You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Iran Enriched Uranium, Now its the Isreali Response, will they or wont they?
- Thread starter mahram
- Start date
Instead of quoting one story published 12 days after 9-11, why not do a little more research and see how the story really panned out....nah, jumping on the conspiracy bandwagon is much more fun, isn't it?Quote from total180:
Hijack 'suspects' alive and well
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm
"FBI Director Robert Mueller acknowledged on Thursday that the identity of several of the suicide hijackers is in doubt. "
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,265160-2,00.html
Take the BBC, for example, which did in fact report, on September 23, 2001, that some of the alleged terrorists were alive and healthy and had protested their being named as assassins.
But there is one wrinkle. The BBC journalist responsible for the story only recalls this supposed sensation after having been told the date on which the story aired. "No, we did not have any videotape or photographs of the individuals in question at that time," he says, and tells us that the report was based on articles in Arab newspapers, such as the Arab News, an English-language Saudi newspaper.
The operator at the call center has the number for the Arab News on speed dial. We make a call to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. A few seconds later, Managing Editor John Bradley is on the line. When we tell Bradley our story, he snorts and says: "That's ridiculous! People here stopped talking about that a long time ago."
Bradley tells us that at the time his reporters did not speak directly with the so-called "survivors," but instead combined reports from other Arab papers. These reports, says Bradley, appeared at a time when the only public information about the attackers was a list of names that had been published by the FBI on September 14th. The FBI did not release photographs until four days after the cited reports, on September 27th.
The photographs quickly resolved the nonsense about surviving terrorists. According to Bradley, "all of this is attributable to the chaos that prevailed during the first few days following the attack. What we're dealing with are coincidentally identical names." In Saudi Arabia, says Bradley, the names of two of the allegedly surviving attackers, Said al-Ghamdi and Walid al-Shari, are "as common as John Smith in the United States or Great Britain."
The final explanation is provided by the newspaper Asharq Al-Awsat, one of the sources of Arab News, which in turn serves as a source to the BBC. Mohammed Samman is the name of the reporter who interviewed a man named Said al-Ghamdi in Tunis, only to find that al-Ghamdi was quite horrified to discover his name on the FBI list of assassins.
Samman remembers his big story well. "That was a wonderful story," he says. And that's all it was. It had nothing to do with the version made up of Bröckers' and Bülow's combined fantasies.
"The problem," says Samman, "was that after the first FBI list had been published, CNN released a photo of the pilot Said al-Ghamdi that had been obtained from the files of those Saudi pilots who had at some point received official flight training in the United States."
After Samman's story was reported by the news agencies, he was contacted by CNN. "I gave them Ghamdi's telephone number. The CNN people talked to the pilot and apologized profusely. The whole thing was quite obviously a mix-up. The Ghamdi family is one of the largest families in Saudi Arabia, and there are thousands of men named Said al-Ghamdi."
When we ask Samman to take another look at the FBI's list of photographs, he is more than happy to oblige, and tells us: "The Ghamdi on the photo is not the pilot with whom I spoke."
The investigative journalists should have been able to figure out just how obvious the solution to this puzzle was. They all write that a man named Abd al-Asis al-Umari had been named as a perpetrator by the FBI, and that there are apparently many individuals with this name. Bröckers and Hauà even noticed that the FBI had initially released an incorrect first name to the press. All of this certainly suggests that there was a mix-up, but it's also something that the conspiracy theorists apparently did not consider plausible.
In the case of the supposedly surviving terrorist Walid al-Shari, the truth is even more obvious. At least Bülow had the opportunity to avoid making this mistake. In his book, he writes that the alleged assassin Shari "lives in Casablanca and works as a pilot, according to information provided by the airline Royal Air Maroc."
If Bülow had inquired with the airline, he would have discovered that the name of the pilot who lives in Casablanca is Walid al-Shri and not, like that of the assassin, Walid al-Shari. This minor detail makes a big difference, namely the difference between a dead terrorist and a living innocent man. But to conspiracy theorists, discovering the truth is like solving a crossword puzzle for children: What's a four-letter word for a domesticated animal? Hrse.
Whatever doesn't fit is made to fit. And whatever fits is included without scrutiny. "The uncritical acceptance of any argument that suggests a conspiracy" is one of the cornerstones of all conspiracy theories, writes conservative US historian Daniel Pipes. "The conspiracy theorist starts with the conclusion and then looks for reasons to rule everything out that doesn't fit." If you happen to be holding a hammer, you're probably more likely to see nails everywhere.
'Because bin Laden took responsibility for the attack, the U.S. had to retaliate against Taliban.'
Good answer! US had 99% confirmity of Taliban behind the attack so they destroyed the Mullahs and their fanatic warriors. If the attack would have been WMDs then US would have nuked Taliban.
It has been said in more than few prominent circles, that in the event of an WMD attack on the the US, the response will be to take out Mecca, Medina and other religious Islamic sites by using the nukes....right away. Then all the nuclear states in Islamic world including North Korea will be forced to give up their nukes and technologies and keep quiet from there on or risk getting nuked and puked again.
Infact on the afternoon of 9-11, President Bush while on AirForce1, wanted to nuke the Taliban but senior commanders requested against it and took him to Omaha's Strategic Defense Bunkers as a standard procedure to be followed under substaintial attack on US.
Anyone using WMDs on US will face 10 times the WMDs in response and then some more.
Good answer! US had 99% confirmity of Taliban behind the attack so they destroyed the Mullahs and their fanatic warriors. If the attack would have been WMDs then US would have nuked Taliban.
It has been said in more than few prominent circles, that in the event of an WMD attack on the the US, the response will be to take out Mecca, Medina and other religious Islamic sites by using the nukes....right away. Then all the nuclear states in Islamic world including North Korea will be forced to give up their nukes and technologies and keep quiet from there on or risk getting nuked and puked again.
Infact on the afternoon of 9-11, President Bush while on AirForce1, wanted to nuke the Taliban but senior commanders requested against it and took him to Omaha's Strategic Defense Bunkers as a standard procedure to be followed under substaintial attack on US.
Anyone using WMDs on US will face 10 times the WMDs in response and then some more.
Why should Russia help Iran when half of the money financing Chechenya war comes from Iran?
Moscow: Russia's military will not intervene on one side or the other should the current Iran crisis lead to an armed conflict, the chief of the Russian general staff said Wednesday.
"You are asking which side Russia will take. Of course Russia will not, at least I as head of the general staff, suggest the use of force on one side or the other. Just as was the case in Afghanistan," General Yury Baluevsky told reporters, referring to the 2001 US-led intervention to oust the Taliban.
The general, who heads the Russian armed forces, stressed that he did not think a military scenario was likely in relation to Iran and said that diplomacy was "the proper course".
"In my view a military solution to the Iranian problem would be a political and military mistake," Baluevsky said.
He also confirmed that Russia planned to go ahead with fulfilling an order by Iran for a consignment of Tor-M1 mobile air defence systems -- despite US concerns about the deal.
"I am absolutely sure that it will be delivered, in accordance with international norms on non-proliferation," he said.
Baluevsky is known for his hawkish position with regard to the United States. In December he accused Washington of "double standards" in its policies towards Iran and North Korea, saying it had closed its eyes to Israel's nuclear arsenal.
His comments on Wednesday came as the Iran issue continued to overshadow talks in Moscow among leaders of the Group of Eight rich nations.
Iran also sent a high-ranking delegation to Moscow for talks amid renewed efforts to resolve the mounting international crisis.
Iran insists its nuclear programme is purely for civilian energy generation, but the West, led by the United States, suspects the programme is a cover for developing nuclear weapons.
Moscow: Russia's military will not intervene on one side or the other should the current Iran crisis lead to an armed conflict, the chief of the Russian general staff said Wednesday.
"You are asking which side Russia will take. Of course Russia will not, at least I as head of the general staff, suggest the use of force on one side or the other. Just as was the case in Afghanistan," General Yury Baluevsky told reporters, referring to the 2001 US-led intervention to oust the Taliban.
The general, who heads the Russian armed forces, stressed that he did not think a military scenario was likely in relation to Iran and said that diplomacy was "the proper course".
"In my view a military solution to the Iranian problem would be a political and military mistake," Baluevsky said.
He also confirmed that Russia planned to go ahead with fulfilling an order by Iran for a consignment of Tor-M1 mobile air defence systems -- despite US concerns about the deal.
"I am absolutely sure that it will be delivered, in accordance with international norms on non-proliferation," he said.
Baluevsky is known for his hawkish position with regard to the United States. In December he accused Washington of "double standards" in its policies towards Iran and North Korea, saying it had closed its eyes to Israel's nuclear arsenal.
His comments on Wednesday came as the Iran issue continued to overshadow talks in Moscow among leaders of the Group of Eight rich nations.
Iran also sent a high-ranking delegation to Moscow for talks amid renewed efforts to resolve the mounting international crisis.
Iran insists its nuclear programme is purely for civilian energy generation, but the West, led by the United States, suspects the programme is a cover for developing nuclear weapons.
I just dont understand why president bush is so hesitant from attacking iran. Iran has made enrich uranium, and he attacked iraq for doing less. So why is their a double standard. According to his doctrine, regardless of international consequences he would make america safe by attacking rogue nations before they can attack the us with wmd's. I dont know why he is pursuing diplomatic options now.
Quote from 2cents:
guys of course we'll all agree to disagree in the end but... what would you prefer as an outcome of the current 'crisis'?
That's definitely a good point - it is definitely not consequent, but then again there are also many reasons why Iraq has been a much easier target to get into (holding it is something else).Quote from mahram:
I just dont understand why president bush is so hesitant from attacking iran. Iran has made enrich uranium, and he attacked iraq for doing less. So why is their a double standard. According to his doctrine, regardless of international consequences he would make america safe by attacking rogue nations before they can attack the us with wmd's. I dont know why he is pursuing diplomatic options now.
Iran is much more powerful in the Arab-world, and has a powerful network of terrorists in many countries. The US would be attacked (official and civilian targets) across the Arab world. Iran can realistically "only" be bombed to set their weapons program back, not conquered. If/when that happens, Iran will start messing with the oil tankers in the Gulf and then the oil price will be out of control. Since the US is so dependant on oil, the US economy would suffer (perhaps severely, who knows how this will play out).
Yes, it's kind of strange why all of a sudden diplomatic efforts are on the agenda as one would expect gunslinger Bush to charge ahead into yet another hotspot.