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.

 

Ahmadinejad warns Europe it will pay for backing Israel

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by princeofpeace
I think the fact that Israel has had nukes for 30 years and is surrounded by enemies and has been attacked more than several times and still has not used them proves that they are a "responsible" nuclear power. In NO WAY is Iran showing they are worthy of such devices.

Iran is not surrounded by enemies but Israel is. Why does Iran need such weapons?

By the way...Israel taking out Iraq's Osirak reactor and setting their nuclear program back was hardly annihilation.


[edit on 20-10-2006 by princeofpeace]


Israel has not always been attacked, they believed they were going to be attacked and Pre-emptively attacked. They are agressors. They are responsible nuclear power in YOUR eyes, I find them to be extremly volatile and irresponsible, and if it wasn't for the fact that America was blackmailed into giving them what they wanted in the past, they would have used their nukes unnecessarily. The majority of Arab countries in the Middle east also find this to be an intimidation as well and its more the reason for any Middle Eastern country to want nuclear weapons as a deterrant.

In regards to Osirak, yeah I kind of figured you would think it was ok for Israel to damage the property of a Sovereign state without cause or justification as well as illegally cross several borders (read invade) in order to do it as well. Well I hope one day someone feels the same way about Dimona and does the same thing to them. I would be all for that idea. One less problem in the ME to worry about in the hands of fanatics.

Maybe now that China was kind enough to intervene on behalf of the west and pacific rim countries for NK's nukes , when ME countries that deal with China and Russia feel threatened by Israeli nukes the USA will have a word with Israel rather then just ignoring it and thinking they are responsible carriers of WMD's as well.
I doubt it though.




posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 08:28 PM
link   
The Yom Kippur War started by a joint surprise attack on Israel led by Egypt and Syria. In 1991, Iraq launched scuds at Israel UNPROVOKED. Israel has also been hit by suicide bombers/terrorists/extremists etc. They are an extremely small piece of territory surrounded by vowed enemies. Iran is not in the same situation...not in the least.

Not that it matters. Let Pres Armenifghserihjad do something foolish and his litte country will be the one wiped off the map. I'd love to see it happen.


[edit on 20-10-2006 by princeofpeace]



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by princeofpeace
The Yom Kippur War started by a joint surprise attack on Israel led by Egypt and Syria.

Yes that was following the 1967 war in which Israel Pre-emptively attacked and took land that did not belong to them. It was percieved by Israel that an attack was imminent. This was at the same time that Israel attempted to frame the Egyptians by visciously attacking the USS Liberty and murdered over 30 American servicemen in an effort to involve the USA in their attack.

The Yom Kippur war was in retalition and an effort to take back their lands taken in 1967.



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 09:08 PM
link   
Did he not say when the shuttle columbia exploded it was God's way of showing the West or something. Does this guy read the wrong type of philisophy or what, anything else he is going to say? Oh God will tell him to nuke Isreal too if he gets a chance.



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Yes that was following the 1967 war in which Israel Pre-emptively attacked and took land that did not belong to them. It was percieved by Israel that an attack was imminent. This was at the same time that Israel attempted to frame the Egyptians by visciously attacking the USS Liberty and murdered over 30 American servicemen in an effort to involve the USA in their attack.

The Yom Kippur war was in retalition and an effort to take back their lands taken in 1967.

So because it was started in retaliation means it wasnt pre-emptive? There were already guidelines in place following the end of the 1967 war which means the Yom Kippur was ciompletely pre-emptive otherwise they wouldnt have waited 6 years to do it.



posted on Oct, 21 2006 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by princeofpeace
The Yom Kippur War started by a joint surprise attack on Israel led by Egypt and Syria. In 1991, Iraq launched scuds at Israel UNPROVOKED. Israel has also been hit by suicide bombers/terrorists/extremists etc. They are an extremely small piece of territory surrounded by vowed enemies. Iran is not in the same situation...not in the least.

Not that it matters. Let Pres Armenifghserihjad do something foolish and his litte country will be the one wiped off the map. I'd love to see it happen.


[edit on 20-10-2006 by princeofpeace]



Now if this isn't a fact twisted opinion I don't know what is. Yom Kippur was a retaliation for the theivery of their land in 67'.

Israel bombed Iraq's nuclear facility unprovoked prior to 91'. Why don't you mention that first?

And Israel being hit by suicide bombers blah blah blah. Perhaps it was by the hundreds of thousands of palestinian families that were stripped from their homes and evicted by the israelies never to return again. This has been a tit for tat action since israel stole their land with the help of Britain and US.

Oh, you would like to see Iran wiped off the map? You are now as ignorant as the statement that you just wrote. Bravo. Look at both sides of the story, question motivation, then see which side has been fair. Most of the time both are at fault, but that is usually after one side has started it.

AAC



posted on Oct, 21 2006 @ 04:12 PM
link   
How is it reataliation against Israel when these countries have signed agreements to end past conflicts? That means conflict over. No retaliation. If either side starts something again, its pre-emptive and a brand new conflict, not retaliation.


If North and South Korea go to war again, is it retaliation from the previous conflict? No not really, it would be pre-emptive on one side and that side would be responsible for having provoked a new conflict. Not retaliation.



posted on Oct, 21 2006 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by princeofpeace
They are not threatening the existence of the entire country nor have they said Iranians should be wiped off the map etc. The threats you speak of are not comparing apples to apples.


A country that has hundreds of nukes and for which has never been inspected nor held to account for having them illegally is not to be trusted by anyone else either.



posted on Oct, 21 2006 @ 06:05 PM
link   
Well I've got no respect for the Israeli government whatsoever. Olmert is a criminal and should stand trial for using cluster bombs against the Lebanese people.

I watched dispatches last week about the Iran nuclear issue and they interviewed most of the Israeli government including Olmert. All of them are hell bent on attacking Iran's nuclear facilities to supposedly prevent them from developing the bomb. They basically want America to do the dirty work for them but will go it alone if they have too. To me, they all came across as being obnoxious and paranoid.

These criminals, the Israeli government are nothing more than parasites on the back of the America people. Why do you even support this criminal government is beyond me. Lets face it, the Israeli government wouldn't think twice about killing or bombing US citizens. Plenty of there mossad agents have been caught under suspicious circumstances on America soil, no doubt plotting terrorist attacks and laying the blame at someone else's feet. Mossad is notorious for this.

www.aljazeera.com...

As for Mahmoud. I dont know what to think or believe. He's definitely a hot head.
He also sounds like a conspiracy theorist who believes in the NWO.


His words:

www.irandefence.net...

scroll down for full speech.



posted on Oct, 21 2006 @ 08:39 PM
link   
Isreal has acted everything but passive over the last few decades. The current Lebenon and Gaaza incursion are proof of the prudent agression they've issued. Disproportionate response to kidnaped soldiers was not the proper lexicon, inapropriate response is more viable. There was absolutely no reason Isreal should have acted in the fashion they did and do so now.

Luxifero



posted on Oct, 21 2006 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
Or perhaps his intelligence has provided him with solid evidence that other EU countries other than France are beginning to get tired of all the mess that their support for israel has created. And hearing this news he is trying to push their already doubtful minds. Listen, Israel will always be in conflict as long at it sits in the middle of all its adversaries with a gun pointed in the air.

You remember the story of Armegeddon from the bible, the final wear that takes place around jeruselem? Well I see that war taking place and I see a strapped EU sitting by and allowing it to happen. This is my prediction, I could be wrong.

AAC


Maybe he is talking about the fact that for example France gave Israel it's nuclear weapons technology, not to mention that most if not all European countries have made business with Israel over the years, including selling weapons, but I guess it is all the fault of the U.S. and president Bush....

[edit on 21-10-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 11:39 AM
link   
I think that the Iranians have got every right to say they will fight back at any who attack or support those who attack their country, is that not what Bush has said. And as I have posted before Iran is not going to roll over for the Americans or anyone else. They have been prepearing for this event for the last 10 years and have been watching closly the events in Iraq. Iran's military capabilities are far greater than Iraq's ever were and is supplied by the Russians/Chinese. Iran is a much larger country than Iraq and if the Americans are finding it difficult in Iraq just watch what will happen inside of Iran.

As far as the Israel's are concerned they have been grabing land and murdering the Palestinians/Lebanese for decades and its only a question before they get their butts kicked big time. They have a tiny population and without the help of the US would not last 5 minutes in any major conflict with surrounding arab nations. They (arab nations) are not that dumb to sit back and let Israel nuke them. And if America insists on this conflict in the ME it will be the undoing of the country both militaarily and financially. The whole Iraq issue is one big mess and a bottomless pit for money and manpower, which fool said its not another Vietnam. what happened there is now happening in Iraq, changing objectives with no endgame in sight and support at home dwindling, greater finacial cost to the American taxpayer and a bigger drain on American forces. I wonder if the draft was introduced how many of the arm chair warriors types on ATS will be keen to fight and die for Bush and the rich back home.



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 12:07 PM
link   
Has a big mouth and nothing to back it up, he is nothing more than that yappy ankle biting rat terrier who always barks then runs when confronted.

He will get his as well.



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 02:04 PM
link   
I think when confronted, Iran will not perhaps back up to American hositilities, if anything, they've preserved a very passive nature when taken in light the American secret operations that are happening in Iran. It's the American's pushing Iran up against a wall.

Luxifero



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by ADVISOR
Has a big mouth and nothing to back it up, he is nothing more than that yappy ankle biting rat terrier who always barks then runs when confronted.

He will get his as well.


Or maybe he's playing poker.

You thnk he isnt aware of the iranians in Iraq causing strife?

The Americans are the ones putting heat on Iran true,
but what exactly are we going to do when he does defy the UN and our demands of a nuclear hault?

Are we going to bomb him?
Invade?

anything less, will be a sign of WEAKNESS, especially with all the US rhetoric toward Iran.

I think we are starting to realise that we may have the technological advancement, but people behind a cause will always prevail against an army being FORCED to fight.

I dont thnk Iran are afraid of war, look at how many died in the Iran Iraq war, and what was that over?

Now they can bring down the world infidels, they can remove israel in the process.

I very much doubt Iran are going to back down here, I hope the US backs down to be honest, because its there blind rampage that will ruin our way of life.



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 04:19 PM
link   
If all we want to do is set back Iran's nuclear program a few years by striking strategic sites, then no problem. If the US is looking to do another "regime change" like we did in Iraq, then i dont think that is feasible.

Why do i get the feeling that if there is an Iranian confrontation, the US will seek to damage Iran's military (which can be done fairly easily with crusie missles and air strikes) but not seek regime change?



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 04:34 PM
link   
If we go in and bomb them,
leaving this regime in place..
do we just expect him to give up his nuclear ambitions?
forgive us for murdering his citizens, and his military?
and destroying his countries infrastructure?

surely they US govenremnt doesnt expect just airstrikes to remove this threat?
What good is setting it back either?

I mean, the iranians arent just going to allow us to bomb them every few years, when they start 'getting' somewhere.

Really..... If the reason here is to remove the nuclear threat, u need to remove the iranian government.
If th reason here is to remove the threat against israel, again you need to remove the Iranian government.
If you want to provoke a regional war... you'd hit them, and make them retaliate.
Thus giving you just cause to obliterate them.

They want the destruction of Israel,
so let Israel hit them.

If a country was activley screaming for the death of the USA, they arent going to maniuplate 'another' country to attack them....



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 05:19 PM
link   
Advisor, Interesting comment that you made. Well if Iran has got nothing why the Hell does Bush want to invade the country, and I dont know about him getting his but America may well get theirs. Again just another armchair tactician who dosent understand the mindset of the Iranians. We cannot even sort Iraq out and they had nothing to fight us with, look at the state of the situation there. Hardly could be described as a victory for democracy over tyranny or should that be the other way round.



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 08:51 PM
link   
"If we go in and bomb them,
leaving this regime in place..
do we just expect him to give up his nuclear ambitions?
forgive us for murdering his citizens, and his military?
and destroying his countries infrastructure?"

Well. Clinton ordered airstrikes aginst iraq that supposedly set their weapons programs back.

Israel launched a quick strike on Iraq that devastated its nuclear facilities.

Never heard much about civilian casualties in either case. Didnt hear much about major infrastructure damage either.


[edit on 22-10-2006 by princeofpeace]



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 09:02 PM
link   
Im glad you know history.
Do you really expect this to be the case with IRAN ?

How about you add something constructive next time!

But to state the obvious which you decided to tip toe around,

the iranian infrastructure is setup within suburban area's.
Its large, lots of it under ground, with many facilities spread out.

it will require LOTS OF DAMAGE to infrastructure.

We arent going for 1x reactor here, or did you just ignorantly forget that ?

Really princeofpeace, what was the point in your post?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join