IBDaMann
Well-known member
That's how it works. People keep trying to push back on the correct answer and they go down in flames every time.
Can you not read? What definition of "genocide" has Israel ratified?
Israel is Panicking
- Thread starter IBDaMann
- Start date
Scott
Verified User
Wrong for a long time, yes. That being said, Scott Ritter believed that -this- time, they were right:
“Lion’s Courage” versus “True Promise 3”
Israel attacked Iran, using disarmament of Iran’s nuclear program as an excuse. But this attack isn’t about enrichment. It’s about regime change. And there can only be one winner.
scottritter.substack.com
Here's what he said to justify this belief:
**
Iran is its own worst enemy
For the past few months, Iran has been posturing itself as a nuclear threshold state. While Iran has every right, as a signatory to the nuclear nonproliferation treaty (NPT), to possess the ability to enrich uranium as part of a peaceful nuclear program monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), it does not have any legal right to pursue a nuclear weapons capability so long as it remains a signatory to the NPT. Iran’s accumulation of uranium enriched to 60%, for which there was no legitimate purpose linked to Iran’s declared nuclear activities, was a deliberate act by Iran to position itself to be within one enrichment cycle of possessing uranium enriched to around 92%, which would be usable in a fission weapon.
Iranian IR-6 centrifuges
Iran likewise has been installing advanced IR-6 centrifuge cascades, which are orders of magnitude more efficient when it comes to the enrichment of uranium, at its underground enrichment facility at Firdos. These cascades would be able to convert Iran’s 60% enriched uranium to weapons grade uranium within a matter of days, providing Iran with fissile material sufficient for 3-5 nuclear weapons.
Iranian military industry has, over the course of the past decade, mastered all the technologies necessary to produce a warhead possessing advanced electronics and other heat-sensitive properties that can withstand the heat of hypersonic re-entry. These warhead design characteristics are an essential part of any viable nuclear weapons delivery capability—simply producing a fission device is not enough; one must be able to deliver it to the intended target.
The one thing which held Iran back was the official decision taken by the Iranian leadership that nuclear weapons were forbidden under existing Islamic jurisprudence, namely a fatwa, or edict, issued by Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, which deemed nuclear weapons incompatible with the principles of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
But Iran has made this principled stance meaningless in recent months as statements from senior Iraqi officials, advisors, and politicians have made it clear that this fatwa prohibiting nuclear weapons could be reversed if the Islamic Republic were to be faced with an existential threat from a nuclear-armed Israel.
In short, Iran has positioned itself to be a nuclear weapons threshold state.
And this would never be allowed to stand, a reality Israel’s ongoing strikes have emphatically punctuated.
**
Wrong for a long time, yes. That being said, Scott Ritter believed that -this- time, they were right:
“Lion’s Courage” versus “True Promise 3”
Israel attacked Iran, using disarmament of Iran’s nuclear program as an excuse. But this attack isn’t about enrichment. It’s about regime change. And there can only be one winner.
Here's what he said to justify this belief:
**
Iran is its own worst enemy
For the past few months, Iran has been posturing itself as a nuclear threshold state. While Iran has every right, as a signatory to the nuclear nonproliferation treaty (NPT), to possess the ability to enrich uranium as part of a peaceful nuclear program monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), it does not have any legal right to pursue a nuclear weapons capability so long as it remains a signatory to the NPT. Iran’s accumulation of uranium enriched to 60%, for which there was no legitimate purpose linked to Iran’s declared nuclear activities, was a deliberate act by Iran to position itself to be within one enrichment cycle of possessing uranium enriched to around 92%, which would be usable in a fission weapon.
Iranian IR-6 centrifuges
Iran likewise has been installing advanced IR-6 centrifuge cascades, which are orders of magnitude more efficient when it comes to the enrichment of uranium, at its underground enrichment facility at Firdos. These cascades would be able to convert Iran’s 60% enriched uranium to weapons grade uranium within a matter of days, providing Iran with fissile material sufficient for 3-5 nuclear weapons.
Iranian military industry has, over the course of the past decade, mastered all the technologies necessary to produce a warhead possessing advanced electronics and other heat-sensitive properties that can withstand the heat of hypersonic re-entry. These warhead design characteristics are an essential part of any viable nuclear weapons delivery capability—simply producing a fission device is not enough; one must be able to deliver it to the intended target.
The one thing which held Iran back was the official decision taken by the Iranian leadership that nuclear weapons were forbidden under existing Islamic jurisprudence, namely a fatwa, or edict, issued by Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, which deemed nuclear weapons incompatible with the principles of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
But Iran has made this principled stance meaningless in recent months as statements from senior Iraqi officials, advisors, and politicians have made it clear that this fatwa prohibiting nuclear weapons could be reversed if the Islamic Republic were to be faced with an existential threat from a nuclear-armed Israel.
In short, Iran has positioned itself to be a nuclear weapons threshold state.
And this would never be allowed to stand, a reality Israel’s ongoing strikes have emphatically punctuated.
**
lol they have no principles. Islam is a homocidal bandit cult invented to appeal to feral animals out to steal everything they can from their neighbors and live off their slaves. Why else would it have such appeal to you sociopaths and nutjobs?
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Sure they do.
Muslims are homocidal bandits?
Islam appeals to feral animals?
Muslims are thieves?
Muslims keep slaves?
What appeal do you mistakenly believe that Islam has?
ZenMode
Well-known member
Nope. You push back on the rational and reasonable positions.
I would assume the same one that most civilized countries have agreed to:
According to the 1948 International Genocide Convention (which is now supported by the United Nations) it means committing acts "with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group."
Agree?
You love them because they big make noises about killing Jews is all. Never mind they're abject failures, same as you ex-cons. You and your cellmates admire them.
LurchAddams
There Can be Only One!
Doesn't change the fact that the Neo-Republicons took out Iran's strongest enemy in a boondoggle that both weakened America's credibility emptied our treasury and resulted in 10's of thousands of needless deaths. Had we left Iraq alone - they'd still be threatening Iran and we'd have a natural buffer.
Republicans make the world more dangerous - there could not be a better demonstration of Republican malfeasance then what's going on domestically and abroad right now.
LurchAddams
There Can be Only One!
And yet it's relevant because we learn from history - well Democrats do - Republicans are insane - doing the same thing repeatedly throughout history and expecting a different result.
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
Iraq under Saddam had to go one way or another. Saddam was, indisputably, the largest purveyor and supporter of terrorism worldwide. His defeat but remaining in power after Desert Storm did nothing to change that. Since Iraq has had regime change, Iran has taken on that role in Saddam's place.
LurchAddams
There Can be Only One!
Every fucking country in the mid-East except Israel has a contingent that funds terrorism. The fucking 9/11 attack was funded by Saudi money - and they're supposed to be one of our allies.
Yes, 100,000 dead and decades of treasury-draining Republican nonsense - I'd say a lot changed with us.
Iran was already our and Iraq's enemy - it had been that way since the Shaw was overthrown. The Iraq war was a criminal tragedy perpetrated by evil Republi-con propaganda.
Saddam was put in power by the US and on the CIA payroll until daddy Bush needed a war to appease the zionist. Bush refused to occupy Iraq so the jews got rid of him the same way they got rid of Carter when he refused to invade Iran. Learn your history.
Iraq and Iran were drawn up by Britain and France during WWI with no concern for tribe and tradition.
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
Not like Saddam did. He harbored virtually any fugitive terrorist escaping justice. He built camps and offered training to terrorists and terrorist groups. He was paying $10,000 to any Palestinian family who had a member "martyr" themselves in a suicide attack against Israel. He was almost certainly a funding source for the 9/11 terrorists, not in whole, but in part.
100,000 dead? Where'd you get that number from, the Lancet?
Had we not invaded, it is highly likely that Al Queda would have fled there to escape US forces in Afghanistan.
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
Show me one reasonably credible source that claims that.
Yes, the whole Middle East was politically carved up by Britain and France after WW 1 and the collapse of the Ottoman Empire.