President of Iran Ahmadinejad brakes larry king on everything nuke isreal and us 2010, page 4

Originally posted by peck420
reply to post by centurion1211

---

And there in lies the problem.

God forbid they ACTUALLY listen to the speeches, or even better, read the OFFICIAL UN transcripts.

Maybe if Joe Average got off his ass and started caring the US government wouldn't have such an easy time creating fictious grounds for engagement.

No, the problem is the message pajamaman puts out and the way he does it that immediately turns people off.

If the message and the delivery are good, people will pay attention and even buy it - even if it really pure BS.

Obama is the proof of that.

reply to post by centurion1211

---

Lol, touche.

Second line.

Originally posted by DaMod

Originally posted by AndrewJay
He brings up alot of issues that both the mainstream media and the us government flat out refuse to discuss. He is right that in the g20 people were beaten and imprisoned for simply gathering and protesting. Why does the united states defend israel? Because of the holocost?? How many iraqis have been killed again? Why is it ok for the united states to occupy other countries?

These are all questions that shouldve been answered by a reporter with the experience and knowledge that larry king has and it just seems like he dodged every question and instead tried to shift to "iran is bad bla bla bla".

Link to his full speech at the un that wasnt cut off by almost every news channel reporting it:
www.youtube.com...

Watch The US and Israel walk out together.

Unreal. S&F.

edit on 27-9-2010 by AndrewJay because: (no reason given)

I quoted because this was a few pages back.

I saw no where in that speech where Mahmoud directly stated he believed that the 9/11 attacks where orchestrated by the American government. He said it was a viewpoint and he would be correct in stating that. Many Americans even believe it was orchestrated by the US Govt. Why then did they walk out? I could understand if he made direct accusations but he didn't. He said it was simply a "viewpoint".

Did I miss something?

Yes, logical thinking perhaps.

A totally hypothetical thought exercise for you (and those giving you stars for your post).

If someone that says they have nothing against you and even wants to be your friend posts on ATS that they heard that you committed a crime. Would they be correct in stating that it was a viewpoint, so they were OK to say it? What if they came to a meeting or family gathering at your house and said it? Still OK with it? Would you quit reading/listening (walk out, throw them out) at that point? Would you wonder why your family and friends now want nothing to do with that person?

No. Logical, normal people would never do something like that and would want nothing to do with someone who did act like that.

Now try changing the names and places and see if you are still missing something ...

reply to post by oozyism

---

Did I say they wanted to nuke Israel, but if they did; having a nuclear weapon would leave the option open. If anything, it would leave their neighbors like the Saudis, Jordanians, and the smaller Middle Eastern states at an unfair disadvantage. To bolster their position in response, we could have a proliferated Middle East? Furthermore, it would give Iran more clout to dictate terms to other Middle Eastern countries on regional issues.

As unstable as the Middle East is and has always been, where tempers and hatred often flare into violence; is it in the best interests of the world for a nation like Iran to have nuclear weapons? Personally, I don't think so, but you are entitled to your opinion if you do. If you do? Care to elaborate on why? If the head religious authority as you put it says nuclear weapons are "HARAM," which would imply that possessing nukes is strictly prohibited by Muslims; then why are all the secrecy by their government?

Maybe the Iranians are baking the best chocolate chip cookies in the Middle East, and don't want the Israelis, US, or Western Europe getting their grubby hands on it? Or just maybe, they are working on something else far more serious than a bout of cavities and a dentist's visit from cookies? We shall see if all this nuclear activity is for peaceful purposes or something else? If it is nothing more than supplying efficient power to their cities and citizens, then why all the innuendo and smoking mirrors? Thanks for the reply!

reply to post by Blaine91555

---

well i would venture that he ones who got up and walked out are one heck of alot of Zionists who would gladly walk out in protest as they niether the patience or the time to listen to anything that does not suit their own political agenda...so i would say people are not fooled at all...people are waking up and realizing the difference...not eveyone would necessarily agree with what ahmajimedad had to say just as many would not agree with everything the US says or Israel says...or many other says....but to get up and walk out in protest is just plain non diplomatic.
Here is a list of UN resolutions that Israel has not complied. As far as I know they have ignored every single resolution. But the situation is far worse than would at first appear, it involves the serious distortion of the official Security Council record by the profligate use by the United States of its veto power

not a very good record...so i see some bias here do you not.

lets look at a simple definition of diplomat
diplomatic [ˌdɪpləˈmætɪk]
adj
1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) of or relating to diplomacy or diplomats
2. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) skilled in negotiating, esp between states or people
3. tactful in dealing with people
4. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) (Library Science & Bibliography) of or relating to diplomatics

hmmmm does getting up and walking out sound at all diplomatic even when one does not agree with what is being stated.

I am glad to see people waking up and not believing the MSM...cause they sway public opinion only one way...all you have to do is GOOGLE IT....the media is run and controlled by the Zionist Elite, I wont bother to post it here as most people know this.

There is hope for mankind yet....................wooooohoooooo as we question everything

reply to post by Jakes51

---

I will post what I posted before again:

Here is a simple question Mrs. Jake:

"What would Iran gain from a Nuclear Weapon?"

I'm having this tingly feeling that you believe Iran wants to acquire a nuclear weapon, to nuke Israel lol..

Is that what you believe in?

If not, why else would Iran want a nuke? What did NK gain from acquiring a nuke?

As Ahmadinejad himself said very clearly, that the age of nuke is over, that it is the one of the most ugliest weapons ever invented. That it has no place in the 21st century, and those stockpile them, do it only to bully nations in to submission through terror of being nuked.

And Ayatollah said it is "Haram".

So your logic says Iran wants nukes lol

Once again, what did NK gain from Nukes?

Iran doesn't need nukes to influence the region, evidence suggests it already influences the region, that is what the US fears, hence the US is using every means necessary to stop Iranian influence, even illegal sanctions, and cyber war + terrorist groups.

The above being said, why would Iran nukes to influence the region? The public opinion in Arabs states show that Iran already has enough support.

Now, care to comment on Ayatollah's decree, that WMDs are Haram? And Ahmadinejad who said the age of nukes are over, finished, and only sick bullyism ideological driven nations such as US still use them to intimidate and control foreign nations. That is why the world hates US, while the US is trying to make the world hate Iran.

I think one Nation that needs to be held to account on the number and types of it's Nuclear Arsenal should be israel would you not think....the biggest threat to the world i would think is Israel.

By the late 1990s the U.S. Intelligence Community estimated that Israel possessed between 75-130 weapons, based on production estimates. The stockpile would certainly include warheads for mobile Jericho-1 and Jericho-2 missiles, as well as bombs for Israeli aircraft, and may include other tactical nuclear weapons of various types. Some published estimates even claimed that Israel might have as many as 400 nuclear weapons by the late 1990s. We believe these numbers are exaggerated, and that Israel's nuclear weapons inventory may include less than 100 nuclear weapons. Stockpiled plutonium could be used to build additional weapons if so decided.

source

I dont know if this is the case but if it is...then why would Iran be the threat.
I am sure that i will get shouted down for it...but hey...

The Mossad's planting and detonation of a micro nuke in Bali on October 12, 2002, killing 202 and injuring 209, provided yet another opportunity for them to practise their skills. Two small bombs were exploded at the same time, in order to cultivate the myth of the deadly professional "al Qaeda Muslim terrorists" whose trademark was synchronised attacks of great ferocity. The highly lethal micro nuke was targeted at the Sari Club, frequented by Australians, of whom some 89 were killed. There were no Israeli victims.

source

so personally if Iran was to become nuclear capable I think it just might be a stabalizing factor in the region.

Also like an earliar posts said...why would Larry King (zionist) keep going on Iran Iran Iran throughout the Interviews...another MSM method of preparing the public(which backfired...oooops).

Is Ahmajinedad a evil,egocentric,dictator who has human rights issues...heck name one leader that isn't.

ok besides Ghandi,Nelson Mandala.....
but you get the point

Originally posted by knowneedtoknow
reply to post by ugie1028

---

Yep this is media total control they had like 4 commercials in 5 minutes

I believe it is called concision




Chomsky on concision:
" The beauty of concision , saying a couple of things between two commercials... is that you can only repeat conventional thoughts "

I think this is why Obama won't debate MockMood again.

reply to post by knowneedtoknow

---

Apparently Larry King has no sense of diplomacy, nor does he (along with the rest of the lackeys in the MSN) show any ability to operate outside what is on an interview script...............Now we'll just cut to a break, we'll be right back.

A Really Sad Picture That I Saw Today, Left Me Speechless
  Posted 12 days ago with 148 member flags

Fact Check: First Lady\'s False Fairy Tale of Struggle
  Posted 6 days ago with 81 member flags

Mitt Romney Accidentally Confronts A Gay Veteran; Awesomeness Ensues
  Posted 6 days ago with 72 member flags

Coal miners say they were forced to attend Romney event and donate
  Posted 14 days ago with 71 member flags

Stephen King\'s Message
  Posted 10 days ago with 71 member flags

The United States has collapsed economically, socially, politically, legally, constitutionally, and
  Posted 15 days ago with 44 member flags

A Perfect Example Of How America Is Turning Into A Police State? Look At Tampa Bay
  Posted 18 days ago with 41 member flags

Paul Ryan Exposes Elite Agenda, "Shut Up" Says Banker
  Posted 10 days ago with 40 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: