Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

US, Israeli cyber attack on Press TV fails

page: 5
23
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 



Maybe Iran should think twice before constantly calling for the Death of Israel / wipe Israel off the map, cut Israel out like a cancer.


And you continue to believe this BS. No wonder why your opinion is so twisted.


Iran is at fault here, not ISrael.


Israel, the country where its entire population is conscripted, has the top military in the region, has extensive secret operations, and a signficiant nuclear arsenal, which constantly harasses, threatens and attacks outside of its borders and within.... is not at fault?

If Israel carried out an isolationist policy, and granted sovereignty to the Palestinian authority, then tensions in the middle east would be far less prevalent. But unfortunately, this could never be the case with both a hardliner zionist leadership in Israel and the fact that the US has been leading a bloody campaign throughout the middle east. Why can't you see that these two factors are distabilizing the region, instead of only blaming the newest target of their foreign policies.


This from the person who is supporting Iran and a clandestine nuclear weapons program. Whose the more foolish, the fool or the fool who follows?


for one, there is absolutely zero confirmation of an Iranian nuclear weapons program. What you carry on believing, is pure fantasy that is perpetuated by the media yet contradicted by real reports by high level officials in both the US government and Israeli mossad.

Secondly, if Iran did develop nuclear weapons, I would certainly support that. Iran is threatened by two nuclear powers and if Iran acquired a significant defensive nuclear arsenal, then they would more than likely not be bombed and otherwise attacked into submission- and then they would progress into a stronger country with better society and fairer government under solid sovereign borders.

Iran would never use nuclear weapons unless they absolutely had to, which is the case for all low-level nuclear powers. The whole point of this low-level deterrant is that the country might get invaded, but it would retaliate with nuclear weapons before it is fully taken over. Aside from this very reality, Iran's government and culture is not willing to use such weapons anyways. You might believe that they are, but then again, you seem to be extremely ignorant of their stable government.

Personally, I find it extremely ironic that you constantly scream about how violent and dangerous the Iranians will be when they get their nukes. It's as if you haven't looked at a regional map and noticed that Pakistan borders Iran to the south-east. Pakistan hasn't been looking too stable recently, with Indian agents on one side and paramilitary Islamic militias and the CIA on the other. They have nukes, and they've also had massive security breaches before. They seem like a far greater threat than Iran would ever be. But the US is still handing over billions in "economic aid" to Pakistan... right?



Thank you for demonstrating that you know absolutely nothing about the United States. Not to mention your ignorance on religion in this country. As I said if you did any independent research instead of just believing what your MISIRI handlers tell you to believe, we wouldn't need these round robbin arguments you and some other makes.


Dunno what MISIRI means...

And I guess my point just flew over your head... not surprising considering you are inable to view any other perceptions than your own. US is a christian nation. You might not accept that, but it's pretty goddamn obvious for any non-American to look at the US and realize that.

And my point, happened to be that the people who your country targets in the middle east see things from a religious angle. It is a crusade to them. Iran is a shia theocracy. Attacking Iran means you've just enraged every shi'ite on this planet, especially since shia religious sites will be attacked and religious artifacts will be looted.


The actions taken against Iran in Iran have been limited to the nuke program and people associated with it, including IRGC commanders.


So you mean actions against the sovereign state of Iran?



Oh good, youve come full circle so now we cant start this argument all over again.


I'm only following your lead.


Then how in hell can you be so wrong in your conclusions?


Because my conclusions aren't the same conclusions that the western media reports?


EDIT: I'm not really interested in writing a third post to this response.

EDIT2: Props to InfoKartel. Xcath should definitely read Bzezinski's "The Grand Chessboard" to actually gain a real geopolitical perspective, that his own government had once adopted.
edit on 23-2-2012 by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
Secondly, if Iran did develop nuclear weapons, I would certainly support that. Iran is threatened by two nuclear powers and if Iran acquired a significant defensive nuclear arsenal, then they would more than likely not be bombed and otherwise attacked into submission- and then they would progress into a stronger country with better society and fairer government under solid sovereign borders.


It seems to me that Iran has made an industry out of threatening the Big and Little Satan. The chant “death to...” and is like a stuck record.

Iran is in the position it is because it supports and sustains groups like Hezbollah and perpetuates the hatred across the Middle East. That is containable. The lack of transparency over Iran’s nuclear plans and the possibility they are seeking to develop nuclear weapons puts fear into the West and the rest of the Middle East. I don’t trust any nation with nukes if they treat their own people with contempt. Just think of what they would do to others!

Regards



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by paraphi

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
Secondly, if Iran did develop nuclear weapons, I would certainly support that. Iran is threatened by two nuclear powers and if Iran acquired a significant defensive nuclear arsenal, then they would more than likely not be bombed and otherwise attacked into submission- and then they would progress into a stronger country with better society and fairer government under solid sovereign borders.


It seems to me that Iran has made an industry out of threatening the Big and Little Satan. The chant “death to...” and is like a stuck record.

Iran is in the position it is because it supports and sustains groups like Hezbollah and perpetuates the hatred across the Middle East. That is containable. The lack of transparency over Iran’s nuclear plans and the possibility they are seeking to develop nuclear weapons puts fear into the West and the rest of the Middle East. I don’t trust any nation with nukes if they treat their own people with contempt. Just think of what they would do to others!

Regards


Speak for your own country. The US is the only country to ever nuke people. Ever. They maintain a world class nuclear arsenal and they have invaded countries based on lies with Iran in the crosshairs. And you fear Iran? You wouldn't have to fear Iran if Iran didn't have to fear imminent invasion.

The whole notion that Iran will strike if it has nuclear weapons is pure hysteria. That's all that it is. The same lies that people fell for when Saddam was going to attack the US with some kind of WMD in under 45 minutes. Remember those claims? Iraq was invaded because of that. Then the story changed to liberation when they couldn't find the supposed weapons. How could you trust anything that the US says after that travesty, especially when it is the exact same strategy being applied in the pre-Iran campaign?



Watch this video closely. It is years old. This is the same fearmongering crap that I have seen from anti-Iran posters on this site. It's as if people are too bloody incompetent to employ critical thinking skills, and instead accept any propaganda that is introjected into their minds. All they see is Iran as a moslim country, just like the other three that were recently decimated, and so Iran must go too.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
Speak for your own country. The US is the only country to ever nuke people. Ever. They maintain a world class nuclear arsenal and they have invaded countries based on lies with Iran in the crosshairs. And you fear Iran? You wouldn't have to fear Iran if Iran didn't have to fear imminent invasion.


1. I am not American.
2. The US is the only nation to have fielded nukes, but that was in a world war and many decades ago.
3. No, I do not fear Iran per se. I fear the propagation of nuclear weapons, especially to nations who hate.
4. Iran, the victim. Yawn. They won't get invaded and they know it.

Regards



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by paraphi

4. Iran, the victim. Yawn. They won't get invaded and they know it.





Heres one for you. WHY would America invade Iran,when they had the chance to do it,with 100k+ troops already in neighboring Iraq,and surrounding countries, twice ?

Really,its NEVER going to happen,unless they decide to attack their neighbors.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by sonnny1

Originally posted by paraphi

4. Iran, the victim. Yawn. They won't get invaded and they know it.





Heres one for you. WHY would America invade Iran,when they had the chance to do it,with 100k+ troops already in neighboring Iraq,and surrounding countries, twice ?


Gee, because there was no popular support for it at the time? Hence why their has been a media campaign for the past 8 years about how Iran is verging on a nuclear bomb that they will viciously attack Israel with (against all sense and reason)


And question: Why do you assume that the US is somehow in a weaker strike position than it was after the initial invasion of Iraq? They have never been in a better position.
edit on 24-2-2012 by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi


Gee, because there was no popular support for it at the time?

And question: Why do you assume that the US is somehow in a weaker strike position than it was after the initial invasion of Iraq? They have never been in a better position.
edit on 24-2-2012 by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi because: (no reason given)


Popular support?


When has that mattered? Really,you cant have "America is a Nation of Warmongers" when they had the manpower,and the fighting force right there,TWICE. Either they want to war with Iran or they don't. Its BS to think that they are in a better position now,then when they had 100k+ troops in Iraq and surrounding countries. Not to mention multiple Nations,with their troops!

Laughable!
edit on 24-2-2012 by sonnny1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 07:28 PM
link   
Not to mention that the Imperial Japanese military killed more civilians / soldiers than the 2 nuclear bombs dropped did. Then again why should people know that info since it would undermine the argument of blaming the US for everything.

The arguments remind me of the Arab - Israeli wars. Arabs try to invade Israel to wipe them out and fail, lose territory in the process, then scream to the UN that they lost land and want it back.

Why use history as our guide.. So many people ignore it now that a repeat is inevitable.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 07:56 PM
link   


I would have to assume "wiped out" means killed.

While i definitely don't agree with war i think iran is far from "peaceful". My answer to the whole thing? Let them be. Who cares what they say or think. I honestly couldn't care less what they think of the west. I think it's become a game of i don't like what you're saying so i think i'll just attack you. Which is a waste of time, money and energy. The minute they attack israel or the us with some type of weapon, they'll be wiped out. I don't think they're the smartest bunch but i do think they realize that. They're just running their mouth.

credit to seabag for the picture.
edit on 2/24/2012 by JackBauer because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by sonnny1

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi


Gee, because there was no popular support for it at the time?

And question: Why do you assume that the US is somehow in a weaker strike position than it was after the initial invasion of Iraq? They have never been in a better position.
edit on 24-2-2012 by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi because: (no reason given)


Popular support?


When has that mattered? Really,you cant have "America is a Nation of Warmongers" when they had the manpower,and the fighting force right there,TWICE. Either they want to war with Iran or they don't. Its BS to think that they are in a better position now,then when they had 100k+ troops in Iraq and surrounding countries. Not to mention multiple Nations,with their troops!

Laughable!
edit on 24-2-2012 by sonnny1 because: (no reason given)


I think you're ignorant position is laughable.

You seriously think that they were in a better position before? You obviously know nothing about their strategy. They inticed the civil war in Iraq so their military could secure key strategic locations while their mercinary forces acquired resource assets. Why would the US strike Iran when it was bogged down and busy in Iraq? Makes no sense.

And why don't you take a look around now. The US hasn't just got up and walked away from Iraq- they still have mercinaries and fortresses there, and are able to re-deploy at any time without starting a war in the process. And how many US troops in Afghanistan? Somewhere around 100,000? And their 5th fleet is regrouping right by the Strait of Hormuz?

And yes, popular support is extremely necessary. Even though I don't have much faith in the American people, even I realize that they would engage in massive protests and strikes if their military was used without an acceptable reason. And guess what? There's also that thing called the international community. After Iraq and Libya, US foreign policy makers have to justify to the world their reasoning for invading Iran. If they didn't, then the international community would probably tear the US apart by serious fractures in relations.


Xcathdra-
Not to mention that the Imperial Japanese military killed more civilians / soldiers than the 2 nuclear bombs dropped did. Then again why should people know that info since it would undermine the argument of blaming the US for everything.


Real sophisticated argument there, not as if it has anything to do with the fact that the US is still the only country to have ever nuked another country



jackbauer-
credit to seabag for the picture.


What picture? The one that has some middle eastern writing on it and says "Israel should be wiped out of the face of the earth"? Got any proof that this banner was produced and displayed by the Iranian government?
edit on 24-2-2012 by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 11:24 PM
link   
Yeah I was referring to the image posted in my reply, posted in this article referencing Iran.

blogs.law.harvard.edu...






top topics



 
23
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join