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 has modified the Sahab-3 to carry nukes – But they only want nukes for peace

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
no israel has done nothing to promote violence. it just took land from people, kicked them out as refugees and well you know the story.

sure israel hasnt done anything to threaten the nations around it, its already taken enough land that it shouldnt have. by the wrong means in the wrong place, what do you expect to happen "hey you can have it because your god said so, we will just live as refugees over here, losing our homes etc." no i doubt it. i doubt you would do that either.


"you have voted grimreaper797 way above top secret"


great post this is what people dont udnerstand. a group of white skinned europeans where given land that belonged to brown middle easterners.

now native palestinians live in slums while euro jews live on there land. persoanlly if i was middle-eastern i would wish death to israel everyday too. israel was a mistake the world made they should have given the jews a homeland in germany or austria where they belonged.




posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 06:22 PM
link   


they have been threatening us daily for over 26 years. how many times a day do the mullahs preach "death to america?" to them we are the great satan.


Well, why Israel is entitled to the palestinian land? is it because some book says so? for 2000 years, Israelis were not there. Therefore they have no rights to that land.

If Israel is entitled to that land, then Italy is entitled to the whole Europe, middle east and north Africa since the Roman empire occupied that area.

And maybe give middle east up to India to Greeks, because of the great Alexander?

Come on guys. Whoever placed Jews on palestinian ground only hoped to bring the armageddon. There are lots of crazy people that want to see the prophecies fulfilled.


[edit on 7-4-2006 by masterp]



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by masterp
Come on guys. Whoever placed Jews on palestinian ground only hoped to bring the armageddon. There are lots of crazy people that want to see the prophecies fulfilled.

Um, "whoever" was the United Nations.




seekerof



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
no israel has done nothing to promote violence. it just took land from people, kicked them out as refugees and well you know the story.


man, i do love the revisionist history. forget the fact that israel was defending themselves against muslim aggression from all sides when they took the land in question. forget the fact the the "palestinians" were jordanians and other nationalities who got caught behind enemy lines when israel was pushing back a foreign invasion. forget the fact that they were offered israeli citizenship. forget the fact that they were originally offered their own country by the UN at the same time israel was formed and told the UN to go to hell because they would have to recognize israel. forget the fact that the "palestinians" were originally refugees who were put into refugee camps by their own people.


Originally posted by iqonx

great post this is what people dont udnerstand. a group of white skinned europeans where given land that belonged to brown middle easterners.


really? funny, because you will find that a good many of those "white skinned europeans" were actually brown skinned jews already living there. you will also find that, as i have mentioned before, israel is not 100% jewish.



now native palestinians live in slums while euro jews live on there land.


they were relocated to those slums by their own people. i love how that is always conveniently forgotton.


Originally posted by masterp
Well, why Israel is entitled to the palestinian land? is it because some book says so? for 2000 years, Israelis were not there. Therefore they have no rights to that land.


nobody ever reads a history book. the land was not muslim. it was a british protectorate in which both jews and muslims lived side by side. the land was given over to the UN who wanted to make two separate states out of it: israel and palestine. the "palestinians" said go to hell, because they were going to have to recognize israel to get their country. the israelis offered citizenship to any muslims wanting to stay. some did, which is why you will find muslim israelis who are allowed full citizenship and to freely practice their religion. nobody stole anyone elses land.



If Israel is entitled to that land, then Italy is entitled to the whole Europe, middle east and north Africa since the Roman empire occupied that area.


they won it in battle, just as every single nation in existance at some point won their land in battle. which, incidentally, is how israel lost the land in the first place thousands of years ago.

so by your standards, everyone who ever won territory in battle should give it back to those they took it from? wow. guess i'm going back to britain. oh, wait, no scotland. oh wait, no....1/16 of my can stay here because of my cherokee blood. whatever.



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700

israel has never threatened the complete destruction of another nation either.....iran has pretty much continuously threatened israel's very existence since the revolution. there just is no comparison.



Well if you don't consider veiled threats and just the fact of having such damaging weapons a threat I really don't know what to say. I can't see if Iran , even tho it doesn't even have them at this point , ever gets it should be a problem then since you feel it shouldn't be an issue. Though I know you will of course disagree because then it will not be in Israeli hands but in the hands of another nation and say that Israel of course is the more responsible and democratic nation.
They are all bugged out over there and I'm sorry if you don't see it. I know you will not concede and admit that Israel is also guilty of being just as bad as them ,but in reality both sides are guilty of the very same thing they each accuse each other of doing.



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
well if the US decides that it wants to make a whole new arsenal of nuclear weapons to keep its nuclear ambitions high, whats the point of even having the NPT. were just gunna keep on making these weapons.

The US is not making a whole new arsenal. The information or interpretation of that information is flawed.




when we start to lower our amounts a great deal, then we can complain. since we are making NO effect to reduce the nuclear threat, rather create a new one by restocking our arsenal, whats the point?

Your above assertions only reinforce my mention of circle logic.
The US has been in the process of lowering its total number of nuclear weapons. At the height of the Cold War (1960s), the US had approx. 32,500 nuclear warheads, whereas the Soviet Union--now Russia--had upwards of 40,000. According to a 2002 mention, the US currently has a combined total of 10,455 strategic and non-strategic nuclear weapons . Currently, according to a 2005 mention, the US has a combined total of 5,300 strategic and non-strategic nuclear weapons.

Your were asserting what again?






seekerof

[edit on 7-4-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThePieMaN
I know you will not concede and admit that Israel is also guilty of being just as bad as them ,but in reality both sides are guilty of the very same thing they each accuse each other of doing.

Really?
Question, just one: Has Israel ever, ever once stated that Iran should be utterly destroyed and removed from the map?








seekerof

[edit on 7-4-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Question, just one: Has Israel ever, ever once stated that Iran should be utterly destroyed and removed from the map?

Since when is threatening to bomb and having bombed a nuclear facility of another nation considered safe to the general public? So if any country decides to bomb Israels nuclear facilites its ok then and thats not going to be considered violent as long as they don't throw in any ignorant racist comments?











[edit on 7-4-2006 by ThePieMaN]



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700

Originally posted by grimreaper797
no israel has done nothing to promote violence. it just took land from people, kicked them out as refugees and well you know the story.


man, i do love the revisionist history. forget the fact that israel was defending themselves against muslim aggression from all sides when they took the land in question. forget the fact the the "palestinians" were jordanians and other nationalities who got caught behind enemy lines when israel was pushing back a foreign invasion. forget the fact that they were offered israeli citizenship. forget the fact that they were originally offered their own country by the UN at the same time israel was formed and told the UN to go to hell because they would have to recognize israel. forget the fact that the "palestinians" were originally refugees who were put into refugee camps by their own people.


well yess when you take land usually your going to get a resistance if nobody in the area wants you there. a foreign invasion of what? they shouldnt have been placed anywhere near the middle east. wouldnt have had much resistance from palestinians if you werent even bordering their homeland, let alone taking it.

alright, well if russia were to tak over half of the US, but said "here we will give you russian citizenship, you would take it? why how american of you.

or say they took over all the US then said, well we will give you a part back but you will have to reconize russia as the new leader of the land we took. you would do that?

i never denied they were oppressed by their own government, but thats not much different then any government. now instead of being in their homes, they are in little camps. im sorry but i think that makes a pretty decent difference when you think about it.

i think you got revisionist mixed up with realistic. israel didnt have the right to the land, plain and simple. the UN had no right to forcefully move people out of their homes. the basis of reason for giving them THAT area is not logical.



There was a time when the Zionist movement considered establishing a Jewish state in East Africa. At the turn of the 20th century Joseph Chamberlain, Britain’s colonial Secretary, offered Theodor Hertzel parts of what is today Kenya and Uganda. The real estate offered to the Jews included what were later known as the White Highlands of Kenya. Fortunately for East Africa the Zionist movement could not reach consensus. Britain’s offer to the Jews was turned down.
igcs.binghamton.edu...

this is fact.
they didnt want just any land, they wanted the land promised to them by god. Tell me why did they decline the british offer? Now knowing this, its obvious that the jewish people wanted whats now known as israel. So why did we give it away? could it be US pressure? pretty much since the UN wasnt even happy about giving them this land. They did though because of how Pro-Israel the US is. The US was making all sorts of actions to make sure the jewish people got present israel, regardless of what they had to do to get it, even removing palestinians from their homes. revisionist? no, id say its obvious history that we did this.

so knowing this, can you get a better idea of why they hate us so much? or is it still too complicated for you?



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

Originally posted by ThePieMaN
I know you will not concede and admit that Israel is also guilty of being just as bad as them ,but in reality both sides are guilty of the very same thing they each accuse each other of doing.

Really?
Question, just one: Has Israel ever, ever once stated that Iran should be utterly destroyed and removed from the map?








seekerof

[edit on 7-4-2006 by Seekerof]


You are 100% right Seekerof! However, your question is sure to elicit off the wall responses...


[edit on 7-4-2006 by signs]



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

Originally posted by grimreaper797
well if the US decides that it wants to make a whole new arsenal of nuclear weapons to keep its nuclear ambitions high, whats the point of even having the NPT. were just gunna keep on making these weapons.

The US is not making a whole new arsenal. The information or interpretation of that information is flawed.




when we start to lower our amounts a great deal, then we can complain. since we are making NO effect to reduce the nuclear threat, rather create a new one by restocking our arsenal, whats the point?

Your above assertions only reinforce my mention of circle logic.
The US has been in the process of lowering its total number of nuclear weapons. At the height of the Cold War (1960s), the US had approx. 32,500 nuclear warheads, whereas the Soviet Union--now Russia--had upwards of 40,000. According to a 2002 mention, the US currently has a combined total of 10,455 strategic and non-strategic nuclear weapons . Currently, according to a 2005 mention, the US has a combined total of 5,300 strategic and non-strategic nuclear weapons.

Your were asserting what again?

seekerof
[edit on 7-4-2006 by Seekerof]


yes they are making a new arsenal, and disbanning the old one. That doesnt say much for nonproliferation though. making sure everyone is still capable of destroying the earth, yep sounds about right.

great so now the US and soviets can only blow up the earth 20 times around instead of 200....makes a big difference since we only got to do it once to get it right. we dont need that many nuclear weapons. apparently though since they want to make 100+ a year replacement nuclear weapons and have it in full rolling effect by 2022, where we put out an average 135 nuclear weapons out a year i believe, the government doesnt believe so. they feel we must be able to successfull destroy the planet multiple times to ensure that everyone is scared out of their witz for the rest of their life by the end of the world.



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797

so knowing this, can you get a better idea of why they hate us so much? or is it still too complicated for you?


it seems as though you really dont understand the history of the region. therefore i will attempt to lay it out for you.

the area now known as israel was originally a british protectorate (before that it belonged to the ottomon empire). the people living there were a combination of jew, muslim and christian. they lived side by side as they had for thousands of years. after wwII, the british turned the area over to the UN with the intentions of creating two separate states: israel and palestine. as i mentioned before, the muslims turned down the UN offer, while the jews accepted it. the jews invited the muslims to stay and enjoy full citizenship. now what happened next is exactly the same as what happened in india when pakistan was created. those who wanted to stay in israel did, and those who didnt moved out. jews were displaced as well as muslims, just as in india, both muslims and hindus moved to the area of their choice. no one was forced to leave israel....they did it of their own accord. the analogy of russia invading the US is irrelavent, as the area was not a country at the time....everyone living there was a british subject, just as in india.

now here is where it gets really messy. when the muslims that chose to leave did so, they were not welcomed by the adjacent countries, who immediately put them into refugee camps on israel's border.....which was really ingenius when you think about it. they have used this area against israel since 1947. but before the exodus of muslims, the adjacent muslim countries actually flooded the area with muslims who had never set foot in the area in an attempt to fudge the numbers. it worked.

then when israel over ran the area during the war, the "palestinians" as they had started calling themselves became israel's problem. the rest is history.



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 08:54 PM
link   
yes, before the ottoman empire it was controlled by british and they all did live together. HOWEVER you leave out that big gap inbetween. why? because thats when the jews left that land and were scattered across europe. they no longer inhabited this land, and it was no longer the british land to give away as they pleased.

this is where it gets trickey. giving away land that wasnt theirs. in a sense, right after ww2 ended, the UN, USA, and Jewish people declared war on the palestinians. thats the ONLY way it can be seen. if any place is invaded, and the invadors grant you citizenship, would you take it knowing that your land was invaded? no if you were loyal to your homeland you wouldnt.

in the end, it was no longer the jewish peoples land, or the british land, so they shouldnt have given it away. doing so, and occupying land, is a declaration of war pretty much. your invading foreign land. plain and simple, thats war. so these terrorists are the soldiers, and they are fighting their war. funny because thats what they have been saying this entire time. It just so happens that history fits it perfectly.

The jewish people had the chance to take eastern kenya, yet they didnt. they took land that wasnt givable. this was an invasion. how you see it any other way can only be reverse racism propaganda telling you that if your not for the state of israel then your racist.



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
yes they are making a new arsenal, and disbanning the old one. That doesnt say much for nonproliferation though. making sure everyone is still capable of destroying the earth, yep sounds about right.

apparently though since they want to make 100+ a year replacement nuclear weapons and have it in full rolling effect by 2022, where we put out an average 135 nuclear weapons out a year i believe, the government doesnt believe so. they feel we must be able to successfull destroy the planet multiple times to ensure that everyone is scared out of their witz for the rest of their life by the end of the world.

You really, really need to read the links provided sometimes...really.
Having not done so, you missed this:


The United States aims to reduce its nuclear arsenal by almost half by 2012. While no specific numbers have been released by the Pentagon, outside observers believe that 600 W62s, 500 W78s, 1,500 W76s, 1,000 W80-1s, 400 W84s, and 600 B61s are slated for retirement.


And this:


The United States is modernizing its nuclear arsenal on several fronts.

The above came from here: 2005 mention

"Modernizing" does not remotely imply "making a new arsenal."






seekerof



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 09:27 PM
link   
and we have to go on the "good word" of the pentagon that its all for peaceful purposes. the proposed ideas of using nukes for bunker busters has nothing to do with revitalizing the nukes. We just want to make sure we are secure... like iran wants to do....but they are wrong because they condone "wiping israel off the map" which could mean nothing more then moving it off of the middle east. Whether it be violently or not is up to everyone else.

They want them gone, we dont. They want nuclear weapons since israel does, we dont. We want control over the middle east, well they do too. Welcome to the game of risk where stupidity rules the battlefield and we all go home radiated at the end of the day since we cant figure out that nuclear war wouldnt benefit anyone. But yea, instead of destroying more weapons since we have reason to, lets just restore them, so we can supposively dismantle them by 2012??? how does that make sense. make nuclear weapons to dismattle them in a couple years?



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 10:35 PM
link   
just because they said they can modify the missile to carry the nuke doesnt mean they have the nuke to put into the missile



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by blackhumvee113
just because they said they can modify the missile to carry the nuke doesnt mean they have the nuke to put into the missile

And that brings us back to the crux of the discussion here, blackhumvee113. Why would Iran have the need to modify missiles to carry nuclear warheads when they are allegedly only seeking nuclear power and technologies for peaceful purposes? If what Iran has been claiming all along is true (nuclear power for peaceful purposes) then there should be no need or reason whatsoever to modify their missiles so as to allow for them to be armed with nuclear warheads...none.







seekerof



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

Originally posted by blackhumvee113
just because they said they can modify the missile to carry the nuke doesnt mean they have the nuke to put into the missile

And that brings us back to the crux of the discussion here, blackhumvee113. Why would Iran have the need to modify missiles to carry nuclear warheads when they are allegedly only seeking nuclear power and technologies for peaceful purposes? If what Iran has been claiming all along is true (nuclear power for peaceful purposes) then there should be no need or reason whatsoever to modify their missiles so as to allow for them to be armed with nuclear warheads...none.
seekerof


Because when the States is threatening them you want to be able to have something like capable warheads that can deliver nukes to make sure they dont attack. Your not going to attack a country that can deliver a nuke attack.



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 11:03 PM
link   
So Fuhr86, your saying that in truth, Iran is indeed lying and that their peaceful intent nuclear program is a BS cover for their real intentions of acquiring and building nuclear weapons to equip those modified missiles?





seekerof

[edit on 7-4-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
yes, before the ottoman empire it was controlled by british and they all did live together. HOWEVER you leave out that big gap inbetween. why?


probably because you've got your history wrong again. the brits controlled it after the league of nations turned it over to them as spoils of wwI, and controlled it up until handing it over to the UN for establishment of israel and palestine.



because thats when the jews left that land and were scattered across europe. they no longer inhabited this land, and it was no longer the british land to give away as they pleased.


wrong again. jews have been there just as long as muslims. more started returning to their homeland after the balfour declaration of 1917.



how you see it any other way can only be reverse racism propaganda telling you that if your not for the state of israel then your racist.


that's the part i love...when people try to bring race to the issue. jews and arabs come from the same line of people. they are all semitic. race has nothing to do with it.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join