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.

 

US Story on Iran Nuke Facility Doesn't Add Up

page: 1
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 06:18 PM
link   

US Story on Iran Nuke Facility Doesn't Add Up


original.antiwar.com

The story line that dominated media coverage of the second Iranian uranium enrichment facility last week was the official assertion that U.S. intelligence had caught Iran trying to conceal a "secret" nuclear facility.

But an analysis of the transcript of that briefing by senior administration officials that was the sole basis for the news stories and other evidence reveals damaging admissions, conflicts with the facts, and unanswered questions that undermine its credibility.

Iran’s notification to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) of the second enrichment facility in a l
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 06:18 PM
link   
Hi ATS,

Enjoy the read. Ask Yourselves why all the hype, and why RIGHT NOW? It is self evident to many that what We are seeing currently is the identical rhetoric used during the lead up to war with Iraq. Remember that war was another PREEMPTIVE(love)STRIKE(of Peace) for the safety, and security of the World, and most importantly to free the poor Iraqi's.

I'm telling everyone the Iraqi's know how free they are now; they know they are free to drop dead, and quit being in the way of big business


So, as the tensions, and lies are ramped up towards an attack, be the beacon of truth; don't just sit back silently waiting Your turn.

Peace,

Sancho


ps. what will be the catalyst to win the Hearts, and Minds of the US People??


original.antiwar.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by sanchoearlyjones
 


The United States intelligent community doesn't believe Iran is trying to make nuclear weapons.It is the United Kingdom and France that say they are so this shoots your whole theory. Unless you think the United Kingdom and France want to invade Iran.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


Brown and Sarkozy with Obama stuck right in the middle of the two of them??

Pictures like this tell a story!

www.npr.org...



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 06:46 PM
link   
This is the same kind of hype and distortions of fact and public manipulation that after nearly 8 years still have us loosing American lives and dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan and just as bad if not worse slaughtering innocent men women and children caught up in the crossfire of these lies in both countries.

The real question should be what on earth did we get not only out of invading Iraq and Afghanistan but what could we possibly hope to get out of yet another war against Iran?

Not only are we seemingly doomed to repeat the mistakes of history over and over again but incredibly enough recent history that should have taught and be teaching us all a lesson in the futile arrogance of regime change and nation building.

Few people in Iraq or Afghanistan would say they are better off today except for those who are on the American payroll or profiting from their new American created and supported and defended offices in other fraudulent ways.

We need to just say no to any more wars of aggression based on faulty and questionable intelligence and the propaganda that goes with it.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


Maybe the UK and France want the US to invade Iran.


I don't pretend to know anything about about what all these dangerous clowns that run the governments of the world, or who might be the puppetcritters in charge of governments, think or want.

All I can see, though, is a fast paced track that leads in two directions, east and west. Pakistan and Iran.

And, yes, even Helen Keller could see and hear the drummers drumming up support for more invasions.

Just my .02 New World Currency Unit.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by sueloujo
 


Hey, thanks for the quick pics

**********************************************************************
To
Dragonslayer take a look at the pics.
Sometimes they really are worth a 1000 words.

Also I highly recommend looking at the rhetoric coming out of the MSM pushing us towards war.




posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 07:25 PM
link   
Airstrikes to take out nculear facilities isnt the same as war or regime change. I dont get why folks dont understand that.

Remember when Clinton used to launch those missile strikes on Iraq every couple of years to set back their program? Thats all that needs to be done here.

All the experts agree that hitting Irans nuke sites will only delay them by 2-3 years. I say thats good!! Keep doing it every 2-3 years. Thats a helluva lot better than going to full blown war over it. If we keep hitting their facilities every time they rebuild them eventually they will get frustrated by wasting so much money and say screw it.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 07:28 PM
link   
Iran will have to blow up something first before we go to war.
Well not all the time.
WWII had Pearl Harbor and Afghanistan and IRAQ II War on Terror had
the WTC Terror Attack.
So that's almost a given for getting into war.

Then Nam, Korea and WW I cause they were there.

A few other skirmishes should round out America's activity.
Before that Napoleon and Lenin did some warlike activities.

IRAN does seem the next to fall.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 07:43 PM
link   
As always Sancho,

Another great thread with some good topic of debate. I agree with you that the rhetoric is matching that of the heated language used before we went into Iraq.

Iran has found itself in a situation of 'darned if they do' and 'darned if they don't' where no matter what they get screwed. The way the US has pigeonholed the plant gives them [the Iranian people] no way to progress. We claim that we knew about this plant long ago through our intel but yet we cried foul play with sanctions in this past week since the story has emerged. We act like it is something brand new and we had no idea about it. Just caught us out in left field. Iran is darned if they do give in because it increases our leaders twisted pull they have over the region. They are darned if they don't give in, because look at what happened to Saddam.

Can you say international court hearing for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on the basis of 'Election Corruption'? Yeah... I'll take that as a legitimate excuse when they recount the 2000 election and all the mishap in Florida.

Excellent thread! S&F!


-Sliadon

edit: Grammar >.<

[edit on 9/30/2009 by Sliadon]



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


Proto, Your right on the money as usual. We don't need extensive looks at how things have gone wrong.

All We need is what has occurred in the last 9 years to study in order to see what's wrong.

The Iraqi's have DNA altered from Depleted Uranium. Over 1.3 million are dead, and they just keep dying. There is no end in site, and even the US Govt. has come out stating a regime similar to Saddam's is the only thing that'll work; as Iraq is a melting pot between the Muslim World......Arabs, Kurds, Persians, Shiite, Sunni, etc. Hey now, but they are free, right???
, and to think they were one of the most tolerant modern societies in the Middle East before invasion.

From there We can look at how the actions in Af-Pak have created tensions who are rippling away faster than any butterfly effect ever could have been imagined.

That mess is completely destabilizing NUCLEAR ARMED Pakistan, and I hate to think what can occur because of that.

Yep, all of the recent history should have American's screaming from roof tops for no more war.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by princeofpeace
Airstrikes to take out nculear facilities isnt the same as war or regime change. I dont get why folks dont understand that.


Using your logic,

Then should foreign powers be allowed to airstrike our nuclear facilities? We have facilities for both power plants and enriching uranium for weapons.

Why does war always have to be the answer? That is the one thing I don't understand about people with the same mindset as you.

What makes us so much more "worthy" to have the possession of such technology than people like the Iranians?

It is because they are "terrorists" ???



/failure on your part


-Sliadon



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 08:05 PM
link   
So can anyone guess where Iran has there third facility located.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 08:06 PM
link   
Hey im not trying to debate who is right or wrong-that is pointless. No one this board can do anything about it but complain so therefore we skip to reality and the situation at hand.

The reality is that its Iranian nuclear facilities that are about to be struck not the US's. Thats what this thread is about.




Originally posted by Sliadon

Originally posted by princeofpeace
Airstrikes to take out nculear facilities isnt the same as war or regime change. I dont get why folks dont understand that.


Using your logic,

Then should foreign powers be allowed to airstrike our nuclear facilities? We have facilities for both power plants and enriching uranium for weapons.

Why does war always have to be the answer? That is the one thing I don't understand about people with the same mindset as you.

What makes us so much more "worthy" to have the possession of such technology than people like the Iranians?

It is because they are "terrorists" ???



/failure on your part


-Sliadon



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 08:08 PM
link   
How old are you, Sancho?

I'll tell you a little story. From the Seventies.

You are friends with the old couple accross the street (the Shah).

They have a teenage boy.

He shoots them dead.

The cops call it an accident.

He takes your kids hostage.

The cops come in a helicopter, crash, and trade the hostages for guns and a pardon.

Years later, you see the kid building a nuclear reactor.

'Its peaceful!' he says.

Do you believe him, Sancho?

Better to fight before the enemy has the Bomb.

If you would go look at Natanz and the other sites on Google Earth, you would see Oak-Ridge type weapons equipment. Nearby airfields are ringed with active SAM batteries; you can see the missiles. Real green peaceful folks.

I still remember them chanting 'Death to America'.

Recognize an enemy when you see it.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 08:08 PM
link   
If you really want to pickle your noodle then riddle me this: Where is their 4th one located? =)



Originally posted by GORGANTHIUM
So can anyone guess where Iran has there third facility located.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 08:09 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


Why should Iran make there own nuclear weapons when they can buy nuclear weapons and materials off shonky Russian military officials over the border.Even the Russian marfia is getting into the act.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 08:10 PM
link   
reply to post by princeofpeace
 


I understand that, I was trying to ask you why you believe war is the answer? Or 'airstrikes' since you don't consider bombing a nation an act of war on them.

And can you show me a source that indicates an airstrike is on the horizon? I don't see anything in the OPs news story.


-Sliadon



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Sliadon
 


I'll answer you, Siladon.

War doesn't decide who is right or wrong. It decides who is left.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 08:19 PM
link   
Airstrikes may be considered an "act of war" but it isnt the war that folks on here keep speaking of. i.e. hundreds of thousands of troops occupying a territory. Every time anything I ran and military comes up ths is exactly what folks on here jump to.

Airstrikes achieve a limited but worthwhile objective if all they want to do is set back Iran's nuclear facilities. If they do it right, they can be set WAY back.

The airstrikes on the horizon that i speak of is the almost constant new of Israel preparing a strike. The constannt news that the US "will not take military action off the table". The news that the US has expedited the production and delivery of their new bunker buster bombs.

That is the news of potential airstrikes on the horizon that i speak of.



Originally posted by Sliadon
reply to post by princeofpeace
 


I understand that, I was trying to ask you why you believe war is the answer? Or 'airstrikes' since you don't consider bombing a nation an act of war on them.

And can you show me a source that indicates an airstrike is on the horizon? I don't see anything in the OPs news story.


-Sliadon



new topics

top topics



 
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join