Customize

Iran Threatens Strike on Israel's Nuclear Facilities if Attacked

Discussion in 'News And Current Events' started by Unregistered, Jul 25, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

  1. Iran Threatens Strike on Israel's Nuclear Facilities if Attacked - International News | News of the World | Middle East News | Europe News - FOXNews.com


    Isn't it silly to think about an Israeli strike on the Iranian nuclear facilities as similar to the Israeli strike on the Iraqi nuclear facilities?


    I think that the dumbest thing Israel would do is committing any sort of attack on Iran.
  2. Ray Murphy Member

    [News]
    "Iran’s Revolutionary Guards said Saturday the country would strike Israel's nuclear facilities if Tel Aviv attacked the Islamic state, Reuters reported state television as saying."

    It sounds like Presidential Inauguration Day is going to be a bit disorganized.
  3. What does this has to do with the Iranian internal affairs? The entire country has one sound to the Israeli threats.
  4. Ray Murphy Member

    [Israel and Iran bombing each other's nuclear sites]

    Ray: It sounds like Presidential Inauguration Day is going to be a bit disorganized.

    Yes, it's an internal affair. Iran has a perfect right as a sovereign country to make nuclear weapons, and the U.S. has no right at all to demand that Iran stop the project. On the other hand, because of ongoing threats, Israel has a duty to destroy the project - and it will - no matter what the cost. I was just saying that they might mess up the President-Select's Inauguration Day at the same time - and make a much bigger noise on that day than all the protestors combined.
  5. Israel must be stupid to attack Iran right now and that give the iranian government good reason to start war in the middle east

    and second of all Iran has a right yes to build nuclear weapons is that for the peaceful purpose NO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


    and Israel is not stupid to do something stupid like that by attacking Iran at this time when there is a chance to iranian to change the regime
  6. Ray Murphy Member

    Of course Israel won't destroy the nuclear sites right now. They will wait until the President-Select stands up to be sworn in as President.
  7. I agree. I think they would only attack if it became clear the Iranian government was about to attack them.
  8. Ray Murphy Member

    It depends on when it is relatively safe for the population in the surrounding areas. Israel wouldn't want to destroy any nuclear facilities that were so far advanced that they would release immense radiation into the surrounding areas.
  9. Regardless of Iran's intention to have nuclear weapons or not, if other countries like Israel and the United states have nuclear weapons then why doesn't Iran have the right to have nuclear weapons too? Knowing that the United States is the only country that used nuclear weapons on people and that Israel is its ally.
  10. Ray Murphy Member

    It is absurd for anyone to claim that Iran does not have a right to make nuclear weapons - no matter what they are intended for. The only law that counts in Iran is Iranian law.
  11. The opposition are neither allies nor friends with Israel.
  12. Iran has no right to do so ATM because its regime is evil, barbaric and delusional (the Mahdi stories).

    The US used nukes on its aggresor at Pearl Harbor, Japan, in order to end the war as quickly as possible.
  13. BS

    Bullshit ! We all know the bombs in japan were to scare the russians
    today they could be counted as terrorism also Irans right to nukes is above the
    right for isreal to exist
  14. And Israel is angelic, for that they have right to own nuclear weapons?

    The Iranian regime is evil? And Israel is angel?

    The Iranian regime is barbaric? And Israel is so civilized and peaceful?

    The Iranian regime is delusional (the Mahdi stories)? What does this has to do with the regime, this is a Shiite belief. The Imam Mahdi will come and fill the earth and share just as filled with injustice and unfair. Don't you believe with Jesus return, and yeah he will be with Mahdi as some stories say.
  15. sage this thread
  16. End the war so quickly, WTF? by killing more than hundreds of thousands of civilians, and till today Japanese babies are born deformed, looks like the war did not end till today!
  17. The word "sage" cannot be put in any form as a verb :D
  18. yeah, i know. 10 characters though.

  19. Off topic but to be honest it would have been worse with out the bombs. Millions of lives would have been lost in a land attack as the Japanese would have fought for every inch, civilians or not would be ordered to stay and attack.

    The bombs were a sign that it was over and ended the war with minimal bloodshed.
  20. Q: The U.S. government is clearly practicing double standards in its foreign policy. While supporting Israel’s right to possess a nuclear arsenal, the U.S. is relentlessly pressuring Iran to halt its civilian nuclear program. What are your views on this? And does the International Atomic Energy Agency have the authority to investigate Israel’s nuclear weapons program?

    A: The basic point was explained very candidly by Henry Kissinger. He was asked by the Washington Post why he now claims that Iran does not need nuclear energy so it must be working on building a bomb, while in the 1970s he insisted forcefully that Iran needs nuclear energy and the U.S. must provide the shah with the means to develop it. His answer was pure Kissinger: “They were an allied country” so they needed nuclear energy. Now they are not an ally, so they do not need nuclear energy. As for Israel, it is an ally, more accurately a client state. So they inherit from the master the right to do as they please.


  21. Stop justifying the Atomic bombs attacks, it is sinful, heartless, and cowardly acts at the same time. They wouldn't do that if Japan had nukes too.

    Minimal bloodshed just among the American army.
  22. you rock ;)

    but who will listen? they don't even give a damn to what the International Atomic Energy Agency say.
  23. Well the Allies were planning a major invasion of the home islands for the summer of 1946. Read up Operation Downfall. The expected casualties were at least 2-4 million dead and wounded on the allied side and 5-10 million dead on the japanese side. In addition the Japanese Army was still entrenched and fighting in China and thousands of civilians were still dying every day. (My grandfather was Chinese major during the war so I know what kind of suffering the Chinese went through.)

    Truman decided to drop the 2 nukes he had at a time as a gamble to force the Japanese to surrender early. It paid off. If the Japanese knew the US only had 2 experimental nukes and used them both already, they would not have surrendered.

    The nuclear attacks are a tragedy indeed, but you need to know those guys really didn't really know what they were playing with at the time. They didn't even know about radioactive fallout or radiation sicknesses. Looking at the big picture it might not have been so simple to say that history would have turned out better if nuclear weapons were not used.

    For the cost of 2 cities, the early surrender saved the lives of millions of Chinese, Japanese, and Allied troops and civilians. It prevented the USSR from taking over all of Korea and southeast Asia. It prevented the total destruction of the Japanese home islands, allowing it to recover quickly post-war as a first world country. Lastly, the knowledge of the destructive aftermath of the bombings might have prevented both superpowers from using much more powerful nuclear weapons (x1000 or more) on each other during the cold war.
  24. Following up on the chinese war post, I personally believe every country, even Iran, should have the right to nuclear energy. In fact I think nuclear energy might be the only way to stop global warming and a potential global peak oil crisis.

    That said, I think nuclear weapons technology should not spread around the world. Everyone including the US and Russia are reducing their nuclear stockpiles. Obama even said that he hoped that he could one day see a nuclear weaponless world (even though I think that would be naive). Yet right now every dictator in the world is trying to acquire a nuke. This included North Korea, aparthied-era South Africa, and now Ahmadi.

    Everyone fears the day when everyone and their mom has a nuke. All you need is sumone to sneeze in front of one paranoid tinpot dictator of a tiny country to set off a nuclear armageddon.

    Why can't people take a example from peaceful prosperous countries like Canada, Brazil, Australia, or Japan to see that you can be respected and not have a nuke.
  25. Slow down there. Iran's international obligations also count. Iran is a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and as I understand they have within the past few years also ratified an additional provision of the NPT. Violation of the NPT is an international crime and could lead to a dangerous militarist trend in the middle east in addition to increasing the risk of international nuclear war.

    Of course, NPT also calls for nuclear powers who are signatories to disarm. None have (except South Africa after the fall of apartheid). None of the major western powers have even begun the process of disarmament.

    Furthermore, Israel is not a signatory to the NPT and has a large nuclear arsenal, for which we hardly see an objection. This nuclear arsenal is indeed what has begun the middle east nuclear arms race that we are fearing Iran will commence in a few years...

    Lastly, the signatories of the NPT are supposed to be rewarded for their commitment against nuclear weapons to be given aid in developing a peaceful domestic nuclear program. This includes the right to enrich uranium, which keeps coming up as an objection from politicians in the US.

    Nuclear weapons is a multifaceted and truly international problem that must be dealt with in its entirety on the international level and in every single country where there nuclear weapons or they are being developed.

    I hope in the case of Iran that the pursuit of nuclear weapons (which by all IAEA accounts seems to have been on hold for years now) is peacefully prevented without any harm coming to the people.
  26. Ahmadi does not care about nukes, he stated that, Iran showed that, and the International Atomic Energy Agency approves that. However, he and every Iranian do care about the nuclear program for peaceful purposes.
  27. The problem is that no one is aiming to listen and understand that Iran does not want nuclear weapons.
  28. I, personally and many other Iranians don't give a damn to "peaceful nuclear energy"!! When people in Iran are HUNGRY.I don't talk about freedom, I am talking About HUNGRY people, sleeping on sea of energy and natural resources every night.

  29. The program is vital for the future of Iran. The more Iran becoming capable of relying on itself, the more it has chances to defeat "hunger". The international blockade on Iran will turn weaker if Iran achieves self-sufficiency more and more. Energy is vital!
  30. I didn't say Iran didn't want nuclear weapons. I'd be very surprised if they didn't _want_ them. I said that there is no evidence that they've restarted their weapons program since it was outed a few years ago.
  31. I second that. There is no reason to believe that state sponsored high-tech (er.. 50 years ago) industry like this would be harmful to Iran's economy. Quite the opposite..
  32. Answer me CLEARLY. What is the relationship between Nuclear Energy and HUNGER?! What's your definition of producing food related to nuclear energy? Have you found a new way to promote agriculture by "nuclear energy" or what?!
  33. You are mistaken. They didn't have a nuclear weapons program the first place. What is actually no evidence about, is "having any sort of nuclear weapon program".
  34. self-sufficiency doesn't come with nuclear energy. There is something in the world known as "infrastructure"s of economy!! Only in definitions of dictators nuclear power is included in infrastructures.
  35. The main point here is ENERGY and if you don't know what can you do with energy and its relationship to food and food industry, no offense, I suggest you go to school first.
  36. Sorry other Unreg but I think this Unreg is right.
  37. Oh, then why France and other countries care about Nuclear energy, they have "infrastructure"s of economy, :D
  38. Bullshit. War is heartless. If you remember, we were attacked first. When you do not have a choice beyond "they die or we die" you pick them, moron.

    Fuck, saying we were wrong to use the bomb is like blaming a wife for being beaten, because she fights back and doesn't just sit there and take it.

    They attacked us, and they found out that they attacked the wrong country. Never would have got nuked if they hadn't started their own killing spree, and then extended it to us.

    And to top it off, all the rhetoric and talk here isn't going to change a thing. When a country with nukes thinks it is about to have a lot of its citizens killed, or a lot of its citizens are killed, it is going to use the nukes. Whether anyone here thinks they should just shut up and die or not. Other countries that think they will be attacked next will also seriously consider using their nukes too, to make sure the job gets finished and the threat to them is eliminated. And when a government as brutal and cruel as the Iranian government has demonstrated that it is gets a nuke, that is serious cause for concern.

    Those are the facts, like them or not. You better all pray the government listens to reason and lets the demonstrators have the freedom they need to make the country a more sane, reasonable, and free place. Because if that doesn't happen, that government is going to die in a very violent way, and a lot of innocent people who don't need to die, that don't deserve to die, could get caught in the crossfire.

    This is the nature of war. You can't just push a button and only kill the guilty ones. They tend to try to blend in with a lot of innocents and try to take them down with them.
  39. I agree completely.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors

Close

Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins