Skip to main content

View Diary: BREAKING: Wikileaks - Unverified - Israelis and Kurds took out Iranian Nuke Facility (204 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Yes. It was a long-range missile R & D complex (2+ / 0-)

    It was where long-range ballistic missiles were developed.

    Nothing officially CBRN-related (chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear) but frankly...there's not much point to having a missile with that range and that expense if all you are going to do is stick a conventional warhead on top of it.

    Indeed one of the big tells that Saddam wasn't pursuing WMDs is there was little evidence of any efforts at developing ballistic missiles aside from short-range Scud variants.

    •  Meant to add, the Iranians themselves... (2+ / 0-)

      said it was a missile complex and initially tried to say the explosion was because of an accident during a missile development test.

    •  So Israel's ORBITAL vehicle capabitlity is a sign (3+ / 0-)

      of the same intent?  

      Where does this imputing dire motives to one party, and one party only, come from, and not others with the same capability (including the US)?

      Surely there have to be some other principle considerations, like being surrounded by hostile military, and/or constantly threatened with attack, and/or never having attacked another country in the last couple of centuries, as considerations in what Iran does with it's missile technology (or lack thereof).

      You (and they) also have to consider that the US has in place multiple Aegis boost phase intercept (BPI) installations that could and would intercept Iranian MRBMs heading west.

      This whole bloody scenario is an exaggeration designed to inflame.

      •  LOL you do realize (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        that up until the Iranians started in on the rhetoric about the "Zionist Entity", Israel had no designs on Iran whatsoever. I mean generally telling a country you are going to wipe them out (and Juan Cole is full of shit that they didn't do that), buying their enemies tons of missles and putting them on the Lebanese border,  and having massive GOVERNMENT SPONSORED rallies where people chant "Death to Israel" is, oh I don't know... going to make Israel just a bit skittish about the Iranians having a nuke.

        As for interception defense... Yeah.... That is a proven winner - perhaps we should also refernce that to "Star Wars" - because you know... all those tests were so very effective.

        But anyway... don't let me challenge the narrative....

        •  All anyone has to do to refute this particular (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Claudius Bombarnac

          line of BS is to go to:

          Iranian "nukes!" been going on for decades now.  Decades.

          It's only recently that it has become a centerpiece of US diplomacy, even though it is not a real issue.  Just issue-du-jour.

          BTW, I have seen the word-for-word translation of A-jad's (nutcase) statement and it does in fact state "regime" (meaning government) rather than "Israel."  Cole is absolutely correct.

          You clearly know nothing about BPI or why it is effective and stationed in Iraq.  Not perfect, but effective.

          And as long as you're broadening the discussion, the Lebanese have been killed by the tens of thousands by Israel.  Is it any wonder they are angry and/or would welcome some means of self-defense?

          •  Uh-huh... Yeah... Missle defense is a perfect art (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MBNYC, Mets102, leftynyc

            I mean well it is not perfect - so meh... One or two  little nukes get through - what can they do? (/snark)

            Boost Phase Missle defense is far less effective than you make it seem, but, I am glad to see you buying the defense industries propaganda on this.

            Oh and I am not broadening the discussion. But I can see that you want to turn this into the "Ebilz Izrailees vs. teh bunnies in Hizbollah discussion" and you are going to do it anyway so why let me stop you. Oh but of course those missles in Southern Lebanon are purely for defense - I mean it is of course defensive to launch on Haifa and civilian targets (all while complaining about the Israelis hitting Beirut - but again why mess with the Narrative).

            We can go 'round and 'round about Lebanon if you really want too I have no problem there. Interesting how the border has been pretty quiet since 2006 when after the sort of failed Israeli attack, Hizbollah has stopped trying to kidnap soldiers and has stopped firing rockets into Israel. I wonder why that is since their propaganda was that they were so successful. Hmmmm........

          •  OH SHIT.. you just referenced this site (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Mets102, MBNYC, leftynyc

            for a source... LOL that has this article in the What's Hot section:

            The Confessions of an Anti-Semite

            It was common knowledge that many powerful and prominent Jews were leery of the constant blaring Holocaust® remembrances, which they saw as cause for alarm.

            It’s acknowledged fact that if you toss enough money at anything, you will get more of it. The Zionist branch of Jewry has certainly tossed enough vague allegations of Anti-Semitism into the ether to get an abundance of it.

            Piper, in clear language nails it with numerous citations from the writings of Jewish authors around the world. Mike has not only written many books on the issue of Zionism and Jewish power worldwide, but he has lectured extensively to audiences around the world who appreciate the detailed citations.

            Michael Collins Piper, one of the most jovial “people persons I have ever known, ironically has been publicly tarred for being a “Hater” by the hateful Jewish Lobby, based upon his fact-filled lectures and books.

            Nice source you link to there Terra... AHAHAHAHAHA
            •  And it gets better... it is a Paulist Propaganda (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Mets102, MBNYC

              Site to boot featuring the following articles:

              Ron Paul Only Candidate To Warn of a Fascist Takeover in America

              To date, Paul’s shining contribution to the 2012 campaign is educational—even if the major networks and cable powerhouse Fox News downplay his candidacy in their primary night election coverage. Some of what he says gets through to the public, particularly youthful voters. On the grave issues of totalitarianism at home and tyranny abroad, Paul is the last truth-teller. As such, Paul is a dove fighting for survival among a flock of hawks, and his chances are not bright.
              And articles about the nefarious Zionist Lobby...

              ROLFMAO - and we are supposed to take you seriously.

              Say bye-bye to that.

            •  The article was originally printed: (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Terra Mystica, poco

              at Nima Shirazi's blog Wide Asleep in America Not sure that you'll like that link any better though but for different reasons.

              •  That is irrelevant... (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                MBNYC, volleyboy1, hikerbiker, JNEREBEL

                One would imagine that when an article published at multiples is linked to, that the commenter reads the site linked to irrespective of where the article was initially published.  Therefore, one would imagine that the commenter in question here reads the hate site Veterans Today.

                To put it in simple terms, Article N is originally published at Site A.  Site B then republishes Article N.  Commenter C, when linking to Article N uses Site B.  It is therefore reasonable to assume that Commenter C reads Site B with some degree of regularity and accepts its analysis.  Now, let's plug in all your examples with hate site Veterans Today being Site B.

                Preserve sanity in our government. Re-elect and strengthen and recapture. Proud to be a Democrat!

                by Mets102 on Mon Feb 27, 2012 at 05:34:25 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  No actually it's not reasonable (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  poco, Terra Mystica

                  I read a whole variety of sites and I don't think that it is reasonable to accept that I therefore 'accept its analysis'. Now if the site TM used is forbidden by dKos rules (I haven't been around much lately so if it's been added I would be grateful to be informed) then I'll pull my uprate. If not, then let's discuss the point that Nima Shirazi has brought up - which is that the calls for war on Iran have been ongoing for decades:

                  An April 24, 1984 article entitled "'Ayatollah' Bomb in Production for Iran" in United Press International referenced a Jane's Intelligence Defense Weekly report warning that Iran was moving "very quickly" towards a nuclear weapon and could have one as early as 1986.

                  In response, a U.S. Department of State spokesman was reportedly quick to point out the official government belief that "it would take at least two to three years to complete construction of the reactors at Bushehr," adding that the light water power reactors at the Bushehr plant "are not particularly well-suited for a weapons program." He also noted that "we have no evidence of Iranian construction of other facilities that would be necessary to separate plutonium from spent reactor fuel."

                  Two months later, on June 27, 1984, in an article entitled "Senator says Iran, Iraq seek N-Bomb," Minority Whip of the U.S. Senate Alan Cranston was quoted as claiming Iran was a mere seven years away from being able to build its own nuclear weapon. In April 1987, the Washington Post published an article with the title "Atomic Ayatollahs: Just What the Mideast Needs – an Iranian Bomb," in which reporter David Segal wrote of the imminent threat of such a weapon.

                  and so on....
              •  Oh, isn't that special. (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Mets102, volleyboy1, leftynyc

                Fire Bad bending over backwards to justify her buddy's use of a hate site.

                How about the Protocols? I mean, why the fuck not? Totally popular in the Middle East, so why the hell not?

                You don't even understand what a horrifying lapse in judgment this is. Dear God.

                Fuck me, it's a leprechaun.

                by MBNYC on Mon Feb 27, 2012 at 05:41:13 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  You know (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  poco, Terra Mystica

                  I try my best to comment here on very contentious issues in good faith. Upon being informed of the nature of the site I pulled my uprate (and noted that this was because of the site not the article itself). But this denigration of me is something I find despicable. Not only that, the implication that TM or anyone else here would be happy with the Protocols is beyond despicable.

                  •  I think you underestimate (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Mets102, volleyboy1, leftynyc

                    the degree of anger that deplorable incidents like this cause in others. One would think that people who have been on Daily Kos for more than a few days would employ more discretion, especially on, as you note, contentious issues. It's a sad fact, but even the most broken clocks can be right twice a day, and that's what happened here.

                    All of that said, however, everyone involved has know realized what happened and tried to make it right, so the matter is settled as far as I'm concerned.

                    Fuck me, it's a leprechaun.

                    by MBNYC on Mon Feb 27, 2012 at 06:15:24 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Really? (0+ / 0-)

                      You think that having seen the responses by your and others (and having my own rather negative views about racism and killing) has not somehow sensitised me to this issue? You haven't been watching closely enough.

                      Now if TM had linked to a story on that site that was consistent with the site's views, I'd be outraged. But you turn a mistake into insinuations of racism and accepting the Protocols. Why don't you look to see if you should start shooting before you activate the trigger?

                      •  Yeah.. I mean why when Terra Rec'd. a ZOG (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:

                        Comment in the past and then had us linked to a Hate Site would we have any questions? Silly us - I cannot imagine how we could have thought this could be anything other than a mistake. (/snark)

                        When I link to a site, I usually check what that site is just to be sure. I bet if I linked to a site like Israel Thrives or Israel Matsav I would never hear the end of it.

                        Plus, what in tarnation was "googled" that Veterans Today came up as the first thing? I notice that question was not answered.

                        I get you want to stick up for your pal here but... you know the rule about digging holes? Right?

                •  Ya know, as fbtp said, I could have just as easily (2+ / 0-)

                  linked the same article from a non hate site.

                  My Very bad.  I apologize.  Lesson learned.  The facts remain.

            •  I just picked the first one. Refute the facts. nt (0+ / 0-)
          •  It's always nice to see good quality uprates... (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MBNYC, volleyboy1, hikerbiker, leftynyc

            of comments that link to hate sites, as volley has amply demonstrated.  This, unfortunately is not the first time that this poster has supported people or entities engaging in ZOG, as demonstrated by the support offered to the ZOG comment of this banned poster.

            Preserve sanity in our government. Re-elect and strengthen and recapture. Proud to be a Democrat!

            by Mets102 on Mon Feb 27, 2012 at 05:28:30 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Are you out of your fucking mind? (5+ / 0-)

            That's a fucking white supremacist hate site. Here, proof.

            This shit doesn't belong here. This is Daily Kos, not Stormfront.

            Fuck me, it's a leprechaun.

            by MBNYC on Mon Feb 27, 2012 at 05:28:52 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  It's is not only Cole that refutes the quote... (2+ / 0-)
          Lost in translation

          Experts confirm that Iran's president did not call for Israel to be 'wiped off the map'. Reports that he did serve to strengthen western hawks.

          Here's another piece from the Guardian:

          and another from The Washington Post no less:

          Did Ahmadinejad really say Israel should be ‘wiped off the map’?

          “Wipe off the map,” in other words, has become easy shorthand for expressing revulsion at Iran’s anti-Israeli foreign policy. Certainly attention needs to be focused on that — and Iranian behavior in the region. But we’re going to award a Pinocchio to everyone — including ourselves — who has blithely repeated the phrase without putting it into context.

          One Pinocchio

          I give you One Pinocchio for propagating the misleading information.
    •  Maybe the US should get rid of it's thousands (0+ / 0-)

      of long range cruise missiles that are tipped with conventional warheads?

      North Korea's greatest threat to South Korea is it's conventional weapons - not it's nuclear ones.

      The first nation to use a nuclear weapon automatically loses. The world will not put up with that. Iran knows this.

      So, why does Israel need it's two to three hundred nuclear weapons? Who's the irrational player here?

      •  It needs it's nuclear weapons because they (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        and (everyone else) knows that if they didn't have them they would be conventionally attacked PDQ... They don't have the armed forces or man-power for a sustained conventional campaign and everyone knows this.

        But while we are on this, can you tell me who Israel has initially threatened with it's nukes? Are there any countries that Israel has said should be "wiped from the pages of history"? Has anyone even seen an Israeli nuke put up in threateing posture (that would be displayed in a bellicose or even non bellicose manner)?

        SO since you are implying Israel is the Irrational player here can you provide documentation from reputable soures that show Israel threatening to use nukes in an irrational manner.

        Thanks in advance.

        •  The US wouldn't protect them? (0+ / 0-)
          Are there any countries that Israel has said should be "wiped from the pages of history"?
          Iran has never said that and you know it. They were talking about the Israeli regime ending - not killing the people.

          BTW, why hasn't Israel signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty? Iran has signed and ratified the treaty.

          You have made a case for Iran to also possess a nuclear weapon...

          •  Not really.... what case have I made (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            for Iran to possess a nuke? In fact, I showed just the opposite. Their irresponsible rhetoric, sponsorship of terrorist, genocidal,  para-governmental organizations (Hizbollah, and Hamas), their irresponsible and fascistic government ALL points to them not having having nukes and not being allowed to develop them.

            Iran has never said that and you know it. They were talking about the Israeli regime ending - not killing the people.
            Iran, did say that the "Zionist Regime" (Israel) should be wiped from the pages of history. They sponsor rallies where the PRESIDENT HIMSELF leads chants of "Death to Israel".

            As to why hasn't Israel signed the NPT - they claim they don't have nukes. Now, everyone in the world knows differently but... has anyone ever seen an Israeli nuke? They don't brag about them and don't threaten to use them.

            In any case, you might ask them that question. I don't really care why they didn't sign it. But I imagine that claiming not to have nukes has a lot to do with that.

            In any case I am against a full on Military Strike by either the U.S. or Israel at this point in time. So, I am not sure what you are arguing for.

            •  I'll leave you with this... (0+ / 0-)
              The Supreme Leader’s View of Nuclear Energy

              Nuclear weapons, not necessary for Iran

              They mix up nuclear technology with development of nuclear weapons. The truth is different from what they say. Nuclear technology and nuclear weapons are two different things which are not closely related to one another.

              How come we don't see this in the MSM? All we hear is the constant drumbeat of war against Iran based on misconceptions and downright lies.

              I used to be an ardent supporter of Israel 20/30 years ago - but due to events which have unfolded in those years, I no longer support the government of that country.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site