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: 8
13
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 10:25 PM
link   


You don't have to like the Jews, or be in favor of them, only recognize the fact that they are there, it is their home, they to this day struggle to exist in, surrounded by enemies, and growing international criticisms. If the world again abandons the Jews in a new darkest hour, perhaps history will indeed repeat itself.


It's only their home because they stole it at gunpoint from the people who were living there before them.
Why should I care if their victims fight to take it back?

As for the superfluous, bogus, and entirely predictable accusations of antisemitism: Zionism does not equal Judaism. It is entirely possible to be opposed to one and have no particularly strong opinions about the other.

As for myself, my feelings about Israel have nothing to do with antisemitism, it is colonialism & ethnic cleansing that are the focus of my objections.

If Israel is surrounded by enemies it is because it's founders chose to colonize lands that belonged to others - and their former neighbors are understandably not happy about it.

Israel brought it's troubles upon itself.




posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 10:45 PM
link   
There are many evils in this world of ours, greater, lesser, ours and theirs.

If we choose a lesser evil of preemption to save the world from a greater evil in the future, how can this be bad?

We can wait for the inevitable, or launch effective strikes to prevent it, it is a simple choice, no matter what you may believe now, or what your opinion is, that will be the ultimate choice here.

We let it go, deal with the outcome and aftermath, or we do something about it now.

Think on that for a while with an open mind, set aside your preconceived notions and bias. Think of this as a challenge.



posted on Aug, 25 2007 @ 01:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by UM_Gazz
There are many evils in this world of ours, greater, lesser, ours and theirs.

If we choose a lesser evil of preemption to save the world from a greater evil in the future, how can this be bad?

We can wait for the inevitable, or launch effective strikes to prevent it, it is a simple choice, no matter what you may believe now, or what your opinion is, that will be the ultimate choice here.


The ultimate choice is not how to react to a given situation... but how to proact to create a NEW situation.

How can we as a society create a new positive paradigm in which our actions do not manifest evils in others?

Why choose the lesser of two evils when you can choose an outside of the box "good"?

I believe I said this before, perhaps in another thread... but...

Why doesn't the western world disarm? Because we enjoy living in fear?

Why are we spending billions to interrupt terrorist operations when we could instead be feeding children and planting trees in those same nations?

Winning hearts and minds rather than loosing them.

There is an old buddhist story that speaks of a monk who comes home to see he is being robbed. Does the monk beat the assailant over the head and chase him off? Nope. He helps him carry all of the stuff out into the yard with a smile and wishes him well... when the thief realizes that the man helping him is the owner of the stuff, he runs off in embarrassment leaving the monks belongings behind.

I am,

Sri Oracle ...living with no back door and no weapons sans my digital pen.



posted on Aug, 25 2007 @ 03:45 AM
link   


Think on that for a while with an open mind, set aside your preconceived notions and bias. Think of this as a challenge.


Perhaps you should think for a while, and lay aside your preconceived notion that a nuclear attack from Iran is "inevitable", because you can know no such thing. Perhaps before you try to commit us all to a course of action that will lead to thousands (at the very least) of deaths.

Think of this as a challenge.

During this entire discussion you have never admitted to even the possibility that Iran might not choose to do so. That there might be nothing to "preempt".

So please don't lecture me about my "closed mind" - yours is already closed to the possibility of any course but war.

[edit on 8/25/07 by xmotex]



posted on Aug, 25 2007 @ 07:36 AM
link   
reply to post by xmotex
 


Iran will attack Israel with many, many nukes. Prez Amadingdong wants to bring in the 12th Imam out of the well. This is his goal and it will be attempted.

Israel and the US/Britian will attack Iran. Pakistan will go Jihad, India will nuke it.

I do love a happy ending.............



posted on Aug, 25 2007 @ 12:42 PM
link   
I had a Biblical reference pop into my mind when I saw the words "Satan's flag" in this thread's title. It is from the OT Book of Amos, and I believe it is in reference to the Star of David, the centerpiece of the flag of the current State of Israel.



Amos 5

20 Shall not the day of the LORD be darkness, and not light? even very dark, and no brightness in it?

21 I hate, I despise your feast days, and I will not smell in your solemn assemblies.

22 Though ye offer me burnt offerings and your meat offerings, I will not accept them: neither will I regard the peace offerings of your fat beasts.

23 Take thou away from me the noise of thy songs; for I will not hear the melody of thy viols.

24 But let judgment run down as waters, and righteousness as a mighty stream.

25 Have ye offered unto me sacrifices and offerings in the wilderness forty years, O house of Israel?

26 But ye have borne the tabernacle of your Moloch and Chiun your images, the star of your god, which ye made to yourselves.

27 Therefore will I cause you to go into captivity beyond Damascus, saith the LORD, whose name is The God of hosts.


Remember, Israel has not always been in favor with the Lord. The Lord's favor passed eventually to Judah after the reign of Jeroboam, king of Israel. Even so, Judah was taken into captivity in Babylon during the time of the prophet Jeremiah.



1 Kings 14

14 Moreover the LORD shall raise him up a king over Israel, who shall cut off the house of Jeroboam that day: but what? even now.

15 For the LORD shall smite Israel, as a reed is shaken in the water, and he shall root up Israel out of this good land, which he gave to their fathers, and shall scatter them beyond the river, because they have made their groves, provoking the LORD to anger.

16 And he shall give Israel up because of the sins of Jeroboam, who did sin, and who made Israel to sin.


Periodically, the Lord has chastened Israel and Judah when they have turned away from His commandments, and broken His covenant, delivering them into the hands of their adversaries.

As I understand modern interpretation of Revelation and other Biblical prophesy, Israel will stand behind the anti-christ until he is revealed, then will be struck with a great slaughter from the Temple outward as they attempt to flee. Nearly all the world, except for the 144,000, will stand with the antichrist against the returning Messiah, and be destroyed.



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 08:32 AM
link   
This may be a little off topic as it doesn't relate to Iranian comments about Israel, but I found this short documentary by John Pilger rather eye opening, regarding the Israeli outlook in the middle east.

Palestine is Still the Issue
www.informationliberation.com/?id=14644

The notion that Israel should pre-emptively strike to protect itself against 'terrorists' sounds rather familiar doesn't it?

But just who are these terrorists really - wasn't Al Quaeda shown to be a US invention?

Are the Palestinians terrorists or freedom fighters or broken, angry and frustrated people, sick of being held captive in their own country?

Well, now the Iranian special forces are 'terrorists', or at least Dubya is thinking of labelling them this way.

It worries me that otherwise sane and apparently intelligent people believe that dropping nukes on a country can be justified as an act of self defense, just cos some dude 'in power' likes to shoot his mouth off.

Very very dangerous fear based thinking. Or maybe it's not thinking at all, just a regurgitation of mass media mind control?



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
It's only their home because they stole it at gunpoint from the people who were living there before them.
Why should I care if their victims fight to take it back?


Most of that land was deserted before many Jews settled there. People were displaced but alot of the land was uninhabited before many Jewish moved in. Many people want the land back AFTER the Jews got the ball rolling as it where.


If Israel is surrounded by enemies it is because it's founders chose to colonize lands that belonged to others - and their former neighbors are understandably not happy about it.

Israel brought it's troubles upon itself.


No- not really. Put another way if you were given the choice to move to Africa or move to your ideal house in your 'Mecca' it wouldn't be a particulary hard choice. The Jews were given the land by the British- returning to their homeland.



posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 08:43 PM
link   
I'm not sure which the world should fear more, Iran with nuclear weapons, or the rising tide of antisemitism. Between these two exists the cesspool that will at some point ignite.

We are collectively setting the stage for the prophesized war of wars, while most are oblivious to the part they are playing.



posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 02:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by UM_Gazz
I'm not sure which the world should fear more, Iran with nuclear weapons, or the rising tide of antisemitism. Between these two exists the cesspool that will at some point ignite.


You forgot to include 'apartheid promoting white supremacists' and 'war mongering imperialists' in your list of uglies.

I also think you may be mistaking anti-oppression, anti-zionism, anti-elitism and probably lots of other anti's for anti-semitism.



posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 07:21 PM
link   
Sorry I missed all of those anti-s. But I stand firm on the points of my previous post.

Perhaps there will be an attack on Iran, and everyone will assume there is some major conspiracy, which is fine.

I am one of a few members who has been very outspoken against the Bush administration. All anyone need do to see that is check my post history here.

This is one time I would support preemptive action, for the reasons I have outlined in my posts in this thread. I believe it must be done, and the sooner the better, it is just too great a risk to both the USA and Israel, as well as other nations in the world who may face the threat of radical Islamic terrorism. Iran must not be allowed to make nuclear weapons.

I am a confirmed Bush 'hater', so this is very hard for me. It should have been done long ago, the Iraq war was a mistake, the Iran threat is real, and not an illusion or a created threat drawn from bogus intelligence.

The problem is most Americans have lost trust, for good reason. So the lack of support for preemptive strikes on Iran is no surprise, and perhaps will stand as reason enough to hold back, and continue waiting for diplomatic solutions, that could be a major mistake, perhaps already is, it could be too late.

Just a waiting game now, but what are we waiting for?




[edit on 28-8-2007 by UM_Gazz]



posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by UM_Gazz
 




The problem is most Americans have lost trust, for good reason. So the lack of support for preemptive strikes on Iran is no surprise, and perhaps will stand as reason enough to hold back, and continue waiting for diplomatic solutions, that could be a major mistake, perhaps already is, it could be too late.


It might stand as reason for another terror attack/suspected false flag operation on US soil, too. The nuclear component is the truly scary part. If they get blamed for nuking us, does it matter if it was them that actually did it? At that point, perception is reality, and the counterstrike is already on the way. Game over.

Shall we play a game? Shall we play Global Thermonuclear Warfare?



posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
Shall we play a game? Shall we play Global Thermonuclear Warfare?


Sure, why not!


Lets get rid of this one first:

www.nytimes.c om

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced today that Iran had finally reached its stated goal of developing 3,000 centrifuges, but his message seemed more of a challenge to the United States and Europe than it did a statement of a technological breakthrough.

“The West thought the Iranian nation would give in after just a resolution, but now we have taken another step in the nuclear progress and launched more than 3,000 centrifuge machines, installing a new cascade every week,” state television quoted the president as saying.
(Please visit the source link for the full article)

Let the bodies hit the floor?



posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by UM_Gazz
Between these two exists the cesspool that will at some point ignite.


Yes, the US certainly didn't ignite anything 4 years ago.


Originally posted by UM_Gazz
Lets get rid of this one first:

Let the bodies hit the floor?


Published on Thursday, August 30, 2007 by Reuters
Iran Says IAEA Atom Report Shows US Charges Wrong
www.commondreams.org...



posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shroomery
Published on Thursday, August 30, 2007 by Reuters
Iran Says IAEA Atom Report Shows US Charges Wrong
www.commondreams.org...


And the report I quoted in the post above yours:

"By MICHAEL SLACKMAN and NAZILA FATHI
Published: September 2, 2007"

I'm not sure we can go retroactive with archived news to get out of this one.

But nice try!



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 12:12 AM
link   
reply to post by UM_Gazz
 




why not!


I don't think we are quite ready for it yet. There has to be more political posturing and inflammatory rhetoric first. A cross border skirmish or two.
Something inexcusable done in the name of one cause or the other. We aren't quite at that fever pitch that produces the bloodlust necessary to risk our very existence to settle our comparitively petty differences.

But we're close.

That means there's still hope. Now more than ever.



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 07:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by UM_Gazz

Originally posted by Shroomery
Published on Thursday, August 30, 2007 by Reuters
Iran Says IAEA Atom Report Shows US Charges Wrong
www.commondreams.org...


And the report I quoted in the post above yours:

"By MICHAEL SLACKMAN and NAZILA FATHI
Published: September 2, 2007"

I'm not sure we can go retroactive with archived news to get out of this one.

But nice try!




Retroactive? It's 3 days old, it's about the SAME IAEA report, and it does NOT say anything different than your article. What a sad excuse for a moderator like you.
I suppose you walked right into the "they have 3000 centrifuges" and "defiance of the west" scaremongering tactic?

Nice try though but your argument is a joke, please do not keep it up or I will find it necessary to report ignorance.



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Shroomery
 


If you want to use that as a rebuttal fine, the reader can determine where ignorance resides.

The claim from the Iranian leader to have "3,000 centrifuge machines" working (yesterday) seems to contradict the IAEA reports.

Regardless of who says what, we are drawing perilously close to a critical point where Israeli security concerns will supercede U.S. objectives and UN demands. Baring some major concessions from Iran on the nuclear issue, something more drastic will have to be done to prevent a "nuclear holocaust".



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 06:39 PM
link   
Apparently other nations are beginning to accept the fact that war with Iran may be necessary now.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Also the Syrians and North Koreans are now allegedly cooperating with Iran to create nuclear weapons. It is likely that the middle east will once again see massive air strikes and military actions, initiated by either Joint Israeli and French or U.S. actions.



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 06:50 PM
link   

"When the philosophy behind the establishment of a regime is in question, it is not unlikely that it will find itself on a course of decline and dissolution."



Did anyone else read that? IMO that sentence is the most important info in that article...

[edit on 16-9-2007 by jwater88]



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join