Iran’s Nuclear Threat Is a Lie

[KILLER_CLOWN]

Iran’s Nuclear Threat Is a Lie

Obama’s “showdown” with Iran has another agenda. The media have been tasked with preparing the public for endless war

http://mkcommunists.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/obama_iran_080604_mn.jpg

John Pilger
New Statesman
Thursday, October 1, 2009

In 2001, the Observer published a series of reports that claimed an “Iraqi connection” to al-Qaeda, even describing the base in Iraq where the training of terrorists took place and a facility where anthrax was being manufactured as a weapon of mass destruction. It was all false. Supplied by US intelligence and Iraqi exiles, planted stories in the British and US media helped George Bush and Tony Blair to launch an illegal invasion which caused, according to the most recent study, 1.3 million deaths.

Something similar is happening over Iran: the same syncopation of government and media “revelations”, the same manufacture of a sense of crisis. “Showdown looms with Iran over secret nuclear plant”, declared the Guardian on 26 September. “Showdown” is the theme. High noon. The clock ticking. Good versus evil. Add a smooth new US president who has “put paid to the Bush years”. An immediate echo is the notorious Guardian front page of 22 May 2007: “Iran’s secret plan for summer offensive to force US out of Iraq”. Based on unsubstantiated claims by the Pentagon, the writer Simon Tisdall presented as fact an Iranian “plan” to wage war on, and defeat, US forces in Iraq by September of that year – a demonstrable falsehood for which there has been no retraction.

The official jargon for this kind of propaganda is “psy-ops”, the military term for psychological operations. In the Pentagon and Whitehall, it has become a critical component of a diplomatic and military campaign to blockade, isolate and weaken Iran by hyping its “nuclear threat”: a phrase now used incessantly by Barack Obama and Gordon Brown, and parroted by the BBC and other broadcasters as *objective news. And it is fake.

The threat is one-way

On 16 September, Newsweek disclosed that the major US intelligence agencies had reported to the White House that Iran’s “nuclear status” had not changed since the National Intelligence Estimate of November 2007, which stated with “high confidence” that Iran had halted in 2003 the programme it was alleged to have developed. The International Atomic Energy Agency has backed this, time and again.

The current propaganda derives from Obama’s announcement that the US is scrapping missiles stationed on Russia’s border. This serves to cover the fact that the number of US missile sites is actually expanding in Europe and the “redundant” missiles are being redeployed on ships. The game is to mollify Russia into joining, or not obstructing, the US campaign against Iran. “President Bush was right,” said Obama, “that Iran’s ballistic missile programme poses a significant threat [to Europe and the US].” That Iran would contemplate a suicidal attack on the US is preposterous. The threat, as ever, is one-way, with the world’s superpower virtually ensconced on Iran’s borders.

Iran’s crime is its independence. Having thrown out America’s favourite tyrant, Shah Reza Pahlavi, Iran remains the only resource-rich Muslim state beyond US control. As only Israel has a “right to exist” in the Middle East, the US goal is to cripple the Islamic Republic. This will allow Israel to divide and dominate the Middle East on Washington’s behalf, undeterred by a confident neighbour. If any country in the world has been handed urgent cause to develop a nuclear “deterrence”, it is Iran.

As one of the original signatories of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran has been a consistent advocate of a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East. In contrast, Israel has never agreed to an IAEA inspection, and its nuclear weapons plant at Dimona remains an open secret. Armed with as many as 200 active nuclear warheads, Israel “deplores” UN resolutions calling on it to sign the NPT, just as it deplored the recent UN report charging it with crimes against humanity in Gaza, just as it maintains a world record for violations of international law. It gets away with this because great power grants it immunity.

Preparing for endless war

Obama’s “showdown” with Iran has another agenda. On both sides of the Atlantic the media have been tasked with preparing the public for endless war. The US/Nato commander General Stanley McChrystal says 500,000 troops will be required in Afghanistan over five years, according to America’s NBC. The goal is control of the “strategic prize” of the gas and oilfields of the Caspian Sea, central Asia, the Gulf and Iran – in other words, Eurasia. But the war is opposed by 69 per cent of the British public, 57 per cent of the US public and almost every other human being. Convincing “us” that Iran is the new demon will not be easy. McChrystal’s spurious claim that Iran “is reportedly training fighters for certain Taliban groups” is as desperate as Brown’s pathetic echo of “a line in the sand”.

During the Bush years, according to the great whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, a military coup took place in the US, and the Pentagon is now ascendant in every area of American foreign policy. A measure of its control is the number of wars of aggression being waged simultaneously and the adoption of a “first-strike” doctrine that has lowered the threshold on nuclear weapons, together with the blurring of the distinction between nuclear and conventional weapons.

All this mocks Obama’s media rhetoric about “a world without nuclear weapons”. In fact, he is the Pentagon’s most important acquisition. His acquiescence with its demand that he keep on Bush’s secretary of “defence” and arch war-maker, Robert Gates, is unique in US history. He has proved his worth with stepped-up wars from south Asia to the Horn of Africa. Like Bush’s America, Obama’s America is run by some very dangerous people. We have a right to be warned. When will those paid to keep the record straight do their job?

http://www.newstatesman.com/international-politics/2009/10/iran-nuclear-pilger-obama

[banyon]

ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL

[Amnorix]

KC, you've got some serious competition for biggest loon. Right now it's TFG or whatever by a mile over you. You need to dig deeper into your bag of lunacy if you hope to compete. Good luck.

:popcorn:

[KILLER_CLOWN]

I've got nothing.
:popcorn:

FYP.

[banyon]

You've got nothing.

FYFYP.

.

[max sleeper]

Iran’s Nuclear Threat Is a Lie

Obama’s “showdown” with Iran has another agenda. The media have been tasked with preparing the public for endless war

http://mkcommunists.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/obama_iran_080604_mn.jpg

John Pilger
New Statesman
Thursday, October 1, 2009

In 2001, the Observer published a series of reports that claimed an “Iraqi connection” to al-Qaeda, even describing the base in Iraq where the training of terrorists took place and a facility where anthrax was being manufactured as a weapon of mass destruction. It was all false. Supplied by US intelligence and Iraqi exiles, planted stories in the British and US media helped George Bush and Tony Blair to launch an illegal invasion which caused, according to the most recent study, 1.3 million deaths.

Something similar is happening over Iran: the same syncopation of government and media “revelations”, the same manufacture of a sense of crisis. “Showdown looms with Iran over secret nuclear plant”, declared the Guardian on 26 September. “Showdown” is the theme. High noon. The clock ticking. Good versus evil. Add a smooth new US president who has “put paid to the Bush years”. An immediate echo is the notorious Guardian front page of 22 May 2007: “Iran’s secret plan for summer offensive to force US out of Iraq”. Based on unsubstantiated claims by the Pentagon, the writer Simon Tisdall presented as fact an Iranian “plan” to wage war on, and defeat, US forces in Iraq by September of that year – a demonstrable falsehood for which there has been no retraction.

The official jargon for this kind of propaganda is “psy-ops”, the military term for psychological operations. In the Pentagon and Whitehall, it has become a critical component of a diplomatic and military campaign to blockade, isolate and weaken Iran by hyping its “nuclear threat”: a phrase now used incessantly by Barack Obama and Gordon Brown, and parroted by the BBC and other broadcasters as *objective news. And it is fake.

The threat is one-way

On 16 September, Newsweek disclosed that the major US intelligence agencies had reported to the White House that Iran’s “nuclear status” had not changed since the National Intelligence Estimate of November 2007, which stated with “high confidence” that Iran had halted in 2003 the programme it was alleged to have developed. The International Atomic Energy Agency has backed this, time and again.

The current propaganda derives from Obama’s announcement that the US is scrapping missiles stationed on Russia’s border. This serves to cover the fact that the number of US missile sites is actually expanding in Europe and the “redundant” missiles are being redeployed on ships. The game is to mollify Russia into joining, or not obstructing, the US campaign against Iran. “President Bush was right,” said Obama, “that Iran’s ballistic missile programme poses a significant threat [to Europe and the US].” That Iran would contemplate a suicidal attack on the US is preposterous. The threat, as ever, is one-way, with the world’s superpower virtually ensconced on Iran’s borders.

Iran’s crime is its independence. Having thrown out America’s favourite tyrant, Shah Reza Pahlavi, Iran remains the only resource-rich Muslim state beyond US control. As only Israel has a “right to exist” in the Middle East, the US goal is to cripple the Islamic Republic. This will allow Israel to divide and dominate the Middle East on Washington’s behalf, undeterred by a confident neighbour. If any country in the world has been handed urgent cause to develop a nuclear “deterrence”, it is Iran.

As one of the original signatories of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran has been a consistent advocate of a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East. In contrast, Israel has never agreed to an IAEA inspection, and its nuclear weapons plant at Dimona remains an open secret. Armed with as many as 200 active nuclear warheads, Israel “deplores” UN resolutions calling on it to sign the NPT, just as it deplored the recent UN report charging it with crimes against humanity in Gaza, just as it maintains a world record for violations of international law. It gets away with this because great power grants it immunity.

Preparing for endless war

Obama’s “showdown” with Iran has another agenda. On both sides of the Atlantic the media have been tasked with preparing the public for endless war. The US/Nato commander General Stanley McChrystal says 500,000 troops will be required in Afghanistan over five years, according to America’s NBC. The goal is control of the “strategic prize” of the gas and oilfields of the Caspian Sea, central Asia, the Gulf and Iran – in other words, Eurasia. But the war is opposed by 69 per cent of the British public, 57 per cent of the US public and almost every other human being. Convincing “us” that Iran is the new demon will not be easy. McChrystal’s spurious claim that Iran “is reportedly training fighters for certain Taliban groups” is as desperate as Brown’s pathetic echo of “a line in the sand”.

During the Bush years, according to the great whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, a military coup took place in the US, and the Pentagon is now ascendant in every area of American foreign policy. A measure of its control is the number of wars of aggression being waged simultaneously and the adoption of a “first-strike” doctrine that has lowered the threshold on nuclear weapons, together with the blurring of the distinction between nuclear and conventional weapons.

All this mocks Obama’s media rhetoric about “a world without nuclear weapons”. In fact, he is the Pentagon’s most important acquisition. His acquiescence with its demand that he keep on Bush’s secretary of “defence” and arch war-maker, Robert Gates, is unique in US history. He has proved his worth with stepped-up wars from south Asia to the Horn of Africa. Like Bush’s America, Obama’s America is run by some very dangerous people. We have a right to be warned. When will those paid to keep the record straight do their job?

http://www.newstatesman.com/international-politics/2009/10/iran-nuclear-pilger-obama

KC= pay attention to me! I can and do sit on the internet all day looking for these loom articles so to keep the Conservative crazy train alive! Go Chiefs!

[KILLER_CLOWN]

FYFYP.

.

In time you will admit the man you voted for is a fascist.

[banyon]

In time you will admit the man you voted for is a fascist.

I certainly didn't admit that, as it's insane.

[Direckshun]

I will say this: is ANYBODY else startled the similarity of the arguments surrounding Iran right now and the arguments that led us into Iraq?

[KILLER_CLOWN]

I will say this: is ANYBODY else startled the similarity of the arguments surrounding Iran right now and the arguments that led us into Iraq?

This is about what i expected, The Neocon agenda is still alive and well.

[banyon]

This is about what i expected, The Neocon agenda is still alive and well.

Am I a NeoCon now?

I think this may be a first.

[KILLER_CLOWN]

Am I a NeoCon now?

I think this may be a first.

Well if you're being suckered into believing Iran is going to have a nuke soon, AND use it against the US or Israel then.....?

Did you support the invasion of Iraq? Afganistan?

[banyon]

Well if you're being suckered into believing Iran is going to have a nuke soon, AND use it against the US or Israel then.....?

Did you support the invasion of Iraq? Afganistan?

Yes, no , yes.

What does that mean?

[KILLER_CLOWN]

Yes, no , yes.

What does that mean?

You're subject to scararism, that's all.

[banyon]

You're subject to scararism, that's all.

how so?

[KILLER_CLOWN]

how so?

Well how do you think the right(including me at 1st) was suckered into believing Iraq had WMD's, Yellow Cake, Nerve Agents to support the 1st invasion?

[banyon]

Well how do you think the right(including me at 1st) was suckered into believing Iraq had WMD's, Yellow Cake, Nerve Agents to support the 1st invasion?

Uh, I wasnt' "suckered" into any of that and in fact, my posts on this site wouuld indicate that. So pretty much your post couldn't be more inapplicable.

[BucEyedPea]

I will say this: is ANYBODY else startled the similarity of the arguments surrounding Iran right now and the arguments that led us into Iraq?

Where have you been. I've been saying to Donger in his arguments. Deja Vue or Rinse and Repeat. Hillary up there sounding like a Valkyrie....and the NeoCons here eat it all up...they love it!

[KILLER_CLOWN]

Uh, I wasnt' "suckered" into any of that and in fact, my posts on this site wouuld indicate that. So pretty much your post couldn't be more inapplicable.

You just answered yes to supporting the invasion of Afghanistan correct?

[alnorth]

This is perhaps one of the stupidest articles I've seen (in terms of predictions and the conclusions reached). Not the stupidest, I've seen a lot of silly ones, but definitely top-10.

When you are copying-and-pasting, is there EVER a time when you stop and think, for at least a few moments, "can this really be true? I mean, really?"

The last few paragraphs doesnt even pass the giggle test. Its the sort of thing I'd expect from a far-left wing writer in a European country who hasnt got the slightest clue about American politics. I cant even imagine a conservative writing this here. (edit: no surprise, this was written by some British loon)

Do you really think president Obama, the guy who aside from congressman Paul was the earliest and strongest critic of the Iraq war of any high-profile 2008 presidential candidate, do you really think he is preparing us for a long horrific war with Iran?

Lets use Occam's razor to cut through the silliness. The media wants to sell newspapers and have high ratings. Iran is one of those stories that keeps on giving.

Obama likely has absolutely no intention whatsoever of attacking Iran short of a mushroom clown over Jerusalem. Maybe Bush, but predicting that Obama would fight a war against Iran short a fairly unexpected and crazy scenario, given what we know about his politics, is simply something that can not reasonably be believed until it happens. If Iran produces a stockpile of nuclear weapons tomorrow and proves their effectiveness with tests, the most we are doing is sanctions and a stern lecture.

[BucEyedPea]

One word north: Rahm Emmanuel. He alone creates the possibility. And this is just the start. Just as Iraq was started on years ago with sanctions. ( btw, I didn't read the article...just the title and some posts.) So Obama is paving the way with sanctions which will harm the people and embolden the mullahs.

[alnorth]

One word north: Rahm Emmanuel. He alone creates the possibility. And this is just the start. Just as Iraq was started on years ago with sanctions. ( btw, I didn't read the article...just the title and some posts.) So Obama is paving the way with sanctions which will harm the people and embolden the mullahs.

The shame of this is that since we arent mind-readers no one can conclusively prove that this article is a bunch of crap until 4 or 8 years from now, and by then these hilariously crazy stories will probably have been long forgotten by everyone. It'll just be another blip in the noise of this era alongside the birthers. Seriously, Obama plotting out the path to war with Iran is pretty close to Vince Foster on the crazy story scale.

[Saggysack]

Ouch, wicked slice there K_C.

[TFG]

"McChrystal’s spurious claim that Iran “is reportedly training fighters for certain Taliban groups” is as desperate as Brown’s pathetic echo of “a line in the sand”."



Yes, especially since Iran was arming and funding The Northern Alliance on 911 to fight the Taliban...


McChrystal is highly suspect. I don't trust him at all. All he is doing is asking for more troops. McKiernan did the same thing, and never got new troops because W was sukking his thumb in Iraq.


Anyone pushing for a US invasion of Iran is either a Zionist or a tool of Zionism.

[BigRedChief]

Am I a NeoCon now?

I think this may be a first.
Banyon is a neocon? who knew?:rolleyes:

[BucEyedPea]

Banyon is a neocon? who knew?:rolleyes:

NeoCons are lefties. Who else would wage war to implement democracies using lies that it's for pre-emptive defense. What next? Pre-crimes.
They're in both parties too, despite the mis-labeling. Nothing conservative about them at all though.

[wild1]

Save me some reading, is this another zionist conspiracy?

[HonestChieffan]

Save me some reading, is this another zionist conspiracy?

Possibly.

It could also be that there are some people who just dislike muslims and think a good shooting war with em is good sport.

Then there are those who see anything said by anyone that would lead to any action outside of our borders for any reason as being the venue of crazed neo-cons.

And there are those who think Jimmy Carter should negotiate with Iran cause he has experience.

Now stop just stirring the pot.

[banyon]

NeoCons are lefties. Who else would wage war to implement democracies using lies that it's for pre-emptive defense. What next? Pre-crimes.
They're in both parties too, despite the mis-labeling. Nothing conservative about them at all though.

I have opposed the Iraq War, since about 100 days before we started it to present.

And now you want to label me a NeoCon too?
Your labels are truly meaningless gibberish. If this isn't a paradigmatic example of that, I don't know what is.

Let's just be honest, NeoCon to you means "people I disagree with and/or don't like".

[banyon]

You just answered yes to supporting the invasion of Afghanistan correct?

Yes, what does that have to do with WMD or yellowcake?

[KILLER_CLOWN]

Ray Mcgovern on Iran and the scararism

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/tKK2qn7DyF8&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/tKK2qn7DyF8&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/iKtKCNkuO1U&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/iKtKCNkuO1U&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/BZIoPi_mfoY&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/BZIoPi_mfoY&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/2cSlYPUEYpY&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/2cSlYPUEYpY&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

[banyon]

Yes, what does that have to do with WMD or yellowcake?

:huh:

[KILLER_CLOWN]

:huh:

It has more to do with supporting an unjust war.

[banyon]

It has more to do with supporting an unjust war.

So, the yellowcake and WMD comments didn't apply then?

[KILLER_CLOWN]

So, the yellowcake and WMD comments didn't apply then?

I believe i said the "right" including me at the time. What did you think of the Mcgovern interview? Is he a kook?

[banyon]

I believe i said the "right" including me at the time. What did you think of the Mcgovern interview? Is he a kook?

The right was suckered into going into Afghanistan by WMD and yellowcake?

This was the exchange, right here, if you forgot:

Am I a NeoCon now?

I think this may be a first.

Well if you're being suckered into believing Iran is going to have a nuke soon, AND use it against the US or Israel then.....?

Did you support the invasion of Iraq? Afganistan?


Yes, no , yes.

What does that mean?

You're subject to scararism, that's all.

how so?

***break in logic appears to form here***

Well how do you think the right(including me at 1st) was suckered into believing Iraq had WMD's, Yellow Cake, Nerve Agents to support the 1st invasion

Uh, I wasnt' "suckered" into any of that and in fact, my posts on this site wouuld indicate that. So pretty much your post couldn't be more inapplicable.

You just answered yes to supporting the invasion of Afghanistan correct?

Yes, what does that have to do with WMD or yellowcake?

So, I don't think you ever answered the question "how so?" in this sequence unless you were somehow irrelevantly accusing me of buying lies about a competely different war.

[KILLER_CLOWN]

The right was suckered into going into Afghanistan by WMD and yellowcake?

This was the exchange, right here, if you forgot:



***break in logic appears to form here***


So, I don't think you ever answered the question "how so?" in this sequence unless you were somehow irrelevantly accusing me of buying lies about a competely different war.

We had troop buildup in Afghanistan before 9/11, Iraq and Afghanistan go hand in hand.

[banyon]

We had troop buildup in Afghanistan before 9/11, Iraq and Afghanistan go hand in hand.

I don't think I believe that, but that still doesn't explain at all how I'm "subject to scararism" because I thought we should go to war in Afghanistan.

[KILLER_CLOWN]

I don't think I believe that, but that still doesn't explain at all how I'm "subject to scararism" because I thought we should go to war in Afghanistan.

The boogeyman that is OBL, Al Qaeda, Taliban, ie scararism.

[KILLER_CLOWN]

The Afghanistan War was Planned
Months Before the 9/11 Attacks
Jane's Defense - India Joined US led plan against Afghanistan in March 2001.

"India joins anti-Taliban coalition"

By Rahul Bedi

India is believed to have joined Russia, the USA and Iran in a concerted front against Afghanistan's Taliban regime. [janes.com]


http://www.larouchepub.com/lar/2001/010420_nuclear_war_now.html

India Reacts - American government told other governments about Afghan invasion IN JUNE 2001.

In this article published in India in the summer of 2001 the Indian Government announces that it will support America's PLANNED military incursion into Afghanistan.

India in anti-Taliban military plan

India and Iran will "facilitate" the planned US-Russia hostilities against the Taliban.

By Our Correspondent

26 June 2001: India and Iran will "facilitate" US and Russian plans for "limited military action"
against the Taliban if the contemplated tough new economic sanctions don't bend Afghanistan's fundamentalist regime. The Taliban controls 90 per cent of Afghanistan and is advancing northward along the Salang highway and preparing for a rear attack on the opposition Northern Alliance from
Tajikistan-Afghanistan border positions.

Indian foreign secretary Chokila Iyer attended a crucial session of the second Indo-Russian joint working group on Afghanistan in Moscow amidst increase of Taliban's military activity near the Tajikistan border. And, Russia's Federal Security Bureau (the former KGB) chief Nicolai Patroshev is visiting Teheran this week in connection with Taliban's military build-up.

Indian officials say that India and Iran will only play the role of "facilitator" while the US and Russia will combat the Taliban from the front with the help of two Central Asian countries, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, to push Taliban lines back to the 1998 position 50 km away from Mazar-e-Sharief city in northern Afghanistan.

Military action will be the last option though it now seems scarcely avoidable with the UN banned from Taliban controlled areas. The UN which adopted various means in the last four years to resolve the Afghan problem is now being suspected by the Taliban and refused entry into Taliban areas of the war ravaged nation through a decree issued by Taliban chief Mullah Mohammad Omar last month. [indiareacts.com]

http://www.indiareacts.com/archivefeatures/nat2.asp?recno=10&mp;ctg=policy

BBC - American government told other governments about Afghan invasion IN JULY 2001.

US 'planned attack on Taleban'

The wider objective was to oust the Taleban

By the BBC's George Arney

A former Pakistani diplomat has told the BBC that the US was planning military action against Osama Bin Laden and the Taleban even before last week's attacks. Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October.

Mr Naik said US officials told him of the plan at a UN-sponsored international contact group on Afghanistan which took place in Berlin. Mr Naik told the BBC that at the meeting the US representatives told him that unless Bin Laden was handed over swiftly America would take military action to kill or capture both Bin Laden and the Taleban leader, Mullah Omar.

The wider objective, according to Mr Naik, would be to topple the Taleban regime and install a transitional government of moderate Afghans in its place - possibly under the leadership of the former Afghan King Zahir Shah. Mr Naik was told that Washington would launch its operation from bases in Tajikistan, where American advisers were already in place.

He was told that Uzbekistan would also participate in the operation and that 17,000 Russian troops were on standby. Mr Naik was told that if the military action went ahead it would take place before the snows started falling in Afghanistan, by the middle of October at the latest.

He said that he was in no doubt that after the World Trade Center bombings this pre-existing US plan had been built upon and would be implemented within two or three weeks. And he said it was doubtful that Washington would drop its plan even if Bin Laden were to be surrendered immediately by the Taleban. [BBC]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_1550000/1550366.stm

MSNBC - Afghanistan war plans were on Bush's desk on 9/9/2001

President Bush was expected to sign detailed plans for a worldwide war against al-Qaida two days before Sept. 11 but did not have the chance before the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, U.S. and foreign sources told NBC News. ... The plan dealt with all aspects of a war against al-Qaida, ranging from diplomatic initiatives to military operations in Afghanistan, the sources said on condition of anonymity. [MSNBC]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4587368/

In the summer of 2001, while the American media kept the people distracted with "All Condit All The Time", the US Government was informing other governments that we would be at war in Afghanistan no later than October.

How lucky for our government that just when they are planning to invade another country, for the express purpose of removing that government, a convenient "terrorist" attack occurs to anger Americans into support for an invasion.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc_newspaper.jpg

9/11 radio broadcast: "The Director of the CIA warned that there could be an attack—an imminent attack—on the United States of this nature. So this is not entirely unexpected." [Memory Hole]
9/11 CBS9 broadcast: "There are contigency plans set to go, and the plans have been set to go for several weeks now on what to do if Osama bin Laden were to plan a very large attack, and they've selected targets in Afghanistan, and you can be sure that if it is Osama bin Laden that the US will probably retaliate, and retaliate massively." WMV video download (172kB)
"To be truthful about it, there was no way we could have got the public consent to have suddenly launched a campaign on Afghanistan but for what happened on September 11."
Tony Blair. July 17, 2002 [Guardian]

http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/911_retaliate.wmv

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1036571,00.html

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/preplanned.html

[banyon]

The boogeyman that is OBL, Al Qaeda, Taliban, ie scararism.

I don't think OBL and Al Qaeda are the boogeyman. I think they are violent terrorists sworn to destroy our way of life.

What do you think they are? Innocent cab drivers?

Where did you come up with this word "scararism"? It appears to be made up.

[banyon]

How lucky for our government that just when they are planning to invade another country, for the express purpose of removing that government, a convenient "terrorist" attack occurs to anger Americans into support for an invasion.

Of course it was convenient for Bush's war plans, but it doesn't follow necessarily that he planned it. If they were planning to go into Iraq, why not pin 9-11 on Saddam? Why waste time with Afghanistan when Iraq was the country that they really wanted to invade?

Obama's failed olympic bid is convenient for those right wingers who were looking for another excuse to blast Obama's presidency. Do you think the Right wing media sabatoged the IOC bidding process? Of course not. Some times things go your way, sometimes they don't.

[KILLER_CLOWN]

Of course it was convenient for Bush's war plans, but it doesn't follow necessarily that he planned it. If they were planning to go into Iraq, why not pin 9-11 on Saddam? Why waste time with Afghanistan when Iraq was the country that they really wanted to invade?

Obama's failed olympic bid is convenient for those right wingers who were looking for another excuse to blast Obama's presidency. Do you think the Right wing media sabatoged the IOC bidding process? Of course not. Some times things go your way, sometimes they don't.

Appearantly it didn't really matter because we went and are still in Iraq, I don't think the olympics have anything to do with this, they're unimportant.

[KILLER_CLOWN]

I don't think OBL and Al Qaeda are the boogeyman. I think they are violent terrorists sworn to destroy our way of life.

What do you think they are? Innocent cab drivers?

Where did you come up with this word "scararism"? It appears to be made up.

What about Sybel Edmonds testimony that OBL and Al Qaeda worked for the US up until the day of 9/11?

[banyon]

Appearantly it didn't really matter because we went and are still in Iraq, I don't think the olympics have anything to do with this, they're unimportant.

I didn't support Iraq. Bueller? Anyone?


Am I talking to a wall here or what?

The Olympics was what we in the logic business call an analogy. That is, applying your arguments to a different situation and seeing how they work. not too well, obviously.

[banyon]

What about Sybel Edmonds testimony that OBL and Al Qaeda worked for the US up until the day of 9/11?

I have defendants in front of me all day that testify to all manner of lies. What corroborates it?

In any event, you seem to be confused about the burden of proof here.

You are trying to brand me a "scararist" (and NeoCon incidentally), but it's supposed to be abot me falsely believing incredible claims. Now you've shifted it around and if I don't believe every potentially converse data point, then I am supposed to be somehow blameworthy. Maybe you should step back and try actually scrutinizing the contrary data prior to calling people gullible for not believing it.

[banyon]

The Afghanistan War was Planned
Months Before the 9/11 Attacks
Jane's Defense - India Joined US led plan against Afghanistan in March 2001.

"India joins anti-Taliban coalition"

By Rahul Bedi

India is believed to have joined Russia, the USA and Iran in a concerted front against Afghanistan's Taliban regime. [janes.com]


http://www.larouchepub.com/lar/2001/010420_nuclear_war_now.html

India Reacts - American government told other governments about Afghan invasion IN JUNE 2001.

In this article published in India in the summer of 2001 the Indian Government announces that it will support America's PLANNED military incursion into Afghanistan.

India in anti-Taliban military plan

India and Iran will "facilitate" the planned US-Russia hostilities against the Taliban.

By Our Correspondent

26 June 2001: India and Iran will "facilitate" US and Russian plans for "limited military action"
against the Taliban if the contemplated tough new economic sanctions don't bend Afghanistan's fundamentalist regime. The Taliban controls 90 per cent of Afghanistan and is advancing northward along the Salang highway and preparing for a rear attack on the opposition Northern Alliance from
Tajikistan-Afghanistan border positions.

Indian foreign secretary Chokila Iyer attended a crucial session of the second Indo-Russian joint working group on Afghanistan in Moscow amidst increase of Taliban's military activity near the Tajikistan border. And, Russia's Federal Security Bureau (the former KGB) chief Nicolai Patroshev is visiting Teheran this week in connection with Taliban's military build-up.

Indian officials say that India and Iran will only play the role of "facilitator" while the US and Russia will combat the Taliban from the front with the help of two Central Asian countries, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, to push Taliban lines back to the 1998 position 50 km away from Mazar-e-Sharief city in northern Afghanistan.

Military action will be the last option though it now seems scarcely avoidable with the UN banned from Taliban controlled areas. The UN which adopted various means in the last four years to resolve the Afghan problem is now being suspected by the Taliban and refused entry into Taliban areas of the war ravaged nation through a decree issued by Taliban chief Mullah Mohammad Omar last month. [indiareacts.com]

http://www.indiareacts.com/archivefeatures/nat2.asp?recno=10&mp;ctg=policy

BBC - American government told other governments about Afghan invasion IN JULY 2001.

US 'planned attack on Taleban'

The wider objective was to oust the Taleban

By the BBC's George Arney

A former Pakistani diplomat has told the BBC that the US was planning military action against Osama Bin Laden and the Taleban even before last week's attacks. Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October.

Mr Naik said US officials told him of the plan at a UN-sponsored international contact group on Afghanistan which took place in Berlin. Mr Naik told the BBC that at the meeting the US representatives told him that unless Bin Laden was handed over swiftly America would take military action to kill or capture both Bin Laden and the Taleban leader, Mullah Omar.

The wider objective, according to Mr Naik, would be to topple the Taleban regime and install a transitional government of moderate Afghans in its place - possibly under the leadership of the former Afghan King Zahir Shah. Mr Naik was told that Washington would launch its operation from bases in Tajikistan, where American advisers were already in place.

He was told that Uzbekistan would also participate in the operation and that 17,000 Russian troops were on standby. Mr Naik was told that if the military action went ahead it would take place before the snows started falling in Afghanistan, by the middle of October at the latest.

He said that he was in no doubt that after the World Trade Center bombings this pre-existing US plan had been built upon and would be implemented within two or three weeks. And he said it was doubtful that Washington would drop its plan even if Bin Laden were to be surrendered immediately by the Taleban. [BBC]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_1550000/1550366.stm

MSNBC - Afghanistan war plans were on Bush's desk on 9/9/2001

President Bush was expected to sign detailed plans for a worldwide war against al-Qaida two days before Sept. 11 but did not have the chance before the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, U.S. and foreign sources told NBC News. ... The plan dealt with all aspects of a war against al-Qaida, ranging from diplomatic initiatives to military operations in Afghanistan, the sources said on condition of anonymity. [MSNBC]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4587368/

In the summer of 2001, while the American media kept the people distracted with "All Condit All The Time", the US Government was informing other governments that we would be at war in Afghanistan no later than October.

How lucky for our government that just when they are planning to invade another country, for the express purpose of removing that government, a convenient "terrorist" attack occurs to anger Americans into support for an invasion.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc_newspaper.jpg

9/11 radio broadcast: "The Director of the CIA warned that there could be an attack—an imminent attack—on the United States of this nature. So this is not entirely unexpected." [Memory Hole]
9/11 CBS9 broadcast: "There are contigency plans set to go, and the plans have been set to go for several weeks now on what to do if Osama bin Laden were to plan a very large attack, and they've selected targets in Afghanistan, and you can be sure that if it is Osama bin Laden that the US will probably retaliate, and retaliate massively." WMV video download (172kB)
"To be truthful about it, there was no way we could have got the public consent to have suddenly launched a campaign on Afghanistan but for what happened on September 11."
Tony Blair. July 17, 2002 [Guardian]

http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/911_retaliate.wmv

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1036571,00.html

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/preplanned.html

Even among all this dubious and sketchy garbage, I still didn't see a word about this alleged pre-Afghanistan troop build up.

[KILLER_CLOWN]

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad revealed to have Jewish past

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's vitriolic attacks on the Jewish world hide an astonishing secret, evidence uncovered by The Daily Telegraph shows.



By Damien McElroy and Ahmad Vahdat
Published: 7:30AM BST 03 Oct 2009
Ahmadinejad showing papers during election
Ahmadinejad showing papers during election. It shows that his family's previous name was Jewish

A photograph of the Iranian president holding up his identity card during elections in March 2008 clearly shows his family has Jewish roots.

A close-up of the document reveals he was previously known as Sabourjian – a Jewish name meaning cloth weaver.

The short note scrawled on the card suggests his family changed its name to Ahmadinejad when they converted to embrace Islam after his birth.

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01494/ahm_1494743f.jpg

Ahmadinejad showing papers during election. It shows that his family's previous name was Jewish

The Sabourjians traditionally hail from Aradan, Mr Ahmadinejad's birthplace, and the name derives from "weaver of the Sabour", the name for the Jewish Tallit shawl in Persia. The name is even on the list of reserved names for Iranian Jews compiled by Iran's Ministry of the Interior.

Experts last night suggested Mr Ahmadinejad's track record for hate-filled attacks on Jews could be an overcompensation to hide his past.

Ali Nourizadeh, of the Centre for Arab and Iranian Studies, said: "This aspect of Mr Ahmadinejad's background explains a lot about him.

"Every family that converts into a different religion takes a new identity by condemning their old faith.

"By making anti-Israeli statements he is trying to shed any suspicions about his Jewish connections. He feels vulnerable in a radical Shia society."

A London-based expert on Iranian Jewry said that "jian" ending to the name specifically showed the family had been practising Jews.

"He has changed his name for religious reasons, or at least his parents had," said the Iranian-born Jew living in London. "Sabourjian is well known Jewish name in Iran."

A spokesman for the Israeli embassy in London said it would not be drawn on Mr Ahmadinejad's background. "It's not something we'd talk about," said Ron Gidor, a spokesman.

The Iranian leader has not denied his name was changed when his family moved to Tehran in the 1950s. But he has never revealed what it was change from or directly addressed the reason for the switch.

Relatives have previously said a mixture of religious reasons and economic pressures forced his blacksmith father Ahmad to change when Mr Ahmadinejad was aged four.

The Iranian president grew up to be a qualified engineer with a doctorate in traffic management. He served in the Revolutionary Guards militia before going on to make his name in hardline politics in the capital.

During this year's presidential debate on television he was goaded to admit that his name had changed but he ignored the jibe.

However Mehdi Khazali, an internet blogger, who called for an investigation of Mr Ahmadinejad's roots was arrested this summer.

Mr Ahmadinejad has regularly levelled bitter criticism at Israel, questioned its right to exist and denied the Holocaust. British diplomats walked out of a UN meeting last month after the Iranian president denounced Israel's 'genocide, barbarism and racism.'

Benjamin Netanyahu made an impassioned denunciation of the Iranian leader at the same UN summit. "Yesterday, the man who calls the Holocaust a lie spoke from this podium," he said. "A mere six decades after the Holocaust, you give legitimacy to a man who denies the murder of six million Jews while promising to wipe out the State of Israel, the State of the Jews. What a disgrace. What a mockery of the charter of the United Nations."

Mr Ahmadinejad has been consistently outspoken about the Nazi attempt to wipe out the Jewish race. "They have created a myth today that they call the massacre of Jews and they consider it a principle above God, religions and the prophets," he declared at a conference on the holocaust staged in Tehran in 2006.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/6256173/Mahmoud-Ahmadinejad-revealed-to-have-Jewish-past.html

[banyon]

http://www.cynical-c.com/archives/bloggraphics/BatBoyFBI.jpg

[KILLER_CLOWN]

http://www.cynical-c.com/archives/bloggraphics/BatBoyFBI.jpg

Banyon a moonbat? whoda thunk it?

[banyon]

Banyon a moonbat? whoda thunk it?

You're a cantaloupe.

[KILLER_CLOWN]

You're a cantaloupe.

I'll take that over a moonbat anyday. :D and no i don't believe in self fulfilling prophecies. I take it you consider the Telegraph on par with the supermarket tabloids eh?

[banyon]

I'll take that over a moonbat anyday. :D and no i don't believe in self fulfilling prophecies. I take it you consider the Telegraph on par with the supermarket tabloids eh?

Oh, now you want to make credibility distinctions?


Weekly World New : Telegraph :: Prison Planet : Actual Journalism

[KILLER_CLOWN]

Oh, now you want to make credibility distinctions?


Weekly World New : Telegraph :: Prison Planet : Actual Journalism

No you're the one demanding that someone within your circle of friends reports it or it didn't happen, i was just curious who you knew?

[banyon]

No you're the one demanding that someone within your circle of friends reports it or it didn't happen, i was just curious who you knew?

I am? Where did I demand that?

[banyon]

BTW any word on the Afghanistan troop build up, or going to withdraw that one now?

[KILLER_CLOWN]

BTW any word on the Afghanistan troop build up, or going to withdraw that one now?

The evidence was posted but i'm not sure it jives with your circle of friends since they didn't report it. Check the archives maybe Chris Mathews posted something.

[KILLER_CLOWN]

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/or0UDnpL7cE&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/or0UDnpL7cE&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

[banyon]

The evidence was posted but i'm not sure it jives with your circle of friends since they didn't report it. Check the archives maybe Chris Mathews posted something.

I'm not sure how "not prison planet or the weekly world news" = my circle of friends. I hope you didn't shatter your ankle on that logical leap.

What post was the information allegedly contained in?

[wild1]

So he is self-loathing over his Jewish roots, what other despot does that remind us of?

[BucEyedPea]

So he is self-loathing over his Jewish roots, what other despot does that remind us of?

Cheney? He may not be Jewish but he's a despot.

[wild1]

Cheney? He may not be Jewish but he's a despot.

Like I said, you should be behind glass, and I should be paying admission to see you.

[Calcountry]

Bush=War Bad
Obama=War Good

Thread over.

[BucEyedPea]

Like I said, you should be behind glass, and I should be paying admission to see you.

That's what the majority of Americans think about NeoCon Republicans who they voted out of power. Here's laughing at you. ( who has nothin')
And ftr, Obama should fire that insurbordinate Gen. McKristol, while he's at it too and pull out of Afghanistan.

[banyon]

Bush=War Bad
Obama=War Good

Thread over.

Who said anything like this?

[wild1]

That's what the majority of Americans think about NeoCon Republicans who they voted out of power. Here's laughing at you. ( who has nothin')
And ftr, Obama should fire that insurbordinate Gen. McKristol, while he's at it too and pull out of Afghanistan.

You twitter nonsensical phrases like my daughter playing in her room by herself, except not as cute.

[BucEyedPea]

You twitter nonsensical phrases like my daughter playing in her room by herself, except not as cute.

So you admit you got nuthin' then, right? Yup!

[TFG]

That's what the majority of Americans think about NeoCon Republicans who they voted out of power. Here's laughing at you. ( who has nothin')
And ftr, Obama should fire that insurbordinate Gen. McKristol, while he's at it too and pull out of Afghanistan.



It is actually a very sad sign that Obama put McChrystal in charge of Afghan. McChrystal is playing politics with the assignment, in part because he knows that, after W's flip off of The Northern Alliance, the assignment is virtually impossible.

[wild1]

So you admit you got nuthin' then, right? Yup!

How does one respond to you? It would be like trying to answer a query as to what kind of trees strawberries grow on.

[patteeu]

I believe i said the "right" including me at the time. What did you think of the Mcgovern interview? Is he a kook?

Yes, he is.

[KILLER_CLOWN]

Yes, he is.

Raymond McGovern (born 1939) is a retired CIA officer turned political activist. McGovern was a Federal employee under seven U.S. presidents over 27 years, presenting the morning intelligence briefings at the White House for many of them.

McGovern was born and raised in the Bronx. He graduated summa cum laude of Fordham University. A "Distinguished Military Graduate", he served in the US Army from 1962-64 as an intelligence officer. McGovern also received an M.A. in Russian Studies from Fordham University, a certificate in Theological Studies from Georgetown University and was a graduate of Harvard Business School's Advanced Management Program.

McGovern was a mid-level officer in the CIA in the 1960s where his focus was analysis of Soviet policy toward Vietnam. McGovern was one of President Ronald Reagan's intelligence briefers from 1981-85; he was in charge of preparing daily security briefs for Reagan, Vice President George H.W. Bush, the National Security Advisor, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Cabinet. Later, McGovern was one of several senior CIA analysts who prepared the President's Daily Brief (PDB) during the first Bush administration.

Upon retirement, McGovern was awarded the Intelligence Commendation Medal from Bush (which he later returned, see below) and worked for Washington-based non-profits before becoming co-director of the Servant Leadership School in Washington.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_McGovern

[KILLER_CLOWN]

Americans manufacture another nuclear crisis

ERIC MARGOLIS
Toronto Sun
Monday, Oct 5th, 2009

NEW YORK — The U.S., Britain and France staged a bravura performance of political theatre last week by claiming to have just “discovered” a secret Iran uranium enrichment plant near Qum. On cue, a carefully orchestrated media blitz trumpeted warnings of the alleged Iranian nuclear threat and “long-ranged missiles.”

In reality, the Qum plant was detected by U.S. spy satellites over two years ago, and was known to the intelligence community. Iran claimed the plant will not begin enriching uranium for peaceful power for another 540 days. UN nuclear rules, to which Iran adheres, calls for 180 days notice.

UN nuclear watchdogs say Iran should have revealed the plant earlier. Iran alerted the UN last week and said it would invite inspectors.

The reluctance of Iran to reveal its nuclear sites is magnified by constant threats of attack against them by Israel and the U.S. Iran also recalls Iraq, where many of the UN “nuclear inspectors” were likely spies for CIA or Israel’s Mossad. This may explain some of Iran’s secretive behaviour. The U.S., Britain, France and Israel have been even less forthcoming about their nuclear secrets.

Iran’s test of some useless short ranged missiles, and an inaccurate 2,000-km medium ranged Shahab-3, provoked more hysteria. In a choice example of media scaremongering, the Globe and Mail printed a picture of a 1960s vintage SAM-2 anti-aircraft missile being launched, with a caption of Prime Minister Stephen Harper warning of the “grave threat” Iran posed to “international peace and security.”

Welcome to Iraq deja vu, and another phony crisis. U.S. intelligence and UN inspectors say Iran has no nuclear weapons and certainly no nuclear warheads and is only enriching uranium to 5%. Nuclear weapons require 95%. Iran's nuclear facilities are under constant UN inspection and U.S. surveillance.

The U.S., its allies, and Israel insist Iran is secretly developing nuclear warheads. They demand Tehran prove a negative: That is has no nuclear weapons. Iraq was also put to the same impossible test.

Israel is deeply alarmed by Iran's challenge to its Mideast nuclear monopoly. Chances of an Israeli attack on Iran are growing weekly, though the U.S. is still restraining Israel.

The contrived uproar about the Qum plant was a ploy to intensify pressure on Iran to cease nuclear enrichment -- though it has every right to do so under international agreements. More pressure will be applied at this week's meeting near Geneva between the Western powers and Iran.

Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, poured fuel on the fire, again questioning the Holocaust and staging the ostentatious launch of missiles with little military value.

Why did Ahmadinejad antagonize the West and act belligerent when he should be taking a very low profile? Why would Iran face devastating Israeli or U.S. attack to keep enriching uranium when it can import such fuel from Russia?

Civilian nuclear power has become the keystone of Iranian national pride. As noted in my new book, American Raj, Iran's leadership insists the West has denied the Muslim world modern technology and tries to keep it backwards and subservient. Tehran believes it can withstand all western sanctions.

Iran appears to be very slowly developing a "breakout" capability to produce a small number of nuclear weapons on short notice -- for defensive purposes. Iraq's invasion of Iran cost Iran one million casualties. Iran demands the same right of nuclear self defence enjoyed by neighbours Israel, India and Pakistan.

Real solution

What Iran really wants is an end to 30-years of U.S. efforts to overthrow its Islamic regime. The U.S. is still waging economic warfare against Iran and trying to overthrow the Tehran government. Like North Korea, Iran wants explicit guarantees from Washington that this siege warfare will stop and relations with the U.S. will be normalized.

As Flynt and Hillary Leverett conclude in their excellent, must-read Sept. 29 New York Times article, detente with Iran will be bitterly opposed by "those who attach value to failed policies that have damaged America's interests in the Middle East ... "

http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/eric_margolis/2009/10/04/11284441-sun.html