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: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2006 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka
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?



Last I checked, we're not at war with Iran yet.



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.


It's not a justification to attack Iran, hence, we're not at war with Iran and havent even made a threat to attack Iran..

Now if Iran threatened that "America needs wiped off the face of the planet" then I would expect they would have some serious explaining to do. But since they said it to Isreal, it's no big deal? Nice anal-ogy.



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

Fine.


I must have missed it, when, or where, did the President, Congress, or any other governmental representative of the United States made the claim that Iran needs invaded?



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


Last I checked, N.Korea scrapped its entire nuclear project, and is accepting a light water reactor from the United States. Iran, on the other hand, has gone against the UN, the IAEA, and just about every "security council" country in the world in its attempt to achieve nuclear "power".



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


If you actually read your links, you'd know that:

a) Only one person made this statement, and just because you linked 3 links of the same statement, doesnt make your claim anymore believable.
b) The gentleman that made the claim is a Dean of a University.. a retired General.


"If the Americans draw their missiles and position-guided ammunition onto the target zone on China's territory, I think we will have to respond with nuclear weapons," stated Zhu to the shocked audience.


First sentance of the below link:
China Wants War

It doesnt take a genius, or a general, to know that if America attacked China, there would be a nuclear war. And if you knew anything about Taiwan, then you'd know that Taiwan is infact, China's territory, and the United States has absolutly no right to intervene. It's alot like China helping the State of Texas leave the United States, it just doesnt fly.




Top Chinese General Warns US Over Attack
Chinese General Warns U.S. Over Taiwan


Both of these links are the same as the first one. A general, that isn't a general anymore, but a Dean of a Univeristy, making a speech that if the United States attacked China, at the aide of Taiwan, then China would attack back possibly using nuclear weapons.

If China attacked the United States while we were fighting in Iraq, I would assume a US General would be on TV saying we're going to war with China.

Use a little common sense here.. mmkay?





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?


Your research is about as solid as a wet sponge. We gave N.Korea a light water reactor. A far cry from a reactor needed to make nuclear weapons.


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.


I have no idea where this came from. At first I assumed your thesis was why we need, or should, go to war with Iran, then you bust out with some NWO mummble jumble about a worldly police state.. Care to explain the connection?



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)


They gave inspectors a ton of clearance. Just long enough for the inspectors to know that Iran is fully capable of creating a nuclear bomb before expelling the IAEA inspectors and stating that if anyone tried to stop them, there would be war.

Kinda like, "Look, see what I have.. now try and stop me!"



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


You said it, not me.

I say stop a radical country thats openly challenging several local nations from obtaining a nuclear weapon. But hey, they haven't bothered me, so honestly, I say let Europe and Israel deal with them.





Still want to play?




posted on Jan, 21 2006 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn

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.

No direct proof, because the members of his cabinet aren't talking. They deny that they, along with the prez, signed the contract. But that rumor, along with the fact that he is a firm believer in the Hidden Imam, the donation to the Jamkaran mosque, his statement calling the plane crash victims martyrs that have shown them a path that they must follow, all together make it more likely than not that he said it. Couple this with his blatantly racist statements about Israel, and he comes off as a moonbat, imo.


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.

The 'rumor' isn't limited to western sources; I watched a video that showed a female journalist inside Iran repeat the same rumor. I could be wrong, but she appeared to be Iranian.

So, has your research shown the rumor to be false, or just 'not proven true'?

[edit on 21-1-2006 by jsobecky]



posted on Jan, 22 2006 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
So, has your research shown the rumor to be false, or just 'not proven true'?


I agree that this guy's position on a lot of issues is extreme, but, that he is a Shia and being in the region, that is not altogether surprising. But, there is a difference between being an extremist/fundamentalist, which happens a lot in that region, and being schizophrenic or crazy. An extremist you can at least negotiate with, and be somewhat diplomatic with, but a schizophrenic, it's probably almost impossible.

And, while a lot of these western news outlets want to make him out as simply a crazy, and by extension, a person unable to reason with, I simply don't think this is a true. From my understanding, this rumor appears to be false, or not proven true. For the purposes of this debate, not proven true means false. I heard a rumor that George Bush is the antichrist, false or not proven true?

[edit on 22-1-2006 by Jamuhn]



posted on Jan, 22 2006 @ 01:22 PM
link   
Claiming extremism does not qualify one as sane.

I'd classify him as delusional. Plus he's extremist.

Rumors are just that.

Now he's said he hopes Sharon dies. Still, he will be defended as being honest, and upfront and harmless.



posted on Jan, 22 2006 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Claiming extremism does not qualify one as sane.

Rumors are just that.

Now he's said he hopes Sharon dies. Still, he will be defended as being honest, and upfront and harmless.


Hmmm, well, I'd say he is honest and upfront, unless he's lying about destroying Israel, right? I hope you understand that from their point of view, morality includes God's punishment of who they find evil. And, as far as your comment about being harmless, no world leader is harmless, especially, don't forget, Bush and Co. said Hussein had nukes too.

The point is that within his own culture and environment, his actions and speach is perfectly justified. I'm not asking you to accept it...I don't think it's acceptable either. But, instead of calling him a crazy nut and saying let's bomb them and free them, it's better to get an understanding of who these people are and what brought them to the thoughts and actions that they have. Otherwise, I'm afraid Western countries will be fighting this same kind of enemy for years to come. You can't kill all the extremists, and even if they stop going to extreme lengths, such as killing people, there will still be a great divide between us.

[edit on 22-1-2006 by Jamuhn]



posted on Jan, 22 2006 @ 10:35 PM
link   
Wait a minute doesn't Iran already have biological and chemical weapons? How come they've never supplied those to terrorists if they're so willing to give out weapons of mass destruction? If they've been unwilling to supply terrorists with readily available and relatively cheap to produce weapons like that why exactly would they give a away a very expensive and rare weapon like a nuke?

Honestly an Iran with WMD capabilites doesn't scare me. why? Because they've had them for the past twenty years and the world failed to end.



posted on Jan, 22 2006 @ 11:17 PM
link   
The Iranian Threat: The Bomb or the Euro?
Iran does not pose a threat to the United State because of its nuclear projects, its WMD, or its support to "terrorists organizations" as the American administration is claiming, but in its attempt to re-shape the global economical system by converting it from a petrodollar to a petroeuro system

The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse
The Iranian government has finally developed the ultimate “nuclear” weapon that can swiftly destroy the financial system underpinning the American Empire. That weapon is the Iranian Oil Bourse slated to open in March 2006.

Iran's Nuke Plans Worry Oil Market
Prices could soar past $100 a barrel, experts say, if the U.N. Security Council authorizes trade sanctions against the Middle Eastern nation, which the West accuses of trying to make nuclear bombs, and Iran curbs oil exports in retaliation. A sharp global economic slowdown could follow.

Tehran plans nuclear weapon test by March
Tehran is planning a nuclear weapons test before the Iranian New Year on March 20, 2006 says a group opposed to the regime in Tehran.


Wonder how many will wait till a nuke goes off or the US/UK economy collapses and then act surprised? Nuke backed Iranian oil bourse and you can forget your petrodollar days and debt ridden ways.

[edit on 22-1-2006 by Regenmacher]



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 12:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Regenmacher
The Iranian Threat: The Bomb or the Euro?
Iran does not pose a threat to the United State because of its nuclear projects, its WMD, or its support to "terrorists organizations" as the American administration is claiming, but in its attempt to re-shape the global economical system by converting it from a petrodollar to a petroeuro system


Ahem, so why are the Europeans worried about the nuclear program ? Surely they'd be hands off if the PetroEuro outweighed the risks of an Iranian nuclear program. Obviously they don't.
None of that changes the fact that Iran is known the world over as a supporter of terrorism. Hence why countries are a little touchy about Iran having the ability to produce its own nuclear weapons.
Let's face it they've rejected all deals which would allow them a peaceful nuclear program without the ability to prodice nuclear weapons - knd makes you wonder.



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 01:38 AM
link   
The Europeans would be perfectly happy to see us grind ourselves down with another fruitless war. And I suspect this is why they are encouraging the phony "crisis" to snowball while at the same time will steadfastly refuse to join any military action.

The paranoiac in me wonders if the US is being led into a series of traps, in order to grind down our huge military and economic strength. Iraq was the first, Iran and perhaps Syria will be the next. That's what being "king of the hill" really means: everybody wants to see you take a fall.



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 04:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by mad scientist
Ahem, so why are the Europeans worried about the nuclear program ? Surely they'd be hands off if the PetroEuro outweighed the risks of an Iranian nuclear program. Obviously they don't.


The U.S. is not going to sit idly buy and watch it's economy crumble and Persia rise. It shall be winner take all. So what horse you going to bet on?



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 04:53 AM
link   
I think we should remember a few things here:

Israel HAS nuclear weapons (who is objecting?)
The USA HAS nuclear weapons (who is objecting?)
Russia, China, etc. all have nuclear weapons (who is objecting?)

Iran MIGHT be building nuclear weapons, although they are denying it and it make take them years...... (all are objecting)

I think there are little discrepancy here, don't you agree?


Makes me think about that statement about the pot and the kettle...



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 07:38 AM
link   
Iran isn't a threat to us or Israel - Assuming we don't attack first.

Here's how it runs. As things are currently, Iran is clearly making a power play to become a regional superpower. All the other big regional powers are doing something else - Nobody in the middle east can stand Israel, Turkey is too busy sucking up to Europe, Saudi Arabia is starting to discover that it is politically irrelevant, and Iraq, as it is now, is a fractured state that will become part of Iran two years after we ship out. Maybe sooner.

So Iran is displaying its vballs. It's taking a stand against the "imperialistic west" - It's refusing overtures from Europe that it abandon its nuclear quest, it's thumbing its nose at the US and Israel... but it is not outright daring them to take action. Ahmedinejad learned that from Saddam. Remember, Saddam heard us crowing about how scary his imaginary WMD were, and tried to use that to scare us off - He threatened to use them on our troops. Too bad for Saddam that that didn't fend us off, huh?

Instead, Ahmedninejad is pulling his assets back, fortifying his positions, and waiting for us to strike the first blow. Why? Because first, it shows he's willing to take it in the chin to "Stand up to the invaders". Second, it illustrates our hypocrisy - We're attacking Iran because we want to keep nations from attacking each other! Oh yeah, that makes sense. Third, it gives him international leverage. His regine might be oppressive, but it's not brutal like Saddam's. He can appeal to the UN, individual states, and actually have something come out of it. All this combines sets him up as king for the Middle East. Assuming of course, we don't take the Dittohead approach and obliterate the nation with our nuclear armada.

So then, hat of his "Israel should be wiped off the map!" remark? Doesn't that constitute a threat? Hardly. Iran has been making the "wipe Israel off the map!" demand since before Israel's creation. It hasn't really done anything towards that end - Except fund Islamic Jihad, which all things told, is in a pretty sorry state, compared to the Saudi-backed Hamas, or even the Syrian Hibollah. Both Syria and Saudi Arabia have made remarks about obliterating Israel, too. Lookat it this way - Every politician on your town council takes a "tough on criome!" stance, right? Has crime gone down? Probably not, right? "Tough on crime" sells in suburban America. "Death to Israel" sells well in the middle east. It's PR, nothing more, a little something for the fan base to cheer over that will never happen.

And denial of the holocaust? He's questioning the number and the condition, not the actual event itself. Even the most ardent deniers of the Holocaust admit to the prison camps and many deaths within them - It's the exact figures that they go on about.

Ahmedinejad has no reason at all to attack Israel with a nuke. His one, to their several hundred, and our several hundred, and very likely Britain and France's stockpiles... Attacking with a nuke is literal suicide. And despite al lthe rhetoric about "fanatic martyrdom!", this dude wants to rule the Middle East, and he can't do that if he's dead. Besides, nuking Israel runs directly counter to why so many in hte Middle East want to do away with Israel. They want the land, they just want it without hte Israelis. Hard to go to the Al-Aqsa mosque in a lead jumpsuit, isn't it?



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 07:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by bodrul
supprised no ones replyed from the right wing yet



perhaps that is because nobody thinks we should go to war, other than Hillary Clinton of course.

Nobody ever wants war. Sometimes it is necessary or inevitable. In the case of Iraq it was inevitable I think but not, at the time, necessary.

Iran is a far more dangerous creature and the US stance has been exactly what everyone said the stance regarding Iraq should have been and now we are wrong again. Bush et al are being super cautious with this one because the US cannot be the lead aggressor here. So, rather, he lets the EU deal with it. Believe me, every nation is aware of the possibility of Israel taking matters into her own hands so this must be resolved as soon as possible.

That said, in comparing the two nations, I agree that North Korea is a bigger threat to the US homeland but I also think Kim is in check whereas Iran's leadership is hellbent on destroying Israel and, quite possibly, starting a world war.

So, the bigger threat for global security is probably Iran. They would love to have the US lead an attack on their nuke facililties so they can say the christians and the jews are trying to wipe the muslims off the map.



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 08:21 AM
link   
The theme of his site is to deny ignorance yet so many are willing to just ignore sanity. Iran has been a state sponsor of terror since 1979. They hold vast demostrations crying "death to Israel" and "death to america". They defy even the sheepish IAEA. This is a train wreak that the world can see coming, but will do nothing to prevent.

This is exactly what happened before WWII and hitler. Exactly what happened before Iraq invaded Kuwait. In both cases it was clear from the aggressor what were the intentions, but so many "rationalized" the intentions away just as is being done in this thread.

Iran has one purpose, bring forth WWIII..................



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 08:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by longjohn
I think we should remember a few things here:

Israel HAS nuclear weapons (who is objecting?)
The USA HAS nuclear weapons (who is objecting?)
Russia, China, etc. all have nuclear weapons (who is objecting?)


Well you could make the argument, that those countries along with GB and France have stable governemnts and multiple controls over their weapons. Whilst I'm not too sure about the Iranians, especially when fundamentalists hold power.
Israel proved that it has restraint during the 1973 war when they were in dire straits, but still refrained from displaying their atomic arsenal.
Also take note that, none of these countries threatened to wipe another off the map.



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by mad scientist
Well you could make the argument, that those countries along with GB and France have stable governemnts and multiple controls over their weapons.


no need to point out the gov't stability.

simply put, the US, China, Russia, GB, France, etc have never publicly called for the total destruction of another country. The reason Iran cannot have these weapons is because it would be like giving a 7 year old bully a gun only in the case of Iran, they understand the permanence of their actions.



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka
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.

That's because mainstream media usually checks its facts to prevent bull# like this from being reported.



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 09:08 AM
link   
To shed some like on Iran's current Psycho regime under their current head of state, Ahmadinejad, here is a little article that can put things in perspective:
Debka News source

I found Debka to be very informative and accurate throughout the last 3-4 years.

The problem with Iran is that it is a Theocracy. Generally Theocracies are accountable only to the Lord in the sky and not laws of men. When a religion is a violent, then that makes the Theocracy dangerous. Iran, has elected (or possible through rigged elections) Ahmadinejad who is an extreme hardliner. With WWII only 60 years back and the memory of the Nazi regime and their frontman, Hitler, the hardliner, becomes quickly apparent that extreme caution should be excercised with Iran. This does not have to be by military means. It can be diplomatic and through the Security counsil. Problem is that Europe, China and Russia do not want to refer to that body for various reasons (probably economic - Russia has close economic ties with Iran, China is reliant on Iranian Oil and European with trade ties as well). This creates a situation in which Israel is left to cope with the situation on its own and therefore makes military confrontation the only option.
Israel cannot allow Iran to become a nuclear power because Iran has voiced over and over again their commitment to destroy Israel. It may not be by nuclear means since, normally, a nuclear option is a deterrent. But with a theocracy led by lunatics you can never know. No-one expected in WWII that any democratic country will freely elect a facist regime who would annihilate millions of ethnic groups. Therefore extreme caution is required with Iran especially a nuclear Iran.

Therefore a concerned world needs to deal with this issue if it wants to avert a major military confrontation.



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by longjohn
Israel HAS nuclear weapons (who is objecting?)
The USA HAS nuclear weapons (who is objecting?)
Russia, China, etc. all have nuclear weapons (who is objecting?)

Iran MIGHT be building nuclear weapons, although they are denying it and it make take them years...... (all are objecting)


Politicians in the US, Europe etc. are saying "Iran is trying to build nukes."
Politicians in Iran are saying "No, we are not."

My guess is that Iran's politicians are probably lying.

However, I KNOW Bush and Blair have a history of lying. I KNOW they are liars.

So, on one side, we have a group of politicians, therefore probable liars, and on the other hand, we have a group of known, proven liars, who are 'crying wolf' again...

My new cry: "Remember the Niger documents! Remember the WMDs! Don't fall for this AGAIN"!

[edit on 23-1-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 09:44 AM
link   
I read USA is researching anti matter bombs, I wonder who will threaten USA when they have those?




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join