Plutonium Found in Iran Waste Facility

[Gan]

The Associated Press
Tuesday, November 14, 2006; 12:34 PM


VIENNA, Austria -- International Atomic Energy experts have found unexplained plutonium and highly enriched uranium traces in a nuclear waste facility in Iran (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/countries/iran.html?nav=el) and have asked Tehran for an explanation, an IAEA report said Tuesday.

The report, prepared for next week's meeting of the 35-nation IAEA, also faulted Tehran for not cooperating with the agency's attempts to investigate suspicious aspects of Iran's nuclear program that have lead to fears it might be interested in developing nuclear arms.

And it said it could not confirm Iranian claims that its nuclear activities were exclusively nonmilitary unless Tehran increased its openness.

"The agency will remain unable to make further progress in its efforts to verify the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran," without additional cooperation by Tehran, said the report, by IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei.

Such cooperation is a "prerequisite for the agency to be able to confirm the peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear program," it added.

As expected, the four-page report made available to The Associated Press confirmed that Iran continues uranium enrichment experiments in defiance of the U.N. Security Council.

Both highly enriched uranium and plutonium can be used to make the fissile core of nuclear warheads, and Iran is under intense international pressure to freeze activities that can produce such substances.

But Tehran has shrugged off both Security Council demands that it stop developing its enrichment programs and urgings that it cease construction of a heavy water research reactor that produces plutonium waste. It insists it wants enrichment only to generate nuclear power and says it needs the Arak research reactor to produce isotopes for medical research and cancer treatment.

Earlier Tuesday, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Tuesday that Iran would soon celebrate completion of its nuclear fuel program and claimed the international community was ready to accept it as a nuclear state.

More...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/14/AR2006111400230_pf.html

[Sean of the Thread]

http://us.altermedia.info/images/bunker_buster.jpg

[xtc]

I found a second article from the Washington post on the same topic.

"IAEA inspectors detected plutonium traces in samples of particles of highly enriched uranium (HEU) taken earlier from containers at the Karaj atomic waste storage facility near Tehran"

"In response to IAEA queries, Iran said the HEU could have come from spent fuel from a Tehran light-water research reactor, the report said. Iran provided an explanation of the plutonium find on Monday which the IAEA was now evaluating."

"A senior U.N. official said Iran had enriched only nominal amounts of uranium to the 5 percent level required for power plant fuel, far short of the 80 percent required for atom bombs"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/14/AR2006111400786.html

[El Burro]

Are they trying to say that Iran is trying to make nuclear a bomb?

[Gan]

So in one article the Post says its Plutonium, and in another article the Post downplays the Plutonium to just trace amounts. And what about the fact that they have highly enriched Uranium?

Which is it? Be alarmed? or no need to be alarmed?

:wtf:

[xtc]

So in one article the Post says its Plutonium, and in another article the Post downplays the Plutonium to just trace amounts. And what about the fact that they have highly enriched Uranium?

Which is it? Be alarmed? or no need to be alarmed?

:wtf:

Here is wikipedia's take on enriched uranium.

Nuclear reactors that produce power use uranium enriched to 3-4 %.

Light water research reactors enrich uranium to 12-20%. (legitimate use)

Anything over 20% is considering Highly enriched uranium.

Nuclear weapons contain uranium enriched to 85% & above.

Anything over 20% enriched uranium is considered weapons grade but as listed can be legitimate for a light water research reactor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enriched_uranium

I think the question is, is the uranium 20% or 85% enriched?

[Tromp]

I think what would trigger serious alarm issues for me is the ability to deliver such WMDs to the US but then I think of the fact that Israel will kick them so hard in the nuts that their great grandkids would be sterile if they had such capabilities.

Come to think of it, Isreal will do it once intel validates Iran's possesion of a WMD. :club:

[Gan]

Thats my thought. Iran, with all its talk about Israel, will make a move there first.... so naturally a premptive strike, without the world's approval, will come from Israel. All the appropriate warning 'noise' between the two governments are being seen now in the media.

[xtc]

Thats my thought. Iran, with all its talk about Israel, will make a move there first.... so naturally a premptive strike, without the world's approval, will come from Israel. All the appropriate warning 'noise' between the two governments are being seen now in the media.

I thought Israel's jets couldn't fly to Iran without stopping to refuel? Does Israel have the capability to refuel in mid-air? If not where will they land, will any country in the region allow them or will the refuel on a US carrier?

I hope Israel doesn't act in haste, before knowing the exact level of enrichment one can't make much of a determination of Iran's intent.

If Israel launches a strike it will act first, the word pre-emptive doesn't negate that.

[Artha]

I thought Israel's jets couldn't fly to Iran without stopping to refuel?
I think they can get there one way. Or they can get there and back, but have to fly over turkish airspace, which opens a whole new can of worms. One of the two.

[TheEschaton]

It'll be a clusterfuck either way.

I dunno, the Post article seems to imply that the most they've ever enriched anything is 5%?

-TheE-

[Apathy]

My first thought was "so what? isn't any nuclear power plant going to have nuclear waste?"

Alarm? No. Concern? No. Speak softly and carry a big stick? Oh yeah.

[Artha]

Nuclear power plants use uranium. Nuclear bombs use plutonium and enriched uranium.

[xtc]

Nuclear power plants use uranium. Nuclear bombs use plutonium and enriched uranium.

Enriched uranium is used at Nuclear power plants. Plutonium is produced by some Nuclear Power Plant reactors and by Research reactors.

http://www.ccnr.org/nuclear_primer.html

[Back]

Why shouldn’t Iran have nuclear power or even nuclear bombs for that matter? We have both. The top countries of the world have both.

[Gan]

You honestly thing Iran will be judicious in keeping weapons grade plutonium out of the hands of terrorists?

You honestly think Iran would not launch a nuclear warhead at Israel if they had one handy? What if they had 50?

Not that politicians are much different, but do you think that religious leaders would be more or less inclined to use a nuclear arsenal in the name of their diety than politicians? I think more, considering the fact that religious leaders dont mind dying for their faith, politicians do mind dying and try not to at any cost.

[Landrion]

Why shouldn’t Iran have nuclear power or even nuclear bombs for that matter? We have both. The top countries of the world have both.

We'll certainly see. Eventually, most nations are going to have access. Hopefully, when countries reach the nuclear level theyll learn what the cold war to established. You dont really want to use nukes as anything but a deterrent.

[Back]

You honestly thing Iran will be judicious in keeping weapons grade plutonium out of the hands of terrorists?

You honestly think Iran would not launch a nuclear warhead at Israel if they had one handy? What if they had 50?

Not that politicians are much different, but do you think that religious leaders would be more or less inclined to use a nuclear arsenal in the name of their diety than politicians? I think more, considering the fact that religious leaders dont mind dying for their faith, politicians do mind dying and try not to at any cost.

No one knows with any certainty the answers to your questions. And, I read your last statement as a stereotyping of the Islamist faith.

I find it extremely hypocritical of our country to tell another sovereign nation that they can not develop this technology, whether for a weapon or not, while we continue to develop our own. If we were to dismantle all of our bombs then we would have some ground to stand on.

[TheEschaton]

But we're "better" than other nations, Backlash, and more "trusted".

-TheE-

[Back]

But we're "better" than other nations, Backlash, and more "trusted".

-TheE-

And we’ve also actually used WMDs in the past.

[Landrion]

No one knows with any certainty the answers to your questions. And, I read your last statement as a stereotyping of the Islamist faith.

I find it extremely hypocritical of our country to tell another sovereign nation that they can not develop this technology, whether for a weapon or not, while we continue to develop our own. If we were to dismantle all of our bombs then we would have some ground to stand on.

So you consider it hypocrisy to want to have superior weapons than nations considered your enemy. I consider it good planning. You can bandy the words stereotype and hypocrite. This isnt an equal opportunity feel good game. This is maintaining military supremacy. This is preventing someone from pulling what was done to The trade center and Pentagon with a dirty nuke next time.

Do you really think that if nations like Iran had these weapons they would not be trying to prevent us from getting them? Flat out, this is a competition, we are trying to maintain an advantage and we would happily deprive every nation (even allies) in the world of this capability if it were possible to do so.

Don't get sucked in to the stupid all Islam=terrorist debate. We dont want Korea having nukes either and we'd be pretty darn happy to deprive Russia and China of them as well.

[zhelas]

Small countries want to be heard. Having nuclear weapons will cause other nations to take notice of them.

[Landrion]

But we're "better" than other nations, Backlash, and more "trusted".

-TheE-

Thats a loaded statement. Of course in the U.S. interests the "best" nation to have nukes is the US and no one else. Same as any other nation. The U.S. "trusts" itself more than it trusts anyone else to have nukes.

Id be willing to bet that most nations see it the same way. Themselves as best, some others as acceptable if undesireable and some as a clear and present danger. Do you imagine that India would not wish away Pakistans nuclear capability if the genie offered?

You make it sound as if that were something to be ashamed of.

[Landrion]

Small countries want to be heard. Having nuclear weapons will cause other nations to take notice of them.

Yes thats true, the nuclear club has more clout than those without. The nightmare is that someone gets access who doesnt want notice or clout. Deterrents are fine, active use is the problem everyone wants avoided.

[xtc]

You honestly thing Iran will be judicious in keeping weapons grade plutonium out of the hands of terrorists?

Although anything above 20% enriched uranium is considered weapons grade, it takes a nation with great nuclear knowledge, experience and history to make a bomb out of such low grade uranium (20%). Nuclear bombs have 85% enriched uranium and above.

Does Iran have weapons grade Plutonium? NO idea, I would like to see some more information on what the IAEA found.

Will Iran give terrorists weapons grade uranium & plutonium (if they have it) to terrorists? Tough question, first off Iranians for the most part aren't Arabs, they are Persians. They don't speak Arabic, they speak Farsi. The vast majority of Iranians are Shi'ites. Osama bin Laden is a Sunni specifically a Wahhabist. Wahhabis are Sunnis, although they make up a minute percentage of Sunnis.

There has been historic mistrust, divides and conflicts between Sunnis and Shi'ites. I doubt Iran would cooperate with Osama or Al Qaeda. There has been speculation that Iran has turned a blind to Al Qaeda in the past but I doubt they would present them with uranium and/or plutonium.

No nation controls Al Qaeda and I think the Iranian Government knows that.



You honestly think Iran would not launch a nuclear warhead at Israel if they had one handy? What if they had 50?

Yes I honestly don't think they would launch a warhead at Israel. Israel has nuclear weapons and would respond in kind. That would suicide.

Also Israel is a small nation, could they be sure that Palestine, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Egypt wouldn't be affected, not to mention the Arab population in Israel.

We asked the same question when Pakistan became a nuclear nation and they have become a responsible member of the nuclear club.


Not that politicians are much different, but do you think that religious leaders would be more or less inclined to use a nuclear arsenal in the name of their diety than politicians? I think more, considering the fact that religious leaders dont mind dying for their faith, politicians do mind dying and try not to at any cost.

I think Iran spews a lot of rhetoric. However I doubt many of the officials in Iran want to die anytime soon. It is one thing to deny yourself pork and alochol, it is another to die needlessly.


Lastly we need to know more about what the IAEA found! The information we have so far is insufficient to make judgements on.

[Back]

So you consider it hypocrisy to want to have superior weapons than nations considered your enemy. I consider it good planning. You can bandy the words stereotype and hypocrite. This isnt an equal opportunity feel good game. This is maintaining military supremacy. This is preventing someone from pulling what was done to The trade center and Pentagon with a dirty nuke next time.

Finally someone who is honest about their attitude and opinion. Lets just go ahead and follow your logic along to its ultimate conclusion. Why don’t we use these weapons to be rid of all those other nations who might use them against us? Then there would be no one else in the world to worry about, right?


Do you really think that if nations like Iran had these weapons they would not be trying to prevent us from getting them? Flat out, this is a competition, we are trying to maintain an advantage and we would happily deprive every nation (even allies) in the world of this capability if it were possible to do so.

This premiss supposes everyone is the enemy, even the allies. And people call me paranoid? Why don’t we build a dome over the US and seal ourselves away from the big bad world? Or fly to the moon?


Don't get sucked in to the stupid all Islam=terrorist debate. We dont want Korea having nukes either and we'd be pretty darn happy to deprive Russia and China of them as well.

Truth is, I don’t want Iran to have nukes. I don’t want anyone to have nukes.

[zhelas]

The nightmare is that someone gets access who doesnt want notice or clout.

Even if terrorists were to get nukes (which I hope never happens) the statement I mentioned above would also apply to them. "Either listen to what I have to say or there will be consequences." In the western world they appear to be thugs.

[radamanthys]

It's not a question of sovreignty or reason, it's a question of the country being filled to the brim with someone who wants to kill you. Think about that: they want you dead. You. If you're reading this, they probably want you dead.

That's why we don't want them to have nukes- they up the ratio of "suicide jihadist to american/israeli deaths" from maybe 1:10000 max, to about 1:10,000,000 max or so.

And if there's just one rouge gvmnt guy that decides to give Ali Bin Jihad the key to the nuke room, well... big fuckin surprise.

[Parkbandit]

Will Iran give terrorists weapons grade uranium & plutonium (if they have it) to terrorists? Tough question, first off Iranians for the most part aren't Arabs, they are Persians. They don't speak Arabic, they speak Farsi. The vast majority of Iranians are Shi'ites. Osama bin Laden is a Sunni specifically a Wahhabist. Wahhabis are Sunnis, although they make up a minute percentage of Sunnis.

Tough question? O'RLY? Let's ask their 'elected' leader.

Dear Mr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad... what is your plans with nuclear information?

"“Iran is ready to transfer nuclear know-how to the Islamic countries due to their need.”


Yes I honestly don't think they would launch a warhead at Israel. Israel has nuclear weapons and would respond in kind. That would suicide.

Suicide? Isn't that their main weapon delivery system right now? So you honestly don't think they would launch nuclear weapons against Israel?

O'RLY? Let's ask their 'elected' leader once again:

So wacko.. would you?

“Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury"

Huh? Answer the question already...

"As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map."


I'm with the Liberals.. let's just give Iran the nukes and trust them. If they launch anything.. we will talk to them, tell them we are dissapointed until they promise not to do it again.

[zhelas]

Grant it they hate Isreal, but what would they gain if they turn the area into a sheet of radioactive glass. I guess folks dying from the fallout would be marters.

[Landrion]

Finally someone who is honest about their attitude and opinion. Lets just go ahead and follow your logic along to its ultimate conclusion. Why don’t we use these weapons to be rid of all those other nations who might use them against us? Then there would be no one else in the world to worry about, right?

This premiss supposes everyone is the enemy, even the allies. And people call me paranoid? Why don’t we build a dome over the US and seal ourselves away from the big bad world? Or fly to the moon?

Truth is, I don’t want Iran to have nukes. I don’t want anyone to have nukes.

Thank you, I do try to be honest. However, thats not a realistic or even desireable conclusion. We can't mystically wish away every nuclear capable nations capability and first striking everyone including our allies isnt sensible or desireable. Logically we have to make some sort of classifications about nations we dont mind having nukes because we consider them friendly (Britain), nations wed like to see without nukes but can't (or are unwilling) do anything about (China), nations that dont have nukes but it wouldnt really matter to us if they did (Switzerland I think) and nations we might be willing to take action to prevent (Iran, Korea). I dont see this as something to be ashamed of. It is self-interest, but a country should (must) look after its own interests.

Just as there are degrees of comfort there are degrees of action we're willing to take. I can live with the idea of saber rattling, economic sanctions, military action in descending order. Im not even listing first striking because I dont think Id be in favor of nuclear weapons unless someone first struck the U.S. So no, nuking the entire world to make the U.S safe isnt the ultimate extension of what Im suggesting. Im suggesting the US is not hypocritical to try to maintain military supremacy. That doing so is merely good practice.

Its not about supposing everyone is an enemy. Its about evaluating who is an enemy and hindering them from being on par with you. However, one should be prepared to accept that todays ally may not always be. Isolationism is a weak strategy both because of the global economy and because not even this nation can maintain enough might stand alone. You can characterize being realistic about that as a desire for isolationism or being afraid of the big bad world but that isnt the case. The fact is that there are nations with hostile intent towards us and that isnt going to go away because youve decided youd like to be friends.

I dont know if Id wish nukes away for everyone or not. I sincerely hope that they remain as nothing but a deterrant to war and are never needed again.

[Landrion]

Even if terrorists were to get nukes (which I hope never happens) the statement I mentioned above would also apply to them. "Either listen to what I have to say or there will be consequences." In the western world they appear to be thugs.

And do you hope to suffer those consequences if they ask for something you cant grant?

There are people who will have demands you cant appease.

[xtc]

Tough question? O'RLY? Let's ask their 'elected' leader.

Dear Mr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad... what is your plans with nuclear information?

"“Iran is ready to transfer nuclear know-how to the Islamic countries due to their need.”

The question was will they transfer uranium & plutonium to terrorists. Mr. Ahmadinejad says he will transfer KNOW HOW, not plutonium & uranium. He also said to Islamic nations, not terrorists.


Suicide? Isn't that their main weapon delivery system right now? So you honestly don't think they would launch nuclear weapons against Israel?

Again you are confused. Iranians don't use suicide attacks & again they aren't Arabs.


O'RLY? Let's ask their 'elected' leader once again:

So wacko.. would you?

“Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury"

I haven't checked to see of this translated correctly however this was said after Israel threatened Iran. It is most likely rhetoric to not look like a wimp among his people. Pat Buchanan once called for Canada to be invaded during some dispute. It's called rhetoric. The Canadian Prime Minister said Canada would use military force to defend its artic sovereignty when Bush and Co questioned our northern borders.




Huh? Answer the question already...

"As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map."

He said no such thing, this was wrongly translated from Farsi. No such idiom exists in Farsi, i.e. wiped off the map.

This is from the Guardian, one of England's most respected newspapers.

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/jonathan_steele/2006/06/post_155.html

I asked an Iranian Zoroastrian I know, who has no love for Ahmadinejad and she confirmed it was wrongly translated by western media.

It seems that Mr. Ahmadinejad is consistently wrongly translated or misquoted by the Western Media.

http://www.counterpunch.org/tilley08282006.html


I'm with the Liberals.. let's just give Iran the nukes and trust them. If they launch anything.. we will talk to them, tell them we are dissapointed until they promise not to do it again.

We aren't giving them anything and the same fears were voiced when Pakistan became a nuclear nation. I think what we need to do is not jump to conclusions and ask the IAEA for more information on what they found. I for one would like to know how enriched the uranium they found is & in what amounts.

I would also like the IAEA to continue their inspections.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

So lets see, Bush, Chaney, Conservatism, Republicans, lower taxes, lower government, People making money by working hard, disolution of unions, losing your unemployement benefits after 6 months, police entering your house to find your illegal drugs... is there anyone else you want to add to the “I Hate” list?

Your list was almost accurate but you left out some key words.

Bush, Chaney, Christian Conservatism, Christian Conservative Republicans legislating their morals, lower taxes with even more money being pumped out to something pointless, lower government involvement being ignored for the sake of "morals" and terrorism, People making money by working hard and thinking that entitles them to do whatever the hell they want regardless of the law, losing your unemployment benefits period and possibly losing things like social security even though it's only the minority of people that abuse such things, and police entering your house without just cause.

[xtc]

Your list was almost accurate but you left out some key words.

Bush, Chaney, Christian Conservatism, Christian Conservative Republicans legislating their morals, lower taxes with even more money being pumped out to something pointless, lower government involvement being ignored for the sake of "morals" and terrorism, People making money by working hard and thinking that entitles them to do whatever the hell they want regardless of the law, losing your unemployment benefits period and possibly losing things like social security even though it's only the minority of people that abuse such things, and police entering your house without just cause.

and I thought I derailed this thread by discussing Quranic translation :)

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

and I thought I derailed this thread by discussing Quranic translation :)

I r talented.

Haha I should stop feeding the trolls. Still. This is the general pattern of all Political threads.

It starts out very focused.. then it escalates into PB vs Backlash and the Damn Liberals versus the Conservatives.. and then people get their popcorn and find a sitter for the kids and come to watch the festivities.

[Xaerve]

1) The Qu'ran cannot be changed, and has not been changed, from its original source. Practicing ijtihad, the process of Islamic reason and understanding of the holy verses, can lead to mandates from the Qu'ran or the Sunna to be reinterpreted into different mandates under current Sharia law.

2) Iran should not have nuclear weapons, because Iran has no respect or appreciation for the international system that other countries have played into. The anarchical international system relies upon nations to have credible agreements concerning the scope and reach of their nuclear programs. Iran is not capable of such commitments, and therefor should not have nuclear weapons.

[Back]

Official says U.S. may mull pre-emptive Iran strike (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061115/pl_nm/nuclear_iran_usa_dc)


LONDON (Reuters) - The United States or other countries will one day be forced to consider pre-emptive action if Iran and North Korea continue to seek nuclear weapons, a senior U.S. government official said on Tuesday.

The United States and its allies have accused Iran of pursuing nuclear weapons under the guise of a civilian energy program and are pushing for United Nations' sanctions. Tehran denies the accusation.

North Korea conducted an underground test of what was believed to have been a small nuclear weapon last month.

If North Korea refused to renounce its nuclear program and Iran developed a nuclear weapons capability, it would lead other countries in their regions to seek nuclear weapons, said the U.S. official, speaking on condition he was not identified.

"We, the United States, and others who might be threatened by these developments will have to look at how to respond and inevitably I think people will have to look at the question of pre-emption," the official told reporters.

-----------------------------------------------

So, if I were a country without nukes, and there was a country with nukes attacking other countries who do not have but might be trying to get and only then purportedly to use against someone, I would do my best to get a nuke as fast as possible.

[xtc]

Official says U.S. may mull pre-emptive Iran strike (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061115/pl_nm/nuclear_iran_usa_dc)

I would love to know who these Senior Officials are.
-----------------------------------------------


So, if I were a country without nukes, and there was a country with nukes attacking other countries who do not have but might be trying to get and only then purportedly to use against someone, I would do my best to get a nuke as fast as possible.


Which is the rub!

[Landrion]

Official says U.S. may mull pre-emptive Iran strike (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061115/pl_nm/nuclear_iran_usa_dc)



-----------------------------------------------

So, if I were a country without nukes, and there was a country with nukes attacking other countries who do not have but might be trying to get and only then purportedly to use against someone, I would do my best to get a nuke as fast as possible.

Interesting thought, but how apt is this country going to be to invade Iran after the WMD fiasco in Iraq.

[Parkbandit]

Official says U.S. may mull pre-emptive Iran strike (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061115/pl_nm/nuclear_iran_usa_dc)



-----------------------------------------------

So, if I were a country without nukes, and there was a country with nukes attacking other countries who do not have but might be trying to get and only then purportedly to use against someone, I would do my best to get a nuke as fast as possible.

So Backlash.. what is your plan?

You bitch and moan that the US is a tyrant in the world. What's your idea of what we should do?

And if your plan includes pink squirrels and blue butterflies.. I'm going to puke.

[Back]

So Backlash.. what is your plan?

You bitch and moan that the US is a tyrant in the world. What's your idea of what we should do?

And if your plan includes pink squirrels and blue butterflies.. I'm going to puke.

Sit down and talk it out over coffee and pastries. Find the common views, highlight and advance them by working together. Move towards a real global democracy. Treat people equally. In all successful ventures key components are cooperation and unity among the people involved.

“Lets hug it out bitch.” - Ari Gold

[Artha]

Non-violence is not the answer.

[Back]

Non-violence is not the answer.

If I were to go the conquering route, I’d have enough sense to at least start with Canada and Mexico, not half way around the world in a landlocked country.

[xtc]

For those of you who read my posts on this thread you would have noticed that we don't much information on what the IAEA found. I think this is KEY.

How enriched is the uranium they found? At this point we don't know, it is HEU meaning 20% and above but we need an exact figure. Nuclear Bombs require uranium enriched to a minimum of 85%.

At this point it is possible and plausible that what they found came from a research reactor.

[xtc]

If I were to go the conquering route, I’d have enough sense to at least start with Canada and Mexico, not half way around the world in a landlocked country.

Canada has nuclear technology, we make reactors and we can whipp up a bomb in no time. Some people think we already have nuclear bombs in Canada. Try Mexico they are an easier target!

[Gan]

Sit down and talk it out over coffee and pastries. Find the common views, highlight and advance them by working together. Move towards a real global democracy. Treat people equally. In all successful ventures key components are cooperation and unity among the people involved.

“Lets hug it out bitch.” - Ari Gold

:rofl:

:lol:

:rofl:

:lol:

[TheEschaton]

Love is the answer, Artha. :)

-TheE-

[Artha]

Love is a sham.

[Parkbandit]

Sit down and talk it out over coffee and pastries. Find the common views, highlight and advance them by working together. Move towards a real global democracy. Treat people equally. In all successful ventures key components are cooperation and unity among the people involved.

“Lets hug it out bitch.” - Ari Gold


That is fantastic... yet it shows a complete ignorance of the way the world really works.

[TheEschaton]

How the world works shouldn't prevent us from trying to change the world to how it SHOULD work.

-TheE-

[Sean of the Thread]

change the world to how it SHOULD work.



Who defines how it SHOULD work?

[Gan]

Who defines how it SHOULD work?

QFT

[TheEschaton]

I do.

-TheE-

[Parkbandit]

How the world works shouldn't prevent us from trying to change the world to how it SHOULD work.

-TheE-

I don't think there are many sane people of the world that would not love world peace and have things hashed out over a boardroom table instead of a battlefield.

I also don't think there are many sane people of the world that believes this is possible in the world today.

[Gan]

Love is the answer, Artha. :)

-TheE-

Greater than love is the ability to forgive. For without forgiveness, there is no room for love. And I dont see the past wrongs felt and done in the land of ancient Babel being forgiven anytime soon. So peace through love/forgiveness is taking second place to peace through force, since force is the only universal language understood right now, over there.

Someday that might change, just not anytime soon.

[Gan]

Editorials in Iranian newspapers claim '50 percent of Israel already destroyed,' say 'Israel must collapse' Yaakov Lappin Published: 11.15.06, 16:13


Iranian newspapers Kehyan and and Resalat have urged Muslims around the world to prepare for a 'great war' to destroy the State of Israel.

The newspapers published the editorials, translated from Persian (http://forum.gsplayers.com/@%28copy_from_editor%29@http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD135706) by MEMRI (http://www.memri.org) , the Middle East translation service, to mark 'Quds' day on October 20, an Iranian 'holiday' calling for the "liberation" of Jerusalem and war against Israel.

"Hizbullah destroyed at least half of Israel in the Lebanon war... Now only half the path (to its destruction) remains," an editorial in the conservative Keyhan newspaper declared.

"It was proven that, by means of an offensive operation that need not be equal to Israel's moves, it is possible to neutralize the Zionist navy," the article said triumphantly.


'Great war not far off'
It continued: "Just as in one 33-day war more than 50 percent of Israel was destroyed, and the hope of its supporters for the continued life of this regime was broken, it is likely that in the next battle, the second half will also collapse."


"On that day... Jordan will not be able to prevent the Jordanian Islamists from operating through the long Jordan-Palestine border, and the millions of Egyptian Islamists... will not let the Sinai-Israel border remain quiet, and the Syrian Golan Heights will not remain as a (mere) observer of the battle. That day is not so far off."


The Resalat newspaper struck a similarly bellicose tone with an editorial entitled "Preparations for the Great War."

"The great war is ahead of us, (and will break out) perhaps tomorrow, or in another few days, or in a few months, or even in a few Years... Israel must collapse," the newspaper said.

It added: "For the first time in the 60 years of its disgraceful life, the Zionist regime - the West's beloved in the Middle East - tasted the taste of defeat, and the citizens of this regime trembled at the menace of Hizbullah's missiles… The nation of Muslims must prepare for the great war, so as to completely wipe out the Zionist regime, and remove this cancerous growth. Like the Imam (Ayatollah) Khomeini said: 'Israel must collapse.'"

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3328416,00.html

[xtc]

Editorials in Iranian newspapers claim '50 percent of Israel already destroyed,' say 'Israel must collapse' Yaakov Lappin Published: 11.15.06, 16:13


Iranian newspapers Kehyan and and Resalat have urged Muslims around the world to prepare for a 'great war' to destroy the State of Israel.

The newspapers published the editorials, translated from Persian (http://forum.gsplayers.com/@%28copy_from_editor%29@http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD135706) by MEMRI (http://www.memri.org) , the Middle East translation service, to mark 'Quds' day on October 20, an Iranian 'holiday' calling for the "liberation" of Jerusalem and war against Israel.

"Hizbullah destroyed at least half of Israel in the Lebanon war... Now only half the path (to its destruction) remains," an editorial in the conservative Keyhan newspaper declared.

"It was proven that, by means of an offensive operation that need not be equal to Israel's moves, it is possible to neutralize the Zionist navy," the article said triumphantly.


'Great war not far off'
It continued: "Just as in one 33-day war more than 50 percent of Israel was destroyed, and the hope of its supporters for the continued life of this regime was broken, it is likely that in the next battle, the second half will also collapse."


"On that day... Jordan will not be able to prevent the Jordanian Islamists from operating through the long Jordan-Palestine border, and the millions of Egyptian Islamists... will not let the Sinai-Israel border remain quiet, and the Syrian Golan Heights will not remain as a (mere) observer of the battle. That day is not so far off."


The Resalat newspaper struck a similarly bellicose tone with an editorial entitled "Preparations for the Great War."

"The great war is ahead of us, (and will break out) perhaps tomorrow, or in another few days, or in a few months, or even in a few Years... Israel must collapse," the newspaper said.

It added: "For the first time in the 60 years of its disgraceful life, the Zionist regime - the West's beloved in the Middle East - tasted the taste of defeat, and the citizens of this regime trembled at the menace of Hizbullah's missiles… The nation of Muslims must prepare for the great war, so as to completely wipe out the Zionist regime, and remove this cancerous growth. Like the Imam (Ayatollah) Khomeini said: 'Israel must collapse.'"

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3328416,00.html

Can't comment on the article yet. However the translation was conducted by an organisation that was founded by a retired Israeli Military Intelligence Officer. I would say based on that the translation lacks objectivity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yigal_Carmon.

and your article appears in an Israeli newspaper.

[Gan]

Considering its just editorials, I figured a lot of it was rhetoric. I didnt delve into the translation, good to know its likely from a biased but worried source.

Either way, its not good news for whats happening over there. Regardless of the source of the sentiment.

Nothing says "I LOVE YOU" like the hug of a 20 kilo-ton nuclear warhead.

[Landrion]

Can't comment on the article yet. However the translation was conducted by an organisation that was founded by a retired Israeli Military Intelligence Officer. I would say based on that the translation lacks objectivity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yigal_Carmon.

Well thats very comforting, Ill remember the next time one of these little wacko dissertations come out that its all a plot by Military intelligence officers to mistranslate. I suppose youll tell us next Osama's tapes are him wishing us Happy Ramadan and have nothing to do with terror at all.

[TheEschaton]

Well, then, why do you think the Nobel Peace Prize in the last few years have gone to people loke El-Baradei, the IAEA chief? Because he is seeking diplomacy and inspections as a method instead of war and rhetoric.

-TheE-

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

I love how people are only willing to look at the issues of bias and translation only when it benefits their own position on something.

[xtc]

I love how people are only willing to look at the issues of bias and translation only when it benefits their own position on something.

I don't have a defined opinion on Iran and nuclear technology. I believe Iranian people has a right to nuclear technology however I am not sure how I feel about this Iranian Government having nuclear technology.

I'll hold judgement on what the IAEA found until I know how enriched the uranium was.

There have been so many issues around translation from Farsi regading events in Iran and statements, I think the objectivity of the translator is key.

I once dated a women who worked for the Canadian Government, as a translator, and she always stressed how important translation was. A poorly translated document can change the intent of the speaker.

I know a women who is an Iranian Zoroastrian, who hates Ahmadinejad, and has agreed that much has been translated wrong.

I am very interested to know the truth about what is happening in Iran. A nuclear bomb that lands in NYC will effect Toronto before much of the USA.

[Landrion]

Well, then, why do you think the Nobel Peace Prize in the last few years have gone to people loke El-Baradei, the IAEA chief? Because he is seeking diplomacy and inspections as a method instead of war and rhetoric.

-TheE-

Yeah and here I thought Bush was a shoe-in this year.

[Sean of the Thread]

When you see a rattlesnake poised to strike, you do not wait until he has struck before you crush him.

[Parkbandit]

I love how people are only willing to look at the issues of bias and translation only when it benefits their own position on something.


Kind of like Face in vaginal area = head on lap.

[Parkbandit]

When you see a rattlesnake poised to strike, you do not wait until he has struck before you crush him.

No.. you understand that the snake has rights too.. and gently lift your pant leg as to give him a better shot at your flesh. When he is done just doing what is natural to him, you bid him good day with a happy wave.

[Artha]

Then sit down over coffees and pastries and try to nicely coax the poison out of your body?

[xtc]

When you see a rattlesnake poised to strike, you do not wait until he has struck before you crush him.

Bad analogy. The Arab world thinks we are a snake that has bit all over their body.

[Back]

Keep up with that WWF mentality. Thats sure going to solve a lot.

Peace at the end of a barrel of a gun is oppression.

I’m suspect of what I hear about Iran mainly because what I heard about Iraq turned out to be false. You want to blame me for having that reaction, go ahead.

Diplomacy has to be the answer to save innocent lives on all sides. You want to start wars understand that innocents on our side lose their lives no matter how careful you think you are.

In this world you have to be careful, OBVIOUSLY, but you don’t shoot first based on what you think will happen. That sort of practice ultimately means you eliminate everyone immediately to be the winner or last man standing. Guess who the villain is in that scenario?

Landrion has a very valid point of wanting to have the upper hand, the leverage, the superiority in the situation and I think thats just common sense. Utilize your assets to leverage your position. But an armed response should be the absolute last thing used.

[Sean of the Thread]

http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b236/Japgross/the_sign.jpg

[HarmNone]

I'll chime in with what I believe to be a necessity to communication between the Islamic world and our world (predominately Christian):

Before useful dialogue can take place, there must be understanding on both sides of the stance taken by the opposing side. There must be a profound grasp of the driving forces behind those stances. I don't think that understanding exists at this point, and as long as each side continues to insist that their way is the ONLY way, no such understanding can be achieved.

While sitting down over tea and crumpets and hammering out international policy to end all wars is a magnificent goal from an ideological standpoint, as long as understanding of the other side is lacking on EITHER side, it is an unrealistic one.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

Kind of like Face in vaginal area = head on lap.

Exactly. Instead of taking what the article in that situation said as fact because it was convenient to back up the whole "OMG SO WRONG" point of view, I looked at it from another angle and tried to see where perhaps it was skewed or bias.

Lots of other people on these forums who notoriously bitch about the media and how they're either too liberal or too conservative, and who take every political piece of journalism and immediately invalidate it using the argument of "bias", looked at an article and didn't think twice about bias or how maybe events were skewed. It's hypocritical.

Just like the quote in my profile.. you can entertain a thought and examine something from different angles without actually fully ascribing to it. Thanks for pointing out such a great example.

[HarmNone]

Let's get back on the topic of Iran and the nuclear waste. If you want to talk about MLK, et al, start a thread with that as the subject. I'll happily move the related posts to that thread.

[HarmNone]

One more time. Topic, please.

[Artha]

edit: And anyway Iran needs to back off the enriched uranium because I'd like to go through an "apocolypse free" life.

[HarmNone]

Off topic posts will now begin to do the disappearing samba.

[Back]

edit: And anyway Iran needs to back off the enriched uranium because I'd like to go through an "apocolypse free" life.

Me too. And you don’t honestly think there are people on the other side thinking the exact same thing? You want to put your trust in the crazy religious people who see this as a “given?”

Its bullshit, dude. If you see things a certain way, say it. Stand up for it. Do not cower to loudmouths. Myself included. Make your own choice.

[TheEschaton]

Nuclear weapons = teh suck.

-TheE-

[HarmNone]

The thread's been split. You've got a thread for the MLK discussion and one for the Quran discussion. The garbage has been taken out.

The topic of this thread is Iran's possible nuclear capabilities. Let's stay on it.

[Tsa`ah]

On the subject of poor translation ...

Well I just don't know where to begin. This guy obviously is the victim of a long chain of poor, slanted, and biased translations.

I'm sorry, I don't buy it. I'll probably not buy it at any discount either.

Ahmadinejad has a long history of being "misunderstood" when it comes to Israel. How many times can "embraced" be mistaken for "obliterated" anyway?

The entire region wages a propaganda war on Israel. It's in the school books, on the news, in the cartoons ... what exactly are you trying to sell?

I will agree that until we have exact amounts and definitions of findings, we should be concerned at best. You will have to concede that Iran really doesn't have a "need" for nuclear power when you consider it's one of the largest producer of petroleum in the world.

You can suggest that they wish to be more environmental, or that perhaps it makes more sense to wean yourself off of the crack you sell ... yet the stream of antisemitism that streams out of Iran and it's president leads me to believe that the guy is a nut and he wouldn't give a shit about the fallout deaths so long as Israel was no longer capable of sustaining life.

It would be a catastrophic measure of stupidity on the part of Iran for several reasons.

1. Israel has been able to maintain highly ambiguous levels of information about it's nuclear capability and potential delivery. If you consider that Iran just got it's hands on Shihab-3 missiles and we are just starting to hear about findings in waste ... Israel has a 50+ year lead on Iran. You could assume they need bombers to deliver a nuclear payload, but I'm willing to bet they just need a phone call and a button.

2. With the constant stream of calls for the destruction of Israel, I'm willing to bet they doing more than just keeping an eye out for vapor trails.

3. When the loudmouth down the road keeps yelling that he's going to beat your jew head in with a bat one day, you're going to have a bat or more ready when he comes to your front door.

[Parkbandit]

Iran and it's nuclear program are being censored by their government.. much like this thread.

[xtc]

On the subject of poor translation ...

Well I just don't know where to begin. This guy obviously is the victim of a long chain of poor, slanted, and biased translations.

I'm sorry, I don't buy it. I'll probably not buy it at any discount either.

Ahmadinejad has a long history of being "misunderstood" when it comes to Israel. How many times can "embraced" be mistaken for "obliterated" anyway?

The problem lies in the fact that Farsi translation wasn't exactly a booming business pre-Ahmadinejad. I think when translation relies on an organisation founded by a retired Israeli Military Intelligence Officer, who was involved in Israel's Gitmo, there is reason to questions the motives of the translators and thus the translation.

...and no one has suggested that Ahmadinejad embraces Israel.

As I have posted, I discussed this with an Iranian Zoroastrian who hates Ahmadinejad, and she says he has been wrongly tranlsated in the past. I haven't run Ganalon's article by her.


The entire region wages a propaganda war on Israel. It's in the school books, on the news, in the cartoons ... what exactly are you trying to sell?

Some countries yes, some countries no, but the propaganda cuts both ways. I am not sure Middle East Scholars would agree with certain versions of Israel's modern formation that is taught in Israeli schools...but that is another discussion.


I will agree that until we have exact amounts and definitions of findings, we should be concerned at best. You will have to concede that Iran really doesn't have a "need" for nuclear power when you consider it's one of the largest producer of petroleum in the world.

Actually Iran has no oil refining plants so it has to import refined oil, so there is a need for nuclear power.


You can suggest that they wish to be more environmental, or that perhaps it makes more sense to wean yourself off of the crack you sell ... yet the stream of antisemitism that streams out of Iran and it's president leads me to believe that the guy is a nut and he wouldn't give a shit about the fallout deaths so long as Israel was no longer capable of sustaining life.

The real power doesn't lie with Ahmadinejad and he knows good propaganda when he sees it.


It would be a catastrophic measure of stupidity on the part of Iran for several reasons.

1. Israel has been able to maintain highly ambiguous levels of information about it's nuclear capability and potential delivery. If you consider that Iran just got it's hands on Shihab-3 missiles and we are just starting to hear about findings in waste ... Israel has a 50+ year lead on Iran. You could assume they need bombers to deliver a nuclear payload, but I'm willing to bet they just need a phone call and a button.

Exactly, Iran will not launch a nuclear strike on Israel. Your post leads to another question. Israel developed nuclear technology in secret with no supervision or inspections from the IAEA. It has never been subject to UN weapons inspectors. If Israel is allowed to have/keep nuclear techology shouldn't other nations as well?


2. With the constant stream of calls for the destruction of Israel, I'm willing to bet they doing more than just keeping an eye out for vapor trails.

As has been previously pointed out Ahmadinejad never called for Israel's destruction. It was translated wrongly and some people believe on purpose. However I am sure Israel will be monitoring things closely. I am fearful as
Ehud Olmert has no military experience.


3. When the loudmouth down the road keeps yelling that he's going to beat your jew head in with a bat one day, you're going to have a bat or more ready when he comes to your front door.

Again Ahmadinejad hasn't said this, however Israel is more than capable of defending itself.

[HarmNone]

I believe the Abadan oil refinery is producing again, after being all but destroyed in the Iran/Iraq war. I'm not sure what its production figures are, but I think they're pretty close to pre-war capacity again. It's a huge refinery, but not as large as Ras Tanura, in Saudi Arabia.

[xtc]

I believe the Abadan oil refinery is producing again, after being all but destroyed in the Iran/Iraq war. I'm not sure what its production figures are, but I think they're pretty close to pre-war capacity again. It's a huge refinery, but not as large as Ras Tanura, in Saudi Arabia.

The US bombed the Abadan oil refinery by "mistake" in 2003. I am not sure if it is up and running yet and if so at what capacity.

You are correct though Iran does have refining capability, I was wrong.

http://www.nioc.org/subcompanies/niordc/index.asp

[HarmNone]

Abadan, and the nearby port city of Khorramsharr, were pretty much destroyed in 1980 by Iraqi invasion. Their populations had to be dispersed to other towns. I can find nothing about a bombing of the refinery by the US in 2003. Perhaps you could direct me to the source of your information, xtc?

The following was what I was able to find:

A breakdown of the data for sectoral damage by province reveals that Khuzestan incurred 34.27 per cent of all direct economic damage (table 6.3). Khuzestan's large share of the damage was not unexpected: many petrochemical establishments, light industry facilities, oil installations, major port facilities, and modern agribusinesses - prime targets of aerial bombardments - are located there. The city of Khorramshahr and the world's largest oil refinery at Abadan were almost completely destroyed, while the city of Abadan itself sustained 50 per cent damage. Of the total damage to the province, approximately 40 per cent was associated with buildings and installations.
(source: http://www.unu.edu/unupress/unupbooks/uu21le/uu21le0e.htm)

Abadan
Abadan , city (1991 pop. 84,774), Khuzestan prov., SW Iran, on Abadan Island, in the delta of the Shatt al Arab, at the head of the Persian Gulf. It is the terminus of major oil pipelines and is an important oil refining and shipping center. Abadan Island was ceded to Iran by Turkey in 1847. Abadan city was an unimportant village until the discovery (1908) of nearby oil fields. Its oil refinery (commissioned 1913) was the largest in the world by the 1970s. The refinery, together with the rest of the city, was destroyed during the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s. After the war's end in 1988, Abadan resumed oil production, but on a smaller scale.

Author not available, ABADAN., The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition 2006


Burning Refinery at Abadan in 1980: http://www.bookrags.com/Abadan

My family lived in Abadan when I was a teen, so I have an interest in what goes on there, and how the town has been rebuilt from what was left after the Iraqis demolished it. I know a great deal of rebuilding has been done; however, I don't know that they'd have the wherewithall to put a lot into the development of nuclear weapons. I think they're still doing well to keep their people fed, and continue rebuilding. When their major ports and the refinery was destroyed, it really took a huge bite out of their income. They had nothing, since a good deal of their income came from the region that was destroyed. That's not to mention the damage they'd done to their own country during the revolt against the Shah in the late 70's.

[xtc]

Abadan, and the nearby port city of Khorramsharr, were pretty much destroyed in 1980 by Iraqi invasion. Their populations had to be dispersed to other towns. I can find nothing about a bombing of the refinery by the US in 2003. Perhaps you could direct me to the source of your information, xtc?

The following was what I was able to find:

A breakdown of the data for sectoral damage by province reveals that Khuzestan incurred 34.27 per cent of all direct economic damage (table 6.3). Khuzestan's large share of the damage was not unexpected: many petrochemical establishments, light industry facilities, oil installations, major port facilities, and modern agribusinesses - prime targets of aerial bombardments - are located there. The city of Khorramshahr and the world's largest oil refinery at Abadan were almost completely destroyed, while the city of Abadan itself sustained 50 per cent damage. Of the total damage to the province, approximately 40 per cent was associated with buildings and installations.
(source: http://www.unu.edu/unupress/unupbooks/uu21le/uu21le0e.htm)

Abadan
Abadan , city (1991 pop. 84,774), Khuzestan prov., SW Iran, on Abadan Island, in the delta of the Shatt al Arab, at the head of the Persian Gulf. It is the terminus of major oil pipelines and is an important oil refining and shipping center. Abadan Island was ceded to Iran by Turkey in 1847. Abadan city was an unimportant village until the discovery (1908) of nearby oil fields. Its oil refinery (commissioned 1913) was the largest in the world by the 1970s. The refinery, together with the rest of the city, was destroyed during the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s. After the war's end in 1988, Abadan resumed oil production, but on a smaller scale.

Author not available, ABADAN., The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition 2006


Burning Refinery at Abadan in 1980: http://www.bookrags.com/Abadan

My family lived in Abadan when I was a teen, so I have an interest in what goes on there, and how the town has been rebuilt from what was left after the Iraqis demolished it. I know a great deal of rebuilding has been done; however, I don't know that they'd have the wherewithall to put a lot into the development of nuclear weapons. I think they're still doing well to keep their people fed, and continue rebuilding. When their major ports and the refinery was destroyed, it really took a huge bite out of their income. They had nothing, since a good deal of their income came from the region that was destroyed. That's not to mention the damage they'd done to their own country during the revolt against the Shah in the late 70's.

HN you lived in Abadan, wow! Was your family involved in the oil business?

This is my source for the bombing of the Abadan oil refinery:

http://english.people.com.cn/200303/22/eng20030322_113734.shtml

This one is obviously biased.

"From March 21 to March 24, 2003, Iranian air-space had been violated with impunity by US aircraft. The US attacked the oil-industry communities of Khorramshahr, Abadan and Manyuhi in Iran "

http://www.counterpunch.org/stanton03252003.html

[HarmNone]

Thanks for the links, xtc. It looks like Iran claimed the US bombed the facility, but I haven't been able to find anything to corroborate that claim. I hadn't heard about this at all, and that surprised me, since I do try to keep up simply because I know the area. I actually toured the refinery with my parents. It was quite interesting. :)

Check your PMs for an explanation of what we were doing there, since that's really not on topic.

[Sean of the Thread]

http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b236/Japgross/final.jpg

[xtc]

http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b236/Japgross/final.jpg

He made no such statement, it was translated wrong, perhaps by anti-Iranians.

[Gan]

He made no such statement, it was translated wrong, perhaps by anti-Iranians.

So what was the correct translation?

[Sean]

IIRC it was something along the lines of the UN didn't have the right to just carve up land and establish the State of Israel, therefore Israel shouldn't exist.

I don't buy it but I believe that was the line given at the time.

[Artha]

I think whenever he says something about "wiping Israel off the map", the correct (literal) translation is something like "remove Israel from the pages of time". But we don't have an idiom like that in English, so the next best thing is the map wiping.

[TheEschaton]

Ironic. I agree that Europe didn't have the right to carve up the Middle East to make a homeland for the Jewish people, without even consulting the people who lived there.

Who knew?

-TheE-

[xtc]

I think whenever he says something about "wiping Israel off the map", the correct (literal) translation is something like "remove Israel from the pages of time". But we don't have an idiom like that in English, so the next best thing is the map wiping.

That gives the phrase a completely different meaning, the latter makes it sounds like Iran wants to destroy Israel.

[Parkbandit]

So what was the correct translation?

"I wish the Israelis would wipe up after they take a nap"

He's a peaceful man who only wants to peacefully exist with all nations. It's the american press... like Fox News... that is trying to make him into something he is not. Same with Chavez.

Let's hug.

[xtc]

"I wish the Israelis would wipe up after they take a nap"

He's a peaceful man who only wants to peacefully exist with all nations. It's the american press... like Fox News... that is trying to make him into something he is not. Same with Chavez.

Let's hug.

Why not try and find the correct translation.

[Gan]

"I wish the Israelis would wipe up after they take a nap"

He's a peaceful man who only wants to peacefully exist with all nations. It's the american press... like Fox News... that is trying to make him into something he is not. Same with Chavez.

Let's hug.

:lol:

[Back]

Anyone else watch Ted Koppel’s Iran documentary on Discovery last night? It was really good. If they re-run it and you get a chance, its a compelling two hours worth watching.

[Artha]

That gives the phrase a completely different meaning, the latter makes it sounds like Iran wants to destroy Israel.
Just my opinion as a non-translator and someone who only knows that Farsi sounds pretty cool, but I think they both give the same kind of feeling.

Wiping x off the pages of time implies making it like it had never existed. Not in the past, present, or future. Wiping it off the map has the same kind of effect.

[xtc]

Just my opinion as a non-translator and someone who only knows that Farsi sounds pretty cool, but I think they both give the same kind of feeling.

Wiping x off the pages of time implies making it like it had never existed. Not in the past, present, or future. Wiping it off the map has the same kind of effect.

My non-translator opinion is different. Wishing for something not to have happened is different from wishing something to be destroyed or die. On occasion, I have heard a parent say, about their unruly child, I wish I never had kids which is totally different from I wish my child to die.

[Artha]

Well since Israel already exists, there's only one way to wipe it from the pages of time...I guess it's a paradigm thing.

[Parkbandit]

Maybe he meant 'wipe it from the pages of time' as a way of redoing their history books to include a chapter on Arab and Jewish cooperation. I think we should all just relax.. let them get nuclear power and weapons and just hope he does the right thing. I'm willing to take a chance, why aren't you?