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.

 

With Iran bragging about its 40,000 terrorists ready to strike the U.S. does the U.S. even need Nuke

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 17 2006 @ 10:15 AM
link   
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?


Personally I think any leader who states we are ready to plant up to 40,000 terrorists throughout the world set on your destruction is sufficient to start an armed conflict over even without Nucluear Material.

Do we have a reason to believe the Pres of Iran is lying about the 40,000 terrorists?

I would like this topic to be devoted to the issue of threatening to use terrorism(not nukes) as a weapon and is that cause for war?

www.memri.org...

Doesn't this put us in clear and imminent danger?

And if that is true, does it not mean that we have an inalienable right to protect ourselves from it?

[edit on 17-4-2006 by Low Orbit]

[edit on 17-4-2006 by Low Orbit]




posted on Apr, 17 2006 @ 10:35 AM
link   
We need the nukes.

It will be easier to spot the bombers when they glow and have two heads



posted on Apr, 17 2006 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by crmanager
We need the nukes.

It will be easier to spot the bombers when they glow and have two heads


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?


[edit on 17-4-2006 by Low Orbit]



posted on Apr, 17 2006 @ 12:44 PM
link   
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...



posted on Apr, 17 2006 @ 01:01 PM
link   

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...


Exactly, personally I think the President of Iran and his administration's retoric is strong enough of an argument without any talk of Nukes for the US, hopefully Neighboring Countries to Iran will be in on the Coaliton to usurp their leadership(excluding Israel) This would show solidarity within the Middle East on this issue and could be the basis of a new peaceful middle east in its wake. This approach would help limit the amount of troops/resources the U.S. would need to set aside for Iran and would also help to keep an american face out of it!

Iran is making G Dubbya's argument for him, thank God! As well as sealing their fate at the same time.

With threats like this should it not be time to start building another Coalition of the willing?



posted on Apr, 17 2006 @ 01:29 PM
link   
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?



posted on Apr, 17 2006 @ 01:38 PM
link   

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?


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.

Should we not remember what happened in New York, Madrid, the Philipines, and wherever else terrorism happened, should we not remember the unknowing people that have already died in vane. Should we pretend that it really isn't a problem or better said, maybe it isn't our problem?

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.



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 07:41 AM
link   
Iran less then a threat then Israel. . in fact Israel is the cause of the Middle East problem. Israel started the terrorism. . .Israel first gained illegal nukes. . . Israel stole Arabs land . . . . get the cursed, Godless, antichrist jews out of Palestine and all the problems go away. . .



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]



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 09:22 AM
link   

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]



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 10:29 AM
link   

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]


don't assume for a second you know what you are talking about.

with a total military over 2 million I would hope not everyone would have the same opinions over the war. 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.



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Low Orbit
Maybe you should open up a history book and find that wars don't end in a weekend.


And who the hell said it should be quick? I think it shouldn't even exist.



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.


Can't really refute that. Its your thread right? But consider that it isn't Iran connecting dots, but rather the media that has that spoon shoved down your throat. I remember a good amount of your "type" prior to our little shebang in Iraq. Most of them have hushed by now, so I will just wait.


If you don't have anything to add about the 40,000 Iranian terrorists...


I do...stop playing bully and maybe they won't resort to maniacal threats of desperation.


...maybe you should go back to the Liberal Politics Page from where you came.


You got me wrong kid. I hate politics. Liberal, conservative, democrat, and republican...they are all crooks. Its two sides of the same coin created to keep you ignorant and subservient. It seems to be working perfectly...Hooray for the bad-guys.



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 03:58 PM
link   

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?


I'm not suprised about 40,000 trained suicide bombers,
I'm suprised what they teach you in schools?

If-then, cause and consequences, ringing any bells?

Axis of evil:
Afganistan out
Iraq out, or so they think. Swamps looks flat but they are deep...
Iran ????????, guess who's next


Do you think Iranians are stupid? They don't have anything conventional military to match USA.
So what to do? What could make USG to hesitate even a little bit.
You have your answer.

Please do some homeworks with these time things:
Before - after

If...then
04/16/06 "The Times" -- -- IRAN has formed battalions of suicide bombers to strike at British and American targets if the nation’s nuclear sites are attacked. According to Iranian officials, 40,000 trained suicide bombers are ready for action.



posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 09:56 AM
link   
"Axis of evil:
Afganistan out
Iraq out, or so they think. Swamps looks flat but they are deep...
Iran ????????, guess who's next

Do you think Iranians are stupid? They don't have anything conventional military to match USA.
So what to do? What could make USG to hesitate even a little bit.
You have your answer.

Please do some homeworks with these time things:
Before - after "

Judging by the "homeworks" comment and your avatar you are probably Chinese, in that case I understand why you don't want to touch Iran it is probably all of those big oil deals your country has with Iran that they just don't want to let go. China(and Russia) is trying to be as unhelpful as possible in order to get the U.S. to commit more resources to this conflict. The more resources we commit the more our economy will suffer.

Shamgar Israel is a bigger threat to you because you are probably Syrian and live in Syria. For those of us in the U.S. Israel is no threat to us since they have never been anything but an ally to us.

Iran, North Korea, China, and Russia are all feeling isolated because they are not democracies and so all of them watching the Middle East fall like a deck of cards scares them because they are starting to realize the days of communism are numbered!

[edit on 19-4-2006 by Low Orbit]



posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 02:43 PM
link   
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.



posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 11:47 PM
link   

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.



Thanks.



posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 08:10 AM
link   
I see your debate is going well?

Arguing with yourself over here huh?



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 07:26 PM
link   
anyone else have a 2 cent opinion on this?



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 09:08 AM
link   
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.



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 09:29 AM
link   

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.


Read the article, it says there are 40,000 suicide bombers waiting to exploit "Western Interests" this to me means most of them are still in Iran and only a small minority are set up already as sleeper cells. Western Interests could include any country in North and South America, Australia, Europe and parts of Asia.

Iran has around 50 million people in its country do you think that regime can't find 40,000 people to blow themselves up for its cause?



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 09:57 AM
link   

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?

?

They are threatening to attack us in Defense. So, no, that doesn't make sense.

What does make sense is that iran kidnapped americans and held them hostage, and beleives that the US is, literally, teh thrale of Satan himself. Presumably, when someone thinks you are the devil, they're going to try to attack you.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join