BRKG AHMADINEJAD: 'Iran will deliver telling blow to global powers on Feb. 11'...

energy_wave said:

If he waited a few more days he could deliver flowers and candy.

Click to expand...

He needs to wait until the 15th. I get my tax refund back on the 12th, my Jenny's birthday is the 13th and I want my box of candy on the 14th.

The Article said:

Ahmadinejad said that in the three decades of its history, the Islamic Revolution had inspired some great developments in the world.

Click to expand...

I could not help but notice that Mr. Ahmadinewhackjob didn't bother to elaborate.

Oilpatch Hand said:

I could not help but notice that Mr. Ahmadinewhackjob didn't bother to elaborate.

Click to expand...

I noticed that too...

but suicide vests are a better way to kill more innocents....

I don't know but somethings up if Cencoms sends AEGIS anti missile ships to babysit oil rich countries on the Persian Gulf.

There trying not to be caught off guard IMO.

SIRR1

who cares?

I'm too busy surviving too care. The superbowls coming, toyotas gas pedals stick, lady ga-ga's gotta new song, underwear bombers, shoe bombers, global warming, droughts, ice age, 16 days till catchers and pitchers, stock market, stimulus, unemployment AAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!

You can't scare me. Just another day in the city.

Posted for fair use......
http://en.rian.ru/world/20100201/157736923.html

Iran to unveil five space projects

13:0101/02/2010
Iran will unveil five space projects at ceremonies starting on Monday to celebrate the victory of the Islamic Revolution of 1979, Fars news agency said.

On the third day of the festivities, known as the "Ten Days of Dawn", Iranian authorities will hold on Wednesday a presentation of the Tolou (Rise) satellite, the Mesbah-2 and Mehdi research satellites, and the engine for the Simurgh booster rocket, all of which were domestically built.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the country's defense officials will also attend the opening of a mission control designed to process data from the satellites.

Tehran is expected to launch the Mesbah-2 in 2011 as part of the country's ambitions to run an independent space program.

Iran's first research satellite, Omid (Hope), designed for gathering information and testing equipment, was orbited last February during the country's annual celebration and successfully completed its mission on April 25, 2009.

In 2005, Iran launched its first commercial satellite, Sina-1, into orbit from a Russian rocket. Moscow appears to be Iran's major partner in transferring space technology to the Islamic country.

The festivities will culminate on February 11, the date when revolutionary forces led by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini defeated pro-government troops in armed street clashes.

MOSCOW, February 1 (RIA Novosti)

Posted for fair use.....
http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=213514

February 2, 2010

Iran to inaugurate 5 aerospace projects on Wednesday: defense minister
Tehran Time Political Desk

TEHRAN -- Defense Minister Ahmad Vahidi has announced that Iran will inaugurate five important aerospace projects on February 3, which is the country’s Aerospace Technology Day.

During the inauguration ceremony, which President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad plans to attend, three satellites and one satellite carrier will also be unveiled, Vahidi said in Tehran on Monday at a conference entitled Secure and Sustainable Defense Telecommunications.

He went on to say that it is the Defense Ministry’s policy to support the armed forces by providing telecommunications equipment for the national military.

The Iranian Defense Ministry has great capabilities in designing and manufacturing secure and sustainable telecommunications networks, guarding the country’s borders and coasts, providing air defense, and conducting command and control electronic warfare, he added.

The Iranian Defense Ministry has implemented 36 electronic and telecommunications projects, Vahidi stated.

Posted for fair use.....
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...71915808294.html?mod=rss_Today's_Most_Popular

* OPINION: GLOBAL VIEW
* FEBRUARY 1, 2010, 9:26 P.M. ET

Seven Myths About Iran
How long will it take for the lesson to stick?
Comments

'We have been trying to negotiate [with the Iranians] for five, six years. We've tried everything. We have met every Iranian. We have tried to open every possible channel. We've had new ideas and the result is this: nothing."

Thus did a senior Western diplomat recently describe to me his country's efforts to reach a negotiated settlement with Tehran over its nuclear programs. In doing so, he also finally disposed of the myth, nearly a decade in the making, that Iran was ready to abandon those programs in exchange for a "grand bargain" with the West.

Let's dispose of a few other myths—and hope it doesn't take years for the lesson to stick:

(1) Military strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities would accomplish nothing.

That's the argument made by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who last year told a Senate Committee that "a military attack will only buy us time and send the program deeper and more covert."

Maybe so, but what's wrong with buying time? Israel's 1981 attack on Iraq's Osirak reactor also bought time while driving Saddam's nuclear programs underground. But it ensured that it was a non-nuclear Iraq that invaded Kuwait and threatened Saudi Arabia nine years later, a point recognized by then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney when he thanked the Israeli commander of the Osirak operation for making "our job much easier in Desert Storm."

(2) A strike would rally Iranians to the side of the regime.

The case would be more persuasive if the regime had any remaining claims on Iranian patriotism. It no longer does, if it ever did. It also would be more persuasive if the nuclear program were as broadly popular as some of the regime's apologists claim. On the contrary, one of the more popular chants of the demonstrators goes, "Iran is green and fertile, it doesn't need nukes."

Yet even if the nuclear program enjoyed widespread support, it isn't clear how Iranians would react in the event of military strikes. Argentine dictator Leopoldo Galtieri whooped up a nationalist fervor when he invaded the Falklands in 1982, but was ousted from office just a week after Port Stanley fell to the British. When a regime gambles its prestige on a single controversial enterprise, it cannot afford to lose it.

(3) Sanctions don't work, and usually wind up strengthening the regime at the expense of its own people.

That's only true when the sanctioned regimes have strong internal controls, relatively pliant populations, and zero interest in international respectability. It's also true that sanctions alone are never a silver bullet. But as Mark Dubowitz of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies points out, they can be "silver shrapnel," particularly when the target country is as politically vulnerable as Iran is now, and when it is also critically reliant on the consumption of imported gasoline.

That's why the House was right when it overwhelmingly approved the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act in December, and when the Senate unanimously passed a similar bill (against the administration's objections) last Thursday. Over time, the regime will surely find ways to skirt the sanctions, which prohibit companies that do business in Iran's energy sector from also doing business in the U.S. But in the critical short term, these sanctions might provoke the kind of mass unrest that could tip the scales against the regime.

(4) The world can live with a nuclear Iran, just as we live with other nasty nuclear powers.

Assume that's true. (I don't.) Can we also live with nuclear Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey? The problem with the "realist" view is that it fails to take account of the fears a nuclear Iran inspires among the status quo regimes in its neighborhood. Containment was complicated enough during the Cold War. Now imagine a four- or five-way standoff among Arabs, Persians, Turks and Israelis, some religiously fanatic, in the world's most volatile neighborhood.

(5) The Iranian regime is headed for the ash heap of history. The best policy is to do as little as possible until it crumbles from within.

Communist regimes were also destined for the ash heap. Unfortunately, it took them decades to get there, during which they murdered tens of millions of people. It matters a great deal to Iran's people, and its neighbors, that the regime go quietly. But it also matters that it go quickly, and waiting on events is not a policy.

(6) The more support we show Iran's demonstrators, the more we hurt their cause.

This was the administration's view after the June 12 election, as it walked on tiptoes to avoid the perception of "meddling." The regime accused the U.S. of meddling all the same.

But protest movements like Iran's (or Poland's, or South Africa's) are sustained by a sense of moral legitimacy that global support uniquely conveys. When will American liberals get behind Iranian rights, as they have, say, Tibetan ones? Maybe when President Obama tells them to.

(7) Israel will ultimately dispose of Iran's nuclear facilities.

The more policy makers fall for the first six myths, the less mythical the seventh one becomes.

Write to bstephens@wsj.com

eXe said:

"The Islamic Revolution opened a window to liberty for the human race, which was trapped in the dead ends of materialism," Ahmadinejad said during a cabinet meeting on Sunday.

Click to expand...

Islam is the antithesis of "liberty".

Housecarl said:

Posted for fair use.....
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...71915808294.html?mod=rss_Today's_Most_Popular

* OPINION: GLOBAL VIEW
* FEBRUARY 1, 2010, 9:26 P.M. ET

Seven Myths About Iran
How long will it take for the lesson to stick?
Comments

'We have been trying to negotiate [with the Iranians] for five, six years. We've tried everything. We have met every Iranian. We have tried to open every possible channel. We've had new ideas and the result is this: nothing."

Thus did a senior Western diplomat recently describe to me his country's efforts to reach a negotiated settlement with Tehran over its nuclear programs. In doing so, he also finally disposed of the myth, nearly a decade in the making, that Iran was ready to abandon those programs in exchange for a "grand bargain" with the West.

Let's dispose of a few other myths—and hope it doesn't take years for the lesson to stick:

(1) Military strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities would accomplish nothing.

That's the argument made by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who last year told a Senate Committee that "a military attack will only buy us time and send the program deeper and more covert."

Maybe so, but what's wrong with buying time? Israel's 1981 attack on Iraq's Osirak reactor also bought time while driving Saddam's nuclear programs underground. But it ensured that it was a non-nuclear Iraq that invaded Kuwait and threatened Saudi Arabia nine years later, a point recognized by then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney when he thanked the Israeli commander of the Osirak operation for making "our job much easier in Desert Storm."

(2) A strike would rally Iranians to the side of the regime.

The case would be more persuasive if the regime had any remaining claims on Iranian patriotism. It no longer does, if it ever did. It also would be more persuasive if the nuclear program were as broadly popular as some of the regime's apologists claim. On the contrary, one of the more popular chants of the demonstrators goes, "Iran is green and fertile, it doesn't need nukes."

Yet even if the nuclear program enjoyed widespread support, it isn't clear how Iranians would react in the event of military strikes. Argentine dictator Leopoldo Galtieri whooped up a nationalist fervor when he invaded the Falklands in 1982, but was ousted from office just a week after Port Stanley fell to the British. When a regime gambles its prestige on a single controversial enterprise, it cannot afford to lose it.

(3) Sanctions don't work, and usually wind up strengthening the regime at the expense of its own people.

That's only true when the sanctioned regimes have strong internal controls, relatively pliant populations, and zero interest in international respectability. It's also true that sanctions alone are never a silver bullet. But as Mark Dubowitz of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies points out, they can be "silver shrapnel," particularly when the target country is as politically vulnerable as Iran is now, and when it is also critically reliant on the consumption of imported gasoline.

That's why the House was right when it overwhelmingly approved the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act in December, and when the Senate unanimously passed a similar bill (against the administration's objections) last Thursday. Over time, the regime will surely find ways to skirt the sanctions, which prohibit companies that do business in Iran's energy sector from also doing business in the U.S. But in the critical short term, these sanctions might provoke the kind of mass unrest that could tip the scales against the regime.

(4) The world can live with a nuclear Iran, just as we live with other nasty nuclear powers.

Assume that's true. (I don't.) Can we also live with nuclear Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey? The problem with the "realist" view is that it fails to take account of the fears a nuclear Iran inspires among the status quo regimes in its neighborhood. Containment was complicated enough during the Cold War. Now imagine a four- or five-way standoff among Arabs, Persians, Turks and Israelis, some religiously fanatic, in the world's most volatile neighborhood.

(5) The Iranian regime is headed for the ash heap of history. The best policy is to do as little as possible until it crumbles from within.

Communist regimes were also destined for the ash heap. Unfortunately, it took them decades to get there, during which they murdered tens of millions of people. It matters a great deal to Iran's people, and its neighbors, that the regime go quietly. But it also matters that it go quickly, and waiting on events is not a policy.

(6) The more support we show Iran's demonstrators, the more we hurt their cause.

This was the administration's view after the June 12 election, as it walked on tiptoes to avoid the perception of "meddling." The regime accused the U.S. of meddling all the same.

But protest movements like Iran's (or Poland's, or South Africa's) are sustained by a sense of moral legitimacy that global support uniquely conveys. When will American liberals get behind Iranian rights, as they have, say, Tibetan ones? Maybe when President Obama tells them to.

(7) Israel will ultimately dispose of Iran's nuclear facilities.

The more policy makers fall for the first six myths, the less mythical the seventh one becomes.

Write to bstephens@wsj.com

Click to expand...

___________________

I found this rebuttal/critique of the Stephens' article and figured it would be of some interest...HC
___________________

Posted for fair use.....
http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2010/02/02/iranian-realities/

Iranian Realities
Posted on February 2nd, 2010 by Daniel Larison

Bret Stephens has a column (subscription only) on “seven myths about Iran,” which a quick read will reveal not to be myths at all. These are seven propositions with which Stephens disagrees, but in his responses he cannot produce even a minimally persuasive answer to any of them.

He starts with the effectiveness of military strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites. The myth is is that these would “accomplish nothing.” He then notes that Secretary Gates has said as much and stated that military attack would only “buy time” and “send the program deeper and more covert.” Stephens somehow thinks that buying time is sufficient justification for embarking on an unnecessary military action that would have calamitous consequences for the entire region.

Stephens tries to rebut the idea that military action would rally Iranians to the side of the regime. Even though this is what happens in every military confrontation, especially when the government in question is attacked by other states, Stephens uses what might be the weakest argument I have seen:

The case would be more persuasive if the regime had any remaining claims on Iranian patriotism. It no longer does, if it ever did.

Stephens has evidently acquired magical powers that allow him to know how all Iranians view their own patriotism and whether or not they believe the government has any ability to appeal to that patriotism. This is most impressive. What we have here is an example of a commentator who makes an unfounded assumption about the sentiments of an entire nation based on what he guesses must be their reaction to their government’s treatment of dissidents.

Stephens continues:

It also would be more persuasive if the nuclear program were as broadly popular as some of the regime’s apologists claim.

Well, I don’t know what any apologists claim, but people minimally informed about Iranian public opinion find time and again that a majority of Iranians consistently support a peaceful nuclear program and even more believe that Iran has a right to enrichment (which it does). Consider this passage from a 2006 WINEP report:

Perhaps most telling in this regard is the previously mentioned poll conducted by the ISPA in January 2006. The official Iranian News Agency (IRNA) highlighted only the general finding of 85.4 percent majority support for the resumption of the nuclear program. ISPA revealed, however, that the level of support drops to 74.3 percent in the case of referral to the UN Security Council, and drops further in other scenarios—to 64 percent in the case of economic sanctions and to 55.6 percent in the case of military actions against Iran.

So, it is true that Iranian support for the nuclear program drops as the program leads to increasingly difficult conditions for the country, but what is startling about this finding is that there was still a majority of respondents that supported resuming the nuclear program even if it meant suffering military attack. Obviously, that has some bearing on how the public would respond to military attacks aimed at Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Admittedly, that was an older finding. Perhaps things have changed significantly in the last few years? According to WorldPublicOpinion.org, the change has not been all that great. Their September 2009 report states:

Only one-third would be ready to halt enrichment in exchange for lifting sanctions. However, another third, while insisting on continuing enrichment, would agree to grant international inspectors unrestricted access to nuclear facilities to ensure that that there are no bomb-making activities.

Meanwhile, the report states that 22% oppose both possible agreements, which means that a majority (55%)favors continuing enrichment. Is that broadly popular enough? 14% had no answer, so it may be that support is higher. Of course, these results can be misleading. The question takes for granted that there is actually the possibility of making such a deal, trading enrichment for the lifting of sanctions. If Iranian respondents were asked whether they would support giving up nuclear enrichment in exchange for nothing, the numbers would probably look a bit different. An important point to emphasize is that two-thirds of Iranians are willing to make a deal that would ensure that nuclear weapons are not developed, but nearly as many are just as supportive of a nuclear program that does not lead to a bomb.

The reality is that even if Iran made concessions on the nuclear program, this would likely have no effect on existing sanctions. Haass made that perfectly clear in his call for regime change:

Working-level negotiations on the nuclear question should continue. But if there is an unexpected breakthrough, Iran’s reward should be limited. Full normalization of relations should be linked to meaningful reform of Iran’s politics and an end to Tehran’s support of terrorism.

In other words, Iran must yield on every point before it receives anything significant. It seems unlikely that that most Iranians would accept such an arrangement.

Stephens continues:

Yet even if the nuclear program enjoyed widespread support, it isn’t clear how Iranians would react in the event of military strikes.

This doesn’t make any sense. If the program enjoyed widespread support, and Iran were attacked because of that program, the public is not going to blame the Iranian government for whatever results from those attacks. They will quite rationally blame the people attacking them. Even opponents of the nuclear program will find the attack on their country outrageous. We see this all the time. Serbs did not turn on Milosevic when NATO started bombing their country; Lebanese did not turn on Hizbullah regardless of sect; Gazans did not turn on Hamas because of last year’s conflict. Even if people are not motivated purely by national solidarity during wartime, wartime is the least likely time when dissidents can rise up and challenge the government. It is highly unusual for people to reject their own government’s authority when their country comes under attack from outside. Simply as a matter of self-preservation, dissidents will align themselves with their government against the attackers. If there is any example of a popular uprising against a government under attack, Stephens does not provide it. Call it tribal or nationalistic, but this is a natural impulse that people have when foreigners attack them for what seems to be no reason at all.

Stephens adds to his weak “myth”-busting by invoking the downfall of Galtieri after the latter lost the Falklands War, but the crucial point here is that Galtieri oversaw a failed war effort that he started. Of course a nation will turn against a government that starts and loses a war! If there are strikes on Iran, they will be part of a war that Iran did not start. Unless the U.S. could present genuine evidence of nuclear weapons proliferation, Iran would be coming under attack for nothing more than pursuing its legitimate rights under the NPT.

The “myth”-busting doesn’t end there. Stephens challenges the idea that sanctions are ineffective and tend to strengthen the regime. He acknowledges that the regime will find ways around sanctions over time, which basically concedes the main point, but then he says:

But in the critical short term, these sanctions might provoke the kind of mass unrest that could tip the scales against the regime.

This is also something that never happens. As Mousavizadeh made clear in his article, sanctions not only tighten a regime’s grip and destroy the economic and social foundations of any effective opposition, but they definitely do not trigger massive unrest that brings down the government. When a nation experiences the effects of sanctions, they do not associate the inconveniences, shortages and higher prices with what their government is doing. Instead, there is a ready-made target for blame for all their economic woes: the sanctions imposed by foreign governments. The blockade of Gaza has not made the people there rise up against Hamas. In the “critical short term,” Gazans have been terribly deprived and Hamas is as powerful as ever. Sanctions on Iraq did not cause mass unrest in the “critical short term.”

Next Stephens challenges the claim that we can live with a nuclear Iran. Granting the point for argument’s sake, he then holds out the specter of a nuclear-armed Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. Obviously this is not ideal, but there is no more reason to fear an Egyptian, Saudi or Turkish bomb than there is reason to fear an Iranian bomb. Last anyone checked, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey are our allies. As a rule, we are not very bothered when our allies acquire nuclear weapons. Furthermore, if our allies acquired their own nuclear deterrents that could conceivably reduce the need to extend a nuclear shield over the region and it would all but eliminate the need for large deployments of conventional forces in the Gulf.

There are three more “myths” in the column, but this post has already gone on long enough and you already get the picture. Not only does Stephens not have remotely persuasive answers to these “myths,” but his attempted refutations drive home that these “myths” are largely reasonable, well-supported observations about Iranian realities. He is reduced to calling them myths because he has no serious arguments to advance against them.

Washington (CNN) -- Another attempted terrorist attack on the United States in coming months is "certain," the heads of major U.S intelligence agencies told a Senate committee Tuesday.

Later Tuesday (TODAY), a law enforcement official told CNN AbdulMutallab had been talking to investigators since last week and providing useful, current and actionable intelligence -- leads that the FBI and intelligence officials have been actively following up.

The official was not authorized to speak for attribution because the case remains under investigation. Mueller said none of the intelligence chiefs at Tuesday's hearing were consulted about the decision to read AbdulMutallab his Miranda rights. That decision was made by the chief security interrogator at the scene in consultation with the Department of Justice, Mueller said.

Sensitive information is stolen daily from both government and private sector networks, undermining confidence in our information systems, and in the very information these systems were intended to convey," Blair wrote. "We often find persistent, unauthorized, and at times, unattributable presences on exploited networks, the hallmark of an unknown adversary intending to do far more than merely demonstrate skill or mock a vulnerability."

Feinstein agreed with Blair's assessment that the nation was unprepared for the kinds of possible cyber attacks it could face.

"The need to develop an overall cyber-security strategy is very clear," Feinstein said.

AND

AHMADINEJAD: 'Iran will deliver telling blow to global powers on Feb. 11'...

on Drudge---cannot link to story "Server too busy"

HMMMMMMMMMM....LINK LINK LINK

Housecarl said:

When you add all of this to the telegraphed open movement of additional U.S. BMD assets to the region things don't start looking that good.

Click to expand...

The dots are growing in size, complexity, pattern & proximity.

Nothing good will come from the bellicose spewings of the madman of Tehran.


Talk has worn thin on all sides - our Great & Beloved Leader's 'deadlines' are lines in the sand that have long since passed. Actions will follow which will have serious consequences.


It's like the late 1930's all over again.

rodeorector said:

Nothing to see here folks. Go on home.

Click to expand...

Beat the rush . . . go home naked . . .



Panic Sex Lady has switched to imaginery panties . . .

Drudge:

IRAN ANNIVERSARY 'PUNCH' WILL STUN WEST

Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on Monday that Iran is set to deliver a "punch" that will stun world powers during this week's 31st anniversary of the Islamic revolution.

"The Iranian nation, with its unity and God's grace, will punch the arrogance (Western powers) on the 22nd of Bahman (February 11) in a way that will leave them stunned," Khamenei, who is also Iran's commander-in-chief, told a gathering of air force personnel.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.e0b08e9e64fe15a987c1cf73dd8c5fe2.521&show_article=1

Should I go ahead and put a hog on the smoker? Because even if he lites the fuse on a nuke it still wont stun me.

go back to sleep they cannot and will not

get a ****ing life

the Iranians are incapable of anything

Interesting twist to have the Ayatollah echoing Allmadinthehead's rhetoric.

Who knows what they have planned....I wouldn't be so quick to just brush it off, after what they have said they will do.....

Will someone send me a large sum of money of the Iranians don't deliver

Richard said:

Will someone send me a large sum of money of the Iranians don't deliver

Click to expand...

Sorry, I sent my extra change from the couch cushions to the Nigerian embassy.

Scotto said:

Who knows what they have planned....I wouldn't be so quick to just brush it off, after what they have said they will do.....

Click to expand...

Iran and the towel heads get brushed off because ALL they do is talk they dont have the balls to do anything other then that... inless its to buritly murder thier own people.

Iran FM: Israel is a crazy country run by crazy people

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1148361.html

Helen - from "Tick and chigger-infested hell"

Are you sure it is safe to run around like that in your area?

Guess # 2.

They'll announce a strategic partnership with China.


Rage

Iran says 2 CIA agents arrested

http://www.islamidavet.com/english/2010/02/07/iran-says-cia-agents-arrested-ahead-of-feb-11-rally/

Iran says CIA agents arrested ahead of Feb. 11 rally

Iran said Saturday it arrested seven people, including two Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) operatives, who planned to stoke unrest and violence on a march scheduled for February 11.

EMP Nuke threat? Sure is a lot of space stuff going on with them....

What if that satellite they launched last week is nuclear and they blow it up in space and disrupt all communications, satellite tracking/gps, military, TV, etc.

An act of war, imo.

Or they announce a peaceful opening of the country and they accept Israel. That would set them up as the deceiver. They make a truce and act like they want peace, but then they break their promise and attack Israel.

truthseeker said:

My take, is the may test a nuclear weapon. I think we will see info released in the coming days showing Iran has acquired nuclear weapons.

Click to expand...

+1

energy_wave said:

What if that satellite they launched last week is nuclear and they blow it up in space and disrupt all communications, satellite tracking/gps, military, TV, etc.

Click to expand...

I guess if that happens your preps will come in mighty handy.

Not long to wait until the 11th. Not just Ahmadinejad running his mouth, but the real leader of Iran has chimed in. Perhaps they are going to announce that the 12th imam has been recovered from his hiding place in the well and he is going to be Grand Marshall of their big parade.

MARANATHA!

My own personal panic is that Ahmadinawhackjob launches three or four G4's (corporate biz jets) from different corners of the CONUS, and then has the homicide pilots detonate the suitcase (actually about the size of a foot locker) nukes at, say, fifty thousand feet. This would probably be far more effective than an attempt to launch a warhead into low earth orbit and having a killer satellite murder it in ascent.

But it is a macho thing for the Iranian Tool.

Jefiner said:

My own personal panic is that Ahmadinawhackjob launches three or four G4's (corporate biz jets) from different corners of the CONUS, and then has the homicide pilots detonate the suitcase (actually about the size of a foot locker) nukes at, say, fifty thousand feet. This would probably be far more effective than an attempt to launch a warhead into low earth orbit and having a killer satellite murder it in ascent.

But it is a macho thing for the Iranian Tool.

Click to expand...

Well...if that happened, the price of glass futures would drop like rock. There'd be a glut of glass on the market then.

Ten days. I've waited for 2/10 and then I pick up my new boom stick.

I figure that has to be a sign.

Mike

Didn't he say this last year at this exact time too?

mt4design said:

Ten days. I've waited for 2/10 and then I pick up my new boom stick.

I figure that has to be a sign.

Mike

Click to expand...

Planning on doing a little traveling, are we?

I heard that the big MO was coming back and is going to do Amadickhead doggie style on world wide TV,all because he is tired of banging little Girls in hell.THIS ONE IS FOR ALL YOU RAGHEAD PIGS OUT THERE!

The satellite which they launched last year finished its mission on April 2009. Supposively it carried live test animals that were monitored via telemetry. Assuming that its trajectory was (and still is) controlled by the same method, Iran wouldn't need a nuclear ICBM to cause an international incident.

This particular satellite is in a Low Earth Orbit (LEO) which means it circles the entire globe several times in a 24 hour period, at a minimum altitude of 50 and maxium apogee of 200 Km (which is VERY low), in the same region as the international space station.

It would be simple enough for Iran to change the satellites course (assuming that they still have rocket power) and steer it right into something like the space station, which is for the most part a stationary object; or even let it re-enter, which would turn it into a flaming meteor (or weapon) crashing it into lets say, the Temple Mount.

And I'm a Dinner Jacket is crazy enough to do just that. I would guess they are targeting the international space station because he said this would be "global punch". Don't think its rethoric this time around.

Well, that would certainly hack a few people off.

Yes, but it would also PO the Chicons and Soviets who put alot of $$$ into the space stations technology...old as that equipment is by todays standards.

But in his mind, and his alone; it would be worthwhile 'cause he would be proving that Iran is force to be recon with. He could also be targeting the Winter Olympics for that matter...that would PO the whole world...here they finally made all that snow and it would be melted in just a few seconds... not to mention the loss of lifes.

Iran anniversary 'punch' will stun West: Khamenei
Feb 8 02:19 PM US/Eastern

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.e0b08e9e64fe15a987c1cf73dd8c5fe2.521&show_article=1

Bolton: Even Severe Sanctions Wont Dissuade Iran From Pursuing Nuclear Weapons

Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on Monday that Iran is set to deliver a "punch" that will stun world powers during this week's 31st anniversary of the Islamic revolution.

"The Iranian nation, with its unity and God's grace, will punch the arrogance (Western powers) on the 22nd of Bahman (February 11) in a way that will leave them stunned," Khamenei, who is also Iran's commander-in-chief, told a gathering of air force personnel.

The country's top cleric was marking the occasion when Iran's air force gave its support to revolutionary leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, a key event which led to the toppling of the US-backed shah on February 11, 1979.

His comments came as Iran said it would begin to produce higher enriched uranium from Tuesday, in defiance of Western powers trying to ensure the country's nuclear drive is peaceful.

This year's anniversary is expected to become a flashpoint between security forces and supporters of opposition leaders Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi, who charge that the June re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was rigged.

Opposition supporters are expected to stage anti-government protests on Thursday when the traditional regime-sponsored marches to mark the revolution take place across the country.

Mousavi renewed his call for demonstrations on the February 11 anniversary.

Just over a week ago, he and Karroubi had implicitly called for a gathering of their supporters.

"The 22nd of Bahman is upon us, truly it should be called the day of gathering," Mousavi said on his Kaleme.org website Monday.

"I feel we have to participate while maintaining the collective spirit as well as our identity and leave an impression," Mousavi said.

"Anger and bitterness should not take our control away.

"The clerics should know that since imprisonment, beatings, and other confrontational methods are done in the name of Islam and the Islamic regime, it is hurting Islam and we all should try to stop," he added.

Anti-government protests were first triggered after the June 12 presidential election won by Ahmadinejad.

Over the past eight months, several thousand people were arrested. Some were released and others were given hefty prison terms, among them politicians, journalists and human rights activists.

Two protesters were tried, convicted and hanged in the aftermath of the election.

Khamenei told the air force personnel the "most important aim of the sedition after the election was to create a rift within the Iranian nation, but it was unable to do so and our nation's unity remained a thorn in its eyes."