Israel launches covert war against Iran
Israel has launched a covert war against Iran as an alternative to direct military strikes against Tehran's nuclear programme, US intelligence sources have revealed.


It is using hitmen, sabotage, front companies and double agents to disrupt the regime's illicit weapons project, the experts say.
The most dramatic element of the "decapitation" programme is the planned assassination of top figures involved in Iran's atomic operations.

Despite fears in Israel and the US that Iran is approaching the point of no return in its ability to build atom bomb, Israeli officials are aware of the change in mood in Washington since President Barack Obama took office.
They privately acknowledge the new US administration is unlikely to sanction an air attack on Iran's nuclear installations and Mr Obama's offer to extend a hand of peace to Tehran puts any direct military action beyond reach for now.

The aim is to slow down or interrupt Iran's research programme, without the gamble of a direct confrontation that could lead to a wider war.

A former CIA officer on Iran told The Daily Telegraph: "Disruption is designed to slow progress on the programme, done in such a way that they don't realise what's happening. You are never going to stop it.
"The goal is delay, delay, delay until you can come up with some other solution or approach. We certainly don't want the current Iranian government to have those weapons. It's a good policy, short of taking them out militarily, which probably carries unacceptable risks."

Reva Bhalla, a senior analyst with Stratfor, the US private intelligence company with strong government security connections, said the strategy was to take out key people.
"With co-operation from the United States, Israeli covert operations have focused both on eliminating key human assets involved in the nuclear programme and in sabotaging the Iranian nuclear supply chain," she said.

"As US-Israeli relations are bound to come under strain over the Obama administration's outreach to Iran, and as the political atmosphere grows in complexity, an intensification of Israeli covert activity against Iran is likely to result."
Mossad was rumoured to be behind the death of Ardeshire Hassanpour, a top nuclear scientist at Iran's Isfahan uranium plant, who died in mysterious circumstances from reported "gas poisoning" in 2007.

Other recent deaths of important figures in the procurement and enrichment process in Iran and Europe have been the result of Israeli "hits", intended to deprive Tehran of key technical skills at the head of the programme, according to Western intelligence analysts.

"Israel has shown no hesitation in assassinating weapons scientists for hostile regimes in the past," said a European intelligence official, speaking on condition of anonymity. They did it with Iraq and they will do it with Iran when they can."
Mossad's covert operations cover a range of activities. The former CIA operative revealed how Israeli and US intelligence co-operated with European companies working in Iran to obtain photographs and other confidential material about Iranian nuclear and missile sites.

"It was a real company that operated from time to time in Iran and in the nature of their legitimate business came across information on various suspect Iranian facilities," he said.
Israel has also used front companies to infiltrate the Iranian purchasing network that the clerical regime uses to circumvent United Nations sanctions and obtain so-called "dual use" items – metals, valves, electronics, machinery – for its nuclear programme.

The businesses initially supply Iran with legitimate material, winning Tehran's trust, and then start to deliver faulty or defective items that "poison" the country's atomic activities.
"Without military strikes, there is still considerable scope for disrupting and damaging the Iranian programme and this has been done with some success," said Yossi Melman, a prominent Israeli journalist who covers security and intelligence issues for the Haaretz newspaper.

Mossad and Western intelligence operations have also infiltrated the Iranian nuclear programme and "bought" information from prominent atomic scientists. Israel has later selectively leaked some details to its allies, the media and United Nations atomic agency inspectors.

On one occasion, Iran itself is understood to have destroyed a nuclear facility near Tehran, bulldozing over the remains and replacing it with a football pitch, after its existence was revealed to UN inspectors. The regime feared that the discovery by inspectors of an undeclared nuclear facility would result in overwhelming pressure at the UN for tougher action against Iran.
The Iranian government has become so concerned about penetration of its programme that it has announced arrests of alleged spies in an attempt to discourage double agents. "Israel is part of a detailed and elaborate international effort to slow down the Iranian programme," said Mr Melman.

But Vince Canastraro, the former CIA counter-terrorism chief, expressed doubts about the efficacy of secret Israeli operations against Iran. "You cannot carry out foreign policy objectives via covert operations," he said. "You can't get rid of a couple of people and hope to affect Iran's nuclear capability."

Iran has consistently asserted that it is pursuing a nuclear capability for civilian energy generation purposes. But Israeli and Western intelligence agencies believe the 20-year-old programme, which was a secret until 2002, is designed to give the ruling mullahs an atom bomb.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/4640052/Israel-launches-covert-war-against-Iran.html

Hmm... Assassinating Iranian citizens because of their knowledge/involvement in the Iranian Nuclear program (which btw is curently legal according to International law).

Sounds like Terrorism to me.

Sounds like mob hits...right or wrong Mossad is something else...like the Gambinos in NYC.

So it's not ok for Israel to fight a proxy war, but it's ok for Iran to? Or maybe neither of them should be doing it.

So it's not ok for Israel to fight a proxy war, but it's ok for Iran to? Or maybe neither of them should be doing it.


Amen

Bang on. That is your weakness, Jedd, you espouse one thing for Iran while damning the same for Israel and the West.

And you guys avoid condemning one thing by pointing to another. Since when does it make it alright to do what your enemy does? Shod we be torturing prisoners like our enemy did?

I didn't ignore anything, one side arms a militia which is the rightful elected government of the gazans, and the other assassinates innocent people.

I didn't ignore anything, one side arms a militia which is the rightful elected government of the gazans, and the other assassinates innocent people.
Which then in turn murders innocent people...

How expensive is it to heat a glass house in winter?

one side arms a militia which is the rightful elected government of the gazans

jedd you shouldn't even bother commenting on this stuff because you lack objectivity. Iran supplies weapons to many terrorists that kill many civilians ( see not only Hamas but Hezbollah and Iraq as well). Israel over reacts and, IMO, doesn't seem to give a crap if they kill civilians to get their message across (which also BTW, Hamas loves because it get's their message across).

Jedd, IMO, Iran shouldn't be trying to develop nuclear weapons...and the world agrees they shouldn't. Is Israel going to far with these acts, IMO, yes....but Iran is a run by a disgusting bunch of medieval power mongering pricks so I don't give a damn about that government and it's cronies.

jedd you shouldn't even bother commenting on this stuff because you lack objectivity. Iran supplies weapons to many terrorists that kill many civilians ( see not only Hamas but Hezbollah and Iraq as well). Israel over reacts and, IMO, doesn't seem to give a crap if they kill civilians to get their message across (which also BTW, Hamas loves because it get's their message across).

Jedd, IMO, Iran shouldn't be trying to develop nuclear weapons...and the world agrees they shouldn't. Is Israel going to far with these acts, IMO, yes....but Iran is a run by a disgusting bunch of medieval power mongering pricks so I don't give a damn about that government and it's cronies.

One man's terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. You can call these people terrorists all you want, but just as we arm groups we consider acting in our interest, Iran does as well.

This part of your post is a joke... Please prove that Iran is developing Nuclear weapons. They have the right by the NPT to develop Nuclear Power, and so far that is all they have been doing.

We armed many groups in our history in this world, as has Iran. The difference is that it is ok when we do it, but not when Iran does it...

Bottom line is that Israel is doing something disgusting in direct response to Iran doing what it has a right to do.

What a joke...

Youd wonder if Jedd were getting his cues from Mohammad himself...

Maybe boy jedd should go over there and be with these people hes so quick to call friends.

Me thinks he probably would change his mind quickly...

Now go away, you worthless git.

What a joke...

Youd wonder if Jedd were getting his cues from Mohammad himself...

Maybe boy jedd should go over there and be with these people hes so quick to call friends.

Me thinks he probably would change his mind quickly...

Now go away, you worthless git.

Fandros?!

This part of your post is a joke... Please prove that Iran is developing Nuclear weapons.

There's plenty of evidence they are producing grades of plutonium you don't need for nuclear power. The opinion is based largely on whether you assume they are not, or assume they are. The fact is, however, they have lied in the past and continue to be secretive about their program....and I don't trust anything coming out of their government. If they aren't they need to, as Putin said:

Iran must be encouraged to make its nuclear program fully transparent

They continue not to be transparent. Is it possible they aren't trying develop nuclear weapons, yes, but it's damned obvious they revel in letting the world think they might be.

They have the right by the NPT to develop Nuclear Power

I agree, and this is where I part ways with our old administration, we should build them a nuclear plant...for free. That way, they'll have no reason to enrich and we can all stop arguing about weather they are secretly building a bomb.

I'm not condoning what Israel is doing, they are as out of control as any of the countries in that messed up region. I just don't give a crap about Iran's government and don't give a crap about any entities that harm it (the government).

I agree, and this is where I part ways with our old administration, we should build them a nuclear plant...for free. That way, they'll have no reason to enrich and we can all stop arguing about weather they are secretly building a bomb.

Iran wants control of the entire process, including providing their own fuel. Giving them a plant won't stop them from enriching uranium. They don't want to be reliant on any other nation for fuel supplies.

Iran does have a right to develop nuclear power for civilian uses. They do *not* have the right to use the foreign aid to develop nuclear weapons since they signed the NPT. The problem here is that they appear to be doing just that. Is there proof? Not yet. Is there suspicious evidence? Plenty.

We have the president of Iran prophesying the destruction of Israel and the US (something that is only likely through the use of WMDs). We have Iran working hard to develop ICBMs (something nearly useless without a nuclear warhead to go with it). We have certain sites in Iran that IAEA inspectors are not allowed to visit and a past history of undeclared nuclear sites. We have a country with a history of supporting terrorist groups (or "freedom fighters" as Jedd likes to call them) and a historical grievance against the US. All of this is cause for concern to both the US and Israel.

I just don't see this ending well for anybody concerned.

Nope. What Isreal is doing is bad, but not as bad as doing nothing.

Jedd, look at it this way: If you had a neighbor that had all the chemicals for making crystal meth, had past convictions for attempting to make crystal meth, but assured you they were not making any, would you just let laying dogs lie? Or would you do something to stop them? The police can't do anything, because there's no proof, but would you live next to a home that was as healthy as a toxic waste dump, or would you do something to try and stop it?

Nope. What Isreal is doing is bad, but not as bad as doing nothing.

Jedd, look at it this way: If you had a neighbor that had all the chemicals for making crystal meth, had past convictions for attempting to make crystal meth, but assured you they were not making any, would you just let laying dogs lie? Or would you do something to stop them? The police can't do anything, because there's no proof, but would you live next to a home that was as healthy as a toxic waste dump, or would you do something to try and stop it?

This is nothing like that at all... think about it.

Actually, it is quite a lot like it.

If you know anything about the manufacture of that substance, the chemicals involved are highly toxic, and very volatile. Meth labs frequently explode, without warning. The explosions can and do kill people that have nothing to do with the manufacture, nor its distribution.
Even if left alone, the chemicals can spread and cause the properties around it to become dangerous to live in. Not to mention the people that tend to buy and use that substance generally tend to be people you wouldn't ever want around you and your's.

So again, would you do nothing? Or would you do something to try and stop it?

Actually, it is quite a lot like it.

If you know anything about the manufacture of that substance, the chemicals involved are highly toxic, and very volatile. Meth labs frequently explode, without warning. The explosions can and do kill people that have nothing to do with the manufacture, nor its distribution.
Even if left alone, the chemicals can spread and cause the properties around it to become dangerous to live in. Not to mention the people that tend to buy and use that substance generally tend to be people you wouldn't ever want around you and your's.

So again, would you do nothing? Or would you do something to try and stop it?

Difference is they have a right to do what they are doing... Meth labs are illegal.

Sixee, the problem is Jedd believes Iran and we do not. He believes this backwards, lying, terrorist supporting government is only out to make peaceful nuclear power for the people out of the goodness of their heart. We believe that they want a nuclear weapon and will lie, cheat and steal to get one.

With that fundamental difference of opinion, your analogy fails.

Sixee, the problem is Jedd believes Iran and we do not. He believes this backwards, lying, terrorist supporting government is only out to make peaceful nuclear power for the people out of the goodness of their heart. We believe that they want a nuclear weapon and will lie, cheat and steal to get one.

With that fundamental difference of opinion, your analogy fails.

I never said that was why... Oil does not last forever my friend.

I never said that was why... Oil does not last forever my friend.

C'mon, even you have said you don't trust the the current leaders of Iran in the past. You don't have to kneejerk cough up the party line every time someone takes a position against Iran.

I don't trust the leaders of Iran in all things... However I do trust that the last thing they would do is be responsible for mass killings via a nuke.

Ok, what if the neighbors said they were producing meth for 'Medicinal use'? Wouldn't that make it ok, then Jedd?

Ok, what if the neighbors said they were producing meth for 'Medicinal use'? Wouldn't that make it ok, then Jedd?

If they had signed an agreement with the Government of our country and local law enforcement agreed they had the right to... Then yes.

Iran is a signatory of the NPT, how you feel about them doesn't change that.

Well, good luck with all that, then.

Maybe they'll move in a gigantic toxic waste dump in next to your home. As long as all the 'i's are dotted and all the 't's are crossed, it'll be fine for you, I guess.

Maybe Israel just doesn't feel the same way you do about treaties that are signed without its participation.....

Well, good luck with all that, then.

Maybe they'll move in a gigantic toxic waste dump in next to your home. As long as all the 'i's are dotted and all the 't's are crossed, it'll be fine for you, I guess.

Maybe Israel just doesn't feel the same way you do about treaties that are signed without its participation.....

Of course, The country that not only didn't sign the NPT, but also has nukes is the good guy, cause they weren't involved in the signing!

However, Iran has given cause to the usually spineless UN to be worried so I think Iran is up to no good.

Top that off with their developing long range missiles and leads to proof positive.

I don't need to see a cat if I've found it's fur laying about, a toy full of catnip and the tattered remains of several mice to know there's a cat.

However, Iran has given cause to the usually spineless UN to be worried so I think Iran is up to no good.

Top that off with their developing long range missiles and leads to proof positive.

I don't need to see a cat if I've found it's fur laying about, a toy full of catnip and the tattered remains of several mice to know there's a cat.

Actually your position is flawed in my opinion.

It is obvious that the long range missiles are being developed as a deterrent to both the United States and Israel in response to the threats of an attack. As well as the U.S. military operating on both sides of the country, in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

The Iranian government would be stupid to not attempt to make itself a more dangerous target in light of the current threats directed at them.

The UN is only worried because we pressure them to be worried. Iran is well within its right at this time to develop Nuclear power.

Your opinion is already skewed, as you have proven with your bigotry in the other thread.

However I do trust that the last thing they would do is be responsible for mass killings via a nuke.

This was never said or even eluded to. They want a nuke mainly for bargaining power...to change their status in the world. They think that it will make them a player in world politics.

Interesting article here:

http://www.metimes.com/International/2008/02/22/iran_nearing_nuclear_weapons_capability/4147/

But of course you can't trust the MeK because they are terrorists.

This:

http://www.adl.org/main_Anti_Semitism_International/iranian_threat_faq.htm

Nope, they are biased as well.

The truth lies somewhere in between...they are a ways away, but they are trying to produce a weapon or trying hard to make the West believe they are so we have to pay attention to them.

Actually your position is flawed in my opinion.

It is obvious that the long range missiles are being developed as a deterrent to both the United States and Israel in response to the threats of an attack. As well as the U.S. military operating on both sides of the country, in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

The Iranian government would be stupid to not attempt to make itself a more dangerous target in light of the current threats directed at them.

The UN is only worried because we pressure them to be worried. Iran is well within its right at this time to develop Nuclear power.

Your opinion is already skewed, as you have proven with your bigotry in the other thread.

Oh hell you are a dumbass of unequaled density.

You don't develop long range missiles for short range threats. You also don't put firecrackers on the end of them. They are used for nuke payloads.

I'm not bigoted when I suggested that the so called fringe elements appear to be gaining more control.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/02/17/pakistan.taliban/

I really don't care what happens in that corner of the world. I wish we could get off the oil so they could slide back into the 14th century where such b/s is allowed.

You just have your head in the sand, and my god somehow up your ass at the same time. Must be a bitch having all that sand in your nooks and crannies.

Iran is developing nuke potential, it's horrible and it's true and can't be allowed.

Now on topic, the religion in the original post is of interest to me. If the world would all adopt it places like the ME would drop off the radar.

Difference is they have a right to do what they are doing... Meth labs are illegal.

Iran has the right to nuclear power. They don't have the right to what they've been doing or trying to obfuscate.

Oh hell you are a dumbass of unequaled density.

You don't develop long range missiles for short range threats. You also don't put firecrackers on the end of them. They are used for nuke payloads.

I'm not bigoted when I suggested that the so called fringe elements appear to be gaining more control.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/02/17/pakistan.taliban/

I really don't care what happens in that corner of the world. I wish we could get off the oil so they could slide back into the 14th century where such b/s is allowed.

You just have your head in the sand, and my god somehow up your ass at the same time. Must be a bitch having all that sand in your nooks and crannies.

Iran is developing nuke potential, it's horrible and it's true and can't be allowed.

Now on topic, the religion in the original post is of interest to me. If the world would all adopt it places like the ME would drop off the radar.


The article you linked is about the Taliban in Swat Pakistan. The Taliban and Iranians don't really like each other from what I understand, in fact I do believe the Iranians helped us quite a bit in Afghanistan in 2001 and the fact that Bush placed them in his retarded "Axis of Evil" was quite insulting to them after their help.

So why haven't we disarmed to the point that we expect them to remain below? Why haven't we forced Israel to disarm to that point either?

If our justification is that others have nukes, so we need them too, why is that so different than Iran (or any other country) feeling the same way?

So why haven't we disarmed to the point that we expect them to remain below? Why haven't we forced Israel to disarm to that point either?

If our justification is that others have nukes, so we need them too, why is that so different than Iran (or any other country) feeling the same way?


DING DING DING... We have a winner!

Oh hell you are a dumbass of unequaled density.

You don't develop long range missiles for short range threats. You also don't put firecrackers on the end of them. They are used for nuke payloads.



You do when your enemy is much more powerful and much further away then your current arsenal can reach. What kind of danger would Iran be to the US if the furthest they could launch a missile was pakistan?

Is it really so hard to understand?

What kind of danger would Iran be to the US if the furthest they could launch a missile was pakistan?

Is it really so hard to understand?

So, what are they gonna stick on the end of those ICBMs? Confetti cannons?

So, what are they gonna stick on the end of those ICBMs? Confetti cannons?

Warheads filled with old GI Joe action figures.

I'd take one of those landing in my backyard!

Jedd says Iran isn't pursuing nuclear weapons, but keeps defending their right to do so. Interesting.

Jedd says Iran isn't pursuing nuclear weapons, but keeps defending their right to do so. Interesting.

I said that there is no evidence that they are pursuing nuclear weapons, and that they are allowed power by the NPT. My personal belief is that Iran is at a disadvantage and should do its best to acquire nuclear weapons as long as they are responsible with the technology.

As such a high value target due to the production of oil and natural gas in Iran, it makes sense to have a deterrent from a Republican led USA invasion, or a foolish Israeli attack.

I said that there is no evidence that they are pursuing nuclear weapons, and that they are allowed power by the NPT. My personal belief is that Iran is at a disadvantage and should do its best to acquire nuclear weapons as long as they are responsible with the technology.

As such a high value target due to the production of oil and natural gas in Iran, it makes sense to have a deterrent from a Republican led USA invasion, or a foolish Israeli attack.

So all countries who are at a disadvantage should acquire nuclear weapons as long as they are "responsible" with it? So basically every country should have nuclear weapons. That is a good idea.

And what is responsible anyways? Being passive? Not being overly aggressive?

Like taking 15 british soldiers at gun point in Iraqi waters during a routine cargo check? Or arming militias to wage proxy wars?

And there is no longer a republican led USA. Though even Obama thinks Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons. Odd. I must agree that Iran is a high value target when oil is $35/barrel. Especially when they hold only 10% of the world's reserves. That is if you don't count alaska as well as oil shale.

That would have been a far better argument for Saudi Arabia this past summer.

I have to ask though, since you mentioned a Republican led USA. Do you think Republicans are the problem with US-Iran Relations? do you think the Iranian government is to blame at all? Are they innocent, peace seeking people? By your logic, the US should have Republicans dealing with Iran since it is evening the battle field. Use hard headed people to deal with hard headed people, right?

Lastly, why would an Israeli attack be foolish? I was slightly confused by the use of the word foolish in your post.

Sounds like mob hits...right or wrong Mossad is something else...like the Gambinos in NYC.


Rofl, the Mossad would put most any organized crime family to shame, save possibly some of the Colombian drug cartels.

So all countries who are at a disadvantage should acquire nuclear weapons as long as they are "responsible" with it? So basically every country should have nuclear weapons. That is a good idea.

Did I say anyone? or did I say Iran?

And what is responsible anyways? Being passive? Not being overly aggressive?

Responsible is keeping the technology out of the hands of others, and not using it unless it is your last option.

Like taking 15 british soldiers at gun point in Iraqi waters during a routine cargo check? Or arming militias to wage proxy wars?

England admitted the British were in Disputed Iranian waters, and not in Iraqi Waters... so maybe stop watching Fox News.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3761058.ece

I also find it funny that this was shocking to everyone. If Iranians were 30 miles off the coast of California, I am pretty sure we would be shooting first and asking questions later. Those soldiers got to go home. The Iranians would not be as lucky.

And there is no longer a republican led USA. Though even Obama thinks Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons. Odd. I must agree that Iran is a high value target when oil is $35/barrel. Especially when they hold only 10% of the world's reserves. That is if you don't count alaska as well as oil shale.

How could you say they hold 10% of the worlds oil, and precede that with "only"? 10% is a lot!

Iran is also home to one of the largest natural gas reserves in the world.

That would have been a far better argument for Saudi Arabia this past summer.

Our heads are up Saudi Arabia's ass, didn't you know that?

I have to ask though, since you mentioned a Republican led USA. Do you think Republicans are the problem with US-Iran Relations? do you think the Iranian government is to blame at all? Are they innocent, peace seeking people? By your logic, the US should have Republicans dealing with Iran since it is evening the battle field. Use hard headed people to deal with hard headed people, right?

I think republicans like Bush ruined a gem of a chance to strengthen relations with his bullshit axis of evil nonsense, and I think Republicans in general enjoy spreading fear among the populace in order to have the people's nod to take any actions they wish. They may not be the only problem in Iran/US relations, but they are a big obstacle to peace.

Iran's government is a problem, but as is typical, we confront Iran from a position of superiority, rather then with mutual respect. Iran is offended at our demands and pre conditions. They see us as some 200 year old civilization, and no matter how backwards they may seem to us, they demand respect. They feel that Iranians thousands of years of history at the very least give them the right to our respect in diplomacy.

As a country with perhaps too much pride just like the Iranians have, I would think that you would understand why we wouldn't be too happy if someone spoke down to us either.

Lastly, why would an Israeli attack be foolish? I was slightly confused by the use of the word foolish in your post.

It would perhaps spark one of the deadliest middle east conflicts in recent history.

One man's terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. You can call these people terrorists all you want, but just as we arm groups we consider acting in our interest, Iran does as well.

This part of your post is a joke... Please prove that Iran is developing Nuclear weapons. They have the right by the NPT to develop Nuclear Power, and so far that is all they have been doing.

We armed many groups in our history in this world, as has Iran. The difference is that it is ok when we do it, but not when Iran does it...

Bottom line is that Israel is doing something disgusting in direct response to Iran doing what it has a right to do.


This post is self-explanatory on why you should just stop posting about this particular issue, jedd.

You only stir shit up, get pissed and fight with folks, and get people more tired of visiting the forums. And a week later we see the same crap in the papers and on the news as what got you started to begin with, so nothing changed.

I am not saying you should not care; only, stop wasting your energy on futile fights.

This post is self-explanatory on why you should just stop posting about this particular issue, jedd.

You only stir shit up, get pissed and fight with folks, and get people more tired of visiting the forums. And a week later we see the same crap in the papers and on the news as what got you started to begin with, so nothing changed.

I am not saying you should not care; only, stop wasting your energy on futile fights.

The day they stop answering is the day I won't need to respond!

The day they stop answering is the day I won't need to respond!

The day Iran stops arming "terrorist" organizations is the day folks may stop being so concerned about Iran developing nuclear weapon technology that may then be passed along to the "terrorist" organizations.

Bottom line is that Israel is doing something disgusting in direct response to Iran doing what it has a right to do

In the big picture what Israel is doing is not "disgusting" They are playing the same game the US, Iran, Russia, China, England, Venezuela, Cuba, Syria, Pakistan, India and almost every other country that can project power is playing.

Iran decides they want in the game...well...guess what....you're in it now Iran.

The day Iran stops arming "terrorist" organizations is the day folks may stop being so concerned about Iran developing nuclear weapon technology that may then be passed along to the "terrorist" organizations.

I suppose you don't mind that we do that ourselves though, huh?

I suppose you don't mind that we do that ourselves though, huh?


Proof, please.

You have tossed this paper argument out before to have it shot down, so let's have some evidence of the U.S. passing nuclear weapon technology along to terrorists.

BTW, are you and jedd going steady yet?

Did I say anyone? or did I say Iran?

Right, but that logic can be applied to any country is my point. They are at a disadvantage to other countries militarily. Therefore they should pursue nukes. Almost all countries have bad relations with one country or another. And in that case, one has to be weaker than the other. So the weaker should always acquire nukes. In which case the other country will be weaker now and must as well acquire nukes.

You clearly support North Korea holding their nuclear arsenal, correct? And would also recommend South Korea do so? Ecuador and Peru? Colombia and Venezuela?


Responsible is keeping the technology out of the hands of others, and not using it unless it is your last option.

Does this include Hezbollah? Hamas?



England admitted the British were in Disputed Iranian waters, and not in Iraqi Waters... so maybe stop watching Fox News.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3761058.ece

I also find it funny that this was shocking to everyone. If Iranians were 30 miles off the coast of California, I am pretty sure we would be shooting first and asking questions later. Those soldiers got to go home. The Iranians would not be as lucky.

Internationally disputed waters. The Iranians could have radioed and not confronted with weapons. And they of course paraded them on TV and tried to make themselves look kind by releasing them after doing so. How gracious.

Nice false analogy. If Iranians were 30 miles off the coast of California it would be far different. There is absolutely ZERO reason for them to be there. The brits were in what many consider Iraqi waters. Their presence in being there consistently was well known.


How could you say they hold 10% of the worlds oil, and precede that with "only"? 10% is a lot!

Iran is also home to one of the largest natural gas reserves in the world.

I am not dismissing 10% as a little, but merely pointing out it is not enough to attack over it. There are far more valuable targets and easier ones. For instance, Canada. Or the Saudis as I said.



I think republicans like Bush ruined a gem of a chance to strengthen relations with his bullshit axis of evil nonsense, and I think Republicans in general enjoy spreading fear among the populace in order to have the people's nod to take any actions they wish. They may not be the only problem in Iran/US relations, but they are a big obstacle to peace.

Iran's government is a problem, but as is typical, we confront Iran from a position of superiority, rather then with mutual respect. Iran is offended at our demands and pre conditions. They see us as some 200 year old civilization, and no matter how backwards they may seem to us, they demand respect. They feel that Iranians thousands of years of history at the very least give them the right to our respect in diplomacy.

As a country with perhaps too much pride just like the Iranians have, I would think that you would understand why we wouldn't be too happy if someone spoke down to us either.


I think Bush reacted no worse than the president of Iran. They both acted petty and ignorantly prideful. But to merely suggest the Republicans are the only problem is a joke.

Iran hardly gives the same mutual respect that they ask of. Which is why I think the presidents of both nations acted petty.

I enjoy how you defend a country that uses Islamic law to justify horrendous acts, violates every humanitarian law out there, and then say how the Republicans use fear just to accomplish their ideological goals.


It would perhaps spark one of the deadliest middle east conflicts in recent history.

Ok I thought that is what you meant, but I was just making sure. You would agree though that an attack by Iran on Israel would be equally foolish, correct? I think it would in fact be even deadlier, because Israel may respond with a nuclear attack as a kneejerk reaction.

Difference is they have a right to do what they are doing... Meth labs are illegal.

I guess thats where we disagree. See what they are doing is illegal. They are not being transparent. Making nuclear power is legal, making nuclear weapons is not. See the difference? If they are making legal power...why are they hiding things? Frankly i'm sick of them and their bullshit.

Oh yeah and the developing ICBM ability to be "more threatening" to the US. Who are you kidding? Ancient ICBM technology will not be the least bit threatening with out nuclear capability.

I said that there is no evidence that they are pursuing nuclear weapons, and that they are allowed power by the NPT. My personal belief is that Iran is at a disadvantage and should do its best to acquire nuclear weapons as long as they are responsible with the technology.

As such a high value target due to the production of oil and natural gas in Iran, it makes sense to have a deterrent from a Republican led USA invasion, or a foolish Israeli attack.

And if they arn't responsible? Opps to late?

Warheads filled with old GI Joe action figures.

LMAO now that's a good one..

INCOMING KUNG FU GRIP!!!!! HIDE!!!


can't stop laughing....thanks man

Jedd you've obviously decided they are developing nukes as you argue the case for them needing long range missiles.

You are arguing out of both sides of your mouth man. Pick a side and stick to it.

They either are developing nukes *and have the right to do so according to you* or they aren't *which you say they aren't*.

Truth is you are convinced they are and while you hate saying so you are obviously supporting them as being mature enough country to deal with it.

Oh, as for us being only 200 years old you are forgetting another maxim proven out over in that area for thousands of years. Strength makes the rules. I doubt you'll find anyone giving a 3rd world country much respect simply because they've spent thousands of years oppressing others different than them....infact the contrary is true. To us they haven't figured out how to grow up much past the caves let alone be given an equal amount of respect that we give England, France or such.

Proof, please.

You have tossed this paper argument out before to have it shot down, so let's have some evidence of the U.S. passing nuclear weapon technology along to terrorists.

You've been tossing this paper argument out about Iran giving nukes to terrorists for months. Where's your proof, please?

Arming terrorists? Hell, we arm and train terrorists. No one in the world can hold a candle to the CIA's terrorism factory. Certainly not Iran.

These circumstantial arguments you use to pre-suppose Iran's fitness for nukes are just as applicable to us as them.

They see us as some 200 year old civilization, and no matter how backwards they may seem to us, they demand respect.

...and we see them as a bunch backward, knuckle dragging, religiously zealot medieval tyrants that have been around since 1979. Nothing that government has done or said deserves any respect whatsoever. Respect is earned, they've earned 0.

You've been tossing this paper argument out about Iran giving nukes to terrorists for months. Where's your proof, please?

Arming terrorists? Hell, we arm and train terrorists. No one in the world can hold a candle to the CIA's terrorism factory. Certainly not Iran.

These circumstantial arguments you use to pre-suppose Iran's fitness for nukes are just as applicable to us as them.

Is your proof that he has no proof? That's pretty concrete.

What's good for the goose...

What's good for the goose...

That is some pretty irrefutable evidence. I must concur.

Did you hear? The pope is the mastermind of 9/11. He and a thawed Disney plotted to steal the gold at the bottom of the wreckage.

Those are almost as rich as the conspiracy theory that Iran has a nuclear weapons program intended to arm terrorists and insure their own destruction.

Those are almost as rich as the conspiracy theory that Iran has a nuclear weapons program intended to arm terrorists and insure their own destruction.

They have a nuclear friendship program to befriend all jews around the world.

Serious question. Do you dispute they arm militant groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iraqi insurgents? All or any?

They have a nuclear friendship program to befriend all jews around the world.

Serious question. Do you dispute they arm militant groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iraqi insurgents? All or any?

Stop spreading lies! They only arm them with flowers, peace, and love! Unless you are a Jew, a woman, American, ...etc

Serious question. Do you dispute they arm militant groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iraqi insurgents? All or any?

I doubt it's anywhere near what's been intimated. Every time they were scheduled to hold a press conference with the smoking gun (literally!) in all this Iran-arms-terrorists thing, they end up canceling it because they have no proof to show. WMDs 2.0.

I've never suggested that Iran doesn't arm their enemies' enemies though. Not sure where you got that.

What I have pointed out many times, is that it is a pinnacle of hypocrisy for us to call out anyone for arming terrorists. Our own CIA wrote the playbook when it comes to that.

If that determines fitness for holding nukes as insurance, we "deserve" ours less than anyone else in the world.

You've been tossing this paper argument out about Iran giving nukes to terrorists for months. Where's your proof, please?

Arming terrorists? Hell, we arm and train terrorists. No one in the world can hold a candle to the CIA's terrorism factory. Certainly not Iran.

These circumstantial arguments you use to pre-suppose Iran's fitness for nukes are just as applicable to us as them.

Way to side step giving any answer. :rolleyes:

Way to side step giving any answer. :rolleyes:

The CIA trained Al Queda and Bin Laden specifically to fight the Russians in Afghanistan...

We must support terrorism, cause I am damn sure the Russian's considered them terrorists.

Way to side step giving any answer. :rolleyes:

Way to miss the entire point. :rolleyes:

The day Iran stops arming "terrorist" organizations is the day folks may stop being so concerned about Iran developing nuclear weapon technology that may then be passed along to the "terrorist" organizations.Proof, please.

You have tossed this paper argument out before to have it shot down, so let's have some evidence of the U.S. passing nuclear weapon technology along to terrorists.I don't believe Sanchek said shit about nuclear weapons. He said we train and arm terrorists - this is true. If you really need me to link Wikipedia articles to events you should already know about then just let me know.

You are saying that Iran arms and supplies terrorists. Okay, this is also true. But then you go on to say that because of this, we need to worry about nuclear weaponry.

So we have two countries who both arm and supply terrorists. One has the largest nuclear arsenal in the world. One, as far as anyone knows, has jack shit.

Stop rambling about wanting facts when you're expecting proof for an accusation that Sanchek did not even make.

The day Iran stops arming "terrorist" organizations is the day folks may stop being so concerned about Iran developing nuclear weapon technology that may then be passed along to the "terrorist" organizations.

Again, by your logic, if you arm terrorist organizations then you must also be considered a threat for arming them with nuclear weapons. I am genuinely curious as to why you exempt the United States from this train of thought?

This logic is amusing....

Because one country made a mistake it's impossible for anyone to use that experience and try to stop another travesty.

C'mon, try harder than that because atm that's not remotely legit.

If you really need me to link Wikipedia articles

Lol.

Because we all know that events that are common knowledge enough to have fucking movies made about them really need scholarly literature to back them up. I'm the first one to make a call for something peer-reviewed if you're going to make an outrageous claim. This, however, is just history.

Besides, the majority of the posters here have frequently voiced their disdain for academia. Geocities works fine.

Damn, I struck a nerve I guess.

A while ago we had a big debate over drug legalization.

People kept ignoring stuff from journals like Lancet in favor of random blogs and personal websites.

We use Wikipedia here now.

This logic is amusing....

Because one country made a mistake it's impossible for anyone to use that experience and try to stop another travesty.

C'mon, try harder than that because atm that's not remotely legit.

Made a mistake? A mistake implying you think it was accidental? And, "a" implying that it only happened one time?

Do you seriously propose that our history of arming insurgents is accidental or limited to one "mistake"?

San, why don't you get off your high horse for a while, and smell some real air, other than that thin stuff up on that pedestal you on which you reside.

You have consistently twisted what folks have said with regard to this debate, and tossed in some bullshit of your own that has no bearing on the point, most likely with a puffed up chest as you type.

I stated that Iran has armed terrorists, which you agree with, and that should they gain nuclear weapons they "may" pass that technology along to the terrorists as well. You quoted that, and said, basically, 'like we have'; I asked for some proof of that, and you have danced like a cheap stripper looking for some tips all around the question, but have not answered it yet. I am simply asking for you to offer evidence that we have provided nuclear weapons or that technology to any terrorist groups.

Get serious and give some proof to back up your allegations, or get over yourself and go fiddle with your websites. But stop the holier than thou know-it-all bullshit. It is tiring.

San, why don't you get off your high horse for a while, and smell some real air, other than that thin stuff up on that pedestal you on which you reside.

You have consistently twisted what folks have said with regard to this debate, and tossed in some bullshit of your own that has no bearing on the point, most likely with a puffed up chest as you type.

I stated that Iran has armed terrorists, which you agree with, and that should they gain nuclear weapons they "may" pass that technology along to the terrorists as well. You quoted that, and said, basically, 'like we have'; I asked for some proof of that, and you have danced like a cheap stripper looking for some tips all around the question, but have not answered it yet. I am simply asking for you to offer evidence that we have provided nuclear weapons or that technology to any terrorist groups.

Get serious and give some proof to back up your allegations, or get over yourself and go fiddle with your websites. But stop the holier than thou know-it-all bullshit. It is tiring.

Actually you misunderstood him...

You claimed that because Iran has armed terrorists they might transfer nuclear tech/weapons to terrorists.

San responded "well we have armed terrorists as well, therefore we should not be trusted with Nuclear weapons either?"

He is drawing a parallel to your claim of Iran not being trustworthy and the USA being equally as untrustworthy by your standards.

Instead of insulting him, at least try and use your brain before you make yourself look stupid.

Eh? What the hell are you going on about? Pedestals and holier than thou? Is that what you really want to talk about? Will you at least take me out for a steak dinner and movie before you continue stalking me with this passive-aggressive shit?

The day Iran stops arming "terrorist" organizations is the day folks may stop being so concerned about Iran developing nuclear weapon technology that may then be passed along to the "terrorist" organizations.

You suggest that:

1. Iran arms "terrorists"
2. People are therefore concerned that Iran will give nukes to "terrorists".

I suppose you don't mind that we do that ourselves though, huh?

I simply point out that:

1. We arm "terrorists" too.

Why is that so difficult to understand? If arming "terrorists" is reason to deny a country nukes, we're the last country on Earth that should have them.

Any more questions?

If the best you can muster is arguing semantics, desperately clinging to that good 'ol American Exceptionalism that we use to explain away all the hypocrisies, why bother? Just put a big American flag in your sig with the caption "America: Fuck Yeah!" and be done with it.

Maybe add Calvin pissing on brown people, so everyone understands what you really mean.

desperately clinging to that good 'ol American Exceptionalism that we use to explain away all the hypocrisies

Thats usually a pretty thick wall to bash through and the reason i've stayed out of these threads.

Frankly i'm more amazed that the US,Nato and Russia(soviets) were able to keep the Nuclear genie in the bottle as long as they did.

Eh? What the hell are you going on about? Pedestals and holier than thou? Is that what you really want to talk about? Will you at least take me out for a steak dinner and movie before you continue stalking me with this passive-aggressive shit?



You suggest that:

1. Iran arms "terrorists"
2. People are therefore concerned that Iran will give nukes to "terrorists".



I simply point out that:

1. We arm "terrorists" too.

Why is that so difficult to understand? If arming "terrorists" is reason to deny a country nukes, we're the last country on Earth that should have them.

Any more questions?

If the best you can muster is arguing semantics, desperately clinging to that good 'ol American Exceptionalism that we use to explain away all the hypocrisies, why bother? Just put a big American flag in your sig with the caption "America: Fuck Yeah!" and be done with it.

Maybe add Calvin pissing on brown people, so everyone understands what you really mean.


Thanks for quoting my post again to freshen the debate, since you once again danced around it.

I had stated "technology that may be" passed along to terrorist" organizations. You stated 'like we have', but rather than reinforce that with some evidence, or own up to a poor choice of wording and actually admit to the common folk that you erred, you keep up this bullshit.

If you actually read posts, you would know I have acknowledged Iran's right to nuclear power, being a country that actually has to import most of their energy supplies due to the lack of refinery capability. But I am not in favor of them having access to nuclear weapons due to their demonstrated proclivity to supplying terrorist folks with whatever they seem to have available.

You ride in to argue our history, which is irrelevant. It is simply the way you have taken to "debate" issues of late. You have given no evidence to support your argument, but have agreed with the charge that Iran has armed and supplied Hamas and Hezbollah, etc.

So tell me, how does anything you have posted speak to the idea that Iran "may" continue their practice of passing along support to their terrorist buddies by sharing either the technology or the actual weapons, based on their history?

Are you just trying to play the ditsy blond at this point, to trick me into skipping the steak dinner?

The answers have been laid out very clearly by myself and others here, "If you actually read posts". I'm not going to keep rephrasing this for you forever.

If this simple logic escapes you, nothing anyone here writes is going to help that.