.. listen extremely carefully to Mossad; ...
.. to get it wrong could be *doubly* deadly: ...
.. mortally *embarrassing* for the CIA, *fatal* for some possible victim(s)
Preamble: *WE NOW KNOW* - as we long suspected, that Saddam did not have any WMDs, *NOT ONE SINGLE ONE*. (Nor did Iraq have a 9/11 connection, via Al Qaeda or via anyone else. Just saying.) AND we also now know, that a lot of Z-sympathisers (when not actually closet or otherwise Zs themselves), provided *lots* of the fake intel used by the perpetrators of the illegal invasion (now been morphed by the US into a brutal, oil-thieving occupation) of Iraq - fake intel, used primarily to 'convince' the sheople. But the sheople are 'easy;' they're (generally) not too smart, and anyway (also generally) are just too busy with other things (like TV; sport, celebrities & other Hollywood 'rubbish' etc... i.e. 'stuff' not normally called 'a life.') But (there's almost always a 'but'), that was yesterday, daaarlings - what of today, the 'here and now,' eh?
We have been listening to, quite literally now for *years*, allegations about Iran's *legitimate* efforts towards Uranium enrichment (for power generation), and almost every time (perhaps not on *all* 'channels,' but on & via the AusBC's *fur shure*) - the media reports say things like: "suspected by 'the West' of intending an A-bomb."
The above para *despite* the US intel's '07 Iran NIE, which (paraphrased) said that Iran had 'ceased working towards an A-bomb in 2003.' In actual fact, the preceding statement itself may well have been made by US intel intentionally in error; Iran at (or by) that time may not have had any practical intent on an A-bomb whatsoever; it may be that US intel had concluded by 2007, that Iran simply had no active A-bomb program at all, but they 'excused' any previous error on their own behalf by saying what they did as they did - as opposed, say, to saying what they actually knew; always a problem for so-called 'secret services.' And, of course, once a lie is 'out there' (One? Millions!) - they have to be made to sound consistent...
What then, of this report:
Intelligence Agencies Say No New Nukes in Iran
Secret updates to White House challenge European and Israeli assessments.
By Mark Hosenball | Newsweek Web Exclusive
September 17, 2009 "Newsweek" -- Sep 16, 2009
«According to the two officials, the latest update to policymakers has been that as of now - two years after the period covered by the 2007 NIE - U.S. intelligence agencies still believe Iran has not resumed nuclear-weapons development work.»
Oooh-Kay; Newsweek - not an insignificant player - relates absolutely no change in outlook of US intel - since their own '07 Iran NIE. What then, of all those warmongering arseholes (from AusBC to Z-rael, say) who have been pushing: "suspected by 'the West' of intending an A-bomb," eh?
On what info, and from whom, have 'they' (like the AusBC) - been basing their (filthy, lying) allegations?
Carried to one seemingly logical conclusion (aka "All options on the table!") - and following the Iraq model, with about three times the population, a similar attack on Iran could result in three times the innocent, 'collateral' casualties - three times 1.3mio = potentially 4mio to be slaughtered.
See what I mean about *fatal* for some possible victim(s)?
PS It is the job of publicly financed broadcasters like the AusBC to honestly (and fully) inform the electorate - *not* to relay a single lie, certainly not to amplify any lies, let alone add their very own lies. But (IMHO, as usual and of course), that's *exactly* what the AusBC does; it is a lie-conduit, a lie-amplifier, and an outright liar on its own behalf.
Boo the AusBC! Hiss! Traitorous, anti-democratic bastards.
the CIA would be utter mugs not to (US, Israel; Iran's *non-existent* nuke program)
Posted by IDHolm at 16:51