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.

 

U.S. Lacking Intelligence On Iran

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by LazarusTheLong
Subz...
for a preemptive attack to be considered, it would require a statement such from the Iranian president such as "I want to wipe Israel off the map"

Which he didn't actually say, as the translation was a bit of disinformation...

A country has to have presented a threat of such a degree, that there is an imminent attack possible...

I wish that were the case too. But what imminent attack did Iraq pose? The alleged Iranian nuclear weapons program is nothing but a pretext, just like the Iraqi WMDs were. If we can negate the validity of the unsubstantiated nuclear weapons program we can deny the pretext. That's what I am helping to do, deny the use of this pretext.


Originally posted by LazarusTheLong
And regarding our Info on Iran...
the lack of CIA intellegence was primarily due to Cheneys, and Bushs offices actions to out Plame (and her iranian contacts)

That and the fact that there might actually be no nuclear weapons program in the first place? Perhaps that was the reason why Plame was outed. She may have not been willingly to fudge the intelligence regarding Iran just as her husband was not willing to fudge the intelligence regarding Iraq. Just a thought


semperfortis, have you read that entire article? It's nothing but rubbish. If you read what Rafsanjani said he says nothing about using atomic bombs against Israel. He says that if the Islamic world acquired atomic bombs it would result in a stalemate with Israel's colonialist intentions.

Have a look what Rafsanjani said from your quoted article:


If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave any thing in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world

He's obviously talking about mutually assured destruction. If Rafansanji advocated using nuclear weapons against Israel that would not result in a "stalemate", it would result in both sides (Israel and the Middle East) being destroyed. The stalemate he refers to is the fact that Israel's nuclear chip would be negated by a Muslim nuclear chip.

[edit on 28/8/06 by subz]




posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pyros
I have a question: IF the US really did suffer from a critical shortfall in intelligence on Iran and its inner workings..........don't you think that that very fact would be so sensitive as to render it classified? If we had weaknesses in our intelligence gathering system versus Iran, wouldn't you think that the government would want to protect that fact very strongly?


I think your point is very well made and I think that all three options you posted are factors in this "news story". They're not "either/or", they're "all of the above".

However I think that many Iranians now living in the US are a little leery about giving any information to the USG given the chaos that now envelops Iraq. Plus, if they're Muslims, they may well have come in for some unpleasant treatment at the hands of various government agencies.



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
Actually,


RAFSANJANI SAYS MUSLIMS SHOULD USE NUCLEAR WEAPON AGAINST ISRAEL

TEHRAN 14 Dec. (IPS) One of Iran’s most influential ruling cleric called Friday on the Muslim states to use nuclear weapon against Israel, assuring them that while such an attack would annihilate Israel, it would cost them "damages only".


Actually...

From the same article:


While Israel is believed to possess between 100 to 200 nuclear war heads, the Islamic Republic and Iraq are known to be working hard to produce their own atomic weapons with help from Russia and North Korea, Pakistan, also a Muslim state, has already a certain number of nuclear bomb.


So this article would be at least three years old, then... and


Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani, who, as the Chairman of the Assembly to Discern the Interests of the State, is the Islamic Republic’s number two man after Ayatollah Ali Khameneh’i


So there's been a change of government since then? And this is from hisWikipedia entry:


He served as President of Iran from 1989 to 1997. In 2005 he tried to win a third term in office, but lost on the second ballot to Tehran Mayor Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the 2005 Iranian presidential election. Most Iranians believe that Rafsanjani was placed on the ballot because of the near universal disdain for him in the Iranian proletariat, ensuring the election of Ahmadinejad.


Looks like someone with precious little influence these days.

[edit on 28-8-2006 by rich23]



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 06:27 PM
link   
Rich,
Thanks for the information.
I was thinking, that maby the next nucler exchange will be in the middle east. That is a big change from the US Vs Rushia which is what I always thought it would be. It is so sad that it seems like there will half to be a nucler exchange for the people to relise that its just not worth it.



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 07:19 PM
link   
If Mutually Assured Destruction was the end game of every nuclear arm's race, then let's arm everyone and be done with it!

The problem with this scenario is that if one of the player's glorifie's martydom (suicide), then the whole concept fall's apart.

IMO, if we have no intelligence in Iran, then we have to assume the worst. That is, if we want to ignore everything they're saying openly? We just can't afford another appeasement festival with fascism (treaty of Versaille). The weapon's are just too devastating this time. If we don't nip this in the bud, hundred's of million's could die. Delay only raise's the size of the conflict (global) and the number of dead.

[edit on 28-8-2006 by HimWhoHathAnEar]



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 04:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by HimWhoHathAnEar
We just can't afford another appeasement festival with fascism (treaty of Versaille). The weapon's are just too devastating this time. If we don't nip this in the bud, hundred's of million's could die. Delay only raise's the size of the conflict (global) and the number of dead.



HimWhoHath,
I do think you have it about right hear. During the cold war the countries invalved I think both had enuff sence to know that an exchange with those weapons would be the worst thing that could happen. I dont think the middle eastern countries would necesserly look at it that way. It does not look as if good times are aproaching.



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 04:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by HimWhoHathAnEar
IMO, if we have no intelligence in Iran, then we have to assume the worst. That is, if we want to ignore everything they're saying openly? We just can't afford another appeasement festival with fascism (treaty of Versaille). The weapon's are just too devastating this time. If we don't nip this in the bud, hundred's of million's could die. Delay only raise's the size of the conflict (global) and the number of dead.

Sorry but your logic is flawed. Try a logical reversal exercise to see how flawed it really is.

Imagine if the Russians concluded, due to a lack of contradictory evidence, that the United States was planning on creating a weapon that would give it an immense advantage over Russia. Russia then decides to assume the worst and then proceeds to launch it's nuclear ICBMs.

Who wins in that scenario? Were the Russians justified? Was that a decision the Russians were entitled to make?

The same applies to Iran. Every scrap of international law, mostly authoured by the United States, says such an attack on Iran is illegal. Even going right back the Nuremburg Principles written by the victorious United States following the defeat of Nazi Germany, it states that an attack such as this would be a war crime - a crime of aggression.

Can you think of how the World would be if every nation that felt suspicious of its neighbours lashed out militarily without proof? Can you imagine a World where such accepted behaviour leads beligerent countries simply to use a flimsy excuse such as suspicion to attack whomever it wishes?

Im not being overly melodramatic either. We're starting to see other countries use the pre-emptive extra-UN excuse that the 2003 US invasion of Iraq created. Is this really the kind of World we want?



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 06:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by subz
Can you think of how the World would be if every nation that felt suspicious of its neighbours lashed out militarily without proof? Can you imagine a World where such accepted behaviour leads beligerent countries simply to use a flimsy excuse such as suspicion to attack whomever it wishes?

Im not being overly melodramatic either. We're starting to see other countries use the pre-emptive extra-UN excuse that the 2003 US invasion of Iraq created. Is this really the kind of World we want?


Subz,
To anser your question, no that is not the kind of world I want. And yes the Iraq invashen does fit the profile of everything your described, but Iraq aside, the countries in that reagen have been doing exactly that for quite some time. The action has been offen against Isreal, or against other ethnic people. That is being seen now as it has always been in the past.
When one of these countries decides to use a nuclear device for the above reasons be it them selves or by way of suplying it to an ethnic groop, we are going to see a very new world.



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 06:40 AM
link   
But there is no concrete evidence to show such activity Red Golem.

There is not even any concrete evidence showing Iran has a nuclear weapons program, let alone an actual nuke and willing to use it.

All we've been hearing about what President Ahmadinejad has been saying is distortion and out right fabrications. He has never said he wants to kill Israelis, not once. When he was quoted as saying he wants Israel to be "wiped off the map" he never said anything of the sort. Notice how none of the quotes, which came from neo-con sources, include the word "Israel" in the "wiped off the map" quote. Honestly, give it a quick investigation. You'll see no mainstream media quote that includes "Israel" in that infamous misquotation. And do you know why? Because he was refering to the "Zionist regime occupying Jerusalem", not Israeli or Jews. The correct translation was "The Zionist regime occuyping Quds (Jerusalem) should be removed from the pages of history". The meaning of which is not the extermination of Jews, but the removal of the Zionist regime (regime change).

Since the whole "Ahmadinejad is hell bent on exterminating the Jews" plank of the argument is nothing but a fantasy we cannot justify a pre-emptive attack on a supposed nuclear weapons program that the IAEA does not even say exists. There is no proof, there is no evidence of a motive on behalf of the Iranians to attack any one, we are being led by the nose AGAIN just like we were in Iraq.

Dont let them do it. At the very least dont be fooled again.



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by subz
But there is no concrete evidence to show such activity Red Golem.

There is not even any concrete evidence showing Iran has a nuclear weapons program, let alone an actual nuke and willing to use it.

All we've been hearing about what President Ahmadinejad has been saying is distortion and out right fabrications. He has never said he wants to kill Israelis, not once. When he was quoted as saying he wants Israel to be "wiped off the map" he never said anything of the sort. Notice how none of the quotes, which came from neo-con sources, include the word "Israel" in the "wiped off the map" quote. Honestly, give it a quick investigation. You'll see no mainstream media quote that includes "Israel" in that infamous misquotation. And do you know why? Because he was refering to the "Zionist regime occupying Jerusalem", not Israeli or Jews. The correct translation was "The Zionist regime occuyping Quds (Jerusalem) should be removed from the pages of history". The meaning of which is not the extermination of Jews, but the removal of the Zionist regime (regime change).

Since the whole "Ahmadinejad is hell bent on exterminating the Jews" plank of the argument is nothing but a fantasy we cannot justify a pre-emptive attack on a supposed nuclear weapons program that the IAEA does not even say exists. There is no proof, there is no evidence of a motive on behalf of the Iranians to attack any one, we are being led by the nose AGAIN just like we were in Iraq.

Dont let them do it. At the very least dont be fooled again.


Semantics. And irrelevant as well, as Israel is a recognized sovereign nation. And the "Zionist regime" just happens to be their democratically elected government, which represents all people who reside in Israel. An attack on Israel or its government is an attack on the Israeli people and society. One does not "wipe Israel off the map" without wiping out the Israeli (both Jew and Gentile) society. That is what's at stake. A democrat, pluralistic, and capitalist society embedded in a region dominated by radical, intolerant Islam. A tiny country amidst a vast array of larger, more populous nations ruled by dictators and potentates.

Israelis know that Iranian hatred of them is not "fantasy". One has but to look at the vast array of Iranian weapons used against them, Iranian soldiers set against them, and Iranian money that flows to their blood enemies to know that the Iranian leadership desires Israel's destruction. Were it the US instead of Israel, we would have obliterated the Iranians long ago, after considering the long list of hostile acts committed against us.

Now, listen to this. People who grew up during the Cold War know this fact to be true: Nuclear weapons, in any form, are so inherrently dangerous that they cannot be permitted into the hands of those who would even consider for one moment the actual use of these weapons.

No man can truely know what is in the heart of another man. We can never truely know what the Iranians will do. However, one can make judgements and assess risks based upon the past and present words and actions of the subject in question. The Iranians are unstable, irresponsible, and have declared to the world they desire the demise of another sovereign nation. They have said it is their holy duty.

The world powers of the this and the last century produced and possessed nuclear weapons to guarentee their sovereignty and survival, based on a strategic policy of defense and deterrence. Israel dovetails into this policy to form. As does India and Pakistan, to a lesser extent. South Africa, not being at risk from its neighbors, wisely decided to abandon its arsenal.

Iran territories are not at risk. Its only regional foe has been utter smashed by the US, and Iran now actively seeks to install a puppet government to compliment its regional expansion of Shia Islam. Iran has more natural resources than it can ever hope to expend in the next 100 years. Iran has a dominant regional military force. Iran is developing an ICBM capability, and has aspirations for space exploration. Iran has a home-grown high tech industry base. All these things are enough to be gravely concerned about thier desire to obtain nukes.

The anti-Israeli rhetoric is jus the icing on the cake, albeit 5" thick......



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 08:11 AM
link   
Subz,
Ok I got that the statement made that was reported as Isreal was actually Zionist, and the intended message was a regiem change. Also there is no proof that Iran has a nuclear weapon program, fine. Be that as it may just what do you want as proof?
Iran is building a heavy watter reactor

Tehran says its disputed nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, but one of the byproducts of heavy-water reactors is plutonium, which can be used in building nuclear weapons.


Heavy watter reactors do produce pllutonium. Why use a heavy watter reacter? The cost? The energy cost in a heavy watter reactor is about the same as a light watter reactor

So why is the international community so bent on saying a light watter reactor would be acceptable?

Light water reactors are simpler and cheaper than heavy water reactors, and although they have the same power-generating capabilities, it is far more difficult to use them to produce weapons-grade plutonium


There is no proof that Iran is seeking nucler weapons, I got it. But it beacomes a question of what is proof. Elvis Presley was once a citizen of the U.S., ok prove it. Will the proof be a mushroom cloud over D.C? New York? Tel Avive?

Yes all this that is menchened is not proof, and all these people talking about that Iran is seeking nucller weapons and want it stoped. I am not saying another war is the anser, although just because a dentist says I dont have cavities does not mean I should not brush my teeth.


Ox

posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 09:22 AM
link   
Lacking intelligence on Iran.. OH SAY IT AINT SO!!.. Wasnt that said about Iraq too? Look how that ended up.. And.. uhh.. Why is Iran an enemy?....Because Bush said so? Because any country that wants any sort of Nuclear project is an enemy, Because America is the ONLY country allowed a Nuclear project? All countries that have nuclear projects MUST be using them for weapons..Right? Get over it.. The U.N. Needs to place sanctions on the Iranian Nuclear POWER project.. and then it needs to place Sanctions on the U.S. WORLD DOMINATION project.. to stop this Dictator from destroying us all with his stupidity



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 09:36 AM
link   
OK im going to throw my two cents in here.

We (USA) didn't have enough real intel on Saddam's underground projects, the UN was to inspect these sites to clear the world's mind as to what they (Iraq) were really up to. Unfortunately, Saddam decided to repeatedly kick the UN inspectors out, or block them from certain areas. This led to the conclusion that they had something to hide, ie WMD's. We all know what happened next.

So, this history now being public knowledge, even to state controlled censored media countries like Iran, you would think that if they have nothing to hide, then the UN inspectors should have open and clear access to all sites, at any time, wether above or below ground, to clear their name and set the world's mind at ease.

So once again we have a saber rattling country with the very real possiblity of developing nuclear weapons, yet says it does not have, and has no intention of having, yet blocking and denying UN inspectors free access to suspected sites. Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

I think there is a clear message here:
"If you don't want to get shot, don't point a toy gun at the cops."



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 11:02 AM
link   


Semantics. And irrelevant as well, as Israel is a recognized sovereign nation.


Iran is a sovereign nation as well, however "regime change" is our avowed policy towards them as well. And "free" or not, they are a democratic country as well.



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pyros
Semantics. And irrelevant as well, as Israel is a recognized sovereign nation. And the "Zionist regime" just happens to be their democratically elected government, which represents all people who reside in Israel. An attack on Israel or its government is an attack on the Israeli people and society. One does not "wipe Israel off the map" without wiping out the Israeli (both Jew and Gentile) society. That is what's at stake. A democrat, pluralistic, and capitalist society embedded in a region dominated by radical, intolerant Islam. A tiny country amidst a vast array of larger, more populous nations ruled by dictators and potentates.

Thanks for the predictable hyperbole. What you seem to forget that Iran is also a recognized, sovereign and democratic nation. There was no questions over the validity of the Iranian ballot from the international inspectors. Yet that does not stop the United States or the Israelis openly calling for the removal of the Iranian government. Does that mean that the Israelis and the Americans also want to wipe Iran off the map and all Iranians as well because they want the Iranian government gone? Forgive me if I think you're inherently biased and hypocritical.


Originally posted by Pyros
Israelis know that Iranian hatred of them is not "fantasy". One has but to look at the vast array of Iranian weapons used against them, Iranian soldiers set against them, and Iranian money that flows to their blood enemies to know that the Iranian leadership desires Israel's destruction. Were it the US instead of Israel, we would have obliterated the Iranians long ago, after considering the long list of hostile acts committed against us.

Big friggen deal. Who cares if the Iranian government does not like Israel? Where is it written that says every nation has to like every other nation? We dont like Zimbabwe because of the way they treat their citizens so that makes us bad people? Iran does not like Israel for what it has done to the Palestinians. It is well within their right not to accept Israel or it's policies. Forcing it down Iran's throat is the eptimome of arrogance and beligerance.

Tying that animosity to a concocted threat is nothing more than a transparent attempt to remove a hostile government. It was the very reason the US-back Shah (tyrannical dictator) was installed to govern Iran instead of the democratically elected Mosadeq government. Dont start preaching about democracy and pluralism, for the actions of both Israel and the United States is left lacking completely in this regard.


Originally posted by Pyros
Now, listen to this. People who grew up during the Cold War know this fact to be true: Nuclear weapons, in any form, are so inherrently dangerous that they cannot be permitted into the hands of those who would even consider for one moment the actual use of these weapons.

No man can truely know what is in the heart of another man. We can never truely know what the Iranians will do. However, one can make judgements and assess risks based upon the past and present words and actions of the subject in question. The Iranians are unstable, irresponsible, and have declared to the world they desire the demise of another sovereign nation. They have said it is their holy duty.

Yet again, noting but pure hyperbole. Do you need reminding who the only nation on the planet to use nuclear weapons in anger is? Do you need reminding that the Bush administration has changed the US nuclear warfare doctrine to allow for the nuking of non-nuclear armed nations? How does that fit into your romantic view of who and who should not be able to hold nuclear weapons?


Originally posted by Pyros
The world powers of the this and the last century produced and possessed nuclear weapons to guarentee their sovereignty and survival, based on a strategic policy of defense and deterrence. Israel dovetails into this policy to form. As does India and Pakistan, to a lesser extent. South Africa, not being at risk from its neighbors, wisely decided to abandon its arsenal.

You are getting ahead of yourself here. Show me an IAEA report that says Iran has a nuclear weapons program. Let me help you out, I've read them and there is no mention of a nuclear weapons program. Since the IAEA were only prevented from accessing Iranian nuclear facilities AFTER the UNSC resolution illegally forcing Iran to suspend it's NPT enshrined right to enrich uranium, it's fair to say that Iran was cooperating fully until illegal acts were undertaken against Iranian sovereignty.


Originally posted by Pyros
Iran territories are not at risk. Its only regional foe has been utter smashed by the US, and Iran now actively seeks to install a puppet government to compliment its regional expansion of Shia Islam. Iran has more natural resources than it can ever hope to expend in the next 100 years. Iran has a dominant regional military force. Iran is developing an ICBM capability, and has aspirations for space exploration. Iran has a home-grown high tech industry base. All these things are enough to be gravely concerned about thier desire to obtain nukes.

How is Iran not at risk? We have the governments of Israel and the United States actively talking about attacking Iranian nuclear facilities. Iran is also not the dominant military force in the region, you know that is a faleshood. Israel is the dominant military force in the region that has over 400 nuclear weapons and is not a signatory of the NPT. Israel has shown its agression many times starting from the unprovoked attack on Egypt in 1956 up to the groslly disproportionate attack on Lebanon this year.

How many times has Iran attacked its neighbours? Iran's democratically elected government was subverted through terrorism by the United States to install a ruthless tyrant dictator who was forcibly overthrown by revolution. Those responsbile for the Shah's reign of terror and the Shah himself were being protected in the United States so the Embassy seige ensued.

In the 1980's Iraq attacked Iran and was financed and furnished with chemical and biological weapons by the United States. Those chemical and biological weapons were then used against Iranian civilians.

Now we're meant to sit here and believe the United States (the origianl paragon of virtue) and the Israelis (the second paragon of virtue) when they say that it's Iran that is a threat and threatening others. This is a complete and groundless lie to say.



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
Israel has shown its agression many times starting from the unprovoked attack on Egypt in 1956 up to the groslly disproportionate attack on Lebanon this year.



Subz,
I think this statment you made is false.

In early 1955, Egypt began sponsoring raids launched by fedayeen (Arab commandos or guerrillas) from the Sinai Peninsula, the Gaza Strip, and Jordan, into Israel. As the number and seriousness of these raids increased, Israel began launching reprisal raids against Arab villages in Gaza and the West Bank of the Jordan.


For the sorce materal click hear.



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 07:06 PM
link   

posted by subz
AFTER the UNSC resolution illegally forcing Iran to suspend it's NPT enshrined right to enrich uranium, it's fair to say that Iran was cooperating fully until illegal acts were undertaken against Iranian sovereignty.


Just to make sure I understand you. You're against the United Nation's Security Council? They are operating illegally against Iran?

So you're against Russia and China then, since they're permanent member's of the UNSC. Who (other than Iran) do you support then?



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 03:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by RedGolem
Subz,
I think this statment you made is false.

In early 1955, Egypt began sponsoring raids launched by fedayeen (Arab commandos or guerrillas) from the Sinai Peninsula, the Gaza Strip, and Jordan, into Israel. As the number and seriousness of these raids increased, Israel began launching reprisal raids against Arab villages in Gaza and the West Bank of the Jordan.

Red Golem, thats what the World was originally told, but it was a pretext. The facts are that Israel was asked by France and Britain to attack Egypt because Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal. The plans were contained in the now famous Protocol of Sèvres. Both the French and British versions were destroyed by their respective leaders, whilst David Ben-Gurion kept his as insurance that Israel would not be held solely responsible for the unprovoked attack on Egypt.

When the ex-British PM Eden died, the Israeli PM Ben-Gurion released his copy of the Protocol of Sèvres to the press.


The Protocol of Sèvres,1956: Anatomy of a War Plot

The tripartite aggression against Egypt in 1956 involved an extraordinary reversal of Britain’s position in the Middle East. The French were the matchmakers in bringing Britain and Israel into a military pact whose principal aim was the overthrow of Gamal Abdel Nasser. The war plot against Egypt was hatched towards the end of October 1956 in a secret meeting in Sèvres, near Paris. The discussions lasted three days and culminated in the signature of the Protocol of Sèvres.



Protocol of Sèvres

The Protocol of Sèvres recorded the agreements reached between the governments of Great Britain, France and Israel during discussions held in Sèvres, France between 22nd and 24th October 1956, on a joint politico-military response to Egypt's nationalisation of the Suez Canal.

Sir Anthony Eden, the British Prime Minister at the time, always denied the existence of such a plot, and it is said that he had his copy of the invasion plan destroyed. The original Israeli copy of the Protocol of Sèvres is kept within the Ben-Gurion Archives, Sde Boqer, Israel.



Originally posted by HimWhoHathAnEar
Just to make sure I understand you. You're against the United Nation's Security Council? They are operating illegally against Iran?

So you're against Russia and China then, since they're permanent member's of the UNSC. Who (other than Iran) do you support then?

Just so you understand, the demand that Iran suspends it's enrichment program is not based on any international law. The NPT has no clause which states signatories are not allowed to enrich uranium. So that means the demands being placed on Iran by the UNSC have no basis in law so they are illegal.

This has nothing to do with my feelings towards the nations that comprise the UNSC. This also has nothing to do with my feelings towards Iran either. An injustice is an injustice as far as I am concerned.

[edit on 30/8/06 by subz]



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 07:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by subz

Red Golem, thats what the World was originally told, but it was a pretext. The facts are that Israel was asked by France and Britain to attack Egypt because Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal. The plans were contained in the now famous Protocol of Sèvres. Both the French and British versions were destroyed by their respective leaders, whilst David Ben-Gurion kept his as insurance that Israel would not be held solely responsible for the unprovoked attack on Egypt.


Subz,
Yes there was that Protocol, but look at the dates on the previous posts. Isreal was being atacked by the Egyptian fighters in 1955. It was 1956 that they began launching there own atacks, then october and the protocol came.

The fighting back of Isreal, in this case, was not unprovoked.

edit for typo

[edit on 30-8-2006 by RedGolem]



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 07:34 AM
link   
There are some people in the U.S. government calling for more action against Iran. It is usually the far right wing, and in Bushes own party.




‘If violence is necessary to defeat the terrorists, the Iranians and the North Koreans, then it is regrettably necessary,’ said Newt Gingrich, former Republican speaker of the House of Representatives.

‘Realistically speaking, the point of this multilateral exercise cannot be to stop Iran’s nuclear programme by diplomacy. That has always been a fantasy. It will take military action,’ writes Charles Krauthammer, a proponent of the ‘neoconservative’ philosophy.


Bushes delema



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join