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. Deliberates How Much Intelligence on Iran to Release

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 05:17 PM
link   
The United States is deliberating about how much of its intelligence on Iranian activities in Iraq. Officials are worried about repeating the embarrassment that the United States suffered over its Iraq War intelligence, and analysts have triple-checked the evidence to ensure its validity. The United States wants to embolden its clams that Iran is meddling in Iraq.
 



www.msnbc.msn.com
After weeks of preparation and revisions, U.S. officials are preparing to detail evidence supporting administration’s claims of Iran’s meddlesome and deadly activities. A briefing was scheduled Sunday in Baghdad.

The Iran dossier, some 200 pages thick in its classified form, was revised heavily after officials decided it was not ready for release as planned last month. What is made public probably would be short, and shorter on details than the administration recently had suggested.

No one who has seen the files has suggested the evidence is thin. But senior officials — gun-shy after the drubbing the administration took for the faulty intelligence leading to the 2003 Iraq invasion — were underwhelmed by the packaging.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


This article further discredits the claims that the administration is contriving Iranian evidence to some nefarious end. It shows that the administration is proceeding pedantically because they know that their credibility is severely damaged.

If the United States presents evidence, triple-checked, that Iran is supporting those undermining Iraq--perhaps directly, then isn't it to be given an objective look? If not, then what evidence needs to come out in order to say "The US is right on this one"?




posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 09:09 PM
link   
All it takes is a littler influencial pushing and some editing, the rest will be leaked to the media to spread the word.


I guess this report will be use to push the attack on Iran agenda.


Perhaps the problem with the report is that. . . is not enough evidence. . .or just. . . hear say by not so very good sources . . . but that same stuff didn't stop bush from invading Iraq . . .


[edit on 10-2-2007 by marg6043]



posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 11:01 AM
link   
I doubt we have much proof of anything. At least not implicating Iran's top tier government (even though we say we have proof). I dont trust my country's intelligence agencies. I have seen alot of PSYOPS directed at my own country's citizens concerning Iraq. Why would I trust their 'word' on Iran?



posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 12:56 PM
link   
We always "say" we have proof, but that proof is never presented. Just broad statements that we have serial numbers and interrogations that prove it. We are never told in any technical way how and when those serial numbers would have been manufactured in Iran. We are never shown video of interrogations. Never shown proof that the intelliegence is authentic. Never shown proof that the weapons we find in Iraq are actually manufactured in Iran.

US Intel: "beleive me Iran is helping Iraq, just take my word for it".

Im sick of being treated like a dumb middle schooler by my Intel agency and the media.



posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Togetic
If the United States presents evidence, triple-checked, that Iran is supporting those undermining Iraq--perhaps directly, then isn't it to be given an objective look? If not, then what evidence needs to come out in order to say "The US is right on this one"?

There are several problems here.

One is the fact that no matter how much the info is verified, there are some who will refuse to believe it. They would have no problem taking the word of Ahmadinejad, however, as gospel truth.

Next is the fact that there are groups such as the New York Times, that actively work to undermine the US efforts in Iraq. They consistently reveal any intelligence efforts that are underway.

Seymour Hersh and William Arkin are two such people.

And then there is the reality that sources cannot always be revealed because it would compromise their efforts and identity.

As you mention, however, the US is becoming increasing gun-shy when revealing intel results. This article is a good example:


Iran supplying Explosively Formed Penetrators to Iraq



posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
There are several problems here.

One is the fact that no matter how much the info is verified, there are some who will refuse to believe it. They would have no problem taking the word of Ahmadinejad, however, as gospel truth.

Next is the fact that there are groups such as the New York Times, that actively work to undermine the US efforts in Iraq. They consistently reveal any intelligence efforts that are underway.

Seymour Hersh and William Arkin are two such people.

And then there is the reality that sources cannot always be revealed because it would compromise their efforts and identity.
Iran supplying Explosively Formed Penetrators to Iraq



What do east coast liberals and muslims have in common?
hmmmmmmmmmmmm...
I'm waiting...



time's up
They both hate American values.
Now where's my Vicodin?



posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImplementOfWar
I doubt we have much proof of anything. At least not implicating Iran's top tier government (even though we say we have proof). I dont trust my country's intelligence agencies. I have seen alot of PSYOPS directed at my own country's citizens concerning Iraq. Why would I trust their 'word' on Iran?
The question then begs: what source would you trust? The point here is that if there is a real threat looming, then how will things be if we just sit here and say "We can't trust you" and then something awful happens? There are so many people here who are saying that they wouldn't trust anything the US government has to say. Then who is to be trusted? And if something bad come out about Iran or something good about the US, does that automatically mean its false? And if something good about Iran comes out or something bad about the US comes out from a foreign news service, does that make it true?

What are the objective metrics for these things?



posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sunsetspawn

What do east coast liberals and muslims have in common?
hmmmmmmmmmmmm...
I'm waiting...



time's up
They both hate American values.
Now where's my Vicodin?

What does this contribute to the discussion? It doesn't address the point that josbecky made. All it did was throw Limbaugh--whom I am absolutely not going to defend--under the bus. I don't understand the point being made.

[edit on 2/11/2007 by Togetic]



posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Togetic

Originally posted by ImplementOfWar
I doubt we have much proof of anything. At least not implicating Iran's top tier government (even though we say we have proof). I dont trust my country's intelligence agencies. I have seen alot of PSYOPS directed at my own country's citizens concerning Iraq. Why would I trust their 'word' on Iran?
The question then begs: what source would you trust? The point here is that if there is a real threat looming, then how will things be if we just sit here and say "We can't trust you" and then something awful happens?

This is an easy one. If something awful happens, then of course the US must have set it up all along.



posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 07:09 PM
link   
Why deliberate 'how' much proof to release
the Idea is to relase SOO much proof, that there's NO DOUBT in anyones mind as the legitimacy of the claims.

And the USA has no clout any more in the world, because the WMD claims were LIES.

.... but thye expect we should just 'believe' them now ?

Regardless, Iran has already been targeted, mapped and planned.
Once again, they are simply going through the motions

'' release evidence '' - ignore public
'' state goals '' - ignore obvious disaster approaching
'' state threat '' - ignore requests for proof
'' issue ultimatium '' - regardless of ability
'' strike '' - committ another warcrime.

www.cnn.com...


The officials focused on EFPs, or explosively formed penetrators, as evidence that Iran is involved in arming Iraqi insurgents. EFPs can punch through heavily armored vehicles.

The U.S. military officials said EFPs are manufactured in such a specific way that they can be traced to Iran.

Also, the U.S. military says 81 mm mortar shells used in deadly attacks in Iraq can also be directly traced to Iran.


Pretty thin if you ask me.

So, the WAY these things were manufcatued points out Iran?
Why cant other people mask they way the make it, or why cant iraqi spies in Iran find a way to get it into Iraq?

81mm mortar shells
why cant these be left overs from Iran/iraq war?


If this is all the evidence they are goign to release, I dont think its a question of '' decided WHAT evidence to release ''
I think its more a decision of '' how to best release what little we have ''


They arrested, and raided IRANIAN offices for christ sake.
They are monitoriing the BORDER

IF Iran was sending in loads of munitions and Men, we would have MORE tangible evidence.


Fool me once, shame you you
fool me twice, shame on me.



[edit on 11-2-2007 by Agit8dChop]



posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 07:36 PM
link   
U.S. Deliberates How Much Intelligence on Iran to Release (or make up)



posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Why deliberate 'how' much proof to release
the Idea is to relase SOO much proof, that there's NO DOUBT in anyones mind as the legitimacy of the claims.

Flooding does not work. We should work toward honest disclosure, not just flooding the world with info in hopes that some of it will prove out to be true.






Regardless, Iran has already been targeted, mapped and planned.
Once again, they are simply going through the motions

'' release evidence '' - ignore public
'' state goals '' - ignore obvious disaster approaching
'' state threat '' - ignore requests for proof
'' issue ultimatium '' - regardless of ability
'' strike '' - committ another warcrime.

What role does Iran have in all of this? Iran is not a "manufactured threat". They are doing nothing to prove otherwise; refusing the IAEA inspectors access does not speak well for them.







The officials focused on EFPs, or explosively formed penetrators, as evidence that Iran is involved in arming Iraqi insurgents. EFPs can punch through heavily armored vehicles.

The U.S. military officials said EFPs are manufactured in such a specific way that they can be traced to Iran.

Also, the U.S. military says 81 mm mortar shells used in deadly attacks in Iraq can also be directly traced to Iran.


Pretty thin if you ask me.

So, the WAY these things were manufcatued points out Iran?


We would have to have much more detail here before we could answer those questions. But I have no doubt that the military has the evidence.







81mm mortar shells
why cant these be left overs from Iran/iraq war?

I suppose they could, but they would probably be ineffective duds by this time. Their shelf-life has expired, as well as their service-life. Remember, the Iran-Iraq war was in the 1980's.





They arrested, and raided IRANIAN offices for christ sake.
They are monitoriing the BORDER

They didn't simply attack an embassy and arrest diplomats. There is much more to the story than that.


And I would sincerely hope that they are monitoring the border!



posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 07:55 PM
link   
But why withhold evidence, and release very limited evidence?

If I had proof of who shot someone, Im not going to release a vauge description someone attained, im going to release the gun that has his finger prints on it.

Its much like Iraq,
they limited WHAT to show the public, so they only showed enough to sorta raise some questions.
Then it turns out it was all fake any way.

This is the same thing
We cant show you 'everything' but we can show you enough to raise questions, we wont bother answering.

I do agree Iran are involved in Iraq in 'some' way.

but surely, if we are monitoring the border, we would have direct undeniable evidence of photos of peoples/trucks coming over.
Or detained border people caught smuggling or 'something'

Simply using munitions, that are made the same way Iran makes them, does not indicate Iran.

It just says who ever is USING them, has some how gotten iranian munitions.

Hell a friend has an AK , If I shoot someone with that... then dump the gun.. the authorities arent going to go arresting russians now are they ?



posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Why deliberate 'how' much proof to release
the Idea is to relase SOO much proof, that there's NO DOUBT in anyones mind as the legitimacy of the claims.
[edit on 11-2-2007 by Agit8dChop]


Why? Because if they say they are deliberating how much proof to release, it gives the illusion they have an abundance of anything at all.

When they don't



posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 08:29 PM
link   
Exactly,
More smoke and mirrors.

If you have proof,you'd release proof.
Not agumentative guess work.



posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 08:44 PM
link   
Whats up with the propaganda pushers on ATS the last few weeks.

Is it me or has the oldschool propaganda engine that so beautifully manipulated everything in 2001 and 2003 moved on to include the alternative media outlets as one of its focus points?

Your comment on the article shows me how much bullocks this is and what you are doing here. If you want to go spread propaganda on an alternative media site, at least try not to act and speak like a Fox News anchor blindly trying to sell the rhetoric and propaganda handed down to you.

Also, what the hell does it matter if they say this evidence is tripple checked?

Are you so dimwitted that you actualy believe the bullocks that the bad Intel that was used to go to war in Iraq was an accident?

The Scooter Libby trial shows very clearly that the active and malitious fabrication of evidence for the war in Iraq want up to the levels of the vice president, Intel was fabricated and lies were sold to the public and when someone was about to call them on it, they tried to shush the person by leaking classified information that put a CIA operative in danger.

This is no different. This supposed report your talking about now was done a week ago, as planned, but it got sent back because it told the EXACT OPPOSITE of what its supposedly saying now.

They are trying to sell us another lie and rotten evil lackeys, that rather die then think for once in their lives, like you, are helping them get us even deeper into absolute # then we already are.

[edit on 11/2/07 by thematrix]



posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 05:21 AM
link   
This is what makes America so unique and special.

Try going to Iran, and demanding "proof" from Khameini. See what you get.



posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 05:47 AM
link   
The bush administration is ramping up to go into Iran. The easiest way for them to do this is to prove a threat to Iraq because they have congressional authority to be in Iraq. If they can't show a link between Iran and "the insergents" in Iraq they will have to get authorization to go into Iran. With the loss of majority in the house and senate it is unlikely they will get such authority.


www.youtube.com...
It is important WE do not get fooled again!



posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 05:51 AM
link   


Try going to Iran, and demanding "proof" from Khameini. See what you get.

With the american government, it's always proving the non-existent... Saddam, prove us that you have dismantled your WMDs... well, I don't have any. You didn't prove it, ATTACK!!!

Iran, prove us you don't work on nuclear weapons... well, we don't work on nuclear weapons... ATTACK!!!

What about the US government PROVE that Iran is making nukes? And don't complain that Iran is helping Iraqis to kill americans soldiers in Iraq, you're the invader, you deserve it, if you don't want to be killed, get out of Iraq like it was planned before the election. And Iraqis welcome this help, they want to be allied to Iran.



posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 06:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
Iran, prove us you don't work on nuclear weapons... well, we don't work on nuclear weapons... ATTACK!!!

What about the US government PROVE that Iran is making nukes? And don't complain that Iran is helping Iraqis to kill americans soldiers in Iraq, you're the invader, you deserve it, if you don't want to be killed, get out of Iraq like it was planned before the election. And Iraqis welcome this help, they want to be allied to Iran.

Very easily done, Vitchilo. Just let the IAEA Inspectors unfettered access to do their jobs.

What is so hard about that?



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join