Iran "A" Bomb/Gog U Magog War/Planet Nibiru

[QuartzGooner]

It is also worth noting that some mystics have said that the War of Gog U Magog will not happen, as there was a time frame for it and that has passed.

Others say it will happen.

There was a certain Jewish mystic called Chofetz Chaim who predicted that Gog U Magog was a three part war. He said after World War One that another world war would come in about 20 years, that prediction was verified and sadly correct.
He also (allegedly) said that there would be the final war seventy years after World War Two ended, but I am not sure anyone can verify that prediction, I have no idea if it was recorded on tape or film or if it is an urban myth.

[Top Londoner]

http://www.torah.org/learning/perceptio ... behar.html#

I like this subject. Still an awful lot to read and learn.

[QuartzGooner]

The mis/dis-information war on Iran continues on.

Mainstream media reporting that Iranian uranium (try saying that when drunk) has been used for medical purposes and so diverted from the nuclear power/weapons program, with any possible weapons grade uranium two months months away but a nuclear warhead 10 months away.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... onths.html

Some underground media saying that Iran is seven weeks away from having uranium suitable to make a nuclear warhead, and that a joint USA-Israeli strike is coming before the end of November.

http://www.debka.com/article/22422/US-s ... o-it-alone

[Top Londoner]

Yes Quartz.
Whilst I am a staunch supporter of Jews and Israel, it is my suspicious mind that believes that Zionism and the USA will profit from another war, this time against Iran.
Iran is not the danger though. Israel can take out their nuclear capabilities, just as they did with Iraq back in the 80's.

[olgitgooner]

Iran is a serious worry. As is any country which is controlled by ultra religious government.

The main concern, obviously, is that Iran wants to "wipe Israel off the face of the Earth" (this is open to conjecture, but the public sentiment among Muslim states is plain to see).

If Iran becomes capable of delivering nuclear warheads to Israel then they are quite likely to do so.

They need to be stopped. For the sake of the rest of the planet.

[QuartzGooner]

Top Londoner

This could turn into a very long discussion, but I question by what you mean by "Zionism" being seperate from Jews.
A word that means many things to many people?
I use it in at least three senses:

1 - The idea of a Jewish homeland in Israel- a central belief of Judaism.
2 - The political ideology catalysed by Herzl to found a Jewish nation state of Israel.
3 - The political ideal of a largely secular society in that nation state, with an emphasis on physical education and a strong army above religious instruction; working the land and being self sufficient, creating a "New Jew" antithetic to an image of the old "Shtetl Jew".

It is of course used derogative sense in two main ways.

- Zionism = Racism/Apartheid against Arabs.

- Zionism as an arm of the New World Order, setting up the nation state of Israel as an economic/military outpost in the Islamic Middle East.


Olgit

Iran launching a nuclear attack on Israel is a strong possibility when if/when Iran gets nuclear warheads.

I think there is more going on too?

- There is the Iranian potential nuclear arms race with Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey.

- There is the Iranian threat to trade oil in Iranian Rials/Any OtherCurrency and not in US Dollars.

- An Iranian threat to blockade oil supplies reaching the West from the Straights of Hormuz, which is why there are now three American battle groups there patrolling.

- The Iranian attempt to consolidate it's sphere
of influence in Syria, Lebanon and Gaza.
Plus in Afghanistan, potentially threatening gas supply lines through central Asia?

[flash gunner]

I think its hypocritical of us to stop Iran getting nuclear weapons. We have them or have had them, the USA are the only country to ever have used them in anger and now we have the cheek to tell other countries who can and can't have them. Nothing was said to France when they tested weapons in the south pacific - yet Iran are world enemies due to it. The height of hypocracy

[QuartzGooner]

I think it is the height of common sense to stop Iran getting nuclear weapons.

Yes the USA used them in anger, but most estimates sad that greater numbers of troops would have died from an Allied land invasion of Japan.

The Iranians have been fighting the West for over 30 years by any means at their disposal; countless terrorist attacks on civilians plus attacks on troops have taken place by them and their proxies through Europe, Asia and South America.
The CIA, MI6 and Mossad have been doing their best to interrupt the nulear programme, but it is getting close to the point where cyber attacks, fake shell companies and assassinations of nuclear staff are not enough.

If Iran has nuclear weapons they will use them.

[northbank123]

I think its hypocritical of us to stop Iran getting nuclear weapons. We have them or have had them, the USA are the only country to ever have used them in anger and now we have the cheek to tell other countries who can and can't have them. Nothing was said to France when they tested weapons in the south pacific - yet Iran are world enemies due to it. The height of hypocracy

With all due respect Iran is hardly a regime responsible enough to have nuclear warfare capacity. Don't really agree with the everybody or nobody argument, whether USA or anybody needs nuclear weapons is up for debate but there's nothing in the world that can justify giving Iran that capability.

It's a bit like how only a select few posters on here have the power to lock and move threads, edit posts and ban users... bit unfair don't you think

[flash gunner]

I think its hypocritical of us to stop Iran getting nuclear weapons. We have them or have had them, the USA are the only country to ever have used them in anger and now we have the cheek to tell other countries who can and can't have them. Nothing was said to France when they tested weapons in the south pacific - yet Iran are world enemies due to it. The height of hypocracy

With all due respect Iran is hardly a regime responsible enough to have nuclear warfare capacity. Don't really agree with the everybody or nobody argument, whether USA or anybody needs nuclear weapons is up for debate but there's nothing in the world that can justify giving Iran that capability.

It's a bit like how only a select few posters on here have the power to lock and move threads, edit posts and ban users... bit unfair don't you think

Not sure if the last bit is a joke or not but anyway who should be allowed to decide who gets nuclear weapons? and why do we turn a blind eye to say France doing testing in the South Pacific?

[flash gunner]

If Iran has nuclear weapons they will use them.

The deterrent of nuclear weapons is that everybody has them and you know if you fire them every other fucker will bomb the fuck out of you, why would Iran be any different? Its one thing supporting rogue individuals or organisations that bomb and murder in relatively small time events but its a total different story to use weapons that will probably end your countries and populations existance

[QuartzGooner]

If Iran has nuclear weapons they will use them.

The deterrent of nuclear weapons is that everybody has them and you know if you fire them every other f+cker will bomb the fuck out of you, why would Iran be any different? Its one thing supporting rogue individuals or organisations that bomb and murder in relatively small time events but its a total different story to use weapons that will probably end your countries and populations existance

I think the West believes Iran is different.
The deterrent of mutual destruction would not work in Iran's case.

The West let Pakistan keep their nuclear weapons even though it is a Muslim country, because it is largely Sunni Muslims, and because nuclear India is a check and balance.

But Iran is Shia.
They invented the suicide bomber.
They will take two punches to give a punch.

Their PM is a 12th Imamist fanantic who would bomb Israel, and readily accept the nuclear payback from the West.
Just because he could get in a nuke or two on Israel first.

Plus Iran controls a lot of oil, and access to other gulf states' oil.

As for what else Iran has been up to, it is a catalogue of thousands of deaths for thirty years across three continents, not so small scale.
Many of them suicide attacks.

[northbank123]

I think its hypocritical of us to stop Iran getting nuclear weapons. We have them or have had them, the USA are the only country to ever have used them in anger and now we have the cheek to tell other countries who can and can't have them. Nothing was said to France when they tested weapons in the south pacific - yet Iran are world enemies due to it. The height of hypocracy

With all due respect Iran is hardly a regime responsible enough to have nuclear warfare capacity. Don't really agree with the everybody or nobody argument, whether USA or anybody needs nuclear weapons is up for debate but there's nothing in the world that can justify giving Iran that capability.

It's a bit like how only a select few posters on here have the power to lock and move threads, edit posts and ban users... bit unfair don't you think

Not sure if the last bit is a joke or not but anyway who should be allowed to decide who gets nuclear weapons? and why do we turn a blind eye to say France doing testing in the South Pacific?

It was a joke, just a bit lazy with the emoticons.

As I said, I'm willing to listen to the argument that France or any other nation shouldn't have nuclear weapons. But just because some more advanced countries have nuclear weapons it in no way justifies allowing Iran to have them. Allowing such devastating power to be placed in the hands of Iran's leader is completely unjustifiable on the basis that it's hypocritical to prevent it.

The Ahmadinejad regime is at best aggressive and religiously intolerant, and at worst a dictatorship hell-bent on the destruction of the West and Israel in particular, with a disgraceful human rights record.

Nuclear weapons have been around for nearly three-quarters of a century and have only been used by the USA on essentially one occasion, in a dire situation the likes of which hasn't been seen in our lifetimes. The potential of nuclear weapons is scary but realistically France are not going to fire one off are they? For France, UK, USA etc it's just a diplomatic tool to ensure that the government isn't bullied around, but with Iran there is a real risk that it will be used because of the power structure.

You can make the same argument if Iran wanted to join the permanent UN Security Council: why should only Russia, UK, France, China and USA get a right of veto?

[flash gunner]

Quartz i did say relatively small events which is true compared to total armageddon of a full scale nuclear war which is what Iran faces if they start fucking about, i do think that that deterrent would be enough.

NB123 also think that using that France has weapons so that they cant be bullied why cant that be applied to Iran? and also i dont think anyone should have the right to veto on the security council....

Sorry lads i dont agree im not going to turn this into a 70 pager where we (or more importantly i ) tie ourselves in knots so will bow out now

[northbank123]

Fair enough, either way I can't say I condone allowing that nutter Ahmedinejad access to nuclear weapons and that's the bottom line for me.