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 Unites Terrorists For Attacks On US Troops And Israel

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 09:06 AM
link   
Link To Story


DEBKAfile, March 19, 2006

To this end, radical Iraqi Shiite cleric Ayatollah Moqtada Sadr, commander of the Mehdi Army, and Lebanon’s Hizballah secretary, Hassan Nasrallah, were secretly summoned to Tehran last week. The visit was reported by the Sunday Telegraph March 19. DEBKAfile’s intelligence sources add the visit was important enough to rate an audience for the two Shiite leaders with Iran’s supreme ruler Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and talks with two high-flying Iranian generals: Qasim Suleimani, commander of the Revolutionary Guards al Quds force, which runs Iranian Middle East terrorist operations and Ismail Dekaiki, recently named head of Iranian terrorist networks in Iraq.

The combined Tehran-instigated offensive against US troops in Iraq and northern Israel is aimed at easing US pressure on the Iranian nuclear question. The prospect prompted a high Israeli alert on its northern border with Lebanon from March 12 up until the present.


The covert war intensifies, while publicly Iran agrees to "talk" with the US on Iraq.


I believe this may be the link to their source story:
Iran's secret talks with Iraqi militants spark fears of proxy war


[edit on 19-3-2006 by TrueAmerican]




posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Link To Story


DEBKAfile, March 19, 2006

To this end, radical Iraqi Shiite cleric Ayatollah Moqtada Sadr, commander of the Mehdi Army, and Lebanon’s Hizballah secretary, Hassan Nasrallah, were secretly summoned to Tehran last week. The visit was reported by the Sunday Telegraph March 19. DEBKAfile’s intelligence sources add the visit was important enough to rate an audience for the two Shiite leaders with Iran’s supreme ruler Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and talks with two high-flying Iranian generals: Qasim Suleimani, commander of the Revolutionary Guards al Quds force, which runs Iranian Middle East terrorist operations and Ismail Dekaiki, recently named head of Iranian terrorist networks in Iraq.

The combined Tehran-instigated offensive against US troops in Iraq and northern Israel is aimed at easing US pressure on the Iranian nuclear question. The prospect prompted a high Israeli alert on its northern border with Lebanon from March 12 up until the present.


The covert war intensifies, while publicly Iran agrees to "talk" with the US on Iraq.


I believe this may be the link to their source story:
Iran's secret talks with Iraqi militants spark fears of proxy war


[edit on 19-3-2006 by TrueAmerican]


the story is from debkafile they make ridiculas shock propaganda im actually surprised they didnt claim iran has also recruted count dracula to suck the blood of the jews and asked godzilla to stomp and smash america.


debka is unrelaible source that exists on shock propaganda.



posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 11:02 AM
link   
One newsource is just as good as the other. Time will tell. It does look as if this story could be true.


If someone was coming to invade the US, would you sit on your fanny and not go fight?

I just cant beleive some of this


[edit on 19-3-2006 by dgtempe]



posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 11:59 AM
link   

The combined Tehran-instigated offensive against US troops in Iraq and northern Israel is aimed at easing US pressure on the Iranian nuclear question.

Tehran-instigated offensive against US troops in Iraq and northern Israel? What an outrageous claim! Iran is absolutely not involved in Iraq. I read it here on ATS over and over; it must be true!



posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 01:42 PM
link   
even if its true, is it that strange? What are they supposed to do, roll over and play dead? They are bound to get shot, bombed and tortured anyway, so i would say its better to go down fighting, take as many naive young american boys with you as you can. They are after all defending their country. No one wins, everyone looses...

...that is unless your last name happens to be Bush,Rothschild, JP Morgan or something in that range.



posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by iqonx
debka is unrelaible source that exists on shock propaganda.


Then you better remove about a zillion posts from ATS, because debka has been used here as a source for years. And frankly, I couldn't disagree more. I have seen many many stories from debka, and they are pretty much concise and to the point, with minimal hype or rhetoric. I suppose you'd rather have me go to english.farsnews.com... ?
Puhleeeease. And iqonx, how bout commenting on the content of the story instead of shooting the messenger.

jsobecky


nukunuku, how is Iran defending their own country when the war is in Iraq?



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 05:29 AM
link   
maybe its their own version of preemptive strikes


But really, how are Americans defending their country, when they are fighting in Iraq? Offensive defense?



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 06:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by iqonx

the story is from debkafile they make ridiculas shock propaganda im actually surprised they didnt claim iran has also recruted count dracula to suck the blood of the jews and asked godzilla to stomp and smash america.


debka is unrelaible source that exists on shock propaganda.


i hear some people making such claims and also claim that all news sources except Al Jazeera and even tabloids are the only ones that tell the truth.....


Anyways, where is your proof this is not true? If you have proof then present it, otherwise the one who is making "shock propaganda" is no other than yourself.....

[edit on 20-3-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 06:47 AM
link   
I don't understand. How can you people selectively choose which unverified news sources can be considered 'believable' or 'propaganda'?

The same people who call so-and-so sources questionable are the same people who will believe another unverified source and vice-versa. What is this? If it fits/doesn't fit your idea of 'the truth' you call it legitimate/questionable?

To all of you on both sides of the issue who exhibit this duplicity



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 07:05 AM
link   


the story is from debkafile they make ridiculas shock propaganda im actually surprised they didnt claim iran has also recruted count dracula to suck the blood of the jews and asked godzilla to stomp and smash america.


the thing with debka is to separate the obvious agenda they have from the military facts they provide. The basic facts they provide are usually quite accurate, and clearly are obtained via some fairly unique sources for an internet site. In fact, I've been told by a former British signals person that Debka definately obtain their military and strategic information from fairly unique sources for a web site. The facts they provde are often validated at a later stage by the mainstream media.

[edit on 20-3-2006 by JamesinOz]



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 07:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Beachcoma
I don't understand. How can you people selectively choose which unverified news sources can be considered 'believable' or 'propaganda'?

The same people who call so-and-so sources questionable are the same people who will believe another unverified source and vice-versa. What is this? If it fits/doesn't fit your idea of 'the truth' you call it legitimate/questionable?

To all of you on both sides of the issue who exhibit this duplicity


I have to agree with Beachcoma on this. Here lately I've become quite tired of how people want to act as if pointing at the source as some type of propaganda should be the fatal bullet. Bias does not equate to propaganda. Every source will have a bias.

debka will tend to have a bias pro-Israeli. al Jazeera will tend to have a bias pro-Arab. Neither should be dismissed. And casting doubt on these sources does not equate to "case closed".

Just because a source reports from a particular perspective does not make it worthless. In fact, the worth may come in us gaining awareness of a perspective we do not live in.



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 11:31 AM
link   
Are you all happy that you have hijacked my thread?


We've had this source discussion a billion times already! Back when I was a staff reporter, I tried getting some definate answers on this from the staff, because all too often this is how threads end up because of a disagreement on sources. No go. It is clear that ATS is not about to lay down any rules on this, and frankly has been quite wishy washy on which stories get trashed and which stories stay up. And hey, since we're allowed in THIS thread obviously to go way off track, not discuss the subject and talk about sources, then ok:

You wanna know what? I want someone from the staff to tell me how you would allow threads like Very Scary Developments - WW3 just days away., 2 weeks to war with Iran or US fears defeat in Iran war to be on the front page of the site??? Every bit of evidence defines these threads to be clearly WRONG, and MISINFORMATION. Deny Ignorance clearly has been forgotten or something. It's pretty dissapointing really to go to the homepage and see stories like that up there. Much like ATSNN, and its drop in overall quality of submissions, allowing threads like this on the front page does nothing more than make ATS look like another laughing stock internet tabloid site, IMO.

It saddens me, and I long for the old days when at least there was a higher degree of standard for what is allowed to be on the board, much less on THE FRONT PAGE. Why people, why dammit? We had it goin on in here. This WAS the place that was different. :shk:

[/join off topic discussion]



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 11:40 AM
link   
Why should people speculate on a story whose validity is severely in question?



Its articles are a blend of real news and invented news. Often DEBKAfile offers information no other news outlet reports on. It seems at times like a civilian public intelligence agency and often it has news several months before the rest of the world like CNN and others know about it. Please see the references.

en.wikipedia.org...

From that quote above, the source is obviously something to talk about, whether true or false or a little of both.



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn


Its articles are a blend of real news and invented news. Often DEBKAfile offers information no other news outlet reports on. It seems at times like a civilian public intelligence agency and often it has news several months before the rest of the world like CNN and others know about it. Please see the references.

en.wikipedia.org...

From that quote above, the source is obviously something to talk about, whether true or false or a little of both.


Dont you see the irony of your post here? You are using one internet based source to question the credibility of another. The Wiki entry itself uses other internet based news agencies to question or support Debka.

Sources are just that, it doesnt matter what you use today, it simply doesnt matter. People will either believe it or not. There is not one member of these forums who uses sources that every other member believes to be 100% credible.

So I agree with the original poster here, stay on topic or back off. To question the source and ignore the topic of the thread is pointless as we can do that to every single thread ever posted here no matter who the author or source of the material.

Every single person on this thread who is questioning the source has used sources others have questioned.

If you have an issue with the source, then choose your right NOT to post.

[edit on 20-3-2006 by skippytjc]



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 12:11 PM
link   
I don't understand why the mods just don't simply delete these "source questioning" posts... Well maybe with all the new mods now it will help lighten the load a bit and there can be more vigilance.



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 12:33 PM
link   
Well, threats will certainly not make me back down, and now I feel I have to explain my point even further.

There is a difference between facts and bias. Facts are verifiable and falsifiable, simply it is objective. Bias on the other hand is subjective. I am not talking about the bias of this news source, I'm talking about reports of Debka fabricating facts. But, on the other hand, there are reports that they offer real, truthful news months before other sources as well. Read that quote again, Debka is an ambiguous source.

Thus, it is our job in "denying ignorance" to attempt to verify elements of this story before it is presented as containing cold, hard facts. If you want to play these "What If" scenarious, then so be it. But, some of you in this thread are attempting to subvert the rationale notion of questioning the source and, thus, questioning the story. If we follow your rationale, we might as well unquestioningly accept every story out of Rense.

This source in particular probably has truthful elements, which is why it is important to verify the story itself instead of disregarding the entire article. But, some of you here want ATS to unquestioningly accept the facts within the story it seems. The call to attention of the source is a call to attention of the story's facts. That much should be obvious.

Stop being thread-fascists. Let truth have its way, whether it is in support of or contrary to Debka's story.

But, I agree with the implications that it is foolish to disregard the story just because Debka is an ambiguous news source. It would be equally foolish though to accept it as truth at face-value. Maybe Free Republic would be more to your liking "TrueAmerican"
.

[edit on 20-3-2006 by Jamuhn]



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn
Maybe Free Republic would be more to your liking "TrueAmerican"
.


WTF? Aight, now I am getting REALLY pissed.


I didn't start this goddamn source crap, I just posted a story. %&^* off



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 01:25 PM
link   
Bias? And you quote Wikipedia?

You must be joking right? Here is wiki's own definition of itself:

en.wikipedia.org...



Wikipedia is a multilingual Web-based free-content encyclopedia. It exists as a wiki, written collaboratively by volunteers, allowing most articles to be changed by anyone with access to a web browser and an Internet connection. The project began on January 15, 2001, as a complement to the expert-written (and now defunct) Nupedia, and is now operated by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation.

Wikipedia has more than 3,700,000 articles, including more than 1,000,000 in the English-language version. Since its inception, Wikipedia has steadily risen in popularity,[1] and its success has spawned several sister projects. There has, however, been controversy over its reliability.

Wikipedia's slogan is "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit at will" and the project is described by its co-founder Jimmy Wales as "an effort to create and distribute a multilingual free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality to every single person on the planet in their own language."[2] Collective authorship and understanding is the primal belief of being involved in a collective encyclopedia or wikipedia


Read these lines in particular:

"...written collaboratively by volunteers, allowing most articles to be changed by anyone with access to a web browser and an Internet connection..."

and

"...The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit at will..."

You use this source to question the bias of another source?

Thats comical.

[edit on 20-3-2006 by skippytjc]



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 01:33 PM
link   
Lets get back to basics here folks. It doesn't matter where the source came from, find another to source debunk or to support it. If a site talks about reptilian neo-cons eating Iraqi babies for lunch, you might want to think twice. This is not to say it is not true, it is just harder to defend.

Common sense allows us to know that Iran in some way has a hand with the insurgent activities in Iraq based on the Shiites in Iraq, who happen to be in power in Iran. Where Iran is not sending air support, I am sure they are in some way sending funding and intelligence.

Iran is not uniting terrorists per se, but is raising the call for more insurgent activity in Iraq against Sunni nand US interests.



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 01:49 PM
link   
Oh, someone that actually wants to talk about the story? Happy day! Thanks esdad.

Debka has another story that helps corrobrate this story:

Terrorist Elements are Poised for Occupation


After Three Years of Iraqi War, Middle East Terrorists Are on the March

DEBKAfile Special Analysis
March 20, 2006, 11:45 AM (GMT+02:00)

Lt. Gen Peter Chiarelli, the No. 2 US commander in Baghdad, said Friday, March 17, that the goal is to turn control of 75 percent of the country’s territory to Iraqi forces by the end of summer.

The US army has already pulled out of 25 percent of Iraq, so this means its withdrawal from another 50 percent over the next six months. Chiarelli warily characterized the land to be handed over as not necessarily areas where the insurgency is strongest.

The subtext of his words was that three years after the American invasion, the Iraqi army still cannot be trusted to handle the guerrilla war fought by Sunni insurgents. He also implies that the insurgents and their al Qaeda allies are in control of 25 percent of Iraq.

Please visit above link for complete details




new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join