Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Polar · 05-25-2009, 08:48 AM

Willravel, here is your entire article:

"Israeli President Shimon Peres says the best way to deter Iran from continuing its nuclear program is to threaten it with a ‘nuclear response’.He accused Iran of trying to develop nuclear weapons, saying that a conventional military attack could not halt Tehran’s nuclear program.

“Simply attacking the nuclear facilities is not the be-all and end-all,” Peres told Israel’s Channel Ten on Wednesday.

“There are other options for the West, or the coalition that arises. The first thing is to tell the Iranians … ‘If you use a nuclear weapon — no matter against whom — you’ll get a nuclear response,” Reuters quoted Peres as saying.

“You can destroy the (uranium enrichment) centrifuges but you cannot destroy the knowledge about building centrifuges,” he said.

Israel, which is believed to be the only possessor of nuclear weapons in the Middle East, has repeatedly accused Iran of trying to develop nuclear weapons.

Iran, however, says its nuclear program is for civilian purposes."

-- Kindly point out where exactly it says, in your words, ""You even developing nuclear weapons warrants a nuclear attack."

The first line of the article is misleading at best and does not quote Perez.

Later on in the article, the ACTUAL Perez quote negates the implication of the first line:

“There are other options for the West, or the coalition that arises. The first thing is to tell the Iranians … ‘If you use a nuclear weapon — no matter against whom — you’ll get a nuclear response,” Reuters quoted Peres as saying."

The first line is either poor journalism or intentional misinformation.
In either case, there is NOTHING in the rest of the article which supports your 'interpretation' of what it is saying. No-thing.

Once you read the entire article you realize the first line is actually saying that Perez is calling for the threat of a nulcear response if Iran uses nukes because a conventional bombing (either before it comes to fruition or after Iran used nukes) would not stop their program.

Do you often feel you know everything in an article simply by reading the first line?

05-25-2009, 08:48 AM	#27 (permalink)
Polar Upright	Willravel, here is your entire article: "Israeli President Shimon Peres says the best way to deter Iran from continuing its nuclear program is to threaten it with a ‘nuclear response’.He accused Iran of trying to develop nuclear weapons, saying that a conventional military attack could not halt Tehran’s nuclear program. “Simply attacking the nuclear facilities is not the be-all and end-all,” Peres told Israel’s Channel Ten on Wednesday. “There are other options for the West, or the coalition that arises. The first thing is to tell the Iranians … ‘If you use a nuclear weapon — no matter against whom — you’ll get a nuclear response,” Reuters quoted Peres as saying. “You can destroy the (uranium enrichment) centrifuges but you cannot destroy the knowledge about building centrifuges,” he said. Israel, which is believed to be the only possessor of nuclear weapons in the Middle East, has repeatedly accused Iran of trying to develop nuclear weapons. Iran, however, says its nuclear program is for civilian purposes." -- Kindly point out where exactly it says, in your words, ""You even developing nuclear weapons warrants a nuclear attack." The first line of the article is misleading at best and does not quote Perez. Later on in the article, the ACTUAL Perez quote negates the implication of the first line: “There are other options for the West, or the coalition that arises. The first thing is to tell the Iranians … ‘If you use a nuclear weapon — no matter against whom — you’ll get a nuclear response,” Reuters quoted Peres as saying." The first line is either poor journalism or intentional misinformation. In either case, there is NOTHING in the rest of the article which supports your 'interpretation' of what it is saying. No-thing. Once you read the entire article you realize the first line is actually saying that Perez is calling for the threat of a nulcear response if Iran uses nukes because a conventional bombing (either before it comes to fruition or after Iran used nukes) would not stop their program. Do you often feel you know everything in an article simply by reading the first line?