Fanatical Islam

For discussion of liberty, freedom, government and politics.
Post Reply
Thomas
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4622

Re: Fanatical Islam

Post by Thomas »

OMD, stop buying the Gadiantions propaganda. Austerity is a fraud. Wealth redistribution always goes from the middle class and rich to the richest.I adimt that the Gadiantions are trying to stir up the dependant class but think about the Wall Street bailouts.Think about the one trillion the fed just gave to European banks.Think about the twenty seven trillion the fed loaned throughout the world during 2008.This ploy is designed to place the blame on welfare recipiants for our debt when the money has actually went to pay for banking fraud and bombs. The main stream media and fake conservative media tried to portray the riots in Greece on welfare bums not getting what they want. The Greek people know better. They have been sold out by a corrupt government to pay a debt they never received any benefit from just like we were sold out by George Bush when he saddled us with the TAARP debt. If the people of the world would do as the people of Iceland did and refuse to pay the fruad, we could stop the Gadiantions. Now if people rise up and refuse to give Wall Street their hard earned money people like you will side with the crooks.

User avatar
Oldemandalton
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2226
Location: Las Vegas
Contact:

Re: Fanatical Islam

Post by Oldemandalton »

Thomas
OMD, stop buying the Gadiantions propaganda. Austerity is a fraud. Wealth redistribution always goes from the middle class and rich to the richest.
=)) Good one Thomas:

Who Pays Income Taxes and How Much?

Tax Year 2009

Top 1% pays 36.73%
Top 5% pays 58.66%
Top 10% pays 70.47%
Top 25% pays 87.30%
Top 50% pays 97.75%
Bottom 50% pays 2.25%
http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

One In Six Americans Now Receives Government Aid
http://articles.businessinsider.com/201 ... z1hqzFjGlV

Thomas, the top 1% of the wage earners that OWS hate and who think should be drug out into the street and hung, pay 37% of the income tax! The bottom 50% pays a whopping 2%!
Thomas
I adimt that the Gadiantions are trying to stir up the dependant class but think about the Wall Street bailouts.Think about the one trillion the fed just gave to European banks.Think about the twenty seven trillion the fed loaned throughout the world during 2008.This ploy is designed to place the blame on welfare recipiants for our debt when the money has actually went to pay for banking fraud and bombs.
No this ‘ploy’ was to save the LDGs from losing their shirts and to stretch out the failure of our economy to enrich them even more. It also makes a great target for the “useful idiots” to attack during the ‘Coming Insurrection’ and gin up hatred.
Thomas
The main stream media and fake conservative media tried to portray the riots in Greece on welfare bums not getting what they want. The Greek people know better. They have been sold out by a corrupt government to pay a debt they never received any benefit from just like we were sold out by George Bush when he saddled us with the TAARP debt.
Greece: More Than 100,000 Activists Riot After Austerity Measure Approved

Posted on October 19, 2011 at 8:28pm by Tiffany Gabbay

Image

ATHENS, Greece (The Blaze/AP) — Hundreds of youths smashed and looted stores in central Athens and clashed with riot police during a massive anti-government rally against painful new austerity measures that won initial parliamentary approval in a vote Wednesay night.

The rioting came on the first day of a 48-hour nationwide general strike that brought services in much of Greece to a standstill, grounding flights for hours, leaving ferries tied up in port and shutting down customs offices, stores and banks.

More than 100,000 people took to the streets of the Greek capital to demonstrate against the austerity bill, which includes new tax hikes, further pension and salary cuts, the suspension on reduced pay of 30,000 public servants and the suspension of collective labor contracts.




Creditors have demanded the meaures before they give Greece more funds from a euro110 billion ($152.11 billion) package of bailout loans from other eurozone countries and the International Monetary Fund. Greece says it will run out of money in mid-November without the euro8 billion ($11 billion) installment.

But Greek citizens said they already are reeling from more than one-and-a-half years of austerity measures.

“We just can’t take it any more. There is desperation, anger and bitterness,” said Nikos Anastasopoulos, head of a workers’ union for an Athens municipality, as he joined the demonstration early in the day.

The bill won initial approval in the 300-member Parliament late Wednesday, with 154 deputies voting in favor on principle and 141 against. A second vote, on the bill’s articles, is due Thursday. Only after that procedure will the bill have passed. A communist party-backed union has vowed to encircle Parliament Thursday in an attempt to prevent deputies from entering the building for the procedure.

The new measures have even prompted some lawmakers from the governing Socialists to threaten not vote for at least some of the articles in the bill. But Finance Minister Evangelos Venizelos insisted there was no choice but to accept the hardship.

“We have to explain to all these indignant people who see their lives changing that what the country is experiencing is not the worst stage of the crisis,” he said in Parliament. “It is an anguished and necessary effort to avoid the ultimate, deepest and harshest level of the crisis. The difference between a difficult situation and a catastrophe is immense.”

Hours before Wednesday’s vote, one of Athens’ largest demonstrations in years degenerated into violence as masked and hooded youths pelted riot police outside Parliament with gasoline bombs and chunks of marble smashed from buildings, metro stops and sidewalks.

Police responded with tear gas and stun grenades. Authorities said 50 police were injured in the clashes, along with at least three demonstrators, while 33 people were detained for questioning or arrested for alleged involvement in the rioting. At least three journalists covering the riots were also slightly hurt.

Long after Wednesday’s demonstration was over, violence continued, with police fighting running street battles with youths setting up burning barricades along the back streets near Athens’ main Syntagma Square and near the tourist area of Monastiraki.

Thick black smoke billowed from burning trash and bus-stops, and debris lay strewn along the capital’s broad avenues. A hurled gasoline bomb set fire to a sentry post used by the ceremonial presidential guard at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier outside Parliament.

In Greece’s second city of Thessaloniki, protesters smashed the facades of about 10 shops that defied the strike and remained open, as well as five banks and cash machines. Police fired tear gas and threw stun grenades.

The general strike is set to continue Thursday, with all sectors – from dentists, hospital doctors and lawyers to tax office workers, taxi drivers, prison guards, teachers and dock workers – staying off the job.

Air traffic controllers scaled back their strike from 48 hours to 12, allowing flights to take off and land after noon on Wednesday.

Meanwhile, European countries are trying to work out a broad solution to the continent’s deepening debt crisis, before a weekend summit in Brussels. It became clear earlier this year that the initial bailout for Greece was not working as well as had been hoped, and European leaders agreed on a second, euro109 billion ($151 billion) bailout. But key details of that rescue fund, including the participation of the private sector, remain to be worked out.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/greece- ... -approved/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Greece is trying to get off the socialist economic mess they have lived off of for decades. They realized it doesn’t work and need to cut back their reckless spending. Those addicted to government handout don’t like getting off the dole cold turkey so the revolutionaries/Marxists/anarchists are taking advantage of the anger just like OWS will do in the coming spring and summer here. Can you imagine what our dole dependent class will do if Obama loses and the next president is faced with the same problem Greece is.
Thomas
If the people of the world would do as the people of Iceland did and refuse to pay the fruad, we could stop the Gadiantions. Now if people rise up and refuse to give Wall Street their hard earned money people like you will side with the crooks.
Yes let’s see what happens when we default on our loans, that will solve everything. 8-|

Thomas
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4622

Re: Fanatical Islam

Post by Thomas »

I suppose you support the bank bailouts then. You have to look beyond the propaganda being fed to you. Research Iceland. If I had more time I would dig some up for you.Wall Street is the heart of the LDGs.

User avatar
Oldemandalton
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2226
Location: Las Vegas
Contact:

Re: Fanatical Islam

Post by Oldemandalton »

Thomas
I suppose you support the bank bailouts then. You have to look beyond the propaganda being fed to you. Research Iceland. If I had more time I would dig some up for you.Wall Street is the heart of the LDGs.
8-|

Thomas apparently you have no clue what I believe. This may help.

Likes (not in order of priority):
Read all of Skousen’s work.
Tea Partier.
Believe Ronald Reagan was the best president last century.
Did not vote for Bush his second term.
Listen to Glenn Beck, not Rush or Hannity.
Love this country as I would a wayward child.
Moderate Muslims.
Guns, football, 4x4 Trucks.
My Children and Grandchildren.


Don’t like:
Latter day Gadiantons.
Progressives, Marxists, Anarchists.
Blame America/Israel Firsters.
Anti-Semitism.
Jihadists (Fanatical Islamists).
MSM
Cats

User avatar
InfoWarrior82
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10861
Location: "There are 15 on the earth today, you can trust them completely." -President Nelson (Jan 2022)

Re: Fanatical Islam

Post by InfoWarrior82 »

http://www.infowars.com/romney-and-perr ... -ron-paul/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Romney and Perry Cite Lies About Iran in Effort to Discredit Ron Paul

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
December 29, 2011

Desperate to claw their way back up in the polls, Mitt Romney and Rick Perry have attacked Ron Paul on Iran.

“One of the people running for president thinks it’s okay for Iran to have a nuclear weapon,” said Romney on Wednesday without mentioning Paul’s name directly.


Ron Paul debunks the “wipe Israel off the map” lie on Fox News, much to the incredulity of Sean Hannity.

“You don’t have to vote for a candidate who will allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Because America will be next,” said Perry from Urbandale, Iowa. “I’m here to say: You have a choice.”

Neither the IAEA or U.S. intelligence agencies have produced information indicating that Iran has a nuclear weapon or is working on one. Iran has not called for wiping “Israel off the face of the earth,” as Perry claimed. In fact, the remark is attributed to a deliberate Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) mistranslation of an Ahmadinejad speech in 2008. MEMRI is an Israel-centric propaganda tool run by a former colonel in Israeli intelligence.

Rick Perry has declared his support for Israel if it attacks Iran. “Obviously, we are going to support Israel. And I’ve said that we will support Israel in every way that we can, whether it’s diplomatic, whether it’s economic sanctions, whether it’s overt or covert operations, up to and including military action,” he said in November.

“The right course for (us on) Israel is to show that we care about Israel, they are our friend, we’ll stick with them,” Romney said during a foreign policy debate. The former Massachusetts governor has said he would use “blockade, bombardment and surgical military strikes” to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

The establishment media has portrayed Ron Paul’s non-interventionist, constitutionally-based foreign policy as dangerous and naïve. Romney, Perry, Gingrich and Bachmann – the latter supposedly representative of a formerly libertarian Tea Party – have all called for a belligerent posture toward Iran.

The handpicked GOP field of candidates naturally embrace the establishment’s fantasy narrative about Iran despite the fact there is no behavioral evidence whatsoever demonstrating Iran is building a nuclear weapon or plans to nuke Israel or any other country.

For more facts on Iran and its nuclear development and foreign policy objectives – including the pragmatic step of developing secret ties and trading arms with Israel, even as Iran and Israel denounced each other in public – see this list of key myths produced by the American Foreign Policy Project.

User avatar
Still Learning
captain of 100
Posts: 334

Re: Fanatical Islam

Post by Still Learning »

[quote=]Cats[/quote]

Glad you threw that one in at the end! =)) I'm not fond of cats either...make me sneeze!

Thomas
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4622

Re: Fanatical Islam

Post by Thomas »

Oldemandalton wrote:
Thomas
I suppose you support the bank bailouts then. You have to look beyond the propaganda being fed to you. Research Iceland. If I had more time I would dig some up for you.Wall Street is the heart of the LDGs.
8-|

Thomas apparently you have no clue what I believe. This may help.

Likes (not in order of priority):
Read all of Skousen’s work.
Tea Partier.
Believe Ronald Reagan was the best president last century.
Did not vote for Bush his second term.
Listen to Glenn Beck, not Rush or Hannity.
Love this country as I would a wayward child.
Moderate Muslims.
Guns, football, 4x4 Trucks.
My Children and Grandchildren.


Don’t like:
Latter day Gadiantons.
Progressives, Marxists, Anarchists.
Blame America/Israel Firsters.
Anti-Semitism.
Jihadists (Fanatical Islamists).
MSM
Cats
Sorry Omd, I did'nt mean to type cast you. I have read alot of your posts and I think you are a good man. I think we have a common enemy, the LDGs. I just disagre with you on a few things. Didn't much care for Reagan. Took away civil liberties, gave the Savings and Loans bailouts, called off investigation of fraud to save cronies in S&L scandal, and Iran Contra ,with all its drug dealing ties. Not quite sold on Beck. I don't think he is giving the whole story.I do believe we have to look at what our leaders do and hold them accountable. I don't like fascism. Other than that our lists would be pretty much the same.

I believe fascism has taken hold of our country and is not much different than communism. Communism is sold to people as the equalization of wealth but as we have seen in the former Soviet Union , North Korea and China , it benefits a small percetage of the people. Right now our country's wealth distribution is on par with China, with the top one percent owning almost fifty percent of all wealth. The top ten percent own over seventy percent of all wealth and the bottom forty percent own about .2 percent. This would be fine with me if the elites had earned it but it is gained mostly through control of the government. Big corporations conspire with the government to keep their competition out. As a small businees owner, I see large companies given tax breaks all the time as the small guys get hammered, and that's just on the local level. In D.C. they are robbing us blind. I belive at least half of our national debt is going to pay for bank and big corporation bailouts and the other half is going in the pockets of big defence contractors, that get much of that money in noncompetive bids. Donald Runsfield announced on Sep.10, 2001, that the pentagon could not account for 2.3 Trillion dollars given to defence contractors. Thats enough to give 23 million households $100,000.00 each and the fake conservative (fascist) media keeps pointing the finger at the food stamp reciptants. I don't like being forced to give my money to poor but I like giving it to the superwealthy even less. ( I willing contibute to the poor.) The poor are getting a pittance compared to the rich. We need to have a free market economy.

I am having a hectic week but when I get a few spare hours, I'll post some links for info on the greek and U.S.debt.

User avatar
Oldemandalton
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2226
Location: Las Vegas
Contact:

Re: Fanatical Islam

Post by Oldemandalton »

Thomas
Sorry Omd, I did'nt mean to type cast you. I have read alot of your posts and I think you are a good man. I think we have a common enemy, the LDGs. I just disagre with you on a few things. Didn't much care for Reagan. Took away civil liberties, gave the Savings and Loans bailouts, called off investigation of fraud to save cronies in S&L scandal, and Iran Contra ,with all its drug dealing ties. Not quite sold on Beck. I don't think he is giving the whole story.I do believe we have to look at what our leaders do and hold them accountable. I don't like fascism. Other than that our lists would be pretty much the same.

I believe fascism has taken hold of our country and is not much different than communism. Communism is sold to people as the equalization of wealth but as we have seen in the former Soviet Union , North Korea and China , it benefits a small percetage of the people. Right now our country's wealth distribution is on par with China, with the top one percent owning almost fifty percent of all wealth. The top ten percent own over seventy percent of all wealth and the bottom forty percent own about .2 percent. This would be fine with me if the elites had earned it but it is gained mostly through control of the government. Big corporations conspire with the government to keep their competition out. As a small businees owner, I see large companies given tax breaks all the time as the small guys get hammered, and that's just on the local level. In D.C. they are robbing us blind. I belive at least half of our national debt is going to pay for bank and big corporation bailouts and the other half is going in the pockets of big defence contractors, that get much of that money in noncompetive bids. Donald Runsfield announced on Sep.10, 2001, that the pentagon could not account for 2.3 Trillion dollars given to defence contractors. Thats enough to give 23 million households $100,000.00 each and the fake conservative (fascist) media keeps pointing the finger at the food stamp reciptants. I don't like being forced to give my money to poor but I like giving it to the superwealthy even less. ( I willing contibute to the poor.) The poor are getting a pittance compared to the rich. We need to have a free market economy.

I am having a hectic week but when I get a few spare hours, I'll post some links for info on the greek and U.S.debt.
We haven’t had true capitalism in many decades, Thomas.
See my posts at "How Progressives Have Shaped This Country" and the article below:

http://www.ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopi ... 08#p248108


Beck‘s Very Epic Analysis of Obama’s ‘New Nationalism’ Speech — ‘He Is Lying’

Posted on December 8, 2011 at 2:12am by Tiffany Gabbay

Scroll down for the video.

President Barack Obama has gone on record numerous times denying the innovation and success of the free market. During Wednesday’s episode of the Glenn Beck Program on GBTV, Glenn noted that while at the Fox News network, he was advised to never call the president a “liar” under any circumstances. The logic being that the public would prefer to hear that the president “misspoke” rather than be lead to believe he could lie.

Well, tonight, on his own network, Glenn did just that — call Obama a liar — and he backed up the assertion with historical facts and figures.
Airing a clip in which the president repeatedly tells an audience, and the greater American public, that capitalism has “never worked” — not in 1920′s, the 1950‘s and 60’s, nor in the 1980′s — Glenn took major issue with Obama’s “fairy tales about history” and proved the president wrong by pointing to the historical instances that made each of those decades Obama smeared as a “failure of the free market,” an actual success.

Citing presidents Calvin Coolidge and Warren Harding‘s efforts to undo the Depression caused by Woodrow Wilson’s progressive policies as a launchpad, Glenn explained how tax cuts and dramatic reduction in the size of government implemented post-Wilson, gave way to the auto-industry boom of the 1920′s.

“Auto production went through roof,” Glenn said, and increased by “191 percent.”

Driving opened the door to entirely new opportunities for Americans. With transportation more widely accessible, people could travel farther for their jobs, thus expanding their options. And, with increased auto production came demands for related goods and services such as rubber, steel, leather, paint, gasoline, and road and highway construction. “Companies had to be created to meet the demand of just one product,” Glenn marveled.

In other words, the ripple effect of the auto industry continued to grow exponentially. With cars came new innovations and more widespread adoption of existing inventions like the telephone. By 1930, Glenn pointed out that “70 times” the number of people had flown on an airplane than they had in the previous decade.

With radio came advertising, and while films had been around for some time prior, it wasn‘t until the 1920’s that iconic film director and producer Cecil B. DeMille made movies both famous, and lucrative.

Glenn went back to the 1920′s, when he cited that the average salary went up 37 percent between 1920 and 1929.

“But it did not work?” Glenn mocked.

“He is lying.”

“Everyone benefited from the bottom up.”

When speaking of the “cancer of progressivism,” Glenn, addressing Obama, challenged him or anyone to “name the Communist country that is, in its heart, better than America.”

Name the Communist country “that has done more,” Glenn pressed. Such a country cannot be named because it does not exist, “because Marxists go dead inside.”

Glenn maintained that most Capitalists do want to help, but that Obama “doesn’t think so.”

If a doctor makes more money than most, “he must be cutting off people’s feet for cash,” according to the president’s logic.

“That’s what I like to call a lie,” Glenn said emphatically.

At one point during the segment, Glenn asked if the audience needed “evidence.”

Delivering the coup de grace to Obama’s unyielding assertion that capitalism has always and forever been a complete failure, Glenn brought up a curious letter written by a foreigner living in the U.S. in 1917. The impressed man wrote:

“We rented an apartment in a worker’s district. That apartment, at $18 a month, is equipped with all sorts of conveniences that we Europeans were quite un-used to: Electric lights, gas cooking-range, bath, telephone, automatic service-elevator, and even a chute for the garbage.”

The author was devout Marxist Leon Trotsky.

Watch Glenn deliver a profound and thought-provoking segment below, courtesy of GBTV:


User avatar
Book of Ruth
captain of 100
Posts: 264

Re: Fanatical Islam

Post by Book of Ruth »

Hillary Clinton Pushes to Make Criticism of Islam a Crime in the US.

Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton is due to host OIC Secretary General Ekmeleddin
Ihsanoglu in Washington, DC in mid-December 2011 to discuss how the
United States can implement the OIC agenda to criminalize criticism of
Islam.
Cloaked in the sanctimonious language of “Resolution 16/18,”
that was adopted by the UN Human Rights Council in April 2011, the WDC
three-day experts meeting is billed as a working session to discuss
legal mechanisms to combat religious discrimination (but the only
religion the Human Rights Council has ever mentioned in any previous
resolution is Islam)
. The UN Human Rights Council, which includes such
bastions of human rights as China, Cuba, Libya, Pakistan, and Saudi
Arabia, introduced Resolution 16/18 to the UN General Assembly (UNGA),
where it was passed in March 2011.

And so it begins..............................
http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/h ... n-2333671/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.pr ... eId=379225" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
Oldemandalton
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2226
Location: Las Vegas
Contact:

Re: Fanatical Islam

Post by Oldemandalton »

Kurt Nimmo, who frequently appears on Russian and Iranian news outlets, and mis’InfoWars’ are the ones lying, infowarrior82;

http://www.debka.com/article/21455/

http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/northko ... 00315.HTML

http://www.debka.com/article/21481/

http://www.aijac.org.au/news/article/ia ... -on-a-bomb

http://www.haaretz.com/news/iaea-report ... b-1.263564

Iran is refining fuel at 20% now, only 5% in needed for nuclear power. Only the naïve like Ron Paul or Propagandists like Kurt Nimmo say that Iran has no intentions of making nuclear weapons.

User avatar
Fairminded
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1956

Re: Fanatical Islam

Post by Fairminded »

You haven't been shy about your support for the war on "terror" or your antagonism for Islam and its adherents, OMD, but do you need to stoop to fearmongering? You'd have us believe that as soon as Iran possesses nuclear capability everyone in the world will die.

I admit I'm just a young whippersnapper, and I'm sure you have far more experience of living through the Cold War than I do, so let's talk about that. For several decades the U.S. faced off against a superpower with nuclear capability comparable to our own. In all that time did either side end up employing those weapons? No, because cool heads on both sides realized it would lead to mutually assured destruction and managed to avert each crisis.

Now let's look at Iran, who may at some point possess a relative handful of weapons. For them to use them would be suicide, far more devastating to their own country than to any enemy. You might argue that fanatic terrorists commit suicide for the cause all the time, but we're talking about an entire country with millions of people. It could happen, yes, but why should it be any more likely than during the Cold War when we were able to talk down every crisis?

Sure, it means we'd have to change our philosophy of going in guns blazing at a whim and actually resorting to diplomacy, but we should probably be doing that anyway.

Up to this point in history, the only nation that's used a nuclear device against an enemy has been Iran. OH WAIT!

Then again maybe we should be afraid of them acquiring nuclear capability, since it would mean an end to our bullying. Hard to pick on a country that can fight back, eh?

Thomas
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4622

Re: Fanatical Islam

Post by Thomas »

Oldemandalton wrote:
Thomas
Sorry Omd, I did'nt mean to type cast you. I have read alot of your posts and I think you are a good man. I think we have a common enemy, the LDGs. I just disagre with you on a few things. Didn't much care for Reagan. Took away civil liberties, gave the Savings and Loans bailouts, called off investigation of fraud to save cronies in S&L scandal, and Iran Contra ,with all its drug dealing ties. Not quite sold on Beck. I don't think he is giving the whole story.I do believe we have to look at what our leaders do and hold them accountable. I don't like fascism. Other than that our lists would be pretty much the same.

I believe fascism has taken hold of our country and is not much different than communism. Communism is sold to people as the equalization of wealth but as we have seen in the former Soviet Union , North Korea and China , it benefits a small percetage of the people. Right now our country's wealth distribution is on par with China, with the top one percent owning almost fifty percent of all wealth. The top ten percent own over seventy percent of all wealth and the bottom forty percent own about .2 percent. This would be fine with me if the elites had earned it but it is gained mostly through control of the government. Big corporations conspire with the government to keep their competition out. As a small businees owner, I see large companies given tax breaks all the time as the small guys get hammered, and that's just on the local level. In D.C. they are robbing us blind. I belive at least half of our national debt is going to pay for bank and big corporation bailouts and the other half is going in the pockets of big defence contractors, that get much of that money in noncompetive bids. Donald Runsfield announced on Sep.10, 2001, that the pentagon could not account for 2.3 Trillion dollars given to defence contractors. Thats enough to give 23 million households $100,000.00 each and the fake conservative (fascist) media keeps pointing the finger at the food stamp reciptants. I don't like being forced to give my money to poor but I like giving it to the superwealthy even less. ( I willing contibute to the poor.) The poor are getting a pittance compared to the rich. We need to have a free market economy.

I am having a hectic week but when I get a few spare hours, I'll post some links for info on the greek and U.S.debt.
We haven’t had true capitalism in many decades, Thomas.
See my posts at "How Progressives Have Shaped This Country" and the article below:

http://www.ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopi ... 08#p248108


Beck‘s Very Epic Analysis of Obama’s ‘New Nationalism’ Speech — ‘He Is Lying’

Posted on December 8, 2011 at 2:12am by Tiffany Gabbay

Scroll down for the video.

President Barack Obama has gone on record numerous times denying the innovation and success of the free market. During Wednesday’s episode of the Glenn Beck Program on GBTV, Glenn noted that while at the Fox News network, he was advised to never call the president a “liar” under any circumstances. The logic being that the public would prefer to hear that the president “misspoke” rather than be lead to believe he could lie.

Well, tonight, on his own network, Glenn did just that — call Obama a liar — and he backed up the assertion with historical facts and figures.
Airing a clip in which the president repeatedly tells an audience, and the greater American public, that capitalism has “never worked” — not in 1920′s, the 1950‘s and 60’s, nor in the 1980′s — Glenn took major issue with Obama’s “fairy tales about history” and proved the president wrong by pointing to the historical instances that made each of those decades Obama smeared as a “failure of the free market,” an actual success.

Citing presidents Calvin Coolidge and Warren Harding‘s efforts to undo the Depression caused by Woodrow Wilson’s progressive policies as a launchpad, Glenn explained how tax cuts and dramatic reduction in the size of government implemented post-Wilson, gave way to the auto-industry boom of the 1920′s.

“Auto production went through roof,” Glenn said, and increased by “191 percent.”

Driving opened the door to entirely new opportunities for Americans. With transportation more widely accessible, people could travel farther for their jobs, thus expanding their options. And, with increased auto production came demands for related goods and services such as rubber, steel, leather, paint, gasoline, and road and highway construction. “Companies had to be created to meet the demand of just one product,” Glenn marveled.

In other words, the ripple effect of the auto industry continued to grow exponentially. With cars came new innovations and more widespread adoption of existing inventions like the telephone. By 1930, Glenn pointed out that “70 times” the number of people had flown on an airplane than they had in the previous decade.

With radio came advertising, and while films had been around for some time prior, it wasn‘t until the 1920’s that iconic film director and producer Cecil B. DeMille made movies both famous, and lucrative.

Glenn went back to the 1920′s, when he cited that the average salary went up 37 percent between 1920 and 1929.

“But it did not work?” Glenn mocked.

“He is lying.”

“Everyone benefited from the bottom up.”

When speaking of the “cancer of progressivism,” Glenn, addressing Obama, challenged him or anyone to “name the Communist country that is, in its heart, better than America.”

Name the Communist country “that has done more,” Glenn pressed. Such a country cannot be named because it does not exist, “because Marxists go dead inside.”

Glenn maintained that most Capitalists do want to help, but that Obama “doesn’t think so.”

If a doctor makes more money than most, “he must be cutting off people’s feet for cash,” according to the president’s logic.

“That’s what I like to call a lie,” Glenn said emphatically.

At one point during the segment, Glenn asked if the audience needed “evidence.”

Delivering the coup de grace to Obama’s unyielding assertion that capitalism has always and forever been a complete failure, Glenn brought up a curious letter written by a foreigner living in the U.S. in 1917. The impressed man wrote:

“We rented an apartment in a worker’s district. That apartment, at $18 a month, is equipped with all sorts of conveniences that we Europeans were quite un-used to: Electric lights, gas cooking-range, bath, telephone, automatic service-elevator, and even a chute for the garbage.”

The author was devout Marxist Leon Trotsky.

Watch Glenn deliver a profound and thought-provoking segment below, courtesy of GBTV:

Thanks for the post. I haven't checked out Beck since he left Fox.I am sure they had a muzzle on him.

It's quite obivious what kind of change Obama wants for this country.

User avatar
Oldemandalton
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2226
Location: Las Vegas
Contact:

Re: Fanatical Islam

Post by Oldemandalton »

Fairminded
You haven't been shy about your support for the war on "terror" or your antagonism for Islam and its adherents, OMD, but do you need to stoop to fearmongering? I support our defense against the war the Jihadists have waged against our country for decades.
I am not antagonistic against Islam, Fairminded. I do oppose any adherents of any religion who will use God as an excuse to purposely attack civilians, hide behind women and children, and try to spread their false interpretation of that religion all around the world through force of arms.
you need to stoop to fearmongering
Those who have been fooled by the propagandists and naive call it “fear mongering”, Fairminded. I call it facing reality.
You'd have us believe that as soon as Iran possesses nuclear capability everyone in the world will die.
No I don’t think the world would die. I have studied the Middle East for years and see several scenarios of what may happen if Iran gets nuclear warheads on their intercontinental missiles:

1.Use the threat of nuclear retaliation to increase their support of Shia revolutions in other Arab countries around the ME and around the world. This is why the Sunni Arabs in the region are supporting the idea of the Saudis acquiring their own nuclear missiles.

2.Use a pretext (such as Israel military responding to terrorists attacks by going into Gaza, Samaria, or Lebanon.) to launch nuclear missiles at major populations centers in Israel and kill millions. What would the UN do? More sanctions? If Obama is president he would probably support the action. If Ron Paul was president? “No entanglements in foreign wars” so we would stay out of it. Israel would launch missiles in return and the 12'vers in Iran would get their wish to speed the return of their 12th Imam. Read their own words and what they have said to their own military and population, Fairminded.

3.Have nuclear warheads get into the hands of terrorists to be used against Israel or the US. This can easily be done by having the nukes “stolen” during a raid by terrorists on a facility. They could then easily ‘walk’ across our boarder or come into a port in a shielded cargo container. This way Iran can have their nukes used and keep their hands ‘clean’.

4.Launch an EMP attack on the US using the terrorist scenario above but launched from a couple of scuds off of merchant ships from both coasts. The Iranians have already tested this form of attack successfully.

So you see Fairminded, the whole world does not have to die, just Israel and the USA.
Fairminded
I admit I'm just a young whippersnapper, and I'm sure you have far more experience of living through the Cold War than I do, so let's talk about that. For several decades the U.S. faced off against a superpower with nuclear capability comparable to our own. In all that time did either side end up employing those weapons? No, because cool heads on both sides realized it would lead to mutually assured destruction and managed to avert each crisis.
Now let's look at Iran, who may at some point possess a relative handful of weapons. For them to use them would be suicide, far more devastating to their own country than to any enemy. You might argue that fanatic terrorists commit suicide for the cause all the time, but we're talking about an entire country with millions of people. It could happen, yes, but why should it be any more likely than during the Cold War when we were able to talk down every crisis?
The Russians and Chinese are willing to lose a great portion of their populace to rid the world of the USA but because of our strong Navy, Army, Air force, and Marines they have not. Maybe the coming Greater Depression will reduce our military to the point where they could attack us with acceptable losses.

The 12'vers who run Iran do not care how many of their citizens die for the glory of hastening the return of the 12th Imam. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah Khamenei both believe that they are the prophesied forerunners of the 12th Imam who are preparing for his return. Ayatollah Khamenei has even said he has already spoken with the 12th Imam. So yes, Fairminded, these guys are willing to sacrifice their people for the glory of their religion.

Iran is 10 times the size of Israel. Why not sacrifice for their fanatical religious beliefs. To the Western mind it is hard to fathom this mindset. They do not value human lives as we do, Faiminded. It IS hard to comprehend but it is a fact of life in the Middle East.
Sure, it means we'd have to change our philosophy of going in guns blazing at a whim and actually resorting to diplomacy, but we should probably be doing that anyway.
I don’t think anyone is going in on a ‘whim’. This has been debated for years. Why? Because no one really wants to start a war. When you are faced with the scenarios I listed above what do you do? America has not done anything because we are not as threatened as Israel. The Israelis KNOW that if Iran gets the bomb that eventually one or more of their cities will be nuked. So what do you do as an Israeli leader facing that ugly prospect and choice?
Up to this point in history, the only nation that's used a nuclear device against an enemy has been Iran. OH WAIT! 8-|

Then again maybe we should be afraid of them acquiring nuclear capability, since it would mean an end to our bullying. Hard to pick on a country that can fight back, eh?
No it will be the beginning of their bullying the Sunni Arabs, increased Iranian surrogate terrorist attacks on fellow Islamic countries in the ME, and a nuclear attack on Israel and /or the US.

ktg
captain of 100
Posts: 840

Re: Fanatical Islam

Post by ktg »

"The Book of Mormon narrative is a chronicle of nations long since gone. But in its descriptions of the problems of today's society, it is as current as the morning newspaper and much more definitive, inspired, and inspiring concerning the solutions of those problems." - Gordon B Hinkley

Alma 25:1 And behold, now it came to pass that those Lamanites were more angry because they had slain their brethren; therefore they swore vengeance upon the Nephites...
(Not because the Nephites were free and prosperous)

There were those among the Nephites who were just like OMD:
Alma 26:25 And moreover they did say: Let us take up arms against them, that we destroy them and their iniquity out of the land, lest they overrun us and destroy us.

I suggest a reading of that portion of the BofM and the solution the Nephites used to their problem. (Hint: it wasn't to "destroy them and their iniquity out of the land, lest they overrun us and destroy us."

User avatar
Fairminded
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1956

Re: Fanatical Islam

Post by Fairminded »

I'll admit, I don't like the thought of nukes in Iran's hands. I'm afraid of nuclear devices in the hands of any of our enemies. Heck, I'm afraid of nuclear devices in the hands of our friends. For that matter, even our own nuclear devices scare me.

I've seen plenty of horror movies of nuclear holocaust, the grisly destruction, the sickness and suffering and death. I've watched documentaries of the aftermath at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The very notion of nuclear weapons is horrifying, and you'd have to be insane not to be afraid of them.

But isn't it equally insane to let that fear lead you to going to war? Like a woman castrating her husband because she's afraid he's molesting the kids, or a man shooting a minority because he's afraid of being mugged. Committing atrocities because you're afraid of something bad happening is an old and familiar evil, and one I don't subscribe to.

Even the scriptures say that letting your fears rule you isn't part of God's plan. 2 Timothy 1:7 reads “For God has not given us a spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.”

The American people have let fear rule them for decades now. We've let fear bring us into unconstitutional wars halfway across the world, we've let fear keep us from protesting as the people in power take away our liberties and blatantly grab power and wealth. We've even let evil men use fear to manipulate us into hating who they want us to hate.

I don't believe God wants us living our lives in fear, or willingly or by inaction allowing atrocities to happen motivated by fears.

I think at this point, OMD, you and I are going to have to agree to disagree. I think you're an honorable man who has a strong love of this country and feels a fierce desire to defend it. I have no desire to get into a personal quarrel with you based on our opinions, and I apologize for any personal attacks I've made in the past. I'll try to keep my eyes open and look at the views you represent fairly in a search for any truth to be found. Let's leave it at that, shall we?

User avatar
Oldemandalton
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2226
Location: Las Vegas
Contact:

Re: Fanatical Islam

Post by Oldemandalton »

Fairminded
I'll admit, I don't like the thought of nukes in Iran's hands. I'm afraid of nuclear devices in the hands of any of our enemies. Heck, I'm afraid of nuclear devices in the hands of our friends. For that matter, even our own nuclear devices scare me.

I've seen plenty of horror movies of nuclear holocaust, the grisly destruction, the sickness and suffering and death. I've watched documentaries of the aftermath at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The very notion of nuclear weapons is horrifying, and you'd have to be insane not to be afraid of them.

But isn't it equally insane to let that fear lead you to going to war? Like a woman castrating her husband because she's afraid he's molesting the kids, or a man shooting a minority because he's afraid of being mugged. Committing atrocities because you're afraid of something bad happening is an old and familiar evil, and one I don't subscribe to.

Even the scriptures say that letting your fears rule you isn't part of God's plan. 2 Timothy 1:7 reads “For God has not given us a spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.”

The American people have let fear rule them for decades now. We've let fear bring us into unconstitutional wars halfway across the world, we've let fear keep us from protesting as the people in power take away our liberties and blatantly grab power and wealth. We've even let evil men use fear to manipulate us into hating who they want us to hate.

I don't believe God wants us living our lives in fear, or willingly or by inaction allowing atrocities to happen motivated by fears.

I think at this point, OMD, you and I are going to have to agree to disagree. I think you're an honorable man who has a strong love of this country and feels a fierce desire to defend it. I have no desire to get into a personal quarrel with you based on our opinions, and I apologize for any personal attacks I've made in the past. I'll try to keep my eyes open and look at the views you represent fairly in a search for any truth to be found. Let's leave it at that, shall we?
No apologies needed Fairminded. Actually we agree more than disagree. I disagree with the USA’s past meddling in the ME and wish we were oil independent so we could let someone else take care of the mess there. I do not want to start a war with Iran. I do not know what I would do if I was President of the USA. I would use as many black ops, sanctions, and ‘carrots’ as I could to keep the Iranians from getting nuclear weapons. We have been doing this for years and they still persist in build ‘the bomb’. Neither Bush nor Obama have wanted to attack Iran. I don’t blame them. Israel is even worse off. They have been fighting their enemies who want to destroy them for over 60 years and now their most vocal enemy, Iran, and the one who has been the greatest supporter of the terrorists against Israel, is about to get nuclear weapons.

I believe that Israel is being set up with a no win situation to start WW III. Don’t attack Iranian Nuke sites and have Israeli cities targeted with nuclear strikes or do a pre-emptive attack and save their cities but start a regional war which could easily go global. No easy decision. IMO this is the plan of the LDGs.

From what I know right now, if I was President, I would back Israel if they decided to attack the nuke sites OR if they decided to NOT to attack the sites. They have more skin in the game and would lose more of a percentage of their populace than we would if a nuke went off here. If we had a reliable anti-missile shield up over Israel it would make a no-go decision easier. They have Iron Dome which was designed against slower missiles but they aren’t sure it would take out a big ballistic missile. If the Israelis had a defense against Iranian missile then that would be one scenario off the table.

Free and fair elections in Iran would be the best possible solution. The people of Iran are just like you and me and just want to live in peace to raise their families. Unfortunately they have extremists running the show.

User avatar
InfoWarrior82
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10861
Location: "There are 15 on the earth today, you can trust them completely." -President Nelson (Jan 2022)

Re: Fanatical Islam

Post by InfoWarrior82 »

Oldemandalton wrote:Kurt Nimmo, who frequently appears on Russian and Iranian news outlets, and mis’InfoWars’ are the ones lying, infowarrior82;

http://www.debka.com/article/21455/

http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/northko ... 00315.HTML

http://www.debka.com/article/21481/

http://www.aijac.org.au/news/article/ia ... -on-a-bomb

http://www.haaretz.com/news/iaea-report ... b-1.263564

Iran is refining fuel at 20% now, only 5% in needed for nuclear power. Only the naïve like Ron Paul or Propagandists like Kurt Nimmo say that Iran has no intentions of making nuclear weapons.

How about you prove that Iran has intentions of making nuclear weapons. Even if they do... you would rather strike them first in a pre-emptive war???

User avatar
Oldemandalton
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2226
Location: Las Vegas
Contact:

Re: Fanatical Islam

Post by Oldemandalton »

InfoWarrior
How about you prove that Iran has intentions of making nuclear weapons.
Read the articles InfoWarrior. Move the mouse until the curser is over the link, it will change color to let you know, then left click and read the contents of the article, then move on to the next until you have read them all. =))

Sorry InfoWarrior, I can be a smart aleck at times, ask my wife and kids. ;) Just having a little fun so we don’t get too heated. What we say here on this forum will not affect the election, send war planes to bomb Iran or set off nukes in Tel Aviv. We are just exchanging our world views, my friend. So take a breath and relax OK? :)

User avatar
InfoWarrior82
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10861
Location: "There are 15 on the earth today, you can trust them completely." -President Nelson (Jan 2022)

Re: Fanatical Islam

Post by InfoWarrior82 »

Oldemandalton wrote:
InfoWarrior
How about you prove that Iran has intentions of making nuclear weapons.
Read the articles InfoWarrior. Move the mouse until the curser is over the link, it will change color to let you know, then left click and read the contents of the article, then move on to the next until you have read them all. =))

Sorry InfoWarrior, I can be a smart aleck at times, ask my wife and kids. ;) Just having a little fun so we don’t get too heated. What we say here on this forum will not affect the election, send war planes to bomb Iran or set off nukes in Tel Aviv. We are just exchanging our world views, my friend. So take a breath and relax OK? :)

Looks like you got taken to school in the "Why I Can't Vote for Ron Paul" thread on this issue. Go check it out.

(I have read them all, and I read nothing but propaganda.)

User avatar
Oldemandalton
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2226
Location: Las Vegas
Contact:

Re: Fanatical Islam

Post by Oldemandalton »

InfoWarrior
Looks like you got taken to school in the "Why I Can't Vote for Ron Paul" thread on this issue. =)) =)) =))
Go check it out.(I have read them all, and I read nothing but propaganda.)
Thanks for making me laugh Infowarrior I needed it. :)

Propaganda? Infowarrior you use InfoWars, Russian and Iranian news site and paid Iranian lobbyists to make your points. Need I say more? :D

User avatar
InfoWarrior82
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10861
Location: "There are 15 on the earth today, you can trust them completely." -President Nelson (Jan 2022)

Re: Fanatical Islam

Post by InfoWarrior82 »

Oldemandalton wrote:
InfoWarrior
Looks like you got taken to school in the "Why I Can't Vote for Ron Paul" thread on this issue. =)) =)) =))
Go check it out.(I have read them all, and I read nothing but propaganda.)
Thanks for making me laugh Infowarrior I needed it. :)

Propaganda? Infowarrior you use InfoWars, Russian and Iranian news site and paid Iranian lobbyists to make your points. Need I say more? :D

I want specifics. We've given you specifics which you have yet to refute. Instead, you just say, well that can't be true because it comes from Infowars etc...

User avatar
Oldemandalton
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2226
Location: Las Vegas
Contact:

Re: Fanatical Islam

Post by Oldemandalton »

This is a re-post where I answered the Iranian lobyist's propaganda, Infowarrior.
Moonwhim:
Nuclear Standoff
by American Foreign Policy Project =))

Iranian Lobyists! See RISE OF THE IRAN LOBBY
http://bonfiresblog.wordpress.com/tag/a ... y-project/
.


Claim: Iran is messianic, undeterrable and will bring about a nuclear holocaust if it ever gets nuclear weapons.
Response:
No one outside Iran wants to see Iran armed with a nuclear weapon, but this apocalyptic scenario is based on no behavioral evidence whatsoever. The recent history of Iran makes crystal clear that national self-preservation and regional influence - not some quest for martyrdom in the service of Islam - is Iran's main foreign policy goal. For example:

In the 1990s, Iran chose a closer relationship with Russia over support for rebellious Chechen Muslims.
In order to bypass the West’s sanctions on Nuclear Technology so they could build the ‘bomd’.
Iran actively supported and helped to finance the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan.

That’s because the Taliban and their harsh treatment of Afghanistan's Shi'a minority and then in 1998 they seized the Iranian consulate in Mazari Sharif and executed Iranian diplomats.

Iran is training insurgents across the border and are supplying them with small arms, heavy weapons and IEDs which are then used to kill American soldiers.


Iran has ceased its efforts to export the Islamic revolution to other Persian Gulf states, in favor of developing good relations with the governments of those states. =)) =))

The Qods Force alone provides substantial material support to the Taliban, Shiite militants in Iraq, Lebanese Hizbullah, Hamas in Gaza, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.

Iran has made it government policy with the backing of the military and paramilitary groups to export the Revolution to “Apostate” Arab States. Iran accused the Sunni Gulf states of being “illegal regimes” that were established through the intervention of “arrogant Western imperialism.”


See:IRAN'S “SECOND” ISLAMIC REVOLUTION
http://www.jcpa.org/text/iran_page_44-61.pdf


During the Iran-Iraq War, Iran took the pragmatic step of developing secret ties and trading arms with Israel, even as Iran and Israel denounced each other in public.

Israel also has an industrial military complex. :(
Israel: Manbar Reveals More Weapons Deals with Iran

The Risk Report

Volume 2 Number 4 (July-August 1996)

In an interview with the Israeli newspaper "Ha'aretz," prominent Israeli businessman Nahum Manbar disclosed recently that from 1988-1992 he sold large quantities of weapons and military equipment to Iran, via his Polish-owned companies. According to Manbar, the weapons, including modern Russian tanks and fire-control systems, were sold with the knowledge of the Israeli Ministry of Defense.

Manbar's confession comes on the heels of an article published in the Risk Report (Vol. 1, Issue 5, June 1995) which detailed Manbar's sale of anti-biological and anti-chemical warfare protective suits to Iran and the resulting imposition of sanctions by the U.S. State Department. U.S. government sources also told the Risk Report that Manbar provided material support to Iran's chemical and biological weapon program.
http://www.wisconsinproject.org/countri ... -iran.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Claim: Iran has declared its intention to develop nuclear weapons.1
Response: In fact, Iran has consistently denied that it seeks nuclear weapons and its leaders have even declared such weapons to be "against Islam" (an unnecessary and curious thing for mullahs to say about a weapon they plan someday to unveil). Iran may or may not be seeking nuclear weapons in fact, but it is patently false to claim that they have declared an intention to do so.
Footnotes
1. This argument is heard almost exclusively from neo-con ideologues such as Liz Cheney who have shown little regard to the facts over the years: "I think that the only responsible position as a nation that we can take is, they actually want what they say they want, which is they want a nuclear weapon." CSIS, "Assessing U.S. Policy Towards Iran," Remarks by Elizabeth Cheney, June 26, 2008. [back]

As illustrated in my above post no serious expert, unless in he is on the Iranian payroll like American Foreign Policy Project, Press TV, RT, or naïve like Ron Paul, belives that Iran is not working on nuclear weapons. Why go to the expense of refining nuclear fuel over the required 5%? BECAUSE they want nuclear weapons!

Claim:
Iran is developing a ballistic missile capability, which makes no sense unless Iran plans to mount nuclear warheads on them.
Response:
Even though they are currently inaccurate, ballistic missiles are valued in Iran both as war-fighting tools and deterrents to attack even when armed with purely conventional warheads. The U.S. intelligence community judges that Iran is currently focusing on further developing ballistic missiles which can target other countries in the region, rather than outside of it. Such missiles make strategic sense for conventional warheads as well as non-conventional ones. As experts at the U.S. Air Force-funded Rand Corporation recently observed: "Based on their experience in the Iran-Iraq War—during which exchanges of ballistic missiles caused modest destruction yet had great impact on civilian morale—Iranian leaders appear convinced that ballistic missiles are the most reliable means for attacking deep targets, and that they would have psychological effects disproportionate to their destructive power."1
Iran Commander: We Have Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles

Reza Khalili

Iran has the technological ability to target any point on the planet with an intercontinental ballistic missile should it choose to, according to Brig. Gen. Seyyed Mehdi Farahi of the Revolutionary Guards Corps, who is the director of the Iranian air and space industries.

A recent editorial in the Iranian Keyhan newspaper, the mouthpiece of Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, reports on Iran's ballistic missile technology with a headline "Iran Now Exports Ballistic Missiles."

In the report the general brags about Iran's military might and its ability to simultaneously launch 14 or more rockets with extreme precision. He says that the export of ballistic missiles and the progress in Iran's space program are signs that Iran has achieved the highest levels of military and technological excellence.

Despite international sanctions, the general boasts:

"Today, I proudly announce that an Islamic Iran is not only capable of exporting industrial and defense products but also technology and defense technology as well."

Military experts and analysts who cover Iranian military and defense issues have acknowledged that Iran does in fact have the strongest ballistic missile program in the Middle East and that the low costs of the missiles has in fact taken the ballistic missile market out of the West's hands, the editorial says.

The newspaper cites recent testimony before the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee by the director of the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, Lt. Gen. Ronald L. Burgess. "Iran's progress in building ballistic missiles is noticeable, and with the launch of satellites to space it became clear that Iran has succeeded in building intercontinental ballistic missiles," the general testified, according to the paper. The successful launch of the Rasad satellite to space drew the attention of observers and foreign counterparts, the general reportedly testified.

The Safir missile is capable of transporting a satellite into space and indeed a ballistic missile that can reach beyond the earth's gravity into orbit. The missile has twice been vertically shot over the earth's atmosphere, the editorial says, "but if one day Iran decides that this missile should be shot parallel to the earth's orbit, the missile will actually be transformed into an intercontinental ballistic missile (that) has the capability to destroy targets in other continents."

"In other words," the editorial concludes, "the fact that Iran currently possesses technology that can put satellites into orbit means that Iran has also obtained intercontinental ballistic missiles with solid fuel capabilities and that at any moment, this technology can be put to military use."

Iranian officials recently announced that they have successfully developed the necessary technology to build and launch satellites designed to travel in an orbit 21,750 miles above the earth's equator -- and that, in the next few months, they will launch another rocket into space, this time carrying a monkey with a payload of 330 kilograms..

According to Dr. Peter Vincent Pry, a nuclear weapons expert who has served in the CIA, "Historically, if a nation could put a large payload (hundreds of kilograms) into orbit, that has been treated as a milestone signifying that they have a military ICBM capability. We appear to have changed this rule for Iran's space program. If Western analysts today applied the same standards to Iran that we have applied to the USSR and China in the past, we would conclude that Iran already has an ICBM capability.

"It seems that the Obama administration is unwilling to acknowledge this, perhaps not seeing it in its best interest, alluding that it still has time to negotiate," says Pry, who has also served with the EMP Commission and is now president of EMPact America.

The radicals ruling Iran have now passed a major threshold in both their nuclear and missile programs. Barring any military action, which seems unlikely, there is no stopping them.

We only have ourselves to blame as it is now certain that the Jihadists in Tehran will have nuclear bombs with the delivery system to target any country on the planet. Though the West relies on the policy of Mutual Assured Destruction, it will find how wrong this policy is with Iran.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/201 ... siles.html
See also:Iran’s Ballistic Missile Capabilities(2004)
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... 1bMvVDT_2A

Footnotes
1. Rand Corp., Dangerous But Not Omnipotent: Exploring the Reach and Limitations of Iranian Power in the Middle East (Rand Corporation, 2009), p. 80 [back]


Claim: Iran is insisting on enriching uranium, with no economic justification. That proves Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons.
Response: No, it doesn’t. Iran is building nuclear reactors, which cost a fortune to build but are worthless without fuel. And there is no ironclad way to guarantee a fuel supply if the fuel in question is not located in Iran. Iran recalls that after the Revolution the chief enrichment consortium, Eurodif of France, refused to deliver one gram of fuel to Iran, even though Iran owned 10 percent of the company.1
More to the point, perhaps, all kinds of governments pursue programs for political purposes that lack clear, ex-ante, cost-benefit rationale. Conservatives have complained about this tendency in our own government for decades. In Iran, enrichment has become for Iranians a matter of national entitlement and a source of pride in technological advancement not unlike our own moon landing—supported by reformers and hardliners alike. Five years of Bush Administration ultimatums and Western pressure have made enrichment an ongoing emblem of Iran’s independence and refusal to be cowed. Commercial unprofitability is beside the point.
Many of the people who “just know” that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon are the same people who “just knew” that Saddam Hussein had a nuclear weapons program in 2003. They were wrong. The U.S. intelligence community, which has looked at this issue closely, finds Iran’s intentions on nuclear weapons to be unclear, and possibly not yet determined.
Footnotes
1. Slavin, Bitter Friends, Bosom Enemies (2007), p. 36. [back]
Iranian Lobbyists Propaganda. IAEA says they have tested the devise to implode nuclear material and that they have refined it up to 20% so far which is 400% higher than needed for nuclear power. Only a fool would believe otherwise.
What’s New in the U.N. Nuclear Report?

November 8, 2011 | 9:04pm.

Michael Adler

•What is new in the latest report by the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency about Iran’s controversial nuclear program?

The report takes the U.N. nuclear watchdog's accounting of Iran's nuclear program to a whole new level. It is the first time the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has provided so many details as well as a coherent narrative of how Iran has allegedly done work on learning how to make an atomic bomb.

Among key findings are:

•Iran has continued weaponization work since 2003, despite the U.S. intelligence estimate that Tehran stopped such research at that time
•Iran had a secret project to make enriched uranium
•Iran has designs for how to make the type of uranium metal needed for a bomb. It had also done dry runs, not including nuclear material, on how to make this metal
•Iran may have more advanced plans on how to put a bomb together than previously believed
•Iran had foreign help in working on the detonators needed for an implosion-type nuclear device
•Iran did computer simulations to see if it could make an implosion bomb work. It based this on high-explosive tests using tungsten, a non-nuclear material
•Iran has changed the names and places of organizations doing weapons work in order to avoid detection. But many of the staff members remain the same, including the director of Iran's nuclear weaponization effort, Mohsen Fakhrizadah.
http://iranprimer.usip.org/blog/2011/no ... ear-report
Claim:
Iran pursued covert R&D project on uranium conversion and enrichment that went on for years and was exposed only by an Iranian dissident group in August 2002. Iran then concealed and lied about its nuclear work to the IAEA.

Response:

It is certainly true that Iran initially concealed its program and later lied about it, suggesting that Iran was at least considering pursuing nuclear weapons at one point. It appears to be keeping that option open still. However, since the program was revealed in 2002, Iran is operating in a different environment of very close international scrutiny, making the risks of making a definitive move towards nuclear weapons far more difficult and risky for Iran.

Still, there are significant measures that could be put in place to make international scrutiny tighter and deterrence greater. The task now is to get in place a system of safeguards and surveillance that is so searching and comprehensive that Iran itself detemines that it will not be able to complete a weapons program without being detected early and stopped, thereby persuading Iran that it should satisfy itself with a peaceful nuclear program.

It bears mention that Iran has offered to accept very searching safeguards and surveillance in the context of a comprehensive agreement that respects its basic right to enrich for peaceful use. In fact, it suspended enrichment, accepted enhanced safeguards, and cooperated with the IAEA much more fully during the time (Oct. 2003-May 2005) that it thought there might be the prospect of such an agreement coming to fruition.

The IAEA Director General explains that the Annex is not a secret but rather a working draft not yet sufficiently vetted for publication. Its conclusions are drawn mainly from documents the agency has had in its possession since 2005 , but they serve as a reminder that knowledge of how to make at least a crude nuclear device is widely available . . .

Claim: IAEA has repeatedly declared that it cannot conclude that "there are no undeclared nuclear materials or activities in Iran."
Response: Making this finding requires proving a negative and the IAEA has set a very high bar for doing so. The Lawyer’s Committee on Nuclear Policy reported in 2006 that the IAEA applies the same “unable to conclude” status to every country that had not accepted the Additional Protocol at that time, and to 40 nations that have accepted it.

This does not mean that Iran's conduct is no more worrisome than the conduct of other countries. It clearly is much more worrisome. The point is simply that lack of proof of innocence is not the same thing as proof of guilt, and a lack of an IAEA declaration of "no undeclared nuclear materials or activities" is not terribly probative in an of itself. The IAEA has declared, repeatedly, that it has found no evidence of Iranian diversion of nuclear material for illicit purposes.

Iran has never stopped it’s nuclear weapons research program and has played the UN like the Keystone Cops they are:

Iran Whitewashing Nuclear Test Site
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/149961

Iran's Nuclear Program
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/inte ... index.html

Claim: Iran has forfeited its right to enrich uranium for any purpose.
Response: This is a popular misconception.1 Like other countries, Iran is entitled under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, and that right has long been understood to encompass enrichment under safeguards.1 Nothing in the NPT or Iran's Safeguards Agreement supports the notion that a country is barred from enriching uranium if it has ever pursued a weapons program, even one halted years ago.

If Iran is willing to honor its legal responsibilities under its Safeguards Agreement and the NPT, there is no principled basis for denying Iran right’s to enrich or demanding that Iran permanently cede that right.
Footnotes
1. See, e.g., Remarks by Sec. of State Hilary Clinton on Meet the Press, July 26, 2009 ("You [Iran] have a right to pursue the peaceful use of civil nuclear power. You do not have a right to obtain a nuclear weapon. You do not have the right to have the full enrichment and reprocessing cycle under your control.") [back]

Why enrich it above the 5% necessary to 20%+?

Claim: Allowing Iran to enrich uranium will set off a nuclear enrichment and arms race in the Middle East.
Response: Iran’s nuclear program predates the Iranian Revolution. Over decades of history, enrichment has become a national industry in Iran and a symbol of independence. None of these circumstances apply to other nations in the region, and there is no commercial incentive to pursue enrichment. In fact, other states in the region have proposed enrichment via multinational consortium. This would both defuse the Iran crisis and set a new standard for a multilateral fuel cycle that would benefit the global nonproliferation regime. If the concern is that Iran’s enriching will cause other nations in the region to want a weapon, we fail to see how allowing Iran to enrich uranium under full safeguards will somehow spark a nuclear arms race when Israel’s bomb has not done so. Israel is far more hated and feared throughout the region than Iran.

No one was worried about a peaceful Iran who was allied with the West getting nuclear power plants. It’s the Fanatical Islamic Twelvers of Iran who want to reshape the Middle East into their mold that worries the West AND the Sunni Arabs in the region.

Claim: If Iran is allowed to accumulate a stockpile of enriched uranium at Natanz, they can seize it at any time and turn it into a bomb. Allowing Iran to enrich at Natanz will let Iran proliferate right under our nose.

Response: Not true. All the material produced at Natanz is low-enriched uranium that is unsuitable for weapons use. It is under IAEA seal and surveillance. And it is all fully accounted for. Any effort to seize or divert this material would be quickly detected and would provoke an international outcry with a very high likelihood of a forceful response, from Israel if not others.

Moreover, converting this low-enriched uranium to weapons-grade form would takes weeks if not months of further enriching, so there would be plenty of time to organize that response. Under these circumstances, a completely clandestine route would seem far more attractive to Iran than any breakout involving safeguarded facilities. Stopping enrichment at Natanz will do nothing to address the clandestine risk, and may well increase it by driving enrichment underground. Iran itself seems to realize the risk of using Natanz for a weaons program. That is likely why it constructed the Qom facility.

More propaganda! Again I repeat that only 5% of enriched uranium is needed to fuel a power plant. 20% CAN be used in a crude weapon but Iran is refining above that.

Iran Produces More 20% Pure Uranium

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/150420

Claim: Diplomacy has been tried. Iran won't negotiate in good faith on its nuclear program, unless we either impose or credibly threaten it with really tough econonomic sanctions.
Response:
Actually, diplomacy with the United States has not been tried. It is sanctions that have been tried and failed. For five years until nearly the end of its term, the Bush Administration refused to talk to Iran at all about nuclear issues -- because Iran would not comply with U.S. demands that it first suspend all enrichment. This strategy merely squandered time: while the U.S. sat silent, Iran continued to enrich.

It is true that the Europeans talked to Iran, and they didn’t make much progress. But this is hardly surprising. Without the United States – the world’s sole superpower and Iran’s chief nemesis – at the table, why should Iran give its best offer to Britain, France and Germany? They would just pocket Iran’s concession, which would become the starting point for later talks with the United States. more
Real diplomacy on this issue has not been tried, not by the United States, until Fall 2009. What has been tried is sanctions, and everyone agrees they have failed to achieve our objectives. They may well have set us back by galvanizing Iranian resistance. More of the same is not going to produce different results, and escalating the confrontation with a campaign for "crippling sanctions" will not only fail but backfire.
Footnotes
1. Following is the relevant text of the P5+1 offer to Iran as conveyed on June 16, 2008, largely reiterating a 2006 offer: “. . . the elements below [including support for light-water reactors, fuel supply guarantees and other incentives] are proposed as topics for negotiations between [the P5+1 countries and Iran], as long as Iran verifiably suspends its enrichment related and reprocessing activities . . .” (emphasis supplied). On any fair reading, this is not a specific offer so much as an outline for a negotiated settlement, discussion of which could not start until Iran had first met the Bush Administration’s precondition for talks: Iran must first suspend all enrichment immediately. This for Iran was a poison pill, whether intended as such or not.

This would all end if Iran cooperates fully with the IAEA and discontinue its refinement process beyond 5%.

http://americanforeignpolicy.org/iran-k" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... %A0%C2%A0

American Foreign Policy Project are paid lobyists of the Iranian Government!
See RISE OF THE IRAN LOBBY
http://bonfiresblog.wordpress.com/tag/a ... y-project/

User avatar
InfoWarrior82
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10861
Location: "There are 15 on the earth today, you can trust them completely." -President Nelson (Jan 2022)

Re: Fanatical Islam

Post by InfoWarrior82 »

OMD, you have said previously that you believe the LDGs want to go to war with Iran. Why, then, are you buying into all of the mainstream propaganda which tells us why we should go to war with Iran? You already said we shouldn't go to war pre-emptively. Why do you support candidates who would go to war pre-emptively? It seems like you are actually ideologically closer to Ron Paul than anyone else, but just want Ron Paul to talk tough on Iran. You want more rhetoric. You have not addressed this yet:

So, what makes Ron Paul stand out among all other Republican candidates with regards to Iran?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but everyone else supports the idea of pre-emptively striking Iran. So, if you personally DO NOT want to pre-emptively strike Iran, why would you vote for anyone who does?

If any of the front runners DO NOT support a pre-emptive strike on Iran, then doesn't it really all come down to just "talkin' tough" on Iran? Do you just want someone who "talks tough"?


So.. China has nuclear weapons... North Korea has nuclear weapons... are we the police of the world with them? Why haven't we gone in to take them out? I know this may sound wacky... but... what in the world gives us the right to tell another sovereign nation that they can't have nuclear weapons? Does might make right?

You may think I'm drinking the kool aid from certain groups, but I'd rather side with people giving me reasons not to go to war than listen to people telling me that we should go to war.

Here are some wonderful comments made already in a different thread:
5tev3 wrote:
Obiwan wrote:
5tev3 wrote:Offensive war is never justified and is forbidden by Jesus Christ.

Mormon 3:14 "And when they had sworn by all that had been forbidden them by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, that they would go up unto their enemies to battle, and avenge themselves of the blood of their brethren..."

I wrote a whole article on the topic here.
Problem with your judgment is you quote mine the scripture to fit your own ideology, instead of considering the full context, and you also compare apples and oranges as if the circumstances are exactly the same when they aren't. Not only that, but you add to scripture trying to claim a one size fits all ideology, instead of considering the context itself.

Take for example the verse above. You entirely rip it out of it's context, the context being that the Nephites were actually "wicked" at the time, and Mormon didn't want to lead such a people another time because they hadn't repented.

See, the problem with people like you, is if your liberal ideology is consistent, we wouldn't have went to war against Germany or Japan.
After all, no need to go to them, let them come to us. People like you, we wouldn't have helped South Korea, and today the South would likely be just like the North is now. Oh.... Aren't you so RIGHTEOUS!

Sorry, but your liberalism is of the devil, not God.... Your views are perversion. Only the devil would want the wicked of the world to be left alone, becoming stronger and stronger, destroying the lives of the innocent. You sir, are not of God.... Repent.
I think you will find if you analyze the scriptures in context you will discover that it is quite consistent with my point. Mormon doesn't cease leading the Nephites because they were wicked, he forbids to lead the Nephites specifically because they decide to wage a war of aggression against the Lamanites. “And it came to pass that I utterly refused to go up against mine enemies; and I did even as the Lord had commanded me; and I did stand as an idle witness to manifest unto the world the things which I saw and heard,” (Mormon 3:16)

If it was because they were wicked then why did he go back to leading them again later when they were still wicked? Answer: because they had ceased going up unto their enemies and had reverted back to only defending themselves. In chapter 5 Mormon even repeatedly notes that it was always the Lamanites that came against them:

…the Lamanites did come against us as we had fled… (Mormon 5:3)
…they came against us again… (Mormon 5:4)
…the Lamanites did come again against us to battle… (Mormon 5:6)

I don't believe that you even read my entire article.

I don't know what you mean by "liberal" either. I don't consider myself a "liberal" or a "conservative" or any other divisive, meaningless, label since their meanings are polluted and both existing flavors of "liberal" and "conservative" factions are war-like and bloodthirsty people fueled by a corrupt red and blue headed party that masquerades as two distinct entities. Name-calling evidences that you do not understand an issue well enough to present your ideas properly.

I invite you to try reading the article again with an open mind and view the scriptures in their context. I'm quite confident that you will find that not only does the Lord never command his people to go out unto their enemies, the Book of Mormon provides many wonderful alternatives to dealing with enemies rather than destroying them.

Note that I believe, along with the scriptures, that we are fully justified in DEFENDING ourselves unto bloodshed but only as our enemies come against us. I'm not trying to promote myself as being "holier-than-thou" as you seem to imply, I am just trying to point out that your position is the opposite of what Book of Mormon and the founding fathers teach. It IS a one-size-fits-all ideology. You never go up against your enemies.

“they had sworn by all that had been forbidden them by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, that they would go up unto their enemies to battle, and avenge themselves of the blood of their brethren…”

Let’s refer back to President Kimball’s assessment of us: "We are a warlike people, easily distracted from our assignment of preparing for the coming of the Lord. When enemies rise up, we commit vast resources to the fabrication of gods of stone and steel—ships, planes, missiles, fortifications—and depend on them for protection and deliverance. When threatened, we become antienemy instead of pro-kingdom of God; we train a man in the art of war and call him a patriot, thus, in the manner of Satan’s counterfeit of true patriotism, perverting the Savior’s teaching: “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; “That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven.” (Matt. 5:44–45.)

Consider the words Ammon: "For they said unto us: Do ye suppose that ye can bring the Lamanites to the knowledge of the truth? Do ye suppose that ye can convince the Lamanites of the incorrectness of the traditions of their fathers, as stiffnecked a people as they are; whose hearts delight in the shedding of blood; whose days have been spent in the grossest iniquity; whose ways have been the ways of a transgressor from the beginning? Now my brethren, ye remember that this was their language. And moreover they did say: Let us take up arms against them, that we destroy them and their iniquity out of the land, lest they overrun us and destroy us. But behold, my beloved brethren, we came into the wilderness not with the intent to destroy our brethren, but with the intent that perhaps we might save some few of their souls." – Alma 26:24-26
Last edited by InfoWarrior82 on January 2nd, 2012, 4:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Fairminded
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1956

Re: Fanatical Islam

Post by Fairminded »

InfoWarrior82 wrote:OMD, you have said previously that you believe the LDGs want to go to war with Iran. Why, then, are you buying into all of the mainstream propaganda which tells us why we should go to war with Iran? You already said we shouldn't go to war pre-emptively. Why do you support candidates who would go to war pre-emptively? It seems like you are actually ideologically closer to Ron Paul than anyone else, but just want Ron Paul to talk tough on Iran. You want more rhetoric. You have not addressed this yet:

So, what makes Ron Paul stand out among all other Republican candidates with regards to Iran?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but everyone else supports the idea of pre-emptively striking Iran. So, if you personally DO NOT want to pre-emptively strike Iran, why would you vote for anyone who does?

If any of the front runners DO NOT support a pre-emptive strike on Iran, then doesn't it really all come down to just "talkin' tough" on Iran? Do you just want someone who "talks tough"?


So.. China has nuclear weapons... North Korea has nuclear weapons... are we the police of the world with them? Why haven't we gone in to take them out? I know this may sound wacky... but... what in the world gives us the right to tell another sovereign nation that they can't have nuclear weapons? Does might make right?

You may think I'm drinking the kool aid from certain groups, but I'd rather side with people giving me reasons not to go to war than listen to people telling me that we should go to war.
It's interesting to see just how deeply propaganda sets in on a subconscious level. I've talked to plenty of people who seem to instinctively dislike Ron Paul without being able to explain why. I go through Ron Paul's positions on major issues with them and they often agree with him on every point, and then stubbornly insist that they don't like his policies or they think he's a joke.

The media's casual dismissal of him, where they're not openly mocking him or attacking him, while they concurrently lavish praise on the other candidates, seems to get into people's heads. Even those who try to dig deeper and not take things at face value.

I guess if the MDGs weren't so good at manipulation they wouldn't be in a position of such expansive power, so it stands to reason they know how to lead people's opinions.

User avatar
moonwhim
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4251

Re: Fanatical Islam

Post by moonwhim »

Fairminded wrote:
InfoWarrior82 wrote:OMD, you have said previously that you believe the LDGs want to go to war with Iran. Why, then, are you buying into all of the mainstream propaganda which tells us why we should go to war with Iran? You already said we shouldn't go to war pre-emptively. Why do you support candidates who would go to war pre-emptively? It seems like you are actually ideologically closer to Ron Paul than anyone else, but just want Ron Paul to talk tough on Iran. You want more rhetoric. You have not addressed this yet:

So, what makes Ron Paul stand out among all other Republican candidates with regards to Iran?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but everyone else supports the idea of pre-emptively striking Iran. So, if you personally DO NOT want to pre-emptively strike Iran, why would you vote for anyone who does?

If any of the front runners DO NOT support a pre-emptive strike on Iran, then doesn't it really all come down to just "talkin' tough" on Iran? Do you just want someone who "talks tough"?


So.. China has nuclear weapons... North Korea has nuclear weapons... are we the police of the world with them? Why haven't we gone in to take them out? I know this may sound wacky... but... what in the world gives us the right to tell another sovereign nation that they can't have nuclear weapons? Does might make right?

You may think I'm drinking the kool aid from certain groups, but I'd rather side with people giving me reasons not to go to war than listen to people telling me that we should go to war.
It's interesting to see just how deeply propaganda sets in on a subconscious level. I've talked to plenty of people who seem to instinctively dislike Ron Paul without being able to explain why. I go through Ron Paul's positions on major issues with them and they often agree with him on every point, and then stubbornly insist that they don't like his policies or they think he's a joke.

The media's casual dismissal of him, where they're not openly mocking him or attacking him, while they concurrently lavish praise on the other candidates, seems to get into people's heads. Even those who try to dig deeper and not take things at face value.

I guess if the MDGs weren't so good at manipulation they wouldn't be in a position of such expansive power, so it stands to reason they know how to lead people's opinions.
As I think I have stated here before, every "conservative" talk show host on the major media is against Ron Paul and supporting the Mid-East Wars. Most people listen to these talk show hosts and hear the same thing as they go from one talk show host to the next so they think that must be true.....and thus that is how they think.

Post Reply