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 crmanager
We need the nukes.
It will be easier to spot the bombers when they glow and have two heads
Originally posted by cohiba
I'd have to say it's a pretty serious threat...
I mean... if the U.S.A. said they are going to send 40,000 people to China and Chinese interests around the globe to blow stuff up, I bet there would be a reaction...
Originally posted by DaFunk13
Low Orbit...are you in the service?
You should be. We have way too many kids ignoring their principals to fight wars that you and yours are so happy to condone. I am sick of hearing you hate mongers trying to convince everyone to throw intelligence out the window in favor of fear.
How do you sleep with so many bad-guys out to get you?
www.haaretz.com...
Sun., April 16, 2006 Nisan 18, 5766
Last update - 09:44 16/04/2006
Who is a terrorist?
By Gideon Levy
[snip]
Nor was there any substantive debate after a possible slip of the tongue by Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, in an interview to the BBC, in which she said that there was a difference between attacking civilians and attacking soldiers. Even though she did not resolutely stand by her own words in an interview with Channel 10, Livni dared to speak the truth: If harming civilians is a measure of terror, then Israel is a terror state. With 18 killed in Gaza alone in 12 days, three of them children, the absence of intent cannot suffice for us. Someone who uses artillery to shell population centers and says with horrific indifference that this is "just a preview," as if it were another reality show on TV, cannot claim that he does not intend to kill children. Those responsible for such bombings around the world are rightfully considered war criminals. That's terror - just ask Livni. And when it is done in the name of a state, it is much worse than in those cases when the perpetrators are from rogue organizations.
[snip]
www.telegraph.co.uk.../news/2006/04/13/wmid13.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/13/ixworld.html
Fury as Israeli minister says deadly attacks on troops are not terrorism
By Tim Butcher in Jerusalem
(Filed: 13/04/2006)
Israel's foreign minister, Tzipi Livni, has broken a taboo by declaring that Palestinians who kill Israeli soldiers are not terrorists. Her comments provoked fierce criticism in Israel and a Right-wing member of parliament demanded that she should be sacked.
One of her predecessors as foreign minister said her comments proved that she was too ignorant to hold office. The row began when Israeli radio broadcast an interview in which 48-year-old Mrs Livni said that attacks on Israeli soldiers were "more legitimate" than attacks on Israeli civilians. "Somebody who is fighting against Israeli soldiers is an enemy and we will fight back," she said. "But I believe that this is not under the definition of terrorism if the target is a soldier." [snip]
Originally posted by Low Orbit
Great quote unfortunately you offer no solutions or ideas for the present situation. Nor did/could you in the war in Afghanistan, run up to the invasion of Iraq, nor the current situation in Iraq.
I have thought about joining the service many times, but if I joined who would defend the armed services and the work they have so bravely done from nancy's like yourself.
Originally posted by DaFunk13
Originally posted by Low Orbit
Great quote unfortunately you offer no solutions or ideas for the present situation. Nor did/could you in the war in Afghanistan, run up to the invasion of Iraq, nor the current situation in Iraq.
You wanted solutions? Nah. We are doing just fine. Keep up the great work. Read not just words, but rather meanings. My solution is to quit demonizing everything that doesn't fit "THE PLAN." Anyone who doesn't fall into line with Uncle Sams recent ideals is now the bad-guy. This group is growing exponentially. Maybe you dont give a # what the rest of the world thinks about our actions, but most of us reasonable folks do. I want nothing to do with a rogue superpower bombing and invading every nation that doesnt play ball. It kinda looks like this may happen in the near future.
I have thought about joining the service many times, but if I joined who would defend the armed services and the work they have so bravely done from nancy's like yourself.
Nancy? Its funny you mention our kids in uniform. There are folks that just finished multiple tours in Iraq and they will be the first to tell you that it is the nancy who follows orders without question. It is the nancy who would rather just march in step and ignore principals.
Just a piece of advice...don't assume that every single person who has/is serving thinks they are doing what is right and just. And don't assume that every person that disagrees with our policies of late is a liberal wuss. You may end up with a fat lip from one of our finest.
[edit on 18-4-2006 by DaFunk13]
Originally posted by Low Orbit
Maybe you should open up a history book and find that wars don't end in a weekend.
This post is about the 40,000 potential terrorists Iran wants to expose us to, and with this threat the president doesn't need the Nuclear issue if Iran is connecting their own dots to terrorsim.
If you don't have anything to add about the 40,000 Iranian terrorists...
...maybe you should go back to the Liberal Politics Page from where you came.
Originally posted by Low Orbit
With Iran bragging about its 40,000 terrorists ready to strike the U.S. does the U.S. even need Nukes as an issue for war?
Originally posted by DaFunk13
And I am curious to see how you know such things?
Stabs in the dark?
So you think that China, Russia, Iran, and N Korea want conflict because they know it will make our economy suffer?
And they feel isolated because the mideast is "falling like a deck of cards?"
Jeez. You can have this thread kid. I don't have the time or patience to show you the err of your thinking. Good luck having anyone over the age of 16 take you seriously. Really.
Originally posted by shanemcbain
Iran having 40,000 suicide bombers in the US alone is a seriously questionable statement.
Think about this for a second:-
1. 40,000 Iranians could not get into the USA without being noticed as suspicious.
2. Buying the materials to suit 40,000 people undetected.
3. One of the suicide bombers would slip and start talking. Or at least one would be captured.
I think Iran would be more likley to have 4,000 suicide bombers spread accross Iraq, Israel, the USA and Britain. That could be a fair statement. But 40,000... I doubt it.
Originally posted by Low Orbit
Do we need Nukes(the fact that Iran is attempting to create Nukes) still as a political issue for going to war if they are threatening us with 40,000 terrorists?