Iran tests missiles

[Aimster]

Who cares what some media outlet released.
There are videos of Iranian missile launches that clearly demonstrate mass missile systems being launched at the same time.

Also these missiles don't mean squat.
The real threat is the 1,000,000 (maybe hundreds of thousands) of small rockets missiles Iran has pointed at the Green Zone, oil refineries, U.S bases in Afghanistan and Turkey. Also the ones pointed at the Persian Gulf.

Worst case scenario 1,000 SCUDS land in Israel. Israel survives and nobody gives .02.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Its somewhat more of a shot across Israel's bow than anything else. In theory, Israel could use its superior planes and jamming technologies to bomb Iran with almost total impunity. But if Israel pulled that stunt, it would somewhat justify Iran using its long range missiles against Israel. And even if somewhat illegal it would justify the use of chemical weapons directed at Israeli population centers. Israel has somewhat of a missile defense shield, but I doubt it would be effective.

HAHAHAAH yea right. you seem to forget Israel has nukes.

During Desert storm Israel was fully prepared to Nuke Baghdad if Saddam launched chems at them.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: fallenangel99

Originally posted by: jonks
FAKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.c...too-many/index.html?hp

They shopped in an extra missile! HAHAHAHA

haha.. wow!

Here is the real version.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: fallenangel99

Originally posted by: jonks
FAKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.c...too-many/index.html?hp

They shopped in an extra missile! HAHAHAHA

haha.. wow!

Here is the real version.

Shens, Jesus isn't on either of those reptilian looking horse things.

 

[Sinsear]

Originally posted by: Aimster


Worst case scenario 1,000 SCUDS land in Israel. Israel survives and nobody gives .02.

Best case scenario: Iran = parking lot

 

[mxyzptlk]

Originally posted by: Sinsear

Originally posted by: Aimster


Worst case scenario 1,000 SCUDS land in Israel. Israel survives and nobody gives .02.

Best case scenario: Iran = parking lot

This parking lot you're talking about contains about 70,000,000 living breathing individuals, just like you and I. Well, no I'd be willing to assume that most of them aren't as evil as you. What you're advocating as "best case scenario" is fucking genocide.

What the fuck is wrong with you?

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: mxyzptlk

Originally posted by: Sinsear

Originally posted by: Aimster


Worst case scenario 1,000 SCUDS land in Israel. Israel survives and nobody gives .02.

Best case scenario: Iran = parking lot

This parking lot you're talking about contains about 70,000,000 living breathing individuals, just like you and I. Well, no I'd be willing to assume that most of them aren't as evil as you. What you're advocating as "best case scenario" is fucking genocide.

What the fuck is wrong with you?

While I agree nuking 70 million civilians is not a morally righteous cause of action, if the government of that 70 million planned a chemical weapons strike on the civilian population of a nuclear power, it would be up to that 70 million to disarm their government so that a retalitory strike would not be forthcoming. While every human life has value, it is the job of each government to safeguard its OWN citizens first.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: mxyzptlk

Originally posted by: Sinsear

Originally posted by: Aimster


Worst case scenario 1,000 SCUDS land in Israel. Israel survives and nobody gives .02.

Best case scenario: Iran = parking lot

This parking lot you're talking about contains about 70,000,000 living breathing individuals, just like you and I. Well, no I'd be willing to assume that most of them aren't as evil as you. What you're advocating as "best case scenario" is fucking genocide.

What the fuck is wrong with you?

That's not true. Most of them are muslims.

 

[mxyzptlk]

Originally posted by: Nebor

That's not true. Most of them are muslims.

<this space intentionally left blank because there is no valid response to such an inane comment>

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: mxyzptlk

Originally posted by: Nebor

That's not true. Most of them are muslims.

<this space intentionally left blank because there is no valid response to such an inane comment>

<THis space intentionally left blank because I poured the contents of my head into this reply.>

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: Sinsear

Originally posted by: Aimster


Worst case scenario 1,000 SCUDS land in Israel. Israel survives and nobody gives .02.

Best case scenario: Iran = parking lot

So you're a fanatical wacko.

I could easily say the leaders of Iran are more sane than you. You must feel special

 

[manowar821]

Hahaha more fabricated stories...

Come on, I wanna see a false-flag attack. Maybe that will make us choke down the bullshit again. /sarcasm

 

[cliftonite]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: mxyzptlk

Originally posted by: Sinsear

Originally posted by: Aimster


Worst case scenario 1,000 SCUDS land in Israel. Israel survives and nobody gives .02.

Best case scenario: Iran = parking lot

This parking lot you're talking about contains about 70,000,000 living breathing individuals, just like you and I. Well, no I'd be willing to assume that most of them aren't as evil as you. What you're advocating as "best case scenario" is fucking genocide.

What the fuck is wrong with you?

That's not true. Most of them are muslims.

Id bet 99.9% of them are better people than you.

 

[ericlp]

The sad part is ... The ones that started all this is Stupid Israel showing off it's new weapons and hardware just given to them fresh from America. Who allowed them to do this? We did, Why?

I really think because Oil was on it's way down! Bush and Co haven't yet made enough profits so they do this, now watch oil SPIKE out of control tomorrow! WhoooHo!


Mission Accomplished!

Los Angeles, Calif.: I find it hypocritical to condemn Iran's missile tests while supporting Israel's aerial war games in the Mediterranean. I find it hypocritical to condemn Iran's bellicose language, while echoing Israel's equally bellicose language. I find it hypocritical to criticize IAEA-member Iran's uranium enrichment program, while supporting in arms and cash and moral standing the country that introduced nuclear weapons to the Middle East and refuses to join the IAEA.

Am I the only one?

Jon Wolfsthal: There are a lot of people who are concerns that Iran is being singled out and that Israel's action are not viewed in the same light. From my perspective, each case has to be dealt with on its own merits. In the case of Iran, it has signed onto the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and promised to put all nuclear activities under inspection. It has now been determined that for over 20 years, Iran lied about its activities and violated its obligations to put activities under inspection. Therefore, in the case of Iran, there is reason to be concerned.

Personally, I don't think that Israel's war games were helpful just as I don't think the missile test by Iran will help lead to a peaceful resolution of the current crisis.

Here is the story, there are a lot of good points in it, not just some fox news scare media Bull Shit.

read the rest for your self...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...9/DI2008070901362.html

 

[Socio]

Originally posted by: ScottMac
Swell.

Do you suppose their missiles can dodge a Patriot missile?

I hope not because according to this they also tested one that can devastate US and can be secretly launched from international waters off the U.S. coast;

Death To America?

Among the missiles Iran said it tested this week was a new version of the Shahab-3, one with a range of 1,250 miles and armed with a one-ton conventional warhead.

Mohammed ElBaradei, the Inspector Clouseau of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), recently said Iran could have a nuclear warhead for the Shahab within six months.

In late May, the IAEA reported that Iran was working on a new missile warhead, known as Project 111, for the Shahab. According to documents in the IAEA's possession, Iran has redesigned the current "Shahab-3 missile re-entry vehicle to accommodate a nuclear warhead."

On Thursday, while these missile tests were under way, William Graham, President Reagan's top science adviser and the chairman of the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP), established by unanimous consent of the House and Senate, updated Congress on the direct threat to the U.S. posed by these missile launches.

As he did in 2005, Graham warned the House Armed Services Committee that Iran was developing nuclear weapons and delivery systems targeted at Israel, plus a sophisticated variant that could deal a knockout blow to the U.S. and its high-tech military industrial complex. He reported the mullahs had conducted successful tests to see if the Shahab-3 could be detonated by remote control at high altitude before it striking any ground target.

Such a high-altitude nuclear blast would release an EMP capable of frying everything below from computer and communications infrastructure to power grids and everything that has a chip or a circuit board.

Launched from an innocent-looking freighter in international waters off the U.S. coast, the modified Shahab-3, even your off-the-shelf SCUD, need not have to hit anything. It would only need to get its warhead high enough over the continental U.S. One such blast would be enough to send America technologically back to the 19th century.

It puts all of Ahmadinejad threats in to perspective, this shows exactly what they are planning , how they are going to destroy Israel without blowing them off the face of the earth and how they are going to destroy America, Ahmadinejad revealed all and everyone wrote him off as a loon. I guess he is no loon.

 

[woodie1]

I guess now that the Iraq war is under control it is time to move west.

Sure was looking forward to having the troops come home. <sigh>

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: woodie1
I guess now that the Iraq war is under control it is time to move west.

Sure was looking forward to having the troops come home. <sigh>

We'll have to start calling you Wrong Way Woodie.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
And even if somewhat illegal it would justify the use of chemical weapons directed at Israeli population centers.

That's funny... I didn't know that there was anything that would "justify" the use of chemical weapons... silly me.

wow...

 

[Jhhnn]

Socio's linked article is so loaded with distortions and misinformation that it's hard to figure out where to begin.

First off, Baradei's remarks are horribly distorted. what he said was that the Iranians could process enough weapons grade U235 for a single weapon in 6 months to a year, if they reconfigured and dedicated their centifuges to the task. The scenario assumes no inspections whatsoever. An actual weapon would take considerably longer, and would require knowledge, means, and materials that the Iranians may or may not actually possess...

WRT the IAEA and the supposedly redesigned shahab-3, that's an allegation of the US based on the so-called "laptop dossier" furnished to the IAEA by the US govt. The IAEA didn't make the claims, but is rather investigating them- big difference.

http://www.scholarsandrogues.c...p-of-mass-destruction/

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11...oref=slogin&oref=login

As for the whole bit about EMP, the article exaggerates the capabilities of the Shahab-3 missile most egregiously in claiming that one could be used as described- it doesn't have the range to put a device high enough over the continental US to achieve the desired results- with even the effectiveness of such an attack being exaggerated in the extreme.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_pulse

The article is intended to inflame rather than to inform, and lacks the most basic efforts at fact checking... it's crap.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Its somewhat more of a shot across Israel's bow than anything else. In theory, Israel could use its superior planes and jamming technologies to bomb Iran with almost total impunity. But if Israel pulled that stunt, it would somewhat justify Iran using its long range missiles against Israel. And even if somewhat illegal it would justify the use of chemical weapons directed at Israeli population centers. Israel has somewhat of a missile defense shield, but I doubt it would be effective.

Wow, please don't ever say another word about our "illegal" war in Iraq, "innocent" Iraqi "civilians" caught in the crossfire, etc...

1. Using chemical weapons on civilian targets is a little more than "somewhat" illegal.

2. There is no justification for using chemical weapons on civilian targets, sicko.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Socio

Originally posted by: ScottMac
Swell.

Do you suppose their missiles can dodge a Patriot missile?

I hope not because according to this they also tested one that can devastate US and can be secretly launched from international waters off the U.S. coast;

Death To America?

Among the missiles Iran said it tested this week was a new version of the Shahab-3, one with a range of 1,250 miles and armed with a one-ton conventional warhead.

Mohammed ElBaradei, the Inspector Clouseau of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), recently said Iran could have a nuclear warhead for the Shahab within six months.

In late May, the IAEA reported that Iran was working on a new missile warhead, known as Project 111, for the Shahab. According to documents in the IAEA's possession, Iran has redesigned the current "Shahab-3 missile re-entry vehicle to accommodate a nuclear warhead."

On Thursday, while these missile tests were under way, William Graham, President Reagan's top science adviser and the chairman of the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP), established by unanimous consent of the House and Senate, updated Congress on the direct threat to the U.S. posed by these missile launches.

As he did in 2005, Graham warned the House Armed Services Committee that Iran was developing nuclear weapons and delivery systems targeted at Israel, plus a sophisticated variant that could deal a knockout blow to the U.S. and its high-tech military industrial complex. He reported the mullahs had conducted successful tests to see if the Shahab-3 could be detonated by remote control at high altitude before it striking any ground target.

Such a high-altitude nuclear blast would release an EMP capable of frying everything below from computer and communications infrastructure to power grids and everything that has a chip or a circuit board.

Launched from an innocent-looking freighter in international waters off the U.S. coast, the modified Shahab-3, even your off-the-shelf SCUD, need not have to hit anything. It would only need to get its warhead high enough over the continental U.S. One such blast would be enough to send America technologically back to the 19th century.

It puts all of Ahmadinejad threats in to perspective, this shows exactly what they are planning , how they are going to destroy Israel without blowing them off the face of the earth and how they are going to destroy America, Ahmadinejad revealed all and everyone wrote him off as a loon. I guess he is no loon.

Nothing like baseless fearmongering as a substitute for real information :roll:.

 

[Lemon law]

Do not rule it out palehorse, but remember that it would only follow what amounts a totally illegitimate and initial Israeli strike.

 

[Toonces]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: Lemon law
And even if somewhat illegal it would justify the use of chemical weapons directed at Israeli population centers.

That's funny... I didn't know that there was anything that would "justify" the use of chemical weapons... silly me.

wow...

Like invading the Japanese Home Islands justified the use of nuclear weapons in WW2?

Originally posted by: JD50
1. Using nuclear weapons on civilian targets is a little more than "somewhat" illegal.

2. There is no justification for using nuclear weapons on civilian targets, sicko.

Of course, except against Japan, right?

 

[Aimster]

so why did the U.S remove sanctions on Iraq so they could acquire more chemical samples to make more weapons and then sign off on helicopters for "crop dusting"?

Sounds like the U.S justified the use of chemical weapons on Iranians.

 

[woodie1]

Originally posted by: toonces

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: Lemon law
And even if somewhat illegal it would justify the use of chemical weapons directed at Israeli population centers.

That's funny... I didn't know that there was anything that would "justify" the use of chemical weapons... silly me.

wow...

Like invading the Japanese Home Islands justified the use of nuclear weapons in WW2?

Originally posted by: JD50
1. Using nuclear weapons on civilian targets is a little more than "somewhat" illegal.

2. There is no justification for using nuclear weapons on civilian targets, sicko.

Of course, except against Japan, right?

I seem to recall Japan attacked Pearl Harbor without provocation. They started it, we finished it.