kuzadd

does it? "Enriched uranium is a critical component for civil nuclear power generation" I highly doubt killing lots more people, and destroying infastructure, is the answer to this situation , unless the agenda is something else. see: North Korea

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=7353 The Myth of an al Qaeda Takeover of Iraq "A September 2006 poll conducted by the University of Maryland's prestigious Program on International Policy Attitudes found that 94 percent of Iraqi Sunnis had a somewhat or highly unfavorable attitude toward al Qaeda. As the violence of al Qaeda attacks has mounted, and the victims are increasingly Iraqis, not Americans, many Sunnis have turned against the terrorists. There have been a growing number of reports during the past year of armed conflicts between Iraqi Sunnis and foreign fighters. And the anemic Sunni support for al Qaeda is overshadowed by the intense Shiite and Kurdish hostility to the groupAlmost to a person, they loathe al Qaeda. The PIPA poll showed that 98 percent of Shiite respondents and 100 percent of Kurdish respondents had somewhat or very unfavorable views of the organization. The notion that a Shiite-Kurdish-dominated government would tolerate Iraq becoming a safe haven for al Qaeda is improbable on its face. Even if U.S. troops left Iraq, the successor government would continue to be dominated by Kurds and Shiites, since they make up more than 80 percent of Iraq's population. And, in marked contrast to the situation under Saddam Hussein, they now control the military and police. At best, al Qaeda could hope for a tenuous presence in predominantly Sunni areas of the country while being incessantly stalked and harassed by government forces -- and probably hostile Iraqi Sunnis as well. That doesn't exactly sound like a reliable base of operations for attacks on America." Nope it doesn't , despite the myth propagated by the US admin, who has the most to gain by continuing with this charade. The ability to justify, to the duped masses, the continuing occupation.

Thanks B! didn't realize I had forgot the link, oops! Actually further info is available is on the myth of AlQuaeda in Iraq, have you come across any yourself? MDancer,, always shows his weakness, and I love it, when he resorts to smear, meaning I never have to, nor do I take him seriously. Really nor should anyone else, but then, hey some people live for that crap?!

They were enriching uranium on an air force base? define close: from what I have read, years away.

I don't appreciate American presence in Afghanistan, nor do I support or appreciate Canada's presence in Afghanistan. Afghanistan had NOTHING to do with 9/11, therefore the attackon that country, was BS. Holding Afghanistan the country, responsible for alleged crimes, committed by criminals, is as stupid, as, for example, holding Canada the country, responsible, for some mass murders committed by a Canadian. BS! The US wanted IN to Afghanistan prior to 9/11. "Before September 11, the U.S. government had an extremely benevolent understanding of the Taliban. The Taliban was perceived "as a source of stability in Central Asia that would enable the construction of an oil pipeline across Central Asia" from the rich oilfields in Turkmenistan, Uzbek-istan and Kazakhstan, through Afghanistan and Pakistan, to the Indian Ocean. This would have secured for the U.S. another huge captive and alternate oil resource centre. "The oil and gas reserves of Central Asia have been controlled by Russia. The Bush government wanted to change all that... this rationale of energy security changed into a military one," the authors claim. "At one moment during the negotiations, U.S. representatives told the Taliban, 'either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs'," http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/issu...french_book.htm Article based on recently released book written by two French intelligence analysts is certain to embarrass President George W.Bush and his administration. The book, Bin Laden, La Verite Interdite (Bin Laden, the Forbidden Truth), claims that FBI Deputy Director John O'Neill resigned in July in protest over Bush's obstruction of an investigation into Taliban's terrorist activities. The authors, Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Das-quie, claim that Bush resorted to this obstruction under the influence of U.S. oil companies. http://www.janes.com/security/internationa...10315_1_n.shtml India joins anti-Taliban coalition 15 March 2001 By Rahul Bedi India is believed to have joined Russia, the USA and Iran in a concerted front against Afghanistan's Taliban regime. Military sources in Delhi, claim that the opposition Northern Alliance's capture of the strategic town of Bamiyan, was precipitated by the four countries' collaborative effort. http://www.indiareacts.com/archivefeatures...p;mp;ctg=policy India in anti-Taliban military plan India and Iran will "facilitate" the planned US-Russia hostilities against the Taliban. 26 June 2001: India and Iran will "facilitate" US and Russian plans for "limited military action" against the Taliban if the contemplated tough new economic sanctions don't bend Afghanistan's fundamentalist regime. Sept 11th had ZERO to do with the attack on Afghanistan, and one would have to be truly gullible to believe, this was anything but a continuation of US foreign policy wrt oil.

I don't know. Did you watch it? It is available in it's entirety.

Personally, I don't think these videos are intended to inflame Muslims. The "message" in them is not geared in that direction. it's geared to the west. In fact, I would almost safely say, this message was geared to the 'religious right', feeding there fear factor of the "Islamic world takeover". While, making OBL, sound like a US democrat. Noam Chomsky book reviews? IMO, given the abject poverty in the ME countries, the misery that vast swathes of ME live in, they could care less, in won't make one bit of difference to them. A great many of them won't even know about the tape. I think the Palestinians, Iraqis, Afghan, even the majority of Saudi's have much bigger issues, on there plate. "AlQuaeda" doesn't need videos to stay in the news, they are never out of the news. AlQuaeda is everywhere! Take a look through any western media resource. AlQueda is in Iraq, in Africa, in Europe, there allegedly everywhere and in the news all the time. They have no need for a video release. AlQuaeda, AlQuaeda,AlQuaeda,AlQuaeda

Whoever is putting this video out, I can only speculate. But, IMO, Binladen is dead, and has been for some time now. But wonder who benefits from flogging the dead man, and his messages of fear etc., to the west. Rumour has it, there is going to be another one this week, let's see?

But it's not even 15 percent, it's actually less, according to another 2 to five percent, is not much of a marketshare. Oh and btw , in case you are having difficulty reading and comprehending, the article is called the myth of AlQuaeda in Iraq. But the main point is the threat of AlQuaeda is overblown, as is clearly stated. Therefore I "purposely" overlooked nothing, but you in fact, choose to do so, by missing the premise of the entire article.

excellent idea!

MDancer: ghosthacked: MDancer provide this link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3502717.stm "Under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, countries are allowed to enrich uranium, but must notify the authority they are doing so." Even when a signatory, it seems from the articles , MDancer provided, to support the violation arguement, it doesn't appear that, enriching uranium is a violation. I dunno? Anyone? I haven't read anything solid, suggesting Iran has nuclear weapons, or is even close to having them. What I see is verbatim the same nonsense in the lead up to Iraq. recall: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20021007-8.html President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat "The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons." " Before being barred from Iraq in 1998, the International Atomic Energy Agency dismantled extensive nuclear weapons-related facilities, including three uranium enrichment sites. That same year, information from a high-ranking Iraqi nuclear engineer who had defected revealed that despite his public promises, Saddam Hussein had ordered his nuclear program to continue. The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program" and what evidence was that???? The evidence called BS! SPIN, SCARE MONGERING, PROPAGANDA, actually that entire speech is galling.

goodness, someone else noticed the non-moving, comatose OBL http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2007/9/9/61032/95401 Osama Bin Laden's widely publicized video address to the American people has a peculiarity that casts serious doubt on its authenticity: the video freezes at about 1 minute and 58 seconds, and motion only resumes again at 12:30. The video then freezes again at 14:02 remains frozen until the end. All references to current events, such as the 62nd anniversary of the U.S. atomic bombing of Japan, and Sarkozy and Brown being the leaders of France and the UK, respectively, occur when the video is frozen! The words spoken when the video is in motion contain no references to contemporary events and could have been (and likely were) made before the U.S. invasion of Iraq. The audio track does appear to be in the voice of a single speaker. What I suspect was done is that an older, unreleased video was dubbed over for this release, with the video frozen when the audio track departed from that of the original video. I noticed the exact same thing! I watched the video in it's entirety. OBL, just froze, no movement, no gesturing, no lips moving. anyone watch the whole thing??

But what if official military estimates about the size and impact of al-Qaeda in Iraq are simply wrong? Indeed, interviews with numerous military and intelligence analysts, both inside and outside of government, suggest that the number of strikes the group has directed represent only a fraction of what official estimates claim. What!! the US would "overstate" the AlQuaeda threats, oh I just can't imagine that?? THEREFORE 85% of the attacks HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with Alqueda Now other say it is even less, way , way less! a microscopic terrorist agency, 2-5 percent!!!!! WOW! Now why would the US overestimate, intentionally the threat of "AlQuaeda in Iraq"?? Unless, the US wants to continue to justify the occupation. As if that hasn't been obvious all along anyway. "cakewalk to Baghdad"

not only has there been a "ramping up". it's the same spin job that lead up to Iraq. Demonization, as always!!! "Demonization:3. To represent as evil or diabolic: wartime propaganda that demonizes the enemy. We even have the same scenario, even ElBaradei is recognizing that crap! IAEA Chief ElBaradei Seeks Stop to Iran `War Drums' http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...p;refer=germany but then the US says: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296195,00.html U.S., Allies Accuse IAEA Chief Nuclear Inspector of Mishandling Iran File VIENNA, Austria — Chief nuclear inspector Mohamed ElBaradei is coming under intense pressure for his handling of the Iran file, with the United States and key allies accusing him of overstepping his authority, diplomats said Sunday. same old, same old. It's Iraq, "redux", and some are eating it up.

I would agree, but, that is because, IMO, most people realize OBL is dead, long dead. It simply stretches credibility to think after ALL this time, he is still alive and free. Besides he just isn't producing flashy enough videos! In fact he is downright comatose in this last one, he ain't moving through entire chunks of it, his lips aren't moving , his head ain't moving. I watched the entire 20 plus minutes of monotony.

Osama bin dead for a good long while now: the jet setter , Rich saudi, well educated, covert boy, could in all likelihood speak English, regardless of what he "claims". He is university educated, (engineering degree, I believe) affluent, and well traveled. Oh and in the video he gestures , when he is actually moving, with his right hand. odd for a lefty. And what with OBL and the CIA both training the KLA in Kosovo,during the same timne frame, nevermind the Afghan adventures, nah, there was no direct contact between America and OBL , it was all "coincidence". http://www.newhumanist.com/osama.html That wikipedia, is so darn unreliable, and so heavily censored. It's really become a non-credible resource.

Osama bin forgotten? Osama bin longa dead? Hey if Osama is "addressing" America, why doesn't he speak English?! The rich Saudi, can't speak English? The CIA operative, covert boy, from Afghanistan to Kosovo. That's quite non-credible isn't it? I am sure he would have picked up lots of English , working hand and glove with the US, Britian etc.,

I see Osama is a book buff now, Noam Chomsky, yet! bah!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/natio...arkin020199.htm When Seeing and Hearing Isn't Believing By William M. Arkin Special to washingtonpost.com Monday, Feb. 1, 1999 so that was eight years ago, I am willing to say, the technology has come alot further since then. what a valuable asset, at a time of war.! Of course if this technology is being used, strategically/militarily, it would most obviously have to be denied, but, it's too useful, as a manipulative tool, to dismiss it.

BTW: what is a VNR, a term I used in previous post, well in case anyone doesn't know? Video New Release : made by PR firms to look like a news story The Bush regime has made extensive use of these: http://archive.coanews.org/tiki-read_artic...hp?articleId=89 a win win for the mass media, as it doesn't cost them a penny to use these VNR's The T.V viewer? None the wiser.

lol! gosh August how is it you think people came to believe iraq actually had wmd's??? or was actually a threat? or was actually connected to 9/11?? Clearly you do. Cause what exactly does the "hole in Manhattan" have to do with Iraq or Iran?? Oh right Nothing, NADDA, ZERO , ZIP! Did you really think the Bush whitehouse didn't manipulate the press, to shape the opinions of the masses. Now that would be naivete to the max! Manipulation of the press, wether the specific media outlet/reporter, knows about it or not, is admitted, (see originating article, then follow up) and I thought, was fairly common knowledge. Apparently not. Press releases through the 'right' think tanks, provide free and easy fillers for the newspapers, idealogues in the press willing to promote points of view that coincide with the regime, all just facts. Interviews with 'favoured' journalists,the lack of willingness to spend $$ and pay journalists to do any real investigation, makes it easy for this manipulation to occur. How about all those VNR's??? Note to the naive: inform oneself! LOL!!!! How much did the Bush regime spend manipulating the news?? http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0217/p01s01-uspo.html First came video "news releases" produced by the Bush administration using a TV news format. Then came three conservative columnists who got big paychecks from federal agencies. "The public has a reason to be concerned about the ways in which political manipulation is influencing journalism," says Larry Gross at the Annenberg School of Communications at the University of Southern California" http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Jan27/0,4...derFire,00.html The uses of leaks and exclusives. When to let one's name be used and when to hide in anonymity. Which news medium was seen as more susceptible to control and what timing was most propitious. All candidly described. Even the rating of certain journalists as friends to favor and critics to shun _ a faint echo of the enemies list drawn up in Richard Nixon's White House more than 30 years ago. So how was it again that the populace believed Iraq was connected to 9/11?? You were one of them weren't you? You actually believed it?? You believed Saddam had wmd's?? Now talk about believing in CONSPIRACY THEORIES!!! :lol:

Weekly standard, William Kristol opined on Iran. purveyor of propaganda wrt iraq! seller of the surge, associate of the 'think tank" AEI http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?pid=154990 Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol walked into the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) yesterday with a big grin on his face, as if to say "they're listening to me again!" Wolfowitz, Feith, Rumsfeld, Bolton and other architects of the war in Iraq may be gone, but the neoconservatives' stature inside the Bush Administration has hardly diminished. The same people that sold us the war, often under false pretenses, are now leading proponents of escalating the conflict by sending tens of thousands of additional troops. An event at AEI yesteday brought together the intellectual progenitors of escalation: military historian Fred Kagan, retired General Jack Keane and Senators John McCain and Joe Lieberman. The focus was not on how to clean up the neocons mess, but on how to deepen it. I see the PR campaign is definitely on, full force, same players , same game. I see Fred Kagans wife is doing her part too!

Oh I know exactly what you mean! And it worked previously, often, here, there, then and NOW. wrt iran. and MSM has their "instructions" in warmaking PR.

This is an older news story, but interesting nonetheless. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/17/us/polit...and&emc=rss As Talk Radio Wavers, Bush Moves to Firm Up Support nice pic of Bush sitting with the appropriate talking heads. WASHINGTON, Oct. 16 — On an overcast Friday morning last month, White House aides ushered an influential group of conservative radio hosts into the Oval Office for a private audience with the president. For an hour and a half, Mr. Bush discussed his case for the war in Iraq, his immigration proposals and even the personality of his Scottish terrier Barney, who scratched on the door during the session until the president relented and let him into the office, according to several hosts who attended. The meeting, which was not announced on the president’s public schedule, was part of an intensive Republican Party campaign to reclaim and re-energize a crucial army of supporters that is not as likely to walk in lockstep with the White House as it has in the past. gotta get'em back on track! “When conservatives are agitated at the president, radio hosts feel pressured to stand with the conservatives against the president to prove their independence,” said Tim Graham, an analyst at the Media Research Center, a conservative news monitoring group. But, Mr. Graham said, “realizing what life would be like if we lost the House is concentrating people’s minds.” The White House and the Republican National Committee are hammering home that point in interviews, talking-point bulletins and a healthy dollop of pomp that only a White House can provide. The effort will peak on Oct. 24, when the administration will hold something of a talk-radio summit meeting, inviting dozens of hosts to set up booths on the White House grounds, where top cabinet officials are expected to sit for interviews. So much for the independance of the media! It seems the White House can indeed set the agenda, and lo and behold, MSM, talking heads, etc., all follow in boot-step! No Spin indeed!

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/geor...ere-were-a.html Test Marketing "If there were a threat level on the possibility of war with Iran, it might have just gone up to orange. Barnett Rubin, the highly respected Afghanistan expert at New York University, has written an account of a conversation with a friend who has connections to someone at a neoconservative institution in Washington. Rubin can’t confirm his friend’s story; neither can I. But it’s worth a heads-up:" (Oh, but confirmation does come, see postscript.) "They [the source’s institution] have “instructions” (yes, that was the word used) from the Office of the Vice-President to roll out a campaign for war with Iran in the week after Labor Day; it will be coordinated with the American Enterprise Institute, the Wall Street Journal, the Weekly Standard, Commentary, Fox, and the usual suspects. It will be heavy sustained assault on the airwaves, designed to knock public sentiment into a position from which a war can be maintained. Evidently they don’t think they’ll ever get majority support for this—they want something like 35-40 percent support, which in their book is “plenty.”" "True? I don’t know. Plausible? Absolutely. It follows the pattern of the P.R. campaign that started around this time in 2002 and led to the Iraq war. The President’s rhetoric on Iran has been nothing short of bellicose lately, warning of “the shadow of a nuclear holocaust.” And the Iranian government’s behavior—detaining British servicemen and arresting American passport holders, pushing ahead with uranium enrichment, and, by many reliable accounts, increasing its funding and training for anti-American militias in Iraq—seems intentionally provocative. Perhaps President Ahmedinejad and the mullahs feel that they win either way: they humiliate the superpower if it doesn’t take the bait, and they shore up their deeply unpopular regime at home if it does. Preëmptive war requires calculations (and, often, miscalculations) on two sides, not just one, as Saddam learned in 2003. When tensions are this high between two countries and powerful factions in both act as if hostilities are in their interest, war is likely to follow. It’s one thing for the American Enterprise Institute, the Weekly Standard, et al to champion a war they support. It’s another to jump like circus animals at the crack of the White House whip." (yes it is quite another thing to jump like a circus animal at the crack of the White House whip, but then, the media did it before, and the easily influenced were, well, easily influenced!) If this really is a return to the early fall of 2002 all over again, then I’m fairly sure that no one at the top of the Administration is worrying about the answers.