Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Login with Facebook Sign In with Google Sign In with OpenID Sign In with Twitter

In this Discussion

Iran messing with passing ships? Or is it Memorex?
  • DoctornoDoctorno
    Posts: 234

    Anyone remember the days of Reagan when Ollie North put together a plan to hit Omar Quadaffi due to an intercepted radio transmission coming out of his country proving something that justified the USA hitting Omar and Country?

    Anyone remember years later, it was revealed Mossad ran the transmitter inside Omar's country to send out a false message that got Omar Bombed courtesy of the USAF?

    Note the radio transmission is not exactly located in this conflict?
  • DoctornoDoctorno
    Posts: 234  Iran charges the incident was fabricated. I wish I could say I trusted my Government, but based upon past lies like the Gulf of Tonkin fabrication,,,,
  • MinMMinM
    Posts: 444
    CNN being CNN :-X
    The Raw Story | Bogus Iran story was product of Pentagon spokesman, reporter says

    This press release, however, went ignored by the media, Porter notes. Instead, the focus turned to CNN's Barbara Starr, who touted allegations that military officials told her Iranian boats were carrying out "threatening maneuvers." CBS soon followed up with a story positing that the Persians had dropped white boxes in the water around the American ships.

    Starr added that one American boat had been given the order to fire, and the Iranians had moved away just in time.

    Porter identifies Bryan Whitman, the Pentagon's top spokesman, as the culprit for the spurious account. Most of Whitman's remarks that formed the basis for Starr's and other stories were drawn from an off the record press briefing that was held on the condition he not be identified as a source.

    But, "in an apparent slip-up, however, an Associated Press story that morning cited Whitman as the source for the statement that US ships were about to fire when the Iranian boats turned and moved away - a part of the story that other correspondents had attributed to an unnamed Pentagon official," he writes.

    After facing suspicion, the Pentagon released a four-minute, 20-second condensed video clip that appeared to show small Iranian boats swarming around a US Navy vessel. A voice was heard to say, "I am coming to you. ... You will explode after (inaudible) minutes."

    In the wake of reports, the Iranians said the footage had been fabricated.

    What later emerged was a more complex view of the incident -- that in fact the threatening transmission did not come from the Iranian ships.

    On Jan. 13, Pentagon officials said they did..

    Anderson Cooper's CIA Past
    Why Were Government Propaganda Experts Working On News At CNN?
    The Return of PSYOPS
  • MinMMinM
    Posts: 444
    Third undersea Internet cable cut in Mideast

    The biggest problem the Bush administration faced during Iraq were images coming over the internet that showed the horrors being visited on the Iraqi people, and exposed the government's lies about Saddam.

    I am greatly concerned that these undersea cable cuttings are intended to prevent the world from seeing something that is about to happen, other than through the government-controlled propaganda/media.

    As of this posting, Tehran is totally cut off from the rest of the internet.

    Iran is completely off the Internet | Wake Up From Your Slumber
    Details for Asia /// Internet Traffic Report
    Attytood: Bush lays a Guantanamo trap for the next president

    Here's some recent False-Flag News about past events. Including a story from our old friend Max Holland  ::)
    Winter Patriot: Who Switched Off America's Security Alarm On 9/11? And How Did They Do It?
    Christopher Bollyn
    kenny's sideshow: 9-11 - Bush Was Behind Silencing of Dr. Steven E. Jones on Thermite? - ChristopherBollyn
    Washington DeCoded: Commission Confidential
    Winter Patriot: Wanna Get <I>This</i> Picture On The Cover! The Photo <i>Rolling Stone</i> Should Have Published With "The Fear Factory"
    Margaret Thatcher told navy to raid Swedish coast - Times Online
  • MinM wrote:

    Third undersea Internet cable cut in Mideast

    Have "we" (the US) done this as practice for an eventual assault on Iran, or have the Israelis done it because they're planning to attack now? (Dragging America into war, as well) Seems ominous, either way. Maybe a whale or Octopus did it...  ;)
  • MinMMinM
    Posts: 444
    Good question PurpleHaze..

    Internet Access to Iran Severed: Expert fear a Super Bowl attack

    James H. Fetzer, founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, “Prior to 9/11, the FBI—our own FBI—shut down Arab Muslim web sites ( ).  Some of  us fear that internet access may have been deliberately severed to isolate Iran and make it difficult to communicate in response to a ‘false flag’ attack in the United States, possibly during the  Super Bowl, an attack upon Iran, or both.”

    “False flag” attacks are conducted by a government against targets, including its own citizens, in order to blame an enemy and justify taking action against it.  The BBC is among the sources reporting these cables have been cut ( “New Cable Cut Compounds Net Woes,” BBC NEWS | Technology | New cable cut compounds net woes , but others are easily accessible via google.  One of these cables is near Alexandria, Egypt.  Another is near Dubai.  “That cables in the Mediterranean Sea and the Persial Gulf should happen to be severed in close proximity without a common cause defies belief,” observed Fetzer, a philosoper of science.  “That there now appear to be four interruptions cannot be just a matter of chance.  This has to be deliberate.  The ominous question is, ‘Why?’”

    (Video) My take on false-flag terrorist attack on "Black Sunday" | Wake Up From Your Slumber
    Cable-cutting in preparation for war - the historical precedent. | Wake Up From Your Slumber
    The Existentialist Cowboy: Talk of Imminent War Against Iran Amid an Attack of 'Coincidences'

    Fetzer has been taking on the chin from the internets lately  :-\

    Winter Patriot: Ebb Tide III: Use The Force, Jim!
    Crimes of the State: The 9/11 B. S. Movement
    9/11 Truth and Disinformation: Definitions and Examples |

    Who leaked the details of a CIA-Mossad plot against Iran? - Haaretz - Israel News

    Risen has been asked to testify as part of an investigation aimed at revealing who leaked apparently confidential information about the planning of secret Central Intelligence Agency and Mossad missions concerning Iran's nuclear program.

    Risen included this information in his book, "State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration," which was published in 2006. In the book, he discusses a number of ideas which he says were thought up jointly by CIA and Mossad operatives to sabotage Iran's nuclear capabilities.

    One of these ideas was to build electromagnetic devices, smuggling them inside Iran to sabotage electricity lines leading to the country's central nuclear sites. According to the plan, the operation was supposed to cause a series of chain reactions which would damage extremely powerful short circuits in the electrical supply that would have led to failures of the super computers of Iran's nuclear sites.

    According to the book, the Mossad planners proposed that they would be responsible for getting the electromagnetic facilities into Iran with the aid of their agents in Iran. However, a series of technical problems prevented the plan's execution.

    Another of the book's important revelations, which made the administration's blood boil about James Risen, appeared in a chapter describing what was known as Operation Merlin, the code name for another CIA operation supposed to penetrate the heart of Iran's nuclear activity, collect information about it and eventually disrupt it..

    Press TV - NYT Whistleblower 'victimized over Iran'

    Cheney camp 'behind Syrian reactor claim' - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
    Cheney aint done yet...
    at-Largely: How long before the Cheneyites start saying: "Iraq's WMD went to Syria"
    BBC NEWS | Middle East | US allegations raise questions
    BBC NEWS | World | Middle East | US Syria claims raise wider doubts
    village voice > news > The Widening Crusade by Sydney H. Schanberg
    at-Largely: Massive Propaganda Laundry at the Wall Street Journal...

    in related news:
    John W. Farley: The Phantom Menace
    Oil jumps over $3 after report on U.S. shot toward Iran boat - MarketWatch
    The Raw Story | US-contracted ship fires on Iranian boat: report
    Deja Vu all over again?
    The Raw Story | Bogus Iran story was product of Pentagon spokesman, reporter says
  • DoctornoDoctorno
    Posts: 234
    I think this set of "accidental" acts may be all there is to it.

    IOW, Economic Warfare by an unknown agent of Terror.

    It may be some want to interrupt the Oil Bourse that Iran is running on Euros instead of the holy roman dollar, a.k.a. the Federal Reserve Note.

    Gee Golly!

    I wonder who has an interest in stopping Iran from opening a booth at town square?
  • PurpleHazePurpleHaze
    Posts: 717
    Israel Prodding U.S. To Attack Iran
    White House Weighs Striking Iran's Nuclear Complex, Which Could Trigger 3rd War In Region

    (CBS) Joint Chiefs Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen leaves Tuesday night on an overseas trip that will take him to Israel, reports CBS News national security correspondent David Martin. The trip has been scheduled for some time but U.S. officials say it comes just as the Israelis are mounting a full court press to get the Bush administration to strike Iran's nuclear complex.

    CBS consultant Michael Oren says Israel doesn't want to wait for a new administration.

    "The Israelis have been assured by the Bush administration that the Bush administration will not allow Iran to nuclearize," Oren said. "Israelis are uncertain about what would be the policies of the next administration vis-à-vis Iran."

    Israel's message is simple: If you don't, we will. Israel held a dress rehearsal for a strike earlier this month, but military analysts say Israel can not do it alone.

    "Keep in mind that Israel does not have strategic bombers," Oren said. "The Israeli Air Force is not the American Air Force. Israel can not eliminate Iran's nuclear program."

    The U.S. with its stealth bombers and cruise missiles has a much greater capability. Vice President Cheney is said to favor a strike, but both Mullen and Defense Secretary Gates are opposed to an attack which could touch off a third war in the region.

    U.S. intelligence estimates Iran won't be able to build a weapon until sometime early in the next decade. But Israel is operating on a much shorter timetable.

    "The Iranians, according to Israeli security sources, will have an operable nuclear weapon by 2009. That's not a very long time," Oren said.

    For now, the Bush administration is counting on new economic sanctions which took effect Tuesday to persuade Iran to give up its nuclear program. But nobody's counting on it.

    Iran War Resolution May Be Passed Next Week, June 23, 2008

    Introduced less than a month ago, Resolution 362, also known as the Iran War Resolution, could be passed by the House as early as next week.

    The bill is the chief legislative priority of AIPAC. On its Web site, AIPAC endorses the resolutions as a way to ”Stop Iran’s Nuclear Program” and tells readers to lobby Congress to pass the bill. In the Senate, a sister resolution, Resolution 580, has gained co-sponsors with similar speed. The Senate measure was introduced by Indiana Democrat Evan Bayh on June 2. It has since gained 19 co-sponsors.

    The bill’s key section “demands that the president initiate an international effort to immediately and dramatically increase the economic, political, and diplomatic pressure on Iran to verifiably suspend its nuclear enrichment activities by, inter alia, prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products; imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran; and prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran’s nuclear program.”

    “Imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran” can be read to mean that the president should initiate a naval blockade of Iran. A unilateral naval blockade without UN sanction is an act of war.

    Resolution 362 has already gained 170 co-sponsors, or nearly 40 percent of the House. It has been referred to the Foreign Affairs Committee, which has 49 members, 24 of whom, including the ranking Republican, are co-sponsors. The Iran Nuclear Watch Web site writes, “According to the House leadership, this resolution is going to ‘pass like a hot knife through butter’ before the end of June on what is called suspension – meaning no amendments can be introduced during the 20-minute maximum debate. It also means it is assumed the bill will pass by a 2/3 majority and is non-controversial.”

    Our national legislators deem it non-controversial to recommend to a president known for his recklessness and bad judgment that he consider engaging in an act of war against Iran. Those of you who consider this issue controversial can go to the Just Foreign Policy Web site and tell your representative to oppose this resolution.

    It's a Slippery Slope to War
    Ask Your Representative to Oppose H. Con. Res. 362
  • PurpleHazePurpleHaze
    Posts: 717
    June 28, 2008
    America Is the Rogue Nation
    by Charley Reese

    One gets the impression that there are some people in Washington who believe that Israel or the U.S. can bomb Iran's nuclear reactors, fly home, and it will be mission complete.

    It makes you wonder if perhaps there is a virus going around that is gradually making people stupid. If we or Israel attack Iran, we will have a new war on our hands. The Iranians are not going to shrug off an attack and say, "You naughty boys, you."

    Consider how much trouble Iraq has given us. Some 4,000 dead and 29,000 wounded, a half a trillion dollars in cost and still climbing, and five years later, we cannot say that the country is pacified.

    Iraq is a small country compared with Iran. Iran has about 70 million people. Its western mountains border the Persian Gulf. In other words, its missiles and guns look down on the U.S. ships below it. And it has lots of missiles, from short-range to intermediate-range (around 2,200 kilometers).

    More to the point, it has been equipped by Russia with the fastest anti-ship missile on the planet. The SS-N-22 Sunburn can travel at Mach 3 at high altitude and at Mach 2.2 at low altitude. That is faster than anything in our arsenal.

    Iran's conventional forces include an army of 540,000 men and 300,000 reserves, including 120,000 Iranian Guards especially trained in unconventional warfare. It has more than 1,600 main battle tanks and 21,000 other armored combat vehicles. It has 3,200 artillery pieces, three submarines, 59 surface warships and 10 amphibious ships.

    It's been receiving help in arming itself from China, North Korea and Russia. Unlike Iraq, Iran's forces have not been worn down with bombing, wars and sanctions. It also has a new anti-aircraft defense system from Russia that I've heard is pretty snazzy.

    So, if you think we or Israel can attack Iran and not expect retaliation, I'd have to say with regret that you are a moron. If you think we could easily handle Iran in an all-out war, I'd have to promote you to idiot.

    Attacking Iran would be folly, but we seem to be living in the Age of Folly. Morons and idiots took us into an unjustified war against Iraq before we had finished the job in Afghanistan. Now we have troops tied down in both countries.

    For some years now, I've worried that we seem to be more and more like Colonial England – arrogant, racist, overestimating our own capacity and underestimating that of our enemies. As the fate of the British Empire demonstrates, that is a fatal flaw.

    The British never dreamed that the "little yellow people" could come ashore by land and take Singapore from the rear or that they would sink the pride of the British fleet, but they did both.

    I suppose no one in Washington can imagine the Iranians sinking one of our carriers in the Persian Gulf. How'd you like to be the president who has to tell the American people that we've lost a carrier for the first time since World War II?

    Exactly how the Iranians will respond to an attack, I don't know, but they will respond. In keeping with our present policy, our attack on Iran would be illegal, since under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran has the right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes.

    Who would have thought that we would become the rogue nation committing acts of aggression around the globe?

    The Neoconservative Agenda to Sacrifice the Fifth Fleet
    The New Pearl Harbor
    by Michael E. Salla, M.A., Ph.D.
    11/08/07 "ICH" -- The Bush administration has covered up and ignored dissenting Pentagon war games analysis that suggests an attack on Iran’s nuclear or military facilities will lead directly to the annihilation of the Navy’s Fifth Fleet now stationed in the Persian Gulf.  Lt. General Paul Van Riper led a hypothetical Persian Gulf state in the 2002 Millennium Challenge wargames that resulted in the destruction of the Fifth Fleet. His experience and conclusions regarding the vulnerability of the Fifth Fleet to an assymetrical military conflict with Iran have been ignored. Neoconservatives within the Bush administration are currently aggressively promoting a range of military actions against Iran that will culminate in it attacking the US Navy’s Fifth Fleet with sophisticated cruise anti-ship missiles. They are ignoring Van Riper’s experiences in the Millennium Challenge and how it applies to the current nuclear conflict with Iran.
    Iran has sufficient quantities of cruise missiles to destroy much or all of the Fifth Fleet which is within range of Iran’s mobile missile launchers strategically located along its mountainous terrain overlooking the Persian Gulf. The Bush administration is deliberately downplaying the vulnerability of the Fifth Fleet to Iran’s advanced missile technology which has been purchased from Russia and China since the late 1990’s. The most sophisticated of Iran’s cruise missiles are the ‘Sunburn’ and ‘Yakhonts’. These are missiles against which U.S. military experts conclude modern warships have no effective defense. By deliberately provoking an Iranian retaliation to U.S. military actions, the neoconservatives will knowingly sacrifice much or all of the Fifth Fleet. This will culminate in a new Pearl Harbor that will create the right political environment for total war against Iran, and expanded military actions in the Persian Gulf region.

  • PurpleHazePurpleHaze
    Posts: 717
    Monday, June 23, 2008

    Today on Flashpoints: Israel and the United States prepare for war against Iran, we'll speak with author Gareth Porter about his new book,  Perils of Dominance and about recent revelations regarding an eminent attack on Iran. Nora Barrows-Freedom reports on the battle by Palestinians to retake their neighborhoods from illegal Jewish settlers; Plus, we remember George Carlin who died yesterday of heart complications at the age of 71; And, the Knight Report.

    Click to listen:

    01:00 The Knight Report

    05:00 US and Israel Prepare for War
    Gareth Porter, author Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam
    Shahram Agahmir- Iranian born journalist/producer KPFA's Voices of the Middle East
    Larry Everest- Revolution Newspaper Columnist, author Oil, Power and Empire: Iraq and the Global Agenda

    33:00 Revitalizing Palestinian Neighborhoods
    Nora Barrows-Friedman, Flashpoints Senior Producer

    54:00 Remembering George Carlin

  • PurpleHazePurpleHaze
    Posts: 717

    Israeli jets using Iraq's airspace
    July 10, 2008

    The US has allowed Israeli jets to use US airbases and fly over Iraqi air space for a likely attack against Iran, Iraqi media say. It is more than a month that some Israeli planes belonging to Israeli air force use the US military bases in Iraq to land and take off, Iraqi Nahrainnet news network said Wednesday, quoting informed sources close to Iraq's Defense Ministry.

    The activities and traffic of warplanes - especially at night - has lately increased in the US airbases in Nasiriya southeast of Baghdad and Haditha a city in the western Iraq province of Al Anbar, the Iraqi residents and sources said.

    They said the US fighters, cargo planes, helicopters and unmanned planes have intensified their flights in the last three weeks.

    The US military officials have imposed severe security measures around the bases, they said.

    They said some aircraft suspected to be Israeli warplanes coming from Jordan, have landed in the US controlled al-Assad airbase near Haditha.

    It is believed that these activities are parts of a joint Israeli-US training, preparation and coordination to launch an air raid against Iran's nuclear plants.

    Israel has conducted a military drill under the supervision of top US military commanders over the Mediterranean Sea from May 28 to June 12, using more than 100 Israeli F-16 and F-15 fighters, along with helicopters and refueling tanks which many consider as a possible rehearsal for a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities.

    Iraq denies IAF using its airspace
    Jul. 11, 2008

    Iraq denied on Friday reports claiming the Israeli Air Force has been practicing for a possible attack against Iran in its airspace.

    "As the Ministry of Defense, we haven't observed any IAF warplanes practicing in Iraqi airspace," said Major-General Mohammad al-Askari, spokesman for the Iraqi Defense Ministry.
    On Friday, sources in the Iraqi Defense Ministry told a local news network that Israel Air Force (IAF) war planes are practicing in Iraqi airspace and land on US airbases in the country as a preparation for a potential strike on Iran.

    The IDF has also denied the reports, calling them "baseless."

    The report, which was also carried by Iranian news outlets, claimed that recently massive IAF overnight presence was detected in several American held airbases.

    According to the sources, former military officers in the Anbar province said IAF jets arrive during the night from Jordanian airspace, enter Iraq's airspace and land on a runway near the city of Hadita. The sources estimated the jets were practicing for a raid on Iran's nuclear sites.

    The sources also said the American bases in Iraq might serve as a platform for the IAF from which to attack Iran. If Israeli warplanes will take off from Iraq, they can reach Bushehr in five minutes - a "record time," the sources said.;pagename=JPost/JPArticle/Printer


    Rice warns Iran that US will defend Israel
    Rice warns Iran that US will do what's necessary to defend Israel after missile test
    July 10, 2008

    Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice warned Iran on Thursday that the United States will not back down in the face of Iranian threats against Israel.

    Iranian officials have strongly suggested the country's missile test on Wednesday was itself a warning to Israel not to attack Iran's nuclear facilities. Israel has left that option open.

    Iranian Missile Image Was Photoshopped

    As news spread across the world of Iran’s provocative missile tests, so did an image of four missiles heading skyward in unison. Unfortunately, it appeared to contain one too many missiles, a point that had not emerged before the photo was used on the front pages of The Los Angeles Times, The Financial Times, The Chicago Tribune and several other newspapers as well as on BBC News, MSNBC, Yahoo! News, and many other major news Web sites.


    Iran and the Photoshop Threat
    - by Justin Raimondo (excerpt)

    Are we really supposed to take the alleged Iranian "threat" – which Barack Obama deems "the greatest strategic challenge to the United States in the region in a generation" – seriously? Not unless Photoshop is reclassified as a "weapon of mass destruction." The brouhaha surrounding the Iran issue has been taken up several notches on account of this missile launch, but let’s look at how much of a real danger it really poses.

    We also need to look at it in context: don’t forget that this launch came in the wake of a massive Israeli military exercise – involving more than 100 F15 and F16 fighters – which simulated a bombing campaign against Iran. Israeli helicopters and tankers (bought and paid for by the US taxpayers) traveled 900 miles westward from bases in Israel, about the same distance as that between Israel and Iran's suspected nuclear sites. This display of military capability was meant to underscore months of rhetorical firepower directed at Tehran by Israeli politicians and public officials – such as Transport Minister Shaul Mofaz, who openly declared that war with Iran is "inevitable."

    What was the reaction to this Israeli war dance in the West? It was merely noted: nowhere was this massive and quite impressive dress rehearsal for war described as a provocation, except perhaps in the Arab media.

    On top of that, Israel has been openly urging the US to attack Iran, with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert making a special trip to Washington for the express purpose of warmongering, and the powerful Israel lobby pushing for a naval blockade of Iran that would surely end in war. Yet none of this is considered at all provocative, at least by the American news media, while Iran’s Photoshopped military assets are deemed a deadly threat.

    Naturally, John McCain took advantage of the Iranian missile show to display his own bellicosity, stating that "Iran's most recent missile tests demonstrate again the dangers it poses to its neighbors and to the wider region, especially Israel," and reiterating his support for the "missile defense" systems that we have sold to the Poles and the Czechs – about the last countries on earth likely to suffer an attack from the Iranians.

  • MinMMinM
    Posts: 444
    This photoshop psyop reminds me of another -- Cui Bono?
    In the above, the top panel is the original photograph, and the bottom is what Reuter's released. The obviousness of the alteration quickly attracted notice and the photographer was suspended and Reuter's withdrew the photo. Isdrael then claimed that all the work done by Reuiter's in Lebanon, in particulat the Qana massacre, was now suspect.

    How very convenient.

    My "day job" is in an industry that is expert at image trickery. I work in film visual effects. It was that expertise that resulted in my outing of the Vincent Foster murder almost 14 years ago and launched this website.

    But one does not need to be an expert to see that the altered photo is altered. Someone used the rubber stamp brush in Photoshop to swirl the clouds around, causing the repeating pattern seen in the plumes.


    Take a look at the original image. Does it need alternation or enhancement? Do the changes made with photoshop in any way alter the content or meaning of the photo, or make the captionm more or less appropriate? No. The alteration has no purpose at all ... except to call attention to itself, at a time when Israel desperately needed to discredit the reports coming out of Lebanon.

    One final point. Photographers do not select which of their photos get published and which so not. That decision is made by numerous other people, including the photo editor, the section editor, and finally the managing editor. For this photo to have gone out, many people had to sign off on it. Do you really think that the altered photo got all the way through Reuter's management, office staff, photo editors, webmasters, etc. without someone noticing the obvious signs of fakery?

    Me neither.

    This fake was designed to be spotted. It was put out by Reuter's intentionally with the sole purpose of handing Israel a means to discount media reports of the war crimes being committed inside Lebanon.

    Who in Reuter's put the welfare of Israel above their oen company's credibility, I wonder?
  • PurpleHazePurpleHaze
    Posts: 717
    author said:

    This photoshop psyop reminds me of another -- Cui Bono?

    I've read that the Iranians themselves altered the image, but I don't see how they'd have benefitted from it. Are four missiles that much scarier than three? Obviously, the Zionist media will make a big deal of this. I know what scares me a lot more than the missile tests...

    President George W Bush backs Israeli plan for strike on Iran
    President George W Bush has told the Israeli government that he may be prepared to approve a future military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities if negotiations with Tehran break down, according to a senior Pentagon official.

    Despite the opposition of his own generals and widespread scepticism that America is ready to risk the military, political and economic consequences of an airborne strike on Iran, the president has given an “amber light” to an Israeli plan to attack Iran’s main nuclear sites with long-range bombing sorties, the official told The Sunday Times.


    "But I also made it clear to Vladimir Putin that it's important to think beyond the old days of when we had the concept that if we blew each other up, the world would be safe."  - GWBush, Washington, D.C., May 1, 2001
  • PurpleHazePurpleHaze
    Posts: 717
    Coercive 'Diplomacy' – Prelude to War
    Don't be fooled by Washington's diplomatic overtures to Tehran

    by Justin Raimondo
    July 18, 2008

    The conventional wisdom is that the US government is taking a new tack when it comes to confronting the Iranians.

    This is flat out wrong. The war drums are still belting out a martial ditty, albeit accompanied by a "diplomatic" chorus.

    The Bush administration is interested only in appearing to be serious about resolving this peacefully, when in actuality this diplomatic "surge" is merely a new tactic aimed at their real goal, which is regime-change in Iran.

    What we are seeing is a variation on the same prelude, almost note for note, that we heard in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq.

    Nothing ever changes with this administration, in spite of the best efforts of the moderate "realists," because the War Party is still in the saddle – and because both political parties uphold the principle of American hegemonism. Their differences are merely over strategy and tactics, and over matters of style and tone, but when it comes to the goal – American domination of every region and continent – "politics stops at the water's edge," as the old foreign policy adage goes.

    For example, look at the "debate" that's going on between John McCain and Barack Obama: the former wants to stay in Iraq for a hundred years while remaining relatively indifferent to what's going on in Afghanistan, while the latter says we should get out of Iraq so we can focus all our military resources on trying to do what the Soviets (and the Brits) could never do, and that is subdue the Afghan people.

    While the partisan Punch & Judy show takes center stage, and Democratic politico and Obama surrogate Rahm Emmanuel taunts McCain and Bush that they're following the mulatto messiah's lead on Iran, the wheels and gears of the American regime-change machine are whirring and spinning, getting ready to move when the time comes. And this is where the Iranian war scenario is scripted a little differently than the Iraqi version: the timeframe is considerably telescoped, condensed into the months remaining before the end of Bush's term.
  • PurpleHazePurpleHaze
    Posts: 717
    Obama would engage Iran early next year
    Fri, 29 Aug 2008

    A senior advisor to Barack Obama says the Democratic nominee would engage Iran on its nuclear work early next year if elected president.

    "He (Obama) is saying that as soon as he takes office that we have to have a very serious set of negotiations with the Iranians in which we in effect present them with a choice," said former US national security adviser Tony Lake, who now serves the Obama campaign, on Thursday.

    Iran, a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), says it is constructing nuclear power plants as its growing population suffers from electricity shortage. The US, however, accuses the country of having plans to develop nuclear weapons.

    This is while the UN nuclear watchdog has confirmed that Tehran enriches uranium-235 to a level of 3.7 percent - a rate consistent with the construction of a power plant. Nuclear arms production requires an enrichment level of above 90 percent.

    The Bush administration, claiming to be committed to diplomacy to resolve the standoff, has sought to persuade Iran to abandon its uranium enrichment activities through a carrot-and-stick approach of incentives and sanctions, as well as threats of launching strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities.

    Under US pressure, the UN Security Council has so far imposed three rounds of sanctions against Iran, demanding the country to halt its enrichment program.

    Tehran says while it is fully committed to dialogue to protect its right to the peaceful application of nuclear technology, it will not accept Western demands.

    Lake said Tehran should be given a sharper choice between the 'consequences' of continuing its nuclear program and the benefits of abandoning it.

    "This is an extremely important issue, an extremely serious issue and an extremely urgent issue," Lake continued.

    Despite Obama's promise of bringing 'change' to the White House, Lake's remarks suggest the Democratic candidate has adopted an approach of sanctions which echoes eight years of policies pursued by the incumbent US President, George W. Bush.
    September 3, 2008
    September Surprise - Get ready for it…

    While the rest of the pundits opine about the meaning and implications of Sarah Palin's ascension from small town mayor to prospective vice president – and whether or not her daughter's private life is fair game for any media outlet other than the National Enquirer – those of us whose job it is to stand watch on the ramparts and report the real news are wondering when – not if – the War Party will pull a rabbit out of the proverbial hat. For months, I've been warning in this space that an American attack on Iran is imminent, and now I see that the Dutch have reason to agree with my assessment. Their intelligence service reportedly has pulled out of a covert operation inside Iran on the grounds that a U.S. strike is right around the corner – in "a matter of weeks," according to De Telegraaf, a Dutch newspaper.

    As the story goes, the Dutch had infiltrated a purported Iranian weapons project and were firmly ensconced when they got word that the Americans are about to launch a missile attack on Iranian nuclear facilities. They wisely decided to close down the operation and pull out. Remember, the Israelis have been threatening to strike on their own for months: what's changed is that now, apparently, the U.S. has caved in to what is a blatant case of blackmail and has agreed to do the job for them.

    We haven't heard much about Iran lately, at least compared to the scare headlines of a few months ago, when rumors of war were swirling fast and furious. The Russian "threat" seems to have replaced the Iranian "threat" as the War Party's bogeyman of choice. What we didn't know, however, is that the two focal points are intimately related.

    According to this report by veteran Washington Times correspondent Arnaud de Borchgrave, the close cooperation of the Israelis with the Georgian military in the run-up to President Saakashvili's blitz of South Ossetia was predicated on a Georgian promise to let the Israelis use Georgia's airfields to mount a strike against Iran.

    The main problem for Tel Aviv, in making its threats against Iran at all credible, has been the distance to be covered by Israeli fighter jets, which would have a hard time reaching and returning from their targets without refueling. With access to the airfields of "the Israel of the Caucasus," as de Borchgrave – citing Saakashvili – puts it, the likelihood of an Israeli attack entered the world of real possibilities.

    Reports of anywhere from 100 to 1,000 Israeli "advisers" in Georgia do not bode well for the situation on the ground. With the Israelis already installed in that country, the logistics of carrying out such a sneak attack are greatly simplified. Israeli pilots would only have to fly over Azerbaijan, and they'd be in Iranian airspace – and within striking distance of Tehran.

    Faced with this fait accompli – if the Dutch are to be believed – the Americans seem to have capitulated. In which case, we don't have much time. Although de Borchgrave writes "whether the IAF can still count on those air bases to launch bombing missions against Iran's nuke facilities is now in doubt," I don't see why the defeat of the Georgians in Saakashvili's war on the Ossetians has to mean the plan to strike Iran via Georgia has been canceled. Indeed, reading de Borchgrave's riveting account of the extent of the Tel Aviv-Tbilisi collaboration, one finds additional reasons for all concerned to go ahead with it:

    "Saakashvili was convinced that by sending 2,000 of his soldiers to serve in Iraq (who were immediately flown home by the United States when Russia launched a massive counterattack into Georgia), he would be rewarded for his loyalty. He could not believe President Bush, a personal friend, would leave him in the lurch. Georgia, as Saakashvili saw his country's role, was the 'Israel of the Caucasus.'"

    Saakashvili, a vain and reckless man, now has even more reason to go behind Uncle Sam's back and give the Israelis a clear shot at Tehran. With this sword of Damocles hanging over the heads of the Americans, the rationale for a more limited, shot-across-the-bow strike by the U.S. becomes all too clear.

    After all, if the Israelis attacked, the entire Muslim world would unite behind the Iranians. If, on the other had, the U.S. did Israel's dirty work, with Tel Aviv lurking in the background, it would conceivably be far less provocative, and might even generate sub rosa support among the Sunni rulers of America's Arab allies. It's going to happen anyway, goes the rationale, and so we might as well do it the right way, rather than leave it to the Israelis, who have threatened – via "independent" commentators like Israeli historian and super hawk Benny Morris – to use nuclear weapons on Iran's population centers.

    In terms of American domestic politics, the road to war with Tehran was paved long ago: both major parties and their presidential candidates have given the War Party a green light to strike Tehran, McCain explicitly and Obama tacitly, albeit no less firmly.

    The stage is set, rehearsals are over, and the actors know their lines: as the curtain goes up on the first act of "World War III," take a deep breath and pray to the gods that this deadly drama is aborted. ~ Justin Raimondo

    Israel of the Caucasus
    By ARNAUD DE BORCHGRAVE (UPI Editor at Large)
    September 02, 2008 (excerpt)

    Israel began selling arms to Georgia seven years ago. U.S. grants facilitated these purchases. From Israel came former minister and former Tel Aviv Mayor Roni Milo, representing Elbit Systems, and his brother Shlomo, former director general of Military Industries. Israeli UAV spy drones, made by Elbit Maarahot Systems, conducted recon flights over southern Russia, as well as into nearby Iran.

    In a secret agreement between Israel and Georgia, two military airfields in southern Georgia had been earmarked for the use of Israeli fighter-bombers in the event of pre-emptive attacks against Iranian nuclear installations. This would sharply reduce the distance Israeli fighter-bombers would have to fly to hit targets in Iran. And to reach Georgian airstrips, the Israeli air force would fly over Turkey.

    The attack ordered by Saakashvili against South Ossetia the night of Aug. 7 provided the Russians the pretext for Moscow to order Special Forces to raid these Israeli facilities where some Israeli drones were reported captured.

    Details of Israel's involvement were largely ignored by Israeli media lest they be interpreted as another blow to Israel's legendary military prowess, which took a bad hit in the Lebanese war against Hezbollah two years ago. Georgia's top diplomat in Tel Aviv complained about Israel's "lackluster" response to his country's military predicament and called for "diplomatic pressure on Moscow." According to the Jerusalem Post, the Georgian was told "the address for that type of pressure is Washington."

    Haaretz reported Georgian Minister Temur Yakobashvili -- who is Jewish, the newspaper said -- told Israeli army radio that "Israel should be proud of its military which trained Georgian soldiers" because he explained rather implausibly, "a small group of our soldiers were able to wipe out an entire Russian military division, thanks to Israeli training."

    The Tel Aviv-Tbilisi military axis was agreed at the highest levels with the approval of the Bush administration.

    That Russia assessed these Israeli training missions as U.S. - approved is a given.

    Saakashvili was convinced that by sending 2,000 of his soldiers to serve in Iraq (who were immediately flown home by the United States when Russia launched a massive counterattack into Georgia), he would be rewarded for his loyalty. He could not believe President Bush, a personal friend, would leave him in the lurch. Georgia, as Saakashvili saw his country's role, was the "Israel of the Caucasus."

    The Tel Aviv-Tbilisi military axis appears to have been cemented at the highest levels, according to YNet, the Israeli electronic daily. But whether the IAF can still count on those air bases to launch bombing missions against Iran's nuke facilities is now in doubt.

    Iran comes out ahead in the wake of the Georgian crisis. Neither Russia nor China is willing to respond to a Western request for more and tougher sanctions against the mullahs. Iran's European trading partners are also loath to squeeze Iran. The Russian-built, 1,000-megawatt Iranian reactor in Bushehr is scheduled to go online early next year.
  • Heard today on Professor Kevin Barret's show on that Israel has informed their people to vacate Turkey and surrounding regions....; Interview with Professor David Ray Griffin
  • author said:

    Heard today on Professor Kevin Barret's show on that Israel has informed their people to vacate Turkey and surrounding regions....; Interview with Professor David Ray Griffin

    For some reason, the Griffin interview won't play, but part 2, concerning the hijackers, does. At least it wouldn't play for me last night... The info on the "hijackers" was very interesting, though.

    * NEVER MIND it's working...

    US plans to sell Israel 1,000 bunker-buster bombs
    Monday, September 15, 2008

    (AP) The U.S. plans to sell Israel 1,000 buster-bunker bombs which Israeli military experts said Monday could provide a powerful new weapon against underground arsenals in Lebanon or Gaza.

    The experts said they doubted, however, that the bombs could be used to deliver a crippling blow against Iran's nuclear program.

    Past U.S. sales of bunker-buster bombs to Israel have been construed as a veiled threat against Iran's nuclear program.

    But Brom and Shapir said they did not think they would be used against Iran, where key nuclear facilities such as the uranium enrichment plant at Nantanz are buried deep and hardened by yards of concrete.

    "You would need something a lot heavier," he said. The GBU-39 can penetrate 6 feet of concrete, and "6 feet is not enough," he said.

    [ Or target a small area for multiple hits, or arm them with mini nukes? - ph ]

    Despite a 2007 National Intelligence Estimate that concluded Iran suspended its nuclear weapons program in 2003, Israel and many in the United States still believe Iran's nuclear program is geared toward developing weapons. Iran insists the program is only for producing electricity.

    Israel hopes Iran can be induced through sanctions and diplomacy to scale back its nuclear ambitions, but has not ruled out a military strike.

    Clinton cancels spot at Jewish groups' anti-Iran rally over Palin invite

    Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has canceled an appearance at a New York rally next week after organizers blindsided her by inviting Republican vice presidential candidate and Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, aides to the senator said Tuesday.

    Several American Jewish groups plan a major rally outside the United Nations on Sept. 22 to protest against Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

    Organizers said Tuesday that both Clinton, who nearly won the Democratic nomination for president, and Palin, Republican candidate John McCain's running mate, are expected to attend.

    That would have set up a closely scrutinized and potentially explosive pairing in the midst of a presidential campaign, one in which the New York senator is campaigning for Democratic nominee Barack Obama while Palin actively courts disappointed Clinton supporters.

    Clinton aides were furious. They first learned of the plan to have both Clinton and Palin appear when informed by reporters.

    "Her attendance was news to us, and this was never billed to us as a partisan political event," said Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines. "Sen. Clinton will therefore not be attending."

    A McCain-Palin campaign official, speaking on condition of anonymity because Palin's schedule for Monday has not been announced, said only that Palin tentatively planned to attend the rally.

    Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, did not immediately return messages Tuesday seeking comment, nor did other organizers of the rally. Other event sponsors are the National Coalition to Stop Iran Now, United Jewish Communities and the Jewish Community Relations Council of New York.

    Both McCain and Obama have made strong appeals to Jewish voters, particularly in critical states like Florida. Obama has emphasized to Jewish audiences his commitment to Israel's security, and has worked to dispel doubts created by false rumors that he is Muslim.
  • House Dems Shelve Iran ‘Naval Blockade’ Bill for Now
    September 26, 2008

    According to the Washington Times the Democratic leadership in the House of Representatives has shelved H.R. 362, fearing that the resolution would provoke a war with Iran.

    The bill, authored by Rep. Gary Ackerman (D - NY), urged the President, among other things, to prevent Iran from importing any refined petroleum products and demanded that he initiate an international effort to inspect “all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran.” Though non-binding, the resolution is essentially urging a naval blockade against Iran - an act of war according to international law.

    The bill was introduced on May 22, one day after the story broke that then Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert had urged House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D - CA) to impose a naval blockade on Iran as a way of stopping its uranium enrichment program. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee has endorsed the bill as a way to “stop Iran’s nuclear program.”

    Rep. Ackerman claims the bill “is a way to avoid war by using diplomatic, political and economic tools.” He also intends to resubmit the bill for the next Congress, and vowed to have even more signatures then. The current incarnation of the bill has 280 co-sponsors, but the Washington Times reports that several of the original co-sponsors have since withdrawn their signatures.

    There is also a sister bill to this, S.Res.580, in the Senate. The bill, introduced by Senator Evan Bayh (D - IN), has 50 cosponsors.

    September 27, 2008
    Iran Resolution Shelved in Rare Defeat for AIPAC

    In a significant and highly unusual defeat for the so-called "Israel Lobby," the Democratic leadership of the House of Representatives has decided to shelve a long-pending, albeit nonbinding, resolution that called for President George W. Bush to launch what critics called a blockade against Iran.

    House Congressional Resolution (HR) 362, whose passage the powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) had made its top legislative priority this year, had been poised to pass virtually by acclamation last summer.

    But an unexpectedly strong lobbying effort by a number of grassroots Iranian-American, Jewish-American, peace, and church groups effectively derailed the initiative, although AIPAC and its supporters said they would try to revive it next year or if Congress returns to Washington for a "lame-duck" session after the November elections

    Cracks in the AIPAC Stranglehold
    A Vote For Military Force Against Iran? AIPAC’s House Resolution, H. Con. Res. 362
    August 2nd, 2008

    Ordinarily, the American Israel Policy Action Committee (AIPAC) has an influence on U.S. foreign policy which goes unchallenged. In the case of the current House resolution, H. Con. Res. 362, despite the intense pressure exerted by AIPAC, some members of the United States House of Representatives who initially were about to rubber stamp this reckless non-binding resolution promoted by the powerful pro-Israel lobbying group, are having a change of heart. After receiving many thousands of messages which pointed out that the resolution could be interpreted as Congressional authorization for military action against Iran, some legislators began expressing their own reservations.

    On May 19, 2008, a 12-member House delegation led by House Speaker Pelosi met with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. At that lunch meeting, Olmert proposed that a naval blockade be imposed on Iran in order to stop its uranium enrichment program. Present at this meeting were Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman, and AIPAC loyalists Reps. Nita Lowey and Gary Ackerman. Three days after this meeting, Mr. Ackerman introduced the resolution H. Con. Res. 362 in the House.

    The legislation calls for “prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products; and imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran.” This certainly sounds as if the resolution is seeking the blockade which Prime Minister Olmert had requested. A military blockade is an act of war. The passage of this resolution would add the voice of the United States House of Representatives to the growing calls for armed intervention against Iran.

    AIPAC, the highly influential advocate for the Israeli government on Capitol Hill, is the author and tireless promoter of H. Con. Res. 362. Israel has openly declared that it seeks armed intervention in order to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapons capability. There are many in the Bush administration who are known to favor bombing either Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons sites or their military bases, among them, Vice President Dick Cheney. It was reported in Israel, and has since been corroborated by Time, that, during the President’s May visit to Israel, the U.S. delegation convinced the Israelis that America would attack Iran before the Bush term expired. Time claims that the administration has reversed its policy and now favors negotiations, although the U.S. government’s true intentions are not actually known.’s-house-resolution-h-con-res-362/

    Christians United for Israel and Attacking Iran
    The House's Iran resolution, sponsored by Representative Gary Ackerman (D-NY), demands the president impose "stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran." This legislation effectively requires a blockade on Iran which is considered by international law as an act of war. The Senate's Iran resolution, sponsored by Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN), would require a ban on "the importation of refined petroleum products to Iran." Neither resolution offers evidence on Iran's alleged pursuit of a nuclear weapon. Both neglect to mention any sanctions against the only country known to actually have developed nuclear weapons in the Middle East: Israel.


  • McCain and Obama Court Pro-War AIPAC


    "The Iranian regime supports violent extremists and challenges us across the region. It pursues a nuclear capability that could spark a dangerous arms race and raise the prospect of a transfer of nuclear know-how to terrorists. Its president denies the Holocaust and threatens to wipe Israel off the map. The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat." - Barack Obama, June 4, 2008

    Lost in translation
    Experts confirm that Iran's president did not call for Israel to be 'wiped off the map'. Reports that he did serve to strengthen western hawks.

    Ahmadinejad Censored, Distorted in US Media

    " book, I think, shows why Iranians are so skeptical and so dubious when they hear Americans saying: "We want to come to your country and push you towards democracy." They look at us and say: "Are you kidding? We had a democracy and you crushed it."  - Stephen Kinzer


    Democracy Now!
    August 25, 2003

    In 1953, the CIA and British intelligence orchestrated a coup d’etat that toppled the democratically elected government of Iran. The government of Mohammad Mossadegh. The aftershocks of the coup are still being felt.

    50 Years After the CIA’s First Overthrow of a Democratically Elected Foreign Government We Take a Look at the 1953 US Backed Coup in Iran.
    After nationalizing the oil industry Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh was overthrown in a coup orchestrated by the CIA and British intelligence.