BOOM !!

Shryke

dj jarvis wrote: »

you being a smart arse makes my head hurt - your talking very little substance and lots of scutter - next time someone disagrees with you and you want a debate , try not being a tit about it and they might just engage with you - otherwise we are done

i have made my point clear enough for every one else who is adding to the thread - your the only one having trouble - maybe the issue is with you

I'm not talking any scutter at all. You're talking scutter yourself. This isn't a debate because you haven't put anything forward except to try on some scaremongering and I'm not the only person who has called you on it so mind the language/personal abuse.
The only trouble I'm having is your lack of punctuation and capital letters. You're not putting things together too well and it takes a read or two. You might have taken a drink or two I think.

dj jarvis

Shryke wrote: »

I'm not talking any scutter at all. You're talking scutter yourself. This isn't a debate because you haven't put anything forward except to try on some scaremongering and I'm not the only person who has called you on it so mind the language/personal abuse.
The only trouble I'm having is your lack of punctuation and capital letters. You're not putting things together too well and it takes a read or two. You might have taken a drink or two I think.

oh real intelligent - bravo that man

i am not scaremongering - i am repeating what greater minds on the issue have voiced over the last six months
they would not be making a issue with it if it was not a issue would they ?

as i have repeated that i am not, and don't pretend to be a expert in this field , but i can read and listen to what other say ( including you ) with out making smart comments

so all this is just a figment of my imagination , and the imagination of most of the " free " world and its media - becasue the majority disagree with you

i give you a weapon designed for the task in hand - hitting Iran's nuke site

quote
US military chiefs openly admitted the weapon was built to attack the fortified nuclear facilities of “rogue states” such as Iran and North Korea. Although the Pentagon insists that it is not aimed at a specific threat, unnamed officials within the ministry have repeatedly claimed the bomb is being tailor-made to disable Iranian nuclear facilities at Fordo, or at least to intimidate Tehran.
Iran is working at breakneck speed to expand its Fordo uranium enrichment facility, which is built inside a mountain in the heart of the country, and has previously been declared “impregnable” by senior officials in Tehran. Iran has often paraded its fast-advancing nuclear program, while denying that it intends to build a nuclear bomb

link :http://rt.com/news/massive-ordnance-penetrator-bomb-bunker-buster-144/

but again im just scaremongering, and they really are not, at least preparing for the bombing of Iran's nuke site

and this

link : http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/17/us-israel-iran-idUSBRE84G0UC20120517

Pottler

So, can I stop digging the bunker now or what?

dj jarvis

Sir Pompous Righteousness wrote: »

A proper translation of the actual speech: http://www.juancole.com/2006/05/hitchens-hacker-and-hitchens.html

An accidental admission that by Israel that the translation was a mistake:
http://blogs.aljazeera.com/blog/middle-east/rare-admission-israel

Some more:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-weisbrot-and-robert-naiman/arash-norouzi-explains-th_b_39069.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/weekinreview/11bronner.html?_r=2

so its down to who you get to do the translation according to the NY Times

"So did Iran's president call for Israel to be wiped off the map? It certainly seems so. Did that amount to a call for war? That remains an open question".

Nazila Fathi contributed reporting from Tehran for this article.

Shryke

dj jarvis wrote: »

Shryke wrote: »

I'm not talking any scutter at all. You're talking scutter yourself. This isn't a debate because you haven't put anything forward except to try on some scaremongering and I'm not the only person who has called you on it so mind the language/personal abuse.
The only trouble I'm having is your lack of punctuation and capital letters. You're not putting things together too well and it takes a read or two. You might have taken a drink or two I think.

oh real intelligent - bravo that man

i am not scaremongering - i am repeating what greater minds on the issue have voiced over the last six months
they would not be making a issue with it if it was not a issue would they ?

as i have repeated that i am not, and don't pretend to be a expert in this field , but i can read and listen to what other say ( including you ) with out making smart comments

so all this is just a figment of my imagination , and the imagination of most of the " free " world and its media - becasue the majority disagree with you

i give you a weapon designed for the task in hand - hitting Iran's nuke site

quote
US military chiefs openly admitted the weapon was built to attack the fortified nuclear facilities of “rogue states” such as Iran and North Korea. Although the Pentagon insists that it is not aimed at a specific threat, unnamed officials within the ministry have repeatedly claimed the bomb is being tailor-made to disable Iranian nuclear facilities at Fordo, or at least to intimidate Tehran.
Iran is working at breakneck speed to expand its Fordo uranium enrichment facility, which is built inside a mountain in the heart of the country, and has previously been declared “impregnable” by senior officials in Tehran. Iran has often paraded its fast-advancing nuclear program, while denying that it intends to build a nuclear bomb

link :http://rt.com/news/massive-ordnance-penetrator-bomb-bunker-buster-144/

but again im just scaremongering, and they really are not, at least preparing for the bombing of Iran's nuke site

It has been attacked already. Another attack doesn't mean anything is going to happen on a larger scale, which is the brunt of what you're trying to imply, and yes it's scaremongering.

Sir Pompous Righteousness

dj jarvis wrote: »

so its down to who you get to do the translation according to the NY Times

"So did Iran's president call for Israel to be wiped off the map? It certainly seems so. Did that amount to a call for war? That remains an open question".

Nazila Fathi contributed reporting from Tehran for this article.

We need to get some proficient non-biased Persian speakers in here.

Sir Pompous Righteousness

Pottler wrote: »

So, can I stop digging the bunker now or what?

Yes, it's all a load of media spin unless Romney gets elected. If, during the US Presidential elections, that you see Romney gaining a lead of Obama (which is unlikely) then I'd start building a bunker.

dj jarvis

Shryke wrote: »

It has been attacked already. Another attack doesn't mean anything is going to happen on a larger scale, which is the brunt of what you're trying to imply, and yes it's scaremongering.

so dropping the bunker buster is not going to expand things " on a larger scale "?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/17/us-israel-iran-idUSBRE84G0UC20120517

http://www.haaretz.com/news/iran-vows-to-strike-israel-immediately-if-attacked-1.283990

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-08-14/israel-plans-for-iran-strike-as-citizens-say-government-serious

but again it's all in my imagination, and i am just trying to scare people

its a POSSIBILITY - that is all i have said , as is your opinion , but things are pointing towards me being correct rather than you

Pottler

dj jarvis wrote: »

so dropping the bunker buster is not going to expand things " on a larger scale "?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/17/us-israel-iran-idUSBRE84G0UC20120517

http://www.haaretz.com/news/iran-vows-to-strike-israel-immediately-if-attacked-1.283990

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-08-14/israel-plans-for-iran-strike-as-citizens-say-government-serious

but again it's all in my imagination, and i am just trying to scare people

its a POSSIBILITY - that is all i have said , as is your opinion , but things are pointing towards me being correct rather than you

Ahh b0ll0x. I've got blisters like saucers here. Feckin foreidgners. And I've just hit the watertable, not even at a depth to protect the loved ones from a well aimed egging. I'm getting a bigger shovel. And a pump.

dj jarvis

Sir Pompous Righteousness wrote: »

We need to get some proficient non-biased Persian speakers in here.

that is the key to this debate

one side are saying it will happen , another saying no

i feel the actions by some nations recently point towards military action by Israel or America.
that is why i started this thread - i believe it will happen - i could be wrong , but i don't think i am , and so do many many others think its when, rather than if.

i have provided links to back my opinion up as have others

only time will tell

Nozebleed

"Iran is the most significant threat to global peace and security in the world today"

hmmm..i dont think so. America is a terrorist nation. filthy war mongers.

Shryke

dj jarvis wrote: »

Shryke wrote: »

It has been attacked already. Another attack doesn't mean anything is going to happen on a larger scale, which is the brunt of what you're trying to imply, and yes it's scaremongering.

so dropping the bunker buster is not going to expand things " on a larger scale "?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/17/us-israel-iran-idUSBRE84G0UC20120517

http://www.haaretz.com/news/iran-vows-to-strike-israel-immediately-if-attacked-1.283990

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-08-14/israel-plans-for-iran-strike-as-citizens-say-government-serious

but again it's all in my imagination, and i am just trying to scare people

its a POSSIBILITY - that is all i have said , as is your opinion , but things are pointing towards me being correct rather than you

What you're reading and from your interpretation you think that your opinion is more correct than mine? That doesn't say much when you don't seem to know much about the region.
You haven't addressed any of the pertinent information that has been brought up in this thread. You open the thread talking about bombing Iran into the future with a big smiley face ffs.
You're all over the place. Get a grip.

dj jarvis

Nozebleed wrote: »

"Iran is the most significant threat to global peace and security in the world today"

hmmm..i dont think so. America is a terrorist nation. filthy war mongers.

well you might be correct - so that fact probably makes it all the more likely it will happen, seeing they have built a bomb for the Iranian nuke site - i would be less concerned if Sweden had it, rather than the people who have planned and built the weapon - America

lets hope 2 fu2k that it is all bluster and im 100% wrong ( i have said this many many times )

but sorry to say - the evidence points towards some military action in the future

dj jarvis

Shryke wrote: »

What you're reading and from your interpretation you think that your opinion is more correct than mine? That doesn't say much when you don't seem to know much about the region.
You haven't addressed any of the pertinent information that has been brought up in this thread. You open the thread talking about bombing Iran into the future with a big smiley face ffs.
You're all over the place. Get a grip.

no i said " or as some people think, bombed forward to the stone age " and lots would and do think that - ie, that it is a backward country and a good bombing would do it not harm - not my view at all - but a view that is out there

ignoring that this view is held bymany powerful people is ignorance on your part

as for my opinion , i have said many many many times i could be and hope i am wrong - but i have provided views that agree with my opinion,
i dont think my opinion is any more valid than yours - i just disagree with you
and can do it without lowering the tone, with smart arsed comments about me " having a drink taken "

says more about you than ever will about me
dont worry - i have a firm grip - but thanks for your concern

Zamboni

Gummy Panda wrote: »

They can't even play WoW in Iran now.

Harsh times :pac:

Indeed.
So the States have given US companies an order to not honour paid business/consumer transactions - just shows what arrogant hypocritical assholes they really are.
Countless poor sods in Tehran who never gave a sh1t about international politics and just cared about their game time are now pissed at the US. Bravo.

Mr Benevolent

dj jarvis wrote: »

but sorry to say - the evidence points towards some military action in the future

Fairly obvious, I think. The US is itching to bomb the fuck out of some other poor gob****es, and with Israel in the mix they have a potential excuse. Personally I believe Israel needs a lesson. Waaay too big for their own boots and they've caused untold damage since 1947 after, uh, 'borrowing' some land on the UK's say-so. But the US think Israel can do no wrong, so it's kaboom to Iran.

What's next? I'm guessing it'll be back to the US's old favourite, South America. Hugo Chavez had better buy Kevlar vests in bulk. One day the US will come against China though, and on that day I will be cheering on the Chinese.

dj jarvis

it understood globally that this COULD happen - the positions have been made clear by the main players.
all have voiced their reaction to any action against them - publicly and repeatedly.
Sanctions have been taken against Iran ( rightly or wrongly, you decide ) becasue of the suspected use of the facility in the future.

weapons and plans are ready - they have both admitted it again publicly
The US and Israel have said that they leave open the option of bombing the facility in the future.

the EU have laid sanctions against them ( oil being the big one ), and have threatened removal of diplomatic status , then Canada also pulls out , with the Brits leaving and all the coverage in the media on this - is it not fair to consider this could and might happen ?

i have not supported or called for any action - i have not had a bias on ANY SIDE - im calling it as others are calling it

i have been accused of failing to provide proof for this - well i give you the above, and all the links in the posts previous - it points towards trouble

and im far from the only one that feels this way.

PizzamanIRL

What effect would it have on Ireland, well on any neutral countries?

dj jarvis

PizzamanIRL wrote: »

What affect would it have on Ireland, well on any neutral countries?

i would affect your pocket - the price of oil would sky rocket :mad:

brimal

Confab wrote: »

... Personally I believe Israel needs a lesson...

Please explain.

Ice87

DJ Jarvis, everyone knows this war is a possibility. You would want to have your head buried in the sand not to have heard about it..It seems like you have only ventured across some new information recently that you felt the need to share. What exactly is your opinion on the matter?

These threats have been going on for the last two years and nobody has made a move. I know people over there and they've been saying that it's only a matter of time before it happens yet nothing has. Hopefully nothing does. An unstable middle east makes the world a very dangerous place.

My own opinion is that the U.S will only get involved in this if Iran strike first.
Otherwise nothing will happen and they will remain in constant fear of each other until something does.

nice_very

might be a chance for Palestine freedom...

Biggins

PizzamanIRL wrote: »

What effect would it have on Ireland, well on any neutral countries?

Its fairly complicated but I'll have a stab at an answer for you.

First of all, Iran would block the Persian Gulf - which in effect would effect everything trying to pass through it.
Prices would increase - maybe quickly on items besides/including oil itself.

Any nations giving assistance of ANY kind to states Iran sees as a foe, might also be seen as siding against them so - while there might be a minimal threat of direct attack, Irish folk abroad in countries supportive of Iran, might find themselves in a tough position to put it lightly.

The stock markets and subsequently, the banking sector might be thrown into turmoil to say the least - the knock-on effects of that alone would be felt sharpish!

Some of certain religions (maybe not too much in Ireland as such - I hope) would see another person/family of another religion, as potential foes and/or at least not to be trusted.

There are loads of knock-on effects besides possible direct ones.

Agent Smith

DwightSchrute1 wrote: »

Shake shake shake the room

dj jarvis

[QUOTE=Ice87;80692644]DJ Jarvis, everyone knows this war is a possibility. You would want to have your head buried in the sand not to have heard about it..It seems like you have only ventured across some new information recently that you felt the need to share. What exactly is your opinion on the matter?

These threats have been going on for the last two years and nobody has made a move. I know people over there and they've been saying that it's only a matter of time before it happens yet nothing has. Hopefully nothing does. An unstable middle east makes the world a very dangerous place.

My own opinion is that the U.S will only get involved in this if Iran strike first.
Otherwise nothing will happen and they will remain in constant fear of each other until something does.[/QUOTE]

i dont think this is new info at all , i was talking about this months ago on another thread about this - my point ( again ) is that embassy's closing is normally a sign of things to come , ie another small move towards action

i also think its fairly obvious its going to happen and what the outcome will be,some disagree with me on this point becasue im drunk apparently,

as i have said hope it does not happen , i was drawing attention to the fact that Canada was getting out, without much being said in the main stream media - that was my point - i cant see why some bothered to go for such a attack on my posts considering it looks to be a fair conclusion by most that it will happen - and if it happens lives will be lost

again obvious really - just wanting to get at the nitty gritty of peoples opinions

Sir Pompous Righteousness

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUB9QGKCNmI

dj jarvis

so this points towards my point that America is worried that Israel will go solo
if nothing, its dangerous rhetoric and adds fuel to the fire

quote
Addressing reporters here in Jerusalem on Tuesday, Mr. Netanyahu unequivocally rejected those comments and slapped back at the United States. Speaking in English, he said, “The world tells Israel: ‘Wait, there’s still time.’ And I say, ‘Wait for what? Wait until when?’ Those in the international community who refuse to put red lines before Iran don’t have a moral right to place a red light before Israel.”

full article

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/12/world/middleeast/united-states-and-israel-engage-in-public-spat-over-iran-policy.html?_r=1&hp

enfant terrible

dj jarvis wrote: »

so it begins

a sign that Iran is about to get a visit from some missiles with the star of david on them ?

http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/world-news/canada-cuts-iran-diplomatic-links-3223059.html

so that add's to the list of nations getting out of dodge

will paddy power take a bet on Iran getting bombed back to the stone age before Christmas ? or as some people think bombed forward to the stone age

Relax there's been a few conflicts in the middle east recently and the world didn't end

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

Elessar

Israel attacking iran wont stop anything. It'll only slow them down. And strengthen their resolve. Then they WILL get nukes for definite. Both the direct and indirect ramifications for Israel will be huge. As a top US military commander put it recently, long term it would achieve nothing. Attacking Iran will only lead to a disasterous fallout for Israel.

dj jarvis

enfant terrible wrote: »

Relax there's been a few conflicts in the middle east recently and the world didn't end

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

yea , has been many many conflicts in that area

none involving a Islamic state with the ability to launch long range missiles that could be armed with some kind of nuke device
a Islamic state that wants regime change in Jerusalem
a Islamic state that has a nuke facility
a Islamic state run by Nutty clerics and their even nuttier president roy keane

read the links i have posted on this and then get back to me

i take it you read todays new york times - backing up what i am saying all thread

america is nervous that Isreal will go solo - and has said so in public many many times
Canada pull out - brits are gone - Europe is going to go next - it all could be coincidence , maybe its not

but if im so far off the mark , why is Israel shouting about this so much ? no smoke without fire

enfant terrible

dj jarvis wrote: »

yea , has been many many conflicts in that area

none involving a Islamic state with the ability to launch long range missiles that could be armed with some kind of nuke device
a Islamic state that wants regime change in Jerusalem
a Islamic state that has a nuke facility
a Islamic state run by Nutty clerics and their even nuttier president roy keane

read the links i have posted on this and then get back to me

i take it you read todays new york times - backing up what i am saying all thread

america is nervous that Isreal will go solo - and has said so in public many many times
Canada pull out - brits are gone - Europe is going to go next - it all could be coincidence , maybe its not

but if im so far off the mark , why is Israel shouting about this so much ? no smoke without fire

But what do you see as worst case senario, Israel bomb Iran and Iran bomb Israel back?

Hardly like the Iran-Iraq war with 1 million+ deaths is it.

0066ad

dj jarvis wrote: »

so this points towards my point that America is worried that Israel will go solo
if nothing, its dangerous rhetoric and adds fuel to the fire

Israel will never attack Iran on it's own and as for bombing them to the
next stone age you must be joking

dj jarvis

Elessar wrote: »

Israel attacking iran wont stop anything. It'll only slow them down. And strengthen their resolve. Then they WILL get nukes for definite. Both the direct and indirect ramifications for Israel will be huge. As a top US military commander put it recently, long term it would achieve nothing. Attacking Iran will only lead to a disasterous fallout for Israel.

i agree with you - but Israel either does not know this or care
it pushing for America to do its dirty work , but in my opinion they will soon get pissed off on the lack of movement - and do something drastic either covert or overt

im sure as **** smells, as we speak Israel is hammering away at this faculty
by assassinations , spying and cyber attacks
if this does not work for them they really have only one option - bring the US into the fight - they have the hardware

Pottler

Soo, ye're saying they have weapons of mass destruction??? I've heard that phrase before, somwhere, can't quite remember...

dj jarvis

enfant terrible wrote: »

But what do you see as worst case senario, Israel bomb Iran and Iran bomb Israel back?

Hardly like the Iran-Iraq war with 1 million+ deaths is it.

i really dont know how it would play out - worst case would be in my mind , Israel try take action on its own , Iran uses its long range missiles either conventional or other , this will draw the US into it , say bye bye to the nuke facility , just what Israel wants

a million deaths maybe not near that - but big death toll none the less
all depends how long it would rumble on and who joins in

as i have said my view and others are purely speculative - we wont know till it happens

enfant terrible

Pottler wrote: »

Soo, ye're saying they have weapons of mass destruction??? I've heard that phrase before, somwhere, can't quite remember...

Most of the world's intelligence agencies thought Sadam Hussain had them because the Americans gave them to him in the 80's.

He used them on the Kurds.

0066ad

enfant terrible wrote: »

Most of the world's intelligence agencies thought Sadam Hussain had them because the Americans gave them to him in the 80's.

He used them on the Kurds.

If there was evidence that he used them on the kurds, then why did they
still think he had them?

dj jarvis

0066ad wrote: »

If there was evidence that he used them on the kurds, then why did they
still think he had them?

maybe they thought he did not use them all - maybe the yanks gave him loads
dont forget he was fighting iran at the time

but me, i think they knew he had **** all - they just wanted him gone
scarily like Iran

would not surprise me if America is still sore over the shah of persia/Iran getting overthrown after they spent ages getting him installed

enfant terrible

Originally Posted by 0066ad View Post
If there was evidence that he used them on the kurds, then why did they
still think he had them?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKgPY1adc0A

Pottler

enfant terrible wrote: »

Most of the world's intelligence agencies thought Sadam Hussain had them because the Americans gave them to him in the 80's.

He used them on the Kurds.

Tony, I thought I asked you to stop telling porkies. You are disgracing the Blair name.:D NO-ONE thought he had them, IT WAS BULL! Good, old fashioned bull. It gets spread about every now and then for various reasons.

0066ad

dj jarvis wrote: »

maybe they thought he did not use them all - maybe the yanks gave him loads
dont forget he was fighting iran at the time

but me, i think they knew he had **** all - they just wanted him gone
scarily like Iran

would not surprise me if America is still sore over the shah of persia/Iran getting overthrown after they spent ages getting him installed

Off course they knew he had none, they couldn't wait to get in there after
9/11, to settle old scores.

This thing with Iran is going to be a whole new ball game, I've being following this now for the past four years and in my opinion if this ****
goes down it's the start off ww3

dj jarvis

0066ad wrote: »

Off course they knew he had none, they couldn't wait to get in there after
9/11, to settle old scores.

This thing with Iran is going to be a whole new ball game, I've being following this now for the past four years and in my opinion if this ****
goes down it's the start off ww3

dont know about that - very much hope not - but if or when it does , it wont be good for ANYBODY - wont somebody think of the oil supply !!!!!:D

enfant terrible

0066ad wrote: »

Off course they knew he had none, they couldn't wait to get in there after
9/11, to settle old scores.

This thing with Iran is going to be a whole new ball game, I've being following this now for the past four years and in my opinion if this ****
goes down it's the start off ww3

You'll probably be disappointed, unlikely to be a ww3 over Iran.

0066ad

enfant terrible wrote: »

You'll probably be disappointed, unlikely to be a ww3 over Iran.

I don't think i'll be disappointed, this will not only be Israel against Iran,

Pottler

0066ad wrote: »

I don't think i'll be disappointed, this will not only be Israel against Iran,

Go on, jasus, don't leave us hanging.

grizzly

0066ad wrote: »

I don't think i'll be disappointed, this will not only be Israel against Iran,

So what's the worst case? China/Russia support Iran?

enfant terrible

Pottler wrote: »

Tony, I thought I asked you to stop telling porkies. You are disgracing the Blair name.:D NO-ONE thought he had them, IT WAS BULL! Good, old fashioned bull. It gets spread about every now and then for various reasons.

Bill Clinton thought they were there, Hans Blix thought they were there.
http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/03/18_blix.shtml

"Blix has written a new book, "Disarming Iraq," about the events leading up to the war. During that period he was lambasted by both doves and hawks: by the former for failing to state unequivocally that Iraq had no WMDs, and by the latter for failing to find them. As he explained Wednesday night, part of the problem was that he himself had believed the weapons probably existed. "I'm not here to have gut feelings," he said. "But yes, in December 2002 I thought Saddam had weapons of mass destruction." Still, "the objective was to inspect effectively and to report objectively."

The Russians knew they were there because they gave them to him like the American's in the 80's.

They probably also got them out before the US invaded
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2003/aug/20/20030820-081256-6822r/

dj jarvis

grizzly wrote: »

So what's the worst case? China/Russia support Iran?

there was a thread on this a while back - conclusion about china was that it did not have lone range capability - does not even have a working aircraft carrier , cant see how they would get involved other than long range missiles and it few long range bombers - dont forget the US has more aircraft carriers than all others combined ( i think )
** ok they do - link : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_by_country **

as for russia - who knows , why would they go to war for Iran - its a weapon buyer for sure , but so are nations that want to attack Iran - lets face it they will sell to anyone

cant see why they would get involved other than for saving face somehow
but would they for that reason alone - i doubt it

if it does kick off - i can see the super powers trying to keep out and maybe fighting a proxy war

Pottler

if someone was paying me big money to hunt for leprechauns in the glen of Imaal, I doubt i'd come out and state unequivocably that there were none for a fact. I imagine I'd prevaricate somwhat.

dj jarvis

Pottler wrote: »

if someone was paying me big money to hunt for leprechauns in the glen of Imaal, I doubt i'd come out and state unequivocably that there were none for a fact. I imagine I'd prevaricate somwhat.

dont be a idiot !!! everyone knows the FCA killed the last one in the 70's