'Iran ready to wipe Israel off the map'

reply to post by Xcathdra


So if Iran withdrew from the NPT you would be ok with it and not give them anymore flak? Since they would in essence be doing exactly what Israel is doing?

Originally posted by mayabong
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

So if Iran withdrew from the NPT you would be ok with it and not give them anymore flak? Since they would in essence be doing exactly what Israel is doing?

edit on 28-2-2012 by mayabong because: (no reason given)

My personal opinion is to get rid of nukes all together, from all countries.. We dont need them anymore and the longer they are around the more chances of some wingnut snagging one. I would still give Iran flak however it would be based on my opinion instead of the flak I give based on the IAEA / NPT.

So long as Iran is a signatory to the treaty I feel they must comply with it. With that being said, and as much as I dislike the Iranian government, if they were to withdraw from the treaty and build nukes then that is their business, the same way its an internal issue for North Korea, India, Pakistan.

There is no law against developing nuclear weapons. The mindset is because they are extremely cost prohibited coupled with international pressure that countries would not pursue it. I do not think the Iranian government should have them regardless if they are signatories or not. However, thats my personal opinion using the hypothetical of Iran leaving the treaties.Pretty much the way I view North Korea..

reply to post by Xcathdra


Very interesting stance. Thanks for replying

Originally posted by mayabong
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Very interesting stance. Thanks for replying

You are welcome...

Why is my stance interesting?

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by mayabong
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

So if Iran withdrew from the NPT you would be ok with it and not give them anymore flak? Since they would in essence be doing exactly what Israel is doing?

edit on 28-2-2012 by mayabong because: (no reason given)

My personal opinion is to get rid of nukes all together, from all countries.. We dont need them anymore and the longer they are around the more chances of some wingnut snagging one. I would still give Iran flak however it would be based on my opinion instead of the flak I give based on the IAEA / NPT.

So long as Iran is a signatory to the treaty I feel they must comply with it. With that being said, and as much as I dislike the Iranian government, if they were to withdraw from the treaty and build nukes then that is their business, the same way its an internal issue for North Korea, India, Pakistan.

There is no law against developing nuclear weapons. The mindset is because they are extremely cost prohibited coupled with international pressure that countries would not pursue it. I do not think the Iranian government should have them regardless if they are signatories or not. However, thats my personal opinion using the hypothetical of Iran leaving the treaties.Pretty much the way I view North Korea..

edit on 28-2-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

What if the US were to give Iran nuclear weapons?

That way, no new nuclear weapons would be created, and your expectations would be furfilled.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
20-% is the basline for Highly enriched and its also the min requirement in order to sustain a nuclear blast. Iran already enriches their uranium to 20%

Complete and utter nonsense! Even the depleted Uranium in NATO bombs is more "effective". They have to further enrich it to over 90%, which would take a century if you take into account that it took them two years to enrich it to 20%.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Iran already has enriched uranium at 20%. There excuse is its needed for the medical research. The problem with that answer is its over the required max (12%-19%).

So? Where is the problem, 19% or 20%? Who the hell cares? It is NOT enough for a nuke! You don't seriously want to discuss with me a difference between 19,75% (not 19% as you claim) and 20%. Highly enriched Uranium needs a concentration of >20% not =20% and even Wikipedia states that 20% is INEFFICIENT! How do you threaten, not to say destroy Israel with a INEFFICIENT bomb? It is just ridiculous.

The reactor near Tehran is for medical purposes only. The US knows it, the EU knows it, Israel knows it. It was delivered by the US for that purpose. Calling it an excuse is major BS! Actually Iran traded enriched Uranium for medical purposes with Turkey and Brasil a couple of years back.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Ahmadenijad also claimed they have the ability to enrich up to 80%, with 85% being the baseline most countries use for a nuke.

There you go. Now we get closer to the 90%, which is necessary to build a nuke. You just debunked yourself.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Actually his answer is based on Irans current program. The US has said the same thing, its all about the ability to make one. You guys keep ignoring the issue by trying to argue the problem is with something else.

You are the one twisting and turning facts and speculating about something you have no evidence of.

Originally posted by XcathdraIts ability -
Iran has increased it processed uranium output - Its based on the curren program in Iran, how long would it take them to put a bomb together.

I proved to you by using public facts from the IAEA reports and logical thinking that your claims and accusations are utter nonsense.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
This is why the IAEA wanted to visit Parchin - It supposedly has an explosion chamber, which is something a civilian program doesn't require.

"Supposedly"? Is that all you got? In combination with the facts I gave you the "supposedly" becomes a "not existing" until you have further proof. Where does that "supposedly" come from? Who gave that "info" to the IAEA?

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Even funnier is the Iranian government latest response to the IAEA and site inspections. Iran will agree to them (ignroing the fact they ae required to) provided the IAEA provides a list of site and specifics at which point Iran would "discuss" and come back with an answer sometime later.

They won't build a nuke within a few months! It is their right as a sovereign state! It is not like they said they will reply in 10 years. Anyway there is no proof that this explosion chamber exists, and we don't know where the IAEA got that info from. If Iran says it is not for nuclear purposes, they can deny access at any time. Basically USrael can claim that any site in Iran is nuclear and use the IAEA as a spy agency.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
You guys really need to quit using each others talking points... As far as the thread goes you, nor any of the other Iranian cheerleaders, have not even bothered to address the topic. Instead you guys go after Israel and drive the conversation into areas that are rediculous.

As soon as someone bombards you with facts and logical thinking you switch into defense mode. That is what I call ridiculous.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
No sources from you or them refuting the info I posted - I guess by using Arab / Iranian media was unfailr since you guys can't claim the western propoganda... Oh wait... You already did that, with no proof.

You were given numerous links with proof that you are spilling lies and hatred. I debunked you with two posts.

Last, but not least I quote the NPT:

Article IV: 1. Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of this Treaty.

Therefore the West and Israel are guilty of violating the NPT, by discriminating and threatening Iran and that on a daily basis!

Over and out!

reply to post by Xcathdra


Xcat I think you just missed your time in the sand, and hope Romney will lower the enlistment standards like Bush did! You need this war dont you? At least you think you do!

Your blood lust is pure evil!

Originally posted by guohua
Please, Lets see a Source,,, Show Me When and To Whom Israel Threatened death and Destruction with Nuclear Weapons.

Israel will consider "all options" to prevent Iran from producing nuclear weapons, Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz said in an interview published Wednesday, marking the latest in a series of Israeli threats against Iran's nuclear program.[..]

"All options have to be taken into account to prevent it," he was quoted as saying.[..]

www.foxnews.com...

articles.cnn.com...:WORLD

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

Some Zionists even threatened Europe and the rest of the world with nukes

An Israeli professor and military historian hinted that Israel could avenge the holocaust by annihilating millions of Germans and other Europeans.

Speaking during an interview which was published in Jerusalem Friday, Professor Martin Van Crevel said Israel had the capability of hitting most European capitals with nuclear weapons.

“We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets of our air force.”

Creveld, a professor of military history at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, pointed out that “collective deportation” was Israel’s only meaningful strategy towards the Palestinian people.

“The Palestinians should all be deported. The people who strive for this (the Israeli government) are waiting only for the right man and the right time. Two years ago, only 7 or 8 per cent of Israelis were of the opinion that this would be the best solution, two months ago it was 33 per cent, and now, according to a Gallup poll, the figure is 44 percent.”

emsnews.wordpress.com...


Where did I hear the word "deported" before? Oh right it was the Nazis who used it.


All that despite the fact, that there is no evidence!

And before you even start arguing about the fact, that Israel is claiming, that they just defend themselves, Iran is saying the same thing!

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
What if the US were to give Iran nuclear weapons?

That way, no new nuclear weapons would be created, and your expectations would be furfilled.

edit on 29-2-2012 by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi because: (no reason given)

Actually no it wouldn't. I said I would like to see them all go away. If Iran withdraws from the treaties they can do pretty much do what they want. My view of Iran is that of North Korea... Neither country should be going down the nuke road. Just because N. Korea withdrew and pursued a nuke program doesn't mean I approve / endorse the action.

As I said there is no law that prevents a country from going down the nuke road if they are not signatories.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
What if the US were to give Iran nuclear weapons?

That way, no new nuclear weapons would be created, and your expectations would be furfilled.

edit on 29-2-2012 by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi because: (no reason given)

Actually no it wouldn't. I said I would like to see them all go away. If Iran withdraws from the treaties they can do pretty much do what they want. My view of Iran is that of North Korea... Neither country should be going down the nuke road. Just because N. Korea withdrew and pursued a nuke program doesn't mean I approve / endorse the action.

As I said there is no law that prevents a country from going down the nuke road if they are not signatories.

Iran is doing what they want- developing civilian nuclear energy facilities. Their commitment to the NNPT complements this.

I fail to see the problem in this logic, aside from how some people blindly scream about Iran doing something that it isn't for reasons that aren't true.

Originally posted by ALF88
Complete and utter nonsense! Even the depleted Uranium in NATO bombs is more "effective". They have to further enrich it to over 90%, which would take a century if you take into account that it took them two years to enrich it to 20%.

It did not take Iran 2 years to reach 20%. I have no idea where you are pulling that info from so if you could kindly link it.

Again 20% is the bottom baseline for a nuke.

Originally posted by ALF88
So? Where is the problem, 19% or 20%? Who the hell cares? It is NOT enough for a nuke! You don't seriously want to discuss with me a difference between 19,75% (not 19% as you claim) and 20%. Highly enriched Uranium needs a concentration of >20% not =20% and even Wikipedia states that 20% is INEFFICIENT! How do you threaten, not to say destroy Israel with a INEFFICIENT bomb? It is just ridiculous.

Iran has no programs that require the higher 20% enrichment.

Apparently you did not read the article then -

Source - Wiki Uranium enrichment

Highly enriched uranium (HEU)

Highly enriched uranium (HEU) has a greater than 20% concentration of 235U or 233U. The fissile uranium in nuclear weapons usually contains 85% or more of 235U known as weapon(s)-grade, though for a crude, inefficient weapon 20% is sufficient (called weapon(s)-usable)[.i];[2][3] in theory even lower enrichment is sufficient, but then the critical mass for unmoderated fast neutrons rapidly increases, approaching infinity at 6%235U.[4] For critical experiments, enrichment of uranium to over 97% has been accomplished.[5]

Originally posted by ALF88
The reactor near Tehran is for medical purposes only. The US knows it, the EU knows it, Israel knows it. It was delivered by the US for that purpose. Calling it an excuse is major BS! Actually Iran traded enriched Uranium for medical purposes with Turkey and Brasil a couple of years back.

Source please for the info.

Originally posted by ALF88
There you go. Now we get closer to the 90%, which is necessary to build a nuke. You just debunked yourself.

Actually I did not.. What did occur is your inability to actually read what people post. Had you done that you would have seen I was referring to a conversation Ahmadinejad had about enrichment. He stated Iran has the ability to refine into the 80s% range and did not understand what the fuss was about.

Originally posted by ALF88
You are the one twisting and turning facts and speculating about something you have no evidence of.

Ive posted my sources.. However I get the impression you just ignore them because you are once again having this stupid circular argument.

Originally posted by ALF88
I proved to you by using public facts from the IAEA reports and logical thinking that your claims and accusations are utter nonsense.

Actually you did not.. .

Originally posted by ALF88
"Supposedly"? Is that all you got? In combination with the facts I gave you the "supposedly" becomes a "not existing" until you have further proof. Where does that "supposedly" come from? Who gave that "info" to the IAEA?

"Supposedly" is all you guys need to go after Israel.. Why the double standard? While people have cited some Israeli guy who supposedly released the info, which people take as gospel yet when the same thing occurs in Iran you guys start your typical round robin games, like your post here.

Secondly IAEA inspectors can inspect any of the facilities that are related to the nuclear program. Something they are continually refusing to do.

Originally posted by ALF88
They won't build a nuke within a few months! It is their right as a sovereign state! It is not like they said they will reply in 10 years. Anyway there is no proof that this explosion chamber exists, and we don't know where the IAEA got that info from. If Iran says it is not for nuclear purposes, they can deny access at any time. Basically USrael can claim that any site in Iran is nuclear and use the IAEA as a spy agency.

Again you miss the point. Iran is a signatory to the NPT / IAEA. You can constantly repeat your line over and over about sovereignty. It does not change the fact Iran signed the treaties = no nukes.

If Iran wants them, then withdraw from the treaty... Easy as that.

Originally posted by ALF88
As soon as someone bombards you with facts and logical thinking you switch into defense mode. That is what I call ridiculous.

Well for starters you guys have not brought any facts. Secondly you have brought no sources. Third I have not gone into any defense mode, although your constant attempts to be witty by trying to portray people as something they are not apparently knows no bounds.

Check a few paragraphs up where you took what I said out of context.. Something you are very good at doing.

Originally posted by ALF88
You were given numerous links with proof that you are spilling lies and hatred. I debunked you with two posts.

You provided no sources to support the claims you are making in defense of Iran.

Originally posted by ALF88
Last, but not least I quote the NPT:
[

Article IV: 1. Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of this Treaty

.

You may want to read info before posting it to support your claims.. Not to mention you once again took something and puposely tried to pass it off as something its not. Emphasis above added by me.

Key word - PEACEFUL

A nuclear weapons program is not peaceful.

Originally posted by ALF88
Therefore the West and Israel are guilty of violating the NPT, by discriminating and threatening Iran and that on a daily basis!

Wow... you really need to pay attention... Israel is not violating the NPT because they are NOT a signatory to it. You guys can keep beating that dead horse in an effort to shift focus, but in the end its doesnt change the fact Israel is not subject to the treaty. Neither is India, Pakistan and North Korea.

threatening and discriminating.. thanks funny.
I will point out that once again you have a double standard. For being an Iranian cheerleader you apparently dont bother to listen to the Iranian government, specifically death to Israel / America / Wipe Israel off the map (stated by the Iranian defense minister in addition to the top turbin stating Israel needs to be cut out like a cancer.

Yup.. no threats there... Again, nice double standard.

Originally posted by ALF88
Over and out!

yup

Originally posted by Donkey_Dean
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Xcat I think you just missed your time in the sand, and hope Romney will lower the enlistment standards like Bush did! You need this war dont you? At least you think you do!

Your blood lust is pure evil!

edit on 29-2-2012 by Donkey_Dean because: (no reason given)

Can I get a care check on aisle 2. Care check on aisle 2 please....

I dont advocate war.. However there are some countries on this planet, like Iran, that does.

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
Iran is doing what they want- developing civilian nuclear energy facilities. Their commitment to the NNPT complements this.

Again you guys just flat out ignore the issue / facts when it doesn't help your argument. Iran is in violation of the NPT and those facts and link shave been constantly posted.. Next step would be for you and the others to read them.

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
I fail to see the problem in this logic, aside from how some people blindly scream about Iran doing something that it isn't for reasons that aren't true.

Yeah its almost as bad when people scream about Israel doing something that is not true. When you decide to take your blinders off and actually read the info you will see the specific issues the IAEA has layed out that Iran is ignoring. All issues which are part of their obligation to the treaty.

Or is it your position that the IAEA / NPT cant be trusted?

This viral meme is an internet hoax.

"Iran is ready to wipe Israel off the map"

Mahmoud never said it.

The Juan Cole Interpretation cannot be debunked.

Juan Cole, a University of Michigan Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History, agrees that Ahmadinejad's statement should be translated as, "the Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e eshghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).[12] According to Cole, "Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to 'wipe Israel off the map' because no such idiom exists in Persian." Instead, "he did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse."

The word 'map' does not occur in the quotation of President Mahmoud.

If you can find the Persian word for 'map' in that quotation I'll give you 1$ billion dollars.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


And if you read the the op in its entirety you would have seen the Iranian Defense Minister stated Israel will be wiped off the map. The Ayatollah recently stated Israel must be cut out like a caner, followed up with and it will.

I will ask you the same question I have asked some other people, who have refused to even engage the conversation because they cant spin it in their favor.

Iran, Hezbullah and Hamas do not recognize Israel. To them its Palestine for Palestinians and nothing more. People like to constantly argue its the "Zionist" regime they want to wipe out. The problem people are ignoring is if the "zionist" regime is wiped out, then what?

Do you honestly think Iran, Hamas and Hezbullah are going to call a cease fire so Israel can elect a new government? The answer by the way is no - which will result ion Israel being wiped off the map.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Your scenario is a dangerous fantasy. If you can't foresee any better outcome than conflict with Iran then, I suppose, the following quote should not embarrass you at all.

Despite the hype surrounding Iran's pursuit of nuclear technology, the country's leaders are not likely to develop weapons unless attacked... In addition the Iranians are unlikely to initiate or intentionally provoke a conflict.

Source Testifying before the US Senate, Armed Services Committee on February 16 this year, James Clapper, America’s Director of National Intelligence. Source www.abc.net.au...

Despite the hype, your hype and the hype of others, James Clapper has refuted you. And Juan Cole refutes you.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Who is Dudi Cohen? Is he a qualified reporter or a qualified hack? Does Dudi do his own translations from Persian or does Dudi get his translations from elsewhere?


.... added ..... this should be interpreted as a neutral question without risk or reward. who is dudi cohen really?

Originally posted by Xcathdra
It did not take Iran 2 years to reach 20%. I have no idea where you are pulling that info from so if you could kindly link it.

You just have to read my first post and the IAEA reports. As you prepared all your disinformation on this forum regarding Iran very well, you know where to find it and that it is true what I said.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Again 20% is the bottom baseline for a nuke.

Even below that it is possible to build a nuke, as you quoted from Wikipedia below. So who cares? In theory everything is possible. It just doesn't make any sense, just like all your comments on this subject.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Iran has no programs that require the higher 20% enrichment.

And they are not enriching Uranium higher than that. The difference between the 19,75% (medical use) and high enriched Uranium is 0,25%. Don't make yourself look like a fool please!

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Wikipedia - Highly enriched uranium (HEU)

It is INEFFECIENT, as your quote says and that is the point. How in the world is Iran going to "nuke" Israel with this kind of bomb, much less "wiping it off the map" as you liar are falsely claiming time and time again. Every nation that is enriching Uranium and that is a lot has the possibility IN THEORY to develop a nuclear weapon, yet only Iran is subdue to this kind of harassment and discrimination and all that despite the fact that they don't have or develop a nuclear weapon. You got no evidence for your claims and accusations!

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Source please for the info

It is public knowledge, but fine...

Under the United States Atoms for Peace program it was equipped with 5-megawatt pool-type nuclear research reactor, named the Tehran Research Reactor‎ (TRR),[30] which became operational in 1967 fueled by highly enriched uranium.[31][32] [..]

en.wikipedia.org...

Iran to ship uranium to Turkey in nuclear swap

www.haaretz.com...

Iran 'accepts Brazil mediation on nuclear fuel deal'

news.bbc.co.uk...

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Ive posted my sources.. However I get the impression you just ignore them because you are once again having this stupid circular argument.

Right back at ya.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
"Supposedly" is all you guys need to go after Israel.. Why the double standard? While people have cited some Israeli guy who supposedly released the info, which people take as gospel yet when the same thing occurs in Iran you guys start your typical round robin games, like your post here.

It is a well known fact that Israel has nukes. They even sold some to South Africa. That is public knowledge as well, and that guy you and others were talking about, was sent to a "dark hole" for years, and when he was released, he was put under house arrest. Is that the way you treat people, when they said something, that you / they claim is non existent? How naive do you think people are or should I ask how naive are you?

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Secondly IAEA inspectors can inspect any of the facilities that are related to the nuclear program. Something they are continually refusing to do.

Utter nonsense again, they can visit at any time, and if there is a problem, Iran checks it, and the inspectors can come back.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
It does not change the fact Iran signed the treaties = no nukes.

They don't develop or have nukes. Therefore you are waisting your time and energy.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
If Iran wants them, then withdraw from the treaty... Easy as that.

Where did they say they want them? Sources please!

It is your assumption that they want them. You got ZERO evidence, ZERO, NADA, NULL, choose your language.

Originally posted by XcathdraYou may want to read info before posting it to support your claims.. Not to mention you once again took something and puposely tried to pass it off as something its not. Emphasis above added by me.
Key word - PEACEFUL

A nuclear weapons program is not peaceful.

It is PEACEFUL. Where exactly is your proof, that their program is a "nuclear weapons program"? You have NO evidence.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
threatening and discriminating.. thanks funny.
I will point out that once again you have a double standard. For being an Iranian cheerleader you apparently dont bother to listen to the Iranian government, specifically death to Israel / America / Wipe Israel off the map (stated by the Iranian defense minister in addition to the top turbin stating Israel needs to be cut out like a cancer.

There you go, now you are moving towards attacking the person not the argument, something you blamed others of before. With all due respect, you are a hypocrite and repeating your lies won't make them true.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Yup.. no threats there... Again, nice double standard.

As I have proven in one of my last posts Zionists did threaten Europe and Iran with death and destruction, even nuclear destruction, more than once.

reply to post by guohua


I Am At Home.