noworldsystem.com


Russia: We’ll Nuke ‘Aggressors’ First

Russia: We’ll Nuke ‘Aggressors’ First

Wired
October 14, 2009

Russia is weighing changes to its military doctrine that would allow for a “preventive” nuclear strike against its enemies — even those armed only with conventional weapons. The news comes just as American diplomats are trying to get Russia to cut down its nuclear stockpile, and put the squeeze on Iran’s suspect nuclear program.

In an interview published today in Izvestia, Nikolai Patrushev, the secretary of the Kremlin’s security council, said the new doctrine offers “different options to allow the use of nuclear weapons, depending on a certain situation and intentions of a would-be enemy. In critical national security situations, one should also not exclude a preventive nuclear strike against the aggressor.”

What’s more, Patrushev said, Russia is revising the rules for the employment of nukes to repel conventionally armed attackers, “not only in large-scale, but also in a regional and even a local war.”

Gulp. If I were in Georgia — or in any other country Russia considers part of its sphere of influence — that formulation would make me pretty anxious.

The Russian Federation is considering the “first strike” option as part of a larger overhaul of military doctrine. The new doctrine, which is supposed to be presented to President Dmitry Medvedev later this year, is supposed to provide “flexible and timely” responses to national security threats.

The United States and Russia may prepping to negotiate a new strategic arms reduction treaty after President Obama declared a “reset” in relations between Moscow and Russia. But Patrushev, apparently, didn’t get the memo. In the interview, he takes a swipe at the United States and NATO, saying that the alliance “continues to press for the admission of new members to NATO, the military activities of the bloc are intensifying, and U.S. strategic forces are conducting intensive exercises to improve the management of strategic nuclear weapons.”

In other words, Moscow is holding to a hard line, precisely at a time when Washington is trying to play nice. The administration wants the Kremlin’s help — to pressure Iran, to revive the arms-control process — but the bear still needs to brandish nukes.

 



NATO Air Strike Kills 150 Afghan Civilians

NATO Air Strike Kills 150 Afghan Civilians


Rahmatullah, 19, a victim of Friday’ NATO air strike, tries to sit up on his bed in a hospital in Kabul, Afghanistan, Saturday, Sept. 5, 2009.

Pajwok Afghan News
September 5, 2009

Residents of Chahar Dara district in northern Kunduz province say more than 150 civilians were killed and 20 others wounded in Friday’s air strike by NATO-led forces.

The bombing in Haji Aman village came as insurgents and residents emptied oil into jerry canes from tankers hijacked by Taliban militants from the Kunduz-Baghlan Highway.

Inhabitants of the area told Pajhwok Afghan News all those killed in the bombardment were civilians and there were no Taliban at the site at the time the attack took place. Fighters had left the scene after they asked the people to take fuel for free.

An elder from Sarak-i-Bala neighbourhood, Abdul Rahim, said 15 children were among the 50 people of Yaqubi village killed in the bombing raid.

The man, who lost two sons in the incident, argued: “Poverty brought us to this stage.” No guerrillas were among the dead, he said, explaining the fighters well before the deadly assault.

A 50-year-old woman bitterly cried while standing in front of her ruined house. She said her three sons, husband and a grandson perished in the bombardment. Locals showed this reporter as many as 50 graves of civilian victims.

In the Maulvi Naeem village, residents said 20 civilians were killed in the incident. Haji Najmuddin, a tribal elder, lost two nephews. He claimed chemicals bombs were dropped on the villagers. Clothes of his nephews were not damaged but their bodies were badly charred, the man argued.

This reporter saw the graves of those killed in the air strike. Seventy of the fatalities were from Yaqubi and Maulvi Naeem villages and the rest from three other areas.

Meanwhile, Kunduz Governor Eng. Muhammad Omar said a delegation from Kabul had arrived in the district to investigate the incident and determine the exact number of civilian deaths.

Government gives up hope of more European Nato help in Afghanistan
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/6143065/Government-gives-up-hope-of-more-European-Nato-help-in-Afghanistan.html

Afghan President: NATO Air Strike a “Major Error”

Afghan air strike galvanises war protesters

US troops raid Afghan hospital, says aid group

EU Nations Slam NATO Air Strike in Afghanistan

 



Mass Censorship of Dead Marine Photo

Mass Censorship of Dead Marine Photo

Paul Craig Roberts
Antiwar.com
September 7, 2009

Americans have lost their ability for introspection, thereby revealing their astounding hypocrisy to the world.

U.S. War Secretary Robert Gates has condemned the Associated Press and a reporter, Julie Jacobson, embedded with U.S. troops in Afghanistan, for taking and releasing a photo of a U.S. Marine who was wounded in action and died from his injury.

The photographer was on patrol with the Marines when they came under fire. She found the courage and presence of mind to do her job. Her reward is to be condemned by the warmonger Gates as “insensitive.” Gates says her employer, the Associated Press, lacks “judgment and common decency.”

The American Legion jumped in and denounced the Associated Press for a “stunning lack of compassion and common decency.”

To stem opposition to its wars, the War Department hides signs of American casualties from the public. Angry that evidence escaped the censor, the war secretary and the American Legion attacked with politically correct jargon: “insensitive,” “offended,” and the “anguish” and “pain and suffering” inflicted upon the Marine’s family. The War Department sounds like it is preparing a harassment tort.

Isn’t this passing the buck? The Marine lost his life not because of the Associated Press and a photographer, but because of the war criminals – Gates, Bush, Cheney, Obama, and the U.S. Congress that supports wars of naked aggression that serve no American purpose, but which keep campaign coffers filled with contributions from the armaments companies.

Marine Lance Cpl. Joshua M. Bernard is dead because the U.S. government and a significant percentage of the U.S. population believe that the U.S. has the right to invade, bomb, and occupy other peoples who have raised no hand against us but are demonized with lies and propaganda.

For the American war secretary it is a photo that is insensitive, not America’s assertion of the right to determine the fate of Afghanistan with bombs and soldiers.

The exceptional “virtuous nation” does not think it is insensitive for America’s bombs to blow innocent villagers to pieces. On Sept. 4, the day before Gates’ outburst over the “insensitive” photo, Agence France Presse reported from Afghanistan that a U.S./NATO air strike had killed large numbers of villagers who had come to get fuel from two tankers that had been hijacked from negligent and inattentive occupation forces:

“’Nobody was in one piece. Hands, legs, and body parts were scattered everywhere. Those who were away from the fuel tanker were badly burnt,’ said 32-year-old Mohammad Daud, depicting a scene from hell. The burned-out shells of the tankers, still smoking in marooned wrecks on the riverbank, were surrounded by the charred-meat remains of villagers from Chahar Dara district in Kunduz province, near the Tajik border. Dr. Farid Rahid, a spokesperson in Kabul for the ministry of health, said up to 250 villagers had been near the tankers when the air strike was called in.”

What does the world think of the United States? The American war secretary and a U.S. military veterans association think a photo of an injured and dying American soldier is insensitive, but not the wipeout of an Afghan village that came to get needed fuel.

The U.S. government is like a criminal who accuses the police of his crime when he is arrested or a sociopathic abuser who blames the victim. It is a known fact that the CIA has violated U.S. law and international law with its assassinations, kidnappings, and torture. But it is not this criminal agency that will be held accountable. Instead, those who will be punished will be those moral beings who, appalled at the illegality and inhumanity of the CIA, leaked the evidence of the agency’s crimes. The CIA has asked the U.S. Justice (sic) Department to investigate what the CIA alleges is the “criminal disclosure” of its secret program to murder suspected foreign terrorist leaders abroad. As we learned from Gitmo, those suspected by America are overwhelmingly innocent.

The CIA program is so indefensible that when CIA director Leon Panetta found out about it six months after being in office, he cancelled the program (assuming those running the program obeyed) and informed Congress.

Yet, the CIA wants the person who revealed its crime to be punished for revealing secret information. A secret agency this unmoored from moral and legal standards is a greater threat to our country than are terrorists. Who knows what false flag operation it will pull off in order to provide justification and support for its agenda. An agency that is more liability than benefit should be abolished.

The agency’s program of assassinating terrorist leaders is itself fraught with contradictions and dangers. The hatred created by the U.S. and Israel is independent of any leader. If one is killed, others take his place. The most likely outcome of the CIA assassination program is that the agency will be manipulated by rivals, just as the FBI was used by one mafia family to eliminate another. In order to establish credibility with groups that they are attempting to penetrate, CIA agents will be drawn into participating in violent acts against the U.S. and its allies.

Accusing the truthteller instead of the evildoer is the position that the neoconservatives took against the New York Times when after one year’s delay, which gave George W. Bush time to get reelected, the Times published the NSA leak that revealed that the Bush administration was committing felonies by violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The neocons, especially those associated with Commentary magazine, wanted the New York Times indicted for treason. To the evil neocon mind, anything that interferes with their diabolical agenda is treason.

This is the way many Americans think. America über alles! No one counts but us (and Israel). The deaths we inflict and the pain and suffering we bring to others are merely collateral damage on the bloody path to American hegemony.

The attitude of the “freedom and democracy” U.S. government is that anyone who complains of illegality or immorality or inhumanity is a traitor. The Republican Sen. Christopher S. Bond is a recent example. Bond got on his high horse about “irreparable damage” to the CIA from the disclosures of its criminal activities. Bond wants those “back stabbers” who revealed the CIA’s wrongdoings to be held accountable. Bond is unable to grasp that it is the criminal activities, not their disclosure, that is the source of the problem. Obviously, the Whistleblower Protection Act has no support from Sen. Bond, who sees it as just another law to plough under.

This is where the U.S. government stands today: Ignoring and covering up government crimes is the patriotic thing to do. To reveal the government’s crimes is an act of treason. Many Americans on both sides of the aisle agree.

Yet, they still think that they are The Virtuous Nation, the exceptional nation, the salt of the earth.

Many Newspapers Fail to Carry AP Photo of Deadly Afghan Incident

AP Photo Of Wounded Marine Sparks Debate

 



New Agreement Lets US Strike Any Country From Inside Iraq

New Agreement Lets US Strike Any Country From Inside Iraq

Gulf News
June 3, 2008

A proposed Iraqi-American security agreement will include permanent American bases in the country, and the right for the United States to strike, from within Iraqi territory, any country it considers a threat to its national security, Gulf News has learned.

Senior Iraqi military sources have told Gulf News that the long-term controversial agreement is likely to include three major items.

Under the agreement, Iraqi security institutions such as Defence, Interior and National Security ministries, as well as armament contracts, will be under American supervision for ten years.

The agreement is also likely to give American forces permanent military bases in the country, as well as the right to move against any country considered to be a threat against world stability or acting against Iraqi or American interests.

The military source added, “According to this agreement, the American forces will keep permanent military bases on Iraqi territory, and these will include Al Asad Military base in the Baghdadi area close to the Syrian border, Balad military base in northern Baghdad close to Iran, Habbaniyah base close to the town of Fallujah and the Ali Bin Abi Talib military base in the southern province of Nasiriyah close to the Iranian border.”

The sources confirmed that the American army is in the process of completing the building of the military facilities and runways for the permanent bases.

He added that the American air bases in Kirkuk and Mosul will be kept for no longer than three years. However, he said there were efforts by the Americans to include the Kirkuk base in the list of permanent bases.

The sources also said that a British brigade was expected to remain at the international airport in Basra for ten years as long as the American troops stayed in the permanent bases in Iraq.

Iraqi analysts said that the second item of the controversial agreement which permits American forces on Iraqi territories to launch military attacks against any country it considers a threat is addressed primarily to Iran and Syria.

Iran has raised serious concerns in the past few days over the Iraqi-American security agreement and followed it with issuing religious fatwas and called for demonstrations, mainly by the powerful Shiite leader Moqtada Al Sadr movement, who is close to Iran, against the agreement.

 

Revealed: Secret plan to keep Iraq under US control
Bush wants 50 military bases, control of Iraqi airspace and legal immunity for all American soldiers and contractors

Randall Mikkelsen
London Independent
June 5, 2008

A secret deal being negotiated in Baghdad would perpetuate the American military occupation of Iraq indefinitely, regardless of the outcome of the US presidential election in November.

The terms of the impending deal, details of which have been leaked to The Independent, are likely to have an explosive political effect in Iraq. Iraqi officials fear that the accord, under which US troops would occupy permanent bases, conduct military operations, arrest Iraqis and enjoy immunity from Iraqi law, will destabilise Iraq’s position in the Middle East and lay the basis for unending conflict in their country.

But the accord also threatens to provoke a political crisis in the US. President Bush wants to push it through by the end of next month so he can declare a military victory and claim his 2003 invasion has been vindicated. But by perpetuating the US presence in Iraq, the long-term settlement would undercut pledges by the Democratic presidential nominee, Barack Obama, to withdraw US troops if he is elected president in November.

The timing of the agreement would also boost the Republican candidate, John McCain, who has claimed the United States is on the verge of victory in Iraq – a victory that he says Mr Obama would throw away by a premature military withdrawal.

America currently has 151,000 troops in Iraq and, even after projected withdrawals next month, troop levels will stand at more than 142,000 – 10 000 more than when the military “surge” began in January 2007. Under the terms of the new treaty, the Americans would retain the long-term use of more than 50 bases in Iraq. American negotiators are also demanding immunity from Iraqi law for US troops and contractors, and a free hand to carry out arrests and conduct military activities in Iraq without consulting the Baghdad government.

The precise nature of the American demands has been kept secret until now. The leaks are certain to generate an angry backlash in Iraq. “It is a terrible breach of our sovereignty,” said one Iraqi politician, adding that if the security deal was signed it would delegitimise the government in Baghdad which will be seen as an American pawn.

The US has repeatedly denied it wants permanent bases in Iraq but one Iraqi source said: “This is just a tactical subterfuge.” Washington also wants control of Iraqi airspace below 29,000ft and the right to pursue its “war on terror” in Iraq, giving it the authority to arrest anybody it wants and to launch military campaigns without consultation.

Mr Bush is determined to force the Iraqi government to sign the so-called “strategic alliance” without modifications, by the end of next month. But it is already being condemned by the Iranians and many Arabs as a continuing American attempt to dominate the region. Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the powerful and usually moderate Iranian leader, said yesterday that such a deal would create “a permanent occupation”. He added: “The essence of this agreement is to turn the Iraqis into slaves of the Americans.”

Iraq’s Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, is believed to be personally opposed to the terms of the new pact but feels his coalition government cannot stay in power without US backing.

The deal also risks exacerbating the proxy war being fought between Iran and the United States over who should be more influential in Iraq.

 

US issues threat to Iraq’s $50bn foreign reserves in military deal

Patrick Cockburn
London Independent
June 6, 2008

The US is holding hostage some $50bn (£25bn) of Iraq’s money in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to pressure the Iraqi government into signing an agreement seen by many Iraqis as prolonging the US occupation indefinitely, according to information leaked to The Independent.

US negotiators are using the existence of $20bn in outstanding court judgments against Iraq in the US, to pressure their Iraqi counterparts into accepting the terms of the military deal, details of which were reported for the first time in this newspaper yesterday.

Iraq’s foreign reserves are currently protected by a presidential order giving them immunity from judicial attachment but the US side in the talks has suggested that if the UN mandate, under which the money is held, lapses and is not replaced by the new agreement, then Iraq’s funds would lose this immunity. The cost to Iraq of this happening would be the immediate loss of $20bn. The US is able to threaten Iraq with the loss of 40 per cent of its foreign exchange reserves because Iraq’s independence is still limited by the legacy of UN sanctions and restrictions imposed on Iraq since Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in the 1990s. This means that Iraq is still considered a threat to international security and stability under Chapter Seven of the UN charter. The US negotiators say the price of Iraq escaping Chapter Seven is to sign up to a new “strategic alliance” with the United States.

The threat by the American side underlines the personal commitment of President George Bush to pushing the new pact through by 31 July. Although it is in reality a treaty between Iraq and the US, Mr Bush is describing it as an alliance so he does not have to submit it for approval to the US Senate.

Iraqi critics of the agreement say that it means Iraq will be a client state in which the US will keep more than 50 military bases. American forces will be able to carry out arrests of Iraqi citizens and conduct military campaigns without consultation with the Iraqi government. American soldiers and contractors will enjoy legal immunity.

Read Full Article Here

Recent News:

Iran: ’US security pact will enslave Iraqis’
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=58683&sectionid=351020101

’Ayatollah will not allow US-Iraq deal’
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=57198&sectionid=351020201

Secret Security Pact Will Ensure Permanent Iraq Occupation
http://www.infowars.net/articles/june2008/050608Iraq.htm

Shell-shocked Iraq veterans housed next to firing range
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/..-housed-next-to-firing-range-in-US.html

Nearly 20% Of Army In Afghanistan Is On Prozac
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1811858,00.html

Analysis: May marks most violent month in Afghanistan since 2001
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/03/..fghanistan-since-2001/

Iraqi Parliamentarian: 70 Percent Of Iraqis Want Withdrawal
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/04/iraq-parliament/

Report: Bush Misused Iraq Intelligence
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/iraq_usa_intelligence_dc

Iraq At Odds With U.S. Over Troop Presence
O’Reilly gets angry while interviewing Scott McClellan
Canada May Give Asylum To U.S. War Resisters

 



Obama Threatens to Attack Iran

Obama Threatens to Attack Iran

Anti War League
May 24, 2008

I just listened to a pretty amazing speech that Barack Obama gave last Thursday in Boca Raton, Florida. I’ll leave it to others to comment on the one-sided, pro-Israel, pro-Zionist nature of the speech. One commentator called it “a high-wire exercise of political pandering.”

I’d just like to point out this section which demands to be quoted at length:

“And the gravest threat to Israel today obviously comes from Iran, that their radical regime continues to pursue the ability to build a nuclear weapon and continues to support terrorism across the region. President Ahmadinejad continues his offensive denials of the Holocaust and his disturbing denunciations of Israel.

The threat of Iran is real and is great. And my goal as president will be to eliminate it. Ending the war in Iraq will be, I believe, an important step towards achieving that goal, because it will give us increased flexibility in our dealings with Iran and increased legitimacy in the region.

Make no mistake about it. Our invasion of Iraq has empowered Iran. It is one of the biggest strategic blunders that we have made.

(APPLAUSE)

Read Full Article Here

From AIPAC to the Cuban Exiles: Is Obama Turning Right?
http://www.counterpunch.org/kafoury05272008.html

Obama says won’t guarantee Ahmadinejad a meeting
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080527/ts_n..ma_enemies_dc

Bilderberg Luminary To Select Obama’s Running Mate
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2008/052308_bilderberg_luminary.htm

Obama Deathwatch: Clinton, The Serial Death-Wisher
http://mparent7777-1.livejournal.com/275685.html

Fox commentator apologizes for Obama assassination comment
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKlv6vQca8k

 



High Tide: The Ron Paul Revolution Continues


High Tide: The Ron Paul Revolution Continues
Grassroots effort stresses continuing the Ron Paul Revolution, restoring the spirit of freedom in the country and turning back the tide of sprawling foreign wars and disastrous economic policy

Jones Report
March 13, 2008

The High Tide could be a lifting anthem for the Ron Paul Revolution as it seeks ways to voice its message in the post-campaign era. The video features high quality 3-D animation and Dr. Ron Paul’s voice. It’s stunning imagery dramatically portrays the dark landscape of spreading wars and an unfolding economic wasteland that have resulted from bad policy.

It carries also the spirit of freedom that Ron Paul hoped his campaign would rekindle– and in many ways already has– as people across the country are now sparking debate over scaling back government power and following constitutionally-based policies.

Grassroots supporter Nate Evans (ArcFx, WeAreChange.org) donated months of work to put together the 3-D promo (click here for high quality) that will have to settle for underscoring the high-point of an unusual presidential campaign that has now receded from hopes of winning the GOP nomination. Nevertheless, the campaign succeeded in shedding light on the skewed policies of the phony candidates who shared the stage with him. His disenfranchisement in polls, electronic voting and media coverage demonstrated the manipulation over so-called free elections.

Ron Paul recently conceded that “convention victory” had been lost, but that the fight would continue. “Many victories have been achieved due to your hard work and enthusiasm,” said Paul.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3MLTvYBQy0

“I don’t mind playing a key role in the revolution, but it has to be more than a Ron Paul revolution,” he said. Somehow, that is reflected in this animated video that transcends the mere man Ron Paul is individually and elevates instead the ideas and history his policy is based upon.

So, what will be the high mark of the Ron Paul Revolution, in their campaign for the presidency? What is its the lasting impact, and in what form will it continue?

Paul urges the continuation of meet-up groups, and even campaign races in effort to gain more delegates and take small victories where they are still available in the election, if only to stretch the political muscle for a future contest.

“At the rate our economy is slipping, we will likely see the disintegration of the American empire,” said Paul. “Today’s events should be seen as a tremendous opportunity to change our country for the good.”

The Ron Paul Revolution intends to make an lasting impression when it will march together in Washington. Which direction that will take us, is the next step.

 

Ron Paul On The Alex Jones Show – (3/14/2008)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Gz5JC8QcNU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99rpIl9XVB0

 



Generals To Quit If U.S. Strikes Iran

Generals To Quit If U.S. Strikes Iran

Press TV
February 26, 2008

Some senior US military commanders are prepared to resign if President Bush orders a military strike against Iran, a new report says.

“There are four or five generals and admirals we know of who would resign if Bush ordered an attack on Iran,” The Sunday Times quoted Monday a source with close ties to British intelligence .

“There is simply no stomach for it in the Pentagon, and a lot of people question whether such an attack would be effective or even possible,” the source added.

If proven true a revolt on such a scale would be unprecedented because ‘American generals usually stay and fight until they get fired,” said a Pentagon source.

Robert Gates, the defense secretary, has repeatedly warned against striking Iran and is believed to represent the view of his senior commanders.

Iran has announced that in face of any aggression it will respond like a ‘tsunami’.

 



Former CIA: Warhawks Pray Iran Backs Terror to Justify Military Strike

Former CIA: Warhawks Pray Iran Backs Terror to Justify Military Strike
Here is an excerpt from the New York Times by a former CIA officer who writes that the warhawks pray Iran backs a terror attack that kills Americans to justify a military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities

Marc Gerecht
NY Times
February 20, 2008

What has been the response of most American hawks to this mess? Prayer. They are essentially waiting for (Iran) the clerical regime to do something stupid so that they can galvanize an awareness among Americans that mullahs should not have the bomb. True, the Iranian clerics have often done the wrong thing at the right time, from aiding the bombers of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia in 1996 and our African embassies in 1998, to the kidnapping of British sailors and marines last year. It is possible that Tehran, which wants to cause us great harm in Iraq and Afghanistan, could again back a terrorist attack that kills enough Americans to make preventive military strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities mandatory. But the Iranians know this. They know they are in the final nuclear stretch: they will likely play it sufficiently cool to make it difficult for the United States to strike them pre-emptively.

Reuel Marc Gerecht, a former Central Intelligence Agency officer, is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

Read Full Article Here

 

Ellsberg: Speak out while you can

Press TV
February 22, 2008

Fbiiraqisbein_mn

US whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg raps those aware of Bush’s violations of the Constitution, saying they should speak out and save lives.

“When they keep silent about their knowledge of that situation, they are themselves violating their oath to support and defend the Constitution,” Ellsberg said in an interview with City Pages.

Advising such people to reveal truths that might save an untold number of lives, the former military analyst explained that there is a high possibility of new military adventurism in the Middle East.

“Don’t wait till bombs are falling in Iran or a new war is started wrongly or thousands more people have died when you know that your bosses are lying the public into a wrongful war or committing other crimes or violating the constitution,” said the former Pentagon official.

According to Ellsberg, there is a good chance that Bush will wage war on Iran in the next year.

“I think that the risk remains significant, and indeed the fact that the President isn’t running again for office may free him in his mind,” he explained.

Daniel Ellsberg, who shocked the world in 1971 by disclosing 7,000 classified pages of a Defense Department report, revealed the existence of a much deeper battle in Vietnam than the public was aware of.

Recent News:

Neocon Godfather Podhoretz Trying to Re-Ignite Fires of War Against Iran
http://theuglytruth.wordpress.com/2008/0..gnite-fires-of-war-against-iran/

Iran slams US support for terrorism
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=43222&secti..351020101

Judge holds reporter in contempt in anthrax case
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-02-19-reporter-anthrax_N.htm

US secretly met Iran banking officials
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080215/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iran

US will back new Iran sanctions
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/..iddle_east/7260122.stm

France heads for war games in the Gulf
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/77c38c2c-e1a1-11dc-a302-0000779fd2ac.html

McCain: Sanctions, attacks await Iran
The Folly of Attacking Iran: Lessons from History

Chertoff Warns Of “Earth Shattering” Events
Iran plans to launch two more rockets into space
Bush hails ‘headway’ on highlighting Iranian threat
U.S. heading to war in Iran, says former inspector
Key figures in the Israel lobbies support a terrorist group that has fired on US troops
Whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg: Bush Likely to Attack Iran, Impeachment a Must
Order given to fire on Iranian speedboat, but it turned away: Joint Chiefs chairman
Buchanan: McCain win would mean war with Iran
Bush’s State of the Union: Mandate for Iran Attack

Coup on Iran & False Flag News Archive

 



80 Killed in Clashes in Iraq

80 Killed in Clashes in Iraq
Followers of a Shiite messianic cult clash with police in Basra and Nasiriya as thousands of pilgrims mark Ashura, the most important holiday for the sect.

LA Times
January 19, 2008

Members of an obscure messianic cult fought Iraqi security forces Friday in two southern cities, leaving at least 80 people dead and scores injured, while spreading panic among worshipers marking Shiite Islam’s most important holiday.

The clashes, which erupted as Shiites marched, chanted and beat their chests in Basra and Nasiriya, represented the first major test for Iraqi security forces since Britain completed a transfer of responsibility for security in the region last month. They also pointed to dangerous divisions within Iraq’s majority Shiite population at a time when U.S. and Iraqi forces are claiming progress in curbing attacks by Sunni militants.

Members of the cult, which calls itself the Supporters of the Mahdi, mingled with the crowds in at least three sections of Basra and in Nasiriya, then fired shots at worshipers and the security forces, police and witnesses said.

Police said the cult’s leader, Ahmed Hassan, who called himself “the Yemeni,” was killed along with nearly 50 of his followers in the fighting in Basra, Iraq’s second-largest city. About 60 gunmen were arrested and large quantities of weapons were seized from a mosque linked to the group, said the Basra police chief, Maj. Gen. Abdul-Kareem Khalaf.

Read Full Article Here

 

The Doctor, the Depleted Uranium, and the Dying Children

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5146778547681767408&hl=en-CA

Afghan war only just beginning, security group warns
http://www.smh.com.au/news/..1/19/1200620281284.html

There is scarcely an Iraqi in all of the south who has not had a friend or family member killed by Americans
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/d..nt-about-ir_b_82452.html

U.S. Boosts Its Use of Airstrikes In Iraq
http://www.washingtonpost.com/w..6/AR2008011604148.html

Opium fields spread across Iraq as farmers try to make ends meet
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article3345186.ece

 



Neocons Continue To Push ’Bombing Campaign’ Against Iran ’Now’

Following Podhoretz’s Lead, Right Wing Continues Push For ‘Bombing Campaign’ Against Iran ‘Now’

Think Progress
January 18, 2008

Fbiiraqisbein_mn

In the June 2007 issue of Commentary, neoconservative icon Norman Podhoretz laid out “The Case for Bombing Iran,” in which he argued that “the only prudent–indeed, the only responsible–course” is to “strike” Iran “as soon as it is logistically possible.” Though the recent NIE has slowed down hawkish belligerence towards Iran a bit, Podhoretz is still arguing that President Bush should take “military action” against Iran “soon.”

In a new article for Commentary, titled “Stopping Iran: Why the Case for Military Action Still Stands,” he argues that Bush should commence with a “bombing campaign”:

Iran can still be stopped from getting the bomb and even more millions of lives can be saved–but only provided that we summon up the courage to see what is staring us in the face and then act on what we see.

Podhoretz isn’t alone in his desire to keep pushing for an attack on Iran. Ever since Podhoretz’s recent article was released online, right-wing radio host Hugh Hewitt has been promoting it, encouraging his audience to “read the whole thing. Twice.” Hewitt has also been asking his guests, including New York Times columnist William Kristol, if they agree with Podhoretz’s assessment. Scarily, they do.

Bill Kristol:

HEWITT: Bill Kristol, do you think it is possible, not even likely, but just possible that the Bush administration will take military action against Iran in their last year?

KRISTOL: I think it’s possible. I think people were a little too quick after that National Intelligence Estimate came out, which was, I think, an attempt by the intelligence agencies to prevent the Bush administration from sort of seriously considering taking action. And I think people were too quick to say ooh, that rules it out, you know, they’re just paralyzed for the next year.

National Review’s Mark Steyn:

If we had a CIA that actually did anything, as opposed to sitting around Langley reading e-mail all day, we would be able to do that. But because we haven’t done that, the bombing option is becoming the only one that will be left, if not for this president, then for somebody.

Hewitt brought Podhoretz on his show yesterday, where he explicitly endorsed bombing Iran “now”:

HEWITT: Do you think President Bush needs to authorize air strikes against Iran now?

PODHORETZ: Yes, I do. The question is whether he will, although I thought, I was pretty confident that he would before the National Intelligence Estimate came out in early December. I still think in the end, he will order air strikes before he leaves office. But I am, as the NIE would say, I offer that prediction now with only low to moderate confidence.

HH: Well, I agree with your assessment of what has to happen.

With their desire to bomb Iran undeterred by the NIE, Hewitt and company are presumably pleased with President Bush’s repeated efforts to distance himself from the report.

 

George Galloway vs neocon David Frum on the subject of a supposed Iranian threat

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7d0DKbbv0Lg

Israel “would not dare attack Iran”: Ahmadinejad
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=world…RAEL-IRAN.xml

Iran: Another Perspective A Photo Tour
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qkkt7_dGW-s

Journalist: Pentagon Fabricated “Non Event” Iranian “Provocation”
http://www.infowars.net/articles/january2008/160108Pentagon.htm

Fox News Reverses Course After Initially Calling For U.S. Navy To Blow Iran Boats ‘Out Of The Water’
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/01/15/fox-friends-iran-speedboat/

Olbermann accuses U.S of trying to FAKE new Gulf of Tonkin
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WADchtd0Hms

Norman Podhoretz: Bush will bomb Iran before he leaves office
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bLq6pzOc5w

Ex-Lawmaker Charged With Funding Al-Qaeda
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8U767QO0&show_article=1

Rogue HAM Operator Blamed For Iran Incident
http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/st..ss&feed=networkfront

Olmert: All options on table regarding Iran
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/S..rticle%2FShowFull

Coup on Iran & False Flag News Archive

 



Navy Says It Fired Warning Shots At Iranian Boats

Navy Says It Fired Warning Shots At Iranian Boats

AP
January 12, 2007

The U.S. Navy said Friday that one of its ships fired warning shots at a small Iranian boat in the Strait of Hormuz in December during one of two serious encounters that month.

The USS Whidbey Island fired the warning shots on Dec. 19 in response to a small Iranian boat that was rapidly approaching it, said a U.S. Navy official.

“One small (Iranian) craft was coming toward it, and it stopped after the Whidbey Island fired warning shots,” said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.

It was the first official confirmation that the United States had fired warning shots in any recent confrontation with Iran in the Gulf.

Read Full Article Here

 

Pentagon backs down over Iranian boat claims

Guardian
January 11, 2008

Fbiiraqisbein_mn

Doubts intensified last night over the nature of an alleged aggressive confrontation by Iranian patrol boats and American warships in the Persian Gulf on Sunday, after Pentagon officials admitted that they could not confirm that a threat to blow up the US ships had been made directly by the Iranian crews involved in the incident.

Several news sources reported that senior navy officials had conceded that the voice threatening to blow up the US warships in a matter of minutes could have come from another ship in the region, or even from shore.

The concession came on the day that a formal American complaint was lodged with Iran over the incident, and just 24 hours after President George Bush, on tour in the Middle East where he will be discussing policy towards Iran, warned Tehran to desist from such aggression and said any repetition would lead to “serious consequences”.

The Pentagon alleges that the confrontation lasted about 20 minutes and took place in the Strait of Hormuz, where the US ships were in international waters. Five Iranian patrol boats swarmed around three US warships and came within a threatening 200 metres, prompting US personnel to be put on alert.

The US navy has said that its gunners came within seconds of firing on the speedboats.

On Tuesday, the US administration released video footage that it said showed the Iranian speedboats harassing the American vessels. A voice in English with a strong accent was heard to say: “I am coming at you – you will explode in a couple of minutes.”

Yesterday the Iranians put out their own four-minute video that showed an Iranian patrol officer in a small boat communicating with one of the US ships. “Coalition warship number 73, this is an Iranian navy patrol boat,” the Iranian said. An American naval officer replied: “This is coalition warship number 73 operating in international waters.”

The voice of the Iranian sailor in Tehran’s footage was different to the deeper and more menacing voice, threatening to blow up the warships in the US version. Nor was there any sign of aggressive behaviour by the Iranian patrol boats.

The Strait of Hormuz is a particularly sensitive stretch of water, both economically as a key shipping route for oil from the Gulf, and militarily. The location, together with memories of the arrest of 15 British sailors by the Iranians last year and their detention for two weeks, is likely to have heightened nerves on both sides.

But the mystery remains of where the voice that apparently threatened to bomb the US ships came from. The Pentagon has said that it recorded the film and the sound separately, and then stitched them together – a dubious piece of editing even before it became known that the source of the voice could not, with certainty, be linked to the Iranian patrol boats.

A post on the New York Times news blog yesterday from a former naval officer with experience of these waters said that the radio frequency used in the Strait of Hormuz was regularly polluted with interfering chatter, somewhat like CB radio. “My first thought was that the ‘explode’ comment might not have come from one of the Iranian craft, but some loser monitoring the events at a shore facility.”

Despite growing doubts about what happened, the Bush administration continued to stand by claims of Iranian hostility. The defence secretary, Robert Gates, said the concern came from the “fact that there were five of these boats and that they came as close as they did to our ships and behaved in a pretty aggressive manner”.

 

UN Inspector Scott Ritter: Fools would Bomb Iran

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XQan1qo8T4

Unraveling the Myth of Al Qaida – part 1
http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/5288

US, Israel on ‘same page’ on Iran
http://www.jpost.com/servl…pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Tehran: U.S. trying to spread ‘Iran-phobia’
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22632161/

Sarkozy says pressure on Iran should be increased
http://www.spacewar.com/2006/080113021646.jc7sqsp5.html
U.S. Navy Withdraws Claims Against Iran
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=38370&secti..351020101

Israel’s Netanyahu Claims President Bush Promised Unilateral Nuclear Bomb Attack Against Iran
http://presscue.com/node/38692

US Navy threat may not have been Iranian
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23036718-5005961,00.html

Bush in Kuwait to seek Gulf backing against Iran
http://rawstory.com/news/afp..king_01112008.html

Israel stressed to Bush that Iran is a nuclear ‘threat’: general
http://afp.google.com/article/A..RE_yzb8-U7MMaFg

Iran Encounter Grimly Echoes ’02 War Game
http://www.nytimes.com/20..ogin&oref=slogin

Official Version of Naval Incident Starts to Unravel
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=40747

Ron Paul: “People are looking around for an excuse to bomb Iran”
http://www.infowars.net/articles/january2008/110108Iran.htm

 



Bush: We Could “Easily” Be In Iraq For Another 10 Years

Bush: We Could “Easily” Be In Iraq For Another 10 Years

Huffington Post
January 11, 2008

U.S. President George W. Bush said on Friday the United States would have a long-term presence in Iraq that could “easily” last a decade, but that it would be at the invitation of the Iraqi government.

In an interview with NBC News, Bush was asked about recent comments by Republican presidential hopeful Sen. John McCain that it would be fine with him to have a U.S. military presence in Iraq for 100 years.


John McCain Lies at Fox Debate and is EXPOSED by Ron Paul

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsqDAafTaFc

McCain: Permanent Presence In Iraq Is Fine As Long As Iraqis Are The Ones Dying
http://noworldsystem.com/2008/0..the-war-is-fine/

Iraq to reinstate Saddam party followers
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080112/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

Bush: No Guarantee On Iraq Troop Reductions
http://www.washingtonpost.c..01/12/AR2008011201121_pf.html

Turkey pounds northern Iraq
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=38318&secti..351020201

NATO used Afghan children to detect land mines: ex-German soldier
http://www2.irna.ir/en/news/view/menu-234/0801113311094602.htm

 



US warplanes pound Baghdad

US warplanes pound Baghdad

Press TV
January 10, 2008


US jet fighters have launched a massive air offensive on parts of Baghdad, hitting nearly 40 targets in the war-torn Iraqi capital.

US warplanes dropped 40,000 pounds of bombs on more than 40 targets on Baghdad’s southern outskirts, the military said in a statement.

The US Air Force dispatched two B-1 bombers and four F-16 fighter jets, aiming at three large target areas in Arab Jabour.

The statement allegedly said that the strike had been on al Qaeda targets. It gave no details of casualties.

US jet fighters have launched a massive air offensive on parts of Baghdad, hitting nearly 40 targets in the war-torn Iraqi capital.

US warplanes dropped 40,000 pounds of bombs on more than 40 targets on Baghdad’s southern outskirts, the military said in a statement.

The US Air Force dispatched two B-1 bombers and four F-16 fighter jets, aiming at three large target areas in Arab Jabour.

The statement allegedly said that the strike had been on al Qaeda targets. It gave no details of casualties.

 

Blackwater drops CS gas on Military in 2005

NY Times
January 10, 2008

The helicopter was hovering over a Baghdad checkpoint into the Green Zone, one typically crowded with cars, Iraqi civilians and United States military personnel.

Suddenly, on that May day in 2005, the copter dropped CS gas, a riot-control substance the American military in Iraq can use only under the strictest conditions and with the approval of top military commanders. An armored vehicle on the ground also released the gas, temporarily blinding drivers, passers-by and at least 10 American soldiers operating the checkpoint.

“This was decidedly uncool and very, very dangerous,” Capt. Kincy Clark of the Army, the senior officer at the scene, wrote later that day. “It’s not a good thing to cause soldiers who are standing guard against car bombs, snipers and suicide bombers to cover their faces, choke, cough and otherwise degrade our awareness.”

Both the helicopter and the vehicle involved in the incident at the Assassins’ Gate checkpoint were not from the United States military, but were part of a convoy operated by Blackwater Worldwide, the private security contractor that is under scrutiny for its role in a series of violent episodes in Iraq, including a September shooting in downtown Baghdad that left 17 Iraqis dead.

None of the American soldiers exposed to the chemical, which is similar to tear gas, required medical attention, and it is not clear if any Iraqis did. Still, the previously undisclosed incident has raised significant new questions about the role of private security contractors in Iraq, and whether they operate under the same rules of engagement and international treaty obligations that the American military observes.

“You run into this issue time and again with Blackwater, where the rules that apply to the U.S. military don’t seem to apply to Blackwater,” said Scott L. Silliman, the executive director of the Center on Law, Ethics and National Security at the Duke University School of Law.

Read Full Article Here

Ex-Marine Testifies On Innocent Civilians Shot In Afghanistan
http://www.efluxmedia.com/news_Ex_Mari…n_12620.html

U.S. considers 3,000 more troops for Afghanistan
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSN0961758520080110

Occupation Iraq: Low-Balling the Death Toll
http://presscue.com/node/38741

US drops 40,000 pounds of bombs in ten minutes on al Qaeda targets in Iraq
http://www.dailymail.co.uk..cle_id=507320&in_page_id=1811

Pentagon, Big Pharma: Drug Troops to Numb Them to Horrors of War
http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/72956

Soldier says he randomly shot at Iraqis
http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2008/01/ap_randomfire_080109/

 



Ex-CIA: US, Israel Planning Iran Attack Before 2008 Election

Ex-CIA: US, Israel Planning Iran Attack Before 2008 Election

Press TV
December 19, 2007

A former senior CIA analyst says the United States and Israel are planning war against Iran before the next presidential election.

Ray McGovern said Monday despite a recent National Intelligence Estimate conceding that Iran is not conducting a nuclear weapons program, a joint US and Israeli war on the Islamic Republic is likely to happen.

The former analyst expounded that the close American relationship with Israel, which alleges Iran is a threat to its existence and to the international community, is the driving force behind a potential strike.

McGovern called on those wishing to prevent a military conflict with Iran to voice their opposition to President Bush’s headstrong approach towards Tehran and its nuclear program.

Although the report by US intelligence services has meant another embarrassment for the White House over its accusation against Tehran, the US president seems to be indifferent to the assessment.

President Bush, who is scheduled to visit Jerusalem in January, bald-facedly continues his rhetoric against the Islamic Republic, claiming Tehran poses a threat to the international community.

 

Former US Intelligence official: Israel will attack Iran

Y Net News
December 21, 2007

“I came back from a trip to Israel in November convinced that Israel would attack Iran,” Bruce Riedel, a former career CIA official and senior adviser to three US presidents – including George W. Bush – on Middle East and South Asian issues, told Newsweek Thursday, citing conversations he had with Mossad and Israeli defense officials.

“And that was before the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE). This makes it even more likely. Israel is not going to allow its nuclear monopoly to be threatened,” the American magazine quoted Riedel as saying in an article titled, “What will Israel do?”.

Published in early December, the American NIE determined that Iran had shelved its nuclear weapons program in 2003.

According to Newsweek, “a rising tide of opinion in Israel’s intelligence and national-security circles believes that the NIE does signal American retreat-and, more profoundly, renewed Israeli isolation over what is deemed an existential threat out of Tehran.”

‘Israel has gotten away with it’
The magazine quoted Knesset Member Ephraim Sneh, a former deputy defense minister who has “warned for years that Israel would eventually have to confront Iran alone,” as saying that “today we are closer to this situation than we were three weeks ago … we have to be prepared to forestall this threat on our own.”

David Albright of the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington told Newsweek that Israel was likely encouraged by the non-reaction to their September air strike on a reported Syrian nuclear facility, “which may have been a test run for Iran, or at least a warning directed at Tehran”.

“Israel has gotten away with it in a sense,” Albright was quoted as saying. He suggested that any Israeli pre-emptive action might not be a “traditional strike” but could involve more “sabotage of equipment”.

Newsweek said Israel also knows that the Arab states are “terrified of an Iranian nuclear power, possibly to the point of looking the other way at another such strike”.

Read Full Article Here

Related News:

Barak: Israel will win the next war
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid…t%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Bush ‘hell-bent’ on war with Iran?
http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/article_4228.shtml

Russia Deepens Military Ties With Iran
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/r….98345111754.html

‘Enemies to regret attacking Iran’
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=3…nid=351020101

Bush ‘loses patience’ with Syria
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7154473.stm

Saudi’s Biggest Group Of Al-CIAda Fighters
http://today.reuters.com/news/arti…DI-FIGHTERS.xml

Pakistan reportedly frees terror suspects
http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/20…p1=email_to_a_friend

Gov’t official: No ‘smoking gun’ on Iran
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Sat…rticle/ShowFull

US to blame Iran for attacks in Iraq despite decline in use of bombs linked to Iran
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/US_to_blame_Iran_for_attacks_1218.html

Hillary & Bush Agree On Iran
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fSW-ellXzM

Bush insists Iran is ‘dangerous’
http://www.spacewar.com/2006/071211173746.5r6si5hc.html

Israel PM warns Iran can develop nuclear bomb by 2010
Sarkozy: Iran-Israel war likely
Iran N-fuel ‘cannot be used in bombs’
White House Is Confident of Broad Support on Iran
Merry Christmas, Hawaii – and Bombs Away!
Bush Demands Iran Explain Nuke Program
Gates says Iran seeks to cause chaos
Baer Suggests Saudis Could Stage Terror In America to Instigate Iran Attack
Prosor: War with Iran may be unavoidable
Gates: Israel doesn’t pose nuclear threat like Iran
Scott Ritter: Cheney’s Iran Policy Still Stands
Poll: Americans split on Iran
Report on Iran may scupper future sanctions
Hostile questions baffle US army official
Kristol: Iran Halting Nuclear Weapons Program Is ‘Another Feather In The Cap For Iraq Invasion’
Rice Fails to Convince Lavrov on Iran
White House Quietly Admits Bush Lied About When He Learned That Iran Had Suspended Its Nuclear Program
Keith Olbermann special comment on NIE

Coup on Iran & False Flag News Archive

 



Bush just made Iraq an American colony

President signs document effectively making iraq a colony of the U.S.

Damian Lataan
November 27, 2007

I’m not sure that I’ve read a more sickening document than the one that was released by the White House yesterday entitled ‘Declaration of Principles for a Long-Term Relationship of Cooperation and Friendship Between the Republic of Iraq and the United States of America‘. Encapsulated in this document is the geo-political reality of what the Bush/Cheney administration and their neoconservative and Likudnik supporters had set out to achieve since the day George W. Bush became President of the US.

Far from ‘liberating’ the Iraqi people from the ‘yoke of tyranny’ for them to become a ‘free and democratic’ model to which all other Middle Eastern states could aspire, which was the propaganda and rhetoric used by the neoconservatives that convinced the Coalition of the Willing that Iraq was a ‘noble and righteous cause’, the declaration instead condemns Iraq to an endless occupation designed to enhance the power of the elite puppets of Iraq, and to ensure that Iraq’s resources remain firmly under American control and enriching American controlled oil companies. In short, the document is the instrument by which Iraq has effectively become a colony of the US.

There are several iniquitous points made in the document that betray the real intent of the administration but, in particular, point five of the second principle relating to ‘the economic sphere’ which says: “Facilitating and encouraging the flow of foreign investments to Iraq, especially American investments, to contribute to the reconstruction and rebuilding of Iraq,” and point eight which says: “Supporting the Republic of Iraq to obtain positive and preferential trading conditions for Iraq within the global marketplace including accession to the World Trade Organization and most favored nation status with the United States,” says it all.

Iraq’s puppet leaders have signed over Iraq to the US.

Bill Clinton Flatly Asserts He Opposed War at Start
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/1…c&ei=5070&emc=eta1

AP photographer jailed for “taking photographs the U.S. government did not want its citizens to see,” say AP chief
http://www.washingtonpost.com….R2007112301208_pf.html

US roadblock shootings in Iraq kill 5 civilians
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071127/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

NATO air-strike kills 12 Afghan civilians: governor
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSISL24936320071128

120 War Vets Commit Suicide Each Week
http://www.truthnews.us/?p=1010