^I love it when i meet Christians that are smart, and reasonable.
-
ICMag with help from Landrace Warden and The Vault is running a NEW contest in November! You can check it here. Prizes are seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!
Ron Paul 2012!!! Your thoughts on who we should pick for our "Cause"?
- Thread starter SacredBreh
- Start date
- Status
SacredBreh
Member
I don't get it! I see this time after time!
I don't get it! I see this time after time!
When they poll the GOP candidates agains Obummer, Ron Paul almost always comes out the best to go against Obummer. Do the Republicans WANT to lose??????????????????????
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/
https://www.icmag.com/ic/picture.php?albumid=35247&pictureid=851292
Peace
I don't get it! I see this time after time!
When they poll the GOP candidates agains Obummer, Ron Paul almost always comes out the best to go against Obummer. Do the Republicans WANT to lose??????????????????????
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/
Peace
^Fox didnt comment because one of their dumb ass candidates was not involved in the over all win
Last edited:
imo, many people are missing the point with Iran... it does not have to do about oil-prices.
it has to do with 'power'.
for example, if a leadership like the one Iran has, gets their hands on nuke-making tech; then, their negotiation-power increases, and thus their theocratic extremist hateful views will spread far-wider than they already do.
you think extremist theocratic bullshit is better than U.S government bullshit?
that'd be like taking four steps back.
there's more to the world than just oil-prices and stock-markets; believe it or not.
peace
it has to do with 'power'.
for example, if a leadership like the one Iran has, gets their hands on nuke-making tech; then, their negotiation-power increases, and thus their theocratic extremist hateful views will spread far-wider than they already do.
you think extremist theocratic bullshit is better than U.S government bullshit?
that'd be like taking four steps back.
there's more to the world than just oil-prices and stock-markets; believe it or not.
peace
Do you think we have a right to starve a countries innocent children in order to stifle their "negotiation" strength?
What about starving then murdering the survivors?
That is what sanctions really mean. The powerful in the country eat while the common man starves.
You think the great Satan is starving your children as a rallying cry will reduce the spread of violent "theocratic bullshit"?
How would we react if Iran placed those same sanctions on us?
Do you think palin supporters would say "well we do deserve those sanctions... I can do with less for a while. Iran is right and has our best interests in mind. Thank Allah they had the clear head to collapse our economy.
What about starving then murdering the survivors?
That is what sanctions really mean. The powerful in the country eat while the common man starves.
You think the great Satan is starving your children as a rallying cry will reduce the spread of violent "theocratic bullshit"?
How would we react if Iran placed those same sanctions on us?
Do you think palin supporters would say "well we do deserve those sanctions... I can do with less for a while. Iran is right and has our best interests in mind. Thank Allah they had the clear head to collapse our economy.
Last edited:
Then why didnt we take out Pakistan?
Pakistan fuels 'international terrorism'. Afghanistan has a puppet regime directed by the Paki ISS.
Iran fuel 'terrorism' mainly directed at Israel.
hypocrisy ftl.
STOP the UN Small Arms Treaty, STOP the Gun Grabbers Assault on Gun Owners Now
http://rosieontheright.com/stop-the-...un-owners-now/
FBI Director: I Have to Check to See If Obama Has the Right to Assassinate Americans On U.S. Soil
Yes, Obama Claims Power to Kill Americans on U.S. Soil
Fox News reports:
FBI Director Robert Mueller on Wednesday said he would have to go back and check with the Department of Justice whether Attorney General Eric Holder’s “[criteria] for the targeted killing of Americans also applied to Americans inside the U.S.
***
“I have to go back. Uh, I’m not certain whether that was addressed or not,” Mueller said when asked by Rep. Tom Graves, R-Ga., about a distinction between domestic and foreign targeting
Graves followed up asking whether “from a historical perspective,” the federal government has “the ability to kill a U.S. citizen on United States soil or just overseas.”
“I’m going to defer that to others in the Department of Justice,” Mueller replied.
Indeed, Holder’s Monday speech at Northwestern University seemed to leave the door open.
Constitutional expert Jonathan Turley writes:
One would hope that the FBI Director would have a handle on a few details guiding his responsibilities, including whether he can kill citizens without a charge or court order.
***
He appeared unclear whether he had the power under the Obama Kill Doctrine or, in the very least, was unwilling to discuss that power. For civil libertarians, the answer should be easy: “Of course, I do not have that power under the Constitution.”
***
The claim that they are following self-imposed “limits” which are meaningless — particularly in a system that is premised on the availability of judicial review. The Administration has never said that the [Law Of Armed Conflicts] does not allow the same powers to be used in the United States. It would be an easy thing to state. Holder can affirmatively state that the President’s inherent power to kill citizens exists only outside of the country. He can then explain where those limits are found in the Constitution and why they do not apply equally to a citizen in London or Berlin. Holder was not describing a constitutional process of review. They have dressed up a self-imposed review of a unilateral power as due process. Any authoritarian measure can be dressed up as carefully executed according to balancing tests, but that does not constitute any real constitutional analysis. It is at best a loose analogy to constitutional analysis.
When reporters asked the Justice Department about Mueller’s apparent uncertainty, they responded that the answer is “pretty straightforward.” They then offered an evasive response. They simply said (as we all know) that “[t]he legal framework (Holder) laid out applies to U.S. citizens outside of U.S.” We got that from the use of the word “abroad.” However, the question is how this inherent authority is limited as it has been articulated by Holder and others. What is the limiting principle? If the President cannot order the killing of a citizen in the United States, Holder can simply say so (and inform the FBI Director who would likely be involved in such a killing). In doing so, he can then explain the source of that limitation and why it does not apply with citizens in places like London. What we have is a purely internal review that balances the practicality of arrest and the urgency of the matter in the view of the President. Since the panel is the extension of his authority, he can presumably disregard their recommendations or order a killing without their approval. Since the Administration has emphasized that the “battlefield” in this “war on terror” is not limited to a particular country, the assumption is that the President’s authority is commensurate with that threat or limitless theater of operation. Indeed, the Justice Department has repeatedly stated that the war is being fought in the United States as well as other nations.
Thus, Mueller’s uncertainty is understandable . . . and dangerous. The Framers created a system of objective due process in a system of checks and balances. Obama has introduced an undefined and self-imposed system of review ….
Before you assume that Mueller’s comments are being blown out of proportion, remember that it has been clear for some time that Obama has claimed the power to assassinate U.S. citizens within the U.S. As we pointed out in December:
I’ve previously noted that Obama says that he can assassinate American citizens living on U.S. soil.
This admittedly sounds over-the-top. But one of the nation’s top constitutional and military law experts – Jonathan Turley – agrees.
***
Turley said [on C-Span]:
President Obama has just stated a policy that he can have any American citizen killed without any charge, without any review, except his own. If he’s satisfied that you are a terrorist, he says that he can kill you anywhere in the world including in the United States.
Two of his aides just … reaffirmed they believe that American citizens can be killed on the order of the President anywhere including the United States.
You’ve now got a president who says that he can kill you on his own discretion. He can jail you indefinitely on his own discretion
***
I don’t think the the Framers ever anticipated that [the American people would be so apathetic]. They assumed that people would hold their liberties close, and that they wouldn’t relax …
Indeed, given that virtually any American could be considered a suspected terrorist these days, no one is safe from an all-powerful president’s whims.
As I noted in another context, circular reasoning provides all the justification needed:
The government’s indefinite detention policy – stripped of it’s spin – is literally insane, and based on circular reasoning. Stripped of p.r., this is the actual policy:
If you are an enemy combatant or a threat to national security, we will detain you indefinitely until the war is over
It is a perpetual war, which will never be over
Neither you or your lawyers have a right to see the evidence against you, nor to face your accusers
But trust us, we know you are an enemy combatant and a threat to national security
We may torture you (and try to cover up the fact that you were tortured), because you are an enemy combatant, and so basic rights of a prisoner guaranteed by the Geneva Convention don’t apply to you
Since you admitted that you’re a bad guy (while trying to tell us whatever you think we want to hear to make the torture stop), it proves that we should hold you in indefinite detention
See how that works?And – given that U.S. soldiers admit that if they accidentally kill innocent Iraqis and Afghanis, they then “drop” automatic weapons near their body so they can pretend they were militants – it is unlikely that the government would ever admit that an American citizen it assassinated was an innocent civilian who has nothing at all to do with terrorism.
http://rosieontheright.com/stop-the-...un-owners-now/
FBI Director: I Have to Check to See If Obama Has the Right to Assassinate Americans On U.S. Soil
Yes, Obama Claims Power to Kill Americans on U.S. Soil
Fox News reports:
FBI Director Robert Mueller on Wednesday said he would have to go back and check with the Department of Justice whether Attorney General Eric Holder’s “[criteria] for the targeted killing of Americans also applied to Americans inside the U.S.
***
“I have to go back. Uh, I’m not certain whether that was addressed or not,” Mueller said when asked by Rep. Tom Graves, R-Ga., about a distinction between domestic and foreign targeting
Graves followed up asking whether “from a historical perspective,” the federal government has “the ability to kill a U.S. citizen on United States soil or just overseas.”
“I’m going to defer that to others in the Department of Justice,” Mueller replied.
Indeed, Holder’s Monday speech at Northwestern University seemed to leave the door open.
Constitutional expert Jonathan Turley writes:
One would hope that the FBI Director would have a handle on a few details guiding his responsibilities, including whether he can kill citizens without a charge or court order.
***
He appeared unclear whether he had the power under the Obama Kill Doctrine or, in the very least, was unwilling to discuss that power. For civil libertarians, the answer should be easy: “Of course, I do not have that power under the Constitution.”
***
The claim that they are following self-imposed “limits” which are meaningless — particularly in a system that is premised on the availability of judicial review. The Administration has never said that the [Law Of Armed Conflicts] does not allow the same powers to be used in the United States. It would be an easy thing to state. Holder can affirmatively state that the President’s inherent power to kill citizens exists only outside of the country. He can then explain where those limits are found in the Constitution and why they do not apply equally to a citizen in London or Berlin. Holder was not describing a constitutional process of review. They have dressed up a self-imposed review of a unilateral power as due process. Any authoritarian measure can be dressed up as carefully executed according to balancing tests, but that does not constitute any real constitutional analysis. It is at best a loose analogy to constitutional analysis.
When reporters asked the Justice Department about Mueller’s apparent uncertainty, they responded that the answer is “pretty straightforward.” They then offered an evasive response. They simply said (as we all know) that “[t]he legal framework (Holder) laid out applies to U.S. citizens outside of U.S.” We got that from the use of the word “abroad.” However, the question is how this inherent authority is limited as it has been articulated by Holder and others. What is the limiting principle? If the President cannot order the killing of a citizen in the United States, Holder can simply say so (and inform the FBI Director who would likely be involved in such a killing). In doing so, he can then explain the source of that limitation and why it does not apply with citizens in places like London. What we have is a purely internal review that balances the practicality of arrest and the urgency of the matter in the view of the President. Since the panel is the extension of his authority, he can presumably disregard their recommendations or order a killing without their approval. Since the Administration has emphasized that the “battlefield” in this “war on terror” is not limited to a particular country, the assumption is that the President’s authority is commensurate with that threat or limitless theater of operation. Indeed, the Justice Department has repeatedly stated that the war is being fought in the United States as well as other nations.
Thus, Mueller’s uncertainty is understandable . . . and dangerous. The Framers created a system of objective due process in a system of checks and balances. Obama has introduced an undefined and self-imposed system of review ….
Before you assume that Mueller’s comments are being blown out of proportion, remember that it has been clear for some time that Obama has claimed the power to assassinate U.S. citizens within the U.S. As we pointed out in December:
I’ve previously noted that Obama says that he can assassinate American citizens living on U.S. soil.
This admittedly sounds over-the-top. But one of the nation’s top constitutional and military law experts – Jonathan Turley – agrees.
***
Turley said [on C-Span]:
President Obama has just stated a policy that he can have any American citizen killed without any charge, without any review, except his own. If he’s satisfied that you are a terrorist, he says that he can kill you anywhere in the world including in the United States.
Two of his aides just … reaffirmed they believe that American citizens can be killed on the order of the President anywhere including the United States.
You’ve now got a president who says that he can kill you on his own discretion. He can jail you indefinitely on his own discretion
***
I don’t think the the Framers ever anticipated that [the American people would be so apathetic]. They assumed that people would hold their liberties close, and that they wouldn’t relax …
Indeed, given that virtually any American could be considered a suspected terrorist these days, no one is safe from an all-powerful president’s whims.
As I noted in another context, circular reasoning provides all the justification needed:
The government’s indefinite detention policy – stripped of it’s spin – is literally insane, and based on circular reasoning. Stripped of p.r., this is the actual policy:
If you are an enemy combatant or a threat to national security, we will detain you indefinitely until the war is over
It is a perpetual war, which will never be over
Neither you or your lawyers have a right to see the evidence against you, nor to face your accusers
But trust us, we know you are an enemy combatant and a threat to national security
We may torture you (and try to cover up the fact that you were tortured), because you are an enemy combatant, and so basic rights of a prisoner guaranteed by the Geneva Convention don’t apply to you
Since you admitted that you’re a bad guy (while trying to tell us whatever you think we want to hear to make the torture stop), it proves that we should hold you in indefinite detention
See how that works?And – given that U.S. soldiers admit that if they accidentally kill innocent Iraqis and Afghanis, they then “drop” automatic weapons near their body so they can pretend they were militants – it is unlikely that the government would ever admit that an American citizen it assassinated was an innocent civilian who has nothing at all to do with terrorism.
G
greenmatter
or how would we react to having an army from another country rolling through our towns checking papers and "detaining" our kids because they were throwing rocks at tanks?
i'll bet our government would have to redefine the word terrorist again.
the 24 hour news cycle never asks any of these questions ....... and again i am sure it is all because they have our best interests in mind
our foreign policy over the last 60 years has made dealing with things today very interesting from the average americans point of view .......... we can't understand why "they" don't want democracy but we are missing the fact that that is not really what we have been offering "them".
and i bet "they" trust "our" government even less than "we" do
"HCR 107 calls for the impeachment of Obama if he seeks international permission to go to war with Syria rather than a declaration of war from Congress."
http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/co...-military-actions-in-syria-may-be-impeachable
http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/co...-military-actions-in-syria-may-be-impeachable
the answer is simple: Pakistan has nukes.
you let Iran get nukes, it will become Pakistan v2.0 but worste.
why do you write terrorism within these ' ' ?
surely you think anyone who hates Israel should be justified?
hillary sticks up for foreign terrorists who wish to stay on the border of iran,but are being housed in a american base, camp liberty in iraq,while the iraqi's hate them and have had bloody clashes with the group MEK,and see housing them as infringing on their sovereignty.
oh yeah upgrading the base and moving the terrorists into it is at our expense.
http://piazzadcara.wordpress.com/tag/us-state-department-moves-mek-to-camp-liberty-in-iraq/
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/03/08/are_the_mek_s_us_friends_its_worst_enemies
oh yeah upgrading the base and moving the terrorists into it is at our expense.
http://piazzadcara.wordpress.com/tag/us-state-department-moves-mek-to-camp-liberty-in-iraq/
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/03/08/are_the_mek_s_us_friends_its_worst_enemies
re: on embargos
you guys are not looking at the whole picture:
if the Iranian leadership gave a half shit about their own population, they'd stop what they are doing so as to avoid any possible embargos.
lets face, why would anyone want nukes nowdays? for nothing good.
yeah, we know the U.S has nukes and has used them in the past. so could anyone else with nukes use them today, specially a group of power-crazed people.
if the U.S were as evil and crazy as some of you self-hating americans picture it to be, they'd not be trying embargos, but nuking everyone left and right.
if any countries know the real danger of nukes, that's the U.S and Japan, none of which want to see more nukes going off or any more proliferation of nukes.
but we're going way off-topic here now.
what about that Ron Paul, uh? I still do not trust politicians, no matter what pretty things they come up to say on t.v.
peace!
you guys are not looking at the whole picture:
if the Iranian leadership gave a half shit about their own population, they'd stop what they are doing so as to avoid any possible embargos.
lets face, why would anyone want nukes nowdays? for nothing good.
yeah, we know the U.S has nukes and has used them in the past. so could anyone else with nukes use them today, specially a group of power-crazed people.
if the U.S were as evil and crazy as some of you self-hating americans picture it to be, they'd not be trying embargos, but nuking everyone left and right.
if any countries know the real danger of nukes, that's the U.S and Japan, none of which want to see more nukes going off or any more proliferation of nukes.
but we're going way off-topic here now.
what about that Ron Paul, uh? I still do not trust politicians, no matter what pretty things they come up to say on t.v.
peace!
Ayatollah Khamenei, Iran Supreme Leader, Hails Obama Comments As 'Window Of Opportunity'
Posted: 03/ 8/2012 7:29 am Updated: 03/ 8/2012 3:10 pm
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- Iran's top leader Thursday welcomed comments by President Barack Obama advocating diplomacy and not war as a solution to Tehran's nuclear ambitions, a rare positive signal in long-standing hostile transactions between Tehran and Washington.
The report on Iran's state television quoted Ayatollah Ali Khamenei as praising a recent statement by the U.S. president saying he saw a "window of opportunity" to use diplomacy to resolve the nuclear dispute.
Khamenei, who has final say on all state matters in Iran, told a group of clerics: "This expression is a good word. This is a wise remark indicating taking distance from illusion."
It is one of the rare cases in which Iran's top leader praised an American leader.
Washington and Tehran have had no diplomatic relations since the 1979 takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran by Iranian students who took American diplomats hostage.
Both the U.S. and Israel fear Iran's nuclear program is aimed at building a nuclear weapon, while Iran says its nuclear activities are geared toward peaceful purposes such as power generation. But the U.S. and Israel have differed over how to deal with the nuclear problem.
Israel has said military action should be considered to stop the Iranians. President Barack Obama told visiting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu earlier this week that diplomacy must be given more time.
On Tuesday, the American president said diplomacy can still resolve the nuclear crisis and accused his Republican critics of "beating the drums of war."
Obama added that the Iranians need to show how serious they are about resolving the crisis. He said there are steps the Iranians can take "that are verifiable" and will allow the country to be "in compliance with international norms and mandates."
But Khamenei had criticism for Obama as well. The Iranian leader said the economic sanctions pushed by the U.S. and other nations as a way to get Iran to alter its nuclear program would fail.
He said the U.S. president has continued a policy of wanting the Iranian nation to "...bow through imposing sanctions."
Khamenei said resorting to the sanctions was a sign of misunderstanding and an unrealistic approach by the U.S. toward the Iranian nation.
The Iranian leader warned that the misunderstanding will damage American leaders: "It will lead their calculations to failure."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/08/ayatollah-khamenei-obama_n_1330645.html?ref=world
Posted: 03/ 8/2012 7:29 am Updated: 03/ 8/2012 3:10 pm
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- Iran's top leader Thursday welcomed comments by President Barack Obama advocating diplomacy and not war as a solution to Tehran's nuclear ambitions, a rare positive signal in long-standing hostile transactions between Tehran and Washington.
The report on Iran's state television quoted Ayatollah Ali Khamenei as praising a recent statement by the U.S. president saying he saw a "window of opportunity" to use diplomacy to resolve the nuclear dispute.
Khamenei, who has final say on all state matters in Iran, told a group of clerics: "This expression is a good word. This is a wise remark indicating taking distance from illusion."
It is one of the rare cases in which Iran's top leader praised an American leader.
Washington and Tehran have had no diplomatic relations since the 1979 takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran by Iranian students who took American diplomats hostage.
Both the U.S. and Israel fear Iran's nuclear program is aimed at building a nuclear weapon, while Iran says its nuclear activities are geared toward peaceful purposes such as power generation. But the U.S. and Israel have differed over how to deal with the nuclear problem.
Israel has said military action should be considered to stop the Iranians. President Barack Obama told visiting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu earlier this week that diplomacy must be given more time.
On Tuesday, the American president said diplomacy can still resolve the nuclear crisis and accused his Republican critics of "beating the drums of war."
Obama added that the Iranians need to show how serious they are about resolving the crisis. He said there are steps the Iranians can take "that are verifiable" and will allow the country to be "in compliance with international norms and mandates."
But Khamenei had criticism for Obama as well. The Iranian leader said the economic sanctions pushed by the U.S. and other nations as a way to get Iran to alter its nuclear program would fail.
He said the U.S. president has continued a policy of wanting the Iranian nation to "...bow through imposing sanctions."
Khamenei said resorting to the sanctions was a sign of misunderstanding and an unrealistic approach by the U.S. toward the Iranian nation.
The Iranian leader warned that the misunderstanding will damage American leaders: "It will lead their calculations to failure."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/08/ayatollah-khamenei-obama_n_1330645.html?ref=world
If we go to iran,it wont be till after the elections. syria however is gonna happen.
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/03/08/are_the_mek_s_us_friends_its_worst_enemies
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/p...administration_moves_to_aid_syrian_opposition
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/03/08/are_the_mek_s_us_friends_its_worst_enemies
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/p...administration_moves_to_aid_syrian_opposition
The politics inside Iran is changing too. There is more Woman in the University of Tehran than men. With education comes freedom.
that's because they think women are inferior and need to study more than men.
of course, this results in that men become idiotic uneducated fools, and the women are a lot more educated and have a wider world-view than men, and so get more repressed as well.
sadly, in the muslim world, men are naturally superior, so no need to go to the university, that's stuff for women.
^ and those men will pay the price. Education leads to freedom. why do you think slaves owners killed slaves that could read
it's quite funny how some people fear Iran, it hasn't started a war with anyone for centuries, where as the US started hundreds of wars in the last century alone, it's last war not too many months ago, and it's next one, any day now. but it's supposedly Iran, that is the big threat to world peace! roflmfao.....and this crap is even swallowed hook line and sinker, by some average people. not just the military industrial complex. Iran is not occupying an inch of other peoples land, while the US has over 700 military bases occupying countries all over the world.
use your common sense, if Iran was to attack anyone it would be wiped out. anyone think they don't know that? the only reason they want a nuke is to be left alone and stop being threatened and sanctioned. it's a joke to try an make them seem like this non human evil arch enemy, they just want to be left alone to pursue their own national interests and the more the west would trade and have travel arrangements with them the faster the people would move towards more freedoms. the more we threaten them and blockade them, the more the Iranian people will support their leaders, Ron Paul speak plain common sense with regards to Iran.
use your common sense, if Iran was to attack anyone it would be wiped out. anyone think they don't know that? the only reason they want a nuke is to be left alone and stop being threatened and sanctioned. it's a joke to try an make them seem like this non human evil arch enemy, they just want to be left alone to pursue their own national interests and the more the west would trade and have travel arrangements with them the faster the people would move towards more freedoms. the more we threaten them and blockade them, the more the Iranian people will support their leaders, Ron Paul speak plain common sense with regards to Iran.
Iran is a rational state actor or so says ex Israeli spy chief.
They want the nuke because they know America does not invade countries with nukes. Nukes guarantee that you can operate on the international stage with the deterrent of Mutually Assured Destruction. Once Iran can use that as a deterrent the war mongers will leave them alone and be forced to deal with them without using the constant threat of military conquest. There will be war though. O will call for talks, delay, delay, same movie as Iraq. But in the end there will be war.
Ex-Israeli spy chief: Bombing Iran a stupid idea
They want the nuke because they know America does not invade countries with nukes. Nukes guarantee that you can operate on the international stage with the deterrent of Mutually Assured Destruction. Once Iran can use that as a deterrent the war mongers will leave them alone and be forced to deal with them without using the constant threat of military conquest. There will be war though. O will call for talks, delay, delay, same movie as Iraq. But in the end there will be war.
Ex-Israeli spy chief: Bombing Iran a stupid idea
OK... you missed the point.
Why did we let Pakistan gain nuclear weapons? They first detonated in 1998, why didnt we attack them then?
Where are the sanctions?
(Detonating a weapon is no where near making one deliverable. We could have stopped them.)
Because perspective is everything.why do you write terrorism within these ' ' ?
surely you think anyone who hates Israel should be justified?
V1 and V2 rockets were 'terror weapons'.
Do you think Iranian nuclear scientist live in the terror/fear from magnetic car bombs...
Turn on your printer, here is a mat for you to print out and lay on the floor.
Since when did disagreeing with THE FAR RIGHT IN ISRAEL, automatically turn into hate? Just another example of a bubble you must live in. Most Israelis are against attacking IRAN. I guess most Israelis HATE Israel too.
-
- Status
