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.
Originally posted by ImplementOfWar
If the Iranian president had intentions of attacking Israel or the United States with it's nuclear arsenal, do you think he would publically announce it? I don't.
< snip >
I am just trying to enlighten people to their faulted mentality of analyzing EXACTLY what he said said as his gospel and true intentions. It is a faulted way of thinking.
Originally posted by Jamuhn
mullahs would not be making such comments without the approval of the supreme leader.
Do you have proof of this? Because last I saw...
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has issued a fatwa forbidding the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons. The fatwa was cited in an official statement by the Iranian government at an August 2005 meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna.
Originally posted by snafu7700if you are the expert of shia islam that you have claimed to be on other threads, you know this to be true. cant have it both ways....either khamenei is in charge and agrees with the remarks of those under him, or he no longer holds the power the west thinks he does and his people openly disregard his fatwas. which is it?
In fact the president has less power than any of his Islamic Republic predecessors. Ayatollah Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader, has seemingly been startled enough by Ahmadinejad's disruptive tendencies to grant the expediency council (a non-elected body headed by Rafsanjani) oversight of the presidency.
The hardliners are facing rising opposition from a moderate faction, which appears to enjoy support from Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Iran's Supreme National Security Council secretary, Ali Larijani, recently praised some aspects of the Russian plan and emphasized that Tehran did not intend to withdraw from the NPT. Larijani is widely viewed as a political protege of Ayatollah Khamenei's.
Ahmadinejad enjoyed the backing of Ayatollah Khamenei during the initial stage of his presidency. But Ahmadinejad's pursuit of a radically conservative political agenda quickly prompted Ayatollah Khamenei to distance himself from the president's faction. The supreme leader, apparently seeing a need for Iran to have a political counter-balance to the presidential faction, has reached out to centrists led by Ali Akhbar Hashemi Rafsanjani.
Discussions about Iran tend to focus on two opposing groups: the conservative clerics, led by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who keep Khomeini's dream alive; and the reformers, led by Iranian President Mohammad Khatami, who seek to gradually open up Iran's moribund politics and economy to the world.
This depiction is true, but incomplete, as Ramin Jahanbegloo, an Iranian scholar living in Tehran, wrote last year in the Journal of Democracy. The reality of Iranian politics is "characterized by multiple and competing power centers whose rivalries have created a chaotic situation in which various shades and types of 'reformism' and 'conservatism' interact in often bewildering ways." Bewildering, yes, but these "shades and types" also represent the most likely means of breaking Iran's political gridlock.
While the world is focused on the clock of Iran's nuclear program, the other clock, that of the nation's domestic politics, is all but ignored by most commentators.
...
The event to watch is the forthcoming election of a new Assembly of Experts, a body of mullahs whose task is to elect the "Custodian-Theologian" - more commonly known as the "Supreme Guide," who has virtually unlimited powers under the Khomeinist constitution.
...
During the presidential election Khamenei was astute enough to adjust his tactics. Having backed Qalibaf in the first round he switched to Ahmadinejad in the second. Ahmadinejad, however, feels he owes nothing to Khamenei. By putting the focus on the "Hidden Imam" Mahdi as the sole source of power in the Islamic Republic, Ahmadinejad has tried to marginalize the "Supreme Guide." In many of his speeches he puts the Mahdi ahead of all prophets and claims that he has "a private personal channel" to the "Hidden Imam."
Originally posted by Muaddib
Now we have a mullah declaring a fatwa that it is alright to use nuclear weapons.
Mini-Nukes in Conventional War Theaters - "SAFE FOR CIVILANS"
There are indications that the Bush administration does not exclude using thermonuclear bunker buster bombs in the Middle East war theater. These weapons were specifically developed for use in post Cold War "conventional conflicts with third world nations".
In an utterly twisted logic, the nuclear bunker buster bomb is presented as an instrument of peace-making and regime change, which will enhance global security. It is intended to curb the dangers of WMD proliferation by "nonstate organizations (terrorist, criminal)" and "rogue states". Pentagon propaganda has carefully distorted the nature of this bomb.
The Pentagon has blurred the distinction between conventional battlefield weapons and nuclear bombs. Already during the Clinton Administration, the Pentagon was calling for the use of the "nuclear" B61-11 bunker buster bomb, suggesting that because it was "underground", there was no toxic radioactive fallout which could affect civilians.
The B61-11 is casually described as causing an underground explosion without threatening "the surrounding civilian population".
Robert S. McNamara, US Secretary of Defense under the Kennedy and Johnson administrations
Current US nuclear weapons policy is immoral, illegal, militarily unnecessary, and dreadfully dangerous. The risk of an accidental or inadvertent nuclear launch is unacceptably high. Far from reducing these risks, the Bush administration has signaled that it is committed to keeping the US nuclear arsenal as a mainstay of its military power - a commitment that is simultaneously eroding the international norms that have limited the spread of nuclear weapons and fissile materials for 50 years. Much of the current US nuclear policy has been in place since before I was secretary of defense, and it has only grown more dangerous and diplomatically destructive in the intervening years."
Originally posted by thermopolis
Which is worst, to attack Iran NOW before they can "burn" the planet or wait until they can in the name of the moon false god "allah'?
He also said: "When the entire world is armed with nuclear weapons, it is permissible to use these weapons as a counter-measure. According to Sharia too, only the goal is important."
Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Simply being nuclear does not mean collateral damage, radiation poisoning, etc.
B61-11 Concerns and Background
The United States is now fielding a new tactical and strategic nuclear military capability that has already been used to threaten a non-nuclear country. This new capability was certified without nuclear testing, using an existing surrogate testing facility with capabilities much less than those under construction and planned. The weapon was developed and deployed in secret, without public and congressional debate, contrary to domestic and international assurances that no new nuclear weapons were being developed. Other new or "modified" nuclear weapons, earth-penetrating and otherwise, are planned.
THE COMPREHENSIVE NUCLEAR TEST-BAN TREATY
ARTICLE I: BASIC OBLIGATIONS
1. Each State Party undertakes not to carry out any nuclear weapon test explosion or any other nuclear explosion, and to prohibit and prevent any such nuclear explosion at any place under its jurisdiction or control.
2. Each State Party undertakes, furthermore, to refrain from causing, encouraging, or in any way participating in the carrying out of any nuclear weapon test explosion or any other nuclear explosion.
Originally posted by Muaddib
Soficrow, i don't think you read the article. ...i just wonder why you didn't see the following statement from the mullah.
He also said: "When the entire world is armed with nuclear weapons, it is permissible to use these weapons as a counter-measure. According to Sharia too, only the goal is important."
If people can't read between the lines on all of this.....
Originally posted by soficrow
......................
I assure you I do - and I see that yellow journalism is being used to war-monger, and justify yet another round of pre-emptive strikes.
I see it. I call it. It sucks.