04/08: "The Winds of War" - U.S. Could Have "Triggered" Accidental War

=



04/08: "The Winds of War" - Ahmadinejad spins release of hostages
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?t=236797


<center>Sunday 8th April 2007

<b>US aggression 'could have triggered an accidental Iran war' </b>

http://www.gulf-daily-news.com/Story.asp?Article=177131&Sn=WORL&IssueID=30019 </center>
LONDON: The US offered to mount aggressive air patrols over Revolutionary Guards bases during Iran's stand-off with Britain but was rebuffed by London, it was revealed last night.

Diplomatic sources said that Pentagon officials offered a series of military options, but Britain told them to keep out of the affair and instead tone down armed forces activity in the Gulf.

One of the options involved combat aircraft patrolling over Iranian bases to show how serious the incident was.

A senior Iranian source said, "If this had been between Iranian and American soldiers it could have been the beginning of an accidental war."

On March 20, three days before the 15 British marines were seized in the Gulf, a second US aircraft carrier group arrived in the region. At London's request, the two carrier groups, totalling 40 ships plus aircraft, changed their exercises to make them appear less confrontational.
 
=




<B><center>Buoyant Teheran warns of further kidnappings</b>

By Gethin Chamberlain, Philip Sherwell and Tim Shipman
Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 11:56pm BST 07/04/2007
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/04/08/wiran08.xml </center>
Hardliners in the Iranian regime have warned that the seizure of British naval personnel demonstrates that they can make trouble for the West whenever they want to and do so with impunity.

The bullish reaction from Teheran will reinforce the fears of western diplomats and military officials that more kidnap attempts may be planned.

The British handling of the crisis has been regarded with some concern in Washington, and a Pentagon defence official told The Sunday Telegraph: "The fear now is that this could be the first of many. If the Brits don't change their rules of engagement, the Iranians could take more hostages almost at will.

"Iran has come out of this looking reasonable. If I were the Iranians, I would keep playing the same game. They have very successfully muddied the waters and bought themselves some more time. And in parts of the Middle East they will be seen as the good guys. They could do it time and again if they wanted to."

Americans also expressed dismay that the British had suspended boarding operations in the Gulf while its tactics are reassessed.

advertisement"Iran has got what it wants. They have secured free passage for smuggling weapons into Iraq without a fight," one US defence department official said.

It is also clear that the Iranian government believes that the outcome has strengthened its position over such contentious issues as its nuclear programme. Hardliners within the regime have been lining up to crow about Britain's humiliation, and indicated that the operation was planned.

Conservative parliamentarian Amir Hassankhani, a former member of the country's Revolutionary Guard and supporter of the president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, told the country's semi-official Fars news agency: "The arrest and release of the British sailors proved that if Iran's issues and demands are overlooked at the international level, the Islamic republic can create different challenges for the other side."

However, a British Government official familiar with the negotiations said that while the abductions had provided Ahmadinejad with a platform from which to humiliate the West, such behaviour would have undermined Iran's ambitions for its nuclear programme. Countries which might otherwise have supported Iran would now be questioning whether a regime that took hostages could be trusted with sensitive nuclear technology.

"Ahmadinejad may have got some short-term PR bounce out of this, but the more cerebral members of the regime may be quite alarmed that they have squandered their perceived right to be treated as a country that should be trusted with a nuclear enrichment programme," he said. "In the long term, they may have lost out."
 

night driver

ESFP adrift in INTJ sea
accidental my bleeding ass.


there will be NOTHING accidental about the Iran Campaign when it happens.

Hell YEAH there will be more kidnappings.

It worked ONCE.

They ain't STOOOOOPID....

Do what works until it don't work anymore.......
 
=



<B><center>The Gulf:

The New Hostage Crisis</b>

Newsweek
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17888555/site/newsweek/ </center>
April 9, 2007 issue - A minor incident is becoming a major hostage crisis. In the week and a half since 15 British sailors and Marines were detained near the Shatt al Arab waterway—allegedly by Iranian Revolutionary Guard boats—tensions have worsened. Now British Prime Minister Tony Blair (criticized for not reacting more combatively) has asked for U.N. Security Council help. Tehran paraded the captives on TV and elicited their apologies, and Iran's chief international negotiator, Ali Larijani (a former Guard commander), made a veiled threat to put them on trial.

It's still unclear who was behind the seizure. Were Revolutionary Guard zealots acting on their own, forcing Tehran to back them up? Or was the detention ordered from on high, possibly by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who warned only two days before the seizure that if Americans and Europeans "take illegal actions, we too can take illegal actions and will do so"? A retired Iranian diplomat, anonymous because the matter is sensitive, says Washington and London should realize how much "freelancing" goes on inside Iran.

Extremists may be looking for payback for the detentions of Tehran operatives and officials, allegedly with U.S. approval, inside Iraq, and the disappearance of a former Guard general. "It usually happens like this: one small group does something and then it's the whole system that has to clean up after them," the diplomat says. Blair declares that he won't negotiate, and Iran is resisting U.N. pressure, so the standoff may drag on—or, worse, escalate.

—Mark Hosenball, Michael Hirsh and Maziar Bahari
 
=



<center>10:08, April 08, 2007

<b>Abbas urges forces to curb rocket attacks against Israel </b>

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200704/08/eng20070408_364618.html </center>
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas on Saturday urged his forces to work on stopping home-made rocket attacks against Israel.

Abbas made the remarks in Gaza at a commencement for hundreds of presidential guard members. He said that "All security services, especially the presidential guard forces, must work to spread security, end the security chaos and stop the playful rockets that are fired here or there (against Israel)."

Abbas also called on the international community to lift siege on the Palestinians.

Earlier on Saturday, Israeli helicopters launched two rockets into eastern Gaza City, killing a Palestinian militant in the first such incident since a November ceasefire.

Palestinian militants frequently launch rockets into southern Israel in response to the Israeli army's raids in the West Bank.

The Hamas-led coalition government met Saturday to discuss a plan aimed at restoring security in the Palestinian territories.

Ghazi Hamad, the government spokesman, said the plan has nothing to do with the resistance against Israel.

Source: Xinhua
 

JohnGaltfla

#NeverTrump
Nuclear Armageddon: The Countdown

I wish to thank the Tehran Globe for the link to this "story". I report, we all :kk2: :kk2: :kk2: Wow. What an unbelievable story...enjoy it, but on an empty stomach please. JG


Nuclear Armageddon: The Countdown

News Release Ken Welch.

Unbelievable as it seems, we face another year in which the imminent threat of Nuclear War for corporate profit outweighs all other issues. It is the last thing I expected, and the last thing I wanted to be reporting on. Worse yet, I have no reason to believe we can stop it this time. Houston, the only name ever given for the Oil Cartel that owns and operates the U.S. Government, refuses to give up it's 20-year effort to seize all remaining Middle East oil reserves, using taxpayer money and disposable soldiers.

They also have no qualms about using nukes to do the job, since they don't actually have to pay for them. Now that governments are simply "fronts" for corporate cartels, there is huge pressure to bring out the nukes and finally get some "good" out of them. At this point I should pause to give you essential background for this story. A nuclear blast in friendly territory, blamed on Iran and used as an excuse for nuclear war is a big pill to swallow. But this is, after all, the THIRD time these clowns have tried this stunt so most visitors to this site already have a pretty good grasp of the scenario. It is already known that the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan was planned long before 9-11. The made-for-television 9-11 extravaganza was actually used to prepare for the invasion of Iraq. When the U.S. finally did invade Iraq, many Americans who realized that the logic was wrong still consoled themselves with the idea that their government was actually moving to secure future supplies of oil for their benefit. Was there any benefit? No. Perhaps in the future? No. The U.S. government is not in the oil business. It doesn't pump, buy, sell or distribute petroleum products. Corporations do that. In Iraq today, after great sacrifice of lives and treasure, U.S. and other multinational corporations now have the opportunity to control and harvest that country's oil reserves. They will profit handsomely. You will not. You will, however, be asked to pay the bill.

The objective, which has been in the works for at least two decades, is to change the ownership of the entire non-allied Middle East, under the guise of religious warfare. After all, there must be some crazy reason why those Arab lunatics are allegedly so committed to "destroying our freedoms" while the Bush Neocon/Zionists pass law after law to actually take our freedoms and money away! As you can see, Iran is now pinned on both sides by Cartel-controlled forces, and is the remaining piece that needs to fall to create a solid block of Cartel-controlled territory from east to west. There is also the issue of immensely valuable pipelines that could route Russian oil all the way to the terminal at Haifa. In addition, if Syria is also destroyed or occupied, it would appear that our "Middle East problems" would reach a final solution.

You can also see that Iran is huge. The U.S. defense budget, after decades of corporate looting, simply cannot support enough troops and equipment to invade and occupy Iran in a conventional manner. Nuclear weapons must be used, and in sufficient quantity to completely destroy Iran's ability to resist invasion and occupation. The only barrier to this is the simple fact that the first country to use a nuke will be condemned by the whole world and ostracized forever. The obvious solution is to fake a nuclear attack, blame it on anyone you wish, and then use all the nukes you want.

Believe it or not, this has already been hard-coded into U.S. law, with Iran being the pre-designated target for nuclear devastation regardless of where the original nuke actually comes from! It could be a sneak attack by anyone, but Iran would still be destroyed, like with 9/11, Binladen/Al-Qaeda/Taliban/Iraq were blamed. Clearly the current owners of Iranian oil reserves are the only target the U.S.
is lusting to nuke. When you read this, keep in mind that Valerie Plame revealed the Niger paper fabrications by the Bush/Mossad administration and stopped their plans to plant WMDs in Iraq.

That's why a disgusted Bush/Cheney leaked her name so that she could foil any future such plans.

The Armageddon Time Line:

1) During the winter of 2005-6 the White House began to implement a plan known as Gambit, which involved the use of a portable Russian nuke to create a false-flag detonation at the oil terminal adjacent to Texas City, Texas. It is not known who actually purchased the nuke, but its arrival in Galveston Bay by ship was easily documented in RS. Tony Blair signed on to the Gambit plan for the U.K. in late November or early December.

The attack was scheduled for the 2006 Easter weekend, to give the vital impression of a sick religious motivation.

2) During February 2006, reversed speech practitioners found so many administration members thinking about Gambit that virtually all the details of the plan were revealed. In March, Ken-Welch.Com published an extensive report, including many of the speech reversals, and warned whoever would listen that the Easter Surprise was on the way.

3) The Texas City nuke was canceled with only a few days left to go before it was to light up the sky south of Houston. Since thousands of Internet users knew all the details in advance, there was really no other option. Reversed speech on Junior during the rest of April made it clear that it was the discovery of the plan via reversed speech which had led to it's cancellation. The Gambit device was removed and shipped to the Mediterranean.

4) During May we discovered a second part of the Gambit operation. In mid-April, when everyone would otherwise have been distracted by the Easter Surprise, the U.S. placed a nuclear weapons launcher in orbit, in clear violation of international law. An orbital launcher has no defensive value because it can be on the wrong side of the world when you need it. As a surprise offensive weapon it is superb. Since Junior was already making it clear that Iran was the next target, there was no question that nukes falling straight down over Iran were the intended follow-on to the Easter Surprise. When enough substantiating RS had been gathered, Ken-Welch.com published the orbital nuke report in June, the month that was originally chosen for the destruction of Iran.

5) During July we took a break and almost missed the fact that the Gambit plan had been recycled. All eyes were on the butchery taking place in Lebanon, with no one realizing the Israeli government had been bribed or otherwise coerced into providing an expensive stage for the next nuclear surprise. A Washington visit by Tony Blair, with speeches on July 28 revealing that the missing nuke would be used (presumably on Israeli soil this time) to trigger Armageddon seven days later. This was not found until several days had already gone by, and we published our Nuclear War Warning only two days ahead of the event.

6) The Armageddon Plot failed with the world being totally unaware of it's existence. The month of August was filled with grim meetings everywhere and Junior looked shaken and ill. RS revealed that the failure was earthshaking, and that two key events were responsible. First, something went wrong with the missile that was to launch the baby nuke into Israel, from a ship or a sub offshore. That the United States Navy was sufficiently corrupted to soil its honor with this phase of the operation (as they apparently did with 9-11), yet failed in some way, was clear. Second and far far worse, a roll of film was delivered, clearly showing a nuclear tipped Chinese missile set up within striking distance of Tel-Aviv. The Chinese threat was crystal clear, and the attack was canceled in its final hour. All of this was published here as each piece of information came in.

7) The Oil Cartel has more than enough money to buy anything it wants, but large organizations, including the Cartel's military arm at the Pentagon, can rarely move quickly. Knowing there would be ample time, Ken-Welch.Com changed its focus in the following months to exposing the basic fantasy underlying the Terror War: a phoney organization known as Al-Qaeda and the myth of Islamic religious terrorism. We exposed Al-Qaeda in Iraq, the false-flag beheading group supposedly led by the magical Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. We then explored countless propaganda videos showing the deaths of U.S. soldiers in Iraq, and learned that virtually all of the attacks were carried out by U.S. mercenaries and military intelligence operatives posing as Arabs. All this was created and presented under the umbrella of what was supposed to be Al-Qaeda's much vaunted media operation, which Donald Rumsfeld had firmly told us was the enemy's most potent threat to our security and freedom.

8) Through normal news channels we learned that in late September China used one or more ground-based lasers to light up American orbital vehicles as they came within range. While no one knew if the laser(s) also had enough power to actually disable a satellite (or an atomic munitions platform), it was generally agreed that the operation generated precise measurement of the actual orbits. In the first week of January we learned that they had actually shot down, or otherwise destroyed a satellite of their own in a missile test designed to do exactly that. Considering the launch of the U.S. weapons platform only five months before the laser test, it seemed unlikely that these events were all unrelated.

9) Refusing to be distracted we zeroed in on Al-Qaeda itself with our February report on the Florida actor who plays the role of Wily Osama Coyote's second in command, Dr. Ayman Al-Zawahiri. This provided a bonanza of vital information. It totally exposed the true nature of Al-Qaeda as nothing more than a U.S. internal and external propaganda program. It fully corroborated the Armageddon Plot and the events of that terrible night in August when millions of lives hung in the balance. And finally, it exposed the role of the Houston-based controllers in a way that could finally be published. Our newsletter readers knew of this connection, but the countless reversals from Washington suggesting that it was actually Houston calling the shots were so fragmentary that there was no way to present them in a formal report and really prove the point.

10) After spending months digging into the Terror War, I knew it was time to return to a closer scrutiny of current events. I was curious to see if I could detect any reaction to our work, and Houston had had ample time to choose a new direction and put something in motion. My first hit came with a White House Saturday Radio Address broadcast on February 24th. It dealt with health issues (there's no money to pay for Baby Boomer entitlements), but underlying speech reversals indicated that Ken-Welch.Com had been an object of concern. It also contained a reference to something being "fused" the following weekend. I reported this to our newsletter readers and put a sound clip in our Donor Area. The hunt was on. Outside the Port Of Texas City This pretty much tells us most of what we need to know up front. Nuclear war for profit is only days away. If it happens, nothing will ever be the same. The failure of the Armageddon Plot last August has simply been shrugged off, and the plan has been recycled. The only missing piece is the intended target for the false-flag nuke that is necessary to kick it off. It raises a number of interesting questions that will surely be answered over the next month. What about the Chinese nuke that stopped the plan last year? Are there a bunch of Marines sitting on ships somewhere, doing daily radiation drills while they wait to stroll into a shattered Iran? The President of Iran is requesting to come to New York with a very large entourage. Will that trip figure in some kind of provocation? The false "Terrorist WMD" event we've been promised for so long will undoubtedly be here in the U.S., to maximize the impact of the Easter time frame. August's false-flag event was to occur in Israel, and the date chosen had vast significance from Jewish history, being acquainted with the destruction of the great Temple in Jerusalem. If it is a complete recycling, then the oil terminal at Texas City is a target again, but so far there is only one clue regarding location. That clue, however, refers to an "old port". Update: March 28, 2007 Events on the ground confirm that a massive attack on the Republic of Iran is imminent. Armageddon is definitely still on. In this update I'll provide a view of the news from the week that followed our initial posting above. The hot story from the Middle East is the 15 British marines who were arrested for being armed in Iranian waters. If you thought Muslims were supposed to be bloodthirsty you should see the responses from readers at many of the U.K. news sites! Many demanded that Iran be nuked immediately.

These, of course, are artificially planted; an inexpensive way to influence public opinion. The original story given to the press has some big holes in it, and in today's world of illusion one must learn to be very skeptical of anything you see on the networks. The British story is that six Iranian patrol boats entered Iraqi waters to kidnap the men while a British naval vessel, presumably equipped with surface radar, simply stood by and let it happen. Sounds pretty odd to me. I would expect that Iran, just as they have done for quite some time, will end up behaving in a perfectly civilized and reasonable manner. Regardless of the propaganda, they are not stupid. Now that governments are simply "fronts" for corporate cartels, there is huge pressure to bring out the nukes and finally get some "good" out of them. But no one dares be the first to use a nuclear weapon on human beings. There is only one way this can be done. Someone who already owns nukes must set one off in a way that can be blamed on someone else. Once that occurs, the gullible will be cheering when more nukes are used on the "bad guys," and our whole perception of nuclear weapons will change.

Nukes will suddenly become general-purpose tools, and the Bush Doctrine, that any country can be attacked and destroyed for any reason, will become the new standard in world affairs. This will be America's sad and final legacy to the world. During the past 60 days, top guns from the Bush Administration have done an amazing amount of travel, visiting key foreign capitols around the globe. You can review the itineraries and make a pretty good guess about the various countries that are now signed on to the Armageddon Train without their citizens' knowledge.

Watch For People Who Know Too Much - Operation Bite.

Last year, some insiders who were privy to the plan involving a nuke south of Houston just couldn't keep their mouths shut. The allure of being seen later on as particularly wise or credible is very strong. Before we published, we pretty much knew all the details of the plan. When those details appeared in the writing of, say, a senior staffer at a Washington newspaper, we knew we had found an insider who knew too much. The same went for professional disinformation agents who were pretending to tell the straight dope on the Internet. You know them, the ones who claim that real intelligence people are such blabbermouths that they are happy to tell this guy their in-house secrets so he can spread them all over the net?

Rense.Com, not exactly wedded to truth, refused to link to our report just as they always do, but then a few days ago published similar information, including the date, in a report by Webster Tarpley. This is an intriguing piece, and all the more so because it depends heavily on the main disinformation theme that Iran's learning to play with uranium is some kind of immediate threat to the planet. So the main thrust of it is that the U.S. will be taking out Iran's nuclear power facilities (as if we actually had a right to do so). Of course, we will also destroy a number of military facilities simply because we don't like their attitude!

Sadly, many Americans today will accept this as perfectly reasonable. The Tarpley story becomes even more fanciful when it claims the U.S. expects this operation to cause the people of Iran to revolt, tear their country into smaller pieces, and make them all U.S.-friendly. It also claims that the U.S. will use a few nukes simply to get the job done more efficiently, subliminally suggesting that the people of planet earth no longer object to the use of nuclear weapons on human beings.

However, it makes no attempt at all to explain why a Christian country would launch a nuclear war on a Muslim country on Good Friday. Of course, we believe that a false-flag attack here at home is intended to make it look the other way around; a story that might seem vaguely believable if Iran wasn't staring down the barrel of more firepower than was used in World War Two. This is a disinformation piece serving multiple purposes, and one of those purposes is to counter the report you are reading right now. The Russian story has now been blasted all over the net, far beyond the reach of this website. Many people will remember the Easter date and assume they needn't listen to any other stories that mention Easter.

They have also been assured that when we decimate Iran it will not be a naked grab for Iran's oil reserves by the Houston Cartel. Note that Tarpley names the source of the material, and he is the reporter and not the originator. I would assume that it comes from the same Russian propaganda office that runs "Sorcha Fal." Pysops operators are often overly impressed with their own cleverness. So I had to laugh when I saw that only a few days after we published the Bush reversal that Welch was "biting" at the Al-Qaeda hoax, the Russian team decided to say that the American attack plan was code-named "Bite"! Why are Russians involved in hiding the Armageddon details?

There should be little doubt that they've been fully informed of the real plan and signed off on it. We learned last week that stories about a payment dispute halting Russian work on the Iranian nuclear power project are actually a cover for the fact that Russian workers are being evacuated as quickly as possible. In fact, most of them are already gone. By the strangest coincidence, Chinese President Hu Jintao arrived in Moscow on Monday in what appears to be a rather hastily arranged trip to discuss Armageddon and its aftermath. Should China follow through with its commitment to protect Iran? If not, will Russia offer to make up the loss of oil supplies? They definitely have a lot to talk about! Russia stands to benefit greatly if the Houston-based Oil Cartel can finally get enough adjoining territory together to build the pipelines she needs to get her oil to international markets. A halt to oil shipments from the Persian Gulf means that the value of Russian oil, like everyone else's, will probably double immediately. That means Russia has a pretty good stake in turning Iran over to new owners.

Don't believe any stories you read about Russia opposing the U.S. over the situation in the Middle East. Israel To Annex Syria So many European diplomatic staffers have been telling Syrian officials their country is about to be attacked by Israel that World Net Daily, an unwavering purveyor of Houston's propaganda line, had to run a story downplaying the idea.

In fact, it appears that Israel's role in Armageddon has been upgraded since last year. Last July the Israelis were told to find some excuse for attacking Lebanon. This would set the emotional stage for Gambit, the false-flag nuke, and in the process they were to blow all but a handful of the country's roads and bridges. That would prevent opposing forces from interfering with the small but heavily armed U.S. force that was waiting off the beaches to dash across Lebanon the short way, west to east, and invade Syria through a relatively unprotected border. There is nothing left to bomb in Lebanon, and there are no longer any U.S. troops to use in Syria. All U.S. forces have been reserved for Iran this time.

So it was no surprise when I ran across a planted story on AFP* with the usual lack of names or confirmation, claiming that Israel was afraid that Syria was about to attack THEM. Why? No less than four imaginary military and government officials were claiming that "in recent months Syria has deployed hundreds, possibly thousands, of medium- and long-range rockets along the border with Israel." So at this point, all the Israelis have to do is dynamite someone's barn, and off they go on the road to Damascus. They have just completed war games on the Golan Heights, the most direct invasion route into Syria. * AFP is Agence France-Presse, oldest wire service on the planet, and like virtually all media these days, they print whatever they're told.

Germany A Target?

An accomplished disinformation agent appeared in Internet forums last week claiming that European military and intel people were all abuzz over the fact that Germany was to be the site of the next 9-11, and soon. The writing was very typical of similar fakes in the past. The most likely purpose is to mask heightened readiness status for U.S. forces in Germany. If you are in Germany and you accept the fake-out, you would assume any activity you see is because of increased fears of terrorism (white hat or black hat). Otherwise you might catch on that the Americans are preparing for heavy troop movements from Germany into Iran once a beachhead is established. Forces currently positioned for the attack on Iran are woefully short of ground troops and armor. Much more will be needed, if only to hold the oil fields while the population withers away from radiation sickness. If this information reaches anyone in Germany, perhaps they will let us know what they are seeing. Iran Surrounded, Censorship Begins How many aircraft carriers do you need to park side-by-side to scare off terrorists?

On Wednesday, March 21st, the P/R office aboard the U.S. aircraft carrier John C. Stennis reported that the ship had hosted a visit by the captain of the French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle, which had just joined Stennis off Iran's southern coast. This was posted on two websites, Navy News Stand and Military Family Network. It would have gone unnoticed except that Debka Files picked it up and ran it the following day, creating significant interest on the net. Debka Files is a classic disinformation shop registered in Israel, but nonetheless fairly popular as a source of news from the Middle East. While they make the standard claim of having their tentacles into all sorts of unnamed intelligence circles, they simply glean their news from a large host of standard news sources and then add a heavy-handed spin of their own. Nonetheless, if you simply take the headlines and ignore the rest you can get a good grasp of the day's key stories related to the Middle East. Or at least the ones that the psyops people want you to see.

The De Gaulle story was spectacular because no one had imagined that another Carrier Battle Group would join the ring of steel that now threatens Iran. Although Debka was trying to play the story down by putting a reverse spin on it, they must have been told right away that this was news that was not supposed to get out. They quickly killed the report and stuffed the text into fine print in a different article. Now you would never know it is there. The arrival of a third carrier was also spiked on U.S. wire services. A search on Google News revealed that only one newspaper was nimble enough to pick it up, the small Reno Gazette.

The Chinese have 40,000 people involved in controlling the Internet. We get by with perhaps a quarter of that number and pull double duty: both inserting internal propaganda into every nook and cranny, and censoring valid news at the same. Why was the story stopped? Because it encouraged the reader to wonder just how many carrier battle groups there actually are off the Iranian coast. The annihilation of Iran will probably be dramatized as a knee-jerk, spur of the moment craziness. People are not supposed to wonder, after the fact, that all the pieces were in place long before the event.

The Eisenhower is in the Persian Gulf itself, so that makes three carrier groups plus the Expeditionary Strike Group centered around the Boxer. A second amphibious assault carrier, Bataan, is only a few days to the southwest. That makes five carriers all gathered in one tiny spot on the globe. Boxer, a carrier that uses helicopters and landing craft to put troops ashore, ran invasion exercises on beaches in India just before her recent arrival south of Iran. A fourth U.S. carrier, the Nimitz, cut short a refitting in San Diego not long ago for a rushed deployment to the Gulf. I thought she might be arriving also, but apparently this was not practical. A check of the amazing San Diego webcam shows her still at the dock today. Nimitz would be an appropriate replacement for Eisenhower which could easily be sunk in the first minutes of war.

The Persian Gulf is a very confined space, and Eisenhower faces Iranian anti-ship missiles at virtually point-blank range. Israel's Leaders Agree to Risk Tel-Aviv To me, the biggest news this last week was the answer to a puzzle. We know that last year the Armageddon Plot ran into a Chinese missile that stopped the whole thing in its tracks. Despite the propaganda drums that are trying to persuade everyone there is a huge crisis in the Persian Gulf right now, virtually nothing has happened in the Middle East since the August failure, and there certainly is no crisis.

The way I saw it last fall, Houston had to secretly find and disable the nuclear-tipped missile aimed at Tel-Aviv, or work some kind of side deal with the Chinese, guaranteeing that their oil contracts with Iran would still be honored after a takeover. There was never any indication of either of these actually happening, and I honestly expected that the Middle East would stay quiet for a long time. However, we heard from our RS on Cheney that Houston is desperate, and I guess they must be since we are off to war again. But what about the damned missile? This question was finally answered in news reported from Israel. In a March 18th Haaretz.Com article titled "U.S., IDF hold joint exercise on response to nuclear attack" we learn that the two countries have simply decided to gamble that incoming nukes can be shot down before Tel-Aviv vanishes in a nuclear fireball. U.S. anti-missile batteries and their sister units in the I.D.F. set up their communication links last week to mesh their computers together for maximum effect.

The I.D.F. will use the older Patriot PAC-2 system and their new "Arrow" system, apparently rushed to completion after last year's discovery. The U.S. is described as "testing" a new Patriot PAC-3 battery, along with something called a Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system. The latter name has a sound of desperation to it, like something you might try when all else has failed. Information is that it was designed for the lumbering SCUDs of the original Gulf War. It's a nasty situation since there may be more incoming nukes than the one whose photo was handed to Bush last year.

If China continues to protect her business partner, these will be modern, Russian designed systems, perhaps even a version of the Sunburn which is frightening indeed. New missiles are designed with the other side's defenses in mind, and they come very, very fast. In the long run, it's a contest between two opposing design and programming teams who've never actually fought except on paper. Perhaps Israel's government has concluded that they are "feeling lucky" this year since they weren't lynched after the Lebanon debacle. However, they are going through the motions to demonstrate that they care about their population.

The Home Front Command held a nationwide drill last week simulating incoming missiles that could cause such things as a "mass casualty event" in Tel-Aviv. News releases specifically referred to missiles rather than rockets, a serious difference. Sirens were sounded throughout central and southern Israel to kick off the drill. When Israelis hear the sirens next time, they will have just enough time to jump into the nearest ditch and say a quick prayer. Update: Good Friday, April 6, 2007 This update, which may be the last before the big event, returns to reversed speech as the information source, with examples gathered during the last week all confirming that an Easter Surprise is still in the works.

Propaganda media have been deluged with stories suggesting the attack on Iran will not come until the end of April and that it will be limited to a strike on the civilian nuclear power program. Most cite the usual "anonymous sources" which clearly separates official disinformation from actual news. Besides creating confusion, there is an obvious benefit. Experts say Iran's nuclear power program could produce a nuclear bomb by the year 2015 if they went all out. But Houston is pushing stories that are becoming increasingly hysterical, with a working bomb available next year, or even right now. These stories provide a handy excuse for the fact that military force is being concentrated for an attack. Then, when the false-flag trigger event occurs, fewer people will wonder that our massive and overwhelming response was already in place.

No doubt you have noticed the rise in gasoline prices over the last month or so. They have been increasing at twice the normal seasonal rate, with no increase in demand or restriction in supply to account for the rise. Once again we are seeing pre-event hoarding as refiners and distributors anticipate the disruption in supply that war will bring. The prompt return of the 15 U.K. sailors and marines was a definite coup on the part of Iran. Blair also benefited by appearing statesman-like and RS showed that as a politician he appreciated this. However, my suspicion that his administration might have engineered the event was apparently wrong. Blair was definitely caught by surprise and actually felt powerless to correct a situation which he felt was simply "madness." While many "news" sources are implying that behind the scenes efforts secured the release, RS on Blair indicated he was willing to let the situation continue for at least another week, at which point we believe it would have been submerged by much more critical matters. My friend Strider has been monitoring the U.S. Secretary of Defense and I just received a CD with huge number of reversals. Naturally, our focus is on finding the location of the false-flag event, which we expect to be the "next 9-11" that will kick off the attack on Iran. Unfortunately, SecDef Gates does a pretty good job of concentrating on the topic at hand, which lately has been the military's need for a great deal more funding. We also learned that he wants to begin a forced draft and we should begin seeing news articles hyping this.

The U.S. cannot handle a long term occupation of the entire Middle East for the Houston Oil Cartel with the manpower currently available. In a March 22nd press briefing he was asked about the Nimitz carrier group which was preparing for redeployment to the Persian Gulf, and if this meant an increase in the number of carriers that would be stationed there. His response that Nimitz was a routine replacement was not denied by the RS, but a reversal clearly stated that deployments were not over, and a reference to "blowing out Florida" was pretty interesting. I had received a note around this same time from a supporter in Florida saying that during the hours of darkness air bases near Pensacola were launching aircraft continuously, about one a minute. Obviously, the naval build up has now been augmented by a huge number of land-based aircraft, and the unprecedented massing of firepower makes it clear that the total destruction of Iran and the seizure of its oil reserves is the actual objective and not simply an attack on a few facilities. Gates has also told reporters and the Congress that getting involved in another war would mean that our military would have to stay in Afghanistan and Iraq for a much longer period of time.
 

night driver

ESFP adrift in INTJ sea
John, her is where you n he lost me:

1) During the winter of 2005-6 the White House began to implement a plan known as Gambit, which involved the use of a portable Russian nuke to create a false-flag detonation at the oil terminal adjacent to Texas City, Texas. It is not known who actually purchased the nuke, but its arrival in Galveston Bay by ship was easily documented in RS. Tony Blair signed on to the Gambit plan for the U.K. in late November or early December.

The attack was scheduled for the 2006 Easter weekend, to give the vital impression of a sick religious motivation.

2) During February 2006, reversed speech practitioners found so many administration members thinking about Gambit that virtually all the details of the plan were revealed. In March, Ken-Welch.Com published an extensive report, including many of the speech reversals, and warned whoever would listen that the Easter Surprise was on the way.


I'm not sure I know of ONE reputable source anywhere that uses Reverse Speach as their means of gaining information.....
 
Last edited:

bubblehead

Inactive
Whatever....


"the United States Navy was sufficiently corrupted..."

Screw the author for this statement, and anyone who thinks this is true.
 

Kadee

Inactive
Ken Welch seems quite obsessed with "reversed speech" :lkick:

Take a look around his website. This clown has taken the hate America first philosophy to a whole new level. And by the way, don't miss the please donate instructions to keep his good work going. If you donate you can even get into his special section to "look over" his shoulder, as he desiminates all that reverse speech. What a hoot!

At least he's working, earning a living.......:lkick:

http://www.ken-welch.com/Central.html
 

JohnGaltfla

#NeverTrump
Ken Welch seems quite obsessed with "reversed speech" :lkick:

Take a look around his website. This clown has taken the hate America first philosophy to a whole new level. And by the way, don't miss the please donate instructions to keep his good work going. If you donate you can even get into his special section to "look over" his shoulder, as he desiminates all that reverse speech. What a hoot!

At least he's working, earning a living.......:lkick:

http://www.ken-welch.com/Central.html

Like I said, :kk2:

But it does give you some insight that those America haters, like the current majority in Congress, are viewed as "allies" by the Iranians. Food for thought......
 

Kadee

Inactive
Like I said, :kk2:

But it does give you some insight that those America haters, like the current majority in Congress, are viewed as "allies" by the Iranians. Food for thought......

Did you read the section on how to determine reversed speech. At the end he reminds the reader they have the opportunity to "get in on the ground floor" This guy is unbelievable, but his site sure is entertaining. :lkick:

Oh, I totally agree about Congress being Iranian allies.

Thanks for linking the original story John. I appreciate the chance to do a little checking on some of these writers. This one kept me thoroughly entertained this morning.
 
=

<B><font size=+1 color=red><center>Nuclear Armageddon: The Countdown </font></b></center>

<center>:shk:

Alas... All this time, I have been under the impression
that this was a 'hard news' thread; editorials covering
the hard news - and hopefully, commentary (respondses)
to said 'hard news'. :hmm: What I have just scanned, I
could only relate to something Soroha Faal would write</center>
 
=




<b><center>Iran is Blamed for Killing 30 of British Soldiers</b>

April 08, 2007
Sunday Express
Jason Groves and Kirsty Buchanan
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/3876 </center>
The Sunday Express today reveals the bloody truth of Iran’s proxy war against Britain: it is the single biggest cause of combat deaths in southern Iraq. Improvised explosive devices and roadside bombs smuggled over the border into southern Iraq have claimed the young lives of half those Britons killed in action in the past two years.

Defence analysts warn that hardliners in Tehran are now bankrolling both Shi’ite and Sunni militias in the hopes of creating chaos in southern Iraq and a power vacuum that Iran will fill once British troops pull out.

Since the 2003 invasion the UK death toll has reached 140. Almost half of those, 66, have occurred in the last two years – the date from which Iranian hardliners began exporting their deadly knowledge to Basra’s militia.

Research by the Sunday Express reveals that since 2005 almost 50 per cent of all British deaths in Iraq have been caused by explosive devices made in Tehran – claiming the lives of 30 servicemen and women.

Iranian money and deadly know-how is also believed to be responsible for a third of all American combat deaths – making it the second biggest killer in northern Iraq behind hostile fire.

As the war of words between the UK and Iran intensified in the wake of the British hostage crisis, four more families were today struggling to come to terms with loss after an Iranian-made bomb hit a Warrior patrol vehicle on the outskirts of Basra.

The slaying came the day after gloating Iranian President Ahmadinejad announced the return of 15 British captives as an Easter “gift”.

His gesture was a propaganda coup for Tehran and a humiliation for Britain but relief over the captives’ safe return was overwhelmed by fury over Iran’s latest butchery in Basra.

Tony Blair stopped short of pointing the finger at Tehran for the Warrior ambush but accused the regime of “financing, arming and supporting” attacks on US and UK troops.

Meanwhile, a leading Iranian dissident in exile in London last night warned Tony Blair that Tehran’s handling of the British hostage crisis should serve as a “wake-up call” to Ministers.

Dr Mehrdad Khonsari said: “I don’t think people in this country are aware of the role Iran has played in the death of British soldiers in roadside bombs. It includes instigating attacks and supplying intelligence and the equipment for bombs, either directly through the Republican Guard or through trained elements in the militias.

“Iran wants to see Britain and the US leave Iraq with a bloody nose – they don’t want dialogue for an honourable departure.

“When the US first invaded, Iran had very little intelligence in Iraq. Now they have thousands of people operating in Baghdad, in the south and in Kurdistan. If Bush is to achieve anything in Iraq he has to combat the influence of Iran.”

Dr Khonsari said the seizure of British sailors had been used to test Western reaction to provocation – with Tehran likely to learn lessons for use in the growing stand-off over their nuclear programme. He said hardliners would almost certainly try to carry out further stunts.
 
=




<B><center>U.S. Planned an Iran 'Air' Scare</b>

April 08, 2007
New York Post
Christine Field
http://www.nypost.com/seven/0408200..._iran_air_scare_worldnews_christine_field.htm </center>
British authorities turned down an offer by the Pentagon to have warplanes fly over strategic Iranian bases during the tense hostage standoff, preferring a diplomatic route instead, a London newspaper said yesterday. But a surprise appeal by the pope, who wrote a letter to Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on the same day the captives were released, was a welcome, if unexpected, intervention, according to reports in The Guardian.

The Vatican confirmed yesterday that Pope Benedict XVI had intervened in the hostage crisis, appealing to the Iranian leader to do what he could to ensure the British sailors and marines were "reunited with their families in time for Easter."

In the letter, sent just hours before the sailors were freed, Benedict said the group's release would be seen by the international community as a "significant religious gesture of goodwill by the Iranian people."

While it remains unclear what part the holy plea played in securing an end to the tensions, Iran's anti-Western President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad later held a two-hour press conference in which he announced the captives would be released as an "Easter gift to the British people."

In the first days after the illegal March 23 seizure of the service personnel in Iraqi waters, when Tehran remained cagey about the group's whereabouts, U.S. officials offered to take military action, The Guardian reported.

A series of options was considered, including one in which U.S. combat aircraft would launch aggressive patrols over Iranian Revolutionary Guard bases.

But the offer was declined by the British, who told their U.S. counterparts they could calm tensions by butting out and scaling down military exercises in the Persian Gulf, to make them "less confrontational."

A second aircraft carrier was positioned off Iran's coast just three days before the sailors' capture, on orders from President Bush to put pressure on Tehran after allegations surfaced of Iranian aid to Iraqi militia.

The British government also reportedly asked the United States to tone down its anti-Iran rhetoric during the two-week impasse.

But the United States may have played a more subdued role in resolving the deadlock, with the Tuesday release of Jalal Sharafi, a suspected member of Iran's Quds Force, which supports terrorist Shiite militias inside Iraq.

The United States had also allowed the Red Cross to visit five other suspected Iranian Quds members, who were captured inside Iraq by American forces.

The 15 sailors and marines, who have taken flak for their ready acquiescence to their captors' demands, have begun two weeks' service leave to be with their families and recuperate.


They will be allowed to sell their stories to the media, in a break with usual rules, Britain's Defense Ministry said yesterday.

Media reports have said they could earn as much as $500,000 among them.
 
=





<B><center>Iran Acquires Russian-made Air Defense and Anti-tank Systems</b>

April 07, 2007
DEBKAfile Exclusive
DEBKAfile
http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=4033 </center>
The Pantsyr 1 (known in the West as SA-19 GRISOM) system is designed to engage aerial targets, including missiles; the Khrizantema (9M123), to strike advancing tank columns at long range and destroy bunkers.

Our military sources report that the two weapons systems combined are built to repel advancing armored units while at the same striking helicopter commando drops behind their lines. A third recently-delivered Russian system, the TOR M1, has been put into service by the Revolutionary Guards to protect nuclear and other strategic sites against missile attack, including cruise missiles.

The Israeli military fears Moscow is also planning to supply Syria and Hizballah with the sophisticated SA-9 and 9M123. DEBKAfile’s military sources say that the two weapons in Syrian hands could seriously impair Israeli tank and helicopter movements and hit IDF positions and command posts deep inside the Golan.

Col. Yury Solovyov, commander of Russia’s Air Defense Forces Special Command, told Novosti news agency Friday, April 6, that Iran’s air defense system is strong enough to repel a US strike.

“Currently Iran has our defense missile systems which are capable of tackling US combat aircraft,” he said. “Iran also has French and other countries’ defense systems.”

Earlier, Russian Dept FM Alexander Losyukov stated that no US attack on Iran is expected in the coming days, contradicting a previous quote by Novosti from Russian intelligence officials who predicted a US missile strike against Iran, codenamed Operation Bite, at 4:00 a.m. April 6. Other Russian sources speak of an April attack.

The Pantsyr 1 is a radar command-guided, two-stage surface-to-air missile battery mounted on a 2S6 integrated air defense system, which is fitted with two banks of four missiles in blocks of two. Each can be independently elevated vertically. The weapon can engage aerial targets moving at a maximum speed of 500 meters per second at altitudes ranging from 15 to 3,500 meters. Its effective range is 2..4 to 8 km. A high-explosive fragmentation warhead is activated within 5 metes from target with a kill probability of 70%.

The Khrizantema’s supersonic missiles shoot at a speed of 400 meters per second to hit moving targets, including armored vehicles, at a distance of 6 km. This weapon can pierce 1,200mm of steel armor – even explosive reactor armor (ERA) - making both the US Abrams and Israeli Chariot tanks vulnerable. It can also destroy bunkers and engage low-flying helicopters. The Khrizantema uniquely features two guidance modes - automatic by roof-mounted radar, and semi-automatic by a laser beam rider.
 
=





<B><center>Iran Bars Iraq PM from its Air Space </b>

April 08, 2007
Reuters
Ahmed Rasheed
http://uk.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUKKIM83331020070408?feedType=RSS </center>
BAGHDAD -- Iran refused to allow a plane carrying Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki on a trip to Asia to cross its air space overnight, a senior adviser to the Iraqi leader said on Sunday.

Sadiq al-Rikabi, who is accompanying Maliki on the trip to Japan and South Korea, said the prime minister's plane entered Iranian air space at about 8:30 p.m. on Saturday.

"Suddenly the Iranian aviation authorities ordered the pilot to go back," Rikabi said.

"We were obliged to fly to Dubai where we stayed for more than three hours to file a new (flight) plan," he said by telephone from Bangkok, where the plane was just about to depart for Tokyo.

Rikabi said it was unclear why Iran had barred Maliki's plane from crossing its territory.

Asked about the reports, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini implied Maliki's plane may have faced an issue over permission to fly across Iran but said it was not an unusual problem.

"Permission for Maliki's flight is a normal issue. All flights need permission," he told a weekly news conference in Tehran, without giving further details.

Iraq's U.S.-backed government has often had to tread a delicate path in trying to maintain good relations with both Iran, its neighbour to the east, and the United States.

Maliki, a Shi'ite, visited Tehran last September to urge Iran not to interfere in Iraq. President Jalal Talabani, a Kurd, made an official trip to Tehran in November.

Washington accuses Shi'ite Iran of stoking violence in Iraq and in January detained five men it says were linked to Iran's Revolutionary Guards and backing militants. Iran insists they are diplomats, wants them freed and has requested access.

Iraq's foreign minister said last week the Iraqi government was trying to secure the release of the five Iranians, who were detained by U.S. forces during a raid on an Iranian government office in the northern Iraqi city of Arbil on January 11.

An Iranian diplomat freed two months after being kidnapped in Baghdad by gunmen wearing Iraqi army uniforms has said he was tortured by U.S. forces while in captivity, Iran's Fars News Agency reported on Saturday.

Iran has previously blamed the U.S. military for his abduction but U.S. officials had denied any role. On Saturday the U.S. military again denied playing any part in kidnapping the diplomat, or in his alleged torture. Iraq has said it did not know who had snatched the diplomat.

Maliki is seeking support for rebuilding his war-devastated country on the trip to Japan and South Korea.

(Additional reporting by Tehran bureau)
 

skip1

Membership Revoked
You Are Right ON Target

accidental my bleeding ass.


there will be NOTHING accidental about the Iran Campaign when it happens.

Hell YEAH there will be more kidnappings.

It worked ONCE.

They ain't STOOOOOPID....

Do what works until it don't work anymore.......


Iran Is At War With The US and UK


Posted by AJStrata on April 8th, 2007

If there is any doubt Iran is actively at war with the US and UK one only needs to look at (Click on link to read article http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/3876 ) the source of the UK deaths in Iraq to find a clear answer:

THE Sunday Express today reveals the bloody truth of Iran’s proxy war against Britain: it is the single biggest cause of combat deaths in southern Iraq.

Improvised explosive devices and roadside bombs smuggled over the border into southern Iraq have claimed the young lives of half those Britons killed in action in the past two years.



Research by the Sunday Express reveals that since 2005 almost 50 per cent of all British deaths in Iraq have been caused by explosive devices made in Tehran – claiming the lives of 30 servicemen and women.

One question for all the peace activists and anti-US groups out there. Is there much of a difference between a landmine and an IED? Not really. So Iran should be the top of everyone’s list of countries which need to be sanctioned for human rights abuses. But it seems as long as the humans whose rights are being abused are Americans or their allies their is no harm. Iran is killing our people and a response is required before they get too used to the habit.


http://www.strata-sphere.com/blog/
 
=




<B><center>Pride of British fleet takes a body blow</b>

<i>The global opinion is that Iran has played Tony Blair's Government and the military for fools, write Sarah Baxter, Michael Smith and David Cracknell</i>

------------------------------------------------------------------------

April 09, 2007
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21524844-2703,00.html </center>
IN his crisply ironed uniform, Simon Massey described how he thought he was going to die. His mother Carol and sister Hannah listened with quiet pride as he recalled his ordeal: "It was going through my head I was never going to see my family again."

After he was seized by Iranian Revolutionary Guards, Massey was blindfolded and flown to Tehran with his hands tied behind his back with plastic cable. The most terrifying moment came when he was lined up against the wall with his crewmates and "everybody's imagination started going".

One of the crew members vomited. Unable to see through their blindfolds, the other British captives feared his throat was being cut. Behind them, they heard weapons being cocked. "It was just crazy, we were sat there with our heads up against the wall, still blindfolded and handcuffed, and I just thought, that was it, that was going to be it for the 15 of us."

Massey and his crewmates continued to suffer during their imprisonment. They spent days in isolation in small, stone cells and were interrogated at night. Massey, 22, was held in solitary confinement for eight days, although he managed to communicate with a fellow seaman by tapping with his knuckles in Morse code.

"Little things like that got us through," he said, but he admitted that on day nine he broke down before recovering his composure. As we now know, the smug boast of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that the captured sailors and marines were shown the virtues of "Islamic hospitality" during their 14 days in captivity was a sinister mockery of the truth.

Faye Turney, the only woman on board, was kept apart from the rest of the crew and was the first to be singled out for propaganda purposes. She was told that all the others had been freed except her, before she was paraded in a hijab and began apologising for Britain's alleged misbehaviour. The other sailors and marines were told they had to confess to trespassing in Iranian waters in the Shatt al-Arab river or face seven years in jail.

The emotional and psychological intimidation was tough, but certainly not the worst in the history of warfare - nor dissimilar to the experience of some Iraqi and Afghan prisoners of coalition forces in the Middle East. And as some commentators noted, their treatment was positively mild compared with those abused by US forces in Abu Ghraib two years ago.

Asked whether he and his comrades had undergone a mock execution, Massey replied: "It's a fine line to draw."

Nothing has proved to be simple in this sorry tale of bungling and misadventure, in which the Iranians played the British Government and military for fools.

Whether Ahmadinejad, circus master of the bizarre hostage spectacle, has won the lasting propaganda victory he seemed so confident of last week is another matter. The deaths of four servicemen, including two women, in Basra on Thursday following the explosion of a massive bomb under their vehicle, underscored the brutal nature of the conflict in which Britain is engaged and refocused attention on Iran's support for terrorism.

Despite the occasionally farcical nature of the crisis, the image of British servicemen thanking Ahmadinejad for his gracious treatment and asking for forgiveness for "apparently" trespassing will not be easy to erase, particularly in the Middle East. As one Iranian commentator said mockingly: "Britannia really doesn't rule the waves any more." The British showed themselves to be "Marmite-eating surrender monkeys", said Michael Rubin, the American neoconservative and an Iran analyst. Others observed that the flowery "goody bags of dishonour" containing Persian sweets, pistachio nuts, CDs and vases, with which the servicemen returned, seemed designed to emphasise their wimpishness.

Britain's Ministry of Defence appeared happy enough with the way the 15 conducted themselves. Whitehall sources pointed out that they were not prisoners of war and were thus not expected simply to supply their "name, rank, serial number and date of birth" - the "big four" mythologised in war films.

Instead, they followed rules for "conduct in capture" under which a British military source stated: "It is fine to tell your captors roughly what they want to hear - as long as you don't give away anything classified, put anyone's life in danger or breach operational security."

John Nichol, the former RAF navigator who was badly beaten by the Iraqis after being shot down during the 1991 Gulf War, said the "big four" went out of the window after he, John Peters, his pilot, and a number of SAS men were captured and tortured. "Until you have been there, you have absolutely no idea," Nichol said. "Everyone in these circumstances fights a very personal battle for their safety."

It was only when the freed servicemen headed home from Iran on Thursday that they learnt that the world had been treated to photographs of them gaily eating and playing chess during their second week in captivity. "I understand Faye's been getting a lot of stick for smoking," Massey said. "When we got back and found out this was all the footage people were seeing ... it makes you angry."

Yet the contrast between the picture of the seamen in Iran waving like a pack of wannabe reality TV stars upon learning of their release and the sober image of them back on the tarmac in Britain in uniform suggests that they - or at least the ministry - may have had an inkling that they had crossed the "fine line" between maintaining their dignity and securing their freedom.

Infuriated by the disappearance of Ali Reza Asgari, a former commander of the elite Quds force in Lebanon, and by the Americans' capture of five members of that unit in Arbil, northern Iraq, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards made sure the seizure of the British sailors and marines was a well-planned affair.

In a similar incident in 2004, British seamen were taken to Tehran, blindfolded, paraded on television and subjected to mock executions. Despite this, the British Navy was dismally unprepared when eight fast boats belonging to the Iranian Revolutionary Guards appeared to come out of nowhere and seized the 15.

HMS Cornwall, the mother ship, was static in the water 18km away when the 15 were grabbed. A Lynx helicopter, which was supposed to be watching over the servicemen, had also moved out of position, allegedly because it did not have enough fuel. The sailors had only a few pistols between them.

The Iranians quickly overwhelmed the British seamen. "They rammed our boats and trained their heavy machineguns, RPGs and weapons on us," said Captain Chris Air, the marine in charge, on his return last week. "It was at this point that we realised that had we resisted, there would have been a major fight ... We made a conscious decision not to engage the Iranians and do what they asked."

The ease of their capture led critics to scoff that the pride of the navy had surrendered first and apologised later. Stung by the jibes, one senior defence official said it was easy for armchair warriors to sound off, but the servicemen's instructions "were not to start a war with Iran".

Admiral Jonathon Band, the first sea lord who heads the navy, said: "I would not agree at all that it was not our finest hour." But he added: "We will look at the equipment, we will look at the procedures, we will look at the things that happened. We certainly wouldn't want this to happen again."

For British Prime Minister Tony Blair, the hostage crisis was an unwelcome test of nerves and diplomacy. He feared the conflict could drag on for months, overshadowing his final months in office. It was particularly embarrassing that Britain appeared to have been singled out for retaliation over the Americans' actions against Iran in Iraq. Had the nation sunk so low that it was now the weak link in the coalition's armour?

In the first few days of the crisis, it was difficult to establish meaningful contact with Tehran because of the new year holiday in Iran. But the Saturday before last, Whitehall received and responded to a diplomatic letter from the Iranians - seen as a possible olive branch.

The Foreign Office's return "note verbale" was delivered to Tehran via the British embassy. It was stamped with an official government seal and restated London's demands for the return of the hostages and their equipment, but is understood to have promised that Iranian waters would be respected.

The Foreign Office did not get a reply from Tehran but early last week there was a further encouraging sign from the Iranians.

Ministers were pleasantly surprised and relieved when Ali Larijani, Iran's chief international negotiator, agreed to appear on Channel Four television news last Monday. "We felt it was like the 'official response' to the letter we sent back to Tehran through channels last weekend," said a senior Foreign Office source.

The following morning, British officials met in the basement of the Cabinet Office. The meeting was chaired by Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett and attended by Nigel Sheinwald, Blair's foreign policy adviser. The Larijani interview had raised hopes, but there was confusion over whether Iran would release Turney.

Sheinwald went on to speak directly to Larijani by telephone on Tuesday evening. "It was the first encouraging sign that the Iranians wanted to play ball," said a senior government adviser. The 53-year-old foreign policy adviser is an experienced diplomat noted for his deft touch. During the conversation with Larijani, Sheinwald restated the British Government's position that it wanted the seamen released immediately and that they had not strayed into Iranian waters. There was, insist government officials, no talk of any concessions, an apology or a deal.

The next day, Ahmadinejad held a rambling two-hour press conference at which he suddenly announced that the captives would be freed as an "Easter gift to the British people".

The sailors' freedom was rapidly spun as a victory for diplomacy. "Silver lining is not the right word, but if there is anything to come out of this crisis, it is that we have opened new lines of communications with the Iranians," said a senior government source.

In parts of Washington it was seen differently. John Bolton, former US ambassador to the UN, was appalled. "The Iranians learnt that if you poke people in the eye, they're happy when you stop," he said.

There is circumstantial evidence that a deal was struck, despite denials. "I hope we didn't negotiate with them because if we did, it is a mistake," Bolton said.

The first sign of a possible quid pro quo came when Jalal Sharafi, an Iranian diplomat and suspected member of the Quds force held in Iraq - purportedly by an insurgent group - was released last Tuesday. Some US sources assert that he was in the joint custody of the Iraqi Government and Americans at the time.

According to one report, Shafari was released at the urging of the White House over the objections of some US military commanders.

US Defence Secretary Robert Gates went on to say that US and Iraqi officials hoped to be able to give "some kind of Iranian access" to the five Iranian prisoners captured by US forces in the northern city of Irbil in January.

He denied they would be released, but speculation persists that they may be freed before Condoleezza Rice, the US Secretary of State, heads to Baghdad this month for regional talks on Iraq's future.

The Sunday Times
 

skip1

Membership Revoked
Earth Calling MARS!!!!

I wish to thank the Tehran Globe for the link to this "story". I report, we all :kk2: :kk2: :kk2: Wow. What an unbelievable story...enjoy it, but on an empty stomach please. JG


Nuclear Armageddon: The Countdown

News Release Ken Welch.

Unbelievable as it seems, we face another year in which the imminent threat of Nuclear War for corporate profit outweighs all other issues. It is the last thing I expected, and the last thing I wanted to be reporting on. Worse yet, I have no reason to believe we can stop it this time. Houston, the only name ever given for the Oil Cartel that owns and operates the U.S. Government, refuses to give up it's 20-year effort to seize all remaining Middle East oil reserves, using taxpayer money and disposable soldiers.

They also have no qualms about using nukes to do the job, since they don't actually have to pay for them. Now that governments are simply "fronts" for corporate cartels, there is huge pressure to bring out the nukes and finally get some "good" out of them. At this point I should pause to give you essential background for this story. A nuclear blast in friendly territory, blamed on Iran and used as an excuse for nuclear war is a big pill to swallow. But this is, after all, the THIRD time these clowns have tried this stunt so most visitors to this site already have a pretty good grasp of the scenario. It is already known that the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan was planned long before 9-11. The made-for-television 9-11 extravaganza was actually used to prepare for the invasion of Iraq. When the U.S. finally did invade Iraq, many Americans who realized that the logic was wrong still consoled themselves with the idea that their government was actually moving to secure future supplies of oil for their benefit. Was there any benefit? No. Perhaps in the future? No. The U.S. government is not in the oil business. It doesn't pump, buy, sell or distribute petroleum products. Corporations do that. In Iraq today, after great sacrifice of lives and treasure, U.S. and other multinational corporations now have the opportunity to control and harvest that country's oil reserves. They will profit handsomely. You will not. You will, however, be asked to pay the bill.

The objective, which has been in the works for at least two decades, is to change the ownership of the entire non-allied Middle East, under the guise of religious warfare. After all, there must be some crazy reason why those Arab lunatics are allegedly so committed to "destroying our freedoms" while the Bush Neocon/Zionists pass law after law to actually take our freedoms and money away! As you can see, Iran is now pinned on both sides by Cartel-controlled forces, and is the remaining piece that needs to fall to create a solid block of Cartel-controlled territory from east to west. There is also the issue of immensely valuable pipelines that could route Russian oil all the way to the terminal at Haifa. In addition, if Syria is also destroyed or occupied, it would appear that our "Middle East problems" would reach a final solution.

You can also see that Iran is huge. The U.S. defense budget, after decades of corporate looting, simply cannot support enough troops and equipment to invade and occupy Iran in a conventional manner. Nuclear weapons must be used, and in sufficient quantity to completely destroy Iran's ability to resist invasion and occupation. The only barrier to this is the simple fact that the first country to use a nuke will be condemned by the whole world and ostracized forever. The obvious solution is to fake a nuclear attack, blame it on anyone you wish, and then use all the nukes you want.

Believe it or not, this has already been hard-coded into U.S. law, with Iran being the pre-designated target for nuclear devastation regardless of where the original nuke actually comes from! It could be a sneak attack by anyone, but Iran would still be destroyed, like with 9/11, Binladen/Al-Qaeda/Taliban/Iraq were blamed. Clearly the current owners of Iranian oil reserves are the only target the U.S.
is lusting to nuke. When you read this, keep in mind that Valerie Plame revealed the Niger paper fabrications by the Bush/Mossad administration and stopped their plans to plant WMDs in Iraq.

That's why a disgusted Bush/Cheney leaked her name so that she could foil any future such plans.

The Armageddon Time Line:

1) During the winter of 2005-6 the White House began to implement a plan known as Gambit, which involved the use of a portable Russian nuke to create a false-flag detonation at the oil terminal adjacent to Texas City, Texas. It is not known who actually purchased the nuke, but its arrival in Galveston Bay by ship was easily documented in RS. Tony Blair signed on to the Gambit plan for the U.K. in late November or early December.

The attack was scheduled for the 2006 Easter weekend, to give the vital impression of a sick religious motivation.

2) During February 2006, reversed speech practitioners found so many administration members thinking about Gambit that virtually all the details of the plan were revealed. In March, Ken-Welch.Com published an extensive report, including many of the speech reversals, and warned whoever would listen that the Easter Surprise was on the way.

3) The Texas City nuke was canceled with only a few days left to go before it was to light up the sky south of Houston. Since thousands of Internet users knew all the details in advance, there was really no other option. Reversed speech on Junior during the rest of April made it clear that it was the discovery of the plan via reversed speech which had led to it's cancellation. The Gambit device was removed and shipped to the Mediterranean.

4) During May we discovered a second part of the Gambit operation. In mid-April, when everyone would otherwise have been distracted by the Easter Surprise, the U.S. placed a nuclear weapons launcher in orbit, in clear violation of international law. An orbital launcher has no defensive value because it can be on the wrong side of the world when you need it. As a surprise offensive weapon it is superb. Since Junior was already making it clear that Iran was the next target, there was no question that nukes falling straight down over Iran were the intended follow-on to the Easter Surprise. When enough substantiating RS had been gathered, Ken-Welch.com published the orbital nuke report in June, the month that was originally chosen for the destruction of Iran.

5) During July we took a break and almost missed the fact that the Gambit plan had been recycled. All eyes were on the butchery taking place in Lebanon, with no one realizing the Israeli government had been bribed or otherwise coerced into providing an expensive stage for the next nuclear surprise. A Washington visit by Tony Blair, with speeches on July 28 revealing that the missing nuke would be used (presumably on Israeli soil this time) to trigger Armageddon seven days later. This was not found until several days had already gone by, and we published our Nuclear War Warning only two days ahead of the event.

6) The Armageddon Plot failed with the world being totally unaware of it's existence. The month of August was filled with grim meetings everywhere and Junior looked shaken and ill. RS revealed that the failure was earthshaking, and that two key events were responsible. First, something went wrong with the missile that was to launch the baby nuke into Israel, from a ship or a sub offshore. That the United States Navy was sufficiently corrupted to soil its honor with this phase of the operation (as they apparently did with 9-11), yet failed in some way, was clear. Second and far far worse, a roll of film was delivered, clearly showing a nuclear tipped Chinese missile set up within striking distance of Tel-Aviv. The Chinese threat was crystal clear, and the attack was canceled in its final hour. All of this was published here as each piece of information came in.

7) The Oil Cartel has more than enough money to buy anything it wants, but large organizations, including the Cartel's military arm at the Pentagon, can rarely move quickly. Knowing there would be ample time, Ken-Welch.Com changed its focus in the following months to exposing the basic fantasy underlying the Terror War: a phoney organization known as Al-Qaeda and the myth of Islamic religious terrorism. We exposed Al-Qaeda in Iraq, the false-flag beheading group supposedly led by the magical Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. We then explored countless propaganda videos showing the deaths of U.S. soldiers in Iraq, and learned that virtually all of the attacks were carried out by U.S. mercenaries and military intelligence operatives posing as Arabs. All this was created and presented under the umbrella of what was supposed to be Al-Qaeda's much vaunted media operation, which Donald Rumsfeld had firmly told us was the enemy's most potent threat to our security and freedom.

8) Through normal news channels we learned that in late September China used one or more ground-based lasers to light up American orbital vehicles as they came within range. While no one knew if the laser(s) also had enough power to actually disable a satellite (or an atomic munitions platform), it was generally agreed that the operation generated precise measurement of the actual orbits. In the first week of January we learned that they had actually shot down, or otherwise destroyed a satellite of their own in a missile test designed to do exactly that. Considering the launch of the U.S. weapons platform only five months before the laser test, it seemed unlikely that these events were all unrelated.

9) Refusing to be distracted we zeroed in on Al-Qaeda itself with our February report on the Florida actor who plays the role of Wily Osama Coyote's second in command, Dr. Ayman Al-Zawahiri. This provided a bonanza of vital information. It totally exposed the true nature of Al-Qaeda as nothing more than a U.S. internal and external propaganda program. It fully corroborated the Armageddon Plot and the events of that terrible night in August when millions of lives hung in the balance. And finally, it exposed the role of the Houston-based controllers in a way that could finally be published. Our newsletter readers knew of this connection, but the countless reversals from Washington suggesting that it was actually Houston calling the shots were so fragmentary that there was no way to present them in a formal report and really prove the point.

10) After spending months digging into the Terror War, I knew it was time to return to a closer scrutiny of current events. I was curious to see if I could detect any reaction to our work, and Houston had had ample time to choose a new direction and put something in motion. My first hit came with a White House Saturday Radio Address broadcast on February 24th. It dealt with health issues (there's no money to pay for Baby Boomer entitlements), but underlying speech reversals indicated that Ken-Welch.Com had been an object of concern. It also contained a reference to something being "fused" the following weekend. I reported this to our newsletter readers and put a sound clip in our Donor Area. The hunt was on. Outside the Port Of Texas City This pretty much tells us most of what we need to know up front. Nuclear war for profit is only days away. If it happens, nothing will ever be the same. The failure of the Armageddon Plot last August has simply been shrugged off, and the plan has been recycled. The only missing piece is the intended target for the false-flag nuke that is necessary to kick it off. It raises a number of interesting questions that will surely be answered over the next month. What about the Chinese nuke that stopped the plan last year? Are there a bunch of Marines sitting on ships somewhere, doing daily radiation drills while they wait to stroll into a shattered Iran? The President of Iran is requesting to come to New York with a very large entourage. Will that trip figure in some kind of provocation? The false "Terrorist WMD" event we've been promised for so long will undoubtedly be here in the U.S., to maximize the impact of the Easter time frame. August's false-flag event was to occur in Israel, and the date chosen had vast significance from Jewish history, being acquainted with the destruction of the great Temple in Jerusalem. If it is a complete recycling, then the oil terminal at Texas City is a target again, but so far there is only one clue regarding location. That clue, however, refers to an "old port". Update: March 28, 2007 Events on the ground confirm that a massive attack on the Republic of Iran is imminent. Armageddon is definitely still on. In this update I'll provide a view of the news from the week that followed our initial posting above. The hot story from the Middle East is the 15 British marines who were arrested for being armed in Iranian waters. If you thought Muslims were supposed to be bloodthirsty you should see the responses from readers at many of the U.K. news sites! Many demanded that Iran be nuked immediately.

These, of course, are artificially planted; an inexpensive way to influence public opinion. The original story given to the press has some big holes in it, and in today's world of illusion one must learn to be very skeptical of anything you see on the networks. The British story is that six Iranian patrol boats entered Iraqi waters to kidnap the men while a British naval vessel, presumably equipped with surface radar, simply stood by and let it happen. Sounds pretty odd to me. I would expect that Iran, just as they have done for quite some time, will end up behaving in a perfectly civilized and reasonable manner. Regardless of the propaganda, they are not stupid. Now that governments are simply "fronts" for corporate cartels, there is huge pressure to bring out the nukes and finally get some "good" out of them. But no one dares be the first to use a nuclear weapon on human beings. There is only one way this can be done. Someone who already owns nukes must set one off in a way that can be blamed on someone else. Once that occurs, the gullible will be cheering when more nukes are used on the "bad guys," and our whole perception of nuclear weapons will change.

Nukes will suddenly become general-purpose tools, and the Bush Doctrine, that any country can be attacked and destroyed for any reason, will become the new standard in world affairs. This will be America's sad and final legacy to the world. During the past 60 days, top guns from the Bush Administration have done an amazing amount of travel, visiting key foreign capitols around the globe. You can review the itineraries and make a pretty good guess about the various countries that are now signed on to the Armageddon Train without their citizens' knowledge.

Watch For People Who Know Too Much - Operation Bite.

Last year, some insiders who were privy to the plan involving a nuke south of Houston just couldn't keep their mouths shut. The allure of being seen later on as particularly wise or credible is very strong. Before we published, we pretty much knew all the details of the plan. When those details appeared in the writing of, say, a senior staffer at a Washington newspaper, we knew we had found an insider who knew too much. The same went for professional disinformation agents who were pretending to tell the straight dope on the Internet. You know them, the ones who claim that real intelligence people are such blabbermouths that they are happy to tell this guy their in-house secrets so he can spread them all over the net?

Rense.Com, not exactly wedded to truth, refused to link to our report just as they always do, but then a few days ago published similar information, including the date, in a report by Webster Tarpley. This is an intriguing piece, and all the more so because it depends heavily on the main disinformation theme that Iran's learning to play with uranium is some kind of immediate threat to the planet. So the main thrust of it is that the U.S. will be taking out Iran's nuclear power facilities (as if we actually had a right to do so). Of course, we will also destroy a number of military facilities simply because we don't like their attitude!

Sadly, many Americans today will accept this as perfectly reasonable. The Tarpley story becomes even more fanciful when it claims the U.S. expects this operation to cause the people of Iran to revolt, tear their country into smaller pieces, and make them all U.S.-friendly. It also claims that the U.S. will use a few nukes simply to get the job done more efficiently, subliminally suggesting that the people of planet earth no longer object to the use of nuclear weapons on human beings.

However, it makes no attempt at all to explain why a Christian country would launch a nuclear war on a Muslim country on Good Friday. Of course, we believe that a false-flag attack here at home is intended to make it look the other way around; a story that might seem vaguely believable if Iran wasn't staring down the barrel of more firepower than was used in World War Two. This is a disinformation piece serving multiple purposes, and one of those purposes is to counter the report you are reading right now. The Russian story has now been blasted all over the net, far beyond the reach of this website. Many people will remember the Easter date and assume they needn't listen to any other stories that mention Easter.

They have also been assured that when we decimate Iran it will not be a naked grab for Iran's oil reserves by the Houston Cartel. Note that Tarpley names the source of the material, and he is the reporter and not the originator. I would assume that it comes from the same Russian propaganda office that runs "Sorcha Fal." Pysops operators are often overly impressed with their own cleverness. So I had to laugh when I saw that only a few days after we published the Bush reversal that Welch was "biting" at the Al-Qaeda hoax, the Russian team decided to say that the American attack plan was code-named "Bite"! Why are Russians involved in hiding the Armageddon details?

There should be little doubt that they've been fully informed of the real plan and signed off on it. We learned last week that stories about a payment dispute halting Russian work on the Iranian nuclear power project are actually a cover for the fact that Russian workers are being evacuated as quickly as possible. In fact, most of them are already gone. By the strangest coincidence, Chinese President Hu Jintao arrived in Moscow on Monday in what appears to be a rather hastily arranged trip to discuss Armageddon and its aftermath. Should China follow through with its commitment to protect Iran? If not, will Russia offer to make up the loss of oil supplies? They definitely have a lot to talk about! Russia stands to benefit greatly if the Houston-based Oil Cartel can finally get enough adjoining territory together to build the pipelines she needs to get her oil to international markets. A halt to oil shipments from the Persian Gulf means that the value of Russian oil, like everyone else's, will probably double immediately. That means Russia has a pretty good stake in turning Iran over to new owners.

Don't believe any stories you read about Russia opposing the U.S. over the situation in the Middle East. Israel To Annex Syria So many European diplomatic staffers have been telling Syrian officials their country is about to be attacked by Israel that World Net Daily, an unwavering purveyor of Houston's propaganda line, had to run a story downplaying the idea.

In fact, it appears that Israel's role in Armageddon has been upgraded since last year. Last July the Israelis were told to find some excuse for attacking Lebanon. This would set the emotional stage for Gambit, the false-flag nuke, and in the process they were to blow all but a handful of the country's roads and bridges. That would prevent opposing forces from interfering with the small but heavily armed U.S. force that was waiting off the beaches to dash across Lebanon the short way, west to east, and invade Syria through a relatively unprotected border. There is nothing left to bomb in Lebanon, and there are no longer any U.S. troops to use in Syria. All U.S. forces have been reserved for Iran this time.

So it was no surprise when I ran across a planted story on AFP* with the usual lack of names or confirmation, claiming that Israel was afraid that Syria was about to attack THEM. Why? No less than four imaginary military and government officials were claiming that "in recent months Syria has deployed hundreds, possibly thousands, of medium- and long-range rockets along the border with Israel." So at this point, all the Israelis have to do is dynamite someone's barn, and off they go on the road to Damascus. They have just completed war games on the Golan Heights, the most direct invasion route into Syria. * AFP is Agence France-Presse, oldest wire service on the planet, and like virtually all media these days, they print whatever they're told.

Germany A Target?

An accomplished disinformation agent appeared in Internet forums last week claiming that European military and intel people were all abuzz over the fact that Germany was to be the site of the next 9-11, and soon. The writing was very typical of similar fakes in the past. The most likely purpose is to mask heightened readiness status for U.S. forces in Germany. If you are in Germany and you accept the fake-out, you would assume any activity you see is because of increased fears of terrorism (white hat or black hat). Otherwise you might catch on that the Americans are preparing for heavy troop movements from Germany into Iran once a beachhead is established. Forces currently positioned for the attack on Iran are woefully short of ground troops and armor. Much more will be needed, if only to hold the oil fields while the population withers away from radiation sickness. If this information reaches anyone in Germany, perhaps they will let us know what they are seeing. Iran Surrounded, Censorship Begins How many aircraft carriers do you need to park side-by-side to scare off terrorists?

On Wednesday, March 21st, the P/R office aboard the U.S. aircraft carrier John C. Stennis reported that the ship had hosted a visit by the captain of the French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle, which had just joined Stennis off Iran's southern coast. This was posted on two websites, Navy News Stand and Military Family Network. It would have gone unnoticed except that Debka Files picked it up and ran it the following day, creating significant interest on the net. Debka Files is a classic disinformation shop registered in Israel, but nonetheless fairly popular as a source of news from the Middle East. While they make the standard claim of having their tentacles into all sorts of unnamed intelligence circles, they simply glean their news from a large host of standard news sources and then add a heavy-handed spin of their own. Nonetheless, if you simply take the headlines and ignore the rest you can get a good grasp of the day's key stories related to the Middle East. Or at least the ones that the psyops people want you to see.

The De Gaulle story was spectacular because no one had imagined that another Carrier Battle Group would join the ring of steel that now threatens Iran. Although Debka was trying to play the story down by putting a reverse spin on it, they must have been told right away that this was news that was not supposed to get out. They quickly killed the report and stuffed the text into fine print in a different article. Now you would never know it is there. The arrival of a third carrier was also spiked on U.S. wire services. A search on Google News revealed that only one newspaper was nimble enough to pick it up, the small Reno Gazette.

The Chinese have 40,000 people involved in controlling the Internet. We get by with perhaps a quarter of that number and pull double duty: both inserting internal propaganda into every nook and cranny, and censoring valid news at the same. Why was the story stopped? Because it encouraged the reader to wonder just how many carrier battle groups there actually are off the Iranian coast. The annihilation of Iran will probably be dramatized as a knee-jerk, spur of the moment craziness. People are not supposed to wonder, after the fact, that all the pieces were in place long before the event.

The Eisenhower is in the Persian Gulf itself, so that makes three carrier groups plus the Expeditionary Strike Group centered around the Boxer. A second amphibious assault carrier, Bataan, is only a few days to the southwest. That makes five carriers all gathered in one tiny spot on the globe. Boxer, a carrier that uses helicopters and landing craft to put troops ashore, ran invasion exercises on beaches in India just before her recent arrival south of Iran. A fourth U.S. carrier, the Nimitz, cut short a refitting in San Diego not long ago for a rushed deployment to the Gulf. I thought she might be arriving also, but apparently this was not practical. A check of the amazing San Diego webcam shows her still at the dock today. Nimitz would be an appropriate replacement for Eisenhower which could easily be sunk in the first minutes of war.

The Persian Gulf is a very confined space, and Eisenhower faces Iranian anti-ship missiles at virtually point-blank range. Israel's Leaders Agree to Risk Tel-Aviv To me, the biggest news this last week was the answer to a puzzle. We know that last year the Armageddon Plot ran into a Chinese missile that stopped the whole thing in its tracks. Despite the propaganda drums that are trying to persuade everyone there is a huge crisis in the Persian Gulf right now, virtually nothing has happened in the Middle East since the August failure, and there certainly is no crisis.

The way I saw it last fall, Houston had to secretly find and disable the nuclear-tipped missile aimed at Tel-Aviv, or work some kind of side deal with the Chinese, guaranteeing that their oil contracts with Iran would still be honored after a takeover. There was never any indication of either of these actually happening, and I honestly expected that the Middle East would stay quiet for a long time. However, we heard from our RS on Cheney that Houston is desperate, and I guess they must be since we are off to war again. But what about the damned missile? This question was finally answered in news reported from Israel. In a March 18th Haaretz.Com article titled "U.S., IDF hold joint exercise on response to nuclear attack" we learn that the two countries have simply decided to gamble that incoming nukes can be shot down before Tel-Aviv vanishes in a nuclear fireball. U.S. anti-missile batteries and their sister units in the I.D.F. set up their communication links last week to mesh their computers together for maximum effect.

The I.D.F. will use the older Patriot PAC-2 system and their new "Arrow" system, apparently rushed to completion after last year's discovery. The U.S. is described as "testing" a new Patriot PAC-3 battery, along with something called a Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system. The latter name has a sound of desperation to it, like something you might try when all else has failed. Information is that it was designed for the lumbering SCUDs of the original Gulf War. It's a nasty situation since there may be more incoming nukes than the one whose photo was handed to Bush last year.

If China continues to protect her business partner, these will be modern, Russian designed systems, perhaps even a version of the Sunburn which is frightening indeed. New missiles are designed with the other side's defenses in mind, and they come very, very fast. In the long run, it's a contest between two opposing design and programming teams who've never actually fought except on paper. Perhaps Israel's government has concluded that they are "feeling lucky" this year since they weren't lynched after the Lebanon debacle. However, they are going through the motions to demonstrate that they care about their population.

The Home Front Command held a nationwide drill last week simulating incoming missiles that could cause such things as a "mass casualty event" in Tel-Aviv. News releases specifically referred to missiles rather than rockets, a serious difference. Sirens were sounded throughout central and southern Israel to kick off the drill. When Israelis hear the sirens next time, they will have just enough time to jump into the nearest ditch and say a quick prayer. Update: Good Friday, April 6, 2007 This update, which may be the last before the big event, returns to reversed speech as the information source, with examples gathered during the last week all confirming that an Easter Surprise is still in the works.

Propaganda media have been deluged with stories suggesting the attack on Iran will not come until the end of April and that it will be limited to a strike on the civilian nuclear power program. Most cite the usual "anonymous sources" which clearly separates official disinformation from actual news. Besides creating confusion, there is an obvious benefit. Experts say Iran's nuclear power program could produce a nuclear bomb by the year 2015 if they went all out. But Houston is pushing stories that are becoming increasingly hysterical, with a working bomb available next year, or even right now. These stories provide a handy excuse for the fact that military force is being concentrated for an attack. Then, when the false-flag trigger event occurs, fewer people will wonder that our massive and overwhelming response was already in place.

No doubt you have noticed the rise in gasoline prices over the last month or so. They have been increasing at twice the normal seasonal rate, with no increase in demand or restriction in supply to account for the rise. Once again we are seeing pre-event hoarding as refiners and distributors anticipate the disruption in supply that war will bring. The prompt return of the 15 U.K. sailors and marines was a definite coup on the part of Iran. Blair also benefited by appearing statesman-like and RS showed that as a politician he appreciated this. However, my suspicion that his administration might have engineered the event was apparently wrong. Blair was definitely caught by surprise and actually felt powerless to correct a situation which he felt was simply "madness." While many "news" sources are implying that behind the scenes efforts secured the release, RS on Blair indicated he was willing to let the situation continue for at least another week, at which point we believe it would have been submerged by much more critical matters. My friend Strider has been monitoring the U.S. Secretary of Defense and I just received a CD with huge number of reversals. Naturally, our focus is on finding the location of the false-flag event, which we expect to be the "next 9-11" that will kick off the attack on Iran. Unfortunately, SecDef Gates does a pretty good job of concentrating on the topic at hand, which lately has been the military's need for a great deal more funding. We also learned that he wants to begin a forced draft and we should begin seeing news articles hyping this.

The U.S. cannot handle a long term occupation of the entire Middle East for the Houston Oil Cartel with the manpower currently available. In a March 22nd press briefing he was asked about the Nimitz carrier group which was preparing for redeployment to the Persian Gulf, and if this meant an increase in the number of carriers that would be stationed there. His response that Nimitz was a routine replacement was not denied by the RS, but a reversal clearly stated that deployments were not over, and a reference to "blowing out Florida" was pretty interesting. I had received a note around this same time from a supporter in Florida saying that during the hours of darkness air bases near Pensacola were launching aircraft continuously, about one a minute. Obviously, the naval build up has now been augmented by a huge number of land-based aircraft, and the unprecedented massing of firepower makes it clear that the total destruction of Iran and the seizure of its oil reserves is the actual objective and not simply an attack on a few facilities. Gates has also told reporters and the Congress that getting involved in another war would mean that our military would have to stay in Afghanistan and Iraq for a much longer period of time.




Article just
tinfoil-hat.jpg
NWO nonsense.
 
=




<B><center>Apr 8 2007 5:14PM

<font size=+1 color=purple>Russian general says U.S. continues preparations for military action against Iran</font>

http://www.interfax.ru/e/B/politics/28.html?id_issue=11708925 </center>
MOSCOW. April 8 (Interfax-AVN)</b> - The release of the 15 British sailors and marines captured by Iran has robbed the U.S. of a pretext to attack Iran, but the U.S. has not given up plans to attack Iran militarily, said Col. Gen. Leonid Ivashov, president of the Academy for Geopolitical Problems, a Russian think tank.

"Preparations to strike Iran's strategic facilities continue. Three major groups of U.S. forces are still in the Arabian Sea and the Persian Gulf. Altogether, they have up to 450 cruise missiles on alert," the general told Interfax-AVN.

"Military operations against Tehran will begin with the launch of at least two unexpected strikes using Tomahawk cruise missiles and air power in order to disable Iran's air defense capabilities," he said.

"According to our data, up to 150 aircraft are to be involved in each strike on Iran. Land-based air defense systems will be disabled in the first place, then mobile short-range systems, which Tehran has (including some 30 new systems)," he said.

Primary targets will include command centers, air defense installations, the navy, airfields, ports and docking facilities, the general said.

"Nuclear facilities may be secondary targets. According to expert assessments, at least 20 such facilities need to be destroyed in order to stop Iran's nuclear program," Ivashov said.

Ivashov did not rule out that nuclear weapons may be used against Iran.

"Combat nuclear weapons may be used for bombing. This will result in radioactive contamination of the Iranian territory, which could possibly spread to neighboring countries," he said.

"If Iran strikes back at Israel with missiles, Tel-Aviv is likely to use nuclear weapons on Iran," Ivashov said, adding that such a "development of the situation would undermine stability not only in the Middle East, but also in the entire world."

ar md
 
=




<B><center>Nasrallah:

Israel, US trying to destroy Hizbullah</b>

Published: 04.08.07, 16:46 / Israel News
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3385855,00.html </center>
Hizbullah Secretary-General Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah said in Beirut that Israel and the US tried and still are trying to wipe out Hizbullah and diminish its strength.


Nasrallah also criticized the Lebanese institutions and said that "the only solution to the resistance is a strong country with a forceful army, but this country cannot even protect the waters of the Wazzani river." (Roee Nahmias)
 

Kadee

Inactive
=




<B><center>Apr 8 2007 5:14PM

<font size=+1 color=purple>Russian general says U.S. continues preparations for military action against Iran</font>

http://www.interfax.ru/e/B/politics/28.html?id_issue=11708925 </center>
MOSCOW. April 8 (Interfax-AVN)</b> - The release of the 15 British sailors and marines captured by Iran has robbed the U.S. of a pretext to attack Iran, but the U.S. has not given up plans to attack Iran militarily, said Col. Gen. Leonid Ivashov, president of the Academy for Geopolitical Problems, a Russian think tank.

"Preparations to strike Iran's strategic facilities continue. Three major groups of U.S. forces are still in the Arabian Sea and the Persian Gulf. Altogether, they have up to 450 cruise missiles on alert," the general told Interfax-AVN.

"Military operations against Tehran will begin with the launch of at least two unexpected strikes using Tomahawk cruise missiles and air power in order to disable Iran's air defense capabilities," he said.

"According to our data, up to 150 aircraft are to be involved in each strike on Iran. Land-based air defense systems will be disabled in the first place, then mobile short-range systems, which Tehran has (including some 30 new systems)," he said.

Primary targets will include command centers, air defense installations, the navy, airfields, ports and docking facilities, the general said.

"Nuclear facilities may be secondary targets. According to expert assessments, at least 20 such facilities need to be destroyed in order to stop Iran's nuclear program," Ivashov said.

Ivashov did not rule out that nuclear weapons may be used against Iran.

"Combat nuclear weapons may be used for bombing. This will result in radioactive contamination of the Iranian territory, which could possibly spread to neighboring countries," he said.

"If Iran strikes back at Israel with missiles, Tel-Aviv is likely to use nuclear weapons on Iran," Ivashov said, adding that such a "development of the situation would undermine stability not only in the Middle East, but also in the entire world."

ar md

The general just doesn't give up, does he. He must be terribly disappointed the Bite date went awry. Looks like he's determined to keep the price of oil on the rise, with every comment he releases. This guy's good. No one can ever accuse the Russians of being stupid, when it comes to useful propoganda. :shk:
 

onetimer

Has No Life - Lives on TB
Tehran Decisive to Set Iranian Diplomats Free​

TEHRAN (Fars News Agency)- Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said that the Islamic Republic is determined to pursue the case of the Iranian diplomats kidnapped in Iraq and set them free.

Speaking to Iran's state-run TV here on Sunday, Mottaki said that in two letters addressed to the UN Security Council and the UN Secretary General on the abduction of five Iranian diplomats by the US troops in Iraq, Iran has called for a serious follow up of the issue.

"If we compare different cases, we can find out that in many cases, the UN Security Council embarks on intervening in some cases which do not fall within the boundary of its duties, while in some other cases, like the abduction of Iranian diplomats by the US troops, it refrains from showing deserving reactions due to the pressures exerted by the big powers," he said.

The top diplomat ruled out any relation between the release of the Iranian diplomat, Jalal Sharafi, and the pardoning of the fifteen British troops, and stressed, "We are serious in confronting those agents in charge of the arrest of the Iranian diplomats in Iraq. Last Friday, I sent a message to the Iraqi foreign minister and officials and, reminding them that their efforts for the release of the diplomats have turned fruitless, I stressed that if the present conditions continue, Iran's aids to Iraq will be troubled."
 

Kadee

Inactive
Tehran Decisive to Set Iranian Diplomats Free​

TEHRAN (Fars News Agency)- Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said that the Islamic Republic is determined to pursue the case of the Iranian diplomats kidnapped in Iraq and set them free.

Speaking to Iran's state-run TV here on Sunday, Mottaki said that in two letters addressed to the UN Security Council and the UN Secretary General on the abduction of five Iranian diplomats by the US troops in Iraq, Iran has called for a serious follow up of the issue.

"If we compare different cases, we can find out that in many cases, the UN Security Council embarks on intervening in some cases which do not fall within the boundary of its duties, while in some other cases, like the abduction of Iranian diplomats by the US troops, it refrains from showing deserving reactions due to the pressures exerted by the big powers," he said.

The top diplomat ruled out any relation between the release of the Iranian diplomat, Jalal Sharafi, and the pardoning of the fifteen British troops, and stressed, "We are serious in confronting those agents in charge of the arrest of the Iranian diplomats in Iraq. Last Friday, I sent a message to the Iraqi foreign minister and officials and, reminding them that their efforts for the release of the diplomats have turned fruitless, I stressed that if the present conditions continue, Iran's aids to Iraq will be troubled."

Now we know why the Iranians denied Maliki to overfly Iranian airspace on his Japan trip.
 
The general just doesn't give up, does he. He must be terribly disappointed the Bite date went awry. Looks like he's determined to keep the price of oil on the rise, with every comment he releases. This guy's good. No one can ever accuse the Russians of being stupid, when it comes to useful propoganda. :shk:

With the Persian Gulf now a "U.S.Lake" for the majority of the U.S. Naval Forces.

(And at least one other aircraft carrier steaming at "Flank Speed" to get on site).

The U.S. implacing anti-missle batteries in Iran's neighboring countries

Commercial companies emptying out these said neighboring countries of aLL THEIR PERSONAL!

The hotels of said neighboring countries becoming quantitave barracks for U.S. Mil personal.

on

and

on...

It just might be - that the date was changed (for a war with Iran). But that the plan is still on the "gaming board"....
 

skip1

Membership Revoked
I AGREE WITH THE RUSKIE!!!!!

Apr 8 2007 5:14PM

Russian general says U.S. continues preparations for military action against Iran

http://www.interfax.ru/e/B/politics/28.html?id_issue=11708925

MOSCOW. April 8 (Interfax-AVN)</b> - The release of the 15 British sailors and marines captured by Iran has robbed the U.S. of a pretext to attack Iran, but the U.S. has not given up plans to attack Iran militarily, said Col. Gen. Leonid Ivashov, president of the Academy for Geopolitical Problems, a Russian think tank.

"Preparations to strike Iran's strategic facilities continue. Three major groups of U.S. forces are still in the Arabian Sea and the Persian Gulf. Altogether, they have up to 450 cruise missiles on alert," the general told Interfax-AVN.

"Military operations against Tehran will begin with the launch of at least two unexpected strikes using Tomahawk cruise missiles and air power in order to disable Iran's air defense capabilities," he said.

"According to our data, up to 150 aircraft are to be involved in each strike on Iran. Land-based air defense systems will be disabled in the first place, then mobile short-range systems, which Tehran has (including some 30 new systems)," he said.

Primary targets will include command centers, air defense installations, the navy, airfields, ports and docking facilities, the general said.

"Nuclear facilities may be secondary targets. According to expert assessments, at least 20 such facilities need to be destroyed in order to stop Iran's nuclear program," Ivashov said.

Ivashov did not rule out that nuclear weapons may be used against Iran.

"Combat nuclear weapons may be used for bombing. This will result in radioactive contamination of the Iranian territory, which could possibly spread to neighboring countries," he said.

"If Iran strikes back at Israel with missiles, Tel-Aviv is likely to use nuclear weapons on Iran," Ivashov said, adding that such a "development of the situation would undermine stability not only in the Middle East, but also in the entire world."

ar md





jennifer_eccleston_miss_shock_and_awe.jpg
Yup, its COMING SOON
 
Last edited:

Kadee

Inactive
With the Persian Gulf now a "U.S.Lake" for the majority of the U.S. Naval Forces.

(And at least one other aircraft carrier steaming at "Flank Speed" to get on site).

The U.S. implacing anti-missle batteries in Iran's neighboring countries

Commercial companies emptying out these said neighboring countries of aLL THEIR PERSONAL!

The hotels of said neighboring countries becoming quantitave barracks for U.S. Mil personal.

on

and

on...

It just might be - that the date was changed (for a war with Iran). But that the plan is still on the "gaming board"....

I agree. The game is in play. But, what really is the game and who is playing? I see the Russians trying to provoke reactions to keep the oil price going up. They benefit from that play, while the west suffers. It's there way of getting even from being outspent during the Reagan years. The same plan that took them down, has now been reversed and it's being used on us. They were neck deep in Afghanistan too. Now it's us, not just Afghanistan, but Iraq on top of it. You'd think we would have learned something from watching them in Afghanistan, especially since we helped the Islamics fight them. LOL

We're being dumb, playing right into both the Islamics and the Communists plans. The gulf is so crowded, there will be an accident that tips the game board. Either that or we'll pull out, taking all our toys home with us, deserting the Israelis to their destiny.

Remember VN? That was the last time we had three major carrier groups parked off someone's coastline that I can remember off hand. We bailed.....are we getting ready to do the same thing? Those ships can't set there indefinitely.......
 

skip1

Membership Revoked
I agree. The game is in play. But, what really is the game and who is playing? I see the Russians trying to provoke reactions to keep the oil price going up. They benefit from that play, while the west suffers. It's there way of getting even from being outspent during the Reagan years. The same plan that took them down, has now been reversed and it's being used on us. They were neck deep in Afghanistan too. Now it's us, not just Afghanistan, but Iraq on top of it. You'd think we would have learned something from watching them in Afghanistan, especially since we helped the Islamics fight them. LOL

We're being dumb, playing right into both the Islamics and the Communists plans. The gulf is so crowded, there will be an accident that tips the game board. Either that or we'll pull out, taking all our toys home with us, deserting the Israelis to their destiny.

Remember VN? That was the last time we had three major carrier groups parked off someone's coastline that I can remember off hand. We bailed.....are we getting ready to do the same thing? Those ships can't set there indefinitely.......




This is ALL about who contols the Persian Gulf, which means the oil supply to the West. It's either the United States or Iran. Remember, Iran's Mullahs want to spread an Islamic Caliphite thoughtout the Middle East & Europe. That has been the goal of the Mullahs since Islam was founded. Our nuclear deterrent (M.A.D., Mutual Assured Destruction) works against Ivan & the Chinese, but not with the Mullahs of Iran who’re on a jihad. So lets stay focus
 

Kadee

Inactive

In light of your link and theories on the Russians, I think you may find this article interesting. IMO the Russians have replaced the Sadam with the Iranians as their new proxy, and the deception continues right under our noses. They sure don't want us building a new defense system in Europe. LOL

http://www.kommersant.com/p754484/Russia_USA_Europe_missile_defense/

Mar. 30, 2007Print | E-mail | Home Telephone for Mr. Putin
// Russian and US Presidents Mull Over a Joint Missile Defense
On Wednesday evening Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President George Bush spoke by telephone about America's plan to install elements of its missile defense system in Eastern Europe. During the conversation, which was initiated by Washington, Mr. Bush for the first time replied to the unease about the expansion of the US system in Europe that was expressed by Mr. Putin during his speech last month in Munich. The US is keen to dispel the cloud in its relations with Moscow and to calm its European allies in NATO by proposing a joint missile defense system with Russia. Washington believes that an expanded system in Europe is crucial to defending the world against Iranian rockets.
George Bush called Vladimir Putin at a moment when tensions around the planned expansion of the American missile defense system into Poland and the Czech Republic were reaching a breaking point. The latest manifestation of the growing displeasure felt by Moscow that was first on display in President Putin's speech in Munich was a foreign policy report unveiled this week by the Russian Foreign Ministry. "The appearance of European anti-missile bases [for the US system] would mean a significant reconfiguration of the American military presence in Europe and would lend a strategic component to the American armed forces in the region that could negatively impact the curbs on the Russian Federation's nuclear potential," warned the Russian Foreign Ministry in its report, which was sent to President Putin on Tuesday.

America's European allies, who are finding themselves squeezed between a rock and a hard place, clearly have their own grounds for concern and have recently increased their calls for Washington and Moscow to immediately begin talking to each other about the proposed missile defense system. The Europeans fear that the expansion of the American system in Poland and the Czech Republic could provoke Russia to resume production of mid-range rockets and aim them at the European continent.

After a protracted pause, President Bush eventually decided to step into the breach to personally explain the missile defense issue to President Putin. The Kremlin's press service reported after the telephone conversation between the two presidents on Wednesday evening that "in the exchange of opinions, Vladimir Putin laid out the motivations behind Russian concern about America's plan to create a missile defense base in Central Europe." The report says that "the US president expressed readiness to discuss the subject in detail" and that Washington's position was "received with satisfaction" by the Russian side.

Comments from senior American officials in the wake of the discussion between the two presidents have made it clear that George Bush's phone call to Vladimir Putin marked the beginning of an active campaign by the White House to come to an agreement with Russia and thus to remove the main obstacle on America's path to realizing its plan to install elements of its missile defense system in Europe. Cooperation between the US and Russia on a missile defense system was the main topic of a recent press briefing in Washington by Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Daniel Fried and US Missile Defense Agency head General Henry Obering. "We look forward to discussions with our Russian friends about missile defense issues…to ease their concerns," said Mr. Fried. At the same time, he made it clear that Washington does not intend to rethink its plans to deploy ten interceptors in Poland and radar in the Czech Republic, but he emphasized that the point of these moves is not to change the strategic balance between the US and Russia but to eliminate the threat of a missile strike from Iran. In Mr. Fried's opinion, "Russia faces the same threats" as the US and Europe.

General Obering focused on the kind of cooperation on missile defense that could be established between Moscow and Washington. According to General Obering, the US is "very open to Russian participation and invitation into collaboration on missile defense in the broader sense and on any level" and is ready to enter into a discussion of concrete aspects of collaboration. In particular, he said, the US and Russia could exchange radar data about rocket launches, which "could be very useful to the defense of Russia, obviously, and the European theater."

Significantly, soon after the press briefing in Washington Daniel Fried made yet another statement, this time on the Russian television channel "Vesti 24," in which he empathically called on Moscow not to dramatize the situation around US plans for a missile defense system in Europe. The American diplomat also criticized the idea of Russia producing medium-range rockets and placing them on military alert in response to America's plans. "That does not seem to me to be a very good response. The modest missile defense system that the US is currently developing does not pose a threat to Russia," said Mr. Fried, noting that the system will involve "ten small rockets unequipped with warheads" and weighing only 75 kg each. "It seems to me that it would be not entirely correct of Russia to reply to a nonexistent threat by creating a missile system that itself will be a threat," he said somewhat testily.

Washington apparently now sees the creation of a joint missile defense system as the lone way out of an increasingly sticky situation. "It would be much better if Russia and the US began to work together in the NATO-Russia Council to create a common missile defense system that could protect against common threats," said Mr. Fried. The threats to which he is referring, of course, are "Iran and other countries that could irresponsibly develop ballistic missiles and nuclear warheads to put on them."

Following President Bush's phone call to Vladimir Putin and the subsequent commentary from American officials offering concrete proposals to Moscow on the issue of a missile defense system, the ball is now in Russia's court. Moscow has previously been claiming bewilderment at America's plan to forge ahead without taking Russia's opinion into account. Now that the US is offering a partnership to Russia for the creation of a common missile defense system, however, Moscow can no longer accuse the US of attempting to upset the strategic balance in its own favor by acting unilaterally. Thus, if Moscow wishes to continue to obstruct America's plans to build a missile defense system in Europe, it will have to come up with some new arguments.

The two sides are expected to clarify their positions in April at the next session of the NATO-Russia Council. Yesterday Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov hinted at the Russian position, noting that Moscow is counting on a broader consultation involving America's European allies. "This subject is so important for all Europeans that it is necessary to hold an appropriate consultation in a broader format. I anticipate that this will be agreed upon next month, when the topic of missile defense is scheduled to be discussed at the NATO-Russia Council," said Mr. Lavrov after talks with the Portuguese foreign minister.

Sergei Strokan
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/06/AR2007040601781.html

The War You're Not Reading About
By John McCain
Sunday, April 8, 2007; Page B07

I just returned from my fifth visit to Iraq since 2003 -- and my first since Gen. David Petraeus's new strategy has started taking effect. For the first time, our delegation was able to drive, not use helicopters, from the airport to downtown Baghdad. For the first time, we met with Sunni tribal leaders in Anbar province who are working with American and Iraqi forces to combat al-Qaeda. For the first time, we visited Iraqi and American forces deployed in a joint security station in Baghdad -- an integral part of the new strategy. We held a news conference to discuss what we saw: positive signs, underreported in the United States, that are reason for cautious optimism.

I observed that our delegation "stopped at a local market, where we spent well over an hour, shopping and talking with the local people, getting their views and ideas about different issues of the day." Markets in Baghdad have faced devastating terrorist attacks. A car bombing at Shorja in February, for example, killed 137 people. Today the market still faces occasional sniper attacks, but it is safer than it used to be. One innovation of the new strategy is closing markets to vehicles, thereby precluding car bombs that kill so many and garner so much media attention. Petraeus understandably wanted us to see this development.

I went to Iraq to gain a firsthand view of the progress in this difficult war, not to celebrate any victories. No one has been more critical of sunny progress reports that defied realities in Iraq. In 2003, after my first visit, I argued for more troops to provide the security necessary for political development. I disagreed with statements characterizing the insurgency as a "few dead-enders" or being in its "last throes." I repeatedly criticized the previous search-and-destroy strategy and argued for a counterinsurgency approach: separating the reconcilable population from the irreconcilable and creating enough security to facilitate the political and economic solutions that are the only way to defeat insurgents. This is exactly the course that Petraeus and the brave men and women of the American military are pursuing.

The new political-military strategy is beginning to show results. But most Americans are not aware because much of the media are not reporting it or devote far more attention to car bombs and mortar attacks that reveal little about the strategic direction of the war. I am not saying that bad news should not be reported or that horrific terrorist attacks are not newsworthy. But news coverage should also include evidence of progress. Whether Americans choose to support or oppose our efforts in Iraq, I hope they could make their decision based on as complete a picture of the situation in Iraq as is possible to report. A few examples:

· Sunni sheikhs in Anbar are now fighting al-Qaeda. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki visited Anbar's capital, Ramadi, to meet with Sunni tribal leaders. The newly proposed de-Baathification legislation grew out of that meeting. Police recruitment in Ramadi has increased dramatically over the past four months.

· More than 50 joint U.S.-Iraqi stations have been established in Baghdad. Regular patrols establish connections with the surrounding neighborhood, resulting in a significant increase in security and actionable intelligence.

· Extremist Shiite militia leader Moqtada al-Sadr is in hiding, his followers are not contesting American forces, sectarian violence has dropped in Baghdad and we are working with the Shiite mayor of Sadr City.

· Iraqi army and police forces are increasingly fighting on their own and with American forces, and their size and capability are growing. Iraqi army and police casualties have increased because they are fighting more.

Despite these welcome developments, we should have no illusions. This progress is not determinative. It is simply encouraging. We have a long, tough road ahead in Iraq. But for the first time since 2003, we have the right strategy. In Petraeus, we have a military professional who literally wrote the book on fighting this kind of war. And we will have the right mix and number of forces.

There is no guarantee that we will succeed, but we must try. As every sensible observer has concluded, the consequences of failure in Iraq are so grave and so threatening for the region, and to the security of the United States, that to refuse to give Petraeus's plan a chance to succeed would constitute a tragic failure of American resolve. I hope those who cite the Iraq Study Group's conclusions note that James Baker wrote on this page last week that we must have bipartisan support for giving the new strategy time to succeed. This is not a moment for partisan gamesmanship or for one-sided reporting. The stakes are just too high.

The writer is a Republican senator from Arizona and a candidate for president.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/06/AR2007040601782.html

A Korean Strategy For Iraq
By Jim Hoagland
Sunday, April 8, 2007; Page B07

President Bush believes that his job is to convince the American people that the war in Iraq is not a replay of Vietnam. He is failing spectacularly in that self-described mission. The president's best hope now is to convince Americans that with continuing U.S. help, Iraq may still become Korea.

All historical analogies are imperfect. Treating Korea or Vietnam as archetypes for Iraq is problematic on many levels. But the nature of American choices in ending unpopular wars remains surprisingly constant. History suggests that alternatives in Iraq come down to three: disorderly flight, providing a decent interval for local forces to determine their own fate or sustaining a static shield behind which positive change occurs over the long run.

Korea evolved into that third approach, while the U.S. endgame in Vietnam became a disastrous combination of the first two as a Democratic-controlled Congress battled and bested a Republican White House over war strategy and funding. It is no surprise, then, that Bush emphasizes, as he has to recent White House visitors, his desire to avoid that outcome becoming a model for Iraq.

But the president must now enunciate a realistic alternative that justifies to the electorate the continuing sacrifice of American life and treasure in what has become a sectarian war fueled by neighboring states. GOP losses in last November's congressional elections demonstrate that Bush can no longer rely on partisan appeals to patriotism or on the argument that American lives must be spent to prevent an even greater loss of life among Iraq's Shiites and Sunnis.

That calculation has been discounted in the political markets of the United States, Iraq and the Middle East. "There are plenty of Iraqis who want the United States to leave because they believe their group will win in the bigger war to come," says an Arab diplomat who deals with Iraq. Adds an Iraqi politician: "Americans say they will leave? Is that a threat or a promise? We are ready."

Such comments suggest two paradoxical realities: One is that there is little chance that a U.S. withdrawal will be as rapid, as easy or as cost-free for American troops and for Iraqis as war critics assume -- or pretend to assume. And there is little chance that this Iraqi government will be willing or able to carry out the "benchmark" political and economic reforms within the deadlines that Congress and the administration are, in separate ways, trying to impose on Baghdad.

The government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, Bush's White House and the Democratic leadership in Congress are all pretending otherwise, for their own purposes. That gives them the cover not to have to grapple publicly with this fundamental question: Is Iraq recoverable in any meaningful way after three decades of self-imposed turmoil and decimation and four years of botched occupation?

If the answer is yes, then providing a static shield to enable change in the Iraqi heartlands is a worthy objective. Such a goal will require a shifting of time horizons and of conceptual models as well as the more immediate change in battlefield tactics that Gen. David Petraeus has undertaken, with some initial success, in and around Baghdad.

A promising example of a new long-term approach is being pursued by the Treasury Department, which has in the midst of the war reshaped Iraq's finances, in part by conditioning aid to be provided by a new International Compact on Iraqi reforms. A regional diplomatic framework that engages Saudi Arabia and Iran in containing Sunni-Shiite tensions is also a needed component for longer-term stability. Maliki won agreement from the United States on Friday to hold a regional conference that will include International Compact donors in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, on May 2-3.

Bush cannot ignore the fact that in polls, a majority of Americans now say Iraq is not worth the effort. Democratic leaders have begun to declare the war not only unwon but unwinnable, as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid unmistakably did last week in decrying "this failed war" and then threatening to seek a cutoff of funding for U.S. troops in Iraq.

The Democrats balance on a knife's edge: As a party, they are not willing to take the political responsibility for ending the war now, as they should be if they truly believe it is unwinnable. But they also are not willing to commit to the kind of sustained effort and resources that will be required if the limited progress in transforming Iraq that has been made -- the "benchmarks" already met -- can be protected and expanded.

Technically, Congress never cut off funds for U.S. forces fighting in Vietnam. Combat troops had been withdrawn by the time the 1973 ban on U.S. funding for combat in Indochina went into effect, crippling any lingering chance for a "decent interval" between the U.S. exit and the collapse of the Saigon government.

The nasty quarrel between Bush and Congress over war funds that erupted last week gives new currency to the Vietnam analogy. Both the White House and Congress need to ask if there is not a better way forward this time.

jimhoagland@washpost.com
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/08/m...ml?_r=1&pagewanted=1&ref=magazine&oref=slogin

The New York Times
April 8, 2007
The Way We Live Now
The Undeparted
By NOAH FELDMAN

On the surface, recent votes in Congress appear to signal a new Democratic determination to withdraw from Iraq. But the reality is otherwise. It is not only that the resolutions were drafted and adopted with the certain knowledge that they would be vetoed. More important, even if a future Democratic president did try to implement the new plans, the results would likely end up looking oddly similar to the Bush administration’s current strategy. In politics as in war, things are seldom what they seem.

If there’s one thing that Iraqis and Americans agree on, it’s that U.S. troops don’t belong in Iraq — and yet even now, the troops are still there. Elected officials of all persuasions are supposed to respond to public opinion. So what explains this gap? One possibility is that politicians realize that raw public sentiment cannot be translated into practical policy without taking account of the likely consequences. It is not enough to give the public what it wants today if tomorrow — or whenever the next elections are held — the public will be even angrier about where things have gone in the meantime. With office comes responsibility — if only because politicians want to keep their jobs.

As the only presidential candidate with previous White House experience who has a plausible shot in 2008, Hillary Clinton in particular may be thinking along these lines. It would be easier in the Democratic primaries and maybe even the general election for her to demand a rapid pullout — but what if she wins? It won’t do her much good to be president if she has to preside over a spiraling escalation of quasi-genocidal rage as American soldiers come home as promised; and if she were to break a campaign promise to withdraw troops, it would hardly bode well for a second term.

Another possibility is that the politicians are reading the polls just right, and adopting policies that reflect a deep ambivalence — not to say confusion — on the part of the voters themselves, whether Iraqi or American. A recent poll commissioned by ABC News and partners has 78 percent of Iraqis opposing the U.S. presence and 51 percent approving of attacks on U.S. troops — but only 35 percent calling for immediate withdrawal. If supporting violence against the same soldiers you wish would stay is not confusion, then nothing is. Meanwhile, American public opinion has its own internal tensions. The war is extraordinarily unpopular, but leaving too fast is seen as undesirable as well — a CNN poll conducted last month shows that only 21 percent of Americans want all the troops home now. If the public is indeed in the grips of two separate and conflicting impulses, then the politicians may simply be giving them what they are asking for. This is politics under the motto of paralysis: Should I stay or should I go?

If popular confusion shapes the policies coming from Washington right now, it is at least an understandable reaction to the near-impossible situation we currently face. On the one hand, there is the brutal and undeniable fact that the U.S. has disastrously bungled its entire undertaking in Iraq. Even the best outcomes now imaginable — like de facto partition and routine terrorism but no civil war — bear more than a passing resemblance to what were once considered disastrously bad possibilities. Having failed in security, in reconstruction and in institution-building, what makes us think we can now do a better job at any of the above?

On the other hand, it’s a near certainty that U.S. withdrawal from Iraq under the present conditions would allow or encourage the present low-level civil war to become a full-blown conflict. Many people will die, probably even more than the many who are dying now. Eventually the civil war might burn itself out — but no one knows how long that might take, which regional actors might be drawn into the conflict and even whether it would happen at all: it’s not clear that any of the participants — Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish militias — are either strong enough to win or weak enough to lose. Facing such difficult choices, it’s no wonder that politicians — to say nothing of the fickle public — are prone to vacillation, self-contradiction and flip-flopping.

Thus far, both the Bush administration and Congressional Democrats have responded to our no-win predicament pretty poorly. The president is offering his familiar muddle-through approach. First, adopt the techniques of counterinsurgency — clear and hold urban space, for example — that should have been used all along. Then pray that they work, because the very same doctrine of counterinsurgency on which we are now relying predicts that these tactics probably will fail given current troop numbers. The desperate presumption is that the shortfall will be made up for by Iraqi troops — the same troops whose training has been a watchword of hope and a byword of failure these last agonizing four years.

But the ‘surge” isn’t just a way into Iraq — it is also, for at least some in the administration, a shortcut to getting out of it. If basic security can be achieved even briefly — especially before the 2008 elections — Republicans with influence will advocate pulling most troops back while claiming that this time the mission really has been accomplished. It’s unlikely that a short-term peace will hold, but at least it might give the U.S. the cover to say that it has not lost the war. If Iraq collapses 6 or 18 or 36 months after U.S. troops are out, Iraqis can then be blamed for the failure. Erstwhile supporters of the war are already starting to justify this plan by hinting darkly that the Iraqis have to take responsibility for themselves — as if they could be expected to succeed in providing security and basic services when the world’s richest superpower has so abjectly failed.

On the Democratic side, there is also plenty of bad-conscience, blame-the-victim rhetoric to be found. Its most common form lies in the claim that the Iraqis have not succeeded in taking charge and governing themselves because they are waiting for the U.S. to do it. The theory here, to the extent one exists, seems to be that the Iraqi political classes could deliver law and order and reconstruction if only they really wanted to, but their incentive to save their country is somehow reduced by the presence of the U.S. Should we depart now, or threaten to start departing if the Iraqi government doesn’t meet certain benchmarks, the Iraqis will at last recognize their common interests and learn to cooperate.

It is hard to overstate how absurd this view would sound to anyone who wasn’t looking for excuses to withdraw. Exactly how much incentive does a person risking his life to serve in government need to save his country, not to mention his family and friends, from total ruin? Moreover, Iraqi politicians get only a minimal advantage from the fact that their countrymen blame the U.S. for much of Iraq’s current situation. The Iraqi public is strongly divided over the legitimacy of the current government. (Indeed, the worse things go, the more Iraqis seem to think their leaders aren’t even really in charge.) America’s presence, to be sure, has not enabled Iraqi leaders to settle their differences. But it does not follow that America’s absence would bring them together at last.

Notwithstanding the unfortunate rhetoric, the Democrats have begun to introduce what sounds like a new Iraq policy. The House has set a mandatory withdrawal deadline of September 2008. The Senate, for its part, has called for the removal of troops by March 2008 — a date with no particular significance for Iraq but well suited to enable a Democratic presidential candidate to say then that if he or she were president, the troops would already be home.

But the Democratic blueprints come with a caveat. An important aspect of the new thinking, embraced in both the Senate and House bills, is the assertion that the U.S. may leave some forces in Iraq for the purpose of fighting terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. Sometimes the idea is coupled with vague statements about keeping those forces in their bases or along Iraq’s borders. These statements imply that U.S. troops will not be policing population centers in order to prevent intercommunal violence.

The most attractive feature of this “fight Al Qaeda” approach is that it acknowledges what many Americans realize: Deposing Saddam Hussein was not a genuine part of the war on terror except in the most oblique and indirect sense, but like it or not, the present conflict in Iraq is now at the heart of the struggle with Al Qaeda and violent jihadism. Just because President Bush says it’s so, and just because he helped make it so, doesn’t mean it isn’t so. It is heartening that so many leading figures in the Democratic Party seem to understand this — though of course the fact sits very uneasily with the simultaneous desire to get troops out of Iraq.

And there’s the rub. The “fight Al Qaeda” strategy may be billed as a withdrawal plan, but it almost certainly could not and would not lead to a significant reduction in troop levels. Do the Democrats really intend for U.S. troops to stand by and allow Iraqis to slaughter one another while claiming that the defeat of Al Qaeda is our only objective? To do so would be to repudiate the only clear foreign policy legacy of the Clinton years, namely the principle of no more Rwandas — that the U.S. can and must intervene to stop genocide. Would the American public really be prepared to accept preventable massacres taking place before the eyes of U.S. soldiers?

Some supporters of withdrawal suggest we may be able to prevent a future genocide by imposing separation on hostile populations who still live uncomfortably close to one another. Once we’ve done so, the notion goes, we can then leave with a clear conscience. This sounds appealing in theory, especially to diplomats who cut their teeth on the post-genocidal reordering of the former Yugoslavia.

In practice, however, creating safe zones for Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds can be accomplished only with large numbers of troops. If a Democratic president ordered a quick withdrawal, these safe zones could not be established at all. Meanwhile, Senator Joe Biden has doggedly called for a federal Iraq in which oil revenues are shared across regions. That is a terrific idea — but it is an idea that is already enshrined in the Iraqi constitution and that will not be worth much unless someone forces oil-rich Shiite and Kurdish regions to share their wealth with the oil-poor Sunnis.

Realistically, then, the “fight Al Qaeda” policy cannot work the way it is being promoted. It is not easy to attack Al Qaeda without taking on the larger Sunni insurgency, notwithstanding a few cases in which Sunni tribes have decided to confront Al Qaeda themselves. Most likely, troops will continue to police population centers — but now under a new and more appealing name than “surge” or “stay the course.” To be accomplished successfully and without unnecessarily endangering soldiers in the line of fire, the policy would require roughly as many troops in Iraq as we have now. The result would probably look a lot like the Bush policy. And it could take years to show success.

Nevertheless, there is a certain logic to this rebranding of the war. Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia has done everything it can to bring on a civil war, and it’s unlikely the war will end before it is defeated. Allowing the collapse of the country would, in fact, mean handing victory to the most violent jihadists — a result that would be irresponsible for any president who thought the United States was actually endangered by Islamic terrorism. Fighting Al Qaeda is as good a label as any for what we should be doing in Iraq — trying to hold off large-scale slaughter long enough to create a stable power-sharing government that would actually be worthy of the name.

Will the public, in the U.S. or Iraq, accept a continued American presence under these terms? Now that we have rediscovered that fighting with inadequate resources loses wars, the public is understandably fed up with the whole undertaking. The larger war on terror, though, is a war that most of us still believe we need to fight. To do so, we need to avoid the kind of withdrawal that would allow Al Qaeda to claim victory while simultaneously precipitating a humanitarian crisis that would destabilize the region. We have no business starting wars we cannot bring ourselves to complete, but maybe we can bring ourselves to win a war we didn’t start.

Noah Feldman, a contributing writer for the magazine, is a law professor at New York University and adjunct senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.


Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company
 

Hfcomms

EN66iq
I observed that our delegation "stopped at a local market, where we spent well over an hour, shopping and talking with the local people, getting their views and ideas about different issues of the day." Markets in Baghdad have faced devastating terrorist attacks. A car bombing at Shorja in February, for example, killed 137 people. Today the market still faces occasional sniper attacks, but it is safer than it used to be.

Yeah, and while he was around the market the place was locked down tight and there was a huge heavily armed security contingent around him. Anytime a high profile target is on the move they shut everything down and throw a ring of steel around it. So from his standpoint is was pretty safe.

Now, try that again without the lockdown and without the cadre of security around him and if he survives he would write a much different article. If his attempt is to prove that the crackdown is working and things are safer for the average Iraqi then I don't think he would need the armored phalynx surrounding him.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/04/08/do0801.xml

We showed weakness and will pay the price
By Patrick Mercer
Last Updated: 12:01am BST 08/04/2007


Shiny new suits, goody bags, handshakes from a head of state and smiles (almost) all round.

Horseplay between young Brits completed what might have been the end of a package tour as the 15 sailors and marines from HMS Cornwall were returned by the grace and favour of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. It was the perfect media coup for the Iranians until the almost simultaneous slaughter of four of our soldiers (two of them women) and a local interpreter burst onto our screens. The blood-spattered helmets and effects of our troops made a horrid contrast with the homecoming of our sailors.

During the Iran statement in the House of Commons last week I seemed to be the only person asking about the fate of our soldiers rather than our sailors. While the world's media has been grabbed by the mercifully bloodless crisis of our sailors, our troops have had to face increasingly lethal attacks from Iranian-provided weapons in southern Iraq that have left many dead.
advertisement

Thursday's attack was just the latest improvised explosive device that, doubtless, has come across the border from Iran. Military commanders and diplomats have been protesting for at least three years now about what one serving military officer said to me was an "undeclared war with Iran". Yet the fiasco of the last two weeks grabs the public's imagination much more readily.

Three years ago a similar party of marines and sailors were seized in the Shatt-al-Arab waterway by Iranian gunboats. Their treatment was reminiscent of the Korean and Vietnam wars, with blindfolded prisoners being paraded for the world's media and statements being made by the captives. The prisoners were treated inhumanely, there was an outcry, and Iran quickly learnt to manipulate the press at our expense. So, if Iran could learn why couldn't we?

Last weekend there was a deeply disturbing letter in one of the national papers. It came from the wife of a recently retired Royal Navy rating who had served in many boarding operations off Iraq in just the circumstances in which HMS Cornwall's people were seized. The letter concluded, "the Armed Forces spend lots of time and money training our service personnel how to do their job correctly in non-threatening circumstances but then, at a time when we are involved in a war, they receive no training to equip them for this sort of scenario". Can this be correct, and if so what will the Royal Navy inquiry conclude about continuing operations in these disputed waters?

For general war, Army, Navy and RAF personnel are all told that if captured they must reveal nothing but name, rank, serial number and date of birth. As an infantry soldier, this was dinned into me at least twice a year, and I know it was the same in the other services whose people were more liable to capture. But this isn't general war and how are our personnel expected to behave when they are "arrested" rather than "captured" by a nation with whom we are not at war?

Clearly, the captured boarding party was put under psychological pressure and there were some who were intensely unhappy with being seen to cooperate with their captors. Faye Turney and one of the marines referred to HMS Cornwall as "Foxtrot 99" - something that no sailor would do - sending a clear message that their "confessions" were scripted by the Iranians. Similarly, two of the party were clearly truculent and very uneasy in the final propaganda footage before they left Iran. But the overriding impression is one of intense embarrassment for this country.

The Iranians made it clear more than three weeks ago that they were looking to capture "blond-haired and blue-eyed officers". We had been through all of this three years ago and still it happened again, provoking Israeli papers to headline: "Iran shows up Britain's weakness"; Saudi Arabian papers to say "the whole incident has become a triumph for the Iranians", and for most American papers to condemn us roundly.

While this incident has been dealt with bloodlessly, we must still face the frequent deaths and injuries of our troops in Iraq, directly or indirectly, at Iranian hands. The soft diplomacy of the naval incident will mean that any detente by the Government towards Iran will cause the world to say that Britain owes the Iranians for the release of our captives.

Militarily, there is no practical solution to Iran's nuclear programme nor its support for international terrorism. Anyone who doubts Iran's intent must look beyond the smiles of the last few days at the bodies of the young men and women who will be returning, slain, from southern Iraq. This is the reality of a dangerous, unstable and unpredictable government, where power is divided between the clerical and secular parts of their society.

I doubt that Iran will swerve from her determination to build nuclear weapons or her declared intent to destroy Israel. While the maelstrom of Iraq continues with the US committing more troops yet Britain seeking to withdraw hers, so a power vacuum is bound to develop. As early as 2005, Blair's Government showed its hand in terms of wanting to withdraw our forces from Iraq, and there seems little doubt that President Bush has similarly decided the game is up. Teetering on the edge of this is ambitious, dangerous and mendacious Iran.

I was awestruck on my last visit to the Iran-Iraq border to see just how much remained of their great war with each other in the 1980s. Burnt out tanks, half destroyed gun positions and the blackened trappings of battle lay everywhere, along with the graves of a generation of young men. We must have no doubt about the intentions of a country that was prepared to face such sacrifices and which, if anything, has become more unstable. Weakness in the face of such a threat will only be exploited and we must never put ourselves in the position again where we allow our servicemen and women to be used as pawns.

# Patrick Mercer is Conservative MP for Newark and a former Army colonel.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Well, it looks like the U.S./Coalition Proxy War with Iran is heating up....

__________________________________________________​

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/08/AR2007040800183.html?hpid=topnews

washingtonpost.com
Sadr Accuses U.S. of Dividing Iraq Through Violence
Radical Shiite Cleric Calls on Iraqis to End U.S. 'Occupation' in Iraq
By Sudarsan Raghavan
Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday, April 8, 2007; 5:08 PM

BAGHDAD, April 8 -- Calling America "the great evil," radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr on Sunday accused the United States of dividing Iraq through stoking violence, and he urged his Mahdi Army militiamen and Iraq's security forces to stop fighting each other in Diwaniyah, where clashes erupted over the weekend.

But the influential Shiite Muslim cleric stopped short of calling upon his fighters to rise up and battle U.S. troops, a move that would severely complicate an ongoing security offensive to pacify the capital and other parts of Iraq. Instead, Sadr ordered his followers to remain united and to go out and "demonstrate" in order to "end the occupation."

The call came on a bloody Easter Sunday for U.S. forces in Iraq, with the U.S. military announcing the deaths of 10 soldiers. Four soldiers were killed and one was wounded Saturday by an explosion near their vehicle in Diyala province north of Baghdad, and six died Sunday as a result of four separate attacks north and south of the capital, the military said.

Also Sunday, at least 17 Iraqis were killed and 26 wounded when a car bomb detonated in the town of Mahmudiyah about 20 miles south of Baghdad, U.S. and Iraqi authorities said. The car bomb, which went off near a hospital, destroyed a three-story building and leveled a number of industrial workshops.

In Baghdad, seven people were reported killed by a suicide car bomb.

Sadr's statement appeared to be aimed at stopping fighting in the southern city of Diwaniyah between his militia and Iraqi government security forces. In a three-day-old joint operation dubbed "Black Eagle," U.S. and Iraqi army forces have been battling the Mahdi Army for control of Diwaniyah. So far, nearly 40 militia members have been captured and several others killed in firefights, the U.S. military said in a statement Sunday.

"My brothers in the Mahdi Army, and my brothers in the security services: enough fighting and rivalry, because that is only a success for our, and your, enemy," Sadr said in a statement brimming with emotion and passages from the Koran. "Infighting between brothers is not right. Nor is it right to follow the dirty American sedition, or to defend, by some, the occupier."

Saying that the "enemy" wants "to draw you to a war to end Shiism, or rather Islam," he urged Iraq's army and police to remain independent of U.S. forces. "Do not be drawn after the occupier, because he is your stark enemy," Sadr said.

The vitriolic message came as thousands of Iraqis flowed to the holy southern city of Najaf on Sunday, heeding a call from Sadr to launch a massive protest against the U.S. presence in Iraq on Monday, the fourth anniversary of the fall of Saddam Hussein.

"In order to end the occupation, you will go out and demonstrate," Sadr said in the written statement, which carried his seal and was distributed in Najaf. "God has ordered you to be patient in front of your enemy and unify your efforts against them -- not against the sons of Iraq."

Sadr has been keeping a low profile in recent weeks, and his whereabouts are in dispute. The U.S. military says he has taken refuge in neighboring Iran, which is ruled by fellow Shiites. Sadr's aides, however, insist that he remains in Iraq.

In response to Sadr's call, Shiites packed into buses and cars Sunday, jamming the road from Baghdad to Najaf. They waved Iraqi flags and chanted religious and anti-American slogans. "No, no, no to America!" they yelled. "Moqtada, yes, yes, yes!"

Fearing an eruption of insurgent or sectarian violence on the eve of the anniversary of Hussein's ouster, the Iraqi military declared a 24-hour ban on all vehicles in Baghdad starting at 5 a.m. Monday.

The U.S. military provided scant details of the latest casualties in the four-year-old conflict, which so far has claimed the lives of about 3,280 American service members and wounded more than 24,000 others.

Three soldiers were killed by a roadside bomb and another was wounded during a patrol south of Baghdad Sunday, the military said in a statement. In a separate incident south of the capital, one U.S. soldier was killed and three others were wounded when they came under "indirect fire," the military said, using a term for mortar or rocket attacks. Two other soldiers died Sunday from wounds they received "while conducting combat operations" in Diyala and Salahuddin provinces, according to the military.

Separately, the military announced the capture of a man described as "a senior al-Qaeda leader" and two followers. A statement identified the man as "the gatekeeper to the al-Qaeda emir of Baghdad" and said he is reportedly linked to a number of "mass-casualty" car bombings in the Baghdad area.

In Sunday's car bomb attack in Mahmudiyah, a pickup truck loaded with artillery shells blew up in an area of auto repair shops, killing a number of mechanics. The nearby Mahmudiyah General Hospital was slightly damaged, news agencies reported.

All told, at least 47 people were killed or found dead Sunday, including 17 victims of execution-style killings whose bodies were dumped in Baghdad, the Associated Press reported.

Staff writer William Branigin in Washington contributed to this report.

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Your washingtonpost.com User ID will be displayed with your comment.

Comments: (Limit 5,000 characters)

Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
© 2007 The Washington Post Company
 

JohnGaltfla

#NeverTrump
Just an observation, but I wonder if weather had anything to do with the lack of activity this weekend.....it hasn't been all that wonderful in Iran and this week is equally as rainy over the capital where command and control will be targeted......
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Just an observation, but I wonder if weather had anything to do with the lack of activity this weekend.....it hasn't been all that wonderful in Iran and this week is equally as rainy over the capital where command and control will be targeted......

It could be, of course that's only if you want clear pre-strike imagery one more time before turning the launch keys and pressing the pickle button.
 

skip1

Membership Revoked
Come on people lets GET......

It could be, of course that's only if you want clear pre-strike imagery one more time before turning the launch keys and pressing the pickle button.




Come on people lets GET REAL. There is no way that Bush would have unleashed MISS
jennifer_eccleston_miss_shock_and_awe.jpg
& AWE on Easter Weekend. But however, I telling you guys She's a COMING SOON!!!! :smkd:
 
Top