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.

 

Did Obama's Secret Talks Give Iran/Syria/Hamas Green Light To Attack Israel?

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 09:53 PM
link   
Obama's Secret Iran Talks; Iran Says Shows US Failure

Unconditional talks with Iran began even before BHO faced the voters in our recent elections!

Would Americans have voted for a man who proclaimed to require "conditions," yet was already meeting with Iranian and Syrian diplomats?

Despite his protestations otherwise, Obama used back channels to assure Iran AND Syria that he would be willing to open up discussions once he was elected!

Did this give Iran and Syria the "Green Light," through Hamas, to step up the pressure on Israel?

US President Barack Obama has already used experts within the last few months to hold high-level but discreet talks with both Iran and Syria, organizers of the meetings told AFP.
AFP Report"
news.yahoo.com...;_ylt=Ahz8DvJEe9kAWch08N7MqUeaOrgF

US President Barack Obama's offer to talk to Iran shows that America's policy of "domination" has failed, the government spokesman said on Saturday.


"This request means Western ideology has become passive, that capitalist thought and the system of domination have failed," Gholam Hossein Elham was quoted as saying by the Mehr news agency.

"Negotiation is secondary, the main issue is that there is no way but for (the United States) to change," he added.


"Iran Says Obama's Offer To Talk Shows US Failure!"
AFP/Breitbart Report:
www.breitbart.com...

Officially, Obama's overtures toward both Tehran and Damascus have remained limited. In reality, these discussions began, even as he denied it, while Obama was still campaigning!

Even before winning the November 4 election, Obama had already begun noegotiations with Iran, and used what experts call "track two" discussions to approach America's two foes, Syria and Iran, in the region.

After nearly three decades of severed ties, Obama said shortly after taking office this month that he is willing to extend a diplomatic hand to Tehran if the Islamic republic is ready to "unclench its fist".

In response, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad launched a fresh tirade against the United States, demanding an apology for its "crimes" against Iran and saying he expected "deep and fundamental" change from Obama.

Iranian politicians frequently refer to the US administration as the "global arrogance", "domineering power" and "Great Satan".

Tensions with the United States have soared over Iran's nuclear drive and Ahmadinejad's vitriolic verbal attacks against Washington's close regional ally Israel.

Former US president George W. Bush refused to hold talks with the Islamic republic -- which he dubbed part of an "axis of evil" -- unless it suspended uranium enrichment, and never took a military option to thwart Tehran's atomic drive off the table.


[edit on 31-1-2009 by jdub297]

[edit on 31-1-2009 by jdub297]




posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 10:10 PM
link   


I'm with the neocon OP... I says we should just bomb them all!

Then we should talk.



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 10:15 PM
link   
How many of you remeber when, during the debates, Obama "slipped" and said he would begin UNCONDITIONAL talks with our avowed enemies, Iran, Syria and North Korea?

He immediately denied saying he said it, despite the tapes, then said that "Of course" there would be conditions.

Would the American people have voted for him had he also "slipped" and disclosed that he had already begun talks with them?

Is this the position of strength he intended to present to us or to them?

And, more importantly, having seen his weakness, did Iran and Syria take this as a sign that Obama's administration would be soft and that Israel was on its own?

You may recall that both Clinton and Bush claimed to be unwavering in their support of Israel while Obama refused to commit to past and long-established policy regarding the Middle East and diplomacy with terrists and terror-supporting states.

This obvious and immediate duplicity and weakness can only be seen by others as proof that the Obama administration has abandoned a hard-line approach to murderers and terrorists.

The muderers and terrorists no doubt will be lining up to begin "diplomatic discussions" with the new President - with fingers crossed behind their back. Or, even worse, a knife in America's.



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 11:19 PM
link   
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad faces presidential elections in June , and is not a popular figure in Iran .
Obama is probably talking over Ahmadinejads head to his successor, or will at least wait to get down to serious discussions until after the June elections.

I don`t understand the reluctance to talk with Iran , the mega-phone diplomacy of the last 8 years has not exactly been effective.

or has it .....?
I often wondered, what really was the ultimate goal regarding Iran.
National Pride is a funny thing , when a nation isn`t treated with a modicum of respect - moderates are driven into the arms of those who will defend there honour, or at least are seen to be doing that.
You don`t need a think tank to figure that out .



Iranians are very proud of their culture and are well aware of the meddling of U.S.A and U.K throughout their past , would you blame them if they thought you didn`t have their best interests at heart ?
.



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297

This obvious and immediate duplicity and weakness can only be seen by others as proof that the Obama administration has abandoned a hard-line approach to murderers and terrorists.



YOu are an idiot. What makes them terrorists? USA is the biggest terrorists of them all. They have abandoned hard-line approach because your country was sinking under debt from policing the world. Iran has never attacked another sovereign nation, lets look at the US shall we? Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam and many more. Ignorant people like you give support to war mongerers by feeding you with media propaganda to tell you that they are terrorists or murderers and that they effect your national security.

[edit on 31-1-2009 by dreab_boy]

[edit on 31-1-2009 by dreab_boy]



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 11:44 PM
link   
I've never really been very concerned about Iran's attitude toward the US. I had friends there during and after Shah Reza Pahlavi's rule. The people act, as you say, out of a sense of their own worth and not in light of our views of their government.

The Iranian leadership, on the otherhand, seized power by invoking anti-US rhetoric and have relied on it ever since to remain in control. If you're being threatened from the outside (as they tell their people) then the people will ignore internal corruption and mismanagement.

My concern is that we have elected a person who espoused in America a position of measured diplomacy, while in reality, and covertly, pursuing an almost supplicant position. Iranian and Syrian leaders had to see this as weakness on our part, duplicity in the treatment of the people, and a softening of support for Israel. (I'm not pro-Israel, I think we give too much politically and fiscally for a nuclear-armed country that should be self-sufficient after 60 years)

What do those leaders think, who see BHO telling his people one thing, while doing the opposite behind their backs?



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 11:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by dreab_boy

Originally posted by jdub297

This obvious and immediate duplicity and weakness can only be seen by others as proof that the Obama administration has abandoned a hard-line approach to murderers and terrorists.



YOu are an idiot. What makes them terrorists? USA is the biggest terrorists of them all. They have abandoned hard-line approach because your country was sinking under debt from policing the world. Iran has never attacked another sovereign nation, lets look at the US shall we? Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam and many more. Ignorant people like you give support to war mongerers by feeding you with media propaganda to tell you that they are terrorists or murderers and that they effect your national security.

[edit on 31-1-2009 by dreab_boy]

[edit on 31-1-2009 by dreab_boy]


Name calling is weakness and fear expressed. So, lay off if you have a point.

The point of this thread is not who are or aren't terrorists, but that our new President lied to his people and is now being perceived as "weak" by those with whom he seeks diplomacy.

Get the terror chips off your shoulder and think about what you read.

Nowhere in the post did I accuse Iran or Syria of anything other than pointing out Obama's "failure." (Their words, not mine)

This revelation raises the question whether Iran and Syria, perceiving weakness, felt it was safer to support a Hamas attack on Israel than they would have otherwise.

Very simple.

As far as your assertions go:

Iran and Syria openly support Al-Qaeda and other self-proclaimed terrorist organizations.

Iraq was a sovereign nation when it was attacked by Iran. Iran claims that Israel must be wiped off from the Earth. Lebanon has been a Syrian puppet and remians under Syrian domination today(They assassinated the former leader, or don't you remember?)

When people speak or act out of emotion, instead of rational thought, there can be no expectation of reasonable discussion.



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297

Originally posted by dreab_boy

Originally posted by jdub297

This obvious and immediate duplicity and weakness can only be seen by others as proof that the Obama administration has abandoned a hard-line approach to murderers and terrorists.



YOu are an idiot. What makes them terrorists? USA is the biggest terrorists of them all. They have abandoned hard-line approach because your country was sinking under debt from policing the world. Iran has never attacked another sovereign nation, lets look at the US shall we? Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam and many more. Ignorant people like you give support to war mongerers by feeding you with media propaganda to tell you that they are terrorists or murderers and that they effect your national security.

[edit on 31-1-2009 by dreab_boy]

[edit on 31-1-2009 by dreab_boy]


Name calling is weakness and fear expressed. So, lay off if you have a point.

The point of this thread is not who are or aren't terrorists, but that our new President lied to his people and is now being perceived as "weak" by those with whom he seeks diplomacy.

Get the terror chips off your shoulder and think about what you read.

Nowhere in the post did I accuse Iran or Syria of anything other than pointing out Obama's "failure." (Their words, not mine)

This revelation raises the question whether Iran and Syria, perceiving weakness, felt it was safer to support a Hamas attack on Israel than they would have otherwise.

Very simple.

As far as your assertions go:

Iran and Syria openly support Al-Qaeda and other self-proclaimed terrorist organizations.

Iraq was a sovereign nation when it was attacked by Iran. Iran claims that Israel must be wiped off from the Earth. Lebanon has been a Syrian puppet and remians under Syrian domination today(They assassinated the former leader, or don't you remember?)

When people speak or act out of emotion, instead of rational thought, there can be no expectation of reasonable discussion.



thats a wild theory you have there detective are you a professional thats very good work



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 12:01 AM
link   
Excellent post.

S&F.



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by dreab_boy
YOu are an idiot.

What makes them terrorists?

Iran has never attacked another sovereign nation ... .

Ignorant people like you give support to war mongerers ... .


Well, let's see what's haapened overthe weekend, shall we?


Iran Crackdown on Dissent Seen Linked to U.S. Election

February 2, 2009: Reuters, Fredrik Dahl
uk.news.yahoo.com...


Iranian opposition politician Ebrahim Yazdi says the situation for pro-reform activists like himself is getting worse "day by day" in the Islamic Republic.

Yazdi may be experiencing what one Western diplomat called a "definite clampdown" on dissenting voices, which he said could be due to uncertainty about Iran's June election, the economy and new U.S. President Barack Obama.

(emphasis added)

And, speaking of "warmongering" terrorist support and attacks on other nations:


Hamas Supremo Meshaal in Iran: Report

2009-02-02 AFP Wire
uk.news.yahoo.com...


Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal arrived in Tehran on Sunday on his first visit since Israel's deadly offensive against his Islamist movement in the Gaza Strip, the state news agency IRNA reported.
Meshaal, who lives in exile in Syria, is due to meet top Iranian officials, as well as address students of Tehran University and attend a session of parliament, it said.
Meshaal is a frequent visitor to Iran, which is a staunch supporter of Hamas and does not recognise Israel.

Last month, Iran's hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has drawn global outrage for his anti-Israel tirades, congratulated Hamas on its "victory" in its war with Israel.


Arab_boy, why do you dispute 1) Iran supports terrorism, 2)Iran has attacked and supports attacks on other nations, and 3) Obama's perceived weakness has encouraged Iranian aggression against its own people and other nations?

Deny Ignorants

jw




[edit on 2-2-2009 by jdub297]



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join