Iran Threatens to Hit Israel and U.S. Bases

page: 8
16
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by sonnny1
Actually he provided more then enough, for ANYONE to see. You on the other hand provided knee-jerk OPINION. It seems to me you are to worried about one poster, or another, then to provide some actually facts, then mere opinion, to substantiate your opinions.

The ONLY epidemic on ATS are those who believe their opinion is worth more then the facts presented.


People keep saying that I'm speaking only opinion and refuse to specify what these things are.

Stop speaking in generals. You quote something I've said that you believe is opinion and I will give you documentation that proves it's fact.

You all refuse to do so.. so don't be offended when I think you're ignorant and silly.




posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Drezden
 


The title of the thread:
Iran Threatens to Hit Israel and U.S. Bases

Not a grocery list of what Involvement the US China or Russia had or hadn't.

So back on topic, The head of Iran's Revolutionary Guards says“ if Iran is attacked, nothing of Israel will be left” .
The threat of a genocide an total annihilation can not be any more clearer than that.
On the other side, Israel have never made such a threat. They repeatedly stated that Iran's (the biggest terrorism exporter and financier) nuclear program must be stopped.

My two cents, apples and oranges.
edit on 23-9-2012 by gravitational because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by gravitational
 


I'm not sure why you are replying to me, if you read the last several pages of this thread I'm not sitting here alone discussing the U.S. support of Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war to myself. Especially since that war directly effects Iran's foreign policy with the U.S. today. Regardless this is all relevant to the situation. A clear understanding of historical facts is what helps us make wise choices for the future. Discussing Present day Iran warrants a discussion of recent history involving Iran, especially when people are ignorant of the past.

A topic as serious as war with Iran allows room for discussion about Iran.
edit on 9/23/2012 by Drezden because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Preaching to the choir, my man. Preaching to the choir.

I've come to the conclusion, as unworkable as it is, that the rest of the world needs to get the hell out of the ME, and let them settle it themselves.

It'll quite down rather suddenly, I'm sure. Though it'll likely be the silence of the grave...



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by seagull
 


While I agree with pulling out of the ME people really do need to understand what the would mean:

A power vaccum would be created that would be filled by either China,Russia or radical theocracys worse than what we have seen.

As long as Isreal exists there will be no peace in the middle east.

The Middle east has been fighting among themselves for over 2000 years pulling out will not change that fact., and then Iran goes nuclear, their neighbors would go nuclear.

That is a recipe for disaster.



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Drezden
 


Let me explain how I see things unfolding here on ATS lately.

Dude 1 : “Iran is the agressor “

Dude 2 : "lol....I ran hasn't started a war in like 34700 years “

Dude 1 : “but they use proxies like Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad etc' “

Dude 2 : “ MAN, the U.S is guilty...oh, and the Crusaders”

See what I mean? It's getting really old and boring after awhile.



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by seagull
 


I agree but no offense I don't care for your possible final prognoses



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tw0Sides

The Israeli Bootlickers



Nice. Is this a term in opposition to "the Iran ass-kissers"?




seem to be OK with a NUKE pointed at every Major City in Europe.


Don't know about the "bootlickers" or the "ass-kissers", but I'm ok with it. Why SHOULD I care? Europe seems to be fine with it's new-found ability to take care of itself, so I can't think of a reason I need to run to their rescue any more.

Let Europeans worry over Europe's glowing future.



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by gravitational
Let me explain how I see things unfolding here on ATS lately.

Dude 1 : “Iran is the agressor “

Dude 2 : "lol....I ran hasn't started a war in like 34700 years “

Dude 1 : “but they use proxies like Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad etc' “

Dude 2 : “ MAN, the U.S is guilty...oh, and the Crusaders”

See what I mean? It's getting really old and boring after awhile.


Quoted for TRUTH!



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Nor do I. I'd like to see Jerusalem, and the rest of the Middle East some day. There's much there to see, and to learn... Can't do that when it's glowing in the dark.



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Oh, I know that. You'll notice I did say unworkable...

The best thing for the Middle East would be for the oil to dry out. Any bets on how fast the outside influences would cease?



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by seagull
 


Oil is only one product there are others even if it did there would be something to replace it as old as civilization is and the resources that have come and gone, from salt to oil nothing will change.

It's all happened before, It will all happen again.



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by seagull
 


While I agree with pulling out of the ME people really do need to understand what the would mean:

A power vaccum would be created that would be filled by either China,Russia or radical theocracys worse than what we have seen.

As long as Isreal exists there will be no peace in the middle east.

The Middle east has been fighting among themselves for over 2000 years pulling out will not change that fact., and then Iran goes nuclear, their neighbors would go nuclear.

That is a recipe for disaster.


As you correctly observe, the middle east has been fighting among themselves for over 2000 years. Israel has existed for around 60. The obvious conclusion to that is that if Israel ceased to exist tomorrow, they would still be fighting, merely finding something else to fight over. Israel, like certain current poorly written, directed, and acted films, did not initiate this violence, it only provides a convenient excuse for it. Same for Islam, since the ME violence predates the inception of Islam.

There are just folks there who enjoy killing for a hobby, and will do so on any pretext or excuse. I'm actually all for letting the whole region go as nuclear as hell, so they can thin out their own herd somewhat, to a more manageable level of mayhem.



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


I know that. They've been fighting each other since forever. They've not had oil forever. But the outsiders might be less inclined to be involved...though given the history of religious crusades, that's probably wishful thinking on my part.

I know this is going to set some of you off...
.

But a Middle East united under one flag mightn't be a bad idea. A centralized govt. would give them the ability to perhaps curtail the playing of one side against another that we've seen over the past half century and more.

Yeah, I know, it brings up other issues... I know.



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by seagull
 


Haha nope:

If it was a secular union like the EU or the Us an a actual "democracy" or "republic" with a seperation of church and state:

I would have no quams bout it.
edit on 23-9-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by seagull
 


That's a little too optimistic esp given the relationships between the Sunni, Shiite, Arab, Persians and everyone in between.



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


True. But it would settle, or at least help, the outsider influences. ...and without the influences of outsiders, you might see a bit more in the way of sunni/shia cooperation. A more stable political climate would be more conducive to a less bitter schism.

Seems unlikely given the events of the past few centuries, but in those centuries when has there been a time of political stability, or lack of outside pressures? I can't think of any just off hand.



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by seagull
 


Oh, don't get me wrong I'd love to see the region come together in a peaceful meaningful manner. But just like any other region it's a bit too fragmented at the moment. The biggest division is between the Shiites and Sunni and that goes back about 1,400 + - years.

Solve that then move onto Judaism and Islam

ETA: I honestly havent seen too much in recent history of either Islam and Judaism having too much trouble with Christianity on the whole. Of course, as has been pointed out already earlier there was the crusades which where like a Million years ago.

But, some still hold onto age old resentments of their great*10 grandfathers.

edit on 23-9-2012 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Drezden
 


Don't feel discouraged, some here know the star game well, and the ATS motto not applying to a few "special" situations.



I'm sorry, but there is no other way to interpret the fact that after Saddam massacred Kurds with chemical weapons (that we helped them create).. we gave them a billion dollars 6 months later.


SLAYER69 would have readers believe after his news agencies post from the newspaper of US diplomatic condemnation the US withdrew support. But it continued.

That is his OPINION too, one of his own "half truths and conjecture".

reply to post by Drezden
 



Originally posted by Drezden

Originally posted by sonnny1
Actually he provided more then enough, for ANYONE to see. You on the other hand provided knee-jerk OPINION. It seems to me you are to worried about one poster, or another, then to provide some actually facts, then mere opinion, to substantiate your opinions.

The ONLY epidemic on ATS are those who believe their opinion is worth more then the facts presented.


People keep saying that I'm speaking only opinion and refuse to specify what these things are.

Stop speaking in generals. You quote something I've said that you believe is opinion and I will give you documentation that proves it's fact.

You all refuse to do so.. so don't be offended when I think you're ignorant and silly.


Quoted for TRUTH!
edit on 23-9-2012 by wujotvowujotvowujotvo because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by wujotvowujotvowujotvo
 


Well those chemical warhead launchers(scud) and chembio gear was not US "issue" anyone who is denying Russian and other countries involvement is only stating their opinion that is nothing more than dogma to vilify the US which has been played out on this this site for years.

And far too many are all too happy to eat that trip up slayer fully acknowledged us involvement not good enough so where is the condemnation of those other countries?
edit on 23-9-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
16
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join