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: 8
0
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 12:44 PM
link   
and because you believe that place is your homeland doesnt give you the right to declare it your homeland, when the people currently living there say "no!"

dont tell me what i would or wouldnt do, you have no idea what ive seen or been through. dont go around telling me about bravery and stuff when all you know about me is through a computer screen. to think you could judge my character because you think all i do is sit at a computer is ignorant.

what you dont get is that im not saying that arab people should just get their land back without any fight. im saying its their land, and their choice to choose if they want it. they show that by fighting for it. the jewish people invaded it, so the palestinian people fight back, whats so hard to understand about that?

i have come to the conclusion that your unable to put yourself in other peoples shoes. i dont blame the jewish people for wanting to live there. i dont blame the palestinians for fighting back. i blame britian for doing what they did. if the jewish people want to take that land, well them dont be surprised when they get attacked by the people they took it from.




posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 01:25 PM
link   

I'm SURE you do not know what armed conflict is like. It is alot easier to sit and say you will, but when it comes down to it i'm sure it'd be a different story in the MAJORITY of cases.


I did actually generalise when making that statement. Using 'sure' (as in IMO) or 'majority' (does not indicate you personally) suggests but I am not classing it as fact. I apologise for your misunderstanding.


the jewish people invaded it, so the Palestinian people fight back


Jewish people did not invade that land! The British did IF anything.


i have come to the conclusion that your unable to put yourself in other peoples shoes


Ditto.. couldn’t agree more! You say you can see why Jewish people want to live there.. but you seem to have no grasp on anything I’ve said.. And I’m sure you feel exactly the same with me. I do not think we will settle this ‘debate’
anytime in this near future. Best to agree to disagree as it were.



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 01:32 PM
link   
i just dont believe because you lived there a long time ago or because you have a spiritual connect is enough reason to take the land. that to me isnt a justified reason, so yes thats why i believe the palestinians have a every reason to fight back. thats my point entirely right there. the palestinians have every reason to be angry. there wasnt any real decent reason as to why it should be a jewish state other then teh fact that britian let them flood in there. and even the jewishvirtuallibrary said they flooded in.



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 01:56 PM
link   
Yes well thats where we agree to disagree:

I still feel Jews were entitled to that land. I do not think my views will be changed.

- Britain invaded, AND immigration was controlled with several orders, illegal immigration only occured mainly through persecution throughout Europe (which may lead us into another dilemma, should these Jews of stayed put and actually been wiped out in Europe?).

- That land was appointed to them, and agreed upon by the UN as being their land.

- The majority of the land they settled on was un inhabited, as soon as Jewish people succeed many Arabs start to complain. The real fact is Jewish people had a major positive impact on the palastinians.

- The British tried to hold peace talks and even compromise with Arabs on the situation.. Giving Arabs a chance to air their views.. They refused these offers because they didn't want Jews to be in on talks (Bit childish really!)

- Many people would argue that for Humanitrian reasons during/after persecution they should be given a 'home' land.

- And we disagree on the last point. I feel Palastinians have absolutely no right to justify terrorism and threats to kill all Jews in Israel as being 'ok because they should fight back'.



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 03:00 PM
link   
Ill humor the line this post has taken for a bit before I give my real opinion…

First up, there are very few lands left in the world truly inhabited by indigenous people, and nearly every culture on Earth is guilty in some degree or another of land grabs. To that end, it’s high time the Palestinians, right, wrong or indifferent, start trying to move on and be part of the solution rather than prolong the issue and be the problem. Bottom line is that Israel is there and they aren’t going anywhere.

Now the shocker:

How dare you guys bring this up, this is a thread about Iran developing nuclear capable missiles. The mere mention of the Palestinians claim over that land is logic JUSTIFYING Iran’s need for these genocidal weapons of mass destruction, shame on the first person to introduce this reasoning into this thread!

Me: “Hey, Iran converted the Sahab-3 to carry nukes to kill Israeli’s and Americans…”
You: “Well, the Palestinian really should have that land…”

You see how horrible that logic is? You are all but condoning Iran’s use of nuclear missiles to destroy and entire race of people. SICK!!!


[edit on 10-4-2006 by skippytjc]



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 03:16 PM
link   

shame on the first person to introduce this reasoning into this thread!

Me: “Hey, Iran converted the Sahab-3 to carry nukes to kill Israeli’s and Americans…”
You: “Well, the Palestinian really should have that land…”


The very fact that Iran is developing such missles will, in many cases, lead on to an Israel debate considering the risk Iran poses..

Talk about Israel being at risk and someone wil always say well they deserve it or don't belong there anyway. This I intended to debate with known users. Most forums do generally STRAY from point to point and the longer the thread the bigger the overall debate as more and more people input ideas/opinions.

I presume you haven't actually read the full thread?


You see how horrible that logic is? You are all but condoning Iran’s use of nuclear missiles to destroy and entire race of people. SICK!!


Nobody condoned anything! Please rephrase your use of vocabulary. Read the thread!!



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 03:22 PM
link   
"You" means everybody adding to that debate regarding wether Irsael should be on that land.

And if you didnt get the "me", "you" analogy you arent reading it right.

If the conversation on an "Iran built a nuclear capable missile" thread leads the discussion to questioning Israels right to the land shows somebody has a twisted logic process.

Its one thing to discuss if they are a target of those weapons, to question wether they should be a target of a nuclear strike is entirely different.



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 03:30 PM
link   
Ok, please post who actually pondered whether or not they should be subjected to a nuclear strike.. I must have missed it somewhere??



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 03:38 PM
link   

If the conversation on an "Iran built a nuclear capable missile" thread leads the discussion to questioning Israels right to the land shows somebody has a twisted logic process.


I'l give an example..

person 1: "Israel will most likely be at risk if Iran gains nuclear capabilities"
person 2: "Why would Israel be at risk? What would make Iran strike"
person 3: "Well.. (give reasons for it)"
person 4: "Iran have a right to be annoyed at Israel.. because of this.. e.g. they shouldnt be on that Arab land in the first place"
person 3: Of course they should reason, reason

And the debate intensifies.. please read the thread and i'm sure it will become apparent. Not really that twisted. Quite Simple actually.



posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 05:12 PM
link   
that something im going to agree with knights on, because its common in conversation to stray from the original topic.

its not like i came in here when they were talkin about the sahab-3 missle and said. "well israel had it coming because the palestinians had their land taken away!" no that would be off topic and stupid.

also i wouldnt condone any country OR people using nuclear weapons to get what they want because its not just fighting anymore, its an attempt at genocide against the human race as a whole. i dont think anyone has condoned iran using nuclear weapons in here. ive seen some agree that iran has the right to possess nuclear weapons, but just because you dont read through enough doesnt mean thats what they are saying.

that was directed toward skippy if everyone didnt catch that.

o and knights, i think a good way to sum up my post would be "all is fair in love and war". to me a war has been started. so neither side is "wrong" for doing what they did. im not saying jewish people are wrong for taking that land, because i can understand why they wanted it. but im not going to call the palestinians wrong for wanting to take it back.
i think we can try to agree that a report from 50-100 years back (the report from the guy i cant remember the name off) isnt very accurate when it comes to the population displaced at this time. you could very well be right....BUT i could be right, it one of the things that we will most likely never know. wasnt documented, thats the problem.

[edit on 11-4-2006 by grimreaper797]



posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 06:18 PM
link   
It got emotional at times
But I guess it's one of those things where you either agree or diagree, love or hate. But yes you made some valid.. and hard points at times.. and i think [or hope] we have both learnt more of the matter and can see each others views and take them onboard. Anyway i'm going to have to wrap this baby up before I cry!




posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 06:23 PM
link   
i will be honest with you and say i do have a bit of a grudge after awhile. its like everytime i tried to debate this with some one jewish i ended up being racist or anti semetic. it was like i couldnt get througha debate without being called that, so you could see how i would view that as them not being able to defend their position.

usually i will debate it just to test them if i dont know anything about that subject, which is what i did. unfortunately i was first encounter by people who held their arguement with claims of reverse racism as a way to fight what i would say. it really made their points hard to takes serious when they make such claims ya know?



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Knights
Yes but i'm sure a certain 'blitzkrieg' tactic will be used and i'm almost certain the US has already devised lists of strategic sites to be targetted. For example Government buildings, SAM sites, Military bases, Communication sites.

It is extremely easy to say supplies will be given and these regimes will be funded but IF war is declared, when it is 'announced' within minutes bombs will rain from the skies. Something which Iran has very little protection against.

Like Iraq however, I feel that Iran's military capabilites will cease to exist almost straight away. Guerilla tactics will not. The US will substain heavy losses in street to street fighting.

Both sides will lose. Is it reaqlly worth developing a nuclear weapon and risk sacrificing every person/ animal/ plant on this planet in the process?


Yes a Blitzkrieg type tactic will be used, its called Network-Centric Warfare, the doctrine of the digital age. I just did a paper on how the Mongols influenced military doctrine in WW2 and beyond, quite interesting really. Read up on the seige of Kwarizm(modern day Iran and Afghanistan) by the Mongols, you will something of the sort that the Mongols did. Not many people know it, but Desert Storm was an exact copy of that seige.

It is easy to say, always that way. But if the US wanted to close the Iraq Iran Border it could. And it wont require an assload of troops either. Helo patrols, along with guard stations with a rapid reaction force in reach of certain strategic points, and of course UAV's. Thats the beauty of Network-Centric doctrine, it connects everyone on the battlefield, in the air and on the ground.

You are right about guerilla tactics, they are proven effective. But what if this is taking place on the border, on open territory instead of in the city. I think it would be a different story there, but an urban environment is the perfect place for the guerilla fighter.

I dont believe both sides will lose. If Iran tries to attack the US conventionally they will be destroyed, you can be rest assured of that. To prevent another country from being nuked again I think it is. Seeing as we the US dropped the only 2 ever to hit a city, it is our responsibility. No one said war is pretty, but in this situation I feel its better than the alternative.



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 05:44 AM
link   
While I understand how and why the Palestinians came up legitimately in this discussion (considering that the topic of this thread includes the reasons Iran is modifying the Sahab-3 to carry mukes) I do have to agree with Skippy that we (myself included) who have gotten into the question of who is right on the Palestinian issue have run the risk of leaving the role of Iran's weapons too far behind, and at sometimes we've manifested the trouble which we risked.

Yes, Israel is in some danger. Yes it is because of political gain that can be had by intervening over Palestine. Yes, a BRIEF discussion of the justice of the Palestinian issue would be only slightly off topic since while it does not respect the peaceful application of Iran's nuclear program, it does at least argue over the legitimacy thereof.

Unfortunately, that brief aside has taken on a massive life of its own, which I'm afraid I have aided.

May I humbly suggest that we consider that subject discussed to the point of impasse and proceed with other points.

For starters, I'd like to go back to a few relevant points in my first post in this thread. Specifically that if Israel was the only issue here, Iran wouldn't be building missiles that could reach Europe.

Iran, unlike other nuclear states we were errantly warned about (but which i hasten to point out we never seriously talked about attacking in the way we discussed Iraq and now Iran) Iran is not in an inescapable strategic hole. They are surrounded by lucrative potential victims who they could conventionally defeat in a quite expeditious manner, if only they had a deterrent to assure Western neutrality.

Peaceful purposes... hmm, depends what you mean. If you mean that they plan on only having a small war (like against the UAE) rather than a big one (against the UAE and USA and UK etc) then maybe you've got a point.



posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 09:56 PM
link   
For starters, I'd like to go back to a few relevant points in my first post in this thread. Specifically that if Israel was the only issue here, Iran wouldn't be building missiles that could reach Europe.

Very true, so what are they planning for them. Could it be that they just want them to scare off everyone??? I dont think the USA will do air strikes, I think they will try putting troops in like in Iraq because its politically correct.



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 09:22 AM
link   
reply to post by skippytjc
 

Why is Isreal the only country in that region who's allowed nukes ?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join