Trade Show Video Features Iranian Tech, Talk of Stuxnet Retaliation 131
dcblogs writes "Iran recently held a security trade show and conference, attended by high-ranking police and military officials. A video by an Iranian news outlet shows some of the products, from crossbows to unidentified systems, and includes an interview with Iran's police chief, Brig. Gen. Esmail Ahmadi-Moqadam: 'It's true that the U.S. made Stuxnet virus did some damage to our facilities but we were able to get them all up and running in no time. However, those who attack should expect retaliation and we haven't gone there just yet.'"
FLiBe (Score:5, Interesting)
Iran would be a great place to showcase Fluoride Lithium Beryllium reactors, which produce crap-tons of power from unenriched fuel, even Thorium, while producing Uranium-232, which is almost impossible to use in nuclear weapons.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
And stake your countries energy on an unproven technology? Sorry, but if you're just getting into the nuclear game you'd want to adopt something that's been around for a while, not something that may be in production in 20 to 30 years.
Re:FLiBe (Score:5, Insightful)
It would if their neighbour who they are currently at war with didn't already have nuclear weapons.
Again and again Israel has shown its willingness to attack Iran and other neighbouring states with conventional weapons. Since they are backed by the US the only realistic defence is mutually assured nuclear annihilation.
North Korea is in the same boat. The US doesn't like them, South Korea has a much better military. At least they have China on their side, but even so a long range nuclear weapon is probably the only way to guarantee that they don't become the next Iraq or Afghanistan when the Republicans eventually get back in.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Again and again Israel has shown its willingness to attack Iran and other neighbouring states with conventional weapons
show me ONE valid quote about israel wanting to 'wipe out' all arabs.
you can't!
but you can easily find holy writings in the quran that talk about 'dirty jews' and how they should be killed if found hiding next to a stone or tree. you can find SO MANY writings and speeches where outright genocide is preached.
please show me one instance of that in the jewish bible or any controlling document
Re:FLiBe (Score:5, Insightful)
show me ONE valid quote about israel wanting to 'wipe out' all arabs.
All arabs? Who said anything about all arabs? Oh, but wait:
"We must expel Arabs and take their places."
-- David Ben Gurion
You asked for only one, but there a literally hundreds by prominent Israelis. Now, for more relevant to the topic at hand, I suggest you google 'Israel threatens Iran'. You'll find plenty, with specific threats and timelines ("within months").
but don't let that stop your jew hatred.
Where did you get 'jew hatred' from the parents comment? Is questioning Israel's foreign policy 'jew hatred'? Would it be racist to question any other countries foreign policy? Why do you hate Persians?
Re: (Score:1)
So one person says something and that represents the country? Name a PM who endorses this?
Until the nuclear program recently you have not. Iran's words and actions state otherwise. They setup puppet governments in Syria and Lebanon and even a rogue army of Hezbollah whose goal is look after the interests of Iran and help plot to destroy Israel. I do not see Israel doing the same things.
Now they want a nuclear weapon and have funded the war with Israel in 2006 and I am sure Hezbollah would love such a weapon
Re: (Score:2)
So one person says something and that represents the country? Name a PM who endorses this?
Uhh... David Ben-Gurion? He was the first PM of Israel, you know...
Re: (Score:2)
You have got to be kidding, Israel has constantly threatened Iran for something we don't know it's real, and based on previous attempts to manipulate public opinion with WMDs, it is more likely that the whole thing is just an excuse for war against a sworn enemy.
Countries have friends and foes. Iran and Israel just happen to hate each other a lot. So just get over it, you can't go on killing everybody you don't like or that says bad things about you. Even if Iran does what Israel is preaching all along, att
Re: (Score:2)
As gp pointed out, you can find constant threats from Israeli and US officials, being made all the time, just spend like 5 seconds on Google. The quite provided was from an Israeli Prime Minister. Why hasn't Israel renounced its policy of Arab destruction???
Additionally, look up MEK, a terrorist group funded and supported by Israel and the US that has been doing things like assassinating Iranian nuclear scientists. Furthermore, who has whom encircled militarily? Oh, that's right, it's the US that has milita
Re: (Score:2)
That is a pretty bad quote. First of all expel and wipe out are two different things, especially in the context it was given, in which the arabs had attacked and holding land the Israelis had.
Re: (Score:2)
All arabs? Who said anything about all arabs? Oh, but wait:
"We must expel Arabs and take their places."
-- David Ben Gurion
You asked for only one, but there a literally hundreds by prominent Israelis.
You should probably start looking for a different quote, that one is fraudulent.
A Chameleon, Nevertheless [americanthinker.com]
. . . But Morris doesn't stop here. Having stigmatized the Zionist founding fathers as quintessential European-type colonialists, he would not discard the other part of this Arab canard, which he has been peddling for decades, namely, that they were also unreconstructed ethnic cleansers "intent on politically, or even physically, dispossessing and supplanting the Arabs."
I have been battling this defamation of Zionism's very essence for quite some time, showing time and again the extraordinary lengths to which Morris would go by way of fabricating Israeli history (see here, here, here, here, and here). I will therefore confine myself to one telling example of his professional misconduct.
In an October 1937 letter to his son David Ben-Gurion said: "We do not wish and do not need to expel Arabs and take their place. All our aspiration is built on the assumption - proven throughout all our activity - that there is enough room in the country for ourselves and the Arabs." In The Birth Morris represents Ben-Gurion as saying precisely the opposite: "We must expel Arabs and take their places."
Tellingly, in his Hebrew language writings, Morris rendered Ben-Gurion's words accurately, perhaps because he knew his readers could check the original for themselves.)
- - -
Now, for more relevant to the topic at hand, I suggest you google 'Israel threatens Iran'. You'll find plenty, with specific threats and timelines ("within months").
Here is an interesting question: Why are there hostilities at all between Iran and Israel? You do know that Iran and Israel had good relations between them into the 1970s, right? You do know that Iran didn't take part in the Arab-Israeli wars and so never fought against Israel in 1948, 1956, 1967, or 1973, right? It was only after Iran underwent the Islamic revolution of 1979 that it declared i
Re: (Score:2)
That's interesting. Wikiquote has a very much opposite quote.
"We do not wish, we do not need to expel the Arabs and take their place. All our aspirations are built upon the assumption — proven throughout all our activity in the Land — that there is enough room in the country for ourselves and the Arabs. "
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/David_Ben-Gurion [wikiquote.org]
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You views tend to run contrary to what the facts and common sense suggest.
It would if their neighbour who they are currently at war with didn't already have nuclear weapons.
Whose fault is it that they are at war? Israel and Iran had good relations into the 70's, until the Islamic revolution. Iran didn't go to war along with the Arab countries in Arab-Israeli Wars [infoplease.com] of 1948. 1956, 1967, 1973, and so on. Iran declared themselves an enemy of Israel after the Islamic revolution of 1979 - it is a matter of religious hatred. Iran wouldn't be threatened if it didn't threaten Israel and train, fund, and equip
Keep nuclear tech out of the hands of the unstable (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't have anything against Iran, but different cultures are different and each needs its own space. Our values clash because we're different, and no amount of hippie kumbayaing is going to wish that away.
However, I don't think the time is right for Iran to have nuclear power. In particular, it is an unstable country with frequent political turnover, missiles and a possible intention to smite its neighbor Israel.
When Iran shows it's stable and mature, maybe it can have nukes. Until that time, I think it's insane to hand this dangerous technology to unstable people.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:1)
Israel has openly and notoriously demanded the US attack Iran for over 20 years, of course Iran should have nukes.
only if you subscribe to this moral equivalence bullshit that says: an islamic theocracy run by a dictator of questionable sanity is fully equal and worthy of teh same respect as a secular democratic government that hasn't threatened to wipe anybody off the map.
maybe you do believe that. me, i can't get my head that far up my ass.
tell you what. if you thnk iran is as good as a modern western representative democracy, the ultimate way to prove it is to go live there. i am sure they will be happy to
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
teh same respect as a secular democratic government that hasn't threatened to wipe anybody off the map.
What 'secular democratic government' are you referring to? There's none I can think of relevant to this conversation, and you'd need to find a hell of a lot more fingers and toes to be able to count the times Israel or the US has threatened a nation or it's government. Hell, they've attacked more in the past 50 years than Iran has done in its entire history.
Iran didn't threaten anyone. It was a fairly mundane statement which amounted to the words 'regime change', and didn't even infer that Iran was going to
Re:Keep nuclear tech out of the hands of the unsta (Score:5, Interesting)
My very point of view as well.
I ran should have the right to 'talk back' to the localized powers that be. When someone refers to Israel as a sane democratic state, the first thing that comes to mind is how Palestinians have been forcefully removed from their homes over the past 70 years. When we talk about Peace talks, Israel has always been the first party to flip the middle finger at negotiations. Then later on return to the UN tables to ask for Peace once more without any intention on following through. Bill Clinton stated it very clearly when he was President, and even recently when the subject matter came back up.
When you have a people who are willing to go ahead and sign their land away only to be equally recognized as such by Jews. Only to be told. "fuck off", we will remove you from the OUR land. Gaza strip anyone? A bit of recent history where Jews have been actively sabotaging all efforts at doing anything fairly.
But I digress, In regards to Iran what other nation is surrounding Iran with ever increasing military assets, and is in a continued war mongering path to enact war on a moments notice if Israel decides to fire first? .USA. The most updated military layout map I saw from CNN was a little over six months ago. American military bases surround Iran, thanks to our involvement in the Middle East. Do we see any military assets of Iran surrounding USA today? Does Iran have assets in foreign countries surrounding America with the active Political threat of attacking USA with WMDs? No and No.
Does Iran have a nutty neighbor who violates just as much of any UN laws that are enforced/sanctioned against Iran? Yes. Does this neighbor actively garner support from its allies to "war with us if we goto war with Iran?", Yes. So I would say Iran has every right to build up its defenses when it has active aggressors who are publicly announcing they will go to war with them.
As for Nuclear power. Why wouldn't we as a world power, allow them access to Nuclear energy when we could provide them access to those resources that wouldn't result in weapons grade materials. Why prevent a country from using cleaner energies, and rely less on foreign resources. Isn't that what the United States has been bitching about for the past 50 years? Getting away from the foreign dependency of resources.
Iran doesn't necessarily have a unstable government. They just happen to have a government that has a higher authority of Clerics who can dictate the rules of how government acts towards its society. The government is strong in Iran. It was able to subdue the rising power of the Green Party, which was attempting to change the way the Iran government was heading. Even the United States wanted to help out in defeating the oppression Iran was having against Green Party supporters. USA couldn't intervene because of our foreign policy towards Iran. If USA were to have helped influence the Green Party in Iran, the Religious Clerics would have used that movement to give themselves more power to oppress. Instead the green part lost the elections, and the Iranian government has held steady to its power. Howe is that an unstable government?
American's used the same excuse when we went back to Iraq to remove Saddam. "Saddam allowed Terrorists to roam his country", when in fact Saddam was a ruthless dictator who would never allow any rebel type group to succeed in Iraq, it could impose a risky behavior of rebellion. Allow a small group of rebels to use your land to fight a foreign country, and you open your country to all sorts of hell in retaliation. Saddam wasn't a dumb person.
What we have here is a nation full of one sided story telling. If I truly wanted to visit Iran as an American, Iran would allow me to visit. If I were to go on a pilgrimage to visit holy cities located within Iran's borders I would be al
Oh if only I had mod points (Score:1)
Go go go!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Israel has openly and notoriously demanded the US attack Iran for over 20 years, of course Iran should have nukes.
only if you subscribe to this moral equivalence bullshit that says: [...].
No, what is trying to tell you is that for 20 years we are told that Iran almost has nukes. One would think that if they really wanted them, they would already have them by now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Yep, it's all have been going on for too long - let them develop the freaking nukes already, that will balance the powers and bring peace to the region. Or anybody really think they will bomb Israel? Nope, they will not, as Israel also have the nukes so it will be MAD (Mutually Assured Desruction). Polititians or religious freaks can proclaim anything to please the crowd, but they will not turn their country into nuclear wasteland, and that is true for the both sides of conflict, as usual. USA-USSR, India-
Re: (Score:2)
Polititians or religious freaks can proclaim anything to please the crowd, but they will not turn their country into nuclear wasteland,
... except when they openly say that the end of the world must be hastened, because that's when the hidden Imam comes back and makes everything fine and dandy.
Re: (Score:2)
therefore either
a) Iran
Re: (Score:2)
if, as the zionists contend, iran just wants to launch a suicidal massacre to kill as many jews as possible, they could have easily built and launched rocket packs which each contained ground up fuel rods, a sort of mother of all dirty bombs. launch 1000 military grade dirty bomb rockets, and 9000 regular rockets at the same time and even the best interceptor system would be so horribly overrun that it wouldn't matter, and even intercepted dirty rockets would be deadly.
There's no such thing as "military grade" dirty bombs. Radioactive material just isn't that dangerous. Israel's nuclear strike would be far deadlier.
having nukes would then force an end to economic sanctions in one of two ways, either they would be ended because they serve no purpose, or once proving the ability to build nukes they could negotiate an end of sanctions in return for inspections and no new construction of nukes
Given the second option, economic sanctions would continue to have a purpose, to get Iran to give up its nuclear weapons. It might also slow everyone else in the region from trying to get them as well. Saudi Arabia and Egypt aren't going to be happy with a nuclear Iran. One wonders if Pakistan and India might beef up their nuclear forces as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe they are not developing nuclear weapons. Yeah, too weird to consider that right?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
First of all, Iran hasn't threatened to wipe anyone off the map, that's based on an intentional mistranslation, and second, consider the context. We're having a discussion about whether the US should basically 'wipe Iran off the map'. And people wonder why Iran wants deterrents.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Keep nuclear tech out of the hands of the unsta (Score:4, Interesting)
Unfortunately, you can't believe the translations of Ahmadinejad's remarks. He says one thing and the published translation is very often a complete lie. On a number of occasions, he said that the Zionist government of Israel should be abolished (regime change) and this was immediately translated as "Israel should be destroyed".
By the way, Ahmadinejad' is kind of a nut case, but he is hardly the supreme dictator of Iran. He has very little real power. They keep electing him because his major talent is pissing off the US and Israel.
Re: (Score:2)
again, mr moron, iran is on record (as are most of the arab neighbors) saying that they would LOVE to have israel brutally taken off the map.
this is NOT a 'translation error' you sick fuck, you!
Re: (Score:2)
Iran is opposed to the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians. Because the Palestinians have more children than the Jews, Israel feels the ne
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Looks like somebody hasn't done their homework before joining the discussion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#.22Wiped_off_the_map.22_controversy
Re: (Score:2)
If you think Ahmadinejad is "batshit crazy" then you are heavily brainwashed, as it's clear that he's very much sane. (or are you talking about the Ayatollah?) In fact, the use of that term "batshit crazy" is not new, and clearly was implanted into your skull at some point.
Re: (Score:1)
Israel has openly and notoriously demanded the US attack Iran for over 20 years, of course Iran should have nukes.
Hear hear!!
The parent poster is a bit shortsighted or selective
in his caution (at best).
Re: (Score:2)
I find it hilarious that you equate nuclear weapons to be a technology only for the sane and logical, when it would clearly take an act of insanity for anyone in any country at any time to actually use one.
Fucking. Dumbest. Argument. Ever.
Do you really think it'd be better to have crazy people using nukes frequently rather than sane people in a tense but peaceful standoff with nukes? I fail to see the dumbness of the argument.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't have a tense standoff with nuclear weapons unless at least one party believes another party will use them. So, to have tense standoff, at least one side has to be crazy or reasonably believable as crazy.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't have a tense standoff with nuclear weapons unless at least one party believes another party will use them. So, to have tense standoff, at least one side has to be crazy or reasonably believable as crazy.
You are being a bit harsh on the US and the USSR now, aren't you?
To have a tense standoff, you just need to believe that either a) you can win a nuclear war by surprise attack or b) the opponent believes he can win a nuclear war by surprise attack. That can be entirely rational. The number of weapons available to the US and the USSR at the end of the Cold War made both a) and b) quite far fetched, but earlier it was much more realistic.
Iran cannot possibly believe a), and it is unlikely that they will belie
Re: (Score:2)
To have a tense standoff, you just need to believe that either a) you can win a nuclear war by surprise attack or b) the opponent believes he can win a nuclear war by surprise attack. That can be entirely rational.
Thinking that you can go ahead with a nuclear war and win it is genocidal thinking. It's beyond psychotic. I stand by my assertion that to have a tense standoff with nuclear weapons, at least one side needs to be crazy or reasonably believable as crazy.
Re: (Score:2)
Thinking that you can go ahead with a nuclear war and win it is genocidal thinking. It's beyond psychotic.
The US went ahead with nuclear war and won it, against Japan. That was not beyond psychotic. You just need to attack someone with sufficiently few weapons, preferably zero, or be very sure that you can stop any counterattack.
Which side is it you're saying was reasonably believable as crazy during the Cold War?
Re: (Score:2)
The US went ahead with nuclear war and won it, against Japan. That was not beyond psychotic.
Considering that they were attacking civilians (although I'm sure you have a justification since there were factories in those cities, which somehow makes everyone and their mother a combatant) , it kind of was. When you consider further that it looks like the main reason the US did it was to essentially call "first dibs" on Japan and stop the Soviets from invading, it doesn't look much better.
Which side is it you're saying was reasonably believable as crazy during the Cold War?
Both of them. Clearly each side believed that the other would be willing to murder their entire citizenry. If both
Re: (Score:2)
Considering that they were attacking civilians (although I'm sure you have a justification since there were factories in those cities, which somehow makes everyone and their mother a combatant) , it kind of was. When you consider further that it looks like the main reason the US did it was to essentially call "first dibs" on Japan and stop the Soviets from invading, it doesn't look much better.
I do not have a justification for the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Calling them the acts of madmen is just wrong. You can call them evil if you prefer, but you cannot call them irrational, and certainly not mad. They were not even all that heinous by WW2 standards, compare with e.g. Dresden or Tokyo.
Both of them. Clearly each side believed that the other would be willing to murder their entire citizenry. If both sides truly believe that the other will never use their nuclear weapons unless attacked with nuclear weapons first, you can't have a tense standoff.
You are still suffering from the mistaken belief that all nuclear wars end with everyone dead. We have had one so far, it killed somewhere in the region of 200,000 people.
Re: (Score:2)
I do not have a justification for the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Calling them the acts of madmen is just wrong. You can call them evil if you prefer, but you cannot call them irrational, and certainly not mad.
Evil or crazy, no difference. For the purposes of this discussion, evil is a form of functional insanity. Evil enough to kill the civilians of another country is evil enough to subject the citizens of your own country to retaliation and write it off.
You are still suffering from the mistaken belief that all nuclear wars end with everyone dead. We have had one so far, it killed somewhere in the region of 200,000 people.
I've never suffered from that belief. I'm fully aware that a nuclear war wouldn't kill everyone, but the sheer volume of death would be pretty massive. I said that both sides thought that the other would be willing to kill their entire citizenry, not that they n
Re: (Score:2)
For the purposes of this discussion, evil is a form of functional insanity.
Right, THAT is where the real disagreement lies. You do not believe that evil can be rational and sane, and I believe it can be.
Re: (Score:2)
I do actually believe that evil can be rational and sane, although still, you know... evil! I said that it was functionally insane, meaning that it's not technically insane, but for all intents and purposes behaves the same way.
Re:Keep nuclear tech out of the hands of the unsta (Score:4, Interesting)
The problem is that the ones with nuclear power get to decide who's stable and mature. And that is nobody but them. And if they are becoming stable and mature, they just stirr things up a little to keep them on a leash. That's modern latin american history.
I live in Argentina. We had nuclear development, weapons factories, aircraft design... all of that was decimated by the US starting in the 60s under the excuse of "communism". One of our generals had to go and explain himself to the US congress (remember that the US doesn't recognize foreign sovereignity), about why Argentina was developing a long range missile.
Today Argentina is a mess, economically and socially. But it wasn't like that before US interventionism in latin america.
Re: (Score:1)
Until that time, I think it's insane to hand this dangerous technology to unstable people.
You miss the real problem, which is the fact that the technology doesn't need to be handed to anyone. The higher the scientific and technological capabilities of a country gets, the easier it becomes for them to build nuclear weapons. It's true that right now much of the tech for enrichment of nuclear material and the building of nuclear warheads needs to come from outside, but in the long run these proliferation issue will become more and more insignificant.
People still think about nuclear bombs in the con
Re: (Score:2)
For a supposedly unstable culture, Iran hasn't declared war on anyone for several hundred years. Iraq, with our encouragement, declared war on them. Israel, on the other hand has been threatening war against Iran continuously and since Israel does have nuclear weapons, they seem to be a lot more of a threat to world peace than Iran.
For all of that, leaving Iran alone might be a "solution", but we have been taking actions like Stuxnet and economic sanctions which amount to a declaration of war by the United
Re: (Score:2)
your calendar is off; today is NOT backwards-day!
israel threatens iran. yeah, that's a pretty level-headed assessment of the world situation.
maybe I was just trolled. no one can be this stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
israel threatens iran. yeah, that's a pretty level-headed assessment of the world situation.
Think about it for a while. You will find that the likelihood of an Israeli strike on Iran is actually quite high. It has several times been talked about as a near-certainty in fact, but so far it has not happened.
On the other hand, Iran can dream of attacking Israel all it wants, but it will never work. Just look at the geography. Yes, they could in theory lob a missile or two at Israel, but the likelihood is that the missile defence systems will knock them down (unless the Israeli forget to do their firmw
Re: (Score:3)
The state of Iran has not declared war because they fund, arm, and support 3rd party proxies to project their power around the world. The controversy over Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon is not really about whether the state of Iran would actually use them. I don't believe any nuclear capable state would use their nuclear arsenal except as a last resort of defense. The risk is Iran providing a nuclear weapon to one of it's 3rd party proxies. If a 3rd party non-state actor was to obtain and actually use a
Re:Keep nuclear tech out of the hands of the unsta (Score:4, Insightful)
In particular, it is an unstable country with frequent political turnover, missiles and a possible intention to smite its neighbor Israel.
The US changes government every four years, and the validity of the vote is sometimes questionable. It has missiles and every now and then starts wars with weaker nations based on outright lies and deception, apparently for its own economic benefit. Israel has nuclear power and is hardly a model of peace and stability either.
Unfortunately the situation is now FUBAR and any hope of working with Iran to find an alternative is long gone. The fact that Israel has nukes really does not help, and even if Iran doesn't develop its own it needs the capability to build them quickly to deter attack.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If we did regime change at every country which thumbed its nose at the UN, US governments would change monthly.
Re: (Score:2)
However, I don't think the time is right for Iran to have nuclear power.
How odd. I don't think it's the right time for the USA to have nuclear power. We seem to use it as a blank check.
When Iran shows it's stable and mature, maybe it can have nukes
And when the USA shows it's stable and mature, it can be permitted to act as the world's police force. As it is, the USA is acting just like the police treat the people of the USA... very badly.
Re: (Score:2)
Iran's government is more stable than the US's or Israel's who replace their leaders more frequently than Iran does, Iran's missiles are weaker and fewer in number than either the US or Israel's, and US/Israel have far worse reputations for actually smiting their neighbors, particularly those in Iran's neighborhood.
Seriously, everything about your statement is backwards and wrong.
propaganda for black ops and terrorists (Score:5, Interesting)
Sure, mod me down as a flame bait if you can't bother to look at the arguments. This is nothing more than propaganda and not news.
Without serious information on what they would in fact do as a retaliation, I think we should regard this as cultural bluff and not an actual threat to western society. The only one that benefits from hyping things like this, are press agencies and people that work in the black ops part of government and defence contractors.
Terrorism has killed less people than traffic accidents, common flu and if you take a long time average over the last 100 years, I think even lightning strikes may come close to causing the same amount of deaths. However, the amount of draconian measurements taken and money spent on "fighting terrorism" is way bigger than for any of these. Given the fact that no objective measurable proof exists or is published, the best way to deal with terrorists is to not give in to them and keep on living your life the way you want to. That means not paying attention to them, or changing your habits. If you do that, they get what they want and they will have won.
Re:propaganda for black ops and terrorists (Score:5, Insightful)
This story /is/ significant. The war between Iran and the US/Israel is escalating. Just like the US talks of retaliation against cyber attack so is Iran. Presumably anyone who thought it was okay for the US to say that also thinks that Iran is now well within its rights to strike back, causing material damage to US companies and infrastructure. As the US also said a limited military strike would also be considered a proportional response.
Terrorism has killed less people than traffic accidents,
What does this have to do with terrorism? This is a war between nation states.
Why does the US support Israel, at all? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why does the US support Israel, at all? Israel has violated numerous UN rules since it was created, by the UN...
Why does the US keep supporting Israels bad behavior?
The Iranians hasn't attacked any other nation for centuries like Israel repeatedly has for the last four decades.
The current regime of Iran is a piece of fermented dogshit, but still, so is the Israeli.
Two religious evils don't make one good.
Re: (Score:1)
Correction.
Israel is a sovereign nation recognized by the UN in 1949 as such. It is not illegal for Israel to exist, contrary to what the Arabs will tell you.
What nation is Hezbollah a member of? Iran. What nation funds indirect wars with Israel from Lebanon and Syrian puppet governments? Iran. Who tried to assassinate the ambassador of Sauda Arabia. Iran. Who goes and bombs innocent Israeli tourists in Bulgaria? Iran.
The list goes on ...
Israel has a right to defend itself against a nation who has tried sin
Re:Why does the US support Israel, at all? (Score:4, Insightful)
When it comes to setting bombs off killing civilians, Israel is doing rather better than Iran.
Re: (Score:3)
"It is not illegal for Israel to exist"
I support and defend Israel's right to exist!!!
"What nation is Hezbollah a member of? Iran."
Member? Hezbollah probably still is financed from Iran or at least used to be. That doesn't make them any better. Shit is shit from wherever it comes. I do not support Hezbollah, while I do support the Palestinians' right to a nation; yes, this is getting complex. Still, Iran is not Arabic, which doesn't make anything easier ... as you know.
"Who tried to assassinate the ambassa
Re: (Score:3)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Israel [wikipedia.org]
"Religion in Israel is a central feature of the country and plays a major role in shaping Israeli culture and lifestyle, and religion has played a central role in Israel's history. [...] Israel was founded to provide a national home, safe from persecution, to the Jewish people. Although Israeli law explicitly grants equal civil rights to all citizens regardless of religion, ethnicity, or other heritage, it gives preferential treatment in certain aspects to indi
Re: (Score:2)
Israel is like the puny nothing who acts all big and tough knowing their retarded big brother (the US) will be there to back them up.
Tell that to Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and Iraq. (Yom Kippur War, 6-day war, etc.) Israel's lack of military action is as much the US's doing as those wars were when China, the Soviet Union, and Saudi Arabia were backing Egypt/Syria/Jordan/Iraq and the US was backing Israel.
Israel is a state created by the vaunted United Nations after WW2. So is Syria, Jordan, and most of what we know the "Middle East" to be today. So, in effect, the entire fucking region is rogue.
Re: (Score:2)
So, in effect, the entire fucking region is rogue.
That is one of the large problems, yes. The same thing happened in Africa, national borders drawn with no regard to what the people living there believed.
In Europe it has taken centuries to get a reasonable agreement between actual borders and people's beliefs about where they should be. There are still quite a few latent conflicts. It will likely take centuries for the Middle East and Africa to get things sorted out after the mess the last couple of centuries made of nations there.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't believe you can find land, kill the people there, demolish it, ship in new people, distract them with tvs and phones and 'suburban life', put up a wall of propaganda, and thrive without having a definite plan in mind; a similar plan that has happened all over the world and *is* happening today.
Assuming you are talking about Israel, you are talking as if Israel is a special case, different from everywhere else. The thing that is unusual about Israel is just the timing, the colonization was otherwise pretty much done, and de-colonization started soon after. It isn't like Israel is the only place in the world which was colonized or instituted some kind of racial segregation.
Was South Africa a part of that plan too, then? Hasn't it failed a bit, if so?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Also, since IP isn't an accurate identifier, there is no certainty that Stuxnet was made by the US, even if "unnamed officials" like to take credit for it. If we were to follow the logic of some popular voices on Slashdot, we should assume firstly the possibility that it was a false flag operation.
*because it seems like "false flag" is a popular /. utterance for every hacking accusation the US throws out, but never for accusations thrown at the US. Just do a Ctrl+F for the evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd like to agree with you too, but one can never be certain when false flags are everywhere and conspiracies abound. Or is it rationality here, but paranoia everywhere else...
Re:Let's just day (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, you do what Iran is doing - develop a bigger gun. If I lived next door to an armed crazy person (like, oh maybe Israel) I know I'd want to be able to defend myself.
Re: (Score:1)
When did Israel threaten Iran? Until they 5 years ago. NEVER.
THe analogy is more like a neighbor who has an elaborate plot to blow your house up, fund neighborhood kids to trash it and cause you trouble, believes God is destined for him to destroy your home and give it to your neighbors.
Oh and now they want to defend themselves before they get nuked and then cry uncle and how they are the victim of such a mean cruel neighbor.
Tattoos (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
What does the holocaust, which happened in Europe and was enabled by rampant anti-semitism across Europe at the time, have to do with Iran? And what anti-semitic rhetoric are they spewing? Or do you equate opposition to Zionism with anti-Semitism?
By your logic, Iran should take very seriously the threats by Israel because of the Guangzhou massacre. Perhaps they should also be given nuclear weapons, lest it happen again.
This is the problem which has allowed Israel to become a pariah state - the cries and par
Re: (Score:2)
Except that this time the Jews have their own country, military, nukes, and backing of the USA. Meanwhile Iran, with the exception of Israel, has the largest Jewish population in the Middle East.
Let's be honest here, the tensions between Iran and Israel have very little to do with Iran hating the Jews, Iran is not going to start a war with Israel unless forced to because they have very little chance of winning (with Israel having nukes and a rather overpowered ally), and even if Iran had nukes they would on
Re: (Score:2)
System Progressive Protection sahte virüs pro (Score:1)
System Progressive Protection (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
You see the world like that because your head is stuck up your ass.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
> > It's fool-proof. There is no question God is just. No worries.
> anybody notice all the world's problems are caused by brown people?
God _is_ still just.
Stop trolling ... Satan!