Iran - the real target

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Iran - the real target

Post by zone on Mon Feb 14, 2011 10:27 am

Iran Blocks Pre-Rally Internet Sites; US: Tehran Running Scared


by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu


Revolution fever is returning to Tehran, where new and illegal protests are planned tomorrow as the United States charges Iran “is scared of the will of its people.”
The regime of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has already blocked several opposition websites, including one named "Bahman,” the 11th month of the Persian calendar, in advance of the planned rally Monday.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/142300
avatar
zone
Mod
Mod

Posts : 3653
Gender : Female Location : In Christ
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Iran - the real target

Post by zone on Mon Feb 14, 2011 10:28 am

Iran vs Israel: What The Media Wants You To Forget


The corporate media have been given their orders to throw the focus back on to Iran.

Here is a recap of what they are trying to make you forget.
1. Last Spring, Rose Gottemoeller, an assistant secretary of state and Washington's chief nuclear arms negotiator, asked Israel to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Israel refused.
2. The United Nations passed a resolution calling on Israel to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and to submit to inspections. Israel refused.
3. The IAEA asked Israel to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and to submit to inspections. Israel refused.
4. Iran's formal notification to the IAEA of the planned construction of the backup fuel-rod facility underscores that Iran is playing by the rules of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty which Iran has signed.
5. Iran allows IAEA inspections of all its facilities.
6. Contrary to face-saving claims, it appears that the US and Israel were both caught off guard by Iran's announcement. The reasoning is simple. Had the US or Israel announced the existence of he new facility before Iran's notified the IAEA, it would have put Iran on the defensive. As it is now, the US and Israel seem to be playing catch up, casting doubt on the veracity of Israel's claims to "know" that Iran is a nuclear threat.
7. The IAEA and all 16 United States Intelligence Agencies are unanimous in agreement that Iran is not building and does not possess nuclear weapons.
8. In 1986, Mordachai Vanunu blew the whistle and provided photographs showing Israel's clandestine nuclear weapons factory underneath the reactor at Dimona.
9. Israel made the same accusations against Iraq that it is making against Iran, leading up to Israel's bombing of the power station at Osirik. Following the invasion of 2003, international experts examined the ruins of the power station at Osirik and found no evidence of a clandestine weapons factory in the rubble.
10. The United Nations has just released the Goldstone Report, a scathing report which accuses Israel of 37 specific war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza earlier this year. Israel has denounced the report as "Anti-Semitic (even though Judge Goldstone is himself Jewish), and the United States will block the report from being referred to the War Crimes Tribunal at the Hague, thereby making the US Government an accessory after-the-fact.
11. Recently revealed documents prove not only that Israel has nuclear weapos, but actually tried to sell some to Apartheid South Africa. Who else Israel approached to sell nuclear weapons remains an unasked question.
12. In 1965, Israel stole over 200-600 pounds of weapons-grade uranium from the United States.
13. Declassified documents from the former South African regime prove not only that Israel has had nuclear weapons for decades, but has tried to sell them to other countries!
avatar
zone
Mod
Mod

Posts : 3653
Gender : Female Location : In Christ
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Iran - the real target

Post by zone on Wed Mar 02, 2011 12:17 pm

Mubarak Toppled by CIA Because He Opposed US Plans for War with Iran; US Eyes Seizure of Suez Canal; Was this the Threat that Forced Mubarak to Quit?

Webster G. Tarpley, Ph.D.
TARPLEY.net
February 18, 2011
Washington DC, Feb. 18, 2011 — There never was an “Egyptian revolution,” but rather a behind-the-scenes military putsch by a junta of CIA puppet generals who evidently could not succeed in their goal of ousting Hosni Mubarak without the help of a heavy-duty ultimatum from Washington in the night between Thursday, February 10 and Friday, February 11, 2011. There is growing evidence that the threat in question involved the seizure or blocking of the Suez Canal, the Egyptian waterway which carries over 8% of all seaborne world trade, which the imperialists tried to grab back in 1956, and from which they would today like to exclude China, Iran, and Russia. As for Mubarak, there are strong indications that he was toppled by Washington and London because he opposed the current US-UK plan to organize a block of Sunni Arab states such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and the Gulf states — under a US nuclear umbrella and shoulder to shoulder with Israel — for purposes of confrontation and war with Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, and their Shiite and radical allies.
This means that, with the fall of Mubarak, the Middle East has taken a big step on the road to general war. As for the junta, they have now dissolved parliament, shredded the constitution, and announced six months of martial law.
In the days after Mubarak’s fall, the Anglo-American controlled media chorus chanted obsessively that this was one regime change in the Arab world which had been brought about by the Egyptian people, all by themselves. In reality, the relatively limited popular agitation was actually the least important factor in toppling the long-serving Egyptian rais. Since there was no real mass organization capable of seizing power, and no program of economic reconstruction, development, and reform which could have united the efforts of larger sectors of the Egyptian population, Egypt was left to the tender mercies of the now standard CIA/National Endowment for Democracy color revolution, people power coup, or postmodern putsch. According to this recipe, the destabilization was begun by gathering the privileged youth of the upper middle classes — the ones with access to the Internet, Google, Facebook, and Twitter — in Tahrir Square, where, despite their relatively anemic numbers in a city as big as Cairo, they provided a photo opportunity for the Al Jazeera television network, which shamelessly served as the demagogic speaking tube of British intelligence, the former colonial power in Egypt.

http://tarpley.net/2011/02/18/mubarak-toppled-by-cia-because-he-opposed-us-plans-for-war-with-iran/


Last edited by zone on Fri Oct 14, 2011 1:34 pm; edited 1 time in total
avatar
zone
Mod
Mod

Posts : 3653
Gender : Female Location : In Christ
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Sources: US Gives Israel Green Light For Iran Strike

Post by zone on Fri Oct 14, 2011 1:30 pm

Sources: US Gives Israel Green Light For Iran Strike



Fabricated terror plot provides pretext for intervention following Panetta’s October 3 Tel Aviv visit

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Thursday, October 13, 2011
The Obama administration’s fabricated terror plot blamed on Iran represents the green light for an Israeli attack on Iran set to take place within the next two weeks, according to confidential military sources who spoke with Alex Jones.


Israel is concerned that major powers like Germany are moving closer to smoothing relations with Iran and allowing Iran to continue its nuclear enrichment program unimpeded. A two month window has been allocated during which Israel has the opportunity to launch a military assault, waiting until winter when the attack will be more difficult to pull off is not an option.
US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s October 3 Tel Aviv visit was used by Israeli hawks to convince the United States that it should green light the attack. Less than 10 days later, a fanciful terror plot involving a used car salesman was invented to implicate Iran and create the pretext for a military assault.
“In recent weeks, intense discussions have taken place in Israeli military and intelligence circles about whether or not to launch a military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities. Apparently, the key question in the debate was how to ensure that the United States took part in the attack or, at the very least, intervened on Israel’s side if the initial strike triggered a wider war,” writes Patrick Seale of Gulf News.
That intervention has now been mandated by the announcement of the fabricated terror plot, which was actually concocted last month but only made public now.
While U.S. intelligence officials prepare to release claims about a “chain” of plots that will be blamed on Iran, Time Magazine reports that the Obama administration is preparing to use the accusations to take action beyond mere isolation tactics.
“If the Administration fails to win support for a significant escalation of sanctions or other forms of punishment for the Tehran regime after presenting evidence of the latest allegations of Iranian malfeasance, the ball will land back in Obama’s court,” writes Tony Karon. “Having made the case that Iran has crossed a red line, he will be under growing pressure to act — or risk entering a highly polarized election season haunted by a “soft on Iran” charge.”



With neo-cons [TROTSKYITES/BOLSHIES/CFR] rushing to support aggressive measures against Iran, Obama will now be given right cover to pursue yet another act of regime change. As we postulated back in February last year, Obama is being blackmailed into supporting an attack on Iran as the only way to save his presidency. We also speculated that an assassination attempt would be used as the pretext to implicate Iran.
Geopolitical experts have been consistent in their warnings that Israel was preparing to strike Iran this fall.
Back in July, 21-year CIA veteran Robert Baer told KPFK Los Angeles that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was planning an attack on Iran in September to coincide with the Palestine bid for UN membership.
Speaking with the Alex Jones Show today, former State Department official Steve Pieczenik, who has numerous inside intelligence sources having worked in several sensitive positions during the course of his career, also indicated that the terror plot was completely fabricated and that it would be used a pretext to justify a military strike against Iran.
Pieczenik also pointed out that Israel had recently taken delivery of a large amount of bunker buster missiles.
As we have documented, the alleged assassination plot against Saudi Ambassador Adel al-Jubeir, which is now being cited by everyone from John Kerry to John McCain as a justification for a potential military strike, is a complete fantasy.
Retired U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel Anthony Shaffer has revealed that an FBI insider with a high security clearance told him no records whatsoever detailing the plot existed within DOJ channels, clearly indicating the whole episode was manufactured.
It has also now emerged that the alleged “mastermind” behind the plot was a drunk pothead who liked to frequent with prostitutes and was described by those who know him as a “joke”.
http://www.infowars.com/sources-us-gives-israel-green-light-for-iran-strike/

avatar
zone
Mod
Mod

Posts : 3653
Gender : Female Location : In Christ
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Iran - the real target

Post by zone on Fri Oct 14, 2011 1:39 pm

Christians United For Israel Washington Summit 2011





Christians United for Israel’s sixth annual Washington Summit was the largest and most successful to date. The over 5,000 CUFI members in attendance heard from prominent pro-Israel national and international figures, including a live satellite address from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The Summit’s Night to Honor Israel featured remarks from Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren, Pastor John Hagee, and Glenn Beck. Beck gave an impassioned and stirring speech expressing steadfast support for Israel. “Each of us will be judged as a people and a nation by how we treat Israel,” he said. Following two days of pro-Israel education and advocacy training, CUFI members went to Capitol Hill and held hundreds of meetings with their elected representatives, including the Congressional leadership offices on both sides of the aisle in both houses. They asked their elected officials to oppose the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state at the UN, and to support security aid to Israel and tougher sanctions against Iran.

CUFI is proud to report that over the last week, 17 additional Members of Congress became co-sponsors of The Iran Threat Reduction Act of 2011 and 9 new Senators signed on as co-sponsors of The Iran, North Korea and Syria Sanctions Consolidation Act of 2011. In addition, leaders of the House Appropriations Committee announced yesterday that they intend to keep U.S. security aid to Israel at the full level CUFI requested – $3.075 billion.

http://www.sacornerstone.org/israel/christians-united-for-israel-washington-summit-2011

avatar
zone
Mod
Mod

Posts : 3653
Gender : Female Location : In Christ
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Iran - the real target

Post by zone on Fri Oct 14, 2011 1:44 pm

john hagee's 2nd wife



diana castro
avatar
zone
Mod
Mod

Posts : 3653
Gender : Female Location : In Christ
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Iran - the real target

Post by zone on Sat Oct 15, 2011 3:03 pm

First Great War of The 21st Century is Here! with Gerald Celente



The Alex Jones Channel
October 15, 2011

Renowned trends forecaster Gerald Celente about the false flag op and the move toward World War Three. Celente forecasted that there will be a major war as the economy crumbles.

http://www.infowars.com/first-great-war-of-the-21st-century-is-here-with-gerald-celente/

see videos.....

avatar
zone
Mod
Mod

Posts : 3653
Gender : Female Location : In Christ
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

US Policy Toward Iran One-Way Ticket to War

Post by zone on Sat Oct 15, 2011 3:09 pm

US Policy Toward Iran One-Way Ticket to War



Policy Wonk Plays Dumb Over Role in Iranian Escalation

Tony Cartalucci
Infowars.com
October 15, 2011

Editor’s Note: For those not familiar with the “Which Path to Persia?” report, more information can be found here, and part II here.

October 15, 2011 - Kenneth Pollack helped literally co-author the blueprints for America’s current policy toward Iran. Titled, “Which Path to Persia?” and published in 2009 for the Fortune 500-funded Brookings Institution, much of what was covered in the report had already gone operational before it hit the press. This includedtraining, arming, and supporting terrorists within Iran, sanctions, US-funded uprisings, and covert attempts to provoke Iran into war.

While pundits in the media and politicians behind their podiums talk about “extending hands,” “carrots and sticks,” and other trite, and ultimately contrived policies the US is supposedly pursuing in regards to Iran, there is in reality only Brookings’ plan – and it leads only to war.

Recently, Pollack penned a column for the Daily Beast titled, “Iran’s Covert War Against the United States.” In it, Pollack, addressing a readership almost assuredly ignorant of his work on “Which Path to Persia?,” claims that Iran appears to be irrationally wandering down a misguided path, waging what might be a “covert war” against America, highlighted by the contrived “Iran terror plot” targeting a Saudi ambassador. Pollack, a former analyst for the CIA, seems to humor the recent allegations against Iran as plausible despite his own cautionary words regarding jumping to conclusions and despite the growing factual basis that exists to entirely dismiss the plot. Additionally, Pollack’s feigned astonishment over why Iran has been taking a tougher stance against the US recently is a case study in duplicity, as he was one of the chief architects of the various provocations Washington has used to provoke Iran into such a stance. Pollack’s disingenuous editorial does however lend us some insight into the current mindset of the “Which Path to Perisa?” co-authors, and ultimately into the mindset of those for whom the report was prepared for and who are eager for war.


“Which Path to Persia?” Brookings Institution 2009 .pdf

To understand American policy toward Iran, one must understand who the authors are of such policy and what their motivations are. The Brookings Institution itself was created by and for the corporate-financier elite. It is a policy think-tank that represents the collective interests of the big oil corporations, banks, and military contractors that fund it. Quite obviously then, policy toward Iran, or any nation for that matter, from within the halls of the Brookings Institution will revolve around expanding the global financial, social, political, and military hegemony of its corporate sponsors.

Iran is a nation of 70 million, has a developed infrastructure, as well as a tremendous wealth in natural resources, including oil and natural gas. A Western dominated banking system lording over 70 million people, telecommunications companies supplying services to this vast population, and the immense consumerist troughs that could be laid out before these people alone serves as a compelling incentive to attempt to domineer Iran. War against such a nation would be a trillion dollar endeavor, utterly bankrupting the American people, but enriching the military industrial complex beyond imagination. Of course, construction firms such as war-profiteering Halliburton and Bechtel would make fortunes rebuilding amidst the destruction of such a vast nation – as untold of billions have already been made by these same corporations in Iraq, a nation with but a fraction of the land area and population of Iran. Iran’s oil fields flowing once again into the tankers, pipelines, and coffers of Anglo-American oil companies also serves as an attractive incentive, as do the geopolitical implications.

China would be essentially dependent entirely on oil controlled by the Wall Street-London “international order,” as would all nations. The development of the modern nation-state is dependent on energy. By controlling access to energy, one controls the development of nations. While many analysts suggest the continental United States contains enough energy to meet America’s needs for the foreseeable future, tapping into this supply and abandoning holdings overseas would catapult the developing world into direct competition with America on almost every front. It would also allow nation-states worldwide to defend themselves against what has essentially been a free reign of financial piracy perpetrated by the International Monetary Fund, World Bank and other Western contrived “international institutions” used to manipulate and exploit the planet.







Image: Just some of Brookings Institution’s corporate & institutional financial sponsors. For the full list please see Brookings’ 2010 annual report (page 19 of .pdf). It should be noted that many of the managing directors, chairmen, and CEOs of these corporations also populate Brookings’ Board of Directors producing a conflict of interests of monstrous proportions. Boycotting these corporations is an absolute necessity for anyone seriously interested in stopping the global corporate-financier elite’s agenda. (click image to enlarge)
….

With this in mind, it is quite clear why the corporate-financier interests that fund Brookings have thrown their support behind executing the recommendations made in “Which Path to Persia?” and continue marching the United States ever closer to war with Iran. The report itself, most likely never intended to reach the American public on a large scale, and using language and length inaccessible to the average “bread and circus” crowds, fully acknowledges that Iran’s leadership may be aggressive, but not reckless. The report also notes that Iran would use its nuclear weapons only as an absolute last resort, considering American and even Israeli nuclear deterrence capabilities. Even weapons ending up in the hands of non-state actors is considered highly unlikely by the report.

Similar reports out of the RAND corporation note that Iran has had chemical weapons in its inventory for decades, and other reports from RAND describe the strict control elite military units exercise over these weapons, making it unlikely they would end up in the hands of “terrorists.” The fact that Iran’s extensive chemical weapon stockpile has yet to be disseminated into the hands of non-state actors, along with the fact that these same elite units would in turn handle any Iranian nuclear weapons, lends further evidence to this conclusion.

Brookings notes on pages 24 and 25 of the report, that the real threat is not the deployment of these weapons, but rather the deterrence they present, allowing Iran to counter US influence in the region without the fear of an American invasion. In other words, the playing field would become level and America may be forced to recognize Iran’s national sovereignty in regards to its own regional interests. The report also acknowledges on multiple occasions that Iran is not looking to provoke the West, and that the West, or Israel would have to proactively work to provoke Iran into war instead.

In one breathtaking quote, the Brookings report states in regards to initiating a large scale airstrike against Iran:

“…it would be far more preferable if the United States could cite an Iranian provocation as justification for the airstrikes before launching them. Clearly, the more outrageous, the more deadly, and the more unprovoked the Iranian action, the better off the United States would be. Of course, it would be very difficult for the United States to goad Iran into such a provocation without the rest of the world recognizing this game, which would then undermine it. (One method that would have some possibility of success would be to ratchet up covert regime change efforts in the hope that Tehran would retaliate overtly, or even semi-overtly, which could then be portrayed as an unprovoked act of Iranian aggression.)”

This quote alone, not to mention the entire content of this report, compiled by some of America’s most prolific policy makers and funded by America’s largest corporations and banks, demonstratively executed over the past several years, makes everything that follows regarding the sanctions, covert military operations, US-funded uprisings, US-funded terrorism via the MEK (Mujahedin-e Khalq), and now these most recent, entirely contrived allegations regarding a supposed “bombing plot,” all unjustified acts of war on America’s behalf. The reckless self-serving nature of this gambit puts in danger the lives of hundreds of millions of people as these craven megalomaniacs edge us ever closer to war with Iran.

Pollack, in his Daily Beast op-ed, seems to almost relish the converging paths bringing us closer to war. While he fills his editorial with disclaimers regarding the believability of the recent Iranian plot allegations, his infinite duplicity is exhibited by omitting the role he has played in developing policy designed to purposefully provoke a war with Iran it had actively sought to avoid. Should readers know this, they would not only dismiss him as a meddling, treasonous, warmonger, but dismiss the latest allegations against Iran as yet another contrived attempt to stoke the fires of war.

Readers need to take a good look at Brookings’ sponsors. These are the people conspiring to send your sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers off to war. These are the people that intend to bleed you dry financially as you pay them to wage a war you neither want nor will benefit from. These are the ones that will ultimately profit while both America and Iran suffers immeasurably.

These corporations need to be put out of business, and instead of wringing our hands and hoping for salvation from our clearly compromised, corporate-fascist government, we can begin today by boycotting these corporations and putting our money instead into local businesses, entrepreneurship, and solutions that benefit we the people. Even just beginning to boycott them, cutting back in our daily life and working toward the eventual goal of complete local self-sufficiency will scale down both the reach and ambitions of these corporations. It will also spur change within, as sagging profits motivate individuals within these corporations to abandon those advocating exploitative, parasitic agendas and business models.

We can speak up to expose the fraud, speak out to stop the war, but it is essential, above all,to begin changing the balance of power that has allowed for our nation to be led to the edge of such a precipice in the first place.

Tony Cartalucci is the writer and editor at Land Destroyer Report

http://www.infowars.com/us-policy-toward-iran-one-way-ticket-to-war/

avatar
zone
Mod
Mod

Posts : 3653
Gender : Female Location : In Christ
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Iran - the real target

Post by zone on Sat Oct 15, 2011 3:13 pm

DON'T FORGET THIS IS ALL ABOUT "UNFULFILLED PROPHECIES/PROMISES" FOR NATIONAL ISRAEL.

(see Joshua 21 and Kings for the fulfillment of the land promises, and see all of scripture to understand the significance of believing Israel becomes the church, gentiles grafted in; LAND PROMISE BECOMES PROMISE OF WHOLE EARTH/NEW EARTH: JESUS CHRIST AND NEW JERUSALEM, NEW EARTH)





avatar
zone
Mod
Mod

Posts : 3653
Gender : Female Location : In Christ
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Iran - the real target

Post by zone on Sat Oct 15, 2011 3:16 pm

Tehran / Bin Laden "Greater Israel"


In February 2003 an audiotape purportedly from Osama bin Laden called President Bush "stupid" and claimed American war plans against Iraq were part of a plot to attack Muslim nations in the Middle East and North Africa. The United States' goal in waging war against Iraq is to change the regional map to benefit Israel, according to the raspy voice said to be bin Laden. "It is clear that the preparations to attack Iraq are part of a series of attacks prepared for nations of the region including Syria, Iran, Egypt and Sudan," the voice said. "The aim of the Crusaders' campaign is to prepare the atmosphere for the establishment of the so-called greater Israel state, which includes great parts of Iraq, Egypt, Syria, Jordan and large portions of (Saudi Arabia)," it said.
This conception of a Greater Israel encompassing much of the Middle East is evidently a pervasive element of popular culture in the region, and it is easy to understand how this would be taken up by bin Laden and other propgandists. By asserting that Israel seeks to occupy the territories of many other countries in the region, it places the Palestinians on the front line of a struggle common to all people in the region.


On 04 September 2001 a demonstration was held in Jerusalem to support of the Idea of the State Israel from the Nile to the Euphrates. It was organised by the movement Bead Artzein ("For the Homeland"), headed by rabbi and historian Avrom Shmulevic from Hebron. According to Shmulevic, "We shall have no peace as long as the whole territory of the Land of Israel will not return under Jewish control.... A stable peace will come only then, when Israel will return to itself all its historical lands, and will thus control both the Suez and the Ormudz channel.... We must remember that Iraqi oil fields too are located on the Jewish land."



avatar
zone
Mod
Mod

Posts : 3653
Gender : Female Location : In Christ
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Iran - the real target

Post by zone on Sat Oct 15, 2011 3:34 pm

The Kingdom of Greater Israel is on Facebook

Basic Info





Name:
The Kingdom of Greater Israel
Category:


Geography - Neighborhoods
Description:


On 04 September 2001 a demonstration was held in Jerusalem to support of the Idea of the State Israel from the Nile to the Euphrates. It was organised by the movement Bead Artzein ("For the Homeland"), headed by rabbi and historian Avrom Shmulevic from Hebron. According to Shmulevic, "We shall have no peace as long as the whole territory of the Land of Israel will not return under Jewish control.... A stable peace will come only then, when Israel will return to itself all its historical lands, and will thus control both the Suez and the Ormudz channel.... We must remember that Iraqi oil fields too are located on the Jewish land."


Privacy Type:
Open: All content is public.

Contact Info

Office:
The city of Beirut

Recent News

News:
What i believe we are seeing is the beginning's of a greater Israel. The only way we can have peace is if we take over the region and control it and with the help of our western allies it should be easy, but bloody.

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2207091476



avatar
zone
Mod
Mod

Posts : 3653
Gender : Female Location : In Christ
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Iran - the real target

Post by Strangelove on Sat Oct 15, 2011 5:10 pm

So the idea of attacking Iran is to secure/surround the eastern 'greater israel' border correct?

_________________
"Gentlemen you cant fight in here, this is the War Room!"

Arrow IMPORTANT THREADS Arrow FORUM STATEMENT OF FAITH Arrow CHRISTIAN WILDERNESS BLOGSPOT

Rev 12:6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.
avatar
Strangelove
Admin
Admin

Posts : 3145
Age : 42
Gender : Male Location : Israel of God
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile http://christian-wilderness-blog.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Iran - the real target

Post by zone on Sat Oct 15, 2011 5:15 pm

well...i reckon.

and to just destroy people....everybody's amalek i s'pose.

the west has shown its willing to do so.

they're going to double-cross saudia arabia too: their "ally"

iran got good resources...iran don't do IMF etc.

plus they gotta clear the way for the crushing of pakistan, and to open it all up for their buddy china.
avatar
zone
Mod
Mod

Posts : 3653
Gender : Female Location : In Christ
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Iran - the real target

Post by zone on Thu Oct 20, 2011 1:01 pm

Interview 394 – Joe Lauria

Posted by Corbett

Podcast: Play in new window | Download



Noted author and journalist Joe Lauria joins us to discuss his recent article, “The Alleged Iranian Plot: Turning the U.N. into a Courtroom.” We examine the latest details about the alleged Iranian plot to assassinate the Saudi U.S. ambassador and what the Security Council thinks about the U.S.’ case for war.
http://www.corbettreport.com/interview-394-joe-lauria/

THE SECURITY COUNCIL???

HUH?

its over kids...or rather...it's beginning.

Global Governance is here.
avatar
zone
Mod
Mod

Posts : 3653
Gender : Female Location : In Christ
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Which Path to Persia?

Post by zone on Sat Oct 22, 2011 3:43 pm

i'm sounding the alarm brothers.

when this strike hits iran life as we know is over for good.

this wouldn't be possible but for XTIAN ZIONISTS DUPED BY SCOFIELD THE TALMUDIC DUPE....apostates.

PREPARE NOW..............zone

Withdrawal of US Troops From Iraq Highly Suspect



Think-tank designs for Iran leave only Israeli attack & coaxed provocation for total war on table.

Tony Cartalucci
Prisonplanet.com
October 22, 2011

October 22, 2011 - For ten months the Obama administration has presided over the “Arab Spring,” a geopolitical gambit years in the making, and executed simultaneously in multiple nations throughout the Middle East and North Africa in the beginning of 2011. The regional conflagration was stoked by a steady stream of first, denial, even feigned surprise, with covert support for US-backed opposition groups, then more overt support, and finally NATO airstrikes, weapons, training, and special operations forces lent to the rebellion in Libya and weapons and support sent to Syria’s militants. These collective efforts stretching from Tunisia and leading up to Iran’s doorstep serve a singular agenda -that is, to contain and ultimately overturn the reemergence of Russia as well as containing the rise of China.


Toppling Iran

Integral to this stated agenda, is the toppling of Iran’s government and its integration into the Wall Street-London “international order.” Efforts to topple Syria’s government by US-backed and now apparently armed opposition groups aim to isolate and even provoke the Islamic Republic into a suitable justification for US or Israeli (or both) retaliation. As reported on extensively, the literal playbook from which these stratagems are drawn is the Fortune 500-funded Brookings Institution’s “Which Path to Persia?” report. In it, it specifically states:

“…it would be far more preferable if the United States could cite an Iranian provocation as justification for the airstrikes before launching them. Clearly, the more outrageous, the more deadly, and the more unprovoked the Iranian action, the better off the United States would be. Of course, it would be very difficult for the United States to goad Iran into such a provocation without the rest of the world recognizing this game, which would then undermine it. (One method that would have some possibility of success would be to ratchet up covert regime change efforts in the hope that Tehran would retaliate overtly, or even semi-overtly, which could then be portrayed as an unprovoked act of Iranian aggression.) ”

The 2009 “Green Revolution” was just such an attempt at “covert regime change” to “goad Iran into such a provocation” though it ignominiously failed. It appears that in addition to funding, arming, and harboring the terrorist Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK), the US has also taken to entirely fabricating “such provocations.” The recent DEA-Saudi bomb plot announced by Attorney General Eric Holder stands on tenuous grounds, even more so now that Iran has counterclaimed that the supposed Quds Forces member the US implicated may in fact be a member of the above stated US-backed MEK terrorist organization. The US has done all in its power to coax Saudi Arabia into taking a harder line against Tehran. The Brookings report had this to say about that in 2009:

“For instance, Saudi Arabia is positively apoplectic about the Iranians’ nuclear program, as well as about their mischief making in Lebanon, Iraq, and the Palestinian territories. Yet, so far, Riyadh has made clear that it will not support military operations of any kind against Iran. Certainly that could change, but it is hard to imagine what it would take.”


“…it is hard to imagine what it would take.” Perhaps MEK terrorists posing as Quds Forces, entrapping a drug addicted used-car salesman to arrange a bomb plot against a Saudi ambassador and then blaming it on Iran.

With the fate of Libya hanging in the balance, with US troops still occupying both Iraq and Afghanistan, and with renewed vigor aimed toward Syria after the alleged fall of Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi, it is incredibly unlikely that the US has abandoned its plans to ultimately topple the Iranian regime as the crescendo to this ongoing regional campaign. In fact, many amongst Obama’s own administration have been the most rabid supporters of executing the final leg of this long-term strategy started under the Bush administration. The 2008 presidential runner-up John McCain, and of course the same collection of unelected, corporate-funded policy makers from the halls of Brookings Institution, the Foreign Policy Initiative and the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) have also been more than eager in pushing this agenda along.

That these policy makers, who have helped engineer and support the current course Obama is on, are now sulking over Obama’s decision to pull troops out of Iraq when in fact Obama doesn’t, never has, and never will make such decisions, is highly suspect. Kenneth Pollack, one of the co-authors of the “Which Path to Persia?” report, recently expressed dismay in his article titled, “With a Whimper, Not a Bang.” Frederick Kagan, the corporate-funded AEI architect behind the Iraq “troop surge” also lamented in a piece titled, “Obama abandons Iraq.” Kagan explicitly claims that the withdrawal would be “giving Tehran the single most important demand it has pursued for years—the complete withdrawal of U.S. military forces from Iraq.”

Possible Scenarios

The US is at least peddling the illusion it is clearing out its holdings in Iraq, leaving a symbolic force for a reason – a reason that has to do with a final gambit to be played against Iran, the last domino to fall in the US-contrived “Arab Spring.” These are two possible scenarios:

1. Leave a small symbolic force for the Iranians to attack in Iraq after a “unilateral” Israeli airstrike. Whatever Iran decides to do, it may not be able to do sustainably, but will do viciously in the opening phases. By leaving a symbolic force in Iraq, the US can garner the necessary sympathy and anger politically at home to launch a wider operation against Iran in “retaliation.”

2. Feign as if the US is disengaging from the Middle East so when a false flag terror attack or other provocation is perpetrated against the US, it will look like an egregious act of war by Iran. While a shrinking US presence in the Middle East would logically engender even more patience in Tehran, the script writers of the latest DEA-Saudi bomb plot took special care to ensure the “Iran has become bolder” talking-point made it repetitively on air and into the minds of unsuspecting Americans.

This is more than mere idle speculation. In the Brookings Institution report, “Which Path to Persia?” nearly all but the most extreme measures proposed in the report have been executed. The only options left on the table unused include a unilateral Israeli airstrike designed to provoke a significant retaliation thus bringing the US into war with Iran and a variety of options to provoke a full-scale invasion.

In a section of the report titled, “Leave it to Bibi: Allowing or Encouraging an Israeli Military Strike,” (page 89, page 102 of the .pdf) it appears that Israeli intelligence is also working with the terrorist organization MEK:

“Israeli intelligence operations against Iran were stepped up even earlier and have included use of third parties to publicize the Iranian threat without revealing the Israeli hand. Iran’s secret enrichment and heavy-water reactor programs were publicly exposed in August 2002 by an Iranian dissident group (the Mujahedin-e Khalq), which reportedly was unwittingly fed the information by Israeli intelligence.”

The report goes on to say of an American approved Israeli airstrike:

“However, as noted in the previous chapter, the airstrikes themselves are really just the start of this policy. Again, the Iranians would doubtless rebuild their nuclear sites. They would probably retaliate against Israel, and they might retaliate against the United States, too (which might create a pretext for American airstrikes or even an invasion.)”

Allowing the Israelis to attack by air, and sacrificing US troops on the ground in Iraq as a pretext for greater war is most certainly a possibility. The report continues on by stating the necessity of maintaining a certain level of plausible deniablity regarding the Israeli airstrikes. US troops in Iraq would by default implicate America in any Israeli airstrike that would need to pass over Iraqi airspace. US troops “in retreat” in Iraq could possibly mitigate such implications as well as make an Iranian retaliation seem all the more “outrageous, deadly, and unprovoked.”

We can be sure that after years of carrying forth an agenda that proceeded his presidency, Obama has not all the sudden decided to unilaterally pull troops from Iraq. His administration’s duplicity and eagerness throughout the US-contrived “Arab Spring” all but assure us that the overarching agenda still includes encircling and toppling the government in Iran. It has not escaped the attention of the White House that a withdrawal from Iraq would give Iran its greatly desired breathing room and would greatly diminish America’s influence throughout the Middle East.

Just like the false rapprochement of the West with Libya’s Qaddafi before the US rearmed, reorganized, and let loose the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), when the West returns to torment Tehran, it will come back with a vengeance. Keep an eye on Israel for their attack and the complicit United States waiting to once again “lead from behind.” And if you have someone you know in the US military stationed in Iraq staying behind, prepare for the absolute worse. As Henry Kissinger once so bluntly stated, “military men are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy.” (Woodward and Bernstein The Final Days in chapter 14). Certainly, a few dead G.I.s in Iraq after an Iranian retaliation for an Israeli airstrike would be just the pawns needed for “foreign policy” to move forward.

One can only hope this pessimistic analysis is entirely wrong, and that the US has overreached and has simply decided to withdraw from the battlefield and ultimately from empire. However, if unrest continues to unfold in Syria, which is essentially a low-intensity US proxy war against Damascus, and in turn against Tehran, we can be sure any optimism will be quickly dashed against the rocks by the Wall Street-London corporate-financier oligarchs.

http://www.infowars.com/withdrawal-of-us-troops-from-iraq-highly-suspect/
avatar
zone
Mod
Mod

Posts : 3653
Gender : Female Location : In Christ
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Iran - the real target

Post by zone on Sat Oct 22, 2011 4:28 pm

Is the U.S. headed for war with Iran?

By The Week's Editorial Staff | The Week – Mon, Oct 17, 2011


Obama is calling for the world to unite in getting tough on Iran over its nuclear program and alleged assassination plot in the U.S. Where will this lead?

President Obama is urging United Nations inspectors to release new classified evidence that Iran has been testing nuclear weapons technology, according to The New York TimesIf the seemingly damning evidence is made public, it would likely rekindle the debate over whether the U.S. or some other country should launch military strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities to keep Tehran from getting the bomb. Tehran is already lashing out at Washington for accusing it of plotting to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in the U.S. Could this mean war?

It certainly should: Iran "has the blood of American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan on its hands," says William Kristol at The Weekly Standard

It's a "brutal dictatorship that has aided terrorists," and "it's seeking nuclear weapons while denying it's doing so." Obama should look at the assassination plot as "an engraved invitation" to strike and weaken the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and the regime's nuclear program, to set it back before it's too late.
"Speak softly... and fight back"


Striking Iran is a bad idea: The question isn't whether the U.S. will attack Iran's nuclear installations — Israel is far more likely to take that step, says Sefi Rachlevsky at Israel's Haaretz

But that would only "increase Iran's determination to embark on an open race for a nuclear bomb." And it would only undermine "Western support for the nuclear deterrent that protects Israel" from its hostile Muslim neighbors, while giving Iran greater incentive to use the bomb once it gets it.


more...

http://news.yahoo.com/u-headed-war-iran-120400206.html

...........................

Speak Softly .  .  . and Fight Back


Oct 24, 2011, Vol. 17, No. 06 • By WILLIAM KRISTOL


The foiled Iranian plot to blow up the Saudi ambassador to the United States has met with a tough U.S. response. Tough talk. And lots of it. If words were dollars, the federal budget deficit would have disappeared, as U.S. officials from President Obama to Vice President Biden to Secretary of State Clinton have been waxing eloquent against assassinating ambassadors, condemning any and all who would order such a thing, insisting there will be repercussions, and promising “accountability.”


There’s been plenty of talk. But of course no action.

This Iranian regime has the blood of American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan on its hands. It’s a sponsor and facilitator of terror organizations that have killed innocent Americans, Israelis, Iraqis, Afghans, Argentines, and many others. It’s a brutal dictatorship. And it’s seeking nuclear weapons while denying it’s doing so. It’s long since been time for the United States to speak to this regime in the language it understands—force.

And now we have an engraved invitation to do so. The plot to kill the Saudi ambassador was a lemon. Statesmanship involves turning lemons into lemonade.

So we can stop talking. Instead, we can follow the rat lines in Iraq and Afghanistan back to their sources, and destroy them. We can strike at the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), and weaken them. And we can hit the regime’s nuclear weapons program, and set it back. Lest the administration hesitate to act out of fear of lack of support at home, Congress should consider authorizing the use of force against Iranian entities that facilitate attacks on our troops, against IRGC and other regime elements that sponsor terror, and against the regime’s nuclear weapons program.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/speak-softly-and-fight-back_595936.html?nopager=1
avatar
zone
Mod
Mod

Posts : 3653
Gender : Female Location : In Christ
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

William Kristol NEOCON, PNAC

Post by zone on Sat Oct 22, 2011 4:34 pm

http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Kristol_William

William Kristol


last updated: July 22, 2010




    Weekly Standard: Editor and Cofounder
    Emergency Committee for Israel: Board member
    Foreign Policy Initiative: Cofounder
    Keep America Safe: Board member
    Institute for the Study of War: Board member
    Project for the New American Century: Cofounder
avatar
zone
Mod
Mod

Posts : 3653
Gender : Female Location : In Christ
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

PNAC

Post by zone on Sat Oct 22, 2011 4:38 pm

Project for the New American Century


last updated: June 19, 2008







Please note: IPS Right Web neither represents nor endorses any of the individuals or groups profiled on this site.

The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) was established in 1997 by a number of leading neoconservative writers and pundits to advocate aggressive U.S. foreign policies and “rally support for American global leadership.” One of the group’s founding documents claimed, “a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.”1

PNAC, which phased out most operations by 2006 and let its website expire temporarily in May 2008,2 was perhaps best known for its ability to attract divergent political factions behind its foreign policy agenda, which the group repeatedly demonstrated with its numerous sign-on letters and public statements. PNAC forged an influential coalition of rightist political actors in support of its calls for an aggressive “war on terror” aimed largely at the Middle East, including the invasion of Iraq. Although some observers have exaggerated its impact—two scholars, for instance, argued in the Sociological Quarterly that PNAC almost single-handedly “developed, sold, enacted, and justified a war with Iraq” 3 —the group was arguably the most effective proponent of neoconservative ideas during the period between the beginning of President Bill Clinton's second term and President George W. Bush’s 2003 decision to invade Iraq.4

PNAC's 1997 "Statement of Principles" set forth an ambitious agenda for foreign and military policy that William Kristol and Robert Kagan, PNAC’s founders, described as "neo-Reaganite."5 Signatories of this charter document included many leading figures from the Christian Right and other conservative political factions. The statement argued, "We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the U.S. global responsibilities."6

Among PNAC's staff and directors were Kristol (chairman), Kagan, Bruce Jackson, Mark Gerson, Randy Scheunemann, Ellen Bork (deputy director), Gary Schmitt (senior fellow), Thomas Donnelly (senior fellow), Reuel Gerecht (director of the Middle East Initiative), Timothy Lehmann, (assistant director), and Michael Goldfarb (research associate).7 In addition, a host of mainly conservative figures supported PNAC’s various sign-on letters and policy statements. (See "A Complete List of PNAC Signatories and Contributing Writers," Right Web.)

Origins and Agenda Before establishing PNAC, neoconservatives and their allies among hardline nationalists, including Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, began aggressively promoting ideas meant to replace the militant anticommunism that dominated U.S. policy during much of the Cold War. A key step in this process was the 1995 establishment of the Weekly Standard by two scions of the neoconservative movement—William Kristol (son of Irving) and John Podhoretz (son of Norman). Together with Fred Barnes, a former correspondent for The New Republic, they secured funding from media mogul Rupert Murdoch to support the magazine, which quickly replaced Commentary as the high-profile outlet of neoconservative ideas.

In 1996, Kristol and Kagan wrote an article for Foreign Affairs that become a sort of founding statement for the new neoconservative agenda. Entitled "Toward a Neo-Reaganite Foreign Policy," the article established several pillars of a post-Cold War foreign policy agenda, including maintaining a benevolent hegemony based in part on a willingness to use force unilaterally and preemptively. Kristol and Kagan asked rhetorically: “What should the U.S. role be? Benevolent global hegemony. Having defeated the 'evil empire,' the United States enjoys strategic and ideological predominance. The first objective of U.S. foreign policy should be to preserve and enhance that predominance by strengthening America's security, supporting its friends, advancing its interests, and standing up for its principles around the world."8

The main enemy was internal; in Kagan and Kristol’s opinion, it was “time once again to challenge an indifferent America and a confused American conservatism." They added: "In a world in which peace and American security depend on American power and the will to use it, the main threat the United States faces now and in the future is its own weakness. American hegemony is the only reliable defense against a breakdown of peace and international order. The appropriate goal of American foreign policy, therefore, is to preserve that hegemony as far into the future as possible. To achieve this goal, the United States needs a neo-Reaganite foreign policy of military supremacy and moral confidence."9

PNAC served as an institutional vehicle for advocating the ideas laid out in this article. Housed in the same Washington, D.C. office building as the American Enterprise Institute, PNAC was staffed by a number of emerging neoconservatives who generated statements and open letters on various themes and marshaled the gathering of signatures of elite political actors. The founding of PNAC marked a "complete generational transition" in neoconservatism that occurred somewhere "between the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Bosnian war," write conservative scholars Stefan Halper and Jonathan Clarke in their 2004 book America Alone. "By the later half of the 1990s, Kagan, William Kristol, [Joshua] Muravchik, [Richard] Perle, [and Paul] Wolfowitz ... had assumed the leadership roles that had long been held by Nathan Glazer, Irving Kristol, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, and Norman Podhoretz. The younger neoconservatives had filled a space left by the increasing inability of older neoconservative views to provide a sufficient interpretative framework for the changing realities of international events in the 1990s."10

PNAC's June 1997 statement of principles repeated many of the same goals laid out in Kristol and Kagan’s Foreign Affairs article, including the use of preemptive force.

The statement argued that "the history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire." Responding to what they saw as the confusion of the Clinton administration, the statement called for a "Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity" that would be based on several key pillars.

"We need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future; we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values; we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad; we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles."11

Establishing the format that would be used in later PNAC publications, the statement of principles was published letter-style and signed by an impressive list of supporters. Although many of the signatories to the statement of principles (and other PNAC documents) were neoconservatives, young and old—such as Elliott Abrams, Norman Podhoretz, George Wiegel, Midge Decter, Frank Gaffney, and I. Lewis Libby—there were also representatives from other political and social sectors, including Religious Right leaders like Gary Bauer; mainstream Republicans like Steve Forbes, social conservatives like William Bennett; hawkish nationalists like Peter Rodman, Rumsfeld, and Cheney; and prominent academic proponents of some neoconservative ideas like Francis Fukuyama and Eliot Cohen. This range of support demonstrated PNAC’s success as an instrument for building a broader coalition of influential militarists around the neoconservative ideas and objectives of its founders. Nearly a dozen of the original signatories would, some four years later, obtain posts in the George W. Bush administration, including Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Paula Dobriansky, Zalmay Khalilzad, Abrams, and Libby.12


much more

http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

translation: ALL FOR ISRAEL.

avatar
zone
Mod
Mod

Posts : 3653
Gender : Female Location : In Christ
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Iran - the real target

Post by zone on Sat Oct 22, 2011 4:44 pm

How PNAC and OSP Created the War

In Feb 2001, the US and UK attacked Iraq with public disapproval. Bush bombed Baghdad two weeks after being sworn into office.

No evidence links Sadaam to 9/11. No 9/11 suspects are Iraqi or have any link to Iraq. The war in Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Al-Qaeda (favoring theocratic rule) and Sadaam (favoring secular rule) are political enemies.

A senior aide to Bush, Phillip Zelivow, says the war in Iraq was fought for Israel! When legislation was brought to Congress to end the war, it was voted against by a large group of the representatives who received “donations” from AIPAC.

Misleading and discrediting 9/11 truth films, such as Loose Change (right), mention PNAC, discussing Cheney and Rumsfeld who actually didn't write one word of any PNAC paper (they just signed them). PNAC's authors (around 25 people) were the same people who lied about Iraq and passed off false information to the president and journalists. The ideology stems directly from Israeli policy papers.
PNAC's papers were written by the same people who wrote Israeli policy papers who hold dual citizenship to Israel. The Iraq war and control over energy resources is outlined in Israel's A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" which was written by Richard Perle and Douglas Feith. You can read the IASPS's (Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Science) paper called The Afghan Vortex, written a year before the invasion.

In 1992 Paul Wolfowitz wrote the Defense Planning Guidance, with his former student, Lewis Libby:

"The foreign strategy of the US must be unapologetic, idealistic, assertive and well funded. America must not only be the world's policeman or its sheriff, it must be its beacon and guide... Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power. These regions include Western Europe, East Asia, the territory of the former Soviet Union, and Southwest Asia..There are three additional aspects to this objective: First the U.S must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests. Second, in the non-defense areas, we must account sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order. Finally, we must maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role."

Paul Wolfowitz, who is now the head of the World Trade Organization, was the former Director of Policy Planning in the Department of Defense (DOD). Wolfowitz was a principle PNAC author and he openly admitted in Vanity Fair magazine (May 2003) that they settled on Weapons of Mass Destruction as the excuse to use to get a war with Iraq: "For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on." Well, they didn't even fear our intelligence enough to plant any WMDs.

This WMDs claim is so important because it legally justified the invasion. Paul Wolfowitz presented an open letter to Bill Clinton on January 26, 1998 about the need for war with Iraq. Wolfowitz urged Clinton to recognize a provisional [Iraqi] government headed by the Iraqi National Congress under Ahmed Chalabi. This is what later became PNAC's doctrine and US foreign policy.

PNAC's paper, "Rebuilding America's Defenses", makes statements about the need for a new Pearl Harbor (p. 63). Lewis Libby, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle and others who have recently resigned and/or have been caught up in criminal activity all co-authored.

In 1970, Richard Perle was charged with spying for the state of Israel and leaking information about the CIA in regards to its nuclear deterrent program, to Russia. Perle, along with Douglas Feith and David Wurmser (all had jobs in the US defense department, Perle and Fieth have resigned) authored Israel's "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm."

"Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq .. an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right .. as a means of foiling Syria's regional ambitions."

-Israel's A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm by Richard Perle and Douglas Feith (under the heading "Moving to a Traditional Balance of Power Strategy"). Perle is the author of at least 4 different IASPS papers.

While speaking to Wolf Blitzer (former AIPAC employee) from CNN, Pearle spoke about Seymour Hersh, the Pulitzer Prize winning journalist who broke the story about the Abu Ghraib torture scandal with the help of Joe Darby; "Sy Hersh is the closest thing American journalism has to a terrorist, frankly." On March 17, 2003, veteran investigative reporter Seymour Hersh reported in the New Yorker that Perle used his position as chairman of the Defense Policy Board to solicit $100 million for his security-oriented investment firm, Trireme. Perle was attempting to profit off the war while still serving as an official advisor to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld (See 5th paragraph).

Leading up to the war we were lied to about WMDs, Al-Qaeda connections, mushroom cloud scare tactics, liberating the Kurds, and democracy building, which have all been shown to be falsehoods or failures. Many simply assume The Bush Administration created these lies.

Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski exposed how military officers' opinions were dismissed or even punished by the American Enterprise Institute (Origin of PNAC). She explains, "...my outspokenness was probably never noticed because civilian professionals and military officers were largely invisible. We were easily replaceable and dispensable, not part of the team brought in from the American Enterprise Institute, the Center for Security Policy, and the Washington Institute for Near East Affairs."

The Israelis were visiting the DOD without having to sign in and going to Feith's office where the OSP was headed, the same office Lawrence (Larry) Franklin worked for. Franklin was working for Perle in the Department of Defense when he was sentenced to 12 years in jail for passing off top secret documents to AIPAC who in turn gave them to the Israeli government through the Israeli embassy in DC.

http://www.reachingtruth.com/pnacosp.html
avatar
zone
Mod
Mod

Posts : 3653
Gender : Female Location : In Christ
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

AIPAC's "War With Iran" Bill Passes House Committee

Post by zone on Tue Nov 08, 2011 5:21 pm

AIPAC's "War With Iran" Bill Passes House Committee




MJ Rosenberg


Senior Foreign Policy Fellow, Media Matters Action Network


Posted: 11/3/11 02:57 PM ET


Wasting no time after its success in getting the administration to oppose Palestinian statehood at the United Nations, and still celebrating the UNESCO funding cut-off, AIPAC has returned to its #1 priority: pushing for war with Iran.

The Israelis have, of course, played their own part in the big show. In the last few weeks, it has been sending out signals that it is getting ready to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities (and embroil the United States in its most calamitous Middle East war yet).

But most observers do not believe an Israeli attack is imminent. (If it was, would Israel telegraph it in advance?) The point of the Israeli threats is to get the United States and the world community to increase pressure on Iran with the justification that unless it does, Israel will attack.

Naturally, the United States Congress, which gets its marching orders on Middle East policy from the lobby which, in turn, gets its marching orders from Binyamin Netanyahu, is rushing to do what it is told. (If only Congress addressed joblessness at home with the same alacrity and enthusiasm.)

Accordingly the House Foreign Affairs Committee hurriedly convened this week to consider a new "crippling sanctions" bill that seems less designed to deter an Iran nuclear weapon than to lay the groundwork for war.

The clearest evidence that war is the intention of the bill's supporters comes in Section 601 which should be quoted in full. (It is so incredible that paraphrasing would invite the charge of distorting through selective quotation.)

It reads:

(c) RESTRICTION ON CONTACT. -- No person employed with the United States Government may contact in an official or unofficial capacity any person that -- (1) is an agent, instrumentality, or official of, is affiliated with, or is serving as a representative of the Government of Iran; and (2) presents a threat to the United States or is affiliated with terrorist organizations. (d) WAIVER. -- The President may waive the requirements of subsection (c) if the President determines and so reports to the appropriate congressional committees 15 days prior to the exercise of waiver authority that failure to exercise such waiver authority would pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the vital national security interests of the United States.
What does this mean?

It means that neither the president, the Secretary of State nor any U.S. diplomat or emissary may engage in negotiations or diplomacy with Iran of any kind unless the president convinces the "appropriate Congressional committees" (most significantly, the House Foreign Affairs Committee which is an AIPAC fiefdom) that not engaging with Iranian contacts would present an "an unusual and extraordinary threat to the vital national security interests of the United States."

To call this unprecedented is an understatement. At no time in our history has the White House or State Department been restricted from dealing with representatives of a foreign state, even in war time.

If President Roosevelt wanted to meet with Hitler, he could have and, of course, he did repeatedly meet with Stalin. During the Cold War, U.S. diplomats maintained continuous contacts with the Soviets, a regime that murdered tens of millions and, later, with the Chinese regime which murdered even more. And they did so without needing permission from Congress. (President Nixon was only able to normalize relations with China by means of secret negotiations which, had they been exposed, would have been torpedoed by the Republican right.)

But all the rules of normal statecraft are dropped when it comes to Iran which may, or may not, be working on developing a nuclear capacity. Of course if it is, it is obviously even more critical that the American government officials speak to Iranian counterparts.

But preventing diplomacy is precisely what Reps. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) and Howard Berman (D-CA), leaders of the House Foreign Affairs Committee which reported out this bill, seek. They and others who back the measure want another war and the best way to get it is to ban diplomacy (which exists, of course, to prevent war).

Think back, for example, to the Cuban missile crisis. The United States and the monstrous, nuclear armed Soviet regime were on the brink of war over Cuba, a war that might have destroyed the planet.

Neither President Kennedy nor Premier Khrushchev knew how to end the crisis, especially because both were being pushed by their respective militaries not to back down.

Then, at the darkest moment of the crisis, when war seemed inevitable, an ABC correspondent named John Scali secretly met with a Soviet official in New York who described a way to end the crisis that would satisfy his bosses. That meeting was followed by another secret meeting between the president's brother, Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, and a Soviet official in Washington. Those meetings led to a plan that ended the crisis and, perhaps, saved the world.

Needless to say, Kennedy did not ask for the permission of the House Foreign Affairs Committee either to conduct secret negotiations or to implement the terms of the deal. In fact, it was decades before the details of the deal were revealed.

It is this latitude to conduct diplomacy that the lobby and its cutouts on Capitol Hill want to take away from the White House. And it's latitude that is especially essential if it is determined that Iran is trying to assemble a nuclear arsenal.

Writing in the Washington Post last week, Fareed Zakaria explained that the best way to approach Iran is not to ban diplomacy but to intensify it, nukes or no nukes.

Obama should return to his original approach and test the Iranians to see if there is any room for dialogue and agreement. Engaging with Iran, putting its nuclear program under some kind of supervision and finding areas of common interest (such as Afghanistan) would all be important goals...

Strategic engagement with an adversary can go hand in hand with a policy that encourages change in that country. That's how Washington dealt with the Soviet Union and China in the 1970s and 1980s. Iran is a country of 80 million people, educated and dynamic. It sits astride a crucial part of the world. It cannot be sanctioned and pressed down forever. It is the last great civilization to sit outside the global order. We need a strategy that combines pressure with a path to bring Iran in from the cold.
In other words, it is time for more diplomacy not less -- even if that means offending a powerful lobby that is hell-bent for war.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mj-rosenberg/us-iran-israel_b_1074058.html?ref=israel
avatar
zone
Mod
Mod

Posts : 3653
Gender : Female Location : In Christ
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

IRAN LIE same as IRAQ LIE

Post by zone on Wed Sep 12, 2012 2:30 pm

IRAN LIE same as IRAQ LIE

avatar
zone
Mod
Mod

Posts : 3653
Gender : Female Location : In Christ
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Iran - the real target

Post by zone on Wed Sep 12, 2012 4:27 pm

September 11, 2012 8:36 AM
PRINT TEXT
Netanyahu: Nobody has "moral right to draw a red line for Israel" on Iran action

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gestures as he addresses the weekly cabinet meeting in Jerusalem, Sept. 9, 2012. (AP)

(CBS/AP) JERUSALEM - Israel's prime minister has expressed his dissatisfaction with Washington's refusal to spell out what would provoke a U.S.-led military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities.

Washington wants to give diplomacy and sanctions more time to try to pressure Iran to abandon its suspect nuclear work. In a message aimed at Israel, the Obama administration said several times this week that deadlines or "red lines" are counterproductive.

But Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says peaceful methods are not working, and Iran is getting closer to acquiring a nuclear bomb. His remarks have generated speculation Israel is readying to strike on its own.

Netanyahu said on Tuesday that "those in the international community who refuse to draw a red line on Iran have no moral right to draw a red line for Israel."

Israeli leaders have been hinting at a possible military strike to stop Iran from acquiring an atomic weapon. The U.S. says sanctions and diplomacy should be given more time.

Israel sees a nuclear Iran as an existential threat, due to its arch foe's frequent calls for Israel's destruction, its missile program and support for violent groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah.
avatar
zone
Mod
Mod

Posts : 3653
Gender : Female Location : In Christ
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Canada closes Iran embassy, expels remaining Iranian diplomats

Post by zone on Wed Sep 12, 2012 4:32 pm

Canada closes Iran embassy, expels remaining Iranian diplomats
Published on Friday September 07, 2012

OTTAWA—Canada has suspended diplomatic ties with Iran, plunging relations between the two nations to their worst level in years and raising fears about the fate of Canadians on death row in the Middle East nation.

In a surprise move Friday, Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird announced that Canada was closing its embassy in Tehran and expelling Iranian diplomats from Canada as it formally declared Iran a state sponsor of terrorism.

Baird branded Iran as the “most significant threat to global peace and security in the world today.”

He cited a list of long-standing beefs with the regime in Tehran as justification for the abrupt move, including Iranian military assistance to Syria and its refusal to comply with United Nations resolutions on its nuclear program.

“It routinely threatens the existence of Israel and engages in racist anti-Semitic rhetoric and incitement to genocide; it is among the world’s worst violators of human rights,” Baird told reporters in Vladivostok, Russia.

Pressed on why Canada decided to act now on grievances it’s had for months and years, Baird said only, “There’s just a long list of reasons why we’re coming to this decision.”

But he said the main motivation was an attack on the British embassy in Tehran nine months ago and worries that Canadian diplomats were in danger.

“It just got to a point where we just are very uncomfortable putting their lives at risk, and I’ll tell you . . . this is a decision obviously we don’t take lightly,” said Baird as he arrived in the Russian city for a meeting of APEC leaders.

Yet the sudden decision immediately provoked speculation that the long-discussed military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities by Israel and others was imminent, a suggestion that Baird’s office later sought to downplay.

The decision was announced after a skeleton staff of about eight Canadian foreign affairs employees had already returned home from Iran. There are about 17 workers in the Iranian embassy and they’ve been given five days to leave Canada, a foreign affairs official said.

The federal government is also urging Canadians to avoid travel to Iran.

A spokesman for Iran’s foreign ministry, Ramin Mehmanparast, called Canada’s decision “hasty and extreme” and said that Iran would soon respond, the semi-official Fars news agency reported.

But the diplomatic ousting won applause in other quarters, including from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

“I congratulate Canada’s (Prime Minister Stephen) Harper for showing leadership and making a bold move that sends a clear message to Iran and the world,” said Netanyahu, who had discussed his concerns about Iran with Harper during a March visit to Ottawa


The Paris-based National Council of Resistance of Iran, an Iranian dissident group, also endorsed the action and urged European and Middle East countries to follow Canada’s lead.

“Severing relations with the religious dictatorship ruling Iran and standing by the Iranian people . . . are the only way to rid the world of a terrorist and fundamentalist regime,” the group said in a statement.

But the suspension of ties does raise fears that two Canadians awaiting execution in Iranian prison — Hamid Ghassemi-Shall and Saeed Malekpour — could be at risk amid the diplomatic jousting.

Relations between Ottawa and Tehran have soured since the death of Canadian photojournalist Zahra Kazemi in 2003 in Evin prison. But Friday’s move underscores a sharp deterioration of relations in recent months. In late April, Ottawa closed the visa office in the Tehran embassy, a decision Iran called “unfriendly.”

The latest move also comes amid accusations that officials working out of the Iranian embassy in Ottawa have been attempting to infiltrate the Iranian community in Canada.

“These activities using cultural organizations, student groups, as fronts have seen to be aimed at infiltrating the Iranian diaspora and neutralizing opposition to the regime,” said Payam Akhavan, a law professor at McGill University and founder of the Iran Human Rights Documentation Centre.

“Many of us involved in human rights activities have had to contend with the infiltration of our community by individuals who are effectively agents of the regime,” he said in an interview Friday.

Still, he joined other experts in questioning whether Ottawa’s decision to cut ties altogether was the right one, saying it would leave Canada in the dark about developments in the country.

“I would have thought that an outright closure may have not necessarily been the best option as opposed to a very serious downgrading of relations,” he said. “I think it’s important to isolate the regime, but at the same time, it’s important to leave some lines of communication open.”

But he also urged targeted action — sanctions and travel bans — against Iranian regime insiders he says are living in Canada and funnelling millions of dollars through the country’s real estate market.

“The bigger issue for me is that while we take this sort of symbolic action, we’ve largely turned a blind eye to the massive amounts of money that is being laundered in the real estate market in Toronto, Vancouver,” Akhavan said.

Still, many others were left scratching their heads, wondering what prompted Canada to act now.

“I’m really puzzled . . . I don’t see the closure benefitting anyone,” said Maziar Bahari, an Iranian-Canadian journalist who was held for 118 days in a Tehran prison in 2009.

Unless Canadian diplomats were in imminent danger or federal officials had fresh evidence of wrongdoing by Iranian diplomats in Canada, Bahari said he can’t see any reason for the move.

“The fact that the Iranian government is a nasty regime, we’ve known that for the past 33 years,” he said in an interview.

And he cautioned that the withdrawal of diplomats will impede Canada’s ability to help the Canadians on death row, even though Iran does not recognize their dual citizenship.

Still, Bahari said he doubts that the Iranian regime will exact reprisals by proceeding with the executions, calling the government “cynically pragmatic.”

“I think they are going to play the victim in this case,” he said.

Houchang Hassan-Yari, an expert on the Middle East with Queen’s University and the Royal Military College, predicted a long period of diplomatic chilliness between the two countries as a result of Friday’s actions.

“It will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for the Canadian government to go back and re-establish relations in Iran in the absence of any tangible move by the Iranian government in those areas of concerns,” he said in an interview.

He said the motivation for acting now may simply have been exasperation in the face of Iran’s continued intransigence.

“It might also be a sign of frustration for the Canadian government that they do not expect anything positive coming out of Tehran,” Hassan-Yari said.
avatar
zone
Mod
Mod

Posts : 3653
Gender : Female Location : In Christ
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Iran - the real target

Post by zone on Wed Sep 12, 2012 4:35 pm

Ottawa press release: "Canada views the Government of Iran as the most significant threat to global peace and security in the world today"

oh really?
avatar
zone
Mod
Mod

Posts : 3653
Gender : Female Location : In Christ
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Iran - the real target

Post by Abiding on Sun Sep 16, 2012 8:01 pm

Life after strike on Iran. new thread title.
Im not qualified to make. Smile
avatar
Abiding

Posts : 78
Gender : Male Location : Spokane, WA
Join date : 2011-07-25

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Iran - the real target

Post by zone on Sat Sep 22, 2012 11:38 am

The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com

Imminent Iran nuclear threat? A timeline of warnings since 1979.

Breathless predictions that the Islamic Republic willsoon be at the brink of nuclear
capability, or – worse – acquire an actual nuclear bomb, are not new.

For more than quarter of a centuryWestern officials have claimed repeatedly that
Iran is close to joining the nuclear club. Such a result is always declared
"unacceptable" and a possible reason for military action, with "all options on the
table" to prevent upsetting the Mideast strategic balance dominated by the US and
Israel.

And yet, those predictions have time and again come and gone. This chronicle of
past predictions lends historical perspective to today’s rhetoric about Iran.

By Scott Peterson, Staff writer
posted November 8, 2011 at 7:13 pm EST

1.Earliest warnings: 1979-84
The reactor building of Iran's Bushehr nuclear power plant is seen in this 2005 file
photo.
(Vahid Salemi/AP/File)

Fear of an Iranian nuclear weapon predates Iran's 1979 Islamic revolution, when
the pro-West Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was deep in negotiations with the
US, France and West Germany, on a nuclear-energy spending spree that was to
yield 20 reactors.

Late 1970s: US receives intelligence that the Shah had "set up a clandestine nuclear
weapons development program."

1979: Shah ousted in the Iranian revolution, ushering in the Islamic Republic. After
the overthrow of the Shah, the US stopped supplying highly enriched uranium
(HEU) to Iran. The revolutionary government guided by Ayatollah Ruhollah
Khomeini condemned nuclear weapons and energy, and for a time stopped all
projects.

1984: Soon after West German engineers visit the unfinished Bushehr nuclear
reactor, Jane's Defence Weekly quotes West German intelligence sources saying
that Iran's production of a bomb "is entering its finalstages." US Senator Alan
Cranston claims Iran is seven years away from making a weapon.

2.Israel paints Iran as Enemy No. 1: 1992
Though Israel had secretly done business with the Islamic Republic after the 1979
revolution, seeking to cultivate a Persian wedge against its local Arab enemies, the
early 1990s saw a concerted effort by Tel Aviv to portray Iran as a new and
existential threat.

1992:Israeli parliamentarian Benjamin Netanyahu tells his colleagues that Iran is 3
to 5 years from being able to produce a nuclear weapon – and that the threat had
to be "uprooted by an international front headed by the US."

1992:Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres tells French TV that Iran was set to
have nuclear warheads by 1999. "Iran is the greatest threat and greatest problem in
the Middle East," Peres warned, "because it seeks the nuclear option while holding
a highly dangerous stance of extreme religious militancy."

1992:Joseph Alpher, a former official of Israel's Mossad spy agency, says "Iran
has to be identified as Enemy No. 1." Iran's nascent nuclear program, he told The
New York Times, "really gives Israel the jitters."

ad nauseum....>>

http://www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/print/content/view/print/422252
avatar
zone
Mod
Mod

Posts : 3653
Gender : Female Location : In Christ
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Iran - the real target

Post by zone on Sat Sep 22, 2012 11:51 am

zone wrote:Iran vs Israel: What The Media Wants You To Forget


The corporate media have been given their orders to throw the focus back on to Iran.

Here is a recap of what they are trying to make you forget.
1. Last Spring, Rose Gottemoeller, an assistant secretary of state and Washington's chief nuclear arms negotiator, asked Israel to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Israel refused.
2. The United Nations passed a resolution calling on Israel to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and to submit to inspections. Israel refused.
3. The IAEA asked Israel to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and to submit to inspections. Israel refused.
4. Iran's formal notification to the IAEA of the planned construction of the backup fuel-rod facility underscores that Iran is playing by the rules of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty which Iran has signed.
5. Iran allows IAEA inspections of all its facilities.
6. Contrary to face-saving claims, it appears that the US and Israel were both caught off guard by Iran's announcement. The reasoning is simple. Had the US or Israel announced the existence of he new facility before Iran's notified the IAEA, it would have put Iran on the defensive. As it is now, the US and Israel seem to be playing catch up, casting doubt on the veracity of Israel's claims to "know" that Iran is a nuclear threat.
7. The IAEA and all 16 United States Intelligence Agencies are unanimous in agreement that Iran is not building and does not possess nuclear weapons.
8. In 1986, Mordachai Vanunu blew the whistle and provided photographs showing Israel's clandestine nuclear weapons factory underneath the reactor at Dimona.
9. Israel made the same accusations against Iraq that it is making against Iran, leading up to Israel's bombing of the power station at Osirik. Following the invasion of 2003, international experts examined the ruins of the power station at Osirik and found no evidence of a clandestine weapons factory in the rubble.
10. The United Nations has just released the Goldstone Report, a scathing report which accuses Israel of 37 specific war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza earlier this year. Israel has denounced the report as "Anti-Semitic (even though Judge Goldstone is himself Jewish), and the United States will block the report from being referred to the War Crimes Tribunal at the Hague, thereby making the US Government an accessory after-the-fact.
11. Recently revealed documents prove not only that Israel has nuclear weapos, but actually tried to sell some to Apartheid South Africa. Who else Israel approached to sell nuclear weapons remains an unasked question.
12. In 1965, Israel stole over 200-600 pounds of weapons-grade uranium from the United States.
13. Declassified documents from the former South African regime prove not only that Israel has had nuclear weapons for decades, but has tried to sell them to other countries!

bump
avatar
zone
Mod
Mod

Posts : 3653
Gender : Female Location : In Christ
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Iran - the real target

Post by zone on Tue Oct 16, 2012 6:06 pm


Pamela Geller says if Iran attacks Israel, Israel should nuke Europe.

avatar
zone
Mod
Mod

Posts : 3653
Gender : Female Location : In Christ
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Iran - the real target

Post by Abiding on Tue Oct 16, 2012 6:43 pm

Shes scary looking Shocked
avatar
Abiding

Posts : 78
Gender : Male Location : Spokane, WA
Join date : 2011-07-25

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Iran - the real target

Post by zone on Tue Oct 16, 2012 8:25 pm

Abiding wrote:Shes scary looking Shocked
it's not what's on the outside, rather the inside.
in Geller's case, yes, scary
affraid



disturbing days indeed, mikey.
avatar
zone
Mod
Mod

Posts : 3653
Gender : Female Location : In Christ
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Iran - the real target

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum