Anwaar
Administrator
Speak the truth and keep on coming.
Posts: 463
|
Post by Anwaar on Feb 21, 2007 0:13:42 GMT 4
US 'Iran attack plans' revealedBBC NewsUS contingency plans for air strikes on Iran extend beyond nuclear sites and include most of the country's military infrastructure, the BBC has learned. It is understood that any such attack - if ordered - would target Iranian air bases, naval bases, missile facilities and command-and-control centres. The US insists it is not planning to attack, and is trying to persuade Tehran to stop uranium enrichment. The UN has urged Iran to stop the programme or face economic sanctions. But diplomatic sources have told the BBC that as a fallback plan, senior officials at Central Command in Florida have already selected their target sets inside Iran. That list includes Iran's uranium enrichment plant at Natanz. Facilities at Isfahan, Arak and Bushehr are also on the target list, the sources say. Two triggersBBC security correspondent Frank Gardner says the trigger for such an attack reportedly includes any confirmation that Iran was developing a nuclear weapon - which it denies. Alternatively, our correspondent adds, a high-casualty attack on US forces in neighbouring Iraq could also trigger a bombing campaign if it were traced directly back to Tehran. Long range B2 stealth bombers would drop so-called "bunker-busting" bombs in an effort to penetrate the Natanz site, which is buried some 25m (27 yards) underground. The BBC's Tehran correspondent Frances Harrison says the news that there are now two possible triggers for an attack is a concern to Iranians. Authorities insist there is no cause for alarm but ordinary people are now becoming a little worried, she says. DeadlineEarlier this month US officers in Iraq said they had evidence Iran was providing weapons to Iraqi Shia militias. However the most senior US military officer later cast doubt on this, saying that they only had proof that weapons "made in Iran" were being used in Iraq. Gen Peter Pace, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, said he did not know that the Iranian government "clearly knows or is complicit" in this. At the time, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said the accusations were "excuses to prolong the stay" of US forces in Iraq. Middle East analysts have recently voiced their fears of catastrophic consequences for any such US attack on Iran. Britain's previous ambassador to Tehran, Sir Richard Dalton, told the BBC it would backfire badly by probably encouraging the Iranian government to develop a nuclear weapon in the long term. Last year Iran resumed uranium enrichment - a process that can make fuel for power stations or, if greatly enriched, material for a nuclear bomb. Tehran insists its programme is for civil use only, but Western countries suspect Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons. The UN Security Council has called on Iran to suspend its enrichment of uranium by 21 February. If it does not, and if the International Atomic Energy Agency confirms this, the resolution says that further economic sanctions will be considered. Story from BBC NEWS:
news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/6376639.stm
Published: 2007/02/20 10:28:34 GMT
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Feb 22, 2007 14:15:04 GMT 4
The Neo-Con Dog That Isn't BarkingAs I listen to and read the latest news out there, it seems to me that the White House's bite just isn't as threatening as it once was. One gets the feeling that the powers that be are turning on their once useful puppets. Not that the regime change they're preparing us for is much better. Our history has shown us that citizens are given 'concessions' when the public begins to stir in anger. Anyway, Jim Lobe has put his finger on the pulse of politics with his analysis on what appears to be a lack of support for an attack on Iran; the massive press buildup and preparative spin that we saw before the invasion of Iraq isn't there....MichelleThe Neo-Con Dog That Isn't BarkingAnalysis by Jim Lobe WASHINGTON, Feb 16 (IPS) - For several weeks now, Washington has been abuzz with rumours that U.S. President George W. Bush is preparing to attack nuclear and other sites in Iran this spring -- rumours deemed sufficiently credible that lawmakers from both parties are hastily preparing legislation precisely to prevent such an eventuality. The evidence cannot be ignored. As cited by former CIA officer Philip Giraldi in the most recent edition of American Conservative, Bush's charges that Iran is supplying bombs to Shi'a militias to kill U.S. soldiers in Iraq; the seizure by U.S. forces of Iranian diplomatic and intelligence officials there; the deployment of two aircraft carrier groups with a flotilla of minesweepers to the Gulf; the supply of Patriot anti-missile batteries to Washington's allies in the region; the unprecedented appointment of a navy admiral and former combat pilot as the head of Central Command; the "surge" of as many as 40,000 troops into Iraq; persistent reports of U.S. covert operations inside Iran -- all suggest that Washington is preparing for a military confrontation, and soon. No one doubts that the administration has developed detailed plans for attacking Iran and is certainly putting in place a formidable armada that, if so ordered, has the means to carry out those plans without delay. But if indeed a decision has already been made, it appears that the faction that led the pro-war propaganda offensive in the run-up to the Iraq invasion and that has long favoured "regime change" in Iraq -- the neo-conservatives -- has either not been clued in, or more likely, believes that any such attack is still some time off, if it takes place at all. It is not that the "neo-cons" don't favour war with Iran if diplomatic and other means fail to achieve either regime change or, at the very least, Tehran's abandonment of its nuclear programme. The group, whose views on the Middle East generally span those of Israel's Likud Party and the extreme right, has long warned that a nuclear-armed Iran is, in Bush's words, "unacceptable" and that military means to prevent that outcome must be used if all other means fail. "The only way to forestall an Iranian nuke," wrote Joshua Muravchik, a leading neo-con polemicist at the American Enterprise Institute in this month's Foreign Service Journal, "...is by military strikes to cripple the regime's nuclear programme." It is, rather, more the fact that the neo-cons, who helped lead the year-long propaganda campaign to rally the country behind the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 with an admirable single-mindedness and urgency, appear far less focused on Iran, at least for the moment. If an attack on Iran is on the near-term agenda, the neo-conservatives have been decidedly off-message. The contrast with the run-up to the Iraq war is instructive. For a full year or more before the March 2003 invasion, the neo-cons and their major media outlets -- notably, the Weekly Standard, the National Review Online, the Wall Street Journal editorial page, the New York Post, and Fox News -- kept up a virtually daily drumbeat of op-ed articles, television appearances, and selective leaks by their confreres within the administration with only one aim in mind: to persuade the public that Saddam Hussein represented such a threat that he could only be dealt with by military means. As the invasion drew near, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the movement's de facto headquarters, drew scores of reporters to its weekly "black coffee briefings", where such neo-con worthies as Weekly Standard editor William Kristol, then-Defence Policy Board chairman Richard Perle, former CIA director James Woolsey, and Iraq National Congress leader Ahmad Chalabi held forth on the evils of the Ba'athist regime and the regional implications of the forthcoming "liberation" of the Iraq people. Carefully orchestrated and coordinated with their comrades in the offices of Vice President Dick Cheney and former Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld, neo-cons were able to create a powerful media "echo chambre" that, by late 2002, centred entirely on Iraq, and the necessity of going to war, to the exclusion of almost everything else. Their discipline and focus on Iraq four years ago has been nowhere in evidence with respect to Iran over the past month. Judging by their writings and television appearances, they have seemed far more concerned with the growing public and Congressional pressure to begin withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq and prevent Bush from adding more forces there. That has been the overriding preoccupation of Kristol's Weekly Standard, National Review Online and the Wall Street Journal's editorial page. Article after article has assailed turncoat Republicans, as well as "defeatist" Democrats, for opposing the surge, as it has been for AEI, which has held four briefings on Iraq compared to only one on Iran in the past two months. Despite the sharply rising tensions between Iran and the U.S. over the past month, for example, the lead editorials of the last four issues of the Standard -- always a reliable indication of neo-con priorities -- were all devoted to rallying lawmakers behind the surge. That doesn't mean that Iran is not a major concern -- and ultimate target for the neo-cons. Indeed, the cover story of this week's Standard, entitled "Iran's Obsession with the Jews: Denying the Holocaust, Desiring Another One", shows no hesitation in building up the case for eventual war against Tehran. But the same issue ran yet another story that illustrates the relative lack of urgency for war: "Sanctions Against Iran Would Work," it was entitled, although its subtitle, "Too Bad They Won't Be Tried", hinted at the inevitability of war. Nonetheless, to the extent that neo-cons, and their allies in the right-wing "Israel Lobby", are addressing themselves to Iran policy at the moment, expanding and enforcing sanctions, rather than imminent war, appears to be the main message. Indeed, AEI fellows and fixtures in its "black coffee briefings" four years ago, Reuel Marc Gerecht and Gary Schmitt, just published an article this week on precisely this theme in the 'Financial Times': "How the West Can Avert War With Iran." Similarly, television ads by the neo-conservative American Foreign Policy Council running on the major cable television networks in the Washington D.C. area at the moment warn the viewer about Iran's nuclear programme, its status as "the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism", and its president's alleged Holocaust denial and threats to "wipe Israel off the map". But they conclude with the relatively anodyne exhortation: "Call the White House and tell them to enforce sanctions against Iran today." Not exactly what one would expect on the eve of a military attack. This tack may simply be a ruse to lull anti-war forces into complacency. Or it may reflect a fear that, given their record on Iraq, beating the drums for war with Iran may prove counter-productive (although AEI has not hesitated to take credit for the "surge" option). Or it may indicate that prominent neo-cons have somehow lost touch with the hawks in the White House and Cheney's office who are now determined to go to attack Iran this spring. But it may also reflect the neo-cons' assessment, based no doubt on inside information, that Bush -- who spoke about U.S. policy on Afghanistan at AEI Thursday -- intends to let the diplomatic game play out a little longer, perhaps as long as another year, before deciding to attack. (END/2007) Source: ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=36604
|
|
|
Post by evelyn on Mar 5, 2007 0:06:20 GMT 4
Arthur Silber, Dispatch from Germany, Summer of 1939 (III): Building an Effective Resistancepowerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2007/02/dispatch-from-germany-summer-of-1939_26.html 1. The criminal and immoral nature of an attack on Iran in the present circumstances and in the foreseeable future must be identified and stated with all the force imaginable, without qualification, in virtually every interview, every television appearance, and every news story that any politician (or any other public figure) takes part in, beginning tomorrow. THE INSANITY AND CRIMINALITY OF SUCH AN ATTACK MUST BE MADE NATIONAL TOPIC NUMBER ONE, UNTIL THIS ADMINISTRATION FULLY AND COMPLETELY DISAVOWS ANY AND ALL SUCH INTENTIONS AND PLANS -- AND UNTIL THE MAGNITUDE OF PUBLIC OPPOSITION CONVINCES US THAT THEY MEAN IT. 2. In every statement about an attack on Iran, no opponent of this administration can accept any of the terms of debate chosen by the administration. Such opponents must argue on completely different terms. If you argue within the framework they prefer to any extent at all, you will lose -- and the next global war may begin.
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Apr 5, 2007 14:50:25 GMT 4
Excerpts: Ahmadinejad announces release Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced at a news conference in Tehran that the 15 British sailors and marines would be freed as a "gift to the British people". The following is a partial transcript from the news conference. "On the occasion of the birth anniversary of the great prophet of Islam, and on the occasion of Easter and Passover, I would like to announce that the great nation of Iran, while it is entitled to put the British military personnel on trial, has pardoned these 15 sailors and gives their release to the people of Britain as a gift. "I would like Mr Blair's government not to punish the sailors for acknowledging and telling the truth. "After this meeting they are free. They can go to the airport and they can go to their families. "I ask Mr Blair instead of occupying the other countries, I ask Mr Blair to think about the justice - to think about the truth and work for the British people not for himself." He said the British people should be told the truth about what the "British soldiers" were doing in Iranian waters. "Unfortunately, the British government not even was brave to tell their people - to tell them the truth - and tell them that [there] was a mistake. I'm sure the British people have every right to ask their government... what their soldiers were doing in Iraq or in Iranian water. I leave it to the British people to decide." Mr Ahmadinejad said the people of Iran were very upset at what he called the "invasion by the British sailors". And he praised the bravery of the Iranian commander who captured the Brits. "At this moment I wanted to say on behalf of the Iranian people - I wanted to thank the people who... arrested [them], I'm... admiring the commander who managed to capture these people who came to our water. I wanted to thank him for his braveness and I give him the third kind of medal." The BBC's Frances Harrison asked him what prompted his change of heart. "I didn't change my decision suddenly. From the beginning, I didn't want to have any confrontation. We wanted our rights and we really didn't want to have any confrontation. The British government behaved badly and it took longer. " In response to another reporter's question, President Ahmadinejad said that no concessions had been made by the British government in order to secure the releases, but that the British government had assured Iran the incident would not be repeated. "Nothing specifically has been done by the United Kingdom. The UK government has sent a note, a memo, to the ministry of foreign affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and in that letter they mentioned that incident would not be repeated. Of course, that decision that we are going to release the 15 British sailors is not related to that letter, and it was a present from the Iranian people to the British people." Our correspondent also asked President Ahmadinejad if he had any message for the 15 sailors and marines. "These personnel are the same as the other people... We respect them as human [beings] and the messages are what I said - we are a peaceful people, we want to have peace and security - we want peace and security for all people. "We are very upset that the British people... [went] to [war] and thousands of kilometres far away from their country, fighting somewhere which is not legal - we are upset about that." Source:news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6526615.stm------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Oil Falls After Iran's President Says He Will Release Britons By Mark Shenk April 4 (Bloomberg) -- Crude oil fell in New York after Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that he will release 15 seized Britons, easing concern of a conflict in the Persian Gulf. Prices surged to a seven-month high last week after Iran seized the sailors and marines in waters separating Iran and Iraq. The standoff has heightened tensions with Iran, which is under United Nations sanctions for its nuclear program. Prices pared losses after an Energy Department report showed that U.S. gasoline supplies plunged for an eighth week. ``There was at least $3 to $4 added to the price of oil as a result of the seizure,'' said Rick Mueller, an analyst with Energy Security Analysis Inc. in Tilburg, the Netherlands. ``This won't suddenly lead to a recovery of Iraqi production or OPEC increasing its output but it does reduce a lot of concern about the flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz.'' Crude oil for May delivery fell 26 cents, or 0.4 percent, to settle at $64.38 a barrel at 2:50 p.m. on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Futures touched $68.09 a barrel on March 27, the highest since Sept. 6. Prices are down 2.8 percent from a year ago. Almost a quarter of the world's oil flows through the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow waterway between Iran and Oman at the mouth of the Persian Gulf. Iran has the second-biggest proved oil reserves and is the second-biggest producer in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. A Gift ``The great Iranian people and the Islamic republic, despite having the legal right to put these British sailors on trial, will pardon them,'' Ahmadinejad said. ``Their release will be given to the British population as a gift.'' The Britons were still in Iranian hands and officials were determining the arrangements for their release, a spokesman for the British Embassy in Tehran said at 6 p.m. London time. Agence France-Presse cited an aide to Ahmadinejad as telling the state- run Mehr news agency that the handover of the detainees will take place tomorrow. ``Prices won't fall that much because demand is strong and inventories are tight,'' said Phil Flynn, a commodities trader for Chicago-based Alaron Trading. ``We haven't lost any oil from the Persian Gulf as a result of the tensions with Iran. OPEC has cut back production and this is leading to tighter inventories.'' OPEC cut output 190,000 barrels a day to an average 29.88 million barrels a day in March, a Bloomberg News survey of oil companies, producers and analysts showed. Plunging Gasoline Stockpiles Gasoline stockpiles tumbled 5.03 million barrels to 205.2 million in the week ended March 30, the department reported. A drop of 150,000 barrels was expected, according to the median of forecasts by 14 analysts surveyed by Bloomberg News. Supplies slipped 9.7 percent in the past eight weeks. Refineries operated at 87 percent of capacity last week, unchanged from the week before. Gasoline production fell 155,000 barrels to an average 8.77 million barrels a day, the report showed. U.S. refiners usually increase gasoline output at this time of year in preparation for the peak-demand summer months, when motorists take to the road for vacations. ``Refinery runs are terribly low for this time of year,'' said Michael Fitzpatrick, vice president for energy risk management at Fimat USA in New York. ``Refining is the chokepoint, which has been the case the last couple of years.'' Crude-oil supplies surged 4.31 million barrels to 332.7 million barrels last week, the report showed. A gain of 500,000 barrels was expected, according to the Bloomberg survey. ``Crude oil is only down about 40 cents after supplies rose more than 4 million barrels and Ahmadinejad made his speech releasing the British forces, which shows that there is still a lot of strength in the market,'' Fitzpatrick said. Gasoline for May delivery in New York jumped 8.77 cents, or 4.4 percent, to $2.1054 a gallon, the biggest one-day gain since Jan. 30. Prices surged as high as $2.1143 a gallon on March 30, the highest intraday price since Aug. 10. Profit Margin The profit margin, or ``crack'' spread, for turning three barrels of crude oil into two barrels of gasoline and one of heating oil surged 17 percent to $20.6728, the highest since March 20, based on closing futures prices in New York. The price of Brent crude oil from the North Sea has exceeded that of West Texas Intermediate, or WTI, crude oil, the U.S. benchmark, since Feb. 27. The West Texas grade is delivered to Cushing, Oklahoma. The closure of a Valero Energy Corp. refinery that's located near Oklahoma has contributed to the spread between the two oil grades. Valero said on March 28 that it won't be able to fully restore production this year at its fire-damaged McKee refinery near Sunray, Texas. The plant had a processing capacity of 170,000 barrels of oil a day before the Feb. 16 fire. Brent crude oil for May settlement rose 59 cents, or 0.9 percent, to close at $68.40 a barrel on the London-based ICE Futures exchange. Futures touched $69.58 a barrel on April 2, the highest price since Sept. 1. To contact the reporter on this story: Mark Shenk in New York at mshenk1@bloomberg.net .
Last Updated: April 4, 2007 15:36 EDT Source: www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aqvnk2rC6xDQ
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Jul 23, 2007 18:47:57 GMT 4
False Flag Pretext for War on Iran White House preparing to stage new September 11 Part 1 of 2From Michelle Listen up people, this is what I've gathered from the recent posts here at the FountainHead Forum. We all know Cheney is itching to invade Iran. Everything that is currently going down in the halls of our government is leading us to an attack on Iran. They'll get the OK for this through a staged terror attack; couple it with an economic meltdown in the US and the popluation will be scrambling. See today's post at: Money Masters and Enslaved Taxpayers, Reply #61 on Today[07/23/07] at 7:42am: It’s Official: The Crash of the U.S. Economy has begunGo to:[/b] airdance.proboards50.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1129907810&page=5Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said he had a "gut feeling" that another major terrorist attack was going to happen -- even though he admitted that there was no specific threat to justify that statement. The news media dutifully reported all this, but failed to remember all the other times when terrorist threats conveniently materialized exactly when the administration needed a little distraction. A couple of years ago, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann assembled a list of 10 instances when the timing of the government's terrorist alerts appeared to be more than a little suspicious.
With public support for the Iraq war hovering around 30 percent, and with growing unease within the Republican Party over continuing the present course in Iraq, the Bush administration is falling back on an old standby -- scaring the American people.
All is institutionally in place for a vast expansion of the war programs and a national program of terror which "chills" the majority of the population into quiet acquiescence. Bush's Executive Orders needed to create a police state are already in place. A former Reagan official has issued a public warning that the Bush administration is preparing to orchestrate a staged terrorist attack in the United States, transform the country into a dictatorship and launch a war with Iran within a year. Paul Craig Roberts, a former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, blasted Thursday a new Executive Order, released July 17, allowing the White House to seize the assets of anyone who interferes with its Iraq policies and giving the government expanded police powers to exercise control in the country. If anyone disagrees, including antiwar persons, they'll be jailed or economically crushed. "Would a government that has lied us into two wars and is working to lie us into an attack on Iran shrink from staging "terrorist" attacks in order to remove opposition to its agenda?" asks Roberts. [By the way, Ron Paul also warned us of this...see his thread here at the forum]
You'd better wake up, folks, and wake up fast...completely. Consider the following; it is from a long detailed article...I suggest you take some time later to read it, carefully:"The number of people killed in overt Pentagon-driven military action after the Second World War is now between 13 and 17 million. The number of people killed in covert action is at least 6 million. The number of people killed by structural violence could be 125,000 people per day, but for that the USA is not alone responsible. What the USA is responsible for is giving the military cover for that economic system. You can go through the total amount of interventions, 243, since Thomas Jefferson started, and you will find that almost without exception the interventions are triggered by some political action that sounds like or might lead to redistribution of wealth and power somewhere in the world. (...) From the plans that have emerged it looks as if the 100,000 targets have been identified in Iran. These targets include not only some nuclear arrangements, but the total military infrastructure of the country, that means any kind of center of command, naval points, air bases, anything that has to do with missiles. But that would only amount to one half of the 100,000 targets, the other targets would be anything that has to do with civilian infrastructure in the sense of railroads, airports, roads of course, sewerage, bridges, canals or watering, electric power plants, anything that keeps the civilian population going. Starting at 5 am some morning, 100,000 targets, in association with Israel. As far as I understand the Iranian counterattack will be considerable. I don't know, but I could guess there could be dirty bombs inside the US, ignited by remote control. Only an idiot will use missiles. They will of course use totally different methods. So I mention it as an example of what we may be facing.(...) Empires come and go, it's been like that all the time. No empire lasts forever. However, this one happens to be so brutal, so killing, so intervening, doing so much damage that you would expect it to be more short-lived than many of the others." — Johan Galtung -- Taken from What Comes After The U.S. Empire: www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18047.htmAfter you read all that is here, I suggest you go to Drive Out the Bush Regime for links to contact John Conyers and your Rep to begin, IMMEDIATELY, Impeachment proceedings or you may find your own ass being hauled off to jail for the mere thought crime of being against war!!!!!......Michelle Re: Drive Out the Bush Regime! « Reply #77 on Today [07/23/07] at 2:41pm » [glow=red,2,300]DON'T TREAD ON ME:[/glow] [envision the original revolutionary flag with a rattlesnake on it.] We Don't Need Any More Stinkin Investigations!!!!! There's no course left but Impeachment! Come on, people, only 3 more Reps needed to start proceedingsCall Congress Today for Impeachment Go to:[/b] airdance.proboards50.com/index.cgi?board=solutions&action=display&thread=1129316461&page=6 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ White House preparing to stage new September 11 - Reagan official (20/ 07/ 2007) WASHINGTON, July 20 (RIA Novosti) - A former Reagan official has issued a public warning that the Bush administration is preparing to orchestrate a staged terrorist attack in the United States, transform the country into a dictatorship and launch a war with Iran within a year.Paul Craig Roberts, a former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, blasted Thursday a new Executive Order, released July 17, allowing the White House to seize the assets of anyone who interferes with its Iraq policies and giving the government expanded police powers to exercise control in the country.Roberts, who spoke on the Thom Hartmann radio program, said: "When Bush exercises this authority [under the new Executive Order], there's no check to it. So it really is a form of total, absolute, one-man rule." "The American people don't really understand the danger that they face," Roberts said, adding that the so-called neoconservatives intended to use a renewal of the fight against terrorism to rally the American people around the fading Republican Party. Old-line Republicans like Roberts have become increasingly disenchanted with the neoconservative politics of the Bush administration, which they see as a betrayal of fundamental conservative values. According to a July 9-11 survey by Ipsos, an international public opinion research company, President Bush and the Republicans can claim a mere 31 percent approval rating for their handling of the Iraq war and 38 percent for their foreign policy in general, including terrorism."The administration figures themselves and prominent Republican propagandists ... are preparing us for another 9/11 event or series of events," he said. "You have to count on the fact that if al Qaeda is not going to do it, it is going to be orchestrated."Roberts suggested that in the absence of a massive popular outcry, only the federal bureaucracy and perhaps the military could put constraints on Bush's current drive for a fully-fledged dictatorship. "They may have had enough. They may not go along with it," he said. The radio interview was a follow-up to Robert's latest column, in which he warned that "unless Congress immediately impeaches Bush and Cheney, a year from now the U.S. could be a dictatorial police state at war with Iran."Roberts, who has been dubbed the "Father of Reaganomics" and has recently gained popularity for his strong opposition to the Bush administration and the Iraq War, regularly contributes articles to Creators Syndicate, an independent distributor of comic strips and syndicated columns for daily newspapers. From: en.rian.ru/world/20070720/69340886.htmlFormer Reagan Official: Bush May Stage False Flag Events To Reinstate DraftJuly 17, 2007 Paul Joseph Watson "Would a government that has lied us into two wars and is working to lie us into an attack on Iran shrink from staging "terrorist" attacks in order to remove opposition to its agenda?" asks RobertsFormer Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration Paul Craig Roberts has gone further than ever before, warning that the Bush administration could be about to stage false flag events and terror attacks in order to reinstate the draft, announce a dictatorship and attack Iran. Roberts has been dubbed the "Father of Reaganomics" and is also a former editor and columnist for the Wall Street Journal, Business Week, and Scripps Howard News Service. In his weekly syndicated column, Roberts suggests that unfolding events and the nature of the rhetoric emanating from government quarters suggests that a major staged terror attack could be just around the corner. "Ask yourself: Would a government that has lied us into two wars and is working to lie us into an attack on Iran shrink from staging "terrorist" attacks in order to remove opposition to its agenda?" writes Roberts. If the Bush administration wants to continue its wars in the Middle East and to entrench the "unitary executive" at home, it will have to conduct some false flag operations that will both frighten and anger the American people and make them accept Bush's declaration of "national emergency" and the return of the draft. Alternatively, the administration could simply allow any real terrorist plot to proceed without hindrance. A series of staged or permitted attacks would be spun by the captive media as a vindication of the neoconsevatives' Islamophobic policy, the intention of which is to destroy all Middle Eastern governments that are not American puppet states. Success would give the US control over oil, but the main purpose is to eliminate any resistance to Israel's complete absorption of Palestine into Greater Israel. Think about it. If another 9/11-type "security failure" were not in the works, why would Homeland Security czar Chertoff go to the trouble of convincing the Chicago Tribune that Americans have become complacent about terrorist threats and that he has "a gut feeling" that America will soon be hit hard? Roberts concludes that coming "terrorist" events within the next year will be the means for overthrowing constitutional democracy unless Congress moves to impeach Bush and Cheney immediately. Roberts' warning is dovetailed by a series of high profile individuals expressing the need for more terror as the only recourse for saving a doomed foreign policy and reversing anti-war sentiment in the U.S. that is now dominating the country. In a July 8 Toronto Star piece , Lt.-Col. Doug Delaney, chair of the war studies program at the Royal Military College in Kingston, Ontario, said that "The key to bolstering Western resolve is another terrorist attack like 9/11 or the London transit bombings of two years ago." "If nothing happens, it will be harder still to say this [the occupation of Iraq] is necessary," he added. Delaney's comments are in a similar vein to former Republican Senator Rick Santorum's statements to a radio show last weekend, in which he said that "unfortunate events" would occur along the lines of the recent car bomb attempts in the UK, that will change American's views of the war. Last month, the new chairman of the Arkansas Republican Party Dennis Milligan said that there needed to be more attacks on American soil for President Bush to regain popular approval. Yearning for more terror was also explicitly expressed in a 2005 GOP memo , which hankered for new attacks that would "validate" the President's war on terror and "restore his image as a leader of the American people." It seems painfully clear that the Neo-Cons are still obsessed with the notion of using staged terror as the only ultimate means of facilitating their dark agenda, and that thousands and potentially millions of Americans could be about to pay with their lives to realize such a nightmare. Source: www.infowars.com/articles/terror/false_flag_terror_bush_may_stage_event_to_reinstate_draft.htm------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bush Directive for a "Catastrophic Emergency" in America: Building a Justification for Waging War on Iran?by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky (June 24, 2007) CLIP "Another [9/11 type terrorist] attack could create both a justification and an opportunity that is lacking today to retaliate against some known targets" (Statement by Pentagon official, leaked to the Washington Post, 23 April 2006)The US media consensus is that "the United States faces its greatest threat of a terrorist assault since the September 11 attacks" (USA Today, 12 February 2006) The American Homeland is threatened by " Islamic terrorists", allegedly supported by Tehran and Damascus. America is under attack" by an illusive "outside enemy". Concepts are turned upside down. War becomes Peace. "Offense" becomes a legitimate means of "self-defense". In the words of President Bush:"Against this kind of enemy, there is only one effective response: We must go on the offense, stay on the offense, and take the fight to them." (President George W. Bush, CENTCOM Coalition Conference, May 1, 2007) The intent is to seek a pretext to wage a preemptive war. A "terrorist attack on America" could be used to justify, in the eyes of an increasingly credulous public opinion, on "humanitarian grounds", the launching of a major theater war directed against Iran and Syria. Allegedly supported by Iran, the terrorists are said to possess nuclear capabilities. They are supposedly planning to explode "radiological dispersion devices" (RDD) or "dirty bombs" in densely populated urban areas in the US. Former Secretary of State Colin Powell had already forewarned in 2003 that, "It would be easy for terrorists to cook up radioactive ‘dirty’ bombs to explode inside the U.S. … How likely it is, I can't say..." (10 February 2003). The sheer absurdity that Al Qaeda might have advanced capabilities to wage a nuclear attack on America is, nonetheless, pervasive in US media reports. Moreover, numerous drills and exercises, simulating a terrorist attack using nuclear devices, have been conducted in recent years, creating the illusion that "the threat is real" (...) In the immediate wake of the invasion of Iraq (April 2003), various national security procedures were put in place which focused on the eventuality of a "Second 911". These initiatives in the area of Homeland Security outlined the precise circumstances under which martial law could be declared in the case of a second major terrorist attack on America. Under martial law, the military would take over several functions of civilian government including justice and law enforcement. A terrorist attack on American soil of the size and nature of September 11, would lead ---according to former CENTCOM Commander, General Tommy Franks-- to the downfall of democracy in America. In an interview in December 2003, which was barely mentioned in the US media, General Franks outlined a scenario, which would result in the suspension of the Constitution and the installation of military rule in America:" terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event [will occur] somewhere in the Western world - it may be in the United States of America - that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event." (General Tommy Franks Interview, Cigar Aficionado, December 2003)Franks was obliquely alluding to a "Second 9/11" terrorist attack, which could be used to galvanize US public opinion in support of a military government and police state.The "terrorist massive casualty-producing event" was presented by General Franks as a crucial political turning point. The resulting crisis and social turmoil resulting from the civilian casualties, are intended to facilitate a major shift in US political, social and institutional structures, leading to the suspension of constitutional government. It is important to understand that General Franks was not giving a personal opinion on the role of a "massive casuality producing event". This concept is part of the tools of US intelligence, implemented through covert operations. Franks' statement very much reflects the dominant viewpoint both in the Pentagon and the Department of Homeland Security, on the concept and application of a "massive casualty producing event" as well as onhow events might unfold in the case of a "Catastrophic Emergency". The statement comes from a man who has been actively involved in military and intelligence planning at the highest levels. In other words, the "militarisation of our country" is an ongoing operational assumption. It is part of the broader "Washington consensus". It identifies the Bush administration's "roadmap" of war and Homeland defense.The "Global War on Terrorism" which constitutes the cornerstone of Bush’s National Security doctrine, provides the required justification for repealing the Rule of Law, ultimately with a view to "preserving civil liberties." Read the rest: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6134Continued.....
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Jul 23, 2007 18:52:32 GMT 4
....continued from previous post:False Flag Pretext for War on Iran White House preparing to stage new September 11 Part 2 of 2From MichelleChertoff Predicts Simultaneous LA/San Francisco Dirty Bombs (July 20)Someone I know attended a talk which Homeland Security Head Michael Chertoff gave today at the University of Southern California on port and supply-chain security and public infrastructure protection. My contact reported to me today by email that Chertoff spoke about more "gut feelings" that he (Chertoff) has about a simultaneous Los Angeles / San Francisco dirty bomb attack that "our enemy is surely planning". I've had a hunch for a long time that the next false flag attack will be on the West Coast, so that it seems that the whole country is under attack, and not just the East Coast. From: georgewashington.blogspot.com/2007/07/chertoff-predicts-simultaneous-lasan.html Fact Sheet on Dirty BombsA “dirty bomb” is one type of a “radiological dispersal device” (RDD) that combines a conventional explosive, such as dynamite, with radioactive material. The terms dirty bomb and RDD are often used interchangeably in the media. Most RDDs would not release enough radiation to kill people or cause severe illness - the conventional explosive itself would be more harmful to individuals than the radioactive material. However, depending on the scenario, an RDD explosion could create fear and panic, contaminate property, and require potentially costly cleanup. Making prompt, accurate information available to the public could prevent the panic sought by terrorists.A dirty bomb is in no way similar to a nuclear weapon or nuclear bomb. A nuclear bomb creates an explosion that is millions of times more powerful than that of a dirty bomb. The cloud of radiation from a nuclear bomb could spread tens to hundreds of square miles, whereas a dirty bomb’s radiation could be dispersed within a few blocks or miles of the explosion. A dirty bomb is not a “Weapon of Mass Destruction” but a “Weapon of Mass Disruption,” where contamination and anxiety are the terrorists’ major objectives. From: www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/dirty-bombs.htmlHere are more articles that you must pay attention to: New 9/11 target “Boldly Going” to be in the Persian Gulf?Ian Brockwell July 19, 2007 It was suggested a year ago, that the USS Enterprise was a likely “false flag” target to provide the Bush administration with an excuse to attack Iran. The ship’s last spell in the Gulf passed without incident (let’s hope it will again), but it is now returning to apparently replace the USS Nimitz. The USS Enterprise is due to be decommissioned in 2014-2015 and is the oldest aircraft carrier in the fleet (launched in 1960), so one could say it is “expendable” on the grounds of age. But what other reasons are there to believe that a carrier might be a possible target for a “new” 9/11? As many already know, the US government carried out a number of exercises just before the original 9/11, to prepare for a possible air attack by terrorists on buildings within the United States (like the WTC for example), and such an exercise was underway on the day of the attack. In May 2005, the carrier USS America was deliberately sunk after a number of tests using explosives (lasting 25 days). These explosions were designed to simulate attacks by torpedoes, cruise missiles and perhaps a suicide attack with a small boat (like the one that damaged the destroyer USS Cole in Yemen in 2000). Almost exactly a year later the carrier USS Oriskany was also sunk (in 45 minutes) with 500 pounds of plastic explosives. The Oriskany was disposed of in the Gulf of Mexico to create an artificial reef. With the governments poor record on environmental issues, doesn’t it seem a little out of character that they should introduce a “new” Navy program to dispose of old warships by turning them into reefs? And whilst the experiments on the USS America could benefit the design of future carriers, it may have also provided a good idea of what it takes to sink a ship of that size. A great deal of pressure has been placed on Iran (because of its nuclear program etc) and it is often accused of having links with Al-Qaeda and supporting insurgents in Iraq, a view that the Bush administration would like the world to adopt. But after the lies told before the invasion of Iraq, something more convincing would be required before any action is taken against Iran. The sinking of an old aircraft carrier (with a crew of 5,000) might be sufficient, especially if we are told that Iran “allegedly” had some involvement in it (maybe a missile attack?). But who could say for sure whether such a missile was launched from Iran, or some remote area in Iraq? Would one missile be enough, or would we hear about some rumors of “controlled explosions” later (as suggested in the WTC buildings)? Probably not, there are unlikely to be too many cameras around to record such an event, and if there are, we won’t get to see the videos anyway. Articles discussing the possibility of such an event might help eliminate the risk (although there is no guarantee of that) and this may be the reason why previous “predictions” have thankfully failed to materialize. However, if we are looking for a potential date, the first week of August is perhaps favorite? The Enterprise is expected to be in the Persian Gulf by this time and this is the most opportune moment. It is also interesting that some high level meetings around this time have been cancelled or postponed. This could of course be yet another coincidence. Iran has absolutely no reason to attack the US or any of its naval ships, that would be insane, so we should bear this in mind if such a tragedy was to occur. The US have sent a record number of naval ships near Iran and this appears to be more than just a show of strength. The Bush administration has the power in place to attack, and the desire. All that remains is the excuse! Source: www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=32602--- Related articles:Sinking the USS Enterprise - False Flag Pretext for War on Iran (03.10.2006)PREPARE FOR THE SINKING OF A U.S. AIRCRAFT CARRIER - The USS Enterprise CVN-65! The existence of a hideous plan to sacrifice a U.S. Aircraft Carrier as a pretext for war with Iran is presently being uncovered! From: iraqwar.mirror-world.ru/article/104451Air Force Quietly Building Iraq Presence (GETTING READY TO GANG UP ON IRAN?)"Away from the headlines and debate over the 'surge' in US ground troops, the Air Force has quietly built up its hardware inside Iraq, sharply stepped up bombing and laid a foundation for a sustained air campaign in support of American and Iraqi forces," reports The Associated Press's Charles J. Hanley. Squadrons of attack planes have been added to the in-country fleet. The air reconnaissance arm has almost doubled since last year. The powerful B1-B bomber has been recalled to action over Iraq. From: www.truthout.org/docs_2006/071507Y.shtmlAnother Step Toward War with IranThe Democrats certainly don't contest Bush's Middle East foreign policy, they embrace it. Just last week the Senate voted 97-0 in favor of moving toward war with Iran. From: www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18039.htmNo Evidence of Iran's Role in Violence and Instability in Iraq - Confirms British Foreign MinisterDavid Milliband, British foreign secretary, confirmed in an interview (1) with the Financial times, 8th July, that there is no evidence of Iranian complicity in instability in Iraq or attacks on British troops. From: www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18041.htm Cheney Pushes Bush to Attack IranEwen MacAskill and Julian Borger report for the Guardian UK that the balance in the internal White House debate over Iran has shifted back in favor of taking military action against Iran before Bush leaves office. Cheney may use the last of his limited capital to push Bush into such an attack. Bush is now siding with Cheney, who is being resisted by Rice and Gates. (...) The Washington source said Mr Bush and Mr Cheney did not trust any potential successors in the White House, Republican or Democratic, to deal with Iran decisively. They are also reluctant for Israel to carry out any strikes because the US would get the blame in the region anyway. "The red line is not in Iran. The red line is in Israel. If Israel is adamant it will attack, the US will have to take decisive action," Mr Cronin said. "The choices are: tell Israel no, let Israel do the job, or do the job yourself." Almost half of the US's 277 warships are stationed close to Iran, including two aircraft carrier groups. The aircraft carrier USS Enterprise left Virginia last week for the Gulf. A Pentagon spokesman said it was to replace the USS Nimitz and there would be no overlap that would mean three carriers in Gulf at the same time. No decision on military action is expected until next year. In the meantime, the state department will continue to pursue the diplomatic route. CLIP from: www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2127115,00.html As Senate Iran Vote Looms, Brownback Advocates Strike on Iran (15 July 2007)On Wednesday, the Senate voted 97-0 to pass a resolution sponsored by Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) to censure Iran "for what it said was complicity in the killing of U.S. soldiers in Iraq." The resolution required the Bush administration to regularly report to Congress on Iran's role in Iraq. While the resolution explicitly rejected authorization for immediate military action, the gist of the resolution declared Iran is participating in acts of war against the United States, thereby laying the foundation for a confrontation with Iran. Newshoggers wrote that the resolution may provide the "political cover for launching a war." Validating the concern many felt, Sen. Sam Brownback appeared on Fox News shortly after the vote and declared he was ready to preemptively strike Iran. CLIP from: thinkprogress.org/2007/07/15/brownback-attack-iran/War pimp alert: Israel's envoy to U.S.: Free world is under attack by IranIsrael's ambassador to the United States, Sallai Meridor, said Wednesday that Israel and the free world are under attack by Iran, with a combination of fanaticism, terrorism and nuclear capability posing the most serious threat since the 1930s. From: www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/883947.htmlManufacturing Consent For War With Iran: Christian Zionists: Ahmadinejad is new Hitler [this one makes me want to vomit; who are these people living in my country?!]Christians United for Israel call on US to attack Iran immediately, move US Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem as sign of support From: www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3427247,00.html Iran agrees to new UN nuclear inspections and safeguards (13 July 2007)The United Nations nuclear watchdog announced today that it has reached agreement with Iranian authorities to allow new inspections and safeguards at some of its key facilities.International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors will visit the heavy water research reactor at Arak by the end of this month and will also finalize the safeguards approach at the fuel enrichment plant in Natanz early next month, the IAEA said in a press statement issued at its headquarters in Vienna.Iran and the IAEA also agreed on the designation of new agency inspectors, according to the statement.The deal follows a two-day visit to Iran by a team of IAEA experts – lead by Olli Heinonen, the agency’s Deputy Director General for Safeguards – that ended yesterday. The visit follows last month’s meeting between IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei and Ali Larijani, Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council of Iran. The IAEA and Iran have also agreed to hold another meeting in early August on steps to resolve remaining issues pertaining to the country’s past plutonium experiments. Tehran has stated that it's nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes, but other countries contend that it is driven by military ambitions. From: www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=23235&Cr=iran&Cr1Manufacturing Consent For War With Iran: Iran attack could be 2nd Holocaust, Gingrich warnsFormer US House speaker, who is considering running for presidency on Republican ticket, warns that if Iran acquires nukes, Israel and US would be under severe threat; 'Firing one or more bombs at Israel could be a second Holocaust for the Jewish people,' Gingrich says. From: tinyurl.com/2wt5g6How to Sell an Endless WarMany of the elements used to sell that attack on Iraq--the intelligence dossiers, the unsourced revelations, the denigration of hard evidence, the cosying-up to prominent exiles--are now being used to sell an attack on Iran. With some 22 minutes out of every hour on US TV given over. From: www.counterpunch.org/keen07212007.html
|
|
Anwaar
Administrator
Speak the truth and keep on coming.
Posts: 463
|
Post by Anwaar on Aug 16, 2007 6:38:32 GMT 4
Iranian guards are terrorists, US to declare Move aimed at increasing pressure on Tehran over its nuclear programmeEwen MacAskill in Washington, Thursday August 16, 2007, The Guardian The Bush administration is preparing to ramp up its confrontation with Iran by declaring part or all of the country's Revolutionary Guard a "global terrorist" organisation and targeting its extensive financial interests. The move is extremely provocative, given that the 125,000-strong Revolutionary Guard Corps is an integral part of the state rather than a group outside the law. It has its own navy, air force, and ground troops, as well as specialist wings. More here : tinyurl.com/yrbcob
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Sept 19, 2007 11:27:30 GMT 4
UN nuclear boss warns warmongers over Iran· Heed lessons from Iraq, ElBaradei says · French foreign minister says world must brace for war · Iranian president talks of peace with US Peter Walker, Mark Tran and agencies Monday September 17, 2007 Guardian Unlimited The head of the UN's nuclear agency today warned against any increase in "hype" about war with Iran, saying countries should heed the lessons of the build-up to the Iraq conflict.The strongly worded comments by Mohamed ElBaradei, who runs the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), followed a warning by the French foreign minister that the world should brace itself for a possible war with Iran. "We have to prepare for the worst, and the worst is war," Bernard Kouchner told French TV and radio. While talks over Iran's nuclear programme should continue "right to the end", Mr Kouchner said, an Iranian nuclear weapon would pose "a real danger for the whole world". France has taken a much harsher line towards Iran since the election of Nicolas Sarkozy to succeed Jacques Chirac as president. In a perceived riposte, Mr ElBaradei urged caution. "We need to be cool," he told reporters at the IAEA's annual conference in Vienna. "We need not to hype the issue.
"I would not talk about any use of force," he said. "There are rules on how to use force, and I would hope that everybody would have gotten the lesson after the Iraq situation, where 700,000 innocent civilians have lost their lives on the suspicion that a country has nuclear weapons."One of the major arguments put forward by the US and UK for invading Iraq in 2003 was that Saddam Hussein's regime possessed weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear arms. But nothing was found. The US has in recent days stepped up accusations of Iranian support for Shia militias fighting American forces in Iraq. Washington is seeking a third round of UN sanctions against Iran over its refusal to stop uranium enrichment, and has accused the country of working on developing nuclear weapons in secret. Iran has said its nuclear programme is exclusively for peaceful purposes, such as generating electricity. France's prime minister, asked about the issue today, said Mr Kouchner had been right to warn of the possible dangers, but France was not advocating military action. "Everything must be done to avoid war," Françla;ois Fillon said. "France's role is to lead towards a peaceful solution to a situation that would be extremely dangerous for the rest of the world." At today's meeting in Vienna, Iran's vice-president warned the US and others against provoking a confrontation. Western nations had "proved that you cannot tolerate the addition of independent states and developing countries to the ongoing movement of those seeking to achieve ownership of modern technology", said Reza Aghazadeh, who also heads Iran's nuclear agency. "The great nation of Iran has recorded your discriminatory behaviour and performance in its memory and will not forget," he was quoted as saying by the AFP news agency. Separately, the country's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said he wanted peace and friendship with Washington, despite mounting speculation over possible US strikes. "Our message to the American nation is a message of peace, friendship, brotherhood and respect for humans," the official IRNA news agency quoted Mr Ahmadinejad as saying. The remark was aired on the state-owned Jame Jam television network yesterday. Mr Ahmadinejad called on the US to leave Iraq, saying its presence was proof Washington wanted to plunder Iraqi resources. The Iranian president is expected in New York next week to address the UN general assembly. [Zionist alert!!!Read the following with your eyes open....michelle] The Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney today said the invitation should be revoked. Mr Ahmadinejad's regime "has spoken openly about wiping Israel off the map, has fuelled Hizbullah's terror campaign in the region and around the world and defied the world community in its pursuit of nuclear weapons," Mr Romney said in an open letter to the UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon.
"If President Ahmadinejad sets foot in the United States, he should be handed an indictment under the genocide convention," Mr Romney said.Source:www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,2171099,00.html
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Dec 4, 2007 16:48:52 GMT 4
Posting the following so you can ask: What was all the hype/build-up about?! Also, why are they releasing this information now, to we the public? Could they have other plans? ...Michelle SEE:Re: OPEN MOUTH; INSERT LARGE ARMY BOOT « Reply #16 on Nov 30, 2007, 5:54pm » Pakistan Displacing Iran as Crisis of ‘08?airdance.proboards50.com/index.cgi?board=pakind&action=display&thread=1127021622&page=2'Iran halted nuclear weapons programme in 2003'Mark Tran and agencies Monday December 3, 2007 Guardian Unlimited Iran halted its nuclear weapons programme in 2003, intelligence agencies said today, in an unexpected finding that boosts hopes of a diplomatic solution to the problem.A new national intelligence estimate on Iran concluded, in contrast to two years ago, that Tehran had halted its nuclear weapons programme in 2003, prompting a conciliatory message from the White House. "The estimate offers grounds for hope that the problem can be solved diplomatically, without the use of force, as the administration has been trying to do," said Stephen Hadley, the national security adviser. Hadley said the latest finding suggested that George Bush had the right strategy - intensified international pressure with a willingness to negotiate a solution that serves the interests of Tehran while ensuring that the world will never have to face a nuclear-armed Iran. The Bush administration is leading efforts to tighten UN sanctions against Iran after its refusal to halt uranium enrichment despite two previous rounds of sanctions. Javier Solana, the EU foreign policy chief, last week expressed disappointment at the lack of progress in talks held in London with Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili. "Tehran's decision to halt its nuclear weapons programme suggests it is less determined to develop nuclear weapons than we have been judging since 2005," stated the unclassified summary of the secret report.However, the report said Iran's decision to continue with its uranium enrichment programme means it may still be able to develop a weapon between 2010 and 2015. Iran's decision to halt active weapons development was the key finding of the latest intelligence estimate on the country's nuclear programme. National intelligence estimates represent the most authoritative written judgments of all 16 US spy agencies. Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence, decided last month that the key judgments of NIEs should not, as a rule, be declassified and released. But intelligence officials said an exception was made in this case because the last assessment of Iran's nuclear programme in 2005 has been influential in public debate about US policy toward Iran and needed to be updated to reflect the latest findings. To develop a nuclear weapon Iran needs a warhead design, a certain amount of fissile material, and a delivery vehicle such as a missile. The intelligence agencies now believe Iran halted design work four years ago and as of mid-2007 had not restarted it.But Iran's uranium enrichment programme for its civilian nuclear reactors leaves open the possibility that fissile material could be diverted to covert nuclear sites to produce enough highly enriched uranium to make a bomb. Iran would not be capable of technically producing and reprocessing enough plutonium for a weapon before about 2015, the report states, pushing back any need to use force well past the end of the Bush administration.But ultimately Iran has the technical and industrial capacity to build a bomb "if it decides to do so", the intelligence agencies found. Hadley said of current US strategy: "The bottom line is this: for that strategy to succeed, the international community has to turn up the pressure on Iran with diplomatic isolation, United Nations sanctions, and with other financial pressure and Iran has to decide it wants to negotiate a solution." Source: www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,2221318,00.html
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Dec 8, 2007 11:02:17 GMT 4
Despite US intelligence shift: European powers back continued sanctions against TeheranBy Stefan Steinberg 7 December 2007 Following the release of the US National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) report Monday, leading European politicians have stressed the need for continuing sanctions and political pressure on Tehran.The NIE, consisting of the findings compiled by America’s 16 intelligence agencies, confirmed that Iran was not carrying out any programme to develop nuclear weapons. The report—a direct repudiation of earlier NIE’s claims—makes clear that Washington’s campaign to emphasise a supposed danger of military aggression from Iran in order to justify a military strike against the country is built on a web of lies similar to the campaign preceding the Iraq war. Nevertheless, leading European political circles and influential media outlets have reacted to the report with a continuation of their policy of appeasement towards the administration in Washington. Although completely aware of the explosive implications of the NIE findings, politicians in London, Paris and Berlin have made no criticism of the Bush government and are maintaining a stance of “business as usual—” i.e., insisting that international sanctions and economic and political pressure be maintained on Tehran. In so doing, they are perpetuating the same criminal role they played in the run-up to the Iraq war.US State Secretary Condoleezza Rice is due to arrive in Brussels at the end of this week to attend a NATO meeting where she will be calling for a further round of punitive sanctions against Iran. The recent comments by leading European politicians give a clear signal that, despite the embarrassing disclosures in the NIE, they will continue to back the administration in Washington and Rice’s initiatives in Brussels. On behalf of the French President, French Foreign Ministry spokesman Pascale Andréani declared after the publication of the NIE report, “Iran is not respecting its international obligations and our position remains unchanged.” France, he said, “will continue to pursue the implementation of measures (sanctions) within the framework of the organisations of the body of the United Nations.” Commenting on the significance of the NIE report, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier (Social Democratic Party—SPD) refrained from any sort of criticism of the Bush administration’s campaign against Iran and noted merely that the report opened up an opportunity for more dialogue. He made known that the agreed policy of sanctions would be continued and stressed that the international community was still responsible for keeping nuclear weapons out of the Middle East. Speaking on behalf of the SPD’s coalition partner in Germany, Christian Democratic Union (CDU) foreign policy expert Eckart von Klaeden also declared that pressure must be maintained on Iran. He told the Berliner Zeitung: “Iran is still building a missile delivery system, it still doesn’t fully cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and it supports international terror organisations such as Hamas and Hezbollah.” Press reactions In a number of newspapers and media outlets in Germany, there was an audible sigh of relief in reaction to the NIE report, which they declared had finally dispelled any threat of a military action against Iran. Spiegel Online declared, “The Apocalypse evoked by US president George W. Bush most recently in the form of a ‘Third World War’ has been cancelled for the time being.” The Süddeutsche Zeitung also welcomed the NIE’s publication: “Now everybody knows and he (Bush) will no longer be able to ignore them. In his last days at the White House Bush will not be able to begin the third war of his period in office—at least not against Iran.” In a euphorically titled piece, “Putsch by the peace doves!,” the weekly Die Zeit declared, “The intelligence report is a victory for the doves of peace.” Other editorials noted that the publication of the NIE could have wider repercussions for US attempts to establish its military hegemony in other regions of the world. With regard to US plans to establish anti-missile bases in a number of east European countries to ward off a hypothesised danger of Iranian aggression, Karl Grobe notes in the Frankfurter Rundschau that the NIE report makes clear “the plans to install missile defence bases in Poland and the Czech Republic as quickly as possible were ideologically motivated rather than rationally justifiable....” At the same time, papers linked to the conservative right and the finance world set the tone for the stance taken by most west European governments in seeking to play down the new intelligence findings, with the French conservative Le Figaro paper warning against any “dropping of one’s guard” with regard to Iran. Echoing President Bush’s own thoroughly distorted argument dismissing the NIE’s findings earlier this week, the German conservative paper Die Welt declares: “By sometime between 2010 and 2015, Iran might have enough material to make an atomic warhead. That’s really not that far from now, when you think about it.... While the diplomatic efforts plod endlessly forward without accomplishing much, there’s no reason to sit back and relax now.” The Financial Times Deutschland writes: “The (NIE) report is no cause for sounding the all clear.” The paper then calls upon the US and European sides to continue to resist pressure from Russia and China, which are opposed to broad sanctions against Iran. “The US government is now going to have a tougher time getting the international community to toughen its sanctions in mid-December, especially Russia and China. Of course, they’ll demand fewer sticks for Iran, but the intelligence report would be the wrong argument for that.”The varied responses in German newspapers with regard to the NIE report were generally in line with those of the British media, with the Guardian (editorial: “War Postponed”) and the Independent fulsomely welcoming the report, while the conservative papers like the Times and the Telegraph warned against any let up in pressure on Iran. Divisions in Europe In fact, the different reactions to the NIE report by the European press reflect profound divisions within the European political elite over the best way to implement its own interests in the Middle East. All of the major players in Europe have their own interests in the region and, as major imperialist powers, have no scruples about the need to resort to military measures when necessary. At the same time, the aggressive US foreign policy and, in particular, the debacle of the US war against Iraq have led influential political circles to question the wisdom of a foreign policy tied by an umbilical cord to Washington.The election of the French President Nicolas Sarkozy earlier this year resulted in a shift by a major European country towards Washington and US foreign policy. Sarkozy has made no secret of his admiration for the American president, and since his election has been one of the fiercest advocates of punitive sanctions against Iran. In particular, the French Foreign Ministry is working closely with the US in Lebanon to isolate one of the key allies of Iran in the region—the Hezbollah movement. The election of the German chancellor Angela Merkel (CDU) in 2005 also brought to power a politician who favoured closer links to the US. Unlike her predecessor, Gerhard Schröder (SDP), Merkel had expressed her support for the US war against Iraq in 2003. Nevertheless, the uncritical stance towards Washington adopted by Merkel has lead to increasing strains within her own fractious coalition. Foreign Minister Steinmeier recently made a point of publicly criticising Merkel’s decision to receive the Dalai Lama in Berlin—an open affront to the Chinese government with which the German government enjoys extensive business and trade ties. A few days after the reception in Berlin, the Dalai Lama travelled to Washington where he was fulsomely welcomed by President Bush. Although the German chancellor has made her own vigorous intervention into foreign policy areas, the official German position on Iran and the NIE report has been put forward by Steinmeier, who argues that sanctions must be paired to direct negotiations with the Iranian leadership in Tehran. Steinmeier has the backing of the former foreign minister, Joschka Fischer (Green Party), who argues in a very similar fashion in the latest Die Zeit. Steinmeier has played a key role in bringing about independent European initiatives such as the recent trip to Tehran by the foreign ministers of Great Britain, France and Germany. While divisions exist between and within European governments on how best to proceed against Iran, there is unanimity on one key issue—uncritical support for Israel. Striking in the comments by European politicians and media reports is the lack of any criticism of the recent statements by Israeli politicians, who immediately denounced the NIE report and renewed their threats of aggression against Iran.Israel has made clear that it sees no basis in the report to refrain from its own military preparations for a strike against Iran, acting also as a proxy for the US. This alternative—a military strike against Iran, which would provoke retaliatory action by Tehran, which in turn would create the premise for the US to intervene militarily to defend its closest ally—has been the subject of discussion in Washington circles for some time. The close collaboration between US and Israeli political, military and secret services for concerted military operations against Iran is no secret to western European intelligence agencies. They are also aware that President Bush discussed the contents of the NIE report with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert at the recent Annapolis conference. If the European powers were genuinely interested in a peaceful solution to the conflict with Iran, their foreign ministers would have immediately condemned the warlike diatribes from Israel. Instead, not a word was said. For all of the major powers—Great Britain, Germany, France—criticism of Israel and its policies is impermissible.
Just as the current drumbeat for war against Iran takes a very similar form to the Bush administration’s preparations for its war against Iraq—i.e., a systematic campaign of lies and provocations that met with no real opposition from the Democratic Party in America itself—so the current policy of European nations, with regard to Iran, despite differences of approach, bears a striking similarity to their role in the run-up to the Iraq war. European nations such as France, Germany and Great Britain supported the sanctions regime against Iraq, which led to the death of an estimated 500,000 children. On a number of occasions, the leaders and foreign ministers of these countries argued that their support for the punitive sanctions dictated by Washington was their only means of retaining influence in American policy circles and preventing all-out war. In the event, the Bush administration was able to take advantage of the weakened state of Iraq following years of sanctions in order to push ahead with its military invasion in 2003 and the subsequent occupation. While a number of European governments, such as France and Germany, then went on to declare their opposition to the US-led war, they did nothing to oppose it, and in fact provided vital behind-the-scenes tactical support for the America war machine. There were certainly differences between some European governments and the US over the Iraq war, but they were entirely of a tactical nature. The major European powers shared the same basic concern as their ally across the Atlantic—the securing of the vast mineral reserves in the Middle East for Western consumption.Now, the same scenario has emerged in relation to Iran. There is no doubt that the major European countries are extremely alarmed about the political consequences of a US military strike against Iran. The anticipation of catastrophic consequences of such a conflict is leading to growing strains and divisions within the European bourgeoisie. But once again, European foreign ministers argue as they did in the case of Iraq that European support for sanctions is the only way to prevent US military action against Tehran. In fact, the appeasement and submission by European to Washington in the 1990s facilitated the US invasion of Iraq, and it would be utterly self-deluding to believe that the NIE report, or European diplomacy in the Middle East, has removed the danger of a US military strike against Iran. Source: www.wsws.org/articles/2007/dec2007/germ-d07.shtmlurl for this post: tinyurl.com/2pjoey
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Dec 8, 2007 12:48:13 GMT 4
IDF to show US nuclear data on IranBy YAAKOV KATZ The Jerusalem Post Dec 6, 2007 23:59 | Updated Dec 7, 2007 16:22 Disappointed after failing to make their case on Iran and influence the outcome of the United States's National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) released this week, Military Intelligence will present its hard core evidence on the Islamic Republic's nuclear program on Sunday to the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff during a rare visit he will be making to Israel. Admiral Michael Mullen will land in Israel Sunday morning for a 24-hour visit that will include a one-on-one meeting with IDF Chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi, as well as with Defense Minister Ehud Barak. According to a Time magazine article published Wednesday, Mullen is a member of the Pentagon's "anti-war [with Iran] group" that includes Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Admiral William Fallon, current commander of the US Central Command. In a recent press briefing in Washington, however, Mullen took a hard-line approach, refusing to rule out the possibility that military force will be used to stop Iran's race towards nuclear power. "I would never take the military option off the table," Mullen told reporters, although he stressed that his remark did not mean that force would be used. Diplomacy, he added, was very important. Mullen's visit to Israel will be exactly a week after the publication of the NIE report that claimed Iran had frozen its nuclear military program in 2003 and has yet to restart it. During his visit, Military Intelligence plans to present him with Israel's evidence that Iran is in fact developing nuclear weapons. "The report clearly shows that we did not succeed in making our case over the past year in the run-up to this report," a defense official said Thursday. "Mullen's visit is an opportunity to try and fix that." In addition to Iran, Ashkenazi and his staff will also discuss with Mullen America's commitment for Israel to retain its qualitative edge in the face of the sale of advanced JDAM missiles to Saudi Arabia. In the past, Israel had asked the Pentagon to permit the sale of the F-22 fifth-generation stealth fighter jet - also known as the Raptor - but the request was rejected. Mullen will be met by an honor guard at the Kirya Military Headquarters in Tel Aviv and will sit through a day of presentations by IDF generals, including Military Intelligence chief Maj.-Gen. Amos Yadlin and OC IDF Planning Maj.-Gen. Ido Nehushtan. Sunday night he will be honored at a festive dinner hosted by Ashkenazi and will leave Israel Monday morning. The presentations that Mullen will hear will be on a wide range of topics - including the Hamas buildup in the Gaza Strip, Egypt's failure to stop the smuggling of weapons into Gaza, Hizbullah activities in Lebanon, Syria and Iran. Israel plans to take advantage of Mullen's visit to Israel to reinforce the already strong ties the IDF has with the Pentagon and the US armed forces. Appreciation for the IDF has increased within the Pentagon in recent months following the Israeli air strike on the alleged Syrian nuclear reactor. Mullen's visit will be the first time a chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has visited Israel in the past decade. Mullen was in Israel with his wife two years ago when he was the commander of the Navy. He met Ashkenazi at the NATO military commander conference in Brussels last month, and the two have already established an effective work relationship, defense officials said. Also Thursday, China's government said it was studying the US intelligence review and remained steadfast in its opinion that talks were the way to end the standoff with Iran.
"We will earnestly study the report and make communications with relevant parties," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang told reporters at a regular briefing. "China's position on the Iranian nuclear issue is that we support the international nuclear nonproliferation regime, and oppose proliferation of nuclear weapons, and we uphold a peaceful and stable Middle East," Qin said.
Earlier this week, China's ambassador to the United Nations said the report raised concerns about new sanctions.
"I think the council members will have to consider that, because I think we all start from the presumption that now things have changed," Chinese UN Ambassador Wang Guangya said Tuesday when asked whether the release of the intelligence estimate made the prospect of new UN sanctions less likely. The New York Times reported Thursday that the change in the US's intelligence assessment vis-à-vis Iran was based mainly on notes acquired last summer from discussions between Iranian military officials. The notes reportedly detailed conversations in which certain army officials complained about Iranian leaders' 2003 decision to shut down efforts to develop nuclear weapons. The notes gave no clue as to why Iran had decided to stop weapons development. The information contained in the notes was supported by other intelligence, including conversations between Iranian officials which had been intercepted in recent months, the paper reported. Meanwhile, US Vice President Dick Cheney on Thursday said he had no reason to doubt the intelligence assessment. "There's always the possibility that circumstances will change. But I think they've done the best job they can with the intelligence that's available," Cheney told Politico.com. The vice president stressed that the administration would not change its policy towards Iran. "We still think there's a need to continue the course we've been on to persuade the Iranians not to enrich uranium," he said. AP contributed to the report. Source: tinyurl.com/27sryk
|
|
|
Post by evelyn on Jan 10, 2008 22:55:55 GMT 4
'A Heartbeat Away' From War With Iran and Pakistanglobalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7761It's interesting that none of the "major" presidential candidates has spoken out on this issue: here we are, on the brink of war, and where are the "antiwar" Democrats? Barack Obama is being touted as some sort of savior who can "bring us together" in a Rapture-like mega love-in of "national unity" and "hope." Yet Obama has said attacking Iran is "on the table," a view he shares with Hillary, Edwards, and all the rest of the Democrats except for Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel.
. . . Of all the candidates, in both parties, only Rep. Ron Paul, a 10-term Republican congressman from Texas, has warned about the dangers of another Gulf of Tonkin-style incident.(Article in its entirety recommended. I've only excerpted the bits relevant to presidential candidates.)
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Feb 28, 2008 16:36:56 GMT 4
Generals to quit if US strikes Iran Tue, 26 Feb 2008 00:49:33 Some senior US military commanders are prepared to resign if President Bush orders a military strike against Iran, a new report says. “There are four or five generals and admirals we know of who would resign if Bush ordered an attack on Iran,” The Sunday Times quoted Monday a source with close ties to British intelligence . “There is simply no stomach for it in the Pentagon, and a lot of people question whether such an attack would be effective or even possible,” the source added. If proven true a revolt on such a scale would be unprecedented because 'American generals usually stay and fight until they get fired,” said a Pentagon source. Robert Gates, the defense secretary, has repeatedly warned against striking Iran and is believed to represent the view of his senior commanders. Iran has announced that in face of any aggression it will respond like a 'tsunami'. MT/DT Source: www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=44700§ionid=351020101
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Apr 25, 2008 15:44:02 GMT 4
Petraeus Promotion Frees Cheney to Threaten Iran Analysis by Gareth Porter* WASHINGTON, Apr 23 (IPS) - The nomination of Gen. David Petraeus to be the new head of the Central Command not only ensures that he will be available to defend the George W. Bush administration's policies toward Iran and Iraq at least through the end of Bush's term and possibly even beyond.
It also gives Vice President Dick Cheney greater freedom of action to exploit the option of an air attack against Iran during the administration's final months. Petraeus will take up the CENTCOM post in late summer or early fall, according to Defence Secretary Robert Gates. The ability of the administration to threaten Iran with an attack both publicly and behind the scenes had been dramatically reduced in 2007 by opposition from the former CENTCOM commander, Adm. William Fallon, until he stepped down from the post under pressure from Gates and the White House last month. Petraeus has proved himself willing to cooperate closely with the White House policy lines on Iraq and Iran, arguing against any post-surge reduction in troop strength policy and blaming Iran for challenges to the U.S. military presence. Along with the deference to Petraeus in Congress and the media, his pliability on those issues made him the obvious choice to replace Fallon. But Petraeus had already effectively taken over many of the powers of the CENTCOM commander last year. As the top commander in Iraq, Petraeus was in theory beneath Fallon in the chain of command. But in reality Petraeus ignored Fallon's views and took orders directly from the White House. Petraeus was in effect playing the role of CENTCOM commander in regard to the twin issues of Iraq and Iran.
Fallon clashed with Petraeus repeatedly from the beginning of his command about the surge and U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. Fallon opposed the surge and believed the U.S. should begin the withdrawal of most of its troops from Iraq. But he was effectively stymied by the close Petraeus-White House link from being able to influence U.S. military policy in Iraq and the region as a whole. Fallon had also pushed very hard, according to a source familiar with his thinking, for trying to negotiate an agreement with Iran over innocent passage through the Strait of Hormuz in order to ease tensions caused by the U.S.-Iranian differences over the obligations of navy vessels transiting the Strait. But any such negotiations would have conflicted with the administration's emphasis on confrontation with Iran, and they weren't interested. Petraeus revealed in his Congressional testimony Apr. 10 that he had already assumed some of the functions normally carried out by the CENTCOM commander in regard to relations with military leaders in the region. Petraeus said he had "actually gone to a couple of neighbouring countries in an effort... to get at the networks, the countries in which they operate, and the sources of some of these foreign fighters." In fact, the Associated Press reported, Petraeus had taken trips to five different Middle Eastern countries -- Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates -- since September 2007. That should have been Fallon's job, but the White House had apparently made it clear they wanted Petraeus -- not Fallon -- to undertake missions. It had become increasingly evident to Fallon that he was not really running things at CENTCOM, according to the source. Fallon's frustration about Petraeus' de facto power over Middle East policy was the main reason he was ready to step down. But it was Fallon's refusal to accept the that the option of a military strike against Iran was still effectively on the table that led to serious tensions with the White House, as reported in Esquire magazine in early March. Fallon had evidently angered Cheney by suggesting publicly on three occasions between September and late November that a military strike against Iran had been ruled out by Washington. Fallon's resignation announcement on Mar. 11 was followed less than a week later by a 10-day Cheney trip to the Middle East in which the vice president talked explicitly about the military option against Iran during visits to Turkey and Saudi Arabia. That suggested that Cheney felt freer to wield the military threat to Iran with Fallon neutralised. Cheney aggressively solicited political support from Turkish leaders for a U.S. strike against Iranian nuclear facilities during his visit to Turkey last month, according to a source familiar with Cheney's meeting in Ankara. Cheney was "very aggressive" in asking Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and President Abdullah Gul, as well as Turkey's chief of general staff Gen. Yasar Bukyukanit to get "on board" with such an attack, according to the source, who has access to reports from the Cheney visit. Cheney indicated that Turkey had been added to the trip at the last minute, suggesting that the decision to visit Ankara was linked to the Fallon resignation. After the meeting between Cheney and King Abdullah on the same trip, Saudi sources let it be known to the media that Abdullah had told Cheney that his government opposed any U.S. military strike against Iran. That suggested that Cheney had brought up the military option in Ryadh as well. One of Cheney's main objectives on the trip appears to have been to get the message to Iran that the option of a strike against its nuclear facilities is still very much alive. In an interview with Cheney while he was in Ankara, ABC News reporter Martha Raddatz commented, "[W]hen you come over here, people in the region start thinking you're over here to plan some sort of military action." Cheney strongly implied that it was indeed the major objective of his trip. "Well, I think the important thing to keep in mind," he said, "is the objective that we share with many of our friends in the region, and that is that a nuclear-armed Iran would be very destabilising for the entire area." Petraeus has become the primary administration spokesman for the argument holding Iran primarily responsible for the Shiite military resistance to the U.S. occupation of Iraq. Petraeus and his staff developed the idea in early 2007 that Iran was using so-called "special groups" of renegade Mahdi Army fighters to wage a proxy war against U.S. forces. In his testimony before Congressional committees earlier this month, Petraeus declared that what he called the "special groups" allegedly organised and manipulated by Iran "pose the greatest long-term threat to the viability of a democratic Iraq". *Gareth Porter is an historian and national security policy analyst. The paperback edition of his latest book, "Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam", was published in 2006.
(END/2008)Source: www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=42101
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on May 16, 2008 12:22:13 GMT 4
This one has the smell of a setup all over it....MIranian embassy employees shot in BaghdadThursday, May 15, 2008 By Leila Fadel | McClatchy Newspapers BAGHDAD — Three employees of the Iranian embassy and their Iraqi driver were shot and wounded as they traveled Thursday to the Shiite Kadhemiyah Shrine in northern Baghdad. As the Iranian men pulled into a Shiite area in Baghdad on the way to the shrine, two men on a motorbike pulled up to the vehicle and riddled their car with bullets, Iranian and Iraqi officials said. Two of the Iranians were seriously wounded; another Iranian and an Iraqi suffered minor wounds, a spokesman for the Iranian embassy said Wednesday. "We don't know who did this," said the spokesman, Manoucher Taslimi. "But we know there are many sides in Iraq who do not want good relations between Iran and Iraq." [Looks like someone is trying to pull us into Blackwater....I mean deep water]The shooting comes during a tense time in Iraq over the relationship between the Iranian and Iraqi governments. Sunni Iraqis and some Shiite Iraqis detest Iran for its continued interference in their nation and a perceived controlling relationship with their government. Most of the Shiite and Kurdish parties in the government were nurtured in Iran as they fought Saddam Hussein. The United States has long accused Iran of funding, training and supplying weapons to Shiite militias in Iraq. In recent weeks the Iraqi government also criticized Iran before distancing itself from the U.S. accusations.The shooting occurred a short distance from the Buratha Mosque headed by Jalal al Din al Saghir, a lawmaker from the Shiite Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq. "It seems as if they were waiting for them," Saghir said of the gunmen after speaking to the Iranian embassy.The men were being treated in a Baghdad hospital but the more seriously wounded are expected to be transported to Iran, Taslimi said. In Mosul, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki urged unity in the Sunni province where he's gained a newfound respect for his hard stance against Shiite militias in the south and in Baghdad. He spoke from the province on the fifth day of an Iraqi-led security operation to cleanse the province of insurgents. Maliki spoke with tribal leaders, former officers of the Iraqi army under Saddam's regime and prominent members of the community. "The country entered sectarian war and we were saying it didn't but this country did," he said in meetings with tribal leaders. "How many innocent humans were killed? .... Who gave the right to anyone to kill a human because of their belonging or belief?" He added that the government would not just restore security but also services and reconstruction in the Al Qaida stronghold. Iraqi Security Forces are going door to door in Ninevah province searching for insurgents. More than 500 people have been detained in the operation. McClatchy Newspapers 2008Source:www.mcclatchydc.com/255/story/37264.html
|
|