Rarely Seen Images of Tehran, Iran

[stevo]

That pic is photoshopped, her burka is missing.

Stevo

[Forever_frost]

Well you guys are wrong on all guesses of who I am. I have never been a member of this board but I have watched for a while so I know how the usual cast of characters work. What are you guys a bunch of liberals? I haven't seen anyone really discredit what I have said so out come the personal attacks. Oh And there is only one Persian that I love.

Actually everything you've said has been discredited and it's not personal attacks. We're laughing at you, not attacking you. Attacking you would be saying you're a fucktard who was inappropriately touched by Michael Jackson and Barack Obama Sr.

You're saying Iran has nothing to do with the attacks on US in Iraq yet have never been there. I say differently and so does the DoD

[talisman]

I'd like to declare a jihad on that rack. And I stayed on this pic for 6 minutes. I went twice!

[cyclonescott]

I think she shaves her "burka"

[The King]

Well you guys are wrong on all guesses of who I am.

You don't have to actually be any of the suspect indidividuals mentioned in order to emulate them.

[mstng86]

Off subject but, why do porn stars feel the need to even bother posing for a picture with clothes or a bikini on?

[cyclonescott]

Frost I never said that Iran had nothing to do with the attacks in Iraq. I said that you and the other soldier were being attacked because you were occupying there land and telling the how to run there countries just as you and most anyone else would do if some foreign entity came here and told us what to do. I posted tits so lets move on to something new.

[stevo]

If there is more craw-fishing in this thread I'm going to break out the boiling pot.

Stevo

[Forever_frost]

You mean "their" right?

We aren't occupying. We were there taking out insurgents. Hell, half the reason we get injured is we're protecting innocents from insurgents.

[Maddhattter]

Anyone, including Hitler, could say they are acting on the will of The Almighty, but that does not make it so. Just as you, for instance, can say Barack Obama is the next messiah but your saying it does not make it so.

We agree wholly on this. I'd suspect for very different reasons, but we do agree. That, however, does not change any point I've made, nor does it negate any.

If you knew much of anything about the Bible, specifically the Old Testament, you would know that no (actual) Christian is going to be anti-Jewish.

Considering that you've stated that personal interpretation is important when it comes to the bible, there is no justification to support you're "No True Scottsman" fallacy. Assuming you're right about requiring personal interpretation.

You and so many others are duped by secular governments using religion, the current example being Islam, to further their nationalistic (read: secular) ambitions.

Considering that we just covered that asserting something has no bearing on it's truthfulness, I find it entertaining that you would go on to simply assert things.

Considering that Jesus stated, in reference to the Jews(also referred to as the children of Israel) "But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." Matthew 8:12.

And, as Jesus was referencing the kingdom of Israel a mere 2 verses before, there is no reason to assume that anyone would be pro-jewish, if you base your stance on Jesus' teachings.

[The King]

We agree wholly on this. I'd suspect for very different reasons, but we do agree. That, however, does not change any point I've made, nor does it negate any.

You are of course always free to accept any point you've made, change any point you've made, or negate any point you've made.

Considering that you've stated that personal interpretation is important when it comes to the bible, there is no justification to support you're "No True Scottsman" fallacy. Assuming you're right about requiring personal interpretation.

Your statement above is incorrect. On the one hand you post that I have stated that personal interpretation is important when it comes to the Bible, and then state that such personal interpretation is required. Which is it you're trying to assert I've stated, that personal interpretation is important or that personal interpretation is required?

Considering that we just covered that asserting something has no bearing on it's truthfulness, I find it entertaining that you would go on to simply assert things.

Considering that Jesus stated, in reference to the Jews(also referred to as the children of Israel) "But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." Matthew 8:12.

And, as Jesus was referencing the kingdom of Israel a mere 2 verses before, there is no reason to assume that anyone would be pro-jewish, if you base your stance on Jesus' teachings.

In similar fashion, I find it equally if not more entertaining that you assert Jesus to be exclusively referencing the kingdom of Israel, convienently omiting the preceding verse (Matthew 8:11) "And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven." Some indeed will be excluded from the Kingdom according to the words of Jesus, including Jews and Gentiles, but that in no way supports your extrapolation that no one would be pro-Jewish.

[Captain Crawfish]

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/01/08/iran-begins-uranium-enrichment-at-new-underground-site/

Wont be long. Tehran isnt going to stop their nuke program and the sanctions wont do anything as they havent for years. It will be this year when Israel with or without allies destroys the uranium enrichment sites. Might not be an easy task since they are strategically built underground.

[The King]

Then take out Iran's vulnerable water supply sources. No access to water supplies would bring them to their knees within days

[stevo]

Communications, water supplies, electrical plants.

Stevo