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.

 

Netanyahu: Iran Nuke Deal ‘Will Bring War’

page: 6
19
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 08:49 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic


Of course we have a right to tell them what to do and this is why the world put economic sanctions on them in the first place.

We have a right to tell them what to do when they spread terror and work with groups that want to kill Americans.

We have the right to tell them what to do when the entire Country is controlled by a religious zealot. Why would we want some messianic nut job getting all of this money and access to all of these weapons?


I'm suffering a case of cognitive dissonance itis right now reading your post. I've always thought you had decent opinions but this ain't one of them. The states don't have any rights to tell other countries how to run their business. The foreign affairs policies is what causes any disdain in the first place. And who exactly are you referring to when you say nut job? The Ayatollah or President? I'm sure I don't need to remind you Iran hasn't started a war in 250 years. And access to what weapons? Conventional? Nukes? The agreement is based entirely on the accessibility to inspect. If you're talking Nukes, well that ain't happening because the states will have its nose so far up that butt...you get the picture.

Conventional? There was this guy named General Oliver North. Take a look at Iran contra-scandal. But I bet you already know about that. And speaking of religious zealots, the name Bibi comes to mind. And he's not even religious. Sure acts like a Palestinian destroying lunatic though. There's a different name for him. I think it's Zionist. A zionist with real nuclear weapons. A zioinst who won't even admit to them and sign the NPT. Yet Iran, has been a long standing member since 1970. And what were those sanctions for anyway which brought this all about? Murdering? Warmongering? Terrorism? No, a revolution. A revolution that ousted a key player for the United States. Just read the first paragraph regarding the Iran revolution


The Iranian Revolution (also known as the Islamic Revolution or the 1979 Revolution;[4][5][6][7][8][9] Persian: انقلاب اسلامی, Enghelābe Eslāmi or انقلاب بیست و دو بهمن) refers to events involving the overthrow of the Pahlavi dynasty under Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, who was supported by the United States [10] and its eventual replacement with an Islamic republic under the Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the leader of the revolution, supported by various leftist and Islamic organizations[11] and Iranian student movements.

en.wikipedia.org...

So you see, this has always been about the United States. Iran is no threat. No more than Russia and communism in the 50's- 90's. All the subsequent sanctions were for the nuclear exploration, not for terrorism. Am I wrong about this? I don't think so. Iran had centrifuges and then the UN began slamming Iran like crazy.

Anyway, I've said what I wanted to say.




posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 09:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: buster2010
America did not give Iran billions we returned money that belonged to them.


Are you talking now or 32 years ago?

I wonder if they got any interest on the money held while it was sanctioned?


Bookkeeping will take care of that. You missed a point. Check out the Iran/Contra "scandal".

Yeah I know all about that. That's when Reagan (pbuh) funded terrorist.


You really should research that.
Sold arms to one "terrorist" to provide funds for another "terrorist", because Congress wouldn't allow any further funds to Iran.

And guess who made sure those Iranian terrorist got those missiles from Reagan? Why our good old ally Israel.



posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 09:39 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic
Nutyahoo is not right about anything. The man is deranged and a spoiled crybaby. If Iran wanted a weapon, they would have had it a long time ago or already have it.

The rest is western propaganda like always.



posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 09:41 PM
link   
a reply to: FlySolo
Great to see that someone gets it!



posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 09:59 PM
link   
a reply to: notmyrealname

Thanks. I'm not as dumb as I look



posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 10:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: bbracken677
Meanwhile we actually agreed to notify them 24 days prior to an inspection. (Thats almost like a test being taken during high school and the teacher announcing at the start that he is leaving the room and wont be back for an hour.........)


A notification period for inspections is completely reasonable, as is a limited number of inspections per year. Inspections are a logistical nightmare and essentially shut the plant down while they are ongoing. In order to ensure they have enough fuel on hand for energy development (in part because of the low amount we're letting them keep) there needs to be advance notice. A 24 day notice is about the same thing as saying there will be an inspection every 24 days. There is a multi day if not multi week period in which to clean up material if they are going to go behind the backs of the inspectors. That start up/clean up time takes up the majority of time in that 24 day period. It's not nearly as bad as you think it is, and is likely a reasonable compromise time.


Bottom line: we do not know how much material they have already produced and we cannot truly find out how much they are making after implementation of the treaty since in 24 DAYS! Not hours, DAYS! they can move a considerable amount of material to avoid our inspection.


Actually, we do know because we are limiting them on production capability. There is a theoretical maximum to the amount their centrifuges can produce and we are requiring them to present the fuel they create for energy development. It's fairly easy to determine how much they can be holding back on from the amount of fuel presented.
edit on 4-8-2015 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 10:37 PM
link   
a reply to: FlySolo

The problem here is that people are trying to draw a moral equivalence between a Theocracy and a Country under the control of a Religious Zealot and one that's not.

People should just come out and say they hate Israel and their okay with a religious zealot getting 100's of billions of dollars and an arms embargo lifted to get even more weapons because they agree with the supreme leader when it comes to Israel.

Look, Israel isn't perfect but it isn't a Theocracy with a religious nut in control of the Country.

According to Iran's Constitution, the Supreme Leader is responsible for the delineation and supervision of "the general policies of the Islamic Republic of Iran," which means that he sets the tone and direction of Iran's domestic and foreign policies. The Supreme Leader also is commander-in-chief of the armed forces and controls the Islamic Republic's intelligence and security operations; he alone can declare war or peace. He has the power to appoint and dismiss the leaders of the judiciary, the state radio and television networks, and the supreme commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. He also appoints six of the twelve members of the Council of Guardians, the powerful body that oversees the activities of Parliament and determines which candidates are qualified to run for public office.

If the supreme leader was a Christian who wanted the destruction of Muslims, the same people especially on the left would be screaming against this deal.

Imagine if the supreme leader was a Christian and said this about Muslims:

Iran's Supreme Leader Khameni publishes book on how to eliminate Israel

Iran Supreme Leader: The Only Solution For Crisis Is Israel’s Destruction

Iran supreme leader touts 9-point plan to destroy Israel

'Kill all Jews and annihilate Israel!' Iran's Ayatollah lays out legal and religious justification for attack

The supreme leader just published a book on how to destroy Israel. He said you do it through terrorists attacks.

Khamenei boasts about the success of his plans to make life impossible for Israelis through terror attacks from Lebanon and Gaza. His latest scheme is to recruit “fighters” in the West Bank to set up Hezbollah-style units.

We just gave this religious nut access to 100's of billions of dollars and more weapons.

Like I said, if the supreme leader were Christian and he said these same things about Muslims there's no way Obama and those on the left would support this deal.

They should just be honest and say they hate Israel so they think it's okay for a Religious Zealot to destroy Israel.

The left goes crazy if a teenager wears a shirt to school saying I'm a Christian, but they're okay with a religious nut getting 100's of billions of dollars to spread terror, dominate the region and destroy Israel???????
edit on 4-8-2015 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 10:55 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic



war.....is..... inevitable.....and....has....beeen....for....234598274592847592845729843752983475....
years....in....the.....middle........east.....




iiii....hooopppeeee........this.......cleears.....it....up.......aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

...lil.
............bit



edit on 4-8-2015 by YeahYea4 because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-8-2015 by YeahYea4 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2015 @ 12:37 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

I don't know what Iran's constitution has to do with anything. Take a look at Saudi Arabia's, yet they're an ally. Sharia-law and all. It sounds like you're upset Iran isn't like America with it's values or something, almost imposing. It's Middle East, don't try to understand it.




The supreme leader just published a book on how to destroy Israel. He said you do it through terrorists attacks.



Ok, that would be quite incriminating so I checked it out. The very first thing that came up was this site using your exact words "The supreme leader just published a book on how to destroy Israel. He said you do it through terrorists attacks"
www.haaretz.com...

This caught my eye
Haaretz, Israeli news-

The 416-page book, entitled “Palestine,” reportedly reached The Post through a source Iran - the only place the book is said to be currently available in. The report has yet to be confirmed independently and was written by Amir Taheri – an Iranian expat whose reports have been mired in controversy amid claims of fabrications.
read more: www.haaretz.com...


Really? This needs a little fact checking. I know right now Netanyahu has a fierce campaign on its way to discredit the deal so this fact makes me skeptical. I also know a lot of words are misused in translation. Where in farsi they're not saying to "destroy Israel", they're saying Israel doesn't deserve to be a state as per the 1948 UN appropriation of territories. The rest of what he supposedly says in the book can't be confirmed. Where's the book?

I think it seems very unlikely the ayatollah is going to say these things right after a deal is struck, and then publish before it's even been approved before congress. Pretty ballsy don't you think? IF all this is true, then you have one hell of a point. Until then, I need to see more than a dodgy story from a dodgy Israeli reporter.



posted on Aug, 5 2015 @ 12:39 AM
link   
No Iran isn't great. Neither was the Soviet Union when we started engaging them. This is how tensions are eased. Russia isn't a model today but they're a far cry from the USSR, and regardless, you'd have an impossible time trying to pin the rise of Putin on SALT.

There are a few countries out there that can maintain draconian power by directing their subjects look elsewhere, typically towards the US, and demonize us. Iran and Cuba spring to mind. When we're no longer the boogeyman, guess what the prospects towards internal change looks like? I'll give you a hint: better.

American engagement and soft power are our strongest weapons. Our military is good but wars always have unintended negative consequences - see Iraq. I'm assuming your option would be bombing them yes ? Because even Bibi concedes this delays their bomb (if they were to get one), by a decade.

Since you never actually said, what is your option?



posted on Aug, 5 2015 @ 01:52 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Israel ex-security chiefs urge Netanyahu to accept Iran deal

 


In this video, you can see that the former Iranian President and his 'reputation' of being tougher than the current one, can perfectly meet with Rabbis ... when they are anti-zionists.



posted on Aug, 5 2015 @ 08:22 AM
link   


noun
noun: zealot; plural noun: zealots a person who is fanatical and uncompromising in pursuit of their religious, political, or other ideals.
synonyms: fanatic, enthusiast, extremist, radical, young Turk, diehard, true believer, activist, militant; More bigot, dogmatist, sectarian, partisan;
informalfiend, maniac, ultra, nut; eager beaver "York was too much of a zealot for the party to endorse seriously"
historical a member of an ancient Jewish sect aiming at a world Jewish theocracy and resisting the Romans until AD 70. noun: Zealot; plural noun: Zealots


Benjamin Netanyahu is a true zealot; there is nary a word in the definition that does not apply to him.



posted on Aug, 5 2015 @ 08:56 AM
link   
a reply to: FlySolo

WHAT????? You said:

I think it seems very unlikely the ayatollah is going to say these things right after a deal is struck, and then publish before it's even been approved before congress. Pretty ballsy don't you think? IF all this is true, then you have one hell of a point. Until then, I need to see more than a dodgy story from a dodgy Israeli reporter.

This is just naive. The Supreme leader was saying these things DURING the negotiations. John Kerry said Iran needs to stop the death to America chants.

John Kerry to Iran: Stop ‘Death to America’ chants

The secretary of state also said he pressed the Iranians to cease calling for the destruction of Israel during nuclear talks in Switzerland.


www.politico.com...

Sadly, people don't understand or accept who the Supreme Leader is because of their blind hatred for Israel. He's a religious zealot who has control over Iran.

If the supreme leader was a Christian screaming for the destruction of Muslims there's no way Obama and the left would support this deal.

The fact that you're trying to scapegoat the religious nut shows that reason and common sense doesn't matter. It's about Israel. So you will justify this nut getting 100's of billions of dollars and lifting of the arms embargo.

If the supreme leader was such a great guy whose ready to sing we are the world, why put any sanctions on them in the first place?

Even after the deal he tweeted a picture of Obama committing suicide.

Iranian Supreme Leader Tweets Picture of Obama Committing Suicide

www.thegatewaypundit.com...

Why does Obama support the Mullahs and the supreme leader in Iran but he didn't hesitate to support the ouster of Mubarak in Egypt?

When the Greens in Iran wanted to overthrow the Mullah's and end Theocracy Obama was silent. It was the exact opposite of what happened in Egypt.

The Greens sent out a plea to the world and the left did nothing. When the same thing happened in Egypt with the Muslim Brotherhood Obama and the left supported it. Why is Obama supporting and propping up these religious zealots in Iran?


“So now, at this pivotal point in time, it is up to the countries of the free world to make up their mind,” states the opposition memo dated Nov. 30, 2009. “Will they continue on the track of wishful thinking and push every decision to the future until it is too late, or will they reward the brave people of Iran and simultaneously advance the Western interests and world peace.”

The eight-page memo describes the current regime under Ayatollah Ali Khamenei as a “brutal, apocalyptic theocratic dictatorship.”

The memo warns that Iran “with its apocalyptic constitution will never give up the atomic bomb, nor will it give up its terror network, because it needs these instruments to maintain its power and enhance its own economic and financial wealth.”


This is from a pro democratic movement in Iran but Obama and the left still doesn't support a movement to ouster a RELIGIOUS NUT. They instead give him access to 100's of billions of dollars to dominate the region and spread more terror.

Of course, there is a scandal here. A terrible policy scandal. The Obama administration didn’t do — and still hasn’t done — anything to help the opposition in Iran. The Green Movement’s top leaders have been held in solitary confinement for more than a year. Thousands of dissidents, journalists, bloggers, and normal citizens have been imprisoned, tortured, and executed, and the dreadful repression continues apace, as does the terror war against us and our soldiers on the battlefield. The president has still not called for an end to the monstrous theocratic tyranny. Instead, he has catered to the needs of the evil regime, at the cost of American lives, our national security, and his personal legacy.

Again, IF THE SUPREME LEADER WAS A CHRISTIAN WHO WANTED THE DESTRUCTION OF MUSLIMS OBAMA AND THE LEFT WOULD BE AGAINST THIS DEAL.



posted on Aug, 5 2015 @ 12:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

Apparently, you totally missed the point of the post.

Giving them a 24 day notice prior to inspections is ridiculous. Surprise inspections with no notice, on the other hand, is the only way to prove there is no funny business going on.

In 24 days, a lot of equipment and material can be moved. This is a moot point. Inarguable.

We know how many centrifuges they have bought from overseas... but we do not know if they have produced any centrifuges of their own. We do not know how many of said "in house" centrifuges they have manufactured, if any. Reverse engineering a centrifuge and mass producing them would not be a problem at all... particularly once the embargo on technology has been lifted.

Therefore we have a 23 day period (given that we actually do inspect every 24 days) during which they can produce an unknown amount of material and stash said material and extra equipment in places we are not inspecting.... shell game anyone?

Bottom line is we cannot actually verify diddle squat. If you cannot see that you are either blind or intentionally obtuse.

Bottom line: We do not know how many centrifuges they have. We do not know how much material they have already produced. We do not know, going forward, how many centrifuges they have and, as a result, how much material they can produce while playing the shell game.



posted on Aug, 5 2015 @ 02:17 PM
link   
a reply to: bbracken677

Didn't Stuxnet had a reporting function about how many Iranian devices it infected ?



edit on 5-8-2015 by theultimatebelgianjoke because: filled out



posted on Aug, 5 2015 @ 03:00 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

I'm just going to be succinct in my response. It's just history repeating itself. A nation wants to build nuclear, america freaks out - nation goes nuclear anyway. There's paranoia, finger pointing, propaganda, for about 20 years and nothing ever happens. Then they become friends. It's the same script with different players each time. Been there with Pakistan, Israel, India, Russia and the rest. Iran is no different. And frankly? I don't really care anymore. So sit back, grab some popcorn and wait the rest of your life because nothing is ever going to happen unless you want it to.



posted on Aug, 5 2015 @ 03:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: bbracken677
Giving them a 24 day notice prior to inspections is ridiculous. Surprise inspections with no notice, on the other hand, is the only way to prove there is no funny business going on.


Why would Iran ever agree to something so disruptive? What does the US have to offer to get that? Remember, negotiations are given and take, one side can't dictate the terms to the other. Especially when the side dictating is weaker.



posted on Aug, 5 2015 @ 03:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

The US is weaker than Iran? What are you smoking? lol



posted on Aug, 5 2015 @ 03:18 PM
link   
a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

I dont know..perhaps, but.... If I were going to maintain 2 programs (in effect) one using the purchased centrifuges and the other using in house made centrifuges they both would certainly not be on the same network. In fact, I would go to extremes to keep the unknown ones disconnected from the outside world. You do not need a network to run a centrifuge.

Besides...I proposed the possibility that they had unknown centrifuges. I have zippo proof except that in their shoes I would make sure a portion of my operation was an absolute black operation. I recognize that, perhaps, they have not taken that step.

My main problem is agreeing to a 24 day notice prior to inspection.



posted on Aug, 5 2015 @ 03:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

How is a surprise inspection disruptive if you are doing nothing wrong? Hmm?

If you are focused on reducing disruptions, I would think limiting the maximum number of inspections in a given period would be more effective.

It's rather obvious to anyone with half a brain that requiring a 24 day notice PRIOR to inspection is for the express reason of assuring you have enough time to hide crap. There is no other reason for that much advance notice.

Afterall, if you are doing nothing wrong, then a single surprise inspection a month would satisfy (should) both sides....if you are doing nothing wrong. IF.....


edit on 5-8-2015 by bbracken677 because: (no reason given)



new topics




 
19
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join