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.

 

Propaganda 101: Getting the U.S. Ready for War With Iran

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 08:08 PM
link   


Especially when the CIA quits covering its butt for past errors and coughs up the data linking Iran and al Qaeda.


Yeah, the same Al Quaeda that is creating a division just to kill Iran-backed Shiites.... I'm sure they're great pals. Just more disinfo so you people can get your war on...



Or is the Scott Ritter looked up to the same one accused of soliciting an underage girl on the internet?


I'm sure that had nothing at all to do with his enemies in Washington


[edit on 7/5/05 by xmotex]




posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 08:20 PM
link   
I refuse to lend any credibility to a news article which quotes Scott Ritter as a source for truth. The fact remains that the Iranian regime has been responsible for countless terror attacks against US interests, from Beiruit in the 80's to the Kobar Towers in the 90's.

A clear and convincing case can easily be made for an invasion of Iran and a toppling of the Mullahs. They epitomise the term "state sponsor of terror." They export their radical ideology across the globe, and fund the murder of innocent men, women and children.

How anyone in their right mind could support the Iranian government just blows my mind. Even overlooking their extensive connections to, and endorsement of terrorism, their never-ending campaign of torture and murder against their citizens is in itself a justifiable reason for regime change. How lucky all of us are to have a website such as ATS. An Iranian could never even dream of such an open forumn to criticise their government without severe reprisal. I suppose no one truly appreciates what they have until its gone. All of you liberals who spend your time defending Iran and trashing America should take a look around at the things you have and the rights you are given. Would you move to Iran tomorrow if I paid your way?



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 08:33 PM
link   
This is what I don't understand with you people: you can't seem to undestand the difference between not wanting to go to war with a given country and being a great admirer of its government.

Did I like Saddam Hussein? No.
Did I think we needed to start a war with him? No.

Do I like the Mullahs in Iran? No.
Do I think we need to start a war with them? No.

Do I like the regime in North Korea? No.
Do I think we need to start a war with them? No.

Do I like the monarchy in Saudi Arabia? No.
Do I think we need to start a war with them? No.

Do I like the regime in China? No.
Do I think we need to start a war with them? No.

See how that works?

Despite not being these people's biggest fans, some of us think it's a stupid idea to go around attacking countries that have not attacked us.

I hesitate to even call it "preemptive" warfare anymore, simply because that term seems to suggest that there was anything to "preempt" in the first place.

[edit on 7/5/05 by xmotex]



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 08:45 PM
link   
Well, seems you have it in hand CTOCEK. Suppose not to much to add from my point of view.

Dallas



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex




Or is the Scott Ritter looked up to the same one accused of soliciting an underage girl on the internet?


I'm sure that had nothing at all to do with his enemies in Washington





xmotex contained in the link I provided earlier is the answer to your insinuation that the Bush administration set-up Ritter - pay special attention to the timeline please. Admittedly Rove and company are good but even the most jaded anti-busher must admit that they are not precient in setting someone up before the need arose.



Then there's the last lie of Scott Ritter: He's been setup by the Bush Administration to "shut him up." Ritter's claims of a "setup" and the timeline of events surrounding his being sexually compromised in Russia and Iraq, and his subsequent arrests for soliciting sex with under-age girls simply don't justify each other. Ritter's own arrests for soliciting sex with two minor girls occurred in April, and again in June of 2001. The court records of these events were sealed until last week when the FBI obtained a court order un-sealing them to pursue their own charges against Ritter. Ritter himself began speaking out against the War in Iraq and against the Bush Administration specifically in mid to late 2002. Does Ritter intend for us to believe that the Bush Administration "arranged" his arrests in 2001 for soliciting minors for under-age sex?
Scott Ritter


As far as internicine warfare between differing elements of Islamic believers is concerned there exist many instances throughout history of "enemy of my enemy is my friend, friend of my enemy is my enemy" situations to pick from.

France attacked and invaded three times by Germany in less than seventy years now enjoys mutual defence and military cooperation with Germany.

Japan whom attacked the US 1941 now claims close economic and military ties.

Russia at first sided with Germany in WWII became an allie in the defeat of Germany.

I could just go on and on but I think you get the drift.

The idea that differing elements of Islamic fanatics could not cooperate in a common goal is part of the blindness that led to 9/11 when our intelligence sevices ignored lower echelon reports of just such cooperation in discounting actionable intelligence.



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 09:08 PM
link   


As far as internicine warfare between differing elements of Islamic believers is concerned there exist many instances throughout history of "enemy of my enemy is my friend, friend of my enemy is my enemy" situations to pick from.


Your examples all describe countries switching sides over time.

But to believe Al Quaeda is simultaneously Iran's pet creature, and yet directly and openly attacking Iranian interests, is another thing entirely.

The hostility between Wahabbi's and Shiites is not some short term political conflict between mercantile powers, it is a long term hostility based on core religious beliefs. If anything, they regard each other as far more bitter enemies than they do anyone in the West.

In reality, to the extent that AQ has recieved state aid from Islamic countries, there are only two existing governments where at least some elements of the state have clearly aided Al Quaeda. One is already a nuclear power, another is a country run by Wahabbi fundamentalists that happens to have it's own nuclear weapons program, albeit one which seems to get far less attention than Iran's. Yet you don't see a lot of people in here proposing "preemptive" attacks on Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Interseptor

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Or, ECK, another way of looking at it is that Iran has been monkeying around in the region's affairs by supporting terror for decades. They are flaming death in Iraq, along with Syria, and support those who wish to kill the children of Israel, again, along with Syria.

It is much easier to say that we just might finally get around to taking the War on Terror to the most active terrorist sponsors, now.


Arent the Jews who live in Israel actually European Jews for more then a thousand years so that doesnt make them Childern of Israel and by the way for your information the real originals Jews who lived in Middle East live in with the plestines and syrians and jordan, labonon, egypt they dont want to live the Israelis because they are Darwinist and that they have missused the name of Israel in there terms it is stolen.


Uh, as the Jews were scattered to the four winds, and as they are now being brought back to Israel from where the four winds took them, I'd not want to be the one to insult God's Chosen. They understand that, why is it that you can't? It was the "European" Jews who rescued the "Ethiopian" Jews in a miraculous airlift. They don't worry with the differences in looks after a few thousand years, why should I? Or you?
Or, you may wish to entertain the anti-semitic crap about the ones (Which ones? They are even coming out of Russia, now. That is an important prophesy coming to be. Not all of them will leave Russia, and they will suffer greatly for that mistake.) in Israel today are not real Jews, but evil folks trying to take over the world stuff. Personally, I won't, as there is no evidence that they as such. They merely wish to hold onto their little country.

As far as not wishing to make a preemptive strike against Iran, I think it is a bit late to talk "preemptive". They are one of the countries who have been working against us for quite some time. They are firm supporters of the terrorists, and have been for years. They are not merely a "threat", but have been actively seeking to do us harm, through the terror networks.

Were we to attack, say, France, that would be a preemptive strike against a potential threat!


What, do you think that these nations who hate us are going to come out and say, "We, the sovereign nation of Humpty-Squat, do hereby declare war on the U.S. and/or Israel, and will, at this time, do battle against you in accordance with your Geneva Convention outlook on the concept of war!"?

[edit on 5-7-2005 by Thomas Crowne]



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 10:07 PM
link   


Despite not being these people's biggest fans, some of us think it's a stupid idea to go around attacking countries that have not attacked us.


Can you please explain why you don't consider the numerous terror attacks financed, planned and carried out by Iranian agents against American targets to be an attack on our nation? Is the invasion, and subsequent hostage taking of our embassy staff (which is sovereign US territory, btw) not an attack on our nation? Do Iranian troops have to physically be on US soil with guns in hand before you endorse military action against them? Should we wait until Iran officially is in posession of nuclear weapons?

Do you not realize that Iran is responsible for the deaths of American troops, via insurgent (Iranian agent) attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan? Making an assumption from your posts that I've viewed thus far, I'd say we would have to prove all of the above beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law, followed by unanimous UN Security Council approval, Congressional approval, and a majority vote by the US citizens before you'd even CONSIDER military action against such a regime. But that's just an assumption on my part!



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by SiberianTiger
If you think both Rus/US don't know that already then you need to think again, if Rus was gonna give Iran Nuke they would just ship/Rail car or fly a a Nuke missile in for them, no one will find out, but the chances of some one finding out about it if Rus builds a Nuke Power plant for Nuke weapons perpuses is much greater, so I assure those plants ARE for peacful power reasons.

nope!
if they needed energy they
have an ample supply of oil, no i believe their ultimate goal is to have nukes and to be a super power like russia and china and to go to toe to toe with the u.s, they don't care hows many die becasue of nukes
the u.s. is running out of friends though so this could get ugly.
the e.u. is in it for money and oil
we are simply trying to be a bully
that could all backfire when china stirs after the olympics



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 11:44 PM
link   


Can you please explain why you don't consider the numerous terror attacks financed, planned and carried out by Iranian agents against American targets to be an attack on our nation?


Name one Iranian terrorist attack targeting Americans within the last decade.
One.

And don't give me Khobar Towers - that attack was planned and commited by Wahabbi Saudi's & one Lebanese, not Iranians... at least if you believe the US government.



Is the invasion, and subsequent hostage taking of our embassy staff (which is sovereign US territory, btw) not an attack on our nation?


25 years ago?!? A little late to retaliate, no?



Do you not realize that Iran is responsible for the deaths of American troops, via insurgent (Iranian agent) attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan?


The insurgents are Iranian agents only in your fervid imagination.
The insurgents are busily blowing up as many Shiites as they possibly can.

The insurgency, and notably it's most fanatical and bloodthirsty elements, is overwhelmingly Sunni & Wahabbi - there are certainly pro Iranian factions in Iraq, but for the most part, they're in the new government, not trying to blow it up.

Talking with you people is always fascinating.
It's like talking to a guy a few years after Pearl Harbor, and having him tell you "yeah, we really need to get those Chinese for what they did!"

Um, hello???



But that's just an assumption on my part!


Well you know what they say about assumptions...

I had no problem with Afghanistan.
They were clearly and unabiguously sheltering the people who had attacked us.

I supported Gulf War 1, as did a lot of people who opposed the current Iraq War.

Self-defense, the defense of an invaded ally, these are entirely just reasons to go to war.

But this business of "preemptive" strikes is simply absurd.

I don't like the far Right, I think they're dangerous, violent fanatics bent on world domination, and more or less a direct threat to my life and liberty.

Does that mean I am justified in going and shooting up a bunch of Freepers because I'm worried about what they might do?

Of course not.
That would make me a murderer.

And in war, the moral calculus is similar.

[edit on 7/6/05 by xmotex]



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 11:59 PM
link   

as posted by xmotex
And don't give me Khobar Towers - that attack was planned and commited by Wahabbi Saudi's & one Lebanese, not Iranians... at least if you believe the US government.


Missed a key word in your above equation: who funded them?




seekerof



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 12:11 AM
link   


Missed a key word in your above equation: who funded them?


In all likelihood, some rich Saudi Wahabbi fanatics.
There are quite a few of them you know.
One of them even had guys fly planes into our buildings, try to blow up one of our DDG's, blew up a couple of our embassies... he was in the news a while back.

Unless you have some kind of reliable evidence it was Iran, that for some inexplicable reason you are failing to post.



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 12:22 AM
link   
To heck with who funded them (AQ) - what did they know and when did they know it (Iranians)



The commission's report provides new details of Iranian government support for al Qaeda, including travel assistance to several of the hijackers involved in the 2001 airline attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon.

U.S. intelligence officials have said that a senior al Qaeda operations official, Sayf al-Adl, has been in Iran since 2002. He has been linked to the terrorist attacks in Saudi Arabia in May, and to the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Africa.

The commission inquiry revealed that captured al Qaeda leaders Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Ramzi Binalshibh disclosed to interrogators that at least eight of the September 11 hijackers "transited Iran" on the way to Afghanistan, "taking advantage of the Iranian practice of not stamping Saudi passports," the nearly 600-page report stated.



Washington Times


xmotex theres your support for a terror strike within the past ten years.


Oh wait theres more..........



A former Iranian-government intelligence officer who has defected to the West tells Insight during telephone interviews from Germany that he personally informed the FBI at the beginning of September of a plot by Iran to crash civilian jumbo jets into the World Trade Center and government buildings in Washington. A key element of the plot, which was code-named Shaitan der artash (Devil in the Fire), was the use of Arab "muscle men" to hijack the airliners. "Only the men leading the cells were Iranians," he says, "and they were recruited from among Iran's Arab-speaking population" in the southwest province of Khouzistan, bordering Iraq.

The other members of the cells were recruited under a variety of "false flags," the officer says. In the earliest version of the plot, hatched in 1988 in response to the accidental downing of an Iranian Airbus by the USS Vincennes in the Persian Gulf, the Arab recruits were told that they were hijacking U.S. airliners, not crashing them, and would fly to Cyprus and on to Baghdad "where they would be greeted as heroes."

The former intelligence officer says he received a coded message from inside Iran one week before the Sept. 11 attacks, signaling that the Shaitan der artash plan had been reactivated. He says he contacted the German intelligence agency, the BND, and the legal attaché at the U.S. Embassy in Berlin. U.S. government officials tell Insight that the FBI now claims it didn't receive the defector's warning until after Sept. 11.

Iranian defectors and U.S. counterintelligence officials have been warning for years of Iran's increasing preference to use Arabs and other non-Iranian Muslims for terrorist operations. "It provides them deniability," a U.S. investigator tells Insight. "If you are the government of Iran, you don't want to leave fingerprints that could tie you to these attacks. Unlike bin Laden, you've got real assets that can be targeted and destroyed. The United States has an excellent track record of attacking such targets, so any regime that openly engaged in anti-U.S. terrorism would have to be motivated by an extraordinary urge to self-destruction. Not likely."

Insight Magazine


I've read many of the details in seperate articles and books but have yet to see the details run down by our MSM who is stuck on the same idea of non cooperation thats been bandied about for almost four years.



[edit on 6-7-2005 by Phoenix]



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 12:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Of course you "trust" John Ritter, ECK.


That's SCOTT Ritter, btw. YOU championed the ridiculously false WMD defense in the run-up to the Iraq invastion. Ritter told the truth, that there were none. And you expect me not to trust him now? Should I trust you, the guy who got it wrong? That's preposterous. Am I to trust someone who clearly tried to lead me astray then and who proved to be dead wrong?
Ritter was right straight the line. YOU were wrong. You have yet to even acknowledge that.


You're on the wrong side of it Seekerof.


Hey! Think you can trust me since I served in the Gulf War as a Pararescueman when I make assertions as he?


I can trust you? Please don't make me laugh.


I mean, did you not say you trust the man because he served in the Gulf War?!


Yes, I do. What's the problem? He has real experience there. To this day, you refuse to tell me who you served with over there. (And please don't send me a nasty u2u getting angry over that.) It's a simple question. I'd think you'd be proud to honor those you served with by giving a shout out.


Regardless, beyond me how some can still believe an Al-Jazeera columnist,


He's not an al-jezeera columnist, and you know that. That little attempt at a dig is for those who watch Fox and don't understand the media. Al-Jezeera simply picked up and posted what the man said. Sorry that freaks you out.


especially since he predicted an invasion/bombing of Iran in June of this year, which did NOT happen, and then to cover his rear, he then comes out saying that, "Oh, btw, though I will not admit that I was in error because I was talking out my rear, the war against Iran has already began."


WMD! Neo Cons no longer have an ounce of credibility.


Yes, please keep swallowing that bait dished by what you deem is "a man I trust"......:shk:


You were wrong when you argued their talking points on WMD. How could you possibly stand to be wrong again on Iran?!
You're way smarter than that.


Do you really love them more than your own self-respect?



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 02:05 AM
link   
Judge Crow the jews are not God's chosen, quiet kissing up to them thier nothing but blood suking bandits, show us these prophecies about jews leaving Russia.

[edit on 6-7-2005 by SiberianTiger]



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne

Originally posted by Interseptor

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Or, ECK, another way of looking at it is that Iran has been monkeying around in the region's affairs by supporting terror for decades. They are flaming death in Iraq, along with Syria, and support those who wish to kill the children of Israel, again, along with Syria.

It is much easier to say that we just might finally get around to taking the War on Terror to the most active terrorist sponsors, now.


Arent the Jews who live in Israel actually European Jews for more then a thousand years so that doesnt make them Childern of Israel and by the way for your information the real originals Jews who lived in Middle East live in with the plestines and syrians and jordan, labonon, egypt they dont want to live the Israelis because they are Darwinist and that they have missused the name of Israel in there terms it is stolen.


Uh, as the Jews were scattered to the four winds, and as they are now being brought back to Israel from where the four winds took them, I'd not want to be the one to insult God's Chosen. They understand that, why is it that you can't? It was the "European" Jews who rescued the "Ethiopian" Jews in a miraculous airlift. They don't worry with the differences in looks after a few thousand years, why should I? Or you?
Or, you may wish to entertain the anti-semitic crap about the ones (Which ones? They are even coming out of Russia, now. That is an important prophesy coming to be. Not all of them will leave Russia, and they will suffer greatly for that mistake.) in Israel today are not real Jews, but evil folks trying to take over the world stuff. Personally, I won't, as there is no evidence that they as such. They merely wish to hold onto their little country.

As far as not wishing to make a preemptive strike against Iran, I think it is a bit late to talk "preemptive". They are one of the countries who have been working against us for quite some time. They are firm supporters of the terrorists, and have been for years. They are not merely a "threat", but have been actively seeking to do us harm, through the terror networks.

Were we to attack, say, France, that would be a preemptive strike against a potential threat!


What, do you think that these nations who hate us are going to come out and say, "We, the sovereign nation of Humpty-Squat, do hereby declare war on the U.S. and/or Israel, and will, at this time, do battle against you in accordance with your Geneva Convention outlook on the concept of war!"?

[edit on 5-7-2005 by Thomas Crowne]


Well I get your point there but I don't believe Iran wnats to fight at this moment it aint a super power nor has the capability of any attack on US it can defend, the part about the Four winds that a load of bull look the Jews in America dont give a dam about Israel, and top of that the Arab Jews are the sole originals of the Jewish families, have said that the Israelis dont want them in there empire they want to keep away from them as far away because they believe in peace an want exist with the arab counter parts.

By the way Jews were not forced at all to Europe in Fact they went of to Europe to make some very power full allies and propoganda of Turkey who controlled Jeruslem at that time many Jews disagreed with these Jews because they were only trying to take away a stroung allie form the Jews.

well they were masacared in Europe at that time to France, Britain and some others had already commited the crime and got away with it to, and then in 1939-1945 there was another masacare ofthe Jews done by the Germans, Why because they interfeerd with politics of that country and so missused it for there own greed.

this can be found in the encyclopedia.



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 12:11 PM
link   


xmotex theres your support for a terror strike within the past ten years.


That's pretty thin at best.
A couple links to far-right publications citing mostly unamed and uncorroborated sources does not, IMHO, make a convincing case for war.

And if you favor an attack on Iran based on such iffy evidence, why don't you support wars against Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, where the evidence is very clear and unambiguous that elements of their respective governments have supported Al Quaeda and their Taliban protectors?

[edit on 7/6/05 by xmotex]



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 09:46 AM
link   
What the hell is going on I just heard that there are secret meetings detected with N.Korea, China, Pakistan, Iran about every mounth this something wroung to hear with this line of countries that have secret dicusions of defence related products, May as well be NUCLEAR, because pakistan and china are both nuclear capable counteries and secret talks being detected is not Good thing If both nations are giving out potential technology transfers thats bad, this will only motivate Iran and N.Korea to defelop a Nuclear factory.

Nice


[edit on 8-7-2005 by Interseptor]



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 09:58 AM
link   
I agree that the US is gearing up for war with Iran.

As to the comments about the Iranian navy interfering with the US air capability........ that navy will only be a factor until it encounters OUR navy.



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 11:38 AM
link   
of course Iran isnt a match against US military, but it cn non the less do damedge to media it can stir up Americans against the war because Iran is more cable then a Eurpean country in europe it has very high tech weapons which could use, and also when the situation of war comes it will not be easy for US to attack as Iran will attack back and not surrender like the Iraqi forces did it will kill thousands of americans before it lets any body in its country.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join