stock-channel.net - Aktien Links Stocks Rohstoffe Trading Handel Exchange
stock-channel.net - The Art Of Trading Home Analysen IR-Center Finanznews Finanzlinks Mediathek Diskussion Kontakt

Zurück   stock-channel.net - Das Finanzportal > Zeitgeschehen
Benutzername
Kennwort
FAQ Benutzerliste Kalender Foren als gelesen markieren Reload
Aktuelle Uhrzeit 06:22

Antwort Gehe zum letzten Beitrag
 
Themen-Optionen
Alt 12.02.2007, 22:40   #1111
Sit
stock-channel.net trader
 
Benutzerbild von Sit
 
Registrierungsdatum: Jul 2003
Ort:
Beiträge: 9.578
Standard

The top American military officer, General Peter Pace, declined Monday to endorse the conclusions of U.S. military officers in Baghdad, who told reporters on Sunday that the Iranian government is providing high-powered roadside bombs to insurgents in Iraq. General Pace made his comments during a visit to Australia, and VOA's Al Pessin reports from Canberra.

General Pace said he was not aware of the Baghdad briefing, and that he could not, from his own knowledge, repeat the assertion made there that the elite Quds brigade of Iran's Republican Guard force is providing bomb-making kits to Iraqi Shiite insurgents.

"We know that the explosively formed projectiles are manufactured in Iran. What I would not say is that the Iranian government, per se [specifically], knows about this," he said. "It is clear that Iranians are involved, and it's clear that materials from Iran are involved, but I would not say by what I know that the Iranian government clearly knows or is complicit."

Military officers who spoke to reporters in Baghdad, Monday, on condition of anonymity, said the high-powered projectile bombs are made with parts manufactured in Iran and that intelligence indicates the parts are sent to Iraq with the approval of senior Iranian officials. The officials said the bombs, whose projectiles can pierce the skin of an armored vehicle, have killed 170 American troops.


General Pace also commented on an issue that has received a lot of attention in recent hours - the question of whether setting a specific timeline for a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq is a good idea. He says a withdrawal before Iraq's government and military can maintain stability would be disastrous and would have a 'spillover' effect in Afghanistan and elsewhere. The general commented shortly after meeting with Australian Prime Minister John Howard, but without specific reference to Howard's long-distance dispute with U.S. presidential contender Barack Obama.

"I don't see precise timelines as being useful. It should not be an open-ended commitment. Certainly it's time for the Iraqis, as they are, to stand up and take on more of their own responsibility. But to put a precise timeline on it means that you are signaling to your potential enemies that, if they just hold their breath for this amount of time, then we'll all be gone and they can come back out of the woodwork."

The latest person to enter the race to become the Democratic Party's presidential candidate next year, Senator Obama, has called for a withdrawal of all American troops from Iraq by March of next year. The Australian prime minister said terrorists would support such a plan. From around the world, Obama shot back that, if Howard feels so strongly, he should send 20,000 more Australian troops to Iraq.

Australia has just 1,400 troops in Iraq, and its entire active duty military is only 52,000 strong. But General Pace told reporters Monday the Australian troops are making a valuable contribution, in spite of their low numbers.

"The fight we're in against terrorism is not about large armies versus large armies. It's about small groups of individuals - five, 10, 15, 20 - who are reaching out to assist those who are in need," he said. "And, in that regard, both in Iraq and Afghanistan, Australia should be able to take great pride."

The general says all nations that value freedom should participate in fighting the global terrorist threat.

http://www.rawstory.com/showarticle...02-12-voa20.cfm
__________________
"Viele Wirtschaftswissenschaftler glauben an ihre Theorien, wie andere Menschen an ihre Religion glauben." John Mauldin
Sit ist offline   Mit Zitat antworten
Für Inhalt und Rechtmäßigkeit dieses Beitrags trägt der Verfasser Sit die alleinige Verantwortung. (s. Haftungshinweis)
Alt 12.02.2007, 22:49   #1112
Sit
stock-channel.net trader
 
Benutzerbild von Sit
 
Registrierungsdatum: Jul 2003
Ort:
Beiträge: 9.578
Standard







Normalerweise arbeitet man so etwas erst historisch auf, wir machen das noch während der Aufklärungsphase- vorbildlich!
__________________
"Viele Wirtschaftswissenschaftler glauben an ihre Theorien, wie andere Menschen an ihre Religion glauben." John Mauldin
Sit ist offline   Mit Zitat antworten
Für Inhalt und Rechtmäßigkeit dieses Beitrags trägt der Verfasser Sit die alleinige Verantwortung. (s. Haftungshinweis)
Alt 12.02.2007, 23:07   #1113
Sit
stock-channel.net trader
 
Benutzerbild von Sit
 
Registrierungsdatum: Jul 2003
Ort:
Beiträge: 9.578
Standard

New York Times Falls for Bogus Iran Weapons Charges

Completely Implausible Numbers are Thrown Around - Repeat of Judy Miller Scandal

By Juan Cole

02/12/07 "ICH" -- -- This NYT article depends on unnamed USG sources who alleged that 25 percent of US military deaths and woundings in Iraq in October-December of 2006 were from explosively formed penetrator bombs fashioned in Iran and given to Shiite militias:' In the last three months of 2006, attacks using the weapons accounted for a significant portion of Americans killed and wounded in Iraq, though less than a quarter of the total, military officials say.'

This claim is one hundred percent wrong. Because 25 percent of US troops were not killed fighting Shiites in those three months. Day after day, the casualty reports specify al-Anbar Province or Diyala or Salahuddin or Babil, or Baghdad districts such as al-Dura, Ghaziliyah, Amiriyah, etc.--and the enemy fighting is clearly Sunni Arab guerrillas. And, Iran is not giving high tech weapons to Baathists and Salafi Shiite-killers. It is true that some casualties were in "East Baghdad" and that Baghdad is beginning to rival al-Anbar as a cemetery for US troops:

Robert Burns of AP observes,


"The increasingly urban nature of the war is reflected in the fact that a higher percentage of U.S. deaths have been in Baghdad lately. Over the course of the war through Feb. 6, at least 1,142 U.S. troops have died in Anbar province, the heart of the Sunni Arab insurgency, according to an AP count. That compares with 713 in Baghdad. But since Dec. 28, 2006, there were more in Baghdad than in Anbar - 33 to 31."

Over all, only a fourth of US troops had been killed Baghdad (713 or 23.7 percent of about 3000) through the end of 2006. But US troops aren't fighting Shiites anyplace else-- Ninevah, Diyala, Salahuddin--these are all Sunni areas. For a fourth of US troops to be being killed or wounded by Shiite EFPs, all of the Baghdad deaths would have to be at the hands of Shiites!

The US military often does not announce exactly where in Baghdad a GI is killed and so I found it impossible to do a count of Sunni versus Shiite neighborhoods. But we know that Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki was running interference for the Mahdi Army last fall, and it seems unlikely to me that very many US troops died fighting Shiites in Baghdad. The math of Gordon's article does not add up at all if this were Shiite uses of Iran-provided EFPs.

So the unnamed sources at the Pentagon are reduced to implying that Iran is giving sophisticated bombs to its sworn enemies and the very groups that are killing its Shiite Iraqi allies every day. Get real!

Moreover, there is no evidence of Iranian intentions to kill US troops. If Iran was giving EFPs to anyone, it was to the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq and its Badr Corps paramilitary, for future use. SCIRI is the main US ally in Iraq aside from the Kurds. I don't know of US troops killed by Badr, certainly not any time recently.

It is far more likely that corrupt arms merchants are selling and smuggling these things than that there is direct government- to- militia transfer. It is possible that small Badr Corps stockpiles were shared or sold. That wouldn't have been Iran's fault.

Some large proportion of US troops being killed in Iraq are being killed with bullets and weapons supplied by Washington to the Iraqi army, which are then sold by desperate or greedy Iraqi soldiers on the black market. This problem of US/Iraqi government arms getting into the hands of the Sunni Arab guerrillas is far more significant and pressing than whatever arms smugglers bring in from Iran.

We now know that Iran came to the US early in 2003 with a proposal to cooperate with Washington in overthrowing Saddam Hussein, and that VP Richard Bruce Cheney rebuffed it. The US could have had Iran on its side in Iraq!

The attempt to blame these US deaths on Iran is in my view a black psy-ops operation. The claim is framed as though this was a matter of direct Iranian government transfer to the deadliest guerrillas. In fact, the most fractious Shiites are the ones who hate Iran the most. If 25 percent of US troops are being killed and wounded by explosively formed projectiles, then someone should look into who is giving those EFPs to Sunni Arab guerrillas. It isn't Iran.

Finally, it is obvious that if Iran did not exist, US troops would still be being blown up in large numbers. Sunni guerrillas in al-Anbar and West Baghdad are responsible for most of the deaths. The Bush administration's talent for blaming everyone but itself for its own screw-ups is on clear display here.

http://www.juancole.com

***

Bush's New Iran Policy - No Evidence for IED Charge
by Gareth Porter


WASHINGTON - For 18 months now, the George W. Bush administration has periodically raised the charge that Iran is supplying anti-coalition forces in Iraq with arms.

But in the past, high administration officials have always admitted that they have no real evidence to support it. Now, they are going further. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told reporters on her current Middle Eastern trip, "I think there is plenty of evidence that there is Iranian involvement with these networks that are making high-explosive IEDs [improvised explosive devices] and that are endangering our troops, and that's going to be dealt with."

However, Rice failed to provide any evidence of official Iranian involvement.

The previous pattern had been that U.S. and British officials suggest that Iranian government involvement in the use by Sunni insurgents or Shiite militias of "shaped charges" that can penetrate U.S. armoured vehicles is the only logical conclusion that could be drawn from the facts. But when asked point blank, they admit that they have no evidence to support it.

That charge serves not just one administration objective but two: it provides an additional justification for aggressive rhetoric and pressures against Tehran and also suggests that Iran bears much of the blame for the sectarian violence in Baghdad and high levels of U.S. casualties from IEDs.

The origins of the theme of Iranian complicity strongly suggest that it was a propaganda line aimed at reducing the Bush administration's acute embarrassment at its inability to stop the growing death toll of U.S. troops from shaped charges fired at armoured vehicles by Sunni insurgents.

The U.S. command admitted at first that the Sunnis were making the shaped charges themselves. On Jun. 21, 2005, Gen. John R. Vines, then the senior U.S. commander in Iraq, told reporters that the insurgents had probably drawn on bomb-making expertise from former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein's army.

A Pentagon official involved in combating the new IEDs also told the New York Times that the first such bombs examined by the U.S. military had required considerable expertise, and that well-trained former government specialists were probably involved in making them. The use of infrared detonators was regarded as a tribute to the insurgents' "resourcefulness", according to the Pentagon source.

But sometime in the next six weeks, the Bush administration made a decision to start blaming its new problem in Iraq on Tehran. On Aug. 4, 2005, Pentagon and intelligence officials leaked the story to NBC and CBS that U.S. troops had "intercepted" dozens of shaped charges said to have been "smuggled into northeastern Iraq only last week".

The NBC story quoted intelligence officials as saying they believed the IEDs were shipped into Iraq by Iranian Revolutionary Guards or Hezbollah, but were "convinced it could not have happened without the full consent of the Iranian government."

These stories were leaked to coincide with public accusations by then Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad that Iran was meddling in Iraqi affairs. A few days after the stories appeared, Rumsfeld declared that these shaped charges were "clearly, unambiguously from Iran" and blamed Tehran for allowing the cross-border traffic.

But the administration had a major credibility problem with that story. It could not explain why Iran would want to assist the enemies of the militant Shiite parties in Iraq that were aligned with Iran.

British troops in Shiite southern Iraq, where the shaped charges were apparently used by Shiite militias, had an equally embarrassing problem with the IEDs penetrating their armoured vehicles. An unnamed senior British official in London told BCC on Oct. 5, 2005 that the shaped charges that had killed British troops in southern Iraq had come from Hezbollah in Lebanon via Iran.

The following day, British Prime Minister Tony Blair took the occasion of a joint press conference with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani to declare that the circumstances surrounding the bombs that killed British soldiers "lead us either to Iranian elements or to Hezbollah." But Blair conceded that he had no evidence of such a link.

Privately British officials said that the only basis for their suspicions was that the technology was similar in design to the shaped charges used by Hezbollah in its war to drive Israel out of southern Lebanon in the 1980s.

Anthony Cordesman, a highly respected military analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, explained why the story line blaming Iran for the IED problem in Iraq didn't hold water. "A lot of this is just technology that is leaked into an informal network," he told Associated Press. "What works in one country gets known elsewhere."

The Blair government soon dropped that propaganda line. The Independent reported Jan. 5, 2006 that government officials acknowledged privately that there was no "reliable intelligence" connecting the Iranian government to the more powerful IEDs in the south.

However, the U.S. administration continued to push that accusation, and Bush himself raised the theme for the first time at a press conference Mar. 13, 2006. "Some of the most powerful IEDs we're seeing in Iraq today," he said, "came from Iran."

Bush quoted the director of national intelligence, John Negroponte, as testifying, "Tehran has been responsible for at least some of the increasing lethality of anti-coalition attacks by providing Shia militia with the capability to building improvised explosive devices."

No reporter has followed up on what Negroponte meant by providing the "capability" to build such devices or why it the militias would need to go outside Iraq to find that know-how.

The day after Bush's press conference, Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, admitted at a Pentagon news conference that he had no evidence of the Iranian government sending any military equipment or personnel into Iraq. Rumsfeld, appearing with Pace, said, "All you know is that you find equipment in a country that came from the neighbouring country."

Last November, as the release of the Iraq Study Report approached, administration officials again planted the story of intercepted Iranian-made weapons and munitions it had leaked in mid-2005. ABC news reported Nov. 30 that a "senior defence official" had told them of "smoking-gun evidence of Iranian support for terrorists in Iraq: brand new weapons fresh from Iranian factories."

The new twist in the story was that the weapons allegedly had manufacturing dates in 2006. The story continued, "This suggests, say the sources, that the material is going directly from Iranian factories to Shia militias, rather than taking a roundabout path through the black market."

The assumption underlying the anti-Iran defence department spin that a private market for weapons or, more likely, components, could not move them from Iran across the porous border to Iraq in a few months is far-fetched.

At about the same time Bush apparently gave orders that the U.S. military should seize any Iranians in the country in an effort to get some kind of evidence to use in support of its propaganda theme. The first such operation came in central Baghdad just before Christmas, and a second raid against Iranian diplomats in Erbil was carried out to coincide with the president's speech last Wednesday.

These raids, presented to the public as part of a campaign against targets supposedly identified through good intelligence, were clearly aimed at trying to substantiate an anti-Iran line for which the administration has no credible evidence. Those raids now create a requirement to produce something new to justify them.

Gareth Porter is an historian and national security policy analyst. His latest book, "Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam", was published in June 2005.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0116-08.htm
__________________
"Viele Wirtschaftswissenschaftler glauben an ihre Theorien, wie andere Menschen an ihre Religion glauben." John Mauldin
Sit ist offline   Mit Zitat antworten
Für Inhalt und Rechtmäßigkeit dieses Beitrags trägt der Verfasser Sit die alleinige Verantwortung. (s. Haftungshinweis)
Alt 12.02.2007, 23:15   #1114
Sit
stock-channel.net trader
 
Benutzerbild von Sit
 
Registrierungsdatum: Jul 2003
Ort:
Beiträge: 9.578
Standard

11. Februar 2007
Pre$$titutes at work.
Im Oktober 2002 behaupteten Judith Miller und Michael Gordon in der "New York Times":

" More than a decade after Saddam Hussein agreed to give up weapons of mass destruction, Iraq has stepped up its quest for nuclear weapons and has embarked on a worldwide hunt for materials to make an atomic bomb, Bush administration officials said today. (..) In the last 14 months, Iraq has sought to buy thousands of specially designed aluminum tubes, which American officials believe were intended as components of centrifuges to enrich uranium."

...und lieferten damit einen der zentralen Propaganda-Bausteine für den Irak-Angriff. Weil das so prima und reibungslos funktionierte - und eine kleine Krokodilsträne, das "mea culpa" der NYT-Chefredaktion zwei Jahre später, der Fälschung nicht mehr schaden konnte - hat Michael Gordon keine Hemmungen, so weiter zu machen. Am Wochenende behauptet er in der NYT, dass die “tödlichsten Waffen gegen amerikanische Truppen im Irak” vom Iran geliefert werden. Als Quelle dafür nennt er in guter alter Pre$$titute-Manier niemanden, bzw. so vertrauenswürdige Instanzen wie “civilian and military officials from a broad range of government agencies” ,"administration officials" oder "intelligence experts". Wir sein Vorgänger Rumsfeld den von der Regierung via NYT lancierten Ball "Aluminiumröhren" aufnahm, beherrscht auch sein Nachfolger im Pentagon, Robert Gates, dieses Spiel und behauptete am Wochenende dass die "Serienummern und Markierungen einiger Sprengstoffe im Irak andeuten, dass da Material aus dem Iran kommt." Belege oder Beweise dafür nannte Gates nicht - aber wenn die "seriöse" New York Times darüber berichtet, wird ja wohl was dran sein... Vor allem, wenn ein Böser wie Putin in München behauptet: "Im Gegensatz zu Russland lieferten im Übrigen die USA bis heute militärisches Material an Iran." Auch Putin nennt keine Quellen für diese Behauptung und die USA werden weit von sich weisen, dass ihre Förderung von Mullahs und Terroristen auch nach dem Auffliegen von "Iran/Contra" 1986 weitergegangen ist. Dass Putins deutliche Kritik an der aggressiven Kriegspolitik der USA vom hiesigen Pre$$titutes-Corps "schockierend" genannt wird, wundert indes nicht - wer die Massenvernichtung von bis zu 650.000 Irakern für gerechtfertigt hält, kann sich von Kritik daran nur "schockiert" fühlen.

Mathias Bröckers, writersblog

***

First, the Bush administration created a catalogue of lies and misinformation in order to justify invasion. Second, some prominent members of the national media parroted those lies.

For example, on September 8, 2002, Miller reported on the front page of the Times that intercepted aluminum tubes indicated that Saddam was developing a nuclear bomb. That day, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice and Dick Cheney all appeared on Sunday morning talk shows, citing Miller’s sensational exposé, which was debunked, with much less fanfare, five days later.

http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/2362

***

BY FRAZIER MOORE, AP

NEW YORK - The timing could hardly be better. [unless they'd done it 4 years ago or any other time prior to now]

"News War" is a "Frontline" probe into the modern Fourth Estate, embattled from many directions. And, by chance, it coincides with the imminent conclusion to a Washington free-for-all that has ensnared the news media: the perjury trial of former vice presidential aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby. He is charged with lying to investigators about his conversations with journalists.

The first hour of the four-part series does a splendid job of untangling the snarl of events that began in early 2003 with the Bush administration's drive to win support from the public for invading Iraq.

Airing Tuesday on WTTW Channel 11 at 9 p.m., "Secrets, Sources & Spin" lays out how the government peddled its point of view to major media outlets by planting confidential tips that supported administration claims about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Such tips sparked stories which the government then cited as bolstering its claim.

Few in the media broke this information loop at the time, nor managed to uncover what became obvious only after the invasion: There were no WMDs.

"The way that the press was sold and spun ... and just fooled by the White House in the run-up to the war represents more than just a missed story," media analyst Jay Rosen says in the film. "How can one say that we have a watchdog press after a performance like that?"

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/18466

***

Memo an "Frontline": Die Hälfte der Welt wusste schon 2002 von den Lügen! Es gab auch genug Stimmen, die das sagten. Hans Blix, Scott Ritter, Greg Thielman, hunderte weitere...
Jetzt auf Taub machen ist aber gar nicht nett. Oder setzt man sich bei "Frontline" / CBS jetzt schon mal vorsorglich ab?
__________________
"Viele Wirtschaftswissenschaftler glauben an ihre Theorien, wie andere Menschen an ihre Religion glauben." John Mauldin
Sit ist offline   Mit Zitat antworten
Für Inhalt und Rechtmäßigkeit dieses Beitrags trägt der Verfasser Sit die alleinige Verantwortung. (s. Haftungshinweis)
Alt 13.02.2007, 06:17   #1115
Sit
stock-channel.net trader
 
Benutzerbild von Sit
 
Registrierungsdatum: Jul 2003
Ort:
Beiträge: 9.578
Standard

Response: Don't believe the official 'conspiracy' theory


We have to ask who stood to gain the most from the appalling events of 9/11, says Tim Sparke

Tuesday February 13, 2007
The Guardian

George Monbiot's explicit attack on the film Loose Change (A 9/11 conspiracy virus is sweeping the world ..., February 6) has no basis in fact. While we accept that there are flaws in the current version of the film, we stand by its overarching theme that the official "conspiracy" theory of 9/11, constructed in the hours, days, weeks and months after 9/11, is false.

In uncritically endorsing the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) report, Monbiot neglects to say that the collapse mechanism for the entire World Trade Centre building was never documented by NIST - it didn't see it as its job. Additionally, in accepting that the towers collapsed at virtually free-fall speed ("the weight of the collapsing top storeys generated a momentum the rest of the building could not arrest"), Monbiot shows no awareness that this explanation violates the law of conservation of momentum.

Monbiot also appears oblivious to NIST's failure to explain that, although fire could not have melted any steel, there were pools of molten metal under the rubble, and these pools remained molten for weeks after the collapse; that dozens of people, including firefighters, news reporters and fleeing victims, all reported massive explosions; the clear video evidence of explosions taking place; that virtually all the concrete was pulverised into tiny particles; the apparent disintegration of the central steel core; and the destruction of all the evidence from America's biggest crime scene, which was covertly transported to Asian and African shores before any forensic examination could take place.

Monbiot then endorses the idea that Building 7 collapsed because "thousands of gallons of diesel [were poured] on to the fire" - oblivious to the fact that, even if an enormous fire could have caused a symmetrical collapse (which required all 81 steel columns to miraculously fail simultaneously), there was, as photographs and eyewitnesses reveal, no enormous fire. Monbiot also appears unaware that several engineers and demolition experts, after studying videos, have declared that this collapse can only have been caused by explosives.

Monbiot suggests that thousands of people must have been involved in the conspiracy, as if the official story must therefore be true. We have no clue as to how many (though some suggest probably fewer than 1,000); but wasn't the Manhattan project, involving 100,000, kept secret, even from Vice-President Truman, until weeks before the first atom bomb was dropped?

Monbiot then suggests that CounterPunch - by refuting the film's claims - has to be correct, because it is a left-leaning newspaper. But acceptance of the official "conspiracy" theory is not a left or right political issue. It is about whether we should accept unconditionally a story which defeats the laws of physics, denies the abundance of witness testimony, and rejects video evidence put forward by an organisation, which, in hindsight, we know had the means, motive and opportunity, and also has a record of being economical with the truth.

We agree that our movie can't answer all the questions that millions of people now have - but the fact that Loose Change is the most downloaded film in internet history is the strongest argument for an honest public debate, and a truly independent inquiry. As we say in the 9/11 Truth Movement: ask questions, demand answers, investigate 9/11.

Tim Sparke is executive producer of Loose Change Final Cut.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentis...2011845,00.html
__________________
"Viele Wirtschaftswissenschaftler glauben an ihre Theorien, wie andere Menschen an ihre Religion glauben." John Mauldin
Sit ist offline   Mit Zitat antworten
Für Inhalt und Rechtmäßigkeit dieses Beitrags trägt der Verfasser Sit die alleinige Verantwortung. (s. Haftungshinweis)
Alt 13.02.2007, 11:21   #1116
Sit
stock-channel.net trader
 
Benutzerbild von Sit
 
Registrierungsdatum: Jul 2003
Ort:
Beiträge: 9.578
Standard

US-Soldaten finden österreichische Waffen

Die US-Armee hat einem britischen Zeitungsbericht zufolge Belege dafür gefunden, dass Iran Waffen an Terroristen im Irak liefert. In Bagdad seien österreichische Gewehre gefunden worden, die zuvor nach Teheran geliefert worden waren.

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausla...,466024,00.html

__________________
"Viele Wirtschaftswissenschaftler glauben an ihre Theorien, wie andere Menschen an ihre Religion glauben." John Mauldin
Sit ist offline   Mit Zitat antworten
Für Inhalt und Rechtmäßigkeit dieses Beitrags trägt der Verfasser Sit die alleinige Verantwortung. (s. Haftungshinweis)
Alt 13.02.2007, 11:34   #1117
Sit
stock-channel.net trader
 
Benutzerbild von Sit
 
Registrierungsdatum: Jul 2003
Ort:
Beiträge: 9.578
Standard

US-Präsident George W. Bush hat gestern Spekulationen über einen möglichen Angriff auf Iran gedämpft. Entsprechende Gerüchte tat er in einem Interview als politisches Gerede ab. Es gebe noch immer die Chance, den Konflikt über das iranische Atomprogramm auf diplomatischem Weg zu lösen, sagte Bush dem Fernsehsender C-SPAN. "Die Iraner sind gute, ehrliche und anständige Leute, und sie haben eine streitlustige, laute und bedrohliche Regierung, die auf Konfrontation zum Rest der Welt geht", sagte Bush. "Unser Ziel ist, den Druck aufrecht zu erhalten, so dass vernünftige Leute auftauchen und sagen, dass das die Isolation nicht wert ist."

ebd.

***



http://www.crooksandliars.com/Media...n-Iraq-Iran.wmv

"It has been a haunting undertone to the new year. At moments, the start of 2007 has sounded like the end of 2002 or the start of 2003. It's been as if you could just substitute one letter; an 'n' for a 'q'. Like all that President Bush once said before he took us to war in Iraq was being recycled as what he's been now saying about Iran."

The fact that we're even talking about the (very real) possibility of attacking Iran is utterly dumbfounding. The part that scares me most is the confirmation we got just last week that the administration has set up an Iranian Directorate that will fulfill the same purpose as the OSP did for Iraq — namely, manipulate and exploit intelligence to fit preconceived policy goals.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/...-war-part-deux/
__________________
"Viele Wirtschaftswissenschaftler glauben an ihre Theorien, wie andere Menschen an ihre Religion glauben." John Mauldin
Sit ist offline   Mit Zitat antworten
Für Inhalt und Rechtmäßigkeit dieses Beitrags trägt der Verfasser Sit die alleinige Verantwortung. (s. Haftungshinweis)
Alt 13.02.2007, 18:24   #1118
Sit
stock-channel.net trader
 
Benutzerbild von Sit
 
Registrierungsdatum: Jul 2003
Ort:
Beiträge: 9.578
Standard

many critics suspect that Bush had made the decision to invade Iraq in 2002


Memo to Olbermann:


Sit schreit: Wir haben die Beweise dafür!


http://www.afterdowningstreet.org
http://www.downingstreetmemo.com

Keine unzuverlässigen Geheimdienstberichte, keine letzte Option, sondern bewußt konstruierte Lügen, um diesen Krieg zu bekommen!!!

So wie jetzt wieder!
__________________
"Viele Wirtschaftswissenschaftler glauben an ihre Theorien, wie andere Menschen an ihre Religion glauben." John Mauldin
Sit ist offline   Mit Zitat antworten
Für Inhalt und Rechtmäßigkeit dieses Beitrags trägt der Verfasser Sit die alleinige Verantwortung. (s. Haftungshinweis)
Alt 13.02.2007, 19:20   #1119
Sit
stock-channel.net trader
 
Benutzerbild von Sit
 
Registrierungsdatum: Jul 2003
Ort:
Beiträge: 9.578
Standard

Fortschreitende Kriegsplanungen
Angriff auf Iran rückt näher
12.02.2007






Schon die unübersehbare Verlegung von immer mehr Waffensystemen und Soldaten in Angriffsentfernung zum Iran ist sicherlich als deutliches Signal für die Vorbereitung eines weiteren Angriffskrieges der USA anzusehen. Seit einigen Tagen wiederholt sich nun eine weitere Vorbereitungsphase des völkerrechtswidrigen Angriffskrieges gegen den Irak hinsichtlich des Irans.

Zwar hatte die US-Regierung auch schon in der Vergangenheit wenig Gelegenheiten ausgelassen, den Iran als von Holocaust-leugnenden Judenhassern bewohntes "Reich des Bösen" darzustellen, seit rund zwei Wochen kann hier allerdings nur noch von einer konzertierten Aktion gesprochen werden. Dies begann mit der "Vermutung", der Iran sei direkt an einem Angriff auf einen US-Posten in der irakischen Stadt Karbala beteiligt gewesen. Als Grundlage für diese Vermutung wurde angegeben, daß dies das erste Mal gewesen sei, daß ein derart "aufwendiges Kommandounternehmen" gegen die Besatzer durchgeführt worden sei - wozu der irakische Widerstand ohne Hilfe von außen vorgeblich nicht in der Lage sei.

Ende Januar berichtete dann der britische Guardian, nicht näher genannte europäische Regierungen "befürchteten" zunehmend, die "Spannungen" zwischen den USA und dem Iran über dessen vorgebliches Programm zur Entwicklung von Atomwaffen in einen Krieg münden könnten. Da der Iran immer wieder betont, keinesfalls Atomwaffen zu entwickeln und die USA bisher keinerlei Beweise für ihren Standpunkt vorlegen konnten, war dies eine auffällige Verwischung der Ursache dieser "Spannungen".

Am Freitag erreichte die Propaganda dann auch deutsche Medien, als in einer ganzen Reihe von Artikeln nur zu offensichtlich Stimmung gegen den Iran und für den US-Standpunkt gemacht wurde.

Am Montag nun berichteten die Medien, daß die US-Regierung - unterstützt von der britischen Regierung - dem Iran vorwerfen, irakische Widerstandskämpfer mit Waffen und Munition zu beliefern. Als Beweis hierfür wurden einige Granaten und Panzerfäuste gezeigt, deren Seriennummern und Typenbezeichnungen eine Herstellung im Iran belegten. Die Waffen seien im Irak gefunden worden. Durch von dem Iran gelieferte Hohlladungen seien in den vergangenen drei Jahren bereits über 170 US-Soldaten getötet worden, so der seitens des Irans unverzüglich zurückgewiesene Vorwurf. Dieser Vorwurf ist dabei keineswegs neu, wurde er doch schon im September 2005 von britischer Seite vorgebracht - nachdem zuvor britische Soldaten gewaltsam aus einem irakischen Gefängnis befreit worden waren. Die Soldaten waren in ziviler Kleidung im Besitz von Sprengstoff und Fernzündern aufgegriffen worden.

Nicht nur, daß nur das Wort der USA existiert, daß die vorgelegten "Funde" tatsächlich im Irak gefunden wurden und neueren Datums sind - es gehört nicht gerade zu den Prioritäten von Waffenherstellern, die Beschriftung von Granaten fälschungssicher zu machen - es existieren auch keinerlei Beweise dafür, daß mögliche Lieferungen auf Betreiben der iranischen Regierung erfolgen und nicht vielmehr "privatwirtschaftlich" einzuordnen sind. Selbst wenn dies aber der Fall sein sollte - mögliche Gründe hierfür sind zahlreich vorhanden - so birgt es doch eine gewisse Ironie, daß ausgerechnet die USA dies öffentlich anprangern, sind sie es doch, die schon unzählige Waffen in ebenso unzählige Krisenregionen und Kriegsgebiete geliefert haben und liefern, wenn sie der Ansicht waren, dies würde ihren Interessen - von wirtschaftlichen Interessen bis zur Bekämpfung des Kommunismus und der Sicherung von Rohstoffen - dienen.

Diese unübersehbare Medienoffensive kann nur als weiteres überdeutliches Warnsignal für den Fortschritt der Kriegsplanungen der USA betrachtet werden.

http://www.freace.de/artikel/200702/120207a.html
__________________
"Viele Wirtschaftswissenschaftler glauben an ihre Theorien, wie andere Menschen an ihre Religion glauben." John Mauldin
Sit ist offline   Mit Zitat antworten
Für Inhalt und Rechtmäßigkeit dieses Beitrags trägt der Verfasser Sit die alleinige Verantwortung. (s. Haftungshinweis)
Alt 13.02.2007, 19:23   #1120
Sit
stock-channel.net trader
 
Benutzerbild von Sit
 
Registrierungsdatum: Jul 2003
Ort:
Beiträge: 9.578
Standard

Pentagon Caught Red Handed in an attempt to Frame Iran: Iran Does Not Manufacture 81MM Mortar Shells

by Kurt Nimmo

Global Research, February 13, 2007
Another Day in the Empire - 2007-02-12


Pentagon carelessness fabricating bogus “evidence” against Iran is really quite stupendous. As I wrote here yesterday, the 81mm mortar shell offered up to the complaisant corporate media as “evidence” Iran is supplying weaponry to the Shi’a of Iraq is an obvious ruse, as the date on the proffered shell does not follow the Muslim calendar and other markings are in English when it only makes sense they would appear in Persian script.

But it gets worse.

As a recent email points out, Iran does not manufacture 81mm mortar shells. According to a report offered by the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University, connected to the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the neocon Brookings Institute, the smallest mortar produced by Iran is the 107mm M-30. This information is included in the JCSS’s “Middle East Military Balance,” updated last February. It can be read in this PDF file on page 15. According to JCSS, “The Middle East Military Balance has been the most authoritative source on Middle Eastern Armies since 1983.” It is quite fortunate for us the hubris-filled neocons care not to double check their engineered lies—erroneously described as a “machining process”—before unleashing them on an unwitting public.

As Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini told the Associated Press, the “United States has a long history in fabricating evidence,” an undisputed fact more than underscored by the lead-up to the Iraq invasion when the neocons claimed Iraqi weather balloon trailers doubled as biological weapon labs and clumsily recycled a student’s homework as evidence Saddam was dabbling in weapons of mass destruction.

Considering the shoddiness of the mortar ruse, it makes perfect sense so-called “experts” involved in the scam told “a large gathering of reporters” (more accurately described as script readers and errand boys) “they not be further identified,” lest blame be delivered to their doorstep.

“Why are US officials hiding behind the cloak of anonymity when presenting the most detailed evidence yet that Iran is supplying anti-US forces in Iraq with weaponry?” muses Eason Jordan. “After weeks, if not months, of US official planning to present a damning ‘dossier’ of incriminating evidence against Iran, and after this same US administration presented us with lopsided, erroneous information about the capability and evil intentions of the Saddam Hussein regime, the best the US government can give us today is incendiary evidence presented at a Baghdad news conference by three US officials who refuse to be quoted by name?…. The American people deserve straight talk from identified US officials.”

Of course, such “straight talk” will not be forthcoming—not now or after Iran is destroyed, as Iraq was destroyed before it.

Maybe, if we are lucky, at some point in the future, the names of these “experts” will emerge in the course of a new Nuremberg trial.

Addendum

Iran does not manufacture 81mm mortars—but Pakistan does. Compare the photo on this death merchant catalog page with the one offered up as “evidence” against the Iranians. Minus the nosecone and fins at the bottom, it is almost a dead ringer, excuse the metaphor (see enlargement here).

Is it possible the Pentagon neocons, in their zeal to finger the Iranians and thus kick start World War Four, as they fondly call it, are using a Pakistani mortar and attributing it to Iran? Considering the long and sordid history of collaboration between the CIA, Pentagon, and Pakistan’s nefarious ISI, this is likely the case.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index....&articleId=4772
__________________
"Viele Wirtschaftswissenschaftler glauben an ihre Theorien, wie andere Menschen an ihre Religion glauben." John Mauldin
Sit ist offline   Mit Zitat antworten
Für Inhalt und Rechtmäßigkeit dieses Beitrags trägt der Verfasser Sit die alleinige Verantwortung. (s. Haftungshinweis)
Alt 13.02.2007, 19:52   #1121
Sit
stock-channel.net trader
 
Benutzerbild von Sit
 
Registrierungsdatum: Jul 2003
Ort:
Beiträge: 9.578
Standard

YIKES - Warmongering Top Neocon Daniel Pipes Testifies in Congress

Do They Learn NOTHING?

---
Feb 12, 2007

By Daniel Levy

This Wednesday the Middle East Subcommittee of the House Foreign Affairs Committee will hold an open hearing on “next steps in the Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process.” It’s a kind of important issue. The Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group Report convincingly and firmly asserted that US credibility and leadership in the region, ability to build and lead alliances, and reducing the mobilizing capacity of extremists, are all integrally linked to a re-launched Israeli Palestinian peace process. These are also the first Middle East Subcommittee hearings of the 110th Congress and come at a critical time – with a new Palestinian government in the making and a trilateral Israeli-Palestinian-US summit planned for February 19th. So whose fountain of wisdom on these issues have the Subcommittee chosen to sip from? None other than neocon wing-nut Daniel Pipes – head of the McCarthyite “Campus Watch,” carrier of the bizarre honor of having become a US Institute for Peace Board Member as a recess appointment in the face of Senate opposition (which places him in the same category as John Bolton), and leader of the apocalyptic war-mongering school of so-called pro-Israelism. For him even the most right-wing of Israeli parties in the last election were not hard-line enough. What are we to make of this?

I have it on good authority from Democrat and Republican sources that Pipes’ inclusion in the panel at this hearing came at the insistence of the Republicans on the Committee (others speaking are Ambassador Martin Indyk of Brookings and David Makovsky from WINEP). Dem Subcommitte Chair Gary Ackerman (D-NY) could apparently not prevent this invitation to Pipes, but he can at least give this anti-peace lunatic rightie a good grilling on Wednesday. Ackerman should be encouraged to do so by TPM readers. Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) is the GOP ranking member responsible, but the real inspiration apparently came from Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) (Cuba sanctions, Palestinian sanctions, regime-change warrior…etc). Americans for Peace Now’s Lara Friedman – the unsung hero of Washington Middle East peace advocacy – tells me that no alert mail she can remember sending out, received the volume of exasperated responses as the Pipes note. Pipes himself has proudly informed his own listserv of his upcoming moment of glory on the Hill and this will no doubt enhance his fundraising credentials, amongst other things.

What can the Middle East Subcommittee members, eager to be informed by the real experts, expect to hear from Pipes? His Middle East Foundation is closely linked to the AEI and the same stable of characters who brought you the war in Iraq, are beating the drums for a war with Iran, and have stubbornly sought to block any efforts at resuming Israeli-Arab peace making. During the summer conflict in Lebanon in a New York Sun piece entitled “Hold Damascus Responsible,” Pipes called for a military attack on Syria and came out against the strengthened UN force that Israel eagerly encouraged and embraced as part of Security Council Resolution 1701. Just before the Israeli elections, in a now infamous piece, “Israel Avoids Victory,” from his home thousands of miles away from the bloody conflict and suffering on both sides, Pipes suggested that “as Israelis go to the polls, not one of the leading parties offers the option of winning the war against the Palestinian Arabs” ( Iraq watchers: sounds familiar?). Pipes goes on to reject unilateralism, territorial compromise, peace through economic rehabilitation, peace through democracy, and even transfer (!) as all being insufficiently conclusive Israeli victories for his liking. Pipes supported a lone Likud guy who was so low on their Knesset list that he never made it in to Parliament (Uzi Landau). This is really the guy you want commenting on the peace process!!

Pipes once unforgettably referred to Muslim immigrants as “brown skinned peoples cooking strange foods and not exactly maintaining Germanic standards of hygiene,” and even if we take his later attempts to contextualize this quote at face value (and that would demand an intellectual openness on our part that Pipes seems incapable of), then he at least enjoys a good flirt with Islamo-phobia. Pipes submitted a proposal to establish an Anti-Islamist Institute, the exposure of which by Jim Lobe of the Inter-Press Service, probably made sure it never got off the ground. Nevertheless, in 2002 Pipes did launch Campus Watch, a particularly nasty variant of contemporary McCarthyite tactics, encouraging students to report on Professors and stifling open academic teachings and research on Middle East issues. A Foreign Service officer who has spent his career training young diplomats before overseas postings recently confided to me that the effects of efforts such as Campus Watch could already be seen from the somewhat distorted appreciation of the region held by MidEast studies graduates who became diplomatic trainees. The list goes on and if you want to read more start here (it’s endless).

Pipes is a no good-nik, but what’s the big deal? It’s only a Subcommittee hearing that is unlikely to change the course of Middle East events. The trouble with inviting Pipes is the contemptuous and arrogant approach it displays to Congressional oversight and the hearings process. It feeds into the self-marginalization of Congress when it comes to checking the policy options on offer and of failing to contribute in an informed way to intelligent debate – and all this in the very same part of the world that America finds itself so embroiled today, namely the Middle East. Since the start of the 110th Congress the Dems have tried to hold serious committee hearings, certainly on foreign policy. Whoever did invite Pipes, and someone should be made to publicly own up, clearly favors a further dumbing down of Congressional debate. Members of the Subcommittee (List here) should know what people, TPM readers among them, think of this invitation to Pipes.

Better yet, members should be encouraged to do something constructive during the 10 minutes of the Pipes’ testimony. Here’s one idea: Rep. Susan Davis (D-CA) has introduced House Resolution 143 urging the President to appoint a Special Envoy for Middle East Peace. H. Res. 143 has already attracted a number of co-sponsors, including Jewish members and Congress’ only Muslim member. (Co-sponsors include Blumenauer (D-OR), Ellison (D-MN), Klein (D-FL), McCollum (D-MN), Schiff (D-CA)). H. Res. 143 includes a lot of sensible language such as “it is directly in the national interest of the US to reengage both sides…a lasting peace…will reduce tension in the region…help repair America’s image in the international community…and help reduce Iranian influence in the region” (Read the full resolution here and for the APN campaign see here). Committee members could use the time of Pipes’ testimony to sign up to Resolution 143 and encourage colleagues to do the same.

This issue does matter. America’s preeminent foreign policy challenge is to stabilize the Middle East - Iraq and troop draw-downs included. That stabilization can’t happen while leaders continue to look for policy guidance from and give legitimacy to the gutter-rat brand of war-mongers that Daniel Pipes represents.

Daniel Levy was an advisor in Prime Minister Sharon's Office, a member of the official Israel negotiating team at the Oslo B and Taba talks, and the lead Israeli drafter of the Geneva Initiative.

http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/639

***

Da haben wir ja mal einen echten Neonazi gefunden.

Zur Erinnerung:
Ich wurde bei DU gesperrt, weil ich einen Link postete, der eine Verbindung zwischen Pipes und Rosen sowie dem Islam-Cartoon-Skandal beleuchtet...


Wollen wir den noch mal lesen? Jaa!

http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=10253

The Daniel Pipes apologetic article from Flemming Rose/Jyllands Posten

Flemming "Muhammad cartoons" Rose traveled to Philadelphia in 2004 in order to meet Daniel Pipes (the neo con who’s advocating to keep US muslims in concentration camps). Here’s the translation of the article that ensued.

***

Flemming Rose and the Straussian Art of Provocation
Tuesday February 07th 2006, 3:24 pm

As suspected, and claimed on this blog over the weekend, the inflammatory anti-Muslim cartoons published in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten were a deliberate provocation designed to outrage and incite Muslims and thus engender support in Europe and America for the manufactured “clash of civilizations” engineered by the Straussian neocons. As Christopher Bollyn writes for the American Free Press, the neocon operative behind the cartoon scheme is Flemming Rose, cultural editor of Jyllands-Posten, who has “has clear ties to the Zionist Neo-Cons.” Rose “traveled to Philadelphia in October 2004 to visit Daniel Pipes, the Neo-Con ideologue who says the only path to Middle East peace will come through a total Israeli military victory. Rose then penned a positive article about Pipes, who compares ‘militant Islam’ with fascism and communism,” Bollyn reveals.

Daniel Pipes is one of the more virulent and hateful of the Straussian neocons, famous for his racist and xenophobic statement that Muslim immigrants are “brown-skinned peoples cooking strange foods and not exactly maintaining Germanic standards of hygiene,” an attitude straight out of the Nazi school of racial hyperbole (a philosophy embraced by no small number of Jabotinsky Likudites and their fellow travelers among the traitorous Straussian neocons).

Bollyn continues:

“Agents of certain persuasion” are behind the egregious affront to Islam in order to provoke Muslims, Professor Mikael Rothstein of the University of Copenhagen told the BBC. The key “agent” is Flemming Rose, the cultural editor of JP, who commissioned cartoonists to produce the blasphemous images and then published them in Denmark’s leading morning paper last September….

Rose told the international paper owned by The New York Times that “he would not publish a cartoon of Israel’s Ariel Sharon strangling a Palestinian baby, since that could be construed as ‘racist.’”

As Daniel Pipes and his ilk have repeatedly demonstrated, it is not racist to characterize Arabs and Muslims as “brown-skinned peoples” suffering from bad hygiene, although it is a crime to take the apartheid state of Israel to task for murdering Palestinian children. But then, as Lenni Brenner has documented, the followers of Ze’ev Jabotinsky—and his political creation, the reactionary Likud Party in Israel—are not only well versed in fascism, but murderous racism as well.

As for the unapologetic stance of the Danes in regard to publishing the cartoons, Bollyn comments:

There is clearly a more sinister reason why the Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen refuses to issue a formal apology as demanded by Arab and Muslim governments. The hard-line position taken by Rasmussen, an ally in the “war on terror,” has more to do with advancing the “clash of civilizations” than defending free speech in Europe….

There is a deeper reason behind the publication of the offensive cartoons. Given the unapologetic position taken by the Danish government and the editors it appears very likely that tension with Islamic nations will increase and the international crisis will deepen. This is, after all, exactly what the global planners behind the “clash of civilizations” want.

The completely predictable reaction among Muslims sets the stage for violence and “false-flag” terror attacks as Europeans prepare to host the Olympics in Turin, Italy. The Turin-based La Stampa irresponsibly published the cartoons on Feb. 1, two days after Milan’s Corriere della Sera.

The anti-Islamic cartoon scandal is no laughing matter. If and when a terror attack does occur and the cartoons and angry Muslims are blamed for being the cause, the reason they were published will become clear. Europeans will become increasingly polarized and hostility to Islam will grow.

Of course, as the Straussian neocons prepare the next phase of their total war against Islam master plan—attacking Iran and possibly soon after Syria—tacit support from Europe will be a plus, especially after the false flag Gladio-like terror attacks in Madrid produced undesirable results (the Spanish people rejected José María Aznar, a neocon toady and grandson of a prominent fascist journalist).

So if terror attacks do indeed occur during the Olympics in Turin, we can point an accusatory finger quite naturally in the direction of the Straussian neocons, linked to Operation Gladio terrorism through Michael Ledeen, who is connected to Francesco Pazienza and the P2 Masonic Lodge responsible for the CIA-NATO sponsored Strategy of Tension terrorism campaign in Italy (an Italian criminal court convicted Pazienza in 1985 of political manipulation, forgery, and the protection of criminals and terrorists, among other offenses, in relation to the Gladio bombing of a Bologna train station, killing more than 80 people; see Jeff Wells’ Rigorous Intuition).

“One of P-2’s specialties was the art of provocation,” writes Mark Zepezauer. “Leftist organizations like the Red Brigades were infiltrated, financed and / or created, and the resulting acts of terrorism, like the assassination of Italy’s premier in 1978 and the bombing of the railway station in Bologna in 1980, were blamed on the left. The goal of this ’strategy of tension’ was to convince Italian voters that the left was violent and dangerous—by helping make it so.”

In the same way, the Straussian neocons, taking a page from the P-2 provocation playbook, are attempting to convince Europeans and Americans that Muslims are “violent and dangerous” by “helping make it so,” as Bollyn’s revelations about Flemming Rose’s role in the inflammatory publication of the anti-Muslim cartoons in Jyllands-Posten and other newspapers make obvious.

http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=211



***

Ein Minuspunkt dafür, dass auch Bollyn davon geschrieben hat.
Da haben die bei DU gleich ausgetickt, obwohl die Story wahr ist.

10 Pluspunkte für Nimmo, 100 für Daniel Levy.

Dumm von mir nur, die Verbindung zwischen Pipes und Rosen über Bellaciao zu machen. Da Pipes es sogar auf seiner eigenen Webseite stehen hat.

The Threat of Islamism by Flemming Rose

http://www.danielpipes.org/article/3362

***

Etwas zu selbstsicher, der Bursche...
__________________
"Viele Wirtschaftswissenschaftler glauben an ihre Theorien, wie andere Menschen an ihre Religion glauben." John Mauldin
Sit ist offline   Mit Zitat antworten
Für Inhalt und Rechtmäßigkeit dieses Beitrags trägt der Verfasser Sit die alleinige Verantwortung. (s. Haftungshinweis)
Alt 13.02.2007, 22:30   #1122
Sit
stock-channel.net trader
 
Benutzerbild von Sit
 
Registrierungsdatum: Jul 2003
Ort:
Beiträge: 9.578
Standard

vast right-wing conspiracy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vast_right-wing_conspiracy


“There are many dark actors playing games."


Dr David Kelly, UN inspector for WMD in Iraq, in an e-mail to New York Times journalist Judith Miller hours before his death.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3079787.stm

***

Nun denn: Wir haben ja schon lange vermutet, dass Team B und Iran-Contra irgendwie nie aufgehört haben.
Nun sind sie soweit, dass sie uns an den Rand des atomaren Holocaust gebracht haben, so wie sie es schon seit mindestens 30 Jahren planen, vermutlich sogar noch länger, und sie verfolgen ihre Ziele unbeirrt weiter. Opposition ist außer Rußland nicht zu erkennen, Merkel und Co. haben darauf hingearbeitet, wirklich alle auf die Seite der Koalition der "Billigen" oder "Erpreßten" zu bringen.

Nur noch mal zwei Anmerkungen zu Post der letzten Tage, klitzekleine Details, die schnell untergehen.

***


Kritiker von Gates aus den Kreisen seiner ehemaligen Mitarbeiter und Kollegen bei der CIA verweisen darauf, dass Gates unter dem
damaligen Direktor der CIA, William J. Casey, und dem Präsidenten Ronald Reagan zu einer kleinen Gruppe von führenden
Verantwortlichen der CIA gehörte, die die von der CIA gesammelten Informationen zum Stand der sowjetischen Rüstung und zur
sowjetischen Politik nach politischen Vorgaben so gefälscht haben, dass sie dem Verteidigungsministerium und dem Weissen Haus zur Rechtfertigung gigantischer Rüstungsausgaben dienen konnten (vgl. etwa Louis Wolf, «The Confirmation of Robert Gates», Covert Action
Nr. 39, Winter 1991–92; Melvin A. Goodman, «Ending the CIA’s Cold War Legacy», www.questia.com).
Diese neokonservative Strategie, sachliche Information durch ideologisch motivierte Desinformation zu ersetzen, um die Geheimdienste
und das Militär für eine Politik der hemmungslosen Aggression instrumentalisieren zu können...

http://www.zeit-fragen.ch/ausgaben/...r-als-rumsfeld/

***

Das ist Team B par excellénce.

Nur zur Erinnerung:

In 1972, President Richard Nixon returned from the Soviet Union with a treaty worked out by Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, the beginning of a process Kissinger called "détente." On June 1, 1972, Nixon gave a speech in which he said, "Last Friday, in Moscow, we witnessed the beginning of the end of that era which began in 1945. With this step, we have enhanced the security of both nations. We have begun to reduce the level of fear, by reducing the causes of fear—for our two peoples, and for all peoples in the world."

But Nixon left amid scandal

Zitat:
Zitat von BREAK

Nixon verläßt das Amt dank eines Skandals, in dem die gleichen Leute ihre Hände im Spiel haben, die auch mit dem Kennedy-Mord in Verbindung gebracht wurden.

Other facts linking Nixon to the JFK assassination emerged years later during the Watergate conspiracy, some of which were revealed by Nixon's former chief of staff, H. R. Haldeman. In his book, The Ends of Power, Haldeman cites several conversations where Nixon expressed concern about the Watergate affair becoming public knowledge and where this exposure might lead. Haldeman writes:

"In fact, I was puzzled when he [Nixon] told me, 'Tell Ehrlichman this whole group of Cubans [Watergate burglars] is tied to the Bay of Pigs.' After a pause I said, 'The Bay of Pigs? What does that have to do with this [the Watergate burglary]?' But Nixon merely said, 'Ehrlichman will know what I mean,' and dropped the subject."

Later in his book, Haldeman appears to answer his own question when he says, "It seems that in all of those Nixon references to the Bay of Pigs, he was actually referring to the Kennedy assassination."

If Haldeman's interpretation is correct, then Nixon's instructions for him to, "Tell Ehrlichman this whole group of [anti-Castro] Cubans is tied to the Bay of Pigs," was Nixon's way of telling him to inform Ehrlichman that the Watergate burglars were tied to Kennedy's murder. (It should be noted that many Cuban exiles blamed Kennedy for the failure to overthrow Castro at the Bay of Pigs, pointing to Kennedy's refusal to allow the American military to directly participate in the invasion.)

Haldeman also links the CIA to the Watergate burglars and, by implication, to the Kennedy assassination. Haldeman writes, "...at least one of the burglars, Martinez, was still on the CIA payroll on June 17, 1972 -- and almost certainly was reporting to his CIA case officer about the proposed break-in even before it happened [his italics]."

The other Watergate conspirators included G. Gordon Liddy, Frank Sturgis, Virgilio Gonzales and E. Howard Hunt. Hunt's relationship with the Cuban exiles traces back to the early 1960s, to his days with the CIA. As a political officer and propaganda expert, Hunt helped plan the Bays of Pigs invasion and was instrumental in creating the Cuban Revolutionary Council (CRC) -- a militant anti-Castro organization under CIA control. Hunt would later retire from the CIA (at least ostensibly) to become covert operations chief for the Nixon White House. [Note: Hunt maintained a working relationship with the CIA even after his "retirement," obtaining camera equipment and disguises from the CIA's Technical Services Division for use in the Watergate burglary.]

Several reports over the years have placed Hunt in Dallas at the time of the Kennedy assassination. In 1974, the Rockefeller Commission concluded that Hunt used eleven hours of sick leave from the CIA in the two-week period preceding the JFK assassination. Later, eyewitness Marita Lorenz testified under oath that she saw Hunt pay off an assassination team in Dallas the night before Kennedy's murder. (Hunt v. Liberty Lobby; U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida; 1985) Click to read transcript

In taped conversations with Haldeman, Nixon is obviously worried about what would happen if Hunt's involvement in the Watergate conspiracy came to light. Nixon says, "Of course, this Hunt, that will uncover a lot of things. You open that scab, there's a hell of a lot of things, and we feel that it would be very detrimental to have this thing go any further ... the President believes that it is going to open the whole Bay of Pigs thing up again." Click to Listen: Nixon instructs Haldeman (text below)

NIXON: When you get in to these people, say: "Look, the problem is that this will open the whole, the whole Bay of Pigs thing, and the President just feels that..." ah, I mean, without going into the details of, of lying to them to the extent to say that there is no involvement. But, you can say, "This is sort of a comedy of errors, bizarre," without getting into it, "The President's belief is that this is going to open the whole Bay of Pigs thing up again. And, ah because ah these people are playing for, for keeps and that they should call the FBI in and we feel that ... that we wish for the country, don't go any further into this case, period!"

Eleven days after Hunt's arrest for the Watergate burglary, L. Patrick Gray, acting FBI Director, was called to the White House and told by Nixon aide John Ehrlichman to "deep six" written files taken from Hunt's personal safe. The FBI Director was told that the files were "political dynamite and clearly should not see the light of day." Gray responded by taking the material home and burning it in his fireplace. John Dean, council to the president, acted similarly by shredding Hunt's operational diary.

Futhermore, as former White House correspondent Don Fulsom reveals, "The newest Nixon tapes are studded with deletions -- segments deemed by government censors as too sensitive for public scrutiny. 'National Security' is cited. Not surprisingly, such deletions often occur during discussions involving the Bay of Pigs, E. Howard Hunt, and John F. Kennedy. One of the most tantalizing nuggets about Nixon's possible inside knowledge of JFK assassination secrets was buried on a White House tape until 2002. On the tape, recorded in May of 1972, the president confided to two top aides that the Warren Commission pulled off 'the greatest hoax that has ever been perpetuated.' Unfortunately, he did not elaborate."

http://mtracy9.tripod.com/kennedy.html

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/R.../JFK/nixon.html

The Death Of John Kennedy
Why Nixon resigned instead of facing impeachment.

Nixon resigned over an obstruction of justice charge (with some of the legal groundwork prepared by a young Hillary Rodham). Nixon resigned gracefully, the media declared the incident over and Gerald Ford declared that it was time to "put the whole affair behind us and move forward". This was done because the last thing anyone wanted in Washington D.C. was an impeachment trial. Even Nixon's worst enemies dared not allow it. The reasoning was simple. Sooner or later, someone would ask the following question.

"Why, when Nixon's re-election was a study in foregone conclusions, was it necessary to break into the DNC headquarters at the Watergate?"

The answer to that question, never asked by politician, never asked by a servile media, was THE dark secret that could not be revealed; the secret that would have brought down the entire government!

Years later, it did come out what had been the motive for the break-in. It was connected to what Nixon called "Hanky Panky" on the White House tapes.

The DNC had gotten copies of the photographs taken of the three tramps in Dealey Plaza, and identified two of them as long time Nixon henchmen E. Howard Hunt and Frank Sturgis. This put the DNC in a position to at least blackmail the President, if not expose him outright. This is why E. Howard Hunt lead the break-in; it was his own ass he was trying to save.

The photos resurfaced as part of a news story, and E. Howard Hunt sued the publisher, Liberty Lobby. He lost. Attorney Mark Lane provided witnesses that placed E. Howard Hunt in Dealey Plaza at the time that John F. Kennedy was killed.

The photos.



...



and Ford came in, and Ford's Secretary of Defense (Donald Rumsfeld) and Chief of Staff (Dick Cheney) believed it was intolerable that Americans might no longer be bound by fear. Without fear, how could Americans be manipulated?

Rumsfeld and Cheney began a concerted effort - first secretly and then openly - to undermine Nixon's treaty for peace and to rebuild the state of fear and, thus, reinstate the Cold War.

And these two men - 1974 Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Ford Chief of Staff Dick Cheney - did this by claiming that the Soviets had secret weapons of mass destruction that the president didn't know about, that the CIA didn't know about, that nobody but them knew about. And, they said, because of those weapons, the US must redirect billions of dollars away from domestic programs and instead give the money to defense contractors for whom these two men would one day work.

"The Soviet Union has been busy," Defense Secretary Rumsfeld explained to America in 1976. "They’ve been busy in terms of their level of effort; they’ve been busy in terms of the actual weapons they ’ve been producing; they’ve been busy in terms of expanding production rates; they’ve been busy in terms of expanding their institutional capability to produce additional weapons at additional rates; they’ve been busy in terms of expanding their capability to increasingly improve the sophistication of those weapons. Year after year after year, they’ve been demonstrating that they have steadiness of purpose. They’re purposeful about what they’re doing."

The CIA strongly disagreed, calling Rumsfeld's position a "complete fiction" and pointing out that the Soviet Union was disintegrating from within, could barely afford to feed their own people, and would collapse within a decade or two if simply left alone.

But Rumsfeld and Cheney wanted Americans to believe there was something nefarious going on, something we should be very afraid of. To this end, they convinced President Ford to appoint a commission including their old friend Paul Wolfowitz to prove that the Soviets were up to no good.

According to Curtis' BBC documentary, Wolfowitz's group, known as "Team B," came to the conclusion that the Soviets had developed several terrifying new weapons of mass destruction, featuring a nuclear-armed submarine fleet that used a sonar system that didn't depend on sound and was, thus, undetectable with our current technology.

The BBC's documentarians asked Dr. Anne Cahn of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency during that time, her thoughts on Rumsfeld's, Cheney's, and Wolfowitz's 1976 story of the secret Soviet WMDs. Here's a clip from a transcript of that BBC documentary:

" Dr ANNE CAHN, Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, 1977-80: They couldn't say that the Soviets had acoustic means of picking up American submarines, because they couldn't find it. So they said, well maybe they have a non-acoustic means of making our submarine fleet vulnerable. But there was no evidence that they had a non-acoustic system. They’re saying, 'we can’t find evidence that they’re doing it the way that everyone thinks they’re doing it, so they must be doing it a different way. We don’t know what that different way is, but they must be doing it.'

"INTERVIEWER (off-camera): Even though there was no evidence.

"CAHN: Even though there was no evidence.

"INTERVIEWER: So they’re saying there, that the fact that the weapon doesn’t exist…

"CAHN: Doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist. It just means that we haven’t found it."

The moderator of the BBC documentary then notes:

" What Team B accused the CIA of missing was a hidden and sinister reality in the Soviet Union. Not only were there many secret weapons the CIA hadn’t found, but they were wrong about many of those they could observe, such as the Soviet air defenses. The CIA were convinced that these were in a state of collapse, reflecting the growing economic chaos in the Soviet Union. Team B said that this was actually a cunning deception by the Soviet régime. The air-defense system worked perfectly. But the only evidence they produced to prove this was the official Soviet training manual, which proudly asserted that their air-defense system was fully integrated and functioned flawlessly. The CIA accused Team B of moving into a fantasy world."

Nonetheless, as Melvin Goodman, head of the CIA's Office of Soviet Affairs, 1976-87, noted in the BBC documentary,

" Rumsfeld won that very intense, intense political battle that was waged in Washington in 1975 and 1976. Now, as part of that battle, Rumsfeld and others, people such as Paul Wolfowitz, wanted to get into the CIA. And their mission was to create a much more severe view of the Soviet Union, Soviet intentions, Soviet views about fighting and winning a nuclear war."

Although Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld's assertions of powerful new Soviet WMDs were unproven - they said the lack of proof proved that undetectable weapons existed - they nonetheless used their charges to push for dramatic escalations in military spending to selected defense contractors, a process that continued through the Reagan administration.

But, trillions of dollars and years later, it was proven that they had been wrong all along, and the CIA had been right. Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Wolfowitz lied to America in the 1970s about Soviet WMDs.

Not only do we now know that the Soviets didn't have any new and impressive WMDs, but we also now know that they were, in fact, decaying from within, ripe for collapse any time, regardless of what the US did - just as the CIA (and anybody who visited Soviet states - as I had - during that time could easily predict). The Soviet economic and political system wasn't working, and their military was disintegrating.

As arms-control expert Cahn noted in the documentary of those 1970s claims by Wolfowitz, Cheney, and Rumsfeld:

"I would say that all of it was fantasy. I mean, they looked at radars out in Krasnoyarsk and said, 'This is a laser beam weapon,' when in fact it was nothing of the sort. ... And if you go through most of Team B’s specific allegations about weapons systems, and you just examine them one by one, they were all wrong."

"INTERVIEWER: All of them?

"CAHN: All of them.

"INTERVIEWER: Nothing true?

"CAHN: I don’t believe anything in [Wolfowitz's 1977] Team B was really true."

But the neocons said it was true, and organized a group - The Committee on the Present Danger - to promote their worldview. The Committee produced documentaries, publications, and provided guests for national talk shows and news reports. They worked hard to whip up fear and encourage increases in defense spending, particularly for sophisticated weapons systems offered by the defense contractors for whom neocons would later become lobbyists.

And they succeeded in recreating an atmosphere of fear in the United States, and making themselves and their defense contractor friends richer than most of the kingdoms of the world.

The Cold War was good for business, and good for the political power of its advocates, from Rumsfeld to Reagan.

Similarly, according to this documentary, the War On Terror is the same sort of scam, run for many of the same reasons, by the same people. And by hyping it - and then invading Iraq - we may well be bringing into reality terrors and forces that previously existed only on the margins and with very little power to harm us.

Curtis' documentary suggests that the War On Terror is just as much a fiction as were the super-WMDs this same group of neocons said the Soviets had in the 70s. He suggests we've done more to create terror than to fight it. That the risk was really quite minimal (at least until we invaded Iraq), and the terrorists are - like most terrorist groups - simply people on the fringes, rather easily dispatched by their own people. He even points out that Al Qaeda itself was a brand we invented, later adopted by bin Laden because we'd put so many millions into creating worldwide name recognition for it.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1207-26.htm

***

Und das gleiche Schema wurde für den Irak wieder angewandt: Saddam sollte beweisen, dass er keine Massenvernichtungswaffen besaß. Proof the negative. Das ist aber nur ein Spiegeltrick. Man kann nicht beweisen, dass man etwas nicht hat, bzw., diese Antwort wird sogar dazu benutzt, dem Gegner Verschleierungstaktik zu unterstellen.

Übrigens läuft mit dem Iran zur Zeit das gleiche Spiel. Es gibt null Hinweise auf die Absicht des Irans, nukleare Waffen herzustellen.
Das soll der Iran aber erst einmal widerlegen.

Mit Gates für Rumsfeld, vor 20 Jahren wäre so eine Nominierung eines Crazies schlicht unmöglich gewesen, hat sich rein gar nichts geändert. Anderer Name, gleiche Position.


***

Die andere Sache betrifft
Michael Ledeen, who is connected to Francesco Pazienza and the P2 Masonic Lodge responsible for the CIA-NATO sponsored Strategy of Tension terrorism campaign in Italy (an Italian criminal court convicted Pazienza in 1985 of political manipulation, forgery, and the protection of criminals and terrorists, among other offenses, in relation to the Gladio bombing of a Bologna train station, killing more than 80 people; see Jeff Wells’ Rigorous Intuition).

Wenn das stimmt (wovon man bei Ledeen's Connection nach Italien bald ausgehen kann) haben wir hier einen harten Beweis dafür, dass Gladio heutzutage die Weltbühne beherrscht und unsere Welt als Geisel hält.

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

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/art...ew.cgi/61/20319

Der Ledeen hat ein bewegtes Leben hinter sich, und ist in jeden Kriegs-Propaganda-Fall seit 1980 verwickelt.

Wenn nur ein Drittel dieses einzigen Postings jemals ernsthaft von den MSM untersucht und recherhciert und darüber berichtet werden würde,
wären die Crazies erheblich geschwächt und vielleicht sogar für gewisse Zeit erledigt.
__________________
"Viele Wirtschaftswissenschaftler glauben an ihre Theorien, wie andere Menschen an ihre Religion glauben." John Mauldin
Sit ist offline   Mit Zitat antworten
Für Inhalt und Rechtmäßigkeit dieses Beitrags trägt der Verfasser Sit die alleinige Verantwortung. (s. Haftungshinweis)
Alt 13.02.2007, 22:50   #1123
Sit
stock-channel.net trader
 
Benutzerbild von Sit
 
Registrierungsdatum: Jul 2003
Ort:
Beiträge: 9.578
Standard

"That building is never coming down, that didn't get hit by a plane, why isn't somebody in there putting the fire out?"

- Comment by a firefighter, September 11, 2001.



World Trade Center Building 7 was a 47-story skyscraper, located a few hundred feet from the twin towers. No plane hit it, yet at 5:20 p.m. on September 11, 2001 it collapsed entirely to the ground in the space of just 6.6 seconds. No building like it, a modern, steel-framed high-rise, had ever collapsed because of fire before. In fact, photos indicate that the fires it did suffer were relatively minor, particularly when compared to other building fires that have not caused such a total collapse. If the official explanation is correct--that WTC 7's collapse was not due to pre-planted explosives--then this was the biggest scientific anomaly of all time. People must surely have been astonished when this massive building suddenly fell to the ground late in the afternoon of 9/11.

Yet this was not the case.

As the dozens of witness accounts below show, many people were warned in advance to evacuate the area surrounding WTC 7, because of the "imminent" collapse. Indeed, a specific "collapse zone" was set up and, consequently, there were no casualties when WTC 7 eventually fell. Furthermore, a small number of senior firefighters have claimed they could tell beforehand that this building was going to come down, even though such an event would have been totally unprecedented.

So how did they know Building 7 was going to collapse?



WITNESSES WHO WERE WARNED OF THE IMPENDING COLLAPSE

1) Firefighter Thomas Smith: "They backed me off the rig because seven was in dead jeopardy, so they backed everybody off and moved us to the rear end of Vesey Street. We just stood there for a half hour, 40 minutes, because seven was in imminent collapse and finally did come down." (Interview, 12/6/2001)

2) Firefighter Vincent Massa: "At this point Seven World Trade Center was going heavy, and they weren't letting anybody get too close. Everybody was expecting that to come down. ... I remember later on in the day as we were waiting for seven to come down, they kept backing us up Vesey, almost like a full block. They were concerned about seven coming down, and they kept changing us, establishing a collapse zone and backing us up." (Interview, 12/4/2001)

3) Firefighter Tiernach Cassidy: "Then, like I said, building seven was in eminent collapse. They blew the horns. They said everyone clear the area until we got that last civilian out. We tried to give another quick search while we could, but then they wouldn't let us stay anymore. So we cleared the area. ... So yeah, then we just stayed on Vesey until building seven came down." (Interview, 12/30/2001)

4) Indira Singh, a volunteer EMT: "What happened with that particular triage site is that pretty soon after noon, after midday on 9/11, we had to evacuate that because they told us Building 7 was coming down. ... I do believe that they brought Building 7 down because I heard that they were going to bring it down because it was unstable, because of the collateral damage. ... By noon or one o'clock they told us we had to move from that triage site up to Pace University, a little further away, because Building 7 was gonna come down or being brought down. ... There was another panic around four o'clock because they were bringing the building down and people seemed to know this ahead of time, so people were panicking again and running." (KPFA, 4/27/2005)

5) EMT Joseph Fortis: "When the third building came down, we were on that corner in front of the school, and everybody just stood back. They pulled us all back at the time, almost about an hour before it, because they were sure -- they knew it was going to come down, but they weren't sure. So they pulled everyone back, and everybody stood there and we actually just waited and just waited and waited until it went down, because it was unsafe." (Interview, 11/9/2001)

6) Fire Chief Thomas McCarthy: "So when I get to the command post, they just had a flood of guys standing there. They were just waiting for 7 to come down. ... I made it down Vesey Street to just in front of the overpass of 7 World Trade. People were saying don't stand under there, it's going to come down. ... So at that point we were a little leery about how the bridge was tied in, so no one was really going onto it, and then they were also saying 7 was going to come down. They chased everyone off the block." (Interview, 10/11/2001)

7) Firefighter Matthew Long: "And at that point they were worried that 7 was coming down so they were calling for everyone to back out. ... Because they were just adamant about 7 coming down immediately. I think we probably got out of that rubble and 18 minutes later is when 7 came down." (Interview, 10/9/2001)

8) Firefighter Edward Kennedy: "That was the only Mayday that I remember, and to tell you the truth, the only guy that really stands out in my mind that I remember being on the radio was Chief Visconti. ... I remember him screaming about 7, No. 7, that they wanted everybody away from 7 because 7 was definitely going to collapse, they don't know when, but it's definitely going to come down, just get the hell out of the way, everybody get away from it, make sure you're away from it, that's an order, you know, stuff like that." (Interview, 1/17/2002)

9) Paramedic Louis Cook: "We got to Chambers and Greenwich, and the chief turns around and says, 'There's number Seven World Trade. That's the OEM bunker.' We had a snicker about that. We looked over, and it's engulfed in flames and starting to collapse. ... We hear over the fire portable, 'Everybody evacuate the site. It's going to collapse.' Mark Steffens starts yelling, 'Get out of here! Get out of here! Get out of here! We've got to go! We've got to go! It's going to collapse.' ... We pulled the car over, turned around and just watched it pancake." (Interview, 10/17/2001)

10) Battalion Fire Chief John Norman: "After we found Chief Ganci, in addition to recon, I was detailed to make sure the collapse zone for 7 WTC had been set up and was being maintained. The sector commanders were trying to clear out of that area. We expected it to fall to the south, into the areas we were searching." (John Norman, "Search and Rescue Operations," Fire Engineering, 10/2002)

John Norman (in another account): "Now we're still worried about 7. We have guys trying to make their way up into the pile, and they're telling us that 7 is going to fall down - and that was one of the directions from the command post, to make sure we clear the collapse zone from 7 and this is a 600-foot-tall building, so we had to clear a 600-foot radius from that building." ("WTC: This Is Their Story," Firehouse, 5/2002)

11) Deputy Fire Chief Nick Visconti: "Now, World Trade Center 7 was burning and I was thinking to myself, how come they're not trying to put this fire out? ... At some point, Frank Fellini said, now we've got hundreds of guys out there, hundreds and hundreds, and that's on the West Street side alone. He said to me, Nick, you've got to get those people out of there. I thought to myself, out of where? Frank, what do you want, Chief? He answered, 7 World Trade Center, imminent collapse, we've got to get those people out of there. ... There were a couple of chiefs out there who I knew and I called them individually. I said to them, listen, start backing those people out, we need them back up to the command post. While this was going on, I saw individual company officers. I was whistling, Captain, bring your guys this way. I was getting some resistance. The common thing was, hey, we've still got people here, we don't want to leave. I explained to them that we were worried about 7, that it was going to come down and we didn't want to get anybody trapped in the collapse. One comment was, oh, that building is never coming down, that didn't get hit by a plane, why isn't somebody in there putting the fire out? A lot of comments, a bit of resistance, understandable resistance." ("WTC: This Is Their Story," Firehouse, 8/2002)

12) Firefighter James Wallace: "They were saying building seven was going to collapse, so we regrouped and went back to our rig. We went to building four or three; I don't know. We were going to set up our tower ladder there. They said no good because building seven is coming down." (Interview, 12/29/2001)

13) Fire Captain Robert Sohmer: "As the day went on they started worrying about 7 World Trade Center collapsing and they ordered an evacuation from that area so at that time, we left the area with the other companies, went back to the command post on Broadway ... We were about to proceed our operation there and this was in the afternoon, I would say approximately maybe 2:00 roughly, where we started to operate and then they asked us to fall back again due to the potential of 7 World Trade Center collapsing." (Interview, 1/17/2002)

14) Fire Lieutenant William Ryan: "Then we found out, I guess around 3:00 o'clock, that they thought 7 was going to collapse. So, of course, we've got guys all in this pile over here and the main concern was get everybody out, and I guess it took us over an hour and a half, two hours to get everybody out of there. ... So it took us a while and we ended up backing everybody out, and that's when 7 collapsed." (Interview, 10/18/2001)

15) Fire Captain Brenda Berkman: "We no sooner got going on something there when a chief came along and said, 'Everybody's got to leave the area. We're afraid that Seven World Trade is going to fall down.' The whole south side of Seven World Trade had been hit by the collapse of the second Tower, and there was fire on every floor." (Susan Hagen and Mary Carouba, Women at Ground Zero, 2002, p. 213)

FireWork newsletter (adding to Berkman's account): "After being ordered back because of the fear that yet another building was about to collapse (7 World Trade Center, 40+ stories), Brenda [Berkman] and her crew went to find other firefighters who might have some tools or a radio. ... That afternoon, 7 World Trade Center came down. 'We had cleared an enormous collapse zone for that, and it still wasn't big enough. When the thing came down, the rubble and the dust came across the West Side Highway, over and past the rubble from the towers that was there.'" (Linda Willing, "Report from Ground Zero: The World Trade Center Collapse," FireWork, 9/2001)

16) Firefighter Maureen McArdle-Schulman: "At that point, Seven World Trade had 12 stories of fire in it. They were afraid it was going to collapse on us, so they pulled everybody out. We couldn't do anything." (Susan Hagen and Mary Carouba, Women at Ground Zero, 2002, p. 17)

17) Firefighter Pete Castellano: "We were ordered down from the tower ladder because of a possible collapse at Tower 7." (Interview, 12/28/2001)

18) Firefighter Brian Fitzpatrick: "We were then positioned on Vesey Street between North End and the West Side Highway because there was an imminent collapse on 7 World Trade, and it did collapse." (Interview, 12/6/2001)

19) Firefighter Christopher Patrick Murray: "Probably about 4:00 o'clock, 5:00 o'clock, our radios went dead, because we heard reports all day long of 7 World Trade possibly coming down and I think at 5:30 that came down." (Interview, 12/12/2001)

20) Firefighter Kevin McGovern: "Actually I think at that point just as we were leaving, guys -- I don't know who it was. I guess it was a chief was saying clear the area, because they were worried about number Seven World Trade Center coming down and burying guys who were digging. So we basically went back to the rig, because they were clearing that area out. It took about three hours for Seven World Trade Center to actually come down." (Interview, 12/11/2001)

21) Firefighter George Holzman: "We stayed there for quite sometime when I don't even know who, I think it was someone, Lieutenant Lowney spoke to, asked us to leave the area, they were concerned about 7 World Trade Center collapsing." (Interview, 1/17/2002)

22) Byron Pitts, CBS News correspondent: "About an hour ago, World Trade Center building number 7 collapsed. ... It was the one calamity that was not a surprise. Police had evacuated the area hours ago, fearful building number 7 would indeed fall down." (CBS News, 9/11/2001)

23) Kansas City Star: "About 4:30 p.m., word went out to evacuate the area. Officials were worried that Building 7 of the Trade Center complex would collapse." (David Hayes, "Amid despair, photographer's work brought hope," Kansas City Star, 3/28/2004)

24) Tom Franklin, photographer: "It was about 4 p.m., and they were anticipating Seven World Trade Center collapsing. The firemen were leaving en masse." (Newseum, Running Toward Danger, 2002, p. 204)

Tom Franklin (in another account): "It was 4:45 p.m., and all the firemen and rescue workers were evacuating Ground Zero after word came that a third building -- WTC 7 -- was ready to fall." (Tom Franklin, "The After-Life of a Photo that Touched a Nation," Columbia Journalism Review, 3/1/2002)

25) Mark Jacobson, reporter, New York Magazine: "Hours later, I sat down beside another, impossibly weary firefighter. ... Then, almost as a non sequitur, the fireman indicated the building in front of us, maybe 400 yards away. 'That building is coming down,' he said with a drained casualness. 'Really?' I asked. At 47 stories, it would be a skyscraper in most cities, centerpiece of the horizon. But in New York, it was nothing but a nondescript box with fire coming out of the windows. 'When?' 'Tonight ... Maybe tomorrow morning.' This was around 5:15 p.m. I know because five minutes later, at 5:20, the building, 7 World Trade Center, crumbled." (Mark Jacobson, "The Ground Zero Grassy Knoll," New York Magazine, 3/27/2006)

26) Paramedic Joseph Cahill: "The reason we were given for why we were moving was that 7 World Trade Center was going to collapse or was at risk of collapsing. So we must have been somewhere in this area where we would have had a problem with that. ... They wanted us to move the treatment sector because of 7 World Trade Center was imminently to collapse, which, of course, it did." (Interview, 10/15/2001)

27) EMT Mercedes Rivera: "At that point, they said that Seven World Trade had no face and it was ready to collapse." (Susan Hagen and Mary Carouba, Women at Ground Zero, 2002, p. 29)

28) Christine Haughney, reporter, Washington Post: "Then a policeman directed me north. The Solomon Smith Barney building--Building Seven--was about to collapse." (Chris Bull and Sam Erman, At Ground Zero, 2002, p. 17)

29) Peter DeMarco, reporter, New York Daily News: "Seven or eight blocks down Greenwich Street, the No. 7 World Trade building, a smaller, forty-story structure, was on fire. The street was closed; the building was going to collapse." (Chris Bull and Sam Erman, At Ground Zero, 2002, p. 97)

30) Fire Chief Joseph Pfeifer: "Yes, I watched 7. At one point, we were standing on the west side of West Street and Vesey. And I remember Chief Nigro coming back at that point saying I don't want anybody else killed and to take everybody two blocks up virtually to North End and Vesey, which is a good ways up. And we stood there and we watched 7 collapse." ("WTC: This Is Their Story," Firehouse, 4/2002)

31) Battalion Fire Chief Frank Congiusta: "While we were searching the subbasements, they decided that Seven World Trade Center, which was across the street, was going to collapse. So they called us out. ... When I came out, they were calling us on the radio to tell us to get out. Then I reported that the search was negative, and then they wouldn't let anybody near the site pretty much, because Seven World Trade Center was going to come down." (Interview, 1/8/2002)

32) EMT Jason Charles: "So we started heading over to where Building 7 was at and they were like Building 7 is going to collapse, you can't go over there, this and that, and there was another building that they thought was going to collapse that was like right behind the triage center, the building that we were in." (Interview, 1/23/2002)

33) Fire Lieutenant Roy David: "At Pace University we had -- we set up -- I'm sorry, we set up in that lobby of that building, the lobby and the actual whole first floor. There was a threat of collapse of building number seven, so 225, we had to evacuate it." (Interview, 10/12/2001)

34) EMT Decosta Wright: "They said -- we were like, are you guys going to put that fire out? I was like, you know, they are going to wait for it to burn down and it collapsed. ... Yes, so basically they measured out how far the building was going to come, so we knew exactly where we could stand. ... 5 blocks. 5 blocks away. We still could see. Exactly right on point, the cloud just stopped right there. Then when that building was coming down, the same thing, that same rumbling." (Interview, 10/11/2001)

35) Fire Lieutenant Rudolf Weindler: "I ran into Chief Coloe from the 1st Division, Captain Varriale, Engine 24, and Captain Varriale told Chief Coloe and myself that 7 World Trade Center was badly damaged on the south side and definitely in danger of collapse. Chief Coloe said we were going to evacuate the collapse zone around 7 World Trade Center, which we did." (Interview, 1/15/2002)

36) Liz Gonzalez, reporter, Telemundo/Channel 47: "They started evacuating the area because they thought a third building was going to go down. We decided to stay. We saw the third building crash." (Newseum, Running Toward Danger, 2002, p. 209)

37) Sara Kugler, reporter, the Associated Press: "I saw hundreds of firefighters leaning against buildings, sitting on trucks, eating fruit and water that the Red Cross was handing out. 'Where are all the injured?' I asked. 'They are not letting us in. It's not stable,' said the firefighters. ... All of a sudden Seven World Trade Center started to collapse." (Newseum, Running Toward Danger, 2002, p. 210)



WITNESSES WHO APPARENTLY KNEW IN ADVANCE OF THE COLLAPSE

1) Fire Chief Frank Fellini: "The major concern at that time at that particular location was number Seven, building number seven, which had taken a big hit from the north tower. ... We were concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing. So for the next five or six hours we kept firefighters from working anywhere near that building, which included the whole north side of the World Trade Center complex. Eventually around 5:00 or a little after, building number seven came down." (Interview, 12/3/2001)

2) Fire Chief Daniel Nigro: "The biggest decision we had to make on the first day was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story building heavily involved in fire. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building's integrity was in serious doubt. I issued the orders to pull back the firefighters and define the collapse zone. It was a critical decision; we could not lose any more firefighters. It took a lot of time to pull everyone out, given the emotionalism of the day, communications difficulties, and the collapse terrain." (Daniel Nigro, "Report from the Chief of Department," Fire Engineering, 9/2002)

Daniel Nigro (in another account): "I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we wouldn't lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was given, at 5:30 in the afternoon, 7 World Trade Center collapsed completely." (Interview, 10/24/2001)

3) Fire Chief Frank Cruthers: "Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area ... be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it." (Interview, 10/31/2001)

Frank Cruthers (in another account): "Of primary importance early on in the operation was the structural condition of 7 World Trade Center. Assistant Chief Frank Fellini had been approached by several chiefs who were concerned about its stability. It had been heavily damaged in the collapse and was well-involved in fire. Chief Fellini had looked at it and described to us some damage to its south side; he felt that structural components of the building had been comprised. So when Chief Dan Nigro arrived at the command post, he convened a meeting of staff chiefs, and this was a major subject of the meeting. We were all in accord about the danger of 7 WTC, and we all agreed that it was not too conservative of a decision to establish a collapse zone for that building, move the firefighters out of the collapse area, and maintain that strategy." (Frank Cruthers, "Postcollapse Command," Fire Engineering, 9/2002)

4) Fire Captain Ray Goldbach: "There was a big discussion going on at that point about pulling all of our units out of 7 World Trade Center. Chief Nigro didn't feel it was worth taking the slightest chance of somebody else getting injured. So at that point we made a decision to take all of our units out of 7 World Trade Center because there was a potential for collapse. ... Made the decision to back everybody away, took all the units and moved them all the way back toward North End Avenue, which is as far I guess west as you could get on Vesey Street, to keep them out of the way." (Interview, 10/24/2001)

5) Fire Engineering magazine: "FDNY chief officers surveyed 7 WTC and determined that it was in danger of collapse. Chief Frank Cruthers, now the incident commander, and Chief Frank Fellini, the operations commander, both agreed that a collapse zone had to be established. That meant firefighters in the area of the North Tower had to be evacuated. This took some time to accomplish because of terrain, communications, and the fierce determination with which the firefighters were searching. At 5:30 p.m., about 20 minutes after the last firefighters evacuated the collapse zone, 7 WTC collapsed. It was the third steel-frame high-rise in history to collapse from fire--the other two had collapsed earlier that day." ("World Trade Center Disaster: Initial Response," Fire Engineering, 9/2002)

http://www.911blogger.com/node/6195
__________________
"Viele Wirtschaftswissenschaftler glauben an ihre Theorien, wie andere Menschen an ihre Religion glauben." John Mauldin
Sit ist offline   Mit Zitat antworten
Für Inhalt und Rechtmäßigkeit dieses Beitrags trägt der Verfasser Sit die alleinige Verantwortung. (s. Haftungshinweis)
Alt 13.02.2007, 23:15   #1124
Sit
stock-channel.net trader
 
Benutzerbild von Sit
 
Registrierungsdatum: Jul 2003
Ort:
Beiträge: 9.578
Standard

The New York Times | Editorial

Before things get any more out of hand [or too many people read our articles], President Bush needs to make his intentions toward Iran clear. And Congress needs to make it clear that this time it will be neither tricked nor bullied into supporting another disastrous war.

How little this administration has learned from its failures is a constant source of amazement. It seems the bigger the failure, the less it learns.

Consider last weekend's supersecret briefing in Baghdad by a group of American military officials whose names could not be revealed to the voters who are paying for this war with their taxes and their children's blood. The briefers tried to prove the White House's case that Iran is shipping deadly weapons, including armor-piercing explosives, to Shiite militias in Iraq.

Unlike Colin Powell's infamous prewar presentation on Iraq at the United Nations, this briefing had actual weapons to look at. And perhaps in time, the administration will be able to prove conclusively that the weapons came from arms factories in Iran.

But the officials offered no evidence to support their charge that "the highest levels of the Iranian government" had authorized smuggling these weapons into Iraq for use against American forces. Nor could they adequately explain why they had been sitting on this urgent evidence since 2004. The only thing that was not surprising was the refusal of any of the briefers to allow their names to be published. Mr. Powell is probably wondering why he didn't insist on the same deal.

We have no doubt about Iran's malign intent. Iran is defying the Security Council's order to halt its nuclear activities, and it is certainly meddling inside Iraq. But we are also certain that the Iraq war has so strained the American military and so shattered this president's credibility that shrill accusations and saber rattling are far more likely to frighten the allies America needs to contain Iran's nuclear ambitions than to change Tehran's behavior.

If Mr. Bush is truly worried about Shiite militias killing Americans in Iraq - and he should be - he needs to start showing this evidence to Iraq's prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki. He needs to demand that Mr. Maliki stop protecting the militias and make it clear that there will be serious consequences if he continues to refuse.

If Mr. Bush is truly worried about Iran fanning Iraq's ever more bloody civil war - and he should be - he needs to stop fantasizing about regime change and start trying to find a way to persuade Iran's leaders to help rein in the chaos in Iraq.

And if Mr. Bush is worried that Americans no longer believe him when he warns of mortal threats to the country - and he should be - he needs to start proving that he really understands who is most responsible for the Iraq disaster. And he needs to explain how he plans to extricate American troops without setting off an even bigger war.

That's the briefing the American people need to hear. And they need to hear it from the most senior American official of all, George Walker Bush.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/18508

***

Memo to NYT:

How little this administration has learned from its failures is a constant source of amazement. It seems the bigger the failure, the less it learns.

There were no failures, everything was and is going like planned.
__________________
"Viele Wirtschaftswissenschaftler glauben an ihre Theorien, wie andere Menschen an ihre Religion glauben." John Mauldin
Sit ist offline   Mit Zitat antworten
Für Inhalt und Rechtmäßigkeit dieses Beitrags trägt der Verfasser Sit die alleinige Verantwortung. (s. Haftungshinweis)
Alt 13.02.2007, 23:16   #1125
Sit
stock-channel.net trader
 
Benutzerbild von Sit
 
Registrierungsdatum: Jul 2003
Ort:
Beiträge: 9.578
Standard

Fool Us Twice? From Iraq to Iran
Submitted by davidswanson on Tue, 2007-02-13 20:52. Iran

By Marjorie Cohn

It's déja vu. This time the Bush gang wants war with Iran. Following a carefully orchestrated strategy, they have ratcheted up the "threat" from Iran, designed to mislead us into a new war four years after they misled us into Iraq.

Like its insistence that Iraq had WMD, the Bush administration has been hyping claims that Iran seeks nuclear weapons. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), however, has found no evidence that Iran is building nuclear weapons. IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei says there is plenty of time for negotiation with Iran.

Bush has sent two battle carrier groups, replete with nukes, to the Persian Gulf and a third is reportedly preparing to follow. In support of Bush's case that Iran poses a danger to the U.S., three unnamed American officials ceremoniously trotted out metal parts found in Iraq and claimed Iran supplied them to kill our soldiers in Iraq.

This "evidence" - or "packaging," as the Associated Press calls it - doesn't pass the straight face test with most reputable observers. "The officials offered no evidence to substantiate allegations that the 'highest levels' of the Iranian government had sanctioned support for attacks against U.S. troops," according to Monday's Washington Post.

Saturday's New York Times cited information gleaned from "interrogation reports" from Iranians and Iraqis captured in the recent U.S. raid on the Iranian embassy in northern Iraq. They allegedly indicated money and weapons components are brought into Iraq over the Iranian border at night. If those people indeed provided such information, query what kind of pressure, i.e. torture, might have been applied to encourage their cooperation. Recall the centerpiece of Colin Powell's 2003 lies to the Security Council about ties between Iraq and al Qaeda came from false information tortured out of Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi.

Any Iranian weapons in Iraq may belong to the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), a Shiite resistance group the U.S. used to support. There could be old Iranian munitions lying around which are left over from the Iran-Iraq war during the 1980s. A former high level U.S. military officer told me it was not uncommon to find large caches of weapons around Iraq. He cited the 2004 discovery of 37,000 American Colt 45 handguns in a warehouse near the Iranian border on the Iraq side, likely procured "when Saddam was our friend." The United States armed both sides in the Iran-Iraq conflict.

The U.S. National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, released last week, concluded that Iranian or Syrian involvement is "not likely to be a major driver of violence" in Iraq.

Paul Krugman wrote that even if Iran were providing aid to some factions in Iraq, "you can say the same about Saudi Arabia, which is believed to be a major source of financial support for Sunni insurgents - and Sunnis, not Iranian-backed Shiites, are still responsible for most American combat deaths." Indeed, 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were Saudis. But as Krugman mentions, the Bush administration's "close personal and financial ties to the Saudis" have caused it to downplay "Saudi connections to America's enemies."

American troops are still fighting in Afghanistan. Yet the Bush administration hasn't complained about the Taliban attacks on Afghanistan that originate in Pakistan, a country with documented nuclear weapons. Of course the Bush administration is cozy with the Pakistani regime.

The government of Israel, which also has nukes, is fueling the call for an invasion of Iran. On February 7, the Los Angeles Times cited Israeli politicians and generals warning of a "second Holocaust" if no one fails to prevent Tehran from acquiring nukes.

Israel would like to start a war with Iran and supports this desire by citing a quote from Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that Israel should be wiped off the map. But this is an erroneous translation of what he said. According to University of Michigan professor Juan Cole and Farsi language analysts, Ahmadinejad was quoting Ayatollah Khomeini, who said the "regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time." Cole said this "does not imply military action or killing anyone at all." Journalist Diana Johnstone points out the quote is not aimed at the Israeli people, but at the Zionist "regime" occupying Jerusalem. "Coming from a Muslim religious leader," Johnstone wrote, "this opinion is doubtless based on objection to Jewish monopoly of a city considered holy by all three of the Abramic monotheisms." Iran has not threatened to invade Israel.

Indeed, only 36 percent of the Jews in Israel told pollsters last month they thought a nuclear attack by Iran posed the "biggest threat" to Israel. Americans concur. Seventy-five percent want negotiations in lieu of war with Iran.

Yet Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards, all beholden to the Israel lobby, have bought into Bush's dangerous rhetoric about Iran.

It would be sheer lunacy to make war on Iran. Three former high-ranking U.S. military officers and a coalition of 13 British think-tanks and faith groups have warned that an attack on Iran would have disastrous consequences.

Bush probably won't ask Congress to bless his Iran war. He will provoke a confrontation and then claim we have to fight back. Last year, the New York Times documented a January 2003 meeting with Prime Minister Tony Blair, where Bush "talked about several ways to provoke a confrontation [with Iraq], including a proposal to paint a United States surveillance plane in the colors of the United Nations in hopes of drawing fire."

A nuclear attack on Iran would violate U.S. obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Any attack would violate the U.N. Charter. All treaties we ratify become part of U.S. law under the Constitution's Supremacy Clause. Twelve European, international, and U.S. legal and human rights groups issued an open letter warning of the illegality of any offensive military action by the U.S. against Iran. (http://www.nlg.org/news/statements/...y_Iran_2007.htm).

Congress has tied itself in knots over a non-binding resolution on Iraq. If our elected representatives responded to their constituencies instead of the Bush gang's fear mongering, they would stand up to him and pass a modern day Boland Amendment forbidding military action against Iran.

Marjorie Cohn is a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, president of the National Lawyers Guild, and the U.S. representative to the executive committee of the American Association Jurists. Her new book, Cowboy Republic: Six Ways the Bush Gang Has Defied the Law, will be published in June.


http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/18501
__________________
"Viele Wirtschaftswissenschaftler glauben an ihre Theorien, wie andere Menschen an ihre Religion glauben." John Mauldin
Sit ist offline   Mit Zitat antworten
Für Inhalt und Rechtmäßigkeit dieses Beitrags trägt der Verfasser Sit die alleinige Verantwortung. (s. Haftungshinweis)
Antwort Gehe zum letzten Beitrag



Themen-Optionen

Gehe zu



Aktuelle Uhrzeit 06:22
Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.0.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © stock-channel.net