|Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
|PuPP's Theories Forum > WAR and POLITICS > The story of Israel's aborted Nuclear Strike|
|Posted by: Nodstar Feb 19 2007, 08:28 PM|
| Hi Pupp ..
For some time now ..I have had a theory that the reason Israel is exempt from
any kind of non nuclear proliferation treaty , is not cos they dont got em ..
( we all know they have .. Prime minister Olmert let it slip in an unguarded
moment last year ... oops )
and dont forget Mordechai Venunu ..the famous whistleblower who was jailed for many years for speaking about that which officially does not exist ..
So I'm thinking that if the US can invade a country like Iraq or Iran on the
PREMISE that there just might be .. well you know .. WMDs ..
How come the Israelis are exempt .. ??
Its kinda like the elephant in the corner analogy ..everyone just PRETENDS
that Israel doesnt have Nuclear capability ..
My theory is that the US Gubmint is SATISFIED with this rather unusual arrangement because if the Israelis do their dirty work for them in the middle east ..they can do what Pontius Pilate did .. just wash your hands of the matter ..
and administer a "slap on the wrist "..
Meanwhile the American Administration is theoretically innocent of using Nuclear
weapons ...SAVED by a technicality ..
Besides the christians need a war in the middle east because Jesus is coming soon and he wants it back .. ( cue the rapture and then the apocalypse ..)
Besides .. God WILL FIX IT ..
Wrestling With The Devil
Behind The Story Of Israel’s Aborted Nuclear Strike
By William Thomas | Jan 25th 2007
On January 8, 2007 I received a tip regarding a brief news item on an Israeli air strike against Iran the previous day. The raid had been turned back over Iraq by the American air force. But the FOX and CNN coverage was incomplete. According to my well-connected informant, the Israeli Air Force jets had been carrying nuclear bombs.
My heart skipped several beats. The story was potentially huge. But there was no way I could report it without verification.
What else did the media have to say? The day after the abortive strike, the London Sunday Times reported that Israel had “drawn up secret plans to destroy Iran’s uranium enrichment facilities with tactical nuclear weapons.”
Helping habituate readers to the notion that dropping nuclear bombs is somehow “safe”, reporters Uzi Mahnaimi and Sarah Baxter soothingly wrote that each “bunker buster” would only “have a force equivalent to one-fifteenth of the Hiroshima bomb.”
Mahnaimi and Baxter explained how conventional laser-guided bombs would first blast open “tunnels” into Iran’s nuclear plant at Natanz, where thousands of centrifuges are being installed for uranium enrichment—”and other targets.”
Then, diminutive atomic bombs would somehow be guided into the blasted-open shafts by Israeli pilots dodging heavy flak and swarms of anti-aircraft missiles over one of the most heavily defended sites on Earth.
Selling the strike as a perfect quick fix to a nagging problem, the Sunday Times quoted an Israeli source saying, “As soon as the green light is given, it will be one mission, one strike and the Iranian nuclear project will be demolished.”
But at least two other targets—a uranium conversion facility near Isfahan, and a heavy water reactor at Arak—would also have to be taken out. It was the Iranians fault, because they had “strengthened their nuclear facilities and air defences, making a conventional strike less likely to succeed,” the newspaper stated, adding that the Isfahan site is “uncomfortably near a metropolis of 4.5 million people.”
The Daily Telegraph insisted that the Iranian nuclear program “is dispersed across more than a dozen sites, some of which are hidden in tunnel systems built under mountains.” [Daily Telegraph Jan 8/07]
Both British newspapers failed to mention that Iran’s nuclear power program is as legitimate as those enjoyed by Israel and the United States, who between them possess enough fusion warheads to wreck this planet.
Despite repeated reassurances to the International Atomic Energy Agency that the Islamic Republic sought only to develop legitimate nuclear energy, and would remain committed to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, Israeli intelligence sources were reporting that Iran had recently tested a Shehab-3 missile capable of reaching Israel with a dummy nuclear warhead. Fearful of Iran
unleashing a “second Holocaust” on Israel, deputy defence minister Ephraim Sneh concluded, “At the end of the day it is always down to the Jews to deal with the problem.”
But Israel’s constantly expended arms come mostly from the USA, where a Bush White House eager for God’s rapturous return was already moving to assist the nation. Retired Colonel Sam Gardiner, a former National War College professor who has war gamed United States air attacks on Iran, believes that the current deployment of three U.S. aircraft carriers, British minesweepers, a Canadian warship, and a marine assault force off Iranian shores is a “huge deal. It is only necessary to do that if you are planning to strike Iran.”
Were the people of Iran being set up? In a companion piece, reporters Mahnaimi and Baxter humorously described how air force commander Major General Eliezer Shkedi would “orchestrate” a nuclear strike on Iran from a bunker near the Philharmonic Orchestra concert hall in Tel Aviv. On a plasma screen relaying real-time satellite data, the Israeli general could pretend that dropping nuclear bombs on people not unlike his own was just an elaborate video game.
“If the nuclear device explodes deep underground there will be no radioactive fallout,” assured Dr. Ephraim Asculai, a member of Israel’s own “nuclear program” for more than 40 years. So the use of mellower “mini-nukes” presumably made their use okay.
But was this true? Reporters failing to exercise due diligence either overlooked or censored the Union of Concerned Scientists, who warned two years ago, “This commonly held fallacy… is not the case.”
The uranium enrichment halls at Natanz are buried under 70 feet of hardened concrete. But the deepest penetration achieved by the biggest conventional bomb against a similarly hardened target is less than 30 feet. Dropped on its own, a one-kiloton nuclear “bunker buster” burrows only “10-20 feet” before detonating.
Yet in actual practice at the Nevada Test Site, “the minimum burial depth to ensure containment” of the ensuing radioactive fallout is more than 300 feet.
The anxious atomic scientists went on to note that depending on wind conditions and the size of a downwind population extending into neighboring countries—indeed, around the globe—the number of deaths from a single “low yield” nuclear bunker buster “could exceed a million, and the number of people with increased cancer risks could exceed 10 million.” [www.ucsusa.org May/05]
The same day that their secret three-plane nuclear strike was being turned back over Iraq, angry officials at the Israeli prime minister’s office, foreign ministry and defence ministry “flatly denied” that Israel would ever use nuclear bombs against a country the Institute for National Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University was calling Israel’s “most serious threat.” [AFP Jan 7/07]
Institute board member, retired Brigadier General Giora Eiland told the Israeli press that no military strike would take place against Iran without a full “strategic and military” understanding with the U.S. Even if Israeli jets carried out an attack, he said, “it might be perceived—and rightly so—as an understanding between the United States and Israel.
“Because there are no free rides and our existence isn’t guaranteed,” retired Brigadier General Oded Tira chimed in, “We must prepare an independent military strike by coordinating flights in Iraqi airspace with the U.S.” [Ha’aretz Jan 2/07]
Iran’s foreign ministry spokesman responded the following day. Dismissing Israel’s attempted air strike as a “bluff” intended to scare Iran away from developing peaceful nuclear power, Mohammad Ali Hosseini warned that any “aggressor would regret the action very quickly.” He
pointedly added, “This comes after the confession of the Israel prime minister who acknowledged that the Israeli regime possesses a nuclear weapon.”
CAN YOU CONFIRM?
On Tuesday, January 9, I passed through a telephone security screen to reach my deepest and most trusted source, a combat veteran whose “chops” included exceptional “boots on the ground” connections within the military, government and intelligence agencies of the United States and, as he put it, “non-U.S.” countries. “The people with dusty shoes,” he’d once told me, “need to be the ones being listened to.”
Having broken major stories together over many years, I knew my source to be precise and accurate in his statements. This soldier told it straight, without exaggeration. And he always cooperated with the “men in black” who paid him regular visits after his carefully considered revelations went to press for the good of the public and his former comrades.
We had not spoken in months. After exchanging high-fives over the phone I told him that I had been tipped to an Israel nuclear strike against Iran on January 7. Could he confirm?
“Yes,” he said without hesitation.
After a stunned silence, I asked, “Would you care to expand on that?”
He wouldn’t. It took a three-and-a-half hour conversation to elicit details describing how a trio of minimally marked Israeli F-16s from a “no name” IAF detachment had flown a regulation “racetrack” pattern over Iraq. With their pilots hidden behind polarized canopies, the nondescript Israeli jets had “tanked up” from an American KC-135 tanker, before suddenly diverting “downtown” towards the Iranian border. Intercepted by American fighters, the Israeli high command had once again ordered them to return to base.
This was the third attempted Israeli nuclear strike on Iran, my source told me. Though he would not provide the earlier dates, he said that each raid had been launched after public statements by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad were interpreted as clear or coded signals for imminent war on Israel.
In mid-May 2006, for example, an eight-page letter to George Bush from the Iranian president had been widely interpreted as a peaceful overture by the European press. The closing phrase, “Vasalam Ala Man Ataba’al hoda” means “Peace only unto those who follow the true path.”
But according to the Jerusalem Newswire, this historical phrase harkened back to the prophet Mohammad’s same salutation to two infidel emperors in the late 620’s, inviting them to convert to Islam—or be forcefully persuaded. Incendiary footage aired by the Christian Broadcast Network of an April 2006 speech by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad showed the Iranian president declaring, “The Zionist regime of Israel is like a rotten, dried tree that will be annihilated by one storm.”
Even though biblically hard-line “Zionist” does not equate with modern “Israel”, it seemed nuts for modern mullahs in Teheran to allow their secular puppet to provoke a preemptive war that could turn Iran into radioactive glass—ending 4,000 years of Persian civilization within an hour.
But the Iranian regime’s religious beliefs were troubling. As investigative reporter George Thomas told CBN, “Ahmadinejad believes that he has been chosen; he has a ‘divine mission’ to usher in the 12th Imam, the Mahdi. He believes that in order for this Mahdi to return, the entire world should be filled with chaos; there should be a battle between good and evil; in his mind between the east and the west.”
Mirroring the Christian fundamentalist vision espoused by the White House, CBN and millions of righteous American viewers, the Mahdi—like their own vengeful Christ—would soon return to somehow “establish peace and justice” out of worldwide suffering and calamity.
In the meantime, with Iran sending rockets through Syria to resupply an aggrieved Hezbollah restock behind UN troops, a small surrounded state kept proving its worst fears right by following an ancient imperative: Do unto others, before they do it to you. “There are a few things Israel cannot allow to occur, my source reiterated. “One is to allow a Middle Eastern power to become an acknowledged and capable nuclear power.”
“ Framing” is everything in the “news”, where the spin and slant of what’s reported is often determined by the details omitted. As Agence France Presse widely stated on the day of Israel’s air strike, “Israel considers Iran its arch-foe because of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s repeated calls for the Jewish state to be wiped off the map.” [AFP Jan 7/07]
The “wipe out” quote has become a mantra among militant Zionists and their supporters. But was Iran being “framed” by a war-loving corporate media using the same falsehoods to market weapons and threats that had led to such massive death and destruction in Iraq?
Farsi-language expert Juan Cole translated the Iranian president’s remarks as, “This regime that is occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time.” According to Cole, Ahmadinejad was being “prophetic not threatening.”
Was there a dangerous disconnect between the apocalyptic Ahmadinejad’s boilerplate belligerence, and the aspirations of his constituents, most of whom are under the age of 30? As one blogger pointed out in the London Telegraph: “Iran has never attacked any neighbouring country, and the lives of ordinary Iranians are lived in modernity and a relative and increasing freedom compared to its four neighbours—chaotic Afghanistan, violent and disintegrated Iraq, fascist Turkmenistan, mediaevally oppressive Saudi Arabia—all of whom have American presence, [or whose governments] are pro-American.
“Another neighbour, unstable, strife-torn Pakistan, has confirmed nukes and was responsible for spreading nuclear secrets to other rogue states. Nearly all the 9-11 hijackers were Saudi. And no action against any of these countries—so why do you propose action against the Mid-East’s relative oasis of stability and modernity and peace?
“Iran is not a perfect society, but give them time, and let them develop towards democracy uninterrupted by the totally counterproductive interference the U.S. specialises in. Life has got much better since the revolution. [Outsiders] should be sympathetic of a society that changes slowly, organically for the better, as Iran is; slow change is the only change that endures.”
[Daily Telegraph Jan 8/07]
How big were each of the three bombs carried by the Israeli F-16s, I asked my source.
His reply was immediate: “Twenty kilotons.”
In the crazy calculus of paranoia and projection, it almost made sense: Using a single big atomic bomb to “decapitate” Iran’s secular and religious leadership would allow the aggressors to bypass many heavily defended t
|Posted by: Nodstar Feb 19 2007, 08:53 PM|
| Part 2 contd from the above post ..
targets—while the ensuing electromagnetic pulse would burn out all electronics in the country, rendering both defense and retaliation impossible.
At least that was the plan. Teheran’s grid is underground.
This was no video game! Ask Keiko Ogura. The eight-year-old had stayed home from school the day the Americans dropped a 13-kiloton atomic bomb on the city where she still resides.
“That morning I was on the road near the house and all of a sudden I saw a flash of bluish white light—magnesium-like flash and soon after a big sound with dust, and I was blown away and fell on the ground,” Ogura recently told the BBC. “I found myself lying on the ground near the house. I thought the house was just in front of me, but I couldn’t see it because everything had become so dark and many pieces of wood and roof tiles and rubbish were falling on my head. There was black rain falling... It smelled bad and there were many spots on my white blouse.”
A wind sprang up like a typhoon. Houses were burning. “I saw long lines of refugees, just quiet. I don’t know why they were so quiet. There were long lines, like ghosts. Most of them were stretching out their arms because the skin was peeling off from the tips of their fingers. I could clearly see the hanging skin, peeling skin, and the wet red flesh and their hair was burned and smelled, the burnt hair smelled a lot. Almost all the people were just asking ‘water’, and ‘help me’.”
The curious little girl climbed a hill overlooking Hiroshima... “I was so astonished—all the city was flattened and demolished. In the morning people were moving, brushing away flies from their skin. My house was full of injured people. The next day some of the buildings were still burning, and the next day, and the next day…” [BBC News Aug 5/05]
It was late when I put down the phone. Alone in darkness as total as my own, I tried to calm my whirling thoughts. What should I do with this information? Why don’t we learn from the past? If this story was true, how could anyone even consider another Hiroshima?
In 40 years of reporting, from the tumultuous streets of ‘60’s protest, to bitter logging blockades, the oil-fired hell of Kuwait, Washington’s covert “chemtrails” climate control campaign, and White House complicity in 9/11—I had never been handed a story as explosive as this. Unable to sleep, I continued to grapple with the journalist’s most nightmarish quandary: To run with it or not, that was the only question.
Writing the story was as nerve-wracking as walking through Kuwait’s minefields looking to save oiled birds. Weighing my responsibilities between “crying wolf” and being severely bitten, against potentially millions of unsuspecting lives—I finished it on the 12th.
Fridays are a news black hole. Nobody anticipating the weekend would pay any attention to an apocalypse that was not Hollywood entertainment. I held it back.
For another 48 hours I continued weighing my decision to launch. If the story I had been told was untrue and I released it online, I would unnecessarily terrify untold numbers of people. And destroy a lifetime’s journalistic credibility.
There was no way to document a secret as closely held as this. Over six days of intensive online research I still could not find any source reporting the nuclear aspect of the Israeli strike.
This made Monday’s decision even more hellish. But two credible informants had confirmed it, fulfilling the minimum reportorial requirement of two independent sources.
If I went with my best and long-trusted source—if one nation was about to get away with attempting to drop a nuclear bomb on another—should I still refrain from feeding into “Internet hysteria” by withholding the most inflammatory information I’d ever been given?
As a veteran reporter, I knew that some truths are best withheld for release at a later time. But the clock was ticking. If I kept silent, would a fourth Israeli strike succeed, changing forever the world as we and our children would know it?
Despite encouragement by a willfully ignorant and craven press, onboard a wounded blue space colony could the use of any nuclear weapon by any country be tolerated? Given the inevitable recirculation of revenge and atmosphere, what goes around comes around.
What does killing children make us? Once the nuclear genie was uncorked, where would escalation end?
Didn’t everyone deserve to know the risks being run by a handful of men? As a professional pledged to tell the truth, wasn’t I obliged to honor your right to informed choice by warning of the most dangerous gambit undertaken by any nation since my own country of birth had sent the Enola Gay downtown?
Concern for my own life could not determine how I would proceed. But my source’s safety was another matter. He had wrestled with his own demons to impart a few convincing details. And even after deciding to come forward, I knew that he would be immediately identified by U.S. intelligence agents, whose next visit could result in the use of handcuffs. Or worse.
In the end, with no other news outlet picking up this story, I realized that I had to report it.
“ Israeli Nuclear Strike On Iran Turned Back” was posted on January 16. Within the first hour, my webmaster reported 60 news groups picking it up. By the second hour, 140 military, financial and academic news groups were discussing it. Many of the web’s busiest ‘sites were already reposting it on their front-pages, and countless networks were distributing it on their email lists.
The power of the world’s second great Superpower to respond was breathtaking. In the blink of a cursor, 40 persons every second began clicking onto willthomas.net. Within 24 hours, nearly 40,000 people had read my story there. Easily ten-times that number had seen it from other sources. The blowback I’d risked never materialized as strangers vigorously defended my professional record and integrity.
Those who unknowingly go on about their lives owe everything to everyone who participated in the distribution and defense of this breaking story. By focusing the intense light of scrutiny into the blackest of black ops, Armageddon has once again been postponed.
MEN IN BLACK
Within four hours of my story being posted online, the operatives who keep tabs on my primary source were knocking on his door.
“These are serious guys,” he informed me when I reached him for a follow-up. But this time they were acting as “point people” sent to deliver a message from a list of governments and intelligence agencies that took 45 seconds to recite.
“I timed them,” he said.
Explaining that he had not gotten into “quote unquote ‘trouble’,” my source said the agents were not as cranky as their previous chats. Maybe they’d gotten some sleep since Rumsfeld’s ordered ground assault on Iran had been derailed in the spring of ‘06. After making strong noises about “security” and mentioning me by name, the “Bobbsy Twins” told my contact that we had “stepped on some toes”—and “tweaked a nose” belonging to Israeli President Ehud Olmert, who suddenly had some questions to answer.
“Always good to know that you can get on the agenda of the Knesset,” my source chuckled.
But playing hard ball with a story as touchy as Semtex was no joke, we both knew. Driven by their concern over an out-of-control “king Georgie”, his informants in turn had risked severe personal penalties for “transgressing the capitol ‘T’ word” in revealing the racetrack diversion.
That’s “T” as in “treason”.
Though eventually identified by U.S. intelligence services, these insiders faced no reprisals, my guy was assured.
“In the end, they thanked me,” he said. Opting for the side of angels, a host of political, military and intelligence heavies had drawn a line and “approved the information getting out, because they didn’t like the direction things were going.”
As the leakers themselves had put it, they did not want to be “spectators in Armageddon.”
While not exactly thrilled by our disclosure, all sides were satisfied: Israel had delivered the message they wanted to send. And those concerned with averting a catastrophe had in turn delivered a message to Jerusalem: “You are being watched. And people are no longer afraid to talk.”
This was big, my source stated, “because normally to get out this level of his information, the agent is either on his deathbed, or quitting and going to Morocco—where he will be on his deathbed soon.” He laughed again.
Who else’s eyebrows had our story raised?
“You had huge financial people coming in,” my source replied. “You could see the hiccup go though the pipeline.”
“We tracked that, too,” I assured him. “Even the UN came by to read it.”
“Shake the trees and see who jumps out,” my friend agreed. Other major parties picking up our story included some of the Balkan states, as well as the Italian financial markets.
Why Italy? I didn’t get it.
“The Vatican,” he retorted. “I shit you not. As one of the key points—the lynch points—the Vatican paid attention to this.”
Suddenly, our connection was broken. Instead of being replaced by a dial tone, my source and I each heard a “busy” signal. We both got the message.
“Tell me more about the Vatican,” I said for the benefit of our listening audience after reestablishing contact with my source.
“They closed off two-stories of the Catacombs within hours of the story,” he resumed.
Why the Catacombs?
“That’s where some of the information of what’s to come is kept,” I was informed. When a leak this big sounds alarms in the Vatican, he continued, as a careful Jesuit intent on global power
plays, “You go back to your playbook and make sure it’s where you left it, and that it’s still open to the page you were on. Then you get on the phone and ask [your compadrés] to look at theirs.”
Everyone has an agenda. But unlike everyone else in the business of religion, “the Jesuits have the longest scale mentality,” my source continued. “They know what the end is supposed to look like, and they have the mentality to put all the people and pieces together to get there.
“The bus is still moving forward. The Jesuits are the bus driver, and the Vatican is putting gas in the tank. You can do whatever you want—look out the window, kill the person next to you, go into the bathroom and have sex—but you’re still on the bus.”
Power politics revolves around cash, he continued: “Who has the money, who wants the money, and who says they can do business? You never really have all three in the same place. Except in the Vatican.” With its own army, and de facto UN representation through the Italian government, “they are a country unto themselves.”
Yet in reality, he added, “There are no borders. There are financial districts, spheres of financial influence.”
Those with the most gold make the most rules, I supplied. In addition to the Church’s vast accumulated treasures, the folks who own the most land on Earth are…
“The Vatican. The Jesuits. They’re the deciding factor,” my source finished. “They put people in places of power, then they go back to the money people”—and direct how funds reach those at pivotal levels.
Of course the Vatican would be interested, I mused. “The use of atomics changes everything; changes the board game.”
As for Israel attempting to explode a nuclear device over Iran, my source returned, “Them doing it is not a surprise; the timing is not a surprise. People talking—that’s a surprise. No longer can the Israelis expect to do something in broad daylight and get away with it.”
Now that we were playing with prelates who would not hesitate to arrange “accidents” for those who jeopardized their plans, did my wise friend have any concluding words of advice?
“Eyes open,” came his reply. “These are the first two words and the last two words of the session I went through with those guys.”
Denial is no longer an option. When fear and superstition rule, “Seeing what actually is, as opposed to what we were told, is to see it differently,” my source was instructed. Otherwise… “You’re being controlled by them.”
“Them” meant my former mentors.
“ I’m so proud to have broken this story,” I said smiling. “And I hope the Jesuits are proud of me.”
Having been taught by the black robes at Marquette University, I would be forever grateful for the training and encouragement I’d received during my formative years as a reporter and activist. But though I respected their rigorous minds, I could not always condone the methods used by the Society of Jesus.
There are compelling reasons why “Jesuitical” has come to mean “devious” in several languages. Morphed from a military company to battle 15th century Moslems, the largest Catholic order later ran their machinations in feudal Europe, China and Japan—before becoming renowned for their courage and manipulations in the Americas. Accused of murdering presidents and popes, instigating wars and toppling governments, the extreme oath of allegiance taken by advanced S.J. members to their Superior General in Rome is said to legitimize any act or infiltration in the name of God’s “greater good”. [www.answers.com; www.newadvent.org]
Where have we seen that before?
With their top general supposedly running the Vatican, I would not care to be on the poop list of these highly disciplined and intrigue-infatuated priests.
“Fortune favors the bold,” my source reassured me “And so do the Jesuits. If you show yourself to be a worthy opponent, they can respect you. And through that respect you gain longevity.”
In that case…
“There is something I left out of my article,” I assayed.
“I noticed,” he said.
I would have to finish it soon.
Aarrghhhh "The lunatics have taken over the Asylum "
|Posted by: Mark Feb 19 2007, 11:51 PM|
At the bottom of a statue of Mary