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 to 'blow up heart' of Israel if attacked

page: 6
11
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaddyBare
Ya do know Saddam used to make the same statements... we all know how well that worked out for him...

It's just posturing makes them feel better about themselves...

after the stolen election and hoards of angry protesters I think a lot of covert agencies will be looking for those disgruntled masses, training them, arming them, teaching them to take back their freedoms... Iran's days are numbered...

The US isn't going to attack... we don't need to... their already on the brink of civil war


I thought the civil war wwas eminent first in US rather than Iran as reflected by the number of Obama haters threads on ATS and calling for civil wars etc. I guess you need to make up your mind where the civil war will first take place.




posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
... teh CIA provided the taliban with stingers for shooting teh russian`s



NO, we didn't. I do, however, see where you get your talking points. Once again, for the umpteenth time here at ATS, the stingers were provided to mujahideen, not the Taliban. the difference is more than just one of spelling, but I really can't expect you to grasp that rather simple fact. There is a world of difference. Just so you'll know, we gave 'em a ton of Chinese AKs that we got on the world market, too, as well as some technical assistance.

After the Soviets left, the Taliban came out of hiding so they could attempt to fill the power vacuum with their own special brand of lovin', and made damn sure that the war never ended, and peace in Afghanistan was never possible. Soviets left in 1989, and the Taliban claimed ownership of the country in 1994 or 1996, in the midst of a lot of fighting they were trying to keep going. one tiny faction out of many factions of muj. In fact, they never "ruled" more than 60% of the country, and were constantly under attack by the good ol' mujahideen. Masud, who actually WAS a muj, never dropped the fight against them until he was assasinated by their al-Qaeda allies. He's just one example.

Interestingly enough, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar was ALSO fighting against them back then. His alliances go wherever the wind blows him. He's allied to the Taliban now.

Don't let me confuse your thinking with facts, though. I'd suggest you don't look into it TOO deeply. That could shake the foundations of your faith.



and for captain smartass


you want to blow up the dome of the rock?

that would turn this from a politcal game to a religous war in no time - saudia arabia would make a pretty pattern with its nukes fro syria down to egypt and across to its own borders.


I'm pretty sure the dear captain said that should be an open statement, a warning, not necessarily a bombing.

It would be up to the opposition to force the bombing of Makkah, Medinah, and the dome of the rock, as a result of their actions.

I'll bet ya a stick full of falafel they'd think real hard before running that risk, nuclear retaliatory ability of not.

Throwing out 10 times their arsenal of nukes wouldn't rebuild the Kaaba, much less the Masjid al-Haram, the Masjid al-Nabawi, or the Dome of the Rock. Putting radiation ALL OVER Israel wouldn't take it away from those sites.

I doubt they'd run the risk of their destruction in the first place.



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Laurauk
My responce to you!

The Victims of the holocaust are becomming, the criminals they have so long to be brought to justice, by what they are doing to the citizens of palestine!


I'd love to know what this means, pro Israel or pro Palestine?

Unintentionally hilarious post



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 03:31 PM
link   
After reading 5 pages of this thread, I saw many users who are not yet updated to the facts regarding Iran Nuclear programme. So here are some "facts" responding to question by Associated Press by IAEA General Director.
Responding to the media generated propoganda that Iran is pursuing Nuclear Weapon the IAEA General Director had this to say just 2-3 weeks ago;

Question regarding news reports by the Associated Press (mostly inaudible)

As I have said many times, and I continue to say today, the Agency has no concrete proof there is an ongoing weapons programme in Iran. There are allegations that Iran has conducted weaponization studies; however, these are issues which we are still looking into. And we are looking to Iran to help us clarify. We are looking to those suppliers of information to help us on the question of authenticity, because that is really a major issue. It is not an issue that involves nuclear material; it's a question of allegations, paper work studies, and of course the key issue there is authenticity. We are seeking clarification from Iran; we are seeking clarification from the supplier of the information. But we don't have any information that nuclear material has been used. We don't have any information that any components of nuclear weapons have been manufactured. That is why I continue to say that we are concerned but we are not in any way panicking about the Iranian nuclear programme. However, we need to continue to work with Iran to clarify these issues. This is an issue that has to do with war and peace, and the Agency has to work on the basis of fact and facts only.

On the other question that the Agency has information that has been withheld, and that there is information which has (not) been shared with the Board: this is maybe for the hundredth time that I have been saying and the Agency has been saying that this is totally baseless, totally groundless.

All information that we have received that has been vetted, assessed in accordance with our standard practices, has been shared with the Board. If any country has more information that they would like to share with us or with the Board, they are welcom to do that. But we stand by our statement that all information that has been corroborated, assessed, critically assessed, has been shared with the Board and on the basis of that I make my statement that we have no concrete evidence that Iran has an ongoing programme. There are concerns by the international community and we are working on these. But there is a difference between concern and a statement that Iran has an ongoing weapons programme. As to the pressure, I think our record throughout the years -- including before the Iraq war, when we made it very clear that we had not seen any evidence that Iraq had revived its nuclear weapons programme, despite a lot of allegations and assumptions -- I think that our record
speaks for itself.

Source: www.iaea.org...

Now the question about knowledge to build nukes keeping in pace with the latest media rhetoric;

The "knowledge to build nukes" is in fact pretty accessible and has been for decades:

In fact, in the early 1960s, the Lawrence Livermore Labs (which designs and makes nukes) decided to conduct an experiment called the Nth Country Experiment to see how easy it would be for "amateurs" to come up with the design of The Bomb using only open-source material. So they hired a couple of recent physics graduates to do exactly that. They were probably quite surprised when the students managed to come up with what was apparently an accurate design of a nuclear weapon, using nothing more than pencils and their public library cards.

And

To top if off, since then both the US and UK governments (and presumably others) have inadvertently declassified and released highly detailed nuclear weapons design information, made freely accessible to anyone who wanted to see them.

It is precisely these sorts of vague and meaningless accusations -- Iran sees the "option" to build nukes, "intends" to have the "capacity" to do so, or has the "knowledge" to build nukes ... which proves that there is in fact no real evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program.

Now that aside, my view on this thread is if and if Iran get's attacked they have every right to attack back.



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Retseh

Originally posted by Harlequin

they signed the NPT - and have complied with it -tell your neo-con media so stop trying to make something of nothing - 5% enrichment is for the light water reactor


I don't generally reply to your posts, since you usually descend into childish name calling and labelling, just as you are doing here yet again, but the dangerous bilge you post cannot go unchallenged.

Firstly the NPT, I could simply say something glib along the lines of "go research Neville Chamberlain", but I'll go with facts instead.

In a February 19th report of this year, the IAEA reported that Iran is continuing to enrich uranium contrary to the decisions of the Security Council and had produced at least a ton of low enriched uranium.

The report also indicated that Iran had continued to refuse to provide design information or access to verify design information for its new IR-40 reactor.

Continued production in contravention to IAEA mandates, refusal to share required reactor design details.

I have debunked your entire pack of lies in my last post in this thread.
So any light bulbs coming on yet, no probably not. Is that really so hard to understand, even for you?

reply to post by Wormwood Squirm
 


I agree facts are facts. So need any tissues now?

Besides that I read here someone saying that UN nuclear body stated Iran is building nuclear weapon or something like that or perhaps not divulging information about it's nuclear activities.

U.N. Nuclear Watchdog Says Iran Threat 'Hyped'

Head of UN nuclear watchdog sees Iran cooperation

[edit on 9-10-2009 by December_Rain]



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by December_Rain
 

December, you're right. It's not that difficult to come up with a nuclear device.

Wouldn't it be funny - odd - if some rogue group procured a nuclear cruise missile battery, sailed it near Iran on a tramp steamer, launched, and then that same tramp steamer exploded and sank shortly after launch?

And oddly some small fast boats hauled ass just before the ship exploded and sank?

WHO would one blame it on?

Not the US.

Not Israel.

Just an unknown rogue group that can't be attached or connected directly to any nation.

Wouldn't THAT be a hoot?

Talk about poetic justice!

Plausible deniability.

Just as all those Muslim organizations confer to their host nations.



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Retseh
 





Of course you are, because it has nothing to do with this thread, just as I suspected.


I simply responded to a response in that post, or did you neglect to read what I was responding towards originally ? Meaning, I did not initially bring that into the conversation.


No, I'm talking about Israel forcing a stike on Iran if they dont stop building nuclear facilities that Iran wants to use for neclear power.




If by "threatened" you mean "told to stop their nuclear program", then yes.


No, because not all of the United Nations support such actions albeit, most do.



What bizarre parallels you assign.


Same as you. I just happen to see things with both perspectives and sift through the BS.




That's a straight up falsehood.


LMAO!

Again, you used biased Western MSM as your source where it doesnt show it come directly from his mouth. I'll link a few for ya where what he says is interpreted live. The words in your link are written in the biased hands of a western reporter/journalist and is very misinterpreted.

Says he did not say the holocaust didnt happen. He has asked questions about it and these western reporters twist things around. He wants to research the holocaust in more detail.





Long video on RT.




Interesting for once to see things from his perspective.



Ron Paul speaks out about the warmongering directed towards Iran.









[edit on 9-10-2009 by disfugured]

[edit on 9-10-2009 by disfugured]



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 03:56 PM
link   
It's a bit of a a no win situation, Iran is super sensitive and anything we say about it's religion and it's society turns into a riot. At the same time they feel they need to be protected by these misiles they have gained.
But they are playing a game of come and get us so we have an excuse to nuke Israel because they are Jews and they have that Borat mentality about it.

The difference between the middle east having them and lets say Austrailia is their super sensative mentality that boarders extremism, strict laws mean strict penalties, and if they require nukes then they will use them, and the honour of death to their people means suicidle victory.
So, do we stand and watch or do we get in there before this situation arises because it will end that way.

Something the Bible predicts but I doubt the Irans care to read it.

QUOTES:

A song. A psalm of Asaph.

2 See how your enemies are astir,
how your foes rear their heads.
3 With cunning they conspire against your people;
they plot against those you cherish.
4 "Come," they say, "let us destroy them as a nation,
that the name of Israel be remembered no more."
5 With one mind they plot together;
they form an alliance against you-
6 the tents of Edom and the Ishmaelites,
of Moab and the Hagrites,
7 Gebal, [a] Ammon and Amalek,
Philistia, with the people of Tyre.
8 Even Assyria has joined them
to lend strength to the descendants of Lot.
Selah


Ezekiel 38

A Prophecy Against Gog

1 The word of the LORD came to me: 2 "Son of man, set your face against Gog, of the land of Magog, the chief prince of [a] Meshech and Tubal; prophesy against him 3 and say: 'This is what the Sovereign LORD says: I am against you, O Gog, chief prince of Meshech and Tubal. 4 I will turn you around, put hooks in your jaws and bring you out with your whole army—your horses, your horsemen fully armed, and a great horde with large and small shields, all of them brandishing their swords. 5 Persia, Cush [c] and Put will be with them, all with shields and helmets, 6 also Gomer with all its troops, and Beth Togarmah from the far north with all its troops—the many nations with you.
7 " 'Get ready; be prepared, you and all the hordes gathered about you, and take command of them. 8 After many days you will be called to arms. In future years you will invade a land that has recovered from war, whose people were gathered from many nations to the mountains of Israel, which had long been desolate. They had been brought out from the nations, and now all of them live in safety. 9 You and all your troops and the many nations with you will go up, advancing like a storm; you will be like a cloud covering the land.


[edit on 9-10-2009 by The time lord]



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by December_Rain




... There are allegations that Iran has conducted weaponization studies; however, these are issues which we are still looking into. And we are looking to Iran to help us clarify.


Rah Rah Rah! Go UN inspectors! An amazingly sneaky tactic, asking the Iranians to provide evidence that they are doing what you told them not to, instead of hiding said evidence.

I bet that gets ya a long way in settling this question.

When you're done with that, could you guys stop off in Syria and pick up a coffee for me on your way back? You can carry it in whichever hand isn't occupied by Iranian admissions of guilt.

I just love that Syrian coffee.

[edit on 2009/10/9 by nenothtu]



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by dooper
 


Could be but I think all kind of plutonium and uranium can be traced back to reactor so whoever will do it won't be able to hide.



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by December_Rain
 

Ah!

But who's to say that other sources haven't been procured from numerous sources and blended?

Not difficult for genius minds.

So, who you gonna blame then?



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 





It is not an issue that involves nuclear material; it's a question of allegations, paper work studies, and of course the key issue there is authenticity.


Provided you read the full paragraph you could have come up with a better response. Just so you understand he means authenticity of the person/body who has presented allegation on Iran.



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by dooper
 


It's a technological thing to analyse data by scientist and I am sure in such an event most of the countries will provide their best scientist to work on the project if Iran allows and thus find the link to the reactor. It's not hard to do it for a person with right tools and knowledge.



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by December_Rain
 


So they expect Iran to "clarify" this how? By pointing at those making accusations and shouting "liars!"?

Yeah, that'll clarify things alright. Probably won't take very long, either.

So I guess I won't have to wait so long on the Syrian coffee.



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu
reply to post by December_Rain
 


So they expect Iran to "clarify" this how? By pointing at those making accusations and shouting "liars!"?

Yeah, that'll clarify things alright. Probably won't take very long, either.

So I guess I won't have to wait so long on the Syrian coffee.


Once again read the whole thing

As I have said many times, and I continue to say today, the Agency has no concrete proof there is an ongoing weapons programme in Iran. There are allegations that Iran has conducted weaponization studies; however, these are issues which we are still looking into. And we are looking to Iran to help us clarify. We are looking to those suppliers of information to help us on the question of authenticity, because that is really a major issue. It is not an issue that involves nuclear material; it's a question of allegations, paper work studies, and of course the key issue there is authenticity. We are seeking clarification from Iran; we are seeking clarification from the supplier of the information. But we don't have any information that nuclear material has been used. We don't have any information that any components of nuclear weapons have been manufactured. That is why I continue to say that we are concerned but we are not in any way panicking about the Iranian nuclear programme. However, we need to continue to work with Iran to clarify these issues. This is an issue that has to do with war and peace, and the Agency has to work on the basis of fact and facts only.

On the other question that the Agency has information that has been withheld, and that there is information which has (not) been shared with the Board: this is maybe for the hundredth time that I have been saying and the Agency has been saying that this is totally baseless, totally groundless.

All information that we have received that has been vetted, assessed in accordance with our standard practices, has been shared with the Board. If any country has more information that they would like to share with us or with the Board, they are welcom to do that. But we stand by our statement that all information that has been corroborated, assessed, critically assessed, has been shared with the Board and on the basis of that I make my statement that we have no concrete evidence that Iran has an ongoing programme. There are concerns by the international community and we are working on these. But there is a difference between concern and a statement that Iran has an ongoing weapons programme. As to the pressure, I think our record throughout the years -- including before the Iraq war, when we made it very clear that we had not seen any evidence that Iraq had revived its nuclear weapons programme, despite a lot of allegations and assumptions -- I think that our record
speaks for itself.

If that doesn't clear up for you. In laymans word, IAEA is clarifying with Iran on these allegations (that Iran has conducted weaponisation studies) and at the same time is working on autheticating the basis of allegations(i.e, body/people who are accussing..autheticating on what basis they are allegating). In US Federal court it is popularly known as "frivolous".
This is the simplest way I could explain this. But I cannot help more if you live in self-denial.

[edit on 9-10-2009 by December_Rain]



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 04:27 PM
link   
Here's the latest update to this;


In the face of resumed military threats by Israeli leaders, Iran's ambassador to the UN, calls on the world body to put a stop to such 'irresponsible behaviors'.

“There is absolutely no sense in the ongoing Israeli threats against the Tehran government,” said Iranian ambassador to the UN Mohammad Khazaei in a letter of protest to Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

Khazaei pointed to claims made by Ephraim Sneh, a former Israeli deputy defense minister, earlier last week. Sneh had told the Sunday Times that time was running out for action against Tehran's enrichment activities.

“If no crippling sanctions are introduced by Christmas, Israel will strike,” he had said. “If we are left alone, we will act alone.”

Khazaei said that considering Israel's trigger-happy attitude in the past, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) should take necessary action against these “irresponsible comments”.

In letter, Iran urges UN to stand up to Israel



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 04:28 PM
link   
The Jewish military leader gets killed, next to his jeep, in Jerusalem and that's when the war begins. That's what I saw.



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by dooper
reply to post by December_Rain
 

December, you're right. It's not that difficult to come up with a nuclear device.

Wouldn't it be funny - odd - if some rogue group procured a nuclear cruise missile battery, sailed it near Iran on a tramp steamer, launched, and then that same tramp steamer exploded and sank shortly after launch?

And oddly some small fast boats hauled ass just before the ship exploded and sank?

WHO would one blame it on?

Not the US.

Not Israel.

Just an unknown rogue group that can't be attached or connected directly to any nation.

Wouldn't THAT be a hoot?

Talk about poetic justice!

Plausible deniability.

Just as all those Muslim organizations confer to their host nations.


You are right but I strongly believe God is at hand in all this, we saw the Pirate ship with all that Toxic material off the coast of Somalia coming to a stop. It was apparently an Iranian ship, here a news article.

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

16 pirates died after handling substance on captured Iranian ship
LONDON — An Iranian ship captured by Somali pirates carried sealed containers of a powdery substance believed to be nuclear or chemical weapons agents.

Western intelligence agencies have been monitoring the capture of the Iran Deyanat, seized by Somali pirates on Aug. 21. The cargo ship, owned and operated by the state-owned Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines, or IRISL, contains sealed cargo thought to be linked to the death of 16 pirates....

So can you see that maybe God plays a part too, if you have faith you will see how these things work, eventually the snake will eat its tail and will carry on doing so over and over again. Also When God decides to play a part it will just be duds that fall back on them because of their cursed luck.

[edit on 9-10-2009 by The time lord]



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 04:50 PM
link   
If there is a first strike on nuke facilities in Iran, it will most likely follow

EMP strikes to wipe out every piece of electronic equipment. Iran will be

blind and defenseless. If they fire missiles at Israel, without electronic

guidance systems, they will fall on their own people.

Iran will end up trading their oil at lower prices to get money to replace all

their fried electronics. Jobs will be created by the demand, and the world

economy will be back on track.


But, I think Obama got the Nobel Peace Prize as a way of

manipulating the USA into not attacking Iran or supporting an an attack by

Israel. After all, It would look rather stupid if the US attacks Iran after

Obama receives that award.



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by December_Rain
 


After having read that whole meaningless quote for the third time now, I stand by what I said, and will add that nowhere in it is what you're saying supported. I think.

What ARE you trying to say?

Either they WILL ask Iran to clarify things as the quote states, or they WON'T, as you imply.

Which? I don't really care that much, but it's going to affect how long I have to wait on that coffee.

[edit on 2009/10/9 by nenothtu]



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join