cue the lightning bolts

the only question that matters: is it true?

Iran has signed the NPT. As a signatory to the NPT, Iran may rightfully, legally, use nuclear technology for peaceful energy purposes. Iran has submitted to and passed repeated IAEA inspections. The US intelligence community (NIE) does not consider Iran a nuclear threat. Israel refuses to sign the NPT. Israel has an estimated several hundred undeclared nuclear weapons. Russia and China have warned that an attack on Iran will have global consequences. That's the situation in a nutshell. Where to next, people? Where to?

Have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth? - Galatians 4:16


why there is never any progress

We now know that 911-related intelligence was "fixed" around a preset agenda for Greater Israel long sought by Israelis and pro-Israelis with the help of Iraqi liar Ahmad Chalabi, an asset developed over decades by Zionist war-planners Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz.

Pakistan must realize that the same mental and emotional manipulation deployed to induce a U.S.-led invasion of Iraq is now being used to provoke an invasion of Iran. By destabilizing Pakistan and portraying its western provinces as a haven for Al Qaeda, Zionists will make it appear that Islamabad's nuclear arsenal is insecure. That perception heightens the plausibility of an attack on the Islamic Republic of Iran, citing a nuclear risk.

read more @ veterans today

1. ex-CIA operative warns of terror attack, the terrorists will come from the very areas where our troops are deployed

(CBS) A former CIA operative with the most direct experience fighting al Qaeda on the ground and who predicted the 9/11 attacks has "no doubt" the terrorist organization will strike U.S. soil again.

Henry Crumpton, the ex-CIA mastermind of the war on the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan right after 9/11, also tells 60 Minutes correspondent Lara Logan the U.S. needs to be in Pakistan making deals with locals to fight the Qaeda and Taliban leaders hiding there.

Logan's story, including a rare interview with the head of the Afghan intelligence service, will be broadcast Sunday, Dec. 27, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.

"There will be an attack in the homeland …sadly…I think we'll be hit again," says Crumpton. Asked by Logan whether he had any doubts, he replies, "None." The former CIA man on the ground in Afghanistan days after 9/11 says the future attack could be greater than the one that killed nearly 3,000 people on September 11, 2001.

Crumpton is in the best position to make such a statement. It was he, with a few other CIA operatives, who enlisted Afghan tribal fighters to dislodge al-Qaeda and their Taliban hosts from Afghanistan in the weeks after the 9/11 attack.

To do so, he offered tribal leaders "a carrot and stick," says Crumpton. "The carrot would be if you come cooperate with us, we will reward you and your people. The stick was if you did not cooperate, the chances of your survival were greatly diminished," says Crumpton. Some tribal leaders were killed to make the point, he says.

That's how the U.S. needs to deal with the current situation in Afghanistan, says Crumpton. "This is not going to be a war that we win, certainly in a conventional sense, anytime soon," he tells Logan. "In Pakistan and elsewhere where you see enemy's safe haven, where they are the power…we must be the insurgents. We must work and recruit with locals and we must collect intelligence…engage in subversion and sabotage," says Crumpton.

Amrullah Saleh, the head of the Afghan intelligence service who worked with Crumpton in 2001, agrees. "Al Qaeda and Taliban are now headquartered in Pakistan," he tells Logan. "The bulk of the people we kill, neutralize or capture in Afghanistan are the expendable part of the terrorist network. The leadership is there and they are not feeling the heat, apart from these occasional drone attacks," says Saleh.

But the U.S. needs to stay in Afghanistan for the foreseeable future as well, says Amrullah.

To withdraw the troops not only means glory for al Qaeda, but a nightmare scenario for Afghans. "First, a massacre campaign will start. The human cost in this country will easily be up to two million people killed," says Amrullah. Says Crumpton, "[Afghanistan] is an enduring security concern for the United States…and for me, it’s much like déjà vu because prior to 9/11, I said 'If we do not address the situation in Afghanistan, we will suffer in the homeland. It will happen.' And it did."

source: cbs news

2. Mumbai attacks impeded improvement of Indo-Pak relationship - which is convenient to those who wish to prolong instability in the region

NEW DELHI, Dec. 24 (Xinhua) -- Relations between India and Pakistan have been plagued by decades of mistrust and suspicion, and now it still can not be changed after 10 terrorists launched attacks on Mumbai in November last year.

Political analysts here said that for several years prior Mumbai attacks, India had tried to forge a "friendly" relation with Pakistan although the two nations fought three major wars since the Partition in 1947. But the Mumbai terror attacks destroyed it all and is now an impediment in the peace process between the two countries.

...Some analysts also said that India is in the meantime frustrated with U.S. strategy in South Asia and should not blindly follow the anti-terror ideology of the West while solving its disputes with Pakistan.

"In fact, the U.S. is playing a game in South Asia. On the one hand, it's saying that Pakistan should act on India's Mumbai attacks dossiers, on the other hand it wants the Pakistani Army's cooperation in its fight against the al Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan," political analyst S.K. Gupta said.

For solving the dispute over Mumbai attacks, India and Pakistan should count on bilateral efforts to reduce tension rather than allowing the situation being further complicated by other issues such as the U.S.-led Afghan War, said some other analysts.

"Both India and Pakistan should realize one truth: outside powers will complicate the politics of this region, not help solve it," said Mehta in an article published in a leading local newspaper recently.

read more @ chinaview

3. ramping up Afghan war to control Caspian oil and transport routes

The 800-pound gorilla standing in the auditorium at West Point is still waiting for an answer to why Obama made his surge-speech for 30,000 more troops and $30 billion to pay for them. That gorilla wonders “why” Obama pitched so hard for the US to stay and surge through Afghanistan and Pakistan. The reasons given were that the Afghanistan Taliban and Al Qaeda led by Osama bin Laden were the people that attacked us on 9/11, which was an iteration of George W. Bush’s reasons for the War on Terror. They are as phony now as the day Bush promised to smoke out Bin Laden.

But, here are Obama’s actual words, pointed out by Christopher Bollyn on page 2 of his article, Why Afghanistan?

“1. I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the epicenter of the violent extremism practiced by al-Qaeda. It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak.

“2. It is important to recall why America and our allies were compelled to fight a war in Afghanistan in the first place. We did not ask for this fight. On September 11, 2001, 19 men hijacked four airplanes and used them murder nearly 3,000 people.

“3: If I did not think that the security of the United States and the safety of the American people were at stake in Afghanistan, I would gladly order every single one of our troops home tomorrow.”

Also, as early as Oct. 14, 2001, a month and three days after 9/11, Bollyn wrote in The Great Game – The War For Caspian Oil And Gas: “President Bush’s ‘crusade’ against the Taliban of Afghanistan has more to do with control of the immense oil and gas resources of the Caspian Basin than it does with ‘rooting out terrorism.’

...Back then, Maiman also mentioned to the Wall Street Journal his role was to further the “geopolitical goals of both the US and Israel in Central Asia. We are doing what US and Israeli policy could not achieve, controlling the transport route is controlling the product.”

...Murray adds, “There are designs of this pipeline, and if you look at the deployment of US forces in Afghanistan, as against other NATO country forces in Afghanistan, you’ll see that undoubtedly the US forces are positioned to guard the pipeline route. It’s what it’s about. It’s about money, it’s about oil, it’s not about democracy.”

read more @ online journal

4. also, the drug trade

Instead, in the aftermath of 9/11 they were there to wage a “War on Terror”; at least that’s the official line repeated by the corporate media.

In reality however, Coalition forces were there to help re-establish the drugs trade. All the talk about fighting terror is a smokescreen to conceal the real reason for the invasion and continued occupation.

When the Taliban took power in 1996 the world powers took little interest in Afghanistan. In July 2000 that changed when the ruling Taliban outlawed the cultivation of opium poppies as a sin against Islam. At the time Afghanistan was the source of nearly 80% of the world’s heroin.

...It’s not just ‘foreign policy’ however but a lucrative business where vast amounts of money can be made. What’s more none of it need be accounted for, which is why it is so appealing to the West’s ruling elite. Vast amounts of money can be made and used to finance secret ‘Black Budget’ projects, which needn’t be accounted for or even known about.

read more @ the truth seeker

No comments:

legal mumbo jumbo

Disclaimer: The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.

Fair Use: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.