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.

 

'CIA feeds us bad info on Iran nukes' - IAEA ex-head (Hans Blix)

page: 1
20

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 06:09 PM
link   
Some of you may remember Hans Blix as the man who dismissed the lies coming out of the CIA during the lead up to the Iraq invasion.


Blix's statements about the Iraq WMD program came to contradict the claims of the George W. Bush administration, [5] and attracted a great deal of criticism from supporters of the invasion of Iraq. In an interview on BBC TV on 8 February 2004, Dr. Blix accused the US and British governments of dramatising the threat of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, in order to strengthen the case for the 2003 war against the regime of Saddam Hussein. Ultimately, no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction were found. [6]

en.wikipedia.org...-2003.29


He has now decided to share his views on the Iran situation, including on how the IAEA should not be completely trusted due to their previous actions. Even though a lot of what he says is his opinion, I believe it to be explained very logically.

I invite anyone to point out anything that they don't agree with in this video.

‘IAEA works with spies, but checks data independently’ – former chief

UN nuclear watchdog IAEA has been closely cooperating with the world’s spy agencies, including on Iran, for years, former head of the agency, Hans Blix, told RT. ­The cooperation of the International Atomic Energy Agency with the world’s intelligences started following the Iraqi crisis of the1990s.



“Of course, intelligence can always try to fool everybody,” he said. “Half of the information may be true, half of it may be disinformation, and therefore they have to examine it critically.” Hans Blix, who was the chief of the agency in 1981-1997, stressed that the IAEA has been very “cautious about the information they have received about Iran.”

“The combination of the tools of national states and the inspectors who are there legally on a site is very useful,” he said.



This thread is not about defending Iran, it's about the misinformation that is being spread about Iran to justify current sanctions and the possible upcoming war. Iran is pretty low on my list of countries that I would want to visit because of it's human rights record but it doesn't change the fact that they are being demonized by the same organizations that lead up to the farce that we call the Iraq war.

There are plenty more countries who pose a bigger threat to world peace, especially to peace in the ME so all this focus on Iran is uncalled for and is clearly based on an obvious agenda.

How many times are you all going to fall for this?

Meanwhile, today RT published a story where Israel is threatening to attack Iran without U.S. approval, again...


Israel will strike Iran without warning US - intelligence source

The U.S should demand more respect from Israel, especially because off all the money they send to Israel each year. It's Israel who should be slapped with sanctions, not Iran.
edit on 28-2-2012 by Corruption Exposed because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 06:21 PM
link   
Hans Blix !
I hate that guy ,
I'm so ronery

2nd



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by skonaz
 


I don't know the guy, but he seems a lot more level headed than most other people who have shared similar positions on the world stage.

Would it be a bother if I asked you why you hate the guy?
edit on 28-2-2012 by Corruption Exposed because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 06:35 PM
link   
Hans Martin Blix (born 28 June 1928) is a Swedish diplomat and politician for the Liberal People's Party. He was Swedish Minister for Foreign Affairs (1978–1979). Blix was also the head of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission from March 2000 to June 2003, when he was succeeded by Dimitris Perrikos.

Blix's statements about the Iraq WMD program came to contradict the claims of the George W. Bush administration, [5] and attracted a great deal of criticism from supporters of the invasion of Iraq. In an interview on BBC TV on 8 February 2004, Dr. Blix accused the US and British governments of dramatising the threat of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, in order to strengthen the case for the 2003 war against the regime of Saddam Hussein. Ultimately, no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction were found.
edit on 28/2/12 by LightSpeedDriver because: Removed junk

Source
edit on 28/2/12 by LightSpeedDriver because: Added source



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 06:36 PM
link   
Personally I think there is nothing here to argue for or against because he is neither in the IAEA any longer, nor is he inside CIA to actually know what he is talking about. Other than that, as you said, this is entirely his opinion and it can never be stated as fact as long as he has not even one single evidence to point by his accusations.

But this is not why I decided to reply. From your own link I've found something interesting which that guy said.

"If Iraq had provided the necessary cooperation in 1991, the phase of disarmament -- under resolution 687 -- could have been short and a decade of sanctions could have been avoided."

Can't help myself thinking about Iran aswell. If they are or aren't building nukes is one thing, but interrupting IAEA's work and not co-operating with them may result in further sanctions that may result in war.
All of this just because they aren't ready to 'submit' to an IAEA investigation?

And please, don't bring up the "IAEA FOUND NOTHING" point because for every source you give I can provide two that state the IAEA saying Iran doesn't even comply, so obviously nothing can be found.



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by IsraeliGuy
 


Yes, I'm aware of the WMD's that the U.S. provided to Iraq during their war with Iran:


On May 25, 1994, the U.S. Senate Banking Committee released a report in which it was stated that "pathogenic (meaning 'disease producing'), toxigenic (meaning 'poisonous'), and other biological research materials were exported to Iraq pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce." It added: "These exported biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction."[30]

The report then detailed 70 shipments (including Bacillus anthracis) from the United States to Iraqi government agencies over three years, concluding "It was later learned that these microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to those the UN inspectors found and recovered from the Iraqi biological warfare program."[31]

en.wikipedia.org...


If I were Iran, I would also stop the IAEA from accessing certain information, especially since the last report was leaked to the public before it was even released. A lot of mishaps have happened to a lot of Iranian scientists too so it makes me wonder.

Israeliguy, you said that nothing he stated in the video can be proven as fact, can you point out anything in the video that has proven to be incorrect?

Even the first two minutes have some facts, including his mention of Israeli threats to bomb Iran.



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 06:50 PM
link   
Blix stood up and told the TRUTH.
He told the world Iraq didnt have WMD's, wernt BUILDING WMD's and the the evidence was way overblown.
In return the USA dismissed him, ridiculed him and threw him to the dogs.
Just like Valerie Plame.

I'd take 1 Hans Blix over a thousands USA Intel operatives any day of the week.



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 


While there is no doubt they wanted to attack Iraq, It was German Intelligence who set the U.S. up to be embarrassed. Had it not been for them we would not been able to claim Iraq had WMD's. It was an Iraqi defector codename Curveball who supposedly told the Germans that he worked on Iraq's WMD's and that his info was rock solid. The U.S. was skeptical but the German Intelligence insisted that he was legit and to be trusted yet German Intel would not let the U.S. interview him.

Now that everyone knows there was no WMD's in Iraq short of a few chemical weapons a normal Intel service would have sent the rat to the wolves but Germany did not, they gave him a home in Germany and the U.S. is still not allowed to talk to him or extradite him.

So only one conclusion can be made that German Intelligence intentionally set up the U.S. government. Needless to say, the Fourth Reich is back, the U.S., Britain and Russia know it and they are pissed. The German armies generals are not to happy that their intelligence service is starting another war.

The German Intelligence Service was never disbanded after WWII, Imagine that.



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 07:06 PM
link   
I hope nobody actually thinks the CIA has changed their ways since their Iraq WMD lies. If anything they are better equipped to get public support with the further decline of the MSM in the past 10 years. Fool me once, shame on me, fool me twice................



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 07:10 PM
link   
I found this relevant



Mikheil SaakashviliState of the Union Address 2012 Watch live here! www.facebook.com

Here we go again: What did the president know? And when did he know it?

Those are the serious questions raised by a White House announcement that the president made a bogus case about the need to go to war against Iraq in this year’s State of the Union address.

Don’t give the White House high marks for candor, however. Presidential aides didn’t volunteer word of the president’s mistake. They were forced to admit his untruth only after a blockbuster revelation by former U.S. Acting Ambassador to Iraq Joseph Wilson.

Writing in the New York Times, the 23-year career diplomat Wilson revealed he was sent to Niger by the CIA in early 2002 to investigate rumors, based on letters intercepted by European intelligence agencies, that Saddam Hussein was attempting to buy uranium from the former French colony.

Eight days later, he reported back to the CIA there was no truth to the rumors. That information was shared by the CIA with the State Department, the Pentagon and the White House.

Imagine Wilson’s surprise, then, when he heard President Bush declare in his Jan. 28 address to the nation: “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”

Based on his own research for the Bush administration, Wilson knew that charge was untrue. He also knew the White House was aware of his findings, because the vice president’s office had specifically requested a copy of his report.


www.wnd.com...



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Patriotsrevenge
 

Have you considered the possibility that 'curveball' may have been a real person, a CIA asset?



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Patriotsrevenge
 


My recollection of the Iraq saga differs than yours. Colin Powell's address to the U.N was given the go ahead by American diplomats who were aware that Curveball's information wasn't credible. He was just as much an American plant as he was a German.



Colin Powell, the US secretary of state at the time of the Iraq invasion, has called on the CIA and Pentagon to explain why they failed to alert him to the unreliability of a key source behind claims of Saddam Hussein's bio-weapons capability.

Responding to the Guardian's revelation that the source, Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi or "Curveball" as his US and German handlers called him, admitted fabricating evidence of Iraq's secret biological weapons programme, Powell said that questions should be put to the US agencies involved in compiling the case for war.

www.guardian.co.uk...


You can't just blame the Germans for the false information that was used to justify the Iraq war, even though they later tried to blame it on other things like 911

edit on 28-2-2012 by Corruption Exposed because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
reply to post by skonaz
 


I don't know the guy, but he seems a lot more level headed than most other people who have shared similar positions on the world stage.

Would it be a bother if I asked you why you hate the guy?
edit on 28-2-2012 by Corruption Exposed because: (no reason given)


It's a joke from Team America, off topic sorry !

I don't think there's any surprise that there would be biased intelligence being forwarded to any agencies in this day and age.



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 07:18 PM
link   
How Iraq was sold.


The Secret Downing Street Memo
-----
SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY
DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July


This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a
genuine need to know its contents.

John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam’s regime was tough and based on
extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried
and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming.
His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale
was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.
C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now
seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justifi ed by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD.

But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience
with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime’s record. There was little
discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.
CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4
August.



The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were
three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The fi rst and second
could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be diffi cult. The situation
might of course change.
The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in
the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing
the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right,
people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether
we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.
On the fi rst, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing
to ask lots of questions.
For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse
and urban warfi ghting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added
the Defence Secretary.


edit on 28-2-2012 by freethis because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by skonaz
 


I agree that it should be no surprise that intelligence agencies use biased or false information to forward their agendas, my main concern is how many people actually fall for it.

LOL I remember that movie BTW, it was pretty funny.

Sorry but I don't remember that exact line from it though.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 08:06 AM
link   
I doubt that whom so ever has the button to release an attack on Iran wouldn't hesitate to press just because the people and the media aren't spreading the propaganda that's going on. They have the wealth and power and will do as they want. Look at the US government and the amount of times people have been against them and they still decide what to do and not the people.
Discovering the "truth" and telling it to others isn't simply going to help, there are rich greed old people looking to make insane amounts of money on their new world agenda.
You either stand in the way and get stamped on or you do something to change it, but what is there to do?



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by IsraeliGuy
Personally I think there is nothing here to argue for or against because he is neither in the IAEA any longer, nor is he inside CIA to actually know what he is talking about. Other than that, as you said, this is entirely his opinion and it can never be stated as fact as long as he has not even one single evidence to point by his accusations.

But this is not why I decided to reply. From your own link I've found something interesting which that guy said.

"If Iraq had provided the necessary cooperation in 1991, the phase of disarmament -- under resolution 687 -- could have been short and a decade of sanctions could have been avoided."

Can't help myself thinking about Iran aswell. If they are or aren't building nukes is one thing, but interrupting IAEA's work and not co-operating with them may result in further sanctions that may result in war.
All of this just because they aren't ready to 'submit' to an IAEA investigation?

And please, don't bring up the "IAEA FOUND NOTHING" point because for every source you give I can provide two that state the IAEA saying Iran doesn't even comply, so obviously nothing can be found.


I love when Israel supporters chime in on the nuclear inspection topics, it's not hypocritical at all! Feel free to chime in when Israel allows the IAEA into Dimona!



new topics

top topics



 
20

log in

join