Political Crossfire Forums

[sLiPpY]

The Comrade wrote: i have a question.


how does all of this s**t get out into the public. if it's so ecretive and dangerous to the government you would never never never ever hear about it.

but just to go with the conspiracy loons, what if all of this is just false information to get you all side tracked?

It very well could be. The Government spends billions on putting false stories out there.

[Chymical]

Mod Edit.... do we really need to troll people?.... Thrilla

Sorry but do we need to roll threads that question absolutely even with a pinch of salt things outside the mainstream. The monothought around here has become pressingly awful since we had a conspiracy forum here...sigh

[Gremlin]

Its a shame we must keep en eye out on the terrorist on a consistent basis to keep our selves remotely safe. Then the tax payers get on here and support them. If you live in a large city i would suggest staying out of that large city till October if at all possible.

[psholtz]

The Comrade wrote: i have a question.


how does all of this s**t get out into the public. if it's so ecretive and dangerous to the government you would never never never ever hear about it.

but just to go with the conspiracy loons, what if all of this is just false information to get you all side tracked?
Doesn't matter..

Just stay alert for a false-flag, self-inflicted nuclear strike sponsored by the USG.

If they know that we're expecting one, and they know that we know the USG is behind it, they won't do it.

[Thrilla]

psholtz wrote: The Comrade wrote: i have a question.


how does all of this s**t get out into the public. if it's so ecretive and dangerous to the government you would never never never ever hear about it.

but just to go with the conspiracy loons, what if all of this is just false information to get you all side tracked?
Doesn't matter..

Just stay alert for a false-flag, self-inflicted nuclear strike sponsored by the USG.

If they know that we're expecting one, and they know that we know the USG is behind it, they won't do it. covered all your bases on this one didnt you? :lol:

if it happens.. its the USG fault... if it doesnt.. its the conspiracy advocates who put a stop to it

i never want to hear anyone in this thread come down on anyone else for fearmongering... :lol:

[The Comrade]

psholtz wrote: The Comrade wrote: i have a question.


how does all of this s**t get out into the public. if it's so ecretive and dangerous to the government you would never never never ever hear about it.

but just to go with the conspiracy loons, what if all of this is just false information to get you all side tracked?
Doesn't matter..

Just stay alert for a false-flag, self-inflicted nuclear strike sponsored by the USG.

If they know that we're expecting one, and they know that we know the USG is behind it, they won't do it.


i'm all for the evils of government thing but nuking an american city on purpose? i put that beyond the spectrum of reality.

and how does this nuclear strike plan to be carried out?

ICBM or bomb?

dirty bomb?

a warhead in a truck being detonated?

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: (1) The CNN articles states that the USG intends to use nukes against Iran.. this is not misrepresentation;
Actually your statement was this:
Quote: The USG has furthermore stated that it desires to launch a NUCLEAR first-strke against Iran in the coming months.
Now that this is clarified:

For the people that Paul knows are too lazy to actually follow the link.

It is an interview with Seymour Hersh, featuring his opinions, not an article that proves the US desires to launch a nuclear first strike next month.



Quote: Hersh: U.S. mulls nuclear option for Iran

Monday, April 10, 2006; Posted: 11:55 a.m. EDT (15:55 GMT)


Investigative reporter Seymour Hersh says sources tell him Bush is "messianic" about Iran.



WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Investigative reporter Seymour Hersh, in an article in the April 17 edition of The New Yorker magazine, writes that President Bush wants regime change in Iran.

Citing a former senior intelligence official, Hersh says the administration views Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a "potential Adolf Hitler."

Among the options U.S. military officials have been asked to examine is the use of nuclear weapons against underground facilities for Iran's controversial nuclear program.

Hersh talked with CNN's Wolf Blitzer on Sunday about the article.

BLITZER: Here's, among other things, what you write in the article: "A government consultant with close ties to the civilian leadership in the Pentagon said that Bush was "absolutely convinced that Iran is going to get the bomb" if it is not stopped. He said that the president believes that he must do "what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do," and that "saving Iran is going to be his legacy."

So what's your bottom line? Do you believe, based on the reporting you did for this article, that the president of the United States is now aggressively plotting military action, a pre-emptive strike against Iran?

HERSH: The word I hear is "messianic." He thinks, as I wrote, that he's the only one now who will have the courage to do it. He's politically free. I don't think he's overwhelmingly concerned about the '06 elections, congressional elections. I think he really thinks he has a chance, and this is going to be his mission.

BLITZER: So your sources have concluded basically that the diplomatic option as it's going forward is not necessarily going to work?

HERSH: That's the fear. The fear is that we're back to the pre-Iraqi invasion game when we went through the U.N. exercise. The fear is that the White House, there's some people in the White House who aren't really, no matter what happens diplomatically, they don't believe Iran's going to give up its ambitions.

BLITZER: Given the enormous military headaches the United States now has in Iraq, does the U.S. military have the wherewithal to launch another pre-emptive strike, this time against Iran?

HERSH: Oh, sure. We have plenty of air power. We can do it. We have great precision bombings. There's been a lot of planning going on. It's more than planning, it's operational planning. It's beyond contingency planning. There's serious, specific plans. Nobody's made a decision yet. There hasn't been a warning order or an execute order. But the planning's gotten much more intense and much more focused.

I can't tell you. Nobody can say what's going to happen in the future. But I can just tell you there are people in the Pentagon and people, our allies, the allies involved with us diplomatically, the French, the Germans and the Brits, who don't really know what the president is thinking.

BLITZER: Here's the most explosive item in your new article in The New Yorker magazine. And I'll read it: "The lack of reliable intelligence leaves military planners, given the goal of totally destroying the sites," the nuclear sites in Iran, "little choice but to consider the use of tactical nuclear weapons. 'Every other option, in the view of the nuclear weaponeers, would leave a gap,' the former senior intelligence official said. 'Decisive' is the key word of the Air Force's planning. It's a tough decision, but we made it in Japan."

Now, this is an explosive charge, an explosive revelation, if true, that the United States is seriously considering using a tactical nuclear bomb or bombs to destroy Iran's nuclear capabilities.

HERSH: What you just read says this. If you're giving the White House a series of options, and the option is to get rid of an underground facility -- the facility I'm talking about is Natanz, 75 feet under hard rock -- if you want to tell the White House one sure way of getting it in a range of options is nuclear, what happened in this case is they gave that option, the JCS, the Joint Chiefs [of Staff].

And then, of course, nobody in their right mind would want to use a nuclear weapon in the Middle East, because it would be, my God, totally chaotic. When the JCS, the Joint Chiefs, and the planners wanted to walk back that option, what happened is about three or four weeks ago, the White House, people in the White House, in the Oval Office, the vice president's office, said, no, let's keep it in the plan.

That doesn't mean it's going to happen. They refuse to take it out. And what I'm writing here is that if this isn't removed -- and I say this very seriously. I've been around this town for 40 years -- some senior officers are prepared to resign. They're that upset about the fact that this plan is kept in. Again, let me make the point, you're giving a range of options early in the planning. To be sure of getting rid of it, you give that option.

BLITZER: Your point being, or at least the points of some experts, that a conventional bomb, even a bunker-busting conventional bomb, would not be big enough to go that deep under the ground to assure the destruction of Iran's capabilities. Is that why you would need, theoretically, a nuclear bomb?

HERSH: What I write about is this, and, you know, it's a 7,000-word article, so it's easy to -- it's hard to summarize in a sentence. We learned in the -- three decades ago during the Cold War that we saw a lot of digging outside of Russia.

We didn't know what it was. It turned out to be an underground contingency of government facilities, 75 feet underground, hard rock.

And at that time, our planners -- if you want to have an all-out war with the Russians and decapitate, destroy the leadership, the only sure way, they said, 30 years ago, was nukes.

So when they looked at the underground facility in Iran -- as I said, this place, the main place is 75 hard feet underground, the only way you can tell the White House for sure, folks, you have to use a tac[tical] nuke.

But that isn't what they were -- they were just giving the range. But it's the fact that the White House wouldn't let it go that has got the JCS in an uproar.

BLITZER: And you're saying that some senior military officers are prepared to resign?

HERSH: I'm saying that, if this isn't walked back and if the president isn't told that you cannot do it -- and once the chairman of the Joint Chiefs or some senior members of the military say to the president, let's get this nuclear option off the table, it will be taken off. He will not defy the military in a formal report. Unless something specific is told to the White House that you've got to drop this dream of a nuclear option -- and that's exactly the issue I'm talking about -- people have said to me that they would resign.

BLITZER: Do you want to name names?

HERSH: Are you kidding?

BLITZER: I'm giving you the opportunity.

HERSH: No. You know why? Because this is a punitive government right now. This is a government that pretty much has its back against the wall, as you've been saying all morning, in Iraq.

And in the military -- you know, one thing about our military is they're very loyal to the president, but they're getting to the edge. They're getting to the edge with not only [Secretary of Defense Donald] Rumsfeld but also with [Vice President Dick] Cheney and the president.

BLITZER: The British foreign secretary, Jack Straw, was asked earlier today about this nuclear option, if you will, to deal with Iran's potential nuclear program. ... He didn't mince any words: "[The idea of a nuclear strike on Iran is] completely nuts" in his words. You want to react to that?

HERSH: Well, what he didn't say -- he didn't deny that there's serious planning about the military strike is the point. I mean, he's absolutely right about a nuclear option, but there is serious planning for a conventional war.

BLITZER: Here are some of the comments we've gotten from top Pentagon officials, reacting to your article in the New Yorker.

Larry DiRita, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for public affairs: "We will not, other than to remind people that Sy Hersh has a single anonymous source who is not in government, and both Hersh and the source have made fantastic, unverified, and wrong allegations before."

You want to react to Larry DiRita?

HERSH: I think the last time that he was talking about was when I wrote about Abu Ghraib. I think the phrase they used in the Pentagon -- I was throwing "crap against the wall to see what will stick" at that point, when I first began to report that there were serious abuses in Abu Ghraib two years ago.

BLITZER: Another Pentagon spokesman, Brian Whitman says this in reaction to your article, and I'll read it: "The United States government has been very clear about its approach to dealing with Iran. The president and the State Department are working diligently with the international community to include organizations like the International Atomic Energy Agency and the United Nations to address diplomatically the troublesome activities of the Iranian government."

Whitman goes on to say, "This reporter" -- referring to you -- "has a solid and well-earned reputation for making dramatic assertions based on thinly sourced, unverifiable anonymous sources. It should be noted that Mr. Hersh never sought any comment, clarification or interviews with responsible and knowledgeable officials of the Defense Department."

HERSH: The New Yorker sent a long, detailed memorandum to the Pentagon on Tuesday. I e-mailed other people in the government, getting no response, other responsible high-level officials, not getting a response.

And all I can tell you is that the response was given -- a very churlish response -- was given to us on Thursday night or Friday that didn't respond, as he doesn't, to the issue.

The question: Is there serious military planning going on? And all of this talk doesn't evade the issue. The answer is yes and they're not actually denying it.

BLITZER: Here's the other explosive item in your piece, and I'll read it: "The Bush administration, while publicly advocating diplomacy in order to stop Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapon, has increased clandestine activities inside Iran and intensified planning for a possible major air attack. Current and former American military and intelligence officials said that Air Force planning groups are drawing up lists of targets, and teams of American combat troops have been ordered into Iran, under cover, to collect targeting data and to establish contact with anti-government ethnic-minority groups."

Bottom line, what you're saying here is that there are American forces, clandestinely, already inside of Iran.

HERSH: That's what I'm saying.

BLITZER: You want to elaborate on that?

HERSH: Well, I'll tell you one thing that is very interesting to me about it. They're not Special Forces; they're regular military. And that's part of the Rumsfeld notion that all military guys are potentially Special Forces. And I think it's fraught with danger. But they're there.

And we're not saying any more specifically about where they are or what they're doing. Nobody wants to see anybody get hurt. But they are there and the American public should know it because, I assure you, the Iranian government knows it.

BLITZER: The official U.S. intelligence estimate is the Iranians are still years away from developing a nuclear bomb.

The Israelis are much more concerned. They think it's -- perhaps this year could be a decisive turning point in whether they go forward with it.

What is your bottom-line assessment, based on the reporting you've done? How close are the Iranians to actually building a bomb?

HERSH: You know, the point is, we don't know. It's not tomorrow. I've heard up to as long as 10 years. And as you know, the official estimate, intelligence estimate, of the government that was published -- leaked last year or obtained by The Washington Post said 8 to 10 years. And that's the best guess.

Here's the real, critical point. The critical point, it seems to me, is that we're not talking. This president is not talking to the Iranians. They are trying very hard to make contact, I can assure you of that, in many different forms.

And he's not talking. And there's no public pressure on the White House to start bilateral talks. And that's what amazes everybody.

When I was in Vienna [Austria], seeing officials of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the one thing they all said is everybody knows Iran is trying to do something. They're cheating. They're not near. There's plenty of time. And instead of talking about bombing, let's talk about talking.

Let's see if we can do something to begin a bilateral conversation. And it's amazing to me, not only that the president doesn't but there's no pressure on him from Congress or anybody else.

BLITZER: One final question before I let you go: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran: A lot of people think the guy is nuts. What do you think, based on all the reporting you've done?

HERSH: He certainly was a very rough customer. He was in the special operations force of the Revolutionary Guards in the '80s. He's been linked to a lot of very bad stuff, including assassination plotting abroad.

The real issue is who in control. And there's a lot of debate about it. Most people believe the supreme leader, [Ayatollah Ali] Khamenei, still has enough of the force and power.

But again, it's very nerve-wracking that we keep on pushing people that are volatile. They're not crazy. This is not Saddam Hussein. They're not going to sit there and let something happen. They're going to do something in response.


That doesn't support that statement at all.

[Chymical]

fearmongering is a government monopoly Paul, we shall see you in court.

Oh and easy Queasy, it doesn't NOT support it either ;)

[Gremlin]

Thrilla wrote: psholtz wrote: The Comrade wrote: i have a question.


how does all of this s**t get out into the public. if it's so ecretive and dangerous to the government you would never never never ever hear about it.

but just to go with the conspiracy loons, what if all of this is just false information to get you all side tracked?
Doesn't matter..

Just stay alert for a false-flag, self-inflicted nuclear strike sponsored by the USG.

If they know that we're expecting one, and they know that we know the USG is behind it, they won't do it. covered all your bases on this one didnt you? :lol:

if it happens.. its the USG fault... if it doesnt.. its the conspiracy advocates who put a stop to it

i never want to hear anyone in this thread come down on anyone else for fearmongering... :lol:


its not about fearmongering, and im damn certain that is not the intent.

[psholtz]

Chymical wrote: fearmongering is a government monopoly Paul, we shall see you in court.
I'm getting good at weasling my way out of that place... :lol:

[Otacon]

I think that Paul is just trying to warn us that we may nuke ourselves in the next couple of days. I don't think his intent is to fearmonger, just to inform.

[psholtz]

cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: (1) The CNN articles states that the USG intends to use nukes against Iran.. this is not misrepresentation;
Actually your statement was this:
Quote: The USG has furthermore stated that it desires to launch a NUCLEAR first-strke against Iran in the coming months.
Now that this is clarified:

For the people that Paul knows are too lazy to actually follow the link.

It is an interview with Seymour Hersh, featuring his opinions, not an article that proves the US desires to launch a nuclear first strike next month.



Quote: Hersh: U.S. mulls nuclear option for Iran

Monday, April 10, 2006; Posted: 11:55 a.m. EDT (15:55 GMT)


Investigative reporter Seymour Hersh says sources tell him Bush is "messianic" about Iran.



WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Investigative reporter Seymour Hersh, in an article in the April 17 edition of The New Yorker magazine, writes that President Bush wants regime change in Iran.

Citing a former senior intelligence official, Hersh says the administration views Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a "potential Adolf Hitler."

Among the options U.S. military officials have been asked to examine is the use of nuclear weapons against underground facilities for Iran's controversial nuclear program.
There we go... paragraph number 2 (actually 3), like I said.. :-D

Dig up my old CFR thread if you desire, the one where the CFR gave the green light to the USG to use nukes in a first strike against both Russia and China.

That article (intended for the Elite) is far less ambivalent than this CNN piece intended for the mindless masses..

[Tetracide]

cap'n queasy wrote: What does any of that that have to do with you misrepresenting an interview with some crackpot as "proof" that the US desires to launch a nuclear first strike at Iran in the coming months?
Correct Cap'n. The U.S. desires Iran to stop enriching uranum and play nice with its neighbors. However the U.S., like the President has said so many times, is looking at all options, and that includes using nuclear weapons. The contemplated using nuclear weapons in Iraq, Vietnam, etc.

[Thrilla]

Gremlin wrote: Thrilla wrote: psholtz wrote: The Comrade wrote: i have a question.


how does all of this s**t get out into the public. if it's so ecretive and dangerous to the government you would never never never ever hear about it.

but just to go with the conspiracy loons, what if all of this is just false information to get you all side tracked?
Doesn't matter..

Just stay alert for a false-flag, self-inflicted nuclear strike sponsored by the USG.

If they know that we're expecting one, and they know that we know the USG is behind it, they won't do it. covered all your bases on this one didnt you? :lol:

if it happens.. its the USG fault... if it doesnt.. its the conspiracy advocates who put a stop to it

i never want to hear anyone in this thread come down on anyone else for fearmongering... :lol:


its not about fearmongering, and im damn certain that is not the intent. i dont know what the intent is... but the fearmongering is still present.

this is ridiculous actually... but ill just leave it at that and let the discussion flow

[Gremlin]

Thrilla wrote: i dont know what the intent is... but the fearmongering is still present.

this is ridiculous actually... but ill just leave it at that and let the discussion flow



psholtz wrote: Incredibly important news.
...
... stage its terror attacks under the color of running "drills" and "exercises". The terror attacks of OKC, 9/11 and the British 7/11 were all carried out this way, where the local authorities were practicing "drills" of precisely the same variety as the genuine terror attacks that occurred simultaneosly.
..

[cap'n queasy]

Tetracide wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: What does any of that that have to do with you misrepresenting an interview with some crackpot as "proof" that the US desires to launch a nuclear first strike at Iran in the coming months?
Correct Cap'n. The U.S. desires Iran to stop enriching uranum and play nice with its neighbors. However the U.S., like the President has said so many times, is looking at all options, and that includes using nuclear weapons. The contemplated using nuclear weapons in Iraq, Vietnam, etc.


Military analysts consider every possible scenario they can imagine. I guarantee that if you can think of it there is a scenario in place for it. That's all this Hawaii deal is, is a practice scenario.

How it can be turned into proof that the US desires a nuclear first strike at Iran next month is beyond me.

Or that the USG attacked New York City on 9/11.

It's a damned disgrace.

[Chymical]

what just cause it challenges your 'alternate reality'?

[cap'n queasy]

Chymical wrote: what just cause it challenges your 'alternate reality'?

Yeah, that's it. :lol:

[psholtz]

cap'n queasy wrote: Tetracide wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: What does any of that that have to do with you misrepresenting an interview with some crackpot as "proof" that the US desires to launch a nuclear first strike at Iran in the coming months?
Correct Cap'n. The U.S. desires Iran to stop enriching uranum and play nice with its neighbors. However the U.S., like the President has said so many times, is looking at all options, and that includes using nuclear weapons. The contemplated using nuclear weapons in Iraq, Vietnam, etc.


Military analysts consider every possible scenario they can imagine. I guarantee that if you can think of it there is a scenario in place for it. That's all this Hawaii deal is, is a practice scenario.

How it can be turned into proof that the US desires a nuclear first strike at Iran next month is beyond me.

Or that the USG attacked New York City on 9/11.

It's a damned disgrace.
Answer me these questions about the official government story concerning 9/11, and perhaps you'll allay my concerns:

* Could 19 hijackers get NORAD to stand down for 2 hours?
* Could 19 hijackers get trick the U.S. military into running 15 simultaneous hijacking "drills" on the same day of the attacks?
* Could 19 hijackers engage in massive insider trading on Wall Street?
* Could 19 hijackers get the 9/11 Commission to cover up their crimes?
* Why did the 9/11 Commission lie to the American public and help Pentagon officials cover up their perjury?
* Could 19 hijackers get the entire U.S. media to go to sleep on this issue?
* Would 19 hijackers call up a range of prominent U.S. officals, including SF mayor Willie Brown and AG John Ashcroft, and warn them not to fly on 9/11?
* Could 19 hijackers have knocked down WTC7 without even crashing a plane into it?
* Could 19 hijackers convince the U.S. Navy to begin amassing a carrier group in the waters off Afghanistan BEFORE 9/11?
* Why was the debris from the WTC removed as fast as possible and shipped off to China before any forensic examination could be made? Why is the company that "cleaned up" this debris, Controlled Demolition, Inc, the same company that "cleaned up" after the OKC, where debris was also eliminated before forensic examination could be made?

[Chymical]

When playing dodgeball with a snake, the snake usually wins. Unfortunate but true :)