Error

JFolder::create: Could not create directory

Ex-Israeli Intelligence Officer: “Pearl Harbor” Style Attack Will Be Pretext For War On Iran

13 January 2012
Posted in News - War

Jerusalem Post article implies US will stage provocation to justify military assault

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com

Former Israeli intelligence officer Avi Perry writes that a “surprise” Pearl Harbor-style Iranian attack on an American warship in the Persian Gulf will provide the pretext for the US to launch all-out warfare against Iran.

Given the fact that former Vice President Dick Cheney’s office openly considered staging a false flag attack on a US vessel in the Persian Gulf to blame it on Iran as a pretext for war, Perry’s summation of how “2012 will see to a new war,” cannot be taken lightly.

Under the headline ‘The looming war with Iran‘, Perry writes;

Iran, just like Nazi Germany in the 1940s, will take the initiative and “help” the US president and the American public make up their mind by making the first move, by attacking a US aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf.

The Iranian attack on an American military vessel will serve as a justification and a pretext for a retaliatory move by the US military against the Iranian regime. The target would not be Iran’s nuclear facilities. The US would retaliate by attacking Iran’s navy, their military installations, missile silos, airfields. The US would target Iran’s ability to retaliate, to close down the Strait of Hormuz. The US would then follow by targeting the regime itself.

Elimination of Iran’s nuclear facilities? Yes. This part would turn out to be the final act, the grand finale. It might have been the major target, had the US initiated the attack. However, under this “Pearl Harbor” scenario, in which Iran had launched a “surprise” attack on the US navy, the US would have the perfect rationalization to finish them off, to put an end to this ugly game.

Perry’s use of quotation marks around the word “surprise” comes across as a literary device to imply that the so-called “surprise” attack will not be a surprise at all.

Of course, the Pearl Harbor attack, which provided the pretext for America’s formal entry into World War Two, was not a “surprise” by any means, it was known well ahead of time.

Released Freedom of Information Act files prove that weeks before the December 7 attack by the Japanese, the United States Navy had intercepted eighty-three messages from Admiral Yamamoto which gave them details of precisely when and where the attack would take place.

It’s also completely nonsensical that Iran would actively seek to provide the world’s pre-eminent nuclear superpower with an easy excuse to justify an attack by deliberately targeting US warships in the Persian Gulf. Perry’s article seems to be a tongue-in-cheek admission that the US or Israel will manufacture such an attack.

This presumption need not delve into the murky realm of conspiracy theories – history tells us that fake naval attacks have been staged on numerous occasions to hoodwink the American people into supporting wars of aggression.

Remember the Maine? The battleship USS Maine blew up while it was stationed in Havana harbor in February 1898. Although a Navy investigation could not find the cause of the explosion, the American media, led by pioneer of “yellow journalism” William Randolph Hearst, immediately blamed Spanish saboteurs, whipping the public into a war fever.

When Hearst sent his reporter Frederick Remington to investigate, little of note could be established about the disaster. When Remington asked to be recalled, Hearst told him, “Please remain. You furnish the pictures, I’ll furnish the war.”

“Hundreds of editorials demanded that the Maine and American honor be avenged. Many Americans agreed. Soon a rallying cry could be heard everywhere — in the papers, on the streets, and in the halls of Congress: “Remember the Maine! To hell with Spain.”

As a result of an incident that many consider to either be an accident or a deliberate false flag attack by the US on its own ship, the US was at war with Spain within months.

Over 60 years later, another staged naval event, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, was used as a pretext for the United States to launch the Vietnam war.

President Johnson told the American public that North Vietnamese torpedo boats launched an “unprovoked attack” against a U.S. destroyer on “routine patrol” in the Tonkin Gulf. Leaked cables and recordings of White House telephone conversations later proved that the incident was completely manufactured, and that “our destroyers were just shooting at phantom targets — there were no PT boats there,” according to Navy squadron commander James Stockdale, who was flying over the scene that night.

There was almost a 21st century version mirror of the Gulf of Tonkin incident in January 2008, when the US government announced that it had been “moments” away from opening fire on a group of Iranian patrol boats in the Strait of Hormuz after the boats allegedly broadcast a warning that they were about to attack a US vessel.

The Iranian warning later turned out to be of dubious origin, but the incident led to a discussion in Vice-President Dick Cheney’s office about how to start a war with Iran by launching a false flag attack at sea, according to Pulitzer-Prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh.

The January 2008 Strait of Hormuz incident taught Cheney and other administration insiders that, “If you get the right incident, the American public will support it”. Hersh said: “There were a dozen ideas proffered about how to trigger a war. The one that interested me the most was why don’t we build, we in ‘our shipyard’, – build four or five boats that look like Iranian PT boats. Put Navy seals on them with a lot of arms. And next time one of our boats goes to the Straits of Hormuz, start a shoot-up. Might cost some lives”.

Given the dangerous nature of overlapping Iranian and US/Israeli naval drills set to take place in the same region at some point within the next two weeks, the potential for another staged incident at sea that will be exploited as a pretext for war remains a potent threat.

Add new comment

US long-term plan in Afghanistan laid bare

20 December 2011
Posted in News - War

Dr. Raja Muhammad Khan
Opinion Maker

Afghan people must have a realization that NATO and U.S have no love with them. In fact, their own strategic objectives compel them to remain stuck to Afghanistan and Pakistan for promoting a regional instability by promoting terrorism and internally destabilizing both countries as an excuse to continue their mission.

The final Communiqué of the Bonn Conference on Afghanistan-2011 supported the covert US plan for staying in Afghanistan beyond 2014. Earlier, during the Lisbon Summit-November 2011, the forty-eight member coalition agreed for a troop’s drawdown by December 2014. Pentagon had a reservation to this deadline, as expressed by its representative immediately after the Lisbon Summit. President Obama however had a different framework for the withdrawal of US troops, starting from July 2011. Nevertheless, his powerful Pentagon lobby resented his plan. The Pentagon indeed is the B team of the neoconservatives, aiming for a global domination and capturing the important natural sources worldwide.

The Bonn Communiqué says, both sides “solemnly dedicated themselves to deepening and broadening their historic partnership from Transition to the Transformation Decade of 2015-2024.” The Lisbon Summit of November 20, November 2010 has approved withdrawal of ISAF forces from Afghanistan by 2014, in the wordings, “The Alliance approved to end its combat mission in Afghanistan and hand over full sovereignty and security responsibility to Afghan forces.” Indeed, it has been seen since 2001, that US always lobby for keeping leverages for the further extension of any mission where it has long-term objectives fixed, until their attainment.

In Iraq, US has gained maximum through bilateral arrangement for a control on its hydrocarbons, therefore, decided to pull out its combat troops by December 31, 2011, as a ‘mission accomplished’, announced by President Obama. Besides, there is a substantial presence of US combat forces in other Middle Eastern countries to take care of its future interests. Furthermore, it has overthrown some of the anti-US regimes like Libyan leader Qadafi and indeed, looking for toppling many others likes Syria. U.S is carefully crafting a methodology for dealing with Iran, another anti US country in the region, in the garb of its nuclearization plan.

In Afghanistan, US Defense Secretary, Leon E. Panetta said in a press conference along with President Hamid Karazai that, it is a reality that, US has not completely won and there is need to complete its mission. He however, claimed that, ISAF and Afghan forces “have been able to seize the momentum from the Taliban militancy and establish security in critical areas, such as the Taliban’s heartland in the south. We are moving towards a stronger Afghanistan that can govern and secure itself for the future.” The ground realities are indeed, contrary to Mr Panetta’s statement. The insurgency has in fact increased, rather reduced. As noted in last few months, even heavily secured areas like Kabul were not free from Taliban attacks. The areas that have been handed over to Afghan National Army (ANA) are now very vulnerable to militants’ attacks. Thus, as believed by most of security analysts, Panetta’s assessment is nothing more than a mere encouragement for ISAF and Kabul regime too. Otherwise, being a former spying head, Panetta knows the reality on Afghan horizon.

The statement following the Bonn Conference that, after transformation “In 2024 Afghanistan should not be a country in need of donors but also a donor country,” may be too ambitious and indeed far from reality. Continuous presence of foreign troops for the security needs and foreign economic assistance would make Afghanistan heavily dependent on others. It would require another two to three decades for restoring a self-dependency among the Afghans with such an approach. Have Iraqi security forces and Government there attained its self-dependency? Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussain was overthrown later than the Taliban overthrown, if time is a factor.

The fundamental question is, whether U.S really desire to leave Afghanistan. Furthermore, would it be possible for the Karazai led Kabul Administration to sustain without US. The capacity of Afghan Government and ANA to sustain against the militant’s pressure is quite evident from some of the incidents occurred during 2011. These events took place while there is a huge presence of ISAF troops. Then how ANA or ANP could compete their opposites who still hold most of the Afghan territory. It is felt that, this interdependence has compelled Karazai to request the participants of Bonn Confrence-2011 that, “Together we have spent blood and treasure in fighting terrorism. Your continued solidarity, your commitment and support will be crucial so that we can consolidate our gains and continue to address the challenges that remain.”

The request indeed, a US directive interpreted as such serves the mutual interests of the US and its puppet regime in Kabul. It would bring neither stability nor peace in Afghanistan. Indeed, it is not meant for that, interests and national pride of Afghans have neither been catered for nor will there be such a consideration in the future. Had US been purusing its basic objective of invading Afghanistan then it “should have used the death of Osama bin Laden in May as an excuse to immediately pull troops out of Afghanistan.” Nevertheless, perhaps, it was not the real objective.

For the US, the real objectives are more global and strategic in nature. Indeed, these are more important than Afghan peace and stability. In fact, an unstable Afghanistan is instrumental to all those. If there were stability in that country, then US would have no excuse to stay there, thus would miss its real objectives to counter the challenges, facing it. US challenges are indeed, a threat to its global status of being the sole super power in the coming decades. Therefore, U.S is here in the region to take timely counter measures against those strategic threats. In fact, these extensions through either Lisbon Summit or now Bonn Conference until 2024 are for the pursuasion of those real objectives.

On one hand, it is facing the economic might of rising China, whereas on the other, there is a resurgent Russia. Otherwise, U.S is in a state of cold war with either of these since last almost one decade. It is countering Chinese economic investments and expansions worldwide by destabilizing those countries and regions where China has made investment in the recent past. Its promised strategic and regional security architecture for East European countries and East Asian countries are aimed against both these countries, to whom it considers a real threat and challenge. Countering Iranian nuclear programmee, possession of regional hydrocarbons and denuclearization of Pakistan are other strategic objectives of United States in the region.

Afghan people must have a realization that NATO and U.S have no love with them. In fact, their own strategic objectives compel them to remain stick to Afghanistan and Pakistan for promoting a regional instability by promoting terrorism and internally destabilizing both countries as an excuse to continue their mission. It is to the people and well-wishers of Afghanistan and Pakistan to analyze the real objectives of US and counter these without fighting a physical war. Therefore, this Transition to Transformation is another trap for Afghanistan in particular and Pakistan in general.

Add new comment

Next Propaganda Phase: UN Says Syria Tortures Children

25 November 2011
Posted in News - War

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com

In order to send in the bombers and introduce the sort of carnage in Syria the US and NATO inflicted on Libya, the propaganda war needs to be dialed up. Allegations of child abuse usually do the trick. Journalists call it “the hook.”

Daughter of Kuwaiti ambassador to US tells lie used as war propaganda.

Prior to the first invasion of Iraq in 1991, the Congressional Human Rights Caucus held a hearing on Capitol Hill showcasing Iraqi human rights abuses. The media event allowed a 15-year old Kuwaiti girl known as Nayirah to claim Saddam’s invaders threw babies out of incubators at the al-Addan hospital in Kuwait City.

It turns out the girl was a member of the Kuwaiti Royal Family. Her father was Saud Nasir al-Sabah, the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States. The testimony was a lie cooked up by Hill & Knowlton, a public relations group. Despite this, the lie was repeated over and over again. Bush Senior told the story. It was recited as fact in congressional testimony, on TV and radio talk shows, and at the UN Security Council.

On Friday, a United Nations human rights panel “expressed alarm” at reports claiming Syrian security forces are torturing children.

The Committee Against Torture said it had received “numerous, consistent and substantiated reports” of widespread abuse in the country, MSNBC reports today. The chair of the panel, Claudio Grossman, told reporters in Geneva that the reports referring to the abuse of children were of “particular concern.”

It was less of a concern when George W. Bush’s legal adviser, John Yoo, argued there is no law that could prevent the president from ordering the torture of a child.

Syria’s neighbor, Israel, has detained and tortured Palestinian children at the infamous al-Jalame Interrogation and Detention Center near Haifa, but the United Nations is not talking about sanctions against the country. The Arab League is not issuing ultimatums and neocons and presidential candidates are not talking about attacking Israel.

The United Nations report is a prized piece of propaganda released at precisely the right time. It will be mentioned repeatedly by the establishment media in the weeks ahead as the stage is set for an attack on Syria. Like the Nayirah and baby incubator lie, there will be little effort to find out if Syrian security forces are indeed torturing children.

Add new comment

Liberators? US ‘kill team’ sergeant on trial for Afghan death squads

10 November 2011
Posted in News - War

Guardian

A military jury is considering its verdict in the trial of a US soldier accused of leading a “kill team” in Afghanistan which murdered unarmed civilians and collected body parts as war trophies.

Staff sergeant Calvin Gibbs, 26, faces a range of charges including murder, assault and conspiracy over the killings of three Afghans in separate incidents last year, in situations allegedly staged to look as if the victims were combatants.

In one of the most serious accusations of war crimes to emerge from the Afghan conflict, Gibbs is alleged to have recruited other soldiers to murder civilians he called “savages” after he took over command of a US army platoon in Afghanistan’s Kandahar province in November 2009.

The military prosecutor, major Rob Stelle, told the court: “Sergeant Gibbs had a charisma, he had a ‘follow me’ personality. But it was all a bunch of crap, he had his own mission: murder and depravity. No one died before Sergeant Gibbs showed up”.

Read full article here

Add new comment

20,000 British troops begin withdrawal from Germany 65 years after defeating Hitler

10 November 2011
Posted in News - War

Simon Tomlinson
Daily Mail

All 20,000 British troops will be withdrawn from Germany by 2020, bringing to an end a continuous presence since 1945, it will be announced today.

Under the Strategic Defence and Security Review, hundreds of military personnel will return home in January.

The Ministry of Defence confirmed that an announcement will be made about the pull-out of UK forces, who have had a presence on the Rhine since the end of the Second World War.

The forces were initially tasked with ensuring the stability of Germany after the fall of the Nazis, but troops remained to deter the Russians from advancing from the East as Cold War tensions grew.

Read full report here

Add new comment

World War 3: A Foregone Conclusion?

06 November 2011
Posted in News - War

Zen Gardner
Before It’s News

The hypno-induced psychotic public can’t even hear the war drums any more, no matter how loud. They’ve become background music, white noise or something to tap your foot to. With sadistic glee still warm over Gadhafi’s public torture and execution through the streets of Libya, the bloodthirsty mind-controlled western public will count a Syrian overthrow a nice after dinner mint, while monstrous illegal death drone attack reports on innocent civilians in Pakistan and Somalia are savored pastries while sipping their morning coffee.

A monstrous world unleashed while citizens nod and sway to the rhythm of dystopian mechanized war and control.

WW3 Conditioning Complete – They Won’t See It Coming

Such is today’s surreal world environment. 10 years of genocidal wars and now these latest barbaric atrocities in Libya have made their inroads even broader, in the middle east and even more in the human mind. And as they continue their saber rattling and massive propaganda campaigns, little do people realize they’re garnering a tsunami of unspoken public permission with each passing day.

What few are realizing is a war with Iran will no doubt initiate at least a limited nuclear conflagration, the effects of which will change history forever. Diabolically couched as a pre-emptive strike on a rogue nation to save Israel and US interests, such a move will inevitably draw China and Russia into the conflict.

Don’t think so? When you come to realize that’s exactly what they want, that’s when you’ll know you’re waking up.

When you know a New World Order is the desired outcome, you realize the old world order needs to be debunked, crippled and reset. The global financial and economic structure has been brought to the brink. Sovereignty is being scuttled worldwide, and the population is taking to the streets.

Need I say more?

Read full article here

Add new comment

Third of post-9/11 U.S. vets think wars not ‘worth it’: Poll

07 October 2011
Posted in News - War

Agence France-Presse

A third of Americans who served in the military following the September 11 attacks do not believe the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were worth fighting, a poll found Wednesday.

The Pew Research Poll found that 33 per cent of post-9/11 U.S. veterans said the two wars were not “worth it,” given the costs and benefits to the United States, with a slightly larger percentage of 34 per cent saying they were.

When the wars were taken individually, 50 per cent said the Afghanistan war was worth fighting and 44 per cent said the Iraq war was worth it.

Add new comment

Ex-Israeli Intelligence Officer: “Pearl Harbor” Style Attack Will Be Pretext For War On Iran

US long-term plan in Afghanistan laid bare

Next Propaganda Phase: UN Says Syria Tortures Children

Liberators? US ‘kill team’ sergeant on trial for Afghan death squads

20,000 British troops begin withdrawal from Germany 65 years after defeating Hitler

World War 3: A Foregone Conclusion?

Third of post-9/11 U.S. vets think wars not ‘worth it’: Poll

More Articles...

You can help this site expand and stay online

Latest posters:

Tags