"The world needs to take action against Iran now." - Defense Minister Benny Gantz. / It's closer than we may realize. - ouch

[TU Curmudgeon]

Except every major Iranian nuclear facility is in a known location, by both groups like the IAEA and intelligence experts. Iran even admitted to their locations in the negotiations for the inspection deal. So such a claim would be stupid as the Israeli claiming a reactor blew up like a warhead.

Why don't you just admit that your entire scenario is absurdist bullshit and bow out of the thread?

"Except every major Iranian nuclear facility is in a known location, by both groups like the IAEA and intelligence experts."

Except, of course, (according to the members of "Claque Failed Casino Operator" and the members of "America Has the Right to Impose any Government It Feels Like On Any Country It Wants To") for the secret ones - right?

"Iran even admitted to their locations in the negotiations for the inspection deal."

But everyone (read as "the members of 'Claque Failed Casino Operator' and the members of 'America Has the Right to Impose any Government It Feels Like On Any Country It Wants To') knows that the Iranians are always lying - fight?

"So such a claim would be stupid as the Israeli claiming a reactor blew up like a warhead."

Where did you see me say that it "blew up like a warhead"? The blast was a "conventional one" due to the fact that the malfunctioning nuclear warhead sparked an explosion in the peaceful, civilian, chemical plant and thus blew radioactive debris over most of Baghdad.

You REALLY don't understand the rules of "The Propaganda Game", do you?

 

[Questerr]

"Except every major Iranian nuclear facility is in a known location, by both groups like the IAEA and intelligence experts."

Except, of course, (according to the members of "Claque Failed Casino Operator" and the members of "America Has the Right to Impose any Government It Feels Like On Any Country It Wants To") for the secret ones - right?

"Iran even admitted to their locations in the negotiations for the inspection deal."

But everyone (read as "the members of 'Claque Failed Casino Operator' and the members of 'America Has the Right to Impose any Government It Feels Like On Any Country It Wants To') knows that the Iranians are always lying - fight?

"So such a claim would be stupid as the Israeli claiming a reactor blew up like a warhead."

Where did you see me say that it "blew up like a warhead"? The blast was a "conventional one" due to the fact that the malfunctioning nuclear warhead sparked an explosion in the peaceful, civilian, chemical plant and thus blew radioactive debris over most of Baghdad.

You REALLY don't understand the rules of "The Propaganda Game", do you?

A malfunctioning warhead wouldn’t destroy a hardened, buried Iranian nuclear site, so what would be the point of Israel hitting Iran with a malfunctioning warhead?

Apparently the rules of “The Propaganda Game” are “make up insane bullshit that makes no sense”.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

We do have comparison samples for uranium mined in Iran. The IAEA has had them for years.

And the Israelis have no Uranium that was mined in Iran?

And the Iranians have no Uranium that was NOT mined in Iran?

Do you really believe that U-234 made only one trip carrying Uranium?

Do you really believe that there has been absolutely NO smuggling of Uranium since the year 2000?

 

[Questerr]

And the Israelis have no Uranium that was mined in Iran?

And the Iranians have no Uranium that was NOT mined in Iran?

Do you really believe that U-234 made only one trip carrying Uranium?

Do you really believe that there has been absolutely NO smuggling of Uranium since the year 2000?

The Israelis don’t have enough Uranium mined in Iran to make a nuclear weapon or even a significant dirty bomb. Iran doesn’t export its uranium and they would notice if a significant amount of it “disappeared”.

Israel has LOTS of uranium not mined in Iran, but that doesn’t help them.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

A malfunctioning warhead wouldn’t destroy a hardened, buried Iranian nuclear site, so what would be the point of Israel hitting Iran with a malfunctioning warhead?

Apparently the rules of “The Propaganda Game” are “make up insane bullshit that makes no sense”.

Who said that the Israelis DELIBERATELY dropped a malfunctioning warhead?

You do know what the word "malfunctioning" means, don't you?

"Apparently the rules of “The Propaganda Game” are “make up insane bullshit that makes no sense”."

I see that you have the first faint glimmering of a hint of the beginning of knowledge. Now, when you manage to purge yourself of that "But no one would ever believe that because it isn't **T*R*U*E**." attitude you might begin to make some progress in the real world.

 

[Questerr]

Who said that the Israelis DELIBERATELY dropped a malfunctioning warhead?

You do know what the word "malfunctioning" means, don't you?

"Apparently the rules of “The Propaganda Game” are “make up insane bullshit that makes no sense”."

I see that you have the first faint glimmering of a hint of the beginning of knowledge. Now, when you manage to purge yourself of that "But no one would ever believe that because it isn't **T*R*U*E**." attitude you might begin to make some progress in the real world.

You understand there is no way to set off a functioning nuclear warhead and make it look like it malfunctioned, right? It’s physically impossible for that to happen. Either it detonates, or it fizzles, there is no “both” option.

To take out a buried Iranian nuclear site, Israel would have to use a nuclear warhead (they don’t have any aircraft that can carry the type of super heavy penetration bomb that would be required to do it conventionally) and that warhead would have to actually detonate. No one would be mistaking that for a bomb malfunctioning.

If it on the other hand fizzled/malfunctioned and therefore actually looked like a malfunctioning warhead, then IT WOULDN’T DESTROY THE NUCLEAR SITE.

Seriously you don’t know what the **** you are talking about. You should bow out of this debate.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

The Israelis don’t have enough Uranium mined in Iran to make a nuclear weapon or even a significant dirty bomb. Iran doesn’t export its uranium and they would notice if a significant amount of it “disappeared”.

Israel has LOTS of uranium not mined in Iran, but that doesn’t help them.

"The Israelis don’t have enough Uranium mined in Iran to make a nuclear weapon or even a significant dirty bomb."

OK, now that is what is known as an "assertion of fact".

The general rule is that if an "assertion of fact" is challenged then the person making the "assertion of fact" is required to produce verifiable evidence from a reliable source to validate it.

Please provide a full list of the Israeli holdings of Uranium giving the amounts, dates of acquisition, method of acquisition, and source acquired from.

"Israel has LOTS of uranium not mined in Iran, but that doesn’t help them."

[1] Who said that it did?

[2] That the source of the Uranium was NOT Iran, only strengthens the Iranian's case that the radioactive debris did NOT have an Iranian source of radioactivity.

[3] Besides, the Iranian search and rescue teams would most likely have recovered parts of the almost totally demolished device that triggered the explosion and those parts would most likely have Israeli markings [which had been unsuccessfully obliterated] on them.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

You understand there is no way to set off a functioning nuclear warhead and make it look like it malfunctioned, right? It’s physically impossible for that to happen. Either it detonates, or it fizzles, there is no “both” option.

To take out a buried Iranian nuclear site, Israel would have to use a nuclear warhead (they don’t have any aircraft that can carry the type of super heavy penetration bomb that would be required to do it conventionally) and that warhead would have to actually detonate. No one would be mistaking that for a bomb malfunctioning.

If it on the other hand fizzled/malfunctioned and therefore actually looked like a malfunctioning warhead, then IT WOULDN’T DESTROY THE NUCLEAR SITE.

Seriously you don’t know what the **** you are talking about. You should bow out of this debate.

Who said that it was a "nuclear site"? I only said that the Israelis CLAIMED that it was a nuclear site.

Since the Israelis CLAIMED that it was a nuclear site, then it makes sense for them to have dropped the most effective ordnance, and that would have been a nuclear weapon.

"You understand there is no way to set off a functioning nuclear warhead and make it look like it malfunctioned, right?"

Once again you are trapped in your "No one would believe that because it is not **T*R*U*E**." trap.

Consider the following

During the Korean (Civil) War, the government of the PRC obtained "confessions" from Americans that the US was engaging in both chemical and biological warfare. Neither the Americans nor the government of the PRC actually thought that those confessions were TRUE, but the government of the PRC knew that significant numbers of people would actually believe them - they were correct (and some people believe them to this day).​

 

[Questerr]

"The Israelis don’t have enough Uranium mined in Iran to make a nuclear weapon or even a significant dirty bomb."

OK, now that is what is known as an "assertion of fact".

The general rule is that if an "assertion of fact" is challenged then the person making the "assertion of fact" is required to produce verifiable evidence from a reliable source to validate it.

Please provide a full list of the Israeli holdings of Uranium giving the amounts, dates of acquisition, method of acquisition, and source acquired from.

"Israel has LOTS of uranium not mined in Iran, but that doesn’t help them."

[1] Who said that it did?

[2] That the source of the Uranium was NOT Iran, only strengthens the Iranian's case that the radioactive debris did NOT have an Iranian source of radioactivity.

[3] Besides, the Iranian search and rescue teams would most likely have recovered parts of the almost totally demolished device that triggered the explosion and those parts would most likely have Israeli markings [which had been unsuccessfully obliterated] on them.

Israel doesn’t have a route of access to significant quantities of Iranian uranium. The Iranian government is body that mines it and they don’t export any. They control the mining sites, they transport it around, they use it. They would notice if significant quantities of it went missing.

Why would Iran detonate a nuclear device and destroy one of their own research facilities? That’s the most insane claim yet.

 

[rjay]

Even though this may be another sabre rattle between Iran and Israel, however someday soon, these guys may actually start throwing military punches. That puts us (US) where if this were to break out? Iraq and Syria certainly comes into play as well as Bahrain and the AUE. I doubt that the Saudis sit on their hands. For that matter, neither would the Turks. Then we have Russia, China and N Korea to think about if ever this squabble between Iran and Israel gets real. OR CAN THE US COMPLETELY IGNORE THE CONFLICT?

MSN

"We are at a point where we need to take military action against Iran," Gantz told the news website Ynet, per the Associated Press. "The world needs to take action against Iran now."


In a tweet on Thursday responding to Gantz, Iranian foreign ministry spokesman Saeed Khatibzadeh said, "In another brazen violation of Int'l law, Israeli regime now blatantly threatens #Iran with military action. Such malign behavior stems from blind Western support. We state this clearly: ANY foolish act against Iran will be met with a DECISIVE response. Don't test us."


Gantz's warning to Tehran on Thursday came as Iran swore in a new president, Ebrahim Raisi. It also came with talks aimed at reviving the 2015 deal - which the Israeli government opposes - still up in the air, and with the US increasingly warning that time is running out to save the agreement.

I agree - Trump move the timetable up.

 

[Questerr]

Who said that it was a "nuclear site"? I only said that the Israelis CLAIMED that it was a nuclear site.

Since the Israelis CLAIMED that it was a nuclear site, then it makes sense for them to have dropped the most effective ordnance, and that would have been a nuclear weapon.

"You understand there is no way to set off a functioning nuclear warhead and make it look like it malfunctioned, right?"

Once again you are trapped in your "No one would believe that because it is not **T*R*U*E**." trap.

Consider the following

During the Korean (Civil) War, the government of the PRC obtained "confessions" from Americans that the US was engaging in both chemical and biological warfare. Neither the Americans nor the government of the PRC actually thought that those confessions were TRUE, but the government of the PRC knew that significant numbers of people would actually believe them - they were correct (and some people believe them to this day).​

Why would Israel go through the trouble of dropping a nuclear weapon on Iran and NOT drop it on a nuclear site?

Your insane bullshit is like Majorie Taylor Green levels of nonsense.

 

[Dans La Lune]

With Israel and the US constantly threatening Iran, I am shocked that they want a nuclear deterrent. It's never been clear to me why it's okay for the US and Israel to threaten Iran, but the other way around is unacceptable.

Anyway, you had Rouhani, a demonstrable moderate. America stabbed him in the back (Biden did as well), now you got a real hard-liner at the helm.

And as far as I'm concerned, if Iran is pre-emptively struck, they are in a morally superior position. There's really no way around that. Not that the US or Israel have ever REALLY cared about morality when it comes to foreign policy.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Why would Israel go through the trouble of dropping a nuclear weapon on Iran and NOT drop it on a nuclear site?

Your insane bullshit is like Majorie Taylor Green levels of nonsense.

"Why would Israel go through the trouble of dropping a nuclear weapon on Iran and NOT drop it on a nuclear site?"

Ah HAH!

I see your difficulty, you seem to be under the impression that the Israelis actually dropped the device (or even if one was actually dropped at all).

Go back to the beginning and see how the "detonation" ACTUALLY took place in the propaganda scenario.

 

[Questerr]

"Why would Israel go through the trouble of dropping a nuclear weapon on Iran and NOT drop it on a nuclear site?"

Ah HAH!

I see your difficulty, you seem to be under the impression that the Israelis actually dropped the device (or even if one was actually dropped at all).

Go back to the beginning and see how the "detonation" ACTUALLY took place in the propaganda scenario.

Why would the Iranians fake an Israeli attack on a fake nuclear site? No one with any kind of expertise would believe it.

The entire scenario is absurd.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Why would the Iranians fake an Israeli attack on a fake nuclear site? No one with any kind of expertise would believe it.

The entire scenario is absurd.

"Why would the Iranians fake an Israeli attack on a fake nuclear site?"

For the propaganda value.

"No one with any kind of expertise would believe it."

What does that have to do with anything? Exactly what percentage of the population has "expertise" in nuclear explosions?

"The entire scenario is absurd."

Yep, and that is why it is so believable - because NO ONE would ever tell a lie that big so it must be true.

Are you beginning to see the light now?

 

[braindrain]

You might not have noticed it, but I didn't say that it WAS going to happen by some specific date (like President Trump being re-inaugurated tomorrow).

BTW, if you think that there are ABSOLUTELY NO "untraceable" nuclear weapons available for the right price (and to the right purchaser) you are deluded.

Yes just like someday the USA will be run by aliens. Both scenarios are about as likely.

Let’s see your evidence of such nuclear weapons being available. Time to put up or shut up

 

[braindrain]

You understand there is no way to set off a functioning nuclear warhead and make it look like it malfunctioned, right? It’s physically impossible for that to happen. Either it detonates, or it fizzles, there is no “both” option.

To take out a buried Iranian nuclear site, Israel would have to use a nuclear warhead (they don’t have any aircraft that can carry the type of super heavy penetration bomb that would be required to do it conventionally) and that warhead would have to actually detonate. No one would be mistaking that for a bomb malfunctioning.

If it on the other hand fizzled/malfunctioned and therefore actually looked like a malfunctioning warhead, then IT WOULDN’T DESTROY THE NUCLEAR SITE.

Seriously you don’t know what the **** you are talking about. You should bow out of this debate.

Your wasting your time. He is convinced he is right no matter how ignorant he is on this subject. It’s a rather common thing with him.

 

[Felis Leo]

With Israel and the US constantly threatening Iran, I am shocked that they want a nuclear deterrent. It's never been clear to me why it's okay for the US and Israel to threaten Iran, but the other way around is unacceptable.

Anyway, you had Rouhani, a demonstrable moderate. America stabbed him in the back (Biden did as well), now you got a real hard-liner at the helm.

And as far as I'm concerned, if Iran is pre-emptively struck, they are in a morally superior position. There's really no way around that. Not that the US or Israel have ever REALLY cared about morality when it comes to foreign policy.

First, Rouhani was not a moderate. Additionally, no one is allowed to run for office who is not pre-selected by the Guardian Council whose members themselves are approved of by the Supreme Leader.

Second, the President of Iran is a vestigial position. He has no real power because all real political power is retained by the Supreme Leader and the Revolutionary Guards. Worrying whether we are facing a "hardliner" versus a "moderate" Iranian President is us hoping to get the good cop instead the bad cop. They all have the same goals, but their presentation is different. The policies are otherwise unchanged.

Third, and I do not mean to be overly personal, but why does it seem that all Democratic Socialists to a man and woman are tacitly or openly pro-Iranian regime? I have not met a single Democratic Socialist online who is not sympathetic to the Iranian regime and is uniquely pro-nuclear proliferation when it comes to Iran obtaining nuclear weapons. Is it part of the Socialist International party line? I mean, do you know any Democratic Socialists, irrespective of their views of the United States and Israel, who are openly anti-Iranian regime and want the Ayatollahs toppled (ones who are not Israeli at least)?

 

[Dans La Lune]

First, Rouhani was not a moderate. Additionally, no one is allowed to run for office who is not pre-selected by the Guardian Council whose members themselves are approved of by the Supreme Leader.

Rouhani was far more moderate than virtually any politician in the region, including in Israel. If Rohouani is a 9 out of 10 on the extremist scale, Netanyahu is about 300.

Second, the President of Iran is a vestigial position. He has no real power because all real political power is retained by the Supreme Leader and the Revolutionary Guards. Worrying whether we are facing a "hardliner" versus a "moderate" Iranian President is us hoping to get the good cop instead the bad cop. They all have the same goals, but their presentation is different. The policies are otherwise unchanged.

Rouhani was given room to negotiate an internationally brokered nuclear agreement, which Iran fully complied with.

Third, and I do not mean to be overly personal, but why does it seem that all Democratic Socialists to a man and woman are tacitly or openly pro-Iranian regime?

I'm not pro-Iranian regime, I'm anti-killing mostly good people for not ****ing reason. Do you disagree that average Iranian citizens are relatively moderate?

I have not met a single Democratic Socialist online who is not sympathetic to the Iranian regime and is uniquely pro-nuclear proliferation when it comes to Iran obtaining nuclear weapons. Is it part of the Socialist International party line? I mean, do you know any Democratic Socialists, irrespective of their views of the United States and Israel, who are openly anti-Iranian regime and want the Ayatollahs toppled (ones who are not Israeli at least)?

Not to be overly personal, but why is that everyone to the right of Elizabeth Warren wants to bomb, invade, topple, and otherwise sabotage all avenues of dealing with Iran peacefully? What did Iran actually do to warrant this? Honest question. Remember, America is in Iran's backyard, not visa-versa. And both America and Israel have aligned themselves with Saudi Arabia, a far worse state (as far as treating it citizens and stoking extremists sentiment) than Iran.

Why do you want the Iranian regime toppled, outside of Israeli and American hegemonic designs for the region? Are you a ****ing neocon or something?

 

[Tigerace117]

Rouhani was far more moderate than virtually any politician in the region, including in Israel. If Rohouani is a 9 out of 10 on the extremist scale, Netanyahu is about 300.



Rouhani was given room to negotiate an internationally brokered nuclear agreement, which Iran fully complied with.



I'm not pro-Iranian regime, I'm anti-killing mostly good people for not ****ing reason. Do you disagree that average Iranian citizens are relatively moderate?



Not to be overly personal, but why is that everyone to the right of Elizabeth Warren wants to bomb, invade, topple, and otherwise sabotage all avenues of dealing with Iran peacefully? What did Iran actually do to warrant this? Honest question. Remember, America is in Iran's backyard, not visa-versa. And both America and Israel have aligned themselves with Saudi Arabia, a far worse state (as far as treating it citizens and stoking extremists sentiment) than Iran.

Why do you want the Iranian regime toppled, outside of Israeli and American hegemonic designs for the region? Are you a ****ing neocon or something?

Gee, kidnapping and torturing American diplomats for over a year, followed by four decades of years of sponsoring the killings of Americans wherever they could not ringing any bells?

Amazingly enough, there are plenty of folks who despise the brutal dictatorship in Tehran, no matter how much that baffles you

 

[Dans La Lune]

Gee, kidnapping and torturing American diplomats for over a year, followed by four decades of years of sponsoring the killings of Americans wherever they could not ringing any bells?

Please. If that's the extent of their crimes I'm calling BS on the calls for invasion and bombing of civilians.

Amazingly enough, there are plenty of folks who despise the brutal dictatorship in Tehran, no matter how much that baffles you

Yeah, well, get back to me when you have an ounce of moral authority. You're an Iraq invasion apologist in 2021. I honestly don't know how you can show your face in a foreign policy discussion.

 

[Tigerace117]

Please. If that's the extent of their crimes I'm calling BS on the calls for invasion and bombing of civilians.



Yeah, well, get back to me when you have an ounce of moral authority. You're an Iraq invasion apologist in 2021. I honestly don't know how you can show your face in a foreign policy discussion.

Every one of those acts were sufficient casus belli for War.

I honestly don’t know why you think anyone cares about your absurd fantasies about your interpretation of “morality”.

 

[Dans La Lune]

Every one of those acts were sufficient casus belli for War.

Is there anything that isn't sufficient for war by your standards? Again, you're an Iraq Invasion apologist in 2021. You're also an apologist for the War on Drugs. Basically, a stiff breeze will give you a hard-on for some kind of war.

I honestly don’t know why you think anyone cares about your absurd “morality” fantasies.

Trust me, I have no fantasy that you are a moral person, a good person, or a remotely decent person.

 

[Tigerace117]

Is there anything that isn't sufficient for war by your standards? Again, you're an Iraq Invasion apologist in 2021. You're also an apologist for the War on Drugs. Basically, a stiff breeze will give you a hard-on for some kind of war.



Trust me, I have no fantasy that you are a moral person, a good person, or a remotely decent person.

Storming an embassy is sufficient casus belli by just about everyone’s standards.....which is why it’s such a serious ****ing offense. Likewise with killing servicemen, American or otherwise.

Your tears over “poor poor” Saddam and the drug lords are as pathetic as ever.

Thankfully, nobody gives a shit what you think

 

[Dans La Lune]

Storming an embassy is sufficient casus belli by just about everyone’s standards.....which is why it’s such a serious ****ing offense. Likewise with killing servicemen, American or otherwise.

Your tears over “poor poor” Saddam and the drug lords are as pathetic as ever.

Thankfully, nobody gives a shit what you think

I'm just responding to draw attention to the above post.