Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Wed 05/04/2005 View Tue 05/03/2005 View Mon 05/02/2005 View Sun 05/01/2005 View Sat 04/30/2005 View Fri 04/29/2005 View Thu 04/28/2005
1
2005-05-04 Syria-Lebanon-Iran
1st strike on Iran 'gaining traction'
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Anonymous5089 2005-05-04 7:20:08 AM|| || Front Page|| [6 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 Khamenei has many times stated he would ''vaporize the Zionist entity'' if Iran obtained a nuclear bomb.

Words occasionally have consequences Mr.MM, now that you're on the verge of being able to make good on your threat, I certainly hope yours gets YOU vaporized in the very near future.
Posted by JerseyMike 2005-05-04 07:57||   2005-05-04 07:57|| Front Page Top

#2 Ironic, isn't it?

M.A.D. only works if the parties to it are sane.

Q.E.D.
Posted by .com 2005-05-04 08:47||   2005-05-04 08:47|| Front Page Top

#3 Q.E.D., .com? I've been off away from computer for a while. Please ''enlighten'' me as to what that means.
Posted by BA">BA  2005-05-04 09:30||   2005-05-04 09:30|| Front Page Top

#4 M.A.D., or ''Mutually Assured Destruction'' was a cold-war term that meant that neither the US nor the Soviet Union could launch a nuclear strike without receiving an equally destructive retaliation, ''destroying'' both sides. (I have hypothesized that M.A.D. has been enlarged into an anti-proliferation threat. By agreement among the major nuclear powers, it would work this way: if a country like Iran were to use a nuclear weapon aggressively, then their entire country would be attacked with airburst neutron bombs, killing all lifeforms, but leaving little contamination and not destroying buildings and other property. Then that now sterilized country would be given to the victim nation as ''reparations''.
Posted by Anonymoose 2005-05-04 09:42||   2005-05-04 09:42|| Front Page Top

#5 I think he meant Q.E.D.

Quod Erat Demonstratum*

Latin for ''That which is demonstrated''

*my spelling may be off, it's been a few years since I took Latin.
Posted by DanNY 2005-05-04 09:59||   2005-05-04 09:59|| Front Page Top

#6 It means ''That which was to be demonstrated''. Ya know, the future intensive command voice fricative thingy . . .
Posted by AlmostAnonymous6392">AlmostAnonymous6392  2005-05-04 11:40||   2005-05-04 11:40|| Front Page Top

#7 I always thought it meant ''Thus has it been demonstrated''...
Posted by mojo">mojo  2005-05-04 11:58||   2005-05-04 11:58|| Front Page Top

#8 ''Which was to be proved''...this from the same geometry teacher that gave my class, at the end of a proof, I.O.T.T.M.C.O. - and then turned around and waited for the class to ask.....

Intuitively Obvious To The Most Casual Observer. ©
Posted by Bobby 2005-05-04 12:23||   2005-05-04 12:23|| Front Page Top

#9 Lol! Sheesh. I happily admit I thought it was usable in either a past or present tense - thus I had it precisely backwards since most of you indicate future tense. Thx for the corrections... All of them, lol!

Um, what about the topic? Y'know the TOPIC thingy? What the article is about? Lol!
Posted by .com 2005-05-04 12:37||   2005-05-04 12:37|| Front Page Top

#10 Geometry teacher?

Sohcahtoa.
Posted by Robert Crawford">Robert Crawford  2005-05-04 14:19||   2005-05-04 14:19|| Front Page Top

#11 Illegitimati non carborundum.

Don't let the bastards grind you down.
Posted by molokai_man 2005-05-04 14:34||   2005-05-04 14:34|| Front Page Top

#12 RC - That's CHIEF Sohcahtoa. ;)
Posted by Laurence of the Rats  2005-05-04 2:40:06 PM|| [http://www.punictreachery.com/]  2005-05-04 2:40:06 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 You mean Chief SohCahToa from Krakatoa? Man, when will it end? And I knew what M.A.D. stood for, just wondered what Q.E.D. stood for! Thanks all for taking me back to H.S. latin class!
Posted by BA">BA  2005-05-04 15:49||   2005-05-04 15:49|| Front Page Top

#14 I would like an understanding of what was meant by the one comment to the effect that they needed a 100 % success in the attack.

I could see like but need gets into a strange logical area.
Posted by 3dc 2005-05-04 17:23||   2005-05-04 17:23|| Front Page Top

#15 I think you miss understand QED. ''That which was to be demonstrated'' is correct, but it means the preceding statement has proved/demonstrated what needed to be proved/demonstrtated prior to the statement.
Posted by phil_b 2005-05-04 18:15||   2005-05-04 18:15|| Front Page Top

#16 Note that Russia still hasn't shipped the fuel rods, which it was supposed to have done months ago.
Posted by someone 2005-05-04 19:34||   2005-05-04 19:34|| Front Page Top

23:46 3dc
23:45 Alaska Paul
23:38 DMFD
23:22 tipper
23:20 djohn66
23:15 SwissTex
23:10 3dc
23:06 3dc
23:06  trailing wife
23:01 3dc
22:59 Alaska Paul
22:49 Super Hose
22:48 SwissTex
22:48 Jackal
22:46 3dc
22:42 3dc
22:42 Super Hose
22:18 Frank G
22:18 Super Hose
22:15 Super Hose
22:06 Raj
22:04 Raj
21:58 Anonymoose
21:54  trailing wife









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com