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.

 

The systematic exaggeration of the Iranian threat

page: 4
19
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 12:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by TiM3LoRd

The systematic exaggeration of the Iranian threat


www.abc.net.au

Great news, Iran is not building a bomb and that comes directly from the people who know; the Israelis, the Americans and their security agencies.

In 2007, 16 top US intelligence agencies, including the hard-nosed CIA and Defence Intelligence Agency, assessed that Iran had no nuclear weapons research program at all.

We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program; … Tehran’s decision to halt its nuclear weapons program suggests it is less determined to develop nuclear weapons than we have been judging since 2005.
(visit the link for the full news article)



and I have a bunch of businesses for sale. Snow blowers in Miami. Beach Combers in Minot, Safari Guides in Medford and Palm Readers in Salt Lake City...all for sale and no money down will carry for 5yr.....

Heck all they had to do was ask Iran they didnt even have to inspect. Wait I know just ask the Shill Media News ABC they tell the truth.




posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 01:44 AM
link   
reply to post by TiM3LoRd
 


This whole thing smacks to me of the build up to OIF. Saddam did have WMD in the form of Chemical weapons (Though they were old and degraded...but still deadly nonetheless), but he never let on that he didn't have newer stuff. A lie he told up to the invasion.

People need to stop looking at Iranians with western eyes and realize they are a different culture. Just like the Chinese, just like Africans, just like South Americans...etc.

Persions are a proud people, even more so than Arabs. The Iranian government will end up bragging themselves to death if they keep this up.

Then again, on a different point...Ahmanutjob is a confirmed 12'er.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 04:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by sonnny1

Originally posted by munkey66
reply to post by sonnny1
 


can we now play 10 wars that prove the US are war mongers?


Sure,Start your own thread up.

But how about proving to me,the video doesn't have merit.

When you can prove to me EVERY American is a Warmonger,I am sure that thread will be epic..... Until then,it will be just another thread on ATS,that bashes America,and the people living in it,regardless if the people are not part of the problem. The Policy makers are the problem,just like the the leaders in Iran,are Iran's problem.


If you cant be critical of your own Government,you cant be critical of others.
edit on 29-2-2012 by sonnny1 because: spelling

Well being as pedantic as this thread has gone
No one said every American is a war monger, someone made the statement that Americans where war mongers, 1 American, 2 Americans, looking at these forums I can pick more than 2 war Mongers from the US, proving that Americans are war mongers


As for the case that Iran isn't allowing inspectors into a facility, Does Israel allow inspectors into all their nuclear plants?
Does the US allow inspectors into all of their nuclear facilities?

I would say the answer is NO, because the ones making the laws does not have to live by those laws.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 06:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by munkey66

Originally posted by sonnny1

Originally posted by munkey66
reply to post by sonnny1
 


can we now play 10 wars that prove the US are war mongers?


Sure,Start your own thread up.

But how about proving to me,the video doesn't have merit.

When you can prove to me EVERY American is a Warmonger,I am sure that thread will be epic..... Until then,it will be just another thread on ATS,that bashes America,and the people living in it,regardless if the people are not part of the problem. The Policy makers are the problem,just like the the leaders in Iran,are Iran's problem.


If you cant be critical of your own Government,you cant be critical of others.
edit on 29-2-2012 by sonnny1 because: spelling

Well being as pedantic as this thread has gone
No one said every American is a war monger, someone made the statement that Americans where war mongers, 1 American, 2 Americans, looking at these forums I can pick more than 2 war Mongers from the US, proving that Americans are war mongers


As for the case that Iran isn't allowing inspectors into a facility, Does Israel allow inspectors into all their nuclear plants?
Does the US allow inspectors into all of their nuclear facilities?

I would say the answer is NO, because the ones making the laws does not have to live by those laws.


Now there you go injecting common sense and logic into the argument, Dont you know that double standards are a god given right to all western countries?..

Yeah Yeah we get to do the cool stuff and as soon as someone else tries to do the same well thats unacceptable.

It IS interesting to note that North Korea, which HAS threatened the USA and which DOES have nukes and which HAS fired test rockets in the direction of North America isnt invaded because they pose a threat??

Must be a very interesting classification of threat. Well i suppose its a bit dangerous to provoke a country that actually HAS nukes.

Also Pakistan which HAS harbored terrorists and DID harbor Bin lardin who SUPPOSEDLY orchestrated the 911 attacks ALSO has nukes. Funny how America isnt DEALING with the countries who ARE a threat and ALREADY HAVE nukes.

If you were being annoyed by a Mosquito like Iran who we still dont IF they have nukes or not and attacked by a shark like Pakistan or North Korea. Wouldn't the logical thing be to deal with the biggest THREAT (which would be the the ones who already HAVE the nukes?)

What kind of COWARD picks on the poor fool with the stick as opposed to the AK-47?? LOL

Gotta LOVE the irony in that......
edit on 29-2-2012 by TiM3LoRd because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 06:30 AM
link   
Questions for those who are pro-invasion to pre-emptively remove Iran from the world stage.

Do you think Iran is a real and credible threat to world peace, at this stage, right now ?

Do you think they have the capability to produce nuclear warheads ?

Do you think that the US is doing a good job of policing the world as of right now ?

Do you think overthrowing a dictator is worth the lives of tens of thousands of people in the years to come through de-stabilisation of economy/country ?

All valid questions , which deserve an answer. From an outside viewpoint, I can say from my own personal opinion, all of those questions should be answered with a big fat NO.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 06:34 AM
link   
reply to post by TiM3LoRd
 


You know the US has never once picked a fight with someone who can compete ? The only time they had a real fight was WWII and that was reactionary.

We all know who the schoolyard bully is, but some are just too stuck in the "my dad can beat up your dad" mentality to admit it.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 06:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by reaxi0n

Originally posted by Danbones
reply to post by sonnny1
 


yupr quote is from the comments section not the article there is a big difference
the fact that you didn't state that is well...telling

and really illustrates the Op's statement about the systematic overstatement of the threat of Iran

way to go




He didn't state it? Weird cause I see this....


Heres a great reply from your "opinionated " source......





ummm
Including a comment to an article as being part of the article?????
Saying it is from the same "source" indicates it is from the Ops reference article NOT the comments.
Claiming the quote is from the refence article like that is plain DISHONEST ..
For all we know he or you commented at the source and then referenced himself/youself...LOL

and the bit about 90 KM underground?????


way to totally blow cred...and for supporting that sort of nonsence

some for you too

Way to make the OPs point for him
Im sure the readers get it.

edit on 29-2-2012 by Danbones because: punch u ation



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 06:49 AM
link   
Who cares if Iran is building a bomb or not, who the flock are the USA and Israel to tell them they cant...

Iran was and never has been a threat to world peace, the same cant be said for America on the other hand...



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 08:15 AM
link   
I didn't even read all the replies, just the OP.

OFCOURSE they are not building nukes...BUT THIS IS NOT THE PROBLEM !

The PROBLEM is Iran CAPABILITY to build nukes.Does anyone, ever, said that Iran WILL NOT build nukes?
Presently, yes, they do not build them...but in the future???Does anyone can be sure they will not build them?

Who can STOP a nuclear arms race in Middle East once Iran starts to build nukes? Every country in ME is a MUSLIM country and every MUSLIM country is UNSTABLE ! What do we want, rogues regimes to sell BUKES to terrorists? Or a nuclear Iran who can make the oil prices go sky high blocking the Hormuz Strait - an NOBODY will do shi.t because they have NUKES.

TBH...Iran, in the simplest logic thinking...WANTS TO HAVE NUKES.Just because NUKES will make them SAFE for any US (Great Satan) or Israel (Little Satan) attacks.
edit on 29-2-2012 by Recollector because: *



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 08:16 AM
link   
As you can see when the facts are displayed there really is nothing more to say. It speaks for itself.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Recollector
I didn't even read all the replies, just the OP.

OFCOURSE they are not building nukes...BUT THIS IS NOT THE PROBLEM !

The PROBLEM is Iran CAPABILITY to build nukes.Does anyone, ever, said that Iran WILL NOT build nukes?
Presently, yes, they do not build them...but in the future???Does anyone can be sure they will not build them?

Who can STOP a nuclear arms race in Middle East once Iran starts to build nukes? Every country in ME is a MUSLIM country and every MUSLIM country is UNSTABLE ! What do we want, rogues regimes to sell BUKES to terrorists? Or a nuclear Iran who can make the oil prices go sky high blocking the Hormuz Strait - an NOBODY will do shi.t because they have NUKES.

TBH...Iran, in the simplest logic thinking...WANTS TO HAVE NUKES.Just because NUKES will make them SAFE for any US (Great Satan) or Israel (Little Satan) attacks.
edit on 29-2-2012 by Recollector because: *


I would love to agree or disagree with you but I couldnt understand what you said.

I dont think you fully grasp whats at play here. The question is why should Israel be allowed to have nukes and USA allowed to have nukes and India, Russia, Pakistan, North Korea Why isnt America Attacking them??? hmm??



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 09:16 AM
link   
This whole thread has been very funny, especialy OPs posts.
First off his posts some, basically blog post, in the opinions section of an Australian website. So an Australian's opinion about Iran, quoting small tidbits with only one relevant one about Iran, whihc was common sense earlier.

OF COURSE IRAN ISN'T DEVELOPING NUCLEAR WEAPONS IF THEY AREN'T NUCLEAR READY

Its like saying they're developing nuclear weapons, before they're able to develop nucleaer weapons. How do you make something when you don't know how.

Yeah then OP goes on to not understand what people are saying and demands citations even tho they're already given. Also seems to think one persons comments are less credible then another because he works for a news agency. No other reasons, employment status.

Then some more anti-american rhetoric.

Then refusal to answer questions made to him earlier still holding on to his beliefs that this opinion blog on an australian website is FACT. Then more quotes which I think are from the UN resolution which are ignored because his australian opinion blog is more valid.

Back on topic, basically my caps locked statement. As well as refusal to let in inspecters to all of their plant, ie keeping specific areas out of bounds. You don't refuse something like that unless you want suspicion or you really do have something to hide. Also, how are they supposed to wipe Isreal off the map without a weapon of mass destruction, I mean they can fire normal missiles at them, but Isreal has nukes, and you don't bring a gun to a bazooka fight.
Iran will have interest in nuclear weapons, who wouldn't be, they have loads of enemies. At teh end of it all only Iran knows if IRan is interested in building nuclear weapons.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by reaxi0n
reply to post by TiM3LoRd
 


I said I already posted it here

"Are you special?"
Just in case you have a hard time finding it in that post, here it is.

info.publicintelligence.net...
edit on 2-29-12 by reaxi0n because: (no reason given)

Bud, do me a favor CTRL+F weapon in the document you linked


This approach involves, inter alia, the identification of indicators of the existence or
development of the processes associated with nuclear-related activities, including weaponization.
Civilian use... including weaponization.... ok wheres the evidence


43. The information indicates that Iran has carried out the following activities that are relevant to the
development of a nuclear explosive device:
Ok relevant, anything direct?


Work on the development of an indigenous design of a nuclear weapon including the testing of
components (Annex, Sections C.5–C.12).

If you read sections C.5–C.12 still make no suggestions to direct evidence of the development of a nuclear weapon, only detonators which can have a wide variety of uses



44. While some of the activities identified in the Annex have civilian as well as military applications,
others are specific to nuclear weapons



Section C, which reflects the Agency’s analysis of the information available to it in
the context of relevant indicators of the existence or development of processes associated with
nuclear-related activities, including weaponization
So theres SOME indicators they are performing nuclear related activites (well no #?), INCLUDING weaponization, but again where is the evidence for weaponization??


The Agency is concerned because some of the
activities undertaken after 2003 would be highly relevant to a nuclear weapon programme




27. In 2008, the Director General informed the Board that: it had no information at that time — apart from the uranium metal document — on the actual design or manufacture by Iran of nuclear material components of a nuclear weapon or of certain other key components, such as initiators, or on related nuclear physics studies, and that it had not detected the actual use of nuclear material in connection with the alleged studies.



a foreign expert who was not only knowledgeable in these
technologies, but who, a Member State has informed the Agency, worked for much of his career with this
technology in the nuclear weapon programme of the country of his origin

So here someone who has previously worked with a nuclear weapon program of another country... happens to work with Iran... again no direct evidence.
Thats like saying a guy who worked with Lockheed is now working with Cessna, and Cessna is now making fighter jets. Correlation, not causation


Information which the Agency has been provided by Member States, some of which the Agency has
been able to examine directly, indicates that Iran has manufactured simulated nuclear explosive
components using high density materials such as tungsten. These components were said to have
incorporated small central cavities suitable for the insertion of capsules such as those described in Section
C.9 below. The end use of such components remains unclear,
although they can be linked to other
information received by the Agency concerning experiments involving the use of high speed diagnostic
equipment, including flash X ray, to monitor the symmetry of the compressive shock of the simulated core
of a nuclear device.

"The end use of such components remains unclear"
They admit they have no #ing idea what they are talking yet they continue with their jargon
" ALTHOUGH they can be linked to other information received by the Agency concerning experiments involving the use of high speed diagnostic equipment, including flash X ray, to monitor the symmetry of the compressive shock of the simulated core
of a nuclear device."


Hydrodynamic experiments such as those described above, which involve high explosives in
conjunction with nuclear material or nuclear material surrogates, are strong indicators of possible weapon
development. In addition, the use of surrogate material, and/or confinement provided by a chamber of the
type indicated above, could be used to prevent contamination of the site with nuclear material.
It remains
for Iran to explain the rationale behind these activities

So hydrodynamic experiments CAN BE "used to prevent contamination of the site with nuclear material."
BUT IT ALSO COULD BE "possible weapon development."
BUT REALLY "It remains for Iran to explain the rationale behind these activities"

These guys are clueless



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 09:48 AM
link   

The Agency obtained information in 2005 from a Member State indicating that, in 1997,
representatives from Iran had met with officials from an institute in a nuclear-weapon State to request training courses in the fields of neutron cross section calculations using computer codes employing Monte Carlo methodology, and shock wave interactions with metals.

oOOooO, the boogey man met with a nuclear weapons state and requested help with computer calculations!
Again...no evidence for nuclear weapons development in this quote



Additionally, among the alleged studies documentation provided by that Member State, is a document, in Farsi, which relates directly to the logistics and safety arrangements that would be necessary for conducting a nuclear test. The Agency has been informed by a different Member State that these arrangements directly reflect those which have been used in nuclear tests conducted by nuclear-weapon States.

Alleged, document in Farsi which has not been provided... relates, would.... unnamed member state..come on, where is the bomb?


The Agency, in conjunction with experts from Member States other than those which had provided the information in question, carried out an assessment of the possible nature of the new payload. As a result of that assessment, it was concluded that any payload option other than nuclear which could also be expected to have an airburst option (such as chemical weapons) could be ruled out. Iran was asked to comment on this assessment and agreed in the course of a meeting with the Agency which took place in Tehran in May 2008 that, if the information upon which it was based were true, it would constitute a programme for the development of a nuclear weapon

soo here they came to an AGREEMENT, that " any payload option other than nuclear which could also be expected to have an airburst option (such as chemical weapons) could be ruled out." they agreed IF this were TRUE, THEN it would have been for the development of a nuclear weapon

This document proves that they have absolutely no direct evidence of the development of nuclear weapon. It is evident EVERY attempt has been made to mix and associate civilian nuclear uses with weapon uses, which is VERY VERY easy to do so in these kind of environments. Look at the choice of the words highlighted in bold

If you want to come to a sensible conclusion regarding their nuclear program, look no further then the OP, AND


US intelligence agencies do not believe that Iran is actively trying to build a nuclear weapon, The Los Angeles Times reported on Wednesday, citing a highly classified intelligence assessment from early 2011.

According to the report, the intelligence estimate holds that Tehran halted efforts to develop and build a nuclear warhead in 2003.

The Los Angeles Times claims that the report, representing the input of 16 US intelligence agencies, indicates that Iran is conducting research that could eventually enable it to develop a nuclear weapon, but that it has not sought to do so

www.jpost.com...




American intelligence analysts continue to believe that there is no hard evidence that Iran has decided to build a nuclear bomb.


Recent assessments by American spy agencies are broadly consistent with a 2007 intelligence finding that concluded that Iran had abandoned its nuclear weapons program years earlier, according to current and former American officials. The officials said that assessment was largely reaffirmed in a 2010 National Intelligence Estimate, and that it remains the consensus view of America’s 16 intelligence agencies.

www.nytimes.com...


In 2010, Iran said it had increased the enrichment of uranium from the 3.5% needed for commercial nuclear reactors to the 10-20% needed for a research reactor near Tehran

Weapons-grade uranium is at least 90% enriched

www.bbc.co.uk...



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 09:51 AM
link   
people might think you are anti American or west bashing. I don't, but then again. I don't like to make extremist remarks. Makes you wonder if they are really out to reveal the truth and teach people the value of not telling lies. Especially when those lies have the loss of the lives of millions of people attached to them.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 10:07 AM
link   
But what about all the people around the world murdered by iranian troops.
Oh wait... That's another nation my bad!



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Danbones



ummm
Including a comment to an article as being part of the article?????


No,you claimed it wasnt even in the article. I claimed it was a reply to it. A damn good one actually. Really,the only thing that you did was deflect. Thats dishonest.


Originally posted by Danbones
Saying it is from the same "source" indicates it is from the Ops reference article NOT the comments.
Claiming the quote is from the refence article like that is plain DISHONEST ..


It was from said article. Again,if there is ANY dishonesty,it was your original attack on me,that it wasnt from the same source. Was it from the same link or not ? Deflection anyone??



Originally posted by Danbones

and the bit about 90 KM underground?????



The operations at the bunker-like facility south of Tehran, reported by the Kayhan daily newspaper, are small in comparison to Iran's main enrichment site. But the centrifuges at the underground labs are considered more efficient and are shielded from aerial surveillance and protected against airstrikes by up to 300 feet (90 meters) of mountain rock


Report: Iran enriching uranium at new lab


The vulnerability of the chamber at Fordow, believed buried up to 80 meters (260 feet) deep on a former missile base controlled by the elite Revolutionary Guards Corps, came into sharper focus on Monday when the United Nations nuclear watchdog confirmed that Iran had started enriching uranium at the site.


Iran nuclear sites may be beyond reach of "bunker busters"



Originally posted by Danbones

way to totally blow cred...and for supporting that sort of nonsence




Way to call out someone,without doing at least a little research. Nonsense ,right?



edit on 29-2-2012 by sonnny1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by sonnny1
 





Iran has a hidden Nuclear facility,for "peaceful" purposes.......Have an answer for that ?




In June 1981, Israeli jets bombed the Osirak reactor near the Iraqi capital, Baghdad.

More recently, in September 2007, Israeli warplanes attacked a facility in Syria that Israel, the US and many experts believed was a nuclear reactor under construction.

However, a potential strike against Iran would be nothing like the attacks in Iraq and Syria. These were both against single targets, located above ground, and came literally out of the blue.


So I Imagine they have hidden protected Nuclear Facilities to protect them from an out of the blue Israeli attack. Kind of makes sense.

www.bbc.co.uk...



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by TiM3LoRd
 


I would like to start protesting any WAR with Iran in advance...these things never end well.
We are always sorry we started them.

Only a small percent of the world benefits from them
and they sell oil, heavy equipment, rations, uniforms and weapons.




posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
reply to post by sonnny1
 





Iran has a hidden Nuclear facility,for "peaceful" purposes.......Have an answer for that ?




In June 1981, Israeli jets bombed the Osirak reactor near the Iraqi capital, Baghdad.

More recently, in September 2007, Israeli warplanes attacked a facility in Syria that Israel, the US and many experts believed was a nuclear reactor under construction.

However, a potential strike against Iran would be nothing like the attacks in Iraq and Syria. These were both against single targets, located above ground, and came literally out of the blue.


So I Imagine they have hidden protected Nuclear Facilities to protect them from an out of the blue Israeli attack. Kind of makes sense.

www.bbc.co.uk...


So why hasn't Israel attacked the ones out in the open?





They have had years to obliterate them.


Peaceful= Above ground
Hidden= Nuclear weapons



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join