Khamenei: Israel is ‘illegitimate, bastard’ regime
Khamenei: Israel is ‘illegitimate, bastard’ regime – Israel News, Ynetnews.
( First time I’ve agreed with Khamenei, “We should not trust a smiling enemy.” – JW )
Iran’s supreme leader lashes out at Israel, says he’s not optimistic about nuclear talks with world powers. Referring to US, he says ‘We should not trust a smiling enemy’
AFP
|
Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said Sunday Israel is ‘illegitimate, bastard’ regime. He further expressed pessimism about talks with world powers over its disputed nuclear program but backed them.
“No one should see our negotiating team as compromisers,” Khamenei, Iran’s top decision-maker on its nuclear drive, was quoted as saying on his official website.
“I am not optimistic about the (nuclear) negotiations but, with the grace of God, we will not suffer losses either,” he added.
A new round of talks between Iranian negotiators and representatives from the so-called P5+1 group of world powers is scheduled in Geneva for November 7 and 8.
The second meeting since moderate President Hassan Rohani took office in August, the talks are aimed at curbing Iran’s sensitive nuclear work in exchange for a relief from international sanctions strangling Iran’s economy.
All decisions on the nuclear program, which the West suspects is masking a military drive despite repeated Iranian denials, rest with Khamenei.
“All the better if the negotiations bear fruit but if there are no results, the country should rely on itself,” said Khamenei while criticizing the US policy of approaching the talks on two fronts of sanctions and diplomacy.
“The Americans smile and express desire for negotiation; on the other hand, they immediately say that all options are on the table,” he said. “We should not trust a smiling enemy.”
Explore posts in the same categories: Uncategorized
WarSclerotic 
November 3, 2013 at 3:46 PM
Umm, thought this guy was dead! Wishful thinking by some I guess. I’m afraid there’s a lot of wishful thinking going on here.
November 3, 2013 at 3:52 PM
Here it doesn’t matter. The security cabinet is where it does.
Cross your fingers with me, John….
November 3, 2013 at 4:28 PM
I have them crossed! And my toes too.
November 3, 2013 at 4:19 PM
There was a time when mankind thought the earth was the center of the universe, literally. Mankind has always been self impressed with its place in in things. Then as science progressed we learned the earth was not the center of anything, just a spect in the mind numbing immensity of the universe. There is now a scientific school of thought that our universe is just a bubble in an multiverse unimaginably large in scope and age.
Religions, (which there are many)in our infinitesimally tiny fishbowl all claim to show the path an that god favors it above all others.
I can’t help but wonder if we’re just being self impressed again with ourselves and our place in things.
November 3, 2013 at 9:12 PM
We’re not the center of the universe but there is something unique about this planet and about this universe.
Our planet is the only planet known to carry intelligent life, let alone any life at all.
Our universe is unique in the sense that is so incredibly fine tuned for life that it defies literally astronomical odds.
The laws of physics allow an infinite number of values for cosmological constants like the gravitational constant.
The slightest variations of these constants would make the universe radically different and thus life impossible.
The odds against a life permiiting universe are in fact worse than 1 to 140 order of magnitude.
The idea that this happened by chance becomes unsustainable.
That problem can be solved if we postulate a multiverse with an almost infinite number of universes of which one happens to bring forth life.
The only problem: There is not a shred of evidence for a multiverse.
But the multiverse hypothesis faces many more problems.
To quote William Lane Craig:
“Now a similar problem afflicts the contemporary appeal to the multiverse to explain away fine-tuning. Roger Penrose of Oxford University has calculated that the odds of our universe’s low entropy condition obtaining by chance alone are on the order of 1:1010(123), an inconceivable number. If our universe were but one member of a multiverse of randomly ordered worlds, then it is vastly more probable that we should be observing a much smaller universe. For example, the odds of our solar system’s being formed instantly by the random collision of particles is about 1:1010(60), a vast number, but inconceivably smaller than 1010(123). (Penrose calls it “utter chicken feed” by comparison [The Road to Reality (Knopf, 2005), pp. 762-5]). Or again, if our universe is but one member of a multiverse, then we ought to be observing highly extraordinary events, like horses’ popping into and out of existence by random collisions, or perpetual motion machines, since these are vastly more probable than all of nature’s constants and quantities’ falling by chance into the virtually infinitesimal life-permitting range. Observable universes like those strange worlds are simply much more plenteous in the ensemble of universes than worlds like ours and, therefore, ought to be observed by us if the universe were but a random member of a multiverse of worlds. Since we do not have such observations, that fact strongly disconfirms the multiverse hypothesis. On naturalism, at least, it is therefore highly probable that there is no multiverse.
All this has been said, of course, without asking whether the multiverse itself must not exhibit fine-tuning in order to exist. If it does, as some have argued, then it is a non-starter as an alternative to design.”
As Alexander Vilenkin (a propoent of the multiverse) shows even a multiverse had to have a beginning.
Since out of nothing nothing comes there is a need for a cause outside of nature.
Many attempts have been made to calculate the likelyhood of life elsewhere in the universe but they suffer all from one fundamental flaw: We know nothing about how life began in the first place and therefore they are highly speculative and just based on the speculative assumption that all we need for life to emerge is the existence of the right materials at the right place.
I was once impressed by the famous Miller experiment but now we know that the earth’s atmosphere was very different from that simulated in his experiment.
Bottom line:
The universe and even a multiverse began to exist and therefore need a cause.
The odds against a life permitting universe are so incredibly high that life did not start by chance.
We are here not by chance.
We are here for a cause.
We are here for a purpose.
November 4, 2013 at 2:03 AM
Much said, nothing settled. Since we do not know what’s possible anything is possible, including humanity being the center of it all.
Personally, I think it unlikely and wishful thinking, but, that’s just my opinion.
November 4, 2013 at 5:05 PM
I’m perfectly OK with your opinion.
Since there is no scientific evidence or compelling reasons for a multiverse, extraterestial life or everything happening due to chance it is only fair that I call that also wishful thinking.
November 4, 2013 at 5:38 PM
At the time humanity thought the earth was the center of the universe there was no compelling evidence to believe otherwise. Knowledge and wisdom take time to attain. It’s possible you’re correct, it’s also possible you are not. It all boils down to personal belief which can change with each breakthrough in knowledge.
November 3, 2013 at 5:19 PM
Mr Khamenei is probably so upset because someone blew up another nuclear facility ( Arak heavy water reactor / see Debka file ).
I feel sorry for him,, thats really frustrating……..Tonight, we will open up a bottle and celebrate ! Am Israel chai !