Iran wants to use nuclear weapon, Harper says


earth_as_one
Avatar
#31
Quote: Originally Posted by AngstromView Post

The United States probably used Small nukes in Iraq. At least 5 times is my guesstimate. If they did you think they would tell them or us?
I bet the western powers use Nukes more often then we think.

Unlikely. The evidence would be overwhelming and near impossible to cover up. China, Russia and many other countries would have detected the event(s).

More like they used depleted uranium, which can contain trace amounts of HEU or even plutonium. The reprocessing of spent fuel rods isn't 100% efficient.

Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

Facts like Iran`s leader has stated clearly that he wants to wipe Israel off the map, and the international community doesn't believe Iran's claims of why and what they are seeking?

Fact Checker:
--
 
Niflmir
Avatar
+3
#32
I don't see much point in trying to stop a country from developing nuclear weapons when we do nothing about the ever increasing number of countries that have already produced and detonated them.

Plus the IAEA continues to show non-divergence of nuclear materials in Iran. So there is absolutely no reason not to sell uranium to them.
 
CDNBear
Avatar
#33
Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_oneView Post

Fact Checker:
--

Quote:

But a colleague at The Washington Post, spotting the Bachmann and Obama statements during the U.N. festivities last month, suggests that it is this widely cited statement by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was actually a mistranslation.

We've been over this. I cited a translator in Tehran Iran of all places, that put your BS to bed, long ago.
 
earth_as_one
Avatar
+1
#34
In the 1980s Khomeini gave a speech in Farsi and made this statement: “Een rezhim-i eshghalgar-i Quds bayad az sahneh-i ruzgar mahv shaved.” The correct translation is "This occupation regime over Jerusalem must vanish from the arena of time.”

A few years ago, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad slightly misquoted Khomeini, substituting “safheh-i ruzgar,” or “page of time" for "sahneh-i ruzgar" or “arena of time.”

The anonymous newswire translation was inaccurate. Later, official translations of Ahmadinejad's statement from Farsi to English were also inaccurate.

You are also aware of this inaccuracy, but still continue to believe want you want despite the facts. The original statement in Farsi is what counts, not inaccurate translations.
 
CDNBear
Avatar
+1
#35
Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_oneView Post

You are also aware of this inaccuracy, but still continue to believe want you want despite the facts.

No that's how you do things. I still believe the context of what was said because...

Quote:

The original statement in Farsi is what counts, not inaccurate translations.

... that IS what counts.

Context is everything. What was translated into an innocuous statement, is true, in English.

In (Farsi) Persian cultural context, it means, wiped out.

Only apologists keep ignoring that.
 
lone wolf
+1
#36
How did "we begin bombing in five minutes" go?
 
Spade
Avatar
#37
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolfView Post

How did "we begin bombing in five minutes" go?

The response, quote:

"This kind of behavior is incompatible with high responsibility the heads of nuclear states are bearing for the destinies of their own people and mankind"
 
L Gilbert
Avatar
#38
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

The west's attitude of "Bend to our will or we will cut your balls off" is the greatest threat to world peace.

As opposed to some of the ME's same attitude?

Quote: Originally Posted by AngstromView Post

Just a few videos online. Nothing that would stand in a court of law.
One video was from a doctor looking for depleted Uranium in children lungs
And he was reporting that he was finding Enriched Uranium.

This was from areas in Iraq heavily bombed by the USA.

We aren't sending our doctors in there to find out if our governments are nuking them so will never know for sure.
Isn't that rather convenient?

If we could prove that we used Nukes do you think they would use them? We are the most educated people on earth but we have 0 common sense.

There's nothing I can find in seismological records indicating anything like that.

The U couldn't be from anything pertaining to Soddam Insane's nuclear program, I am sure. (sarcasm)
Last edited by L Gilbert; Jan 7th, 2012 at 07:02 PM..
 
earth_as_one
Avatar
#39
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

...What was translated into an innocuous statement, is true, in English.

In (Farsi) Persian cultural context, it means, wiped out.

Only apologists keep ignoring that.

I agree context is important. Which is why anyone with an informed opinion has read an accurate translation of the entire speech and compared the terminology used in that speech with similar phrases used in a similar context in similar speeches.

That's been done here:

--

and here:

--

Since the same phrase in Farsi was also used by Khomeini regarding the Shah of Iran's regime, the Soviet Union and Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, you'd have to believe that Khomeini also called for the extermination of Iranians, Iraqis, Russians as well as Israelis.

BTW, I don't care for Ahmadinejad either. But my low opinion of this idiot is based on facts, not manipulations and misinformation.
 
L Gilbert
Avatar
#40
Quote: Originally Posted by grumpydiggerView Post

Harper should not be allowed to use sharp pointed scissors.............he still believes Bush and Cheney

lol.

Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

Facts like Iran`s leader has stated clearly that he wants to wipe Israel off the map, and the international community doesn't believe Iran's claims of why and what they are seeking?

Yeah, what about that?

Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

However, it's also possible he was merely expressing an emotion with no clear idea of a specific plan of action.

One can have intentions without having a clear plan laid out.
 
gopher
Avatar
+1
#41
''Iran wants to use nuclear weapon, Harper says''


Just like Saddam wanted to use WMD on the West. And where's the proof?
 
ironsides
Avatar
#42
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

Should the UN resolve to attack Iran, I'd be all for it. Short of that though, I'd be against it on the principle that unless we have the full support of the international comunity, you end up with few countries supporting the whole war in men and money, which is expensive. Also, partial sanctions or a war with much opposition faced from the beginning is far less likely to succeed.

But yes, should the UN resolve to attack iran, I'd support Canada upholding such a resolution. Short of that, no.

It will have to be a UN sanctioned action to work.

Quote: Originally Posted by gopherView Post

''Iran wants to use nuclear weapon, Harper says''


Just like Saddam wanted to use WMD on the West. And where's the proof?

As for Saddam, he did have and used WMD and we were lucky he was not crazy enough to use them on us. Saddam did use them against the Kurds as well as Iran.

--
 
Niflmir
Avatar
#43
Quote: Originally Posted by ironsidesView Post

It will have to be a UN sanctioned action to work.



As for Saddam, he did have and used WMD and we were lucky he was not crazy enough to use them on us. Saddam did use them against the Kurds as well as Iran.

--

Yes, this was well known prior to the US invasion of Iraq. It was well known because the US gave said weapons to the Iraqis during the war between Iran and Iraq. It was also well known that the Iraqis were scrambling to destroy all of these weapons prior to the inspectors visiting the locations where they were stored, which was the reason for the delays which led to sanctions.

As for Iran, the IAEA continues to show non-diversion of nuclear materials but is forced to make ominous statements because of political pressure from the security council. The public record shows that the uranium that is sold to Iran by the international community is going to a peaceful nuclear program.
 
CDNBear
Avatar
#44
Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_oneView Post

I agree context is important.

You don't believe that. Consistently anyways.

Quote:

Which is why anyone with an informed opinion has read an accurate translation of the entire speech and compared the terminology used in that speech with similar phrases used in a similar context in similar speeches.

That's one of the reasons I have an informed opinion, and you don't.

Quote:

That's been done here:

--

and here:

--

That's the other reason I have an informed opinion and you don't. Niether of those sites has a great reputation among the educated. And neither article is based on the work of a professional Iranian Persian/Farsi translator.

Quote:

Since the same phrase in Farsi was also used by Khomeini regarding the Shah of Iran's regime, the Soviet Union and Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, you'd have to believe that Khomeini also called for the extermination of Iranians, Iraqis, Russians as well as Israelis.

What happened... To the Shaw? Between Iran and Iraq? To communists in Iran?

Like I said, context is important to you, sometimes.

Quote:

BTW, I don't care for Ahmadinejad either. But my low opinion of this idiot is based on facts, not manipulations and misinformation.

You only pretend to have a low opinion of him.
 
ironsides
Avatar
#45
Iran is under U.N. sanctions for refusing to stop uranium enrichment — which can produce both nuclear fuel and fissile warhead material — and other suspected activities that the international community fears could be used to make atomic arms.
 
L Gilbert
Avatar
#46
Quote: Originally Posted by NiflmirView Post

Yes, this was well known prior to the US invasion of Iraq. It was well known because the US gave said weapons to the Iraqis during the war between Iran and Iraq. It was also well known that the Iraqis were scrambling to destroy all of these weapons prior to the inspectors visiting the locations where they were stored, which was the reason for the delays which led to sanctions.

As for Iran, the IAEA continues to show non-diversion of nuclear materials but is forced to make ominous statements because of political pressure from the security council. The public record shows that the uranium that is sold to Iran by the international community is going to a peaceful nuclear program.

--

--

Iran is nuts, but less so than it used to be.
 
earth_as_one
Avatar
#47
I doubt Iran plans to build nuclear weapons. I'm against Iran's leaders because of their human rights record regarding religious minorities and the death penalty. I am against their political system because I believe in separation of church and state.

I don't think the Iranian people are crazy. Most Iranians support their country's peaceful nuclear technology efforts. I doubt many support their country building nuclear weapons. Most of them aren't happy with their leaders and I predict they will have revolts in the streets after the next election if the elections aren't free and fair. If Iran built a nuclear weapon, that would also trigger internal strife.
 
Goober
Avatar
#48
Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_oneView Post

I doubt Iran plans to build nuclear weapons. I'm against Iran's leaders because of their human rights record regarding religious minorities and the death penalty. I am against their political system because I believe in separation of church and state.

I don't think the Iranian people are crazy. Most Iranians support their country's peaceful nuclear technology efforts. I doubt many support their country building nuclear weapons. Most of them aren't happy with their leaders and I predict they will have revolts in the streets after the next election if the elections aren't free and fair. If Iran built a nuclear weapon, that would also trigger internal strife.

Really - Internal strife - Would that result in what actions by the Govt???

Care to answer and define how significant the internal strife would be?
 
L Gilbert
Avatar
#49
Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_oneView Post

I don't think the Iranian people are crazy.

I didn't say Iranians are crazy. I said Iran is crazy, meaning their gov't.
 
ironsides
Avatar
#50
Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_oneView Post

I doubt Iran plans to build nuclear weapons. I'm against Iran's leaders because of their human rights record regarding religious minorities and the death penalty. I am against their political system because I believe in separation of church and state.

I don't think the Iranian people are crazy. Most Iranians support their country's peaceful nuclear technology efforts. I doubt many support their country building nuclear weapons. Most of them aren't happy with their leaders and I predict they will have revolts in the streets after the next election if the elections aren't free and fair. If Iran built a nuclear weapon, that would also trigger internal strife.

If Iran built a nuclear weapon the people would do just as they do now, and that is be quite or be killed. The majority are against the current regime, but not all are ready to die to change it yet. They had revolts in the streets after the last two elections and people died.
 
gopher
#51
Quote:

As for Saddam, he did have and used WMD

And he was fully disarmed as you well know.
 
Spade
#52
And so did the British on the Kurds.
 
petros
Avatar
+1
#53
Would Harper get upset if I used my nuke? Who would really miss Moose Jaw anyway?
 
Spade
Avatar
#54
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Would Harper get upset if I used my nuke? Who would really miss Moose Jaw anyway?

What do those Moose Jawers have in those tunnels at the end of the Soo Line?
 
gopher
Avatar
#55
January 05, 2012
NY Times Again Lies About WMD - Now in Iran

After promoting war on Iraq through false weapons of mass destruction stories the New York Times is promoting war on Iran through false weapons of mass destruction stories.
Here its reporter Steven Erlanger -- about the recent IAEA report on Iran:
The threats from Iran, aimed both at the West and at Israel, combined with a recent assessment by the International Atomic Energy Agency that Iran’s nuclear program has a military objective, is becoming an important issue in the American presidential campaign.
The November 18 IAEA report (pdf) does not say that Iran's program has a military objective.
It quotes from a UN resolution that expressed "concerns about the possible military dimensions of the Iranian nuclear programme", later says it had "identified outstanding issues related to possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme" and repeats similar language several time. All the outstanding issues the IAEA mentions predate 2003.
Nowhere does the IAEA claim that Iran's nuclear program has a military objective. The New York Times just made that up.








--
 
Cliffy
Avatar
+1
#56
Quote: Originally Posted by gopherView Post

January 05, 2012
NY Times Again Lies About WMD - Now in Iran
After promoting war on Iraq through false weapons of mass destruction stories the New York Times is promoting war on Iran through false weapons of mass destruction stories.
Here its reporter Steven Erlanger lies about the recent IAEA report on Iran:The threats from Iran, aimed both at the West and at Israel, combined with a recent assessment by the International Atomic Energy Agency that Iran’s nuclear program has a military objective, is becoming an important issue in the American presidential campaign.The November 18 IAEA report (pdf) does not say that Iran's program has a military objective.
It quotes from a UN resolution that expressed "concerns about the possible military dimensions of the Iranian nuclear programme", later says it had "identified outstanding issues related to possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme" and repeats similar language several time. All the outstanding issues the IAEA mentions predate 2003.
Nowhere does the IAEA claim that Iran's nuclear program has a military objective. The New York Times just made that up.

Quote has been trimmed, See full post: View Post
Randolf Hearst used the same method to get pot made illegal. For years he printed stories of black men smoking pot and raping white women. All were false. His purpose was to get hemp off the market because he had invested heavily in wood pulp for his paper chain. He was backed Dupont nylon to get rid of the hemp rope competition. What we see here with Iran is exactly the same tactic. Whoever is promoting this BS stands to make a fortune if Iran is attacked.
 
mentalfloss
Avatar
+1
#57
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

Should the UN resolve to attack Iran, I'd be all for it. Short of that though, I'd be against it on the principle that unless we have the full support of the international comunity, you end up with few countries supporting the whole war in men and money, which is expensive. Also, partial sanctions or a war with much opposition faced from the beginning is far less likely to succeed.

But yes, should the UN resolve to attack iran, I'd support Canada upholding such a resolution. Short of that, no.

Agreed.

This isn't a case whereby they'll develop and just hit the button and we're ****ed. There will be more obvious signs leading up to such a move and we'll have an undisputed international agreement on the matter while the project is in development. Until then, it's just hot air coming from Harper unless Iran wants to sacrifice all diplomacy and doesn't mind a full scale retaliation.

We shouldn't fall for such obvious fear mongering.
 
ironsides
#58
Quote: Originally Posted by gopherView Post

And he was fully disarmed as you well know.

After he used them.
 
gopher
Avatar
#59
Quote:

After he used them.

We all know that already.

Now let's stop the barrage of lies about Iran and the threats against them.
 
GreenFish66
Avatar
#60
Perhaps Iran is a " risk to International/World Peace and Sercurity "( bet they're lovin' that role) and should be monitored closely....

However I believe what Harper ment to say was " Iran is a risk to International Peace and Canadian Securities "....

--

Peace .

_________________________________________

Uranium (like Dirty Ol' Oil) is Rep./Con. Canada's Favorite Biz...A /Dirty/Underhanded/Corrupt...and Potentially Dangerous Energy Money pit for Canada to be Tied up in /Tarred and Feathered into supporting, securing and defending for sure....

Sorry just some Excess Run-Off Spew ....

__________________________________________________ ________
Last edited by GreenFish66; Jan 9th, 2012 at 11:25 PM..
 

Similar Threads

0
N. Korea tests nuclear weapon
by CBC News | Oct 8th, 2006
no new posts