WSJ: U.S. military seeks more powerful bomb against Iran

[Scott]

A series of off-topic posts and replies have been deleted:

1. Be civil

2. Stay on the topic.

3. The topic isn't about Israel and treaties it hasn't signed.

[chuckd]

I was thinking both of the broader scope (this issue is in no way limited to the current conflict or the Middle East), and of the fact that different parties might have different views on the same situation.

In the current context? Well, obviously, from Israel's point of view (and at least as far as internal debate goes) it's not so much a question of whether a preemptive strike is morally right, but more whether it's feasible and would bring about a wished for result. I think it's generally seen more as a survival issue. Mind, not going into whether Israel's assessment is right or wrong here.

The USA stance is much more complex, of course. There isn't any clear and present danger to the USA or to American citizens, and the whole thing got more to do with global power play, commercial interests and elections (the latter, btw, is true to some extent for all parties involved, always a home front as well). A preemptive strike, from that point of view is more morally questionable then, say, an Israeli one.

I'm not sure that the conduct of any government can follow a strict moral code (unless you're a theocracy, maybe). Reality means adjustment and compromise, sometimes by the way of morals too.

In the main, I would agree with your post. I take exception to your statement that there is no clear and present danger to any US citizens.

At the request of the government of Bahrain the Fifth Fleet is positioned in Manama with some 10,000 seamen. There is a military presence in Kuwait and Qatar as well.

In addition to these factors, there is also a large contingent of civilian US citizens working in Saudi Arabia and other Arabian Peninsula nations.

I would guess there are upwards of 30,000 Americans in the immediate range of Iran's missiles, with or without nukes. The nukes have a much broader kill range than conventional weapons, thus the increased peril if Iran goes nuclear.

The Ponce, Enterprise, and Vincennes are on their way as they are in various stages of being removed from early retirement plans to send in to the areas in question. These particular vessles present a different type of problem in that they are expendable. Particularly the Enterprise, a 50 year old nuclear Air Craft Carrier. The cost of decommissioning and disposing of the nuclear materials in an approved manner is extensive. Having it sunk in a false flag operation in the gulf or hormoz solves a couple of problems.

The USS HW Bush, another Air Craft Carrier with its complete task force has also been alerted and is moving to a location currently classified. Unlike the Enterprise, the Bush is the newest of the fleet and is not expendable.

What a load of malarkey you just posted. To think that the US government would sacrifice three battle ships and their crews is total nonsense.

In addition when did the US government start worrying about spending money.

What a ridiculous post you made.

[Exsexyman]

Like I said, the "soft" war is already on and has been for a long time.

BTW, the beloved American President Obama's favorite color is blue, not pink.

Not that there is anything wrong with pink, but what were the Persian propagandists trying to pull with that pink thing? Was it an anti-gay allusion? If so, not surprising from a barbaric regime that denies the holocaust, threatens Israel's very existence, murders their gay people (except those willing to have their genitals cut off which they will generously pay for), stones their "adulterous" women to death, and cuts off the limbs of thieves.

Iran has not denied the holocaust, they have questioned the numbers that were killed. To quote your own rhetoric back at you, to assert that Iran has denied that the holocaust happened is a bald faced LIE.

[Ulysses G.]

Iran has not denied the holocaust,

False. This sort of thinking is why the US is develping stronger Bunker Busters to convince Iran to abandon their nuclear weapons program.

TEHRAN, Iran - Iran's state news agency quotes President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as saying he is proud the West was outraged at his denial of the Holocaust.

During a speech on Friday, Ahmadinejad had again voiced his doubts about the Holocaust, questioning whether it was a "real event" and saying it was a pretext for Israel's creation.

Edited January 31, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[Steely Dan]

Iran has not denied the holocaust,

False. This sort of thinking is why the US is develping stronger Bunker Busters to convince Iran to abandon their nuclear weapons program.

TEHRAN, Iran - Iran's state news agency quotes President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as saying he is proud the West was outraged at his denial of the Holocaust.

During a speech on Friday, Ahmadinejad had again voiced his doubts about the Holocaust, questioning whether it was a "real event" and saying it was a pretext for Israel's creation.

Needless to say you are factually correct with many links to corroborate it, but still some posters persist in posting assertion presented as fact.

[Carib]

I was thinking both of the broader scope (this issue is in no way limited to the current conflict or the Middle East), and of the fact that different parties might have different views on the same situation.

In the current context? Well, obviously, from Israel's point of view (and at least as far as internal debate goes) it's not so much a question of whether a preemptive strike is morally right, but more whether it's feasible and would bring about a wished for result. I think it's generally seen more as a survival issue. Mind, not going into whether Israel's assessment is right or wrong here.

The USA stance is much more complex, of course. There isn't any clear and present danger to the USA or to American citizens, and the whole thing got more to do with global power play, commercial interests and elections (the latter, btw, is true to some extent for all parties involved, always a home front as well). A preemptive strike, from that point of view is more morally questionable then, say, an Israeli one.

I'm not sure that the conduct of any government can follow a strict moral code (unless you're a theocracy, maybe). Reality means adjustment and compromise, sometimes by the way of morals too.

In the main, I would agree with your post. I take exception to your statement that there is no clear and present danger to any US citizens.

At the request of the government of Bahrain the Fifth Fleet is positioned in Manama with some 10,000 seamen. There is a military presence in Kuwait and Qatar as well.

In addition to these factors, there is also a large contingent of civilian US citizens working in Saudi Arabia and other Arabian Peninsula nations.

I would guess there are upwards of 30,000 Americans in the immediate range of Iran's missiles, with or without nukes. The nukes have a much broader kill range than conventional weapons, thus the increased peril if Iran goes nuclear.

The Ponce, Enterprise, and Vincennes are on their way as they are in various stages of being removed from early retirement plans to send in to the areas in question. These particular vessles present a different type of problem in that they are expendable. Particularly the Enterprise, a 50 year old nuclear Air Craft Carrier. The cost of decommissioning and disposing of the nuclear materials in an approved manner is extensive. Having it sunk in a false flag operation in the gulf or hormoz solves a couple of problems.

The USS HW Bush, another Air Craft Carrier with its complete task force has also been alerted and is moving to a location currently classified. Unlike the Enterprise, the Bush is the newest of the fleet and is not expendable.

What a load of malarkey you just posted. To think that the US government would sacrifice three battle ships and their crews is total nonsense.

In addition when did the US government start worrying about spending money.

What a ridiculous post you made.

The US government has sacrificed tens of thousands of life's in completely senseless wars, so sacrificing just a few ships and crew wouldn't be much of a problem for corporate America either.

Take a step back from the usual glorifying stupidity and the so called heroism and `defending the country BS`

.

What has really been achieved, and what was really defended, and who really gained? And than look at what was lost, and see if it was worth it. The truth is right in front of you, but ignored by millions.

[Scott]

Although I understand the conviction with which a number of people post, we still need to have a modicum of respect for the opinions of others.

What has or hasn't been gained is quite off-topic to this thread and very personal to different posters.

You are welcome to your opinion and to express it within the forum rules. You cannot ask people for a justification that will not be acceptable to others. It is baiting and will result in negative action.

Please stay on the topic.

[maidu]

A big factor to consider, by US and Israeli military, is what sorts of responses will ensue, if there's a pre-emptive strike against Iran. Getting one or two facilities bombed, even by nukes (which I doubt would be used) will be a set-back for Iran, but it will not hamper its ability to respond strongly. There are a plethora of hard and soft targets throughout the gulf. Some may surprise us. For example, Iran could strike at the Saudis, as they have several reasons for hating each other. A pre-emptive strike would open an ugly can of worms, though allowing Iran to continue towards building a nuclear arsenal is fraught with unknowns. I'd opt for allowing Iran to do its thing, and hope it gets decent leaders in the near future.

[Jingthing]

It's a given there will be massive blowback in the event of a strike on Iran's deep nuclear sites. So if that is even worth considering doing, there has to be good evidence it would actually accomplish something significant. I don't think Israel or the US is yet convinced that it would. I totally discount people who think Iran isn't working on a program. Either they are massively naive and/or so anti-Israel/anti-US that they have become Iran partisans.

[chuckd]

The Ponce, Enterprise, and Vincennes are on their way as they are in various stages of being removed from early retirement plans to send in to the areas in question. These particular vessles present a different type of problem in that they are expendable. Particularly the Enterprise, a 50 year old nuclear Air Craft Carrier. The cost of decommissioning and disposing of the nuclear materials in an approved manner is extensive. Having it sunk in a false flag operation in the gulf or hormoz solves a couple of problems.

The USS HW Bush, another Air Craft Carrier with its complete task force has also been alerted and is moving to a location currently classified. Unlike the Enterprise, the Bush is the newest of the fleet and is not expendable.

What a load of malarkey you just posted. To think that the US government would sacrifice three battle ships and their crews is total nonsense.

In addition when did the US government start worrying about spending money.

What a ridiculous post you made.

The US government has sacrificed tens of thousands of life's in completely senseless wars, so sacrificing just a few ships and crew wouldn't be much of a problem for corporate America either.

Take a step back from the usual glorifying stupidity and the so called heroism and `defending the country BS`

.

What has really been achieved, and what was really defended, and who really gained? And than look at what was lost, and see if it was worth it. The truth is right in front of you, but ignored by millions.

When did the discussion turn into losses of troops and equipment during war? To think that any administration, particularly Obama's, would sacrifice three ships, approximately 75 combat aircraft and around 7,000 men for a false flag operation is patently absurd.

The USS Enterprise is scheduled for decommissioning sometime in 2013.

The USS Vincennes was decommissioned in 2005 and scrapped in 2011. She doesn't even exist!

The USS Ponce is currently under retro-fit to serve as a staging platform for ground forces in the Arabian Gulf. She is in dry dock.

Perhaps some should take a step back from the usual 'hate the US' stupidity and face facts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Enterprise_(CVN-65)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Vincennes_(CG-49)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Ponce_(LPD-15)

Edited January 31, 2012 by chuckd

[Ulysses G.]

I totally discount people who think Iran isn't working on a program. Either they are massively naive and/or so anti-Israel/anti-US that they have become Iran partisans.

I concur, but I do not think that the naive aspect is very common.

[Morch]

I was thinking both of the broader scope (this issue is in no way limited to the current conflict or the Middle East), and of the fact that different parties might have different views on the same situation.

In the current context? Well, obviously, from Israel's point of view (and at least as far as internal debate goes) it's not so much a question of whether a preemptive strike is morally right, but more whether it's feasible and would bring about a wished for result. I think it's generally seen more as a survival issue. Mind, not going into whether Israel's assessment is right or wrong here.

The USA stance is much more complex, of course. There isn't any clear and present danger to the USA or to American citizens, and the whole thing got more to do with global power play, commercial interests and elections (the latter, btw, is true to some extent for all parties involved, always a home front as well). A preemptive strike, from that point of view is more morally questionable then, say, an Israeli one.

I'm not sure that the conduct of any government can follow a strict moral code (unless you're a theocracy, maybe). Reality means adjustment and compromise, sometimes by the way of morals too.

In the main, I would agree with your post. I take exception to your statement that there is no clear and present danger to any US citizens.

At the request of the government of Bahrain the Fifth Fleet is positioned in Manama with some 10,000 seamen. There is a military presence in Kuwait and Qatar as well.

In addition to these factors, there is also a large contingent of civilian US citizens working in Saudi Arabia and other Arabian Peninsula nations.

I would guess there are upwards of 30,000 Americans in the immediate range of Iran's missiles, with or without nukes. The nukes have a much broader kill range than conventional weapons, thus the increased peril if Iran goes nuclear.

Yes, you're right about the American presence in the Gulf and nearby countries.

My wording should have been better - meant something more along the line of "no existential danger" to the USA or attack on American soil.

With regard to the Navy, it's a little trickier maybe. Not sure you could justify a preemptive strike based on threat to troops out there to possibly carry out such a strike.

[geriatrickid]

I believe that London remains a target as do Copenhagen and Paris. It is whimsical to dismiss israel as a potential target on the basis of potential muslim deaths. Such logic hasn't stopped suicide bombers before. One of the misconceptions that people have is that suicide bombers in Israel haven't killed or maimed muslims. As far as the killers are concerned, such victims are martyrs and will be well taken care of in "Paradise".

The Iranian missiles might not reach the Continental USA, but they can sure as heck render the strait of Hormuz impossible to navigate and wipe out a large number of US & NATO personnel, and disrupt the world's oil trade. All it takes is a cadre of militant wackos to launch such an attack.

One can point to the nuclear arsenal of the USA, China, Russia, UK, Israel etc., but I believe there are enough checks and balances and some common sense to prevent these countries from sending a few nuclear warheads at a political opponent.

Edited January 31, 2012 by geriatrickid

[Morch]

A big factor to consider, by US and Israeli military, is what sorts of responses will ensue, if there's a pre-emptive strike against Iran. Getting one or two facilities bombed, even by nukes (which I doubt would be used) will be a set-back for Iran, but it will not hamper its ability to respond strongly. There are a plethora of hard and soft targets throughout the gulf. Some may surprise us. For example, Iran could strike at the Saudis, as they have several reasons for hating each other. A pre-emptive strike would open an ugly can of worms, though allowing Iran to continue towards building a nuclear arsenal is fraught with unknowns. I'd opt for allowing Iran to do its thing, and hope it gets decent leaders in the near future.

It is hard to imagine an attack which will not include neutralizing some of Iran's response capability. More so when it comes to a USA attack, as they are nearer, got more firepower, and are more directly facing those threats. As far as Israel concerns, as long as a possible missile launch isn't nuclear, it's not a major threat. Don't think Iran attacking other neighboring countries a consideration on the Israeli side, some might even see it as an asset.

Question has more to do with what Iran will gain by attacking other countries (other than Israel and USA navy). On the face of it, there isn't much point to it. Can't imagine a mass revolt or sympathy toward Iran in such a case. Shi'a Doomsday scenario? Well, without the nukes it wouldn't be such a hot party, is it? (plus probably not everyone buys into that).

[maidu]

A big factor to consider, by US and Israeli military, is what sorts of responses will ensue, if there's a pre-emptive strike against Iran. Getting one or two facilities bombed, even by nukes (which I doubt would be used) will be a set-back for Iran, but it will not hamper its ability to respond strongly. There are a plethora of hard and soft targets throughout the gulf. Some may surprise us. For example, Iran could strike at the Saudis, as they have several reasons for hating each other. A pre-emptive strike would open an ugly can of worms, though allowing Iran to continue towards building a nuclear arsenal is fraught with unknowns. I'd opt for allowing Iran to do its thing, and hope it gets decent leaders in the near future.

It is hard to imagine an attack which will not include neutralizing some of Iran's response capability. More so when it comes to a USA attack, as they are nearer, got more firepower, and are more directly facing those threats. As far as Israel concerns, as long as a possible missile launch isn't nuclear, it's not a major threat. Don't think Iran attacking other neighboring countries a consideration on the Israeli side, some might even see it as an asset.

Question has more to do with what Iran will gain by attacking other countries (other than Israel and USA navy). On the face of it, there isn't much point to it. Can't imagine a mass revolt or sympathy toward Iran in such a case. Shi'a Doomsday scenario? Well, without the nukes it wouldn't be such a hot party, is it? (plus probably not everyone buys into that).

I agree it would be hard to fathom why Iran (if it were bombed by US or Israel) would attack people or merchandise belonging to any country other than those two. However, dem folks don't think like you and me. Not long ago, when Iran's neighbor and similar-sized country got the itch, it attacked Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. After the 1st Gulf war started, Iraq also attacked Israel, even though Israel was not actively in the military coalition against Iraq (showing immense self-control btw).

Angry Iranian leaders are capable of who-knows-what when provoked. Logic is not an over-riding sentiment when emotions erupt.

The saddest part of all this saber rattling is the Iranian people are as decent as people anywhere. It's their leaders who are making messes. yet it's mostly the regular people who will be harmed when push comes to shove. The Immans might just slip out the back door and go to France, like the Kohemeini did when things got uncomfortable for him a few decades ago.

[Jingthing]

...

The saddest part of all this saber rattling is the Iranian people are as decent as people anywhere. It's their leaders who are making messes. yet it's mostly the regular people who will be harmed when push comes to shove. The Immans might just slip out the back door and go to France, like the Kohemeini did when things got uncomfortable for him a few decades ago.

Yes, it's tragic. How can we encourage them to revolt?

[Steely Dan]

Shi'a Doomsday scenario? Well, without the nukes it wouldn't be such a hot party, is it? (plus probably not everyone buys into that).

One aspect of the Shia doomsday scenario you may or may not be aware of is the conditions could be brought about by misfortune being encountered by themselves without necessarily their wreaking destruction on others, hence Iran's apparent 'do your worst' attitude. It should also be borne in mind that Ahmadinejad is an ardent Twelver who has actually had some roads in Tehran widened for the anticipated procession of the Mahdi.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/1507818/Divine-mission-driving-Irans-new-leader.html

Their sneaking suspicion is that Iran's president actually relishes a clash with the West in the conviction that it would rekindle the spirit of the Islamic revolution and - who knows - speed up the arrival of the Hidden Imam.

[gopnarak]

I totally discount people who think Iran isn't working on a program. Either they are massively naive and/or so anti-Israel/anti-US that they have become Iran partisans.

I concur, but I do not think that the naive aspect is very common.

SPIEGEL Interview with IAEA Head Yukiya Amano

SPIEGEL: According to the most recent estimates, Iran is only a year away from building a bomb.

Amano: I'm not so sure about that. Despite all unanswered questions, we cannot say that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,738634,00.html

Face the Nation" transcript: January 8, 2012

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta: Are they trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57354647/face-the-nation-transcript-january-8-2012/

[Jingthing]

Total distortion above:

Panetta:

Iran not trying to build a nuke, they are trying to build capability

Duh! Of course, capability is the first step.

Edited January 31, 2012 by Jingthing

[GentlemanJim]

Total distortion above:

Panetta:

Iran not trying to build a nuke, they are trying to build capability

Duh! Of course, capability is the first step.

Jingthing

You make it up as you go along! Less of the Duh! it's sooooooooo condescending.

The IAEA Head say's .....No! How clear is that?

Edited January 31, 2012 by GentlemanJim

[gopnarak]

Angry Iranian leaders are capable of who-knows-what when provoked. Logic is not an over-riding sentiment when emotions erupt.

The saddest part of all this saber rattling is the Iranian people are as decent as people anywhere. It's their leaders who are making messes. yet it's mostly the regular people who will be harmed when push comes to shove. The Immans might just slip out the back door and go to France, like the Kohemeini did when things got uncomfortable for him a few decades ago.

Logic, emotions and sabre rattling?

did you read the OP?

The U.S. military has made a secret request for additional funding to upgrade its largest conventional bomb ...

while Iran has repeatedly stated that its nuclear program is for the peaceful purpose of providing energy

[flying]

It is hard to imagine an attack which will not include neutralizing some of Iran's response capability.

I am in no way blaming you but what you say is true

You know this is the classic "You Never Want a Serious Crisis To Go To Waste" mentality.

It is both disgusting & amazing at the same time.

Because basically you have Iran who again has invited inspectors to come & look.

Yet those that make a habit of invading oil producing countries still are banging their drums &

if & when they make their move it will be as you said.

Same as other places they have struck. They say they will do their "surgical" "preemptive" strike

to save the world from these supposed bad guys who truth be told have done nothing wrong.

Now when they start their surgical strike of course they cannot put themselves in danger so they will

start knocking out another country's defenses first to clear a path for their *surgical* strike

Of course many will be killed because soldiers are manning these defense systems. Defense systems

that this country has every right to have will be totaled.

Yet again they have done nothing wrong, they have done nothing aggressive, they have invited inspectors,

they have not attacked anyone. They are being pursued on speculation alone & that will be enough.

They will have said to have broken a treaty that has long been broken by those who attack them.

It will be said that THEY escalated the problem when the refused to sell oil to the EU.

Yet it was the EU who first threatened them with not buying. Iran calls their bluff & now it is Iran's fault?

It will be similar to Libya where they claim to only want to clear a path & in the end topple everything

always claiming to only need to clear a way for... in Libya's case the rebels...in this case the *surgical* strike.

Pretty sick thinking & embarrassing to think it comes from countries that claim to be fighting the good fight.

Edited January 31, 2012 by flying

[Ulysses G.]

Yet again they have done nothing wrong, they have done nothing aggressive

Those poor Iranian Mullahs are so misunderstood. It is not their fault that they are sponsoring terrorism, threatening other countries and building a nuclear weapon while lying about it. It is everyone else's fault.

Edited January 31, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[Wallaby]

Yet again they have done nothing wrong, they have done nothing aggressive

Those poor Iranian Mullahs are so misunderstood. It is not their fault that they are sponsoring terrorism, threatening other countries and building a nuclear weapon while lying about it. It is everyone else's fault.

Iran or Israel?

[jackr]

Yet again they have done nothing wrong, they have done nothing aggressive, they have invited inspectors, they have not attacked anyone.

Ooh, I dunno; buying dodgy missile parts off the DPRK covertly, acquiring nuke info off Pakistan covertly, building nuclear facilities (deep, deep) underground covertly, refusing to answer fundamental questions on the nuclear issue, taking enrichment over & above what's needed to generate electricity, partaking in experiments tantamount to that which one might do when developing a nuke, threatening to flatten an entire country. If they're innocent, none of that would be so and they haven't attacked anyone simply because they know they'd be eviscerated. When they have the bomb, they probably wouldn't be, plus the whole region will be at it. I'm with the Yanky doodles; get in there and deploy some new bunker busters asap.

[Ulysses G.]

Iran or Israel?

You really do not know what Mullahs are?

[flying]

covertly, building nuclear facilities (deep, deep) underground covertly, refusing to answer fundamental questions on the nuclear issue, taking enrichment over & above what's needed to generate electricity,

Ummm you do understand that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has dispatched a team of inspectors to Iran this weekend, inspectors are there now & allowed to go anywhere & look at & measure anything yes?

This is reality

[Ulysses G.]

I'm with the Yanky doodles; get in there and deploy some new bunker busters asap.

Real BIG ones.

[flying]

This article says it all quite clearly IMO.......Reject the Ruling Psychopathology

For those that actually take the time to read it is quite interesting.

[gopnarak]

Diplomacy between the US and Iran? Are you joking? There are no diplomatic relations between the US and Iran. Between Israel and Iran? Iran is on record to desire to destroy Israel and has proxy forces bordering Israel that are active military enemies of Israel. Not a matter of war mongering. The war has been on for a long time already.

Jingthing

You do your intellect a disservice by continuing to spout off the well worn and totally incorrect statement that Iran is on record to destroy Israel. That is not what was said is it? I am talking of the warmongering by several Thai Visa members.

He is on record to whisper ' regime change in al-Quds' once in a while and triggers always an amazing press and drama queen feedback in the western world when he does it.

The same western world calls for an end of the Islamic republic and/or to topple the government almost daily. And dozens of think tanks, experts and correspondents make a living with publishing strategy papers, writing articles and giving interviews on the subject when is the best time to attack Iran and politicians and cabinet members of foreign governments discuss openly which kind of weapons, bombs, missiles or even mini nukes they should use for a strike on Iran.

i could imagine that Ahmadinejad has a good laugh when he does something similar, he just have to mention the words 'regime change' without any warmongering talks about bombs and preemptive missile strikes and he gets a lot of attention. and will get called the great destroyer and the biggest enemy.

Like a prankster holding up a mirror or like a troll.

He definitely loves to fool around with the Western media in one issue. He takes two Western values the Islamic republic gets confronted with

- Free speech, like in case of the Mohammed cartoons or free speech issues in Iran in general and

- modern science, scientific methods vs religion and beliefs.

Remember the Mohammed cartoons were totally offending and insulting for the people in the Islam world and some went really nuts. In the West no one really understand why or tried to understand. Free speech, free world are the values you have to defend and of course you don't belief in god anyway. .

Now comes Ahmadinejad and switches Mohammed and religious beliefs with the holocaust issue.

Result: Holocaust cartoons and statements like: "Holocaust??? I am an academic, we question things, let me do some additional research on it first before i am going to believe everything, i need proof. scientific proof. "

DANG.

The free speech, free world argument is suddenly not that valid anymore, but its an rather offending and insulting issue.

To western journalists he will never give a straight answer here like: "Yes, the Holocaust was real." , not because he is an Holocaust denier, but because he likes to fool around with these journalists and the western audience. For him they are totally nuts anyway.