| Topic: |
Science > Prophecies-Of-Nostradamus |
| User: |
"=?utf-8?B?V29ybGQgV2FyIElJSSAyMDA24oSiIFtUaGUgTGFzdCAyNDAwIERheXPimaVd4oSi?=" |
| Date: |
10 May 2006 10:40:52 PM |
| Object: |
=?utf-8?q?World_War_III_NEWS....11/5/6...The_president_of_Iran_wants_to_talk_=E2=80=93_why_don't_we=3F?= |
www.antiwar.com/justin
May 10, 2006
Letter From Tehran
The president of Iran wants to talk =E2=80=93 why don't we?
by Justin Raimondo
As the UN Security Council comes to grips with the issue of Iran's
determination to join the nuclear club, and the question becomes the
focus of a debate in the U.S. similar to that which preceded the
invasion and occupation of Iraq, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
has written a letter to President George W. Bush that has been
described, variously, as "rambling," a "diversion," and "doesn't
address the dispute over Iran's enrichment of uranium."
That was before the full text became available, however, and we can see
that this latter accusation is untrue. Here is what President
Ahmadinejad has to say about his country's drive to acquire nuclear
technology:
"Why is it that any scientific and technological achievement reached in
the Middle East region is translated into and portrayed as a threat to
the Zionist regime? Is not scientific R&D one of the basic rights of
nations?
"You are familiar with history. In what other point in history has
scientific and technical progress been a crime? Can the possibility of
scientific achievements being utilized for military purposes be reason
enough to oppose science and technology altogether? If such a
supposition is true, then all scientific disciplines, including
physics, chemistry, mathematics, medicine, engineering, etc., must be
opposed."
A "diversion"? To the contrary, framing the issue in the context of
Israel's opposition to Iran's nuclear ambitions, President Ahmadinejad
addresses the issue directly and honestly, which is more than we can
say for the Americans, not to mention the Israelis =E2=80=93 and where, pray
tell, is his answer? Why is it that everything that goes on in the
region must be seen in the context of the effect it has on Israel? And
what are the limits of the restrictions placed on Iran and other
nations when it comes the development of "dual use" technology?
What's clear enough, however, is that these restrictions do not apply
to Israel, which, as everybody knows, possesses nukes. Much is made of
the possibility that Iran, facing sanctions, has threatened to drop out
of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty =E2=80=93 yet we hardly hear that
Israel refused to sign it in the first place.
It's downright odd that the letter was not made available immediately
to the American public; the various excerpts published by Western
newspapers were carefully edited to highlight Ahmadinejad's opposition
to the Iraq war, as well as his comments on the Holocaust and his call
for the U.S. to live up to its self-proclaimed Christian and liberal
values. But editors have left out certain key passages =E2=80=93 although, =
to
be fair, it is an 18-page document =E2=80=93 that might be surprising, even
illuminating, to Western readers.
Yes, the letter is filled with references to religion, and he does say
that Western liberalism is "shattering" and has "failed." His own brand
of clericalism is upheld as the only alternative: but these are the
parts of his letter addressed to his own people, I think it's fair to
say. He is apparently having some trouble on the home front, and seeks
to justify his policies =E2=80=93 including his foreign policy pronouncemen=
ts
=E2=80=93 in religious terms. Insofar as he discusses the religious aspect =
of
all this, however, his message is conciliatory: it stresses the common
threads that, intertwined, make up the Judeo-Christian-Islamic
tradition, three religions joined at the very roots.
As for the significant passages that are left out, these fall into two
categories: those that express sympathy for the West, and those that
make some very specific accusations. Skillful propagandist that he is,
President Ahmadinejad links the former to the latter, as in the passage
that starts out this way:
"September Eleven was a horrendous incident. The killing of innocents
is deplorable and appalling in any part of the world. Our government
immediately declared its disgust with the perpetrators and offered its
condolences to the bereaved and expressed its sympathies."
By the way, there is not a word about this statement in Western media
reports about the letter: instead, we get headlines like "Iranian
Letter Lambastes Bush," "Iran Letter Faults U.S., Makes No Nuclear
Proposals," and "A Dead Letter, but Shrewdly Timed." The one major
exception was the Chicago Tribune, which ran the head: "Let's Talk,
Iranians Tell Bush."
This underscores another section of the letter, in which the Iranian
president makes his debut as a media critic, putting his critique of
Western news outlets during the run-up to war with Iraq in some pretty
familiar terms. After excoriating the media for ratcheting up the
climate of fear that accompanied 9/11, he writes:
"In media charters, correct dissemination of information and honest
reporting of a story are established tenets. I express my deep regret
about the disregard shown by certain Western media for these
principles. The main pretext for an attack on Iraq was the existence of
WMDs. This was repeated incessantly =E2=80=93 for the public to finally
believe =E2=80=93 and the ground set for an attack on Iraq."
Just as the canard that Iraq possessed WMD was accepted as an article
of faith by the stenographers who call themselves American journalists,
so similar fabrications about Iran are being readied for unveiling by
the same crowd. Judith Miller may no longer be writing for the New York
Times, but there are no doubt platoons of accommodating news hounds
more than willing to take her place as a major conduit for the War
Party's lies.
President Ahmadinejad is hardly done with his media critique, however:
he continues his comments about 9/11, and makes an astonishing
accusation. After expressing his sympathy for the U.S., he goes on to
question why no one charged with protecting the American people was
ever put on trial: and it is true that not a single U.S. government
official was so much as fired, let alone charged with dereliction of
duty. Some Western critics of the Bush administration's handling of the
9/11 crisis note this, too, but Ahmadinejad's questioning of this
curious fact goes much further:
"All governments have a duty to protect the lives, property, and good
standing of their citizens. Reportedly your government employs
extensive security, protection, and intelligence systems =E2=80=93 and even
hunts its opponents abroad. September 11 was not a simple operation.
Could it be planned and executed without coordination with intelligence
and security services =E2=80=93 or their extensive infiltration? Of course
this is just an educated guess=E2=80=A6."
Surely it was more than a guess, however, that prompted certain Western
media outlets, including Fox News, to claim that one intelligence
service in particular may have had advance notice of the 9/11 terrorist
attacks. In a four-part series run in mid-December, Carl Cameron =E2=80=93 a
reporter not known for his hostility to either the Bush administration
or Israel =E2=80=93 reported:
"Since Sept. 11, more than 60 Israelis have been arrested or detained,
either under the new PATRIOT anti-terrorism law, or for immigration
violations. A handful of active Israeli military were among those
detained, according to investigators, who say some of the detainees
also failed polygraph questions when asked about alleged surveillance
activities against and in the United States.
"There is no indication that the Israelis were involved in the 9/11
attacks, but investigators suspect that the Israelis may have gathered
intelligence about the attacks in advance, and not shared it. A highly
placed investigator said there are 'tie-ins.' But when asked for
details, he flatly refused to describe them, saying, 'evidence linking
these Israelis to 9/11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence
that has been gathered. It's classified information.'"
It looks like they're watching Fox News in Tehran =E2=80=93 or else the
Iranian intelligence service, which is so good at culling secrets from
the U.S., knows something the American public doesn't.
The Iranian letter goes into the history of U.S. depredations in Iran,
and agrees that Saddam was indeed a "murderous dictator." Ahmadinejad
even admits that the people of the region are glad he's gone, but then
goes on to point out that the U.S. supported him against Iran.
My point is that there is clearly room for some sort of dialogue, if
not rapprochement. Iran formally insists that it seeks nuclear power
only for peaceful purposes, and the letter of the NPT supports their
right to do so. The realities of the Middle East's precarious balance
of power dictate that we recognize the reasons for the Iranian
determination to forge ahead on this front: Israel, after all, is now
the only nuclear power in the region. Tehran is pursuing a policy of
deterrence =E2=80=93 the same strategy the U.S. employed against the USSR f=
or
as long as the Cold War lasted. And it worked. No wonder the Iranians
are so eager to pursue it: the alternative is to leave the entire
region open to the possibility of an Israeli first strike, which, in
today's political climate, is not at all inconceivable.
As other commentators have pointed out, the prospect of Iran acquiring
nukes does not mean the end of the world. It means that the natural
tendency of nations to achieve a balance of power will, in this case,
be fulfilled, and that the Middle East will muddle along, just as the
East bloc and the West did for all those years, without actually
engaging in a nuclear exchange. In any case, no one country will be
able to engage in nuclear blackmail.
Israel is in a frenzy to prevent this development, for it would mean
that their strategic position would be considerably diminished. It
would not, in any sense, mean the annihilation of the Jewish state.
What Americans have to decide is whether going to war to preserve
Israeli nuclear hegemony in the region is worth it.=20
----0----
.
|
|
| User: "Doc" |
|
| Title: =?utf-8?Q?Re:_World_War_III_NEWS....11/5/6?==?utf-8?Q?...The_president_of_Iran_wants_t?==?utf-8?Q?o_talk_=E2=80=93_why_don't_we=3F?= |
10 May 2006 11:51:12 PM |
|
|
The National Sec. Advisor, Stephen Hadley, has said that he can't be sure
the letter is a legitimate "olive branch" or not, but despite his
noncommittal position on its worth, Bush has chosen not to respond
positively to it. Instead, there is much criticism that it doesn't address
the nuclear issue, and suspicion that it is only a political manipulation.
After a military preemptive strike by the US or its allies, Iran can
easily proclaim it tried to thaw icy relations with the US, but was
ignored. It is, after all, the first time in 27 years that an Iranian
president has approached the US president directly.
Whether it is a propaganda move or not, it is an embarassment that Bush or
Rice have not even proposed a direct dialogue with a leader they have
lambasted and villified. Considering the high stakes in preventing Iran
from becoming a nuclear power (that Bush and Rice have repeatedly warned
of), one would reasonably think this would require a "breakthrough"
diplomatic initiative -- to ostensibly head off a possible military
confrontation that'd likely lead to devastating economic consequences for
the US and its allies.
I can sense the fear and war-mongering Bush and Gang are simply intent on
keeping the tension high, and the prospect for military intervention
active in the media, to basically distract from their failed policies at
home and abroad -- and their pathological lying, rampant cronyism, greed,
and strategic bungling in regards to Iraq.
Any advantage of a "surprise" military strike has long passed. The Bush
administration has telegraphed enough thinly veiled threats toward Iran
over the past months that have given the Iranians plenty of time to
protect their nuclear assets, and strengthen their military defenses.
Ahmadinejad's letter to Bush may go down in history as a significant part
of a period of tragically missed opportunities by the US to lessen the
building pre-war tensions. But, it does not seem that this is by accident
at all, but by design.
Doc
"World War III 2006™ [The Last 2400 Days♥]™"
<stargatedecember2012@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:1147318852.206856.30150@q12g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
www.antiwar.com/justin
May 10, 2006
Letter From Tehran
The president of Iran wants to talk – why don't we?
by Justin Raimondo
As the UN Security Council comes to grips with the issue of Iran's
determination to join the nuclear club, and the question becomes the
focus of a debate in the U.S. similar to that which preceded the
invasion and occupation of Iraq, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
has written a letter to President George W. Bush that has been
described, variously, as "rambling," a "diversion," and "doesn't
address the dispute over Iran's enrichment of uranium."
That was before the full text became available, however, and we can see
that this latter accusation is untrue. Here is what President
Ahmadinejad has to say about his country's drive to acquire nuclear
technology:
"Why is it that any scientific and technological achievement reached in
the Middle East region is translated into and portrayed as a threat to
the Zionist regime? Is not scientific R&D one of the basic rights of
nations?
"You are familiar with history. In what other point in history has
scientific and technical progress been a crime? Can the possibility of
scientific achievements being utilized for military purposes be reason
enough to oppose science and technology altogether? If such a
supposition is true, then all scientific disciplines, including
physics, chemistry, mathematics, medicine, engineering, etc., must be
opposed."
A "diversion"? To the contrary, framing the issue in the context of
Israel's opposition to Iran's nuclear ambitions, President Ahmadinejad
addresses the issue directly and honestly, which is more than we can
say for the Americans, not to mention the Israelis – and where, pray
tell, is his answer? Why is it that everything that goes on in the
region must be seen in the context of the effect it has on Israel? And
what are the limits of the restrictions placed on Iran and other
nations when it comes the development of "dual use" technology?
What's clear enough, however, is that these restrictions do not apply
to Israel, which, as everybody knows, possesses nukes. Much is made of
the possibility that Iran, facing sanctions, has threatened to drop out
of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty – yet we hardly hear that
Israel refused to sign it in the first place.
It's downright odd that the letter was not made available immediately
to the American public; the various excerpts published by Western
newspapers were carefully edited to highlight Ahmadinejad's opposition
to the Iraq war, as well as his comments on the Holocaust and his call
for the U.S. to live up to its self-proclaimed Christian and liberal
values. But editors have left out certain key passages – although, to
be fair, it is an 18-page document – that might be surprising, even
illuminating, to Western readers.
Yes, the letter is filled with references to religion, and he does say
that Western liberalism is "shattering" and has "failed." His own brand
of clericalism is upheld as the only alternative: but these are the
parts of his letter addressed to his own people, I think it's fair to
say. He is apparently having some trouble on the home front, and seeks
to justify his policies – including his foreign policy pronouncements
– in religious terms. Insofar as he discusses the religious aspect of
all this, however, his message is conciliatory: it stresses the common
threads that, intertwined, make up the Judeo-Christian-Islamic
tradition, three religions joined at the very roots.
As for the significant passages that are left out, these fall into two
categories: those that express sympathy for the West, and those that
make some very specific accusations. Skillful propagandist that he is,
President Ahmadinejad links the former to the latter, as in the passage
that starts out this way:
"September Eleven was a horrendous incident. The killing of innocents
is deplorable and appalling in any part of the world. Our government
immediately declared its disgust with the perpetrators and offered its
condolences to the bereaved and expressed its sympathies."
By the way, there is not a word about this statement in Western media
reports about the letter: instead, we get headlines like "Iranian
Letter Lambastes Bush," "Iran Letter Faults U.S., Makes No Nuclear
Proposals," and "A Dead Letter, but Shrewdly Timed." The one major
exception was the Chicago Tribune, which ran the head: "Let's Talk,
Iranians Tell Bush."
This underscores another section of the letter, in which the Iranian
president makes his debut as a media critic, putting his critique of
Western news outlets during the run-up to war with Iraq in some pretty
familiar terms. After excoriating the media for ratcheting up the
climate of fear that accompanied 9/11, he writes:
"In media charters, correct dissemination of information and honest
reporting of a story are established tenets. I express my deep regret
about the disregard shown by certain Western media for these
principles. The main pretext for an attack on Iraq was the existence of
WMDs. This was repeated incessantly – for the public to finally
believe – and the ground set for an attack on Iraq."
Just as the canard that Iraq possessed WMD was accepted as an article
of faith by the stenographers who call themselves American journalists,
so similar fabrications about Iran are being readied for unveiling by
the same crowd. Judith Miller may no longer be writing for the New York
Times, but there are no doubt platoons of accommodating news hounds
more than willing to take her place as a major conduit for the War
Party's lies.
President Ahmadinejad is hardly done with his media critique, however:
he continues his comments about 9/11, and makes an astonishing
accusation. After expressing his sympathy for the U.S., he goes on to
question why no one charged with protecting the American people was
ever put on trial: and it is true that not a single U.S. government
official was so much as fired, let alone charged with dereliction of
duty. Some Western critics of the Bush administration's handling of the
9/11 crisis note this, too, but Ahmadinejad's questioning of this
curious fact goes much further:
"All governments have a duty to protect the lives, property, and good
standing of their citizens. Reportedly your government employs
extensive security, protection, and intelligence systems – and even
hunts its opponents abroad. September 11 was not a simple operation.
Could it be planned and executed without coordination with intelligence
and security services – or their extensive infiltration? Of course
this is just an educated guess…."
Surely it was more than a guess, however, that prompted certain Western
media outlets, including Fox News, to claim that one intelligence
service in particular may have had advance notice of the 9/11 terrorist
attacks. In a four-part series run in mid-December, Carl Cameron – a
reporter not known for his hostility to either the Bush administration
or Israel – reported:
"Since Sept. 11, more than 60 Israelis have been arrested or detained,
either under the new PATRIOT anti-terrorism law, or for immigration
violations. A handful of active Israeli military were among those
detained, according to investigators, who say some of the detainees
also failed polygraph questions when asked about alleged surveillance
activities against and in the United States.
"There is no indication that the Israelis were involved in the 9/11
attacks, but investigators suspect that the Israelis may have gathered
intelligence about the attacks in advance, and not shared it. A highly
placed investigator said there are 'tie-ins.' But when asked for
details, he flatly refused to describe them, saying, 'evidence linking
these Israelis to 9/11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence
that has been gathered. It's classified information.'"
It looks like they're watching Fox News in Tehran – or else the
Iranian intelligence service, which is so good at culling secrets from
the U.S., knows something the American public doesn't.
The Iranian letter goes into the history of U.S. depredations in Iran,
and agrees that Saddam was indeed a "murderous dictator." Ahmadinejad
even admits that the people of the region are glad he's gone, but then
goes on to point out that the U.S. supported him against Iran.
My point is that there is clearly room for some sort of dialogue, if
not rapprochement. Iran formally insists that it seeks nuclear power
only for peaceful purposes, and the letter of the NPT supports their
right to do so. The realities of the Middle East's precarious balance
of power dictate that we recognize the reasons for the Iranian
determination to forge ahead on this front: Israel, after all, is now
the only nuclear power in the region. Tehran is pursuing a policy of
deterrence – the same strategy the U.S. employed against the USSR for
as long as the Cold War lasted. And it worked. No wonder the Iranians
are so eager to pursue it: the alternative is to leave the entire
region open to the possibility of an Israeli first strike, which, in
today's political climate, is not at all inconceivable.
As other commentators have pointed out, the prospect of Iran acquiring
nukes does not mean the end of the world. It means that the natural
tendency of nations to achieve a balance of power will, in this case,
be fulfilled, and that the Middle East will muddle along, just as the
East bloc and the West did for all those years, without actually
engaging in a nuclear exchange. In any case, no one country will be
able to engage in nuclear blackmail.
Israel is in a frenzy to prevent this development, for it would mean
that their strategic position would be considerably diminished. It
would not, in any sense, mean the annihilation of the Jewish state.
What Americans have to decide is whether going to war to preserve
Israeli nuclear hegemony in the region is worth it.
----0----
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?utf-8?B?V29ybGQgV2FyIElJSSAyMDA24oSiIFtUaGUgTGFzdCAyNDAwIERheXPimaVd4oSi?=" |
|
| Title: Re: World War III NEWS....11/5/6...The president of Iran wants t |
11 May 2006 02:15:46 AM |
|
|
Doc wrote:
The National Sec. Advisor, Stephen Hadley, has said that he can't be sure
the letter is a legitimate "olive branch" or not, but despite his
noncommittal position on its worth, Bush has chosen not to respond
positively to it. Instead, there is much criticism that it doesn't address
the nuclear issue, and suspicion that it is only a political manipulation.
After a military preemptive strike by the US or its allies, Iran can
easily proclaim it tried to thaw icy relations with the US, but was
ignored. It is, after all, the first time in 27 years that an Iranian
president has approached the US president directly.
Whether it is a propaganda move or not, it is an embarassment that Bush or
Rice have not even proposed a direct dialogue with a leader they have
lambasted and villified. Considering the high stakes in preventing Iran
from becoming a nuclear power (that Bush and Rice have repeatedly warned
of), one would reasonably think this would require a "breakthrough"
diplomatic initiative -- to ostensibly head off a possible military
confrontation that'd likely lead to devastating economic consequences for
the US and its allies.
I can sense the fear and war-mongering Bush and Gang are simply intent on
keeping the tension high, and the prospect for military intervention
active in the media, to basically distract from their failed policies at
home and abroad -- and their pathological lying, rampant cronyism, greed,
and strategic bungling in regards to Iraq.
Any advantage of a "surprise" military strike has long passed. The Bush
administration has telegraphed enough thinly veiled threats toward Iran
over the past months that have given the Iranians plenty of time to
protect their nuclear assets, and strengthen their military defenses.
Ahmadinejad's letter to Bush may go down in history as a significant part
of a period of tragically missed opportunities by the US to lessen the
building pre-war tensions. But, it does not seem that this is by accident
at all, but by design.
Doc
Exactamundo, Doc !!!
By Design !! -- U r right on the money there (U should have bought a
lottery ticket today ;-)
The **EXACT** reasons behind the three world wars,
(1914-1918),(1939-1945),(2006-2012) are presented in the following most
excellent website:
http://www.threeworldwars.com/
Meanwhile, the jew (present day occupier of Palestine) are scuttering
about
like sewer rats trying to persuade the US & Europe to rally behind
their scraggy,
scrawny little butts & commit the most horrendous crime by violating
Iran's sovereignty
& potentially igniting a fuse in the Middle East Tinderbox that very
rapidly escalates into
nuclear Armageddon (World War III)........
Like opening Pandora's Box or Hydra the multi-headed dragon -- cut off
one head & many will grow back in it's place.........
Get ready for a very uncomfortable long & bumpy rollercoaster ride that
iz World War III.....
HOOROO
Uncle Wally
----0----
"World War III 2006=E2=84=A2 [The Last 2400 Days=E2=99=A5]=E2=84=A2"
<stargatedecember2012@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:1147318852.206856.30150@q12g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
www.antiwar.com/justin
May 10, 2006
Letter From Tehran
The president of Iran wants to talk =E2=80=93 why don't we?
by Justin Raimondo
As the UN Security Council comes to grips with the issue of Iran's
determination to join the nuclear club, and the question becomes the
focus of a debate in the U.S. similar to that which preceded the
invasion and occupation of Iraq, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
has written a letter to President George W. Bush that has been
described, variously, as "rambling," a "diversion," and "doesn't
address the dispute over Iran's enrichment of uranium."
That was before the full text became available, however, and we can see
that this latter accusation is untrue. Here is what President
Ahmadinejad has to say about his country's drive to acquire nuclear
technology:
"Why is it that any scientific and technological achievement reached in
the Middle East region is translated into and portrayed as a threat to
the Zionist regime? Is not scientific R&D one of the basic rights of
nations?
"You are familiar with history. In what other point in history has
scientific and technical progress been a crime? Can the possibility of
scientific achievements being utilized for military purposes be reason
enough to oppose science and technology altogether? If such a
supposition is true, then all scientific disciplines, including
physics, chemistry, mathematics, medicine, engineering, etc., must be
opposed."
A "diversion"? To the contrary, framing the issue in the context of
Israel's opposition to Iran's nuclear ambitions, President Ahmadinejad
addresses the issue directly and honestly, which is more than we can
say for the Americans, not to mention the Israelis =E2=80=93 and where, p=
ray
tell, is his answer? Why is it that everything that goes on in the
region must be seen in the context of the effect it has on Israel? And
what are the limits of the restrictions placed on Iran and other
nations when it comes the development of "dual use" technology?
What's clear enough, however, is that these restrictions do not apply
to Israel, which, as everybody knows, possesses nukes. Much is made of
the possibility that Iran, facing sanctions, has threatened to drop out
of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty =E2=80=93 yet we hardly hear that
Israel refused to sign it in the first place.
It's downright odd that the letter was not made available immediately
to the American public; the various excerpts published by Western
newspapers were carefully edited to highlight Ahmadinejad's opposition
to the Iraq war, as well as his comments on the Holocaust and his call
for the U.S. to live up to its self-proclaimed Christian and liberal
values. But editors have left out certain key passages =E2=80=93 although=
, to
be fair, it is an 18-page document =E2=80=93 that might be surprising, ev=
en
illuminating, to Western readers.
Yes, the letter is filled with references to religion, and he does say
that Western liberalism is "shattering" and has "failed." His own brand
of clericalism is upheld as the only alternative: but these are the
parts of his letter addressed to his own people, I think it's fair to
say. He is apparently having some trouble on the home front, and seeks
to justify his policies =E2=80=93 including his foreign policy pronouncem=
ents
=E2=80=93 in religious terms. Insofar as he discusses the religious aspec=
t of
all this, however, his message is conciliatory: it stresses the common
threads that, intertwined, make up the Judeo-Christian-Islamic
tradition, three religions joined at the very roots.
As for the significant passages that are left out, these fall into two
categories: those that express sympathy for the West, and those that
make some very specific accusations. Skillful propagandist that he is,
President Ahmadinejad links the former to the latter, as in the passage
that starts out this way:
"September Eleven was a horrendous incident. The killing of innocents
is deplorable and appalling in any part of the world. Our government
immediately declared its disgust with the perpetrators and offered its
condolences to the bereaved and expressed its sympathies."
By the way, there is not a word about this statement in Western media
reports about the letter: instead, we get headlines like "Iranian
Letter Lambastes Bush," "Iran Letter Faults U.S., Makes No Nuclear
Proposals," and "A Dead Letter, but Shrewdly Timed." The one major
exception was the Chicago Tribune, which ran the head: "Let's Talk,
Iranians Tell Bush."
This underscores another section of the letter, in which the Iranian
president makes his debut as a media critic, putting his critique of
Western news outlets during the run-up to war with Iraq in some pretty
familiar terms. After excoriating the media for ratcheting up the
climate of fear that accompanied 9/11, he writes:
"In media charters, correct dissemination of information and honest
reporting of a story are established tenets. I express my deep regret
about the disregard shown by certain Western media for these
principles. The main pretext for an attack on Iraq was the existence of
WMDs. This was repeated incessantly =E2=80=93 for the public to finally
believe =E2=80=93 and the ground set for an attack on Iraq."
Just as the canard that Iraq possessed WMD was accepted as an article
of faith by the stenographers who call themselves American journalists,
so similar fabrications about Iran are being readied for unveiling by
the same crowd. Judith Miller may no longer be writing for the New York
Times, but there are no doubt platoons of accommodating news hounds
more than willing to take her place as a major conduit for the War
Party's lies.
President Ahmadinejad is hardly done with his media critique, however:
he continues his comments about 9/11, and makes an astonishing
accusation. After expressing his sympathy for the U.S., he goes on to
question why no one charged with protecting the American people was
ever put on trial: and it is true that not a single U.S. government
official was so much as fired, let alone charged with dereliction of
duty. Some Western critics of the Bush administration's handling of the
9/11 crisis note this, too, but Ahmadinejad's questioning of this
curious fact goes much further:
"All governments have a duty to protect the lives, property, and good
standing of their citizens. Reportedly your government employs
extensive security, protection, and intelligence systems =E2=80=93 and ev=
en
hunts its opponents abroad. September 11 was not a simple operation.
Could it be planned and executed without coordination with intelligence
and security services =E2=80=93 or their extensive infiltration? Of course
this is just an educated guess=E2=80=A6."
Surely it was more than a guess, however, that prompted certain Western
media outlets, including Fox News, to claim that one intelligence
service in particular may have had advance notice of the 9/11 terrorist
attacks. In a four-part series run in mid-December, Carl Cameron =E2=80=
=93 a
reporter not known for his hostility to either the Bush administration
or Israel =E2=80=93 reported:
"Since Sept. 11, more than 60 Israelis have been arrested or detained,
either under the new PATRIOT anti-terrorism law, or for immigration
violations. A handful of active Israeli military were among those
detained, according to investigators, who say some of the detainees
also failed polygraph questions when asked about alleged surveillance
activities against and in the United States.
"There is no indication that the Israelis were involved in the 9/11
attacks, but investigators suspect that the Israelis may have gathered
intelligence about the attacks in advance, and not shared it. A highly
placed investigator said there are 'tie-ins.' But when asked for
details, he flatly refused to describe them, saying, 'evidence linking
these Israelis to 9/11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence
that has been gathered. It's classified information.'"
It looks like they're watching Fox News in Tehran =E2=80=93 or else the
Iranian intelligence service, which is so good at culling secrets from
the U.S., knows something the American public doesn't.
The Iranian letter goes into the history of U.S. depredations in Iran,
and agrees that Saddam was indeed a "murderous dictator." Ahmadinejad
even admits that the people of the region are glad he's gone, but then
goes on to point out that the U.S. supported him against Iran.
My point is that there is clearly room for some sort of dialogue, if
not rapprochement. Iran formally insists that it seeks nuclear power
only for peaceful purposes, and the letter of the NPT supports their
right to do so. The realities of the Middle East's precarious balance
of power dictate that we recognize the reasons for the Iranian
determination to forge ahead on this front: Israel, after all, is now
the only nuclear power in the region. Tehran is pursuing a policy of
deterrence =E2=80=93 the same strategy the U.S. employed against the USSR=
for
as long as the Cold War lasted. And it worked. No wonder the Iranians
are so eager to pursue it: the alternative is to leave the entire
region open to the possibility of an Israeli first strike, which, in
today's political climate, is not at all inconceivable.
As other commentators have pointed out, the prospect of Iran acquiring
nukes does not mean the end of the world. It means that the natural
tendency of nations to achieve a balance of power will, in this case,
be fulfilled, and that the Middle East will muddle along, just as the
East bloc and the West did for all those years, without actually
engaging in a nuclear exchange. In any case, no one country will be
able to engage in nuclear blackmail.
Israel is in a frenzy to prevent this development, for it would mean
that their strategic position would be considerably diminished. It
would not, in any sense, mean the annihilation of the Jewish state.
What Americans have to decide is whether going to war to preserve
Israeli nuclear hegemony in the region is worth it.
=20
----0----
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: =?utf-8?q?Re:_World_War_III_NEWS....11/5/6...The_president_of_Iran_wants_to_talk_=E2=80=93_why_don't_we=3F?= |
11 May 2006 02:37:20 PM |
|
|
World War III 2006=E2=84=A2 [The Last 2400 Days=E2=99=A5]=E2=84=A2 wrote:
www.antiwar.com/justin
May 10, 2006
Letter From Tehran
The president of Iran wants to talk =E2=80=93 why don't we?
Of course we'll talk including Bush!
So Ahmadinejady Baby what's you wanta talk about?
Ahmadinejady: We want nuke enrichment for "peacefull purpose"
Bush: What? For electricity? Russia's doing the enrichement for your
electricity so why do you need to enrich? Do you think your technology
is superior to Russia or others.
Ahmadinejady: We are 100% honest and will let your inspectors examine
everything.
Bush: That's what North Korea said and yet they developped and SOLD a
ton of Nukes under everyones' nose.
Ahmadinejady: What nose? did it they use a kleenex?
Bush: And in one hour North Korea expelled the inspectors.
Ahmadinejady: Not us, we are rich now from our fuel and therefore are
strong as you and demand to have our own nuclear weapons.
Bush: Why did I spend all that money to reverse Lawrence of Arabia's
Sunni government in favor of a Shiite government like Irans, to make a
large ennemy?
Bush: You are correct, everyone should have a NUKE.
And we'll go back to 1979 when "you" overthrew the Shah government and
hoped this leader of Iran would not use on a NUKE on you and the Rebel
cities to preserve his kingship and life.
Infact we'll put Saddam back on his throne, give him a justfull Nuke
like you since everyone deserves to be trusted.
And then the long war with Iraq and Saddam where millions of lives died
and hope that you nor Saddam will use a Nuke on each other.
Ahmadinejady: All right we got it made! Can I have a kleenex too?
by Justin Raimondo
As the UN Security Council comes to grips with the issue of Iran's
determination to join the nuclear club, and the question becomes the
focus of a debate in the U.S. similar to that which preceded the
invasion and occupation of Iraq, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
has written a letter to President George W. Bush that has been
described, variously, as "rambling," a "diversion," and "doesn't
address the dispute over Iran's enrichment of uranium."
That was before the full text became available, however, and we can see
that this latter accusation is untrue. Here is what President
Ahmadinejad has to say about his country's drive to acquire nuclear
technology:
"Why is it that any scientific and technological achievement reached in
the Middle East region is translated into and portrayed as a threat to
the Zionist regime? Is not scientific R&D one of the basic rights of
nations?
"You are familiar with history. In what other point in history has
scientific and technical progress been a crime? Can the possibility of
scientific achievements being utilized for military purposes be reason
enough to oppose science and technology altogether? If such a
supposition is true, then all scientific disciplines, including
physics, chemistry, mathematics, medicine, engineering, etc., must be
opposed."
A "diversion"? To the contrary, framing the issue in the context of
Israel's opposition to Iran's nuclear ambitions, President Ahmadinejad
addresses the issue directly and honestly, which is more than we can
say for the Americans, not to mention the Israelis =E2=80=93 and where, p=
ray
tell, is his answer? Why is it that everything that goes on in the
region must be seen in the context of the effect it has on Israel? And
what are the limits of the restrictions placed on Iran and other
nations when it comes the development of "dual use" technology?
What's clear enough, however, is that these restrictions do not apply
to Israel, which, as everybody knows, possesses nukes. Much is made of
the possibility that Iran, facing sanctions, has threatened to drop out
of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty =E2=80=93 yet we hardly hear that
Israel refused to sign it in the first place.
It's downright odd that the letter was not made available immediately
to the American public; the various excerpts published by Western
newspapers were carefully edited to highlight Ahmadinejad's opposition
to the Iraq war, as well as his comments on the Holocaust and his call
for the U.S. to live up to its self-proclaimed Christian and liberal
values. But editors have left out certain key passages =E2=80=93 although=
, to
be fair, it is an 18-page document =E2=80=93 that might be surprising, ev=
en
illuminating, to Western readers.
Yes, the letter is filled with references to religion, and he does say
that Western liberalism is "shattering" and has "failed." His own brand
of clericalism is upheld as the only alternative: but these are the
parts of his letter addressed to his own people, I think it's fair to
say. He is apparently having some trouble on the home front, and seeks
to justify his policies =E2=80=93 including his foreign policy pronouncem=
ents
=E2=80=93 in religious terms. Insofar as he discusses the religious aspec=
t of
all this, however, his message is conciliatory: it stresses the common
threads that, intertwined, make up the Judeo-Christian-Islamic
tradition, three religions joined at the very roots.
As for the significant passages that are left out, these fall into two
categories: those that express sympathy for the West, and those that
make some very specific accusations. Skillful propagandist that he is,
President Ahmadinejad links the former to the latter, as in the passage
that starts out this way:
"September Eleven was a horrendous incident. The killing of innocents
is deplorable and appalling in any part of the world. Our government
immediately declared its disgust with the perpetrators and offered its
condolences to the bereaved and expressed its sympathies."
By the way, there is not a word about this statement in Western media
reports about the letter: instead, we get headlines like "Iranian
Letter Lambastes Bush," "Iran Letter Faults U.S., Makes No Nuclear
Proposals," and "A Dead Letter, but Shrewdly Timed." The one major
exception was the Chicago Tribune, which ran the head: "Let's Talk,
Iranians Tell Bush."
This underscores another section of the letter, in which the Iranian
president makes his debut as a media critic, putting his critique of
Western news outlets during the run-up to war with Iraq in some pretty
familiar terms. After excoriating the media for ratcheting up the
climate of fear that accompanied 9/11, he writes:
"In media charters, correct dissemination of information and honest
reporting of a story are established tenets. I express my deep regret
about the disregard shown by certain Western media for these
principles. The main pretext for an attack on Iraq was the existence of
WMDs. This was repeated incessantly =E2=80=93 for the public to finally
believe =E2=80=93 and the ground set for an attack on Iraq."
Just as the canard that Iraq possessed WMD was accepted as an article
of faith by the stenographers who call themselves American journalists,
so similar fabrications about Iran are being readied for unveiling by
the same crowd. Judith Miller may no longer be writing for the New York
Times, but there are no doubt platoons of accommodating news hounds
more than willing to take her place as a major conduit for the War
Party's lies.
President Ahmadinejad is hardly done with his media critique, however:
he continues his comments about 9/11, and makes an astonishing
accusation. After expressing his sympathy for the U.S., he goes on to
question why no one charged with protecting the American people was
ever put on trial: and it is true that not a single U.S. government
official was so much as fired, let alone charged with dereliction of
duty. Some Western critics of the Bush administration's handling of the
9/11 crisis note this, too, but Ahmadinejad's questioning of this
curious fact goes much further:
"All governments have a duty to protect the lives, property, and good
standing of their citizens. Reportedly your government employs
extensive security, protection, and intelligence systems =E2=80=93 and ev=
en
hunts its opponents abroad. September 11 was not a simple operation.
Could it be planned and executed without coordination with intelligence
and security services =E2=80=93 or their extensive infiltration? Of course
this is just an educated guess=E2=80=A6."
Surely it was more than a guess, however, that prompted certain Western
media outlets, including Fox News, to claim that one intelligence
service in particular may have had advance notice of the 9/11 terrorist
attacks. In a four-part series run in mid-December, Carl Cameron =E2=80=
=93 a
reporter not known for his hostility to either the Bush administration
or Israel =E2=80=93 reported:
"Since Sept. 11, more than 60 Israelis have been arrested or detained,
either under the new PATRIOT anti-terrorism law, or for immigration
violations. A handful of active Israeli military were among those
detained, according to investigators, who say some of the detainees
also failed polygraph questions when asked about alleged surveillance
activities against and in the United States.
"There is no indication that the Israelis were involved in the 9/11
attacks, but investigators suspect that the Israelis may have gathered
intelligence about the attacks in advance, and not shared it. A highly
placed investigator said there are 'tie-ins.' But when asked for
details, he flatly refused to describe them, saying, 'evidence linking
these Israelis to 9/11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence
that has been gathered. It's classified information.'"
It looks like they're watching Fox News in Tehran =E2=80=93 or else the
Iranian intelligence service, which is so good at culling secrets from
the U.S., knows something the American public doesn't.
The Iranian letter goes into the history of U.S. depredations in Iran,
and agrees that Saddam was indeed a "murderous dictator." Ahmadinejad
even admits that the people of the region are glad he's gone, but then
goes on to point out that the U.S. supported him against Iran.
My point is that there is clearly room for some sort of dialogue, if
not rapprochement. Iran formally insists that it seeks nuclear power
only for peaceful purposes, and the letter of the NPT supports their
right to do so. The realities of the Middle East's precarious balance
of power dictate that we recognize the reasons for the Iranian
determination to forge ahead on this front: Israel, after all, is now
the only nuclear power in the region. Tehran is pursuing a policy of
deterrence =E2=80=93 the same strategy the U.S. employed against the USSR=
for
as long as the Cold War lasted. And it worked. No wonder the Iranians
are so eager to pursue it: the alternative is to leave the entire
region open to the possibility of an Israeli first strike, which, in
today's political climate, is not at all inconceivable.
As other commentators have pointed out, the prospect of Iran acquiring
nukes does not mean the end of the world. It means that the natural
tendency of nations to achieve a balance of power will, in this case,
be fulfilled, and that the Middle East will muddle along, just as the
East bloc and the West did for all those years, without actually
engaging in a nuclear exchange. In any case, no one country will be
able to engage in nuclear blackmail.
Israel is in a frenzy to prevent this development, for it would mean
that their strategic position would be considerably diminished. It
would not, in any sense, mean the annihilation of the Jewish state.
What Americans have to decide is whether going to war to preserve
Israeli nuclear hegemony in the region is worth it.=20
=20
----0----
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?utf-8?B?V29ybGQgV2FyIElJSSAyMDA2IFtUaGUgTGFzdCAyNDAwIERheXNd4pml4oSi?=" |
|
| Title: Re: World War III NEWS....13/5/6... |
12 May 2006 10:15:44 PM |
|
|
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2006/120506Israel.htm
Israel will hit Iran in the next few months: Israeli official
Khalid Hasan / Pakistan Daily Times | May 11 2006
WASHINGTON: Israel will strike Iran=E2=80=99s nuclear facilities in the next
=E2=80=9Cmonth or two or three,=E2=80=9D an Israeli official has been quote=
d here
as saying.
The unnamed official told Arnaud de Borchgrave, editor-in-chief of the
United Press International (UPI), at the recently held national day
reception at the Israeli Embassy that he believed Israel would strike
Iran first in the next two or three months and that fighter bombers
would not be involved as they had been to take out Iraq=E2=80=99s Osirak
nuclear reactor before it went critical in 1981. For Osirak, Israel had
used 14 F-15s and F-16s. This time, the Israeli said, it would be
missiles. Asked if Israel would employ Cruise missiles, he replied,
=E2=80=9Cwith a gesture of his hand that went up and down again=E2=80=9D, w=
hich
meant that it would be the weapon of choice.
Asked if tunnel entrances to widely scattered Iranian nuclear
facilities would be targeted, he responded that Israel had its own
geo-stationary spy-in-the-sky satellite taking constant pictures of
Iran with a resolution down to 70 centimetres. =E2=80=9CWe know far more th=
an
anyone realises,=E2=80=9D he added.
De Borchgrave=E2=80=99s report quoted a poll of conservative Republicans by=
a
conservative web-based news service, which showed overwhelmingly strong
support for bombing Iran. Almost 60,000 people took part in the poll
and 88 percent agreed that Iran poses a greater threat than Saddam
Hussein did before the Iraq War. To the question, =E2=80=9CShould the US
undertake military action against Iran to stop their (nuclear)
programme?=E2=80=9D 77 percent replied yes, 23 percent said no. Forty-five
percent said that military action should be taken by the United States,
while 35 percent wanted Israel to do that. Twenty percent said neither.
As for whether US efforts to contain Iran=E2=80=99s nuclear weapons are
working, 93 percent said they were not, while 89 percent said the US
should not rely solely on the UN.
According to de Borchgrave, =E2=80=9CIsrael has developed some 100 Jericho-=
II
medium-range ballistic missiles (which entered service in 1989).
Jericho II=E2=80=99s range varies from 1,500 to 3,500 kilometres, depending
on payload weight. They are deployed in underground caves and silos.
Israel has several satellites in orbit - Ofeq-1 through Ofeq-5 - that
were launched by Shavit space launch vehicles (SLV). The first two
stages of the Shavit were Jericho II missiles. There are unconfirmed
reports of an upgraded Jericho-3 missile with a range of over 3,000
kilometres.
----0----
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: World War III NEWS....13/5/6... |
13 May 2006 09:43:27 AM |
|
|
Too dangerous, Iran is not the same as Iraq.
That's exaclty what Saddam thought, his superior technology and Iran
being divided in civil war with the shah would give him a quick
victory.
Iran didn't use their technology but their numbers to storm back into
Baghdad with millions of civilian casualties on both sides...
World War III 2006 [The Last 2400 Days]=E2=99=A5=E2=84=A2 wrote:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2006/120506Israel.htm
Israel will hit Iran in the next few months: Israeli official
Khalid Hasan / Pakistan Daily Times | May 11 2006
WASHINGTON: Israel will strike Iran=E2=80=99s nuclear facilities in the n=
ext
=E2=80=9Cmonth or two or three,=E2=80=9D an Israeli official has been quo=
ted here
as saying.
The unnamed official told Arnaud de Borchgrave, editor-in-chief of the
United Press International (UPI), at the recently held national day
reception at the Israeli Embassy that he believed Israel would strike
Iran first in the next two or three months and that fighter bombers
would not be involved as they had been to take out Iraq=E2=80=99s Osirak
nuclear reactor before it went critical in 1981. For Osirak, Israel had
used 14 F-15s and F-16s. This time, the Israeli said, it would be
missiles. Asked if Israel would employ Cruise missiles, he replied,
=E2=80=9Cwith a gesture of his hand that went up and down again=E2=80=9D,=
which
meant that it would be the weapon of choice.
Asked if tunnel entrances to widely scattered Iranian nuclear
facilities would be targeted, he responded that Israel had its own
geo-stationary spy-in-the-sky satellite taking constant pictures of
Iran with a resolution down to 70 centimetres. =E2=80=9CWe know far more =
than
anyone realises,=E2=80=9D he added.
De Borchgrave=E2=80=99s report quoted a poll of conservative Republicans =
by a
conservative web-based news service, which showed overwhelmingly strong
support for bombing Iran. Almost 60,000 people took part in the poll
and 88 percent agreed that Iran poses a greater threat than Saddam
Hussein did before the Iraq War. To the question, =E2=80=9CShould the US
undertake military action against Iran to stop their (nuclear)
programme?=E2=80=9D 77 percent replied yes, 23 percent said no. Forty-five
percent said that military action should be taken by the United States,
while 35 percent wanted Israel to do that. Twenty percent said neither.
As for whether US efforts to contain Iran=E2=80=99s nuclear weapons are
working, 93 percent said they were not, while 89 percent said the US
should not rely solely on the UN.
According to de Borchgrave, =E2=80=9CIsrael has developed some 100 Jerich=
o-II
medium-range ballistic missiles (which entered service in 1989).
Jericho II=E2=80=99s range varies from 1,500 to 3,500 kilometres, dependi=
ng
on payload weight. They are deployed in underground caves and silos.
Israel has several satellites in orbit - Ofeq-1 through Ofeq-5 - that
were launched by Shavit space launch vehicles (SLV). The first two
stages of the Shavit were Jericho II missiles. There are unconfirmed
reports of an upgraded Jericho-3 missile with a range of over 3,000
kilometres.
=20
----0----
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: World War III NEWS....13/5/6... |
13 May 2006 09:43:45 AM |
|
|
Too dangerous, Iran is not the same as Iraq.
That's exaclty what Saddam thought, his superior technology and Iran
being divided in civil war with the shah would give him a quick
victory.
Iran didn't use their technology but their numbers to storm back into
Baghdad with millions of civilian casualties on both sides...
World War III 2006 [The Last 2400 Days]=E2=99=A5=E2=84=A2 wrote:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2006/120506Israel.htm
Israel will hit Iran in the next few months: Israeli official
Khalid Hasan / Pakistan Daily Times | May 11 2006
WASHINGTON: Israel will strike Iran=E2=80=99s nuclear facilities in the n=
ext
=E2=80=9Cmonth or two or three,=E2=80=9D an Israeli official has been quo=
ted here
as saying.
The unnamed official told Arnaud de Borchgrave, editor-in-chief of the
United Press International (UPI), at the recently held national day
reception at the Israeli Embassy that he believed Israel would strike
Iran first in the next two or three months and that fighter bombers
would not be involved as they had been to take out Iraq=E2=80=99s Osirak
nuclear reactor before it went critical in 1981. For Osirak, Israel had
used 14 F-15s and F-16s. This time, the Israeli said, it would be
missiles. Asked if Israel would employ Cruise missiles, he replied,
=E2=80=9Cwith a gesture of his hand that went up and down again=E2=80=9D,=
which
meant that it would be the weapon of choice.
Asked if tunnel entrances to widely scattered Iranian nuclear
facilities would be targeted, he responded that Israel had its own
geo-stationary spy-in-the-sky satellite taking constant pictures of
Iran with a resolution down to 70 centimetres. =E2=80=9CWe know far more =
than
anyone realises,=E2=80=9D he added.
De Borchgrave=E2=80=99s report quoted a poll of conservative Republicans =
by a
conservative web-based news service, which showed overwhelmingly strong
support for bombing Iran. Almost 60,000 people took part in the poll
and 88 percent agreed that Iran poses a greater threat than Saddam
Hussein did before the Iraq War. To the question, =E2=80=9CShould the US
undertake military action against Iran to stop their (nuclear)
programme?=E2=80=9D 77 percent replied yes, 23 percent said no. Forty-five
percent said that military action should be taken by the United States,
while 35 percent wanted Israel to do that. Twenty percent said neither.
As for whether US efforts to contain Iran=E2=80=99s nuclear weapons are
working, 93 percent said they were not, while 89 percent said the US
should not rely solely on the UN.
According to de Borchgrave, =E2=80=9CIsrael has developed some 100 Jerich=
o-II
medium-range ballistic missiles (which entered service in 1989).
Jericho II=E2=80=99s range varies from 1,500 to 3,500 kilometres, dependi=
ng
on payload weight. They are deployed in underground caves and silos.
Israel has several satellites in orbit - Ofeq-1 through Ofeq-5 - that
were launched by Shavit space launch vehicles (SLV). The first two
stages of the Shavit were Jericho II missiles. There are unconfirmed
reports of an upgraded Jericho-3 missile with a range of over 3,000
kilometres.
=20
----0----
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: World War III NEWS....13/5/6... |
13 May 2006 10:03:24 AM |
|
|
Iran is unlike Iraq, if Isreal use the same tactics on Iran, then Iran
will probably storm Isreal using people instead of technology, the same
way they did with Iraq.
guskz@hotmail.com wrote:
Too dangerous, Iran is not the same as Iraq.
That's exaclty what Saddam thought, his superior technology and Iran
being divided in civil war with the shah would give him a quick
victory.
Iran didn't use their technology but their numbers to storm back into
Baghdad with millions of civilian casualties on both sides...
World War III 2006 [The Last 2400 Days]=E2=99=A5=E2=84=A2 wrote:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2006/120506Israel.htm
Israel will hit Iran in the next few months: Israeli official
Khalid Hasan / Pakistan Daily Times | May 11 2006
WASHINGTON: Israel will strike Iran=E2=80=99s nuclear facilities in the=
next
=E2=80=9Cmonth or two or three,=E2=80=9D an Israeli official has been q=
uoted here
as saying.
The unnamed official told Arnaud de Borchgrave, editor-in-chief of the
United Press International (UPI), at the recently held national day
reception at the Israeli Embassy that he believed Israel would strike
Iran first in the next two or three months and that fighter bombers
would not be involved as they had been to take out Iraq=E2=80=99s Osirak
nuclear reactor before it went critical in 1981. For Osirak, Israel had
used 14 F-15s and F-16s. This time, the Israeli said, it would be
missiles. Asked if Israel would employ Cruise missiles, he replied,
=E2=80=9Cwith a gesture of his hand that went up and down again=E2=80=
=9D, which
meant that it would be the weapon of choice.
Asked if tunnel entrances to widely scattered Iranian nuclear
facilities would be targeted, he responded that Israel had its own
geo-stationary spy-in-the-sky satellite taking constant pictures of
Iran with a resolution down to 70 centimetres. =E2=80=9CWe know far mor=
e than
anyone realises,=E2=80=9D he added.
De Borchgrave=E2=80=99s report quoted a poll of conservative Republican=
s by a
conservative web-based news service, which showed overwhelmingly strong
support for bombing Iran. Almost 60,000 people took part in the poll
and 88 percent agreed that Iran poses a greater threat than Saddam
Hussein did before the Iraq War. To the question, =E2=80=9CShould the US
undertake military action against Iran to stop their (nuclear)
programme?=E2=80=9D 77 percent replied yes, 23 percent said no. Forty-f=
ive
percent said that military action should be taken by the United States,
while 35 percent wanted Israel to do that. Twenty percent said neither.
As for whether US efforts to contain Iran=E2=80=99s nuclear weapons are
working, 93 percent said they were not, while 89 percent said the US
should not rely solely on the UN.
According to de Borchgrave, =E2=80=9CIsrael has developed some 100 Jeri=
cho-II
medium-range ballistic missiles (which entered service in 1989).
Jericho II=E2=80=99s range varies from 1,500 to 3,500 kilometres, depen=
ding
on payload weight. They are deployed in underground caves and silos.
Israel has several satellites in orbit - Ofeq-1 through Ofeq-5 - that
were launched by Shavit space launch vehicles (SLV). The first two
stages of the Shavit were Jericho II missiles. There are unconfirmed
reports of an upgraded Jericho-3 missile with a range of over 3,000
kilometres.
=20
----0----
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?utf-8?B?V29ybGQgV2FyIElJSSAyMDA2IFtUaGUgTGFzdCAyNDAwIERheXNd4pml4oSi?=" |
|
| Title: Re: World War III NEWS....13/5/6... |
14 May 2006 10:13:38 PM |
|
|
Russia will quicky STEP IN to save the day !!!
I can give a 100% iron clad guarantee on that !!!
http://www.joevialls.co.uk/myahudi/sunburn.html
HOOROO
UNCLE WALLY
----0----
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "=?utf-8?B?V29ybGQgV2FyIElJSSAyMDA2IFtUaGUgTGFzdCAyNDAwIERheXNd4pml4oSi?=" |
|
| Title: Re: World War III NEWS....15/5/6... |
14 May 2006 10:25:14 PM |
|
|
www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3250456,00.html
Pakistan official to Iran: Take Israel hostage
Pakistan's former army chief tells Associated Press he advised Iranians
to make it clear that if attacked their answer will be to hit Israel.
Insists Pakistani government didn't help Iran attain capabilities even
though former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto once told him Iranians
offered more than USD 4 billion for nuclear technology
Associated Press
BegPakistan's former army chief says Iranian officials came to him for
advice on heading off an attack on their nuclear facilities, and he in
effect advised them to take a hostage - Israel.
Retired Gen. Mirza Aslam Beg said he suggested their government "make
it clear that if anything happens to Iran, if anyone attacks it - it
doesn't matter who it is or how it is attacked - that Iran's answer
will be to hit Israel; the only target will be Israel."
Since Beg spoke in an interview with The Associated Press, echoes of
his thinking have been heard in Iran, though whether they result
directly from his advice isn't known.
'Jewish State Will Survive'
Expert: Nuke attack won't destroy Israel / Eyal Ben
Special report: Tel Aviv University history professor says
'Ahmadinejad trying to replace Bin Laden, his great rival, as leading
representative of extreme fanaticism.' Adds: It is unclear whether
Israel can withstand the death of a million people in an Iranian
nuclear attack, but it would not be the end of the Jewish State.
History of Science lecturer Yoav Ben-Dov: Israel's fear of Iranian
attack related first and foremost to Holocaust trauma
Mohammad Ebrahim Dehghani, an Iranian Revolutionary Guards commander,
was quoted last week as saying that if "America does make any mischief,
the first place we target will be Israel." The threat was disavowed the
next day by Brig. Gen. Alireza Afshar, deputy to the chief of Iran's
military staff, who said it was Dehghani's "personal view and has no
validity as far as the Iranian military officials are concerned."
And on Tuesday, Israel's Vice Premier Shimon Peres warned that "Those
who threaten to destroy are in danger of being destroyed."
In the AP interview that took place several weeks before these threats
were exchanged, Beg said a delegation from the Iranian Embassy in
Pakistan had come to his office in January, seeking advice as Western
pressure mounted on Iran to abandon its nuclear effort. Beg said he
offered lessons learned from his experience dealing with India's
nuclear threat.
'Attempt to degrade defense systems of Israel'
He said he told the Iranians, whom he did not identify, that Pakistan
had suspected India of collaborating with Israel in planning an attack
on its nuclear facilities. By then, Pakistan had the bomb too. But both
countries had adopted a strategy of ambiguity, he said, and Pakistan
sent an emissary to India to warn that no matter who attacked it,
Pakistan would retaliate against India.
"We told India frankly that this is the threat we perceive and this is
the action we are taking and the action we will take. It was a real
deterrent," he recalled telling the Iranians.
He said he also advised them to "attempt to degrade the defense systems
of Israel," harass it through the Hamas government of the Palestinian
Authority and the Hezbollah movement in Lebanon, and put second-strike
nuclear weapons on submarines.
Although analysts are divided on how soon Iran might have nuclear
weapons, Beg said he is sure Iran has had enough time to develop them.
But he insists the Pakistani government didn't help, even though he
says former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto once told him the Iranians
offered more than USD 4 billion for the technology.
Ephraim Asculai, a former senior official with the Israel Atomic Agency
Commission, said he didn't think Beg's remarks reflected official
Pakistani policy.
Asculai said he believed Iran learned more from Iraq than from
Pakistan, recalling that as soon as the 1991 Gulf War broke out, Saddam
Hussein fired missiles at Israel, even though it wasn't in the U.S.-led
coalition fighting Iraq.
'Can we have a bomb?'
Beg became army chief of staff in 1988, a year after Pakistan confirmed
CIA estimates that it had nuclear weapons capability. He served until
1991 and now runs his own think tank. He speaks freely and in detail
about the nuclear issue, but many critical blank spots remain and the
subject remains one of great sensitivity, clouded by revelations in
2004 that A.Q. Khan, who pioneered Pakistan's nuclear bomb, sold
nuclear technology to Iran, Libya and North Korea.
The bigger picture has also changed radically. Pakistan is now a U.S.
ally in the war on terrorism, and Asculai said "Pakistani government
officials have often suggested that they would be willing to have ties
with Israel under certain conditions."
In the AP interview, Beg detailed nearly 20 years of Iranian approaches
to obtain conventional arms and then technology for nuclear weapons. He
described an Iranian visit in 1990, when he was army chief of staff.
"They didn't want the technology. They asked: 'Can we have a bomb?' My
answer was: By all means you can have it but you must make it yourself.
Nobody gave it to us."
The United States imposed sanctions on Pakistan in 1990, suspecting it
was developing a nuclear bomb. In 1998, confirmation came with
Pakistan's first nuclear weapons tests.
'They said they wanted to master nuclear cycle'
Although Beg insisted his government never gave Iran nuclear weapons,
Pakistan now acknowledges that Khan sold Iran centrifuges to produce
weapons-grade uranium, though without his government's knowledge.
In a televised confession Khan insisted he acted without authorization
in selling nuclear technology to Iran, Libya and North Korea, saying
the proliferation took place between 1989 and 2000.
Khan has been pardoned by President Gen. Pervez Musharraf, and Pakistan
has refused to hand him over to the United States or the U.N. nuclear
watchdog agency for questioning.
According to Beg, Iran first sent emissaries to Pakistan in the latter
years of its 1980-88 war with Iraq with a shopping list worth billions
of dollars, mostly for spare parts for its air force. It offered in
return to underwrite the development plan of Gen. Zia-ul Haq, then
Pakistan's ruler.
"Gen. Zia did not agree," he said.
Much of what Beg says cannot be independently confirmed, and the U.N.'s
International Atomic Energy Agency did not respond to repeated requests
for comment on Beg's version of events.
Another angle on these early contacts comes from Tanvir Ahmed,
Pakistan's ambassador to Iran from 1987-1989. He said he had a rare
meeting with Iran's nuclear inner circle in January 1988.
"It was the only time I was allowed in the inner sanctum of the nuclear
discussions. I was asked to a lunch. ... they wanted to know whether
Pakistan would help them on the nuclear side. They never said they
wanted nuclear weapons. They said they wanted to master the nuclear
cycle," Ahmed recalled.
Ahmed said he told them it was unlikely, but promised to relay the
request to Zia. He said Zia told him: "You gave them the right answer."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
