Israel's end is near, Ahmadinejad says

Full story: Worcester Telegram & Gazette

TEHRAN, Iran- Iran's hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad yesterday said the world would witness the destruction of Israel soon, the official Islamic Republic News Agency reported.
Comments
32,481 - 32,500 of 36,740 Comments Last updated 1 hr ago
Professor Ayreshire

Albuquerque, NM

#37398 Dec 2, 2012
Here are some facts as to why Muslims like oczx hate the Jewish people: 1. Israel became a state circa 1030 B.C., more than two millennia before Islam.

2. Arabs from Israel first began to be called "Palestinians" in 1967 by Yasser Arafat and other Arab leaders, two decades after modern Israeli statehood.

3. After conquering the land in about 1250 B.C., Jews ruled it for more than 1,300 years and have maintained a continuous presence there for 3,300 years.

4. For over 3,000 years, Jerusalem was the Jewish capital. It was never the capital of any Arab or Muslim entity. Even under Jordanian rule,(East) Jerusalem was not made the capital, and no Arab leader came to visit it.

5. Jerusalem is mentioned over 700 times in the Bible, but not once is it mentioned in the Qur'an.

6. King David founded Jerusalem; Mohammed never set foot in it.

7. Jews pray facing Jerusalem; Muslims face Mecca. If they are between the two cities, Muslims pray facing Mecca, with their backs to Jerusalem.

8. In 1948, Arab leaders urged their people to leave, promising to cleanse the land of Jewish presenceâ€â€some 70% of them fled without ever being ordered by Israel to leave, most of those without ever having seen an Israeli soldier.

9. Virtually the entire Jewish population of Muslim countries had to flee as the result of violence and pogroms.

10. Some 650,000 Arabs left Israel in 1948, while about 850,000 Jews were forced to leave Muslim countries.

11. In spite of the vast territories at their disposal, Arab refugees from Palestine were deliberately prevented from assimilating into their host countries. Of 100 million refugees following World War II, they are the only group to have never integrated with their coreligionists. Most of the Jewish refugees from Europe and Arab lands were settled in Israel, a country no larger than New Jersey.

12. There are 22 Arab countries (with 800 times the land mass of Israel), not counting the Palestinian territories. There is only one Jewish state. Arabs started all five wars against Israel, and lost every one of them.

13. The Fatah and Hamas constitutions still call for the destruction of Israel. Israel has agreed under several proposals to cede most of the West Bank and all of Gaza to the Palestinian Authority, and even supported the arming of its police force after the Oslo Accords in 1993.

14. During the Jordanian occupation, Jewish holy sites were vandalized and were off limits to Jews. Under Israeli rule, all Muslim and Christian holy sites are accessible to all faiths and maintained in good order at Israel’s expense.

15. Out of 175 United Nations Security Council resolutions up to 1990, 97 were against Israel; out of 690 General Assembly resolutions, 429 were against Israel;

16. The U.N. was silent when the Jordanians destroyed 58 synagogues in the old city of Jerusalem. It remained silent while Jordan systematically desecrated the ancient Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives, and it remained silent when Jordan enforced apartheid laws preventing Jews from accessing the Temple Mount and Western Wall
Professor Ayreshire

Albuquerque, NM

#37399 Dec 2, 2012
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
Ans.
I was talking about Islam and its teachings. I did not talk about "present day Muslims".
Here are some facts as why Muslims like MUQ hate the Jewish people: 1. Israel became a state circa 1030 B.C., more than two millennia before Islam.

2. Arabs from Israel first began to be called "Palestinians" in 1967 by Yasser Arafat and other Arab leaders, two decades after modern Israeli statehood.

3. After conquering the land in about 1250 B.C., Jews ruled it for more than 1,300 years and have maintained a continuous presence there for 3,300 years.

4. For over 3,000 years, Jerusalem was the Jewish capital. It was never the capital of any Arab or Muslim entity. Even under Jordanian rule,(East) Jerusalem was not made the capital, and no Arab leader came to visit it.

5. Jerusalem is mentioned over 700 times in the Bible, but not once is it mentioned in the Qur'an.

6. King David founded Jerusalem; Mohammed never set foot in it.

7. Jews pray facing Jerusalem; Muslims face Mecca. If they are between the two cities, Muslims pray facing Mecca, with their backs to Jerusalem.

8. In 1948, Arab leaders urged their people to leave, promising to cleanse the land of Jewish presenceâ€â€some 70% of them fled without ever being ordered by Israel to leave, most of those without ever having seen an Israeli soldier.

9. Virtually the entire Jewish population of Muslim countries had to flee as the result of violence and pogroms.

10. Some 650,000 Arabs left Israel in 1948, while about 850,000 Jews were forced to leave Muslim countries.

11. In spite of the vast territories at their disposal, Arab refugees from Palestine were deliberately prevented from assimilating into their host countries. Of 100 million refugees following World War II, they are the only group to have never integrated with their coreligionists. Most of the Jewish refugees from Europe and Arab lands were settled in Israel, a country no larger than New Jersey.

12. There are 22 Arab countries (with 800 times the land mass of Israel), not counting the Palestinian territories. There is only one Jewish state. Arabs started all five wars against Israel, and lost every one of them.

13. The Fatah and Hamas constitutions still call for the destruction of Israel. Israel has agreed under several proposals to cede most of the West Bank and all of Gaza to the Palestinian Authority, and even supported the arming of its police force after the Oslo Accords in 1993.

14. During the Jordanian occupation, Jewish holy sites were vandalized and were off limits to Jews. Under Israeli rule, all Muslim and Christian holy sites are accessible to all faiths and maintained in good order at Israel’s expense.

15. Out of 175 United Nations Security Council resolutions up to 1990, 97 were against Israel; out of 690 General Assembly resolutions, 429 were against Israel;

16. The U.N. was silent when the Jordanians destroyed 58 synagogues in the old city of Jerusalem. It remained silent while Jordan systematically desecrated the ancient Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives, and it remained silent when Jordan enforced apartheid laws preventing Jews from accessing the Temple Mount and Western Wall
w wman uk

Abingdon, UK

#37400 Dec 2, 2012
ocxz wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah i know !
move along people nothing to see here !
Sure.
i am not fooled, and i'm not the only one.
Your fooled every time plastic muzi. You should try some argumentation prissy and show some of you inexsistant interlect . Your the fool that deride the grammer and spelling of others. You are a hoot you get made to look more foolish with every post. Its in a mans nature to be a fool sometimes but you abuse the privialidge.
ocxz

La Possession, Reunion

#37401 Dec 2, 2012
w wman uk wrote:
<quoted text> Your fooled every time plastic muzi. You should try some argumentation prissy and show some of you inexsistant interlect . Your the fool that deride the grammer and spelling of others. You are a hoot you get made to look more foolish with every post. Its in a mans nature to be a fool sometimes but you abuse the privialidge.
Is your spell check down again, you sound muslim to me.
Like i said if you don't bother to write coherent words, i guess you are not english.
You must be from the third world.
w wman uk

Abingdon, UK

#37402 Dec 2, 2012
ocxz wrote:
<quoted text>
Is your spell check down again, you sound muslim to me.
Like i said if you don't bother to write coherent words, i guess you are not english.
You must be from the third world.
Well little i still no substance . Only a pathtic atempt at spelling and grammer leesson from the fool that cant do either. Are you asuming that third world people are in some way inferior to you prissy? So you are adding bigotery and stupidity to your rep. You should get out more.
MUQ

Dammam, Saudi Arabia

#37403 Dec 2, 2012
Advocate wrote:
01. Sweeping the world? Pffft. You see states like the KSA and the US are still dominated by religious conservatives in so many aspects!

02 And it's not about "marginalizing" religion; it's the fact that religion is a bias upon politics and public life that is not shared by everyone;

03. There is absolutely NO evidence that it is a Christian derived concept, w

04. How can you know for certain that there WASN'T any sort of modification within Islamic scripture? And why insist on the superiority on Islamic teachings

05. When you yourself vehemently refuse to even LEARN about what other religions say or teach?

06. It's...just incredibly astonishing that you refuse to acknowledge all the problems that come with state religion in the first place.

07. The states that officially enforce religiously based living and legislation are always among the most oppressive.

08. Who's to say that those who support that always do it for their own gains as opposed to being ideological fanatics?
Ans.

01. I cannot say about KSA, but it is news that religious groups dominate USA. In KSA the Economy and Politics is kept out of religious control, so no one can say that KSA is a model Islamic country.

02. I will call it "marginalizing" when no law can be based on the basis of religious scripture and no decree of Scripture becomes Law Unless "it is voted and agreed and amended" by the Parliament or assembly.

Why do you think that religion "does not take every one's need into account"? The religions that are from Creator Do Indeed take every one's need into account.

It is only your bias against religion, which gives you that bias.

03. If Christians are most vehement opposes of Secularism, how come we find Maximum Secularism in Christian countries?

Separation between Church and state, is it a Christian concept or a Jewish concept or Islamic concept?

04. If there was any modification in Islamic scriptures ,w e would have varying copies of Quran ( as we have so many varying manuscripts of scriptures of other religions).

The superiority part would come when we place teachings of all religions on any issue side by side and then compare them with regards to their practicality and their affectivity.

05. I am not against learning from other religions or what are their teachings, and I want people to educate me about these teachings.

But if you think that I should devote most of my time about studying scriptures of other religions and then give my opinion on their teachings, then it is neither possible nor practical.

I am not narrow minded, but practical minded mostly.

06. There are problems with performing duties in "every" type of Governmental system. It is your bias against religious system that you only see problems and not ready made and easy solutions which religious systems supply.

The problem of Alcoholism and drug abuse (which is beyond the capabilities of every so called Secular Govt. in the world, is buried in the dirt in religious based system, as an example)

07. It is mostly the "Non religious" people who grab the power and pretend that they are "imposing religious laws" in the country, that is the main cause to which you are referring.

08. And people doing the same in Secular societies are not so rare either, but you people use double standard as usual.

In India for example, overwhelming majority of Secular Politicians are extremely corrupt and involved in all sorts of corruptions and even violence and killings. But no one says that the Present Democratic system is to be blamed for it.

But had the same situation present when India was governed by a religious group, they would all the blame for India's woes on that religious group.

This is the double standards people use in such cases.
MUQ

Dammam, Saudi Arabia

#37404 Dec 2, 2012
-

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/arti...

CIA Lies About Lies
The Iraq War and the Persistent Myth of ‘Intelligence Failure’

By Jeremy R. Hammond (Contd.)

A Counterintelligence Success

One may similarly examine virtually every other aspect of the case for war and see the same repetition of official deception. On February 24, 2001, Colin Powell stated that Saddam Hussein “has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction.” When he went before the Security Council two years later to present the administration’s case for war, he knew he was lying. He knew that the claims he was making were not supported by the available evidence. He knew that his claims were contradicted by the available intelligence assessments of the nation’s top experts in their respective fields.

Another example of this was the claim that Iraq’s unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) were intended to deliver chemical and biological weapons. On October 7, 2002, President Bush declared,“We’ve also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We’re concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs for missions targeting the United States.” According to Senator Bill Nelson, prior to the Congressional vote on the resolution granting the President the authority to enforce U.N. resolutions through the Security Council—(contrary to popular belief, the invasion of Iraq was a violation of the U.S. Constitution as well as international law)—members of Congress were told that Iraq could deliver anthrax to U.S. cities using UAVs.

He testified,“I was told that not only did he have the weapons of mass destruction and that he had the means to deliver them through unmanned aerial vehicles, but that he had the capability of transporting those UAVs outside of Iraq and threatening the homeland here in America, specifically by putting them on ships off the eastern seaboard of which they would then drop their WMD on eastern seaboard cities. You can see all the more why I thought there was an imminent threat.”

In his February 5 presentation before the Security Council, Colin Powell showed a picture of an Iraqi Mirage jet aircraft that he claimed was spraying “simulated anthrax”. He claimed that spray tanks capable of dispersing chemical or biological weapons were “intended to be mounted on a MiG-21 that had been converted into an unmanned aerial vehicle, or a UAV.” He added that “UAVs outfitted with spray tanks constitute an ideal method for launching a terrorist attack using biological weapons.” After making these allegations, he turned his attention to Iraq’s actual known UAVs, which were smaller and lighter than a jet aircraft.

These, he said,“are well suited for dispensing chemical and biological weapons. There is ample evidence that Iraq has dedicated much effort to developing and testing spray devices that could be adapted for UAVs.” He argued that,“According to Iraq’s December 7 declaration, its UAVs have a range of only 80 kilometers. But we detected one of Iraq’s newest UAVs in a test flight that went 500 kilometers nonstop on autopilot” in a “race track pattern”—that is to say, it “was flown around and around and around in a circle.” For this argument, Powell was relying on the ignorance of his audience. He could not have been unaware that Iraq’s UAVs necessarily functioned by use of a guiding signal that had a limited range.

The Advocate

Mexico, Mexico

#37405 Dec 2, 2012
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
Ans.
01. I cannot say about KSA, but it is news that religious groups dominate USA. In KSA the Economy and Politics is kept out of religious control, so no one can say that KSA is a model Islamic country.
02. I will call it "marginalizing" when no law can be based on the basis of religious scripture and no decree of Scripture becomes Law Unless "it is voted and agreed and amended" by the Parliament or assembly.
Why do you think that religion "does not take every one's need into account"? The religions that are from Creator Do Indeed take every one's need into account.
It is only your bias against religion, which gives you that bias.
03. If Christians are most vehement opposes of Secularism, how come we find Maximum Secularism in Christian countries?
Separation between Church and state, is it a Christian concept or a Jewish concept or Islamic concept?
04. If there was any modification in Islamic scriptures ,w e would have varying copies of Quran ( as we have so many varying manuscripts of scriptures of other religions).
The superiority part would come when we place teachings of all religions on any issue side by side and then compare them with regards to their practicality and their affectivity.
05. I am not against learning from other religions or what are their teachings, and I want people to educate me about these teachings.
But if you think that I should devote most of my time about studying scriptures of other religions and then give my opinion on their teachings, then it is neither possible nor practical.
I am not narrow minded, but practical minded mostly.
06. There are problems with performing duties in "every" type of Governmental system. It is your bias against religious system that you only see problems and not ready made and easy solutions which religious systems supply.
The problem of Alcoholism and drug abuse (which is beyond the capabilities of every so called Secular Govt. in the world, is buried in the dirt in religious based system, as an example)
07. It is mostly the "Non religious" people who grab the power and pretend that they are "imposing religious laws" in the country, that is the main cause to which you are referring.
08. And people doing the same in Secular societies are not so rare either, but you people use double standard as usual.
In India for example, overwhelming majority of Secular Politicians are extremely corrupt and involved in all sorts of corruptions and even violence and killings. But no one says that the Present Democratic system is to be blamed for it.
But had the same situation present when India was governed by a religious group, they would all the blame for India's woes on that religious group.
This is the double standards people use in such cases.
....No.

For one thing the entire KSA government is a theocracy, therefor, entirely dominated by dogma. Not to mention the religious police and all the controversies about them...!
Why should law have to automatically be based on scripture?? Scripture is confusing enough as it is.

Also, religion does not in fact take everyone's needs into account because not everyone shares the same ideals you do. Not everyone has a religion or believes in a deity or thinks that animals are sacred and whatnot. State religion places favouritism on only one of those religions. Therefor secularism is an alternative that places no favour on any of them to be fair to all.

Why would it not be practical to learn about other religions?

Please give examples as to how secular/atheist leaders are more corrupt than leaders with a religious affiliation. Give an example as to how secular states are somehow more immoral.'Cause the flow of migrants from North Africa and the Middle East to Europe seems to beg to differ. Why would the headlines about those regions be filled with mentions of the pervasiveness of extremist factions promoting religion if you were right?
Professor Ayreshiite

La Possession, Reunion

#37406 Dec 2, 2012
w wman uk wrote:
<quoted text> Well little i still no substance . Only a pathtic atempt at spelling and grammer leesson from the fool that cant do either. Are you asuming that third world people are in some way inferior to you prissy? So you are adding bigotery and stupidity to your rep. You should get out more.
No substance means providing an answer in adequation with your post.
Post something of substance something factual about the topic, not your psychotic hatred of muslims arabs or whatever rocks your boat.
That by itself is irrational, but the way you put it in words and your constant abuse and massacre of language is a poor poor show and gives a negative image of yourself.

Is that substantial enough for you ?

Biggest problems in the world :
Access to water
Access to basic food requirements
Access to health
Shelter

Not muslims.
The Advocate

Mexico, Mexico

#37408 Dec 3, 2012
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
Ans.
Truth is often bitter to hear, but it is better to speak truth than spread lies and spread hate and hatred.
So we think we are "jealous" of our "younger cousins" and feel "Humiliated in their presence"?
And you think that theirs and ours history is only a couple of centuries old and that it is the number of Nobel Prizes that are standards to evaluate any group of people?
We acknowledge that Jews are very talented people and they have been given many good qualities by God…
But along with all these talents, they have an in built racism and they try to exploit the people of every nations in which they live in.
This is the trait which get them disliked by any people along whom they lived, be it Romans, Greeks, British, French, German, and every nation.
Just look at their history for past 2000 years and the way they have been wandering from nations to nations, you will know what I mean.
Muslims on the other hand, work on a different level. There was never any competition between Jews and Muslims. Muslims carved out a very big nation by their own efforts and lived as a Super Power of World for many centuries.
Jews even in their Golden and Platinum period of their history, could reach even 10 % of what Muslims have achieved in the world.
But people like you, who have very distorted view of human history and how different civilizations and their contribution are evaluated, close your eyes of any good work or achievement done by Muslims and only loud what Jews have did or doing, drive totally different results.
What will be the ultimate result of this tussle between Palestinians and Jews, only time will tell. Just wait and watch.
Why are Jews apparently the only ones who have an "in built racism?" This is true for all of humanity, not just them alone. What about the segregated roads in the KSA for Muslims and non Muslims, or death for apostates? Isn't that discriminatory too?
w wman uk

UK

#37409 Dec 3, 2012
Professor Ayreshiite wrote:
<quoted text>
No substance means providing an answer in adequation with your post.
Post something of substance something factual about the topic, not your psychotic hatred of muslims arabs or whatever rocks your boat.
That by itself is irrational, but the way you put it in words and your constant abuse and massacre of language is a poor poor show and gives a negative image of yourself.
Is that substantial enough for you ?
Biggest problems in the world :
Access to water
Access to basic food requirements
Access to health
Shelter
Not muslims.
So now your a clone arsewipe ?
MUQ

Dammam, Saudi Arabia

#37410 Dec 3, 2012

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/arti...

CIA Lies About Lies
The Iraq War and the Persistent Myth of ‘Intelligence Failure’

By Jeremy R. Hammond (Contd.)

A Counterintelligence Success

Thus, while the UAVs were shown to be able to carry enough fuel to fly a distance of 500 km, Powell in fact offered no evidence to contradict Iraq’s declaration that its UAVs had a range of 80 km. This was deliberate sleight-of-hand, a blatant effort to deceive. He further stated that “Iraq could use these small UAVs which have a wingspan of only a few meters to deliver biological agents to its neighbors or if transported, to other countries, including the United States.”

The U.N. inspectors, however, had not arrived at the same conclusions. In his report to the Security Council on March 7, Hans Blix only briefly mentioned Iraq’s UAVs, saying,“Inspectors are also engaged in examining Iraq’s programme for Remotely Piloted Vehicles (RPVs). A number of sites have been inspected with data being collected to assess the range and other capabilities of the various models found. Inspections are continuing in this area.” I

In summing up the matter of Iraq’s UAV’s in the book he later wrote on the inspections process, Blix wrote,“The U.S. administration had concluded—almost certainly wrongly, it now appears—that the drone was a violation of the Security Council’s resolution. At UNMOVIC we were not ready to make that assessment. This angered Washington, despite the fact that it must have been known that the U.S. Air Force itself did not believe the Iraqi drones were for the delivery of biological and chemical agents.” And, as Blix also noted, the Air Force was “the greatest repository of U.S. expertise on drones”.

Turning to the actual intelligence underlying the administration’s claims, the Air Force experts had indeed assessed that Iraq’s drone aircraft were not designed or intended to disperse chemical or biological weapons, but for surveillance. The classified version of the October 2002 NIE stated that Iraq was “working with unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), which allow for a more lethal means to deliver biological and, less likely, chemical warfare agents.”

The NIE judged that the UAVs were “probably intended to deliver biological warfare agents”, and even went so far as to declare that “Baghdad’s UAVs could threaten Iraq’s neighbors, US forces in the Persian Gulf, and if brought to, or into, the United States, the US Homeland”(emphasis in original). However, the NIE also made known the “dissent” from these judgments from the nation’s top experts on UAVs.
MUQ

Jubail, Saudi Arabia

#37411 Dec 3, 2012
Air Force analysts agreed that “although CBW delivery is an inherent capability”, they did not believe Iraq’s UAVs were intended for that purpose, but rather had a “primary role of reconnaissance”. The Air Force judged that “Iraq is developing UAVs primarily for reconnaissance rather than delivery platforms for CBW agents…. CBW delivery is an inherent capability of UAVs but probably is not the impetus for Iraq’s recent UAV programs.”

The CIA relegated this judgment of the nation’s top experts on UAVs to a footnote. Even more revealing, the NIE’s section on biological warfare disclosed that “we have no information linking the current UAV development with BW delivery”—and recall that their use to deliver chemical weapons was even “less likely”. Thus, the CIA admitted that no evidence actually existed to support its own judgments that Iraq’s drones were intended to deliver CBW.

Furthermore, the Air Force was not alone in its “dissent” from the CIA’s baseless assessments. The UAV analyst from the INR later informed the Senate Committee that he agreed with the Air Force’s assessment, but that he nevertheless declined to join in the Air Force’s footnote. DIA analysts also testified that they had also agreed with the Air Force’s judgments, but had similarly declined to make this known in the NIE. Even analysts within the CIA agreed with the experts from the Air Force.

One CIA UAV analyst admitted to the Committee that “some of Iraq’s UAVs were in fact developed for reconnaissance and as aerial targets”. Others revealed that “they did not believe that CIA’s assessments about the UAVs were accurately represented because the NIE did not address the reconnaissance mission.” The reason offered for this was that “those roles fell outside the scope of the Iraq WMD NIE.” In other words, information which did not support the CIA’s judgments was deliberately omitted—or, in the case of the Air Force’s “dissent”, relegated to a footnote.

In a subsequent NIE titled “Nontraditional Threats to the US Homeland Through 2007”, published in January 2003, the Air Force, DIA, and Army all agreed that “BW delivery is an inherent capability of most UAVs and that Iraq may choose to exploit this capability, but they note that the evidence is unconfirmed and is not sufficiently compelling to indicate the Iraqis done so. There is information, however, on procurements that indicate a reconnaissance mission for the UAV program is more likely.” The picture begins to emerge that what the CIA described as “dissent” in the October NIE was in fact regarded by all of the top American experts on UAVs as sound analysis. Once again, it becomes clear that far from there having been an “intelligence failure”, the government’s claims simply were not supported by the available intelligence.

In another illustration of this fact, the report of the Senate Committee observed,“The only intelligence reporting that demonstrated any possibility that Iraq may have intended to use the UAVs to attack targets within the U.S. was reporting that Iraq was trying to procure U.S. mapping software for its small UAVs.

Doctor REALITY

Little Rock, AR

#37413 Dec 4, 2012
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_ea... Egypt's new leader must be replaced if REAL CHANGE is to take place in Egypt. Hardline islamic leaership is becoming a thing of the past,and a hindrance of peace for the future.
w wman uk

Sheffield, UK

#37415 Dec 4, 2012
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
Ans.
01. I do not know about Theocracy. This term is not found in Islamic Jurisprudence. Please tell us what is Theocracy and who Saudi Society is a Theocratic society ?
02. Religion does every body's need into account. How come the Creator who provides all the needs of believers and Non believers will leave them alone?
There are no special favors for followers of "official religion" and "Non official religion" in most matters.
Secularism has some good points no doubt, but denying religion any place in any matter is going too far and which is against reason and logic.
03. Knowledge is always good, but there are limits and every one has neither time nor facilities to learn about so many religions.
The best way is to ask the followers of these religions to come forward and present their religions basic fundamentals and how they derive them.
This will be more practical and reasonable approach. When we do that, we will find that we have many commonalities between us and this will certainly reduce the tension and mistrusts and misunderstandings between us.
04. I have exposure to India and the secular leaders there. The way they amass wealth in a short time and are involved in every shady deals, outshine the religious leaders.
05. Jews have "in-built" racism because of their very definition of their religion.
When you want to "keep in" your religion strictly to yourselves and do not encourage people to come and join it, you create an "in-built" racism.
Saudi Arabia's and so called Muslim racism is mostly because of "wrong concept of Nationalism" which they have picked up from Western Influence during past two centuries.
There are Tribal based societies in some areas, but if they go beyond the teachings of Islam they have to be curbed.
You forget that I talk about Islam and its teachings and not what Saudi Arabia or Iran or any country are doing.
Islam will not be judged by what Saudis or Iranians do….Saudis and Iranians will be judged as to how much they follow Islam in their personal and national and international lives.
The islamic judges would be old rabid bearded arsohollas of dubious moral and sexial preferances? More punisment and Jew hating its oh so islamic of you.
w wman uk

Sheffield, UK

#37416 Dec 4, 2012
Doctor REALITY wrote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ world/middle_east/tens-of-thou sands-protest-outside-egypts-p residential-palace-police-fire -tear-gas/2012/12/04/b524cb66- 3e3b-11e2-8a5c-473797be602c_st ory.html Egypt's new leader must be replaced if REAL CHANGE is to take place in Egypt. Hardline islamic leaership is becoming a thing of the past,and a hindrance of peace for the future.
The people have swaped one bastard leader for an islamic bastard. Its all going ti end in blood tears and hunger. Did anyone expect morsi to behave differantly after all thats what islamofachiest does. Its oh so islamic.
MUQ

Jubail, Saudi Arabia

#37417 Dec 4, 2012
-

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/arti...

CIA Lies About Lies
The Iraq War and the Persistent Myth of ‘Intelligence Failure’

By Jeremy R. Hammond (Contd.)

The NIE said the procurement effort,‘strongly suggests that Iraq is investigating the use of these UAVs for missions targeting the United States.’” Subsequent assessments, however, acknowledged that Iraq “may have ordered the U.S. mapping software unintentionally. Based on the new information, the DIA, the USAF, and the Army all chose to include a footnote noting that they interpreted ‘recent reporting to mean that the purpose of the Iraqi request for route planning software and topgraphic database was to acquire a generic mapping capability—a goal that is not necessarily indicative of an intent to target the U.S. Homeland.’”

Part of Powell’s claims regarding Iraq’s UAVs included the allegation that Iraq had weaponized anthrax that it could spray from the drones. The facts are clear that this claim, too, was not the product of an “intelligence failure”. Bush told the U.N. General Assembly on September 12, 2002, that “From 1991 to 1995, the Iraqi regime said it had no biological weapons. After a senior official in its program defected and exposed this lie, the regime admitted producing tens of thousands of liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents”. The official he was referring to, of course, was Hussein Kamal, who had in fact testified that “nothing remained” of Iraq’s biological weapons, that they were “destroyed” in 1991—a fact Bush could not have been unaware of but deliberately omitted in order to deceive the public.

On September 28, Bush stated,“The dangers we face only worsen from month to month and year to year … and each passing day could be the one on which the Iraq regime gives anthrax or VX nerve gas or someday a nuclear weapon to a terrorist group.” Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said on September 19, 2002, that Iraq had “amassed large clandestine stockpiles of biological weapons, including anthrax, botulism toxin, possibly smallpox.”“Less than a teaspoon of dry anthrax,” Colin Powell told his global audience in his presentation to the U.N., holding up a small vial filled with white powder,“about this amount—this is just about the amount of a teaspoon—less than a teaspoon full of dry anthrax in an envelope shut down the United States Senate in the fall of 2001…. If concentrated into this dry form, this amount would be enough to fill tens upon tens of thousands of teaspoons. And Saddam Hussein has not verifiably accounted for even one teaspoon of this deadly material.” Powell claimed that Iraq “had perfected drying techniques for their biological weapons programs” and had “incorporated this drying expertise” into “mobile production facilities”.

That Iraq had destroyed WMD in 1991 was public knowledge. The British dossier in September 2002 acknowledged that “Iraq destroyed unilaterally and illegally, some biological weapons in 1991 and 1992 making accounting for these weapons impossible.” The meaningless use of the adverb “illegally” aside, the relevance of this statement was that it implicitly acknowledged that there was no evidence that Iraq still possessed biological weapons. It rather shifted the burden of proof so that no such evidence was required; Iraq rather had to prove that it didn’t have such weapons.

The dossier explained the issue regarding anthrax succinctly:“From a series of Iraqi declarations to the UN during the 1990s we know that by 1991 they had produced at least … 8,500 litres of anthrax”, but the UN inspectors “were unable to account for … growth media procured for biological agent production (enough to produce over three times the 8,500 litres of anthrax spores Iraq admits to having manufactured)”.
MUQ

Dammam, Saudi Arabia

#37418 Dec 4, 2012
In other words, the Iraqis admitted to having produced 8,500 liters of anthrax before the Gulf War, but they could possibly have produced more. As Hans Blix similarly explained,“In most cases, the issues are outstanding not because there is information that contradicts Iraq’s account, but simply because there is a lack of supporting evidence” that it had destroyed all its WMD. That is to say, there was no evidence Iraq still possessed biological weapons; U.N. inspectors just hadn’t reached the point where they could declare that they had verified that all of Iraq’s WMD had been destroyed, as Iraq claimed. Blix explained further that

“Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 litres” of anthrax,“which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991”. There was “no convincing evidence for its destruction”, Blix said, but he added that “Iraq has provided little evidence for this production”—that is to say, there was no evidence Iraq had destroyed all of its anthrax, but neither was there any evidence it still possessed any, and there was “little evidence” Iraq ever actually produced that much in the first place.

As former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter explained, UNSCOM had “fundamentally disarmed” Iraq, with “90-95% of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction capability … verifiably eliminated”. Furthermore, Ritter explained, the anthrax that Iraq had produced had a shelf life that would have rendered it useless many years prior. Iraq had produced only “liquid bulk anthrax”, which “even under ideal storage, germinates in three years, becoming useless.” Contrary to Powell’s claims, there was no evidence that Iraq had ever successfully produced dried anthrax.

David Kay later admitted in testimony to the U.S. Senate that Iraq had never dried anthrax, but only a “simulant”. The CIA admitted in its final report that the “ISG has found no information” that Iraq had ever produced “weaponizable dried B. anthracis.” A senior scientist in Iraq’s biological weapons program during the 1980s, Dr. Nissar Hindawi, told the New York Times in April 2003 that Iraq had produced “huge quantities” of liquid anthrax before the Gulf War. However,“There were orders to destroy it”, he added. He also confirmed that they had never been able to make dried anthrax.

Powell’s deceptive comments served several propaganda purposes. First, they served to obfuscate the fact that the liquid anthrax Iraq actually produced would have already degraded years before. Second, they served to imply that Iraq had weaponized powdered anthrax. Third, they created a mental association between the anthrax letters mailed in the U.S. shortly after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, which attacks were constantly invoked by the Bush administration in drawing associations between 9/11 and Iraq.

This psychological association between Iraq and 9/11 was such successful propaganda that, according to one poll, 70% of Americans believed that Iraq was involved in the attacks. Thus the country was suffering from a mass delusion resulting from the government’s deceptions, such as Dick Cheney’s lie that it had been “pretty well confirmed” that alleged hijacker Mohammed Atta had met with Iraqi intelligence agents in Prague—the truth being that U.S. intelligence had concluded this meeting had never occurred. Indeed, the U.S. media had been full of baseless reports accusing Iraq of being behind the anthrax mailings, a false perception Powell was deliberately trying to exploit to manufacture consent for war.
Professor Ayreshire

Rio Rancho, NM

#37419 Dec 5, 2012
MUQ wrote:
-
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/arti...
CIA Lies About Lies
The an “intelligence failure”. Bush told the U.N. General Assembly on of Defense biological agent production (enough to produce over three times the 8,500 litres of anthrax spores Iraq admits to having manufactured)”.
Stop the ignorant nonsense!! Iraq's Saddam Hussein created a far greater humanitarian nightmare than Libya. "The Butcher of Baghdad" slaughtered, at minimum, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis -- far more people than were killed in Bosnia and Kosovo, where President Clinton ordered military force for humanitarian reasons. Yet, when weapons hunters found no stockpiles of WMD in Iraq, the dwindling number of pro-war Democrats turned against the war never mind the sickening sight of thousands of Iraqis found in shallow graves.
That Saddam possessed stockpiles of WMD, having used chemical weapons on the Iranians and his own people, was not in dispute. All 16 U.S. intelligences agencies thought so "with the highest probability." France, the United Kingdom, Russia, Egypt, Jordan, China, Israel and even Saddam's own generals assumed Iraq possessed WMD. Even U.N. weapons inspector and Iraq War critic Hans Blix thought Saddam likely possessed these weapons. As Blix admitted at a 2004 University of Berkeley forum:' I'm not here to have gut feelings. But yes, in December 2002 (three months before the invasion) I thought Saddam had weapons of mass destruction." The non-unilateralist Nobel Peace Prize laureate Obama, unlike Bush, sought no congressional war resolution. Obama, therefore, ordered military action against Libya "unilaterally" -- without the congressional approval that he once argued the Constitution demanded.

As Obama further explained in his December 2007 statement, "In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent." So a president, according to Obama, does not need congressional authority -- provided the action involves "self-defense" or "stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."

What is the "actual or imminent threat" to America posed by Libya?
Ritter served from 1991 to 1998 as a United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq in the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), which was charged with finding and destroying all weapons of mass destruction and WMD-related manufacturing capabilities in Iraq. He was chief inspector in fourteen of the more than thirty inspection missions in which he participated.

In January 1998, his inspection team in Iraq was blocked from some weapons sites by Iraqi officials stating that information obtained from these sites would be used for future planning of attacks. UN Inspectors were ordered out of Iraq by the United States Government, shortly before Operation Desert Fox attacks began in December 1998, using information which had been gathered for the purpose of disarmament to identify targets which would reduce Iraq's ability to wage both conventional and possibly unconventional warfare. UN Weapons Inspectors were thereafter denied access to Iraq. He spoke on the Public Broadcasting Service show. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Ritter
MUQ

Dammam, Saudi Arabia

#37420 Dec 5, 2012
-

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/arti...

CIA Lies About Lies
The Iraq War and the Persistent Myth of ‘Intelligence Failure’

By Jeremy R. Hammond (Contd.)

Scott Ritter responded to the allegations that Iraq was behind the anthrax attacks in The Guardian:“Under the most stringent on-site inspection regime in the history of arms control, Iraq’s biological weapons programmes were dismantled, destroyed or rendered harmless during the course of hundreds of no-notice inspections. The major biological weapons production facility—al Hakum, which was responsible for producing Iraq’s anthrax—was blown up by high explosive charges and all its equipment destroyed…. Thousands of swabs and samples were taken from buildings and soil throughout Iraq.

No evidence of anthrax or any other biological agent was discovered. While it was impossible to verify that all of Iraq’s biological capability had been destroyed, the UN never once found evidence that Iraq had either retained biological weapons or associated production equipment, or was continuing work in the field.” Ritter also pointed out that “Iraq procured the Vollum strain of anthrax from American Type Culture Collection”—which is was provided by the United States while it was supporting Saddam Hussein during the period when he committed his worst atrocities, including the oft-repeated crime of “gassing his own people”(a reference to his use of chemical weapons against the Kurdish town of Halabja in 1988). The strain used in the post-9/11 anthrax mailings, on the other hand, was the Ames strain—which had been produced at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) at Fort Detrick, Maryland.

It was already well known at the time that Iraq had obtained its precursors for chemical and biological weapons from the United States.“When Iraq engaged in chemical and biological warfare in the 1980s,” author William Blum observed in 1998,“barely a peep of moral outrage could be heard from Washington, as it kept supplying Saddam with the materials he needed to build weapons.” A Senate report from 1994 stated that “The United States provided the Government of Iraq with ‘dual use’ licensed materials which assisted in the development of Iraqi chemical, biological, and missile-system programs, including …

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Iran Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Iranian, Turkish cultural institutes to cooperate Thu Kannibaal M 4
Mt. Calvary Baptist Church (New Website) (Jan '14) Wed TaterTot 3
Cleaning chemicals for black nts. Aug 25 Jhounst 1
Iraq urges global action against Islamic State,... Aug 24 Kev 1
Earthquake jolts western Iran Aug 24 Kev 1
Iran Says it Downed Israeli Drone over Nuclear ... Aug 24 Kev 1
why do Iranian women get mad at Persian men who... (Apr '11) Aug 24 darius ashkani 210
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Iran People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••