Israel Considers Pre-Emptive Attack On Iran

davoxx

SamHarris wrote: »

Its called paraphrasing.

is that what you call misrepresenting someone's view to suit your agenda?

SamHarris wrote: »

If you have another argument, knock yourself out and present it.

deal with the first argument ...

SamHarris wrote: »

You are yet to address the reasons you are right in any real way beyond this.

i have, you don't get it, you reply with the 'childish' comment ...

SamHarris wrote: »

Really? I dont think you read my posts then.

i did, if that is not what you think you said, i don't think you read them before you posted them ...

SamHarris wrote: »

No, higher stakes make arguments based purely on you thinking it would be more "fair" have far less traction. Simple.

huh?
the higher stakes applies to israel and america too. fairness makes arguments based purely on your one-sided consideration of higher stakes invalid and worthless.
simple AND correct.

SamHarris wrote: »

Its not local law its international law.

so what?

SamHarris wrote: »

Secondly, a crap analogy,

because it proves you wrong? well then it must be crap ...

SamHarris wrote: »

it is much more like could you imagine a law that gave a small number of people powers that everyone did not have the right to. Well. Could you?

like certain countries having nuclear weapons when others can't? so now i guess you support iran having nuclear weapons. you just shot yourself in the foot here. not that you'd understand how, smiley face

SamHarris wrote: »

Think real hard.

you should try that every now and then, even once would be a nice change ... then this line would not be as embarrassing for you ..

SamHarris wrote: »

No I pointed out why it was childish, its gross over simplification and total lack of any engagment with any of the reasons why it is a bad idea. I also that international law does not agree with your idea that Iran should be allowed nuclear weapons because Israel has them.

see above ...

SamHarris

davoxx wrote: »

did i say it was? Challenging concept eh?

You said I had "forgotten" . . . Can you not even remember that?

davoxx

SamHarris wrote: »

Unfortunatly you shot yourself in the foot with the little comment before this. Not that you will understand how :rolleyes:

maybe you could explain this to me? not that you could :rolleyes:

RichieC

Your arrogant no it all attitude is at odds with your facile knowlege of international affairs, Sam.

American exceptionalism is all it is at the end of the day.

keep it up, though. It's really amusing

SamHarris

davoxx wrote: »

like certain countries having nuclear weapons when others can't? so now i guess you support iran having nuclear weapons. you just shot yourself in the foot here. not that you'd understand how, smiley face
.

Only thing I could be bothered answering, I dont have time for religious/ CT nut jobs.

No, I support the NPT and nuclear non proliferation. You really should read what is in it before you continue.

davoxx

RichieC wrote: »

Your arrogant no it all attitude is at odds with your facile knowlege of international affairs, Sam.

American exceptionalism is all it is at the end of the day.

keep it up, though. It's really amusing

thanks ... i finally get it it now it's "uncle" sam

SamHarris

RichieC wrote: »

Your arrogant no it all attitude is at odds with your facile knowlege of international affairs, Sam.

American exceptionalism is all it is at the end of the day.

keep it up, though. It's really amusing

No, American exceptionalism has more to do with its complete dominance in science, technology, military, economic and third level educationary spheres. But then I know how much you hate those facts and figures, so yeah they can barely keep up with the Middle East or whatever other idea your trying to get across here...

Yet another excellent post. You really are a contributer par excellence. Maybe some day, you will actually make a point?

SamHarris

davoxx wrote: »

thanks ... i finally get it it now it's "uncle" sam

Nope. Wrong again. Although I really wouldnt be ashamed, you toss it like an insult. But then its because some of my favourite intellectuals come from there. For example this guy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxjBjRnhUqA
Try it I think youll have a ball.

SamHarris

Out of here. Ill come back when people start addressing the point of the thread and if they disagree with me actually lookk at the points I have made about the original idea.

ed2hands

Davoxx, i seem to be having trouble finding the appropriate section in UN Resolution no 1887 (link below) that outlines where threats of military action against Iran have been sanctioned.
Maybe you can find it yourself as i know you're very thorough.;)

All i can find in there is that it bans the use or threat of force.
Odd that..

(A word to the wise: Wouldn't bother trying coz it's not in there. Has anyone told Mr. Netanyahu?)

http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4abcd4792.html

davoxx

SamHarris wrote: »

davoxx wrote: »

i wonder why? i guess people who are robbed from are only rich ... or are you saying that after being robbed you have to be rich?

what sort of stupid argument is that?

What? So you dont feel like answering the question? Yes thats exactly what I said, your powers of comprehension are staggering.

there was a question?

SamHarris wrote: »

davoxx wrote: »

yeah having the same law for all and saying it should be fair is a weak and childish argument ...

It is fair, Iran is in the same boat as nearly every other nation on earth.
Im sure you would defend Israels right to nuclear weapons vociferously if their positions were reversed now? :rolleyes:

The same law irrespective of population, history, policability and practicality? Nope, not on the international stage. Your understanding of how the UN functions and why and how the NPT was brought in is very clearly lacking. Do a little more research beyond "Everyone should have nucelar weapons if anyone has them!".

"it is fair" followed by "nearly every other nation" and then even further by "nope, not on the international stage"? at least you're getting more efficient, now you're contradicting yourself in the same post

iran and israel are both having sanctions for 'alleged' nuclear weapons .... pffftt

so how is it fair again? not that you'll explain this ...

i understand that the un pushes agendas that favour certain countries and that even at that, certain countries are free to act in complete disregard of the un with impunity ... and that's what makes it fair. rolleyes

SamHarris wrote: »

davoxx wrote: »

huh? what is your point? WE? who is we? are you an american?

Nope, it was a slip and more in reference to the West. You do realise Ireland was in the UK when it created an empire, UNDER the UK, and therefore would bear some responsibility if one were to consider Western imperialism as the cause for alot of the problems? Thats a rehtorical question, just so you can go read up before you keep thinnking about everything having everything to do with someone else.

in one sense, yes, ireland should bear some responsibility for the ill effects of western imperialism. in another sense, ireland itself is a victim of western imperialism ... you can go read up on it before trying to brush off centuries of history with sweeping generalizations

SamHarris wrote: »

Ha! this question is funny though, I can almost see you brushing off your copy of "the protocols of the elders of Zion" and checking if I was also Jewish.

why? do you think that your religion is relevant in this discussion? i can see you trying to guess my religion right now in order to make another broad and incorrect generalization

SamHarris wrote: »

davoxx wrote: »

it's nice if you to think that your guess is any better than mine.
what did al qaeda actually say?

Yes. Therefore it was not a guess. Though I have absolutly no doubt my guess would be far better than yours given that you do not even know that by its political nature OF COURSE they want people to know why they do what they do.

what has political nature go to do with what they said? i thought you only based your opinions on what people said ...
so you claim that they took responsibility straight away and never denied it? well i'd like a link to show this ..

SamHarris wrote: »

davoxx wrote: »

what did they say about 911 in the first place?
what did saddam say about wmd?
what did bush say?

Conspiracy theory forum is that way => I point blank refuse to discuss who you think did 9 11. I dont care.

i know, it's hard being wrong ... denial is easier ...
but i'm asking questions, not making assumptions about conspiracies ... challenging concept?

at this point, i don't think there is any point in me correcting what i've corrected several times before ...

headmaster

Why is the west so intent on letting Israel do anything it wants? Surely, time will take care of the Israelis+ the rest of the world...eventually.

davoxx

SamHarris wrote: »

davoxx wrote: »

like certain countries having nuclear weapons when others can't? so now i guess you support iran having nuclear weapons. you just shot yourself in the foot here. not that you'd understand how, smiley face
.

Only thing I could be bothered answering, I dont have time for religious/ CT nut jobs.

huh? that's not even an answer. at least there'll be less crap answers on this thread

now you are calling me a nut job because you can't respond? nice debating there, don't let the intelligent discussion hit you on the way out

SamHarris wrote: »

No, I support the NPT and nuclear non proliferation. You really should read what is in it before you continue.

i did. it doesn't counter the arguments raised above

do you think you could be bothered to elaborate further than that? actually never mind

Geekness1234

davoxx wrote: »

huh? are you saying that wikipedia is wrong?

Nope,just your idea that 9/11 was a massive government job carried out by either dancing Israelis or Aliens,I forget which.

RichieC

headmaster wrote: »

Why is the west so intent on letting Israel do anything it wants? Surely, time will take care of the Israelis+ the rest of the world...eventually.

Because it is political suicide to say anything otherwise in the US.

Also israelis look a bit like republicans.

davoxx

SamHarris wrote: »

No, American exceptionalism has more to do with its complete dominance in science, technology, military, economic and third level educationary spheres. But then I know how much you hate those facts and figures, so yeah they can barely keep up with the Middle East or whatever other idea your trying to get across here...

Yet another excellent post. You really are a contributer par excellence. Maybe some day, you will actually make a point?

DEATH to the SAVAGES!!! and if we get their oil that they are too stupid to use while riding camels and living in mud holes, we'll pay them something fair for it in coffee beans ...

SamHarris wrote: »

Nope. Wrong again. Although I really wouldnt be ashamed, you toss it like an insult. But then its because some of my favourite intellectuals come from there. For example this guy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxjBjRnhUqA
Try it I think youll have a ball.

that's what i said uncle sam ...

SamHarris wrote: »

Out of here. Ill come back when people start addressing the point of the thread and if they disagree with me actually lookk at the points I have made about the original idea.

:) :D :rolleyes::rolleyes:

davoxx

Geekness1234 wrote: »

Nope,just your idea that 9/11 was a massive government job carried out by either dancing Israelis or Aliens,I forget which.

when have i said that?
answer my question or kindly shut up

and how can you clearly know and forget at the same time ...

ed2hands

Geekness321
This whole thead is based on a conspiracy theory. Just want to remind you of that fact.
That whole "CT nutjob" thing is sooo weak (but amusing:))

Mr.Micro

SamHarris wrote: »

The idea that every nation has a "right" to nuclear weapons because the reasons they give for wanting them are the same as others gave/give(who did not have the right to the weapons themselves regardless) is a justification that only exists in the minds of the politically and legally illiterate.

It is no coincidence that most that support this view on this forum and elsewhere are nearly to a man CTers, convinced of Western/American/zionist evil and/or rabid leftists. Like it or not there is clearly very good reasons why it is only supported by this small, almost universally mis informed or self deceptive, political fringe - because the argument is so incredibly weak, unless you already had your mind made up upon hearing who opposes Iran. For some that is enough for them to aquire a doomsday weapon.

There is no need for nuclear weapons, and those countries that have them should lead by example by getting rid of them. The very nature of then is destructive. Who should decide that one country should not have evil weapons, when they they themselves have them. There is no getting away from the hypocrisy. That is the way forward.....to get rid of all nuclear weapons, would that be enough to save Iran even if it stood down its nuclear programme? I doubt it. Its an excuse/ reason IMO at the minute.

BlaasForRafa

Mr.Micro wrote: »

There is no need for nuclear weapons, and those countries that have them should lead by example by getting rid of them. The very nature of then is destructive. Who should decide that one country should not have evil weapons, when they they themselves have them. There is no getting away from the hypocrisy. That is the way forward.....to get rid of all nuclear weapons, would that be enough to save Iran even if it stood down its nuclear programme? I doubt it. Its an excuse/ reason IMO at the minute.

If it hadn't been for nuclear weapons and mutually assured destruction then most of western europe, including Ireland, would be speaking russian now.

Jaafa

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

If it hadn't been for nuclear weapons and mutually assured destruction then most of western europe, including Ireland, would be speaking russian now.

Not likely. If Nazi German coudn't hold on to Europe I doubt Russia could.

Mr.Micro

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

If it hadn't been for nuclear weapons and mutually assured destruction then most of western europe, including Ireland, would be speaking russian now.

So you are for nuclear weapons then? As a deterrent of course.

davoxx

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

If it hadn't been for nuclear weapons and mutually assured destruction then most of western europe, including Ireland, would be speaking russian now.

or american/amerykan :eek:

FreudianSlippers

SamHarris wrote: »

The fact that by any balanced view there are many worse abusers of human rights, and Iran is one of them, proves that peoples views are not motivated by some spectacular sense of moral justice for all, but by the base politics, pure and simple. Trying to find out what they are ACTUALLY railing against is harder to ascertain...

So, wait a second... the US is now the moral police of the world? Who asked them to do that again?

If you're going to make allegations about Iran or other countries who have "abused human rights" please at least be kind enough to provide an official source!

FreudianSlippers

SamHarris wrote: »

Yes the Taliban were looking out for international justice :rolleyes: , terrified that the man who had, regardless of the evidence you feel was lacking, taken responsibility for many attacks on US civilians and military in the past.
Ah now, nobody said that. Clearly what was stated is obvious:

Perhaps you would have a sliver of ground to stand on if it were the first attack or al Qaeda were coy about their goals or the Taliban denied their support. They were not, it was not and they do not.

The idea that the continued ignoring of Afghanistans sheltering of al qaeda was even an option in any reasonable sense following mutliple attacks and the ultimate wakeup call of 9 11 is insulting to anyone with an eye to being fairness. There was more than enough evidence for questioning and extradition (if you want to try and treat it like an ordinary "crime"), for past actions alone. The immediate evidence after it became clear who the hijackers were was, again, more than enough to point to the organisation and the region. The larger investigation proved it without a doubt, so if a new suspect had come to light, again the US might look impetous and unthinking. It did not and they do not.

I point blank refuse to get into a debate about who really did 9 11. I dont care if you think unicorns did it, just dont bring it into a poltical debate. PArticularly one about Irans nuclear program.

The demands were to stamp down on al Qaeda too. They are YET to say they will do that. If you cant see why after the attack it was time for the US to put a stop to organisations directly targeting them then you are very clearly unreasonably biased. I cant think of any nation I would put that stricture on.

If you still beleive Afghanistan was somehow a "made up" war for their enormos oil reserves :rolleyes: there is nothing that will ever convince you otherwise.

If they had "gained" anything tangible besides their own safety and the destruction of an enemy that struck again and again, for you and many like you that "gain" would become the reason for the war, regardless of what it was. Of this I have no doubt. Because there are none, the reasons for the war must be american imertousness or warmongering. You are so clearly casting about for negative motivations to support you view of the "zionist supporting US" as the bad guys and those poor Taliban as a people defending their rights its a joke.

That your world view is so squewed that you think the Taliban were merely looking out for the human rights of the head of a friendly organistation in a time of great turmoil, then Im not going to debate with you. Your reality and mine will have so little congruence that it would be pointless.

I do thank you for one thing though - you demonstrate wonderfully the mindset of those who believe Iran should have nuclear weapons. No one defends that right who merely look at the downs and upsides for the region and the world - the only people who hold this view are those that are so massively dogmatic about the region and world poltics as a whole that even something like the Afghan war is seen as some evil american initiative. Other halmarks of this ideology are doubts over 9 11 (again, very clearly motivated by politics, not facts) and an almost scary obsession with Israel, to the point of endorsing anything, no matter how damaging, if it so much as makes the uncomfortable.

Again, Im just glad these views are recognised for what they are by the vast majority and are therefore sidelined to the lunatic fringe in any more formal debate on policy.

I think this post has been dealt with adequately, but I just wanted to say: Awful catch 22 there for the US though considering they created the group they now hate via Operation Cyclone in the 80s.

shadowninty

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I think this post has been dealt with adequately, but I just wanted to say: Awful catch 22 there for the US though considering they created the group they now hate via Operation Cyclone in the 80s.

TBF, the U.S. provided general arms and funding to the Mujadeen who were opposed to the Soviets, its was Pakistan who supported the Taliban - a horrific decision which ruined millions of lives, they even sent in Pakistanis to fight for the Taliban. Of course after the Cold War the U.S. promptly forgot about Afghanistan and did nothing to stop the crimes of the Pakistanis.
The U.S. are paying for their mistake now, in blood and in billions of dollars, hopefully the world has learned a lesson. It also should not be forgotten that the Mujadeen were not the "baddies", the real baddies were the Taliban splinters, the Saudis, Pakistan, and the Communists. Not that goodies and baddies is anyway to classify a situation.

Jaafa

Well in any case I think this thread has run its course, the war-drums have stopped for another year at least. (Seriously the exact same thread was here last year)

Shall we meet up again, say same time next year lads?

davoxx

shadowninty wrote: »

TBF,

we can try

shadowninty wrote: »

the U.S. provided general arms and funding to the Mujadeen who were opposed to the Soviets,

so that's okay then!!!

shadowninty wrote: »

its was Pakistan who supported the Taliban - a horrific decision which ruined millions of lives,

and America's funding had nothing to do with it!!!

shadowninty wrote: »

they even sent in Pakistanis to fight for the Taliban.

who meet the CIA guys, but hush hush that's a secret, remember commies and Muslims are bad!!!

shadowninty wrote: »

Of course after the Cold War the U.S. promptly forgot about Afghanistan

they did not have any oil, so Americans went to free Africa and the middle east!!

shadowninty wrote: »

and did nothing to stop the crimes of the Pakistanis.

yeah america world police was too busy committing its own crimes stopping other commies and Muslims with oil for world peace!!!

shadowninty wrote: »

The U.S. are paying for their mistake now

how?

shadowninty wrote: »

, in blood

well Afghan blood is cheap, so are army grunts ....

shadowninty wrote: »

and in billions of dollars,

ouch that hurts, but the public is paying for the war? so yay!!!

shadowninty wrote: »

hopefully the world has learned a lesson.

and that lesson is "don't fúck with America or else their fan-boys will argue you to death with bad facts" ... oh yeah and lesson two "all countries are equal, but some more equal than others and we have nukes!!"

shadowninty wrote: »

It also should not be forgotten that the Mujadeen were not the "baddies"

of course not, they are supported by Americans, and hate commies!!

shadowninty wrote: »

, the real baddies were the Taliban splinters

which were also supported by Americans? but ahh they are Muslim ...

shadowninty wrote: »

, the Saudis,

they have America's oil ...

shadowninty wrote: »

Pakistan,

they are sick of Americans and have nukes, only America should have nukes!!!

shadowninty wrote: »

and the Communists

coz this is what it really about, filthy commies and their ideas of equality and wanting to stop America greed!!!

shadowninty wrote: »

. Not that goodies and baddies is anyway to classify a situation.

but lets classify it again anyway: America good, America friends good, everyone else bad or will be blown up ...

RichieC

osama was a part of the mujahadeen not the taliban.

taliban means student. they were a group of students originally led by thier fundie teacher and had little to do with geopolitics.

FreudianSlippers

shadowninty wrote: »

TBF, the U.S. provided general arms and funding to the Mujadeen who were opposed to the Soviets, its was Pakistan who supported the Taliban - a horrific decision which ruined millions of lives, they even sent in Pakistanis to fight for the Taliban. Of course after the Cold War the U.S. promptly forgot about Afghanistan and did nothing to stop the crimes of the Pakistanis.
The U.S. are paying for their mistake now, in blood and in billions of dollars, hopefully the world has learned a lesson. It also should not be forgotten that the Mujadeen were not the "baddies", the real baddies were the Taliban splinters, the Saudis, Pakistan, and the Communists. Not that goodies and baddies is anyway to classify a situation.

I believe it's fairly well accepted at this stage that the funding from Operation Cyclone directly resulted in the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan in the 1990s. It wasn't until the late 90s that Bin Laden formed the partnership or alliance between the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

shadowninty

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I believe it's fairly well accepted at this stage that the funding from Operation Cyclone directly resulted in the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan in the 1990s. It wasn't until the late 90s that Bin Laden formed the partnership or alliance between the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

I wouldnt really disagree with that, especially with the huge amount of money and that was sent through Pakistan from the US.

JustinDee

shadowninty wrote: »

I wouldnt really disagree with that, especially with the huge amount of money and that was sent through Pakistan from the US.

...and from Saudi Arabia

Layforce

46 pages of rumours concerning Israel.

Meantime in Syria, whilst a very real slaughter goes on - The Irish find themselves too 'busy' to comment.

I wonder if some of the inevitable fleeing Syrian generals might get a home in Dublin like the Nazis did. After all, any enemy of the Jews is a friend of the Irish.

The Outside Agency

LayForce wrote:

I wonder if some of the inevitable fleeing Syrian generals might get a home in Dublin like the Nazis did. After all, any enemy of the Jews is a friend of the Irish.

Yes, the Irish loved Nazis and Hitler and I agree we should just nuke every country Israel doesn't like, that will solve everything.

Jaafa

Layforce wrote: »

46 pages of rumours concerning Israel.

Meantime in Syria, whilst a very real slaughter goes on - The Irish find themselves too 'busy' to comment.

I wonder if some of the inevitable fleeing Syrian generals might get a home in Dublin like the Nazis did. After all, any enemy of the Jews is a friend of the Irish.

Whats going on in Syria is a civil war. Not a one sided slaughter.

RichieC

No doubt the earlier "troll" was an Israeli message force multiplier. I imagine boards wasnt the only forum hit by them today.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jY-3eWPdQieKT_AfR3msTaQ32h6w?docId=CNG.6927ff1be5e8af964dd151420620ce33.461

BlaasForRafa

Jaafa wrote: »

Whats going on in Syria is a civil war. Not a one sided slaughter.

Give over, there may be some defectors from the army but the vast majority of the killing is being done by Assads forces. Is calling it a civil war an attempt to absolve him and his cronies of responsibility or something?

Geekness1234

Jaafa wrote: »

Well in any case I think this thread has run its course, the war-drums have stopped for another year at least. (Seriously the exact same thread was here last year)

Shall we meet up again, say same time next year lads?

Sounds like a plan!

Jaafa

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Give over, there may be some defectors from the army but the vast majority of the killing is being done by Assads forces. Is calling it a civil war an attempt to absolve him and his cronies of responsibility or something?

The families of 1500 dead soldiers would say otherwise (according to HRW). Some defectors? More like 10,000 (20,000 according to the defectors themselves). I'm not absolving anyone, how the hell does calling it a civil war absolve anyone?

Manic Moran

Jaafa wrote: »

Whats going on in Syria is a civil war. Not a one sided slaughter.

I don't believe it's to the point of a civil war at all. A civil war is what went on in Libya a few months back, and I don't seem to recall hearing anything of that sort in Syria.

NTM

WakeUp

Layforce wrote: »

I wonder if some of the inevitable fleeing Syrian generals might get a home in Dublin like the Nazis did. After all, any enemy of the Jews is a friend of the Irish.

Really am getting quite tired of posters like yourself showing up and slating the entire Irish people and labeling us Nazi Lovers or Jew hater or whatever other fcking paranoid insecure persecuted delusion some of you people have.

Perhaps the Fleeing Syrian generals might get a home in DC or NY or somewhere in the States just like the nazis did at the end of world war 2. I assume you are familiar with project paper clip?? So before you or any other people like you decide to label Irish people as "enemies of the jews" perhaps you should take a closer look and have a go at your big bully brother/protector for doing what they did at the end of the war - giving homes to Nazi scientists -evil nazi scientists yet you and others like you have the neck to accuse us of such things and label us in the way you do. Keep in mind your big brother did this straight after the war ended after all the horrible unspeakable things they did.

Apologies for going on a bit of a rant to everyone else on the thread I know this guy is a troll and should not be encouraged but Im tired of reading tripe like his.

RichieC

what was he referencing anyway...did ireland let nazis stay here after the war?

I know a few downed lufwaffe pilots remained here after the war but thats hardly the same thing..

Jaafa

Manic Moran wrote: »

I don't believe it's to the point of a civil war at all. A civil war is what went on in Libya a few months back, and I don't seem to recall hearing anything of that sort in Syria.

NTM

Well certainly its at the very brink of it if not. With at least 10,000 defections it definitely is a full blown insurgency

davoxx

Jaafa wrote: »

Well certainly its at the very brink of it if not. With at least 10,000 defections it definitely is a full blown insurgency

without the west's influence it is not a civil war, when the west steps in, the it is a civil war against a brutal dictator.

Geekness1234

davoxx wrote: »

without the west's influence it is not a civil war, when the west steps in, the it is a civil war against a brutal dictator.

That's complete and utter Sh!te, Davoxx.:rolleyes:

Jonny7

RichieC wrote: »

what was he referencing anyway...did ireland let nazis stay here after the war?

I know a few downed lufwaffe pilots remained here after the war but thats hardly the same thing..

Well we were neutral, but in reality, German pilots were generally held and English pilots were slipped back across to England.

davoxx

Geekness1234 wrote: »

That's complete and utter Sh!te, Davoxx.:rolleyes:

yeah you'd know more about talking complete and utter sh!te than i would, geekness1234 :rolleyes:

but it was more of a commentary on current political attitudes ...