The Iran Thread

If it's proven Iran's helping the insurgency kill American troops, do we invade Iran?

  • yes

  • no

  • not sure


Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I saw Charlie Rose ask Aḥmadīnezhād if they were supplying them and it was ridiculous.

He would. not. say. "No.".....no matter what.
Which, I don't get, if you're secretly doing something like that, then why not lie about it?
It's not like, if caught, the U.S. would go, "Well, Iran was arming our enemies. BUT, before you light up your torches and sharpen your pitchforks, let's remember that they never SAID they weren't. ;):up:"

:huh:

And Islamic countries are well-known for saying one thing in English, for the "world", and saying the exact opposite to their own people, in these places where lying to an Infidel isn't a sin.....so saving face upon returning home to their Islamic Barbarian buddies doesn't make sense either. :huh:



But anyway, Charlie got pissed and asked him why he can't just outright say, "No, we're not aiding the insurgents.", and he'd just keep saying, "Well....supplying weapons to them, and, :D....helping them is not, LOL...not something....we, uh...would....we'd never want to DO that! :D"

Then Charlie said, "So you are NOT DOING IT?!?"
And he'd go, "Why...:D...why would we want to do that?"

So Charlie would go, "Right! So, can you tell me now that you are not doing it?"
And he'd go "It's, just not....something we would do."



It was maddening.

Not sure as to whether or not Ahmedinejad is this clever, but wouldn't it be wild if he was purposely doing things like this in the hopes that the US would invade?

I mean, I know it's ridiculous, but what if it was some sort of political trap. Like he's just sitting on the evidence that proves his innocence while purposely provoking the US and acting creepy. Then once they invade he could make it look like it was all done under false pretense...again.

I have a healthy imagination.
 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/12/09/wiran109.xml


Iran 'hoodwinked' CIA over nuclear plans
By Tim Shipman in Washington, Philip Sherwell and Carolynne Wheeler
Last Updated: 2:14am GMT 11/12/2007



British spy chiefs have grave doubts that Iran has mothballed its nuclear weapons programme, as a US intelligence report claimed last week, and believe the CIA has been hoodwinked by Teheran.


Analysts believe that Iranian staff, knowing their phones were tapped, deliberately gave misinformation


The timing of the CIA report has also provoked fury in the British Government, where officials believe it has undermined efforts to impose tough new sanctions on Iran and made an Israeli attack on its nuclear facilities more likely.

The security services in London want concrete evidence to allay concerns that the Islamic state has fed disinformation to the CIA.

The report used new evidence - including human sources, wireless intercepts and evidence from an Iranian defector - to conclude that Teheran suspended the bomb-making side of its nuclear programme in 2003. But British intelligence is concerned that US spy chiefs were so determined to avoid giving President Bush a reason to go to war - as their reports on Saddam Hussein's weapons programmes did in Iraq - that they got it wrong this time.

A senior British official delivered a withering assessment of US intelligence-gathering abilities in the Middle East and revealed that British spies shared the concerns of Israeli defence chiefs that Iran was still pursuing nuclear weapons.

advertisementThe source said British analysts believed that Iranian nuclear staff, knowing their phones were tapped, deliberately gave misinformation. "We are sceptical. We want to know what the basis of it is, where did it come from? Was it on the basis of the defector? Was it on the basis of the intercept material? They say things on the phone because they know we are up on the phones. They say black is white. They will say anything to throw us off.

"It's not as if the American intelligence agencies are regarded as brilliant performers in that region. They got badly burned over Iraq."

A US intelligence source has revealed that some American spies share the concerns of the British and the Israelis. "Many middle- ranking CIA veterans believe Iran is still committed to producing nuclear weapons and are concerned that the agency lost a number of its best sources in Iran in 2004," the official said.

The Foreign Office is studying a new text of a third United Nations Security Council resolution that would impose tough travel bans on regime figures and penalise banks that do business with Iran.

But diplomats say the chances of winning Chinese and Russian support for the move are in freefall. A Western diplomat said: "It's created a lot of difficulties because of the timing, just as we were about to go for a third resolution."

Bruce Reidel, who spent 25 years on the Middle East desks at the CIA and the National Security Council, said: "By going public they have embarrassed our friends, particularly the British and the Israelis. They have given our foes insights into our most secret intelligence and taken most of the options off the table."

Ephraim Sneh, until recently Israel's deputy minister of defence, warned that military action would be the only option if the world community did not institute robust sanctions. "No one can rule out with high confidence that somewhere in Iran, 70 times the size of Israel, there is one lab working on the weapons programme," Mr Sneh told The Sunday Telegraph.

"[Military action] is not a desired option; it is a last resort. That's why sanctions are so important. We have to urge the international community to be serious about sanctions and to take necessary measures to defend the civilian population."
 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/12/09/wiran109.xml


Iran 'hoodwinked' CIA over nuclear plans
By Tim Shipman in Washington, Philip Sherwell and Carolynne Wheeler
Last Updated: 2:14am GMT 11/12/2007



British spy chiefs have grave doubts that Iran has mothballed its nuclear weapons programme, as a US intelligence report claimed last week, and believe the CIA has been hoodwinked by Teheran.


Analysts believe that Iranian staff, knowing their phones were tapped, deliberately gave misinformation


The timing of the CIA report has also provoked fury in the British Government, where officials believe it has undermined efforts to impose tough new sanctions on Iran and made an Israeli attack on its nuclear facilities more likely.

The security services in London want concrete evidence to allay concerns that the Islamic state has fed disinformation to the CIA.

The report used new evidence - including human sources, wireless intercepts and evidence from an Iranian defector - to conclude that Teheran suspended the bomb-making side of its nuclear programme in 2003. But British intelligence is concerned that US spy chiefs were so determined to avoid giving President Bush a reason to go to war - as their reports on Saddam Hussein's weapons programmes did in Iraq - that they got it wrong this time.

A senior British official delivered a withering assessment of US intelligence-gathering abilities in the Middle East and revealed that British spies shared the concerns of Israeli defence chiefs that Iran was still pursuing nuclear weapons.

advertisementThe source said British analysts believed that Iranian nuclear staff, knowing their phones were tapped, deliberately gave misinformation. "We are sceptical. We want to know what the basis of it is, where did it come from? Was it on the basis of the defector? Was it on the basis of the intercept material? They say things on the phone because they know we are up on the phones. They say black is white. They will say anything to throw us off.

"It's not as if the American intelligence agencies are regarded as brilliant performers in that region. They got badly burned over Iraq."

A US intelligence source has revealed that some American spies share the concerns of the British and the Israelis. "Many middle- ranking CIA veterans believe Iran is still committed to producing nuclear weapons and are concerned that the agency lost a number of its best sources in Iran in 2004," the official said.

The Foreign Office is studying a new text of a third United Nations Security Council resolution that would impose tough travel bans on regime figures and penalise banks that do business with Iran.

But diplomats say the chances of winning Chinese and Russian support for the move are in freefall. A Western diplomat said: "It's created a lot of difficulties because of the timing, just as we were about to go for a third resolution."

Bruce Reidel, who spent 25 years on the Middle East desks at the CIA and the National Security Council, said: "By going public they have embarrassed our friends, particularly the British and the Israelis. They have given our foes insights into our most secret intelligence and taken most of the options off the table."

Ephraim Sneh, until recently Israel's deputy minister of defence, warned that military action would be the only option if the world community did not institute robust sanctions. "No one can rule out with high confidence that somewhere in Iran, 70 times the size of Israel, there is one lab working on the weapons programme," Mr Sneh told The Sunday Telegraph.

"[Military action] is not a desired option; it is a last resort. That's why sanctions are so important. We have to urge the international community to be serious about sanctions and to take necessary measures to defend the civilian population."

there may be some truth behind this article, but they place all the blame on the CIA, when in actuality, the report was written based off intelligence from 16 different agencies, not solely the CIA. i can understand the skepticism about bad intelligence regarding iraq, but the administration holds a lot of responsibility for that f-up. they cherry-picked intel and fabricated a lot of things that led to the war. i'd lean towards believing the intelligence community over the administration, any day of the week. besides, nobody is claiming that iran has no interest in nukes, only that they suspended their weapons program.
 
there may be some truth behind this article, but they place all the blame on the CIA, when in actuality, the report was written based off intelligence from 16 different agencies, not solely the CIA. i can understand the skepticism about bad intelligence regarding iraq, but the administration holds a lot of responsibility for that f-up. they cherry-picked intel and fabricated a lot of things that led to the war. i'd lean towards believing the intelligence community over the administration, any day of the week. besides, nobody is claiming that iran has no interest in nukes, only that they suspended their weapons program.
True, but new reports are saying they suspended the program in 2003 only to start it back up in 2004.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316389,00.html
 
no offense, but i don't trust anything that comes from fox news. if you can find another link that corroborates this story, i'd be less skeptical.
I can understand, I don't trust most media Outlets either because of their liberal biased. But if you read the story, it is from Wall Street Journal.
 
I can understand, I don't trust most media Outlets either because of their liberal biased. But if you read the story, it is from Wall Street Journal.

this part of the article raises flags for me:

The NCRI, considered by the United States and European Union to be a terrorist organization, has had a mixed record of accuracy with its claims about Iran's nuclear ambitions in the past, the Wall Street Journal said.

the source sounds questionable, at best.
 
Which is why American intelligence groups are not among the Top 3. For now we've to leave it up to diplomacy, which is terrible between Iran and the West.
 
Which is why American intelligence groups are not among the Top 3. For now we've to leave it up to diplomacy, which is terrible between Iran and the West.

sounds like a job for bill richardson.
 
Which is why American intelligence groups are not among the Top 3. For now we've to leave it up to diplomacy, which is terrible between Iran and the West.
Yeah, but wasn't British intelligence involved in this report?
AUST-EN01009.gif
 
Yeah, but wasn't British intelligence involved in this report?


O.K. If you're going do to that, use a picture of a real British agent. :yay: You want to mix fantasy? You should know one of their own 'James Bonds' got wacked by the Soviets back in the Cold War. And it was a worthy kill too. :yay:

Now, if British Intelligence contradicts what the C.I.A. says, let them. They still have to supply proper evidence as well. It doesn't mean they're right. But it doesn't mean they're as bad as the C.I.A. Paranoia is part of that business. Expect it from all of them. It still comes down to the evidence if you want to start a righteous conflict.
 
once again, the bush administration has tried to lie to the american public to gain support for another misguided attempt at stirring up trouble in the middle east.

those lying, warmongering mother****ers! :cmad:

Europe will help you kill Bush for lying to you and your country.:boba:
 
we have no freedoms left in this world
slowly over the past couple of years
we have been losing everything we hold dear
next thing you know theyll take kevin smith from us
 
Not if you get up and stand up for your freedoms. If they're truly worth it, prove it. Governments believe they can lie to us because they think they're doing the right thing. We should decide that for ourselves.
 
I want to get everyones opinion on this video. Does this sound like a islamic soldier from the elite republican gaurd. Or does this sound like someone trying to sound middle eastern? No wonder the Pentagon said this might be a fake. If it is, who put it out, where the media get it from?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydi-TIlThaQ
 
How is this not a thread yet?

Three times in 24 hours McCrazy has claimed that Iran has been training Al queda! Twice in Jordan.

I can understand a slip up but 3 times in 24 hours?


They actually had to stop him and correct him as he said, "...it's common knowledge and it has been reported in the media that Al queda is going into Iran, from Iraq, and getting training..." DUN DUN DUN!

[YT]qiUV6_aawTQ[/YT]
 
McCain should just shut the hell up and let Clinton and Obama do his work for him. If he speaks too much he is going to undo all the hours they are putting in. He should stick to safe, noncontroversial issues. "Yay, lets go green!" "Child predators are bad! Lets crack down on them!" "Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others!" "My grandkids are so cute!" "I can't remember where I am! :csad:"

That kind of stuff. Play it safe.
 
With all due respect Matt, I like the tactic he's using now! :O

The ultimate tactic would be to act completely senile and incompetent. Studies show that most Americans find old people to be "cute." But not the angry kind, like McCain. He needs to be more like your crazy old Uncle George in the nursing home. The one who pinches the nurses asses because he doesn't know any better. The one who plays bingo every night. The one who becomes easily confused by big numbers, especially the ones on speed limit signs but refuses to let the government take his driver's license away. McCain would win in a LAND SLIDE if he played that card.
 
The ultimate tactic would be to act completely senile and incompetent. Studies show that most Americans find old people to be "cute." But not the angry kind, like McCain. He needs to be more like your crazy old Uncle George in the nursing home. The one who pinches the nurses asses because he doesn't know any better. The one who plays bingo every night. The one who becomes easily confused by big numbers, especially the ones on speed limit signs but refuses to let the government take his driver's license away. McCain would win in a LAND SLIDE if he played that card.

You guys are acting like McCain is crazy and senile. He is far up in age (comparing him to previous presidents), but the man has his faculties about him. It's not like dude has Alzheimer's or anything.
 
You guys are acting like McCain is crazy and senile. He is far up in age (comparing him to previous presidents), but the man has his faculties about him. It's not like dude has Alzheimer's or anything.

I know he's not. I'm saying he ought to act like he is.
 
I know he's not. I'm saying he ought to act like he is.

Yeah, you're right. He should just sit back and watch the hits keep on a-coming. Dude is in the perfect position right now. Let the others damage themselves, and capitalize on Election Day.
 
that's awesome... the man is running for president, with little more than this war that he so wholeheartedly supports as his main selling point, and he can't even get that right.

he's honestly just banking on the fact that everyone who voted for bush, and still supports him will see him as 'the next best thing' and vote for him because he's the only one who won't pull out.

yay! 4-8 more years of the same old crap!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"