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.

 

Breaking: Iran Nuclear Scientist Defects to U.S. In CIA 'Intelligence Coup'

page: 5
58
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


I wish I could star you 10 times. I'm so tired of this crap. As for the question of Iraq being given WMD's, I can't believe after all these years people still don't believe that.

en.wikipedia.org...-_1980s

There ya go. We did give em stuff. Donny Rumsfeld (aka satan Jr.) facilitated Saddam's purchase of a reactor as well.

I wish they'd just get it over with. I know it's gonna happen and I'm sick of the propaganda.




posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
As Anti-Evil pointed out this is a re-run of the precursor to the Iraq war.


How can you be so sure about this time?

I haven't heard anything solid yet regarding the nature of the information possessed by the defector.

Not saying you're jumping the gun - just wondering why you're declaring this a re-run already?



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by mckyle
 


Well, lets see...

"defector" tells the US intelligence community that Iraq has WMD when it has none. End result, invasion, war huge civilian casualties, need to rebuild a county, no WMD.

"defector" tells the US intelligence community that Iran has WMD.....

See where I'm going?

The problem with the "War to keep the MIC in business, and ensure the promotion of US interests" (Also known as the "War on Terror") is that it continually needs new plotlines to make it viable. I see this as the first step of adding more meat into the mincer.



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


I just hope our next PM has the nuts to say no and stay out of this one.

We don't need to be the traffic warden to US world policeman - we have enough problems here at home to deal with...



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
reply to post by mckyle
 


Well, lets see...

"defector" tells the US intelligence community that Iraq has WMD when it has none. End result, invasion, war huge civilian casualties, need to rebuild a county, no WMD.

"defector" tells the US intelligence community that Iran has WMD.....

See where I'm going?

The problem with the "War to keep the MIC in business, and ensure the promotion of US interests" (Also known as the "War on Terror") is that it continually needs new plotlines to make it viable. I see this as the first step of adding more meat into the mincer.


No argument from me on any of those points. Even the term "WMD" has become a joke after that debacle of an invasion of that sovereign nation.

I know history simply builds on the mistakes of those who have come before us, but I wonder: is the current administration going to be so myopic about an event that hasn't even been resolved yet? (I'm talking Iraq).

If this is indeed a rerun, as you feel it is, then all I can say is, God help the world. For a war with Iran will in all likelihood bring out the main players, in a way many could not anticipate.

Russia and China - AKA - SCO, are probably too entwined in Iran, to side-step some form of interdiction.



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 12:37 PM
link   
One year is far from an unreasonable amount of time for a defector to be debriefed. I'm guessing this was a real defection not a kidnaping.

That being said, I think it hypocritical for us to have nuclear weapons and then have a problem with others having them too.

The worst part about nuclear weapons is that since they do exist eventually there WILL be a nuclear war. Get used to it.



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by OverSword
One year is far from an unreasonable amount of time for a defector to be debriefed. I'm guessing this was a real defection not a kidnaping.

That being said, I think it hypocritical for us to have nuclear weapons and then have a problem with others having them too.

The worst part about nuclear weapons is that since they do exist eventually there WILL be a nuclear war. Get used to it.


I agree on all counts OverSword


And indeed, it is hypocritical to possess nuclear weapons, whilst denying others that same privilege! However, it's not a perfect world - particularly when it comes to war.

Nuclear weapons in particular have forced us to be even more flexible with our principals. Does anyone really think Iran, and a host of other renegade states are going to thank the West for not being hypocritical and allowing them to have nuclear weaponry?

I know I might be coming across here as a Hawk! Let me assure you I am not! But I am trying to be a realistic as I can be regarding 'real politik'.

I think we all have to be in this particular situation.



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican

I swear. CIA, you are getting really lame. We are starting to read you like a book. And if us lowly citizenry are, the Russians and Chinese have got your crap DOWN by now.


The Russians, have already got the CIA, bulls##t for years, but what scares me more is the Russians & the Chinese are without a doubt at their strongest they've ever been especially the Chinese. The pace of the power growing nation is scary enough but that's a whole new thread.

It truly is worrying times ahead.

Peace

[edit on 31-3-2010 by mackey1224uk]



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by skeptic_al
 

Why would the US admit they have him?, unless he's of no real value and it's only a bluff calling another bluff.
Just like a Poker Game.

If a person was really Important, would you want the world to know where he is?

And are you going to crank up the war machine one more time based one persons information?

to Skeptic Al: I agree. they show his picture for all to see; he's a target now.
If he was of worth to the intelligence community, wouldn't they keep him in deep cover?

Is he a shill? They blew their game by giving names and dates and photos.



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrphenFire
Sometimes a cigar is a cigar. It's entirely possible that this Iranian Nuclear scientist really did defect. It's entirely possible that he has insider secrets that would internationally incriminate Iran. I don't see why so many people are so eager to defend the Iranian regime, when Iran would just as soon destroy the United States if it did in fact have the means to do so. Why defend an aggressive beast that would rather eat you than return the favor??


The iranians have zero motivation to nuke muslim holy land occupied by a foreign govt... the whole idea is silly.

It's not really about defending one colored cloth on a stick over another, it's about known liars of the elite, on ALL sides, leveling ridiculous low budget b-movie allegations at each other... to foment violence where tens of thousands of regular people like you & your friends will be summarily slaughtered... while accomplishing NOTHING for humanity.

118 nations support irans nuclear power program, which probably means iran isn't really a threat to the world. The transparently dumb propaganda vomited forth by the oligarch elite / MSM is just another pack of lies from folks with a long rich history of deadly deception.

It's a FACT the US elite will lie in grand fashion to get the wars they want, the better question is: how can people defend known liars responsible for millions of innocent dead people? because they wrap themselves in a particularly colored cloth?

On top of that, given the acts of the US govt over the bushbama regimes.. does anyone really honestly think the US elite have "our" best interests in mind?.. they obviously don't give a rats sphincter about us, our interests, or what we think.. yet when it comes to iran, they're being honest and have "our" back?.. lol



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 04:38 PM
link   
All the linking. All the twisting.

I can make this super simple for you.

Iran has absolutely no need for nuclear energy.

They are sitting on hundreds of years of the cheapest energy possible.

No need for fancy technology even.

They control their production of petroleum keeping it DOWN. To keep prices up. Prices that would not go up if they used it for local needs and it didn't hit the world market.


If there is no need of the energy it produces.......then why do they have it.

Not only do they have it when they don't need it. Having it causes lots of problems.

There is only one reason for them to want nuclear - and it isn't for lighting up homes.

[edit on 2010/3/31 by Aeons]



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Aeons
 


en.wikipedia.org...

oh yea, Iranians can cure cancer with oil too.



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


You got yourself another star!!

Just think about it....
Just think for a moment about what is going on in the world.....what an amateurs....alltogether...what a stupid bunch of ccorrupt, greedy idiots are leading our countries......

For example...today...in my country Holland....a bank director (ABN amro) is exposed by a respected major newpaper as being corrupt in a multi-billion euro construction-fund sale. This guy has everything and his bank has everything....This deal took place some ten years ago and has affected the financial status of counties, small investers and tax-payers.

Now they are debating if they should investigate and prosecute the ones responsible......WTF? This guy stole millions and now they are not sure if they should prosecute the guilty ones?


WTF do they want....? What is wrong with these people?



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aeons

Iran has absolutely no need for nuclear energy.

They are sitting on hundreds of years of the cheapest energy possible.

No need for fancy technology even.



The US has no need for nuclear energy. Neither does the UK, or France, or Russia, or China, or India. All of them sit on natural resources from varying sources, and all are more than capable of exploiting those resources.

Paradoxically Pakistan and NK might need nuclear power, as they are not so resource rich.

Your point is a strawman argument designed to try and promote fear. Its not logical.



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 06:26 PM
link   
All the places you just mentioned have significantly higher technological hurdles to petroleum development. Coal has significant environmental impacts. The transmission costs in these areas from resource to habitation are far greater.

All things are not equal.

I commend people from questioning what they see.

Try questioning THE OTHER SIDES as well. Hmmmmm. You don't trust "the West" but are willing to swallow Ahmadinjad's thoughts whole without a burp? Come on.



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 06:35 PM
link   
Interesting. Explain how what I've done in pointing out motive and circumstances and environment is "ignoring a person's position, substituting a distortion, exaggeration, or misrepresentation of another's position?"

Since what I have done is pointed out CONTEXT and motive only, what I've done doesn't in anyway met the criteria of "straw man." Reality isn't a misrepresentation.

But best of all here - you actually are committing a "straw man" argument by drawing irrelevant conclusions about other countries with very different circumstances - and in doing so you ARE substituting and distorting.

AND you are Denying the antecedent - drawing a conclusion from premises that do not support your conclusion. The technological hurdles for resource development of the same resources in the places you named are FAR greater than in Iran.




Originally posted by neformore

Originally posted by Aeons

Iran has absolutely no need for nuclear energy.

They are sitting on hundreds of years of the cheapest energy possible.

No need for fancy technology even.



The US has no need for nuclear energy. Neither does the UK, or France, or Russia, or China, or India. All of them sit on natural resources from varying sources, and all are more than capable of exploiting those resources.

Paradoxically Pakistan and NK might need nuclear power, as they are not so resource rich.

Your point is a strawman argument designed to try and promote fear. Its not logical.



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 06:44 PM
link   
No mention of the defector's family? Hmmm... would a gay scientist feel comfortable in the Islamic Republic?



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aeons
Interesting. Explain how what I've done in pointing out motive and circumstances and environment is "ignoring a person's position, substituting a distortion, exaggeration, or misrepresentation of another's position?"


You substituted a distortion, exaggerated and misrepresented a position when you said



Iran has absolutely no need for nuclear energy.


and



There is only one reason for them to want nuclear - and it isn't for lighting up homes.


You are making the assertion that their nuclear development programme must only be for weaponisation only because they are sitting on oil that they can use when you actually don't know that at all.

Not only that, but you've followed on by claiming that the other nuclear powers face greater issues in harnessing their energy sources, and thats simply not true. Russia sits on vast oil, gas and coal reserves. So does the USA. Britain and France have massive coal reserves and access to both wind and tidal power. China and India also sit on Coal reserves, all of which are extractable. Every one of those countries also has access to solar generation.

And none of those countries have a need for nuclear power....they simply choose to use it.

So why can't Iran choose to do the same?



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 08:24 PM
link   
The vast oil resources in Russia have significantly greater technological hurdles to develop them. Further they have people resource issues of where it is compared to the vast SPACE over which it needs to be moved or that energy is transported.

Where the people are compared to where the resources are is a space in which you could fit many Irans.

Comparing the geological petroleum issues of Russia to Iran is ridiculous. They don't compare.

Further, comparing the largest country on the planet to the 18th is fallacious on its face.

Motive rules. Petroleum is cheap. CHEAP. It is not a big country. The geology for production is not challenging in the way it is in Russia, China, or any of the other countries you listed.

Be aware I have significantly focused just on the actual observable reality that you have to ignore to make your arguments sound good. I am not addressing several other less than logical things in this thread.

[edit on 2010/3/31 by Aeons]



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 01:53 AM
link   


In an ABC exclusive, contrary to previous statements, the U.S. admitted that Amiri had "defected to the CIA" in what was termed as an "intelligence coup". Undoubtedly, the CIA has been involved in innumerable atrocious coups, tortures, assassinations, and kidnaps, but defects? Surely it is stretching the imagination to believe that the very outfit assigned to assassinate even American citizens has been charged with soliciting 'enemy' defectors!

Perhaps the warmongers camp would be more persuasive if they facilitated a meeting between Amiri and the Iranian authorities to reassure them, the Russians, and the Chinese, and indeed the international community that Amiri had not been kidnapped and held against his will. For that matter, it would be reassuring to know he is alive and well!

This practice is not new and even at the height of the Cold War when a Soviet nuclear physicist by the name of Artem Vladimirovich Kulikov defected in 1985, he met with officials of the Soviet embassy at the State Department to reassure the Russians that he was not being held against his will. Given that Washington had denied all knowledge of Amiri for months after his disappearance and stories of his 'defection' have surfaced to suit Washington's policies, without such meeting credibility will be given to the alternative: abduction.

This would be more plausible given that in 2009 Ynet news reported that with cooperation from the United States Israel has focused on eliminating key human assets involved in Iran's nuclear program. A few months later an Iranian physicist was killed in a bomb blast in Tehran. The eerie incidents bring back memories of the Iranian diplomat kidnapped and tortured by the CIA while serving in Iraq in 2007 - and denied.


Abduction or Defection: The Case of Iran's Nuclear Scientist



new topics

top topics



 
58
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join