say the House of Saud didn't fund terrorism. 3. I said - the documentation has never existed that tied the Saudi's to terrorism against the US. 4. I also never said bush wasn't an idiot; never said he shouldn't have done more against terrorism. What I said was that Clinton dropping his pants - and the ensueing uproar caused him to drop the ball and not act against an emerging threat. What record does clintons have - overthrowing libya (now a bastion for ISIS), doing nothing to bring the outstanding murderers of ambassador stevens to justice, Helping the muslim brotherhood bring egypt to the brink of civil war (MB = terrorist organization), and not capturing Osama Bin laudin when sudan offered him to Clinton for 25 mil. Like most of your bullshit posts, you are moving the goalposts. You said saudi Arabia doesnt fund terrorism, now you are denying it, No you dumbfuck, what I said was excactly as I outlined above. Here's a quote from post 27, almost 100 posts ago, quote: However, Saudi terrorism is terrorism advanced by the state of Saudi Arabia. Which again by and large - has not happened against the US. In fact the Saud's have provided quite a fair amount of intelligence to the US. for example: http://www.elithecomputerguy.com/2013/11/18/saudi-arabias-general-intelligence-agency-overview/ http://www.businessinsider.com/r-exclusive-us-expands-intelligence-sharing-with-saudis-in-yemen-operation-2015-4 Now it is certainly true that Saudi Arabia has a great number of wealthy individual Sunni's. And these individuals have pursued agendas both counter to the ruling family, and to American interests. But the fact that there is sunni terrorism does not make it equivalent to Saudi terrorism, any more than you being an idiotic, rude brit constitutes insulting behavior by Her Majesty's government. Understand ? Iran has supported terrorism against the US. The Sauds have not.

thompsonx -> RE: Saudi and Iran (1/23/2016 4:06:30 AM)
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux ORIGINAL: thompsonx ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Its all about power. Money derives therefrom. Money can't buy power?????[8\|] Power can always get money. Money doesn't always get power. Often, but not always. How does one get power without money? Once can also argue all that money isn't goingto be much help when she's indicted either. Like it did not help dupont the murderer?[8\|]

thompsonx -> RE: Saudi and Iran (1/23/2016 4:14:55 AM)
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux However, Saudi terrorism is terrorism advanced by the state of Saudi Arabia. Which again by and large - has not happened against the US. It is a fact that 11 of the 13 perpetrators of 9/11 were saudis Iran has supported terrorism against the US. The Sauds have not. It is a fact that 11 of the 13 perpetrators of 9/11 were saudis. It is also a fact that you are a pathalogical liar as I have proved many times over.

thompsonx -> RE: Saudi and Iran (1/23/2016 4:17:28 AM)
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux However, Saudi terrorism is terrorism advanced by the state of Saudi Arabia. Which again by and large - has not happened against the US. It is a fact that 11 of the 13 perpetrators of 9/11 were saudis Iran has supported terrorism against the US. The Sauds have not. It is a fact that 11 of the 13 perpetrators of 9/11 were saudis. It is also a fact that you are a pathalogical liar as I have proved many times over.

Page: << < prev 2 3 4 5 [6]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875