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.

 

Please define "imminent threat"

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 02:20 AM
link   
I posted this in another thread but it was largely ignored so I'm going to ask it in a seperate one.

This applies to Iran, but the same question could have been applied to Iraq. I see it posted - almost daily on ATS that Iran poses an "imminent threat" to the USA.

Please explain to me how - exactly - is this the case?

I'd love to know how a country with no ICBMS, no nuclear weapons, no blue water navy and no method of aerial power projection can pose an imminent threat to a nation thats approximately 5000 miles away from it.

Please bear in mind that the country that is "threatened" is nuclear armed with ICBMS and SLBM's and as such is capable of both first and retaliatory strikes as need be, has three different types of heavy bombers with intercontinental range, has three carrier battlegroups in the area - each one with more aircraft on board that alot of countries have in their entire airforce and 150,000+ troops in the country next door.

Obviously there is a mindset about what constitutes an "imminent threat" but I don't see it. Please enlighten me




posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 02:29 AM
link   
It's just a Pavlov's Bell tactic to scare people, similar to terror levels. That way public starts to accept government as someone crucial for their survival in the waves of imminent (and nonexistent) terror attacks, so they are ready to accept gestapo state without any objection.

Imminent threats are used to introduce ID cards, cameras everywhere, sat tracking, wiretapping, internet data retention, house searches without a warrant, imprisonment at some undisclosed location and so on. And who allowed all this? You, because you wanted to feel safe.



posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 12:01 PM
link   
I think that the imminent threat is all the governments are not listening to the will of the people.

I was just reading an Iranian blog and I was surprised on how similar it would be to an American blogger complaining about our do nothing government. They were talking about the recent talks between Iran and the US and how they were both just posturing to each others prospective sides and how nothing was really accomplished.

I think that if "We the People" would take more time out and get involved and start breaking down these barriers that have been put in place, our world would be a much safer place.

There are reasonable people all over the world in other countries, who do not speak our language but share our goals of being able to live a happy life.

The internet has provided all of us an amazing medium where we can learn ways to come together and tear down the wall which separate us.

I am a human first. Not an American. Not a Republican. Not a Democrat.

[edit on 27-6-2007 by build319]



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 01:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
I'd love to know how a country with no ICBMS, no nuclear weapons, no blue water navy and no method of aerial power projection can pose an imminent threat to a nation thats approximately 5000 miles away from it.

It's called State-sponsored Terrorism, in the case of Iran, which then implies and fulfills one of the many theoretical requirements for being considered an 'imminent threat' or better said: an imminent danger. Also, in some circles of thought, Iran's nuclear program and the speculation surrounding its acquiring of nuclear weapons, is seen as an "imminent threat" or an 'imminent danger.' Terrorism, and the acts thereof, as of 9/11, are and will be, for the foreseeable future, deemed by the United States and a number of Western nations as an "imminent threat."

Further, to simply think that to be considered a/an "imminent threat', one must possess nuclear weapons and/or a blue water navy and/or aerial power projection, your in la-la land. Hezbollah has none of the above, including not really being a nation, and can be easily considered an "imminent threat," as with Al-Qaeda, etc. If your simply referencing solely Iran, the notion of it being an "imminent threat" will be debated for quite sometime in varying circles of thought.



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 02:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

It's called State-sponsored Terrorism, in the case of Iran, which then implies and fulfills one of the many theoretical requirements for being considered an 'imminent threat' or better said: an imminent danger. Also, in some circles of thought, Iran's nuclear program and the speculation surrounding its acquiring of nuclear weapons, is seen as an "imminent threat" or an 'imminent danger.' Terrorism, and the acts thereof, as of 9/11, are and will be, for the foreseeable future, deemed by the United States and a number of Western nations as an "imminent threat."


I think maybe I either misphrased it, or you missed my point but in the context of what you've written above I'll clarify.

What I'm getting at is how does Iran directly affect US sovereignty?

Iran has no capability to take down the US. It has the ability to engage the US in its own theatre if its attacked, but it doesn't have the ability to do anything else except - if I can use the metaphor - make the dog itch.

Now to me the term "imminent threat" could have been applied to someone like the Soviets at the height of the cold war. They had the ability to lop the dogs head off permanently.

Compared to the comparison with the Soviets, the term "imminent threat" seems a gross exaggeration.



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 02:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
What I'm getting at is how does Iran directly affect US sovereignty?

Did I not just explain this?
Again:
It's called State-sponsored Terrorism, in the case of Iran, which then implies and fulfills one of the many theoretical requirements for being considered an 'imminent threat' or better said: an imminent danger. Also, in some circles of thought, Iran's nuclear program and the speculation surrounding its acquiring of nuclear weapons, is seen as an "imminent threat" or an 'imminent danger.'




Iran has no capability to take down the US.

A nation does not need to have the "capability to take down" another nation to be deemed an "imminent threat" or an 'imminent danger.'





Now to me the term "imminent threat" could have been applied to someone like the Soviets at the height of the cold war. They had the ability to lop the dogs head off permanently.

As I already said:
To simply think that to be considered a/an "imminent threat', one must possess nuclear weapons and/or a blue water navy and/or aerial power projection, your in la-la land.





Compared to the comparison with the Soviets, the term "imminent threat" seems a gross exaggeration.

Perhaps, but we are not in the Cold War era anymore; we are in the post-9/11 era and the War on Terrorism. Therefore, comparing a Cold War notion of "imminent threat" or an 'imminent danger' to that of post-9/11 is a comparison better suited to one of apples and oranges. In my International Relations studies, my Conflict Analysis and Resolution studies, and my concentration in Terrorism, the very meaning and definition of "imminent threat" or an 'imminent danger' has evolved--ie: changed with the times. Thus, an attempt to define the notion of "imminent threat" must be placed in the proper context, that of a post-9/11 world, not that of the Cold War.

[edit on 28-6-2007 by Seekerof]



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 02:45 AM
link   
I agree... an iminent threat to Israel?... an iminent threat to our US forces illegially occupying Iraq and chugging about in the gulf?.. yeah thats possible..

but to the US mainland?.....

people need to remmeber terrorist started a LONG time before 911 ( if you call that a terrorist act )

but it seems that 1 attack has forced us to label all nations not on par with our western desires 'threats'

I mean , how much of a threat was Iraq?... yet we took them out.
So Iran must be a MAJOR threat if Iraq was worthy of occupation..
Hell, all you pro Iran-war types might be content after-all with carpet-nuking Iran...

Point is, we are more an imminent threat to OURSELVES, than Iran is to us, but Iran are a threat to israel.. and the American government feels compelled to sacrifice Economy and MEN to counter this threat..



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 03:00 AM
link   
I'm, sorry Seeker but the well-reconginsed technique of repeating something until its true doesn't wash with me.

I asked how Iran can affect US Soverignty.

Let me define soveriegnty to you (I'm sure its not needed btw, but it helps for clarity I suppose



sov·er·eign·ty (sŏv'ər-ĭn-tē, sŏv'rĭn-)

n., pl. -ties.
1. Supremacy of authority or rule as exercised by a sovereign or sovereign state.
2. Royal rank, authority, or power.
3. Complete independence and self-government.
4. A territory existing as an independent state.


Definition from Ask.com


(The emphasis is mine btw)

Are you telling me that Iran has a serious effect on these things, regardless of whether we're in a post 9/11 world?



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 03:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
I'm, sorry Seeker but the well-reconginsed technique of repeating something until its true doesn't wash with me.

I asked how Iran can affect US Soverignty.

I am sorry neformer, but dictionary definitions just don't cut it for me, k?
Apparently, you forgot to look up STATE-SPONSORED TERRORISM in regards to this discussion of Iran and how it has the potential to disrupt/distabilize sovereignty.

Your quaint use of such liberal internet defintions has no bearing on terms better defined by International Relations, Conflict Analysis and Resolution, and Terrorism terminology.





Are you telling me that Iran has a serious effect on these things, regardless of whether we're in a post 9/11 world?

Pretty much.
Apparently, your failing to grasp what I am implying or laying out for you?
I can further tell that your failure to grasp my simple explanations only makes matters worse by me explaining such concepts in a more thorough way.

One more time:
In regards to Iran, Iran has the ability to disrupt/distabilize a nation's sovereignty via the use of state-sponsored terrorism (worldwide or world-reaching capabilities) and via its continued efforts to obtain nuclear weapons (distabilization of not only the Middle East, but has worldwide ramifications). Both of the above can and will affect any nation's sovereignty, thus being easily classed, classified, or deemed an "imminent threat" or an 'imminent danger.'

[edit on 28-6-2007 by Seekerof]



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 05:24 AM
link   
Excuse me but the Middle East was destabilized the minute Israel aquired Nuclear weapons. The reason why I know this? Many arab countries took this little problem to the UN and were shot down. Just because the situation was ignored doesn't mean that the area was stable before Iran decided to begin their own program. The region was threatened well before Iran got an idea to join the nuclear club. There have been other major complaints that have caused destabilization of the middle east and have as well gone unanswered.

The answer to Neformores question is that its not an imminent threat to the world or to the USA. It threatens the status quo of only one country in the region that has nuclear power and one country only. From the Lavon Affair all the way through to Lebanon War II has been a destabilization and complete chaos.

If tomorrow we grew some testicles and put Israel to the grill on nuclear weapons...we would not be at an impasse with Iran right now. They would have no choice but to surrender their program. While they have not 1 but 3 hypocrisies surrounding them, they will do what they want to protect themselves. They would have no reason to say that we would be targetted if we werent being generous to 3 others while giving them a hard time.



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 05:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThePieMaN
Excuse me but the Middle East was destabilized the minute Israel aquired Nuclear weapons.

Umm, no.
It was destabilzed when France and England decided to carve it up and redraw age old boundries. Israel was not even a nation then, hello?





The reason why I know this? Many arab countries took this little problem to the UN and were shot down.

You mean like when they wnet to the UN prior to Israel declaring itself a nation....only to be "shot down"? What did they do in retaliation? Attacked Israel.





There have been other major complaints that have caused destabilization of the middle east and have as well gone unanswered.

Name a few, plz.




The answer to Neformores question is that its not an imminent threat to the world or to the USA.

Thats your opinion, correct or is that a matter of US State Department insider FACT?





It threatens the status quo of only one country in the region that has nuclear power and one country only. From the Lavon Affair all the way through to Lebanon War II has been a destabilization and complete chaos.

Your non-mention of that nation is befuddling. Does the name vex you?
The status quo you refer to is not simply a matter of maintaining Israel's status quo, it is a regional status quo. Iran is dominated by which Islamic sect? The rest of the Middle East is dominated by which Islamic sect? Hello? The issue of status quo reaches far beyond ONE NATION, it disrupts the status quo of the ENTIRE REGION.




If tomorrow we grew some testicles and put Israel to the grill on nuclear weapons...we would not be at an impasse with Iran right now.

The problem is not Israel having nuclear weapons.
If it was, Saudi Arabia would have obtained them long ago.
Your belief that it is because Israel has nuclear weapons is misfounded.
Ideological hatred of Israel and the US along with seeking their destruction has caused Iran to seek nuclear weapons. The impasse was inevitable.





They would have no choice but to surrender their program.

Wrong answer.





While they have not 1 but 3 hypocrisies surrounding them, they will do what they want to protect themselves.

They will "never forget".
Look up what that implies in regards to Israel.
They will do what they MUST to protect themselves.





They would have no reason to say that we would be targetted if we werent being generous to 3 others while giving them a hard time.

Another opinion or referenced FACT?

[edit on 28-6-2007 by Seekerof]



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 06:47 AM
link   
well which is it? Iran destabilising things or carving up of age-old boundaries...biblical ones are included in that I would assume.


You are forgetting to mention that they knew they were to be shot down. They were sneaking in immigrants from Europe the entire time even though they were not supposed to. They knew there would be problems. It was Israels insistance that they disregard British requests to cease bringing in Immigrants. It shouldn't be a shock that they were going to be attacked.They were told by many people they were not going to have a Jewish state on top of an already existing palestinian state. They assasinated the British envoy because he was restricting immigration. Their intentions were known well beforehand they wanted the entire biblical state of Israel thats the whole premise of zionism, so of course they were attacked. The moosh about working with the Palestinians and being a bridge between the west and the Middle east was all a facade.


Name a few...do a google for all of the 100 or so ignored UN General Assembly resolutions and all of the 32 or so Security Counsel vetoes by the US...like I said just because they were ignored doesnt mean the problem didnt exist or still doesnt exist.


My opinion, your opinion the state departments opinion...who cares its an opinion. Just because the state department says its so doesnt always mean it is so.

Which sect is this? The Shia? Well, before Israel was involved in Lebanon the Shia was not the majority in Lebanon it was Maronite Christian and hezbollah didnt exist either. There were also no Palestinian refugees in Lebanon before Israel came to the Middle East.


OK lets deny some more...Israels nukes have no bearing on any problems in the middle east and it has nothing to do with Irans quest for nuclear knowledge..Is that better now that I just accept your explanation? And when we build up, China and Russia do not follow suit and bears don't defocate in the woods either.


Ok its the wrong answer..meanwhile even though they have said it a million times that while Israel, India and Pakistan has nuclear programs they are entitled under the NPT as a right. Thats just like when people say 9-11 had nothing to do with Israel even though Osama Bin laden mentioned them a million times.


Well thats good for Israel and their nazi problems...its just too bad that the Middle East had nothing to do with their Holocaust so that phrase means nothing to me nor does it give them the right to be more defended then anyone else in the region. If Germany was in the Middle East and Hitler was still around they could feel free to use that phrase whenever. I guess in your mind that should mean that people in Lebanon should just throw down and allow Israel to just do as they please to them. Israel doesnt have the copyright on "never forget" obviously...after Lebanon I it seems Hizbollah said the same thing to them "never forget" and theres the door. Even though Palestine keeps telling them that same phrase they keep doing it again and Israel just doesnt seem to get the message. Maybe if they adopted that motto in regards to their actions they wouldn't have so many problems as in ,I will never forget not to do that to innocent people.


As though you are speaking referenced fact. No Nuclear program even exists and you have no proof one is even being devolped and you have no clue how long it will take...so what are u saying? You can make up things but I can't have an opinion? Al-Baredi doesnt even know for sure but you and Israel do know for sure?



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 07:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

I am sorry neformer, but dictionary definitions just don't cut it for me, k?



Now thats an interesting statement.

Basically what you are saying is that the actual definition of the words used means nothing because they don't suit your argument.

Oddly you then suggest I look up a definition


So. "State Sponsorted Terrorism" as you like to keep repeating.

Fine. We'll use your defintion.

The US was an imminent threat to Iran when it was propping up Saddam Hussein in the 80's post Revolution in Iran.

And the US was an imminent threat to Iraq when it was funding the Shah of Iran in the 70's.

The US was an imminent threat to the Soviet Union when it was funding the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan in the 80's.

Is it any wonder the middle east is a mess?

Hmm....was the USA an imminent threat to the UK when it was allowing NORAID to fund the IRA? Very possibly considering the IRA came very close to blowing up the whole British Cabinet.

Israel must, be definition, be an imminent threat to every country around it because they actively attempt to destabilise the governments in neighbouring countries by threatening - and executing - the use of force.

All this useful terminology
What a wonderful thing language is.

I await/expect a suitable parrot technique response.



[edit on 28/0607/07 by neformore]



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
I asked how Iran can affect US Soverignty.


I don't understand how you get from one nation being a threat, whether "imminent" or "potential" to another, to issues of soveriegnty.

Iran can pose a danger to the US or any other nation without challenging it's soveriegnty. Isn't that so?

When everyone was cranking up the hype about possible US military action in Iran, I recall many stories regarding Iranian sleeper agents in the US ready to attack the general public and infrastucture. That seems to me to be an imminent threat.

[edit on 6/28/2007 by darkbluesky]



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
I posted this in another thread but it was largely ignored so I'm going to ask it in a seperate one.

This applies to Iran, but the same question could have been applied to Iraq. I see it posted - almost daily on ATS that Iran poses an "imminent threat" to the USA.

Please explain to me how - exactly - is this the case?

I'd love to know how a country with no ICBMS, no nuclear weapons, no blue water navy and no method of aerial power projection can pose an imminent threat to a nation thats approximately 5000 miles away from it.

Please bear in mind that the country that is "threatened" is nuclear armed with ICBMS and SLBM's and as such is capable of both first and retaliatory strikes as need be, has three different types of heavy bombers with intercontinental range, has three carrier battlegroups in the area - each one with more aircraft on board that alot of countries have in their entire airforce and 150,000+ troops in the country next door.

Obviously there is a mindset about what constitutes an "imminent threat" but I don't see it. Please enlighten me


Sounds like you are underestimating what poor 3rd world countries are capable of. Especially when you consider terrorists as a bunch of stupid idiotic, can't speak English, live in caves, gun totting AKs can hurt the U.S. by inflicting harm by psychological and physical. So imagine some country like Iran are capable of as they gain access to nuclear technology to achieve what they could not do using proxy groups like Hezbollah and other groups.



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkbluesky

Iran can pose a danger to the US or any other nation without challenging it's soveriegnty. Isn't that so?



Thank you for helping me out here - albeit indirectly


Any nation can pose a danger to another one. Even us lil old Brits could pose a really rather severe danger to the US if circumstances required it.

Now, the next question is - why - exactly - does Iran pose a danger to the US?

Please present arguments logically and clearly. The phrase "they hate our freedoms" is forbidden, because it means nothing at all except in propaganda terms.

And if you want to harp on about state sponsored terrorism, please present a logical argument why they would wish to do that





[edit on 28/0607/07 by neformore]



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by neformore

Now, the next question is - why - exactly - does Iran pose a danger to the US?

Please present arguments logically and clearly. The phrase "they hate our freedoms" is forbidden, because it means nothing at all except in propaganda terms.

And if you want to harp on about state sponsored terrorism, please present a logical argument why they would wish to do that



Does it have to be defined imminent threat by attacking the U.S. soil only? When attacking American citizens or soldiers overseas are qualified as an imminent threat? How about equipping terrorist groups with nuclear weapons in hopes of providing deniability to prevent any possible blowback against the nation without any evidence.



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 04:36 PM
link   
Ok let me get this straight, our nation can declared any nation an imminent threat and has the right to attack and invade any of those nations.

But any of the nations of interest have no right to declare our nation and imminent threat even if our nation is invading their lands.

So I got it loud an clear, our nation is actually the biggest imminent thread in world today, specially for countries that happen to be of interest due to their oil reserves.

Specially the ones that are not friendly.

So hey isn’t that unfair?

I forgot, I should never question my nations and my political leaders reasons and I should wag my American, flag pay my taxes and be a good patriot.



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Ok let me get this straight, our nation can declared any nation an imminent threat and has the right to attack and invade any of those nations.

But any of the nations of interest have no right to declare our nation and imminent threat even if our nation is invading their lands.

So I got it loud an clear, our nation is actually the biggest imminent thread in world today, specially for countries that happen to be of interest due to their oil reserves.

Specially the ones that are not friendly.

So hey isn’t that unfair?


And people always wonder why the govt. does not inform the public about any possible imminent threat. If the govt. informs the public, people would say it was fearmongering. When a terrorist attack comes, people finds evidence that the govt. had some info that an imminent terrorist threat or something equivalent they would blame the govt. for not doing anything or not enough like let say informing the public about an imminent threat. So.........where exactly should we stand on?



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 04:49 PM
link   
Someone whose oil our energy companies don't get first dibs on drilling?




new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join