Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
and then

The Coming Middle East War

89 posts in this topic

Then minimize the suffering of people while you're waiting on the divine inevitable. It's a mortal sin to senselessly punish the innocent suffering in the meantime. That is anti-Christ. Christian? Bologna. "Christian", or the way people throw that label around, isn't even recognizable anymore. People shun the morals of religion, and have good reason to do so when religion has been such a consummate failure of holding up its own professed ideals. But then a moral vacuum is created where morals supposedly grow on trees, and we're somehow borne with an animal instinct to know the difference between right and wrong, people get braggadocio about all the moral authorities they didn't need to become such great human beings, or they were just lucky enough to have good parents, or whatever. We have lost our senses, rely on whatever, and our government policies that our people vote for and ask for is one of the most costly reflections of that. We have the power to feed the world. And we'd rather rabble rouse about Iran because they want to nationalize their oil and have a strong currency to trade it in.

Hold to the morals you choose. Allow others to do the same - but when they decide they will destroy you if you do not believe as they, then defend yourself. I find nothing anti Christian in this. It is not in my power to feed or protect the people of Iran from the policies of their own, "elected" government. Real evil exists in the world Yam. You seem to see it in locations that differ from where I see it. Maybe it's everywhere? Use the days as wisely as you can, it's what I try to do.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't define these "wars" the article is referring to as such. What's been happening in the ME in recent times is more attributable to local and civil unrest. I don't believe there will be any wars in the ME at all.

Two reasons, 1) the West has too much military might for any conglomerate of Arab-Turkish Confederation and 2) China and Russia would never, EVER, go to war against the West over the ME and why would they when they can share the spoils of what the local region has to offer (mainly oil)?

How have they maintained control all these years? Simply by keeping the masses ignorant through belief in false ideals (Islamism), through lies, deceptions and chaos (Arab Spring). Israel and the Saudi's do the rest locally. Unfortunately (for the West) Iran is the party pooper. Nukes could constitute a danger to this domination but the West has always the religious trump card (Shia's vs Sunni's) to play in case they do start befriending thy neighbours.

As far as Al Queda goes, they're just a bunch of idealists the West created and let go on the loose to create chaos.

All IMHO of course.

Edited by BlackRedLittleDevil
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hold to the morals you choose. Allow others to do the same - but when they decide they will destroy you if you do not believe as they, then defend yourself. I find nothing anti Christian in this. It is not in my power to feed or protect the people of Iran from the policies of their own, "elected" government. Real evil exists in the world Yam. You seem to see it in locations that differ from where I see it. Maybe it's everywhere? Use the days as wisely as you can, it's what I try to do.

What you just described has nothing to do with Iran or the sanctions. Iran's policies were just fine. If you can't find a better priority than imposing Zionist bologna on that, you're not paying attention. Stop looking for trouble and starving people over political tissies we don't need to stick our noses in.

Real evil exists, and it starts in our own mirrors. Punishing others just for having the desire to do what we do in spades is hypocrisy par excellence.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And Then....

will you please explain why you think the sunni's and shia's are fighting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meanwhile, once that war starts, the most enriched will be the international, unprosecuted criminal bankers. But today I hear that Iran is actually prosecuting the criminal bankers. I don't understand why other countries don't follow suit. Bankers are the reasons why there are wars. Bankers are the reasons why you have nothing upon which to retire. Bankers brought this world to the conditions it is in now.

Prosecuting these bankers may well stop the wars from occuring.

Do as much as you can to eliminate banks from your lives.

Ask your states to start their own banks, like N. Dakota has successfully done.

Edited by regeneratia
4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

''i don't know with what weapons WWIII will be fought, but WWIV will be fought with sticks and stones''

-Albert Einstein-

swiss patent clerk.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And Then....

will you please explain why you think the sunni's and shia's are fighting.

My understanding is basic. I have read what wiki says and it is supported by other readings I've done over the years. The conflict is over succession of leadership. Customs and views of the hadith are different and war has been off and on since the conflict began.

Sunnis believe that Abu Bakr, the father of Muhammad's wife Aisha, was Muhammad's rightful successor and that the method of choosing or electing leaders (Shura) endorsed by the Quran is the consensus of the Ummah, (the Muslim community).

Shiites believe that Muhammad divinely ordained his cousin and son-in-law Ali (the father of his grandsons Hasan ibn Ali and Hussein ibn Ali) in accordance with the command of God to be the next caliph making Ali and his direct descendants Muhammad's successors. Ali was married toFatimah, Muhammad's daughter.

Muhammad's wife Aisha endorsed her father Abu Bakr as the successor to Muhammad. In the Battle of the Camel (656), Aisha opposed her step son-in-law Ali outside the city of Basra because she wanted justice on the perpetrators of the assassination of the previous caliph, Uthman. Aisha's forces were defeated and the Prophet's widow was respectfully escorted back to Medina. Sunnis follow the Rashidun "rightly guided Caliphs", who were the first four caliphs who ruled after the death of Muhammad: Abu Bakr (632-634), Umar ibn al-Khattab (634-644), Usman ibn Affan (644-656), and Ali Ibn Abi Talib (656-661).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

''i don't know with what weapons WWIII will be fought, but WWIV will be fought with sticks and stones''

-Albert Einstein-

swiss patent clerk.

I used to believe that the fear of a nuclear war was over. But I now believe it is not only real, it is unavoidable. Attempts to stop proliferation have failed - Iran proves that. It is only a matter of time before some entity uses such a weapon. It might be a state or it might be a state sponsored proxy but that won't really matter so much. The Bible predicts warfare on a scale that would require the use of such weapons (or worse) to kill about 1/3 of humanity at some point. Putin in Russia is flexing his muscles, Iran is getting closer all the time, North Korea has them and seems to be insane. Pakistan and India are always on the brink - now add terror groups into the mix and a world that seems oblivious to the real dangers. When it occurs I think there will be little warning and those who are screaming conspiracy with their last breath will die just like those who saw it coming. But I also believe that the survivors will learn something and re-create a better world from the ashes.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meanwhile, once that war starts, the most enriched will be the international, unprosecuted criminal bankers. But today I hear that Iran is actually prosecuting the criminal bankers. I don't understand why other countries don't follow suit. Bankers are the reasons why there are wars. Bankers are the reasons why you have nothing upon which to retire. Bankers brought this world to the conditions it is in now.

Prosecuting these bankers may well stop the wars from occuring.

Do as much as you can to eliminate banks from your lives.

Ask your states to start their own banks, like N. Dakota has successfully done.

From General Smedley Butler's 'War is a Racket':

"War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes."

In his penultimate chapter, Butler argues that three steps are necessary to disrupt the war racket:

1. Making war unprofitable. Butler suggests that the owners of capital should be "conscripted" before other citizens are: "It can be smashed effectively only by taking the profit out of war. The only way to smash this racket is to conscript capital and industry and labour before the nation's manhood can be conscripted. … Let the officers and the directors and the high-powered executives of our armament factories and our steel companies and our munitions makers and our ship-builders and our airplane builders and the manufacturers of all other things that provide profit in war time as well as the bankers and the speculators, be conscripted — to get $30 a month, the same wage as the lads in the trenches get"

2. Acts of war to be decided by those who fight it. He also suggests a limited plebiscite to determine if the war is to be fought. Eligible to vote would be those who risk death on the front lines.

3. Limitation of militaries to self-defence. For the United States, Butler recommends that the navy be limited, by law, to within 200 miles of the coastline, and the army restricted to the territorial limits of the country, ensuring that war, if fought, can never be one of aggression.

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From General Smedley Butler's 'War is a Racket':

"War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes."

In his penultimate chapter, Butler argues that three steps are necessary to disrupt the war racket:

1. Making war unprofitable. Butler suggests that the owners of capital should be "conscripted" before other citizens are: "It can be smashed effectively only by taking the profit out of war. The only way to smash this racket is to conscript capital and industry and labour before the nation's manhood can be conscripted. … Let the officers and the directors and the high-powered executives of our armament factories and our steel companies and our munitions makers and our ship-builders and our airplane builders and the manufacturers of all other things that provide profit in war time as well as the bankers and the speculators, be conscripted — to get $30 a month, the same wage as the lads in the trenches get"

2. Acts of war to be decided by those who fight it. He also suggests a limited plebiscite to determine if the war is to be fought. Eligible to vote would be those who risk death on the front lines.

3. Limitation of militaries to self-defence. For the United States, Butler recommends that the navy be limited, by law, to within 200 miles of the coastline, and the army restricted to the territorial limits of the country, ensuring that war, if fought, can never be one of aggression.

source: http://en.wikipedia....War_Is_a_Racket

I can see the rationale for this but I wonder what would become of those we send our military to actually help in times of catastrophe? Post tsunami Indonesia or Japan come to mind. Somalian starvation, etc. The military is the only effective way of carrying out these missions. And, more to the point, if signal or human intelligence tells us that an enemy is mobilizing against us, is our only option to wait until they come into a kill zone that includes our own territory? It seems to me that reaching out to hit those who threaten us is the most sensible way to approach warfare. I think that the greatest damper on aggression would be to actually have the constitution invoked as it is written. FORCE the congress to make a declaration of war before we commence hostilities - or at least within a very short time frame of their commencement.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why, Yamato, is it ok for companies to sanction certain states based on gun policies, but the US cant sanction certain countries based on nuclear weapons policies?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why, Yamato, is it ok for companies to sanction certain states based on gun policies, but the US cant sanction certain countries based on nuclear weapons policies?

The U.S. has already admitted outright that Iran has no nuclear weapons program at this time (since 2003). So, how can these sanctions be against nuclear weapon policies, when Iran clearly has no such policy?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The U.S. has already admitted outright that Iran has no nuclear weapons program at this time (since 2003). So, how can these sanctions be against nuclear weapon policies, when Iran clearly has no such policy?

And Ahmadinejad doesn't want to do anything but replace Israel's political structure.

http://www.iran-press-service.com/articles_2001/dec_2001/rafsanjani_nuke_threats_141201.htm Rafsanjani says Muslims should nuke Israel.

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-742815

Ex are you for Iran developing nuclear weapons? Do you think it's a good idea? Considering how you continue in this tortured parsing of words and circumstances one would think you are all in favor of an Iranian bomb. Wouldn't be "fair" not to let them have it, huh? Unbelievable.

Iran was offered free fuel for their medical research and even for electric generation uses if I remember correctly...that was unacceptable. They were asked for a chance to have a look at a facility (Parchin) where we suspect they were conducting high explosive trigger tests that would leave traces - they declined AND started removing the darned SOIL from where the site was - under a tarp no less. So what is it with the constant support you give this regime? You surely do not believe they have no intention to build weapons. Where I come from if it walks, quacks and looks like a duck, we call it a duck.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The U.S. has already admitted outright that Iran has no nuclear weapons program at this time (since 2003). So, how can these sanctions be against nuclear weapon policies, when Iran clearly has no such policy?

Ok, let me rephrase then:

If a company can chose arbitrarily which states it sells its product to based on decisions the states takes, why can't one country chose whether it trades products with a nation based on the decisions the nations take?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why, Yamato, is it ok for companies to sanction certain states based on gun policies, but the US cant sanction certain countries based on nuclear weapons policies?

Property rights.

Because the resources companies "sanction" with are their own. They didn't steal your money and then tell you what you can't do with it, ala the US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And Ahmadinejad doesn't want to do anything but replace Israel's political structure.

http://www.iran-pres...htm Rafsanjani says Muslims should nuke Israel.

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-742815

Ex are you for Iran developing nuclear weapons? Do you think it's a good idea? Considering how you continue in this tortured parsing of words and circumstances one would think you are all in favor of an Iranian bomb. Wouldn't be "fair" not to let them have it, huh? Unbelievable.

Iran was offered free fuel for their medical research and even for electric generation uses if I remember correctly...that was unacceptable. They were asked for a chance to have a look at a facility (Parchin) where we suspect they were conducting high explosive trigger tests that would leave traces - they declined AND started removing the darned SOIL from where the site was - under a tarp no less. So what is it with the constant support you give this regime? You surely do not believe they have no intention to build weapons. Where I come from if it walks, quacks and looks like a duck, we call it a duck.

A-T, your posts so often contain so many inaccuracies and outright lies to support your warped theories, that it is often hard to keep up.

Iran was not offered free fuel for medical enrichment. What happened, was that Iran, Turkey and Brazil put a deal on the table which would have meant Iran stopping enrichment to 20% (and end to ALL the problems) in return for enriched material for isotopes from the other two countries, with Iran continuing enrichment simply for energy purposes. This deal was flat-out refused by the U.S..

THE DEAL struck in Tehran on Monday, May 17, could largely defuse the international crisis over Iran's nuclear activities—if it is accepted by the international community. It must be counted a considerable contribution to the peace of the region and should be widely welcomed.

The architects of the deal, Brazil's President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and Turkey's Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, will win plaudits throughout the developing world for their mediation, particularly among those who resent American pressures and detest Israel's unashamed militarism, not least Iran itself and most of its Arab neighbors. Turkey's activist Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu is understood to have played a crucial role in the successful outcome.

Hammered out in 18 hours of negotiations with Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the agreement provides for Iran to transfer 1,200 kilograms of low-enriched uranium—some 58 percent of its stock—to Turkey within one month, and to receive in exchange 120 kilograms of higher-enriched uranium for medical purposes within one year. As Turkey itself is not equipped to enrich Iran's uranium to the required level, Russia and France are expected to do the job.

Iran has declared that it would submit the agreement formally to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) within a week. Tehran has, however, left no doubt that it intends to continue enriching uranium for peaceful purposes, as it is entitled to do under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), of which it is a signatory. Both Lula and Erdogan have indicated that they believe Iran has a right to atomic energy.

http://www.wrmea.org/wrmea-archives/357-washington-report-archives-2006-2010/august-2010/9745-four-views-the-turkey-brazil-iran-agreement-thanks-but-no-thanks.html

You also mention that they refused the IAEA entry to a military site. I'll tell you what, if you can show me any sort of legislation regarding the IAEA that gives them the right to search a military installation - a non-nuclear installation - then you can wear a pair of socks for a whole week, mail them to me afterwards, and I'll record myself eating them and upload the video to Youtube for all to see. That is a promise. The IAEA have literally no right whatsoever to enter a military site, and Iran have done literally nothing wrong in denying them in this request.

Look, I'm sorry A-T, but there is a gulf between our posts and opinions on this subject. I base my opinions and posts entirely on facts. Entirely. You base yours almost exclusively on speculation, rumour, and hear-say. It is impossible to have a reasoned debate with you on this subject and most of these threads, thanks to you, should in reality be moved to the conspiracy section of the site.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A-T, your posts so often contain so many inaccuracies and outright lies to support your warped theories, that it is often hard to keep up.

Iran was not offered free fuel for medical enrichment. What happened, was that Iran, Turkey and Brazil put a deal on the table which would have meant Iran stopping enrichment to 20% (and end to ALL the problems) in return for enriched material for isotopes from the other two countries, with Iran continuing enrichment simply for energy purposes. This deal was flat-out refused by the U.S..

http://www.wrmea.org...-no-thanks.html

You also mention that they refused the IAEA entry to a military site. I'll tell you what, if you can show me any sort of legislation regarding the IAEA that gives them the right to search a military installation - a non-nuclear installation - then you can wear a pair of socks for a whole week, mail them to me afterwards, and I'll record myself eating them and upload the video to Youtube for all to see. That is a promise. The IAEA have literally no right whatsoever to enter a military site, and Iran have done literally nothing wrong in denying them in this request.

Look, I'm sorry A-T, but there is a gulf between our posts and opinions on this subject. I base my opinions and posts entirely on facts. Entirely. You base yours almost exclusively on speculation, rumour, and hear-say. It is impossible to have a reasoned debate with you on this subject and most of these threads, thanks to you, should in reality be moved to the conspiracy section of the site.

The mods can put them where ever they need to be properly placed. If I don't meet your standards of what reasoned debate should be then I accept that, no harm, no foul and no hard feelings. But you never answered my question, Ex. And if the Parchin issue hinges on Iran's right not to be more open and forthcoming then they can be as secretive as they like - but considering their rhetoric they can also bear the consequences internationally. Are you seriously saying that you do not believe that Iran is working toward the capability to produce a nuclear weapon?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you seriously saying that you do not believe that Iran is working toward the capability to produce a nuclear weapon?

Our planet certainly does not need any more nuclear weapons but we as the American nation with our western allies have no right to tell the Iranians or any other nation in the world what they can do.

So Then let's say that the Iranians are able to put together 100 nuclear devices by tomorrow night, do you truly think that the Iranians are so totally insane and suicidal as a people and nation and that they would risk total annihilation by attacking like a mad dog both Israel and the entire Middle East the next day just because they possess these weapons ?

Do you truly believe that Iranians love death more than life? Is it because they are Islamic?

This may be hard to believe but they are humans too just like everyone else on this planet, no matter how much those who demonize the Iranians say otherwise.

All God-loving human beings must understand that the frightening reality of nuclear weapons use is the guaranteed mutual assured destruction of all on Earth. No Yahweh, Allah or God can save us from our MAD fate if we finally decide to commit the unthinkable.

“Unconditional war can no longer lead to unconditional victory. It can no longer serve to settle disputes. It can no longer be of concern to great powers alone. For a nuclear disaster, spread by winds and waters and fear, could well engulf the great and the small, the rich and the poor, the committed and the uncommitted alike.

Mankind must put an end to war, or war will put an end to mankind.”

– John F. Kennedy

Edited by WHO U KIDDIN
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our planet certainly does not need any more nuclear weapons but we as the American nation with our western allies have no right to tell the Iranians or any other nation in the world what they can do.

So Then let's say that the Iranians are able to put together 100 nuclear devices by tomorrow night, do you truly think that the Iranians are so totally insane and suicidal as a people and nation and that they would risk total annihilation by attacking like a mad dog both Israel and the entire Middle East the next day just because they possess these weapons ?

Do you truly believe that Iranians love death more than life? Is it because they are Islamic?

This may be hard to believe but they are humans too just like everyone else on this planet, no matter how much those who demonize the Iranians say otherwise.

All God-loving human beings must understand that the frightening reality of nuclear weapons use is the guaranteed mutual assured destruction of all on Earth. No Yahweh, Allah or God can save us from our MAD fate if we finally decide to commit the unthinkable.

“Unconditional war can no longer lead to unconditional victory. It can no longer serve to settle disputes. It can no longer be of concern to great powers alone. For a nuclear disaster, spread by winds and waters and fear, could well engulf the great and the small, the rich and the poor, the committed and the uncommitted alike.

Mankind must put an end to war, or war will put an end to mankind.”

– John F. Kennedy

It's a reasonable question and it was reasonable the first dozen or so times I answered it. I have never contended that Iran wants to nuke Israel. While I don't dismiss it as a possibility entirely, I still never said it was something I was concerned about. Iran will eventually assemble a weapon at a time of their choosing and when they decide to exert pressure in the region they will get most, if not all of what they want. That is going to happen imo. The danger will be in the actions of their PROXIES. Hizbullah or Syria will feel over confident at some point and push Israel a bit too hard or demands will be made against one of the Gulf states that causes a clash. Escalation is the danger. The 2006 Lebanon war happened because Hizbullah decided to attack a single Israeli patrol. They simply miscalculated the response. Iran will also expect Israel to be more docile in their dealings with Iran and may assume too much. MANY different opportunities for misunderstandings and conflict. And once Iran has a ballistic missile deliverable nuke the calculus becomes even more insane. It's too late to stop it now. We are just along for the ride. If it turns out that a nuke gets deployed in war in the M.E. then I think maybe the world may rethink the idea of allowing proliferation based on what is "fair". As to the humanity of Iranians, I never have demonized them. I've known a couple from my college days and they were great folks. The Iranian leadership is a group of radical nutjobs though. And they are power mad as well. A former president of Iran from a decade ago,Hashemi Rafsanjani, summed it up by saying that Iran and the Muslim world should nuke Israel when they possessed nuclear arms because a single weapon could END the state while Israel could only "harm" Islamic countries. The current president speaks more artfully but the sentiment is clearly the same. And Kennedy was prescient. He saw it for what it is and he saw it up close. I think it will happen and I think it will happen in our lifetime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The mods can put them where ever they need to be properly placed. If I don't meet your standards of what reasoned debate should be then I accept that, no harm, no foul and no hard feelings. But you never answered my question, Ex. And if the Parchin issue hinges on Iran's right not to be more open and forthcoming then they can be as secretive as they like - but considering their rhetoric they can also bear the consequences internationally. Are you seriously saying that you do not believe that Iran is working toward the capability to produce a nuclear weapon?

I believe that they are working on technologies that parallel some of the technologies needed to use nuclear weapons, such as ballistic missiles, but I am almost certain, due to the fact that even their collective enemies who seem to be hell-bent on going to war with them believe the same and have stated publicly, that they do not have a nuclear weapons program.

The Iranian sanctions really come down to the UN Security Council rewriting International Law to suit their own agendas. They have basically told Iran that because they don't like what they are doing (not because they are doing anything illegal or wrong), they must pay the punishment. It's a disgusting abuse of power. And, personally, I can't wait until there are another two or three on the council. Say, Brazil and India and Germany? Possibly African and Arab representation as well? It's long overdue.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that they are working on technologies that parallel some of the technologies needed to use nuclear weapons, such as ballistic missiles, but I am almost certain, due to the fact that even their collective enemies who seem to be hell-bent on going to war with them believe the same and have stated publicly, that they do not have a nuclear weapons program.

The Iranian sanctions really come down to the UN Security Council rewriting International Law to suit their own agendas. They have basically told Iran that because they don't like what they are doing (not because they are doing anything illegal or wrong), they must pay the punishment. It's a disgusting abuse of power. And, personally, I can't wait until there are another two or three on the council. Say, Brazil and India and Germany? Possibly African and Arab representation as well? It's long overdue.

My definition of a nuclear weapons "program" must differ from the norm then. Simple man that I am, I figure if the fuel is being prepared and explosive tests seem to have been concealed then maybe electricity isn't the real goal. I firmly believe that they have a weapon as their goal and they can play for time until they have built a degree of redundancy into their enrichment facilities and processes that guarantees any strike would be insufficient to stop them from assembling what they need when they want it. I admit I have no proof. If that invalidates my participation in discussions here then you'll excuse my refusal to leave - or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It invalidates your opinion, not your participation. Opinions should be based on evidence, not creative imagination or political desires.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Iran is obviously seeking nukes. Iran obviously hates Israel. Iran obviously is funding Hamas who's whole agenda is to destroy Israel. Not one muslim county likes Israel.

I beleive Iran is seeking nukes to destroy Israel and bring about their mahdi.

Edited by Ogbin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Iran is obviously seeking nukes. Iran obviously hates Israel. Iran obviously is funding Hamas who's whole agenda is to destroy Israel. Not one muslim county likes Israel.

I beleive Iran is seeking nukes to destroy Israel and bring about their mahdi.

You should read the post directly before yours, Ogbin. It's actually comical that your post came directly after his.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? There is a post before mine that states that the government Iran is trying to bring about their god? Uh... must of missed it..

Edited by Ogbin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.