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.

 

Iranian passenger jets 'refused fuel'

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 5 2010 @ 07:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Korg Trinity
 


With respect....I read the BBC news link, seems it's likely rhetoric (again) coming from the propaganda ministry of Iran....

I also tooka visit to the website for IranAir --- no mention whatsoever.

Looking at typical stage length times, London - Tehran is ~6 hours.

IF such an event were occuring, there are logistical ways around it, for the airline.

Depending on type of airplane, they could depart from Tehran fully fueled (sacrificing payload)...then be able to depart London with a planned "fuel stop" somewhere enroute, short of Iran, at a location where they were assured fueling services.

These sorts of procedures would, of course, severely impact their scheduling, and on-time statistics...on can look into those data for verification, if available online.




posted on Jul, 5 2010 @ 08:07 PM
link   
Look's like the"WSJ" thinks it's real......





online.wsj.com...



posted on Jul, 5 2010 @ 08:51 PM
link   
reply to post by ErEhWoN
 


Oh I agree!

The only thing is, it would be fairly impossible to do that without the US knowing.

When the soviet union fell, every single one of their some 1000+ nukes were there for anyone to take. Fire sale, baby! 5 finger discount!

Why have we not been hit by one though? It's 20+ years later. More than enough time for a plan to be enacted and readied for execution.

I'm not saying it is not possible. I'm just saying the math does not add up. God knows how. Spies? Special satellite? The point remains. If we have not been hit yet, we won't be.



posted on Jul, 5 2010 @ 09:16 PM
link   
the Ministry of Propaganda:

anyhow, there are soliders who crave war, stock holders who crave war, people that think Jahid is the ONLY anwser...

one person can make the world of differnence,
just one bombing, with the right data manipulation, and MSM spin offs could trigger alot of things,

but American's do need to pay more attention to other world news sources, be it local * national, televized,streamed, or any other types of publications... or sites like globalresearch.ca

or is that too N.W.O for most people?



posted on Jul, 5 2010 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by ErEhWoN
 



reply to post by fixer1967
 



The truth to the matter is there are a whole bunch of areas that a pick up to the the size of a dump truck can and do cross the border with NO INSPECTION AT ALL .

There are all sorts of areas that are possible in New Mexico and Arizona to just drive across. The town of Anthony NM use to only have a border guard there from 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM not sure today . The ranches west of Elpaso alone the NM border often had roads going in to Mexico from Their ranches with only a barbed wire fence and a old fashioned barbed wire gate .

The plausibility of things coming in that way are very high . The Security of our borders is only at the major crossings the rest just as wide open as it was 100 years ago but with a few fly overs and some offices . In Az the drug runners have look outs living in the desert 24/7 to radio where the agents are so they can bring in drugs and truck loads of immigrants.



posted on Jul, 5 2010 @ 09:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


Yes, I only allude to the possibility, not the plausibility.

I don't know the intelligence status the US has of warheads, only that it is very possible to get something of significant size and weight across the border without too much trouble at all.

But if they know where all the warheads are, we have nothing to worry about.

Although people will worry regardless...

I for one don't worry over things I have no control over.



posted on Jul, 5 2010 @ 10:01 PM
link   
Just wanted to add something actually about this thread, my apologies for going off on a tangent.

Seems it was BP that did not renew a contract to refuel Iranian aircraft, and you all know how stories get bounced around on the net.

So there is an ounce of truth to the story, but seems to be blown a little out of proportion, mountains out of molehills goes the saying.

BP has not renewed Iran air fuel contract: report




Oil giant BP has not renewed a contract to supply Iranian airlines with fuel, the Financial Times Deutschland reported in its Tuesday edition. The report, in the German-language edition of the financial daily, could explain a statement by an Iranian official Monday that Britain, Germany and the United Arab Emirates had started to refuse to refuel its passenger planes.


Link

Peace.



posted on Jul, 5 2010 @ 10:02 PM
link   
This behavior is passive/aggressive. What do these travelers have to do with developing nukes?

What is it called when the teacher punishes the whole class because of one kid?



posted on Jul, 5 2010 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Korg Trinity
 


This would be called peaceful war.

This is how real war happens in the world. Not like Iraq.

I actually like Obama if this is his way at war. It's not just hit something with a stick. it's "this is what happens bub. Stop what you're doing or it will get worst"

FYI, this shows that we do not want war, despite the paranoia here that the US actually wants a war with Iran.


Peaceful war by refusing fuel to passenger jets, civilian passenger jets? OOOOK, I will go for a smoke then come back and finish this posts .

The peaceful war against Iran has been on since the revolution, didn't you know that?

Ohh wait, you thought Obama brought change like he said he would.. Ahh the power of politicians voodoo magic actually works.

See when Iran pointed the middle finger to the US and gained its independence by force the US started the peaceful war against the country.

Do you know why? Because there aren't that many people in Iran which supports American dictators, so if they try any other way, it won't work.

They can't invade the country because everyone will be ready to fight America, they can't install a coup because the government is so organize, they can't assassinate because the Iranian intelligence is very good, they even tried terrorism, remember.

but in your world it is a completely different story I'm sure, I'm just laying out my take on history, and history actually backs it up.



posted on Jul, 5 2010 @ 10:46 PM
link   
This really isn't cutting them off. If you guys will notice, the countries which have been accused of not fueling Iranian passenger jets are spread apart. Unless the Iranian jets are flying into one of these three countries then it shouldn't be a problem. If they are flying into the countries then they just need to make a few extra stops, nothing extreme.



posted on Jul, 5 2010 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by loveguy
This behavior is passive/aggressive. What do these travelers have to do with developing nukes?

What is it called when the teacher punishes the whole class because of one kid?


First the punishment needs to have justification then we move on to the next philosophical arguments.

The punishment has no justification, the Iranians know it has no justification therefore no matter how much hardship the empire puts on the Iranian people, it will only make them stronger, and more united.

So once again, what is the justification for the punishments?

I still haven't seen any evidence that Iran is producing any nuclear weapons, not a shred of evidence. But we all know politician voodoo magic works on ignorant fouls.



[edit on 5-7-2010 by LittleSecret]



posted on Jul, 5 2010 @ 10:51 PM
link   
reply to post by ErEhWoN
 


That being said, do these airports have more than one fuel supplier?

I guess this is BP's way of being the Yes man to the US post the unilateral sanctions.



posted on Jul, 5 2010 @ 11:11 PM
link   
reply to post by LittleSecret
 


There is just one flaw in your own world view.

You assume that because they revolted from the US previous dictator, they are now better off, or that the government is more good.

This would be incorrect. And considering I couldn't even have a pony tail in that country, it's far better off with anyone.

Another flaw. Most Iranians support the western world and the US. They don't support a war. But who would support a war in their own country? That's only logical.

They could destroy Iran tomorrow and forget they ever existed.

They don't.

Because we are not barbarians quite just yet. Iran is. And yes, that is why they revolted against their government a year ago, and decades ago and will again.

Never forget. Most of those who revolted against the Sha, are now the same people revolting against the Imams. In fact, they and in almost every case, their children especially.

Greene. Aw Green. That was the colors they wore. It's the color of culture, Islam, and faith.

I wonder why?

[edit on 5-7-2010 by Gorman91]



posted on Jul, 5 2010 @ 11:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


mm, because this government of the Iran doesn't support Western culture, nor Western ideals doesn't mean it is better, or worse than the Shah.

That being said, Western ideals, or culture is not universal.

From what I see, this government, governs based on Iranian values, culture, and religion, which is much better for Iranians than some Western wannabe puppet.

Let me clarify, imagine the Shahs running the US, but the Shah was a puppet of Iranian empire(use your imagination). The Shah being a puppet, listens to its puppet master, and does what its puppet master order, the Shah also implements Iranian values, culture and religion within the US.

How would you perceive the Shah?

Iran is much better off with this government also because of their integrity and honest, and also because Iran is doing better than most middle eastern countries even when taking in to consideration the empire's sanctions against Iran.

The empire gave Afghanistan and Iraq as an example for the rest of the Middle East, and now the empire is eating its own words, seeing that Iran is becoming the perfect example of governance in that area of the world.

It seems they are doing fine economically, militarily, scientifically etc.

Unlike the Arab territories of the empire, Iran is actually manufacturing something, not relying on oil, and only oil.

And Iran is also giving partial say to the people, which in my opinion is a better Democracy than the Western empire's one.

Full Democracy has proven not to work.

I got more reasons why I support this Iranian government, but it will be a huge list, like the fact that they are against Weapons of Mass Destruction.



posted on Jul, 5 2010 @ 11:38 PM
link   
reply to post by LittleSecret
 


I actually studied the Iranian government, you see.

There is no difference between a dictatorship by the Shah and the current regime, Politicians cannot run or win unless approved by a select few. Politicians cannot do anything unless approved by a select few. Those select few are Imams. You see, it's a fake democracy. It's like "you can vote, but only for us".

It's a theocracy, more or less.

And like most, democracy means republic these days. Republics work.


And Iran is doing well because it is self sufficient. No one wants to change that. But being self sufficient is not a correlation of being good nor not. Nazi Germany was also self sufficient. In fact it can be argued that WW2 was not to save the Jews, but to end Germany's self sufficient man power.

This is true.

But this is the 21st century.

No one gives a flying spaghetti monster what you are or what you do. What matters is how you use it.

Iran is not honest. Iran is not using it for the people, but for its own religious oligarchy. Iran is not interested in anything by acting like pre-war Nazi Germany. The only think stopping them is resources. They don't have a Poland or Serbia to conquer to get resources and what not from. Nor does it have vastly rich wealth to mine. It has enough to get by.

And rest assured, the US is not the only one interested in Iran being stopped. So are the whole of the P5+1.

The P5+1 were specifically addressed by Iran. Not just the US.

This means a simple fact. Iran wants power, not cooperation. If it wanted cooperation, than it would not address the P5+1. it would address the US alone. Iran has stopped addressing the US only. They have now gone and shot down the entire world order.

Like it or not, but anyone can have nuclear power without aggression.

As evident by this map, nuclear power is used by Iran's closest friends and America's most distant enemies, and no one says anything.




So forgive me for calling you on bullcrap, but to think poor old Iran is being bullied is bullcrap.

There are over a dozen nations just like Iran doing just the same things economically and militarily. No one has said anything to them nor care.



The reason Iran is bullied is simple. They are not nice people, government wise. Their people and the world are against them.


For all purposes, I define westernization by Europe, which is perfection of westernization. America is not. America is something of its own creation.


And, just saying, there's a reason why western nations are more powerful than none western ones. Its because its a better way of living.

[edit on 5-7-2010 by Gorman91]



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 12:45 AM
link   
Hmmm. It's BP.


K guys, I want to know the connection, This is totally conspiracy material.

www.reuters.com...

economictimes.indiatimes.com...



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 01:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


Sounds like a contract dispute between Iran and BP to me. Contract ended and BP refused to renew the contract. This tells me BP either wasnt being paid or they feel they werent being paid enough.



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 04:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


Your whole argument revolves around Iranian governmental system bad, Western governmental system good therefore there is a legitimacy in opposing, sanctioning and even probably attacking Iran.

See the difference between me and you is, that I can prove my points.

I can say, hey look at the Iranian government, and look at the empire's government, by the way, Europe is part of the empire.

I can say the Iranian government is against Weapons of Mass Destruction, can you say the same about the empire?


At the time, the UN Security Council issued statements that "chemical weapons had been used in the war." However, in these UN statements Iraq was not mentioned by name, so it has been said that "the international community remained silent as Iraq used weapons of mass destruction against Iranian as well as Iraqi Kurds" and it is believed[15][16][17] that "United States prevented the UN from condemning Iraq".

By the way go research who gave those chemical weapons to Saddam.

Iran didn't use any Weapons of Mass destruction against Iraq, even though it had every right to do so. That is a government I respect, and that is a type of credibility the empire doesn't have.



TEHRAN - Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei has said that the use of weapons of mass destruction is haram (forbidden in Isla

That is the credibility Iran has, it comes straight from the mouth of the Supreme leader.

I can say the Iranian government represents its people, the belief of its people, the moral of its people, and the culture of its people.
Hence the Iranian belief system (Islam), the Iranian culture, the Iranian character...

I can say the Iranian government hasn't started any wars, hasn't even pursued war, but only for self defense. Can you say the same in regards to the empire?


I can say the Iranian government are using the resources of the country for the interest of Iran, and the Iranian people. Can you say that about the territories under control of the empire?


The economy of Iran is the sixteenth largest economy in the world by purchasing power parity (PPP). It is a transition economy with a large public sector and an estimated 50% of the economy centrally planned.

Wikipedia

This, even when taking in to consideration the sanctions the empire has implemented on Iran.

Saudi Arabia which has the largest oil reserves in the world and which is under the empire control hasn't move forward.

I can say the Iranian government has successfully defended Iran and Iranian people from the empire, can you say that to other territories under the control of empire, the fake governments installed.


Although Iraq hoped to take advantage of revolutionary chaos in Iran and attacked without formal warning, they made only limited progress into Iran and within several months were repelled by the Iranians who regained virtually all lost territory by June, 1982.

Wikipedia

So the Iranian government is an example of government for that area, not European governing system which took hundreds of years, and millions of lives to perfect. But that perfection is only for the European people, there is undoubted evidence that it doesn't work in other parts of the world with different culture, religion ... etc

Afghanistan and Iraq is an example of Democracies failures..

I can go on, but my words will fall on def years, let's not forget Hamas was chosen Democratically..



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 04:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
FYI, this shows that we do not want war, despite the paranoia here that the US actually wants a war with Iran.


I think this shows that they want to weaken their enemy before attacking.

Those who control the US are absolutely hanging for war with Iran.



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 06:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Korg Trinity
 


This would be called peaceful war.

This is how real war happens in the world. Not like Iraq.

I actually like Obama if this is his way at war. It's not just hit something with a stick. it's "this is what happens bub. Stop what you're doing or it will get worst"

FYI, this shows that we do not want war, despite the paranoia here that the US actually wants a war with Iran.


You will be disapointed.


It remembers me what they did to japan during WWII.


Originally posted by Gorman91
You see, it's a fake democracy. It's like "you can vote, but only for us".


Ok Iran is a fake democracy. But the rest of the world is no better. I mean in my country (France) I can tell you that you can't vote for someone they don't want you to vote for. There's a system which forces you to have the approval of 300 Mayors to be able to run for president. They instaured this after someone very popular was about to win the election (but death threats orced him to give up). So now you have to corrupt 300 Mayors (which is impossible because the big political parties have more money).

In the USA I assume it is more or less the same. I don't see any difference between Obama and Bush, so I assume there's no democracy here because the people wanted a total change, and didn't get it.

In Europe, since we never voted for our president, Van Rompuy, I assume not a single european country is a democracy. So what country can still be defined as a democracy ?



[edit on 6-7-2010 by ickylevel]



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join