/* */

PDA

View Full Version : Iran sends Satellite into space, USA complains



The_Prince
02-03-2009, 11:55 PM
Iran sent its first domestically made satellite into orbit, the president announced Tuesday, a key step for an ambitious space program that worries the U.S. and other world powers because the same rocket technology used to launch satellites can also deliver warheads.

For nearly a decade, Iran has sought to develop a national space program, creating unease among international leaders already concerned about its nuclear and ballistic missile programs.

The telecommunications satellite — called Omid, or hope, in Farsi — was launched late Monday after President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad gave the order to proceed, according to a report on state radio. State television showed footage of what it said was the nighttime liftoff of the rocket carrying the satellite at an unidentified location in Iran.

A U.S. counterproliferation official confirmed the launch and suggested the technology was not sophisticated. Speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence gathering, the official said it appeared it "isn't too far removed from Sputnik," the first Soviet orbiter launched in 1957.

The TV report praised the launch as part of festivities marking the 30th anniversary of the 1979 Islamic revolution that toppled the U.S.-backed Shah and brought hard-line clerics to power.

In a year in which Ahmadinejad faces a tough election battle to stay in power, the launch provided a symbol of national pride to hold up even as falling oil prices batter the economy and the hard-line leader's popularity.

As it seeks to expand its influence in the Middle East, Iran touts such technological successes as signs it can advance despite U.S. and U.N. sanctions over its nuclear program.

The launch touched off concern in the United States, Europe and Israel about possible links between its satellite programs and its work with missiles and nuclear technology.

"There's almost always a link between satellite programs like this and military programs and there's almost always a link between satellites and nuclear weapons. It's the same delivery vehicle," said James Lewis, an expert on defense technology at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs condemned the launch, saying: "This action does not convince us that Iran is acting responsibly to advance stability or security in the region."

State Department spokesman Robert A. Wood accused Iran of using the space-launch program as a technological stepping stone to develop long-range ballistic missiles.

"Iran's ongoing efforts to develop its missile delivery capabilities remain a matter of deep concern," Wood said. "Iran's development of a space-launch vehicle capable of putting a satellite into orbit establishes the technical basis from which Iran could develop long-range ballistic missile systems."

Yiftah Shapir, a top Israeli expert on the Iranian space program, said the launch itself "doesn't really mean much to Israel, we knew about it before hand."

"The significance is in the technology itself. They are making progress and working on a program to spy on targets worldwide. But they are decades away from achieving that," said Shapir, who heads the military balance project at the Institute for National Security Studies, a think tank at Tel Aviv University.

The United States and some of its allies accuse Iran of pursuing a covert nuclear weapons program. Iran denies the charge, saying its atomic work is only for peaceful purposes, such as power generation.

The announcement of the launch came as officials from the U.S., Russia, Britain, France, Germany and China were set to meet Wednesday near Frankfurt to talk about Iran's nuclear program. The group has offered Iran a package of incentives if it suspends uranium enrichment and enters into talks on its nuclear program. The U.N. Security Council has imposed sanctions to pressure Iran to comply.

"This test underlines and illustrates our serious concerns about Iran's intentions," Britain's Middle East minister Bill Rammell said Tuesday. "There are dual applications for satellite-launching technology in Iran's ballistic missile program."

Ahmadinejad insisted the launch was intended to be a message of peace and friendship to the world. "We need science for friendship, brotherhood and justice," he told state television.

The launch has clear political aims, said Lewis. "You can say, 'I am the dominant power in the region and here's the proof.' That's what a space launch does for you."

The satellite was taken into orbit by a Safir-2, or ambassador-2, rocket, which was first tested in August and has a range of 155 miles. Iranian television said the satellite would orbit at an altitude of between 155 and 250 miles.

State radio said it is designed to circle the Earth 15 times during a 24-hour period and send reports to the space center in Iran. It has two frequency bands and eight antennas for transmitting data.

Ahmadinejad said the satellite reached its orbit and had made contact with ground stations, though not all of its functions were active yet. He said Iran would now seek to increase the ability of its satellite-carrier rockets to carry more weight.

Iran's space plans are lofty and even hold out the goal of putting a man in orbit within 10 years, though accomplishing that would be extremely expensive.

A domestic satellite program would put Iran in a growing club — more than 80 countries are building or planning to build their own satellites, according to Lewis. But the ability to launch them is a much more exclusive crowd; only nine countries have done so.

In 2005, Iran launched its first commercial satellite on a Russian rocket in a joint project with Moscow, which is a partner in transferring space technology to Iran along with North Korea and China. That same year, the government said it had allocated $500 million for space projects in the next five years.

Iran has said it wants to put its own satellites into orbit to monitor natural disasters in the earthquake-prone nation and improve its telecommunications. Iranian officials also point to America's use of satellites to monitor Afghanistan and Iraq and say they need similar abilities for their security.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090203/.../ml_iran_space

so lets get this straight, Iran sends a satellite into space and that is something bad according to the U.S. goverment? lol. so yes America can sends many many satellites into space, but hey thats ok, Iran does it, and hey thats bad and shows evil intentions, those **** evil Muslim Mullahs! how dare they attempt to start going into space, Muslims dont have a right to such ambitions and technology!

you would think America would say Israels recent massacre and terrorism in gaza would be a sign that the Israelis are not moving toward a stable and peaceful mid-east, but nooooooo no no no, Iran sending a satellite into space, thats the real bad guy, not Israels massacre of Gaza, gosh, this goverment makes me so sick, they sure as heck dont represent or speak for me.
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
crayon
02-04-2009, 06:28 PM
Any progress Iran makes is a bad thing.
It's a given.
According to the US government, anyway.
Reply

aamirsaab
02-04-2009, 07:05 PM
:sl:
Iran sent its first domestically made satellite into orbit, the president announced Tuesday, a key step for an ambitious space program that worries the U.S. and other world powers because the same rocket technology used to launch satellites can also deliver warheads.
LOL, the US gov'ment thinks Iran is basically the empire from star wars and the iranian satelite is the death star.

I'm surprised they haven't told these guys off for creating transformers!.
Reply

Güven
02-04-2009, 07:30 PM
USA complains !?
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
nocturnal
02-04-2009, 09:09 PM
I think there must be some sort of entrenched unhappy response template in Washington for issuing governmental responses to any prospective Iranian technological advances.

I don't expect any sort of fundamental change in US government policy towards either israel or Iran. Especially not when we're dealing with a Clinton State Department.
Reply

Suomipoika
02-05-2009, 01:13 AM
Im sure everybody thinks its absolutely great idea for Iran to have the ability to fire missiles to targets around the world, especially with the current cat and mouse play with the nuclear weapons program. Anything really goes just as long as you can criticise "teh evöl amerikkkan empire".
Reply

Vito
02-05-2009, 01:42 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Suomipoika
Im sure everybody thinks its absolutely great idea for Iran to have the ability to fire missiles to targets around the world, especially with the current cat and mouse play with the nuclear weapons program. Anything really goes just as long as you can criticise "teh evöl amerikkkan empire".
Sure why not.
Reply

AntiKarateKid
02-05-2009, 03:40 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Suomipoika
Im sure everybody thinks its absolutely great idea for Iran to have the ability to fire missiles to targets around the world, especially with the current cat and mouse play with the nuclear weapons program. Anything really goes just as long as you can criticise "teh evöl amerikkkan empire".
Sure why not.
Reply

Muezzin
02-05-2009, 08:52 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Suomipoika
Im sure everybody thinks its absolutely great idea for Iran to have the ability to fire missiles to targets around the world, especially with the current cat and mouse play with the nuclear weapons program. Anything really goes just as long as you can criticise "teh evöl amerikkkan empire".
If Iran wasn't excluded in the first place, we would not have this problem.

History shows that if a given country (you know, a nation of a millions) is excluded, they tend to get angry, and things tend to escalate. Happened with North Korea, happened with Iran.

So I hope the Obama administration will extend serious diplomacy to Iran rather than more threats, which will just exacerbate the problem. Mock all you like. For all our sakes, I hope the White House does not share this attitude. Also, naturally, Iran has to play ball and come to the table to seriously discuss these issues rather than grandstanding, as understandable as it is that they do so.

There's also the double-standards of nuclear proliferation, but that's a whole other issue.
Reply

Suomipoika
02-05-2009, 03:09 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Muezzin
If Iran wasn't excluded in the first place, we would not have this problem.

History shows that if a given country (you know, a nation of a millions) is excluded, they tend to get angry, and things tend to escalate. Happened with North Korea, happened with Iran.
Im not entirely sure what do you mean by exclusion, but as far as I know Iran trades quite alot with the world, including the EU. Some of its biggest trading partners are Germany and Italy. You can catch plane from quite many countries direct to Teheran. Diplomatically EU has had talks with Iran for long time now.

Also how does Libya factor into your exclusion scenario?

So I hope the Obama administration will extend serious diplomacy to Iran rather than more threats, which will just exacerbate the problem. Mock all you like. For all our sakes, I hope the White House does not share this attitude. Also, naturally, Iran has to play ball and come to the table to seriously discuss these issues rather than grandstanding, as understandable as it is that they do so.
Im sorry for the mockery but its so very tiresome, why is it always somebody elses fault, this time because of "exclusion"? EU has been engaged diplomatically with Iran for years, why hasnt that been enough since it was enough for Libya? Why dont you even count that? What makes it not serious enough diplomacy?

We've tried the carrot for years now, its obviously not working. All Iran is doing is buying more time. For all our sakes, I hope White House does soon something decisive to prevent Iran from accuiring nuclear weapons.

There's also the double-standards of nuclear proliferation, but that's a whole other issue.
Despite any real and/or imagined unfairness and/or double-standards, how does any of your post make it any better that we soon have a country like Iran with the ability to strike around the world, possibly with nukes?
Reply

Muezzin
02-05-2009, 03:55 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Suomipoika
Im not entirely sure what do you mean by exclusion, but as far as I know Iran trades quite alot with the world, including the EU. Some of its biggest trading partners are Germany and Italy. You can catch plane from quite many countries direct to Teheran. Diplomatically EU has had talks with Iran for long time now.

Also how does Libya factor into your exclusion scenario?



Im sorry for the mockery but its so very tiresome, why is it always somebody elses fault, this time because of "exclusion"? EU has been engaged diplomatically with Iran for years, why hasnt that been enough since it was enough for Libya? Why dont you even count that? What makes it not serious enough diplomacy?

We've tried the carrot for years now, its obviously not working. All Iran is doing is buying more time. For all our sakes, I hope White House does soon something decisive to prevent Iran from accuiring nuclear weapons.
Look, the White House (not only the EU) has to negotiate with Iran, and Iran has to stop with the provocation and deflection. It goes both ways. But, if someone is looking for a fight like this, you don't give it to them.

Also, Iran is already under sanctions - there's not much more that can be done to stop its acquirement of nuclear weapons, short of bombing it into the stone age. Which I hope does not become a staple of the Obama Administration.

Despite any real and/or imagined unfairness and/or double-standards, how does any of your post make it any better that we soon have a country like Iran with the ability to strike around the world, possibly with nukes?
All the more reason to negotiate with them rather than taking the military option. Unless you want even more of the Arab world to hate the US (or the nebulous concept of 'The West').
Reply

Suomipoika
02-05-2009, 04:28 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Muezzin
Look, the White House (not only the EU) has to negotiate with Iran
Why? Why isnt EU enough? What other countries are needed for serious diplomacy? Japan or China, Brazil, maybe Uruguay? Or are we just fixated with the USA? EU was enough for Libya, why not for Iran? USA certainly is playing ball with the EU how the hole Libya thing is going. EU has offered alot to Iran, even Russia has tried to help with the compromise.

But no, we need serious diplomacy and only with USA, if not, Iran that gets to trade with most of the world is excluded and tends to get angry at the world.

Also, Iran is already under sanctions - there's not much more that can be done to stop its acquirement of nuclear weapons, short of bombing it into the stone age. Which I hope does not become a staple of the Obama Administration.
Iran is under sanctions mostly by USA. EU hasnt imposed any real sanctions even by now. Most trade between EU and Iran goes as it always did, not to mention all the other countries in the world, like China and Japan that too trade with Iran.

All the more reason to negotiate with them rather than taking the military option. Unless you want even more of the Arab world to hate the US (or the nebulous concept of 'The West').
When the choices are between we (the nebulous concept) are hated alot with nuclear Iran and we are hated somewhat more than alot and no nuclear Iran, I can see which one to pick.
Reply

Muezzin
02-05-2009, 04:41 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Suomipoika
Why? Why isnt EU enough?
Don't ask me. Ask the Iranian government.

What other countries are needed for serious diplomacy? Japan or China, Brazil, maybe Uruguay? Or are we just fixated with the USA?
Leave strawmen in the field.

EU was enough for Libya, why not Iran? USA certainly is playing ball with the EU how the hole Libya thing is going. EU has offered alot to Iran, even Russia has tried to help with the compromise.
That's good. But the real issue here is that the USA, in particular, does not want Iran to acquire nuclear weapons. Given the USA's standing, it would be prudent for it to negotiate.

But no, we need serious diplomacy and only with USA
I did not say 'Only with the USA'. Please calm down.

if not, Iran that gets to trade with most of the world is excluded and tends to get angry at the world.
Excluded from talks with the USA, who tend to have the biggest problem with Iran, but for the past eight years have failed to seriously negotiate with it.

And lo and behold, Iran starts 'acting up'. Just like North Korea did.

Iran is under sanctions mostly by USA. EU hasnt imposed any real sanctions even by now. Most trade between EU and Iran goes as it always did, not to mention all the other countries in the world, like China and Japan that too trade with Iran.
Well, Iran sees Israel and the USA as 'problems'. It won't listen to Israel - it might well listen to the US.

When the choices are between we (the nebulous concept) are hated alot with nuclear Iran and we are hated somewhat more than alot and no nuclear Iran, I can see which one to pick.
'No Nuclear Iran' equals 'Bombing Iran into the stone age'. And 'Hated somewhat more than alot' equals 'the creation of hundreds of new terrorists'.
Reply

Suomipoika
02-05-2009, 05:29 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Muezzin
Don't ask me. Ask the Iranian government.
You are the one that is saying that Iran is excluded and that we need the White House to prevent this exclusion and their acting out. In my mind Iran isnt excluded and they are just acting like idiots from a dictatorial country act and at some point enough is enough. EU has pampered Iran like little persian princess for years now, we dont need to suffer tempertantrums eternally. Especially when they play with something like nuclear weapons.

That's good. But the real issue here is that the USA, in particular, does not want Iran to acquire nuclear weapons. Given the USA's standing, it would be prudent for it to negotiate.
EU isnt exactly thrilled about nuclear armed Iran either, thats why we have been working really hard to get diplomatic solution.

I did not say 'Only with the USA'. Please calm down.
Well, when years of diplomatic work from EUs part, starting from before even Bush was elected to work out problems between Iran and the "west" isnt considered serious diplomacy and only thing that seems to change exclusion to inclusion is USA then what should I think?

Excluded from talks with the USA, who tend to have the biggest problem with Iran, but for the past eight years have failed to seriously negotiate with it.
And the eight years before that, and four and another eight years before that. Bush is convenient excuse for everything.

Well, Iran sees Israel and the USA as 'problems'. It won't listen to Israel - it might well listen to the US.
Seeing USA and Israel as problems doesnt equal to exclusion and broad sanctions.

'No Nuclear Iran' equals 'Bombing Iran into the stone age'. And 'Hated somewhat more than alot' equals 'the creation of hundreds of new terrorists'.
Somehow I doubt that people are going to run out of righteous excuses why to kill innocents from New York to London to Mumbai. If its not bombing of Iran, it will be something else.

It would be great if Obama can succeed diplomatically in what EU has failed over the years, but somehow I feel that the Iranians were never really serious. And if it doesnt work, I hope he is ready to prevent Iran from getting nukes by using military power.
Reply

Muezzin
02-05-2009, 05:47 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Suomipoika
You are the one that is saying that Iran is excluded and that we need the White House to prevent this exclusion and their acting out. In my mind Iran isnt excluded and they are just acting like idiots from a dictatorial country act and at some point enough is enough. EU has pampered Iran like little persian princess for years now, we dont need to suffer tempertantrums eternally. Especially when they play with something like nuclear weapons.
Iran's (present) quarrel is with the US and Israel.

EU isnt exactly thrilled about nuclear armed Iran either, thats why we have been working really hard to get diplomatic solution.
I appreciate that. Unfortunately, Iran's quarrel seems not to be with the EU, but with the US.

Well, when years of diplomatic work from EUs part, starting from before even Bush was elected to work out problems between Iran and the "west" isnt considered serious diplomacy and only thing that seems to change exclusion to inclusion is USA then what should I think?
I should have been clearer - the US (not the EU) has excluded Iran from serious diplomatic discourse. From Iran's point of view, the US is part of the problem. So it would be good if both sides, the US and Iran seriously negotiate these matters.

At present, the US has not taken diplomacy with Iran seriously, and Iran has been thumbing its nose at all people who suggest it. Obviously, these attitudes must change if war is to be avoided.

And the eight years before that, and four and another eight years before that. Bush is convenient excuse for everything.
Well, diplomacy from the US and NATO can change things.

Seeing USA and Israel as problems doesnt equal to exclusion and broad sanctions.
It can and should lead to negotiation.

Somehow I doubt that people are going to run out of righteous excuses why to kill innocents from New York to London to Mumbai. If its not bombing of Iran, it will be something else.
Then I'm glad it's not your decision to make.

It would be great if Obama can succeed diplomatically in what EU has failed over the years, but somehow I feel that the Iranians were never really serious. And if it doesnt work, I hope he is ready to prevent Iran from getting nukes by using military power.
On this we differ.

At any rate, the ball is in Obama's court now.
Reply

Suomipoika
02-05-2009, 07:04 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Muezzin
I should have been clearer - the US (not the EU) has excluded Iran from serious diplomatic discourse. From Iran's point of view, the US is part of the problem. So it would be good if both sides, the US and Iran seriously negotiate these matters.

At present, the US has not taken diplomacy with Iran seriously, and Iran has been thumbing its nose at all people who suggest it. Obviously, these attitudes must change if war is to be avoided.
Personally I think the exclusion by USA which causes anger in a nation of millions has very little to do with why Iran wants nuclear weapons but rather that the rest of the world, Russia, many European countries, USA and various Arab nations helped Iraq and their WMD programs during one little war in the 80's and the world hardly cared when Iranians were sprayed with who knows what or when Pakistan got nukes among the first things they did was to flash the nuclear card at Iran when Iran was particularly upset about the killing of some diplomats by Taleban. I dont really believe Israel and USA are the only problems Iran has.

I cant think of anything extraordinary that USA can bring to the negotation table that EU already hasnt, Iran has been offered very favourable trade deals and even the ability to get rid of their nuclear waste by Russia taking care of it.

I think they really want nukes, and part of me cant blame them. At the same time, their statements about Israel and support for terrorism isnt really something I want to see backed by nuclear weapons. I consider the death of possibly millions as quite a gamble, which is why I find it ridiculous when people so eagerly criticise USA over this matter. As far as I know, not even Arab nations are so happy with nuclear armed Iran.
Reply

The_Prince
02-06-2009, 01:26 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Suomipoika
Personally I think the exclusion by USA which causes anger in a nation of millions has very little to do with why Iran wants nuclear weapons but rather that the rest of the world, Russia, many European countries, USA and various Arab nations helped Iraq and their WMD programs during one little war in the 80's and the world hardly cared when Iranians were sprayed with who knows what or when Pakistan got nukes among the first things they did was to flash the nuclear card at Iran when Iran was particularly upset about the killing of some diplomats by Taleban. I dont really believe Israel and USA are the only problems Iran has.

I cant think of anything extraordinary that USA can bring to the negotation table that EU already hasnt, Iran has been offered very favourable trade deals and even the ability to get rid of their nuclear waste by Russia taking care of it.

I think they really want nukes, and part of me cant blame them. At the same time, their statements about Israel and support for terrorism isnt really something I want to see backed by nuclear weapons. I consider the death of possibly millions as quite a gamble, which is why I find it ridiculous when people so eagerly criticise USA over this matter. As far as I know, not even Arab nations are so happy with nuclear armed Iran.
USA goverment isnt concerned about millions of people dying, USA goverment is concerned about its power trip being ended in the mid-east, Iran with nukes means a new big boy in town, and it will lead to Arabs making nukes which means more big boys in town and leaves USA and Israel with less flexibility to use their muscle, as they say money talks, in this case its nukes, nukes talk, nukes mean power and influence, nukes mean you wont get pushed over and will get what you want most times.

also who are you kidding? this is the same goverment that said they will OBLITERATE Iran, which means killing up to 60 million people, so who you trying to kid in saying this American goverment cares about millions of people dying? seriously WHO ARE YOU TRYING TO KID? lol lol the same goverment who threatens to obliterate a country of 60 million is the same goverment that supposedly cares for millions of ppl?

as i said, USA doesnt care about the death count, its all about losing the power grip.
Reply

matt2008
02-10-2009, 09:06 PM
As an american, I don't get anything my government does. I think that it is Iran's right, they have crazy leaders, what country doesn't? I think that if our government worked with Iran and didn't boss them around, they'd be our ally. If our government actually worked with them, they'd quickly find that they are alot like america in many ways; but a more conservative version.

Certainly Iran isn't the country the United States government paints it to be, it's I have friends who spend most of their life there. the biggest difference is the main religion of the countries, so in a sense, the reason the US government won't work with them and wants to prevent their developement has everything to do with what happened in 1979. It's not right.
Reply

Keltoi
02-10-2009, 11:03 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by matt2008
As an american, I don't get anything my government does. I think that it is Iran's right, they have crazy leaders, what country doesn't? I think that if our government worked with Iran and didn't boss them around, they'd be our ally. If our government actually worked with them, they'd quickly find that they are alot like america in many ways; but a more conservative version.

Certainly Iran isn't the country the United States government paints it to be, it's I have friends who spend most of their life there. the biggest difference is the main religion of the countries, so in a sense, the reason the US government won't work with them and wants to prevent their developement has everything to do with what happened in 1979. It's not right.
It's a little more complicated than that. In terms of recent developments, the government of Iran was involved in supplying IED devices to Iraqi insurgent groups. They have made threats against Israel, who actually is an ally of the United States. These issues make it very difficult, if not absurd, to have friendly diplomatic relations at this point.
Reply

Bittersteel
02-10-2009, 11:41 PM
well on topic ,I must say Iran achieved something.well done.period.
and it will be 3 years this coming March since the Israelis said they can do another Osirak on Iran.But you never know what can happen.
Reply

fairandbalanced
02-15-2009, 09:39 PM
Iran is marginalized because of the mullahs not because of some collective paranoia on the part of the US and Western Europe. Their economy is in the toilet despite tremendous oil reserves not because Carter and Reagan and Bush 41 and Clinton and Bush 43 and Obama have been mean to them but because running an economy from a couple of offices in Teheran does not work.


Does anyone here think the gulf Arab states want Iran to have nukes?
Reply

aamirsaab
02-15-2009, 09:46 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by fairandbalanced
...
Does anyone here think the gulf Arab states want Iran to have nukes?
I don't think they actually care. They don't seem to give a monkey's when a fellow muslim country is being attacked (palestine, afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Kosovo etc) and almost never interfere in anyone else's problems (save for hezbollah in the palestinian conflict).

Maybe some of the citizens of those countries do not want Iran to have nukes (as much as say you or I wouldn't want any country having nukes), but as far as governments go, I really don't think they have an opinion on it - more worried about their own back yard.
Reply

fairandbalanced
02-16-2009, 12:03 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab
I don't think they actually care. They don't seem to give a monkey's when a fellow muslim country is being attacked (palestine, afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Kosovo etc) and almost never interfere in anyone else's problems (save for hezbollah in the palestinian conflict).

Maybe some of the citizens of those countries do not want Iran to have nukes (as much as say you or I wouldn't want any country having nukes), but as far as governments go, I really don't think they have an opinion on it - more worried about their own back yard.
I agree...they are worried only about themselves (and their money)..but Iran is just across the Persian Gulf and the same rocket than can lift a payload into space can theoretically carry a weapon across the Persian Gulf.

BTW...this notion advanced by officials in Iran that Iran is investing in rockets to launch communication satellites is absurd. They could pay the French or Russians or the Chinese to do it at a small fraction of the cost. The first satellite was put in orbit over 50 years ago. It is no longer "rocket science" so the national prestige argument doesn't even seem to wash. They want a heavy lift rokcet of their own for one reason and one reason alone.
Reply

IslamicRevival
02-16-2009, 12:24 AM
LONG LIVE IRAN!

I hope Iran acquire Nukes and to hell with anyone who thinks they shouldnt!
Reply

alcurad
02-16-2009, 01:28 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by fairandbalanced
I agree...they are worried only about themselves (and their money)..but Iran is just across the Persian Gulf and the same rocket than can lift a payload into space can theoretically carry a weapon across the Persian Gulf.

BTW...this notion advanced by officials in Iran that Iran is investing in rockets to launch communication satellites is absurd. They could pay the French or Russians or the Chinese to do it at a small fraction of the cost. The first satellite was put in orbit over 50 years ago. It is no longer "rocket science" so the national prestige argument doesn't even seem to wash. They want a heavy lift rokcet of their own for one reason and one reason alone.
something wrong with developing your own tech? however late, they can't guarantee the others will be doing it for them, especially not with the current prevailing attitude.
nuclear weapons aren't as much as they're made out to be, other non-conventional systems such as chemical/biological could 'do the trick' with much less cost involved. it's the delivery systems that matter really, and the only country that possesses nukes in the region is whom?
if Iran develops them, the Gulf countries certainly will too, thus decreasing the importance of nukes even more, and the Iranians aren't demented, contrary to common propaganda, badmouthing Israel is a way to get votes/support, nothing more, the Iranians could care less about the whole issue otherwise.
Reply

fairandbalanced
02-16-2009, 01:50 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Troubled Soul
LONG LIVE IRAN!

I hope Iran acquire Nukes and to hell with anyone who thinks they shouldnt!
Why...how tolerant of you. Maybe they will use one where you live. That would be jolly.
Reply

fairandbalanced
02-16-2009, 01:58 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by alcurad
something wrong with developing your own tech? however late, they can't guarantee the others will be doing it for them, especially not with the current prevailing attitude.
Absolutely correct. They could probably not talk the Russians into launching a warhed into Tel Aviv. :)


nuclear weapons aren't as much as they're made out to be, other non-conventional systems such as chemical/biological could 'do the trick' with much less cost involved. it's the delivery systems that matter really, and the only country that possesses nukes in the region is whom?
Perhaps on the chemicals...but they aren't as macho...which seems to be what Iran is looking for. As for nuke powers in the region there is Israel of course...and Russia which shares a border with Iran....and Turkey is part of NATO even though she has no nukes of her own...and there is the US Navy which has nukes aboard ships in the area....possibly also the Royal Navy. Sounds kind of dangerous to me.

if Iran develops them, the Gulf countries certainly will too, thus decreasing the importance of nukes even more, and the Iranians aren't demented, contrary to common propaganda, badmouthing Israel is a way to get votes/support, nothing more, the Iranians could care less about the whole issue otherwise.
I tend to agree with you in the case of Imadinnerjacket but there seem to be quite a few nutbars in the Revolutionary Guards.
Reply

alcurad
02-16-2009, 01:59 AM
lets hope no one ever does use them, I'm reminded of Hiroshima and Nagasaki though, the murderer who was president back then didn't need to use them either, and it was the leader of the 'free world' too.
I don't think Iran is developing nukes btw, after all Iraq never had the WMD's..if they do develop them though, it won't be too bad for the region-excluding the Israelis of course-, depending on how the Arabs/pakis play it out.
Reply

Pomak
02-16-2009, 02:11 AM
As much as i don't approve of the use of nukes(remember who is the only country to use them?) due to the impossibility to distinguish between combatant and civilians, i would support Iran IF it wanted to acquire them. But i doubt it is, since it would be rather out of character for Iran. Iran chooses its deterrent capabilities with more tact. Although it would be rather, interesting, if it did develop them.
Reply

IslamicRevival
02-16-2009, 06:54 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by fairandbalanced
Why...how tolerant of you. Maybe they will use one where you live. That would be jolly.
How intolerant of you to say such a stupid comment

I support Iran for acquiring Nukes. Why not?

The terrorist nazi israelis have them so why cant iran?
Reply

fairandbalanced
02-17-2009, 04:58 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Troubled Soul
How intolerant of you to say such a stupid comment

I support Iran for acquiring Nukes. Why not?

The terrorist nazi israelis have them so why cant iran?
I am guessing you don't like Jews very much but do you realize how historically ignorant it sounds to be calling Israelis "nazis"?

As to Iran and nukes, Iran is a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. They knew this, of course, so they embarked on a secret enrichment program and lied to the IAEA. They got caught. That doesn't help their credibility. BTW, Israel is not a signatory.

NPT aside, does Iran have a "right" to develop nukes? Sure.

Is it a good idea for them? Perhaps... if they did not get caught until they wer ready. But they did get caught. Now they are paying a price in terms of international isolation..not to mention the risk of an Israeli first strike (conventional).

You seem to view as some kind of "social justice" issue among nations. It doesnt' work that way.
Reply

Amadeus85
02-17-2009, 05:15 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pomak
. Although it would be rather, interesting, if it did develop them.
Yes, country who supports Hesbullah and Hamas, gets nuclear weapon. SO exciting and interesting. :D
Reply

aamirsaab
02-17-2009, 06:13 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Aaron85
Yes, country who supports Hesbullah and Hamas, gets nuclear weapon. SO exciting and interesting. :D
As much as one that supports Israel...

Personally, I'd much rather noone has nukes, but if the US is not willing to disarm, every other country should have that right. Why? the US is currently the only ones to have used them - I'm more afraid of the US using a nuke than Iran or Iraq. If only one country is allowed nukes, that country poses a threat. If all countries have nukes, less threat since noone is going to fire.

It's a balance of power game.

p.s; why does noone build nuclear-protective shields!
Reply

Amadeus85
02-17-2009, 06:23 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab
As much as one that supports Israel...

Personally, I'd much rather noone has nukes, but if the US is not willing to disarm, every other country should have that right. Why? the US is currently the only ones to have used them - I'm more afraid of the US using a nuke than Iran or Iraq. If only one country is allowed nukes, that country poses a threat. If all countries have nukes, less threat since noone is going to fire.

It's a balance of power game.

p.s; why does noone build nuclear-protective shields!
Yes USA did use nuclear bomb once, they dropped it at two Japanese cities, killing hundred of thousands. Sounds cruels. But few people are aware that without the a bomb, if the war with Japan goes on, it would cost even 5 millions of lives (as some history searchers claim).
Have You heard about the dirty bomb? Its a bomb which includes nuclear elements, which can kill thousands of people in a big city. Iranian goverment is in hands of fundamentalistic messianists, and what would stop them before sharing with the nuclear weapon with some fighting radical groups for example like Talebans or Al Queada.
Reply

The_Prince
02-17-2009, 08:08 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Aaron85
Yes USA did use nuclear bomb once, they dropped it at two Japanese cities, killing hundred of thousands. Sounds cruels. But few people are aware that without the a bomb, if the war with Japan goes on, it would cost even 5 millions of lives (as some history searchers claim).
Have You heard about the dirty bomb? Its a bomb which includes nuclear elements, which can kill thousands of people in a big city. Iranian goverment is in hands of fundamentalistic messianists, and what would stop them before sharing with the nuclear weapon with some fighting radical groups for example like Talebans or Al Queada.
okay then, so when Iran nukes Israel its the only way to end the war, :). whats wrong with that? if it was ok to end the war back in the day, then it can be done now, or oh wait i get it, no no, Iran is Muslim so no they have no right to dare attack Israel the supposed holy ******* child of your god right?

as for al-qaeda and taliban, , Iran and the taliban are enemies, it seems you forgot that the taliban killed 12 Iranian diplomats and Iran were on the verge of going to war with them until the international community agreed to work against the taliban. Iran would never give bomb to al-qaeda and the taliban, i mean its not even practical, al-qaeda and the taliban are not even equiped to deal with such weapons, as much as your goverments may say ohhhh al-qaeda is so sophisticaed with underground lab's bla bla.
Reply

Woodrow
02-17-2009, 08:31 PM
Sadly most of the world's nations fail to see the lesson taught by the 50 year idiotic nuclear arms race between the USA and Russia.

Each of us spent more money annually, then what would have been lost if having been defeated by the other.

The trillions of dollars wasted could have been used to help end the reasons for war, but no, it was used to assure threat of war would stay as a way of life.

Only maniacs, madmen or fools would desire for their country to have Nukes and ICBMs.

The egotistical attitude of the world leaders is rediculous, and sadly very dangerous.

Missles and Nukes are harmful to children and all innocent creatures.
Reply

doorster
02-17-2009, 08:32 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by The_Prince
okay then, so when Iran nukes Israel its the only way to end the war, :). whats wrong with that? if it was ok to end the war back in the day, then it can be done now, or oh wait i get it, no no, Iran is Muslim so no they have no right to dare attack Israel the supposed holy ******* child of your god right?

as for al-qaeda and taliban, , Iran and the taliban are enemies, it seems you forgot that the taliban killed 12 Iranian diplomats and Iran were on the verge of going to war with them until the international community agreed to work against the taliban. Iran would never give bomb to al-qaeda and the taliban, i mean its not even practical, al-qaeda and the taliban are not even equiped to deal with such weapons, as much as your goverments may say ohhhh al-qaeda is so sophisticaed with underground lab's bla bla.
Never gonna happen!

do you know what is in common between the Moshiach and 12th shiite Imaam?
do you know what is in common between 12th shiite Imaam and the Muslim version of dajjal the Anti-Christ?
Reply

Pomak
02-17-2009, 09:12 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Aaron85
Yes, country who supports Hesbullah and Hamas, gets nuclear weapon. SO exciting and interesting. :D
Well lets see.
Russia- i am not even going to start with its Human rights record
USA- actually used them
China- the list is longer than even Russia
France- speak to the algerians
Israel- history of ethnic cleansing and wars of aggression

Anyways the thing about nukes is that their only use is for deterrent.(aka MAD)
No one is really going to use them. And giving them to non state actors is... well its not gona happen, if thats what your referring to.
Reply

Amadeus85
02-17-2009, 09:43 PM
I think that its absurd to think that allowing every nation to have an atomic bomb is going to stop the wars and bring peace. The third war would be the last one then.
Reply

Pomak
02-18-2009, 01:05 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Aaron85
I think that its absurd to think that allowing every nation to have an atomic bomb is going to stop the wars and bring peace. The third war would be the last one then.
It stopped Rus and USa from going to a (hot) war for 50 years, so i wouldn't say they got no peace making use.

Anyways It should be noted that Iran actually abandoned its nuke program in 79 because the shia scholars said it was not halal. Perhaps people should meditate a bit on that.
Reply

alcurad
02-18-2009, 03:06 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Aaron85
Yes USA did use nuclear bomb once, they dropped it at two Japanese cities, killing hundred of thousands. Sounds cruels. But few people are aware that without the a bomb, if the war with Japan goes on, it would cost even 5 millions of lives (as some history searchers claim).
that's actually quite wrong, the Japanese had sent messages of surrender, several times through more than one channel, the only condition was the emperor stays emperor, the U.S refused and nuked them instead..
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1459018/posts
Reply

fairandbalanced
02-18-2009, 06:55 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
Sadly most of the world's nations fail to see the lesson taught by the 50 year idiotic nuclear arms race between the USA and Russia.

Each of us spent more money annually, then what would have been lost if having been defeated by the other.

The trillions of dollars wasted could have been used to help end the reasons for war, but no, it was used to assure threat of war would stay as a way of life.

Only maniacs, madmen or fools would desire for their country to have Nukes and ICBMs.

The egotistical attitude of the world leaders is rediculous, and sadly very dangerous.

Missles and Nukes are harmful to children and all innocent creatures.
Many people think that but it is absolutely not true. The US spent much more
on the development and manufacture of the B-29 (the plane that dropped the bomb on Japan) than they spent on the entire Manhattan project. Once the infrastructure was in place and the research done it was realtivley cheap to make nukes. 10 nukes might then have the stopping power of an entire divison of tanks (400-500 tanks and 20,000 men). Nuclear weapons prevented a war between the US and USSR (directly at least).

Aaron is right. 2 nukes dropped on Japan ended the war. An invasion of the Japanese main islands might have killed 1,000,000 +...a good number of them American Marines and soldiers.

The invasion of Okinawa, a realitively small island off Japan and comparatively lightly defended, cost the lives of 12,000 Americans with 50,000 injured, 100,000 Japanese militray personnel killed and >200,000 Okinwan civilians killed, wounded or comitted suicide (1/4 of the civilian population).

As for trusting the US with nukes...they have been an option for 63 years..they have not been used since '45.
Reply

fairandbalanced
02-18-2009, 07:05 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by alcurad
that's actually quite wrong, the Japanese had sent messages of surrender, several times through more than one channel, the only condition was the emperor stays emperor, the U.S refused and nuked them instead..
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1459018/posts
That was absolutely not the only condition. They offered to withdraw to Japan, retain the existing military forces and existing government and sign an armistice. ;D Given the extent of suffering that had gone before the idea was absolutely preposterous. No Allied power was prepared to accept that.


Did you even read the reference you cited? The author you cited refutes the claim you make in the third paragraph and he properly labesl such foolishness "revisionism".

Googling is dangerous, eh?
Reply

Pomak
02-18-2009, 10:38 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by fairandbalanced
That was absolutely not the only condition. They offered to withdraw to Japan, retain the existing military forces and existing government and sign an armistice. ;D Given the extent of suffering that had gone before the idea was absolutely preposterous. No Allied power was prepared to accept that.


Did you even read the reference you cited? The author you cited refutes the claim you make in the third paragraph and he properly labesl such foolishness "revisionism".

Googling is dangerous, eh?
I've studied the actual sources and if the yanks would just allow the monarchy to stay, those things would of been able to be negotiated.

The nukes were only dropped because of USSR, yanks wanted the whole island to themselves and didn't want to share with the rus like in Germany. (aka the cold war started)
Reply

alcurad
02-19-2009, 02:43 AM
revisionism is not 'bad', and I'm not overly concerned about the source disagreeing in the third paragraph, he sort of presented both views, and his disagreements were mostly along the line it was estimated this, estimated that, which is not very good evidence/backing.
Reply

Keltoi
02-19-2009, 01:56 PM
Back to the actual topic, the primary issue for the U.S. and others is the obvious danger of nuclear proliferation by the Iranian regime. We don't worry about France, the U.K., etc proliferating nuclear technology to rogue states. That can't be said for Iran. Their secrecy and denials regarding their program just adds fuel to that fire.
Reply

alcurad
02-19-2009, 10:17 PM
the Israeli secrecy and denial cause much concern to Iran, as do their threats of attacking Iran, it goes both ways, the US couldv'e dealt with this very easily without saber rattling, but I think it's their goal to confront and weaken Iran from day one, which was several decades ago..
the Iranians have much more incentive to develop militias & bio/chemical weapons rather than waste their meager resources-the result of a manily bad economy- on expensive useless pursuits, although it does appear they are only seeking nuclear power plants until now. and they do need to produce it themselves, all the packages offered as compensation if they stop mean zilch in the end, all are meant to tie and constarin the Iranians rather than helping them.
Reply

The_Prince
02-20-2009, 12:15 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
Back to the actual topic, the primary issue for the U.S. and others is the obvious danger of nuclear proliferation by the Iranian regime. We don't worry about France, the U.K., etc proliferating nuclear technology to rogue states. That can't be said for Iran. Their secrecy and denials regarding their program just adds fuel to that fire.
again with this DENIAL thing, that sounds so STUPID. name me ONE country that has ever been OPEN about their nuclear program? seriously why do some ppl say such stupid things , getting nuclear weapons is not something u go advertizing, and thats assuming THEY EVEN HAVE A PROGRAM, LOL LOL u sound like bush now, OHHHH THERES NO EVIDENCE BECAUSE THEIR SECRETSSS THATS WHAT WE EXPECT!

LOL man this is so SAD i must say, there is no proof that Iran is even making nukes, and since theres no proof u have guys like this comming up saying OH ITS BECAUSE THEIR HIDINGGGGGGGG IT!

i for one as an Iranian hope that one day Iran has nukes, and also being half Arab i hope it will send the Arabs into an arms race to get nukes as well, then i can smile and say all my countries have nukes, USA, Arabia, and Iran. muahahahaha.
Reply

Keltoi
02-20-2009, 03:38 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by The_Prince
again with this DENIAL thing, that sounds so STUPID. name me ONE country that has ever been OPEN about their nuclear program? seriously why do some ppl say such stupid things , getting nuclear weapons is not something u go advertizing, and thats assuming THEY EVEN HAVE A PROGRAM, LOL LOL u sound like bush now, OHHHH THERES NO EVIDENCE BECAUSE THEIR SECRETSSS THATS WHAT WE EXPECT!
When you sign a non-proliferation treaty, among others, it is expected that you will be transparent when it comes to nuclear technology. If you simply want nuclear power for civilian purposes it would be very easy to prove that. The process is quite different. Iran has repeatedly stonewalled the IAEA.

format_quote Originally Posted by The_Prince
LOL man this is so SAD i must say, there is no proof that Iran is even making nukes, and since theres no proof u have guys like this comming up saying OH ITS BECAUSE THEIR HIDINGGGGGGGG IT!

i for one as an Iranian hope that one day Iran has nukes, and also being half Arab i hope it will send the Arabs into an arms race to get nukes as well, then i can smile and say all my countries have nukes, USA, Arabia, and Iran. muahahahaha.
Iran should be worrying about why a refrigerator costs 45% more than it did last year.
Reply

Pomak
02-21-2009, 12:36 AM
Iran should be worrying about why a refrigerator costs 45% more than it did last year.
Inflation is in the low 20's (but falling)
Reply

Amadeus85
02-21-2009, 01:10 PM
Seems like the economic crisis has rescued Israel, as the dramatic fall of the oil prizes made it unable for Iran to mobilize Hezbullah in Lebanon in order to attack Israel.
Reply

doorster
02-21-2009, 01:25 PM
^^
friends dont attack their own allies unless absolutely necessary

do you you remember the original hezbollah (the hizbulshaitan)?
sabra/shatila ring any bells?

http://www.islamicboard.com/world-af...ml#post1100084
Reply

Amadeus85
02-21-2009, 01:34 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by doorster
^^
friends dont attack their own allies unless absolutely necessary

do you you remember the original hezbollah (the hizbulshaitan)?
sabra/shatila ring any bells?

http://www.islamicboard.com/world-af...ml#post1100084
From what I know Sabra and Shatila massacres were commited by the lebanon christian militias with the lack of reaction of the standing nearby israeli forces.
Reply

doorster
02-21-2009, 01:49 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Aaron85
From what I know Sabra and Shatila massacres were commited by the lebanon christian militias with the lack of reaction of the standing nearby israeli forces.
I am sorry for trying to take the dis-credit away from your co-religionists for I am far too confused and only Remember (and I am covinced) that all the Sunni Palestinians were killed in Lebanon by the collaboration between Israel, Christians and the Shiites of Syria and Lebanon (I could be suffering from selective amnesia?)!
Reply

Mr. Sandman
02-21-2009, 03:54 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by doorster
I am sorry for trying to take the dis-credit away from your co-religionists for I am far to confused and only Remember all the Sunni Palestinians killed in Lebanon by the collaboration between Israel, Christians and the Shiites of Syria and Lebanon (I could be suffering from selective amnesia?)!
Let us not forget the Damour massacre, in which hundreds of Christians were murdered by Syrian backed Palestinians. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damour_massacre
Reply

doorster
02-21-2009, 03:57 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Herewegoagain
Let us not forget the Damour massacre, in which hundreds of Christians were murdered by Syrian backed Palestinians. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damour_massacre
you made a new account just to tell me something about Syria (a country that I already despise)?

wow! what a clever and brave litttle Christian knight! and on top of that quoting from wiki of all places (where any moron can play historian).
Reply

Mr. Sandman
02-21-2009, 03:59 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by doorster
you made a new account just to tell me something about Syria (a country that I already despise)?

wow! what a clever and brave litttle Christian knight!
I'm not Christian. :) About Syria??? It was about the Damour Massacre.

Good day to you!
Reply

doorster
02-21-2009, 04:06 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Herewegoagain
I'm not Christian. :) About Syria??? It was about the Damour Massacre.
format_quote Originally Posted by Herewegoagain
Damour massacre, in which hundreds of Christians were murdered by Syrian backed ...
Good day to you!
wa iyak

I'm not Christian.
okay, just change that bit with whatever you are
Reply

Mr. Sandman
02-21-2009, 04:10 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by doorster
wa iyak

okay, just change that bit with whatever you are
I still do not understand how you think my post talks about the country of Syria.... The Palestenian fighters are merely Syrian backed...they obtain their weapons/funds from Syria...that is really all.

Good day to you! :)
Reply

Amadeus85
02-21-2009, 05:07 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by doorster
I am sorry for trying to take the dis-credit away from your co-religionists for I am far to confused and only Remember and I am covinced that all the Sunni Palestinians were killed in Lebanon by the collaboration between Israel, Christians and the Shiites of Syria and Lebanon (I could be suffering from selective amnesia?)!
You think Doorster that there is some connection between the shiite Mahdi and jewish Messiah? Might they be the same person according to your knowledge?
Reply

doorster
02-21-2009, 05:14 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Aaron85
You think Doorster that there is some connection between the shiite Mahdi and jewish Messiah? Might they be the same person according to your knowledge?
greetings

it is based more on conjecture than anything else since such knowledge of unseen is only with Allah

anyhow the connection between The Moshiach and the 12th imam/or mahdi is the name of Hazrat David A.S.

I cant explain anymore than that or I will get in trouble for sectarian discussion
Reply

Amadeus85
02-21-2009, 05:26 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by doorster
greetings

it is based more on cojecture than anything else since such knowlege of unseen is only with Allah

anyhow the connection between The Moshiach and the 12th imam/or mahdi is the name of Hazrat David

I cant explain anymore than that or I will get in trouble for sectarian discussion
Greetings, so following Your thinking Iran and Israel should be in good relations since they have similar religious aims (the coming of the awaited one).
Or maybe the relation lays not between the goverments but between some messianistic groups in both of these nations.
Because what we see in tv is that these countries are fierce enemies.
Reply

doorster
02-21-2009, 09:19 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Aaron85
Greetings, so following Your thinking Iran and Israel should be in good relations since they have similar religious aims (the coming of the awaited one).
Or maybe the relation lays not between the goverments but between some messianistic groups in both of these nations.
Because what we see in tv is that these countries are fierce enemies.
:)

I think that you've understood me well. cheers!
Reply

Pomak
02-21-2009, 10:09 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Aaron85
Seems like the economic crisis has rescued Israel, as the dramatic fall of the oil prizes made it unable for Iran to mobilize Hezbullah in Lebanon in order to attack Israel.
Yes yes, continue reading that "elder scrolls of Tehran".
Greetings, so following Your thinking Iran and Israel should be in good relations since they have similar religious aims (the coming of the awaited one).
Isreali leaders(most of them) don't even believe. And the ones who do believe, have a vision of religion that is more similar to Usama.

I am sorry for trying to take the dis-credit away from your co-religionists for I am far too confused and only Remember (and I am covinced) that all the Sunni Palestinians were killed in Lebanon by the collaboration between Israel, Christians and the Shiites of Syria and Lebanon (I could be suffering from selective amnesia?)!
Palestinians during the war were killed by Lebanese, there was no sectarian issue.
Reply

doorster
02-21-2009, 10:21 PM
Palestinians during the war were killed by Lebanese, there was no sectarian issue.
Shiites defended them to the last man, Yeah right! there is not now and was no collusion then between Israel and shiite+christians of both Syria and lebanon, again Yeah right!!

and in shia books there is no mention of David vis a vis mahdi and that this so-called mahdi dude is not gonna kill us to make room for a shiite kingdom nor is he going to bring back to life the first three Muslim khulaifah to punish and torture them, Yeah Right to that too.
Reply

alcurad
02-22-2009, 01:12 AM
religion continues to be abused for politicians' ends, whether here or there.
what is seen on TV is not synonymous with logical, or proven without a doubt..

it's mostly a show, to get votes and support, the ones who do believe though don't have the will/power to take action and later consequence of said action, except for a few pinpricks and limited-ineffective-military adventures there is not going to be any fourth world war.
Reply

doorster
02-22-2009, 08:37 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by alcurad
religion continues to be abused for politicians' ends, whether here or there.
what is seen on TV is not synonymous with logical, or proven without a doubt..

it's mostly a show, to get votes and support, the ones who do believe though don't have the will/power to take action and later consequence of said action, except for a few pinpricks and limited-ineffective-military adventures there is not going to be any fourth world war.
I'm sad,.. I think herewegoagain was a good choice of name for that "new" member! it reminded me about how we used to flare up then be all brotherly again, but here we go again, back to the begining. :(

I've just noticed that I only get your help when I'm posting against the Saudi inspired sects like "w" but when it comes to shiites it is altogether a different kettle of fish. I was so grateful for any little help that I stopped noticing any tell tale signs, Oh, woe be upon me for not thinking, what a moron I am!
Reply

Muezzin
02-23-2009, 03:26 PM
...What was the topic again?
Reply

doorster
02-23-2009, 03:30 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Muezzin
...What was the topic again?
this whole holier than though attitude does not really cover-up the incompetence of most of the staff now does it?

if you had bothered to respond to my complaint that I made via the report button, I would not need to go off-topic now would I?

he tricked me
Reply

Muezzin
02-23-2009, 03:44 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by doorster
whole this holier than though attitude does not really cover-up the incompetence of most of the staff now does it?

if you had bothered to respond to my complaint that I made via the report button, I would not need to go off-topic now would I?
I really have to work on my clarity.

I did not mean to implicate any particular member, it was a general observation.

If you would like to discuss your complaint, the correct place to do so is in Private Messages with the mods concerned.

...We do have lives. I haven't been on this site for the weekend. My apologies.
Reply

doorster
02-23-2009, 03:46 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Muezzin
I really have to work on my clarity.

I did not mean to implicate any particular member, it was a general observation.

If you would like to discuss your complaint, the correct place to do so is in Private Messages with the mods concerned.

...We do have lives. I haven't been on this site for the weekend. My apologies.
jazakAllah khair wasalam
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 02-01-2009, 01:37 PM
  2. Replies: 18
    Last Post: 02-13-2008, 07:42 PM
  3. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 02-08-2008, 09:35 PM
  4. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-25-2007, 02:49 PM
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!