BeTrayUs

[Nbadan]

Cheney already has a woody when he thinks about nuking Iran, in fact a recent article I read described about how Cheney's recent trip to the region was a hand-delivered warning to 'get ready because the nukes could fly to Iran anytime now' for Dick's Saudi and UAE friends... but don't worry a little radiation is good for you...



Iran 'behind Green Zone attack'



The most senior US general in Iraq has said he has evidence that Iran was behind Sunday's bombardment of Baghdad's heavily fortified Green Zone.

Gen David Petraeus told the BBC he thought Tehran had trained, equipped and funded insurgents who fired the barrage of mortars and rockets.

He said Iran was adding what he described as "lethal accelerants" to a very combustible mix.

There has as yet been no response from Iran to the accusations.

In response to the news that 4,000 US military personnel have now been killed in Iraq, he said it showed how much the mission had cost but added that Americans were realistic about it.

He also said a great deal of progress had been made because of the "flipping" of communities - the decision by Sunni tribes to turn against al-Qaeda militants.

The extent of this had surprised even the US military, he said.

'Promises violated'

In an interview with BBC world affairs editor John Simpson, Gen Petraeus said violence in Iraq was being perpetuated by Iran's Quds Force, a branch of the Revolutionary Guards.

BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7311565.stm)

[Nbadan]

Here is the article from Chris Floyd...


I. One Tick Closer to Midnight

Last Friday, Dick Cheney was in Saudi Arabia for high-level meetings with the Saudi king and his ministers. On Saturday, it was revealed that the Saudi Shura Council -- the elite group that implements the decisions of the autocratic inner circle -- is preparing "national plans to deal with any sudden nuclear and radioactive hazards that may affect the kingdom following experts' warnings of possible attacks on Iran's Bushehr nuclear reactors," one of the kingdom's leading newspapers, Okaz, reports. The German-based dpa news service relayed the paper's story.

Simple prudence -- or ominous timing? We noted here last week that an American attack on Iran was far more likely -- and more imminent -- than most people suspect. We pointed to the mountain of evidence for this case gathered by scholar William R. Polk, one of the top aides to John Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and to other indicators of impending war. The story by Okaz -- which would not have appeared in the tightly controlled dictatorship without approval from the top -- is yet another, very weighty piece of evidence laid in the scales toward a new, horrendous conflict.

We don't know what the Saudis told Cheney in private -- or even more to the point, what he told them. But the release of this story now, just after his departure, would seem to be a clear indication that the Saudis have good reason to fear a looming attack on Iran's nuclear sites and are actively preparing for it.

II. A Nuclear Epiphany in Iran?

And they certainly should be bracing themselves. A U.S. attack on Iran will come suddenly, and if it is indeed aimed at destroying Iran's nuclear capabilities -- a "threat" being talked up again with new urgency by both Cheney and Bush lately -- it has the potential for unimaginable consequences. As we noted here in a previous piece:

Twelve hours. One circuit of the sun from horizon to horizon, one course of the moon from dusk to dawn. What was once a natural measurement for the daily round of human life is now a doom-laden interval between the voicing of an autocrat's brutal whim and the infliction of mass annihilation halfway around the world.

Twelve hours is the maximum time necessary for American bombers to gear up and launch an unprovoked sneak attack – a Pearl Harbor in reverse – against Iran, the Washington Post reports. The plan for this "global strike," which includes a very viable "nuclear option," was approved months ago, and is now in operation. The planes are already on continuous alert, making "nuclear delivery" practice runs along the Iranian border, as Sy Hersh reports in the New Yorker, and waiting only for the signal from President George W. Bush to drop their payloads of conventional and nuclear weapons on some 400 targets spread throughout the condemned land.

And when this attack comes – either as a stand-alone "knock-out blow" or else as the precusor to a full-scale, regime-changing invasion, like the earlier aggression in Iraq – there will be no warning, no declaration of war, no hearings, no public debate. The already issued orders governing the operation put the decision solely in the hands of the president: he picks up the phone, he says, "Go" – and in twelve hours' time, up to a million Iranians could be dead.

This potential death toll is not pacificist hyperbole; it comes from a National Academy of Sciences study sponsored by the Pentagon itself, as The Progressive reports. (Although Bush's military brass like to peddle the public lie that "we don't do body counts" of the enemy, in reality, like all good businessmen they keep precise accounts of their production outputs: i.e., corpses.) The Pentagon's NAS study calibrated the kill-rate from "bunker-busting" tactical nukes used to take out underground facilities – such as those which house much of Iran's nuclear power program.

Another simulation by scientists, using Pentagon-devised software, was even more specific, measuring the aftermath of a "limited" nuclear attack on the main Iranian underground site in Esfahan, the magazine reports. This small expansion of the Pentagon franchise would result in stellar production figures: three million people killed by radiation in just two weeks, and 35 million people exposed to dangerous levels of cancer-causing radiation in Afghanistan, Pakistan and India. Bush has about 50 nuclear "earth-penetrating weapons" at his disposal, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Nor is the idea of a nuclear strike on Iran mere "liberal paranoia." Bush himself pointedly refused to take the nuclear option "off the table" this week. But what's more, Bush has made the use of nuclear weapons a centerpiece of his "National Security Strategy of the United States," issued last month, The Progressive notes. While reaffirming the criminal principle of "pre-emptive" attacks on perceived enemies which may or may not be threatening America with weapons they may or may not possess, Bush declared that "safe, credible and reliable nuclear forces continue to play a critical role" in the "offensive strike systems" that are now a key part of America's "deterrence."

link (http://www.chris-floyd.com/content/view/1463/135)

[Yonivore]

Good.

[boutons_]

They're beating the war drums to go after Iran.

Yoni loves it as long as he doesn't have to fight or pay for it.

[Don Quixote]

Hmm ... the BBC story seems semi-legit. However, it appears that Iran is insistent on going nuclear, and if they are, it's pretty much up to the U.S. to stop them. I don't see how anyone else is capable of disarming them and protecting innocent lives. And I don't see how a nuclear Iran is a good thing. Maybe I'm just way off here.

Why is Floyd so upset at the U.S.? And does he really believe that we could be just minutes away from global thermonuclear war?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Good.


Yes the thought of 35 to 50 million people being exposed to dangerous levels of radiation will do away with terrorism... I mean they will all realize it was in our best interest.. :rolleyes

[Yonivore]

Yes the thought of 35 to 50 million people being exposed to dangerous levels of radiation will do away with terrorism... I mean they will all realize it was in our best interest.. :rolleyes
Beats the alternative.

[ChumpDumper]

Beats the alternative.Which is what?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Beats the alternative.

Uh ok.

[Yonivore]

Which is what?
Dead or irradiated Americans.

[ChumpDumper]

Dead or irradiated Americans.Oh, there will be plenty of those.

[boutons_]

There's no need to stop Iran from having nuclear weapons, because Mutual Assured Destruction would keep the peace as it did during the Cold War, and as it keeps the US out of NK, with Israel and US sure to punish any nuclear attacks by Iran, with much heavier response. Iran would be destroyed. They aren't that stupid.

[boutons_]

Does Iran have missiles that can reach USA?

Do they have nuclear-armed subs and ships?

And even if they had them, would they use them in the face of massive retaliation?

[fyatuk]

And I don't see how a nuclear Iran is a good thing.

Personally I think it's on par with a nuclear Israel.

aka, I don't have a problem with Iran developing weapons to counter Israel, like Pakistan/India and China+USSR/the West.

[peewee's lovechild]

Just let everyone nuke each other.

Fuck all this.

Bring on the nuceular holocaust.
The world's getting overpopulated anyway.

[peewee's lovechild]

Plus, if we let everyone nuke each other to the point were millions die . . . it will serve as proof that god doesn't exist.

It's beautiful.

[DarkReign]

Just let everyone nuke each other.

Fuck all this.

Bring on the nuceular holocaust.
The world's getting overpopulated anyway.

Fuckin-A. I always felt I would see the end, maybe I will be fortunate enough.

[peewee's lovechild]

Fuckin-A. I always felt I would see the end, maybe I will be fortunate enough.

Fuck yea.

The way I see it, why the hell wait for the inevitable?
Just make it happen now.

I'll hide out at the Natural Bridge Caverns for a few months. Wait till it's all over, then take over some land for myself.

Fuck it all.
Just make it happen.

[101A]

Plus, if we let everyone nuke each other to the point were millions die . . . it will serve as proof that god doesn't exist.

It's beautiful.Please explain.

[101A]

There's no need to stop Iran from having nuclear weapons, because Mutual Assured Destruction would keep the peace as it did during the Cold War, and as it keeps the US out of NK, with Israel and US sure to punish any nuclear attacks by Iran, with much heavier response. Iran would be destroyed. They aren't that stupid.
Personally I think it's on par with a nuclear Israel.

aka, I don't have a problem with Iran developing weapons to counter Israel, like Pakistan/India and China+USSR/the West.

That's completely logical.

Because there is no group on this planet who routinely accepts death as long as they kill a bunch of infide.....er....other people.

[peewee's lovechild]

Please explain.

Because Muslims will get the shit blown out of them, and millions will die.
Because Jews will get the shit blown out of them, and millions will die.
Because Christians will get the shit blown out of them, and millions will die.
Because Hindus will get the shit blown out of them, and millions will die.
Because . . . . .

If there is one true god, one side should be protected.

But, all will die.
Therefore, there is no god.

Good enough?

[fyatuk]

If there is one true god, one side should be protected.

But, all will die.
Therefore, there is no god.

Good enough?

Or god is tired of the fracturing of faith in him and figures such an act would bring ALL his people togther.

[peewee's lovechild]

Or god is tired of the fracturing of faith in him and figures such an act would bring ALL his people togther.

Dying a long death because of all the radiation sickness.

Yea, I'm sure that's what "god" wants.

I bet he'd get a kick out of seeing kids born with five eyes and penises growing out of their chests.

He's a good god that way.

[clambake]

thou shalt worship no other god.

he might be too vain to care.

[xrayzebra]

There's no need to stop Iran from having nuclear weapons, because Mutual Assured Destruction would keep the peace as it did during the Cold War, and as it keeps the US out of NK, with Israel and US sure to punish any nuclear attacks by Iran, with much heavier response. Iran would be destroyed. They aren't that stupid.

Yes they are that stupid, rabid and
militant and fanatical.

[xrayzebra]

Dying a long death because of all the radiation sickness.

Yea, I'm sure that's what "god" wants.

I bet he'd get a kick out of seeing kids born with five eyes and penises growing out of their chests.

He's a good god that way.

God also gave us the freedom of
choice. Which makes us much different
from animals. You and I can choose to
do good or bad.

[fyatuk]

Dying a long death because of all the radiation sickness.

Yea, I'm sure that's what "god" wants.

I bet he'd get a kick out of seeing kids born with five eyes and penises growing out of their chests.

He's a good god that way.

Whoever said god was good? If he/she/it exists, god killed nearly all of man in the deluge (leaving everyone else to drown while they struggle to survive). Dude convinced his servent to do something he had forbidden, and then punished him for doing it. God kicked man out of paradise because man became too smart.

God is not a kind entity, if god exists.

[peewee's lovechild]

God also gave us the freedom of
choice. Which makes us much different
from animals. You and I can choose to
do good or bad.

So, the all loving god gave us the freedom to kill each other off?

That's a pretty shitty god.

Maybe god comes from a family of gods that are geniuses and he's the little retarded kid they don't talk about.

[peewee's lovechild]

Whoever said god was good? If he/she/it exists, god killed nearly all of man in the deluge (leaving everyone else to drown while they struggle to survive). Dude convinced his servent to do something he had forbidden, and then punished him for doing it. God kicked man out of paradise because man became too smart.

God is not a kind entity, if god exists.

But, he's supposed to be all loving.

That Jesus guy said so.

[Don Quixote]

Look, nobody wants nuclear war. Except perhaps some of the jihadists. War is expensive, destructive, and lots of people die. It's a terrible thing. Unfortunately, sometimes war is necessary, but don't paint the Right as wanting or desiring war. We don't.

Now ... I'm seeing a expression -- rather crude, but discernible -- of the atheist rejection of God based on there being evil in the world. I would say that the problem of evil is probably the most formidable argument against God, compared to other arguments against God. This, of course, is not to say that theism does not have good or convincing things to say about evil. But certainly the question is more important and complicated than simply trashing God.

If anyone wants a sensitive and thoughtful treatment of the matter, I'm more than happy to help shed some light on it.

[101A]

Because Muslims will get the shit blown out of them, and millions will die.
Because Jews will get the shit blown out of them, and millions will die.
Because Christians will get the shit blown out of them, and millions will die.
Because Hindus will get the shit blown out of them, and millions will die.
Because . . . . .

If there is one true god, one side should be protected.

But, all will die.
Therefore, there is no god.

Good enough?
Got it.

Unfortunately, that rationale may work for you, but as a Christian who has read the bible, I understand that God is not going to protect me, or anyone else, from such things. It won't prove any such thing to me.

[Don Quixote]

As a Christian who has read the bible, I understand that God is not going to protect me, or anyone else, from such things. It won't prove any such thing to me.

Pretty close. The only condition I would put on your statement is that we still affirm that God is (a) able and (b) willing to protect not only his followers, but whosoever he chooses. In other words, I concur that God is not obligated or has he promised to protect anyone from catastrophic war, at least not in the New Testament. (Matthew 24) But let's not sell short his ability to do just that.

[peewee's lovechild]

But let's not sell short his ability to do just that.


Then, let's test it with nuclear war.

We'll see just what side god is on.

[peewee's lovechild]

How do you reconcillate the idea that god created life only to allow evil to potentially destroy it?

[smeagol]

Whoever said god was good? If he/she/it exists, god killed nearly all of man in the deluge (leaving everyone else to drown while they struggle to survive). Dude convinced his servent to do something he had forbidden, and then punished him for doing it. God kicked man out of paradise because man became too smart.

God is not a kind entity, if god exists.

You seem to be one heck of a Bible Scholar . . .

[smeagol]

So, the all loving god gave us the freedom to kill each other off?

Beats the hell of being robots with no real decision regarding our actions.


That's a pretty shitty god.

For those who do not know him . . .


Maybe god comes from a family of gods that are geniuses and he's the little retarded kid they don't talk about.

You could start you own religion . . .

[peewee's lovechild]

God kicked man out of paradise because man became too smart.

Man became so smart that mankind is within a button push away of killing itself.

And, if man became smarter than god . . . god is one stupid mother fucker.

[smeagol]

How do you reconcillate the idea that god created life only to allow evil to potentially destroy it?

It was already explained to you but you missed it.

[peewee's lovechild]

Beats the hell of being robots with no real decision regarding our actions.



So, animals are robots?




For those who do not know him . . .


Show me proof of how you know him and his agenda, and I'll cut you some slack.




You could start you own religion . . .


That's plausible.

I mean, that's what the Catholic Church did, and all the others that followed suit.

[peewee's lovechild]

It was already explained to you but you missed it.

Oh no, it wasn't answered at all.

[smeagol]

And, if man became smarter than god . . . god is one stupid mother fucker.

If the Christian God exists, this statement is pretty far from the truth.

[smeagol]

So, animals are robots?


Where did you come up with that idea?



Show me proof of how you know him and his agenda, and I'll cut you some slack.


You probably had this discussion with other believers so I'm assuming by know you know this is impossible. Are you familiar with the word Faith?



I mean, that's what the Catholic Church did, and all the others that followed suit.

And 2000 years later, 1 billion still believe in what RCC says, with another 4 billion believing in some sort of Supreme Being.

[peewee's lovechild]

If the Christian God exists, this statement is pretty far from the truth.

I'm not the one that said that god got pissed because man became too smart.

Take that up with the one who said it.

[smeagol]

Oh no, it wasn't answered at all.

Ok. I will try again.

Freedom of Chioce.

[peewee's lovechild]

Where did you come up with that idea?


Because we're the only ones that god gave free will to, as Christians say. That's why we humans are allowed to make a "real decision regarding our actions."

Isn't that what you said?



You probably had this discussion with other believers so I'm assuming by know you know this is impossible. Are you familiar with the word Faith?


I have faith it's going to be sunny tomorrow. That doesn't mean it's going to happen.




And 2000 years later, 1 billion still believe in what RCC says, with another 4 billion believing in some sort of Supreme Being.



There's billions more that don't believe in any of that.

So, what's your point?

[peewee's lovechild]

Ok. I will try again.

Freedom of Chioce.

That's your answer?
Seriously?

This was my question:

"How do you reconcillate the idea that god created life only to allow evil to potentially destroy it? "

Your answer doesn't address it at all.

God created life, but he also allowed evil to flourish.

Freedom of choice has nothing to do with that, at all.

[fyatuk]

You seem to be one heck of a Bible Scholar . . .

I'll not say I've read the entire thing, but I've been over the majority of it multiple times. Reading it and paying attention to it is why I no longer call myself a Christian.

I'm a hobbyist. I know enough to aggravate people, and that's all I need to know :p:

[smeagol]

That's your answer?
Seriously?

This was my question:

"How do you reconcillate the idea that god created life only to allow evil to potentially destroy it? "

Your answer doesn't address it at all.

God created life, but he also allowed evil to flourish.

Freedom of choice has nothing to do with that, at all.
As I said before, you simply don't get it.

There is evil in this world because man has the ability to chose between good and bad.

It was explained to you, and you missed the point.

[peewee's lovechild]

As I said before, you simply don't get it.

There is evil in this world because man has the ability to chose between good and bad.

It was explained to you, and you missed the point.

So, man created evil because he has the ability to choose between good and bad?


God gave man the ability to choose from good and bad. So, how is evil not god's fault?


Your answer still doesn't add up.

[fyatuk]

"How do you reconcillate the idea that god created life only to allow evil to potentially destroy it? "


Entertainment value. If god is omnipotent/omniprecient, than we are either a tool to entertain, or a tool to feed the ego.

If god is not omnipotent/omniprecient, then there's no guarantee god could have stopped it.

That's what I realized at about 9 years old, back when I was still Christian.

[fyatuk]

God gave man the ability to choose from good and bad. So, how is evil not god's fault?


Actually, god didn't. Man took that ability under the serpent's persuasion.

God actually forbid man from gaining that knowledge.

[smeagol]

Because we're the only ones that god gave free will to, as Christians say. That's why we humans are allowed to make a "real decision regarding our actions."

Isn't that what you said?

You brought animals into this whole discussion. Not sure what point you were trying to make.



I have faith it's going to be sunny tomorrow. That doesn't mean it's going to happen.

You either have Faith that God exists or you don't. It has nothing to do with the climate.



There's billions more that don't believe in any of that.

So, what's your point?


My point is that you were trying to dismiss religion and I'm telling you 75% of te World's population believes in a supreme being.

Thats is my point.

[smeagol]

Actually, god didn't. Man took that ability under the serpent's persuasion.

God actually forbid man from gaining that knowledge.

A non-believer has explained it to you, peewee (with his own limitations, though)

[peewee's lovechild]

Entertainment value. If god is omnipotent/omniprecient, than we are either a tool to entertain, or a tool to feed the ego.

If god is not omnipotent/omniprecient, then there's no guarantee god could have stopped it.

That's what I realized at about 9 years old, back when I was still Christian.


Plausible argument.

[peewee's lovechild]

Actually, god didn't. Man took that ability under the serpent's persuasion.

God actually forbid man from gaining that knowledge.

But, he tantalized man by planting the "tree of knowledge" in the middle of paradise. If he truly didn't want man from acquiring knowledge, then that was a pretty stupid move.

So, he's either a stupid shit or a sadistic little fucker.

[peewee's lovechild]

You brought animals into this whole discussion. Not sure what point you were trying to make.


Because the same wasn't given to animals, so they must be robots, using your rationale.




You either have Faith that God exists or you don't. It has nothing to do with the climate.



You didn't understand it, but oh well . . .




My point is that you were trying to dismiss religion and I'm telling you 75% of te World's population believes in a supreme being.

Thats is my point.


So, because a majority think so, it must be so?

Then, based on world percentages, we should all be muslim.

[peewee's lovechild]

A non-believer has explained it to you, peewee (with his own limitations, though)

No, he didn't.


See my response.

[fyatuk]

But, he tantalized man by planting the "tree of knowledge" in the middle of paradise. If he truly didn't want man from acquiring knowledge, then that was a pretty stupid move.

So, he's either a stupid shit or a sadistic little fucker.

Good counter. And I personally believe the latter.

[smeagol]

But, he tantalized man by planting the "tree of knowledge" in the middle of paradise. If he truly didn't want man from acquiring knowledge, then that was a pretty stupid move.


He was testing man. Man failed, hence, evil crept into the World.




So, he's either a stupid shit or a sadistic little fucker.


I don't think he is either.

[smeagol]

Because the same wasn't given to animals, so they must be robots, using your rationale.

Why are you comparing animals to people? Why are animals important in God's plan for mankind?

Animals are irrelevant in this discussion.




You didn't understand it, but oh well . .

Yes i did.

You are comparing Faith in God with desire of a sunny day.

Your comparison fails.



So, because a majority think so, it must be so?


I never said that. I simply stated a fact.

[peewee's lovechild]

He was testing man. Man failed, hence, evil crept into the World.


But, he built man in his image, as the bible states.

So, in effect, god is extremely flawed.




I don't think he is either.



That's nice.

[smeagol]

No, he didn't.

Yes he did. You simply don't get it.

[peewee's lovechild]

Why are you comparing animals to people? Why are animals important in God's plan for mankind?

Animals are irrelevant in this discussion.



Because god created animals without giving them free will.

You said that if it weren't for free will, we'd be robots.

Hence, the animal statement.

It's really not that difficult to follow along.





Yes i did.

You are comparing Faith in God with desire of a sunny day.

Your comparison fails.



No, you most obviouly didn't.

I made a comparison of "faith" in god with the "faith" that it will be sunny tomorrow.

Not that much of a stretch.




I never said that. I simply stated a fact.



You said that because a majority says there is a god, that it must be so.

So, since Muslims are the majority in the world (in terms of faith, if not population - as a fact), then they must be right about their religion.

Which means, Christians are wrong and we should all join in on the jihad.

[peewee's lovechild]

Yes he did. You simply don't get it.

Then, explain why he agreed with my rebuttal.

[smeagol]

But, he built man in his image, as the bible states.

So, in effect, god is extremely flawed.


God created man, not little Gods just like Him.

[xrayzebra]

God created man, not little Gods just like Him.

smeagol you will never change his mind on any point.
All you can do is state the facts and move on.
Sadly people like him have little to hang their faith on
except some dumb politician. Or humanism, whatever
that is.

[fyatuk]

Then, explain why he agreed with my rebuttal.

In all fairness, I said it was a good counter, not that I agreed. I chose not to go into a long diatribe psychoanalyzing god's possible motives and misteps because it's not worth the effort and pisses people off more than I normally like to. :smokin

[peewee's lovechild]

God created man, not little Gods just like Him.

In his image - The Bible

Therefore, god is flawed.

[peewee's lovechild]

smeagol you will never change his mind on any point.
All you can do is state the facts and move on.
Sadly people like him have little to hang their faith on
except some dumb politician. Or humanism, whatever
that is.


Yea, I'll never understand because I use reason.

[peewee's lovechild]

In all fairness, I said it was a good counter, not that I agreed. I chose not to go into a long diatribe psychoanalyzing god's possible motives and misteps because it's not worth the effort and pisses people off more than I normally like to. :smokin


Well, at least I got a good counter in there.

[xrayzebra]

Yea, I'll never understand because I use reason.

Whatever!

[peewee's lovechild]

Whatever!

EVEEEER!!
(Valley Girl accent)

[Nbadan]

Looks like it's almost official...the U.S. is at war with Iran


March 20, 2008, destined to be another day of infamy. On this date the US officially declared war on Iran. But it’s not going to be the kind of war many have been expecting.

No, there was no dramatic televised announcement by President George W. Bush from the White House oval office. In fact on this day, reports the Washington Post, Bush spent some time communicating directly with Iranians, telling them via Radio Farda (the US-financed broadcaster that transmits to Iran in Farsi, Iran’s native language) that their government has “declared they want to have a nuclear weapon to destroy people.” But not to worry, he told his listeners in Farsi-translated Bushspeak: Tehran would not get the bomb because the US would be “firm.”

Over at the US Congress, no war resolution was passed, no debate transpired, no last-minute hearing on the Iran “threat” was held. The Pentagon did not put its forces on red alert and cancel all leave. The top story on the Pentagon’s website (on March 20) was: “Bush Lauds Military’s Performance in Terror War,” a feel-good piece about the president’s appearance on the US military’s TV channel to praise “the performance and courage of U.S. troops engaged in the global war on terrorism.” Bush discussed Iraq, Afghanistan and Africa but not Iran.

But make no mistake. As of Thursday, March 20 the US is at war with Iran.

So who made it official?

...A unit within the US Treasury Department, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), which issued a March 20 advisory to the world’s financial institutions under the title: “Guidance to Financial Institutions on the Continuing Money Laundering Threat Involving Illicit Iranian Activity.”

FinCEN, though part of the chain of command, is better known to bankers and lawyers than to students of US foreign policy. Nevertheless, when the history of this newly declared war is someday written (assuming the war is allowed to proceed) FinCEN’s role will be as important as that played by US Central Command (Centcom) in directing the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

In its March 20 advisory FinCEN reminds the global banking community that United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSC) 1803 (passed on March 3, 2008) “calls on member states to exercise vigilance over the activities of financial institutions in their territories with all banks domiciled in Iran, and their branches and subsidiaries abroad.”

UNSC 1803 specifically mentions two Iranian state-owned banks: Bank Melli and Bank Saderat. These two banks (plus their overseas branches and certain subsidiaries), along with a third state-owned bank, Bank Sepah, were also unilaterally sanctioned by the US in 2007 under anti-proliferation and anti-terrorism presidential executive orders 13382 and 1322...

Good read: Link (http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2008/03/24/the-march-20-2008-us-declaration-of-war-on-iran-by-john-mcglynn/)


It's really scary to think that this adminstration, and namely Dick Cheney and his 19% approval rating, can drag our near bankrupt country into yet another corrupt war, this time nuclear, without the consent of congress.....were not a Republic anymore, we're a banana republic with nuclear weapons....world look out!

[smeagol]

Because god created animals without giving them free will.

You said that if it weren't for free will, we'd be robots.

Hence, the animal statement.

It's really not that difficult to follow along.

I follow it, peewee. The issue is that the "animal statement" is irrelevant. Who cares what happend with the animals? Humans are not animals and have free will. That is why there is evil in the World. Get it?




No, you most obviouly didn't.

I made a comparison of "faith" in god with the "faith" that it will be sunny tomorrow.

Not that much of a stretch.

:(

Read my quote. I said the same thing (you compared Faith in God to a desire that tomorrow there will be sun). The comparison is stupid. That is my point.


Man it is difficult to have any kind of conversation with you.

[smeagol]

In all fairness, I said it was a good counter, not that I agreed.

Don't worry. His reading comprehension is pretty bad.

[smeagol]

In his image - The Bible

Therefore, god is flawed.


Yea, I'll never understand because I use reason.


:lol :lol :lol

Sure you do

[peewee's lovechild]

:lol :lol :lol

Sure you do

Answer this question:

Did god create man in his image?


Take your time answering the question and I urge you to open the bible to the book of Genesis to find your answer.

[peewee's lovechild]

I follow it, peewee. The issue is that the "animal statement" is irrelevant. Who cares what happend with the animals? Humans are not animals and have free will. That is why there is evil in the World. Get it?


Did god give animals free will?
Did god give animals the ability to discern right from wrong?




Read my quote. I said the same thing (you compared Faith in God to a desire that tomorrow there will be sun). The comparison is stupid. That is my point.



Why is it stupid?

You believe that god is there without knowing it.
I believe that the sun will come out tomorrow without knowing it.

Same concept.




Man it is difficult to have any kind of conversation with you.



I'm just the box grinder.

[smeagol]

Answer this question:

Did god create man in his image?


Take your time answering the question and I urge you to open the bible to the book of Genesis to find your answer.
Do you know what "image" means?

I will tell you what it does not mean. It does not mean "made of the same substance".

God and Man are not the same.

Please tell me you get it.

Otherwise, hit the books.

[smeagol]

Did god give animals free will?
Did god give animals the ability to discern right from wrong?

Do you know what free will is? You don't. Again . . . hit the fucking books. Or google it.



Why is it stupid?

You believe that god is there without knowing it.
I believe that the sun will come out tomorrow without knowing it.

Same concept.

Exact same concept :rolleyes

The belief that this World was not became what it is simply by chance, that human beings don't evolve from unicelular beings. The belief that each human being has something unique, that never dies. The belief if there is a Creation, there is a Creator.

You compare these beliefs with the knowledge that the Earth is round and rotates to the East.

Bravo!

[peewee's lovechild]

Do you know what "image" means?

I will tell you what it does not mean. It does not mean "made of the same substance".

God and Man are not the same.

Please tell me you get it.

Otherwise, hit the books.


Ahem!:

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)

im·age /ˈɪmɪdʒ/ noun, verb, -aged, -ag·ing.

–noun 1. a physical likeness or representation of a person, animal, or thing, photographed, painted, sculptured, or otherwise made visible.
2. an optical counterpart or appearance of an object, as is produced by reflection from a mirror, refraction by a lens, or the passage of luminous rays through a small aperture and their reception on a surface.
3. a mental representation; idea; conception.
4. Psychology. a mental representation of something previously perceived, in the absence of the original stimulus.
5. form; appearance; semblance: We are all created in God's image.
6. counterpart; copy: That child is the image of his mother.
7. a symbol; emblem.
8. the general or public perception of a company, public figure, etc., esp. as achieved by careful calculation aimed at creating widespread goodwill.
9. a type; embodiment: Red-faced and angry, he was the image of frustration.
10. a description of something in speech or writing: Keats created some of the most beautiful images in the language.
11. Rhetoric. a figure of speech, esp. a metaphor or a simile.
12. an idol or representation of a deity: They knelt down before graven images.
13. Mathematics. the point or set of points in the range corresponding to a designated point in the domain of a given function.
14. Archaic. an illusion or apparition.
–verb (used with object) 15. to picture or represent in the mind; imagine; conceive.
16. to make an image of; portray in sculpture, painting, etc.
17. to project (photographs, film, etc.) on a surface: Familiar scenes were imaged on the screen.
18. to reflect the likeness of; mirror.
19. to set forth in speech or writing; describe.
20. to symbolize; typify.
21. to resemble.
22. Informal. to create an image for (a company, public figure, etc.): The candidate had to be imaged before being put on the campaign trail.
23. to transform (data) into an exact replica in a different form, as changing digital data to pixels for display on a CRT or representing a medical scan of a body part in digital form.







"Hit the books" . . . what a fucking moron.

It looks like you need some :reading to do.

[peewee's lovechild]

Do you know what free will is? You don't. Again . . . hit the fucking books. Or google it.



Since you're so sure about everything . . . why don't you explain what free will is?

And, explain you're "I'd rather have free will than to be a robot" comment you made a few posts back.

That is, if you can remember what you posted.




Exact same concept :rolleyes

The belief that this World was not became what it is simply by chance, that human beings don't evolve from unicelular beings. The belief that each human being has something unique, that never dies. The belief if there is a Creation, there is a Creator.

You compare these beliefs with the knowledge that the Earth is round and rotates to the East.

Bravo!


No, you moron.

I said that I have faith that it will be sunny tomorrow.

But, it could very well rain or just be overcast so that it won't be sunny.

Next time, I'll draw out what I'm posting so you can understand it.

I'll even number each letter so you can do the whole color by number thing.

[peewee's lovechild]

If we are created in god's image and he made a likeness of himself in man, and man became evil . . . that means that he either intentionaly made man flawed or he's just a huge fuck up when it comes to creating things.

[Yonivore]

If we are created in god's image and he made a likeness of himself in man, and man became evil . . . that means that he either intentionaly made man flawed or he's just a huge fuck up when it comes to creating things.
That those are the only two possibilities for you says more about your limitations than God's.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

There's no need to stop Iran from having nuclear weapons, because Mutual Assured Destruction would keep the peace as it did during the Cold War, and as it keeps the US out of NK, with Israel and US sure to punish any nuclear attacks by Iran, with much heavier response. Iran would be destroyed. They aren't that stupid.

The idea of mutually assured destruction works when both sides want to stay alive and value their own lives.

It doesn't work when you are dealing with a bunch of radicals who think dieing in the name of the sword will get them an express ticket to 72 virgins and eternal life in Heaven.

[Don Quixote]

Hmm. Despite the exhilerating nature of the debate already going on, I see the need to interject a couple of brief comments here, to steer this one in the right direction.

(1) I'm not so sure that the English word "image" very well translates what the ancient Israelites meant by the term. Surely, the Old Testament, with its numerous and forecful passages against idolatry and for monotheism, couldn't also teach that man was created in the bodily form of God. (Incidentally, the early Mormons understood "image" just this way, and from this derived their idea that God is, indeed, an exalted man and that people are just gods in embryo.) By "image," the Hebrews denoted a nature that reflected, albeit dimly, the nature of God: an inclination to worship, a moral nature, a desire for spiritual things, etc.

(2) We still need to take into account Genesis 3 -- the account of the Fall. Whatever in the world the Fall entailed, the central point is that the world that resulted is not as God intended. So the problem was not with creation, which was "very good," but with us. This will naturally raise the question: why would God create a world that He knew would fall away and contain evil? And so, our atheist colleagues are throwing the problem of evil at us, as if it's a fatal challenge to theism.

On the other hand, Christians also grapple with the problem of evil. It is a significant question, but not an ultimately fatal one. I can go into the various ways that theism handles it (in fact, in a far more satisfactory way that atheism), but that would be about 30% of an introductory philosophy of religion course, which I don't have time to do. But I'd like to help.

[Don Quixote]

The idea of mutually assured destruction works when both sides want to stay alive and value their own lives.

It doesn't work when you are dealing with a bunch of radicals who think dieing in the name of the sword will get them an express ticket to 72 virgins and eternal life in Heaven.

Yes. MAD would not be a good idea here for exactly those reasons. And I am still not sure why some folks think, somehow, the U.S. is the bad guy, and Iran is a benevolent (or less-bad) nation only interested in pursuing their protection against American aggression. That is certainly the presupposition they bring to the table.

I'm not sure how to reason against it. The only thing you can do, I guess, is defeat it.

[Manu'sMagicalLeftHand]

pewee, I support your views, but if they want to believe in Gods and religions, let them. There's no point trying to argue with faith, they are different fields of rhetoric. I have my "faith" -if I can call it that way- in reason, human progress, science, social justice, equal distribution of wealth, pacifism and a long etc.

One day in the future people will look back and mock at those who based their lifes in fear of punishment in the afterlife. Or laugh at those who in the name of the suposedly different values that each religion represented fought bloody wars, when in truth it was all about controlling the means of production. They will be amused at those ideas like we are now at the idea of a flat Earth, the Sun orbiting around our planet, the idea that some mythological superbeing created the universe, or the notion that supreme being designated kings and popes to rule the rest of humanity.

[BradLohaus]

God's a hot topic on the board.

[fyatuk]

I follow it, peewee. The issue is that the "animal statement" is irrelevant. Who cares what happend with the animals? Humans are not animals and have free will. That is why there is evil in the World. Get it?

I take offense to that on behalf of my pets. My cats most certainly have highly intelligent minds and a great degree of free will and reasoning capability.

They are more human-like than many humans I know.

[smeagol]

Ahem!:

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)

im·age /ˈɪmɪdʒ/ noun, verb, -aged, -ag·ing.

–noun 1. a physical likeness or representation of a person, animal, or thing, photographed, painted, sculptured, or otherwise made visible.
2. an optical counterpart or appearance of an object, as is produced by reflection from a mirror, refraction by a lens, or the passage of luminous rays through a small aperture and their reception on a surface.
3. a mental representation; idea; conception.
4. Psychology. a mental representation of something previously perceived, in the absence of the original stimulus.
5. form; appearance; semblance: We are all created in God's image.
6. counterpart; copy: That child is the image of his mother.
7. a symbol; emblem.
8. the general or public perception of a company, public figure, etc., esp. as achieved by careful calculation aimed at creating widespread goodwill.
9. a type; embodiment: Red-faced and angry, he was the image of frustration.
10. a description of something in speech or writing: Keats created some of the most beautiful images in the language.
11. Rhetoric. a figure of speech, esp. a metaphor or a simile.
12. an idol or representation of a deity: They knelt down before graven images.
13. Mathematics. the point or set of points in the range corresponding to a designated point in the domain of a given function.
14. Archaic. an illusion or apparition.
–verb (used with object) 15. to picture or represent in the mind; imagine; conceive.
16. to make an image of; portray in sculpture, painting, etc.
17. to project (photographs, film, etc.) on a surface: Familiar scenes were imaged on the screen.
18. to reflect the likeness of; mirror.
19. to set forth in speech or writing; describe.
20. to symbolize; typify.
21. to resemble.
22. Informal. to create an image for (a company, public figure, etc.): The candidate had to be imaged before being put on the campaign trail.
23. to transform (data) into an exact replica in a different form, as changing digital data to pixels for display on a CRT or representing a medical scan of a body part in digital form.







"Hit the books" . . . what a fucking moron.

It looks like you need some :reading to do.

Cutting and pasting the definition of image does not mean you have understood it.

Read the definition you yourself posted and learn from it. You will see there that it is pretty clear image = the same.

[smeagol]

Since you're so sure about everything . . . why don't you explain what free will is?

Free will is chosing between option A and option B, knowing what the consequences of my choices are.


And, explain you're "I'd rather have free will than to be a robot" comment you made a few posts back.

What part did you not understand? The phrase pretty much explains itself.




No, you moron.

I said that I have faith that it will be sunny tomorrow.

But, it could very well rain or just be overcast so that it won't be sunny.

Next time, I'll draw out what I'm posting so you can understand it.

I'll even number each letter so you can do the whole color by number thing.

As I said before, you compare Faith with desire of something happening.

Good for you.

[smeagol]

One day in the future people will look back and mock at those who based their lifes in fear of punishment in the afterlife.



Humanity has had 2000 years to do what you say.



Or laugh at those who in the name of the suposedly different values that each religion represented fought bloody wars, when in truth it was all about controlling the means of production. They will be amused at those ideas like we are now at the idea of a flat Earth, the Sun orbiting around our planet, the idea that some mythological superbeing created the universe, or the notion that supreme being designated kings and popes to rule the rest of humanity.

Interesting to see how you can see the future.

Nostradamus es un poroto . . . :lol

[smeagol]

I take offense to that on behalf of my pets. My cats most certainly have highly intelligent minds and a great degree of free will and reasoning capability.

They are more human-like than many humans I know.

My dog, OTOH, is pretty stupid.

But so are many humans . . .

[RandomGuy]

, that human beings don't evolve from unicelular beings.


We didn't. We evolved from some form of hominid that had trillions of cells... ;)

[RandomGuy]

God's a hot topic on the board.


But can you find a 'board with God on it at Hot Topic?

oooh somebody stop me...

[smeagol]

he's just a huge fuck up when it comes to creating things.

If that is what you were trying to prove, simply take a look at a platipus. That is a major fuck-up . . .

[smeagol]

We didn't. We evolved from some form of hominid that had trillions of cells... ;)
Sure . . . but before being that homonid, we must have been something else.

This is one of the reasons why I started believing in a higher being. Evolving by chance from an ameba just doesn't cut it for me.

Man is far too complex to have evolved by chance.

Evolution with a guiding hand, that I can believe. Evolution by mere coincidence . . . nah.

[Nbadan]

http://cagle.com/working/080327/bagley.jpg

[Nbadan]

http://www.caglecartoons.com/images/preview/%7bc4459406-c794-47e5-8c59-5eb5d3299f9f%7d.gif