Iran 'has atomic bomb capability'

reply to post by gallifreyan medic


I am sorry, I should have made it clear I had understood the article was "updated".
But it doesn't stop it from being ridiculously biased.
It's an acknowledged fact for at least 6 months that Iran has 1,000 kg of low-enriched uranium FUEL. Nothing new here. As it is, it's not a threat.
It's true they have reached a mark. They have enough LEU to produce enough HEU to put in ONE bomb. But they need different infrastructures that the ones we know about for a start. If they have them, I am absolutely sure that Western Intelligence services are very capable of finding them out.
There is no proof on Iran military use of uranium not even hints, only suspiscions but still the story runs on and on in the media.

Mike, I understand Iran might be running a secret program. I am fully backing that IAEA investigates about it. But the way the MSM releases and twists the information about it, it's obvious they have been trying to heat us up on the topic for years. Sadly, it's working fairly well.

Rather have Iran with the bomb than Saudi Arabia.

Iran is actually a very moderate country, granted, there are some loud mouths and xenophobes there..but dont judge a entire culture by some of the loud mouths of the culture (are we all Rush Limbaugh?)

Come on people. who cares if IRAN has nukes. If they ever use them they will no longer exist. It is as simple as that. Much ado about nothing.

Originally posted by Manouche
Mike, I understand Iran might be running a secret program. I am fully backing that IAEA investigates about it. But the way the MSM releases and twists the information about it, it's obvious they have been trying to heat us up on the topic for years. Sadly, it's working fairly well.

Manouche, I agree there is bad representation of Iran. It's a default behaviour with media. An enemy is identified and they are demonized
- inherent tribalism.

But I think there is a tendency to try exonerate the Iranian regime. When Khameini and Ahmadinejad make threatening sounds about Israel, every single time we are told it is a mistranslation. And why does an Islamic state that funds and arms Hamas and Hezbollah feels the need to hold a Holocaust study convention?

Iran is trying to spread it's influence in the region. They get sympathy from the man on the street with their posturing antagonism of Israel.

I consider all this bad diplomacy. Understandable to an extent in the face of bad US diplomacy. But it's time for a change.


Mike

yep no probs with Iran and NK having nuclear capabilities. Who are we in the west to think we no whats bet for everyone. Yes we really behaved ourselves in japan. Remember the only nuclear weapons to be ued on people were done so by a democratic nation. No we are no better. |Iran is not an axis of evil neither is NK. MSM is though in brainwashing peeps into thinking they are. Why shouldn't Iran have weapons it is the msot developed arab country. Its peeps are well educated and there leader seems a lot more balance than some of the western leader i have heard.

reply to post by mmiichael


I get it I may look like I am too pro-Iran. I am not, I wouldn't like to live under this regime. Altough most people have false ideas about the state of freedom in Iran.

I feel concern because we are ready to accept any headline without ever questionning it. Unless it comes from a "dubious" iranian, russian or chinese source, in this case, obviously, it must be propaganda. We trust by the face, if it's western, it's reliable, if it's not, it's a lie. It comes to a point where states or people are always grossly portrayed, good/evil, clever/stupid, etc... Everything from Iran is necessarily evil or with bad intentions. We have been conditionned to hear this for years so no surprise, we accept it without looking further.
It would not be so bad if it didn't lead to unjustified wars and the killing of ours under false and fabricated excuses. That is what concerns me a lot. I would like us to understand the power the media have on our minds. We don't think freely.

Originally posted by Manouche
I feel concern because we are ready to accept any headline without ever questionning it. Unless it comes from a "dubious" iranian, russian or chinese source, in this case, obviously, it must be propaganda. We trust by the face, if it's western, it's reliable, if it's not, it's a lie. It comes to a point where states or people are always grossly portrayed, good/evil, clever/stupid, etc... Everything from Iran is necessarily evil or with bad intentions. We have been conditionned to hear this for years so no surprise, we accept it without looking further.
It would not be so bad if it didn't lead to unjustified wars and the killing of ours under false and fabricated excuses. That is what concerns me a lot. I would like us to understand the power the media have on our minds. We don't think freely.

I'll disagree with your last point. Some of don't think freely, some of us do.
The media may influence opinion but they do not form foreign policy in most countries.

Sophisticated analytical people learn to filter out bias and self-serving propaganda, but most don't.

Iran has gained some points with their adversarial stance against the US, Israel and corrupt Sunni regimes. Their projected audience is the Muslim world as a whole and sympathizers in Europe. Iran too runs a well-oiled propaganda machine. They are the innocent victim of larger forces trying to compromise their integrity.

A more mature negotiating stance is to admit differences and interest but seek common ground. The Islamic Revolution proffered a stated goal of bring about the collapse of the West with Israel as a primary target. How seriously they actually take this now is hard to discern. But they haven't deviated too much going by their rhetoric.

We know them not just from media reports but what they tell us.

Mike

reply to post by Manouche


The last two articles I linked to are for people to see the westernised way of
promoting a negative view,when it was no way necessary.




[edit on 7/6/09 by gallifreyan medic]

The Iranian leaders have constantly said that nuclear weapons are unIslamic.

From the Koran Sura 2 - 189

"And fight for the cause of God against those who fight against you: but commit not the injustice of attacking them first: God loveth not such injustice."

An aggressive attack from Iran seems unlikely.

The Iranian 'threat' is simply scare-mongering trying to create justification for a pre-emptive strike against Iran because they are gaining a lot of political strength in the middle east.

Their policies are peaceful and they are making a lot of sense to the Arab world. Israel fears a strong leadership and voice in the Arab countries - because it has used the threat of nuclear weapons and war to control the area for years.

Originally posted by Amagnon
The Iranian leaders have constantly said that nuclear weapons are unIslamic.

From the Koran Sura 2 - 189

"And fight for the cause of God against those who fight against you: but commit not the injustice of attacking them first: God loveth not such injustice."

Interesting platitude. But there are numerous examples of Islamic countries attacking one another. And I won't even consider 3 co-ordinated attacks by multiple Arab countries against Israel, the first on the day they became an independent state.

So maybe some people don't always tell the truth and not everyone feels obliged to follow every word of the Koran to the letter.


Mike

Well it seems that I was a little wrong about the Iranian people.

Iran:Rap,blogs and the political mix

Sixteen years after visiting Iran to report for BBC's Panorama, and just as President Barack Obama makes overtures to the Islamic world, Jane Corbin returned on the eve of presidential elections.

She found a country with a burgeoning underground music scene, a love of cosmetic surgery and an internet savvy young electorate eager to make their own mark 30 years on from the Islamic Revolution.

[edit on 8/6/09 by gallifreyan medic]

If the election is not fixed, which it might be with the incumbent regime doing the counting, I see Mir Hossein Mousavi as the big winner. A former Prime Minister, relatively reformist, and a charismatic wife campaigning alongside him.

His voters will come from the 60% under the 30, and female.

As with the US, Iran desperately needs an image makeover. Languishing domestic concerns need to be addressed immediately.

The inflammatory rhetoric characterizing the current leader has contributed to Iran increasingly becoming a pariah state.

Maybe this will be a new beginning as the Islamic Revolution aggressive stance gices way to pragmatism.

Mike

reply to post by mmiichael


Okay so the count so to speak is not complete but its showing at 66% for
Ahmadinejad.

Ahmadinejad 'leads in Iran election'

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has a substantial lead in Iran's presidential election with almost 70% of votes counted, officials say.

Originally posted by gallifreyan medic
reply to post by mmiichael

 

Okay so the count so to speak is not complete but its showing at 66% for
Ahmadinejad.

Ahmadinejad 'leads in Iran election'

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has a substantial lead in Iran's presidential election with almost 70% of votes counted, officials say.

Regardless of how the people vote in Iran, the Mullahs want Ahmandinejad so he will be president. Not that it matters who is in the puppet chair anyhow. Either would still do the bidding of the Mullahs!

I love that we are all up in arms about Iran's Nuke capability, yet we ignore the fact that it is a european company, Siemans AG, that builds their facilities to produce.


You think if we really didnt want them to have nukes that we would sit by while a Euro company gets fat off of it?

reply to post by Bearack


Their puppet masters though can be seen.
Unlike ours here in the west who cowardly hide in the shadows.

10 PM Friday EST.

Mousavi given 28% vs Mr A receiving 69% based on early rural returns mostly. 10 Million or 42% of the votes counted.

Mousavi claims he is the winner based on word in the street. Heads will roll if he's declared the loser.

But as I type this it looks like the fix is in against him.

As I noted before, the final decision is in the hands not of the voters but the vote counters.


Mike

I'd feel less worried if Iran had an effective nuclear deterrent. The only reason we keep hearing more WMD propaganda in the west is because, despite the image we're getting of the power of NATO, the USA cannot afford to attack anyone by conventional means alone. Nor would China lend them the money to occupy their main oil supplier, as they did for Iraq. Thus the 'threat' must be made to seem dire & immediate. Without being able to stop Iran selling oil for Euros (as the USA did in Iraq), the PNAC is a pipe dream, but if the USA can get Iran selling for $US, then the value of the $ can be propped up for longer. Just long enough to complete the expansion of NATO maybe, after which US corporate/military hegemoney will be entrenched globally. A strong Iran is good for Europe, as a collapsing $ makes our currency more attractive. The failure of PNAC is essential if human progress is not to be rolled back from its post-imperial gains.