Ahmadinejad; west must bow to Allah
Count 1
This guy is so fucking nuts....
http://www.jnewswire.com/library/article.php?articleid=988
Iran to West: Remove Israel, or we will
Ahmadinejad says time has come for world to bow to Allah
If the West fails to peacefully remove the "Zionist entity" from the Middle
East, the "Palestinians" and their Islamic allies will do so through violent
fury, warned Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at a mass demonstration
in Tehran Saturday.
Addressing the hundreds of thousands who turned out to mark the 27th
anniversary of Iran's "Islamic Revolution," the virulent leader, as reported
by WorldNetDaily, said regarding Israel:
"We ask the West to remove what they created sixty years ago and if they do
not listen to our recommendations, then the Palestinian nation and other
nations will eventually do this for them. Remove Israel before it is too
late and save yourself from the fury of regional nations."
Islam dictates that formerly-Muslim dominated lands cannot revert to
permanent non-Muslim control. It is this cornerstone of their faith that
drives the murderous anti-Israel policies of Hamas and most of the Jewish
state's Middle East neighbors.
But the threat is not only to Israel and other non-Muslim nations that have
regained their sovereignty. Reconquering them is only the first step.
According to the Muslim faith, jihad must be waged until the entire world is
under the thumb of Islam. Ahmadinejad declared that now is the time for the
West to bow to this reality and submit to Allah:
"On the anniversary of the victory of the Islamic Revolution, the Iranian
nation, numbering in the millions, calls upon those governments to worship
Allah."
Similar sentiment was expressed by Iran's Hamas allies in the Palestinian
Authority last week.
Speaking at a Damascus mosque on February 3, overall Hamas political leader
Khaled Mashal declared:
"We say to this West... By Allah, you will be defeated... Tomorrow, our
nation will sit on the throne of the world. This is not a figment of the
imagination, but a fact."
kuff (Isaac Adams)
Count 1 wrote:
> This guy is so fucking nuts....
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.islam/msg/34874a1c23982751
Brownback [Republican senator from Kansas] doesn't demand that everyone
believe in his God -- only that they bow down before Him.
>
> http://www.jnewswire.com/library/article.php?articleid=988
>
> ...
Bob Cooper
"Count 1" <omnipi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:nb1If.610295$ki.483613@pd7tw2no...
Yes, he is, as you eloquently put it, "fucking nuts". And, sadly, it seems
likely he is leading the world towards a potentially catastrophic war.
What I wonder is, if the US determines attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities
are necessary to prevent this "nut" from obtaining nuclear weapons,
can we count on Canadian support?
Count 1
"kuff (Isaac Adams)" <kuf...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139846498.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> Count 1 wrote:
> > This guy is so fucking nuts....
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.islam/msg/34874a1c23982751
>
> Brownback [Republican senator from Kansas] doesn't demand that everyone
> believe in his God -- only that they bow down before Him.
As a Canadian I'm not particularly interested in the fringe politics of
other countries, so I don't know why you'd bother linking to this rolling
stone 'boogeyman' piece, especially since Brownback has zilch to do the
Iranian 'president's' behaviour.
As a citizen of this planet I'm far more concerned about an Islamic
theocracy saying its time I bent down to their god. If you weren't a raging
hypocrite, you'd be concerned too.
DoD
"Bob Cooper" <rcoo...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1F2If.57179$bF.3298@dukeread07...
I don't think we have to worry about Canadians, we have enough nuts down
here, no matter what this administration does, it will be wrong. Liberal
freakin ding dongs will screach at anything.
kuff (Isaac Adams)
Count 1 wrote:
> "kuff (Isaac Adams)" <kuf...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1139846498.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Count 1 wrote:
> > > This guy is so fucking nuts....
> >
> > http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.islam/msg/34874a1c23982751
> >
> > Brownback [Republican senator from Kansas] doesn't demand that everyone
> > believe in his God -- only that they bow down before Him.
>
> As a Canadian I'm not particularly interested in the fringe politics of
> other countries,
Except Iran. Oh wait, he was democratically elected so I guess maybe
he's not so fringey after all, eh?
> so I don't know why you'd bother linking to this rolling
> stone 'boogeyman' piece, especially since Brownback has zilch to do the
> Iranian 'president's' behaviour.
Quite a bit actually - all this bowing down bullshit, whether to dirt
or sky pixies, has a common source: The subsuming of the individual
to the collective.
>
> As a citizen of this planet I'm far more concerned about an Islamic
> theocracy saying its time I bent down to their god.
Ignore 'em. Bow down to "democracy" instead. :-)
> If you weren't a raging
> hypocrite, you'd be concerned too.
Iran's further away than Kansas.
Count 1
If you get a UNSC resolution there's no doubt the Canadian government will
support you. If you don't, then my answer is an unqualified and absolutely
airtight; "Dunno."
With Harper in as PM its likely the US will get more support than previous
Cnd governments gave. But Canadians are hopelessly fickle and showing
increasing symptoms of moonbatitis. You can probably count on diplomactic
support, given the Iranian 'presidents' comments even Canadians can't ignore
that level of threat. But we'll probably keep our boys at home, as I doubt
there's the political will to contribute hardware if there's no UNSC
resolution.
Count 1
>
> Count 1 wrote:
> > "kuff (Isaac Adams)" <kuf...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1139846498.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > Count 1 wrote:
> > > > This guy is so fucking nuts....
> > >
> > > http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.islam/msg/34874a1c23982751
> > >
> > > Brownback [Republican senator from Kansas] doesn't demand that
everyone
> > > believe in his God -- only that they bow down before Him.
> >
> > As a Canadian I'm not particularly interested in the fringe politics of
> > other countries,
>
> Except Iran. Oh wait, he was democratically elected so I guess maybe
> he's not so fringey after all, eh?
He's not on the fringe because he's central to Iranian politics. He's the
Guardian Council's mouthpiece.
> > so I don't know why you'd bother linking to this rolling
> > stone 'boogeyman' piece, especially since Brownback has zilch to do the
> > Iranian 'president's' behaviour.
>
> Quite a bit actually - all this bowing down bullshit, whether to dirt
> or sky pixies, has a common source: The subsuming of the individual
> to the collective.
Like I said, 'zilch' to do with the Iranian 'presidents' behaviour.
> > As a citizen of this planet I'm far more concerned about an Islamic
> > theocracy saying its time I bent down to their god.
>
> Ignore 'em. Bow down to "democracy" instead. :-)
"Don't look there."
> > If you weren't a raging
> > hypocrite, you'd be concerned too.
>
> Iran's further away than Kansas.
And way more relevant.
Bob Cooper
Thanks. That pretty much agrees with my assessment.
lanman
wrote:
He apparently isn't smart enough to learn from Saddam's mistakes, and
he's making it easier for Bush to pull the trigger - assuming Israel
doesn't take him out first. I'm thinking, thanks to this moonbat, the
coalition of the willing will be much larger for Iran that it was for
Iraq.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Bob Cooper
"DoD" <the...@ss.mil> wrote in message
news:iL2If.1000$a97...@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net...
No doubt about that. Bush Derangement Syndrome.
Phaedrine
"Count 1" <omnipi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "kuff (Isaac Adams)" <kuf...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1139846498.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Count 1 wrote:
> > > This guy is so fucking nuts....
> >
> > http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.islam/msg/34874a1c23982751
> >
> > Brownback [Republican senator from Kansas] doesn't demand that everyone
> > believe in his God -- only that they bow down before Him.
>
> As a Canadian I'm not particularly interested in the fringe politics of
> other countries, so I don't know why you'd bother linking to this rolling
> stone 'boogeyman' piece, especially since Brownback has zilch to do the
> Iranian 'president's' behaviour.
While it is certainly true that Brownback has naught to do literally
with Ahmadinejad (yet anyway), I wonder if what Kuff is trying to point
out is that we have more than a kernel of religious fanaticism right
here in the US government. Brownback is not fringe; he's right smack
dab in the inner circle with Bush and the rest of the religionist
freaks. You can try to comfort yourself that the RS piece is somehow
exaggerated (it isn't), ignore the current dominance of religious
fanaticism in US politics, or ignore what history tells us about the
outcomes of the same, but what you won't be able to ignore is the
ultimate effect on neighboring Canada. One brand of "fucking nuts" is
difficult enough to manage but when you get two opposing "brands" of
"fucking nuts", it's like sodium (Na) and water.
> As a citizen of this planet I'm far more concerned about an Islamic
> theocracy saying its time I bent down to their god. If you weren't a raging
> hypocrite, you'd be concerned too.
--
I fear me you but warm the starved snake,
Who, cherished in your breasts, will sting your hearts. (Henry VI, Shakespeare)
Count 1
"Phaedrine" <Phaedrine....@nospamgmail.com> wrote in message
news:Phaedrine.Stonebridge...@news-50.dca.giganews.com...
> In article <TH2If.610645$ki.414694@pd7tw2no>,
> "Count 1" <omnipi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > "kuff (Isaac Adams)" <kuf...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1139846498.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > Count 1 wrote:
> > > > This guy is so fucking nuts....
> > >
> > > http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.islam/msg/34874a1c23982751
> > >
> > > Brownback [Republican senator from Kansas] doesn't demand that
everyone
> > > believe in his God -- only that they bow down before Him.
> >
> > As a Canadian I'm not particularly interested in the fringe politics of
> > other countries, so I don't know why you'd bother linking to this
rolling
> > stone 'boogeyman' piece, especially since Brownback has zilch to do the
> > Iranian 'president's' behaviour.
>
> While it is certainly true that Brownback has naught to do literally
> with Ahmadinejad (yet anyway), I wonder if what Kuff is trying to point
> out is that we have more than a kernel of religious fanaticism right
> here in the US government.
Totally pointless. Any country has religous zealots within its borders. The
fact that America does says *nothing* about what's going in Iran.
Kuff should know this is 'alt.religion.islam'. Christian politics in Kansas
are pretty off topic around here.
Brownback is not fringe; he's right smack
> dab in the inner circle with Bush and the rest of the religionist
> freaks. You can try to comfort yourself that the RS piece is somehow
> exaggerated (it isn't), ignore the current dominance of religious
> fanaticism in US politics, or ignore what history tells us about the
> outcomes of the same, but what you won't be able to ignore is the
> ultimate effect on neighboring Canada.
I agree. The potential for our Canadian humorists is boundless. However I
wonder exactly how successful a Brownback will be in establishing his
'theocracy' considering the importance placed on the US constitution.
One brand of "fucking nuts" is
> difficult enough to manage but when you get two opposing "brands" of
> "fucking nuts", it's like sodium (Na) and water.
I'm beginning to get understand what that's like.
Cuthbert Thistlethwaite
Phaedrine wrote:
. . .
> While it is certainly true that Brownback has naught to do literally
> with Ahmadinejad (yet anyway), I wonder if what Kuff is trying to point
> out is that we have more than a kernel of religious fanaticism right
> here in the US government. Brownback is not fringe; he's right smack
> dab in the inner circle with Bush and the rest of the religionist
> freaks. . . .
Exactly so.
Brownback and Santorum are just front-men for the Vatican, in any event.
Phaedrine
"Count 1" <omnipi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Seemingly irrelevant maybe but not totally pointless. There is a
difference.
> Kuff should know this is 'alt.religion.islam'. Christian politics in
> Kansas are pretty off topic around here.
Not when they play such a strong role in how the US deals with muslim
terrorism or fanaticism or when Christian politics advocates war in Iraq
so they can send in missionaries to try to convert muslim Iraqis and
whatever. Brownback is a US senator--- not just some state-level
politician. Or are you suggesting that the US Congress has had no role
in either the war on terror or the war in iraq?
> > Brownback is not fringe; he's right smack
> > dab in the inner circle with Bush and the rest of the religionist
> > freaks. You can try to comfort yourself that the RS piece is
> > somehow exaggerated (it isn't), ignore the current dominance of
> > religious fanaticism in US politics, or ignore what history tells
> > us about the outcomes of the same, but what you won't be able to
> > ignore is the ultimate effect on neighboring Canada.
>
> I agree. The potential for our Canadian humorists is boundless.
> However I wonder exactly how successful a Brownback will be in
> establishing his 'theocracy' considering the importance placed on the
> US constitution.
Brownback has and answer for that------> his "Constitution Restoration
Act" which would allow Congress to impeach judges who refuse to
recognize "God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government,"
or who rely in any way on international law in their rulings. Since our
entire legal system has British Common Law as its base, I suppose nearly
anything would be fair game for these crackpots. This legislation,
introduced at least twice now, has had serious hearings in the US Senate
and is widely supported by a huge variety of Christian and
neo-conservative groups, and personalities that are often mentioned here
in ARI. For a non-resident who considers himself such an expert on
American affairs, I really wonder what is your interest in ignoring the
impact of fanatical Christian politics on America and its influence on
our current posture on islamist terrorism and the middle east in general.
> > ...One brand of "fucking nuts" is difficult enough to manage but
> > when you get two opposing "brands" of "fucking nuts", it's like
> > sodium (Na) and water.
>
> I'm beginning to get understand what that's like.
I wonder.
Count 1
Phae - I'm really sorry you have this brownback guy in US politics. I truly
am very sorry. But I'm still unconvinced of the connective tissue between
him and Ahmadinejad. This is because there isn't any.
Phaedrine
"Count 1" <omnipi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Your crypticisms notwithstanding, of course I didn't say any such thing.
And I'm really glad you can so expediently pick and choose your
religionist fanatics as though some aren't really dangerous. Sleep well.
Count 1
Some aren't really dangerous. But yes, I will pick and choose what religous
fanatics to discuss in a thread. I'd be more than happy to discuss
Brownback, if you or Kuff could show what he has to do with Ahmadinejad.
Otherwise he's pretty much irrelevant, wouldn't you say?
Phaedrine
"Count 1" <omnipi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > And I'm really glad you can so expediently pick and choose your
> > religionist fanatics as though some aren't really dangerous. Sleep well.
>
> Some aren't really dangerous.....
Sounds like a "one man's fanatic is another man's freedom fighter" kind
of a thing to me. Think about it.
Count 1
"Phaedrine" <Phaedrine....@nospamgmail.com> wrote in message
news:Phaedrine.Stonebridge...@news-50.dca.giganews.com...
> "Count 1" <omnipi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > And I'm really glad you can so expediently pick and choose your
> > > religionist fanatics as though some aren't really dangerous. Sleep
well.
> >
> > Some aren't really dangerous.....
>
>
> Sounds like a "one man's fanatic is another man's freedom fighter" kind
> of a thing to me. Think about it.
Not at all. I've known a few religous fanatics who are simply not dangerous.
The fact they were fanatical about buddhism may have something to do with
it.
thereactionary
comparison between Brownback and Ahmadinejad. Ahmadinejad is serious
about taking the world into nuclear war in order to have Islam dominate
all. Nobody gives a fuck what Brownback wants.
thereactionary
outright that he and Islam plan to take over the world. He is in the
process of devolping a nuke and he thinks that god intends for him to
use it to accomplish that end. Then your insane hatred of Bush allows
you to get sidetacked into a squabbel about some fringe senator that no
one gives a damn about. In a country where church attendance is
dropping every year, kuff has you looking under your bed for
fundamentalist christians when Islam is already at war against you. At
one time I used to think that you had some brains.
Here is a letter from the Mayor of Tal'Afar Iraq to the 3rd Armored
Calvary Regiment.
http://www.mudvillegazette.com/archives/004167.html
In the Name of God the Compassionate and Merciful
To the Courageous Men and Women of the 3d Armored Cavalry Regiment, who
have changed the city of Tall¡Ç Afar from a ghost town, in which
terrorists spread death and destruction, to a secure city flourishing
with life.
To the lion-hearts who liberated our city from the grasp of terrorists
who were beheading men, women and children in the streets for many
months.
To those who spread smiles on the faces of our children, and gave us
restored hope, through their personal sacrifice and brave fighting, and
gave new life to the city after hopelessness darkened our days, and
stole our confidence in our ability to reestablish our city.
Our city was the main base of operations for Abu Mousab Al Zarqawi. The
city was completely held hostage in the hands of his henchmen. Our
schools, governmental services, businesses and offices were closed. Our
streets were silent, and no one dared to walk them. Our people were
barricaded in their homes out of fear; death awaited them around every
corner. Terrorists occupied and controlled the only hospital in the
city. Their savagery reached such a level that they stuffed the corpses
of children with explosives and tossed them into the streets in order
to kill grieving parents attempting to retrieve the bodies of their
young. This was the situation of our city until God prepared and
delivered unto them the courageous soldiers of the 3d Armored Cavalry
Regiment, who liberated this city, ridding it of Zarqawi¡Çs followers
after harsh fighting, killing many terrorists, and forcing the
remaining butchers to flee the city like rats to the surrounding areas,
where the bravery of other 3d ACR soldiers in Sinjar, Rabiah, Zumar and
Avgani finally destroyed them.
I have met many soldiers of the 3d Armored Cavalry Regiment; they are
not only courageous men and women, but avenging angels sent by The God
Himself to fight the evil of terrorism.
The leaders of this Regiment; COL McMaster, COL Armstrong, LTC Hickey,
LTC Gibson, and LTC Reilly embody courage, strength, vision and wisdom.
Officers and soldiers alike bristle with the confidence and character
of knights in a bygone era. The mission they have accomplished, by
means of a unique military operation, stands among the finest military
feats to date in Operation Iraqi Freedom, and truly deserves to be
studied in military science. This military operation was clean, with
little collateral damage, despite the ferocity of the enemy. With the
skill and precision of surgeons they dealt with the terrorist cancers
in the city without causing unnecessary damage.
God bless this brave Regiment; God bless the families who dedicated
these brave men and women. From the bottom of our hearts we thank the
families. They have given us something we will never forget. To the
families of those who have given their holy blood for our land, we all
bow to you in reverence and to the souls of your loved ones. Their
sacrifice was not in vain. They are not dead, but alive, and their
souls hovering around us every second of every minute. They will never
be forgotten for giving their precious lives. They have sacrificed that
which is most valuable. We see them in the smile of every child, and in
every flower growing in this land. Let America, their families, and the
world be proud of their sacrifice for humanity and life.
Finally, no matter how much I write or speak about this brave Regiment,
I haven¡Çt the words to describe the courage of its officers and
soldiers. I pray to God to grant happiness and health to these
legendary heroes and their brave families.
NAJIM ABDULLAH ABID AL-JIBOURI
Mayor of Tall ¡ÆAfar, Ninewa, Iraq
kuff (Isaac Adams)
thereactionary wrote:
> You are an ignorant dipwad Mullah kuff. You know that there is no
> comparison between Brownback and Ahmadinejad.
Iranian President: West must bow to Allah.
US Senator: doesn't demand that everyone believe in his God -- only
that they bow down before Him.
Wow! You're right. These are completely different. They spell
their Yahew's differently. How stupid of me not to notice.
> Ahmadinejad is serious
> about taking the world into nuclear war in order to have Islam dominate
> all.
You know this how?
> Nobody gives a fuck what Brownback wants.
Which explains why you're here pointing out my manifold faults, eh?
kuff (Isaac Adams)
In reply to kuff (Isaac Adams) wrote:
thereactionary wrote:
> You are an ignorant dipwad Mullah kuff. You know that there is no
> comparison between Brownback and Ahmadinejad.
Iranian President: West must bow to Allah.
US Senator: doesn't demand that everyone believe in his God -- only
that they bow down before Him.
Wow! You're right. These are completely different. They spell
their Yahew's differently. How stupid of me not to notice.
> Ahmadinejad is serious
> about taking the world into nuclear war in order to have Islam dominate
> all.
You know this how?
> Nobody gives a fuck what Brownback wants.
Which explains why you're here pointing out my manifold faults, eh?
Phaedrine
"Count 1" <omnipi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Phaedrine" <Phaedrine....@nospamgmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Phaedrine.Stonebridge...@news-50.dca.giganews.com...
> > In article <rrlIf.616054$ki.175902@pd7tw2no>,
> > "Count 1" <omnipi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > And I'm really glad you can so expediently pick and choose your
> > > > religionist fanatics as though some aren't really dangerous. Sleep
> well.
> > >
> > > Some aren't really dangerous.....
> >
> > Sounds like a "one man's fanatic is another man's freedom fighter" kind
> > of a thing to me. Think about it.
>
> Not at all. I've known a few religous fanatics who are simply not dangerous.
> The fact they were fanatical about buddhism may have something to do with
> it.
I think you're confusing enthusiasm and over-zealousness with fanaticism
as the latter incorporates irrationality which always has a kernel of
danger.
thereactionary
The fact that he is willing to take UN and economic sanctions to get
his bomb might give you a clue.
Is Brownback advocating that any nations be erased from the face of the
earth?
Is Brownback saying that if Muslims don't get rid of Palestine the US
will?
kuff (Isaac Adams)
thereactionary wrote:
> "You know this how? "
>
> The fact that he is willing to take UN and economic sanctions to get
> his bomb might give you a clue.
There are easier ways to do that. Besides, the *evidence* is that
Iran is willing to undergo the threat of that in order to get nuclear
power.
So far the UN and economic sanctions would be baseless.
So, "You know this how?"
>
> Is Brownback advocating that any nations be erased from the face of the
> earth?
Other than Iraq (nearly complete), Iran, Syria.... I don't know. Is
he?
Doesn't the President threaten to wipe nations off the face of the
earth that don't meet his democratic procrustean bed? Compared to
that Ahmadinejad is a piker and an amateur.
>
> Is Brownback saying that if Muslims don't get rid of Palestine the US
> will?
I believe he says or supports that about Iran. You'd have to check
the Congressional Record for precise details.
brickbat
"Count 1" <omnipi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Phaedrine" <Phaedrine....@nospamgmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Phaedrine.Stonebridge...@news-50.dca.giganews.com...
> > In article <rrlIf.616054$ki.175902@pd7tw2no>,
> > "Count 1" <omnipi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > And I'm really glad you can so expediently pick and choose your
> > > > religionist fanatics as though some aren't really dangerous. Sleep
> well.
> > >
> > > Some aren't really dangerous.....
> >
> >
> > Sounds like a "one man's fanatic is another man's freedom fighter" kind
> > of a thing to me. Think about it.
>
> Not at all. I've known a few religous fanatics who are simply not dangerous.
> The fact they were fanatical about buddhism may have something to do with
> it.
The only fanatical Bhuddists I knew about used to set themselves ablaze.
Vietnam political protests. Didn't harm others.
thereactionary
Iran is willing to undergo the threat of that in order to get nuclear
power. "
There is no need to undergo anything to get nuclear power. The
Russians are happy to build them nuclear plants and to supply them with
the unranium they need to run those plants. Their determination to
enrich their own uranium has nothing to do with having nuclear power
plants. The only reason that they need the capability to enrich
uranium is to build nukes. And they are willing to take UN sanctions
and economic sanctions to do it.
"Other than Iraq (nearly complete), Iran, Syria.... I don't know. Is
he? "
Now you are back to acting like the idiot Mullah kuff. Changing Iraq's
government from a dictatorship into a democracy and pouring billions
into their infastructure is hardly trying to wipe them off the face of
the earth. If we wanted to do that we could do it from high altitude,
on the cheap, without ever setting foot in the country. I can assure
you that what we are doing in Iraq is hardly what Ahmadinejad has in
mind for Israel. Making those kinds of parallels only shows once again
that you are shilling for the Muslims, and that you are willing to
generate any absurd rationalizations to help them.
"I believe he says or supports that about Iran. You'd have to check
the Congressional Record for precise details. "
I don't care about what you believe. If you have any evidence, show
it. I'm sure Brownback supports conventional bombing of their nuclear
development facilities. But that isn't "wiping them off the face of
the earth" any more than Israel's attack on the Iraqi nuclear reactor
was.
Let's face it Mullah kuff, you are pulling these dumb parallels out of
your ass in order to support your disgusting religion.
kuff (Isaac Adams)
kuff (Isaac Adams) wrote:
> thereactionary wrote:
> > "You know this how? "
> >
> > The fact that he is willing to take UN and economic sanctions to get
> > his bomb might give you a clue.
>
> There are easier ways to do that. Besides, the *evidence* is that
> Iran is willing to undergo the threat of that in order to get nuclear
> power.
>
> So far the UN and economic sanctions would be baseless.
>
> So, "You know this how?"
>
> >
> > Is Brownback advocating that any nations be erased from the face of the
> > earth?
>
> Other than Iraq (nearly complete), Iran, Syria.... I don't know. Is
> he?
>
> Doesn't the President threaten to wipe nations off the face of the
> earth that don't meet his democratic procrustean bed? Compared to
> that Ahmadinejad is a piker and an amateur.
>
> >
> > Is Brownback saying that if Muslims don't get rid of Palestine the US
> > will?
>
> I believe he says or supports that about Iran. You'd have to check
> the Congressional Record for precise details.
thereactionary wrote:
> "There are easier ways to do that. Besides, the *evidence* is that
> Iran is willing to undergo the threat of that in order to get nuclear
> power. "
>
> There is no need to undergo anything to get nuclear power.
Apparently there is.
> The
> Russians are happy to build them nuclear plants and to supply them with
> the unranium they need to run those plants. Their determination to
> enrich their own uranium has nothing to do with having nuclear power
> plants.
It has to do with them wanting to be fully independent and have control
of the full nuclear fuel cycle. Iran has a "national security" too
you know.
> The only reason that they need the capability to enrich
> uranium is to build nukes.
And to be independent in their use of nuclear power.
> And they are willing to take UN sanctions
> and economic sanctions to do it.
To be independent, as the NPT allows, in their use of nuclear power
they are willing to take the chance on such posturings.
[context restored]
> > Is Brownback advocating that any nations be erased from the face of the
> > earth?
>
>
> "Other than Iraq (nearly complete), Iran, Syria.... I don't know. Is
> he? "
>
> Now you are back to acting like the idiot Mullah kuff. Changing Iraq's
> government from a dictatorship into a democracy and pouring billions
> into their infastructure is hardly trying to wipe them off the face of
> the earth.
When you talk about wiping a nation off the face of the earth aren't
you talking about the government? Or are you talking about the dirt
the government is claiming?
Was, for example, the nation Checkoslovakia wiped off the face of the
earth? What about the island of Formosa? What was wiped off the
face of the earth before Israel was set down on it's particular bit of
dirt?
What do you mean with 'wiped off the face of the earth'?
> If we wanted to do that we could do it from high altitude,
> on the cheap, without ever setting foot in the country.
Ah, you're talking about blowing up a particular bit of dirt then?
Maybe just killing a lot of it's people?
> I can assure
> you that what we are doing in Iraq is hardly what Ahmadinejad has in
> mind for Israel.
What do you think he has in mind for Israel? Anything which wouldn't
result in Iran being 'wiped off the face of the earth'?
> Making those kinds of parallels only shows once again
> that you are shilling for the Muslims, and that you are willing to
> generate any absurd rationalizations to help them.
And you indicate an inability to think clearly and rationally about
those you consider beneath you.
[context restored]
> > Is Brownback saying that if Muslims don't get rid of Palestine the US
> > will?
>
> "I believe he says or supports that about Iran. You'd have to check
> the Congressional Record for precise details. "
>
> I don't care about what you believe.
You must know that if you respond to my postings that (1) you cared
about what I believed enough to respond and (2) that I will respond
with another posting.
Logic says that if you don't care what I believe then don't discuss
what I believe.
> If you have any evidence, show
> it. I'm sure Brownback supports conventional bombing of their nuclear
> development facilities. But that isn't "wiping them off the face of
> the earth" any more than Israel's attack on the Iraqi nuclear reactor
> was.
No, I guess it wouldn't be. Course bombing one country's "national
security" enterprise might make it want to wipe the agressor "off the
face of the earth". Yes? Could you blame them? Wouldn't such
strike be an "act of war" if undertaken against the countries that you
like?
>
> Let's face it Mullah kuff, you are pulling these dumb parallels out of
> your ass in order to support your disgusting religion.
It's one of your religions, primate. Squids are comfortable with
uncertainty - must be the lack of a skeleton. :-)
Count 1
> > The
> > Russians are happy to build them nuclear plants and to supply them with
> > the unranium they need to run those plants. Their determination to
> > enrich their own uranium has nothing to do with having nuclear power
> > plants.
> It has to do with them wanting to be fully independent and have control
> of the full nuclear fuel cycle. Iran has a "national security" too
> you know.
But - as you have been told - we know that doesn't make sense. Iran has no
capacity to have a 'fully independent' nuclear fuel cycle because Iran
doesn't have the uranium reserves to have a 'fully independent' nuclear fuel
cycle. They will have to rely on uranium imports.
By insisting on building an enrichment capability that will never be 'fully
independent' they are actually slowing down their ability to generate
nuclear energy, and their excuse for needing an enrichment capability only
lends itself to suspicion of their stated intentions.
kuff (Isaac Adams)
Count 1 wrote:
> > > The
> > > Russians are happy to build them nuclear plants and to supply them with
> > > the unranium they need to run those plants. Their determination to
> > > enrich their own uranium has nothing to do with having nuclear power
> > > plants.
>
>
> > It has to do with them wanting to be fully independent and have control
> > of the full nuclear fuel cycle. Iran has a "national security" too
> > you know.
>
> But - as you have been told - we know that doesn't make sense. Iran has no
> capacity to have a 'fully independent' nuclear fuel cycle because Iran
> doesn't have the uranium reserves to have a 'fully independent' nuclear fuel
> cycle. They will have to rely on uranium imports.
That may be true. Just one more challenge to address. They may have
to trade oil for ore with regions that want the oil and have the ore.
Asia for example.
Iran has only a few and limited "proven" uranium reserves. I don't
know how well the country has been prospected for other uranium
sources.
Like I say - another challenge. It makes sense, when faced with
multiple challenges, to attack them one at a time rather than throw up
your hands at the first one and never deal with the ones which could be
solved.
>
> By insisting on building an enrichment capability that will never be 'fully
> independent' they are actually slowing down their ability to generate
> nuclear energy, and their excuse for needing an enrichment capability only
> lends itself to suspicion of their stated intentions.
I see it as a desire to have a fully independent capability. There
are political and geological challenges to be met in accomplishing this.
Count 1
They will *have* to import uranium if they want nuclear power. This means
they won't have a fully independent nuclear fuel cycle. They will be
dependent on trading nations for the raw materials.
So now that you know Iran can never possess a fully independent nuclear fuel
cycle, what do you think of the reason they give to why they want to enrich
uranium?
Since Iran's leaders know they will have to import uranium it looks like
we've found them in another lie when they say they want an independent
nuclear fuel cycle.
> > By insisting on building an enrichment capability that will never be
'fully
> > independent' they are actually slowing down their ability to generate
> > nuclear energy, and their excuse for needing an enrichment capability
only
> > lends itself to suspicion of their stated intentions.
>
> I see it as a desire to have a fully independent capability.
I see it as a desire to build nuclear bombs. This conclusion is
significantly more supportable than yours considering;
1) Their supplied excuse (fully independent) is nonsense.
2) We can't trust anything they say regarding their nuclear ambitions
3) Their 'president' wants to destroy Israel.
4) They are buying nuclear capable ballistic missiles.
5) They are a paranoid totalitarian theocracy which uses fear and
intimidation to maintain power.
There
> are political and geological challenges to be met in accomplishing this.
They can never accomplish it Kuff, and they know it. But don't let that stop
you from believing everything they say. :-)
an...@sci.sci
It's a tradition among Japanese to bow their heads slightly when they
greet each other. It's respectful of non-Japanese to respond in kind. I
see no problem with that. In the context of influenza epidemics, I
think that's a better practice than the Western shaking of hands.
But bowing to Allah is rather difficult. How do you bow to something
that doesn't exist in the first place? I bow my head slightly when I
see a real live Japanese person bowing his head to me. I don't bow my
head to make-believe Japanese people that aren't around me.
> If the West fails to peacefully remove the "Zionist entity" from the
> Middle East, the "Palestinians" and their Islamic allies will do so
> through violent fury,
Is he speaking of the nation of Israel? Is he speaking of moving it to
another place? If so, where? Or is he speaking of killing everyone
currently residing there, and then leaving the land vacant for others
to enter?
Hey, I'll make a deal: You remove Iran, and I'll consider removing Israel.
> Islam dictates that formerly-Muslim dominated lands cannot revert to
> permanent non-Muslim control.
So Islam is a dictator now? Down with all dictators!!! Down with Islam.
> According to the Muslim faith, jihad must be waged until the entire
> world is under the thumb of Islam.
(And I thought Nazi Germany was bad! Muslim faith is twice as bad.)
> now is the time for the West to bow to this reality and submit to Allah:
Um, what "reality" are you talking about? The reality that several
million people have a realy horrible belief system called "Islam" and
need to be eliminated before they do great harm to the rest of the
world?
How can I submit to somebody who doesn't exist in the first place?
You really need to solve that problem before you make any more requests
for the rest of us to do something to or for Allah.
If I asked you to submit to Ka-el (Clark Kent), how could you comply??
> the Iranian nation, numbering in the millions, calls upon those
> governments to worship Allah."
That isn't even grammatically meaningful. An individual can worship
somebody else, for example I'm sure several women worship their
husbands. But I don't think it's meaningful to speak of a government
worshipping anything. At best a government can establish a law where
its citizens are required to worship something. (I would oppose any
such law. I think worship is really really stupid.)
> Similar sentiment was expressed by Iran's Hamas allies in the
> Palestinian Authority last week.
*How* similar? LIke nearly identical, i.e. really really stupid? Or
merely vaguely similar, like not quite so blatantly stupid? I'd like to
see the actual (English-translated) statements of some of the major
Hamas/Palestine officials for comparison.
> overall Hamas political leader Khaled Mashal declared:
> "We say to this West... By Allah, you will be defeated... Tomorrow,
> our nation will sit on the throne of the world. This is not a figment
> of the imagination, but a fact."
No, it's not a fact, it's a prediction. And since it was made on Feb.
3, and hadn't come true by Feb. 4, it's obviously a false prediction.
Hey, if you're going to make really stupid predictions, at least try to
make them so vague they aren't 100% refuted the very next day, OK?
Oh wait, "throne" could mean "potty" "toilet", i.e. place to sit and do
a crap, a #2, a defecation, right? Well metaphorically I suppose
Palestine is indeed the crapper of the world, so I guess in that
perverted sense the fact is true. Is that what Khaled Mashal meant?
He's on the horns of a dilemma, admit he lied, or admit he meant
Palestine is the shit-potty of the world.
I remember when some of our own top officials here in the USA made
equally stupid public statements. Dan Quayle stands out as a real dunce
in that regard. We all learned to recognize Dan as such, and finally
got rid of him. Perhaps the Palestines should treat Khaled Mashal
likewise? By the way, our own current G.W.Bush is pretty stupid too,
but after the Katrina disaster he finally started to wise up a bit.
an...@sci.sci
> common source: The subsuming of the individual to the collective.
I.e. Communist dictatorship: The dictator decides his own personal
opinion what would be best for the collective, and uses the power of
the government to enforce it. No individual, except that dictator, has
any individual rights.
Or do you mean more like a true Democracy (without any Constitutional
protections of individual rights) whereby the majority decides what the
rules will be and nobody has any right to oppose the majority, sort of
like those reality-TV shows where the people still on the island vote
who among them will be thrown off the island.
> Bow down to "democracy" instead.
You really like to play the vote-off-the-island game? If the majority
votes that you should die, you are immediately put to death?
kuff (Isaac Adams)
an...@sci.sci wrote:
> > all this bowing down bullshit, whether to dirt or sky pixies, has a
> > common source: The subsuming of the individual to the collective.
>
> I.e. Communist dictatorship: The dictator decides his own personal
> opinion what would be best for the collective, and uses the power of
> the government to enforce it. No individual, except that dictator, has
> any individual rights.
>
> Or do you mean more like a true Democracy (without any Constitutional
> protections of individual rights) whereby the majority decides what the
> rules will be and nobody has any right to oppose the majority, sort of
> like those reality-TV shows where the people still on the island vote
> who among them will be thrown off the island.
That would also be subsuming the individual to the collective.
>
> > Bow down to "democracy" instead.
>
> You really like to play the vote-off-the-island game? If the majority
> votes that you should die, you are immediately put to death?
I don't see how I could avoid it. :-)
But, no - I don't prefer the collective game at all. I divide all the
cracy (democracy, theocracy, aristocracy, ...) words into two parts.
They are all x-cracies. What I want is a cracy limited so that the
'x' (demos, theos, aristos, ...) doesn't matter very much when it comes
to the individual's stance against the collective.
thereactionary
control
of the full nuclear fuel cycle. Iran has a "national security" too
you know."
Horseshit. They have more than enough oil to satisfy their national
security needs - unless their national security requires them to "wipe
Israel off the map".
"And to be independent in their use of nuclear power."
They are not independent in their food supply. If they were concerned
with independence that would be a bigger concern. The concern with
having an "Independent" nuclear fuel supply is economically outweighed
by the cost of sanctions. Only the power that they hope to derive from
having nuclear weapons will be worth the sacrifice.
"When you talk about wiping a nation off the face of the earth aren't
you talking about the government? Or are you talking about the dirt
the government is claiming? "
Don't be an idiot. Of course I'm not talking about the dirt. What
gives the nation it's definition and it's meaning? Obviously I am
talking about the people as well as the way of life that those people
want to live. So, wiping Iran off the map would consist of killing
most of their people and forcing them to live under an occupation
government. And before you fly off into the blue, a transition
government is not an occupation government.
"What do you think he has in mind for Israel?"
I think if he had the power and if he thought that he could get away
with it he would push the Israeli jews into the sea. Literally.
"You must know that if you respond to my postings that (1) you cared
about what I believed enough to respond "
No, I don't care about what you believe, I care about what you can
demonstrate. And so far you are doing a very poor job of demonstrating
anything; but I will give you the opportunity to try. When you begin a
statement with "I believe" and your "believe" concerns an item that can
be shown to be a concrete fact or not, then what you believe is
irrelevant. Give me the fact.
"No, I guess it wouldn't be. Course bombing one country's "national
security" enterprise might make it want to wipe the agressor "off the
face of the earth". Yes? Could you blame them? Wouldn't such
strike be an "act of war" if undertaken against the countries that you
like? "
Nope, you've got it in the wrong order. It is Iran's desire to use
nuclear force and any other force to wipe Israel off the face of the
earth that neccessitates the destruction of their nuclear capabilities.
It is Ahmadenijads desire to fullfil his apocalyptic vision of the
coming of the Mahdi and the domination of the world by Islam that
neccessitates the destruction of their nuclear capabilities. It is
unacceptable to wait and do nothing in the hope that he is just
kidding.
"Squids are comfortable with uncertainty - must be the lack of a
skeleton. :-) "
If you want certainty, pick Buddhism, pick Tao, pick almost anything
but Islam! Because when your discomfort with uncertainty requires that
I have to loose my head or become a dhimmi, then I will try to see to
it that you loose your head first.
kuff (Isaac Adams)
One problem down - enrichment, one problem to go - ore supply. It'll
be a damn sight easier, in my opinion, for Iran to lay hands on
unprocessed uranium ore than it would be for them to get enriched
uranium. More suppliers = more reliability.
>
> Since Iran's leaders know they will have to import uranium
ore
> it looks like
> we've found them in another lie when they say they want an independent
> nuclear fuel cycle.
>
No. They want it they just might not be able to do it without imports
of ore.
>
>
>
> > > By insisting on building an enrichment capability that will never be
> 'fully
> > > independent' they are actually slowing down their ability to generate
> > > nuclear energy, and their excuse for needing an enrichment capability
> only
> > > lends itself to suspicion of their stated intentions.
> >
> > I see it as a desire to have a fully independent capability.
>
> I see it as a desire to build nuclear bombs.
I know.
> This conclusion is
> significantly more supportable than yours considering;
>
> 1) Their supplied excuse (fully independent) is nonsense.
No, it's not. It's perfectly rational.
> 2) We can't trust anything they say regarding their nuclear ambitions
And can verify less today than you could two weeks ago because you let
that distrust cloud your sanity.
> 3) Their 'president' wants to destroy Israel.
He wants it, so he said, wiped off the earth. Doesn't mean he wants
to do it himself and get his own country wiped off the earth.
> 4) They are buying nuclear capable ballistic missiles.
And building them too I understand. One man's nuclear ballistic
missile is another man's satellite launch booster.
> 5) They are a paranoid totalitarian theocracy which uses fear and
> intimidation to maintain power.
They seem like an imperfect democracy with a fair amount of internal
debate and a balance of powers within the country.
Damn sight better than Egypt. Closer to Israel or Iraq.
>
> There
> > are political and geological challenges to be met in accomplishing this.
>
> They can never accomplish it Kuff, and they know it.
The ore problem is easier to solve than the enriched uranium problem.
Asia is going to be wanting oil and Iran is going to be want uranium
ore.
Seems like a natural deal to me. Why let all those tankers head back
to the Straits empty? :-)
> But don't let that stop
> you from believing everything they say. :-)
Don't believe everything they say. Your grief is that I don't believe
everything you and yours say either.
thereactionary
I see it as you shilling for Islamofascists wanting nuclear weapons
mullah kuff.
thereactionary
Mullah kuff doesn't believe what they say. He simply wants us to
believe what they say. I would think you could look at the direction
of the spin of everything that he has said over the years and easily
determine that. Kuff would love for Iran to have nukes. He is simply
generating arguments under the cloak of being a reasonable person
instead of using the outright Islamic bigotry that Ahamadinijad
indulges himself with.
thereactionary
debate and a balance of powers within the country."
LOL. Imperfect democracy? The Ayatollas determine that only Islamic
fundamentalists are allowed to run. Then they rig the elections to get
the specific fundamentalist they want. The word from Iranian bloggers
was that the voting booths were empty with the exception of the ones
that the western media was allowed to see. And those were packed by
the Ayatollahs with the radicals who support the Ayatollahs. The
Ayatollahs tried letting people actually vote for who they wanted in a
couple of past elections and they found out that the people didn't want
the Ayatollahs.
Phony democracy would be a much better term than imperfect democracy.
Count 1
Then its not fully independent. Another lie confirmed.
> >
> >
> > > > By insisting on building an enrichment capability that will never be
> > 'fully
> > > > independent' they are actually slowing down their ability to
generate
> > > > nuclear energy, and their excuse for needing an enrichment
capability
> > only
> > > > lends itself to suspicion of their stated intentions.
> > >
> > > I see it as a desire to have a fully independent capability.
> >
> > I see it as a desire to build nuclear bombs.
>
> I know.
>
> > This conclusion is
> > significantly more supportable than yours considering;
> >
> > 1) Their supplied excuse (fully independent) is nonsense.
>
> No, it's not. It's perfectly rational.
How can Iran havea fully independent fuel cycle when they are dependent on
imports?
> > 2) We can't trust anything they say regarding their nuclear ambitions
>
> And can verify less today than you could two weeks ago because you let
> that distrust cloud your sanity.
My point remains I just wish the mullahcracy had any sanity to be clouded
in the first place.
> > 3) Their 'president' wants to destroy Israel.
>
> He wants it, so he said, wiped off the earth. Doesn't mean he wants
> to do it himself and get his own country wiped off the earth.
His aggressive tendencies and outrageous threats do not go unnoticed,
> > 4) They are buying nuclear capable ballistic missiles.
>
> And building them too I understand. One man's nuclear ballistic
> missile is another man's satellite launch booster.
And one man's satellite launcher is a delivery vehicle for a warhead. Once
again we see you're primary response is to say 'don't look over there'.
> 5) They are a paranoid totalitarian theocracy which uses fear and
> > intimidation to maintain power.
>
> They seem like an imperfect democracy with a fair amount of internal
> debate and a balance of powers within the country.
>
> Damn sight better than Egypt. Closer to Israel or Iraq.
More like Stalin mixed with the Taliban. Absolutely zero 'balance of powers'
considering all power flows through and from the guardian council, who
answer to no one but themselves.
> > There
> > > are political and geological challenges to be met in accomplishing
this.
> >
> > They can never accomplish it Kuff, and they know it.
>
> The ore problem is easier to solve than the enriched uranium problem.
> Asia is going to be wanting oil and Iran is going to be want uranium
> ore.
>
> Seems like a natural deal to me. Why let all those tankers head back
> to the Straits empty? :-)
So you admit their excuse to have a fully indepedent fuel cycle is nonsense.
> > But don't let that stop
> > you from believing everything they say. :-)
>
> Don't believe everything they say. Your grief is that I don't believe
> everything you and yours say either.
Not at all, my grief is not that you dont' believe me, its that you offer
nothing but nonsense as a rebuttal.
Count 1
"thereactionary" <thereac...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:1140035890.5...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
'Theater' is the best description for what Iran calls an election.
kuff (Isaac Adams)
> It has to do with them wanting to be fully independent and have control
> of the full nuclear fuel cycle. Iran has a "national security" too
> you know.
>
> > The only reason that they need the capability to enrich
> > uranium is to build nukes.
>
> And to be independent in their use of nuclear power.
>
> > And they are willing to take UN sanctions
> > and economic sanctions to do it.
>
> To be independent, as the NPT allows, in their use of nuclear power
> they are willing to take the chance on such posturings.
>
> [context restored]
> > > Is Brownback advocating that any nations be erased from the face of the
> > > earth?
> >
>
> >
> > "Other than Iraq (nearly complete), Iran, Syria.... I don't know. Is
> > he? "
> >
> > Now you are back to acting like the idiot Mullah kuff. Changing Iraq's
> > government from a dictatorship into a democracy and pouring billions
> > into their infastructure is hardly trying to wipe them off the face of
> > the earth.
>
> When you talk about wiping a nation off the face of the earth aren't
> you talking about the government? Or are you talking about the dirt
> the government is claiming?
>
> Was, for example, the nation Checkoslovakia wiped off the face of the
> earth? What about the island of Formosa? What was wiped off the
> face of the earth before Israel was set down on it's particular bit of
> dirt?
>
> What do you mean with 'wiped off the face of the earth'?
>
> > If we wanted to do that we could do it from high altitude,
> > on the cheap, without ever setting foot in the country.
>
> Ah, you're talking about blowing up a particular bit of dirt then?
> Maybe just killing a lot of it's people?
>
> > I can assure
> > you that what we are doing in Iraq is hardly what Ahmadinejad has in
> > mind for Israel.
>
> What do you think he has in mind for Israel? Anything which wouldn't
> result in Iran being 'wiped off the face of the earth'?
>
> > Making those kinds of parallels only shows once again
> > that you are shilling for the Muslims, and that you are willing to
> > generate any absurd rationalizations to help them.
>
> And you indicate an inability to think clearly and rationally about
> those you consider beneath you.
>
> [context restored]
> > > Is Brownback saying that if Muslims don't get rid of Palestine the US
> > > will?
>
> >
> > "I believe he says or supports that about Iran. You'd have to check
> > the Congressional Record for precise details. "
> >
> > I don't care about what you believe.
>
> You must know that if you respond to my postings that (1) you cared
> about what I believed enough to respond and (2) that I will respond
> with another posting.
>
> Logic says that if you don't care what I believe then don't discuss
> what I believe.
>
> > If you have any evidence, show
> > it. I'm sure Brownback supports conventional bombing of their nuclear
> > development facilities. But that isn't "wiping them off the face of
> > the earth" any more than Israel's attack on the Iraqi nuclear reactor
> > was.
>
> No, I guess it wouldn't be. Course bombing one country's "national
> security" enterprise might make it want to wipe the agressor "off the
> face of the earth". Yes? Could you blame them? Wouldn't such
> strike be an "act of war" if undertaken against the countries that you
> like?
>
> >
> > Let's face it Mullah kuff, you are pulling these dumb parallels out of
> > your ass in order to support your disgusting religion.
>
> It's one of your religions, primate. Squids are comfortable with
> uncertainty - must be the lack of a skeleton. :-)
thereactionary wrote:
> "It has to do with them wanting to be fully independent and have
> control
> of the full nuclear fuel cycle. Iran has a "national security" too
> you know."
>
> Horseshit. They have more than enough oil to satisfy their national
> security needs - unless their national security requires them to "wipe
> Israel off the map".
Or to provide for their people when the oil begins to run out as it
will shortly. Oil will become very valuable as the supply becomes
constrained. Economies based on nuclear power will have a distinct
advantage to those based on petroleum.
I think Iran would prefer to sell $200/barrel oil rather than use it to
fire power plants. :-)
>
> "And to be independent in their use of nuclear power."
>
> They are not independent in their food supply. If they were concerned
> with independence that would be a bigger concern.
That's a bit more manageable than the hard limit 'peak oil' puts on
things. Besides, farming is not nearly so sexy as nuclear technology.
:-)
> The concern with
> having an "Independent" nuclear fuel supply is economically outweighed
> by the cost of sanctions.
If the sanctions are unfounded then, one would hope, they would not
last. And having so many with an increasing thirst for your major
export means that sanctions likely would not be honored in the breach.
You know the US already sanctions dealings (except for some Halliburton
subsidaries :-) ) with Iran. I sometimes wonder what additional
sanctions are even available to put pressure on the Iranian government?
> Only the power that they hope to derive from
> having nuclear weapons will be worth the sacrifice.
Nuclear weapons would give them an additional measure of security, no
doubt. The problem is that it is not clear that nuclear weapons are
their objective. A few years of intense scrutiny by the IAEA really
hasn't turned up anything in the weapons' area.
>
> "When you talk about wiping a nation off the face of the earth aren't
> you talking about the government? Or are you talking about the dirt
> the government is claiming? "
>
> Don't be an idiot. Of course I'm not talking about the dirt. What
> gives the nation it's definition and it's meaning?
The people who believe in it.
> Obviously I am
> talking about the people as well as the way of life that those people
> want to live. So, wiping Iran off the map would consist of killing
> most of their people and forcing them to live under an occupation
> government.
Okay.
> And before you fly off into the blue, a transition
> government is not an occupation government.
>
> "What do you think he has in mind for Israel?"
[context restored]
> Anything which wouldn't
> result in Iran being 'wiped off the face of the earth'?
>
> I think if he had the power and if he thought that he could get away
> with it he would push the Israeli jews into the sea. Literally.
>
[context restored]
> > I don't care about what you believe.
>
> You must know that if you respond to my postings that (1) you cared
> about what I believed enough to respond and (2) that I will respond
> with another posting.
> "You must know that if you respond to my postings that (1) you cared
> about what I believed enough to respond "
>
> No, I don't care about what you believe, I care about what you can
> demonstrate. And so far you are doing a very poor job of demonstrating
> anything; but I will give you the opportunity to try. When you begin a
> statement with "I believe" and your "believe" concerns an item that can
> be shown to be a concrete fact or not, then what you believe is
> irrelevant. Give me the fact.
It was a supposition that such statements could be found in the
Congressional Record. It indicates that though I believe such
statements to be there I didn't look them up myself.
[context restored]
> > If you have any evidence, show
> > it. I'm sure Brownback supports conventional bombing of their nuclear
> > development facilities. But that isn't "wiping them off the face of
> > the earth" any more than Israel's attack on the Iraqi nuclear reactor
> > was.
>
> No, I guess it wouldn't be. Course bombing one country's "national
> security" enterprise might make it want to wipe the agressor "off the
> face of the earth". Yes? Could you blame them? Wouldn't such
> strike be an "act of war" if undertaken against the countries that you
> like?
>
> "No, I guess it wouldn't be. Course bombing one country's "national
> security" enterprise might make it want to wipe the agressor "off the
> face of the earth". Yes? Could you blame them? Wouldn't such
> strike be an "act of war" if undertaken against the countries that you
> like? "
>
> Nope, you've got it in the wrong order. It is Iran's desire to use
> nuclear force and any other force to wipe Israel off the face of the
> earth that neccessitates the destruction of their nuclear capabilities.
Right... I think I have the order just right. Who would be the
agressor?
> It is Ahmadenijads desire to fullfil his apocalyptic vision of the
> coming of the Mahdi and the domination of the world by Islam that
> neccessitates the destruction of their nuclear capabilities.
Who would be the agressor?
> It is
> unacceptable to wait and do nothing in the hope that he is just
> kidding.
No. You have to wait till imminent threat or you are the agressor.
Don't attack another country on the basis of your own fantasies.
That's just insane.
Don't expect a country you're threating to attack to be particularily
polite either. That's just insane too.
>
> "Squids are comfortable with uncertainty - must be the lack of a
> skeleton. :-) "
>
> If you want certainty, pick Buddhism, pick Tao, pick almost anything
> but Islam!
I pick none of them. No skeleton you see. :-)
> Because when your discomfort with uncertainty requires that
> I have to loose my head or become a dhimmi, then I will try to see to
> it that you loose your head first.
At the point of imminent threat that is your right. Before that point
you are indistinguishable from a mad dog which should be shot down in
the street.
kuff (Isaac Adams)
thereactionary wrote:
> "They seem like an imperfect democracy with a fair amount of internal
> debate and a balance of powers within the country."
>
> LOL. Imperfect democracy? The Ayatollas determine that only Islamic
> fundamentalists are allowed to run.
I believe it is the elected Guardian Council which vetoes candidates
who want to run. That does need to be fixed. I've said so many
times.
> Then they rig the elections to get
> the specific fundamentalist they want.
Which the failed to do this last time. The head Mullah's favorite
lost.
> The word from Iranian bloggers
> was that the voting booths were empty with the exception of the ones
> that the western media was allowed to see.
Are they as reliable as the US bloggers? What did the independent,
international observers report?
> And those were packed by
> the Ayatollahs with the radicals who support the Ayatollahs.
Don't believe you. Turn out was reasonable across the country and the
observer process proceeded in an acceptable fashion.
> The
> Ayatollahs tried letting people actually vote for who they wanted in a
> couple of past elections and they found out that the people didn't want
> the Ayatollahs.
??
>
> Phony democracy would be a much better term than imperfect democracy.
It's a real democracy with some problems in candidate selection.
What's wrong with you people?
kuff (Isaac Adams)
Full independence is the desired objective. They may not be able to
achieve it. They appear to be trying though and as I said, raw ore is
much easier to obtain reliably than enriched uranium.
Being able to enrich the uranium themselves puts them closer to their
claimed objective.
>
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > > By insisting on building an enrichment capability that will never be
> > > 'fully
> > > > > independent' they are actually slowing down their ability to
> generate
> > > > > nuclear energy, and their excuse for needing an enrichment
> capability
> > > only
> > > > > lends itself to suspicion of their stated intentions.
> > > >
> > > > I see it as a desire to have a fully independent capability.
> > >
> > > I see it as a desire to build nuclear bombs.
> >
> > I know.
> >
> > > This conclusion is
> > > significantly more supportable than yours considering;
> > >
> > > 1) Their supplied excuse (fully independent) is nonsense.
> >
> > No, it's not. It's perfectly rational.
>
> How can Iran havea fully independent fuel cycle when they are dependent on
> imports?
>
They can approach full independence by having to import only easily
obtainable ore rather than enriched uranium. And a full uranium
exploration survey of Iran, a pretty big place, might turn up
additional mining potentials.
>
> > > 2) We can't trust anything they say regarding their nuclear ambitions
> >
> > And can verify less today than you could two weeks ago because you let
> > that distrust cloud your sanity.
>
> My point remains I just wish the mullahcracy had any sanity to be clouded
> in the first place.
>
>
> > > 3) Their 'president' wants to destroy Israel.
> >
> > He wants it, so he said, wiped off the earth. Doesn't mean he wants
> > to do it himself and get his own country wiped off the earth.
>
> His aggressive tendencies and outrageous threats do not go unnoticed,
>
Nor do yours.
>
> > > 4) They are buying nuclear capable ballistic missiles.
> >
> > And building them too I understand. One man's nuclear ballistic
> > missile is another man's satellite launch booster.
>
> And one man's satellite launcher is a delivery vehicle for a warhead. Once
> again we see you're primary response is to say 'don't look over there'.
Sigh. Do you or do you not think Iran is interested in being able to
launch satellites - if for no other reason than to spy on Israel? And
to do this they will need what?
Ah, launch boosters. And launch boosters are also useful for what?
Yes, delivering nuclear warheads.
You know what the Soyuz is that keeps the ISS supplied and crewed?
Yes, an ICBM.
>
>
> > 5) They are a paranoid totalitarian theocracy which uses fear and
> > > intimidation to maintain power.
> >
> > They seem like an imperfect democracy with a fair amount of internal
> > debate and a balance of powers within the country.
> >
> > Damn sight better than Egypt. Closer to Israel or Iraq.
>
> More like Stalin mixed with the Taliban.
Hardly.
> Absolutely zero 'balance of powers'
> considering all power flows through and from the guardian council, who
> answer to no one but themselves.
The elected Guardian Council does play a major role in the Iranian
political system. Similar, in some respects, to the role played by
the unelected Supreme Court in the US.
Except for that candidate approval function. Somebody else, or no
one, should do that.
>
>
> > > There
> > > > are political and geological challenges to be met in accomplishing
> this.
> > >
> > > They can never accomplish it Kuff, and they know it.
> >
> > The ore problem is easier to solve than the enriched uranium problem.
> > Asia is going to be wanting oil and Iran is going to be want uranium
> > ore.
> >
> > Seems like a natural deal to me. Why let all those tankers head back
> > to the Straits empty? :-)
>
> So you admit their excuse to have a fully indepedent fuel cycle is nonsense.
No I don't. I admit that the desire to be fully independent can be
realized to a greater degree than you seem to think.
>
>
> > > But don't let that stop
> > > you from believing everything they say. :-)
> >
> > Don't believe everything they say. Your grief is that I don't believe
> > everything you and yours say either.
>
> Not at all, my grief is not that you dont' believe me, its that you offer
> nothing but nonsense as a rebuttal.
Sheesh dude. If you want substantial rebuttal then supply some
substantial evidence. Don't expect substantial rebuttal when all you
bring to the table is hot air and paranoia.
Count 1
I thought nuclear power was the desired objective? Since they can't have a
fully independent fuel cycle it doesn't really matter if its a desired
objective or not. Its impossible so they should drop it as a reason.
> >
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > By insisting on building an enrichment capability that will
never be
> > > > 'fully
> > > > > > independent' they are actually slowing down their ability to
> > generate
> > > > > > nuclear energy, and their excuse for needing an enrichment
> > capability
> > > > only
> > > > > > lends itself to suspicion of their stated intentions.
> > > > >
> > > > > I see it as a desire to have a fully independent capability.
> > > >
> > > > I see it as a desire to build nuclear bombs.
> > >
> > > I know.
> > >
> > > > This conclusion is
> > > > significantly more supportable than yours considering;
> > > >
> > > > 1) Their supplied excuse (fully independent) is nonsense.
> > >
> > > No, it's not. It's perfectly rational.
> >
> > How can Iran havea fully independent fuel cycle when they are dependent
on
> > imports?
> >
>
> They can approach full independence by having to import only easily
> obtainable ore rather than enriched uranium. And a full uranium
> exploration survey of Iran, a pretty big place, might turn up
> additional mining potentials.
They can't have one Kuff. Its a lie you've bought.
>
> >
> > > > 2) We can't trust anything they say regarding their nuclear
ambitions
> > >
> > > And can verify less today than you could two weeks ago because you let
> > > that distrust cloud your sanity.
> >
> > My point remains I just wish the mullahcracy had any sanity to be
clouded
> > in the first place.
> >
> >
> > > > 3) Their 'president' wants to destroy Israel.
> > >
> > > He wants it, so he said, wiped off the earth. Doesn't mean he wants
> > > to do it himself and get his own country wiped off the earth.
> >
> > His aggressive tendencies and outrageous threats do not go unnoticed,
> >
>
> Nor do yours.
Such as?
> >
> > > > 4) They are buying nuclear capable ballistic missiles.
> > >
> > > And building them too I understand. One man's nuclear ballistic
> > > missile is another man's satellite launch booster.
> >
> > And one man's satellite launcher is a delivery vehicle for a warhead.
Once
> > again we see you're primary response is to say 'don't look over there'.
>
> Sigh. Do you or do you not think Iran is interested in being able to
> launch satellites - if for no other reason than to spy on Israel? And
> to do this they will need what?
A partner with a rocket.
> Ah, launch boosters. And launch boosters are also useful for what?
>
> Yes, delivering nuclear warheads.
Not necessarily. Depends on the configuration.
> You know what the Soyuz is that keeps the ISS supplied and crewed?
>
> Yes, an ICBM.
Configured to carry people. Not bombs.
> >
> > > 5) They are a paranoid totalitarian theocracy which uses fear and
> > > > intimidation to maintain power.
> > >
> > > They seem like an imperfect democracy with a fair amount of internal
> > > debate and a balance of powers within the country.
> > >
> > > Damn sight better than Egypt. Closer to Israel or Iraq.
> >
> > More like Stalin mixed with the Taliban.
>
> Hardly.
Exactly.
> > Absolutely zero 'balance of powers'
> > considering all power flows through and from the guardian council, who
> > answer to no one but themselves.
>
> The elected Guardian Council does play a major role in the Iranian
> political system. Similar, in some respects, to the role played by
> the unelected Supreme Court in the US.
>
> Except for that candidate approval function. Somebody else, or no
> one, should do that.
The candidate approval function means they aren't a democracy. And the
Guardian Council is un-elected.
> >
> > > > There
> > > > > are political and geological challenges to be met in accomplishing
> > this.
> > > >
> > > > They can never accomplish it Kuff, and they know it.
> > >
> > > The ore problem is easier to solve than the enriched uranium problem.
> > > Asia is going to be wanting oil and Iran is going to be want uranium
> > > ore.
> > >
> > > Seems like a natural deal to me. Why let all those tankers head back
> > > to the Straits empty? :-)
> >
> > So you admit their excuse to have a fully indepedent fuel cycle is
nonsense.
>
> No I don't. I admit that the desire to be fully independent can be
> realized to a greater degree than you seem to think.
Its not a function of degrees. It either is or isn't. Since it can't be -
obviously they want uranium enrichment for some other purpose.
And there's only one other purpose left.
> >
> > > > But don't let that stop
> > > > you from believing everything they say. :-)
> > >
> > > Don't believe everything they say. Your grief is that I don't
believe
> > > everything you and yours say either.
> >
> > Not at all, my grief is not that you dont' believe me, its that you
offer
> > nothing but nonsense as a rebuttal.
>
> Sheesh dude. If you want substantial rebuttal then supply some
> substantial evidence.
I have. The evidence that Iran cannot have a fully independent fuel cycle is
presented to you and your reply is 'but it can be kind of fully independent.
Which is nonsense, Iran isn't claiming they want a partially independent
fuel cycle.
Don't expect substantial rebuttal when all you
> bring to the table is hot air and paranoia.
I bring much more than that to the table. But you wouldn't know because
you're still sitting with the little kids in the rec room while the adults
have serious conversations.
thereactionary
lost. "
What gives you that idea?
"What did the independent, international observers report?"
In the limited areas where they were allowed to observe they reported
what the Ayatollahs arranged for them to see.
"Turn out was reasonable across the country and the observer process
proceeded in an acceptable fashion. "
No it wasn't - no it didn't.
In order for the election to have been real it means that the Iranians
had a complete change of heart from what they showed they wanted in
previous elections. And in previous elections, where the Ayatollahs
did not restrict the candidates so tightly, the people of Iran showed
that they wanted more liberalism and less control by the
Islamofascists. In fact, they were frustrated with the more liberal
candidates that they did elect because they did not move fast enough in
lightening the burden of Islamofascism.
The only difference between the Iranian election and a Saddam Hussein
election is that the Iranians did a much better job of putting up a
pretense.
kuff (Isaac Adams)
It is. Being independent in that regard is part of it.
> Since they can't have a
> fully independent fuel cycle it doesn't really matter if its a desired
> objective or not. Its impossible so they should drop it as a reason.
>
I don't know if it's impossible or not. I know it's a lot more
approachable if the only dependence is raw ore though.
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > By insisting on building an enrichment capability that will
> never be
> > > > > 'fully
> > > > > > > independent' they are actually slowing down their ability to
> > > generate
> > > > > > > nuclear energy, and their excuse for needing an enrichment
> > > capability
> > > > > only
> > > > > > > lends itself to suspicion of their stated intentions.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I see it as a desire to have a fully independent capability.
> > > > >
> > > > > I see it as a desire to build nuclear bombs.
> > > >
> > > > I know.
> > > >
> > > > > This conclusion is
> > > > > significantly more supportable than yours considering;
> > > > >
> > > > > 1) Their supplied excuse (fully independent) is nonsense.
> > > >
> > > > No, it's not. It's perfectly rational.
> > >
> > > How can Iran havea fully independent fuel cycle when they are dependent
> on
> > > imports?
> > >
> >
> > They can approach full independence by having to import only easily
> > obtainable ore rather than enriched uranium. And a full uranium
> > exploration survey of Iran, a pretty big place, might turn up
> > additional mining potentials.
>
> They can't have one Kuff. Its a lie you've bought.
>
They want one. Is that a lie?
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > > > 2) We can't trust anything they say regarding their nuclear
> ambitions
> > > >
> > > > And can verify less today than you could two weeks ago because you let
> > > > that distrust cloud your sanity.
> > >
> > > My point remains I just wish the mullahcracy had any sanity to be
> clouded
> > > in the first place.
> > >
> > >
> > > > > 3) Their 'president' wants to destroy Israel.
> > > >
> > > > He wants it, so he said, wiped off the earth. Doesn't mean he wants
> > > > to do it himself and get his own country wiped off the earth.
> > >
> > > His aggressive tendencies and outrageous threats do not go unnoticed,
> > >
> >
> > Nor do yours.
>
> Such as?
>
Sabre rattling. Threatening sanctions and "no options are off the
table". Itching to attack unknown Iranian nuclear facilities.
Desire to destabilize the Iranian government because you don't think
it's democratic. etc...
>
> > >
> > > > > 4) They are buying nuclear capable ballistic missiles.
> > > >
> > > > And building them too I understand. One man's nuclear ballistic
> > > > missile is another man's satellite launch booster.
> > >
> > > And one man's satellite launcher is a delivery vehicle for a warhead.
> Once
> > > again we see you're primary response is to say 'don't look over there'.
> >
> > Sigh. Do you or do you not think Iran is interested in being able to
> > launch satellites - if for no other reason than to spy on Israel? And
> > to do this they will need what?
>
> A partner with a rocket.
>
Or have a rocket yourself. That would be "independence". Notice a
theme here?
>
> > Ah, launch boosters. And launch boosters are also useful for what?
> >
> > Yes, delivering nuclear warheads.
>
> Not necessarily. Depends on the configuration.
Yes it does. So your "buying nuclear capable ballistic missiles" was
a bit alarmist?
>
>
> > You know what the Soyuz is that keeps the ISS supplied and crewed?
> >
> > Yes, an ICBM.
>
> Configured to carry people. Not bombs.
>
That's the payload bolted on top of the third stage. Other payloads
can be accomodated.
>
>
> > >
> > > > 5) They are a paranoid totalitarian theocracy which uses fear and
> > > > > intimidation to maintain power.
> > > >
> > > > They seem like an imperfect democracy with a fair amount of internal
> > > > debate and a balance of powers within the country.
> > > >
> > > > Damn sight better than Egypt. Closer to Israel or Iraq.
> > >
> > > More like Stalin mixed with the Taliban.
> >
> > Hardly.
>
> Exactly.
>
>
> > > Absolutely zero 'balance of powers'
> > > considering all power flows through and from the guardian council, who
> > > answer to no one but themselves.
> >
> > The elected Guardian Council does play a major role in the Iranian
> > political system. Similar, in some respects, to the role played by
> > the unelected Supreme Court in the US.
> >
> > Except for that candidate approval function. Somebody else, or no
> > one, should do that.
>
> The candidate approval function means they aren't a democracy.
No it doesn't. It means it's a flawed democracy. Any restrictions
on who may be elected to any position indicates a flawed democracy.
> And the
> Guardian Council is un-elected.
We're both half right.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guardian_Council
The Guardian Council of the Constitution (شورای نگهبان
قانون اساسی in Persian) is a high office within the
constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran which has the authority to
interpret the constitution and to determine if the laws passed by the
parliament are in line with the constitution of Iran. As such, the
Council itself is not a legislative body, but it has veto power over
the Iranian parliament. Its members are composed of Islamic clerics and
lawyers. In function it is similar to a Constitutional Court.
Six members of the Council are clerics selected by the Supreme Leader,
who serves as Iran's Head of State. The other six members are lawyers
proposed by Iran's head of judicial branch (selected in turn by the
Supreme Leader), and voted in by the Iranian Legislature. Members are
elected for six years on a phased basis, so that half the membership
changes every three years. ...
All candidates of parliamentary or presidency elections, as well as
candidates for the Assembly of Experts, have to be qualified by the
Guardian Council in order to be able to run in the election. This, is
based on a controversial interpretation of the constitution and has led
to numerous bitter political debates in Iran. ...
>
>
> > >
> > > > > There
> > > > > > are political and geological challenges to be met in accomplishing
> > > this.
> > > > >
> > > > > They can never accomplish it Kuff, and they know it.
> > > >
> > > > The ore problem is easier to solve than the enriched uranium problem.
> > > > Asia is going to be wanting oil and Iran is going to be want uranium
> > > > ore.
> > > >
> > > > Seems like a natural deal to me. Why let all those tankers head back
> > > > to the Straits empty? :-)
> > >
> > > So you admit their excuse to have a fully indepedent fuel cycle is
> nonsense.
> >
> > No I don't. I admit that the desire to be fully independent can be
> > realized to a greater degree than you seem to think.
>
> Its not a function of degrees. It either is or isn't. Since it can't be -
> obviously they want uranium enrichment for some other purpose.
To be closer to being fully independent.
>
> And there's only one other purpose left.
To be as independent as possible. Notice a theme?
>
>
> > >
> > > > > But don't let that stop
> > > > > you from believing everything they say. :-)
> > > >
> > > > Don't believe everything they say. Your grief is that I don't
> believe
> > > > everything you and yours say either.
> > >
> > > Not at all, my grief is not that you dont' believe me, its that you
> offer
> > > nothing but nonsense as a rebuttal.
> >
> > Sheesh dude. If you want substantial rebuttal then supply some
> > substantial evidence.
>
> I have. The evidence that Iran cannot have a fully independent fuel cycle is
> presented to you and your reply is 'but it can be kind of fully independent.
It can be closer to independent than not having enrichment capability
would be. It leaves on the availability of uranium ore which is
easier to obtain from a trading partner than enriched uranium would be.
> Which is nonsense, Iran isn't claiming they want a partially independent
> fuel cycle.
No, they want a fully independent fuel cycle. Pending future outcomes
they may or may not be able to achieve it. If the don't enrich
uranium though then they for sure can't achieve it.
>
> Don't expect substantial rebuttal when all you
> > bring to the table is hot air and paranoia.
>
> I bring much more than that to the table. But you wouldn't know because
> you're still sitting with the little kids in the rec room while the adults
> have serious conversations.
An URL rather than a hurl would be somewhat more convincing. :-)
kuff (Isaac Adams)
thereactionary wrote:
> "Which the failed to do this last time. The head Mullah's favorite
> lost. "
>
> What gives you that idea?
News reports from the election. The head Mullah's favorite was
identified as one of the front runners. He lost.
>
> "What did the independent, international observers report?"
>
> In the limited areas where they were allowed to observe they reported
> what the Ayatollahs arranged for them to see.
That's not the way international vote monitoring works. In general
they pick where they want to observe. If you have credible reportage
to the contrary I'd appreciate seeing it.
>
> "Turn out was reasonable across the country and the observer process
> proceeded in an acceptable fashion. "
>
> No it wasn't - no it didn't.
Again, if you have credible reportage at deviance with the way
independent, international observers operate and bless the execution of
an election usually occurs please share.
>
> In order for the election to have been real it means that the Iranians
> had a complete change of heart from what they showed they wanted in
> previous elections. And in previous elections, where the Ayatollahs
> did not restrict the candidates so tightly, the people of Iran showed
> that they wanted more liberalism and less control by the
> Islamofascists.
And the "reformist" candidate failed to deliver. In the meantime
external pressures cranked up on Iran which tends to bring the
conservatives to the fore vis-a-vis elections and such. 911 in the US
is a good example of that.
I wouldn't say they had a change of heart as much as they may have lost
heart in reforming the system under the current circumstances.
> In fact, they were frustrated with the more liberal
> candidates that they did elect because they did not move fast enough in
> lightening the burden of Islamofascism.
That's right. Their reformist candidate was unable to deliver.
>
> The only difference between the Iranian election and a Saddam Hussein
> election is that the Iranians did a much better job of putting up a
> pretense.
I think you're speaking from ignorance.
Count 1
***
Since they can't be 'independent', then no it isn't.
> Since they can't have a
> fully independent fuel cycle it doesn't really matter if its a desired
> objective or not. Its impossible so they should drop it as a reason.
>
I don't know if it's impossible or not. I know it's a lot more
approachable if the only dependence is raw ore though.
***
How can they be fully independent if they are dependent?
***
Not at all. They probably want one to highly enrich uranium for a nuclear
arsenal - a huge amount of evidence points us in that direction. It is
probably a lie when they say they want one to be 'fully independent'.
> >
> > >
> > > > > 2) We can't trust anything they say regarding their nuclear
> ambitions
> > > >
> > > > And can verify less today than you could two weeks ago because you
let
> > > > that distrust cloud your sanity.
> > >
> > > My point remains I just wish the mullahcracy had any sanity to be
> clouded
> > > in the first place.
> > >
> > >
> > > > > 3) Their 'president' wants to destroy Israel.
> > > >
> > > > He wants it, so he said, wiped off the earth. Doesn't mean he
wants
> > > > to do it himself and get his own country wiped off the earth.
> > >
> > > His aggressive tendencies and outrageous threats do not go unnoticed,
> > >
> >
> > Nor do yours.
>
> Such as?
>
Sabre rattling. Threatening sanctions and "no options are off the
table". Itching to attack unknown Iranian nuclear facilities.
Desire to destabilize the Iranian government because you don't think
it's democratic. etc...
****
Oh. I thought you meant 'mine'. I don't think any of those things compare
to the significantly more belligerent and incredibly threatening statements
coming from Ahmadinejad.
>
> > >
> > > > > 4) They are buying nuclear capable ballistic missiles.
> > > >
> > > > And building them too I understand. One man's nuclear ballistic
> > > > missile is another man's satellite launch booster.
> > >
> > > And one man's satellite launcher is a delivery vehicle for a warhead.
> Once
> > > again we see you're primary response is to say 'don't look over
there'.
> >
> > Sigh. Do you or do you not think Iran is interested in being able to
> > launch satellites - if for no other reason than to spy on Israel? And
> > to do this they will need what?
>
> A partner with a rocket.
>
Or have a rocket yourself. That would be "independence". Notice a
theme here?
***
The point being there isn't one answer to the question.
> > Ah, launch boosters. And launch boosters are also useful for what?
> >
> > Yes, delivering nuclear warheads.
>
> Not necessarily. Depends on the configuration.
Yes it does. So your "buying nuclear capable ballistic missiles" was
a bit alarmist?
***
It might have been before 2003. Now its not.
>
> > You know what the Soyuz is that keeps the ISS supplied and crewed?
> >
> > Yes, an ICBM.
>
> Configured to carry people. Not bombs.
>
That's the payload bolted on top of the third stage. Other payloads
can be accomodated.
***
As per Iran's wishes.
>
>
> > >
> > > > 5) They are a paranoid totalitarian theocracy which uses fear and
> > > > > intimidation to maintain power.
> > > >
> > > > They seem like an imperfect democracy with a fair amount of internal
> > > > debate and a balance of powers within the country.
> > > >
> > > > Damn sight better than Egypt. Closer to Israel or Iraq.
> > >
> > > More like Stalin mixed with the Taliban.
> >
> > Hardly.
>
> Exactly.
>
>
> > > Absolutely zero 'balance of powers'
> > > considering all power flows through and from the guardian council, who
> > > answer to no one but themselves.
> >
> > The elected Guardian Council does play a major role in the Iranian
> > political system. Similar, in some respects, to the role played by
> > the unelected Supreme Court in the US.
> >
> > Except for that candidate approval function. Somebody else, or no
> > one, should do that.
>
> The candidate approval function means they aren't a democracy.
No it doesn't. It means it's a flawed democracy. Any restrictions
on who may be elected to any position indicates a flawed democracy.
***
It means they aren't a democracy because the process can unjustly eliminate
candidates based on the Guardian Council's whims.
> And the
> Guardian Council is un-elected.
We're both half right.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guardian_Council
The Guardian Council of the Constitution (????? ??????
????? ????? in Persian) is a high office within the
constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran which has the authority to
interpret the constitution and to determine if the laws passed by the
parliament are in line with the constitution of Iran. As such, the
Council itself is not a legislative body, but it has veto power over
the Iranian parliament. Its members are composed of Islamic clerics and
lawyers. In function it is similar to a Constitutional Court.
Six members of the Council are clerics selected by the Supreme Leader,
who serves as Iran's Head of State. The other six members are lawyers
proposed by Iran's head of judicial branch (selected in turn by the
Supreme Leader), and voted in by the Iranian Legislature. Members are
elected for six years on a phased basis, so that half the membership
changes every three years. ...
All candidates of parliamentary or presidency elections, as well as
candidates for the Assembly of Experts, have to be qualified by the
Guardian Council in order to be able to run in the election. This, is
based on a controversial interpretation of the constitution and has led
to numerous bitter political debates in Iran. ...
***
This shows you are completely wrong and I am completely right. The Guardian
Council is unelected.
> > >
> > > > > There
> > > > > > are political and geological challenges to be met in
accomplishing
> > > this.
> > > > >
> > > > > They can never accomplish it Kuff, and they know it.
> > > >
> > > > The ore problem is easier to solve than the enriched uranium
problem.
> > > > Asia is going to be wanting oil and Iran is going to be want uranium
> > > > ore.
> > > >
> > > > Seems like a natural deal to me. Why let all those tankers head
back
> > > > to the Straits empty? :-)
> > >
> > > So you admit their excuse to have a fully indepedent fuel cycle is
> nonsense.
> >
> > No I don't. I admit that the desire to be fully independent can be
> > realized to a greater degree than you seem to think.
>
> Its not a function of degrees. It either is or isn't. Since it can't be -
> obviously they want uranium enrichment for some other purpose.
To be closer to being fully independent.
****
I'm sorry - I thought you were relying on their stated intentions. I didnt'
realize you were relying on what you think their intentions really are.
Their stated reasons for needing to enrich uranium is not to be 'closer' to
a fully independent fuel cycle. It is to have a fully independent fuel
cycle.
A reason that is nonsense, because they can never acheive it.
> And there's only one other purpose left.
To be as independent as possible. Notice a theme?
****
I saw a theme a while ago. Its called 'lying'.
> > >
> > > > > But don't let that stop
> > > > > you from believing everything they say. :-)
> > > >
> > > > Don't believe everything they say. Your grief is that I don't
> believe
> > > > everything you and yours say either.
> > >
> > > Not at all, my grief is not that you dont' believe me, its that you
> offer
> > > nothing but nonsense as a rebuttal.
> >
> > Sheesh dude. If you want substantial rebuttal then supply some
> > substantial evidence.
>
> I have. The evidence that Iran cannot have a fully independent fuel cycle
is
> presented to you and your reply is 'but it can be kind of fully
independent.
It can be closer to independent than not having enrichment capability
would be. It leaves on the availability of uranium ore which is
easier to obtain from a trading partner than enriched uranium would be.
> Which is nonsense, Iran isn't claiming they want a partially independent
> fuel cycle.
No, they want a fully independent fuel cycle. Pending future outcomes
they may or may not be able to achieve it. If the don't enrich
uranium though then they for sure can't achieve it.
***
And continuing to insist on something they know they can never have throws
their stated intentions into doubt. Couple that with the vast amounts of
circumstantial evidence they refuse to fully explain and a picture of their
true intentions begins to emerge.
> Don't expect substantial rebuttal when all you
> > bring to the table is hot air and paranoia.
>
> I bring much more than that to the table. But you wouldn't know because
> you're still sitting with the little kids in the rec room while the adults
> have serious conversations.
An URL rather than a hurl would be somewhat more convincing. :-)
***
I'd be more convinced if you didn't engage in so much 'stupid speak' like
'elected guardian council', 'Iran is a democracy', and 'fully independent
fuel cycle'.
thereactionary
identified as one of the front runners. He lost.
Are you claiming that Kahmenei's favorite was Rafsanjanni? Show me an
article that makes that claim. I think you are blowing smoke.
"That's not the way international vote monitoring works. In general
they pick where they want to observe."
So you are claiming that it is the ideal and general way that it works.
But you have no idea as to what happened in Iran.
"Iran's Interior Ministry placed voter-turnout at 62 percent, a figure
previously predicted by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, while
the Iranian opposition Mojahedin-e Khalq (MeK), having unofficial
monitors at 15,000 polling stations across the country, put
voter-turnout at about 10 percent."
http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=2554
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/06/25/iran.claim/
"Massive election fraud is being alleged in Friday's vote. Shortly
before the polls were to close, just seven million people had voted ?
out of an eligible pool of 51 million. Voting, however, was then
extended for several hours, which amazingly produced another 29 million
ballots. "
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20050621-085511-5253r.htm
"Ali from Velenjak north of Tehran: I check the local poll 3-4 times
today and there were no body at the polls. This is not a true election.
"
http://regimechangeiran.blogspot.com/2005/06/irans-election-feed-back-iranian.html
kuff (Isaac Adams)
thereactionary wrote:
> News reports from the election. The head Mullah's favorite was
> identified as one of the front runners. He lost.
>
> Are you claiming that Kahmenei's favorite was Rafsanjanni?
No, it was someone else who's name I can't remember right now. It was
neither Rafsanjanni nor Ahmadinejad.
Now that I went to look at the previous discussion about the Iranian
elections I now how the guys name for you.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GE25Ak03.html
...Safa Haeri of the Paris-based Iranian Press Service (and contributor
to
Asia Times Online) confirms that "except for personal interference by
Khamenei in favor of a certain candidate, namely [*]Ali Larijani[*],
now the
leader's personal representative at the Supreme Council for National
Security, Rafsanjani, the chairman of the influential and powerful
Expediency Council, is likely to reoccupy the seat he held from 1989 to
1997, if not in the first round, but certainly in the second tour of
balloting". ...
> Show me an
> article that makes that claim. I think you are blowing smoke.
>
> "That's not the way international vote monitoring works. In general
> they pick where they want to observe."
>
> So you are claiming that it is the ideal and general way that it works.
> But you have no idea as to what happened in Iran.
I know there weren't any complaints that hit the press. And you know
any such complaints would be trumpeted in this newsgroup and I would be
there addressing them. No such complaints from the international team
were noted.
There was one polling station complaint by an internal government
official who was arrested for making a ruckus.
I seem to recall an article alluding to the international teams which
refered to the elections as nominal/normal.
>
> "Iran's Interior Ministry placed voter-turnout at 62 percent, a figure
> previously predicted by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, while
> the Iranian opposition Mojahedin-e Khalq (MeK), having unofficial
> monitors at 15,000 polling stations across the country, put
> voter-turnout at about 10 percent."
>
> http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=2554
You do know MeK is a terrorist organization don't you?
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/06/25/iran.claim/
Ah yes, that was the guy I mentioned above. He was freed from arrest
by "thanks to the interference of the Interior Ministry". I'm sure
he's a very interesting fellow.
We discussed this back on 20 Jan at:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.islam/browse_frm/thread/3204b093a9ef7f4d/fcabb948b867bef2?#fcabb948b867bef2
>
> "Massive election fraud is being alleged in Friday's vote. Shortly
> before the polls were to close, just seven million people had voted ?
> out of an eligible pool of 51 million. Voting, however, was then
> extended for several hours, which amazingly produced another 29 million
> ballots. "
>
> http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20050621-085511-5253r.htm
Here's a general report on the election and its background. I think
the above anti-Iranian *editorial* is 'mistaken' in its implication re:
turnout.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_presidential_election%2C_2005
>
>
> "Ali from Velenjak north of Tehran: I check the local poll 3-4 times
> today and there were no body at the polls. This is not a true election.
> "
>
> http://regimechangeiran.blogspot.com/2005/06/irans-election-feed-back-iranian.html
A "regimechangeiran" blog. Well, as I said earlier, I wonder if they
are any more reliable that US blogs reporting on elections in places
like Ohio?