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.

 

(suspected) Iran bombs kills 170

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 01:13 PM
link   
CNN is now publishing this story as well.



The U.S. military Sunday presented evidence it says shows an elite Iranian force under the command of Iran's supreme leader is behind bombings that have killed at least 170 U.S. troops in Iraq.

U.S. officials have made general statements in the past year about Iranian involvement in Iraq, but haven't provided many details.

The charges came at a Baghdad briefing by a senior defense official, a senior defense analyst and an explosives expert, all of whom asked to remain unnamed. Source


Given the present international suspicion surrounding U.S. intelligence in the aftermath of the invasion of Iraq, coupled with the plummeting approval polls, I am not inclined to believe that this could be used as effective public justification for strikes against Iran. However, it does "plant a seed," so to speak, regardless of its veracity or the degree to which it is precisely accurate. (I am not implying that it is or that it is not.)




posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 02:18 PM
link   
This won't be used to go to war, but it will be back-up when something else happens.



posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 02:49 PM
link   
agree with last poster, they're going to throw this out there from the propoganda manufacturing plant , maybe then take some polls and see how the public responds to this bit of info and then they will say we are not going into "war" with them but we will strategically bomb ing there "weapons facilities" where they made these weapons that killed our troops ok that is short term then things get intersting



posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 03:08 PM
link   
Here is the AP story:

AP Source

The wheels are in motion for war, anti-iranian propoganda, numerous carriers heading to the gulf, increased troops, increase missles and the administration speaking out of both sides of its mouths. Gulf of Tonkin Situation to follow as the next shoe to drop?



posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 03:36 PM
link   
Since the democrats controll congress, they're not going to vote for war, and there's not going to be one.



posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 03:51 PM
link   
The thing is though, Iran is (supposedly) supplying hardware to 'terrorists'.

Of course, Iran has been accused of doing just that with respect to Hezbollah, I think. However, supplying hardware to 'terrorists' that intend to use it against American citizens is a far more serious matter, particularly when you consider the psychology that has been nurtured as a result of what some see as contemporary Western propaganda.



posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 04:02 PM
link   


Since the democrats controll congress, they're not going to vote for war, and there's not going to be one.


HAHAHAHAHA.
Really funny. There's not enough ``good`` democrats to counter that. How many good democrats/republicans are up there on the 435? A big maximum of 40.

And even if the congress wouldn't want, Bush can attack Iran withoutthe approval of congress and wage war for 40 days. Thats the power he got after september 11. War without congress for 90 days.



posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 04:10 PM
link   
No, that didn't happen after 911.

And no, the president can't and won't go to war without congressional approval, for the same reason he needed congressional approval for Iraq. Especially now, when its been shown that, at best, his intelligence agencies and himself are incompetent when it comes to evaluating the evicdence and making the decision.



posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 04:25 PM
link   
How much is the decision making influenced by perceived 'public opinion', I wonder? Suitably worded newspaper headlines and television reports obviously influence the way people think. Enough of them can build a momentum that even politicians cannot run against.



posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 04:40 PM
link   
Iran is the last major "anti-western" power. The reason I surround quotes around anti-western is because it's really USA's last real opponent.

I am sure sooner or later they will find an excuse and attack Iran so they can "finish the job" or "clean the middle east" or "spread democracy"! Choose whatever excuse you want...it does not change the real motives AND THAT IS TAKE OUT MUSLIM FUNDAMENTALISM, ESTABLISH A PUPPET REGIME AND DEVELOP AND EXPLOIT THEIR OIL just like they did with Iraq!

Super powers always had their way and always will. This is defacto!



posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 04:40 PM
link   
not going to be a war?

the president does not need the power of congress read the two acts past by both dems and republicans after 9/11. he has 180 days to do as he wishes. half a year

plus alot of the dems are corporate picked puppets and some dems like john edwards will sign off on the war and others stooges will take the lead

either way i believe we are going to war in iran

would anyone like to bet that by the end of this year we are not at war with iran . i will even give you 2:1 odds based on a 100 u get 200 if we dont further the "war on terror" to include bombing them

if the above statement violates any of the terms and conditions or this membership ignore/ i retract the statement

[edit on 11-2-2007 by cpdaman]

[edit on 11-2-2007 by cpdaman]



posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticGreek74
... TAKE OUT MUSLIM FUNDAMENTALISM ...

To be fair, i'm not sure Iraq was such a hotbed of Muslim Fundamentalism under Saddam as say Saudi Arabia or Pakistan is now. It is a handy little trigger phrase to have in your arsenal though, along with 'terrorist', when deciding your next move, whatever the hell that may be!



posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 05:05 PM
link   

And no, the president can't and won't go to war without congressional approval, for the same reason he needed congressional approval for Iraq


what reason is this

he needed congressional approval in iraq so they would fund this thing and he got it by 9/11?

now wether they "high ball" the numbers to continue the war on terror in iraq this year in order to "cover" an iranian air strike is mute because

There is, in the passing of any budget, inherent authority given to the President when it comes to national defense.

and there are not enough cajones in the democratic party to pass a new Boland Amendment for Iran that would stop this spending in respect for his version of "national security"

[edit on 11-2-2007 by cpdaman]



posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 05:26 PM
link   
I never believed the story about iraq's wmd's and the fairy tale story about iraq linking to 9/11. But after having 2 close friends who returned from iraq,tell me all the bull that goes on over there that the media doesnt report on, i believe that iran is supplying weapons.

Dont misunderstand me,i dont want a war with iran. But from the things they've said,i can believe them. Most common is when the arrest the black market weapons dealers around iraq. Most of the weaps they sell came from the unguarded weapon depots we left at the start of the war. But they say they've been having competition from iran sending mortars,and explosives over the border.

I think the bombs people have been talking about lately are the EFP's. Explosively formed projectiles. Basically its a super deadly ied. A shaped charge. EFP These things take out armored vehicles. More and more of them have been showing up lately.

I dont think this will be used to try to go to war,but will be put on the back burner for later use.



posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Since the democrats controll congress, they're not going to vote for war, and there's not going to be one.


Hypothetically speaking, if there were another 9/11 that was more devastating than the original does bush have the authority or does congress still approve any military response? Just curious.

brill



posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 07:00 PM
link   
I found this :

(c) Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to

(1) a declaration of war,

(2) specific statutory authorization, or

(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

src: uscode.law.cornell.edu...

This is part of the War Powers Act of 1973. Item #3 above is the one that raises an eyebrow. My question is, would evidence of Iran allegedly providing arms to Iraq be deemed an attack on US armed forces. I'm under the impression that this document pertains to US soil which I don't believe is the case in Iraq, perhaps it is. That aside an attack on the US would certainly seem to provide the commander in chief with the ability to immediatley engage an enemy. As I pointed out in another thread that possiblity could occur:

www.abovetopsecret.com...'

brill


[edit on 11-2-2007 by brill]



posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by brill
I found this :
......

(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.


The attacks have hardly created a national emergency. Where is the panic in the streets?



posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malichai

Originally posted by brill
I found this :
......

(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.


The attacks have hardly created a national emergency. Where is the panic in the streets?


You missed my point, please see both previous threads to yours. I'm referring to a 9/11 type incident as a provocation for the president to be able to incite war without congressional approval. I'm not clear on his limitations but the War Powers Act appears to provide some rather audacious authority.

brill

[edit on 11-2-2007 by brill]



posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 09:20 PM
link   
Nytimes


Found this article on the New York Times website. The article talks about a Roadside explosive in a cylinder casing. When the sensor is tripped by incoming vehicles, the lid launches towards the target with enough force to penetrate an armored Hummvee. Defense Secretary Robert M Gates claims through serial numbers and forensic analysis, the weapons could be smuggled from Iran through the Mehran to Shiite Militants.



posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Koka

Originally posted by infinite
Breaking news on Skynews....

reports from the AP are stating that a Iranian bomb has killed 170 US-Allied troops in Iraq. Sources are claiming that the bomb has been smuggled into Iraq.

[edit on 11-2-2007 by infinite]


I think you jumped a little too quickly there infinite, numerous bombs on numerous occasions, totalling 170 dead US personnel.

We all know what this is.

Amazing how two countries who not too long ago were at war can join together when they have a far greater common foe.

P.R.C.S. - Palestinian Red Cross Society - Table of Figures


Hmm.. 170 people is still a 170 people.. that much its self does not change.

Two countries?

Iran is aiding only the Shia Militias of Iraq.. to attack Americans and Sunnis (Iran is Shia) .. Not two countries aiding one another.. if anything it is Iran getting a little revenge because it was a Sunni regime that attacked Iran.

This can be the begining of a new wave of evidence that can be seen as an act of war by Iranians........
The next couple of months, I would expect to see Iran in the news quite a bit, much like Iraq before we attacked.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join