Proof Iran IS a threat!

bhkad · Jul 11, 2008

Bodhisattva said:
I am Conservative.
I agreed with Summerwind.
Can you make a post without referencing Liberals or their Liberal "Agenda" please?

I agree with you sometimes, Bodhisattva, but Summerwind's positions are too often detestable to me.

I think Vader is giving some posters the benefit of the doubt when he calls them," Liberals."

Some of them may be actual Jihadists and their knowing supporters.

But it's impossible to know the truth. So, "Liberal" is the most damning identity that can be alleged in polite company.

But just as we can't prove who might be a real Jihadist unless they confess, neither can we know that Vader's assertions are off the mark unless those people prove they are or aren't.

CaptainCourtesy · Jul 11, 2008

Moderator's Warning:

Obvious Child and Vader. Stop the personal attacks towards each other or their will be further consequences.

bhkad · Jul 11, 2008

independent_thinker2002 said:
Which Amendment should we abolish to conquer them?

For some we shouldn't be quite so ambitious. We might start with Reading Is Fundamental.

Read this.

Rep. Sue Myrick's “Wake Up America” Agenda
(Please Note, this is Rep. Myrick's own agenda. This is not the agenda of the Congressional Anti-Terrorism Caucus)

1. Will call for a government investigation of all US military chaplains who were approved by Abdurahman Alamoudi.

2. Will call for a government investigation of all US prison chaplains who were approved by Abdurahman Alamoudi.

3. Will call for the Government Accounting Office (GAO) to investigate the selection process of Arabic translators in the FBI and DoD.

4. Will call for the Internal Revenue Service to investigate the Council on American-Islamic Relations’ (CAIR) 501(c)(3) non-profit status which restricts “lobbying on behalf of a foreign government”.

5. Introduce a bill to make the preaching, publication, or distribution of materials that call for the death of American citizens, attacks on the United States Government or Armed Forces, or the financing of the means and/or operations to accomplish these acts, acts of sedition and/or solicitation of treason.

Background/Media Pack Points 1-5

6. Will call on the Government Accountability Office to conduct an audit to verify the total sovereign wealth fund investment in the United States.

7. Will attempt to cancel scholarship student visa program with Saudi Arabia until they reform their textbooks.

8. Will introduce a bill to restrict R-1/R-2 religious visas for imams who come from countries that do not allow reciprocal visits by non-Muslim clergy.

9. Will introduce a bill to cancel contracts to train Saudi police and other security forces in US Counterterrorism tactics until the Saudi’s certify the prosecution of Al Qaeda financiers, like Yasin al-Kadi, and the detention of repatriated Guantanamo terrorists that keep being released into the general population after being “rehabilitated”.

10. Will introduce or sponsor a bill to block the sale of sensitive military munitions, especially Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAMs), to Saudi Arabia.

Background/Media Pack Points 6-10

Get updates on Rep. Myrick's Agenda by signing up for her eNewsletter here.

New Page 1

Bodi · Jul 11, 2008

Originally Posted by bhkad
I agree with you sometimes, Bodhisattva, but Summerwind's positions are too often detestable to me.

Agreeing with me is wise...

I think Vader is giving some posters the benefit of the doubt when he calls them," Liberals." Some of them may be actual Jihadists and their knowing supporters.

Perhaps... with the Internet, one can never be absolutely sure. But I feel that in most cases, 99.99%... the term is just thrown about to be petty and piss people off.

But it's impossible to know the truth. So, "Liberal" is the most damning identity that can be alleged in polite company.

But Liberals are not always wrong. My wife is Liberal... while I am decidedly Conservative. They just have a different take and hope for the best regardless of the danger. That is not always good, but it is good to think about the good that can be had. Sometimes focusing on the negative creates what you fear most.

But just as we can't prove who might be a real Jihadist unless they confess, neither can we know that Vader's assertions are off the mark unless those people prove they are or aren't.

How does one "prove" that they aren't what one claims they are?

I have been called many things by extremists on this forum that are inaccurate... how do I defend myself? I tell the truth and the assholes that be don't care. Not you or he, but them...

I agree with you and Vadar on many things... I just think that there is a more constructive way to go about informing people.

bhkad · Jul 11, 2008

Bodhisattva said:
Agreeing with me is wise...

Except when it isn't.

Bodhisattva said:
But Liberals are not always wrong. My wife is Liberal... while I am decidedly Conservative. They just have a different take and hope for the best regardless of the danger. That is not always good, but it is good to think about the good that can be had. Sometimes focusing on the negative creates what you fear most.

And because it IS the internet we are talking about and many things can be seen accurately from varying points of view, so can the terms, Liberal and Conservative, take on different meanings depending on our orientation.

Osama bin Laden might be said to be a Conservative.

Bodhisattva said:
How does one "prove" that they aren't what one claims they are?

You have never seen the film, "The Crying Game"?

Bodhisattva said:
I have been called many things by extremists on this forum that are inaccurate... how do I defend myself? I tell the truth and the assholes that be don't care. Not you or he, but them...

I seem to recall getting the feeling some time ago that you shifted your political orientation here and began arguing as a Bush supporting Conservative. Am I mistaken? What will one find with a little research into your earlier posts?

That matter/question aside, you can only keep track of the doubters. And I mean actually keep their names and what they said and a copy of their posts and the link in a file. That way, when the truth emerges and they are convinced that you are what you say you are you can remind them how they were previously certain and now are proved wrong. That will go a long way in eroding confidence in their future assertions and will dissuade anyone looking to mess with you again unless they are willing to wager their public credibility.

Bodhisattva said:
I agree with you and Vadar on many things... I just think that there is a more constructive way to go about informing people.

Have you ever seen the Spanish-born, Las Vegas entertainer, (singer, actress and one of the world's greatest Flamenco guitarists), Charo, ("cuchi-cuchi") on TV?

Anyway, she has lived in the USA since the mid-1960's and she speaks English with such an accent that you'd think she just got off the boat.

That's just the way she communicates.

Vader is a fine poster and a fine American. He communicates the way he communicates. He asks no one to grant him any favors or cut him any slack. Nor does he, from what I can tell, spare anyone his frank opinions. He speaks his mind and takes and delivers the lumps that we all do as part of the game we play here.

Thorgasm · Jul 11, 2008

bhkad said:
I agree with you sometimes, Bodhisattva, but Summerwind's positions are too often detestable to me.

I think Vader is giving some posters the benefit of the doubt when he calls them," Liberals."

Some of them may be actual Jihadists and their knowing supporters.

But it's impossible to know the truth. So, "Liberal" is the most damning identity that can be alleged in polite company.

But just as we can't prove who might be a real Jihadist unless they confess, neither can we know that Vader's assertions are off the mark unless those people prove they are or aren't.

Then why do you associate with "actual Jihadists and their knowing supporters"?

Tashah · Jul 11, 2008

independent_thinker2002 said:
Then why do you associate with "actual Jihadists and their knowing supporters"?

Know thy enemy... Sun Tzu

Thorgasm · Jul 11, 2008

Tashah said:
Know thy enemy... Sun Tzu

But doesn't that make him a "fellow traveler"? :rofl

Some partisans would say that your quoting of Sun Tzu may be evidence that you may be in bed with China.:2razz:

Tashah · Jul 11, 2008

independent_thinker2002 said:
But doesn't that make him a "fellow traveler"? :rofl

Some partisans would say that your quoting of Sun Tzu may be evidence that you may be in bed with China.:2razz:

As any military commander will agree, it is critical to enter into and destroy an enemy's “command loop”. To facilitate this, one must know the enemy.

Vader · Jul 11, 2008

Bodhisattva said:
I am Conservative.
I agreed with Summerwind.
Can you make a post without referencing Liberals or their Liberal "Agenda" please?

Then you should be ashamed of yourself. You sided with the left and that is suspect to say the least.

Vader · Jul 11, 2008

bhkad said:
I agree with you sometimes, Bodhisattva, but Summerwind's positions are too often detestable to me.

I think Vader is giving some posters the benefit of the doubt when he calls them," Liberals."

Some of them may be actual Jihadists and their knowing supporters.

But it's impossible to know the truth. So, "Liberal" is the most damning identity that can be alleged in polite company.

But just as we can't prove who might be a real Jihadist unless they confess, neither can we know that Vader's assertions are off the mark unless those people prove they are or aren't.

Indeed.

I have thought the same to many times to count.

Vader · Jul 11, 2008

Bodhisattva said:
Agreeing with me is wise...

Perhaps... with the Internet, one can never be absolutely sure. But I feel that in most cases, 99.99%... the term is just thrown about to be petty and piss people off.

But Liberals are not always wrong. My wife is Liberal... while I am decidedly Conservative. They just have a different take and hope for the best regardless of the danger. That is not always good, but it is good to think about the good that can be had. Sometimes focusing on the negative creates what you fear most.

How does one "prove" that they aren't what one claims they are?

I have been called many things by extremists on this forum that are inaccurate... how do I defend myself? I tell the truth and the assholes that be don't care. Not you or he, but them...

I agree with you and Vadar on many things... I just think that there is a more constructive way to go about informing people.

Yes, there is, and I sometimes get a touch ... nasty ... when it comes to dealing with those who cannot tell a threat from a hole in the ground.

Your point therein is noted.

Thorgasm · Jul 11, 2008

Tashah said:
As any military commander will agree, it is critical to enter into and destroy an enemy's “command loop”. To facilitate this, one must know the enemy.

I know, I was joking. You should have dropped the White House this useful nugget of information in 2003.

Bodi · Jul 11, 2008

Vader said:
Then you should be ashamed of yourself. You sided with the left and that is suspect to say the least.

I am extremely proud of not limiting myself by thinking independently and arriving at the best solution possible regardless of political, religious, cultural, etc. affiliations. :2razz:

Bodi · Jul 11, 2008

Vader said:
Yes, there is, and I sometimes get a touch ... nasty ... when it comes to dealing with those who cannot tell a threat from a hole in the ground.

Your point therein is noted.

"Iran" is a threat... just like the "USA" is...
"Iranians" are not a threat... just like my daughters and I are not...

If we let leaders lead us down paths of destruction, then we should all be ashamed.

obvious Child · Jul 11, 2008

bhkad said:
You don't know this.

More accurately, we don't know anything. As Socrates stated, "We believe much, yet know nothing."

However, we can deduce based upon the facts what is most likely verse what is merely possible.

You can't read the signs accurately. You wouldn't/won't admit the truth if/because it didn't/doesn't support your allegiance to Iran/Islamic extremism.

And it's "situation."

lol. Was that meant to be a joke?

Explain to me how Iran would use an missile that would instantly incriminate them as the aggressors. Furthermore, explain to me why they would use it against Israel when they cannot deter the US from a secondary attack. Furthermore, if you can manage to do that (extremely unlikely), explain to me why they would choose to use a delivery system that has an insane amount of Gs and shocks that would likely reduce the reliability of a crude weapon to Zero.

Iran, if it is going to nuke Israel, would do so without a missile. As stated before, all one needs is a donkey pulling a cart.

It is not my fault you do not understand the basics mechanics. In the future attacking someone who does when your understanding is in the area of the zero, is a foolish method of proving they are wrong.

bhkad · Jul 11, 2008

obvious Child said:
More accurately, we don't know anything. As Socrates stated, "We believe much, yet know nothing."

However, we can deduce based upon the facts what is most likely verse what is merely possible.

lol. Was that meant to be a joke?

Explain to me how Iran would use an missile that would instantly incriminate them as the aggressors. Furthermore, explain to me why they would use it against Israel when they cannot deter the US from a secondary attack. Furthermore, if you can manage to do that (extremely unlikely), explain to me why they would choose to use a delivery system that has an insane amount of Gs and shocks that would likely reduce the reliability of a crude weapon to Zero.

Iran, if it is going to nuke Israel, would do so without a missile. As stated before, all one needs is a donkey pulling a cart.

It is not my fault you do not understand the basics mechanics. In the future attacking someone who does when your understanding is in the area of the zero, is a foolish method of proving they are wrong.

As I said it is folly to focus on any one method of delivery, be it donkey cart, suitcase nuke, airborne missile or some other method of attack. You can major in the basic mechanics of nuclear fission or even rocket science and yet not see the most important BIG picture unless you know what the Iranian Mullahs and Ahmadinejad want. And you must understand their belief system.

When you understand these answers only then will any of the other pieces of the puzzle fit into place or even make sense.

When you understand their Messianic belief system then you will be forced to totally re-think your position.

By the way, understanding the BIG picture also gives one a better perspective on why John McCain has so much support.

He understands what the Iranians want and he knows why theye are doing what they are doing and that is why he sent the message, not so much to the American people as to the Iranian leadership, that we are willing to maintain a presence in Iraq indefinitely.

It's like in baseball when the 3rd baseman fields the hot grounder but before throwing out the batter at 1st base he looks the runner on 3rd back to the base to prevent his trying to score.

obvious Child · Jul 11, 2008

bhkad said:
Here's what Robert Spencer says about the subject.

The problem is that it ignores Iran's history from the top down view. The leaders of Iran have always sent someone else to die for their agenda. Like all tyrants, they never risk themselves or their own power. Using a nuclear weapon would instantly place themselves and their power at risk. There is a reason North Korea won't use its nuclear weapon first. The goal of tyrants is to stay in power. Using a nuclear weapon that can easily be traced back is a surefire way to eliminate one's self.

And this is from March of 2006, suggesting that depending on what the Mullahs and Ahmadinejad decided, nuclear weapons could be delivered in any number of ways and to guard against one way and not the others would be folly.

Of course nuclear weapons can be delivered in all sorts of ways. That doesn't mean we blow our money on defending against the least likely method of attack. One of the easiest is a donkey with a cart.

And that doesn't even take into account the supersonic wave skimming missiles they have which could conceivably take out one of our carriers in the Gulf due to it's speed and stealth.

Which they have had since the 70s. Silkworms and sunburns aren't new and would require a feat of engineering from Iran to miniaturize a nuke to fit on. Israel spent quite some time and quite a pretty penny to mount a nuke on a tomahawk, But if you're worried about nuclear weapons, worry about the Granit. But last I recall, Russia hasn't let any of those out of their hands. And then there is the issue of reliability on a missile experiencing huge amounts of vibrations. Crude weapons, such as the type Iran would build don't go well with a super sonic weapon. If they really wanted to attack us, they'd simply put a nuke into a cargo container lined with lead and put a suicide bomber in it to ensure it went off. Load it from a French or British port and a month later when it comes into port, boom. High reliability, easy delivery, cheap. Why bother with missiles?

You can't hit what you don't know is coming at you. And when you find out it's coming at you you can't hit it if you don't have enough time to gear up your defensive systems.

Of course. Hence why the Strait of Hormuz is always a dicey crossing.

Nor does it address the fact that the USA nor any of our allies have ever had, in combat OR in practice, the occasion to defend against hundreds of missiles at once.

No one has, except maybe the Germans during the Soviet Salvos of Kursk. Still, not likely the way a nuke would come.

The implications of this are profound.

Why? Iran had similar non-nuclear capacities before. Nothing really has changed.

obvious Child · Jul 11, 2008

bhkad said:
As I said it is folly to focus on any one method of delivery, be it donkey cart, suitcase nuke, airborne missile or some other method of attack. You can major in the basic mechanics of nuclear fission or even rocket science and yet not see the most important BIG picture unless you know what the Iranian Mullahs and Ahmadinejad want. And you must understand their belief system.

So let's start eliminating the least likely and spend money on defending from the most likely. If is a folly to spend money on defending from the least likely form of attack and ignore the most likely.

When you understand their Messianic belief system then you will be forced to totally re-think your position.

and if you bothered to look at their history, you'd rethink yours.

By the way, understanding the BIG picture also gives one a better perspective on why John McCain has so much support.

You do realize that McCain and Obama are effectively the same on nuclear proliferation? If you strip Iran of its nuclear weapons, their capacity to do damage is minimal. I made a post mixing in quotes from both of them. Without Google, it's impossible to tell who said what.

He understands what the Iranians want and he knows why theye are doing what they are doing and that is why he sent the message, not so much to the American people as to the Iranian leadership, that we are willing to maintain a presence in Iraq indefinitely.

Does he really?

Care to discuss the Grand Bargain the Mullahs sent to GWB?

And I have a hard time accepting your argument when McCain called Iran a greater threat then what the USSR posed.

SERIOUSLY.

bhkad · Jul 11, 2008

obvious Child said:
Care to discuss the Grand Bargain the Mullahs sent to GWB?

And I have a hard time accepting your argument when McCain called Iran a greater threat then what the USSR posed.

SERIOUSLY.

Start a new thread for that subject.

The Koran says that war is deceit. And to get official sanction by the United States as a legitimate regional power would be like the US Government making a deal with known criminals in order to get a non-aggression agreement.

The agreement would not prevent the criminals from acting through proxies to do as they wish and in the opening days, weeks and months, when the US was showing good faith the criminals could be taking advantage of our earnest attempt to abide by the agreement. And when it was clear to all that the criminals were taking advantage of our naivete we would pull out of the deal, naturally. But the damage would be done. AND months from now supporters of the Iran and bashers of America would always be able to say that Iran proposed a peace treaty but the US pulled out.

Yes. Start a new thread on this.

Gladiator · Jul 11, 2008

Why doesn't the US just carry out Military/CIA incursions into Iran, and take out what they don't like? Iran has not reported any US incrusions or casualties so far, have they?

Vader · Jul 12, 2008

obvious Child said:
The problem is that it ignores Iran's history from the top down view. The leaders of Iran have always sent someone else to die for their agenda. Like all tyrants, they never risk themselves or their own power. Using a nuclear weapon would instantly place themselves and their power at risk. There is a reason North Korea won't use its nuclear weapon first. The goal of tyrants is to stay in power. Using a nuclear weapon that can easily be traced back is a surefire way to eliminate one's self.

Of course nuclear weapons can be delivered in all sorts of ways. That doesn't mean we blow our money on defending against the least likely method of attack. One of the easiest is a donkey with a cart.

Which they have had since the 70s. Silkworms and sunburns aren't new and would require a feat of engineering from Iran to miniaturize a nuke to fit on. Israel spent quite some time and quite a pretty penny to mount a nuke on a tomahawk, But if you're worried about nuclear weapons, worry about the Granit. But last I recall, Russia hasn't let any of those out of their hands. And then there is the issue of reliability on a missile experiencing huge amounts of vibrations. Crude weapons, such as the type Iran would build don't go well with a super sonic weapon. If they really wanted to attack us, they'd simply put a nuke into a cargo container lined with lead and put a suicide bomber in it to ensure it went off. Load it from a French or British port and a month later when it comes into port, boom. High reliability, easy delivery, cheap. Why bother with missiles?

Of course. Hence why the Strait of Hormuz is always a dicey crossing.

No one has, except maybe the Germans during the Soviet Salvos of Kursk. Still, not likely the way a nuke would come.

Why? Iran had similar non-nuclear capacities before. Nothing really has changed.

Why are you defending Iran's nuclear program? WHY? Have you ever considered how bad that makes you sound?

Seriously.

:mrgreen:

Bodi · Jul 12, 2008

Bodhisattva said:
I am extremely proud of not limiting myself by thinking independently and arriving at the best solution possible regardless of political, religious, cultural, etc. affiliations. :2razz:

That is something to be proud of... :2razz:

"Iran" is a threat... just like the "USA" is...
"Iranians" are not a threat... just like my daughters and I are not...

If we let leaders lead us down paths of destruction, then we should all be ashamed.

That is a great point Bodi...

cherokee · Jul 13, 2008

Doesn't this just make you feel warm and fuzzy inside?

Official says Iran missiles no threat

Snip...
Kowsari said Iran has never pursued nuclear energy for non-peaceful purposes because "our religion and Islamic morals ban it and the (the U.N. regulatory agency) has necessary control and supervision over it."
Official says Iran missiles no threat - UPI.com

The same morals that allow the execution of gays and the imprisonment or execution of rape victims......:roll:

Meanwhile back on the farm....

U.S., Israel deny air drill report

Officials of an unnamed Arab country told Israeli officials that they and representatives from other countries would not oppose an Israeli strike against Iran, sources told Haaretz. The representatives said they were concerned about Iran's growing influence in the region, creating potential Shiite-Sunni rifts.
U.S., Israel deny air drill report - UPI.com

But I thought it was just the US and Israel that didn't want Iran to have nukes?....:roll:

Vader · Jul 14, 2008

bhkad said:
Start a new thread for that subject.

The Koran says that war is deceit. And to get official sanction by the United States as a legitimate regional power would be like the US Government making a deal with known criminals in order to get a non-aggression agreement.

The agreement would not prevent the criminals from acting through proxies to do as they wish and in the opening days, weeks and months, when the US was showing good faith the criminals could be taking advantage of our earnest attempt to abide by the agreement. And when it was clear to all that the criminals were taking advantage of our naivete we would pull out of the deal, naturally. But the damage would be done. AND months from now supporters of the Iran and bashers of America would always be able to say that Iran proposed a peace treaty but the US pulled out.

Yes. Start a new thread on this.

Remember when you said my use of the term "liberal" was giving some people the benefit of the doubt?

After reading some of the posts in this thread, I have come to the conclusion that you are ABSOLUTELY right!

:mrgreen:

Proof Iran IS a threat!

bhkad

CaptainCourtesy

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

bhkad

Bodi

Just waiting for my set...

bhkad

Thorgasm

Bus Driver to Hell

Tashah

Thorgasm

Bus Driver to Hell

Tashah

Vader

Vader

Vader

Thorgasm

Bus Driver to Hell

Bodi

Just waiting for my set...

Bodi

Just waiting for my set...

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater

bhkad

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater

bhkad

Gladiator

Verifier

Vader

Bodi

Just waiting for my set...

cherokee

Devil Dog

Vader

Proof Iran IS a threat!

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

Just waiting for my set...

Bus Driver to Hell

Bus Driver to Hell

Bus Driver to Hell

Just waiting for my set...

Just waiting for my set...

Equal Opportunity Hater

Equal Opportunity Hater

Equal Opportunity Hater

Verifier

Just waiting for my set...

Devil Dog

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency