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.

 

Anti-Iran propaganda indicates war is imminent

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
I believe everything in the original post is true reported around the world


Emphasis added. Yes, you believe it. I believed there were WMDs in Iraq, too. Didn't you? Colin Powell and Dick Cheney were broadcast around the world saying that Iraq had WMDs and was associated with Al Qeada. Seems being seen as 'truth' around the world doesn't necessarily make it true, huh?



Seems many people here have no idea about the last 50 years of Iranian history, what is it with you people over there. Do you just read the headlines and a few concise paragraphs and think you know it all, LMAO. It seems that way.


Yeah, we're pretty much idiots.




Iran has been an active supporter of terrorism for 25 years, this isn't something new people


Good. Then there's no urgency, right?



Hell 5 years ago none of you would have known anything about Iran, too busy watching that pulp BS your TV companies put out.


I assume you're talking about Americans? Talk about an Anti-American attitude!
Don't be so sure you know how the majority of Americans think or what they know.

The fact is that before 9/11, the word 'terrorism' didn't wreak fear in the heart of man like it does today. People weild it like a sword and as an excuse for war-mongering. Bring up the fact that a country supports the dreaded TERRORISM! and people go nuts. Just because of a word.

Get real. Get the facts. Or join the service.




posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by rogue1
I believe everything in the original post is true reported around the world


Emphasis added. Yes, you believe it. I believed there were WMDs in Iraq, too. Didn't you? Colin Powell and Dick Cheney were broadcast around the world saying that Iraq had WMDs and was associated with Al Qeada. Seems being seen as 'truth' around the world doesn't necessarily make it true, huh?


WMD's, I must say I'd thought it would be probable and could still be, it wouldn't be hard to hide a few tonnes of liquid. The Al-Qaeda link was total BS and if anyone knew 10% of Saddams history and views, you'd have known that Al-Qaeda was just about as opposite as you could get to Saddam.




Seems many people here have no idea about the last 50 years of Iranian history, what is it with you people over there. Do you just read the headlines and a few concise paragraphs and think you know it all, LMAO. It seems that way.


Yeah, we're pretty much idiots.


To be fair, I travel to America for business and don't think all Americans are stupid, then again I only deal with informed people over there, not the public.




Iran has been an active supporter of terrorism for 25 years, this isn't something new people


Good. Then there's no urgency, right?


Sure, just let the problem fester.




Hell 5 years ago none of you would have known anything about Iran, too busy watching that pulp BS your TV companies put out.


I assume you're talking about Americans? Talk about an Anti-American attitude!
Don't be so sure you know how the majority of Americans think or what they know.


LOL, well going by most of the americans on this board, it's hard not to form that opinion. Like I said above I travel to the US several times a year and deal with bright people over there, but these are by far the minority
The simple fact is that many people here just regurgitate the opinions of articles on websites, there isn't an idea or opinion which I haven't read somewhere else.
I would be very surprised if most of the yanks in here read more than 1 book a year



posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 10:28 AM
link   

I would be very surprised if most of the yanks in here read more than 1 book a year


You know it's funny you should mention that because I consider people who make baseless generalizations about millions of people to be ignorant.

Now could you attempt to keep this a civilized discussion please? Some of the other members were actually arguing the topic of the thread and you should allow them to continue to do so.



posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 10:28 AM
link   
Life has a way of being rather anti-climatic. But that's a good thing.

Recall that the U.S. nearly went to war with Iraq in the '90s after 1991 on at least three separate occasions. But did that ever materialize to anything? Nope.

Aside from perhaps World War II, in the modern world, it's mostly talk and no action, because there is so much at stake. The U.S. will not go to war with Iran because the stakes are more than America can bargain for. Also, with the fallout from the Iraq War and the current crises in the White House, it's extremely unlikely Bush will further attempt to damage his reputation my sinking America into another war, one that will probably do the country in, if Iraq is not stabilized by next year. Not to mention Bush only has three years left.


Sep

posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 12:17 AM
link   
I apologize for the late reply, as I have been busy for the past few days.


Originally posted by American Mad Man
Yes, I must agree. Niether side is without fault. However, the direct support of terrorism by Iran is completely unnacceptable.


I have already conceded that support for any group targeting civilians is indeed unjust. But I am still waiting for you to condemn the use of weapons made by the US by Israelis against the Palestinian civilians.


Is the enemy of your enemy your friend, or your enemy? Frankly, in this case, Iran stands to benefit more from covertly backing OBL - and thus allowing him to put pressure on the west - then it does from taking him down. Now, of course there is no conclusive proof that they have done this, but there is a lot of evidence.


Well even if one finds evidence that Iran is indeed supporting Al-Qaede, then there would be a question mark over why the supposed ally of Iran is attacking its interests. All over Iraq al-Qaede is responsible for killing Iranian backed Shias. This makes no sense.

Furthermore, as you mentioned there are no "conclusive evidence". However you said that there is "a lot of evidence" saying Iran has ties with AQ. It would be nice if I could see them.



From you saying "our land" when refering to Iran, I take it you are Iranian?

If so, then you are one of the (I presume and hope) millions of reasons why I think Iran has hope of 'coming around' peacefully. As I understand it, the majority of the youth of your country seems to take your very admirable stance of tolerence and progression.


Well it is of note that it is not only recently that Iran has taken a progressive stand. Iran had a democracy running way back in 1906. Progression and tolerance would have endured since then had it not been for the British backed coup of Reza Khan. Later this democracy was achieved again and was once again crushed by a western backed coup in 1953.



Yes, but ask your self why exactly is Isreal threatening to destroy such a reactor?

It isn't 'just because', the reason is Iran is - and has been for a long time - litterally paying people to kill Isrealis. Not only that, but it is a pretty well accepted fact that Iran has a covert nuclear weapons program.


Well it is not an "accepted" fact anywhere, since no one has any proof what so ever that the nuclear program is for the purpose of building nuclear weapons. This doubt has even become greater with the recent proposal of Iran to allow foreign countries, such as members of EU, to control and buy shares of 35% of the Iranian nuclear industry.



On top of that, it isn't just Isreal who fears an Iranian nuclear reactor - all of Europe and the US does too. Frankly, Iran isn't a nation like Switzerland that simply stays out of everyones way. Iran simply isn't trust worthy.


Why is it not "trustworthy"? Is it because it is no longer a client state of the US? We were very trustworthy in 1975 when the US was pushing Iran to buy nuclear material including the material Iran is now being accused of using to, allegedly, make nuclear weapons. I see no reason why a dictator is any different from the current leaders. They have not started a single war and have not used their WMDs in a first strike even though they had the opportunity to. I see no reason why nuclear weapons are any different.

Also, you should know that the world is far larger than EU and US. Many African, Asian and South American countries support Iran's right to nuclear technology.



Sure, I know all about it. Frankly, it wasn't right - and you will not often hear me say that about the US.


Good.


I will say, the communist tendencies of Mossadegh, coupled with Irans attempt to simply seize the AOIC presented us (US, UK) with few options, in what was the most dire of times.


So democracy takes a back seat when it comes to the economical interests of the West? You think Mossadegh had communist tendencies? He was accused in Iran by the communist party of being an American agent. He visited the US at the time of his Prime Ministership. He had meetings with Roosevelt. The fact is that he was no communist, just a nationalist and a democracy advocate. But at the time the west choose their economic interests over the lives of people, who died in their tens of thousands after the coup, and are now finding excuses to cover their past wrong doings.

If the people in the US wonder why Iran is the way it is now, they just have to read the history to see why.



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sep
If the people in the US wonder why Iran is the way it is now, they just have to read the history to see why.


I'm afraid that this is very true. I recently read an autobiography of the UK newsreader Jon Snow in which he visited Iran just after the Revolution and was allowed to get into one of the massive listening stations that the US had built on the northern border of Iran. (I'm pretty sure it was Jon Snow's book, I've read an awful lot of UK newsreaders memoirs recently.) I was struck by his comment that it was significant how the US technicians had spent such a huge amount of time and money in building the stations that could listen out of the country, but that they had totally failed to realise the discontent that was building up literally behind them.
Speaking as someone with a love of current affairs and a degree in history, this is something that enrages me - why can't people realise that the two are connected? Why do people ignore the historical background or regard it as being unimportant?



new topics

top topics
 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join