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 'behind attacks on British'

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 5 2005 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeaceWarning Will Robinson! Media Spin Detected!

Watch as the British press starts putting the spin on the whole Basra state of affairs, doing their job helping Washington to demonize Iran. Until recently the 'foreign insurgents' were all coming out of Syria. Now they're suddenly all from or supported by Iran and Hezbollah.


You may very well be right, and I'm no expert on Middle Eastern affairs but I have heard people that do follow it point the finger at Iran for many years, whatever the reason may be.
Isn't it possible that it might actually be true though? If it's that easy to accept that it's all lies is it not possible it might be true? Might there not be new information? People change their minds on subjects frequantly when presented with new information, and rightly so othewise it would show narrow-mndedness.

Oh and it's "Danger, Will Robinson!" not 'Warning, Will Robinson'.
'Warning!, Warning!' was another of Robot's catchphrases..


EDIT -

Apologies, I was thinking of Israel - I said I wasn't an expert! I can't think of anything specific I've heard about Iran, prior to some of these new stories in the news.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...



[edit on 5-10-2005 by AgentSmith]

[edit on 5-10-2005 by AgentSmith]




posted on Oct, 5 2005 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc
Not my news source Nygdan, dont look at me. But why not humor it as truth?

Because the stakes are too high.


Iran has a documented history of this sort of thing...

Indeed, which is why its a little disturbing that this whole thing is being done annonymously and is presented in teh context of the Basra Debacle.

Iran does support terror, they're clearly a state sponsor, they support the syrian groups and also the PLO, and yet, they don't seem to be able to present this information in an honest way.


NK
who are you to say which country should or should not make their own choices even when coming to nuke issues.

Its not the US, its the world that is saying Iran can't have nukes, and the very treaty that the Iranian government signed in order to be given nuke tech expressly demands that it be for peaceful purposes. You, as in Iran, have no right to build nuke weapons now, you gave up that right in order to be openly and honestly given the nuclear technology.

well i havent signed out of NPT yet

If you do, you will be destroyed. Do whatever you want with the nuke tech for peaceable purposes, that was the deal, you leave the agreement, you might as well make sure that you already have a nuke and fire the first shot, because what will come will be inevitable. Not trying to present bravado, but thats the way its going to end up going down, the whole idea behind these agreements was to ensure that the world can make use of this incredible technology, the 'power of the atom', for peace, and the only way to do that was to get a guarentee, a permanent guarentee, that it not be used to make nukes. There's only going to be a single response to iran leaving these agreements.

As devilwasp points out, a lot of us would like to think that Iran is just making use of the tech for peacable purposes, and also, arguably, there must be a certain amount of civic pride in mastering the tech, but still, the overall perception is that there is something really fishy going on, like a weapons program. Whats up with that?

your saying we cant have our own and cant even make 1? please

Those are the terms that your country agreed to. No one that gets nuke tech thru these programs is permited to have them as weapons, and only your country regularly characterises the US as the great satan himself and is trying to get these weapons.



posted on Oct, 5 2005 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dronetek
I think we can all agree if that happens, WWIII is very probable.

[edit on 5-10-2005 by Dronetek]


Why would WWIII start over Iran. Name me one good reason why Russia or China would go to thermo nuclear war with the US over Iran.

You go to war when you have no other choice or if the benefits are more then the bad.

Irans Oil reserves and buisness are not worth having several thousand nuclear war heads landing in your country.



posted on Oct, 5 2005 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Isn't it possible that it might actually be true though? If it's that easy to accept that it's all lies is it not possible it might be true? Might there not be new information? People change their minds on subjects frequantly when presented with new information, and rightly so othewise it would show narrow-mndedness.

Possible? Sure, it's possible that all these "anonymous officials" are correct. It's also possible that there would be no need to remain anonymous if these connections were confirmed. Hey, it's even possible that we have two SAS spies caught planning dirty deeds in Iraq and shooting policemen, the locals upset, and now the media is claiming that the protests were not due to this but rather because some militia leader was arrested. It's also possible that it's very convenient how the connections to Iran are being ratcheted up in the media to coincide with Iran being in Washington's target sights. So many possibilities, the mind just boggles...


People change their minds on subjects frequantly when presented with new information, and rightly so othewise it would show narrow-mndedness.
Oh and it's "Danger, Will Robinson!" not 'Warning, Will Robinson'.
'Warning!, Warning!' was another of Robot's catchphrases..


And "frequently" is spelt with two 'e's and no 'a', but what's your point exactly? Or were you just nitpicking on something that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic?


[edit on 2005-10-5 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Oct, 5 2005 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
EDIT -

Apologies, I was thinking of Israel - I said I wasn't an expert!

So you mean you were thinking of Israel being connected to insurgency in Iraq?



I can't think of anything specific I've heard about Iran, prior to some of these new stories in the news.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...


The first thread you link to is a story posted by our beloved skippy where he links to IranFocus, which is a known MEK/MKO website.

The second is a story fom Ynet - a Web Site produced by Yedioth Ahronoth Group which is the largest Israeli newspaper.

Look, I'm not saying that any of this is necessarily correct or incorrect, but let's look at the whole picture here, and exactly who is saying what based on what agenda. Seems everyone is so keen to jump on the "Iran = Evil And Wants Nukes" bandwagon, and it all has a jarring de ja vu feel to it.

[edit on 2005-10-5 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Oct, 5 2005 @ 09:15 PM
link   
Uh....guys, I think you all may have over looked something.

Iran supported Hezbollah right? So they taught them how to make those roadside bombs.

And as we all know, when you pass your knowledge to someone, they in turn can also teach others, even those you don;t want to get involved with.

So, other then placing "Iran" as the one behind it, why are people overlooking the fact that it could have been taught by others.


edited due to spelling mistakes....

[edit on 5-10-2005 by Humster]



posted on Oct, 5 2005 @ 10:05 PM
link   
Anyone who doesn't think Iran has its fingers in the Iraqi pie are being extremely naive. The Iranians want nothing more than to see a shiite religious governemnt controlling Iraq.
If anyone disagrees just read a little of the history between the 2 countries.


Sep

posted on Oct, 6 2005 @ 01:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Its not the US, its the world that is saying Iran can't have nukes, and the very treaty that the Iranian government signed in order to be given nuke tech expressly demands that it be for peaceful purposes. You, as in Iran, have no right to build nuke weapons now, you gave up that right in order to be openly and honestly given the nuclear technology.


Actually it was the Pahlavi government that signed the treaty and not the current government. The treaty demands that the recognized nuclear powers start dialogues and eventually disarm. If they do not keep this promise then I don’t see why the rest of the world should keep theirs.

Moreover as you mentioned, the US government, if it chooses to remain a partner with Iran in the NPT agreement has the obligation to provide this country with nuclear technology. However this is one of the headlines I read yesterday "U.S. Urges End to Nuke Project With Iran" where the US asked Russia to stop the transfer of nuclear technology to Iran. Furthermore, the US has not shared any nuclear technology with Iran over the past 25 years. Again, it seems rather hypocritical for the US to urge Iran to keep its promises under the NPT, which it has, whilst it obviously does not keep her own obligation.



posted on Oct, 6 2005 @ 02:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace

People change their minds on subjects frequantly when presented with new information, and rightly so othewise it would show narrow-mndedness.
Oh and it's "Danger, Will Robinson!" not 'Warning, Will Robinson'.
'Warning!, Warning!' was another of Robot's catchphrases..


And "frequently" is spelt with two 'e's and no 'a', but what's your point exactly? Or were you just nitpicking on something that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic?


[edit on 2005-10-5 by wecomeinpeace]


The phrase you used was nothing to do with the topic either, however I just thought I was having a joke with another Lost in Space fan - obviously not. Sorry.

No I don't necessarily think that Israel has anything to do with it, like I said I'm not an expert on middle eastern affairs, I have heard people blame Israel for various things and I got confused between Iran and Israel in this case.
At least I admitted it when I could have just re-edited or deleted my post. I wasn't trying to start a fight, I was just passing comment. If I wanted to start a fight I would go to the trouble of doing some research first so I had some backing.

[edit on 6-10-2005 by AgentSmith]



posted on Oct, 6 2005 @ 03:39 AM
link   
This is just preparation for us to accept some sort of justification for bomb raids or even invasion on Iran.

1. Condi will have a lecture in UN General Assembly, showing us some satelite fotos or fancy CG and convincing us that Iran has WMD's or Nuclear weapons ready to launch.

2. When no nuclear weapons won't be found, they'll just say that Iran is a no.1 sponsor for Int. terrorism and it's a neccesity to deal with this threat once and for all (articles on this thread).

3. And if both excuses fail, they'll just say they did this because they need to bring freedom and democracy to Iran.

Can you be more transparent than that?



posted on Oct, 6 2005 @ 03:02 PM
link   
The veracity of these claims is highly suspect. There has been no definite evidence that Iran has ebetted these insurgents, so why the British make these spurious claims is obvious; to render public opinion on Iran and continue to make sure war with Iran is inevitable.

Luxifero



posted on Oct, 6 2005 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
Anyone who doesn't think Iran has its fingers in the Iraqi pie are being extremely naive. The Iranians want nothing more than to see a shiite religious governemnt controlling Iraq.
If anyone disagrees just read a little of the history between the 2 countries.


So Ibrahim Al-Jaafari, the Iraqi Prime Minister, is extremely naive?

Iraqi Prime Minister says Iran is not interfering in Iraq



posted on Oct, 6 2005 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
The phrase you used was nothing to do with the topic either, however I just thought I was having a joke with another Lost in Space fan - obviously not. Sorry.

Sorry mate, but your comment came across as being a smart-arse, and if it wasn't intended that way then I apologise for my reaction.
Chalk it up to the 'tone interpretation' problem inherent with typed communication.


Luxifero wrote:
There has been no definite evidence that Iran has ebetted these insurgents, so why the British make these spurious claims is obvious.


Let's be accurate here. It is not "the British" who are saying this, it is a supposed "anonymous official".



posted on Oct, 6 2005 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace

Originally posted by AgentSmith
The phrase you used was nothing to do with the topic either, however I just thought I was having a joke with another Lost in Space fan - obviously not. Sorry.

Sorry mate, but your comment came across as being a smart-arse, and if it wasn't intended that way then I apologise for my reaction.
Chalk it up to the 'tone interpretation' problem inherent with typed communication.


That's ok mate, normally I would be! LOL But that time I actually wasn't for once. I was glad to see someone else who remembered the old Lost in Space, I used to love it when I was a kid!
I often get that problem with the typed communications anyway, that and my usual sarcastic cutting attitude!



posted on Oct, 10 2005 @ 02:59 PM
link   
Alot of statements being thrown about like "SAS spies" etc. I have seen the pictures of these two men and the kit that they had on them. If they were trying to pass themselves off as Iraqis, then why were they tooled up with purely British weapons and equipment? Surely they would have been armed with AKs etc?

The clothing that they were wearing was only designed to pass a casual glance, not a thorough inspection. I would suggest that they were on an intelligence gathering or area protection job, rather than trying to unzip a few local plod to incite ethnic tension.

Either way, I foresee yet another suntan. First Afgan, then Iraq (twice), now they're gonna send me to Iran? Sod that, I'll be like a soddin prune soon!

[edit on 10-10-2005 by PaddyInf]



posted on Oct, 11 2005 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Luxifero
The veracity of these claims is highly suspect. There has been no definite evidence that Iran has ebetted these insurgents, so why the British make these spurious claims is obvious; to render public opinion on Iran and continue to make sure war with Iran is inevitable.

Luxifero

Umm yeah, sure can I ask...with what units where/are the UK planning on using in iran to "hold" it?



posted on Oct, 11 2005 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc
Hold up people, Iran was the place that should have been invaded from the very start of all this mess, not Iraq. Dont let the situation in Iraq cloud our views of Iran. They have always been a threat to the west and they dont even attempt to hide it.

Not everything is a cover up, a conspiracy or spin. Sometimes things are just as they sound.


I agree with your on this. The reason we went to war in Iraq is becuse we thought it would be a slam dunk. Can you say BRICK. We would not be able to handle Iran right now. I do think it is intresting that we are at war with the two countries that border Iran. They have a plan don't be fooled.



posted on Oct, 11 2005 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace

Originally posted by devilwasp
Well withrespect NR you signed the NPT, you want to break it, your choice; just expect concequesnces.


Where has Iran broken the NPT?


They dont have to break if they want to make nuclear weapons they can always withdraw from the NPT. There is nothing in the treaty stopping any nation from doing that all they have to do is give the other member states like 6 months notice before they do.

If they try to aquire or make a nulcear weapon while still a member they would have broke the NPT.



posted on Oct, 11 2005 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
If they try to aquire or make a nulcear weapon while still a member they would have broke the NPT.


And if they succeed regardless, then what?
Not sure if i want to know the answer to that one...........



posted on Oct, 11 2005 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dronetek
Iran 'behind attacks on British'


My understanding was or is that this is still under investigation?
I guess this is official now.
Apparently. the UK has no major issues over Iran targeting and killing British troops if such an investigation proved/proves actual/factual, eh?
Bear this in mind:
UK Continues Military Exports To Iran

Another interesting tidbit to this is why the UK is now exposing Iran:
Now we know the truth about Iran, we must act


Imagine the surprise, then, of Jack Straw and his officials the following morning when they opened their newspapers to discover that the future constitutional arrangements for Iraq had been completely superseded by official British confirmation that Iran's Revolutionary Guards were behind the deadly attacks that have recently claimed the lives of eight British soldiers.

For the past two years it has been a Foreign Office mantra that not a word should be uttered that could in any way be construed as criticising the Iranian government. Having voiced his last-minute opposition to the invasion of Iraq, Mr Straw had taken it upon himself to find a "negotiated solution" to the West's stand-off with Teheran over its clandestine nuclear programme as an alternative to military confrontation.


Going on to further indicate:



Indeed, when The Sunday Telegraph two weeks ago revealed that agents working for the Revolutionary Guards had linked up with the Iraqi groups responsible for the attacks on British troops, the Foreign Office continued to insist that there was no firm evidence.

But now the cat is out of the bag. Not realising the sensitivity that Mr Straw attaches to Britain's dealings with Teheran, the unfortunate diplomat unwittingly strayed from his referendum brief and started laying into the Iranians with a gusto not seen in the British diplomatic service for decades. The Iranians, said the diplomat, were colluding with Sunni Muslim insurgent groups in southern Iraq. They were providing them with deadly terrorist technology that has been perfected by the Iranian-funded Hizbollah militia in southern Lebanon against the Israeli army. And their motivation was to deter Britain from insisting that Teheran abandon its controversial nuclear programme. "It would be entirely natural that they would want to send a message 'don't mess with us'. It would not be outside the policy parameters of Teheran."


Definately things that make you go 'Hmmmm'....!
Evidently, to Jack Straw, hmmmm.




seekerof

[edit on 11-10-2005 by Seekerof]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join