Vatic Note: This is just another Iraq WMD scam to invade and rape and pillage another nation and its people. We need to get away from the nasty friendships that are killing us and others. That Iran is not building Nuke weapons, is also the opinion of the Israeli Chief of Military Intelligence as posted on here a while back. Also On January 9th, 2012 it was reported that
Panetta let slip to a congressional committee that Iran is not developing Nuke weapons rather nuke energy. So now can we please get down to why Israel and their puppet, the United States, "REALLY" wants to attack Iran? Its to do the following:
1. Surround Russia, as outlined in Zbigs book, "The Grand Chessboard" in order to secure and control the natural resources of Russia.
2. To give Israel the ability to take control of Iran's oil for Rothschild.
3. To give the Zionist bankers the opportunity to confiscate Iran's Gold and to institute a fiat currency monetary system JUST LIKE THEY DID IN IRAQ, LIBYA, AND PROBABLY EGYPT, in order to globalize and have all countries on the same fiat currency with worthless currency controlled by those same bankers with a global federal reserve. (Doing away with the US Fed is no big deal since they will have a global fed res in Switzerland where Rothschild can control it easier.) The Zionists have stolen billions of dollars in Gold from these countries listed above I just mentioned and there is double that in Iran. Its a crime to invade a nation to steal their gold and oil. Crimes means criminal sentences for the guilty. Life in prison would be too good for them. Nuking women, children and old people who cannot defend themselves is crime against humanity and eventually someone will have to pay for that and those that abetted the criminal acts.
4. To eliminate Rothschilds competition in his London oil bourse, since Iran began one outside the Rothschild system that competes with it. Of course we can't have competition, now can we. Interferes with market manipulations and stealing investors wealth.
So, the big question is, where is our press on these Israeli and US military and Intel people? Not a peep about what was really said in those hearings. Read it and remember who did it. They go before the next Nuremberg trials for treason, war crimes and crimes against humanity, depending on the violations of those they protected. Its called "Aiding and abetting" the criminals that will be hung for doing all this when the time comes and you can be sure it will be the goyims only and not the Khazars. In case no one has noticed, they turn on their puppets in a heart beat to save themselves, if it suits them. So, bye bye, Cheney, Bush, Obama and all the publishers and editors of all these MSM publications.
Disgraceful Reporting by the Boston Herald and Others http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/104912.html
Posted by Michael S. Rozeff, Lew Rockwell blog
on January 31, 2012 02:08 PM
The best way to get news is to read actual testimony, reports, transcripts, and speeches. The worst way is to read headlines, unless you like to be subjected to distortions and misunderstandings. In between, one can read news reports and then blogs, comments, and editorials about news reports.
No matter what one reads, the next step is to think about the matter and place it in perspective based on important factors, past events, past news, past communications, history, and so on.
Case in point: the testimony of Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper today. See here for his actual testimony in written form. Most important is that he said clearly that Iran is not building nuclear weapons and CIA chief David Petraeus said the same thing, and the latter said he had met with the head of Mossad to convey his view.
This portion of his testimony was not reported in the Boston Herald article. Instead, it pieced together two unconnected parts of his testimony and left the impression that Iran was making enriched uranium in order to conduct an attack on the U.S.!! See here. This is disgracefully poor reporting and utterly misleading.
Google provides headlines. Many of these, that I will not cite, are disgraceful too. They leave the impression that Iran has bolstered its threats unilaterally and is suddenly more willing to attack the continental U.S. This is not at all what Clapper said. He said that Iran is "now more willing to conduct an attack on the United States" in the case of a "real or perceived" threat by the U.S. to the regime.
In other words, an attack on them or a U.S. threat on them that they considered deadly serious might possibly be met by their attacks on American soil. That's his opinion, but even that doesn't get reported accurately. For example, the Washington Post says, according to Google, "launch terrorist attacks inside the United States in response to perceived threats from America and its allies..."
Notice that they added the word "terrorist" to Clapper's testimony and they left out the part about a real threat.
This is really pitiful and biased reporting.
In fact, Clapper's words are heavily hedged in three ways that the reporting doesn't make clear. First, he said that it was the plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador that is what is indicating to the CIA that "some Iranian officials" are more willing to attack the U.S. in response to real and perceived threats on their regime.
OK, but that plot is alleged and the evidence for Iran's involvement is vanishing. It was so far-fetched and so clownish, whom does it convince? Not me at any rate. Maybe the bright boys in the CIA.
Clapper seems to be reaching for a convincing story. Second, other parts of his testimony make clear that there are big divisions and conflicts among Iran's rulers. That is why he hedged by saying "some Iranian officials." This is hardly a ringing statement that says that Iran has decided to target the U.S. Third, he says that the top leader "probably" has changed his calculus. How does he know that? It too is hedged language.
In reality, the two short paragraphs on the threat from Iran do not deserve consideration even as major news and they do not deserve scare headlines, much less misinterpreted headlines or biased news reports. There have been numerous threats coming out of Iran about what damage it might choose to inflict if attacked. Their language has waxed as the U.S. threats have waxed.
It doesn't take a CIA with a huge budget to figure out what's going on. The plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador, such as it was, is actually peripheral to the ongoing threat dynamic.
Fox News uses the phrase "emboldened Iran" when it says it is "more willing" to attack the U.S. Where do they get "emboldened" from? That too makes it sound as if Iran, for some unknown reason or unilaterally, has taken upon itself to make the U.S. a target. Clapper testified that Iran was a cyber threat, along with Russia and China. (Foreign hacking and spying is up on many fronts from many places also.)
He didn't explain why it had risen as a threat. It would be well to ask why Iran has become a cyber threat. Might it not be because it is under attack by the U.S. in many ways and that looking at cyber methods of response is a sensible thing for it to do? Dropping context and history quickly leads to flawed understanding.
(VN: Yes, and no mention of the Israeli cyber attack on Iran with the stetnex virus either. They would have had every right to legally retaliate on that one. It was a direct attack on that country. That does not include surrounding the country with 10,000 American troops and no Israeli troops who are the ones that want this war when we do not. Let them send their own children instead of ours. Use their own wealth instead of ours. Quit using other religions, races and nations to front for the Israeli empire building agenda and stealing of Muslim nations resources)
The article is reproduced in accordance with Section 107 of title 17 of the Copyright Law of the United States relating to fair-use and is for the purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.
Wednesday, February 1, 2012 at 7:29AM