Putin tells Tehran "They're going to bomb you!"

[lovuian]

http://www.nysun.com/article/63561

Attack on Iran Said To Be Imminent

By BENNY AVNI
Staff Reporter of the Sun
September 28, 2007

UNITED NATIONS — In a sign that U.N. Security Council-based diplomacy is losing steam, a number of sources are reporting that a military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities may be imminent. France and America also are pushing for tighter economic sanctions against Tehran, without U.N. approval.

Yesterday's edition of Le Canard Enchaîné, a French weekly known for its investigative journalism, reported details of an alleged Israeli-American plan to attack Iran's nuclear facilities. The frontpage headline read: "A report sent to the Elysée — Putin tells Tehran: They're going to bomb you!"

The Saudi foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, also expressed concerns to reporters in New York that an attack on Iran might be imminent.
more...
October 15 says the French
israel first and then US

[Selatius]

1. I bet it's not Oct. 15 anymore now that it has leaked out. Probably some other unknown date now.

Honestly, if a French newspaper is printing Oct. 15 as the attack date, it would be foolish for the high leadership in the Pentagon to go ahead on that day with Tehran fully aware of when the attack comes. It defeats the purpose of trying to gain the advantage of surprise.

[lovuian]

2. I agree but it makes me mad that our News agency suck

you know there is news out there but its hush hush

France Sarkosky has sentenced France to be bombed too

[Selatius]

4. Sarkozy would be dumb to order the French fleet to join the US fleet in bombing Iran.

French citizens are less afraid of removing a sitting leader from power for bringing ruin to France than Americans. They might cut off his head, figuratively speaking.

[bemildred]

3. Bullshit. nt

[spirit of wine]

5. A new moon is on Oct. 8th.

and sometimes a bombing attack coincides with the darkest night for strategic reasons. Keep this in mind if it does end up happening a week prior to when they said it would.

[Kelly Rupert]

15. Er, yes, in World War 2.

We have these great things called high altitudes and missiles and radar now.

[ShaneGR]

23. Actually, theres some truth in this....

If you look at the time the allied bombing campaign of Serbia began and then the same thing for the Iraqi invasion of March 2003 the day they went in was actually one week away from the new moon, each night growing darker until the seventh day and then another 2+ weeks before the first full moon. Probably just coincidence.

http://wolfweb.unr.edu/homepage/edc/Astro/phases_2003.html

[Kelly Rupert]

26. Given the air supremacy American forces enjoyed,

I would venture that's probably more coincidence than anything else. Iraqi resistance to American air power was completely nullified within 72 hours of combat, IIRC. Might be something to it, though--but still, Desert Storm was launched with a waxing crescent, so I wouldn't put too much stock in it.

[Sic Semper Tyranus]

50. Actually...

If we can get full darkness, like a new moon, we'll take it every time. Most aircraft losses nowadays (what few there are) are to anti-aircraft guns, most of which don't have any decent night-vision systems to aim with during full darkness. Therefore attack in full dark and effectively neutralize this threat. Needless to say this isn't always possible, but I'd keep an eye on the Farmer's Almanac nonetheless.

[babylonsister]

6. Does anyone know how credible the NYSun is? nt

[Kagemusha]

8. Yes, and: not very.

Just consider it more Rupert Murdoch war-pimping.

Also be aware that other Murdoch papers include the Times (London), the Sunday Times (London), and the Jerusalem Post.

[babylonsister]

9. Thanks. That's what I thought. nt

[lovuian]

11. Have you guys read the Seymour Hersh article?

this isn't so far fetched

[Kagemusha]

12. Have you read the Israeli counter that says, the new plan is too limp?

I haven't read his article, just excerpts and highlights, so far, but I'll get around to it. I was just surprised that before the day was even done I saw an Israeli counter pushing that the revised plan was too light and nothing but complete devastation of Iranian 'nuclear' sites (and 'leadership' and so on sites) would do.

[Kagemusha]

45. Follow-up: finally read the Hersh article in full.

There's actually some good news there! Bush's public push for war with Iran isn't working and they're talking about downsizing such an operation, selling it as a way to keep US troops in Iraq safe - THAT is why Israel is complaining, for fear it won't go far enough.

[Hatalles]

17. Are you sure it's the Sun?

<< Yesterday's edition of Le Canard Enchaîné, a French weekly known for its investigative journalism, reported details of an alleged Israeli-American plan to attack Iran's nuclear facilities. The frontpage headline read: "A report sent to the Elysée — Putin tells Tehran: They're going to bomb you!" >>

Seems like they're citing this French paper.

[Kagemusha]

20. Yes, I'm aware of that, but the question of the NY Sun's credibility is still valid

and I answered it with the appropriate level of contempt.

Hey, maybe Putin did tell them that. But the NY Sun is broadcasting that to make bombing more likely by inuring America to the idea.

[DianaForRussFeingold]

7. Why Did Hillary Clinton Vote for War Again???

:cry: John Edwards "He and Hillary learned entirely different lessons from the Iraq War. And now that Hillary has joined Lieberman, Bush and the PNAC neo-cons to take those first steps toward war with Iran...her departure from real Americans is complete. And Obama's failure to even vote may well serve as a tipping point for him too." :( :crazy:
:grr: Has Hillary joined Lieberman, Bush and the PNAC neo-cons ???? 'Hillary Clinton Votes for War Again' :scared: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-bromwich/hillary-clinton-votes-for_b_66174.html
:nuke: :nuke: :cry:

[Exultant Democracy]

13. Cause she's tired of killing arabs and wants to get some persian blood on her hands?

[Kelly Rupert]

16. It is my most passionate hope that people who both write and honestly believe

this sort of thing are still too young to vote.

[Exultant Democracy]

24. I just posed a question. If you have a good answer feel free to share.

[Kelly Rupert]

27. Sure.

No.

[Exultant Democracy]

28. So why did she vote for the preamble to genocide?

[Kelly Rupert]

29. What parts of the wording of the amendment do you believe

give greater war powers to the government?

[Exultant Democracy]

30. Where they designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization.

Say what you will but Chris Dodd isn't one to howl at the moon, and these votes aren't meaningless.

[Kelly Rupert]

31. And how does that expand the government's war powers?

Serious question. What power does this give the military that it did not already possess?

[Exultant Democracy]

32. Are you kidding? The senate gave Bush political coverage to attack Iran.

Are you going to pretend that this resolution is giving Bush leverage for diplomacy? Shit the same fuckwits in the Senate made that bet before.

[Kelly Rupert]

33. The crucial difference between this and the IWR is

that the IWR actually, specifically authorized use of force against Iraq. This does not even come close to doing that. This is not authorizing force. This is not a declaration of an intent to maybe later authorize force. Hell, even the language about "rolling back," which was a declaration of an intent to possibly use something which might amount to force somewhere in the world, was removed beforehand.

But if you're going to try to claim that a declaration that the IRGC engages in behavior that the United States government does not support amounts to a declaration of genocide, knock yourself out. Just try to understand that if you honestly attempt to place

A) A symbolic resolution condemning an army for supporting terrorism, and
B) The systematic murder of every member of a specific ethnicity

in the same category, I'm going to hope you're still too young to vote.

[Exultant Democracy]

34. Then you weren't paying attention to the run up to the Iraq war (clue it started before Bush)

and you don't think what we are doing in Iraq is Genocide.

We know what Kyle and Lieberman want, they don't hide it, and this bill is part of the framework. When you support this bill you support Kyle and Lieberman's agenda.

I hope you don't vote either.

[Kelly Rupert]

36. And, as you may note, previous resolutions similar to this one were toothless

and, no matter how many "regime change is the policy of the government" resolutions were passed, the IWR was still required to launch a war. Symbolic resolutions are not declarations of war, and while they are sometimes passed as preludes to a later declaration of war, they are far, far more frequently passed and set aside, never to be thought of again. And seriously, claiming that declaring the the IRGC supports terrorists is the same as declaring that all Iranians must be murdered makes you look kinda unhinged.

On that note, what we are doing in Iraq is not genocide. Not all evils are alike. A war that destabilizes Iraq, unnecessarily endangering civilian lives in the ensuing civil war, is not anywhere remotely near a premeditated plot to murder every living Iraqi. Were that our goal, we have more efficient ways of doing so than what we are currently doing. Please don't be stupid.

On that note, before explaining the obvious desires of Sen. Kyl, you may wish to begin your research with his name. "Senator Kyle" is not a person.

[Exultant Democracy]

38. How many have to die in Iraq before we call it what it is? Genocide.

[Kelly Rupert]

39. Not all human-rights catastrophes are genocides.

Iraqi deaths are not deliberate or systematic. 90% are caused by fellow Iraqis, whether through crime or civil war--the result of various factions attempting to exterminate each other. Even that is not genocide, as the casualties are rather even. Ethnic cleansing occurs on a neighborhood-to-neighborhood basis, but spontaneously (due to fear of other Iraqis, not the United States).

The United States military as a rule targets only armed groups, not unarmed civilians. Individual soldiers and units frequently do target civilians, but there is no evidence whatsoever of a systematic attempt to kill all Arabs, even by the worst individual soldiers.

"Genocide" does not simply mean "a lot of people die." It is a word with a very real, very evil meaning, and you do the cause of human rights a disservice by misusing it.

[Exultant Democracy]

40. So pay no attention to all that ethnic cleansing

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article548945.ece

And Blackwater doesn't just shoot at brown people cause they look brown. Sure. We didn't take out the hospitals and a million Iraqis aren't dead with another 2 million running for their lives.

Certainly you can't blame us for all the ethnic cleansing going on, it isn't like Dick Cheney knew exactly what would happen when we went in there. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I

[Kelly Rupert]

41. Yeah, I'm not really seeing how

Sunnis and Shi'ites fleeing mixed neighborhoods for fear of each other and resettling in ethnically-homogenous areas counts as an American genocide. That would probably be because it doesn't.

I'm also not seeing how a few dozen dead at the hands of some Rambo-wannabe counts as an American genocide. Probably because you don't actually know what the word "genocide" means, and think it applies to any time people die.

[Exultant Democracy]

51. According the the UN definition of Genocide it is pretty clear that I'm right on this one.

Excerpt from the Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of Genocide (For full text click here)

"Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Article III: The following acts shall be punishable:

(a) Genocide;

(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;

(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;

(d) Attempt to commit genocide;

(e) Complicity in genocide. "

It is a crime to plan or incite genocide, even before killing starts, and to aid or abet genocide: Criminal acts include conspiracy, direct and public incitement, attempts to commit genocide, and complicity in genocide.

Punishable Acts The following are genocidal acts when committed as part of a policy to destroy a group’s existence:

Killing members of the group includes direct killing and actions causing death.

Causing serious bodily or mental harm includes inflicting trauma on members of the group through widespread torture, rape, sexual violence, forced or coerced use of drugs, and mutilation.

Deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to destroy a group includes the deliberate deprivation of resources needed for the group’s physical survival, such as clean water, food, clothing, shelter or medical services. Deprivation of the means to sustain life can be imposed through confiscation of harvests, blockade of foodstuffs, detention in camps, forcible relocation or expulsion into deserts.

Prevention of births includes involuntary sterilization, forced abortion, prohibition of marriage, and long-term separation of men and women intended to prevent procreation.

Forcible transfer of children may be imposed by direct force or by fear of violence, duress, detention, psychological oppression or other methods of coercion. The Convention on the Rights of the Child defines children as persons under the age of 18 years.

Genocidal acts need not kill or cause the death of members of a group. Causing serious bodily or mental harm, prevention of births and transfer of children are acts of genocide when committed as part of a policy to destroy a group’s existence.

The law protects four groups - national, ethnical, racial or religious groups.

A national group means a set of individuals whose identity is defined by a common country of nationality or national origin.

An ethnical group is a set of individuals whose identity is defined by common cultural traditions, language or heritage.

A racial group means a set of individuals whose identity is defined by physical characteristics.

A religious group is a set of individuals whose identity is defined by common religious creeds, beliefs, doctrines, practices, or rituals.

Key Terms

The crime of genocide has two elements: intent and action. “Intentional” means purposeful. Intent can be proven directly from statements or orders. But more often, it must be inferred from a systematic pattern of coordinated acts.

Intent is different from motive. Whatever may be the motive for the crime (land expropriation, national security, territorrial integrity, etc.), if the perpetrators commit acts intended to destroy a group, even part of a group, it is genocide.

The phrase "in whole or in part" is important. Perpetrators need not intend to destroy the entire group. Destruction of only part of a group (such as its educated members, or members living in one region) is also genocide. Most authorities require intent to destroy a substantial number of group members – mass murder. But an individual criminal may be guilty of genocide even if he kills only one person, so long as he knew he was participating in a larger plan to destroy the group.

[Kelly Rupert]

18. Exactly what wording in the Kyl amendment gives the government more war powers?

Quotes, please.

[DianaForRussFeingold]

35. I hope this will help answer your question---Mike Gravel vs Hillary Clinton on Iraq/Iran

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLepLeJEWpE
Hillary Clinton voted in favor of the Kyl-Lieberman amendment...
Here are the senators who voted against Kyl-Lieberman:

Biden (D-DE) Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Brown (D-OH) Byrd (D-WV) Cantwell (D-WA) Dodd (D-CT) Feingold (D-WI) Hagel (R-NE) Harkin (D-IA) Inouye (D-HI) Kennedy (D-MA) Kerry (D-MA) Klobuchar (D-MN) Leahy (D-VT) Lincoln (D-AR) Lugar (R-IN) McCaskill (D-MO) Sanders (I-VT) Tester (D-MT) Webb (D-VA) Wyden (D-OR)

John McCain and Barack Obama did not vote.

[Kelly Rupert]

37. Ah, yes. The ravings of Mike Gravel.

I can see how that would be far more convincing than, say, a passage from the resolution itself.

[DianaForRussFeingold]

43. Read my original reply again-- I didn't mention the Lieberman Kyl amendment

:eyes: I am going on the debate and also Edwards,Gravel and the Huffington post...Look, I don't find war with Iran the least bit funny--Hillary was laughing ... IMO, Gravel was understandably upset by her actions--However, I don't understand your 'ravings' at all! :hi: ... I asked the question-Has Hillary joined Lieberman, Bush and the PNAC neo-cons ? ... I posted the following quote by John Edwards- " Hillary learned entirely different lessons from the Iraq War. And now that Hillary has joined Lieberman, Bush and the PNAC neo-cons to take those first steps toward war with Iran...her departure from real Americans is complete. And Obama's failure to even vote may well serve as a tipping point for him too." --- I posted this link 'Hillary Clinton Votes for War Again' http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-bromwich/hillary-cl -- Furthermore...I hope and pray our next president (who may be Senator Clinton) will not be a puppet for War profiteers'... -- This very disturbing video is what most of us want to avoid-- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VG2aJyIFrA Please-- Consider how much bigger Iran is than Iraq and what our troops are going through. :hi: 'Strength Through Peace' :patriot:

[Rosa Luxemburg]

10. October 15?

on whose orders?

[Kelly Rupert]

14. Ah, Putin. Now there's a trustworthy, honorable man,

who would never lie.

[NNN0LHI]

47. I knew you and I would agree on something n/t

[MidwestTransplant]

19. I remember reading a hard date sometime in July too. This is all intense speculation

I doubt there would be a hard date more than a week or so out. Probably more of a range.

[Kelly Rupert]

21. And in April, and last October, and the July before that, and... n/t

[Zywiec]

49. Don't forget this Scott Ritter prediction: June 2005

Scott Ritter Says U.S. Plans June Attack On Iran

By Mark Jensen

02/19/05 --

snip

On Iran, Ritter said that President George W. Bush has received and signed off on orders for an aerial attack on Iran planned for June 2005. Its purported goal is the destruction of Iran’s alleged program to develop nuclear weapons, but Ritter said neoconservatives in the administration also expected that the attack would set in motion a chain of events leading to regime change in the oil-rich nation of 70 million -- a possibility Ritter regards with the greatest skepticism.

[Quixote1818]

22. Iran's nuclear facilities (if they have any) would be deep under ground

Even bunker buster nuclear weapons can't get to them. But I guess this being stupid never stopped Bush before.

[EVDebs]

25. They'd bomb the entrances/exits and try to seal them up eom

[L. Coyote]

42. Propaganda! When will the lies cease?

What a crock! That would constitute an act of war and a war crime.

This is just bait and switch, to distract from the total catastrophe in Iraq.

And DU is falling for it. Where are the Iraq threads?

[KoKo]

46. Seems we already did a war crime invading and bombing Iraq

remember the Doctrine of Pre-Emptive Strike that Bush says he has as Commander in Chief?

It's possible all the war talk is to get Ahmadinejad to resign his position and to have the real control in Iran start to negotiate. But, bullying a country into submission ....particularly a proud country like Persian Iran is just one more example of the crazies being in charge who follow the world's new Dictator because of fear.

[and-justice-for-all]

44. Warmongering is for barbarians....

Not Civilized peoples.

[Rex]

48. Hahaha! Putin, class act 'buy weapons from me'

America is going to attack you! Honest. Has to keep up with Bush in the warmongering game.