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 offers nuclear technology to friendly African nations

page: 11
30
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 10:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Chargeit
 


Thanks! I am an idealist!




posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 10:57 PM
link   
reply to post by superman2012
 


He always have to get the last word! *quote's Leslie Nielsen



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 10:58 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by superman2012
 


I'm going to be the bigger man and drop out. I don't personally feel the need to get the last word in but since i'm logging. I'll assume you've got nothing more to say. Nite



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 11:11 PM
link   


It's "saw it" not "seen it". But who is paying attention to grammar, BillyBo? What would you like me to respond to, professor?


Haha,i havnt slept yet,cut me some slack.

Lol,BillyBo.

My first post was a reply to your post i quoted,we could talk about that if you want,it was legit.



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 11:16 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


In this case, I have to agree with your sentiments even though I disagree with the whole affair in total. They seem to want to end it all with there own demise and it seems that the western world wants to oblige like the good idiots they are. Everybody is cracked in the head over this. Just plain idiotic.



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
How come POTUS isn't pushing Iran to have solar panels and wind turbines???? Isn't that the new green energy ?


Most likely because it would sound very silly to justify an invasion for the production/development of solar powered helicopter weapons.



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flint2011
reply to post by seabag
 


In this case, I have to agree with your sentiments even though I disagree with the whole affair in total. They seem to want to end it all with there own demise and it seems that the western world wants to oblige like the good idiots they are. Everybody is cracked in the head over this. Just plain idiotic.


I don't know if they want to end it all with their own demise or just prove to the world that the US is a war mongering empire in its death throes.



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 11:26 PM
link   
This is more scary than Iran having a nuke. Can you imagine nuclear materials in the hands of these insane, uneducated African dictators? Although, they'd probably accidentally kill themselves with it before they could use it for anything else.



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
This is more scary than Iran having a nuke. Can you imagine nuclear materials in the hands of these insane, uneducated African dictators? Although, they'd probably accidentally kill themselves with it before they could use it for anything else.


If they were given it, I doubt they would have the means to weaponize it. If they did, it would mean that someone taught them how. I think the only reason why Iran would do this is to piss off the US/Israel, or, to start expanding and taking uranium/precious metals in exchange.



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 11:58 PM
link   
Good for Iran! If America can have nukes, then Iran can too. BTW, which country in the history of humans is the only one that has nuked innocent civilians, not once but mutliple times? HELLO USA! Don't attack a military post, attack civilians, way to go a-holes!



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 11:58 PM
link   
Cool, thats all we need are Somali Pirates with nukes. Instead of hijacking ships and ransoming people, they can hijack entire countries and hijack them for money.



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 12:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by InsideYourMind
reply to post by neo96
 


And america "is" an angel? I couldn't help but laugh.

Almost anywhere in the world where a country's citizens rise up and question the system, they get pelted with US made tear-gas, US made bullets, US made riot shields, US made sound cannons, US made water cannons.

But it's ok if those deaths are at the hands of the US because the US is an angel?


So if you sell someone a bat, and they then choose to take that bat and beat someone to death with it, you would then consider that your fault?

lol...



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 12:42 AM
link   
Sweet thread, im glad this was brought to my attention.

I dont know but I dont think this will pose much threat to the more powerful nations of the world but could make things pretty damn ugly, most likley be used against other Africans nations in my opinion. What a disaster, nuclear energy is one of mans biggest mistakes...... no good comes from it, how sad



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 12:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kram09
reply to post by neo96
 


Ah so you're saying that you think if Iran acquires nuclear weapons it will provide them to Hamas etc?


Why not? They provide top of the line weapons to hammas and other terrorists, why would iran even blink at the prospect of supplying nukes to Hammas or any other terrorist group?

To all those that keep saying iran has never invaded anyone, have you looked at Lebanon? Everytime Lebanon tries to have peace with Isreal there government is assassinated by Iran. Look at the murder/ assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri by the Iranians. They can claim there hands are clean because they use thrid parties to do there dirty work.



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 01:12 AM
link   
reply to post by superman2012
 



Your quoting press TV as an impartial source? The IAEA report is actually located here www.iaea.org...

In section C2 they clearly state that Iran has been modifying enrichment facilities to get 20% rates at all of them. They are making way more 20% U-235 than the medical reactor can ever use. Secondly in section C3 they say that Iran has 10second stage enrichment facilities that they move the 20% U-235 to for further processing and that they keep promising to show the IAEA but keep stalling and refusing to show them.

In Section D they mention that Iran isn't doing any reprocessing (ie making those rods go beyond 20% purity) at any facility that they have access to. SO since section C3 clearly shows Iran has 10 facilities where they do this work and none ave been inspected by the IAEA it stands to reason that there is no way to guarantee that they are not.

In section E it states that Iran has built a HEAVY WATER reactor even though they agreed not too and satellite imagery shows it in operation and Iran keeps saying what facility, oh that facility we'll look into that and get back to you.

The appendix is very long and goes into all the details of why the IAEA believes Iran IS developing nuclear weapons. Item 30 of the appendix is very interesting



30. In addition, although now declared and currently under safeguards, a number of facilities dedicated to uranium enrichment (the Fuel Enrichment Plant and Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant at Natanz and the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant near Qom) were covertly built by Iran and only declared once the Agency was made aware of their existence by sources other than Iran. This, taken together with the past efforts by Iran to conceal activities involving nuclear material, create more concern about the possible existence of undeclared nuclear facilities and material in Iran.


The report goes on to detail how iran isn't just working on enriched fuel but also developing the other components needed to make a nuclear implosion weapon (as it is referred to in the report).

Before believing a youtube video please read the actual report to see what it really says.



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 01:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by AnswerSeeker2012
Good for Iran! If America can have nukes, then Iran can too. BTW, which country in the history of humans is the only one that has nuked innocent civilians, not once but mutliple times? HELLO USA! Don't attack a military post, attack civilians, way to go a-holes!



Here is the reason the sites in Japan where chosen.


The Target Committee at Los Alamos on May 10?11, 1945, recommended Kyoto, Hiroshima, Yokohama, and the arsenal at Kokura as possible targets. The committee rejected the use of the weapon against a strictly military objective because of the chance of missing a small target not surrounded by a larger urban area. The psychological effects on Japan were of great importance to the committee members. They also agreed that the initial use of the weapon should be sufficiently spectacular for its importance to be internationally recognized. The committee felt Kyoto, as an intellectual center of Japan, had a population "better able to appreciate the significance of the weapon." Hiroshima was chosen because of its large size, its being "an important army depot" and the potential that the bomb would cause greater destruction because the city was surrounded by hills which would have a "focusing effect". Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson struck Kyoto from the list because of its cultural significance, over the objections of General Leslie Groves, head of the Manhattan Project. According to Professor Edwin O. Reischauer, Stimson "had known and admired Kyoto ever since his honeymoon there several decades earlier." On July 25 General Carl Spaatz was ordered to bomb one of the targets: Hiroshima, Kokura, Niigata, or Nagasaki as soon after August 3 as weather permitted and the remaining cities as additional weapons became available. They Wanted to blow up Hiroshima because its buildings was close up so it would cause more destruction.



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 01:23 AM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 02:16 AM
link   
This is just another incident that reveals the true primitive nature of our civilization.

Governments have to create false paradigms of fear in order to distract and control populations, this includes both sides of the coin.

It just looks like more smoke and mirrors, to be honest.



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 02:20 AM
link   
reply to post by xX aFTeRm4Th Xx
 




God I hope your not one of the fat lazy slobs that lives in this country and takes their freedoms and rights for granted, only to mock the very government that protects your such freedoms...


Oh the irony of this statement. I love my freedoms and will do everything to fight for them. Meanwhile the government you love so much and is protecting you created the Patriot act, and the NDAA, the TSA and is doing more and more to limit your freedoms. The what has the government done to protect you? Did they protect you on 9.11 if you were in the twin towers? Did they give you your bailout money? And to top it off you reply with a typical 'fat lazy slob' comment. LMAO I am a professional, read the title.



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join