All this talk about nuclear, nuclear states, non-nuclear states. So Iran is in compliance with the NPT. They can't really spin that anymore.
So what to do? How to justify an attack on Iran? Hillary Clinton basically lays it straight out for us.
"If we can prove that a biological attack originated in a country that attacked us, then all bets are off." - Hillary Clinton
Do you see how easy this would be?
Let's say a biological attack occurs. How many people are in a position to determine where it originated?
Who has the labs and the intelligence to make that determination? Only the government. They will prove that the biological attack originated in Iran, and they will prove it quickly, and then they will justify a devastating and most likely conventional attack on Iran -- no nuclear weapons -- to destroy Iran's oil infrastructure and any other things in Iran which make it a viable threat to whatever comes next on the NWO agenda.
Gates also pointed out that the policy dictates that any country that uses chemical or biological weapons against the U.S. will "suffer a devastating conventional retaliation."So they can't justify a nuclear attack, but they can justify a devastating conventional retaliation, and all it takes is for some people in the US to get sick with some biological weapon. That will terrorize people for sure, some invisible germ they can't see? Everything will grind to a halt.
They will discover the origin. They will retaliate. They will get credit for using restraint by not going nuclear.
Win win win!
To wit: July 6, 2008: Read Carefully. Speculation is not proof. Accusations are not proof.
Hundreds of endangered monkeys are being taken from the African bush and sent to a “secretive” laboratory in Iran for scientific experiments.
An undercover inquiry by The Sunday Times has revealed that wild monkeys, which are banned from experiments in Britain, are being freely supplied in large numbers to laboratories in other parts of the world. All will undergo invasive and maybe painful experiments leading ultimately to their death.
...Manji said scientists at the Razi Vaccine and Serum Research Institute in Iran had bought 215 vervet monkeys from him this year but he had become suspicious about their true motive, although he was still trading with them. They had “spent a lot of money” on getting the monkeys, even sending over scientists to check on each consignment.
...Rubibira indicated that finding out what the Iranians wanted the monkeys for would be difficult. “They cannot say, you know. They are secretive. They wouldn’t tell the truth.”
The revelation will fuel speculation that the monkeys may be used for research involving biological weapons. Primates are typically used by scientists wishing to test both the effectiveness of germ warfare agents and defences against them.
The Razi Vaccine and Serum Research Institute, which has its headquarters in Karaj, near Tehran, has been accused in the past by an Iranian opposition group of conducting biological weapons testing.
According to US intelligence, the pharmaceutical industry in Iran has long been used as a cover for developing a germ warfare capability.
In 2005 the US Office of the Director of National Intelligence said Iran “continued to seek dual-use biotechnology materials, equipment and expertise that are consistent with its growing legitimate biotechnology industry but could benefit Tehran’s assessed probable BW [biological weapons] programme”. Earlier this year it reiterated this.
This is the sort of language used to start wars.
And sure enough, here come the former senators to highlight the threat of bioweapons.
A New Kind of Deterrent, by Bob Graham and Jim Talent, April 14, 2010
As part of the Nuclear Posture Review, national security, intelligence and defense officials are in a heated debate within the Obama administration regarding the purpose of America's nuclear arsenal: whether the sole purpose of our nuclear force is to deter nuclear attack or whether it is the primary purpose. If it is the primary purpose, then the nuclear force would also be a deterrent against a biological attack by a nation-state.
...The policy of calculated ambiguity allowed the U.S. to threaten a nuclear response to a biological attack without actually stating it directly.
...it is more likely than not that a weapon of mass destruction (nuclear or biological) will be used somewhere in the world before the end of 2013, but a biological attack is more likely than nuclear.
...If President Obama wants to eliminate our reliance on nuclear weapons to deter biological weapons, he first must take actions to remove bioterrorism from the category of weapons of mass destruction.
[Aha, so now they have inserted a little detour into the road map. FIRST we remove the bioterror weapons, THEN we can eliminate nuclear. How shall they accomplish that? What could justify removing bioterror weapons from our enemies hands? Wink wink, it can be arranged as soon as we can prove that our enemies used their weapons. Of course they'd have to use them first, but that can be arranged too! Wink wink wink wink wink!]
There is a critical difference between nutween clear and biological weapons. Both are proven threats. They deliver equal lethality. A recent National Security Council document, signed by President Obama, said that a biological attack "could place at risk hundreds of thousands of people" and "The economic cost could exceed one trillion dollars for each such incident." But while the United States cannot defend its citizens against a nuclear weapons blast, we do have the capability against bioterrorism. Today, we have the option of building a viable biodefense system that could allow a future Nuclear Posture Review to declare that the sole purpose of the U.S. nuclear force is to deter nuclear attack.
Just as President Kennedy gave us the challenge of going to the moon, President Obama can give us the challenge of removing bioterrorism from the category of WMD.
To meet this challenge, America needs to make significant improvements in:
— The rapid detection and diagnosis of disease;
— Development, production and dispensing of new vaccines and therapeutics;
— The capacity for surge medical care delivery; and
— Environmental cleanup after an attack.
Can this be accomplished? Yes. These steps could be taken relatively quickly and at low cost compared to other aspects of national defense. They would go a long way towards defeating bioterrorism as a WMD. They would also address naturally occurring threats such as H1N1, help regain America's lead in the biotechnical revolution (one of the dynamos that will drive the global economy in the decades ahead), and substantially improve the public health and medical care delivery systems. We cannot think of a more urgent priority for the Obama administration.
Oh, such grim laughter. Nice touch bringing up JFK. Anyway, evidently the distinguished former senators believe that the answer to all our problems is to pour more money into the health care industry. Oh geez yeah.
That works every fucking time.
Yeah coz like going to the Moon and launching a nuclear strike , I mean they look the same don't they!
The Moon landings were an aspiration [ whether they happened or not], it employed science for essentially evolutionary purposes
babbling on like some what if? schoolgirl [ I'd kill em I'd kill em]
40 years later, just shows the vengeful nature of the US
The security officer who was supposed to be looking after JFK on that day was called CLINT HILL oddly
an attack, like the anthrax attacks eh?
US perpetuated, point the fingers at Iraq,
so we are looking at US perpetrated kill some more of your own, point the fingers at Iran
and so it goes........
i totally agree that we don't know what iran has from russian and/or china, but i doubt they've been all sitting on their hands all this time. this song and dance has been going on for years. from what i gather the US mil is dragging the anchor on this one, knowing it's going to be completely unpredictable once started, nightmare scenario for them.
they may think that a bio attack can justify a conventional attack thereby solving a lot of problems by allowing the US mil to take out iranian assets proactively. big assumption.
also too, it's not about the weapons it's about the oil and infrastructure used to counter the fiat currency model which is outta gas and needs to be replaced. the banksters don't want competition from Iran, bourses, islamic finance, etc. they want to continue to force the world to keep using US $ or whatever comes after that, as long as they control it. that's why the attacks on Iran would have to include so many sites. surely all the locations on the to be bombed list can be nuclear weapons facilities.
it's all about taking Iran out of the economic equation.
re: henry. i disagree with him too
on putin. i have not been swayed by the many people who see putin's hand in every catastrophe. aan's and suraci's discoveries the last few days are highly damning in this regard. as well as this imedi business, as i covered that before, the usual suspects:
they always project what they do before they do it. it's part of the methods and procedures.
ferris, i know. i just about groaned when i saw them trot out JFK, who they gladly killed. the last true human being to occupy the white house. makes me sick.
pen, are you seeing the logic of this? this is their favorite hidey-hole -- fun with biology. too tempting for them.
correction: i wrote:
surely all the locations on the to be bombed list can be nuclear weapons facilities.
should have written CAN'T be nuclear weapons facilities.
I just finished watching the Sun set over my home town. The beautiful colours of the fading light were accompanied by the twittering of birds and the shrieks and laughter of young kids enjoying the later evening light. I suddenly felt like I understood Linda Hamilton’s character in the Terminator movies. The plan is prepared; all that remains to be settled is the time – or so they think.
The Iranian regime has no desire to develop a native nuke program. Having said that, they are very, very calm in the face of the Beast. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that they simply bought some. Everyone is aware that Russia has close ties to the Iran. They don’t want to see another nuclear armed neighbour. China is the silent partner and oil is as vital to them now as it was to Imperial Japan in the ‘30s.
This whole bio-weapon and smuggled test monkeys story reminds me of the plot from a trashy thriller I read a while back. Can’t they just copy and paste something more believable off the internet like they did with Iraq. It sounds like another boogie man story to ratchet up the adrenaline levels of the sheep.
I have no doubt that we will see a biological attack. I think the Uighurs will be used to vector an attack on the Chinese mainland. After all anthrax are so last century. The new strains will be genome specific.
I was going to write something insightful on Makow but Dublin Mick pretty much nailed it.
The thing about those bios Chucky is they can show up and you never know who introduced them or where they came from.
When people can't figure out who is blowing up New York City it is hard to believe they have a handle on what is going in and out of the mideast.
There is also the matter of the sunburn missile, nuclear tipped, flying at two and half times the speed of sound and it butterflys so anti-missile technology is useless against it. Probably better than the French Exocet or Chinese silkworm.
How many of these are in the area?
I don't have the link now and I am not going to look for it but probably over a year ago there was some speculation that with the fall of USSR and Ukraine, Iran bought 250 neutron weapons. If true one of them can take out a town.
I just don't see an attack on Iran. I would say introducing a bio in some area, blaming it on Iran and a bio showing up in Iran. I wouldn't rule that out. Nobody could be exactly sure who is doing what.
I follow you DM. Considering the recent history of the Pharmacy wing of the NWO I think it IS only a matter of time before their use.
The synchronicity is eerie but one of my online ID’s is Sunburn21. I have followed the Industrial/military complex for many years and I am well aware that their force projection is always against imaginary foes. Not the ones that might someday be actually deployed. Israhell got a wee sniff of that missile threat in the last Lebanon war. Their navy doesn’t sail so close to coast these days.
I sincerely hope that you are right on the issue of Iran. It has been a long time since the US military has had to fight toe-to-toe as equals in any theatre since 1945. I remember a figure from the days of the cold war. Combat personnel when engaged in combat with an equally equipped foe were expected to have an effective lifetime of 90 seconds. I pray to the almighty that the synagogue of Satan do not get their wish.
i wrote something about the scenario what seems like a long time ago.
top paragraph has links to scott ritter and lord stirling, both give very bad case scenarios.
it would be folly.
Geez, it's rocking over here mate. Chuckyman - Linda Hamilton, dig it! I've had that vibe so many times...
Otherwise AP, you are a spooky genius. It's the voodoo that you do when you hit 'enter' at google.
As for the folly of attacking Iran, folly for whom? Folly for the US military? Great amounts of time and money have been spent ensuring that there's no one in the command loop of the US military that actually gives a shit about anything apart from being loyal servants of their banking masters and copping blowjobs from ten year olds.
They really are a death cult - the idea of pushing the entire army into a meat grinder would either have them laughing their heads off or surreptitiously adjusting their trousers if you know what I mean.
hey nobs. linda hamiltom? what am i missing there isn't that wonder woman? i have not seen her yet sadly. happy to see you tho.
yes folly for US military.
i know and agree with you about the death cult. but they haven't pulled the trigger on whatever it is they're hanging over our heads yet. every day we kick their can down the road is a victory. there's got to be things going wrong for them and we continue to pick the locks with google until we find out just exactly what the trouble it. it's all about the combinations.
LOL. Wonder woman was Lynda Carter and that’s a fond memory from my childhood. It was years later before I realised what the fascination was (grin).
Thanks A.P for the link to the Ritter and Stirling posts - sort of a best/worst case comparison. It is all conjecture and the danger for us personally is to buy into the drumbeat of fear. Running through the Dr Strangelove scenarios probably does us no good in the long run. You are spot on – every delay is a victory.
oh right you are chuck, lynda carter. yes i remember now. fond memory... hahahah yeah i bet. ; D
re: the fear. not to get all religious on anyone, but God didn't create the world to let people like this destroy it. let's have a little confidence now? allright? allright. ok. pep talk over.
Unfortunately Lynda Carter married her agent Ron Samuels and then attorney Robert Altman who got off the hook on securities fraud.
She later went into alcohol rehab. I would have probably been drinking too if I had married anything like those two.
Things are not showing up I post here. is it the google monster?
dubs i think everything is here. no?
It finally showed up but did not post the first few times and took over five minutes which has never happened before.
word ver: crake
I guess they are insinuating it is my fault!
Jane Burgenmeister's link has been disabled by go daddy for me. Is this happening with you?
oh wow, that's not good. no i can't get there either. looks like her domain name expired.
They arrested Mr. Green again also in Scotland in the Grieg case. I wonder if the big crackdown is on?
Perhaps 'off topic', but refers to a previous post about African economies.
Has always fascinated me that Paul Wolfowitz(?) and Robert Zoellick(?) .. both signatories for the 'New American Enterprise'(?) .. ended up as World Bank presidents (?).
well my understanding of it is simply that they are neo-con jews put in place to execute the strategy of financially strangling any country with natural resources, and then "extracting" payment. and that applies to a lot of african countries.
the cover is the usual: "helping" poor africans. but it's really that the people sent to help are helping themselves to the assets of africa. and this banking business is just the way that gets done officially: ie: first they put the africans in debt, and then when they can't pay it back they, you know, repossess the car. except it's not the car, it's all the stuff in the ground.
does that help?
Post a Comment