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.

 

Here we go again...Iran's a nuclear threat

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 02:30 PM
link   
27jd

Iran's leaders are concerned with their money and wealth. That is what they care about. To suggest they would use a nuclear weapon is ridiculous. What point would having money be if they are attacked with nuclear weapons in retaliation. We all know retaliation would happen and so do they.

I really think people need to think about this realisticly. The Iranian leaders are not some nutters that want to destroy the world..jeez.,




posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 02:41 PM
link   
Really?



One of Iran’s most influential ruling clerics called on the Muslim states to use nuclear weapon against Israel, assuring them that while such an attack would annihilate Israel, it would cost them "damages only".

The speech by former Iranian President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani failed to catch the attention of the western press but made waves in the Middle East.

"If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in its possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave anything in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world", Former Iranian President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani told the crowd at the traditional Friday prayers in Tehran.


www.freerepublic.com...

They are not members of the greed club of the civilized world, I don't see how you could think they are. They are run by religious fanatics. Period. Bush is not a fanatic, but a greedy corporate whore who hijacked the religious right for his own cause, not god's. Would you be comfortable if Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell made decisions regarding nuclear weapons? I wouldn't. I'm not some war monger who is gung ho about another war, but I honestly feel this is serious. Please don't let your correct judgement of the war in Iraq cloud your judgement on this issue. We cannot allow Iran to get nukes, one way or the other. We will all pay the price.



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 02:44 PM
link   
Yes a former president. Remember all the trouble getting the latest in? Very much not the same kind of leader.



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kriz_4
Yes a former president. Remember all the trouble getting the latest in? Very much not the same kind of leader.


OK, let's examine your point here. Your saying that a country that had trouble getting a "level headed" leader (and I'm taking your word for it, I know little of their current leader) in office, should have nuclear weapons. And you are willing to bet yours and your childrens' future, on the hope that they will continue to have level headed leadership, even though it was a problem for them to get this one?



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 03:04 PM
link   
My favorite part of the article is its ending.



But Peres cautioned against Israel taking on the burden of confronting Tehran."The Iran issue is a global one. Let the world conduct the war. How much do we need to take upon ourselves."


A true blue way of dumping your problems on the doorsteps of others. Sort of like saying, "Here Mr. Bush, here is a little more fuel for your fire."
Like he needs it.

Edit: My first time quoting


[edit on 24-1-2005 by amarenell]



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by amarenell
A true blue way of dumping your problems on the doorsteps of others. Sort of like saying, "Here Mr. Bush, here is a little more fuel for your fire."
Like he needs it.


Really it's all of our problem. We cannot allow nuclear conflict to break out, anywhere. We would all be in trouble. Are you saying we should just sit back and hope for the best? I'm not even all that worried about NK having nukes, I hope they can work it out, but he's not a religious fanatic. He's nuts, but in an ego-maniacal way, he does not want to lose his "empire", that is unacceptable to him. I guarantee you martyrdom is not something he readily invites as a blessing. The clerics in power in Iran do.



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 04:08 PM
link   
I will bring again the subject it has never been a nuclear conflict between two countries only one side US nuclear conflict in which US used nuclear power.

It will be not nuclear conflict in the middle east unless US will start or Israel.

They may be third world countries but their leaders had the highest education around some even in the US.



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 04:20 PM
link   
27jd you are right. As is Peres himself when he states that this is a "global problem." Americans, per the actions of our government, have unfortunately brought some of this on ourselves.

I am not saying the whole crusade of zealous Islam to destroy the democratic societies of the world is our fault; I am refering to the fact that we have amassed the largest stockpile of weapons and recently launched an offensive war instead of the normal policing the globe defensive type.

Perhaps, to us, it is described as a defensive maneuver against terrorism, but to a large portion of the globe, we appear to be using our power to invade a country that has done nothing to us.
And then we tell other countries that they are not allowed to be even a portion as strong as we are. They can not have the technologies that we have. They should not have the capability of defending themselves from us.
In their shoes, we probably seem like religious zealots, bent on destroying the non-democratic (i.e., Islamic) societies of the world.

But, the actual point I was trying to make in my earlier post was the irony in Israel pointing out the problem for the world to see, and then taking a step back from it and saying it wasn't really Israel's problem. Particularly, in light of the fact that their own military is one of the the strongest around.



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
I will bring again the subject it has never been a nuclear conflict between two countries only one side US nuclear conflict in which US used nuclear power.


Well, there hasn't been any fundamentalist Islamic states who believe that by there god, Israel should not be, who have been nuclear powers. Also, as far as the US using nukes, I will say again, ANY party in WWII would have used nukes if they had them. That war needed to end. We had a plan to do it, it was not good, and scarred our soul as a country, but please stop using it for your own agenda. Here's some things Japan, who would have happily used nukes if they had them did before we, the evil ones, bombed them (already posted on another thread, but it is relevant here as well:



The Japanese army regularly conducted "Field Tests". Planes dropped plague-infected fleas over Ningbo in eastern China and over Changde in north-central China.

Japanese troops dropped cholera and typhoid cultures in water reservoirs, wells and ponds.

Cottony material and feathers coated with anthrax bacteria were used to spread the disease in an airborne manner, as such fibers had been found to be effective in keeping the bacteria alive long enough to reach the intended human victims.

Witnesses recall watching Japanese airplanes dropping a mixture of wheat, millet, soy beans, rice, cotton fibers, paper and fabric cuttings, aerial spraying pathogens over the cities . They all had been coated with the biological organism or with fleas and brought the germs to people.

Japanese distributed infected food, cakes, drink, clothes and children's candies to the locals.

The same mass infections were being repeated all over China.

"Glanders was a disease first found in horses, and it could attack human beings," said Furmanski. Human beings' legs are most affected by the disease. "Only one out of 20 people with the disease could survive.

Medical records showed that glanders had virtually been wiped out in 1906, but new cases suddently broke out in the 1940s during WWII in China."

Japanese showered 7 WMD Biological pathogens on Zhejiang province to retaliate the Doolittle Tokyo Raid.

Even today, one hard-hit village in Zhejiang still bears the nickname "Rotten-Leg Village" because so many older residents are scarred by glanders from the 1942 attacks. Their flesh are still rotten and have not been healed since they were attacked - they have been suffering for almost 60 years now.

Sheldon H. Harris, a historian at California State University and author of the book, "Factories of Death: Japanese Biological Warfare 1932-45 and the American Cover-up" stressed that "My calculation, which is very conservative, and based on incomplete sources as the major archives are still closed, is that 10,000 to 12,000 human beings were exterminated in lab experiments".

Outside the 731 prisons, the "Field Tests" were carried out all over China including Manchuria.

Scholars believe that the toll from Japanese-seeded cholera epidemics in the southern province of Yunnan alone may reach the staggering figure of 200,000 killed in May 1942.

3 months later, another 200,000 die in Shandong province as a result of Unit 731’s germ warfare. In the Zhekiang province city of Quzhou alone, over 50,000 perished from bubonic plague and cholera .............

As the war was ending, Japanese purposely released all the plague-infected animals. The Northeastern China immediately became a disaster area and caused outbreaks of plague that killed at least another 30,000 people from 1946 - 1948.

" There could be over 700,000 or even 1,000,000" lives lost to Japan's biowarfare program" said Daniel Barenblatt, author of new book A Plague Upon Humanity: The Secret Genocide of Axis Japan's Germ Warfare Operation.

These crimes are more than parallel to the coeval work of Joseph Mengele and the Nazi doctors.

Japanese military scientists killed 12 times the number of civilians as did the Nazi's Angel of Death - Dr. Josef Mengele.

Nazi doctors were held accountable for their crimes in the famous 1947 "Nuremberg Doctors Trials", but there were NO comparable "Japanese Doctors Trials".


www.skycitygallery.com...




It will be not nuclear conflict in the middle east unless US will start or Israel.


Then answer my question that NOBODY has yet. Do you trust the future of yourself and your family, in the hands of Iran's fundamentalist Islamic regime? It's a simple yes or no. Also, please read earlier post with quote from Iran's former president, about a nuclear attack on Israel. And thus far, both the US and Israel, who have both had nukes for quite a while, have not used nuclear weapons in the middle east, why do you think we would just nuke Iran for no reason?




They may be third world countries but their leaders had the highest education around some even in the US.


Iran's leaders have the highest education? Are you joking? Please say you are.




[edit on 24-1-2005 by 27jd]



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by amarenell
But, the actual point I was trying to make in my earlier post was the irony in Israel pointing out the problem for the world to see, and then taking a step back from it and saying it wasn't really Israel's problem. Particularly, in light of the fact that their own military is one of the the strongest around.


I see. But if Israel attacked Iran unilaterally, the entire Arab world would go ape$hit, way more than if we did it, Israel would be hit from all sides, suicide bombings, Syria would probably attack them and who knows who else. That's why they're not helping in Iraq, we don't want them to, it would cause way more problems than it helped.



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd

Originally posted by Kriz_4
Yes a former president. Remember all the trouble getting the latest in? Very much not the same kind of leader.


OK, let's examine your point here. Your saying that a country that had trouble getting a "level headed" leader (and I'm taking your word for it, I know little of their current leader) in office, should have nuclear weapons. And you are willing to bet yours and your childrens' future, on the hope that they will continue to have level headed leadership, even though it was a problem for them to get this one?



The whole point is that they DO NOT HAVE NUCLEAR WEAPONS. And no-one is supporting them in gaining them. There IS NO EVIDENCE they are trying to get nuclear weapons.

I never said they "should have" nuclear weapons, at least read my post.

And finaly, getting the current "Level headed" (your words)leadership in power was a struggle. Because they are "level headed" (your desription) they do not want to obtain a nuclear weapon and launch it.



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kriz_4
The whole point is that they DO NOT HAVE NUCLEAR WEAPONS. And no-one is supporting them in gaining them. There IS NO EVIDENCE they are trying to get nuclear weapons.


Really? What do you suppose this means?



In response to U.S. President George W. Bush’s recent remarks in which he said he wouldn’t rule out taking a military action against Iran, Ali Shamkhani, Iran’s Defense Minister said on Tuesday, that the Islamic Republic has the capability of deterring any military attacks against it.

Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani said that his country wasn’t shaken by the U.S. actions in neighbouring countries like Afghanistan and Iraq, where the U.S. forces toppled the countries’ leaders.

"We are able to say that we have strength such that no country can attack us because they do not have precise information about our military capabilities due to our ability to implement flexible strategies," Shamkhani was quoted by the semi-official Mehr news agency as saying.

"We can claim that we have rapidly produced equipment that has resulted in the greatest deterrent," he added.


www.aljazeera.com...



I never said they "should have" nuclear weapons, at least read my post.


I didn't say you think they "should have" nuclear weapons, but do you think we should just sit around and hope they don't obtain them? When it is clear, far more than Iraq, that they are trying?



And finaly, getting the current "Level headed" (your words)leadership in power was a struggle. Because they are "level headed" (your desription) they do not want to obtain a nuclear weapon and launch it.


My point here was, if it is so hard to get a "level headed" leader in power, it would not be hard to get one out of power. And sorry, hate to tell you, but Iran is ruled by fundamental Islam. There is no denying that, though you may try.



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 05:25 PM
link   
You know it amaze me how easily and is to critized other third world coutries when they are not like us.

Ignorance is a bliss.

No to many people has taken the time to research on the leaders of these so call, wild and irresponsible third world countries.

Here is some lessons for some of you that don't take the time to do a search, of the people our administration is tagging and calling axis of evil.

Mohammed Khatami, President of Iran.

1943: Born in Ardakan in the Yazd Province, as the son of an important religious leader of Iran.
1961: He studied Islamic sciences at the university of Qom.
In 2005 he received an honorary doctorate from the Dakar University.

Iran's foreign minister, Kamal Kharrazi

Dr. Kharrazi earned a doctorate in education from the University of Houston
in 1976. He holds a master's degree in education from Tehran University, where
he also received his undergraduate education. He has written and translated a
number of textbooks and articles on education, and management.

Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei (Religious leadder)

He achieved the highest degrees in his theological studies at the Theological Academy of Qum but continued his studies at the Theological Academy at Mashad up to the age of twenty-nine.

Do you know Arafat studied in the US, and that the supoused master minder of 9/11 Bin laden holds a degree in business.

No, I guess you don't care as long as our president tell's you how evil they are. Right?

They are muslin, they believe in alah, and they are from the middle east so they all al-qaida evil america haters.



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
No, I guess you don't care as long as our president tell's you how evil they are. Right?

They are muslin, they believe in alah, and they are from the middle east so they all al-qaida evil america haters.


See, you didn't answer my question, that's what I thought. And you of all people should know my thoughts on Bush. But now I believe everything he tells me because I disagree with you. I see. And now just because somebody has a college education, regardless of their actions (I see you listed such humanitarians as Bin Laden, Arafat, and Khomeni), they should have nuclear weapons? I see. I am highly against the war in Iraq, I hate Bush, and war in general. But I WILL NOT put my son's life in the hands of the Islamic fundamentalist leaders of Iran, I would trust Saddam Hussein WAY before them. He like Kim Jong Il, was an ego-maniac, not an Islamic fundamentalist, mutually assured destruction would work on him, not jihadists who WANT to die for Allah. I can see now how quickly you cast aside those who usually agree with you the second they disagree, and you don't even try to see my point.



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd
See, you didn't answer my question, that's what I thought. And you of all people should know my thoughts on Bush.


You want to keep you son safe I have two children and making wars is not going to make it any better for them.

I have not desire as I assume you either to sacrifice my children to wars.

When you said if i was kidding i decided to show you that these leaders do have education.

The actions of US in the middle east when attacked Iraq has made more enemies that you care to count, and going into Iran is not going to make it any better.

If I misunderstood your answer well I am truly sorry. No harm done.



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 06:01 PM
link   
>> If you got the Nukes, the U.S. won't invade you.



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 06:16 PM
link   
jd27, the answer is No! I would not trust the leaders of Iran with Nukes. No sane person would. No govenment based on subservience to an unproven myth should have that kind of power.

What has Iran (or any Islamic nation for that matter) done to be worthy of the responsibility that comes with Nukes, anyway? Yeah, it does matter. The US saved countless lives, won a World War, and prevented the next one with our nukes. We actually use nuclear power for things besides destruction. What American hasn't benefited from X-Ray technology?

What kind of leadership on the world stage has Iran displayed? What great humanitarian undertakings can we credit them with? How much food, money and aid assistance do they give to their lesser advantaged neighbors or to anyone?

Has there ever been any nation that has developed and used peaceful nuclear technology that hasn't also built the weapons? By allowing Iran to develop any nuclear technology you assure that they will develop nuclear weapons.

jd27's question comes back around. How many here trust the Islamic State of Iran with Nuclear Bombs?

That is a simple "I do" or "I don't" question.



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
yes, we're hypocrates given the fact that we are the ones poliicing the world and the first ones who'd push "the button"


Talk for yourself dgtempe!

I'm not a hypocrite! I don't "pretend" to have a "heart" like so many people here on ATS.

No one needs nuclear weapons, not even us!

But if anyone should have them, it should be us and we should make sure they stay out of hands of the ones that will use them out of anger and spite!

I hate to disappoint you but the United States will never use these weapons out of anger or spite! To stop, and I repeat myself, to stop an escalation of a crisis when all other avenues have been exhausted, it may happen, but never in a way that these people (Muslims) would.

Besides, we have nukes as a deterence. With third world, wanna-be-super-power-mad monkeys at the trigger, we may have to stop them the same way we had to put a halt to the Japanese aggression 60 years ago!

I won't say that we'll never use nuclear arms again, but I can say we'll never use them just to be using them, because the United States aren't evil like you want them to be.

I hated to disappoint you again there dg.


[edit on 24/1/05 by Intelearthling]



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 06:56 PM
link   
I would have never thought this of the government before, but as it stands right now, we are dangerous and have no more right to have them than anyone else.
I'm not dissapointed at all...we all have different opinions, isnt that what makes the world go round? I'm thick skinned in case you havent noticed by now...no problema



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 07:12 PM
link   
Yup it's true...

U.S. INTELLIGENCE OBTAINS IRANIAN NUKE PLANS

WASHINGTON [MENL] -- The U.S. intelligence community has obtained plans for what was described as an Iranian project to develop a nuclear warhead.

Officials said the plans were obtained by the CIA in November from an unidentified source. They said the source relayed more than 1,000 pages of technical drawings and documents of an Iranian nuclear missile warhead design.

In November, 2004, officials said, the CIA had sought to confirm the authenticity of the Iranian documents. The Iranian documents -- first reported by the Washington Post on Nov. 19 -- were said to outline a design for a nuclear warhead of the enhanced Shihab-3 intermediate-range ballistic missile. Officials said a warhead capable of containing a nuclear bomb appeared have been developed for the launch of the Shihab-3 in October 2004.

Iran has acknowledged that information from its nuclear program has been leaked to opposition sources and Western intelligence agencies. Since last August, Teheran has reported arrests of unidentified scientists and technicians in Iran's nuclear program.

www.menewsline.com...




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join