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.

 

More threats from Iran

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 06:14 PM
link   
Has anyone read what the article says? It says that Israel and America will SOON end lives. It doesn't say that he's going to end our lives, it says that we're going to end other lives and that's pretty much true in this case. I am sure we will see nukes flying but all other nations will come to one cause when global warming happens, and by then, I'll be in New Mexico, so it really doesnt matter, and it's only a few years away before it happens. So I dunno. We should be more worried about reversing the global climate changes, not Iran.




posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 06:14 PM
link   
This looks like more propoganda to try and coerce the American people into going along with a pre-emptive strike on Iran..

Neo-cons Baiting Iran With Second Strike Group




A top US diplomat has confirmed that a second U.S. aircraft carrier strike group has been deployed to the Gulf in order to send a clear signal to Iran that they will be crushed if they continue to defy the wishes of the US government by enriching uranium.

"The Middle East isn't a region to be dominated by Iran. The Gulf isn't a body of water to be controlled by Iran. That's why we've seen the United States station two carrier battle groups in the region," Nicholas Burns, U.S. undersecretary of state for political affairs, said in an address to the Dubai-based Gulf Research Center, an influential think-tank, as reported by the AP .

Last week, a former commander of the Russian Black Sea Fleet, Admiral Eduard Baltin , revealed that he believes a missile attack on the Iranians is imminent, while Republican Congressman and 2008 Presidential candidate Ron Paul fears a staged Gulf of Tonkin style incident may be used to provoke air strikes on Iran

Indeed there were numerous strange reports of incidents occurring in the Gulf from rumours of nonexistent clashes between Iranian and American battleships to those of missile strikes on U.S. vessels.

Meanwhile the AP and Reuters have been filing misleading reports stating that Iran has barred IAEA inspectors, an allegation that turns out to be inaccurate according to the IAEA themselves who today stated:

"It should be noted however, that there are a sufficient number of inspectors designated for Iran and the IAEA is able to perform its inspection activities in accordance with Iran's Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement."

Iran has also begun massing troops along its borders with north Iraq, in addition to launching missile war games , while top a Middle East analyst and former State Department official has gone public with claims that U.S. plans envision a broad attack on Iran, rather than surgical strikes, as part of a war that likely would further destabilize the Middle East for years.


If you guys dont want war, why are you provoking them? Again, this latest news propoganda about Ahmedinejad saying hes gonna destroy America....look at what he actually says...."American and Israel will soon end lives"...you Americans are so paranoid about some muslim man, you twist his words, and make it seem like hes trying to attack you, so you can attack them!

Ask any psychologist and they will tell you, that is a clear picture perfect sign of "PSYCHOSIS"....when you feel like the world is out to get you, therefore, you must attack the world. YOUR LEADERS ARE PSYCHOPATHS, AND IF YOU FOLLOW THEIR WAYS, YOU ARE ONE TOO.

Oh but what about 911!! 911 WAS AN INSIDE JOB, PEOPLE PREDICTED THE GOVERNMENT WOULD DO IT BEFORE IT HAPPENED ANYWAYS. ALEX JONES, DAVID ICKE, ALL SAID IT WAS COMING 2 MONTHS, A YEAR BEFORE IT HAPPENED. So Alex Jones and David Icke knew 911 was coming, but the US Government didnt know?? BULL#.

911 WAS AN INSIDE JOB, A THREE YEAR OLD WITH TWO BRAIN CELLS ACTING IN UNISON COULD TAKE THE OFFICIAL STORY APART. It was orchestrated to serve as a pretext for domestic crackdown, and so they could march into any country they want on the grounds of "terrorism".

You Americans, they hate you with a passion. Not some muslim, Im talking about your own government! They despise you. They despise your freedom. They want to control every facet of your life. THEY ARE THE REAL TERRORISTS!

They tell you too. They tell you all the time, its just your too stupid to see it.

"We will have our New World Order, either thru consent or conquest"
- David Rockefeller

"If the American people knew the truth, they would chase us in the streets and lynch us"
-George Bush Sr.

WAKE UP AND SMELL THE #! IT REEKS!


JSR

posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by LightWorker13
....look at what he actually says...."American and Israel will soon end lives"...


correction, it says" ....end thier lives....."



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by JSR

Originally posted by LightWorker13
....look at what he actually says...."American and Israel will soon end lives"...


correction, it says" ....end thier lives....."


Read the title of the article "Ahmadinejad: Be assured that the US and Israel will soon end lives". As you can see, the site the article is written on can't even make up their own minds on which lie they want to post.

Once again, if anyone can find his real quote, post it, or let me translate it in Farsi.



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 09:47 PM
link   
Who CARES what Iran says! Seriously, sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me!

Translation: Until Iran NUKES Israel, or bombs Israel, or sells weapons to terrorists, or attacks then US, then there is no reason...absolutely none... to attack them.

Now bring all the troops back to secure the borders and use the military money on improving the US.

Can I get an Amen



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 12:21 AM
link   
AMEN! You seems, with a few others, to be the only sane person here.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 01:20 AM
link   
I think that we are going to get froggy and do something with Iran we keep sending more people to Afgan an like it says in the news we are moving another carrier to the gulf we just sent some 15 E's (superior air-to-ground fighters) to Afgan and in my opinion we are starting to put our foot on Irans throat. But when we do Irans defense minister made it clear Wendsday " Any Military Action against Iran will be met with a Crushing Response". So when not if this all goes down everyone hold on #s gonna get interesting.

www.irib.ir...


JSR

posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJMessiah

Originally posted by JSR

Originally posted by LightWorker13
....look at what he actually says...."American and Israel will soon end lives"...


correction, it says" ....end thier lives....."


Read the title of the article "Ahmadinejad: Be assured that the US and Israel will soon end lives". As you can see, the site the article is written on can't even make up their own minds on which lie they want to post.

Once again, if anyone can find his real quote, post it, or let me translate it in Farsi.


i dont know how to use the external source stuff, but, here it is from the article



"Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad… assured that the United States and the Zionist regime of Israel will soon come to the end of their lives," the Iranian president was quoted as saying.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by JSR
i dont know how to use the external source stuff, but, here it is from the article

"Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad… assured that the United States and the Zionist regime of Israel will soon come to the end of their lives," the Iranian president was quoted as saying.


And the title of the article gives a completely different quote, which is the issue I'm raising. Why would they "translate" his quote into "will end lives" for the title, and then rewrite it again in the article as "will end their lives" ?

Surely, you can see the propoganda.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by RetinoidReceptor
Who CARES what Iran says! Seriously, sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me!

Translation: Until Iran NUKES Israel, or bombs Israel, or sells weapons to terrorists, or attacks then US, then there is no reason...absolutely none... to attack them.

Now bring all the troops back to secure the borders and use the military money on improving the US.

Can I get an Amen


So the prudent course of action is to wait until someone gets nuked, or a terrorist group gets nukes before any action should be taken. This seems to be a very dangerous policy. The whole premise of preemption is that the stakes are too high to accept the first hit where 10s of thousands to 1 million + casualties could result. That's an unacceptable amount of risk, which is why when you see leaders making threats and persuing a nuclear program, you have to take them deadly serious.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJMessiah

Originally posted by JSR
i dont know how to use the external source stuff, but, here it is from the article

"Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad… assured that the United States and the Zionist regime of Israel will soon come to the end of their lives," the Iranian president was quoted as saying.


And the title of the article gives a completely different quote, which is the issue I'm raising. Why would they "translate" his quote into "will end lives" for the title, and then rewrite it again in the article as "will end their lives" ?

Surely, you can see the propoganda.


Why is it that anything that goes against your notions is propaganda, while anything that corroborates your points are accepted at face value? When I first posted this thread, the quote was "end their lives," so I don't see them as having changed the quote for purposes of subterfuge. Explain why, when you see the actions of the Iranians(i.e. nuke program, supporting terror in Lebanon, Israel, and Iraq, threatening US and Israel), that we should assume that these quotes mean anything other than what was said?



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJMessiah

And the title of the article gives a completely different quote, which is the issue I'm raising. Why would they "translate" his quote into "will end lives" for the title, and then rewrite it again in the article as "will end their lives" ?

Surely, you can see the propoganda.


I see it, it happen before in the outrageous words about terminating Israel.

No that I care, I am not israeli, and I don't live in Israel, so I don't have to worry but I love the way the words are translated to further more the propaganda against Iran and make the public opinion accept an attack.

But nobody cares to take into consideration that the days of the prime ministers of Iran are short just like bush days in the white House.

People don't care that the citizens in Iran are getting fed up with their leader and the ruling parliament also.

But pushing the propaganda of what one man say is enough to cause the destruction of the world and an attack is necessary.

Deny ignorance people, do not fester it.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 09:34 AM
link   
Diplomacy only works in this case if there's a threat of force to back it up. If we can put pressure on Iran to get rid of this leadership, that's all the better than us getting into yet another cluster..ck.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja
Why is it that anything that goes against your notions is propaganda, while anything that corroborates your points are accepted at face value?


Is it that difficult to see that they provided two different quotes that were supposed to have come from the same translation? Using a misquote to further one's agenda is propoganda. If you would like me to believe that it's not, then please do explain why they gave us the two different translations.



When I first posted this thread, the quote was "end their lives," so I don't see them as having changed the quote for purposes of subterfuge.


I checked this topic very early on, when it was posted and the article's title remained the same as it is now.



Explain why, when you see the actions of the Iranians(i.e. nuke program, supporting terror in Lebanon, Israel, and Iraq, threatening US and Israel), that we should assume that these quotes mean anything other than what was said?


Because they do mean something different. It's one thing to believe what a propoganda website such as they say, and it's another thing to actually speak the language and know what they're really saying. I've said it before and I'll say it again, nothing ticks me off more than someone misquoting or misinterpreting a quote to further their own agenda.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja


So the prudent course of action is to wait until someone gets nuked, or a terrorist group gets nukes before any action should be taken. This seems to be a very dangerous policy. The whole premise of preemption is that the stakes are too high to accept the first hit where 10s of thousands to 1 million + casualties could result. That's an unacceptable amount of risk, which is why when you see leaders making threats and persuing a nuclear program, you have to take them deadly serious.


It is absolutely ridiculous to go to war with a country over what they say. Most of Americans want no more wars. No more death. Better health care. That isn't so unreasonable...right?

Starting wars over propaganda and things "said" is foolish. Like I said, until Iran actually does something, there is no reason to go to war with them. I frankly want NO MORE wars.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 02:00 PM
link   
The people in Iran the common Joe do not want wars and they are very against the prime minister purse of nuclear dreams.

Because that is what it is.

They want peace, modernization and a good way of living.

Tehran is almost like that, people enjoy a very nice life within their believes.

But people do not want to understand that the leader of that country is the one with the big mouth, just like we have a president that is in a war path for control of the middle east last oil reserve.

It is not what the people wants but what this two leaders wants while they are in power.

BTW the prime minister of Iran is not a dictatorship reign so he can be take out just like our political leaders.

[edit on 25-1-2007 by marg6043]



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by RetinoidReceptor

Originally posted by BlueRaja


So the prudent course of action is to wait until someone gets nuked, or a terrorist group gets nukes before any action should be taken. This seems to be a very dangerous policy. The whole premise of preemption is that the stakes are too high to accept the first hit where 10s of thousands to 1 million + casualties could result. That's an unacceptable amount of risk, which is why when you see leaders making threats and persuing a nuclear program, you have to take them deadly serious.


It is absolutely ridiculous to go to war with a country over what they say. Most of Americans want no more wars. No more death. Better health care. That isn't so unreasonable...right?

Starting wars over propaganda and things "said" is foolish. Like I said, until Iran actually does something, there is no reason to go to war with them. I frankly want NO MORE wars.


In my profession, I'd be ecstatic if there were no more wars, but it's simply pie in the sky to think that's going to be the case. I'm not willing to have an American city get nuked, to provide me with enough evidence to get off my butt to do something.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJMessiah

Originally posted by BlueRaja
Why is it that anything that goes against your notions is propaganda, while anything that corroborates your points are accepted at face value?


Is it that difficult to see that they provided two different quotes that were supposed to have come from the same translation? Using a misquote to further one's agenda is propoganda. If you would like me to believe that it's not, then please do explain why they gave us the two different translations.



When I first posted this thread, the quote was "end their lives," so I don't see them as having changed the quote for purposes of subterfuge.


I checked this topic very early on, when it was posted and the article's title remained the same as it is now.



Explain why, when you see the actions of the Iranians(i.e. nuke program, supporting terror in Lebanon, Israel, and Iraq, threatening US and Israel), that we should assume that these quotes mean anything other than what was said?


Because they do mean something different. It's one thing to believe what a propoganda website such as they say, and it's another thing to actually speak the language and know what they're really saying. I've said it before and I'll say it again, nothing ticks me off more than someone misquoting or misinterpreting a quote to further their own agenda.


My point was that unless you translated from the original, you're having to accept what is presented. Given that there were 2 choices, you picked the one that fit your view, and dismissed the other one as propaganda. As for differences in translations, that's not unusual. It all comes down to semantics, and the style of the person doing the translation(i.e. did he say happy or did he say glad?)



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja
In my profession, I'd be ecstatic if there were no more wars, but it's simply pie in the sky to think that's going to be the case. I'm not willing to have an American city get nuked, to provide me with enough evidence to get off my butt to do something.


Well since nobody threatened to nuke an American city there is no reason to get off your butt and do something.

We can go around in circles of potential enemies. Iran, Venezuela, China, Russia, Syria...are you going to go attack China too because they tested anti-satellite weapons which would really only be used in case of a war with the US? Are you going to attack China because a general said they would use nukes on the US if the US fights for Taiwan and that they have nukes aimed at around 18 US cities?

But no...you don't. Unless the government wants to start up the propaganda machine, then you might. And of course China is China and Iran...is Iran.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 03:32 PM
link   
The whole pre-emptive war doctrine is pure BS. There's no threat or nearly not. The government did 9/11, 7/7, Madrid and Bali. So aside from Iraq, that the US created the ``terrorists`` when it invaded it, where's the threat? It's the Israëli problem. There's no threat to the US, proof, the president don't care about the south border.

There's no threat to the US. But for Israël it's another thing. But how cares about Israël? They can deal with the threat themselves like they did before in history. If they feel threatenned by Iran, go attack, but without US support.

Those who believe in the Al-Qaeda crap, if you attack Iran (shiites), you help Al-Qaeda (sunnites). Iran and Al-Qaeda are ennemies.

[edit on 25-1-2007 by Vitchilo]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join