REAL NEWS Sept 17 2012
Posted by Xaniel777 on September 16, 2012
TODAY’S NEWS : September 17, 2012
” WAKING UP THE WORLD ONE DAY AT A TIME ! “
International Socialist Insurgency False Flags Failing on Every Front
From the Trenches World Report
Posted on September 16, 2012 by Henry Shivley
Beginning with the false flag shooting in Aurora, Colorado on July 20, 2012 and lasting through the summer, we the American people have been facing a full court press of propaganda productions designed to manipulate us into compliance on several fronts, including gun control, internet control, and even war.
And all have failed due to the united resistance that we have accomplished via the internet.
The false flag shootings were met with increased gun sales.
The attempt to scare us from purchasing defense items on the net again failed, with many increasing purchasesjust to send a message.
The program to kidnap individuals posting politically incorrect comments online and take them off to psych wards only angered us further and made us more determined and thus caused us to post even more.
Now we have crammed our enemies’ war propaganda so far down their throats they don’t know whether to defecate or go blind.
With King Netanyahu looking at losing his crown in October when the Israelis hold their election and both the false left and false right paradigm here in the US falling apart before our very eyes, it will be interesting to see what they try next.
I firmly believe that Obama will sign an executive order in an attempt to gain some semblance of control over the internet as the insurgency is being countered immediately at every instance through our communications.
Ben Bernanke, with the introduction of the open ended QE3, is telling us that the international corporate mafia will now try to steal as much as they can, as quick as they can, as their infrastructure in the US is crumbling.
I believe we are going to see an attempt by the insurgency to brutally clamp down on the patriotic American nationals of the American people.
But this effort, like the rest, is going to fail.
It is time to draw our lines and defend them with whatever force is necessary.
We must meet each and every affront with a brutality that will leave our enemy without a doubt that we intend total resistance.
And once the fight begins we are not going to stop until they are completely annihilated and our wealth is returned.
Right is on our side and we are absolutely defending our homes and hearths and the future of our progeny.
Show no mercy. Offer no quarter because this is the stance of our enemy.
God bless the Republic, death to the international corporate mafia, we shall prevail.
Iran commander warns Israel, US against attack
From the Trenches World Report
Posted on September 16, 2012 by Admin
Huffington Post TEHRAN — The top commander in Iran’s powerful Revolutionary Guard warned Sunday that his country’s missiles will ensure “nothing will remain” of Israel if it takes militaryaction against Tehran over its controversial nuclear program.
Gen. Mohammad Ali Jafari also warned that Iran might close the Straits of Hormuz if it is attacked, withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and hit U.S. bases in the Middle East.
Such warnings and references to Israel’s destruction have been made before by Iranian officials.
But Gen. Jafari’s comments to a Tehran news conference were an unusually detailed, strongly worded and comprehensive listing of the means that Iran says it has to retaliate against a strike on its nuclear facilities.
The U.S. and Israel have left open the possibility of such a strike if Iran does not back down from what they say are a push to develop nuclear weapons. Iran says its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.
“Our response to Israel is clear: I think nothing will remain of Israel (should it attack Iran). Given Israel’s small land area and its vulnerability to a massive volume of Iran’s missiles, I don’t think any spot in Israel will remain safe,” he said.
He said Iran’s response to any attack will begin near the Israeli border.
The Islamic Republic has close ties with militants in Gaza and Lebanon, both of whom have rocket arsenals that could be used for cross-border strikes.
He said he did not believe however that Israel would attack on its own.
Should the U.S. launch a strike, Jafari suggested that Iran could respond with missile salvos at U.S. bases in the Gulf.
“The US military bases sprawled around Iran are considered a big vulnerability. Even the missile shields that they have set up, based on information we have, could only work for a few missiles but when exposed to a massive volume of missiles, the shields will lose their efficiency and will not work,” he said.
He also said that Iran warned that oil shipments through the strategic Strait of Hormuz will be in jeopardy if a war breaks out between Iran and the United States.
Iranian officials have previously threatened to close the waterway, the route for a fifth of the world’s oil, but less frequently in recent months.
“If a war breaks out where one side is Iran and the other side is the West and U.S., it’s natural that a problem should occur in the Strait of Hormuz. Export of energy will be harmed. It’s natural that this will happen,” he said.
Gen. Jafari said that, if attacked, Iran will no longer be committed to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, under whose terms U.N. inspectors visit Iranian nuclear sites.
He said however that this does not mean that Iran would build a nuclear weapon.
“If the world and international organizations fail to prevent such an attack, it’s natural that Iran’s commitments (to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty) would naturally change and the situation would be different from the past. These are the risks and consequences that such an attack will bring about, and these matters would be a deterrent.”
Jafari’s comments come as U.S.-led naval forces from the West and Arab allies gather for naval maneuvers in the Persian Gulf that include mine-sweeping exercises.
With Friends Like Israel, Who Needs Enemies?
Posted on September 16, 2012 by Montecristo
An edited version of this article by Jonathan Cook, with pictures, captions and comments by Lasha Darkmoon
“Once we squeeze all we can out of the United States, it can dry up and blow away.” — Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, 2002. (Widely reported, see here)
It is possibly the greatest of American political myths.
President Barack Obama has claimed that the United States enjoys a special bond with Israel unlike its relations with any other country.
He has called the friendship “unshakeable”.
His Republican rival, Mitt Romney, has gone further, arguing that there is not “an inch of difference between ourselves and our ally Israel”.
While such pronouncements form the basis of an apparent Washington consensus, the reality is that the cherished friendship is no more than a fairy tale.
Politicians may prefer to express undying love for Israel, and hand over billions of dollars annually in aid, but the US security establishment has — at least, in private — always regarded Israel as an unfaithful partner.
The distrust has been particularly hard to hide in relation to Iran.
Israel has been putting relentless pressure on Washington, apparently in the hope of manoeuvring it into supporting or joining an attack on Tehran to stop what Israel claims is an Iranian effort to build a nuclear bomb concealed beneath its civilian energy programme.
While coverage has focused on the personal animosity between Obama and the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, the truth is that US officials generally are deeply at odds with Israel on this issue.
The conflict burst into the open this month with reports that the Pentagon had scaled back next month’s joint military exercise, Austere Challenge, with the Israeli military that had been billed as the largest and most significant in the two countries’ history.
The goal of the exercise was to test the readiness of Israel’s missile-defence shield in case of Iranian reprisals — possibly the biggest fear holding Israel back from launching a go-it-alone attack.
The Pentagon’s main leverage on Israel is its X-band radar, stationed in Israel but operated exclusively by a US crew, that would provide Israel with early warning of Iranian missiles.
A senior Israeli military official told Time magazine what message the Pentagon’s rethink had conveyed: “Basically what the Americans are saying is, ‘We don’t trust you’.”
The Lavon Affair (1954), the USS Liberty attack on American servicemen (1967), and numerous espionage incidents and acts of Israeli betrayal over the years, have not helped to inspire American trust in Israel (LD)
But discord between the two “unshakeable allies” is not limited to Iran.
Antipathy has been the norm for decades.
Over the summer, current and former CIA officials admitted that the US security establishment has always regarded Israel as its number one counter-intelligence threat in the Middle East.
The most infamous spy working on Israel’s behalf was Jonathan Pollard, a naval intelligence officer who passed thousands of classified documents to Israel in the 1980s.
Israel’s repeated requests for his release have been a running sore with the Pentagon, not least because defence officials regard promises that Israel would never again operate spies on US soil as insincere.
Jonathan Pollard, one in a long line of Jewish American spies. (See here).
The total number of Jewish spies convicted or expelled from the US exceeds the number of spies from all other ethnic groups.
As Jews make up only 2% of the American population and blacks 14%, there ought to be seven times as many black spies.
In fact, there are none. (LD)
At least two more spies have been identified in the past few years.
In 2008 a former US army engineer, Ben-Ami Kadish, admitted that he had allowed Israeli agents to photograph secret documents about US fighter jets and nuclear weapons in the 1980s.
And in 2006 Lawrence Franklin, a US defence official, was convicted of passing classified documents to Israel concerning Iran.
In fact, such betrayals were assumed by Washington from the start of the relationship.
In Israel’s early years, a US base in Cyprus monitored Israeli activities; today, Israeli communications are intercepted by a team of Hebrew linguists stationed at Fort Meade, Maryland.
Documents released this month by the Israeli air force archives also reveal that Israel eventually identified mysterious high-altitude planes that overflew its territory throughout the 1950s as American U-2 espionage planes.
In a sign of continuing US caution, Israel has not been included in the coterie of countries with which Washington shares sensitive intelligence.
The members of the “Five Eyes” group, consisting of the US, Britain, Australia, Canada and New Zealand, have promised not to spy on each other — a condition Israel would have regularly flouted were it a member.
America should think twice about revealing its innermost secrets to these four countries.
This could well be its Achilles’ heel.
None of these Zionized nations can be trusted not to hand to hand over America’s secrets to Israel.
The most untrustworthy of these four countries is undoubtedly Canada, followed by Britain and Australia in second place, with New Zealand the least untrustworthy of the four.
If America ever wished to feed Israel with false information, one way it it could do this would be to pass on the false “secret” information to Canada — a country so Zionized that it has virtually become an Israeli colony. (LD)
Indeed, Israel has even stolen the identities of nationals from these countries to assist in Mossad operations.
Most notoriously, Israel forged passports to smuggle Israeli agents into Dubai in 2010 to assassinate Hamas leader Mahmoud Al Mabhouh.
Israel is far from a trusted ally in the US “war on terror”.
A former intelligence official told the Associated Press in July that Israel ranked lower than Libya in a list of countries helping to fight terrorism compiled by the Bush administration after September 11.
So why all the talk of a special bond if the relationship is characterised by such deep mistrust?
Part of the answer lies in the formidably intimidating tactics of the pro-Israel lobby in Washington.
Thomas Friedman, the New York Times columnist, spoke for a growing number of observers last year when he wrote that the US Congress was effectively “bought and paid for” by Israel’s lobbyists.
That power was all too evident last week when the Democratic national convention adopted an amended policy designating Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, in opposition to both international law and the vocal wishes of delegates.
But there is another, less spoken-of reason. Francis Perrin, the head of the French Atomic Agency in the 1950s and 1960s, when France was helping Israel develop a nuclear weapon against the wishes of the US, once observed that the Israeli bomb was really “aimed against the Americans”.
Not because Israel wanted to attack the US, but because it realised that — once it possessed the only nuclear arsenal in the Middle East — the US would rarely risk standing in its way, however much its policies ran counter to US interests.
For that reason, if no other, Israel is determined to stop any rival, including Iran, from getting a nuclear weapon that would end its monopoly.
AMERICA UNDER ATTACK
It is not inconceivable that one day, in the not too distant future, America might itself be the object of a major nuclear attack by Israel, especially if relations should deteriorate further into outright hostility.
As if to emphasize the point of Israeli muscularity, Israeli military historian Martin van Creveld has more than once invoked the dreaded Samson option.
”We possess several hundred atomic warheads,” he reminds us ominously, “and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets of our air force.”
If most European capitals have been targeted for attack by Israel, including London and Paris, why not Washington? (LD)
Has Netanyahu Gone Too Far?
By Paul R. Pillar – September 14, 2012
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is demanding that President Obama set a precise “red line” regarding Iran’s nuclear program, meaning a commitment to go to war even if Iran is not actually building a nuclear weapon.
Ex-CIA analyst Paul R. Pillar sees a possible turning point in the U.S.-Israeli relationship.
Maybe this time the Israeli prime minister has gone too far in his bullying and arrogance in dealing with the United States of America — so far as to undermine the habits and attitudes in the United States that have made such swagger possible in the first place.
“This time” can refer to Benjamin Netanyahu’s attention-getting outburst this week in which he criticized the Obama administration’s posture regarding Iran’s nuclear program, demanding that the United States impose a clear “red line” and declaring that those who do not impose such lines “don’t have a moral right to place a red light before Israel.”
The harshness of Netanyahu’s blast took aback even some American politicians accustomed to falling in line in the customary way on matters related to Israel. Sen. Barbara Boxer of California said in a letter to Netanyahu, as “one of Israel’s staunchest supporters in Congress,” that she was “stunned” by Netanyahu’s remarks.
Boxer is a Democrat who no doubt was also trying to soften any political impact of this latest indication of ill will between the Israeli prime minister and the U.S. president.
But her response was still one indication of how far Netanyahu had gone beyond the bounds of what supposedly is a relationship between friends and allies.
“This time” also could refer more generally to the whole warpath-blazing campaign of agitation about the Iranian nuclear program.
That campaign clearly is mainly an Israeli thing, and especially a project of Netanyahu and his rightist government.
Historians decades from now will be trying to explain how the superpower of the day allowed itself to get so preoccupied with a still-nonexistent weapon in the hands of a second-rate power that, even if the weapon came into existence, could not pose a threat to U.S. interests anywhere near what the preoccupation implies.
Israel, with its longstanding and sizable nuclear arsenal of its own as well as its conventional regional military superiority, also does not face a threat that warrants all the agitation and warmongering.
Maybe preventing the mere possibility of an Iranian nuclear weapon would mean Israeli leaders would think only once and not twice before the next time they throw their weight and armed might around in Gaza or Lebanon or someplace else.
And the drum-beating about Iran does divert attention away from that pesky matter involving political rights and self-determination for Palestinians.
Perhaps there is seeping into the consciousness of more and more informed Americans the realization that Netanyahu — with his drum-beating, his complete rejection (in defiance of the policies of the United States and other Western powers) of the very idea of negotiations with the Iranians, and his demand for red lines — is trying to lead America by the nose into a war that would be profoundly against U.S. interests.
And it would be a war fought primarily to maintain Israel’s regional nuclear weapons monopoly and — also not in U.S. interests — untrammeled ability to throw its weight around.
Even for those attuned less to specific calculations about U.S. interests and more to general concepts of right and wrong, Netanyahu has provided much to offend.
A military attack launched to damage or destroy somebody else’s nuclear program — launched, no less, by a state that long has had nuclear weapons completely outside any international monitoring or control regime — would be an act of aggression clearly in violation of international law.
The infliction of casualties involved, inflicted to maintain the aggressor’s nuclear weapons monopoly, would be an immoral act.
And yet Netanyahu says those who may object to any of this “don’t have a moral right” to do so. Incredible.
The prime minister’s behavior can be interpreted in multiple ways.
His latest tantrum may be part of his effort to sink the re-election chances of the incumbent U.S. president, in favor of an alternative who would be beholden to interests whose primary affinity is to the Israeli right, by accentuating Barack Obama’s supposed inability to get along with Israel.
This is probably at least part of the explanation for the behavior.
Some have questioned Netanyahu’s stability and temperament, in ways that go beyond merely having a short temper.
Some Israeli commentators have spoken most recently in terms of Netanyahu “going berserk” or being a “mythomaniac” guided by a sense of heroic mission.
Given all we have heard, in connection with Iran’s nuclear program, about the hazards of irrational or fanatic people with their fingers on the button, perhaps we should ask about Netanyahu: is this a man who can be trusted with nuclear weapons?
Even assuming rationality on the prime minister’s part, there probably is an emotional element involved in his recent outburst in the sense of someone used to getting his way being flummoxed by even the slightest push-back.
Netanyahu probably has been conditioned, through such experiences as speaking to Congress with a gallery stacked with AIPAC supporters, to believe that the bullying will always work.
Even sensible and mild push-back, such as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s statement that the United States is not going to set deadlines on the Iranian nuclear issue, then becomes disturbing to him.
Netanyahu also may have been reacting to increased acceptance in mainstream discourse in the United States of the concept that an Iranian nuclear weapon would not be the calamity he insistently portrays it as and that trying to preclude one would certainly would not be worth starting a new war.
Going beyond the Iranian nuclear issue, perhaps we are seeing some fear that the whole political edifice that has enabled Netanyahu and other Israeli prime ministers to get their way in the United States is showing some cracks.
It ought to crack.
After all, the overall nature of the relationship, in which the superpower that lavishes billions of aid and dozens of United Nations vetoes on the smaller state gets pushed around by the latter, rather than the other way around, is crazy and illogical.
Ultimately the power of the edifice depends on fear of confronting that power.
Theoretically to break down that edifice it would take one courageous American political leader, in a bold FDR-like move, to point out that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.
That is not about to happen, and the lobby in question will fight hard to make sure it does not happen.
But over the last few years some cracks have become visible.
Some people thought they saw a crack at the Democratic National Convention when repeated voice votes were required to override the “noes” that opposed the platform plank about declaring Jerusalem to be the capital of Israel.
Maybe Netanyahu’s arrogance, greater than the norm even for Israeli prime ministers dealing with the United States, may be a force that eventually reshapes the relationship.
It can do so by making it painfully clear to Americans what they are dealing with.
M. J. Rosenberg evidently is talking about this when he goes so far as to say that Netanyahu “poses an existential threat to the Jewish state.”
He is referring to the damage being done to the relations with the superpower patron — that “all Netanyahu is accomplishing with his ugly saber-rattling is threatening the survival of the US-Israel relationship.”
That may well be the effect of Netanyahu’s behavior on the relationship, but perhaps we should not speak of this in terms of threats.
Replacing the current pathological relationship with a more normal one certainly would be good for U.S. interests.
Ultimately, however, it also would be good for the interests of Israel, which, in order to get off its current path of endless conflict and isolation, desperately needs the sort of tough love that it is not getting now.
Paul R. Pillar, in his 28 years at the Central Intelligence Agency, rose to be one of the agency’s top analysts.
He is now a visiting professor at Georgetown University for security studies.
(This article first appeared as a blog post at The National Interest’s Web site. Reprinted with author’s permission.)
IAEA Report: No Evidence Iran Diverted Any Nuclear Material for a Nuclear Weapons Program
Published on Sep 15, 2012 by RepresentativePress
Mainstream media misrepresents latest International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report.
What that report actually says is there is no evidence Iran has diverted any material for a nuclear weapons program.
And even more important: Much of Iran’s uranium stockpile has been converted into a form that would be very difficult to use in a nuclear weapon.
☢ The agency had found that Iran had “converted much of the new material to metal form for use in a nuclear research reactor.”
The Washington Post even quoted an unnamed Obama administration official acknowledging that the converted 19.75 percent enriched uranium could not be “further enriched to weapons-grade material.”
But this admission appears deep within the article.
☛ IAEA Iran Report: Little New except Reduced Bomb-Making Capacity – Tehran Bureau | FRONTLINE | PBS :
☢ The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report made public Thursday reveals that Iran has actually reduced the amount of 20-percent enriched uranium available for any possible “breakout” to weapons grade enrichment over the last three months rather than increasing it.
☛ IPS — IAEA Report Shows Iran Reduced Its Breakout Capacity | Inter Press Service :
☢ Not only is any Uranium Iran has below weapons grade but, according to the new IAEA report, Iran has today less enriched Uranium that could quickly be converted into a nuclear weapon than it had in May 2012, the time of the IAEA’s last report (GOV/2012/23) on the issue.
☛ IAEA: Iranian “Nuclear Danger” Decreased :
✪ See featured video PROVING President Bush is LYING:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIeYAGkdy7o&list=PL6BBE308B0AA273F0&fe…
✪ On 9/11, Tom Brokaw actually reported why we were attacked!
Like its patron, Israel resorts to violence at will.
It persists in illegal settlement in occupied territory, some annexed, all in brazen defiance of international law and the U.N. Security Council.
It has repeatedly carried out brutal attacks against Lebanon and the imprisoned people of Gaza, killing tens of thousands without credible pretext …
The NAM delegates doubtless recognize the threat that dominates discussion in the West, lucidly articulated by Gen. Lee Butler, former head of the U.S. Strategic Command: “It is dangerous in the extreme that in the cauldron of animosities that we call the Middle East,” one nation should arm itself with nuclear weapons, which “inspires other nations to do so.”
Butler is not referring to Iran, but to Israel, which is regarded in the Arab countries and in Europe as posing the greatest threat to peace In the Arab world, the United States is ranked second as a threat, while Iran, though disliked, is far less feared.
Indeed in many polls majorities hold that the region would be more secure if Iran had nuclear weapons to balance the threats they perceive.
If Iran is indeed moving toward nuclear-weapons capability — this is still unknown to U.S. intelligence — that may be because it is “inspired to do so” by the U.S.-Israeli threats, regularly issued in explicit violation of the U.N. Charter.
Why then is Iran the greatest threat to world peace, as seen in official Western discourse?
The primary reason is acknowledged by U.S. military and intelligence and their Israeli counterparts: Iran might deter the resort to force by the United States and Israel.
Furthermore Iran must be punished for its “successful defiance, which was Washington’s charge against Cuba half a century ago, and still the driving force for the U.S. assault against Cuba that continues despite international condemnation.”
☛ Why America and Israel Are the Greatest Threats to Peace by Noam Chomsky http://chomsky.info/articles/20120903.htm
(Fair Use Notice):
This web site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance the understanding of humanity’s problems and hopefully to help find solutions for those problems. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. A click on a hyperlink is a request for information. Consistent with this notice you are welcome to make ‘fair use’ of anything you find on this web site. However, if you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. You can read more about ‘fair use’ and US Copyright Law at the Legal Information Institute of Cornell Law School. This notice was modified from a similar notice at Information Clearing House.} ~~~ Xaniel777
This entry was posted on September 16, 2012 at 9:49 pm and is filed under Alternative News. Tagged: Alternative media, Alternative News, Education, False Flags, IAEA Report, Insurgency, International Socialist, Iran, Iran commander, Israel, Netanyahu, News & Politics, No Evidence, Nuclear Material, Nuclear Weapons Program, REAL NEWS Sept 17, US against attack, World News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
One Response to “REAL NEWS Sept 17 2012”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.