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 is not the threat it's hyped up to be

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 04:10 PM
link   
It's incredible.

"We need to strike Iran first, they want nukes, they're gonna nuke Israel, protect Israel, nuke em, nuke em, NUKE EM!!!"



Do y'all realize how schizophrenic these comments are? Iran's going to nuke Israel because Iran's going to work on nuclear weapons. How retarded is that? They haven't made them yet, but they're gonna use em!
Or, how about the whole "defenseless" Israel thing.
Amazing that a country with no nukes is a threat to a country with 400 nukes, it really is. Besides, wouldn't the Israeli's god deflect any missiles shot at his chosen people? Why do they need 400 nukes when they have a god in their corner?


Getting serious, though. We hear the neocons and the liberals screaming about how Iran is going to hit us (the US) or Israel with jihadi nukes that can kill you before they're even made, they're so deadly. They say Iran is a huge threat. Why? Besides the motives of the globalists, this is what I get...

1) Iran has not threatened to nuke the US, but neither did Iraq. In this light, as US invasion would be justified; I mean, they did it in Iraq, so why not?


2) The prez of Iran has not threatened to nuke Israel. HOWEVER, he has said that Israel should be wiped off the map and that the Holocaust never happened. A clever way to incite someone and to piss them off, no doubt. However, this is also a justification for attacking Iran, I'm sure.

So, it appears that Iran should be invaded, based on these dubious factors.

Fine.

But, Truthseeka's question is this: what should you do when a country makes MUCH more explicit threats against you? The govt's answer appears to be, well, nothing.

Take N. Korea. Look at what they've done in the following articles.

NK Missile Warhead Found in Alaska

North Korean Missile Found In Alaska

Now, these fools fired a missile from their country that landed in Alaska 3 years ago. Still haven't heard about that in the mainstream media. This, along with numerous claims that they would work on and had developed missiles capable of hitting Alaska.

The Threat from North Korea

I watched 60 minutes recently, and they had a story on about N. Korea. They talked to one of the top military people, who said that N. Korea would fight to the death if invaded and WOULD use nuclear weapons. Shocking.

Now take China. On a number of occasions, people in their military have threatened to outright nuke us.

China Wants War

Top Chinese General Warns US Over Attack

Chinese General Warns U.S. Over Taiwan

Now, keep in mind that the opinion of one man is a valid reason to go to war (namely, the prez of Iran). We have that guy in '96 threatening to vaporize LA if the US helped Taiwan, and more recently we have the general threatening to destroy numerous cities if the US interferes.

So, what is the response? You're gonna LOVE this: give the threatening countries nuclear reactors!!
Not that this is really funny, but still. When N. Korea was acting up, we gave them 2 nuclear reactors to say, "hey, guy, calm down." When China acts up, Dick Cheney gives them, you guessed it, nuclear reactors. Not only that, but tons of jobs are also going to China. Isn't that nice?

If that ain't enough to convince you that the whole thing is staged, I dunno what to tell you. Here's my take on this...

N. Korea and China are the models of what the globalists want America and eventually the entire planet to be like. N. Korea: total police state. China: nearly total police state. America: well on the way to total police state.

See, this makes it all make sense. The wars of agression. The legislation restricting and eliminating civil liberties. The massive wave of propaganda used to push it all.

So, you decide. Is it better to invade a country (who, despite numerous allegations of nuclear ambitions, has given inspectors more clearance than ANY other country has) which has a leader that says things that piss you off but are not threatening, or a country that either has military leaders openly threatening to nuke you or has actually fired a test missile that landed on your country's soil.



You OBVIOUSLY go with the former!!! After all, we all know we have to kill all them damn "ragheads!!!"




posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 11:54 AM
link   
nice read

i would give you a WATs but i only get 2


supprised no ones replyed from the right wing yet



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 12:30 PM
link   
You get a WATS fom me.

Yeah Iran is not much of a threat at all - for all the current president's outrageous comments, Iran lacks any ability to pose an offensive threat to Israel, and Israel has the power to crush Iran should Iran try something stupid.

The current uproar over Iran is not about their nuke program - as you say NK developed nukes and yet the planet has not gone up in flames. It's about the neocon's need for an enemy to unite the populace against (see Leo Strauss), and the desire to "redraw the map of the Middle East" in such a way that the US cannot be denied access to oil from the region.



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 03:48 PM
link   
Thanks for the good comments, playas.


It is absolutely amazing that none of the "nuke Iran" pro-war people have responded to this thread. I see pages of responses on the thread where it's asked what if Iran nukes Israel or if the US will invade Iran, but NO RESPONSES to this thread, which clearly shows other countries are a greater threat than Iran. I guess the truth hurts...




posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka

Do y'all realize how schizophrenic these comments are? Iran's going to nuke Israel because Iran's going to work on nuclear weapons. How retarded is that?


Urrrm, that doesnt make sense from yours and theirs point of view.
Israel believes Iran will nuke them, so israel feels obligied to hit them BEFORE they have the MEANS to nuke them.

I agree with your stance, but your manipulating it to much.



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 05:26 PM
link   
You got my last WATS for the month.

It's all so clear how this is being set up on the world stage. I can't believe the ignorance that abounds. People are ignoring what happened leading up to Iraq and how this parrots those times.

If we were to attack everyone we didn't agree with we'd be lonely on this planet. And that's really all we've got: A disagreement. Words! Bah! I give up on people.

They deserve what they get.



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 06:11 PM
link   
truthseeka -
I am a fool for letting you bait me like this I guess. There is nothing in your post that could be mistaken for honest debate. You just get your kicks demeaning others points of view. Is your self esteem that low that you have to prop yourself up by making statements like this? I sometimes wonder how many terrorists, anarchists and anti-Semites are posting their propaganda on boards like this. This is not a video game. Possibly millions of lives are at stake. Politicizing things this important is incompetence at a level I can not fathom. Most of these strings are just attempts at attacking others political beliefs and the last thing the authors want is an intelligent discussion of the issues. Hate is the reason this world is in so much trouble now. Liberals hate conservatives. Muslims hate Christians. French hate Americans. Sleazebags make fortunes feeding off peoples hate.

Regarding the subject of this thread. There must be dozens of nearly identical threads to this already. Maybe that’s why no one is responding? How is implying that anyone who disagrees with you is dumb or lying adding to the debate? You seem to be claiming personal knowledge that Iran can be trusted with nuclear capabilities and that this country that is probably the greatest supporter of terrorists on earth can be believed. Even if Iran is not capable of defeating Israel or the free world they can kill thousands and maybe hundreds of thousand before they are stopped. What about the safe haven they are providing for terrorists. Is that a desirable thing? Is sending your children out with bombs strapped to them to kill innocent people to acquire a harem of virgins reasonable behavior? Is sending your people to Iraq to blow up other Muslims a good thing? It never ceases to amaze me how many are willing to defend terrorists and countries like Iran who support them.



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
truthseeka -
I am a fool for letting you bait me like this I guess. There is nothing in your post that could be mistaken for honest debate. You just get your kicks demeaning others points of view. Is your self esteem that low that you have to prop yourself up by making statements like this? I sometimes wonder how many terrorists, anarchists and anti-Semites are posting their propaganda on boards like this. This is not a video game. Possibly millions of lives are at stake. Politicizing things this important is incompetence at a level I can not fathom. Most of these strings are just attempts at attacking others political beliefs and the last thing the authors want is an intelligent discussion of the issues. Hate is the reason this world is in so much trouble now. Liberals hate conservatives. Muslims hate Christians. French hate Americans. Sleazebags make fortunes feeding off peoples hate.

Regarding the subject of this thread. There must be dozens of nearly identical threads to this already. Maybe that’s why no one is responding? How is implying that anyone who disagrees with you is dumb or lying adding to the debate? You seem to be claiming personal knowledge that Iran can be trusted with nuclear capabilities and that this country that is probably the greatest supporter of terrorists on earth can be believed. Even if Iran is not capable of defeating Israel or the free world they can kill thousands and maybe hundreds of thousand before they are stopped. What about the safe haven they are providing for terrorists. Is that a desirable thing? Is sending your children out with bombs strapped to them to kill innocent people to acquire a harem of virgins reasonable behavior? Is sending your people to Iraq to blow up other Muslims a good thing? It never ceases to amaze me how many are willing to defend terrorists and countries like Iran who support them.


Gee, talk about completely missing the point!



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 08:21 PM
link   
I agree that I went too far and off topic. Sorry. I was responding to this -



It is absolutely amazing that none of the "nuke Iran" pro-war people have responded to this thread. I see pages of responses on the thread where it's asked what if Iran nukes Israel or if the US will invade Iran, but NO RESPONSES to this thread, which clearly shows other countries are a greater threat than Iran. I guess the truth hurts...


How does making insulting and degrading remarks about those who disagree add to the debate? The fact that no one responded to this thread is proof that "other countries are a greater threat than Iran"? No more outlandish than my stupid post.



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 08:30 PM
link   
Hey good article, your right I ran is no more of a threat than Iraq or even Panama the real reason they want to invade is to secure the oil supplies in the middle east which the Holy American Empire needs to maintain its world dominance.



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka
It is absolutely amazing that none of the "nuke Iran" pro-war people have responded to this thread. I see pages of responses on the thread where it's asked what if Iran nukes Israel or if the US will invade Iran, but NO RESPONSES to this thread, which clearly shows other countries are a greater threat than Iran. I guess the truth hurts...


I haven't seen anybody suggest we should "nuke Iran", and what is pro-war exactly? Are you suggesting either somebody is completely against military action of any kind at any time, or they are pro-war? Anti-war would be great, as long as everybody felt that way, otherwise it wouldn't work, I'm sure you know why. Isn't there any circumstance on earth in which you would approve of military action? If so, those who disagree aren't "pro-war" any more than you, they just have differing ideas of what circumstances call for action.

Maybe, nobody has really responded because, like others have said, there's a hundred threads on this subject, and the debate has grown very tired. All sides have repeated the same things over and over again, nobody is changing anybody's minds. There are basically two options, if Iran continues on it's path:

1. Do nothing, and face the very real possibility that Iran is developing nuclear weapons that will lead to a nuclear standoff with Israel, that in turn could possibly lead to a nuclear war in the Middle East, that may even escalate beyond the Middle East.

2. After sanctions fail, strike their nuclear facilities which could possibly escalate into another costly ground war and many other possible complications.

Neither option seems very attractive, and it would be real nice if things work out to where there is no violence at all. No matter how many threads are created in which the same arguments are repeated over and over, those in power on all sides are going to do whatever it is they have planned.



[edit on 20-1-2006 by 27jd]



posted on Jan, 21 2006 @ 12:14 AM
link   


It never ceases to amaze me how many are willing to defend terrorists and countries like Iran who support them.


There is a huge difference between "defending Iran" and saying a war with Iran is not necessary because Iran is not a realistic threat. Iran cannot hope to attack the US, Europe, or even Israel without taking far more damage itself than it is capable of inflicting on it's target.

The matter is not whether Iran can be "trusted" with nuclear weapons- I don't think many people believe they can. The matter is whether Iran is likely to commit national suicide. And a few pieces of outrageous rhetoric, coming from a country that has been pumping out outrageous rhetoric (and little else) for 25 years, are not sufficient evidence that they are.



posted on Jan, 21 2006 @ 01:18 AM
link   

"We need to strike Iran first, they want nukes, they're gonna nuke Israel, protect Israel, nuke em, nuke em, NUKE EM!!!"

:lol
o y'all realize how schizophrenic these comments are?


Who said this? Are you quoting someone?


HOWEVER, he has said that Israel should be wiped off the map and that the Holocaust never happened.


You are right. This is a totally benign statement. We shouldn't worry about this at all.


Now, keep in mind that the opinion of one man is a valid reason to go to war (namely, the prez of Iran). We have that guy in '96 threatening to vaporize LA if the US helped Taiwan, and more recently we have the general threatening to destroy numerous cities if the US interferes.

So, what is the response? You're gonna LOVE this: give the threatening countries nuclear reactors!!
Not that this is really funny, but still. When N. Korea was acting up, we gave them 2 nuclear reactors to say, "hey, guy, calm down." When China acts up, Dick Cheney gives them, you guessed it, nuclear reactors. Not only that, but tons of jobs are also going to China. Isn't that nice?


When did Mr. Cheney "give" them nuclear reactors?


N. Korea and China are the models of what the globalists want America and eventually the entire planet to be like. N. Korea: total police state. China: nearly total police state. America: well on the way to total police state.


What globalists do you speak of? President Bush has been in office almost five years. If he wanted to turn this into a police state, it would have happened by now.



posted on Jan, 21 2006 @ 04:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex


The matter is not whether Iran can be "trusted" with nuclear weapons- I don't think many people believe they can. The matter is whether Iran is likely to commit national suicide. And a few pieces of outrageous rhetoric, coming from a country that has been pumping out outrageous rhetoric (and little else) for 25 years, are not sufficient evidence that they are.

The problem I have with this statement is, it is based upon logical thinking. The current Iranian president thinks he can hasten the coming of the Hidden Imam. That and the fact that Iran broke the security seals on the reactors make me nervous.



posted on Jan, 21 2006 @ 08:05 AM
link   
I say we just take out Iran now before they do some damage.



posted on Jan, 21 2006 @ 08:49 AM
link   
Yah, this subject has been done to death, that';s probably why not too mnay people are interested. No point rehashing the same old stuff.

As for why people see Iran as a threat try, fanatical religious leadership. Everyone knows Iran supports more than a few terrorist groups. You don't see Israel funding terrorism inside Iran do you



posted on Jan, 21 2006 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
The current Iranian president thinks he can hasten the coming of the Hidden Imam.


- No more nervous than the current US leadership that spends so long talking to and framing their policies with a view to that ridiculous and nutty 'end of days' version of Christianity.


That and the fact that Iran broke the security seals on the reactors make me nervous.


- .......and yet the 24/7 monitoring still goes on; perhaps not quite so scary afterall, huh?



posted on Jan, 21 2006 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobeckyThe current Iranian president thinks he can hasten the coming of the Hidden Imam.


Do you have any explicit proof that Iranian president thinks this or is it just speculation and the fact that he is Shia?

I've seen western news outlets refer to this, I've just never seen any direct proof of this.

It's just been my impression that these press outlets are trying to make a good news story out of a rumor, a rumor from who-knows-where. A lot of these press agencies loooove that type of controversial news, and I just wish people would do the independent research themselves, and my research has shown this rumor to be false.



posted on Jan, 21 2006 @ 06:33 PM
link   
Oooh man, these Iran threads are always fun. Of course Iran isn't a threat to the United States.

Neither was Germany before it started "cleansing" the Jews.

I'll play.



posted on Jan, 21 2006 @ 06:57 PM
link   
Ofcourse Iran would never send a nuclear missile with its name on it at Israel, Europe or the USA. That would just be dumb but as they say theres always more then one way to skin a cat. You could easily hand off a nuclear weapon to any third party org. and let them do whatever they want with it, bring in a nuke on a truck or ship into any country on the planet.


-Iran has known ties with a terrorist org. Hamas
-Iran's leaders have publicly called for Israel to be "wiped off the map"

I think we should all be alittle concerned about Iran getting nuclear weapons.







 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join