UK Govt Sources Confirm War With Iran Is On

[kpete]

July 23, 2006 at 16:21:12
UK Govt Sources Confirm War With Iran Is On
by Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed


http://www.opednews.com

UK Govt Sources Confirm War With Iran Is On
In the last few days, I learned from a credible and informed source that a former senior Labour government Minister, who continues to be well-connected to British military and security officials, confirms that Britain and the United States

"... will go to war with Iran before the end of the year."

As we now know from similar reporting prior to the invasion of Iraq, it's quite possible that the war planning may indeed change repeatedly, and the war may again be postponed. In any case, it's worth noting that the information from a former Labour Minister corroborates expert analyses suggesting that Israel, with US and British support, is deliberately escalating the cycle of retaliation to legitimize the imminent targeting of Iran before year's end. Let us remind ourselves, for instance, of US Vice President Cheney's assertions recorded on MSNBC over a year ago. He described Iran as being "right at the top of the list" of "rogue states". He continued: "One of the concerns people have is that Israel might do it without being asked... Given the fact that Iran has a stated policy that their objective is the destruction of Israel, the Israelis might well decide to act first, and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterwards."

But the emphasis on Israel's pre-eminent role in a prospective assault on Iran is not accurate. Israel would rather play the role of a regional proxy force in a US-led campaign. "Despite the deteriorating security situation in Iraq, the Bush Administration has not reconsidered its basic long-range policy goal in the Middle East..." reports Seymour Hersh. He quotes a former high-level US intelligence official as follows:

"This is a war against terrorism, and Iraq is just one campaign. The Bush Administration is looking at this as a huge war zone. Next, we're going to have the Iranian campaign. We've declared war and the bad guys, wherever they are, are the enemy. This is the last hurrah-we've got four years, and want to come out of this saying we won the war on terrorism."

more at:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_nafeez_m_060723_uk_govt_sources_conf.htm

[DELUSIONAL]

1. There is NO International agreement about what terrorism is/means

How can a tactic be defeated? There is a problem with the word Terrorism.

I researched this yesterday when a DU poster asked about the meaning of terrorism.

Fact is the word is ENGLISH -- so there is a language barrier toward a unified agreed upon meaning.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1706243#1706380

I just did a google of the word "terrorism" because I am confused about the meaning.

Also this is an ENGLISH word -- there is a problem of LANGUAGE -- and of translation.

http://www.unodc.org/unodc/terrorism_definitions.html

The lack of agreement on a definition of terrorism has been a major obstacle to meaningful international countermeasures. Cynics have often commented that one state's "terrorist" is another state's "freedom fighter".

If terrorism is defined strictly in terms of attacks on non-military targets, a number of attacks on military installations and soldiers' residences could not be included in the statistics.

In order to cut through the Gordian definitional knot, terrorism expert A. Schmid suggested in 1992 in a report for the then UN Crime Branch that it might be a good idea to take the existing consensus on what constitutes a "war crime" as a point of departure. If the core of war crimes - deliberate attacks on civilians, hostage taking and the killing of prisoners - is extended to peacetime, we could simply define acts of terrorism as "peacetime equivalents of war crimes".

snip

Act of Terrorism = Peacetime Equivalent of War Crime

http://www.ict.org.il/Articles/define.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism

# There is no strict worldwide commonly accepted definition.
# Any definition that could be agreed upon in, say, English-speaking countries would be biased towards those countries.

[Pierre.Suave]

2. god help us all

there will be a nuke detonated in this country before bush is gone. I can just feel it.

[iconoclastic cat]

3. They are insane. .....nt

[rubberducky]

4. If this is true

It`s very scarry. We need a regime change right here on US soil.God............How I hate these warmongers. Sad part is the idiot, probably won`t even discuss it with congress. He can just on his stupid ass in Wash. and yell, "bring `em on, baby!!!!!!".

[gordianot]

5. Will there be elections in 2008?

I just can't help but think no matter how bad it gets Bush and company will do anything to stay in power. Daniel Ellsberg may well have figured out what is going on.

[Telly Savalas]

12. Yes.

And after a Democrat is in the White House, these constant predictions of an imminent invasion of Iran will die down.

[RethugAssKicker]

6. PNAC PHASE II

This is a planned action... Laid out in advance... and so far, played out excellently..

[iconoclastic cat]

8. Cripes, wtf is Phase 4 going to be?

Nukular?

[DELUSIONAL]

11. Amazing isn't it -- they TELL us what they are going to do

the DO it -- and the world is shocked.

Tells me that a whole bunch of the world's leaders much be necons or part of their gang.

I don't know -- but at least they have a name -- and we need to keep yelling -- THE NEOCOS DID IT.

Anyway -- that's my humble guess of what we lowly nobodies can do.

[Swamp Rat]

7. !

[Selatius]

9. Heh, just in time for the November elections!

Rally 'round that fucking flag and don't question authority! Love your leader! Love his war! Love him, and your emperor will protect you! Vote for the Repubs!

:sarcasm:

[halobeam]

10. kpete.... forgive my naivety... I have a question....

I think you provide excellent info on this forum, btw... and I wonder, because I'd like your take on the source of this information. Is this solid? Is this reliable? I'm not at all questioning you, I'm in need of feedback on the validity of the source. Can you help? Much obliged. It's too frightening, to sit back and not ask a question, even if it shows I still have so much to learn. It's worth being vulnerable to some snotty quips from some folks around here.

Thanks.

[kpete]

13. your guess

is as good as mine

My opinion, for what it is worth-

This IS what this administration wants and hopes for

I believe that Iran has ALWAYS been the ultimate goal in their war plans


Will they get it?

I hope and pray not..


As far as the source is concerned, I believe them to be very credible, with perhaps a slant towards our way of thinking.

[halobeam]

14. thanks

:)