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.

 

More Lies about Iran

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 06:50 PM
link   
so didn't the cia.
except that the plans that the cia sent were seriously flawed :O




posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 06:58 PM
link   
is there any possibility that Iraq's supposed WMD's made their way accross the border to Iran?

This would explain Iran's current nuclear confidence...



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 07:04 PM
link   
Iraq nuclear capabilities were taken away by the attacks from Israel.

They only nuclear material left from the 80s was sealed by the UN.

That was the only material found when US invaded Iraq.

BTW supposedly it was Syria the one that got the booty.



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 07:32 PM
link   
very good points you both have made.

could explain why syria got the hump,when they found us brits

out on day trip sometime ago, but we still want are kit back!.

god save the queen.



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 04:41 AM
link   
Syria is a strange one.

On the one hand they are supposed to be this scary "evil" country - a place, no less, that supposedly got Saddam's WMDs cos convoys of trucks were spotted and pictured going there from Iraq
(er, just move quickly along and never mind that vast convoys of trucks are/were how Iraq does almost all her trade with most of her neighbours ........hands up anyone who ever saw the mile upon mile of multiple lanes of oil and petrol/gas tankers and articulated 32tonne+ container/cargo trucks filmed during the 'sanction busting days', hmmmmmm?).

On the other hand they have a new leader with a much warmer relationship with the UK and Europe (who actually and specifically said he was "not Saddam" and that he "wanted to cooperate" - with 'the west' presumably).

.......and then there is the small matter that Syria has apparantly been quite happy to help the USA out in her current torture program .......er I mean 'extrodinary rendition' (who comes up with this laughable crud?)

Odd, no?



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 04:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by quadricle

is there any possibility that Iraq's supposed WMD's made their way accross the border to Iran?

This would explain Iran's current nuclear confidence...


Iranian Nuclear capabilities were always better than Iraq as the quality of assistance has always been good (FDR before the Islamic revolution and RF since the mid 90s').

Q

[edit on 20-1-2006 by Qoelet]



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 04:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Qoelet
Iranian Nuclear capabilities were always better than Iraq as the quality of assistance has always been good (FDR before the Islamic revolution and RF since the mid 90s').


- That would be American in the begining.

However none of which amounts to a nuclear bomb, now.



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 05:07 AM
link   
did the US begin nuclear cooperation with the Shah? I never knew that.. I figured it was started by the Germans with Bushehr...

learn something new everyday!

Q



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 05:07 AM
link   
oops.. sorry, double post!

Q

[edit on 20-1-2006 by Qoelet]



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 06:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel

Originally posted by ludaChris

Archangel, here is something I posted earlier in the thread that is only 7 days old. Iran has begun to break those seals and are now continuing activities they said they would halt.

IAEA


Did you even read your link?


On 7 January 2006, Iran requested that the Agency removes, before 9 January 2006, specified seals at Natanz, Pars Trash and Farayand Technique.


Iran requested politely, and the IAEA complied.

The seals were placed at Irans request under a non-binding agreement.

There is no resolution, or regualtion requiring the seals.

Its all perfectly legal, and in compliance with all binding international agreements.

If you think this proves they have done something wrong then you are easily duped.

Don't feel bad, the same happens to countless people even smarter than you.


Yes I did read my link, you didnt though obviously.



IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei expressed his serious concern about Iran's decision to unravel the suspension of enrichment-related activities requested by the IAEA Board of Governors before the Agency has clarified the nature of Iran´s nuclear programme.


You obviously stopped right there when you read what you wanted to hear. But its ok. No worries, but as you can see they requested politely and the IAEA denied politely, then Iran goes and does it anyhow. There you go the true face of what Iran is up to. And what they are doing is against legally binding accords signed in Paris in 2003. Oh, wait this would be their second time breaking that one.


[edit on 1/20/2006 by ludaChris]



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 07:46 AM
link   
Did anyone read this about how the CIA gave Iran plans for a nuke?

books.guardian.co.uk...

I think this is what Kenshiro2012 was reffering to above.
Setting them up for another unjust war for oil methinks?



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 09:17 AM
link   
Do you people realise that this goes back to the Clinton administration in 2000. But to my understanding the plans were flawed intentionally, kind of a counter intelligence operation. There is also another version of the story saying that someone on the operation dropped the ball and gave them actual plans or something along those lines. I dont know, I just dont think the US would do that, thats basically shooting ourselves in the foot. Its discussed here in another thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Qoelet
did the US begin nuclear cooperation with the Shah?


- Yes.

This whole saga goes waaaaaay further back than 'Clinton'.

It was the USA that originally convinced the Iranians that a nuclear program was something they should be pursuing.

(.....and in those days they were dangling plutonium processes in front of them!)


The foundations for Iran's nuclear program were laid in the 1960s under auspices of the U.S. within the framework of bilateral agreements between the two countries.
In 1967 the Tehran Nuclear Research Center (TNRC) was built and run by the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI)........

.......By 1975, The U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, had signed National Security Decision Memorandum 292, titled "U.S.-Iran Nuclear Cooperation," which laid out the details of the sale of nuclear energy equipment to Iran projected to bring U.S. corporations more than $6 billion in revenue......

.......President Gerald R. Ford even signed a directive in 1976 offering Tehran the chance to buy and operate a U.S.-built reprocessing facility for extracting plutonium from nuclear reactor fuel. The deal was for a complete "nuclear fuel cycle".


en.wikipedia.org...'s_nuclear_program



[edit on 20-1-2006 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Jan, 21 2006 @ 08:09 AM
link   
There really aren't too many Americans that are true Americans anymore it appears. If you don't like your government and your President, get out. Go live in the countries that you defend so eagerly. Over there you will not have the right to stand up and voice your opinions of betrayal.



posted on Jan, 21 2006 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by deesw
There really aren't too many Americans that are true Americans anymore it appears. If you don't like your government and your President, get out. Go live in the countries that you defend so eagerly. Over there you will not have the right to stand up and voice your opinions of betrayal.


- As a non-American I can only view such comments with a sad disgust.

I cannot help but wonder how this fascist instinct has taken hold of what appears to be so many there.

This is beyond merely holding a contrary view and disgreement.

'Land of the free' to 'our way or get out' (unless it's a 'Clinton', no doubt).

How sad.



posted on Jan, 21 2006 @ 09:00 AM
link   
Sorry you were offended non-American



posted on Jan, 21 2006 @ 09:50 AM
link   
S'OK.

It would be much nearer my meaning to say it's far more about sadness than disgust or offence.



posted on Jan, 21 2006 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by ludaChris

Yes I did read my link, you didnt though obviously.



IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei expressed his serious concern about Iran's decision to unravel the suspension of enrichment-related activities requested by the IAEA Board of Governors before the Agency has clarified the nature of Iran´s nuclear programme.


I read it, and what you posted says nothing about whether the Paris Accord is binding, or not.


You obviously stopped right there when you read what you wanted to hear. But its ok. No worries, but as you can see they requested politely and the IAEA denied politely, then Iran goes and does it anyhow. There you go the true face of what Iran is up to. And what they are doing is against legally binding accords signed in Paris in 2003. Oh, wait this would be their second time breaking that one.


Obviously I read that, and much, much more.

Lets end this ping-pong game and look at the official documents.


Iran’s Nuclear Programme [Including the Paris Accord]

Page 152:
..........
The E3/EU recognize that this suspension is a voluntary confidence
building measure
and not a legal obligation.


I think that settles the matter.....

[edit on 21-1-2006 by ArchAngel]



posted on Jan, 21 2006 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by quadricle

is there any possibility that Iraq's supposed WMD's made their way accross the border to Iran?

This would explain Iran's current nuclear confidence...


There has been a lot of talk about them being moved to Syria, and I am cautiously open to that possibility. We know the weapons were still around as recently as 98- even Scott Ritter seemed convinced of it up until that point.
There has been no credible explanation and much less solid information on what happened after that. There was supposedly an increase in activity before the invasion that may have been destined for Syria (supposedly taken at the time for a deployment for use).

All of that's well and good but it's simply not politically viable to say "we saw exactly what happened, but we let them get away without saying anything to the public about it, and now we've got to invade Syria."

There are facts that must be faced on both sides of the issue. We've got to understand that our intelligence on these matters is badly lacking, we have made very costly mistakes, we have missed critical moments for action, and the upshot of it all is that we have a mess on our hands and not as much information as we would ideally want for coming up with the best possible remedy.
At the same time, we have to face up to the fact that we're looking at several nations (Iran above all at this time) which are angry with us both about our past wrongs but also for reasons of religious intollerance, these regimes have track records of seeking Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical weapons and continue to be caught in lies over these projects, and prominent groups and officials in these nations have threatened us and others repeatedly with "The Mother of all Battles", "The Destruction of Western Civilization", etc etc.

The implications of these facts are that we do face threats which we must address, but that we must be very wary of what we are told by our leaders, because they don't necessarily know as much as they might have us believe, and there is ample reason to believe that personal agendas are being allowed to interfere with what is objectively in the best interest of we the people in terms of how these threats are addressed and how the aftermath is managed.



posted on Jan, 22 2006 @ 03:49 PM
link   
Why is it that as soon as you drag out the official documents the Neo-Cons run for cover.

The Author of the original article was right.

Iran does not now have the capability to produce nuclear weapons, and it may be years before they are capable if it were their intent, and the IAEA were not looking in on everything....




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join