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.

 

From the horse's mouth -Iran Supreme council:-new nuke capability and threats to Humanity.

page: 5
9
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 04:26 AM
link   
reply to post by SeekerofTruth101
 


Who let Mr. Ed out of his stable again, damn it?




posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 04:38 AM
link   
reply to post by SeekerofTruth101
 





What's this? It becomes Humanity's fault if NO ONE wants to buy Iranian oil? And Iran has the right to shut down a passageway that belongs to All Humanity?


And USA and the rest of the world has the right to sanction Iran? Why? Because there the bad guys? When you said satanists leader I about fell out my chair laughing. Here you are talking about Iran funding wars and deaths of innocents...why don't you go in the bathroom and take a hard look in the mirror, because your country and all your people support and fund the dumbest war in the history of the planet and you still have the nerve to support it obviously. Damn that's ridiculously pathetic.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 04:58 AM
link   

...if the enemies impose sanctions on the export of our oil, we won't allow a drop of oil to pass through the Strait of Hormuz."


Well Iran just lost the moral high ground there....

Previously the U.S. (and Nato) have been seen as the aggressors, concocting rebellions and wars in order to move in on the source of the oil.

But with this statement it's clear that Iran is equally motivated by $s, since they are saying that if you don't buy our oil, then you buy no one else's oil (please correct me if that's inaccurate).

So, it's one set of greedy bastards facing off against another, with innocent iranian public and U.S sheep-soldiers stuck in the middle.

Now the Iran establishment cannot say that they simply want what is theirs and are acting in self defence - blocking trade between peoples not within Iran is aggressive and prevocational.

Maybe you need to be a wolf to fight a wolf, but i think this move plays right into the hands of the U.S agenda and discredits Iran, making it that much easier to drive a wedge between Iran and those who would support them in a conflict.

I expect the U.S to bait Iran further, giving them enough rope to hang themselves in the eyes of their allies. If they can be baited into attacking a neighbour trying to transport oil to the U.S, it'll be the same wrong-move Saddam made when he invaded Kuwait, which allowed the U.S to attack Iraq.

It's simple chess played here by the U.S. - they're trying to put their opponent in a no-win situation: Either they get their oil from another source, damaging Iran's finances and enriching those of Iran's neighbours, or Iran goes on the attack, provoking their own defeat.

Checkmate.




edit on 11-1-2012 by McGinty because: To fix quotation mark error



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 05:03 AM
link   
reply to post by SeekerofTruth101
 


simple answer, pay as you go!!!
you want another danged war, well, find the funding for the war!!! just like they are clamoring about all the other stuff they want to spend on, ya know, unemployment benefits, a losey $20 a wk tax cut for us common folk, ect. by what I heard, it costs around a million dollar just to get one of our ships out to sea on deployment!!!
so, well, you seem to want the war, so, how ya gonna pay for it??? Inflation????



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 05:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555

Originally posted by Shermanator


Iran is going to get a bomb... Iran WILL end up bombing Israel... It is a shame...



Despite your unfortunate choice of the "Shermanator"
, it's refreshing to see the truth laid out so plainly.

On this topic-
Slowly the whole world is coming to realize what Iran's leaders are and the danger they represent. First Pakistan, then North Korea and now Iran. Eventually one or the other will teach the world the lesson that there are times when we must intervene.


Like this recent terror intervention :

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I know what you want to say :

1. You need to liberate Iran

or

2. You want to fight the terrorists before a major threat.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 05:39 AM
link   
Irrespective of the ludicrous discrepancies of the Iranian regime's claims regarding the proposed purpose for their isotopes, the key point is: YOU CANNOT TRUST ISLAMISTS.

Iran had no problems massacring their own folk who were merely peacefully protesting the tyranny they lather under. How hesitant do you think they'll be at striking their mortal enemy, Israel, as soon as they feel a first strike would be effective?

And then what--WW3?



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 06:38 AM
link   
SO that is it then ATS?

We are determined to villanize Iran for the next couple news cycles until Joe America can get properly lathered up and demand Iranian blood?

Although I know any ATSer with half a brain is watching this theatre of the absurd and seeing the painfully transparent motives, I also sadly know that this tactic will work for those who have, shall we say, strong follower tendencies.

Appeal to conservatives? Check. (Sea of Hormuz and oil embargo)

Appeal to Liberals? Check. (They kill the gays!)

Now, the trick is to make the connection between Iran and Al Queda, or the Taliban, or, if you're feeling plucky or bucking for promotion, a brand new group of dastardly brown folks to hate.

How sick is it that we can see that Iran is in the crosshairs already, and they are just searching for an excuse that Americans will buy?



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 07:33 AM
link   
reply to post by SeekerofTruth101
 


Iranian Infidel? What the hell is that? Your agenda is obvious.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 07:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Sablicious
 


You cannot trust Islamists?

Name one religious group or government that is trustworthy.

Any religious group or government that has not proven itself untrustworthy. Anyone that has not lied, or mislead or slaughtered.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 07:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by McGintyBut with this statement it's clear that Iran is equally motivated by $s, since they are saying that if you don't buy our oil, then you buy no one else's oil (please correct me if that's inaccurate).


Iran says: "if you forbid weaker nations to buy our oil then we forbid to buy U.S. puppets' oil too".

As a consequence of the U.S. extraterritorial laws other countries are forced to find alternative replacements of Iran's oil.

As a consequence of Iran's closure of the strait, other countries are forced to find alternative routes for U.S. puppets' oil.

Seems perfectly reciprocal to me, and it's up to the U.S. who started the "prohibition war" to pedal back and solve the problem.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by SabliciousYOU CANNOT TRUST ISLAMISTS.


You can't trust anglosaxons either, but at least the principles of the islamists are known and they don' t stab their friends in the back (Noriega, Osama, Saddam, Mubarak, Ghadafi...)



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Brasov

Originally posted by McGintyBut with this statement it's clear that Iran is equally motivated by $s, since they are saying that if you don't buy our oil, then you buy no one else's oil (please correct me if that's inaccurate).


Iran says: "if you forbid weaker nations to buy our oil then we forbid to buy U.S. puppets' oil too".

As a consequence of the U.S. extraterritorial laws other countries are forced to find alternative replacements of Iran's oil.

As a consequence of Iran's closure of the strait, other countries are forced to find alternative routes for U.S. puppets' oil.

Seems perfectly reciprocal to me, and it's up to the U.S. who started the "prohibition war" to pedal back and solve the problem.


Thanks for filling me in.

The question is, how are the U.S preventing other nations from buying Iran's oil. If it's through military blockade/threats of violence then Iran's 'blockade' will appear a proportional response: In other words Iran's allies can justify retaliatory threats if the U.S attack Iran.

However, if the U.S are 'bargaining' with Iran's other customers to buy elsewhere, then however skulduggerous this may be, it is not an act of war, such as an attack on an oil transport between other nations.

The U.S would love them to attack - i'll bet the U.S command will shortly call Iran's bluff.
edit on 11-1-2012 by McGinty because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by McGinty

...if the enemies impose sanctions on the export of our oil, we won't allow a drop of oil to pass through the Strait of Hormuz."


Well Iran just lost the moral high ground there....

Previously the U.S. (and Nato) have been seen as the aggressors, concocting rebellions and wars in order to move in on the source of the oil.

But with this statement it's clear that Iran is equally motivated by $s, since they are saying that if you don't buy our oil, then you buy no one else's oil (please correct me if that's inaccurate).

So, it's one set of greedy bastards facing off against another, with innocent iranian public and U.S sheep-soldiers stuck in the middle.

Now the Iran establishment cannot say that they simply want what is theirs and are acting in self defence - blocking trade between peoples not within Iran is aggressive and prevocational.

Maybe you need to be a wolf to fight a wolf, but i think this move plays right into the hands of the U.S agenda and discredits Iran, making it that much easier to drive a wedge between Iran and those who would support them in a conflict.

I expect the U.S to bait Iran further, giving them enough rope to hang themselves in the eyes of their allies. If they can be baited into attacking a neighbour trying to transport oil to the U.S, it'll be the same wrong-move Saddam made when he invaded Kuwait, which allowed the U.S to attack Iraq.

It's simple chess played here by the U.S. - they're trying to put their opponent in a no-win situation: Either they get their oil from another source, damaging Iran's finances and enriching those of Iran's neighbours, or Iran goes on the attack, provoking their own defeat.

Checkmate.




edit on 11-1-2012 by McGinty because: To fix quotation mark error

The image that sprang to mind was a bully backing a kid into the corner, slapping the kid around the face repeatedly...

The kid says "slap me once more and I'll hit back"

and to you the kid becomes the aggressor..



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by McGinty
The question is, how are the U.S preventing other nations from buying Iran's oil.


Irrelevant. Attacking a country's main trade by any means whatsoever is a "casus belli" (act of war). The U.S. has attacked Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya on much lesser grounds, it has no moral superiority over Iran. Iran has no choice, it's fight or starve.


Originally posted by McGinty
If it's through military blockade/threats of violence then Iran's 'blockade' will appear a proportional response: In other words Iran's allies can justify retaliatory threats if the U.S attack Iran.


Any country that heeds the U.S. embargo against Iran's main trade is declaring war on Iran. It's up to them to engage in military actions or not, if they do they're willing to take the risks.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mister_Bit

The image that sprang to mind was a bully backing a kid into the corner, slapping the kid around the face repeatedly...

The kid says "slap me once more and I'll hit back"

and to you the kid becomes the aggressor..


No is the short answer....

At least not in the black and terms you suggest. To some, or many, hitting the bully back may back permissible, or even right, but it negates your right to claim moral superiority (at least to some extent). So if Iran strike they turn it into a fight, making the U.S an opponent rather than the playground bully.

Like i said, it's not black and white, but they will lose many hearts and minds in the way their attack is spun by the West. Who needs a false flag when you can incite the other side to do it for real?

In no way am i siding with or against either side - without all the info and having been to Iran that would be naive. I'm just saying what i think is really going on in this chess game for oil and territory.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Brasov
The U.S. has attacked Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya on much lesser grounds, it has no moral superiority over Iran. Iran has no choice, it's fight or starve.

I'm certainly not saying the U.S has moral superiority, but their war machine will spin it that way when they repeat an Iran attack over and over crosscut with interviews from deceased soldiers families. Before you know it the the sheeple have a bloodlust for Iran, asking 'why in hell ain't we fighting back yet'....


Originally posted by McGinty
If it's through military blockade/threats of violence then Iran's 'blockade' will appear a proportional response: In other words Iran's allies can justify retaliatory threats if the U.S attack Iran.



Originally posted by Brasov
Any country that heeds the U.S. embargo against Iran's main trade is declaring war on Iran. It's up to them to engage in military actions or not, if they do they're willing to take the risks.


Exactly what the U.S. want. I'm not saying Iran are in the wrong, i saying they better be very careful not play into the hands of TPTB.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by McGinty

At least not in the black and terms you suggest. To some, or many, hitting the bully back may back permissible, or even right, but it negates your right to claim moral superiority (at least to some extent). So if Iran strike they turn it into a fight, making the U.S an opponent rather than the playground bully.


You can engage in endless and pointless acrobatics in order to sell the pig, but all I can say is: making the U.S. an opponent? It was about time someone took up the bully!



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Brasov

Originally posted by McGinty

At least not in the black and terms you suggest. To some, or many, hitting the bully back may back permissible, or even right, but it negates your right to claim moral superiority (at least to some extent). So if Iran strike they turn it into a fight, making the U.S an opponent rather than the playground bully.


You can engage in endless and pointless acrobatics in order to sell the pig, but all I can say is: making the U.S. an opponent? It was about time someone took up the bully!


Tell that to the dead Iranian children once the U.S have bombed the # out of them. I hope Iran are wise enough not to give 'cause' to the warmongers.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by McGinty

Originally posted by Brasov

You can engage in endless and pointless acrobatics in order to sell the pig, but all I can say is: making the U.S. an opponent? It was about time someone took up the bully!


Tell that to the dead Iranian children once the U.S have bombed the # out of them. I hope Iran are wise enough not to give 'cause' to the warmongers.


Giving in to U.S. demands didn' t help iraqis. As a consequence of Saddam's disarming 1.5 million of them have been murdered in cold blood.

Now you pretend Iran has to do the same?

The U.S. is pushing countries into a lose-lose corner, so if a country is set to have millions of people murdered no matter what it does then it might as well die causing maximum damage to the U.S.

Let me remind you that a pantomime U.S. judge has declared Iran guilty of 9-11, so the U.S. has decided that whatever goodwill gestures Iran might do won't count except for a quicker demise.
edit on 11-1-2012 by Brasov because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 12:06 PM
link   
I am under the impression that those that advocate Iran not having nuclear weaponry speak from the same rational thought when referring to the USA and company. I would recommend taking a stance against anyone having nuclear weaponry. If 1 country has it another will be within his right to deter another form holding it over his head so to speak. If no one has it can it then and only then be deemed illegal.

If Iran was to have that weaponry, which is their intent, what would imply that they would use it. I find that sentiment when searched for only finds the sentiment of those that seek it. A bias in starting the assessment of their potential danger could affect the result if all you seek are those arguments of their danger.

I think it could be said that any human, regardless of his nationality or race, has instilled in him a sense of self preservation. If Iran were to use said weapons on Israel, they would not survive the fallout. It is no secret, radiation and toxic levels of all sorts of things would cause them to use other weapons if their intent was killing Israel. Their proximity to them would make it a death wish as well.

To make the Iranian people out to be ridiculous maniacs is as humorous as saying they are all closet circus performers. You would need to go out on a limb and push an extreme to sell an extreme. The idea is actually as fantastic as all Hollywood movies combined.

Iran is no different than any other country in its goal to secure stability, prosperity, and security for its citizens. The argument of them being bent on martyrdom is negated in the fact that they have not had an aggressive military action outside their borders. they have not terminated a single combatant or piece of hardware outside their borders. This is typical with a defensive stance not an aggressive one.


edit on 11-1-2012 by casenately because: fix



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join