Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Intelligence agencies debunk the media hysteria on Iran

2

Comments

  • #52
    The Israeli
    Registered Users Posts: 413 ✭✭The Israeli


    WakeUp, you are probably right in everything you said, but US wants more than half an hour / one hour notice ahead to be truly ready.


  • #53
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,456 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    WakeUp wrote: »
    MM youre a military man and I'm sure you know more about such things than me maybe you can clear something up for me and other people on thread with regard to US knowledge of any prior attack :)

    Before I get to it, my own opinion of this will they wont they tell us if they are going to attack and all that lark, I think it is but a smokescreen between the US and Israel, an act , to give the Americans "plausible deniability".

    To the best of my knowledge Israeli defense radar , part of it anywayx- band early warning system , is integrated with US systems meaning the idea of the US being unaware of any upcoming action is either remote or impossible? Not only that but the US are in control of part of Israeli air defense?? I'm wondering can you confirm this or is there no truth in it. I understand your position I dont expect a detailed reply of something which is probably sensitive a simple yes or no would be grand:)

    And even if part of both nations defense isn't integrated, surely US radar and satellite coverage of the region would pick up the mass movement of Israeli Fighter jets in no time at all. Again as far I'm aware Israel do not possess stealth fighter jets and they wont exactly be sending a plane or two I would imagine any attack will involve their entire air-force? Surely this would be picked up I cant see how it couldn't be - making US and Israeli claims that one wouldnt know what the other is doing null and void??..

    Ballistic missile defence radars tend to look 'up', they're not going to worry about aircraft hugging the deck.
    but US wants more than half an hour / one hour notice ahead to be truly ready.

    That's the other thing. Even if they are detected by realtime systems, there's not much the US can do about it. Even if they wanted to.

    NTM


  • #54
    WakeUp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,823 ✭✭✭WakeUp


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    Ballistic missile defence radars tend to look 'up', they're not going to worry about aircraft hugging the deck.

    I understand that, I have a basic understanding how the different systems work I probably should have elaborated more in my last post. This is the part I don't understand.

    US and Israeli ballistic missile defense is integrated to some degree. The Iranians have ballistic missiles we know this. Any attack against them and its likely them missiles will be launched at targets in Israel and around the middle-east. Now if I was an Israeli military strategist/planner and the decision to attack Iran had been taken - to me the idea that they wouldn't inform the US who have a crucial fundamental role to play in the defense of their skies - I would find that dumb, reckless and absurd. Surely it stands to reason that if an attack is to go ahead they would want that radar and its ability to avert danger at full capacity, everybody on their toes and all systems go?? Not all involved playing catch up from the beginning?? That doesn't make sense to me that's the part I don't understand. I cant see how Israeli military planners would calculate taking such a risk ( not informing the US ) unless of course that's BS and spin which I personally think it is. How much control do the US have over Israeli radar defense do you know? would you be able to put it in a percentage?....


  • #55
    The Israeli
    Registered Users Posts: 413 ✭✭The Israeli


    WakeUp wrote: »
    I understand that, I have a basic understanding how the different systems work I probably should have elaborated more in my last post. This is the part I don't understand.

    US and Israeli ballistic missile defense is integrated to some degree. The Iranians have ballistic missiles we know this. Any attack against them and its likely them missiles will be launched at targets in Israel and around the middle-east. Now if I was an Israeli military strategist/planner and the decision to attack Iran had been taken - to me the idea that they wouldn't inform the US who have a crucial fundamental role to play in the defense of their skies - I would find that dumb, reckless and absurd. Surely it stands to reason that if an attack is to go ahead they would want that radar and its ability to avert danger at full capacity, everybody on their toes and all systems go?? Not all involved playing catch up from the beginning?? That doesn't make sense to me that's the part I don't understand. I cant see how Israeli military planners would calculate taking such a risk ( not informing the US ) unless of course that's BS and spin which I personally think it is. How much control do the US have over Israeli radar defense do you know? would you be able to put it in a percentage?....

    I don't know their real considerations but the element of surprise is probably at top priority. Only very few people would be aware of the upcoming attack, if it comes to that.
    I believe that there isn't a big difference for the air defense forces because they are probably on a constant alert anyway, but sharing the strike information with more people can cause to an unnecessary leak to Iran.

    The benefits of prior knowledge to the Americans probably lie in the measures that they have to take to defend themselves against possible Iranian counter attacks.


  • #56
    plasmaguy
    Registered Users Posts: 1,683 ✭✭✭plasmaguy


    Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran and Syria to a lesser extent are all committed to wiping Israel off the face of the earth, there is absolutely no question of that, and will stop at nothing and I mean nothing to make that happen.

    If Hezbollah, Hamas and so on have no compunction in targeting innocent civilians and carrying out mass suicide and bomb attacks, there is no question they would have any hesitation about using a nuclear bomb against Israel.

    It's also likely the Iranian would try to station nuclear armed missiles as close as possible to Israel, to give them first strike capability...in other words if those nuclear armed missiles were stationed in Palestinian terroritories or in Syria, the Iranians could do serious damage to Israel, before the Israelis even knew what hit them, a bit like what the Soviets were doing during the Cuban missile crisis.

    Hamas might also use the threat of such a bomb or bombs as negotiating chips in future negotiations. Give us back Jeruesleum or else, would be one such demand.

    Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas are not moderate countries and organisations. They are extremists, and extremists usually go that bit further and more violently than everyone else. Proliferation of nuclear weapons and know-how in the region would be a major concern in this regard, much more so than with any other nuclear armed state, and the region is already a powder keg as it is.


  • #57
    cyberhog
    Registered Users Posts: 941 ✭✭✭cyberhog


    Iran's supreme leader insists his country is not seeking nuclear weapons.
    The Iranian nation has never pursued and will never pursue nuclear weapons. There is no doubt that the decision makers in the countries opposing us know well that Iran is not after nuclear weapons because the Islamic Republic, logically, religiously and theoretically, considers the possession of nuclear weapons a grave sin and believes the proliferation of such weapons is senseless, destructive and dangerous.

    http://news.antiwar.com/2012/02/22/irans-ayatollah-khamenei-we-will-never-seek-nuclear-weapons/


    No doubt the warmongers will claim he is lying, but the question is, why would Khamenei lie when it is already clear the West pays no attention to what he says? The warmongers don't even listen to their own intelligence agencies on this matter. Khamenei knows the warmongers have set their minds on bombing Iran so he would know lying will not do him any good at this point. So for that reason I would say it's more likely he is speaking the truth.


  • #58
    wes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,747 ✭✭✭✭wes


    cyberhog wrote: »
    No doubt the warmongers will claim he is lying, but the question is, why would Khamenei lie when it is already clear the West.

    Honestly, at this point it doesn't matter what Iran does. The war mongers have made up there mind. Hopefully, saner heads will prevail and prevent what happened in Iraq happening again.


  • #59
    cyberhog
    Registered Users Posts: 941 ✭✭✭cyberhog


    Here's a timeline of the ever shifting nuclear doomsday.
    Late 1970s: US receives intelligence that the Shah had "set up a clandestine nuclear weapons development program."


    1984: US Senator Alan Cranston claims Iran is seven years away from making a weapon.


    1992: Israeli parliamentarian Benjamin Netanyahu tells his colleagues that Iran is 3 to 5 years from being able to produce a nuclear weapon


    1995: The New York Times conveys the fears of senior US and Israeli officials that "Iran is much closer to producing nuclear weapons than previously thought" – about five years away


    1998: ...former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld reports to Congress that Iran could build an intercontinental ballistic missile – one that could hit the US – within five years.

    2002: CIA warns that the danger from nuclear-tipped missiles, especially from Iran and North Korea, is higher than during the cold war.


    2004: Secretary of State Colin Powell tells reporters that Iran had been working on technology to fit a nuclear warhead onto a missile.


    2006: The drums of war beat faster after the New Yorker’s Seymour Hersh quotes US sources saying that a strike on Iran is all but inevitable...


    2008: Then-US Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton predicts that Israel will attack Iran before January 2009

    http://www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/print/content/view/print/422252

    The US and Israel have being crying wolf for over 30 years! It's all a load of waffle!

    I wish the neocon imperialists would find something else to do with their time. It's getting so tiresome listening to the same old unhinged rhetoric.


  • #60
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 85,045 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    As pointed out by Mr. Stewart, the entire thing could simply boil down to campaign rhetoric, both here and in Iran:

    http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-march-6-2012/words-of-warcraft


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    RichieC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 ✭✭✭RichieC


    Link doesn't work from Ireland :C


  • #62
    RichieC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 ✭✭✭RichieC


    cyberhog wrote: »
    Here's a timeline of the ever shifting nuclear doomsday.



    http://www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/print/content/view/print/422252

    The US and Israel have being crying wolf for over 30 years! It's all a load of waffle!

    I wish the neocon imperialists would find something else to do with their time. It's getting so tiresome listening to the same old unhinged rhetoric.

    It takes a populations eye off the crud that's going on back home.


  • #63
    Son Of A Vidic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,370 ✭✭✭✭Son Of A Vidic


    opinionated3 wrote: »
    So OP why are they not upfront and honest with the iaea?

    And yet couldn't we ask the same question of Israel's nuclear weapons program.


  • #64
    JustinDee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,684 ✭✭✭JustinDee


    Corvus Maximus wrote: »
    And yet couldn't we ask the same question of Israel's nuclear weapons program.

    If you want to keep swinging attention back that way and justify that post, you'd have to convince Israel to sign up to NPT in the first place. They aren't so are not obliged to comply to IAEA inspection requirements.
    Iran as a signatory is required to comply.


  • #65
    RichieC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 ✭✭✭RichieC


    JustinDee wrote: »
    If you want to keep swinging attention back that way and justify that post, you'd have to convince Israel to sign up to NPT in the first place. They aren't so are not obliged to comply to IAEA inspection requirements.
    Iran as a signatory is required to comply.

    Surely the world should be more worried about a nation that refuses to sign up and hides all it's nuclear activity rather than one that signs up and doesn't meet a couple of requirements.

    I think the pro us, Israel camp know the absurdity of their position tbf.


  • #66
    JustinDee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,684 ✭✭✭JustinDee


    RichieC wrote: »
    Surely the world should be more worried about a nation that refuses to sign up and hides all it's nuclear activity rather than one that signs up and doesn't meet a couple of requirements.

    I think the pro us, Israel camp know the absurdity of their position tbf.
    A naive view that a "a couple of threats" from a regime that has supported and been involved in aggressive and subversive hostilities since 1979 via proxies and its own elite paramilitary, alongside a nuclear programme being upped by the week is a little bit more disconcerting.
    More than just rhetoric.
    Then again, you probably presume that Iran has not been engaged in anything of a kind with Hizbullah, Hamas, Syria or anyone else. If thats the case, then we're not going to agree.
    I don't like the expansionism of Likud's coalition myself but the activities of Iran with Israel's enemies don't excuse it as any more special a case.
    This isn't "US/Israel camp"-talk. Just how I see it following my own experiences etc.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    wes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,747 ✭✭✭✭wes


    Some more hype busting:

    Iran Ready to Allow IAEA Access to Parchin Military Facility in Future

    BTW, as I posted earlier Iran doesn't have to give access to this facility per the NPT, which is a fact that so many have ignored for some reason. So its interesting to see that they are offering a compromise like this, but I doubt it will calm much of the fear mongering from some people in the West.


  • #68
    RichieC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 ✭✭✭RichieC


    JustinDee wrote: »
    A naive view that a "a couple of threats" from a country that has supported and been involved in aggressive and subversive hostilities since 1979 via proxies and its own elite paramilitary, alongside a nuclear programme being upped by the week is a little bit more disconcerting.
    More than just rhetoric.
    Then again, you probably presume that Iran has not been engaged in anything of a kind with Hizbullah, Hamas, Syria or anyone else. If thats the case, then we're not going to agree.

    you could easily be talking about Israel here... sheesh.


  • #69
    JustinDee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,684 ✭✭✭JustinDee


    wes wrote: »
    Some more hype busting:

    Iran Ready to Allow IAEA Access to Parchin Military Facility in Future
    This news came through last night. Hardly been hanging around all this time. Also, the subjective possibilities of "in future".
    The IAEA require access now.
    wes wrote: »
    BTW, as I posted earlier Iran doesn't have to give access to this facility per the NPT, which is a fact that so many have ignored for some reason. So its interesting to see that they are offering a compromise like this, but I doubt it will calm much of the fear mongering from some people in the West.
    What is ignored is the fact that an alleged civilian nuclear facility is safe behind the confines of a military facility. This never once raised an eyebrow, no?


  • #70
    RichieC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 ✭✭✭RichieC


    JustinDee wrote: »
    What is ignored is the fact that an alleged civilian nuclear facility is safe behind the confines of a military facility. This never once raised an eyebrow, no?

    Where did you read that there's a civilian nuclear facility in Parchin? It is a research base for conventional missile tech.

    Oh right... who cares :rolleyes:


  • #71
    wes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,747 ✭✭✭✭wes


    JustinDee wrote: »
    This news came through last night. Hardly been hanging around all this time. Also, the subjective possibilities of "in future".
    The IAEA require access now.

    The IAEA have no right to access the facility, and they have already inspected it twice in the past. So the Iranians have accomadated them in the past, and are planning to do so in the future. They are not required to do any of this under the NPT, so quite frankly the Iranians are acting within there right as per the NPT.

    BTW the IAEA requiring access is irrelevant, as they have no right to inspect the facilty as per the NPT, its up to the Iranians, whether they give access or not.
    JustinDee wrote: »
    What is ignored is the fact that an alleged civilian nuclear facility is safe behind the confines of a military facility. This never once raised an eyebrow, no?

    There is no nuclear facility there :confused:. Its a miltary facility that has been as I pointed out on the first page of this thread, already inspected twice by the IAEA. So quite frankly, I view claims in regards to this facility to be utter tosh. The IAEA have been there twice in the past and found nothing, and are being offered access again. Also, I will say this again, Iran did not have to offer access the first 2 times, nor do they have to offer future access. The fact that they have done so, actually means there acting above and beyond there commitments.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    JustinDee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,684 ✭✭✭JustinDee


    wes wrote: »
    The IAEA have no right to access the facility, and they have already inspected it twice in the past. So the Iranians have accomadated them in the past, and are planning to do so in the future. They are not required to do any of this under the NPT, so quite frankly the Iranians are acting within there right as per the NPT.

    BTW the IAEA requiring access is irrelevant, as they have no right to inspect the facilty as per the NPT, its up to the Iranians, whether they give access or not
    If the Iranians want the sanctions dropped, they must prove as an NPT signatory, that they comply with what they sign up to. It is up to them to clear with IAEA. That is not irrelevant.
    wes wrote: »
    There is no nuclear facility there :confused:. Its a miltary facility that has been as I pointed out on the first page of this thread, already inspected twice by the IAEA. So quite frankly, I view claims in regards to this facility to be utter tosh. The IAEA have been there twice in the past and found nothing, and are being offered access again. Also, I will say this again, Iran did not have to offer access the first 2 times, nor do they have to offer future access. The fact that they have done so, actually means there acting above and beyond there commitments.
    The IAEA don't view it as tosh, nor do Iran's enemies. That would be more relevant a point.
    I'm sure it is all innocent and that despite signing up to international agreements, Iran's regime are above it all. Lovely bunch.


  • #73
    wes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,747 ✭✭✭✭wes


    JustinDee wrote: »
    If the Iranians want the sanctions dropped, they must prove as an NPT signatory, that they comply with what they sign up to.

    Yes, which does not include inspecting military sites.

    JustinDee wrote: »
    It is up to them to clear with IAEA. That is not irrelevant.

    No it isn't but I was talking about a military site, which under the NPT, the IAEA have no right to inspect. A fact you deliberately ignored several times already.
    JustinDee wrote: »
    The IAEA don't view it as tosh,

    Well, then they clearly don't have much fate in there own abilities since they were already at that site twice already. Still doesn't change the fact, as per the NPT, they have no right to access it.
    JustinDee wrote: »
    nor do Iran's enemies.

    So we should listen to people who consider Iran an enemy. Really? Surely, Iran enemies are hardly thrust worthy in regard to claims about Iran, what with them being enemies.
    JustinDee wrote: »
    That would be more relevant a point.

    So now Iran needs to proves itself to its enemies and not just the IAEA, who as per the NPT don't have any right to access miliary sites. Which is the point I was making. A point you choose to ignore.
    JustinDee wrote: »
    I'm sure it is all innocent and that despite signing up to international agreements, Iran's regime are above it all. Lovely bunch.

    Again, the military site in question is not covered under the NPT. The fact that you have ignored that and then claimed it contains a nuclear site, without a single shred of evidence to back up that assertion is puzzling.


  • #74
    Be like Nutella
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,830 ✭✭✭Be like Nutella


    hate that sh1t 'not available in your region' : (

    Stewart rules!


  • #75
    Be like Nutella
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,830 ✭✭✭Be like Nutella


    let's hope the cogs on the spin wheel don't move as smoothly this time... coz the whole world got punked with that sh1t in 2003.. thank you Colin

    images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTkaGPHXmaRLHkFCAbBYtynDw-Yl_PbC8Wh3tNHi-Of_KEhehsZIg


  • #76
    cyberhog
    Registered Users Posts: 941 ✭✭✭cyberhog


    wes wrote: »
    No it isn't but I was talking about a military site, which under the NPT, the IAEA have no right to inspect. A fact you deliberately ignored several times already.

    He has to ignore the facts in order to keep his belief system intact.
    wes wrote: »
    So we should listen to people who consider Iran an enemy. Really? Surely, Iran enemies are hardly thrust worthy in regard to claims about Iran, what with them being enemies.

    bingo! as we've seen with Iraq in 2003 Iran's enemies are about as trustworthy as a black widow spider!


  • #77
    Son Of A Vidic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,370 ✭✭✭✭Son Of A Vidic


    JustinDee wrote: »
    If you want to keep swinging attention back that way and justify that post, you'd have to convince Israel to sign up to NPT in the first place. They aren't so are not obliged to comply to IAEA inspection requirements.
    Iran as a signatory is required to comply.

    I am well aware of that fact alright. But speaking of non-compliance, Israel are certainly proven masters at this aren't they. Just count how many UN resolutions they've ignored.


  • #78
    JustinDee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,684 ✭✭✭JustinDee


    Corvus Maximus wrote: »
    I am well aware of that fact alright. But speaking of non-compliance, Israel are certainly proven masters at this aren't they. Just count how many UN resolutions they've ignored.
    Since you're going to take the moral relativist line and blow gas about UN resolutions . . . who ignored #181, the basis of this endless warring with Israel in the first place??
    Ironically, the fundamental elements of Resolution Nr.181 (Partition into Jewish and Arab state with Jerusalem as a hub city) form what non-fundamentalist Arab neighbours allegedly want now.


  • #79
    wes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,747 ✭✭✭✭wes


    JustinDee wrote: »
    Since you're going to take the moral relativist line and blow gas about UN resolutions . . . who ignored #181, the basis of this endless warring with Israel in the first place??

    General Assembly resolutions are non-binding firstly, but as we have seen earlier your not one for facts.

    Secondly, even if the resolution was binding, no where in the resolution does it allow for Zionists to ethnically cleanse Palestinians, which they did before a single Arab army invaded. Secondly, no where in the resolution did it say that Zionists could grab more land, which again they started doing before the Arabs invaded. So, yes the Arabs did reject that non-binding resolution, but the Zionists while claiming to accept it, went ahead and strated ethnically cleansing people and grabbing more land, which is still going on today. So quite frankly Zionists violated that resolution with land grab and ethnic cleansing.

    Israel btw is in violation of later binding security council resolutions, and are actively violating them on a daily basis via settlement expansion.

    Either way this branch of history is irrelevant to the thread, and I am still waiting for to back up this claim:
    JustinDee wrote: »
    What is ignored is the fact that an alleged civilian nuclear facility is safe behind the confines of a military facility.


  • #80
    JustinDee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,684 ✭✭✭JustinDee


    wes wrote: »
    General Assembly resolutions are non-binding firstly, but as we have seen earlier your not one for facts.

    Secondly, even if the resolution was binding, no where in the resolution does it allow for Zionists to ethnically cleanse Palestinians, which they did before a single Arab army invaded. Secondly, no where in the resolution did it say that Zionists could grab more land, which again they started doing before the Arabs invaded. So, yes the Arabs did reject that non-binding resolution, but the Zionists while claiming to accept it, went ahead and strated ethnically cleansing people and grabbing more land, which is still going on today. So quite frankly Zionists violated that resolution with land grab and ethnic cleansing.

    Israel btw is in violation of later binding security council resolutions, and are actively violating them on a daily basis via settlement expansion.

    Either way this branch of history is irrelevant to the thread, and I am still waiting for to back up this claim:

    Trite and selective.

    A UN Resolution is a UN Resolution regardless of legalities. I wasn't claiming Israel shone a light when it comes to the UN. Just that some are a little selective in their memories when discussing it, as your selective footnotes and timelines are. If it only it all was as simple as wiki-wagging or google c&p'ing would indicate.


  • #81
    wes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,747 ✭✭✭✭wes


    JustinDee wrote: »
    Trite and selective.

    No just factually accurate, something you have major issues with.
    JustinDee wrote: »
    A UN Resolution is a UN Resolution regardless of legalities.

    You are talking some nonsense. There are binding and non-binding resolutions. There is a difference between the 2. To ignore this difference is to deny a fact. So once again, you show yourself to be completely unaccepting of facts that don't fit your world view. Seriously, what your saying here destroys you credibility, where you wish to ignore legalities, when it doesn't suit you arguement.
    JustinDee wrote: »
    I wasn't claiming Israel shone a light when it comes to the UN.

    You asked a question and I answered it. You clearly didn't like the answer, as once again the facts conflict with your world view.
    JustinDee wrote: »
    Just that some are a little selective in their memories when discussing it, as your selective footnotes and timelines are.

    No, I am just being factually accurate, something you are incapable of doing so.
    JustinDee wrote: »
    If it only it all was as simple as wiki-wagging or google c&p'ing would indicate.

    So to bring us back to actual topic:
    JustinDee wrote: »
    What is ignored is the fact that an alleged civilian nuclear facility is safe behind the confines of a military facility.

    Still no source for that claim. Instead you would rather throw around nonsense like "wiki-wagging" and "google c&p'ing" in regards to those of us, who can back up what we say.

    Truly astonishing again.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    JustinDee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,684 ✭✭✭JustinDee


    wes wrote: »
    No just factually accurate, something you have major issues with.

    You are talking some nonsense. There are binding and non-binding resolutions. There is a difference between the 2. To ignore this difference is to deny a fact. So once again, you show yourself to be completely unaccepting of facts that don't fit your world view. Seriously, what your saying here destroys you credibility, where you wish to ignore legalities, when it doesn't suit you arguement.

    You asked a question and I answered it. You clearly didn't like the answer, as once again the facts conflict with your world view.

    No, I am just being factually accurate, something you are incapable of doing so
    You justified slaughter by one side of the conflict yet slam same by the other. And I'm the myope?
    wes wrote: »
    So to bring us back to actual topic:

    Still no source for that claim. Instead you would rather throw around nonsense like "wiki-wagging" and "google c&p'ing" in regards to those of us, who can back up what we say.

    Truly astonishing again.
    Endless repetition doesn't qualify your point or question as any more salient. So you don't suspect anything. Others do. Hence the inspections. You don't suspect anything when a facility under suspicion will only be made available "later". Others do.
    Sånn er livet.
    And yes, retroactive wiki-wagging and googling demonstrates nothing other than an ability to cherry-pick what is available on the internet. Thats not "fact". It is selective regurgitation as per opinion.


  • #83
    wes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,747 ✭✭✭✭wes


    JustinDee wrote: »
    You justified slaughter by one side of the conflict yet slam same by the other. And I'm the myope?

    I did no such thing and I expect you quote exactly where I did that.

    All I did was the following:
    wes wrote: »
    General Assembly resolutions are non-binding firstly, but as we have seen earlier your not one for facts.

    Secondly, even if the resolution was binding, no where in the resolution does it allow for Zionists to ethnically cleanse Palestinians, which they did before a single Arab army invaded. Secondly, no where in the resolution did it say that Zionists could grab more land, which again they started doing before the Arabs invaded. So, yes the Arabs did reject that non-binding resolution, but the Zionists while claiming to accept it, went ahead and strated ethnically cleansing people and grabbing more land, which is still going on today. So quite frankly Zionists violated that resolution with land grab and ethnic cleansing.

    Israel btw is in violation of later binding security council resolutions, and are actively violating them on a daily basis via settlement expansion.

    Not a single word in there justifying slaughter by anyone. Simply put, what you said was a lie, and the fact that you are engaging in this lie, several posts after I typed the above is rather telling. Also, I pointed out that both sides essentially rejected the resolution, so I fail to see how I am being "one sided". I think the only thing I am guilty of is disagreeing with, and hence this rather pointless outburst.
    JustinDee wrote: »
    Endless repetition doesn't qualify your point or question as any more salient.

    Your inability to prove a damn thing, requires that I repeat the facts, sadly.
    JustinDee wrote: »
    So you don't suspect anything. Others do. Hence the inspections. You don't suspect anything when a facility under suspicion will only be made available "later". Others do.

    Doesn't change the fact that the IAEA have no right to inspect that site, as per the NPT. A fact you choose to ignore for what ever reasson.

    As for suspicions, they are still unproven last time I checked. Also, unless there is clause in the NPT, that mean that suspicions allow them to inspect military sites, then they are nothing more than suspicions. Sadly for you, you can't have a special set of rules for Iran, on the sole basis of suspicions of some blood thirsty war mongers.
    JustinDee wrote: »
    Sånn er livet.
    And yes, retroactive wiki-wagging and googling demonstrates nothing other than an ability to cherry-pick what is available on the internet. Thats not "fact". It is selective regurgitation as per opinion.

    Nonsense, as per usual. I am able to back up what I say, you on the other hand refuse to do so. So again, care to back up the following statement:
    JustinDee wrote: »
    What is ignored is the fact that an alleged civilian nuclear facility is safe behind the confines of a military facility. This never once raised an eyebrow, no?

    You can bang on about wiki this or that, all day long, but the fact is that you clearly made up the following or you are repeating what someone else made up, and quite frankly have 0 credibility on this matter, as the facts do not matter to you, and never have. You say things that are clearly wrong, and refuse to back them up and defend it by making fun of others who bother to provide facts to back up there statements.

    I find it funny that you seem to view people backing up there claims with links with such derision. So basically, you would rather say things and not back them up. If things were done that way, I could just say you are wrong, and thats it. I wouldn't need to back up what I say, just say you are wrong and thats it. I could even make stuff up apparently, and not need to back it up, or anything.


  • #84
    I am pie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,652 ✭✭✭I am pie


    wes wrote: »
    I did no such thing and I expect you quote exactly where I did that.

    All I did was the following:


    Not a single word in there justifying slaughter by anyone. Simply put, what you said was a lie, and the fact that you are engaging in this lie, several posts after I typed the above is rather telling. Also, I pointed out that both sides essentially rejected the resolution, so I fail to see how I am being "one sided". I think the only thing I am guilty of is disagreeing with, and hence this rather pointless outburst.



    Your inability to prove a damn thing, requires that I repeat the facts, sadly.



    Doesn't change the fact that the IAEA have no right to inspect that site, as per the NPT. A fact you choose to ignore for what ever reasson.

    As for suspicions, they are still unproven last time I checked. Also, unless there is clause in the NPT, that mean that suspicions allow them to inspect military sites, then they are nothing more than suspicions. Sadly for you, you can't have a special set of rules for Iran, on the sole basis of suspicions of some blood thirsty war mongers.



    Nonsense, as per usual. I am able to back up what I say, you on the other hand refuse to do so. So again, care to back up the following statement:



    You can bang on about wiki this or that, all day long, but the fact is that you clearly made up the following, and quite frankly have 0 credibility on this matter, as the facts do not matter to you, and never have. You say things that are clearly wrong, and refuse to back them up and defend it by making fun of others who bother to provide facts to back up there statements.

    From as much as I can tell here, the 'pro-war' position here is that we should invade Iran based on a suspicion, which the Intelligence agencies do not support, because the IAEE cannot inspect a site which they have no mandate inspect.


  • #85
    JustinDee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,684 ✭✭✭JustinDee


    I am pie wrote: »
    From as much as I can tell here, the 'pro-war' position here is that we should invade Iran based on a suspicion, which the Intelligence agencies do not support, because the IAEE cannot inspect a site which they have no mandate inspect.

    Who was actually pro-invasion? And who is 'pro-war'? People can have a valid opinion without being pigeon-holed or even have an agenda.


  • #86
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 85,045 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    RichieC wrote: »
    Link doesn't work from Ireland :C
    The Snoopy is basically that the US and Iran are in election cycles, and Israel is considering pushing their General Election to early 2012. Essentially, each country is in Campaign Rhetoric Mode, trying to make grandiose statements that appeal to their particular base. Hence why you have the love triangle brewing.


  • #87
    Mr.Micro
    Registered Users Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭Mr.Micro


    I am pie wrote: »
    From as much as I can tell here, the 'pro-war' position here is that we should invade Iran based on a suspicion, which the Intelligence agencies do not support, because the IAEE cannot inspect a site which they have no mandate inspect.

    I suspect that its mostly Israel that wants an attack against Iran for allegedly developing nuclear weapons, that it Israel has in bountiful supply, and for not allegedly adhering to the non Proliferation treaty, that Israel has not even signed up to, or ever will IMO. That is some hypocrisy and irony. Obama faces the ruination of his election campaign if the Israelis go it alone and he fails to back a fest he does not want to be in at his time. We can go around in circles with this forever and get nowhere.


  • #88
    Jaafa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,621 ✭✭✭Jaafa


    Don't worry lads the US has managed to get Israel to back down....by supplying them with the most advanced bunker busters in world and making them promise not to use them till next year at least.


  • #89
    SamHarris
    Registered Users Posts: 1,633 ✭✭✭SamHarris


    Mr.Micro wrote: »
    I suspect that its mostly Israel that wants an attack against Iran for allegedly developing nuclear weapons, that it Israel has in bountiful supply, and for not allegedly adhering to the non Proliferation treaty, that Israel has not even signed up to, or ever will IMO. That is some hypocrisy and irony. Obama faces the ruination of his election campaign if the Israelis go it alone and he fails to back a fest he does not want to be in at his time. We can go around in circles with this forever and get nowhere.

    Seems to me like the "Iran isnt up to anything" crowd merely seeks to misrepresnt every argument against unrestrained proliferation as a call to attack Iran on the morrow.

    Given the hypocrisy stretches to individuals on this thread who cant remain consistant on whether or not the UN should be acknowledged as an authority based purely on if it for or against a certain party - the very idea that a body which in theory represnts the wants and needs of millions dosent display it to some extent is ridiculous and pointless. Why does it matter if Israel/ every state is hyprocritical? Its an inate part of every state, people really have to stop using it as an "got ya now!" end to an argument as though it has ever or will ever effect anything. Its also very telling how people only notice this hypocrisy when they want to, whereas if one of their "team" displays the same vice its merely ignored.

    Actually pundits argue quiet the opposite with regard to Obama and his re election chances. If Iran were to test a nuclear weapon you would very quickly become right, however.

    To those arguing in Irans favour what, exactly, is their position?

    Are they against nuclear proliferation?

    If so how do they think this should be enforced?

    How do they think it should be monitered?

    Who do they think should be believed when the call must be made as to what a nations aims are, if not the IAEA?

    What do they think should be done when a country does not comply with this groups demands?

    Really if you answer all these questions in a fair and reasonable manner the argument for Irans sanctions is the only reasonable conclusion. You may also argue it should be spread to other states - Israel, Pakistan, India ( I notice the second 2 dont get as much traction, given peoples intense infatuation with the Jewish state) - but the argument for continued sanctions on N Korea/ Iran would still be unaffected.

    The very idea that it should go completly unmonitered and unpunished is stupid in the extreme and should be disregarded immediatly, for very very obvious reasons.


  • #90
    SamHarris
    Registered Users Posts: 1,633 ✭✭✭SamHarris


    RichieC wrote: »
    It takes a populations eye off the crud that's going on back home.

    It does? This seems entirelly silly to me in the case of the US.

    As a result of its dominance in every sphere it can easily fight a war without its people hanging on every second, forgetting that they cant pay the bills or cant find a job. For Israel or Iran it would be seen as a monumental struggle for each nations survival - in the US it would look like a forgone conclusion which would occasionaly be pitted with the deaths of 2 or 3 soldiers a week.

    It would take a much bigger war than one with Iran to consume anything more than a news slot in the States, after a few weeks anyway. The idea that there is some cabal there that is pulling strings so as to create this news cycle without any other political or ethical motives is completly without evidence and is probably therefore dealt with in the CT forums.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    Jaafa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,621 ✭✭✭Jaafa


    SamHarris wrote: »
    It does? This seems entirelly silly to me in the case of the US.

    As a result of its dominance in every sphere it can easily fight a war without its people hanging on every second, forgetting that they cant pay the bills or cant find a job. For Israel or Iran it would be seen as a monumental struggle for each nations survival - in the US it would look like a forgone conclusion which would occasionaly be pitted with the deaths of 2 or 3 soldiers a week.

    It would take a much bigger war than one with Iran to consume anything more than a news slot in the States, after a few weeks anyway. The idea that there is some cabal there that is pulling strings so as to create this news cycle without any other political or ethical motives is completly without evidence and is probably therefore dealt with in the CT forums.

    The mere rumors of war with Iran has dominated US media and election talk for months now. And your suggesting that an actual war with Iran would go almost unnoticed? Really?


  • #92
    SamHarris
    Registered Users Posts: 1,633 ✭✭✭SamHarris


    Jaafa wrote: »
    The mere rumors of war with Iran has dominated US media and election talk for months now. And your suggesting that an actual war with Iran would go almost unnoticed? Really?

    Dominated? Really? I think your seeing what you want to see.

    Dont confuse what YOU care about with what OTHER PEOPLE care about.

    The economy is and will dominate the election. Poll after poll has confirmed this. Do you have any evidence at all for the idea that US support for Israel is a major hanging point for a majority of the US electorate?

    At the best of times foreign policy is low on the US electorates minds. As it is basically everywhere. Poll after poll has confirmed this to. Barring a full scale invasion of Iran this will remain the case.


    The idea that the entire affair is merely a ruse by some government to distract the plebs from the dreariness of their lives is entirelly based on opinion. It is not hard to imagine why a nuclear Iran raises real concerns in the American government. Some crazy CT with no evidence is not required to explain it.

    And in the event of a full scale invasion the attritional, boring and routine news of occupation and rebuilding will quickly take it from the front pages. Major manouvers would be over in a matter of weeks.


    The same BS was used throughout our media when OBL was killed. The fact the election was years away and any bump would be long gone was disregarded in peoples attempts to be "savy" towards US policy. Again, no CT was required to explain that either. It seems to be the "goto" theory when people want to look intelectually superior and above the nonsense that distracts the masses from REAL PROBLEMS. Its not a very impressive idea Im afraid...


  • #93
    Jaafa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,621 ✭✭✭Jaafa


    Are you denying that rumors and speculation about war with Iran has routinely made headline news in the US? Of course not as much as the economy, but still would it not be up there?

    And you say even a full scale invasion would be a backburner story in a matter of a few weeks? Despite the fact that Afghanistan still makes headlines 10 years on? Come on there are far better arguments this, really now.

    Here's a little exercise for you, type Iran war into Google, set the time-frame for a month and see how many results you get. 328,000,000 is the answer, from just the last month. Now hold on before you start yelling, just look at the first 3 pages or so. How many of them are US sites? Still not convinced? Press on the news only section, you get 15,000 hits from the last month. Again a quick look and you can see the majority are US and UK sites.

    To claim that war with iran has not been a major topic in US media in the last few months is completely out of touch with reality. To claim that a full scale invasion of Iran would be a mere footnote in a few weeks is borderline insanity.


  • #94
    cyberhog
    Registered Users Posts: 941 ✭✭✭cyberhog


    Jaafa wrote: »
    To claim that a full scale invasion of Iran would be a mere footnote in a few weeks is borderline insanity.

    That is indeed a ludicrous claim. If the West invaded Iran all hell would break loose.

    “Iran is our close neighbor, just south of the Caucasus. Should anything happen to Iran, should Iran get drawn into any political or military hardships, this will be a direct threat to our national security,”

    http://rt.com/politics/syria-iran-nato-rogozin-749/


  • #95
    SamHarris
    Registered Users Posts: 1,633 ✭✭✭SamHarris


    Jaafa wrote: »
    Are you denying that rumors and speculation about war with Iran has routinely made headline news in the US? Of course not as much as the economy, but still would it not be up there?

    And you say even a full scale invasion would be a backburner story in a matter of a few weeks? Despite the fact that Afghanistan still makes headlines 10 years on? Come on there are far better arguments this, really now.

    Here's a little exercise for you, type Iran war into Google, set the time-frame for a month and see how many results you get. 328,000,000 is the answer, from just the last month. Now hold on before you start yelling, just look at the first 3 pages or so. How many of them are US sites? Still not convinced? Press on the news only section, you get 15,000 hits from the last month. Again a quick look and you can see the majority are US and UK sites.

    To claim that war with iran has not been a major topic in US media in the last few months is completely out of touch with reality. To claim that a full scale invasion of Iran would be a mere footnote in a few weeks is borderline insanity.

    No I said BARRING A FULL SCALE INVASION IT WOULD NOT BE A MAJOR ISSUE IN THE ELECTION. US support for Israel is NOT a make or break issue for the vast majority of voters, again merely pointing out this has no basis in real evidence. I also took issue with this idea that the entire episode is some sort of ruse to distract people from their real problems. Again, patent bullsh*t given the power of nuclear weapons and the history of Iran and the US. It does not take much imagination to think of real reasons why it would be an issue for a US or Israeli administration.

    Really I dont know how to make it much clearer than that. But if you want to debunk points no one made, sure knock yourself out.


    And yes, the idea that Russia would do anything directly to help Iran in the event of a conflict is also completly false. Indirectly perhaps, but Russian leaders are under no illusion as to their relative power to the US under any measurable terms.


  • #96
    Jaafa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,621 ✭✭✭Jaafa


    SamHarris wrote: »
    No I said BARRING A FULL SCALE INVASION IT WOULD NOT BE A MAJOR ISSUE IN THE ELECTION. US support for Israel is NOT a make or break issue for the vast majority of voters, again merely pointing out this has no basis in real evidence. I also took issue with this idea that the entire episode is some sort of ruse to distract people from their real problems. Again, patent bullsh*t given the power of nuclear weapons and the history of Iran and the US. It does not take much imagination to think of real reasons why it would be an issue for a US or Israeli administration.

    Really I dont know how to make it much clearer than that. But if you want to debunk points no one made, sure knock yourself out.


    And yes, the idea that Russia would do anything directly to help Iran in the event of a conflict is also completly false. Indirectly perhaps, but Russian leaders are under no illusion as to their relative power to the US under any measurable terms.

    Your memory fails you
    And in the event of a full scale invasion the attritional, boring and routine news of occupation and rebuilding will quickly take it from the front pages. Major manouvers would be over in a matter of weeks.


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    Mr.Micro
    Registered Users Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭Mr.Micro


    SamHarris wrote: »
    Seems to me like the "Iran isnt up to anything" crowd merely seeks to misrepresnt every argument against unrestrained proliferation as a call to attack Iran on the morrow.




    The very idea that it should go completly unmonitered and unpunished is stupid in the extreme and should be disregarded immediatly, for very very obvious reasons.

    Yet we have Israel, North Korea, India and Pakistan in exactly that position.... completely unmonitored and totally unrestricted to proliferate their nuclear programmes one would presume? Bizarre or what. I suppose these four are less dangerous than Iran? Why is there no pressure for these states to me made accountable for the stability of the world?


  • #98
    RichieC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 ✭✭✭RichieC


    The US has averaged a war every year and three months over its entire history.

    183 campaign ribbons on a 236 year old countries flag....

    We fear Iran?


  • #99
    SamHarris
    Registered Users Posts: 1,633 ✭✭✭SamHarris


    Mr.Micro wrote: »
    Yet we have Israel, North Korea, India and Pakistan in exactly that position.... completely unmonitored and totally unrestricted to proliferate their nuclear programmes one would presume? Bizarre or what. I suppose these four are less dangerous than Iran? Why is there no pressure for these states to me made accountable for the stability of the world?

    N Korea is under enormous sanctions.



    So your argument is that because, say the US, does not push for sanctions equally on every nation that breaks the rules in this fashion their concerns regarding Iran bear no weight?

    The reason is obvious - the same reason ISrael is censored more by the UN than, say, Sudan - it is not EASY to implement enormous sanctions on various nations and it therefore requires another nation that cares enough to mobilise support for such an action.

    Hardly an excellent reason for a state to not call upon the law to be applied when a direct threat is perceived.


  • #100
    SamHarris
    Registered Users Posts: 1,633 ✭✭✭SamHarris


    RichieC wrote: »
    The US has averaged a war every year and three months over its entire history.

    183 campaign ribbons on a 236 year old countries flag....

    We fear Iran?

    Yes yes, they are coming to get us next. Better go hide.


  • #101
    RichieC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 ✭✭✭RichieC


    SamHarris wrote: »
    Yes yes, they are coming to get us next. Better go hide.

    As long as they are only killing brown people and "the others" that's okay with you Sam. good to know.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement