Hollywood to make 30 anti-Iranian movies

King Mob

So has anyone actually been able to provide one anti Iranian film then? Or the list of 30 that are supposedly coming out?

K-9

mysterious wrote: »

Now I'm finished this dicussion! I've answered it.

I'm not into special effets when it comes to about war acts.
I can see where you going with this. I'm not going there

What are you on about.

It's your paranoid stuff that is the problem, not everybody else.

Veni Vedi Vici

King Mob wrote: »

So has anyone actually been able to provide one anti Iranian film then? Or the list of 30 that are supposedly coming out?

KM wins this evenings thread re-railment award.

mysterious

K-9 wrote: »

I'm debating nothing, he seems to think he is! I'm looking for a simple condemnation of Sadam without saying the US are baddies!

No. again.
In post 72 you asked me the question Sofa king has just provided above.
I posted my answer directly in post 76 on the same page. So again where are you getting these rambles from.

I also need to correct you for the third time.

Now lets do this again.
I'm not for America for Iran against America against Iran

I'm for peace
We are discussing illegal orgainised wars. You seem to really forget this fact.
You also seem to foget to answer other peoples questions.

What. I want simple answers, not whataboutery. See too much of this with N. Ireland.

I gave direct yes no affirmations

I don't need to elaborate.

YEP, Finally got an answer, 2/3 pages later.

This is the problem with this forum. Direct questions don't get answered, or else you have to pull teeth to get them.

I answered the questions sofa pointed out on the same page, post 76 was the answer to those questions.

Now this proves your lieing. Oh well.

mysterious

K-9 wrote: »

What are you on about.

It's your paranoid stuff that is the problem, not everybody else.

No no no, I've just stuck to the topic, and answered the quetions you asked me.

K-9

mysterious wrote: »

No. again.
In post 72 you asked me the question Sofa king has just provided above.
I posted my answer directly in post 76 on the same page. So again where are you getting these rambles from.

POST 76 IS ME. What are you on about?

Mysterious wrote:

I also need to correct you for the third time.

Now lets do this again.
I'm not for America for Iran against America against Iran

I'm for peace
We are discussing illegal orgainised wars. You seem to really forget this fact.
You also seem to foget to answer other peoples questions.

You are making this into something more than it is. I sked you a simple question, you perceived my agenda.

mysterious wrote:

I answered the questions sofa pointed out on the same page, post 76 was the answer to those questions.

post 76 is me.

mysterious wrote:

Now this proves your lieing. Oh well.

Excuse me.

I have not lied. I suggest you back that up with full proper quotes, including my posts, not your subjective ones.

Sofa_King Good

King Mob wrote: »

So has anyone actually been able to provide one anti Iranian film then? Or the list of 30 that are supposedly coming out?

Yeah thanks, thought I'd dodged that bullet. I'm gonna make 30 myself if I have to..

Anyone else want to contribute?
http://americanimage.unm.edu/propagandafilmmaker.html

considering that US propanda movies are a genre themselves I don't thnik it as unlikely as you all seem, time will tell.

mysterious

Yous said

Did you believe everything Iraq said when Sadam was in power just because they were an US enemy?

My response was on the next page, even as I replying to other people in the meantime.

Post 78

Right what did Iraq say. They didn't say anything

Saddam just said this. **** this **** man (rappter accent) I'm dumping the dollar.

Sofa pointed it out. I answered it.

Next question.
you said in post 84

But he hasn't answered a post to condemn Iraq and Sadam, YET! So far. Maybe he doesn't see the question or point?

I said in post 97

Of course I dont agree with what Saddam did, but USA are the reason this all started

You also said you want direct answers, these are direct answers.
Sofa asked you a direct answer on the issue in palistine.

You said this

YES and NO

Not really a direct answer.

p.s you have not answered one single question of mine. K- 9 funny that you put the focus of your demands on this thread only. I've also wanted to answer and correct alot of the ponts you mae on this boards. I'm not here to answer all your questions personally K-9.

Infact most of the questions you posed were biased.

King Mob

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

Yeah thanks, thought I'd dodged that bullet. I'm gonna make 30 myself if I have to..

Anyone else want to contribute?
http://americanimage.unm.edu/propagandafilmmaker.html

considering that US propanda movies are a genre themselves I don't thnik it as unlikely as you all seem, time will tell.

You mean the Americans used propaganda in the past! Gasp.
And I thought those really racist Bugs Bunny cartoon were good natured fun.

So then can you name one film that is solely anti Iranian?

Sofa_King Good

past or future?

King Mob

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

past or future?

Future as was claimed by the Minister in the first post.

What past one where there?

Kama

Not to derail this pleasant convo, but I thought I'd mention that Iran has a quite healthy film-making community, some of my aforementioned freinds are involved in it. I'd also make the point that propaganda, by either side, is sometimes a more subtle matter; something like 300, which while demonising Iranians, also represented the 'Self' through a paean to male homoeroticism...:rolleyes:

Here is a sample, earlier films here.

NB that these films saw light of day in the US through America.gov, which is a branch of US public or cultural diplomacy, aka propaganda, and they also must get through the Iranian film censorship process. Neither of these institutions share the same ends in presenting Iran to international audiences.

Films in Iran must follow guidelines set by the Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance and go through a multistep censorship process. “These restrictions seem to have acted as a spur to a style of clever and symbolic story-telling, which has produced a world-recognized school of cinema,” according to a British Broadcasting Corporation news article on Iranian film.


Many things that cannot be said or shown directly are represented symbolically or presented through the eyes of children, Jenkins said. The best Iranian directors produce interesting work because “they have to think about what they are presenting and how they are presenting it,” he said.

I'm quite a fan of Iranian film btw, it's quite a technically sophisticated, socially intelligent genre, and its operation and negotiation in a regime of strong social censorship is an eercise in boundary-pushing.




Now, the list of 30 is nowhere to be found, but my 2c is that any film made in the West that mentions Iran in any factual (or less than) manner, could be construed as 'anti-Iranian', as a misrepresentation or attack on (official) Iranian social values, by the Guardian Council. Persepolis had problems being screened for this reason, but was played in Tehran to a limited audience.

La Wik has the list of prior complaints, including lines such as
"**** Iran", "you goddamn towel heads, sand rats", and "... this is way too smart for Iranian scientists".

None of which is necessarily PSYOPS, but there is inarguably strong anti-Iranian sentiment in US media, disproportionate (imo) to their geopolitical threat, and this reflects in their cultural products. Ahmenijad enjoys this, and plays the good media troll in response, much as I assume Osama has been quite thankful for the media time he gets in the West. >_<


As to the recurrent human rights argument playing out here, the problem is one of symmetry; Iran has human rights abuses, as does and did Iraq, as does Saudi, as has the US. The problem for any defender or attacker of either is to apply the same standard to their freinds as their enemies. Much of the anti-Americanism is the West (that I come across) is more linked to the falling short from its espoused principles, and support for 'good' tyrannies (as with Saudi, or Iraq during the massacre of the Kurds) than an outright denunciation (as clear with many Arab groups).

K-9

mysterious wrote: »

Yous said


My response was on the next page, even as I replying to other people in the meantime.

Post 78

MYSTERIOUS wrote:

Right what did Iraq say. They didn't say anything

Saddam just said this. **** this **** man (rappter accent) I'm dumping the dollar.

He didn't need to say anything else, to make the USA neo cons to go ape****.They werene't enemies really, infact they were allies. Donalds rumsfield shook hands with this man.

Do you actually know why America even goes to wars:rolleyes:

Fair enough, if that's what you call condemnation of Sadam and Iraq. Donald Rumsfeld has shaken hands with many dictators, means nothing. I sill haven't seen a direct condemnation of Sadams regime, just the usual Sadam apologist blame everything on the US Stuff I see with IRA Apologists.

Mysterious wrote:

Next question.
you said in post 84



I said in post 97



You also said you want direct answers, these are direct answers.

Not agreeing is fair enough, though I note the excuses again, its always the US's fault isn't it?

mysterious wrote:

Sofa asked you a direct answer on the issue in palistine.

You said this


Not really a direct answer.

Sofa King_Good wrote:

Do you accept the human rights abuses in occupied Palestine?

And are you honestly trying to sa that Iraqi's are now better off?

I think you misread my reply, I was being as direct and and unequivocal as I possibly could.

The answer was a direct YEP and NO. Yep to the first question, No to the second. Unfortunately at that stage as per post 83:

Mysterious wrote:

Can I ask you a personal question? Are you American? You don't have to answer. You seem to be justifying their behaviour, or implying that if something is hideous in another country, gives America the right to invade

You had your mind made up about me.

Mysterious wrote:

p.s you have not answered one single question of mine. K- 9 funny that you put the focus of your demands on this thread only. I've also wanted to answer and correct alot of the ponts you mae on this boards. I'm not here to answer all your questions personally K-9.

Sure we could all introduce other threads and stuff about posters including yourself Mysterious, would make the thread a mess. I'll get around to your questions. I did state I would answer them earlier.

mysterious wrote:

Infact most of the questions you posed were biased.

I asked direct questions, maybe the problem is that they are to direct! :rolleyes:

Asking somebody to condemn Sadam is not a biased question. Your refusal to give an outright condemnation without whataboutery and blame the US rants says more about bias than any of my questions. I just hate apologists. Sadams attacks on the Kurds was his fault, not the US, though strangely if they'd finished the Gulf War, it may not have happened.

mysterious

K-9 wrote: »

mysterious wrote: »

Fair enough, if that's what you call condemnation of Sadam and Iraq. Donald Rumsfeld has shaken hands with many dictators, means nothing. I sill haven't seen a direct condemnation of Sadams regime, just the usual Sadam apologist blame everything on the US Stuff I see with IRA Apologists.

What verb would you like me to use.

Stop getting picky. The USA regime had killed more Iraqs than his in his whole reign.

Not agreeing is fair enough, though I note the excuses again, its always the US's fault isn't it?

Now this behaviour, is what children use.

I think you misread my reply, I was being as direct and and unequivocal as I possibly could.

The answer was a direct YEP and NO. Yep to the first question, No to the second. Unfortunately at that stage as per post 83:

You didn't give direct whole based questions
You picked and twisted questions in a way, to make it appear that Saddam is the only cause of the chaos.

The questions, you specifically asked, involve alot of agenda and parties. You can't seem to handle more than one concept in any answer.

I mean you reallly can't

You had your mind made up about me.

A long time ago. But again I have to say, this thread isn't the focus of you.

Sure we could all introduce other threads and stuff about posters including yourself Mysterious, would make the thread a mess. I'll get around to your questions. I did state I would answer them earlier.

You've made a mess yourself.
I answered your question, despite been very picky to the actuall root problems. You don't have any base in any of your questions. It's all about blame them and blaming him motto.

Again this is childish.
I look to look at the root causes of this crisis, and not pick out random details to be the focus.

I asked direct questions, maybe the problem is that they are to direct! :rolleyes:

Can I ask you a direct question.
Why did USA creaed this tranny? Can you answer this?

Can you answer this one too
Why did The Bush Admin lied to us on W.M.Ds

Can you answer this.
Why did they kill a million innocent civilians

Can you answer this
Why did USA as member of the UN council, break the treaty, and the only country to break the treaty

Can you answer this
Why does America accept torture

Can you answer this
Why does the American government drum fear and war on terror into their own people

Can you answer this
Why does America give Israel Nucs and Condem Iran not to have them?

Can you answer this
Why do the CIA create organised warfare?

Can you answer this
Why is the American government building 16 pernament bases in Iraq. Would you agree with America building bases in your front yard, by no permission.

Can you answer this
Why is America always in wars?

I have plenty more.
Now I would appreciate Direct answers. I hae many more, but this shall be sufficent enough.

Asking somebody to condemn Sadam is not a biased question. Your refusal to give an outright condemnation without whataboutery and blame the US rants says more about bias than any of my questions. I just hate apologists. Sadams attacks on the Kurds was his fault, not the US, though strangely if they'd finished the Gulf War, it may not have happened.

But America allowed it, and created the problem

Remeber the fact, that the American government allowed him. The American government allowed this to happen. You give any man all the power and weapons he wants. He is going to use them. I've already told you I don't agree with what Saddam done. But unlike you I'm not going to accept the behaviour and the root problem to this cause. USA is the common demoniator to this problem. It's you who is having a problem accepting the facts on the board.

In Africa, Mugabe is killing millions, why is the focus on Saddam, can you give me a direct answer please? The US government create these tyrannys, why do you seem to refuse to accept the root cause of this.

Sofa_King Good

mysterious wrote: »

K-9 wrote: »

Can I ask you a direct question.
Why did USA creaed this tranny? Can you answer this?

Which one? This one?



Sorry Mysterious:D

K-9

mysterious wrote: »

I'm against bullying.

If that mean im Pro Iran, then I'm pro Iran.

Why do you think I should sit and believe everything America says about other contries.

Don't know why you are asking that? Nobody said otherwise.

mysterious wrote:

When their regimes have led to a million people dead. Plaugued two Illegal wars.

2 illegal wars? Are you referring to the first Gulf War, you know, the one where Iraq invaded Kuwait?

mysterious wrote:

Lied about 9/11 and W.M.Ds. Allowing of tortureing. Breaking the UN treaty. Occupying Iraq against the UN and aganist the ppeople of the world.

Think most would condemn all that. What do you mean by "against the people of the world"?

mysterious wrote:

Now tell me why should I trust the American government on their judgment of Iran.

No reason at all, I would say though just condemning the US constantly because they are the US is no good either.

mysterious wrote: »

You keep thinknig I'm like picking sides for drug money or win a prize something

Were did I say that or are you reading that into my posts?

mysterious wrote: »

As I said, Every countries has there ****ty bags in thier closets.

Again what right has America to be in their business.
When America has so much sh!te you wouldn't be able to breath.

Do you see my point about behaviour.

No right whatsoever. I suppose we could just leave the ME to itself and let them all have nuclear weapons.

mysterious wrote:

A war is a disaster.
USA want another war for the same reason.
Why forget about something in history that just occurred that could happen again, and we are dicussing it now.

Do you see how silly your coming accross now.

Why do you think I'm forgetting anything?

mysterious wrote: »

Right what did Iraq say. They didn't say anything

Saddam just said this. **** this **** man (rappter accent) I'm dumping the dollar.

He didn't need to say anything else, to make the USA neo cons to go ape****.

Yep, they just wanted a war, any war after 9/11 and Iraq was an easy target.

mysterious wrote:

They werene't enemies really, infact they were allies. Donalds rumsfield shook hands with this man.

They were Allies in 2001/02? Or do you mean back in the 80's, 20/30 years ago?

mysterious wrote:

Do you actually know why America even goes to wars:rolleyes::D

No, of course not.:pac:

mysterious wrote: »

So I don't know why you'd asked such a stupid question IMO.

I mean what justifies a million deaths. I'm sorry But you obviously don't realise the hideous situation in the ME was always exasperated by the West.

How do you know that or again, because I might ask you to condemn Iraq and Sadam, somehow I don't know anything about the ME.

Thing is, if we take your blame the US and the West for the ME line, the ME isn't the US's fault, it's the French and Brits and the US have been left to clean up the mess as nobody else will do it.

Mysterious wrote:

Again what do you mean by hideous, and who is hideous in this case. I don't quite get this narrow minded reasoning of yours at all.

How they treated the Kurds was hideous, but of course I'm narrow minded! Obviously, it was the US's fault, not Sadam!

Mysterious wrote:

Can I ask you a personal question? Are you American? You don't have to answer. You seem to be justifying their behaviour, or implying that if something is hideous in another country, gives America the right to invade

Is this what your saying?

Not answering. Read what you want into that as you have already. I'm not justifying anything. If you can point out were, please do?

The US should be subject to UN declarations if they want to invade another country. I can't be more unequivocal than that?

mysterious wrote: »

K 9 do you read history about this stop making justifcations for unacceptable behaviour and allowing America to cause more unruly behaviour

Were did I do this?

Mysterious wrote:

Stop making excuses
To answer the above dispicable question. Donalds Rumsfield and the USA didnt give a damn when Saddam and himself were shaking hands. So you need to get this notion that the U.S government went into liberate and ree Iraq.

What notion, what post?

mysterious wrote:

Study some history on Iraq, please. Cus I don't want to pull my any more hair that what I have left in my head right now. I'm saying this in a really calm politie way.

LOL, I have studied Iraq history. Obviously your version is correct!

I blame the Turks, the French and the Brits who never sorted out the problem.

mysterious wrote:

Your posts are clearly showing signs of complete cheerleading for the USA in almost every stance, and you seem to continue to only point out judgments of other coutries and justify America for behaving the way it does. I don't agree with this at all. It's quite shocking.

You keep saying this. It's getting tiresome. Please point out were or retract.

mysterious wrote: »

I did,

I seriously am going insane. I just can't understand why people are still justifiying this crap. I really need a break. I can't stand how people contunue to take sides and ignore the full picture.

If you can point out were I took sides, please do.

Mysterious wrote:

Saddam was a puppet.
The American government could of lazer beamed his ass from a satelitte if they really gave a damn about the kurds. No they created genocide instead.

Who created genocide?

mysterious wrote:

Now the country is under the hands of the US of A. 16 pernament bases built on people's front yards. Soldiers still killing innocent people as there was never a target. This war was a disgrace. None of it was warrented and none of this is acceptable. USA should not be allowed to do this sort of thing whatsoever.

Don't think anybody has said they can.

mysterious wrote:

So please stop painting USA with a brush that they cared about the kurds or cared about stopping Saddam When they could of done that when they met hm face to face in the gulf war period.

Again, were?

mysterious wrote:

K0 what is your agenda here? Why are you constantly unable to see the full picture here.
The U.S government sponsor terrorism in the ME, and sponsored Saddam for many years.

No agenda whatsoever, just hate apologists.

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

maybe you could share why you consider him pro-Iran. I just skimmed over it again and I can#t find anything

Ach, just very little condemnation of Iran. Just the usual blame the US for everything lines.

mysterious wrote: »

Of course I dont agree with what Saddam did, but USA are the reason this all started. Saddam used "made in America" weapons. USA even let him do what he liked. It was never an issue, until America lost its oil dirty business. USA created the tyranny, so yes I can include America.

I think your just trying to twist things around so it would appear that USA are not anyway responsible.

Nope, that is your perception, your twist.

mysterious wrote:

USA could of killed him pre gulf war. They didn't even then. America is pretty much responsible for all the dictator regimes in the ME. America is the reason why there is still so much unstability.

Saddam is dead btw. But the killing still goes on.
Saddam is a saint in comparison to Bush and Cheney.

Actually, the Brits and French are responsible for the mess it is.

mysterious wrote: »

Now I'm finished this dicussion! I've answered it.

I'm not into special effets when it comes to about war acts.
I can see where you going with this. I'm not going there

Were? Your powers of deduction and mind reading are amazing!

mysterious wrote:

You also seem to foget to answer other peoples questions.

Think I've explained why at this stage, probably not to your satisfaction, but you can't please everybody.

mysterious wrote:

I gave direct yes no affirmations

That is the last thing you did. Please point out were you gave a simple yes or no answer to a question.

mysterious wrote:

Now this proves your lieing. Oh well.

I asked you before to retract that.

K-9

mysterious wrote: »

K-9 wrote: »

What verb would you like me to use.

Stop getting picky. The USA regime had killed more Iraqs than his in his whole reign.

There you go again.

mysterious wrote:

Now this behaviour, is what children use.

nice evasion!

mysterious wrote:

You didn't give direct whole based questions
You picked and twisted questions in a way, to make it appear that Saddam is the only cause of the chaos.

The questions, you specifically asked, involve alot of agenda and parties. You can't seem to handle more than one concept in any answer.

That is YOUR opinion, nothing more. Again, point out the posts please?

mysterious wrote:

You've made a mess yourself.
I answered your question, despite been very picky to the actuall root problems. You don't have any base in any of your questions. It's all about blame them and blaming him motto.

Nope, it isn't. It is your simplistic apologist posts that is the problem

mysterious wrote:

Can I ask you a direct question.
Why did USA creaed this tranny? Can you answer this?

Can you answer this one too
Why did The Bush Admin lied to us on W.M.Ds

Can you answer this.
Why did they kill a million innocent civilians

Oil and power. Contrary to what you want to believe, I am not an US apologist.

mysterious wrote:

Can you answer this
Why did USA as member of the UN council, break the treaty, and the only country to break the treaty

Wrong.

mysterious wrote:

Can you answer this
Why does America accept torture

Can you answer this
Why does the American government drum fear and war on terror into their own people

Can you answer this
Why does America give Israel Nucs and Condem Iran not to have them?

Can you answer this
Why do the CIA create organised warfare?

Can you answer this
Why is the American government building 16 pernament bases in Iraq. Would you agree with America building bases in your front yard, by no permission.

Can you answer this
Why is America always in wars?

I have plenty more.
Now I would appreciate Direct answers. I hae many more, but this shall be sufficent enough.

Oil and power.

mysterious wrote:

But America allowed it, and created the problem

Remeber the fact, that the American government allowed him. The American government allowed this to happen. You give any man all the power and weapons he wants. He is going to use them. I've already told you I don't agree with what Saddam done. But unlike you I'm not going to accept the behaviour and the root problem to this cause. USA is the common demoniator to this problem. It's you who is having a problem accepting the facts on the board.

OK, I see loads of condemnations. What should they have done?

Mysterious wrote:

In Africa, Mugabe is killing millions, why is the focus on Saddam, can you give me a direct answer please? The US government create these tyrannys, why do you seem to refuse to accept the root cause of this.

I don't refuse too, for some reason you think I do?

Why is that? Is anybody who questions you an US apologist?

6th

Lads, seriously!

Stop posting for a while, read the thread again and address what actually needs addressing.

Mysterious, stop accusing people of lying and being childish.

K-9, rather than answering a question with the word wrong please take the time to say how something is wrong - seriously, we'll all benefit!

mysterious

K-9 wrote: »

mysterious wrote: »

nice evasion!

I still stick that is was childish
Reducing an argument
To "always" "blaming" "but its all his fault isn't it" and all that jazz.

I don't need to respond to this crap of he said and she said but he made me do it so go on you think it's his fault.

It wasn't an evasion, I don't see the point of getting into "that"

That is YOUR opinion, nothing more. Again, point out the posts please?

Oh I think you should do it, because this is just getting off topic.

Nope, it isn't. It is your simplistic apologist posts that is the problem

You use the word apoligist alot

Why?

Oil and power. Contrary to what you want to believe, I am not an US apologist.

Now we know the probelm.

Think this explains the current cause of these wars and unaceptable behaviour.

It was me who pointed this out in the begginning. You on the other hand wanted to get into a debate of what she said and what he said that made he do that so she wasnt happy about it.

Wrong.

You mean USA didn't go against the UN and broken the treaty?

Oil and power.

Your getting good at this.

OK, I see loads of condemnations. What should they have done?

I love my direct approach
Not created it. thats what.

I don't refuse too, for some reason you think I do?

Why is that? Is anybody who questions you an US apologist?

Seriously I need you to explain this US iraq apologist please.

mysterious

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

mysterious wrote: »

Which one? This one?



Sorry Mysterious:D

I think I realised after that I made that error:D. I nearly fell over laughing at this pic.

Maybe this is true. Sorry for been O.T. But this is just too funny.

K-9

6th wrote: »

Lads, seriously!

Stop posting for a while, read the thread again and address what actually needs addressing.

Mysterious, stop accusing people of lying and being childish.

K-9, rather than answering a question with the word wrong please take the time to say how something is wrong - seriously, we'll all benefit!

Sorry, the US was not the only country to go into Iraq illegally.

mysterious wrote: »

I still stick that is was childish
Reducing an argument
To "always" "blaming" "but its all his fault isn't it" and all that jazz.

I don't need to respond to this crap of he said and she said but he made me do it so go on you think it's his fault.

It wasn't an evasion, I don't see the point of getting into "that"





Oh I think you should do it, because this is just getting off topic.


You use the word apoligist alot

Why?


Now we know the probelm.

Think this explains the current cause of these wars and unaceptable behaviour.

It was me who pointed this out in the begginning. You on the other hand wanted to get into a debate of what she said and what he said that made he do that so she wasnt happy about it.



You mean USA didn't go against the UN and broken the treaty?



Your getting good at this.




I love my direct approach
Not created it. thats what.




Seriously I need you to explain this US iraq apologist please.

The simplest way I can explain an apologist is to use a close to home example.

If we use your line of thinking about the US, everything the IRA did was a consequence of the Brits policy there. I'd accept that to a point, but the IRA has to take responsibility for Enniskillen, Warrenpoint, Le Monde bombings etc.

So if you apply that to Iraq, Sadams attacks on the Kurds may not have happened if they removed him when they had the chance, but it in no way means that the attack on the Kurds was the Americans fault.

Mysterious, I deleted the word childish from my last post because it is pointless and just ruins the thread, same as calling questions stupid or posts stupid.

You have made allegations here and it is up to you to either stand over them or detract.

I don't really care about the me being a US apologist crap as it's obvious to everybody that I am not. I would appreciate if you would accept I was not lying.

The US was not the only country to go against the UN as your post stated.

PS. The US did not create this mess. It was created after WW1 and because of the failed solutions then, has been a disaster since. The US have not helped, but are not the creators of the ME as it is now.

mysterious

K-9 wrote: »

Sorry, the US was not the only country to go into Iraq illegally.

I'm sorry but I'm going to have to use the word childish, I'm entitled to judge the post, how it is percieved, you can all dissagree if you will. But this is freedom of speech here.

Here is an example "A child says, But mammy He has a lolly so i want one too" so it's ok mammy
I'm not saying your childish, I'm saying the point our making is coming accross as so. This isn't the level of language I'm willing to dicuss on this topic. I'm tired of this but he is also doing it and I can be like this too. This is what children say in order to excuse their own behaviour This is your reaction to when I pose instances on the actions of American foriegn policy. So when I pose the behaviour, you then focus the attention onto something else.

When the world disagrees with American policy in the ME. President Bush react's simalarly to your reactions and accussed this as slandering. Name calling to defer their own unacceptalbe actions. Or I'm anti American. This is disrespectful and untrue.

This is what children say when someone pulls them up on their behaviour,

It's irrelevant at this stage. The fact is, USA created much of the current problems that exist in Iraq not everything just incase you jump the gun on this. I'm tired of excucses. There is no excuse for organised warfare. This war, has exasperated the situation. These are facts.

Now again I have to state my ponit on this matter, it still doesn't excuse this behaviour of war mongering and getting into an illegal wars. That is my point, it will always be my point. Pleaes stop deferring this.

If we use your line of thinking about the US, everything the IRA did was a consequence of the Brits policy there. I'd accept that to a point, but the IRA has to take responsibility for Enniskillen, Warrenpoint, Le Monde bombings etc.

Again I have to rise awareness to certain things you repeat often.
"blaming them"
"constantly say"
Its his fauit"
Everything you say or do"
"you always say"


P;ease stop twisting my posts this way to make them appear like I'm taking sides. I'm not blaming or taking sides. For the last time, how many times do I have to say this.

I have a problem with the policy here. I have a problem with the elite going to wars killing millons of people. I have a problem with the Elite creating monsters such as Saddam. I'm not blaming USA for everything or any country for everything. I never used to word "everytime" or it's "always" their fault.

I wouldn't be surprised, you get yourself into alot of arguments by restorting to this way. I'm just saying this is how many arguments get out of hand. I'm not discussing this issue any longer. Ive stated where I stand leave it as it is.

So if you apply that to Iraq, Sadams attacks on the Kurds may not have happened if they removed him when they had the chance, but it in no way means that the attack on the Kurds was the Americans fault.

Your using, it's their "fault"

Never stated this anywhere.

You have made allegations here and it is up to you to either stand over them or detract.

I stand by what I mean and what I say. It's you who is constantly disorting things.

I don't really care about the me being a US apologist crap as it's obvious to everybody that I am not. I would appreciate if you would accept I was not lying.

Lying about what.

I haven't accused you of been anything, nor any particular fault. It's you who is constantly labeling me, as this pro this anti that. Anti Amerian, I'm US apologists, I'm for Iran, I'm not being direct, or i'm paranoid and the list is endless.

Your making these attacks by yourself. I can't help you with this I'm afraid. I've time and time again, stressed my points to you. I think most people are clear where I stand on this issue, you keep making it somewhat personal or wanting this to on the attack or me vs you, or they vs them.

The US was not the only country to go against the UN as your post stated.

So this excuses it? shakes head.

PS. The US did not create this mess. It was created after WW1 and because of the failed solutions then, has been a disaster since. The US have not helped, but are not the creators of the ME as it is now.

Yes it did create the Iraq mess.
USA has been creating totalitarian regime's in the ME for the last 50 years. Sponsoring terrorism in Gaza, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, syria. Supplying weapons to all of the dictatorships. Supporting Israel even when it's not appropriate. Allied with Saddam pre gulf war. Got involved in most of the wars for oil and power. Supplying weapons to Hazeballah(however you spell it) puposely to start wars again. This is chaos. I don't understand how you don't think that zionism has pretty much cause most of the current conflict in the ME.

For America to have power and oil from this region, they need to create a mess

6th

mysterious wrote: »

I'm sorry but I'm going to have to use the word childish, I'm entitled to judge the post, how it is percieved, you can all dissagree if you will. But this is freedom of speech here.

You've just shown me you've not read the new charter. Read it. Read it again. Then read it once more out loud.

K-9

mysterious wrote: »

I'm sorry but I'm going to have to use the word childish, I'm entitled to judge the post, how it is percieved

Here is an example "A child says, But mammy He has a lolly so i want one too"
I'm not saying your childish, I'm saying the post is coming accross as so. This isn't the level of language I'm willing to dicuss on this topic. I'm tired of this but he made me, or he said so or he is too, or he went in so I did that.

I'm finished with that crap.

mysterious wrote:

It's irrelevant. The fact is, USA created much of the current problems that exist in Iraq. I'm tired of excucses. There is no excuse for organised warfare.

Now again I have to state, it still doesn't excuse this behaviour of war mongering and getting into an illegal wars. That is my point, it will always be my point. Pleaes stop deferring this.

Grand.

mysterious wrote:

Again I have to rise awareness to certain things you repeat.
"blaming"
"constantly"
Its his fauit"
Everything you say or do"
"you always say"

Stop twisting my posts this way. I'm not blaming or taking sides. For the last time, how many times do I have to simply tell you.

I have a problem with the policy here. I'm not blaming USA for everythign or any country for everything. I never used to word "everytime" or it's "always" their fault

I wouldn't be surprised, you get yourself into alot of arguments. I'm just saying this is how many arguments get out of hand.

My perception from your rants against America, is you do blame the US for everything in the US. Sadam is a US puppet etc. etc.

mysterious wrote:

I stand by what I mean and what I say. It's you who is constantly disorting things.

Lying about what.

PMSL. You said I Was a lier in a previous post and now you are denying it.

OMG.

Check my post at 3.36.

You don't seem to read posts properly because it's there, you are directly quoted.

Anyway, I'm out of here.

Sofa_King Good

Here is a NY Times article by CIA Senior political analyst in Iraq at the time of the Halabja massacre.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9902E7DD1638F932A05752C0A9659C8B63&pagewanted=1

This much about the gassing at Halabja we undoubtedly know: it came about in the course of a battle between Iraqis and Iranians. Iraq used chemical weapons to try to kill Iranians who had seized the town, which is in northern Iraq not far from the Iranian border. The Kurdish civilians who died had the misfortune to be caught up in that exchange. But they were not Iraq's main target.

And the story gets murkier: immediately after the battle the United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas.

And if you look at the Scott Report there is evidence there that states that Britain increased sales of chemical weapons after the massacre.

And K-9 it really was an anglo/bush/cheney war against the will of the people

Here is a quote from General Herman Goering, President of German Reichstag and Nazi Party, Commander of Luftwaffe during World War II, April 18, 1946

Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. ... Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.

Here is a catalogue of arms sales to the middle east by Mark Pythian who " is a political science lecturer at Wolverhampton University in the UK and is an expert on the subject of overt and covert international arms sales."

http://www.infocollective.org/mark%20pythian%20abstract.htm

6th

mysterious wrote: »

Now this proves your lieing. Oh well.

mysterious wrote: »

Lying about what.

I haven't accused you of been anything, nor any particular fault.

You have accused him of lying. Dont do it again.

mysterious

6th wrote: »

You have accused him of lying. Dont do it again.

I apologise, but in that quote. He said i didnt answer any of his questions till 3 pages later.

I it was the next page, I replied, i proved it. Therefore he was false


I'm not here making an issue out of this. He made the point, I already backed my statemnt on this on the previous page.

I'm not here to get into petty arguments. I have no attention of accusing him of anything. I've said in my last post. I want to end this topic.

K-9

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

And K-9 it really was an anglo/bush/cheney war against the will of the people

Completely accepted, never said otherwise and if there is a perception I think that, it is incorrect.

Anyway bringing it back OT, people need to be careful that they paint an Anti Iran view on films, documentaries etc. about Iran.

EDIT. Just seen your apology Mysterious, fully accepted.

mysterious

K-9 wrote: »

My perception from your rants against America, is you do blame the US for everything in the US. Sadam is a US puppet etc. etc.

I'm against the behaviour of this war. I'm against the actions of America. I'm against the policy of America

There is a difference.
I'm able to seaparate, a person or country from the behaviour. In this stance i'm unable to dissagree strongly with someone without projecting myself as hating or disrespectful

It's not an anti American rant. That is a false accusation from you. I never said one anti american post, one word of hate towards America or phrase throughout this tread that suggest I'm ranting.

I've even mentioned that the majority of American's are against this war.

K-9

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

Here is a NY Times article by CIA Senior political analyst in Iraq at the time of the Halabja massacre.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9902E7DD1638F932A05752C0A9659C8B63&pagewanted=1





And if you look at the Scott Report there is evidence there that states that Britain increased sales of chemical weapons after the massacre.

And K-9 it really was an anglo/bush/cheney war against the will of the people

Here is a quote from General Herman Goering, President of German Reichstag and Nazi Party, Commander of Luftwaffe during World War II, April 18, 1946



Here is a catalogue of arms sales to the middle east by Mark Pythian who " is a political science lecturer at Wolverhampton University in the UK and is an expert on the subject of overt and covert international arms sales."

http://www.infocollective.org/mark%20pythian%20abstract.htm

There does seem to be uncertainty over Halabja, however very little over the aftermath:
http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2008-03/2008-03-16-voa17.cfm?CFID=129481930&CFTOKEN=77371130&jsessionid=003089a32adb34ce74583b3e1d7112112710

The international community did nothing, but it still doesn't absolve Sadam of ethnic cleansing.

King Mob

So no anti Iran films then?

Veni Vedi Vici

King Mob wrote: »

So no anti Iran films then?

For two days straight and counting KM wins the prestigious topic re-railment award.