the CIA would be utter mugs not to (US, Israel; Iran's *non-existent* nuke program)

.. 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:

Black Propaganda
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.


  1. whatever happened to Fallon?

    .. he said 'no attack on my watch' ...

      .. probably because it would be 'suicide' ...

        .. sooo, what the B.H. (bloody hell) changed?


    Well, we do know what happened to Fallon; basically, he was fired. As was Shinseki:

    October 9-11, 2009
    Hanging Out with Barry
    A Hapless Presidency
      «Then there’s Afghanistan, where the president has his own general running around painting him into a policy corner with only one option. Any military guy who tried that under Bush got summarily cashiered, even though they were actually telling the truth. You know, like maybe 160,000 GIs weren’t gonna be sufficient to occupy a country of 25 million pissed-off Iraqis. Say that and your career was over, Shinseki-style.» 
    [counterpunch/David Michael Green]

    Both Shinseki and Fallon answered back; didn't well-enough 'toe the party line' - but that's not what I'm on about here. I recalled Fallon because of a comment to this one:

    Squeeze Play: Militarists and Media Close Off Alternatives to War
    Tuesday, 06 October 2009 13:29
      «Again, as with "intelligence," the goal is to seize the terms of the debate, to frame it so that it excludes all other alternatives but the one that suits power's agenda. Sanctions don't work, the story tells us. So what tools are left for leaders who must "do something" about Iran? (The idea of not doing something about Iran is, of course, inconceivable for imperial policymakers; the logic and telos of the militarist cult of domination impels them to slap down Iran one way or another until Tehran goes down on bended knee.» 
    [counterpunch/Chris Floyd]

    The common thread is war (what else), not that Ramb-O-Bama will continue the killing or not (less and less doubt, tending rapidly towards *none* = not), but - ta-ra! - lies. In another post, Floyd *proves* they lied: easy-peasy; IF they knew about Iran's newly disclosed 'secret' U-enrichment three years ago, THEN the '07 Iran NIE was a lie... *both* statements can't be true, AND 'a killer;' IF Bush/Cheney 'had the goods' on Iran THEN it would have been bombs away.) Floyd/Silber go on to point out that in the '07 Iran NIE was the allegation that Iran *ceased work* on a bomb in 2003. But no proof for that is known; it's far more probable the IF Iran ever had their eyes on an A-bomb THEN they gave up those ideas *much* longer ago. Floyd/Silber's point is (paraphrased): *never argue intel* - it has to be assumed that all intel is more than merely suspect; it's either totally ill-informed if not outright lies - or both. (Singing It's their product and they'll lie if they want to - and they do.)

    [to be continued; 4096 limit]

  2. [cont.] whatever happened to Fallon?

    We need to look at two more 'snips,' now from reader-comments:

    written by Expat, October 07, 2009
      «... Here comes a third party(s), making allegation against Iran for hidden activities beyond the scope of peaceful use allowed by Law, offering as proof nothing more than their repeated allegation, bearing false witness against the stated intentions of Iran, threatening economic sanction (an act of WAR), political isolation (an act of WAR), and military strikes designed to destroy the allegedly offending edifice (an act of WAR). The use of Law is abandoned, the power of Law is broken, the agreement Law stands for is nullified, only chaos and power will reign in the absence of Law.» 
    [counterpunch/Chris Floyd, ibid.]

    We *know* they lie; see Iraq, murder-for-oil and *no* WMDs.

    The 2nd and last comment 'snip:'

    written by John Z., October 11, 2009
      «... A number of years ago, sometime around 2001 or 2002 the Navy held a computerized "exercise" against a certain middle-eastern nation situated on the Gulf of Hormuz. The result was that 1/3 of the U.S. fleet was either sunk or damaged. It was then certain naval officers were so pissed, they rebooted the "war game" and re programmed it so they could win. This is intelligence? This is what we have to deal with inside our government... fools, liars, sycophants and psychopaths all of whom ignore truth and fact and in their place insert their own version of reality.» 
    [counterpunch/Chris Floyd, ibid.]

    What it boils down to, as all along, is IF they wish attack THEN they will - but (there's almost always some but:)

      .. full circle; what triggered this post: what changed?

    What of Iran's "Sunburn" anti-ship missiles?

    Does the US now win the war-game?

    Do the warmongers care?