Tony Blair wants to bomb Iran

by **Lacadaemon** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 5:31 am

He just said that Iran can't be allowed to have Nuclear weapons. I just saw it on the telly.

He didn't specifically say that he wanted to bomb Iran, but given that he is the third anti-christ, and that he likes bombing things (proven fact, look at his record), I think Iran is next up.

If I was that amadinnerjacket guy I'd be building nukes like tomorrow would never come at this point. Clearly the forces of the 'west' are looking for a target for more 'democracy'.

by **Kobrania** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 5:37 am

Lacadaemon wrote:He just said that Iran can't be allowed to have Nuclear weapons. I just saw it on the telly.

He didn't specifically say that he wanted to bomb Iran, but given that he is the third anti-christ, and that he likes bombing things (proven fact, look at his record), I think Iran is next up.

If I was that amadinnerjacket guy I'd be building nukes like tomorrow would never come at this point. Clearly the forces of the 'west' are looking for a target for more 'democracy'.

Presstv (interanational iran news channel) still claims otherwise.

by **Pope Joan** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 5:38 am

Israel is the most serious nuclear threat in the Mideast.

Bomb them first.

by **Lacadaemon** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 5:42 am

Tony Blair would never bomb Isreal. If for no other reason than it doesn't have an extradition treaty with the UK.

by **RightLeaningChristians** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 5:46 am

Assault on the Holy Land!

by **Hairless Kitten II** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 5:52 am

Tony who? Blair?

Oh yes, that's a Steward of the Chiltern Hundreds.

They have nothing to say, they can't order bombings. Wait I'll check if Tony is save...

Yes, oh yes, I see. We forgot his doses of Lithium today. Nurse!?

by **NotRust** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 6:11 am

Iran's lucky that they haven't been crushed already. A few centuries ago, they'd never have gotten away with saying the stuff they've been saying.

by **Yootopia** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 6:12 am

NotRust wrote:Iran's lucky that they haven't been crushed already. A few centuries ago, they'd never have gotten away with saying the stuff they've been saying.

I think that being rude about the Jewry was way more tolerable even 150 years ago mate.

by **NotRust** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 6:14 am

Yootopia wrote:
NotRust wrote:Iran's lucky that they haven't been crushed already. A few centuries ago, they'd never have gotten away with saying the stuff they've been saying.

I think that being rude about the Jewry was way more tolerable even 150 years ago mate.

I was thing more along the lines of insulting other countries.

by **Lowbrook** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 6:15 am

Bombing Iran is not the answer, just assasinate President Amaddinnerjacket and job done.

by **Yootopia** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 6:17 am

Lowbrook wrote:Bombing Iran is not the answer, just assasinate President Amaddinnerjacket and job done.

... right... in which case the Mullahs get someone even friendlier on-side. Or he's replaced with Mousavi, a man who was pretty chilled about the amount of executions and the like in post-revolutionary Iran. Awesome.

by **Yootopia** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 6:18 am

NotRust wrote:
Yootopia wrote:
NotRust wrote:Iran's lucky that they haven't been crushed already. A few centuries ago, they'd never have gotten away with saying the stuff they've been saying.

I think that being rude about the Jewry was way more tolerable even 150 years ago mate.

I was thing more along the lines of insulting other countries.

Seeing as it would take them a very long time to get to Persian territory back in the day, I dunno that they'd even bother (that is if they cared about what some petty Mohammedian reprobates were saying about their magnificent countries).

by **Barrettstia** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 6:19 am

Lacadaemon wrote:He just said that Iran can't be allowed to have Nuclear weapons. I just saw it on the telly.

Funny, because that's what I say as well but I've never advocated bombing them.

Lacadaemon wrote:He didn't specifically say that he wanted to bomb Iran, but given that he is the third anti-christ,

lolwut?

Lacadaemon wrote:and that he likes bombing things (proven fact, look at his record), I think Iran is next up.

What track record is this? I don't think he's bombed anybody while prime minister that the US hadn't bombed first.

Lacadaemon wrote:If I was that amadinnerjacket guy I'd be building nukes like tomorrow would never come at this point. Clearly the forces of the 'west' are looking for a target for more 'democracy'.

Except that Blair is now little more important than me, my neighbour, or any other British citizen. Even if he did want to bomb Iran (very big 'if'), he'd still have no more authority to recommend it than I would.

I can't believe I'm actually bothering to dignify this with a reply. The more I write the stupider you sound. I think the only reason I'm going to hit Submit instead of Back is because my mouse is closer to that one so its less effort.

by **NotRust** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 6:21 am

Yootopia wrote:
NotRust wrote:
Yootopia wrote:
NotRust wrote:Iran's lucky that they haven't been crushed already. A few centuries ago, they'd never have gotten away with saying the stuff they've been saying.

I think that being rude about the Jewry was way more tolerable even 150 years ago mate.

I was thing more along the lines of insulting other countries.

Seeing as it would take them a very long time to get to Persian territory back in the day, I dunno that they'd even bother (that is if they cared about what some petty Mohammedian reprobates were saying about their magnificent countries).

Countries used to go to war over virtually nothing in the old days.

by **Czardas** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 6:25 am

So guys, I heard today that Obama wants to put your grandparents on death panels and abort your babies.

Well, okay, he said "We need healthcare reform", but since he is the anti-christ and has a track record of turning everything he touches to communism (proven fact), I'm sure mandatory abortions are next up.

If I were a pregnant woman, I'd be stocking up on the guns and ammo to defend myself when the FBI's abortionist doctors show up in the middle of the night to kill my baby.

by **Yootopia** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 6:25 am

NotRust wrote:
Yootopia wrote:
NotRust wrote:
Yootopia wrote:
NotRust wrote:Iran's lucky that they haven't been crushed already. A few centuries ago, they'd never have gotten away with saying the stuff they've been saying.

I think that being rude about the Jewry was way more tolerable even 150 years ago mate.

I was thing more along the lines of insulting other countries.

Seeing as it would take them a very long time to get to Persian territory back in the day, I dunno that they'd even bother (that is if they cared about what some petty Mohammedian reprobates were saying about their magnificent countries).

Countries used to go to war over virtually nothing in the old days.

Err not really, they went to war for the same reasons at about the same frequency as we do now.

"Hmm the population thinks I am incompetent and I want their taxes"
"Hmm we could do with more of resource x"
"Hmm there are kind of too many menfolk, gender imbalances suck"

by **RightLeaningChristians** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 6:26 am

Lacadaemon wrote:given that he is the third anti-christ.

Isn't he Catholic?

Also, all non-Christians are the Anti-Christ.

by **Yootopia** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 6:27 am

RightLeaningChristians wrote:
Lacadaemon wrote:given that he is the third anti-christ.

Isn't he Catholic?

Yep, and they practise some serious idolatry what with their crucifixes and the like.

by **TGWTGLand** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 6:29 am

Lowbrook wrote:Bombing Iran is not the answer, just assasinate President Amaddinnerjacket and job done.

Mohammed Imadamnnutjob is not the one we need to kill, he's nothing more than the Shah's puppet

by **Yootopia** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 6:31 am

TGWTGLand wrote:
Lowbrook wrote:Bombing Iran is not the answer, just assasinate President Amaddinnerjacket and job done.

Mohammed Imadamnnutjob is not the one we need to kill, he's nothing more than the Shah's puppet

That's an exceptionally bold claim, since the Shah died in 1980.

by **Czardas** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 6:32 am

TGWTGLand wrote:
Lowbrook wrote:Bombing Iran is not the answer, just assasinate President Amaddinnerjacket and job done.

Mohammed Imadamnnutjob is not the one we need to kill, he's nothing more than the Shah's puppet

He's the puppet of a dead guy? That explains the jerky movements, anyway.

by **Ordo Mallus** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 6:36 am

israel will bomb them first. if you didn't notice, iran doesn't like jews, to be more specific he wants to wipe israel off the face of the planet and having nuclear weapons will prolly make this more possible. so i guess not bombing iran will make tham want to have peace with israel and the rest of the west?

by **RightLeaningChristians** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 6:38 am

Ordo Mallus wrote:iran doesn't like jews

I lol'd for some reason.

Yootopia wrote:
RightLeaningChristians wrote:
Lacadaemon wrote:given that he is the third anti-christ.

Isn't he Catholic?

Yep, and they practise some serious idolatry what with their crucifixes and the like.

How?

by **Yootopia** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 6:39 am

Ordo Mallus wrote:israel will bomb them first. if you didn't notice, iran doesn't like jews, to be more specific he wants to wipe israel off the face of the planet and having nuclear weapons will prolly make this more possible. so i guess not bombing iran will make tham want to have peace with israel and the rest of the west?

It would probably make the leaders of Iran a lot less skittish for one thing.

by **Yootopia** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 6:40 am

RightLeaningChristians wrote:How?

Pretty sure the 10 Commandments explain this. Making a gold jesus on the cross = Bad. Got to have some consistency with yer religion to be honest.

Tony Blair wants to bomb Iran

Tony Blair wants to bomb Iran

Who is online