Latest hysteria already debunked.

And people ask, on other threads, why anyone could ever treat the words of Official Spokesmen as anything but likely-to-be-true? What reason would they have to lie?

Umm... There must be some reason. After all, they do it all the time.

Company job?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...m_politics_pop

Originally Posted by Deb C

Stephen Zunes writes: "The march to war with Iran appears to have the support a sizable number of liberal Democrats. Indeed, more than 40 members of the so-called “Progressive Caucus” have signed on as co-sponsors of the bill..Unless the public mobilizes against this legislation, then, it will be passed and the risks of a disastrous war will be markedly increased."

'Iran Threat Reduction Act' Actually Enhances Threat of War
by Stephen Zunes



Continued: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/11/12-4

What the fuck? A gag order against any diplomatic speech (or speech of any kind) between US and Iranian officials? Forget First Amendment issues (it says even in "unofficial capacity"), what the hell possible utility can this have? Oh, I know, for the warmongers its utility would be making more inevitable yet another war they can masturbate to and/or collect billions from. But what utility are they selling this with to anyone even half sane?

I mean seriously: has there been any bill in the past preemptively preventing our government officials from talking to officials in other countries? And "Threat Reduction Act"--that's Orwellian, because how can lack of communication reduce threat of war? Usually it's the opposite. And how does limiting one's own options put one in a stronger position anyway, in war or peace? This is absolutely assinine and I'd hope Obama gives a "signing statement" saying "up yours" to the whole thing if it passes his desk over the veto threshold--if SCOTUS has any integrity at all I think they'd back him up there, as diplomacy (short of declared war, or treaties) is pretty much in the executive sphere anyway and always has been.

And if anyone here has a Congressman supporting this bill, write him. Especially if he's one from the "Progressive Caucus"--they need the fear of God put in them on this. (Maybe their offices can be "occupied"... hmmm.)

And this needs to be all over the news, along with good analysis of its implications. I think most Americans would wonder why our government needs this nanny bill to prevent themselves from talking to anybody. The whole idea is just... off. And it's pretty obvious that some congressmen want to make damned sure we go to war, and will pass the most craven measures to manipulate events toward that objective. I'm hoping that many or most of its sponsors are simply dupes that can have sense talked into them. I sure hope some on the Dem side aren't thinking "a war will save Obama's presidency" or somesuch--and I definitely hope that's not what Obama himself is thinking.

Originally Posted by Odin

Peres is dick-waving. There isn't going to be an Israeli bombing of Iran.

well, i hope your optimism proves correct. i'm a bit antsy hearing all this talk of new wars recently.

is Sully overreacting?
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast....ran-bring.html

Originally Posted by TeddyR

Company job?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...m_politics_pop

Could be. It's a bad idea these days to be a pirate, a terrorist, or a participant in the effort of a rogue state (most obviously Iran or North Korea) to develop a nuke or ICBMs. It's more dangerous than it was four years ago. Somebody at a very high level takes military intelligence seriously, and it could be the difference between being a one-term President and a two-term President.

Which "company", though? the Mossad or the CIA?

Originally Posted by TeddyR

What are you talking about?

Prepare for a nuclear false flag attack from the Feds whom try to provocate the war on Iran. Here is what I wrote two years ago.

585. A super 911 to justify Iran war (1/30/09)

To justify the Iraq war, the Inside Group activated a false flag terror attack in US: that's 911. To justify the coming Iran war, another false flag terror attack is inevitable. That terror attack, likely will be a nuclear bombing. The shock and awe would shake Americans' brain and push them to support another war just like what 911 had done to Americans. From 2007 to 2008, there were at least three attempts to start the Iran war.

I predicted the attempt of false terror attack in advance on all three. Now you people realize why the Feds close AOL homepage service, shut down MSN community groups and blocked me to post for months.

1. The most evident one: On 8/30/2007, a B-52 carried 6 missiles loaded with nuclear heads flied over US continent. I predict the date two days ago.

499. July plot (2) (7/28/07)
With my own observation, I have concluded that in July, Feds would frame a drug case, made a false flag "terror attack" to distract, and with which US would activate Iran war.

505. Assassination, murder and terror attack (8/28/07)

The rest of the August plot started from 8/20 to September. The action date is between 8/31 to 9/3 when Feds closed the Bay Bridge. (see #503) At that time there will be massive terror attack in US and in Europe. I think that's why Karl Rove resigned in advance. His last date in office will be 8/30. So he will leave before the "Super 911". To get rid of any responsibility of involvement in false flag terror attack.

2. Three months later, there was another attempt to attack secret nuclear facility by the impact of hijacked plane(s). The action date: around 11/25/07 the Thanks giving day. I predict it one week ago.

Re: 521. An air express lane for Iran war (11/18/07)

"the Pentagon will open unused military airspace from Florida to Maine to create "a Thanksgiving express lane" for commercial airliners"

My interpretation: "(in 911 case) All four planes left their original airway. Now if there is another 911 alike hijack, what will the crew of the planes do? They will do whatever they can do because they know otherwise it will be death. That may change the result of the original plot planned by the perpetrator. How to comfort the crew member when the plane is led to a different route? The best way is to convince them they are directed to a "Thanksgiving (or Christmas) express way." So there will be little time for crew member to re-act when the last moment comes. (At that time the plane is taken over by the auto-pilot system.)

3. 8/8/2008. Marked with (1) Olympic opening ceremony. (2) Russian invaded Georgia. (3) A massive armada headed to Iran. I speculated the date one month ago.

Re: "556. Petro-dollar, the cause of Iran war (7/4/08)

Another time factor for Iran war is the Olympic Game in August. China has interest in Iran. He is an oil customer of Iran. Olympic Game could be an extortion chip for China's support in Iran war."

Now I say the next attempt to war on Iran is planed to activate within a year. It based on the fact that Obama let Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, to stay in chair for one more year. That the Inside group to prolong the financial tsunami by "orderly bankruptcy".

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Which "company", though? the Mossad or the CIA?

I meant the CIA.

And lookie what is in the headlines today:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/24/world/...html?hpt=hp_t2

Seymour Hersh: Propaganda Used Ahead of Iraq War Is Now Being Reused Over Iran's Nuke Program

Longtime investigative journalist Seymour Hersh questions the growing consensus on Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program.


http://www.alternet.org/story/153166...TZss&rd=1&t=15

We will see if this story has any legs. Huge explosion in Iran's nuke city.

Less than two weeks after a mysterious explosion destroyed an Iranian missile development base, and the same day the Israeli Military reported on the effect of that explosion, Iran's official news agency FARS reported that a loud blast was heard in the city of Isfahan at 2:40 pm local time (6:10am EST).

Iran operates a uranium conversion plant near Isfahan, which has a major role in the nuclear weapons process. first went into operation in 2004, taking uranium from mines and producing uranium fluoride gas, which then feeds the centrifuges that enrich the uranium.

James50

Oh, oh!

CAIRO — Britain said Wednesday it was evacuating diplomats from Tehran a day after Iranian protesters shouting “Death to England” stormed the British Embassy compound and a diplomatic residence, tearing down the British flag, smashing windows, defacing walls and briefly detaining six staff members in what appeared to be a state-sponsored protest against Britain’s tough new economic sanctions against Iran.

Dozens of Iranian protesters stormed the British embassy compound in Tehran on Tuesday, according to officials in London. More Photos »

The attack was the most serious diplomatic breach since the traumatic assault on the United States Embassy after Iran’s Islamic Revolution in 1979. Britain’s foreign secretary, William Hague, expressed outrage over the attack, saying Britain held Iran’s government responsible and promising “other, further, and serious consequences.”

In a statement early on Wednesday, the Foreign Office in London said the British authorities believed “the safety of our staff and their families is our immediate priority. In light of yesterday’s events and to ensure their ongoing safety, some staff are leaving Tehran.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/01/wo...d.html?_r=1&hp

More about that explosion in Iran. Blast in Iran struck uranium enrichment facility

Satellite imagery "clearly showing billowing smoke and destruction" has proven that an explosion Monday damaged a nuclear facility in the Iranian city of Ifsahan, according to a Wednesday Times of London report .

The report quoted Israeli intelligence officials as saying that there was "no doubt" that the blast damaged a uranium enrichment site, and asserted that it was "no accident."

Officials from Isfahan have been denying that the city had been hit by an explosion.

Mohammad-Mahdi Esma'ili, Isfahan's deputy governor in political and security affairs, called the reports "sheer lies" according to the IRNA news agency. An official from the city's fire department also denied that there had been an explosion.

The mysterious explosion Monday rocked the Iranian city of Isfahan, which hosts a nuclear facility involved in processing uranium fed to the Natanz fuel enrichment facility.

Who do you want to believe?

James50

Originally Posted by James50

More about that explosion in Iran. Blast in Iran struck uranium enrichment facility


Who do you want to believe?

James50

I think the mob attacking Her Majesty's embassy was a diversionary tactic. There are some very effective covert ops underway in Iran.

Originally Posted by TeddyR

I think the mob attacking Her Majesty's embassy was a diversionary tactic. There are some very effective covert ops underway in Iran.

That's pretty much the drift that I'm getting too.

Yeah, lets keep believing that Iran has those Nuclear weapons or building them. In the mean time, threats to Iran are getting some in China very upset. To say the least.

China Threatens World War Three If Anyone Attacks Iran 2011

www.youtube.com

A professor from the Chinese National Defense University says that China should not hesitate to protect Iran, even if it means launching world war three, as ..

Originally Posted by Deb C

Yeah, lets keep believing that Iran has those Nuclear weapons or building them. In the mean time, threats to Iran are getting some in China very upset. To say the least.

China Threatens World War Three If Anyone Attacks Iran 2011

www.youtube.com

A professor from the Chinese National Defense University says that China should not hesitate to protect Iran, even if it means launching world war three, as ..

I watched the report. To say the headline was misleading is an understatement.

Don't worry, there won't be an attack on Iran, covert ops seem to be doing just fine without a frontal assault.

Originally Posted by TeddyR

I watched the report. To say the headline was misleading is an understatement.

Don't worry, there won't be an attack on Iran, covert ops seem to be doing just fine without a frontal assault.

That's why I tempered it with *some in China.*

I really hope your correct. This entire situation seems like dae ju vue in regards to beating the war drums because of those weapons of mass destruction.

Originally Posted by Deb C

That's why I tempered it with *some in China.*

I really hope your correct. This entire situation seems like dae ju vue in regards to beating the war drums because of those weapons of mass destruction.

Deb, I didn't mean your comments, but the headline on the piece: "China threatens World War Three if Anyone Attacks Iran 2011."

My comments stand on that.

American Enterprise Institute Admits: Iran Threat Isn't That It Will Launch Nuclear Attack

Suddenly the struggle to stop Iran is not about saving Israel from nuclear annihilation. After a decade of scare-mongering about the second coming of Nazi Germany, the Iran hawks are admitting that they have other reasons for wanting to take out Iran, and saving Israeli lives may not be one of them. Suddenly the neoconservatives have discovered the concept of truth-telling, although, no doubt, the change will be ephemeral.The shift in the rationale for war was kicked off this week when Danielle Pletka, head of the American Enterprise Institute's foreign policy shop and one of the most prominent neoconservatives in Washingtonexplained what the current obsession with Iran's nuclear program is all about.

Snip:

Slavin continues but the point is clear. An Iran war would make the Iraq war look like the "cake walk" neoconservatives promised it would be.

And for what? To preserve the regional balance of power? How many American lives is that worth? Or Israeli? Or Iranian? (It is worth noting that this week, Max Boot, the Council on Foreign Relations' main neocon wrote that an attack on Iran, which he advocates, would only delay development of an Iranian bomb.)

Nonetheless, at this point war looks likely. Under our political system, the side that can pay for election campaigns invariably gets what it wants. There is, simply put, no group of donors who are supporting candidates for president and Congress based on their opposition to war while millions of organized dollars are available to those who support the neocon agenda. Pundits used to say: as Maine goes, so foes the country. It's just as simple today: as the money, so does our policy.

More:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mj-ros...18.html?ref=tw

Originally Posted by Deb C

American Enterprise Institute Admits: Iran Threat Isn't That It Will Launch Nuclear Attack

Suddenly the struggle to stop Iran is not about saving Israel from nuclear annihilation. After a decade of scare-mongering about the second coming of Nazi Germany, the Iran hawks are admitting that they have other reasons for wanting to take out Iran, and saving Israeli lives may not be one of them. Suddenly the neoconservatives have discovered the concept of truth-telling, although, no doubt, the change will be ephemeral.The shift in the rationale for war was kicked off this week when Danielle Pletka, head of the American Enterprise Institute's foreign policy shop and one of the most prominent neoconservatives in Washingtonexplained what the current obsession with Iran's nuclear program is all about.

Snip:

Slavin continues but the point is clear. An Iran war would make the Iraq war look like the "cake walk" neoconservatives promised it would be.

And for what? To preserve the regional balance of power? How many American lives is that worth? Or Israeli? Or Iranian? (It is worth noting that this week, Max Boot, the Council on Foreign Relations' main neocon wrote that an attack on Iran, which he advocates, would only delay development of an Iranian bomb.)

Nonetheless, at this point war looks likely. Under our political system, the side that can pay for election campaigns invariably gets what it wants. There is, simply put, no group of donors who are supporting candidates for president and Congress based on their opposition to war while millions of organized dollars are available to those who support the neocon agenda. Pundits used to say: as Maine goes, so foes the country. It's just as simple today: as the money, so does our policy.

More:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mj-ros...18.html?ref=tw

I'm more worried about Pakistan. Iran will be a friendly to us eventually. No dispute Pakistan has nukes.

You know what just might get me to vote for Ron Paul? Obama leading us into war with Iran.

I might also leave the country then. No way my taxes go to this. Fuck all the dumb shit.

(I can't believe these Neocon fucks still have any credibility with anyone, anywhere--let alone possibly enough to manipulate us into a war at a time when, moreso than ever, it is the last thing this country needs and I think most people here know it.)

(Blood pressure now down a bit, but the assininity just burns)

From Deb's cited article:

Originally Posted by some AEI pinhead named Pletka

The biggest problem for the United States is not Iran getting a nuclear weapon and testing it, it's Iran getting a nuclear weapon and not using it. Because the second that they have one and they don't do anything bad, all of the naysayers are going to come back and say, "See, we told you Iran is a responsible power. We told you that Iran wasn't getting nuclear weapons in order to use them immediately..." And they will eventually define Iran with nuclear weapons as not a problem.

I mean, what the fuck is this? You're concerned about your precious memes being discredited, and saying that that would be a problem for the United States? How far up your own ass are you exactly?

I for one would be very happy if Iran didn't use any nukes it developed. And I don't think they will, because the response they'd get would wipe them off the map. Their country would be a mushroom farm in 30 minutes, and they know it.

Meanwhile any hope of reform from within toward democracy (the best kind of democracy is that which develops homegrown, rather than "imported" at gunpoint from some headstrong empire that hasn't got a clue how things work locally) will be dashed. And you know what? I don't think the Neocons want democracy to ever develop organically, homegrown, from the people there--because it wouldn't be something they can control. I actually wonder if some of them would go to war just to prevent that. They wouldn't know how to deal with such a thing.

Neoconservatism is the absolute, utter worst manifestation of Boomer narcissism masquerading as "idealism". And it still looks like it has its tentacles buried deep in our nation's seats of power. God help us.

Iran military says it shot down US drone in east province


http://www.jpost.com/IranianThreat/N...aspx?id=248067

Originally Posted by Deb C

Iran military says it shot down US drone in east province


http://www.jpost.com/IranianThreat/N...aspx?id=248067

Uh-oh, this is about to heat up a lot!

In the past I have spoken about the Middle East (including Israel) being behind places like Europe, North America, Indian Sub-Continent and China on the saeculum. There the last awakening finished around 2000 and right now the middle east including Iran are half away through an unraveling. The late William Strauss and Neil Howe broadly agreed with my observations.

As I see it the Arab Spring was like say the fall of the German Empire and the Weimar Republic which followed it after WW1. What replaced the German Empire was the Weimar Republic which was quite weak and attacked from both the left and right from the start. When the Great Depression came and the Nazis came to power the Weimar Republic was replaced by the Third Reich.

In the long run I don't see the Islamists triumphing, instead the secularist forces will win out with the support of the Hero generation (when it comes of age c.2020-2040). Although in the meantime the Islamists could gain power in various Arab states.