It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


'Alarming' secret document details Iran's nuclear goals

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 04:15 PM

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by Technophonium
i don't understand why Iran is not allowed to have nuclear weapons? i mean who instituted a law that governed who can and who can't have nuclear weapons or nuclear missiles or anything to that extent. I mean if say Canada was to start develop nuclear weapons with the intent of using one if need be, who anyone question? no because the Canadian government has very strong allies while Iran has very weak allies.

Sadly, an example of the utmost naivety. After iran, then who gets them next - until one goes off in a city near you? Countries should be wanting them less and less, not more and more just because someone else has them.

I wonder why they stopped going and focusing on North Korea and their Nuclear program when they have successfully detonated some. Some things just don't add up to this sort of ordeal

Answer: Lack of cojones. Especially since north korea continues to demonstrate that they want to export weapons. Why not nukes, too? Which brings us back to why iran shouldn't have them - the exporting of them after they get them.

Actually after the US illegally invaded two nations and has summarily slaughtered a-lot of people.. I would think nations who feel threatened would be more eager to obtain a nuke in order to keep the empire away.

More violence, puppet govts and occupations isn't a motivation for less and less weapons.

I hope iran develops a fat nuke to defend themselves and their people from suffering the same fate as iraqis & afghanis.. iran has been subjected to life under a US despot puppet once already.. it's about time we leave them alone.

Besides all that, the US has manufactured WMD lies to dupe 'the world' into supporting violence & aggression.. bushbama have no credibility when it comes to peace or lecturing other nations how to behave.

And hey, if you are really scared of a nuke going off near you.. that's the price of being at war, sometimes the attacker gets attacked. Our govt can't go on killing, torturing, kidnapping, invading, occupying, puppeting.. basically exporting death & misery, then expect WE won't get hit as payback at some point.

War is hell.

posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 04:15 PM
Well, at least they are consistent

What gets me is that people generally will accept this hook, line, and sinker, shrug (by default giving their respective governments the thumbs up to do whatever), then go back to watching the next instalment of 'America's Next Top Model' ... or 'Celebrity Come Dancing'

They must be running out of ideas, or it's all become so easy they can't be bothered to come up with new, inventive ways to influence the general public.

If it wasn't going to end up in killing, death and mayhem for many people it would be almost comical

posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 06:36 PM

Originally posted by December_Rain
reply to post by centurion1211

Read the whole post not just the first point, also read the point d) . Also there is no proof yet...the document is not verified by any non-biased source.

I did read that, but ignored it since the "Where's the proof?" argument is often used by apologists and appeasers, since they know it will not be forthcoming. The reason for that is often very simple - they don't want to blow the covers of the people that obtained the information. But I guess apologists and appeasers wouldn't care if that happened either.

posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 07:03 PM
The First Casualty Of War

reply to post by centurion1211

Another reason is just as likely: because proof doesn't exist.

The problem with unsourced claims like these is that there is no accountability for their truth or falsehood.

"Sources" can say anything they want to. Just because the report of an anonymous source confirms one's prejudices doesn't make it true.

The only reason to publicize a claim like this is to vilify Iran. Is it too much to ask that something of such potentially grave import be backed up by verifiable facts?

Since when does a commitment to truth constitute "appeasement"?

posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 08:27 PM
Most people don't care if the proof exists or not. You can't sway the opinions of warmongering bigots and destructive sociopaths.

You can call an asshole an asshole, but he'll just take it in stride and assume he's 'tougher' and 'more responsible' than you.

posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 08:41 PM
Quick, everybody look surprised!

"Report: Iran now has 6000 centrifuges. ........ and that was just the refinement plants known THEN in 2008. Remember earlier this year? Anybody?

(r) According to the IAEA, Iran is operating an 18 cascade unit (A24) of 2,952 machines and six cascades (984 machines) in a second unit (A26); a further twelve cascades (1,968 machines) at unit A26 and seventeen cascades (2,788 machines) at unit A28 have been installed. The installation of another cascade (164 machines) at unit A28 is ongoing (

IAEA officials confirm they are investigating the document, but said they have not formally asked Iran for more information about it.

Stern letter to follow.

edit to add: I love the header on the IAEA's 16 NOV 09 Report by the General Director:

"IAEA - Atoms for peace ". Delicious.

[edit on 14/12/09 by argentus]

new topics

top topics
<< 1   >>

log in