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.

 

Turning Point IMO where we start justifying war on Iran

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 10:39 AM
link   
Up until this moment, I was wondering at what point we were going to start the process of justifying
actually making serious plans of pre-emptive strikes on Iran. In this link
www.cnn.com...
which i just recently saw on CNN, I believe is exactly the turning point where it starts.

Just a portion of what contained in it:

Rumsfeld: Iraq bombs 'clearly from Iran'
Tehran denies involvement

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Tuesday that weapons recently confiscated in Iraq were "clearly, unambiguously from Iran" and admonished Tehran for allowing the explosives to cross the border.

Iran's defense minister denied the claims in a report carried by the state-run news agency IRNA.

According to Ali Shamkhani, Iran is playing no role in Iraqi affairs, including "its alleged involvement in bomb explosions."

The shipment of sophisticated bombs was confiscated in the past two weeks by U.S. and Iraqi troops in southern Iraq, senior U.S. officials said Monday.

Although he would not comment on whether the Iranian government was directly involved, Rumsfeld said, "it's notably unhelpful for the Iranians to be allowing weapons of those types to be crossing the border."

"What you do know of certain knowledge is the Iranians did not stop it from coming in," he said.

Rumsfeld said the weapons create problems for the Iraqi government, coalition forces and the international community.

"And ultimately, it's a problem for Iran," he added.

When asked if that was a threat of possible retaliation, Rumsfeld replied, "I don't imply threats. You know that."

"They (the Iranians) live in the neighborhood. The people in that region want this situation stabilized with the exception of Iran and Syria," he said.

World: stay tuned for how this plays out....




posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 10:44 AM
link   
You cant have a war without proof or it all goes tits up.

It could be that a few fools in the Iranian army are smuggling munitions against orders, should a nation be leveled, innocents killed, for that?



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Uncle Joe
You cant have a war without proof or it all goes tits up.

It could be that a few fools in the Iranian army are smuggling munitions against orders, should a nation be leveled, innocents killed, for that?


Exactly! I agree...im posting this as a point that they (US Govt and Anti-Terror Allies)
start making the concept of waging war against Iran, into more of a reality.
Im not suggesting that this IS justification for it, just to add clarity to the reason I posted this.


I am aghast of the attrocities I think were committing in the name of so called "Security".
This whole business I think is starting to spiral a bit out of control, its not there yet, but....



[edit on 10-8-2005 by alphabetaone]



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 10:59 AM
link   
I'm right with you, alphabetaone. I heard this on cnn yesterday, too. Apparently all the frightening and terrorizing talk about Iran's nuclear plans aren't quite enough to bring the country into alignment behind its 'leaders', and frankly, I don't think this latest is enough either.

Nope, I think we're gonna need a full-fledged, all out attack on US soil by them Eye-ranians to pull this country together again in support of a war without justification. And I have a preeeettty good idea of the folks who can (and would) do it!



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 11:23 AM
link   
Focus moves to Iran by linking to Iraq
+
putting Iran on a "Nuclear Crisis Watch"
+
Iraq has been linked to 911
x
Whitehouse logic then asserts that the Iranians are terrorists
+
Something bad happens on US soil
=
Justified war with Iran.

The war in Iraq wasn't even this well put togther and we went anyway.

Only part of this equation missing is the attack on US soil.



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 11:38 AM
link   
It's only a matter of "Timing" before the Bush Doctrine is dusted off again, and we go after another soveriegn nation that is NOT A THREAT to Americans.

The Media Play of the new Iranian President being the man behind the 1980's Hostage Crisis was the icing on the yellow-cake.

I have no doubt that War is coming in 2006.

Also, when we attack IRAN, North Korea will Attack America because they will know that they are next.


cjf

posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by alphabetaone
I am aghast of the attrocities I think were committing in the name of so called "Security".


If weapons are moving into Iraq via Iran, isn’t that news? Has not Iran already been fingered over the past few years as a contributor to the continued instability of Iraq just as Iran has again recently? No one, as of yet, is currently associating the 'middle source' as Iran (on this topic specifically), rather; Iran is not helping to hinder the flow fighters and weapons across it border with Iraq.



LONDON British authorities are telling Iran to better secure its border against weapons reportedly being smuggled into Iraq.
AP article link

And...


Najaf Gov. Adnan al-Zurufi said last week that 80 men who fought U.S. forces at a sprawling cemetery in Najaf were Iranian.There is Iranian support to al-Sadr's group and this is no secret," he said on Friday.
USA Today, Aug 9, 2005


Albeit there are other real sources of possible ‘Iranian’ weapons…
Recycled Iran-Iraq War Weapons

But add all this to this…
Iran Removes Final Seals on Nuke Site

There is no need for accelerated and heated rhetoric right now by the US as there is no ‘real’ disputable information coming out of the region, the sources are various, creditable and singing the same tune day after day.

If Iran does not stop allowing the ‘less than inhibited’ flow of fighters, martyrs and arms across its’ border with Iraq and Iran continues down its’ current path, she will hang herself in full view of the international community. Perhaps near this point a shift or a lean toward 'attacks' of some nature will occur, and the US will not have to take the lead.


.



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by cjf

Originally posted by alphabetaone
I am aghast of the attrocities I think were committing in the name of so called "Security".



If weapons are moving into Iraq via Iran, isn’t that news? Has not Iran already been fingered over the past few years as a contributor to the continued instability of Iraq just as Iran has again recently? No one, as of yet, is currently associating the 'middle source' as Iran (on this topic specifically), rather; Iran is not helping to hinder the flow fighters and weapons across it border with Iraq.


The implication and rhetoric in particular in this article is more where i was concerned, not the content.
It seems to be following a somewhat predicatable pattern.




LONDON British authorities are telling Iran to better secure its border against weapons reportedly being smuggled into Iraq.
AP article link

And...


Najaf Gov. Adnan al-Zurufi said last week that 80 men who fought U.S. forces at a sprawling cemetery in Najaf were Iranian.There is Iranian support to al-Sadr's group and this is no secret," he said on Friday.
USA Today, Aug 9, 2005


Albeit there are other real sources of possible ‘Iranian’ weapons…
Recycled Iran-Iraq War Weapons

But add all this to this…
Iran Removes Final Seals on Nuke Site



There is no need for accelerated and heated rhetoric right now by the US as there is no ‘real’ disputable information coming out of the region, the sources are various, creditable and singing the same tune day after day.

If Iran does not stop allowing the ‘less than inhibited’ flow of fighters, martyrs and arms across its’ border with Iraq and Iran continues down its’ current path, she will hang herself in full view of the international community. Perhaps near this point a shift or a lean toward 'attacks' of some nature will occur, and the US will not have to take the lead.


Well, define disputable? We say the Weapons came from Iran, and they Deny it..
Who's really correct and who isnt? "*Hand over mouth gasping!* it must be the bad guy Iranians lying to us again!"



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 01:31 PM
link   
Just thought I'd add this into the mix here.

Pentagon Devising Scenario for Marshall Law



According to a report published Monday by the Washington Post, the Pentagon has developed its first ever war plans for operations within the continental United States, in which terrorist attacks would be used as the justification for imposing martial law on cities, regions or the entire country.

The front-page article cites sources working at the headquarters of the military’s Northern Command (Northcom), located in Colorado Springs, Colorado. The plans themselves are classified, but “officers who drafted the plans” gave details to Post reporter Bradley Graham, who was recently given a tour of Northcom headquarters at Peterson Air Force Base. The article thus appears to be a deliberate leak conducted for the purpose of accustoming the American population to the prospect of military rule.
...
Graham adds: “when it comes to ground forces possibly taking a lead role in homeland operations, senior Northcom officers remain reluctant to discuss specifics. Keating said such situations, if they arise, probably would be temporary, with lead responsibility passing back to civilian authorities.”

A remarkable phrase: “probably would be temporary.” In other words, the military takeover might not be temporary, and could become permanent!


I just wonder how they know so much about the future attacks. And if I remember correctly, the Patriot Act was touted as being "probably temporary".



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 01:37 PM
link   
What would attacking IRan do? Hault oil to China. What is CHina doing, how bout NK? Not much, in check for the most part. No need to attack them.



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frosty
What would attacking IRan do? Hault oil to China. What is CHina doing, how bout NK? Not much, in check for the most part. No need to attack them.

Yes exactly Frosty, we are all pretty much saying there is no need to attack them...
what I am stating here is that (from the article that I posted from CNN), this is probably
the "in-road" toward justification for DOING so, even though it wouldnt be warranted
or justified.



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 06:35 PM
link   
Iran Smuggling Reports Exaggerated



Interior Minister Bayan Jabr told reporters that Iraqi security forces recently opened fire on a group of men carrying boxes near the Iranian border. The men dropped the boxes and fled back into Iranian territory. Inside the boxes were dynamite sticks with some wires.

"This is all that happened at the border and was very much exaggerated," Jabr said.


Seems Donny is a little over-excited about the smuggling activities. I wonder why he's exaggerating so... He has NO credibility in my opinion.



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Iran Smuggling Reports Exaggerated



Interior Minister Bayan Jabr told reporters that Iraqi security forces recently opened fire on a group of men carrying boxes near the Iranian border. The men dropped the boxes and fled back into Iranian territory. Inside the boxes were dynamite sticks with some wires.

"This is all that happened at the border and was very much exaggerated," Jabr said.


Seems Donny is a little over-excited about the smuggling activities. I wonder why he's exaggerating so... He has NO credibility in my opinion.


Yes, absolutely, great post


Why IS he making a mountain out of a molehill? Sticks of Dynamite and some wire....
Ive had more destructive equipment on July the 4th



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 04:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by alphabetaone
Why IS he making a mountain out of a molehill? Sticks of Dynamite and some wire....
Ive had more destructive equipment on July the 4th


I agree. Who the hell needs to smuggle explosives into Iraq anyway? The place is awash with military grade plastic explosive that all went missing from arms dumps during the post invasion fiasco.

No way are the US going to attack Iran, and Iran knows this. They may still be a decade away from securing Iraq, so invading another country would be insanity. Especially as Iranians wouldn't roll over like the Iraqis did (who were generally happy to see Saddam gone, even if they hate America). Every Iranian would fight the US tooth and nail. The whole of the middle east could turn into a war zone, which would not suit the US at all as it's oil supply could be cut off.

Aside from everything else the US could not afford another war. It can hardly afford this one, and another would mean steep tax rises to pay for it, which would go down like a cup of cold sick domestically.



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 05:39 AM
link   


Aside from everything else the US could not afford another war.


You think Halliburton and the Carlyle Group care?

You think Bush or Cheney cares?


cjf

posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by alphabetaone
The implication and rhetoric in particular in this article is more where i was concerned, not the content.
It seems to be following a somewhat predicatable pattern


I agree, and these types of statements made publicly are similar to statements made by the US and Briton 2002-2004 concerning Syria. Perhaps there is an element of blame or assignation or some conditioning propaganda; however the similarities are more a diplomatic nature in exerting pressure afore mentioned. Although the press can be used by governments for a multitude of tasks, IMO this is no more than using the press as a negative, direct, public diplomatic channel while exposing a message internationally. Based on the statements below (from posted link), no specific conclusions are drawn and no threats are made directly to the Republic:



According to Ali Shamkhani, Iran is playing no role in Iraqi affairs, including "its alleged involvement in bomb explosions….
…Although he would not comment on whether the Iranian government was directly involved, Rumsfeld said, "it's notably unhelpful for the Iranians to be allowing weapons of those types to be crossing the border



Originally posted by alphabetaone
Well, define disputable? We say the Weapons came from Iran, and they Deny it..


Shamkhani’s statement is about playing no ‘official’ role, (and that’s understandable), the US and Briton say weapons are crossing from Iran into Iraq across the border and neither countries are currently drawing lines directly to the Republic as perpetrators. This is the message publicly currently being sent to Iran, second time stated:




What you do know of certain knowledge is the Iranians did not stop it from coming in, he said. (from posted article)


Really it is a simple message and I do not see this as remotely threatening Iran in the least, nor is it a ‘smear’ champagne if it is common knowledge. Iran is not saying weapons are not crossing the border, they are saying it is not the government ‘officially’ trafficking, the US and Briton say could be rouge elements in Republican Guard and Iran is not inhibiting the flow, ball in Iran’s court.



.




top topics



 
0

log in

join