Iran is threatening Greece, Turkey, and the EU

[theavonlady 2]

Now, what did you mean before by "better times?"  

I was being cynical. I meant once Iran achieves nuclear armament.

[theavonlady 2]

This has accually nothing to do with Iran or there missiles,

but are Israel really allowed to do this?

Why don't you ask instead if the UN is allowed to do that?

Funny what does and doesn't bother some people.

Well, it's been fun, but I must get my beauty sleep. G'nite!

[Bernadotte 0]

I've already pointed out Iran's Rafsanjani's own words, stating that it's not the end if the Islamic world if 100,000 or even a million or 2 Muslims die for the cause.

Sorry, I've looked again through everything you posted and can't find any reference to figures of "100,000 or even a million or 2 Muslims." Would you please mind pointing that part out again?

And what is the "cause" that those 2 million Muslim deaths would achieve? Saving the 3 or 4 million Palestinians?

[Bordoy 0]

I've already pointed out Iran's Rafsanjani's own words, stating that it's not the end if the Islamic world if 100,000 or even a million or 2 Muslims die for the cause.

Sorry, I've looked again through everything you posted and can't find any reference to figures of "100,000 or even a million or 2 Muslims."  Would you please mind pointing that part out again?

And what is the "cause" that those 2 million Muslim deaths would achieve?  Saving the 3 or 4 million Palestinians?

regaining Palestine. In middle age terms it would be the Crusade's to re-capture Jeruslam from the Muslims.

[theavonlady 2]

I've already pointed out Iran's Rafsanjani's own words, stating that it's not the end if the Islamic world if 100,000 or even a million or 2 Muslims die for the cause.

Sorry, I've looked again through everything you posted and can't find any reference to figures of "100,000 or even a million or 2 Muslims."  Would you please mind pointing that part out again?

Argh!

Quote[/b] ]Nuclear Weapons Can Solve the Israel Problem

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

Quote[/b] ]

And what is the "cause" that those 2 million Muslim deaths would achieve? Saving the 3 or 4 million Palestinians?

The jihad to eliminate kufrs like me overrides anything having to do with the Palestinians.

[Bernadotte 0]

I've already pointed out Iran's Rafsanjani's own words, stating that it's not the end if the Islamic world if 100,000 or even a million or 2 Muslims die for the cause.

Sorry, I've looked again through everything you posted and can't find any reference to figures of "100,000 or even a million or 2 Muslims."  Would you please mind pointing that part out again?

And what is the "cause" that those 2 million Muslim deaths would achieve?  Saving the 3 or 4 million Palestinians?

regaining Palestine. In middle age terms it would be the Crusade's to re-capture Jeruslam from the Muslims.

But, as Avon pointed out, Palestine is much less holy to Iranian Shia Muslims than Sunni Muslims elsewhere. It just doesn't strike me as a goal that a Shia state would willingly sacrifice up to 2 million Muslims over.

[theavonlady 2]

I've already pointed out Iran's Rafsanjani's own words, stating that it's not the end if the Islamic world if 100,000 or even a million or 2 Muslims die for the cause.

Sorry, I've looked again through everything you posted and can't find any reference to figures of "100,000 or even a million or 2 Muslims."  Would you please mind pointing that part out again?

And what is the "cause" that those 2 million Muslim deaths would achieve?  Saving the 3 or 4 million Palestinians?

regaining Palestine. In middle age terms it would be the Crusade's to re-capture Jeruslam from the Muslims.

But, as Avon pointed out, Palestine is much less holy to Iranian Shia Muslims than Sunni Muslims elsewhere.  It just doesn't strike me as a goal that a Shia state would willingly sacrifice up to 2 million Muslims over.

They're not at all interested in the holiness of Jerusalem but rather of the unholiness of the infidels that govern here.

Now, good night - and I mean it!

[Bernadotte 0]

I've already pointed out Iran's Rafsanjani's own words, stating that it's not the end if the Islamic world if 100,000 or even a million or 2 Muslims die for the cause.

Sorry, I've looked again through everything you posted and can't find any reference to figures of "100,000 or even a million or 2 Muslims."  Would you please mind pointing that part out again?

Argh!

Quote[/b] ]Nuclear Weapons Can Solve the Israel Problem

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

Quote[/b] ]

And what is the "cause" that those 2 million Muslim deaths would achieve?  Saving the 3 or 4 million Palestinians?

The jihad to eliminate kufrs like me overrides anything having to do with the Palestinians.

I see. So the "million or 2 Muslim" sacrifice is actually your personal interpretation of the word "damage."

[Colossus 2]

This has accually nothing to do with Iran or there missiles,

but are Israel really allowed to do this?

Why don't you ask instead if the UN is allowed to do that?

Funny what does and doesn't bother some people.

Well, it's been fun, but I must get my beauty sleep. G'nite!

It was just a question, not a offence to anyone.

And I totaly respect that you don't cear about it.

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]I see.  So the "million or 2 Muslim" sacrifice is actually your personal interpretation of the word "damage."

Yeah, because if Israel saw an incoming Iranian nuke, they'd send a nasty little parting gift to Tehran. And AFAIK Tehran has a population of ~11 million people.

[Balschoiw 0]

If Israel should try to go for a solo without being attacked by Iran and throw some US sponsored bunker-busters onto Iranian territory it´s an act of war.

In that case or even when Israeli planes violate Iranian airspace, they have the right for self-defence.

That is what got pointed out today.

Iran by now has neither nuclear warheads nor a delivery system. The Sahab 3 (or former officially 4, but step back in number not to raise international attention) rockets are not suitable for delivering nuclear payloads.

So in fact if an act of agression is started from Israel following the US doctrine of preemptive strikes Israel has to take the consequnences, even if that means chemical agents, HE´s or submunitions delivered to Israel.

No country on this planet with sufficient self-defense capabilities will allow anyone to drop bombs at them.

I put this quote on the first page of the thread, but some may have overread it:

Quote[/b] ]the US signalled that Israel, which took out Iraq’s Osirak reactor in 1981, might act as Washington’s proxy by selling Tel Aviv 500 bunker-buster bombs with which to demolish Iran’s nuclear installations.

Israel, which considers Iran its main regional antagonist, would be only too happy to oblige.

It´s just natural that Iran is reacting to this. Besides that, as someone already pointed out the delivery system Shahab only got modified for greater ranges. The range of the original system was already sufficient to reach Israel.

The modifications done to the rocket were the following ones:

Quote[/b] ]Photographs of the Iranian Shahab-3 missile recently published in Iranian newspapers indicate that the warhead has undergone improvements. The photographs reportedly indicate that the missile’s warhead has a flatter shape, which would cause it to re-enter the atmosphere more slowly, allowing its contents to be better protected, important in the case of a chemical warhead.

A nuclear MRBM with a limited payload of 800-1000 kilo is not much, compared to other spotted MRBM´s. Their payload is about 1.3 tons to 1.63 tons.

So speaking from the technical aspect, the Iranians will have a hard time to convert the Shahab 3 to a nuclear MRBM.

The limited radius of 2000 km with an accuracy of 2,500 to 4,000 m CEP, compared to at least the double range for russian nuclear MRBM´s like the RT-25 MRBM with a range of 4000 - 5000 km´s. The RT - 25 can deliver a Megaton class warhead, while the Shahab 3 is very limited to these purposes. I´m no rocket scientist, but I´d say the Iranians definately need another delivery system in case they want to have MRBM nukes.

Again, preemptive strikes may have worked in the past with countries incapable of delivering payloads on greater distances. Iran now has made clear that they are able to do that in reaction to the open threat from Israel who proposed to take out their nuclear facilities, like the US president did.

It´s a matter of self defense, and that is how it should be looked at.

Oh and btw, Patriots don´t work well with Shahab 3´s as they are ballistic missiles and only the payload part will be speeding towards the target from almost vertical angle, depending on gyroscope used and if they have implemented a chinese targetting system like some do claim.

Israel hopes that the Arrow 2 wich got tested in July this year will be able to eliminate the threat from Shahab 3 MRBM´s but it´s just too soon to say it will work.

On a sidenote it´s interesting to know that Iran plans to launch a 20 kilo satellit into orbit, to transmit a single signal only. This is know to be the precessor of an ICBM program. North Korea did the same for exactly the same purpose.

Another question that arises while talking about all this is the unwillingness of Israel to show what they have in the nuke sector. This can only rise tentions as neighbouring countries have to assume the worst and therefore never will stop any initiatives to get own ICBM´s.

[sanctuary 19]

Another question that arises while talking about all this is the unwillingness of Israel to show what they have in the nuke sector. This can only rise tentions as neighbouring countries have to assume the worst and therefore never will stop any initiatives to get own ICBM´s.

In the past 2 countries showed what kind of huge firepower and capacities they had in term of nuclear power.

It never appeased some other countries (even some of the allied of those 2 countries) enough to have them to stop trying a development of their own nuclear program.

And even if Israel suddenly decides to communicate about their exact firepower and capacities in this area, i highly doubt that some of their neighbours will be "appeased" enough to stop trying building their own nuclear weapons.

Judging by the relationship and the lack of goodwill between those countries opposed governments, the best it can end actually is what happened to the 2 countries from earlier , and more recently to India and Pakistan : a status "cold war" quo.

[shinRaiden 0]

The problem anew here with nuclear 'diplomacy' is that when you strut around with a loaded gun in your pants or waving it at everyone, nobody can have sane or rational bilateral negotiations.

There may be the possibility that the mullahs in Iran are idiots rather than warmongerers, Tom Friedman cites a case where he saw the one of the highest members of the Saudi Family watching lots of TV channels, but everthing but Al-Arabiya and Al-Jazeerah was muted because he didn't bother to learn any other language - therefore those other opinions didn't matter.

The irony has been that the exclusive possession of nukes by Israel I think has actually helped stabilize diplomacy in the region. With such a one-sided arena, the parties have to come to the table, but conversely Israel can't ever dream of actually useing their nuke's because that's not 'fair'. So now it seems that we can actually have a 'fair fight', as if it were a fight that the global community had desired all along.

So much of nuclear diplomacy is so-called 'proof-of-concept' stuff: sputnik, pershing, the 'NASA' radar imaging of the nile delta, and so on. The only times that the cold war nuclear race was semi-stabilized was when the parties focused on nuclear 'blankets' for deterrance rather than self-write-off first strikes.

But with so much of the leaders and thinkers in the Arab Middle East convinced that the Jewish culture, as expressed in the state of Israel, is the next Saladin incarnate bent on conquering the world remeniscent of Gengis Khan, they're still in the 1950's era of 'good bye cruel world, let Allah straighten them out' mentality.

Any volunteers to go in and try to convince Mr. Crazy that the whole world is not 'out to get him', and to put the gun down? Anybody want to make a quick profit while they're at it and sell them the parts to make it more accurately kill more people? It would balance the power equations for you all who dislike one-sided fights.

[Balschoiw 0]

I don´t think it´s much of a profileration issue. It´s called self defence and that´s what Iran states. Also technology does sell. A thing a lot of money has been made of in the west. So why shouldn´t they develope a weapon system or civil useage forms that:

a) will improve their international status as they can´t be pushed around anymore

b) make a big seller to some countries that today have only little acess to nuclear technology.

c) help solving their need for electrical power

Quote[/b] ]And even if Israel suddenly decides to communicate about their exact firepower and capacities in this area, i highly doubt that some of their neighbours will be "appeased" enough to stop trying building their own nuclear weapons.

No but it will certainly make Israel think twice before they go for another bomb run in Iran. And that´s the intention for Iran. Security through deteriation.

Iran is indeed facing foreign military threats. So it´s only logical that they try to gain acess to a technology that will make them more safe within their own borders.

They just adopted the principles we all were used to and still are used to.

Edit:

Jeez, need to go to bed

´night John Boy...

[BoweryBaker 0]

Blaschoiw is correct. Very strong post right there. It kinda addresses all points of view with the general idea of why countries get nukes and all that. It's a good explanation.

[ozanzac 0]

Hey, relax....Take a load off!

What are the chances these weapons are going to be fired in anger? Diplomatic channels would have to be thouroughly exhausted before things sink so low as to all out war.

At least the Iranians were nice enough to tell you they had them, and their range.

[Bernadotte 0]

Quote[/b] ]I see.  So the "million or 2 Muslim" sacrifice is actually your personal interpretation of the word "damage."

Yeah, because if Israel saw an incoming Iranian nuke, they'd send a nasty little parting gift to Tehran. And AFAIK Tehran has a population of ~11 million people.

Hang on.  So now we're talking about Iran making an 11+ million Muslim sacrifice just to remove some "infidels" from a small part of the ME that isn't even particularly holy to them.

Do you honestly believe that?  

[shinRaiden 0]

For those that view citizen peasentry as expendable serfs, 11 million people is a charge on the other guy's account. There's the old joke about if you owe the bank a thousand dollars, the bank owns you, but if you owe the bank a million dollars, you own the bank.

Well, look at GW1. Saddam played that brilliantly because GB1 was too ©old-school to think outside the box like W is doing. Colin Powell told GB1 that while the US was clearly winning the war on the ground, they were loosing it on CNN, therefore the US was 'obliged' to quit, to make things 'fair'.

What Saddam realized was that he could afford to loose every single living organism inside the boundries of Iraq, but as long as he survived (ala chess), he wins. When your population consists only of a statistic in an accounting book, you have a lot more freedom as a head of state to do dastardly things and blame others for them.

Iran now has the liberty to build weapons of ill intent so long as they claim 'defense against imperialist aggression by Israel', which is nonsense. Part of the reason military tactics have been changing from classic heavy divisions to small SpecOps roles is realization that mass-xenocide is actually an expensive and counter-productive way to wage war. Israel doesn't have the technical supplies to exterminate every single muslim in the world, so where they get off thinking that is nonsense.

The other advantage of mobile systems is that they can be moved about for security purposes, and if the launch track just happens to come out of the middle of a hospital or schoolyard, blame it on incompetent minions and claim distortion of the facts. Why accept responsibilty and liability when you can screw your enemy and stick them with the bill?

[Bernadotte 0]

Iran now has the liberty to build weapons of ill intent so long as they claim 'defense against imperialist aggression by Israel', which is nonsense.

Which is nonsense?

Wow.  Five paragraphs in support of the one side's claim and 3 words to trivialise the other side's claim.

Could your post be any less balanced?

[shinRaiden 0]

My entire point was that it appears that A, Iran does not understand the diplomacy of nuclear peace, and B, the rest of the world is in no hurry to help them see the light.

Those five paragraphs were regarding the potential and ability that Iran has to write-off it's entire population for it's aim, because the rest of the world is willing to accept that write-off. Saddam did it brilliantly in 90-03, and Yasir Arafat has managed to do a pretty good job of it as well.

The reason I said that that position of 'defense against aggression' is that convential military doctrine goes against obliteration-type tactics:

Quote[/b] ]Destruction - Usually, destruction requires large expenditures of ammunition and is not considered economical, except for nuclear weapons.

Suppression - Suppression of a target limits the ability of the enemy Personnel in the target area to perform their jobs. The effect of suppressive fires usually lasts only as long as the fires are continued. Suppression requires a low expenditure of ammunition; however, since its effects are not lasting, it is unsuitable for most targets.

It's not 'cost-effective' to try to exterminate something, especially not a large civilian population, even if you have the popular support. Israel understands this, but I'm not sure that Iran does. Bin Laden gets it, but from a different standpoint.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]Part of the reason military tactics have been changing from classic heavy divisions to small SpecOps roles is realization that mass-xenocide is actually an expensive and counter-productive way to wage war.

shin Raiden this idea only works with a background of weapons that impress your opponents. The US for example will never give up their nuclear arsenal for this reason. You just can´t switch to commando style structures without having the background of a consistent defense and attack weapon system like ICBM´s. They do not only underline your ability to strike wherever and whenever needed (just in case) but also enable you to shrink your conventional forces. You have to see it as an evolutionary military process. One thing wouldn´t work without the other.

Let´s atleast try to stay on the facts and experiences we have made over the last 50 years, speculation will only will cause panic. Sure we don´t know what´s going on in Iranian heads, but you just can´t assume that they are stupid.

In fact they can´t be that stupid when they are able to take a step up to the league of nuke owners.

Judged by numbers of conflicts started by Iran over the last 50 years they are winning the "peace" price. Compared to other nations they are calm like sheep. Not in their words, but in their actions.

[SpecOp9 0]

Well, I guess that this speaks for itself...

Never give a man power.  They do stupid things with it.

[Donnervogel 0]

@avon

Quote[/b] ]Stop blurring the facts.

Blurring the facts? huh?

Quote[/b] ]Start dealing with the issues and not sugar coating them over with nonsense like "Rafsanjani is human and humans would never truly ruly mean what they say when they say such things".

This my lady is blurring the facts. I never said what you're quoting there. And again you're impling something that isn't there. I said you need to differ between what a politician says and what he really means. If you truly belive that politicians only tell the truth you must be very naive.

Quote[/b] ]Did you say Iran threatened Israel? No? Why not? Doesn't suit your agenda?

Why not? Look at the topic of this thrad. It's what it's all about. I tried to explain why Iran is thratening Israel. I have no agenda here. I have my opinion. And you are again impling stuff I never said.

Quote[/b] ]Don't you think it's important? I mean, here's a country with a history of declaring the desire to genocidally eliminate the State of Israel and now they're agressively moving forward to producing nuclear weapons.

Surely it's important. But I wasn't talking about the history of this conflict. I was talking about the recent events and the current situation of Iran.

First I would like to give some more Facts. Mr. Rafsanjani was Iran's president in the from 1989 to 1997 (Just after the death of Khomeini). In my first posting I clearly stated that the new generation of Iranian politicians are different from the old ones. Mr. Rafsanjani was a main actor in the 1979 Revolution and therefore clearly a member of the "old" generation.

Please note that, despite his ongoing influence on Iran's society, he is not President anymore and he wasn't President in 2001, the date of the speech you're quoting. What he says can not be interpreted as the direct wish of Iran's current political leadership. Maybe he truly desires to eliminate Israel with an atomic strike. (Knowing his history a bit better I doubt it) Maybe he only wants to be popular among some people (that's what I think - he allways was an opportunist). But there are plenty of jewish extremist that wish to eiliminate certain people too. I don't think we need to go into this one more. That's not the topic. Point is. I do not concider his words in a speech from 2001 as the political agenda of the Iranian leadership.

Quote[/b] ]It's a one way street. Israel does not desire to eliminate Iran. The reverse, however, cannot be said of Iran.

Israel acts smarter and has greater influence from western humanitarism. This does not say however that there are not strong groups inside Israel that wish to eliminate Iran or other muslim "brothers" of Iran. But this really isn't the topic of this thread.

Quote[/b] ]What you meant, in your own words, or specifically why you highlight Israel's responses to Iran's initial threats and not vice versa, remains unclarified.

Because you highlighted Iran's threats to Israel and not vice versa. I told Israel is threatening Iran too - Actually I wanted to express that it's a neverending circle. I did not specifically highlight it - it was only one line in IIRC. But you started asking me for sources. So I provided them.

Look I know Iran is demonized everywhere as a country full of fanatics and stuff. It's the same here. And I can not imagine Israeli media being more objective. But Iran is in the end still a rational state that cares about things every state does. It want's to have a working economy. It want's to protect it's territory.

It's too "easy" to say they're just demons and evil and we need to stop them. That's just not the truth. If you start acting towards them like they were you will never succeed because they will not want to talk to anyone that does not offer compromises. And if you invade them you prolly get the same mess as in Iraq because you assessed them wrongly.

[BoweryBaker 0]

quoted by: Donnervogel Posted on Oct. 06 2004,13:39

Quote[/b] ]Look I know Iran is demonized everywhere as a country full of fanatics and stuff. It's the same here. And I can not imagine Israeli media being more objective. But Iran is in the end still a rational state that cares about things every state does. It want's to have a working economy. It want's to protect it's territory.

It's too "easy" to say they're just demons and evil and we need to stop them. That's just not the truth. If you start acting towards them like they were you will never succeed because they will not want to talk to anyone that does not offer compromises. And if you invade them you prolly get the same mess as in Iraq because you assessed them wrongly.

Very good. I am american and I see things the same way as this post by Donnervogel suggest they should be seen. I wouldn't write someone off as evil just because of past differences and use them seeking defence of their people as a reason to attack them. At least if you don't like the leaders, don't ruin the lives of the civillians by bringing war to their country. It's like noone is stopping to think that though their enemy has some ill attitudes toward other countries, they still have a job of defending their population from outsiders bringing war and destruction into their country. At least let your anger be over from the last provocation. Don't let self defence provoke you to battle, its unfair and looked down upon in all cultures worldwide, a tactic i would not expect to see from such sophisticated cultures as America or Israel. Respect your opponents right to protect himself. That's why muslims are so pissed off right now, they feel the whole world is being unfair to them, and the ones who are in leadership positions, and the world IS being unfair, and its pissing them off. You're just going to have to show some balls, let them have the weapons, and keep your enemy a tad closer like the old saying goes. "Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer." Very nice post though Donnervogel. Another saying in America we have is "you can't always fight fire with fire". I urge you not to look upon this post as weak. King Solomon wasn't weak was he? Though I am a low level citizen on the leadership of America chain, I have the knowledge and the skill to lead this country if anything should go wrong, based on the fact that i know right from wrong. One thing is for sure, these muslims ain't going to cool down until you actually take action, not military action, but action to show that you're a fair and just nation by letting them have arms. Period. With Bin Laden able to pull stuff off like he did, and with the tactics they are able to use on unsuspecting troops in iraq, you'd better hope they cool off because in a battle you're not going to stop them as a whole, and if you single one out, they don't even care if they die anymore, I think God is on their side in this one, I really do. It's like he's blessed them with some kind of ferver, so high that they don't even fear death, ive never seen anyone so passionate about a cause like that, but fairness is a cause my people too have had to fight in this country of America. I hope the just thing is done, and i hope it works.

[Balschoiw 0]

Hey Bowery, ever thought of changing your name to Martin Luther ?

Not meant as an insult, but as a compliment...I wished some more had such open view on issues that will keep us holding our breath for the next decade if they are not handled in a grown up and serious way. And this does include to respect the other side as a a part of this planet. No more than we are but not less also.

In fact maybe oneday we will come over that "other side" thingy, but I´m afraid mankind always need something that it can declare as evil and different..

In fact some define themselves so much with that good and bad thing only for not loosing their national thingy...

How poor.