Guest Jason Posted November 1, 2007 Posted November 1, 2007 In article <fgcuu8$v9f$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <61eii3he08kkrhtt4c3m18r482hi18lbet@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 17:06:34 -0800, in alt.atheism > >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> <Jason-3110071706350001@67-150-175-249.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>: > >>> In article <097ii35na1tem8b4ormhj2tsromi88daqp@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > >>> <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >>> > >>>> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:08:55 -0800, in alt.atheism > >>>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >>>> <Jason-3110071608550001@67-150-124-24.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>: > >>>>> In article <3p4ii3pu7vf0m7788kbvnjptfdbccnfmvh@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > >>>>> <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 12:13:37 -0400, in alt.atheism > >>>>>> Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in > >>>>>> <29ahi3houucl8cvb6s8a4no2mlaji3tn1l@4ax.com>: > >>>>>>> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 00:08:54 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> How many times has Iran attacked America? > >>>>>>> None. > >>>>>> Niggling little criticism. Attacking an embassy or consulate does count > >>>>>> as attacking a country (see flap about US bombing of Chinese Embassy). > >>>>>> Of course Jason is still way off base. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Hint: Defending isn't attacking. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> How many times has the US made UNPROVOKED attacks on the Middle East. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Hint: Many, many times, both directly and through clients - during one > >>>>>>> such attack we were counter-attacked. > >>>>> I also seem to recall that they attacked one of our war ships. > >>>> Which one? Before or after we shot one of their civiliam planes out of > >>>> the sky? > >>> I believe it was the USS Cole (spelling ??) > >> Please point to anywhere that claims that Iran attacked the USS Cole. As > >> far as I was aware, the concensus was that al Qaeda did it. > > > > http://archives.cnn.com/2000/US/11/01/cole.investigation/index.html > > <snip> > > > Although C-4, which contains the explosive material RDX (Research > > Development Explosive), is primarily manufactured in the United States, > > forms of C-4 are made in Austria, Iran and other countries, according to > > knowledgeable sources. > > > > But the sources provided no other evidence to suggest involvement by any > > of those countries. Two sources familiar with the Cole investigation say > > the C-4 finding has placed Iran on the radar for investigators, but one > > source said that suspecting Iran would be merely the result of "an > > educated guess." > > As usual, Jason can't read but simply asserts crap as fact that the > article doesn't say. It's an "educuated guess that Iran was involved." Quote
Guest Jason Posted November 1, 2007 Posted November 1, 2007 In article <2cqji3dvfaqfd32nr40b6ptqma8m867821@4ax.com>, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: > On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 21:19:36 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > >I recall reading that C-4 was probably made in Iran. > > It's also made in the US and dozens of other countries. There's > nothing in the article that says that THIS C-4 was made in Iran, so > Iran has nothing to do with the situation, other than in your use of > lies to create a reason for attacking them. > > Are you really George Bush posting under the nym "Jason"? You're > using the same tactics to justify invading Iran that he used to > justify invading Iraq. No, I actually work for the vice president ) Quote
Guest Jason Posted November 1, 2007 Posted November 1, 2007 In article <fgc7si$32j$02$7@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <l79hi3tc5n5ncp4440nt82vhvijdm0pqgj@4ax.com>, Al Klein > > <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: > > > >> On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 13:32:06 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> > >>> If you believe that the president of Iran is making nuclear materials to > >>> be used for peaceful purposes > >> The SCIENTISTS who have inspected the facilities KNOW he is. > > > > Nuclear materials can be used to make nuclear weapons. > > > > > > weeeell. No, not that easy. Plutonium can. Uranium 295 can. Uranium 298 > can't. Well, not fission bombs anyway. > > Plutonium has to be created. In a special reactor. Uranium 295 has to be > collected.... rather tedious process.... > > > Tokay Iran (with their oil money) can afford to purchase whatever is needed to make nuclear weapons. Quote
Guest Jason Posted November 1, 2007 Posted November 1, 2007 In article <54pji31ta07jh33rdanbvoppq180ku0nf5@4ax.com>, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: > On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 10:50:11 +0100, Tokay Pino Gris > <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > > >Jason wrote: > >> In article <l79hi3tc5n5ncp4440nt82vhvijdm0pqgj@4ax.com>, Al Klein > >> <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: > >> > >>> On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 13:32:06 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >>> > >>>> If you believe that the president of Iran is making nuclear materials to > >>>> be used for peaceful purposes > >>> The SCIENTISTS who have inspected the facilities KNOW he is. > >> > >> Nuclear materials can be used to make nuclear weapons. > >> > >> > > > >weeeell. No, not that easy. Plutonium can. Uranium 295 can. Uranium 298 > >can't. Well, not fission bombs anyway. > > > >Plutonium has to be created. In a special reactor. Uranium 295 has to be > >collected.... rather tedious process.... > > None of which Iran is even working toward today. > > But, what the hell, let's nuke them anyway, just to make sure that > they don't get any ideas. It's better that Christians kill everyone > than that Moslems kill anyone. > > (And for his next act in the Rubber Room, Jason will ...) One other option would be for the CIA to fund opposition groups within Iran such as the National Council for Resistance in Iran [NCRI]. They recently made this claim: The National Council for Resistance in Iran, or NCRI, claimed that Iran received blueprints for a Chinese-made bomb in the mid-1990s from the global nuclear technology network led by the Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan. The Khan network sold the same type of bomb blueprint to Libya, which has since renounced its nuclear ambitions. Quote
Guest Jason Posted November 1, 2007 Posted November 1, 2007 In article <fgc7u9$32j$02$8@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <MPG.2192bf729011ee7498a297@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>, James > > Beck <jim@reallykillersystems.com> wrote: > > > >> In article <Jason-3110071313440001@67-150-123-199.lsan.mdsg- > >> pacwest.com>, Jason@nospam.com says... > >>> In article <l79hi3tc5n5ncp4440nt82vhvijdm0pqgj@4ax.com>, Al Klein > >>> <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: > >>> > >>>> On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 13:32:06 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> If you believe that the president of Iran is making nuclear materials to > >>>>> be used for peaceful purposes > >>>> The SCIENTISTS who have inspected the facilities KNOW he is. > >>> Nuclear materials can be used to make nuclear weapons. > >>> > >> Ah, but it has to be CERTAIN materials. > > > > Iran either already has those CERTAIN materials or can easily buy those > > CERTAIN materials. > > > > > > Buy? Sure... but why build a nuclear power plant then? > > Oh, maybe power? > > Tokay So they can start an assembly line for the production of nuclear weapons. The goal is to buy the machines, computers, reactors, uranium and anything else that is needed to produce nuclear materials and nuclear weapons. Why waste money buying nuclear weapons when it is possible to produce their own nuclear weapons for many years to come. There are many cities in America and Europe that they want to nuke so many nuclear weapons will be needed. A farmer could buy all of the milk that is needed for his family but it would be much better if the farmer purchased 4 cows and produced enough milk not only for his family but also milk to sell to his neighbors. Quote
Guest Jason Posted November 1, 2007 Posted November 1, 2007 In article <4voji35p6v1m5jrr7pdriglb50mm39cvk1@4ax.com>, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: > On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 20:59:35 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > >In article <2scii3tknfkidvg4jcq8au3ak4v15d4ssu@4ax.com>, Al Klein > ><rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: > > > >> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:05:34 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> > >> >In article <MPG.2192bf729011ee7498a297@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>, James > >> >Beck <jim@reallykillersystems.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >> In article <Jason-3110071313440001@67-150-123-199.lsan.mdsg- > >> >> pacwest.com>, Jason@nospam.com says... > >> >> > In article <l79hi3tc5n5ncp4440nt82vhvijdm0pqgj@4ax.com>, Al Klein > >> >> > <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> > > On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 13:32:06 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> >> > > > >> >> > > >If you believe that the president of Iran is making nuclear > >materials to > >> >> > > >be used for peaceful purposes > >> >> > > > >> >> > > The SCIENTISTS who have inspected the facilities KNOW he is. > >> >> > > >> >> > Nuclear materials can be used to make nuclear weapons. > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> Ah, but it has to be CERTAIN materials. > >> > > >> >Iran either already has those CERTAIN materials > >> > >> Not at all. > >> > >> > or can easily buy those CERTAIN materials. > >> > >> Which they could still do if you bombed their nuclear facilities. > > > > We should bomb them again after they start rebuilding the facilities. > > > They can still buy nukes, and use them on Israel, even if we bombed > Iran into slag. Anyone willing to sell them nukes would also be > willing to sell them the delivery vehicles and the launch. So now you > want to nuke North Korea, Pakistan and most of the former Soviet > Union. I do hope you have your home on the moon fully furnished, > because you're going to sterilize THIS planet. They not only want to nuke Israel but hundreds of other cities in America and Europe so they want to buy whatever is needed to produce hundreds of nuclear weapons. Quote
Guest Jason Posted November 1, 2007 Posted November 1, 2007 In article <fgc7gk$32j$02$5@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <81klv4-drh.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > > <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> [snips] > >> > >> On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 18:38:05 -0800, Jason wrote: > >> > >>> RAFSANJANI SAYS MUSLIMS SHOULD USE NUCLEAR WEAPON AGAINST ISRAEL > >> Bush says we should start a war in Iraq! For no justifiable reason! > >> Which we can't get out of! Let's go kick some heathen butt! > >> > >> Yup, when religious loonies are in charge, you get problems. Which isn't > >> to say atheists in charge wouldn't have problems, either, but at least > >> they're not living an entire life of delusions of magic and pixies and > >> muddleheaded nonsense - nonsense which often induces horrific crimes in > >> its name. > >> > >> I'm sure you had a point, but other than demonstrating that religion > >> should not be allowed in office - which we're happy to agree with - the > >> point isn't clear. > >> > >> Oh, you mean it's okay if religion is in office as long as it's your > >> religion, just not if it's the other guy's religion? Nah, can't be. From > >> the outside, they're about equally meaningless - and about equally > >> dangerous. > > > > America had no desire to take over the world. > > Looks different from here, I must say. > > Otherwise, Americans would > > now have total control over Germany and Japan. > > Don't know about Japan, but we still have US military basis in Germany. > And Berlin was ruled by the four powers after the second World War until > 1989. So... What was your question again? > > The Muslims have made it > > clear that their end goal is to take over the world. > > Nope. That is IRAN. Not Islam per se. If you want to argue by religious > nutcases and their books.... the bible is no different from the Qu'ran > in that respect. > > Tokay We took over Germany and took over Japan. Did we keep ownership of those two countries? Quote
Guest James Beck Posted November 1, 2007 Posted November 1, 2007 In article <Jason-0111071243030001@66-53-214-172.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>, Jason@nospam.com says... > In article <fgc7si$32j$02$7@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > > > Jason wrote: > > > In article <l79hi3tc5n5ncp4440nt82vhvijdm0pqgj@4ax.com>, Al Klein > > > <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: > > > > > >> On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 13:32:06 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > >> > > >>> If you believe that the president of Iran is making nuclear materials to > > >>> be used for peaceful purposes > > >> The SCIENTISTS who have inspected the facilities KNOW he is. > > > > > > Nuclear materials can be used to make nuclear weapons. > > > > > > > > > > weeeell. No, not that easy. Plutonium can. Uranium 295 can. Uranium 298 > > can't. Well, not fission bombs anyway. > > > > Plutonium has to be created. In a special reactor. Uranium 295 has to be > > collected.... rather tedious process.... > > > > > > Tokay > > Iran (with their oil money) can afford to purchase whatever is needed to > make nuclear weapons. > So could a lot of countries. Should we just bomb them too??? There is a LOT of anti US sentiment out there, those little bastards could be plotting right now........ Jim Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted November 1, 2007 Posted November 1, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <fgc7gk$32j$02$5@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <81klv4-drh.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason >>> <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> [snips] >>>> >>>> On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 18:38:05 -0800, Jason wrote: >>>> >>>>> RAFSANJANI SAYS MUSLIMS SHOULD USE NUCLEAR WEAPON AGAINST ISRAEL >>>> Bush says we should start a war in Iraq! For no justifiable reason! >>>> Which we can't get out of! Let's go kick some heathen butt! >>>> >>>> Yup, when religious loonies are in charge, you get problems. Which isn't >>>> to say atheists in charge wouldn't have problems, either, but at least >>>> they're not living an entire life of delusions of magic and pixies and >>>> muddleheaded nonsense - nonsense which often induces horrific crimes in >>>> its name. >>>> >>>> I'm sure you had a point, but other than demonstrating that religion >>>> should not be allowed in office - which we're happy to agree with - the >>>> point isn't clear. >>>> >>>> Oh, you mean it's okay if religion is in office as long as it's your >>>> religion, just not if it's the other guy's religion? Nah, can't be. From >>>> the outside, they're about equally meaningless - and about equally >>>> dangerous. >>> America had no desire to take over the world. >> Looks different from here, I must say. >> >> Otherwise, Americans would >>> now have total control over Germany and Japan. >> Don't know about Japan, but we still have US military basis in Germany. >> And Berlin was ruled by the four powers after the second World War until >> 1989. So... What was your question again? >> >> The Muslims have made it >>> clear that their end goal is to take over the world. >> Nope. That is IRAN. Not Islam per se. If you want to argue by religious >> nutcases and their books.... the bible is no different from the Qu'ran >> in that respect. >> >> Tokay > > We took over Germany and took over Japan. Did we keep ownership of those > two countries? > > You have no idea about international politics, do you? "Ownership" my ass. The ages of occupation were long gone until the USA reinstituted them. What matters is who controls it, not who "owns" it. Until 1989, the four nations had effectively control over Berlin. They did not "own" it. But they controlled it. And that is the crucial thing. (Not the USA alone, mind you. FOUR nations. Two of them lost interest. Effectively withdrew. Two kept their control. The USSR and the USA. What for? Control, that's why. (It doesn't matter what the reasons were. Justified or not is not the question.) Who controls Iraq? Well, some might say "Chaos" but it is the USA. Do they "own" it? No. "Ownership" is useless in international politics, even meaningless. Only power is what counts, control. And control over one of the oil-countries in this world is no small matter. The USA occupied Iraq and now they control it. And until they can find a method to control it without military forces, they will keep controlling it WITH military forces. So, don't talk about stuff like you have any idea about it. Your track record in that respect is horrible. More than horrible, to tell the truth. Tokay -- Obstacles don't have to stop you. If you run into a wall, don't turn around and give up. Figure out how to climb it, go through it, or work around it. Michael Jordan Quote
Guest James Beck Posted November 1, 2007 Posted November 1, 2007 In article <Jason-0111071259500001@66-53-214-172.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>, Jason@nospam.com says... > In article <fgc7gk$32j$02$5@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > > > Jason wrote: > > > In article <81klv4-drh.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > > > <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >> [snips] > > >> > > >> On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 18:38:05 -0800, Jason wrote: > > >> > > >>> RAFSANJANI SAYS MUSLIMS SHOULD USE NUCLEAR WEAPON AGAINST ISRAEL > > >> Bush says we should start a war in Iraq! For no justifiable reason! > > >> Which we can't get out of! Let's go kick some heathen butt! > > >> > > >> Yup, when religious loonies are in charge, you get problems. Which isn't > > >> to say atheists in charge wouldn't have problems, either, but at least > > >> they're not living an entire life of delusions of magic and pixies and > > >> muddleheaded nonsense - nonsense which often induces horrific crimes in > > >> its name. > > >> > > >> I'm sure you had a point, but other than demonstrating that religion > > >> should not be allowed in office - which we're happy to agree with - the > > >> point isn't clear. > > >> > > >> Oh, you mean it's okay if religion is in office as long as it's your > > >> religion, just not if it's the other guy's religion? Nah, can't be. From > > >> the outside, they're about equally meaningless - and about equally > > >> dangerous. > > > > > > America had no desire to take over the world. > > > > Looks different from here, I must say. > > > > Otherwise, Americans would > > > now have total control over Germany and Japan. > > > > Don't know about Japan, but we still have US military basis in Germany. > > And Berlin was ruled by the four powers after the second World War until > > 1989. So... What was your question again? > > > > The Muslims have made it > > > clear that their end goal is to take over the world. > > > > Nope. That is IRAN. Not Islam per se. If you want to argue by religious > > nutcases and their books.... the bible is no different from the Qu'ran > > in that respect. > > > > Tokay > > We took over Germany and took over Japan. Did we keep ownership of those > two countries? > I guess those military bases we built were at their request. Here is a list of places we took recently : Palmyra Atoll Guam Northern Mariana Islands Puerto Rico United States Virgin Islands American Samoa Howland Island Jarvis Island Johnston Atoll Kingman Reef Petrel Islands Serranilla Bank Midway Islands Navassa Island Wake Island Let's not forget the entire US of A that was taken from its' inhabitants. Jim Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted November 1, 2007 Posted November 1, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <4voji35p6v1m5jrr7pdriglb50mm39cvk1@4ax.com>, Al Klein > <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: > >> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 20:59:35 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >>> In article <2scii3tknfkidvg4jcq8au3ak4v15d4ssu@4ax.com>, Al Klein >>> <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:05:34 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>> >>>>> In article <MPG.2192bf729011ee7498a297@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>, James >>>>> Beck <jim@reallykillersystems.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> In article <Jason-3110071313440001@67-150-123-199.lsan.mdsg- >>>>>> pacwest.com>, Jason@nospam.com says... >>>>>>> In article <l79hi3tc5n5ncp4440nt82vhvijdm0pqgj@4ax.com>, Al Klein >>>>>>> <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 13:32:06 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If you believe that the president of Iran is making nuclear >>> materials to >>>>>>>>> be used for peaceful purposes >>>>>>>> The SCIENTISTS who have inspected the facilities KNOW he is. >>>>>>> Nuclear materials can be used to make nuclear weapons. >>>>>>> >>>>>> Ah, but it has to be CERTAIN materials. >>>>> Iran either already has those CERTAIN materials >>>> Not at all. >>>> >>>>> or can easily buy those CERTAIN materials. >>>> Which they could still do if you bombed their nuclear facilities. >>> We should bomb them again after they start rebuilding the facilities. >>> >> They can still buy nukes, and use them on Israel, even if we bombed >> Iran into slag. Anyone willing to sell them nukes would also be >> willing to sell them the delivery vehicles and the launch. So now you >> want to nuke North Korea, Pakistan and most of the former Soviet >> Union. I do hope you have your home on the moon fully furnished, >> because you're going to sterilize THIS planet. > > They not only want to nuke Israel but hundreds of other cities in America > and Europe so they want to buy whatever is needed to produce hundreds of > nuclear weapons. First you wanted to blow them to kingdom come because the COULD try to manufacture fissionable material and now you want to blow them to kingdom come because they could BUY it. Whos next? Norway? Denmark? They have oil, you know.... and they don't like the USA particularly... Probably Germany? We also have some (tiny) oil resources. And we are not that fond of the USA anymore... And we certainly could buy the material, if we wanted to. AND we already have fission reactors. Some of them (IIRC) even produce plutonium. AND Europe is beginning to become a mayor player in economics these days. In fact, we outrank the USA in that respect. Military? No. We are not that stupid. Yet. To speculate into the future, if the USA keeps on the path it is going right now... we might have to become more warlike than we are. Second World War. We were the bad guys. Yep, we were. We learned. The hard way. The REAL hard way. And we'll hopefully never forget that lesson. (Apart from the fact that hardly any of the bozos from those times are still alive... but we, who are a few generations later... we STILL know. And we will not forget.) Maybe we learned that lesson too well. Another speculation into the future. Right now, the biggest threat to the world at large is not some rather medieval country in the middle east. No. The biggest threat to the world right now are the USA. The only remaining superpower. Europe might have to become the opposing pole. We'd prefer to do this through economics. Right now, we are on a good path to do just that. But the USA are not exactly reliable. A little bit like a maniac with a bazooka. Who knows what they will do? Tokay -- Obstacles don't have to stop you. If you run into a wall, don't turn around and give up. Figure out how to climb it, go through it, or work around it. Michael Jordan Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted November 1, 2007 Posted November 1, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <fgc7u9$32j$02$8@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <MPG.2192bf729011ee7498a297@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>, James >>> Beck <jim@reallykillersystems.com> wrote: >>> >>>> In article <Jason-3110071313440001@67-150-123-199.lsan.mdsg- >>>> pacwest.com>, Jason@nospam.com says... >>>>> In article <l79hi3tc5n5ncp4440nt82vhvijdm0pqgj@4ax.com>, Al Klein >>>>> <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 13:32:06 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> If you believe that the president of Iran is making nuclear materials to >>>>>>> be used for peaceful purposes >>>>>> The SCIENTISTS who have inspected the facilities KNOW he is. >>>>> Nuclear materials can be used to make nuclear weapons. >>>>> >>>> Ah, but it has to be CERTAIN materials. >>> Iran either already has those CERTAIN materials or can easily buy those >>> CERTAIN materials. >>> >>> >> Buy? Sure... but why build a nuclear power plant then? >> >> Oh, maybe power? >> >> Tokay > > So they can start an assembly line for the production of nuclear weapons. Nope. Not yet. Not on their own. > > The goal is to buy the machines, computers, reactors, uranium and anything > else that is needed to produce nuclear materials and nuclear weapons. Well, that is true for almost any country. Compared to what the running of a country actually does cost, the prices of nuclear weapons are peanuts. What you want to do? Nuke us all? > > Why waste money buying nuclear weapons when it is possible to produce > their own nuclear weapons for many years to come. They can't. The don't have the facilities to do that. There are many cities in > America and Europe that they want to nuke so many nuclear weapons will be > needed. Conjecture. I.E. no evidence. > > A farmer could buy all of the milk that is needed for his family but it > would be much better if the farmer purchased 4 cows and produced enough > milk not only for his family but also milk to sell to his neighbors. What bullshit is this example? The farmer could also buy a bazooka and kill his neighbor. Why make one on his own? Tokay -- Obstacles don't have to stop you. If you run into a wall, don't turn around and give up. Figure out how to climb it, go through it, or work around it. Michael Jordan Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted November 1, 2007 Posted November 1, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <fgc7si$32j$02$7@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <l79hi3tc5n5ncp4440nt82vhvijdm0pqgj@4ax.com>, Al Klein >>> <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 13:32:06 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>> >>>>> If you believe that the president of Iran is making nuclear materials to >>>>> be used for peaceful purposes >>>> The SCIENTISTS who have inspected the facilities KNOW he is. >>> Nuclear materials can be used to make nuclear weapons. >>> >>> >> weeeell. No, not that easy. Plutonium can. Uranium 295 can. Uranium 298 >> can't. Well, not fission bombs anyway. >> >> Plutonium has to be created. In a special reactor. Uranium 295 has to be >> collected.... rather tedious process.... >> >> >> Tokay > > Iran (with their oil money) can afford to purchase whatever is needed to > make nuclear weapons. > > WHAT do you argue? To nuke any country that can buy that stuff? Why not blow up the globe while you are at it? That would solve the problem once and for all. You have any notion how much running a country costs? You have any idea how much nuclear weapons are worth on the black market? Almost ANY country could buy them... You started out your silly argument by saying that iran builds nuclear facilities. NOW you accuse them that they can BUY the stuff. Who is next? Saudi Arabia? Turkey? Italy? Germany? Denmark? Tokay -- Obstacles don't have to stop you. If you run into a wall, don't turn around and give up. Figure out how to climb it, go through it, or work around it. Michael Jordan Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted November 1, 2007 Posted November 1, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <fgcuu8$v9f$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <61eii3he08kkrhtt4c3m18r482hi18lbet@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >>> <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >>> >>>> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 17:06:34 -0800, in alt.atheism >>>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >>>> <Jason-3110071706350001@67-150-175-249.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>: >>>>> In article <097ii35na1tem8b4ormhj2tsromi88daqp@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >>>>> <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:08:55 -0800, in alt.atheism >>>>>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >>>>>> <Jason-3110071608550001@67-150-124-24.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>: >>>>>>> In article <3p4ii3pu7vf0m7788kbvnjptfdbccnfmvh@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >>>>>>> <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 12:13:37 -0400, in alt.atheism >>>>>>>> Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in >>>>>>>> <29ahi3houucl8cvb6s8a4no2mlaji3tn1l@4ax.com>: >>>>>>>>> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 00:08:54 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> How many times has Iran attacked America? >>>>>>>>> None. >>>>>>>> Niggling little criticism. Attacking an embassy or consulate does count >>>>>>>> as attacking a country (see flap about US bombing of Chinese Embassy). >>>>>>>> Of course Jason is still way off base. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hint: Defending isn't attacking. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> How many times has the US made UNPROVOKED attacks on the Middle East. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hint: Many, many times, both directly and through clients - during one >>>>>>>>> such attack we were counter-attacked. >>>>>>> I also seem to recall that they attacked one of our war ships. >>>>>> Which one? Before or after we shot one of their civiliam planes out of >>>>>> the sky? >>>>> I believe it was the USS Cole (spelling ??) >>>> Please point to anywhere that claims that Iran attacked the USS Cole. As >>>> far as I was aware, the concensus was that al Qaeda did it. >>> http://archives.cnn.com/2000/US/11/01/cole.investigation/index.html >> <snip> >> >>> Although C-4, which contains the explosive material RDX (Research >>> Development Explosive), is primarily manufactured in the United States, >>> forms of C-4 are made in Austria, Iran and other countries, according to >>> knowledgeable sources. >>> >>> But the sources provided no other evidence to suggest involvement by any >>> of those countries. Two sources familiar with the Cole investigation say >>> the C-4 finding has placed Iran on the radar for investigators, but one >>> source said that suspecting Iran would be merely the result of "an >>> educated guess." >> As usual, Jason can't read but simply asserts crap as fact that the >> article doesn't say. > > It's an "educuated guess that Iran was involved." > > And because of an "educated guess" (You? educated? Don't be ridiculous) you want them nuked? Bullshit. Tokay -- Obstacles don't have to stop you. If you run into a wall, don't turn around and give up. Figure out how to climb it, go through it, or work around it. Michael Jordan Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted November 1, 2007 Posted November 1, 2007 Al Klein wrote: > On Thu, 1 Nov 2007 09:55:09 -0700, Kelsey Bjarnason > <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > >> [snips] >> >> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 20:39:04 -0400, Al Klein wrote: >> >>> We have NO trust in Bush. I'm surprised that so many so-called >>> "Christians" refuse to admit that Bush is a VERY DANGEROUS religious >>> nut. >> Ah, but you forget; he's _their_ religion, which means he is, by >> definition, both right and justified, as well as safe and sound and >> perfectly rational. >> >> Unlike believers in those other gods who are, by definition, unsafe, >> unsound and dangerous, because they believe in silly, unfounded, >> superstitious nonsense without a shred of justification, and those deities >> they believe in and books they follow incite them to violence. >> >> I trust every Christian reading the above will fail, absolutely, to get >> the point and actually apply it. > > I think there are still 3 intelligent Christians alive. Maybe 4. Ken Miller comes to mind. He claims to be a christian. How he does it, I don't know. But he claims it. Any others? Tokay -- Obstacles don't have to stop you. If you run into a wall, don't turn around and give up. Figure out how to climb it, go through it, or work around it. Michael Jordan Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted November 1, 2007 Posted November 1, 2007 On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 21:01:25 -0800, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-3110072102060001@66.53.221.39>: >In article <58eii318keku1r32ahb6ia7puij4j9oau8@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 17:10:34 -0800, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-3110071710340001@67-150-175-249.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>: >> >In article <7a7ii31q0i2sh54amv5o0av08c0q1cmd59@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> > >> >> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:07:28 -0800, in alt.atheism >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> <Jason-3110071607280001@67-150-124-24.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>: >> >> >In article <3t4ii3th1lc8t37l4frmmuhj3ls4amt8cp@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 00:16:50 -0800, in alt.atheism >> >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> >> <Jason-3110070016500001@66-53-216-130.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>: >> >> >> >In article <81klv4-drh.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason >> >> >> ><kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> [snips] >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 18:38:05 -0800, Jason wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > RAFSANJANI SAYS MUSLIMS SHOULD USE NUCLEAR WEAPON AGAINST ISRAEL >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Bush says we should start a war in Iraq! For no justifiable reason! >> >> >> >> Which we can't get out of! Let's go kick some heathen butt! >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Yup, when religious loonies are in charge, you get problems. >> >Which isn't >> >> >> >> to say atheists in charge wouldn't have problems, either, but >at least >> >> >> >> they're not living an entire life of delusions of magic and >pixies and >> >> >> >> muddleheaded nonsense - nonsense which often induces horrific >crimes in >> >> >> >> its name. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I'm sure you had a point, but other than demonstrating that religion >> >> >> >> should not be allowed in office - which we're happy to agree >with - the >> >> >> >> point isn't clear. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Oh, you mean it's okay if religion is in office as long as it's > your >> >> >> >> religion, just not if it's the other guy's religion? Nah, can't >> >be. From >> >> >> >> the outside, they're about equally meaningless - and about equally >> >> >> >> dangerous. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >America had no desire to take over the world. Otherwise, >Americans would >> >> >> >now have total control over Germany and Japan. The Muslims have made it >> >> >> >clear that their end goal is to take over the world. The Muslims >from the >> >> >> >Middle East are presently taking over the Sudan. >> >> >> > >> >> >> America had no such desire, but we are ruled by George Bush now and he >> >> >> chose to go to war, to conquer and occupy Iraq. That is imperialism, >> >> >> nothing else. >> >> > >> >> >If the rulers of Iran want America to leave that country, we will leave >> >> >that country. >> >> > >> >> We have occupied Iraq and made it clear that we aren't going anywhere. >> >> Even our hired thugs are allowed to murder Iraqis without being >> >> arrested. >> > >> >Please post an AP report indicating that the rulers of Iraq have decided >> >they no longer want our troops in Iraq. I have never read such a report. >> > >> You assume they have a choice in the matter. > >They had a vote about a year ago. > Did they get to vote on whether Blackwater mercenaries could murder Iraqis in cold blood and the Iraqi government couldn't do a thing about it? We can call it a democracy and we can call it a government, but they don't get to do anything that we don't approve. Stop deluding yourself. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted November 1, 2007 Posted November 1, 2007 On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 12:59:49 -0800, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-0111071259500001@66-53-214-172.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>: >In article <fgc7gk$32j$02$5@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris ><tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >> > In article <81klv4-drh.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason >> > <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >> [snips] >> >> >> >> On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 18:38:05 -0800, Jason wrote: >> >> >> >>> RAFSANJANI SAYS MUSLIMS SHOULD USE NUCLEAR WEAPON AGAINST ISRAEL >> >> Bush says we should start a war in Iraq! For no justifiable reason! >> >> Which we can't get out of! Let's go kick some heathen butt! >> >> >> >> Yup, when religious loonies are in charge, you get problems. Which isn't >> >> to say atheists in charge wouldn't have problems, either, but at least >> >> they're not living an entire life of delusions of magic and pixies and >> >> muddleheaded nonsense - nonsense which often induces horrific crimes in >> >> its name. >> >> >> >> I'm sure you had a point, but other than demonstrating that religion >> >> should not be allowed in office - which we're happy to agree with - the >> >> point isn't clear. >> >> >> >> Oh, you mean it's okay if religion is in office as long as it's your >> >> religion, just not if it's the other guy's religion? Nah, can't be. From >> >> the outside, they're about equally meaningless - and about equally >> >> dangerous. >> > >> > America had no desire to take over the world. >> >> Looks different from here, I must say. >> >> Otherwise, Americans would >> > now have total control over Germany and Japan. >> >> Don't know about Japan, but we still have US military basis in Germany. >> And Berlin was ruled by the four powers after the second World War until >> 1989. So... What was your question again? >> >> The Muslims have made it >> > clear that their end goal is to take over the world. >> >> Nope. That is IRAN. Not Islam per se. If you want to argue by religious >> nutcases and their books.... the bible is no different from the Qu'ran >> in that respect. >> >> Tokay > >We took over Germany and took over Japan. Did we keep ownership of those >two countries? > We limited our occupation and we didn't lie to anyone about not occupying them when we were. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted November 2, 2007 Posted November 2, 2007 On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 21:20:14 -0800, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-3110072120540001@66.53.221.39>: >In article <61eii3he08kkrhtt4c3m18r482hi18lbet@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 17:06:34 -0800, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-3110071706350001@67-150-175-249.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>: >> >In article <097ii35na1tem8b4ormhj2tsromi88daqp@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> > >> >> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:08:55 -0800, in alt.atheism >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> <Jason-3110071608550001@67-150-124-24.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>: >> >> >In article <3p4ii3pu7vf0m7788kbvnjptfdbccnfmvh@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 12:13:37 -0400, in alt.atheism >> >> >> Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in >> >> >> <29ahi3houucl8cvb6s8a4no2mlaji3tn1l@4ax.com>: >> >> >> >On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 00:08:54 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> >>How many times has Iran attacked America? >> >> >> > >> >> >> >None. >> >> >> >> >> >> Niggling little criticism. Attacking an embassy or consulate does count >> >> >> as attacking a country (see flap about US bombing of Chinese Embassy). >> >> >> Of course Jason is still way off base. >> >> >> >> >> >> >Hint: Defending isn't attacking. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >How many times has the US made UNPROVOKED attacks on the Middle East. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >Hint: Many, many times, both directly and through clients - during one >> >> >> >such attack we were counter-attacked. >> >> > >> >> >I also seem to recall that they attacked one of our war ships. >> >> >> >> Which one? Before or after we shot one of their civiliam planes out of >> >> the sky? >> > >> >I believe it was the USS Cole (spelling ??) >> >> Please point to anywhere that claims that Iran attacked the USS Cole. As >> far as I was aware, the concensus was that al Qaeda did it. > >http://archives.cnn.com/2000/US/11/01/cole.investigation/index.html > >WASHINGTON (CNN) -- C-4, an advanced plastic explosive, was used in the >attack on the USS Cole, according to Yemen's prime minister and sources >close to the U.S. investigation. > >The prime minister, Abdul Karim al-Ariani, told CNN the use of C-4 points >to what he called "an Afghan connection" but does not necessarily >implicate Osama bin Laden, the alleged mastermind of other attacks on U.S. >targets abroad. > >"I will only guess that such a thing could be organized by an Afghan >connection," the prime minister said. "But the question being raised, 'Is >it bin Laden?' I could not say yes or no." > >The United States and many other countries have signed a pact mandating >that plastic explosives be tagged with selected chemical marking agents to >facilitate their detection. > >That agreement was negotiated in the wake of the 1988 Pan Am Flight 103 >bombing and is aimed at combating the use of plastic explosives by >terrorists. >Iran also makes C-4 > >The FBI refused to comment on the results of its forensic analysis or any >other aspect of its continuing investigation, but well-placed sources >familiar with the probe confirmed C-4 was the explosive used. > >The sources said the finding narrows the investigation to which terrorist >groups -- including that of the Afghanistan-based bin Laden -- are >believed to have access to the military-style explosive. The finding >suggests the possibility of state-sponsored terrorism, sources said. > >Although C-4, which contains the explosive material RDX (Research >Development Explosive), is primarily manufactured in the United States, >forms of C-4 are made in Austria, Iran and other countries, according to >knowledgeable sources. > >But the sources provided no other evidence to suggest involvement by any >of those countries. Two sources familiar with the Cole investigation say >the C-4 finding has placed Iran on the radar for investigators, but one >source said that suspecting Iran would be merely the result of "an >educated guess." > >The sources stressed the investigation is still in the early stages, and >no one is predicting where it may ultimately lead. Bin Laden's network >remains on the list of potential suspects. > >Seventeen U.S. sailors were killed and more than three dozen others >injured in the October 12 attack. The explosion tore a 40-by-40 foot hole >in the side of the destroyer. > >Citing "credible threat information" against U.S. targets in Saudi Arabia >and Kuwait, all U.S. forces in those Persian Gulf countries have been >placed on the highest state of alert. >Interrogation progress reported > >The urgency of the Cole investigation has prompted the FBI to keep some >units in its crime lab operating around the clock. > >Explosives experts, metallurgists and other scientists are continuing to >analyze the extensive array of evidence brought back from the bomb-damaged >destroyer, the Port of Aden and other locations, including the house where >the bomb was believed to have been constructed. > >The Yemeni prime minister told CNN on Wednesday there is no question that >Yemeni citizens helped the bombers falsify their identity cards. But he >said there is now some question about whether Yemenis had helped the >attackers prepare their small boat for the bombing on the Cole. > >Sources familiar with the investigation did not dispute the prime >minister's statements. > >Yemeni and U.S. officials appear to be making progress toward resolving >their disagreements over how to proceed with the investigation. > >U.S. sources agree with the al-Ariani's statement to CNN that an >arrangement under discussion calls for FBI agents to be present as Yemeni >police question their own citizens. FBI agents would be allowed to write >down any follow-up questions and hand them to Yemeni investigators. > >"There are still a few matters to be resolved," said one U.S. official >Wednesday. The official said that in return for allowing the FBI presence >during questioning, the Yemeni government was looking for information from >the U.S., but the official would not say what was being requested. > >Yemeni law forbids the questioning of Yemeni citizens by authorities from >other countries. > >The FBI faced a similar situation in Saudi Arabia during the investigation >of the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing which killed 19 U.S. servicemen, sources >said. But they noted Yemen has so far been more flexible than the Saudi >authorities were. > >CNN Senior International Correspondent Walter Rodgers and The Associated >Press contributed to this report. > Since the article did not say that Iran had anything to do with it, you concluded that Iran did. If there were a God He would have killed you long ago for making him look bad. Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted November 2, 2007 Posted November 2, 2007 On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 23:40:22 +0100, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: >You started out your silly argument by saying that iran builds nuclear >facilities. NOW you accuse them that they can BUY the stuff. >Who is next? Saudi Arabia? Turkey? Italy? Germany? Denmark? Any non-Christian countries would be okay to Jason. If we destroy the world doing it, it's that much sooner that he'll be in heaven. -- Al at Webdingers dot com "My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures, have become clearer and stronger with advancing years and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them." - Abraham Lincoln Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted November 2, 2007 Posted November 2, 2007 On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 12:49:55 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >One other option would be for the CIA to fund opposition groups within >Iran such as the National Council for Resistance in Iran [NCRI]. One other option would be for us to keep our noses out of the internal affairs of other nations, like we want them to keep their noses out of ours. Do you think that just because you're you, you have (or your country has) the right to tell other countries how to run themselves? -- Al at Webdingers dot com "My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures, have become clearer and stronger with advancing years and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them." - Abraham Lincoln Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted November 2, 2007 Posted November 2, 2007 On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 12:56:49 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >In article <fgc7u9$32j$02$8@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris ><tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: >> Buy? Sure... but why build a nuclear power plant then? >> Oh, maybe power? >So they can start an assembly line for the production of nuclear weapons. You can't produce weapons in a power plant. >The goal is to buy the machines, computers, reactors, uranium and anything >else that is needed to produce nuclear materials and nuclear weapons. But buying the machines, computers, reactors, uranium won't give you what you need to produce nuclear weapons. You might as well buy lawn sprinklers. >Why waste money buying nuclear weapons when it is possible to produce >their own nuclear weapons for many years to come. With what? You can't produce weapons in a power plant, and that's what they're building. > There are many cities in >America and Europe that they want to nuke so many nuclear weapons will be >needed. Which they can't produce in a power plant. >A farmer could buy all of the milk that is needed for his family but it >would be much better if the farmer purchased 4 cows and produced enough >milk not only for his family but also milk to sell to his neighbors. But if he's building chickens, he's not going to get much milk out of them. Which part does he milk? The beak? Chicken spit isn't milk. Reactor fuel isn't weapons. -- Al at Webdingers dot com "My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures, have become clearer and stronger with advancing years and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them." - Abraham Lincoln Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted November 2, 2007 Posted November 2, 2007 On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 12:58:47 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >They not only want to nuke Israel but hundreds of other cities in America >and Europe so they want to buy whatever is needed to produce hundreds of >nuclear weapons. The US doesn't even have to buy nukes - we already have them. And we want to bomb Iran, Syria, North Korea, etc. So the world has justification for destroying the US - according to your logic. You've just made anti-US terrorism legal and right. -- Al at Webdingers dot com "My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures, have become clearer and stronger with advancing years and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them." - Abraham Lincoln Quote
Guest Christopher A.Lee Posted November 2, 2007 Posted November 2, 2007 On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 21:04:13 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: >On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 12:49:55 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >>One other option would be for the CIA to fund opposition groups within >>Iran such as the National Council for Resistance in Iran [NCRI]. > >One other option would be for us to keep our noses out of the internal >affairs of other nations, like we want them to keep their noses out of >ours. > >Do you think that just because you're you, you have (or your country >has) the right to tell other countries how to run themselves? He doesn't understand why we are disliked so much. Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted November 2, 2007 Posted November 2, 2007 On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 23:32:34 +0100, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: >First you wanted to blow them to kingdom come because the COULD try to >manufacture fissionable material and now you want to blow them to >kingdom come because they could BUY it. No, Jason's just like Bush - he just wants to destroy some non-Christian country. Any country will do - Iran, Syria, North Korea, Afghanistan. After all, they're just Moslems. -- Al at Webdingers dot com "My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures, have become clearer and stronger with advancing years and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them." - Abraham Lincoln Quote
Guest Charles & Mambo Duckman Posted November 2, 2007 Posted November 2, 2007 Jason wrote: >>>>>I also seem to recall that they attacked one of our war ships. >>>> >>>>So has Israel. >>> >>> >>>That is true but I don't remember the details. >> >>So, I am confused. Are we supposed to attack Israel, too? > > > No--they have no desire to take over the world or ever attack America. But Iran does? And Iraq did, too? Fascinating. -- Come down off the cross We can use the wood Tom Waits, Come On Up To The House Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.