Joe Lieberman wants to bomb Iran

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
nullArticle here

I can see why he might think this, however I don't see it doing more than aggravating an already difficult situation.

Apparently you don't care at all what Iran does to aggravate an already difficult situation in Iraq and Afghanistan. The nuclear weapon building terrorist czar sitting between those two nations needs to be taken out.

It will be messy, but a conventional war now is less dire than their sworn vow of nuclear war later.

The whole point of nuclear weapons is to NOT use nuclear weapons.

Perhaps you've never heard of terrorism, a stratagem of warfare. When applied correctly, we won't have a return to sender address. It'd be nothing more than a damn guess. More so, perhaps you've never heard of suicide bombers, or the apocalyptic prophecy of the 12th Imam. Listen to their leaders for a while and you'll catch on soon enough.

Or don?t, hey that seems popular enough. Let?s wait until it IS a nuclear war before doing something about it. That?ll save lives.

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
nullArticle here

I can see why he might think this, however I don't see it doing more than aggravating an already difficult situation.

Apparently you don't care at all what Iran does to aggravate an already difficult situation in Iraq and Afghanistan. The nuclear weapon building terrorist czar sitting between those two nations needs to be taken out.

It will be messy, but a conventional war now is less dire than their sworn vow of nuclear war later.

The whole point of nuclear weapons is to NOT use nuclear weapons.

Perhaps you've never heard of terrorism, a stratagem of warfare. When applied correctly, we won't have a return to sender address. It'd be nothing more than a damn guess. More so, perhaps you've never heard of suicide bombers, or the apocalyptic prophecy of the 12th Imam. Listen to their leaders for a while and you'll catch on soon enough.

Or don?t, hey that seems popular enough. Let?s wait until it IS a nuclear war before doing something about it. That?ll save lives.

How many Iraqi terrorists have attacked the USA?

 

[Ozoned]

Hundreds. With I.E.D. Who knows, maybe they are Iranian.(The point of the article BTW)

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
nullArticle here

I can see why he might think this, however I don't see it doing more than aggravating an already difficult situation.

Well yeah, the way we do things now (as a country), it would not do much good.
Perhaps we should go back to the old ways, and pay somebody else to do our dirty work.

 

[BarneyFife]

Lieberman is a jew and he supports Israel over the US.

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: Ozoned
Hundreds. With I.E.D. Who knows, maybe they are Iranian.(The point of the article BTW)

Was that in response to my question? We have killed or are directly responsible for the deaths of at least 50,000 Iraqis.. but not one attacked us first.

 

[wetech]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: wetech

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: wetech

Originally posted by: Aimster
Islam doesn't say anything about 72 virgins when you die.

I never said it did. But there's a bunch of crackpots who seem to think it does.

Other crackpots think they can do anything because someone was nailed to some planks centuries ago.

I know, I know... all religion is bad. If you're not an athiest, you believe the world is a 6000 year old pancake at the center of the universe, Adam and Eve played fetch with a T-rex in the garden of Eden, and you're amazed how a lighter can magically create fire...

And just an FYI, it's not because "someone was nailed to some planks", but what we beleive happened afterwards. Anyone who uses this as an excuse to go around killing people is a crackpot.

Actually, you're wrong there.

My point isn't blind hatred for Religion, just mirroring your "72 Virgins" comment. You generalized based on a few nutcases, so did I.

Actually, I'm not. Easter Sunday is the most important holiday on the Christian calendar, not Good Friday.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: wetech

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: wetech

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: wetech

Originally posted by: Aimster
Islam doesn't say anything about 72 virgins when you die.

I never said it did. But there's a bunch of crackpots who seem to think it does.

Other crackpots think they can do anything because someone was nailed to some planks centuries ago.

I know, I know... all religion is bad. If you're not an athiest, you believe the world is a 6000 year old pancake at the center of the universe, Adam and Eve played fetch with a T-rex in the garden of Eden, and you're amazed how a lighter can magically create fire...

And just an FYI, it's not because "someone was nailed to some planks", but what we beleive happened afterwards. Anyone who uses this as an excuse to go around killing people is a crackpot.

Actually, you're wrong there.

My point isn't blind hatred for Religion, just mirroring your "72 Virgins" comment. You generalized based on a few nutcases, so did I.

Actually, I'm not. Easter Sunday is the most important holiday on the Christian calendar, not Good Friday.

So because some dude faked his death and showed up 3 days later that they thik they can do whatever they want. The points the same.

 

[wetech]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: wetech

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: wetech

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: wetech

Originally posted by: Aimster
Islam doesn't say anything about 72 virgins when you die.

I never said it did. But there's a bunch of crackpots who seem to think it does.

Other crackpots think they can do anything because someone was nailed to some planks centuries ago.

I know, I know... all religion is bad. If you're not an athiest, you believe the world is a 6000 year old pancake at the center of the universe, Adam and Eve played fetch with a T-rex in the garden of Eden, and you're amazed how a lighter can magically create fire...

And just an FYI, it's not because "someone was nailed to some planks", but what we beleive happened afterwards. Anyone who uses this as an excuse to go around killing people is a crackpot.

Actually, you're wrong there.

My point isn't blind hatred for Religion, just mirroring your "72 Virgins" comment. You generalized based on a few nutcases, so did I.

Actually, I'm not. Easter Sunday is the most important holiday on the Christian calendar, not Good Friday.

So because some dude faked his death and showed up 3 days later that they thik they can do whatever they want. The points the same.

Way to denigrate the beliefs of 2 billion people, but I digress. I said above that anyone who uses religion as an excuse to kill people is wrong.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
So because some dude faked his death and showed up 3 days later that they thik they can do whatever they want. The points the same.

The teaching of a person who would rather be tortured and nailed to a cross as opposed to harm a human being, is the same as being told that life is hell and a heaven with 72 virgins awaits you after waging your life long purpose of killing infidels?

 

[Lemon law]

Jaskalas has somewhat clarified the divide on this thread with the following quote.

Perhaps you've never heard of terrorism, a stratagem of warfare. When applied correctly, we won't have a return to sender address. It'd be nothing more than a damn guess. More so, perhaps you've never heard of suicide bombers, or the apocalyptic prophecy of the 12th Imam. Listen to their leaders for a while and you'll catch on soon enough.

With the listen to their leaders being the key part. To a certain extent, I don't have to listen to their leaders to get a belly full of crapola---when its far easier to listen to our leaders--of which Lieberman is one. And Lieberman is perfectly willing, able, and ready to visit death and destruction to hundreds of thousands of innocent Iranians because he thinks that their leaders MIGHT be PARTLY responsible for the deaths of our troops in Iraq. 200 is the top figure he bandies about, but it might be in fact zero for all the certainty he has.

There is something seriously wacked out about us when this kind of Lieberman thinking is endorsed by ANY OF US. They MIGHT be doing something or MIGHT have some nutty things in their bible, SO WE WILL RETALIATE.---not in any proportionate form---but will instead kill a thousand of them for every one of us they kill.

While it is true that some Moslems are terrorists, the exact same types of thinking permeates
us. We have some really wacked out leaders and some real nutty things in the Christian bible also. And maybe some Christians should ponder that the question---when the human race has that final battle at Armageddon---are we going to be the side representing the good guys
or the bad guys?

 

[Socio]

Originally posted by: Aimster
He lacks knowledge on the consequences of bombing Iran. He makes it sound like the U.S can just bomb Iran and sit back the next day and relax.

Not surprised. No politician has shown they now squat when it comes to foreign nations.

EX: Bush - Iraq

Technically it is really not a bad idea but you would not bomb one day and sit back you would have to sink their navy, bomb and rain missiles until they are to crippled to retaliate.

You would leave their military is such a mess it would take 10 years or more to rebuild it.
In the meantime Afghanistan would get resolved, Iraq would be resolved and be rebuilding. Israel, Palestine, Syria, and Lebanon would finally reach peace agreements and be at peace all because the pot stirring, meddlesome, instigators of Iran would be neutered.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: wetech

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: wetech

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: wetech

Originally posted by: Aimster
Islam doesn't say anything about 72 virgins when you die.

I never said it did. But there's a bunch of crackpots who seem to think it does.

Other crackpots think they can do anything because someone was nailed to some planks centuries ago.

I know, I know... all religion is bad. If you're not an athiest, you believe the world is a 6000 year old pancake at the center of the universe, Adam and Eve played fetch with a T-rex in the garden of Eden, and you're amazed how a lighter can magically create fire...

And just an FYI, it's not because "someone was nailed to some planks", but what we beleive happened afterwards. Anyone who uses this as an excuse to go around killing people is a crackpot.

Actually, you're wrong there.

My point isn't blind hatred for Religion, just mirroring your "72 Virgins" comment. You generalized based on a few nutcases, so did I.

Actually, I'm not. Easter Sunday is the most important holiday on the Christian calendar, not Good Friday.

Sorry, go read up on the Theological details. The point of death is the key.

At any rate we're digressing.

 

[BMW540I6speed]

The "lets kill lots of Iranians" crowd may be eager, but they are just plain crazy if they want to initaite a showdown with Iran. America, in short, isn't ready for such a challenge. Iran is so much more formidable than Iraq ever was they do not merit comparison.

US Army and Marine forces right now cannot both hold down Iraq and Afghanistan and invade Iran, not without abandoning Europe and Asia and stripping the Continental US of combat forces.

And the occupation of Iran would be many times tougher and more costly than Iraq is now, plus the fact that the 60% of the Iraqi population who are Shiites and would mobilize to fight in support of their coreligionists in Iran, making Iraq untenable without a garrison at least as big as the one it has today.

These are immutable facts.

The only idiotic scenario that clowns like Lieberman could be fantasizing about would entail our bombing the crap out of Iran and the Iranians simply taking it on the chin and cowering under the blows without hitting back.

Could Lieberman really be that stupid? I fear that he is.

 

[Socio]

Another problem if we were to bomb them we might not be number one on their retaliation list;

Iran threatens Gulf blitz if US hits nuclear plants

IRAN has threatened to launch a missile blitz against the Gulf states and plunge the entire Middle East into war if America attacks its nuclear facilities.

Shamkhani told the US journal Defense News that missiles would be launched not only at US military bases but also at strategic targets such as oil refineries and power stations.

Qatar, Bahrain and Oman all host important US bases and British forces are based in all three countries. Any Iranian attack would be bound to draw in the other Gulf Cooperation Council states: Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait.

The attacks on Arab states would be in addition to airstrikes on Israel, which have been threatened repeatedly. An Iranian foreign ministry official said: ?The objective would be to overwhelm US missile defence systems with dozens and maybe hundreds of missiles fired simultaneously at specific targets.?

Some how I think they are just stupid enough to do this, but it won't plunge the entire Middle East in to war it would however unite the middle east to destroy Iran.

 

[Trianon]

Originally posted by: Socio
Technically it is really not a bad idea but you would not bomb one day and sit back you would have to sink their navy, bomb and rain missiles until they are to crippled to retaliate.

You would leave their military is such a mess it would take 10 years or more to rebuild it.
In the meantime Afghanistan would get resolved, Iraq would be resolved and be rebuilding. Israel, Palestine, Syria, and Lebanon would finally reach peace agreements and be at peace all because the pot stirring, meddlesome, instigators of Iran would be neutered.

OMG LOL, had to laugh at optimism of this one We are 6 years into Afghanistan, what makes you think anything is going to change with even more troops devoted to Iran??? Unless of course you planning to sign up to fill the ranks

 

[lozina]

Why am I not surprised Emperor Palpatine wants to wage war?

 

[poohbear]

erm, joe lieberman is jewish, ofcourse he wants to bomb iran. he's as pro israeli as they come. why does this surprise anyone? if, say, Turkey threatened "to wipe vatican city off the map", every catholic in the US would wholly support bombing the living crap out of Turkey. why does this thread even need posting?

 

[MikeO]

Originally posted by: Socio

Originally posted by: Aimster
He lacks knowledge on the consequences of bombing Iran. He makes it sound like the U.S can just bomb Iran and sit back the next day and relax.

Not surprised. No politician has shown they now squat when it comes to foreign nations.

EX: Bush - Iraq

Technically it is really not a bad idea but you would not bomb one day and sit back you would have to sink their navy, bomb and rain missiles until they are to crippled to retaliate.

You would leave their military is such a mess it would take 10 years or more to rebuild it.
In the meantime Afghanistan would get resolved, Iraq would be resolved and be rebuilding. Israel, Palestine, Syria, and Lebanon would finally reach peace agreements and be at peace all because the pot stirring, meddlesome, instigators of Iran would be neutered.

LMFAO! So raining bombs on Iran would automagically bring forth world peace. That's awesome, let's start bombin'! :laugh:

 

[Genx87]

This wont happen so I wouldnt worry about it. It will take a nuke reigning down on Europe or one going off in Tel Aviv before we do anything about it.

With Iraq and Afghanistan and our inability to secure our own borders. Bombing Iran is something we cant and wont do.

 

[Zedtom]

Many Americans will insist that our foreign policy is proactive in the so-called war on terror, but I believe that we are reactive. We will not invade Iran unless something really unusual happens, and that could be something relatively minor.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Socio

Originally posted by: Aimster
He lacks knowledge on the consequences of bombing Iran. He makes it sound like the U.S can just bomb Iran and sit back the next day and relax.

Not surprised. No politician has shown they now squat when it comes to foreign nations.

EX: Bush - Iraq

Technically it is really not a bad idea but you would not bomb one day and sit back you would have to sink their navy, bomb and rain missiles until they are to crippled to retaliate.

You would leave their military is such a mess it would take 10 years or more to rebuild it.
In the meantime Afghanistan would get resolved, Iraq would be resolved and be rebuilding. Israel, Palestine, Syria, and Lebanon would finally reach peace agreements and be at peace all because the pot stirring, meddlesome, instigators of Iran would be neutered.

Sarcasm? Iran's involvement is through terrorism, its official military is not that important in the offensive in Iraq and Afghanistan. You could take out its military, leave its leadership, and still have plenty of arms shipments crossing the border.

Not to mention, any offensive should be directed at the destruction of the nuclear facilities. A strike on the military alone would be useless.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: wetech

Originally posted by: Aimster
Islam doesn't say anything about 72 virgins when you die.

I never said it did. But there's a bunch of crackpots who seem to think it does.

bunch? the only people who believe it are probably a hundred or so brainwashed Palestinians

If you had said that there is no mention in the Koran, you'd be correct. However, you wrote "Islam doesnt say anything about 72 virgins when you die," so, as usual, you are wrong.

There are hundreds of millions of Muslims who believe that 70 or 72 virgins await them in paradise - depending, of course, on the version and translation of the Hadiths preached in their mosques...

Two points need to be noted. First, there is no mention anywhere in the Koran of the actual number of virgins available in paradise, and second, the dark-eyed damsels are available for all Muslims, not just martyrs. It is in the Islamic Traditions that we find the 72 virgins in heaven specified: in a Hadith (Islamic Tradition) collected by Al-Tirmidhi (died 892 CE [common era*]) in the Book of Sunan (volume IV, chapters on The Features of Paradise as described by the Messenger of Allah [Prophet Muhammad], chapter 21, About the Smallest Reward for the People of Paradise, (Hadith 2687). The same hadith is also quoted by Ibn Kathir (died 1373 CE ) in his Koranic commentary (Tafsir) of Surah Al-Rahman (55), verse 72: "The Prophet Muhammad was heard saying: 'The smallest reward for the people of paradise is an abode where there are 80,000 servants and 72 wives, over which stands a dome decorated with pearls, aquamarine, and ruby, as wide as the distance from Al-Jabiyyah [a Damascus suburb] to Sana'a [Yemen]'."

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
As usual, you're wrong. There are millions of Muslims who believe that 70 or 72 virgins await them in paradise - depending, of course, on the version and translation of the Hadiths preached in their mosques...

Two points need to be noted. First, there is no mention anywhere in the Koran of the actual number of virgins available in paradise, and second, the dark-eyed damsels are available for all Muslims, not just martyrs. It is in the Islamic Traditions that we find the 72 virgins in heaven specified: in a Hadith (Islamic Tradition) collected by Al-Tirmidhi (died 892 CE [common era*]) in the Book of Sunan (volume IV, chapters on The Features of Paradise as described by the Messenger of Allah [Prophet Muhammad], chapter 21, About the Smallest Reward for the People of Paradise, (Hadith 2687). The same hadith is also quoted by Ibn Kathir (died 1373 CE ) in his Koranic commentary (Tafsir) of Surah Al-Rahman (55), verse 72: "The Prophet Muhammad was heard saying: 'The smallest reward for the people of paradise is an abode where there are 80,000 servants and 72 wives, over which stands a dome decorated with pearls, aquamarine, and ruby, as wide as the distance from Al-Jabiyyah [a Damascus suburb] to Sana'a [Yemen]'."

That's from an article in the Guardian right? Of course what's funny about that article is that its premise is that the whole "72 wives" thing could be a mistranslation, and that if translated differently it could very well mean "72 white raisins".

That would make me think twice... because that's not even a full box.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: palehorse74
As usual, you're wrong. There are millions of Muslims who believe that 70 or 72 virgins await them in paradise - depending, of course, on the version and translation of the Hadiths preached in their mosques...

Two points need to be noted. First, there is no mention anywhere in the Koran of the actual number of virgins available in paradise, and second, the dark-eyed damsels are available for all Muslims, not just martyrs. It is in the Islamic Traditions that we find the 72 virgins in heaven specified: in a Hadith (Islamic Tradition) collected by Al-Tirmidhi (died 892 CE [common era*]) in the Book of Sunan (volume IV, chapters on The Features of Paradise as described by the Messenger of Allah [Prophet Muhammad], chapter 21, About the Smallest Reward for the People of Paradise, (Hadith 2687). The same hadith is also quoted by Ibn Kathir (died 1373 CE ) in his Koranic commentary (Tafsir) of Surah Al-Rahman (55), verse 72: "The Prophet Muhammad was heard saying: 'The smallest reward for the people of paradise is an abode where there are 80,000 servants and 72 wives, over which stands a dome decorated with pearls, aquamarine, and ruby, as wide as the distance from Al-Jabiyyah [a Damascus suburb] to Sana'a [Yemen]'."

That's from an article in the Guardian right? Of course what's funny about that article is that its premise is that the whole "72 wives" thing could be a mistranslation, and that if translated differently it could very well mean "72 white raisins".

That would make me think twice... because that's not even a full box.

LOL!

The translation is irrelevant since the "virgins" version is preached throughout the world...

The whole "raisins" bit did make me chuckle though...