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: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by andy1033
but the problem is your getting this statement, and reading into it what you want. you have to understand the context in which it was given in.



How exactly is that taken out of context? That's a statement like yelling "fire!" in a theater. The statement has one plain meaning, and it is of such severity that it can only be taken for its one plain meaning.

Your warning is wise, but as someone once said, don't keep your mind so open that your brain falls out. Common sense is the most valuable tool in foreign policy.




posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 04:08 PM
link   
Arent the US threatening Iran too?
The whole

'military option NOT off the table'
'any means nessecary'



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Arent the US threatening Iran too?
The whole

'military option NOT off the table'
'any means nessecary'


Those statements are both threats. But an essential difference between them is that Iran can freely come to the table and negotiate and those options will be taken off the table. Based on Ahmadinejad's statements, there is no possible détente; his government will not stop until they see America and Israel destroyed.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dock6



More threats from Iran



Threats ?

From Iran ?


Really?



And we know that HOW ? WHO told us this ?


Aaaaahhhh. The WHORE MEDIA !


WHO owns and controls the whore media ?

Is the same group of people who dominate US and UK politicians ?

Would that be the same group of people who stand to GAIN so much from war with Iran ?

In the same way they planned and orchestrated the war on Iraq ?

Riiiiiiiiight.


Well, until Iran threatens ME and MY country, I'm not buying a word of it.

In short, I believe the whore media is LYING again. As usual.

Is the whore media manipulating YOU ? Is it pushing your buttons ?

Why LET it ?


I have to ask, who would you believe?



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 06:19 PM
link   
But Iran HAS offered to come to the table to Negotiate.
Much like SADDAM did.

But the US government REFUSES to talk to them directly.

Before the WAR Saddam requested DIRECT dialouge with President Bush and CO.

BUSH refused to talk to Saddam, because he said he wouldnt not talk to any state that refuses to abandon its WMD and terrorist programmes.

We DIDNT want to talk, becuase if we did we would of been shown that there were NO wmd's and NO alqaeda connection.
but Bush COULDNT have that, becuase it would remove all pretext for war.

Irans different, because Iran is making nuclear material.
The only reason we are talking to Iran, is because ISRAEL wants to copy our actions on Iraq.

Maybe thats it,

Israel know the extent of our LIES on Iraq, and are prepared to release them if we dont allow them to do the same to Iran.

The worlds changing



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 06:26 PM
link   
Agit8d I agree with you that the US has shot down proposals made by Iran to the US (which even Colin Powell said was a MISTAKE).

But I don't agree with yours and many other people's blame of Israel trying to instigate a war. A war with Iran would no doubt benefit Israel, but Israel being the big country in the Middle East is good for US foreign policy in the Middle East (the warped foreign policy). Not only for Israel but Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon and Iraq as well.

To say "This is for Israel" is simplistic and incomplete. It is does benefit Israel no doubt, but the we wouldn't go to war unless it fulfilled plans for America.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 06:47 PM
link   
dont get me wrong, I believe Iran are a definate threat to Israel.
Not specifically in hitting them, but supplying the means to groups who are prepared to hit them.

Israel, through theyre actions against palestine, lebanon and syria have brought the hatred on them to such an extent that arab neighbours openly declare there desire for there destruction.

War with Iran would help the US, especially the Elite through $$$.
It would provide a timley relief from the direct observation against Iraq,
and would effectivley hit the ULTIMATE terrorist state in the ME, IMO.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Israel, through theyre actions against palestine, lebanon and syria have brought the hatred on them to such an extent that arab neighbours openly declare there desire for there destruction.



You must remember, the arabs hated Israel before Israel did anything to them other than the UN creating the state there. And you also must remember, there were protests against Jews from Europe coming to Palestine before Israel was ever created.

So to blame it all on Israel is missing some stuff.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 07:46 PM
link   
I might start lookin some stuff up on that.

How could the westn possibly of believed the arab world would allow them to implement israel?

Did they think there'd be no anger/violence?

I beleive Israel HAD A Right to soveriegnty in Palestine.
But looking at the past 50years, they destroyed that RIGHT, by enforcing such painful measures on the palestinians.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
I might start lookin some stuff up on that.

How could the westn possibly of believed the arab world would allow them to implement israel?

Did they think there'd be no anger/violence?

I beleive Israel HAD A Right to soveriegnty in Palestine.
But looking at the past 50years, they destroyed that RIGHT, by enforcing such painful measures on the palestinians.


They've both done wrong things. But there is no denying that the Arabs were hostile even before Israel did those things. And many people on here are so quick to judge Israel (which they should be), yet coddle the arabs like they do nothing wrong and are only oppressed people.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 09:55 PM
link   


Those statements are both threats. But an essential difference between them is that Iran can freely come to the table and negotiate and those options will be taken off the table. Based on Ahmadinejad's statements, there is no possible détente; his government will not stop until they see America and Israel destroyed.


His statements are wrong regardless of translation. His statements should be directed towards those steering the war machine and not the American public as many seem to believe. He should also arise to understand the publics opinion in his own country. I don't think either of the tree major parties involved - Iran, Israel, and Israel- or so their citizenry, want a military endevour taking place at their doorstep or at the others.

Luxifero



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 07:04 AM
link   
I think we need to look into this further. Is Iran a threat? Yes, to an extent. They are causing significant chaos in Iraq by funding, training and providing material to the Shia militias. Are they running a nuclear program for energy needs? Yes. Is this also being used to covertly develop nuclear weapons? I have little doubt. Are they an imminent threat to US and Western interests outside of Iraq? I don't think so. The nuclear weapons program, while I believe, very real is at least five years from coming to any actual head.
Is Ahmadinejad a threat? I think his political strength has decreased GREATLY in the last few weeks alone. The December 2006 elections held in Iran greatly embarrassed Ahmadinejad and his ultra-conservative party members. News story on Iranian elections
I am of the thought that Ahmadinejad is losing support at home due to his constant tauting of the west. The vast majority of the Iranian people do not see the world the way he does. Actually, most Iranians (remember that their population is VERY young) has overall a desire to engage the west constructively. Of course the people of Iran get riled up when they hear vague threats made against their country, just as anyone in any country would. But overall the population wants active, contsructive engagment with the west.
What must be seen is that Ahmadinejad NEEDS to keep the taunting and threats turned up... why? To keep the geoploitical landscape tense. This keeps the price of oil up; which is the MAIN economic resource of his country. If oil revenues dry up too much he will be putting himself in a politically untenable position with the populous of Iran.

Bottom line I think is that the US/Israeli axis is going to rattle sabres as are the Iranians but it ends up being in no ones best interest to start another conflagration at this time. Maybe someday but not right now.
Last note; we might want to ask ourselves why Russia and China might want Iran to keep rattleing sabres at us. (Might it be that one country has a significant amount of trade with Iran [Russia] and one gets a huge amount of oil from Iran [China]. The weaker the international position of the US the better off the Russians and the Chinese).

Obs out

edit typos



[edit on 26-1-2007 by observer]



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 09:00 AM
link   
Maybe this is a bit off-topic, but I thought it was too little to start a whole thread about it;

I had a dream last night. It started with me being a coalition soldier i Iraq (no, my nation is not involved but I've been playing way too much BF2). There was a lot of fuzz and fighting but it
s not important for the story.
Anyhow, suddenly there was some sort of gathering where the Iranian president was present. He came to the meeting by parachuting from the skies together with some other guy (body guard or something, but he seemed quite old). But before he touched ground, he got sniped right in the forehead. It wasn't clear who did it but it felt like some sort of organized covert operation from a foregin power. He died on spot. The recovered body then laid on my parents bed in their apartment (yes that is stupid). Officials and relatives of him were there, crying, conserned what would happen now. Some said that this might spark revolution in Iran and that it would lead to no good. I was also very upset about it like he'd been some friend of mine and I was very conserned about the whole middle-eastern deal, like the future of the world was depending on the outcome of all the present conflicts.

That's that, sorry for wasting your precious time...



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 07:42 PM
link   


Bottom line I think is that the US/Israeli axis is going to rattle sabers as are the Iranians but it ends up being in no ones best interest to start another conflagration at this time. Maybe someday but not right now.


I agree. We have a trilateral engagement of the aggressive diplomatic kind which can subsequently have long reaching consequences for the entire world. But it should be noted that only two parties of the three have overtly shown no prejudice in using force to implement their interests or protecting them all together. One side rattles it's saber in an umbraged confidence while the others lay in waiting for public opinion and smoking guns to pursue force.

After what we have seen happen in Iraq and Israels bombardment of Lebanon, Iran does not look like a pretty picture if force is used..

Pray this does not manifest.

Luxifero



posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 09:27 AM
link   
iran will do more than threat, they will react when he gets his hands on a nuke to fire and isreal knows this. isreal will attack iran emmediately. and since irans president is a hitler reencarnate, he will try to strike isreal first. isreal knows this, so that is why i say that isreal will strike iran first this march 2007,to try to knock out the nuke missle sites. iran will counter attack isreal and then will go strike in the gulf. the usa will get involved, usa invades iran, late april 2007. gas prices rise dramatically. (due to oil shipping problems over there), with saudi, june 6th 2007. usa will not use nukes, we will just bomb targets and then invade.



posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by littlebird
so that is why i say that isreal will strike iran first this march 2007,to try to knock out the nuke missle sites. iran will counter attack isreal and then will go strike in the gulf. the usa will get involved, usa invades iran, late april 2007. .


Wait...I thought you said everything would "go down" in February of 2007, now you changed it to March-April


Also...if the Iranian president was Hitler reincarnate, he would start by killing the Jews in Iran first.




posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 03:41 PM
link   


Also...if the Iranian president was Hitler reincarnate, he would start by killing the Jews in Iran first


Hitler was in a league of his own, one of which Iran's leader does not represent. Iranian Jews seem content enough to not supplant themselves to other countries in fear. I think his hatred of Jews is over exaggerated and lacking in perspective of his hatred towards Zionism.

Luxifero



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Luxifero

Hitler was in a league of his own, one of which Iran's leader does not represent. Iranian Jews seem content enough to not supplant themselves to other countries in fear. I think his hatred of Jews is over exaggerated and lacking in perspective of his hatred towards Zionism.

Luxifero


Very true, Hitler was indeed a rare (thank heaven) creature. People LOVE to compare Bush, Ahmedinajad, Olmert... whoever to the leader of the Nazi's. No way can there be a comparison... ever. Hitler's particular insanity, brilliance and cadre of advisors was a nexus of evil I do not think we will see again for a very long time.

Back to topic!
Littlebird: to clarify, Iran has no nuke missles sites to strike. This statement implies that 1) Iran has nukes (they don't yet), 2) they have sophisticated enough technology to shrink a nuke to fit on a long range nuke (see number 1 as to why #2 is impossible right now), 3) they do not have a missle that could, should numbers 1 & 2 be false, carry a... tiny nuke the technology needed for such is feat is tremendous.

This whole scenario is quite disturbing. The geopolitical games being played right now by the Russia/China/Iran axis and the US/EU/Israel axis could lead to a globally devestating war. My biggest fear comes from my distrust in Bush's ability to diplomaticaly play this chess game without getting angry and "flipping the board over" out of frustration. However one might want to defend him (I do not) you must admit he has no sense of nuance, which is an EXTREME detriment during these times. I also greatly fear the fevered dreams of Ahmadinejad's apocalyptic vision of the 12th Imam. He is more than a little too unstable to be in charge of this "game." Fortunately for everyone on earth his power seems to be waning. Unfortunately, Bush's has not.

The next few months will be tense.

Obs out



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 03:36 AM
link   
Why isn't Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's comments enough for the U.S to go ahead with an attack or will they proxy a war through israel? I'm sure the rest of the world in this situation can't fault the U.S for doing something for comments like "we want to blow up U.S, israel, etc". Also the U.N shouldn't have anything to say because they are claiming war on the U.S or could they? Even though we all know whats the driving force behind it the u.S going into iran, I think Bush can really spin those comments his way even without faking a U.S attack, at least lets hope so.

[edit on 31-1-2007 by leafer]



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by leafer
I'm sure the rest of the world in this situation can't fault the U.S for doing something for comments like "we want to blow up U.S, israel, etc".


I'm sure they would because Ahmadenejad never said it. Perhaps you would like to give us your source on that quote to show us where it came from.

[edit on 31-1-2007 by DJMessiah]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join