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.

 

118 Countries Support Iran’s Peaceful Nuclear Program

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 02:37 PM
link   
next time when you use phrases that the world is against our nuclear program you better notice that its only you (americans) who have an objection towards us and not the rest of the world.

AMERICA MASSACRING IRANIANS!




118 Countries have no objection and they are in favour of Iran's Peacful Nuclear Program

The heads of State or Governments of 118 Countries reiterated their support to Iran's peaceful Nuclear program. Member states of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) issued a statement supporting Iran’s nuclear program at the end of their 14th summit on Saturday night in Havana.

Source of Information:
www.tehrantimes.com...&Cat=2&Num=016


[edit on 18-9-2006 by Mehran]


[edit on 18-9-2006 by Mehran]

[edit on 18-9-2006 by Mehran]




posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 05:33 PM
link   
why are american propoganda people silent
.



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 07:42 PM
link   
From Iran: We will develope our peaceful nuclear program for our peaceful country for the purpose of making peaceful energy. Oh; and "DEATH TO ISRAEL!"



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 08:21 PM
link   
He never said that. He said wipe out the zionist government, and i totally agree with him, the zionist government is racist and warmongerer as the US government.



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 08:30 PM
link   
I'm surprised that there are 118 countries that think Iran has a peaceful nuclear program. Oh, wait! They don't really believe it. They know what Iran is up to. They just don't care.



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 08:31 PM
link   
Not to sound overly conservative, but its blatantly obvious that Iran is unstable. I mean them saying "Death to Israel" is enough to get me worried about them making Nuclear Weapons.

Although of course if the US rushes in then well we'll look like the bad guys.



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 08:40 PM
link   
O.k. Good point, 118 countries is quite significant, and i for one, am quite supportive of Iran having the opportunity to develop nucleur energy under the right supervision, but Mehran, can i just ask what all this has to do with Rumsfeld and Saddam????

I mean i know your anti U.S but surely your just threadjacking yourself??



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 08:44 PM
link   
Albert Einstein was a Jew who invented nuclear energy so I think the Jews have a patent on it. It was through their faith and the Christian West spirit of God that revealed such advances through the peek of the 1800 and 1900s where Christianity bloomed and many advances of science and Technology came about. The problem is who should have it? Maybe they should if it was faith by God of the Bible that inspired such revelations. Those who stand by Isreal will be blessed, I think America is doing well from this hidden notion the rest are not.

Let Iran have this energy I hope the prophecy of Ezeikeil 38 sends man the 3000 year old warning, we did have time to prevent as man kind and still do.

I want the middle east to go Nuclear I really do and want to see how its dealt with.


[edit on 18-9-2006 by The time lord]



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 08:44 PM
link   
Allowing Iran to have nuclear capabilities is letting an evil genie out of the bottle. Even if that nutcase in Tehran only want to destroy the so-called "Zionist Government", why would he stop there? He's an islamic extremist, bent on the destruction of the U.S.



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by The time lord
Albert Einstein was a Jew who invented nuclear energy so I think the Jews have a patent on it.


I don't think you're correct in this. Certainy, Einstein laid the foundation for the technology, but there are many who made it happen.

Google Search

[edit on 2006/9/18 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 09:28 PM
link   
I really don't understand what the issue is? They have chemical weapons, bio weapons, they don't use those - it seems that any concern over them using a Nuke weapon is rather unfounded judging by history. That is ofcourse if they are going for Nukes - they could be doing it for power - as they claim and all rational thoughts lead.

Iran is probably not going after weapons, even if they were they are decades away from getting it to high enough levels, and even then it is doubtful they would use them irrationally - as they haven't used they're other weapons irrationally.

This just smacks of deja vu to me....



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 09:41 PM
link   
This is probably what has most people concerned:


Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has openly called for Israel to be wiped off the map.

"The establishment of the Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world," the president told a conference in Tehran on Wednesday, entitled The World without Zionism.

"The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of a war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land," he said.

"As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map," said Ahmadinejad, referring to Iran's revolutionary leader Ayat Allah Khomeini.

english.aljazeera.net


As you may have noted, this is not some infidel Western mainstream media making this claim.

[edit on 2006/9/18 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by kojac
O.k. Good point, 118 countries is quite significant, and i for one, am quite supportive of Iran having the opportunity to develop nucleur energy under the right supervision, but Mehran, can i just ask what all this has to do with Rumsfeld and Saddam????

I mean i know your anti U.S but surely your just threadjacking yourself??


The picture Mehran used had a caption beneath it. Showing a picture and explaining what it meant. We sold Iraq chemical weapons to be used against Iran. We put people in power when it's convenient, help them out, and then take them out when we're finished with them, or they don't bend our way.

Good for those 118 countries. They must not have a Mainstream Media like we do, polluting the issue with political overtures and bickering.


They don't care. Yeah, that's it.



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 09:50 PM
link   
If Iran really will only use their nuclear power for peaceful purposes, then I am all for it. The trouble is, I'm not convinced that is what they will do with it. I think they probably really do want to have nuclear power plants, as they say, but I'm pretty sure they wouldn't mind having a few bombs in their arsenal, either.

I think Iran also sees all the countries in the world who do currently have nuclear weapons, and probably think it's all rather hypocritical that many of those same countries are the ones telling Iran not to develop nuclear weapons, particularly the US, who has more nukes than anyone else.

Would Iran make and use nuclear weapons against another country, like Israel, whom it has openly theatened in the recent past? I don't know. I hope not. It's a big question, and except for the top Iranian officials, I don't think anyone knows the real answer to that.



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 09:54 PM
link   
The US backed Saddam as the lesser of two evils, but he got just a little too big for his britches and invaded Kuwait and tried to kill a sitting US president. I think that's grounds to sever the relationship.



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
The US backed Saddam as the lesser of two evils.


And where does that always seem to get us? Same place.


Not to mention that the comparison being made for the sake of this thread has absolutely nothing to do with the invasion of Kuwait, nor the "supposed" attempted assassination of the sitting president. It has to do with the face that we stuck our noses somewhere and provided weapons when it was convenient that should not have been given out by a country that holds itself in such high esteems as to hate the production or usage of these weapons if not held by members of their own team.



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 09:59 PM
link   
GRADY, wasn't that shown to be a mis-interpration? Didn't he actually say it towards the zionist state? In such it is a political statement a kin to Cuba wishing Republicans would leave the white house, or Republicans wanting right of centre governments in other lands. Zionism, and middle east stability can not exsist together. Zionism, according to many people including some Isreali's, is the major problem facing the region.

Besides, if there was a mis-interpretation then the questions get raised - is it a simple mistake or is Isreal lying to further their own goals? If it is the former, and I think that is the more probable scenerio, then why does something that is known to be a mis-quote still get passed off as fact in the US, other than to lie to the American people to support something that is clearly not in the interest of the country but a select few who have already used this emotional blackmail to start another war....

So I ask again - if Iran wanted to do damage to Isreal they could. They may lose in the long run but the infliction of pain on Isreal would be clear. They haven't done that, there is no reason to suppose they would start now. There is no danger from them as far as I can see.

edited because I am a horrible speller - but you all probably have figured that out already huh?


[edit on 18-9-2006 by Waiting2awake]



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 10:18 PM
link   
Yeah.. well..NAM:

Quite an interesting summit at Havana this time.
Mostaly an anti-American sentiment and for the first time in the their indepedant existance IMO, India and Pakistan had a point in common: They were the only two nations not so openly criticising the US because of obvious common vested interests.

Anyways, I would like to know if the vote/announcement/declaration was unanimous or if there were some NAM (read Non-Aligned Movement) which actually HAD a problem with Iran having a peaceful Nuclear program!
I wonder who they might be!

I saw a clip of Ahmedinajaad hugging the Indian PM... so not everything amiss on that front..
Again the problem most of those very nations have (Remember many of those nations on the IAEA board voted Iran to the Security Council) is the amount transparency Iran gives to the IAEA. The Us going to opposite extremes isn't helping either. If the international community can have a consensus of the 'degree' of violation(s) then we would stand more of chance of putting some real pressure on Iran.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join