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.

 

Peres: Russia to reconsider missile sale to Iran

page: 3
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 04:05 AM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 


Naw, I think you're irritated. Iran has destabilized all of them...Iran was responsible for the collapse of the global financial system. Is that an easier answer for you and your cat to handle?

Afghanistan destabilized by the Americans?! that's got to be a joke...Afghanistan was recognized by only 3 nations when we went in there. It was already unstable. Iraq was under sanctions and the country a prison when the US invaded. Saddam claimed to have nuclear weapons so that noone would bother him...Unstable.

You and your cat need to get a dictionary and look up the words stability and instability.




posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 04:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by IDK88
reply to post by oozyism
 


Naw, I think you're irritated. Iran has destabilized all of them...Iran was responsible for the collapse of the global financial system. Is that an easier answer for you and your cat to handle?

I'm an honest person, if I found you irritating I would tell you so please don't assume. I still find you interesting. I mean common, the collapse of the global financial system. WOW, that is wilder than claiming Aliens abducted you without any proof.



Afghanistan destabilized by the Americans?! that's got to be a joke...Afghanistan was recognized by only 3 nations when we went in there.

Sooo you don't believe the support for the warlord massoud was destabilizing? Innocent people still dying in Afghanistan, corruption is at its peak, another civil war is imminent and you still got your head under the sand.


It was already unstable. Iraq was under sanctions and the country a prison when the US invaded. Saddam claimed to have nuclear weapons so that noone would bother him...Unstable.

Surprizingly America led the sanctions lol
Sooo you don't believe the death of more than a million civilian, one of the biggest humanitarian crisis and a civil war is not destabilizing? I would love to know more about your thoughts.



You and your cat need to get a dictionary and look up the words stability and instability.


destabilization - the action of destabilizing; making something less stable (especially of a government or country or economy)



To make something unstable; To undermine a government, especially by means of subversion or terrorism; To become unstable

You don't need a dictionary when you have GOOGLE my friend.

To undermine a government, the Taliban was the government of Afghanistan, America undermined it because Osama bin Laden somehow planned an attack from a cave to destroy two of the largest buildings in the world, which was protected by the most expensive defense systems in the world. You do the math, my cat hates logic.



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 07:29 AM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 


Perhaps the support for Massoud was destabilizing for the Taliban, but not necessarily for Afghanistan.

What rights, issues of law, are the Taliban using to support its bid for Afghanistan? Do they think that just because they were born there and read the Koran it somehow gives them the right to rule? What do the Taliban bring, besides clever military tactics and a strong belief in their incorrect relgious and philosophical theories? America is a stabilizing force in what was an Anarchy.

Afghanistan was left to it own devices for years and the Taliban given a chance...they decided to involve themselves in business that was not their own...now they're going to die.

Civil War...? What you are currently seeing in Afghanistan is about all that the Taliban will ever be able to accomplish. Fortunately for us all, war is not just about who has the biggest weapons and most brilliant military strategists. War is not just murder and armed robbery, as you would like it and the Taliban are going to need some LEGAL foundation upon which to justify their Rule...What is this Legal foundation which you allege to exist? Without it... If people keep helping them and thinking that they have a point...innocent people will continue to die. Unfortunate and true. The Taliban get nothing...for what they have done.

Iraq was never stable...are you suggesting that things had calmed down after Hussein invaded and destroyed Kuwait City? In his old age did he atone for the Millions of his own people and the millions of Iranians that he forced war upon and whose deaths he is directly responsible for and having his soul ripped a part in Hell about? Was the dirt all settled upon the mass graves that he filled as a part of his political program for Iraq?

What stability has America disturbed...please I really want to know?

My head must be in the sand...I don't see your point.


PS when the United States justifies itself as the lawful government of this land it will probably show you a bunch of treaties with Native tribes, Spanish, French and British governments before it shows the Constitution. Please I want to know what Treaties Mullah Mohammed Omar possesses that give him rights to Kabul. I am not saying that they don't exist, I just want to know what they are called.






[edit on 22-8-2009 by IDK88]



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by IDK88
reply to post by oozyism
 


Perhaps the support for Massoud was destabilizing for the Taliban, but not necessarily for Afghanistan.

Maaan I am still fascinated by the way you think. OK so you believe the support for a warlord named Massoud stabilized Afghanistan? WOW ok since you think like my cat let me give you scenarios so you can understand this better.

Example: USA has law and order: Russia comes and gives support to a warlord, through which Russia gains control of the whole USA. Now due to this support law and order is abolished, people don't want Russians in America, corruption is high, civilians die every day, suicide bombings against Russia is in the increase, drugs flow to the streets of Washington, only in Washington more than a million heroin addicts none which existed before the Russian invasion etc etc.

Question: DID RUSSIA DESTABILIZE USA?



What rights, issues of law, are the Taliban using to support its bid for Afghanistan? Do they think that just because they were born there and read the Koran it somehow gives them the right to rule? What do the Taliban bring, besides clever military tactics and a strong belief in their incorrect relgious and philosophical theories? America is a stabilizing force in what was an Anarchy.

You seem to know very little about Afghanistan. Firstly the Taliban didn't at all bring clever military tactics, infact none of the fighters were trained. Do you understand, Taliban means students, they were students at schools. Before Taliban came to power warlords like massoud control different parts of the country, when in Qandahar two little girls were abducted by a warlord and repeatedly raped people turned to their mullahs, hence Mullah Omar. He was just a Mullah who stepped up and took responsibility in to his own hands due to world abandonment of Afghanistan. All of this is in documentary.

Question: do you study a subject before you blabber about it? If yes which sources do you go to, if no why the hell not lol?

What rights did they have, what else rights do they need other than being the people of Afghanistan. And the fact that all Afghans accepted them without any resistance. You seem to believe that America has more rights in Afghanistan than Afghans, which is like saying Russia has more rights in USA than Americans. Where is my cat, he needs to read this lol




they decided to involve themselves in business that was not their own...now they're going to die.

They didn't involve themselves with anything, they only cared for Afghanistan. I'm assuming you are talking about 9/11, Osama denied any hand in the incidence and America didn't provide any evidence linking him to 9/11. That is that.

You seem to think America will be able to accomplish what no other imperial force has been able to accomplish and that is keeping Afghanistan in control. Alexandra couldn't do it, the Mongols couldn't do it, the British couldn't do it what makes you believe some "Yankees" will be able to do it.

Regarding the Iraq Iran war, everyone knows including my cat that America was 100% behind Saddam when he decided to Attack Iran, the weapons of mass destruction was given to Saddam by the US. This is all historically recorded but you need to be a little smarter than my cat to find it.

Iraq was stable, there was no civil war, there was no suicide bombings, there was no mass murder, there was no mass population displacement, my cat is feeling embarrassed because he seems to know more than you.



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 10:04 PM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 


Its funny that you gave that example...because that is exactly what the Soviet Union did in the United States throughout the 70s and 80s. The drugs and the violence and the crime. More young people knew what was the AK-47 was then they did the M-16. They gave birth to the crackhead...millions of them and the crackbaby (born addicted) Zombies roaming desolate urban space in the middle of the night. They turned housing projects into military garrisons serving the interests of foreign governments.

FYI, from, at the latest, 1974 until November 2005 the United States was occupied by a hostile force. The militia movements called it a ZOG or something like that.

Anyway...even though your history records a lot of things...your cat will find that it doesn't know as much as you think it does. When the Taliban came to power they were not the legal government of Afghanistan, just a bunch of murderous students that hooked up with the wrong people and now their time has come to a collective end. They were given Afghanistan...they didn't win it and they are still working in collaboration with the same corrupt powers that occupied my government for over 30 years; that's why they still exist. They are being protected or they are not being engaged in any real way.

You can play this little what I don't know game but the only thing the Taliban and whatever other so-called freedom fighters you've decided to jump on the bandwagon with got coming is a full metal jacket. Keep playing the shell game...thinking you won't be caught...but it has come to an end and you'll get to watch.

So you will learn shortly that it was not America that was behind Saddam, but the occupiers which included the Shah or Iran. He arranged for Hussein to come to power. You will learn that it was not America that started the wars between Iran and Iraq or played both sides, but the occupiers and you will find that the Taliban you seem to be gagga about is and always has been an agent of these very occupiers. Oh yes, they fight one another when they are not robbing and killing...it is their way.

They've been trying hard to cover themselves over the last 4 years, but as Time bears down upon them their garment gradually fades away. Soon enough you'll see what you are supporting.



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Perhaps the support for Massoud was destabilizing for the Taliban, but not necessarily for Afghanistan.


The Taliban happened to be the largest and most organized force in Afghanistan. They were attempting to take control of the country to give the country the only control it's had in its entire history. The US simply steamrolled into Afghanistan and destroyed all that the Taliban had created, and the US in its typical style instilled a puppet as the Afghan political leader.



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 


One interesting thing I learned about the Taliban and Afghanistan...they were the de facto government and never possessed legal authority to administer. Legal title is in many ways is more powerful than many guns. Question for you...Have the Taliban been able to acquire legal title to Kabul and to govern the Afghan state? If they have not, the issue is moot. They cannot govern Afghanistan.

You reveal about yourself that you believe in might makes right or he who has the Gold rules. Base concepts that cannot be tolerated in a society governed by laws.

They say crime plummetted during their rule...the same thing can be said concerning crime in Somalia following the defeat of the old Warlords and establishment of the ICU. I think the crime disappeared because the criminals were in Power; no need to kill and steal anymore once they possessed the Capital. When the legal situation in Somalia changed, even the ICU disbanded and fled.

This is a not a popularity contest, people have legal rights...the Taliban, when they allowed their territory to be used by a known criminal to attack a Sovereign state lost their ability to rule. Crime in Afghanistan fell when the Taliban took power, but crime in the region and in the world increased.

The same goes for Pakistan's Taliban...these people are criminals and have no authority to conduct this business. Just guns and lots of TNT. They are nobodys.

But those Iranians via Al Qaeda must have told them they can make them into somebody's...they were lied to. Iran, Pahlevi, Revolutionary Guard have no such ability and are barely hanging on to their own lives.



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by IDK88

While I would never supporting bombing the crap out of Iran, after reading of the nation's barbarism in Yemen it's important to make sure that they cannot defend themselves from air attacks.



Sorry, I am confused. What exactly has Iran been up to in Yemen? last i heard, it was the Yemeni Government fighting against rebels. There is no mention of any link with Iran that I can see.

As for the topic, well, the Russians have only said they'd "reconsider" it. They'll do what's in the best interests of Russia and no one else. I'd hazard a guess and say that they will "reconsider" it and end up selling them anyway.

The balance of power in the ME is skewed in Israel's favour, of whome Russia is no big fan, so it would serve them well, considering existing contracts and agreements they have with iran to protect those investments from a US puppet in the region.



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by IDK88

But those Iranians via Al Qaeda must have told them they can make them into somebody's...they were lied to. Iran, Pahlevi, Revolutionary Guard have no such ability and are barely hanging on to their own lives.



Sorry, really confused now...

Iran and Al-Qaeda? Is there anyone you won't link them too? Iran and AQ teaming up is such a joke, you do realise they are on opposite sides of the Islamic spectrum, don't you? In fact, Iran did help the US in detaining AQ suspects during the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, plus they also publicly condemned the 9/11 attacks....


Originally posted by IDK88 Naw, I think you're irritated. Iran has destabilized all of them...Iran was responsible for the collapse of the global financial system. Is that an easier answer for you and your cat to handle?


Iran is responsible for the financial crisis too? OMG.... I think you are quite barking mad. How on earth do you come to this assumption?

I assume too, judging by your logic, that iran is also responsible for Hurricane Katrina, the 2004 Tsunami, the 7th July London Bombings and the fact my cat got fleas last week?

Thos nasty Iranians, what won't they do, hey?

[edit on 23/8/09 by stumason]



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


I mentioned that given a recent accusation made by the government of Yemen suggesting that Iran is supporting the rebels there, this is a good reason that sales of advanced weapons system to Iran should be closely watched. It was just an accusation, but it is one of several made against Iran in the last few years.

I cannot remember which gulf nation it was but Iran has questioned the right to exist of kuwait or uae or qatar. this behavior is consistent with an ancient and prospective world power and a confident Persian is a threat not only to those who differ greatly, but to those who differ in minor ways. That's what a chip on the shoulder does it guess.



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by IDK88
 


Learn from history, that is my only advice. You seem to think America is the holiness who do not play the world political game, that just shows your ignorance. Many countries are involved in this chess game, Muslims included. You just seem to defend your people which is fair, but when you defend it based on ignorance that is not OK.

America was responsible for Saddam:

The Ba'athist coup, resulted in the return to Iraq of young fellow-Ba'athist Saddam Hussein, who had fled to Egypt after his earlier abortive attempt to assassinate Qasim. Saddam was immediately assigned to head the Al-Jihaz al-Khas, the clandestine Ba'athist Intelligence organisation. As such, he was soon involved in the killing of some 5,000 communists. Saddam's rise to power had, ironically, begun on the back of a CIA-engineered coup!

Source: Alfred Mendes, Excerpt from "Blood for Oil,"
www.spectrezine.org...


The Ba'ath strengthen links with the U.S. During the coup, demonstrators are mown down by tanks, initiating a period of ruthless persecution. Up to 10,000 people are imprisoned, many are tortured. The CIA supply intelligence to the Ba'athists on communists and radicals to be rounded up. In addition to the 149 officially executed, about 5,000 are killed in the terror, many buried alive in mass graves. The new government continues the war on the Kurds, bombarding them with tanks, artillery and from the air, and bulldozing villages.

Source: www.geocities.com...
All of this happened with the backings of America


Kassem had helped found the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) in an attempt to curtail Western control of Arab oil. He had been planning to nationalise the Iraq Petroleum Company in which the USA had an interest. Iraq had also disapproved when Kuwait had been given independence by the UK with a pro-west emir (king) and oil concessions to Western companies. A few days before the coup, the French newspaper La Monde had reported that Kassem had been warned by the USA government to change his country's economic policies or face sanctions. British government papers later declassified would indicate that the coup was backed by the USA and UK. The new government promises not to nationalise American oil interests and renounces its claim to Kuwait. The USA recognises and praises the new government.

Source: The Acts of the Democracies: 1960 to 1964

Who armed Saddam with chemical weapons?

In the 1970s, Saddam approached the USSR, until then his conventional weapons supplier, to buy a plant to manufacture chemical weapons, but his request was refused. Saddam then began courting the West, and received a much more favourable response.



An American company, Pfaulder Corporation of Rochester, New York, supplied the Iraqis with a blueprint in 1975, enabling them to construct their first chemical warfare plant. The plant was purchased in sections from Italy, West Germany and East Germany and assembled in Iraq. It was located at Akhashat in north-western Iraq, and the cost was around $50 million for the plant and $30 million for the safety equipment.



The United States also supplied Saddam with satellite pictures of Iranian positions during the Iran-Iraq war.



When Saddam did in fact "use chemical weapons against his own people", he did so on the afternoon of 17 March 1988, against the Kurdish city of Halabja. The United States provided diplomatic cover by initially blaming Iran for the attack. The Reagan Administration tried to prevent criticism of the atrocity. The Bush (senior) administration authorised new loans to Saddam in order to achieve the "goal of increasing US exports and put us in a better position to deal with Iraq regarding its human rights record".


Jesus, who was responsible for all of this.



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


In a base material world, it would seem that Al Qaeda and Iran are incompatible, but in the spiritual and religioius world in which these two groups spend most of their time. The relationship between the Shia and Sunni is of critical importance.

From all of that regions sacred literature the Sunni and Shia are buddies. They adventure together, they are gay lovers, they rule within their own domains, the have the same mother, but they also are fierce competitors in all activities upon the earth.

It's complicated...I am about to go get some food, but if you'd like to learn something...I will be happy to round out your education as to how this world really works.



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 07:31 PM
link   
look guys America was nearly completely overthrown in 1973...whatever we did, and it must have been something, caught up to us around that time. Only the children survived. It's not about protecting my people, but I know for a fact that things while done in America's name was not done by Americans but infiltrators.

Maybe its not Pahlavi, but he'll still have to explain why he's living near Washington D.C.. This is entirely inappropriate. Perhaps its the Agha Khan, or the Qajars or some old Ottoman. Maybe it was Ariel Sharon and his whole clique. But this is the list of usual suspects. If there is a Sunni, then a Shiite must be close behind. Cain didn't Kill Abel by himself, the Shah was present that day as well. Oh yeah...a Whore has to be close by as well.

Iran, as the preeminent Shia state, MUST be what I said or it is going to be taking a submissive position from another Shia state; none of Iran's stature even exist and is totally inconsistent with the expectations that Iran has for itself. In Islamic eschatology the Mahdi and Jesus work together, thus according to Islamic theory Jesus betrays himself (breaks the cross) and becomes the Beast AKA Al Qaeda. Subsequently, the Western World collapses and Islam marches unchallenged.

As time proceeds and this Al Qaeda thing becomes less revelent, you are watching the disintegration of Islamic end times Theology because the Mahdi is just a learned man and a nobody without the Jesus character. The Iranian rulers and especially Ahmadinejad bought into this plot and it is now collapsing, but they are trying to spin the world into chaos just to see if it can. But its not working. Russia is being provoked, but not responding. China is being provoked, but not responding. India is being provoked, but not responding. Many nations are under constant provocation...but they don't respond. It must be the technique they've adopted to defeat the source of these suspicious events.

Because Iran is a Theocratic State ruled by Islamic scholars and the now two term President is a Twelver and regularly boasting of his Prophethood. and Pahlavi's dad used to call himself God and Pahlavi claimed also that he is God in 1981, then any analysis of Iran outside of a religious framework is only somewhat useful. Understanding this is good because it can be seen that this must be the case, but when dealing with Iran treat them according to secular principles only and watch them collapse.

Concerning Irans connection to the collapse of the global financial system. The assets in question that became worthless were only valuable if the Iran plan worked. All those mortgages that were given to people that couldn't afford them, would have been paid off had Iran's scheme worked and the western world collapsed. The people you see losing their jobs and homes and reputations are the ones that bought into the Shah plan to take over the world. Currently, these people are being supported by stimulus payments, tax credits and bailouts and for this reason they keep fighting.

The companies like Bear Stearns, Lehman, Citibank, Washington Mutual, AIG, GM and Chrysler where major participants in this plan and were destroyed as a result of betting on the wrong horse.



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 08:07 PM
link   

One interesting thing I learned about the Taliban and Afghanistan...they were the de facto government and never possessed legal authority to administer. Legal title is in many ways is more powerful than many guns. Question for you...Have the Taliban been able to acquire legal title to Kabul and to govern the Afghan state? If they have not, the issue is moot. They cannot govern Afghanistan.


Legality means nothing. If they control the country, then nobody else has the right to say or do anything. This is when they would be free to make their own laws. You cannot say they don't count because nobody outside of Afghanistan likes them, government is not supposed to be a popularity contest, it is about effective leadership and organization of a society on a national level.


In a base material world, it would seem that Al Qaeda and Iran are incompatible, but in the spiritual and religioius world in which these two groups spend most of their time. The relationship between the Shia and Sunni is of critical importance.


I'm sure Shias and Sunnis were buddy buddy when they were busy cutting off each others heads during the anarchy following OIF. Shias and Sunnis are most certainly NOT friends and they only ally together when they are under an effective government (like Saddam's) or when they're fighting an intruder (like the US). Make no mistake, Iran is an enemy of Al Queda and Al Queda has no problems fighting Iran.



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 10:29 PM
link   
...you just can't post a thread involving russia without american military worshipers pouncing. At the end of the day it is one untrustworthy countries' word versus another. I'm willing to guess both sides are wrong and the systems are about equivalent.

Either way it is irrelevant, I would not expect us to give a country like that f-35's, totally screws up the balance of power in the region.

[edit on 23-8-2009 by CapsFan8]




top topics



 
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join