U.S. Intelligence: Burundi May Be Developing Telephone

WASHINGTON — According to a report released by the Pentagon, evidence suggests that the small Central African nation of Burundi may be developing a telephone, and experts warn the country could be just 10 years away from achieving a dial tone. "If Burundi's telephone has long-distance capabilities, it will be possible for them to reach the continental United States and parts of Canada with just the push of several buttons," CIA spokesman Richard Caburn said. "Thankfully, we possess advanced caller ID technology, so if they ever decide to call, we will be prepared." The Pentagon has mailed Burundi a letter asking them to end their communications program immediately, and has not ruled out the option of a preemptive nuclear strike on the nation.

onion news | digg story

The paragraph above from the Onion News Network puts everything in perspective so clearly. It’s a far more compelling case for military action than the try hard pre justification for war with Iran crap that offended our senses all week from world media outlets, including releases from the U.S. Government.

ABC headline provokes global anger

Iran’s nuclear test firing provokes global anger

The fact is Iran produced images depicting the launch of a few missiles, conventional weapons that were in no way shape or form remotely related to anything nuclear.

The photograph of the test from Iran’s Revolutionary Guard has received wide consensuses that it is a fake. U.S. officials have also raised questions about the video footage, saying it looks remarkably similar to previous tests. Iranian claims that the test included a new Shahab variant with a capable range of 1250 miles are also being refuted by analysts. See Iran missile tests used old equipment

Despite the actual facts, numerous U.S. officials made ominous remarks including the Defense Secretary Robert Gates, saying “The Iranian missiles tests illustrate the threat that the Islamic nation poses to the region.” and “We’ve been saying, as we’ve talked about missile defense in Europe, that there is a real threat, and it seems to me the tests underscore that.”

So why would Iran try to portray itself as an aggressive military power at a time when the world is watching it, a world already manipulated by media to believe it a danger? My guess would be it’s the only defense tactic they can muster in light of intelligence that a U.S./Israeli attack is immanent.

It is no secret that a "secret war" on Iran is already underway by the U.S. It is reported that with agreement, consent from the Democratic leadership, George Bush siphoned $400m out of other programs to run the covert operations.

Why are the U.S. and Israel so intent on attacking Iran as a matter of urgency? Their justifications regarding the country being a threat due nuclear weapons capability again seem so far removed from actual facts. Referring to recent reports, the first of which a U.S. National Intelligence Estimate document, describes key judgments that include;

• We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program.
• We assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons.
• We judge with high confidence that Iran will not be technically capable of producing and reprocessing enough plutonium for a weapon before about 2015.

Secondly -
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Iran Report – 26 May 2008, although containing some reservations and concerns, also states that;

• Between 28 January and 16 May 2008, Iran fed a total of approximately 19 kg of UF6 into the 20-machine IR-1 cascade, the single IR-2 centrifuges, the 10-machine IR-2 cascade and the single IR-3 centrifuges at PFEP. All nuclear material at PFEP, as well as the cascade area, remains under Agency containment and surveillance.
• The results of the environmental samples taken at FEP and PFEP indicate that the plants have been operated as declared. [4] The samples showed low enriched uranium (with up to 4.0% U-235), natural uranium and depleted uranium (down to 0.4% U-235) particles. Iran declared enrichment levels in FEP of up to 4.7% U-235. Since March 2007, fourteen unannounced inspections have been conducted.

Perhaps the urgency for a military strike can be found in reports that Iran is close to acquiring a Russian produced SA-20 surface-to-air missile defense system which would disturb plans for an Israeli attack.

So Israel needs to attack Iran before it can defend itself, ok. Both Israel and the U.S. have been playing each other over who wants to attack more but despite the rhetoric coming from both sides, an Israeli diplomatic official recently told The Jerusalem Post that as the debate rages in Washington, it was clear that Israel would be unable to take military action without a green light from the U.S.

We would need to fly through airspace controlled by the U.S. (Iraqi airspace). The official said also that Israel would need U.S. diplomatic cover to deal with the world's condemnation, and possibly even sanctions, in the aftermath of a raid. link

Why the actual need for an attack though? It would seem its all about control, another source reports: Israel is thought to be more concerned about the reinforcement that a nuclear Iran would give to its influence in the region and to groups allied with it – such as Hizbollah in Lebanon – than about an actual nuclear strike on Israel. link

For many decades, Israel has employed military “pre emptive strikes” as an official defence force strategy. Only last September, they bombed a site in Syria said by US officials to have contained a nuclear reactor built with the help of North Korea.

Incidentally, former US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld who not only armed Saddam Hussein, was also on the board of the Swiss company ABB when they sold the nuclear reactors to North Korea.

Certainly there is much evidence in general that Israel does not fear a nuclear strike by Iran. In an interview from video at therealnews.com, Israeli Military Historian Dr Martin van Creveld says “They know very well that to attack Israel is suicide. In fact it is the fastest way to put an end to a 5000 year old civilisation. They will be deterred by Israel just as nuclear deterrence has worked everywhere else in the world without one exception since 1945.”

Hang on, is Dr Creveld suggesting that Israel is nuclear armed and therefore begging to attack Iran in order to prevent them from attaining equal status?

The short answer is; Yes. It’s another amazing quirk that when ever western media references Israel’s nuclear armament it does so using the pretext “rumored”.

Israel has never signed the Nuclear Non proliferation Treaty and has never admitted that it has nuclear weapons. As the Israeli journalist Michael Karpin once wrote, the United States has gone along with this charade because acknowledging the existence of Israel's nuclear arsenal would incite futile demands by Arabs and Iranians to get rid of it.

The 35th president of the U.S. urged Israel not to build the bomb. JFK even sent U.S. inspectors into the Dimona reactor starting in 1961. But Israeli nuclear leaders outfoxed the inspectors, and Washington's resolve faded with Kennedy's death. By Nov. 1966, Israel had the capability to detonate a nuclear device.

In 1967, shortly after the Six-Day War, a key CIA official was told that Israel probably had the bomb; the CIA relayed this information to L.B. Johnson (36th president), but the secretaries of defense and state were kept out of the loop.

Lyndon Johnson, a member of the Disciples of Christ, blessed the enterprise at least in part out of biblical appreciation of the covenant between God and the children of Israel.

Johnson was influenced by an inscription his grandfather wrote in the family photo album: "Take care of the Jews, God's chosen people . . . help them any way you can."

It is debatable who poses the greatest threat of nuclear devastation to the world, Israel or the U.S.A. The fore mentioned Dr Martin van Creveld in 2003, believed that the Al-Aqsa Intifada then in progress, threatened Israel's existence and said "I consider it all hopeless at this point. ... We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen, before Israel goes under."

He was of course referring to the infamous Israeli “Samson Option” derived in namesake from a biblical story. Samson, an Israelite with divine strength, was betrayed by his wife Delilah, a Philistine. The Philistines cut off Samson’s hair thus robbing him of strength and imprisoned him. Samson repented his sins, his hair grew back and so did his strength unbeknown to the Philistines. At an assembly of the Philistines with Samson on show, Samson uttered “Let my soul die with the Philistines” and with that he pushed apart the temple pillars collapsing it, killing all the Philistines but also himself.

You will find in most texts mentioning the Samson Option that they are nearly always written from the point of view that Israel alludes to nuking the enemy specifically in a last dying act of retaliation. However there are rumours that the option is far more sinister and that Israel has its nukes pointed in all directions with the attitude, if we are to die then so shall the rest of the world. “We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen, before Israel goes under."

Ultimately it’s no more or less a nuclear threat than what persisted all through the Cold War. If strikes from either side had launched it would have been game over for us all. Many people seem blissfully unaware however that even a localised nuke attack anywhere on Earth would probably have the same consequences. It only takes around eight war heads detonating in any location to set of a nuclear winter capable of killing all life forms around the globe.

Louis René Beres who chaired Project Daniel, a group advising former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, argued that the effective deterrence of the Samson Option would be increased by ending the policy of nuclear ambiguity. He recommended Israel use the Samson Option threat to “support conventional preemptions” against enemy nuclear and non-nuclear assets because “without such weapons, Israel, having to rely entirely upon non nuclear forces, might not be able to deter enemy retaliations for the Israeli pre-emptive strike.”

In the 1990 Gulf War, on the second day of the American invasion, Saddam Hussein fired eight Scud missiles at non combatant Israel. Two of the conventionally armed missiles landed on Tel Aviv. Then Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir responded by ordering mobile missile launchers armed with nuclear weapons moved into the open and deployed facing Iraq.

“The Samsonesque strongman of the Middle East had stirred” - Seymour Hersh. Promising Patriot missile batteries and loads of future aid, the United States pressured Israel to keep cool.

If we browse further back in time to conflicts of this region, it was the U.S. that had its finger on the nuke trigger. In the 6 day war of 1967 when Israel obliterated Egypt’s air force, the USS Liberty was suddenly ordered from South Africa to waters outside the Gaza Strip. This vessel was essentially an unarmed spy ship which America’s ally Israel, for reasons that can not be explained, attacked repeatedly. If you watch the videos (Israel attacks the USS Liberty – parts 1 to 7) at the stink links page, you may get the impression that the action was a “false flag” exercise with the consent of U.S. officials and aimed at justifying the incineration of Cairo.

Despite Israel being aware of the Liberty’s identity, position and purpose, it attempted to sink the ship killing 34 servicemen, using unmarked fighter jets and water craft. A near by U.S naval fleet launched two of its own fighter jets, armed with nukes they headed for Cairo to launch a strike as they had been led to believe the Liberty attack was orchestrated by Egypt. Within only about one minute away from firing the nukes, pilots were ordered to abort. Why was this unspeakable act averted? It would seem that the only answer can be found in the timely realization by U.S officials that a Russian spy ship was witnessing the whole event.

The USSR at the time was a major supporter of Egypt. This is where things get really fucked up. Israel ally to America was fighting Arabs including Egypt, allied by Russia. What’s wrong with that you ask apart from Israel attacking its own ally’s ship? Well the thing is that the former Soviet Union’s ruling Bolshevik was originally, overwhelmingly comprised of Jews. Think about it, maybe its best not to. Stay tuned for future posts of unbelievable, inconceivable treachery and atrocities from our worldly leaders.