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.

 

Russian Leader Calls For Urgent Delivery Of Anti-aircraft Missile Systems To Iran

page: 3
13
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by HooHaa
The Iranian president wants WW3 so he can usher in the 13th Imam or Mahdi (Muslim savior and Christian Antichrist). He believes this so strongly that he would sacrifice himself and his people.


Can I ask where you got this information from?
Can you also quote any sources or are these just your own personal feelings on the matter?

Those seem like some spurious accusations but if you could back them up I'd appreciate it. From what I've seen America and Israel have intimated that they would attack Iran if it didn't follow their plan...not the other way around. One might think that America troops are being sacrificed to push an agenda here.

As far as World War Three is concerned...many evangelical Christians and their powerful leaders (closely associated with this administration) in America are the lusting for the end-time and the return of Jesus. They have extreme political reach in the US and their agenda should not be written off.


Lobbying for Armageddon

Some influential evangelical leaders are lobbying for an attack on Iran. But it's not about geopolitics -- it's about bringing about the End Times.

At the center of it all is Pastor John Hagee, a popular televangelist who leads the 18,000-member Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, Texas. While Hagee has long prophesized about the end times, he ratcheted up his rhetoric this year with the publication of his book, "Jerusalem Countdown," in which he argues that a confrontation with Iran is a necessary precondition for Armageddon and the Second Coming of Christ.

alternet



The End Times Agenda

This past June, the Israeli Embassy in Washington held a reception for several high-powered leaders of the Christian right. Among those attending the so-called Israel Solidarity Event were former presidential candidate Gary Bauer; Rev. Ted Haggard, head of the National Association of Evangelicals; Rev. Glenn Plummer of the Fellowship of Israel and Black America; and Rev. John Hagee, chairman of Christians United for Israel.
...
At the outbreak of violence in summer 2006, some evangelical leaders such as Janet Parshall, an evangelical radio host, were reportedly pleased; Blumenthal reported that Parshall was “ecstatic,” telling listeners, “‘These are the times we've been waiting for … This is straight out of a Sunday school lesson.'”

Right Web


I think you need to reevaluate who wants World War III my friend.
Could be the good Christians want Mr. Jesus back.




posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 02:25 PM
link   
downtown - if the US nukes anyone, I hope the entire US is blown up within a day. If you're going to go on the moral highhorse...then abide by it. Stop trying to disarm everyone of these "weapons of mass destruction" only to drop one on someone else. Which brings me to my point...if it happens, the US as you know it is a goner. You can say bye-bye to ipods, starbucks and american idol.



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3_Libras
downtown - if the US nukes anyone, I hope the entire US is blown up within a day. If you're going to go on the moral highhorse...then abide by it. Stop trying to disarm everyone of these "weapons of mass destruction" only to drop one on someone else. Which brings me to my point...if it happens, the US as you know it is a goner. You can say bye-bye to ipods, starbucks and american idol.


First if the US is a goner then the whole world is hurting. Let me ask you a question...US has nukes and Iran has nukes who do you think would use them?



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 02:32 PM
link   
Let me ask you a question. Whats the only country to ever use one?



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 02:33 PM
link   
A reminder of the topic: Russian Leader Calls For Urgent Delivery Of Anti-aircraft Missile Systems To Iran

Let's get back to it.
.



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Some casualties are possible but nothing we can't absorb or accept...


Oh Westy, you must be some kind of two star general/admiral.

Try to sell this line to pilots who would fly this sorties.

"Boys and gals, tomorrow we're gona kick some iranian but. After that, we'll have a big party. There will be plenty to drink and eat, because some of you won't return."



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by yanchek

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Some casualties are possible but nothing we can't absorb or accept...


Oh Westy, you must be some kind of two star general/admiral.

Try to sell this line to pilots who would fly this sorties.

"Boys and gals, tomorrow we're gona kick some iranian but. After that, we'll have a big party. There will be plenty to drink and eat, because some of you won't return."


But dont you see, they're dying for their country, and its freedom?



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3_Libras
Let me ask you a question. Whats the only country to ever use one?


So can I guess that you feel that if Iran had nukes they would only use them as a defensive last resort option, and not a first strike option?
Was nuking Japan right or wrong? Who knows, I for one see a nuke as a bomb with a lot of destructive power not some evil idol, but it so happens that the level of destruction a nuke can do would wipe small countries that has the majority of their population in just as few cities. It would take just a few nukes to basically wipe Israel off the map as example.

Did you know that the firebombing of Tokyo killed 70 to 100 thousand alone? We also destroyed 60 plus cites too and all this without the Japanese giving an inch to surrender. Because of this we had just a few options. One was to keep blowing Japan up year in year out killing millions if not 10 of millions. Invade the mainland at the cost of 10s of millions (we lost 50,000 while taking one small island alone), or three, drop nukes. Nukes were the only thing that their god-emperor saw as the end for them, and so the two bombs that killed close to 200k actually prevented the death of millions on both side.

Was any of this right or wrong? Who knows for back then 50k was an acceptable loss in a battle, but today it is not. The US is out for its own interest just like any other country, but there are a few things we will just not allow, and I’m sure that might piss off some people but no one said we had to be nice. Not being nice doesn't mean we will throw nukes around but it could easily mean we will not put up with a country that is hell bent on destroying another one. If this is not the case then no worries…




[edit on 6-9-2007 by Xtrozero]



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 03:37 PM
link   
is my worst fear coming ??? I was watching Nostradamus way back in the 80's and something stuck with me all this time... it said
when a middle east teams up with I guess Russia to rain down terror
in the new world..America ??



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Brad.T
 


I heard the same, eight bombers seems a lot of firepower to me even if they are old school Tu-95's



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 04:15 PM
link   
Quote: "Russia, China, Iran, Syria, Venezuela, and Cuba vs America, Canada, UK, Israel, and maybe UN? This will be a catastrophic war, because of all the nukes each country has. Maybe Bush knew all along that Russia, and China were on Iran's side and that is why he has that many troops in Iraq."

Um you do realize the UN is comprised of all these countries so how are Russia, China, Iran, Syria, Venezuela, and Cuba going to fight the UN? Wouldnt that mean they are fighting themselves? Just trying to clarify a little bit here.



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by xenya
 


Indeed. threads is chilling to the core of your soul to watch. But i think many people around the world need to watch it again cause we have forgotten the consequences of nuclear war. Threads also showed how a conflict in the Middle East went nuclear and triggered WW3



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by UM_Gazz
 


It appearing as it did off the mainstream radar is surpassing strange, but I think so much of the mainstream USA outlets are committed to the Cheney order to promote the notion of war with Iran that this bit of information is not helpful to that cause, hence, silence for the most part.

Were I Putin the last thing I would want is the USA in Iran where it can further influence Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan not to mention the Ukraine.



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 05:39 PM
link   
The SEAD capability of the United States is the best in the world....by far.

I wouldn't want to be an Iranian radar operator on the first day of any conflict with the U.S. Their average life expectancy will be measured in seconds.



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


This really does open a can of worms. For many the dropping of the bomb on the Mother of God Cathedral in Catholic Nagasaki is a crime which incredibly U.S. Americans don't comprehend, but people the world over regard as a fundamental crime against humanity (along with the fire-bombing of Dresden, the fire-bombing of Tokyo, and on...)

It is a mystery to me how US Americans read their history and justify their actions -- I admit that. But I think the same mentality is at work in justifying what the USA has done to Iraq and what it apparently wants to do to Iran.

Maybe some day after a city in the USA is obliterated by a nuclear device and generations upon generations suffer because of the radiation and fallout then US Americans will understand that the use of nuclear weapons is not only a crime against humanity but a crime against Life itself.



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Pellevoisin
 


Yeah, but the attack on Pearl Harbor, the rape of Nanking and the Bataan death march are all A-OK with you, right? The big, bad America is the problem, right?

Japan got what was coming to it. The only other option to end the war was to invade Japan. Millions would have died.



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 07:07 PM
link   
reply to post by lee anoma
 



The most remarkable aspect of Mr Ahmadinejad's piety is his devotion to the Hidden Imam, the Messiah-like figure of Shia Islam, and the president's belief that his government must prepare the country for his return.


www.telegraph.co.uk.../news/2006/01/14/wiran14.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/01/14/ixworld.html

I think religious leaders everywhere are ripe for a 'saviour'. That's why a false saviour(s) and a false peace will be so readily accepted after a false armageddon.



[edit on 6-9-2007 by HimWhoHathAnEar]



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vanguard223
reply to post by Pellevoisin
 


Yeah, but the attack on Pearl Harbor, the rape of Nanking and the Bataan death march are all A-OK with you, right? The big, bad America is the problem, right?

Japan got what was coming to it. The only other option to end the war was to invade Japan. Millions would have died.



Not to mention something else Japan did in Asia. Look up on the Japanse military Unit 731. It may shock you.



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by princeofpeace
 


Yes but it is not made up of only those countries, it has many other countries as well. Regardless of this though, if there is a war then it will be catastrophic, UN or not. I guess we should all prepare in case the worst of things happens.



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vanguard223
reply to post by Pellevoisin
 

Yeah, but the attack on Pearl Harbor, the rape of Nanking and the Bataan death march are all A-OK with you, right? The big, bad America is the problem, right?


Absolutely not. Pearl Harbor goes as much into FDR's box as in Imperial Japan's box. As for Nanking and Bataan, those are to the shame of Imperial Japan.

As with most assertions claiming the numbers of casualties from a land invasion justifying the use of nuclear bombs, they are baseless and beneath contempt. Civilian populations are never to be declared enemy combatants and killed or simply chalked up as collateral damage. The USA only recognises this as truth when its own civilians are killed.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join