Ahmadinejad: Iran already a nuclear state, but has no intention of launching attack on Israel

page: 3
9
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Hijinx
 


Yes I remember the fears put up about our invasion of Iraq. How they had such a well armed air force. I seem to remember they hightailed it out of there pretty quickly.

The only real threat is from their air defense systems.




posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hijinx
reply to post by MidnightTide
 



I really don't think Iran would be stupid enough to nuke anyone, unless nuked themselves. You don't go through all the # they've been through saying they won't just to go ahead and do it.


If people understood Irans position on nuclear weapons, they would know that Iran has no intention of using one, let alone building one. Their religion doesn't allow them to use any nuke, Biological or chemical weapon. People should think about this. Iraq used cyanide and mustard as against Iranians in the 80's. The Iranian military wanted to do the same to Iraq but were not permitted to go down that path because it is against Islam. Why would they change their minds now? Islamic law is still the same?



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by DarknStormy

Originally posted by MidnightTide
Should have titled this thread as: Ahmadinejad: Iran already a nuclear state, but has no intention of telling anyone when / if they intend to launch attack on Israel.


Israel are the ones conspiring with the USA to attack Iran.. They have barely reached 20% enrichment and Israel are talking like they are at 99%. Israel are looking to launch some pre-emptive paranioa, not Iran.


100% agree with you brother, and sadly this is going to be one of the bloodiest battles we've seen since Vietnam, if and when it kicks off. It's going to get real nasty, real quick once that lit match is dropped. Israel is well with in range of tens of thousands of Iranian Ballistic missiles. That dinky Iron dome isn't going to do dick against hypersonic several thousand pound warheads. They had 10kg warhead bottle rockets getting in, traveling at subsonic speeds with out any guidance or accuracy.

Iran is so underestimated here. It's actually more frightening how Israel and the US think this will be a cake walk, so many lives are going to be lost to them because of it. I'm not saying Iran won't lose people either, but Israel may not walk away, and the US will have some wounds to lick. It won't really end either. You can't kill all the Iranians, and you can't occupy them, that would be a #ing massacre of the occupiers. It is not going to end well, if they can't get their heads straight. Iran has not, nor will it attack Israel.



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by DarknStormy
 


Iran has done hostile things in the past that go against the teachings of their religion. Remember the hostage crisis?

And who's to say that religion will always be their top priority. What if in ten years their new leader doesn't care about Islam?



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by buster2010

Originally posted by rockymcgilicutty
Ready for your next misinformation.





The IAF has purchased 125 advanced F-15I and F-16I warplanes, equipped with Israeli avionics and additional fuel tanks - tailor-made for long-range strike missions



www.bbc.co.uk...







edit on 6-2-2013 by rockymcgilicutty because: (no reason given)


It's over a thousand miles from Iran to Israel the article says the range on the planes would be around 1200 miles. How are the planes going to make it back? Glide? Not to mention these other countries allowing Israel to fly loaded planes over their air space.


You are truely a military neophyte aren't you.Have you ever heard of air refuling.The Israelis have tanker's.



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Spookycolt
reply to post by DarknStormy
 


Iran has done hostile things in the past that go against the teachings of their religion. Remember the hostage crisis?

And who's to say that religion will always be their top priority. What if in ten years their new leader doesn't care about Islam?


Your going to have to elaborate a bit more.. What hostage crisis?



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Spookycolt
reply to post by rockymcgilicutty
 


Yea and don't forget this.


Israel has at least seven KC-707 tankers that it could use for airborne refueling, Barrie said

It also has at least four KC-130H tankers, versions of the giant Hercules aircraft


www.cnn.com...

And this is only the stuff we know about.


Star for that,Thank's . In the artical they said they had 8-10 tankers.



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by DarknStormy
 


Oh my...are you serious?


Iran hostage crisis, international crisis (1979–81) in which militants in Iran seized 66 American citizens at the U.S. embassy in Tehrān, holding 52 of them hostage for more than a year. The crisis, which took place during the chaotic aftermath of Iran’s Islamic revolution (1978–79) and its overthrow of the Pahlavi monarchy, had dramatic effects on domestic politics in the United States and poisoned U.S.-Iranian relations for decades


www.britannica.com...



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Spookycolt
 


You do realize the Americans suffered losses in all of the Iraq conflicts right? You're aware it wasn't a walk in the park either? Were you there? Do you know anyone that was there? Ask them, they will tell you it wasn't worth it.

Iraq is not Iran. Iraq didn't have half the might Iran does, nor the technology, nor the know how. There will be extreme losses on all sides if the US or Israel gets into something with Iran. Don't kid yourself son. War is not a game, it is never easy.

www.globalsecurity.org...
Coalition deaths in Iraq
USA: 4,459
UK: 179
Italy: 33
Poland: 23
Ukraine: 18
Bulgaria: 13
Spain: 11
Denmark: 7
El Salvador: 5
Georgia: 5
Slovakia: 4
Latvia: 3
Romania: 3
Australia: 2
Estonia: 2
Netherlands: 2
Thailand: 2
Azerbaijan: 1
Czech Republic: 1
Fiji: 1
Hungary: 1
Kazakhstan: 1
South Korea: 1

360,000 U.S. veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts may have suffered traumatic brain injuries

30% of deployed troops suffer serious mental health problems.

It goes on and on. Do a google search. Iraq wasn't easy, Iran will be worse.

(second source wiki article Iraq casualties.)
edit on 6-2-2013 by Hijinx because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Spookycolt
reply to post by DarknStormy
 


Oh my...are you serious?


Iran hostage crisis, international crisis (1979–81) in which militants in Iran seized 66 American citizens at the U.S. embassy in Tehrān, holding 52 of them hostage for more than a year. The crisis, which took place during the chaotic aftermath of Iran’s Islamic revolution (1978–79) and its overthrow of the Pahlavi monarchy, had dramatic effects on domestic politics in the United States and poisoned U.S.-Iranian relations for decades


www.britannica.com...


Yeah because you could of been talking about any hostage crisis and I wanted to make sure we were on the same page here. Anyway, I know a little bit about this crisis where US citizens were held for 444 days. 13 women were released earlier and there were also demands made by the Iranians. What I find funny about the scenario is if they hate the USA so much, why didn't they just kill them all?


In February of 1980, the Iranian government issued a set of demands in return for freeing the hostages. They demanded the return of the former Shah to Iran, and certain diplomatic gestures including an apology for prior American actions in Iran (including the U.S.-aided coup against Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953) and a promise to not to interfere in the future.

Rejecting the Iranian demands, Carter approved an ill-conceived secret rescue mission: Operation Eagle Claw. On the night of April 24-25, 1980, as the first part of the operation, a number of C-130 transport airplanes rendezvoused with nine RH-53 helicopters at an airstrip in the Great Salt Desert of Eastern Iran, near Tabas. Two helicopters broke down in a sandstorm and a third one was damaged on landing. The mission was aborted, but as the aircraft took off again one helicopter clipped a C-130 and crashed, killing eight U.S. servicemen and injuring more than four. The dead bodies of some of these soldiers were paraded through the streets of Teheran during massive street protests, all in front of television cameras broadcasting worldwide. Mission material was left behind for the Iranians to discover and later display to the world's media. Carter's Secretary of State, Cyrus Vance, resigned because of his opposition to the action.


Apparently the USA acknowledged all the demands except the never apologised for there previous involvements in Iran. So why couldn't the USA just apologise and stay out of future Iranian affairs instead of being deceitful? The Iranians eventually released the hostages and with that, more of your soldiers were killed.. Now look at today, 23 years down the track and we have yous sticking your noses back into the Iranians affairs. Instead of the CIA causing issues, it will most likely be the MOSSAD this time.
edit on 6-2-2013 by DarknStormy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by DarknStormy
 


Well I certainly don't want to debate you on this issue because its off topic.

I was merely pointing out that Iran does have a history of violence so your point that they wouldn't use a nuke because its against their religion is a tad bit flawed.



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Spookycolt
reply to post by DarknStormy
 


Well I certainly don't want to debate you on this issue because its off topic.

I was merely pointing out that Iran does have a history of violence so your point that they wouldn't use a nuke because its against their religion is a tad bit flawed.


And what would you do if a Western backed dictator starved your people? If I seen my people starving, I would want that prick out of power. Now I find it ironic you can point fingers at Iran for having a violent history yet how many countries have they actually attacked over the last 200 years? If anyone has a violent past, maybe you should do some research on your own country.

The revolution occured because of a CIA coupe in 1953 which then led to a brutal dictator over the next 26 years. Check out what that a/hole done... He is up there with Saddam, if not worse.
edit on 6-2-2013 by DarknStormy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by DarknStormy
 


I'm certainly not pointing fingers at Iran nor am I denying that all countries have a history of violence.

I was simply counter-arguing a point you brought up.

And it still holds true. Iran's religious views do not preclude them from acting out violently. If it did it wouldn't matter who was responsible for their condition, they would simply ignore it due to their religion.

And we know that they do not behave that way.



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Spookycolt
reply to post by DarknStormy
 


I'm certainly not pointing fingers at Iran nor am I denying that all countries have a history of violence.

I was simply counter-arguing a point you brought up.


No worries..


And it still holds true. Iran's religious views do not preclude them from acting out violently. If it did it wouldn't matter who was responsible for their condition, they would simply ignore it due to their religion.


They had the opportuntiy to do it in the Iraq/Iran war and didn't, even after having those types of weapons used against them.. Of course they have the right to be violent, if everyone else can, why can't they? It doesn't mean they will resort to nuclear weapons to solve their issues though.


And we know that they do not behave that way.


Well we don't know because they have never had the capabilities and have never been in the position to use them. But its also pre-mature to demonise them because we assume they will use them if the capability becomes available to them. If we can use the Biological/Chemical weapons as an example (they have had them for a long time), then I would have to say they are responsible with those weapons considering they could of used them to defend themselves when Saddam was wiping out masses back in the 80's. Instead they seen the consequences of those weapons with tears rolling down their eyes.

Heres a couple of Quotes from Ahmadinejad, the leader who seems to leave a very good impression on some people regardless of who demonises him.


“A country, which possesses the biggest nuclear arsenal, embarks on proliferation of nuclear weapons in defiance of the safeguards (of NPT) and threatens to use them against others, is not competent to comment on peaceful use of nuclear know-how by other states,”


Could you imagine hearing that from a Western leader? And heres a couple more.


“The Islamic Republic of Iran reiterates its previously and repeatedly declared position that in accordance with our religious principles, pursuit of nuclear weapons is prohibited,”

“Our religion prohibits us from having nuclear arms and our religious leader has prohibited it from the point of view of religious law. It's a closed road,”


edit on 6-2-2013 by DarknStormy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 11:36 PM
link   
reply to post by DarknStormy
 





They had the opportuntiy to do it in the Iraq/Iran war and didn't, even after having those types of weapons used against them...


Yes Iran did you might want to check this source out.But they only did it in retaliation.Now as usual change the topic.

cns.miis.edu...



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 12:05 AM
link   
reply to post by rockymcgilicutty
 


Everything I have said is relevant to the thread..

- Why I don't believe Iran will use nuclear weapons and that includes against Israel

- Why Iran possibly will not persue nuclear weapons

- While Iran may be a violent culture, it doesn't mean they will use nuclear weapons to solve their problems

How is what I'm saying irrelevant to the topic? I see Nuclear Iran in the heading...



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 12:23 AM
link   
reply to post by DarknStormy
 


But one part of the content pointing out your opinion was incorrect ,right? I just want to hear you say it to prove you are not a aussie rod.
edit on 7-2-2013 by rockymcgilicutty because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by ausername
He has also said that Iran is prepared to destroy Israel if they attack Iran.

This is simply a warning to Israel, aimed as a deterrent to preemptive strikes.

There is more to this Egypt visit... IMO...

www.abovetopsecret.com...



Actually I was thinking more the opposite. Israel has refrained thus far from attacking Iran, much to the irritation of Iran. I think Iran is just itching to do their thing and in order to fast track they make the claim they are a nuclear power. They say they dont want to attack Israel while at the same time calling for its destruction.

I dont know about you, but that strategy will result in Israeli action towards Iran because of the claim and threats while at the same time giving Iran the ability to argue they didnt attack firtst but will try and finish in defense.

Its an interesting strategy however I dont think Iran has the intelligence to pull it off.



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 02:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by rockymcgilicutty
reply to post by DarknStormy
 


But one part of the content pointing out your opinion was incorrect ,right? I just want to hear you say it to prove you are not a aussie rod.



The use of CW by both sides created a number of dangerous precedents that continue to resonate. From a global perspective the use of CW by Iraq and allegedly by Iran demonstrated that third world weapons of mass destruction (WMD) proliferators could potentially generate significant tactical military and strategic political benefits from the use of such instruments in conflict


That source doesn't prove nothing. He uses both countries as an example and then goes on to say Iraq used Chemical weapons whilst Iran are alleged to of used Chemical weapons. Heres a good video about that war... Maybe some confessions will show you why I believe they didn't use WMD's against Iraq.



Part 2
Part 3

Part two is the video which goes into the use of Chemical weapons. You will see that the Iranians are at the scene of the Kurdish massacre... I'm pretty sure somewhere also it states that the use of those weapons was prohibited whether Iraq used them against Iran or not.

The one thing I find interesting about your source is that it doesn't even suggest one instance when Iran used chemical or biological warfare.. If it does, please show me... Everything I read leads straight back to Iraq.
edit on 7-2-2013 by DarknStormy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 03:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Spookycolt
 


Sorry, already been said.
edit on 7-2-2013 by LightAssassin because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
9
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join