LGF

more options

  

Advertisement

Iraq’s Nuclear Program Revealed

Sat, Jan 18, 2003 at 5:02:52 pm PST

BREAKING NEWS: the UN inspectors discovered something far more damning than a few empty warheads last week—they also unearthed the blueprints for Iraq’s ongoing nuclear weapons program. (Hat tip: Michael J. Totten.)

Thursday evening turned into a wild night at the al-Hyatt hotel in Baghdad, for the 150 or so United Nations weapons inspectors who have made it their home.

Jordanian-imported wine flowed, glasses of whiskey were handed round and, as one witness put it, "the men from the UN with their blue baseball caps and grey faces were suddenly smiling".

During their two-and-a-half month stay in Iraq, the inspectors have not developed a reputation for holding late-night parties. Almost all are soberly in bed by 11pm, in order to be up the next day at 6.30 for a breakfast of fried eggs, omelettes or bread rolls. But this was a special occasion.

During the day, the United Nations Monitoring Verification and Inspection Commission (Unmovic), had made the first significant find since its arrival in Iraq.

At the Ukhaider weapons depot, 90 miles south-west of Baghdad, inspectors had discovered 12 hidden artillery shells designed to carry chemical weapons. "We finally found something shaped like a weapon and not like a test-tube," said one inspector.

But while in public the inspectors were celebrating their discovery of the artillery shells, in private experts from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna were digesting the details of a substantially more significant find - the blueprint of Saddam's nuclear weapons project.

On the same morning that a team of inspectors had found the 12 artillery shells, another team of nuclear weapons experts had paid a surprise visit to the homes of two of Saddam's leading nuclear physicists who worked for Iraq's top secret for the Ministry of Military Industrialisation (MMI).

The ministry, which is run by Saddam's younger son Qusay, recently replaced the Military Industrialisation Organisation (MIO), the institution which historically has controlled the development of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction arsenal since the mid-1970s.

In their eagerness to get into the scientists' homes, some of the inspectors had been seen jumping over a garden wall.

Once inside they found what one Western official has described as a "highly significant" batch of documents which, on closer inspection, revealed that Saddam's scientists were continuing development work on producing an Iraqi nuclear weapon.

Although these documents are this weekend still being examined by IAEA experts to establish the current state of Saddam's nuclear weapons programme, the discovery could well turn out to be the "smoking gun" that officials in the Bush administration have pinned their hopes on obtaining in order to justify launching military action against Baghdad.

When Saddam submitted his 12,000 page dossier to the United Nations Security Council at the end of last year, the Iraqi leader insisted that Baghdad no longer had any interest in developing nuclear weapons, and that Iraq's nuclear research programme had been discontinued.

The documents seized at the homes of the two scientists, however, confirm what Western intelligence has been arguing all along, that Saddam is continuing with his quest to develop the first Arab atom bomb.
Advertisement

66 comments

  • Comments are open and unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Little Green Footballs.
  • Obscene, abusive, silly, or annoying remarks may be deleted, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their views by Little Green Footballs.
  • Posts that contain phone numbers, street addresses, email addresses or other personal information will also be deleted, as will posts that consist only of a variation on the word, "First!"
  • Comments that advocate violence will be cause for immediate banning with no appeal.
  • Disagreement and debate are welcome, but insults and abuse are not, and may cause your account to be blocked.
  • REMEMBER: posting comments at LGF is a privilege, not a right. Abuse that privilege, and your account will be blocked.

Hide comments | Jump to bottom

1 The Bug  Sat, Jan 18, 2003 3:12:30pm

First post. Sorry, couldn't resist.

2 Juif in Vancouver  Sat, Jan 18, 2003 3:13:15pm

Not sure if I trust any of these "finds". Nor do I care much for the exact reasons given to launch a war against Iraq (other than to silence annoying colleagues, a roommate etc., who believe discussions with Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and other Muslim dictators will lead to a pot smoking sit-in while Lennon plays in the background). There are enough historical factors (bombing Tel Aviv during the Gulf War, gassing the Kurds), Muslim editorials, etc. to justify any campaign to rid the world of the Saddam and his ilk. One question, when do we hit Syria?

3 Dar ul Harb  Sat, Jan 18, 2003 3:20:26pm

"Oh, you mean that half-built nuclear warhead out in the garage? I forgot I was working on that..."

4 Gene 6-Pack  Sat, Jan 18, 2003 3:25:04pm

A victory in Iraq may well lead to a change of behavior in Syria and some other countries that celebrated 9-11.

5 Iron Fist  Sat, Jan 18, 2003 3:35:33pm

#1, The Bug,

squish

Sorry. Couldn't resist :-)

6 Eusebio pedroza  Sat, Jan 18, 2003 3:37:14pm

#4

The only way to "change behavior" in Syria is to do to Syria what we're (hopefully) going to do to Iraq.

Nothing less will do.

7 NTropy  Sat, Jan 18, 2003 3:43:15pm

#2 Juif in Vancouver

I'm glad I read all the way through your post ;-) I like that question you asked and believe it may end up being more important than Iraq.

8 Gray1  Sat, Jan 18, 2003 3:51:12pm

It was pretty well foreordained that we would attack Iraq. I think everyone really KNEW that he was still continuing to build WMD. Perhaps the US or British intelligence services tipped them off to this or maybe they found it on their own. It really doesn't matter. As Steven Den Beste argues, everything is set to go in motion, probably on February 1st:
(1) The UN report is due on Jan. 27
(2) Bush's State of the Union address occurs on Jan. 28
(3) Bush meets with Blair on January 30 and 31
(4) February 1st is the dark of the moon, and the US military really likes to fight at night.
What a set of coincidences. (sarcasm intended) Get ready. God bless the daisy-cutters.

9 Gustavia  Sat, Jan 18, 2003 3:52:37pm

Sunday's editorial in the Guardian (of all places)

Iraq: the case for decisive action

War with Iraq may yet not come, but, conscious of the potentially terrifying responsibility resting with the British Government, we find ourselves supporting the current commitment to a possible use of force. That is not because we have not agonised, as have so many of our readers and those who demonstrated across the country yesterday, about what is right. It is because we believe that, if Saddam does not yield, military action may eventually be the least awful necessity for Iraq, for the Middle East and for the world.
10 Valentine  Sat, Jan 18, 2003 3:56:46pm

Al Baredei (spelling?) the head of the IAEA is already saying this is NOT a smoking gun. Sheesh what does he need? A freaking nuke to explode over him directly before he declares that a smoking gun?

11 Iron Fist  Sat, Jan 18, 2003 3:59:12pm

#2, Juif,

I think that depends on a number of factors. I see four overriding strategic questions:


1) What happens in Lebannon during Gulf War II? I expect Hezbollah to start lobbing rockets into Israel the moment we start bombing. I don't expect the Israelis will just sit there and take it this time.

2) What happens in Iran? We may see the mad mullahs overthrown the way the Romanians got rid of their thugs. That is certainly what we are hoping will happen.

3) What does North Korea do? If we have to fight the Korean War II at the same time as Gulf War II, we can and we will. That could get really nasty. Syria goes on the back burner for sure.

4) Finally, what does Syria (and Bashar Assad) do? We go in and snuff out Hussein, and Assad might tilt our way. OTOH, he might decide he now had the opportunity to restore the Caliphate, with him as Caliph. I don't know enough about the internal workings of the Syrian government (would his Generals support the latter decision after we snuff Saddam?) to even begin to guess which way he will jump. Especially if Israel smacks Lebanon hard. Syria appeared to be gearing up to attack Israel last spring, and Mubarak (Egypt) told the "Boy President" that he was on his own. The "Boy President" backed down.

None of those questions can be definitively answered right now. Some of them can only be answered after they have occurred. That is, unfortunately, the nature of war. Uncertainty is simply part of the equation.


1. Sun Tzu said: The art of war is of vital importance
to the State.

2. It is a matter of life and death, a road either
to safety or to ruin. Hence it is a subject of inquiry
which can on no account be neglected.
-Sun Tzu -The Art of War


That is, unfortunately, the way it is :-(
12 say it like it is  Sat, Jan 18, 2003 3:59:23pm

I'm just worried that if a democracy is put in place in Iraq it might be the 2nd step towards the Khilafah......

13 Sparkey  Sat, Jan 18, 2003 4:00:04pm

This means warrrrr!

14 NC  Sat, Jan 18, 2003 4:00:20pm

OT: Are the idiotarians winning?

[Link: www.jpost.com...]

15 Pete  Sat, Jan 18, 2003 4:02:40pm

I just realised what the Iraqis did with all of the prohibited materials. They mailed everything parcel post to themselves. The Iraqi postal service is notoriously inefficent. It'll take weeks for the stuff to come back to the sender.

16 Iron Fist  Sat, Jan 18, 2003 4:09:13pm

#9, Gustavia

In al Guardian!?!?!?!?!?!

They're even blaming Saddam Hussein:


One thing which has been stressed too little in recent weeks is that it is Iraq's choices that have brought war closer. The debate in Britain and Europe continues to focus largely on what America is doing and why. Too often, it is overlooked that it is Iraq which remains, at the eleventh hour, in defiance of the will of its region and the wider world.


And the conclusion:


It is because we believe that, if Saddam does not yield, military action may eventually be the least awful necessity for Iraq, for the Middle East and for the world.


Couldn’t you see any regular LGF’er sying the same thing? We don’t love war, we just refuse to bury our heads in the sand and ignore that the alternatives are worse!

OK, the Apocalypse is definitely at hand.

17 NTropy  Sat, Jan 18, 2003 4:20:41pm

#11 Iron Fist

Finally, what does Syria (and Bashar Assad) do? We go in and snuff out Hussein, and Assad might tilt our way

Tilt our way in the same manner as the Saudis which is to say duplicitously. Cynical? Perhaps.

18 Maine's Michael  Sat, Jan 18, 2003 4:22:05pm

Juif In Vancouver:

Forget about Syria. The day after Iraq, it's time for the US to give Israel the reward it's been preparing in return for Israel's 'restraint' as its citizens were butchered by the dozen:

A big fat kick in the teeth.

19 eliyak  Sat, Jan 18, 2003 4:24:53pm

BTW, #8 Gray1

Jan 28- Israeli elections

20 Gustavia  Sat, Jan 18, 2003 4:26:08pm

Iron Fist

I tell you, I was shocked.

Especially when they admitted the US had acted multi-laterally by actually going to the UN.

Those who demanded a multilateral route have responsibilities, too. They must recognise that the much-maligned Bush administration has dutifully pursued a multilateral approach over both Iraq and the war in Afghanistan. The world asked America to work through the UN. The UN and its members must now show that its decisions and resolutions can be effective.
21 NTropy  Sat, Jan 18, 2003 4:35:38pm

#18 Maine's Michael

I really, REALLY hope not. Fundy-Christian that I am, I'm foolish enough to believe the following:

"Behold, I am going to make Jerusalem a cup that causes reeling to all the peoples around; and when the siege is against Jerusalem, it will also be against Judah.
"It will come about in that day that I will make Jerusalem a heavy stone for all the peoples; all who lift it will be severely injured. And all the nations of the earth will be gathered against it.
Zechariah 12:2,3


Quite honestly, I don't want to be on the wrong side of God.

22 Juif in Vancouver  Sat, Jan 18, 2003 4:41:17pm

#18 Maine's Michael

Did you read the entire article? Perhaps not. The US is playing a politics game, drumming up support for their inevitable war on Iraq. I'd be quite shocked to see any "damaged teeth" post-Iraq war. Regardless, as a Jew and Zionist, I believe the majority of the settlements have to go.

23 packsoldier  Sat, Jan 18, 2003 4:45:29pm

OK, I notice the Guardian banner at the top, but the link is to the Observer. Are they sister publications?

24 Skinny Benny  Sat, Jan 18, 2003 4:51:17pm

Now it gets interesting. The UN inspectors are starting to turn up beau coup violations with more to come. The house of Saud trying to forment a coup in Iraq. US "Allies" starting to see the light and realizing that we aren't sending all of the troops there for a pleasure cruise....

Right before any war breaks out look for all of the EUniks and Arabs to make a move for getting Saddam out of the country or some such thing. They do not want the US/England with boots in the country occupying and rebuilding via a modern day Marshall plan. The Euniks don't want us controlling all that oil and calling the shots in the region. The Arabs and Iran don't want a democracy next door giving their people any hope or ideas.

The world now realizes that W ain't bluffing and the chances for weird non war stuff happening is increasing.Don't think Saddam will be around too much longer one way or the other,but I don't know if the US will ever set foot in country. Probably some different flavor of dictator/strongman propped up by Arab neighbors and EUniks. What is that curse? May you live interesting times....

25 Stupid White Man  Sat, Jan 18, 2003 4:57:46pm

#18 Maine's Michael

Given the administration's earlier comments on the PLO and Arafat, I have to hope that Wolfowitz' comment really means dealing with the terrorists, although I have no idea what that would entail. Perhaps a more realistic interpretation is they are just attempting to sound Arab-friendly. Not that it would work.

I have to hope his words cannot be taken literally. It is just not concievable to reward the Pals after all that has happened.

26 Maine's Michael  Sat, Jan 18, 2003 5:00:34pm

Juif,

It's not about 'settlements' Its about whether or not there should be another palestinian state. To ram another pal state down Israel's throat when the pals have been behaving in a manner more befitting of those deserving to have their culture wiped out is a kick in the teeth to Israel and her security needs.

Yes, it might be window dressing to keep cold footed arab allies in line (see debka, today), but based on what went down after Gulf 1, and the backroom promises that have no doubt been given to the Saudis, especially, I am very skeptical.

I see A LOT of American pressure on Israel after this action as a very real possibility.

27 Maine's Michael  Sat, Jan 18, 2003 5:13:10pm

Ntropy,

Funny, I saw that line out of Zachariah quoted somewhere in the news this week, and remember thinking that perhaps Dubbya, being a devout Christian, might lay off Israel for fear of heavenly retribution should he play a part in wresting Jerusalem from the jews and handing it over to followers of the the blood drinking Allah-deity.

28 Amin  Sat, Jan 18, 2003 5:17:06pm

SHIT

No, not about Iraq. Some other Arab country will sooner or later develop a nuke and kill you infidels. So, thats all cool.

It's this I'm worried about. Websites now suing trolls.

29 Ranbutan  Sat, Jan 18, 2003 5:38:47pm

#28 Amin

I guess we better watch out! You are my canary...but one with more humor than corroded souls like Q...whose only experience with humor passing his mouth is the several hundred good humor ice cream bars he's consumed.

30 eliyak  Sat, Jan 18, 2003 5:48:10pm

#22 Juif in Vancouver

Regardless, as a Jew and Zionist, I believe the majority of the settlements have to go.

Personally, as a Jew and Zionist, I believe the majority of the settlements must stay.

First of all, they are part of Israel. That's a capital capital I. The Palestinians will not take away OUR land. I'm sick of hearing it the other way around.

On the other hand, I understand that, for peace, we may offer them land(which is otherwise rightfully ours) for a state. If I believed that would lead to security and safety for Israel, I would be completely behind it. However, I no longer believe that the Palestinians, or most Arab countries, just want a Palestinian state.

The whole history of Israel consists of the surrounding Arab states trying to drive it into the sea. When they speak out against Israel to their own people, it's not just about the Occupation. They bring messianic quotes from the Koran, among other things, to rally the masses to murder Jews. Not Israelis, since 1948. Jews, since Mohammed declared them to be treacherous decietful swine. And if Mohammed didn't say those things, it doesn't matter- because that's what their sheiks are saying he said. And that's what they're learning at school. Their mullahs shout about the virtues of those who die killing Jews- this has nothing to do with liberation and freedom. This has everything to do with religion. There will be no end to their attacks until we prevent them from spreading such incitement to their children, or they are forced to leave. There will be no peace as long as they believe what they believe and have the proximity and ability to carry out their attacks. Let Israel build a wall, and even evacuate the settlements- they will turn all their resources to making and buying bigger and better rockets, until we can't ignore them anymore.
THEN we will have to make the decision of how to deal with them. There will not be many choices. The only one which comes to mind is complete and utter defeat. Then we will be back where we are now, with a murderous population that wants us dead, but has relatively few resources with which to attack. The difference will be that their hate will no longer be dependant on the evil incitement with which their leaders currently bombard them- it will be instilled in every member of their new generation.

We must confiscate ALL their textbooks and stop their broadcasts NOW- but then what? Should Israel be responsible for the education of millions of Palestinians? Even if Israel was willing to commit their resources, the Palestinians would never allow it.
Is it even possible to reverse the damage? It may be too late.

This is why I believe that we must consider transfer as an option.

Jordan is over 40% Palestinian already. In the original division of Palestine, the entire land east of the Jordan was allotted for the Arab state. If the Palestinians truly want their homeland, they should rather have Jordan, over 60% of Palestine, than the territories, which are less than 20%.

Of course the Palestinians would never accept this, and Jordan would never accept this.

What else? We could beat them into the ground, pound them until they have no ability to fight back. That wouldn't be final, either. Eventually they would get back up and start killing us again.

The only possibility that really appeals to me is to somehow show them that Israel and Jews stand for noble values. We could start programs to send them food and other neccesities- all labeled "Israel Palestinian Support Fund," or some such. I wish this were possible. There would be very little support for such a program- they are making themselves really hard to like. Depending on their level of hate for us, they might even reject the gifts altogether as deceitful and possibly poisoned.

One thing is clear to me. The Palestinian leadership, at least, is incapable and unwilling to give Israel peace. Soon, it will be all of them.

31 Kirk  Sat, Jan 18, 2003 5:57:18pm

I have offered rational, well-thought-out arguments for American/allied action in the past.

Today, though, I am sick and tired of being sick and tired.

Saddam, you had your chance.

As John Wayne said playing Rooster Cogburn in True Grit, "Fill your hand, you son of a bitch!"

Nuke them 'til they glow, then use their assholes for runway lights!

32 Jimmy the Dimmy  Sat, Jan 18, 2003 6:02:54pm

#28 Amin

I'll feed ya you bastard.

You think one nuke, or two, or ten, will kill us all? If one WMD goes off in any western country your entire shitpot culture will be destroyed. Let allah (fhita) do something about that.

33 Valentine  Sat, Jan 18, 2003 6:18:17pm

#32 fhita?

34 Joshua Scholar  Sat, Jan 18, 2003 6:26:09pm

Maybe this report isn't for real. It hasn't been picked up by MSNBC or CNN and Associated Press' report on the nuclear papers says exactly the opposite as the report given... It seems to say that the papers are perfectly constistant with the Iraqi government's other papers showing that research stopped in the 80's.

shrug.

I don't know what to make of it.

35 Ranbutan  Sat, Jan 18, 2003 6:32:40pm

Link to Nuke Scientist Hassan's denial:

Hassan Denies Active Nuke Program

Generally, to say the frikkin least...you don't stash 3,000 pages of nuclear weapons documents in scientists private homes unless you are trying to HIDE SOMETHING.

That sort of stunt would get any US Nuke Scientist canned....unless taking weapons research home from a secure lab was by gov't permission.

Hassan says his documents regarding laser fissile material enrichment was all abandoned in 1988. IAEA doesn't believe him....as well as his bitches that UN inspectors had a female inspector invade his wife's private quarters thus "dishonoring" his family.

End result?

Another arrow in Bush/Blair's quiver. By February, there will be enough to pincushion Saddam and cow France and other Frenchie-like nations into coming along.

This will be a huge coup for Blair, Powell, Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the UK/US State Departments....and a decisive slap against Cheney, Perle, Wolfowitz, Rummy's acting out further fantasies of the US as the arrogant "Go it Alone" Hegemon. Bush chose right. Again.

36 kamala  Sat, Jan 18, 2003 6:39:14pm

This story is now the first entry on Drudge.

Trumping Drudge... Excellent work, Charles & Michael.

37 Yehoshua in Brooklyn  Sat, Jan 18, 2003 6:40:35pm

Yes, #24 - thorough exposition. Like a chess game, but more than 2 players.

A question: why do the Israeli politicians BEHAVE as though Israel is not in a war for its survival; rather, that their noses in the money trough are the most important issue?

BTW, on this one post, the most interesting collection of (generally) thoughtful posts in a long time (Not that I agree with them all.)

A small reminder: G-d continues to operate His world; we Jews have to tune in a bit better.

38 Christopher Allbritton  Sat, Jan 18, 2003 6:42:40pm

This isn't a smoking gun -- yet. Only the Telegraph has an unnamed ?Western diplomat closely involved with the investigation into Saddam?s nuclear capability? as saying the docs are of recent origin. AP, Voice of America, and the Observer have El Baradei as saying these docs date to a uranium enrichment program abandoned in 1988. Iraq claims they declared it in 1991. Until this discrepancy is resolved, I'm going to go with reliable news sources and interview subjects who go on the record with their names rather than someone who won't give his name and who probably has a vested interest in stoking the fires of war.

39 Donna V.  Sat, Jan 18, 2003 6:43:20pm

I'm still reeling over the anti-appeasement Guardian editorial. What's that I just saw flying past my window?
Good God, it's a pig!

40 Lancer  Sat, Jan 18, 2003 6:47:14pm

Silly question from a Gentile-

Why is it always typed out "G-d?" Just curious.

41 marc  Sat, Jan 18, 2003 6:47:24pm

oh just dust this asshole off the face of the earth!!!

42 Iron Fist  Sat, Jan 18, 2003 6:57:43pm

#40, Lancer

It is out of respect to Orthodox Jews, as I understand it.

[Please forgive me, I'm going to step on that]

God, of course isn't the real name of God. Yodhevahe, or Yahweh is usually the English translation of what, as I understand it, is generally the unpronouncable Name of God in Hebrew.

Rendering God as G-d is going above and beyond to make sure one doesn't violate the commandment not to use the name of the Lord Thy God in vain.

At least, that is my understanding of it.

Anyone know different? I'm not exactly a religious scholor.

43 Peter Ingemi  Sat, Jan 18, 2003 7:07:14pm

According to the report this was discovered a week ago.

This info is released just a few hours after the idiot brigade makes their public case and the leading idiotarians of the world put their personal name and stamp on the anti war movement.

Is Bush and his crew brilliant or what?

BHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHA

44 Woda  Sat, Jan 18, 2003 7:07:30pm
45 Glen Wishard  Sat, Jan 18, 2003 7:16:14pm
Jordanian-imported wine flowed, glasses of whiskey were handed round and, as one witness put it, "the men from the UN with their blue baseball caps and grey faces were suddenly smiling".

Did we misjudge these guys? If so, I'll be the first to say I'm sorry. I just hope they don't end up as hostages.

46 addison  Sat, Jan 18, 2003 7:17:34pm

Iron Fist,

Well, that's news to me. I never paid much attention, thinking that people did it simply to avoid search engines picking up their page as a religious site. Yahweh...learn something new every day, no?

47 zulubaby  Sat, Jan 18, 2003 7:19:32pm

Woda,

Jerusalem Post is closed for maintenance. What did the article say?

Peter Ingemi,

If that's true, it is brilliant. Timing is everything.

48 Woda  Sat, Jan 18, 2003 7:44:09pm
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said that the US has given Israel a green light to defend itself in the event of a pre-emptive Iraqi attack, reports Israel Radio.

Its from an interview to be published in Newsweek. Thats about the entirety of the article.

49 Big Dog  Sat, Jan 18, 2003 8:23:48pm

#45:
I don't think all the inspectors were considered incompetent. However, I think they were severely hamstringed by their highly incompetent leader, Mr. Clean Bill of Health for Iraq.

50 zulubaby  Sat, Jan 18, 2003 8:30:41pm

Woda,

Thanks! I just read it.

51 Bill Whittle  Sat, Jan 18, 2003 9:47:12pm

Please, let this be true.

52 Jay  Sat, Jan 18, 2003 11:02:15pm

Any moron should have realized that Iraq still has a program. One of the inspectors from the last round said they were on the trail, but got stopped, when he figured they were very close.

I honestly believe it probably is true. You don't leak stuff like this if it is false, mostly because you will have such a glut of people getting up in arms over it (pun intended). Should be interesting once we wipe Saddam out and send him to The Hague to be tried for war crimes.

Oh, as for the God/god thing, it isn't actually Jewish in origin. From what I've read and know, it started somewhere after the foundation of the Roman Catholic Church, and to glorify Yaweh over local, pagan "gods", we use lowercase "g" for all dieties except for the diety of Jewish and Christian tradition.

53 Geepers  Sat, Jan 18, 2003 11:08:11pm

Jay (#52), Not sure where the origins trace back to, but the Romans felt the same way. Pronouncing the “secret” name of Rome was thought to be seeking the vengeance of the gods.

54 Jolly Roger  Sun, Jan 19, 2003 12:07:03am

#42 Iron Fist,

You are very much correct in spirit, and mostly in fact.

Regarding the Name of God, "Yahweh" is one of the names of God, taken from the Hebrew letters which transliterate as YHVH* (or, rather, HVHY). That's Yod-Heh-Vav-Heh. The Latin letters become JHVH, from where we get the name "Jehovah". This IS known as the Holy, Unpronounceable Name of God, but this also isn't quite correct either. The true Holy Unpronounceable Name is comprised of a block of not 4, but 216 letters, located somewhere in the Torah (in Genesis, I think).

I would give you the specific verse, but it's 4am here and I've been drinking. :) I'll fact-check my ass in the morning (read: afternoon, and that's even a maybe at this point).

*On a related note, to answer the question of "Why was Jesus named Jesus?"...in Hebrew/Aramaic, Jesus' name would be spelled YHShVH, inserting the "Shin" in the middle of the Holy Unpronounceable Name. The letter Shin represents "spirit" in a way, and inserted thusly in the YHVH, it represents "spirit made flesh".

55 Kolya  Sun, Jan 19, 2003 2:16:01am

#23 packsoldier

OK, I notice the Guardian banner at the top, but the link is to the Observer. Are they sister publications?

The Observer, founded in 1791, is the oldest Sunday paper in the world.

the Guardian Media Group acquired the Observer in 1993. Though the Observer shares the same network of foreign correspondents as its sister paper the Guardian, they are completely separate editorially.

56 freddie  Sun, Jan 19, 2003 3:22:39am

On G-D or God: I had been told many years ago that you did not complete the name of the Lord because to use the complete word was to define, or pin Him down, and that since god was so omnipotent etc he ought not be pinned down, defined, in a few letters, the way you might pin down or define the world Table so readily. May not be the correct answer but it is a useful notion.

On Saddam: since I have long been an ardent supporter of the state of Isreael, I bitterly oppose Saddam if for no other reason than that he is constantly claiming his people are starving and yet send 25 thousand bucks to each family who son had been a suicide bomber. Such payments award and encourage the chaos that is a part of the Arab ant-Israel strategy, and anything that shuts a part of it down is good in my eyes....and then there are the other supporters: Syria, Saudi, Iran--stop their low of money and the pace table will be available.

57 Martin Knight  Sun, Jan 19, 2003 3:37:52am

As a Right-Wing conservative Republican Muslim who actually supports America and wants Saddam's ass kicked (and believes that Israel has the right to exist - within it's original borders), I would really appreciate it if you cut it out with the Muslim-bashing orgy that is going on here. Please refrain from slurring my Prophet.

I don't know how it came to be but the fact is that Islam has been hijacked by a legion of idiots. Muslims are in the same situation Catholicism was during the Inquisition. Back then, everyone thought Torquemada, as he tortured and terrorized, was doing God's work. Today we all know he wasn't.

Islam has no official heirarchial priesthood, only scholars who are considered leaders of the Muslim community by virtue of their knowledge. Unfortunately, many of them are little Torquemadas (Wahhabites) with far too much hatred corrupting them.

There is a Surah (Chapter) in the Qur'an, known as Kaaffiruun (the Unbelievers) in which a verse encapsulates what the true Muslim's attitude toward non-Muslims should be.

Lakum deenakum waleeyad deen
{transliteration skills may be a bit rusty}
It means; "You have your religion, and I have mine." In other words, there is no compulsion in religion and one should respect the rights of others to believe what they believe.

So of course, I actually have to accept that you believe what you do believe (agree to disagree) ... By the way, I absolutely love your blog, but this Muslim bashing is making it much harder.

58 grape  Sun, Jan 19, 2003 4:48:09am

#57 Martin Knight

As I have said before, Islam is at the same age as Christianity was when it really went berzerk. I guess there may be some connection there. Probably not. But interesting. Luckily for Christianity's enemies in the middle ages and the rest of the bad times, they didn't have nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. That makes a very big difference. Islam has a lot more evil in it, and will suffer for it.

Personally, I don't see that Islam has been hijacked at all. I have read the Koran and am rereading it over for about the 3rd time (very carefully). I see a lot of hate and violence in it. Mohammad didn't seem to be the prince of peace by any means. He was a warrior (though muslims say he was a merchant) bent on conquering the region. What is said in the Koran about unbelievers is pretty scarey. And don't even bother to tell me Christianity and Judaism are the same, I am not a Christian or Jew. And Islam condemns me, some sects more actively than others.

The problem with religion these days, it that people assign relative truth to it. Even Pres Bush says that Islam is one of the world great religions. That is all a bunch of bullshit. No matter what religion you choose, only one can be right. Actually one is the maximum meaning they could all be BS. If Hinduism is correct, then Christiaity and Islam are crap. Any other interpretation is crap. Newer interpretations would seem to be less likely, though nobody has a lock on truth.

If you can moderate your fellow muslims, you better do it. And soon. Otherwise it is going to get messy and every person involved will suffer. Christians are already pretty well moderated by western politics. Judaism is also moderated but I would bet you don't believe that (blood libel and all). If I had to live in a land where the population were of a majority reigion, I would choose a Chritian religion first as it is in the US. Second I would shoose Judaism or Bhuddism. Islam is just too biased and full of hate and destruction.

59 Tatterdemalian  Sun, Jan 19, 2003 5:29:31am

I always thought that it was because using the word "God" was horrifyingly offensive to those who refuse to believe in God, much the same reason "BC" and "AD" have been replaced with "BCE" and "CE."

60 M. Upton  Sun, Jan 19, 2003 6:18:00am

The Inquisition happened only because the Reformation created a threat to the Roman Catholic Church. The RCC left the muslims and Jews in relative peace until they got caught in the middle of a major denomination split.

I'm not seeing too many parrallels between modern radical Islam and the Inquisition era.

61 Jolly Roger  Sun, Jan 19, 2003 6:27:28am

Tatterdemalian,


You're understanbably incorrect there, BC and AD were switched to BCE and CE for two reasons, neither of which is because of offending people who didn't believe in God. The largest reason is because it involves people who believe differently in God. And thus, you have different systems of dates and "years", which becomes rather confusing in a field such as ancient history/archaeology when you have international scholars all publishing findings using their own native dating methods. It's an academic convention to avoid needless friction in the pursuit of knowledge. The second smaller reason is that BC and AD aren't quite historically accurate either, as Jesus was born between 4-6 BC.

62 toj  Sun, Jan 19, 2003 6:54:01am

#57

Martin Knight,

I condemn Muslim-bashing in all its forms, but in view of the overall world situation, I don't see anything here that could be construed as such. I suggest that you might engage in some self-reflection to determine if you may have erred by taking some of the comments in this forum out of their proper context.

63 Matt K.  Sun, Jan 19, 2003 7:44:34am

Donald Rumsfeld is just offering immunity and free passage to Saadam Husein and his clique. Question: what Slobodan Milosevic is doing in the Hague?

64 Anno  Sun, Jan 19, 2003 7:55:56am

Why do I get the sneaky suspicion that the two Iraqi scientists mentioned in the Daily Telegraph got their training in the US?

I have no evidence, of course, but it's not exatly unlikely is it? I wonder if there is any way to get a hold of their CV's.

65 Jay  Sun, Jan 19, 2003 8:33:07am

You'll find most scientists anywhere were trained in the US, it is just sort of the way things are in the world of science.

66 Frank IMC  Sun, Jan 19, 2003 11:27:13am

The bad news is that it looks like the UN is actually doing a better job to protect us than the FBI has done.


This entry has been archived.
Comments are closed.

^ back to top ^

log in
Name:
Pass:

Register Forgot Your Password? My Account Re-send Confirmation (To log in, cookies must be enabled in your browser!)

► LGF Headlines

► Top 10 Comments

► Bottom Comments

► Recent Comments

► Tools/Info

► LGF Hits

► Slideshows

► Resources

► Never Forget

► Statistics

► Tag Cloud

► Contact

You must have Javascript enabled to use the contact form.
Your email:

Subject:

Message:


Messages may be published in our weblog, unless you request otherwise.
Tech Note:
Using the Contact Form

► News/Opinion

More Partners

Compare Electricity Prices in your area. Texas Electricity is deregulated; you have the right to choose Texas Electric Rates from among many Texas Electric Companies.

The past is dust.


The Beatles Are Here. Reissues and Rock Band.
20% off Easy Reading Programs and More at Hooked On Phonics