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.

 

Iran Promises 'Burning Hell' for Any Aggressor

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reuters.myway.com...





Iran, facing mounting U.S. pressure over its nuclear program, promised Thursday a "burning hell" for any aggressor as tens of thousands marched to mark the 26th anniversary of its Islamic revolution.

"The Iranian nation does not seek war, does not seek violence and dispute. But the world must know that this nation will not tolerate any invasion," President Mohammad Khatami said in a fiery speech to the crowd in central Tehran.

"The whole Iranian nation is united against any threat or attack. If the invaders reach Iran, the country will turn into a burning hell for them," he added, as the crowd, braving heavy snow blizzards, chanted "Death to America!."




This is to be accepted, but are their leaders leading them to death in a war with the US.



President Bush said Wednesday a nuclear-armed Iran would be "a very destabilizing force" and urged the West to work together to stop this happening.

"The Iranians just need to know that the free world is working together to send a very clear message: Don't develop a nuclear weapon," Bush said.



What is wrong with this? He is asking them to not do it but they chant Death to America, and pursue the technology the ENTIRE world is asking them to stop creating.





Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Wednesday Tehran must accept a deal being offered by the European Union -- to scrap potentially weapons-related work like enrichment in return for trade deals and other incentives -- or be referred to the Security Council.


You don't want to go to the Security council Iran, next thing you know there are cruise missles on your doorstep....




Several carried effigies of Bush, one of which, carrying a banner which read "I Love war" was burned.

"America must fear the nation that does not fear death," said Mojtaba Hamedani, 45, a veteran of Iran's 1980-1988 war against Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

"If there is a war, I will be the first one to go to the fronts and if I'm killed I will join my comrades who died fighting Saddam," he said.




I, for one, am not looking forward to this in light of the release of NK's nuclear arms. How can we prevent world destruction, yet keep ourselves safe? Is there a way other than war?

[edit on 10-2-2005 by esdad71]




posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 12:14 PM
link   
The only person who could prevent world destruction is Bush but he seems to want this to happen the way he talks to the world. We can have WMD but if you have them we are coming to kill you, if you don't run the government the way we say we will come and kill you, If there are terrorists in your land( even though we have them here to)we will come and kill you. Half of america doesn't care because they don't think about it from the other side what if some country demanded our WMD, told us they were going to show us how to run our government? ever think of that


[edit on 10-2-2005 by Kramthenothing]



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 12:27 PM
link   
I think more people should try thinking with the shoe on the other foot.....I know when I do this....my thought process goes to if I was Iranian I'd be wishing I had a nuke too...not to use of course but to use to a tactical advantage...especially with Bush and company on the doorstep.

Is my thought process flawed for thinking this way?



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 12:38 PM
link   
So much for non proliferation. Honestly I can understand Iran wanting a nuke or two right now, I don't think it is a good idea to let them have nukes but I can see why they feel they need it. The whole situation is out of control fundamentalists on both sides are baying for blood. Now the real question is are the rest of us smart enough to be damn sure the dogs of war don't slip the leash?



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
Is there a way other than war?

Diplomacy. Failing that, agressive sanctions. Failing that, ultimatums, failing that, no.



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by astral_ice
So much for non proliferation. Honestly I can understand Iran wanting a nuke or two right now, I don't think it is a good idea to let them have nukes but I can see why they feel they need it. The whole situation is out of control fundamentalists on both sides are baying for blood. Now the real question is are the rest of us smart enough to be damn sure the dogs of war don't slip the leash?


The entire reason Iran wants nukes is to destroy Israel and America (jewish slave state). Period. Game over. Anything else is BS.



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrHoracid
The entire reason Iran wants nukes is to destroy Israel and America (jewish slave state). Period. Game over. Anything else is BS.

Are you an expert on iran?
No, this is your opinion, please state this before you make wild alegations like that.
Also can you see the reasons WHY they want to do this?



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by DrHoracid
The entire reason Iran wants nukes is to destroy Israel and America (jewish slave state). Period. Game over. Anything else is BS.

Are you an expert on iran?
No, this is your opinion, please state this before you make wild alegations like that.
Also can you see the reasons WHY they want to do this?


link one

link two

answering-islam.org.uk...

MUHAMMAD'S EARLY TERRORIST ACTS



After moving to Medina, Muhammad began to have conflict with the Jews and pagans in the area. I'll focus on several incidents, not necessarily in chronological order, that illustrate Muhammad as a terrorist.



The first terrorist incident involves Muhammad's command to his followers to "kill any Jew who comes under your power".



From Guillaume, op cit, page 369:



"The apostle said, "Kill any Jew who falls into your power." Thereupon Muhayyisa b. Masud leapt upon Ibn Sunayna, a Jewish merchant with whom they had social and business relations, and killed him. Huwayyisa was not a Muslim at the time though he was the elder brother. When Muhayyisa killed him Huwayyisa began to beat him, saying, 'You enemy of God, did you kill him when much of the fat on your belly comes from his wealth?' Muhayyisa answered, 'Had the one who ordered me to kill him ordered me to kill you I would have cut your head off.'"



END OF QUOTE



[edit on 10-2-2005 by DrHoracid]



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 12:51 PM
link   
A) your first source says , " militant Islam on Americans before September 2001" does america not think they where attacked by anyone else?
B) Second source shows what iranians really feel in its first paragraph, "Iran says it is deeply concerned about the U.S. military presence in neighboring Iraq and Afghanistan, and announced yesterday that some Iranian generals favor pre-emptive strikes against U.S. and Israeli forces if they sense an imminent threat. " some americans wanted a pre emptive strike on russia, does this mean this is any diffrent?



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 01:02 PM
link   
Iraq turned into a burning hell, that is still burning. Why wouldn't Iran? Will they greet us as liberators and throw candy and flowers at our feet? Will they rise up and help us overthrow their government?



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 01:49 PM
link   
I think when we go to war we should just add more states...

Why bother with all the BS nation building. Elect a Governor of the 51st and 52nd and (Iran?) 53rd state. (N Korea 54?) Hope not nothing there worth our time and effort.

I rather just stay out of war but if we go to war we should take the spoils.

X



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 02:01 PM
link   
wow again the racist DrHoracid changes a topic into religous discussion




posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by bodrul
wow again the racist DrHoracid changes a topic into religous discussion



Easy now.

The devil's advocate says the title of this thread does have "hell" in it, which certainly does connotate connecting in religion to to the topic. Realise that the flip-side of the coin might call this a Holy War, making it important to them.

There will always be an alternate view...even if it not well liked. As long as the Term & Conditions of ATS are followed, we should all be able to enjoy discussion from all points of view. Even views that might not well liked.

Take a step back and ask...What Would Skippy Do?

/Game on.



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 02:28 PM
link   
All I can say is that given the circumstances in which US invaded Iraq, other countries as sovereign countries will have the right of protecting themselves from anything that will harm their citizens because the well being of the citizens of any country falls under their governments.

We will defend ourself here in American from any aggressor and so any other sovereign country in the world.

It is not about taking sides and calling Iran and any other country evil but it's about the rights of any nation to protect their people.

I will be very trouble of the new turn of events now with Iran and NK.

Instead of making these countries intimidated they are actually provoking the US.



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 02:29 PM
link   
This whole situation is so god damn stupid and filled with personal revenge of the likes of Rumsfeld and Co.

Destabilising middle east with wars means MORE terror and MORE terror groups, not less. They thrive in countries which do not have stable goverments.
To destabilize Iran with war is about the WORST thing one could do there.

Iran has been practicing isolationist policy for decades, the only war they fought was the one Saddam iniciated decades ago. They will not attack first, since they really do not have anyone to attack. Also, a real offensive war on, lets say, Israel would require active ground troups sent there. And how are they supposed to get there? Through USA-controlled Iraq??
They won't launch nukes either, since that would mean mutual destruction (the same thing that stoped USA and USSR from launching nukes)

Not to mention that they have no reason to fight any war at this point.

However, they do have every right to DEFEND their sovereignty in case someone decides to ATTACK them, just like any other country on this planet would do.
I seriously doubt that USA would sit back and let China invade them, for example.



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 03:25 PM
link   
Rumsfield and co, yeah, they have ALOT of unfinished business in Iran. That is so ridiculous. We have been in Iraq for 2 years, now new terror attack in the US. YOu do not let terror groups grow uncontrolled, you go after them, seperate them the country they reside and systematically destroy them.

Iran should stop rattling the sabre if they don't want their major milatary facilities reduced to parking lots. I don't want a war either, but I am not to keen on letting those Mullah's have some nulcear deterrant at their disposal. I don't care about Israel, but I do care about our troops over tehre, and the innocent civilians.

It is a matter of time and when, not if..........



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
Rums field and co, yeah, they have ALOT of unfinished business in Iran. That is so ridiculous. We have been in Iraq for 2 years, now new terror attack in the US. YOu do not let terror groups grow uncontrolled, you go after them, seperate them the country they reside and systematically destroy them.

(


No you don't let terror to regroup, but you do have to finish business before committing US to another war.

Also I am more worry about NK statement to the US than Iran possible nuclear attack on the US or "burn out desert"



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 04:17 PM
link   
Don't you find it funny how the pro-aggression people here in America are using such flawed logic?

The U.S. government is the aggressor here, not Iran. So that makes Iran the aggressor?



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 04:36 PM
link   
Shoot, who can blame Iran for wanting nukes? They woke up one morning and looked to the left, then looked to the right, and started building bomb shelters.

There has only been one small country who has told the rest of the world to take a hike and is still around. NK. How did it do that? It had nukes, that's how. Iran read the writing on the wall and took notes.

It's a shame that the only method for a nation to ensure it's security is with WMD, but that's reality in the 21st century.



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 04:37 PM
link   
Why do all people find it so much easier to put blame on someone else, for example "Bush" "Rumsfeld & Co" etc... Why not just take ownership, Yes we are Americans, Yes we are a Superpower, Yes we wont tolerate any other country trying to build themselves more powerful than ourselves. Think about it logically.. even like a business, If someone becomes more profitable than your business you do what you can to compete, and the one that hold the most profit always puts the others out of business or should I say, whoever holds the most nukes will always be considered the "Superpower". This is all nonsense, and is just History repeating itself, Its all a matter of who is tougher than who, a pissing match between all of us with the reality, no one is stupid enough to use them no matter what anyone says, because once the Earths atmosphere is shot up with nuclear radiation, we all are dead and no one wins.

just my thoughts



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join