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: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 04:47 PM
link   
If is any consolation US is going to have a bid this year to reopen the Los Alamos nuclear facility and to privatized and it will be building all kind of nuclear bombs, UT will be the favorite to bid on it but UC will win the bet.

More to come on that one is still on the works.




posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
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?


well they have stated their goal to destroy israel publicly many times and groups they support like hamas have stated it as their goal too.

no wild allegations, its fact.



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 05:13 PM
link   


well they have stated their goal to destroy israel publicly many times and groups they support like hamas have stated it as their goal too.

That may be but do you think they will use nukes?
No , because they believe that land is there's and they wont nuke their own land.
Also they are not stupid.


no wild allegations, its fact.

I dont see any , "we will nuke isreal" or we will nuke america posters, vids, films, comments or anything.



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 05:18 PM
link   
So how come this bit was left out, hmm?


We will not produce nuclear weapons because we are against them

President Mohammad Khatami

news.bbc.co.uk...



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
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.



Marge, most people tend to over look that the fact that on May 17, 1987, IRAQ used a French Mirage F-1 to launch two Exocet anti-ship missiles that struck the USS Stark before the Gulf War, killing over 40 American sailors. THIS IS AN ACT OF WAR, I repeat. THAT WAS AN ACT OF WAR which pretty much negates your arguement we attacked a soverign nation. We attacked a nation WHO DECLARED WAR on the USA in 1987. Even our neighbours to the North said, "The 1987 attack on the USS Stark was DELIBERATE."

www.thewednesdayreport.com...

There's more. June 26, 1993, "U.S. Navy ships launched 23 Tomahawk missiles against the headquarters of the Iraqi Intelligence Service yesterday in what President Clinton said was a "firm and commensurate" response to Iraq's plan to assassinate former president George Bush in mid-April."

"It was an elaborate plan devised by the Iraqi government and directed against a former president of the United States because of actions he took as president," Clinton said. Bush led the coalition that drove Iraq from Kuwait in the 1991 Persian Gulf War. "As such, the Iraqi attack against President Bush was an attack against our country and against all Americans," Clinton said.

I'm from the same mold as Bush Jr. You try and kill my dad I'm going to lay a little "smack down" on your head.

I'm sure you look at this ... this way.

Good: Clinton relied heavily on evidence found by FBI bomb experts linking the Iraqi Intelligence Service to a 175-pound car bomb found April 14 in Kuwait City (to kill Bush Sr).

Bad: Bush relied heavily on the FBI, CIA, UN, and ever intelligence agency in the world to dissarm Saddam of his WMD's. Come to think about it, Saddam himself was a WMD.

www.washingtonpost.com...

Chief



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 06:10 PM
link   
Regardless of what IRAN said only got 2 words for 'em

"Bring it"



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 07:27 PM
link   
NK is prepared for an assault and has been for years. I don't know about their rocket technology but either way if 5 nukes got through our screen it would mean grand chaos falling on New York, Detroit or California. One thing is for sure we are not prepared for any nuclear attack. Anyone walking the streets here can see that plainly. Who ya gonna draft in a first strike?

Iran's capabilities are known and they are being shoved to see if anyone punches. Militarily Iran cannot win. The Republic can fight hard and valiant and I'm sure every Persian would die readily but the outcome would be the same. One thing is for sure every tactician seeks a hole in his enemies defenses and I assure you there is always a hole. Don't think for a minute a nation on the defensive will not seek to make use of any means possible to insure victory - or more importantly their survival.

I certainly am not confident in our administrations ability to NOT overly aggress a nation to strike out of pressure due to the administrations flawed foreign policy. I would hate to think 'Texas Hold Em' is being played here cause mostly you lose.



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
You don't want to go to the Security council Iran, next thing you know there are cruise missles on your doorstep....


funny...there have been repeated UN security council resolutions calling on Israel to dismantle its apatheid apparatus in Gaza and the West Bank, and remove Israeli settlers from palestinian land, but nothing ever happens when Israel refuses to comply. Imagine that.



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by iksmodnad
Regardless of what IRAN said only got 2 words for 'em

"Bring it"


will you be fighting yourself? Surely any american who is so gung-ho about war must have experienced it or is planning on fighting.


[edit on 10-2-2005 by General Zapata]



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 08:14 PM
link   
Iran can barely control its own population, it is nothing but bark at this point.

I just want to make something clear here. We do NOT need to invade Iran to watch it fall, it will IMPLODE, it just needs a push....


Sep

posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by w555hc
Marge, most people tend to over look that the fact that on May 17, 1987, IRAQ used a French Mirage F-1 to launch two Exocet anti-ship missiles that struck the USS Stark before the Gulf War, killing over 40 American sailors. THIS IS AN ACT OF WAR, I repeat. THAT WAS AN ACT OF WAR which pretty much negates your arguement we attacked a soverign nation. We attacked a nation WHO DECLARED WAR on the USA in 1987. Even our neighbours to the North said, "The 1987 attack on the USS Stark was DELIBERATE.


Why did you wait so many years to respond? And one thing you over look is that after this incident the US government was smart enough to spin this around and attack Iran. If this was an act of war, then I would guess it means that you should have attacked them then. But you didnt and you provided them with loans and weapons. Why would you do that if you were in war with them?



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 08:45 PM
link   

as posted by sweatmonicaIdo
The U.S. government is the aggressor here, not Iran.


Please, in your best twisted interpretation, enlighten us as to how the US is the "aggressor" when applied to Iran, since of course the topic is dealing with Iran, sweatmonicaIdo.




seekerof



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 08:48 PM
link   
Iran Promises 'Burning Hell' for Any Aggressor

Iran is simply borrowing from the pages of N.Korea and Kim. Rhetoric compounded with more increasing rhetoric. The closer that you walk to the fence with that barking dog, the more the viciously the dog barks.....






seekerof

[edit on 10-2-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by iksmodnad
Regardless of what IRAN said only got 2 words for 'em

"Bring it"


The U.S government and it's supporters (you) can't think of anything intelligent to say, so they are basically repeating what Iran said.

Iran said "bring it." They never said THEY would bring it. Again, flawed logic at work.



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Please, in your best twisted interpretation, enlighten us as to how the US is the "aggressor" when applied to Iran, since of course the topic is dealing with Iran, sweatmonicaIdo.


LOL Twisted logic yet again. Here you go:

-Do you pay attention to current events? If so, you will realize Iran's "aggression" is a response to Bush and Friends "warnings" and challenges to Iran. Doesn't matter if the intention is good, Bush and Friends said it first, they are the aggressors.

-Iranian Revolution of 1979 was a response to the tyranny and atrocities of America's best Middle Eastern friend, Reza Shah Palavi. Thus, technically, the U.S. was the aggressor in their political bouts with the Middle East, for preaching human rights and all that c**p and then indirectly saying it didn't apply to the Iranian people. That's quite a slap to the face. And you wonder why Iranian people hate America so...

-Iran's destruction of Pan Am Flight 103 was a response to the the U.S.S. Vincennes destroying Iran Air Flight 655 and killing 291 people. Accidental is not an excuse. If Iran Air Flight 644 crashed into the WTC and killed 3,000 people, you would not take "it was an accident" as an excuse. You'd TRY to bomb them to a beautiful oblivion.

-The U.S.S. Vincennes shooting down Iran Air Flight 655 was totally inexcusible, as the events leading up to the shoot-down were some major aggression against Iran. I once thought Commander Will Rogers acted prudently, but now that I've learned more, Will Rogers, and many of his peers in the military agree he acted recklessly and instigated a dangerous situation by pulverizing four IRGC patrol boats that were not in any way showing any hostile intent, not to mention they were also in IRANIAN TERRITORIAL WATERS. And when it came time to analyze and identify ONE aircraft, he screwed up and killed 291 civilians.

-The U.S. government allowed Saddam Hussein to basically have his way against Iran and as a result 1.5 million Iranians were slaughtered by Saddam Hussein over nine years. When you support someone's aggressor, you are just as guilty.

So thus far, we got five HUGE cases of U.S. government aggression against Iran. And NONE of it is twisted, thank you very much!

But then again, the U.S. government's aggression is actually Iranian aggression in disguise, right? In your "logic?"

Case closed. Rock on!


[edit on 10-2-2005 by sweatmonicaIdo]



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 10:30 PM
link   
Yeah but there are no fences. The U.S. is completely open. Terrorism has a growing culture not a diminishing one, due to foolish commodity possession. This shows the true face of the current administration - they are not improving our children's future nor do they care to. Lets sum up the basic facts:

-Our childrens surplus has been robbed
-Our deficit will be in the trillions within a decade
-We and our children will bear the brunt of high taxes to repay what was stolen while those who robbed our surplus lavish in Halliburton wealth
-Our children will see an expansion of terrorism

When those in the White House take that oath of office it's to put American citizens before yourself. To use security as a blanket to rob and fatten yourself off the blood of Americans is utterly disgraceful. It's tyranny. What amazes me the most is how utterly irresponsible Americans have become having no understanding what we have lost. We have truly become blind sheep.

Hell Americans still don't understand what Iraq was about let alone what actually occurred in Afghanistan. The government has become so efficient at getting their agendas pressed through advertising and fraudulent fantasy while we struggle to make a buck and raise a family that we no longer even rally against it. We just ride the wave like a cork having thrown away the oars of our liberty.

The basis of re-electing Bush on a popular scale was under the guise that Kerry was not a better choice. That Bush would make us 'more' safe. The decision itself is a fantasy in your mind of what you have been reared to believe.



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 10:57 PM
link   

as posted by sweatmonicaIdo
Do you pay attention to current events? If so, you will realize Iran's "aggression" is a response to Bush and Friends..


Apparently you do not either?
Your mentionings relay time periods that do not deal with "Bush and Friends". I do not recall Bush being president during those times, but apparently you do? They do simply deal with the US though, which is the point here, correct?

Everything else that you indicate does not indicate outright "aggression".
You have again sorely and narrowmindedly forgotten to mention that Islamic fundamentalists mullahs, etc., that have taken control of Iran since the Shah was removed, is and are not what all Persian Iranian "students, women, reformers, and fed-up" Ayatollahs desire. They are not mere thousands, they are millions. Change is blowing in the wind and the mullahs smell it coming, hence there continued clamping down on those groups.
Iran, a Coming Revolution?

All the US has to do is apply the near same policies that are being used against N.Korea and Iran will also sooner or later, implode upon itself, as it did in the Revolution of 1979.

Outright "aggression" is not necessarily required, though you may continue to insist that the US is apllying such.




seekerof



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Apparently you do not either?
Your mentionings relay time periods that do not deal with "Bush and Friends". I do not recall Bush being president during those times, but apparently you do?


Neither do you pay attention to current events, but you have some lapses when it comes to reading. I never said all the events had to do with Bush.

I have nothing to insist. History is history. I have no idea why I even tried to explain any of it to you...



posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 01:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by vincere7
NK is prepared for an assault and has been for years. I don't know about their rocket technology but either way if 5 nukes got through our screen it would mean grand chaos falling on New York, Detroit or California.


NK can NOT hit anywhere in the US but MAYBE the west cost - and even then they would be hard pressed to hit anywhere accuratly. The countres that should be scared are those in Europe and Japan.



posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 02:49 AM
link   


Iran's destruction of Pan Am Flight 103 was a response to the the U.S.S. Vincennes destroying Iran Air Flight 655 and killing 291 people. Accidental is not an excuse. If Iran Air Flight 644 crashed into the WTC and killed 3,000 people, you would not take "it was an accident" as an excuse. You'd TRY to bomb them to a beautiful oblivion.


Pan Am Flight 103 was blown up by Libyans, they have edmited doing this couple of years ago and also you should add 1953 US coup in Iran to your list.
www.ce.pdx.edu...



By the way, crows of USS Vincennes got lots of medals and awards for doing the heroic job.



In addition to performing duties as the Battle Group Anti-Air Warfare Commander during her Western Pacific Deployments, Vincennes has been awarded the Navy Meritorious Unit Citation, the Battle "E" three times, the Combat Action Ribbon, the National Defense Medal, and the Sea Service Deployment Ribbon with four stars.

en.wikipedia.org...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join