logo Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register.
2024-03-28 22:23:31 CoV Wiki
Learn more about the Church of Virus
Home Help Search Login Register
News: Do you want to know where you stand?

  Church of Virus BBS
  General
  Serious Business

   IAEA Again Verifies Iranian Compliance-Neo-crazy Media Sycophants Drum for War!
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Reply Notify of replies Send the topic Print 
   Author  Topic: IAEA Again Verifies Iranian Compliance-Neo-crazy Media Sycophants Drum for War!  (Read 18077 times)
Fritz
Archon
*****

Gender: Male
Posts: 1746
Reputation: 8.77
Rate Fritz





View Profile WWW E-Mail
Re: IAEA Again Verifies Iranian Compliance-Neo-crazy Media Sycophants Drum for W
« Reply #30 on: 2008-07-02 19:49:41 »
Reply with quote

Thought these added fuel to the dialogs  .... 

Fritz


Analysis: Rice presses for a US diplomatic presence in Tehran

Source:DEBKAfile
Author: DEBKAfile
Date: June 29, 2008, 9:15 AM (GMT+02:00)

DEBKAfile’s Washington sources, report that by the dramatic step of establishing a US interests section in Tehran, 27 years after relations were severed with the Revolutionary Republic, the Bush administration would hope to wash its hands of any Israeli plan to strike Iran’s nuclear sites this year.

Behind the step are US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice and her former deputy Nicholas Burns; its disclosure to the American media attests to White House backing.

The step slots into the American presidential campaign by distancing President George W. Bush from conservative elements, whose thinking was encapsulated by Bill Kristol, of the Weekly Standard when he told Fox News Sunday, June 22: “If President Bush foresees the likelihood of an Obama election, he may decide to go ahead with such an attack. However, if the President thinks Sen. McCain will be the winner, he would leave the Iranian situation for President McCain to handle.” This view was endorsed by Daniel Pipes, a Middle East expert and member of the conservative Hoover Institution.

Democratic Barack Obama has increased his margin against the Republican John McCain by 15 percent.

Regarding the likelihood of an Israeli go-it-alone attack on Iran, former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton said in the same broadcast:

"I think if they [Israel] are to do anything, the most likely period is after our elections and before the inauguration of the next President. I don’t think they will do anything before our election because they don’t want to affect it.”

Sunday, DEBKAfile reported the estimate of Israeli intelligence and military circles that the extension of Mossad director Meir Dagan’s tenure for another year up to the end of 2009 points to a probable Israeli military action against Iran this year before the Bush presidency runs out.

The unsolicited statement by Condoleezza Rice came next on Monday, June 23. On her way to a conference in Berlin of donors to the Palestinian Civil Police Force, she spoke of opening a US interests section in Tehran similar to the one maintained in Cuba. In so saying, she broke away sharply from the international drive led by the Bush administration to isolate Iran for refusing to give up uranium enrichment.

She said: “We do have the station in Dubai where [Iranians] can get visas, but we know that it's difficult for Iranians sometimes to get to Dubai. We want more Iranians visiting the United States. We are determined to find ways to reach out to the Iranian people."

Middle East peace negotiators, Israeli foreign minister Tzipi Livni and Palestinian ex-prime minister Ahmed Qureia are attending the Berlin conference.

Since the 1979 siege of the US embassy in Tehran by revolutionary zealots, Washington has been represented in Tehran by the Swiss embassy. This arrangement has become untenable since Switzerland signed a bi gas deal with Iran, in breach US sanctions against the Islamic Republic.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mossad Chief Empowered to Prepare Groundwork for Iran Strike

Source:DEBKAfile
Author: DEBKAfile
Date: June 23, 2008, 

By extending the Mossad director, Meir Dagan’s tenure for another year until the end of 2009, Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert has put in place a vital constituent for a possible eleventh-hour unilateral strike at Iran’s nuclear facilities.

In his six years on the job, the 61-year old external intelligence has proved his covert mettle in a variety of counter-terror operations, graduating most recently to a highly successful intelligence coup leading up to the demolition of Syria’s North Korean plutonium reactor in al Kebir last September.

Appointed by former prime minister Ariel Sharon in 2002, Dagan’s first four years as the Mossad’s tenth chief were dedicated to counterterrorism rather than tracking Iran’s nuclear activities or monitoring Iran’s burgeoning strategic ties with Syria and Hizballah.

From mid-2006, the former general shifted the agency’s priorities to include these targets, while the Mossad continued to show its fearsome counter-terror paces in Damascus, Beirut and other Arab capitals.

Not all the Mossad’s operations have seen the light of day, but it has been credited in the past two years with hits against high-profile Hizballah, Hamas and Jihad Islami operatives in Syria and Lebanon.

The operation against Syria’s plutonium reactor last year was one of the most complex operations ever performed by the Mossad. For the Israeli raiders to put the facility out of commission and lift out the evidence of a working nuclear collaboration between Syria, Iran and North Korea, they needed from the Mossad precise data on the facility’s inner and outer defenses. It had to include the air defense systems in place across Syria, the whereabouts of the materials and equipment the Israeli team was assigned to appropriate from the site and transfer to the United States, and the nature and numbers of the Syrian, Iranian and North Korean personnel present.

It was not until April 2008, seven months later, that the US Central Intelligence Agency released news of the operation in Washington, providing graphics attesting to the depth of Mossad’s penetration of the of the most secret and well-protected facility in Syria.

Examination of those visuals attested to one or more agents having been planted solidly enough in the Syrian nuclear project to have photographed the different stages of the reactor’s construction and the North Korean equipment installed there – a feat which drew the respect of Dagan’s undercover colleagues in the West.

The other outstanding feature of the Al Kebir operation was one that has come to be associated with the spy chief’s method of operation: No leads or clues were left for the Syrian, Iranian and North Korean investigators to find –even after the photos were published.

His spy or spies proved untraceable.

Dagan, a hands-on spymaster, demonstrated this skill earlier in the operation to eliminate one of the longest-running and most dangerous enemies of Israel and America, the head of Hizballah’s special security apparatus, Imad Mughniyeh, in Damascus on February 12. It followed similar methods in the preceding two years - usually explosives planted under a driver’s seat or headrests of vehicles driven by Hizballah, Hamas and Jihad Islami operatives. Neither Hizballah nor Syrian intelligence has been able to prevent these liquidations or catch the hit-teams.

The intelligence operation for aborting Iran’s aspirations to acquire a nuclear bomb would undoubtedly ratchet up the Mossad’s targets for its most formidable mission ever. It would be undertaken in the full knowledge that a nuclear bomb in the hands of the Islamic Republic of Iran would constitute the most dangerous threat to Israel’s survival in 60 years of statehood, as well as a menace to the free world.

It would be up to Meir Dagan, a Holocaust survivor born in the Soviet Union, to rise to the Mossad’s motto: "Where no counsel is, the people fall, but in the multitude of counselors there is safety" (Proverbs XI/14)

The Mossad chief has his critics at home. In Israel’s clandestine agencies, some find his style excessively individualist, secretive and highhandedly confined to fields which he finds interesting rather than objectively important to national security. He is faulted with shunning the close collaborative relations traditional in the undercover world. The Mossad’s structure is also said to be antiquated and in need of an extensive overhaul, although it recently launched a website for recruitment.

But Dagan has the full trust of his boss, the prime minister.

The timing chosen for extending the Mossad chief’s tenure – early summer of 2008 – is indicative. Israeli intelligence estimates the summer months are critical for acting against Iran’s nuclear advances, especially uranium enrichment which Iran refuses to forego. If it is not stopped by September or October of 2008, it will be too late; Iran will have crossed the threshold to the last lap of its military program.

Israeli intelligence and its armed forces have three months to finish the job which has long been in preparation.
Report to moderator   Logged

Where there is the necessary technical skill to move mountains, there is no need for the faith that moves mountains -anon-
Hermit
Archon
*****

Posts: 4290
Reputation: 8.92
Rate Hermit



Prime example of a practically perfect person

View Profile WWW
Re: IAEA Again Verifies Iranian Compliance-Neo-crazy Media Sycophants Drum for W
« Reply #31 on: 2008-07-02 21:50:55 »
Reply with quote

The sycophantic tone and beautifully woven together big (but blatant) lies in the second piece makes me suspect that rather than Dekba merely being operated by retired Mossad agents, that they are likelyy still being paid to inject propaganda into the unquestioning US media.

Kind Regards

Hermit
Report to moderator   Logged

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
Hermit
Archon
*****

Posts: 4290
Reputation: 8.92
Rate Hermit



Prime example of a practically perfect person

View Profile WWW
Re: IAEA Again Verifies Iranian Compliance-Neo-crazy Media Sycophants Drum for W
« Reply #32 on: 2008-07-23 14:10:49 »
Reply with quote

IRAN: The Nuclear Assumption

Source: mohammadmossadegh
Authors: Arash Norouzi (artist and co-founder of The Mossadegh Project [ Hermit : and has a beautiful mind if this example of her thinking is at all representative. ] )
Dated: Undated

It is widely assumed, though yet to be proven, that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons. The Iranian government has repeatedly, consistently, adamantly, and categorically denied any interest in nuclear weapons. No one is obliged to believe such denials, but they are conspicuously absent from the discourse on this very critical issue.
 
In reality, Iran not only denies any interest in nuclear weapons, but has repeatedly called for the creation of a Nuclear Free Zone in the Middle East and the end of all nuclear weapons in the world. Iran has even officially stated that nuclear weapons would undermine their security. High ranking Iranian officials have spoken often of the uselessness of such weapons.
 
As examples, they cite nuclear weapons states such as:
    [1] the Soviet Union, which collapsed despite having nukes
    [2] Israel, whose nukes cannot ensure security within their own homeland
    [3] the United States, hopelessly stuck in Iraq even though it has a massive nuclear arsenal
    [4] Pakistan, whose domestic turmoil and political instability persist despite possession of nuclear arms

While Iran condemns nuclear weapons on strategic, religious and moral grounds, Bush and other leaders talk constantly about Iran's "nuclear weapons ambitions", "desire to have a nuclear weapon", or its "nuclear weapons program". Like Iraq's elusive Weapons of Mass Destruction, these allegations are often repeated by the mainstream media as if they were undisputed facts. Indeed, the prevailing narrative for years has been that Iran's nuclear energy program is just a cover for a weapons program, and that their claims to the contrary are no surprise because, of course, they're evil, dirty stinking liars. Bush himself has said that Iran needs to "come clean" with the international community about its "hidden", "covert", "non-transparent" nuclear weapons program, calling Iran "untrustworthy".
 
"The discussion of nuclear weapons is not in Iran", states Supreme Leader Khamenei as quoted by Iranian state media. "Our officials have said it, the people have accepted it, governments have said it, and I have repeatedly said we are not after nuclear weapons."
 
"We have made it clear that at the highest level, Iran does not want nuclear weapons, nor does it want to pursue development, stockpiling or acquisition of these inhuman weapons", former United Nations representative Javad Zarif told the press at the UN in 2006.
 
"We consider it [nuclear weapons] unhumanitarian, illogical, inefficient, and illegitimate", said Iran's former Deputy Foreign Minister Saeed Jalili, now Iran's Chief Nuclear Negotiator, in a December 2006 Boston Globe interview.
 
"Iran has never had, doesn't have, and will not have any nuclear weapon program", Iran's current UN ambassador Mohammad Khazaee told Charlie Rose in December 2007.
 
President Ahmadinejad has tirelessly made the same claim in speeches domestically and abroad, including twice at the United Nations in New York, in several public letters, and in numerous interviews. "We don't need weapons at all", Ahmadinejad said in a September 2006 interview on NBC TV. "We're strong enough to defend ourselves. And we support peace."
 
In his September 2005 speech before the UN General Assembly, Ahmadinejad branded the nuclear  innuendo as "nothing but a propaganda ploy", blaming "hegemonic powers" who "have misrepresented Iran's healthy and fully safeguarded technological endeavors in the nuclear field as pursuit of nuclear weapons". Furthermore, he called on the UN to form a committee dedicated to the global disarmament of all nuclear weapons states, and concluded, "The Islamic Republic of Iran reiterates its previously and repeatedly declared position that in accordance with our religious principles, pursuit of nuclear weapons is prohibited."
 
In November 2005, the Iranian government released a lengthy dissertation,  "An Unnecessary Crisis: Setting the Record Straight About Iran's Nuclear Program", as a full page ad in the New York Times. "[T]he hysteria about the dangers of an alleged Iran nuclear weapon program rest solely and intentionally on misperceptions and outright lies", it argued. "The Islamic Republic of Iran is committed to non-proliferation and the elimination of nuclear weapons, and considers nuclear weapons and capability to produce or acquire them as detrimental to its security. Iran will continue to abide by its obligations under the NPT and will continue to work actively for the establishment of a zone free from weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East."
 
Much has been made of Iranian rhetoric. If the rhetoric is so crucially important, then Iran's frequent, public condemnations of the building, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons should be duly noted.
 
No matter how many times Iran denies pursuing nuclear weapons, many choose to play dumb and pretend as if they said otherwise. Some in the media appear to be hoping to trick an Iranian official into revealing a weapons program with a careless slip of the tongue.
 
During a September 2007 interview, CBS News' Scott Pelley repeatedly badgered Ahmadinejad to answer if his country was pursuing nuclear bombs. Finally, Pelley accused him of dodging questions. "[W]hen I ask you a question as direct as "Will you pledge not to test a nuclear weapon?" you dance all around the question, pressed Pelley. "You never say 'yes'. You never say 'no'."
 
Actually, Ahmadinejad had already said, in response to a question of whether it was Iran's goal to build a nuclear weapon, "It is a firm 'no' ", and delivered his standard anti-nuclear diatribe ("..the nuclear bomb is of no use", "..we don't need a nuclear bomb", "..we don't need such weapons. In fact, we think that this is inhuman", "We have not diverted from a peaceful path", etc.).
 
In 2006, CNN broadcast a speech by Ahmadinejad in which he is said to have decried the West's campaign to "deprive us to have nuclear weapons", rather than "nuclear technology". CNN was immediately banned from reporting in Iran until it retracted the mistranslation the following day.
 
CNN's own report on the controversy covered its subsequent apology:
    "In a written statement, CNN said it "apologized on all its platforms which included the translation error, including CNN International, CNNUSA and CNN.com, and also expressed its regrets to the Iranian government and the Iranian ambassador to the U.N."
 
After this, the CNN ban was lifted. However, the entire official apology is nowhere to be found on CNN's web site.
 
Some members of the media try the persuasion route, explaining how since Iran is surrounded by nuclear powers, hostile enemies, heavy U.S. military presence, and, like Iraq, was named part of the Axis of Evil, why wouldn't they want a nuclear deterrent? By making the case for Iran to have a nuclear weapon as a lure, they expose a key flaw in reasoning: it's easy to present a powerful argument for why Iran should join the nuclear club, even if you don't want them to attain membership.
 
When Ahmadinejad was questioned about nukes in Scott Macleod's September 2006 Time magazine interview, he got a typical anti-nuke response. Seemingly determined to convince Ahmadinejad of the folly of his ways, Macleod prodded, "But you were attacked with weapons of mass destruction by Iraq. You say the U.S. threatens you, and you are surrounded by countries that have nuclear weapons." Ahmadinejad wouldn't budge. "[H]e's on some kind of an anti-nuclear bomb campaign", Macleod later commented in an interview for Time about the experience.
 
In a May 2006 interview, the German magazine Spiegel made a pathetic attempt to confuse the wily Ahmadinejad into spilling the beans:
     
    Ahmadinejad: We're fundamentally opposed to the expansion of nuclear-weapons arsenals. This is why we have proposed the formation of an unbiased organization and the disarmament of the nuclear powers. We don't need any weapons. We're a civilized, cultured people, and our history shows that we have never attacked another country.
     
    SPIEGEL: Iran doesn't need the bomb that it wants to build?

Despite Iran's efforts to convince the world of its "peaceful" nuclear activities, U.S. President George W. Bush, entitled to his own facts, claims that Iran admits it wants nukes. Bush has offered up this ruse for several years, to wit:
    "After all, this is a government that has proclaimed its desire to build a nuclear weapon." - August 6, 2007- at Camp David with Afghan President Hamid Karzai
     
    "...they've declared they want to have a nuclear weapon to destroy people -- some in the Middle East." - March 2008 Radio Farda interview
     
    "...such as announcing they want to destroy countries with a nuclear weapon." - March 2008 Voice of America interview
     
    "...I don't believe non-transparent regimes that threaten the security of the world should be allowed to gain the technologies necessary to make a weapon. And the Iranians have said, 'we want a weapon'." - January 26, 2006 - White House press conference
     
    "...it's very important for us to take the threats coming out of the mouth of the President of Iran very seriously. He's a person that is, you know -- constantly talks about the use of force to -- on Israel, for example, and Israel is our very firm and strong ally." - September 20, 2007 - White House press conference
     
    "I think so long -- until they suspend and/or make it clear that they -- that their statements aren't real, yeah, I believe they want to have the capacity, the knowledge, in order to make a nuclear weapon." - October 17, 2007 - White House press conference
     
    "As you know, the Iranians, for example, think they want to have a nuclear weapon. And we've convinced other nations to join us to send a clear message, through the United Nations, that that's unacceptable behavior." - January 6, 2007 - confirmation of General Petraeus

    "But you don't have the trust of those of us who have watched you carefully when it comes to enriching uranium, because you have declared that you want to destroy democracies in the neighborhood." - June 16, 2008 - London News conference with Gordon Brown

    "You've threatened countries with nuclear weapons. You've said you want a nuclear weapon." - January 14, 2007- CBS TV 60 Minutes interview, asked what would he say to Ahmadinejad
 
On another occasion, Bush indicated that Iran already possessed nuclear weapons:
    "We know that we've got common goals that make sense for both our peoples. Two such goals are Iran, convincing the Iranians to get rid of its nuclear weapons." - White House press conference, February 14, 2007, speaking on US-Russia relations
 
In December 2007, the new National Intelligence Estimate reported that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in early 2003. A jubilant President Ahmadinejad hailed it as a "victory for the Iranian nation", and Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki called claims that Iran ever pursued nuclear weaponry "a big lie", viewing the report as tantamount to a confession of prior U.S. deception. Iran's state news agency IRNA called on the U.S. to apologize to Iran, and its embassy in Thailand issued a statement celebrating the NIE release, which "clearly proves that Iran's nuclear program is completely peaceful."
 
Clearly, this is a regime that would like the world to believe that they are not pursuing nuclear weaponry.
 
The Bush administration claimed that the NIE report changed nothing, yet in the months prior to the NIE's long-postponed release, Bush's rhetoric began to re-emphasize uranium enrichment itself, "capacity" and "knowledge" as red lines that Iran could not be permitted to cross. "Look, Iran was dangerous, Iran is dangerous, and Iran will be dangerous if they have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon", insisted Bush at a White House press conference immediately following the NIE release.
 
"This NIE does not assume that Iran intends to acquire nuclear weapons", says the report self referentially, yet U.S. foreign policy towards Iran does make that assumption-- no matter what 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, the Iranian government, or the International Atomic Energy Agency say to the contrary.
 
"We haven't seen indications or any concrete evidence that Iran is building a nuclear weapon and I've been saying that consistently for the last five years," said IAEA Director General and Nobel Prize recipient Mohamed El Baradei in May 2008. While in Paris a couple weeks later, President Bush was asked about the possibility of more sanctions for Iran's continued uranium enrichment. "...[T]hey refuse to abandon their desires to develop the know-how which could lead to a nuclear weapon", said Bush, emphasizing the term "know-how". "...[W]e can't trust you [Iran] to enrich".
 
If Iran has truly admitted to wanting nuclear weapons as Bush claims, then there's no need to modify the talking point from the "desire to have a nuclear weapon" to the "desire to develop the know-how which could lead to a nuclear weapon." 
 
Iran, of course, maintains that its nuclear program is for energy and peaceful purposes only, a claim scoffed at by US-Israeli officials, who question the absurdity of an oil rich country requiring alternative sources of energy. Former Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has said Iran has "oil coming out of their ears", and Vice President Dick Cheney has offered the head-scratcher that Iran is "already sitting on an awful lot of oil and gas. Nobody can figure why they need nuclear as well to generate energy." 
 
For an answer to Cheney's question, let's turn to AIPAC's June 2008 memo on "The Iranian Threat":
 
"Despite sitting on some of the largest oil reserves in the world, Iran has been forced to import 40 percent of its refined petroleum - gasoline and diesel - because of a lack of investment in its oil refining infrastructure. The high cost of importing gasoline, combined with large price subsidies given to Iranian citizens, has forced Iran to ration gasoline. The regime’s decision last year to ration gasoline led to protests against Ahmadinejad. These protests included Iranians taking to the streets to burn gas stations. Limiting the sale of gasoline to Iran will severely impact Iran’s economy and could lead to dramatically greater domestic pressure on the regime to change course."
 
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert concurs, telling the crowd at the June 2008 AIPAC conference, "While Iran may be a large oil exporter, it imports almost half of its refined oil products. Sanctions can be imposed on the export of gasoline to Iran and they can be imposed on countries which refine gasoline for Iran."
 
Of course, Cheney already knows full well of Iran's growing energy needs. Thirty years earlier, the  Gerald Ford administration of which Cheney was Chief of Staff had a policy opposite to the Bush administration. The Shah was strongly encouraged to build nuclear reactors, whose enriched uranium could have led to the production of bombs.

 
So, in review: Iran has a hidden nuclear weapons program that it openly admits to. Although it might be in Iran's interest to have a nuclear deterrent, they'll be nuked if they even think about it. The NIE significantly downgraded the threat from Iran, but that just goes to show how great a threat they are. Iran doesn't need energy, but the best way to weaken them is to deprive them of energy. And just because the intelligence was so wrong about Iraq is no reason to doubt the intelligence about Iran. Any questions?
Report to moderator   Logged

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
Hermit
Archon
*****

Posts: 4290
Reputation: 8.92
Rate Hermit



Prime example of a practically perfect person

View Profile WWW
Re: IAEA Again Verifies Iranian Compliance-Neo-crazy Media Sycophants Drum for W
« Reply #33 on: 2008-07-30 02:50:43 »
Reply with quote

Acts of War

[ Hermit : Here is what Wikipedia has to say about Scott Ritter (abbreviated): Ritter was born into a military family in 1961. He graduated from Franklin and Marshall College in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, with a Bachelor of Arts in the history of the Soviet Union and departmental honors. In 1980 he served in the U.S. Army as a Private. Then in May of 1984 he was commissioned as an intelligence officer in the United States Marine Corps. He served in this capacity for twelve years.[1] He initially served as the lead analyst for the Marine Corps Rapid Deployment Force concerning the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the Iran-Iraq War. During Desert Storm, he served as a ballistic missile advisor to General Norman Schwarzkopf. Ritter later worked as a security and military consultant for the Fox News network. Ritter served from 1991 to 1998 as a United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq in the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), which was charged with finding and destroying all weapons of mass destruction and WMD-related manufacturing capabilities in Iraq. He was chief inspector in fourteen of the more than thirty inspection missions in which he participated.

From this we can judge that Scott Ritter's background to assess the current situation is, like those of other sources posted here, particularly Gordon Prather, remarkably apt. We also know that his predictions and assessments of the illegal attack on Iraq were vastly more accurate than those of the Bush administration. I see even less reason to doubt his analysis of the Iran war below, which by and large concurs with my own. As is sometimes the case with really important articles, I have deliberately omitted to highlight significant passages. The entire article forms an interconnected and I think persuasive argument that deserves reading in full. I will be happy to discuss any aspect of it with anyone other than our pet troll. ]


Source: Truthdig
Authors: Scott Ritter
Dated: 2008-07-29

The war between the United States and Iran is on. American taxpayer dollars are being used, with the permission of Congress, to fund activities that result in Iranians being killed and wounded, and Iranian property destroyed. This wanton violation of a nation’s sovereignty would not be tolerated if the tables were turned and Americans were being subjected to Iranian-funded covert actions that took the lives of Americans, on American soil, and destroyed American property and livelihood. Many Americans remain unaware of what is transpiring abroad in their name. Many of those who are cognizant of these activities are supportive of them, an outgrowth of misguided sentiment which holds Iran accountable for a list of grievances used by the U.S. government to justify the ongoing global war on terror. Iran, we are told, is not just a nation pursuing nuclear weapons, but is the largest state sponsor of terror in the world today.

Much of the information behind this is being promulgated by Israel, which has a vested interest in seeing Iran neutralized as a potential threat. But Israel is joined by another source, even more puzzling in terms of its broad-based acceptance in the world of American journalism: the Mujahadeen-e Khalk, or MEK, an Iranian opposition group sworn to overthrow the theocracy in Tehran. The CIA today provides material support to the actions of the MEK inside Iran. The recent spate of explosions in Iran, including a particularly devastating “accident” involving a military convoy transporting ammunition in downtown Tehran, appears to be linked to an MEK operation; its agents working inside munitions manufacturing plants deliberately are committing acts of sabotage which lead to such explosions. If CIA money and planning support are behind these actions, the agency’s backing constitutes nothing less than an act of war on the part of the United States against Iran.

The MEK traces its roots back to the CIA-orchestrated overthrow of the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadeg. Formed among students and intellectuals, the MEK emerged in the 1960s as a serious threat to the reign of Reza Shah Pahlevi. Facing brutal repression from the Shah’s secret police, the SAVAK, the MEK became expert at blending into Iranian society, forming a cellular organizational structure which made it virtually impossible to eradicate. The MEK membership also became adept at gaining access to positions of sensitivity and authority. When the Shah was overthrown in 1978, the MEK played a major role and for a while worked hand in glove with the Islamic Revolution in crafting a post-Shah Iran. In 1979 the MEK had a central role in orchestrating the seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, and holding 55 Americans hostage for 444 days.

However, relations between the MEK and the Islamic regime in Tehran soured, and after the MEK staged a bloody coup attempt in 1981, all ties were severed and the two sides engaged in a violent civil war. Revolutionary Guard members who were active at that time have acknowledged how difficult it was to fight the MEK. In the end, massive acts of arbitrary arrest, torture and executions were required to break the back of mainstream MEK activity in Iran, although even the Revolutionary Guard today admits the MEK remains active and is virtually impossible to completely eradicate.

It is this stubborn ability to survive and operate inside Iran, at a time when no other intelligence service can establish and maintain a meaningful agent network there, which makes the MEK such an asset to nations such as the United States and Israel. The MEK is able to provide some useful intelligence; however, its overall value as an intelligence resource is negatively impacted by the fact that it is the sole source of human intelligence in Iran. As such, the group has taken to exaggerating and fabricating reports to serve its own political agenda. In this way, there is little to differentiate the MEK from another Middle Eastern expatriate opposition group, the Iraqi National Congress, or INC, which infamously supplied inaccurate intelligence to the United States and other governments and helped influence the U.S. decision to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein. Today, the MEK sees itself in a similar role, providing sole-sourced intelligence to the United States and Israel in an effort to facilitate American military operations against Iran and, eventually, to overthrow the Islamic regime in Tehran.

The current situation concerning the MEK would be laughable if it were not for the violent reality of that organization’s activities. Upon its arrival in Iraq in 1986, the group was placed under the control of Saddam Hussein’s Mukhabarat, or intelligence service. The MEK was a heavily militarized organization and in 1988 participated in division-size military operations against Iran. The organization represents no state and can be found on the U.S. State Department’s list of terrorist organizations, yet since the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, the MEK has been under the protection of the U.S. military. Its fighters are even given “protected status” under the Geneva Conventions. The MEK says its members in Iraq are refugees, not terrorists. And yet one would be hard-pressed to find why the 1951 Geneva Convention on Refugees should confer refugee status on an active paramilitary organization that uses “refugee camps” inside Iraq as its bases.

The MEK is behind much of the intelligence being used by the International Atomic Energy Agency in building its case that Iran may be pursuing (or did in fact pursue in the past) a nuclear weapons program. The complexity of the MEK-CIA relationship was recently underscored by the agency’s acquisition of a laptop computer allegedly containing numerous secret documents pertaining to an Iranian nuclear weapons program. Much has been made about this computer and its contents. The United States has led the charge against Iran within international diplomatic circles, citing the laptop information as the primary source proving Iran’s ongoing involvement in clandestine nuclear weapons activity. Of course, the information on the computer, being derived from questionable sources (i.e., the MEK and the CIA, both sworn enemies of Iran) is controversial and its veracity is questioned by many, including me.

Now, I have a simple solution to the issue of the laptop computer: Give it the UNSCOM treatment. Assemble a team of CIA, FBI and Defense Department forensic computer analysts and probe the computer, byte by byte. Construct a chronological record of how and when the data on the computer were assembled. Check the “logic” of the data, making sure everything fits together in a manner consistent with the computer’s stated function and use. Tell us when the computer was turned on and logged into and how it was used. Then, with this complex usage template constructed, overlay the various themes which have been derived from the computer’s contents, pertaining to projects, studies and other activities of interest. One should be able to rapidly ascertain whether or not the computer is truly a key piece of intelligence pertaining to Iran’s nuclear programs.

The fact that this computer is acknowledged as coming from the MEK and the fact that a proper forensic investigation would probably demonstrate the fabricated nature of the data contained are why the U.S. government will never agree to such an investigation being done. A prosecutor, when making a case of criminal action, must lay out evidence in a simple, direct manner, allowing not only the judge and jury to see it but also the accused. If the evidence is as strong as the prosecutor maintains, it is usually bad news for the defendant. However, if the defendant is able to demonstrate inconsistencies and inaccuracies in the data being presented, then the prosecution is the one in trouble. And if the defense is able to demonstrate that the entire case is built upon fabricated evidence, the case is generally thrown out. This, in short, is what should be done with the IAEA’s ongoing probe into allegations that Iran has pursued nuclear weapons. The evidence used by the IAEA is unable to withstand even the most rudimentary cross-examination. It is speculative at best, and most probably fabricated. Iran has done the right thing in refusing to legitimize this illegitimate source of information.

A key question that must be asked is why, then, does the IAEA continue to permit Olli Heinonen, the agency’s Finnish deputy director for safeguards and the IAEA official responsible for the ongoing technical inspections in Iran, to wage his one-man campaign on behalf of the United States, Britain and (indirectly) Israel regarding allegations derived from sources of such questionable veracity (the MEK-supplied laptop computer)? Moreover, why is such an official given free rein to discuss such sensitive data with the press, or with politically motivated outside agencies, in a manner that results in questionable allegations appearing in the public arena as unquestioned fact? Under normal circumstances, leaks of the sort that have occurred regarding the ongoing investigation into Iran’s alleged past studies on nuclear weapons would be subjected to a thorough investigation to determine the source and to ensure that appropriate measures are taken to end them. And yet, in Vienna, Heinonen’s repeated transgressions are treated as a giant “non-event,” the 800-pound gorilla in the room that everyone pretends isn’t really there.

Heinonen has become the pro-war yin to the anti-confrontation yang of his boss, IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei. Every time ElBaradei releases the results of the IAEA probe of Iran, pointing out that the IAEA can find no evidence of any past or present nuclear weapons program, and that there is a full understanding of Iran’s controversial centrifuge-based enrichment program, Heinonen throws a monkey wrench into the works.  Well-publicized briefings are given to IAEA-based diplomats. Mysteriously, leaks from undisclosed sources occur. Heinonen’s Finnish nationality serves as a flimsy cover for neutrality that long ago disappeared. He is no longer serving in the role as unbiased inspector, but rather a front for the active pursuit of an American- and Israeli-inspired disinformation campaign designed to keep alive the flimsy allegations of a nonexistent Iranian nuclear weapons program in order to justify the continued warlike stance taken by the U.S. and Israel against Iran.

The fact that the IAEA is being used as a front to pursue this blatantly anti-Iranian propaganda is a disservice to an organization with a mission of vital world importance. The interjection of not only the unverified (and unverifiable) MEK laptop computer data, side by side with a newly placed emphasis on a document relating to the forming of uranium metal into hemispheres of the kind useful in a nuclear weapon, is an amateurish manipulation of data to achieve a preordained outcome. Calling the Iranian possession of the aforementioned document “alarming,” Heinonen (and the media) skipped past the history of the document, which, of course, has been well explained by Iran previously as something the Pakistani nuclear proliferator A.Q. Khan inserted on his own volition to a delivery of documentation pertaining to centrifuges. Far from being a “top-secret” document protected by Iran’s security services, it was discarded in a file of old material that Iran provided to the IAEA inspectors. When the IAEA found the document, Iran allowed it to be fully examined by the inspectors, and answered every question posed by the IAEA about how the document came to be in Iran. For Heinonen to call the document “alarming,” at this late stage in the game, is not only irresponsible but factually inaccurate, given the definition of the word. The Iranian document in question is neither a cause for alarm, seeing as it is not a source for any “sudden fear brought on by the sense of danger,” nor does it provide any “warning of existing or approaching danger,” unless one is speaking of the danger of military action on the part of the United States derived from Heinonen’s unfortunate actions and choice of words.

Olli Heinonen might as well become a salaried member of the Bush administration, since he is operating in lock step with the U.S. government’s objective of painting Iran as a threat worthy of military action. Shortly after Heinonen’s alarmist briefing in March 2008, the U.S. ambassador to the IAEA, Gregory Schulte, emerged to announce, “As today’s briefing showed us, there are strong reasons to suspect that Iran was working covertly and deceitfully, at least until recently, to build a bomb.” Heinonen’s briefing provided nothing of the sort, being derived from an irrelevant document and a laptop computer of questionable provenance. But that did not matter to Schulte, who noted that “Iran has refused to explain or even acknowledge past work on weaponization.” Schulte did not bother to note that it would be difficult for Iran to explain or acknowledge that which it has not done. “This is particularly troubling,” Schulte went on, “when combined with Iran’s determined effort to master the technology to enrich uranium.” Why is this so troubling? Because, as Schulte noted, “Uranium enrichment is not necessary for Iran’s civil program but it is necessary to produce the fissile material that could be weaponized into a bomb.”

This, of course, is the crux of the issue: Iran’s ongoing enrichment program. Not because it is illegal; Iran is permitted to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes under Article IV of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Not again because Iran’s centrifuge program is operating in an undeclared, unmonitored fashion; the IAEA had stated it has a full understanding of the scope and work of the Iranian centrifuge enrichment program and that all associated nuclear material is accounted for and safeguarded. The problem has never been, and will never be, Iran’s enrichment program. The problem is American policy objectives of regime change in Iran, pushed by a combination of American desires for global hegemony and an activist Israeli agenda which seeks regional security, in perpetuity, through military and economic supremacy. The specter of nuclear enrichment is simply a vehicle for facilitating the larger policy objectives. Olli Heinonen, and those who support and sustain his work, must be aware of the larger geopolitical context of his actions, which makes them all the more puzzling and contemptible.

A major culprit in this entire sordid affair is the mainstream media. Displaying an almost uncanny inability to connect the dots, the editors who run America’s largest newspapers, and the producers who put together America’s biggest television news programs, have collectively facilitated the most simplistic, inane and factually unfounded story lines coming out of the Bush White House. The most recent fairy tale was one of “diplomacy,” on the part of one William Burns, the No. 3 diplomat in the State Department.

I have studied the minutes of meetings involving John McCloy, an American official who served numerous administrations, Democratic and Republican alike, in the decades following the end of the Second World War. His diplomacy with the Soviets, conducted with senior Soviet negotiator Valerein Zorin and Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev himself, was real, genuine, direct and designed to resolve differences. The transcripts of the diplomacy conducted between Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho to bring an end to the Vietnam conflict is likewise a study in the give and take required to achieve the status of real diplomacy.

Sending a relatively obscure official like Burns to “observe” a meeting between the European Union and Iran, with instructions not to interact, not to initiate, not to discuss, cannot under any circumstances be construed as diplomacy. Any student of diplomatic history could tell you this. And yet the esteemed editors and news producers used the term diplomacy, without challenge or clarification, to describe Burns’ mission to Geneva on July 19. The decision to send him there was hailed as a “significant concession” on the part of the Bush administration, a step away from war and an indication of a new desire within the White House to resolve the Iranian impasse through diplomacy. How this was going to happen with a diplomat hobbled and muzzled to the degree Burns was apparently skipped the attention of these writers and their bosses. Diplomacy, America was told, was the new policy option of choice for the Bush administration.

Of course, the Geneva talks produced nothing. The United States had made sure Europe, through its foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, had no maneuvering room when it came to the core issue of uranium enrichment: Iran must suspend all enrichment before any movement could be made on any other issue. Furthermore, the American-backed program of investigation concerning the MEK-supplied laptop computer further poisoned the diplomatic waters. Iran, predictably, refused to suspend its enrichment program, and rejected the Heinonen-led investigation into nuclear weaponization, refusing to cooperate further with the IAEA on that matter, noting that it fell outside the scope of the IAEA’s mandate in Iran.

Condoleezza Rice was quick to respond. After a debriefing from Burns, who flew to Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, where Rice was holding closed-door meetings with the foreign ministers of six Arab nations on the issue of Iran, Rice told the media that Iran “was not serious” about resolving the standoff. Having played the diplomacy card, Rice moved on with the real agenda: If Iran did not fully cooperate with the international community (i.e., suspend its enrichment program), then it would face a new round of economic sanctions and undisclosed punitive measures, both unilaterally on the part of the United States and Europe, as well as in the form of even broader sanctions from the United Nations Security Council (although it is doubtful that Russia and China would go along with such a plan).

The issue of unilateral U.S. sanctions is most worrisome. Both the House of Representatives, through HR 362, and the Senate, through SR 580, are preparing legislation that would call for an air, ground and sea blockade of Iran. Back in October 1962, President John F. Kennedy, when considering the imposition of a naval blockade against Cuba in response to the presence of Soviet missiles in that nation, opined that “a blockade is a major military operation, too. It’s an act of war.” Which, of course, it is. The false diplomacy waged by the White House in Geneva simply pre-empted any congressional call for a diplomatic outreach. Now the president can move on with the mission of facilitating a larger war with Iran by legitimizing yet another act of aggression.

One day, in the not-so-distant future, Americans will awake to the reality that American military forces are engaged in a shooting war with Iran. Many will scratch their heads and wonder, “How did that happen?” The answer is simple: We all let it happen. We are at war with Iran right now. We just don’t have the moral courage to admit it.
Report to moderator   Logged

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
Hermit
Archon
*****

Posts: 4290
Reputation: 8.92
Rate Hermit



Prime example of a practically perfect person

View Profile WWW
Re: IAEA Again Verifies Iranian Compliance-Neo-crazy Media Sycophants Drum for W
« Reply #34 on: 2008-09-02 18:36:36 »
Reply with quote

Dutch intel: US to strike Iran in coming weeks

Source: Jerusalem Post
Authors: JPost Staff
Dated: 2008-09-01

The Dutch intelligence service, the AIVD, has called off an operation aimed at infiltrating and sabotaging Iran's weapons industry due to an assessment that a US attack on the Islamic Republic's nuclear program is imminent, according to a report in the country's De Telegraaf newspaper on Friday.

The report claimed that the Dutch operation had been "extremely successful," and had been stopped because the US military was planning to hit targets that were "connected with the Dutch espionage action."

The impending air-strike on Iran was to be carried out by unmanned aircraft "within weeks," the report claimed, quoting "well placed" sources.

The Jerusalem Post could not confirm the De Telegraaf report.


According to the report, information gleaned from the AIVD's operation in Iran has provided several of the targets that are to be attacked in the strike, including "parts for missiles and launching equipment."

"Information from the AIVD operation has been shared in recent years with the CIA," the report said.

On Saturday, Iran's Deputy Chief of Staff General Masoud Jazayeri warned that should the United States or Israel attack Iran, it would be the start of another World War.

On Friday, Ma'ariv reported that Israel had made a strategic decision to deny Iran military nuclear capability and would not hesitate "to take whatever means necessary" to prevent Teheran from achieving its nuclear goals.


According to the report, whether the United States and Western countries succeed in thwarting the Islamic Republic's nuclear ambitions diplomatically, through sanctions, or whether a US strike on Iran is eventually decided upon, Jerusalem has begun preparing for a separate, independent military strike.
« Last Edit: 2008-09-03 15:10:18 by Hermit » Report to moderator   Logged

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
Blunderov
Archon
*****

Gender: Male
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.85
Rate Blunderov



"We think in generalities, we live in details"

View Profile WWW E-Mail
Re: IAEA Again Verifies Iranian Compliance-Neo-crazy Media Sycophants Drum for W
« Reply #35 on: 2008-09-03 13:21:20 »
Reply with quote


Quote from: Hermit on 2008-09-02 18:36:36   

   
   
JPost.com » Iran news » Article
Sep 1, 2008 9:21 | Updated Sep 1, 2008 19:32
Dutch intel: US to strike Iran in coming weeks

Source: Jerusalem Post
Authors: JPost Staff
Dated: 2008-09-02

The Dutch intelligence service, the AIVD, has called off an operation aimed at infiltrating and sabotaging Iran's weapons industry due to an [color=yellow][b]assessment that a US attack on the Islamic Republic's nuclear program is imminent, ...

[Blunderov] We all have good reasons to be filled with trepidation about what new insanity the Bush administration will undertake next. These are not rational people.

Guess what though? I strongly suspect that the psywarriors of the Pentagon have made the net-roots their bitch with these constant premonitions of war.

Never going to happen people! Not Israel. Not the USA. Not going to happen. Never was.

My Take.
Report to moderator   Logged
Hermit
Archon
*****

Posts: 4290
Reputation: 8.92
Rate Hermit



Prime example of a practically perfect person

View Profile WWW
Re: IAEA Again Verifies Iranian Compliance-Neo-crazy Media Sycophants Drum for W
« Reply #36 on: 2008-09-03 15:46:27 »
Reply with quote

[Blunderov] Never going to happen people!


Dear Blunderov

If one assembles the world's largest military strikeforce to date (in terms of delivery potential), the most powerful bomb delivery system in terms of Megatonnes of munitions (Aircraft, cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, submarines and ships), an awesome, potentially planet modifying array of armaments including nuclear weapons (which require presidential authorization to be moved from the US) and invest in assembling the fantastically expensive needed support systems to maintain the force needed to pursue yet another war of aggression, all of which we have already done; only to bring it home again without using it would emphasize the point to all watching that PNAC is dead. All of the accumulated power and trillions of dollars of wasted money would be shown to be futile, as it would become evident that the US is incapable of achieving the neoconartists' desperately sought after strategic goals; in what they fear might be the twilight of their grasp on power.

The powers which the United States has assembled in the Iranian Gulf are, like herself, brutal fascists. Military-government-media machines pretending to the shabby trappings of representation of ever more impoverished populations deeply embedded in systems in decline, probably terminal. They are opposed by an idealist Iran, a resurgent Russia and soaring China, all with rapidly evolving defense industries spending very little money to manufacture impressive and effective new systems - while the West has largely lost its manufacturing base and even capability to resurrect it, and has fallen into the trap of spending ever more money to achieve ever less projective capacity. Adding to the incendiary situation is the emergent end of cheap energy, dwindling resources, soaring populations without a future and rampant and escalating inflation. To say nothing of ancient and now toxic religious systems driving their adherents into apocalyptic visions of horror.

Meanwhile our dear leader and his merry puppeteers have convinced themselves that they have "won" their illegal war in Iraq and apparently that if they kill enough Pushtu that they can rescue their equally noxious wars of aggression, declared and undeclared, in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This seems to have lead them to imagine that war is good and that they will likely not only win the wars they start but that escalating their wars may allow them to remain in power. From the idiotarian's perspective, a "cleansing war" is just what the world needs. What for them, is not good about this scenario?

So I am firmly persuaded that the operant thinking remains that "a war would be good for us" (but perhaps with a dawning realization that thgis may be only for a little longer). Which is why I am far less hopeful than you.

Kindest Regards

Hermit
« Last Edit: 2008-09-04 03:16:04 by Hermit » Report to moderator   Logged

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
Fritz
Archon
*****

Gender: Male
Posts: 1746
Reputation: 8.77
Rate Fritz





View Profile WWW E-Mail
Re: IAEA Again Verifies Iranian Compliance-Neo-crazy Media Sycophants Drum for W
« Reply #37 on: 2008-09-03 23:17:50 »
Reply with quote


Quote:
[Blunderov]We all have good reasons to be filled with trepidation about what new insanity the Bush administration will undertake next. These are not rational people.
Guess what though? I strongly suspect that the psywarriors of the Pentagon have made the net-roots their bitch with these constant premonitions of war.
Never going to happen people! Not Israel. Not the USA. Not going to happen. Never was.
My Take.

I have had the same thoughts as you; but I keep getting these little turds of commentary I am unable to substantiate, from colleagues with family in the middle east, that suggest something very serious is afoot and some evil alignment of the dark forces is imminent; with Israel throwing the first punch for the "born again fascists" who will have to rush in to save the world.

I'm keeping my fingers crossed your right, this is one time I truly hope Hermit is off the mark.

Cheers

Fritz
Report to moderator   Logged

Where there is the necessary technical skill to move mountains, there is no need for the faith that moves mountains -anon-
Blunderov
Archon
*****

Gender: Male
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.85
Rate Blunderov



"We think in generalities, we live in details"

View Profile WWW E-Mail
Re: IAEA Again Verifies Iranian Compliance-Neo-crazy Media Sycophants Drum for W
« Reply #38 on: 2008-09-04 05:19:47 »
Reply with quote


Quote from: Fritz on 2008-09-03 23:17:50   

I'm keeping my fingers crossed your right, this is one time I truly hope Hermit is off the mark.

[Blunderov] Me too. Of course the Hermit is not very often off the mark which occasions me more misgiving than somewhat...

nevertheless: IMO under the circumstances an attack on Iran would be militarily insane. Consider. Russia appears to be spoiling for a fight. North Korea too. (How much influence China can be persuaded to bear on North Korea may be contingent on many things now that the Olympics are over.) Pakistan is on the verge of exploding. Afghanistan has not been pacified and it doesn't seem that it ever will be. And Iraq is barely contained and this is only by the good grace of Iran; something which would cease immediately upon the outbreak of hostilities.

To attack Iran would be to invite the decimation of American forces in the region including that much vaunted navy which is mooching about in those waters. From what I can glean, this armada is little more than a collection of tin ducks which will go straight to the bottom within hours of hostilities breaking out. In fact, I would consider it a clear sign of imminent war if these ships were to suddenly LEAVE the region because otherwise they would be at the complete mercy of Chinese Sunburn anti-ship missiles and thousands of swarming Iranian speedboat attackers.

Attacking Iran is a very, very bad idea. Sadly though, the Bush administration is filled with very, very bad men so I'm not without trepidation, but I do not believe the Joint Chiefs will allow such a thing.

Best Regards
Report to moderator   Logged
Hermit
Archon
*****

Posts: 4290
Reputation: 8.92
Rate Hermit



Prime example of a practically perfect person

View Profile WWW
Re: IAEA Again Verifies Iranian Compliance-Neo-crazy Media Sycophants Drum for W
« Reply #39 on: 2008-09-04 12:44:21 »
Reply with quote

Strategists the world about know that the incipient attack on Iran is a brewing disaster - every credible model ends in an escalating situation not under US control - but the political calculation in the US appears to be that a successful limited strike on Iran is achievable if we are sufficiently ruthless sufficiently fast; and the military, knowing that we outspend Iran by orders of magnitude are convinced that we can, "squash them like flies" and we have to. This might be based on the hope that Iran will not use its biowarfare capabilities if it is decapitated fast enough... and if Iran knows that any response will bring personal retribution on the leadership and a nuclear firestorm on the population. Besides, the Iranians are perceived as "tow-headed cowards" due to their lack of a military response to the shooting down of their civilian airliner, and destruction of their naval vessels by the USA in the 1980s.

I don't know about you, but this confusing of intelligence, and the good sense to  choose the terrain and time for cowardice and incompetence seems to me to be part and parcel of a mindset prepared to bet my life on what seems to me to be an unethical notions and harebrained optimism. Perhaps this has happened because, in the opinion of many retired US military personnel we know, most of them Raeganites, the US military has been lobotomized under Bush and repairing the damage he has caused will take 40 to 60 years due to the loss not only of line and management competency but also the loss of people capable of training replacement strategic thinkers. Given the aggressive nature of the USA, my opinion is that this may be quite a good thing - if we survive the next year or so. I suggest  that placing faith in the Joint Chiefs, where the people with the courage to stand up to the administration's drive to war have been relentlessly weeded out of the command chain in the previous 8 years, leaving largely yes men with an overinflated idea of our capability and who dramatically underestimate the cost of the likely escalation standing in serried rank assembled at Cheney's elbow and bidding is almost as optimistic as expecting that the US can make a "lightening strike" and prevent any effective response from Iran, or that Russia and China will stand idly by while the US stirs up more dust on their back-porches. Yet that seems to be at the bottom of the current maneuvering. That and the fact that if there are any survivors they will likely vote Republican given that defense will definitely predominate thinking about economics... Let us not forget that America has no princilples, only interests.

Apropos of something, a botanist and agronomist said to me yesterday, in terms not admitting of disagreement, that it is well known that eating corn stimulates aggression. If so will its transformation into ethanol, rather than being ingested in vast quantities as corn syrup, lead to a kinder gentler USA as well as a slimmer one? In which case, will it happen fast enough?

Kindest Regards

Hermit

PS It is suggested that Russia acted to precipitate the situation in Georgia now rather than later not just to slap the USA before Bush leaves office, but to prevent Israel from using sites in Georgia to launch a component of their planned attack on Iran, and that this has become a major driver for the US to act not just before the end of the Bush presidiocy, but also before the inevitable need to disperse the CBGs in the Iranian Gulf.
« Last Edit: 2008-09-04 21:00:37 by Hermit » Report to moderator   Logged

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
Blunderov
Archon
*****

Gender: Male
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.85
Rate Blunderov



"We think in generalities, we live in details"

View Profile WWW E-Mail
Re: IAEA Again Verifies Iranian Compliance-Neo-crazy Media Sycophants Drum for W
« Reply #40 on: 2008-09-04 17:39:49 »
Reply with quote


Quote from: Hermit on 2008-09-04 12:44:21   
<snip>also before the inevitable need to disperse the CBGs in the Iranian Gulf.</snip>

[Blunderov] I wondered what a CBG was.

What with one thing leading to another as, somehow, it usually does with me,  I was, as if seized by a giant hand, irresistibly compelled towards:


http://www.acronymfinder.com/CBG.html

Rank Abbr. Meaning 
***** CBG Comic Book Guy (The Simpsons) 
***** CBG Corticosteroid Binding Globulin 
**** CBG Canadian Brigade Group 
**** CBG Comics Buyer's Guide 
**** CBG Chicago Botanic Garden 
**** CBG Car Buyers Guide 
*** CBG Cigar Box Guitar 
*** CBG Carrier Battle Group 
*** CBG Center for Business and Government 
*** CBG Cleveland Botanical Garden 
*** CBG Capillary Blood Glucose 
*** CBG Comic Book Galaxy (website) 
*** CBG Cinema Buying Group 
*** CBG Capillary Blood Gas 
*** CBG Clean Burning Gasoline 
*** CBG Cambridge, England, United Kingdom - Cambridge (Airport Code) 
*** CBG Carlson Barbee & Gibson (California civil engineering firm) 
** CBG Community Block Grant 
** CBG Corporate Business Group 
** CBG Computer Buyer's Guide

[Bl.] Carrier Battle Group it is then.

Yup. They better get the fuck outta there if the balloon goes up!

Best Regards.



Report to moderator   Logged
Fritz
Archon
*****

Gender: Male
Posts: 1746
Reputation: 8.77
Rate Fritz





View Profile WWW E-Mail
Re: IAEA Again Verifies Iranian Compliance-Neo-crazy Media Sycophants Drum for W
« Reply #41 on: 2008-09-04 22:56:05 »
Reply with quote

Blonderov had it add this to your list ...***CBG = Chaotic Bladder Games (aka Chaotic Blader Games) 


More cannon fodder underscoring the ‘bizarro world’ linked from Lord Stirling

Cheers

Fritz

US, Russia standoff takes to the Black Sea

Source: PressTV
Author: Yusuf Fernandez, Press TV, Madrid
Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2008 17:56:37 GMT

Washington's confrontation with Moscow has reached a new level now that Russia has withdrawn its troops from most of the Georgian territory it took during the war provoked by Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili. Russian and US warships have been engaged in a standoff in the Black Sea in recent days.

The US Coast Guard Dallas carrying aid docked at the Georgian port of Batumi on August 28. US guided missile destroyer USS McFaul has also landed at the port. By choosing Batumi, the US chose a less confrontational path than docking at Poti, a Georgian port where Russian troops are still stationed. The US also allegedly feared that Poti harbor could have been mined.

The USS McFaul enjoys an array of weapons, including Tomahawk cruise missiles, which can carry either conventional or nuclear warheads. It also has a sophisticated radar system.

Washington has also ordered the flagship of the 6th Fleet, the sophisticated command ship Mount Whitney, into the area. These ships are from the NATO Maritime Group One, which normally operates in the Mediterranean.

Russia says the USS McFaul supplied new weapons to Georgia under the pretext of aid delivery. "Of course, they are bringing in weapons," Russian President Dmitri Medvedev told the BBC in an interview. "We are not trying to prevent it."

"Battleships do not normally deliver aid. This is battleship diplomacy, this does not make the situation more stable," said Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.

The Black Sea has seen a lot of tension since Russian troops defeated the Georgian army. The Georgian aggression against South Ossetia has brought into sharp focus the strategic value of the resource-rich area surrounding the Black Sea.

During the Cold War, shipping in the Black Sea was carried out on a small scale, as the Lower Danube region was a part of the Soviet block. But with the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the wars in former Yugoslavia, the Danube has become a key transportation route. Now, Central European exports, especially from Germany, can be floated down the river to the Black Sea, which is much less expensive than transporting them to the ports of the Baltic Sea by land. The struggle for control over the Black Sea has been the root cause of several conflicts in the past, including the Crimean and the Russo-Turkish Wars in the 19th century and the Allied Dardanelles campaign against Turkey during World War I.

Control over the Black Sea is essential for the US in projecting its force onto the region because the Carpathian Mountains in Romania and the Caucasus Ridge restrict it from land-based action against Russia from the south. The Black Sea is therefore the only path through which a potential enemy could threaten Russia from this area. Modern weapons systems such as submarine- and ship-launched cruise missiles and carrier-launched jets would be able to target Russian territory if the US were to gain supremacy over the Black Sea.

The Black Sea is close to the Caucasus and the Russian oil-rich regions of Tatarstan and Bashkorostan. It offers any Russian enemy a direct route to two Russian energy lifelines. The Black Sea thus has special strategic significance for Russia as well; the area would become a major point of conflict in case there is a military confrontation between the US and Russia.

The US wants the Black Sea to fall under NATO control. A major part of Black Sea waters is controlled by NATO members Turkey, Romania and Bulgaria. Georgia and Ukraine, whose pro-Western presidents want their countries to join the alliance also have control of certain parts of the area. Russia has a short coastline with the important port of Novorossiisk. Now that Russia is working with Abkhazia as an independent state, however, it enjoys a longer Russian-friendly coastline and the deep-sea port of Sukhumi.

The strategic importance of the Black Sea explains why Russia responded harshly to the increased military presence of NATO there. Russian General Anatoly Nogovitsyn, who has recently claimed that 10 NATO warships are in the Black Sea with eight more on the way, says international conventions prevented the alliance from bringing more vessels into the region. "In light of the build-up of NATO naval forces in the Black Sea, the (Russian) fleet has also taken on the task of monitoring their activities," he said.

US ships in the Black Sea are capable of carrying nuclear missiles that can hit Russian targets as far away as Saint Petersburg. Nogovitsyn has warned that US ships can only stay in the Black Sea for 21 days according to the 1936 Montreal Convention, which regulates the passage of warships to and from the Black Sea. He says if US warships do not leave, Turkey would be responsible. "Can NATO - which is not a state located in the Black Sea - continuously increase its group of forces and systems there? It turns out that it cannot," Nogovitsyn said.

Carmen Romero, a NATO spokeswoman, said the alliance had applied for transit into the Black Sea in June and stressed that the vessels would stay less than 21 days as required by the convention.

Russia has sent its missile cruiser Moskva and two smaller ships to Sukhumi, the capital of Abkhazia, one of the two regions whose independence Moscow has recognized. Russia has responded to the apparent -if officially denied- NATO naval deployment by increasing its warships in the Black Sea. Russia returned the Moskva to the Black Sea a mere 72 hours after the giant warship departed for its base port Sevastopol, Ukraine, from Georgian waters. Normally, Sevastopol-based Russian warships spend most of the year in port, and take to open waters after months of preparation.

In Sukhumi, Russian Deputy Admiral Sergei Menyailo said that the Russian warships had arrived to "support peace and stability". He said, "Our tasks include the control of Abkhazia's territorial waters and the prevention of arms shipments."

The dockings came a day after Russian President Dmitry Medvedev recognized the two Georgian territories of South Ossetia and Abkhazia as independent states, a move which has prompted harsh criticism from Western governments. Abkhazia's President Sergei Bagapsh said he would invite Moscow to establish a naval base at Sukhumi and called for a military cooperation agreement with Russia.

In order to counterbalance the perceived NATO build-up, Russians have reportedly massed three destroyers, two frigates, five corvettes and scores of missile boats at the Sevastopol naval base it leased from Ukraine. Former Russian commander Admiral Eduard Baltin also said that NATO's 10-piece naval squad is no match for Russia's Black Sea Fleet and would fall to pieces should the fleet launch a single missile salvo. "A single missile salvo from the Moskva missile cruiser and two or three missile boats would be enough to annihilate the entire group", he declared.

Russia also enjoys vast air superiority in north of the area. It seems that it desperately seeks to prevent NATO from taking control over the strategic region. In a way, US plans to turn the Black Sea into a private lake controlled by NATO may be doomed to failure.
 naderian20080829200941203.jpg
Report to moderator   Logged

Where there is the necessary technical skill to move mountains, there is no need for the faith that moves mountains -anon-
Fritz
Archon
*****

Gender: Male
Posts: 1746
Reputation: 8.77
Rate Fritz





View Profile WWW E-Mail
Re: IAEA Again Verifies Iranian Compliance-Neo-crazy Media Sycophants Drum for W
« Reply #42 on: 2008-09-06 01:14:57 »
Reply with quote


Quote from: Hermit on 2008-09-02 18:36:36   

Dutch intel: US to strike Iran in coming weeks

Source: Jerusalem Post
Authors: JPost Staff
Dated: 2008-09-01

The Dutch intelligence service, the AIVD, has called off an operation aimed at infiltrating and sabotaging Iran's weapons industry due to an assessment that a US attack on the Islamic Republic's nuclear program is imminent, according to a report in the country's De Telegraaf newspaper on Friday.<snip>


[Fritz]Another framing of the story .... remember I'm just the messenger 

Report to moderator   Logged

Where there is the necessary technical skill to move mountains, there is no need for the faith that moves mountains -anon-
Fritz
Archon
*****

Gender: Male
Posts: 1746
Reputation: 8.77
Rate Fritz





View Profile WWW E-Mail
Re: IAEA Again Verifies Iranian Compliance-Neo-crazy Media Sycophants Drum for W
« Reply #43 on: 2008-09-06 01:32:15 »
Reply with quote

[Fritz]hhmmm ..... tips hat in acknowledgment to Hermit


Source: Washington Times
Author: Arnaud de Borchgrave
Date: Thursday, September 4, 2008

DE BORCHGRAVE: Israel of the Caucasus?

ASSOCIATED PRESS Sonya Kagloyeva of South Ossetia carries a branch past homes destroyed in the Georgian assault on Tskhinvali, the provincial capital. European leaders will meet Monday to discuss the conflict.

NATO guarantees that an attack against one member country is an attack against all are no longer what they used to be. Had Georgia been inside NATO, a number of European countries would no longer be willing to consider it an attack against their own soil.

For Russia, the geopolitical stars were in perfect alignment. The U.S. was badly overstretched and had no plausible way to talk tough without coming across as empty rhetoric. American resources have been drained by the Iraq and Afghan wars, and the war on terror. The European Union is still a military dwarf that swings no weight in the Kremlin. And the ineptitude of Georgia's leadership gave Russian leaders a huge new window of opportunity.

Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili evidently thought the U.S. would come to his side militarily if Russian troops pushed him back into Georgia after ordering an attack last Aug. 8 on the breakaway province of South Ossetia. And when his forces were mauled by Russia's counterattack, bitter disappointment turned to anger. Along with Abkhazia, Georgia lost two provinces.

Georgia also had a special relationship with Israel that was mostly under the radar. Georgia's Defense Minister Davit Kezerashvili is a former Israeli who moved things along by facilitating Israeli arms sales with U.S. aid. "We are now in a fight against the great Russia," he was quoted as saying, "and our hope is to receive assistance from the White House because Georgia cannot survive on its own."

The Jerusalem Post on Aug. 12 reported, "Georgian Prime Minister Vladimir Gurgenidze made a special call to Israel Tuesday morning to receive a blessing from one of the Haredi community's most important rabbis and spiritual leaders, Rabbi Aaron Leib Steinman. "I want him to pray for us and our state," he was quoted.

Israel began selling arms to Georgia seven years ago. U.S. grants facilitated these purchases. From Israel came former minister and former mayor of Tel Aviv Roni Milo, representing Elbit Systems, and his brother Shlomo, former director-general of Military Industries. Israeli UAV spy drones, made by Elbit Maarahot Systems, conducted recon flights over southern Russia, as well as into nearby Iran.
In a secret agreement between Israel and Georgia, two military airfields in southern Georgia had been earmarked for the use of Israeli fighter bombers in the event of preemptive attacks against Iranian nuclear installations. This would sharply reduce the distance Israeli fighter bombers would have to fly to hit targets in Iran. And to reach Georgian airstrips, the Israeli Air Force (IAF) would fly over Turkey.


At a Moscow news conference, Gen. Anatoly Nogovitsyn, Russia's deputy chief of staff, said the extent of Israeli aid to Georgia included, "eight types of military vehicles, explosives, landmines and special explosives for clearing minefields." Estimated numbers of Israeli trainers attached to the Georgian army range from 100 to 1,000. There were also 110 U.S. military personnel on training assignments in Georgia. Last July 2,000 U.S. troops were flown in for "Immediate Response 2008," a joint exercise with Georgian forces.

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

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

The Tel Aviv-Tbilisi military axis was agreed at the highest levels with the approval of the Bush administration. The official liaison between the two entities was Reserve Brig. Gen. Gal Hirsch, who commanded Israeli forces on the Lebanese border in July 2006. He resigned from the army after the Winograd commission flayed Israel's conduct of its Second Lebanon War.

That Russia assessed these Israeli training missions as U.S.-approved is a given. The U.S. was also handicapped by a shortage of spy-in-the-sky satellite capability, already overextended by the Iraq and Afghan wars. Neither U.S. nor Georgian intelligence knew Russian forces were ready with an immediate and massive response to the Georgian attack Moscow knew was coming. Russian double agents ostensibly working for Georgia most probably egged on the military fantasies of the impetuous President Saakashvili's "surprise attack" plans.

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

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

Iran comes out ahead in the wake of the Georgian crisis. Neither Russia nor China is willing to respond to a Western request for more and tougher sanctions against the mullahs. Iran's European trading partners are also loath to squeeze Iran. The Russian-built, 1,000-megawatt Iranian reactor in Bushehr is scheduled to go on line early next year.

A combination of Vladimir Putin and oil has put Russia back on the geopolitical map of the world. Moscow's oil and gas revenue this year is projected at $201 billion, a 13-fold increase since Mr. Putin succeeded Boris Yeltsin eight years ago.

The Bush administration's global democracy crusade, as seen by the men in the Kremlin, and not an insignificant number of friends, is code for imperial hubris. The Putin-Medvedev tandem's response is a new five-point doctrine that told the U.S. to butt out of what was once the Soviet empire, not only former Soviet republics, but also former satellites and client states.

Only superannuated cold warriors saw a rebirth of the Cold War's Brezhnev Doctrine, or the right to intervene in the internal affairs of other "socialist states," e.g., the 1968 invasion of Czechoslovakia. But it does mean the Russian bear cannot be baited with impunity - a la Georgia.

Arnaud de Borchgrave is editor at large for The Washington Times and for United Press International.
Report to moderator   Logged

Where there is the necessary technical skill to move mountains, there is no need for the faith that moves mountains -anon-
Salamantis
Neophyte
*****

Posts: 2845
Reputation: 0.00



I'm a llama!

View Profile E-Mail
Re: IAEA Again Verifies Iranian Compliance-Neo-crazy Media Sycophants Drum for W
« Reply #44 on: 2008-09-30 15:26:49 »
Reply with quote

[[ author reputation (0.00) beneath threshold (3)... display message ]]

« Last Edit: 2008-10-02 15:03:46 by Salamantis » Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Reply Notify of replies Send the topic Print 
Jump to:


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Church of Virus BBS | Powered by YaBB SE
© 2001-2002, YaBB SE Dev Team. All Rights Reserved.

Please support the CoV.
Valid HTML 4.01! Valid CSS! RSS feed