US Peace Movement - Cheney Planning False Flag Operation to Attack Iran

The Evidence is here
 http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/download.php?id=993
 http://www.bilderberg.org/indications_of_iran_attack.doc
 http://www.bilderberg-mirror.org.uk/indications_of_iran_attack.doc

extract below
The following is intended as a supplement and update of the analysis contained in the essay “CHENEY DETERMINED TO STRIKE IN US WITH WMD THIS SUMMER,” dated July 21, 2007, and posted at rense.com, 911blogger, and thousands of other websites worldwide. Included here are materials up to August 28, 2007.

You may interested to read the BBC's comment section's repsonse to Bush's latest fable:

 http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=2&threadID=7221&edition=1&ttl=20070829084352&#paginator

Just in case the right-wing faction start their usual attack on their place here is are the commest voted the most popular:

Added: Tuesday, 28 August, 2007, 21:28 GMT 22:28 UK

As an Iranian i am very disappointed in the way BBC has translated president Ahmadinejads speech... this is what he exactly said according to BBC persian:
"we are prepared to fill this power vacuum with the help of our neighbours, regional friends, Saudi Arabia, Iraqi nation and others"
but BBC has translated this " we are prepared to fill in the power vacuum"
stop making Iran look so evil and take some responsibility for the political and military failures in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

Ali, Nottingham

Recommended by 149 people


Added: Tuesday, 28 August, 2007, 21:28 GMT 22:28 UK

This all sounds remarkably familiar! As the propaganda ramps up be on the look out for "documentaries" on US TV titled "Ahmadinejad: The New Hitler," and "Iran's links to 9/11." The amazing thing is that propaganda like this is so effective in the United States.

[xpat73], Boston, United States

Recommended by 119 people

Added: Tuesday, 28 August, 2007, 21:12 GMT 22:12 UK

'Deteriorating'? Could they get much worse?

Any excuse to invade Iran, the next bogeyman on the list. If it's not the nuclear power programme it'll be arming insurgents. The WMD excuse has already been used.

Didn't a lot of US companies/barons financially support the IRA during the troubles, by the way? Has anyone asked Bush about this?

Should we invade the US? I feel we have a moral obligation to stop this crusading warmonger and make the world a safer place.

[dogsolitude_uk], Norwich, United Kingdom

Recommended by 117 people

Added: Tuesday, 28 August, 2007, 21:25 GMT 22:25 UK

Anyone getting a sense of Deja Vu here. The buildup is almost exactly the same. The inspectors have struck an accord with Iran and are working to solve unresolved issues - but US diplomats call it a smokescreen! These people are only interested in war and further conflict.

Bush is looking for war and is heading down the same road. And everyone seems to be falling for it again. Why don't the American people learn? What will it take before people wake-up and hold his accountable for once

M M

Recommended by 105 people

Sign in to recommend comment


Added: Tuesday, 28 August, 2007, 21:15 GMT 22:15 UK

Bush, as usual, doesn't know what he's talking about. The U.S. are the ones who invaded Iraq, not Iran! Why is it O.K. for the U.S. to send troops into Iraq, steal their oil, and make a mess of their once stable and progressive country?

Iran, as far as I know, never in recent memory invaded any country. The same cannot be said for Israel, or the U.S! The U.S. are the insurgents!

Mr Bush, please stop playing loose with the facts!!!

Walter H Saenger, USA

Recommended by 105 people


*and so it goes on and on.

Quite how the title, the open letter and the subsequently posted evidence all tie in has been left to the imagination of the reader- perhaps that was the desired effect.

The title goes beyond the open letter. The open letter doesn't offer any insight into its evidence. And the only alleged evidence posted doesn't support the position either of the title or letter- the document is just a series of cut & paste news articles with no discernible structure let alone thesis.

Perhaps if the original poster could actually write something that lives up to the title or the letter or the "evidence" and post again?



HOWEVER, this document that cited early in that other document makes grim and depressing reading and well worth a story in its own right:

 http://www.rawstory.com/images/other/IranStudy082807a.pdf

"The study concludes that the US has made military preparations to
destroy Iran’s WMD, nuclear energy, regime, armed forces, state apparatus and
economic infrastructure within days if not hours of President George W. Bush
giving the order. The US is not publicising the scale of these preparations to
deter Iran, tending to make confrontation more likely. The US retains the option
of avoiding war, but using its forces as part of an overall strategy of shaping
Iran’s actions."

"General Wesley Clark claims that he became aware of the Bush Administration’s instructions concerning the overthrow of the Iranian regime in September 2001. He states that he was told this in the Pentagon by a serving General holding the order in his hand."

"Any nuclear attack on Iran is unlikely and hard to conceive, still less the use of nuclear weapons by the nations in what the British call the “special relationship”. Nevertheless were the US to use nuclear weapons it might well seek UK participation for the same reasons it does on other occasions."

"The regime in Tehran has already complained of US- and UK-inspired terror attacks in several Iranian regions where the population opposes the ayatollahs' fanatical policies. Such reports corroborate the American journalist Seymour Hersh's claim that the US military is already engaged in a low-level war with Iran."

"The UK government has a clear position that Iran should not become a nuclear weapon state. The ambiguity over Iran’s real nuclear programme in contrast to Iraq’s mythical programme and the simplicity of the claim to be preventing the ovens of Auschwitz arriving in Tel Aviv in the form of an Iranian nuclear bomb means that there is a powerful political message."

"If the attack is “successful” and the US reasserts its global military dominance and reduces Iran to the status of an oil-rich failed state, then the risks to humanity in general and to the states of the Middle East are grave indeed."


"If the attack is pursued with the skill of the Iraq campaign then we face major and unpredictable escalation arising from the fallacy of attempting to make “the last move” on the political game board. Should Iranians rally to their battered state regardless of their, then what has been seen in Iraq will merely become an overture to a larger regional war, and one where a blip in oil prices becomes a prolonged global recession. Regional instability that might follow “victory” will be magnified. The Shakespearean quote, “cry havoc and let loose the dogs of war” expresses the simple rule that wars, like fires are far easier to start than to contain or put out."

This letter is a hoax. I emailed Dahlia Wasfi about it and this was his response:

Dear Brendan,
Thank you for writing. I did not sign that statement, and I've written the author to that effect. In fact, in an email exchange, I, Cindy Sheehan, and Jamilla El-Shafei all refuted signing such a statement.

Many thanks for your support.
In solidarity,
Dahlia


It is a hoax! One website posted it two days ago and now every conspiracy website on the net is posting it as if it is fact. Yet nobody has actually gone to the trouble of fact-checking the letter. Everyone is just copying and pasting the original letter like un-thinking lemings. I thought that the 911-truth movement was supposed to be for critical-thinking people!

People in the 9/11 truth movement have been asking where the "massive evidence" is and have noted that some people who's names are on this never actually put their names to it:

----------------------------------------------------------------------

More to indicate....

that this work is indeed fraudulent, deceptive piece of dis-information. My good friend and colleague, Michael Anderson of Colorado 9-11 Visibility has contacted one of the "signatories" of this piece of work, Dahlia Wasfi. Not only is this work a fraud and a fake, at least one of the "signatories" has denied signing it. Here is Dahlia's response. re: Kennebunkport Warning:

Hey Michael--

I didn't sign this.

I don't know about the validity of this "warning," but the people who put this list together were dishonest about signatories. They took our signatures for something else and put it on this. Very weird.

Love, Dahlia

I am very curious as to why is Webster Tarpley spreading this around, putting his name on it, without verifying even the people who supposedly signed it, let alone any of the information contained therein. Sloppy work Webster. Was this an accident?

Michael

 http://911blogger.com/node/10925#comment

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Whomever did this...

Is scum. Absolute scum. This should be taken down immediately, and a statement issued regarding it.

Who wrote this warning? Who was the one responsible for obtaining signatures? I know who was responsible for supplying the "evidence" behind the claims, and who is also a signatory.

Jon Gold

 http://www.911blogger.com/node/10905?page=1#comment

Now we have established it's fake. Should we pull the plug on the post?