DO YOU FEAR A NUKE IS NEAR ? ?

I'm just a little fish in a big pond. I like to think that I can still "think" and "learn" and "reason". There is much to learn about what is going on in our world. There is much to read about, especially my new found craving to reading about history past. And, it scares me......only because of the phrase: HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF. Don't think so, read the article below. Or, if you have the courage, go to the very intelligent woman's website and read it in full there.

Below is an article from Laura Knight-Jadczyk's blog. Be afraid, be very afraid.


18 March 2006

TERRORISM AND THE THREE SILLIES

This weekend's edition of http://www.sott.net
carries several important pieces that I would like to bring to everyone's attention and then I am going to present a fable that I read as a child that will shed some light on our present situation.

The first article is by Paul Craig Roberts: Is Another 9/11 in the Works? Paul points out that what is happening in global politics - i.e. Bush planning another war in the midst of losing the first one - is totally insane. Yet, as anyone can see, the rhetoric leading up to bombing Iraq was identical to the mad propagandistic ravings that pass for political discourse concerning Iran today. "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it." The immediate past tells us that Bush and the Neocons very definitely intend to make war on Iran. And yet, that is so insane that most of us can't grok it. The US Army is stretched to the breaking point, the economy is floating on illusion, the American people are a heartbeat away from unimaginable financial disaster, and yet Bush and the Warmongers are planning another hideously expensive war... or so it seems. Roberts states the case succinctly:

First of all, Bush lacks the troops to do the job. If the US military cannot successfully occupy Iraq, there is no way that the US can occupy Iran, a country approximately three times the size in area and population.

Second, Iran can respond to a conventional air attack with missiles targeted on American ships and bases, and on oil facilities located throughout the Middle East.

Third, Iran has human assets, including the Shia majority population in Iraq, that it can activate to cause chaos throughout the Middle East.

Fourth, polls of US troops in Iraq indicate that a vast majority do not believe in their mission and wish to be withdrawn. Unlike the yellow ribbon folks at home, the troops are unlikely to be enthusiastic about being trapped in an Iranian quagmire in addition to the Iraqi quagmire.
Fifth, Bush’s polls are down to 34 percent, with a majority of Americans believing that Bush’s invasion of Iraq was a mistake.

If you were being whipped in one fight, would you start a second fight with a bigger and stronger person?

That’s what Bush is doing.So, since Bush doesn't have the manpower or the moneypower (or even the cojones) to wage a proper war (I'm being sarcastic here since no war is ever "proper"), what's he gonna do?

The obvious answer is: Nukem!

Yup. It seems pretty clear that this is the answer that will suit. And Bush and gang have plenty of resources already on hand to do the job without making another blip in the current economic crisis; and just maybe, as a sideline, they can end up nuking Iraq too and "kill two birds with one stone". I mean, if you are going to start nuking, no reason to hold back, right? Solve all your problems with the same solution!

But there is a problem here: nuking Iran without provocation will absolutely enrage the whole rest of the world that is already feeling a lot of hostility toward the U.S. because there were no WMDs in Iraq not to mention the growing belief all over the planet that Bush and Co were complicit in the 911 attacks.

So, what to do? How to get justification to nuke Iran?

The answer is simple: "Those that do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it." The history indicates that Bush and Co are certainly quite capable of engaging in False Flag operations against their own country in order to justify their actions (things they wanted to do and planned to do in advance). As noted above, 911 is most likely just such a scenario even if I think that the Bush Gang were only complicit and did not carry out the entire conspiracy on their own. In that sense, I think that a lot of commentators are correct: the U.S. couldn't have pulled that off alone. But I digress.

Justifying the nuking of another country is going to take a bit more than a 911 type attack; you know, "like attracts like." That means that what we (at Signs of the Times) have been saying for some time is becoming more and more likely to transpire: a nuclear attack on the US devised and carried out as a False Flag operation designed to lay blame on Iran. Roberts presents this idea in the following way:

Readers, whose thinking runs ahead of that of most of us, tell me that another 9/11 event will prepare the ground for a nuclear attack on Iran. Some readers say that Bush, or Israel as in Israel’s highly provocative attack on the Jericho jail and kidnapping of prisoners with American complicity, will provoke a second attack on the US. Others say that Bush or the neoconservatives working with some “black ops” group will orchestrate the attack.

One of the more extraordinary suggestions is that a low yield, perhaps tactical, nuclear weapon will be exploded some distance out from a US port. Death and destruction will be minimized, but fear and hysteria will be maximized. Americans will be told that the ship bearing the weapon was discovered and intercepted just in time, thanks to Bush’s illegal spying program, and that Iran is to blame. A more powerful wave of fear and outrage will again bind the American people to Bush, and the US media will not report the rest of the world’s doubts of the explanation.
Reads like a Michael Crichton plot, doesn’t it?

Fantasy? Let’s hope so. I'm afraid that I don't exactly agree with this version. I don't think that minimizing American deaths will be an objective. On the contrary, I think that maximizing American deaths will be deliberately sought so as to maximize the fear and hysteria. That means a nuke attack on American soil - not on a ship - and probably highly populated soil at that.

**
Moving on to the next item that caught my eye from the weekend edition of Signs: Robert C. Koehler writes a piece entitled Trust Us. In this article he tells the story of Ion Sancho, the election supervisor of Leon County, Fla., my home state. Koehler writes:

The problem is, there's an anti-democratic force rampaging across the country that wants ... privately conducted, secrecy-shrouded elections. The state of Florida even has a bizarre law outlawing manual recounts of election results. This removes all chance of public scrutiny from the process.

I humbly submit that this is nuts, and that if we don't scream out at the top of our lungs we're going to lose our democracy. What we're witnessing, I fear - and what isolated watchdogs like Sancho are warning us about, but cannot prevent all by themselves - is democracy's transition to expensive charade.I've been talking about this since the last election. When I saw what happened then, when the Signs Team had collected certain data, it was clear that fraudulent elections were already a fact of life in the U.S. Certainly, the 2000 election was the last fair election that was ever held in this country and that one was "given" to George Bush by trickery, bribery, coercion, blackmail, and having certain elements in place at the right place and time according to a devious plan. Once Bush had been declared president, he and his minions were then able to suppress any process that might have undone the "appointment." What's more, there were then able to set into motion the plan that ensured that whoever they want gets into office whereever and whenever they choose: manipulatable electronic voting.

So folks, its already a done deal. It's all over but the crying. There is NO chance whatsoever of anyone getting rid of the "Powers That Be" in the U.S. by way of the exercise of the vote. Anybody who suggests anything different to you is just living in denial or deliberately blowing smoke.

**
The third item on the Weekend Signs Page that I want to talk about is J. Crofts The Two Americas. He writes:

There are two Americas.

There's the America most of you reading this actually believed in-or still believe in. That America is the fabled "land of the free, home of the brave".

...........and you'll have to go to Laura's blog to read the "rest of the story"..........
http://laura-knight-jadczyk.blogspot.com/


Sleep well...........the nightmares are sure to follow...........

~ The Mediator