Top Iranian commanders assassinated

Originally posted by wylee
reply to post by nenothtu

 

Here's a link to the Jandullah-USA connection.

watchingamerica.com...

But couldn't this have to do with Iran dropping the dollar would it. When in doubt de-stablize.

A strong possibility. It's pretty well known that the mujahideen in Afghanistan claimed full credit, between them and Allah, for the destabilization and fall of the Soviet Empire. Could be that, in light of current US economic woes, the move to dump dollars by Iran is a move in that direction, which was met with an "Oh no you don't! Destabilization goes both ways, bub!"

That theory has all the beauty of requiring neither a followup air strike OR invasion, and wouldn't necessarily bring together a divided populace - which would be counter-productive to destabilization ops.

Just more under the table destabilizations would be all that are needed.

I am pretty sure it's Mossad/CIA.
I think the goal is to push Iran to respond aggressively so they can justify the war they are craving for.
If Israel/USA blatantly attack Iran, it would only turn the public and world opinion against them. They want to be seen responding to an Iranian aggression.

Originally posted by antonia
reply to post by jam321

 

I doubt Obama has as much control over the CIA as we'd like to think.

Even less now, what with the tiff with Madame Pelosi, and investigation threats. Current admin bit the wrong hand that time.

Originally posted by jam321
reply to post by AlienEyes

 

I think that no matter who actually did the bombing, the USA was behind it. The timing seems to fit right in there reeeeeeel good. hehehehe.

You really think Obama could be that calculating and willing to do such thing.

Knowing that if it is discovered that he sanctioned such thing, the world will realize that all the change and speeches he has given so far where nothing but lies.

the c.i.a. answers to no-one .. the last president who tried to make them more accountable had his brains spread all over his wife by them..

[edit on 18-10-2009 by manxman2]

Originally posted by antonia
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

We are talking about two different things. The nuclear tests you speak of involved actual explosions on islands a good distance from populated areas. Furthermore the Korean test was UNDERGROUND and not even very large. They didn't involve more than one active nuclear reactor smack dab in the middle of a populated area of the world. Look up Chernobyl if you want to know what an actual nuclear reactor meltdown will cause.

If you are going to have a release that's exactly where you want it in Iran's deep UNDERGROUND facility.

Originally posted by jam321
reply to post by antonia

 

I doubt Obama has as much control over the CIA as we'd like to think.

I grant you that possibility. But as of now I have yet to see evidence from this administration that the CIA is doing its own thing.

Furthermore, with the CIA being investigated by the administration, I would think the CIA would be more cautious about what actions they take.

I'm not disputing you, just saying from a personal standpoint that I know exactly how I'd act if my boss tried to throw me under the bus just for his own advantage.

It wouldn't go just as he liked, and unpredictable things would start popping up.

[edit on 2009/10/18 by nenothtu]

reply to post by manxman2

the c.i.a. answers to no-one .. the last president who tried to make them more accountable had his brains spread all over his with by them..

So if your so sure about this, then why do you always blame everything on American aggression.

You yourself say they answer to no one.

reply to post by nenothtu

I'm not disputing you, just saying from a personal standpoint that I know exactly how I'd act if my boss tried to throw me under the bus just for his own advantage.

It wouldn't go just as he liked, an unpredictable things would start popping up.

No doubt about that. I would do the same.

because they dictate foriegn policy for their paymasters.

what paymasters will be your next Q so.

google the last 10 directors of the c.i.a. and see what they do now.

Originally posted by antonia
If the United states or Isreal hit an active underground nuclear facility the environmental damage will be catastrophic and the danger will spread world wide. Millions of children with cancer world wide? Yep, it's a real possibility. Considering we are talking about several sites we could be at risk of a persistent radiation threat in the jetstream for up to 18 weeks. The Jingos rawring up for a war should take that into consideration. Furthermore Iran is not Iraq. They really do have agents here.

You must read a lot - as in spy novels and doomsday books. "Catastrophic", "worldwide", and "millions of cancerous children" are mighty strong words for a highly localized event, which would occur in mostly uninhabited areas. There's a reason that the Iranians put those facilities where they did.

Furthermore, radiation would have to get TO the jetstream to be present in it. That would require a lot bigger bomb than anyone is willing to risk on an off chance.

Folks are WAY too scared of all things nuclear.

On the other front, yeah, Iran DOES have agents here. Could get interesting.

reply to post by SLAYER69


Except that isn't the only target in question. Did you know in the beginning of the Gulf War when we were using Uranium weapons in Iraq there was actually a 300% increase in radioactive particles in the air in the United Kingdom according to British scientists? Sorry, Americans aren't getting away from this one. According to two researchers for the Scientific American in 1981 concerning different situations in which radioactive materials could be released, the bombing of a nuclear reactor would contaminate up to 8600 miles around that reactor. now despite what you may believe this is very different from a nuclear bomb going off. There are different materials involved. There has never been a bombing of an active nuclear reactor. What happened in Iraq all those years ago was not the same. That was an unloaded, offline reactor. But hey, Americans are invincible right? Go on and bomb that thing but don't cry when that 700 million year half-life material blows your way.

[edit on 18-10-2009 by antonia]

[edit on 18-10-2009 by antonia]

reply to post by antonia


Yeah thanks I and many here already knew that

Again I'm not advocated an attack. I was just pointing out the obvious flaw in your statement.

Thanks again.

reply to post by antonia


The "uranium" weapons you mention were DEPLETED uranium.

You DO know what "depleted" means, right?

As far as the "700 million year half-life" goes, we can only pray that any radioactives released have such a long half life. If you've done your homework, you'll know for fact that longer half-lives result in less radiation release, because it's spread over more time. The stuff you have to worry about all has SHORT half lives, resulting in large gamma ray dumps over a short time.

No, I've DONE MY homework on this subject, not gonna let ANYBODY scare me again with misleading "facts" and outright untruths on this particular subject. They already did that once, which is what prompted me to search out the facts of the matter.

Edit to add:

An area of "8600 miles" has a radius of 52 1/3 miles. Keep in mind that it wouldn't be an area solidly irradiated by a uniform radiation level, but would have relative "hot spots" and relatively radiation free zones, and most of the radiation would fall back to ground closer to the source.

About like Chernobyl. None of my kids were born with two heads from that, although there were some problems with defects in Russia. That's because the reactor was in a populated place.

Nope, not buying into the "worldwide catastrophic Armageddon" scenario.

[edit on 2009/10/18 by nenothtu]

reply to post by nenothtu


I don't remember saying world-wide Armageddon. I do remember stating that material could indeed enter the atmosphere and cause problems for a lot of people though. The entire planet though? Na, Americans are pretty good at screwing up things but i seriously doubt we could kill everyone on the planet. Although I do wonder if we could some days.

Originally posted by antonia
reply to post by nenothtu

 

I don't remember saying world-wide Armageddon. I do remember stating that material could indeed enter the atmosphere and cause problems for a lot of people though. The entire planet though?

If the United states or Isreal hit an active underground nuclear facility the environmental damage will be catastrophic and the danger will spread world wide. Millions of children with cancer world wide?

Originally posted by antonia
reply to post by nenothtu

 

I don't remember saying world-wide Armageddon. I do remember stating that material could indeed enter the atmosphere and cause problems for a lot of people though. The entire planet though? Na, Americans are pretty good at screwing up things but i seriously doubt we could kill everyone on the planet. Although I do wonder if we could some days.

This post is where I got that strange notion from:

Originally posted by antonia
If the United states or Isreal hit an active underground nuclear facility the environmental damage will be catastrophic and the danger will spread world wide. Millions of children with cancer world wide? Yep, it's a real possibility.

I apologize profusely if I misunderstood it, and will back off forthwith if that's the case.

I'm a little touchy on the subject, as that was my initial introduction into propaganda techniques, and I didn't much like the fact that thousands of kids were needlessly being scared witless back then.

Sorry 'bout that.

reply to post by nenothtu


If high amounts of radiation do indeed enter the jet stream we could indeed see cancers rise across the world in the direction the winds blow (mostly thyroid cancers, easily treatable but the loss of the thyroid causes other serious health problems). This will not mean the entire planet as some places are just not going to get hit. But yeah I'll edit that. The whole point is that an attack on an active nuclear reactor could potentially poison an environment thousands of people live in. That's just not ok.

[edit on 18-10-2009 by antonia]

I find it very doubtful that ANYONE would bomb a live reactor.

Talk about a PR nightmare.
That being said, these screw-sticks have shown themselves to be pretty brazen in the past.

I still for the life of me can't see the "inside job" angle on the part of the Iranians, though. The geopolitical conditions currently just wouldn't allow it, IMO. Too much talk of war with Iran for Iran to consider knocking off top brass.
I mean, I see the upside... "rally the troops" and what not, but we aren't dealing with political half-wits here.

I'm still stuck on a destabalization campaign by folks who are merely feining interest in seeing Iran's facilities inspected. By folks who stand to profit off of chaos in the region.

reply to post by Gools


So now you believe the MSM ?
When ever it suits the haters the MSM spreads propaganda and now all of a sudden its the truth ! People only believe what they want to because to suits there skewed world view . It will never matter to some that the president is Holocaust denier nor will any amount of evidence ever convince some that Iran doesnt have good intentions with its Nuclear Program .

reply to post by antonia


Jet streams travel at between 20,00-25,000 feet and around 80,000 feet. It would take quite the explosion to throw any appreciable amount of material that high.

The main culprit in radiation induced thyroid cancers is Strontium-90, preventable with iodine tablets which block the access of the Strontium-90 to the thyroid.

You believe that Iranian nuclear reactors have Strontium-90 in them? It's more usually considered a fission product, from nuclear detonations.

The biggest danger zone would be up to around 60 miles downwind from the reactors, an unpredictable area since wind direction and speed is subject to change. Yeah, it would truly suck to be caught in that zone, assuming the reactors were loaded and online.

The further away you get, the weaker the radiation gets, since the bigger particles fall out of the air first. Also, slower winds tend to dump more radiation closer (it doesn't have time to get downrange before it falls), and while faster winds dump it further away, it's weaker because it's spread over a larger area. Local rain can produce local hotspots as well, but that washes out material that would be deposited elsewhere, reducing the danger for the "elsewhere".

There would have to be a rapid evac in those zones, and immediate start of anti-radiation meds.

On the positive side, reactors probably wouldn't be bombed, since they don't produce any bomb-grade material. The underground centrifuges at Natanz, Qom, et al, that are producing bomb grade material, on the other hand, are a different matter.

I won't go into detail on how I think those would be destroyed, but I will say that I think it would suck to be within 15 or 20 miles of them, depending on the winds.

And no, I don't mean I think they would be hit with nukes.

[edit on 2009/10/18 by nenothtu]