Evidence of Iran's nuclear bomb ambition

[Tyrant]

Why would Iran enrich Uranium to 4.8% and be testing the P-2 gas centrifuge from Pakistan?

Why would Achmadintheheadijad state in April of this year that they had enriched to 3.5% (the level required for Nuclear Power Reactors) then later it be revealed they got to 4.8% and are looking to improve? They get to 20% and then they have weapons grade.

I see no harm in that (Barring the latter)

"This cap I think should be below 10, meaning reactor grade," he said.

"Iran is prepared to put in place other measures to ensure fuel produced is not re-enriched and used for nuclear [weapons] purposes."

Early this month, Iran announced that it had managed to enrich uranium up to 4.8 per cent.

Iran open to enrichment cap
(^And this was in May)

Bear in mind that 20% is an enormous jump, and the installation enriching this material would be quite a bother to hide.

This is also a country that had a massive display of its Rocket Weapons in the centre of the country recently source including the Shahab 3 - capable of delivering a Nuclear Warhead over 1000 miles away.

"The tests came two days after US-led warships finished an exercise in the Gulf that Tehran described as "adventurist."

"We want to show our deterrent and defensive power to trans-regional enemies, and we hope they will understand the message of the manoeuvres," said General Yahya Rahim Safavi, the head of the Revolutionary Guards, in an apparent reference to the US and other Western powers."

This is interesting...

It goes back to the question of 'Are they responsible enough to maintain a M.A.D doctrine if they were to acquire nukes?' Iran can't exactly give terrorists nuclear warhead-tipped missiles and maintain the 'anonymous terrorist financier' position the West has been beating drums about.

If their missile advancements are to be an indication that they have nuclear bomb ambitions, then shouldn't it point more toward them possessing them for a military deterrent?

Their head of state has called for Israel to be wiped off the map. I don't find this feasible or desirable, but at the same time, Israel has been beseeching the US to bomb Iran's reactor and has told the world it would not permit a 'nuclear Iran' to come about.

Is the world supposed to be shocked when Iran doesn't permit itself to be bullied like this, and assume the worst about their power plants? For all the Islamo-fascism posturing we keep seeing, Russia doesn't seem that troubled by it. Why? Through cooperation with a developing nation both parties have managed to come out ahead.

This is all circumstantial evidence, I accept - but when the farmer comes out of the sheep pen with his trousers round his ankles, a rosy glow in his cheeks and bits of wool on his cock - assumptions can be made.

Except that in this case, the farmer has been cooperative, and has invited others to view just what he does with the sheep in order to disprove assumptions. He even invited the mayor to build the barn for him.

I'm glad some rational discussion has appeared in this thread.

 

[headvoid]

"The tests came two days after US-led warships finished an exercise in the Gulf that Tehran described as "adventurist."

Mmm.. I did read that. Hardly textbook diplomacy

Israel has been beseeching the US to bomb Iran's reactor and has told the world it would not permit a 'nuclear Iran' to come about.

I suspect they wont wait - not sure you will remember Operation Opera - Seen as a massive success within Israel.

Except that in this case, the farmer has been cooperative, and has invited others to view just what he does with the sheep in order to disprove assumptions. He even invited the mayor to build the barn for him.

LOL - but I suspect he shows us his regular sheep, not what he does with Flossy, his special love

 

[Tyrant]

Mmm.. I did read that. Hardly textbook diplomacy

Surely not. It looks like silly nationalistic or possibly religious posturing to me. Perhaps both identify with the heavy anti-Western sentiment prevelant among such a group which identifies with numerous distraught people (Palestinians, Iraqis). The same can be said of Israel and the USA.

I suspect they wont wait - not sure you will remember Operation Opera - Seen as a massive success within Israel.

The circumstances aren't quite the same. Iraq was seen as a bellicose nation which was making who-knows-what in their labs. Iran, being a part of the Axis of Ebil!, like it or not, is tied in much more to this international War on Terror. All eyes are on the Middle East, and such an unprovoked attack, with no evidence of a nuclear bomb project, would seriously damage already-crappy foreign relations.

Not to mention the fact that Russian technicians are in the area, and Russia has made it very clear that it will not tolerate her citizens being caught in the line of fire of what she percieves as an aggressive Israel (Western) strike.

LOL - but I suspect he shows us his regular sheep, not what he does with Flossy, his special love

Well he's shown us the entire pasture, has offered everything up save for sheep inspectors with guns to patrol his farm.

Again, positive assertions...

 

[The Question]

When a nuclear Iran nukes Israel...

They'll inherit the fallout and its attendant casualty levels as well. The region literally isn't physically vast enough to prevent that. Now let's point out again Messenger's dead-on assessment of your gullibility:

All this over a reactor? It seems as though if the author has completely ignored the question of 'if' and as jumped to 'what, when, how,' etc.

Thus the bullshit is exposed, yet you continue to swallow that same ol' "nuclear automatically = nuclear warheads" turd over and over and over again.

 

[Tyrant]

Israel Official: Strike on Iran Possible

"One way or the other, we'll get you into another one of our wars."

 

[Tyrant]

Iran complains to UN Security Council over Sneh comments

Deputy Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh suggested in comments published Friday that Israel must be ready to prevent Iran's nuclear program "at all costs," and might be forced to launch a military strike against Iran's nuclear program - the clearest statement yet of this possibility from a high-ranking Israeli official.

Remember; even though Bush is now the truly proverbial "lame duck", he has pledged to defend Israel, even if Israel starts a military conflict.

Maybe the scales should be slightly more balanced, no?

 

[Tyrant]

?

 

[Ogami]

Maybe the scales should be more balanced, and maybe Messenger could bother reading what the Iranians are actually saying. (Oddly enough, the Iranians sound very similar to what a number of TKers say about the hated 'Zionists'):

November 15, 2006 No.1357

Qods (Jerusalem) Day in Iran: 'The Nation of Muslims Must Prepare for the Great War So As to Completely Wipe Out the Zionist Regime and to Remove This Cancerous Growth'

On the occasion of Qods (Jerusalem) Day, which was observed this year in Iran on October 20, 2006, several conservative Iranian newspapers published editorials praising the resistance against Israel and urging Israel's destruction.

The editorials, which appeared in the conservative dailies Resalat and Kayhan, reflected Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's Qods Day speech, in which he said: "The existence of this regime [i.e. Israel] has been based on military threat, on military strength, and on its myth of invincibility. Today, by the grace of God, this myth has been shattered, with the help of the believers in Palestine, and thanks to the self-sacrifice and the belief of the Hizbullah commanders. Today, the Zionists do not feel safe, not even in their homes, [or] anywhere in the world."

http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD135706

 

[Tyrant]

Oh boy, that's absolute proof of their nuclear bomb ambitions right there. Good job, you're debating 'skilz' shine through once again!

 

[Ogami]

The Iranians really believe that half of Israel was obliterated during their recent "war" with Hezbollah. They're living in a Jihadist dream world. And you're looking for "evidence", right.

Like I said, once Tel Aviv is nuked, Messenger will still be looking for those signs and not finding any. LOL

 

[Tyrant]

The Iranians really believe that half of Israel was obliterated during their recent "war" with Hezbollah. They're living in a Jihadist dream world. And you're looking for "evidence", right.

Like I said, once Tel Aviv is nuked, Messenger will still be looking for those signs and not finding any. LOL

Can you spot the logical fallacies?

 

[Ogami]

So far I know that you see evidence for Kuwaitis lying about incubators and Bush lying about WMD, but you see no evidence for lying by Saddam Hussein, Iran's thugs, or probably North Korea, too.

It's not a fallacy, it's a pattern. And it's a simple question to ask you why you always disbelieve one side yet always give America's enemies the benefit of a doubt. Why is Bush assumed to be lying, and Saddam not to be? With their track record, why would we assume Iran's Mullahs are telling the truth?

Seems to me you have a long way to go in proving the trustworthiness of Iran and Saddam Hussein. Let us know when you have worked on that.

-Ogami

 

[Tyrant]

So far I know that you see evidence for Kuwaitis lying about incubators and Bush lying about WMD, but you see no evidence for lying by Saddam Hussein

I choose to give more credence to the more realistic scenario that the US encouraged Saddam to invade Kuwait, that he possessed a casus belli against it, that Kuwait was waging economic warfare against Iraq after its war with Iran.

You're juggling things to make it seem as though if the two sides are not mutually exclusive.

?

Iran's thugs

Thugs?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_many_questions ?

or probably North Korea, too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well ?

It's not a fallacy, it's a pattern.

It's a pattern of you committing fallacies, yes.

And it's a simple question to ask you why you always disbelieve one side yet always give America's enemies the benefit of a doubt.

I give the enemies of the Neo-conservatives and of Israel the benefit of the doubt, not the enemies of America.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Why is Bush assumed to be lying, and Saddam not to be? With their track record, why would we assume Iran's Mullahs are telling the truth?

Is their track record of lying as hefty as the US's or Israel's, or is it a case of them simply not being cuddly wuddly nice to the US?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi

Seems to me you have a long way to go in proving the trustworthiness of Iran and Saddam Hussein.

Prove their trustworthiness? Discover their moods, see if they need a hug?

Where do you get these crap notions from, the toilet?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness

Let us know when you have worked on that.

-Ogami

 

[Ogami]

I'm still waiting for your proof, based on the clear record of Iran's theocratic regime since the Iranian Revolution, that Iran can be trusted not to have "ambition" for nuclear bombs.

I would think you have your work cut out for you, the burden of proof is on YOU, no one else.

-Ogami

 

[Tyrant]

I'm still waiting for your proof, based on the clear record of Iran's theocratic regime since the Iranian Revolution, that Iran can be trusted not to have "ambition" for nuclear bombs.

You want trust? Convert to Islam. Geopolitics are a bit more complex than the Manichean plays King Bush puts on.

I would think you have your work cut out for you, the burden of proof is on YOU, no one else.

Ok, I'll supply you with proof. But first, you turn right back around, scroll up and present to us A) Reasonable evidence that Iran is producing a nuclear bomb and B) Why others should have to disprove the assertion that they are. Satisfy that, which came before your attempt to turn things around, and I'll present absolute, honest-to-God proof why Iran can be completely trusted.

 

[Tyrant]

Isn't this a bit counterproductive, as well as a waste of time?

 

[Ogami]

Sarek was kind enough to tell me how to use the View Public Profile feature to easily put Karmas on a particular poster.

10 minutes of work, and I've given you about 20 negs, which works out to a neg every 30 seconds.

With that in mind, how did you manage 13,000 negative Karmas for me? That's 13 times the number of posts I've actually made.

Like I said, the Karma system is broken if someone can just fill the number up like that.

I'm flattered you and Sarek went to the trouble of giving me that many negs, but I'm only one poster. It's just my opinion, take it or leave it.

You've called me a coward several times, but how much courage does it take for Messenger, or Sarek, or Question to post in a wolf pack and and tag team one person until they've been whipped down? Not much courage at all, in fact it's the very definition of cowardice to need others who echo your opinion to get by.

That's why I gladly don't fit in with your clique, and proud of it.

-Ogami

 

[Tyrant]

You already posted that TL;DR shite here. Anything to get out of a discussion which you are so obviously adept at participating in, I see.

 

[The Question]

Evidence of Iranian nuclear weapons ambitions? There's none. Iran's just another name on Israel's hit list, and we're the goon with the gun.

 

[Starship Coyote]

Any ambitions Israel might have for airstrikes against Iranian nuclear facilities just got narrower:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,231717,00.html