Iranian Clerics: It's OK to use Nukes

[Changleen]

It seems that people in Iran are actually trying to figure out ways to make sure they get bombed by the west!

http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/003200602191406.htm

Iranian fatwa approves use of nuclear weapons

London, Feb. 19 (PTI): Iran's influential hard-line spiritual leaders have issued a fatwa or holy edict, sanctioning the use of atomic weapons as a "countermeasure" against other nuclear powers.

The fatwa, which for the first time questions the theocracy's traditional stance that Sharia law forbade the use of nuclear weapons, signals Tehran's stiffening resolve on the nuclear issue, 'The Sunday Telegraph' reported today.

According to it one senior cleric it is "only natural" to have nuclear bombs as a "countermeasure" against other nuclear powers, thought to be a reference to America and Israel.

The pronouncement is particularly worrying because it has come from Mohsen Gharavian, a disciple of the ultra-conservative Ayatollah Mohammad Taghi Mesbah-Yazdi, who is widely regarded as the cleric closest to Iran's new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi's group opposes virtually any kind of rapproachement with the West and is believed to have influenced President Ahmadinejad's refusal to negotiate over Iran's nuclear programme.

The comments, which are the first public statement by the Yazdi clerical cabal on the nuclear issue, will be seen as an attempt by the country's religious hardliners to begin preparing a theological justification for the ownership - and if necessary the use - of atomic bombs. :think: Crazy religious freaks.

[surfinguru]

So, do you still think we shouldn't be doing anything about this and just let them develop a nuclear bomb? I know the comment was stated as "to be used as retaliation" but how long do you think it would be before they decided, "m'eh, it's ok to use it against the Satanist infidels to teach them a lesson." :think:

[fluff]

So, do you still think we shouldn't be doing anything about this and just let them develop a nuclear bomb? I know the comment was stated as "to be used as retaliation" but how long do you think it would be before they decided, "m'eh, it's ok to use it against the Satanist infidels to teach them a lesson." :think:
I not for nuclear proliferation in any way but isn't this the basis for any country having nuclear weapons? If your enemies knew that you weren't prepared to use them what would be the point in having them?

Why do we have them?

[LordOpie]

So, do you still think we shouldn't be doing anything about this and just let them develop a nuclear bomb? I know the comment was stated as "to be used as retaliation" but how long do you think it would be before they decided, "m'eh, it's ok to use it against the Satanist infidels to teach them a lesson." :think:
exactly!

Chang, et. al who've defended Iran's rights really need to reconsider the simple fact that they're defending the criminally insane.

If I'm not mistaken, the PotUS cannot use a nuke on another country unless that country has nukes in the air heading for us. Yes, this admin has tried (and been unsuccessful) in getting unilateral authority to use nukes when they want, but that will likely never happen.

However, does Iran and countries like them have such safeguards? I seriously phucking doubt it. And that's why they shouldn't be allowed to have them.

[fluff]

criminally insane.
How so?

[Changleen]

So, do you still think... Uh, When did I say I thought it was OK for them to have a nuke? I have in the past defended their right to peaceful nuclear technology but under their present leader it is only too clear they want the weapon technology.

However, I will state (again) that bombing them will most likely unleash a **** storm in the middle east. It is NOT the most productive way to handle it. If Bush + Blair hadn't been such wankers over the past 5 years we might have a chance of using diplomacy to resolve this. Right now it really doesn't look like we have much chance at that.

[Changleen]

Chang, et. al who've defended Iran's rights really need to reconsider the simple fact that they're defending the criminally insane.Jew need to pay attention.

[Transcend]

So, do you still think we shouldn't be doing anything about this and just let them develop a nuclear bomb? I know the comment was stated as "to be used as retaliation" but how long do you think it would be before they decided, "m'eh, it's ok to use it against the Satanist infidels to teach them a lesson." :think:

It's called MAD. It was developed by the USA and Russia during the cold war... It works - for the most part.

It is basically what kept missiles from being launched during the missile crisis. If they didn't theink they would be turned into the worlds largest miror, they would have launched.

The American Gov't doesn't like it because it means Iran will have a very large stick to use in defence if they get invaded by mr empire builder himself.

You don't build a nuke not to potentially use it, duh. Cheney jacks his jaw just as much as the Iranians; "Every option is on the table", only the US media doesn't spin into a frenzy at that.

If the US has the right to nukes, so does everyone else. Why can't you get that through your heads? NPT my ass, the us is breaking it just as much as everyone else.

[Changleen]

It's pretty obvious to me that we wouldn't be anything like this situation at all if Bush and Blair hadn't invaded Iraq. In fact I'd even go as far as to say that Ahmadinejad wouldn't even be in power if the US and UK hadn't been so bellicose.

Extremism creates extremism. Violence creates violence.

[Transcend]

It's pretty obvious to me that we wouldn't be anything like this situation at all if Bush and Blair hadn't invaded Iraq. In fact I'd even go as far as to say that Ahmadinejad wouldn't even be in power if the US and UK hadn't been so bellicose.

I agree 100%. You made your own bed...now lie in it.

The best part about all the posturing, is that Iran has no real delivery capabilities that extend beyond Israel. They also know that if they were to EVER set off a nuke, their entire country would be turned to glass within 30 minutes.

[Changleen]

I agree 100%. You made your own bed...now lie in it.

The best part about all the posturing, is that Iran has no real delivery capabilities that extend beyond Israel. They also know that if they were to EVER set off a nuke, their entire country would be turned to glass within 30 minutes.Yeah. I think that's pretty much right. Unfortunatley for us and moreso the regular people of Iran, Israel and Bush are not going to let things get to that stage.

Iran also supposedly has a missile that could possibly reach Greece or even Italy, but realistically you're right that Israel is their likely strategic 'target'.

[jaydee]

I'm just dreading the day when Israel (or the US) gets terminally irritated by all this Islamic fundamentalist posturing and saber-rattling in Iran and decides that the best defense is a good offense. The world will have a new ocean in the Mideast about the size and shape of Iran and we'll all have a nice big holy war.

[Silver]

Extremism creates extremism. Violence creates violence.

Invading a country without nukes because they are low hanging fruit creates a sense of "We need nukes, quick!"

[Changleen]

If I'm not mistaken, the PotUS cannot use a nuke on another country unless that country has nukes in the air heading for us. Yes, this admin has tried (and been unsuccessful) in getting unilateral authority to use nukes when they want, but that will likely never happen.

Have a look at:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-1776250,00.html
which was written after the draft document - which I cannot seem to confirm or deny whether it was actually signed or not, but then:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=RUP20060102&articleId=1705
Which seems to suggest maybe it was, or at least the military seem to be acting as if it was.

Also good:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=SMI20060209&articleId=1928

By scoffing at the notion of nuclear disarmament in practice, by modernizing its nuclear capability, and by embracing an aggressive first-strike policy, Washington is not only violating the NPT but is contributing toward the proliferation of nuclear weapons. “Nothing could be more calculated to goad other nations into nuclear proliferation,” is how Jonathan Schell put it.

[TheMontashu]

Ok, he says it's ok to use nukes, lets play fair now and turn iran into green glass. They want to use nukes FINE but there country will be one big heroshima.

[surfinguru]

... and we'll all have a nice big holy war.

Open your eyes my friend, we're already in one. :nopity:

More fun reading:
http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Iran/Missile/3367_3368.html

[Transcend]

Hardly.

You'll know when you are when the daily car bombings, assasination attempts and suicide bombings in malls begin.

When you see triangular green flags starting to fly, then you should worry. Until then, way to live in that typical US government created culture of fear.

[manimal]

"duck and cover...duck and cover..."

[surfinguru]

Hardly.

You'll know when you are when the daily car bombings, assasination attempts and suicide bombings in malls begin.

When you see triangular green flags starting to fly, then you should worry. Until then, way to live in that typical US government created culture of fear.

Nah, I don't live my life in government created fear - far from it. I'm too tired to argue the point any longer this evening. Maybe tomorrow..

[fluff]

Hardly.

You'll know when you are when the daily car bombings, assasination attempts and suicide bombings in malls begin.

When you see triangular green flags starting to fly, then you should worry. Until then, way to live in that typical US government created culture of fear.
There are daily car bombings in Iraq, along with assasination attempts (and successes) and suicide bombings, what more do you need? It does not make it a 'holy war' per se though it certainly has religious undercurrents. Just because the battlefield is thousands of miles way doesn't mean it's not a war.

[SJ10]

Hardly.

You'll know when you are when the daily car bombings, assasination attempts and suicide bombings in malls begin.

When you see triangular green flags starting to fly, then you should worry. Until then, way to live in that typical US government created culture of fear.

Yes, I'm sure that none of the people who went into work on the morning of 9/11 were afraid. Same with the airlines. I mean really, why be afraid that there are people who practice years and years to essentially kill thousands of innocent civilians in dramatic fasion. It never occured to me that I could leave go to work and never return home becasue some sexually frustrated, fundamentalist decided he was going to be captain for a day. Sure fear can be used as a control tool just as it has in other countries in years past but to say that until there are car bombs, assasinations, etc needed to indicate a holy war is to be ignorant of historical facts and to underestimate the intentions of sworn enemies.

You speak of the rights to have nukes like they are a god given right. How can that be? This isn't an issue of rights. This is all about survival, both national and individual, pure and simple. Those who have the means to ensure their survival get to make the rules. Letting Iran have nukes to ensure their survival is not a right because doing so is essentially giving up our right to survival (and the rights of most civilized nations). Who would willingly do that? This idea that we can somehow all just get along doesn't seem to fit very well with human nature and with history. People as individuals or as countries become very nasty when things are on the line. Most countries and people have some sort of self preservation. It worked well with the Soviets but the mutual truce is based on wanting to survive. When you enter someone into the equation that doen't have that self preservation (suicide bombers, radical clerics, whatever...) then there is no reason for a truce to be formed.

Sure, you can bash the the US. That's a luxury that you can exercise. But the irony is that luxury was paid for by the US. So I say go ahead, bite the hand that feeds your freedom. Every time you write your self described e-bully posts to satisfy one of your multiple insecurities, you have to feel just a wince of hypocrisy.

[fluff]

Yes, I'm sure that none of the people who went into work on the morning of 9/11 were afraid. Same with the airlines. I mean really, why be afraid that there are people who practice years and years to essentially kill thousands of innocent civilians in dramatic fasion. It never occured to me that I could leave go to work and never return home becasue some sexually frustrated, fundamentalist decided he was going to be captain for a day. Sure fear can be used as a control tool just as it has in other countries in years past but to say that until there are car bombs, assasinations, etc needed to indicate a holy war is to be ignorant of historical facts and to underestimate the intentions of sworn enemies.

There is always a chance that you will not go home but the chances of being a victim of a terrorist attack are less than those of being run down by a car or shot by a mugger.

You speak of the rights to have nukes like they are a god given right. How can that be? This isn't an issue of rights. This is all about survival, both national and individual, pure and simple. Those who have the means to ensure their survival get to make the rules. Letting Iran have nukes to ensure their survival is not a right because doing so is essentially giving up our right to survival (and the rights of most civilized nations). Who would willingly do that? This idea that we can somehow all just get along doesn't seem to fit very well with human nature and with history. People as individuals or as countries become very nasty when things are on the line. Most countries and people have some sort of self preservation. It worked well with the Soviets but the mutual truce is based on wanting to survive. When you enter someone into the equation that doen't have that self preservation (suicide bombers, radical clerics, whatever...) then there is no reason for a truce to be formed.

How exactly does Iran threaten the US? The US could destroy Iran in an afternoon. Your argument is that those who can build nukes should, in which case Iran is doing exactly what you suggest. They are not building suicide nukes, they are building a deterrent. They really aren't that different from you and me.

Sure, you can bash the the US. That's a luxury that you can exercise. But the irony is that luxury was paid for by the US. So I say go ahead, bite the hand that feeds your freedom. Every time you write your self described e-bully posts to satisfy one of your multiple insecurities, you have to feel just a wince of hypocrisy.
The US does what is best for the US, no more, no less. They are not interested in Transcends freedom or mine. As a non-US national I could be incarcerated without charge and tried without recourse to a lawyer, who is the US defending my freedom?

[bigdrop05]

Russia is just playing the waiting game,waiting for USA to overextend itself & then ? I don't trust Russia{good'ol mother Russia},China{remember Los Alamos they stole out secrets},or North Korea{extremely communist & unpredictable}.
I'm not worried about these crazy little islamic places shooting a nuke over to the US. But although if i lived in Europe or somewhere over there closer,it would be a different story.

All i have to worry about is: democraps & creeping gutless socialism in the USA!

[valve bouncer]

Russia is just playing the waiting game,waiting for USA to overextend itself & then ? I don't trust Russia{good'ol mother Russia},China{remember Los Alamos they stole out secrets},or North Korea{extremely communist & unpredictable}.
I'm not worried about these crazy little islamic places shooting a nuke over to the US. But although if i lived in Europe or somewhere over there closer,it would be a different story.

All i have to worry about is: democraps & creeping gutless socialism in the USA!
I'm glad you post here. Every forum needs a raving lunatic without even a tenuous link to reality. Good job Slim Pickens.

[fluff]

I'm glad you post here. Every forum needs a raving lunatic without even a tenuous link to reality. Good job Slim Pickens.
I was impressed by the 'extremely communist' bit. Makes you realise that China (and before them the USSR) and even Cuba are only slightly communist.

[Transcend]

There are daily car bombings in Iraq, along with assasination attempts (and successes) and suicide bombings, what more do you need? It does not make it a 'holy war' per se though it certainly has religious undercurrents. Just because the battlefield is thousands of miles way doesn't mean it's not a war.

There wouldn't be anty talk of a "holy war" (Jihad) if the US hadn't invaded a muslim country. It is currently one country defending it's home soil anyway they can. No one can say they would not do the same.

If someone invaded Canada, I can freely admit that I would be blowing up their **** and assasinating their officers on a daily basis.

It will be a true holy war when the attacks begin on the infidels soil. Until then, it's just a people defending themselves.

[Transcend]

Yes, I'm sure that none of the people who went into work on the morning of 9/11 were afraid. Same with the airlines. I mean really, why be afraid that there are people who practice years and years to essentially kill thousands of innocent civilians in dramatic fasion. It never occured to me that I could leave go to work and never return home becasue some sexually frustrated, fundamentalist decided he was going to be captain for a day. Sure fear can be used as a control tool just as it has in other countries in years past but to say that until there are car bombs, assasinations, etc needed to indicate a holy war is to be ignorant of historical facts and to underestimate the intentions of sworn enemies.

You speak of the rights to have nukes like they are a god given right. How can that be? This isn't an issue of rights. This is all about survival, both national and individual, pure and simple. Those who have the means to ensure their survival get to make the rules. Letting Iran have nukes to ensure their survival is not a right because doing so is essentially giving up our right to survival (and the rights of most civilized nations). Who would willingly do that? This idea that we can somehow all just get along doesn't seem to fit very well with human nature and with history. People as individuals or as countries become very nasty when things are on the line. Most countries and people have some sort of self preservation. It worked well with the Soviets but the mutual truce is based on wanting to survive. When you enter someone into the equation that doen't have that self preservation (suicide bombers, radical clerics, whatever...) then there is no reason for a truce to be formed.

Sure, you can bash the the US. That's a luxury that you can exercise. But the irony is that luxury was paid for by the US. So I say go ahead, bite the hand that feeds your freedom. Every time you write your self described e-bully posts to satisfy one of your multiple insecurities, you have to feel just a wince of hypocrisy.

You are so out of touch with reality, it is insane. At no point has the USA EVER been responsible for my freedom here in Canada. Get off your high horse. Don't be bitter of the fact that when Iran has Nukes, you will have to take them seriously.

There was no truce with Russia, there was mutually assured destruction. Completely different, and is exactly what Iran is trying to procure for itself. It would only be a matter of time (decades maybe) before they had a delivery method that was able to reach the US.

Also, the attacks would stop if you, you know, STOP INVADING OTHER COUNTRIES.

You made your bed, lie in it and shut up.

[Changleen]

Misinformed crap:wonky2: I *think* that was supposed to be a joke?

[DRB]

Also, the attacks would stop if you, you know, STOP INVADING OTHER COUNTRIES.



What was that 9/11 timeline again?

[Changleen]

What was that 9/11 timeline again?
1) Said Qutub is tortured by Egyptians trained by the CIA. He is pissed.
2) He invents and then teaches radical Islamism to Osama's 'teacher'.
3) Osama becomes a CIA asset during Bush 1
4) NeoCons get back in power and arrange Pearl Harbour 2 w. Osama who is now a 'radical'.
5) Radical Islam is blamed giving the US a great excuse to get all Imperial on the ME.
6) Iran gets the bomb and the ME turns into WW3.

Is that the one you mean?

[DRB]

1) Said Qutub is tortured by Egyptians trained by the CIA. He is pissed.
2) He invents and then teaches radical Islamism to Osama's 'teacher'.
3) Osama becomes a CIA asset during Bush 1
4) NeoCons get back in power and arrange Pearl Harbour 2 w. Osama who is now a 'radical'.
5) Radical Islam is blamed giving the US a great excuse to get all Imperial on the ME.
6) Iran gets the bomb and the ME turns into WW3.

Is that the one you mean?

No the other one.

[Changleen]

No the other one.Where have you been anyway?

[fluff]

No the other one.
LOL - POTD.

[DRB]

Where have you been anyway?

Throwing rocks at Iran from across the Gulf.

[Changleen]

Throwing rocks at Iran from across the Gulf.Rocks with Cartoons on?

[DRB]

Rocks with Cartoons on?

I just wrote WWMD on them.

[Changleen]

?krow ti diD

[DRB]

?krow ti diD

My magic eight ball says "outlook not so good"

[fluff]

?krow ti diD
Someone get Bletchley Park on the phone...

[SJ10]

You are so out of touch with reality, it is insane. At no point has the USA EVER been responsible for my freedom here in Canada. Get off your high horse. Don't be bitter of the fact that when Iran has Nukes, you will have to take them seriously.

There was no truce with Russia, there was mutually assured destruction. Completely different, and is exactly what Iran is trying to procure for itself. It would only be a matter of time (decades maybe) before they had a delivery method that was able to reach the US.

Also, the attacks would stop if you, you know, STOP INVADING OTHER COUNTRIES.

You made your bed, lie in it and shut up.

I realize it's something you can't accept, but seriously think of where Canada would be without the US. What would Canada do if it was threatened? Use their 15 US made F-16's, launch a torrent of mounties? Canada is completely dependent on the US for their national security and thus so is your freedom. Not invading someone doesn't mean attacks will stop or that you won't be attacked because history proves otherwise. You want to hug and share flowers with people that hate you and I say go ahead. Just don't complain when you are screaming "Uncle!" and no one comes to your side.
I'm not bitter that Iran has or wants nukes. I've always considered them a threat, even more so than Iraq. Get off your short-man horse, get in your yellow Miata, drive down to the library, and pick up a history book. I know that when someone tells me to "shut up" on the internet, that I have won my arguement.

[Changleen]

Someone get Bletchley Park on the phone...
01000111 01100101 01101111 01110010 01100111 01100101 00100000 01000010 01110101 01110011 01101000 00100000 01101001 01110011 00100000 01100001 01101110 00100000 01000101 01110110 01101001 01101100 00100000 01000011 01101111 01110010 01110010 01110101 01110000 01110100 00100000 01001101 01101111 01110100 01101000 01100101 01110010 01100110 01110101 01100011 01101011 01100101 01110010

Edit:

01000001 01101110 01100100 00100000 01001001 00100111 01101101 00100000 01110100 01101111 01110100 01100001 01101100 01101100 01111001 00100000 01110010 01101001 01100111 01101000 01110100 00100000 01100001 01100010 01101111 01110101 01110100 00100000 01001111 01110011 01100001 01101101 01100001 00100000 01100010 01100101 01101001 01101110 01100111 00100000 01100001 00100000 01000011 01001001 01000001 00100000 01100001 01110011 01110011 01100101 01110100 00100000 01110011 01101111 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100101 01110010 01100101 00101110

[DRB]

01000111 01100101 01101111 01110010 01100111 01100101 00100000 01000010 01110101 01110011 01101000 00100000 01101001 01110011 00100000 01100001 01101110 00100000 01000101 01110110 01101001 01101100 00100000 01000011 01101111 01110010 01110010 01110101 01110000 01110100 00100000 01001101 01101111 01110100 01101000 01100101 01110010 01100110 01110101 01100011 01101011 01100101 01110010

Edit:

01000001 01101110 01100100 00100000 01001001 00100111 01101101 00100000 01110100 01101111 01110100 01100001 01101100 01101100 01111001 00100000 01110010 01101001 01100111 01101000 01110100 00100000 01100001 01100010 01101111 01110101 01110100 00100000 01001111 01110011 01100001 01101101 01100001 00100000 01100010 01100101 01101001 01101110 01100111 00100000 01100001 00100000 01000011 01001001 01000001 00100000 01100001 01110011 01110011 01100101 01110100 00100000 01110011 01101111 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100101 01110010 01100101 00101110

00100000 01001110 01101001 01100011 01100101 00100000 01101100 01100001 01101110 01100111 01110101 01100001 01100111 01100101 00100000 01110000 01101111 01110100 01110100 01111001 00100000 01101101 01101111 01110101 01110100 01101000 00101110 00100000 00100000

01001111 01100110 00100000 01100011 01101111 01110101 01110010 01110011 01100101 00100000 01001111 01110011 01100001 01101101 01100001 00100000 01110111 01101111 01110010 01101011 01100101 01100100 00100000 01100110 01101111 01110010 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100101 00100000 01000011 01001001 01000001 00101110 00100000 00100000 00100000

[bigdrop05]

I'm glad you post here. Every forum needs a raving lunatic without even a tenuous link to reality. Good job Slim Pickens.

your a :trophy_br dildo

[MikeD]

your a :trophy_br dildo


He's a master dildoist, in fact. On the other hand...that quote is some perfect title material for you, too.

[Transcend]

I realize it's something you can't accept, but seriously think of where Canada would be without the US. What would Canada do if it was threatened? Use their 15 US made F-16's, launch a torrent of mounties? Canada is completely dependent on the US for their national security and thus so is your freedom. Not invading someone doesn't mean attacks will stop or that you won't be attacked because history proves otherwise. You want to hug and share flowers with people that hate you and I say go ahead. Just don't complain when you are screaming "Uncle!" and no one comes to your side.
I'm not bitter that Iran has or wants nukes. I've always considered them a threat, even more so than Iraq. Get off your short-man horse, get in your yellow Miata, drive down to the library, and pick up a history book. I know that when someone tells me to "shut up" on the internet, that I have won my arguement.

Wow, you are delusional. You also know nothing about the canadian millitary, including how our f18 pilots tradionally school all the other pilots at the US based top gun school. Or forget the fact that most of the US recon vehicles are manufactured in Canada.

Thanks for playing, you clearly know nothing and are now on the ignore list.

[The Amish]

Sure, you can bash the the US. That's a luxury that you can exercise. But the irony is that luxury was paid for by the US. So I say go ahead, bite the hand that feeds your freedom. Every time you write your self described e-bully posts to satisfy one of your multiple insecurities, you have to feel just a wince of hypocrisy.

The problem with that particular duche is he has the luxury of live'n in the shadow of the giants. Like many Canadian he's completly ungrateful for the fact that he gets to live in his ignorant burnt out bliss because American men and women put their ass's on the line day in and day out to ensure our part of the world doesnt live in the insanity of societies like those found in the middle east, and asia. They dont sacrifice for their freedoms, they piggy back on our own struggles as the defacto bitch of north america, reap all the benefts with none of the costs. What do you expect they're basically french. At the end of the day, theres a simple explanation why canadians love to hate on americans, its called penis envy. They know they cant measure up as men so instead the just try to shoot us down.

[BurlyShirley]

Wow, you are delusional. You also know nothing about the canadian millitary, including how our f18 pilots tradionally school all the other pilots at the US based top gun school. Or forget the fact that most of the US recon vehicles are manufactured in Canada.

Thanks for playing, you clearly know nothing and are now on the ignore list.

Bwaaaaaahahahh!

Oh yes Tranny, the Canadien military is a force to be reckoned with, for sure.

[DRB]

Also, the attacks would stop if you, you know, STOP INVADING OTHER COUNTRIES.



So which invasion led to 9/11, the embassy bombings, the first WTC attack and the USS Cole?

[Changleen]

001I'm just saying in all likelyhood I bet he still does.

[Changleen]

So which invasion led to 9/11, the embassy bombings, the first WTC attack and the USS Cole?Israeli invasion of Palestine, doofus.

[DRB]

Israeli invasion of Palestine, doofus.

And when did Osama give a sh!t about the Palestinians? Seriously.

[LordOpie]

Israeli invasion of Palestine, doofus.
and exactly how did Israel invade anyone when they didn't exist as a state?

Oh right, it was Britain who divided up the land as they saw fit when the WON the war against the Ottomans... to the victor goes the spoil.

oh right, Palestine didn't exist until the 1990s. So when did Israel invade this non-existant country?

[Changleen]

And when did Osama give a sh!t about the Palestinians? Seriously.Since when did Bush give a **** about Iraqis?

[DRB]

I'm just saying in all likelyhood I bet he still does.

You'd also bet that no plane hit the Pentagon.

[Changleen]

and exactly how did Israel invade anyone when they didn't exist as a state?

Oh right, it was Britain who divided up the land as they saw fit when the WON the war against the Ottomans... to the victor goes the spoil.

oh right, Palestine didn't exist until the 1990s. So when did Israel invade this non-existant country?But isn't Palestine in the Bible? :p

[Changleen]

You'd also bet that no plane hit the Pentagon.No, Just not a big plane.

[BurlyShirley]

You'd also bet that no plane hit the Pentagon.
He thinks the Jews got together with the Republicans and the NSA and launched a cruise missile at it.

No, seriously.

[LordOpie]

But isn't Palestine in the Bible? :p
so when your anti-semitism is challenged, you make a joke?

[Changleen]

He thinks the Jews got together with the Republicans and the NSA and launched a cruise missile at it.

No, seriously.:nono: It was just the NeoCons and the Pentagon.

[Changleen]

so when your anti-semitism is challenged, you make a joke?Yup. Except I'm not anti-semitic. I'm anti-religious generally. Haven't you noticed? Man you really have attention span problems recently.

So seriously, The Middle East is naturally white right? A bunch of white folk who decided they're the decendants of some other people who also fought over a desert who turned up after WW2 were never going to get a great reception were they?

[LordOpie]

Yup. Except I'm not anti-semitic. I'm anti-religious generally. Haven't you noticed? Man you really have attention span problems recently.

So seriously, The Middle East is naturally white right? A bunch of white folk who decided they're the decendants of some other people who also fought over a desert who turned up after WW2 were never going to get a great reception were they?
so you admit that "palestinians" had no right to the land "they" lost in a war to UK and France?

sounds good.

[Changleen]

so you admit that "palestinians" had no right to the land "they" lost in a war to UK and France?

sounds good.Yeah, that's *exactly* what I said. :drool: :think:

Frankly I don't give a sh1t who had it first. It's a fvckin craphole piece of desert. I just wish you'd all stop fighting like fvcking 2 year olds, grow up and stop putting the lives and the welfare of the rest of the region in danger.

[LordOpie]

Frankly I don't give a sh1t who had it first.
so you agree that whomever lives wherever they currently live should continue living there?

Glad we agree.

[MikeD]

No, Just not a big plane.

I was about to do my own analysis of this, but on dialup, it's just not gonna happen...but I always wondered, since hearing your opinions, whether a 757's dimensions (specifically, the fuselage to engine distance) matched up with the 3 holes in the building.

Since I'm lazy, and on dial-up, I just googled it-here's one guy who thinks so. http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html

MD

[BurlyShirley]

Mike, I dont know why you even bother. Changleen is not going to even consider your evidence. He is set in his ways.

[MikeD]

Well, it's not my evidence; it's just N8-and-paste. But I do take an interest in not accepting things at face value...I'm glad people are willing to question them. I just don't think that popularly accepted truth is always wholly or mostly untrue...

Apparently I was remembering incorrectly about there being 3 holes...just two...and Popular Mechanics is saying the 2nd hole was caused by the nose gear. http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=6&c=y

[Changleen]

I was about to do my own analysis of this, but on dialup, it's just not gonna happen...but I always wondered, since hearing your opinions, whether a 757's dimensions (specifically, the fuselage to engine distance) matched up with the 3 holes in the building.

Since I'm lazy, and on dial-up, I just googled it-here's one guy who thinks so. http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html

MDThat's very interesting. He makes a very good case that it is possible that it was a 757 that hit the Pentagon.

[Changleen]

Well, it's not my evidence; it's just N8-and-paste. But I do take an interest in not accepting things at face value...I'm glad people are willing to question them. I just don't think that popularly accepted truth is always wholly or mostly untrue...

Apparently I was remembering incorrectly about there being 3 holes...just two...and Popular Mechanics is saying the 2nd hole was caused by the nose gear. http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=6&c=y
Popular Mechanics sucks ass. Their 'scientfic rebutals' of this stuff are essentially cut-n-pastes of government reports.

[Reactor]

exactly!

Chang, et. al who've defended Iran's rights really need to reconsider the simple fact that they're defending the criminally insane.

If I'm not mistaken, the PotUS cannot use a nuke on another country unless that country has nukes in the air heading for us. Yes, this admin has tried (and been unsuccessful) in getting unilateral authority to use nukes when they want, but that will likely never happen.

However, does Iran and countries like them have such safeguards? I seriously phucking doubt it. And that's why they shouldn't be allowed to have them.


Until Clinton, some officers of O-6 rank, in the US had Command Authority to launch a nuclear attack.

[MikeD]

Then again, if you play devil's advocate, he doesn't actually do a lot towards proving it was specifically flight 77 that hit it...but honestly, if you're going to hit the building with a plane, why make it hard on yourself? Why bother to somehow dispose of the real flight while engineering a whole other consipiracy to hit the Pentagon with another plane?

I personally have no doubt about it being flight 77 that hit the Pentagon, though. If one thinks the Mossad or the CIA was behind the hijacking, well, I guess that's another story entirely. But the only scenario I think it potentially plausible is that the response was deliberately delayed at the highest levels in order to allow the attacks to succeed...and I find that a marginal possibilty at most.

[LordOpie]

Until Clinton, some officers of O-6 rank, in the US had Command Authority to launch a nuclear attack.
umm, ok. How'd that get changed? Educate me.

Regardless, no one person on the planet should have the sole authority to detonate a weapon that powerful.

[Changleen]

Then again, if you play devil's advocate, he doesn't actually do a lot towards proving it was specifically flight 77 that hit it...but honestly, if you're going to hit the building with a plane, why make it hard on yourself? Why bother to somehow dispose of the real flight while engineering a whole other consipiracy to hit the Pentagon with another plane?That's pretty much where my thinking is. There are still a lot of inconsistancies in the story though. 1st and foremost is why was it not intercepted?

[BurlyShirley]

That's pretty much where my thinking is. There are still a lot of inconsistancies in the story though. 1st and foremost is why was it not intercepted?
I just think its too much. They cant even keep a cheney hunting accident under wraps, and you think they can orchestrate something of this magnitude?

[MikeD]

That's pretty much where my thinking is. There are still a lot of inconsistancies in the story though. 1st and foremost is why was it not intercepted?

My god. I've done it again. I can bring any thread around to either a 9/11 conspiracy, an Atom Bomb discussion, or a Hitlerism.

Anyhow, I think it's wrong to take it as a priori that an airliner could have been intercepted...I'm not a strategic air defense guru, so I don't know enough about response times to give an accurate assessment, but I can imagine that the confusion of the situation, coupled with the target (potential difficulty in identifying it, unwillingness on all levels to shoot down an airliner), and the complete unorthodoxy of it all, makes it quite possible that the plane wasn't shot down simply because of lack of ability to do it.

I know there's evidence to the contrary, but I think a lot of it is focused through the lens of hindsight.

[Changleen]

I just think its too much. They cant even keep a cheney hunting accident under wraps, and you think they can orchestrate something of this magnitude?Well, I think it is actually coming apart a bit now. There is a lot of testimony and a lot of evidence that directly contradicts the Government story. In reality the 'Plane hitting Pentagon' and 'Was Flight 87 shot down or not?' questions are gloss which hide more interesting and in a way more revealing issues about oversight and foreknowledge. And if it was an inside job, that had all the time they needed to plan and cover their tracks.

This is my basic version of events:

Government uncovers (or maybe even encourages) Al Q plan to attack the states. Rather than stopping it, they let it go and maybe embellish it to add to the dramatic flair.

[Changleen]

so you agree that whomever lives wherever they currently live should continue living there?

Glad we agree.Yes, but that also means you have to stop killing each other, and that especially means YOU JEWS need to stop killing Palestinians a lot more than Palestinians need to stop killing Jews. Secondly you need to realise these people wouldn't hate you so damn much if you actually gave a **** about them as human beings and didn't actually go out of your way to make their lives harder. Like I said, y'all need to grow up.

[Changleen]

Damn this thread got derailed.

[LordOpie]

Yes, but that also means you have to stop killing each other, and that especially means YOU JEWS need to stop killing Palestinians a lot more than Palestinians need to stop killing Jews. Secondly you need to realise these people wouldn't hate you so damn much if you actually gave a **** about them as human beings and didn't actually go out of your way to make their lives harder. Like I said, y'all need to grow up.
YOU JEWS?

And you're not an anti-semite?

Huh.

I thought it was about the nation of Israel, not about religion? Somehow I, a jew, am responsible for the suffering of palestinians? Interesting.

Thanks for being clear on the subject.

[Changleen]

YOU JEWS?

And you're not an anti-semite?

Huh.

I thought it was about the nation of Israel, not about religion? Somehow I, a jew, am responsible for the suffering of palestinians? Interesting.

Thanks for being clear on the subject.Suck it up, princess. You choose to argue the point, you chose to be a Jew. You know that the 'nation of Israel' is all about religion. There is no other reason for it to exist other than Jews. Don't be retarded.

Just so we're clear, you seem like quite a smart guy, you seem quite intelligent, and yet for some reason you chose to subscribe to a irrational belief system which is shared by a bunch of murderers. You chose to represent those beliefs and views on here, and I don't like them. I don't like murderers, and I especially don't like lying murderers with double standards based on irrational belief.

By refusing to accept the obvious truth that Israel as a whole is DIRECTLY responsible for the deaths of thousands of Paletinians (who are largely equally retarded, but still human beings) you are, in a very small but real way culpable for the continuation of that behaviour. You are condoning that murder. That sucks ass.

[Changleen]

YOU JEWS?

And you're not an anti-semite?

Huh.BTW that's the gayest thing I ever heard. So next time I refer to any grouping of people, I must therefore hate and despise them? Nice reasoning. For a two year old.

[LordOpie]

how come you never criticize the Arab world for using palestinians as pawns?

[DaveW]

So which invasion led to 9/11, the embassy bombings, the first WTC attack and the USS Cole?
Israeli invasion of Palestine, doofus.


No Doofus he was pissed at the US/NATO forces in Saudi Arabia (the Holy land to muslims) One of the main demands (at the time) of his organisation was for them to leave the holy land. They were still based in Saudi post gulf war 1 and this was what originaly had him so incensed.

His aims and goals have changed since then however.

[Changleen]

how come you never criticize the Arab world for using palestinians as pawns?No one on here is blatently claiming they're whiter than white, bro. I have just as much problem with their fvcktardedness as I do with the Israeli attitude. Both are as bad as each other, but one side has killed more, and it happens to be the one that claims the moral high ground AND better has the ability to do something about the situation. I find that quite disgusting.

[Changleen]

No Doofus he was pissed at the US/NATO forces in Saudi Arabia (the Holy land to muslims) One of the main demands (at the time) of his organisation was for them to leave the holy land. They were still based in Saudi post gulf war 1 and this was what originaly had him so incensed.

His aims and goals have changed since then however.That is true but it's not that simple. He was 'educated' and was acting on behalf of the beliefs of those who saw western values and imperialism as the core problem. He is a large hypocrite if the Saudi thing was his sole motivation since it was his very family and him himself who encouraged and enabled their participation.

[DaveW]

Yeah but only to deal to Sadam who he hates. He didn't want infidel troops stationed in the holy land for long... "Just do the job and go" was what he wanted in that regard.

[Changleen]

The enemy of my enemy and all...

[MikeD]

Changleen, the one thing Israel isn't about is religion.

[DRB]

No Doofus he was pissed at the US/NATO forces in Saudi Arabia (the Holy land to muslims) One of the main demands (at the time) of his organisation was for them to leave the holy land. They were still based in Saudi post gulf war 1 and this was what originaly had him so incensed.

His aims and goals have changed since then however.

So Transcend was wrong about his assertion that, and I quote

Also, the attacks would stop if you, you know, STOP INVADING OTHER COUNTRIES.

Since the US forces were in Saudi Arabia at the behest of the government and basically left when asked, the whole invasion thing doesn't stand up to scruitny.

Yeah but only to deal to Sadam who he hates. He didn't want infidel troops stationed in the holy land for long... "Just do the job and go" was what he wanted in that regard.

No he didn't want them there at all. He wanted to bring his clan from Afghanistan to "liberate Kuwait" and petitioned both the Saudis and the Kuwaitis to do so. Knowing that Osama's method at BEST was going to take years and years to pry Saddam out of Kuwait, the Kuwaitis not only said no they said hell no. And the Saudi government realized very quickly that it was a front for bringing an armed insurrection into Saudi Arabia to overthrow the government. So they told him to go pound sand. So his feelings were hurt as this was done in a fairly public manner in the region and his plans were foiled, so after that it became a big fat hissy fit.

[fluff]

Bin Laden is doing his best to create a platform where he had none, and we seem to be helping him to do so.

[Changleen]

Changleen, the one thing Israel isn't about is religion.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel

[MikeD]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel

Even according to that article, Israel is largely a secular state; only 9% of the population considers itself 'religious,' and God doesn't tend to figure highly in their thinking. You can point at the Biblical arguments for Jewish presence in the area, but most are looking at that as historal, not religious, justification per se.

Being a Jew doesn't mean you're necessarily part of the religion of Judaism... Zionism itself is historically secular and in some strains completely atheistic. Being a Jew is an ethnicity (or even a race according to some) more than anything else.

(from the article: Religion in Israel

Main article: Religion in Israel
According to Israel's Central Bureau of Statistics, at the end of 2004, 76.2% of Israelis were Jews by religion, 16.1% were Muslims, 2.1% Christian, 1.6% Druze and the remaining 3.9% (including Russian immigrants and some Jews) were not classified by religion.[7] Israel is not a theocracy, and religions other than Judaism are supported.
Roughly 6% of Israeli Jews define themselves as haredim (ultra-orthodox religious); an additional 9% are "religious"; 34% consider themselves "traditionalists" (not strictly adhering to Jewish halacha); and 51% are "secular" (termed "hiloni"). Among the seculars, 53% believe in God.
Israelis tend not to align themselves with a movement of Judaism (such as Reform Judaism or Conservative Judaism) but instead tend to define their religious affiliation by degree of their religious practice.
Of Arab Israelis, 82.6% were Muslim, 8.8% were Christian and 8.4% were Druze.)

[Changleen]

Even according to that article, Israel is largely a secular state; only 9% of the population considers itself 'religious,' and God doesn't tend to figure highly in their thinking. You can point at the Biblical arguments for Jewish presence in the area, but most are looking at that as historal, not religious, justification per se.

Being a Jew doesn't mean you're necessarily part of the religion of Judaism... Zionism itself is historically secular and in some strains completely atheistic. Being a Jew is an ethnicity (or even a race according to some) more than anything else.

(from the article: Religion in Israel

Main article: Religion in Israel
According to Israel's Central Bureau of Statistics, at the end of 2004, 76.2% of Israelis were Jews by religion, 16.1% were Muslims, 2.1% Christian, 1.6% Druze and the remaining 3.9% (including Russian immigrants and some Jews) were not classified by religion.[7] Israel is not a theocracy, and religions other than Judaism are supported.
Roughly 6% of Israeli Jews define themselves as haredim (ultra-orthodox religious); an additional 9% are "religious"; 34% consider themselves "traditionalists" (not strictly adhering to Jewish halacha); and 51% are "secular" (termed "hiloni"). Among the seculars, 53% believe in God.
Israelis tend not to align themselves with a movement of Judaism (such as Reform Judaism or Conservative Judaism) but instead tend to define their religious affiliation by degree of their religious practice.
Of Arab Israelis, 82.6% were Muslim, 8.8% were Christian and 8.4% were Druze.)
Read the article again. Actually less than 25% are non-religious.

[MikeD]

Sorry, the 6% orthodox plus the 9% 'religious' equals 15%. No one else in that list is really on my list of particularly religious people (any more than anyone else in the West), and the fact that they're ethnic Jews is far more important than their religious practices.

Again, Zionism was largely a left-wing, Communist-atheist influenced movement. It wasn't about establishing a kingdom of God in the Middle East, it was about establishing a nation of ethnic Jews.

MD

Ed: Many Israelis also tend to look at Orthodox Jews like we'd look at the Amish or the Mennonites...or to look at them with respect, but at the same time, to think of them as a throwback, like a form of their own living history.

Anyhow, I think, personally, Israel is as religious a country as America is. Some people will throw religion up there as a political tool or mask, some freaks will actually try and integrate religion into society and government, but by and large, it's a secular society ruled by secular, material values.