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.

 

Iran president: Israel flies Satan's flag

page: 5
13
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by UM_Gazz
Once again I simply state that no matter what you or I think, agree or disagree, there is a threat that could have profound affect on the world,


Yes, some would say this is the NWO, and some just think it's Dubya, and you can take the word 'could' out of the sentence


Seriously though, many people 'outside the US' believe GW is the most dangerous man in the world, and the US the most dangerous country. That's a real shocker for the average American, or at least the ones I've spoken to on trips to the US (the American travellers tend to be better informed about the declining reputation of their government)

As I've said before, it's sad/hilarious that we are now rooting for homicidal religous nuts and/or despots, simply as a counter balance to the ever growing hatred of the US




posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Silcone Synapse
Good Lord,the stage is set.All the players seem to want this war-the leaders that is,not the people obviously.


Yes we have expanded our control over a good portion of the planet during russia's reorgainization but they are back now. China has now the need to expand and see that the US is grabbing oil resources and will team up with russia to fight if need be. (See my thread on thier recent military exercises just completed)



Amadinajad must have something up his sleeve to be this confrontational at this time.He ain`t completely stupid,he must know that the US have basically got Iran surrounded with massive ordnance,bases,manpower.


See above post, He has a big card up his sleeve IMO.



What surprise does he have in store? A nuke or 3 won`t win him any war,he knows that.Sure,3 nukes at a strategic moment into the straits of hormuz will do one hell of alot of damage,but he knows thats not enough to win anything..


I think IRAN does have a nuke or two or few. or if they havent develop it themselves yet, Russia or China or North Korea may have a hand in that issue.



That leads me to at least ponder the possibility that he has either China or Russia secretly on side,maybe egging him on,encouraging him to start the unthinkable.That might give him the confidence he needs to behave like he is.
Some please tell me i`m way off the mark or I probably won`t sleep much tonight.


I dont think its a secret anymore who the sides in the next world war will be. I really hope that humanity will see the light before we do the unthinkable. I cant believe this is going to be humankinds legacy. i want to think we are more intelligent then that.



posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnsky
Leave the Middle East alone. The only reason they're fighting now is because the US went in there with guns blazing. What option do they have?


I personally wouldn't mind seeing these heavy believers blow each other up over a piece of land. Lets say all of this god humbug is true, wouldn't you think that this god would not care which piece of land you were sitting on? Wouldn't this god have foreseen the strife and conflict a designated zone would create?

What an instigator!

I know what I'm saying is "cruel" but come on, I've personally had enough of this religious "right" over this and that. If they want it so bad, group them all up in one place and let them duke it out hand-to-hand. Too bad that's not an option, they've got to pull everybody into the conflict. Oh! And those nukes! Pathetic.

(This is directed at HEAVY BELIEVERS in the Jewish, Christian, and Islam beliefs)



posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by RogerT
As I've said before, it's sad/hilarious that we are now rooting for homicidal religous nuts and/or despots, simply as a counter balance to the ever growing hatred of the US


There is not a post in this thread that rings more truth than this one.


So many rush to defend Iran, their radical Islamic leaders, and their 'peaceful' nuclear programs, while Iran mocks them, and would like nothing more than to see their elimination as the infidels they are, not worthy of living in Allah's Islamic world. And of course this is all Bush's fault too.

Sad/hilarious... indeed.



posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 02:54 PM
link   


Once again I simply state that no matter what you or I think, agree or disagree, there is a threat that could have profound affect on the world, that includes YOU! No matter who you perceive to be the evil or good side.


The Iranian "threat" is minimal at best. They have no means to project power beyond their borders, and that doesn't appear likely to change anytime soon. They may have a nuclear weapons program but they are several years from being able to construct a test device, let alone develop a deployable warhead. And for all the bellicose rhetoric coming from Ahmadinejad, Iran hasn't actually attacked anyone in God knows how long.

Certainly Iran's theocracy is no prize by any standard, but the "threat" it poses beyond it's own borders is exaggerated almost to the point of absurdity.

Contrast that with another power, one I think far more of the world views as a "threat" than Iran. It has over 10,000 nuclear bombs, most ready to launch with a few minutes notice. It has the most powerful military in the world, the largest military budget in the world (nearly twice that of any other), and isn't shy about using it, having fought more wars (and killed more people) on other people's soil than any other country by far over the last half-century. It's leaders talk openly about "preemptive strikes" against countries that oppose it (but have not attacked it), and it's strategists advocate a policy of "global dominance" where it will allow no rivals for military or economic power. It is viewed by much of the world as an empire run amok, out to rule the world, and not without good reason.

... Just trying to put things into perspective.





[edit on 8/19/07 by xmotex]



posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by UM_Gazz

There is not a post in this thread that rings more truth than this one.


So many rush to defend Iran, their radical Islamic leaders, and their 'peaceful' nuclear programs, while Iran mocks them, and would like nothing more than to see their elimination as the infidels they are, not worthy of living in Allah's Islamic world. And of course this is all Bush's fault too.

Sad/hilarious... indeed.


this is also hilarious
i don't speak for everyone that defends Iran
and i dont do it because they are muslim

i do so because they are in the right when it comes to this situation
i laugh at the prospect when you guys come and say Iran should have been attacked and so on. which shows the true agresive country

and i like the way you have come up with the infadels they are and not worthy of living in allahs islamic world.
great prospective.

and why would we blame everything on Bush,sure his axis of evil speach didnt help when progress was being made with US and Iran relations.

but who takes notice.

if we compare the 25+ or so years Iran kicked the shah out
and compared it to the US who would be more clean when it comes to killing others? Iran or the US



posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 03:02 PM
link   


... Just trying to put things into perspective.




I think you succeeded.

Kinda what I wanted to say, but done far more eloquently



posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 03:09 PM
link   
I'm glad people are starting to see what this whole debacle is and not just jumping on the whole Muslims are terrorists bandwagon. The West call Iran "terrorist" Don't we have a illegal war in Iraq? I think they have a good cause to call the west "Satan" It all depends on who side you are, I don't listen to my media as i know it's biased. I've researched from both angles, and as I far as I can see the West is doing the provoking and Iran is sticking up for themselves, and I say fair play Iran for not being allowed to be bullied. Don't believe everything you read in your trusted press. Take the British sailors who we're arrested for venturing into Iranian waters, The MOD and the press tried to spin the story, and it back fired bigtime. This is just propaganda to get the people ready for conflict, I for one want be duped.



posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by xmotex
 


nicely said

and you summed it up precisely



posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by xmotex
 



I also agree with this post 100%. The rest of the of the world does see the USA as the aggressor and it's allies as the little puppets.



posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
The Iranian "threat" is minimal at best. They have no means to project power beyond their borders, and that doesn't appear likely to change anytime soon. They may have a nuclear weapons program but they are several years from being able to construct a test device, let alone develop a deployable warhead. And for all the bellicose rhetoric coming from Ahmadinejad, Iran hasn't actually attacked anyone in God knows how long.


This is true, Iran may not be able to strike Israel and certainly not the USA.

But what about the terrorist organisations Iran does support, what about the army of Allah? the calls for the destruction of the great Satan (USA) and Israel?

Iran may not need missiles, when it already by proxy commands armies with thousands of willing martyrs and suicide bombers who would happily deliver ANY type bomb to selected targets and detonate them.

The threat as you say may be minimal. But it is real.

We should not underestimate their ability to carry out attacks because they don't have missiles capable of reaching certain targets.

We also should not dismiss their Islamic beliefs when trying to estimate the potential threat.

[edit on 19-8-2007 by UM_Gazz]



posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 03:48 PM
link   
It's actually unclear whether the US will attack Iran. If they do, it's unclear how big of an attack that will be. Rumors have been circulating ever since the "Axis of Evil" speech that we would attack Iran, and they started to become more intensive about two years ago, after Seymour Hirsch wrote an article claiming the US military was planning to attack Iran.

But there is another school of thought that Hirsch et al were used by the administration to propogate a bluff, and that the two carrier groups near the Straight of Hormuz are just a part of this bluff. It could very well be that Ahmadinejad is betting that it is a bluff, and is using the tension to appear bold to his own people.

However, there is a real problem with Iran's nuclear program. Although they say it is "peaceful," this is highly doubtful. That doesn't mean it won't be used for some peaceful purposes, but most intelligence agencies simply don't believe Iran won't try to develop a bomb.

If Iran could be trusted with nuclear warheads, there wouldn't be so much concern. But Iran has consistently demonstrated it has no problem funding radical groups that it knows engage in terrorism. And it is dedicated to the destruction of Israel. Ever since Ayatollah Khomeini and the Islamic Revolution in 1979, the necessity of destroying Israel the mission to destroy Israel has evolved into one of the country's most fundamental creeds. Both conservatives and reformers in Iran support it, and Khoneini's successor, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has also said that Israel is a "cancer" and that the only way to deal with it is to "to destroy the root and cause of the crisis." And former Iranian president Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani, said that Israel was more vulnerable to nuclear attack than Muslim countries "because the use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything," and added, "It is not irrational to contemplate such an eventuality."

This obviously presents a problem for Israel. Something has to be done at some point. Maybe not this year, maybe not next year, but when a country has said it wants to wipe your country off the face of the map --and you're a small country --and the country that hates you is developing nuclear weapons, a pre-emptive strike is certainly not an illogical option to consider.

However, there would be a response, and the US would be drawn in. The thinking in some circles is that maybe the US should take care of the problem in the first place. It's bigger and more powerful than Israel, and it at least has some leverage with some ME countries. That might be the only way to have targeted military action not spin out of control into a regional or world war. No guarantee that wouldn't happen just because it was the US, but the thinking is there might be less of a chance of it happening.

Personally, I'd like to see a more vigorous attempt at negotiation first. We don't trust the Iranians, but we didn't trust the Soviet Union either and we were still able to work out some treaties with them.



posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by bodrul
i do so because they are in the right when it comes to this situation.


I wonder what you will say in response to your words there, if Iranian made weapons, explosives, and or bombs are used in the future to carry out attacks against "U.S. and Israeli interests" or 'targets', as promised, and threatened.

Maybe we can revisit this at some point in the not too distant future.

I certainly hope not, but one never really knows do they?




posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by UM_Gazz
I wonder what you will say in response to your words there, if Iranian made weapons, explosives, and or bombs are used in the future to carry out attacks against "U.S. and Israeli interests" or 'targets', as promised, and threatened.

Maybe we can revisit this at some point in the not too distant future.

I certainly hope not, but one never really knows do they?



well if its in self defence then i will say

Right ON




posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo

Who's really uneducated here? That land is very useful if your plan is to encircle China and Russia, also, the elite want continuious war, not stabilization. I agree that the people of every country in the world want peace, stabilization and liberty.


I disagree,

Iran and Syria want to destabilize the region and then take it over, and a lot of radical groups want to keep Iraq destabilized so that maybe they can also take the country over much like the Taliban.

For America to keep the oil cheap and flowing good a stabilized area is our best scenario. For war with Russia or China that area does us little good, so to want it as a platform to prosecute a war is really not a good option.
There really only two things that we care about there.

1.They have oil, and we want oil. The best way to get that oil is from a very stabilized region.

2. We have freedom and rights, and we want them to have freedom and rights. The best way we can do that is to help them set up a democracy. Now it doesn’t need to be just like America, but we need to help them keep totalitarian, dictatorship and other forms of governments that tend to extremely limit the populaces freedoms and liberties out of there.



posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 05:25 PM
link   


Iran and Syria want to destabilize the region and then take it over

And your basing this on what? Mainstream propaganda? If you look at history, the country who played the biggest part in destabilizing the middle-east is the US and probably USSR, but mainly the US with Saddam, Israël, Iran in 53, Saudi Arabia, ect... If you read the pentagon plan for Iraq before the war, which is the old 80s Israëli plan, you'll know that the civil war in Iraq and the destabilization was meant to occur and this is the goal of the globalists running the USA.


a lot of radical groups want to keep Iraq destabilized

Lot of radical groups? Like Al-Qaeda which is a complete myth? Or the Al-Sadr militia trying to get the invaders out of their country? Or Iran's supposed meddling? Or the PKK trained by Israël in 04-05-06 now being crushed by Turkish and US troops? Or what else?


that maybe they can also take the country over much like the Taliban.

Yeah the Talibans...
Those funded by the ISI, the pakistani CIA-branch?



For America to keep the oil cheap and flowing good a stabilized area is our best scenario.

For the population yes, for the elite no. The lower the flow of oil is, the biggest the profits are... i mean it's obvious.


For war with Russia or China that area does us little good, so to want it as a platform to prosecute a war is really not a good option.

Ask the Pentagon. Iraq is supposed to be used as a platform to launch an attack against Iran, then change the regime, probably put US army bases there then in the future attack China and Russia.



1.They have oil, and we want oil. The best way to get that oil is from a very stabilized region.

They have oil, but you need to have to control the flow, not to have more cheap oil.



2. We have freedom and rights, and we want them to have freedom and rights. The best way we can do that is to help them set up a democracy. Now it doesn’t need to be just like America, but we need to help them keep totalitarian, dictatorship and other forms of governments that tend to extremely limit the populaces freedoms and liberties out of there.
^/quote]
You have freedom and rights?
Well if you look since 9/11, you've lost a hell lot of them. The mission in Iraq is not to establish a democracy, nor help them, nor save lives... it's to control their flow of oil, make them a puppet state, force them to use petro-dollars, sell weapons, stay in Iraq for 30 years at least to make money in arms and construction sales.

Seriously, you bought all the BS about saving Iraq?



posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 05:50 PM
link   
Make no mistake about it, Iran and Israel are plotting together in this great Poker Game of Deception and America will be dumped as soon as Iran has a tight grip on Iraq. Know well, that the Mehdi Army and Hezbullah is Iranian owned and the War in Lebanon with Hezbullah, last year was the biggest Trade Show, organized by both Iran and Israel to make Hezbullah look strong and take credit for facing up to Israel. In the end it is Iran and Israel, that will controll Iraq's Oil and not America.

Both Iran and Israel, have no place for America to play Poker in the Middle East. Time will tell, if Bush was Duped by the Neo Cons (for Israel)and the Chalabi Gang (for Iran)



posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
Ya we want their oil, and so does everyone else. [We] want what is best for us and that is a stabilized region over there, but that is the last thing a few of those countries want. If we could had stabilized Iraq two years ago we would be out already, but since the Iraqis and more importantly other nations around Iraq do not want us to do it we are still there. []Let us just be able to buy their oil, and allow those nations to prosper without human rights etc. issues and we all can be happy.


I like how the word stablize becomes synonymous with stealing their oil in exchange for monopoly money that is backed, not with gold or the will of our people, but rather entirely with our ability to steal their oil.



We want what is best for us.


Right-O

I think YOU just announced the motto on the bottom of satan's flag.

A little too much Ayn Rand on your bookshelf I'd say.

Why is it we do not want what is best for everyone?

One day the world will awaken and realize the best place for oil is where God left it... purposefully seperated from man by millions of years of geology and thousands of feet of earth.


I am,

Sri Oracle



posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo

This is the goal of the globalists running the USA.


So you disagree that Iran would take over Iraq if they could?



Lot of radical groups? Like Al-Qaeda which is a complete myth? Or the Al-Sadr militia trying to get the invaders out of their country? Or Iran's supposed meddling? Or the PKK trained by Israël in 04-05-06 now being crushed by Turkish and US troops? Or what else?


So you disagree that Sadr and others like him would not take goverment over by force if they could?




For the population yes, for the elite no. The lower the flow of oil is, the biggest the profits are... i mean it's obvious.


I agree with this, but I do not agree your "elite" is driving the reason to keep Iraq destablized, or to say they influnance the countries around Iraq, that have their own agenda to control a large portion of the worlds oil.


Ask the Pentagon. Iraq is supposed to be used as a platform to launch an attack against Iran, then change the regime, probably put US army bases there then in the future attack China and Russia.


Yes, a platform against any countries around Iraq, but not China or Russia.




They have oil, but you need to have to control the flow, not to have more cheap oil.


This makes perfect sense if the oil companies ran the country. I just disagree with that.



You have freedom and rights?
Well if you look since 9/11, you've lost a hell lot of them. The mission in Iraq is not to establish a democracy, nor help them, nor save lives... it's to control their flow of oil, make them a puppet state, force them to use petro-dollars, sell weapons, stay in Iraq for 30 years at least to make money in arms and construction sales.

Seriously, you bought all the BS about saving Iraq?


So is it a safe bet to say you are a Bush hater?


What are you going to do when he steps out of office in 2008? I guess the oil companies will put their next puppet in place.

Since I spent over a year of my life in Iraq I tend to see things a little different I guess.

If I were a betting man I would say this. Bush leaves office without trying to take over the government, we get Iraq somewhat stabilized and start to pull troops out in 2009, I’m thinking Romney will be the next president, Iran continues to say crap but we never go to war with them, but we do kill their troops on Iraq soil. Our major confrontation will be with China when they take over Taiwan, but we will be unwilling to go to full out war. North Korea will finally back off the nuke program since the country is starving and the comic book collector of a dictator will most likely not live past 2010.


But then I’m an optimist.


[edit on 19-8-2007 by Xtrozero]



posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 06:35 PM
link   
Why Democracy Fails


Wars can be prevented only by one strong enough to be a world ruler, clear-sighted and wise enough to completely change the existing system, to abolish all competition, to put the premium on giving instead of getting, to do away, entirely, with all regimentation, with the present economic system, the present social system—in fact with the whole of the present society. He would have to be good enough, and honest enough, to rule this whole world for the good of the governed, not for the greed and pride of the ruler. And, finally, that man would have to change human nature, because as long as man remains selfish he will continue on this competitive and Babylonish system!

Yes, it will take a world ruler—a ruler who is the perfect man—one who will rule with fairness and justice—one who has power to abolish this entire world-system and start the whole world going on the basis of love.



But then, I'm being an optimist.

I am,

Sri Oracle



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join