Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Karlis

A nuclear Iran would endanger world stability

129 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Pseudo Intellectual

I heard that the C.I.A. and U.S. army are officially terrorists in some parts of the world now.

So you measure terrorism by the killing of civilians in achieving a political aim, interesting…

  • 2003 Iraq War civilian casualties: -
    Iraqi: 104,257 dead
    United States: 0 dead
  • 2006 Lebanon War civilian casualties: -
    Lebanese: 1,191 dead
    Israeli: 44 dead
  • 2008 Gaza War civilian casualties: -
    Palestinian: 926 dead
    Israeli: 3 dead

Who are the terrorists?

  • 2010 Iran War civilian casualties: -
    Iranian: how many will this read?
    Israeli: how about this one?

You want those figures on your head by supporting a pre-emptive Israeli strike?

It has nothing to do with how many civilians get killed. Terrorism is the deliberate targeting of civilians. Neither Israel nor America deliberately targeted civilians to induce fear and panic among the civilian population to bring about political change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ships-cat

It is worth noting that the Islamic Republic of Iran has never started an aggressive war since its creation in the 1970's. It has a more complex government system than most Westerners realise; they do not have a single nutter with the ability to launch a missile; nuclear or otherwise. We're not talking North Korea here, and its worth bearing all of this in mind before demonising them as destabilising maniacs. .

On the other hand, they all dress funny and have beards. So I guess it all kinda balances out.

Ships Cat: making unhelpfully indecisive posts since 2005. Or was it 2006 ?

meow purr :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pseudo Intellectual

Am I the only one on this forum who knows that Iran openly supports, arms and funds Hezbollah and Hamas?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MARAB0D

Am I the only one on this forum who knows that Iran openly supports, arms and funds Hezbollah and Hamas?

So what if it does? US openly supports and arms Afghan heroin producers - and you are the only one who does not know about this!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pseudo Intellectual

This is about Iran being the aggressor. I don't see what America and heroin have to do with this. Even if the US supported terrorists, how does that give Iran the right to do the same without being considered the aggressor?

Edited by Pseudo Intellectual

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MARAB0D

This is about Iran being the aggressor. I don't see what America and heroin have to do with this. Even if the US supported terrorists, how does that give Iran the right to do the same without being considered the aggressor?

Let me clarify the terms for you: according to the existing UN definitions "aggressor" would be a country whose armed uniformed combatants cross the national border into another country without being invited by its government. The only act of Iran slightly resembling aggression was recently when they made incursion into Iraq and were holding some oil well for few hours - but this did not result in the hostilities and de-facto was only a statement of this well being on disputed territory. Now you can use the rest of the day to calculate how many national borders armed uniformed American combatants crossed during the last 60 years without being invited by the national governments.

Edited by MARAB0D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pseudo Intellectual

Ever heard of proxy wars?

And, again, we're not talking about America. We're talking about Iran and Israel.

Edited by Pseudo Intellectual

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MARAB0D

Ever heard of proxy wars?

And, again, we're not talking about America. We're talking about Iran and Israel.

Strange you do not want to talk about America, but the same time insist that Iran is an aggressor against this country. About Iran and Israel - would you be that much involved if the matter was about Burundi and Cote D'Ivoir? I guess no. There is something which makes you an interested party regarding Iran/Israel relationships, and this something can be a private matter or a matter of your country. Your country you refuse to discuss, so tell us about your private interest then.

Edited by MARAB0D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mandrake

At all my respect to Barak, he was never authorised to speak on behalf of the entire world, we have UN institutions for this. Much more appropriate would be for him to say that nuclear Iran would endanger Israel, and from this premise the further discussion can be started.

The United Nations will sort it out? hahahahahahaha :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mandrake

You left out Germany and that they'd love to nuke a US battle group in the Persian Gulf...

And now Switzerland too after they charged his son with abusing one of the hotel staff in Switzerland. Does Iran have any friends left??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mandrake

Just to throw some wood on the fire so to speak, if a muslim atomic weapon or dirty bomb ever was used you would see such a backlash in most non-muslim countries that even allah himself would be diving for cover! Look at what happened in Scotland after those two clowns tried to drive an incendiary bomb into Glasgow Airport. Bring it on I say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pseudo Intellectual

And now Switzerland too after they charged his son with abusing one of the hotel staff in Switzerland. Does Iran have any friends left??

That was actually Libya, not Iran.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MARAB0D

That was actually Libya, not Iran.

It does not matter, they are all "them". :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pseudo Intellectual

Strange you do not want to talk about America, but the same time insist that Iran is an aggressor against this country. About Iran and Israel - would you be that much involved if the matter was about Burundi and Cote D'Ivoir? I guess no. There is something which makes you an interested party regarding Iran/Israel relationships, and this something can be a private matter or a matter of your country. Your country you refuse to discuss, so tell us about your private interest then.

The reason I don't want to talk about America is because this isn't a discussion about America. I thought that was fairly obvious, Marabod.

So, does Iran's support (in arms and funds) of Israel's enemies make them the aggressor or not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stevewinn
Iran 'not co-operating' says new IAEA chief

Iran is not co-operating with the UN nuclear watchdog's investigation into the country's nuclear programme, the new head of the agency has said.

Iran's insistence its nuclear programme was peaceful could not be confirmed, Yukiya Amano told the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna.

"The agency continues to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran, but we cannot confirm that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities because Iran has not provided the agency with the necessary co-operation," Mr Amano said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8543401.stm

the International Atomic Energy Agency's report on Iran's nuclear enrichment programme, dated 18 February 2010:

IAEA CONCERNS

The information available to the agency is extensive and has been collected from a variety of sources over time. This raises concerns about the possible existence in Iran of past or current undisclosed activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile.

These alleged activities consist of a number of projects and sub-projects, covering nuclear and missile-related aspects, run by military related organisations.

Among the activities which the agency has attempted to discuss with Iran are: activities involving high-precision detonators fired simultaneously; studies on the initiation of high explosives and missile re-entry body engineering... and various procurement-related activities.

Specifically, the agency has... sought clarification of the following: whether Iran's exploding bridgewire detonator activities were solely for civil or conventional military purposes; whether Iran developed a spherical implosion system, possibly with the assistance of a foreign expert knowledgeable in explosives technology; whether the engineering design and computer modelling studies aimed at producing a new design for the payload chamber of a missile were for a nuclear payload; and the relationship between various attempts by senior Iranian officials with links to military organisations in Iran to obtain nuclear-related technology and equipment.

The agency would also like to discuss with Iran: the project and management structure of alleged activities related to nuclear explosives; nuclear-related safety arrangements for a number of the alleged projects; details relating to the manufacture of components for high explosives initiation systems; and experiments concerning the generation and detection of neutrons.

Since August 2008, Iran has declined to discuss the above issues with the agency or to provide any further information and access (to locations and/or people) to address these concerns, asserting that the allegations relating to possible military dimensions to its nuclear programme are baseless and that the information to which the agency is referring is based on forgeries.

SUMMARY

Iran has not provided the necessary co-operation to permit the agency to confirm that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities.

Iran is not implementing the requirements contained in the relevant resolutions of the board of governors and the security council... which are essential to building confidence in the exclusively peaceful purpose of its nuclear programme and to resolve outstanding questions.

In particular, Iran needs to co-operate in clarifying outstanding issues which give rise to concerns about possible military dimensions to Iran's nuclear programme.

Contrary to the relevant resolutions of the board of governors and the security council, Iran has continued with the operation of PFEP and FEP at Natanz, and the construction of a new enrichment plant at Fordow. Iran has also announced the intention to build 10 new enrichment plants.

Contrary to the relevant resolutions of the board of governors and the security council, Iran has also continued with the construction of the IR-40 reactor and related heavy water activities. The agency has not been permitted to take samples of the heavy water which is stored at UCF, and has not been provided with access to the heavy water production plant.

The director general requests Iran to take steps towards the full implementation of its safeguards agreement and its other obligation

http://www.isis-online.org/uploads/isis-reports/documents/IAEA_Report_Iran_18Feb2010.pdf

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8528117.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8510451.stm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MARAB0D

The reason I don't want to talk about America is because this isn't a discussion about America. I thought that was fairly obvious, Marabod.

So, does Iran's support (in arms and funds) of Israel's enemies make them the aggressor or not?

No, it does not make Iran to be an aggressor, it makes it a party to a diplomatic confrontation. Iran takes the sides, does not remain neutral - what is wrong with this? Its combatants do not cross Israeli border or kill somehow Israeli civilians or combatants. Iran threatens to Israel, Israel threatens to Iran, etc, the scene is like in a sand box. But there is no aggression. And according to existing rules of the game (also called "International Law") it is only aggression which can justify the interference of the international community and UNSC - and this is precisely why you do use this term! But you use it wrongly, and your country is unable to enter UNSC and demand for Iran to be announced as "aggressor". Too bad!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.AKUMA.

LoL a Nuclear Israel Destabilized the region along time ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pseudo Intellectual

No, it does not make Iran to be an aggressor, it makes it a party to a diplomatic confrontation. Iran takes the sides, does not remain neutral - what is wrong with this? Its combatants do not cross Israeli border or kill somehow Israeli civilians or combatants. Iran threatens to Israel, Israel threatens to Iran, etc, the scene is like in a sand box. But there is no aggression. And according to existing rules of the game (also called "International Law") it is only aggression which can justify the interference of the international community and UNSC - and this is precisely why you do use this term! But you use it wrongly, and your country is unable to enter UNSC and demand for Iran to be announced as "aggressor". Too bad!

What does that have to do with anything? Let me put it simply:

- Israel does not attack Iran in any way.

- Iran decides to support, arm, fund and train Israel's enemies.

Who is the aggressor here? Who initiated the conflict between Iran and Israel? And no, no amount of blaming America will answer that question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Q24

It has nothing to do with how many civilians get killed. Terrorism is the deliberate targeting of civilians. Neither Israel nor America deliberately targeted civilians to induce fear and panic among the civilian population to bring about political change.

I disagree - when the mass killing of civilians and crippling of civilian infrastructure in the Gaza Strip was raised at the war inquiry, Israeli government defence lawyers reasoned, “The State of Israel is at war with the Palestinian people, people against people, collective against collective.” So you see, for the Palestinian people this is not conventional war but a fight for their very survival.

In any case, war or terrorism – the end results are the same. I think it has everything to do with how many civilians are killed. Do you think that the Palestinian people don’t feel “fear and panic” when bombs are being dropped on their heads? Do you think that it is not a “political” motive Israel has?

Anyway, the reason we are talking about Hamas is that you still don’t seem to understand they are a separate entity to Iran – their own histories, structures and agendas. Hamas does not cease to exist without Iran as supplies would continue from Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese sources. Why do you single out Iran, funding Hamas by $3m per year, whilst Saudi Arabia is funding Hamas by $12m per year?

Given that the U.S. provides $3 billion of military aid to Israel per year and Saudi Arabian sources are the single largest backers of Hamas, it makes those two countries the main generators of continued war in the region. Sure Iran plays a limited part but take those aforementioned countries in particular out of the equation and the trade in arms would drop considerably.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Q24

Hi stevewinn, good result against the new Barcelona at the weekend. :)

In response to the news articles that you posted, I wonder if you could address the below. I posted it on another thread but no one seemed to have an answer……

Let’s start with the situation ‘on the ground’: -

“The conclusion that no diversion has occurred certifies that the state in question is in compliance with its undertaking, under its safeguards agreement and Article III of the NPT, to not divert material to non-peaceful purposes. In the case of Iran, the IAEA was able to conclude in its November 2004 report that that all declared nuclear materials had been accounted for and therefore none had been diverted to military purposes. The IAEA reached this same conclusion in September 2005.”

Lawyers’ Committee on Nuclear Policy – May, 2006

“We have not been denied access [to Iran’s enrichment facilities] at any time, including in the past few weeks. Normally we do not comment on such reports but this time we felt we had to clarify the matter.”

IAEA spokesperson – May, 2007

“You know, Iran is not on the threshold of having a nuclear weapon tomorrow. They are now having a substantive amount of low enriched uranium. But that doesn't mean that they are going tomorrow to have nuclear weapons, because as long as they are under IAEA verification, as long as they are not weaponizing, you know.”

El Baradei, former head of IAEA - February, 2009

“I don't see any evidence [that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons] in IAEA official documents about this.”

Yukiya Amano, current head of the IAEA – July, 2009

These quotes can all be found in the article here.

So bearing the above in mind, one would ask how it is that Europe, Israel and the U.S. are not satisfied with the situation. The answer, those countries say, is that Iran has not proven its peaceful intentions – in other words, Iran are being asked to prove a negative; the non-existence of a weapons programme that we have just seen there is no evidence for in the first place.

Iran is currently meeting obligations of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Previously Iran suspended their enrichment process whilst discussions took place and went so far as to implement additional protocols beyond the standard commitment to the NPT. Throughout this, the circumstances dictated that Iran must prove a negative have persisted.

My question is this – reasonably, what can Iran do to prove the peaceful intentions of their nuclear programme? The conclusion I have come to is that Iran has been put in an impossible situation that has been engineered and exploited by the West.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pseudo Intellectual
“I don't see any evidence [that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons] in IAEA official documents about this.”

Yukiya Amano, current head of the IAEA – July, 2009

http://newsmax.com/Newsfront/iran-nuclear-warhead-obama/2010/02/18/id/350249

VIENNA — The UN atomic watchdog is concerned that Tehran may be working on a nuclear warhead, according to a restricted report obtained by AFP Thursday.

"The information available to the agency ... raises concerns about the possible existence in Iran of past or current undisclosed activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile," the watchdog's chief Yukiya Amano wrote in his first report to its board of governors. (snip)

The Vienna-based IAEA has been investigating for a number of years intelligence reports claiming Iran was involved in weapons research.

These so-called "alleged studies" included uranium conversion, high explosives testing and the adaptation of a ballistic missile cone to carry a nuclear warhead.

A US intelligence report in 2007 said Iran halted such research in 2003, but Amano's report gives credence to the belief held by some western countries that the programme continued.

The information was "extensive ... broadly consistent and credible in terms of the technical detail, the time frame in which the activities were conducted and the people and organizations involved," the report said. (snip)

Amano complained that Iran was continuing to stall agency requests to clear up the alleged weapons research.

"Since August 2008, Iran has declined to discuss the above issues ... or provide any further information and access to locations and people to address these concerns," the report said. (snip)

But it also said: "Iran has not provided the necessary cooperation to permit the agency to confirm that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities."

The IAEA urged Iran to cooperate fully and allow its inspectors access to all relevant sites, equipment, documentation and personnel "without further delay."

Only by doing so would the IAEA be able to make progress.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/02/obama-administration-report-shows-iran-more-determined-than-ever-to-build-nuclear-weapon.html

The report states in relatively stark terms that “outstanding issues” that remain unresolved raise “concerns about the possible existence in Iran of past or current undisclosed activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile. These alleged activities consist of a number of projects and sub-projects, covering nuclear and missile related aspects, run by military related organizations.”

This is the first time the IAEA has referred to possible “ongoing activities” related to nuclear weaponization, a senior administration official observed.

Another first, the official said, the IAEA saying that “Iran has not provided the necessary cooperation to permit the Agency to confirm that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities.”

Heh. Sounds like he changed his mind.

Edited by Pseudo Intellectual

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Q24

Heh. Sounds like he changed his mind.

No, a “possible existence” of nuclear weapons development is not “evidence” of such.

Now go back and address my post properly if you can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pseudo Intellectual

I didn't say it was evidence. It's simply to show every one what the IAEA thinks. Your quote implied that the IAEA was saying every thing with Iran is good and dandy and that we needn't worry about anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Q24

I didn't say it was evidence. It's simply to show every one what the IAEA thinks. Your quote implied that the IAEA was saying every thing with Iran is good and dandy and that we needn't worry about anything.

I’m glad that you understand there is no “evidence” of an Iranian nuclear weapons programme… well, no more so than there was for Iraqi WMDs and we all know how that one turned out.

The quotes that I provided were to show there is no “evidence” for diversion of nuclear materials within Iran and that the IAEA is monitoring the situation. The quote that you provided is not contradictory to this but shows there is concern as to the “possible existence” of undisclosed nuclear activities (this line would have come about under pressure from the U.S. and European countries no doubt as it’s the stance they have taken for the past couple of years).

So I refer you back to my post at the bottom of the previous page – how can Iran reasonably prove the non-existence of a nuclear weapons programme that there is no evidence for in the first place?

Noted that you fail to respond to my post prior to that also as to why you single out Iranian support of Hamas when there are far bigger players fueling the conflict, ie Saudi Arabia and the U.S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pseudo Intellectual
I’m glad that you understand there is no “evidence” of an Iranian nuclear weapons programme… well, no more so than there was for Iraqi WMDs and we all know how that one turned out.

I would say it's pretty obvious that Iran's goal is nuclear weapons.

Noted that you fail to respond to my post prior to that also as to why you single out Iranian support of Hamas when there are far bigger players fueling the conflict, ie Saudi Arabia and the U.S.

Not really a failure, more like a desire not to change the subject. We were discussing whether Iran initiated a conflict with Israel. Call Americans terrorists, say we support terrorists, knock yourself out; it won't really change a thing. I've noticed a pattern in discussions about Iran's support of terrorist groups: the Iranian defenders always change the subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.