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.

 

GOP continues drive for preemptive "war of choice" with Iran

page: 4
14
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 11:01 AM
link   
a reply to: grandmakdw

It's not racism. It's historical fact.

Let's take a group of people and insert them into a geographical location where they do not look, sound, or act like the established population. That has never worked historically, as someone always looses.

If you look at the Native Americans today you can see that they certainly are on the loosing end of cultural displacement.

Having issues with the political policies of Israel is not racism. Perhaps a definition of racism is in order for all:



noun
1.
a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.

Dictionary.com

Please do not muddy the waters with false claims of racism. I have not implied that one racial group is superior or that one has the right to dominate another.

Arguments based in the false pretense of racism are weak and designed to do nothing more than illicit emotional responses. They are immature, not grounded in reality or fact, and dismiss constructive discussion of the topic at hand.

I could turn the tables and say you are being reverse-racist by making claims of racism -- because according to the dictionary definition above, you seem to imply that European Jews are somehow superior and have an inherent right to dominate the indigenous people.




posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 11:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: jonnywhite
There's no peace with Iran. Iran's goal is the conversion of everybody to Shia and destruction of Israel and a new Persia and inevitably the return of Mahdi.

Have you overlooked the fact that Israel has done nothing but try to get America to attack Iran for decades not to mention Israel is constantly saying they are going to attack Iran? Iran has always said if Israel attacked them they would defend themselves. How is Iran waiting for the return of the Mahdi a bad thing? He is supposed to bring justice to the world and a funny thing people always leave out when they mention the Mahdi is that he is supposed to return with Jesus. They are supposed to bring about the end of the antichrist and start a time of peace and prosperity for all mankind.

Too bad the 'time of peace' has to come at the cost of:
1) Conquering Israel
2) Beheading western leaders
3) Killing all infidels
4) Islam will rule the world (Mahdi will actually rule from Iraq)

If you're not shiite or live in the west or in israel or israel-friendly country, beware! You're on the hit list. You won't live to see Mahdi.
edit on 9-3-2015 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 11:06 AM
link   
a reply to: jonnywhite


There's no peace with Iran. Iran's goal is the (ideal) conversion of everybody to Shia Islam, the destruction of Israel, a new Persia and inevitably the return of Mahdi. There's no future except one with Mahdi. All infidels will be killed. Atheist? Christian? Jew? Buddhist? All killed. You must be converted.


Perhaps, but most significantly reflects beliefs of the Ayatollah Khamenei. Most Iranians, like us, would prefer to live their lives in peace. I can't imagine destroying that country and it's people, because their 'grand puma' is a brainwashed idiot.



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 11:08 AM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

You may be a Mod, but I reserve the right to disagree with you.

When one is bashing white people, that never, ever seems to fit the definition of racism, does it?

How about if I said that Chinese people should never have been allowed to come to the US to build the railroads, that it was insanity to allow the Chinese to come to the US when the native population at the time was caucasion, black, and native american. Now does it sound racist? Would you consider this thought to be racist?

Oh, yes the current administration had billboards encouraging parents in south america to send their children to the US with promises of being allowed to stay. The administration had actually put out transportation (bus) contracts specifically worded so that we know that the administration was preparing for the children to come and knew and encouraged them to come long before the "flood" of children arriving from S. America. Would you not agree that since the children are not "native" to the US that it was wrong to encourage them to come and settle here because they don't look like the majority of people in the US, look like caucasions, blacks, asians, american indians combined make a much larger majority than S. American or Hispanic appearing Hispanic (as opposed to white hispanic)? NO! Because that would be considered racist.


You may punish me for disagreeing, but if you do, that would be so very sad.

So in my opinion the things you said about the residents of Israel who were invited by the majority of the world at the time, to live in Isreal, is racist, even if you are blind to the possibility that saying white people should not go where they don't look like everyone else, is as bad as saying black people should not go where they don't look like everyone else.




edit on 11Mon, 09 Mar 2015 11:19:38 -0500am30903amk091 by grandmakdw because: addition spelling grammar format



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 11:15 AM
link   
a reply to: grandmakdw

That's fine and you are entitled to your opinion!

Equating Chinese immigration to the creation of a nation state is not the same thing.

Outside powers did not divide up the United States and create a new nation for Chinese immigrants.

Additionally, are you suggesting that Chinese immigrants have some sort of cultural claim to the United States? I fail to see the logic in your assessment/argument.

I may be a "mod" but I am a member first, and allowed to have my own opinions on the subject just as you do. I refuse to allow my emotions to cloud my logic surrounding the topic of Israel.

This thread/topic is not about Israel, but Iran. I merely was making a side note, and now this entire discussion has been derailed. I encourage everyone to stay on point -- about the GOP and Iran.



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 11:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: grandmakdw
a reply to: MystikMushroom

You may punish me for disagreeing, but if you do, that would be so very sad.




No one in any way has insinuated punishment of your disagreements. That idea is yours and yours alone. ATS encourages viewpoints from all. After all, if we all thought the same thing it would be a very boring world!

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and as long as the T&C isn't broken -- no one's viewpoint is any more valid than another's -- staff or non-staff.

Please do not think that just because you disagree with me that you are somehow going to be "punished". I openly encourage others to challenge my viewpoints. I often respect people more that disagree with me than those that agree. If someone is able to make me stop and go, "Hm, I never thought of it like that" they deserves applause in my book.
edit on 9-3-2015 by MystikMushroom because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 11:22 AM
link   
a reply to: grandmakdw



Remember it was Michelle Obama who is directly responsible for reducing the number of calories that children are fed at school, and many many poor children rely on that meal as their only meal for the day.

Tell the whole story. Her program is not only a lunch program but a breakfast program as well.



She reduced it to 600 calories for young children and 800 calories for older children.

Just because it has a lot of calories doesn't mean it is healthy for you which is the main target of her program to get kids to eat something that is healthy for them.


That is starvation and deliberate starvation of the poorest and most vulnerable children.

No it isn't this is to help to keep kids from becoming little tubs of lard which many of the kids are becoming today.



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 11:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: jonnywhite

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: jonnywhite
There's no peace with Iran. Iran's goal is the conversion of everybody to Shia and destruction of Israel and a new Persia and inevitably the return of Mahdi.

Have you overlooked the fact that Israel has done nothing but try to get America to attack Iran for decades not to mention Israel is constantly saying they are going to attack Iran? Iran has always said if Israel attacked them they would defend themselves. How is Iran waiting for the return of the Mahdi a bad thing? He is supposed to bring justice to the world and a funny thing people always leave out when they mention the Mahdi is that he is supposed to return with Jesus. They are supposed to bring about the end of the antichrist and start a time of peace and prosperity for all mankind.

Too bad the 'time of peace' has to come at the cost of:
1) Conquering Israel
2) Beheading western leaders
3) Killing all infidels
4) Islam will rule the world (Mahdi will actually rule from Iraq)

If you're not shiite or live in the west or in israel or israel-friendly country, beware! You're on the hit list. You won't live to see Mahdi.

So you are saying that Israel is where the antichrist will come from? Are you saying the western leaders follow the antichrist? Are you saying all infidels follow the antichrist? You mind posting a link where you got all this info from?



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 11:48 AM
link   
a reply to: grandmakdw



So in my opinion the things you said about the residents of Israel who were invited by the majority of the world at the time, to live in Isreal, is racist, even if you are blind to the possibility that saying white people should not go where they don't look like everyone else, is as bad as saying black people should not go where they don't look like everyone else.

You are totally wrong. The majority of the world did not invite the Europeans to go to Israel to live. The Brits struck a deal with Zionist groups for the land that became Israel. The only nations that really were involved with the immigration of Zionist to Palestine was England, Germany and America. I would also like to point out that even though America supported the immigration America did not support the creation of the state of Israel.



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 11:57 AM
link   
a reply to: buster2010


America did not support the creation of the state of Israel.

........Well, it did and it didn't.


Although the United States backed Resolution 181, the U.S. Department of State recommended the creation of a United Nations trusteeship with limits on Jewish immigration and a division of Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab provinces but not states. The State Department, concerned about the possibility of an increasing Soviet role in the Arab world and the potential for restriction by Arab oil producing nations of oil supplies to the United States, advised against U.S. intervention on behalf of the Jews. Later, as the date for British departure from Palestine drew near, the Department of State grew concerned about the possibility of an all-out war in Palestine as Arab states threatened to attack almost as soon as the UN passed the partition resolution.

Despite growing conflict between Palestinian Arabs and Palestinian Jews and despite the Department of State’s endorsement of a trusteeship, Truman ultimately decided to recognize the state Israel.

history.state.gov...



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: grandmakdw

I'd also like to point out that on ATS if a member of staff gets involved in a thread/topic, we are prevented from taking any moderator action in it ourselves.



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 01:38 PM
link   
Has anybody actually read what's in "The Letter" ?



How come Obama hasn't solved all these problems in 6 years?

He's had control of the Executive Branch.




posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 04:24 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen


How come Obama hasn't solved all these problems in 6 years?


Nice, so it's Obama's fault for not solving the crisis in the Middle East in six years... with Republicans obstructing him every step of the way. Nice viewpoint.



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 04:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Blackmarketeer

Obama is escalating the crisis in the Middle East.

Prisoner releases that allow them to return as militants.

Constant bombings on multiple fronts.

Phony "negotiations" meant to fail as usual.

The Libya fiasco.

Etc. Etc. Etc.




posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 05:11 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen


Obama is escalating the crisis in the Middle East.

Uh, no.

He is escalating the decency of the human race - to deal in diplomacy rather than endless war.

He may be escalating a pending Netanyahu loss of power, however - and a brief but comprehensive nervous breakdown of same that is long overdue.



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 05:18 PM
link   

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

He is escalating the decency of the human race - to deal in diplomacy rather than endless war.



The MSM has you completely engulfed.

Obama is escalating the bombings.

Obama is purposely derailing any and all "negotiations".

That's why all efforts are failing.

Obama is a war munger and supporters are having difficulty dealing with that fact.




posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 05:31 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Not worthy of response.

How come Obama hasn't solved all these problems in 6 years?


But - here you go: WHAT PRESIDENT has, in six years, solved 'all of our problems'?


Troll.

edit on 3/9/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 05:31 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Sadly your views (spoonfed to you by right-wing think tanks) are polar opposites to reality.

Here is the response from Iran to the letter sent by the GOP:

Iran Responds to GOP Letter


March 9, 2015 | 2:52pm

On Mach 9, Iran’s U.N. mission circulated the following press release detailing Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif’s reaction to the GOP letter on a nuclear deal.

Asked about the open letter of 47 US Senators to Iranian leaders, the Iranian Foreign Minister, Dr. Javad Zarif, responded that “in our view, this letter has no legal value and is mostly a propaganda ploy. It is very interesting that while negotiations are still in progress and while no agreement has been reached, some political pressure groups are so afraid even of the prospect of an agreement that they resort to unconventional methods, unprecedented in diplomatic history. This indicates that like Netanyahu, who considers peace as an existential threat, some are opposed to any agreement, regardless of its content.”

Zarif expressed astonishment that some members of US Congress find it appropriate to write to leaders of another country against their own President and administration. He pointed out that from reading the open letter, it seems that the authors not only do not understand international law, but are not fully cognizant of the nuances of their own Constitution when it comes to presidential powers in the conduct of foreign policy.

Foreign Minister Zarif added that “I should bring one important point to the attention of the authors and that is, the world is not the United States, and the conduct of inter-state relations is governed by international law, and not by US domestic law. The authors may not fully understand that in international law, governments represent the entirety of their respective states, are responsible for the conduct of foreign affairs, are required to fulfil the obligations they undertake with other states and may not invoke their internal law as justification for failure to perform their international obligations.”

The Iranian Foreign Minister added that “change of administration does not in any way relieve the next administration from international obligations undertaken by its predecessor in a possible agreement about Iran’s peaceful nuclear program.” He continued “I wish to enlighten the authors that if the next administration revokes any agreement with ‘the stroke of a pen,’ as they boast, it will have simply committed a blatant violation of international law.” He emphasized that if the current negotiation with P5+1 result in a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, it will not be a bilateral agreement between Iran and the US, but rather one that will be concluded with the participation of five other countries, including all permanent members of the Security Council, and will also be endorsed by a Security Council resolution.


Zarif expressed the hope that his comments “may enrich the knowledge of the authors to recognize that according to international law, Congress may not ‘modify the terms of the agreement at any time’ as they claim, and if Congress adopts any measure to impede its implementation, it will have committed a material breach of US obligations.”

The Foreign Minister also informed the authors that majority of US international agreements in recent decades are in fact what the signatories describe as “mere executive agreements” and not treaties ratified by the Senate. He reminded them that “their letter in fact undermines the credibility of thousands of such ‘mere executive agreements’ that have been or will be entered into by the US with various other governments.”

Zarif concluded by stating that “the Islamic Republic of Iran has entered these negotiations in good faith and with the political will to reach an agreement, and it is imperative for our counterparts to prove similar good faith and political will in order to make an agreement possible.”


Mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran to UN - New York

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


I find that hilarious. IRAN had to school these scumbag GOP senators in how the US constitution and international law works. All 47 of them have shamed themselves and embarrassed the United States of America.



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 05:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Blackmarketeer


The Iranian Foreign Minister added that “change of administration does not in any way relieve the next administration from international obligations undertaken by its predecessor in a possible agreement about Iran’s peaceful nuclear program.”

Thank you.



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 06:09 PM
link   
Imagine that, crazy ol' Iran is the voice of reason, and the GOP are the petulant children throwing their toys out of the pram.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join