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 starts to rattle its Saif…

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 01:37 PM
link   
Well frankly I think the EU governments realize setting the US up to fight Iran is a win-win situation for them - should the US attack Iran it will: a) set Iran's nuclear program back a few years (good for the EU) b) further isolate the US and wear down it's military and economic strength in another war fraught with unintended & expensive consequences (also good for the EU).

So, just like with Iraq, the EU core nations will support the perception and buildup of a "crisis" and then refuse to participate in any military action when dimplomacy inevitably fails to get the US what it wants. It's a good plan, and the bumbling neocons that run the US right now are running headfirst into yet another trap.




posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dronetek
They have said much more than just "concerns" sir.


- Oh dear.
Pardon my using a generalisation putting across the self same meaning.


Since you cant use google either, ill quote them for you


- Sour mood today, "sir"?
Was there really any need for that?

I live in Europe, I see nightly our news and comment shows are not completely with talk about Iran......or the rest of the ME for that matter either.
This content and tone contrasts very much with the US networks I tune in to where it clearly is a much larger story and US public opinions are being moulded.

I see enough to know that the public mood (in the UK, nevermind the rest of the EU/Europe) is very much anti-war.......even post the 7/7/2005 London bombings and the failed 21/7/2005 London bombings) is very much anti-war.

You are kidding yourself if you honestly think the reverse is true.


The messages sound pretty much the same to me. How do you explain your sweeping generalzation the US is froathing at the mouth while the EU is only "concerned"?


- I explain it this way.

There is clearly and very definitely an itching for a new war in the ME with Iran among significant certain elements within the USA (and Israel......I honestly can't see these symptoms with any other country) - including the current US government.

I find this mood completely unmatched anywhere else.

Europe has indeed expressed 'concerns' and government Ministers have talked of 'further action'.
But let's not kid ourselves here.
They mean a referral to the UN security council and the possibility of imposing sanctions on Iran; not getting involved in a new ME war.
Big difference.

The public in Europe are against the existing ME war never mind any crazy notions of starting a new one.
Wake up.


[edit on 25-1-2006 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 02:42 PM
link   

They mean a referral to the UN security council and the possibility of imposing sanctions on Iran; not getting involved in a new ME war.
Big difference.


What do you think the repurcutions of those sanctions will be? You dont really need to think, The Iranian leader already told everyone.



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dronetek
What do you think the repurcutions of those sanctions will be?


- Unlike you I don't see any concrete guarantee that a referral to the UN SC will happen nor that sanctions will necessarily end up being applied.


You dont really need to think, The Iranian leader already told everyone.


- Yes, it's sadly predictable how one lot of idiotic threats, intimidation and 'pressure' simply feeds the cycle and a response from the other, isn't it?

However, none of this is 'justification' for a new ME war though and none of this has altered the fact that it is absolutely the case that the European public will not support the USA (and Israel) in a new ME war; certainly not on any of the so-called 'grounds' held up to date.

[edit on 25-1-2006 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 03:05 PM
link   
You seem so anti-US, yet you brush off the comments of the Iranian leader. Is there a reason for that? Why are you so willing to give the benifit of the doubt to people like Saddam and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? They openly murder and defy human rights, while making threats of other countries destructions and yet you still give them the benifit of the doubt. Honestly, I feel quite sorry for your country if it is that nieve.

Oh, there will be sanctions. Lucky for you the US will stand its ground and not let a madman get the bomb.

[edit on 25-1-2006 by Dronetek]



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dronetek
You seem so anti-US, yet you brush off the comments of the Iranian leader. Is there a reason for that? Why are you so willing to give the benifit of the doubt to people like Saddam and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? They openly murder and defy human rights, while making threats of other countries destructions and yet you still give them the benifit of the doubt. Honestly, I feel quite sorry for your country if it is that nieve.

Oh, there will be sanctions. Lucky for you the US will stand its ground and not let a madman get the bomb.

[edit on 25-1-2006 by Dronetek]


Are you saying that Iran has no right to respond to threats issued by the EU and the U.S. government?



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 04:14 PM
link   
Oh not more talk of war in the middle east.

Here's an idea, Europe and US invent practical alternative to Oil, or if not, just spend a little more on alternative energy sources.

Then the Iranians would just be sitting on top of worthless sludge


Wouldn't that be a kick in the teeth to the middle east, and a few lives would be saved too i'm sure



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dronetek
They openly murder and defy human rights, while making threats of other countries destructions and yet you still give them the benifit of the doubt. Honestly, I feel quite sorry for your country if it is that nieve.

[edit on 25-1-2006 by Dronetek]


Funny for a minute there i thought you were talking about the US, and unfortunately it appears that the madman has already got the bomb, quite a few actually.



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dronetek
You seem so anti-US


- No, sorry, wrong, I am not "anti-US".

I am "anti" the current US administration and it's obvious policy on this matter.
No matter how much the present US right-wing might hold inflated egos and opinions of themselves they are not the whole of the US.

I am sorry you seem to be incapable of seeing or making the distinction.


, yet you brush off the comments of the Iranian leader. Is there a reason for that?


- Did I?

I think IIRC that I have repeatedly referred to those comments as idiotic or unwise.

I am also well aware that they are in large part no different to the empty propaganda phrases used by many in Iran since the 1979 revolution; so before getting things totally out of proportion I simply bear that in mind.

......and his mere "comments" are hardly any kind of 'justification' for the obvious moves towards yet another disastrous and utterly unjustified ME war some Americans seem determined to create.


Why are you so willing to give the benifit of the doubt to people like Saddam and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?


- OK, feel free to demonstrate when I did that?

Pointing out the truth of the utter lack of European (including the UK) support for the present ME war nevermind this proposed lunacy is not giving the "benefit of the doubt" to or 'supporting' anyone.
It merely states the truth of the matter.

I am actually "giving the benefit of the doubt" to the international community, the international inspectors and the international monitoring but not the present US government, the Israeli government nor any of those emigré opposition groups that have popped up from time to time to spout the most exaggerated and agenda driven propaganda.

......and btw as for Saddam, the inspectors were actually right.


They openly murder and defy human rights, while making threats of other countries destructions and yet you still give them the benifit of the doubt. Honestly, I feel quite sorry for your country if it is that nieve.


- That's a nice little speech.
Good for you.

You can try and find a post where I have ever supported the Iraqi or Iranian humans rights record.

I'll keep watching for a response, I won't be holding my breath.

Sadly the world isn't quite the nice black and white some want to imagine it to be.
Some might open their eyes to the idea that getting rid of Saddam might end up with the situation worse (for the Iraqi people, theiur neighbours and the rest of the world).
Again that is no support for Saddam nor his record it is merely a reflection of what may be the truth of the matter.


Oh, there will be sanctions. Lucky for you the US will stand its ground and not let a madman get the bomb.


- That might actually have a little support if there was a "bomb" in the first place - something no-one but those determined to have a war believes.

As for the "mad man" 'getting' "the bomb"?
It appears you have the not untypical attitude that the Iranian Pres is equivalent in powers to the US one.
This is simply not true.



[edit on 25-1-2006 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 05:18 PM
link   
Yes.

They are a mouse with a grenade baiting an army of a hundred million tigers.

They espouse a patently false ideological system, sow discord in the world, and are trying to provoke war in the name of genocide.

Smart. Real smart.

They should put the effort into building up their country. Guess they want the Coalition and Haliburton to do that for them!



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by BigEasy

Who?

That's b/c they don't have the toyz we have.

If they did, we'd just do the diplomacy dance.


it was an example of this threat iran made, it should be obvious....


and will anyone answer, why is it ok for iran to blockade 4 of its neighbors who arent bothering them as a response to us?

[edit on 25-1-2006 by namehere]



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 06:35 PM
link   
Does Anybody Know anything about Shia Islam?

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Expects the 12th Iman To return To Earth. And hasten a Muslim Version of the apocalypse.

He Is A Madman, And must be stopped. (Hopefully By his own people.)

www.telegraph.co.uk

mod edit to shorten link

[edit on 25-1-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by msnevil
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Expects the 12th Iman To return To Earth. And hasten a Muslim Version of the apocalypse.

He Is A Madman, And must be stopped. (Hopefully By his own people.)





When an aircraft crashed in Teheran last month, killing 108 people, Mr Ahmadinejad promised an investigation. But he also thanked the dead, saying: "What is important is that they have shown the way to martyrdom which we must follow."


Yep, hes gone CRAAAAAZY!!!!
Im certain those people on board didnt board the plane to martyrdom for that.

[edit on 25-1-2006 by deltaboy]

Mod Edit: Quoting Etiquette – Please Review This Link.



[edit on 25-1-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by namehere
it was an example of this threat iran made, it should be obvious....


- The government of "Iran" has made no such threat, quotes have been attributed to individuals by Haaretz, an Israeli news service.

Excuse my scepticism.


and will anyone answer, why is it ok for iran to blockade 4 of its neighbors who arent bothering them as a response to us?


- Let's try and stick to the facts.

Iran hasn't blockaded anybody so there is nothing for anyone to respond to.

The funny thing is that on the day Iran responds positively to new Russian proposals this story crops up.

I can find no reports about these so-called threatening comments on either the BBC or Reuters.

Sorry no offence to Haaretz but I'll just wait until I see the matter reported in an established and reputable source before I go nuts about yet another rumour and series of utterly hypothetical scenarios.


[edit on 25-1-2006 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
- The government of "Iran" has made no such threat, quotes have been attributed to individuals by Haaretz, an Israeli news service.

Excuse my scepticism.

- Let's try and stick to the facts.

Iran hasn't blockaded anybody so there is nothing for anyone to respond to.


do i need to specify if and maybes here?geez

IF cuba was in our position and ithe US responded like iran supposedly said they might in the article, it would be the equivalent to us blockading our neighbors in the americas.

are you not listening? i'll say in what ifs since you need it specified...

IF it is true and iran did blockade the strait of hormuz and in effect blockaded their neighbors, would it be justified?

theres no facts suggesting the article is a lie so please dont tallk about facts as if its not true, you dont know.

obviously they havent yet, i wasnt saying they did....


[edit on 25-1-2006 by namehere]



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 10:23 PM
link   
Its funny how so many forget that the U.S. government has actually asked for a fight more than Iran ever has. We wholeheartedly supported Saddam Hussein to ensure Iran's defeat in the Iran-Iraq War and we even shot down one of their civilian airliners (albeit by mistake), never accepted responsibility for it, but couldn't take it when terrorists responded by blowing up Pan Am 103.

If anybody has asked Iran for a fight, four words: Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush.



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 10:38 PM
link   
Iran's president has got to be a puppet. Has to. That or some delusional dream of Islamic world domination. Either way this is too much, I simply cannot believe Iran threatened a blockade (defined in the Vienna convention as an act of WAR) in case of sanctions. This is too irresponsible, I heard Iran's president was hand picked by Bilderberger. I'm willing to believe that one.

[edit on 25-1-2006 by Nakash]



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 11:01 PM
link   
at the risk of getting in over my head, i'm gonna jump in here.


Originally posted by sminkeypinkey

Sorry no offence to Haaretz but I'll just wait until I see the matter reported in an established and reputable source before I go nuts about yet another rumour and series of utterly hypothetical scenarios.

[edit on 25-1-2006 by sminkeypinkey]


while i cant speak for this particular report, i would like to delve into the mind of the guy running iran.

in reference to the iranian presidents beligerant attitude and his quest to bring the messiah back sooner, would you believe newsweek?

from my thread Iranian President Attempting to Start Armaggedon?


msnbc.com

Eerie stories about Ahmadinejad's mystical obsessions have been drifting out of Tehran of late, specifically his devotion to the so-called 12th imam—the Shiite messiah, better known as the Mahdi, who's supposed to return and lead an apocalyptic revolution of the oppressed over vague forces of injustice.

By some accounts, the new president's first deputy, Parvis Davoudi, recently asked cabinet members during a formal meeting to pledge their allegiance to the Mahdi in a signed letter. And when Ahmadinejad was Tehran's mayor, he reportedly refurbished a major boulevard on grounds that the Mahdi was to travel along it upon his return.


i am bringing this up to support the idea that Ahmadinejad would have no problem putting his people at risk for war, as he believes he main purpose in life is to bring the messiah back sooner.


Originally posted by Nakash
Iran's president has got to be a puppet. Has to. That or some delusional dream of Islamic world domination. Either way this is too much, I simply cannot believe Iran threatened a blockade (defined in the Vienna convention as an act of WAR) in case of sanctions. This is too irresponsible, I heard Iran's president was hand picked by Bilderberger. I'm willing to believe that one.


also from my thread about Ahmadinejad:


Originally posted by Nerdling
cough cough



Iranian Press Service

"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


Definitely a peaceful lot.


the ayatollahs are in agreement with Ahmadinejad, so even if he is a puppet, he is spouting the party line. which means that no matter who the actual "leader" is, the leadership itself is just plain dangerous.

you can talk semantics all day long, but the bottom line is that iran seems to be trying to pick a fight. now whether, as i have come to believe, it's because ahmadinejad is trying to expedite the last battle is a matter of opinion. but something is going on over there, and we as a world community, have got to stop it before it causes world war III.



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 11:04 PM
link   
I understand Iran in most respects, us threatens invasion behind closed doors and such and they take a stand.
Yes I can see the: If the US invades someone its ok, but if they threaten retaliation its "evil" or "Terrorism" but this is just part of facism, heil hitler, de fuehr bush, etc. all combined into one. I will not blame iran for shutting off oil to the world if they think its need be to stop the US.
The US is going to invade ANYWAY so whats the point?
Look at it this way:
Your a small nation, small military, limited defencive capacity, only 1 source of income.
Now you KNOW for a fact your enemy will invade you or cause you so much trouble you might as well call it an economic invasion. You know you wont hold the battle line so why bother? If you have a navy sink them and block up ports so they can never be used again or kamikazi them into carriers and see how many you can take down. While your at it shut their oil off so their tanks will be hard pressed for fuel and blow up all your wells, pipes, rigs, etc. so they wont be able to get any.
You back someone into a corner they do not have many choices and the iranians have little to no choices. The US WILL invade them out of a fake reason or a childish: OH YOU STARTED IT!!! BS, they pushed them into so they can take advantage of it. If iran wanted a war they would have cut the oil by now and invaded Iraq and shot up some naval ships in the gulf, but they HAVENT they have told the US in one way or another to back off and leave them alone or fake the concequences.
I know this will perterb everyone who supports bush and the war on here so dont bother posting at me I will ignore it entirely because I know what your going to say.



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 11:15 PM
link   
We all agree on that, but it means squat if your leaders are anxiously wishing to start a world war so an Islamic dictator/conqueror can take over the world for you. Also notice their presiden't reasoning: nuke Israel, Iran get's nuked in response- big deal since "the muslim world will triumph while Israel will be destroyed". That's scary, reminds me of those crazies in the Pentagon in the 40's/50's who thought the U.S. could win a nuclear war against the Soviets (and should start it).




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join