This Don't Look Good

[Loader 3009]

Iran says will retaliate if nuclear plants hit
08 Nov 2004 14:01:02 GMT

Source: Reuters
 
By Amir Paivar

TEHRAN, Nov 8 (Reuters) - Iran threatened on Monday to strike back at Israel or any other country that attacked its nuclear facilities.

U.S. and Israeli officials accuse Iran of seeking to develop atomic bombs under cover of a civilian nuclear programme. Iran denies the charges saying it only intends to produce electricity from nuclear power plants.

"If Israel or any other country attacks any site in Iran, we know no limits to threaten their interests," Deputy Revolutionary Guards Commander Mohammad-Baqer Zolqadr said.

"That means anywhere in the world, within their borders or outside it," he told reporters on Monday on the sidelines of an anti-U.S. conference in Tehran.

Israeli warplanes successfully destroyed the Osirak nuclear reactor in Iraq in 1981. Iran has stationed anti-aircraft batteries around its nuclear plants and built many of its facilities underground.

Iranian officials have also warned they can strike back at Israel with its medium-range Shahab-3 missile, which can also hit U.S. military bases in the Gulf.

Zolqadr denied Iran was developing nuclear weapons, saying the Islamic state preferred to rely on a volunteer militia force, which he said numbered 10 million, to defend the country.

Earlier the commander addressed high-school students at a conference entitled "The World Without America".

"The world without America is a world without oppression, without terror, without invasion, without massacre," he said in a speech that catalogued U.S. "crimes" ranging from the massacre of native Americans to the atom bomb on Hiroshima.

A video clip played for the audience showed gruesome pictures of injured children lying in hospital beds in Iraq, which U.S.-led forces invaded last year.

Zolqadr said an Iraq-style invasion of Iran was out of the question thanks to Iran's growing military might.

"We have assessed the American armed forces in the wars of Iraq and Afghanistan ... they are not unknown or mystical to us any more," he told reporters after his speech.

Iranian and EU officials said on Sunday a deal had been struck between Iran, Britain, Germany and France after two days of talks in Paris that could see Tehran avert U.N. Security Council sanctions over its disputed nuclear programme.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L08175848.htm

[Jack Crevalle]

Iranian and EU officials said on Sunday a deal had been struck between Iran, Britain, Germany and France after two days of talks in Paris that could see Tehran avert U.N. Security Council sanctions over its disputed nuclear programme.

Gee, I wonder who's seeling them this technology in the first place? Who could it be?

Fortunately Israel doesn't need John Kerry-style permission to do the right thing as they did against a similar program in Iraq.

[williamlayton]

JACK--
This technology is available from many different sources around the world, if the money is available to purchase it. The reactor is a good source of generation for many.
Now we are back to a free market plan. This is what most want.
No one can say this is a bad thing. What you do with it is another thing. It's a delima aint it.
Guns are not a bad thing, well, unless its in the hands of a bad guy.
I have no clue to the answer or a magic thought that will solve the problem.
We are getting the reputation of governing the world by our standards and I find fault with our role, on tha other hand, well, you know.
LORD come quickly.
But I will say, if you argue for controls then you must give in to controls. If I were a gambler I would say, " It is the only game in town".
Blessings

[huntsman]

It would be nice to hire an armed guard to patrol my house 24/7 and to hire a team of undercover PIs to monitor all the gang activity in a 100 mile radius. Unfortunately, I have other priorities that must be addressed first, like food, clothing, shelter, etc., for my family. So I really can't afford that luxury. The best I can do is keep my doors locked, lights on at night, and have my home defense plan in place.

The US needs to start viewing global security in the same way. Sure, it would be nice to purge all the rogue nations in the world, but until we know there is an immediate threat or a direct link to a serious attack, we can't afford play world cops, either economically or politically.

We are quickly facing the can or worms opened at Los Alamos in 1942. If you create a weapon, you can be sure that it will eventually be used or threatened against you by someone, somewhere. Further, we have NO moral ground to stand on when telling nations that they can't have nuclear weapons when we have all of them that we want.

The US needs to ask itself if there is ever a scenario when nuclear weapons will actually be used to defend American lives. If so, then let's outline that scenario to the world so they know why we keep these weapons. If not, then let's destroy them all and never develop any new ones. My view is that nuclear weapons are a relic of the past that have no place in modern conflict. It's akin to raping and pillaging cities in the Middle Ages; a barbaric form of war that no longer has any moral or strategically relevant purpose.

Could enemy countries or terror organizations rape and pillage our citizens? Could they possibly use nuclear weapons against us if they acquired them? Certainly. But while we hold such weapons ourselves we have a very weak moral argument that these tactics are unjustified and morally remiss. We need to stop viewing ourselves as the world's police force and start viewing ourselves as common global citizens. We can be strong and wise world citizens without being judge and jury of all other nations of the world.

[williamlayton]

Huntsman
I think you are correct. If I read scripture correctly I do not see any mention of a final nuclear assault. I see the Lord God doing some mighty things and I see satan doing wonders.
What do I know.
Blessings

[Loader 3009]

The Book of Revelation refers to three nuclear exchanges.  Also mentioned are un-inhabitable cities that lie in ruin and cannot support any form of life.  I know of nothing else that could cause these effects.

[williamlayton]

I am not aware of the three events related to nuclear exchanges. I am aware of events that, as humans, we can only relate to a man made nuclear event.
You may be correct, however, I think they refer to events God creates.
This is an argument that is not worthwhile.
Blessings

[Loader 3009]

If you are not aware of them, how can you argue against them?  William, you have a tendency to mold God's words to fit your skewed concepts of reality.  And, in the event that it cannot be made to fit, you choose to ignore it.  If you don't understand prophecy, just admit it....we'll not think any less of you......but please refrain from calling God a liar.

[Jack Crevalle]

My question as to who was selling Iran this technology was strictly rhetorical. It is our "allies" the French again. The US need not act as a policeman in this case, like I said the Israelis won't allow this to happen.

[williamlayton]

Loader-
We all see thru a glass darkly.
My comment was stricly a philosophical one--We tend too see Gods works thru a man or worldy eye. I do not think God is bound to this concept and therfore I tend to see the Lords works as completely original to him. I could be wrong, therefore, there is no arguement, only opinion.
All our opinion is skewed as we do not have the complete understanding of God, only what he reveals.
I understand what you are saying and YOU could be right,. I just tend to think the Lord is not in a box. Yes I understand phrophecy from several different perspectives, which differ, and they all think the other is skewed, as you say.
Phrophecy is not too be argued, it will be revealed in the Lords own time.
Blessings

[williamlayton]

Jack-
My fault we got off topic-I apologize.
Blessings