Russia says seized radioactive material en route to Iran

reply to post by michael1983l

Interesting, is this Russia's way of dropping support for Iran? Why wouldn't they just let it through if they were in favour of Irans nuclear policy. I sense a switching of sides here from Russia, possible due to their civil unrest.

Russia is not interested in strong Iran. Russia would like an Israeli strike on Iran that will jump oil prices and make Iran weaker and then when NATO will get involved after the whole region will burn Russia will declare that they will not allow Iran occupation and flex muscles and press for peace - thus gaining financially, diplomatically and hurting US/NATO.
But they are not interested in Iran with nuclear weapons too, since then they will not be able to control Iran.
Just check how many wars were fought between Russia and Persia few hundred years ago for control of the region and you will understand that it is a complex issue.
Though if it is NA 22,it is probably for medical use and not military, thus kind of messes my theory.

reply to post by Corruption Exposed

Lose the attitude mate.

This is what you said:

I agree, a false flag must be considered. It's way too early for me to commit to any theory at this time. I won't lie, when it comes to this political arena, I can't help and consider false flag for any similar type of event.

So you agree that it must be considered, great, so how exactly will a false flag carried out by Russia against Iran work?

What motivation is there for Russia to turn on Iran?

Are you seeing the flaw in the theory yet?

reply to post by Chadwickus


I was entertaining another member's theory. And nowhere did I implicate Russia in this hypothetical false flag.

The hypothetical possibility I mentioned was implicating Western involvement. Not only do you accuse me of saying something I clearly did not say, you also took my statement out of context, judging by your previous post history it was probably intentionally done.

Don't come here making up lies then get bent out of shape when I prove your statement to be completely false.

Please forgive me for not appreciating your dishonest tactics.

Associated Press are reporting that Sergei Novikov, a spokesman for the Rosatom nuclear agency says that sodium-22 is made in a particle accelerator, not by a nuclear reactor.

LINK

Maybe it's a false flag against the medical equipment black market?

reply to post by Corruption Exposed


I completely agree that it was FF operation with the purpose to convince the world that Iran's nuclear program is PEACEFUL. Also, gives a chance to TPTB to back off and keep the face.

reply to post by verschickter


We all understand that, wherever we live our political systems are bought. Why is it that no one can see that although these different countries appear to be at odds, there is a key word"appear" behind the scenes they are all singing from the same hymn sheet as it were, same as politics.

reply to post by PURIFIER


I never actually thought for certain that it was a FF. I only entertained the possibility of a FF in response to another member who mentioned it. As soon as you pointed out it was na-22 used for medicine, I automatically assumed that this had to have a less suspicious reason for being transported.

reply to post by Corruption Exposed


I understood that you just entertained the possibility. That's is exactly what I am doing now, FF op but with a different purpose by a different agency (Russians). Think about it, how many people in the world after reading the news are asking themselves this question: "So, Na-22 is used in medicine... Maybe Iranian program is for peaceful purposes?.." Makes successful op. Your opinion?

reply to post by Corruption Exposed


Sorry, there was no offend in my post. maybe its because english is not my native language. All is ok just discussion

edit: this happens often to me, I think you were offended by the word laughable, but this was the nearest word I found in my vocab. sometimes I get misunderstood because I used a "to heavy" word but its hard to sense this because english is not my first language.

reply to post by PURIFIER


That is an interesting possibility, and thank you for sharing.

Anything is possible. I don't like to speculate because certain members like to purposely take it the wrong way and accuse me of saying things I never said.

reply to post by verschickter


No worries. I apologize for the misunderstanding.

I also thank you for taking the time to clarify. It happens to me quite often as well.

reply to post by Corruption Exposed

I was entertaining another member's theory. And nowhere did I implicate Russia in this hypothetical false flag.

The hypothetical possibility I mentioned was implicating Western involvement.

You NOW mention western influence, that wasn't mentioned before, I thought the suggestion was russia setting up a false flag.

judging by your previous post history it was probably intentionally done.

Don't come here making up lies then get bent out of shape when I prove your statement to be completely false.

Please forgive me for not appreciating your dishonest tactics.

Oh, so pointing out that Russia themselves setting up a a false flag in their own country against an ally is a stupid leap of logic is lies now?

And I don't like your accusations against me either, if you're going to slander me, you better be able to back up your statements mate.

Otherwise stop running your mouth.

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
reply to post by verschickter

 

No worries. I apologize for the misunderstanding.

I also thank you for taking the time to clarify. It happens to me quite often as well.

No problem, created a signature because its anoying to clarify it every time
By the way, step down a bit with your attitude, the obvious flaws you are calling on my theory that isnt even a theory are obviously in your theory. See chadwickus post above.

reply to post by Chadwickus


I have backed up my statements by proving yours to be completely false. I did so by pointing out the incorrect statements you made. Do you always get so upset when you are proven to be incorrect?

I admit I can be stubborn but I'm willing to admit my mistakes, that seems to be a character trait that you lack. Don't worrry, we all make mistakes from time to time. You'll get over it, I promise

reply to post by Corruption Exposed


Let me get this straight...

You've proven my statement to be wrong by adding "western influence" to your story after I question you about it?

Stubborn isn't the word that comes to mind here.

Oh and I've admitted to making a mistake plenty of times before and I've made two in this thread.

The first for assuming you were talking about a Russian created false flag, I've already admitted this.

And the second for assuming I could engage in an adult conversation with you.

Clearly you're not there yet.

Have a nice day.

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by Corruption Exposed

 

Lose the attitude mate.

This is what you said:

I agree, a false flag must be considered. It's way too early for me to commit to any theory at this time. I won't lie, when it comes to this political arena, I can't help and consider false flag for any similar type of event.

So you agree that it must be considered, great, so how exactly will a false flag carried out by Russia against Iran work?

What motivation is there for Russia to turn on Iran?

Are you seeing the flaw in the theory yet?

edit on 16/12/11 by Chadwickus because: (no reason given)

Who says it needed to be Russia performing a FF? It could be Israel or the USA.
Just because this happened in Russia does not mean that Russians planned a FF to ensnare Iran, it just means they found radioactive material on a passenger. That passenger could have been set up by any nation in order to justify an attack on Iran.

In fact, it seems to benefit Israel and the USA more than anyone else.

It could persuade Russia to switch sides, it would allow heated political debate in the USA knocking those who are against attacking Iran, it would allow Israel to scream "told you so!" while hiding their own stockpile of unregulated and unmonitored nukes. This could do a whole lot for Israel and the US.

It wouldn't be hard to set up considering. You find someone willing to sell, pay someone willing to be a mule, and make contact with someone on the ground at the airport to make sure the alert is released into the public domain before it goes through the Kremlin.

Not exactly rocket science.

So to grab the strings again that lay trampled down in the dirt:

You assume that the FF-pullers are dumb enough to not recognize what is obvious: That you can not blame russia for it because they never would do this via an civil airport. Normaly, people that set up FF and have the real intentions to bring it to show, are usually not that dumb. They wouldnt stumble across what hit me in the first second...

Originally posted by PURIFIER
Russian news confirm the fact but say this isotope (Sodium 22) is used mostly in medicine. Other sources also do not mention that it can be used in nuclear weapons research.

Can anybody confirm that this isotope is indeed used mostly for medicine? Then it would explain why Russia blew the whistle.

edit on 16-12-2011 by PURIFIER because: (no reason given)

Excellent fact

Sodium is on the small side compared to fissionable elements, and it is to big for fusion reactions.

It is almost harmless.

reply to post by verschickter


How can my theory have flaws when I don't actually have a theory. I pointed out the obvious flaws in your first theory, and your second theory is even more flawed even though I was polite enough to entertain it for you. Chadwickus hasn't pointed out any flaws, all he has done is make untruthful statements while quoting other statements of mine in the intention of portraying them in the improper context.

No attitude here, it's just I feel obligated to point out certain things such as outright lies. I also will point out any flaws that I may find. This is a discussion after all, right?

If I present a flawed theory I invite you to shoot it down. Instead you have sunk to Chad's level and have decided to fabricate statements, an expampl of one of your fabricated statements is where you accused my theory to have flaws, when I actually haven't presented any actual theories other than to entertain another member's hypothetical theory.

Surely you would rather discuss the topic at hand rather than bicker over statements I never actually made. The two of you have turned this thread into a discussion of statements that were never made. I don't say this very often, but the two of you are trolling.

I say this not because you disagree with me, but because you're both accusing me of saying things I never said.

reply to post by detachedindividual


First, he didnt mentoined western influence, that was the point. The other point is in my post above