Iran caught red handed

This thread should get at least as many stars and flags as the psychotic puppy throwing.

This is a report from:

International Atomic Energy Agency’s chief nuclear inspector, Olli Heinonen

not a backyard Youtube video.



That in addition to the PowerPoint shows:

Other documents shown by Heinonen included:



schematic drawings of the missile warhead


Flow sheets for a secret uranium conversion plant


Test reports on high voltage detonators


Production documents on an exploding bridgewire detonator


Procurement documents showing that Iran had purchased spark gaps, shock wave software, neutron sources, special steel parts, and radiation measurement equipment, all of which are relevant to nuclear weapons work


Documentation on Iranian training courses on neutron calculations, the effect of shock waves on metal, enrichment/isotope separation, and ballisic missiles


Information on the construction of what appeared to be a nuclear test site, with a 1,300 foot shaft connected to a monitoring station six miles away, which the Iranians claimed was used to test conventional explosives.


“I am not an engineer,” U.S. ambassador to the IAEA, Gregory L. Schulte, told the IAEA board on Wednesday, referring specifically to the test shaft. “But I suspect that technicians don’t need to shelter themselves 10 kilometers away to test conventional weapons . . . or automotive air bags.”


Instead, Schulte said, “as the director general reports, these various activities are ‘relevant to nuclear weapon research and development.’”

We will see now if other sources report, and we will see now if anyone here has anything other than attack the source rebuts or "of course they are justified in having nukes" repartees.

The real question is what is the UN going to do and what countries will support it. Time to pick a side.

Originally posted by Sky watcher

One can only hope Bush has the guts to bomb Iran's nuclear sites of the map.

www.newsmax.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

www.youtube.com...

I feel the same way. No one understands the threats we face. We must attack everyone to show that peace can exist. Only by bombing nations can we show that we have an evolved sensibility.

Wow they found out that Iran had some plans on how to make that Abomb, but where was it they got those blueprints.... Ohhh thats right try look inside again and see who deliver it

On a side note i have a hard time understanding how Israel can have several hundred nukes and not telling anyone around it, but is allowed to have it. Do you really think that if Iran or some other country got 1 bomb they would fire it off at the moment its done?

Look through the propaganda and try to be a little bit less war horny...


[edit on 6-3-2008 by Loke.]

Nice sarcasm plucky, I enjoyed that.

If Iran is now a nuclear nation, it actually makes things a bit safer for the US.
It lessens the chances Bush would be willing to launch a pre-emptive war, and hence, no chance of a retaliatory nuclear launch.

Nukes are a deterrent weapon. Nobody nukes unless expecting to be nuked in return. Becomes a stale mate.

The only reason this will get on Bush's nerves is because Iran just became unattainable.

Sorry Bush, no conquest for you there... you'll have to make some other country out to look like the enemy.

Looks like God is on time with prophecy.
EZEKIEL'S WAR basically explains that Persia-Iran and Rosh-Russia will lead a war against Isreal only for God to destroy them. Other nations like Syria will be involved. Not a bad prediction even before christ was born.

Psalm 83
A song. A psalm of Asaph.

5 With one mind they plot together;
they form an alliance against you-
6 the tents of Edom and the Ishmaelites,
of Moab and the Hagrites,
7 Gebal, [a] Ammon and Amalek,
Philistia, with the people of Tyre.
8 Even Assyria has joined them
to lend strength to the descendants of Lot.
Selah


joelrosenberg.blogspot.com...
www.apocalypsesoon.org...

Here's a DoD clip that's fresh and indicates the largest troop movement by US NG forces from Indiana since WWII. 3000 headed in-country. This link should open in WMPlayer here. Some interesting stuff about "Seabasing". Unrelated.

Lotsa fun. Might want to check the "in brief" Iraq briefings. Go here and click "in brief" if interested.

Tally-ho! off to Tehran U.

vic

[edit on 6-3-2008 by V Kaminski]

EZEKIEL'S WAR basically explains that Persia-Iran and Rosh-Russia will lead a war against Isreal only for God to destroy them. Other nations like Syria will be involved. Not a bad prediction even before christ was born.

Only works out if Bush confuses himself with God. lol.

Actually, the reference you are referring to has been used many times. They used to think it referred to WW1, then WW2... a few nations in that area have also used that reference during numerous wars.

It's like a fortune teller, telling you your parent's will die... really? I thought they were immortal.

Don't put so much faith in religious texts, they are written to apply to pretty much anything that happens.

reply to post by johnsky

Based on this reasoning, the true way to world peace is to just equip everyone with WMD.

Unilateral deterrents. Now why didn't the UN think of that.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Yes...the long awaited news-post-topic to balance out all the news items of iran-apologists here at ATS.

Sad thing is, many wont be interested in the truth and would prefer to go on hugging Iran.

Nah. We're just not interested in throwing our Nation and our planet away on world war 3. We aren't so easily aggrivated and manipulated by the death-cult that runs this world.

Not all of us thirst for blood because National Defense tells you to. We like to think for ourselves. And for some reason, this has become 'liberal' and 'bleeding heart'? I call it intellect, and survivalism. Don't throw my world away because you think Iran is the boogie man.

Tired of this nonsense.

[edit on 6-3-2008 by NewWorldOver]

reply to post by johnsky


It was not World War 2 because Isreal was only formed after again, it speaks as Isreal of the future as a nation in the end times. These are two common examples but Jesus does speak of an event that is leading to the end times. Other indicators involves a revived Roman Empire - Europe and Babylon Iraq which we on the scene right now and many years to come.
No one has yet vapourised Iran as the Bible describes and it depicts nuclear war.
The thing is that this is just one puzzle of it all that is why people believe especially with ID cards and RFID chips on the way as the Mark of the beast 666 code.

[edit on 6-3-2008 by The time lord]

Originally posted by Sky watcher
Iran's government is crazy enough to use one as a first strike weapon, Remember they think its their job to bring about their Mahdi and be his Army to march to Israel so no Iran does not need a bomb and know one is even thinking of Invading them so they have no just cause for a weapon like this.

You know... I've seen Mr. Ahmadinejad speak a few times, seen letters he's authored, and read a little about his history. Not once have I ever pictured him being a crazy religious nut whose dead-set on 'bringing about his Mahdi'. I'd find it just as much plausible to believe that the whole story and reasoning behind the "islamic extremist" phenomena is blown way out of proportion and taken out of context. All I've seen going against him is the MSM's misinterpretations and spin in which they use to cover his speeches. In the world we live in today, it is almost impossible to pick apart truth from the lies. For all we know 'suicide bombers' could be a complete fabrication, a lie -- or atleast to some extent. How are we really able to tell the difference between a bomb carefully planted somewhere...or on someone -- perhaps with or without their knowledge, in some remote country?

We only know what we hear and see in the media -- and unfortunately in the times we live in today, seeing isn't always believing. Or atleast it shouldn't be. Unfortunately we're forced to pick a side and just have blind faith, often learning to ignore the discrepancies. As for me all I can do is sit on the fence and watch helplessly, hoping for the best, while clueless to the facts.

My opinion on the possibility of Iran obtaining WMD's? As long as there are nations like the USA, Israel, India, Pakistan etc. that are holding thousands of them -- and in some cases even threatening to use them -- then Iran are entitled to the same rights. Either they all go or more will keep coming. Maybe the UN and the US should be looking at coming to an agreement of getting rid of them all, in order to solve the problem -- rather then creating this giant and dangerous mess. Wouldn't that be a lot easier? ...or are there other reasons for going it the hard, less peaceful way?

[edit on 6/3/08 by Navieko]

reply to post by The time lord


Well isn't that nice.

That psalm scripture is irrelevant to this thread, and also beyond cryptic.

First I seriously doubt that the information is credible. In the article says that the information was provided by other member states , enough said.

If the info was provided by the U.S. or British government or any other puppet state of these two I wont believe it.

Second, WOW so they have drawings for weapons and stuff...just WOW.

Go to the Pentagon and see if they dont have plans right now for attacking any nation in this world.

[edit on 6-3-2008 by Bunch]

[edit on 7-3-2008 by Bunch]

Originally posted by johnsky
Nukes are a deterrent weapon. Nobody nukes unless expecting to be nuked in return. Becomes a stale mate.

I have to disagree with you on this point. In making this statement you are projecting your values on to other people. Essentially you are saying "since I would never use a nuke then nobody else will either." This is a dangerous assumption. We cannot say we KNOW Iran would never use a nuke as a first strike weapon - maybe they would. They might do it with a full understanding that their entire country would be "martyred" as long as they could destroy Israel or New York or Washington, D.C. in the process.

I am not saying that Iran definitely WILL use a nuke as a first strike weapon because there is no way I can know that. Likewise, there is no way you can KNOW that they will not do it.

We will see now if other sources report, and we will see now if anyone here has anything other than attack the source rebuts or "of course they are justified in having nukes" repartees.

The real question is what is the UN going to do and what countries will support it. Time to pick a side.

Always wanted to quote myself.

Though sometimes I am slightly depressed at being prescient.

As far as "either everyone or nobody should have nukes", I've yet to see anyone put forth a theory on how to restuff Pandora's box.

So we the big bad countries with the big bad sticks get to decide what new countries get to sit in on the big game. The principle is the same whether you are talking about weapons that cut or maim or weapons that obliterate.

Perhaps the answer lies in the nature of homo sapiens more so than political ideologies.

[edit on 3/6/2008 by kerontehe]

The US provides Israel billions for defense and they terrorize the Palestinians, committing atrocity upon atrocity.

Why shouldn't Iran have the same right to defend their country with the same kind of weapons? I've never understood where we get off dictating to toher nations what they can and cannot have.

If God is so protective of Israel, why don't they depend on Him for defense instead of the US, hmmm? They must be faithless cowards.

While you're quoting the Bible, you might look up "Love thy neighbor", it's in there somewhere.

Pfft..the Bible...puh-leeze! David, a man after God's own heart..a practicing peeping-tom who had Uriah the Hittite killed so he could schtup his wife!!

With a God like that, who needs enemies?

reply to post by themillersdaughter

True. The best gods we can invent all still seem to have feet of clay.

I readily admit that one persons terrorist is another persons freedom fighter.

All depends on where your loyalties lie. Fortunately my parents [mostly] chose to come to this part of North America over the Siberian land bridge and I daily choose to ally myself with the USA. Doesn't mean I agree with all or even most of my chosen government. It does mean I also choose to either be a part of the problem or a part of the solution.

Jury is still out on that one.

The author of the Newsmax article is Kenneth Timmerman, he has some very good credentials. We shouldn't dismiss any news source without vetting the writer. This guy is no mouthpiece or hack.

Look him up, Google him. There's plenty of information on the guy.

Besides, I believe anyone who doesn't question the Iranians about their nuke program and where it is headed is being dangerously naive. We can ill afford a misstep when we are faced with an enemy who maneuver for any advantage against us and our allies and pose a nuclear threat to free people anywhere on the planet. Unacceptable conditions under any circumstance.

reply to post by sharkman


One thing is questioning Iran, another is fabricating evidence in order to raise tensions and justify further sanctions or even milirary action.

The fact that matter here is that we dont have competent Intelligence Agencies and we have 3 options.

1. Believing our incompetent Intelligence Agencies, and get involved in another conflict that would cause the death of thousands of people to later be proven wrong AGAIN.

2. Take Iran at their word and hope for the best.

3. Let the IAEA do their job and trust in their findings. But in this case were the sources that provided this "NEW" information have not been revealed we have to take this information as uncorroborated.

Something is very clear to me though, someone dont want this Iran story to die, as if they want to create conflict one way or the other.

reply to post by Bunch


Mr. Heinonen who is credited as the source for this information is a very credible person and most certainly is not under US or Brittish influence. He has been very critical about US accusations so far and he can even be viewed as Iranian apologist by some here. But as far as i know, having met him few years ago, he is a man that tries to do his job the best he can. (very anti-political fellow)