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.

 

Let's Cut to the Chase - Iran Must Be Stopped

page: 45
51
<< 42  43  44    46  47  48 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 09:02 AM
link   
reply to post by casenately
 


I still have yet to see thousands of people taking to the streets in the US like what occurred in Iran. I really don't buy into the theory that they could do it to us. Reason being is the Iranian people are a whole lot more angry than Americans are at our government.

The Iranian government claims there problem is with the Zionist regime. However when pressed on a future Palestinian state Ahmadinejad's comments were along the lines of letting the Arab / Muslim population in Israel make their own choices on how to live together. Hamas went one step further by stating there would be no room for Jews in a Palestinian state.

Now, if the Israeli Zionist regime is removed, do you honestly think they are going to continue to allow Israel to exist? Hamas and Hezbullah, along with Iran, do not officially recognize Israel as a country and have stated they never will. That brings us back around to the question of do you think they will let the Israelis elect a new Israeli government?

If the State of Israeli does not exist to those groups, and they claim they want to end the Zionist regime, they are in fact wiping Israel off the map.




posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
....


I think we can safely call you a coward by now as you ignored the following fact the 7th time already.

U.S. Agencies See No Move by Iran to Build a Bomb

www.nytimes.com...


edit on 25-2-2012 by ALF88 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 09:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


yes, he was protesting the new law that made Islam mandatory in schools, It is against the constitution and so he PROTESTED it and that is why he was arrested. Since some of his congregation of protestants are part of the democratic youth movement he was sentenced to death by any means necessary. His apostasy charge was made so he could be executed and so silenced, since he was a PROTESTOR. It is a BS charge. He was also charged with rape. it is all lies and a excuse for the regime to execute him.

It has NOTHING to do with his religion. He was never a practicing Muslim. That is why the same charge was dropped in 2006 in a separate arrest. Now they argue ancestry. They are desperate to silence him like all protestors.

there are thousands of Christians in Iran. They have churches, official representatives, communities, etc.

He is being made an example of because he is a democratic protestor, not because he is Christian.

our media is using him to appeal to Christians here at home in an effort to yet again sell this war.


edit on 25-2-2012 by casenately because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by casenately
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


but then, they could not have signed, developed all sorts of nuclear technology and that would be that. They want the peaceful purposes for the energy. They probably would just say they want nukes if they wanted to make them. They aren't shy.

so the issue is they "might" violate the treaty by making weapons. When if they didn't sign, there would be no issue.

got it.


By refusing to allow access to declared sites, by enriching Uranium over 20% in addition to being able to enrich up to 80%, by building sites for their nuke program and not disclosing those locations to the IAEA etc etc etc.

Iran is in violation of their obligations, and those obligations specifically spell out dual purpose programs (nuke). In order to ensure the program is in compliance, we come back to the inspections and access. Iran does not have to be in physical possession of a nuclear bomb to be in violation of the treaty.



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 09:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Hamas Hezbollah and Iran.....3 separate entities.

to mix them up is like saying Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 although Sadam had a hatred of rebel groups like al-Qaida.

Both Hamas and Fatah are predominately Sunni Muslim, whereas Hezbollah has its roots in the Shia denomination of Islam

they are VERY different.



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 09:08 AM
link   
reply to post by curedby432
 


No worries it happens, more so in text form since its difficult to see the tone / context of the person responding / typing.

As far as applying pressure Obama has done that with Israel. Obama called Israel out to actually join the IAEA / NPT, and that pissed Israel off to no end.

In the end though, pushing our values on Iran or Israel open the door for them to impose their values on each other and us. Its going to take trust to resolve the issue, and I dont see that happening anytime soon.



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by curedby432
reply to post by Xcathdra
 



Originally posted by Xcathdra

Actually Iran considers itself an Islamic Republic, not a Theocracy.




Erm, let's backtrack here. Yes, Iran is a theocracy. Ask any scholar.


An Islamic state is a state that has adopted Islam, specifically Sharia, as its foundations for political institutions, or laws, exclusively, and has implemented the Islamic ruling system khilafah (Arabic: خلافة), and is therefore a theocracy.

Source





edit on 25-2-2012 by curedby432 because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-2-2012 by curedby432 because: (no reason given)


We are on the same page, but Iran sees their government as a Republic..
Its like the Democratic People Republic of North Korea or the Peoples Republic of China.

on outward appearances it sounds good, but in reality is nothing but a front.
edit on 25-2-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 09:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


they have a right to the same privacy that other member states have. They have not found any over 20% enriched uranium. There is no evidence they have violated anything.

The thing is they NEED evidence to make such a claim. If not we can invade Mexico right now. They have nuclear power and have private facilities that are classified by their government.

Perhaps they too have nukes.
edit on 25-2-2012 by casenately because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra


By refusing to allow access to declared sites, by enriching Uranium over 20% in addition to being able to enrich up to 80%, by building sites for their nuke program and not disclosing those locations to the IAEA etc etc etc.

Iran is in violation of their obligations, and those obligations specifically spell out dual purpose programs (nuke). In order to ensure the program is in compliance, we come back to the inspections and access. Iran does not have to be in physical possession of a nuclear bomb to be in violation of the treaty.


So what are your viewpoints on Israel no obliging to the treaty? What about Israel not declaring their Nuclear sites?

Not attacking you just trying to see if you see it both ways or in only the light that the propaganda wants you to see it.



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
.
..specifically spell out dual purpose programs (nuke).


Intelligence Agencies see that differently, even though you keep ignoring it for the 8th time now


U.S. Agencies See No Move by Iran to Build a Bomb

www.nytimes.com...



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 09:15 AM
link   
reply to post by casenately
 


Now see I am not buying the Iranian explanation. Reason being are is the written ruling by Iran's Supreme Court sending the case back down. Those court documents mention nothing about protesting, rape or anything else. It deals solely and specifically with Apostasy.

It was only when there was an international outrage did Iran change the story. There penal code allows the government to go after people for apostasy. When it doesn't meet those requirements, the judges adapt Sharia law and go from there.

So no, his charges / sentence was not for protesting, it was for being a Christian.



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by casenately
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Hamas Hezbollah and Iran.....3 separate entities.

to mix them up is like saying Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 although Sadam had a hatred of rebel groups like al-Qaida.

Both Hamas and Fatah are predominately Sunni Muslim, whereas Hezbollah has its roots in the Shia denomination of Islam

they are VERY different.


Iran funds both groups..
All 3 refuse to recognize Israels existence. ..

It doesn't matter what religion they are, so long as they are on a quest to end Israel the old saying applied. Keep your friends close and your enemies closer. Hell China set aside their civil war and joined forces to fight off the Japanese. Afterwards they went back to their regulatory schedule civil war.

The head of Hamas visited Ahmadinejad in Tehran and held talks on Israel. All 3 groups are interlinked with each other, from financing to weapons.



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 09:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


the sentence has nothing to do as to why he was arrested. Why was that?


One recent e-mail highlighted the plight of Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani, who was arrested in October, 2009 for speaking out against changes to policies in the Iranian education system


www.rescuechristians.org...




In 2009, Nadarkhani discovered a recent change in Iranian educational policy that forced all students, including his children, to read from the Qur'an. After he heard about this change, he went to the school and protested, based on the fact that the Iranian constitution guarantees freedom to practice religion. His protest was reported to the police, who arrested him and placed him before a tribunal on October 12, 2009, on charges of protesting.[8][9]


en.wikipedia.org...

that doesnt say they arrsted him for being christian...does it.



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 09:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


proof of funding?

Israel might be funding them as well.

and ....uhh....they kill eachother.....
edit on 25-2-2012 by casenately because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by casenately
they have a right to the same privacy that other member states have. They have not found any over 20% enriched uranium. There is no evidence they have violated anything.


The 20% is the problem as its over kill for Iran's programs.
Secondly the IAEA has noted a few times now that Iran is missing Uranium and cannot account for it.

Again, the manner in which Iran is being treated is the same N. Korea was before they withdrew from the treaty. Iran has a legal obligation to allow their program to be inspected by the IAEA.

Im not sure why you continually reject these points when they are already established and acknowledge by Iran.


Originally posted by casenately
The thing is they NEED evidence to make such a claim. If not we can invade Mexico right now. They have nuclear power and have private facilities that are classified by their government.

The IAEA has evidence, and has provided that evidence to Iran and wanted Iran to review the outstanding issues and address them.

To date they are refusing to address the issues, even after telling the UN in a letter that Iran was ready to sit down and resolve all outstanding issues raised.


Originally posted by casenately
Perhaps they too have nukes.


Perhaps they have a program that can make nukes?



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by casenately
reply to post by Soshh
 


no what I mean to say is don't make isht up. The people in question are not referring to the validity of the state of Israel, but ZIONISM. stop lying to us.


Why don't you look it up instead of pretending to know what you are talking about? Now there's a good idea.

Iran rejects the concept of a 'two state solution' precisely because it rejects of the existence of the State of Israel and any agreement that divides land belonging to the Palestinians.

It maintains that Israel is sat on Palestinian land. The "removal of the Zionist Regime" cannot possibly refer to the removal of a government of a country which the speaker does not recognise the existence of in the first place. It refers to Israel itself.


unless that is inconvenient to your war effort.


What war effort might that be?
edit on 25/2/12 by Soshh because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 09:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


20 % is fine for the research reactor or the navy they have.



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 09:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


then the IAEA needs to get that to our CIA because ALF keeps posting a link you seem to have missed.


are you using the report from the IAEA that was proven to not even be made by someone qualified in nuclear technology. The Russian scientist from that report was an expert in nano technology or something.
He had no idea about what to even look for.


edit on 25-2-2012 by casenately because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 09:26 AM
link   
reply to post by curedby432
 


Israel never signed the treaty, so it is a moot point. Iran DID sign it and agreed to certain conditions laid out in the treaty and still refuse to fully comply with the stipulations THEY agreed to.

See, that's the difference. Why sign a treaty voluntarily and then refuse to comply?



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Perhaps they have a program that can make nukes?


One thing is for sure. Iran doesn't have one even though you keep spilling your fear and hate about it.



U.S. Agencies See No Move by Iran to Build a Bomb

www.nytimes.com...



new topics

top topics



 
51
<< 42  43  44    46  47  48 >>

log in

join