Iran 'launches rocket into space'

Iran has successfully fired its first rocket into space, Iranian state television has announced.

It gave few details about the rocket or its range, but said that it had carried cargo intended for research.

Iran already has a civilian satellite programme but so far has relied on Russia to put its satellite into orbit.

The launch - if confirmed - comes at a time of mounting tension between Tehran and the West over Iran's controversial nuclear programme.

"The first space rocket has been successfully launched into space," Iranian TV said.

It quoted the head of Iran's aerospace research centre, Mohsen Bahrami, as saying that "the rocket was carrying material intended for research created by the ministries of science and defence".

Concerns

In 2005, Iran's Russian-made satellite was put into orbit by a Russian rocket.

But soon afterwards Iranian military officials said they were preparing a satellite launch vehicle. Last month, they announced they were ready to test it soon, the BBC's Frances Harrison in Tehran says.

The ballistic technology used is believed to be an extension of Iran's long-range Shahab-3 missile, our correspondent says.

She says that military experts believe that if Iran has sent a rocket into space it means scientists have mastered the technology needed to cross the atmospheric barrier.

In practice, they say, that means there is no technological block to Iran building longer range missiles now, something that will be of great international concern.

Our correspondent says the timing of this announcement is clearly confrontational - just as the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany are about to meet to discuss the possibility of more sanctions over the nuclear issue.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6394387.stm

Our correspondent says the timing of this announcement is clearly confrontational

or maybe timed to coincide with the launch of the rocket?

Will wonders never cease -- camel jockeys as rocket scientists?!?!

This caught me by surprise. Most countries make theyre first nuke long before they can out something in space. If this is true it wont be long before they can build a missile that can hit anywhere on the planet with a nuke.

How many countrys in the world have the capability of launching a nuclear missile.

Turns out this was a solid fueled rocket, not a liquid fueled rocket like an ICBM.

so does that make some sort of difference, shake.

Most countries make theyre first nuke long before they can out something in space. If this is true it wont be long before they can build a missile that can hit anywhere on the planet with a nuke.

Intelligence estimates are that maybe, five or ten years from now, Iran could be successful in developing a nuclear weapon.

Bush and company's ceaseless fearmongering on this issue directly parallels their lies and subterfuge that --tragically-- led to this country into attacking Iraq.

so does that make some sort of difference, shake.
solid fueled rockets are more reliable....no motors to fail. as i recall, our ICBMs in use are soild fueled.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trident_missile

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGM-30_Minuteman

good enough for the USAF, good enough for the republican guard.

i'm pretty sure Iran has the Revolutionary Guard....the Republican Guard was Iraq.

I could go off you pretty quick haha.
Shouldnt have had them 8 pints watching the game today,fuck it.

I thought ICBMs used liquid fuel cause it has more power.

How many countrys in the world have the capability of launching a nuclear missile.

Of the five nations with permanent seats on the United Nations Security Council the following countries currently have operational ICBM systems: Russia, China, and the United States. Nations such as France, and the United Kingdom have IRBM missile systems with a shorter range and are usually submarine launched.

India and Pakistan both have IRBMs but are also developing ICBMs (see India and weapons of mass destruction and Pakistan and weapons of mass destruction). North Korea is believed to be developing an ICBM.

wow, congrats iran, welcome to 1950

LOL.. a story about Iran and missiles and FT of course deflects it to Bush and Iraq... man that guy is an obsessive man.

LOL.. a story about Iran and missiles and FT of course deflects it to Bush and Iraq....

Get a grip, Einstein.

The "news" being floated around concerning Iran has everything to do with Bush and his cabal.

The only reason that anyone is mentioning Iran and worrying over their having launched a missile, is that the propagada machine of the RightWing is trying to build up a case for the U.S. moving against Iran militarily........in much the same way they did with the phony fucking *WMD* bullshit they dishonestly used to foment the disastrous and ill-advised Iraq war.

It will be a glorious day when the Bush cabal is out of power and all the worlds problems magically dissapear.

It will be a glorious day when the Bush cabal is out of power and all the worlds problems magically dissapear.
Do I sense a little sarcasm?

Travh's getting much better with his sarcasm.

just Trav, please.

With all the conspiracy you call fact FT... can i ask if Oswald was a lone gunman or was there a shot from grassy noll?

I'm sure you have factual answers, considering all the "fact" you have about Bush's motivations for going to Iraq.

Well Decka, how many shooters was there.

With all the conspiracy you call fact FT.....

Huh?!?

"all the conspiracy".......?!?!?

I don't recall having ever alleged that there was a *conspiracy* being carried out. If you think you can find a post of mine where I make a claim of a *conspiracy*, be my guest in searching.

Yes, it is a matter of historical record that Bush and/or people in his administration were fully aware that bin Laden was intent on highjacking airplanes (there is a PDB that proves it beyond any doubt) to strike on American soil.

And it is ALSO a matter of historical record that Bush and/or people in the very highest levels of his administration were very much desirous of an excuse (there are policy papers from the PNAC, which many prominent operatives in the Bush White House belong to, including the Vice President AND the Secretary of Defense, that prove that that group was convinced that the only way to coerce the America public into supporting a war in the Middle East was if a "New Pearl Harbor" {their phrasing, not mine} type of attack on America were to take place) for moving militarily against certain Middle Eastern countries, in order to take control of oil resources there.

It cannot be called *conspiracy* when they do it right in front of the eyes of a gullible populace.

They did it right in the open, knowing the vast majority of flag-waving cretins in this country would be too stupid to realize what was being perpetrated.

can i ask if Oswald was a lone gunman or was there a shot from grassy noll?

Yep.

And IF (as the Warren Report claims) it is physically possible for a bullet to --

be fired from the 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository building, to then enter JFK's back, to then exit from his throat; to then enter John Connally's back, to then exit his chest near the right nipple, to then go completely through Connally's right wrist, shattering the radius bone on the way through, to then enter his left leg embedding itself in his thigh bone, and then to drop out of his thigh bone later onto his stretcher in Parkland Hospital in pristine condition ........then YES!...

...provided that the trajectory described above (http://www.orwelltoday.com/jfkbulletmagic.jpg) seems plausible to you, then it is possible that Oswald was the 'lone gunman'.

Dallas, TX, 22 Nov 63. Sure would be nice to know what really happend that day, not just the end results. Since all the principal parties are now dead, it would seem the real story could come out.

I thought ICBMs used liquid fuel cause it has more power.

Liquid fuel is too difficult to deal with. ICBMs need to be able to be stuffed into a hole in the ground and forgotten about until armegeddon.

Huh?!?

"all the conspiracy".......?!?!?

I don't recall having ever alleged that there was a *conspiracy* being carried out. If you think you can find a post of mine where I make a claim of a *conspiracy*, be my guest in searching.

*slaps forehead and shakes head

I'm not saying YOU said there is a conspiracy being carried out... i'm saying the suggestions you make ARE conspiracies... Einstein.

Yes, it is a matter of historical record that Bush and/or people in his administration were fully aware that bin Laden was intent on highjacking airplanes (there is a PDB that proves it beyond any doubt) to strike on American soil.

Go ahead and post the "historical record" that proves it "beyond any doubt"... If it's legit i'll listen. The thing is, i've seen "smoking gun evidence" from bias and agenda-filled people, it's a dime a dozen these days.

And it is ALSO a matter of historical record that Bush and/or people in the very highest levels of his administration were very much desirous of an excuse (there are policy papers from the PNAC, which many prominent operatives in the Bush White House belong to, including the Vice President AND the Secretary of Defense, that prove that that group was convinced that the only way to coerce the America public into supporting a war in the Middle East was if a "New Pearl Harbor" {their phrasing, not mine} type of attack on America were to take place) for moving militarily against certain Middle Eastern countries, in order to take control of oil resources there.

It cannot be called *conspiracy* when they do it right in front of the eyes of a gullible populace.

They did it right in the open, knowing the vast majority of flag-waving cretins in this country would be too stupid to realize what was being perpetrated.

Go ahead and post that stuff too, i'm anxious to check it out. The thing is, you always assume Bush, or an american, is guilty until proven innocent. You constantly paint that america went into Iraq JUST FOR OIL.. but seem to forget the Saddam vs. weapons inspectors, the failed UN sanctions, and the possibility of WMD's. Now most liberals will scuff at the word "WMD".. and say "awww bush just used that as a lie!! he lied us into Iraq by saying WMD's were there".. but has it ever crossed your "freethinking" brain that maybe our intelligence DID say Saddam was capable of WMD's, and it was just faulty intelligence? Surely a "freethinker" wouldn't be so naive.



Yep.

And IF (as the Warren Report claims) it is physically possible for a bullet to --

be fired from the 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository building, to then enter JFK's back, to then exit from his throat; to then enter John Connally's back, to then exit his chest near the right nipple, to then go completely through Connally's right wrist, shattering the radius bone on the way through, to then enter his left leg embedding itself in his thigh bone, and then to drop out of his thigh bone later onto his stretcher in Parkland Hospital in pristine condition ........then YES!...

...provided that the trajectory described above (http://www.orwelltoday.com/jfkbulletmagic.jpg) seems plausible to you, then it is possible that Oswald was the 'lone gunman'.

I happen to think JFK was killed by our own government. The Warren Report was government controlled, surely they wouldn't out themselves.... but at least i know its a conspiracy because i can't prove it. You probably call it "historical fact"... you are very irresponsible FT.

Originally Posted by Freethinker
Yes, it is a matter of historical record that Bush and/or people in his administration were fully aware that bin Laden was intent on highjacking airplanes (there is a PDB that proves it beyond any doubt) to strike on American soil.


Go ahead and post the "historical record" that proves it "beyond any doubt"... If it's legit i'll listen.

I have posted it a dozen times in the past. Willfully blind RightWing twits like you unfailingly refuse to listen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Freethinker
And it is ALSO a matter of historical record that Bush and/or people in the very highest levels of his administration were very much desirous of an excuse (there are policy papers from the PNAC, which many prominent operatives in the Bush White House belong to, including the Vice President AND the Secretary of Defense, that prove that that group was convinced that the only way to coerce the America public into supporting a war in the Middle East was if a "New Pearl Harbor" {their phrasing, not mine} type of attack on America were to take place) for moving militarily against certain Middle Eastern countries, in order to take control of oil resources there.

Go ahead and post that stuff too, i'm anxious to check it out.

The pertinent part is in green. And I have posted the information and various links here many times proving that Bush and his people, many of whom are members of the PNAC, were intent on attacking Iraq prior to 9/11 and were looking for an excuse to do so.

If you were *anxious* to read it, you'd have done so on one of the other numerous occasions I have posted the info.