It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Zamini
reply to post by irishspirit
Listen to yourself:
The IRANIAN president is going to the STATES.
It's all a big facade. Pay more attention to the situation in Pakistan and Afghanistan, ask questions about the situation in Pakistan. The Islamic regime has seemingly been a puppet regime since the 80s, it's too much of a perfect enemy of the US and Israel and vice versa.
I'm done watching a puppet show.
Ahmadinejad is expected to arrive in the United States on Sunday, the same day as American hiker Sarah Shourd returns home after a 14-month detention in a Tehran jail.
Ahmadinejad discussed Shourd in a televised address Friday, saying that her release was a unilateral gesture made without any promise of a quid pro quo, but that doesn't mean Iranian officials wouldn't appreciate a similar act from the United States.
"We have no expectations," he told IRINN. "But naturally, morally, the expectation would be that the U.S. government would take a step to release a number of Iranians
Originally posted by infinite
reply to post by SLAYER69
If Iran fear a potential preemptive strike, then, holding some hostages will ensure the Americans will prevent Israel from carrying out such actions. IF these soldiers are paraded on state TV, well, demand for blood may occur in the United States.
TEHRAN, Iran — Iran denied on Sunday that border guards had detained seven U.S. troops, calling the report "unfounded", the state-run English language Press TV said.
The country's Arabic language television al-Alam also quoted Iran's Revolutionary Guards, in charge of Iran's border security, as denying that any such incident had happened in the southeastern province of Sistan-Baluchestan. Military officials told NBC News that no U.S. soldiers were missing in the area near the Iranian border.
Originally posted by irishspirit
If it indeeds proves to be true, then by all rights, under international law, this can be seen as an act of war, can it not?
Should they have been sent there under direct orders of their government/military, then that to me is an act of war, forgetting international law.
But to call people terrorist for following orders is a bit over the line.