It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Djarums
Double standards ...
Pat Robertson is not a world leader nor a head of state, nor does he control armed forces and weaponry, yet his call for the assassination of Chavez (which was undoubtedly stupid) was met with more rage from the "anti-america" club i was referring to than the Iranian President calling for a whole country to be destroyed.
Originally posted by NR
hes not evil my freind, hes a no brained ugly lookin monkey anyways i know skippy gets turned on whenever he sees the word Iran on every news so this is like his 150th topic about us....
Originally posted by Leveller
Originally posted by Denied
Will israel bomb the reactor?
That's why it was such a stupid statement to make at this time. Either that or a calculated risk.
It gives a green light to any Israeli operation or at the very least an excuse for others to turn a blind eye.
If I say that I'm gonna beat the crap out of you and then go get myself a stick, isn't everyone else going to say, "Well, the dude was only defending himself" when you come and take the stick away from me?
It's just plain, pisspoor politics unless it was calculated to gain the West's reaction for a specific reason.
Possibly the statement was made in response to recent events in Iraq and to stir up some sort of national unity but either way, the Iranian Guardian Council must know that this was going to cause trouble.
It is entirely possible that they are taking the North Korea line and starting from a hard negotiating stance to get what they want either in Iraq or over their nuclear programme. Focus on Israel, bring it into a frenzy of awareness and you can use that as a bargaining chip.
Belligerence worked for NK (or has up until now). Start at an uncompromising, seemingly extremist viewpoint, with a couple of issues on the table and you might be able to get away from the table with something.
One scenario is that the Guardian Council could be setting their president up for a fall. Show him to be rabidly anti-Israel and then stamp on him. They can then claim that they didn't agree with his politics and that they don't quite see things with his eyes.
"We've proven we're not anti-Israel by getting rid of the guy who was causing all the trouble. Can we now have our reactor please?"
It is a possibility. Especially when you actually look at the power that they have already taken away from this president and given to the guy he actually defeated in the elections!!!
[edit on 28-10-2005 by Leveller]
Originally posted by TrueAmerican
What I find interesting about this cnn report is that if "thousands" marched shouting "death to Israel", and are in total support of the annihalation of the "unrecognized" Israeli state, then how many more untold thousands, or millions even, that couldn't make the marches are there in Iran? And the point I am getting to with this is that public opinion, eventually, can cause politicians to act. Rarely, granted, , but when a country's leader makes such an inflammatory public statement, and it is subsquently supported by sweeping public opinion, the one thing left beween verbalization and action is capability. This particular animosity transcends the bounds of worldy opinion.
I'd like to ask, if Israel was instead located on Iran's border, and easily accessable to Iran, by now don't you think that this Israeli-Iranian conflict would have been settled long ago, before even nuclear weapons had an impact on the outcome?
But since the distance between the two and sovereign borders are clearly in the way, all the Iranians can do is verbalize, lest they attempt conventional missile strikes on Israel to be met with a hailstorm of retaliatory missile strikes from Israel and not far behind, likely strikes from US forces in the persian Gulf.
Now the Russians, while supplying Iran with conventional advanced missiles, and maybe even a few nuclear-tipped ones to which Russia retains the firing buttons, they are not fools. They know that given the chance, Iran would likely launch on Israel if they felt they COULD wipe Israel off the map in one multifaceted swift blow. If this wasn't the case, and Russia trusted Iran with nuclear weapons, then why not simply sell them to Iran? I mean hey, Russia really really needs the money, right?
Because that would be like handing a loaded M16 to a father whose daughter was just raped and murdered, and propping up the accused prisoner for the shot on the bleak hope that the father would not pull the trigger, seeking a further trial by jury. And particularly when the prisoner's family has been the weapon supplier's main adversary for half a century. It'd be one thing to have the father stand there and shout every bad thing in the book at the prisoner, but it'd be totally different nother to hand the father a loaded weapon easily capable of making the kill in one shot.
There are prices to pay for such actions. And it would appear that Russia just doesn't need the money just quite that awful bad. Not bad enough to risk the retribution.
If somehow this conflict could be settled with fists instead of missiles, eventually the two would get tired of beating on each other, and learn to live in peace somehow.
Originally posted by Denied
Iran has nuclear capabilty already shall we say, so all this panic about whether as a nation Iran will have nuclear bombs, doesnt matter, they could of bought X amount on the black market...talk about terrorists...maybe a state will now terrorise.?
Originally posted by skippytjc
Wow. I didn’t expect this
Originally posted by Dronetek
Wasnt someone here arguing that the Iranian people werent anti-semetic?