Iran's Nuclear Program and Media War Mongering

Sofa_King Good

Following on from a reccomendation from Bonkey to discuss on a new thread

The Economist wrote: »

Actually, there's quite an interesting link between two from a CT perspective that should be pointed out imho.

CTers hold steadfast in the hope that someone who successfully predicted a date when the market would continue to fall (and that's all it was) but demand evidence that a man who, when addressing the UN, claimed that Israel needed to be wiped into history isn't someone we should trust with plutonium.

Strange, that.

First off to clear that common misunderstanding -

THE ACTUAL QUOTE:
So what did Ahmadinejad actually say? To quote his exact words in farsi:

"Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad."

That passage will mean nothing to most people, but one word might ring a bell:

rezhim-e. It is the word "Regime", pronounced just like the English word with an extra "eh" sound at the end. Ahmadinejad did not refer to Israel the country or Israel the land mass, but the Israeli regime. This is a vastly significant distinction, as one cannot wipe a regime off the map. Ahmadinejad does not even refer to Israel by name, he instead uses the specific phrase "rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods" (regime occupying Jerusalem).[/FONT]

So this raises the question.. what exactly did he want "wiped from the map"? The answer is: nothing. That's because the word "map" was never used. The Persian word for map, "nagsheh", is not contained anywhere in his original farsi quote, or, for that matter, anywhere in his entire speech. Nor was the western phrase "wipe out" ever said. Yet we are led to believe that Iran's President threatened to "wipe Israel off the map", despite never having uttered the words "map", "wipe out" or even "Israel".
The full quote translated directly to English:[/FONT]

"The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time". Word by word translation:

Imam (Khomeini) ghoft (said) een (this) rezhim-e (regime) ishghalgar-e (occupying) qods (Jerusalem) bayad (must) az safheh-ye ruzgar (from page of time) mahv shavad (vanish from).

Here is the full transcript of the speech in farsi, archived on Ahmadinejad's web site

www.president.ir/farsi/ahmadinejad/speeches/1384/aban-84/840804sahyonizm.htm

So it becomes quite clear that he said no such thing.

Alternatively, This didn't get quite so much press coverage

Vice Premier Shimon Peres said Monday that "the president of Iran should remember that Iran can also be wiped off the map."

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1145961301962&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

Why its a problem.

What has just been demonstrated is irrefutable proof of media manipulation and propaganda in action. The AP deliberately alters an IRNA quote to sound more threatening. The Israeli media not only repeats the fake quote but also steals the original authors' words. The unsuspecting public reads this, forms an opinion and supports unnecessary wars of aggression, presented as self defense, based on the misinformation.

And surprise, surprise AP involved again.

Sofa_King Good

Here are two seperate articles on the same incident and both concerning Iran. See if you can spot the difference -

1.May 5th 08 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/05/wo...=1&oref=slogin

2. May 4th 08 http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/v-print/story/35794.html

Mahatma coat

I have yet to see anything that convinces me the Iranians are 'Dangerous Fundamentalists' or are 'Hell Bent on the destruction of Israel'

however thats the rhetoric that is being used.

lets look at another example ofver the weekend and compare them

North Korea has succesfully test fired a long range missile, and possibly (havent confirmed it yet) launched a communications satelite, much emptr rattling by the UN but no action taken really, cos they have the nuke.

Iran dosent have the bomb yet ( most analysts seem to agree, course that said :rolleyes:) so they are being sanctioned and threatened, which I believe has a lot more to do with the bourse than the bomb.

Imagine the cheek of them, selling their oil in something other than dollars, they must be destroyed. cos the Fed cant print Euros.YET

Time Magazine

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

So it becomes quite clear that he said no such thing.

This would be more relevant if I had used the expression you claimed I did though. You claim the appropriate quote is "regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time". I refer to history in reference to "the page of time", which are precisely the same thing. The "regime occupying Jerusalem" can only be considered to be the government in charge of the state founded by agreement in the UN in 1947, i.e. Israel. This is related to the fact that Iran refuses to recognise the existence of Israel. That's nice of them. Taken out of context, it is a strange quote by a mad man. Taken in true context, it is but another disgusting quote from Iranian leaders calling for the removal/death/eradication of Israel. Khomeni referred to Israel as "the enemy"; Khameni referred to it as "cancerous"; Khatami as "a parasite"; and now Ahmadinejad says "it is on its way to annihilated".

This is the same state that applies the same punishment to homosexual acts as it does to treason, i.e. death. No wonder Ahmadinejad thinks there are no gays in Iran. Homosexuality has vanished from the pages of time, hasn't it?

Alternatively, This didn't get quite so much press coverage

Just because one of the Limerick gangs has machine guns does not mean we should allow the crazier of the two to get them as well!!!

Mahatma coat wrote: »

I have yet to see anything that convinces me the Iranians are 'Dangerous Fundamentalists' or are 'Hell Bent on the destruction of Israel'

But you're willing to defy all logic on economics...

Imagine the cheek of them, selling their oil in something other than dollars, they must be destroyed. cos the Fed cant print Euros.YET

You know that America doesn't care, right? You don't know what you're talking about, but Jim Hamilton does.

Sofa_King Good

The Economist wrote: »

This would be more relevant if I had used the expression you claimed I did though. You claim the appropriate quote is "regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time". I refer to history in reference to "the page of time", which are precisely the same thing. The "regime occupying Jerusalem" can only be considered to be the government in charge of the state founded by agreement in the UN in 1947, i.e. Israel. This is related to the fact that Iran refuses to recognise the existence of Israel. That's nice of them. Taken out of context, it is a strange quote by a mad man. Taken in true context, it is but another disgusting quote from Iranian leaders calling for the removal/death/eradication of Israel. Khomeni referred to Israel as "the enemy"; Khameni referred to it as "cancerous"; Khatami as "a parasite"; and now Ahmadinejad says "it is on its way to annihilated".

First off apologies for the misunderstanding. I think my brain skipped ahead of my eyes on that one.

Second this is what he said

Imam (Khomeini) ghoft (said) een (this) rezhim-e (regime) ishghalgar-e (occupying) qods (Jerusalem) bayad (must) az safheh-ye ruzgar (from page of time) mahv shavad (vanish from).

Sounds like change you can believe in? To me that sounds just like the rhetoric coming from the Obama election campaign on the Bush Regime.

The Economist wrote: »

This is the same state that applies the same punishment to homosexual acts as it does to treason, i.e. death.

Meanwhile Israel applies the same punishment to innocent Palestinians, of all ages as it does terrorists. i.e. death

The Economist wrote: »

No wonder Ahmadinejad thinks there are no gays in Iran. Homosexuality has vanished from the pages of time, hasn't it?

Meanwhile there are many Jews living harmoniously and happily in Iran. Who choose to live there.

The Economist wrote: »

Just because one of the Limerick gangs has machine guns does not mean we should allow the crazier of the two to get them as well!!!

Good stand alone point. However, I personally don't think it applies. Iran have shown no intention that their nuclear program is anything other than peaceful and civilian which they are perfectöy entitled to do. I don't doubt that they would prefer a nuclear weapon but it would be suicide to start such a program, there are inspectors on the ground in any case.

I really can't see how you can describe Iran as the crazier of the two vs USA/UK/Israel/China/Saudi Arabia and a host of Pan-African countries.

On the other hand :
Mossad killed Iranian nuclear physicist
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/821634.html

Which could be taken as a declaration of war.

Seems to me Imperialist UK/US interests and International Zionism want to turn the clock back 50 odd years and put in place another puppet like the Shah.

And If Iran ever were to get the bomb strangely and I'd say suspicously it would be the CIA's fault. Its almost as if they want them to get it.

Look Up 'Operation Merlin' if anyones interested.

Time Magazine

Let's not get into a debate of Iran vs Israel here, because we know we're not going to agree.

However the point that I was quoted with in the OP is how - on the Conspiracy Theories forum of all places - there are demands for evidence that cute little Iran are not playing nice.

Now, perhaps contrary to popular opinion here, I'm not one to bang on for evidence for CTs. Obviously there's often not going to be any direct evidence for a CT. For example, let's say it was a missile that hit the Pentagon on 9/11. If that were the case, obviously the US govt will not just openly post video evidence showing this. So there will have to be "clues". This is all fair. You then match the benefits and logic and probabilities with these clues. So you'd have to consider what the benefits to the US would be of bombing themselves, and one could argue that it provides scope for invading Iraq, say. All good. Probabilities? Well there are a lot of reports that a plane flew into the Pentagon, and then you get into a debate.

So "evidence" isn't always the key. So let's apply this "no evidence" approach to our good friend Mahmoud. Like most politicians, he has designs on his nation wielding a lot of power. So it's perfectly plausible that his pursuit of plutonium isn't purely for nuclear power. What are the costs of him trying to get a nuke? There's a serious threat that the US will bomb the f*ck out of him in the process. What are the benefits? Nobody ignores you if you have a nuke. And even if you don't quite make it that far, you have a lot of leverage when it comes to "preferential treatment" with regards aid. So there's a risk of war, but potentially huge benefits. This seems like a perfectly plausible CT.

Now there are other factors to consider. Given its nation's regret over its history ("Don't mention the war"), Germany is quite a peaceful nation. Nobody thinks Germany is going to nuke anyone and so it's all good in the plutonium hood.

Iran. Well. They're not exactly Germany. Their leader is, for the most part, a bit crazy. Their populace isn't like ours, where we (rightly) get afraid of faked reports at Sellafield. The Iranian people are gagging for a few nukes. You can't really blame them, given their neighbours and history. But let's be honest here, they're not the sort of people you want with nukes. Democratic decision or not, they should not be allowed have nukes and they should be protested against. (Similarly, the democratic decision of the US Congress to invade Iraq should have been, and was, protested against.) Regardless, there would be concerns with them having nukes.

So the Iranian people want nukes and the leader is a bit crazy and it's plausible that it's in their interest to obtain nukes. Is there any evidence that they're not just pursuing nuclear power? F*ck yeah. The IAEA said in 2003 that Iran's refusal to grant them permission to certain sites was a concern, if you know what I mean. Mohamed ElBaradei (head of the IAEA) as his name and his Nobel Peace Prize might suggest, is no child of the US government. So when he says he's concerned - and he said it as lately as last year - take him at his word. So it's perfectly plausible that Iran want nukes, and they're refusing to let independent assessors into certain buildings.

I have just posted a very reasonable CT: Iran are developing nukes behind everyone's backs so that it can gain itself political leverage and Ahmadinejad can have an egowank. Certainly, you'll agree, it's one of the better ones posed on this forum in the past year.

You'd think the CT gang would hop on it. But no.

People like MC are calling for evidence. He's happy to throw out economic nonsense that Iran trading oil in Euro is anything more than a petty two-finger salute to the US, but claims he's not happy with the evidence that Iran are being naughty. This, put bluntly, is being hypocritical.

So let's work this back to my point you quoted in the OP. I asserted, and this thread is only supporting my belief, that you guys are not actually Conspiracy Theorists. You're hypocritical anti-globalists clutching at straws.

Mahatma coat

there have been 'Reports' of Iranians present at the North Korean Nuclear thests and a lot of conjecture about the NK missile being of Iranian design.

but then again there were reports of chinese technicians on the Kursk when it sank testin a Skvall torpedo.


What makes you think that Ahmadinijad is "for the most part, a bit crazy"

"The Iranian people are gagging for a few nukes" really, where did you get this little gem

oh and how is their population so different to ours, have they got extra heads, or three breasted wimmins?

I've had this argument here before, and its one of the few things me and Bonkey agree on.

show mw where you can draw inferrences that the leaders of Iran are a bit mental, besides the warmongerin being foisted off on us by the MSM

Time Magazine

Mahatma coat wrote: »

there have been 'Reports' of Iranians present at the North Korean Nuclear thests and a lot of conjecture about the NK missile being of Iranian design.

but then again there were reports of chinese technicians on the Kursk when it sank testin a Skvall torpedo.

And there were reports that Ireland would run out turf by 1980. However this is irrelevant. What you are doing here is questioning evidence itself. There is absolutely no connection between the truthfulness of an IAEA report and a report on the Kursk.

What makes you think that Ahmadinijad is "for the most part, a bit crazy"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAel96pxGeI

He has banned Western music from State-run media.

He has claimed the Holocaust is a myth. (Do you still agree with him?)

He had made over fifty professors (dissidents) retire from one university alone.

He bans 90% of the opposition from running.

He has decided that he, and not the market, should set wages. Not surprisingly, inflation is running at 25%.

He has made it mandatory for women to wear the hijab.

He executes children.

"The Iranian people are gagging for a few nukes" really, where did you get this little gem

Unfortunately they don't take Red-C polls every month in Iran, so there is little conclusive evidence. However, there is plenty of anecdotal evidence. For example, a well-respected author (with an M.Sc. in Political Theory from LSE) writes here that "anecdotal evidence suggests that the vast majority of Iranians would like their country to be a nuclear power". A survey linked here says 53% want nuclear weapons developed. As a bit of a statistician, I'd expect the figure to be considerably higher. People here baulk at admitting they'd vote for Fianna Fáil - they consistently poll lower than they get. Similarly, I would suspect there is considerable baulking at accepting you want your government to develop a nuclear arsenal. (Incidentally, that link also backs up my point that it's possible to "brink" your way to an arms race, then step back for a nice pay-off.)

oh and how is their population so different to ours, have they got extra heads, or three breasted wimmins?

Look at who they vote for.

Woger

It's not the president that's the problem it's the mullahs. They are supposed to be the ones in charge and if you don't think in the middle of this bunch of extremists there are the equivelants of a DicK Cheney then you're mistaken.

Diogenes

Mahatma coat wrote: »

I have yet to see anything that convinces me the Iranians are 'Dangerous Fundamentalists' or are 'Hell Bent on the destruction of Israel'

however thats the rhetoric that is being used.

lets look at another example ofver the weekend and compare them

North Korea has succesfully test fired a long range missile,

Successfully? Successfully?

North Korea failed in its highly vaunted effort to fire a satellite into orbit, military and private experts said Sunday after reviewing detailed tracking data that showed the missile and payload fell into the sea. Some said the failure undercut the North Korean campaign to come across as a fearsome adversary able to hurl deadly warheads halfway around the globe.

Source: NY Times

Can't get anything right.

and possibly (havent confirmed it yet) launched a communications satelite, much emptr rattling by the UN but no action taken really, cos they have the nuke.

Iran dosent have the bomb yet ( most analysts seem to agree, course that said :rolleyes:) so they are being sanctioned and threatened, which I believe has a lot more to do with the bourse than the bomb.

Imagine the cheek of them, selling their oil in something other than dollars, they must be destroyed. cos the Fed cant print Euros.YET

Once again it's just a tinsy tiny bit more complicated than you make out.

You see Seoul (wee speck of a place, only 24million souls) , is within 50km of the North Korean border, well within the range of modern artillery. Thats simple shells not fancy rockets.

So you have to to understand any attempt at regime change with Kim Jong Il would result in massive loss of life.

It's not just about nukes.

bonkey

The Economist wrote: »

...
He bans 90% of the opposition from running.
...
Look at who they vote for.

I'm going to guess that they vote for those they're allowed to choose between.

Mahatma coat

Diogenes wrote: »

Successfully? Successfully?



Source: NY Times

Can't get anything right.

I said Succesfully test Fired a Long Range Missile.

which they did, it did its 3 stagethingys and deployed a payload

now the MSM/Western Shills are claiming that it failed, North Korea say it worked.

if it worked I would expect that we should be able to figure out how to connect to it and hear the patriotic music its broadcasting

if it failed I'm pretty sure the yanks will take great pleasure in pointing to it at the bottom of the ocean. as of yet I can neither confirm or deny the satelites launch into orbit.

We can confirm that the Missile was Fired Successfully

Once again it's just a tinsy tiny bit more complicated than you make out.

You see Seoul (wee speck of a place, only 24million souls) , is within 50km of the North Korean border, well within the range of modern artillery. Thats simple shells not fancy rockets.

So you have to to understand any attempt at regime change with Kim Jong Il would result in massive loss of life.

It's not just about nukes.

Well then why are they botherin with the Nukes?

I know where Seoul is Thank you very much.

and again I'll ask you what gives us the right to decide who should lead the regime, surely thats up to the people of North Korea to decide, and not some armchair diplomats sitting pretty with their western comforts

Mahatma coat

If anyone wants to discuss the North Korean launch and how it fits into the overall agenda of the Lizzzzards, please ask one of the mods to split this off into a seperate seperate thread.

otherwise thats all I'm gonna say about it here.

oh and Back OT

the regime question also applies to Iran

what gives us the right to say, hey we dont like your democraticaly elected leaders so We'r gona invade ye and instal our own puppet government, now wheres that Shah Fella again

meglome

Lads if you were defending Sweden for example over the US I'd understand, but Iran.

You might not like the US and sure they have plenty to answer for but let's take the blinkers off when it comes to Iran please. Talk about selective finger pointing. :mad:

Mahatma coat

thats the same rationale that people used to defend the invasion of Iraq, and my response is the same now as it was then , no matter how bad you think it is in your world view its up to the people on the ground in Iran to change how it works

and from talkin to a lot of them they are fairly happy with how itr works most of the time.

Diogenes

Mahatma coat wrote: »

I said Succesfully test Fired a Long Range Missile.

which they did, it did its 3 stagethingys and deployed a payload

Into the ocean, not into outer space. Clearly your definition of success is a tad more broadminded than mine.

now the MSM/Western Shills are claiming that it failed, North Korea say it worked.

NORTH KOREAN MEDIA IN LIE SHOCKER!

if it worked I would expect that we should be able to figure out how to connect to it and hear the patriotic music its broadcasting

if it failed I'm pretty sure the yanks will take great pleasure in pointing to it at the bottom of the ocean. as of yet I can neither confirm or deny the satelites launch into orbit.

You are just precious. You're basically admitting that it didn't work, and then claiming that we'll never know it worked.

We can confirm that the Missile was Fired Successfully

Yes, it was fired. But the whole concept of a missile is that it ends up where it supposed to go.

Well then why are they botherin with the Nukes?

Ask the barmy Kim Jong Il.

I know where Seoul is Thank you very much.

and again I'll ask you what gives us the right to decide who should lead the regime, surely thats up to the people of North Korea to decide, and not some armchair diplomats sitting pretty with their western comforts

But no one is demanding Kim Jong resign. Seriously you're demanding answers to questions no one is asking.

:pac::pac::pac::pac::D:D:D:D:pac::pac::pac::):):rolleyes:

otherwise thats all I'm gonna say about it here.

oh and Back OT

Need I remind you, that you brought North Korea into this. Demanding that the thread be brought back on topic because I've pointed out how ill informed you are about your tangent is just a tad rich.

Time Magazine

bonkey wrote: »

I'm going to guess that they vote for those they're allowed to choose between.

Indeed. However by most reports the voting public doesn't really mind that candidates are routinely disqualified for not being crazy adhering to the Islamist orthodoxy enough. I don't see myself voting for the Greens any time soon, but I'd be concerned if they were removed from the ballot, as would the majority of Irish people. That's a difference in itself.

(Aside: lol.)

Mahatma coat wrote: »

what gives us the right to say, hey we dont like your democraticaly elected leaders so We'r gona invade ye and instal our own puppet government, now wheres that Shah Fella again

As I told my girly recently, Biffy Clyro say it better than I ever could. From 2:00...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgGAiAFyh8s

The point is not about our right to intervene. It's about the CT "community"'s rather hypocritical willingness to believe in stuff that for all intents and purpose is pure rubbish, but cover their ears about very plausible conspiracies. There is a strong tendency for the CT "community" (used in scare quotes not condescendingly btw, but because CTs are such a disparate group) to cover their ears about anything that could be considered in support of America/Israel/conservatism/capitalism/you name it. It is my view, essentially, that CTs do not consider something a conspiracy unless it's perpretated by what they see as the big mean oppressor. Of course they don't consider a crazy leader who executes homosexual teenagers as an oppressor. The standards the CT community apply here weighed strongly against "the establishment" and so I think it's fair to say that CTs generally hold an Naomi Klein view of the world. Oftentimes this criticism of the establishment is done with very little evidence or logic, such as the fairly ridiculous "Time magazine portrays blacks as the devil" argument.

bonkey

The Economist wrote: »

Indeed. However by most reports the voting public doesn't really mind that candidates are routinely disqualified for not being crazy adhering to the Islamist orthodoxy enough.

I'm not sure that logic holds up.

If the candidates were the equivalent of your Greens, then there'd be little reason to remove them. People wouldn't vote for them anyway.

I'd look at it slightly differently.

I agree entirely that we're talking about an oppressive regime.

If I were a member of Joe Q Oppressed Public, and my reofrmist candidate(s) of choice were removed from the ballot...what would I do? I could kick up a fuss...and attract the attention of a regime who've shown itself willing to imprison or execute people for pretty-much anything they don't like. Or I could accept that I am oppressed, and keep my head down.

But to be honest, this is all a bit of a side-issue. The public, no matter what way we look at it, aren't the people who are making policy regarding nuclear research.

Is it possible that Iran is following a weapons program? Sure.
Is it possible that Iran is trying to gain nuclear power in a manner where they're not dependant on foreign nations? Sure.

They have their own uranium deposits. They want to have their own processing capability and generation capability. Then they're beholden to no-one.

Now, of course, they could be also trying to get The Bomb. I don't rule that out for a second.

But here's the thing...

In all of the furore regarding Iran's nuclear policy, the Iranians have consistently maintained a simple stance. They want the rights which the NPT allows them. They want to be treated exactly in the manner that the international treaties regarding nuclear research, refinement et all claim they should be treated. The US, Israel and others don't want this.

Whenever Iran has refused to play ball, its because someone else is also not playing ball. Someone says that they have to shut down their refinement to enter into negotiations...the Iranians note that this is not in accordance with the Treaty and in turn do something not in accordance with the Treaty such as deny the IAEA access to some sites.

Are the Iranians conspiring to build a bomb? Perhaps. I'd rank it far lower a probability than I think you do. At the same time, a lot of their "shifty" behaviour is perfectly justifiable without there being a nuclear weapons program, simply on the grounds that they are not willing to let the Western powers bully them.

They signed treaties. All they are doing is insisting that all parties honour these, and are reacting to others refusing to do so.

If that's cover for a weapons program, then its pretty dodgy, given that their cover relies on the likes of the US continuing to bully them rather than treating them fairly.

This, to me, makes it interesting. If they're hiding a weapons program, they're doing so only because the actions of those who most want to prevent such a thing is enabling them to do so.

This, of course, raises the alternate possibility that they're not developing weapons, and that the US understands their psyche well enough to make them dance to their tune...making all the wrong moves so that it appears as though they have something to hide.

Western media certainly don't spin it in favour of Iran, but they do report the Iranian's position accurately...that when they are refuse to abide by treaties, they do so in reaction to similar actions from the West. They are not willing to give up rights granted to them by these treaties.

So who is conspiring against whom here? I don't think its as cut and dried as you seem to suggest. I would suggest that which side of the fence one comes down on will have a lot to do with how one sees the media's portrayal of it. Western media shows a clear pro-western bias (unsurprisingly), but I would consider it somewhat naiive to assume that we're getting the full story either which way.

Time Magazine

Bonkey, thank you for the long post, but I'm mostly playing devil's advocate to enforce the point that it's plausible that they're making a bomb. For once I'm playing the CT guy...

bonkey

Fair enough.

FWIW, I agree that its plausible, but would draw the line at the suggestion that its so plausible that there's hypocracy involved in rejecting that possibility.

Time Magazine

Rejecting that possibility is fine if you're a skeptic. Rejecting that possibility while asserting that REINHARDT MUST BE RIGHT! is hypocritical imo.

bonkey

Unless someone has offered their reasoning in both cases, you would be merely assuming hypocracy based on how you wish to interpret their stances, rather than from an informed, evidence-based perspective.

You would be ruling out any number of possibilities where they could have reasonable grounds for reaching the conclusions they did (even if those conclusions are wrong) where no hypocracy is involved.

What evidence supports your claim of hypocracy? From where I'm sitting, it involves large amounts of assumption as to what the reasoning was which lies behind the conclusions you have taken issue with.

Ironically, that assumption-based reasoning seems to be the very thing that you are railing against.

And yes...I know you said you're playing Devil's Advocate - that for once youre playing the CT guy - but here's the thing...I question the reasoning of the CT guys all the time. If your'e playing one of them, then that makes your reasoning fair game.

Time Magazine

I have seen many theories on this forum that should be considered plausible by right-minded members of society. If one is endowed with a healthy dose of scepticism, it's not unreasonable to not fully believe these theories. However it would not be intellectually honest to completely refute the truth of these theories. Essentially here I'm getting at the difference between failing to reject the null and accepting the alternative.

Bad as it is for my dinner-party conversational skills, the specialisation of my knowledge allows me to speak with greater confidence about matters of economics than most. I have seen theories proposed here that are not only improbable, but (almost) entirely self-contradictory. I'm talking about things like setting unnaturally low interest rates and also eliminating inflation. Anyone who does not completely reject these theses must be really and truly "open-minded", as these things are only true in a very small subset of universes.

I can point blame and name names if so desired, but I think it can be accepted by neutral viewers here that are at least some posters who simultaneously hold these "sceptical dispositions" and "open-minded dispositions". Based purely on my own anecdotal experience, I feel this is not isolated to one or two CTers, but is suggestive of a more general trend in the CT "community", again not really a community but no better word comes to mind. I accept entirely that this is an intuitive result, not backed by much evidence. I am quite sure however, if one were to compare Google results along the lines of "major government; illegitimate war in poor country; oil the real reason" you'd see a lot more links regarding the Iraq war than China's shocking blind eye to genocide in Darfur.

I argue the reason for this is that a conspiracy regarding a major power is sexy. There are plenty of crap governments who murder their people. There's only one world superpower who abuses its military might, though.

This phenomenon doesn't just affect CTers. Gitmo gets a lot more press than this, though maybe it shouldn't. 9/11 gets a lot more gravitas than water scarcity, though there's no doubting which is the greater tragedy. Holodomor is unknown to people at large, though its first cousin comes up in debates about racism every week.

This sort of ignorance is normal. I know very little about Holodomor, and didn't know about it at all until a few years ago. To a certain extent, we can't help focusing more on the "sexy" stories. However when we apply lower burdens of proof to the sexy stories, then there's a problem. It is nigh on impossible to show that CTers systematically apply a higher burden of proof to claims of conspiracies against the establishment, but I've already argued in this thread that evidence isn't the be-all and end-all. It's plausible that there is psychological correlation between those that investigate CTs and those with anti-establishment views. It's likely that a socio-economic correlation exists. If they exist, when you mix these endogeneities with standard cognitive dissonances you would expect to find that the CT community would bear some grudge against the establishment.

I'll openly admit that I am very biased towards my loved ones. I can see that what I would consider unacceptable for others would be forgiveable for them. If I were biased against, say, the Israeli government, I would similarly consider their actions unacceptable. If I were of a conspiratorial nature, I would blame them for everything. If I were biased in favour of Zionism, I could similarly see links where they don't exist and end up bombing Morocco. The analogue of what I'm saying applies readily to the CT community.

I think my point is that CTers are a biased sample. I think those with a tendency to be interested in CTs are also those with a tendency to be anti-establishment. This in itself is an unremarkable opinion. People interested in sociology tend to be more left-wing than those interested in economics. There is almost certainly a group-think dynamic at play in both of these disciplines where they view left-wing/right-wing policies with too scornful an eye, and vice versa. (Though it's far harder to do this when you're an economist dealing with quantitative data .) I'm asserting that these fundamental sample biases have resulted in the CT community viewing anti-establishment conspiracies with too scornful an eye, and vice versa. Yes, I call this hypocrisy.

As stated, these double-standards apply widely across the spectrum of opinion. Perhaps they're more biased than social scientists, perhaps they're not as good at hiding their views, or perhaps because of some other reason altogether, I think this double-standard is more prevalent in the CT community than in almost any other interest group. Thus I think it warrants mention.

Veni Vedi Vici

The Economist wrote: »

I have seen many theories on this ... warrants mention.

Your analogous submission of the prerogatives of ‘left wing’ versus ‘right wing’ inclinations is accurate in my opinion. Your post seems replete with the idea that the conspiracy theorist community incongruent collective (which it is but let’s get into nomenclature here) is abound with those who possess a little knowledge about a broad elemental spectrum (a swooping generalization mind you and yet it seems highly applicable to this forum based on the threads and posts I have encountered) unlike yourself who professes (and to be fair exercises) a specialist knowledge.

Do you feel that your pro-establishment inclination prevents you from gauging the respective (and in your case exogenous) ‘left wing’ suppositions?

bonkey

The Economist wrote: »

I have seen many theories on this forum that should be considered plausible by right-minded members of society. If one is endowed with a healthy dose of scepticism, it's not unreasonable to not fully believe these theories. However it would not be intellectually honest to completely refute the truth of these theories. Essentially here I'm getting at the difference between failing to reject the null and accepting the alternative.

Seems to me that we've completely gone away from discussing Iran and their nuclear ambitions.

Would you like this moved to a seperate thread?

Time Magazine

Veni Vedi Vici wrote: »

Do you feel that your pro-establishment inclination prevents you from gauging the respective (and in your case exogenous) ‘left wing’ suppositions?

Almost certainly. But there is an element of degree here. I also like to think that my initial inclination is more amenable to conflicting evidence.

bonkey wrote: »

Seems to me that we've completely gone away from discussing Iran and their nuclear ambitions.

Would you like this moved to a seperate thread?

Up to yourself, but I was merely using Iran as a vessel. I think I've asserted well enough that it's plausible that Iran want nukes. (Beyond that, I'm quite happy to leave the investigation to the IAEA.) However that could be a good thread if anyone wanted to take up the cause, so I'll leave it up to you.

Veni Vedi Vici

The Economist wrote: »

I also like to think that my initial inclination is more amenable to conflicting evidence.

My last off-topic post on this:

This should be requisite for us all but as you've competently illustrated it's not.

6th

VVV, please dont post off topic especially when you acknowledge that it is.

mysterious

meglome wrote: »

Lads if you were defending Sweden for example over the US I'd understand, but Iran.

You might not like the US and sure they have plenty to answer for but let's take the blinkers off when it comes to Iran please. Talk about selective finger pointing. :mad:

My head hurts again..:rolleyes:

Why? Can you please dicern alitte LESS BIASED pleased.


Why Iran
Why USA.

Can you please give me the correct balance to this really imbalance statement you have.

Just so you know you defiine countries having nuclear weapons based on what CNN state. C-L-E-A-R-L-Y.


I'm sorry but I'm just literally shocked people say this stuff in 2009. This is just absurd IMO. I don't understand how we human beings today still bias and become so narrow minded of the current reality that we are severely manipulated by.

I'm praying I really am

mysterious

If people actualy stopped watching the bloody news, and actually sat back and look at the war games playing out.

DING DONG would just be like a heartbeat in the chest.

Seriously
Do any of you realise they want to invade Iran for oil? HELLLO ....

Do you realise that China and Russia get most of thier oil from Iran. USA want to take it over so they can build their pipelines and what not you know how it is, put the usual system in, build bases, destroy cities, build factories that have bliderburg I love you name tags etc. Then you get the whole spanish thing going on where they convert the people into christians.

Oh and I almost forgot, Mcdonalds will be every 10 miles. i'm not even beein sarcastic, look at any country they overrun. The government of Iran would be run by Cheenys 5th cousin once removed and the bliderburgs brother in law wifes brothers uncle will be in charge of Iran foriegn affairs.

The oil pipelines would be built while all the genocide begins.

Now please bear with me, after all that I said they are saying they don't want Iran to have nucs.

Anyone see how insane this is, you realise this when you stop listeing to propaaganda.

King Mob

Again you're not making a lick of sense.

The US have made no moves to invade Iran.
They don't have the resources and they don't have the public support.

And I'm not sure but I think there's already a McDonalds in Iran.

mysterious

King Mob wrote: »

Again you're not making a lick of sense.

The US have made no moves to invade Iran.
They don't have the resources and they don't have the public support.

And I'm not sure but I think there's already a McDonalds in Iran.

No you don't understand, I cant help you with that.

Btw I know they haven't public support, common sense prevailed, if only they could see that with Afghanistan. Obama and his war balony.

King Mob

mysterious wrote: »

No you don't understand, I cant help you with that.

Or here's a crazy theory: you're not making sense.
Seriously, read over your post. It's barely understandable.

mysterious wrote: »

Btw I know they haven't public support, common sense prevailed, if only they could see that with Afghanistan. Obama and his war balony.

And the public don't support the war in Afghanistan either.
Seriously what the hell are you ranting about?

mysterious

King Mob wrote: »

Or here's a crazy theory: you're not making sense.
Seriously, read over your post. It's barely understandable.


And the public don't support the war in Afghanistan either.
Seriously what the hell are you ranting about?

Do you understand English, This is english.

What rant?

If you think i'd shed time ranting with you your sadly mistaken.:D

King Mob

mysterious wrote: »

Do you understand English, This is english.

Yes I understand english, it's just hard to read when they not coherent.

mysterious wrote: »

What rant?

If you think i'd shed time ranting with you your sadly mistaken.:D

You really don't read your own posts do you?

mysterious

King mob why alway's attack me? Why always say you cant understand my posts, why always turn the focus of the topic on me and make personal judgements.

Topic is about Iran,,, read up.

King Mob

mysterious wrote: »

King mob why alway's attack me? Why always say you cant understand my posts, why always turn the focus of the topic on me and make personal judgements.

Topic is about Iran,,, read up.

Oh this is getting ridiculuos.

mysterious wrote: »

Do you understand English, This is english.

Is this not an attack?

And I did make a point about Iran but you didn't actually address it.
Instead you just spouted your usual nonsense.

mysterious

KM, there you go again, why cant you stick to the questions posed on this thread

I;m not engaging in any more of this, you either focus on the questions on this thread or you don't your choice.

Why does America decide or be the judge of Iran.


I would prefer us to be a little less biased and more objective here.

King Mob

mysterious wrote: »

KM, there you go again, why cant you stick to the questions posed on this thread

I;m not engaging in any more of this, you either focus on the questions on this thread or you don't your choice.

Why does America decide or be the judge of Iran.


I would prefer us to be a little less biased and more objective here.

Yea cause you've expressed so many objective views.

America isn't the judge of Iran the UN is.

The leader of Iran holds positions against America and Israel. So I'd imagine they'd be pretty nervous about Iran having nuclear weapons.
Also the middle east is very unstable more countries having nuclear weapons isn't going to help the situation.

But that's obvisously because i watch fox news.
I bet you have a rant coming that's choco block with supporting evidence.

mysterious

King Mob wrote: »

America isn't the judge of Iran the UN is.

But America is judging. that is my question and point. I'm aware that the UN is, but do you understand why I'm bringing this question up?

The leader of Iran holds positions against America and Israel. So I'd imagine they'd be pretty nervous about Iran having nuclear weapons.

Did it ever occur to you that nucs is the new WMD trick.? Just maybe cus we've been lied to before by the same people for the same agendas as before. Do you understand why I pretentious in saying so.

What exactly do you mean by position against in your view, I don't want the CNN/BVF/NBC/SKY NEWS blull I know their view. I want you view.

Also the middle east is very unstable more countries having nuclear weapons isn't going to help the situation.

Oil..... three letter word... Superpowers invading it for resources by war games. War creates unstability.

I want your oil... So the counter agression, force and war for the last 50 years, has shown the unstabillty beyond any scale.

Again You fail to see the obviousness.

This very hypocritical condsidering we the west invade and radiclize the ME as we have being doing for 50 years.

There is no objectivity or dicernment in your position.

But that's obvisously because i watch fox news.
I bet you have a rant coming that's choco block with supporting evidence.

Another dig all by yourself.

Well done KM, cant blame me for that now.

King Mob

mysterious wrote: »

But America is judging. that is my question and point. I'm aware that the UN is, but do you understand why I'm bringing this question up?

That America wants to invade Iran. but there'sno evidenc eto support that.

mysterious wrote: »

Did it ever occur to you that nucs is the new WMD trick.? Just maybe cus we've been lied to before by the same people for the same agendas as before. Do you understand why I pretentious in saying so.

Except that Iran are in nuclear development. they have said as much.

mysterious wrote: »

What exactly do you mean by position against in your view, I don't want the CNN/BVF/NBC/SKY NEWS blull I know their view. I want you view.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel

He's not a fan of either.

mysterious wrote: »

Oil..... three letter word... Superpowers invading it for resources by war games. War creates unstability.

I want your oil... So the counter agression, force and war for the last 50 years, has shown the unstabillty beyond any scale.

Again You fail to see the obviousness.

Except the war would probably cost alot more that it's gain. And the fact the US doesn't have the resouces or public support for another war.
And if it's so obvious why not start show some evidence.

mysterious wrote: »

This very hypocritical condsidering we the west invade and radiclize the ME as we have being doing for 50 years.

You assume I agree with the war.

mysterious wrote: »

There is no objectivity or dicernment in your position.

Except all I've done was ask you to back up your claims.

mysterious wrote: »

Another dig all by yourself.

Well done KM, cant blame me for that now.

No I completely take that back. You actually engaged in discussion for once instead of just ranting.

mysterious

KM for the first time, I'm beginning to see you taking more balance and not swinging to the media/elite interpretation. I'm also glad you understand the agenda of this war. I'm glad you also see that the public never supported it.

But you haven't answered my question.
In your view, why does the Iranian leader have a position against Israel/USA.

No I completely take that back. You actually engaged in discussion for once instead of just ranting

I wasn't ranting, and even if I were, Your stil responsible for you own actions, If I did rant, doesn't mean I'm responsible for your behaviour.

Except the war would probably cost alot more that it's gain. And the fact the US doesn't have the resouces or public support for another war.

Oh for gods sake, If they had public support they'd be over there now making "Iraqing it" This country has three times as much oil as Iraq.

KM please don't make get into a fit of laughter again. Please.

If they take over Iran, It means that USA have a greater control of the Me oil, and literally screws up Russia/Chinas slice of the pie. You do realise it would a cancer to Russia/China if that were to happen.

King Mob

mysterious wrote: »

KM for the first time, I'm beginning to see you taking more balance and not swinging to the media/elite interpretation.

You mean the position actually supported by the evidence?

mysterious wrote: »

I'm also glad you understand the agenda of this war. I'm glad you also see that the public never supported it.

I very much think we have different opinions about the war. Bet you have no evidence to support yours.

mysterious wrote: »

But you haven't answered my question.
In your view, why does the Iranian leader have a position against Israel/USA.

I don't know why he has a position against Israel and the US.
The fact of the matter is that both Israel and the US are of the opinion that he is against them.

mysterious wrote: »

I wasn't ranting, and even if I were, Your stil responsible for you own actions, If I did rant, doesn't mean I'm responsible for your behaviour.

You really should look over your own posts.

mysterious wrote: »

Oh for gods sake, If they had public support they'd be over there now making "Iraqing it" This country has three times as much oil as Iraq.

You do realise that their army is stretched really thin right?
And that they have made no move what so ever to prepare for war with Iran?

mysterious wrote: »

If they take over Iran, It means that USA have a greater control of the Me oil, and literally screws up Russia/Chinas slice of the pie. You do realise it would a cancer to Russia/China if that were to happen.

Ah so it's provoke conflict with Russia and China. Sounds cost effective alright.

mysterious wrote: »

KM please don't make get into a fit of laughter again. Please.

You keep saying this yet you keep going on about me attacking you.

Trust me I don't think a single person takes you seriously.

mysterious

King Mob wrote: »

You mean the position actually supported by the evidence?

Well yes maybe, but I'm asking for your view, this reality does not always need to be validated by evidence, we both already understhan reality.

I very much think we have different opinions about the war. Bet you have no evidence to support yours.

Well then tell me.

I think your conception of me, is totally twisted, you think I'm here to be C.T, or someone who rants or someone who is paranoid or something.

Your so focused on you being right that you miss the obvious. You'd rather appear right than actually dicerning the simple facts.

I don't know why he has a position against Israel and the US.
The fact of the matter is that both Israel and the US are of the opinion that he is against them.

He says the same too.

You do realise that their army is stretched really thin right?
And that they have made no move what so ever to prepare for war with Iran?

Didn't stop the US elites from war mongering about Iran at the height of the Iraq war. YOu do realise it was one of the big agendas in the Bush admins goals. It's still not stopping Puppet Obama from sending 17,000 more troops to Afghanistan to defeat the terrorists cough cough AHEM. Terrorists cough.

Ah so it's provoke conflict with Russia and China. Sounds cost effective alright.

Well you know it's survival of the fittest just proves just how much you are unaware of the big picture

Why do you think Vladmir Pution made a public speech against the US plans for the invasion of Iran at a recent UN council meeting. Don't you think these words speak volumes.. Coincidence much. If USA win over Iran just like Iraq, Be damn sure USA have the upper hand on the superpower scale and still contain its power status over China. Why do you think Bush mentioned a possible WW3 if the invasion of Iran was imminent. His statements were said way back 2007, Do you remember.



It's the fight between superpowers KM. Who can get the resources first.

We are all so cot up whos the bad guy and whos the terrorists, as I can tell you must be too.

You keep saying this yet you keep going on about me attacking you.

Trust me I don't think a single person takes you seriously.

Well you don't know that. That could be taken as another insult again. Another dig all by yourself.

Mahatma coat

Reasons people think Iran dosent like Israel/America

they said so in the PAST

their prayers end with the delightful slogan, 'death to America'

Ahmidinijad has been misquoted as sayin they want Israel destroyed


I still think its a bit unfair tat the US is utilising the UN to do its dirtywork on Iran whilst at the sametime the US will blatently ignore anything the UN says that disagrees with their position

King Mob

mysterious wrote: »

Well yes maybe, but I'm asking for your view, this reality does not always need to be validated by evidence, we both already understhan reality.

Yes you do. Especially for the extraordinary claims.

mysterious wrote: »

Well then tell me.

It wasn't a global conspiracy.

mysterious wrote: »

I think your conception of me, is totally twisted, you think I'm here to be C.T, or someone who rants or someone who is paranoid or something.

Yea imagine forming a opinion about someone based on nothing.

mysterious wrote: »

Your so focused on you being right that you miss the obvious. You'd rather appear right than actually dicerning the simple facts.

Oh look.
I'd love to discern the simple facts but you never supply them. And when we do focus on the simple facts you go back to the big picture.

mysterious wrote: »

He says the same too.

I'm quite sure he does.

mysterious wrote: »

Didn't stop the US elites from war mongering about Iran at the height of the Iraq war. YOu do realise it was one of the big agendas in the Bush admins goals.

Well no they didn't and it wasn't.

mysterious wrote: »

It's still not stopping Puppet Obama from sending 17,000 more troops to Afghanistan to defeat the terrorists cough cough AHEM. Terrorists cough.

Afghanistan is a completely different situation that you are evidently completely ignorant of.
And bet that claim about Obama is based on solid evidence.

mysterious wrote: »

Well you know it's survival of the fittest just proves just how much you are unaware of the big picture

So why not show some evidence if you're so aware.
Unless of course you're just making it up.

mysterious wrote: »

Why do you think Vladmir Pution made a public speech against the US plans for the invasion of Iran at a recent UN council meeting. Don't you think these words speak volumes.. Coincidence much.

Because he doesn't want a war?
And what plans exactly? Can you back that up?

mysterious wrote: »

If USA win over Iran just like Iraq, Be damn sure USA have the upper hand on the superpower scale and still contain its power status over China.

Unless of course they suffer huge losses in this war.

mysterious wrote: »

Why do you think Bush mentioned a possible WW3 if the invasion of Iran was imminent. His statements were said way back 2007, Do you remember.

No I don't. You're probably exaggerating.

mysterious wrote: »

It's the fight between superpowers KM. Who can get the resources first.

Yep cause you've shown such a great grasp of international relations so far.

mysterious wrote: »

We are all so cot up whos the bad guy and whos the terrorists, as I can tell you must be too.

But the government is the bad guy right?

mysterious wrote: »

Well you don't know that. That could be taken as another insult again. Another dig all by yourself.

Maybe it's all those points you've backed up with all that evidence. Or those post that were little more than nonsensical rants. Or all the silly mysticism.
But no I don't think anyone takes you seriously, let alone believe a single claim you make.

6th

Lads there are so many little dig and jibes in there that are close to personal abuse. The rest of the community dont need to put through this.

Please cop on and stick to the topic being discussed rather than making assumptions about each other.

mysterious

King Mob wrote: »

It wasn't a global conspiracy. [/qute]

Did I say it was,

Yea imagine forming a opinion about someone based on nothing.

So you keep judging KM, i've taken 3 insults from you so far in the last 4 posts.

You really need to take some honest self reflection before you start judging others constantly.

Oh look.
I'd love to discern the simple facts but you never supply them. And where we do focus on the simple facts you go back to the big picture.

This is what annoys me. Its the reason why I don't bother wasting my time anymore. I actually have been on many forums posting facts, evidence and videos and proof to my argument. You will see that on the millitary forum where I posted very detailed topics on war.. It was taken off cus it was deemed too detailed for the millitary thread. I put alot of the history of the Geo energy wars that are going on between Russia/China and the USA.

I purposely don't feel the need to show you this, cus you have shown you dont know anything about it, you don't know the basic, and you've already proved you don't know by saying so. You asked me questions to be backed up that you should already know. Since you don't read history and stuff about this.

Why should I bother then.
Take some self responsiblity and learn some wars throughout the century, and the cold war for example.

Well no they didn't and it wasn't.

Yes they did,
Since I never see you back up anything, and your so quick to tell everyone is wrong.

Care to prove me wrong. Or again no responsiblity?

I guess you don't pay attention the fear/brainwashing that did go on from Jan 07 till present about Iran. But you think your right and I'm wrong.

Are you sure?

Afghanistan is a completely different situation that you are evidently completely ignorant of

And bet that claim about Obama is based on solid evidence.

No your ignorant of the reality, since you have shown you don't know, and you haven't shown any evidence or even reasoning as to why. I can assume you are not familar with why they are going in there.

They told us the same about Iraq, but it was always about the dollar and the oil. Not liberate the country and defeat the terrorrists.

Watch his war speech on plotting the Afghan war. You can find it on youtube. Type in PUPPET OBAMA NWO. See look I've given you the links. video, But wait you probably didn't even see his speech.

Do you pay attention to world events?I'm asking a really serious question KM? Do you?

I've asked you before, And you dont have to give me exact age.

Are you 18-24, 24-30, 30+? Are you from America?

So why not show some evidence if you're so aware.
Unless of course you're just making it up.

If I was seeing you making a small effort, I would directly post the link, since you have no awareness and no clue with this topic,

I will just say this.
Youtube Iran Vladmir putin and war mongering. It will come up. I'm so not surprised you haven't even seen it.



Because he doesn't want a war?
And what plans exactly? Can you back that up?

No I don't. You're probably exaggerating.

I'm not, KM, do you pay attention to any world affairs, if you don't then I do not need to dicuss a topic you have not a notion about. It seems that your not showing the interest either. I'm sorry but if you don't pay attention, don't expect others to show you evidence constantly.

Your going to have to take some responsiblity on your part on this subject. There is no point in coming to topics like this, if you are not familar with it, or you can't remember important dates and important points in this topic.

But the government is the bad guy right?

When they lie, are they good guy?. Mess around my point if you like, but bet you wont be able to give a straight answer, for every twist you make.

My pont is, I'm always aware of pepole who point fingers and point to the world who's wrong. These people are projecting in the hope they are percieved as good, when in some cases they are just as bad.

I believe everyone is 50% good and 50% in morals. Some do more of one or the other.

Maybe it's all those points you've backed up with all that evidence. Or those post that were little more than nonsensical rants. Or all the silly mysticism.
But no I don't think anyone takes you seriously, let alone believe a single claim you make.

Thre was not one point on mysticims,

Another accusation/dig.......

6th

mysterious wrote: »

So you keep judging KM, i've taken 3 insults from you so far in the last 4 posts.

And why haven't you reported the posts? Seriously the Charter says that if you have a problem with a post then you report it and dont address it.

I'm gonna address the rest of your post now and you wont like it. Mainly because you just thanked my post asking not to get personal with people.

6th

mysterious wrote: »

You really need to take some honest self reflection before you start judging others constantly.

mysterious wrote: »

This is what annoys me. Its the reason why I don't bother wasting my time anymore.

But you do bother, you keep addressing people and saying you're not going to anymore or that you are going to ignore them?

mysterious wrote: »

I actually have been on many forums posting facts, evidence and videos and proof to my argument. You will see that on the millitary forum where I posted very detailed topics on war.. It was taken off cus it was deemed too detailed for the millitary thread. I put alot of the history of the Geo energy wars that are going on between Russia/China and the USA.

You're posts in other forums mean nothing here. If you want to make a point here then post it here rather than telling people to read your stuff elsewhere.

mysterious wrote: »

Do you pay attention to world events?I'm asking a really serious question KM? Do you?

I've asked you before, And you dont have to give me exact age.

Are you 18-24, 24-30, 30+? Are you from America?

I have warned people plenty of times for asking personal questions and above for making things personal. This is the final warning for this.

Seriously you thank a post which asks people not to get personal then you make a post asking for someones age, where they are from etc.

6th

King Mob wrote: »

Trust me I don't think a single person takes you seriously.

King Mob wrote: »

But no I don't think anyone takes you seriously, let alone believe a single claim you make.

King Mob, you dont speak for anyone but yourself and to me this looks like baiting. If you cant discuss the topic without getting personal then I suggest you walk away for a while. I'm pretty sure I wont have to bring this up again.