Iran’s Underground Nuke Site Struck?

The biggest blow in the covert campaign against Iran’s nuclear program may have just been delivered. It is reported that a mysterious explosion was set off inside the underground enrichment site at Fordo on Monday. The Iranian regime predictably denies the report. Anonymous Israeli officials have confirmed that an explosion took place, but the White House says it doesn’t believe the report is credible.

The original report was written by “Reza Kahlili,” a former CIA spy inside the Iranian Revolutionary Guards who is now in the U.S. and active in the Iranian opposition. His source is Hamid Reza Zakeri, a former Iranian intelligence officer who defected in 2001. Zakeri claims to have worked in Supreme Leader Khamenei’s Intelligence Office and his information helped convince Judge George Daniels to rule in December 2011 that Iran and Hezbollah hold responsibility for the 9/11 attacks.

The Fordo site is about 300 feet under a mountain in order to protect it from aerial attack. It can hold about 3,000 centrifuges, which is far from what is needed for a domestic nuclear program but adequate for nuclear weapons. This is the site drawing the most concern of those that have been publicly disclosed because it is also where Iran is storing the uranium it has enriched to 20 percent. Nuclear expert David Albright says that 20% enriched uranium can be brought to bomb-grade level in as little as six months using 500 to 1,000 centrifuges.

The explosion reportedly took place at about 11:30 in the morning inside the third centrifuge chamber that lies above the stock of enriched uranium. The blast disabled two elevators, leaving no way to rescue the 240 personnel stuck inside. The report says that traffic was blocked off for 15 miles and the Tehran-Qom highway was temporarily closed off. There was no evacuation of nearby residents.

The Iranian regime denies that any explosion took place. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said, “We have no information to confirm the allegations in the report and we do not believe the report is credible.” Anonymous Israeli intelligence officials, on the other hand, confirmed that an explosion took place and said that the damage is still being assessed.

It is difficult to determine the impact of the alleged explosion on Iran’s nuclear ambitions because the program’s full extent is unknown. “Kahlili” has identified three other secret nuclear sites and a biological weapons site. His sources report that the regime is making progress in warhead production, uranium enrichment and plutonium reprocessing at these sites. He recently provided a briefing on these activities in a RadicalIslam.org webinar on Iran’s nuclear program.

The explosion would be just the latest in a series of likely covert operations against Iran’s nuclear program. In January 2012, the number of killed nuclear scientists rose to five. In December 2011, there was an explosion at a steel plant in Yazd. In November 2011, an underground facility next to the Isfahan uranium conversion site was destroyed. That same month, a Revolutionary Guards missile base blew up, killing the top missile engineer. The previous month, an ammunitions stockpile at another Revolutionary Guards missile base at Khorramabad exploded. And of course, there is the famous “Stuxnet” cyber attack on the Natanz centrifuge site.

The reported explosion comes as Mohammad Reza Heydari, a former Iranian consul in Norway that defected in 2010, warns that Iran is trying to build two or three nuclear weapons as “insurance” but would use them against Israel or another enemy country. He also said that Venezuela is sending uranium to Iran and that our fears about the regime’s beliefs are warranted.

“They are busying themselves with ideological preparations for the arrival of the Hidden Imam and are preparing the ground for that in a practical way, for this purpose, they are willing to spill much blood and destroy many countries,” he said.

A successful covert strike on Iran’s nuclear program is vital in order to demonstrate strength in the wake of the nomination of Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense. Iran expert Kenneth Timmerman reports that “the Iranian regime loves Chuck Hagel” and that its state-controlled press is interpreting his nomination as a sign that the U.S. is eager for a “grand bargain.”

The Hagel nomination undermines the credibility of the U.S. pledge to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, even if it means military action. In 2006, Hagel said a military strike “is not a viable, feasible, responsible option.” The Iranian regime certainly knows of his record, which even includes opposing the designation of the Revolutionary Guards as a Foreign Terrorist Organization.

The Iranian regime will also doubt that the U.S. would support Israeli action. In 2006, Hagel criticized Israel’s offensive against Hezbollah, decrying the “systematic destruction of an American friend [Lebanon]” and declaring, “this madness must stop.” If Hagel wouldn’t support an Israeli offensive against Hezbollah, then there’s little reason for the Iranian regime to believe he’d support an Israeli military offensive against its nuclear program.

We should hope that the report of an explosion inside the Fordo site is accurate. Only strong action will convince the Iranian regime that its enemies are capable and—most importantly–willing to stop it.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • http://www.adinakutnicki.com AdinaK

    Here is some "food for thought" …which happened to be discussed with an "expert" before it was posted – http://adinakutnicki.com/2013/01/28/israels-speci

    Take a look at the "about" tab and there is a clue to the above thinking – http://adinakutnicki.com/about/

    • SAM000

      Thanks; we have the reports that the atmosphere of Tehran and QOM and suburb is transformed to a highly security state.
      We are waiting more reports.

      • David M

        Hi SAM000, it is a wonderful news but I wait and see how true it is before opening a bottle of champagne. Yashasin azadliq!

        • SAM000

          Chokh Gozal,,,

  • objectivefactsmatter

    "Iran expert Kenneth Timmerman reports that “the Iranian regime loves Chuck Hagel” and that its state-controlled press is interpreting his nomination as a sign that the U.S. is eager for a “grand bargain.”"

    0'Bama first tries to permanently unite communism and sharia, it follows that he also thinks he can fold the Shia in to this grand delusion.

  • crackerjack

    What a hoax. The WND "report" picks up on "information" from from Hamidreza Zakeri, a notorious bragger and chatterbox. Here his "contribution" to Germanys 9:11 investigations.

    "January 22, 2004: Iranian Spy Gives Evidence at Mzoudi Trial; Is Quickly Discounted

    The prosecution in the trial of Abdelghani Mzoudi presents a witness who claims to be a defector from an Iranian intelligence agency. [BBC, 1/21/2004] The witness, Hamid Reza Zakeri, does not appear in court himself, but instead Judge Klaus Ruehle reads out his testimony. [Reuters, 1/22/2004] According to Zakeri, the Iranian intelligence service was really behind the 9/11 attacks and had employed al-Qaeda to carry them out. Zakeri’s claims are widely publicized. However, these claims are quickly discounted, and German intelligence notes that, “he presents himself as a witness on any theme which can bring him benefit.” [Deutsche Presse-Agentur (Hamburg), 1/22/2004; Chicago Tribune, 1/22/2004; Reuters, 1/22/2004; Associated Press, 1/30/2004] "

    • kafir4life

      240 muslims on their way to allahahaha the fake moon god!! DELICIOUS!!! That's 17,280 virgins they'll have to come up with. Star Trek conventions will be decimated!!
      Seriously, Yaquub. Even you have to admit it's pretty funny…..all those trapped muslims….reminds me of this.. .http://www.theonion.com/articles/terrorist-has-no-idea-what-to-do-with-all-this-plu,1847/

      • Daniel MacDonald

        17,280 virgins …….. that would require a hell of a lot of Christian Nuns or Muslim children (either gender would suffice).

    • SAM000

      Iranian Centrifuges are German Siemens MADE, do you understand now the denial and misinformation of German press?
      Germany is the biggest supplier of the Iranian Nuclear sites tools ans spare parts;
      12,000 German manufacturers are supplying Iranian technological Nuclear needs.

      • James

        You might do well to read this book. US has been the biggest nuclear proliferator the world has seen, supplying the bomb to the biggest terrorist country.

        • SCREW SOCIALISM

          Jimmy, Happy Eternal Nakba!

          May all your jihads turn into Nakbas!

        • John

          There is no way that a U.S. administration would have interfered with Pakistan during the fight wit the Soviet Union from 1979 thru 1989.

          Later George H.W. Bush had to deal with Saddam. Between 1990 & 1991 you are talking about the after glow of a satisfactory relationship between Pakistan & the U.S. Even China was afraid of the Soviet Union & armed the mujhaddin.

          From 1974 thru 1979 the Soviet Union seemed on the march everywhere. Mozambique, Angola, Ethiopia, Somalia, Nicaragua. I will remember the December 1979 invasion of Afghanistan & reading about it in Time magazine & feeling sick to stomach.

          If we had have had Pat Shroeder & Ted Kennedy in control instead of Reagan & Thatcher, the world would have gone down a much worse path.

          Of course Clinton did jacksht in stopping proliferation. He did send Madeleine Albright with a basketball autographed by Michael Jordan to Kim Jing Il. That was his harshest sanction. But then he is a Democrat.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "You might do well to read this book. US has been the biggest nuclear proliferator the world has seen, supplying the bomb to the biggest terrorist country."

          That calls for judgment, and your judgment identifies you as an enemy of the West. Of course the enemies of freedom want the USA and Israel to be weak, and cry about our strength.

          Keep crying.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "Iranian Centrifuges are German Siemens MADE, do you understand now the denial and misinformation of German press?"

        I don't think denial actually exists.

        • SAM000

          Siemens with NOKIA are involved in the Mullahs vast repression by helping the regime's services to track the opponents, we have the tenth of thousands of arrests, specially during the last revolts of 2008, the green movement which was not violent and not armed was smashed by the technological helps and practical assistance of the German's industry.
          When we bring out all these facts, the Germans deny and claim that they didn't knew that the regime will use their technology for repression, but they continue to supply and renew their contracts.
          For the Centrifuges, the Germans admitted after Bush's boycott on nuclear for IRAN, before that, they were denying,
          But the Germans never stopped their centrifuges supply to Iran.

  • David M

    I don't drink but I will celebrate (if it has really happened) with the finest champagne and sing of joy. If it is a covert operation I credit Israel (not the USA, Britain or Germany) and salute those courageous people who have accomplished it.

    • EarlyBird

      If it's true, it could very well be further virus placed in the computer system which created extreme pressure and/or heat which created an explosion. Great work, but not necessarily a commando action.

  • Chezwick

    Folks, a little foresight is all it takes to imagine a very plausible (and terrifying) future….an Iran armed with hundreds of nuclear-tipped ICBMs and IRBMs, playing nuclear brinkmanship with the rest of the world, all the while anticipating the end-days and the coming of the Mahdi. Meanwhile, Iranian proxies like Hezbollah will have received their own nuclear arsenal.

    It's a recipe for Armageddon….and it's the likely outcome if Iran's nuclear program isn't arrested.

    • textsincontext

      Armageddon is the supernatural battle of God's final judgement in the Bible, not a human battle. Biblical illiteracy reigns.

      • JoJoJams

        Textin context, it's you with the biblical illiteracy. While there is a supernatural aspect to Armegeddon, it most certainly is prophesied to take place here on this sad planet. The name comes from "the valley of Megiddo" in Israel – where it's prohesied a very real battle will take place…Not some "astral" spiritual plane. Unless you have some weird azz new-age interpretation to Revelation? Oh!! Wait….. I'll bet your Catholic, then…. That's the only way your argument makes sense…. You definitely can't be a regular mainline protestant type denomination if you think armeggedon is purely spiritual and not an actual battle on this actual earth in the actual valley of Megiddo.

        • Drakken

          Hey now !!! Nothing wrong with being Catholic there friend, so be very careful who you vilify.

          • EarlyBird

            See, Drakky? You hang out with the "right" type of bigots long enough, and you'll find out they're the wrong type of bigots, too.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "…hang out with the "right" type of bigots long enough, and you'll find out they're the wrong type of bigots, too."

            Most of the contention you write about exists only in your mind until you start arguing with us.

          • Drakken

            See Sh*tbird, you only see what you want to see and run your suck without enguaging your brain first. Your use of the bigot and race card shows what an intectual giant you really are, dumbazz!

          • EarlyBird

            Psst…your knuckles are dragging on the ground again. Don't damage your "mailed fist," Killer.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Hey now !!! Nothing wrong with being Catholic there friend, so be very careful who you vilify."

            The RC church does teach that all Biblical prophecies are past and any future application is limited to spiritual realms.

          • JoJoJams

            Exactly, Objective! There was no derision meant – only truth as to Catholic theology. And by the way….I was born and raised Catholic, and used to want to be a priest…..until I read through the entire bible (including the books not in the Catholic bible). I have no derision for the CC – but feel they err greatly in a lot of their theology. No "bigotry" – just stating truth and facts. I do believe they are one of the seven churches mentioned in Revelation. I don't judge Catholics in any way – I just disagree with some of their theology – and also have defended a lot of their theology to protestant types. Whatever. there will always be some ignorant ranters (EarlyBird….coughcough) spouting nonsense.

          • Drakken

            I now understand your intent and the direction your going, so no harm no foul. I don't agree with a lot of what the CC does either and especially their policy of appeasement to the muslim savages.

          • EarlyBird

            You can barely stand yourself, DraKKKen.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "You can barely stand yourself"

            You're the guy that wonders why he is attacked when all he wants is to engage in reasonable discourse. Right? You try to drive a wedge and create circumstances you criticize, but it fails so you just make petty little remarks. Reasonable people can disagree and still get along just fine. It's you and other leftists like you that cause the discord throughout the world.

            You're quite a guy. You're quite the reasonable conservative we should all try to model ourselves after. We'll start by saluting our president, because he is "black" you know. That means he can do no wrong.

            We'll all follow you off the cliff because your arguments are so powerful.

          • EarlyBird

            DraKKKen is incapable of reasoned discourse. I was being obnoxious to him because he deserves it.

    • EarlyBird

      Boy, the Israeli right and Israel First lobby inside America has sure done their work on you!

      The funny fact is that Israelis themselves are far less terrified of an Iranian bomb than the Israeli puppeteers have managed to make right wing Americans. Israel knows, fundamentally, that the Iranian government is not isane though they try to come off that way. Iran is a very weak and put-upon government trying to hold it all together, and they are working towards a bomb for very conventional power, not to create Armageddon.

      • JoJoJams

        You obviously havent' watched the news accounts and listened to ahmadijian (sp?) himself. They really do "believe" in the Shia's "12th immam" – and believe it's their duty to help usher him in, via death and destruction. It just amazes me that even as the iranian leaders spew their crap, etc., there is always some fool such as "earlybird" who just refuses to see and hear. Ah! It's all just "sabor rattling!! They don't really mean it! etc.! ((because the fool is to foolish to understand that, yes, they really DO mean what they say…)) Earlybird, you have NO cluie whatsoever about what you're spewing. If the Israeli's weren't concerned about Iran – as well as all the fanatical mohammedan rug-kissing moon-god lovers – then why the shift right in this last election? And….why the targeted hits on iranian scientists, etc.? hmm?? Ah! It's ALL just saber rattling to fill the coffers of the U.S. military indistrial complex! Yes! That's it! **sigh**

        • EarlyBird

          Funny about the election: depending on how you want to see it, Israelis either shifted right, or the center held. The right expected a much better turnout, and Bibi is actually weaker now with this new set of representatives than he was prior to the election. The right grew, but so did the moderates.

          I don't want Iran to get the bomb, either. But I don't believe that if they get the bomb Monday, Tel Aviv goes up in a mushroom cloud on Tuesday. The problem is that they would use it as cover to do even far more regional and global mayhem then they are already responsible for.

          You know why I know Israelis aren't truly as terrified of Iran's bomb as they try to make Americans? Because they wouldn't wait for American permission or aid in destroying the nuclear program if they really believed it was an automatic Armageddon.

          • SAM000

            Early Bird; it seems that you play too much your play station, to strike Iranian nuclear sites, Israeli has to traverse 32 parallel of IRAQ, this was not allowed during BUSH and will never be allowed by OBAMA, Arabia Saudi permitted Israel to traverse his airspace, W.H. of Obama sabotaged the OP.
            Israel asked from Greece, Greece permitted Israeli planes to train and repeat the operation in a Greek air Base, but, Greece was facing his greatest economical crisis and needed EU Help, Obama backed Greece and forced EU to lend money to Greece for that Greece removes his collaboration with Israel.
            Iranian Nuclear sites are installed very deep with very heavy special armed beton BUNKERS.
            The Israelis jets need very heavy BBB to penetrate those BUNKERS, so the Jet planes will be overcharged, they can fly Tel Aviv / Qom, and drop their Bombs, but they can not return their Bases with their remaining fuel, so they need to be air supplied during their return or to land somewhere to be supplied,,, look at the map, Tel Aviv Tehran, we are not neighbors.

            Now, is it clear why Israel can not air strike the Regime's sites without a logistic assistance,
            Israel had stroked the Syrian Nuclear site which was build by the Passdarans and Koreans because the Syrian site was geographically accessible.
            If Iranian sites were accessible, I believe that Israel would never wait to strike.
            The Israeli ex defense minister was an Iranian Native, Iranian Jews know very well the Genocidal character of the Mullahs and the Islamic Thugs, Believe me, the Israelis will never hesitate to strike the Mullahs sites if they could.
            There are many Iranian Jews who had left Iran and live in Israel.

          • EarlyBird

            Sam, you make excellent points about the geographic distance between Israel and Iran, and I appreciate that. (Doesn't Israel have American style bunker busters?)

            I still don't see that Iran would start sending nuclear missiles to Israel the moment they got one, like so many on this board believe. And, if Israeli intelligence, which is very good, found that such a strike was imminent, they'd drop a nuke on Tehran first, and good for them.

            If it comes to absolutely having to make a US-Israel strike on Iran, no other choice to derail a bomb, I could live with that. You've been reading my resentment that Israel seems to ignore or attempt to humiliate our US president and go "to the people," the American people, to drum up support and try to make Obama look bad.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "I still don't see that Iran would start sending nuclear missiles to Israel the moment they got one, "

            You're always trying to set up straw man arguments. It won't be "the moment" they get it, but it won't be good for anyone in the West. It's intolerable. That's the bottom line. Anyone that wants to argue for "containment" is an enemy of the West.

          • WilliamJamesWard

            No containment, obliterate for survival………these Iranian birds are kooko
            and will use nukes on Israel as soon as they have them in order to blast
            thier holy poptart out his well…………..scary scenarios abound but the
            Scriptures predict a tale of destruction that is possibly beyond the
            understanding of todays meterosexual western mind and Hollywood
            government in the District of Criminals……………………William

          • EarlyBird

            I don't think they would use a nuke directly, at all.

            My concern is that they would use it for cover to commit even more mayhem than they already have. My other big fear is that they fall apart some day and some Islamist nut gets ahold of that nuke and sets it off.

            There is a long list of dreadful scenarios, but annihilation of Tel Aviv by this particular Iranian government is not one of them.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "There is a long list of dreadful scenarios, but annihilation of Tel Aviv by this particular Iranian government is not one of them."

            What do you suppose your assurances should be worth?

          • EarlyBird

            Nobody has assurances about anything – about the results of inaction or the results of a strike. It may ultimately be necessary.

            But what bothers me is the hysteria where anything other than immediate US strikes on Iran equals Armageddon and to suggest otherwise makes you "pro-terrorism" or "anti-American." You read the same nonsense here that I do.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "But what bothers me is the hysteria where anything other than immediate US strikes on Iran"

            I'm sorry but without quotes from you, I have to assume you're imagining things again.

            "…equals Armageddon and to suggest otherwise makes you "pro-terrorism" or "anti-American."

            I'm not sure anyone has charged you with anti-Americanism with intent. You just seem to make the leftist arguments more often than anything else.

            "You read the same nonsense here that I do."

            My comprehension and analysis is quite different. If someone does a poor job at presenting an argument that is ultimately true, why would I bother, except when I want to help clarify a point? But when someone is selling leftist propaganda, especially when posing as a conservative, and imagining things that just aren't being said, this is something that gets my attention more quickly.

          • EarlyBird

            US generals weigh the pros and cons of any action, and often determine that a given action is not worth the risk or would not accomplish the objective. Are they anti-American tools of Islam?

            We all need to take a breath and consider not just what might happen if we don't strike, but what could happen if we do. The only thing we can know for sure is that once shooting starts, anything can happen, and all sorts of unintended consequences are certain to.

            Let's also realize that we contained Mao and Stalin for 50 years, and they were no more or less sane than the mullahs. You and I disagree entirely that the mullahs are a death cult who can't be contained. As evil as they are they are a conventional power.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "US generals weigh the pros and cons of any action, and often determine that a given action is not worth the risk or would not accomplish the objective. Are they anti-American tools of Islam?"

            That depends on the details. If the "con" is pissing off their Sunni CiC then yes it is. Maybe they can say that they have no choice, but some have stood up to the traitor and sacrificed job security for the sake of their nation.

            "We all need to take a breath and consider not just what might happen if we don't strike, but what could happen if we do. "

            You're getting in to tactical analysis and our problem with 0'Bama is that he's already making deals with them. You're presenting a false argument. 0'Bama may be stupid when it comes to tactics (rules of engagement, etc.) but with regard to Iran, it's pure appeasement. You're making the wrong argument. You're not reading or comprehending what's being said.

            "You and I disagree entirely that the mullahs are a death cult who can't be contained."

            What do you mean by that? They're being contained to a large extent, but they're also supporting global terror. We could "contain" them more aggressively. The "containment" buzzword as applied to Iran is a weak euphemism for appeasement as opposed to denying them the ability to build or possess nuclear weapons. The idea being that we can still "contain" the threat even after they possess the ability.

            "As evil as they are they are a conventional power."

            What does that mean? If you mean that they don't have nuclear weapons, that is precisely the point. We can't even imagine the worst case scenario if the balance of power is changed by their acquisition of nukes. Even in our best predictions of possible outcomes, there are no good scenarios. None. Anyone who is selling you another story is a liar who is probably benefiting directly from Iranian payoffs, or is Shia. This is why arguing over our certainty about specifics is moot. There are no good scenarios. Zero.

            Yet 0'Bama seems to live in another world where they can be reasoned with. This has got to rank as one of the biggest lies in world history. They have got to go, with or without nukes. The question of nukes simply increases the urgency exponentially. They (the regime) are mortal enemies of the West.

          • EarlyBird

            OFM, I see you're one of the few intelligent people on this board open to serious discussion, then this:

            "That depends on the details. If the "con" is pissing off their Sunni CiC…"

            Is that just hyperbole, or do you *REALLY* believe Obama is a Sunni (or otherwise Muslim) and a "traitor" (as you say later)?

            "…our problem with 0'Bama is that he's already making deals with them."

            The only "deal" I'm aware of is that he's said he's willing to meet and w/o preconditions. What's wrong, or radical, about that? The US has always done that (not including W.).

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Is that just hyperbole, or do you *REALLY* believe Obama is a Sunni (or otherwise Muslim) and a "traitor" (as you say later)?"

            It's reasonable to ask people to justify their opinions. I'm not sure that you know much about 0'Bama's life and even what he personally admits to. He was raised in Hawaii and Indonesia and had a Sunni father. If one were to run a cultural analysis, it would be impossible to avoid the fact that all of his known cultural influences are Sunni Muslim and communist. Communism was accepted among many nominal Muslims in Indonesia during the period 0'Bama was raised in Indonesia. When in Hawaii, he seems to admit his biggest role model was "Frank" who was later revealed to be Frank Marshall Davis. He speaks glowingly about every aspect of spiritual and political Islam. He denies that such a thing as "Islamic terror" can even exist. He equates "Islamic terror" with "Christian terror" as if all crime in "Christian" (Western) cultures can be attributed to Christian theology just as logically as Islam can be blamed for inciting terror.

            He was born a Muslim. He never denounced Islam, never did anything to distance himself but lo and behold he shows up at another "Christian" church run by another individual with the same background. A Muslim with an agenda in the "Christian world." Wright may have performed this fiction to cover for homosexuality for political objectives, or both. But the point is that both have admitted that neither have renounced Islam, but profess Christianity.

            I'm going to continue this on an offline document and then feed it to you as time and the policy of the forum allow me to.

          • EarlyBird

            "…but in regard to Iran, it's pure appeasement."

            Humor me, would you please? HOW he has "appeased" Iran. Specifically. I'm willing to be convinced. He's done everything short of waging war. I genuinely don't get it.

            "They're being contained to a large extent, but they're also supporting global terror."

            Agreed: Iran has been the Father of All Terror Groups since '79.

            "We could "contain" them more aggressively."

            Israel has taken care of them pretty well vis a vis Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. The US has its hands full w/Iranians in Iraq and Afghanistan (another reason we should not have invaded and occupied – but for another discussion). Outside of invading or hitting them inside Iran, I don't know how much more aggressive we can be.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "HOW he has "appeased" Iran. Specifically. I'm willing to be convinced. He's done everything short of waging war. I genuinely don't get it. "

            Fair enough.

            appeasement [əˈpiːzmənt]
            n
            1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) the policy of acceding to the demands of a potentially hostile nation in the hope of maintaining peace
            2. the act of appeasing

            If you think he's actually threatened Iran, you don't understand politics. Everyone knows that public speeches and statements must be sensitive to constituency. Every leftist knows that they're the only ones who think they can deal with Iran peacefully. Most of them probably don't even trust Iran. That means no matter what 0'Bama's policies are towards Iran, he can't appear to be just running away from our historical stance derived from our original response to the embassy attack which is not resolved to this day.

            If you look at the positions he has taken (rather than the way he describes his supposed objectives), he has clearly backed off of everything that threatens Iran. He verbally attacks Israel in particular over the threats of acquisition of nuclear weapons…and remember this could be resolved if Iran simply allowed international inspection to verify what the regime already said is true.

            This discussion could go on for a long time if you remain unconvinced, which is fine, so please be patient and try to read various sources to make sure you read the cynical conservative view of Iran as well, and then when you are familiar with the "controversies" we might more easily then zero in on points that might remain cloudy for you.

            In short, 0'Bama has appease Iran by changing policy with regard to support of Israel, who is our proxy in the middle east as well as having their own interests to protect. He has backed off of enforcement of trade sanctions. He has projected publicly that he will "sit down without preconditions" which is already backing off and the public seems to forget that they can already do this without announcing it publicly. What then is the point in broadcasting to the world that we, the theoretical righteous hegemonic power, have decided that we don't actually need any promises with Iran in order to give them a "seat at the table" as equals? "Sit down" as in bilateral discussions is a huge elevation in status for an enemy that has done nothing but foment world terror and propagate lies about the West, the USA and Israel.

            Sitting down with liars is virtually conceding that their lies might have some merit. They are total liars. They deserve nothing but our contempt and a serious nonnegotiable last chance warning.

          • EarlyBird

            I believe Obama has decided, privately and to himself, to not go to war against Iran to prevent it from getting nukes. By "war" I mean any kind of operation which could or would require a land invasion, and I applaud him for that. Nor does he want the same humiliating dance that the US had to go through with Saddam regarding inspections prior to the Iraq War.

            Sitting down with Iran to me, specifically over the nuclear threat or other specific regional issues to me is not about elevating their lies. It's about the specific issue. We spoke with enemies far worse and more threatening than Iran in our future.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            >>Agreed: Iran has been the Father of All Terror Groups since '79.

            >"We could "contain" them more aggressively."

            "Israel has taken care of them pretty well vis a vis Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. The US has its hands full w/Iranians in Iraq and Afghanistan (another reason we should not have invaded and occupied – but for another discussion). Outside of invading or hitting them inside Iran, I don't know how much more aggressive we can be."

            We have created a stalemate scenario which has merely prolonged the suffering. Is a stalemate acceptable for those families that suffer to this day? Of course we could do better. It made sense when the cold war was raging to contain the Soviets first. Weapons and communications technologies hadn't advanced to the point that anyone could envision Islamic supremacists threatening us. Westerners called jihadis 'liberators" because we never imagined in a million years that these people could hope to do more than make an oppressive regime think twice. But now they use terror offensively while maintaining the rhetoric of the victim.

            But now that we know what we know, we should play to win, not play to contain. This is not that kind of cold war. They don't actually have a central command. We could annihilate them once and for all (politically, but many probably would be dead in the short run). They fight because we behave like a force that is scared of allah. Our behavior encourages them. This is not to say it's our fault per se. But it's important to know that we're fitting in with what Mohammed taught about Judeo Christian culture, but he invented lies to explain it. We're scared of allah, not merciful and patient. That means jihadis are on the verge of winning…in their minds.

            If your vision of peace is tolerating this level of Islamic violence, and your middle name is "status quo" then of course you can't envision doing better. My anger comes from the fact that we could have done a lot better if the left had not been mobilized early in the Bush years to start attacking our legitimate war aims. It all fell apart then and we still have not done anything to reconcile our own domestic politics as a result of that form of mutiny. I almost blame the left more than I blame the jihadis. We could have won by now if the country had been as unified as it pretended to be shortly after September 11 2001. Instead, leftists and anarchists just waited for a pretext for mutiny. "Israel (or Bush) did 911," then you have Michael Moore-on, and so forth.

            We could have won already and a lot more lives would be continuing peacefully with little fear of Islamic terror. Instead we have 0'Bama and his transformation that is supposed to be a good thing. He's going in the direction opposite of good in every policy.

            And it has NOTHING to do with "race." NOTHING. Other than the left using race to dismiss our legitimate anger.

          • EarlyBird

            We need to weigh the pros AND cons. With all respect, you write as if war – even one which can be clearly won – has no or minor costs. But this is the kind of war which can not be clearly won, and which has many, many costs both seen and unseen.

            I've read numerous times from retired IDF generals that airstrikes alone will not take out the nuclear program, but that to do so would require sustained ground operations.

            That alone is enough for me to say, "no." To want to charge into another ground war in the Middle East is to completely disregard the debacle which was Iraq and Afghanistan. We will LITERALLY go bankrupt committing to another such war.

          • EarlyBird

            OFM, your anger at the left has you blind to the absolute debacle that was Bush's and the neocons' Iraq war. They genuinely believed it would be a cakewalk and after a quick war there'd be peace and democracy in Iraq, a pro-American Arab country in the heart of the beast, and we'd have it as a new base of power. The idea was to then put enormous pressure on Saudi Arabia thereafter, and remake the Middle East.

            Great theory, but it was a fantasy. And when American generals said it was impossible they were ignored or moved to other operations. It was simply IMPOSSIBLE to occupy that country they way we needed to with the number of troops we had at our disposal.

            Iran is even far larger, and has a far better equipped army. I refuse to let my country commit suicide to stop a fairly harmless enemy.

          • EarlyBird

            I must also point out that your belief that the LEFT is what made Iraq a failure is a least a start – you admit it was a failure. What chutzpah to suggest it was politics which made it a failure.

            But this is very much how I found myself breaking with the right; over Iraq and so many conservatives' inability to grapple with the disaster of that war and their desire to now double-down on it in Iran.

            Because McCain/Palin were among that ilk, I simply had nowhere else to go but for Obama. You simply must grapple with the limits of American military power, and how we can become a second rate country believing that we can and should bomb our way around the world.

          • EarlyBird

            The "containment" buzzword as applied to Iran is a weak euphemism for appeasement…"

            "Appeasing" what? We have THEM over a barrel, not the other way around. We can wipe them out if we want to, and they know it. One tries to appease those who are stronger than one's self, not the other way around.

            For instance, Iran "warned" Israel yesterday about the strike on the Syrian convoy. Do you really think anyone in Israel is worried?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            ""Appeasing" what? We have THEM over a barrel, not the other way around. "

            That only makes appeasement possible and absurd. If we didn't have them over a barrel it would be considered realpolitik to back off. There is no need for us to back off. They attribute our mercy to fear of allah. This merely encourages them to increase their belligerence.

            If we have them over a barrel, why haven't we gone in to inspect their sites that they claim are for "peaceful energy production?" And it makes no economic sense for them to do this in spite of sanctions. If they were motivated by economics, they'd start acting like a peaceful regime that wants to share technology with the West. We invented all things related to nuclear energy. You do know that I assume. It all came from the Manhattan Project. Anyone who claims they want peace with the USA while building "nuclear power plants" that they insist remain hidden, why that in itself is such a blatant lie that I can't believe anyone wouldn't understand that…except that with the mainstream media being totally dominated by leftist thinking, all you hear about are streams of lies and distractions so that you forget about fundamental logic.

            There is no peaceful explanation for Iran's behavior. And that is before we even factor in the rhetoric that they use to foment anger among their supporters towards the West, the "Great Satan."

            Don't give me this "Iran as victim" BS because those are more lies. Only by taking our responses to aggression, and leaving out our justifications can anyone build a case of "USA as bully."

            Sure, an individual might be forgiven for thinking that after personally suffering, but this collective victim BS is just destructive to peace. Nations deal with nations because there is rarely any other way by the time it gets to that point.

          • EarlyBird

            OFM, I have total clarity on who is in the right here, and who is in the wrong. The West, the US, Israel and foes of Iran are in the right, and Iran and its allies are in the wrong.

            But the fact of the matter is we need to physically invade and occupy to keep them from their nuclear program. Then what?

            Please help me understand where you see things going from there?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "For instance, Iran "warned" Israel yesterday about the strike on the Syrian convoy. Do you really think anyone in Israel is worried?"

            I don't understand how the strike is supposed to be evidence that Israel has nothing to worry about. Of course they're worried. They value life a lot more than their enemies AND their enemies grossly outnumber them. Israel has to be exponentially more deadly just to survive. How many nukes would it take to kill every last Israeli? Not many. Can Israel count on defeating each enemy if they coordinate their attacks? They have in the past, but each success seems like a miracle even after objective examination.

            Yes, they are worried. They are just not stupid enough to think that giving in to Palestinians will help. They're correct. They might as well take cyanide instead.

          • EarlyBird

            So you are worried that Iran can not be deterred by MAD. I disagree, and point to a long history of very rational actions on their part.

            Israel's regional enemies have never been weaker and Israel has never been stronger. There is simply no comparison to earlier times.

            Jordan is nice now, Egypt is run by a military elite totally dedicated to keeping US dollars flowing to it, Iran's economy is on the brink, Syria is literally falling apart, the Saudis just talk a big game. Other countries don't even deem a mention.

          • EarlyBird

            We contained China and the USSR for 50 years, and they were nuclear armed and FAR stronger than Iran is today. The Iranians are not 10 feet tall. The government there is in fact very weak.

            Notice how you've determined that anything short of war to remove Iran's nukes is "appeasement." Not just a bad idea, not just naive, but treasonous, a lie, maybe even "pro-Islamist," etc. That's what's so maddening about this board, the presumption of ill intent or flabby brains/morals with anyone who doesn't toe this line.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "We contained China and the USSR for 50 years, and they were nuclear armed and FAR stronger than Iran is today."

            This argument might have made sense before the current regime. Now it makes zero sense unless you are in complete and total denial about the regime and Islam.

            MAD does not work reliably with people who think killing them will send them directly to heaven. Their stated goals are not material.

            This is in contrast with China and the USSR whose stated goals were exclusively material and who denied the afterlife. They couldn't even pretend to not care about being annihilated. See the difference? This is the most salient point about why MAD does not apply. MAD was already risky with people who cared only about this life. It is insanity to count on MAD with Islamic regimes, especially the Shia regime in Iran. It's not MAD, madness. We must remain clearly strong enough to kill them before they can even hope to draw blood. Just drawing significant blood from us might be enough of an incentive for them to knowingly cause a war of annihilation when they know they will lose.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Notice how you've determined that anything short of war to remove Iran's nukes is "appeasement.""

            Not exactly. But close. That's because we've historically been so concerned about what the Soviets and Russia would do. When you're already overcautious and then 0'Bama comes along and talks about the USA as if we caused all the tension, and then he acts like we're the guilty party, accepting all of the lies of our enemies as legitimate…that is one aspect of traitorous appeasement.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Notice how you've determined that anything short of war to remove Iran's nukes is "appeasement." Not just a bad idea, not just naive, but treasonous, a lie, maybe even "pro-Islamist," etc."

            It's a matter of degree. That's why facts matter. Sure you can question it, but mocking it is not appropriate given that the facts can easily show what we're angry about.

            "That's what's so maddening about this board, the presumption of ill intent or flabby brains/morals with anyone who doesn't toe this line."

            You're imagining things a little bit, but I understand why you feel that way. It didn't occur to you that you might be wrong and that given time the people here might be able to rationally explain their positions. That is why I don't mind dissenters at all. I hope they come and talk about things rationally. Leftists are indoctrinated to mock dissent. Only by turning it on them and defeating their mockery are they able to experience something they weren't programmed to respond to.

            If you think about it, you'll realize how many assumptions you've made merely because you can't envision that some or most of the people here can justify their positions if given a chance.

            Try reading "huffington post" forums or some site like that. The discourse is early grade school on average, or worse. Are they all stupid? Not all, but even the smart ones simply don't have a chance to unpack their ideas. This is too bad because any opportunity for sincere comprehensive discussion will always be helpful to all who participate. I have no fear of any facts.

          • EarlyBird

            I don't think there's anything unique about this forum, unfortunately, nor are grade school insults the monopoly of the right wing. I've just never played the "villain" on a board like this, and find it hilarious that people consider me some lefty, since I consider myself a Reagan-Buckley type conservative.

            I just feel that after the perversion of conservative ideas during Gingrich and W. Bush, that I've got no where to go. I do believe the conservative movement has become a victim of its own success and has become tired and broken.

            I do think this site is a propaganda machine, and it's not about honest or reasoned analysis. You've been far more honest and thoughtful than any article I've read here. Horowitz is the first to admit he's a propagandist.

          • EarlyBird

            Oh, and I know it will rebuild and be a better, more relevant conservatism. That's my fervent hope, because we always need a loyal opposition to each other, and conservative values are always needed.

          • EarlyBird

            Iran seeks "conventional power" in that they have conventional aims: to get and wield power regionally. They are not apocalyptic, no matter how nuts Ack'jad wants us to believe.

            "Even in our best predictions of possible outcomes, there are no good scenarios."

            Agreed. There is NOTHING good about Iran getting the bomb. We differ in how disastrous we believe it would be. I am FAR more concerned with bringing a bigger disaster upon America by way of launching another war where we HAVE to invade, occupy and get pinned down for another 10+ years. That would be far worse than having to contain a nuclear Iran.

            And I've read a lot of stuff that says that mere airstrikes alone would not, could not, eliminate all of Iran's nuclear facilities.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Iran seeks "conventional power" in that they have conventional aims: to get and wield power regionally. "

            OK. I could have guessed that but it's especially confusing when they want nuclear weapons to achieve "conventional power." A nuclear state wants "conventional" (political) power. It's not literally incorrect, but vague because people can read it a number of different ways.

            "They are not apocalyptic, no matter how nuts Ack'jad wants us to believe."

            Ah, but that's the problem. They have no consistent rule of law, and they're not predictable. We, and even they don't know who has the authority or political power to do any particular thing. They're innately unstable. Hell, even most of them are probably hoping we in the West will stop the regime because the peaceful people don't have or don't feel they have any way to do it themselves.

            Collectively, they're innately unstable and untrustworthy. It's like sitting around arguing that a group of 5-year old children ought to have a car to share just because one of them sat on your lap once while pretending to steer. Nothing bad happened so far, just let them have the car to drive. It's a stupid spontaneous analogy, so I'll try to think of a better one.

          • EarlyBird

            "Ah, but that's the problem. They have no consistent rule of law, and they're not predictable."

            And this is our fundamental disagreement. I see a very weak and perfectly sane leadership of Iran, however genuinely evil, and that they can and should be contained.

            I also believe that a nuclear Iran is inevitable, maybe even we launch a ground war, and I see a ground war as genuine suicide. I will not let the US be led there.

          • EarlyBird

            "…0'Bama seems to live in another world where they can be reasoned with."

            I think he's spoken softly while carrying a big stick. His sanctions regime has crippled the Iranian community, sowed even more discord against the mullahs, and Obama has repeatedly refused to take military action off the table. How many times does he have to say that "we will not let Iran get the bomb"?

            By the way, I predict the US and Israel WILL strike Iran. I hope O gets some credit here.

            "They (the regime) are mortal enemies of the West." So were the Soviets – and FAR more dangerous than the Iranians. Thank God we didn't start WWIII over them, but boxed them in and let them crumble from within.

            There are certainly reasons to fear a nuclear Iran. I'm more afraid at this time that we'll become our own worst enemy by overreacting.

            Listen: I respect your position and I understand where you're coming from. I just disagree on the assessment of the situation.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "By the way, I predict the US and Israel WILL strike Iran. I hope O gets some credit here. "

            If the actual facts show a change in direction, I'll be the first to cheer.

          • EarlyBird

            Sorry for all the responses, but I'm not allowed to do long posts.

            Finally, I just hope you can begin to consider that good, intelligent, clear-headed people, who hate the scourge of Islamist terror as much as you do, can honestly disagree with you on these points and on the course of action regarding Iran. We need to acknowledge with humility that we really can not know the full outcomes of our actions or inactions.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Finally, I just hope you can begin to consider that good, intelligent, clear-headed people, who hate the scourge of Islamist terror as much as you do, can honestly disagree with you on these points and on the course of action regarding Iran. "

            No need to reconsider. I never discourage honest respectful debate.

          • Chezwick

            "Boy, the Israeli right and Israel First lobby inside America has sure done their work on you"

            No Israeli or American that I'm aware of has predicted the mass production of Iranian nuclear weapons and delivery vehicles. All the discussion has been about Iran's initial acquisition of these weapons. I've just taken the development to its logical conclusion….that once it has these weapons, Iran will engage in mass production. Perhaps by 2030, their nuclear arsenal may very well rival our own, particularly as we gut our military to cope with our systemic debt.

          • SAM000

            EarlyBird; the Iranians will never BOMB ISRAEL, but the Mullahs will, the only output for the Mullahs is an external war, with an external war the Mullahs will have the pretext to genocide all the prisoners (more than 600,000) and exercise a vast repression, try to imagine a 200 years ago clerical power on 21est century, these Mullahs are not able to resolve the daily needs of the population, but they want to keep the power for any price, in the other hand the west's behavior and containment towards the Mullahs made them to believe that the WEST leaded by USA is very weak and afraid from Islamic power,,,
            The Jews negotiate when they are strong, the Mullahs and their followers negotiate when they have no way out, but they kill you if they are strong even if you are their brother.
            Obama made the MULLAHS feel strong, this is like that you offered the Mullahs the nuclear Bomb to attack Israel, EMBOLDENING the Mullahs is not against the Americans, EMBOLDENING the Mullahs is against the whole humanity, these folks will sign your deal if they are forced, and they will kill you just after they get the opportunity to do so,
            The only democratic and civilized way to deal with the MULLAHS is removing them from power and keep them out of civilized world for ever if you don't want to massacre them, this is what our people doing.
            I have the friends who are the MULLAHS sons, they are condemned by their own fathers to death just because they do not agree with Islamic power.
            We have two types of Islam, one as religion who respects other religions and non religions.
            the second one is political ISLAM, you can reduce the arguments in only one sentence to describe POLITICAL ISLAM,, think about the worst thing that can be existed, if you are Christian or Judaic or any religion the Anti Christ or Satan or DEVIL is the follower of the MULLAHS.
            So if they get the BOMB, believe me, we will face the Nuclear WWIII.
            Israel will never nuke IRAN, they are human like Iranians, Israel is a democratic state not an installed dictatorship, the FINAL SOLUTION is not JEWS, the final solution is PUTIN, OBAMA, CHINA who deal and appease the Mullahs,
            Fight your Mullahs in your own country, your OBAMA brings death and destruction to the world, when the SUPER POWER appeases the monster, the monster will swallow the others first and will finish with the appeaser at the end.
            Your current administration is a lethal danger for the world, we are paying by our blood the politics of OBAMA.
            For the First time USA is transformed to the enemy of the WORLD. I am not anti AMERICAN and I am so sorry to observe that.

          • Ghostwriter

            But it sounds like you do,EarlyBird. That,and your general hatred of Jews makes you awfully suspect in these matters.

      • Drakken

        As usual, you know jacksh*t about nothing other than I feel therefore I am as your policy positions. Here let me help you out since your a tad slow on the uptake, Israel is a western ally and is in the western camp, the muslims no matter the stripe are not and never will be, there, so easy a numbers boy like you can do it!

        • EarlyBird

          Your world is SO simple, isn't it, Rambo? And if your head starts to hurt you blame those darned lefties for over complikatin' stuff!

          As a conservative Republican, I can remember a time when it was understood and accepted that life was complicated, we're only able to comprehend so much, and therefore it was more prudent to go slowly, not rush into anything, be a bit skeptical.

          But now the right wing fundamentalist psychopaths who've taken over conservatism just wanna bomb 'em and put up the flag! 'Nuff said!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Your world is SO simple, isn't it, Rambo? And if your head starts to hurt you blame those darned lefties for over complikatin' stuff! "

            This is the epitome of psychological projection on your part.

          • WilliamJamesWard

            It smacks of something that if anyone wishes to guess, it starts with
            a B and then and S……………….projection=====flinging the BS wildly.
            William

          • Drakken

            You and conservative in the same sentence is an oxymoron, you defend Comrade Obummer at every turn and then blame the right for his failings. How very obtuse of you.

          • EarlyBird

            Actually, your so chronically enraged, I laid into the Democrats and praised W. Bush for once in regard to the public "teachers" union in a recent thread and you even attacked me for that. Because you can't or won't read.

            And because you're stupid.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "Israel knows, fundamentally, that the Iranian government is not isane though they try to come off that way."

        Where did you dream up that fantasy? It only takes a small faction to wreak serious havoc with WMDs, especially nuclear tipped missiles.

        You're foolish to think that you're the wise contemplative one around here.

        "…and they are working towards a bomb for very conventional power…"

        Only leftists believe that. Hard left dupes of the smart evil ones that know better. No Muslim believes that. Not one. Unless you define "Global sharia under Shia doctrine" as "conventional power."

        • WilliamJamesWard

          Conventional power?……..think of the pictures of the screaming Muslim mobs
          going wild in paroxysms of dyspeptic rage looking for a blood victim………The
          left is mostly cognizant of the damage Sharia and Islamists wish to cause but
          for some mysterious reason do not see themselves caught up in the fallout.
          William

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Conventional power?"

            Another weasel phrase trying to weasel out of silly statements he makes. Is he talking about political power? Energy? WTH?

            I think he just reacts so quickly that he wanted to deny the nuclear projects are for WMDs and wanted to claim it was for conventional weapons. You know, those conventional nuclear weapons that everyone has. As long as they're "conventional" we'll all be OK.

            The only realpolitik way to clean up after this mess if 0'Bama facilitates Iran going nuclear is to install missiles in Riyadh pointed at Tehran. That is literally the only kind of MAD scenario that might get their attention, yet we can't actually trust the Saudis in the long-term since their goals are identical to the Muslim Brotherhood, except envisioning a different leader as caliph.

            Iran going nuclear is not acceptable. If 0'Bama allows this, he will go down as the worst leader in the history of man. That is no exaggeration. If you think elections have consequences, this mistake of his will be the biggest proof of that.

          • SAM000

            The snake never bears a DOVE, the result of this election if it takes place will be war, war, war to Israel.
            during last two weeks we had 30 executions, some of the victims were hanged in the streets by the crane, we had 6 hands cut, during last 2 days from this Monday more than 30 Journalists were arrested because the were belonging to the opposite group of power, for your information Ahmadinejad made defection from Khamenei and he runs for himself, the parliament also is divided between Ahmadinejad and Khamenei, there is a declared inter power war between several factions of power, the IRG Corp is under Khamenei's control, Finance and the Ministers are under Ahmadinejad's Control, Majlis is under another control, Justice (Prisons, Expeditionary courts, and Islamic Police , excuse me Islamic Thugs) another control, so every clan is running for his interest, all the clans are for Nuclear BOMB, all the clans are convinced that threatening Israel is very BENEFICIAL for them because when they threaten Israel the west negotiates with the Mullahs and this is what they want to buy the time to finish their BOMB.
            So, the summer election is for hardening the positions for the NUCLEAR BOMB.
            There is something that you the Americans do not get, The ISLAMIC POWER WITHOUT WAR CAN NOT LAST.
            THIS IS MATHEMATICS and LOGIC, AN ISLAMIC POWER of 1400 years ago is not able to resolve the today's normal needs, the people do not sustain for a long time such a this kind of power, in that case the people oppose the Islamic Power, and Islamic power exercise the vast and hard repression, to be able to kill more and arrest more, the Islamic power needs the new pretexts, but all kind of pretexts for repression is under dated in IRAN, the war remains the sol way, with war, the opponents will become the spy for Zionism or Spy for Great SATAN,
            Islam is OVER in Iran, we are preparing the new revolution, but the normal non political IRANIAN sees the next revolution as ANTI ISLAM REVOLUTION, we know that we can not stop the people from their bloody rage, we know that the incoming revolution is the final solution for the MULLAHS, this is not good, but this is the outcome of the ISLAMIC POWER, the people will revenge by killing and burning and destroying everything which sounds ISLAM,
            the Iranians hate OBAMA because he is Muslim and supports the Mullahs, this is normal for you the Americans, but this is DISGUSTING for us, we are ashamed deeply by seeing SUPER POWER PRESIDENT bends to a thug as AHMADINEJAD, what a shame,
            to resume, the next election will be something unexpected for you the westerners.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "…for your information Ahmadinejad made defection from Khamenei and he runs for himself, the parliament also is divided between Ahmadinejad and Khamenei,"

            Politics used to be a lot more straightforward here in the West when the balance of powers was more than just theory. If you're talking about political leaders who don't have to worry about rule of law, well then things can be very fluid. A'jad himself doesn't know what he can get away with really. None of them do.

            They're all crazy. It would be great to have Iranians liberate themselves. I'm sorry America failed the secular Iranian people for so long. If you read these discussions much, you know who to blame.

          • SAM000

            I have read your comments; they are all based on a logic, I can argue with you only when I can bring more details of the Mullahs system,
            You make sense, you miss only one very important point, I don't know why?!
            Maybe, what is transparent for us is not very normal with you.
            Maybe you can help me and guide me to understand,
            At least, you are impartial and your analysis is mathematical.
            What I want to check and argue with you is that, we know how to free ourselves from Islamism and we can, but in front of us is the SUPERPOWER, we can defeat Islamism without any help and assistance of the west, we want the west to stay inert between us and the regime,, this point, is very important for our liberation, but even you do not feel it, why?!
            Help me please to understand, don't be offended please, I respect the honorable people,,

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "…in front of us is the SUPERPOWER, we can defeat Islamism without any help and assistance of the west, we want the west to stay inert between us and the regime,, this point, is very important for our liberation…"

            OK, let's start talking about it and you may not like the answers. but you will be closer to a solution.

            "…but even you do not feel it, why?! "

            You're enemies are my enemies and they are entrenched politically here in the West, including the USA. 0'Bama is an enemy even if he personally sees himself as a hero. We don't need to know if 0'Bama considers himself loyal to Saudis first, or if somehow he imagines that there is a truly benign form of “sharia socialism” that he can lead the world to. It doesn't matter.

            What does matter is that because of leftist political popularity, and the traitor politicians that either believe these things themselves or simply want to exploit them, the point is that we in the USA can't even consistently come up with sensible policies for our own nation. OTOH, if we do solve those problems, I guarantee you that many if not every last conservative is rooting for you and would give you more than passive assistance should you need it.

            I know that's not a definitive answer without understanding the history of politics in the 20th century…but if you do have a chance to read and participate more, try to get around to as many topics here as possible and ask any questions you want. The picture will start to become clearer to you, and we will get to know where the blanks are in your understanding of Western liberal democracy. I know you might have other more pressing needs..I'm just being realistic too.

            I'll just close by saying that before leftists became convinced that the world could become even better than ever, they had very little to criticize in the USA. Although the state did not wipe out all injustice at its inception, it was clear that the system itself was without doubt the best to do so ever conceived. That was not good enough, and progressives got impatient and were seduced by lies about communist utopia. These ideas became popular and not very coherent, so this is a fractured movement. The easiest way to understand it to go back to the Soviet Communist efforts to infiltrate western nations and the legacy of that infiltration today. Most leftist troublemakers don't even realize the root source of these delusions.

            But, having said all of that, I don't think that the US would intervene against you. In fact I know conservatives still have enough clout that we would never do that. If you can truly pull it off without assistance, don't even hesitate. Learn more about the Shia-Sunni rifts if you don't already have all of the political implications of this at the front of your considerations. It is crucial to notice that 0'Bama is only really passively supportive of Sunni regimes and keeps sending their "rewards" that are unearned, and these are supposed to be contingent upon good behavior. He supported anyone the Sunnis called "liberators" but I don't see how anyone in the Sunni club, or the Western world would interfere with a secular overthrow of the current Iranian regime. That is about the only thing I can promise you. If that is news to you, then you should rejoice. You might have to contend with some underhanded attempt to infiltrate your new government in the coming months and years, but the Sunnis can't attack you any time soon while your fighting the mullahs.

          • SAM000

            Thank you for your time and your lessons; I will print it and read this classic of politics, it will be always useful,
            My question is just for now,
            what you have written is a kind of BIBLE of politics, maybe you have answered all my questions and I need more knowledge to decipher it , even with that consideration the distance between my question and your BIBLICAL answer is huge.
            you said;
            I don't think that the US would intervene against you.

            my answer;
            US intervenes against us, the MULLAHS are there because US prevents us to remove the MULLAHS.
            US PUTS DIRECTLY THE WORLD'S SECURITY IN DANGER TO SAVE THE MULLAHS.
            if you want I can put the documents under your eyes to prove the serious of what I'M talking about.
            Just about the Nuclear site of FORDO, we disclosed the details on 2005, your 16 intelligences services got it serious at 2009, I had written the hundreds of posts about different sites at least 4 years before that the west admits the existence.
            The document that i can show you this time dates of 2009 from ,,,,,,, you will see that OBAMA'S admin. neglected or omitted, a very important issue of the world's security voluntarily, to the benefits of the terrorism of the Islamists.
            This is very serious, the people know me here on FPM from 2005, I had always the same screen name, do you want to see the Docs?
            In your blog there is no way to contact you, do you have a facebook account?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            my answer;

            "US intervenes against us, the MULLAHS are there because US prevents us to remove the MULLAHS."

            I can't dispute this but can't imagine how. If you can explain maybe we'll both learn some things.

            "US PUTS DIRECTLY THE WORLD'S SECURITY IN DANGER TO SAVE THE MULLAHS. "

            Through inaction? By tolerating their presence at the UN? Do you mean actively or passively?

            "The document that i can show you this time dates of 2009 from ,,,,,,, you will see that OBAMA'S admin. neglected or omitted, a very important issue of the world's security voluntarily, to the benefits of the terrorism of the Islamists."

            If there are leftist influences that somehow are manipulating things illegally, you've got to expose this in detail. I think I know what you're referring to, but he's not doing this to explicitly help the mullahs and the more we work to raise awareness, the more we can help Iranians overthrow the regime. I don't feel that helpful but I can try.

            If you've got important information that is not yet publicized, I'm sure the journalists here would love to hear from you.

            "do you want to see the Docs?"

            Yes.

            "In your blog there is no way to contact you, do you have a facebook account?"

            I need to maintain a firewall for now. Email the author of this article or Daniel Greenfield (he seems to publish most of the articles for "The Point" on FPM") and that might also help to publicize it better as well as giving me a look. Have these documents never been published on the web?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I replied already but it's being moderated for some reason. If it doesn't make it through the admin's review I'll make sure we talk about it soon. I saved my reply to a local file.

            Remember that very few people, even those who seem to want to appease Iran, would lift a finger to save the regime. Truly. Those that are partnering with the regime are doing so for their own interests, not because of affinity for Shia Islam. Not only that, but Syria is drawing more attention than many people realize that works against the regime in Iran. This might be a good time to make your move while the pressure is on from Israel and eyes are on Syria. You might be shocked how much support you get from around the world…if you really can pull it off without 0'Bama.

            If it does get ugly, we conservatives might even be able to pile on enough pressure to make sure we in the US don't do anything even slightly harmful to you, and we can argue for humanitarian aid and so forth. It's not much and I"m sorry about that. But it might be better than you assume. If you have a shot at victory, there is no way any Western power or coalition would save the Shia regime.

            You'd be clear to go for victory but you'd have to worry about later Sunni infiltration and so forth but that goes with the territory anyway. If you can handle the regime now and the Sunnis later as you go, you're going to make it.

            Keep in touch as much as you can and read as much here, because that will help you understand what questions to ask to learn more about contemporary politics in the West and especially in the USA and what drives our insane foreign policy these days.

          • WilliamJamesWard

            "They're all crazy."…………..says it all………..and gives clarity as to
            why the left is enamored with them………….William

  • RobE

    It's very funny, you can hear a pin drop and see from a satellite and such a report with an explosion of such magnitude could not be found. I think the U.S. report high pregnant with lies. They will be above their reason, in this case perhaps that Israel hot coals out of the fire itself should pick up. U.S. wants to stand out of the wind, in order to remain friends with the Islamic world.

    • john spielman

      there are actually 3 separate battles in the book of Revelation that people refer to as the "battle of Armageddon" and God can use anything even man to bring about His will ( the Babylonians to punish unfatihful kingdom of Judah and Assyria to destroy the kingdon of Israel). So God can use even Iran and Egypt to do His will.

    • EarlyBird

      Gee, the US sure has a weird way of showing love to Muslims, like a massive drone war against the Taliban and al Queda inside Afghanistan and Pakistan. Oh, and killing that bin Laden. Hmmm.

      • JoJoJams

        Well, gee, "earlybird", according to the main stream media, and "moderate" muslims, the Taliban, Al Queda and their ilk aren't "true muslims" anyway! If so, they should be happy we're fighting those that attacked us. ~ You do remember 9/11, don't you – oh….wait! You probably weren't born then, because you can't actual be THIS ignorant, can you??

        • EarlyBird

          What are you talking about, JoJo? Either Obama has been waging war against our Islamist enemies or he hasn't. In fact he has. What does the opinion of moderate Muslims (yes, there is such a thing, no need to put it in quotes), have to do with the fact that Obama has been waging relentless war on our Islamist terrorists enemies? I want an answer, not another non-sequitor, okay?

          If you don't answer at all, or just answer with more nonsense, I'll know you know that I'm right.

          • Ziggy Zoggy

            Installing the Muslim Brotherhood (the world's largest terrorist organization) in Egypt and arming Al Qaeda in Libya, Mauritania, Mali, Algeria and Syria is your idea of a relentless war on "our" muslim terrorist enemies? How about strengthening the Taliban in Afghanistan and Al Qaeda in Iraq? Or maybe abetting the nuclear program in Iran, bowing to that sweaty little potentate in Saudi Arabia and going on his anti-American apology tour of the Near East demonstrated his commitment to fighting back against islamic imperialism?

          • EarlyBird

            WHAT?! Obama "installed" the Muslim Brotherhood?! I thought they had a revolution and a popular election? He's armed Al Queda in Libya? How so? They aren't even there. He's armed terrorists in Mauritania, Mali, Algeria and Syria? Dude, are you drunk?

            He's taken heat from the right wing for NOT arming the new Libyan government enough, for NOT getting involved in Mali or Syria, you nitwit. I detest your stupidity and dishonesty. You're both a liar and a fool.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "WHAT?! Obama "installed" the Muslim Brotherhood?! I thought they had a revolution and a popular election? He's armed Al Queda in Libya? How so? They aren't even there. He's armed terrorists in Mauritania, Mali, Algeria and Syria? Dude, are you drunk? "

            What a waste of time you are.

          • EarlyBird

            Waste of time? Lay some "objective facts" to refute my response to the moron.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Waste of time? Lay some "objective facts" to refute my response"

            I know for a fact that you've participated in discussions where the featured articles linked to those facts you deny. That is precisely why I said what I did. The only one who agrees with you is 0'Bama himself, and even he knows he's lying.

            If I thought you were turning the corner somehow and I wouldn't have to repeat myself even more, I would of course invest the time. But history shows this to be unlikely. I'll keep my hopes up for your situation to improve and then we can talk.

          • Mary Sue

            Yes he did arm al-quaida in Libya. What do you think Ambassador Stevens was doing?

          • umustbkidding

            Stop, stop, please stop your embarrassing yourself.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Stop, stop, please stop your embarrassing yourself."

            If only he had enough self-awareness to realize this. I love that he also just chastised another for being too simple-minded, not more than a few hours ago.

          • EarlyBird

            Literally, you refuse to even engage the issue. How did Obama arm al Queda in Libya? OBJECTIVELY moron!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "How did Obama arm al Queda in Libya?"

            google: american arms in libya
            http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-ea
            http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/world/2012/12/06/

            google: al qaeda libya rebels
            http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaa
            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/30/libya-re

            That took me about 2 minutes…less.

          • EarlyBird

            Your implication is that Obama intentionally, with malice of forethought armed "Al Queda" in order to hurt America. Please.

            You'll notice the shipment of arms to Lybian "rebels" coincided with the placement of CIA operatives in the Spring of 2011. At the time we didn't know anything about who was who over there (a huge part of Obama's reluctance to even go in at all). The CIA that "some" of the fighters were AQ, or otherwise Islamic radicals.

            I've passionately argued against the notion that the US was guilty for "creating" AQ in Afghanistan, by way of Reagan's arming of the Taliban. But by your unfair reasoning, he too was a secret jihadist, just like Obama.

            Come on, man. You're better than this. All this points out is why we have to be so reluctant to jump into every hot spot, because we know so little and so much is out of our control.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "What are you talking about, JoJo? Either Obama has been waging war against our Islamist enemies or he hasn't. In fact he has."

            No, he has not. It's a fictional drama with a few sacrifices for the sake of global jihad. Some times the jihadis allow their own to die. Ever heard of it?

          • EarlyBird

            In other words any objective facts you don't like, don't matter.

            Shoo, bug.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "In other words any objective facts"

            Please quote your "facts." Your claims don't matter. This is a true objective fact.

          • EarlyBird

            Oh come on. I need to know find a link to "prove" that Obama has been waging a massive drone campaign in Pakistan and the Hindu Kush, or that he instigated a huge surge of troops in Afghanistan shortly after he took office? All of that is some how "fictional drama"?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "All of that is some how "fictional drama"?"

            There are real actions associated with these claims, but the intended result is not what is claimed. "Troop surge" in "boot count," not in strategic and tactical initiatives to achieve goals that the US has true interests in. Training Afghans to kill our soldiers, bombing people that 0'Bama picks personally.

            You're a sucker.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            " What does the opinion of moderate Muslims (yes, there is such a thing, no need to put it in quotes),"

            It's put in quotes because nobody seems to be able to truly or even consistently identify the alleged moderates. It's controversial you know. I suppose you don't know. For you the world is simple, what the left says, and what the evil right says, with you the only true "conservative" standing in the middle. Poor you.

            There's another reason you're all alone. You're dead wrong and you're a complete dupe who considers himself conservative because you want the budget deficit reduced.

      • wsk

        It's how I like to show love to the Jihadists, except I would kill his entire mudhut village in front of him first.

        • EarlyBird

          Merely kill everyone in the village? You're one of those lefties who think we can play nice adn the terrorists will go away, right?

          I'd grind their children into sausage. THAT's how anti-terrorist Muslim I am. Can you beat that bud?

          • Ziggy Zoggy

            I would eat that sausage.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "I would eat that sausage."

            He'll take you literally and quote you as representing "right wing radical conservatives."

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "I'd grind their children into sausage. THAT's how anti-terrorist Muslim I am. Can you beat that bud?"

            I'd send them and you to school to learn the true facts of history. You don't stand much of a chance to learn anything new, but many of them would.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "Gee, the US sure has a weird way of showing love to Muslims, like a massive drone war against the Taliban and al Queda inside Afghanistan and Pakistan. Oh, and killing that bin Laden. Hmmm."

        It is loving to destroy evil sovereigns and terrorists. Your simple mind can't even begin to understand this and most collectivists are on your side. What does that make you?

  • SIlver Gonzalez

    Chuck Haigle – another useless politico on a muslim payroll.

    • I'm Having a…

      Hagel is just another commie arse-licker.

  • logdon

    Who to believe? A lying boy/man apologist for a Muslim first president or an Israeli in the cross hairs?

    'White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said, “We have no information to confirm the allegations in the report and we do not believe the report is credible.” Anonymous Israeli intelligence officials, on the other hand, confirmed that an explosion took place and said that the damage is still being assessed'.

    • Raymond in DC

      This is the same Administration that insists it will quickly know if Iran's made the decision to assemble a nuclear device. Yet it has "no information" one way or another regarding this reported incident! If they're so blind to what's going on at Fordo, why should we be confident they'll know what's decided in the Ayatollah's executive office or in some development site we don't even know exists?

      • logdon

        In similar vein they knew what was going on in real time Benghazi but then again they didn't.

        Lewis Carrol would be pressed to equal this calculated ineptitude.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "This is the same Administration that insists it will quickly know if Iran's made the decision to assemble a nuclear device."

        Nobody believes a word he says. The left just wants him to lie.

    • EarlyBird

      You love Israel more than the US.

      • logdon

        As I'm British I can love who the hell I like.

        I see a flippant manchild Carney and an Israel under siege. That's what it boils down to.

        • EarlyBird

          Yes, you may. Sorry about that, chap. Carry on.

          • logdon

            If you insist on stereotypical parody, please get it right.

            It's 'old chap'.

            PS

            Are you unable to address the point?

          • EarlyBird

            Sorry, old chap. Perhaps I should have said, "mate." (And it's a wonderful old stereotype, by the way.)

            Now what "point" are you referring to, that as a Brit you owe America no allegiance over Israel? I believe I agreed with that.

            Or your ridiculous insult to my president? Bollocks!

            Or the fact that "anonymous" Israeli sources, not official ones, are claiming that some explosion occurred, and the US hasn't seen enough evidence to substantiate it? You do know that there are all sorts of intentional misdirections and misreports of things that happen, right? It could be total blarney, or true, or a combination. The US could be playing its role alongside Israeli intelligence to pretend it didn't happen. Anything could be true right now. Only the spy services know for sure.

          • Drakken

            The fact that you support Comrade Obummer tells us volumes about you. What a maroon!

          • EarlyBird

            Honestly, have you ever attempted to write a coherent, reasoned argument in any way, shape or form on this website? Even when you're agreeing with someone you sound like an idiot.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "…you sound like an idiot."

            This is what you say to all of the intelligent people.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Sorry, old chap. Perhaps I should have said, "mate." (And it's a wonderful old stereotype, by the way.) "

            What do you claim is a "stereotype?"

            "Or the fact that "anonymous" Israeli sources, not official ones, are claiming that some explosion occurred, and the US hasn't seen enough evidence to substantiate it? You do know that there are all sorts of intentional misdirections and misreports of things that happen, right? It could be total blarney, or true, or a combination. The US could be playing its role alongside Israeli intelligence to pretend it didn't happen. Anything could be true right now. Only the spy services know for sure."

            Therefore we can't disagree with the earlybird until he tells us what to say. We need to limit our conversations to those topics he accepts with opinions that he agrees with.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Or your ridiculous insult to my president? Bollocks! "

            Why don't you quote what the H you're talking about? I think you're hearing voices again. He didn't say anything derogatory about your idol.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Yes, you may. Sorry about that, chap. Carry on."

            If only you did that a lot more often, perhaps even before making dumb comments.

          • Drakken

            Alas my friend, that is never going to happen, I do enjoy when sh*tbird has a little fit when his worldview clashes with reality though.

          • EarlyBird

            Don't take things too seriously, DraKKKen. This is just a website, you know.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "You love Israel more than the US."

        How many times are you going to use that stupid senseless line? The "rivalry" is Islam vs. the West with leftists in the West aligned with guess who?

        Go ahead and prove yet again how little you know by making some sarcastic remark. Better yet, tell me that Islam is a religion of peace or some other nonsense.

        • EarlyBird

          My God, are you literally a 12 year old? Does your mommy know you're spending so much time on Horowitz's propaganda machine?

          • Drakken

            Every time you open that c*ckholster of a mouth, you prove to the rest of us how much of an intellectual giant you really are, it is rather funny and amusing to watch you have a fit though.

          • EarlyBird

            Hmmm. I've had some "fit" now. Okay… Dude, you wake up so angry, walk around on such a knife's edge so often, that you are ready to stroke out the moment has the slightest disagreement with you.

            Hey, you wouldn't be coming here so often without me. Even you might get bored by sitting around with your fellow fanatics screaming "Obamamarxistmuslimliberalterrrost!"

      • Ghostwriter

        Well,EarlyBird,you seem to love those "wonderful" anti-American Muslims who want to kill us every chance they get.

    • Snow White

      And this White House kept saying it was an ANTI iSLAMIC VIDEO THAT CAUSED THOSE HEATHENS TO KILL OUR AMBASSADOR AND MARINES IN BENGHAZI. wHO DO WE BELIEVE? QUR LYING PRESIDENT AND HIS STAFF? We know they lie because they were watchign the videoof the attack while they were makign up the lie. Did anyone ever find out who told all our military people to "STAND DOWN" and not go to the rescue?

  • Chanameel

    Wow!

    Next thing ya know
    , Iran will be permitted to go nuclear
    , with the intent that it will be for "peaceful" purposes.

    Once they have committed to this concept of "peace"
    we can offer direct flights from Tehran to the US!!!
    Welcome to America!!!!!!!!!!

    Hey! We now have diplomatic ties to the Taliban…Why not Tehran!!!

    Its a small world, afterall…

  • STEVEN CHAVEZ

    THERE HAD TO BE CASUALTIES AND DEATHS. That would mean there are funerals and family and friends would start asking questions. The word would spread and eventually make its way out of Iran in less than a minute. The extent of damage would also be disclosed. What caused the explosion? Was it an inside or outside job? Is there a meltdown?

    SAM000, KEEP US INFORMED. I look forward to the day when the Iranian people take back their country!!! If only Obama had supported the Green Revolution as vigorously as he did the Arab Spring, the world would be a much safer place. I also wonder if the Green Revolution did mount a resistance campaign, if Obama and the West would arm them as quickly as they are arming the Arab Spring, Libya, Egypt, and Syria.

    • SAM000

      Hi Steve;
      For the deaths and funerals, you can wait for a very long time, last year's explosion at PARCHING, a PASDARAN's nuclear missile site at 40 KM from Tehran where at least 70 high ranked commanders were killed, the funerals have not been done, they are extremely cautious about the security news.

      We have the reports that the security levels were drastically increased from Monday.

      Steve, the Mullahs will never leave the power without the force, this coming year is very decisive for us, the regime is more fragile, there several fractures in the leadership of the Mullahs, and this situation is very beneficial for the Resistance, in the other hand our Resistance Brigades are forming and increasing, you heard that US FEDERAL COURT forced the state dept. to remove their terrorist tag from our Resistance, this was done last September 29, but our resistance camps are under siege of Iraqi Gov. with the collaboration of UN, in fact USA and UN are backing the Mullahs against the Iranians will for freedom.
      There is an political road map in USA, very influential in Obama's Admin. led by vice president that believe that USA should deal with an unified one head Islamic Khalifat who has the nuclear bomb for his security, and they advice that USA should facilitate Iran to acquire the nuclear BOMB and govern the Islamic world, Chuck Hegel is the first outcome of this group.

    • Snow White

      Obama is a Muslim. He is working to revive the Califate. and institute Sharia law worldwide. Wonder how his constituents are going t o like it when they start cutting off their hands for stealing. No more "Flash mob" activities. And they dont' care if it's a kid or adult. The punishment is the same. Didn't they beat a 12 year old boy to death two years ago for eating during Ramadan?

      • SAM000

        Yes they do, and they do worse,
        Please repeat and share everywhere you can, 2 weeks ago they hanged 2 victims for rubbing less than 50 USD.
        last Monday 9 executions and 2 hand cut.
        24 school girls are burned in their classroom, they are 8 years old, they are dying one by one, the Mullahs forced the Doctors to put them the scarves on they burned heads, the Mullahs don't let the parents to take their kids out of the country for medical curing.
        Please repeat these Mullahs crimes everywhere, these small children have no voice.
        Obama supports these mullahs,
        Thank you so very much, GOD BLESS YOU

  • Michael Schneider

    When discussing involvement in international realpolitik one must always ignore what other countries say and and go ones own way. The safest bet is to expect that the others will let you down.

  • Ziggy Zoggy

    Assuming Israel doesn't take care of the problem for us, there is still nothing to worry about. Obama told us he wouldn't let Iran make any scary nukes. And when Iran finishes making them he'll tell us that he wont let them be used. And when the first one goesBOOM he'll be sure to blame the one responsible-George Bush.

    • Raymond in DC

      The US under Obama did nothing to secure Libya's conventional weapons arsenal, and nothing so far beyond training some troops to deal with Syria's chemical weapons arsenal. Iran sees this, and believes the US will do nothing about its nuclear project.

      • Ziggy Zoggy

        I'm pretty sure Obama WANTS Iran to go nuclear. He's spent the last 4 years helping to knock off or weaken secular regimes in the islamopithecine world and installing or aiding jihadist regimes.

        • EarlyBird

          Zig, I've found my time on this website fascinating. It's an example of genuine epistemic closure. There is utterly no room for dissent of any kind, everyone is on knife's edge looking for dissenters to be shouted down and ex-communicated. Funny there is such an obsession with communists and Soviets, since that is exactly how this website is run. Propaganda from the top, rigid enforcement from below.

          "Debating" with all of you is like shooting fish in a barrel, or trying to reason with the crazy street person. More so, it's like trying to reason with the very fascist Islamist fundamentalists you so despise. It's projection though, as you have far more in common with them than you do your fellow citizens.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "There is utterly no room for dissent of any kind, everyone is on knife's edge looking for dissenters to be shouted down and ex-communicated."

            Dissenters are allowed to make reasonable arguments. You have a record well below 5% in coming anywhere close to reasonable. You get shouted down because your an a$$ and you disrespect people here. It's not like you make thoughtful comments looking to advance the discourse. You make comments that are antagonistic, disrespectful and almost always dead wrong…all at the same time. You cause the shouting by your particular approach and I have to wonder if you have some defects in your brain as well as your ideology.

            You're not the only one to be shouted at for sure. But dissenters are allowed and even reasoned with 100% of the time when they show up with a reasoned argument.

          • EarlyBird

            I have absolutely zero respect for YOU, or 95% of the regular posters here, that is for sure. You're raging moon bats who are literally incapable of reasoned discussion, grappling with facts that don't fit your extremist "conservative" positions. You're exactly what is wrong with today's so-called "conservatives." Sadly, it's why Romney , a good man, lost, and why the Democrats will continue to lose by default: you people are hateful, genuinely ignorant on the deepest and most important levels, racist, homophobic, theocratic, anti-democratic, anti-liberty, stupid, irresponsible and insane. You are by FAR the greatest threat to the USA, even given the realities of massive debt, terrorism, global warming, etc.

            You literally can not understand or deal with reality. You're like angry teenagers.

          • Drakken

            Nice liberal/progressive talking points, yes of course your a conservative! Your intellectual stupidity knows no bounds! Hilarious!!!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Debating" with all of you is like shooting fish in a barrel, or trying to reason with the crazy street person."

            The crazy street person always think's he's right too. In this analogy. you're the crazy street person.

          • Mary Sue

            he's just flat out crazy like a street person. I wonder if he forgot his meds today.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "More so, it's like trying to reason with the very fascist Islamist fundamentalists you so despise."

            What matters is whether the dogmas are true or not. We're fighting people who kill over dogmas that are based on lies and intentional deception. We're as committed to truth, survival and justice as they are, but we're also committed to reason and justice as defined in the West until the leftists emerged.

            You don't know anything significant about Islamic ideology.

          • EarlyBird

            Everything posted on this website is mostly 95% intentional deception, you dolt! It's propaganda as real as anything the Nazis, Soviets or today's Islamist fundamentalists are spouting. It is almost entirely based on lies, and as all propaganda is intended, it is created for the already-converted, i.e., the ignorant, frightened, hateful, angry, simple minds.

            Watch out! There's a terrorist under your bed! And across the street is someone who thinks global warming may be real! And your co-worker may believe in Evolution and gay rights! And there a scary black man with a funny name in the White House!

            Horowitz is a miserable human being, who has stated that all politics to him is warfare. He's using the very same tactics he used as a red diaper baby Radical of the '60s for his new extremism, which is right-wingism. He has no sense of moderation. He does it out of anger and hatred, not principle.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "it's like trying to reason with the very fascist Islamist fundamentalists you so despise. It's projection though, as you have far more in common with them than you do your fellow citizens."

            I know exactly what we have in common with them. Red blood, commitment to ideology, and so forth. What I know about any topic you discuss should put you in a position to learn but you play professor all the time when you are in no position to do so. If you are so contemplative an open-minded, why do you always go on the attack with statements disputing things that weren't even said? You don't question things. You make the claims of someone who is absolutely convinced. You do this in many case when I know for a fact that you are wrong.

            You're a bit of a psycho to be honest. I'm saying that sincerely. It can happen to anyone. I can't help much more in this forum but to advise you that you might have a serious problem.

            Good luck.

          • Mary Sue

            Sorry Earlybird, no worm for you.

      • Ghostwriter

        That,and the fact that EarlyBird's an unbelievable jerk to start with.

        • EarlyBird

          Now, Ghosty, don't be that way. You know I've got a soft spot for you.

  • EarlyBird

    Wow! Front Page blows the lid off ANOTHER big story that the mainstream media won't touch! For some reason, this massive explosion which has undone Iran's nuclear program doesn't get ANY attention in the world press!

    Must be another Obama-Muslim-Marxist-Martian-Lizard King conspiracy!

    • Ziggy Zoggy

      Did you miss the memo on the Vast Wight-Wing Conspiracy? You can get the latest details from Oliver Stone. Or the President’s Administration. Or the nearest mental defective.

      • EarlyBird

        I just realized! The people on this board are so out of control they didn't know I was mocking them. I actually got 2 thumbs up!

        • Drakken

          Yeah ok shortbus, I am sure that you are completely amused as a Obummer supporter usually is.

        • Ziggy Zoggy

          Yet you completely missed the mockery of you and your regurgitated DNC talking points. Factual mockery.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Yet you completely missed the mockery of you and your regurgitated DNC talking points. Factual mockery."

            People like him only understood one thing the leftists taught; conflict resolution. Strip out all facts in dispute, and focus on agreement. Then don't talk about anything else. Now you can start talking about moral relativity, hypocrisy for being critical and so forth.

            At no point does it occur to them that discussing salient facts is a lot more important than their vision of "conflict resolution" in virtually every dispute. This guy is so indoctrinated, he thinks we're evil for discussing salient facts just because it might make someone angry enough to fight.

            Oh my, we can't have that.

          • Drakken

            Now why is that so obvious to us and not to sh*tbird? I must confess that our life experiences,education and knowledge are lost on the 20's crowd who know everything about nothing, how quaint.

          • EarlyBird

            I'm 47. The difference between you and me is I didn't stop thinking in my '20s.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      Wow! Front Page blows the lid off ANOTHER big story that the mainstream media won't touch! For some reason, this massive explosion which has undone Iran's nuclear program doesn't get ANY attention in the world press!

      Title: Iran’s Underground Nuke Site Struck? Notice the question mark? I doubt it. Google "explosion iran" for more similar articles and questions.

      • EarlyBird

        Gee, buddy. You're following me around all over Front Page. Do you need a date?

    • Ghostwriter

      EarlyBird,you mock yourself every time you make a stupid comment.

  • cxt

    The thing folks should consider is that Ack-ma-dinnerjacket is so off the charts crazy that the sect he belongs to was BANNED by Khomani himself as too radical!

    Think about that for a second—the leader of the takeover of Iran by religious fundementalists looked at the the sect and essentially said "whoa…those dudes are nuts…better ban them before they do something stupid"

    And here we have the "something stupid."

    • EarlyBird

      Ack'jad, as president, is actually a very weak leader. His office and everyone who "runs" for the presidency in Iran is only allowed at the behest of the Supreme Leader, currently Ayathollah Sayiid Ali KAhmeni.

      The president has no real control over foreign policy, armed forces, nuclear policy, economic policy or religious policy. The president is used as a "representative" (in as much as any kind of representation is actually allowed in Iran) of the Iranian people, an intermediary between the people and the real power, which is the Supreme Council of the Revolution headed by the Supreme Leader. The president is practically a figurehead.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "The president is practically a figurehead."

        Under whose control? It makes you feel better that his election was a fraud? Who is in power that would choose such a radical person to represent the government?

        As usual your points have no value.

        People complain about "figureheads" that contradict evil doctrine and try to appease the public. This is a shia regime that chose a radical puppet to grow radical thinking and dedication to radical shia doctrine and ideology.

        It's almost funny that you think you're the smart and contemplative one.

        I have no personal problem with you or anyone else. I think you might have a personal problem to resolve on your own, but I wish you luck with that. If you want to comment here without getting shouted at, start living up to your own declared standards of thinking about how complex the world is and how many answers YOU PERSONALLY don't have. Don't project your ignorance on to others and then attack them for that ignorance that reflects only your own limitations.

        If you have massive disagreements with people, start with a respectful line of question rather than making so many false assumptions. You might be happier at a leftist site like Huffington Post. Or do you fight with them just as frequently? Maybe you need to publish your own pearls of wisdom on your own site to find all of the other "smart people" who agree with you.

        If you're so unhappy here…try to find the root causes rather than blaming everyone else. You spend enough time in conflict that you must wonder if your own defects are not a big part of the problem. Don't you?

        • EarlyBird

          "Under whose control?" Under the Supreme Leader's.

          "It makes you feel better that his election was a fraud?" Nothing about Iranian "elections" makes me feel better. They're all frauds.

          "Who is in power that would choose such a radical person to represent the government?" The Supreme Council tries to maintain "the revolution" by installing presidents as PR men to whip up revolutionary fervor. But the SC – however truly evil and rotten – is more concerned with keeping control of the population, keeping the lights on, the price of milk down and increasing their conventional power, rather than trying to bring on Armageddon.

        • EarlyBird

          "It's almost funny that you think you're the smart and contemplative one." I'm one of very few who even posts ideas or arguments here.

          "I have no personal problem with you…" Yes you do. Because you're smarter than the kids playing in the mud around here.

          "You might be happier at a leftist site like Huffington Post." And listen to a bunch of smug liberals in THEIR echo chamber? I'm a conservative trying to drag my fellow conservatives out of the fever swamp.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "The thing folks should consider is that Ack-ma-dinnerjacket is so off the charts crazy that the sect he belongs to was BANNED by Khomani himself as too radical! "

      IIRC, he was directly involved at the site for the attack on the US embassy.

  • Suzanne

    This is the best news that I have heard for a long time. I hope it is true. A huge congratulation to everyone involved in blowing up the Fordo nuclear site!

  • Jim

    Should Israel attack then Americans need to back up Israel with a lot of missal defenses.

    Will Obama do that

    • Ziggy Zoggy

      I think Obama's idea of missile defense would be to protect Iran from Israel.

      • EarlyBird

        You mean that the Irone Dome, which was a joint project between Israel and the US under Obama and which recently was so effective in knocking out Hamas rockets, would then be taken down and handed to Iran? Or are you just stupid?

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "You mean that the Irone Dome, which was a joint project between Israel and the US under Obama and which recently was so effective in knocking out Hamas rockets, would then be taken down and handed to Iran? Or are you just stupid?"

          No, he meant that, "Obama's idea of missile defense would be to protect Iran from Israel."

          All you have to do is read and then figure out what has been written. 0'Bama did nothing for Iron Dome that inertia didn't force to happen. You're so simple.

  • BLJ

    I would love to see a mushroom cloud over Tehran.

    • SCREW SOCIALISM

      I would love to see all the ayatollahs with their necks in a noose.

  • tanstaafl

    Too bad, so sad. "The arc of history is long, but it bends to justice."

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "Too bad, so sad. "The arc of history is long, but it bends to justice.""

      Great quote.

  • WilliamJamesWard

    What can one say about Irans work on nuclear weapons, Boom is a start and sadly it
    will be exported if not completely stopped……….that means heavy handed action which
    takes courage but must not be bypassed for more sissy talk….time is of the essence.
    William

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "What can one say about Irans work on nuclear weapons, Boom is a start and sadly it
      will be exported if not completely stopped…"

      Like to Hezbollah, Shia factions in Iraq, or some terrorist allies of convenience.

  • Antisharia

    Wonderful if true, and I'm more inclined to believe the Israeli's over a pathological liar like jay carney and the most pro Iranian regime the United States has ever had. If the Iranians get nukes they will use them.

  • crackerjack

    So now there is no more need for swift action against Irans nuclear facilities ?

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "So now there is no more need for swift action against Irans nuclear facilities ?"

      We'll see after an authenticated damage assessment of some kind is available.

    • SAM000

      FORDO is one of hundreds, there are Lavizan 1 & 2 and Lavizan Shian, the huge complex of Parching for Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Warhead,
      Isfahan, Yazd, Boushehr, and many, many others,,,, we are discovering more sites and more plants, it is very vast,,,
      we have started to disclose the Mullahs nuclear works from 2002, they had 18 years of highly secret nuclear work and the west didn't knew that.

  • Ghostwriter

    What needs to happen is ALL of the nuclear facilities in Iran need to go up in smoke. That might not go well with imbeciles like EarlyBird but it would make me happy.

    • EarlyBird

      I'd be thrilled with that, as long as the US doesn't get into another war and go bankrupt in the process. It's not unpatriotic to understand the limits of American power; it's actually patriotic.

  • johnnywoods

    It seems that only Israel has a "nuclear non-proliferation program" that actually works.

    • WilliamJamesWard

      So true Johnnywoods, so true……………………….William