It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Report: Obama Threatened to Shoot Down IAF Iran Strike

page: 3
23
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 03:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs

So Iran are equivalent to the Nazis???


Kindly, get real!


You suggested that, I didn't.

great tangent deflection technique.





posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 03:36 PM
link   
Now I'm not quite sure Obama would actually have threatened to shoot IAF planes out of the sky, but I can understand why he would have opposed any Israeli strike on Iran and of possible repercussions if they were carried out.

What I don't understand is all the people who oppose negotiations with Iran aimed at bringing about a peaceful solution to the issues surrounding Iran's nuclear programme.
Pray tell, what exactly is wrong with negotiating - and please don't come out with the 'Neville Chamberlain' bollocks.
Throughout history nations have negotiated treaties and agreements which have involved compromises - it works the vast majority of times, that's why we aren't constantly at war with each other.
'Negotiations' does not equate to 'appeasement'.

The simple fact is that the sanctions imposed against Iran are working. (And that comes from someone who was opposed to them).
They have been forced to the negotiating table - there's no need to bomb the crap out of them.
And anyone who is follows Iranian current affairs will be more than aware that the current administration is taking a far more conciliatory and 'liberal' stance on many things.

I understand why Israel sometimes feels the need to be aggressive when it is surrounded by nations that it perceives to be incredibly hostile towards them....but surely the same principle applies to Iran as well, doesn't it?

Personally I strongly oppose the proliferation of nuclear arms, but how can anyone support armed action when peaceful negotiations seems to be working?

Bombing Iran would be counter-productive, and simply wrong, on so many levels.
edit on 1/3/15 by Freeborn because: typo's



posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 03:37 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

You do so enjoy throwing in accusations of fallacy where none exist...

& no, you suggested it with the Chamberlain comparison...
Who else, besides the Nazis, did Chamberlain act with anyone the way you're implying?




So either you were thinking Nazis...
Or you brought up Chamberlain for no reason whatsoever...


Either way, you're wrong.
edit on 1-3-2015 by CharlieSpeirs because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-3-2015 by CharlieSpeirs because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 03:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: FalafelBallz

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: boymonkey74

Good point....for now lets call it secret negotiations. I will edit accordingly. TY.


What secret negotiations with Iran? What are they negotiating? If they are secret how do you know about it?





Mr. Obama’s threat reportedly deterred Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu from dispatching warplanes into Iran after Israel discovered that the U.S. had entered into secret talks with tehran and that the two countries had signed an agreement, according to Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Jarida.


www.washingtontimes.com...



posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 03:40 PM
link   
Actually Charlie, We are A Federal Republic with Democratic Principles from my understanding of The Framers of Our Constitution. Peace
Arjunanda. a reply to: CharlieSpeirs



posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 03:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs

So Iran are equivalent to the Nazis???


Kindly, get real!


You suggested that, I didn't.

great tangent deflection technique.




Neville Chamberlain did that and look what happened !!!



So exactly what analogy are you trying to make with the above post?



posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 04:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Connector

Never be a sucker.

Just ask the 52 American hostages that were captive in Iran for 444 days.

Even Carter called it a terrorist act.




posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 04:38 PM
link   
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

We have had MAD with Russia for decades we DON'T have the same with HAMAS or Hezbola BOTH of whom are clients of Iran.
Israel hasn't USED any nukes on them or any one else.would that THEY could show such restraint given the ability to create such weapons.
I ,very much, am against the IDEA .
edit on 1-3-2015 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 04:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Connector

Never be a sucker.

Just ask the 52 American hostages that were captive in Iran for 444 days.

Even Carter called it a terrorist act.





So it is an analogy then, comparing Neville and the Nazi's to Obama and Iran. Both being suckers. Glad we cleared that up


BTW you do know why the hostages were taken right?


The crisis was described by the western media as an entanglement of "vengeance and mutual incomprehension."[3] In Iran, the hostage taking was widely seen as a blow against the United States and its influence in Iran, its perceived attempts to undermine the Iranian Revolution, and its longstanding support of the recently overthrown Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Following his overthrow in 1979, the Shah was admitted into the U.S. for medical treatment for cancer. The Iranians demanded that the Shah be returned to Iran for trial and execution for crimes he was accused of committing during his reign. Specifically, they accused the Shah of crimes against Iranian citizens with the help of his secret police, the SAVAK. Iranians saw the asylum granted by the U.S. as American complicity in the atrocities the Shah had committed. In the United States, the hostage-taking was seen as an egregious violation of the principles of international law which granted diplomats immunity from arrest and diplomatic compounds' inviolability.[4][5]


But that's going off topic and we all know how you feel about that.



posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 05:36 PM
link   
I still remember during the Gulf War when 4 Israeli F-16s were on the brink of unleashing WW3 by wanting to attack Iraq, they were just miles away from the Iraqi border flying over Jordan to prevent Scud missiles being fired on them.

The US government was in full blown panic mode back then because they knew a lot of countries would all of a sudden turn against Israel and the Western Allied forces had to choose sides when that would have happened.

All what prevented Israel from going ahead with it was feverish diplomatic talks by Washington and the promise of Patriot systems.

Israel is really difficult to stop in those cases, so I would not be surprised if Obama had to resort to such drastic threatening to stop them.



posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 06:27 PM
link   
So what will the Obama Administration do when Israel flies through Saudi airspace with Saudi approval to strike Iran? Attack two of our biggest allies in the region to Protect Iran? Supposedly, their have been talks between Riyadh and Jerusalem on that very topic.

Foreign policy under President Obama has been one miscalculation after another.



posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 06:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Connector

Never be a sucker.

Just ask the 52 American hostages that were captive in Iran for 444 days.

Even Carter called it a terrorist act.




Wouldn't it be better to ask the President that gave them missiles right after he was elected? Why would a President give arms to terrorist?



posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 06:48 PM
link   
a reply to: buster2010

Certainly is an oxymoron isn't it.






posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 07:47 PM
link   
Regardless as to whether you are PRO or CON Iran, Israel, U.S. or even Obama...
It is just simple logic:

IF Iran now knows that the U.S. has already stopped Israel from bombing Iranian nuclear facilities once...and is threatening to stop any future attacks on them...Iran can rest easy, knowing the U.S. will continue to keep their facilities safe from IAF bombing raids...as they continue to string Obama/ Kerry along in 'negotiations' until they have their nukes.



posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 08:02 PM
link   
typical anti Obama nonsense that ignorant people spout.

Israel are a greater threat to the region than Iran, fair enough for Obama to threaten Israel if they decide to go on an ariel bombing run that will ignite the entire region into war.



posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 08:40 PM
link   
I don't know if this ultimatum is real but i seriously doubt Ob would actually carry it out.It would spell political doom for him and the Dems.chances in the upcoming elections.
Congress would be screaming for his blood in hours of such an attack.
Although i believe Ob capable of anything crazy now i have trouble believing that he'd actually attack Israel over Iran .I'd have to see it happen to believe it.
edit on CSTSunpm0861 by TDawg61 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 09:07 PM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT

That is from the stand point that this is verified and actually happened...
And why does isreal get to attack a nation just out of the blue?



posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 09:12 PM
link   
Does anyone else find the timing of this suspicious?
Coincidently a day before Netanyahu's already controversial visit to Congress.



posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 09:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: IAMTAT

That is from the stand point that this is verified and actually happened...
And why does isreal get to attack a nation just out of the blue?


Of course it would be from that stand point. That's obvious to everyone...(and now you---Bravo!).
Exactly why I opened my OP with: "If this report is true,..."



posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 10:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: IAMTAT
Regardless as to whether you are PRO or CON Iran, Israel, U.S. or even Obama...
It is just simple logic:

IF Iran now knows that the U.S. has already stopped Israel from bombing Iranian nuclear facilities once...and is threatening to stop any future attacks on them...Iran can rest easy, knowing the U.S. will continue to keep their facilities safe from IAF bombing raids...as they continue to string Obama/ Kerry along in 'negotiations' until they have their nukes.

No the reason why Obama stopped them is because Iran would have thought that America allowed Israel to use our airspace to attack them and that would have dragged America into a war that Israel started. Iran doesn't need America protecting them like Israel does.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join