Guest Charles & Mambo Duckman Posted November 2, 2007 Posted November 2, 2007 Jason wrote: > 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. Clearly, we have to nuke the farmer. Is he a Muslim? All the better. -- Come down off the cross We can use the wood Tom Waits, Come On Up To The House Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted November 2, 2007 Posted November 2, 2007 On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 12:38:39 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >In article <fgcuu8$v9f$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike ><prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >> 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." No, it's a conclusion in search of evidence. Because some idiot WANTS it to be Iran, it's his "educated guess". The "education" part is nonsense, since there absolutely no evidence of where the C-4 was made. There's no evidence that, even if it WAS made by Iran, the manufacturer or the country had any hand in using it. If an American soldier is killed in Iraq by a Russian AK-47 made in Russia, is Russia responsible for his death? I'll buy the "guess" part, though. Your justification for killing (at least) a few million people is A GUESS ? Typical Christian murderer - if you want to kill, you'll find - or make up - "evidence" to justify it. Are you sure that attacking Iran isn't a revelation you received from God? -- 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 12:36:41 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >I think there are still 3 or 4 intelligent atheists alive ) Jason, your claiming that you think is one of the funniest things I've heard in days - and I listen to stand-up comedians during my commute every day. You've been proving, almost daily, here in Usenet, that you don't have the ability to actually think. You spew. You regurgitate what your religion says. But you never think. -- 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 23:42:51 +0100, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: >Al Klein wrote: >> 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? My wife. My sister-in-law. My mother-in-law. Probably one priest I know. My wife, sister-in-law and mother-in-law are Christians. That's about the end of their religious involvement. The priest amazes me not because he's intelligent, but because he's a priest. He's too intelligent to fall for the nonsense. -- 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 12:40:29 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >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 ) > So does the president. -- 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 Jason Posted November 2, 2007 Posted November 2, 2007 In article <MPG.21941933f4a76f5e98a2a2@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>, James Beck <jim@reallykillersystems.com> wrote: > 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 No--only the countries that have a president that states: "Israel must be wiped off from the map of the world." In addition, that country must have nuclear weapons or nuclear facilities. We both know that nuclear missiles will allow the president of Iran to do exactly what he stated that he wants to do. 55 percent of Americans agree with me related to this issue. Quote
Guest Jason Posted November 2, 2007 Posted November 2, 2007 In article <hptki3pvvqss9cshtioh2cqoh8a45ml675@4ax.com>, 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? By following your plan, a nuclear missile will be fired at Israel in the near future. Quote
Guest Jason Posted November 2, 2007 Posted November 2, 2007 In article <fgdl0l$7vu$03$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > 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 Their plan is to make their own nuclear weapons. Of couse, they would still need to buy the raw materials needed make nuclear weapons. Quote
Guest Jason Posted November 2, 2007 Posted November 2, 2007 In article <pntki3lerepl5c21ecr6c8c533k77ee9ml@4ax.com>, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: > 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. Iran is the problem since they have a religious nut case as a president. If you don't believe me, read this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/01/14/wiran14.xml Divine mission' driving Iran's new leader By Anton La Guardia Last Updated: 12:33am GMT 15/01/2006 As Iran rushes towards confrontation with the world over its nuclear programme, the question uppermost in the mind of western leaders is "What is moving its President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to such recklessness?" Political analysts point to the fact that Iran feels strong because of high oil prices, while America has been weakened by the insurgency in Iraq. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad But listen carefully to the utterances of Mr Ahmadinejad - recently described by President George W Bush as an "odd man" - and there is another dimension, a religious messianism that, some suspect, is giving the Iranian leader a dangerous sense of divine mission. In November, the country was startled by a video showing Mr Ahmadinejad telling a cleric that he had felt the hand of God entrancing world leaders as he delivered a speech to the UN General Assembly last September. When an aircraft crashed in Teheran last month, killing 108 people, Mr Ahmadinejad promised an investigation. But he also thanked the dead, saying: "What is important is that they have shown the way to martyrdom which we must follow." The most remarkable aspect of Mr Ahmadinejad's piety is his devotion to the Hidden Imam, the Messiah-like figure of Shia Islam, and the president's belief that his government must prepare the country for his return. advertisement Telegraph - Menswear/Shoes One of the first acts of Mr Ahmadinejad's government was to donate about Quote
Guest Jason Posted November 2, 2007 Posted November 2, 2007 In article <51vki3h2c0f7a8r75hb7oh6tbjgvv2ucbs@4ax.com>, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: > On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 12:38:39 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > >In article <fgcuu8$v9f$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > ><prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > >> 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." > > No, it's a conclusion in search of evidence. Because some idiot WANTS > it to be Iran, it's his "educated guess". The "education" part is > nonsense, since there absolutely no evidence of where the C-4 was > made. There's no evidence that, even if it WAS made by Iran, the > manufacturer or the country had any hand in using it. If an American > soldier is killed in Iraq by a Russian AK-47 made in Russia, is Russia > responsible for his death? > > I'll buy the "guess" part, though. Your justification for killing (at > least) a few million people is A GUESS ? Typical Christian murderer > - if you want to kill, you'll find - or make up - "evidence" to > justify it. Are you sure that attacking Iran isn't a revelation you > received from God? The fact that Iran is making nuclear weapons is the main reaon the nuclear facilities should be destroyed ASAP. 55% of Americans agree with me. Quote
Guest Jason Posted November 2, 2007 Posted November 2, 2007 In article <k5qki3h3a4ipp37tb5e6hcedvn8m8tkaev@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > 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. Read the following statement which is from the above report. I agree that it is an educated guess that Iran was involved: >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." Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted November 2, 2007 Posted November 2, 2007 On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 18:34:41 -0800, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-0111071834420001@66-53-216-211.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>: .... >Read the following statement which is from the above report. I agree that >it is an educated guess that Iran was involved: > >>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." > Yes, they said they were speculating. Note that this was in 2000. Iran was not mentioned as responsible after this. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted November 2, 2007 Posted November 2, 2007 On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 18:19:13 -0800, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-0111071819140001@66-53-216-211.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>: >In article <hptki3pvvqss9cshtioh2cqoh8a45ml675@4ax.com>, 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? > >By following your plan, a nuclear missile will be fired at Israel in the >near future. > What nuclear missile? Your paranoid fantasies are hopeless. Quote
Guest Jason Posted November 2, 2007 Posted November 2, 2007 In article <fgdkp4$qd2$00$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > 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 The end goal of people like the president of Iran is to take over the world. Read this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/01/14/wiran14.xml Divine mission' driving Iran's new leader By Anton La Guardia Last Updated: 12:33am GMT 15/01/2006 As Iran rushes towards confrontation with the world over its nuclear programme, the question uppermost in the mind of western leaders is "What is moving its President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to such recklessness?" Political analysts point to the fact that Iran feels strong because of high oil prices, while America has been weakened by the insurgency in Iraq. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad But listen carefully to the utterances of Mr Ahmadinejad - recently described by President George W Bush as an "odd man" - and there is another dimension, a religious messianism that, some suspect, is giving the Iranian leader a dangerous sense of divine mission. In November, the country was startled by a video showing Mr Ahmadinejad telling a cleric that he had felt the hand of God entrancing world leaders as he delivered a speech to the UN General Assembly last September. When an aircraft crashed in Teheran last month, killing 108 people, Mr Ahmadinejad promised an investigation. But he also thanked the dead, saying: "What is important is that they have shown the way to martyrdom which we must follow." The most remarkable aspect of Mr Ahmadinejad's piety is his devotion to the Hidden Imam, the Messiah-like figure of Shia Islam, and the president's belief that his government must prepare the country for his return. advertisement Telegraph - Menswear/Shoes One of the first acts of Mr Ahmadinejad's government was to donate about Quote
Guest Jason Posted November 2, 2007 Posted November 2, 2007 In article <hduki3h0eldkf467n0qebbg0mrtv3li8ji@4ax.com>, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: > 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. Believe it or not, the plan is to make nuclear weapons. Google "Iran nuclear weapons" and you will probably get thousands of hits. You are living in a dream world if you believe that a nation that has hundreds of oil wells is spending millions of dollars to produce electric power. The truth is that the end goal is to make nuclear weapons--not produce electric power. Oil can be used to produce electric power. Quote
Guest Jason Posted November 2, 2007 Posted November 2, 2007 In article <MPG.21941c079170a94898a2a3@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>, James Beck <jim@reallykillersystems.com> wrote: > 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 Do we have control over Germany and Japan? Quote
Guest Jason Posted November 2, 2007 Posted November 2, 2007 In article <g93li3lj75hc5g420kgtb3f3gjemmvb5e8@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 18:19:13 -0800, in alt.atheism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-0111071819140001@66-53-216-211.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>: > >In article <hptki3pvvqss9cshtioh2cqoh8a45ml675@4ax.com>, 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? > > > >By following your plan, a nuclear missile will be fired at Israel in the > >near future. > > > What nuclear missile? Your paranoid fantasies are hopeless. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57465-2004Nov17.html washingtonpost.com Powell Says Iran Is Pursuing Bomb Evidence Cited of Effort to Adapt Missile By Robin Wright and Keith B. Richburg Washington Post Foreign Service Thursday, November 18, 2004; Page A01 SANTIAGO, Chile, Nov. 17 -- The United States has intelligence that Iran is working to adapt missiles to deliver a nuclear weapon, further evidence that the Islamic republic is determined to acquire a nuclear bomb, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said Wednesday. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted November 2, 2007 Posted November 2, 2007 On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 18:49:59 -0800, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-0111071849590001@66-53-216-211.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>: >In article <g93li3lj75hc5g420kgtb3f3gjemmvb5e8@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 18:19:13 -0800, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-0111071819140001@66-53-216-211.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>: >> >In article <hptki3pvvqss9cshtioh2cqoh8a45ml675@4ax.com>, 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? >> > >> >By following your plan, a nuclear missile will be fired at Israel in the >> >near future. >> > >> What nuclear missile? Your paranoid fantasies are hopeless. > >http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57465-2004Nov17.html >washingtonpost.com > >Powell Says Iran Is Pursuing Bomb >Evidence Cited of Effort to Adapt Missile > >By Robin Wright and Keith B. Richburg >Washington Post Foreign Service >Thursday, November 18, 2004; Page A01 > >SANTIAGO, Chile, Nov. 17 -- The United States has intelligence that Iran >is working to adapt missiles to deliver a nuclear weapon, further evidence >that the Islamic republic is determined to acquire a nuclear bomb, >Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said Wednesday. > Powell lied to us and resigned. What do I care what a liar for the Bush Administration said? Quote
Guest Jason Posted November 2, 2007 Posted November 2, 2007 In article <f34li317ifvnvvnvpfpfle3bq7iaaf8sj1@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 18:49:59 -0800, in alt.talk.creationism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-0111071849590001@66-53-216-211.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>: > >In article <g93li3lj75hc5g420kgtb3f3gjemmvb5e8@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 18:19:13 -0800, in alt.atheism > >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> <Jason-0111071819140001@66-53-216-211.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>: > >> >In article <hptki3pvvqss9cshtioh2cqoh8a45ml675@4ax.com>, 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? > >> > > >> >By following your plan, a nuclear missile will be fired at Israel in the > >> >near future. > >> > > >> What nuclear missile? Your paranoid fantasies are hopeless. > > The president of Iran is a religious nut case. Why do you trust him with nuclear-capable missiles or nuclear materials? Read this CBS news story: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/31/world/main1460846.shtml Iranian Shahab-3 ballistic missiles roll past during a military parade last September in Tehran. An Iranian military official announced on Friday, March 31, 2006 that the country has successfully tested a nuclear-capable missile that can avoid radar. (AFP Photo) CBS News Foreign Affairs Consultant explains what the UN's declarative statememt to Iran means and what it could lead to in the future. (CBS/AP) Iran's successful test of a nuclear-capable missile demonstrates its "very active and aggressive military program" that is worrisome to the world, the State Department said Friday. The announcement in Tehran said the missile's range would depend on the weight of its warhead. Iran's air force chief, Gen. Hossein Salami, said independently guided payloads could hit several targets simultaneously. State Department deputy spokesman Adam Ereli said he had no technical details on the test firing, but "I think it demonstrates that Iran has a very active and aggressive military program under way." The description, he said, includes "efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction, as well as delivery systems." "I think Iran's military posture, military development effort, is of concern to the international community," Ereli said. Evidence, he said, "is the kind of consensus you're seeing with regard to their nuclear program as well as other nonproliferation concerns." "Iran has reacted with defiance to the Security Council reprimand," says CBS News foreign affairs analyst Pamela Falk from the United Nations, "and coupled with its testing of radar-zapping missiles, Iran's threats are becoming more tangible." After weeks of difficult negotiations, the U.N. Security Council asked the United Nations' nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, to report back in 30 days whether Iran was complying with demands to stop enriching uranium. Enrichment is used in civilian nuclear power, which is what Iran says it nuclear program is for, but can be increased to a level usable only in the manufacture of nuclear weapons. The Security Council statement omitted any mention of sanctions, which the United States had sought. From Cancun, Mexico, where he is meeting with the leaders of Mexico and Canada, President Bush emphasized opposition to Iran's nuclear program and said the world was united with Washington. "There is common agreement that the Iranians should not have a nuclear weapon, the capacity to make a nuclear weapon or the knowledge to make a nuclear weapon," the president said. "The reason there's common agreement is because the Iranian government with such a weapon as it's now constituted would pose a serious threat to world security.". He declined to say whether the United States would seek sanctions against Iran. Mr. Bush did note that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was in Europe trying to build a consensus with allies on the next steps. Also, Israel said the Iranian announcement is cause for international concern. Iran is showing a video clip of the launch of a missile that it says can duck radar, avoid anti-missile weaponry and hit several targets at once with multiple warheads. The disclosure comes at the same time that Tehran says it will keep enriching uranium Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted November 2, 2007 Posted November 2, 2007 [snips] On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 18:17:31 -0800, Jason wrote: > We both know that nuclear missiles will allow the president of Iran to do > exactly what he stated that he wants to do. > > 55 percent of Americans agree with me related to this issue. Which means that approximately 135,512,976 people in your own country disagree with you. Never mind other countries. If it were anywhere near as clear-cut as you seem to think, why do almost half of the people in your own country disagree? -- The first Christians (yes, going back even to the time of Jesus Christ) were Protestants. -- Ken Young [telling us all he knows about Christianity.] Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted November 2, 2007 Posted November 2, 2007 [snips] On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 18:27:05 -0800, Jason wrote: >> 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. > Iran is the problem since they have a religious nut case as a president. Again: so does the US, and they have thousands of missiles ready to go now , plus a long history of the conquests you whine about, plus they're the only nation to ever use nukes in combat. Why, then, are you not screaming about them? -- “Hi, Laurie. Your favorite nightmare here.” -- Marty Leipzig Quote
Guest Jason Posted November 2, 2007 Posted November 2, 2007 In article <h7rqv4-ou2.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > [snips] > > On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 18:17:31 -0800, Jason wrote: > > > We both know that nuclear missiles will allow the president of Iran to do > > exactly what he stated that he wants to do. > > > > 55 percent of Americans agree with me related to this issue. > > Which means that approximately 135,512,976 people in your own country > disagree with you. Never mind other countries. > > If it were anywhere near as clear-cut as you seem to think, why do almost > half of the people in your own country disagree? Because they don't know what 55 percent of the American people knows. Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted November 2, 2007 Posted November 2, 2007 [snips] On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 12:36:41 -0800, Jason wrote: >> I think there are still 3 intelligent Christians alive. Maybe 4. > > I think Then why do you persist in repeatedly showing conclusive evidence to the contrary? -- Johnny, you really must realize that without any evidence to support your claims, what you say is indistinguishable from the ramblings of a madman, save that your mental illness is socially acceptable. -- Tyler A. Wunder Quote
Guest cactus Posted November 2, 2007 Posted November 2, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <srdfv4-bu1.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > >> [snips] >> >> On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 14:10:24 -0700, Jason wrote: >> >>>> (Sorry, I am pissed. And my bullshit-tolerance is at ZERO. And this >>>> idiot is way past that) >>> A million years from now--you may be saying over and over and over again: >>> >>> I was warned about hell and I failed to do anything about it. >> Funny... I've warned you about heaven, but you fail, completely, to even >> try to understand what's said to you. So in a million years, you could be >> sitting there saying, over and over again, "I was warned about heaven and >> never did anything about it." >> >> Of course, being a good, ethical person, I would never wish the horrors of >> heaven on you, even an imaginary one I don't, as an atheist, ascribe to. > > Would you prefer to spend eternity in heaven or in hell? My choice would > be heaven--what is your choice? > > As Mark Twain put it, "Heaven for the weather, Hell for the company." Quote
Guest cactus Posted November 2, 2007 Posted November 2, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <5om7l7Fnefo1U1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" > <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> >> >> snip >>> But what if you are wrong and I am right? >> But what if I'm right and you're wrong? > > Our bodies will be eaten by worms and that will be the end of our existence. > > If you are wrong, I will be spending eternity in heaven and you will be > spending eternity in hell--unless you become a Christian before you die. > > If someone else was right, who knows where any of us will be? 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.