Iran is threatening Greece, Turkey, and the EU

[kerosene 0]

Like somebody already said, the worlds moving forward and the technology will become more and more available.  

I am aware that Iranian clerics are not suicidal and I dont expect them tho start blasting off weapons the second they get them.  If the world is in denial about Israels nuclear capabilities how can they criticise other nations for following their lead?

I guess the Iranian airforce wouldnt match up to the Israeli Airforce, but it would be incredibly destabilising in the middle east generally if there was a large scale attack on Iran. I think I read something about Israel or the U.S considering using Special Forces to destroy their nuclear program, but its all pretty hypothetical, personally, i think Israel would act independantly of the U.S, it wouldnt be the first time they pissed off a U.S administration.

[Donnervogel 0]

Your not big on sarcasm or rhetorical questions are you?

Well... English is not my first languge and I've seen enough people who say such seriously ;) Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[BoweryBaker 0]

I'm not worried that iran has nukes, I'm worried that the next U.S. leader is going to attack Iran for having nukes.  Hell, the U.S. isn't even in range, I say let Israel or whoever defend themselves, and if they can't handle it we jump in.  That's how it works in the streets, your friend gets beat down we jump in to save him.  Do we really know for sure that Iran is at war with any other country right now or has declared war?  I presume the answer to be no.  The United States should wait this time.  No country attacks another just out of the blue with a nuke, thats a last resort weapon.  If we push them to that last resort we could end up regretting it.  I say don't fuck with them until the nukes become a problem or a threat.  Defining something like a country having nukes as a threat, means your enemies can define the same for you, and attack you under the same grounds.  It goes back to the golden rule in the bible.  "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."  We're fine now, but if we attack a country for having nukes, such as Iran, who's going to help us when another country considers us viable to be taken out just for owning nukes?  I have faith for the middle east.  If I can live side by side with my islamic and arabic americans here in the United States, then surely we can all live in peace here on earth. This has been your President speaking, good night and God Bless.

[Donnervogel 0]

I would prefer if politicians would stop pushing for conflict. The best weapon to fight terrorism would be to have friends or neutral countries in the middle east and other hot spots. Conflict should always be the last option.

[DarkLight 0]

I would prefer if politicians would stop pushing for conflict. The best weapon to fight terrorism would be to have friends or neutral countries in the middle east and other hot spots. Conflict should always be the last option.

Do you mean... that...that... that war isn't the solution to everything?

[Tovarish 0]

So what did this charming man say?

Quote[/b] ]"If the Americans attack Iran, the world will change ... they will not dare to make such a mistake," Rafsanjani was quoted as saying in a speech at an exhibition on "Space and Stable National Security."

In my eyes, this is a direct threat to the EU, in that he is threatening not only with the destruction of Israel and attacking American forces, but he is also threatening an attack on Turkey (who, may I remind you, are an official EU candidate country) and Greece (who have been an EU member country since 1981), both of which had a major cultural impact on Europe, and thus the entire western world, in the recent centuries and millennia. Consider that Cyprus (also an EU member!) has several British bases which could be used by American forces...

Eh? How is this man threatening? he is saying that they will respond, if they are attacked first. In other words, a warning for the US not to try to pull an Iraq in Iran....because they actually do have WMD's.

Compare this to Reagan's nuclear brinkmanship during the cold war:

Quote[/b] ]

"We have contingency plans to fire a [nuclear] warning shot at the Soviet Union, warning of U.S. intentions to begin a nuclear war."

-Secretary of State Haig, 1981

"There is no alternative to war with the Soviet Union if the Russians do not abandon communism."

-Richard Pipes, Top Reagan adviser, 1981

"The probability of nuclear war is 40 percent...and our strategy is winnable nuclear war."

-Richard Pipes, Top Reagan adviser, 1982

In 1982 President Reagan called the Soviet Union an "Evil Empire" and described his "plan and hope for the march of freedom and democracy which will leave Marxism-Leninism on the ash-heap of history."

Quote[/b] ]In May 1981, in response to President Reagan's aggressive talk about nuclear war, the Soviet Union instituted the RYAN (Nuclear-Rocket Attack) program, which created a "heightened state of intelligence alert, instructing all foreign stations to conduct a constant watch for tell-tale signs of the buildup to a Western nuclear strike."

In 1983 the RYAN program and Soviet paranoia over an American nuclear attack reached a new peak with the Soviet shooting-down of a Korean airliner that strayed into Soviet airspace over a top-secret missile warning installation in early September 1983. The shooting down of this commercial airliner was in part caused by increasing Soviet anxiety over what they considered an "imminent American nuclear attack." The Soviets believed that the November 1983 NATO exercise, Able Archer 83, designed to practice "command coordination" for a NATO nuclear attack, was in fact not an exercise at all but an actual Western nuclear strike against the Soviet Union. During this NATO exercise in November, the Soviets put their military forces on alert and prepared for a Western attack. Few Americans at the time realized how President Reagan's loose talk about fighting and winning nuclear war had frightened the Soviets and pushed the world toward the brink of nuclear war.

And wasn't it a good thing Reagan was a spiritual man?

Quote[/b] ]When asked during the Presidential debates if he believed in Armageddon, President Reagan said: "Yes, Armageddon could come the day after tomorrow." During his 1980s Presidential campaign, Reagan told Fundamentalist Christian groups that he believed in the Biblical prophecy of Armageddon and that this could be the generation that sees Armageddon.

-President Reagan, Oct. 1984

Responding to President Reagan's belief in Armageddon, 100 American religious leaders signed a statement saying that they "find President Reagan's belief in the imminence of Armageddon profoundly disturbing."

-100 Christian Ministers, Oct. 1984

And this famous "joke" broadcasted on live radio:

Quote[/b] ]"My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes."

-President Reagan on live radio, August 1984

Compared to this, the Iranians seem like fluffy kittens.

[theavonlady 2]

buddy... I wanted to express this: Iran has no interest in attacking anyone. (Since as you said it would only destroy them)

It only wants to defend itself against a US invasion.

Then why, in December 2001, did former Iranian President Hashemi Rafsanjani declare his intention to decimate Israel, clarifying that 'one [nuclear] bomb is enough to destroy all Israel,' and that 'in due time, the Islamic world will have a military nuclear device.'?

More corrections to ficticious misconceptions about Iran and nukes at HonestReporting.com.

[hellfish6 7]

2.  Last week Israel's Defence Minister said that Israel will consider “all options†to prevent Iran from producing nuclear weapons.  Iran responded saying it would "react" militarily if Israel were to launch an airstrike against any of its nuclear facilities.  The question is then, how would Israel react to Iran's reaction?

Who will run out of missiles first?

[Donnervogel 0]

buddy... I wanted to express this: Iran has no interest in attacking anyone. (Since as you said it would only destroy them)

It only wants to defend itself against a US invasion.

Then why, in December 2001, did former Iranian President Hashemi Rafsanjani declare his intention to decimate Israel, clarifying that 'one [nuclear] bomb is enough to destroy all Israel,' and that 'in due time, the Islamic world will have a military nuclear device.'?

More corrections to ficticious misconceptions about Iran and nukes at HonestReporting.com.

you need to differ between talk and real intetions ;) I guess he said it to be popular among some israel hating freaks ;)

see also the Reagan posting above

[theavonlady 2]

you need to differ between talk and real intetions

You need to base yourself on facts - not on wishful thinking.

[Donnervogel 0]

you need to differ between talk and real intetions

You need to base yourself on facts - not on wishful thinking.

tell me what advantage Iran would get from nuking Israel.

Fact is: Human beings have brains.

Fact is: Human beings are able to use brains.

Fact is: Getting nuked in return is not what any state wants to archieve.

You need to fear mad terrorists that don't care about such things. But the most basic principle of a state is that it's an institution that protects it's territory. Hence it's completly paradox that a state would want it's territory and people to be turned into melted stone.

[Colossus 2]

To be a bit extreme: If any of those countrise are launching any kind of missiles on each other this can end in a big war.

Yet again after 65 years we still haven't learn what humans really is capable off.

[theavonlady 2]

you need to differ between talk and real intetions

You need to base yourself on facts - not on wishful thinking.

tell me what advantage Iran would get from nuking Israel.

Fact is: Human beings have brains.

Fact is: Human beings are able to use brains.

Fact is: Getting nuked in return is not what any state wants to archieve.

You need to fear mad terrorists that don't care about such things. But the most basic principle of a state is that it's an institution that protects it's territory. Hence it's completly paradox that a state would want it's territory and people to be turned into melted stone.

Fact: Rafsanjani himself couldn't care less what you think humans should do. From the very same speech, which you trivialized earlier:

Quote[/b] ]Rafsanjani said that Muslims must surround colonialism and force them [the colonialists] to see whether Israel is beneficial to them or not. If one day, he said, the world of Islam comes to possess the weapons currently in Israel's possession [meaning nuclear weapons] - on that day this method of global arrogance would come to a dead end. This, he said, is because the use of a nuclear bomb in Israel will leave nothing on the ground, whereas it will only damage the world of Islam.

- Former Iranian President Rafsanjani on Using a Nuclear Bomb Against Israel

Get to know your - er - our neighbor.

[Donnervogel 0]

well again. A threatened nation (and Israel was never lazy when it came to threatening Iran) will do everything to protect itself. Threatening back is only a normal reaction.

And as you should know, many people in your region are masters in talking... but you always need to make an assessment on how much truth there is in the talk.

It remains what counts for all states. States have interest in continued existence. Be it only to guarantee power and money to the leadership. Then why should they do something foolish like nuking a country that can strike back, that has powerful allies that only wait for a reason to push the red button? It seems to me that you have a bit a wrong image of Iran. I had it too for a long time. What you get from the media here (and I bet it's even worse in Israel) is terribly biased. It took me quite some research about Iran to see what's going on.

I don't say Iran is nice and fluffy and wants to be the best friend with Israel. Off course you have to keep some eyes on Iran. Especially when they try to support terrorists that have interest in attacking Israel. But despite the threatening from both sides you won't have to fear that the iranian leadership will order a nuclear strike without being attacked first.

[theavonlady 2]

well again. A threatened nation (and Israel was never lazy when it came to threatening Iran) will do everything to protect itself. Threatening back is only a normal reaction.

Please give us a precise history of when and why Israel first threatened Iran, since you keep on claiming these facts out of what appears to be thin air.

Who threatened whom?

[Donnervogel 0]

well again. A threatened nation (and Israel was never lazy when it came to threatening Iran) will do everything to protect itself. Threatening back is only a normal reaction.

Please give us a precise history of when and why Israel first threatened Iran, since you keep on claiming these facts out of what appears to be thin air.

Who threatened whom?

I have no idea how I could find out if an Israeli or an Iranian first started threatening in this neverending conflict. But that Israel is threatening Iran is clear. That's what I'm claiming.

Only two of many sources:

haaretz.com

Quote[/b] ] Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said yesterday that Iran, Libya and Syria should be stripped of weapons of mass destruction after Iraq. "These are irresponsible states, which must be disarmed of weapons mass destruction, and a successful American move in Iraq as a model will make that easier to achieve," Sharon said to a visiting delegation of American congressmen.

[...]

ok I admit he is not openly saying he would attack Iran ;) But this is diplomacy. What this means though is that Israel would support any effort to attack Iran ;)

seattlepi.com

Quote[/b] ]WASHINGTON -- A grim warning from Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to President Bush that Iran is much closer to producing nuclear weapons than U. S. intelligence believes has triggered concern here that Israel is seriously considering a pre-emptive strike against Iran's Bushehr nuclear reactor.

[...]

now that's a threat ;)

EDIT:

one more:

Deccan Herald

Quote[/b] ]Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said in an interview published on Wednesday that the world is not doing enough to stop Iran from developing atomic weapons and that Israel is taking its own measures to protect itself.

[theavonlady 2]

I have no idea how I could find out if an Israeli or an Iranian first started threatening in this neverending conflict.

No. Your own words:

A threatened nation (and Israel was never lazy when it came to threatening Iran) will do everything to protect itself.

imply that the "threatened" nation is Iran and the agressive "threatener" is Israel. Either reclarify what you meant or state how you historically know this to be true.

Quote[/b] ]But that Israel is threatening Iran is clear. That's what I'm claiming.

So are you saying that Israel, threatened by talk of an offensive nuclear attack against it by Iran, a nation that has openly declared its desire to destory Israel numerous times over the last several decades, should not warn such potential agressors of the costs of such plans?

What is your point, other than presenting one misleading fact after another so far?

[turms 0]

Quote[/b] ]"Israel has many, many capabilities," says Danny Yatom, a former head of Mossad, Israel's international intelligence agency.

"And in the past Israel has carried out long-range military operations, like when we bombed the nuclear facility of Iraq [in 1981]. And since then one can imagine that we've improved our capabilities."

BBC For 1 example.

[aviel 0]

I have no idea how I could find out if an Israeli or an Iranian first started threatening in this neverending conflict.

No. Your own words:

A threatened nation (and Israel was never lazy when it came to threatening Iran) will do everything to protect itself.

imply that the "threatened" nation is Iran and the agressive "threatener" is Israel. Either reclarify what you meant or state how you historically know this to be true.

Quote[/b] ]But that Israel is threatening Iran is clear. That's what I'm claiming.

So are you saying that Israel, threatened by talk of an offensive nuclear attack against it by Iran, a nation that has openly declared its desire to destory Israel numerous times over the last several decades, should not warn such potential agressors of the costs of such plans?

What is your point, other than presenting one misleading fact after another so far?

i am one with avonlady

iran must be dismanteld ASAP be4 something bad happends to us or our children

[Blake 0]

Quote[/b] ]when we bombed the nuclear facility of Iraq [in 1981].

Well that wasn't such a bad thing after all, thinking of it afterwards. Except for some french engineer that got killed in that strike. I bet the ISAF has same kind of plans drawn out already if disarmament talks come to nothing.

[theavonlady 2]

Quote[/b] ]"Israel has many, many capabilities," says Danny Yatom, a former head of Mossad, Israel's international intelligence agency.

"And in the past Israel has carried out long-range military operations, like when we bombed the nuclear facility of Iraq [in 1981]. And since then one can imagine that we've improved our capabilities."

BBC For 1 example.

Wow. You're talented.

Tell me, did Mr. Yatom call a press conference just to say this out of the blue or was a question posed to him by a reporter (possibly the BBC's own Jerusalem correspondent, James Reynolds - who wrote this article) about Iran's prior threats to offesively attack Israel?

Try contextualizing your arguments.

I'm too tired. Can anyone find the old old pic of the Iranian missiles on parade in Teheran ages ago, with Israel's name places on the missile's payload? Then you'll get a better idea of what's been going on here years back - not just this past year.

Amazing how all of a sudden, Israel pipes up in response and everyone knows how to twist the facts. Never fails.

[turms 0]

Quote[/b] ]when we bombed the nuclear facility of Iraq [in 1981].

Well that wasn't such a bad thing after all, thinking of it afterwards. Except for some french engineer that got killed in that strike. I bet the ISAF has same kind of plans drawn out already if disarmament talks come to nothing.

Im not talking about was it right or wrong here.

[Donnervogel 0]

I have no idea how I could find out if an Israeli or an Iranian first started threatening in this neverending conflict.

No. Your own words:

A threatened nation (and Israel was never lazy when it came to threatening Iran) will do everything to protect itself.

imply that the "threatened" nation is Iran and the agressive "threatener" is Israel. Either reclarify what you meant or state how you historically know this to be true.

Quote[/b] ]But that Israel is threatening Iran is clear. That's what I'm claiming.

So are you saying that Israel, threatened by talk of an offensive nuclear attack against it by Iran, a nation that has openly declared its desire to destory Israel numerous times over the last several decades, should not warn such potential agressors of the costs of such plans?

What is your point, other than presenting one misleading fact after another so far?

stop the nit-picking avon.

I said Israel did threaten Iran. I did not say Israel started the conflict with Iran or started threatening. I really don't know who did. Prolly it goes deeper into the conflict between jewish people and muslim people. Anyway. I also do not deny that Israel can warn or threaten anyone. If you see implication in my words I must tell you there are none. I do not imply. When I mean something I tell it.

If you would read what I've written first you can clearly see that I think the US is the cause of Iran feeling threatened.

Anyway I't time for me to go to bed.

[theavonlady 2]

BBC For 1 example.

BTW, this is a classic example of the BBC's dishonest reporting against Israel. The article's title is "Israel puts Iran in its sights", once again making Israel sound like the instigating aggressor, which has not been the case.

[turms 0]

Quote[/b] ]"Israel has many, many capabilities," says Danny Yatom, a former head of Mossad, Israel's international intelligence agency.

"And in the past Israel has carried out long-range military operations, like when we bombed the nuclear facility of Iraq [in 1981]. And since then one can imagine that we've improved our capabilities."

BBC For 1 example.

Wow. You're talented.

Tell me, did Mr. Yatom call a press conference just to say this out of the blue or was a question posed to him by a reporter (possibly the BBC's own Jerusalem correspondent, James Reynolds - who wrote this article) about Iran's prior threats to offesively attack Israel?

Try contextualizing your arguments.

I'm too tired. Can anyone find the old old pic of the Iranian missiles on parade in Teheran ages ago, with Israel's name places on the missile's payload? Then you'll get a better idea of what's been going on here years back - not just this past year.

Amazing how all of a sudden, Israel pipes up in response and everyone knows how to twist the facts. Never fails.

I dont know about all that, but you asked somebody to post alink (or give information) about when has Israel threatened Iran. This is the first I found. Are you saying that Israel is not threatening Iran in that article?