It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


War with iran... or at least a pretext.

page: 1

log in


posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 08:38 AM
Time to ready up your hard drives and get the troll buster 3000 dusted off from the shelf as we gear up for war with iran. As The Times (UK newspaper) reports a "leeked" document showing irans supposed capability for a nuclear trigger you'll excuse my pescimism (sp) but i do believe i saw this in the run up to iraq.

link to "leeked document

[edit on 14-12-2009 by rationaluser]

[edit on 14-12-2009 by rationaluser]

posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 09:06 AM
Hopefully we will at least be smart enough to plant evidence of WMDs this time if we can't find any....

[edit on 14-12-2009 by Signals]

posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 09:20 AM
Was it the Times that leaked the Copenhagen document? Maybe not but lately the media's juiciest stuff has been leaks.

"The studies already performed, on which a report will be issued in the very near future"- stuff like this in the document can be used to verify it later.

Iran is such a thorn in the West's foot. It wouldn't be so if we embraced a non-interventionist foreign policy. Actually, Germany trades robustly with Iran and they're the West.
But the doc doesn't say anything about warheads or anything.

posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 09:26 AM
reply to post by Moonsouljah

I still say the document needs to be veryfied and examined by professionals who can vouch for it's legitimacy but people take the media as gospel i take it with a grain of salt ... impericism FTW

posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 10:14 AM
The starting of the article ""In the name of God" is the first biggest hole in this document. Nowhere they start a document "In the name of God" and leave it there. Iran's official document starts with phrase "In the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful". This is the full phrase used by Iranians when they use it.

Secondly, the whole document does not seem technical at all, third no official logo or government stamp on the document. Fourth whoever has written the document have tried to include everything manageable statement to convince the work is related to nuclear weapon.These are just my amateur observations.

It would be helpful if his document can be verified by non-biased sources. I have a feeling it's more like a hoax planted document. I am sure we will be hearing more in this matter in coming few days.

posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 10:20 AM
The US military is stretched way too thin to launch an attack on Iran. Israel and the US might very well be able to make mince meat out of the Iranian army but it would definitely hamper our ability to do our job in Afghanistan and Iraq. Shiites will begin flooding into both countries taking up arms against foreign troops. If we attack Iran it will wreak havoc on an already terrible economy.

posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 10:24 AM
Somehow this reminds me of Iraq's portable bio-weapons trailer lab smoking gun that Colin Powell briefed the world on as a pretense for war -- sounds eerily similar.

posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 11:20 AM
reply to post by rationaluser

Maybe I'm wrong. I hope that I am but it seems to me that there is a near 100 percent chance that either Israel or the US or both will attack Iran in the next couple of months before the shipment of the missles that Iran ordered from Russia are delivered.

Just a few years ago there were 7 countries on the planet that did not have a central bank owned by the Rothschilds. The US invaded both Iraq and Afghanistan and now they both have Rothschild owned central banks. That leaves only 5 countries that do not have Rothschild owned central banks:

Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Sudan, and Libya.

It would appear from the recent news that Iran is next on the list to be owned by the Rothschilds followed by North Korea.

I will predict now that Iran is attacked by one or both of the Rothschilds enforcers before the end of Feb. 2010

posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 12:17 PM
I'm not saying I agree with this 100%...but it does offer a different view on the subject-

top topics


log in