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.


Iran stockpiling food? Why?

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 12:44 AM

Originally posted by princeofpeace
So on ATS its okay to be anti-semetic but NOT anti-muslim or anti-arabic etc? Ok

your cant really be anti arabic unless you are a hater of foreign language...

and if you take a look around ATS there is more anti Muslim anti Islamic sentiment than any where I have ever seen....

you only have a few Muslims here, but we do refute the idiocy from time to time....

and on ATS, it would not be ok to hate any particular race or people, for no reason than ignorance... so really there is no anti semitic sentiment around here that I have seen....for that you would probably want to go to a Neo Nazi site... plenty of it there

posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 12:53 AM
reply to post by glasshouse

Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't Iran have active and tolerated synagogues? Is there an elected parliament in Iran? Are any of the sitting members Jewish?

posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 12:56 AM
Name us a war where stockpiling was documented as happening before it started?

posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 01:32 AM
reply to post by ezekielken
Yes, I am aware that Iran has active synagogues. So does America. Are you suggesting that America also has no anti-semitism? On the topic of tolerance, there are many conflicting reports as to the degree of tolerance that exists.If I'm not mistaken, Iran does have one Jewish member of Iranian Parliament, Maurice Motamed. Does this information prove there aren't anti-semites in Iran?
Did you take a sec to check my links on the topic?

Take a look and tell me which parts you agree or disagree with.
Thanks for the reply

posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 01:36 AM
reply to post by pacifier2012
Ummm... I would think stock piling would occur before every war. Am I missing your point?

posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 01:45 AM
reply to post by glasshouse

I am shia Muslim, the same religion as those in Iran... I do not dislike jews in the least, not for their religion, and there are some jews who are wonderful people that I know of.

I do not know any shia muslims who dont like jewish people, or have any animosity toward people of the Jewish faith, simply for their faith.... and this is an honest thing.... I really in my life have never met any shia like this...

but every single shia I know, and this includes myself, is against, and most have a hatred for, zionism.

there may be some people in iran that dont like jews just because of their faith.... I do not know... but I am sure some ignorant people like that probably exist....

but the thing about shia, is that even the children are taught the difference between a jew and a zionist... so among the shia you are going to see less hated of jews for their faith.... and more just simple hatred of zionism, because from a very young age they are taught the difference.

Media as a whole, wants to say someone who hates zionism just hates jews, and this is the farthest thing from the truth.
edit on 29-7-2012 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 02:01 AM
reply to post by OpinionatedB

Thanks for acknowledging that the possibility actually exists. That's more than anyone has conceded to this point. I am not calling you or your friends and family anti-semites, just staing that it exists in most cultures to varying degrees.
Do you believe that the line between anti-semitism and anti-zionism can be easily blurred by those who are less educated?
Check out this link and let me know what you think: When Does Anti-Zionism Become Anti-Semitism?

Not saying I agree with everything in this article but I think it's worth thinking about

Edit: As I stated earlier, I do realize there is a difference in anti-zionism anti-semitism
edit on 07/27/12 by glasshouse because: content

posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 02:16 AM
reply to post by glasshouse

Do you honestly want to know what I think of that article? Or did you just post it to push your own agenda?

posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 02:20 AM
reply to post by OpinionatedB

Honestly, what do you think about it? Does the author make any valid points? Does he make any invalid points? My interest grew after it took the better part of an afternoon/evening before someone would even admit it was possible for anti-semites to live in Iran. I'm not trying to be sarcastic, I'm genuinely interested

edit on 07/27/12 by glasshouse because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 02:38 AM
reply to post by glasshouse

Well, it starts off nicely... in the beginning of it he makes tons of sense and says it about right... I have no problem with the beginning of the article.

Where I start having difficulties is when he tries to break it up into categories, here he just starts lying.... the article becomes one that is agenda based, and the agenda is to make you think that anyone who is against the state of Israel hates Jews....

It is what the Zionists want you to think, that someone who is against Zionism is against Jews period. This is why I say this:

he says in the article

One perspective, which can broadly be called pro-Israel, is balanced in terms of favouring a two-state solution

so here you have key words, "Pro Israel" "Balanced" and "Two State Solution" .... these key words are saying, anyone who is Pro-Israel wanting a two state solution is a balanced and rational person....

that is very biased all things considered.

the next thing he says is:

The third Left perspective I have called anti-Zionist fundamentalism because it is akin to religious fundamentalism

Key words here are "Anti Zionist Fundamentalist" "akin to religious fundamentalism"

That pretty much says it all right there... to him... an anti zionist is the same as a religious zealot...putting in your mind extremeism of all kinds

next he says:

This view, which is held mainly but no longer exclusively by far Left groups, regards Israel as a racist and colonialist state which has no right to exist

so anyone who does not believe in the legality of a bunch of white europeans stealing land and murdering for someone elses land is now the same as a religious zealot.

next he says:

The anti-Zionist fundamentalist discourse quickly decays into openly anti-Jewish rhetoric. Firstly, there is a pathological and obsessive hatred and demonisation of Israel unrelated to the actual actions and reality of that State. These include absurd claims that Israel is the world’s worst human rights abuser, or that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinians.

First he says that any conversation when speaking to someone who is against zionism will become anti jewish in commentary.... yet... he does not speak on any "anti jewish" remarks, instead... he speaks about political matters that people oppose.... how is opposing matters political in nature concerning the zionist agenda and zionist state, anti jewish? That is ignorant to say!

Then he further decays into lies in effort to support the zionist agenda....

so really... the article is biased, and clearly designed to make out anyone who is against the state of Israel into an anti semite.... it is their agenda...

not the truth.... and words say a lot...
edit on 29-7-2012 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 02:56 AM
reply to post by OpinionatedB
Thanks for your feedback, it is much appreciated.

posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 03:03 AM
reply to post by glasshouse

your welcome

posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 04:14 AM

Originally posted by glasshouse
reply to post by Expat888
As I stated earlier, I see a clear distinction between the citizens of Iran and the ruling regime and have not endorsed military action. I'm sure Iran is a beautiful place with beautiful people. I also think it is the home of a violent sect of Mahdiism. Did you read the dissertation I linked to? I would like the opinion of someone that speaks Farsi on this matter. Do you speak Farsi?

You want to speak or understand Farsi? Farsi

It's free & installs in seconds
Uninstaller included

posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 06:04 AM

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by trysts

I think you should be able to understand the analogy of the home:

I think the term you are referring to is initial aggressor. In that sense, yes, the USA was indeed the initial aggressor. At this point in time, however, Iran has retaliated with their rhetoric and has thus become an aggressor as well. Just as, in your example, Mississippi would become an aggressor by retaliating against the initial New York aggression. Being an aggressor does not mean one is not defending themselves.

The real stumbling block is the dollar pegged to OPEC oil. That agreement worked well for a very long time, but the US's idiotic monetary policies eventually led to Iran's concern over the peg. That resulted in the US overthrowing a democratically-elected government and replacing it with the Shah. That led to the Ayatollah's seizing power, the resulting Iranian hostage crisis and the oil shortage of the 70s, the escalating tensions since, the recent moves by multiple OPEC countries to depeg from the dollar, and their overthrow at the hands of 'rebels'.

Also, I strongly recommend taking a deep breath here. Neither you nor I can change foreign policy of either country. It is what it is, and I can state what I see happening without agreeing with it in principle. I can also take steps to protect me and mine from the resulting carnage if I can see it happening. Other than that, I have no dog in the race for whose going to survive the inevitable encounter..

Iran is not developing a nuclear weapon. That is propaganda.

Naturally-occurring uranium has a U-235 concentration of about 0.7%. If enriched to 3-5%, it becomes suitable for large-scale commercial power production (nuclear power). Past that point, up to 20% enrichment can be used for experimental reactor designs. Anything higher is weapons-grade. I have seen enough reports of enrichment in the range of 30% and a little higher in Iran to believe them, and with enrichment so expensive and time-consuming, why would anyone enrich to that point (and continue trying to enrich past it) unless they planned on making weapons?


The "initial aggressor" remains the sole aggressor in this case, since Iran's rhetoric is only in reaction to real, physical aggression on the part of the U.S.

The "nuclear issue" is a sideshow, just like the NATO invasion of Libya was said to be for "humanitarian reasons". Sitting there and speculating upon the amount of enrichment necessary to build a nuclear bomb is not the issue behind the threats and sanctions, and even if it were, Iran has the right to enrich uranium for any purpose they wish. The U.S. hypocrisy on the "nuclear issue" is breathtaking.

posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 06:07 AM

Originally posted by hiphoprevolution
reply to post by trysts

Once you realise whats been going on all these years.....ANYTHINGS possible, dont be close minded

Could you specify what comment I made which you find to be close-minded, please?

posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 07:43 AM
reply to post by glasshouse

well this is the tomb of Daniel in Iran. you can see somehow a mixture islamic architecture and non_islamic. this is where all the people from jews to muslims visit as a Pilgrimage when they have a trip to southern Iran.

and when you read this article of RT you can see these

""""I ask him if Muslims and Jews visit the Tomb of Daniel in Susa. Rahmatullah does not answer directly, which is not unusual for Oriental people.

“Imam Ali [son-in-law of the Prophet Muhammad the shia and sunnie religous leader] said, ‘He who honors me should also honor Prophet Daniel,’” says the elder. I have never heard a Jew quote an Islamic Imam before. Iranian Jews don’t see anything strange about that.""""


""""Islamic theologian Mohsen Rabbani, director of “Fundacion Cultural Oriente”, describes religious similarities between Jews and Muslims.

“We believe that Moses and Jesus are great prophets. If you don’t believe that, you are not Muslim. We believe in Abrahamic religions. We view them as brothers. We as Muslims believe in Prophet Moses. The Islamic Republic of Iran is the only country where religious minorities have the same freedoms, occupy high positions, are free to operate on the market, in the economy, and have their representatives in the parliament. We consider ourselves first Jews, then Christians, and only after that, Muslims.”"""""

and also these links can clarify the relation between Iran and jews from ancient time to now. and Cyrus the Messiah of jews was the king of persian achaemenid empire that saved Daniel and jews from babylonians.

muslims even do not consider jews as jesus killers because::

"""Quran says::[4.157] And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, the apostle of God; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Jesus) and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure."""

so there is no reason that we can see anti_semitism in Iran.

and about Jihad. shias are victims of misinterpretations of Jihad even more than anyone else.

and if you want to know the relation between wrong Jihad and wahabism, the Saudi Arabia and CIA, Mossad and Mi6 you should know that some Arabic countries that are allies of US are going to wage a war against Syria. and they brainwash their merciless soldiers that it is a Jihad against unbelievers !

edit on 29-7-2012 by maes9 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 10:04 AM
reply to post by OpinionatedB

It is what the Zionists want you to think, that someone who is against Zionism is against Jews period.

Forgive me if this is a sensitive subject, but my purpose at ATS is to deny ignorance - even in myself.

Can you explain to me, in terms I can understand, what the difference between Zionism and anti-Semitism is? I am really, truly, honestly confused about the difference. I admitted earlier to my ignorance about your religion, so if you could explain it in non-religious terms it would be appreciated.


posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 10:33 AM
reply to post by trysts

The "initial aggressor" remains the sole aggressor in this case, since Iran's rhetoric is only in reaction to real, physical aggression on the part of the U.S.

Has the US invaded Iran?

The only aggression I see is pretty much historic. The US has:
  • used operatives to facilitate the overthrow of a democratically-elected government to institute the Shah way back when.
  • Hid the Shah from assassins after the (predictable) overthrow of his regime.
  • Tried to enforce US monetary pegging of oil supplies globally.
  • Supported Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq War.
  • Apparently sent drones over Iranian territory.
  • Established military bases in the area.
  • Supported sanctions against an obvious nuclear weapon development.

Iran has:
  • Threatened to pull back from a previously-agreed-to US monetary peg to their oil.
  • Tried to manipulate oil supplies to various countries.
  • Attempted to assassinate the Shah.
  • Kidnapped and held students (non-militants) for an extended time.
  • Publicly rejoiced in and condoned the 911 attacks.
  • Took part on what most Westerners would consider human rights violations.
  • Made repeated threats toward the existence of one of our close allies.

This has been a song-and-dance since day one of the Shah's reign. No one has been invaded; no official war has been declared; no serious overt hostilities have occurred. On the other hand, neither side has been willing to back away from the rhetoric.

I have no problem with admitting the US's role and the reasons Iran has to be concerned about our actions. I disagree with those actions in most cases, although I don't see what we really could do differently now. But I also see the reasons the US has to be concerned itself. Just because we started it, it does not follow that after all this time we do not now have legitimate concerns.

I would like nothing better than to see the US and Iran each back away from the rhetoric and let these issues die a peaceful death. But that will take both sides participating.

Sitting there and speculating upon the amount of enrichment necessary to build a nuclear bomb is not the issue behind the threats and sanctions, and even if it were, Iran has the right to enrich uranium for any purpose they wish.

There is no speculation on enrichment necessary for electrical power generation and for weapons of war. You lose credibility when you dismiss science for propaganda.

I will agree that the US position on Iranian nuclear weaponry is hypocritical. They are surrounded by nuclear countries, both allies and antagonists. Yet, I believe the major concern surrounding this development of weapons is based on the repeated threats made verbally toward Israel. It would only take one nuke to remove Israel from existence due to its small physical size, and I have heard quite a few threats from Iranian officials to the effect of that being exactly their plan.

To use an example, I have no problem with my neighbor having a gun... but if that neighbor has been stating openly for years that his only desire in life is to kill my friend, now I've got a problem with it.

What guarantee can you give me that Iran will be conscientious with their new weaponry and that they will not use it in an assault toward another country in spite of what they say?


posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 10:36 AM
reply to post by TheRedneck

Sir, respectfully, when did Iranians

■Publicly rejoiced in and condoned the 911 attacks.

also, to what do you refer when you say:

■Kidnapped and held students (non-militants) for an extended time.


posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 10:38 AM
reply to post by TheRedneck

Being against zionism is not religious in any way... it is truly a political stance, one of being against the Israeli state, seeing it as illegal and immoral. The state of Israel is seen no differently than would people see the Native American plight in the United States.

As far as anti semitism goes, I believe the legal definition of that is someone who hates Jews for their very race, however, since we are in the very least all Semitic, being of the same origons and family, you cannot truely accuse Arabs of being anti semetic. I am of Semitic origin, I just happen to be a different faith than a Jewish Semite.

Therefore, I have always seen the usage of being one who simply hates a people for the religion they hold. And, while the Holy Quran does say the Jews did wrong things, in order to effectively warn Muslims not to do those same things, since people will have this propensity, it also defines Jews as "People of the Book" and as such respected. Muslim men are allowed to marry Jewish women etc. and should they do so they must safeguard the womans right to practice her religion. Therefore Jews are seen as upright and respectable, else we would not be allowed to marry them.

Shia know this, and are taught this, there are some Muslims who ignore these facts, the Shia, however do not, as a whole. We can never simply hate someone for whatever faith they hold, but only what actions they may personally have.
edit on 29-7-2012 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)

<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in