Iran plans to knock out U.S. with 1 nuclear bomb with electro-magnetic pulse

as posted by dh
Well, Ritter in his small and cheap book of around the beginning of 2002, "War on Iraq", said that Iraq had no viable WMD in its arsenal, and was proved perfectly right against all the bullcrap lies uttered by the US and UK government and intelligence and security agencies
One small book against Lies Lies Lies and more Lies from the establishment sources
Why shouldn't you believe him?

You need ask?
In Mr. Scott "I'm working for Al-Jahzeera cause NO ONE will take anything I say as credible" Ritter's case, dh, even a broken clock is right twice a day.
The man was paid off by Saddam.
The man is a pediphile.
He can't get a job anywhere but Al-Jahzeera because his word lacks credibility.

I'm so looking forward to you being around here in July and talking about "that book."

as posted by Frith
Iran's current President is out in June which is going to cause at least some political instability in Iran. Plus the U.S. plans to wait until June to seek UN sanctions on Iran which was reported in late February this year. There might not be war with Iran in June, but its being setup to start the cause for war in that month. If not June then most likely early 2006 to at least pretend that there was an effort made to stop the war from taking place just as there was with Iraq. As we saw with Iraq, the U.S. likes to at least attempt to get global acceptance of war through international sanctions, but will go ahead and attack even without getting complete approval.

Are you amending Mr. Scott "I want to be like Nostradamus" Ritter's prophetic prediction or are you making one of your own?

You are another that I hope is around in July of this year, but alas, as can be seen, you have allowed yourself some leeway by speculating "early 2006." Nice.....

as posted by paranoia
I take it you don't believe in his stuff then? Okie Dokie.

I take anything this man says with a grain of salt.
His credibility is moot, as is any validity in what he mentions and asserts.






seekerof

It's almost unbelievable that so many have no problem with one of our longest standing and most dedicated enemies obtaining nuclear weapons. Iran has sought our destruction back when Bush was snorting coke and driving drunk. Even if Al Queda doesn't really exist, and Iraq was just an oil grab, Iran's leaders have wanted to see us die by fire since the seventies, to lump them all together is just neglegent. Not even North Korea presents the level of threat that Iran does, the only thing Kim Jong Il is fanatical about is himself. Iran's leaders are driven by the belief that it is Allah's will the U.S. and Israel be destroyed, and if they obtain a tool that they believe will achieve or at least make progress toward their goal, I believe they will use it. I'm no Bush cheerleader, I can't stand him. This is not about Bush or the neo-cons, Iran's leaders have hated us long before they ever existed. People need to wake up and look past their respective "teams" and stop towing the liberal/conservative lines, and not calculate what they see as the Bush agenda into the equation of Iran, they could care less what side you're on. Allah wants us all dead, in their eyes. So many act like they know what's going on in the heads of these religious fanatics. Here's a clue:

TEHRAN -- In a display of anti-U.S. anger not seen in parliament for years, Iran's conservative-dominated legislature chanted "Death to America" and hardliners clashed with reformists yesterday in the first day of the house's new session. The tensions signalled a tough year ahead for President Mohammad Khatami, after fellow reformists lost control of the parliament in contentious February elections. The ballot was boycotted by reformists and largely spurned by voters because the hard-line Guardian Council disqualified thousands of reformist candidates.

In a speech to legislators, reformist Interior Minister Abdolvahed Mousavi Lari accused the clerics of the Guardian Council of acting without justification when it barred candidates from running in the election.

A number of conservative legislators shouted in protest, and, in a bid to end the bickering, hardline legislator Mahdi Kouchakzadeh asked parliament to condemn the U.S. occupation of Iraq.

"To attract the attention of everybody to what is our main task, I invite you to pray for the devastation of the American belligerent occupiers," he said.

Fellow conservatives responded by chanting "Death to America."

It was a sign of how much the new parliament, in which conservatives hold about 180 of 290 seats, differs from the previous one, dominated by reformists. Before, only a few would have shouted anti-American slogans.
www.canoe.ca...

These are not belligerent demonstrators, but the actual LEADERS of the country. I challenge anybody to provide an example of ONE other country whose LEADERS shout death to anybody. To think anybody believes they are level headed enough to not use nukes is mind boggling. To think that anybody believes Iran having nukes would promote peace in the region would be laughable if it weren't such a grave situation.

Originally posted by edsinger
Ok I can see your point, its a good thing that there isn't an Islamic country that HAS tested and PROVED warhead designs, good thing that they never helped Iran in the past either..

What are you talking about? Pakistan? No middle eastern country (besides Israel) has tested or produced nuclear weapons.

Originally posted by edsinger
One thing to consider, to cover the whole of the CONUS yes, and maybe not a 1MT would be needed, what if they have the Thermonuclear warhead designs that China bought with campaign donations?

Ah, I see it now, here come the bizarre claims about how it's all KKKlinton's fault and Red China is going to kill us all. I guess Ed has just drank the kool aid.

Originally posted by edsinger
So whats your solution? Negotiate with them? Just when has that worked? 1995 was a good example of that. Don't you understand, you CAN'T Negotiate with these F&^sticks, they SEE it as weakness.

My solution is to try what works. Your ignorance of anti-proliferation history notwithstanding, negotiation is a useful tool that, when backed up with military force, ought not to be overlooked. Iran does not consider it a weakness, as all of their actions come from fear. The invasion of Iraq was an action of strength that jeopardized their strategic position. They sought nuclear weapons to allay that fear. There's no reason not to try to work a deal when such plans have worked in the past and when the failure of such a plan, should it happen, would only help military alternatives. Those who so urgently press for military action at once are either uninformed jingoists or people who have secondary motivations. I suspect that you're the second.

Originally posted by Seekerof
The man was paid off by Saddam.
The man is a pediphile.

Uh, what?

Originally posted by 27jd
It's almost unbelievable that so many have no problem with one of our longest standing and most dedicated enemies obtaining nuclear weapons. Iran has sought our destruction back when Bush was snorting coke and driving drunk. Even if Al Queda doesn't really exist, and Iraq was just an oil grab, Iran's leaders have wanted to see us die by fire since the seventies, to lump them all together is just neglegent. Not even North Korea presents the level of threat that Iran does, the only thing Kim Jong Il is fanatical about is himself. Iran's leaders are driven by the belief that it is Allah's will the U.S. and Israel be destroyed, and if they obtain a tool that they believe will achieve or at least make progress toward their goal, I believe they will use it. I'm no Bush cheerleader, I can't stand him. This is not about Bush or the neo-cons, Iran's leaders have hated us long before they ever existed. People need to wake up and look past their respective "teams" and stop towing the liberal/conservative lines, and not calculate what they see as the Bush agenda into the equation of Iran, they could care less what side you're on. Allah wants us all dead, in their eyes.

Sure. Most people don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons. That's not the question. Trying to turn this into a false choice between invading Iran and allowing them to use nuclear weapons against us isn't productive (or true) in the least, though. There are multiple ways of fighting their proliferation.

Originally posted by Deleuze
Sure. Most people don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons. That's not the question. Trying to turn this into a false choice between invading Iran and allowing them to use nuclear weapons against us isn't productive (or true) in the least, though. There are multiple ways of fighting their proliferation.

Yeah and France leads the charge! Whoopie! I feel safe don't you?

[edit on 25-4-2005 by edsinger]

Originally posted by Seekerof
Are you amending Mr. Scott "I want to be like Nostradamus" Ritter's prophetic prediction or are you making one of your own?

You are another that I hope is around in July of this year, but alas, as can be seen, you have allowed yourself some leeway by speculating "early 2006." Nice.....

I didn't know I had to rely on Scott Ritter's words to post my own opinion on when the inevitable attack on Iran is going to take place? There are other indicators away from a single man's statement to make my own prediction on when the attack will take place. Ritter's words were that the initiation of hostilities towards Iran would start in June 2005. He left himself an out and has said before that actual war probably won't happen in that month.

Anyway, inevitably the sanctions are coming in June and inevitably, the attack will take place within a year's time from June 2005. It was six months from the start of U.S. saber rattling at Iraq in September 2002 until the attack in March 2003. It will most likely be another situation where sabers are rattled at Iran from June on until the attack. I would say December, but thats the Christmas shopping season so it won't start then because we couldn't get all our corporate leaders in a snit over potentially lost sales. I'd say January/February 2006 it'll happen.

[edit on 25-4-2005 by Frith]

Originally posted by edsinger
Yeah and France leads the charge! Whoopie! I feel safe don't you?

Typical sop from the imbecile right. Isn't France humor getting old? Why not go back to smashing Hondas?

Originally posted by edsinger
Yeah and France leads the charge! Whoopie! I feel safe don't you?

Man with all the French bashing... you'd think we'd have boxed up the Statue of Liberty, eh?

I mean... it WAS a gift from the French.

BTW Ed - whatever happened to your son that was heading into basic? They'll need some fresh bullet stoppers if we invade Iran...

Originally posted by Deleuze
Sure. Most people don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons. That's not the question. Trying to turn this into a false choice between invading Iran and allowing them to use nuclear weapons against us isn't productive (or true) in the least, though. There are multiple ways of fighting their proliferation.

Given the state of our military, I highly doubt an invasion is an option at all. Hopefully, Iran will cave into EU pressure, but in the highly likely case that they don't, I believe the U.S. will conduct surgical strikes and possibly special ops against their nuclear facilities, our air force is not stretched too thin. If diplomacy fails, it is not a false choice at all, and very true, either we do something to stop them, or they will obtain nuclear weapons. Do some research on your own about Iran's extensive sponsorship of terrorist attacks against the U.S. long before 9/11, and their well documented desire to see us fall, then make your own desicion about whether they would supply a nuke to a terrorist group to use against us. Try not to let the whole liberal/conservative BS cloud your judgement, or any strange belief you have that you know exactly what's going on in the fanatical leaders heads, and look at the facts.

Originally posted by negativenihil


BTW Ed - whatever happened to your son that was heading into basic? They'll need some fresh bullet stoppers if we invade Iran...

I understand that this thread has degenerated into a free for all and everyone's emotions are running high, But this has to be one of the most reprehensible comments I have seen here in a long time.

Nothing gives any of us the right to attack a person's family. If a person's son is entering the armed services, don't you think there is enough stress to that individual about it right now? Regardless of whether anyone agrees or disagrees with your stance, I feel an apology is in order.

Just my opinion, but.....

Originally posted by negativenihil

Originally posted by edsinger
Yeah and France leads the charge! Whoopie! I feel safe don't you?

Man with all the French bashing... you'd think we'd have boxed up the Statue of Liberty, eh?

I mean... it WAS a gift from the French.

I always thought we should do that and replace it with ....




Uncle Sam.



[edit on 25-4-2005 by C0le]

Originally posted by edsinger
I will not shy away from addressing a threat and calling it what it is.

As for your wires, I see them also and what you see has been censored.

The threat is real and the sooner the tulipwalkers wake up the better, but alas that can not happen as they do not think the US is in the bullseye, but I know we are.

ed - you do not see my "wires" and you have no idea what chits are. Sorry for interrupting the babble, please by all means continue.




[edit on 25-4-2005 by vincere7]

Originally posted by Montana
I understand that this thread has degenerated into a free for all and everyone's emotions are running high, But this has to be one of the most reprehensible comments I have seen here in a long time.

Nothing gives any of us the right to attack a person's family. If a person's son is entering the armed services, don't you think there is enough stress to that individual about it right now? Regardless of whether anyone agrees or disagrees with your stance, I feel an apology is in order.

I fully agree, I don't understand why people can't refrain from personally attacking people so viciously, regardless how one sided Ed is, that was completely uncalled for. This person doesn't know his son at all.

Originally posted by negativenihil

BTW Ed - whatever happened to your son that was heading into basic? They'll need some fresh bullet stoppers if we invade Iran...

He will serve if and when his country needs him, unlike the tulipwalkers who hate their own nation and would run to Canada to save thier own ass. I served as will he......some of us still love this nation.

And invade Iran? Boy that sure is a stretch, go ahead Run Forest Run.

Originally posted by Aelita
Why do you think so? It really seems like a bunch of BS to me.
The EMP is real, but any effect will be certainly limited. We had a blackout here in the East Coast, and the power was back in 2-3 days.

not if it frys everything in the right place, what went on during the blackout is much different than having to replace part of the grid, replacing will take months, but its only if theyre lucky and hit both grids in central locations, but i still kind of agree its pretty unlikely to do much except piss off our military.

the bikini atol tests showed its possible tho..

The EMP effects of a ground burst are serious mostly within the same area of the blast radius over 2 PSI (the Moderate Damage Radius in the table below), but can be propagated by power and telephone lines, railrod tracks, pipelines, etc. (The effects will travel line of sight from the detonation site for the most part, but will travel along conductors beyond that.)
The EMP effects of a high altitude burst can be serious at over 1000 miles.
For a large area, a 1 megaton device is about the minimum yeild needed to produce a significant EMP event, but the effects of blast, heat, and radiation are more serious.
home.att.net...

Originally posted by 27jd
I fully agree, I don't understand why people can't refrain from personally attacking people so viciously, regardless how one sided Ed is, that was completely uncalled for. This person doesn't know his son at all.

No apology needed. its fun watching the yellow sit at the keyboards! Plus it would not be heartfelt anyway. Just Ironic that my son will be defending his right to speak out of his rectum.

Originally posted by edsinger
And invade Iran? Boy that sure is a stretch

No kidding. People automatically assume we are out to occupy everybody's country, almost any scenario discussed here involves invasion. They can shout for our deaths all they want, they can live under religious fanatics all they want, what we won't allow them to do, is get the tools they need to martyr themselves by using a nuke against the U.S. or Israel. That's the way it is, no matter how much opposition is typed on the internet.

Lots of replies on this thread. All according to plan, I'm sure.

To employ a nuclear weapon against the United States...

Well, they better not get caught, I don't care who sets it off, because were it known who did it, they would be signing their death warrants. To attack like this would be a suicide mission. An act of desperations, without hope of ever recovering from the obvious repercussions.

If it is so obvious to anyone and everyone at this point in time, which this thread seems to suggest, then Iran would really have no choice but to NOT attack in this way. Unless, of course they just wanted to sacrifice themselves for the glory and exhaltation of the terrorist anti-American movement that seems all the rage right now. And that would just be stupid. Ask any Iranian.

Iran has a lot going for it in the mid to long term. Hell, it even has things going for it in the short term. Now tell me, why would they risk all of that?

Edsinger, when I read your posts, I sometimes wonder who's side you're on. I know your history to a great enough degree to know you're really on our side, but it's usually just so inflammatory and pessimistic. In this case, it's rediculous and that's all.

Anyone frightened by this story, these stories, this idea, this prospect... they are just unwilling or unable to utilize reason or common sense. Are you OK, Ed?

Originally posted by DeltaChaos
Are you OK, Ed?

He'll have to consult WND to answer that one Delta.

[edit on 25-4-2005 by Jamuhn]

Originally posted by 27jd
Given the state of our military, I highly doubt an invasion is an option at all. Hopefully, Iran will cave into EU pressure, but in the highly likely case that they don't, I believe the U.S. will conduct surgical strikes and possibly special ops against their nuclear facilities, our air force is not stretched too thin. If diplomacy fails, it is not a false choice at all, and very true, either we do something to stop them, or they will obtain nuclear weapons.

Yes, that's exactly what I posted above. I was taking issue with people like ed who believe the choice is between doing nothing and dropping bombs, which I find to be false. Of course something will be done, the question is what do we do before we attack Bushehr? The condescension is not appreciated as well.

Originally posted by namehere
The EMP effects of a ground burst

SREMP effects are mostly irrelevant, since the overpressure wave will do much more damage at the short distances they propagate.