"Atomic Iran"

So Fox News is on in my lunchroom this afternoon. They have some Ph.D. on who wrote a book called "Atomic Iran". His thesis is that Iran's intention with its nuclear program is to put a bomb together, smuggle it in to the US, and detonate it in Manhattan. Seriously, this is what he said ... followed of course with "I'm not trying to scare people". His conclusion seemed to be that we better be taking action against Iran -- I presume military action -- now.

He said that he is trying to get this to the attention of the American people, and that Senators Brownback and Santorum are "brave men" who are attempting to bring this to everyone's attention.

Surprisingly, the show's host didn't seem to really grill this guy on his theory.

He was on for just a few minutes (giving an apparently grave topic -- if legitimate -- short shrift). Anyone have any thoughts about this?

Here's the website for the book: Atomic Iran (http://www.cumberlandhouse.com/atomiciransite.htm)

[jaxmike]

His theory is unfortunately consistent with much of the rhetoric that has come out of Tehran in recent years.

[Bodhi]

[ QUOTE ]
Surprisingly, the show's host didn't seem to really grill this guy on his theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

You were watching Fox, don't be naive.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Surprisingly, the show's host didn't seem to really grill this guy on his theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

You were watching Fox, don't be naive.

[/ QUOTE ]

You need to take your sarcasm detector into the shop.

[Bodhi]

The tone of your post was too respectful for me to detect your sarcasm.

[ QUOTE ]
The tone of your post was too respectful for me to detect your sarcasm.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry if it didn't come through clearly. I figured it was sort of obvious -- guy comes on, says NYC is going to get blown up, and they hardly question him on it. You had to see it.

[bholdr]

[ QUOTE ]

His theory is unfortunately consistent with much of the rhetoric that has come out of Tehran in recent years.

[/ QUOTE ]

what rhetoric? the tone and rhetoric of the bush admin's position on the gov in terhan could be interpreted much the same way: we oppose their style of government, their oppressive culture, their lack of functioning democracy... we're obviously willing to use force if needs be.... that doesn't mean we're gonna nuke them.

besides, they know better than to nuke the us- we'd turn their nation into a parking lot- they may be fanatics, but they're not stupid.

the 'atomic iran' hypothesis is just more irresponsible and inflammitory exxageration and propaganda, IMO.

[bholdr]

troubletown cartoon (http://troubletown.com/cartoons/05.html)

i esp like the third frame, where bush rattles his sabre.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
what rhetoric?

[/ QUOTE ]

Heh, funny you should ask.

Not too long ago, when Iran's Paliament approved a bill mandating the enrichment of nuclear fuel, lawmakers broke into a loud spontaneous cheer/chant of "Death To America!" upon passage of the bill.

Iran's rhetoric over the years has been WAY more hostile to the U.S.A., than the U.S.A.'s rhetoric has been towards Iran.

[bholdr]

[ QUOTE ]
Iran's rhetoric over the years has been WAY more hostile to the U.S.A., than the U.S.A.'s rhetoric has been towards Iran.

[/ QUOTE ]

sure, but, when veiwed in the context of the region an their political situation, it's really not that big of a difference between saying 'death to america' and the 'axis of evil' plus 'hunt down and kill the evildoers' rhetoric that bush is spewing.

[MMMMMM]

I see your point, although I think the mullahs knew that Bush meant "hunt down and kill the terrorists", where "evildoers" = "terrorists".

Iran's, and Hezbollah's, rhetorics have long been extrememly hostile to the U.S.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Iran's rhetoric over the years has been WAY more hostile to the U.S.A., than the U.S.A.'s rhetoric has been towards Iran.

[/ QUOTE ]

What are you fixating on rhetoric for?

Iran was helped by Israel during the war against Iraq.

Iran has also been helped by the United States, which provided Ayatollah Khomeini with weapons and other stuff. Actions sepak louder than words and America seems to have loved those charming mullahs - only they would never return the call.

Are you sure your hostility against Iran is not out of a feeling of ..rejection? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
What are you fixating on rhetoric for?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, bholdr raised it as an issue, and I responded--does that make any sense to you?

[QuadsOverQuads]

[ QUOTE ]
His theory is unfortunately consistent with much of the rhetoric that has come out of Tehran in recent years.

[/ QUOTE ]

This response is unfortunately consistent with most of the rhetoric that jaxmike has pulled out of his ass in recent years.


q/q

[Cyrus]

Nice little diversion, once again, M. Seeing as you choce to skirt the specifics in my post, I will put 'em up again:

1. Iran was helped by Israel during the war against Iraq.

2. Iran has also been helped by the United States, which provided Ayatollah Khomeini with weapons and other stuff. Actions sepak louder than words and America seems to have loved those charming mullahs - only they would never return the call.

Got it now? The American policy regarding Iran has always been without the slightest moral scruple. And American rhetoric about "values", "the mullahs" and "democracy in Iran" has always been a smokescreen to cover the total immorality of it. People who believe otherwise are deluded stooges.

So, either you are less clever than you think or a huge Iggy Pop fan.

[player24]

[ QUOTE ]
Not too long ago, when Iran's Paliament approved a bill mandating the enrichment of nuclear fuel, lawmakers broke into a loud spontaneous cheer/chant of "Death To America!" upon passage of the bill.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this true? Did this incident involve a vocal minority or a majority? Kind of scary/disgusting...

[ACPlayer]

You hear far more anti-tehran rhetoric in Washington than the other way around. The anti-tehran rhetoric is perhaps more dangerous as it is backed by greater military force and the demonstrated willingness to use it willy nilly.

Perhaps you can add Tehran Times (http://www.tehrantimes.com/) to your reading list to see what is being said over there.

[player24]

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps you can add Tehran Times to your reading list to see what is being said over there.

[/ QUOTE ]

What a sorry excuse for a newspaper. I assume the local language newspapers are much better.

[MMMMMM]

No diversion intended; I was just responding to the point bholdr raised.

Who's the real wild child here, anyway?

[Arnfinn Madsen]

The Iranian leadership uses anti-American rhetoric to get support of its people just as Bush uses anti-Iranian rhetoric to get support of his people. The Iranian leadership always make sure that its actions are not too provocative, so any attack would be absurd.

[trippin bily]

[ QUOTE ]
Nice little diversion, once again, M. Seeing as you choce to skirt the specifics in my post, I will put 'em up again:

1. Iran was helped by Israel during the war against Iraq.

2. Iran has also been helped by the United States, which provided Ayatollah Khomeini with weapons and other stuff. Actions sepak louder than words and America seems to have loved those charming mullahs - only they would never return the call.

Got it now? The American policy regarding Iran has always been without the slightest moral scruple. And American rhetoric about "values", "the mullahs" and "democracy in Iran" has always been a smokescreen to cover the total immorality of it. People who believe otherwise are deluded stooges.

So, either you are less clever than you think or a huge Iggy Pop fan.

[/ QUOTE ]

I will grant you Cyrus that all of this is true but it is all 20 to 25 years ago, Many administrations and many mullahs ago.

[ QUOTE ]
The Iranian leadership uses anti-American rhetoric to get support of its people just as Bush uses anti-Iranian rhetoric to get support of his people. The Iranian leadership always make sure that its actions are not too provocative, so any attack would be absurd.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not a Bush man, but this is not true. The USA is Iran's "Great Satan". So the idea that they use anti-American rhetoric to stir the population makes sense. On the other hand, we here don't really give too much of a crap about Iran. The president has many better targets to attack if he's trying to drum up support.

[Chris Alger]

No, you need to tune-up your bullshit detector. Can't you tell when Fox is pulling your leg? I mean, Jerome Corso as "some Ph.D.?" You didn't even suspect that someone who single-handedly purports to detect an imminent nuclear attack from a Muslim country might have an axe to grind and a record of tomfoolery?

Corsi is a right-wing crank, an co-manufacturer of the Swift Boat smear who inhabits the grey area between those too dumb to code their bigotry and plain neo-Nazis. Here are some Corsi chestnuts, from Media Matters for America (http://mediamatters.org/items/200408060010) :

"[Islam is] a worthless, dangerous Satanic religion"

"it's simple NBC = NOTHING BUT COMMUNISM."

"Islam is like a virus -- it affects the mind -- maybe even better as an analogy -- it is a cancer that destroys the body it infects... No doctor would hesitate to eliminate cancer cells from the body."

"Boy buggering in both Islam and Catholicism is okay with the Pope as long as it isn't reported by the liberal press"

"RAGHEADS are Boy-Bumpers as clearly as they are Women-Haters -- it all goes together"

"After he married TerRAHsa, didn't John Kerry begin practicing Judiasm? He also has paternal grandparents that were Jewish. What religion is John Kerry?"

"FAT HOG" Clinton: "Anybody ask why HELLary couldn't keep BJ Bill satisfied? Not lesbo or anything, is she?"

You know, typical Ph.D. stuff.

[bholdr]

nice post, chris. ty.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Iran has also been helped by the United States, which provided Ayatollah Khomeini with weapons and other stuff.

[/ QUOTE ]I will grant you that all of this is true but it is all 20 to 25 years ago. Many administrations and many mullahs ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's see. So, either the previous mullahs, i.e. Ayatollah Khomeinin himself, were better than the currect crop of mullahs and, thus, perfectly worthy of the assistance that the United States provided them with --or-- the previous American administration, i.e. Ronald Reagan, was simply, and contrary to the claims of the many Reagan fans of this page, on a snafu strategy.

I tend to go with the second view, for some reason... /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
No diversion intended; I was just responding to the point bholdr raised.

[/ QUOTE ]
What point? Here bholdr's point:

[ QUOTE ]
It's really not that big of a difference between saying 'Death to America' and the 'Axis of evil' plus 'Hunt down and kill the evildoers' rhetoric that Bush is spewing.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is nothing to dispute with that point! The only finesse you could perhaps suggest is that the "backward Iranians" are more crude in their rhetoric than Dubya's speechwriters. Point.

Your response, however, was shown to be inconsequential! Here's your response:

[ QUOTE ]
Not too long ago, when Iran's Paliament approved a bill mandating the enrichment of nuclear fuel, lawmakers broke into a loud spontaneous cheer/chant of "Death To America!" upon passage of the bill.
<font color="white"> . </font>
Iran's rhetoric over the years has been WAY more hostile to the U.S.A., than the U.S.A.'s rhetoric has been towards Iran.

[/ QUOTE ]

So?? I told you, rhetoric's got nothing to do with anything. The United States sold arms to the very people shouting "Death to America" -- what more do you want? Can't you realize that your guys have zero scruples and zero morals? You are been taken in, you sucker.

For thirty years and counting.

[ QUOTE ]
No, you need to tune-up your bullshit detector. Can't you tell when Fox is pulling your leg? I mean, Jerome Corso as "some Ph.D.?" You didn't even suspect that someone who single-handedly purports to detect an imminent nuclear attack from a Muslim country might have an axe to grind and a record of tomfoolery?

Corsi is a right-wing crank, an co-manufacturer of the Swift Boat smear who inhabits the grey area between those too dumb to code their bigotry and plain neo-Nazis. Here are some Corsi chestnuts, from Media Matters for America (http://mediamatters.org/items/200408060010) :

"[Islam is] a worthless, dangerous Satanic religion"

"it's simple NBC = NOTHING BUT COMMUNISM."

"Islam is like a virus -- it affects the mind -- maybe even better as an analogy -- it is a cancer that destroys the body it infects... No doctor would hesitate to eliminate cancer cells from the body."

"Boy buggering in both Islam and Catholicism is okay with the Pope as long as it isn't reported by the liberal press"

"RAGHEADS are Boy-Bumpers as clearly as they are Women-Haters -- it all goes together"

"After he married TerRAHsa, didn't John Kerry begin practicing Judiasm? He also has paternal grandparents that were Jewish. What religion is John Kerry?"

"FAT HOG" Clinton: "Anybody ask why HELLary couldn't keep BJ Bill satisfied? Not lesbo or anything, is she?"

You know, typical Ph.D. stuff.

[/ QUOTE ]

Read the thread before you respond. There was an attempt at sarcasm in the post. Apparently it failed, but I thought I explained that before you posted.

[MMMMMM]

(sigh) Cyrus, you great dingbat...bholdr specifically asked "what rhetoric?"...so I simply provided an example of "what rhetoric"... go back and find it in his post, wouldja?

Hint: it is at the beginning of the post in question.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
His theory is unfortunately consistent with much of the rhetoric that has come out of Tehran in recent years.

[/ QUOTE ]

This response is unfortunately consistent with most of the rhetoric that jaxmike has pulled out of his ass in recent years.


q/q

[/ QUOTE ]

What? Completely true and subject to ridicule by idiots?