Osama's Message to America!

[digitaljez]

Dave
A good answer is a good answer wether its the one you want to hear or not.

I was thinking the issue in hand is Iran developing nuclear capability. The following extract from the letter quoted above refers to their enrichment program :

"Why is it that any technological and scientific achievement reached in the Middle East region is translated into and portrayed as a threat to the Zionist regime? Is not scientific R&D one of the basic rights of nations?"

It does not actually use the terms nuclear or uranium so it may have been hard to spot but if you read it slowly and think of the context it should become clear to you.

What hidden facilities ? Even Fox News can only come up with 'a photograph that appears to show....'.

How naive are you ? You have already been taken in once by this MWD scam and here you are again ready to sacrifice the lives of your nation's sons and daughters in another war and no none has actually even lied about the existence of WMD this time (yet). There is just a fear that one day they might have the capability.

Just think about a couple of things here :
1. Do you really think that the Western Intelligence Services don't know exactly what the situation is inside Iran ?
2. Can you really imagine Tehran is so stupid as to strike first against America or Israel ? What could the only possible outcome of that action be ? It is not going to happen. They may persuade members of the flock to die for Allah but they don't do it by example.

Why are you unable to separate the, as far as we know (innocent unless proven guilty), peaceful development of nuclear energy (self determination) from terrorism ? Terrorism is not the issue here, nuclear power is. Are you so bigoted that every muslim is, to you, a terrorist ?

Just ignore me though. I don't know anymore than you do, only what we are spoonfed by the media. I've already forgotten what the pretext for invading Afghanistan was. By the time the tanks roll into Tehran I won't care that there were not any WMD in Bhagdad. I will be too busy queueing for petrol while the oilfields of Iran burn and George's dad adds another digit to the end of his bank balance. That good ol' Texas gold.
As long as you are prepared to believe the 'enemy' eats babies, or are all terrorists or whatever other crap you are being brainwashed with, it will make it so much easier to accept it was worth it as you watch them unload the flag draped coffins.

[Techstuf]

Fear mongering....polarizing opinions at the expense of reason.....


Why, that's what deathly corrupt governments and their media whores do best.


The sad fact is....many facts are sad. Even more sadly, at the expense of most peoples already fragile grip on reason.


And since we are all in some way or another damned if we do and damned if we don't....


Better to get the guts to tell people the facts....and let God sort 'em out.


But of course, for some....that would simply be 'fiscally irresponsible'.



TS

[ovyyus]

You're double spacing again Mitch. Why don't you just be done with it and triple space. You know you want to :D

Sorry Dave, I must have got you wrong. I thought you're answer was to nuke Iran first and ask questions later - let Mitch's god sort 'em out.

[digitaljez]

Techstuf wrote :

And since we are all in some way or another damned if we do and damned if we don't....

I thought you had a 'Get out of Hell Free' card. :)

[ken_behrendt]

digitaljez asked:

What leads you to suspect that it is a delaying tactic ? How is it going to derail the deliberations of the UN ?
What answer would have satisfied you ? Must every nation conform to the whims of America ? Are nations now only nations by name and in reality ultimately governed by the threats from America's war machine ? Is not the right to self determination, supposedly, a keystone in the republican ideal ?

You've posed a load of questions there. Here is my general response.


First of all, although I am not a "fan" of nuclear power, the fact is that it is a workable technology and can help us begin weaning ourselves off of fossil fuels as be begin to convert the Earth's power supplies over to solar power / hydrogen fuel cells. Fine, I'd vote for this for short term use...the shorter the better.

Second, any nation should, in principle, have the right to develop itself technologically and research into nuclear power is part of that.

The problem I have with this Iranian matter, however, is that I think allowing them to eventually develop nuclear weapons would be a BIG mistake. The leaders of Iran are religious zealot types who might, based on a their distorted interpretations of the Koran, wake up one day and decide that Allah wants them to nuke either Israel or one of their other neighbors. With the unelected regime now in power over there, those nuclear weapons of mass destruction could be used at the whim of whatever ayatollah was in power and considered most divinely "inspired". Remember, he will not consider the response in kind that will result and the death of millions of Iranians as that big a deal. They will simply be martyrs dying for the glory of Allah as he uses nukes to bring about his twisted version of the "end times".

Then, of course, there is the whole issue of "loose" nukes. Who is to say that right now there are not al-Qaeda operatives right inside of the Iranian nuclear processing fascilities watching for the first opportunity to begin diverting bomb grade nuclear material so that Osama can get to work on a suitcase sized nuclear weapon? Osama said in a prior interview during the late '90's that he already had nuclear weapons! However, this may have been a bluff or he may have been referring to the radioactive isotopes that would be used in a "dirty" bomb. I suspect that if he actually did have a nuclear bomb that he would have used it on 9/11 instead of having to rely on highjacked commercial jets for an attack.

I think I could rest easier if the Iranians agree to let IAEA inspectors have completely unrestricted access to examine any facility at any time that they suspected might be used to produce or store bomb grade uranium. If they were willing to do that, then I might start to take their claims that their enrichment is solely for "power generation" as being genuine.

Well, the matter is now being debated by the UN Security Council. As time goes on and it becomes painfully clear to the members of that council that Iran has no intention of allowing that type of scrutiny, I suspect that the tide of international opinion will begin to turn against them and the UN would then be willing to sanction military action to close down their enrichment program.

Hopefully, that will happen before they detonate a nuke to demonstrate to the world that they were lying all along...



ken

[rlortie]

ovyyus,

You're double spacing again Mitch. Why don't you just be done with it and triple space. You know you want to :D

Bill, I am surprised, you know that it is proper to double space between paragraphs, even if they are only one sentence long! LOL

It is the power of the word! ;0)

Ralph

[Sevich]

ovyyus

what does PPM mean ?

winkle

perpetual motion

ovyyus

What? Your a fool - LOL

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



A thread titled...

magnetic water wheel - PPM

by scott sieger



A thread titled...

something has changed at the patent office (PPM)

by epistemologicide



A thread titled...

dark matter, energy...ppm

by epistemologicide


A post by nitro....

It is not a ppm

A post by TommyK....

I don't claim to have a ppm

A post byFletcher....

a ppm must get it's movtive force (energy) from somewhere

A post from sevich...

as opposed to this 56rpm ppm

A post by racer270....

sure ha i bet they never tried building a (ppm) machine

A post by jim_mitch...

weights must be moved quickly for the principle of perpetual motion (ppm) to take effect

A post by vergingodone...

ppm is the coolest thing there is

A post bu oxygon...

if I invent a working ppm "concept" and the whole slew of people came out and say

A post by bluesgtr44....

not necessary to achieve ppm

A post by....and on....and...on...&..on...&...on


and some may wonder what's my point ?

[ovyyus]

Perhaps your point is that lots of people in this field have developed a stutter? :D

[Sevich]

LOL...........

all in good fun !




:)

[Dave]

Why is the question "What is your plan for terrorism" so hard to answer.
History has shown and will show you are wrong on WMD.

[digitaljez]

Why is the question "What is your plan for terrorism" so hard to answer.
History has shown and will show you are wrong on WMD.

I do not know why you think I am a terrorist. I have no plans to illegally use or threaten to use violence in order to intimidate or coerce any government or society. I leave that kind of thing to the likes of George.W.Bush. If I was a terrorist I would hardly publish my plan on a discussion board.
How and when did history show that Iran has WMD ? Please point me to this information and I will update my view on the matter. Am I labouring under a misapprehension that Iran has not yet been found to possess any nuclear weapons.
We are being prepared by the Bush propaganda machine for the use of nuclear weapons against Iran. That is a horrendous proposal. Doesn't it worry anyone ? Once the precedent has been set who will be next ?
The West has suggested that Iran may be developing WMD but America is making no secret of its willingness to use them. Why is it O.K. for America to use nuclear weapons while others can not ? How is the use of a nuclear bomb acceptable by any government ? Does this double standard not jar with the principles that America was built on ?

This is reported to be the full Mahmoud Ahmadinejad letter :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/p ... letter.pdf

[Dave]

DJ
I do not think you are a terrorist, but what are your plans to prevent and stop terrorism?
First define WMD, if you mean an artillery shell filled with biochemicals capable of killing a village of 5000 in 30 minutes or a number of these shells with chemical killing tens of thousands of Iranian soldiers then Iraq had them. If only a mushroom cloud would do no thank you.This has been documented in several sources of which I can not pinpoint at the present time, but you probably would not believe them either. Despite all the efforts of Joe Wilson tripe Iraq did try to pursue purchae of uranium ore from Niger. I dont believe Iraq had a nuke but given time who knows. You are probably right up to now that Iran does not have a nuke. What eveidence that you have that they aren't going past the energy state and can we afford to let them? Should we wait for the first mushroom cloud to appear over the US? How do you prevent this happening?
I am not for war or using nukes but put you self in Pres. Truman shoes given a choice of 100,000's of GI dying or them? What would you do?
Any answer would be a Mon morning quarterback answer at this point anyway. Did you know that the Japenese were only 10 days(before we did) away from dropping a dirty bomb on SF or LA? Do we have to wait for that today? Where was Pres. Clinton when the terrorist attacks were being carried out? or when he didn't want his golf game interrupted to get Osama?
Ps DJ where do you live?

[digitaljez]

Sorry for the misunderstanding. 'What is your plan for....', 'and what are your plans to prevent....' convey opposing meanings to me.

I am living on a limited budget so, oddly enough, I have not drawn up any plans to combat terrorism. Setting up a spy network and hiring an army are beyond my means. If the entire might of America's Intelligence network and the largest war machine on Earth cannot track down Bin Laden I feel any efforts on my part would be futile.

However I would love to hear your plan. Does it involve dropping bunker busters on any regime that belongs to the Family of Imran by any chance ?

The only thing I might suggest that is if America wants to stop those annoying little fundamentalist hornets that keep threatening to sting it again, a good start might be to take their big stick and stop stirring up the nest with it.

First define WMD, if you mean an artillery shell filled with biochemicals capable of killing a village of 5000 in 30 minutes or a number of these shells with chemical killing tens of thousands of Iranian soldiers then Iraq had them.

That is just not the case - read the reports. If there were such weapons why did Bush and Blair end up excusing themselves by blaming the intelligence agencies ? Instead they would have been shouting the news from the rooftops.

Iraq had a stockpile of chemical weapons that was past its sell-by date and had lost most of it toxicity by 1991. There was no weapons production going on and their nuclear programme had been suspended for years.

As a result of the invasion of Iraq two of the recommendations made by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington were :

The US National Security Strategy should be revised to eliminate the doctrine of "unilateral preventive war" which it calls "pre-emptive war in absence of imminent threat."

The assertion that the threat of evil states and international terrorism calls for acting on the worst-case scenario should be examined.

I don't think I want to reveal my whereabouts to someone who's policy is nuke 'em first and ask questions later. If I lived in Iran I wouldn't be sitting typing this, I would be sitting on a plane out of there.

[ken_behrendt]

digitaljez wrote:

We are being prepared by the Bush propaganda machine for the use of nuclear weapons against Iran. That is a horrendous proposal. Doesn't it worry anyone ? Once the precedent has been set who will be next ?
The West has suggested that Iran may be developing WMD but America is making no secret of its willingness to use them. Why is it O.K. for America to use nuclear weapons while others can not ?

Yes, it worries me a great deal. Personally, I'd like to see all forms of nuclear, chemical, and biological weaponry permanently banned from planet Earth. But, who will enforce that ban?

Unfortunately, there are many countries on Earth that are led by paranoid, authoritarian regimes. Their leaders know full well that the citizens of their countries are, by the standards of the international community, considered to be "victims" in need of "liberation" so that they can begin to enjoy the fundamental human rights that the United Nations are supposed to be based on.

In the coming decades, these few remaining dictatorial regimes will seek to obtain nuclear weapons as a form of "insurance" of their survival in a world that views them as being ever more unsatisfactory. Also, because of the general discontent of their populations there is always the possibility of revolution and that any nukes they have could be sold off on the international weapons black markets to the highest bidder. How much would Osama be willing to pay right now for one of those Soviet era "suitcase nukes" that "mysteriously" disappeared after the collapse of the Soviet Union?

I, too, believe that nuclear weapons should only be used in the most dire of circumstances and, then, only by the most responsible governments possible. If it is possible, in any way other than through the use of nuclear munitions to stop the Iranian ayatollahs from acquiring nuclear devices, then, by all means, they should be tried. Perhaps diplomacy will work, although I seriously doubt it. Perhaps the "carrot or the stick" approach of trade deals or sanctions will work. If military action is finally decided upon, then, maybe, non-nuclear bunker busters could be used.

But, what if all of that is not enough? Can the world and the region involved live with a nuclear armed Iran? What would the West's response have been if Saddam Hussein had invaded Kuwait after he had demonstrated that he had nuclear weapons with an underground test?

The Iran government is desperate to gain the support of its younger citizens by fostering a form of nationalism based on that country's ancient glories. That will mean dominating their region and the possession of nuclear weapons would play a big part in it. In that letter that Amadadinejad sent to Bush, it states that Western "liberalism" and democracy are not enough to satisfy the needs of the world's citizens. So what could he mean by that? Most likely, that only the religion of Islam, once spread throughout the world would be sufficient. Now, I wonder what lengths would a nuclear armed Iran go to in order to achieve such a worldwide conversion to Islam?



I fully expect the Iranian government to announce a successful test of a nuclear weapon before the end of this year!



ken

[Dave]

Sorry DJ The artillery shells were real, documented by surviors.
This documents that Iraq had them( if you define this as a MD.)
They did find these shells but without their chemicals. They did not find any since but did have and use them in the past. If the head of the CIA came to you and said "Finding WMD in Iraq is a slam dunk" who would you blame. And all the other intelligent agencies around the world.
Ken
You bring up some good points, what to do. I wouldn't want to be put in that position of making that decision. Its a lose lose situation. If a nuke goes off in DJ home town he will blame Bush too.