Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 69
51
<< 66  67  68    70  71  72 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by milominderbinder
 


I'm beginning to develop a notion of why you think those muddled posts about Babylonian religion were either clear or had some bearing on this thread.

Tell me true, is it your position that "All Roads Lead to Babylon"?

ETA: If you really want to discuss ancient Mesopotamian (Sumerian/Babylonian/Assyrian) theology and culture, you should probably start a thread on that topic, instead of trying to muddy up this one. If you do, shoot me a link via U2U, and I'll be glad to come to it and educate you on aspects of ancient Mesopotamian theology you never knew existed.

I can tell from your posts and your erroneous timeline that there is a LOT you could learn about it.

edit on 2012/3/2 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by MagnumOpus

Originally posted by rebellender

Care to comment on this one?
I can SEE how YOU would say such hearsay but tell me more about this one


In the time of the JFK assassination, Ben Gurion and JFK were in a huge battle to keep Israel from getting the bomb. Most of those phone calls between JFK and Ben Gurion are still classified, as it shows up too much of the Zionists trying to control JFK.

Israel had a huge helper named Louis Bloomfield, a raging Zionist that started the Jewish Army in Palestine. Bloomfield had extensive connections with the nuclear establishment due to his associations with DISC, as put in place by JE Hoover. Bloomfield was also a principle controller for PERMINDEX, which is the European version of the Industrial CIA like a NAZI NW-7 group.

Bloomfield via PERMINDEX connections with HL Hunt in Dallas were the central group connected with killing JFK, and they employed both Hoover and LBJ to work the extensive cover up. Persons like Allan Dulles were also very close with PERMINDEX.

The reason Bloomfield hated JFK was over this JFK theme to keep Israel from getting the nuclear bomb, so that JFK and the US would not appear to be helping a US associated country set up bombs in Russia's back door as had happened with Turkey and the US Nuclear Missles there that kicked off the Cuban Missle crisis.

Israels want of nuclear weapons was a principle part of the killing of JFK, as LBJ would cast a blind eye to the Zionist's nuclear proliferation issues, even to the point of stealing nuclear weapons material from NUMEC at Apollo, Pa.

It has been well presented there is a huge association of Israel foreign agents involved in killing JFK.

Doesnt fit my LBJ killed JFK theory but remind me how this has to do with Iran playing with atom splitting technology on a fuse



posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by rebellender
Doesnt fit my LBJ killed JFK theory but remind me how this has to do with Iran playing with atom splitting technology on a fuse


Usually those that tell LBJ killed JFK, when LBJ was riding in the limo behind JFK kissing the floorboard, have on blinders and like distractions off of the Israeli connections in the JFK hit. It tells a lot about honesty and character, as well as logical process missing.

For those that don't have the intentionally obstructed view, that like to allow Israel to have nuclear weapons by killing JFK, they also don't notice that Iran hasn't killed US President to get to play with and develop nuclear power and medicine.

Sensibilty says one has to go against nukes in the middle east by all and not play favorites.

Let Israel attack Iran all by themselves, all the rest of the problems will be solved automatically.

When Isreal helped kill JFK, what goes around comes around, and the world isn't as illiterate as yourself. imho

edit on 2-3-2012 by MagnumOpus because: Illiteracy Games



posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu
reply to post by milominderbinder
 


I'm beginning to develop a notion of why you think those muddled posts about Babylonian religion were either clear or had some bearing on this thread.

Tell me true, is it your position that "All Roads Lead to Babylon"?

ETA: If you really want to discuss ancient Mesopotamian (Sumerian/Babylonian/Assyrian) theology and culture, you should probably start a thread on that topic, instead of trying to muddy up this one. If you do, shoot me a link via U2U, and I'll be glad to come to it and educate you on aspects of ancient Mesopotamian theology you never knew existed.

I can tell from your posts and your erroneous timeline that there is a LOT you could learn about it.

edit on 2012/3/2 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)


*SIGH*
No...I don't think "all roads lead to Babylon", nor have I said anything that would even remotely seem to indicate such. I was simply calling to your attention that you aren't understanding what people are posting to you. Which you seem to be proving yet again.

My only point is that your logic WOULD BE theoretically correct...HOWEVER....you are basing those conclusions upon faulty understandings of much of the factual information you have read and/or absorbed on the subject of Iran, Israel, and our pending invasion.

It's totally cool to agree to disagree. However, in general when engaged in intellectual discourse I try to point out clear errors of fact, indicators of bias, and other things which might be skewing perception and conclusion.

To sum those items up in a super-duper cliff notes list:

1. The Israeli's are a rogue state and the Arab states have very good and valid reasons to be quite upset with the Israeli political and military policy since the end of WWII.

2. Iran WAS a perfectly reasonable, democratic, secular, free-market society who along with Iraq and Afghanistan used to be some of the U.S.'s strongest allies...even as recently as the early 1950's.

3. ALL OF THE IRANIAN religious and political extremism we see today is a direct result of our repeated toppling of their government, provoking, funding, and arming, of their civil war, and in general destabilization of the entire Middle East.

4. It is not against any treaties for Iran to enrich Uranium, so long as they do not make nukes.

5. We have turned a blind eye towards Israel's nuclear program.

6. A nuclear deterrent might make us less likely to engage in foolhardy military efforts whose strategies are presumably designed by small children.

7. Irrespective of any perceived "moral duty" to invade and/or bomb the beejeebies out of Iran...we have not won a major military conflict in 67 years and there is absolutely nothing in our recent history that should indicate we are even the LEAST bit competent to successfully engage Iran.



posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by MagnumOpus
 




Usually those that tell LBJ killed JFK, when LBJ was riding in the limo behind JFK kissing the floorboard, have on blinders and like distractions off of the Israeli connections in the JFK hit. It tells a lot about honesty and character, as well as logical process missing.

look I am not going to argue this with you Johnson wasn't the trigger man obviously.and its off topic.

what does this have to do with Iran working on technology involving splitting atoms for the purpose of WMD's



posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by milominderbinder
I was simply calling to your attention that you aren't understanding what people are posting to you. Which you seem to be proving yet again.


Seem to be? This exchange started with my admission that I couldn't figure out what the devil he was trying to say. No clarification has been forthcoming. Why would you need to point it out if the exchange STARTED with my admission of such? I speak 4 languages. Gibberish is not one of them.



1. The Israeli's are a rogue state and the Arab states have very good and valid reasons to be quite upset with the Israeli political and military policy since the end of WWII.
.

Invalid, off topic, no response. Iran is the topic, and it is not an Arab state.



2. Iran WAS a perfectly reasonable, democratic, secular, free-market society who along with Iraq and Afghanistan used to be some of the U.S.'s strongest allies...even as recently as the early 1950's.


Iran has not been secular since the Sassanids were conquered. Iran was not secular under the Shah, nor was it secular before the Shah. To be fair, the Khomeini Usurpation brought religion out from under wraps in governmental matters, but it was always there.

"Democratic" is not a strong selling point with me.



3. ALL OF THE IRANIAN religious and political extremism we see today is a direct result of our repeated toppling of their government, provoking, funding, and arming, of their civil war, and in general destabilization of the entire Middle East.


No, it isn't. It was religiously and politically extreme before "we" even existed as a nation.



4. It is not against any treaties for Iran to enrich Uranium, so long as they do not make nukes.


Enrichment is not the issue, blocked inspection of what they are hiding is, as well as the questionable level of enrichment - but not the enrichment itself.



5. We have turned a blind eye towards Israel's nuclear program.


And rightfully so, since they never signed the NPT. It's not any of our business.



6. A nuclear deterrent might make us less likely to engage in foolhardy military efforts whose strategies are presumably designed by small children.


No, it will just guarantee mushroom clouds when Iran jumps. One nuke against 2500 nukes isn't much of a deterrent. 300 nukes aren't for that matter. You may be blissfully unaware of how nuclear deterrence works, or is bypassed. Something approaching parity is necessary - or at least enough to get a couple past the ABM shields and on to a target.



7. Irrespective of any perceived "moral duty" to invade and/or bomb the beejeebies out of Iran...we have not won a major military conflict in 67 years and there is absolutely nothing in our recent history that should indicate we are even the LEAST bit competent to successfully engage Iran.


Depends on what you mean by "win" and "major".

I personally don't feel any moral imperative to bomb Iran, nor would I advise an invasion. As I've said before, I'd just place ABMs and wait for a launch to shoot down over their own territory before it gets away. If they don't like those ABM emplacements, well, they're always welcome to launch at them. If they want nukes, they can live with deterrents like the big boys do.

I do agree that the generals and higher ups have screwed the pooch in Iraq and Afghanistan, and misused perfectly capable troops the the detriment of a victory. What do you really expect from politicians, though, whether they're wearing a suit or a uniform with a chest full of fruit salad? politicians are politicians. War is too serious a business to let them get involved in it.



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 05:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by rebellender

what does this have to do with Iran working on technology involving splitting atoms for the purpose of WMD's


Iran is working on nuclear power and medicine, which they admit, and they don't appear interested in a nuclear bomb, which the US intelligence sources tell us. Thus, your WMD appears to be something of your paranoia, and Israel's.

Nuclear armed Israel are the ones so worked up that someone will cheat and lie, as they did, to get a nuclear bomb. The Israeli propaganda and scare mongering is the attempt to get the US to bomb Iran is the root of the Middle East Proliferation issue.

Why does the US need to help one nuclear armed state to blow up an Arab state the Israelis hate, and get the US into WWIII. The US doesn't need to become suicidal over a bunch of Satan religion types promoting paranoia and pre-emtive strikes. imho

The Israelis paranoia will become their undoing soon enough, when they bomb Iran. Then Iran can show the world a war crime and declair war on only Israel. If the US attacks, the straights get closed, Russia and China get involved, that is the financial end of the US, WWIII is here.

Only fools recommend wars that provoke that.

9/10's of the Iraq war was about Bush trying to keep the Israelis from using nuclear bombs on Iraq, and the same game and leveraging is happening here. Let Israeli use their nukes and they'll find out how quickly the world looks upon them as being out of control crazies and stops supporting their insanity for wars.

Logic says the US needs to stay well clear of this to limit to less than WWIII.

edit on 3-3-2012 by MagnumOpus because: Fools paradise



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by MagnumOpus

Originally posted by rebellender

what does this have to do with Iran working on technology involving splitting atoms for the purpose of WMD's


Iran is working on nuclear power and medicine, which they admit, and they don't appear interested in a nuclear bomb, which the US intelligence sources tell us. Thus, your WMD appears to be something of your paranoia, and Israel's.

Nuclear armed Israel are the ones so worked up that someone will cheat and lie, as they did, to get a nuclear bomb. The Israeli propaganda and scare mongering is the attempt to get the US to bomb Iran is the root of the Middle East Proliferation issue.

Why does the US need to help one nuclear armed state to blow up an Arab state the Israelis hate, and get the US into WWIII. The US doesn't need to become suicidal over a bunch of Satan religion types promoting paranoia and pre-emtive strikes. imho

The Israelis paranoia will become their undoing soon enough, when they bomb Iran. Then Iran can show the world a war crime and declair war on only Israel. If the US attacks, the straights get closed, Russia and China get involved, that is the financial end of the US, WWIII is here.

Only fools recommend wars that provoke that.

9/10's of the Iraq war was about Bush trying to keep the Israelis from using nuclear bombs on Iraq, and the same game and leveraging is happening here. Let Israeli use their nukes and they'll find out how quickly the world looks upon them as being out of control crazies and stops supporting their insanity for wars.

Logic says the US needs to stay well clear of this to limit to less than WWIII.

edit on 3-3-2012 by MagnumOpus because: Fools paradise

Well Mr. Piece of Work, It does not matter what stories get made up here at ATS, We the world, are about to find out, now aren't we.Time for smooth talk is about over, so are the long writes of Fiction called history.



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by rebellender
Well Mr. Piece of Work, It does not matter what stories get made up here at ATS, We the world, are about to find out, now aren't we.Time for smooth talk is about over, so are the long writes of Fiction called history.


You might wanna park your little National Guard Race Car, since you won't be able to run it.

The shape of things to come, search: "Explosions Destroy Saudi Oil Pipeline, Sends Oil Prices Soaring"

www.zerohedge.com...


US Attacks on Iran will get the highly vulnerable Gulf burning.

www.zerohedge.com...


Never let low level military persons make decisions on anything. imho

Nor those supporting traitorous countries that killed JFK for nukes.

edit on 3-3-2012 by MagnumOpus because: Fools Paradise



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 09:27 AM
link   
Here is a policy brief that our leaders have most certainly received amongst others. It speaks about the possible reaction to military action against Iran.

Iran, why our specialists argue AGAINST invasion. Even attacking for regime change would only strengthen their power and consolidate their hold over the Iranians. It would also MAKE their resolve for nuclear weapons a reality. A reality that is currently not supported by any intelligence agency worth its weight in bombs.

A war with Iran would kill millions of Iranians. They would support their regime and in the process become targets of air strikes and foreign mercenaries.


The Dubai Initiative
Attacking Iran:
Lessons from the Iran-Iraq War
Annie Tracy Samuel

This policy brief seeks to contribute to and inform the debate concerning a possible attack by the United States and/or Israel on Iranian nuclear and military facilities. The presumed aim of such an attack would be to weaken the Islamic Republic, particularly by hindering its ability to build a nuclear weapon. However, the history of the
Iraqi invasion of Iran in September 1980 calls into question the contention that an attack will weaken the regime in Tehran.

This policy brief examines Iran’s reactions to the Iraqi invasion in order to shed light on Iran’s possible reactions to a U.S. or Israeli attack. It will assess how the Iranian people responded to the invasion and its effects on Iranian politics and the position of the new regime. It will also explore the nature of the policies adopted
by the Islamic Republic in waging the Iran-Iraq War that carried on for eight years after the Iraqi invasion.


In invading Iran, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein assumed that the divided Iranians and their dilapidated armed forces would be unable to put up much of a fight. He was wrong. Iranians responded to the invasion by uniting against him and under their current leadership, even though many opposed the direction the revolution had taken. Iran’s leaders quickly resurrected the armed forces by halting military trials and purges and enforcing
conscription.

The Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC), which was established following the revolution to serve primarily as an internal security force, transformed into a second military and rushed to confront the invading forces.2 Thousands of volunteers were incorporated into both the IRGC and the regular military.3 They were driven to defend the country, the revolution, and the Islamic Republic by a potent combination of nationalism, revolutionary mission, and religious zeal that was stoked by the foreign threat.

An attack on Iran by the United States or Israel will likely add to the ranks of the regime’s supporters. Just as a divided population came together to confront the Iraqi invasion, Iranians of all stripes will unite in opposition to an attack. The upshot will be a stronger, more cohesive, and more militant Islamic Republic.

In the words of Mohammad Khatami, Iran’s reformist former president and a harsh critic of some of Iran’s current leaders and policies, “If there should one day be any military interference in Iran, then all factions, regardless of reformists or non-reformists, would [unite] and confront the attack.”

An attack on Iran will not only bring Iranians together under the current regime; it will also unite them in support for a decision to acquire nuclear weapons. At this time the evidence suggests that Iranian leaders are developing and acquiring the technology that would enable them to produce nuclear weapons. However, the evidence also suggests that they have not made the decision to proceed with a concerted attempt to establish a
nuclear weapons program.

An attack on Iran will damage, but not destroy, Iran’s nuclear program. Even if it targeted Iranian nuclear facilities and was limited in scope, an attack will most likely be interpreted by Iranians as a declaration of war, an attempt at regime change, and a determination to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear technology or enrichment capability of any nature. It will also convince them that accelerating that drive and ultimately possessing nuclear weapons is the only way to safeguard their regime and their country from future attack.

Hans Blix, the former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, recently put forward this view. “I don’t think you can convince anyone to give up an atomic programme through the threat of violence,” he stated. “Rather, it will cause them to move even faster on it, in order to defend themselves.

In this way, the nuclear program symbolizes how Iran views its position in the world,with a mix of strength and vulnerability. The nuclear program has come to represent a source of national pride, a badge of Iran’s modern power status, and an emblem of its imperial past. At the same time, it is seen as an essential tool to reduce Iran’s vulnerability by creating a bulwark against threats of attack or invasion.

It is therefore an admission of Iran’s relative weakness. An attack on Iran would reinforce this sense of vulnerability and would be seen as a reenactment of previous efforts to curb Iran’s independent power. It
would accordingly solidify the place of nuclear weapons in assuring that power.

While the regime may increase its strength in the wake of an attack by winning new supporters, it may also be able to capitalize on an attack to eliminate its internal enemies. That is precisely what happened following the 1980 Iraqi invasion. Ayatollah Khomeini and his allies used the war to strengthen their control over the state along the war-making state-making nexus, following the pattern of revolutionary elites in other
countries.

in a 2005 op-ed in The New York Times, Iranian human rights activists Shirin Ebadi and Hadi Ghaemi put forward “The Human Rights Case Against Attacking Iran.” They argued that, “for human rights defenders in Iran, the possibility of a foreign military attack on their country represents an utter disaster for their cause.” The authors
also drew a parallel with the Islamic Republic’s behavior following the 1980 Iraqi invasion.

The “threat of foreign military intervention will provide a powerful excuse for authoritarian elements to uproot [independent human rights organizations] and put an end to their growth,” they argued.

During the Iran-Iraq War, Iran’s leaders characterized the process of waging war as essential to and the most important part of the process of advancing the Islamic Republic internally. Prosecuting the war
was less contentious and in many ways easier to deal with than the critical issues relating
to Iran’s internal politics and development.


Military action against Iran, and even the continuing threat of attack, is likely to give the Islamic Republic a new lease on life. Its devoted supporters will be strengthened and mobilized, and it will enjoy the additional support of those who will join in condemning and retaliating for an attack. Threats of a possible strike, and certainly a strike itself, substantiate and animate the security narrative Iranian leaders have been propagating for years: that the West is determined to raze the Islamic Republic. They have mastered the art of using the threat of attack, signs of Western hostility towards Iran, and even invasion to consolidate their power. Further, the more likely an attack appears, the more determined Iranians will be to acquire a nuclear weapons capability. The policy of attacking and threatening Iran has served as the lifeblood sustaining the Islamic Republic. We have yet to see how the regime might sustain itself without it.




www.dayan.org...
edit on 3-3-2012 by BIHOTZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by MagnumOpus

Originally posted by rebellender
Well Mr. Piece of Work, It does not matter what stories get made up here at ATS, We the world, are about to find out, now aren't we.Time for smooth talk is about over, so are the long writes of Fiction called history.


You might wanna park your little National Guard Race Car, since you won't be able to run it.

The shape of things to come, search: "Explosions Destroy Saudi Oil Pipeline, Sends Oil Prices Soaring"

www.zerohedge.com...


US Attacks on Iran will get the highly vulnerable Gulf burning.

Never let low level military persons make decisions on anything. imho

Nor those supporting traitorous countries that killed JFK for nukes.

edit on 3-3-2012 by MagnumOpus because: Fools Paradise


plenty of Alcohol for racing it builds more ponies and runs cooler.

For the Love of Allah this is not the JFK warren commission Thread
edit on 3-3-2012 by rebellender because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by milominderbinder
I was simply calling to your attention that you aren't understanding what people are posting to you. Which you seem to be proving yet again.


Seem to be? This exchange started with my admission that I couldn't figure out what the devil he was trying to say. No clarification has been forthcoming. Why would you need to point it out if the exchange STARTED with my admission of such? I speak 4 languages. Gibberish is not one of them.



1. The Israeli's are a rogue state and the Arab states have very good and valid reasons to be quite upset with the Israeli political and military policy since the end of WWII.
.

Invalid, off topic, no response. Iran is the topic, and it is not an Arab state.



2. Iran WAS a perfectly reasonable, democratic, secular, free-market society who along with Iraq and Afghanistan used to be some of the U.S.'s strongest allies...even as recently as the early 1950's.


Iran has not been secular since the Sassanids were conquered. Iran was not secular under the Shah, nor was it secular before the Shah. To be fair, the Khomeini Usurpation brought religion out from under wraps in governmental matters, but it was always there.

"Democratic" is not a strong selling point with me.



3. ALL OF THE IRANIAN religious and political extremism we see today is a direct result of our repeated toppling of their government, provoking, funding, and arming, of their civil war, and in general destabilization of the entire Middle East.


No, it isn't. It was religiously and politically extreme before "we" even existed as a nation.



4. It is not against any treaties for Iran to enrich Uranium, so long as they do not make nukes.


Enrichment is not the issue, blocked inspection of what they are hiding is, as well as the questionable level of enrichment - but not the enrichment itself.



5. We have turned a blind eye towards Israel's nuclear program.


And rightfully so, since they never signed the NPT. It's not any of our business.



6. A nuclear deterrent might make us less likely to engage in foolhardy military efforts whose strategies are presumably designed by small children.


No, it will just guarantee mushroom clouds when Iran jumps. One nuke against 2500 nukes isn't much of a deterrent. 300 nukes aren't for that matter. You may be blissfully unaware of how nuclear deterrence works, or is bypassed. Something approaching parity is necessary - or at least enough to get a couple past the ABM shields and on to a target.



7. Irrespective of any perceived "moral duty" to invade and/or bomb the beejeebies out of Iran...we have not won a major military conflict in 67 years and there is absolutely nothing in our recent history that should indicate we are even the LEAST bit competent to successfully engage Iran.


Depends on what you mean by "win" and "major".

I personally don't feel any moral imperative to bomb Iran, nor would I advise an invasion. As I've said before, I'd just place ABMs and wait for a launch to shoot down over their own territory before it gets away. If they don't like those ABM emplacements, well, they're always welcome to launch at them. If they want nukes, they can live with deterrents like the big boys do.

I do agree that the generals and higher ups have screwed the pooch in Iraq and Afghanistan, and misused perfectly capable troops the the detriment of a victory. What do you really expect from politicians, though, whether they're wearing a suit or a uniform with a chest full of fruit salad? politicians are politicians. War is too serious a business to let them get involved in it.



You're silly.

If you are going to chime in with things like "Israel is off-topic" after having just ranted your support for invading Iran because of they "threatened Israel" for 60+ pages then there is clearly no reasoning with you.

Whatever, dude.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by milominderbinder
 


Note - This is the topic -

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


Being up as many excuses as you wish, but it doesn't change the fact its Iran we are talking about. If you want to complain about Israel use one of the hundreds of other threads already in place for it.

Or is it so impossible to defend Irans position that the only way to do it is to constantly try to change the topic?

Any comments on IRAN's response to the IAEA?



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 01:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by milominderbinder

You're silly.

If you are going to chime in with things like "Israel is off-topic" after having just ranted your support for invading Iran because of they "threatened Israel" for 60+ pages then there is clearly no reasoning with you.

Whatever, dude.


Please show me a SINGLE POST where I said Iran should be invaded because they threatened Israel. I won't even require your claimed "60 pages" - JUST ONE POST from me will do.

You know what? I'll even make it easier for you. That's actually two elements, either one of which I will accept. Show me a SINGLE POST where I have said EITHER 1) Iran should be invaded, OR 2) because they have threatened Israel.

I'll wait while you either dig that post up or recant and admit I never said any such thing.

I'm afraid it is also my duty to state right here for the record that you entirely sidestepped that rather lengthy post of mine, and failed to respond to ANY of the points I made. My guess is that's because you have no valid response to any of them, and so chose to attempt a smoke screen instead. In light of that, I find it really odd that you still quoted the entire post, as if you were responding to it, when what you were REALLY doing was putting your inability to respond on display with that glaring lack of response.






edit on 2012/3/5 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 10:10 AM
link   
Oh Darn, Isreal speaks again on Iran, Syria.

The whole world knows that Israel is the principle country that wanted to bomb Iran, so they also take the principle role in the discussions. It appears that bombing is taking a back seat.

What will the bomb Iran promoters here do..... Whine and Cry... Nobody listened, their paranoid didn't take flight.

=====

www.wnd.com...

Israel shelves Iran military option
U.N. ambassador says diplomacy needs more time

====

All these Israeli weapons and bombs turning up in armed insurrections tells the world something:

www.globalresearch.ca...

====

"In the soothing thoughts

that spring out of human suffering."



"In the faith that looks

through death."



"Thanks to the human heart

by which we live."


To me the meanest satanic flower

that blows...


can give thoughts that do lie

too deep for tears."



edit on 5-3-2012 by MagnumOpus because: Israel=Insurrection Specialists that promote lies



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by MagnumOpus
 


Please point out what your post has to do with Iran?
Its not adifficult concept to understand that Iran is the topic of conversation, regardless of how many times you are going to cowardly attempt to shift discussion away from them.

Its simple.. you are incapable of defending Irans position, so you are desperately trying to shift the topic.. Typical and an old tired excuse used on this site.

Please, defend Iran and their quest for nuclear weapons.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


As i said on another post I honestly think israel should bomb Irans nuke facilities. If Iran is stupid enough to retaliate by attacking Israeli cities and Israeli civilians.
Then Israel should nuke the entire country of Iran and bring it back to the stone age.

Enough with the Iranian primitive regime...
edit on 5-3-2012 by CountDrac because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by MagnumOpus
 


Please point out what your post has to do with Iran?
Its not adifficult concept to understand that Iran is the topic of conversation, regardless of how many times you are going to cowardly attempt to shift discussion away from them.

Its simple.. you are incapable of defending Irans position, so you are desperately trying to shift the topic.. Typical and an old tired excuse used on this site.

Please, defend Iran and their quest for nuclear weapons.


And we have the conclusion
People agree on : Let's Cut to the Chase - Israel Must Be Stopped
Flags dont lies !


The rights thing to do is to avoid a WAR not to MAKE ONE
you see the difference now ?

come on now Xcathdra .. supporting futur war crimes on someones
makes you egual to the ones launching the bombs

Dont get me wrong .. i would never agree anyone to bomb Israel
but i can distinguish clearly who is the oppressor here always using banned weapons one civilians
when they say to others dont build dirty bombs or else
Depleted Uranium shells are banned
White Phophorous dangerous chimical weapon
Cluster bombs .. many civilians are always hurt and dismembered
Israel when they attack Gaza and Lebanon always user those
now what do you think they reserve for Iran ? a few nukes on Ahmadinejad heads

who wants peace and who wants hell
think about it
edit on 3/5/2012 by Ben81 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by milominderbinder
 


Note - This is the topic -

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


Being up as many excuses as you wish, but it doesn't change the fact its Iran we are talking about. If you want to complain about Israel use one of the hundreds of other threads already in place for it.

Or is it so impossible to defend Irans position that the only way to do it is to constantly try to change the topic?

Any comments on IRAN's response to the IAEA?


Ummmm...you and Hospitallers are the ones invoking Israel as a justification to suck the U.S. into yet another war. You guys brought up Israel...not me.

In regards to Iran's response to the IAEA...what's the problem? I just don't get it.

1. I am perfectly comfortable with a nuclear Iran. In fact, I think it may serve to even tone down our wanton policies of agression and destabilization in the middle east.

2. Why do we care that Iran is doing the exact same thing Israel did in 1969? If anything...all we have done is teach Iran that the best way to become a US ally even when reason dictates otherwise is to just defy the UN and the IAEA....right?

3. WHY DOES IRAN FEEL LIKE THEY NEED NUKES TO BE HEARD?? Is it perhaps a product of our 59-year and counting persistant attempts to keep Iran in chaos?

4. So...the "solution" to get Iran to back down on it's nuke program is to park a couple of nuclear capable carrier battle groups off their shore and destroy their economy with harsh sanctions? That's IDIOTIC.

History tells us that the most dangerous adversary in warfare or negotiations is ALWAYS the one who feels that they have nothing to lose. When backed into an inescapable corner, your adversary always has an EASIER time recruiting troops and gaining support at home...and the troops that do come out will almost ALWAYS fight harder and longer and more successfully.

So if the Iranians "comply" and open up the country to foreign inspectors to disarm them all they "win" is PERHAPS a removal sanctions...but UNDENIABLY the U.S. will still be running amok and propping up dictators, and arming their neighbors...just like we did with Saddam when he used US MANUFACTURED chemical weapons on them to the tune of 1 million lives. Besides...as we know from Iraq #2 opening up for inspections and being in compliance doesn't mean a damn thing, right? Remember when UN inspector Hans Blix turned Iraq upside down and said they don't have any WMD's?? What good did cooperation do the Iraqi government or the couple of hundred thousand civilians we have killed there?

And if they refuse to comply...what? We bomb them and hope like hell that Russia and China don't side with them? Bomb them so that we can be absolutely sure they launch that first nuke just as soon as it's ready? Let's face it...given how incompetent our intelligence agencies performed in locating WMD's and finding Bin Laden there really isn't anything to say that they don't already have 10 or 20 of them, right?

What if we go play cowboy and we find out the hard way that Iran has a couple of HUNDRED of Soviet surplus nukes? Remember....there are THOUSANDS of them that are "missing". Wouldn't that be cute...we start a full blown nuclear war to stop Iran from getting what they already have.

...and that point brings me full circle.

IT REALLY DOESN'T MATTER IF IRAN IS IN EITHER IN OR OUT OF COMPLIANCE, IS THREATENING ISRAEL...OR IS THREATENING US FOR THAT MATTER. IDEALS ARE IRRELEVANT IF THEY CANNOT BE ACTUALIZED.

The bottom line is that it's a really, really bad idea to start wars that you can't win. Look around you...the entire country is incompetent in just about everything we do except for reality TV and douchebag pop stars!!! Our intelligence agencies provide faulty intel and get us into wars, it takes us 10 yrs to find a guy living in the Pakistani suburbs, we have no space program to speak of, our "latest and greatest" generation of fighter planes will be a minimum of 5 years late and hundreds of billions over budget. Hell...we can't even hand out $8 bottles of penicillin to sick kids without getting into a partisan pissing-match.

...but we are going to kill a couple hundred thousand Iranian civilians who "get in the way", disarm Iran...and that will be what makes them want Starbucks, rock music, and an NFL team?

That is INSANE.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by CountDrac
reply to post by seabag
 


As i said on another post I honestly think israel should bomb Irans nuke facilities. If Iran is stupid enough to retaliate by attacking Israeli cities and Israeli civilians.
Then Israel should nuke the entire country of Iran and bring it back to the stone age.

Enough with the Iranian primitive regime...
edit on 5-3-2012 by CountDrac because: (no reason given)


That's what they say about you.





new topics

top topics



 
51
<< 66  67  68    70  71  72 >>

log in

join