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.

 

British Agent Confesses to Twin Bombings in Iran

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by USAF6933
Once again your source is crap. Its a pro Iranian site with an obvious political agenda.


Actually I need to disagree, this is a 100% ANTI Iranian site, I have been using it as a light source of data for almost a year now. I don’t know about this story, but Iran Focus is an absolute, total, and adamant OPPONANT of Iranian policy and doctrine.




posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 02:27 PM
link   
I would not discount this story or really believe it. To me it can go either way as truth or lies.

The US and the UK have always trained men to try and start an uprising in their own countries (Iraq during Desert Storm when Bush and the CIA refused to back the resistance up).

But I would like to see more information from different sites though.



posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 02:47 PM
link   
Jesus H, why dont all you skeptics make a list of sources you find acceptable and post that list so we know what is acceptable information for you guys. God forbid somebody cites a source that isn't owned by Western Interests. Seriously, what sources are acceptable to you guys? Newsmax? Fox? Limbaugh?



posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 02:51 PM
link   
The source doesnt know squat about british intel, hell lets look at the "jobs" of MI5 shall we?



The Security Service is responsible for protecting the UK against threats to national security

www.mi5.gov.uk...
Has iraq suddenly been transported to the UK?
No...
Lets look at the official act behind the Security service shall we?



1.—(1) There shall continue to be a Security Service (in this Act referred to as "the Service" ) under the authority of the Secretary of State.

(2) The function of the Service shall be the protection of national security and, in particular, its protection against threats from espionage, terrorism and sabotage, from the activities of agents of foreign powers and from actions intended to overthrow or undermine parliamentary democracy by political, industrial or violent means.

(3) It shall also be the function of the Service to safeguard the economic well-being of the United Kingdom against threats posed by the actions or intentions of persons outside the British Islands.

www.opsi.gov.uk...


Lets look at the "jobs" of MI6...or SIS as its known...or the "firm"..

The Secret Intelligence Service (SIS), often known as MI6, collects Britain's foreign intelligence. The Service is based at Vauxhall Cross in London. Its Chief is John Scarlett. SIS provides HMG with a global covert capability to promote and defend the national security and economic well-being of the United Kingdom

And lets look at the official act behind SIS shall we?



1.—(1) There shall continue to be a Secret Intelligence Service (in this Act referred to as "the Intelligence Service" ) under the authority of the Secretary of State; and, subject to subsection (2) below, its functions shall be—
(a) to obtain and provide information relating to the actions or intentions of persons outside the British Islands; and
(b) to perform other tasks relating to the actions or intentions of such persons.
(2) The functions of the Intelligence Service shall be exercisable only—
(a) in the interests of national security, with particular reference to the defence and foreign policies of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom; or
(b) in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom; or
(c) in support of the prevention or detection of serious crime.


Now...which one sounds more likely to go to iraq and conduct clandestide operations?


[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]



posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy
Jesus H, why dont all you skeptics make a list of sources you find acceptable and post that list so we know what is acceptable information for you guys. God forbid somebody cites a source that isn't owned by Western Interests. Seriously, what sources are acceptable to you guys? Newsmax? Fox? Limbaugh?


LOL, coming from you. Hehe.


And, if you can read: Iran Focus is a source I have been using myself for a while now.



posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy
Jesus H, why dont all you skeptics make a list of sources you find acceptable and post that list so we know what is acceptable information for you guys. God forbid somebody cites a source that isn't owned by Western Interests. Seriously, what sources are acceptable to you guys? Newsmax? Fox? Limbaugh?

How about one that knows that MI5 is about security and not intelligence



posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 05:51 AM
link   
What's the difference between the British government accusing Iran of assisting with bomb attacks in Iraq and the Iranian government accusing Britain of assisting with bomb attacks in Iran?



posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 06:05 AM
link   

Gee, why would I not trust an Iranian website? Is it because Iran's new President was one of the hostage takers at the American Embassy?

www.cbc.ca... ... 06/30/iran-hostages050630.html


Gee, you trust the info about the alleged "hostage taking", which has been proven to be western propaganda as soon as it came out....



posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 06:10 AM
link   
devilwasp,

You are not SERIOUSLY posting informaton from .gov Sites to use as your and the British Agents Defence in this case?

Talk about some "Straight Information" huh?

I bet there is no word about Bombings in Iran or about the two British Agents or SAS members that were captured by the Iraqi police.



posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 09:34 AM
link   
I didn't like the source either, and I really don't believe it.

But on the other hand if it's true, one possibility does spring to mind:

The Premise--- lure Iran to retaliate somehow, giving Bush all the reason he needs. Hey, worked for FDR at Pearl Harbor with Japan, right? And to think the false flag was going to be some rogue Israeli F16 taking out a US ship on its way back from reactor strikes on Iran. At least, that's what some claim. But nah! That's too public and predictable now.

So instead, how bout a small bomb or two goes off in Iran, kills and wounds a few, and then a couple of Brits step up and admit to doing it. It might achieve the same effect of drawing Iran to retaliate, and takes Isreal right out of the loop! Unless Iran decides to attack Israel over it. But hey, Israel had nothing to do with it.



posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 09:42 AM
link   
Yes it did work for FDR and that is why it would not surprise me if this is indeed true.

As of now, we can not handle a war on three fronts. Hitler tried that and got his ass handed to him, and this is a much different style of warfare.

All we can do is wait and see.



posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 09:49 AM
link   
let me add my 1 cents worth:

do you really think that a trained british agent would freely admit to a clandestine operation? they spend years training to overcome torture. based on that fact alone (not to mention the above mentioned facts reference MI5), i tend to count this as BS.

besides, any source that skippy admits to using on a regular basis is suspect


(J/K skippy).



posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700
do you really think that a trained british agent would freely admit to a clandestine operation?


Says a proverbial Bush: "Hey we got a war to start here, who cares about blowing one agent's cover?"

[edit on 20-10-2005 by TrueAmerican]



posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 09:57 AM
link   
My source's better than your source,
My source's better than yours.
My source's better 'cause
It's more biased,
My source's better than yours."

Oh, c'mon people! Grow up and start Denying Ignorance!



posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy
Jesus H, why dont all you skeptics make a list of sources you find acceptable and post that list so we know what is acceptable information for you guys. God forbid somebody cites a source that isn't owned by Western Interests. Seriously, what sources are acceptable to you guys? Newsmax? Fox? Limbaugh?


Most definately would not be those that you use, like PrisonPlanet, Indymedia, Truthout, WhatReallyHappened, etc.
Bet.





seekerof



posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 10:48 AM
link   
Awe come on Seeker, forget the sources for a minute. Seeing as the topic is being allowed to stay up, let's discuss the topic. Supposing it's true this article, what's your take on it?



posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Winchester Ranger T
Only Muslims will believe this, but then again, that's exactly who the article is targeting.
But why would Al Qaeda target Iran, that doesn't fill me with a sense of certainty either.


Just another hypothetical for you. Now I'm not saying it's true or what I believe, just a potential answer to your question.

What if they did it as a basis for planting this story in the media? Is it really so difficult to imagine a terrorist group plotting to blow up some of the people it hopes to incite, then blame the attack on the group against which they would like the outrage directed? Wow, that was unclear.

That is, is it so far-fetched that Terrorist A (who hates the presence of British troops on Iraqi soil) would blow up some Iraqis, then blame it on the British to incite those Iraqis against the British? I don't think so.

We accuse our governments of doing it on this board all the time. You know, "U.S. plotted 9-11 as an excuse for war with Iraq." You've seen that garbage, right?

What would be different here?



posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Most definately would not be those that you use, like PrisonPlanet, Indymedia, Truthout, WhatReallyHappened, etc.
Bet.
seekerof

I wonder why you think truthout is not a reliable source, for example today all the articles they list are from the following sources.
The Financial Times
The Washington Post
The New York Times
Agence France-Presse
Reuters
The Australian Associated Press
The Associated Press
The Los Angeles Times
Libération
The Guardian UK
Bloomberg
US News and World Report
Knight Ridder Newspapers

But I suppose you think all those sources are 'biased' as well? Additionally, I'd like you to take a real good look at whatreallyhappened.com and tell me what specificly you find in error there as well as they base most of their information on FOIA Documents and the National Archives.



posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 12:56 PM
link   
IranFocus, as mentioned by AceofBase, is a propaganda website for the MEK/MKO and is constantly cited by ATS resident hate-monger and successor to DrHoracid, Mr Skippytjc. This is why most of their "articles" are unashamed anti-Iranian propaganda.

So why would MEK post a story like this, exposing British involvement in the Iran bombings, and why would they fabricate such a story, if that is indeed the case? Aren't they anti-Iranian government and thus pro-Evil Western Coalition?

No. And the confusion comes from believing the black-and-white, good guys VS bad guys propaganda which we've been spoon-fed by the corporate media. Anyone remember Rambo III where the Taliban were the poor, hapless resisters to the Russian oppressors?

The MKO were expelled from the country after the 1979 Iranian Revolution and taken under Saddam's wing. Since then, their goal has been the overthrow of the Iranian regime and its replacement with the group’s own leadership. They even fought against their own countrymen in clashes between Iraq and Iran. Saddam must have been pissing himself laughing at Iranians fighting against Iranians. Fostering conflict between the coalition and the Iranian government is perfectly in line with their objectives. They have tried and failed to overthrow the Mullahs for years. But where they have failed, the EWC, with all its high-tech weaponry and its global MSM psyops machine can succeed. And with the MKO currently being under Washington's wing, if the coalition occupies Iran, they will most likely appoint pro-Washington-policy MKO members as the puppet government, just like they did in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Remember folks, in the Good Cop-Bad Cop routine, there really is no "good cop".

[edit on 2005-10-20 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
devilwasp,

You are not SERIOUSLY posting informaton from .gov Sites to use as your and the British Agents Defence in this case?

Yes I am, whats wrong, wasnt your side complaining about sources? So whats wrong with my source?


Talk about some "Straight Information" huh?

Pot calling kettle black is the phrase I think..


I bet there is no word about Bombings in Iran or about the two British Agents or SAS members that were captured by the Iraqi police.

Well A) 2 of my sources are acts by the government from several years ago so no..
B) These two services are not part of the MOD and therefore have no need to discuss or display info about the MOD nor what its men and women where doing.




top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join