Iran May Be Close to a Plutonium Bomb, German Defense Experts Warn

reply to post by DarknStormy

Dear DarknStormy,

Thank you, thank you. I'm so grateful to find a poster that doesn't jump to insults or stupidity as their favorite response. Great, let's take a look at this.

Well it depends who story you choose to believe. Iran have never said they want Israel removed, only the regime in Israel which is a big difference. I'm sure if Iran wanted to wipe Israel from the planet they would of already tried.

Ok, let's accept that Iran only wants to change Israel's government. To what? Considering that the present government was elected, is Iran hoping for something entirely different? Non-Jewish, perhaps? Maybe a government not dedcated to it's own survival? Would Iran end all hostility if Israel had new elections? Or would they say, "You need to put in a government that agrees with what we want?"

The Islamic countries as a group did try to destroy Israel completely. Only conventional forces were used, but Israel beat them back. If several countries weren't able to take Israel, I can see why Iran isn't going to try it alone.

But Iran are not threatening, killing Israelis and using Hamas to blame Iran is ridiculous. Do we blame the USA, Saudi Arabia and Europe for the killings of innocent civilians in Syria because they are weaponising the opposition?

In my own mind, I quite agree with you. I find no satisfaction in blaming Iran for the rockets and the deaths, although a case could be made. My main concern, and I think yours as well, is what do we do now to stop the anger and the killing. We are where we are, and if we keep looking back, we'll stay in conflict.

If we are willing to blame people aligned with Iran, we must blame ourselves also for the atrocities which are being committed because our leaders allow jihadists in other countries to fluorish with our hard earned money and weapons systems.

I'm not sure I understand this clearly. Are you saying that if we blame Hamas, which fired the rockets, we have to blame ourselves for not killing all the other jihadists? I'm a little confused. Oh. Wait a minute. I think I've got it. By sending weapons to a group of jihadists in Syria (fighting other Muslims) we have to take the same blame we've put on Hamas? I'm still unclear.

We also must be held accountable for what is happening in Syria and other countries across the Middle East. Until we can set an example to the rest of the world (which will most likely never happen btw) Israel and the Middle East will always be in a constant fight.

Are we as accountable as the Syrian government or the rebels? I would think the vast majority of the responsibility must be theirs. I (and more important, the US government) seem to have no idea how to fix Syria. Weapons are coming in from everywhere, including Russia. How are we supposed to stop it?

Until we can set an example to the rest of the world

What kind of example would that be? Agreeing not to sell weapons to anybody? I'm honestly not sure what's meant here. And if we do set an example, how do we know the rest of the world will follow it?

Anyway, thanks again for the post.

With respect,
Charles1952

Drunken parrot. Whilst Its very true that the US and her allies havent used the bomb since Nagasaki. they much prefer the stealth method these days. This involves bathing "rogue" nations in depleted uranium, and causing half of newborns in that country birth defects. To suggest therefore that Bagdad isnt some smouldering pile of radioactive debris is only partially correct

Im really not sure which is actually worse? You? After all, under the latest stealth use of Nukes, I wouldnt be surprised if the death toll is at least the equivalent, if not much worse.

Not only that, but in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, until we sent teams in there as experimental cannon fodder, at least only the "enemy"***** got it.- - Whereas now of course, under the revised nuclear deployment option, we get our own troops full of it too.

****** I placed the enemy in exclamation marks, since how innocent civilians who constituted the vast majority of victims can be classed as the enemy often escapes me, when you consider that the vast majority of them probably didnt want a damn war in the first place, just like anyone else in their right miind..

About the only people who really want war, are those selling us the bombs.- I say us, because we pay for em.

As for the OP. - 6 words - "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction"

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot
Are you familiar with the recent history of Israel?

I am familiar with all of Israel's history.

I don't support the policy of the blind eye that is turned by the world towards Israeli's undeclared nuclear arsenal either but the situation under which Israel acquired the bomb is much different than the current situation with Iran.

Hows that so? Israel were being threatened by surrounding Arab states in our eyes. Iran are now being threatened by Israel.. Too me, that gives Iran every right to build weapons in defence of their country whether it is Israel threatening to bomb Nuclear stations, The USA applying sanctions to suffocate Iran or any other reason that will threaten their way of life.

Israel had been simultaneously attacked by her neighbors in full scale invasions with the aim of destroying the Israeli state 3 times in less than 25 years when they acquired the bomb.

Again, there are underlying reasons for those attacks which you will never hear from any government or mainstream media in the West. We only hear the feel sorry for Israel story when the likely truth is that they brought those wars on themselves. The unification of Israel was always sketchy to say the least.

In short the simple answer is the world trusts Israel more than they trust the Mullah's pulling the strings in Iran.

Apparently over 100 non-aligned states/countries back the Iranian stance when it comes to nuclear technology. Roughly half of them are Islamic states also. Going by those figures, I would say that most of the world understand and back Iran to a certain degree and just because they are not the likes of the USA, France, England or even Israel, doesn't mean there support isn't valid. But good luck hearing that from a Western stand point. Iran are not as isolated as everyone thinks and if countries like Russia and China also will not cease there dealings with Iran, I don't see what the big issue is. Obviously they can be approached and I'm sure if they were to cross that line, they would be pulled back into line.

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by DarknStormy

 

Ok, let's accept that Iran only wants to change Israel's government. To what? Considering that the present government was elected, is Iran hoping for something entirely different? Non-Jewish, perhaps? Maybe a government not dedcated to it's own survival? Would Iran end all hostility if Israel had new elections? Or would they say, "You need to put in a government that agrees with what we want?"

I don't think it is so much a "Jewish" problem but more of who is in control of Israel. Zionists are a political group and as much as they do represent the state of Israel, I cannot say the same for the Jewish population in general. Remember, Orthodox Jews live in peace amongst the Iranians also.

The Jewish issue is not the concern. From what I can gather, Iran have an issue with the powers in Israel, not the civilians, especially not the Jewish population. Even before the Zionists found there feet in Palestine, Jews and Arabs lived together in peace. It was only after the Zionists arrived that things spiralled out of control.

The Islamic countries as a group did try to destroy Israel completely. Only conventional forces were used, but Israel beat them back. If several countries weren't able to take Israel, I can see why Iran isn't going to try it alone.

One of the countries that didn't try through the last century was Iran. So how would we know whether they would take them on themselves or not? They would for sure. A 7000 year old proud civilisation who has been through this time and time again. They would take on the world even if it meant every last one of them perishing.

In my own mind, I quite agree with you. I find no satisfaction in blaming Iran for the rockets and the deaths, although a case could be made. My main concern, and I think yours as well, is what do we do now to stop the anger and the killing. We are where we are, and if we keep looking back, we'll stay in conflict.

But with the current systems in place, the Hypocracy, looking forward isn't any different. We can call for peace all we want but somewhere down the line, we will point a finger at someone else and we are back to square one.

I'm not sure I understand this clearly. Are you saying that if we blame Hamas, which fired the rockets, we have to blame ourselves for not killing all the other jihadists? I'm a little confused. Oh. Wait a minute. I think I've got it. By sending weapons to a group of jihadists in Syria (fighting other Muslims) we have to take the same blame we've put on Hamas? I'm still unclear.

What I'm saying is that we blame Iran for weaponising Hamas.. OK, lets say they are responsible for the rockets flying into Israel. When we look across the border into Syria, only a year or so ago I seen a peaceful country regardless of what people think of Assad. A year or so later, we have foreign militias invading Syria and taking payments and weapons from western aligned countries.

If we are to blame Iran for what Hamas is launching into Israel, why are we, the West not being blamed for the thousands of civilians which are being murdered in Syria? We are supplying the opposition which have terrorist elements sabotaging what the resistance stood for in the first place yet we continue to fund, weaponise and recognise a coalition for Syria even though the Syrian people do not get the chance to vote those people in to control their country. What we blame Iran and some other countries for, we are doing the exact same thing behind the curtain.

What kind of example would that be? Agreeing not to sell weapons to anybody? I'm honestly not sure what's meant here. And if we do set an example, how do we know the rest of the world will follow it?

If our governments would stop funding and weaponising suspected terrorist organisations, then we could point all the fingers we want towards Iran and other non-compliant countries. Because we are stupid enough to fund those groups, we really dont have the right to be telling anyone what to do. Whats to say down the track, if the FSA are successful of course, that they are not going to turn on us and we have another situation where we are trying to oust another leader like Assad? We are not solving any problems by inciting violence in the Middle East and we certainly shouldn't be telling others whats right and wrong when we are committing the same acts against them.

Anyway, thanks again for the post.

Pleasure. Oh, sometimes it may seem I am very anti Israel, that is not the truth. I see posters who are very anti Muslim to the point its almost racist and I can get very biased towards them sometimes. I don't hate Israel or any other country.. I don't like the double standards which we are given.. It is deceitful and every western government should be ashamed that they would lie to their people like that. We are all guilty of stupidity somewhere down the line.

Originally posted by markatUCR
Drunken parrot. Whilst Its very true that the US and her allies havent used the bomb since Nagasaki. they much prefer the stealth method these days. This involves bathing "rogue" nations in depleted uranium, and causing half of newborns in that country birth defects. To suggest therefore that Bagdad isnt some smouldering pile of radioactive debris is only partially correct

Im really not sure which is actually worse? You? After all, under the latest stealth use of Nukes, I wouldnt be surprised if the death toll is at least the equivalent, if not much worse.

Not only that, but in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, until we sent teams in there as experimental cannon fodder, at least only the "enemy"***** got it.- - Whereas now of course, under the revised nuclear deployment option, we get our own troops full of it too.

****** I placed the enemy in exclamation marks, since how innocent civilians who constituted the vast majority of victims can be classed as the enemy often escapes me, when you consider that the vast majority of them probably didnt want a damn war in the first place, just like anyone else in their right miind..

About the only people who really want war, are those selling us the bombs.- I say us, because we pay for em.

As President Eisenhower famously quoted upon leaving office "Beware the military industrial complex"

Personally, I would like to believe that our modern age of instantaneous global communication goes a long way in diffusing the level of conflict that requires the obliteration of innocents to achieve its goal.

It gets a lot harder to hate somebody you have never met so badly that you wish total destruction upon them when they have a name and face.

Look at the war with Japan.

A big part of Japanese society was fascinated by the west and looked towards their behavior as a role model.

What Japan saw was that Imperialism was the way to build a great nation and figured they would add the wealth of Manchuria to their holdings in a particularly brutal fashion.The Japanese didn't see themselves as doing anything that Britain, France or the U.S. weren't and underestimated the American reaction.

The response from the west was to demand Japan leave and finally the U.S. embargoed all oil sales from there own colonial holdings in the Philippines.

Japan, being an Island nation with few resources of their own and a huge military machine to power, took the U.S. embargo as an act of war and decided that if the west wouldn't sell it to them they would just take it.

This lead to the Japanese planning the ancillary attack on Pearl Harbor to neutralize the U.S. Pacific fleet while they seized the Philippines and a big part of Indochina.

Japan lost the war the day they attacked the west, there was no way they could compete with the American industrial capability and the really tragic part is that many Japanese knew it.

A big part of Japanese nationalism was the resurgence of the Samurai's Bushido code, death before dishonor, which set the stage for a protracted serious of battles across the Pacific with the IJN and IJA essentially fighting to the death again and again and again.

The U.S. government propaganda machine went into full swing to dehumanize the Japanese ( ever seen the war time Bugs Bunny cartoons?) and by the time the bomb was dropped a large percentage of Americans believed that is was both acceptable and necessarily to murder every Japanese citizen to end the war.

Japan's propaganda machine did the same, ever seen the footage of Japanese mothers throwing their children and then themselves off of cliffs in Okinawa and Saipan by the thousands, rather than surrender to U.S. forces who they had been told were cannibals and rapists.

I don't believe the war would have escalated to the point of effectively destroying Japan if the nameless masses of both nations had the ability to instantaneously share personnel communications like we have today.

As you said, nobody likes war.

reply to post by Drunkenparrot


I'll second that, great explanation

Originally posted by DarknStormy

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot
Are you familiar with the recent history of Israel?

I am familiar with all of Israel's history....

DarknStormy, with due respect, who were the aggressors in the The Arab-Israeli War of 1948, the Six Day War in 1967 and the Yom Kippur War in 1973?

Would it be fair to say Israel was fighting a war of national survival?

Originally posted by DarknStormy
reply to post by Drunkenparrot

 

I'll second that, great explanation

Thank you.

And if I may echo Charles1952, it is nice to discuss the subject from different viewpoints politely and respectfully.

reply to post by Drunkenparrot


Then why doesnt the US just lead by example removing ALL of their nuclear arms from the stockpile? What makes the US (Mind you that I'm from and still live here) so special to be able to own them when where the ONE country that's used it?? You can't ignore history and you can't just chalk it up to the times... When the US used the nuclear weapons on civilian populations it wasn't some unknown, the US new exactly what they were doing and it was a reckless tactic to say the least.

Now with Iran you seem to be basing all this information off the Govts. who DO lie constantly to it's citizens. Obviously Israel, USA and Great Britian and many other nations will argue against them making any progress technologically or militarily speaking.

I will never get how people can defend that it's okay for us, but not them... If anything, we (USA) are more reckless and aggressive when it comes to our military, more so then any other country and we constantly try to dictate how everyone should act.

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot
DarknStormy, with due respect, who were the aggressors in the The Arab-Israeli War of 1948,

No.. Palestinians were not the aggressors in 1948. Zionism was. How could Israel be fighting for national survival by killing, torturing and running innocent families of their very own land?? Bombing a Motel in Jerusalem, attacking British soldiers along with it?

the Six Day War in 1967

and the Yom Kippur War in 1973?

They had the right to defend themselves in these two, but you have to also ask, why did the Arabs attack? If we are fed BS these days, whats to say the same wasn't happening back then? It would of been easier to lie also.

Would it be fair to say Israel was fighting a war of national survival?

In 1948, NO, its not fair. The other two, they have a very good case.

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot
Thank you.

And if I may echo Charles1952, it is nice to discuss the subject from different viewpoints politely and respectfully.

We can argue til the cows come home, but it wont achieve anything. Both sides have the good and the bad.. Unfortunetly, we are only shown the very bad from the Arab front..

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot

Originally posted by DarknStormy

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot
Are you familiar with the recent history of Israel?

I am familiar with all of Israel's history....

DarknStormy, with due respect, who were the aggressors in the The Arab-Israeli War of 1948, the Six Day War in 1967 and the Yom Kippur War in 1973?

Would it be fair to say Israel was fighting a war of national survival?

I can tell you who was not one of the aggressors.. Iran. They havent invaded anyone in over 2 or 300 years.

Originally posted by FlyingFox
This really is a chilling development. What's going on out in the field that this stuff can get to the critical point?

I think what's going on 'out in the field' is that Israel have stopped murdering all the Iranian scientists for a bit. Maybe.

Originally posted by DarknStormy
We better launch everything we got at them now... Seriously, who cares what they do. As long as they do not attack another country and use those weapons in self defense, Whats the big deal? I swear there is this never ending case of paranioa on the world scene.

edit on 29-11-2012 by DarknStormy because: (no reason given)

The big deal is that superpowers want to have all energy resources they can.

They don't want any middle eastern country against them.

They just want big fat bodies for their big moth parasites.

Those parasites take oil and spit in the face of it's owners.

They want to spit and take the oil.

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot

Originally posted by markatUCR
Drunken parrot. Whilst Its very true that the US and her allies havent used the bomb since Nagasaki. they much prefer the stealth method these days. This involves bathing "rogue" nations in depleted uranium, and causing half of newborns in that country birth defects. To suggest therefore that Bagdad isnt some smouldering pile of radioactive debris is only partially correct

Im really not sure which is actually worse? You? After all, under the latest stealth use of Nukes, I wouldnt be surprised if the death toll is at least the equivalent, if not much worse.

Not only that, but in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, until we sent teams in there as experimental cannon fodder, at least only the "enemy"***** got it.- - Whereas now of course, under the revised nuclear deployment option, we get our own troops full of it too.

****** I placed the enemy in exclamation marks, since how innocent civilians who constituted the vast majority of victims can be classed as the enemy often escapes me, when you consider that the vast majority of them probably didnt want a damn war in the first place, just like anyone else in their right miind..

About the only people who really want war, are those selling us the bombs.- I say us, because we pay for em.

As President Eisenhower famously quoted upon leaving office "Beware the military industrial complex"

Personally, I would like to believe that our modern age of instantaneous global communication goes a long way in diffusing the level of conflict that requires the obliteration of innocents to achieve its goal.

It gets a lot harder to hate somebody you have never met so badly that you wish total destruction upon them when they have a name and face.

Look at the war with Japan.

A big part of Japanese society was fascinated by the west and looked towards their behavior as a role model.

What Japan saw was that Imperialism was the way to build a great nation and figured they would add the wealth of Manchuria to their holdings in a particularly brutal fashion.The Japanese didn't see themselves as doing anything that Britain, France or the U.S. weren't and underestimated the American reaction.

The response from the west was to demand Japan leave and finally the U.S. embargoed all oil sales from there own colonial holdings in the Philippines.

Japan, being an Island nation with few resources of their own and a huge military machine to power, took the U.S. embargo as an act of war and decided that if the west wouldn't sell it to them they would just take it.

This lead to the Japanese planning the ancillary attack on Pearl Harbor to neutralize the U.S. Pacific fleet while they seized the Philippines and a big part of Indochina.

Japan lost the war the day they attacked the west, there was no way they could compete with the American industrial capability and the really tragic part is that many Japanese knew it.

A big part of Japanese nationalism was the resurgence of the Samurai's Bushido code, death before dishonor, which set the stage for a protracted serious of battles across the Pacific with the IJN and IJA essentially fighting to the death again and again and again.

The U.S. government propaganda machine went into full swing to dehumanize the Japanese ( ever seen the war time Bugs Bunny cartoons?) and by the time the bomb was dropped a large percentage of Americans believed that is was both acceptable and necessarily to murder every Japanese citizen to end the war.

Japan's propaganda machine did the same, ever seen the footage of Japanese mothers throwing their children and then themselves off of cliffs in Okinawa and Saipan by the thousands, rather than surrender to U.S. forces who they had been told were cannibals and rapists.

I don't believe the war would have escalated to the point of effectively destroying Japan if the nameless masses of both nations had the ability to instantaneously share personnel communications like we have today.

As you said, nobody likes war.

Japan had plenty of troops in China, as a matter of fact, we only fought one THIRD of Japans army in the Pacific, as the rest were in China./korea
The japanese did not have to surrender because of the nukes, and indeed did not surrender till mach later on.......certainly not right after the bombs...
Much history has been hidden about the pacific conflict.......
Japan nearly had nukes, as well as very effective means of delivering effective bio weapons(which they also had) to the USA.
The story is not as history tells us ......
Why do you think japan rebuilt so fast after the war?

ok let Iran have a nuke. Pakistan has them, India has them, Israel has them as well as North Korea, China, Russia, US, and the UK. So they sell it and it used, or give it away and it is used, who do we nuke in return? Could it be proved that it came from Iran? The US used 2, let an other nation use one.

Originally posted by sirhumperdink
theyve been "close to acquiring a nuclear weapon" since before i was born
i think its about time to put up or shut up
provide evidence or the next agency to spew this bs gets its budget slashed

I think this post needs more praise.

It's the same logic as, "As President, I will insure that America will be less dependant on foreign oil."

Jon Stewart illustrates this situation perfectly with his video posted at the Huffington Post

"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me eight times, I must be a f--king idiot."
-Jon Stewart

Sorry, still learning the proper etiquette of quoting within ATS. Hope that's right.

Iran May Be Close to a Plutonium Bomb, German Defense Experts Warn



Yeah and I MAY give birth soon. Seeing as I don't have a uterus it's highly unlikely but HEY. You never know what MAY be.

Originally posted by intrepid
Iran May Be Close to a Plutonium Bomb, German Defense Experts Warn

Yeah and I MAY give birth soon. Seeing as I don't have a uterus it's highly unlikely but HEY. You never know what MAY be.

Holy sh*t intrepid.. is that you



dont ban me bro

Originally posted by Juggernog
Holy sh*t intrepid.. is that you

dont ban me bro

Nope. That's an Iranian with a plutonium weapon in his stomach.