The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Breaking News => Topic started by: BlueStateSaint on February 06, 2013, 09:58:30 AM
-
Oh, ain't this just peachy! :hammer:
Ahmadinejad: Iran already a nuclear state, but has no intention of launching attack on Israel
In interview with Al-Ahram on eve of Islamic Summit Conference in Cairo, Iranian president also says his country opposes outside intervention in Syria.
By Jack Khoury | Feb.06, 2013 | 11:43 AM | 41
(http://www.haaretz.com/polopoly_fs/1.501783.1360145492!/image/354805645.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_640/354805645.jpg)
Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says that while Iran is already a nuclear state, it has no intention of attacking Israel. Ahmadinejad was interviewed on the eve of his visit to Cairo, where he will attend the 12th Islamic Summit Conference, due to open there on Wednesday.
Before his trip, he gave a long interview to the editor-in-chief of Egypt's newspaper Al-Ahram. Although Al-Ahram ran the entire interview only in its print edition, excerpts appeared on Egyptian websites.
Ahmadinejad said the world must now treat Iran as a nuclear country. “They want Iran to go back to what it was in the past, but they won’t succeed. They assume we’ll give in to pressure; such thoughts are misguided. We’re already an industrial and nuclear country, a country that has conquered space. For years we have been thinking about sending a human being into space, and we will do that, with Allah’s help. We must ensure development and growth and bring them to pass, and the world must acknowledge our progress,†he said, adding that the best solution was cooperation with Iran.
Mentioning the possibility of an Israeli attack on Iran, Ahmadinejad said that while it might be easy to launch missiles or attack using fighter jets, Iran’s response and defense capability were important in this context.
The rest of the story is here: http://www.haaretz.com/news/israel-s-eye-on-iran/ahmadinejad-iran-already-a-nuclear-state-but-has-no-intention-of-launching-attack-on-israel-1.501777
The nuke is to be for the US East Coast, launched from a container ship (container launcher supplied by the Russians) . . . :o :censored:
-
Ahmadinnerjacket should be blown away to visit his 72 Virginians.
-
Oh gee, who didn't see this coming? I just knew that obama wasn't going to do anything to stop Iran from acquiring a nuke, he has nothing but contempt for Israel and, I suspect, just wishes Israel would go away.
-
Or, if a nuke is cooked off on American soil on 1/21/17 with a Republican president, the Democrats will piss and moan that the new president "did nothing", like the BS they tried after 9/11.
I don't know which is worse--Iran or the Democrats.
-
Or, if a nuke is cooked off on American soil on 1/21/17 with a Republican president, the Democrats will piss and moan that the new president "did nothing", like the BS they tried after 9/11.
I don't know which is worse--Iran or the Democrats.
There's a difference? :rofl:
-
What baffles me is why we have not blown Iran to hell and back 8 to 10 years ago. Most of the deaths of American soldiers have been the result of roadside bombs which have killed and maimed thousands. We knew then who was responsible for these bombs. WTF is wrong with these idiots in DC.
-
What baffles me is why we have not blown Iran to hell and back 8 to 10 years ago.
The way the ME is blowing up, I'm sure we'll get our chance.
WTF is wrong with these idiots in DC.
The anti-war crowd is in-charge.
-
It would be nice if there was a huge uprising in Iran that led to the fall of the Mullahs.
-
It would be nice if there was a huge uprising in Iran that led to the fall of the Mullahs.
There might have been, but Obama chose not to give them any support. Instead he chose to back the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and elsewhere.
-
There might have been, but Obama chose not to give them any support. Instead he chose to back the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and elsewhere.
They should of been supported.
-
It would be nice if there was a huge uprising in Iran that led to the fall of the Mullahs.
It happened in 2009...and this administration sided with the Mullahs..
-
It happened in 2009...and this administration sided with the Mullahs..
I know. They had the opportunity, but screwed up. That would spared us a lot of trouble. No surprise they side with them.
-
If by that he means unstable and dangerous to handle, he isn't bullshitting.
-
I know. They had the opportunity, but screwed up. That would spared us a lot of trouble. No surprise they side with them.
Didn't Obama say that in any disagreement between the west and Islam that he would necessarily have to side with the Muslims?
-
Didn't Obama say that in any disagreement between the west and Islam that he would necessarily have to side with the Muslims?
Yes, he did.