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.

 

Ayatollah warns U.S. needs punch in mouth!

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 2 2005 @ 12:12 PM
link   


Siroos, i think everyone would appreciate if you would get that iraqi transvestite
you have as an avatar off my screen.


I think she's kinda cute actually.
I don't think it's a she-male, maybe you're just projecting your own fantasies


And where did kidfinger say anything about hating America?!?

As for the threats... talk is cheap.

I for one cannot wait for some brownshirt idiot to come to my house and try to bully me because they think I am a "liberal wimp" or whatever - boy is that person gonna be in for a suprise


[edit on 2-5-2005 by xmotex]




posted on May, 2 2005 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex

I for one cannot wait for some brownshirt idiot to come to my house and try to bully me because they think I am a "liberal wimp" or whatever - boy is that person gonna be in for a suprise


[edit on 2-5-2005 by xmotex]


He/She is just running their mouth. Notice that after I posted my reply to his ignorant bullyism, he promptly got off ATS? Just goes to show that alot of the people who support this administration are mostly talk and few ideas.

BTW, thanks for the support


[edit on 5/2/05 by Kidfinger]



posted on May, 2 2005 @ 12:20 PM
link   
Judging by the number of responses to this thread, it's apparent many of my fellow American countrymen who love to talk loud and plenty about the rest of the world have the thinnest of skins.


I mean, really. Were your feelings really hurt that bad by what the Ayatollah said? Talk about an inferiority complex.



posted on May, 2 2005 @ 12:25 PM
link   
Yeah? Well maybe Iran could use a "kick" right between the between the "Ayatollah's" if you catch my meaning



posted on May, 2 2005 @ 12:31 PM
link   
Siroos

You seem like an intelligent person and I respect your position, however I am not in agreement with you. While it seems logical that any country with the will to produce nuclear power for peaceful purposes should be allowed to, it can not be overstated that Iran does not need nuclear power as they sit on some of the largest oil reserves on the planet.

It is obvious that the intent of the Iranain nuclear program is to produce
nuclear weapons either for use through 3 rd parties ( terrorists ) on the USA or as a deterrent force against Israel. To assume any onther reason is illogical at best and extremely dangerous at worst. Israel is on record stating that they will not permit the mullah regime in Iran to acquire an operative nuclear detternt force. I think if the Iranian governement was that concerned, they would heed such warnings. There will be no use for nuclear power solutions if your country is a radioactive wasteland.

The hypocrisy is real and the nuclear club plans on keeping it that way and I will add for good reason. While it is true that the United States is the only nation, or group for that matter,to intentionally detonate a nuclear device on a civilian population, an act I may also add I am ashamed of, it cannot allow the rogue nations to acquire a deterrent force and certainlky not an offensive force.

The strong survive, the spoils of war go to the victors, the United States should not, will not , and can not allow a fundamentalist, Islamic regime dictate how the game goes. Iran has a clear choice- Either heed the warnings of the US governement , concede to our demands for a non nuclear state or be forced to.



posted on May, 2 2005 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alias Jones
Iran has a clear choice- Either heed the warnings of the US governement , concede to our demands for a non nuclear state or be forced to.


And what right do we have to tell any other country they cant have nukes when we have the largest stockpile in the world? More double standards.......

You know, if this administration wasnt so hypocritcal in its statments, I might support them more. In other words, you get Bush to get rid of our nukes and then I will back any plan this administration has to attempt to get other countries to do the same. (within reason)

The geographic argument is just another lowbrow excuse to allow this administration to continue the hypocracy of their international policies.

[edit on 5/2/05 by Kidfinger]



posted on May, 2 2005 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Trustnone
Siroos, i think everyone would appreciate if you would get that iraqi transvestite
you have as an avatar off my screen.(just a suggestion). and stop america bashing and making excuses for radical regimes.

Kidfinger, your no better, you sit in louisville and make i hate america statements,i think this is rude and arrogant. If you enjoy their country so much go live there, I'd love to see how long you last.
I dont live that far away, i'll come down and put my boot in your "arse"
. thank you, im here all week!




FYI - The flag wrapped around her body is the tricolor of Iran and not the red, black green and white of Iraq. And she is a model wearing the clothes of a famous Iranian fashion designer. And no, I will not take it away as my avatar. If it doesn't please you - too bad! You see, you're trying to bully me now, just like your government tries to bully other countries. I'm going to continue to tell the truth about the U.S. government and system, and you can call that U.S. bashing or whatever - I DO NOT CARE! The real RADICAL regime is your government! It's a government of fascists. And it's a government that embarrasses the U.S. nation in front of the whole world with such goofball clowns as Bush jr and Condoleezzzzzzza, who has absolutely no clue what she's talking about!

I think your rudeness to Kidfinger is uncalled for and I will file a complaint against you with the moderators for that. People like you are not blind to the truth - You are the enemies of the truth. You know what democracy and free speech is all about - But you are against all that which democracy is about. You think it's "rude and arrogant" to critisize America, yet you think it's ok to tell Kidfinger that you'll come down to him and put your boot in his arse.

I know that the majority of Americans are good and decent people, but there are too many people like you in the U.S. - Much too many! Although the majority of Americans are good and decent people, there are too many ignorant, crude, arrogant, hysterical, decadent, corrupt, morally corrupt, unethical, selfish, materialistic, racist, greedy, dishonest, hypocritical and psychotic people there. Without these people American would be fantastic!



posted on May, 2 2005 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alias Jones
The strong survive, the spoils of war go to the victors, the United States should not, will not , and can not allow a fundamentalist, Islamic regime dictate how the game goes. Iran has a clear choice- Either heed the warnings of the US governement , concede to our demands for a non nuclear state or be forced to.


As I already stated it could be possible for Iran to have reactor with so called "caramel" - low enriched uranium suitable for peacefull purposes(power production) but not for making bombs. Aparently they don't want to go that way , instead they are planning to build plutonium and uranium enrichment facilities. So I really cannnot understand some people talking that Iran needs the reactors only for power production.


cjf

posted on May, 2 2005 @ 12:41 PM
link   


"If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave any thing in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world"-Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani Link



"Jews shall expect to be once again scattered and wandering around the globe the day when this appendix is extracted from the region and the Muslim world"-Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani

I believe there may be a little arrogance on both sides, perhaps one side more than the other.


“Had Saddam had nuclear weapons, he would still be in power,” -Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani Link



posted on May, 2 2005 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Siroos

Originally posted by edsinger

Nor is it any less diplomatic than to award the comander of the USS Vincennes with a medal for having downed an Iranian civilian plane, killing 290 innocent people.


[edit on 2-5-2005 by Siroos]


I believe you may have been a bit mis-informed. The Captain of that Cruiser was relieved of command and rightfully so and his carere virtually over not to mention the guilt he has carried., but it should be pointed out he was a "slave" to the ships technology and literally had 6 seconds to decide his course of action. IF the Airbus had been a misle As identified by the ships defense system his ship could have taken a leathal hit.
I'm not condonning the action, just giving a different view. It's a shame the boat was even there to begin with and I for one prayed for those innocent victims after the news broke.



posted on May, 2 2005 @ 12:45 PM
link   


The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is a treaty, opened for signature on July 1, 1968, restricting the possession of nuclear weapons. The vast majority of sovereign states (189) are parties to the treaty. However two out of seven nuclear powers and one possible nuclear power have not ratified the treaty.

Only five states are permitted by the NPT to own nuclear weapons: the United States (signed 1968), United Kingdom (1968), France (1992), Soviet Union (1968; since replaced by Russia), and the People's Republic of China (1992). These were the only states possessing such weapons at that time, and are also the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. These 5 Nuclear Weapons States (NWS) agree not to transfer nuclear weapons technology to other states, and the non-NWS state parties agree not to seek to develop nuclear weapons.




en.wikipedia.org...


Iran signed it.



posted on May, 2 2005 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by cjf

I believe there may be a little arrogance on both sides, perhaps one side more than the other.





Here are some for you:


You are either with us or you are agianst us.


or how about


The axis of evil


The fact is, there is to much bravado in both governments. However, that doesnt change the fact that Iran has as much right to Nuke tech as the US does. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander, isnt it?



posted on May, 2 2005 @ 12:47 PM
link   
Kidfinger,
From your last post on the double standard, yes the us has one (if not the largest) nuke stockpile. and yes we are (as well as the UN) are against the proliferation of such weapons. You see this as a double standard.
Then, you consider the laws in the us in regards to the ownership of hand guns as a double standard also.
By law, if you have a past history of mental instability you can not purchase a weapon. a "normal" citizen" though can go to the local gun shop and purchase one with impunity. This would be a double standard using the argument that you have just presented.
Do you want to see someone who is schizophrentic, manic-despressive etc owning a weapon? would you even want to be near someone in that condition that does have a weapon?
Iran's goverment has through the year demonstrated their extremeist views that are so extreme as to condemn the entire western world. Iran, having nuclear weapons is an extermely frightening thought. Even if they did not use the nukes on the us or the western world, i do not see anything stopping them from using such weapons on their neighbors such as egypt or israel. the use of such would quickly escalate a conflict to the entire region and then to the rest of the world due to various treaties and fears.
I am against irna having nukes and i would also love to see the us (and the rest of the countries) do away with theirs, but that is only a dream and is only in star trek.



posted on May, 2 2005 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
Judging by the number of responses to this thread, it's apparent many of my fellow American countrymen who love to talk loud and plenty about the rest of the world have the thinnest of skins.


I mean, really. Were your feelings really hurt that bad by what the Ayatollah said? Talk about an inferiority complex.


I'm so pleased to see so many DECENT and RIGTHEOUS Americans expressing their views here. I'm fully aware that the majority of Americans are very good people - it's just that they seem to dissappear into the background while these other loud-mouths presently are in the spotlight.



posted on May, 2 2005 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by kenshiro2012

I am against irna having nukes and i would also love to see the us (and the rest of the countries) do away with theirs, but that is only a dream and is only in star trek.


Intresting analogy......

I to am agianst ANY country having nukes, BUT, we can not tell one country they CAN have them then turn around and tell another neighboring country they CANT have them. The hypocracy is quite self evident. Though I do not agree with the production of nukes, I agree with freedom from oppression of a foreign nation. We have no right to make any kind of Nuke demands to Iran what so ever.

I would like to give you props for attempting to sway me with intelligent conversation rather than neandrathalithic banter and sub human wit that has been the norm on this thread.



posted on May, 2 2005 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kidfinger
The fact is, there is to much bravado in both governments. However, that doesnt change the fact that Iran has as much right to Nuke tech as the US does. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander, isnt it?


As I already said there are no "rights" in international politics. But there certainly are stupid decisions. And the decision to leave Iran (one of the fiercests todays american enemies, who already held whole embassy as hostages and are suporting terorists), alone, so they could make all nukes they want, could be the most stupid decision even made. It's already too bad NK has nukes now also Iran?
BTW there is no need for full scale war. The "Osirak solution" with minimum life loss would be enough.



posted on May, 2 2005 @ 12:55 PM
link   


Iran signed it.

Yes, and the US signed the the ABM Treaty, and later unilaterally withdrew.

I expect the Iranians to do likewise, no doubt calling attention to the US precedent by way of justification when they do.


[edit on 2-5-2005 by xmotex]



posted on May, 2 2005 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
Yes, and the US signed the the ABM Treaty, and later unilaterally withdrew.

I expect the Iranians to do likewise, no doubt calling attention to the US precedent by way of justification when they do.


yeah the Iranians are copying the U.S.



posted on May, 2 2005 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by longbow

BTW there is no need for full scale war. The "Osirak solution" with minimum life loss would be enough.


And you dont think that an Osirak type bombing in Iran will bring about a full scale war? IMO, this line of thinking is what will start ww3.



posted on May, 2 2005 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kidfinger
And you dont think that an Osirak type bombing in Iran will bring about a full scale war? IMO, this line of thinking is what will start ww3.


No, I don't think so. Iranians are not stupid, and even if they were - well at least they will fight without nukes.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join