At a talk given in London last week, Scott Ritter was unequivocal. Plans for an attack on Iran are being drawn up and acted upon “right now….as we speak”.
Scott Ritter - ex of the US Marine Corps and former chief UN Weapons Inspector in Iraq - was unequivocal. Plans for an attack on Iran are being drawn up and acted upon “right now….as we speak”. In preparation, the US is “already committing acts of war on a daily basis”, including reconnaissance missions and other cross-border operations, some of which are being carried out on its behalf by the terrorist group, the Mojahedin-e Khalq. All of these activities are violations of Iran’s national sovereignty.
Ritter was speaking in London last week on the subject of whether a US attack on Iran is in prospect, on the same evening that the UK Foreign Office accused Iran of being behind all the British troop deaths in Iraq this year. Alongside him were Dan Plesch, a former Senior Research Fellow at the Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies, and Fred Halliday, Professor of International Relations at LSE. Neither dissented from Ritter’s view.
According to Ritter, events will unfold in a familiar pattern. First, the deception, based around talk of the security threat posed by Iran’s non-existent nuclear weapons. Second, confrontation in the field of international diplomacy. The ‘EU3’ (Britain, France, Germany) have involved themselves in negotiations with Iran on its nascent civilian nuclear capability that the US has no intention of allowing to succeed. Dan Plesch described one of the offers made to the Iranians that he had been told about by officials involved in the discussions. In return for Iran promising never to pursue any nuclear capability, civilian or military, the UK and France alone would promise not to use nuclear weapons against Iran in any conflict. Hardly a sign of serious dialogue taking place.
When the impasse reaches the UN Security Council the US will challenge the international community to act, the fraudulent case for war will of course be rejected, at which point unilateral military action will commence. This had been originally planned for June 2005 but was postponed when John Bolton’s nomination to the post of UN ambassador to the UN stumbled in Congress. Bolton is central to the diplomatic side of the strategy.
Ritter described the stages various stages the attack would move through, starting with air strikes on political and military targets. Then, four divisions of US troops will invade from Azerbaijan and head straight for Tehran. By hitting Iran hard with air strikes, then applying pressure on the regime with the presence of ground troops on the country’s borders and encircling Tehran, the aim is to create the conditions for a civilian uprising to emerge and depose the regime. To this end ‘usable nuclear weapons’ (Ritter: “and the thing about ‘usable nuclear weapons’ is, they’re usable”) will be retained as an option.
Given the now all but universal acceptance that the invasion of Iraq has been a disaster, and the political crises currently circling the Bush Presidency, one might have expected discussion of a US strike on Iran to be couched in ifs buts and maybes, if not for the idea to be dismissed as a thwarted neo-con ambition. But Ritter was forceful in his certainty. One audience member asked how an invasion could be militarily feasible, and where the US would find the troops to control the situation on the ground post-invasion. Ritter, again, was unequivocal. We can discuss the feasibility of a military operation for as long as we want, he said, but the fact is that it’s happening. You can test this by checking the deployment of US National Guard units internationally. You’ll find them concentrated round the Caspian Sea area, in particular Azerbaijan. There’s no shortage of troops. The US has all the troops it needs for this plan, in the shape of air crews for the bombers that will form the main focus of the attack. Yes, the idea that the Iranians will help the US overthrow the regime is ludicrous. Yes, the attack will end in yet another military disaster for the US. And yes, any use of nuclear weapons will “uncork the genie” with terrible consequences. But none of this means it won’t happen because, in a White House administration run by the neo-conservatives, fantasy is reality.
Another audience member asked how accusations of WMD proliferation could be made with any credibility after Iraq. Scott Ritter said simply, “no problem”. Those who lied their way to war paid no serious political price for doing so. Bush has been exonerated in several inquiries on the subject. At least as far as the non-existent Iraqi WMD is concerned, they got away with it. Dan Plesch pointed out that the Reagan government had two maxims: firstly, always have a bad guy, and secondly, when in trouble change the subject. In the current political circumstances, an attack on Iran fits in very well with this way of thinking. As for political opposition, there’s little chance of the Democrats “defending the mullahs” (as any opposition would be portrayed), and in the UK, probably only a Tory party under Ken Clarke would oppose an attack, and that would cause it to split.
An audience member asked about the significance of oil. Dan Plesch said that oil is precisely what gives the greater Middle East its significance in world affairs. Currently the US, Russia and China are in fierce competition over access to and control over energy reserves throughout Central Asia. Fred Halliday said that the issue at stake was about who holds power in the greater Middle East: the US (and its allies Israel and Saudi Arabia) or Iran. He noted that if the US interest in Iraq had been purely about access to oil it could have done a deal with Saddam. The concerns of hegemony and credibility were also factors. Ritter mentioned the recent US National Security Strategy, and its stated intention to dominate the globe, allowing no rival power to emerge anywhere. Control over resources is central to this.
Above all, Ritter stressed that the issue of Iran should not be seen as having to do with legitimate US/UK national security concerns. This has absolutely nothing to do with it, as was the case with Iraq. The real issue is the global ambitions of the neo-conservative Bush administration. Fred Halliday pointed out that in Washington in 2003, the modish phrase was, “wimps go to Baghdad, real men go to Tehran”.
*****
David Wearing has written previously on the prospect of a US/UK attack on Iran for ZNet
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?itemid=7784 He has also set out a full account of the talk given by Ritter, Plesch and Halliday on his website The Democrat’s Diary, at http://www.democratsdiary.co.uk/2005/10/experts-predict-us-attack-on-iran.html
Ritter was speaking in London last week on the subject of whether a US attack on Iran is in prospect, on the same evening that the UK Foreign Office accused Iran of being behind all the British troop deaths in Iraq this year. Alongside him were Dan Plesch, a former Senior Research Fellow at the Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies, and Fred Halliday, Professor of International Relations at LSE. Neither dissented from Ritter’s view.
According to Ritter, events will unfold in a familiar pattern. First, the deception, based around talk of the security threat posed by Iran’s non-existent nuclear weapons. Second, confrontation in the field of international diplomacy. The ‘EU3’ (Britain, France, Germany) have involved themselves in negotiations with Iran on its nascent civilian nuclear capability that the US has no intention of allowing to succeed. Dan Plesch described one of the offers made to the Iranians that he had been told about by officials involved in the discussions. In return for Iran promising never to pursue any nuclear capability, civilian or military, the UK and France alone would promise not to use nuclear weapons against Iran in any conflict. Hardly a sign of serious dialogue taking place.
When the impasse reaches the UN Security Council the US will challenge the international community to act, the fraudulent case for war will of course be rejected, at which point unilateral military action will commence. This had been originally planned for June 2005 but was postponed when John Bolton’s nomination to the post of UN ambassador to the UN stumbled in Congress. Bolton is central to the diplomatic side of the strategy.
Ritter described the stages various stages the attack would move through, starting with air strikes on political and military targets. Then, four divisions of US troops will invade from Azerbaijan and head straight for Tehran. By hitting Iran hard with air strikes, then applying pressure on the regime with the presence of ground troops on the country’s borders and encircling Tehran, the aim is to create the conditions for a civilian uprising to emerge and depose the regime. To this end ‘usable nuclear weapons’ (Ritter: “and the thing about ‘usable nuclear weapons’ is, they’re usable”) will be retained as an option.
Given the now all but universal acceptance that the invasion of Iraq has been a disaster, and the political crises currently circling the Bush Presidency, one might have expected discussion of a US strike on Iran to be couched in ifs buts and maybes, if not for the idea to be dismissed as a thwarted neo-con ambition. But Ritter was forceful in his certainty. One audience member asked how an invasion could be militarily feasible, and where the US would find the troops to control the situation on the ground post-invasion. Ritter, again, was unequivocal. We can discuss the feasibility of a military operation for as long as we want, he said, but the fact is that it’s happening. You can test this by checking the deployment of US National Guard units internationally. You’ll find them concentrated round the Caspian Sea area, in particular Azerbaijan. There’s no shortage of troops. The US has all the troops it needs for this plan, in the shape of air crews for the bombers that will form the main focus of the attack. Yes, the idea that the Iranians will help the US overthrow the regime is ludicrous. Yes, the attack will end in yet another military disaster for the US. And yes, any use of nuclear weapons will “uncork the genie” with terrible consequences. But none of this means it won’t happen because, in a White House administration run by the neo-conservatives, fantasy is reality.
Another audience member asked how accusations of WMD proliferation could be made with any credibility after Iraq. Scott Ritter said simply, “no problem”. Those who lied their way to war paid no serious political price for doing so. Bush has been exonerated in several inquiries on the subject. At least as far as the non-existent Iraqi WMD is concerned, they got away with it. Dan Plesch pointed out that the Reagan government had two maxims: firstly, always have a bad guy, and secondly, when in trouble change the subject. In the current political circumstances, an attack on Iran fits in very well with this way of thinking. As for political opposition, there’s little chance of the Democrats “defending the mullahs” (as any opposition would be portrayed), and in the UK, probably only a Tory party under Ken Clarke would oppose an attack, and that would cause it to split.
An audience member asked about the significance of oil. Dan Plesch said that oil is precisely what gives the greater Middle East its significance in world affairs. Currently the US, Russia and China are in fierce competition over access to and control over energy reserves throughout Central Asia. Fred Halliday said that the issue at stake was about who holds power in the greater Middle East: the US (and its allies Israel and Saudi Arabia) or Iran. He noted that if the US interest in Iraq had been purely about access to oil it could have done a deal with Saddam. The concerns of hegemony and credibility were also factors. Ritter mentioned the recent US National Security Strategy, and its stated intention to dominate the globe, allowing no rival power to emerge anywhere. Control over resources is central to this.
Above all, Ritter stressed that the issue of Iran should not be seen as having to do with legitimate US/UK national security concerns. This has absolutely nothing to do with it, as was the case with Iraq. The real issue is the global ambitions of the neo-conservative Bush administration. Fred Halliday pointed out that in Washington in 2003, the modish phrase was, “wimps go to Baghdad, real men go to Tehran”.
*****
David Wearing has written previously on the prospect of a US/UK attack on Iran for ZNet
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?itemid=7784 He has also set out a full account of the talk given by Ritter, Plesch and Halliday on his website The Democrat’s Diary, at http://www.democratsdiary.co.uk/2005/10/experts-predict-us-attack-on-iran.html 
e-mail:
Homepage:
Comments
Hide the following 17 comments
Good Piece
11.10.2005 16:16
The title says "Experts"; did I miss the other(s)?
Boab
Spin
11.10.2005 16:38
The Iranians are of course unable to control the more radical elements in their quasi government / religious Revolutionary Guard who without doubt financing and providing equipment to the insurgency in Iraq, they of course are motivated to see a Shia dominated Islamic Theocracy in Iraq.
As a result of this the US government runs a couple of low level recon actions to try and discover the routes the equipment is taking and based on this Scott Ritter decides an invasion is imminent and already planned.
Aside from the obvious flaws in the argument (lack of US manpower in the region, air asset logistical support not in right places, no fuel being bunkered etc, etc) the entire premis of the idea is nonsensical. Therefore we do the obvious - look to see who benefits from the story. Talk of conflict in the region always has many effects but only one every time, the oil price rises.
Scott Ritter has close and clear links to a number of oil companies.
When in doubt consider "Who benefits" - never fails
Spinning
Re: Spinning
11.10.2005 18:14
applesaft
response from the author
11.10.2005 18:27
You say that elements in the Iranian govt are "without doubt financing and providing equipment to the insurgency in Iraq, they of course are motivated to see a Shia dominated Islamic Theocracy in Iraq". Several serious flaws with this. Firstly, the insurgency is overwhelmingly Sunni. Secondly, those very few elements that are Shia are Sadrists, who are nationalists and have no love for Iran. Thirdly, anyone who was "motivated to see a Shia dominated Islamic Theocracy in Iraq" would simply let the political process, which is delivering the country to Sistani and the Shia majority, run its course. So you might say that the entire premise of this little conspiracy theory is nonsensical. What other points you make are dealt with in the article.
David Wearing
Homepage:
http://www.democratsdiary.co.uk
Fred, meet Rose
11.10.2005 22:47
On face value, the war in Iraq is insane, and many political thinkers in the US feel this. On face value.
The war, however, is not insane. Every greater war will start with lesser wars, and Iraq is a stepping stone on the way to war with China. The brook is wide, and many stones will feel the boot on top of them, but they are merely means to an end.
Even within an army, how many people will vote for world war- of course many claim that experience makes such people even LESS likely to welcome this than the rest of us. However, a true general ensures that he doesn't have to give a damn about how his troops MIGHT feel, because he will ensure that this is never even an issue.
Blair is the single solitary force on this planet that is really driving this history. Whoops, now I've drawn the REAL attention of Blair's better disinfo agents again. Let me elaborate for the rest of you.
Remember Bush One, the REAL politician, and President before Clinton. Well Ritter had a famous quote-
Bush Sr. called the NeoCons the “crazies in the basement"
unquote
These crazies are the madmen that surround and dominate his son today. There is a problem, however. These 'crazies' have ALWAYS existed in American history, and have ALWAYS been kept in the basement. Why are things different today. There is a single word answer- BLAIR.
Jump back to the early 60's. Operation Northwoods was created by the crazies- basically an identical FALSE-FLAG to 911. The US President then had the final say, and he said NO. Why- because such an operation would need the support of other powerful world leaders, and none were EVER prepared to align themselves with the desires of the 'crazies'. Same over US plans to Nuke China, and other places in various past wars.
You see, in life there are ALWAYS sick, perverted, deviant humans with a willingness to commit any crime imaginable, but left to their own devices, their power is so very limited. Connect them to the right people, Like Rose meeting Fred, and all hell can LITERALLY break loose. The US 'crazies' are Fred West, and Tony Blair is Rose West, an ultimate evil with a limitless thirst for Human Suffering, and the cunning to ensure that by the time most people understand what he really is, his victims would already fill a million charnel houses.
Early in Mein Kampf, Hitler is considering all the big strong Bully Boys that surrounded him in his youth, and imagining how useful they could be in serving his greater purpose. But then, who should you notice- the person breaking heads, or the person on whose behalf they break those heads. Regardless of what you may think, in 99.9% of cases, the thug is noticed, and NOT his master.
Blair's project started with the essential need to get the US armed forces willing to fight major battles again, and this means ON THE GROUND. After Vietnam, with the good sense to consider war with the USSR insane, the US saw its military future purely in bombing the hell out of people with its VAST superiority in the air. This culminated in the first Gulf War, when famously more bombs were dropped on Iraq than were used in the entirety of WW2, and all over an original invasion that killed less people than when the US invaded Panama.
The Kosovo crisis was created almost solely for the purpose of getting the US to fight on the ground in a nice little contained scenario (remember- the UK had previously been at the forefront of protecting Serbian aggression against muslims and croats, by constantly taking the lead in 'negotiations' with Serbia, and inviting the Americans to 'butt out'). With NO punishment planned for Serbian acts of genocide committed by SERBIA (as opposed to serbian forces in Bosnia), the leaders of Serbia thought their troubles were over. Imagine their surprise when tiny amounts of insignificant violence in Kosovo were declared reason for full blown war by Tony Blair. This was his wargame, but as you know know, the US did not play ball. Blair, despite all his efforts, could not get the US to fight on the ground.
Of course, there is more than one way to skin a cat, as many people in the twin towers were to discover. By that time, Blair's warlike credentials had allowed him to fully ally with the worst elements of US political power, and the extremists that control most of the Mass Media in the West. The 'crazies' were promised all the propaganda, and mock intelligence they could ever desire, but most importantly, from a non-US source. When Colin Powell presented his collection of lies to the UN, most originated from the UK- making it seem that much more acceptable within the US political community. Of course, long before that, Blair had FINALLY got the US to launch a major ground war- in Afghanistan.
For the 'crazies', Blair is their president, not Bush- but only in the sense that he gets things done for them, and Bush is a drunken unreliable puppet. They do not understand Blair's greater purpose, but think they share a common vision. It s true that the 'crazies' anticipate war with China, but only in a fantasy 'we will win, everything will be OK' kind of way.
The Iran war is designed to CHANGE THE RULES (and such a step must always be made in the projection of power by any empire). At the moment, the US breaks all the rules, but claims it still follows and honours them. The next stage ocurs when the US states that MIGHT IS RIGHT, AND SO OUR WORD IS LAW. Blair calculates that war against Iran will bring this to pass. Nukes may or may not be part of this. Counting against Nukes are-
1) backlash by the people of the West that could strip power from Blair and his people, restoring sanity.
2) the use of nukes might be better considered for one of the wars to follow, say in Pakistan, or (perfectly for Blair) the nuking of Mecca in Saudi Arabia.
As an aside, the destruction of Mecca will mark the end of the first stage of Blair's greater wars. The Middle East is just an entre. And on this subject, many of you will be aware of that obscene ad depicting a US death squad descending on a mosque, and the logo 'it descends from heaven, but ironically it unleases hell', promoting the sale of some new US murder machine. Sending muslims to hell is Blair's main message, and you will see it more and more across the coming months.
To conclude, you will notice that Scott Ritter, like others of his ilk, DO NOT CONCLUDE. He gives you a lot of pertinent facts and analysis, but no conclusion. HE SAYS that an attack on Iran is planned because a bunch of people are crazy- as in stupid and illogical. Why does he NOT invite you into their internal logic. I used 'crazies' as a convenient shorthand, but I am fully aware of where they are going, and why. The Neocons have a plan of ethnic supremacy (ring a bell) to overcome demographic issues facing that group. Blair has an intent to turn the whole world into Rose West's basement with their idiot help. I have a feeling that most of you are ONLY going to take this seriously when you find yourself 'bound and taped', helplessly looking the monster straight in the eye.
twilight
Boab and magoo together again
11.10.2005 23:43
filling up the Net with their inane banter ..
Perhaps this was before the daring duo graduated onto IMC UK also
another good reason why they should be ignored and hopefully they will Flock off back to whence they came from
luther Blissett
PS if you search for them on Google you'll find there's more .. and don't forget paranoid pete !
Perhapsta You are not logged in. Login or Signup
Home » Users » Profile for magoo (Back to the messageboard)
• a member for 2 years, 6 months and 24 days
• has posted 2117 messages on the main board
• of which 1 have appeared on the front page
• has posted 2 answers
(FAT) BOAB AND MAGOO TOGETHER AGAIN
if he liked motorhead after all.
( magoo, Thu 3 Apr 2003, 12:31, archived)
thats Ace
of Spades
( Pootle, Thu 3 Apr 2003, 12:33, archived)
and don't forget
the joker!
( magoo, Thu 3 Apr 2003, 12:35, archived)
is that spacefish?
( Fat Boab, Thu 3 Apr 2003, 12:37, archived)
.
which one?
( magoo, Thu 3 Apr 2003, 12:38, archived)
the one
behind the couch
( Fat Boab, Thu 3 Apr 2003, 12:41, archived)
yes
that's him
( magoo, Thu 3 Apr 2003, 12:42, archived)
Home » Users » Profile for Fat Boab (Back to the messageboard)
• a member for 3 years, 9 months and 2 days
• has posted 10930 messages on the main board
• of which 84 have appeared on the front page
• has posted 1 answers
Profile Info:
Here's me live:My Beautiful Ninja
also, here be The old B3ta gallery
Editor
The Daily Reckless - Come and have a go if you're Kierkegaard enough.
email: tommydotmackayattalk21dotcom
Recent front page messages:
Rest in Obscurity
(Mon 5th Apr 2004, 11:27, More)
And now the news from Trevor Macdonald's mole:
(Fri 5th Mar 2004, 9:32, More)
Guaranteed to break the ice at parties
(Fri 27th Feb 2004, 9:42, More)
Nice tights
(Wed 28th Jan 2004, 9:03, More)
woof
(Fri 12th Dec 2003, 13:17, More)
"John Hurt - this is your life!"
(Thu 4th Dec 2003, 10:26, More)
Inspired by mozza's earlier Caeser salad, here's Burgers Meredith
(Tue 26th Aug 2003, 11:35, More)
Tom Waits for Numan
(Thu 21st Aug 2003, 8:52, More)
No helicopter required
(Wed 16th Jul 2003, 13:06, More)
"He's too orangey for crows."
(Thu 19th Jun 2003, 13:16, More)
Recent answers to questions:
Luther Blissett
Blah ...
12.10.2005 06:14
"The Iranians are of course unable to control the more radical elements in their quasi government"
It's not as serious as all of that, as the Iranian People themsleves have been applying much needed pressure in this area. Perhaps the countries whose leaders, exposed as LIARS and War Criminals, and are pushing for this War of Aggression, should check the radicals within their own governments, as they're currently slaughtering vastly more than anyone ...
"who without doubt financing and providing equipment to the insurgency in Iraq"
Without doubt, or without proof/evidence ... ? Put up or shut up.
And even if this empty allegation were true, so what? The Americans/British are the Aggressors here, and the Iraqi Resistance has every right under the Law to use any means to fight them, just as States would be justified in aiding them in this effort.
"they of course are motivated to see a Shia dominated Islamic Theocracy in Iraq."
No, that's just Propaganda, disseminated by the people who have been attempting, quite unsuccesfully thus far, to provoke a Civil War in Iraq. It's an old Colonial Trick, divide the People so that you can plunder their country while they kill each other. Leaked documents prove that the US/UK were discussing "Divide & Rule" at least a full year before their illegal invasion.
The exposure of an SAS False Flag Operation in Basra, to that end, pretty much undid what little success their efforts had had up to that point.
"As a result of this the US government runs a couple of low level recon actions ..."
No, they're running full-bore Covert Operations, directed at weakening Iranian defenses, and yes, that usually precedes an invasion, like the one they've been trying to justify, and planning, for two years now.
"Aside from the obvious flaws in the argument"
Perhaps you should elaborate a bit, of you're going to level such a charge.
"(lack of US manpower in the region"
Iran is surrounded by US forces, and the entire 101st Airborne was mobilized just last week. And considering the speed of deployment, that's a Red Herring.
"air asset logistical support not in right places"
Again, Iran is surrounded by it.
"no fuel being bunkered"
Much the same ...
"etc, etc)"
Such as ... ?
"Therefore we do the obvious - look to see who benefits from the story. Talk of conflict in the region always has many effects but only one every time, the oil price rises."
And the people holding the reigns rake it in! But there are other concerns than just oil. There is Israel, which is driving this policy, and geostrategy desires, outlined by the Criminal Gang controlling the White House.
"Scott Ritter has close and clear links to ..."
Oh, THERE's the spin.
Again, you'll have to elaborate ...
"When in doubt consider "Who benefits" - never fails"
You're absolutely right. I've been doing this for the past four years, and it hasn't let me down once.
How do you, then, feel about 911?
Typical Spook Droppings
Touched a nerve, have I?
12.10.2005 08:36
Fat Boab is a character from Oor Wullie, a comic strip in the Sunday Post. Unfortunately this other fellow you've dredged up isn't me; you'll notice that I've only ever signed my messages as "Big Bad Boab", "Big Bad Boab Fae Bathgate", or "Boab".
If you're suggesting Magoo and me are some sort of team, you'd better re-read the postings; Magoo and Paranoid Pete, perhaps, but not me and Magoo.
I can only assume that this amusing attack is because the wilder posters get fed up with us asking for pesky things like decent links/evidence, or point out the kind of holes in your argument that your average secondary school junior lit would see.
What an amusing way to start the day....
Boab
Dear boring old "Luther Blissett" the cyberhardman
12.10.2005 10:03
You could get a job for the CIA and MI6 with such skills.
P.S. You were obviously too lazy spot these gems; which would've so much more funny:
magoo
Oh Luther
12.10.2005 12:12
Boab
Typical Spook Droppings
12.10.2005 13:27
I have no idea who Paranoid Pete is. In fact, I don't have any contact/relationship with anyone on IM that I know of.
Luther Blisset
Spotted an error or two.
12.10.2005 13:38
I also claim that that Iran isn't arming Sadrists in Basra. I have really have no evidence to support that, and actually constructively admitted as much be saying that if Iran were they would be right to do so.
In fact, I'd like to aplogise also for my widesweeping endorsement of terrorism and targetting civillians. I realise that I can't on one hand attack the coalition for illegal activities and support them on the other without being a total hypocrite.
I promise in future I'll stick to the facts and err on the side of caution before being so premature and frivilous with accusations of "False Flags". They must be a bit tedious by now and the fact I haven't got any evidence to support any of them just makes IndyMedia look like the David Icke forum.
I also promise to stop willfully jsut making things up for the hell of it.
Typical Spook Droppings
Pathetic
12.10.2005 17:40
You should read some of Seymour Hersh's work on the subject. He's detailed how the Americans are already conducting military operations into Iran from the neighbouring 'Stans. Of course, this type of Covert Activity usually precedes a larger invasion.
"The Iranians are of course unable to control the more radical elements in their quasi government"
It's not as serious as all of that, as the Iranian People themsleves have been applying much needed pressure in this area. Perhaps the countries whose leaders, exposed as LIARS and War Criminals, and are pushing for this War of Aggression, should check the radicals within their own governments, as they're currently slaughtering vastly more than anyone ...
"who without doubt financing and providing equipment to the insurgency in Iraq"
Without doubt, or without proof/evidence ... ? Put up or shut up.
And even if this empty allegation were true, so what? The Americans/British are the Aggressors here, and the Iraqi Resistance has every right under the Law to use any means to fight them, just as States would be justified in aiding them in this effort.
"they of course are motivated to see a Shia dominated Islamic Theocracy in Iraq."
No, that's just Propaganda, disseminated by the people who have been attempting, quite unsuccesfully thus far, to provoke a Civil War in Iraq. It's an old Colonial Trick, divide the People so that you can plunder their country while they kill each other. Leaked documents prove that the US/UK were discussing "Divide & Rule" at least a full year before their illegal invasion.
The exposure of an SAS False Flag Operation in Basra, to that end, pretty much undid what little success their efforts had had up to that point.
"As a result of this the US government runs a couple of low level recon actions ..."
No, they're running full-bore Covert Operations, directed at weakening Iranian defenses, and yes, that usually precedes an invasion, like the one they've been trying to justify, and planning, for two years now.
"Aside from the obvious flaws in the argument"
Perhaps you should elaborate a bit, of you're going to level such a charge.
"(lack of US manpower in the region"
Iran is surrounded by US forces, and the entire 101st Airborne was mobilized just last week. And considering the speed of deployment, that's a Red Herring.
"air asset logistical support not in right places"
Again, Iran is surrounded by it.
"no fuel being bunkered"
Much the same ...
"etc, etc)"
Such as ... ?
"Therefore we do the obvious - look to see who benefits from the story. Talk of conflict in the region always has many effects but only one every time, the oil price rises."
And the people holding the reigns rake it in! But there are other concerns than just oil. There is Israel, which is driving this policy, and geostrategy desires, outlined by the Criminal Gang controlling the White House.
"Scott Ritter has close and clear links to ..."
Oh, THERE's the spin.
Again, you'll have to elaborate ...
"When in doubt consider "Who benefits" - never fails"
You're absolutely right. I've been doing this for the past four years, and it hasn't let me down once.
How do you, then, feel about 911?
Typical Spook Droppings
Cui (or Qui) Bono? Don't make me laugh.
13.10.2005 13:16
For those unfamiliar with the Cui bono, and simplyfying somewhat, the princple suggests that the person with most to gain from an event is probably to blame. Supperficially attractive, and certainly of relevance to normal criminal cases, there are a number of problems when we try to apply it to complex events.
Whereas the motives for crime are typically rather simple (greed, jealously, hatred and fear), politics is far more complex. Accidents can happen. There are many examples of foolish errors and foulups which have been re-interpreted as intentional acts.
Cui bono also fails us if the persons who intended to benefit from a certain act gain no or only a tiny benefit, and other groups - perhaps wholly unconnected - obtain a huge advantage.
In a similar vein, extremist groups may pursue some goal that we do not consider valuable, or attach a greater value to some aspect: what is nonsensical to us can carry a benefit that only they understand. This may involve concepts of honor, religion and ideology which are incomprehensible to us.
The concept of a conspiracy theory is often based on the idea that everything is an intentional act by shadowy forces. The reverse is also true: Monstrous acts have been reinterpreted as accidents. Cui Bono on its own is proof of nothing. Anyone with legal training will confirm that evidence and corroboration are still essential; the very things our friend who posted above seems to overlook.
Observer
Piero Canatta meets / Umberto Eco (another unlikely duo)
13.10.2005 15:20
perhaps you are a pair of sweaty socks or perhaps just the one ... who knows and who really cares ..
Wu Ming is in Bologna, Umberto Eco taught at the University there.
of all the 146.000 hits you have for me (LB) you have to quote that one ?
Here is a much better one
I doubt wether you will have read The name of the Rose but as fellow sweaty sock played the lead role you might have seen the film .. am I really Eco .. ? no perhaps I could be Pietro Cannata he who broke the toe of Michelangiolo's David and I hear he has struck again in Florence (yesterday) he is also noted for smearing a Jackson Pollock painting and appearing on my CD "The Open Pop Star" but then I have really been around but rarely visit the centre of the world for errr heart desease (glasgow) .. with
we anarchists get up to all sorts of tricks and stunts for no apparent reason so don't try to understand us
as Boab / Magoo are virtual proof that "there is nowt queer as folk"
Luther Blissett
Anyhow ...
14.10.2005 05:53
"In a similar vein, extremist groups may pursue some goal that we do not consider valuable"
Indeed. In the present case, most of the people behind this Neo-Fascism are hardline Zionists, and their first and foremost concern is protecting the Zionist State, and broadening what they desire, "Greater Israel", not to mention, killing and humiliating Arabs.
But you must also understand that there are innumerable goals, some political, financial, geostrategic, etc. because of the number of people involved, and more importantly, the TYPES of people involved, those known for doing whatever it takes, whether illegal, unethical or immoral, to achieve their agenda.
"The concept of a conspiracy theory is often based on the idea that everything is an intentional act by shadowy forces."
In this case, it is, whether you believe the Theories of the LIARS you support through your work here, or those of the people who haven't lied to the world, and have pretty much been right about most of this over the past four years consistently ...
Back to the subject at hand, you might want to read Seymour Hersh's work on Iran, as the war is already being fought, with the US/UK carrying out Covert Operations from the surrounding 'Stans.
Don't Let Them Limit The Debate
Ach wheesht yer havers
14.10.2005 15:10
Twilight, are you completely incapable of answering a straight question? Do you really believe all the twaddle you peddle (boom boom) or are you some sort of living example of the devil making work for idle hands? Most of all, how do you find the time to think it all up!
Boab