Thursday, August 11, 2005

Four Star General Fired For Organizing Coup Against Neo-Cons?

Prison Planet speculates about the reasons for the firing of a four star general. Was the general opposed to possible plans by the Neo-Cons to attack Iran?

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2005/100805fourstargeneral.htm

Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones of Prison Planet, on 10 August 2005, write about general Kevin P. Byrnes who was sacked on 9 August 2005 'for sexual misconduct'. Byrnes was the head of Fort Monroe's Training and Doctrine Command.

Prison Planet tells us that:

1. According to reporter Greg Szymanski, anonymous military sources said that 'Brynes was the leader of a faction that was preparing to instigate a coup against the neo-con hawks in an attempt to prevent further global conflict.'

2. According to journalist Leland Lehrman, speaking on The Alex Jones Show, army sources, including a former Captain in intelligence, became outraged when they learned that the official story behind 9/11 was impossible.

Army sources reportedly told Lehrman about an imminent Northcom nuclear terror exercise based in Charleston, S.C, where a nuclear warhead is smuggled off a ship and detonated.

Allegedly, the army sources claimed the drill would be used as the cover for a real false flag staged attack.

Lehrman reportedly said: "Speculation exists that he had potentially discovered the fact that it was gonna go live and that he was trying to put a stop to it or also speculation indicates that he may be part of a military coup designed to prevent the ridiculous idea of doing a nuclear war with Iran."

Lehrman reportedly claimed that other sources had told him all army leave had been cancelled from September 7th onwards.

The Washington Post reported recently that the Pentagon has developed its first ever war plans for operations within the United States, in which terrorist attacks would be used as the justification for imposing martial law on cities, regions or the entire country.

American Conservative Magazine recently reported that Dick Cheney had given orders to immediately invade Iran after the next terror attack in the US, even if there was no evidence Iran was involved.

Prison Planet argues that a major attack 'would head off any potential indictments against the Bush administration for their involvement in illegally outing CIA agent Valerie Plame.'



~~


U.S. to grab Iranian province after bombing nuclear sites?

~

Who is to be invaded next? Is it Saudi Arabia, Syria or Iran? According to Wayne Madsen it may be Iran.

http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/

Madsen writes, on 10 August 2005, that the U.S. is prepared to grab the oil rich Iranian province of Khuzestan 'after saturation bombing of Iranian nuclear, chemical, and command, control, communications & intelligence targets.'

Madsen claims that 'sources within the German Federal Intelligence Service ( BND)' are reporting that 'the Bush administration has drawn up plans to hit Iran's nuclear, other WMD, and military sites with heavy saturation bombing using bunker buster bombs and tactical nuclear weapons.

'The attack will be coordinated with urban and rural critical infrastructure sabotage carried out by elements of the People's Mujaheddin (MEK), Pentagon Special Operations units, and other Iranian dissident groups.'

Has there been a leak?

Madsen explains that 'the German intelligence comes from classified briefings provided by elements within the CIA that are concerned the neocons in the Bush administration will, in attacking Iran, set off a chain of events that will lead to world war.

'Intelligence on U.S. plans to attack Iran has also been passed by CIA agents to counterparts in France, Britain, Canada, and Australia.'

According to Madsen, the Bush plans for Iran involve grabbing Iran's southwestern Khuzestan Province, where most of Iran's oil reserves and refineries are located.

Khuzestan has a Shia Arab population that has links with Shias in Iraq. Khuzestan was annexed by Persia after World war One.

Madsen writes that the Bush plans involves a U.S. invasion across the Iraqi border and from naval forces in the Persian Gulf.

This will be 'in answer to an appeal for assistance from the Al Ahwaz Popular Democratic Front and Liberation Organization rebel forces in Khuzestan, which will declare an independent Arab state of the Democratic Republic of Ahwaz.'

Madsen claims there are also plans to create rebellions among Iran's other minorities, including Azeris and Turkmenis in the oil-rich Caspian Sea region, Iranian Kurds along the Iraqi and Turkish borders and Baluchis along the border with Pakistan.

Madsen writes: 'The neo-con plan seeks to separate Iran from its oil resources and create an "Irani triangle" centered around Teheran, Isfahan, Qom, and other historically Persian centers.

'In anticipation of the U.S. attack, the spy sub USS Jimmy Carter has placed taps on undersea communications cables in the Persian Gulf that carry Iranian commercial, diplomatic, and military traffic. In addition, Task Force 121 covert paramilitary forces have scouted Iran using the cover of journalists and businessmen to pinpoint military targets.'



~~

The birth of the Shi'ite Empire

~

Iran will not be attacked?

http://xymphora.blogspot.com/2005/07/birth-of-shiite-empire.html

Xymphora argued, 31 July 2005, that Iran was not likely to be attacked by the USA. Xymphora suggested that an attack on Syria was more likely.

The title of Xymphora's blog entry was 'The birth of the Shi'ite Empire'.

Xymphora writes about a possible 'Unified Theory of American Political Corruption, tying everything from Iran-Contra to the Niger forgeries.' Xymphora refers to the alleged role of Michael Ledeen.

Xymphora quotes a comment made by Jebelia, at the Portland Indy Media site, which Xymphora strongly agrees with:

"Ledeen may say he wants the US to attack Iran, but when you are as corrupt as Michael Ledeen, words are meaningless. Watch what the neocons do; don't put too much faith in what they say.

"And keep in mind that when Ledeen was on Reagan's National Security Council his major responsibility was to supply US arms to Iran through Israel.

"Bush and his collective brain used the pretext of an attack on the US by Islamic extremists to overthrow a secular Arab government - that of Iraq. The entirely predictable result of the Iraq invasion is that the Arab consensus which was always the source of whatever integrity and stability Iraq possessed has broken down. This breakdown inevitably resulted in a civil war between the Arab Shi'ite and Sunnite communities in Iraq which will negatively affect all of Iraq's Arab neighbors. (Actually a civil war was not the inevitable consequence of the fall of Saddam's government. If the US had not disbanded the Iraqi military, or if it had quickly organized a large peacekeeping force from surrounding Arab countries as Dilip Hiro urged, the disaster we are seeing could have been avoided, but either of those options were anathema to the neocons.)

"For decades the main goal of Israeli foreign policy has been to prevent the Arabs from getting together economically politically, and secular Arab nationalism has been seen as the greatest threat to Israel.

"The Shi'ite clerical hierarchy that has controled Iran for 26 years now controls Iraq as well, thanks to the US of A.

"I foresaw this result before the invasion, and I am not psychic, terribly bright or especially well-informed. It is therefore difficult for me to believe that the experts at the Pentagon and Herzliya who planned this operation did not foresee it as well.

"It must be that either 1) there was a deal made between Iran, Israel and the Bushies in advance of the invasion of Iraq (even in advance of 911?), or 2) that the Israelis and neocons believed that the chaos caused to the Arab world would be worth the danger of empowering the Shi'ite theocrats without striking a deal.

"So maybe the end game of the War on Terror/Clash of Civilizations will include a nuclear attack on Iran, but we're now just in the early stages.

"The next target is the only country in the region that has not surrendered to the US or Israel and has remained true to non-sectarian Arab nationalism - Syria."

Xymphora reminds us that Ledeen was heavily involved in Iran-Contra, 'which involved illegally supplying the leaders of Iran with arms.'

Leeden 'hangs out with Manocher Ghobanifar, a man connected with the people who run Iran.'

Xymphora writes:

"The Americans have now clearly manipulated the situation in Iraq - through disbanding the Iraqi army, setting up an election guaranteed to disenfranchise Sunnis and create a wider Sunni-Shi'ite rift, provoking a civil war through failing to provide security and probably through faked terrorist attacks on Shi'ites, and installing a very Iran-friendly Iraqi government, including neocon friend Chalabi - to lead to a de facto annexation of Iraq by Iran. Are we to believe this was an accident or a mistake?

"It's clear that calls by various neocons, including Ledeen, for an attack on Iran are not directed at the American people or lawmakers, but at the people and leaders of Iran. The talk of war, even nuclear attack, coupled with other American actions, including the neocon support of the anti-Iranian MEK terrorist group, probable CIA incursions into Iran to create havoc by setting off bombs, and the recent highly publicized crash of a U-2 obviously spying on Iran, are intended to create a strategy of tension in Iran, pushing the country into the hands of religious leaders.

"The results of the recent Iranian elections prove the success of this strategy.

"Why would the Zionist neocons want to create an Islamic dictatorship in Iran, led by Shi'ite clergy, with effective control over Iraq?

"The Israelis and their agents in the American government tricked the Americans into the attack on Iraq, in part through the use of the forged Niger documents. The long-term Israeli plan has to answer the question of how Israel will build 'Greater Israel' when faced with a completely hostile Muslim world. The only answer is based on three principles:

"The divide-and-conquer approach as set out by Oded Yinon (and written about here many times);

"The 'doctrine of the periphery', the idea that Israeli interests can be advanced by making alliances with those non-Arab states like Turkey and Iran which are not adjacent to Israel;

and

"The Shi'ite-Sunni rift within Islam.

"Israel's obvious enemies are mostly Sunnis. If you're going to be fighting Sunnis, the obvious trick is to create a new ally, a Shi'ite empire consisting of Iran and Iraq.

"The minor annoyance of Iranian support to Hezbollah is far outweighed by the advantages of creating a new and very powerful player in the Middle East, a player who, for religious reasons, probably hates your enemies more than it hates you.

"'Greater Israel' can extend all the way to the Euphrates over Sunni lands, and your new friend may even help you (it will be a much bigger challenge heading towards the Nile!). In connection with this, watch the American media to sharpen its distinctions within Islam and concentrate on the fact that 'terrorists' are mostly Sunnis.

"Looked at in terms of the necessary arrangements in the Middle East for the creation of 'Greater Israel', the neocon plan is rather obvious (although it took this constant pushing of the idea of a war on Iran coupled with the contradictory action of Americans in Iraq to make it obvious to me).

"Neither Ledeen nor any other neocon has any intention of actually attacking Iran. The talk of attacks is merely intended to keep Iran in the hands of the radical theologians, who have been given a Shi'ite Empire through the handing over of Iraq. You need no other proof than the forced presence of the detested Chalabi, whose job all along was to forge an alliance with Iran.

"The new Shi'ite Empire will completely mess up the Middle East, and create tensions that will keep Israel's enemies busy for years, while Israel slowly builds 'Greater Israel'.

"It is a brilliant plan, which can only be foiled if pan-Arab nationalism can win out over fractures within Islam.

"The two countries most in danger of an American attack are Syria and, eventually, Egypt, and it is not a coincidence that these are the two countries most associated with pan-Arab nationalism.

"Nasser's version of pan-Arab nationalism led to the first American support of his enemies in the Egyptian Brotherhood, the most notorious manifestation of which is now called al Qaeda, so you can see how the world fits together."



~~~