Speaking of the Devil !!

Lieberman Latest To Pitch For New Terror Attack

Senator says new president will be welcomed by “test”

Paul Joseph Watson / Prison Planet | June 30, 2008

Senator Joe Lieberman has echoed a national talking point by promising that the new president will be welcomed by a terror attack in 2009, continuing a disturbing trend of talking heads anxiously relishing a catastrophic pretext to reinvigorate the Neo-Con agenda.

“Our enemies will test the new president early,” Lieberman, I-Conn., told Face The Nation host Bob Schieffer. “Remember that the truck bombing of the World Trade Center happened in the first year of the Clinton administration. 9/11 happened in the first year of the Bush administration.”

Lieberman’s comments follow last month’s Washington Times report concerning a warning from national intelligence spooks that, “Islamic terrorists will attempt to exploit the transition in power by planning an attack on America.”



Let us swiftly dismantle the naive pretense that a terror attack is a negative thing for a new president - both Clinton and Bush exploited terror in America to realize preconceived domestic and geopolitical agendas.

The 1993 World Trade Center bombing was an inside job from start to finish - it did not come as a “surprise” to the U.S. government since they ran the entire operation, having cooked the bomb for the “Islamic terrorists” that they had groomed for the attack.

In 1993 the FBI planted their informant, Emad A. Salem, within a radical Arab group in New York led by Ramzi Yousef. Salem was ordered to encourage the group to carry out a bombing targeting the World Trade Center’s twin towers. Under the illusion that the project was a sting operation, Salem asked the FBI for harmless dummy explosives which he would use to assemble the bomb and then pass on to the group. At this point the FBI cut Salem out of the loop and provided the group with real explosives, leading to the attack on February 26 that killed six and injured over a thousand people. The FBI’s failure to prevent the bombing was reported on by the New York Times in October 1993.


The attack, coupled with the Oklahoma City bombing less than two years later, enabled Bill Clinton to whip up support for the passage of a plethora of unconstitutional legislation, including the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, the Brady Bill, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, and a $100 million dollar grant to Israel for “counter-terrorism” purposes.

By the time Clinton left office, the Patriot movement - which before the OKC bombing had grown in leaps and bounds, spurred on by the atrocities committed by the federal government at Waco - was effectively dead.

Few need reminding of George W. Bush’s agenda before he took office. The ideological framework that would shape his presidency - encapsulated by the goals of the Neo-Con Project For a New American Century - required a “new Pearl Harbor” to get things started, which is exactly what they received on September 11, 2001.

Furthermore, the attacks enabled Bush to pursue an invasion of Iraq that he had dreamed of achieving as early as 1999, according to the ghostwriter of Bush’s autobiography Mickey Herskowitz.

“One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief. My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it. If I have a chance to invade—if I had that much capital, I’m not going to waste it. I’m going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I’m going to have a successful presidency,” Bush told Herskowitz.

That “chance to invade” arrived on the morning of 9/11, within hours of which Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, “Was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq — even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks.”

The pattern is clear - each time a new President takes office they have a mandate to act as a torch bearer for the same agenda - domestic repression and foreign invasion. A terror attack provides the perfect pretext to realize those goals.

Whether it be Barack Obama or John McCain, we can expect a new crisis to conveniently arrive shortly after they take office, enabling them to pursue the same tyrannical blueprint followed by their predecessors.

http://www.infowars.com/?p=2988

What do you think will happen after Iran becomes capable of terrorizing the entire middle east
with nuclear Weapons ? .... cheaper Fuel ?
I don't think so !
If there is no diplomatic Solution that will lead the Iranians to drop their nuclear program,
the US and/or Israel will have no choice but bombing them to ashes.
What do all of you prefer ? ...200 $US a barrel for a few month or 300 $US or more for ever ?
At the long term, Crude Oil is a Product like any other who's price results from Supply and Demand.
The industrialization of China and India will create much higher Oil Prices than we see now.
Maybe one day... driving with a big SUV to the Supermarket around the Corner will not be a sign
of great personal success but of extreme ignorance and stupidity !

Snap out of it lady !!



I have not seen any evidence of Iran terrorizing the middle east with Nuclear weapons. The only ones terrorizing the the Middle east is the U.S.A. in the name of Corporate America

The only one currently, with nuclear weapons in the Middle east is Israel.

Why do we not go after them??

Full Text : The President of Iran's Letter To President Bush

Translated by "Le Monde"

Posted 05/09/06

Mr George Bush,

President of the United States of America

For sometime now I have been thinking, how one can justify the undeniable contradictions
that exist in the international arena -- which are being constantly debated, specially in political
forums and amongst university students. Many questions remain unanswered. These have
prompted me to discuss some of the contradictions and questions, in the hopes that it might
bring about an opportunity to redress them.

Can one be a follower of Jesus Christ (PBUH), the great Messenger of God,

Feel obliged to respect human rights,
Present liberalism as a civilization model,
Announce one’s opposition to the proliferation of nuclear weapons and WMDs,
Make “War and Terror” his slogan,
And finally,
Work towards the establishment of a unified international community – a community which
Christ and the virtuous of the Earth will one day govern,
But at the same time,
Have countries attacked; The lives, reputations and possessions of people destroyed and on
the slight chance of the … of a … criminals in a village city, or convoy for example the entire
village, city or convey set ablaze.

Or because of the possibility of the existence of WMDs in one country, it is occupied, around
one hundred thousand people killed, its water sources, agriculture and industry destroyed,
close to 180,000 foreign troops put on the ground, sanctity of private homes of citizens
broken, and the country pushed back perhaps fifty years. At what price? Hundreds of billions
of dollars spent from the treasury of one country and certain other countries and tens of
thousands of young men and women – as occupation troops – put in harms way, taken away
from family and love ones, their hands stained with the blood of others, subjected to so much
psychological pressure that everyday some commit suicide ant those returning home suffer
depression, become sickly and grapple with all sorts of aliments; while some are killed and
their bodies handed of their families.


On the pretext of the existence of WMDs, this great tragedy came to engulf both the peoples
of the occupied and the occupying country. Later it was revealed that no WMDs existed to
begin with.

Of course Saddam was a murderous dictator. But the war was not waged to topple him, the
announced goal of the war was to find and destroy weapons of mass destruction. He was
toppled along the way towards another goal, nevertheless the people of the region are happy
about it. I point out that throughout the many years of the … war on Iran Saddam was
supported by the West.

Mr President,

You might know that I am a teacher. My students ask me how can theses actions be
reconciled with the values outlined at the beginning of this letter and duty to the tradition of
Jesus Christ (PBUH), the Messenger of peace and forgiveness.


Page 2

There are prisoners in Guantanamo Bay that have not been tried, have no legal representation,
their families cannot see them and are obviously kept in a strange land outside their own
country. There is no international monitoring of their conditions and fate. No one knows
whether they are prisoners, POWs, accused or criminals.

European investigators have confirmed the existence of secret prisons in Europe too. I could
not correlate the abduction of a person, and him or her being kept in secret prisons, with the
provisions of any judicial system. For that matter, I fail to understand how such actions
correspond to the values outlined in the beginning of this letter, i.e. the teachings of Jesus
Christ (PBUH), human rights and liberal values.

Young people, university students and ordinary people have many questions about the
phenomenon of Israel. I am sure you are familiar with some of them.

Throughout history many countries have been occupied, but I think the establishment of a
new country with a new people, is a new phenomenon that is exclusive to our times.

Students are saying that sixty years ago such a country did no exist. The show old documents
and globes and say try as we have, we have not been able to find a country named Israel.

I tell them to study the history of WWI and II. One of my students told me that during WWII,
which more than tens of millions of people perished in, news about the war, was quickly
disseminated by the warring parties. Each touted their victories and the most recent battlefront
defeat of the other party. After the war, they claimed that six million Jews had been killed. Six
million people that were surely related to at least two million families.

Again let us assume that these events are true. Does that logically translate into the
establishment of the state of Israel in the Middle East or support for such a state? How can
this phenomenon be rationalised or explained?

Mr President,
I am sure you know how – and at what cost – Israel was established:
- Many thousands were killed in the process.
- Millions of indigenous people were made refugees.
- Hundred of thousands of hectares of farmland, olive plantations, towns and villages
were destroyed.

This tragedy is not exclusive to the time of establishment; unfortunately it has been ongoing
for sixty years now.

A regime has been established which does not show mercy even to kids, destroys houses
while the occupants are still in them, announces beforehand its list and plans to assassinate
Palestinian figures and keeps thousands of Palestinians in prison. Such a phenomenon is
unique – or at the very least extremely rare – in recent memory.

Another big question asked by people is why is this regime being supported?
Is support for this regime in line with the teachings of Jesus Christ (PBUH) or Moses (PBUH)
or liberal values?

Or are we to understand that allowing the original inhabitants of these lands – inside and
outside Palestine – whether they are Christian, Muslim or Jew, to determine their fate, runs


Page 3

contrary to principles of democracy, human rights and the teachings of prophets? If not, why
is there so much opposition to a referendum?

The newly elected Palestinian administration recently took office. All independent observes
have confirmed that this government represents the electorate. Unbelievingly, they have put
the elected government under pressure and have advised it to recognise the Israeli regime,
abandon the struggle and follow the programs of the previous government.

If the current Palestinian government had run on the above platform, would the Palestinian
people have voted for it? Again, can such position taken in opposition to the Palestinian
government be reconciled with the values outlined earlier? The people are also saying “why
are all UNSC resolutions in condemnation of Israel vetoed?”

Mr President,

As you are well aware, I live amongst the people and am in constant contact with them --
many people from around the Middle East manage to contact me as well. They dot not have
faith in these dubious policies either. There is evidence that the people of the region are
becoming increasingly angry with such policies.

It is not my intention to pose to many questions, but I need to refer to other points as well.
Why is it that any technological and scientific achievement reached in the Middle East
regions is translated into and portrayed as a threat to the Zionist regime? Is not scientific
R&D one of the basic rights of nations.

You are familiar with history. Aside from the Middle Ages, in what other point in history has
scientific and technical progress been a crime? Can the possibility of scientific achievements
being utilised for military purposes be reason enough to oppose science and technology
altogether? If such a supposition is true, then all scientific disciplines, including physics,
chemistry, mathematics, medicine, engineering, etc. must be opposed.

Lies were told in the Iraqi matter. What was the result? I have no doubt that telling lies is
reprehensible in any culture, and you do not like to be lied to.

Mr President,
Don’t Latin Americans have the right to ask, why their elected governments are being
opposed and coup leaders supported? Or, why must they constantly be threatened and live in
fear?

The people of Africa are hardworking, creative and talented. They can play an important and
valuable role in providing for the needs of humanity and contribute to its material and
spiritual progress. Poverty and hardship in large parts of Africa are preventing this from
happening. Don’t they have the right to ask why their enormous wealth – including minerals –
is being looted, despite the fact that they need it more than others?

Again, do such actions correspond to the teachings of Christ and the tenets of human rights?


Continue ........................http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12984.htm

Even the Devil will quote scripture when it suits his needs, As an average Joe sixpack making only $400 a day I can't speak for my "operational oversight" but we do what we are asked of th by the client IE US military. No more no less. Iran stands to benefit by locking up the straights of Hormuz if threatened, Thats their ace in the hole.How will they do that ?Why with their Navy and Airforce ,so the question would be 'how would we mitigate that threat ?" Seems if they have were to have NO Navy or Air power they would pose little threat to the world economy ...HMMmm I can attest that NO military on the face of the earth would last a week under the combined will of the U.S. the very reason these engagements have drawn on as they have is that we have been 'soft balling' the enemy. We know where they live but yet we do not engage them for fear of harming civilians If we were to blast one village off a hillside the average local would cease to support and shelter the insurgency. But se la vei ...Job security...

Instead of writing philosophical letters, instead of supporting Hamas and Hisbollah,
instaed of stoning woman to death for being raped....
why doesn't he allow international Inspectors to review his Nuclear Programm ?

please get yourself educated by viewing Iranians missile capabilities (link below).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Force_of_the_Army_of_the_Guardians_of_the_Islamic_Revolution

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/missile/

If you still think that they are no treat to the entire western world... so be it !

So another country does not have not right to Arm themselves, to Protect themselves??

Are you the kind of Person who believes, in disarming the Population to Reduce Crime??

Iran will be a sitting duck, if they disarm.
_________________________________________________
Iran Is No Threat, Unless Bush Makes It One

Iran's armed forces have been designed to defend the country, without any ability to project power outside the country's borders. The massive presence of U.S. and NATO forces around Iran limits Iran's reach, as do its terrible economy, restless population, and democracy movement. The U.S. and Israel constantly point to Iran's aid to Hamas and Lebanon's Hezbollah as evidence of its "evil intentions." But with relatively weak armed forces and constant threats from the U.S. and Israel, Iran needs strategic depth to protect its territorial integrity, hence its aid to both Hezbollah and Hamas.

Furthermore, Hamas won the democratic elections of 2006 and is far more popular than Fatah. As Sen. John McCain said then, "They are the government. … It's a new reality in the Middle East.'' And contrary to popular misconceptions, Hezbollah would be just as powerful without Iran's help, because it was formed as a reaction to the invasion of southern Lebanon by Israel in 1978 and 1982, which created hundreds of thousands of Shi'ite refugees and tens of thousands of Shi'ite dead and wounded, while the U.S. and the rest of the West stood by, doing nothing. Hezbollah and Hamas receive aid, not orders, from Iran.
To read from the beginning...........http://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/index.php?q=node/5105

TIME2RIZE, SAID

Snap out of it lady !!



I have not seen any evidence of Iran terrorizing the middle east with Nuclear weapons. The only ones terrorizing the the Middle east is the U.S.A. in the name of Corporate America

The only one currently, with nuclear weapons in the Middle east is Israel.

Why do we not go after them??





ARCATYPE: Funny video.

well let's hope you come to enjoy the same "democracy" like the Iranians.
Participating in a forum like this, in Iran, you wouldn't see Daylight for 15 years.