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.

 

Biden: Israel should accept nuclear Iran

page: 8
20
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by 4x4fun
 



"Where's your evidence the United States is a backer of terror organizaions, and more so than Iran? "

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Americans did raise money for the IRA during the troubles in Ireland! The American government knew about it and did nothing to stop it until they themselves became the victim of terrorists.




posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 12:07 PM
link   
Edit;Moved poster info to top of page.

Originally posted by budski
reply to post by 4x4fun
 

[edit on 4/9/2008 by budski]


You could start by taking a look here and then investigating further - I'm not going to do your research for you


I wouldn't want you doing research for me, you don't appear to be qualified for that.
The Insurgent Online, is an anti-american blog, where bloggers can post their one sided view and distorted facts.


There's also the fact that the US armed OBL and "al qaeda" which again came back to bite them in the bum.


The United States did not "create" Osama bin Laden or al Qaeda. The United States supported the Afghans fighting for their country's freedom -- as did other countries, including Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, China, Egypt, and the UK -- but the United States did not support the "Afghan Arabs," the Arabs and other Muslims who came to fight in Afghanistan for broader goals. usinfo.state.gov...


US sponsored terrorism in Iran


You want me to rely on information from an unidentified CIA informant? Sry, I'm not that gulliable.


I don't accept the argument that when the US (and others) do it, it is looking after national interests - that's just a cop-out and a huge double standard.


Who's argued that? It wasn't me.


The US (and allies) are pretty much a one trick pony when it comes to mideast policy - if they don't like a country's leaders, they are " a sponsor of terror" or if Israel has a problem with a country they have this label stuck on them.


No reliable source supporting your acussations, gets no response.


The case of hezbollah is a good one - only SIX countries view hezbollah as a terrorist organisation, all of them US allies.


No reliable source supporting your acussations, gets no response.


I am going to assume you are joking about not knowing Israeli atrocities - either that or incredibly biassed or ignorant.


No reliable source supporting your acussations, gets no response.


A quick google search will reveal hundreds of acts of terror committed by a nation state - again, I'm not doing your research for you.


Again, I wouldn't want you doing research for me, you haven't provided even one reliable recourse of information to support your many accusations, so you wouldn't be qualified to do research for me.

And I never asked you too either, I only ask you back up your many accusations with reliable documentaion which you haven't.


Could you also cite your reasons for Iran being a terrorist state which also sponsors terrorism?
NOT sponsoring insurgents - real terror groups, such as those sponsored by Saudi, a supposed US ally.


I've done enough research for you already.
/




[edit on 4-9-2008 by 4x4fun]



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 12:36 PM
link   
I'd like to respond to everyone of you, but I cannot carry on multiple debates with multiple people so please try to reframe from bombarding me with your claims until I'm finished debating with my first opponent. Thx.



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by 4x4fun
This is one of those 'pile-on' issues. Expect more of the same in the future.


Sometimes denying ignorance can be a major chore, I know. But I thought I'd let you know I think you're doing a fine job of it.


TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by 4x4fun
 


Ah well, I thought there could be a discussion, but if you're relying on the old chestnit of providing your own little 12 step argument whilst being unable to refute anything stated then there is nothing to discuss.

You have consistently avoided answering questions and relied on deflection to try and steer away from issues raised and again use the old, tired tactic of trying to attack a source without actually refuting it.





[edit on 4/9/2008 by budski]



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 




This is one of those 'pile-on' issues. Expect more of the same in the future.

Sometimes denying ignorance can be a major chore, I know. But I thought I'd let you know I think you're doing a fine job of it.

TheRedneck


Yes, I believe you are right about this.

You know, I don't think America has always been the greatest concerning all of our policies and procedures of past and present, but atleast I would think that if someone wanted to debate something with 'me', they could atleast backup what they have to say with credible documentation and make their argument clear.
Instead I guess it's easier to just to 'pile on' unsubstantiated accusations and hope that their opponent would just give up do to time constraints, making themselves look like the victor.

I've noticed this trend before.

Thanks for the compliment


Edit; quoted previous post

[edit on 4-9-2008 by 4x4fun]



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by 4x4fun

Instead I guess it's easier to just to 'pile on' unsubstantiated accusations and hope that their opponent would just give up do to time constraints, making them look like the victor.

I've noticed this trend before.

Thanks for the compliment


You say this and yet your first post stated:



I would bet that Israel might be ok with Iran having peaceful Nuclear Technology if;
1) Iran weren't a terrorist nation and a terrorist supporter
2)if the International Atomic Agency could verify questionable sites with unlimited access
3)if Iran wasn't continually bosting about it's latest inrichment successes
4)if the President of Iran didn't hold rallies with legions of supporters chanting "death to Israel" "death to America and threatening to wipe them off the face of the "map" "earth" "land" etc. bla bla bla.


Without a shred of proof to substantiate it except for a BBC article from 2005 which has been shown to be a mis-interpretation.

You then go on to source material from government sites and call this "proof" of your claims, whilst also doing nothing to refute any evidence posted by others.

Have you actually read my post at the bottom of page 6? or did it contain a little too much truth?
You're not denying ignorance, you are embracing it


[edit on 4/9/2008 by budski]



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


I can see by the personal insults and continual ranting that you are not happy with the results of your fodder.

As an recognized ATS Subject Matter Expert, and a an ATS Document Archivist, I am surprised you were unable to provide reliable documentation for any of the accusations you've made that was directed towards 'me'.

My original post was directed at no-one.
It was simply a best guess of what Israel might do if certain situations were different there.

If your unwilling to debate intelectually with someone personally, don't quote them, and if you do, it might be a good idea to have ready credible documentation supporting your stance.

You closed the debate. Find someone else to haggle with, your insults have ruined your standing in my view.

thx.



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 02:55 PM
link   
Israel should never accept a nuke Iran while it is ruled by Mullahs intent on destroying Israel. Instead Israel should take out Iran in its present form if it continues on its current path. In the ME it's simply kill or be killed, there's no half way house. Imagine a ME and with no Iran. It looks a whole lot better.



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by 4x4fun
 


If you think I've insulted you, alert the mods.

My previous post and my opinions therin remain unrefuted by you.

You stated 4 reasons why Iran cannot be trusted in your first post in this thread, and haven't been able to prove a single one of them.

I have provided supporting evidence and re-directed you to a post at the bottom of page 6 that you still have not answered, other than to try and attack the source, which is a little rich when your posts are government sites and the huffington post.

So, please provide sources and proof for your assertions, and also provide sources that refute what I have posted, rather than trying to deflect from the issue.

This is not the first time I have asked, or recieved the same deflection and non-answer.

CAN you provide any evidence?

Or am I just to expect more deflection and avoidance of the issue which YOU raised, remembering that you have previously stated that you


know alot about US, Iran relations, past and present.





posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


Leave me alone angry man.
I will not research anything more for you.
You ended our debate in frustration, and now you want to personally discredit me.
Blow your smoke somewhere else.



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by 4x4fun
 


I'm not angry at all.

This is ATS and if you make 4 points like the ones you did, expect to be called on them and be able to back them up.

You haven't been able to, hence the drama, deflection and false allegations from you.

If you can back them up, then by all means do so, and I'll happily discuss them with you.

Your 4 points again, in case you've forgotten:



I would bet that Israel might be ok with Iran having peaceful Nuclear Technology if;
1) Iran weren't a terrorist nation and a terrorist supporter
2)if the International Atomic Agency could verify questionable sites with unlimited access
3)if Iran wasn't continually bosting about it's latest inrichment successes
4)if the President of Iran didn't hold rallies with legions of supporters chanting "death to Israel" "death to America and threatening to wipe them off the face of the "map" "earth" "land" etc. bla bla bla.


Please, enlighten me.



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 10:29 PM
link   
Before you leap to conclusions, you should consider the situation.

1.GWB went after Saddam for trying to kill Daddy Bush. He did so against the advice of the Pentagon when we were completely involved in Afghanistan.

2. Our troops are being ground down acting as police, something that they were never intended to be. We don't have enough to occupy Iraq, much less do anything else. Why should we further extend our troops for no gain?

3. Biden told Israel PUBLICALLY to get used to a nuclear Iran. This gives the US cover, not that anyone will believe it, when the Israeli's wax the Irani bomb factory.

4. There is undoubtedly a timing issue with any attack. Things have to be destroyed before they can be hidden. Key components and material should be co-located for the best results. I do not know what the optimum time and place is, but I would guess that many are working on that problem.

5. There is also the issue of evidence that there is a bomb. Attacking a power plant seems like an international crime and act of war. How will they prove a bomb was being built?

6. If we wish to rattle sabers, indefinitely, we will have to reinstate the draft so our sons and daughters can all bear the brunt of self serving decisions by elected oil barons.



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 04:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by budski
reply to post by 4x4fun
 


You could start by taking a look here and then investigating further - I'm not going to do your research for you


There's also the fact that the US armed OBL and "al qaeda" which again came back to bite them in the bum.

US sponsored terrorism in Iran

I don't accept the argument that when the US (and others) do it, it is looking after national interests - that's just a cop-out and a huge double standard.

The US (and allies) are pretty much a one trick pony when it comes to mideast policy - if they don't like a country's leaders, they are " a sponsor of terror" or if Israel has a problem with a country they have this label stuck on them.

The case of hezbollah is a good one - only SIX countries view hezbollah as a terrorist organisation, all of them US allies.

I am going to assume you are joking about not knowing Israeli atrocities - either that or incredibly biassed or ignorant.

A quick google search will reveal hundreds of acts of terror committed by a nation state - again, I'm not doing your research for you.

Could you also cite your reasons for Iran being a terrorist state which also sponsors terrorism?
NOT sponsoring insurgents - real terror groups, such as those sponsored by Saudi, a supposed US ally.

[edit on 4/9/2008 by budski]


For someone shouting off accusations and deliberately attempting to discredit others on the board, you have very little knowledge of the current regime and "akhounds" in Iran my friend.

Perhaps, you would be willing to demonstrate your knowledge of such by addressing my post in the similar vein of your previous efforts with "4 x 4"..

Nuclear proliferation and accusations aside, you debate whether the Iranian regime are a "terrorist" nation and as such condone their ideology. I always use the principle of self-reflection in determining an unbiased opinion, look at how the regime there treat their own people. Estimated at nearly 100,000 Iranians were killed at the hands of the mullahs during and after the Islamic Revolution. They treat their own like that, yet you are naive enough to believe they want "peaceful" nuclear technology, the mullahs are laughing at people like you and playing the propaganda war to exploit current trends of liberal western media.

You evidently relish democratic debate, yet you take the side of an entity vehemently opposed to it.

Part of me doesn't blame you at all, you were mis-led with the Iraq debacle and have subsequently found it next to impossible to trust anything your government tells you, that is a valid argument. Iraq was a mistake and has now made it extremely hard for the current administration to deal with a genuine threat in the face of the Iranian regime.



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 06:42 AM
link   
reply to post by theblunttruth
 


I don't know where you get the idea I am trying to discredit anyone - but like others, you have produced nothing but opinion when posting about this.

Unless the person you refer to is prepared to back up their statements with facts, then they can expect to be called on them.

Yes, there is room for opinion here, but there is also room for people to call them on that opinion, as happens every day - this is not discreditting anyone.
Saying that one person is trying to discredit another simply by asking them to back up what they have written is a thinly veiled attempt to CYA, when someone has been caught out blagging.

I will again refer you to the 1953 Coup backed by the US and UK, and would also direct you to the CIA trained and backed SAVAK in answering your post, and the thousands murdered and tortured by them.

Let's also not forget that Iran has had a nuclear programme for nearly 50 years, the original programme having been started by the shahs regime in 1959 with US help in both expert knowledge and materials, in building an experimental reactor.

It would also be helpful if you read this report which states quite clearly that Irans capability is being over-estimated, something the Russians have been saying for quite some time - and they should know, as they built the reactors currently online in Iran.

The whole saga has 2 parts - the west blustering and making threats because israel are making trouble (as usual) with Iran exaggerating it's capabilities out of a sense of national pride and a determination not to be bullied by the west, and the lack of evidence for an enrichment process.

Iran by the way is a signatory to the NPT - which israel is not, despite having nuclear weapons since the 1960's.

The hypocrisy involved here is stunning, and if you had read the whole thread, you would have seen why, particularly with regard to the misinterpretation of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's speech.

The real problem in the mideast is and has been for many years, western interference, orginally by the UK and now by the US (although the UK are still hanging in there)

Let me ask how you would feel if a foreign power engineered coups in your country, stole your national resources, and trained a gestapo type secret police to silence dissenters - and that's just the most recent history, it goes back much farther than that.

Think you might be a bit cheesed off?

This is about OIL, AGAIN and the western greed for this resource to protect it's coddled, spoilt, over-indulged citizens, as well as to further enrich western corporations.



[edit on 5/9/2008 by budski]



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 06:57 AM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


Budski, i fully acknowledge the US' hand in the 1953 coup, it was an deplorable error, im in no way in denial about that. You can't compare the US' involvment with a secular Shahs government to that of its current ambitions under a fanatic religious theocracy.

Regarding Ahmadinejads statement, i speak Farsi so i'm no way deluded to the mis-interpretations of such. Shoma chetor, to farsi sobhat mikonid? Regardless of the focus on that one statement, its abhorrance of not just Israels government but for it's people speaks volumes. At least Israels qualm is with the regime in Iran not its people, as they have stated time and time again.

This isn't just about a nations right to nuclear energy, it's whether they can be trusted with it, thats the issue. This isn't just about Oil, like Iraq wasn't, its cost the US than they could ever make from the oil, and i seem to remember China taking many of the IRaqi oil fields!!

[edit on 5-9-2008 by theblunttruth]



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 07:12 AM
link   
reply to post by theblunttruth
 


Take a look at the newly (ish) discovered Kurdish oil fields, their worth and who the contracts have gone to.

Back on track, I think that Iran is at least as trustworthy as Israel regarding nuclear power - Iran does not have nuclear weapons, Israel does.

Iran is a signatory to the NPT, Israel is not.

Russia also have a major interest in this, as they own the fissile material - the agreement and contract stated that all material was to be returned to Russia once used, for disposal.

This is a major factor and one which most people forget or don't know about - do you really think russia wants to be held responsible for nuclear weapons getting into the wrong hands? and an effective return to the 60's?

I also think that there is a lot of bluster from Iran, simply because they are refusing to be bullied - and of course, Israel and the west don't like that one bit.

There are also many reports of the CIA funding terrorist organisations inside Iran - again, how would the US react if the roles were reversed.

I'd also remind you that only one country has ever used nuclear weapons - Iran is not stupid, they know that they would be wiped out if they used nuclkear weapons.



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 07:20 AM
link   
reply to post by budski
 



Budski, like i say you have some valid points worthy of consideration, but the scenario of Iran using a weapon is completely different when they know any retalitory strike would result in "Martyrdom", i strongly suggest you read about the regimes belief in bringing about the return of the hidden immam through catastrophic events.



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 07:37 AM
link   
reply to post by theblunttruth
 


I already have, and I understand your point.

My point is that Iran is many, many years away from even beginning to get near having nuclear weapons, as the parliamentary report I posted shows.

The russians know this, and the chinese know this - the russians are helping build reactors because the country is desperate for electrical infrastructure and supply.

When there is positive confirmation of Irans capabilities and intent, there will still be plenty of time for action, whether that is sanctions or other action.

When I see the russians and chinese showing major concern, then I will believe it's time for action - but not just because bush and his lapdogs say so.



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 12:16 AM
link   
ok, im getting on this a bit late. First off....did someone on here say that the dollar has rebounded???!! what world do they live in? The dollar has dropped by 60% since bush got into office, and i have yet to see the price of milk, rice, and other foods, gas, etc begin dropping back down to pre bush prices, so NO, just cause the dollar got a few bumps up lately that is no signal of a resurgent dollar, thats just the manipulation of the market by the banking system, and only a temporary fix.
As to the debate that america is not the worlds largest state sponsor of terror, just look at all that we put into power and supported. If you arent conversent with the stories (in detail) of people like Pinochet, mogabe, The Shah (particularly poignant here), suharto, Saddam, The Somoza's, Trujillo, papa doc and baby doc, just to name a few, then you are ignorant of large parts of our countries policies and practices. We have a long and glorious history of supporting and installing 25 dictatorships around the world, of Bay of Pigs style attempts at invasion through our training of terrorists from different countries, heck, we currently support and protect several cuban and south american terrorists in florida where they are happily retired and living off their american pensions.
And finally, to fear iraqs aggressive nature....that of a country that hasnt invaded another in i believe close to 225 years, while we live in a country that has invaded more than any other since WWII....seems a bit farfetched.



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join