Monday 22 October 2012

The Israeli Destruction & Ethnic Cleansing Of Palestine




This is a wonderful explanation of the Orwellian nature of the media portrayal of the story of Israel -  A story dripping in lies and mendacity. Miko Peled is an Israeli General's son. There are too few who speak up for the difference between right and wrong in Israel but Miko is a wonderful example of the humanity required to change the world for the better. Those who have nothing to say or remain silent are sub-human are they not? 

As ever answers in the comments.

We Live In A Multiverse of Many Worlds



Just don't mention the lizards.

Saturday 20 October 2012

Was The US Consul Attack In Benghazi A Conflict Between State Dept & CIA?





Seems to me the internal conflict is only invisible to the consumer classes. The ones who put X Factor and Footie above keeping an eye on world affairs. As I've mentioned before on many occasions Obama's first choice of political book in the Whitehouse was the Lincoln biography Team Of Rivals. Maybe the only upset he's facing right now is an October Surprise. I doubt anyone in the mainstream knows what turfed Carter out after the first term but that's mainstream for you. The more mainstream you go, the less you know.

Wednesday 17 October 2012

Senior Israelis Recognize The Two State Solution Is Dead





Even the uninterested person can see that the Israeli settler land grab in the visual above has made the two state solution non-viable with the reduced and balkanized footprint in green. The Palestinians have been left so little to work with. There's no dignity, no mercy, no pragmatism and so much unkindness. I wish my words would persuade my Jewish friends that this course of events is folly and cheapens the history of persecution they have suffered. I don't understand why those most intimate with hate filled suffering are unable to see it when directed at others. I have no explanation that satisfies me when trying to answer this question. Nothing bipartisan and intelligent survives.

The speeches above are impervious to the suffering, but that doesn't mean they pretend the two state solution is alive. You can make your own mind up. The map and the hardcore Zionists tell the same story.


On October 10, 2012, Ehud Yaari and Nathan Brown addressed a Policy Forum at The Washington Institute. Ehud Yaari is a Lafer international fellow with The Washington Institute and Middle East correspondent for Israel's Channel Two television. Nathan Brown is a professor of political science and international affairs at George Washington University and a nonresident senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment, where he focuses on Islamist movements, Palestinian politics, and Arab law and constitutionalism. The following is a rapporteur's summary of their remarks.

EHUD YAARI

After almost twenty years of operating, the Palestinian Authority (PA) increasingly appears to be in existential jeopardy. More than three years after the inauguration of Prime Minister Salam Fayad's state-building plan, the PA is nearly bankrupt. Arab donors have failed to fulfill their financial pledges, private banks will no longer extend loans to the government, employee salaries have been deferred, and the deficit is effectively over $1.5 billion. As a result, Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu has been forced to advance the payment of customs revenues to the PA. According to the World Bank, donor contributions to the PA already constitute 50 percent of GDP, and recent World Bank reports further emphasize that economic growth is unsustainable without increased private-sector activity.
Originally, the PA was conceived as the vehicle for state building, the administrative nucleus of a future Palestinian state. Without evidence of substantial progress toward this goal, however, many have begun to question the need for the PA's existence. Indeed, Palestinians' views of the PA are increasingly negative, and many have sought to distance themselves from government involvement in local affairs. In Hebron, for instance, prominent figures have openly demanded that the PA-appointed governor refrain from unnecessary interference in local trade. In east Jerusalem, prominent families have asked that the PA-appointed governor, who resides outside the city, likewise refrain from interfering, and many seek to retain their Israeli blue cards. In Jenin, District Governor Qadura Musa died of a heart attack after his house was fired at by unknown assailants, and authorities have not dared to indict the perpetrators.
Against such a backdrop, PA president Mahmoud Abbas has asked his aides to review procedures for transferring power to the municipalities. While no concrete plan for dismantling the PA has been put in place, sentiments are overwhelmingly negative. Indeed, many among the Fatah district councils argue that the PA has allowed Israel to have an "occupation by proxy." While the appetite for launching another intifada is low, several other options have been suggested. First among them is that the PA be divorced from the obligations of the Oslo Accords. In such a shift, the PA would become a vehicle for changing the rules of the game rather than merely the product of a bilateral agreement, a notion supported by such figures as Nabil Shaath, Yasser Abd Rabbo, and Mahmoud al-Aloul. Others -- such as the highly respected Dr. Sari Nusseibeh -- have suggested a system in which the PA would become the autonomous center of a confederate state. This idea has little support among Palestinian intellectuals, however, or at the grassroots level. A few Palestinians have suggested that the PA confine its responsibilities to the West Bank and accept a confederal system with the Gaza Strip; this would improve the PA's economic situation, given that Prime Minister Fayad now claims to spend 58 percent of his budget in Gaza. Finally, in light of expected turbulence in Jordan, some have begun discussing the possibility of relinking the West Bank and Jordan through a special arrangement in which the West Bank would become a semiautonomous Jordanian wilayah. Some Jordanian officials have suggested openness to this idea.
Recent comments by President Abbas about his possible resignation have also raised questions about succession. Half the members of the Fatah Central Committee see themselves as possible contenders, including Muhammad Dahlan, now in exile in the United Arab Emirates, whose campaign has focused on Abbas's alleged corruption; Mahmoud al-Aloul, who comes from the hardcore terrorist apparatus of Fatah; the imprisoned Marwan Barghouti, who is not viewed as a serious candidate but could be chosen as a type of "president in absentia"; and Muhammad "Abu Maher" Ghneim or Sultan Abu al-Ainain, who both opposed Oslo from the beginning.
However bleak the portents, the preservation of the PA is indispensable to a two-state solution, and Israel must help prevent its collapse. Upcoming Israeli elections may lead to the formation of a more centrist government -- potentially a Likud-Labor coalition -- that could be open to taking important steps such as upgrading the PA's status or expanding the scope of its activities. In lieu of seeking a final-status agreement, Israel can best make progress through a generous interim deal, or "armistice," with the Palestinians. A number of Israeli political leaders, such as former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert or Defense Minister Ehud Barak, might favor such a solution.

NATHAN BROWN

From a Palestinian perspective, the PA was always intended to be the kernel of a Palestinian state. Those who criticized its establishment did so either because they doubted the two-state solution in general -- this came primarily from Hamas -- or because they believed that the PA itself would lead only to an internal autonomy plan rather than a full-fledged state. When international efforts failed to resonate with the Palestinian people throughout the late 1990s, this second critique gained traction, crystallizing into yet a third critique, which pointed out that through the PA, Palestinians had received all the attributes of Arab authoritarianism and none of the benefits of statehood. During the second intifada, however, the Palestinian leadership, aware of the implications of this critique and faced with the imminent collapse of the PA, sought reform. This would eventually culminate in the 2006 parliamentary elections and the subsequent civil war between Hamas and Fatah. The Fayad government represented an attempt to respond to these developments.
To outsiders, Fayad was perceived as both a symbol of Palestinian self-reliance and a vehicle for institution building. Domestically, however, these perceptions held little credibility: not only was the Fayad government completely fiscally dependent, but outsiders were only interested in dealing with Fayad and no one else. Nevertheless, Fayad was successful in reforming fiscal procedures, repairing traffic lights, and paying salaries on time. But such measures amounted merely to a recovery from the second intifada and not to the building of a state. Nevertheless, countless households rely on the institutions of the PA, and its collapse would make a significant impact.
One of the most striking aspects of the current debate among the Palestinians is not a rejection of the two-state solution but a shift in mentality from the active to the passive, whereby people wonder what will happen to them rather than what they can do to implement change. Such a mindset is reflected in the lack of a long-term strategy in the West Bank. A similar mentality exists in Gaza, where Hamas has opted to hunker down and wait until a better opportunity presents itself. Ironically, this means that both movements, founded explicitly to provide options to the Palestinian people, have chosen to wait for an external actor to alter the status quo.
Many additional questions have emerged with the Arab uprisings that have swept the Middle East. Despite several instances of widespread demonstrations, a similar rebellion has not occurred within the Palestinian context for several reasons, including lingering exhaustion from the second intifada, the absence of a specific target for protests, and the lack of a tactical focus. In contrast to many of the countries that have seen uprisings, political space has not collapsed in the West Bank or Gaza, meaning that calls for demonstrations have been viewed as political rather than revolutionary. Unrest among the Palestinians, therefore, culminated in the reconciliation efforts of 2011, and not broader systemic change.

Monday 15 October 2012

Bill Maloney of Pie'n'Mash Films On Jimmy Savile





Bill Maloney's sister was at the Haute de la Garenne Jersey child care home where the kids were being raped by Savile and provided to the yachting community including Ted Heath. His sister appeared in the photo with Jimmy Savile and was murdered when he made a documentary called Sun, Sea and Satan and which you can watch over here.

John Kenneth Galbraith on the Moral Justifications for Wealth and Inequality





A 1977 documentary series written and hosted by John Kenneth Galbraith. This segment, “The Manners and Morals of High Capitalism,” discusses how the rising bourgeoisie and the new rich justified their lofty status. Kings could rely on God and the Great Chain of Being for their authority, but what about mere capitalists? Galbraith reviews the views of some of the leading defenders of this new order, and shows how their ideas have influenced our views.



Galbraith makes quite a few deadpan observations and gently pulls apart the social Darwinism that permitted the wealthy to be the innocent beneficiaries of their own superiority.

Via the excellent Naked Capitalism



The Age of Uncertainty is a 1977 television series about economics, history and politics, co-produced by the BBC, CBC, KCET and OECA, and written and presented by Harvard economist John Kenneth Galbraith.


Galbraith acknowledges the successes of the market system in economics but associated it with instability, inefficiency and social inequity. He advocates government policies and interventions to remedy these perceived faults

The content of the series was determined by Galbraith, with the presentation style directed by his colleagues in the BBC. Galbraith began by writing a series of essays from which the scripts were derived and from these a book by the same name, emerged which in many places goes beyond the material covered in the relevant television episode.

Sunday 14 October 2012

History Saved From The Shredder - Douglas Dietrich - Godlike Productions


I don't agree with all of Douglas Dietrich's analysis even if it's based on top secret records that he was responsible for document destruction of at the Presidio military base in San Francisco but there's no doubt his contribution is essential listening to those who are interested in learning what the official secrets he was charged with destroying over a decade are. 

In this GLP session he is interviewed by the unnecessarily verbose "27" character who to be fair does let him speak at length once he has shut up. There's a really funny moment too as Dietrich is not unlike Terence McKenna in so much as listening to him can be like taking a drug. "27" get's all excited and emulates Dietrich's impassioned manner only to hand over to a suitably sober and much slowed down interviewee who has cottoned on he's being mimicked  by the interviewer. That doesn't mean Dietrich doesn't return to form but it is a funny role playing moment.

These interviews are interesting at the very least and important at best.

The Ultimate History Lesson: A Weekend with John Taylor Gatto




These are absolutely top notch. 

The first part doesn't kick-off till the 17 minute if you want to skip the preamble. 

You wont be disappointed if you can settle into his Pittsburgh manner of talking. Well worth the effort. 

David Icke Has Been Talking About Jimmy Savile & Lord McAlpine For Decades




David Icke's latest interview (from the fifth minute) where he talks about the hard reality that Jimmy Savile procured children for the power elite and that goes right up to the royal family. Deal with it as you wish, brush it under the carpet, conspiracy smear the messenger but it's still there. This blog has stood behind David when it no longer became possible to pretend his research was groundless. It's not.

Update: Terry Wogan who ridiculed David Icke remained silent over children getting raped by Jimmy Savile. Unlike Terry Wogan David Icke published that Jimmy Savile was a paedophile. Terry Wogan now wants you to know he feels bad about saying nothing.

The Explosive Testimony of Kay Griggs - Part Two




Part One is over here but wherever you immerse yourself in the Kay Grigg's testimony about her husband, Marine Chief of Staff's  alternate occupation in assassination you will not be disappointed.

In this testimony Kay confirms that Ron Brown was murdered during the Clinton years for digging too deep into State Department drugs and gun running. She also mention something that researchers in this field will be familiar with. Wives of men in the armed services who go away on an exercise and return completely changed. Physically and psychologically. This is a very good indicator of mind control. Kay doesn't quite connect the dots but these were filmed quite some years ago now as we know the corporate media are unable to cover the real news.

Cold War Documentary - Episode 24: Conclusions (1989 -1991)



A truly epic series which if not perfect at least tries to be even handed and gets very close. Ted Turner's initiative in producing this series is unequalled. It has frequent access to commentary from top of the food chain creatures such as Gorbachev and Bush but actually makes much more sense when listening to the mid layer bureaucrats such as second in charge of the State Department or KGB. My guess from watching the entire 24 part series is that George HW Bush had no idea the USSR was about to collapse and given a choice (as part of the divisive warmongering power elite) would have kept it this way. The entire series is brilliant and taught me a lot including my underestimation of the paranoia that drove a lot of good men to kill. On both sides.

Cold War is a twenty-four episode television documentary series about the Cold War that aired in 1998. It features interviews and footage of the events that shaped the tense relationships between the Soviet Union and the United States.

Episode 24: Conclusions (1989--1991)

Gorbachev and Bush meet at Malta in December 1989 to consider the recent dramatic events. Only the previous week the Communist government resigned in Czechoslovakia; and shortly Nicolae CeauÈ™escu would be deposed and executed in the bloody Romanian Revolution. Gorbachev permits German reunification and removes Soviet troops from Europe, but fails to secure financial support from the West. As the Soviet economy collapses, Gorbachev faces opposition from both reformers and handliners. Sharing their abhorence of Soviet disintegration, Gorbachev brings in hardliners to his government and cracks down on the Lithuanian independence movement. However they later turn on Gorbachev and stage a coup. Boris Yeltsin is instrumental in rallying the public and military to defeat the coup. Sidelining Gorbachev, Yeltsin sets the course for Russia to leave the Soviet Union by establishing the Commonwealth of Independent States. The Soviet Union ends on 25 December 1991, and in his Christmas Day address Bush announces the Cold War is over. The cost of the Cold War is considered in retrospect. Interviewees include Mircea Dinescu, Alexander Rutskoy and Condoleezza Rice. The pre-credits scene features Bush and Gorbachev explaining how uncertain the world had suddenly become. 

Friday 12 October 2012

Cold War Documentary - Episode 16: Détente (1969 -1975)




A great example of the power elite's ability to smash presidents and shape opinion is the downfall of Nixon for a relatively trivial misdemeanour. For sure one can't ignore his crimes against humanity in Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam but these took no part in the legal effort to impeach Nixon and are no greater than the crimes of Truman, Eisenhower or LBJ in South East Asia. 

Instead the clear thinking observer can see the ability of the power elite to remove those it feels are getting in the way with relatively little fuss. The Russian adviser to Brezhnev Georgy Arbatov confirms my research that Nixon was removed for among other crimes his rapprochement work with Russia. Anyone who thinks Nixon's Wategate crimes were greater than Bush/Reagan's Iran Contra needs their head examining.

Episode 16: Détente (1969--1975)

Nixon builds closer relations with China and the USSR, hoping to leverage an honourable US exit from Indochina. The Soviet Union is fearful of a US-Chinese alliance, but summits between Nixon and Brezhnev lead to a relaxation of tensions and concrete arms control agreements. Willy Brandt's Ostpolitik strategy also normalises West German relations with East Germany, the USSR and Poland. Although deeply unpopular domestically, US bombing of Cambodia and Hanoi succeeds in bringing North Vietnam to the negotiating table, leading to the Paris Peace Accords in 1972. Deeply resented by South Vietnam, the Accords ultimately fail to prevent Saigon's fall three years later. In 1975 reapproachment continued with the Helsinki Accords, which enshrined human rights and territorial integrity, and the symbolic Apollo--Soyuz Test Project. Interviewees include Melvin Laird, Valeri Kubasov, Winston Lord, John Ehrlichman and Gerald Ford. The pre-credits scene shows a Soviet cartoon demonstrating the futility of the arms race. 

NIKE - Just Burn It




Watch NIKE's reputation go up in smoke as they choose to defend Lance Armstrong's drug enhanced sports. It's just business.

Thursday 11 October 2012

Hillary Clinton Laughs About Possible War Against Iran




Remember, this is the woman who didn't have a single State Department sane voice around her to remind that allying with al-Qaeda in Libya was a high risk strategy. Later Hillary was shocked when the US Embassy took a hit. The interviewer is sycophantic by joining in as if his memory of Iraq has been erased.

Wednesday 10 October 2012

They'e Chanting "The People United Will Never Be Defeated"





The Dinosaur media can't report this because it doesn't go well with the commercial breaks and the self serving profit mania narrative they support. It tells us what is really going on around the world, that the people are peaceful and the police are brutal and pretty much reverses the  artificial reality that the corporate world is so immersed in it will choke on itself.

This is why the internet is awesome.

Thursday 4 October 2012

Bahrain Regime Paying CNN For Infomercials Masked As News



Award winning CNN reporter Amber Lyon had her documentary on Bahrain pulled because the lobbyists and PR companies are spending a lot of money to keep the Americanos brain washed that the torture regime there are 'reformers and all round good guys'.

Bahrain is a paying customer of CNN.

CNN, MSNBC, FOX and BBC are no different. Bahrain is the real revolution and the corporate media have thrown them under a bus because the US fifth fleet is using it to keep the oil flowing where they want it to.

Douglas Dietrich - Satanism In The US Military





Douglas Dietrich work is confirmed by Kay Griggs who I've posted here. Her husband was chief of staff for the Royal Marines and a practising Satanist as well assassin. In short the US military is riddled with Satan worshippers and whether you believe in it or not. They do.

The astute observer notes that the occult shaped Pentagon is the internal shape of the Satanic Pentagram and that the foundation stone for the Pentagon was laid on 9/11. A date that may have some significance for a few of you out there that aren't asleep.

Update: Colonel Michael Aquino the known Satanist during the paedophile Presidio scandal is trying to stop Douglas Dietrich from talking about it.

Wednesday 3 October 2012

#NDAA It's Like Drone Justice. Find Out Before It Hits You




Time to step up folks and learn what's down the pipeline for freedom loving citizens of planet Earth (US to begin with). Don't expect the corporate media to inform you. |Obama authorised the NDAA act to fund lies, propaganda and psyops on the American people.

One day the people wont know their taxes will pay the military to dupe them and they're going believe the the most ridiculous claims. Like the bubonic plague has returned and bodies are piled high in the street proving it's the worst pandemic ever.


For 33 Years They've Been Telling Us Iran Has Nukes






Even his own intelligence chiefs say Bibi Netanyahu is messianic about going to war with Iran. Why do we let these nutters twist our peaceful world into violence and destruction?


1. Earliest warnings: 1979-84

Fear of an Iranian nuclear weapon predates Iran’s 1979 Islamic revolution, when the pro-West Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was deep in negotiations with the US, France and West Germany, on a nuclear-energy spending spree that was to yield 20 reactors.
Late 1970s: US receives intelligence that the Shah had “set up a clandestine nuclear weapons development program.”
1979: Shah ousted in the Iranian revolution, ushering in the Islamic Republic. After the overthrow of the Shah, the US stopped supplying highly enriched uranium (HEU) to Iran. The revolutionary government guided by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini condemned nuclear weapons and energy, and for a time stopped all projects.
1984: Soon after West German engineers visit the unfinished Bushehr nuclear reactor, Jane’s Defence Weekly quotes West German intelligence sources saying that Iran’s production of a bomb “is entering its final stages.” US Senator Alan Cranston claims Iran is seven years away from making a weapon.

2. Israel paints Iran as Enemy No. 1: 1992

Though Israel had secretly done business with the Islamic Republic after the 1979 revolution, seeking to cultivate a Persian wedge against its local Arab enemies, the early 1990s saw a concerted effort by Tel Aviv to portray Iran as a new and existential threat.
1992: Israeli parliamentarian Benjamin Netanyahu tells his colleagues that Iran is 3 to 5 years from being able to produce a nuclear weapon – and that the threat had to be “uprooted by an international front headed by the US.”
1992: Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres tells French TV that Iran was set to have nuclear warheads by 1999. “Iran is the greatest threat and greatest problem in the Middle East,” Peres warned, “because it seeks the nuclear option while holding a highly dangerous stance of extreme religious militanCY.”
1992: Joseph Alpher, a former official of Israel’s Mossad spy agency, says “Iran has to be identified as Enemy No. 1.” Iran’s nascent nuclear program, he told The New York Times, “really gives Israel the jitters.”

US america Iran painting

3. US joins the warnings: 1992-97

The same alarm bells were already ringing in Washington, where in early 1992 a task force of the House Republican Research Committee claimed that there was a “98 percent certainty that Iran already had all (or virtually all) of the components required for two or three operational nuclear weapons.”
Similar predictions received airtime, including one from then-CIA chief Robert Gates that Iran’s nuclear program could be a “serious problem” in five years or less. Still, the bureaucracy took some time to catch up with the Iran threat rhetoric.
1992: Leaked copy of the Pentagon’s “Defense Strategy for the 1990s” makes little reference to Iran, despite laying out seven scenarios for potential future conflict that stretch from Iraq to North Korea.
1995: The New York Times conveys the fears of senior US and Israeli officials that “Iran is much closer to producing nuclear weapons than previously thought” – about five years away – and that Iran’s nuclear bomb is “at the top of the list” of dangers in the coming decade. The report speaks of an “acceleration of the Iranian nuclear program,” claims that Iran “began an intensive campaign to develop and acquire nuclear weapons” in 1987, and says Iran was “believed” to have recruited scientists from the former Soviet Union and Pakistan to advise them.
1997: The Christian Science Monitor reports that US pressure on Iran’s nuclear suppliers had “forced Iran to adjust its suspected timetable for a bomb. Experts now say Iran is unlikely to acquire nuclear weapons for eight or 10 years.”

4. Rhetoric escalates against ‘axis of evil’: 1998-2002

But Iran was putting the pieces of its strategic puzzle together. A US spy satellite detected the launch of an Iranian medium-range missile, sparking speculation about the danger posed to Israel.
1998: The New York Times said that Israel was less safe as a result of the launch even though Israel alone in the Middle East possessed both nuclear weapons and the long-range missiles to drop them anywhere. “The major reaction to this is going to be from Israel, and we have to worry what action the Israelis will take,” the Times quoted a former intelligence official as saying. An unidentified expert said: “This test shows Iran is bent on acquiring nuclear weapons, because no one builds an 800-mile missile to deliver conventional warheads.”
1998: The same week, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld reports to Congress that Iran could build an intercontinental ballistic missile – one that could hit the US – within five years. The CIA gave a timeframe of 12 years.
2002: CIA warns that the danger from nuclear-tipped missiles, especially from Iran and North Korea, is higher than during the cold war. Robert Walpole, then a top CIA officer for strategic and nuclear programs, tells a Senate panel that Iran’s missile capability had grown more quickly than expected in the previous two years – putting it on par with North Korea. The threat “will continue to grow as the capabilities of potential adversaries mature,” he says.
2002: President George W. Bush labels Iran as part of the “axis of evil,” along with Iraq and North Korea.

Army bases Iran America

5. Revelations from inside Iran: 2002-05

In August 2002, the Iranian opposition group Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK, a.k.a. MKO) announces that Iran is building an underground uranium enrichment facility at Natanz, and a heavy water reactor at Arak. It is widely believed that the evidence had been passed to the MEK by Israeli intelligence.
Enrichment and reactors are not forbidden to Iran as a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), but the failure to disclose the work prompts an IAEA investigation and much closer scrutiny. Iran insists its efforts are peaceful, but is found in breach of its IAEA safeguards agreement, and accused by the IAEA of a “pattern of concealment.”
2004: Then-Secretary of State Colin Powell tells reporters that Iran had been working on technology to fit a nuclear warhead onto a missile. “We are talking about information that says they not only have [the] missiles but information that suggests they are working hard about how to put the two together,” he said.
2005: US presents 1,000 pages of designs and other documentation allegedly retrieved from a computer laptop in Iran the previous year, which are said to detail high-explosives testing and a nuclear-capable missile warhead. The “alleged studies,” as they have since been called, are dismissed by Iran as forgeries by hostile intelligence services.

6. Dialing back the estimate: 2006-09

2006: The drums of war beat faster after the New Yorker’s Seymour Hersh quotes US sources saying that a strike on Iran is all but inevitable, and that there are plans to use tactical nuclear weapons against buried Iranian facilities.
2007: President Bush warns that a nuclear-armed Iran could lead to “World War III.” Vice President Dick Cheney had previously warned of “serious consequences” if Iran did not give up its nuclear program.
2007: A month later, an unclassified National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran is released, which controversially judges with “high confidence” that Iran had given up its nuclear weapons effort in fall 2003.
The report, meant to codify the received wisdom of America’s 16 spy agencies, turns decades of Washington assumptions upside down. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad calls the report a “victory for the Iranian nation.” An Iranian newspaper editor in Tehran tells the Monitor, “The conservatives … feel the chance of war against them is gone.”
June 2008: Then-US Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton predicts that Israel will attack Iran before January 2009, taking advantage of a window before the next US president came to office.
May 2009: US Senate Foreign Relations Committee reports states: “There is no sign that Iran’s leaders have ordered up a bomb.”

7. Israel’s one-year timeframe disproved: 2010-11

Despite reports and intelligence assessments to the contrary, Israeli and many US officials continue to assume that Iran is determined to have nuclear weapons as soon as possible.
August 2010: An article by Jeffrey Goldberg in The Atlantic’s September issue is published online, outlining a scenario in which Israel would chose to launch a unilateral strike against Iran with 100 aircraft, “because a nuclear Iran poses the gravest threat since Hitler to the physical survival of the Jewish people.”
Drawing on interviews with “roughly 40 current and past Israeli decision makers about a military strike” and American and Arab officials, Mr. Goldberg predicts that Israel will launch a strike by July 2011. The story notes previous Israeli strikes on nuclear facilities in Iraq and Syria, and quotes Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu saying, “You don’t want a messianic apocalyptic cult controlling atomic bombs. When the wide-eyed believer gets hold of the reins of power and the weapons of mass death, then the world should start worrying, and that’s what is happening in Iran.”
2010: US officials note that Iran’s nuclear program has been slowed by four sets of UN Security Council sanctions and a host of US and EU measures. The Stuxnet computer virus also played havoc through 2011 with Iran’s thousands of spinning centrifuges that enrich uranium.
January 2011: When Meir Dagan steps down as director of Israel’s Mossad spy agency, he says that Iran would not be able to produce a nuclear weapon until 2015. “Israel should not hasten to attack Iran, doing so only when the sword is upon its neck,” Mr. Dagan warned. Later he said that attacking Iran would be “a stupid idea…. The regional challenge that Israel would face would be impossible.”
January 2011: A report by the Federation of American Scientists on Iran’s uranium enrichment says there is “no question” that Tehran already has the technical capability to produce a “crude” nuclear device.
February 2011: National intelligence director James Clapper affirms in testimony before Congress that “Iran is keeping the option open to develop nuclear weapons in part by developing various nuclear capabilities and better position it to produce such weapons, should it choose to do so,” Mr. Clapper said. “We do not know, however, if Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons.”
November 2011: The IAEA claims for the first time that Iran is has worked on weapons-related activities for years, publishing detailed information based on more than 1,000 pages of design information that is corroborated, it says, by data from 10 member states and its own investigation and interviews.


    Ex MI5 Whistleblower @AnnieMachon On Israeli False Flag Bombing Of Israeli Embassy In London 1994




    That's right. Mossad blew up a car outside the Israeli embassy in 1994 to galvanise the Brits and International opinion against the Palestinians. They did the same in Buenos Aires and that was being discussed only days ago all these years later. Annie Machon spills lots of international false flag beans in this stunning interview.


    Annie Machon: ex-MI5 whistleblower, activist and author joins Jack Etkin for an elucidating and revealing look at 'Deep State' and high-level national and international intelligence and security methodologies. Annie covers subjects such as false-flag/black operations, the MI-5's botched attempt on Muammar Gaddafi's life, the London Tube bombing (7/7), 9/11 and others. This penetrating and articulate interview is a must see.

    Update. Annie confirms it was officer G91 who confirmed Mossad were the lead suspects in this latest presentation.