|
|||
Israel plans strike on Iranian nuclear plantTrackback PingsTrackBack URL for this entry: Comments
This article is 10 months old. Preparations are well underway. I believe that there will be a stike before end of March. Timmerman says the same. Many US Senators have come out in favour. The west and Israel is building up a head of steam. Clinton, Rice Mafaz et all have recently said that Iran won't be allowed to get the bomb. Posted by: Ted Belman on January 21, 2006 08:00 PM
THIS WOULD BE THE SUPER BOWL. GO TEAM GO. Let's clean this up for good. This would bring down Syria as well and Hizzbollah. Posted by: Ed D on January 21, 2006 08:18 PM
This is message being sent to thousands of sites by a robot. Have you asked the liberated women and children in IRAQ and Afghanistan
The COVENANT with Abraham and his DESCENDANTS is central to islam/chritianity/judaism. Please note this is not a competition between faiths but an attempt to decipher fact from fiction. GENESIS 16:16 At Genesis 22 Abraham had only 2 sons others came later. The Quran mentions that it was Ishmael that was sacrificed hence the reference in genesis 22:2 your only son can only mean someone has substituted Ishmael names for Isaac!! BY DOING SOME KINDERGARTEN ARITHMATIC USING ARABIC NUMBERS (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10) 100 years old – 86 years old = 14 ADD 3 YEARS FOR ISSAC’S WEANING THAT WOULD MAKE ISHMAEL 17 YEARS OLD IN GENESIS 21:14-21 Carefully read several times the above passage and then tell me the mental picture you get between the mother child interactions what is the age of the child. If the mental picture is that of a 17 year old child being carried on the shoulder of his mother, being physically placed in the bush, crying like a baby, mother having to give him water to drink, than the Islamic viewpoint is null and void. I have shown the passage of Genesis 21 to my two elder children of good reading ages now and without influencing them asked them what mental picture they got about the age of Ishmael in that passage and they thought he was about 5 years old. I have also tried the same thing with my work colleagues some of whom are qualified with PhD’s and have the ENGLISH language as their mother tongue and they also said they thought Ishmael was 5 years or younger because some of them stated by themselves that there was no verbal interaction between mother and child. i.e. If Ishmael is not of talking age then he must be less than a year old.
AS THE DESCRIPTION OF ISHMAEL IN GENESIS 21:14-21 IS THAT OF AN INFANT IT CAN BE ASSUMED SOMEONE HAS MOVED THIS PASSAGE FROM AN EARLIER PART OF SCRIPTURE!!! AND HAVE GOT THERE KNICKERS IN A TWIST. For background info on the future religion of mankind see the following websites: http://www.al-sunnah.com/muhammad_in_the_bible.htm (MUHAMMAD IN THE BIBLE) HOLY QURAN CHAPTER 37 verses 101 - 122 101. So We gave him the good news of a boy ready to suffer and forbear. 102. Then, when (the son) reached (the age of) (serious) work with him, he said: "O my son! I see in vision that I offer thee in sacrifice: Now see what is thy view!" (The son) said: "O my father! Do as thou art commanded: thou will find me, if Allah so wills one practising Patience and Constancy!" 103. So when they had both submitted their wills (to Allah., and he had laid him prostrate on his forehead (for sacrifice), 104. We called out to him "O Abraham! 105. "Thou hast already fulfilled the vision!" - thus indeed do We reward those who do right. 106. For this was obviously a trial- 107. And We ransomed him with a momentous sacrifice: 108. And We left (this blessing) for him among generations (to come) in later times: 109. "Peace and salutation to Abraham!" 110. Thus indeed do We reward those who do right. 111. For he was one of our believing Servants. 112. And We gave him the good news of Isaac - a prophet,- one of the Righteous. 113. We blessed him and Isaac: but of their progeny are (some) that do right, and (some) that obviously do wrong, to their own souls. 114. Again (of old) We bestowed Our favour on Moses and Aaron, 115. And We delivered them and their people from (their) Great Calamity; 116. And We helped them, so they overcame (their troubles); 117. And We gave them the Book which helps to make things clear; 118. And We guided them to the Straight Way. 119. And We left (this blessing) for them among generations (to come) in later times: 120. "Peace and salutation to Moses and Aaron!" 121. Thus indeed do We reward those who do right. 122. For they were two of our believing Servants. ISHMAEL IS THE FIRST BORN AND GOOD NEWS OF ISSAC DOES NOT APPEAR UNTIL AFTER THE SACRIFICE????? Therefore the claim that god gave the land to Israel is destroyed without the need of any WMD’s.
The oil found in recent history belongs to the west, its unfortunate it is under lands inhabited by Muslims and not only Arabs. Having oil and economic success then to die and go to hell is not my idea of a great nation. By the way SCREW BIN LADEN, AL-QAEDA, SADDAM HUSSAIN and who is this Zackarwee all trained by that humanitarian organization called the CIA. A brief lesson on Islam. It is the oldest faith on the planet it starts of with Adam and Eve, and continuous through revelations given to Noah, Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Moses, David, Solomon, Jesus (many others too numerous to mention) until its completion under the messenger ship of Muhammad (pbuta). Islam is not an exclusively an Arab faith as there is no scriptural evidence that Muhammad (pbuh) said that he is the founder of Islam. One cannot quote the Quran as it is not the work of Muhammad as he could not read or write in any language including Arabic. Just as Jesus has himself not ever said that he is the founder of Christianity or Moses has not stated that he is the founder of Judaism.
Quran Chapter 2 verse 75 75. Can ye (o ye men of Faith) entertain the hope that they will believe in you?- Seeing that a party of them heard the Word of Allah, and perverted it knowingly after they understood it.
79. Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say:"This is from Allah," to traffic with it for miserable price!- Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby. Quran Chapter 4 verse 46 46. Of the Jews there are those who displace words from their (right) places, and say: "We hear and we disobey"; and "Hear what is not Heard"; and "Ra'ina"; with a twist of their tongues and a slander to Faith. If only they had said: "What hear and we obey"; and "Do hear"; and "Do look at us"; it would have been better for them, and more proper; but Allah hath cursed them for their Unbelief; and but few of them will believe. I suppose SATAN said the following about the Israel. Quran Chapter 2 verse 40 - 83 40. O Children of Israel! call to mind the (special) favour which I bestowed upon you, and fulfil your covenant with Me as I fulfil My Covenant with you, and fear none but Me. Posted by: bruce on January 21, 2006 08:50 PM
An Israeli and/or U.S. first strike would be reasonable and necessary force. Iran has expressed the intention to destroy both countries and it is now acquiring the means to do so. Lethal intent plus lethal means justifies the preemptive use of force. We would have to be out of our minds to allow Iran to complete a nuclear weapon and/or the means of delivering it. Posted by: Bill Levinson on January 22, 2006 02:39 AM
Agreed, agreed, agreed. But I do hope that most of the world gets on side so that the US and Israel don't have to go it alone. To hell with the UN and the other Arab countries. Posted by: Shelley on January 22, 2006 03:06 AM
Yeah Yeah, Let Me Unravel This Web Of SHIT The Western World Are Hypocrites, Israel Was Allowed The "Bomb" But Iran Can't. Seems Like Double Standards To Me. An Attack By The US OR ISRAEL Would Be A MISTAKE. Yes, It May Have Worked On Iraq In The 80's, But With Relations Between Most Countries Strained As It Is Today, Especially With The Western World, A Strike Would Act As A "Trigger" To An Expanded Regional Conflict Involving Many Countries And Wasting More Lives. So What Does That Accomplish? Most Of You People Talk About Freedom And Democracy As Saving The World, Yet Don't PRACTICE What You PREACH. Iran Has The RIGHT To Nuclear Technology, Whether It Be Power Or Weapons And To Defend Themselves From The Western World. I Have A Great Idea.... You People Don't Want Iran To Have Nuclear Technology? Is That Correct? Then Give Up Yours. SOLVED Yeah Right....
Posted by: Paul on January 22, 2006 07:11 AM
First of all this news has been out on the mainstream for quite some time, thus it will not be a SURPRISE. Secondly, I cannot imagine that the Israelis right now can effectively make up their minds to do anything except to up root their own people and make amends with the Palestinians. Thirdly, Israel is in no position to tell Iran what it can and cannot do regardless of the situation, likewise Iran has no right to do the same. If Israel or Iran want a nuclear war then bring it on. I doubt either side has the guts to go to war. Posted by: redbear on January 22, 2006 08:57 AM
Paul, in your weak attempt to accuse the West of trying to deprive Iran of nuclear power, you neglect one very important piece of information. Iran has made no attempt to hide its ultimate goal, though it says publically that its nuclear aspirations are for peaceful purposes. Iran, like other Islamic extremist states, has stated that it fully intends to wipe Israel off the map. It publically lusts for the death of every Jew in Palestine. If Paul can get past his bias, he might note that Israel has no such goal. In fact, Israel has steadily given back territory it captured in the Six Day War to promote peace in Palestine (a mistake, I think). The United States has never had a goal of destroying any country for ideological reasons. When we did use nuclear weapons in Japan, it was to stop the war Japan had started, and we returned sovereignty of Japan to its people as soon as possible. I can hear Paul whine, "Well, what about Cuba, and what about Iraq?" A critical difference: We have never sought the destruction of a race or the citizens of a country. We have sought the liberation of countries from murderous dictators and their freedom-crushing ideologies, but our goal has never been to annihilate a race of people. Iran and other Muslim extremist regimes have made unambiguous statements that their intent is not just to destroy Israel's government but to murder every Jew they possibly can. Like the insurgents in Iraq, these animals have no regard for human life. If you disagree with their religious ideology, if you don't think the way they do, your life means nothing and you are dead if they can get their cowardly hands on you. I think Paul needs to move to Tehran for a while, make a few controversial statement the mullahs disagree with, and see how long he lives. Posted by: John on January 22, 2006 05:06 PM
Following John, I remind that there's a critical and fundamental difference between the possession of nuclear arms by the West, including Isr, and the posession of such arms in the hands of what is defined as "crazy countries". No need, I believe, to explain. Further, if Isr is threatened so explicitly w being wiped off the map, what do you expect of her, and what do you think should be her reaction? Self-defense by a preemptive strike. Now, two issues are worth of considering, here. One is why Isr has the right to possess nuclear arms, while it's denied to others in the ME. The second, is why does Iran need such an arm? The answers to these q's are that Isr never threatened someone else w extermination, as she is by her enemies. A nuclear arm in the hands of Isr is a defense means, pure and simple. This is the reason why she was never really taken to task on account of it. Iran doesn't need such an arm under any circumstances. There is no excuse/explanation for her to acquire one. She isn't threatened in such a way that she needs a deterrent such as this. In the Cold War, the two superpowers had a balance of deterrence against each other, and neither was perceived as "crazy country". The deal worked perfectly. If anyone was afraid of something, it was of a mistaken move, but not of a nuclear war, really. Now, from what you hear Iran's president say, things don't look the same. The whole world is in jitters b/c of his declarations, b/c they know that they cannot trust him and this country. The whole Gulf region is shaken w fear, not only Isr and Europe. I'm not sure that someone there will shed a tear if Iran is hit. In fact, I am sure that they'll be thankful to whomever did it. Maybe they will even lend a hand in supporting the operation in this or other way. Posted by: Dan Barkye on January 22, 2006 09:14 PM
Islam didn't exist on this planet until after Mohammad---just an info update for some on this page. Posted by: Harvey on January 22, 2006 10:46 PM Post a comment |
Israel plans strike on Iranian nuclear plant
The Sunday Times, March 13, 2005
ISRAEL has drawn up secret plans for a combined air and ground attack on targets in Iran if diplomacy fails to halt the Iranian nuclear programme.
The inner cabinet of Ariel Sharon, the Israeli prime minister, gave “initial authorisation” for an attack at a private meeting last month on his ranch in the Negev desert.
Israeli forces have used a mock-up of Iran’s Natanz uranium enrichment plant in the desert to practise destroying it. Their tactics include raids by Israel’s elite Shaldag (Kingfisher) commando unit and airstrikes by F-15 jets from 69 Squadron, using bunker-busting bombs to penetrate underground facilities.
The plans have been discussed with American officials who are said to have indicated provisionally that they would not stand in Israel’s way if all international efforts to halt Iranian nuclear projects failed.
Tehran claims that its programme is designed for peaceful purposes but Israeli and American intelligence officials — who have met to share information in recent weeks — are convinced that it is intended to produce nuclear weapons.
The Israeli government responded cautiously yesterday to an announcement by Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, that America would support Britain, France and Germany in offering economic incentives for Tehran to abandon its programme.
In return, the European countries promised to back Washington in referring Iran to the United Nations security council if the latest round of talks fails to secure agreement.
Silvan Shalom, the Israeli foreign minister, said he believed that diplomacy was the only way to deal with the issue. But he warned: “The idea that this tyranny of Iran will hold a nuclear bomb is a nightmare, not only for us but for the whole world.”
Dick Cheney, the American vice-president, emphasised on Friday that Iran would face “stronger action” if it failed to respond. But yesterday Iran rejected the initiative, which provides for entry to the World Trade Organisation and a supply of spare parts for airliners if it co-operates.
“No pressure, bribe or threat can make Iran give up its legitimate right to use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes,” said an Iranian spokesman.
US officials warned last week that a military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities by Israeli or American forces had not been ruled out should the issue become deadlocked at the United Nations.
Posted by Ted Belman at January 21, 2006 07:51 PM