-Caveat Lector-
Begin forwarded message:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: March 29, 2007 9:27:50 PM PDT
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Fwd: Easter Surprise: New 9/11 and Nuking of Iran
Former C.I.A. Officer Philip Giraldi chillingly noted that the
Pentagon's plans
to attack Iran were drawn up "to be employed in response to another
9/11-type
terrorist attack on the United States." Writing in "The American
Conservative"
in August 2005, Giraldi added, "The plan includes a large-scale air
assault on
Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. ...
This
response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the
act of
terrorism directed against the United States."
Chew on that one a minute. The Pentagon's plan would be in
response to a
terrorist attack on the U.S., but not contingent upon Iran actually
having been
responsible. How outlandish is this scenario: another 9/11 hits
the U.S., the
administration says it has secret information implicating Iran, the
U.S.
population demands retribution and bombs start dropping on Tehran.
While even contemplating another 9/11 brings shudders, it's worth
noting that
last year, Congress quietly approved provisions making it easier
for the
President to declare federal martial law after a domestic terrorist
incident.
See what's free at AOL.com.
From: "Jim S." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: March 29, 2007 9:24:47 PM PDT
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Easter Surprise: Attack on Iran, New 9/11 or Worse
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17440.htm
*Easter Surprise: Attack on Iran, New 9/11 or Worse*
By Heather Wokusch
03/29/07
"There’s an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas,
probably in
Tennessee -- that says, fool me once, shame on -- shame on you.
Fool me -- you
can’t get fooled again."-- George W. Bush, September 2002
"This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran
is simply
ridiculous … Having said that, all options are on the table."--
George W. Bush,
February 2005
"ICH " -- The Bush administration continues moving closer to a
nuclear attack on
Iran, and we ignore the obvious buildup at our peril.
Russian media is sounding alarms. In February, ultra-nationalist
leader Vladimir
Shirinovsky warned that the U.S. would launch a strike against
Tehran at the end
of this month. Then, last week, the Russian News and Information
Agency Novosti
(RIA-Novosti) quoted military experts predicting the U.S. will
attack Iran on
April 6th, Good Friday. According to R.I.A.-Novosti, the imminent
assault will
target Iranian air and naval defense capabilities, armed forces
headquarters as
well as key economic assets and administration headquarters.
Massive air strikes
will be deployed, possibly tactical nuclear weapons as well, and
the Bush
administration will attempt to exploit the resulting chaos and
political unrest
by installing a pro-U.S. government.
Sound familiar? It's Iraq Déjà vu all over again, and we know how
well that war
has gone.
Seymour Hersh has published numerous articles in The New Yorker
detailing the
Bush administration's plans to invade Iran. His latest, "The
Redirection,"
discusses U.S. participation in Iran-based clandestine operations,
the kidnapping
of hundreds of Iranians (including many "humanitarian and aid
workers") by U.S.
forces and the shocking revelation that an Iran-Contra-type scandal
has been run
out of Vice President Dick Cheney's office with some of the illicit
funds going
to groups "sympathetic to al-Qaeda."
"The Redirection" also reports that the Pentagon has been planning
to bomb Iran
for a year and that a recently-established group connected to the
Joint Chiefs of
Staff is formulating a assault strategy to be implemented "upon
orders from the
President, within twenty-four hours." Hersh notes that current
capabilities
"allow for an attack order this spring," possibly when four U.S.
aircraft-carrier
battle groups are scheduled to be in the Persian Gulf simultaneously.
Meanwhile, the Democratic Congress busies itself with non-binding,
timid
resolutions on Iraq and recently altered a military-funding bill to
make it
easier for Bush to invade Iran . As Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-NV)
explained,
language demanding that Bush seek congressional approval before
attacking Iran
"would take away perhaps the most important negotiating tool that
the U.S. has
when it comes to Iran."
Such sheer ignorance and blind denial would be laughable if it
weren't marching
us into Armageddon.
But with this Administration (and this Congress, apparently)
diplomacy be damned.
It's now widely known that Iran had broached peace talks with the
U.S. in 2003 --
Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice admitted as much in 2006 when
she said, "what
the Iranians wanted earlier was to be one-on-one with the United
States." Yet
the White House rejected Tehran's overture outright and Rice has
since developed
selective amnesia, later saying of the Iranian proposal, I don't
remember seeing
any such thing. "
For its part, the U.N. Security Council recently tightened
sanctions aimed at
pressuring Iran to cease uranium enrichment, and in response, Iran
announced it
would cooperate less with the International Atomic Energy Agency.
It's worth noting that Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-
Proliferation
Treaty (N.P.T.) and says that its program falls under the legally
permitted right
to "peacefully use nuclear technology." In contrast, Israel has
neither signed
nor ratified the N.P.T. and the U.S. would breach the Treaty by
conducting a
nuclear attack against Iran.
Besides, the Bush administration's message to its enemies has been
very clear: if
you possess W.M.D. you're safe, and if you don't, you're fair game.
Iraq had no
nuclear weapons and was invaded, Iran doesn't as well and risks
attack, yet that
other "Axis of Evil" country, North Korea, reportedly does have
nuclear weapons
and is left alone. When considering that India and Pakistan (and
presumably
Israel) developed secret nuclear weapons programs yet remain on
good terms with
Washington, the case for war becomes even more tenuous.
What consequences would arise from a U.S. attack on Iran?
Retaliation, for one.
Tehran promised a "crushing response" to any U.S. or Israeli
assault, and while
the country -- ironically -- doesn't possess nuclear weapons to
scare off
attackers, it does have other options. Iran boasts a standing army
estimated at
450,000 personnel, as well as long-range missiles that could hit
Israel and
possibly even Europe. In addition, much of the world's oil supply
is transported
through the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow stretch of water which Iran
borders to the
north. In 1997, Iran's deputy foreign minister warned that the
country might
close off that shipping route if ever threatened, and it wouldn't
be difficult.
Just a few missiles or gunboats could bring down vessels and block
the Strait,
thereby threatening the global oil supply and shooting the price
of crude oil to
over $100 a barrel, with untold negative consequences for the world
economy.
An attack on Iran would also inflame tensions in the Middle East,
and could tip
the scales towards a new geopolitical balance, one in which the
U.S. finds itself
shut out by Russia, China, Iran, Muslim countries and the many
others Bush has
managed to alienate during his period in office.
The most horrific impact of a U.S. assault on Iran, of course,
would be the
potentially catastrophic number of casualties. The Oxford Research
Group
predicted that up to 10,000 people would die if the U.S. bombed
Iran's nuclear
sites, and that an attack on the Bushehr nuclear reactor could send
a radioactive
cloud over the Gulf. If the U.S. uses nuclear weapons, such as
earth-penetrating
"bunker buster" bombs, radioactive fallout would become even more
disastrous.
The devastating implications of a U.S. strike on Iran are clear.
And that begs
the question: how could the U.S. public be convinced to enter
another potentially
ugly and protracted war?
Former C.I.A. Officer Philip Giraldi chillingly noted that the
Pentagon's plans
to attack Iran were drawn up "to be employed in response to another
9/11-type
terrorist attack on the United States." Writing in "The American
Conservative"
in August 2005, Giraldi added, "The plan includes a large-scale air
assault on
Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons.
Within Iran there
are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous
suspected
nuclear-weapons-program development sites ... As in the case of
Iraq, the
response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the
act of
terrorism directed against the United States."
Chew on that one a minute. The Pentagon's plan would be in
response to a
terrorist attack on the U.S., but not contingent upon Iran actually
having been
responsible. How outlandish is this scenario: another 9/11 hits
the U.S., the
administration says it has secret information implicating Iran, the
U.S.
population demands retribution and bombs start dropping on Tehran.
While even contemplating another 9/11 brings shudders, it's worth
noting that
last year, Congress quietly approved provisions making it easier
for the
President to declare federal martial law after a domestic terrorist
incident.
And recall that in late 2003, General Tommy Franks openly
speculated on how a new
9/11 could lead to a military form of government: "a terrorist,
massive,
casualty-producing event somewhere in the Western world -- it may
be in the
United States of America -- that causes our population to question
our own
Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to
avoid a repeat of
another mass, casualty-producing event. Which in fact, then begins
to unravel
the fabric of our Constitution."
Meanwhile, Iran conducted war games in the Persian Gulf last week
and just
yesterday, the U.S. Navy began its largest maneuvers in the region
since the 2003
Iraq invasion, complete with over 100 U.S. warplanes and 10,000
personnel.
The clock is ticking, and there's far too much at stake.
If you're from the U.S., contact your Senators today and ask them
to support the
Webb amendment prohibiting the Administration from attacking Iran
without
congressional approval. Tell them to support the Sen. Patrick
Leahy (D-VT) and
Sen. Kit Bond (R-Mo.) bill making it harder for Bush to declare
martial law and
take over the National Guard, and while you're at it, tell your
Senators to only
fund troop withdrawal and to bring the troops home. Thank those
Congress members
who voted against more war funding.
We could be looking at WWIII. The time for positive action is now.
©Heather Wokusch 2002-2006
http://www.heatherwokusch.com/
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
distributed
without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the
included information for research and educational purposes.
Information Clearing
House has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this
article nor is
Information ClearingHouse endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
---- Msg sent via CWNet -
http://www.cwnet.com/
www.ctrl.org
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/
<A HREF="http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/">ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om