US military Operations ongoing in Iran right now (for Israel)

[[email protected]]

US military Operations ongoing in Iran right now (for Israel)

Col. Sam Gardiner on CNN, 9/18/06

http://thinkprogress.org/col-sam-gardiner-on-cnn-91806/

BLITZER: How likely is the U.S. strike against Iran? And would it lead
to all-out war? Joining us now is retired U.S. Air Force colonel Sam
Gardiner. He has taught strategy and military operations at the
National War College, the Air War College, and the Naval War College.
Colonel thanks very much for coming in. He just prepared a paper for
the Century Foundation entitled "Considering the U.S. Military Option
For Iran." You speak to a lot of people plugged in. What is your
bottom line? How close in your opinion is the Bush Administration to
giving that go ahead.

GARDINER: It's been given. In fact, we've probably been executing
military operations inside Iran for at least 18 months. The evidence is
overwhelming

BLITZER: Wait. Wait. Let me press you.

GARDINER: Sure.

BLITZER: When you say it's been given. The president says he wants
diplomacy to work to convince the Iranian government to stop enriching
uranium, not go forward. "I would tell the Iranian people that we
have no desire for conflict." He told David Ignatius of the
Washington Post the other day. So what does that mean, the order has
been given?

GARDINER: We are conducting military operations inside Iran right now.
The evidence is overwhelming. From both the Iranians, Americans, and
from congressional sources.

BLITZER: What is "military operation?" Define that.

GARDINER: Sure. They probably have had two objectives going back 18
months. The first was to gather intelligence. Where is the Iranian
nuclear program? The second has been to prepare dissident groups for
phase two which will be the strike, which will come as the next phase,
I think.

BLITZER: Preparing intelligence, that's understandable using all
sorts of means. They want to know what the Iranians are up to in terms
of their nuclear program. But are you suggesting that U.S. military
forces, special operations forces, or others are on the ground right
now in Iran.

GARDINER: Yes, sir. Certainly. Absolutely clear the evidence is
overwhelming from lots of sources, and, again, most of them you can
read in the public. Seymore Hersch has done good work on it. There are
lots of other people who have done that. I have talked to Iranians. I
asked an Iranian ambassador to the IAEA, what's this I hear about
Americans being there? He said to me, well, we've captured some
people who worked with them. We've confirmed that they're there.

BLITZER: Yeah, but, you know, these guys - the Iranians, you can't
necessarily believe what they're saying. They could arrest some
dissidents in Iran and say these are American spies. They do that all
the time.

GARDINER: Sure. Sure. The House Committee on Emerging Threats tried to
have a hearing some weeks ago in which they asked the Department of
State and Defense to come and answer this question because it's
serious enough to be answered without congressional approval, and they
didn't come to the hearing. There are sources that I have talked to
on the Hill who believe that that's true and that it's being done
without congressional oversight.

BLITZER: Look, I was once a Pentagon correspondent many years ago, and
in those days and in these days, as Jamie McIntire just reported, and
as you well know from your time in active duty in the Pentagon, in the
U.S. military, these guys are planning contingency operations for
almost everything. If Canada goes to war against the United States,
they have a contingency plan.

GARDINER: Okay, two differences. Number one, we have learned from TIME
Magazine today that some U.S. naval forces had been alerted for
deployment. That is a major step. That's first. Second thing is the
sources suggest the plan that's not in the Pentagon. The plan has
gone to the White House. That's not normal planning. When the plan
goes to the White House, that means we've gone to a different state.

BLITZER: You think it's possible there is a little psychological
warfare being played on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, to rattle him. To spread
the word. To put out this kind of information. To get him nervous,
perhaps a little bit more agreeable to the diplomatic option.

GARDINER: It's possible. It's also possible that this path was
selected a long time ago. You recall that even before Gulf II that a
time when the president said we have no plan. I have no plan on my
desk. In the summer of 2002 we began bombing Iraq. Operation Southern
Focus, without congressional approval, without the U.N. sanctions, we
went ahead and began bombing.

BLITZER: The argument at that time is if there were violations of the
no-fly zone, U.S. war planes were flying in the north and the south and
there were rockets or anti-aircraft fire going up, they could take
those out.

GARDINER: Yes, but it was a campaign to begin the war before the war
began. You know, I would suggest the evidence is there.

BLITZER: You see a similar pattern right now.

GARDINER: Exactly.

BLITZER: We're going to follow this closely. Colonel Sam Gardener,
thank you very much. We look forward to reading your report that the
Century Foundation is putting out as well.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Iran: The Next War (for Israel):

http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=56761


What War with Iran (for Israel) Will Look Like:

http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=60022

The Hoekstra-Harman Hoax
How the War Party plans to lie us into war - again

http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=9702



SCANDAL: 9/11 Commissioners Bowed to Pressure to Suppress Main Motive
for the 9/11 Attacks:

http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2006/09/reviews-of-without-precedent-inside.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1bm2GPoFfg

Next Phase of the Middle East War:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=59593

[bar86]

Before US invaded Iraq (upon Saudi, not Israeli request) they had
stable regime that
Israel did not had any trouble with it. Now, Thanks to US, we have a
country without
rule, new cenetr fo Al Qaeda. Thank, you US. ...and please, do not
start a war with Iran.
We'll solve our problems with them, alone.

And, BTW, you, Americans believe too much to CNN. Iran is weak country
with a lot of internal problems. They only way to deal with their
situation is to drag this stupid issue of the nuclear weapon. They
should deal first with their unemployment !!

Happy New Year ( and easy Ramadan fast !!)

____________________________________
http://www.newbyte.co.il/
Aircraft Performance and Flight Dynamics
____________________________________

[tscottme]

70 million Iranians could overthrow the mullahs today if they valued their
country. I see no reason to value Iran or Iranians more than the Iranians
do. 25 years of persistent failure is enough to reach a conclusion.

Few Americans believe CNN or the New Your Times that is why their ratings
keep declining.

Happy Roshashana

--

Scott


Muslims Prove Papal Infallibility -- Alan W. Dowd

http://tinyurl.com/hd6ns

[Perro Blanco]

"tscottme" > wrote in message
. ..
> 70 million Iranians could overthrow the mullahs today if they valued their
> country. I see no reason to value Iran or Iranians more than the Iranians
> do. 25 years of persistent failure is enough to reach a conclusion.
>
> Few Americans believe CNN or the New Your Times that is why their ratings
> keep declining.
>
> Happy Roshashana
>
> --
>
> Scott
>
>
> Muslims Prove Papal Infallibility -- Alan W. Dowd
>
> http://tinyurl.com/hd6ns
>
300 million Americans could overthrow Bush and friends today if they valued
their country. I see no reason to value America or Americans more than the
Americans do. 25 years of persistent failure, aleviated only by invading
small, defenceless nations to a fanfare of self-justification, is enough to
reach a conclusion.

--
When you discover that "they" really are out to get you, you may realise
that you're not quite as paranoid as you thought you were.

[bar86]

The same applies to the Israeli Govrement/Media....

Thanks

Perro Blanco wrote:
> "tscottme" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > 70 million Iranians could overthrow the mullahs today if they valued their
> > country. I see no reason to value Iran or Iranians more than the Iranians
> > do. 25 years of persistent failure is enough to reach a conclusion.
> >
> > Few Americans believe CNN or the New Your Times that is why their ratings
> > keep declining.
> >
> > Happy Roshashana
> >
> > --
> >
> > Scott
> >
> >
> > Muslims Prove Papal Infallibility -- Alan W. Dowd
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/hd6ns
> >
> 300 million Americans could overthrow Bush and friends today if they valued
> their country. I see no reason to value America or Americans more than the
> Americans do. 25 years of persistent failure, aleviated only by invading
> small, defenceless nations to a fanfare of self-justification, is enough to
> reach a conclusion.
>
> --
> When you discover that "they" really are out to get you, you may realise
> that you're not quite as paranoid as you thought you were.

[Robert[_1_]]

"bar86" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Before US invaded Iraq (upon Saudi, not Israeli request) they had
> stable regime that
> Israel did not had any trouble with it. Now, Thanks to US, we have a
> country without
> rule, new cenetr fo Al Qaeda.

Are you stupid or just ignorant?

Before the US invaded Iraq (either time) they were funding terrorist attacks
on Israel.
This IS the proven link to terrorism from Iraq. Their link to Al Qaeda was
nebulas. There link to Hezbollah, PLO, and funding of homicide bombers is
well documented

[Perro Blanco]

"Robert" > wrote in message ...
>
> "bar86" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>> Before US invaded Iraq (upon Saudi, not Israeli request) they had
>> stable regime that
>> Israel did not had any trouble with it. Now, Thanks to US, we have a
>> country without
>> rule, new cenetr fo Al Qaeda.
>
> Are you stupid or just ignorant?
>
> Before the US invaded Iraq (either time) they were funding terrorist
> attacks on Israel.
> This IS the proven link to terrorism from Iraq. Their link to Al Qaeda
> was nebulas. There link to Hezbollah, PLO, and funding of homicide
> bombers is well documented
>
So, " before the US invaded Iraq they were funding terrorist attacks...".

So what's new, the US have been funding terrorist attacks for years. Take,
for example, the US's approval of Americans funding the IRA to kill British
civilians.

--
When you discover that "they" really are out to get you, you may realise
that you're not quite as paranoid as you thought you were.

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
"Perro Blanco" > wrote:

> "Robert" > wrote in message ...
> >
> > "bar86" > wrote in message
> > ups.com...
> >> Before US invaded Iraq (upon Saudi, not Israeli request) they had
> >> stable regime that
> >> Israel did not had any trouble with it. Now, Thanks to US, we have a
> >> country without
> >> rule, new cenetr fo Al Qaeda.
> >
> > Are you stupid or just ignorant?
> >
> > Before the US invaded Iraq (either time) they were funding terrorist
> > attacks on Israel.
> > This IS the proven link to terrorism from Iraq. Their link to Al Qaeda
> > was nebulas. There link to Hezbollah, PLO, and funding of homicide
> > bombers is well documented
> >
> So, " before the US invaded Iraq they were funding terrorist attacks...".

There are none so dense as those intentionally being stupid.

That's you Blanco.

[Ian MacLure]

"bar86" > wrote in
ups.com:

> Before US invaded Iraq (upon Saudi, not Israeli request) they had
> stable regime that Israel did not had any trouble with it.

Yah sure and all those terrorists Sodom the Insane was training
at Salman Pak were doing what exactly? Planting Gernaiums?
And who was it was paying a bounty of $25000 to family of suicide
bombers?
Hmmm?
Please to enlighten us!

> Now, Thanks to US, we have a country without rule,
> new cenetr fo Al Qaeda.

I think you mean cemetary for Al-Qaeda

> Thank, you US. ...and please, do not start a war with Iran.
> We'll solve our problems with them, alone.
>
> And, BTW, you, Americans believe too much to CNN. Iran is weak country
> with a lot of internal problems. They only way to deal with their
> situation is to drag this stupid issue of the nuclear weapon. They
> should deal first with their unemployment !!

Now see here Miiiiister Ahmaneedanosejob you aren't fooling anyone.
Your ass is grass and Uncle Sam's hob-nailed boot is the lawnmower.

IBM

[Ian MacLure]

wrote in
oups.com:

> US military Operations ongoing in Iran right now (for Israel)

Any benefit to Israel comes purely as a side effect of doing
something we needed to do anyhow.
And while we're at it. Can't we just nuke Ahmaneedanosejob
and his loony-toon cohorts back to the Stone Age?

IBM

[tscottme]

True, but Israel routinely changes governments and directions when their
people desire it. Iranians, like other dysfunctional populations, blame
others for their problem and wait for someone else to make their life
better. That's why Islam and Muslims are continue to slide deeper into the
Dark Ages even as progress becomes more widespread. Some cultures work
harder than others to fail.

--

Scott


Muslims Prove Papal Infallibility -- Alan W. Dowd

http://tinyurl.com/hd6ns
"bar86" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> The same applies to the Israeli Govrement/Media....
>
> Thanks
>
> Perro Blanco wrote:
>> "tscottme" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>> > 70 million Iranians could overthrow the mullahs today if they valued
>> > their
>> > country. I see no reason to value Iran or Iranians more than the
>> > Iranians
>> > do. 25 years of persistent failure is enough to reach a conclusion.
>> >
>> > Few Americans believe CNN or the New Your Times that is why their
>> > ratings
>> > keep declining.
>> >
>> > Happy Roshashana
>> >
>> > --
>> >
>> > Scott
>> >
>> >
>> > Muslims Prove Papal Infallibility -- Alan W. Dowd
>> >
>> > http://tinyurl.com/hd6ns
>> >
>> 300 million Americans could overthrow Bush and friends today if they
>> valued
>> their country. I see no reason to value America or Americans more than
>> the
>> Americans do. 25 years of persistent failure, aleviated only by invading
>> small, defenceless nations to a fanfare of self-justification, is enough
>> to
>> reach a conclusion.
>>
>> --
>> When you discover that "they" really are out to get you, you may realise
>> that you're not quite as paranoid as you thought you were.
>

[Perro Blanco]

"Steve Hix" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Perro Blanco" > wrote:
>
>> "Robert" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "bar86" > wrote in message
>> > ups.com...
>> >> Before US invaded Iraq (upon Saudi, not Israeli request) they had
>> >> stable regime that
>> >> Israel did not had any trouble with it. Now, Thanks to US, we have a
>> >> country without
>> >> rule, new cenetr fo Al Qaeda.
>> >
>> > Are you stupid or just ignorant?
>> >
>> > Before the US invaded Iraq (either time) they were funding terrorist
>> > attacks on Israel.
>> > This IS the proven link to terrorism from Iraq. Their link to Al Qaeda
>> > was nebulas. There link to Hezbollah, PLO, and funding of homicide
>> > bombers is well documented
>> >
>> So, " before the US invaded Iraq they were funding terrorist attacks...".
>
> There are none so dense as those intentionally being stupid.
>
> That's you Blanco.

I would suggest, Hix (or is it Hick?) that you are in the frame. READ the
sentence, boy, none of the words are that long, now are they. What does it
say (regardless of what the writer may, or may not, have WISHED to say)?

"Before the US invaded Iraq (either time) they were funding terrorist
attacks (on Israel)".

It could not be any clearer for anyone but you. It may not have been that
illiterate's intention to say that the US were funding terrorist attacks,
but he did. What he actually says and what he apparently means are two
totally different things. In a court of law, or any legal context, he would
be sowing the seeds of his own destruction. Perhaps you would be up there
with him.

---
When you discover that "they" really are out to get you, you may realise
that you're not quite as paranoid as you thought you were.

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
"Perro Blanco" > wrote:

> "Steve Hix" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Perro Blanco" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Robert" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> > "bar86" > wrote in message
> >> > ups.com...
> >> >> Before US invaded Iraq (upon Saudi, not Israeli request) they had
> >> >> stable regime that
> >> >> Israel did not had any trouble with it. Now, Thanks to US, we have a
> >> >> country without
> >> >> rule, new cenetr fo Al Qaeda.
> >> >
> >> > Are you stupid or just ignorant?
> >> >
> >> > Before the US invaded Iraq (either time) they were funding terrorist
> >> > attacks on Israel.
> >> > This IS the proven link to terrorism from Iraq. Their link to Al Qaeda
> >> > was nebulas. There link to Hezbollah, PLO, and funding of homicide
> >> > bombers is well documented
> >> >
> >> So, " before the US invaded Iraq they were funding terrorist attacks...".
> >
> > There are none so dense as those intentionally being stupid.
> >
> > That's you Blanco.
>
> I would suggest, Hix (or is it Hick?)

Take the spelling as it is, that shouldn't be too hard for you, right?

> that you are in the frame. READ the
> sentence, boy, none of the words are that long, now are they. What does it
> say (regardless of what the writer may, or may not, have WISHED to say)?

>
> "Before the US invaded Iraq (either time) they were funding terrorist
> attacks (on Israel)".
>
> It could not be any clearer for anyone but you. It may not have been that
> illiterate's intention to say that the US were funding terrorist attacks,
> but he did.

Granted, it was badly written. Taken in context, it's still clear that
the terrorist-funding entity was the Iraqi government under Saddam
Hussein.

It helps if you happen to know certain facts, such as Iraq's documented
propensity to fund, shelter, and otherwise support terrorists and their
activities.

Context; one of those things that adds to the redundancy of languages to
make them more functional.

> What he actually says and what he apparently means are two
> totally different things. In a court of law, or any legal context, he would
> be sowing the seeds of his own destruction. Perhaps you would be up there
> with him.

In any fair court, he would have been asked to clarify what he said,
since it clearly stumbled over known background facts.

Perhaps that is what confused you.

[WaltBJ]

Want to find part of the Iranian nuke program? Try Google Earth. It's
quite visible.
Walt BJ

[bar86]

BBC english is better then mine:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5375064.stm

US report says Iraq fuels terror

The violence in Iraq shows little sign of abating
The New York Times newspaper has published what it says are the
findings of a classified US intelligence paper on the effects of the
Iraq war.
The document reportedly blames the conflict for increasing the threat
of terrorism and helping fuel Islamic radicalism worldwide.

Such a conclusion is at odds with the White House's persistent claim
that going to war was the right thing to do.

The paper has not seen the report, but spoke to people familiar with
it.

Changing al-Qaeda

The BBC's Andre Vornic in New York says the National Intelligence
Estimate, as the document is known, is all the more significant for
reflecting the views of no fewer than 16 US spy agencies.

According to the New York Times, it says the Iraq war has triggered
more, not less, terrorism, and helped spread jihadist ideology.

It also reportedly concludes that al-Qaeda has now mutated into a
global franchise of semi-autonomous cells.

The estimate is the first US assessment of international terrorism
since the Iraq war began.

The New York Times has spoken to officials who have either read it, or
been involved in drafting it.

If what they say is true, our correspondent says, the document appears
to undermine US President George W Bush's insistence that for all the
flaws of the Iraq war, the world is now a safer place.

[Perro Blanco]

"Steve Hix" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Perro Blanco" > wrote:
>
>> "Steve Hix" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >,
>> > "Perro Blanco" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Robert" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> >
>> >> > "bar86" > wrote in message
>> >> > ups.com...
>> >> >> Before US invaded Iraq (upon Saudi, not Israeli request) they had
>> >> >> stable regime that
>> >> >> Israel did not had any trouble with it. Now, Thanks to US, we have
>> >> >> a
>> >> >> country without
>> >> >> rule, new cenetr fo Al Qaeda.
>> >> >
>> >> > Are you stupid or just ignorant?
>> >> >
>> >> > Before the US invaded Iraq (either time) they were funding terrorist
>> >> > attacks on Israel.
>> >> > This IS the proven link to terrorism from Iraq. Their link to Al
>> >> > Qaeda
>> >> > was nebulas. There link to Hezbollah, PLO, and funding of homicide
>> >> > bombers is well documented
>> >> >
>> >> So, " before the US invaded Iraq they were funding terrorist
>> >> attacks...".
>> >
>> > There are none so dense as those intentionally being stupid.
>> >
>> > That's you Blanco.
>>
>> I would suggest, Hix (or is it Hick?)
>
> Take the spelling as it is, that shouldn't be too hard for you, right?
>
>> that you are in the frame. READ the
>> sentence, boy, none of the words are that long, now are they. What does
>> it
>> say (regardless of what the writer may, or may not, have WISHED to say)?
>
>>
>> "Before the US invaded Iraq (either time) they were funding terrorist
>> attacks (on Israel)".
>>
>> It could not be any clearer for anyone but you. It may not have been that
>> illiterate's intention to say that the US were funding terrorist attacks,
>> but he did.
>
> Granted, it was badly written. Taken in context, it's still clear that
> the terrorist-funding entity was the Iraqi government under Saddam
> Hussein.
>
> It helps if you happen to know certain facts, such as Iraq's documented
> propensity to fund, shelter, and otherwise support terrorists and their
> activities.
>
> Context; one of those things that adds to the redundancy of languages to
> make them more functional.
>
Your defence of an illiterate's nonsensical ramblings shows, perhaps, a kind
heart but does nothing to promote the redundancy of languages to make them
more functional. The guy is talking scribble and making wild statements in
that Iraq was not funding ANY of the groups mentioned. The one note of truth
that stood out, however, was where he said "Before the US invaded Iraq
(either time) they were funding terrorist attacks...", although he did add
the words "of Israel". I stand by my interpretation of what he said, which
was why I added the bit about the US's turning a blind eye to many of its
people funding of terrorism against an ally, which confirmed his statement,
as given - one could even substitute "Britain" for "Israel". CONTEXT! I
could have added a bit about, say, the many plots against Castro or - well,
I could go on but there are too many examples, of which the world is fully
aware.

You then make a statement regarding "Iraq's documented propensity to fund,
shelter, and otherwise support terrorists and their activities.". Semantics
be my friend, eh?

Bearing in mind that the invasion of Iraq was based upon a total a tissue of
lies there are many who would take issue with your words. Iraqis, having
seen their country invaded by a foreign aggressor with a propensity to
invade weaker nations, have decided to hit back in the only way they can.
They are merely defending their way of life - "freedom" at the end of a gun
is as much use to them as a chocolate fireguard.

It seems nothing will ever change, except that in this case it has turned
out to be a bit more difficult for the United Sates of North America than
"Operation Just Cause" which tried to justify Panama, and I dread to think
what they called the invasion of Grenada where America was "threatened" by a
population of about 100,000 people. Again, there are many more examples.

I suppose, when you people were busy going down the genocide trail with your
own indigenous population, they qualified as "terrorists" as well. "The only
good injun is a dead one" was the line in those days, despite the fact they
were merely defending their lands and their way of life.

>> What he actually says and what he apparently means are two
>> totally different things. In a court of law, or any legal context, he
>> would
>> be sowing the seeds of his own destruction. Perhaps you would be up there
>> with him.
>
> In any fair court, he would have been asked to clarify what he said,
> since it clearly stumbled over known background facts.
>
> Perhaps that is what confused you.