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.

 

Huh? Obama granted 2500 Iranians US citizenship as part of the nuke deal.

page: 2
44
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2018 @ 12:09 PM
link   
One advantage to becoming a U.S. citizen that these Iranians might have interest in... getting a U.S. passport in order to enter other countries without hassle...

There are tremendous benefits of obtaining a U.S. passport. A U.S. passport will allow a traveler entry into most countries around the world without a hassle. Specific countries that work with the United States on the Visa Waiver Program will allow entry to U.S. passport holders for a specific amount of time, so you won’t need to purchase a visa to travel there. A U.S. passport allows a U.S. citizen to get assistance from the American government when overseas.


It's just an odd trade-off so there must be something to it. Who knows if this detail is "it"

source




posted on Jul, 2 2018 @ 12:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: AScrubWhoDied

originally posted by: Martin75
a reply to: AScrubWhoDied

So because he didn't put it on a billboard it's not true?


Fox news said its true, so it is?

You are able to demonstrate why facts are objectively true.

I am assuming you believe this to be true, so you should have no problem objectively demonstrating so.

I eagerly await.


Someone didn't read.


Hojjat al-Islam Mojtaba Zolnour, who is chairman of Iran’s parliamentary nuclear committee and a member of its national security and foreign affairs committee, made the allegations during an interview with the country’s Etemad newspaper, cited by the country’s Fars News agency.


Fox didn't originate this story. They're just covering it.

You don't honestly expect one of your favorite sources to report this do you?

And let's be honest, even if we do find a link to the interview, you'll just pretend that's fake too.
edit on 2 7 18 by face23785 because: I can't spell



posted on Jul, 2 2018 @ 12:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan

originally posted by: watchitburn
It just follows the examples of the TPP and the Paris climate agreement.
Kind of makes you wander who Obama was actually working for, because it obviously wasn't America.

There was article over the weekend that openly accused Obama of being a Manchurian candidate.

For sure, when you set aside his words and look at his actions, he seems to have consistently worked against US interests.


For the record, I don't think he was a Manchurian candidate or some kind of plant. I think he was just a naive, sheltered leftist who was completely outmatched on the world stage and got taken advantage of by more shrewd leaders.


(post by AScrubWhoDied removed for political trolling and baiting)

posted on Jul, 2 2018 @ 12:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: AScrubWhoDied

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: AScrubWhoDied

originally posted by: Martin75
a reply to: AScrubWhoDied

So because he didn't put it on a billboard it's not true?


Fox news said its true, so it is?

You are able to demonstrate why facts are objectively true.

I am assuming you believe this to be true, so you should have no problem objectively demonstrating so.

I eagerly await.


Someone didn't read.


Hojjat al-Islam Mojtaba Zolnour, who is chairman of Iran’s parliamentary nuclear committee and a member of its national security and foreign affairs committee, made the allegations during an interview with the country’s Etemad newspaper, cited by the country’s Fars News agency.


Fox didn't originate this story. They're just covering it.

You don't honestly expect one of your favorite sources to report this do you?

And let's be honest, even if we do find a link to the interview, you'll just pretend that's fake too.


Ironic considering:

www.abovetopsecret.com...


I guess you didn't read?

Now again, where's the original?


Yeah, I didn't see that.

You still won't believe the original source if it's offered though.



posted on Jul, 2 2018 @ 12:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785
You still won't believe the original source if it's offered though.




Nah, unlike the rest of you tools, I don't believe what I read just because I'm not a partisan hack. See this thread for reference.


But no worries, I don't expect these parts to actually fact check, especially if one of their favorite entertainment 'news' said it.

I can't seem to find the original, and it doesn't look like anyone else cares to even look - imagine that.



posted on Jul, 2 2018 @ 12:30 PM
link   
We're just going to ignore the fact that a president doesn't have the power to do this?



posted on Jul, 2 2018 @ 12:33 PM
link   
www.etemaaddaily.com...

Interview where?

I'm not surprised the source in the OP didn't link source.

I'm also not surprised that tools believe just because Fox said it.


Hojjat al-Islam Mojtaba Zolnour translated to persian: حجت الاسلام مجتبی زولورور

Searching that website for articles that contain حجت الاسلام مجتبی زولورور:

Surprise:



So where's this alleged interview?



edit on 2-7-2018 by AScrubWhoDied because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2018 @ 12:49 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 2 2018 @ 12:51 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 2 2018 @ 12:55 PM
link   
There is no hard evidence of sources in this entire article.
I read the word "claimed" and "alleged" and "allegedly" about a dozen times throughout the whole article.

Also you're up in arms about giving the children of informants and people who worked to get the deal down in this case, but forget the US has ALWAYS done situations like this. They took in literal war criminals and Nazi scientists after WW2. Hypocrites! But it's OK because it was Obamas Admin who ALLEGEDLY did this.



posted on Jul, 2 2018 @ 12:58 PM
link   
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan


Iranians got what you mentioned, and more. In return, the U.S. and the World got NOTHING.

Correction, Secretary of State John Kerry got an Iranian son-in-law out of the deal.



posted on Jul, 2 2018 @ 12:59 PM
link   

This is NOT the Mud Pit or the Corner Bar!!!


All rules for polite political debate will be enforced.
Reaffirming Our Desire For Productive Political Debate (REVISED)

You are responsible for your own posts.....those who ignore that responsibility will face mod actions.
Community Announcement re: Decorum


and, as always:

Do NOT reply to this post!!


(post by AScrubWhoDied removed for political trolling and baiting)

posted on Jul, 2 2018 @ 01:39 PM
link   
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

If true, why are we hearing about this only now?



posted on Jul, 2 2018 @ 01:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: pavil
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

If true, why are we hearing about this only now?


The deal was lies built upon lies.

We just found out Gulf of Tonkin was a farce a few years ago (it was always suspected to be, I just mean it was confirmed a few years ago). These things take a while to bring out sometimes.



posted on Jul, 2 2018 @ 09:12 PM
link   
Well if true, then this will be exceedingly easy for the Trump White House to investigate. They would have access to all of those records, deals made, citizenships granted and logged with multiple agencies and so on.

If this goes nowhere, I can see two reasons for it:

a) FOX spreads propaganda, doesn't fact check and should not be considered a credible source.
b) Trump is in bed with Obama and will protect him and his actions.

Which one is worse? Is there a third option?



posted on Jul, 2 2018 @ 09:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kharron
Well if true, then this will be exceedingly easy for the Trump White House to investigate. They would have access to all of those records, deals made, citizenships granted and logged with multiple agencies and so on.

If this goes nowhere, I can see two reasons for it:

a) FOX spreads propaganda, doesn't fact check and should not be considered a credible source.
b) Trump is in bed with Obama and will protect him and his actions.

Which one is worse? Is there a third option?


I'll be first to criticize Fox if this proves to be bogus.

That said, it's interesting that one poorly vetted story means you "should not be considered a credible source". That pretty much rules out everyone.



posted on Jul, 2 2018 @ 09:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Kharron
Well if true, then this will be exceedingly easy for the Trump White House to investigate. They would have access to all of those records, deals made, citizenships granted and logged with multiple agencies and so on.

If this goes nowhere, I can see two reasons for it:

a) FOX spreads propaganda, doesn't fact check and should not be considered a credible source.
b) Trump is in bed with Obama and will protect him and his actions.

Which one is worse? Is there a third option?


I'll be first to criticize Fox if this proves to be bogus.

That said, it's interesting that one poorly vetted story means you "should not be considered a credible source". That pretty much rules out everyone.


One for today?

It will be interesting to see if it is indeed wrong, if anyone is fired or disciplined for it, or if the network apologizes even. We had a thread recently of a Reuters employee tweeting bias on his own time and getting disciplined by Reuters, as a news agency should do. It will be nice to see if FOX does anything similar or worse over actual published material. Wanna guess what happens based on past examples?



posted on Jul, 2 2018 @ 09:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kharron

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Kharron
Well if true, then this will be exceedingly easy for the Trump White House to investigate. They would have access to all of those records, deals made, citizenships granted and logged with multiple agencies and so on.

If this goes nowhere, I can see two reasons for it:

a) FOX spreads propaganda, doesn't fact check and should not be considered a credible source.
b) Trump is in bed with Obama and will protect him and his actions.

Which one is worse? Is there a third option?


I'll be first to criticize Fox if this proves to be bogus.

That said, it's interesting that one poorly vetted story means you "should not be considered a credible source". That pretty much rules out everyone.


One for today?

It will be interesting to see if it is indeed wrong, if anyone is fired or disciplined for it, or if the network apologizes even. We had a thread recently of a Reuters employee tweeting bias on his own time and getting disciplined by Reuters, as a news agency should do. It will be nice to see if FOX does anything similar or worse over actual published material. Wanna guess what happens based on past examples?


All the majors news agencies have multiple examples of poorly vetted stories, let's not pretend that's exclusive to Fox.

I read that Reuters was going to discipline him, I haven't seen what they did though. Have you seen an update on that?




top topics



 
44
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join