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.

 

Ahmadinejad warns of 'Weapons of Mass Media'

page: 8
80
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 12:01 PM
link   
You sure can pull a lot of hogwash out of a discussion on middle eastern culture. A lot of hogwash that wasn't initially THERE, I might add.


Originally posted by shanerz
reply to post by nenothtu
 


So what you're really trying to say is that what? We need to drop the ayatollah, mullah or whatever is the control behind Ahmadinejad?


Nope. There are too many there that need killin'. You seem to be under the impression that there is only one ayatollah, only one mullah. There are many. To complicate issues, not ALL of them are bad guys, as I clearly stated.

Sometimes a mullah is just a mullah. He's a cleric with a purely religious function, a "shepherd" to the Islamic flock. That, in and of itself, is not a BAD thing.

Then there are others that just need to be disappeared. Muqtada al-Sadr would be an example of that sort. The corn has to be separated from the husks, as it were, before any rash actions are taken. Random carpet bombing of vast areas, as you suggested, is EXTREMELY counter productive.

And very messy.



Even though we all know where the bigger riggers are. And, no, they will not be happy.


Gaze deeply into my eyes, and tell me if you see ANY concern at all for their "happiness". It's war, an extension of politics by other means, and no, the primary targets are not what we see on the surface.

Nor are they random.



In other words, you're saying we still need to drop bombs on citizen areas? Well, we know our targets are going to go into hiding in civilian areas. Iraq taught us that. They think it's a good shield.


I re-read the post several times, just to be clear. Nope, I never said that. You close with, and destroy, THE ENEMY. Random bombings, just because a bad guy MIGHT be there, are counter-productive.

Deer hunters in the US make the same mistake every year. Some jackass that has no business in the woods to begin with will shoot into a shaking bush, thinking a deer MIGHT be there. Another hunter needlessly dies for that lapse in judgement.



You're also saying we need to pay the military industrial complex, yet again, to protect us from that ever-so-vigilant itch on the back of our minds, called Nostradamus. I thought they'd be fat enough, but they still hunger. If your way goes, we are fighting three overt wars. Many say Iraq and Afghanistan problems just won't end. A constant drainage into the ditch that is debt.


I don't give a damn WHO gets paid to fix it, as long as the job is done.

Can you point out my reference to Nostradamus? I can't seem to find it.

Fighting ONE unnecessary war is nuts. Fighting THREE is suicidal. I've said before, in many a post, that I don't believe going into Iraq WHEN WE DID was a sane move. Sure, I have no doubt it would have had to have been done eventually, just not when it was. We already had one front to man. Instead, Georgie boy took his eye off the ball, and looked around for something else to fix, that didn't need fixing at the moment. As I recall, the UN was just having a ball raping the land there, and dabbling in corruption. We should have went on about our business in Afghanistan, and left the other kids to play their silly-assed games.



And lastly, it would be a huge mistake not to mention oil and reconstruction anywhere in any examination into a potential conflict, especially in an area laden with such resources, that's just being silly.


So I'm silly. It's not like I haven't been told that before!


Oil? Not so much in Afghanistan. Iraqi production could have been covered by other sources until the UN dust settled. I swear, sometimes I see folks having oil on their minds so much, I think their brains ought to be better lubricated.

Reconstruction? Why? If someone pisses me off to the point that I burn their house down, I feel NO compulsion to build them a new one. They can look to that themselves. That has two major benefits. While their busy constructing, they have less time for mischief, and less time to piss me off again. Second, It gives them pause for thought about pissing me off again when their done, knowing they'll just have to haul their own trash if they do.

I'm not a nice guy, but I never claimed to be. On the positive side, folks don't bother me very much. I'm generally left alone in peace.



Is it going to be the internet, next? Or is it the freedom of speech talk all the world leaders are happy about?


Huh? What are you on about here? "They" will do as they please concerning the internet and free speech. It's up to us to find ways to mitigate the damage they do. If you think "they" really need an excuse to do as they will, you are sorely mistaken.



And all because an enemy of humanity might have weapons of mass destruction. At least this time they say maybe, not gogogo. Just because of this one line, people fall into line. But really, not only that, we hear the word terrorist. I think we know where this is going. Back to the recent past.

The basics of corporatist interest propaganda. I guess there really isn't that much diversity in that field, though. It's, basically, prophecy or no one cares.

Familiar?

On a cursory second thought, I have to admit - maybe we should just go. Don't want to see any "Iranian-induced" mushroom clouds over my home soil on the TV.


Now, to be quite honest, I had a really tough time deciphering this section. Not your fault if I can't grasp your meaning.

You'll note that in the post you refer to, I suggested no solutions, I was just trying to outline the problem, as I see it.

No carpet bombing, or any of that. Let Iran have nukes, if they really want them that bad. Ring the place on 3 sides (all except the Russian side, since we haven't got much say there) with anti ballistic missile batteries, and shoot down anything they send up. Lock the country down, nothing in, nothing out, except through Russia. They can have all the nukes they want, but if said nukes "escape" their borders, turn hell loose on them. Any outbound, uncovered missile would have to fly through Russian airspace.

I'm sure the recipients of those missiles would be very cross with the Russian government.

The Iranian people are a proud, brave, and friendly bunch. I'm sure they as well would eventually wish to have a word with the mullahs and ayatollahs that put them into such an untenable position, all for want of a pretty little mushroom cloud, just so they could claim they could play with the big kids.

"Dear Mr Putin-

I know you get really testy about ABM batteries so close to home, but you really asked for it. We scrapped the plans for ABM batteries in Poland, at your insistence, then, since we gave an inch, you decided to take a mile, and started shaking sabers at us, instead of increasing the depth of a budding friendship.

We made peaceful overtures, and concession, which you mistook for weakness. You tried to force an advantage that wasn't really there.

Now, as a result, this is what you get. Enjoy your friendship with the Mad Mullahs. We're done playing.

Since Russia is the new Russia, and you seem hell bent on a new Cold War, we got one for ya.

Love,

O "



[edit on 2009/10/17 by nenothtu]




posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 05:42 PM
link   

reply to post by nenothtu
 


You sure can pull a lot of hogwash out of a discussion on middle eastern culture. A lot of hogwash that wasn't initially THERE, I might add.


I guess... I've had worse said about me? Since a lot of assumption was made, I might add and will point out in this post.

I understand that the ayatollahs and mullahs are a group and I just gave the term broadly to attribute the "real threat"... In any case it lead into my next point, which was our targets will hide in civilian houses, underground complexes in civilian areas, etc.

I also understand you didn't give any scenario on what should be done about it... but the tone of the post made me make connections to pre-Iraq. Which is why I said an enemy of humanity might have nukes.



I re-read the post several times, just to be clear. Nope, I never said that. You close with, and destroy, THE ENEMY. Random bombings, just because a bad guy MIGHT be there, are counter-productive.


But we did a lot of this in Iraq. Maybe we learned? Don't know how many times I heard "bombing a target, where intel suggests x, one of Saddam's top y, is hiding." We don't hear on the news the repurcussions of the 1 million life toll of Iraq. Many, many innocents.

Maybe I'm still just shocked from Iraq. Maybe we would use a more sophisticated approach... But these nuclear proliferation threats reek of pre-Iraq.



Oil? Not so much in Afghanistan. Iraqi production could have been covered by other sources until the UN dust settled. I swear, sometimes I see folks having oil on their minds so much, I think their brains ought to be better lubricated.


Well, we don't go to war to spread democracy. We go to war for interests of the big boys. It just so happens the middle east is laden with the stuff.

I wasn't talking about afghanistan, either - Afghanistan is a lock-out with Pakistan and buying out of Turkmenistan. A good place for a pipeline and also a good source of poppies. I was talking about Iran - where an estimated $4 trillion in oil is bordered just to the north, in the Caspian.



Reconstruction? Why?


No clue. Oh wait, so huge contractors can make a buncha money. Halliburton/KBR? Weren't they sending civilian rebuilders in camo trucks through conflict zones in Iraqi to do reconstruction efforts?





all the world leaders are happy about?


Huh? What are you on about here? "They" will do as they please concerning the internet and free speech. It's up to us to find ways to mitigate the damage they do. If you think "they" really need an excuse to do as they will, you are sorely mistaken.


I'm on the patriot act. They used terrorism, that threat to our independence, that threat that was against everything we stand for, including our constitution, in order to pass a bill that suspends (and has still suspended) the constitution and enabled the gov to spy on any citizen.

The threat that Mr. Powell was surely shaking in his boots from..




"Any outbound, uncovered missile would have to fly through Russian airspace.

I'm sure the recipients of those missiles would be very cross with the Russian government...

...all for want of a pretty little mushroom cloud, just so they could claim they could play with the big kids.


You definitely are saying Iran WILL use a nuke when it gets one. This in itself is fear mongering. Not only that, you now take the role of prophet. Because they don't have a nuke - and they have been compliant with IAEA inspectors. Besides that, you seem to paint the picture that Iran, the islamic gov, is a suicidal entity. That they don't understand what will happen to them should they use a nuke. No matter how much flexing they do -when they get one- they know damn well the US can and will wipe them off the map. I find it so hard to think anyone who runs a developed country is dumb enough to know what happens when they do dumb stuff.

That said, why ring Iran with ABMs? ABMs should be in every country. But sanction and embargo, why? Is it going to stop them from producing nukes? No. Look at North Korea.

Seriously, are you going to say you aint spitting nostradamus when every point of action you place the heat on nuclear weapons being used with certainty, thus the notion of nuclear war, thus a prophecy spelling apocalypse by "chemical weaponry." The history channel has that covered, don't worry.



since we gave an inch, you decided to take a mile, and started shaking sabers at us, instead of increasing the depth of a budding friendship.


I must have missed this part somewhere.

But honestly? We paid the taliban to kick Russia out of Afghanistan back in the mid 90's. The Georgia "invasion" by Russia just recently. And now the media is spinning the picture that Iran has nuclear weapons, and has been spinning the picture that they WILL use them. Seeing how Iran and Russia have a major swap deal on oil, I would say they are doing as western big corp is doing: protecting interests. Will Russia go nuclear? No. Will they be backing Iranian 'insurgents' should we go in? Certainly. Are they, by proxy, funding taliban at this moment? Most likely.

And we are your friends.

And yes, I'm under the impression that the power structure in Iran is not candy and cornflakes to all of it's people. Do we see this anywhere? Which is one of my points. Why fix them, when we're just as broke?

Oh, that's right, because profits for, yes, oil, reconstruction, natural gas; a very strategic grip over the middle east; and the ability to indoctrinate a fairly large slave base into our lifestyle.

All, I might add, to the benefit of a few - the detriment of many.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 06:44 PM
link   
Well, if we're talking about natural resources...

Afghanistan has poppies. And yes, there has been a flood of heroin and opium into the United States since the start of the war. However, the big prize is the oil pipeline that needs to go through Afghanistan. And ironically, there is a huge endeavor being undertaken by Halliburton to make it all possible which is the same endeavor that the Russians attempted back in the 80's.

No matter what, there will always be someone like Ahmedinejad to ruffle feathers. And if we don't have someone like that, we'll invent someone so that a never ending looming factor of psychosis keeps us in our places. It preserves the cycle of fear and misdirection, that way we never know who is pulling the strings.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 06:48 PM
link   
You know, but I always get uneasy when tin-pot dictators, despots, unelected clots and insane cronies start to lecture about the media. In Ahmadinejad’s case, he presides over a press that is slaved and controlled. What a hypocrite, but then there are people who take his opinion as having substance so at least he is not wasting his time.

Regards



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by john124
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 



First of all the majority of the population support the iranian president


Check out the youtube videos of the demonstrations. The majority do not support Ahmadi, he can't even speak at universities without getting jeered.


Then why did he win the election?

Are you gonna say he cheated? Then prove it tough guy!



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by john124
reply to post by Amagnon
 



There is absolutely no evidence of Iran being involved in the creation of nuclear weapons - they have abided by all the requests for inspections, and revealed everything about their nuclear program.


So the IAEA report that is going to be released soon according to the UN doesn't have details of Iran not cooperating with inspectors, not allowing access to particular sites?! That's the UN's own documents for christ sake! In fact the American's have played down this report for now, whilst the French and British have accused the IAEA of withholding information about Iran's nuclear programme. Where's the big bad wolf - the USA right now in all of this?! Or does logic have to escape you every single time!


Jesus Christ man! Are you really super naive or what


America and Israel, but especially the american military-industrial complex and the oil lobby, are absolutely drooling of attacking iran and you can bet russia and china got their fingers on the nuke button just itching to press it.

Just because the west got away with attacking iraq doesn't mean "the east" is gonna let history repeat itself with iran! Wake up



Originally posted by john124
People may be quick to overly criticise Israel over Gaza, but remember both sides there are being criticised by the UN. The IAEA report also criticises and outlines Iran's nuclear programme.

"The urgency of dealing with the Iranian nuclear threat was underscored today when a leaked report revealed that the UN inspection agency believes the Islamic republic has "sufficient information" to make a nuclear weapon and has "probably tested" a key component."

Remember the IAEA's own previous reports stating Iran refusing entry with blanks left out in the report because of that.


The UN is more corrupt than america and europe combined. Personally I don't trust a word they say until its been fully sanitised with a bottle of dettol.


Originally posted by john124
You make it sound like that would actually matter if you agree with the regime that journalists from the French embassies taking photos of the protestors are involved. What about the millions of Iranian's who aren't foreign? I suppose all of those I've met are MOSSAD spies!
Israel must have more spies than it's entire Jewish population!
When logic defies people like you, it's easy to take apart their comments.

[edit on 13-10-2009 by john124]


Shiites support shiites and sunnis support sunnis...its really that simple! If you don't like religious fanatics well then that is YOUR PROBLEM, not mine and certainly not iranians fault either.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 12:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by shanerz

I understand that the ayatollahs and mullahs are a group and I just gave the term broadly to attribute the "real threat"... In any case it lead into my next point, which was our targets will hide in civilian houses, underground complexes in civilian areas, etc.


Yes, they do. All the more reason to avoid indiscriminate bombing, but evidently that's the way the higher ups in the military want it. I've posted many times, in many threads, that I don't believe that's the way to win it. Huge armies and wide fronts are SO 20th century, aren't they? It could be done better with fewer men, as long as they were the right SORT of men.

With that said, as it stands civilian casualties are inevitable as long as the enemy insists on hiding behind the skirts of their women. That automatically shifts the cross hairs, and I for one damn sure won't let the enemy go, just because he proves himself cowardly. Cowards are the most dangerous form of enemy, and can't be allowed to survive, no matter what. They have no honor.



I also understand you didn't give any scenario on what should be done about it... but the tone of the post made me make connections to pre-Iraq. Which is why I said an enemy of humanity might have nukes.


An "enemy of humanity" might be armed with anything. Nukes are not special, they're just more weapons. I understand why a lot of folks are scared stupid of them, because they haven't done their homework on the subject, and just take someone else's word for it. Nukes are not as scary as you've been told. Destructive as hell, yes, but not to the degree you've been told.





Reconstruction? Why?


No clue. Oh wait, so huge contractors can make a buncha money. Halliburton/KBR? Weren't they sending civilian rebuilders in camo trucks through conflict zones in Iraqi to do reconstruction efforts?


They're just capitalizing on a curious habit the US has developed over time, rebuilding the opponent's infrastructure. Never has made sense to me.

Ever read "The Mouse That Roared"? It's funny as can be, and pretty much sums up my take on things, but you might not like it so much. It was written pre-Haliburton, and might not necessarily support your pet theories.



I'm on the patriot act. They used terrorism, that threat to our independence, that threat that was against everything we stand for, including our constitution, in order to pass a bill that suspends (and has still suspended) the constitution and enabled the gov to spy on any citizen.

The threat that Mr. Powell was surely shaking in his boots from..



Yeah, that was their EXCUSE, but it didn't really get much popular support. They did it anyhow, since dictators will be dictators. And WILL CONTINUE to be dictators until something is done about it.

But the patriot act really isn't the subject here, is it?





"Any outbound, uncovered missile would have to fly through Russian airspace.

I'm sure the recipients of those missiles would be very cross with the Russian government...

...all for want of a pretty little mushroom cloud, just so they could claim they could play with the big kids.


You definitely are saying Iran WILL use a nuke when it gets one. This in itself is fear mongering. Not only that, you now take the role of prophet. Because they don't have a nuke - and they have been compliant with IAEA inspectors. Besides that, you seem to paint the picture that Iran, the islamic gov, is a suicidal entity. That they don't understand what will happen to them should they use a nuke. No matter how much flexing they do -when they get one- they know damn well the US can and will wipe them off the map. I find it so hard to think anyone who runs a developed country is dumb enough to know what happens when they do dumb stuff.


Nope. A bit of basic english may be in order here. "would" is not "will". It's a "so what if..." comment, for scared folks. So what if they did? The ABM shield would take care of all but the ones flying over Russia, which Russia could look after if they were so inclined.

In other words, I didn't say "OH HELL, WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!" , I said "So what if they did launch? Knock the birds out of the air, then go after the folks that were dumb enough to launch 'em". The key word there is "if", it's not "when". Negates their whole nuke program. They then spend a lot of money for nothing.

I call 'em like I see 'em. If that's "fear mongering" to you, then by all means be afraid. I don't rightly care, as it ain't gonna scare ME all that much.

Also, if you feel that I've become a "prophet", I can provide an address for you to send donations to... just sayin'...

I submit that you give every appearance of not understanding the Islamic Government of Iran's mindset. No, they're not suicidal. Neither are they completely sane, as most psychologists would define sanity.

It's not that they "will" use a nuke when they get it, it's that they aren't entirely stable, and don't give any appearances of understanding that there are those around who will call the bluff, just to see if you'll put up or shut up.

Which do YOU think they'd do?



That said, why ring Iran with ABMs? ABMs should be in every country. But sanction and embargo, why? Is it going to stop them from producing nukes? No. Look at North Korea.


Why go to the expense of putting ABM's everywhere, when you can contain the threat with fewer units? Cost efficiency, you know?

Sanction and embargo to get their attention, and hold it for as long as necessary. I didn't say it would keep them from developing nukes, I've been pretty clear that I don't give a damn if they DO.



Seriously, are you going to say you aint spitting nostradamus when every point of action you place the heat on nuclear weapons being used with certainty, thus the notion of nuclear war, thus a prophecy spelling apocalypse by "chemical weaponry." The history channel has that covered, don't worry.


Well, if I GOTTA come right out and say it, and you ain't took the hint yet, then yes, I'll say that I ain't "spitting nostradamus". I never even mentioned him, neither has he been on my mind. Would you be so kind as to point out anywhere that he says Iran is going to get nukes, and may initiate a world war? I haven't read that part of Nostradamus.

No such thing as a nuclear apocalypse. They're dangerous, but not nearly THAT dangerous. A hand grenade is just as dangerous, if you happen to be sitting on it. A nuke is just as innocuous, if you happen to be away from it. Basic physics, some nuclear physics. Do your own homework, then you don't have to take my word for it. My word is suspect anyhow, isn't it?

I will give you a couple of thing to look for in your research, though. Research the relative numbers of different size nukes, don't fall for the "100,000 nukes" and "will kill all life 8 times over" load of BS. Also, remember the key phrase "destructive radius varies as the cube root of the yield". That will explain to you why there aren't any really big nukes, and why the vast majority are extremely low yield. More bang per buck.

Oh, just because the military teaches NBC defense (nuclear, biological, chemical) as a unit, doesn't mean they're the same thing. a nuclear apocalypse would be quite different from a chemical apocalypse.





since we gave an inch, you decided to take a mile, and started shaking sabers at us, instead of increasing the depth of a budding friendship.


I must have missed this part somewhere.


That was in the ficticious, but wishfully thinking, "O's letter to Dear Mr Putin".
You haven't heard about the Russian warnings to the US? They call that "saber rattling".



But honestly? We paid the taliban to kick Russia out of Afghanistan back in the mid 90's.


Honestly, and for the umpteenth time, NO WE DIDN'T. Russia fought in Afghanistan from Dec 1979 to 1989, and weren't there in the mid 90's to be kicked out. Neither the Taliban nor al-Qaeda even existed during that conflict.



The Georgia "invasion" by Russia just recently.


Those two "breakaway" states of Georgia should go to Russia. I have no doubt in my mind. It's the will of their people, is it not? I'm all for self-determination. Under NO circumstances should Georgia be admitted to NATO. Have you seen a map? How far is Georgia from Brussels? 'Nuff said.



Will Russia go nuclear? No. Will they be backing Iranian 'insurgents' should we go in? Certainly. Are they, by proxy, funding taliban at this moment? Most likely.


Turnabout is fair play. Another reason NOT to trust Russia, though.



And yes, I'm under the impression that the power structure in Iran is not candy and cornflakes to all of it's people. Do we see this anywhere? Which is one of my points. Why fix them, when we're just as broke?


That pesky "survival of humanity" problem. No, I'm NOT referring to any nukes. Nukes are trivial, in the grand scheme of things.



Oh, that's right, because profits for, yes, oil, reconstruction, natural gas; a very strategic grip over the middle east; and the ability to indoctrinate a fairly large slave base into our lifestyle.


Get rid of that "Mouse that Roared" mindset, and reconstruction profits just vanish. If they don't want to sell their oil, let them keep it. They can whine later about having to eat oil for lack of money to buy food.

Slave base? Indoctrinate? Lifestyle? I care nary a whit what lifestyle they want at home. They can have what they want there. My problems commence when they start exporting it beyond their borders, by force.

Damn right, that's gonna get met with force every time.

[edit on 2009/10/18 by nenothtu]



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 02:34 AM
link   
This should make a new thread but I can't find another link apart from the TV on CNN, "Senior Iranian Revolutionary Gurad assasinated, dozens killed."



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 03:22 AM
link   



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu
With that said, as it stands civilian casualties are inevitable as long as the enemy insists on hiding behind the skirts of their women. That automatically shifts the cross hairs, and I for one damn sure won't let the enemy go, just because he proves himself cowardly. Cowards are the most dangerous form of enemy, and can't be allowed to survive, no matter what. They have no honor.


Does that include US Congress, cia/nsa, EU and the UN?

These people epitomise the word COWARD with every action they take or don't take. They work for the NWO, not the people! And might I add who are YOU working for?


Originally posted by nenothtu
An "enemy of humanity" might be armed with anything. Nukes are not special, they're just more weapons. I understand why a lot of folks are scared stupid of them, because they haven't done their homework on the subject, and just take someone else's word for it. Nukes are not as scary as you've been told. Destructive as hell, yes, but not to the degree you've been told.


Right! Would you care to explain exactly how dangerous nukes are/can be? All I know is we dropped two atomic bombs on japan and that was all it took for them to sign an unconditional surender. Just imagine what hydrogen bombs are capable of...and when you consider the fact that all major super-powers have hundreds and/or even thousands the big picture becomes crystal clear.



Originally posted by nenothtu
They're just capitalizing on a curious habit the US has developed over time, rebuilding the opponent's infrastructure. Never has made sense to me.


It makes perfect sense to me! You need to take off your blinders because they are blocking your view. Whats the point of going to "war"(actually bombing people into submission) if you have nothing to gain as a result?



Originally posted by nenothtu
But the patriot act really isn't the subject here, is it?


The patriot act and homeland security is a bigger threat to the american people than iran/russia/china will ever be. The EU is a threat to europe and the UN is a direct threat to the entire globe.

These are the real enemies!!!



Originally posted by nenothtu
I submit that you give every appearance of not understanding the Islamic Government of Iran's mindset. No, they're not suicidal. Neither are they completely sane, as most psychologists would define sanity.

It's not that they "will" use a nuke when they get it, it's that they aren't entirely stable, and don't give any appearances of understanding that there are those around who will call the bluff, just to see if you'll put up or shut up.

Which do YOU think they'd do?


If you harass a snake long enough it will eventually bite you. Just leave it alone and it will leave you alone as well. Why play with danger? It seems some people are just begging to get their ass kicked...not smart!



Originally posted by nenothtu
Honestly, and for the umpteenth time, NO WE DIDN'T. Russia fought in Afghanistan from Dec 1979 to 1989, and weren't there in the mid 90's to be kicked out. Neither the Taliban nor al-Qaeda even existed during that conflict.


The cia directly aided the taliban with surface to air missles and other smart weaponry to get rid of the russians. Of course it was a covert operation but has since been declassified. They even made a documentary explaining everything!



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
And might I add who are YOU working for?


That's on a need-to-know basis. Demonstrate your need to know, and I might tell you.



Right! Would you care to explain exactly how dangerous nukes are/can be?


Start the thread, send me a link. I'll be there.



Just imagine what hydrogen bombs are capable of...and when you consider the fact that all major super-powers have hundreds and/or even thousands the big picture becomes crystal clear.


I don't need to "imagine". I've done my homework on the subject, and am quite clear on it. As far as the "hundreds and/or thousands" goes, like I said above, start your thread, and I'll be there. No use spewing out useless, scary, BS here. You can't spook folks that know better with it. That bit is just to scare the masses into your way of thinking.

Not gonna work on me.




Originally posted by nenothtu
They're just capitalizing on a curious habit the US has developed over time, rebuilding the opponent's infrastructure. Never has made sense to me.


It makes perfect sense to me! You need to take off your blinders because they are blocking your view. Whats the point of going to "war"(actually bombing people into submission) if you have nothing to gain as a result?


MY blinders? looks like yours have you blocked from seeing anything but dollar signs. If all your willing to fight for is money, you are a truly shallow individual indeed.




The patriot act and homeland security is a bigger threat to the american people than iran/russia/china will ever be. The EU is a threat to europe and the UN is a direct threat to the entire globe.

These are the real enemies!!!


SOME of the real enemies, I agree. Not all of them by any means, and again, not the subject of this thread.




Originally posted by nenothtu
I submit that you give every appearance of not understanding the Islamic Government of Iran's mindset. No, they're not suicidal. Neither are they completely sane, as most psychologists would define sanity.

It's not that they "will" use a nuke when they get it, it's that they aren't entirely stable, and don't give any appearances of understanding that there are those around who will call the bluff, just to see if you'll put up or shut up.

Which do YOU think they'd do?


If you harass a snake long enough it will eventually bite you. Just leave it alone and it will leave you alone as well. Why play with danger? It seems some people are just begging to get their ass kicked...not smart!


Snakes are pretty mindless, and don't think too far ahead. Are you implying that Iranians are mindless, and unable to think ahead or strategize? Or are you implying they are snakes? Where I come from, snakes don't last too long, especially the dangerous ones. They're not generally afforded the chance to bite anyone in the first place.




Originally posted by nenothtu
Honestly, and for the umpteenth time, NO WE DIDN'T. Russia fought in Afghanistan from Dec 1979 to 1989, and weren't there in the mid 90's to be kicked out. Neither the Taliban nor al-Qaeda even existed during that conflict.


The cia directly aided the taliban with surface to air missles and other smart weaponry to get rid of the russians. Of course it was a covert operation but has since been declassified. They even made a documentary explaining everything!


That's not just a lie, it's a DAMN lie, that you seem to be willfully perpetuating. For the gozillionth time, both the Russians AND the CIA were long gone from Afghanistan before either the Taliban or Al-Qaeda even existed. I have posted links already concerning that time line.

Refute me. Go ahead, do it. Don't post nebulous claims of "some documentary". Show me the money.

[edit on 2009/10/18 by nenothtu]



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 06:30 PM
link   
This thread, and all others regarding Israel/Palestine, is direct evidence in support of the OP.

Supporters of Israel, traditional military ally to the US, can't seem to understand why so many people are speaking out against Israel.

Well, it is because you are too brainwashed to register what the words "war crimes" mean.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
This thread, and all others regarding Israel/Palestine, is direct evidence in support of the OP.


This thread regards Amidenjad's view of the press, not "Israel/Palestine". Perhaps you took a wrong turn on the information superhighway, maybe zigged when you should have zagged. I don't know how to get a map to you so you can figure out where you are.



Supporters of Israel, traditional military ally to the US, can't seem to understand why so many people are speaking out against Israel.

Well, it is because you are too brainwashed to register what the words "war crimes" mean.



Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention defines war crimes as: "Wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including... wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a protected person, compelling a protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile power, or wilfully depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial, ...taking of hostages and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly."

This, international lawyers say, is the basic definition of war crimes.


source

That's what "war crimes" means, not some emotional tripe drummed up by pop news. What part of that is difficult to understand?



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by bsbray11
This thread, and all others regarding Israel/Palestine, is direct evidence in support of the OP.


This thread regards Amidenjad's view of the press, not "Israel/Palestine".


Haha, you must only be able to see 3 feet in front of your face!

What has the press regarding Israel/Palestine/Iran been lately? Oh yeah, "Iran is evil," "Iran is making nuclear bombs," "Israel is threatening to invade Iran if they don't stop making bombs," ....




Perhaps you took a wrong turn on the information superhighway


No, I just turned off Fox "news," my friend.



That's what "war crimes" means, not some emotional tripe drummed up by pop news. What part of that is difficult to understand?


The part where you completely ignore the atrocities, ie war crimes, committed by Israel. That is what is extremely difficult for me to understand.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 07:11 PM
link   
OK, after I got through the weak insults (I don't insult so easily - you have to try harder), I got to this:


Originally posted by bsbray11


That's what "war crimes" means, not some emotional tripe drummed up by pop news. What part of that is difficult to understand?


The part where you completely ignore the atrocities, ie war crimes, committed by Israel. That is what is extremely difficult for me to understand.


... which got my attention. I'm all ears, you have my full focus. Present you case. I'll need specific instances where Israel violated the provisions of Article 147, 4th Geneva Convention.

If you can do that, we can probably have the case presented at the Hague by the end of March.

If you can't, it's all a bunch of emotional tripe, as I stated before.



[edit on 2009/10/18 by nenothtu]



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
And might I add who are YOU working for?


The cia directly aided the taliban with surface to air missles and other smart weaponry to get rid of the russians. Of course it was a covert operation but has since been declassified. They even made a documentary explaining everything!


That's not just a lie, it's a DAMN lie, that you seem to be willfully perpetuating. For the gozillionth time, both the Russians AND the CIA were long gone from Afghanistan before either the Taliban or Al-Qaeda even existed. I have posted links already concerning that time line.


[edit on 2009/10/18 by nenothtu]

Nenothtu is correct about this statement. The C.I.A. were funding the mujahideen during the 80's. There were fragments and elements of leadership of these sects that continue to exist that later became what is known as the Taliban or Al Qaeda.

So, he's correct.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 11:41 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Here is a video with Israel's breaches of various UN resolutions:




Here's the recent Goldstone report: www2.ohchr.org...


I should probably add that I don't care if they committed war crimes by the technical definition agreed upon by the UN. Killing innocent people, except by the most complete accident, is a crime to me. If I were killed, and it was brushed aside as "collateral damage," I would not feel as though any justice had been served. I don't really even care what the UN has to say about anything. But what Israel is doing is criminal.


Look at this video of the aftermath of an Israeli bombing and tell me no crime is being committed, as you look at all the dead bodies of innocent people on the ground.




Or this video:




One lady in the video sums up this entire situation perfectly. 5 of her children were killed one night by a bomb that struck their house. She called for martyrdom because, she said, "We are all going to die tonight." Can you imagine the mental state of a woman who has just lost 5 of her children from a single bomb landing on her house?


Another video:






Show me this kind of stuff happening in Israel.

PLEASE.



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 01:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11


Here is a video with Israel's breaches of various UN resolutions:



Here's the recent Goldstone report: www2.ohchr.org...


These deal with UN resolutions. Since when did the UN become a lawmaking body? They MUST be making law, since you allege crimes have been committed, and for that to happen, a law must be broken. No law broken, no crime committed. Pretty simple concept.



I should probably add that I don't care if they committed war crimes by the technical definition agreed upon by the UN. Killing innocent people, except by the most complete accident, is a crime to me.


Thank you for that eloquent illustration, and admission, of what I meant by "emotional tripe".

1) The UN is not a lawmaking body.

2) You don't care for the rule of law anyhow, we must all abide by YOUR laws, as YOU define them, rather than courts.

3) Killing innocent people on purpose is already a crime nearly anywhere. No prosecutions have yet been brought forth on those charges, so I must surmise that no law has been broken. No crime has been committed, "war crime" or otherwise.

A crime has three elements: a) Opportunity, which includes ability, b) motive, and c) intent. You have failed to prove both intent and motive.



Look at this video of the aftermath of an Israeli bombing and tell me no crime is being committed, as you look at all the dead bodies of innocent people on the ground.


OK, no crime is being committed. I see a lot of folks in Palestinian uniforms loading up bodies in Palestinian uniforms. Taking care of your dead is not a crime. The actions producing those bodies may or may not have been a crime. There is no evidence either way in those videos.

I saw no evidence of it in your Al-Jazeera videos, but I believe war crimes WERE committed in Gaza, which have not yet been, and probably never will be, prosecuted. The war crimes I speak of were committed by the Palestinian forces. It is against the Law of Land Warfare to attack an enemy force, and then run and hide among civilians, in effect using them as human shields, and putting them in harms way, just to escape the consequences of your attack.

You act as if you've never seen a dead body. I've seen enough to last a lifetime. I've stacked 'em up like cord wood. It's not easy to pick up the parts of what used to be someone's child, and drop 'em in a bag. It will rip your heart right out, and you'll get the feeling that blood will never come off of your hands, not even if you scrub the skin off, even though you aren't the one that killed 'em. It will produce a lust for vengeance in one that there is NO WAY that you can comprehend unless you've lived it. You will puke, you will cry, and you will want to eat the liver of the "warrior" that did that, if he did it on purpose.

I understand how you FEEL, X100, so don't think I'm belittling you. The problem is that law doesn't run on emotion, neither do we as individuals get to assign which acts are legal, and which are not. There is a body of law already in place for that, and you have yet to show it has been violated per your allegations.



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 01:48 AM
link   
Iran is a great danger to Israel. I pray these United States wipes Iran from the face of the map.

Israel is a peace loving nation of peace loving people driven to do horrible things to survive.

We are barely holding on and these Iranian brutes want our peace loving blood.

Judaism is a religion of peace - why wont the Muslims leave us alone?



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 02:01 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


You say all I have is emotional tripe, but you must be emotionally callous to have watched any of the videos I posted and still think nothing wrong is going on.

Then again, I don't think you watched them. Did you?




top topics



 
80
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join