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's President..............

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 12:39 PM
link   
Thbey is a lot of talk about how Iran can not hurt the US and Iran wouldn't nuke Isreal..........

Since Iran is run by religous fanatic Clerics who believe that their savior will arrive during arrmeggdon.........who's to say that even though Iran will be obliterated they won't nuke Isreal anyway. It would accomplish the goal of the destruction of their most hated enemy.

Would they even care that their populous would be destroyed? Would they consider it a sacrifice for the 'greater good'?




posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 12:50 PM
link   
You are right, they aren't affraid to die. Too many people really underestimate Iran.



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by ferretman2
Since Iran is run by religous fanatic Clerics who believe that their savior will arrive during arrmeggdon.........who's to say that even though Iran will be obliterated they won't nuke Isreal anyway. It would accomplish the goal of the destruction of their most hated enemy.


Explain why they would not have attacked by now. Really...please. Pretty please.

Iran has had WMDs, maybe not nukes, but WMDs for years. Why not unleash some terrible chemical or biological attack on Israel?

And just a little FYI... America "is run by religous fanatics who believe that their savior will arrive during armageddon" also. Not so crazy when its the second comming of Jesus though, hmmm? Stand in the enemies shoes for a couple minutes and the truth will make itself a little more clear....not transparent...but a little more clear.

Or you guys can just join the Marines and SAVE THE WORLD FROM THE TERRORISTS!!! You will be less likely to breed while at war. Win/Win.



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 01:32 PM
link   
DaFunk.......

Do you honestly feel that Irans religious council and the US government are the same?

When has the US government said that Roman Catholics should rule the world?

Or the Islam should be destroyed?

They haven't attacked yet because until last summer there was a moderate president in place and there was no gaurantee of TOTAL oblideration of Isreal........Anuke would accomplish that goal....bio or chem weapons would not.

[edit on 25-4-2006 by ferretman2]



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by ferretman2
Do you honestly feel that Irans religious council and the US government are the same?


Nope. Never said that. But, when mentioning the religious aspect we should tread very carefully. Remember that a lot of the world sees G Dub as a religious fundamentalist...and he has a bigger budget and a worse history thus far.


When has the US government said that Roman Catholics should rule the world?


Is Bush Catholic? Ill be nice and ignore that one.


Or the Islam should be destroyed?


He doesnt have to. Actions speak louder than words. Like I said before...put yourself in the shoes of the average arab. Do you believe his words, or his actions? Bush should quit starting fires and worry about putting the current ones out.


They haven't attacked yet because until last summer there was a moderate president in place and there was no gaurantee of TOTAL oblideration of Isreal........Anuke would accomplish that goal....bio or chem weapons would not.


Fair enough. I wont debate that. I dont like Ahmadinejad either. But IMO a bio or chem weapon would suffice for making your main point, correct? Was your point not that Iran would decimate Israel regardless of allied intervention? Even if we are going to bomb, nuke, attack, whatever... They could still "destroy" Israel to fullfill some prophecy? I fail to see a nuke playing that big of a part. He just wants to play with the big kids...thats all. I say leave em alone, and I bet you Mr. Ahmadin-whatever will quiet down. His ravings sound like desperation to me. He knows that in terms of a fair military fight, Iran will go just like Iraq...maybe a little slower, but they WILL lose. So why not threaten with nukes. Threaten with IEDS. Threaten with martrs and terrorists. It sounds like he sees US aggression as imminent. All he can do is make crazy threats veiled as proud defiance in hopes of deterring us.



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 02:02 PM
link   
He's doing the same thing Saddam did. He's posturing in front of his people, his base and in front of the world. The moment he stands down from the U.S. Government, he loses all the hardcore mullahs' confidence and ultimately his presidency. On a larger scale, that is also how they are keeping control of the Iranian people. They pump their heads with nationalistic anti-tolerance crap and by having the religious authority they have, they keep their power.

Now..,. this situation arises and the Iranian president has two options. He can do what's doing now, defying the global community, i.e. the west, and hurl insults and threats to Israel, thereby keeping his base happy and his power-source intact...... OR, he can stand down. He can retract his provocative statements, allow inspections etc. But the moment he does that, he loses all trust he earned from his Mullah base. At the same time, "giving in" to the west would spark conditions for a revolution by the Iranian people.

Like I said, it's all posturing... it has nothing to do with nukes or wmds, much like Bush's "war on terror" has nothing to do with nukes, wmds, or terror for that matter.



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaFunk13
Explain why they would not have attacked by now. Really...please. Pretty please.

Iran has had WMDs, maybe not nukes, but WMDs for years. Why not unleash some terrible chemical or biological attack on Israel?




Have you thought of what would happen if they used chemical or biological weapons?


First off, lets think back to Gulf War 1 and what we saw with the Israeli people. They all have sealed rooms and protective gear that would save many lives and then Iran would have to deal with the backlash of those survivors.

Also, what happens when you use biological weapons? You really think they could limit the damage to only Israel...Not Palestine or any of their Muslim neighbors? Let alone spread back to their own country?

At least with them using a nuke or nukes, they would have a chance to remove the people of Israel from their land. All other options would allow major retaliation from Israel.



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 08:03 PM
link   


Since Iran is run by religous fanatic Clerics who believe that their savior will arrive during arrmeggdon.........


As opposed to the view held by the American president?


Sep

posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 06:07 AM
link   
Its fairly sad to see people not having the ability to see past politics and propaganda and calling for a war solely on what they see on television without at least attempting to do a bit of independent research of their own on the topic.



Originally posted by ferretman2
Thbey is a lot of talk about how Iran can not hurt the US and Iran wouldn't nuke Isreal..........

Since Iran is run by religous fanatic Clerics who believe that their savior will arrive during arrmeggdon.........


The current supreme leader of Iran is not "fanatic". He is defiantly not a person I would regard as a "moderate", however under 17 years of his rule Iran has not entered any war. Iran has cut its support to terror organizations and has also re-established ties with different countries around the world. Under his watch the "Second of Khordad" or the reformist party of Khatami, the president who called for "dialogue among civilizations" and attempted to empower democratic elements of the current government and improve the human rights situation in Iran, flourished.

So to call Khamenei a "fanatic" based on the words of a president that Khamenei is desperately attempting to control, is rather harsh in my humble opinion.


Originally posted by ferretman2
who's to say that even though Iran will be obliterated they won't nuke Isreal anyway. It would accomplish the goal of the destruction of their most hated enemy.


It would in turn result in the destruction of one of the holiest sites of Islam, as well as kill millions of Muslims and the radiation would affect the surrounding countries, which would make the entire Islamic world fairly angry at Iran.

Iran has also shown some affection towards the Palestinians, most recently by offering the government there 50 million dollars. Iranian elements have done a lot of charity work in the territories, spending hundreds of millions, or perhaps billions there. Its hard to see them just simply pushing a button and condemning all the people that they have helped for a couple of decades to death.


Originally posted by ferretman2
Would they even care that their populous would be destroyed? Would they consider it a sacrifice for the 'greater good'?


The Iranian leadership, especially after the death of Khomeini has shown itself to be much more pragmatic than what the world gives them credit for. The second strongest man in Iran now, Rafsanjani, who must approve any attack on Israel before it’s carried out, is a former Marxist. He is a businessman said to be worth billions. It’s kind of hard to believe that somehow over night he would become an Islamic fanatic.


Originally posted by ferretman2
They haven't attacked yet because until last summer there was a moderate president in place


Iran's president does not have the jurisdiction to contemplate a conflict, much less initiate it. If there is ever going to be a nuclear strike it has to be approved by Khamenei who has been in power for 17 years.



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by ferretman2
Iran is run by religous fanatic Clerics who believe that their savior will arrive during arrmeggdon...


Is that any different from the Christian fundamentalists in the US who believe in the second coming during a period of upheaval?



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 02:03 PM
link   
i got confused, post gone

[edit on 26-4-2006 by grimreaper797]



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 12:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by ferretman2
Thbey is a lot of talk about how Iran can not hurt the US and Iran wouldn't nuke Isreal..........

Since Iran is run by religous fanatic Clerics who believe that their savior will arrive during arrmeggdon.........who's to say that even though Iran will be obliterated they won't nuke Isreal anyway. It would accomplish the goal of the destruction of their most hated enemy.

Would they even care that their populous would be destroyed? Would they consider it a sacrifice for the 'greater good'?



The problem with this statement is that it's based more on an emotional response to what the president of Iran said than a much better examination of the facts on the ground. Being fearless and wanting to be annihilated are two different things all toghether. And asking what it is the Iranians would and wouldn't like and making emotional statements doesn't prove such ideas to be factual whatsoever. The assumption that the Iranians wouldn't mind be annihilated is just that, an assumption. And I'm not sure how you gain a victory for Islam if there is no Islamic world.



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 12:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by mr conspiracy

Originally posted by ferretman2
Iran is run by religous fanatic Clerics who believe that their savior will arrive during arrmeggdon...


Is that any different from the Christian fundamentalists in the US who believe in the second coming during a period of upheaval?


I made the same observation in a thread conscerning the Al Quaeda training manual. It sounds the same as fundementalist Christians. I personally think they are just the same as far as ideology goes. Just there arent as many Christians in the world and therefore arent as many who are willing to commit violence to get their message across.



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 01:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by ludaChris

Originally posted by mr conspiracy

Originally posted by ferretman2
Iran is run by religous fanatic Clerics who believe that their savior will arrive during arrmeggdon...


Is that any different from the Christian fundamentalists in the US who believe in the second coming during a period of upheaval?


I made the same observation in a thread conscerning the Al Quaeda training manual. It sounds the same as fundementalist Christians. I personally think they are just the same as far as ideology goes. Just there arent as many Christians in the world and therefore arent as many who are willing to commit violence to get their message across.



There are many christians who blindly support everything that Israel does no matter what it is. Even all of the violence. Powell made a reference to the Bible concerning Israel once, and Bush is suppose to be Christian and supports this violence. The christian leaders including state leaders of the "Christian" West refused to recognize or negotiate with Hamas which means more violence. Yet somehow people refuse to associate this any group of practicing Christians or Jews. Supposedly only Muslim groups do this, but the current style practiced by some of these groups is based on military weakeness. Not because they prefer to fight this way. And many of these groups are just as much nationalistic. And some have to thank Israel for the their very coming into being or gaining power like Hamas.



posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 06:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sep
Its fairly sad to see people not having the ability to see past politics and propaganda and calling for a war solely on what they see on television without at least attempting to do a bit of independent research of their own on the topic.


Absolutely. Well said.

As HG Wells said, the human race is becoming more and more a race between education, and catastrophe.




top topics



 
0

log in

join