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 warns Hamas not to accept Egyptian truce proposal

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Iran warns Hamas not to accept Egyptian truce proposal


www.jpost.com

"The Iranians threatened to stop weapons supplies and funding to the Palestinian factions if they agreed to a cease-fire with Israel. The Iranians want to fight Israel and the US indirectly. They are doing this through Hamas in Palestine and Hizbullah in Lebanon."

The official pointed out that the Iranians were applying "double standards" regarding the current conflict - on the one hand, they encouraged Iranian men to volunteer to fight alongside Hamas; on the other hand, Iran's spiritual leader, Ali Khamenei, told the volunteers that they would not be permitted to join the fight against Israel.

"The Iranians never fired one bullet at Israel," he said. "But now they are trying to appear as if they are participating in the war against Israel. The leaders of Teheran don't care about the innocent civilians who are being killed in the Gaza Strip."

(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 05:59 PM
link   
Wow. What do can you say. Looks like the Iranians really dont care about the Palestinian civilian casualties. A defeat of Hamas will also look like a defeat of Iran, and of course Iran does not want that. Afterall, Hamas was armed by Iran and directed by them to overthrow the Palestinian Authority in Gaza and to have that overturned and reversed will look like an Iranian failure.

Hopefully the Palestinians will ignore the Iranians and work with the Egyptians for peace.

www.jpost.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 06:02 PM
link   
I think the most interesting thing about this and other articles about Irans involvement is the fact that Iran is scared to allow any Iranians to go fight because they fear a direct conflict with Israel.



posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by princeofpeace
Looks like the Iranians really dont care about the Palestinian civilian casualties.

That's the dirty little secret of the Arab/Islamic world. No one - not even the Arab countries - like the 'palestinians'. Those countries only trot out the 'palestinian cause' when it is to their advantage. The 'palestinians' are a tool that is used by them, but otherwise ... they dont' care.

Ask Egypt ...



posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 06:09 PM
link   
Exactly. Its crazy but its like the Palestinians are treated as second class even to other Arabs and Muslims. Iran is only going to get involved if its in their own self interest. In essence they could care less about the Palestinians...especially the civilians. I guess they may care more about the militants but only because of how it serves them.



posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 06:51 PM
link   
Iran, Syria, and all other radical islamic terrorist states throughout the world (and the anti Jew bigots that have infested internet forums) use the so called palestinian people to mask their nazi like hatred for Jews.

If Iran (and the anti Jew bigots that have infested internet forums) truly cared about the palestinians they would support the peace initiative proposed by Egypt. I guess all those anti Jews bigots don't really care about the “hundreds of little children” that those evil pesky Jews are supposedly killing…do they?



posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by LiquidMirage
 


Sounds about right. But it's pointless arguing with relativists. I can't be bothered.

This war has been handy in diverting the world's attention from Iran's nuclear program, hasn't it?

Happy 2009.



posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 07:44 PM
link   
jpost?

The same people who said
'' Iran will have the bomb in 5yrs ''
'' Iran will have the bomb in 2yrs ''
'' Iran will have the bomb in 12 months''

in the space of 6 months?


If Iran do not want to directly enter into a conflict with Israel, they wouldnt publically state they are funding and arming hamas for the fight with Israel.

That in itself is an act of war, isnt it?

While I do believe Iran are arming Hamas, I think Iran understands that they are going to lose their foothold in Gaza unless

a. A full blown regional wall develoups
b. A major attack against Israel occurs using unconventional weapons originating from Gaza, which will lead to option A.

So, Iran must chose, lose Gaza, or fight.

And I dont think they are ready to fight just yet.



posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by chips

This war has been handy in diverting the world's attention from Iran's nuclear program, hasn't it?



On the contrary, I think it has underscored the need to deal with Iran once and for all.

Knock out the radical islamic nutballs that control iran and much of the problem in the mideast goes with them!



posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by LiquidMirage
 


You mean, like Iraq and Afghanistan was dealt with "once and for all"?

If we're going to condemn Iran for working on nuclear weapons, why doesn't the US condemn Israel for developing nuclear weapons?

What's the point of having a sole nuclear-armed power, Israel, in the Middle East?



posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 07:58 PM
link   
Not just the JPOST, plenty of independent news sources on this. Google is your friend. =)


Originally posted by Agit8dChop
jpost?

The same people who said
'' Iran will have the bomb in 5yrs ''
'' Iran will have the bomb in 2yrs ''
'' Iran will have the bomb in 12 months''

in the space of 6 months?


If Iran do not want to directly enter into a conflict with Israel, they wouldnt publically state they are funding and arming hamas for the fight with Israel.

That in itself is an act of war, isnt it?

While I do believe Iran are arming Hamas, I think Iran understands that they are going to lose their foothold in Gaza unless

a. A full blown regional wall develoups
b. A major attack against Israel occurs using unconventional weapons originating from Gaza, which will lead to option A.

So, Iran must chose, lose Gaza, or fight.

And I dont think they are ready to fight just yet.



posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by mattguy404
reply to post by LiquidMirage
 


You mean, like Iraq and Afghanistan was dealt with "once and for all"?

If we're going to condemn Iran for working on nuclear weapons, why doesn't the US condemn Israel for developing nuclear weapons?

What's the point of having a sole nuclear-armed power, Israel, in the Middle East?




Based on past history I'd say it probably has something to do with the fact that nobody, including the other Arab nations would trust Iran with Nukes, while Israel has proven they can and will take care of their land with conventional weapons.



posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by scotty18
 


No, I certainly wouldn't trust Iran with nuclear weapons either, and they should stop enriching uranium, it's just an instance of double standards.

Israel's deterrence is the "Samson option" - they would use all of their available weapons, nuclear and conventional, if they came under attack from a nation such as Iran.

There just shouldn't be nuclear weapons at all in the Middle East, they're all a bit nutty.

[edit on 11-1-2009 by mattguy404]



posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by LiquidMirage
 


Or we can just forget about it all, seeing as how we live half a world away. Whatever is within Iran's sphere of political influence is up to them to deal with. The West is simply overextended. I don't see why any European or North American country is still involved in the Middle East. The defeat of the Soviet Union gave impetus for political action in that region, as hundreds of army bases were left without a function. This machination that is the "Israel problem" spawned out of the Cold War conflict and has taken on a resolve of its own.

It's unfair when one half of the world has already grown out of this incessant Dark Age turmoil that is war and genocide; the Middle East is content to propagate it still. Now we have this great humanitarian calling, a burden if you will, and we can't ignore it until it is dealt with... We're never going to get out of there until we realize it's not our problem!

[edit on 11-1-2009 by cognoscente]



posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by mattguy404
reply to post by scotty18
 


No, I certainly wouldn't trust Iran with nuclear weapons either, and they should stop enriching uranium, it's just an instance of double standards.

Israel's deterrence is the "Samson option" - they would use all of their available weapons, nuclear and conventional, if they came under attack from a nation such as Iran.

There just shouldn't be nuclear weapons at all in the Middle East, they're all a bit nutty.

[edit on 11-1-2009 by mattguy404]


No, Israel would only use Nukes if they are used against them. They have proven over and over that a nuke is a last resort and that they can handle the Arab nations head to head.



posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by mattguy404


If we're going to condemn Iran for working on nuclear weapons, why doesn't the US condemn Israel for developing nuclear weapons?


I don't recall ever hearing Israel calling for Iran to be "wiped off the map" not just once but many, many times!

Also, considering the past 60 years of continuous islamic hostility to effect the "final solution to the Jewish question", Israel has every right to use whatever means possible to defend itself from it's neighbors and deter possible attacks.



Pondering....

Didn't I say something earlier about anti Jew bigots...



posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by scotty18

Originally posted by mattguy404
reply to post by LiquidMirage
 


You mean, like Iraq and Afghanistan was dealt with "once and for all"?

If we're going to condemn Iran for working on nuclear weapons, why doesn't the US condemn Israel for developing nuclear weapons?

What's the point of having a sole nuclear-armed power, Israel, in the Middle East?




Based on past history I'd say it probably has something to do with the fact that nobody, including the other Arab nations would trust Iran with Nukes, while Israel has proven they can and will take care of their land with conventional weapons.


Excellent point Scotty!

A star for you...



posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by cognoscente

we can just forget about it all, seeing as how we live half a world away. Whatever is within Iran's sphere of political influence is up to them to deal with. The West is simply overextended. I don't see why any European or North American country is still involved in the Middle East.


... It's unfair when one half of the world has already grown out of this incessant Dark Age turmoil that is war and genocide; the Middle East is content to propagate it still. Now we have this great humanitarian calling, a burden if you will, and we can't ignore it until it is dealt with... We're never going to get out of there until we realize it's not our problem!





This is a very good summary of the most viable option the US has with its Middle East policies – stay on the sidelines.
The British Empire came to the same conclusion.

I have Iranian and Arab émigré friends here in Canada, and they all agree on one thing - conflict between Muslim states is not really just about inequalities, land, or resource disputes. Fighting each other is, and it seems always will be, the way of life there.

Despite oil wealth potentially infusing trillions into the economy of the region, they standard of living, technology, humanitarianism, etc has been static during the 20th Century. To put it bluntly, they missed the boat, It is too late for the region to adapt a Western economic model as have, say Korea, India, etc, with progressively improved internal governing systems, mass education, agriculture, manufacturing, etc.

Tribalism still dominates Muslim leaders’ sentiments and mentality. Their overwhelming and immediate problem can be solved by athartic aggression with their neighbours.

I doubt anyone reading this will believe it, but Iran does not really have strong nuclear weapon ambitions with the intentions of destroying Israel. But they have found that by making such noises they command respect from Muslims worldwide and have Europe and America at their feet offering every incentive under the sun to desist.

Iran loves it's current bad boy celebrity status on the world stage, and it helps deflect from terrible internal problems like their rapidly collapsing oil drilling infrastruture, a chronically overextened economy budeted on oil being $90, and it being less than half that, and desperately needed foreign investment avoiding the country’s due to it’s political and economic instability.

Iran may bar like a dog at the UN, but as an aspiring wolrd power it’s a basket case.

The Mullah regime has been in power 30 years. Their Islamic Revolution isn’t happening as planned. Hard to say if they will become more realistic in their aspirations or even more delusional.

They might just decide a good regional conflict would be cathartic right now. They already have a proxy war going on in Gaza.


Mike F



posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 09:07 PM
link   
reply to post by LiquidMirage
 


I'm far from being anti-Jew bigot; all religions are equally deluded as the next.

But you're right if you call me an anti-Israel bigot.



Criticism of a state does not automatically mean criticism of that state's religion.



posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by mattguy404

Criticism of a state does not automatically mean criticism of that state's religion.


Except when that state and a religion are completely intertwined.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join