Discussion:
Iran has enough uranium for bomb
(too old to reply)
Steven Douglas
2009-02-20 01:21:33 UTC
Permalink
Headline: "Iran has enough uranium for bomb"

Financial Times
19-Feb-2009
By Daniel Dombey

Iran has now built up a stockpile of enough enriched uranium for one
nuclear bomb, United Nations officials acknowledged on Thursday.

In a development that comes as the Obama administration is drawing up
its policy on negotiations with Tehran over its nuclear programme, UN
officials said Iran had produced more nuclear material than previously
thought.

They said Iran had now accumulated more than one tonne of low enriched
uranium hexafluoride at a facility in Natanz. If such a quantity were
further enriched it could produce more than 20kg of fissile material -
enough for a bomb.

"It appears that Iran has walked right up to the threshold of having
enough low enriched uranium to provide enough raw material for a
single bomb," said Peter Zimmerman, a former chief scientist of the US
Arms Control and Disarmament Agency.

The new figures come in a report by the International Atomic Energy
Agency, the UN's nuclear watchdog, released on Thursday. This revealed
that Iran's production of low enriched uranium had previously been
underestimated. [end excerpt]

http://us.ft.com/ftgateway/superpage.ft?news_id=fto021920091627459047
Woodswun
2009-02-20 02:51:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Headline: "Iran has enough uranium for bomb"
Financial Times
19-Feb-2009
By Daniel Dombey
Iran has now built up a stockpile of enough enriched uranium for one
nuclear bomb, United Nations officials acknowledged on Thursday.
In a development that comes as the Obama administration is drawing up
its policy on negotiations with Tehran over its nuclear programme, UN
officials said Iran had produced more nuclear material than previously
thought.
They said Iran had now accumulated more than one tonne of low enriched
uranium hexafluoride at a facility in Natanz. If such a quantity were
further enriched it could produce more than 20kg of fissile material -
enough for a bomb.
"It appears that Iran has walked right up to the threshold of having
enough low enriched uranium to provide enough raw material for a
single bomb," said Peter Zimmerman, a former chief scientist of the US
Arms Control and Disarmament Agency.
The new figures come in a report by the International Atomic Energy
Agency, the UN's nuclear watchdog, released on Thursday. This revealed
that Iran's production of low enriched uranium had previously been
underestimated. [end excerpt]
http://us.ft.com/ftgateway/superpage.ft?news_id=fto021920091627459047
Maybe we'll get lucky and they'll shoot themselves in the foot! ;-)

Woods
Pers3id
2009-02-20 04:17:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Woodswun
Post by Steven Douglas
Headline: "Iran has enough uranium for bomb"
Financial Times
19-Feb-2009
By Daniel Dombey
Iran has now built up a stockpile of enough enriched uranium for one
nuclear bomb, United Nations officials acknowledged on Thursday.
In a development that comes as the Obama administration is drawing up
its policy on negotiations with Tehran over its nuclear programme, UN
officials said Iran had produced more nuclear material than previously
thought.
They said Iran had now accumulated more than one tonne of low enriched
uranium hexafluoride at a facility in Natanz. If such a quantity were
further enriched it could produce more than 20kg of fissile material -
enough for a bomb.
"It appears that Iran has walked right up to the threshold of having
enough low enriched uranium to provide enough raw material for a
single bomb," said Peter Zimmerman, a former chief scientist of the US
Arms Control and Disarmament Agency.
The new figures come in a report by the International Atomic Energy
Agency, the UN's nuclear watchdog, released on Thursday. This revealed
that Iran's production of low enriched uranium had previously been
underestimated. [end excerpt]
http://us.ft.com/ftgateway/superpage.ft?news_id=fto021920091627459047
Maybe we'll get lucky and they'll shoot themselves in the foot! ;-)
Woods
That does it then. The only thing left to do is spend $5 Trillion
and invade the antarctic.
Steven Douglas
2009-02-20 05:10:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Woodswun
Post by Steven Douglas
Headline: "Iran has enough uranium for bomb"
Financial Times
19-Feb-2009
By Daniel Dombey
Iran has now built up a stockpile of enough enriched uranium for one
nuclear bomb, United Nations officials acknowledged on Thursday.
In a development that comes as the Obama administration is drawing up
its policy on negotiations with Tehran over its nuclear programme, UN
officials said Iran had produced more nuclear material than previously
thought.
They said Iran had now accumulated more than one tonne of low enriched
uranium hexafluoride at a facility in Natanz. If such a quantity were
further enriched it could produce more than 20kg of fissile material -
enough for a bomb.
"It appears that Iran has walked right up to the threshold of having
enough low enriched uranium to provide enough raw material for a
single bomb," said Peter Zimmerman, a former chief scientist of the US
Arms Control and Disarmament Agency.
The new figures come in a report by the International Atomic Energy
Agency, the UN's nuclear watchdog, released on Thursday. This revealed
that Iran's production of low enriched uranium had previously been
underestimated. [end excerpt]
http://us.ft.com/ftgateway/superpage.ft?news_id=fto021920091627459047
Maybe we'll get lucky and they'll shoot themselves in the foot! ;-)
Maybe the world will finally get serious about stopping them from
attaining their obvious goal, which is to build a nuclear bomb.
Mike
2009-02-20 16:45:09 UTC
Permalink
"Steven Douglas" <***@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:f71ec54e-62e7-4be0-
Post by Steven Douglas
Maybe the world will finally get serious about stopping them from
attaining their obvious goal, which is to build a nuclear bomb.
Frankly, I am way more concerned about the plethora of nuclear weapons
falling into the hands of ignorant people, like you. Just like the housing
bubble burst, we may see a similar nuke bubble bursting in the States. You
guys are making way too many, don't you think?
Werewolfy
2009-02-20 16:50:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike
Frankly, I am way more concerned about the plethora of nuclear weapons
falling into the hands of ignorant people, like you. Just like the housing
bubble burst, we may see a similar nuke bubble bursting in the States. You
guys are making way too many, don't you think?
I see no differerence between Iran having a nuclear weapon, and
America, UK, France, India, Pakistan, Russia or China.

Werewolfy
Mike
2009-02-20 18:47:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Werewolfy
Post by Mike
Frankly, I am way more concerned about the plethora of nuclear weapons
falling into the hands of ignorant people, like you. Just like the housing
bubble burst, we may see a similar nuke bubble bursting in the States. You
guys are making way too many, don't you think?
I see no differerence between Iran having a nuclear weapon, and
America, UK, France, India, Pakistan, Russia or China.
The 'danger' in Iraqn having nukes is that they will be able to defend
themselves from attack. I think that is a good reason to want one.
Post by Werewolfy
Werewolfy
Werewolfy
2009-02-20 20:19:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike
The 'danger' in Iraqn having nukes is that they will be able to defend
themselves from attack. I think that is a good reason to want one.
Exactly, Mike. It's not easy to threaten and invade a Nation that has
nuclear capabilities. When a Nation holds to a system that is contrary
to the US, then they are immediately classified as a 'threat'.

Of course, if you happen to be an Iranian, living in Iran; then you
would have a very different
view.

The Conquistitadors had metal weapons against the wooden clubs of the
Incas. I would like the Incas to have similar weapons to the
invaders...seems fair to me.

Werewolfy
Steven Douglas
2009-02-21 01:30:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Werewolfy
I see no differerence between Iran having a nuclear weapon, and
America, UK, France, India, Pakistan, Russia or China.
Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism. They have been behind some of
the international terror attacks we've been hearing about for decades.
They supply Hezbollah and Hamas with weapons to attack Israel. They
are bad guys, and the world should stop them from attaining a nuclear
weapon.

Headline: "Iran's State of Terror"

November 11, 1996
A Berlin murder trial provides details of how top-ranking Iranian
leaders administer a bloody international terror network

By THOMAS SANCTON
[excerpt] In addition to nearly 80 assassinations of Iranian
dissidents abroad, the mullahs or their surrogates are believed to
have been behind dozens of major terrorist attacks around the world.
Among them:
the suicide bombings of U.S. and French military barracks in Beirut in
1983 (299 dead); a string of Paris bombings in September 1986 (12
dead); and attacks on the Israeli embassy and a Jewish community
center in Buenos Aires in 1992 and 1994 (125 dead).

In the past two and a half years alone [this was written in 1996], 134
people in Israel and the Palestinian territories have died in suicide
bombings carried out by Iranian-supported groups. According to U.S.
and Saudi sources, Saudi officials are holding 40 suspects for the
bombing that killed 19 Americans in Dhahran last June and say they
have evidence implicating Iran as the instigator of the attack.

The Saudi charges, if confirmed, coincide with other recent Iranian
attempts to destabilize moderate Arab states. Egyptian President Hosni
Mubarak claims Iran was behind a foiled assassination attempt against
him last year. Last June, authorities in Bahrain announced a Tehran-
backed plot to topple the Khalifa monarchy and replace it with a pro-
Iranian Islamic Republic.

Moreover, Tehran's adamant opposition to the Middle East peace
process, its efforts to acquire nuclear arms technology, and the
recent buildup of its chemical and conventional arsenals, all add up
to a capacity for international troublemaking unrivaled by any other
country. [end excerpt]

COPYRIGHT 2000 TIME INC.
http://www.time.com/time/europe/timetrails/iran/ir961111.html

That story originally appeared in Time Magazine's print edition in
November of 1996. Unfortunately, the link is no longer good. The
following is an up to date story of Iran's sponsorship of terrorism:

Headline: "New Fear Iran Could Supply Hamas In Gaza"

JERUSALEM, Jan. 21, 2009
(CBS/ AP) There is new concern that Iran may be trying to get arms and
ammunition to Hamas. CBS News national security correspondent David
Martin learned exclusively that on Monday an American Navy ship
intercepted an Iranian-chartered ship in the Red Sea. It found
artillery shells on board.

The U.S. Navy has now asked Egypt to force the Iranians to pull into
port for a more thorough inspection before being allowed to pass
through the Suez Canal to the Mediterranean, CBS News reports.The fear
is that those artillery shells will be smuggled into Gaza. [end
excerpt]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/21/world/main4742368.shtml
Werewolfy
2009-02-21 03:57:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Headline: "New Fear Iran Could Supply Hamas In Gaza"
JERUSALEM, Jan. 21, 2009
(CBS/ AP) There is new concern that Iran may be trying to get arms and
ammunition to Hamas. CBS News national security correspondent David
Martin learned exclusively that on Monday an American Navy ship
intercepted an Iranian-chartered ship in the Red Sea. It found
artillery shells on board.
I'm afraid I don't give much reliance to 'American Intelligence'
reports. They will say whatever suits them...Those vanishing WMD in
Iraq is a good example of that.

Yes, 'suicide bombers' hide away in Middle Eastern Countries and yes,
those Countries support Islamic Doctrine. But that is their right.
That is their culture. The terrorist element is not State controlled,
it acts independently. I don't know if the Iranian Government 'turn a
blind eye', or if they either oppose, or support the dissidents.
That's neither here nor there in this arguement.
Iran has as much 'right' as any Nation to protect itself. If they have
the knowledge that allows them to make a gun, then they should have
that gun...their enemies have guns. If they have the knowledge to make
a nuclar bomb, then they should arm themselves with a nuclear bomb
against those perceived enemies who are well equiped with such
weapons.

If a nation wants Iran to not have such a weapon, then that Nation
should destroy all of it's arsenal of the same weapons. Then perhaps,
the two nations could talk on equal terms.

Werewolfy
Steven Douglas
2009-02-21 05:52:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Werewolfy
Post by Steven Douglas
Headline: "New Fear Iran Could Supply Hamas In Gaza"
JERUSALEM, Jan. 21, 2009
(CBS/ AP) There is new concern that Iran may be trying to get arms and
ammunition to Hamas. CBS News national security correspondent David
Martin learned exclusively that on Monday an American Navy ship
intercepted an Iranian-chartered ship in the Red Sea. It found
artillery shells on board.
I'm afraid I don't give much reliance to 'American Intelligence'
reports. They will say whatever suits them...Those vanishing WMD in
Iraq is a good example of that.
Your own country's intelligence said the same thing ours did. As did
the intelligence of France, Germany, Russia, and others. And the
reason for that is because Saddam Hussein *wanted* the world (and
particularly Iran) to believe he had WMD.
Post by Werewolfy
Yes, 'suicide bombers' hide away in Middle Eastern Countries and yes,
those Countries support Islamic Doctrine. But that is their right.
That is their culture. The terrorist element is not State controlled,
it acts independently. I don't know if the Iranian Government 'turn a
blind eye', or if they either oppose, or support the dissidents.
That's neither here nor there in this arguement.
Yes it is. They support terrorism. That's why it's called state
sponsored terrorism.
Post by Werewolfy
Iran has as much 'right' as any Nation to protect itself. If they have
the knowledge that allows them to make a gun, then they should have
that gun...their enemies have guns. If they have the knowledge to make
a nuclar bomb, then they should arm themselves with a nuclear bomb
against those perceived enemies who are well equiped with such
weapons.
The law does not allow convicted criminals to have guns. By your
logic, they should have a right to have a gun.
Post by Werewolfy
If a nation wants Iran to not have such a weapon, then that Nation
should destroy all of it's arsenal of the same weapons. Then perhaps,
the two nations could talk on equal terms.
So you think it's perfectly fine for Iran to give rockets to
terrorists who plan to shoot those rockets into Israel? And the world
should accept Iran as just another nation observing its rights (which
apparently includes giving weapons to terrorists)? And you think such
a nation should be allowed to develop a nuclear bomb?
Werewolfy
2009-02-21 16:45:12 UTC
Permalink
On 21 Feb, 05:52, Steven Douglas <***@flashmail.com> wrote:
So you think it's perfectly fine for Iran to give rockets to
Post by Steven Douglas
terrorists who plan to shoot those rockets into Israel? And the world
should accept Iran as just another nation observing its rights (which
apparently includes giving weapons to terrorists)? And you think such
a nation should be allowed to develop a nuclear bomb?
Not at all, Steven. I see your 'side' and understand your points.
It is more than Likely that Saddam instigated the false information
concerning WMD as a ploy to deter aggression. He did that sort of
thing a lot...the antics of 'Comical Ali' (I think you Americans had a
different name for the man) on television with his blatent untruths
and winning smile every night during the war, supports that idea.
Saddam made a rather silly assumption about the reaction to WMD, and
also as to reaction to the earlier invasion of Kuwait.

But I am not convinced about the entire Country being targetted due to
a band of terrorists using it, or their assistance to other terrorist
groups. Nor am I convinced that terrorism is State Sponsered. Yes, I
imagine that terrorists do have influence within certain areas of the
Government, and that Government will tolerate, will use the dissident
faction for their own ends.

I don't believe however, that Iran has reached a point where war
should be declared on the Nation.
I also don't believe that their desire to build a nuclear weapon
represents an aggressive act, rather than an act of having a deterrant
to the ultimate sanction.

The truth ofthe matter lies in fear. The US, other than Pearl Harbour,
has remained free of invasion or attack (other than through terorism)
and is free to dictate to the world as it pleases. As more nations
become nuclear powers, then America feels increasingly at risk. You
give 'aid' to nations to have them in your debt and control them
financially. It's all down to this desire to remain as the World's
dominent power.

It's not going to work. Other nations have every right to embark on a
programme of nuclear energy for their own benefit. Yes, that clashes
with the dream of American dominence...but it makes for a fairer
competition and a more equal base on which to negotiate.

Iran is in many ways similar to Ireland. they too had many terrorists,
they too turned a deaf ear to the antics of their 'freedom fighters'.
The US threatening action against Iran, is like the UK invading
Ireland.
Yes, it removes the terrorist element, and the terrorist sympathetic
factions within the Government. But is it the right course of action?

Werewolfy
Steven Douglas
2009-02-21 18:31:01 UTC
Permalink
 So you think it's perfectly fine for Iran to give rockets to
Post by Steven Douglas
terrorists who plan to shoot those rockets into Israel? And the world
should accept Iran as just another nation observing its rights (which
apparently includes giving weapons to terrorists)? And you think such
a nation should be allowed to develop a nuclear bomb?
Not at all, Steven. I see your 'side' and understand your points.
It is more than Likely that Saddam instigated the false information
concerning WMD as a ploy to deter aggression. He did that sort of
thing a lot...the antics of 'Comical Ali' (I think you Americans had a
different name for the man) on television with his blatent untruths
and winning smile every night during the war, supports that idea.
Saddam made a rather silly assumption about the reaction to WMD, and
also as to reaction to the earlier invasion of Kuwait.
But I am not convinced about the entire Country being targetted due to
a band of terrorists using it, or their assistance to other terrorist
groups. Nor am I convinced that terrorism is State Sponsered. Yes, I
imagine that terrorists do have influence within certain areas of the
Government, and that Government will tolerate, will use the dissident
faction for their own ends.
I don't believe however, that Iran has reached a point where war
should be declared on the Nation.
I also don't believe that their desire to build a nuclear weapon
represents an aggressive act, rather than an act of having a deterrant
to the ultimate sanction.
The truth ofthe matter lies in fear. The US, other than Pearl Harbour,
has remained free of invasion or attack (other than through terorism)
and is free to dictate to the world as it pleases. As more nations
become nuclear powers, then America feels increasingly at risk. You
give 'aid' to nations to have them in your debt and control them
financially. It's all down to this desire to remain as the World's
dominent power.
It's not going to work. Other nations have every right to embark on a
programme of nuclear energy for their own benefit. Yes, that clashes
with the dream of American dominence...but it makes for a fairer
competition and a more equal base on which to negotiate.
Iran is in many ways similar to Ireland. they too had many terrorists,
they too turned a deaf ear to the antics of their 'freedom fighters'.
The US threatening action against Iran, is like the UK invading
Ireland.
Yes, it removes the terrorist element, and the terrorist sympathetic
factions within the Government. But is it the right course of action?
It's not just America, and it's not about dominance. It's about
protecting the world from nuclear armed terrorists, if at all
possible.
Werewolfy
2009-02-21 19:26:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
It's not just America, and it's not about dominance. It's about
protecting the world from nuclear armed terrorists, if at all
possible
It may not be 'just' America...but protection of the US is a very very
large slice of the matter.

As far as protecting the World from nuclear armed terorists...forget
it. It is certain to happen, no matter what you do to oppose it.

Werewolfy
Steven Douglas
2009-02-21 19:40:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Werewolfy
Post by Steven Douglas
It's not just America, and it's not about dominance. It's about
protecting the world from nuclear armed terrorists, if at all
possible
It may not be 'just' America...but protection of the US is a very very
large slice of the matter.
Is that a bad thing? Does your country take action to protect itself?
Post by Werewolfy
As far as protecting the World from nuclear armed terorists...forget
it. It is certain to happen, no matter what you do to oppose it.
Criminals are going to attain weapons illegally as well, but should we
just forget it or should we at least *try* to keep it from happening?
Werewolfy
2009-02-21 19:52:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Criminals are going to attain weapons illegally as well, but should we
just forget it or should we at least *try* to keep it from happening?
Of course not. Try by all means. However, when it comes to highly
organised and financed Terrorist Cells, then I think we are fighting a
losing battle in stopping such people from obtaining first a 'dirty'
nuclear device, and later a full scale device.

It's the intensity of action that is questionable. Target a Country
(Iran in this case) and destroy it's infrastructure. All you will do
is force these people to move house. There are too many Nations for
the US to 'target'.

This action will simply estrange the US still further from the many
alternative ideologies that exist..and make you many more enemies.

Less threats, less invasions, less wielding of the 'mighty Military
machine', and more give and take is the solution...well, more likely
to achieve World peace than the current Military intervention.
I am not in any way a pacifist. The opposite is true. But I can see
the folly of the present action, and the wisdom of sensible
discussionon an equal footing.

Werewolfy
Werewolfy
2009-02-21 20:01:23 UTC
Permalink
On 21 Feb, 19:40, Steven Douglas <***@flashmail.com> wrote:

"Is that a bad thing? Does your country take action to protect
itself?"

No, not a bad thing at all. But it has limits. If the UK 'took action
to protect itself' in the manner the US does, then the UK would have
invaded Ireland. The IRA under the Irish 'friendly' Government, acts
precisely as does the Muslim terrorist and with the same national
'safe areas'.

Had we been a people who reacted to terrorism as your Government is,
we would have simply invaded Ireland after bombing the main Cities for
a few weeks.

I have a suspicion that is exactly what should have happened.

Werewolfy
Steven Douglas
2009-02-21 18:34:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Werewolfy
But I am not convinced about the entire Country being targetted due to
a band of terrorists using it, or their assistance to other terrorist
groups. Nor am I convinced that terrorism is State Sponsered.
The entire country would not be targeted. Only their nuclear
facilities would be targeted. And do you consider the death sentence
given to Salman Rushdie to be terrorism? That's just one example.
Werewolfy
2009-02-21 19:17:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Werewolfy
But I am not convinced about the entire Country being targetted due to
a band of terrorists using it, or their assistance to other terrorist
groups. Nor am I convinced that terrorism is State Sponsered.
The entire country would not be targeted. Only their nuclear
facilities would be targeted. And do you consider the death sentence
given to Salman Rushdie to be terrorism? That's just one example.
Rushdie is a madman. He is a despicable person, and his extinction
would be no loss to the world. A loud-mouthed swaggering braggart of a
man.

I don't see how you can target a nuclear complex, destroy it and not
endanger a few thousand square miles around the 'target'. Nor how you
arrange the radioactive fall-out to remain within Iran, and not drift
around...to the UK perhaps?

Werewolfy
Steven Douglas
2009-02-21 18:54:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Werewolfy
Nor am I convinced that terrorism is State Sponsered.
Headline: "Iran receives al Qaeda praise for role in terrorist
attacks"

[quoting] Fresh links between Iran's Revolutionary Guards and al-Qaeda
have been uncovered following interception of a letter from the
terrorist leadership that hails Tehran's support for a recent attack
on the American embassy in Yemen, which killed 16 people. [end quote]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/3506544/Iran-receives-al-Qaeda-praise-for-role-in-terrorist-attacks.html
Mike
2009-02-21 18:58:07 UTC
Permalink
Three responses to a single comment. Aren't you getting a little obsessed
with this one?
Steven Douglas
2009-02-21 19:06:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike
Three responses to a single comment. Aren't you getting a little obsessed
with this one?
I'm making a point. But isn't it just like you to ignore the point,
and focus on me personally? What is it with *some* (not all) of you
tiny little intellects who inhabit this group, that you must focus so
much attention on me personally rather than the points I make? Can you
explain it?
Mike
2009-02-21 19:17:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike
Three responses to a single comment. Aren't you getting a little obsessed
with this one?
I'm making a point. But isn't it just like you to ignore the point,
and focus on me personally? What is it with *some* (not all) of you
tiny little intellects who inhabit this group, that you must focus so
much attention on me personally rather than the points I make?
Can you explain it?
Yes I can explain, but why should I?
Steven Douglas
2009-02-21 19:21:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mike
Three responses to a single comment. Aren't you getting a little obsessed
with this one?
I'm making a point. But isn't it just like you to ignore the point,
and focus on me personally? What is it with *some* (not all) of you
tiny little intellects who inhabit this group, that you must focus so
much attention on me personally rather than the points I make?
Can you explain it?
Yes I can explain, but why should I?
So I can see how petty and childish your explanation would be.
Mike
2009-02-21 19:54:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mike
Three responses to a single comment. Aren't you getting a little obsessed
with this one?
I'm making a point. But isn't it just like you to ignore the point,
and focus on me personally? What is it with *some* (not all) of you
tiny little intellects who inhabit this group, that you must focus so
much attention on me personally rather than the points I make?
Can you explain it?
Yes I can explain, but why should I?
So I can see how petty and childish your explanation would be.
Ok then, I will explain for your benefit. It's because I detest you. I think
you have a lothesome personality. Anything you say, must be automatically
discredit because it comes from a lower life form!
Pers3id
2009-02-22 05:40:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Werewolfy
Nor am I convinced that terrorism is State Sponsered.
Headline: "Iran receives al Qaeda praise for role in terrorist
attacks"
[quoting] Fresh links between Iran's Revolutionary Guards and al-Qaeda
have been uncovered following interception of a letter from the
terrorist leadership that hails Tehran's support for a recent attack
on the American embassy in Yemen, which killed 16 people. [end quote]
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/3506544/Iran-
receives-al-Qaeda-praise-for-role-in-terrorist-attacks.html
Three responses to a single comment. Aren't you getting a little
obsessed with this one?
Stephen clearly has a goal in mind. Going from some stupid bum-fuck
arab not liking the USA, to that arab's country not liking the USA,
would greatly enhance his effort to start a global conflagration..
global war is palatable for him, so long as somebody else does
the fighting. His fundie-christian warped goals are becoming
more obvious.

Werewolfy
2009-02-21 19:23:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Headline: "Iran receives al Qaeda praise for role in terrorist
attacks"
[quoting] Fresh links between Iran's Revolutionary Guards and al-Qaeda
have been uncovered following interception of a letter from the
terrorist leadership that hails Tehran's support for a recent attack
on the American embassy in Yemen, which killed 16 people. [end quote]
That's just a newspaper story. No doubt there is some truth there,
somewhere. One has to ask, however, how and why did this so secret
letter become public domain. Was it by skilful espionage...or was it
(much more likely) released by terrorist bodies for some ulterior
motive?

I'm sorry to have to tell you that I place little credence on
newspaper reports, and always question the reasons and the methods of
the item becoming 'news'.

Werewolfy
Steven Douglas
2009-02-21 19:39:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Werewolfy
Post by Steven Douglas
Headline: "Iran receives al Qaeda praise for role in terrorist
attacks"
[quoting] Fresh links between Iran's Revolutionary Guards and al-Qaeda
have been uncovered following interception of a letter from the
terrorist leadership that hails Tehran's support for a recent attack
on the American embassy in Yemen, which killed 16 people. [end quote]
That's just a newspaper story. No doubt there is some truth there,
somewhere. One has to ask, however, how and why did this so secret
letter become public domain. Was it by skilful espionage...or was it
(much more likely) released by terrorist bodies for some ulterior
motive?
I'm sorry to have to tell you that I place little credence on
newspaper reports, and always question the reasons and the methods of
the item becoming 'news'.
I don't see why anyone would feel the need to invent such a story.
There is plenty of other evidence of Iran's sponsorship of terrorist
acts. Here's another example:

Headline: "Elite Revolutionary Guard Broadens Its Influence in Iran -
Unit That Captured Britons Has Sway In Politics, Economy"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/31/AR2007033101105.html
Woodswun
2009-02-21 00:39:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike
news:f71ec54e-62e7-4be0-
Post by Steven Douglas
Maybe the world will finally get serious about stopping them from
attaining their obvious goal, which is to build a nuclear bomb.
Frankly, I am way more concerned about the plethora of nuclear weapons
falling into the hands of ignorant people, like you. Just like the housing
bubble burst, we may see a similar nuke bubble bursting in the States. You
guys are making way too many, don't you think?
Nah, we aren't making so many anymore - it's just a whole lot cheaper
to pick 'em up at garage sales than to make 'em new.

;-)

Woods
Woodswun
2009-02-21 00:38:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Woodswun
Post by Steven Douglas
Headline: "Iran has enough uranium for bomb"
Financial Times
19-Feb-2009
By Daniel Dombey
Iran has now built up a stockpile of enough enriched uranium for one
nuclear bomb, United Nations officials acknowledged on Thursday.
In a development that comes as the Obama administration is drawing up
its policy on negotiations with Tehran over its nuclear programme, UN
officials said Iran had produced more nuclear material than previously
thought.
They said Iran had now accumulated more than one tonne of low enriched
uranium hexafluoride at a facility in Natanz. If such a quantity were
further enriched it could produce more than 20kg of fissile material -
enough for a bomb.
"It appears that Iran has walked right up to the threshold of having
enough low enriched uranium to provide enough raw material for a
single bomb," said Peter Zimmerman, a former chief scientist of the US
Arms Control and Disarmament Agency.
The new figures come in a report by the International Atomic Energy
Agency, the UN's nuclear watchdog, released on Thursday. This revealed
that Iran's production of low enriched uranium had previously been
underestimated. [end excerpt]
http://us.ft.com/ftgateway/superpage.ft?news_id=fto021920091627459047
Maybe we'll get lucky and they'll shoot themselves in the foot! ;-)
Maybe the world will finally get serious about stopping them from
attaining their obvious goal, which is to build a nuclear bomb.
I wouldn't hold my breath on that, unless you are talking about
diplomacy. They are much better able to defend themselves than any of
their neighbors. D

Woods
Steven Douglas
2009-02-21 01:32:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Woodswun
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Woodswun
Post by Steven Douglas
Headline: "Iran has enough uranium for bomb"
Financial Times
19-Feb-2009
By Daniel Dombey
Iran has now built up a stockpile of enough enriched uranium for one
nuclear bomb, United Nations officials acknowledged on Thursday.
In a development that comes as the Obama administration is drawing up
its policy on negotiations with Tehran over its nuclear programme, UN
officials said Iran had produced more nuclear material than previously
thought.
They said Iran had now accumulated more than one tonne of low enriched
uranium hexafluoride at a facility in Natanz. If such a quantity were
further enriched it could produce more than 20kg of fissile material -
enough for a bomb.
"It appears that Iran has walked right up to the threshold of having
enough low enriched uranium to provide enough raw material for a
single bomb," said Peter Zimmerman, a former chief scientist of the US
Arms Control and Disarmament Agency.
The new figures come in a report by the International Atomic Energy
Agency, the UN's nuclear watchdog, released on Thursday. This revealed
that Iran's production of low enriched uranium had previously been
underestimated. [end excerpt]
http://us.ft.com/ftgateway/superpage.ft?news_id=fto021920091627459047
Maybe we'll get lucky and they'll shoot themselves in the foot! ;-)
Maybe the world will finally get serious about stopping them from
attaining their obvious goal, which is to build a nuclear bomb.
I wouldn't hold my breath on that, unless you are talking about
diplomacy.  They are much better able to defend themselves than any of
their neighbors.  D
Obviously diplomacy would have to be the first step. But if they fail
to cooperate, their facilities can be bombed (as Wally has been
talking about for years upon years here).
Woodswun
2009-02-21 01:59:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Woodswun
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Woodswun
Post by Steven Douglas
Headline: "Iran has enough uranium for bomb"
Financial Times
19-Feb-2009
By Daniel Dombey
Iran has now built up a stockpile of enough enriched uranium for one
nuclear bomb, United Nations officials acknowledged on Thursday.
In a development that comes as the Obama administration is drawing up
its policy on negotiations with Tehran over its nuclear programme, UN
officials said Iran had produced more nuclear material than previously
thought.
They said Iran had now accumulated more than one tonne of low enriched
uranium hexafluoride at a facility in Natanz. If such a quantity were
further enriched it could produce more than 20kg of fissile material -
enough for a bomb.
"It appears that Iran has walked right up to the threshold of having
enough low enriched uranium to provide enough raw material for a
single bomb," said Peter Zimmerman, a former chief scientist of the US
Arms Control and Disarmament Agency.
The new figures come in a report by the International Atomic Energy
Agency, the UN's nuclear watchdog, released on Thursday. This revealed
that Iran's production of low enriched uranium had previously been
underestimated. [end excerpt]
http://us.ft.com/ftgateway/superpage.ft?news_id=fto021920091627459047
Maybe we'll get lucky and they'll shoot themselves in the foot! ;-)
Maybe the world will finally get serious about stopping them from
attaining their obvious goal, which is to build a nuclear bomb.
I wouldn't hold my breath on that, unless you are talking about
diplomacy.  They are much better able to defend themselves than any of
their neighbors.  D
Obviously diplomacy would have to be the first step. But if they fail
to cooperate, their facilities can be bombed (as Wally has been
talking about for years upon years here).
I, uh, don't think we want to deal with the results of Israel bombing
Iran ...

Woods
Steven Douglas
2009-02-21 03:17:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Woodswun
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Woodswun
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Woodswun
Post by Steven Douglas
Headline: "Iran has enough uranium for bomb"
Financial Times
19-Feb-2009
By Daniel Dombey
Iran has now built up a stockpile of enough enriched uranium for one
nuclear bomb, United Nations officials acknowledged on Thursday.
In a development that comes as the Obama administration is drawing up
its policy on negotiations with Tehran over its nuclear programme, UN
officials said Iran had produced more nuclear material than previously
thought.
They said Iran had now accumulated more than one tonne of low enriched
uranium hexafluoride at a facility in Natanz. If such a quantity were
further enriched it could produce more than 20kg of fissile material -
enough for a bomb.
"It appears that Iran has walked right up to the threshold of having
enough low enriched uranium to provide enough raw material for a
single bomb," said Peter Zimmerman, a former chief scientist of the US
Arms Control and Disarmament Agency.
The new figures come in a report by the International Atomic Energy
Agency, the UN's nuclear watchdog, released on Thursday. This revealed
that Iran's production of low enriched uranium had previously been
underestimated. [end excerpt]
http://us.ft.com/ftgateway/superpage.ft?news_id=fto021920091627459047
Maybe we'll get lucky and they'll shoot themselves in the foot! ;-)
Maybe the world will finally get serious about stopping them from
attaining their obvious goal, which is to build a nuclear bomb.
I wouldn't hold my breath on that, unless you are talking about
diplomacy.  They are much better able to defend themselves than any of
their neighbors.  D
Obviously diplomacy would have to be the first step. But if they fail
to cooperate, their facilities can be bombed (as Wally has been
talking about for years upon years here).
I, uh, don't think we want to deal with the results of Israel bombing
Iran ...
Well, for the last few years of Bush's presidency, Wally was sure WE
were going to attack Iran. Hopefully the UN will pass a resolution
letting Iran know they better stop now -- and, also hopefully, the UN
won't be spouting hollow words (which the UN is so good at).
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...