It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Iran Didn't Spark a Middle East Nuclear Arms Race, It's Joining the One Israel Started

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 03:09 AM

Originally posted by TheBandit795
Why would the U.S. give money to a nation that attacked one of their warships 40 years ago?

It's like me giving you money and weapons and you using them to attack me.

Because obviously the US military and intelligence agencies knew more about what happened than the public will ever know. Don't pretend you know know even 10% about what happened that day.

posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 05:38 AM

Originally posted by biggie smalls
Remember...The state of Israel is a creation as of 1947. They shouldn't be there in the first place. They merely exist to cause strife in the middle east.

Israel has a right to exist, but the problem with the Middle East is everyone making a claim to the Holy Land.

You seen the film Kingdom of Heaven? famouse quote from that movie (referring to the Holy Land)

"all have claim and all are holy"

If we had a secular union of Middle Eastern States, and Jerusalem was run by an equal administration of Jews, Christians and Muslims, I believe the violence would stop.

Until we understand each of the three abrahamic religions are holy in their own right, we will not have peace.

posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 07:59 AM
Funny part is that Jews, Christians and Muslims were already living in peace for hundreds of years in Palestine.

posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 08:07 AM
reply to post by mad scientist

Uhm.. Yes they know. The Veterans who where on that ship that day still claim that the Israelis had full knowledge that it was a U.S. ship when they attacked. And they are still trying to find out why it's being covered up.

posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 08:09 AM
Actually, the Jews and Muslims have the most peaceful history in that land, it was the Romans and later Christian states of Europe that seem to have created most of the problems. Let us not forget that in the Crusades, Jews were massacred as much as Arabs and later Muslims, both people who had occupied that land for millenia before.
Indeed under the Ottoman empire there was a Jewish state on the verge of being created until the British invaded. This jewish state had much support from the Muslim leadership.


posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 08:29 AM
reply to post by biggie smalls

Don't comment on my post if you don't read them. I said Egypt is the oldest second to only Israel.
Read the Bible if you think that Israel should not exist. I truly feel sorry for you and your faith in nothing.

posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 08:33 AM
reply to post by infinite

The Jews still allow the Arabs to have that mosque on the temple mount so I would dare to say they are the tolerant ones.

posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 11:55 AM
reply to post by blueorder

Since Iran has promised (not threatened, but promised) to wipe Israel off the map as soon as possible, it is my opinion that Israel should be rubber and Iran glue as soon as is practical. The only reservation I have about the U.S. helping is that I want to have plenty of ordinance left over for Czar Putin, Red China, Kim and Chavez.

posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 11:59 AM

Originally posted by blueorder
Its as well Israel has nukes, or one of nations around them, whether run by Islamists or dictators would have wiped them off the map.

It is like saying because the UK has nukes every tin pot regime should have one, give one to Zimbabwe ffs

That is more breath-taking arrogance and hypocrisy from a westerner.
Why should Uk have them??? If the UK have them, then they are in NO position to say anyone else can't have them.

posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 12:37 PM
OK...this thread started about Iranian nuclear weapons but it as usually it turns into a middle east debate.
so here is the Palestinian side of the story:
First of all some people keep saying that Israel is surrounded by Arab enemies who want to destroy it... have you ever stopped to wonder why is Israel is surrounded by Arab states, and i don't care about ancient history, it went like this: there were the original people of Palestine (Palestinians) then came the jews (from all around the world) and claimed the land as the UN parted the land between them. but the "Israelis" wanted more so they took more 1948 then more 1967 and so on..
Now the outrageous claims:
-There hadn't been a suicide bombing attack on Israel since a lot of time.(not daily as someone claimed)
-Whoever said that we (the Palestinians) were badly treated by Jordan, Egypt, Syria! ? this is just ridiculous
-You keep separating Muslims and Christians. The fact is They are all Palestinians and there is no deference between them in our society. In fact is that Christians make 8% of the Palestinian population.
-and @ USMonitor: Yes the Arabs wanted to give the land to "Palis"

and for one last comment about Israel. I live in a town 3 KM from Jerusalem which is where i was born, but now i can't reach there ever since i turned 16 and had to carry my ID 24/7...It's a 7 min drive for god's sake! it's just not right

posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 01:42 PM
reply to post by Handala

So what flavor of kool aid do they give you there?
Tell me, when did Palestine as a nation EVER exist? What were the borders? You obviously know nothing of the Balfour Agreement or the history of the region. I strongly suggest you read the link I posted earlier and try to educate yourself before you post ignorant remarks.

posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 01:46 PM
reply to post by Handala

So Israel took more land in 48 and 67 even though they were attacked on multiple fronts and were not the aggressors? Strange way of looking at things.

The fact is that the arab states launched wars against Israel but were inferior fighters with inferior equipment and were beaten back. Had the arab states not started their illegal wars, and had they just accepted the FACT that Israel wasn't going away they could have saved themselves years and decades of heartache.

As for the arabs treatement towards that pals, why did Jordan and Egypt conspire with Israel to take land meant to create Palestine?

If you don't know history, don't comment on it.

posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 03:59 PM
reply to post by Sky watcher

I could really care less what any religious book says. Its all written by man.
So the Jewish people promised Israel to themselves...Wow that's real special.

Don't tell me what I have faith in thank you very much. You don't know me.

posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 04:03 PM
reply to post by infinite

Why does Israel have a right to exist? I'm still confused.

I don't want any biblical sources.

Iran is still the topic at hand, we need to stop derailing this thread.

Anyway, the Iranians deserve a nuclear bomb if Pakistan, Israel, and India have one.

posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 05:01 PM

Tell me, when did Palestine as a nation EVER exist? What were the borders? You obviously know nothing of the Balfour Agreement or the history of the region.

I've seen this little diversionary tactic used before, cute, but no dice.

The fact that Palestine was not a formal nation state, but part of the Ottoman Empire, has no bearing on the right of the people living there to keep their homes.

Questions over Israel's "right to exist" are irrelevant - that particular horse left the barn a long time ago. Israel exists and it isn't going anywhere.

On the other hand, Israel's defenders seem to have a problem with dishonesty.
Like it or not, Israel is a Western colony on what used to be someone else's land. It is the product of what we would now call an "ethnic cleansing" campaign. So of course the neighboring peoples have no use for Israel - and of course the descendants of the people who previously occupied the land are out for blood.

What the hell else do you people expect?!?

Try to be a little realistic...

[edit on 12/2/07 by xmotex]

posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 05:18 PM

Originally posted by Harlequin
And agan you falsely push the LIE and attempt to forward your own agenda
he NEVER said he wanted to WIPE ANYONE off the map

That's quite the post you've made there, pretending to know someones agenda.
Let's have a look at your statement that "he" never said he wants to wipe anyone off the map.

As translated by NYtimes:

They say it is not possible to have a world without the United States and Zionism. But you know that this is a possible goal and slogan. Let's take a step back. [[[We had a hostile regime in this country which was undemocratic, armed to the teeth and, with SAVAK, its security apparatus of SAVAK [the intelligence bureau of the Shah of Iran's government] watched everyone. An environment of terror existed.]]] When our dear Imam [Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder of the Iranian revolution] said that the regime must be removed, many of those who claimed to be politically well-informed said it was not possible. All the corrupt governments were in support of the regime when Imam Khomeini started his movement. [[[All the Western and Eastern countries supported the regime even after the massacre of September 7 [1978] ]]] and said the removal of the regime was not possible. But our people resisted and it is 27 years now that we have survived without a regime dependent on the United States. The tyranny of the East and the West over the world should have to end, but weak people who can see only what lies in front of them cannot believe this. Who would believe that one day we could witness the collapse of the Eastern Empire? But we could watch its fall in our lifetime. And it collapsed in a way that we have to refer to libraries because no trace of it is left. Imam [Khomeini] said Saddam must go and he said he would grow weaker than anyone could imagine. Now you see the man who spoke with such arrogance ten years ago that one would have thought he was immortal, is being tried in his own country in handcuffs and shackles [[[by those who he believed supported him and with whose backing he committed his crimes]]]. Our dear Imam said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front. This would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime [Israel] has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world.

Now does he literally say he wants to wipe Israel off the map?
Nope, he does say that some Imam said that the Israeli government/the israeli nation currently living in Israel (occupying regime) should be wiped off the map, and thinks that this Imam is very wise in saying this.

Besides the word#ing that's been going on regarding what exactly this Imam means with wiping a regime off the map, it's hopefully obvious to everyone that anyone agreeing with this loonatic Imam is -let's put it to words in a kind way- better off without any nuclear weapons.

As for you, you would come across much less subjective and biased, if instead of just saying what "he NEVER said" you would focus on what he DID say, and then hopefully come to the conclusion that logicly, Israel having nuclear weapons is a completely different situation than Iran having nuclear weapons.

And yes of course nuclear weapons are bad and all that jazz, but a stable and democratic regime having them, doesn't give every loonatic president the right to have one, especially in the case of presidents agreeing with their loonatic imams a bit too much.

[edit on 2-12-2007 by Jakko]

posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 05:29 PM

Originally posted by Jakko
That's quite the post you've made there, pretending to know someones agenda.
Let's have a look at your statement that "he" never said he wants to wipe anyone off the map.

It would be wise to follow your own words.

Have you ever looked into the translation? Why is it that almost every translation used by the Western media about what Ahmadenejad says is from MEMRI?

If you want to know what he said, here it is in Farsi:

Imam ghoft'een rezhim'e ishghalgar'e Qods bayad az safheh ye ruzgar mahv shavad.

In English:
"The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time"

posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 06:36 PM
Take a good look at the bulk of the Israeli population. I don't mean upper crusts like Sharon and Shamir, but the typical Israeli Jew. They look just like Lebanese/Syrian Arabs, and are from the same genetic family. They are not descendants of Crusaders, or Khazars, or imperial Germans who converted to Judaism. And they are just as likely descended from Jews that fled dhimmitude in North Africa, as from Jews that fled the Holocaust in Europe.

There will be no simple solution to the mid-East crises, perhaps no solution at all, with the same stubborn attitudes on the part of both Israelis and Palestinians. Both are right, in a way; both belong there; it's just a pity they can't bury their differences and come to some sort of compromise.

posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 06:54 PM
reply to post by xmotex

It is no diversionary tactic. it is the simple truth. there has never been a nation of palestine. NEVER. This is fact that cannot be denied. Go ahead and prove me wrong if you think otherwise.

Not sure why some won't read this link:

but you can clearly see the facts that are involved around the creation of Israel and who prevented the founding of Palestine as a nation.

As for Iran. They do not need heavy water reactors when Light water reactors would be just as good. But then they couldn't try to make nukes then could they?

And as for the "well the US has nukes why can't we" argument, what are you in 2nd grade?? Did you miss the whole Cold War? I bet you think well Jessie James robbed banks so why can't I?

Iran has no need for nukes at all.

posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 01:17 AM

there has never been a nation of palestine.

Which is totally irrelevant to the question, but you guys always bring it up anyway.

Because they were not part of a formally constituted nation state, it was somehow OK to take over and chase most of the people living there out of their homes?
Because the British Empire, who took it from the Ottoman Empire, decided to deed the land to colonists, the original inhabitants have no rights?

Give me a break

[edit on 12/3/07 by xmotex]

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in