September 20, 200619 yr Author Of course he's not....lol Most of europe want's to avoid the issue of Iran? You really have been sucked in by the sick military industrial complex. We don't want to attack Iran becuase they pose no threat. The CIA's own report says so. This is all because the war criminals need to keep things going. Iraq is messed up, Afghanistan is screwed and now they are needing to continue the crazy, insane 'ponzi scheme' that they have going by having a go at Iran. Most of the world does not want this war and anyone who wants it is a fool.
September 20, 200619 yr We better attack Iran soon ah yeah exactly... you better attack everywhere in the world..everywhere is a potential threat for the us..and some needs to be brought democrasy and this is united states' job..sure... Its looking like we might start bombing them sometime soon. Its looking like most of Europe does not want to deal with Iran's threat, so the US or Israel are going to take action. thank you US and/or Israel..what would the world do if you weren't there??
September 20, 200619 yr Of course he's not....lol Most of europe want's to avoid the issue of Iran? You really have been sucked in by the sick military industrial complex. We don't want to attack Iran becuase they pose no threat. The CIA's own report says so. This is all because the war criminals need to keep things going. Iraq is messed up, Afghanistan is screwed and now they are needing to continue the crazy, insane 'ponzi scheme' that they have going by having a go at Iran. Most of the world does not want this war and anyone who wants it is a fool. So your believing the CIA now? But yea, war with Iran would be very bad. Whether Iran is a threat or not it'll be a disaster.
September 20, 200619 yr Author Yep I agree.....(and this CIA report wasn't meant to be spread about but it was leaked and then mainstream. But do we hear about that anymore?) There's apparently US military operations happening on the ground in Iran already.
September 20, 200619 yr ah yeah exactly... you better attack everywhere in the world..everywhere is a potential threat for the us..and some needs to be brought democrasy and this is united states' job..sure... thank you US and/or Israel..what would the world do if you weren't there?? Since Europe is going to ignore Irans nuclear threat. Probably because they want OPEC to use euro's and Iran is a major player in OPEC, its up to anyone else to clean up the mess. Attack everwhere? why, 99% of the world is not a threat just mad men who believe in the 12th Imam and who want to use a nuke People said this type of thing to those who wanted to attack hitler in the 30's I like alot of people have this CRAZY idea about stopping problems before they go nuclear and use them. You may not care if someone uses a nuke but its not your country that will be nuked
September 20, 200619 yr Of course he's not....lol Most of europe want's to avoid the issue of Iran? You really have been sucked in by the sick military industrial complex. We don't want to attack Iran becuase they pose no threat. The CIA's own report says so. This is all because the war criminals need to keep things going. Iraq is messed up, Afghanistan is screwed and now they are needing to continue the crazy, insane 'ponzi scheme' that they have going by having a go at Iran. Most of the world does not want this war and anyone who wants it is a fool. They pose a threat. Madman believes in the 12th Imam and its his goal to wake him up. Iran poses little threat without a nuke, but with one they pose a huge one Just because you are devoid of common sense America or Israel arent going to let a religious nut get a nuke he wants to use. Its our asses on the line at first, we have a right to protect them. As for Europe, they'll realize they fucked up when things get really bad, just ask Hitler.
September 20, 200619 yr Author Ok. Ok. Right. Your wrong :( Look below, he called me a 'nut'.....idiot.
September 21, 200619 yr Author Senior intel official: Pentagon moves to second-stage planning for Iran strike option Larisa Alexandrovna / Raw Story | September 21 2006 The Pentagon's top brass has moved into second-stage contingency planning for a potential military strike on Iran, one senior intelligence official familiar with the plans tells RAW STORY. The official, who is close to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the highest ranking officials of each branch of the US military, says the Chiefs have started what is called "branches and sequels" contingency planning. "The JCS has accepted the inevitable," the intelligence official said, "and is engaged in serious contingency planning to deal with the worst case scenarios that the intelligence community has been painting." A second military official, although unfamiliar with these latest scenarios, said there is a difference between contingency planning -- which he described as "what if, then what" planning -- and "branches and sequels," which takes place after an initial plan has been decided upon. Adding to the concern of both military and intelligence officials alike is the nuclear option, the possibility of pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons targeting alleged WMD facilities in Iran. An April New Yorker report by Sy Hersh alleged that the nuclear option was on the table, and that some officers of the Joint Chiefs had threatened resignation. "The attention given to the nuclear option has created serious misgivings inside the offices of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he added, and some officers have talked about resigning," Hersh wrote. "Late this winter, the Joint Chiefs of Staff sought to remove the nuclear option from the evolving war plans for Iran�without success, the former intelligence official said." The senior intelligence official who spoke to RAW STORY, along with several military intelligence sources, confirmed that the nuclear option remains on the table. In addition, the senior official added that the Joint Chiefs have "come around on to the administration's thinking." "The Joint Chiefs have no longer imposed roadblocks on a possible bombing campaign against Iran's nuclear production facilities," the intelligence official said. "In the past, only the Air Force had endorsed the contingency, saying that it could carry out the mission of destroying, or at least significantly delaying, Iran's ability to develop a nuclear weapon." Preparation for such a strike would require contingency plans for securing oil transport lines and dealing with possible riots, as well as assessment of issues that arose during the Iran-Iraq war. "Bahrain will be a battleground as it is majority Shi'a and has had Shi'a riots stimulated by Iran in the past," the official said. "The US Fifth Fleet is also based there. A system for [protection of] oil transport in the Gulf will have to be devised by the US Navy to protect against attacks." The Pentagon did not immediately respond to repeated emails requesting comment. Deployment orders With allegations of a plan in place and contingency scenarios in play, several military and intelligence experts see this as proof of a secret White House order to proceed with military action. Last week, a military intelligence official described to this reporter the movement of Naval submarines and a deployment order sent out to Naval assets of strategic import, such as minesweepers, that could indicate contingency planning is already under way to secure oil transport routes and supplies. On Sunday, Time Magazine confirmed much of what the military intelligence source had described. "The first message was routine enough: a 'Prepare to Deploy Order' sent through Naval communications channels to a submarine, an Aegis-class cruiser, two minesweepers and two mine hunters," Time's Michael Duffy wrote. "The orders didn't actually command the ships out of port; they just said be ready to move by October 1. A deployment of minesweepers to the east coast of Iran would seem to suggest that a much discussed, but until now largely theoretical, prospect has become real." Retired Air Force Col. Sam Gardiner also expressed concern about the deployment orders, but cautioned that these particular ships are slow-moving and would take "a month or so" to arrive in position. "Minecountermeasures, the four ships mentioned, are generally not self-deploying," Gardiner said Wednesday. "When previously sent to the Gulf, they were transported on the decks of heavy lift ships. The earliest they would arrive would be around the first of November." Although some claim the Defense Department has denied the deployment order, no official denial has been made. The Pentagon does not comment on operational plans, not even to issue a denial. Lawmakers in the dark? Attempts to contact members of the Senate Armed Services Committee provided little help in confirming allegations of the deployment order made to this reporter and Time. Senate offices that were available for comment would not do so on the record. From all appearances, however, it would seem that at least some members of the Senate Armed Services Committee have not been briefed on deployment orders or on any strike plans, even contingency plans. The Senate Intelligence Committee is attempting to get a grasp on what is and has been going on. A source close to the Committee, who asked to remain anonymous due to the sensitivity of the information, explained that a series of briefings will be going on this week and into next. The Senate Intelligence Committee has "embarked on a much more aggressive review of what the intelligence community knows and is doing regarding Iran," the source said. "In fact [the Committee has] a number of Iran related briefings this week and next before the senators leave town," the source added. They "will cover the full spectrum including various aspects of their nuclear program and all U.S. collection efforts."
September 22, 200619 yr Author Bush Propaganda Architect Rove Promises October Surprise Will PR coup be another Bin Laden campaign endorsement or something far deadlier? Paul Joseph Watson | September 21 2006 Bush administration PR guru and master political strategist Karl Rove has "promised" an October surprise that will help the Republicans to win both congressional houses in November. Will this curveball be another helpful Bush campaign endorsement on behalf of Osama Bin Laden or something far worse? Newsmax columnist Ronald Kessler cites Republican insiders as the source of the leak that Rove intends on pulling a rabbit out of the hat to guarantee another Republican sweep this November. "Rove is not saying what the October surprise will be, writes Kesser, " asked if he would elaborate and give his thinking about the coming elections, Rove told NewsMax that his take largely parallels what RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman said in a Sept. 5 NewsMax story." Days before the 2004 presidential election, an Osama Bin Laden videotape gave Bush the six point surge he needed to overtake John Kerry and snatch the White House. According to a book written by Bill Sammon, Senior White House Correspondent for the Washington Examiner, Bush attributed his 2004 victory over John Kerry in part to a Osama bin Laden videotape released on the eve of the election. “I thought it was going to help,” Bush decided. “I thought it would help remind people that if bin Laden doesn’t want Bush to be the president, something must be right with Bush.” Bush's rival John Kerry blamed the Bin Laden tape for his defeat. Former CBS anchorman Walter Cronkite went public to call the tape a set up orchestrated by Karl Rove. Will Rove's promised pre-election surprise be another Bin Laden "don't vote for the Republicans" scam or should we prepare for the "inevitable" terror attack that will provide the false flag provocation to kick-start air strikes on Iran? Is Rove's October surprise the political assassination, dirty bomb, biological release or terror attack forecast in a 2005 Republican memo, touted to "reverse the sagging fortunes of President George W. Bush," and "restore his image as a leader of the American people." Will the Neo-Fascists again overplay their hand in a desperate lunge to rescue their power monopoly or is Rove's plan infinitely more sophisticated?
September 22, 200619 yr gareth, do you have any other sources besides paul watson. i dont agree or disagree with you, but it seems you only ever present one side of the argument- yours, which can be listened to, but seems extremely biased. what about other news sources, like bbc or newspapers?
September 22, 200619 yr Author Well, I do actually have other sources if you look.......but most of the time I post Pauls Watson's articles as often they actually are based on other reports or documents which he provides links to and such. That's why I post them as they are well sourced. (and not becuase of the other reasons that people on here have speculated in the past). And the BBC? They wouldn't ever even begin to pick up on decent stories. Once in a blue moon do they have a reporter who does something worthwhile. It's the same with Sky News here in the UK - terrible reporting. Just today when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was talking Live at the UN about his desire not to have nuclear weapons and that he wasn't anti-jewish the BBC were running a story about something pointless and Sky News actually cut away after 3 minutes and aired an awful, lengthy golf interview. I was quite annoyed because it's so they can create a report and cherry pick the parts they want without letting most people view his whole speech.
September 22, 200619 yr Yes because what a terrorist leader says should be taken as truth...yeah....:rolleyes: How many times did hitler say he didnt want war? my point proven. Oh wait ww2 was fake, right? some american propaganda lie.....
September 22, 200619 yr Well if i was going to kill someone, I wouldnt go around saying i was going to do it. I think with Iran and the Nuclear issue, the question is "do we trust Iran a country who's leader stated he wanted to Wipe Israel off the face of the map, not to go on and develop a nuclear weapon?" I think Iran can be 'controlled' (i cant think of the right word at the mo) by diplomatic means - no need for a war.
September 22, 200619 yr gareth' date=' do you have any other sources besides paul watson. i dont agree or disagree with you, but it seems you only ever present one side of the argument- yours, which can be listened to, but seems extremely biased. what about other news sources, like bbc or newspapers?[/quote'] To be honest, take what Gareth says and do your own research and think logically about things. Gareth sees a Conspiracy in everything, but its clear he's spent alot of time on this whether his right or wrong and hes given us all some good points to think about. But yea he is a bit of a 'conspiracy nut' Read this article as well http://www.coldplaying.com/forum/showthread.php?t=34318
September 22, 200619 yr Author Yes, I think diplomacy is the only answer.......however, from Irans point of view there is no real need to discuss the nuclear issue as they are stating that they are not developing a nuclear weapon (weapons inspectors conclude this too). It's a tough situation alright.....with the media and government speeches all demonising Iran and blowing quotes out of context, I feel we are doomed to a horrific event/war. 'The political phrase of this decade when it is over will no doubt be 'imperial overstretch'! The US has two possible futures; 1) controling and subdugating the entire globe through hegemonic control (soft control like political influence, economic stranglehold etc..) and through military suppression when necesssary or 2) Complete overt empire, those who support the US will retain their apparent independence, those who dont will be overtly controlled on mass' A internet contact was was discussing this with me online..... 'The war criminals controlling the US, Britain and Israel are blind to human suffering, one could even say, looking at the evidence, that they thrive on it. To give you a clue as to US military thinking, this from the PNAC document: "... the art of warfare ... will be vastly different than it is today ... “combat” likely will take place in new dimensions ... advanced forms of biological warfare that can “target” specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool."
September 23, 200619 yr Show me all the times that Hilter said he didn't want war then.. Desperate to avoid war, Neville Chamberlain and French Prime Minister Edouard Daladier agreed that Germany could have the Sudetenland. In return, Hitler promised not to make any further territorial demands in Europe. On 29 September, 1938, Adolf Hitler, Neville Chamberlain, Edouard Daladier and Benito Mussolini signed the Munich Agreement which transferred the Sudetenland to Germany. itler’s next step was to begin taking back the land that had been taken away from Germany. In March 1938, German troops marched into Austria. The Austrian leader was forced to hold a vote asking the people whether they wanted to be part of Germany. The results of the vote were fixed and showed that 99% of Austrian people wanted Anschluss (union with Germany). The Austrian leader asked Britain, France and Italy for aid. Hitler promised that Anschluss was the end of his expansionist aims and not wanting to risk war, the other countries did nothing. Hilter kept moving to war but when the other nations asked he promised no war and this was the last land he'd take.....
September 23, 200619 yr Author Yep. We are always hearing this from our countries, that don't want war and that they want diplomacy.....yet they alway choose war.....there's more money made for the private mega companies who are taking all the money away from us I guess.
September 23, 200619 yr Yep. We are always hearing this from our countries, that don't want war and that they want diplomacy.....yet they alway choose war.....there's more money made for the private mega companies who are taking all the money away from us I guess. Thus people in power yelling for peace and saying the nuclear program is peaceful are full of shit.
Create an account or sign in to comment