Israel Considers Pre-Emptive Attack On Iran

Force136 · 10-11-2011 11:02pm

Mr.Micro wrote: »

I wonder if all this rhetoric was aimed at you, whether you'd be as blase

If made daily speeches about bringing down other countries, calling them a cancer etc - I should expect some harsh words back. Especially if I was also a global exporter of terrorism.

So your solution to Iran is what?

Cripple them with sanctions and if that doesn't work - knock out their facilities with multi-national air strikes under a UN reso.

A bonus would be the collapse of the regime, which in turn means Assad in Syria losses his only regional friend, Hamas and Hezbollah lose their financiers - Lebanon might be set free.

Or maybe we could follow the Irish example of doing nothing and have a Holocaust 2.0.

I can't get over the feeling that perhaps certain people on the left wing of politics, some Muslims and Irish might not shed too many tears.

Sad, but the Jews know who their enemies are and the Irish are quickly climbing up the list.

Mr.Micro · 10-11-2011 11:14pm

Force136 wrote: »

Cripple them with sanctions and if that doesn't work - knock out their facilities with multi-national air strikes under a UN reso.

Not sure that would stop Iran, maybe only make it madder. Radiation, nuclear fallout?

Force136 wrote: »

A bonus would be the collapse of the regime, which in turn means Assad in Syria losses his only regional friend, Hamas and Hezbollah lose their financiers - Lebanon might be set free.

Yes a collapse of the regime would be simpler perhaps, but probably not going to happen anytime soon.

Force136 wrote: »

Or maybe we could follow the Irish example of doing nothing and have a Holocaust 2.0.

I can't get over the feeling that perhaps certain people on the left wing of politics, some Muslims and Irish might not shed too many tears.

Sad, but the Jews know who their enemies are and the Irish are quickly climbing up the list.

Do not agree there. People have trouble though with the treatment of the Palestinians and the Israeli building programme on occupied territory and see this as hypocrisy when Israel wants empathy to its plight.

davoxx · 10-11-2011 11:15pm

Force136 wrote: »

Sad, but the Jews know who their enemies are and the Irish are quickly climbing up the list.

are you saying everyone is the 'Jews' enemy?

while i do not support the holocaust of any people you seem to support the crusades against the 'Muslims' ...

Force136 · 10-11-2011 11:26pm

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Not sure that would stop Iran, maybe only make it madder. Radiation, nuclear fallout?

They couldn't get much madder. The fallout issue is something I'm sure will be looked at and they may get warned to shut down just before the strike.

Do not agree there. People have trouble though with the treatment of the Palestinians and the Israeli building programme on occupied territory and see this as hypocrisy when Israel wants empathy to its plight.

People seem to have more of a concern with regards to Israel than anywhere else though, that's my point. The Irish being the most prominent.

Settlements are an issue. A complex one. There are some misconceptions of course. There have not been any new settlements since the 1990's. The building of homes takes place within the boundaries of existing settlements. The notion that Palestinians are being driven further and further back is not matched by facts on the ground.

Until such time as a peaceful solution is found, Israel has to accommodate the natural growth in population within these settlements.

Of course we could look at what is technically occupied land by Palestinians like Hebron or East Jerusalem's Jewish quarter which was ethnically cleansed in 1948.

nacho libre · 10-11-2011 11:28pm

Force136 wrote: »

This quote is from 10 years ago.

I wonder if all this rhetoric was aimed at you, whether you'd be as blase (that's French)

I must admit I wasn't aware of such a quote. Are you of the view that his word carries more weight than that of an Ayatollah?

maddragon · 10-11-2011 11:33pm

Force136 wrote: »

Sad, but the Jews know who their enemies are and the Irish are quickly climbing up the list.

You do I presume know that the Irish Minister for Defence, deputy Alan Shatter is Jewish...

Force136 · 10-11-2011 11:36pm

nacho libre wrote: »

I must admit I wasn't aware of such a quote. Are you of the view that his word carries more weight than that of an Ayatollah?

Well he's one of the main clerics, ran for President too. The main man has the final say. Although worryingly their army has an independent or at least semi-autonomous force that can act without prior approval.

If you take that quote with the backdrop of the regular bellicose guff that comes out of Iran like "Israel is a cancer that will be cut out". "Israel is a rotting corpse", "Israel is a rotting tree that will be felled" etc etc and the nuke project - it's no surprise people are twitchy (and not just in Israel)

This is the first time nukes will be in the hands of proper wide-eyed fundamentalists. MAD is not guaranteed with this lot.

Geekness1234 · 10-11-2011 11:36pm

Force136 wrote: »

If made daily speeches about bringing down other countries, calling them a cancer etc - I should expect some harsh words back. Especially if I was also a global exporter of terrorism.

Cripple them with sanctions and if that doesn't work - knock out their facilities with multi-national air strikes under a UN reso.

A bonus would be the collapse of the regime, which in turn means Assad in Syria losses his only regional friend, Hamas and Hezbollah lose their financiers - Lebanon might be set free.

Or maybe we could follow the Irish example of doing nothing and have a Holocaust 2.0.

I can't get over the feeling that perhaps certain people on the left wing of politics, some Muslims and Irish might not shed too many tears.

Sad, but the Jews know who their enemies are and the Irish are quickly climbing up the list.

Crippling them with sanctions would probably result in them supplying even more deadly and advanced weapons to the terrorist organisations they already support.

Mr.Micro · 10-11-2011 11:37pm

Force136 wrote: »

They couldn't get much madder. The fallout issue is something I'm sure will be looked at and they may get warned to shut down just before the strike.

If their nuclear programme is far advanced and extensive, shutting down would make no difference if fallout was to occur. Its a whole new ball game when it comes to radiation.

Force136 wrote: »

People seem to have more of a concern with regards to Israel than anywhere else though, that's my point. The Irish being the most prominent.

I think it is because of some old fashioned religious concepts. The Irish see the Palestinian situation a little bit like there own was, IMO.

Force136 wrote: »

Settlements are an issue. A complex one. There are some misconceptions of course. There have not been any new settlements since the 1990's. The building of homes takes place within the boundaries of existing settlements. The notion that Palestinians are being driven further and further back is not matched by facts on the ground.

Until such time as a peaceful solution is found, Israel has to accommodate the natural growth in population within these settlements.
.

Indeed it is a complex one and until a solution is achieved it will be a bind on Israel and its image alas.

Force136 · 10-11-2011 11:38pm

hangon wrote: »

Force 136 i have reported three of your posts #287 #292 and # 294.

You came in here to Flame and Troll,the fact that the Mods did not pick up on that and gave a warning to genuine posters left me no option.

Ok, I hope you can get over the trauma that I have inflicted on you and that one day you'll find the courage to stop being such a precious 'eejit' (I think that's Irish)

Force136 · 10-11-2011 11:43pm

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Indeed it is a complex one and until a solution is achieved it will be a bind on Israel and its image alas.

Perhaps, but I think slitting the throat of a 3 month old baby and then celebrating it with a street party and handing out candy - tells us more about Palestinians than homes on a hill tells us about Israelis.

Israelis build, Palestinians destroy.

hangon · 10-11-2011 11:43pm

Force136 wrote: »

Ok, I hope you can get over the trauma that I have inflicted on you and that one day you'll find the courage to stop being such a precious 'eejit' (I think that's Irish)

take it up with bluewolf who i tried to reason with by PM.
i do not see another poster here that should be tarred with the same brush as you,and i do not accept your very obvious Racism.

Mr.Micro · 10-11-2011 11:46pm

Force136 wrote: »

Perhaps, but I think slitting the throat of a 3 month old baby and then celebrating it with a street party and handing out candy - tells us more about Palestinians than homes on a hill tells us about Israelis.

Israelis build, Palestinians destroy.

There was I thinking that you actually wanted to debate, and I got a warning for responding to your comments saying I mouthed nonsense. I will leave you to it.

Force136 · 11-11-2011 12:02am

Mr.Micro wrote: »

There was I thinking that you actually wanted to debate, and I got a warning for responding to your comments saying I mouthed nonsense. I will leave you to it.

Sorry that you got censured. If it's of any comfort, I got a warning too.

nacho libre · 11-11-2011 12:04am

Force136 wrote: »

Well he's one of the main clerics, ran for President too. The main man has the final say. Although worryingly their army has an independent or at least semi-autonomous force that can act without prior approval.

This is the first time nukes will be in the hands of proper wide-eyed fundamentalists. MAD is not guaranteed with this lot.

The armed forced cannot act without the consent of The Ayatollah.

It is the Ayatollah, not the president, who controls the armed forces, he has the final say on security, defence and major foreign policy issues.

By the way Khamenei issued a fatwa against the production of nuclear weapons in 2005.

Force136 · 11-11-2011 12:17am

nacho libre wrote: »

The armed forced cannot act without the consent of The Ayatollah.

It is the Ayatollah, not the president, who controls the armed forces, he has the final say on security, defence and major foreign policy issues.

By the way Khomeini issues a fatwa against the production of nuclear weapons in 2005.

Actually the revolutionary guard have the ability to carry out ops without approval from the top.

Hence why the regime was quite embarrassed when the revolutionary guards kidnapped the British sailors.

nacho libre · 11-11-2011 12:47am

Force136 wrote: »

Actually the revolutionary guard have the ability to carry out ops without approval from the top.

Hence why the regime was quite embarrassed when the revolutionary guards kidnapped the British sailors.

Hmm, it's hard to know the truth of that situation, because according to a well-known Iranian Dissent, Alireza Jafarzadeh: the capture of the fifteen British sailors was approved by the Supreme Leader.

He said that the whole operation was pre-planned from weeks in advance. "Top commanders of the Revolutionary Guards were briefed; they went to Tehran and were briefed. The night before the operation,
the command headquarters for the Third Navy, which is responsible for that part of the Persian Gulf, was on full alert in Khoram Sha'ar [phonetic] and the top commanders of the Revolutionary Guards were in constant communication with Tehran to carry out this operation"

Manic Moran · 11-11-2011 1:17am

Border-Rat wrote: »

These forces have shown shocking ineptness in the face of asymmetrical warfare, this was proven in the Millenium War games. I have just outlined how Iran will shut the Hormuz Strait. Other than present a 'America STRONG' response, you haven't outlined how this paper tiger will re-open it. So, lets hear it.

Well, for starters, it isn't assymetrical warfare we're talking about here, it's a simple territorial control issue. The straits can be shut, or not shut.

a) How does super-duper America deal with radiation at or beyond Chernobyl levels at the head of the Persian Gulf and its proximity to shipping?

They don't. For starters, I'm not sure you're not being a little hyperbolic with Chernyobil statements, I believe it's enrichment facilities which are an issue not active reactors. Secondly, according to http://books.google.com/books?id=gQ-7FF8gp5oC&pg=PA219&lpg=PA219&dq=prevailing+winds+straits+of+hormuz&source=bl&ots=dTDleFEgWG&sig=PA7ZlslYGwCOk3Fqyu9r68W-ySg&hl=en&ei=EWa8TqyvPIbmiAL9oKmXAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=prevailing%20winds%20straits%20of%20hormuz&f=false the weather conditions seem to indicate that winds from Iran don't go over the Gulf anyway.

b) When MRBM's are being launched from totally random spots throughout Iran, how does America stop this without a land invasion? I'd like to hear of the weapon that can put a stop to this.

MRBMs against what? You think Iran is going to start lobbing missiles against other countries in the area? That's a great way to get on everyone's bad side and escalate beyond a simple strike.

c) How do they clear out the northern enclaves of Hormuz of anti-ship cruise missiles?

A couple of Burkes ought to do the job. That's precisely the sort of threat that they were built to deal with. Considering they're about a billion dollars each, I'm sure the Navy would be quite happy to demonstrate where all the money went, especially as there hasn't been need for a practical demonstration since they entered service.

d) 160,000 proxy troops in Iraq, the Badr Brigade and the Badr Army not to mention the infiltrated army and police will shut down Iraqi oil. How will America respond to this? Another invasion of Iraq?

If Iran -does- want to start overtly fecking about with Iraq's major lifeline, I think they'll find that the Iraqis will not take that very well. Do they really want to re-start the Iran/Iraq war whilst already facing down the Americans or anyone else who's looking askew at them? The Badr brigades are Shiite, that doesn't mean that they're not Pro-Iraq, by the way. They've proven quite good allies to the government.

They think that America will deal with Iran, without even offering a reason why, when America can't even deal with Afghanistan.

Afghanistan is a war over the people, a far more difficult proposition. Iran is a much simpler proposition due to a more limited objective.

NTM

wes · 11-11-2011 10:51am

Found this via Juan Coles blog:

IAEA's "Soviet Nuclear Scientist" Never Worked on Weapons

and

Russian scientist who figures in IAEA report denies helping Iran build a nuclear weapon

I can see why the Russians have take such a tough stance on the report now, as it seems to be that they screwed up in a pretty major way, and looks like those who trumpeted the report were wrong.

JustinDee · 11-11-2011 11:21am

wes wrote: »

I can see why the Russians have take such a tough stance on the report now, as it seems to be that they screwed up in a pretty major way, and looks like those who trumpeted the report were wrong.

Disinformation, misinformation, counter-information...etc etc

All anyone can do is be a bystander. It is impossible to tell who bluffs, calls wolf or lies. The word of a govt, intl monitoring agency, intelligence agency or some anonymous internet poster/blogger.

I had thought before that nanodiamonds were involved in the production/formulation of nanorods myself. I also doubt its quite clear cut as the blog fella makes out. Would you trust one over another?

wes · 11-11-2011 11:26am

JustinDee wrote: »

Would you trust one over another?

Well, I would be more inclined to believe the accused scientist in this case, as the whole thing stinks of what was done with Iraq imho. Also, from what I understand there numerous users of nano diamonds.

JustinDee · 11-11-2011 11:45am

wes wrote: »

Well, I would be more inclined to believe the accused scientist in this case, as the whole thing stinks of what was done with Iraq imho. Also, from what I understand there numerous users of nano diamonds.

You don't know him from Adam or anything about his career bar what is in the public domain so that would be quite a subjective view, I would say anyway.
Impossible to tell but almost as impossible to take any risk upon. Thats the difference.

davoxx · 11-11-2011 11:59am

JustinDee wrote: »

Disinformation, misinformation, counter-information...etc etc

All anyone can do is be a bystander. It is impossible to tell who bluffs, calls wolf or lies.

not impossible, but hard. it requires intelligence, research, understanding evidence, scientific knowledge ...

wes · 11-11-2011 12:02pm

JustinDee wrote: »

You don't know him from Adam or anything about his career bar what is in the public domain so that would be quite a subjective view, I would say anyway.

I would say if there is any evidence to the contrary, I find it odd that it has not been released, and I am of the opinion that there probably isn't any such evidence.

As it stands the public domain info contradicts the IAEA assertions, and I would expect them to address that.

JustinDee wrote: »

Impossible to tell but almost as impossible to take any risk upon. Thats the difference.

Considering the death and destruction caused by the Iraq war, I think the risk of the US killing a lot of people again is what I am more worried about.

JustinDee · 11-11-2011 1:28pm

davoxx wrote: »

not impossible, but hard. it requires intelligence, research, understanding evidence, scientific knowledge ...

...and most importantly, access. This is something Joe Soap or anyone else with a hobby interest in the subject has nothing of a sort.

davoxx · 11-11-2011 1:35pm

JustinDee wrote: »

...and most importantly, access. This is something Joe Soap or anyone else with a hobby interest in the subject has nothing of a sort.

access to facts do not mean that those facts are sound in principle ...
but the fact that we do not have access to facts, instead of citing "credible sources" should the not make these sources public with the information they claim to present? i'm sure you'll argue that it will be used to hide the nukes, but we don't have access to the fact that it will be used to hide the nukes ... do we

if access to facts as it were, prevents us form having one view, it prevents us from having any ... it means your support of anything is meaning less .. which further weakens your point ...

JustinDee · 11-11-2011 1:45pm

wes wrote: »

As it stands the public domain info contradicts the IAEA assertions, and I would expect them to address that

Correction: Some of the information you've chosen to take up on in the public domain contradicts the IAEA. They don't have to address it if vague supposition and assumption.
If Iran has nothing to hide, then open up for inspection instead of blocking out or detaining people as spies for a change.

wes wrote: »

Considering the death and destruction caused by the Iraq war, I think the risk of the US killing a lot of people again is what I am more worried about.

This has nothing to do with the US invasion of Iraq. You concentrate far too much on the US for a start.
We're already discussing other agents provocateur such as Russia, for example. This country which continually eludes the cause-du-jour celebrants here have just as much blood on their hands given what they've supported in the region since the late 40s.
I don't believe the US would get the backing for any Iranian military action even for proxy action. Iraq was initiated on the back of domestic public opinion following Sept 11th. There is nothing of a kind around now. I would say foreign policy is the least on people's minds now.

Mr.Micro · 11-11-2011 1:52pm

wes wrote: »

I would say if there is any evidence to the contrary, I find it odd that it has not been released, and I am of the opinion that there probably isn't any such evidence.

As it stands the public domain info contradicts the IAEA assertions, and I would expect them to address that.

Considering the death and destruction caused by the Iraq war, I think the risk of the US killing a lot of people again is what I am more worried about.

When we look back at the prelude to the war in Iraq, there was Blair going on about WMD and intelligence, even saying we have solid evidence. The more people/ media clamoured for that evidence, to be told it was classified but we have it. In reality and hindsight, they had no evidence, as proved to be the case. This maybe exactly the same scenario. If the evidence is there show it.

Nodin · 11-11-2011 1:57pm

Force136 wrote: »

Perhaps, but I think slitting the throat of a 3 month old baby and then celebrating it with a street party and handing out candy - tells us more about Palestinians than homes on a hill tells us about Israelis.

Israelis build, Palestinians destroy.

A rather xenophobic generalisation.

Force136 · 11-11-2011 2:02pm

Mr.Micro wrote: »

When we look back at the prelude to the war in Iraq, there was Blair going on about WMD and intelligence, even saying we have solid evidence. The more people/ media clamoured for that evidence, to be told it was classified but we have it. In reality and hindsight, they had no evidence, as proved to be the case. This maybe exactly the same scenario. If the evidence is there show it.

Difference being that this is a UN agency giving its findings, not Bush, not Blair, not Colin Powell, not Mossad or any other delusions you may be having.

omega666 · 11-11-2011 2:33pm

Force136 wrote: »

Difference being that this is a UN agency giving its findings, not Bush, not Blair, not Colin Powell, not Mossad or any other delusions you may be having.

A UN agency that uses the intelligence and information from member states, notably the US, Britan and Israel. The IAEA does not have any intellegence powers of it own.

Force136 · 11-11-2011 2:35pm

omega666 wrote: »

A UN agency that uses the intelligence and information from member states, notably the US, Britan and Israel. The IAEA does not have any intellegence powers of it own.

If you read the report, it says that partial evidence is from member states and other evidence is from the IAEA team.

Worth reading before debating.

Mr.Micro · 11-11-2011 2:39pm

Force136 wrote: »

Difference being that this is a UN agency giving its findings, not Bush, not Blair, not Colin Powell, not Mossad or any other delusions you may be having.

The belief in the UN is only when it suits.....Hans Blix told the truth but Bush/Blair were not going to have their fun railroaded by the truth. No delusions on my part. So UN when it suits otherwise do they like.

wes · 11-11-2011 2:52pm

JustinDee wrote: »

Correction: Some of the information you've chosen to take up on in the public domain contradicts the IAEA.

I would think addressing that information would make a better case. Ignoring it make any claims highly suspect, and is imho them doing a piss poor job of things. If your trying to make a case for something, then surely people will point out that all avaliable public information says otherwise, you should address it, because after Iraq secret evidence will be interpreted as telling lies.

JustinDee wrote: »

They don't have to address it if vague supposition and assumption.
If Iran has nothing to hide, then open up for inspection instead of blocking out or detaining people as spies for a change.

They should open up for inspections, but the fear of spies on there part is a very realy one however.

They should address it the public information, as they have accused a man of helping Iran's nuclear program, and which will hurt his reputation, and could potentially cause him legal trouble, and probably put his life in danger.

JustinDee wrote: »

This has nothing to do with the US invasion of Iraq. You concentrate far too much on the US for a start.

It has everything to do with Iraq, as the US are the one making the bigger song and dance about Iran. So Iraq is very very relevant, and cannot be dismissed.

JustinDee wrote: »

We're already discussing other agents provocateur such as Russia, for example. This country which continually eludes the cause-du-jour celebrants here have just as much blood on their hands given what they've supported in the region since the late 40s.

They however, have not invaded a country all the while tellings lies about WMDs in the Middle East, the US did that one, and considering that we are basically seeing the same thing happen again imho, the US is far more relevant than Russia.

JustinDee wrote: »

I don't believe the US would get the backing for any Iranian military action even for proxy action. Iraq was initiated on the back of domestic public opinion following Sept 11th. There is nothing of a kind around now. I would say foreign policy is the least on people's minds now.

I wouldn't trust the US. What was done in Iraq was nothing short of insane, and the fact that no one has been jailed for that nasty war crime, shows me that the US is perfectly capable of doing it all over again.

davoxx · 11-11-2011 3:16pm

JustinDee wrote: »

Correction: Some of the information you've chosen to take up on in the public domain contradicts the IAEA. They don't have to address it if vague supposition and assumption.
If Iran has nothing to hide, then open up for inspection instead of blocking out or detaining people as spies for a change.

This has nothing to do with the US invasion of Iraq. You concentrate far too much on the US for a start.
We're already discussing other agents provocateur such as Russia, for example. This country which continually eludes the cause-du-jour celebrants here have just as much blood on their hands given what they've supported in the region since the late 40s.
I don't believe the US would get the backing for any Iranian military action even for proxy action. Iraq was initiated on the back of domestic public opinion following Sept 11th. There is nothing of a kind around now. I would say foreign policy is the least on people's minds now.

nukes have nothing to do do with this either ... there are nukes in usa ... just saying, you know if iraq is irrelevant so are the nukes right?

besides we don't have access to all the information, like you yourself said, therefore anything we say is pure speculation according to yourself.

let EVER country open up their information to the public (not just iran) and then you can state your case ..

davoxx · 11-11-2011 3:17pm

Force136 wrote: »

If you read the report, it says that partial evidence is from member states and other evidence is from the IAEA team.

Worth reading before debating.

worth understanding before debating too ...

omega666 · 11-11-2011 3:29pm

Force136 wrote: »

If you read the report, it says that partial evidence is from member states and other evidence is from the IAEA team.

Worth reading before debating.

I never said it wasnt partial, i said it uses intelligence and information from member states, notably the US, Britan and Israel.
What's stopping this intelligence to be tailored to suit whatever agenda.

JustinDee · 11-11-2011 3:39pm

wes wrote: »

I would think addressing that information would make a better case. Ignoring it make any claims highly suspect, and is imho them doing a piss poor job of things. If your trying to make a case for something, then surely people will point out that all avaliable public information says otherwise, you should address it, because after Iraq secret evidence will be interpreted as telling lies

Believe it or not, an anonymous conspiracy theorist posting on the internet isn't exactly earth-shattering 'proof'.

wes wrote: »

They should open up for inspections, but the fear of spies on there part is a very realy one however

Well, convenient really. If you're going to use the UN and international bodies as bastions then expect for involvement within the remit appropriately.

wes wrote: »

They should address it the public information, as they have accused a man of helping Iran's nuclear program, and which will hurt his reputation, and could potentially cause him legal trouble, and probably put his life in danger

You know next to zip about this man, nanodiamonds and nanorods. For all you know, he could well be exactly as described. If he has grievance, I'm sure he'll make an issue out of it.

wes wrote: »

It has everything to do with Iraq, as the US are the one making the bigger song and dance about Iran. So Iraq is very very relevant, and cannot be dismissed

They however, have not invaded a country all the while tellings lies about WMDs in the Middle East, the US did that one, and considering that we are basically seeing the same thing happen again imho, the US is far more relevant than Russia

Twisted 'logic' if it even can be called that. Moral relativism about who has done what before is irrelevant. Russia and in its former Soviet guise are just as involved in the region with as much damage resulting. Not everything involves a convenient invasion.

wes wrote: »

I wouldn't trust the US. What was done in Iraq was nothing short of insane, and the fact that no one has been jailed for that nasty war crime, shows me that the US is perfectly capable of doing it all over again.

I know you wouldn't. Your mind is obviously made up, regardless of what happens or is said.

polakdot · 11-11-2011 4:18pm

Force136 wrote: »

If you read the report, it says that partial evidence is from member states and other evidence is from the IAEA team.

Worth reading before debating.

Your bias is unintelligent.

But i suppose you already know that.

wes · 11-11-2011 5:09pm

JustinDee wrote: »

Believe it or not, an anonymous conspiracy theorist posting on the internet isn't exactly earth-shattering 'proof'.

The Washington post are conpiracy theorists now? They actually provided some quotes form the scientist in question, so its hardly conspiracy.

JustinDee wrote: »

Well, convenient really. If you're going to use the UN and international bodies as bastions then expect for involvement within the remit appropriately.

Except that various countries have used the UN to cover when they spy. So, as I said there fears in regards to spys are certainly realy, but as I said they should still open up for inspections and ask that suspect members be removed.

JustinDee wrote: »

You know next to zip about this man, nanodiamonds and nanorods. For all you know, he could well be exactly as described. If he has grievance, I'm sure he'll make an issue out of it.

I know what the man said, and I know about the publically avaliable information, and I think if your trying to make a case for something, you ought to explain why the publically avaliable information is wrong, as opposed to ignoring it, as I said its piss poor way of doing things.

JustinDee wrote: »

Twisted 'logic' if it even can be called that. Moral relativism about who has done what before is irrelevant. Russia and in its former Soviet guise are just as involved in the region with as much damage resulting. Not everything involves a convenient invasion.

I think the damage caused by the Iraq war alone dwarfs any past American of Sovient interference. The amount of death and destruction wrought by the US under the excuses of WMDs, make there past actions very relevant. Quite frankly, we have seen this exact same song and dance from them, and I see no reason why any should believe the US this time, without overwheling evidence to back up there claims, as its stand maybe aren't good enough, in light of Iraq.

JustinDee wrote: »

I know you wouldn't. Your mind is obviously made up, regardless of what happens or is said.

I am open to be convinced, but when the IAEA are at best saying maybe, and publically avaliable information would seem to make some of there assertions incorrect, I don't think it unreasonable to ask to what they have exactly, and considering what happened in Iraq, I would want a hell of alot more than a maybe.

SamHarris · 11-11-2011 5:27pm

Mr.Micro wrote: »

The belief in the UN is only when it suits.....Hans Blix told the truth but Bush/Blair were not going to have their fun railroaded by the truth. No delusions on my part. So UN when it suits otherwise do they like.

I hope you realise how ironic you saying this is...

SamHarris · 11-11-2011 5:33pm

wes wrote: »

The Washington post are conpiracy theorists now? They actually provided some quotes form the scientist in question, so its hardly conspiracy.

Except that various countries have used the UN to cover when they spy. So, as I said there fears in regards to spys are certainly realy, but as I said they should still open up for inspections and ask that suspect members be removed.

I know what the man said, and I know about the publically avaliable information, and I think if your trying to make a case for something, you ought to explain why the publically avaliable information is wrong, as opposed to ignoring it, as I said its piss poor way of doing things.

I think the damage caused by the Iraq war alone dwarfs any past American of Sovient interference. The amount of death and destruction wrought by the US under the excuses of WMDs, make there past actions very relevant. Quite frankly, we have seen this exact same song and dance from them, and I see no reason why any should believe the US this time, without overwheling evidence to back up there claims, as its stand maybe aren't good enough, in light of Iraq.

I am open to be convinced, but when the IAEA are at best saying maybe, and publically avaliable information would seem to make some of there assertions incorrect, I don't think it unreasonable to ask to what they have exactly, and considering what happened in Iraq, I would want a hell of alot more than a maybe.

Wait so your contention is that Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program at all? And that any evidence to the contrary is merely US propoganda, despite the scource of said evidence or their history of following the US line in, to use your own example, the Iraq case?

SamHarris · 11-11-2011 5:33pm

polakdot wrote: »

Your bias is unintelligent.

But i suppose you already know that.

Suggested reading of the report is bias now? Mmmm.

polakdot · 11-11-2011 5:36pm

SamHarris wrote: »

Suggested reading of the report is bias now? Mmmm.

mmm..what are you on about??

i responded to another trolls post..

Mr.Micro · 11-11-2011 5:37pm

SamHarris wrote: »

I hope you realise how ironic you saying this is...

Now, please do not resort to CT accusations when you do not agree with what people post, or what is beyond your comprehension. Thank you

SamHarris · 11-11-2011 5:56pm

polakdot wrote: »

mmm..what are you on about??

i responded to another trolls post..

Then perhaps you should quote what you are refering to rather than a quiet reasonable suggestion to read the report which you deemed "unintelligent".

Also, people that disagree with you are not automatically "trolls". If you want to rant about how evil Israel is, how trust worthy and peaceloving Iran is and how coniving and corrupt the US is withour being challenged the forum your looking for is Conspiracy Theories.

SamHarris · 11-11-2011 5:58pm

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Now, please do not resort to CT accusations when you do not agree with what people post, or what is beyond your comprehension. Thank you

Ah so everyone disagreeing with you with any authority is just under the influence of a global plan to discredit Iran with little or no evidence to support this claim other than you disagreeing with their verdict is not a conspitacy theory now? Seems like the very definition of one.

If you do not wish to be labelled as a CTer perhaps you should stop continuing to subscribe to global consiracy theories?

nacho libre · 11-11-2011 6:00pm

Force136 wrote: »

If you read the report, it says that partial evidence is from member states and other evidence is from the IAEA team.

Worth reading before debating.

what's also worth debating is this:
"The agency report is detailed up to 2003, much less so for the recent period despite its assertion that some of this work may be continuing."

given the lies over Iraq's wmd, the onus is on those making the allegations this time to provide concrete evidence, not makes assumptions based on old information circa 2003 and then spin it as new information that is undeniable evidence that Iran is building a bomb

still according to some on here it's an open and shut case, and anyone questioning that narrative is an irrational conspiracy theorists to be condescended to

Mr.Micro · 11-11-2011 6:06pm

SamHarris wrote: »

Ah so everyone disagreeing with you with any authority is just under the influence of a global plan to discredit Iran with little or no evidence to support this claim other than you disagreeing with their verdict is not a conspitacy theory now? Seems like the very definition of one.

If you do not wish to be labelled as a CTer perhaps you should stop continuing to subscribe to global consiracy theories?

Now now, I mentioned a gas link via Aghanistan the other night as being vital but you decided it was CT, not knowing it as truth. What more can I say Sam but you need to hit the books and read up a little before posting, and step outside the box once in a while, rose tinted and all that

SamHarris · 11-11-2011 6:15pm

nacho libre wrote: »

what's also worth debating is this:
"The agency report is detailed up to 2003, much less so for the recent period despite its assertion that some of this work may be continuing."

given the lies over Iraq's wmd, the onus is on those making the allegations this time to provide concrete evidence, not makes assumptions based on old information circa 2003 and then spin it as new information that is undeniable evidence that Iran is building a bomb

still according to some on here it's an open and shut case, and anyone questioning that narrative is an irrational conspiracy theorists to be condescended to

Once again it was not the IAEA making the case that Iraq had nuclear weapons, on the contrary they said the did NOT have them. THAT was what the controversy was about in the lead up to 2003, and why there was so skepticism. Here that is not the case.

If you cant see how that makes a massive difference on the perceived rationality of those convincing themselves it is merely all lies then really you are not making your judgment based on evidence at all are you?

You will note even those traditionally more amenable to seeing Irans side, like Russia, are doing away with the pretence that Irans nuclear program is purely peaceful. The discussion in any circle that matters is now what to do about it, if anything.

Israel Considers Pre-Emptive Attack On Iran

Comments