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: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:
Sep

posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 11:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd
It says Iran "is" to, implying that they have not yet, so they are allowing inspections at their convenience? Possible shell games, or are they just pushing it? How did that go anyway? I'm interested to know how those inspections went.



First you want to put you marks around the "to" not is.

They went there and are waiting for the tests. They said, IAEA cannot give the press any detail of the visits, due to their sensitivity, as the agency is not willing to analyze them right now.

There was rumers they were going to go there a second time, but the IAEA denied the report. Here is a link:

www.tehrantimes.com.../20/2005&Cat=2&Num=006




posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 12:07 AM
link   
Uh? And what dirt is in the base? I don't think there is to much dirt in a base. It usually concrete or wood.

Also, let Iran have them, it will keep Bush from invading them, causing him to resort to the draft to get more meat for the grinder. I swear, I trust Iran with them more then Bush, cause they know if they use them the world will attack them. But Bush thinks god put him in office, god tells him what to do, so if he nuked someone god will protect him. Iran knows not to use the nukes cause others will kill them. But Bush? WHo would dare mess with gods country? At least Iran would know what to do, unlike Mr. Whipee! What does this button do?


Sep

posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by James the Lesser
Uh? And what dirt is in the base? I don't think there is to much dirt in a base. It usually concrete or wood.


You can see a picture of it here:

www.globalsecurity.org...

There is dirt around the facilities, I am guessing thats what they will be taking


Sep

posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 12:13 AM
link   
And here is news from a while back on Sep 2004

www.spacewar.com...

Here is what the Iranian negotiator had to say about them visiting parchin:

"if this is requested by the IAEA, we are fully ready to cooperate."

And here is what the head of IAEA had to say

"We do not have any indication that this site has any nuclear-related activities"



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 12:13 AM
link   
The "muslims" are not a peaceful nation and will never be apart of the world community.


Sep

posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrRobertCamp
The "muslims" are not a peaceful nation and will never be apart of the world community.


You might not be aware of this but "muslims" are not a nation, they follow a religion, thought I let you inon the secret.



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 12:24 AM
link   


You might not be aware of this but "muslims" are not a nation, they follow a religion, thought I let you inon the secret.


Don't lecture me on these "muslims". I've seen their work on 9/11 and other past events. You "eurocrats" should continue to spread your liberal "idealogy" that America is the root of all evil, and the "mullahs" are practicing a religion of "peace".



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 12:48 AM
link   
What's with hate filled members choosing "Dr" as part of their name. It does nothing to bolster your credibility.


Sep

posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 12:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrRobertCamp
Don't lecture me on these "muslims". I've seen their work on 9/11 and other past events. You "eurocrats" should continue to spread your liberal "idealogy" that America is the root of all evil, and the "mullahs" are practicing a religion of "peace".


Why are you calling me a eurocrat?



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 01:27 AM
link   


What's with hate filled members choosing "Dr" as part of their name. It does nothing to bolster your credibility.


It's a superiority thing. You wouldn't understand being a self-proclaimed "eurocrat" and "socialist".



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 02:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sep
Do you hear yourself? There is not dirt in the facility, cause it is a millitary base. You show me a military base which is filled with dirt.


It says they will be talking samples from AROUND the facility. It says there will be no direct inspections OF the facility. Nuclear military facilities in Iran are likely located out of city limits, in the DESERT, where I've heard there is dirt. So if you were to take samples from around the facility, but not actually in the facility, you may encounter dirt. What other samples would they take?



They will inspect it and take the samples from around tha facility and leave. They do this, even though they are not allowed in military bases. Iran is trying to build confidence in the world, but the world isnt making it easy.


Oh, saying you can look around, but not in builds confidence? And it's the world who's not making it easy? Do you hear yourself?



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 02:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrRobertCamp
Don't lecture me on these "muslims". I've seen their work on 9/11 and other past events. You "eurocrats" should continue to spread your liberal "idealogy" that America is the root of all evil, and the "mullahs" are practicing a religion of "peace".


great,
another self proclaimed doctor.
again, you are judging a religion, and not men, that stand behind their actions.
it is not hard to label somebody of a "religious crime".
all religions CAN be looked that way, and all can have a "bad aftertaste" that you have with "muslims" and "mullahs". in your attidute towards them, you have shown your real face.
ok, so we got it wrong, yes?
american is really the one practicing the "religion of peace", and kindly spreading peace&love&unity among the "wild and savage" muslim population. wow, that is so kind of you! as long as there will be peace!
but the real problem is, that you created all this "terrorists", all these phantoms that you are now hunting. you created your own enemies. after all america is a strong empire, and strong empires NEED wars to stay alive, because its empires duty to wage and endless war in orded to stay strong and big.


Sep

posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 02:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd
It says they will be talking samples from AROUND the facility.


Ok, I am trying not to point this out so you can keep face, but since you are pushing it, ok.

Find the word AROUND in the two articles I posted. Tell me the line.

Here are the two sites:

nyjtimes.com...

freeinternetpress.com...



It says there will be no direct inspections OF the facility.


First sentence of the site I provided: "Iran is to allow the United Nations' nuclear watchdog to carry out inspections at one of its most secret military sites."

Here is the first sentence of the second source I provided:

"A group of specialists of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) arrived on Wednesday in Tehran to take samples at the Parchin military facility."

It sounds like they are visting the site. No matter how much you try to twist the words, it says it clearly that they are inspecting and taking samples of the site.


Oh, saying you can look around, but not in builds confidence?


What???


Oh and here is another link, it might clear up a few things:

www.abc.net.au...

Here is a few quotes:

"I confirm that a team of IAEA inspectors is today conducting an inspection at Parchin, including the taking of environmental samples," spokesman Mark Gwozedecky said in a statement released to the press by e-mail. "

"Tehran gave permission for inspectors to take environmental samples from the massive Parchin site, around 30 kilometres south-east of Tehran, in order to disprove US allegations of secret weapons-related activities."

"IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei announced last week that Iran had finally given the green light for his inspectors to probe Parchin after seeking access to the site since July."

[edit on 25-1-2005 by Sep]



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 10:40 AM
link   
I am sorry about this but I am fed up of the RACSISM!!!

Every time you talk about Iran, you mention its an Islamic state.... WHATS THAT GOT TO DO WITH ANYTHING?!

Everytime you say United States of Ameria, do you to add its a CHRISTIAN STATE?! NO You DONT!!

Also people here are claiming Muslims are evil and are the enemy... THEY ARN'T!! SO STOP BRINGING RACSIST REMARKS INTO THIS DEBATE!!!!

Thank You For Listening!

Edit: Typo's

[edit on 25-1-2005 by The_Squid]



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 11:30 AM
link   
How many people here who think muslims are the enemy know what Islam is about? Islam is about peace. The Koran is very similar to the old testament suprisingly. the same things like 'love your neighbour' are in the Koran.

Misinturpreting religions is not a wise thing to do, nor is thinking that the actions of fanatics are the opinions of the religion as a whole.

Racism is stupid and unnecessary so don't pick on religions as a whole.

and on to Iran having Nuclear weapons. I personally don't agree with nuclear weapons but the same theory that goes with nuclear fusion for bombs goes hand in hand with nuclear fission for reactors. i say let them work on their nuclear project, anyone with any form of common sense knows that using nuclear weapons as an offensive weapon will get them condemned by the rest of the world.

the US using the bombs on Japan....the Japanese refused to surrender when threatened with nuclear weapons. it is sad but then the generals were fools.

the only reason america developed the bombs first is because the british intercepted a U-boat carrying all of Germany's uranium to Japan and gave it to America whose nuclear project was further than theirs.

Until cold fusion or hydrogen fusion are worthwhile nuclear power is one of the best methods of getting power. just my two cents.



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sep

Originally posted by 27jd
It says they will be talking samples from AROUND the facility.


Ok, I am trying not to point this out so you can keep face, but since you are pushing it, ok.

Find the word AROUND in the two articles I posted. Tell me the line.


I was going off of what YOU told me. I never said the articles contained it.

You:


They will inspect it and take the samples from around tha facility and leave.






First sentence of the site I provided: "Iran is to allow the United Nations' nuclear watchdog to carry out inspections at one of its most secret military sites."


Again, we have no idea how that went, and what restrictions were placed on them.



Here is the first sentence of the second source I provided:

"A group of specialists of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) arrived on Wednesday in Tehran to take samples at the Parchin military facility."

It sounds like they are visting the site. No matter how much you try to twist the words, it says it clearly that they are inspecting and taking samples of the site.


And here's a little more of your second source:



A group of specialists of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) arrived on Wednesday in Tehran to take samples at the Parchin military facility.

"The delegation of Agency experts will be present in Iran for a week; the main aim of the visit is taking environment samples at Parchin to check them for radioactivity and, consequently, reveal violations of international agreements in the sphere of nuclear nonproliferation," RIA Novosti was told in the Iranian nuclear energy organization.

"There will be no direct inspections on the facility," said the source.


What does "There will be no direct inspections on the facility," mean to you, Sep? What's an environment sample to you, James the Lesser? Sounds like dirt to me.





Oh and here is another link, it might clear up a few things:

www.abc.net.au...

Here is a few quotes:

"I confirm that a team of IAEA inspectors is today conducting an inspection at Parchin, including the taking of environmental samples," spokesman Mark Gwozedecky said in a statement released to the press by e-mail. "

"Tehran gave permission for inspectors to take environmental samples from the massive Parchin site, around 30 kilometres south-east of Tehran, in order to disprove US allegations of secret weapons-related activities."

"IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei announced last week that Iran had finally given the green light for his inspectors to probe Parchin after seeking access to the site since July."


What does this prove, other than again, they are taking "environmental samples", dirt, and that Iran had FINALLY allowed them to do this after dodging since July. But I do not get from this that they are allowing FULL access to the ENTIRE facility, do you? Great point. Really clears things up.

Here's a tad newer article:



Following revelations about its clandestine nuclear research in 2002, Iran pledged to allow UN inspections of the research facilities, then denied access to undeclared sites. In October 2003, Iran promised the trio of Britain, France and Germany that it would cease enriching uranium, only to resume enriching it less than a year later. Under another deal with the “European Three,” concluded in November 2004, Tehran again agreed to suspend uranium enrichment, while continuing to insist that any such activity would aim only at a peaceful nuclear program. The most recent deal has held so far, but Iran’s behavior has failed to allay international suspicions, particularly those of the United States.

Whether Iran’s nuclear program is strictly peaceful or intended for military purposes has not yet been established, but the program’s potential is beyond doubt. Why is Iran engaged in this apparently dogged pursuit of WMD concealed by an endless series of dodges, half-truths and quasi-concessions it fails to implement?


www.merip.org...

Here's a bit more in which the writer outlines my exact feelings on the matter, to clear up any misconception that I am for war, without giving any chance for diplomacy:



Where to from here? How the nuclear question plays out will depend in part on how the internal debate unfolds inside Iran. One option that should be given serious consideration is the idea of a “grand bargain,” whereby Iran would give up its nuclear weapons program, cease its military support of Palestinian and Lebanese militant groups, and desist from running interference in Iraq in exchange for international support for its peaceful nuclear industry, guarantees of protection from regime change and other hostile military endeavors, and full reintegration into the community of nations. The Bush administration, whose accusations about Iran’s nuclear weapons program are undermined by its track record of WMD claims in the run-up to the war in Iraq, would be prudent to work toward this goal before the nuclear genie successfully springs its confines.


I am all for this, I do not want another war. But I VERY MUCH don't want Iran to obtain nuclear weapons, for everybody's sake. If everybody is so bent on an Arab nation to have nuclear weapons to counter balance Israel, allow Egypt or Jordan to have some, if it makes you happy. They are responsible Islamic nations, and I feel they are members of the civilized world. But not Iran. Might as well have given nukes to the Taliban while they were in power, as long as we're giving governments primarily based on religious law nuclear weapons. Personally I think we have enough nukes in the world, but I guess I'm pretty much alone on that here.



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 11:58 AM
link   
I'm sorry, what do you call a civilised country? a country does not have to be democratically run to be civilzed it just has to be civil. following those terms it would count america out when idiots like the bushes are in power. no one has a right to police the world. right now we should be more concerned that weve done more harm to the world in 50 years of little war that we have in the 250 years before that.

the war in Iraq was to remove saddam hussein. it was a good idea but it wasnt pulled off right. what the US should have done instead of instating a pathetic democracy would have been to put the Islam priests in charge. religion promotes human rights and, since Iraq was meant to be an Islamic nation, everyone in the country would have had some common ground.

There is nothing wrong with a people being led by a religious leader - look at the jews being led by moses or the christians by jesus - you just have to make sure that there is a set code of laws and that they apply to all. Islam has its own code of laws like judaism so you use them as a starting point for the laws then ammend them when necessary.

there shouldn't be restrictions on the production of nuclear weapons as long as the country producing them follows the UNs guidelines and makes sure the UN is informed.

And just a point, Iran isn't an Arab country and it was civilised long before America was. Also Islam goes back far longer than the US's history.
Need I also say that most modern culture springs from what we call the third world?

[edit on 25/1/05 by Rubber]

[edit on 25/1/05 by Rubber]



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrRobertCamp
Don't lecture me on these "muslims". I've seen their work on 9/11 and other past events. You "eurocrats" should continue to spread your liberal "idealogy" that America is the root of all evil, and the "mullahs" are practicing a religion of "peace".


Your ignorance is beyond comment.



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rubber
I'm sorry, what do you call a civilised country? a country does not have to be democratically run to be civilzed it just has to be civil. following those terms it would count america out when idiots like the bushes are in power. no one has a right to police the world. right now we should be more concerned that weve done more harm to the world in 50 years of little war that we have in the 250 years before that.


Yes it has to be civil. Have the words and actions of Iran's mullahs been civil? I never said it has to be democratic. It can be a dictatorship for all I care. You're exactly right, civil. Let's see how civil the mullahs are:



Strategic analyst Steven Daskal recently offered a reminder of the peril posed by Iran: "While the Islamic Republic of Iran as a state is technically not at war with the U.S., Ayatollah Khomeini's fatwa calling for total war by all Shi'ites, regardless of citizenship, against the 'Great Satan America' remains in effect — it has never been rescinded, and in fact was expanded to include killing Americans as being a necessary part of a defensive jihad to make the world safe for Islam. Khomeini's pioneering pseudo-theology was later picked up by Sunni extremists, including Osama bin Laden."


In a thoughtful article in the August 23rd New York Post, Amir Taheri recounted how Khomeini and his successors have translated that fatwa into a twenty-five-year-long war against the United States — waged asymmetrically, both directly (for example, in attacks against U.S. embassies and personnel) and indirectly (through terrorist proxies like Hezbollah in Lebanon, Muqtada al-Sadr in Iraq and Shi'ite warlords in Afghanistan).


Taheri correctly observes that "the Khomeinist revolution defines itself in opposition to a vision of the world that it regards as an American imposition....With or without nuclear weapons, the Islamic Republic, in its present shape, represents a clear and present threat to the kind of Middle East that President Bush says he wants to shape."


Therefore, for the United States, stopping the Islamist government in Tehran before it obtains the means to carry out threats to attack Americans forces in Iraq and elsewhere should be an urgent priority. For Israel, however, denying the ruling Iranian mullahs nuclear arms is literally a matter of national life and death.


www.jewishworldreview.com...



the war in Iraq was to remove saddam hussein. it was a good idea but it wasnt pulled off right. what the US should have done instead of instating a pathetic democracy would have been to put the Islam priests in charge. religion promotes human rights and, since Iraq was meant to be an Islamic nation, everyone in the country would have had some common ground.


If the people of Iraq want an Islamic government, that's their decision. I would support it. I would not support them obtaining nuclear weapons. Religion and WMD's don't mix, regardless of the religion. I would not want Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell to have nukes either. Bush is not really religious, it was a scam to get votes, that's all. He's a greedy corporate whore, I say again and again. Don't let him fool you like he did the evangelical sheep.



there shouldn't be restrictions on the production of nuclear weapons as long as the country producing them follows the UNs guidelines and makes sure the UN is informed.


So, you support the nuclear proliferation of the entire world, huh? As long as they promise to be nice. OK.



Also Islam goes back far longer than the US's history.
Need I also say that most modern culture springs from what we call the third world?


So third world countries should all be given nukes? That will go over great in Africa! Genocide will be made much easier for the various warring factions, but as long as they sign the UN "be nice with your nukes" agreement, they will never use them.



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 01:03 PM
link   
No i dont think everyone should have nukes, hell i dont think anyone should.
when you say 'Religion and WMD's don't mix, regardless of the religion.' you include Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Islam and if it counts as a religion Maoism all of which have/are making nuclear weapons. the UK is a Christian country, we have nuclear weapons. Israel has nukes, its a jewish country. India have nuclear weapons it is by majority a hindu country. China which is a Maoist country has nukes.

By saying 'Religion and WMD's don't mix, regardless of the religion.' you effect a lot of countries. Hell, the UKs head of state is also head of our church, has been for over 400 years, does that mean in your opinion we shouldnt have nukes? America when it was founded was founded as a christian country, it even says on the dollar bill 'in god we trust' so are you claiming that the US isnt a religious country?

i say again i dont think anyone should have nukes no matter what.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join