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.


Did Iran's Supreme Leader Admit Iran's Nuclear Weapons Ambition?

page: 3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 05:20 PM

Originally posted by Biliverdin

Originally posted by xuenchen

The world bank may have done that for a reason.

Corporate pressure.

The contractors needed to be from other countries.

and maybe Iran did not want to commit to a "large" enough load.

Well, the reason that the World Bank gave was that Iran was subsidising it's citizens electricity supply. As Iran stated, if they didn't do that, large groups of the population would not be able to afford electricity (at that time). The World Bank said they had to stop subsidising or they wouldn't loan. Iran said they could not be discriminate in that way against their people.

In other words,

the income wasn't enough.

Sounds like the corporate agenda got pimped !!

posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 05:21 PM

Originally posted by CottonwoodStormy
reply to post by Biliverdin

Yes it was. Just to note, I just saw on press tv here, the response from iran to this very subject about Tehran's ambitions to attack inside US , Iran says this is DELUSIONAL.

See what I can you not love them? Brilliant! Right versus Might. Perfection.

posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 05:25 PM
reply to post by CottonwoodStormy

its been so nice talking to such a smart open minded person, I still have faith too, all Iran has is its faith and what its built out of self-reliance due to exactly as you say, being blocked and targeted for many years. People have lost the human side to war. I'm really here in this part of the world, and I can tell you, these people are normal, they want the same things as anyone else, a roof over their heads, food, warmth, electricity, family and to live in peace.

posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 05:27 PM
reply to post by Biliverdin

The U.S. had some early involvment in Iran power.

1967: Under the US "Atoms for Peace" program, started in the 1950s by president Dwight D Eisenhower, the shah is allowed to buy a five-megawatt, light-water type research reactor for Tehran (which - call it irony - is still playing a role in the dispute over the Iranian nuclear program).

The myth of an "isolated' Iran

Nuclear program of Iran

The nuclear program of Iran was launched in the 1950s with the help of the United States as part of the Atoms for Peace program.[1] The participation of the United States and Western European governments in Iran's nuclear program continued until the 1979 Iranian Revolution that toppled the Shah of Iran.[2]

posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 05:33 PM
reply to post by CottonwoodStormy

I would very much like to visit the region myself, the history is so rich, but then that is mainly due to the constant power struggles that have occured there over the centuries. I really hope for the best, but I have faith in them that they will rise above all the provocation. It is very good to hear that my instincts about them are right, thank you so much. I hope that they maintain the peace and stability that they so much deserve. That everyone deserves.

posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 05:35 PM
It takes a hell of a lot more money and process to make weapons grade plutonium.If they were just making reactor rods they would not require so much infrastructure and such secrecy,Russia offered them processing and they said no.While you could make the argument that is because the regime is xenophobic the fact remains the powerbrokers are going after the middle east and Iran is a primary stepping stone to their maniacal mechanizations.

posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 05:35 PM
reply to post by xuenchen

Just so you don't think that I'm ignoring you...but I have to go to bed now. I'll pick up on this sometime tomorrow.

edit on 3-2-2012 by Biliverdin because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 05:37 PM
reply to post by Biliverdin

Really it is so nice for me to talk to someone who listens, and sees what I'm saying. I am a full westernized Canadian living here in the nmiddle of nowhere in Algeria amongst 99% Muslim population, I am the only foreigner in sight, and they have taken care of me without prejudice, and adapted to me and with me. There is peace, its onnly the governments doing this, not the people. Thank you thank you for letting me know I am not alone in my plight.

posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 05:39 PM
reply to post by CottonwoodStormy

Me tooo!!! 12:38 am here, night y'all and peace.

posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 05:54 PM
reply to post by seabag

And? I think Iran is right to want nuclear weapons. The middle east is very tumultuous right now and nuclear weapons would make the situation much safer for them and their people. They have a right to nuclear weapons and this doesn't change my opinion on the situation in the middle east at all.

posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 06:59 PM
reply to post by Biliverdin

I don't think a theocracy is ever a good idea, but, it is moderated by the presidency and they do have the interests of their citizenry very much at heart.

OH that’s RICH!!

“They do have the interests of their citizenry very much at heart”??

On February 11, 1979, the pro-Western Iranian constitutional monarchy was overthrown and the nation became the Islamic Republic of Iran, ruled by a non-elected religious Supreme Leader who is addressed as "Ayatollah." The population of Iran falls just under 70 million, with an average annual income equivalent to approximately US$8,000.

When the people protested against Ahmadinejd they were REALLY treated well (pay attention OWS – you wouldn’t have it so good if you did that in Iran).

Protesters took to the streets on June 19th, 2009, and were treated brutally by the Basij (paramilitary police). As many as 150 people have died, journalists have been expelled, and a human rights crisis--and possible revolution--is underway. The situation is ongoing.

Very few systems can be described as ideal, but all things considered, geo-politically, it is what works, and internally, they seem to be working towards the right track and are not, to my eye, a beligerent people.

Ya…it seems to be working out swell for the Iranian people.

Free speech, as such, does not exist in Iran. Human rights activists and other perceived agitators are sometimes subject to beatings, arrests, torture, and disappearance.

The Islamic Republic of Iran is a religious institution with no secular concept of law. Those who convert from Islam to another faith may face execution for apostasy. Religious minorities are routinely subject to widespread persecution.

In Iran, women can vote and run for Parliament and are not prohibited from traveling freely, but they are also subject to police beatings and torture for violating perceived social norms, are not protected from domestic violence, and are discriminated against in other subtle ways (such as inheritance law).

Arabs (who make up 3%) of the population, Azeris (who make up 24%), and Kurds (who make up 7%) are frequently subject to racial profiling and mass arrests at cultural functions. Although there are very few Jews in Iran, vicious antisemitism is also a serious problem.


posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 07:25 PM
reply to post by targeting

And? I think Iran is right to want nuclear weapons. The middle east is very tumultuous right now and nuclear weapons would make the situation much safer for them and their people. They have a right to nuclear weapons and this doesn't change my opinion on the situation in the middle east at all.

Um….NO they DO NOT have a right.

NPT?? They signed it!! They are not permitted to have nuclear weapons and are subject to IAEA inspection. They have violated the NPT numerous times and remain in violation.


The UN Security Council has passed seven resolutions on Iran:

•Resolution 1696 (31 July 2006) demanded that Iran suspend its uranium enrichment activities, invoking Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter to make that demand legally binding on Iran.

•Resolution 1737 (23 December 2006) imposed sanctions after Iran refused to suspend its enrichment activities, cutting off nuclear cooperation, demanding that Iran cooperate with the IAEA, and freezing the assets of a number of persons and organizations linked to Iran's nuclear and missile programs. It established a committee to monitor sanctions implementation.

•Resolution 1747 (24 March 2007) expanded the list of sanctioned Iranian entities and welcomed the proposal by the permanent five members of the Security Council plus Germany for resolving issues regarding Iran's nuclear program.

•In resolution 1803 (3 March 2008), the Council decided to extend those sanctions to additional persons and entities, impose travel restrictions on sanctioned persons, and bar exports of nuclear- and missile-related dual-use goods to Iran.

•Resolution 1835 (27 September 2008) reaffirmed the preceding four resolutions, the only one of the seven not to invoke Chapter VII.

•Resolution 1929 (9 June 2010) imposed a complete arms embargo on Iran, banned Iran from any activities related to ballistic missiles, authorized the inspection and seizure of shipments violating these restrictions, and extended the asset freeze to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (IRISL). The resolution passed by a vote of 12–2, with Turkey and Brazil voting against and Lebanon abstaining. A number of countries imposed measures to implement and extend these sanctions, including the United States, the European Union, Australia, Canada, Japan, Norway,South Korea, and Russia.

•Resolution 1984 (8 June 2011) extended for a further 12 months the mandate of the Panel of Experts established by Resolution 1929.

posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 08:14 PM
1) He didn't admit anything new. Nuclear course simply refers to Irans nuclear program which is officially claimed to be peacefull.

2) Nothing posted in this thread is actually a revelation or new. We have always know Iran provided and provides support for Hizb' Allah through Syria, hence Hizb' Allahs weaponary and more advanced rockets.

3) We have always know it is the policy of the Islamic Republic to support #te Islamist factions. This is a key component of 'exporting' the revolution.

In summary, nothing new.

posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 12:28 AM
it's there right to produce a nuclear weapon.

it's also the right of any nation to obliterate iran or any other nation that uses a nuclear weapon against another country, to prevent further attacks.

i don't see a problem. no two nuclear nations have ever attacked each other. the u.s. was at a cold war just for that very reason.

the only problem with iran having nuclear weapons is they become untouchable, and can start to play the same hardball israel and the u.s. have been doing in the middle east.

arab countries may jump ship, knowing a nuclear iran will protect them.

obviously the usual bullies, israel and america don't want anyone standing up to them.

saying that, the only two nations that stand in the way of a complete american world domination are iran and n.korea.

posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 02:25 AM
Check this news bit out.
This bit caught my eye.

At the same time, his directive to the Guards ordered a speedy completion of the Iranian nuclear bomb program in which Guards’ missiles can be armed with nuclear warheads. Khamenei believes once that’s achieved, Iran can test a nuclear bomb, letting the world know that Iran has joined the nuclear-armed club and that any confrontation will result in destruction of much of the Western world.

I hope this is made up propaganda. But a guy who beleives in total death to Israel and the USA. A nuclear Iran under this leadership sounds scary.
edit on 18/01/11 by aarys because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 04:18 AM
reply to post by seabag

You do realize that there is military sanctions against Iran? That's why Iran is producing its own domestic military technology, including domestic drones, domestic defence systems, domestic navy...

How did you connect that to nuclear weapons?

posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 04:49 AM
This makes me think of an interesting prophecy in the bible. I'll keep my opinions to myself, but I am very curious what else was said instead of just the out of context information. I'm keeping my eye on this one

posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 06:11 AM

Originally posted by seabag

"Such sanctions will benefit us. They will make us more self-reliant ... We would not achieve military progress if sanctions were not imposed on Iran's military sector ... More imposed pressures mean more self-reliance for Iran. Sanctions are beneficial also because it makes us more determined not to change our nuclear course ... Iran will not change its nuclear course because of sanctions...,"he added.

Sanctions against Iran's military sector??? That sounded to me like he’s admitting Iran’s nuclear program is for military purposes. What country’s military runs its nuclear program for public energy production??

I’m wondering when some of you “smart” people sticking to your guns on Iran will finally connect the dots??

edit on 3-2-2012 by seabag because: (no reason given)

Well I think some of us "smart" people think you are connecting some dots that are simply not there. The US has had economic, trade, scientific and military sanctions against Iran for a long time. The only mention of Iran's Military according to your own quote is said in relation to sanctions. The only mention made about Iran's nuclear ambitions is also said in relation to how sanctions will not work. At no point in the quote does he say anything about the Military running the nuclear program.

Now maybe you also failed to notice, but look carefully at your quote or any of the quoted text in the Link you provided. Do you see the "......." between statements? Do you know what that symbolizes? It is known as an ellipsis. It is what you use when you want to omit some words. So what this tells us is that there are words from the quotes that are being intentionally omitted. That is journalism 101 and this is a fact. If Iran is so bad and they are openly admitting to using their nuclear program for the purpose of weapons, why omit any words at all? Show all his words and let him hang himself, and I have no doubt that is exactly what the media would do. However that is not happening here. Instead, we have different sentences with words omitted between each sentence.

posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 07:40 AM
reply to post by MrWendal

Sanctions on Iran have affected other alternative energy sources over the years. But you won't hear about in the MSM as you can imagine.

Components used in the likes of wind and solar power have been prohibited and Iran has had to go the course of domestic production. As they have with military hardware.

As nuclear power is clearly the top renewable 'clean' energy source it will always trump the others. It is more efficient and cost affective. If you extrapolate the logic behind this it makes sense that diversifying from fossil fuels will inevitably lead to the development of nuclear energy.

posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 07:40 AM
No cause for concern when leaders make statements like these, right?

Elsewhere in his statements, Ayatollah Khamenei described the present century as the century of Islam and said that the Egyptian uprising has influenced the youth and intellectuals of Washington, London, Madrid, Rome and Athens.

He stressed: “This is the century of Islam and the era of the people and in the future, it will influence the destiny of the entire humanity.”

Ayatollah Khamenei stressed: “Whenever we are involved, we explicitly declare it. We were involved in the anti-Israel events, which resulted in victories in the 33-day and 22-day wars. And from now on, wherever a nation or a group fights and confronts the Zionist regime, we will support and help it, and we are not at all afraid of saying this.”

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4 >>

log in