It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

We don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 04:00 AM
link   
First of all, my apologies for taking so much space



After 9/11 global issues started to change very rapidly. Gradually, most (Western) people began to experience privacy limitations; social limitations. But also the polarization between Muslims and non Muslims started to increase. Furthermore, we had to learn to cope with the loss of friends and family sacrificing their lives abroad. After all, everything should be done to protect democracy, and us from being targeted again by terrorist organizations.

Fear mongering became an even more, commonly used, and vital propaganda tool than it once used to be. The war on terror did sell easily to most among us, including me. After all, no Westerner would ever want to see another 9/11 happening. Our governments told us we should take into account more terrorist attacks were likely to happen, and everything possible should be done to protect us.
A far larger percentage of people were convinced an attack on Afghanistan was necessary to protect our democratic principles and values we stand by. Even countries such as France and Germany agreed on this step, which eventually would be only be the beginning of a much bigger conflict the world, and the Middle East in particular, would experience. The question is whether the threat we oppose is actually as big as the Bush Administration and other Western leaders wants us to believe?

Fear mongering and lies:

Blair on Iraq: ‘’Saddam's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) are ready for use within 45 minutes’’

Bush on Iraq: ‘’The danger to our country is great, the danger to our country is growing, the Iraqi regime possesses chemical and biological weapons.’’

Rumsfeld prior to operation Iraqi Freedom ‘’There’s no doubt in my mind, but that they currently have chemical and biological weapons.’’

Bush: "I would remind you that when the inspectors first went into Iraq and were denied -- finally denied access, a report came out of the Atomic -- the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency], that they were six months away from developing a [nuclear] weapon. I don't know what more evidence we need."


No such a report claiming that the Iraqi regime was only six months away from developing a nuclear weapon had ever been released.

Bush on Iran: ''We cannot wait for the final proof, the smoking gun, it could come in the form of a mushroom cloud''

Rice: ''We don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud''


The fear mongering strategy used prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom shares many similarities with current statements on Iran. Sometimes I wonder why people seem to be so naïvely believe what they are being indoctrinated by their governments. I have to admit, prior to Afghanistan and Iraq I also did think everything should be done to protect our Western world, though I wasn’t aware about the other [financial] interests involved, nor did I know that in reality Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction did not exist.

It’s pretty disturbing that Bush and Blair managed to get away untouched, with an unlawful war on Iraq. The fact that no Weapons of Mass Destruction were found in Iraq has not been a real issue in the mainstream media up till now, however, people are supposed to believe the same lies again, only this time the ‘Q’ has been replaced by a ‘N’ .

In a very interesting article Hersh writes the following (Watch the date of the article, long before Iran became a conspiracy subject on the internet January 2005


www.newyorker.com...

In my interviews, I was repeatedly told that the next strategic target was Iran. “Everyone is saying, ‘You can’t be serious about targeting Iran. Look at Iraq,’ ” the former intelligence official told me. “But they say, ‘We’ve got some lessons learned—not militarily, but how we did it politically. We’re not going to rely on agency pissants.’ No loose ends, and that’s why the C.I.A. is out of there.”


The meaning of ‘’doing it politically differently’’ is that in contrast to the war on Iraq, the US won’t take the initiative role of striking first. International organizations, such as the UN and the IAEA will be used to find a solution to the problem. In this way, The Bush Administration wants to pretend, like Bush says himself, that all ''options are on the table''. Being the aggressor twice in four years time would harm the Bush Administration’s reputation even more, both domestically and internationally. However, everyone knows that the public and legal way of solving this conflict won’t work, since Iran doesn’t seem to suspend the enrichment of uranium any time soon, which would mean that the president could say: ''we’ve explored all options'', and we’ve only one option left.


BBC analyst Paul Reynolds suggested a blunter explanation: “The hawks in Washington have gone along with the move in the belief that an offer of direct talks now will improve their arguments for military action later. It also helps to keep Russia and China on board… When [the talks break down], they would then press for a mandatory Security Council resolution ordering Iran to suspend enrichment, and then, if Russia and China blocked sanctions, they would call for unilateral measures by the US and its allies. If that failed, then eventually there would be discussion of a military strike.” Source


According to Hersh and retired Air Force colonel & US War Game Planner, Sam Gardiner , the decision to attack Iran has already been made. Gardiner is the person whom foresaw that Hezbollah targeting Israel would be only the beginning of a much bigger conflict, weeks before the actual start of the Israel – Lebanon conflict, (you can watch the video by clicking on the link below) which I already discussed in another thread. In a German documentary film, ''Planspiel Iran'', he explains the political strategy that is being used to make the American audience believe another war is the only option left on the table. I’ve seen the documentary and will quote his statement: the US has begun a strategic communications plan, that will focus on Iran being a bad guy.

CNN interview (Windows Media Player)


[edit on 4-9-2006 by Mdv2]




posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 04:00 AM
link   
Gardiner believes the following phases will more or less be a blueprint of the scenario we’ll be going to see happening prior to an actual war:

Phase I: Preparation by the US to pressure Iran.

Phase II: The Bush Administration will attempt to sell the people of the US and the world public that something needs to be done about Iran. The idea will be to create a crisis so that people believe something has to be done.

Phase III: The phase of actually taking action.


Ron Paul, member of the US House of Representatives said the following:


"Fear of imaginary nuclear weapons or an incident involving Iran - whether planned or accidental - will rally the support needed for us to move on Muslim country #3" he may actually be lessening the possibility of such a "planned incident".
Source


Detroit dirty bomb terror drill

Boston: Dirty bomb terror drill

More drills

Whether planned or not, a nuclear attack on US soil would be in any way a ‘’rightful’’ claim to blame and attack Iran, and thus so that people believe something has to be done.

What I personally find very disturbing is that so many people seem to get caught again as they did prior to the war on Iraq. While I agree that Iran might be willing to develop nuclear weapons, the claim Iran’s intentions is to destroy Israel doesn’t make much sense, nor is there any evidence hard evidence of them developing such a weapon.

If they had such intentions [to destroy the state of Israel] they would have already done it by now. In another thread I stated the amount of enriched uranium stolen from European, American and Former Soviet States nuclear plants. I can tell you, the amount of stolen enriched uranium is more than enough for the destruction of our globe, several times.

Criminal organizations, such as the Italian Mafia [Race to find mafia's uranium bars ] in general wouldn’t hesitate to sell uranium to countries like Iran, as long as they pay. Iran in addition, wouldn’t hesitate to buy the uranium, which they might have done already. Why making such expensive investments, in terms of capital and time, if they only had one goal in mind: the destruction of our Western world, and thus self destruction. In my opinion, Iran would strengthen their position on an international political level by being in possession of nuclear weapons. Besides, if it could fulfill domestic electricity demand by nuclear power, it would be able to export larger volumes of their not ever lasting fossil fuel resources, and thus increase the State’s profits on the longer term.

Personally, I think the Bush Administration doesn’t want Iran to become a ‘super power’ in the Middle East area, but more important, it doesn’t want Iran to trade it’s enormous fossil fuel reserves in Euros, which would gradually lead to the destruction of the US economy.
In another thread of mine Bit Raser came up with an interesting video in which comedian Robert Newman explains in detail the importance of crude oil being trade in Dollars.

Another question we should ask ourselves is why South Korea has been allowed to enrich uranium, while others, such as Iran aren’t. It might be the case since South Korea isn’t considered an enemy of the State, but it doesn’t justify the fact they should be allowed to enrich uranium, while Iran isn’t.


What Iran has yet to do is provide the IAEA sufficient information on the history of its centrifuge programme for it to satisfy itself that there are no "undeclared nuclear materials or activities." However, this alone can hardly constitute grounds for referring the country to the Security Council under Article III.B.4 of the Agency's Statute since the IAEA, in the past two years, has found discrepancies in the utilisation of nuclear material in as many as 15 countries. Among these are South Korea, Taiwan, and Egypt. In 2002 and 2003, for example, South Korea refused to let the IAEA visit facilities connected to its laser enrichment programme. Subsequently, though Seoul confessed to having secretly enriched uranium to a 77 per cent concentration of U-235 — a grade sufficient for fissile material — neither the U.S. nor EU suggested referring the matter to the UNSC.

Full story




[edit on 4-9-2006 by Mdv2]



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 07:58 AM
link   
Update:


A report published in Washington Wednesday warned that the United States underestimated the Iranian threat as a result of "significant gaps" in intelligence information collected by American spy agencies.


The report, prepared the House Intelligence Committee, presented Iran as a growing threat on the US and criticized American spy agencies for failing to properly assess Tehran's weapons programs.


The report cited "significant gaps in our knowledge and understanding of the various areas of concern about Iran" and added that "policymakers
will need high-quality intelligence to assess Iranian intentions to prepare for any new round of negotiations," with the Islamic republic.

Source




Phase I: Preparation by the US to pressure Iran.

Phase II: The Bush Administration will attempt to sell the people of the US and the world public that something needs to be done about Iran. The idea will be to create a crisis so that people believe something has to be done.

Phase III: The phase of actually taking action.


Obviously, we're currently moving from phase one to phase two. Iran is a growing threat? If your spies fail to gather proper intelligence, how can you speak of ''a growing threat''. On what evidence is that statement based?


[edit on 6-9-2006 by Mdv2]



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 11:51 AM
link   


Criminal organizations, such as the Italian Mafia [Race to find mafia's uranium bars ] in general wouldn’t hesitate to sell uranium to countries like Iran, as long as they pay.


i disagree with this statement. i beleive the mafia would not sell items like these to other countries because of the "political mess". its basicly the same reason the italian organized crime families do not sell drugs, they dont want to be seen as the "bad guys".

im not saying the minor outskirts of the organizations dont slang drugs... but the higher ups who really follow the mafia's code of conduct would be the ones involved in a multi-million dollar trade of radioactive material wouldn't be caut dead making this kind of deal.



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by bokinsmowl

i disagree with this statement. i beleive the mafia would not sell items like these to other countries because of the "political mess". its basicly the same reason the italian organized crime families do not sell drugs, they dont want to be seen as the "bad guys".

im not saying the minor outskirts of the organizations dont slang drugs... but the higher ups who really follow the mafia's code of conduct would be the ones involved in a multi-million dollar trade of radioactive material wouldn't be caut dead making this kind of deal.


Well.. you might be partly right, however, I do not agree with you that all of ''the families'' are trying to act entirely clandestine in order to avoid getting a bad name [again].

Last year I watched a documentary film on television about open violence of the Ndrangheta (the Calabrian mafia), as it's pretty offtopic I won't elaborate what they analyzed, but the following source should explain enough.

As you see Italian families are believed to also possess enriched uranium, I see no other reason for stealing the uranium than supplying demand of terrorist organizations [Al Qaeda], and any other willing countries / rogue states, willing to buy.


The Calabrian 'Ndrangheta (from the Greek word andragathía for heroism and virtue), pronounced en-drang-ay-ta, is one of the most powerful and ruthless mafia organisations in Italy. It is not as famous as the Sicilian Cosa Nostra and has remained more rural compared to the Neapolitan Camorra and the Apulian Sacra corona unita.

Italian anti-organized crime agencies estimate that the 'Ndrangheta rakes in about $30 billion annually, mostly from illegal narcotics, but also from ostensibly legal businesses such as construction, restaurants and supermarkets. There are believed to be about 100 'Ndrangheta families in Calabria, who have become more successful than their Sicilian counterparts because their family ties are closer, their vows of silence are more strictly observed, and unlike the Sicilian Mafia in the early 1990s, they have scrupulously avoided a head-on confrontation with the Italian state.


Economy

According to Italian DIA (Direzione Investigativa Antimafia) and Guardia di Finanza (Italian Financial Police and Customs Police) 'Ndrangheta is now one of the most powerful criminal organizations in the world. Economic activities of 'Ndrangheta include international coc aine and weapons smuggling, money laundering and traditional crimes such as usury and extortion. 'Ndrangheta invests illegal profits in legal real estate and financial activities. Italian authorities estimate a total 2002 turnover of €16 billion.

Full article




But this year 600g of 60% enriched uranium 235 was discovered in a suburb of the Colombian capital, Bogota. It was thought to have come from a Russian submarine's reactor. Last week Italian police said they were searching for seven bars of enriched uranium 235 and 238 which had gone missing from the Democratic Republic of Congo and were believed to be in mafia hands in Italy.

Source




posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 04:58 AM
link   
wow, as a sicilian I find it hard to believe that someone would think that the mafia is making an active effort to not look like bad guys. In reality, the mafia in sicily is ruthless cowardly and cruel.

My sister is currently living right outside of Palermo. A local breadmaker who was 87 years old refused to pay security taxes to the mob. As a result, his grandson was kidnapped and dropped into a pool of acid.

They will make money any way they can, plutonium included.




posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 02:41 AM
link   
I think we may conclude that my statement holds water, by saying that if Iran would be willing to obtain nuclear weapons, the chance they already possess them is pretty big.
In addition, the clandestine way of obtaining plutonium would be easier and create none to less international attention than openly enriching uranium as they currently do.

This fathoms the claim that Iran's sole purpose would be to enrich uranium for nuclear weaponry.


Iran is a major market for Russian nuclear goods -- both official deals sanctioned by the government and, conceivably, black market deals without official approval. External procurement operations by nation-states are likely to be well-organized and protected -- Iran's various nuclear agreements with Russia, for example, can provide requisite official entree and cover for contacting potential collaborators inside the nuclear weapons complex.


Interesting yet off topic

Terrorist organizations also have joined the nuclear procurement game, though perhaps not on a sustained level. A 1998 U.S. federal indictment charges that Osama bin Laden and his associates have tried to buy bomb-making components "at various times" since 1992.

Source



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Interesting yet off topic

Terrorist organizations also have joined the nuclear procurement game, though perhaps not on a sustained level. A 1998 U.S. federal indictment charges that Osama bin Laden and his associates have tried to buy bomb-making components "at various times" since 1992.

Source




Well if they are, they won't get it from Iran, because Iran and Al Qaeda are mortal enemies in terms of Islamic history.

Sunni Islamic Extremists see Shia Muslims as not being Muslim, and being in league with Israel and the US, and people not worthy of being allowed to live.

(Note the Shia mosques and religious ceremonies being attacked in Iraq)

This goes back to when Islam split into two main branches, thousands of years ago.
those that were, and are Sunni believed one man was the successor to The Prophet Muhammad, whilst the Shias believed it was another man.

The Sunnis saw the Shia's refusal to accept the Sunni's view of who should be successor as an insult, and disobeying the word of Prophet Muhammad, so not being Muslim, being Kaffirs (Unbelievers) and traitorous pretenders.

What could be described as an Islamic Civil War ensued.

Such a division, such enemity, is thousands of years old.

The main enemy of Sunn Extremists as they see it, is Shias, because they viewed as pretending to be Muslims, but are not and are mocking Islam.

And of course, we see this strife in Iraq, but such violence was predated by Sunni-Shia strife in Pakistan some years ago, and to a lesser extent to this day.

Zarqawi is reported to have said of Shias that they were "Worse than Jews and Americans." and were "Dogs"

So, a heads up basically, if you hear somebody claiming that Bin Laden is in Iran and is being hidden by Iran, or is being armed by Iran, as a pretext and reason for war with Iran, treat it as the BS as it is and deserves.

Iran actually handed over Al Qaeda people it caught fleeing Afghanistan into Iran, as a token of friendship and mending relations and saying "We are on the same side!".


But the NeoCons, accepting the Al Qaeda people into custody, then spat on such a gesture with the "Axis Of Evil" speech.

What could have seen a progression of US-Iran relations was gone, an oppurtunity of understanding missed, destroyed and obliterated.

In response, Iran realised that for being Islamic, and for having a history with the US, they were painted for targetting by the US.

The invasion of Afghanistan, then Iraq, two countries that border Iran in turn, (nice invasion launch pads there) made Iran even more defensive.


If they are making nukes, it is a reaction the action of irresponsibility and grudge match warmongering NeoCons that caused it.

This need never have happened.....a true tragedy of a NeoCon failure and rejection of common sense, and a pursuit by them driven by hatred.



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 08:22 PM
link   
There's a lot in what you say:

The climate of lies, half-truths, implausible scare stories and unfeasible links between islamic groups is very familiar.

As it worked last time 'they' obviously are confident they can get away with it again. The fact they got away with it comdemns us all for allowing them to escape retribution for their crimes. The fact they're trying it gain condemns them as blood thirsty war mongering zealots.

Although oil is clearly a factor I now think the neo-cons are launching their own crusade for twisted religious regions - I doubt GWB is aware of (or would understand) the master plan

As ever the poor fodder of the US, UK etc and Iraq pay the price in blood, limbs, eyes and life itself.



posted on Sep, 27 2006 @ 03:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Strangerous
There's a lot in what you say:

The climate of lies, half-truths, implausible scare stories and unfeasible links between islamic groups is very familiar.

As it worked last time 'they' obviously are confident they can get away with it again. The fact they got away with it comdemns us all for allowing them to escape retribution for their crimes. The fact they're trying it gain condemns them as blood thirsty war mongering zealots.


Agreed. I think they can already be condemned as blood thirsty war mongering zealots for their actions in Iraq.


Originally posted by Strangerous
Although oil is clearly a factor I now think the neo-cons are launching their own crusade for twisted religious regions - I doubt GWB is aware of (or would understand) the master plan


Some say Cheney is behind the master plan. There is evidence he was in charge, the commander in chief during the September 11th 2001 attacks and sat back as the attacks happened, not really lifting a finger to stop it.

But I don't know if he is the puppet master......


Originally posted by Strangerous
As ever the poor fodder of the US, UK etc and Iraq pay the price in blood, limbs, eyes and life itself.



It is the old who age war, but it is the young who fight and die, as someone once quipped.

Infanticide I call it. Killing your own kids.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join