Itu lawak antarabangsa. Dah byk kali NK kata dia dah batalkan program nuklear, tup2, hidup balik program tuh.
Bukan sekali dua.
Cukup sekadar buat SK terkujat, Jepun terkial, USA pening kapla. Apa yg lawaknya jika ada org kebuluran?
PERANG PSIKOLOGY?
AKU NAIK KAN BALIK POST NI.......DARI LAMAN WEB JPOST.COM , KATANYA PHOTOSHOP IMEJ......Images of Iran's latest round of missile tests have been proudly posted on official media outlets in the Islamic Republic and circulated around the world, but an attentive American blogger was the first to notice something fishy about the identical formations of dust and smoke that appear underneath the rising projectiles in a launch photograph.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?blobcol=urlimage&blobheader=image%2Fjpeg&blobheadername1=Cache-Control&blobheadervalue1=max-age%3D420&blobkey=id&blobtable=JPImage&blobwhere=1215330934796&cachecontrol=5%3A0%3A0+*%2F*%2F*&ssbinary=true Possibly Photoshopped launch photos released by Iran's Revolutionary Guards
Slideshow: Pictures of the week
Iranian state news outlets said the picture showed four long- and medium-range missiles lifting off in the heart of the Iranian desert on Wednesday, but Charles Johnson of the Little Green Footballs blog wrote, "At least one of the photographs released today by Iran and published by an unquestioning Western media has been Photoshopped." The picture was released by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards - but apparently in two versions. The first showed only three missiles taking off, and the fourth failing to launch. The hurriedly reissued picture showed all four missiles airborne. The Jerusalem Post asked the veteran Tel Aviv-based photographer and image expert Gideon Sella to examine the apparently doctored Iranian photograph. "This is, beyond a shadow of a doubt, a cloned missile," Sella said. "It is not possible for the smoke trails, both on the ground and in the air, to be identical." He described the image as "a sloppy Photoshop job." Some news agencies on Thursday withdrew the picture of the four airborne missiles.
Johnson's blog was the first to note that a Reuters image of smoke rising from a Beirut site targeted by the IAF during the Second Lebanon War in 2006 had been doctored to show an additional plume of smoke. That image was consequently withdrawn and the photojournalist who provided it suspended. us akan menggunakan perpecahan sunnah dan syiah untuk meminggirkan iran. iran sudahpun dikelilingi oleh tentera us dan hanya menunggu masa je nak kena serang.
tapi us pun pikir jugak kalau depa serang iran akan bertambah jumlah bodybag deyrang. dah ler kat afhganistan pun taliban dah bangkit semula.
yg aku nampak adalah seranagan udara dan peluru berpandu. takkan melibatkan tentera darat langsung. dan teluk parsi akan penuh dgn bangkai kapal tangki and the oil prices rocketed to the level that we never imagine before..if there's such a level..:)
[ Last edited byinnocentti at 15-7-2008 11:50 AM ] IAF dok praktis praktis guna USA airbases di Iraq..kalau nak strike Busher lima minit aje boleh sampai..
Officials: Israeli jets flying over Iraqi territory in preparation for strike on Iran
Sources in Iraq's Defense Ministry say for past month Israel using American bases to conduct overflights as part of rehearsal for possible bombing or Iranian nuclear facilities.
Roee Nahmias Published: 07.11.08, 11:54 / Israel News
Israeli fighter jets have been flying over Iraqi territory for over a month in preparation for potential strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, sources in the Iraqi Defense Ministry told a local news network Friday, adding that the aircraft have been landing in American bases following the overflights.
Word of Israel's alleged Air Force maneuvers in Iraq has reached Iran. The sources said the US has boosted security in and around the bases used by Israel during the exercises.
According to the Defense Ministry officials, retired Iraqi army officers in the Al Anbar district reported that fighter jets have been regularly entering Iraqi airspace from Jordan and landing at the airport near Haditha.
The sources estimated that should the Israeli jets take off from the American bases it would take them no more than five minutes to reach Iran's nuclear reactor in Bushehr.
American officials said recently that more than 100 Israeli F-16 and F-15 fighters took part in maneuvers over the eastern Mediterranean and Greece in the first week of June, apparently a rehearsal for a potential bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3566925,00.html
Iran Vs Israel - Be very afraid, please
Coming to a city near you?Jul 10th 2008
http://media.economist.com/images/20080712/2808MA1.jpg
AMERICA and Israel often hint at military action to stop Iran抯 suspected nuclear-weapons programme. The latest rumblings, however, may be more serious. The atmosphere has been charged by a combination of factors: Iran抯 expanding uranium-enrichment programme, faltering diplomatic efforts to halt it, a dying American administration and a nervous Israel. Throw in the latest war games by Israel, America and Iran梐nd Iran抯 apparent rejection of the latest international incentives to halt its nuclear work梐nd some reckon the sparks could soon fly.
On July 9th Iranian television showed the test-firing of nine missiles (see picture), a day after an aide to the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, threatened to 揵urn Iran keeps watchful eye on spy activities'
Thu, 27 Nov 2008 13:44:37 GMT
Iran's top military commander says the country's armed forces will keep a watchful eye on the borders to counter espionage activities.
"One of the powerful aspects of Iran's armed forces was manifested when they dismantled an Israeli spy cell and arrested members of the network," the Chief of Staff of Iran's Armed Forces Major General Hassan Firouzabadi said Thursday.
He was referring to the dismantling of an espionage network with links to Israel's Mossad spy agency. Three Iranian members of the cell were arrested before carrying out any operations against the country. They were said to have received extensive spy training in Tel Aviv.
take care IRAN byk yg nak sabo tu ... here's the full article :
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=76717§ionid=351020101 Kena selalu tengok CNN ni. Israel tentu wait n see during this transition period unless Israel very2 scared or felt threatened
"The Israeli military has reportedly been preparing for what it hopes to be an air strike on Iran's nuclear facilities." agak2 kalo perang iran-israel ni saper bleh menang? Iran
missile dia 800km sampai ke Israel tu....hari tu hizbollah syiah dah bantai israel
nak kena lagi sekali ke dgn syiah iran pulak ker? c6xApA38InA c6xApA38InA Five Questions Israel Should Ask Before Bombing Iran
http://www.prospect.org/cs/artic ... before_bombing_iran
Five Questions Israel Should Ask Before Bombing Iran
After Iran's missile tests last week, the question of whether Israel will strike Iran preemptively is on everyone's mind. Here are five questions Israel should ponder before striking.
Gershom Gorenberg | July 17, 2008 | web only
Five Questions Israel Should Ask Before Bombing Iran
http://www.prospect.org/galleries/img_articles/0717_gershom_article.jpg;jsessionid=aVWiB6M-xXXcVgVpM3
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, right, talks with Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz during the weekly Cabinet meeting in Jerusalem. Mofaz has said that an Israeli attack was "unavoidable." (AP Photo/David Silverman)
Friends in Washington send me e-mails: They want to know if Israel is getting ready to bomb Iran's nuclear installations. This is the Bush Era: If you will it, no Middle East war is impossible. And in the last few weeks, there has been a gale of hints, threats, and leaks. U.S. officials, none named, told The New York Times that an Israeli military exercise last month was "a rehearsal" for striking Iran. Shaul Mofaz, the remarkably mediocre ex-military chief of staff campaigning to succeed Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, said that an Israeli attack was "unavoidable."
A notoriously unreliable reporter for the Sunday Times of London wrote that President Bush has given Israel an "amber light" -- to translate, that would be the light between green and red -- for hitting Iran. Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, warned that if Israel opened a "third front" against Iran, it would hurt the U.S. in Iraq and Afghanistan. That's a clear U.S. no -- with the implication that there's something to which "no" must be said. None of this adds up to anything solid. But speaking to Mother Jones' Laura Rozen, an ex-adviser to Dick Cheney puts the odds at "slightly above 50-50" that Israel will strike Iran before Bush leaves office. Is that insider information or wishful thinking from the war camp?
Alas, friends, neither the Israeli general staff nor the security Cabinet invite the media to their meetings. The minutes of today's meetings will be declassified in 50 years and will demonstrate how much of what's being reported now is disinformation.
But this much I know: Asking some basic questions about an Israeli attack leads to the conclusion that it is unwise. And if all those recent leaks are meant as a warning to Tehran -- stop your nuclear program, or the United States may not be able to restrain Israel -- they may do more harm than good. They reinforce the mistaken idea that an Iranian bomb is really only Israel's problem.
Here are the questions I抎 suggest are essential to ask:
Can Israel destroy the Iranian nuclear program?
At first glance, the model for Israeli action is the 1981 bombing of Iraq's Osiraq reactor. But striking Iran would be far more difficult. Former Deputy Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh, a hawk on Iran, told me to "assume that with ingenuity" Israel could succeed. Sneh cites the 1976 Entebbe raid -- in which Israel flew commandos to Uganda to free passengers from a hijacked airliner -- as an example of doing what appeared impossible. Sneh was the head of the medical team on that mission. Yet he is only underlining the problem: Entebbe, like Osiraq, was a pinpoint attack and totally unexpected.
Meir Litvak, a senior fellow at Tel Aviv University's Center for Iranian Studies, lists the differences between Osiraq and the current challenge. Iran, he notes, has spread out its nuclear facilities. They are "presumably buried very deep underground," and Israel may not know where they all are. (Iran, after all, knows about Osiraq, and a tactic is only a surprise once.) Given the limited ability of the Israeli air force to strike at that distance, its planes would have to make more than one bombing run; on the return trip, they'd be expected.
The United States has much greater airpower. However, Hebrew University political scientist Yehezkel Dror, a strategic expert of the realpolitik school, wrote this week in the daily Yediot Aharonot that the "probability is very low" that either a U.S. or Israeli operation would force Iran to abandon its nuclear program. Dror sat on the Winograd Commission of Inquiry, which ripped apart the Israeli government's strategic mistakes in going to war in Lebanon two years ago. Politicians may not want to meet him on a commission investigating why an attack on Iran backfired. 2nd question
What would Iran's response be?
Iran's recent missile tests were intended to show it could strike back at Israel. Photoshopping in a missile that failed to launch did not make the message more convincing.
But Iranian retaliation isn't limited to missiles launched from its own territory. Its most loyal proxy, Hezbollah, now has 40,000 Iranian-supplied missiles in Lebanon, the Israeli security Cabinet was reportedly told last week. That represents three times its stockpile before the 2006 war. "That's why Iran gave the missiles, to deter Israel," Sneh himself says.
Iran has two other allies on Israel's border. Hamas could resume rocket fire from Gaza, albeit with a range limited to southern Israel. Syria, with a much more serious missile force, might also bombard Israel, though it is more independent from Tehran. If the United States attacks, the chance is also high of Iran and its proxies, especially Hezbollah, striking Israel.
In a very cold calculation, conventional missiles striking Israeli cities could be a price worth paying to prevent a nuclear attack. But that assumes that hitting Iran is necessary to avoid nuclear attack and would succeed. 3rd question
What is the cost of failure?
Destroying some Iranian facilities but not others, Litvak suggests, would only slow down Tehran's nuclear program. Even a solid military success might delay it by no more than a few years. In the meantime, the political effect would probably be to "unify the public in support of the regime." Dror lists as a "real possibility" that "Iran's determination to secretly develop nuclear weapons" would be redoubled, "with a thirst for revenge." 4th question
Can Iran be deterred from using nukes?
Hawks say it can't. If that's true, and if sanctions don't work, then the dangers of a military option still look small next to the alternatives. A standard argument of the hawks is that Iran's Islamic leaders won't respond to the logic of mutually assured destruction; they'd be willing to commit national suicide to get rid of Israel.
But there is evidence that the leaders of the Islamic Republic do, indeed, behave as Iranians with a pragmatic concern for their nation. Strategic expert Reuven Pedatzur of Tel Aviv University points out that Iran agreed to a ceasefire in the war with Iraq once Iraqi missiles began falling on Tehran. The ayatollahs were willing to sacrifice soldiers but not national survival. Litvak cites more examples: Iran has sided with Christian Armenia rather than Azerbaijan; the latter could appeal to Iran's large Azeri minority. In 1991, when Iraqi Shi'ites rebelled, Iran left them to their fate rather than risk renewed war with Saddam Hussein's regime.
Let's be clear: There are no guarantees here, either. As Israeli strategic analyst Yossi Alpher points out, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has apocalyptic expectations. He may be less afraid of nuclear confrontation. And no one knows precisely who will be in charge in Tehran five years after it gets the bomb or which faction there will control nuclear weapons.
Even without pushing a button, a nuclear Iran would be significantly more powerful in the region. It doesn't take lots of bombs to be scary. In response, Litvak argues, Saudi Arabia and Egypt will want to bolster their positions by going nuclear, and perhaps Turkey will as well. There are no assurances about who will hold power in a decade in those countries, either. From India to Egypt, there could be a swath of nuclear powers, all suspicious of the others. Today's Middle East could be remembered for its serenity and for the safety of its oil supplies. 5th and last question
Whose problem is this, and what should be done?
Given that scenario, a nuclear Iran isn't just Israel's problem. Constant reports on the possibility that Israel might go it alone obscure this. Stronger sanctions -- which both hawks and moderates urge -- require the widest international agreement. Let's face it, worrying about Israel does not naturally create broad international consensus.
Besides tough sanctions, Litvak says, getting Iran to give up its nuclear program would require a reasonable diplomatic offer. It would have to include economic incentives and "a guarantee that neither the Americans nor the world intends to overthrow the regime" in Tehran. He suggests, as well, "some face-saving formula recognizing the grandeur of Iran."
That is not a risk-free solution. But it's much less dangerous than attempting a military solution. But getting there requires making it through the last months of the Bush era without incident. The blather of leaks and threats is no way to accomplish that.