30 Day War? [Israel vs Iran]

[Forever Young]

you have a source for that?
a few months ago, the Saudis bought (a) missile(s) from China. that missle is ready for atomic warheads.

Turkey strikes targets inside Syria after mortar attack
http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=286516
i really hope Turkey and Egypt are going to invade Syria. maybe the best solution for all.

[The Mighty Santa]

I don't know, I read it a few months ago in a... something. However, it should be noted that Saudi Arabia bankrolled Pakistan's entire nuclear program and has huge leverage against them because of that.

[Forever Young]

Saudis are buying nuclear-capable missiles from China
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1aDOSo82Bs
IDF shoots down drone that penetrated deep into Israel
http://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-shoots-down-drone-that-penetrated-deep-into-israel October 6, 2012

[Forever Young]

Rezaei: If Israel attacks, Iran would kill 10,000 Israelis
http://www.jpost.com/Headlines/Article.aspx?id=28698710/08/2012
http://www.timesofisrael.com/10000-dead-if-israel-attacks-iran-says-former-revolutionary-guard-commander/



Hamas and Islamic Jihad fire dozens of rockets and mortars into southern Israel
http://www.timesofisrael.com/palestinians-fire-barrage-of-mortars-into-southern-israel/


Turkey warns it will reply forcefully to every Syrian shell
http://www.timesofisrael.com/turkey-warns-it-will-reply-forcefully-to-every-syrian-shell/

Iran could have enough uranium for a nuke within 2-4 months, ISIS warns
http://www.timesofisrael.com/iran-could-have-enough-uranium-for-a-nuke-within-2-4-months-isis-warns/

[Forever Young]

US-Israel reportedly discussing joint ‘surgical strike’ on Iran
http://www.timesofisrael.com/us-israel-reportedly-discussing-joint-surgical-strike-on-iran/October 9, 2012



Panetta: Pre-emptive action possible over cyber threat
http://www.jpost.com/Headlines/Article.aspx?id=28755910/12/2012

A scrappy US VP debate focused on Iran, Benghazi, housing
http://debka.com/newsupdate/2520/

[Forever Young]

US sources: US, Israel plan October Surprise. Others: Israel can do it alone
http://debka.com/article/22422/US-sources-US-Israel-plan-October-Surprise-Others-Israel-can-do-it-aloneOctober 9, 2012

[paktsardines]

I guess the only difference in this case is that Iran actually has WMD's.

OMFG!! Holy crap!

..
..

..

Holy crap - I can't believe people actually say this crap.

Not even Israel or the US has claimed Iran has WMDs; only that Iran is possibly maybe perhaps thinking about one day possibly building one*

* .. or words to that effect.

[AIRburst95]

I guess the only difference in this case is that Iran actually has WMD's.

OMFG!! Holy crap!

..
..

..

Holy crap - I can't believe people actually say this crap.

Not even Israel or the US has claimed Iran has WMDs; only that Iran is possibly maybe perhaps thinking about one day possibly building one*

* .. or words to that effect.

Iran probably does have WMD's

OMFG!! Holy Crap!
I said it again!

[Forever Young]

I guess the only difference in this case is that Iran actually has WMD's.

OMFG!! Holy crap!

..
..

..

Holy crap - I can't believe people actually say this crap.

Not even Israel or the US has claimed Iran has WMDs; only that Iran is possibly maybe perhaps thinking about one day possibly building one*

* .. or words to that effect.

you really think Iran has no WMD`s(Weapon of mass destruction)?
Chemical weapons are also WMD`s and these are the weapons for poor countries like Syria or Iran.
we all should hope that Iran has no biological weapons(viruses, bacteria,...).

[paktsardines]

Well, yes, Iran might have chemical weapons, but chemical weapons can hardly be considered WMDs. See: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/04/09 ... e_lantern/

Given that the statement 'Iran has WMDs' was immediately followed by pictures of centrifuges (which, I might add, are necessary for peaceful nuclear power) I inferred you were talking about WMDs in the nuclear sense. There is no evidence that Iran is building a nuclear weapon.

In fact Iran is a signatory to the NPT (nuclear non proliferation treaty) and, under the UN conventions, Iran is therefore entitled to build nuclear power plants. Furthermore, under those same conventions the United States, as a UNSC member, is obligated to assist Iran achieve nuclear power safely.

It's the NPT non-signatories the world has to worry about.

[AIRburst95]

Well, yes, Iran might have chemical weapons, but chemical weapons can hardly be considered WMDs. See: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/04/09 ... e_lantern/

Given that the statement 'Iran has WMDs' was immediately followed by pictures of centrifuges (which, I might add, are necessary for peaceful nuclear power) I inferred you were talking about WMDs in the nuclear sense. There is no evidence that Iran is building a nuclear weapon.

In fact Iran is a signatory to the NPT (nuclear non proliferation treaty) and, under the UN conventions, Iran is therefore entitled to build nuclear power plants. Furthermore, under those same conventions the United States, as a UNSC member, is obligated to assist Iran achieve nuclear power safely.

It's the NPT non-signatories the world has to worry about.

Because documents cannot be breached... We all know that Iran has Al-Qaeda cells that have promised to kill 2 million americans, furthermore they have a religious leader proclaiming that when Iran gets a nuclear weapon they will destroy Israel. These are just empty threats, but when you have a middle eastern power being strangled by regulations and is suffering, don't you think that it would only serve to make them more committed and more angry towards Israel and America?

Never the less the NPT cannot be used as a way to say that they cannot have nuclear weapons (I think a long time ago South Africa, a NPT signatory, revealed after the election of a new president, that they did in fact have a nuclear weapons program. I might be wrong however). Its not like documents mean anything when it conflicts with your positions and plans. Lets not forget the previous AND current president of the US have both signed and put in action programs that violate the constitution (Patriot Act, NDAA respectively), the same constitution that they swore to defend and preserve.

America, a country born with dreams of freedom from the oppression of a tyrant, can trample its constitution, the symbol of that freedom.

Yet somehow a country with dreams of completely destroying its enemy, will refrain from doing so because of the signature on a document over 4 decades old?!

I call bullshit.

[paktsardines]

Ahmadinejad said no such thing.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... 14/post155

And, as for your Al-Qaeda nonsense:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGo1DqmfHjY

[AIRburst95]

Ahmadinejad said no such thing.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... 14/post155

And, as for your Al-Qaeda nonsense:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGo1DqmfHjY

the guardian and a youtube video.
Ok. Confirmed for troll. 10/10 Totally convinced me.

[paktsardines]

No, a guardian article about work done by the professor of history at the University of Michigan, Juan Cole. Hardly an unreliable source.

The second link was to a youtube video of a BBC documentary.

So, university professor and the BBC, or your Murdoch spoon-fed propaganda. I know which is more unreliable.

[AIRburst95]

No, a guardian article about work done by the professor of history at the University of Michigan, Juan Cole. Hardly an unreliable source.

The second link was to a youtube video of a BBC documentary.

So, university professor and the BBC, or your Murdoch spoon-fed propaganda. I know which is more unreliable.

keep trying. I know you'll get there eventually