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.


Iranian missile peril for Europe

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 09:43 AM
It's interesting to know why Iran would want weapons that reach as far as Europe, Russia is also playing poker with Europes dependent of fuel needs and energy. They seem like best friends and Europe will be their toy to play games with.

A senior Israeli cabinet minister has told The Sunday Telegraph that his government is convinced Iran is intent on becoming the first Muslim superpower, with weapons capable of striking not only at Israel but also Egypt, Libya, Saudi Arabia as well as Greece and other parts of south-eastern Europe.

The Israeli government is furious about the recent US intelligence assessment which concluded that Iran had suspended its nuclear weapons programme in 2003, and hopes to convince the American leader that work is continuing on a bomb that poses a widespread threat.

850 Nuke Smuggling Attempts in Russia;.(With video).
Sleeping Guards Here

You make up your mind on this, some may know more than me.

No one has answered guess either people are bored of the Middle east by now or just do not care.

[edit on 7-1-2008 by The time lord]

posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 08:44 AM
There's a bit of a hint in the story. See if you can spot it:

A senior Israeli cabinet minister has told The Sunday Telegraph that his government is convinced Iran is intent on becoming the first Muslim superpower

The day Israel starts telling the truth about its actions and the intent of those around it, the middle east problem will be solved. And that ain't happening any time soon.

posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 02:59 PM
At the moment it's only Israel and the USA that want a war with Iran, most European countires don't want it/aren't bothered. But by saying the Iranians want to be able to shoot stuff into Europe that makes them our enemies right?

Good ol' propoganda. They're still annoyed about the intel. report saying Iran is harmless and want to get Europe involved in the Iran-Haters club.

posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 04:16 AM
How scary... right? Sorry, but it's just a cheap tric to get the European Union involved in all of this. It's perfectly fine with me that Iran has missiles capable of striking Europe. So does Russia, so does the US.

The fearmongering of US and Israeli politicians and mainstream US media, contributes to the disguised view many of our American brothers have. Ahmadinejad and Iran are portrayed as being utterly evil with the single goal of destroying Israel. Everyone with a bit of common sense could understand that Iran is not gonna attack Israel or Europe as it would lead to the total destruction of their country. Iranians are proud people and they love their country, no matter how much they want you to believe they are crazy lunatics that should be dealt with, they are not gonna be the offender.

However, I don't rule out the possibility of a false flag operation to create a legit motive for counter-attacking Iran, as attempts to make Iran strike first haven't lead anywhere.

The aggressive stance of Russia is explainable. Ask yourself why you would build a shield to defend Europe against Iranian missiles in Poland, while a more valuable strategic position would be Israel or Greece? No, the cold war hasn't come to end yet.

The 21st century won't be the century of peace. The race for the fossil energies and resources has begun and only the most powerful will survive.
The US is still a superpower, but it's not far away from a collapse. Of course politicians don't say that, but they are aware that's its not gonna last decades for its economy to collapse. The US is in recession now, however that's only the beginning.

Therefore, I am extremely happy with the recent announcements for a European army. Such an army would have more than halve of the US military budget, yet based on a healthy economy that could carry the burden of a massive military force. The synergies that would be created could lead to an even more cost efficient force. Moreover, it would create loads of new jobs (look at the number of jobs in the US weapon industry).

The 2nd halve of this year France will have presidency over the EU and its main priority is a European military within a short time frame. As both As heavyweight countries Germany and France strongly support this proposal there is a good chance of realizing it.

posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 07:01 PM
reply to post by The time lord

I better get a Bomb shelter built in my Garden ASAP
how hard should i make it so it can withstand a Nuke?

i mean Iran are trying to become a power and will attack two Nuclear powers in Europe and the rest of Europe.

thank god we dont have Fox News here
this would be Headline news for weeks.

sorry to be rude or ofensive
but the idea Iran would Risk the amount of Damage we can do to it from the UK and the rest of europe is unthinkable.

so in conclusion this whole idea Iran would attack is Jokes
we unlike the US we have Trade relations with them and so on

posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 10:03 AM
reply to post by The time lord

Why would Iran want long range weapons? Well lets see, there are American bases in Iraq to the West, Afghanistan to the East, Eurasian states to the North and Carrier fleets to the south. Regardless of your political points of view it doesn't take a genius to see the military predicament Iran is in at the moment.

Currently the strongest rhetoric is coming from Israel, who demonstrated with their attack on the Osirik reactor that they will attack states they view as a threat even without the support of America.

If you were an Iranian wouldnt you be looking for a significant long range response capability.

Youve got hand it to bodrul, he sums it up perfectly: "so in conclusion this whole idea Iran would attack is Jokes"

posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 03:34 AM
reply to post by The time lord

I would suspect the reason for Iran wants weapons as far as Europe is a common reason; to defend itself in the event of war.

In regards to the senior Israeli cabinet minister's telling to the The Sunday Telegraph:

Maybe Iran is trying to become the first Islamic super power. I do not see any problem with that goal of theres. That goal is also common.

I find it stupid how the Isreali Government is furious about the USA's conclusion. If thats the conclusion drawn then thats the conclusion drawn.. What were they hoping for? The USA lie in the conclusion?!
Why does Israel want to convince the American Leader that continuing on a bomb that has not been confirmed is a widespread threat (assuming widespread within Israel)? If Israel has a problem then they should sort it out themself, instead of whining to the USA about it. In my opinion, I think first Israel should provide evidence that this apparant bomb exists.

In regards to the artical, I think:

- Its not biased.

- France, Russia, China, and Germany should not be discussing punishment for Iran because the country refuses to suspend uranium enrichment. Why should Iran suspend its uranium enrichment process? It has a right to enrich uranium, like every other nation on the planet has the right too. Iran is not at all a hostile country. I am not even aware if Iran has attacked another county in the past century. If Iran was to attack another country, I doubt they would use nuclear force unless its enemy was using a force at equivilent, or if Iran was about to loose.

- USA and British warships practised surveillance of suspected illegal shipments of weapons parts and want sanctions to include a ban on components that could be used to manufacture nuclear weapons.. What is "illegal" weapons? There is no law on weapons, as there is no global government to Iran. The USA and Britan are hyprocrits.. If nuclear technology are illegal weapon parts, then why does the USA and Britan have these "illegal" weapon parts.

- The head of the Revolutionary Guards, General Yahya Rahim Safavi, said Iran’s response was not intended to threaten its neighbours but as a powerful signal to its enemies.. Iran arn't the ones throwing the threats at its neighbours.. ISRAEL is!

posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 08:03 PM
I'm updating this thread because you should now know for the upteenth time Iran's dellusional appocalyptic nature is at hand and with it nuclear technology and yet they still speak in the language of mass destruction.
People can say no worries man its all America and Britain being world police governers but its not, the threat is there and hope people wake up because it's not just an idea it's a religious mission to cause this to happen.

posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 01:45 PM
You know that Iran is on the can not be trusted list of the UN, its not just because Americans have bases because Iran would have done something by now. The reason why iran can not be trusted is because the president is convinced a destruction is comming for an apocaliptic judgement of the 12th Iman who is hidden away and will turn up once there is a forced war, Armajinadad is looking for excuses for it, he has made it known. He is like a kid stacking up high some bricks and playing, but he knows that the game is meant to crash down as that his moto in life as fun.

I think Iran is in a delusional state even more so than Saddam. Iran's delusions will seek the world to not trust them and they know America are busy with Iraq and they can afford to play come get me.

posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 07:40 PM
reply to post by The time lord

Tell me when you actually do a fMRI scan on that puppet Mahmoud's head to check if he actually believes that comic book rubbish or he is just spewing fiction to the masses in order to play on their fears.

posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 12:41 PM
He actually believes that its his mission to raise Hell on Earth as prophicised in his Qur'an in order to bring the 12 Iman prophet in.

Many Christians believe this very much what the end time scenario will be like and he is fullfilling it, as well does the Qur'an's passages play the opposite roll to Christian prophecy warnings and Muslims expect the 12th Iman and Jesus dressed in Yellow to persecute Jews and Christians alike and wipe all Jews off the planet. Sounds very false Prophet and Anti-Christ to many, the difference is he is on the side of a version of Jesus which many will see as false anway but will persecute Christians of all people in a response to a war upon Muslims. Obviously he will ignite the flame first.



Will Israel attack Iran?

Posted: July 22, 2008
1:00 am Eastern

© 2008

It is difficult to imagine Israel attacking Iran.
It is, however, more difficult to imagine Israel not attacking Iran.
Consider three questions:

First, does Iran mean what it says about destroying Israel? When its leaders repeatedly call for Israel's annihilation, after referring to it as a cancer and using other rhetoric not heard on a national level since the Nazi regime's depiction of Jews, is this just rhetorical flourish? Or do they really hope and plan to destroy Israel?

Second, can Iran do it? One can hope and even plan to do something outrageous, but that does not necessarily mean that one can accomplish it. So, the second question is whether Iran can destroy Israel, or at least murder a high enough percentage of its population and destroy enough of its infrastructure to enable surrounding Arab states to invade and do the rest of the job that the majority of Arabs favor (even if some of their governments have a peace treaty with Israel).

It seems to me that the answers to the first two questions are so obvious that any burden of proof rests on those who argue otherwise. Do they think Iranian leaders are bluffing?

Iran is ruled by people who believe it is God's will to destroy the Jewish state. It is also a country rapidly acquiring the ability to use nuclear weapons to achieve this goal – through direct attack, handing nuclear weapons to terrorists or both.

There has never been a hatred as deep as Jew-hatred nor is there one today. And hatred of the Jewish state is similarly unparalleled. The depth of Iran's hatred for Israel was made evident again last week in a story from the Olympic swim trials in Croatia. The Iranian government ordered its athlete not to participate when it learned that one of the other swimmers was a Jew from Israel. There are no nationals other than Israeli Jews with whom nationals of another nation would refuse to enter a swimming pool.

[edit on 25-8-2008 by The time lord]

posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 02:11 PM
reply to post by The time lord

Probably because Europe has missiles that can reach Iran. As the US didn't like having Russian missiles in Cuba, Iran doesn't like having threatening folks with missiles near their country. Quelle freakin' surprise.

Apparently it's fine for the west to have nukes, missiles, and invasive tendencies, but as soon as one country that hasn't attacked another in over 100 years tries to get nuclear power (or even nuclear weapons) and missiles, that's suddenly reason enough to start throwing a tantrum, with all the kicking and screaming that goes along with it. Talk about double standards.

posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 05:45 PM
You have a good point but Pakistan and and India have Nuclear weapons too and even though Pakistan has its extreamist problems on the ground it does not have a leader saying 'I might blow up Israel one day because of my new toys'.

The difference is that the Iran leader is a Nutjob and no one trusts him with these toys. Europe and Israel might have Nukes but they are not using threating language with them and the deal of the Nuclear Agreement to keep the world a safer place because of them is their main purpose since everyone knows it would end the world on all sides.

Iran seems to put threats up as they build Nuclear sites and long range Missiles as they buy from Russia at the same time. Whether its true or not, his aim is to ignite a war so that the West do attack and have no choice so that his 12th Iman will come down to destroy the JEWS and their alies. Does the West have to wait till he decides to go loopy or do we do something about it?


Nuclear warfare strategy is a way for either fighting or avoiding a nuclear war. The policy of trying to ward off a potential attack by a nuclear weapon from another country by threatening nuclear retaliation is known as the strategy of nuclear deterrence.

The goal in deterrence is to always maintain a second strike status (the ability of a country to respond to a nuclear attack with one of its own) and potentially to strive for first strike status (the ability to completely destroy an enemy's nuclear forces before they could retaliate). During the Cold War, policy and military theorists in nuclear-enabled countries worked out models of what sorts of policies could prevent one from ever being attacked by a nuclear weapon.

There are critics of the very idea of nuclear strategy for waging nuclear war who have suggested that a nuclear war between two nuclear powers would result in mutual annihilation. From this point of view, the significance of nuclear weapons is purely to deter war because any nuclear war would immediately escalate out of mutual distrust and fear, resulting in mutually assured destruction. This threat of national, if not global, destruction has been a strong motivation for anti-nuclear weapons activism.

It has been claimed that the threat of potentially suicidal terrorists possessing nuclear weapons (a form of nuclear terrorism) complicates the decision process. Mutually assured destruction may not be effective against an enemy who expects to die in a confrontation, as they may feel they will be rewarded in a religious afterlife as martyrs and would not therefore be deterred by a sense of self-preservation. Further, if the initial act is from rogue groups of individuals instead of a nation, there is no fixed nation or fixed military targets to retaliate against. It has been argued, especially after the September 11, 2001 attacks, that this complication is the sign of the next age of nuclear strategy, distinct from the relative stability of the Cold War.

[edit on 25-8-2008 by The time lord]

posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 10:32 AM
reply to post by The time lord

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad didn't say he'd blow up Israel. He said he wanted reform in the Israeli regime - something many, many Israelis want. It's an oft-misquoted statement, and one that needs addressing every single time it's raised, as it's simply not true.

posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 06:16 AM
Okay you and others say its misquoted I have heard that angle too, but believe it or not many on going misquotes have been playing out since because with him and his ideas but his new friend Hugo Chaves and Russian friends make him so much better to misquote everytime. I am not falling for the tollerance of his misquoted everytime excuse. I just don't buy it anymore after many times of putting Israel and the West down.
Remember the Columbia space mission when the Shuttle blew up, he said it was God's punishment on Israel and they deserved it. I wonder how many times people are willing to tollerate his words under the delusion of political correctness for the poker game of mistranslations overkill.

So masses of intelligence and media reports due to translations of his words are wrong? Is Arabic really that hard to misinterpret when it speaks about blowing up things, do they understand their own expressions of the language to maybe give a benefit of the doubt. I know Ahmajinadad is becoming less popular in his own country, hopefully he steps down for mankinds sake. Bush has made a few mistakes and we don't need another Nutjob adding to the problems. It does not matter what he says about Israel because the Palistines don't want to live in a free society anyway they want one where its Islam everything and illegal to be free of anything else. Even if Isreal had been called Israel for the last 2000 years with Jews in it, a population of Muslims there would have become seperatists anyway, it would not have made much difference, the pattern is always the same throughout history and present times. The constant is the Islamic religion and with it its hate for Jews or anyone else that stands on their boarderline of country. Ask any country that boarders an Islamic population, you will always find conflict, even if the boarder is the hospital bed next to you.

I have Been trying to look on BBC News website search engine about old Mahamuhd Ahmajinadad stories but they don't seem to have any, how odd. Anyway will carry on looking. Now I've come back I looked on CNN and google for his famous quotes. They seem erased somehow, can anyone find them, why are they so hard to look up?

[edit on 27-8-2008 by The time lord]

[edit on 27-8-2008 by The time lord]

posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 07:15 AM
reply to post by The time lord

I found plenty of quotes and stories about it:

Not really surprising that the MSM stories are hard to find - it doesn't fit in with the agenda.

posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 10:50 AM
reply to post by The time lord

It's because he's speaking Persian, a language that is intrinsically very different to our Latin-based languages in the west.

You can read about the mistranslation here. But feel free to ignore facts and go on "gut instinct" to judge the man and his entire country. I'm sure you'd love to be judged by the "mis-speakings" of your president. By your logic (and not mine) you are a simpering fool with a basic grasp of English, which I can see is obviously not true. I'm not trying to be offensive, but to show you how flawed your logic is. I know you're no fool.

posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 10:52 AM
reply to post by The time lord

and it's spelled "Mahmoud Ahmadinejad", which might explain why you didn't find anything.

posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 12:45 PM
This video link is Ali G the Borat comdian from the film, I say it fits into this whole argument of mistranslation of Iran and Iraq. To be honest the whole thing is getting confusing again and becoming left in a lingering fog.

posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 01:03 PM
reply to post by The time lord

To be honest, I see that as a bit of a cop-out.

People have proved that he didn't say what the western media reported - in my case I even posted a western media source.

It's not confusing at all, he DIDN'T say it - simple.

Of course if you're happy being manipulated by the western MSM, then that's your choice.

Personally speaking, I'd rather show them up for the liars they are.

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in