Question for people that live in the USA

reply to post by superman2012


How would the fissionable materials be controlled? Do you trust a theocracy that clearly defines you as a person that is part of the western world as an infidel who must be destroyed?
The present is predicated by the passed. Charles Manson hasn't hurt anyone at present does that negate him as a threat?
Semantically jousting doesn't alter the dangers of Iran building a bomb they WANT to use.

Originally posted by Kang69

Talk about insanity.

LoL

I thought that was why were are all on ATS?

reply to post by superman2012


In this clip he's chanting along with the crowed "death to Israel" clip

Originally posted by burnett662
reply to post by superman2012

 

In this clip he's chanting along with the crowed "death to Israel" clip

Just put everything after the = into the VID: YOUTUBE button.

Originally posted by cavtrooper7
reply to post by superman2012

 

How would the fissionable materials be controlled? Do you trust a theocracy that clearly defines you as a person that is part of the western world as an infidel who must be destroyed?
The present is predicated by the passed. Charles Manson hasn't hurt anyone at present does that negate him as a threat?
Semantically jousting doesn't alter the dangers of Iran building a bomb they WANT to use.

What does the control of the fissionable material have to do with the question on this thread?!?

You have proof that Iran is building a bomb? Good. You are miles ahead of all the intelligence agencies out there. Start a thread or your own intelligence company. You'll make millions.

In regards to this thread, Iran hasn't built a nuclear bomb nor are they wanting to (for the purpose of this thread).

PS- I trust them about as much as I trust the US government.

Originally posted by burnett662
reply to post by superman2012

 

In this clip he's chanting along with the crowed "death to Israel" clip

Didn't I ask for a non Israeli source?

Memritv:
The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) is a United States not for profit press monitoring organization with headquarters located in Washington, DC. MEMRI was co-founded in 1998 by Yigal Carmon, a former colonel in the Israeli military intelligence and Meyrav Wurmser, an Israeli-born, American political scientist.

Critics charge that it aims to portray the Arab and Muslim world in a negative light, through the production and dissemination of inaccurate translations and through selectivity in choosing extreme views to publicize.

reply to post by superman2012


Sorry superman if it don't work, I gotta go. If you really wanna see it just Google ahmadinejad death to israel!

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
Part of it is the fact that Ahmedinimidget stated in no uncertain terms that given the chance, he would wipe Israel from the face of the earth.

edit on 9-1-2013 by AwakeinNM because: (no reason given)

NO HE DID NOT SAY THAT!!!

This is the trouble with oft-repeated 'quotes' and the dangers of lousy translations.

What he said was, paraphrased, 'this regime, like so many others, will one day vanish from the Earth'.

They are not the same thing, and he was demonized by the repeated mis-translation of it. Look at who is accepting the mistranslation, and what their agenda is.

reply to post by superman2012


reply to post by superman2012


As an American I see your point, and I agree. I have term for this, it's called brainwashed hipocritisism. You see, unfortunately the government uses our media to "train" us per se from birth. So, by the time many of us reach adulthood we're more and more inclined to believe what we see on tv, usually without questioning what we see. Most Americans minds are controlled by various false flags and disinformation. There are those of us however, that aren't so easy to be fooled, we see something that most would believe on mere suggestion, and instead of believing it, we break it down and analyze it in search of possible loose ends. Thus being said I believe the answer of your query could be as such. Many Americans judge and order around other nations because that's what they've been trained to do, they are subconsciously following the governments example. As pushing people around is the only thing our government seems to be good at. Many Americans are raised with the belief that our government is good and our country is better than every other, also that Americans are superior to all else. Us Americans who aren't brainwashed would humbly disagree. These said beliefs are developed by false flags and disinformation. You see for example when Osama Bin Laden was "killed" everyone won gobbled it up and praised obama thus ensuring a second term for him. However since the genevea convention frowns on certain things our government likes to do they have to create false flag diversions to turn people attention away from their motives. They use the media to convince us that they are not doing anything bad, essentially sneeking around the international laws in the dark, and that is what the CIA is for. Thus there is a more likely chance (knowing our government) that Osama is in fact alive and currently being tortured as we speak. Our government doesn't put out orders for the military to capture high priority targets, it puts out orders to capture. If it was all about killing, he would've been dead years ago. Now they created a false flag to make the world believe he is dead, he legally no longer exists. Thus through various loopholes, they are now within free bounds to do anything they want with him. Just as we never killed hitler in WW2, we killed his second in command who, through surgery was his doppelgänger. The real hitler escaped with a small group of Nazis and lived out the rest of his days in rural south America. Through native testimonies he lived there under a different alias and his soldiers he arrived with traveled north and infiltrated America later becoming citizens.

reply to post by JohnCreed777


Thanks for the reply. I understand blindly believing your government. Why wouldn't you trust the leaders of the country you live in and love? Hell, I did it too.

reply to post by burnett662


It's ok, I put it up for you, up a bit. It is false though. This has been discussed once at least on this thread. Thanks!

I smell a troll. Why are these posts useful. The next thing we will have is someone saying my Dad can beat up your Dad. Nukes and guns are not equal. The NRA does not promote pocket nukes, nukes with bayonets, nukes with collapsible stocks or nukes with a 30 round capacity.

Originally posted by Variable
I smell a troll. Why are these posts useful. The next thing we will have is someone saying my Dad can beat up your Dad. Nukes and guns are not equal. The NRA does not promote pocket nukes, nukes with bayonets, nukes with collapsible stocks or nukes with a 30 round capacity.

Right. Try reading the thread and then you will understand what this is about. 8 people so far that don't get it.

I didnt read all the comments so I dont know if its been said yet, but we do have some restrictions. Like say if I went into a gun store store and said "I just got outa jail and wanted to kill my neighbor so I need the biggest gun you got right now!!!" probably would'nt be getting a gun that day.
I also cant build a bomb so I could blow up a neighboring state because I hate them. Pretty simple really, dont let the crazy people or crazy Dictators have weapons.
I wish we would bring everyone home and say to hell with the rest of you, just try to invade, everybodys got a gun here. We'll knock your nukes out with Star Wars then unleash. Is that what you wanted to hear?

Originally posted by TexasTruth
I didnt read all the comments so I dont know if its been said yet, but we do have some restrictions. Like say if I went into a gun store store and said "I just got outa jail and wanted to kill my neighbor so I need the biggest gun you got right now!!!" probably would'nt be getting a gun that day.
I also cant build a bomb so I could blow up a neighboring state because I hate them. Pretty simple really, dont let the crazy people or crazy Dictators have weapons.
I wish we would bring everyone home and say to hell with the rest of you, just try to invade, everybodys got a gun here. We'll knock your nukes out with Star Wars then unleash. Is that what you wanted to hear?

I wanted to hear your opinion without comparing nukes to handguns, so yes, you provided what I was after in a way. I wasn't really talking about guns or nukes though. It was the hypocrisy of Americans telling people what to do in other countries while telling people to stay out of American business, and your thoughts on it.

The example I provided was just an example, not to be taken literally.

The embarrassing responses here show the intelligence of the average gun nut.

If I understand your original OP your question for this thread is basically:

Isn't it hypocritical of US citizens to make demands about another country but do not want citizens of another country making demands of US citizens.

Have I got that correct?

If so, I would say that is a very good question. However, your example that you used is terrible (IE handguns and rifles vs. nuclear weapons) I'm afraid.

When the horrific incident of Sandy Hook took place, it in no way put anyone say, in the UK at risk. It did not put anyone in China at risk of any kind.
Let us say then that like Aurora or Sandy Hook, this other country that (we'll assume for the analogy for now) has nuclear weapons, and decides to do the same thing: kill people with them as a first strike.

You do realize that the detonation of nuclear weapons can put a LOT of people on a global scale at risk, correct?

I think your question would have gone over a bit better with a different analogy of some sort. I'm pretty sure you understand that nuclear weapons being detonated places you in much greater danger than say a US citizen owning a gun.

That aside, my own personal opinion is that citizens of every country on this planet of ours should have the same right to bare arms, if they so desired it.
On the other hand, I personally feel that ALL nuclear weapons, globally, should be banned. That goes for any WMD of any kind.

I could really care less what citizens of other countries think what I as a US citizen should or should not have a right to. It's my country and I live here. They don't. So sure, they can have an opinion, and like belly buttons, everyone has one.

I also don't comment or give opinions about other people's countries myself. As again, it's their country, not mine. And as long as their country is not threatening my country, I think they should live the way that they want to live (having lived all around the world is what gave me that view).

So are Americans being hypocritical? Most likely, sure.
But then I could also point to a lot of non-US citizens and show where they are being the same way on some other issues.

Because we aren't aiming our guns at other countries and killing their people.

But, if you're simply assuming that this whole "Iran is dangerous to the USA!" stuff is the whole story, you're really not on the ball.

That's the surface for a much deeper, more complicated plot. What that is? Dunno yet. Prolly won't know till it happens. Don't believe everything you see on the news.

I think citizens have a lot more right to have guns that the government.

The government is a big machine, who control everyone's lives and all the goods and services in the global economy.

People are just people, looking out for one another, protecting themselves and each other.

Which one sounds more right for abuse?

It's okay for the governments of the world to own guns and abuse their power, but not for anyone else? With as many people as the government kills, they have our gun happy psychopaths outnumbered sixty-million to zero.

reply to post by superman2012


Why do you believe americans support imperialist wars and conflicts?

We don't support these wars and our congress is not our congress anymore.

I get it. If the corporate nwo hijacked US government attacks iran then all of america supports it.

I understand that logic. No really I do. I am a conspiracy nut.

reply to post by eriktheawful


You had me until this:

If so, I would say that is a very good question. However, your example that you used is terrible (IE handguns and rifles vs. nuclear weapons) I'm afraid.

American believe they are pursuing nuclear weapons, there is no proof. If they were indeed pursuing or had nuclear weapons then it would be a terrible analogy. As it stands, it is America's right to have weapons vs Iran's right to pursue nuclear power. Both are national issues as it stands right now.