Wow: AP Confirms Secret Side Deal Allows Iran to Inspect Itself at Key Nuclear Site

a reply to: neoholographic

The Nuclear deal is a first stage for the US to attack Iran. The way i see it.... Iran has just been fooled into signing this deal, and will now be wide open for the US to attack Iran any time in the near future.

All the US have to do now is state that Iran have broken the agreement. The US dont even need real evidence to claim their accusations. They never have needed it and never will. But they needed this contract signed so that they can publicly pin a broken deal on Iran.

a reply to: neoholographic


Obama just indicted himself for impeachment and removal from office as a clear & present danger to the safety & security of the USA

there is absolutely no wiggle room with interpretation or rationalizing this away



the globalist elites must consider Obama's tasks are done, so they are throwing him overboard to fend for himself
the missing passenger jets and the false flag nuke will take however long that Iran can cobble together that Bomb (according to intel)
6 months - 1 year- 2 years ????

originally posted by: Seanoamericano
a reply to: IAMTAT
Iran has not attacked another nation in how many hundreds of years. I think its about time to discuss israels hundreds of Nukes and demand they abide by the same rules as Iran.

Iran has been at war with Western Civilization since at least the 70s if not earlier. But they have been smart about it by using proxy soldiers.

Why is it time to discuss Israel?

Have they shouted "Death to [Insert country here]!!" ? Especially during negotiations with that country?
Have they adopted an ideology that calls for the deaths of their enemies?
Have they threatened to push any ethnicity or nation into a sea or ocean?
Do they have a history of killing their own people? Or suppressing them?
Have they sent proxy soldiers into another country and killed soldiers with IEDs?
Have they armed terrorists?

As soon as Israel starts acting like that then yes we can treat them the same as Iran.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: beezzer
Own it all.

This would never have happened if the embargo had still been in place.

And that's a good thing. That's called progress.

Also, the rise of ISIS never would've happened if Saddam had still been in place. By your logic, I guess all conservatives are responsible for ISIS because of Bush's legacy. Own it. Own it all.

Actually the rise of ISIS has more to do with the empowering of the L.I.F.G, jabhat-al nusra, and the toppling of the Libyian Government than it does with Iraq. Of course, arming them, and sending them into Syria didn't help at all either. Even if Saddam had been in power still, the administrations plans & handling of Libya, and in some part Syria ; Would have still foemented the creation of ISIS.

originally posted by: CrawlingChaos

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: beezzer
Own it all.

This would never have happened if the embargo had still been in place.

And that's a good thing. That's called progress.

Also, the rise of ISIS never would've happened if Saddam had still been in place. By your logic, I guess all conservatives are responsible for ISIS because of Bush's legacy. Own it. Own it all.

Actually the rise of ISIS has more to do with the empowering of the L.I.F.G, jabhat-al nusra, and the toppling of the Libyian Government than it does with Iraq. Of course, arming them, and sending them into Syria didn't help at all either. Even if Saddam had been in power still, the administrations plans & handling of Libya, and in some part Syria ; Would have still foemented the creation of ISIS.

No, you're wrong on that. There was no al-Qaeda in Iraq, nor any other Wahhabi terrorist groups in Iraq under Saddam's reign. Love him or hate him, but he crushed all internal opposition equally. ISIS never would've found shelter in Iraq under Saddam.

So using the logic of the person I responded to, Bush bringing down Saddam created the conditions that allowed ISIS to form & prosper. Remember, the 2nd "I" in ISIS/ISIL stands for Iraq.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Seanoamericano
a reply to: IAMTAT
Iran has not attacked another nation in how many hundreds of years. I think its about time to discuss israels hundreds of Nukes and demand they abide by the same rules as Iran.

Iran has been at war with Western Civilization since at least the 70s if not earlier. But they have been smart about it by using proxy soldiers.

That's strange. Iran was a staunch Western ally under the Shah until early 1979. The Islamic revolution that took him out of power in 1979 held the Americans hostage specifically to get the Shah extradited back to Iran, since he'd taken asylum in the West.

Why is it time to discuss Israel? Have they shouted "Death to [Insert country here]!!" ? Especially during negotiations with that country?

Israeli leaders have called for attacks against Iran for at least the last 2 decades. Netanyahu's been particularly constant with his calls for attacks against Iran. Or does that not count?

Have they adopted an ideology that calls for the deaths of their enemies?

Are you serious? Every single country that wages a war has "adopted an ideology that calls for the deaths of their enemies". Have you forgotten how many people Israel's killed in its wars? I'm not even sure if I should take the rest of your post seriously after this question.

Have they threatened to push any ethnicity or nation into a sea or ocean?

Let's see, instead of supposed threats, they actually forced 750,000 people out of their land during the Nakba; are literally destroying Bedouin towns pushing them into the desert; and are demolishing Palestinian Muslim & Christian neighborhoods while giving that land the Jews. And one of their leaders called for Palestinians to be rounded up into internment camps during the last uprising. Do those count or are you going to move the goalpost?

Do they have a history of killing their own people? Or suppressing them?

LOL What are you even talking about here? It's so vague it can mean anything. Do you mean capital punishment, citizens killing citizens, police killing protesters? Be more specific. Or do you mean like the "Hannibal Directive" aka the "Hannibal Protocol", which is an Israeli policy of killing its own soldiers to prevent them from being abducted?

Hadar Goldin and the Hannibal Directive
Israeli Soldiers May Have Killed Comrade To PreventAbduction During Gaza War
Israel Murders IDF Soldier to Prevent His Capture

Have they sent proxy soldiers into another country and killed soldiers with IEDs?

You don't know much about the Mossad & Israeli defense forces, do you? Look into Israel's invasion of Uganda (Operation Entebbe) & Israel's attack on Tunisia (Operation Wooden Leg). And those are just off the top of my head.

Have they armed terrorists?

You mean like this?
Report: Israel treating al-Qaida fighters wounded in Syria civil war
Israeli Army Admits Aiding Al-Qaeda in Syria

As soon as Israel starts acting like that then yes we can treat them the same as Iran.

So you finally agree that it's time to treat them the same as Iran? Good! Let's start with inspecting those nuclear sites!

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: CrawlingChaos

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: beezzer
Own it all.

This would never have happened if the embargo had still been in place.

And that's a good thing. That's called progress.

Also, the rise of ISIS never would've happened if Saddam had still been in place. By your logic, I guess all conservatives are responsible for ISIS because of Bush's legacy. Own it. Own it all.

Actually the rise of ISIS has more to do with the empowering of the L.I.F.G, jabhat-al nusra, and the toppling of the Libyian Government than it does with Iraq. Of course, arming them, and sending them into Syria didn't help at all either. Even if Saddam had been in power still, the administrations plans & handling of Libya, and in some part Syria ; Would have still foemented the creation of ISIS.

No, you're wrong on that. There was no al-Qaeda in Iraq, nor any other Wahhabi terrorist groups in Iraq under Saddam's reign. Love him or hate him, but he crushed all internal opposition equally. ISIS never would've found shelter in Iraq under Saddam.

So using the logic of the person I responded to, Bush bringing down Saddam created the conditions that allowed ISIS to form & prosper. Remember, the 2nd "I" in ISIS/ISIL stands for Iraq.

The disposal of Saddam Hussien is not what lead to A.Q.I. The LIFG, AL-Nusra Etc.. coming into power as we see them today. The roots of that lie in Libya.