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 Deadline Today - So Now What?

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 09:45 AM
link   
Look - how the hell is Iran supposed to prove they aren't developing nukes? How do you prove a negative? The answer is you can't, and this is why the issue is being framed this way, to ensure the inevitability of a war the neocons and Israelis have been salivating over for years.

The burden of proof lies with the accuser - that'd be us.

Or, to put it another way, prove to me you haven't been sending invisible gnomes to my house to steal all my left socks. You can't, can you?

[edit on 8/31/06 by xmotex]




posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
Or, to put it another way, prove to me you haven't been sending invisible gnomes to my house to steal all my left socks. You can't, can you?


i dont have any feet, so i can


but as i said, nothing is going to happen. the UN has three different agendas, US, Europe and Russia/China. Each want something different to happen. For anything to happen, America has to buckle to European and Russia/China pressure.

[edit on 31-8-2006 by infinite]



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Curio
As for the "no proof" crowd.....for goodness sake pull your head out of the sand, and be quick about it. Iran is the one that has to provide the proof that it isn't developing nukes - it's the one that lied to the IAEA for 18 years. All they need to do is put the world's mind at rest and then they can have all the nuclear power they want, as far as I'm concerned.


What does it matter? What does make Bush better or more honest than Ahmedinejad?

Remember this lie?


“On Sept. 7, meeting with British Prime Minister Tony Blair at Camp David, Bush told reporters: “I would remind you that when the inspectors first went into Iraq and were denied, finally denied access, a report came out of the Atomic — the IAEA — that they were six months away from developing a weapon. I don’t know what more evidence we need.”



No such a report has ever been released by the IAEA, claiming Iraq was only six months away from a nuclear weapon.

If Iran really had the intentions to sweep Israel off the map, they would already have done it. In an other thread I posted the amounts of enriched uranium that are currently missing, and possibly stolen. There's enough missing uranium to nuke away our earth several times.

Guess what kind of organizations would steal enriched uranium? Criminal organization, only looking for money. Again, if Iran had such cruel intentions, and thus would cause its own destruction, it would have bought uranium on the black market rather than creating such an complicated enrichment program which takes an awfully lot of time.

In contrast to what the propaganda machines are producing, Iran is not looking for its own destruction nor for Israel’s destruction. It’s looking to strengthen its own political and military position and trying to tackle the US on its Achilles heel, their economy, by opening a Euro denominated oil bourse.
Not a really nice idea for both the US and UK, nor would it be a great idea for Israel to have a country so close next to it in possession of nuclear weapons. You never know how Iran will respond as soon as the US decides to start a [nuclear] campaign on Iran.

So, please explain me what's the big issue on Iranian nuclear weapons? And why South Korea and Israel should be allowed to have its own nuclear weapons.



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 10:03 AM
link   
You have voted Mdv2 for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have used all of your votes for this month.

excellent post and thank you for reminding us that the same words were used against Iraq (and look what happened).

its going to be hard for America to get any hardline support after what happened regarding iraq.



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mdv2What does it matter? What does make Bush better or more honest than Ahmedinejad?


Nothing - they're both as bad as each other. However, I don't care what Bush thinks - I can think for myself, believe it or not.


If Iran really had the intentions to sweep Israel off the map, they would already have done it...


How? Israel has had a nuclear deterrant for a while now - and the Iranians know that Israel would use it if they thought their end was near.


Guess what kind of organizations would steal enriched uranium? Criminal organization, only looking for money. Again, if Iran had such cruel intentions, and thus would cause its own destruction, it would have bought uranium on the black market rather than creating such an complicated enrichment program which takes an awfully lot of time.


But they have gotten nuclear related information from the black market in Pakistan - remember the designs for the bomb that the IAEA found? And how do you know they haven't got material from the black market, or are in the process of doing so? You're just willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. I'm not.


In contrast to what the propaganda machines are producing, Iran is not looking for its own destruction nor for Israel’s destruction....


Again, you don't know this for a fact - maybe that's exactly what they're planning. Maybe not. It's not the point anyway - my argument is that they're flipping the finger to the UN and world opinion and shouldn't be allowed to get away with it. If they've got nothing to hide then what's the problem? As for the burden of proof issue - they're blocking IAEA inspectors from doing their job (just this week), so how are we supposed to investigate what they're doing? Oh that's right, we just trust them



So, please explain me what's the big issue on Iranian nuclear weapons? And why South Korea and Israel should be allowed to have its own nuclear weapons


Great argument. Let's just let everybody have nukes then. Let countries do whatever they like and have no UNSC and no international law, monitoring, regulation, etc. Where do we draw the line?



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
Or, to put it another way, prove to me you haven't been sending invisible gnomes to my house to steal all my left socks. You can't, can you?
[edit on 8/31/06 by xmotex]


Easy. I'd let you search my house - and you would probably want to if I had been secretely researching sock stealing gnomes for 18 years and not told the gnome police about it.....and I had been calling for one of your friends socks to be removed from the planet every other week.



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 05:49 PM
link   
I searched your house regularly for years, and never found any evidence of gnomes, but still kept claiming you had them. Finally you kicked me out saying you were sick of it.

But you see, they're invisible gnomes. So absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!

OK I'm getting sick of the analogy now...

The whole thing is kind of silly. We're making positive claims without a smidgen of positive evidence. And expecting to justify a war (the obvious eventual goal) to the world with nothing but suppositions.

We've already done that once, making fools of ourselves in the process when nothing turned up. There's a word for people who repeat the same actions expecting different results: insane.

[edit on 8/31/06 by xmotex]



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 08:13 AM
link   
Them not taking the package is my proof.

They can either get ' peaceful ' energy themselves, under sanctions, while cut off from the international arena..
Or you coudl have it, while using it on someone elses land, and leaving them to clean it up.

Being they chose the Sanctions way.. they'd rather make there citizens Suffer... and make them angry.. but still get a 'alternative' to there everyday electrity now.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join