It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Iran on brink of making the Bomb, says Mossad

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 08:11 AM
link   
JERUSALEM: The chief of Israel's Mossad intelligence agency said on Monday arch-foe Iran was on the brink of enriching uranium, a process key to building a nuclear bomb.

timesofindia.indiatimes.com...

Ok before all you "intel" buffs go off and the psy-opp thingy, stop and think a minute.

Israel has no interest in creating more striff for itself but does has a vested interest in not getting nuked.




posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 08:14 AM
link   
you got anymore sources on this?
after that i will say what i think



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 08:17 AM
link   
Its moot. The High Holy King George will invade soon anyways. Whats evidence or just cause have to do with it?

The irony is I agree with attacking Iran, its Iraq that we should never have touched.



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by bodrul
you got anymore sources on this?
after that i will say what i think


The actual source is Reuters



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrHoracid

The actual source is Reuters


thats indiatimes ( first time i have seen that news site )



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 08:42 AM
link   
So, Mossad is jealous because Iran is going to have bombs, now how many bombs does Israel have?

How many bombs does Pakistan have?

How many bombs does India have?

How about Egypt? not body is watching them.

Hummm, I guess the oil in Iran is stronger and easier to get after all it borders with Iraq.


All the other countries in the middle east are theocratic governments and they all are ticking bombs themselves.

But alas Iran is sweeter.



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 09:02 AM
link   
"Israel has no interest in creating more striff for itself but does has a vested interest in not getting nuked"

It won't create more strife for itself. It Israel carries out strikes against Iran, the US will step in to protect them from any retaliation. If the US attacks Iran based on Mossad intel then they still win. Either way, Israelis won't be getting killed or maimed so a win-win situation.
Of course, the Mossad intel of a nuclear weapons program is most likely as accurate as all the Iraqi WMD programs/capabilities intel that they fed into the White House prior to the invasion of Iraq.



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 09:15 AM
link   
India Times tho?

How can iran already be ready to make a bomb? Enriching uranium requires lots of centrifuges right? Like, hundreds, enough to make a bomb, and over a long term process no?

Do they have the needed equipment?

I don't doubt that Iran is a threat, Iraq, as the war demonstrated, was attempting to reconstitute its weapons program, and only back breaking sanctions (that everyone was getting ready to lift) was preventing it.

But how can anyone say with any degree of certainty that they almost have enough enriched uranium?

Are the Iranians even trying to make a bomb by uranium enrichment, or are they more interested in plutonium processing?



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Britguy
Either way, Israelis won't be getting killed or maimed so a win-win situation.


yep with all those missiles lobbed at israel
they wont feel a thing



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 09:19 AM
link   
The problem with this is we have ZERO creditablity now. Which is pretty bad because I can see MUCH more of a reason to invade NK or Iran then we had with Iraq.

Bush shot us all in the foot with that one



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043How about Egypt? not body is watching them.

Egypt tends to not refer to the US as 'the great satan'. Think about it, if bush can be seen as alittle whacky for calling iran, 'evil', what would you think if bush was pounding his fists on a podium, with dozens of cross armed fundamentalist christian ministers behind him, screaming 'iran is satan himself!! to a crowd of armbanded republican and conservative party members? With Montanan and Dakotan Paramilitary militias providing security?

Egypt is a state that can be worked with, hell, they've signed peace treaties with Israel, ferchris sakes. Pakistan can also be worked with . But Iran? What is there to work with ? They aren't really part of the international community, they're pretty well isolated. They can't even be dealt with in terms of Deterence, some of their mullahs have announced 'what need we worry if a nuclear weapon destroys a city and kills millions? We have millions more'?

If Cheney was saying something like that as a response to Russian pressure to democritize, what would you think of it?

Iran is dangerous. They need to cooperate fully with groups like the IAEA to begin to assuage the security concerns of the US.



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amuk
The problem with this is we have ZERO creditablity now.

What did americna credibility result in anyway? All that supposed 'sympathy' for 911, from saddam too! And what did it result in? Massive opposition to the begining of a response to the type that resulted in 911. Afghanistan was ok for the world because the world, as a system, is ok with Vengeance. The world, as a system, is not ok with a coordinated and rational (tho not 'perfect' and not unassailable) plan.



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amuk
The problem with this is we have ZERO creditablity now. Which is pretty bad because I can see MUCH more of a reason to invade NK or Iran then we had with Iraq.

Bush shot us all in the foot with that one


Who needs creditability when you have big bombs?



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 09:35 AM
link   
But Iran HAS co-operated with the IAEA and the IAEA says they found no evidence of weapons programs.
The reaction, as expected, was to discredit the IAEA reports and their chief for not being hard enough on the Iranians and looking at replacing him


It's all very well harping on about "mad mullahs" and all the usual rhetoric that gets plenty of airing in the press but, without any credible evidence it is nothing more than speculation and outright lies.
One of the moves is to ask Iran to prove they don't have nuclear weapons programs. How the hell can you prove you don't have something?
They did the same with Iraq remember? The Iraqis said they didn't have the huge stockpiles of Bio/Chemical weapons and the US said they were lying, despite the fact that UN/US teams of inspectors prior to, and subsequent to the war, have found nothing.



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Afghanistan was ok for the world because the world, as a system, is ok with Vengeance. The world, as a system, is not ok with a coordinated and rational (tho not 'perfect' and not unassailable) plan.


Afghanistan was OK because we showed a link, in Iraq we were Ignorent at best and outright lying at times. I have to agree with the other poster, if anything we should have went into Iran next instead of Iraq.

If we did invade the other countries would bitch and moan and thats about it but Bushes response in Iraq has just gave Ammo to the America Empire People. I dont believe it myself but he has made it a MUCH easier sell then it should have been.

Either way it goes sooner or later SOMEONE will have to squash the extremists in the Middle east



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Britguy
But Iran HAS co-operated with the IAEA

Expulsion is cooperation?


and the IAEA says they found no evidence of weapons programs.

Finding evidence of illegal and undeclared uranium enrichment is no evidence of a weapons program?

The reaction, as expected, was to discredit the IAEA reports and their chief for not being hard enough on the Iranians and looking at replacing him


It's all very well harping on about "mad mullahs"
Do not pretend that radical fundamentalists do not hold sway, directly, over policy over there.


without any credible evidence it is nothing more than speculation and outright lies.

Iran secretly and illegally enriched uranium. It kicked out the IAEA inspectors, letting some back in for some places recently. Iran, also, has absolutely not need for nuclear generation of electrical power.


despite the fact that UN/US teams of inspectors prior to, and subsequent to the war, have found nothing.

Everyone, including the inspectors, stated that the Iraqis could prove the negative, that they didn't have weapons programs. The iraqis never, as per the undisputed reports of the inspection teams, demonstrated that they did not. Hans Blix never stated that Iraq does not have those weapons, Hussein chose not to demonstrate it to them.

Iran does not need to demonstrate that it has no program. It needs to give IAEA inspectors full cooperatation and access, and it needs to stop lying, as it did when it enriched uranium. The demands on Iran are slight. The request is that they merely live up to their agreed upon obligations. No intelligencecollecting activities are necessary to justify action if they will not cooperate on those grounds. Iran receivedp nuclear technology from the UN thru the IAEA, thats the point of the IAEA, to distribute nuclear technology in exchange for making sure that its used for peaceful production. Iran cannot expell IAEA inspectors, especially not merely because of statements made by the US.

Amuk
Afghanistan was OK because we showed a link, in Iraq we were Ignorent at best and outright lying at times

The link in afghanistan was that the taliban allowed terrorists to operate within it. The link in Iraq was that terrorists were allowed to operate in it. All states that allow terrorists to operate in it are required to close the camps down of face war. There is not going to be negotiation on this, there is not going to be a pass on this, Bush is not lying when he said this. Saudi Arabia has made attempts to cooperate. Iran has not faced sanction. Syria might be responsive to pressure. Iraq was irresponsive to pressure, already flaunting the stringent sanctions that the UN itself impossed on it, and, despite those sanctions, working to reconstitute its illegal weapons program. hell, they had illegal weapons; mobile biochem labs, camoflauged secret chemical factories, and long range missiles.

Now, obviously I have no influence over US foreign policy, but this is the rationale as I see it anyway.



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrHoracid
Israel has no interest in creating more striff for itself but does has a vested interest in not getting nuked.


This Israeli government is lead by the military hawk faction of their government - their PM was a general who lead massacers in refugee camps, and as such, will be arrested as a war criminal should he step foot in certain countries.
Israel has a real estate problem - they've no where to expand, have a natural resource scarcity and a non-homogeneous citizenry that will be 3 to 1 Arab in the next 50 years. All of those things will force an Isreali Manifest Destiny. They have been the preeminent military power in the region & likely 3rd in the World, with the #1 military power as their willing sidekick, thanks to the Neo-Cons who control America.
Iran is a progressive country that could serve as a model for a theocracy converting to secularism.....until now. The "axis" nonsense and sabre rattling has breathed new life into religious hardliners who were losing their grip on the country.
This is purely another case of an invented enemy.



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by bodrul

Originally posted by DrHoracid

The actual source is Reuters


thats indiatimes ( first time i have seen that news site )


The Times of India is India's most reputed daily newspaper. It wouldn't be off the mark to compare it (in credibility) with the Wall street Journal.



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 10:43 AM
link   
If the Mossad thinks Iran is real close to having the bomb, they should try and find a way to work to work out the situation in a peaceful manner. Now that would indeed be a trick! Why should we (the U.S.) keep holding their hands every time something comes up? These people suffered great losses during WWII. and actions of such since. They have the bomb because we gave it to them a long time ago. They are old enoungh to stand on their own. Why can't we just all get along?


[edit on 25-1-2005 by FLYIN HIGH]



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 11:03 AM
link   
Wouldn't Israel coming forward, and then attempting to lure more countries into their own "Coalition; and then go to the UN, get no support, and then have grounds to attack, as the US did, and then when we come to their aid, we did not start it as in Iraq with minimal/bad intel, but another country is starting and we can finish.

Like in a bar bieng shoved by some small skinny guy trying to start a fight, and turning around and seeing he has 4 buddies who will kick your ass if you say anything... bar rom tactics for the world



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join