Iran has backup nuke facillity

[Renton 17765]

Good on them and why shouldn't they. Might actually do the region some good.

 

More nuclear weapons might do the region good?

 

 

 

 

And this is pretty damning evidence that it is purely weapons that they are after, not only because of the secrecy, but because the scale they are working in is completely impractical for energy use, but perfect for weapons projects.

 

What Secrecy? They've announced it more than 180 days before it becomes operable and agreed to inspections. That's like saying Star Trek came out in the summer shrouded in secrecy.

 

Could you also expand on it being 'completely impractical for energy use, but perfect for weapons projects'? I've not heard that view expressed and would be interested to know more.

 

 

According to the Times on Saturday they only annonced it because they had been rumbled. It was a pre-emptive anouncement. The Times also said the evidence pointed to weapons manufacture.

 

I don't see why anyone would want to defend these lunatics tbh. It's a quite worrying situation.

 

I ain't defending the lunatics. I never defended Saddam Hussein either, but once the war drum starts banging you've got to question the justification being given.

 

Iran haven't violated any international law here and have complied fully with the IAEA.

 

That wasn't my understanding. Admittedly I'm not fully read up about this so I'll leave it for now.

[Fop 1]

Good on them and why shouldn't they. Might actually do the region some good.

 

More nuclear weapons might do the region good?

 

 

 

 

And this is pretty damning evidence that it is purely weapons that they are after, not only because of the secrecy, but because the scale they are working in is completely impractical for energy use, but perfect for weapons projects.

 

What Secrecy? They've announced it more than 180 days before it becomes operable and agreed to inspections. That's like saying Star Trek came out in the summer shrouded in secrecy.

 

Could you also expand on it being 'completely impractical for energy use, but perfect for weapons projects'? I've not heard that view expressed and would be interested to know more.

 

 

You do realise they only "announced" it because it had been discovered and was literally just about to be made public.

 

They didn't "come clean"..... they were discovered and beat their opponents to the punch (and clearly their PR and Propaganda has worked because people like you believe they "came clean" ), but only because they had to.

 

 

 

 

 

So now we've explained that to you, lets address the second part.

 

It's a very small facility, completely useless for enriching the amounts they'd need for even fledgling energy generation use, it is however a perfect size for producing the small amounts needed for weapons use.

[Renton 17765]

Good on them and why shouldn't they. Might actually do the region some good.

 

More nuclear weapons might do the region good?

 

 

 

 

And this is pretty damning evidence that it is purely weapons that they are after, not only because of the secrecy, but because the scale they are working in is completely impractical for energy use, but perfect for weapons projects.

 

What Secrecy? They've announced it more than 180 days before it becomes operable and agreed to inspections. That's like saying Star Trek came out in the summer shrouded in secrecy.

 

Could you also expand on it being 'completely impractical for energy use, but perfect for weapons projects'? I've not heard that view expressed and would be interested to know more.

 

 

According to the Times on Saturday they only annonced it because they had been rumbled. It was a pre-emptive anouncement. The Times also said the evidence pointed to weapons manufacture.

 

I don't see why anyone would want to defend these lunatics tbh. It's a quite worrying situation.

 

 

Who is the only country to use one?

 

Who keeps roaming the world attacking other countries?

 

What has Iran ever done to you?

 

Do you know any Iranians?

 

Have you ever been?

 

And before you give me long lists of human rights issues.....Those could apply to virtually every country from Brazil to China or anywhere in between.

 

If your neighbours all have big nukes pointed in your direction what would you want your leaders to be doing?

 

The west should learn its lessons from History and stop trying to control the world.

 

And which country is ran by islamic fundamentalists that claim they would wipe Israel off the face of the Earth if they had the capability? Iraq was never a real problem, fighting in Afghanistan is pointless, but Iran, they are the greatest threat to World Peace imo. Leave them to their own devices and there will be a nuclear holocaust in the Middle East.

[Happy Face 29]

Good on them and why shouldn't they. Might actually do the region some good.

 

More nuclear weapons might do the region good?

 

 

 

 

And this is pretty damning evidence that it is purely weapons that they are after, not only because of the secrecy, but because the scale they are working in is completely impractical for energy use, but perfect for weapons projects.

 

What Secrecy? They've announced it more than 180 days before it becomes operable and agreed to inspections. That's like saying Star Trek came out in the summer shrouded in secrecy.

 

Could you also expand on it being 'completely impractical for energy use, but perfect for weapons projects'? I've not heard that view expressed and would be interested to know more.

 

 

According to the Times on Saturday they only annonced it because they had been rumbled. It was a pre-emptive anouncement. The Times also said the evidence pointed to weapons manufacture.

 

I don't see why anyone would want to defend these lunatics tbh. It's a quite worrying situation.

 

I'd also add, the guy that owns The Times...he's the same one who owns Fox "Yeehaw let's bomb the eye-rackies" News.

 

Scott Ritter (Iraq weapons inspector and ex-marine) had this to say...

 

In any event, the facility is now out of the shadows, and will soon be subjected to a vast range of IAEA inspections, making any speculation about Iran's nuclear intentions moot. Moreover, Iran, in declaring this facility, has to know that because it has allegedly placed operational centrifuges in the Qom plant (even if no nuclear material has been introduced), there will be a need to provide the IAEA with full access to Iran's centrifuge manufacturing capability, so that a material balance can be acquired for these items as well.

 

Rather than representing the tip of the iceberg in terms of uncovering a covert nuclear weapons capability, the emergence of the existence of the Qom enrichment facility could very well mark the initiation of a period of even greater transparency on the part of Iran, leading to its full adoption and implementation of the IAEA additional protocol. This, more than anything, should be the desired outcome of the "Qom declaration".

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/ci...ant-inspections

 

Seems to me those on the attack are basing it on what they don't know and what they fear, rather than what we do know, which has not been shown to pose any threat.

[Fop 1]

Who is the only country to use one?

 

Who keeps roaming the world attacking other countries?

 

What has Iran ever done to you?

 

Do you know any Iranians?

 

Have you ever been?

 

And before you give me long lists of human rights issues.....Those could apply to virtually every country from Brazil to China or anywhere in between.

 

If your neighbours all have big nukes pointed in your direction what would you want your leaders to be doing?

 

The west should learn its lessons from History and stop trying to control the world.

 

 

Iran != Iranians.

 

There's plenty of decent Iranians, and many of them are still being imprisoned, tortured and killed as we speak.

 

 

 

 

The Iranian regime is scary though, of all the people in the world they are probably the most likely to a) use a nuclear weapon in anger and supply others with them (see how they fuelled the conflict in Iraq, most explosives used by any of the 3 major factions in Iraq can be traced back to Iran).

 

Allowing Iran, under its current regime, to develop nuclear weapons would be a hideous mistake.

[Renton 17765]

Good on them and why shouldn't they. Might actually do the region some good.

 

More nuclear weapons might do the region good?

 

 

 

 

And this is pretty damning evidence that it is purely weapons that they are after, not only because of the secrecy, but because the scale they are working in is completely impractical for energy use, but perfect for weapons projects.

 

What Secrecy? They've announced it more than 180 days before it becomes operable and agreed to inspections. That's like saying Star Trek came out in the summer shrouded in secrecy.

 

Could you also expand on it being 'completely impractical for energy use, but perfect for weapons projects'? I've not heard that view expressed and would be interested to know more.

 

 

According to the Times on Saturday they only annonced it because they had been rumbled. It was a pre-emptive anouncement. The Times also said the evidence pointed to weapons manufacture.

 

I don't see why anyone would want to defend these lunatics tbh. It's a quite worrying situation.

 

I'd also add, the guy that owns The Times...he's the same one who owns Fox "Yeehaw let's bomb the eye-rackies" News.

 

Scott Ritter (Iraq weapons inspector and ex-marine) had this to say...

 

In any event, the facility is now out of the shadows, and will soon be subjected to a vast range of IAEA inspections, making any speculation about Iran's nuclear intentions moot. Moreover, Iran, in declaring this facility, has to know that because it has allegedly placed operational centrifuges in the Qom plant (even if no nuclear material has been introduced), there will be a need to provide the IAEA with full access to Iran's centrifuge manufacturing capability, so that a material balance can be acquired for these items as well.

 

Rather than representing the tip of the iceberg in terms of uncovering a covert nuclear weapons capability, the emergence of the existence of the Qom enrichment facility could very well mark the initiation of a period of even greater transparency on the part of Iran, leading to its full adoption and implementation of the IAEA additional protocol. This, more than anything, should be the desired outcome of the "Qom declaration".

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/ci...ant-inspections

 

Seems to me those on the attack are basing it on what they don't know and what they fear, rather than what we do know, which has not been shown to pose any threat.

 

Iran is guilty of deception at the very least, fuck knows what else they have.

 

As for the Times, imo it's editorials are balanced and their journalists have free-reign. I could just as easily make a cliched comment about the Graunidad tbh.

[Fop 1]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/ci...ant-inspections

 

Seems to me those on the attack are basing it on what they don't know and what they fear, rather than what we do know, which has not been shown to pose any threat.

 

 

And if they have another secret facility (Iran is a HUGE place after all) that no one yet knows about?

[Happy Face 29]

Good on them and why shouldn't they. Might actually do the region some good.

 

More nuclear weapons might do the region good?

 

 

 

 

And this is pretty damning evidence that it is purely weapons that they are after, not only because of the secrecy, but because the scale they are working in is completely impractical for energy use, but perfect for weapons projects.

 

What Secrecy? They've announced it more than 180 days before it becomes operable and agreed to inspections. That's like saying Star Trek came out in the summer shrouded in secrecy.

 

Could you also expand on it being 'completely impractical for energy use, but perfect for weapons projects'? I've not heard that view expressed and would be interested to know more.

 

 

You do realise they only "announced" it because it had been discovered and was literally just about to be made public.

 

They didn't "come clean"..... they were discovered and beat their opponents to the punch (and clearly their PR and Propaganda has worked because people like you believe they "came clean" ), but only because they had to.

 

 

 

 

 

So now we've explained that to you, lets address the second part.

 

It's a very small facility, completely useless for enriching the amounts they'd need for even fledgling energy generation use, it is however a perfect size for producing the small amounts needed for weapons use.

 

 

International law doesn't require them to though. Unlike the USA, Iran generally comply with international law.

 

And on your second point, I got that from the first time you said it. All you did there was repeat it. I was asking more for a source so I can judge it's level of impartiality for myself. Not that I doubt you. Just interested.

[Renton 17765]

Good on them and why shouldn't they. Might actually do the region some good.

 

More nuclear weapons might do the region good?

 

 

 

 

And this is pretty damning evidence that it is purely weapons that they are after, not only because of the secrecy, but because the scale they are working in is completely impractical for energy use, but perfect for weapons projects.

 

What Secrecy? They've announced it more than 180 days before it becomes operable and agreed to inspections. That's like saying Star Trek came out in the summer shrouded in secrecy.

 

Could you also expand on it being 'completely impractical for energy use, but perfect for weapons projects'? I've not heard that view expressed and would be interested to know more.

 

 

According to the Times on Saturday they only annonced it because they had been rumbled. It was a pre-emptive anouncement. The Times also said the evidence pointed to weapons manufacture.

 

I don't see why anyone would want to defend these lunatics tbh. It's a quite worrying situation.

 

 

Who is the only country to use one?

 

Who keeps roaming the world attacking other countries?

 

What has Iran ever done to you?

 

Do you know any Iranians?

 

Have you ever been?

 

And before you give me long lists of human rights issues.....Those could apply to virtually every country from Brazil to China or anywhere in between.

 

If your neighbours all have big nukes pointed in your direction what would you want your leaders to be doing?

 

The west should learn its lessons from History and stop trying to control the world.

 

And which country is ran by islamic fundamentalists that claim they would wipe Israel off the face of the Earth if they had the capability? Iraq was never a real problem, fighting in Afghanistan is pointless, but Iran, they are the greatest threat to World Peace imo. Leave them to their own devices and there will be a nuclear holocaust in the Middle East.

 

I honestly dont know the answer to this, but apart from battles between their neighbour Iraq, have they actually ever attacked any other country either by war or terrorism?

 

They want to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth, for starters. Fundamentalist Islamic theocracies tend to worry me a bit.

[Happy Face 29]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/ci...ant-inspections

 

Seems to me those on the attack are basing it on what they don't know and what they fear, rather than what we do know, which has not been shown to pose any threat.

 

 

And if they have another secret facility (Iran is a HUGE place after all) that no one yet knows about?

 

That would be another matter, if it was within 180 days of being operational.

 

Not sure why you've quoted my pooint about the fear of unknowns with a fear mongering unknown, as if that proves any point other than mine.

[Fop 1]

I honestly dont know the answer to this, but apart from battles between their neighbour Iraq, have they actually ever attacked any other country either by war or terrorism?

 

 

War not really, they simply aren't powerful enough (except when they are illegally taking UK forces that they know are basically ordered to surrender to threat of force, of course).

 

 

 

However they've been implicated in an awful lot of terror attacks (ignoring Iraq which as Fop said they've basically provided much of the explosive and arms used by Shiite, Sunni and Al-Qaeda insurgents), and the whole Palestine/Israel issue.

 

In fact if you believe some people Lockerbie was an Iranian backed attack, not Libyan at all.

[Happy Face 29]

They want to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth, for starters. Fundamentalist Islamic theocracies tend to worry me a bit.

 

I think he was referring more to the regime in Jerusalem that keeps expanding Jewish settlements into Gaza in contravention of international law.

[Fop 1]

Good on them and why shouldn't they. Might actually do the region some good.

 

More nuclear weapons might do the region good?

 

 

 

 

And this is pretty damning evidence that it is purely weapons that they are after, not only because of the secrecy, but because the scale they are working in is completely impractical for energy use, but perfect for weapons projects.

 

What Secrecy? They've announced it more than 180 days before it becomes operable and agreed to inspections. That's like saying Star Trek came out in the summer shrouded in secrecy.

 

Could you also expand on it being 'completely impractical for energy use, but perfect for weapons projects'? I've not heard that view expressed and would be interested to know more.

 

 

You do realise they only "announced" it because it had been discovered and was literally just about to be made public.

 

They didn't "come clean"..... they were discovered and beat their opponents to the punch (and clearly their PR and Propaganda has worked because people like you believe they "came clean" ), but only because they had to.

 

 

 

 

 

So now we've explained that to you, lets address the second part.

 

It's a very small facility, completely useless for enriching the amounts they'd need for even fledgling energy generation use, it is however a perfect size for producing the small amounts needed for weapons use.

 

 

International law doesn't require them to though. Unlike the USA, Iran generally comply with international law.

 

And on your second point, I got that from the first time you said it. All you did there was repeat it. I was asking more for a source so I can judge it's level of impartiality for myself. Not that I doubt you. Just interested.

 

 

Why would they keep it secret if they were going to announce it? Why would they have kept their initial project secret in the first place for that matter?

 

 

 

The size? it was mentioned on the news (could well have been from a Guardian source IFRC), Fop's sure it will be mentioned on-line somewhere.

[Guest alex]

They want to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth, for starters. Fundamentalist Islamic theocracies tend to worry me a bit.

 

I think he was referring more to the regime in Jerusalem that keeps expanding Jewish settlements into Gaza in contravention of international law.

Which, when it goes unchecked, makes you underdstand why a lot of Muslims across the world think it's one rule for them and another for Israel.

[Fop 1]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/ci...ant-inspections

 

Seems to me those on the attack are basing it on what they don't know and what they fear, rather than what we do know, which has not been shown to pose any threat.

 

 

And if they have another secret facility (Iran is a HUGE place after all) that no one yet knows about?

 

That would be another matter, if it was within 180 days of being operational.

 

Not sure why you've quoted my pooint about the fear of unknowns with a fear mongering unknown, as if that proves any point other than mine.

 

 

Why keep it secret though? Especially this 2nd one, after they have already been forced to go public originally?

 

 

 

If it were (ignoring the size issue) for purely energy generation use why not be open about it right from the off? What do they gain with secrecy?

[Renton 17765]

They want to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth, for starters. Fundamentalist Islamic theocracies tend to worry me a bit.

 

I think he was referring more to the regime in Jerusalem that keeps expanding Jewish settlements into Gaza in contravention of international law.

 

That hardly justifies Iran's stance though.

 

The other cause for concern here is that Iran gaining nukes would trigger a nuclear arms race in the most unstable part of the Earth. Saudi would certainly want them and probably have the money to develop them, for instance. It's not a pretty situation.

[Fop 1]

They want to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth, for starters. Fundamentalist Islamic theocracies tend to worry me a bit.

 

I think he was referring more to the regime in Jerusalem that keeps expanding Jewish settlements into Gaza in contravention of international law.

Which, when it goes unchecked, makes you underdstand why a lot of Muslims across the world think it's one rule for them and another for Israel.

 

 

One rule for Kosova too, ethnic cleansing-wise. (although you won't hear much about that on the world wide Islamofascist PR machine )

[Happy Face 29]

Why would they keep it secret if they were going to announce it? Why would they have kept their initial project secret in the first place for that matter?

 

 

 

The size? it was mentioned on the news (could well have been from a Guardian source IFRC), Fop's sure it will be mentioned on-line somewhere.

 

Well post it if you see it anywhere would you. I've not seen anything that can categorically show what the facility is or is intended to be. Until there's an IAEA inspection (which Iran have welcomed) no-one can know, can they?

 

Steve Hynd thinks that Iran's argument for secrecy around the second plant is plausible....

 

Iran has another explanation that makes logical sense. The site was intended to disperse part of Iran's civilian enrichment program to safeguard against attacks by the U.S. or Israel.

 

"This site will be under the supervision of the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) and will have a maximum of five percent (uranium) enrichment capacity," Ali Akbar Salehi said on state television.

 

The plant, which is "not an industrial scale" unit, will be operational in two years' time, he said.

 

Dismissing allegations that the plant has a military purpose, Salehi said the facility is being constructed as a "precautionary measure in case of an unwanted incident against our nuclear programme."

 

He said Iran's nuclear installations are facing "threats every day" and so Tehran "had to take measures to disperse" the locations of its installations.

 

If I'd spent billions on a civilian nuclear power program and listened to the saber-rattling of the "Real Men Go To Tehran" set for all these years, I'd be inclined to do the same thing. That doesn't mean I think the site was non-military (or military) - Occam's Razor cuts both ways on this one. I'll wait for more information.

 

http://www.newshoggers.com/blog/2009/09/ir...ck-threats.html

[Happy Face 29]

They want to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth, for starters. Fundamentalist Islamic theocracies tend to worry me a bit.

 

I think he was referring more to the regime in Jerusalem that keeps expanding Jewish settlements into Gaza in contravention of international law.

 

That hardly justifies Iran's stance though.

 

The other cause for concern here is that Iran gaining nukes would trigger a nuclear arms race in the most unstable part of the Earth. Saudi would certainly want them and probably have the money to develop them, for instance. It's not a pretty situation.

 

What is Iran's stance?

 

I don't believe what is widely reported to make Dinner Jacket into a holocaust denying Nuclear terrorist just waiting to press the red button and wipe out Israel. Or that they are the greates threat to world peace.

 

I think a cease to the Gaza expansions would be a huge step to placating Iran. But as much as the US will politely say to Israel "now come on, that's not nice is it?" They will not say to them "stop, or else!"

Edited September 28, 2009 by Happy Face

[Fop 1]

 

Why keep it secret though? Especially this 2nd one, after they have already been forced to go public originally?

 

 

 

If it were (ignoring the size issue) for purely energy generation use why not be open about it right from the off? What do they gain with secrecy?

 

If you lived in Iran, how would you view Americans, particularly having just watched them annihilate their neighbours whilst searching for weapons of mass destruction. :(

 

 

 

If you live in Iran how would you feel about your vote meaning nothing in a completely rigged election?

 

How would you feel if this (NSFW seriously) was your daughter/wife being killed (watch the video in that link - although be warned it is horrible - then come back and say Iran is ruled justly )

 

 

But what do they have to gain by keeping a second (and possibly more) facility secret if they are purely trying to develop nuclear energy?

[Fop 1]

Why would they keep it secret if they were going to announce it? Why would they have kept their initial project secret in the first place for that matter?

 

 

 

The size? it was mentioned on the news (could well have been from a Guardian source IFRC), Fop's sure it will be mentioned on-line somewhere.

 

Well post it if you see it anywhere would you. I've not seen anything that can categorically show what the facility is or is intended to be. Until there's an IAEA inspection (which Iran have welcomed) no-one can know, can they?

 

Steve Hynd thinks that Iran's argument for secrecy around the second plant is plausible....

 

Iran has another explanation that makes logical sense. The site was intended to disperse part of Iran's civilian enrichment program to safeguard against attacks by the U.S. or Israel.

 

"This site will be under the supervision of the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) and will have a maximum of five percent (uranium) enrichment capacity," Ali Akbar Salehi said on state television.

 

The plant, which is "not an industrial scale" unit, will be operational in two years' time, he said.

 

Dismissing allegations that the plant has a military purpose, Salehi said the facility is being constructed as a "precautionary measure in case of an unwanted incident against our nuclear programme."

 

He said Iran's nuclear installations are facing "threats every day" and so Tehran "had to take measures to disperse" the locations of its installations.

 

If I'd spent billions on a civilian nuclear power program and listened to the saber-rattling of the "Real Men Go To Tehran" set for all these years, I'd be inclined to do the same thing. That doesn't mean I think the site was non-military (or military) - Occam's Razor cuts both ways on this one. I'll wait for more information.

 

http://www.newshoggers.com/blog/2009/09/ir...ck-threats.html

 

Seem to say it there about the size.

 

But the reasoning again seems bogus, why would they need a facility like this if their main facilities were gone? And if they weren't then why would they need it in the first place?

[Renton 17765]

They want to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth, for starters. Fundamentalist Islamic theocracies tend to worry me a bit.

 

I think he was referring more to the regime in Jerusalem that keeps expanding Jewish settlements into Gaza in contravention of international law.

 

That hardly justifies Iran's stance though.

 

The other cause for concern here is that Iran gaining nukes would trigger a nuclear arms race in the most unstable part of the Earth. Saudi would certainly want them and probably have the money to develop them, for instance. It's not a pretty situation.

 

What is Iran's stance?

 

I don't believe what is widely reported to make Dinner Jacket into a holocaust denying Nuclear terrorist just waiting to press the red button and wipe out Israel. Or that they are the greates threat to world peace.

 

I think a cease to the Gaza expansions would be a huge step to placating Iran. But as much as the US will politely say to Israel "now come on, that's not nice is it?" They will not say to them "stop, or else!"

 

You see, what the fuck has the Gaza problem got to do with Iran in any case? Fuck all except that the palestinians are muslims and Iran perceives that there is a global muslim brotherhood. I don't buy into this muslim victimhood, and anything that is so closely related to fundamental religion is dangerous in my eyes.

 

What is clear to me is that Iran are desperate to develop a nuclear warhead and have the capacity to deliver it to Israel. If you were an Iraeli, wouldn't you feel a bit worried by this prospect? I actually think they're showing restraint by not lauching a preemptive strike on Iran. It's coming though.

[Fop 1]

They want to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth, for starters. Fundamentalist Islamic theocracies tend to worry me a bit.

 

I think he was referring more to the regime in Jerusalem that keeps expanding Jewish settlements into Gaza in contravention of international law.

 

That hardly justifies Iran's stance though.

 

The other cause for concern here is that Iran gaining nukes would trigger a nuclear arms race in the most unstable part of the Earth. Saudi would certainly want them and probably have the money to develop them, for instance. It's not a pretty situation.

 

What is Iran's stance?

 

I don't believe what is widely reported to make Dinner Jacket into a holocaust denying Nuclear terrorist just waiting to press the red button and wipe out Israel. Or that they are the greates threat to world peace.

 

I think a cease to the Gaza expansions would be a huge step to placating Iran. But as much as the US will politely say to Israel "now come on, that's not nice is it?" They will not say to them "stop, or else!"

 

You see, what the fuck has the Gaza problem got to do with Iran in any case? Fuck all except that the palestinians are muslims and Iran perceives that there is a global muslim brotherhood. I don't buy into this muslim victimhood, and anything that is so closely related to fundamental religion is dangerous in my eyes.

 

What is clear to me is that Iran are desperate to develop a nuclear warhead and have the capacity to deliver it to Israel. If you were an Iraeli, wouldn't you feel a bit worried by this prospect? I actually think they're showing restraint by not lauching a preemptive strike on Iran. It's coming though.

 

 

 

 

Aye, if Iran had any care at all about "muslims" why would they have pour so many arms into Iraq, the vast majority of which were used in muslim vs muslim atrocities.

 

And why indeed would they have used such violence to rig their own elections?

 

 

 

What Iran does care about its own position in the world, and it's own position as a local superpower..... it plays the politics games very well to achieve both (although with the recent election issues and butchery of it's own populace they've lost a lot of their ability to use foreign/non-muslim bogeymen to jack up internal support).

[Fop 1]

And as with anything to do with Israel and Palestinians it's always 6 and 2x3:

 

Police used tear gas and stun grenades to disperse 150 Palestinian protesters who had thrown rocks at non-Muslims who entered the al-Aqsa mosque compound.

[Guest alex]

And as with anything to do with Israel and Palestinians it's always 6 and 2x3:

Not when it comes to firepower though. Which is part of the problem.

Edited September 28, 2009 by alex