Iran under Sanction Pressures – Reaction?


View Poll Results: Oil Sanction
Is the West right to impose sanctions -Morally -Legally 5 29.41%
Is the West wrong to impose sanctions-Morally -Legally 4 23.53%
Will this cause War 1 5.88%
Will this force/persuade Iran to negotiate Nuke Program 1 5.88%
Iran will find other markets-India-China etc 7 41.18%
This will lower the price for Iranian Oil exports 3 17.65%
Is this a positive step by the West 7 41.18%
Is this a negative step by the West 3 17.65%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 17. You may not vote on this poll

Goober
#421
Quote: Originally Posted by AndyFView Post

Why is it when the US sneezes, the rest of the world apologizes.

I'm with Iran all the way.

Israel attacked the Iraqi nuke site. Oh yes and a Syrian one as well. Read up and you will see the errors that were made on the shooting down of the Iranian passenger jet.

Do you think the US shot this jet down deliberately?

Iran Air Flight 655 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (external - login to view)
 
Goober
#422
China is playing the money game. Cut thier purchases from Iran by half, wait for a better price. The squeezing gets tighter on the Iranian economy. And if they do go nuke it will only continue.

Strait of Hormuz conflict: China looks to Saudi Arabia and Russia for oil in bid to squeeze out sanction plagued Iran | News | National Post

BEIJING/LONDON — China is scouring the world for alternative oil supplies to replace a fall in its imports from Iran, as it seeks to negotiate lower prices from Tehran, and has been drawing heavily on Saudi Arabia.

Industry sources told Reuters that Beijing had bought the bulk of an increase in crude oil supplies from top oil exporter Saudi Arabia in the last few months.

The world’s second-largest oil consumer is also importing more cargoes from West Africa, Russia and Australia to replace reduced supplies from Iran.

China is the top buyer of Iranian oil, taking around 20 percent of its total exports, but since January it has cut purchases by around 285,000 barrels per day (bpd), or just over half of the total daily amount it imported in 2011.

Saudi Arabian output reached 9.76 million barrels per day (bpd) in December, up 360,000 bpd from October, OPEC data show, and has remained near that level in January, according to a Reuters survey. Several sources in the oil industry said China has bought a good part of the extra oil.
 
Cliffy
+2
#423
eao - Israel
Goober - Iran
Seems to be a correlation here somewhere.

There is a simple solution - stop threatening and bullying and Iran would not need nukes. If the west got rid of their nukes, nobody would need them to protect themselves from the west. But, I guess it is too simple for war mongers to grasp.
 
Goober
+2
#424
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

eao - Israel
Goober - Iran
Seems to be a correlation here somewhere.

There is a simple solution - stop threatening and bullying and Iran would not need nukes. If the west got rid of their nukes, nobody would need them to protect themselves from the west. But, I guess it is too simple for war mongers to grasp.

Comparing me to EAO is really low.No one will bomb Iran, but they can keep sanctions in place.Think of it as a N Korea in the worlds hot spot for conflict.

globalspin.blogs.time.com/201...ssure-on-iran/ (external - login to view)

Nobody likely envies the challenge President Barack Obama faces getting his “messaging” right on Iran. He must meet the demands of election-year politics and continue to press Tehran’s back to the wall over its nuclear program, all the while avoiding the eruption of a major new Middle East war.

In an NBC interview that aired Sunday, Obama sought to apply a cold compress to the fever of war hysteria that broke out in the media last week over a report that his own Defense Secretary, Leon Panetta, believes Israel will start a war with Iran by launching air strikes on its nuclear facilities before June. The Washington Post’s David Ignatius reported the views attributed to Panetta, and the media frenzy intensified when Panetta pointedly declined to confirm or deny the report.

Obama, by contrast, told NBC’s Matt Lauer he didn’t believe that “Israel has made a decision over what they need to do” on the Iran issue, and vowed that “we are going to make sure that we work in lockstep as we proceed to try and solve this, hopefully diplomatically” – although he added that “all options” remain on the proverbial table.



Read more: globalspin.blogs.time.com/201...#ixzz1ljaxZkTO (external - login to view)
 
EagleSmack
+1
#425
Quote: Originally Posted by AndyFView Post

The US is worried that if Iran has nuclear power it may attack Israel for the "sucker punch" it gave Iran a while back when it bombed Iran's facilities. So what? They should be worried. That's what happens when you attack another country, you worry that it will eventually get new technology. The lesson learned is to mind your own business and then no one will want to get even.

LOL. You dope. Israel attacked Iraq's nuclear facilities.

DO YOUR HOMEWORK!

Quote:

Remember too the US navy shooting down Iran's commercial liner by the USS Vincenze a while back and they tried to cover up the fact the frigate was in Iranian waters.

As if shooting down the airliner wasn't enough?

Quote:

I'm with Iran all the way.

Of course you are.
 
Cliffy
#426
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

Comparing me to EAO is really low.No one will bomb Iran, but they can keep sanctions in place.Think of it as a N Korea in the worlds hot spot for conflict.
Obama Seeks to Cool War Fever While Keeping Up Pressure on Iran | Global Spin | TIME.com
Nobody likely envies the challenge President Barack Obama faces getting his “messaging” right on Iran. He must meet the demands of election-year politics and continue to press Tehran’s back to the wall over its nuclear program, all the while avoiding the eruption of a major new Middle East war.
In an NBC interview that aired Sunday, Obama sought to apply a cold compress to the fever of war hysteria that broke out in the media last week over a report that his own Defense Secretary, Leon Panetta, believes Israel will start a war with Iran by launching air strikes on its nuclear facilities before June. The Washington Post’s David Ignatius reported the views attributed to Panetta, and the media frenzy intensified when Panetta pointedly declined to confirm or deny the report.
Obama, by contrast, told NBC’s Matt Lauer he didn’t believe that “Israel has made a decision over what they need to do” on the Iran issue, and vowed that “we are going to make sure that we work in lockstep as we proceed to try and solve this, hopefully...

Quote has been trimmed, See full post: View Post
As with Bush, Obama is stuck with his advisory staff to feed him information (disinformation) and has to make decisions based on that. That he surrounded himself with Bush's advisers tells me that there is something fishy in the White House and it don't swim in the sea. Can you say WMDs?
 
Goober
#427
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

As with Bush, Obama is stuck with his advisory staff to feed him information (disinformation) and has to make decisions based on that. That he surrounded himself with Bush's advisers tells me that there is something fishy in the White House and it don't swim in the sea. Can you say WMDs?

And countless people from the Pentagon stated time and again that bombing Iran would cause more problems and long term. Is there something about those statements that you are missing. When Obama states all options are on the table, I along with many do not see bombing Iran as an option. This is an election year in both countries.
Even an Iran with Nukes cannot close the straits. Use of nukes against NATO would result in a massive retaliation.
 
Cliffy
#428
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

And countless people from the Pentagon stated time and again that bombing Iran would cause more problems and long term. Is there something about those statements that you are missing. When Obama states all options are on the table, I along with many do not see bombing Iran as an option. This is an election year in both countries.
Even an Iran with Nukes cannot close the straits. Use of nukes against NATO would result in a massive retaliation.

Nobody has nukes or wants nukes in order to use them. They are simply a deterrent to attack. Because this is an election year there certainly will be no attacks, but come next year - it is anybody's guess. I foresee a surgical air strike to cripple their air force and military in general. Bombing a nuke facility would be beyond stupid as it would affect everybody downwind. As crazy as you think the Iranian leadership are, I doubt they want to commit suicide.
 
EagleSmack
+1
#429
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

And countless people from the Pentagon stated time and again that bombing Iran would cause more problems and long term. Is there something about those statements that you are missing. When Obama states all options are on the table, I along with many do not see bombing Iran as an option. This is an election year in both countries.
Even an Iran with Nukes cannot close the straits. Use of nukes against NATO would result in a massive retaliation.

Goober... these guys have been aching for a war with Iran for so long regardless what the players in the game say. That particular crowd has been predicting in vain for a strike on Iran ever since I came to CanCon in 2006.

They're a bunch of war mongers.
 
Just the Facts
#430
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

As crazy as you think the Iranian leadership are, I doubt they want to commit suicide.

Suicide, no. Global turmoil, yes.

The Coming is Upon Us | Iranium (external - login to view)

Check out the Iranian documentary, it's only 28 minutes, very interesting.
 
Goober
#431
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

eao - Israel
Goober - Iran
Seems to be a correlation here somewhere.

There is a simple solution - stop threatening and bullying and Iran would not need nukes. If the west got rid of their nukes, nobody would need them to protect themselves from the west. But, I guess it is too simple for war mongers to grasp.

Cliffy - I found your comparison to myself and EAO deeply insulting. While you and I do disagree on a number of life's situations I have never run from answering, I have never in my opinion lied to you. I have always when wrong, yes plain old wrong admitted such and manned up and accepted it.

To compare me to EAO was extremely insulting. Just my humble opinion. How you take this is up to you.

Lastly I am not a warmonger.
 
L Gilbert
+1
#432
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

Cliffy - I found your comparison to myself and EAO deeply insulting. While you and I do disagree on a number of life's situations I have never run from answering, I have never in my opinion lied to you. I have always when wrong, yes plain old wrong admitted such and manned up and accepted it.

To compare me to EAO was extremely insulting. Just my humble opinion. How you take this is up to you.

Lastly I am not a warmonger.

Feed him too much. He'll get indigestion but he'll love eating. lol
I think my wife uses that tactic sometimes.
 
Colpy
+1
#433
Quote: Originally Posted by AndyFView Post

Why is it when the US sneezes, the rest of the world apologizes.

Gimme a break. Can't you see what's happening? Iran wants to go nuclear because hydro power is not a viable option. The US is worried that if Iran has nuclear power it may attack Israel for the "sucker punch" it gave Iran a while back when it bombed Iran's facilities. So what? They should be worried. That's what happens when you attack another country, you worry that it will eventually get new technology. The lesson learned is to mind your own business and then no one will want to get even.

Remember too the US navy shooting down Iran's commercial liner by the USS Vincenze a while back and they tried to cover up the fact the frigate was in Iranian waters.

I'm with Iran all the way.

When EXACTLY did Israel bomb Iran's facilities???

You mean back in 1981, when Israel bombed the nuclear reactor in IRAQ??? BTW thus saving the Arabian Peninsula from becoming an Iraqi satellite..............we owe Israel a debt of gratitude for that one!!!!

If you are with Iran "all the way", you are a drooling moron.

Moving right along.....

Let's hope sanctions work....

Former Israeli Ambassador on Iran - YouTube

 
Cliffy
+1
#434
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

Cliffy - I found your comparison to myself and EAO deeply insulting. While you and I do disagree on a number of life's situations I have never run from answering, I have never in my opinion lied to you. I have always when wrong, yes plain old wrong admitted such and manned up and accepted it.

To compare me to EAO was extremely insulting. Just my humble opinion. How you take this is up to you.

Lastly I am not a warmonger.

The only comparison intended was that you both seen to be one trick ponies lately, him always harping on Israel and you on Iran. It wasn't meant as an insult, just an observation. But I can't take responsibility for how you take it or how you feel.
 
Spade
#435
War drums, Cliffy.
 
Cliffy
+1
#436
Quote: Originally Posted by SpadeView Post

War drums, Cliffy.

I drum, both African and native American and I know that sound when I hear it. I'm hearing that western troupes are amassing in Israel and Kuwait. But, "no, nothing to see here" is all you get from the people who obsess about Iran.
 
Spade
#437
All sides are literally insane. They cling to religious myths claiming they are carrying out God's design. Fools, all!
 
Cliffy
+1
#438
Quote: Originally Posted by SpadeView Post

All sides are literally insane. They cling to religious myths claiming they are carrying out God's design. Fools, all!

Amazing that the insanity of it all escape them.
 
Spade
#439
Is man any smarter than his great ape cousins?

Jane Goodall Chimpanzees and War - YouTube

 
Cliffy
+1
#440
Quote: Originally Posted by SpadeView Post

Is man any smarter than his great ape cousins?

Jane Goodall Chimpanzees and War - YouTube

Obviously not. But this will cause all sorts of anxiety among the creationists, yes/no?
 
MHz
#441
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

BTW thus saving the Arabian Peninsula from becoming an Iraqi satellite........

They all 'belong' to the US/Israel so what point are you trying to make?
 
Spade
#442
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

Obviously not. But this will cause all sorts of anxiety among the creationists, yes/no?


The obvious always makes men anxious.
 
Omicron
#443
A couple years ago a liberal poster on the internet noted that analysis of Iran's control of international atomic inspectors boiled down to said inspectors not being shown the distribution of fissile material... everything else was open.

The only possible logical conclusion was that some fissile material was being redirected elsewhere.

Two days later the US announced identification of a second uranium-centrifuge facility.

Maybe sometimes people need to be shown what they are looking at.

In the mean time I keep seeing the same old sad dumbness of trade versus power versus shark-remora.

Iranians are a fundamental people... the type to die down to the last man because there is nobody else around like them.

If a truly fundamental people then they will use every trick in the book to defend themselves.

They are not Arabs and they are not 'Stanis. They are Iranians with an extremely civilized civilization given the context of their region.

They live on a cold mountainous plateau. Check out a geographical map and you will notice their borders pretty-much define a mountain-range.

They are different from Arabs and Indians and 'Stanis like how French are different from Germans, Spanish, English and Dutch.

They are sane and together... so much so that they can live through existence under Mullahs if that's what it takes to maintain autonomy.

They love business.

They could announce themselves unto the world stage with atomic weapons faster by only one millisecond the time it would take the rest of the atomic nations to point some missiles back at them in order to force a stale-mate.

At that point, negotiations would logically begin, whereupon an opening bid from the west would be that if Shi'Ite Iran wants to protect Palestinians the way China protects North Korea and how the US protects Israel and how the Soviets used to protect Cuba and how now Canada is burdened with protecting Haiti, then a part of Arabia previously considered uninhabitable gets set aside for Palestinians to be turned into a garden given the water like how that damn in south Arabia defining the territories of the Queen of Sheba used to split waters in two directions but got destroyed by an earthquake and now is made unrepairable by a bunch of Bedouins who could easily be stuffed into US military anti-Shell-Shock chambers to get get it.

The political leaders of our time do not know what they are doing.

They don't know why they are doing it.

They think if Lucifer sticks a feel-good lolly-pop up their anuses, it means they are satisfying the requirements of heaven.

In the mean time, Russia is still stressed about all those 'Stanis they used to govern. Russia still consumes 80% of the heroine coming out of Pakistan fed from Afghanistan.

The US has trouble with cocaine from South America, and Russia has trouble with heroin from those jerk-off little nations below it like the US must deal with Columbia.

In the mean time is Iran... a place with socio-psychological history knowing how to make a sphere of influence out of those retarded pieces of 'Stani crap plus being the only ones on the planet for us to turn out eyes the other way if they go into Afghanistan.

Pretend you're a gangster. Pretend you want your kids to have the kind of life your dreamed about but never got. In order to think that you have to already be an idealist. Other gangsters would get satisfied by machines I have to test the limits of perpetual human orgasm... I wonder.

In the mean time... Queen Elizabeth's family got into power by brute force.

Could you, as the strongest of your territory, love your wife and kids enough to be so cool as to set it up for your kids to be the most spoiled well taken care of brats on the planet... not insane?

I'm seeing a great-great grandfather effect, therefore, you ask the most violent pieces of super-asshole drug-dealing corn-holes incapable of seeing how if 60% of a population votes against something, then a 40% market is created.

Under this form of democracy... if 90% vote against something, it instantly creates a 10% underground economy by virtue of demand.

Seriously I swear unto all Canadians defending the border, even if it means sneaking all that plutonium surplus into places that only the most secret Canadians (probably mostly French) in order to guarantee that anyone attacking this place gets poison-pilled because you morons newer noticed what PM King's deal was and how you're going to die if you attack/invade us is...

The question is this...

Canadians have all the best defense and mineral resources and everything... and I as one growing up here knows what it's like to be hammered as the maximum hypothetical scientific theoretical weakling by the strong aggressive guys, yet I never got killed like what happened to people similar to myself in the USA.

I dare anyone with vast non-Lucifer-infected-brain to do a pinning of sociological insight between Alberta, Japan, and Iran... the three most powerful each within their domain.

Pretend you are a Russian so stupid it did nor know how to maintain over after it did not notice hos Sovietism was so stupid it did not notice how that desire should be case into hyperspace fortnight newer explorers to land upon the rock-ship t

Netx is going to be the retarted pi-hole of not going goof.

Next is going to be definition of strongest Canadians while I suck that one here under my embarraresa et.
Last edited by Omicron; Feb 8th, 2012 at 01:21 AM..
 
Goober
#444
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

The only comparison intended was that you both seen to be one trick ponies lately, him always harping on Israel and you on Iran. It wasn't meant as an insult, just an observation. But I can't take responsibility for how you take it or how you feel.

Well it was a poor observation - Please review the number and types of threads I have posted. I believe there are a couple or so on Iran in the last few years.
 
Goober
#445
Many think that it will be the US to initiate an attack on Iran.

Came across this for those that are open minded.
Four Ways the U.S. Could End Up at War with Iran Before the Election* | Swampland | TIME.com (external - login to view)

Most political analysts in Washington believe that war with Iran is unlikely, especially before the November U.S. elections. Politically it would be hard for President Obama to engage in another Middle Eastern war given the war weariness of the U.S. electorate, let alone the question of being able to afford it at a time when Defense Secretary Leon Panetta is cutting hundreds of billions of dollars from the Pentagon budget. There also seems little appetite from the international community to wage war with Iran, especially since Tehran is still allowing United Nations inspectors into their nuclear sites and, for the first time in recent history, sanctions seem to be working.

That said, despite the political, economic and military reluctance to go to war with Iran, there are four ways the U.S. could still end up embroiled in such a conflict before the elections. And by conflict, no one is envisioning troops on the ground. More likely: a bombing campaign or, worst-comes-to-worst, a naval one in the Strait of Hormuz. “I don’t think we’re going to go to war with Iran, but I do think we could get dragged into it,” says Michael Breen, vice president of the Truman Project.

(MORE: Iran Calls New US Sanctions ‘Psychological War’)

Iran wants a war.Not a full-blown one, which would happen if they closed the Strait of Hormuz, shutting down the flow of oil and provoking international condemnation. But, say, one where they throw out International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors. Such a move would be seen as a deliberate provocation–clear proof that Tehran had decided to head toward weapons grade uranium. If that leads to bombing by the U.S. or Israel or both, the Iranian people would rally around their leaders. “I think there are hardline elements in Tehran that would welcome a military attack,” says Karim Sadjadpour, an Iranian expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “It’s a dangerous and unpredictable gamble, but it’s the one thing that could potentially repair the country’s deep internal political fractures and distract from widespread popular disaffection.” It would also be a well-calculated risk: many observers believe that unless an air assault is sustained for weeks and weeks, it would set back the Iranian program only a few months, perhaps two years at most.

Iran underestimates President Obama’s resolve and the U.S. political climate.Let’s face it, the U.S. has drawn dozens of redlines over the past decade and Iran, much like North Korea, has zigzagged all over them with impunity. President George W. Bush seemed to set a new redline every six months that Iran flouted. So far they haven’t tested Obama. But they may think him distracted by the world economy and the presidential election and somehow take this as an opportunity to press forward secretly with enrichment, moving closer to weapons grade uranium. “We don’t know how Iran calculates the pros and cons of getting nukes,” says Michael O’Hanlon, a foreign policy export at the Brookings Institution. “Given our lack of such knowledge, we should be careful about assuming when they might make their next move.” Given what is known about the Iranian program, it is virtually impossible for it to develop an actual bomb by November 2012. But if Iran did manage to press toward weapons grade materiel under the noses of the IAEA inspectors and this was discovered, then the consequences might be severe. Given his strident statements on Iran (and the bellicose GOP candidates watching his moves), Obama could never allow Iran to get that close to a bomb on his watch without taking action.

(MORE: Obama Seeks to Cool War Fever While Keeping Up Pressure on Iran)

The accidental war. The Strait of Hormuz is a small place for maneuvering and some trigger happy Iranian or American could misfire and the situation could snowball. This has happened before. Towards the end of the Iran-Iraq war when U.S. warships were accompanying oil tankers through the waterway, U.S. naval ships exchanged gunfire accidentally between both Iraqi and Iranian forces in 1987 and 1988. On July 3, 1988, the U.S.S. Vincennes, believing it was under attack, shot down an Iranian commercial flight killing all 290 passengers and crew aboard. Just imagine what such an action might trigger in today’s climate.

Israel goes it alone.Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is convinced Iran is intent on acquiring a nuclear bomb as soon as possible–with Israel as Tehran’s likely target if it were ever used. Though the U.S. isn’t as convinced of Iran’s intentions, Israel might nevertheless make the political calculation to attack now. Obama and Congress wouldn’t be able to do much to punish Israel before the elections. If the Israelis wait till after the U.S. elections the political repercussions would be a lot harder for the Jewish State. It’s a gamble because if Obama wins reelection, they risk severely damaging relations with the U.S. “I don’t see that U.S. political calendar will compel Israel to attack Iran before November 2012,” says Sadjadpour. “The Israelis could also calculate that it’s better to wait to see a potential Republican administration in Washington in 2013 that might do the job for them.” In any case, few analysts believe Israel would act without U.S. blessing

*I put an asterisk here because although these are all possible ways the U.S. could go to war with Iran in the coming months, the most likely action is nothing at all. “We cannot predict how Iran will react as sanctions bite steadily harder, whether some incident in the Gulf will occur and escalate out of control, or whether an Israeli raid could trigger a conflict between the U.S. and Iran,” says Anthony Cordesman, a national security analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “What we can predict is that a mixture of escalating Iranian threats and nuclear activities, and the rising impact of U.S. and international sanctions, does increase these risks.”
 
Goober
#446
Seems this Iranian is a tad klutzy and missing 2 legs now.

Israel's Ehud Barak blames Iran after bomber blows off own leg in Bangkok, Thailand blast | News | National Post

BANGKOK — An Iranian man was seriously wounded in Bangkok Tuesday when a bomb he was carrying exploded and blew one of his legs off and Israel said the incident was an attempted terrorist attack by Iran.

Shortly before the man was wounded, there had been an explosion in a house the man was renting in the Ekamai area of central Bangkok. Soon after that, there was a third blast on a nearby road, Thai police and officials said.

The police have control of the situation. It is thought that the suspect might be storing more explosives inside his house,” Thai government spokeswoman Thitima Chaisaeng told reporters.

Police later said they had apprehended another suspect at Bangkok’s main Suvarnabhumi airport, one of two men they were looking for who had been living at the house where the initial blast took place.

“We discovered the injured man’s passport. It’s an Iranian passport and he entered the country through Phuket and arrived at Suvarnabhumi Airport on the 8th of this month,” Police General Bansiri Prapapat told Reuters.

The three explosions in Bangkok came a day after bomb attacks targeted Israeli embassy staff in India and Georgia. Israel accused Iran and its Lebanese ally Hezbollah of being behind those attacks. Iran denied involvement.

A taxi driver told Thai television the wounded suspect had thrown a bomb in front of his car when he refused to pick him up near the site of the first blast. He was wounded slightly.

Government spokeswoman Thitima said police had then tried to move in and arrest the man but he attempted to throw another bomb at them. It went off before he was able to do so, blowing one of his legs off. A doctor at Chulalongkorn Hospital told reporters the other leg had had to be amputated.
 
L Gilbert
+1
#447
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

Seems this Iranian is a tad klutzy and missing 2 legs now.

Perfect candidate for the Darwin Awards.

Darwin Awards. Homo Sapiens Sapiens, on the verge of extinction. January 2012 (external - login to view)
 
MHz
#448
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

Seems this Iranian is a tad klutzy and missing 2 legs now.

Lets hope he can identify his handler'

www.haaretz.com/news/diplomac...tions-1.412502 (external - login to view)
 
Goober
#449
Quote: Originally Posted by MHzView Post

Lets hope he can identify his handler'

Report: Israel's Mossad still using foreign passports in undercover operations - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News (external - login to view)

Let me see, all the fukups this fellow had and you think this was a Mossad Op.Doubt it.
 
MHz
+1
#450
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

Let me see, all the fukups this fellow had and you think this was a Mossad Op.Doubt it.

You've been watching too many episodes of 'Covert Operations'. Notice you will never see a female Mosshead agent fall for a CIA agent yet the CIA female agents gets her panties wet every time they share an show. I like the older blonde, she is so dedicated to her job that she will even sleep with her husband just to get info, dedication like that is a rare thing.

Were you not aware spies hire locals to do the 'dirty work' like carry the bomb' and a dummy detonator, the real detonator is with the Mossehead agent and he blows it when the time is right and that always comes as a surprise to the mule. Ever see the old Mad Magazine with the spy vs spy cartoon, Iran doesn't alway flub it (wounding in an assassination attempt) and Israel alway complete the mission cleanly. 'Here take these grenades to Iran for me and never mind the sirens, they are for the explosion from a car crash, now run over by that trash can at 555WannbeSt and wait for my phone call.'

I would think Israel just let it out that she knows Iran is no danger as far as a bomb if they discount that she can produce the medical fuel at 20% when bomb material is in the high 90% range. Fuel for the plants is about 3% if memory serves me correct.


(in part)
"The Iranians are continuing to progress but what they presented yesterday was a show. There are many things which have been presented in an exaggerated manner, partly to dissuade the world from going after them," he told public radio by telephone from Tokyo.
His remarks were made a day after President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad unveiled what was billed as Tehran's first domestically-produced, 20-percent enriched nuclear fuel for its research reactor.
He also said Tehran had installed another 3,000 centrifuges to increase its uranium enrichment abilities and was stepping up exploration and processing of uranium yellowcake.
"The Iranians are boasting of successes they have not achieved and they still have much to do to reach the second or third generation of centrifuges," said Barak.


Barak Says Iran 'Exaggerating' Nuclear Advances (external - login to view)
 

Similar Threads

no new posts