It's official: Iran has nukes

reply to post by shapur


I am aware with the Old Guards plans. This is why they might provoke the U.S. Military.

The Old Guard has been challenged directly by Iranian Pro-Democracy Forces and the Democracy Movement was beaten back violently. It is only a matter of time before the Democracy Movement tries again.

In the event that the Old Guard feels it is losing hold of power it will order the Iranian Navy to block the Strait of Hormuz. The reason for this is that the Old Guard knows the U.S. Fifth Fleet will attack the Iranian Navy. In the event that happens which would result in the obliteration of all Iranian Navl Forces...the Old Guard can state that the death of so many young Iranian Sailors was the result of both the U.S. Navy and Israel's Navy and Military.

This will be impossible for anyone to prove faulse as the attack on Iran's Navy will happen at sea. The resulting outrage from the Iranian Population that they were supposedly attacked by Israeli Forces will solidify the Old Guard reign on power in Iran.

That is their plan.

Split Infinity

Originally posted by superman2012
reply to post by SplitInfinity

 

ROFL!!!
Darius II died in 405 BC. Is he back making nuclear weapons? What is your argument?

edit on 10-1-2013 by superman2012 because: (no reason given)

Sorry had to repost for laughter!

Nimrod is in on it too

Originally posted by ElohimJD

Originally posted by munkey66


Actually...the root definition of a INFIDEL is a person who does not stay either chaste or sexually faithful to their spouce.

Muslims tend to veiw the Western World's people as perverse and decadent as well as acting contrary to their beliefs of how one should act in a sexual manner.

Split Infinity

Come on man "fidelity" is the definition of faithfulness as it pertains to spouses/marrage. "In" means "not", so the root of the English word "Infidel" is "not faithful to ones spouse".

Simple logic concludes the root of the word fits splits definition. Your source uses the common definition as it is used today, but not the origin of the word itself.

Both are corrct, but to reply in this manner is silly. The root is EXACTLY as split mentioned, the use of it is as your source explained.

God Bless,

edit on 9-1-2013 by ElohimJD because: (no reason given)

Etymology doesn't work like that-- you're all wrong with regards to origin. And ironically, you made the same mistake you're criticizing munkey66 for-- the word "fidelity" is not so specific as to relate to marriage, at least not since its first recorded use. It's used that way today, but "fidel", the Latin root word, merely means "faith"or "trust" (it's related to the concept of "fealty"). Further, "fidelis" relates to "faithfulness" or "loyalty". Hence the United States Marine Corps' motto "Semper Fidelis" (Always Faithful). Obviously this does not relate specifically to marines remaining "married" to their country in the same way as you would marry a person. "Infidel" would merely refer to one who is not faithful full stop. If you really wanted to find a specific area the word is associated with you would do better to associate it with faithfulness to country than one's spouse.

The rest of this thread is pointless without a more reliable source, but even assuming Iran has nukes I doubt the US would overtly act to disarm them. But I expect we'll hear about a lot of (plausibly deniable) cyberwarfare and propaganda based operations performed by the US and allied nations against Iran.

Ya know, that other country .. America that has nukes.. has actually used them to murder millions of innocent civilians and yet you tools are fussing about Iran who may have a nuke when 9 other countries have them The U.S, The U.k, Russia, North Korea, France, Pakistan, India, Israel China- some of which are our enemies, some should be out enemies..

en.wikipedia.org...

Yet, none of these.. China, Pakistan, North Korea has ever used their nukes to murder - Only the United States has done that and that's even an actual war crime according to the treaties and conventions of the time - and Americans bark about Iran who does not have a strong history of being an aggressor unlike the United States..

You people are hypocrites and you make me sick. How's Iran going to defend itself against such tyrants of these 9 above without nukes? They can't, they are toast. You people are buying into Propaganda alright.. the U.S. propaganda. Open your eyes and deny ignorance! Doesn't matter that they their leader thinks the aggressor Israel should go away.. he talks a lot of crap - he hasn't shown the willingness to be the aggressor and they do need nukes as a deterrent.

I say if you deny them their right to defend themselves you need to first strip the murdering US of it's nukes and put it's leaders in front of a firing squad to answer for the sins of their predecessors - and I'm a true red white and blue American!

reply to post by JohnPhoenix


I agree with you and everything you said pretty much sums up the situation we are facing.

reply to post by SplitInfinity


I don't think what you are saying is going to happen...But it shows you have a very creative mind...That would be a very good scenario for a dooms day movie though.

First off, let me reply to those who called me a liar and asked why I would say official....my bad, worded it based on the article. That is why I stated right after the title, :"If this is true", I was pointing out that the ARTICLE stated Iran now possessed nuclear weapons. My apologies to those it offended, sincerely.


No one is saying the PEOPLE of Iran want to destroy Israel. The PEOPLE of Israel and Iran just want to live their lives. You can go back and forth all day he said, she said style. In the end, Israel represents democracy and a western style of living that doesn't work with Islamic views.

I hear people saying, well yeah Iran should have weapons of mass destruction, we do, why can't they? That seems like the argument a three year old would make. All nations are NOT equal in terms of stability in government nor leadership. If America elected an Islamist leader who said the Zionists should be slain, or a Christian leader who said Muslims need to be slain, I would not want him with the ability to send nuclear weapons off. Because fundamentalists don't think like your average person.

And you can say whatever about America being corrupt, and a bully, and shady dealings, and that we bully other countries. I don't agree with everything we do, but I appreciate the fact that I live here, for all of our flaws.

reply to post by BSFC123

You had me nodding my head along with you until this:

I hear people saying, well yeah Iran should have weapons of mass destruction, we do, why can't they? That seems like the argument a three year old would make. All nations are NOT equal in terms of stability in government nor leadership. If America elected an Islamist leader who said the Zionists should be slain, or a Christian leader who said Muslims need to be slain, I would not want him with the ability to send nuclear weapons off. Because fundamentalists don't think like your average person.

Extremists don't think like your average person. Fundamentalists(I assume you are talking about the Iranian theocracy) don't think like your average American, but then why should they? They aren't American.
Just because they don't think like you, act like you, dress like you, doesn't mean you have any reason to fear them. They are different. Their morals, religions, mores, norms, culture, dress, society are much different then ours. It is no reason to assume that they are building nuclear weapons when no intelligence agency on EITHER side have said that they are. I'm puzzled why people still believe everything they read on blogs.

Edit:
PS- Israel is not a democracy, it is a theocracy as well.

reply to post by shapur


Unfortunately I did not create this scenario.

Split Infinity

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by shapur

 

Unfortunately I did not create this scenario.

Split Infinity

Thank God you are not in charge of creating real life scenarios! Otherwise Iran would have the bomb and we would be heading to WW3!

reply to post by superman2012


If it was up to me...I would have told Russia the U.S. would bill them for all the Nukes we destroyed for them in former Soviet Territories....if they sold Nuke Tech to Iran.

Split Infinity

reply to post by SplitInfinity


I would too, if the US and a lot of other countries didn't sell Iran nuclear technology.

When it comes down to it, Iran don't have nukes. We have heard this crap all before in Iraq and there is still no evidence to this very day. Don't get caught in the snare... Iran are not looking to destroy anyone as much as your media outlets tell you they are the Sons of Satan etc.

reply to post by DarknStormy


Iran itself does not want to use Nukes or be the ones that actually cause a Nuclear Terrorist Attack...but the Iranian Old Religious Guard has no problem selling such tech.

Split Infinity

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by DarknStormy

 

Iran itself does not want to use Nukes or be the ones that actually cause a Nuclear Terrorist Attack...but the Iranian Old Religious Guard has no problem selling such tech.

Split Infinity

They don't have the tech..I think you are referring to Israel, where it was shown that they were going to sell nuclear bombs to an African country.

reply to post by superman2012


Israel had the scientists and tech to build both Nuclear Weapons as well as Nuclear Reactors. What Israel at first did not have was properly enriched Weapons Grade Nuclear Fuel. This fuel was at first provided many decades ago to Israel at the time multiple Arab states were attempting to invade that country by the United States.

This was COVERT and it is an action that has created much controvesy...however Israel did have the people and tech. to do this eventually on their own.

This is a double standard and has caused much hatred toward the U.S. however at that time many Arab states were backed by the Soviet Union which sold many Weapon Systems as well as had Soviet Advisors and Troops in those Arab countries.

The United States at the time had one major goal...to stop the planned Soviet Invasion of the Middle East and as Boris Yeltsin has provided...the proof and plans of the Soviet Military to carry out such an Invasion. Given such dire information the United States' decision to give Israel Nuclear Fuel was not such a large issue against even larger possible ramifications of Soviet Invasion...especially since after such an invasion the Soviets next step was to invade Europe.

Weighing this into account the world reaction to finding out the U.S. gave Israel Weapons Grade Uranium from the Oakridge Facility was not an issue. The U.S. was fighting a very real Silent Cold War where many people on both sides had died in secret and overall thoughts were in the realm of Planetary Security not just the issues of a single region.

Split Infinity

reply to post by SplitInfinity


Sorry you must have misunderstood me.

I meant Iran does not have the technology to build one, the means, or the want.

Israel was going to sell their nuclear bombs. They are the danger. Not Iran.

Originally posted by superman2012
reply to post by SplitInfinity

 

Sorry you must have misunderstood me.

I meant Iran does not have the technology to build one, the means, or the want.

Israel was going to sell their nuclear bombs. They are the danger. Not Iran.

The International Atomic Energy Commission from the U.N. has stated that Iran does in fact have both the Tech....which was purchased from the Russians...as well as the Nuclear Fuel of Reactor Grade...also purchased from the Russians....and the number of Centrifuges...10,000...based in Secret Underground Nuclear Facilities... discovered by the CIA and NSA and verified by the IAE as well as admitted by IRAN in that they did infact build both the Treaty Breaking Secret Facilities as well as built the completely unnecessary number for Enriching Uranium to Reactor Grade as only this number of Centrifuges would be needed to enrich Uranium to Weapons Grade as well as the fact under the NPT...Iran has the RIGHT to purchase Reactor Grade Fuel which would be a tiny amount of money compared to the expense of building 10,000 plus centrifuges to make it.

Iran has the Tech...the Weapons Grade Fuel and the resourses to build up to about 7 old style circa 1945 Fission Bombs. Such Nuclear Weapons are almost impossible to deliver unless driven in a large truck but if Iran was to sell Nuclear Fuel for the use in a Terrorist Attack using a Dirty Bomb...this could be a real problem.

Add to that Iranian desire and stated disires to wipe Israel off the map and we all have a big problem.

What is REALLY scary is what the United States might actually do if such a Terrorist Attack was perpetrated upon either U.S. Allies, Troops or U.S. Citizens.

If this happens then you can start to sweat as the current U.S. Plans for response would be to end this possible threat for all time should such a Nuclear Theat occur. I think what that means is far to terrible to contimplate.

Split Infinity

reply to post by SplitInfinity

Iran has the RIGHT to purchase Reactor Grade Fuel which would be a tiny amount of money compared to the expense of building 10,000 plus centrifuges to make it.

Under the NPT, they also have the RIGHT to enrich uranium for any peaceful purpose. There are NO reports that state Iran has BUILT or IS BUILDING a nuclear bomb.

Plus you know he never said he wanted to wipe Israel off the map. You have brought this up, time and time again. You get shown that this is a fallacy, and then you move on to the next thread, where you bring it up again. How are we to take anything you say seriously when you lie to try to make your point?

reply to post by superman2012


Yes...under the NPT...Iran has the right to enrich Uranium...to Reactor Grade ONLY. Not to Weapons Grade. Since Iran can purchase Reactor Grade Uranium for a tiny fraction of the money that it takes to build over 10,000 centrifuges and since using this many centrifuges is not consistent with enriching Uranium to Reactor Grade...it is obvious of their use.

I agree that Iran has not currently built a Bomb but then it is the Weapons Grade Fuel that is hard to get not the actual design of an old style Fission Bomb.

As far as the Wipe Israel off the map...Irans Leader has infact said this and has been quoted as saying it. On another post several ATS Members listed many sources of his quoted words.

Once Iran has developed the Weapons Grade Fuel it would take very little time to build the Bombs as such a design of three specific ones and of two that the U.S. used in 1945 and of one that Iran would use since it is using Uranium and not Plutonium.

Split Infinity