Oh, brother! Here we go again. Saddam Hussein has purchase aluminum tubes for making long-range missiles. Only the US "intelligence" was lying. The tubes were not suitable for missiles. Do you remember that? I sure do, obviously. When I read this hyperventilating article from Wired.com's "Danger Room," I am reminded of that over and over. I remember the Yellowcake Forgery too and also the Downing Street Memos. Do you remember the mobile chemical-weapons labs? The U.S. lied. Do you remember the drones?Â The U.S. lied. It's still lying.
No one doubts that Iran has a defense industry. They aren't hiding it. What is in question is intent. Is Iran trying to get intercontinental missiles with nuclear warheads? Also, if they had them, would they then use them in some first-strike scenario?
The answer to the question of whether Iran wants long-range missiles is that they do. They want to go into outer space too. No evidence is provided that Iran has a nuclear-weapons program. Just as important though is that there is no track record on Iran's part upon which to base the position that Iran would use weapons of mass destruction on a first-strike basis or even in a retaliatory mode where Iran actually instigated a first strike by anyone upon Iran.
The government of Iran is a Shiite theocracy with a budding military-industrial complex. I disagree with that form of government for both its Shiite theocracy and military. That said, I do not consider the Iranians as any less stable than the vast majority of other nation-states in the world. Also important is the fact that Iran is reactive and that were the Zionists and others to calm down, Iran would also tone it down. The chanting of "Death to" this, that, or the other can be eliminated if nations (particularly Zionist Israel and the U.S.) will stop their covetousness and saber rattling.
Here is some of what Wired.com published:
In a cable from February of 2010, State Department officials in Washington alert the staff at the U.S. embassy in Beijing that a Malaysia-based firm, Electronics Component Limited (ECL), is trying to buy three-axel fiber optic gyroscopes from a Chinese company. This isn't just a simple business deal, the dispatch makes clear. Gyroscopes measure orientation, which makes them a critical component of weapons' inertial navigation systems. These particular gyroscopes, the State Department warns, "would be suitable for use in the guidance systems of ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and unmanned aerial vehicles."
Notice "would be suitable for...." Â They "would be suitable for..." if they are actually being properly identified and described, which if the aluminum tubes and Iraq is any gauge, they may not be. Again though, even if they are being properly described, that only poses a threat if the U.S. and the other Zionist plan to provoke Iran or if Iran is truly desirous of committing a first-strike without real cause.
The tenor of the cables and the Wired.com article is deliberately frenetic, not the stuff of cool and clear thinking.
"The metaphor most commonly deployed by Jordanian officials when discussing Iran is of an octopus whose tentacles reach out insidiously to manipulate, foment, and undermine the best laid plans of the West and regional moderates," one WikiLeaked cable reports.
Bare in mind that Jordan is a monarchy (ostensibly Sunni and hardly democratic) and Iran is headed by Shiite clerics but with some semblance of democracy. The King of Jordan doesn't want to lose his throne regardless of whether that would be better for the whole people of Jordan.
All of the cablegate cables are being discussed by the mainstream in a vacuum. They're being taken as the Gospel even though they show obvious toeing of the party-line and constitute internal, self-reinforcing allegations made State-Department to State-Department staff and shared with other "intelligence" agencies throughout the US.
International arms control and non-proliferation agreements are one way the U.S. and its allies keep countries like Iran from acquiring advanced weapons technologies. Iran constantly looks for ways to game the system. Sometimes, it's by getting their arms from other rogue regimes.
Iran is no more roguish than is the U.S. In fact, I would argue and prevail in such a debate that the U.S. is more roguish. Look at how the U.S. neocons bulldozed the U.N. with huge, obvious lies in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq.
I have to say that the Wired.com article is blatant Zionism.
Where is the balance by way of discussing Iran's pro-Palestinian rights position? The so-called tentacles of Iran have to do with the Palestinian issue in a major way. Hezbollah in Lebanon arose largely from the aftermath of the Palestinian refugee problem in Lebanon. Hamas is directly about Zionist land-grabbing and Nazi-like ethnic-cleansing. The Iranians do not want to find themselves being mistreated as the Palestinians are mistreated by the Anglo-American-Zionist/Israel Empire.
Meanwhile, the developers of Iran's solid-fuel missiles are using cut-outs to buy carbon fiber in China. The stuff "could be used by Iran to produce rocket nozzles for its... medium-range and short-range ballistic missile systems. It also could be used... produce lighter motor cases that could potentially extend the range of these systems," a second dispatch notes.
See the words "could be"? Just because something could be doesn't mean it would be or is. Again though, the premise of the article is that Iran has evil intentions. Everything about the article is designed to instill that idea while addressing none of the Iranian's perspective. It is clearly a false-propaganda piece whether or not the author and/or publisher is witting about it. Many people write for the Empire without even realizing that that is what they're doing. They write from within their stupor. Either Wired.com's Danger Room is a witting shill for the Zionist Empire (a nuclear-weapons proliferator that wanted to cut a nuclear missile deal with then like-wise racist, Apartheid South Africa) or it is under an even deeper spell — in a deeper state of hypnosis.
But this dispatch notes that SHIG is now using "front companies and middlemen posing as end users" to acquire "pressure transducers and other equipment [that] could be used in ballistic missile testing applications."
There it is again: "could be." Wired.com doesn't question it. You should. I do.
We certainly shouldn't go to war on nothing but a bunch of Zionist/neocon "could be's."
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)