The RED LINE: Must Watch

page: 2
25
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeadSnow
reply to post by dontreally
 


More anti Islam propaganda, well let me tell ya something...the clothes don't make the man. Wanna get rid of Islam? I'm up for it but on one condition, all other religions are abolished.


Anti-Islam propaganda from a Persian Muslim? Holy crap.



I think it's a good idea, a last ditch attempt at a peaceful solution (of course you don't know anything about that because you didn't watch the video.) If I knew how to make a video and put it on Youtube I'd do it.




posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by InhaleExhale
 





Would you kill your brother or sister because they might live close to someone you wish to destroy?


Your analogy is erroneous.

How often do Imams and Sheikhs applaud suicide bombers as "shahids" martyrs? One life is nothing in the greater context of the Umma (community).

Secondly, the Muslims in question are Sunni. And unless you are totally ignorant of Sunni-Shia internecine conflicts, in Lebanon, Iraq, and Syria, you can understand how meaningless those lives are to the Shias in Iran and Lebanon.



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Sissel
 


This kind of thinking is dangerous and it will put Americans lives in danger.

Yes I am aware of what zionists are, and I know of one man who would agree with you that also has his finger on the nuclear button.

Just remember that the Bible warns of people who claim to be jews and are not. Also don't forget that the profit mohamed didn't walk the earth until about 600 years after the death of christ. Their claim to Israel does seem to be a bit unfounded.



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by InhaleExhale
 





Lets follow your fearful way of thinking and ask ourselves why would you only build such a small bomb when your hell bent on bringing about Armageddon?


They have two motivations. Both can be satisfied with one action.

The first is "death to Israel" as that oh so moderate crowd of party faithful chant at speeches by Ayatollah Khameini or Ahmadinejad. And second, the response to a nuclear attack would create a world crisis.



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by thehoneycomb
reply to post by Sissel
 


This kind of thinking is dangerous and it will put Americans lives in danger.

Yes I am aware of what zionists are, and I know of one man who would agree with you that also has his finger on the nuclear button.

Just remember that the Bible warns of people who claim to be jews and are not. Also don't forget that the profit mohamed didn't walk the earth until about 600 years after the death of christ. Their claim to Israel does seem to be a bit unfounded.


Look, so, there you have it in your explanation. The Jews want to recreate the temple mount.....It's occupied at the moment, isn't it?

The whole battle is about this, and this alone.



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by dontreally


The first is "death to Israel" as that oh so moderate crowd of party faithful chant at speeches by Ayatollah Khameini or Ahmadinejad. And second, the response to a nuclear attack would create a world crisis.


And the people who are ruling Israel wish death to Islam.

What's the difference?



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Sissel
 


So what and yeah there is a mosque built there.

This is not the first time in history this has happened. The only reason I imagine they havent built it yet is because they are trying to find a peaceful solution. That is why they show restraint.



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 02:38 PM
link   
If this was merely a territory dispute, the ancient feud over Jerusalem would have been finished long ago. If they realized that there is nothing holy about that or any parcel of land, I'm sure we'd be hard pressed to find a reason to fight over it.

If they think it is their destiny to rule over the 'holy' land, then it may be also their destiny to burn in the holy flames they wish to wash over it.



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 02:39 PM
link   
Anybody who has ANY understanding of the middle east would know that Iran having or not having nuclear energy is completely irrelevant to the Zionist and neocon agenda, which is to replace the Iranian regime.

The Iran 'nuclear issue' is just the pretext they are going with, much like Saddam's WMD and the propaganda fed to the masses for years before the Iraq war.

Nations are being ticked off one at a time because there is an agenda to gain total control of the region- the question is, at what point will the international opposition (Russia and co) decide enough is enough and make a stand.



edit on 23-10-2012 by Wonderer2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sissel

Originally posted by dontreally


The first is "death to Israel" as that oh so moderate crowd of party faithful chant at speeches by Ayatollah Khameini or Ahmadinejad. And second, the response to a nuclear attack would create a world crisis.


And the people who are ruling Israel wish death to Islam.

What's the difference?


Really?

20% of Israeli citizens inside Israel proper are Arab Muslims that are free to go about their business, worship any way they choose, and even sit in the Knesset. And not one single rumor of Israeli death squads making any of them disappear.

So much for that theory.



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by thehoneycomb
reply to post by Sissel
 


So what and yeah there is a mosque built there.

This is not the first time in history this has happened. The only reason I imagine they havent built it yet is because they are trying to find a peaceful solution. That is why they show restraint.


How is the killing of innocent Palestinians showing restraint? Quit fooling yourself. And while you brought up the holocaust, isn't that what Israel is doing?



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by TTAA2012
 


I think they were referring to Israel's yearly State sponsored National holiday where masses of Israelis chant "Death to Iran in unison" in the streets.

oh, wait,

Never mind....



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 02:46 PM
link   
www.ifamericansknew.org...reply to post by TTAA2012
 



The numbers cited above include civilians and combatants killed by members of the opposing nationality (and therefore, do not include Palestinians killed by an explosive device that they set or was on their person, Israelis killed in 'friendly fire' incidents, etc.). The numbers also do not include the sizable number of Palestinians who died as a result of inability to reach medical care due to Israeli road closures, curfews, the Israeli closure of border crossing from Gaza, etc.



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 03:07 PM
link   
Hi guys, gals,

Sorry, I may be repeating a lot of what has already been said to make a point.

The struggles in the ME are all about Power and control over the region. It is a critical region to the US and several other countries, because all of our lifestyles are heavily dependent on the availability of the oil (black gold) at reasonable prices.

I don't think we will be over our dependence any time soon, even if a war should break out, limiting our access to said oil.

Now that that has been said, there are many assumptions that are possible to make regarding what is going on:

1. Iran is trying to create a nuclear weapon.
2. Iran claims to be trying to create a nuclear submarine that justifies the purification of nuclear material to weapons level concentration.
3. Iran is not trying to create a nuclear weapon, as Russia and China have their backs and they don't need one.
4. Iran is worried that Israel may unilaterally attack a financially independent Iran, and so must develop a nuclear weapon.
5. Iran is trying to use gold backed currency trade for it's oil, and therefore, the US's purchasing power might be diminished if the other countries should decide to follow suit.
6. The US and/or Israel might be interested in taking over Iran over the pretext of nuclear weapon possession, as they are interested in acquiring the oil fields.
7. Iranians may be trying to get their currency out of the global currency system, so that they can have an independent financial system - which world bankers cannot control.
8. The US/Israel may be trying to make money from bankers' interests in having something done to Iran.
9. The US/Israel are trying to use the situation, which they are somewhat responsible for precipitating in the ME, as a means to spell doom and gloom and have their administration let off of the hook for the financial situations in the respective countries etc.
11. So, so many more... including combinations of the above assumptions.

This being said, there are some more assumptions:

1. If the US/Israel should go to war with Iran, Russia and China would attack as well... depending on who starts the war.
2. If the Iranians start the war, it is plausible that the Russians and Chinese will not back them, because the Russians and Chinese can start a war with Israel or the US if they chose to, independently of Iran.
3. If the US/Israel should try to surgically attack Iran, even with declarations of such intentions, it is plausible that even such an attack may be seen as an affront to Russian and Chinese interests, and cause a full-out war.
4. If Iran should acquire nuclear weapons, they will attack any country they can safely acquire.
5. If Iran should acquire nuclear weapons, they will attack no one.
6. If Iran should acquire nuclear weapons, they will attack only if they are attacked.
7. If Iran should acquire nuclear weapons, they will attack if they believe they have strategic advantage.
8. If Iran should acquire nuclear weapons, they will attack because they are trying to fulfil the prophecies of the Quran.
9. Many more assumptions.

Don't know which combination of the above people ascribe to.... but our abilities to witness to the truth is rather limited.

Take the following scenarios:
1. The MSM report something about the situation which is aimed at turning the tide of popular opinion one way or another. This could be argued that it is the MSM setting up false flags for tptb.
2. Non-msm report something about the situation.... This could be argued as false flags from non-trustworthy sources.
3. Different people flag different media/individuals as having various motives that undermine the reasoning behind what was said.

I'm not exactly sure what one qualifies as "proof" then. Additionally, there is the possibility that there are people who in the interests of one side or the other, are in fact paid to post opinions that steer things one way or the other. Whatever one commits to as satisfactory "proof" then may get used by one side or another. Money is easy to use for that perhaps? There is after all a lot more money at stake - and oil.

While I've noticed that some people have commented on their not caring one way or the other: Still, this has the power to send us all to the stone ages. At least that is my personal assumption. How bad would it be then?
edit on 23-10-2012 by sensibleSenseless because: first line.



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by sensibleSenseless
 


I gave you a star for being about as balanced as is possible.

One objection though.

I wouldn't call them "Assumptions" but rather possible scenarios or concerns to be discussed. It's actually pretty assumptive to assume they are assumptions. Which is part of the problem with attempting to discuss this situation.

Many on both sides Assume what the others intentions are.



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


Still pushing your pro Israel zionist agenda hard on ATS i see dontreally.

So this war you want with Iran, will you and your children be fighting in the frontline of this war ?

As much as i agree letting a hardcore theocracy have nuclear weapons is testing your luck, it's also immoral as a sovereign state not to let them develop their country with nuclear power, they don't need nuclear weapons why russia and china are allied to them, russia is in control of building nuclear plants and removing spent uranium in iran, russia and china has a lot invested in iran.

Also why we are on the subject, when can we see Israel have her nuclear weapons regulated ?



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by TheMaverick
 


As to the first question, no one is saying Iran "cant" have nuclear energy. It just needs IAEA oversight with regular inspection. They also must be deprived of any long range missile capability.

But Iran, not surprisingly (given their obvious ambitions) refuses this compromise.

As to the second thing you mentioned, why Israel can have them? Well, assuming they do have them, they've had them for over 40 years, and not a thing has happened. A liberal democratic nation, which by definition is a moderate state, is quite trust worthy.

Conversely, for innumerable reasons, some already stated in this thread, Iran, as long they remain under the authority of a theocratic and fanatical regime, cannot, at all, ever, be trusted with nuclear capability.
edit on 23-10-2012 by dontreally because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 04:05 PM
link   
This video does not mention the CIA Coup of 1953. Why not? Because it would give credibility to the other side of the story. The Iranian's side.

If Iran is to be labeled as enemy #1 without any nuclear weapons, what does that make a country like North Korea? A "side issue"?

This video says that there are 20,000 Iranian suicide bombers spread throughout the world, ready to attack at any moment. How come the CIA or FBI has never mentioned this number anywhere in any report? Is this information classified? *smirk*

"I'd give it one day before the Iranian's give the Saudi's an ultimatum." Are you fu**ing KIDDING me? Have you seen a map of the current US Occupation? Here, I'll help you with that:


US Occupation Map

Tell me, if an "enemy" nation had troops in Canada and Mexico, what in the hell do you think the US would be trying to do? Put yourself in their shoes for 2 seconds.

"Qatar, UAE, Ba(c)hrain, Kuwait, Jordan, Iraq, and various other countries in the area would all fall like dominos."
I don't even have a retort for this one. How did the "informative" lady figure this out? What information does she have that shows how all of those countries will simply "fall like dominos"? Over one nuke?

"In jeopordy are the things that we have taken for granted such as free speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press..." My God, there are so many videos/articles/court cases to the contrary to that statement. I could list an array of videos/articles that contradict that statement, but it won't matter, will it?

Here's what does matter: you're spreading bull$hit that came from one side of the story. There are clips from CNN, BBC, and Al Jazeera(sp) littered all over this "documentary," and some of us know that CNN, BBC, and Al-Jazeera censor (and sometimes make up) their news.

As a Veteran, I will not just brush your post off.

*spit*

# you for posting this bias garbage. Sorry if I offended anyone or T&C's, but it had to be said.

Lima-1, out.



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by InhaleExhale
 





Lets follow your fearful way of thinking and ask ourselves why would you only build such a small bomb when your hell bent on bringing about Armageddon?


They have two motivations. Both can be satisfied with one action.

The first is "death to Israel" as that oh so moderate crowd of party faithful chant at speeches by Ayatollah Khameini or Ahmadinejad.


Wrong, wrong, and wrong. This is the common MISinterpretation made by the West and Israel. Here's what the Iranian PM actually said:

Source

And that's coming from Israeli officials themselves.

Please educate yourself, Sir. You're making a lot of people genuinely upset because you're misinformed. I'm not trying to "one up" you, I want you to know the truth.

Lima-1, out.



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 04:20 PM
link   
If they really did have "the bomb" and threatened or attempted to use it the consequences would be severe not for the world but for Iran. The other countries would not fall like dominos. They would goto war and America would back them. It would not be a "nuclear war" any more than WW2 was. Russia and China blah blah blah the game changes if Iran tries to use a nuclear weapon. The question goes both ways...are Russia and China going to risk a nuclear war for Iran? Iran will be devastated, no nukes required. Iran is not their only trading partner or ally.

An Iranian plot involving AQ, come on...REALLY?


Soooo...basically her "peaceful solution" is really an ultimatum to stop or face "a devastating military response". At one point she's saying they don't care about MAD because they want war to bring about their Messiah but then suggest that using an 'ironclad threat" will cause them to back down? So which is it?
edit on 23-10-2012 by infiniteobserver because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
25
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join