TERRORISM: France Defends Right To Nuclear Reply To Terrorism

do you think Osama is afraid of France's threat? I see it more likely being a lure for terror attacks than a deterrant. Osama has managed to live in hiding from the greatest military force this world has ever seen. A french threat is not going to scare him off.

Time will tell. I DO think that UBL and the rest are afraid of death.
Why else do they send the youngsters to die for the 'cause' and
they themeselves don't go.

Honestly ... I highly doubt France has the fortitude to use battlefield
nukes. I think it's just empty words and scare tactics. Hope I'm
wrong ... but that's what I think. Afterall, we are talking about
France here ..

I disagree with statements that France lacks the cajones to use nuclear weapons. If (God forbid) Paris was attacked with a nuclear device of any kind, I can definitely see them lashing out with thermonuclear weapons at anyone they think could be involved.

First I think He is trying to garner some votes in the upcoming election.

Second, I firmly believe that these threats are aimed directly at Iran, because they are currently the only true state that sponsors terrorists. Yes I realize that Palestine is considered a state however I do not think they would attack France because their main concern is Israel.

Now for a question is there any other nation/state that anyone can think of that openly sponsors terrorists?




Just my 2 cents on the subject



[edit on 1/20/2006 by shots]

Syria is in that group with Iran. If this is directed at Iran, it is not going to help the situation. Iran wants nuclear weapons, not power and a threat of being attacked by France (in retaliation for a terror attack) is a more of a reason to have nukes than they have had in the past. If that is what the french are doing, they are morons.

Originally posted by Crakeur
Syria is in that group with Iran.

Oh I forgot them, but there again they sponsor groups like Hezbollah.


That would put them on the same level as Palestine.

Now I do realize that some of al qaeda has slipped into Iraq via Syria, however I do not think the Syrian government openly supports nor funds them.

Now if you are right other then Syria and Iran who could France target, surely not mecca it is not a state?

The point I am trying to make here is there are not many states that sponsor terrorists which essentially leaves only Iran for them to attack.

Originally posted by shotsI do not think the Syrian government openly supports nor funds them.

sounds like Saudi Arabia, no?

Originally posted by shotsThe point I am trying to make here is there are not many states that sponsor terrorists which essentially leaves only Iran for them to attack.

which brings me back to my point of how stupid it is to say this. It is practically handing Iran an almost valid reason for having nuclear weapons. "we need them in case France tries to nuke us"

Originally posted by Hellmutt

Originally posted by TheShroudOfMemphis

After all, no country or nation has used terrorism to attack anyone.

Not true. In what has been called "the worlds first terror attack", in 1807 the Brittish performed a terror attack against Denmark when they bombarded Copenhagen. It was done to terrorise the civil population there and break down the moral or something. They used warships to bombard Copenhagen.

Well thanks for the contemporary update.
I'm sure events of 1807 play a big part in today's world.

But if he is talking to the US and Israel, the UK wouldn't be far behind either.

Originally posted by curme
.........................
What's so hard to understand?

What's so hard for you to understand that several nations did give us proof and reasons why the regime of Saddam had to go?.....

If you don't want me to bring up these points, stop trying to blame everything on the U.S. and stop trying to sway threads like this one into "let's bash the U.S. government once more."

It is not our problem if France, and other countries which for some reason all were part of the OFF scandal, was deep in it's neck with getting dirty money from Saddam's regime from the oil for food program and other businesses they had with Saddam.....

Today I had a meeting with a french..friend and he was playing down th issue,saying that the comment was made at a naval,air force and strategic forces base and Chirac had to reassure them.(France is spending half of its defense budget on nuclear weapons now,only 18% in 2008,10% stable)
Now ,I've read the full discourse on www.elysee.fr (19th) and there are few interesting things:
Chirac sais something about lasers and 1 MJ laser "in particular" which greatly makes France able to injure any major power(ie USA)
Furthermore,the comment does not explicitly say anything about nuclear weapons just:
"If the leaders of a nation incites terrorist acts against us or are PREPARING to use nuclear weapons,one way or the other,against another nation,they must understand that we are determined to take decisive action: it may be conventional weapons,it may be other things"
Now,Paris burned for 3 weeks because some youngsters were incited to do so,in an effort to rally french support for the Iranian matter.
Now,we all know that USA and Israel are preparing since 2002 to nuke Iran.there are evidences on informationclearinghouse.info and prisonplanet.com ,as well as some yahoo groups

Now,the French are feeling great:after all,lending them 1959 -model heavy lasers may be a good thing

President Jacques Chirac said Paris must be able to hit back hard at a hostile state's centers of power and its "capacity to act".

well, VIVE LE ROI!

Originally posted by Caligulas
......................
Now,we all know that USA and Israel are preparing since 2002 to nuke Iran.there are evidences on informationclearinghouse.info and prisonplanet.com ,as well as some yahoo groups
..................

Unless you can really prove the statement above, it is my opinion that your other statement, about a friend of yours telling you that it was not what Chirac said or what he was trying to convey, is a lie, or at least an exageration.

The U.S. and Israel are not "going to nuke Iran." Israel will probably attack Iran's nuclear facilities, but "it is not going to nuke it." I doubt that, i think we can leave that for Chirac to do.

[edit on 21-1-2006 by Muaddib]

Mitterand already said before his dead that France and USA were in a secret war but that the people doesn't know.

I think that Chirac said all this because if Iran accept the Russian treaty to built nuclear facilities in Russia for Iran, the USA could not attack Iran so the only chance of the US would be to create a terrorist attack on France. So it was a message to Bush.

Don't create a terrorist act on my soil with nuclear weapons and don't blame the iranians for it because you will eat my nuclear arsenal.

Originally posted by shots
Now for a question is there any other nation/state
that anyone can think of that openly sponsors terrorists?

'Palestine' - not a country, but an area with it's own gov't that is terrorist.
North Korea
Iran
Syria
Libya - They were quiet for a while and even looked like they were
trying not to be. But now, they are back being openly terrorist.


[edit on 1/21/2006 by FlyersFan]

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Not surprising at all, this has always been the French modus operandi. Whatever they do is fine, because it is for France, but whatever any other country does to protect itself lacks a certain je ne sais quoi.

Which is also exactly the current U.S. government's modus operandi, we cannot forget that fact.

Originally posted by Muaddib
Unless you can really prove the statement above, it is my opinion that your other statement, about a friend of yours telling you that it was not what Chirac said or what he was trying to convey, is a lie, or at least an exageration.

The U.S. and Israel are not "going to nuke Iran." Israel will probably attack Iran's nuclear facilities, but "it is not going to nuke it." I doubt that, i think we can leave that for Chirac to do.

[edit on 21-1-2006 by Muaddib]

Well,I read the full statement of Mr Chirac,in francais,at
www.elysee.fr,it's the discourse held at naval forces in the 19th this month
and translated in english the relevant -media paragraph

Secondly,my french friend was playing down the issue and that's a sign as well

Thirdly,it's 7 am in Cluj and for all night I read the Nuclear Strategic Doctrine of the USA,you may find it at www.globalsecurity.org
and it's troublesome to note that USA may attack countries in noncompliance with the NPT in any circumstances,virtually.

Fourtly,I read on the web a conspiracy theory which says that Bush occupied Iraq in order to have 160000 American boys on the ground,in order to justify a nuclear attack on Iran,following the bombardment by Israel of the Bushehr plant and the Iranian response ,or fear of responsse upon american troops in Iraq with WMDs
You may find at informationclearinghouse.info numerous info regarding the iranian issue,as well as a plan,drafted by US in 2002 ,regarding the destruction of 450 deeply burried Iranian military sites using "mini-nukes"

Futhermore,you may find extensive info on the web regarding the development of 0.6-1 kiloton tactical loads in the past 6 years by the USA specifically for this purpose,to destroy underground facilities

There is also another conspiracy theory,regardin the 1775 plan of the Iluminati from Bavaria to institute a global dictatorship,centered on Jerusalem,following 3-engineered world wars,the last one shall be between Jews and Arabs and lead to the death of 4 billion people world-wide.The rest shall fearfully accept global leadership by them.

Now,there are many ways to counteract this plan,which has holes like a Sweitzer cheese:
1.intercept and destroy strategic vectors(not if all 70000 are launched at the same time)
2.modify global balance of forces
3.share anti-nuclear tech with the most affected nations
4.unite civilisation against the barbarism of this small group of people and uncloak them

Ok,there are more things that may be added ,but i'm tired now

with the exception of an Ace of Black Leaf
what do I know about this nuclear war?
1.Russia
There is a military and ,developing economically, alliance with China,Iran and India since 00
Russia is launching new submarines,inaugurates new anti-missile bases(see pravda.ru),testing strat vectors in Kamceatka
She is selling raw materials to China and India;also spy satellites and anti-fighter missile platforms to Iran
She lets the Ruble to float freely against the $ and euro and help its currency to raise against these ;she's stockpiling resources,securing new energy deals with France and Germany,blackmailing Moldova and Ukraine in order to gain their support
Putin has ordered the Black Sea Fleet to occupy and hold the Yalta lighthouse;they are slowly regaining control over their vast army,left from the "Star Wars" Reagan bluff.
According to 1988 NATO report ,USSR had:
20000 heavy and medium tanks,grouped into 150 tank divisions
6000 fighter-bomber aircraft
54000 100+ mm artilerry pieces
43000 light tanks and APCs
5 mil troops
300 nuclear subs
with more money from state-controlled mob ,they are taking control over the largest conv force ever

2.Israel
Since June 2004 ,Israel has been stockpiling conventional and nuclear weapons;she bought many systems from USA
There is a comitment shared by all politicians to strike Iranian military facilities after the first of March
There is a joint plan with USA for the attack on Iran
70% of all population and 90% of all economy is located in Tel-Aviv(one missile lost and..)

3.Iran
Ahmadinejad become worried by the public announcement of the Israeli strike(Boston Globe,I think) so he fostered alliances with his old partners who developed the NoDong1 missile into the Shahab-3 ,which has a range of 10000 km,being able to strike all Europe and the East Coast of the USA
These countries are:Saudi Arabia,Lybia,Egypt,Syria and Iraq
Now we know he has an alliance with Syria and that all missiles have been relocated from Lybia to Egypt and from Iraq to Syria
Now they are prep to strike Israel by the end of February,because Iran does not have second-strike ability,only fixed bunkers
How many strat loads do they have?
on globalsecurity .org you may read that the Shah made a plan for the contruction of 20! nuclear reactors.USA helped him go down and Khomeini was installed;he quickly said that only 2 reactors were built and that they are damaged by the revolution and inoperative
Now...if they had 20 reactors in the 70s now they may have hundreds of warheads.They are drafting plans for opening new uranium mines in Iran,with total reserves of 5000 tons(one Hiroshima bomb requires half kilo of U-238)
Reports on Iranian nuclear power :
Double SS: 400
MU 0215:200
SRI:300
SIE:400
STS:400
(but this is highly irelevant.whether are 200 or 400 loads)

Well,you may say that all these are lies,but if you check the net you may find your answers

MU:military unit
double SS:Security and Safety of State Service
SRI:Romanian Information Service
SIE:External Information Service
STS:Special Telecomunications Service
0215:now 0962 ,nicknamed "two and a quarter:":special Army intelligence service

If you have questions ,please don;t hesitate to ask

Originally posted by Caligulas
....................
Thirdly,it's 7 am in Cluj and for all night I read the Nuclear Strategic Doctrine of the USA,you may find it at www.globalsecurity.org
and it's troublesome to note that USA may attack countries in noncompliance with the NPT in any circumstances,virtually.
....................

I really doubt that Chirac made that statement against the U.S. That first.second, several countries have policies to deal with terrorists and nations who aid terrorists in any way they see fit.

Originally posted by Caligulas
Fourtly,I read on the web a conspiracy theory which says that Bush occupied Iraq in order to have 160000 American boys on the ground,in order to justify a nuclear attack on Iran,following the bombardment by Israel of the Bushehr plant and the Iranian response ,or fear of responsse upon american troops in Iraq with WMDs

You think because there are people talking about a "conspiracy theory" it immediately has to be true?

If you are so naive to "believe anything and everything you read without proof" that is your problem, but it doesn't make these rumors true, unless you have some "real info."

Originally posted by Caligulas
You may find at informationclearinghouse.info numerous info regarding the iranian issue,as well as a plan,drafted by US in 2002 ,regarding the destruction of 450 deeply burried Iranian military sites using "mini-nukes"

Please....information clearinghouse is not a reliable site. Think about it.... If there was such a plan, it would still be secret, yet somehow it made it to the news and "informationclearinghouse" has it?.....

Originally posted by Caligulas
Futhermore,you may find extensive info on the web regarding the development of 0.6-1 kiloton tactical loads in the past 6 years by the USA specifically for this purpose,to destroy underground facilities

Just because the U.S. has developed bunker busters doesn't mean it gives any credence to the rumors from "informationclearinghouse."

Originally posted by Caligulas
There is also another conspiracy theory,regardin the 1775 plan of the Iluminati from Bavaria to institute a global dictatorship,centered on Jerusalem,following 3-engineered world wars,the last one shall be between Jews and Arabs and lead to the death of 4 billion people world-wide.The rest shall fearfully accept global leadership by them.

Could you post links to this and see for ourselves if there is any credibility to these claims?

Originally posted by Caligulas
Now,there are many ways to counteract this plan,which has holes like a Sweitzer cheese:
1.intercept and destroy strategic vectors(not if all 70000 are launched at the same time)
2.modify global balance of forces
3.share anti-nuclear tech with the most affected nations
4.unite civilisation against the barbarism of this small group of people and uncloak them

Ok,there are more things that may be added ,but i'm tired now

Oh, i see now...so there is an agenda behind these "rumors." Such as, as you say, to "modify global balances of forces, etc, etc...."

[edit on 22-1-2006 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Caligulas
.......................

2.Israel
Since June 2004 ,Israel has been stockpiling conventional and nuclear weapons;she bought many systems from USA

Israel got her nukes thanks to France. In present times the U.S. is not the only country who sells weaponry to Israel.

Originally posted by Caligulas
There is a comitment shared by all politicians to strike Iranian military facilities after the first of March
There is a joint plan with USA for the attack on Iran
70% of all population and 90% of all economy is located in Tel-Aviv(one missile lost and..)

That I know of the only one who has been preparing to "attack Iran's nuclear facilities" is Israel. If israel does attack these nuclear facilities there will be radiation contamination coming from those sites, but not because Israel will be using any nuclear weapons, which i doubt, although i could be wrong. But i don't jump into conclusions unless i see reliable evidence.

Originally posted by Caligulas
3.Iran
Ahmadinejad become worried by the public announcement of the Israeli strike(Boston Globe,I think) so he fostered alliances with his old partners who developed the NoDong1 missile into the Shahab-3 ,which has a range of 10000 km,being able to strike all Europe and the East Coast of the USA
These countries are:Saudi Arabia,Lybia,Egypt,Syria and Iraq
Now we know he has an alliance with Syria and that all missiles have been relocated from Lybia to Egypt and from Iraq to Syria

Could you post links to show us where this information is coming from? Thanks.

Originally posted by Caligulas
Now they are prep to strike Israel by the end of February,because Iran does not have second-strike ability,only fixed bunkers

How do you know that iran is going to strike Israel by the end of February?

Originally posted by Caligulas
Well,you may say that all these are lies,but if you check the net you may find your answers

I think many members, including me, are aware of some of the things you went over, but there are some claims you are making which i have not seen any evidence that confirms them. If you could provide links and excerpts to those claims you made it would help us, or at least it would help me, make up our minds.

i don't believe that "all rumors going around the internet" must be true."



[edit on 22-1-2006 by Muaddib]