Iran caught red handed

Go ahead and revel in your manufactured evidence. In the meantime, I will entertain other ideas:

The "laptop of mass destruction"

reply to post by northwolf

Heinonen didn’t say how he had obtained the PowerPoint, but noted that “several member states” had assisted his investigation.

Heinonen traveled to Iran last month to confront the Iranians with the new evidence he had gathered. The Iranians dismissed the documents as “fabrications” and “baseless allegations.”

I want to know who those other members states are. The Iranians just dismissed the documents as fabrication. So who decides?

reply to post by NewWorldOver


Im not advertising for attacking iran. I also acknowledge that if the U.S. is allowed to have nuclear weapons than any other country is allowed to have those weapons too.

What I am protesting is that I am in the minority at ATS when I say that the current Iranian leadership is crazy as hell and in no way better than US/Israel.

What I am strongly protesting is: Just because Iran is the U.S. enemy No.1, it doesnt make them good. This is faulty logic.

But hey...continue promoting the Tyranny that Iran represents and call it "being a conspiracy theorist".

This article is being presented as something it's not, in my view. Aside from the obvious questions about where these documents really came from, paragraphs three and four help put all this hyperbole into some context.

The documents, whose contents were described to Newsmax by persons present at the closed-door briefing on Feb. 25, included an internal Iranian government PowerPoint report detailing progress on a missile re-entry vehicle from July 9, 2003 through Jan. 14, 2004.

The progress report on the re-entry vehicle, known as Project P111, contradicts the latest U.S. National Intelligence Estimate on Iran, released in December, which concluded that Iran had shut down its nuclear weapons work in the fall of 2003.

So this article is basically trying to whip everyone into a frenzy because of a couple of months discrepancy between when the programme was said to have been shut down and date cited on the documents - Jan 14th.

All of which helps to further distort and already horribly warped argument.

Why are we are so arrogant as to assume we have the right to determine what technology other countries can and cannot develop? Why do we consider it our right to have access to a technology yet deny others that same right?

As far as I'm concerned, Iran has every right to pursue any technological advance it feels is necessary, including that necessary to defend itself from the globe-trotting, megalomaniacal Western coalition of the galactically stupid who seek to disguise their relentless theft of oil under the banner of the phoney, self-induced War on Terror.

In fact, Ahmadinejad would be remiss if he stood idly by and allowed the occupation and mass-murder of the civilians of a neighbouring country to pass by without at least considering the fact that he really ought to think of a way of deterring these maniacs from doing the same to his country.

How people can come on here and talk about the non-existent threat posed by Iran when we have gone and killed tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in an unprovoked, illegitimate invasion of an already sanction-crippled nation is a mystery to me.

We are the aggressors folks. By any sensible definition you care to come up with, we are the 'terrorists'.

[edit on 7-3-2008 by coughymachine]

This is funny,
all the people who dislike iran because shrub says we should are going "YES! told you so, our president was right"
but they should add to that
"to ignore a NIE put together by 16 intelligence agency's in favour of a power point presentation put together by we don't know who"

I'm honestly more worried about israel having nuclear weapons, than some power point presentation that remains unverified - I'm NOT attacking the source, I'm just saying it hasn't been verified.

If it's true, so what? schematics and flow charts aren't a ICBM or any other kind of nuclear weapon - they're drawings.

I'm going to fire up power point and produce a document which I will attribute to several people who don't like me, showing that I have beer in my fridge, and that when drunk, I'm likely to tell someone what I think of them.
I'm going to include fridge schematics, an analysis of the beer and its strength, which country produced the beer, where I bought it from, and a timeline of drunkenness detailing the point when I am likely to tell someone they are a **** and should get out of my face.

Then the people who dislike me will call on their friends, asking for a pre-emptive strike to stop this heinous behaviour.

reply to post by Sky watcher


war is a good money making endeavor. the problem is that nuclear weapons have the downside of TOO much destruction, thus disabling the money making conventional type of warfare. and that is what america does....make money. as my signature indicates, esoteric proclamations of america being a nation of peace...well, as they say, that horse has already left the barn. the wealthy cannot make money, if an entire area is laid to waste by nuclear destruction. chernobyl is a classic case, can't do business in that massive area of contamination, which is still sealed off. if you "always follow the money" your understanding of the way "things" work, begins to make sense. all other justifications on either side of the arguement, are used to gather consensus from the majority. this is why we want to disasble irans ambitions for nuclear weapons. you don't want to have some type of "nuclear wasteland" on top of 10% to 15% of the worlds oil

Hmm.

Being the overtly cynical skeptic supposed "Iran Hugger" (?!)/conspiracy theorist that I am, I'm just going to remind everyone of a certain briefing where a certain secretary of defense and his cohorts showed us all "evidence" of "mobile bio warfare labs".

Remember that?

I'm of the opinion that if Israel has such things, no one should be crying about other players in the region having them at all. No ones crying about the Russians, French, Chinese, UK, US, India and Pakistan having them, are they?

pakistan is a case of an unstable country, that was "allowed" to produce nuclear weapons. it is interesting that the UN or america did not use force against pakistan to stop that prolifiration of nuclear weapons. reason...no oil, and the particular area is not conducive for a productive source of profit. thus that area, was pretty much ignored, save for the occasional news story of "civil unrest", and the conflicts with india, over the area of kashmir.

Another source for the same story here.

This is disturbing, if indeed it is true. I have to say I didn't believe Iran was developing nuclear weapons but these reports certainly make me question that belief.

If nothing else it shows a level of deceit and underhandedness that has been absent in the reports from the IAEA.

[edit on 7-3-2008 by Chris McGee]

reply to post by neformore


Yes, its valid that they have the same weapons everyone else does. We dont have the right to deny them their weapons.

But its, imo, not right to glorify them just because Ahmenijad is a "fellow conspiracy-theorist".

The trend I see is that because Bush is no good that everyone he labels as "the axis of evil" must then be good. But North Korea and Iran are both oppressive to the max.

Way before Bush was elected these nations were constantly stirring up trouble and mocking international law.



[edit on 7-3-2008 by Skyfloating]

reply to post by Chris McGee


Two of the site parts are called "terrorism" and "islamofacism"

Does this strike you as reliable and credible?

I think I'll wait until I see something from a site a little less biassed.

That's not to say the report isn't true, just that this site seems to be mainly anti-islam propaganda - just scroll down the page and look at "article related to iran"

reply to post by budski


You know, talking about "islamofascism" is not necessarily "propaganda".

Realize that a website like the one you are posting on now, could not exist in Iran.

Why? Because of fascism/freedom of speech limitations.

reply to post by budski


Yes, you're right. Also i've just noticed that the link I put just references the newsmax story aswell. I should check my sources more carefully next time.

edit: I posted the wrong link, by mistake. The one I meant to link to is here.

I'll edit my original post.


[edit on 7-3-2008 by Chris McGee]

reply to post by Skyfloating


All I'd say in response to that, is that any site which talks about a country being "punked" is not going to be the most reliable.

Iran is also a democratic theocracy - our "ally" saudi arabia is far more brutal and far less democratic i.e. not at all democratic.
If democracy is the goal, why aren't we giving saudi a hard time?

chris mcgee
A better source, but another one by enemies of iran.
I don't disbelieve it, and the reliability of sources is always hard to quantify, but I'd really like to see some hard evidence.
For instance, an official statement from the IAEA should be forthcoming at some point if this is true.

[edit on 7/3/2008 by budski]

Originally posted by budski

All I'd say in response to that, is that any site which talks about a country being "punked" is not going to be the most reliable.

Iran is also a democratic theocracy - our "ally" saudi arabia is far more brutal and far less democratic i.e. not at all democratic.
If democracy is the goal, why aren't we giving saudi a hard time?


[edit on 7/3/2008 by budski]

uh...good point. You just beat me there.

(Which doesnt make Iran the good guys nevertheless)

[edit on 7-3-2008 by Skyfloating]

I personally don't care what Iran has i am way more concerned about our governments criminal activities like the destruction of the dollar, no bid contracts, orchestrating foreign coups, pre-emptive wars, 9/11 fraud and the general overall NWO influence in our governments affairs.

I'm sure Iran is NWO also because they always control both sides in a conflict so remember anything Iran does is financed by the same bankers that finance us. We are all getting gamed on a daily basis to divide us.

reply to post by Skyfloating


I don't think there are any good guys - just countries who pursue their own interests to the detriment of others.

I certainly don't think that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Or that the US and UK are blameless in what they do.

I just get sick of the unwarrented interference in the internal affairs of other sovereign nations.

If someone tried to interefere in our affairs, we'd probably bomb the crap out of them or send a strongly worded message, depending on whether or not they could fight back.

reply to post by budski



Yes. Non-interference-policy would solve most of our planetary problems.

reply to post by Skyfloating


I'm not sure about that, but the current level of interference is causing more problems than it's solving.

I think it's time that the US (and UK for supporting them) realised that they are not the owners of the whole planet, and nor are they this self-styled worlds police.

If they are, it's the equivalent of a cop on the beat walking around with his gun drawn - and if that happened, how do you think people would react?

A lot more violently than countries react, that's for sure.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
The trend I see is that because Bush is no good that everyone he labels as "the axis of evil" must then be good. But North Korea and Iran are both oppressive to the max.

Yes, I see where you are coming from. The old "enemy of my enemy is my friend" thing. Personally I prefer to look at the bigger pictures, and take each case on merit. There are a lot of things going on in a lot of countries that are just plain wrong.

Way before Bush was elected these nations were constantly stirring up trouble and mocking international law.

One of the things that really irks me is that in most cases the "Big Five" get their way as far as international law goes because of veto rights/block voting/spheres of influence. I do wonder how different the world would be if it was down to one nation, one vote, with no outside influences. What I'm getting at is that those countries who are "stirring up trouble" probably percieve that they've been oppressed by a long string of historical issues, and that the person with the most guns is trying to force the law down their throats. It may or may not be the case but its the perception that matters.