Ahmadinejad's stance on 9/11

[Zoraptor]

Ah, yes, international politics on internet forums, the one thing which can make me look back on GWB thinking that there was a well informed rational peace loving individual who I'm eternally glad made president- because it's always good to remember that things could be so much worse.

Edited March 7, 2010 by Zoraptor

[I want teh kotor 3]

Ah, yes, international politics on internet forums, the one thing which can make me look back on GWB thinking that there was a well informed rational peace loving individual who I'm eternally glad made president- because it's always good to remember that things could be so much worse.

 

Certainly, he was better than Obama is.

[Killian Kalthorne]

I like Obama. I voted for Obama. He was an Idealist, and nothing is more fun than to watch an Idealist go down in flames of reality.

 

Popcorn munching moments I tell you!

 

WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

[Zoraptor]

Ah, yes, international politics on internet forums, the one thing which can make me look back on GWB thinking that there was a well informed rational peace loving individual who I'm eternally glad made president- because it's always good to remember that things could be so much worse.

 

Certainly, he was better than Obama is.

Either of them are better than someone who has advocated nuking two different peoples in the past week or so for the crime of being Iranian or German. If your ultimate "point" is that Mahmoud cannot be trusted with nukes but "we" can then you haven't so much shot yourself in the foot as self amputated both legs.

[Walsingham]

As a matter of fact I do support the notion that some countries shouldn't be allowed nukes. Because, you know, their politicians are chosen through a process of byzantine violence and psychotic intrigue rather than talking toot and being bought by corporations. Our politicians are fat flatulent cats, but they are house cats. A lot of countries don't have anything less than tigers.

 

Actually, I just noticed the time. I'm probably talking rubbish.

[Guest The Architect]

Now I'm not a hardcore conspiracy loon who sees conspiracy in everything even though I'm a cynical prick who's just as mad at me as anyone or anything else, BUT, I was wondering if anyone can get any verification of whether the department of justice and the FBI have officially indicted Bin Laden and Al-Qaida for the terrorist attacks of 9/11 because if not, WHY NOT? I thought we had testimony, black boxes, claims of responsibility including an authentic video tape.

 

Because last time I heard they haven't charged him and I find that the strangest thing among all these 9/11 conspiracies in which most of them have been comprehensively debunked, since isn't there enough evidence to convict them with? What are they on long leave, taking too many coffee breaks? That Iranian president is a ****head, but no wonder there are 9/11 conspiracy theories. I also find the fact that a team of Danish scientists found nanothermite and microspheres in the dust of all 3 collapsed WTC buildings interesting, and these findings were published in peer reviewed journals, BUT, this is probably another one of those things that's been debunked that has escaped my attention. It was probably from all the thermite cutting that went on in the aftermath.

[Oerwinde]

I like Obama. I voted for Obama. He was an Idealist, and nothing is more fun than to watch an Idealist go down in flames of reality.

 

Popcorn munching moments I tell you!

 

WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

 

Obama's main failing is that he believes the Republicans can be reasoned with. This belief has resulted in nothing being accomplished because no matter how much he tries to appease them, they won't compromise. Which on one hand is to be respected, they're sticking to their guns, on the other hand thats just stupid. You don't just stonewall the whole thing, you try to tag on something you want to pass in exchange for supporting what they want to pass. Its how the NDP gets anything done up here.

[I want teh kotor 3]

Ah, yes, international politics on internet forums, the one thing which can make me look back on GWB thinking that there was a well informed rational peace loving individual who I'm eternally glad made president- because it's always good to remember that things could be so much worse.

 

Certainly, he was better than Obama is.

Either of them are better than someone who has advocated nuking two different peoples in the past week or so for the crime of being Iranian or German. If your ultimate "point" is that Mahmoud cannot be trusted with nukes but "we" can then you haven't so much shot yourself in the foot as self amputated both legs.

 

I said we should have nuked Germany during WWI, when we were at war with them, as I thought it would have been a better tactical decision than Hiroshima. I advocate nuking Iran because it has shown the intent to destroy Israel, an ally of the US in an area where it has no others. My point is not that Ahmadinejad has more or less of a right to have nukes than any other leader; my point is that Israel should attack first.

[Mamoulian War]

I advocate nuking Iran because it has shown the intent to destroy Israel, an ally of the US in an area where it has no others. My point is not that Ahmadinejad has more or less of a right to have nukes than any other leader; my point is that Israel should attack first.

 

Then don't be surprised that many middle east people are advocating to nuke the USA

 

double standards for the win...

[213374U]

I said we should have nuked Germany during WWI, when we were at war with them, as I thought it would have been a better tactical decision than Hiroshima.

Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about. I suggest you read a bit more on the subject of WWII before making your ignorance public so casually. The theoretical foundations of the science behind nuclear weapons were laid out in the early 1930s, more than a decade after the end of WWI.

 

Further, there was no point in using such weapons against the Nazis -- it was clear that they weren't surrendering no matter what, and their industrial base was destroyed by the point nukes were ready to be used, after years of conventional carpet bombing. Not to mention that Germans wouldn't be very happy about it, and that might have been used by the post-war pro-Soviet crowd.

 

Not only that, but "tactical" concerns have no place in a discussion on WWII-era nuclear arms; those were strategic weapons whose development was ordered due to fears that Germany, that could have never orchestrated a conventional bombing campaign against the US, could get them first. Proper "tactical" nukes were first developed and deployed during the '50s. Quite simply, there was nothing that WWII-era nukes could do, that regular air raids couldn't do better, more cheaply and with less risk. Except for, perhaps, the wholesale, instant killing of tens of thousands of civilians which, after reading your posts, is obvious is the only thing you are concerned with.

 

 

I advocate nuking Iran because it has shown the intent to destroy Israel, an ally of the US in an area where it has no others. My point is not that Ahmadinejad has more or less of a right to have nukes than any other leader; my point is that Israel should attack first.

I fail to see how WMDs come into the equation, there. The IDF has a history of success against overwhelming odds. When did nuclear weapons become the sole option for preemptive/defensive strikes? And, more pertinently, why on Earth should Israel attack Iran?! Edited March 8, 2010 by 213374U

[Humodour]

Ah, yes, international politics on internet forums, the one thing which can make me look back on GWB thinking that there was a well informed rational peace loving individual who I'm eternally glad made president- because it's always good to remember that things could be so much worse.

 

Certainly, he was better than Obama is.

Either of them are better than someone who has advocated nuking two different peoples in the past week or so for the crime of being Iranian or German. If your ultimate "point" is that Mahmoud cannot be trusted with nukes but "we" can then you haven't so much shot yourself in the foot as self amputated both legs.

 

I said we should have nuked Germany during WWI, when we were at war with them, as I thought it would have been a better tactical decision than Hiroshima. I advocate nuking Iran because it has shown the intent to destroy Israel, an ally of the US in an area where it has no others. My point is not that Ahmadinejad has more or less of a right to have nukes than any other leader; my point is that Israel should attack first.

 

Oh man you've got neoconitis pretty bad, doncha?

[Killian Kalthorne]

why on Earth should Israel attack Iran?!

I am not saying Israel should attack Iran, but if Iran gains nuclear weapons, and their government has repeated many times they want to wipe Israel off the map, it stands to reasonable logic that Iran will wipe Israel off the map if it gains nuclear weapons. By that threat Israel may see it as in their best interests to wipe Iran off the map first in a pre-emptive nuclear strike.

 

Remember, MAD doesn't apply to Islam because of the whole Martyrdom belief. Islamic extremists, which practically runs Iran and its military, believe that if they die in the name of Allah and destroys His enemies the extremist would gain a seat in Heaven and 72 virgins.

 

What I wonder is if the Koran specifically states these virgins are female or is that just assumed.

[Walsingham]

I advocate nuking Iran because it has shown the intent to destroy Israel, an ally of the US in an area where it has no others. My point is not that Ahmadinejad has more or less of a right to have nukes than any other leader; my point is that Israel should attack first.

I fail to see how WMDs come into the equation, there. The IDF has a history of success against overwhelming odds. When did nuclear weapons become the sole option for preemptive/defensive strikes? And, more pertinently, why on Earth should Israel attack Iran?!

 

Because clearly real men only use nukes to settle their differences. Something I'm sure France would agree with, being all manly, despite being literally next door to the country he wants to nuke.

 

Numbers makes a very good point which is that conventional military force, as a part of conventional diplomatic relations seems far more sensible. We can't just nuke everyone who happens to be going through a bad patch. Nor even apply massive military force to all of them. It's not like hitting a dog on the nose with a rolled up newspaper. It's ****ing mass slaughter. Which is not to say I don't think it is inevitable on occasion and should be done well, but all the same...

[Killian Kalthorne]

Hey, if it can work for Truman it can work for us! Mass slaughter, the American Way! Aft3er all this country became what it is today by the genocidal mass slaughtering of its native population, by enslaving those from third world countries, and treating immigrants like dirt as they built the foundation of our great democracy even at the cost of their miserable lives.

 

By golly, that is what makes America great!

 

WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

[Wrath of Dagon]

What I wonder is if the Koran specifically states these virgins are female or is that just assumed.

The whole virgins thing is just a misinterpretation, they're actually raisins. http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2002/jan/1...guardianreview5

[Killian Kalthorne]

Would those be California raisins?

[I want teh kotor 3]

I said we should have nuked Germany during WWI, when we were at war with them, as I thought it would have been a better tactical decision than Hiroshima.

Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about. I suggest you read a bit more on the subject of WWII before making your ignorance public so casually. The theoretical foundations of the science behind nuclear weapons were laid out in the early 1930s, more than a decade after the end of WWI.

IT WAS A TYPO. I know full well that the Manhattan Project was completed dueing WWI, not WWII. I'm not stupid.

 

Further, there was no point in using such weapons against the Nazis -- it was clear that they weren't surrendering no matter what, and their industrial base was destroyed by the point nukes were ready to be used, after years of conventional carpet bombing. Not to mention that Germans wouldn't be very happy about it, and that might have been used by the post-war pro-Soviet crowd.

No point, huh? Taking out the Nazi leadership (or a great deal of it) quickly and decisively would have been useless?

 

Not only that, but "tactical" concerns have no place in a discussion on WWII-era nuclear arms; those were strategic weapons whose development was ordered due to fears that Germany, that could have never orchestrated a conventional bombing campaign against the US, could get them first. Proper "tactical" nukes were first developed and deployed during the '50s. Quite simply, there was nothing that WWII-era nukes could do, that regular air raids couldn't do better, more cheaply and with less risk. Except for, perhaps, the wholesale, instant killing of tens of thousands of civilians which, after reading your posts, is obvious is the only thing you are concerned with.

Nukes destroy cities. When the military command is in said city, there is no more military command. War becomes far easier. Civilians die, but better their civilians than our soldiers.

 

I advocate nuking Iran because it has shown the intent to destroy Israel, an ally of the US in an area where it has no others. My point is not that Ahmadinejad has more or less of a right to have nukes than any other leader; my point is that Israel should attack first.

I fail to see how WMDs come into the equation, there. The IDF has a history of success against overwhelming odds. When did nuclear weapons become the sole option for preemptive/defensive strikes? And, more pertinently, why on Earth should Israel attack Iran?!

Iran is trying to obtain nukes. Their leader has previously expressed a desire to destroy Israel. When Iran gets nukes, chances are they'll grow a set and attack Israel. To prevent this, Israel needs to attack first. Nukes are necessary because Iran has 'em, or will have them.

[Walsingham]

Hold on. Honest question: what possible benefit is there in Iran nuking Israel?

[Pidesco]

None. It would just be an excuse for the whole world to carpet-bomb Iran into oblivion.

 

Iranian leadership would have to be a mass of extremely stupid individuals to pull something like that. And they're not stupid, of course.

[Gfted1]

Hold on. Honest question: what possible benefit is there in Iran nuking Israel?

 

How can the thoughts of a madman be understood? What possible benefit was there to Nazi Germany killing jews?

[Orogun01]

Hold on. Honest question: what possible benefit is there in Iran nuking Israel?

 

How can the thoughts of a madman be understood? What possible benefit was there to Nazi Germany killing jews?

Ethnic Cleansing.

[213374U]

No point, huh? Taking out the Nazi leadership (or a great deal of it) quickly and decisively would have been useless?

 

[...]

Nukes destroy cities. When the military command is in said city, there is no more military command. War becomes far easier. Civilians die, but better their civilians than our soldiers.

You don't know what you are talking about. You need to read more and fantasize less. Much less.

 

The F

Edited March 8, 2010 by 213374U

[Guard Dog]

When I was in the military I went through the eight week NBC (Nuclear Biological Chemical) Warfare School. Nukes are lousy tactical weapons and the whole concept of artillery borne tactical nuclear weapons was abandoned by the Soviets and the US during the 80's. The idea of tactical weapons is to clear obstacles for infantry/armor movement. Nuclear weapons do a poor job of that because of a) Fallout obviously renders the point of attack uninhabitable b) low yield weapons are nearly impossible to accurately model, it may do what you need, it may not.

 

The only real value to them as weapons is strategic. Would Iran attack Israel? I don't know. No one does but it is unwise to assume the leadership of Iran will act in a way we would consider logical or rational. They do have an apocolyptic bent with their 13th Imam prophecies and all. If Iran were a military dictatorship I think we would all sleep easier because dictators tend to act in their own self interest. If Iran were to use a nuke, or give one to Al Qeada (that is their delivery system if the target is in Europe or the US) then they would be eradicated but it would be after they had done an inestimatable amount of damage. A proactive strike might make sense if it could be assured you would get 100% of their nuclear facilities (you can't), but you cannot, must not, will not, use nukes agains them. You cannot be sure you will achive your goal (halting their nuclear program) plus you have now justified whatever they do with a bomb once they have one.

 

There are three ways solve the Iran problem:

 

1) Containment and isolation which is probably the wisest way to go but least effective since Russia and China will not play ball.

2) Encourage and enable the pro-democracy crowd to take over. This is unlikely because they are disorganized, unarmed and are not soldiers at any rate.

3) The most certain way is to find one of their generals who commands a large percentage of their military and "encourage" him to take over by funneling him the money and arms he needs. This is probsbly the most effective way to go because military dictatorships are easy to create and behave in a predictable way but it is a god awful thing to do.

 

There is the three choices, they all stink. Glad you're not the Presidient?

[Mamoulian War]

The number 3 might work for some banana republic, but i really doubt that it could be done for theocracy... how is the chance that the people in charge who have very strict theological beliefs, would ever allow anyone in their ranks who is not 100% loyal and would without hesitation put his life for their cause?

 

we have already seen that 1 "holy" person can persuade hundreds of their closest followers to mass suicide... the fanatical religion is the biggest power known to mankind and it's ****ing hard to break...

[Walsingham]

My question about benefits was meant to reflect the fact that whether you think the land is Israel or Palestine, irradiated is bad. It's too small to nuke 'just a bit'. Doing so pre-emptively would probably constitute the only definite international basis for action on the regime. Not that it would help the poor bastards in Israel. But i'm just saying.

 

I think the logical basis for Iran's nuke program is threefold:

 

- To bolster the prestige of the regime and form a political node for what is a very divided nation. Divided ethnically, politically, geographically and religiously.

- To form a bargaining chip in receiving aid and assistance

- If completed it would act as a strategic longstop to preclude military invasion and even domestic unrest in extremis

 

~

 

I'd say GDs options make sense, but the most likely one is going to be to try and leverage influence to assist reformists and provide incentives for the electorate to perceive benefits to playing ball, as we have been. But unfortunately the character of the state security forces, and particularly the IRGC means that they weild considerable power behind the official faces of authority. The IRGC own business assets, build big construction projects, run arms and drugs, and arrange every kind of financial deal. In addition to their pivotal role as a military elite, and paramilitary strategic bodunker. They are totally out of control, as evidenced by their 'clandestine' operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, which directly set the agenda yet seem to often catch the politicians by surprise.