smooth bruce

I am going to have to take issue with playing the card about not renewing the TV stations license. A TV station which "said something negative about him"... you mean the television station that supported the failed coup, spread rampant propaganda during it and for several years afterwards... If that were any other country, including the US, the station would have ceased to exist in the first place and the people running it would have been lined up and shot. I am in full agreeance that Chavez has shown almost nothing for his efforts and year by year is cracking further down on dissidents and moving more and more closer to fascist behavior but shutting down the TV station owned and run by Venezuela's bourgeois elite is hardly the best example you can put forward.

They admitted it, it was their agent and they paid compo (I guess you have to when you don't have veto power) but still Libya itself was not convicted of terrorism in the ICJ as far as I can tell.

Again you have just highlighted exactly how little you know about the UN.

It wasn't supposed to be I was merely highlighting the fact that for a country, and by extension is people, so concerned with terrorism, what constitutes it, who is doing it, etc Nicaragua V the US should be text book knowledge. Perhaps I was being over generous to ten year olds, lets say high school kids. As far as I'm aware, including both those articles, Libya have not been found guilty of state terrorism, two Libyans have been found guilty of a terrorist act. It isn't a vague statement, it is actually a very specific statement. The US have carried out countless terrorist acts against places and people and that would be an ambiguous thing to guess. But the case where they were essentially charged with state terrorism, and then vetoed all consequences over and over, in the highest possible court should be as well known to a country who so dictate what is and isn't terrorism as their knowledge of farm yard animals is. At least to anyone who cares to enter even the briefest discussion on terrorism. Ok what age are the high school kids, I will be a little less cynical and say 15 year olds.

Obviously you are the biggest clown in this forum or just a skilled practitioner of losing arguments and looking stupid on purpose Here is one source for Theo http://www.gwu.edu/~jaysmith/nicus3.html When things are general knowledge it means you don't have to have 'sources' like if I were to ask someone to explain what a horse was I would not require them to back up their arguments with a journal entry from a biology journal. Alternatively if you weren't such a fucking stupid cunt you could just Google any of the key terms I used in that post.

Small boy why do you keep following me around only to lose arguments? If you could actually understand English properly it wasn't a condescending insult aimed at Theo himself it was a comment regarding US society. I will help you with your language and reading difficulties "If you are American then this exercise is a testament to the US education system and the culture itself" This part pertains to Theo "that what I'm talking about isn't firstly general knowledge that everyone over ten years old should know" This is the part where I make a general statement regarding the subject matter in relation to the populace. In no way is this directed at Theo on a personal level nor am I claiming that his intelligence is that of a ten year old.

You are wrong and have already lost little guy No, they didn't. Again and again you are wrong. I have already said the sanctions through the 90s against Iraq were solely dictated by the US, everyone understands this from left wing dissidents through to the most hard line right wing economic conservatives and both will openly tell you so. Like I have said however about three times now is that you don't have the slightest inkling on how the UN works. You have lost this argument young man due to your lack of knowledge.

If you are American then this exercise is a testament to the US education system and the culture itself that what I'm talking about isn't firstly general knowledge that everyone over ten years old should know and secondly a serious thing to consider when the US government try to convince its people of what is and isnt terrorism 1. "World Court" AKA The International Court of Justice AKA The highest level of global law AKA The Republic of Nicaragua v. The United States of America, 1986. 2. "Found guilty of terrorism" AKA International terrorism

This should be interesting given that there are about 4 or 5 stupid Americans here who don't know basic history, understand the concept of universality, know anything about global politics or how nation states operate. But lets roll with it and cover some basics 1. Invading Afghanistan and Iraq are pretty much in the upper echelon of the terrorism pyramid 2. The US are the only country in history to be found guilty of terrorism in the world court 3. The US harbor terrorists as much as any other country they point the finger at

I said I support most of what they do as a reference to most left wing 'revolutionary' groups, in particular the RE of Athens. I do not support groups who take funds from the US. Like I already said, you don't know how the UN/US relationship works but I will give you a quick lesson because you are clearly stupid about this like everything else you have talked about. If the US want something nine times out of ten they get it. They were sanctions on behalf of the US, that is understood by everyone. A UN mandate after the fact is irrelevant and again shows you don't have the slightest idea about how the world works. I will even quote for you "..to initiate a war of aggression...is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole". Adhering to International laws, Nuremberg Principles and basic moral truisms is not the same as day to day UN mandates, these are not fundamental international laws, nor are these laws and morals subordinate to the day to day relations of the UN and US. I could give you examples but you are too stupid to understand even this much You have lost every single argument please give up small boy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_V._Debs

I didn't say I liked them, again you can't read. 1. He was quoting 2. It was about Zionist occupation of Jerusalem The occupation is part and parcel of this but you act like a child so it is no surprise you have made an attempt at semantics Which says nothing of the original and continued crime. No I mean any war that is not in self-defense or sanctioned by Article 51 of the UN Charter They were not UN sanctions they were US sanctions and this highlights your lack of understanding about how the power relationship between the US and the UN security council works. You have been "owned" in this argument. Please stop crying small boy.

Says who? Nobody except your government and news outlets. You find me 5 academics across any field who agree on that Iran would launch a nuclear missile the moment they got one and maybe I will start to take your gibberish seriously. I'm willing to bet even Alan Dershowitz wouldn't say something that outlandish and hes about as Zionist as they come. Fund pro-western (and this by the way can only mean pro-US) groups to over turn the Iran government. I tell you what, do a google search on the history of Nicaragua for me. Your government has said all this year "all options are on the table" that is virtually a declaration of war. Its none of your business what Iran do which is something you don't seem to get. You are not the world police and it isn't your place to "fund the proper groups", that is terrorism. If you decide to stop the nuclear facilities, without the approval of virtually the entire global community, then that is an act of terrorism. No this is the part where you cannot apply very child like moral principles to international relations, namely the principle of universality. The leaders of the US government are irrational people... narrow minded people who don't care about who dies as long as its in the name of neo-conservative economics. Yet you guys have several thousand. That is not what he said and it is very easily researchable. I suggest you look up what was actually said in that speech instead of watching your television. Its sad you don't know the history of your country but aside from that if we are to go on this century alone you have invaded two countries and killed hundreds of thousands of people... Iran haven't... Its almost pathetic how stupid some graff writers are http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Posada_Carriles Shoosh. No it isn't. Your understanding about how the world operates is incredibly naive. I am talking about very basic moral principles and INTERNATIONAL LAW like I have said about a million times retard. I will say it more slowly so you understand IIIIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNN TTTTTTTTEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRR NNNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA TIIIOOOOOOONNN ALLLLLLLL - LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW Not to mention the Nuremberg Principles. That is not why you invaded Iraq and again this is testament to how little you understand about the world. Yes he did and the entire time the US were friends with him. They gave him millions of dollars and weapons. They trained his scientists. They gave him the ingredients for nuclear weapons. Again you highlight how much of a fucking moron you are. Despite US sanctions which are ESTIMATED TO HAVE KILLED BETWEEN HALF A MILLION AND ONE MILLION CHILDREN Iraq was still a borderline first world country before you invaded it. Lets make a list 1. You don't know the most basic of international laws 2. You don't seem to know what morals and ethics are 3. You haven't the slightest fucking education on the history of the United States 3. You don't know anything about harboring terrorists 4. You still think Iraq was invaded to stop saddam, enough said. Shoosh.

Are you fucking retarded? The US INVADED IRAQ in 2003, that is the number one international crime ABOVE all other crimes, there is term for it stupid its called THE SUPREME CRIME OF AGGRESSION No, it isn't. You are not peace keepers, you are a foreign occupying army according to all international laws. It takes a fairly brainwashed mind to even try to claim this. The US military have continuously been used to kill innocent people but that is a side issue and one probably way out of your league if you think invading a country and breaking the number one international law is 'peace keeping' Yes they do and I already said that. When they invade and then occupy your country breaking international law, yes it is. The US are not peace keeping and maintaining economic stability if you think this you are stupid. I am not even saying it lightly as an after thought light hearted insult. I mean you are an absolute fucking moron with no understanding of the world around you. The US invaded and occupied Iraq and still do. This is the number one international crime and the Iraqi people are free to kill all foreign troops who participated in this.

So now they are a socialist group? Which is what I would actually refer to them as and was the initial point I was making. He specifically said in a piece of dramatic dialog taken right out of 1960 that COMMUNISTS! might take over Iran and I didn't say 'there are no communist(socialist) groups in Iran' I said "show me" as in show me these heinous, presumably Maoist or Stalinist, communist! groups plotting in the shadows. You then presented the MEK (which I was aware of just like all the other militant left wing groups I have listed, because when they don't kill civilians I actually follow their progression and support most of what they do). Which I then said was a stretch to call them communist with the assumption that you were also working on the definition of communism that CALI seems to understand, which is nothing more than a fancy 20th century word for totalitarian boogey man. Now to me and you the MEK are communist because its clear we both understand communism to mean Karl Marx, mode of production, socialist, bourgeoisie, etc, etc, etc. Which is clearly not the understanding CALI has of the word communist when he uses it as if he is Henry Kissinger in 1975, I'm surprised he didn't say 'the red menace!' or something. Yeah I get by ok on the reading tip, can you though because this is what he said...

Don't wave your dick around and I won't have to wave mine.

It is a fairly valid dick waving given the forum. Don't pull out the word 'kid' on an old man and it probably won't happen. But I guess you have to stick up for your buddy 666. People who don't understand international laws and basic moral principles have to stick together and fight rational arguments with immaturity it seems.

Sorry your positions are so aligned and ridiculous its hard to differentiate. So there are communists! waiting to take over. Have you two combined actually put forth an argument or are you just stating it for no reason? Because as far as I can tell what your saying is that there are communist groups in Iran and they would be worse in power than a repressive Islamic state, which is laughable. Also if the last few decades have shown us anything communist groups, minus old man Che, rarely succeed. ETA in Spain (although to be fair these guys are just flat out terrorists), RAF in Germany, the new Revolutionary Struggle group in Athens, etc. As far as I am concerned a 'communist' (aka limited socialist state within the current global framework) if based on real democratic principles like an actual communist state would be is not only better than the backwards Islamic theocracy they now have but also equally better than the puppet government the US would give them so it could get its free market on with their oil, which is exactly what will happen if the US 1. attack Iran and don't set off the catalyst for ending the world or 2. Get their CIA on and fund terrorism to overthrow it from the inside. But you will have to expand because as far as I'm aware all you have said is 'The US must be the ones to overthrow the Iran regime other wise communists! might'

Its good to see there are at least two people with a functioning brain

See this is why I started to talk in this thread The Iranians are going to blow up the world and cause ww3 and ultimate doom. Where are you getting this shit from? Iran don't even have one yet but in a few years they might so lets attack them? Give me a fucking break, do you not remember the last four years? Swap the N with a Q and its the exact same scenario of pure bullshit. How are you actually buying into this? We could argue about the sources of this supposed bomb making all we want but lets go with it for this scenario and say they actually are, so what? 1. The US have sent a clear message to everyone. If you have nuclear weapons we probably won't attack you. 2. Iran are not allowed nuclear weapons by the UN charter... I think we can agree all rational people would like to a see a nuclear weapon free world BUT if the US have several thousand (and attack who they like with conventional armies), Israel have several hundred, Pakistan, India, NK and a couple others have some why the fuck should Iran not have one....maybe....in several years....? It is completely hypocritical. 3. We are assuming that the US government give a fuck about the free people of the world and genuinely want to stop the 'crazy Muslim leaders of Iran' from building a bomb. Which we all know is a joke backed up by several decades of economic imperialism. What is hard to understand about this? Please explain it to me because I have explained my position several times now, it is very clear. Maybe its something in the water where you are or maybe its the ignorant cultural conditioning you have under gone since birth which makes people from other nations a little less human than you. I will say it once again because it is so fucking simple a child can understand it SPECIFICALLY IRAQIS, that is NOT foreign muslims or anyone else, HAVE THE RIGHT BOTH ETHICALLY, UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW AND BY EVERY CONCEPT OF HUMAN RIGHTS TO KILL US SOLDIERS. Which would either be 1. Exactly the same as the oppressive regime already around or 2. Probably a lot better Irony given that you think you are showing some kind of dissent when you are confirming to the party line about having to attack Iran.... oh yeah and not understanding very basic principles of international law

I would recommend a course in how-to-read-what-someone-says because I'm pretty sure I dedicated an off the head paragraph to how oppressed the people of Iran are. You called it 'communist' and presumably you are American. This means I automatically assume you are not talking about actual communism in the vein of Marx original work OR neo-Marxian scholars but the US definition of 'communism' which we all know means anyone who is an enemy of the US or any nation that is repressive/totalitarian and doesn't get down with the free market except through the state. If they are a group with principals based on socialism then they will be a socialist state and a socialist state in a world of free market capitalism clearly has externally imposed limits on just how socialist it can be. So we can now come back to your original statement which to me uses communist in all its negative connotation glory and the popular US meaning of the word rather than the real meaning of the word in academia. Uhoh! The reds are coming! What is this 1955? Are you saying that we should fund a revolution for democracy ESPECIALLY so that we can get the MEK in or because if we don't the MEK will get in? If you are using communist, as I can only assume you are, to mean mid 20th century boogey man than how the fuck is the MEK gaining power different to the current regime? Both would be authoritarian and both would have self imposed shit economies... there would be virtually no change at all. So you didn't go to college and now you are having a cry? On the one hand I don't really have to defend what I say as it speaks very clearly for itself and is understandable if you have half a brain but on the other hand I left school at 14, my family are working class and I became self educated a long time before I ever had an opportunity to go to college, which I put myself through and given that the college system of the US is largely different from most other western countries its fair to say you probably wouldn't know about it. Because I spotted posts that were making light of Fox news reporting while still parroting the party line about Iran being a danger to the US. If you can't play the game, which is present an argument first and tact the insult on at the end of the sentence or paragraph then don't play the game at all other wise you just look like a cry baby with no argument.

No that is not covered by international law and I think we can all agree, at least if one wants a leg to stand on in any argument concerning it, that terrorism (specifically the killing of innocent people) is never permissible in any situation ever. The law, to my knowledge, also doesn't cover Muslim men from other nations going to Iraq to kill foreign troops. Although given that the invasion and occupation is pretty much the highest level of terrorism that there is whether its strictly unethical to go there to help Iraqis defend their land is up for debate. However there is absolutely no debate over whether the people of Iraq are allowed to kill foreign troops, it is printed in black and white and it is a very basic and easy to understand concept of human rights. But for out slow friend 666 lets just switch it up with the most child like opposite to help him grasp it + Greenland and New Zealand start to carpet bomb, err I mean tactically strike, the US homeland. + They then go on to occupy it for several years and the death toll of the domestic population climbs + I come on 12oz and say 'Americans have every right, ethically and by law, to kill foreign troops including soldiers of the New Zealand and Greenland armies' + 666 comes along and says 'uR a dA faGiT idDIot!' ...Yeah I am pretty fucking sure that last dot point wouldn't occur... chances are that our friend 666 would be fighting for the liberation of his beloved country and not on the internet, must be something about being the victim of terrorism that dissolves hypocrisy

I would put money on being more than likely half a dozen years older than you with a lot more education, and more importantly for this place, trains under my belt, 'kid'. What am I missing here? I have pointed out that both ethically and legally Iraqi people are free to defend their land and kill US troops and you came along and had a cry. Yes international law clearly stipulates the defense of a nation, by it's people, from foreign invasion and occupation. Which pretty much sums up your stupidity and lack of understanding. Where did I say everyone should kill the US baby slaughtering machine? Oh whoops I didn't. Secondly a poll taken back in 05 or 06 showed that in fact the majority of new recruits into the US army and being sent to occupy Iraq and Afghanistan were not the oppressed minorities but middle class white kids. Like I said little guy, I would recommend a course or book but you seem to have difficulty just grasping the concept, as is evident with the line about baby killers. Yet you responded twice and lost twice

That one ^ If you are strapped for cash... http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html And this isn't a book but I read it this week and it was interesting http://www.struggle.ws/rbr/rbr6/bakunin.html For stuff a little less heavy and a good introduction to the subject do a youtube search for chomsky - government of/in the future

The iraqi people have every right to kill foreign troops in their country, including the majority of them which are US soldiers. Morally, ethically and under EVERY INTERNATIONAL LAW IN EXISTENCE YOU FUCKING DUMB CUNT the Iraqi people are free to kill foreign troops. Don't cry to me because you're stupid fucking brother or cousin is a US marine. I would suggest a course in basic international affairs... or maybe even a book but I don't need to because most of the international laws are spelled out clearly in black and white on shit like Wikipedia, "idiot". Calling the MEK 'communist' is almost the biggest stretch of the imagination for this thread. As for the list I would appreciate more detail. The Kurds is a given as they pretty much get stiffed by everyone. I finished (again) college a few years ago but seeing as I would rather be a rude cunt than carry out a polite discourse because the internet is meaningless and you seem to be issuing a dick measuring contest I finished the second time round with an MA, and you?