Skip to main content

Crossposted at The Progressive Zionist

This morning I woke up, opened up my Facebook and saw this staring at me from an Israeli Friend of mine. So... I had to check it out.

Yep, you read that headline right. No snark here. Wikileaks released a report claiming that Israeli and Kurdish Fighters destroyed the Iranian Nuclear Facility where weapons were being developed

According to Haaretz:

The mega-leaks website, WikiLeaks, has partnered with the hackers cooperative Anonymous, to publish internal emails of the American strategic intelligence company Stratfor. In one of the hacked emails, Stratfor officials discuss information obtained from one of their sources who reports that Israeli commandos, in cooperation with Kurdish fighters, have destroyed Iranian nuclear installations.....

....In one of the emails from November 2011, Startfor officials discuss the explosion at an Iranian missile base near Tehran and quote a source who "was asked what he thought of reports that the Israelis were preparing a military offensive against Iran. Response: I think this is a diversion. The Israelis already destroyed all the Iranian nuclear infrastructure on the ground weeks ago."

One company analyst responded dismissively to the possibility of an Israeli attack having already taken place, asking: "How and when did the Israelis destroy the infra on the ground?"

For more on this.....

According to Wikileaks there is much more too this story, involving Oil prices, military alliances and so forth with regards to Russia, the E.U. and India.

In the email, an Israeli intelligence source was asked about Defense Minister Ehud Barak's comment "the more the merrier" following the mysterious explosion that killed at least 17 people at an Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps base near Tehran in November 2011.

At the time, Iran claimed the blast was an accident, but US blogger Richard Silverstein said that Israel was the mastermind.

"I think this is a diversion. The Israelis already destroyed all the Iranian nuclear infrastructure on the ground weeks ago," said the Israeli source. "The current 'let's bomb Iran' campaign was ordered by the EU leaders to divert the public attention from their at home financial problems."....

Stratfor - the company who's email has been hacked said the following:
Some of the emails being published "may be forged or altered to include inaccuracies; some may be authentic," the company statement said.
According to the leaked emails, Europe and China would suffer from an Israeli attack on Iran (according to wikileaks) but that the Saudis and the Russians would benefit greatly. One can see the Saudi's but the Russians?

Again, this is an unverified report. HOWEVER, in any case it boxes Iran in a serious way. If they act on or accept this report, it means they acknowledge that they were indeed developing a nuclear weapon in a direct contradiction to their claims of the opposite. IF however, they deny this happened and that there was simply an attack on a Revolutionary Guard base then they are admitting to the world that Israeli and Kurdish forces were able to penetrate their most secure compound and wreak havoc. So much for their bellicose threats of retaliation, not too mention what message this sends to the Iranian People.

It will be interesting what Julian Assange says this afternoon when the documents are fully released.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  We'll know this was true when (6+ / 0-)

    we see China backing away from Iran. I think there might have already been a few indicators of a shift in China's position regarding Iran in rhetoric but if they move some boats around we could probably consider this verified.

    Lo que separa la civilizacion de la anarquia son solo siete comidas.

    by psilocynic on Mon Feb 27, 2012 at 09:15:32 AM PST

    •  What's the evidence and logic that leads (6+ / 0-)

      you to conclude that China would distance itself from Iran if the reports are true?

      •  the way I'd reason that out is... (4+ / 0-)

        .... China would not want to be seen supporting a country for which there was definitive evidence of desire to develop nuclear weapons.

        Iran has been denying that's their intent, and as long as their denials had any plausibility, responsible nations could also choose to do biz with Iran for their own reasons.  China has substantial recent history of seeking various types of contracts and economic relationships with every other nation on Earth, for example a bunch of African nations.  

        So it's clear that China has its own reasons for seeking out those relationships.  And part of China's strategy there may be to play along with some of them for example by "supporting" Iran as long as Iran had any shred of plausible deniability.

        However along come Israel & the Kurds and take out an installation that is clearly a nuclear weapons facility.  OK, now Iran plays coy about it, thereby as much as confirming what it was.  This shreds some of their plaus-D, at which point China finds that Iran is an inconvenient relationship to pursue, so China backs away from Iran.  

        "Minus two votes for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

        by G2geek on Mon Feb 27, 2012 at 10:07:44 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  South America too I think n/c (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          psilocynic, Joieau
        •  Just because Israel had destroyed it (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Marie, diffrntdrummr

          wouldn't prove that it was definitive evidence. It would make it impossible to find out whether there was definitive evidence or not. On that logic, Israel could have destroyed it just so nobody could find out whether it was evidence or not.

          •  exactly..what evidence of the 'weapons' part of (3+ / 0-)

            story.
            And if it had anything to do with nuclear research, of course it will be claimed to be weapons as well.

            just cause the explosions happened, what and why should we believe any of these people?

            and let's see....stratfor......they would never think to plant emails about events so as to make those events seem real, no they'd never do that.

            Chuckle that they claim they have been forged and/or altered...based on the known habits of humans, especially the rw variety, this just might be (coughkarlrove) projection :>

            what a snakepit!

            From those who live like leeches on the people's lives, We must take back our land again, America!...Langston Hughes

            by KenBee on Mon Feb 27, 2012 at 01:13:02 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Like they backed away from North Korea? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Marie

          Many Americans fear that universal health care would destroy their way of life. In that it would get them the anti-psychotic meds they need, I agree.

          by ThothXXI on Mon Feb 27, 2012 at 11:05:16 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  like we backed away from Mexico? (0+ / 0-)

            China has to deal with DPRK because they are on the border and they are the source of a substantial refugee influx that has been a problem for China.  

            Really, think it through!

            "Minus two votes for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

            by G2geek on Mon Feb 27, 2012 at 11:54:57 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  "definitive evidence of a desire" -- (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          KenBee

          sort of a low bar, doncha think?  Personally, I think Iran would be nuts not to have such a desire.  Given how Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, and N. Korea have been treated by the US of late.

          Russia and China could protect Iran, but they're not too keen on that fundamentalist religion running things there either.  So, they aren't as reliable as friends as a few nukes would be.  And given how long that effort has been, Russia and China seem not to have helped Iran on that.  Not like whoever it was that facilitated Pakistan's acquisition/construction of nukes.

  •  The Israelis "already destroyed"... (5+ / 0-)

    ...the Iranian nuclear infrastructure?  I doubt it, absent solid evidence otherwise.  I doubt the Iranian leadership would have covered it up; they would, instead, have used it to inflame the ME against Israel (and the US, as well).  That would serve their purposes better than silence, IMHO.

    The only reason I can think of for Iranian silence about an actual attack is if the regime thought itself too vulerable to its own residents if news of an (ostensible) Israeli strike were make public.

    We reach for the stars with shaking hands in bare-knuckle times.

    by TheOrchid on Mon Feb 27, 2012 at 09:17:30 AM PST

  •  It is unverified - (12+ / 0-)

    However, it looks like Stratfor is simply speculating about the attacks from a policy perspective.

    I can't tell from the document if they have any special knowledge of the attacks - though clearly, the think tank is well enough connected to potentially have this knowledge.

    Thanks for the diary though - it's probably just additional confirmation of what we've known for a while. Israel will not hesitate to remove potential nuclear threats. Be it in Syria or Iran.

  •  This last Wikileaks data dump is delicious (13+ / 0-)

    at many levels.  And it's huge, so information is just beginning to dribble out. And it's going to leave a mark.

    More than one.

    “Are you calling the Koch brothers during the recess?” - Henry Waxman

    by thenekkidtruth on Mon Feb 27, 2012 at 09:24:13 AM PST

  •  asdf (24+ / 0-)

    The speculation that the Israelis were using indigenous terrorist groups in Iran to assassinate the nuclear scientists in Iran and carry out other operations is not news.

    What is news is that a for-profit "intelligence" company that large corporations and the government relies upon does their analysis in a way that makes them sound like Reddit comments.

    Dailykos diaries (this is no slight) are actually a much better source of analysis than these e-mails are.

    That they would take anything at face value from a "verified" Israel intelligence officer is hilarious. Their failure to understand that the "destruction" probably actually referred to any of the recent events that at most amounted to a setback is almost so stupid as to make it not funny any more.

    Honestly, this company sounds like a bunch of people reared on Tom Clancy novels that all think they are Jack Ryan.

    They are truly the 101st Chairborne.

    GOP: The Party of Acid rain, Abortion of the American Dream, and Amnesty for Wall Street.

    by Attorney at Arms on Mon Feb 27, 2012 at 09:25:25 AM PST

    •  The Kurds (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Lujane, lgmcp, wu ming, Terra Mystica

      Certainly the Iranian Kurds have lots of reasons to hate the Iranian regime, and they are very good fighters - but they are not well organized enough to hit these hard targets well inside Iran, and the Iranian intelligence has infiltrated many of the Kurdish opposition groups.  There have been a number of assassinations of Iranian Kurds in Iraqi Kurdistan.

      The Israelis are easily capable of attaching bombs on vehicles and killing Iranian scientists.  I have a hard time believing the Iranian Kurds can keep a secret well enough or have have the skills and training to hit Iranian facilities way inside of Iran.  They are good guerilla fighters and can and do hit Revolutionary Guard units operating in Iranian Kurdistan, but that's a different matter.

      But this does read more like a Tom Clancey novel to me than reality. No doubt the Israelis are working with the Kurds - they have common interests - but I doubt on this sort of high risk type activity.

      “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.” Charles Darwin

      by ivorybill on Mon Feb 27, 2012 at 09:51:57 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •   it should be "wreak havoc" not "wreck havoc". (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ivorybill, labradog, Lujane, Jim P

    Just sayin'.

    •  OT: Is "wreak" a tense of "wrought"? n/t (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lgmcp, word is bond


      Today, if you exist... that's already suspicious.

      by Jim P on Mon Feb 27, 2012 at 10:18:56 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't think so. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Jim P, word is bond

        The former has always the sense "to inflict", where as the latter usually has the sense "to fashion or fabricate".   Both are archaic and probably irregular, though, and the spelling is suggestive.  

        "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

        by lgmcp on Mon Feb 27, 2012 at 10:24:55 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Wreak (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          lgmcp, Terra Mystica, Jim P, word is bond

          wreak
          1.
          to inflict or execute (punishment, vengeance, etc.): They wreaked havoc on the enemy.
          2.
          to carry out the promptings of (one's rage, ill humor, will, desire, etc.), as on a victim or object: He wreaked his anger on the office staff.

          "Wrought" is apparently an archaic tense of "work" referring to something created or "worked." As in, describing some crafted thing as "well-wrought."

          Sorry, I was curious and had to look it up.

          Many Americans fear that universal health care would destroy their way of life. In that it would get them the anti-psychotic meds they need, I agree.

          by ThothXXI on Mon Feb 27, 2012 at 11:14:08 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Plus the derivations, according to one source: (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Jim P, KenBee, word is bond

            I love this site:  

            Etymology Online
            wrought
            mid-13c., from past participle of M.E. werken (see work).
            wreak
            O.E. wrecan "avenge," originally "to drive, drive out, punish" (class V strong verb; past tense wræc, pp. wrecen), from P.Gmc. *wrekanan (cf. O.S. wrekan, O.N. reka, O.Fris. wreka, M.Du. wreken "to drive, push, compel, pursue, throw," O.H.G. rehhan, Ger. rächen "to avenge," Goth. wrikan "to persecute"), from PIE root *werg- "to work, to do" (cf. Lith. vergas "distress," vergas "slave," O.C.S. vragu "enemy," L. urgere; see urge (v.)). Meaning "inflict or take vengeance," with on, is recorded from late 15c.; that of "inflict or cause (damage or destruction)" is attested from 1817.

            "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

            by lgmcp on Mon Feb 27, 2012 at 11:20:27 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I've been waiting for this for hundreds of years! (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              lgmcp, word is bond

              Or so it seems. I have my very old, abridged, Oxford English Dictionary, but it's massive and I usually don't get it down from the shelf.

              Thanks for the response and the link.


              Today, if you exist... that's already suspicious.

              by Jim P on Mon Feb 27, 2012 at 12:31:52 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Isn't it great? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Jim P

                I've barely forgiven my high-school boyfriend for NOT buying me that compact-edition OED that he saw at a garage sale -- and that was in 1977!  

                "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

                by lgmcp on Mon Feb 27, 2012 at 12:34:17 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

      •  It's complex-- (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Jim P, lgmcp, KenBee, word is bond

        "Wrought" is the old past tense and past participle of "work", and lgmcp is right on historical grounds, but now everybody uses "worked" leaving "wrought" as a fossil form, and it has attached itself to "wreak" the way the old past tense of "wend" got attached to go (go, went, gone).

      •  "wrought" seems to be related to "wright" (0+ / 0-)

        (as in millwright or playwright). Both are derived from older forms of "work".

  •  + already known taking out Iranian scientists (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    volleyboy1, Lujane, appledown, G2geek

    we know for a fact iranian scientists have been taken out

    we know maybe some things on the ground have been taken out

    Iran's nuce program is at least set back by a huge amount thus necessitating a cessation of talk of open bombing at this time

    Possibly much more than just set back as in if this is real and they took it out on the ground Nov 2011 then excellent news

  •  This sounds like internal speculation (5+ / 0-)

    and not any actual intelligence or fact-finding.

    Meh.

    "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

    by Geekesque on Mon Feb 27, 2012 at 09:39:17 AM PST

  •  Iran has not (24+ / 0-)

    been developing weapons, and no facility was taken out by anything.

    Those emails are as ludicrous as the other emails found in the document dump. Like this one:

    From: Fred Burton [mailto:burton@stratfor.com]
    Sent: Friday, November 07, 2008 7:41 AM
    To: secure@stratfor.com
    Subject: Insight - The Dems & Dirty Tricks * Internal Use Only - Pls Do
    Not Forward *

    * Internal Use Only - Pls Do Not Forward *

    1) The black Dems were caught stuffing the ballot boxes in Philly and Ohio as reported the night of the election and Sen. McCain chose not to fight. The matter is not dead inside the party. It now becomes a matter of sequence now as to how and when to "out".

    2) It appears the Dems "made a donation" to Rev. Jesse (no, they would never do that!) to keep his yap shut after his diatribe about the Jews and Israel. A little bird told me it was a "nice six-figure donation". This also becomes a matter of how and when to out.

    3) The hunt is on for the sleezy Russian money into O-mans coffers. A smoking gun has already been found. Will get more on this when the time is right. My source was too giddy to continue. Can you say Clinton and ChiCom funny money? This also becomes a matter of how and when to out.

    Honestly, you can't believe a word from these emails. The people are fucking rightwing nutjobs.
    •  Maybe taylor ` (6+ / 0-)

      BUT we do know there was an explosion at a Revolutionary Guard Base (the Iranians claimed it was an accident), we know that Iranian scientists are being hit, so rather than say it didn't happen or is not possible I think it is quite possible.

      At the same time I also said it was unverified so who the hell really knows what happened.

      What I find kind of interesting is that you say that you don't trust what Stratfor is saying (and until verified I don't either) but that you trust the Iranian Government as a source of information. I think that... is pretty freakin' funny.

      •  no, actually, I don't (15+ / 0-)

        You really should stop believing right wing propaganda, and listen to people like, for example, our secretary of defense: Panetta: Iran Not Building a Nuclear Weapon

        •  Err Taylor you should read your own article (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          campionrules, cryonaut

          Panetta's comment was that while they are not building a bomb, they are "Laying the Groundwork" for building a bomb. You know like uping encrichment capabilities, building facilities... that sort of stuff.

          I think it is hilarious that you think I am believing "Right Wing Propaganda" when all you are doing is spouting the Iranian Party line. Truly comedy. Not too mention that I am one of the founders here of "Jews for President Obama" - yep we sure a bunch of right wingers. (/snark).

          Most likely, Iran is building a bomb and most likely they are not nearly as far along as is claimed.

          Hey you know what else I heard from the Iranian regime... there are no Gay People there either. Would you like to argue that one as well.

          •  "all you are doing is spouting the Iranian (2+ / 3-)

            Party line."

            Fuck off.

            •  Hey Taylor.... Did I hit a nerve? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              leftynyc

              You have a nice day as well...

              Hey I have another one for you since you are parroting the line:

              The elections in Iran were free and fair.... there was no vote fixing whatsoever.

              •  so when will you start (3+ / 0-)

                calling people "objectively pro-terrorist"?

                Maybe you will accuse kossacks who believe Leon Panetta of mounting a fifth column?

                •  That would be pretty stupid since I co-founded (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  leftynyc

                  a group called "Jews for President Obama" and Panetta is...  you know... his appointee.

                  Just because you believe the Iranian line about Nukes  "hook, line, and sinker" doesn't make you "pro-terrorist", it just means you are not the "brightest bulb on the tree" so to speak.

                  •  self-absorbed, arrogant, (3+ / 0-)

                    running around the site accusing those who cite the secretary of defense of spouting terrorist propaganda.

                    Very sad.

                    •  Oh... how pathetic..... (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      leftynyc

                      Please back up your claims that I said "those who cite the Secretary of Defense are spouting terrorist propaganda."

                      What I said was that YOU in saying this:

                      Iran has not been developing weapons, and no facility was taken out by anything.
                      And that taylor is Iranian regime propaganda.

                      What Sec. Def. Panetta said which was: "The Iranians are laying the groundwork for building a bomb"....

                      Oh yes taylor and can you please show evidence where I am "running around the site. What is funny about this is that you keep making these ridiculous accusations without a shred of evidence, even though you have been asked to provide some.

                      So... taylor - which other regime lies would you like us to believe?

                      •  Iran is not developing a nuclear weapon. (5+ / 0-)
                        Iran has not been developing weapons, and no facility was taken out by anything.
                        And that taylor is Iranian regime propaganda.
                        US government and intelligence officials have said repeatedly that Iran is NOT developing nuclear weapons.  Is that Iranian regime propaganda?

                        They have said that Iran is advancing their capability to do so.  I agree, but that is NOT the same thing.  As Bush did in his last SOTU address (iirc), and as now the Senate is taking up, the new red line for US war with Iran is in fact "advancing the capability."  Not developing.  They aren't developing.

                        You are advancing right-wing propaganda here.

                    •  Matt... (2+ / 0-)

                      ...and this goes to volleyboy as well, would both of you mind terribly turning down the rhetoric just a bit?

                      Pretty please with a cherry on top?

                      Fuck me, it's a leprechaun.

                      by MBNYC on Mon Feb 27, 2012 at 01:00:29 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Michael, this motherfucker can kiss my ass (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        qannabbos, WattleBreakfast

                        He started this shit off by claiming I'm parroting propaganda from a holocaust denying anti-semite, when I did no such thing.  And he keeps saying it.  He's acting like Dick fucking Cheney.

                        You know me very well, and you know his bullshit is a lie.

                      •  Ok... for you I will (0+ / 0-)

                        See... It's like this. I see "laying the groundwork" and taking all the steps to making a nuke as the process to developing a bomb. And it is. If you are trying to enrich Uranium beyond medical or energy grade - you are trying to develop a bomb in my book.

                        Anyway, I also firmly believe that Iran does want to develop and is attempting to develop a nuclear weapon. BUT... does that mean we go to war over it? At this point in time I believe, that is not a prudent course of action. I believe the President and Secretary Panetta when they argue that Sanctions are the way forward.

                        Anyway, MBNYC - because it's you... yep I am happy to see that shitflinging fest end.

                        •  It is, IFF they decide to do it. They haven't (3+ / 0-)

                          decided to do it.  So therefore they are not.

                          NOBODY says they are trying to enrich beyond medical (20%) grade.  Everybody acknowledges that a) 20% is their right; b) that IS a path toward weapons grade (95%); and, c) that to get to 95% from 20%, uninspected, is a long, tenuous, and obvious process (i.e. that can be inspected and ascertained either/both from satellites or IAEA unscheduled visits).  One that hasn't been observed to date.

                          No one should believe Iranian propaganda (that they're of pure intention on this), and no one should believe this war-mongering propaganda that continually alleges that they are not (pure).

                          The truth lies somewhere in the middle and has to be couched in terms of whether Iran, even developing capability, or even with a bomb, is a threat to the US.  

                          My take is that they are not.  Your headline and principle misquote is that they are.

                          •  Well Terra (0+ / 0-)

                            you can dispute this all you like - doesn't change the fact that Iran wants to develop AND is on the path towards developing a nuclear weapon. Pretty much everyone knows this. Even the most recent IAEA report talks about this.

                            Look... if you think I am calling for war or an Israeli Military strike on Iran, you couldn't be further from wrong. I don't think we should at this point in time. I don't think a bombing run on an Iranian Site would be all that effective and I think it would have reprecussions that would be awful.

                            In my opinion, once you set foot on that path towards developing a weapon - you are developing a weapon. You can split hairs all you want but it doesn't change the facts.

                      •  You know what... I take that back - fuck him (0+ / 0-)

                        After that asshole just called me a "McCarthyite" and has been continually lying about what I am saying. Fuck him. He is a g-d damn liar and I am not letting his bullshit go unanswered.

                        •  take a look in the mirror buddy (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          WattleBreakfast

                          in your first comment to me you spouted this horseshit:

                          What I find kind of interesting is that you say that you don't trust what Stratfor is saying (and until verified I don't either) but that you trust the Iranian Government as a source of information.
                          Rightwing bullshit at its finest.
                          •  The only bullshit I see here taylor is yours. (0+ / 0-)

                            I am not the one parroting regime propaganda here. That would be you.

                            I mean this:

                            Iran has not been developing weapons, and no facility was taken out by anything.

                            is straight out of the Iranian regime.

                            Iran, (as Def. Secretary Panetta said) is laying the groundwork for building a bomb. That is their goal and the they are on their first steps to building a nuclear weapon. HENCE, they are developing a bomb.

                            That said - buddy - Where am I advocating for War, or calling anyone who supports Defense Secretary Panetta (A person I support) "pro-Terrorist" or anything else that you have accused me?

                            As I said, when the "Stupid Stick" comes to hit you - it's always best to duck or get out of the way. That way it powers of idiocy don't hit you.

                            Take that as friendly advice.

          •  As far as I know (and I don't obsess about this) (4+ / 0-)

            the latest US NIE is definitively of the opinion that Iran does not currently have a program to develop a nuclear weapon.

            Panetta's statement was quite unambiguous - (i) the US does not believe that Iran is currently trying to develop a nuclear weapon; (ii) the US believes that Iran is working on developing technologies and capabilities that are needed to enrich uranium (perhaps to weapons-grade levels); (iii) the US does not have a sufficient problem with this, that they would attack Iran over it or support an Israeli attack over it; (iv) if and ONLY if Iran moves from the point of being able to make HEU to an active program to make an actual weapon, the US would see that as a casus belli.

            Bottom line - nothing that the US believes Iran is currently doing, is anything the US is prepared to go to war over, even if Israel tries something on their own.

      •  and you know what? (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        lgmcp, Yastreblyansky, Terra Mystica, poco

        You should be ashamed of yourself for suggesting I'm trusting the Iranian government.

        I mean honestly, why exactly is it that you believe the only possible source of information is from the Iranian government? That's ludicrous and offensive.

        Not only did the secretary of defense say Iran wasn't building nuclear weapons, the IAEA agrees, as does apparently every single U.S. intelligence agency, given the 2007 NIE (which concluded Iran stopped its nuclear weapons program in 2003) hasn't changed much in the last 5 years.

        •  Well, I think the IAEA might disagree (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          volleyboy1, cryonaut

          They certainly think that Iran is taking the steps to develop nuclear weapons. Not that they have - just that they are taking the steps and the IAEA is concerned.

          http://www.reuters.com/...

          •  Though of course that report is pretty (4+ / 0-)

            inconclusive - considering that it was suggesting that development had continued on past the 2003 date at a 'lower rate'.  

          •  The November IAEA report has been discredited (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            BigAlinWashSt, poco, Terra Mystica

            the Russian scientist credited with assisting Iran on nuclear weapons development is was actually helping them to develop nano-diamond technology.

            The story was broken by b at Moon of Alabama and followed by Gareth Porter here.

            •  You mean the same Gareth Porter (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              JNEREBEL

              that had this to say:

              Gareth Porter said that "the notion that the leadership of Democratic Kampuchea adopted a policy of physically eliminating whole classes of people" was "a myth fostered primarily by the authors of a Readers Digest book."[9]
              ?
              •  From your link: (3+ / 0-)
                But in an appearance on The Today Show in August 1978, Porter agreed that the Khmer Rouge regime was guilty of mass killings and mass starvation. He reiterated that view in articles during the 1980s in The Guardian, The Nation, and Foreign Affairs among other publications. He also wrote articles and op-eds criticizing the Reagan administration and congressional supporters like Solarz for a U.S. policy of collaborating with Thailand and China to strengthen the military forces of Pol Pot in Cambodia.
                Not sure what that has to do with the Russian scientist named in the IAEA report as having worked on nano-diamond technology not nuclear weapons technology with Iran. But if you do want to respond on the basis of fact then you should probably challenge the Moon of Alabama findings or Robert Kelley's views (he's a former IAEA inspector quoted in the Porter article). Bringing up something Porter was wrong about over 30 years ago and then changed his mind on is not really a credible or legitimate response to my post. If you only have innuendo to bring to the table, I'm happy to leave it here and let the good folks reading this make up their own minds.
        •  No Taylor YOU should be ashamed of yourself (0+ / 0-)

          for buying the Party line. It is in the first sentence of your post:

          Iran has not been developing weapons, and no facility was taken out by anything.
          Yep, and there was no Stuxnet OR explosion at a Revolutionary Guard Base... nope nothing like that at all. Heh

          Even the article you cited states that Sec. Panetta thinks they are laying the Groundwork for building a bomb.

          •  "Iranian Nuke Facility" (9+ / 0-)

            is in the title of your diary.

            Yet every single person in the world, except the wingnuts to whom you cite, understands there is no Iranian nuclear weapon production facility.

            These distinctions are exceedingly important.

            The real question is why you seem to have completely lost your memory of the hyperbole, exaggeration, and distortion that happened with regard to alleged nuclear weapon programs in the run-up to the Iraq War.

            Instead of exercising caution, you run around this site posting emails from racist wingnuts, and accusing people who cite Leon Panetta of being in league with the Iranian government.

            •  LOL what a pile of crap - I think you can do (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              leftynyc

              better here:

              Instead of exercising caution, you run around this site posting emails from racist wingnuts, and accusing people who cite Leon Panetta of being in league with the Iranian government
              I quoted Two stories from Israeli On-line Newspapers, ONE the lead headline at Haaretz, the other a headline at YNET. Can you show me in any instance that I "ran-around" the site posting emails from Right Wing extremists as anything more than something to be mocked? Please show and cite evidence.

              ALSO, given that I cite Leon Panetta plenty of times this comment is pretty fucking ridiculous. You actually twisted what Panetta said to parrot the Iranian regime's propaganda line. Again, I quote you directly:

              Iran has not been developing weapons, and no facility was taken out by anything.
              I accuse you of "parroting" regime propaganda because... you are doing just that, not because you are quoting Def. Sec. Leon Panetta. You may actually want to get your head out of your ass long enough to understand that.

              Just sayin'

              •  I didn't twist shit (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Terra Mystica, WattleBreakfast

                Panetta: Iran Not Building a Nuclear Weapon:

                Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta appears on CBS' Face the Nation this morning and declared, despite enormous public rhetoric among pundits and many US government officials - not to mention GOP presidential candidates, that Iran is not currently trying to build a nuclear weapon.
                . . .
                [Panetta] says Iran is laying the groundwork for making nuclear weapons someday, but is not yet building a bomb and called for continued diplomatic and economic pressure to persuade Tehran not to take that step.

                As he has previously, Panetta cautioned against a unilateral strike by Israel against Iran's nuclear facilities, saying the action could trigger Iranian retaliation against U.S. forces in the region.

                The comments suggest the White House's assessment of Iran's nuclear strategy has not changed in recent months, despite warnings from advocates of military action that time is running out to prevent Tehran from becoming a nuclear-armed state. ...

                You obsessively focus on "lying the groundwork for making nuclear weapons someday" and completely ignore the important part "but is not yet building a bomb".

                In fact you even point to possible uranium enrichment for the purpose of building nuclear weapons in a comment upthread.

                Hey, I have an idea, maybe you can get a quote from Judith Miller about aluminum tubes!

                •   Nope I don't need Judith Miller but perhaps (0+ / 0-)

                  You can ask President Ahmadinejhad about the many other regime "truths" you would like to parrot. You know like the one you did here, saying:

                  Iran has not been developing weapons, and no facility was taken out by anything.
                  Even Secretary of Defense Panetta stated that Iran was "laying the Groundwork for a weapons program" - IF they are doing that then they are actively engaged in doing what... Wasting resources so they can have cool looking buildings?

                  Anyway, you should know that I have made it clear "while running around the site spreading Right Wing propaganda" - that I strongly oppose an Israeli military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities.

                  Believe it or not I very much oppose War with Iran at this time.

                  Is that a Right Wing talking point these days?

                  •  Nice work, VP Cheney! (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    WattleBreakfast

                    either you believe Iran has been building Nukes, or you support ahmadinejad.

                    Will you haul the secretary of defense in for questioning when you reconstitute the Unamerican Activities Committee?

                    •  It's ok, President Ahmadinejhad (/snark) (0+ / 0-)

                      I see that Reading is an issue for you Taylor.... but Remember it is "Fun-Da-Mental"

                      Apparently you missed the many times where I actually quoted Mr. Panetta saying that while Iran was not building nukes yet, they were laying the groundwork for a nuclear weapons program.

                      Apparently you missed all that, because after all I would try to distract too when if I had repeated regime propaganda.

                      And why look - you also missed where I stated that I ooposed a Military strike on Iran. So yeah, I am just like ole' Dick Cheney except for .....well you know, the parts where I disagree with everything the man says.

                      But you know - I am not the one parrotting Iranian regime nonsense - that would be you:

                      Iran has not been developing weapons, and no facility was taken out by anything.
                      Oh and for this nonsense:
                      Will you haul the secretary of defense in for questioning when you reconstitute the Unamerican Activities Committee?
                      Why would I do that? Because he supports my claim that the Iranians want to develop a bomb and are working to build the means to do that? That seems kind of random.

                      Remember what I said about bulbs and trees taylor... are you trying to prove me right?

                      If you don't mind, may I suggest adult reading classes for you. Perhaps they will help with some of your comprehension issues.

                      Have a nice day.

                      •  "Why would I do that?" (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        WattleBreakfast

                        Well, you accuse those who happen to agree with the secretary of defense, but not with you, of being terrorist supporters.

                        It's only logical that a budding young McCarthyite like you would seek to institute such hearings.

                        •  Are you always this much of an lying ass or (0+ / 0-)

                          is this something new?

                          Just wondering.

                          As for this:

                          Well, you accuse those who happen to agree with the secretary of defense, but not with you, of being terrorist supporters.
                          I accused YOU of spreading regime propaganda (and here you are doing just that):
                          Iran has not been developing weapons, and no facility was taken out by anything.
                          NOT those who happen to agree with the Secretary of Defense. In fact, up above in telling MBNYC I would chill - I plainly stated that "I agree with the Secretary of Defense" when he states that sanctions are the way forward. I guess I am then saying I should go on trial as well. Right?

                          As far as your other Douchebag remark:

                          It's only logical that a budding young McCarthyite like you would seek to institute such hearings.
                          Let me give you some advice... When the "Stupid, Douchenozzle Stick" comes to hit you... Get out of the way instead of letting it nail you time and time again.

                          My father was investigated under HUAC so I think I am more more familiar with it than you are. Asshole.

                          Why don't you go find some other place to spew your hateful lies?

                          •  hateful lies, like, what . . . (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            WattleBreakfast

                            falsely accusing people of spouting Ahmedinjahad propaganda?

                          •  I just quoted you verbatim - Your comment (0+ / 0-)

                            was straight out of the regime. I mean here it is in it's full glory:

                            Iran has not been developing weapons, and no facility was taken out by anything.
                            So there was no explosion at the Revolutionary Guard Base at an Iranian facility? Really? What was it just a mishap with Popcorn and a Microwave oven that killed 17 people? Hey, would you like to try for another regime quote?

                            Your comment is outright regime propaganda while what you spew (and I use the word spew in all it's glory) at me are total and complete lies. You have been asked to back up your accusations and yet you can't.

                            Now, let's try to see how you defend your lies. For instance, where did I say that anyone who quotes Def. Secretary Panetta is "Pro-terrorist"? Since I quote him all the time, how does even make sense? I am asking you again, please provide proof of that.

                            ALSO, while we're at it - please show proof where I "run around this site posting Right Wing emails" as anything serious? I asked for proof and what did I get.... *CRICKETS* - I mean I get why, but could you be a little less blatant.

                            Anyway, go spread your lies somewhere else. Because I have shown on at least three occasion that YOU are just wasting everyone's time by lying here.

      •  It would be in Iran's best interests to NOT (0+ / 0-)

        respond to any provocations from the west or Israel. Look at the drone incident. If one were to reverse the scenario, with Iran spying on the US with drones, the US would call that an act of war and respond in force.

        Iran's best choice is to play it cool and let Israel make the first attack.

      •  Unverified (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Terra Mystica, WattleBreakfast

        You have a passing reference to it being unverified in the body of your diary. You subsequently changed the title to reflect that but you have not done so in the Progressive Zionist reposting you so conveniently linked to:

        The Progressive Zionist

        A haven for those seeking intelligent conversation on Zionism, Culture, Politics and Life.

        Monday, February 27, 2012
        BREAKING: Wikileaks reporting Israel Destroyed Iranina Nuke Facility
        This morning I woke up, opened up my Facebook and saw this staring at me from an Israeli Friend of mine. So... I had to check it out

        Fight poverty, oppression, hunger, ignorance, disease and aggression wherever they occur.

        by Lib Dem FoP on Mon Feb 27, 2012 at 11:50:24 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I think the docs (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lgmcp, Geekesque

      are full of useless BS from wannabes who think they are spies. But Iran would like to acquire nuclear weapons.  I'm not sure the Israeli plan to stop that is all that wise, but I do think they are focused on it, long-term

      “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.” Charles Darwin

      by ivorybill on Mon Feb 27, 2012 at 09:54:02 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Agree on (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KenBee, Terra Mystica

      freaking right wing nut jobs, but their clients like the Air Force, Lockheed Martin, Goldman-Sachs are major players in our government and our electoral politics in fact the proverbial 'owners of the place'. They do seem like clowns, apparently they used google for some of their so called intelligence. some guy at the press conference said Stratfor was a espionage privatized 'to make wealth'. Interesting glimpse behind what passes for foreign policy, a look at double speak and dirty deeds for hire. they claim to have no ideology. Just  equal opportunity for outsourcing dirty info they call intelligence. The intelligence that gets used to make policy.    

    •  Thanks for perspective n/t (0+ / 0-)
  •  Stratfor isn't credible (10+ / 0-)

    Josh Marshall and the folks over at Talking Points Memo are having a good laugh over the email dump from this apparently bogus private "intelligence" firm.

    Marshall is a serious, credible news man.  If there was anything to it, he'd be headlining it, I'd expect.  Check them out before putting too much cred behind these reports.

    •  Err who is saying this is definite... Title says: (0+ / 0-)

      UNVERIFIED.

      How much cred. did I really put behind this. I am just saying this is what is being reported NOT this just happened. Big Difference.

      •  UNVERFIED: volleyboy1 repeating untrue statements (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        WattleBreakfast

        but it is OK since s/he's putting "UNVERIFIED" in the sentence

        If you aren't outraged....you aren't paying attention

        by happenstance on Mon Feb 27, 2012 at 10:14:58 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  No, I don't think that's fair (8+ / 0-)

          There's nothing wrong with discussing juicy and probably-exaggerated stories, as long as there is an effort to issue clear disclaimers about keeping them in perspective.  I'd say that standard was met.  

          "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

          by lgmcp on Mon Feb 27, 2012 at 10:28:14 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  wow? You don't think there is any damage (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Terra Mystica, WattleBreakfast

            to repeating gossip/bluster even if you clarify that it might not be true????

            I can forsee a great deal of damage even if it was just politicians or celebrities we were talking about...here we are talking about nation states and international relations and we think it is OK to repeat rumors and innuendo?

            to illustrate -- how is this: UNVERIFIED: volleyboy1 beat up his significant at 8:22 pm on Feb 23 using a blue bat.

            Would it be OK to say that? the implication is that volleyboy is capable of something like that, though we may have some of the details wrong.

            This whole conversation in this diary assumes several things
            1) Iran wishes to have a nuke weapons program
            2) Iran has a nuke weapons program
            3) Iran has a site devoted to working on this nuke weapons program
            4) Israel backed terrorist groups destroyed an installation  devoted to working on this nuke weapons program

            We are saying #4 is unverified

            Where the facts are that 1, 2, and 3 are also unverified.

            This is a garbage diary and I am astonished to see you and other prominent writers/thinkers tolerating it.

            If you aren't outraged....you aren't paying attention

            by happenstance on Mon Feb 27, 2012 at 11:35:58 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Since most news is hearsay, one way or another (3+ / 0-)

              where ARE you going to draw the line?  Which sources are unimpeachably trustworthy and which are totally out of the question?  

              Your blue bat story, no correlatives anywhere.  Wikileaks story, minor correlative  in known incident inside Iran.  #1,#2, and #3, numerous possible minor correlatives but no definitive ones, yet tons of coverage.   We can, if we like, dismiss all that coverage as irresponsible -- but it's pretty silly to wish to forbid discussion of it on the grounds that it hasn't been verified to our satisfaction.  

              "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

              by lgmcp on Mon Feb 27, 2012 at 11:51:53 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Not too mention that it was a RED BAT (/snark).... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                eztempo
              •  thx for your reasoned and thoughtful response, lg (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                lgmcp, Terra Mystica, WattleBreakfast

                but consider this (taking my analogy to somewhat of an extreme )

                volleboy1's foes across town (let's call him Mitt, a wealthy business man, and a friend of Mitt's named Newt) are spreading the rumor that volleyboy (VB) wants to beat his wife, has bought a bat, Newt keeps saying that while he also does have a bat, he wouldn't ever use it to beat anyone (unless really desperate), but VB's just crazy and shouldn't be allowed to even have it period (despite the fact that there are peaceful uses of a bat)

                they used the "well known" news that Mrs VB1 had to go to a hospital on Feb 23 in an emergency vehicle to say "UNVERIFIED: VB1 beat up his wife with the blue bat at 8:22pm on Feb 23"

                most people would use what they know to be the truth (that she went to the hospital) and automatically give more credence to the rest of the false assumptions.

                And yes the media does this (and they have many motivations to do so). I'm talking about DKOS...prominent posters on DKOS. We shouldn't be writing or recc'ing drivel like this. This diary is on the REC list for no reason except empty baseless conjecture.

                If you aren't outraged....you aren't paying attention

                by happenstance on Mon Feb 27, 2012 at 03:03:07 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I keep telling you it was A RED BAT (0+ / 0-)

                  and she went to the hospital on the 23rd.  (/snark)

                  OR let's continue with this silly analogy - Your analogy would hold water if say after saying "I want to kill my wife" or saying "My wife will be erased from the pages of history" and I had been providing friends and neighbors with rocks to throw at her evertime she leaves the house, then she shows up with injuries related to blunt force blows. AND the day before I purchased a bat. THEN you might make that conjecture.

                  Otherwise... not so much.

                  •  Agree. It is getting silly (0+ / 0-)

                    especially considering that Juan Cole has conclusively shown that your bogey man never actually said what some propagandist keep repeating over and over again

                    it is another tool in the regular propaganda arsenal. Repeatedly lie about your opponents until people are to tired to point out the lie...(social security is going bankrupt!!!)...and it becomes conventional wisdom

                    you are employing one of the other very effective tools.. repeatedly starting a disingenuous "debate" on issue and act like all the assumptions leading to the debate topic are agreed to

                    somewhat related to the "Loaded Question" technique

                    "What are we going to do about Iran's nuclear weapons program?" is the topic of the day in the media

                    people have stopped even bothering to ask whether Iran actually has even an intent, let alone a plan to do such a thing (they deny it and inspections haven't turned up anything AT ALL)

                    VERY VERY dangerous...this is the kinda stuff that leads to the death of millions (as happened, and continues to happen, in Iraq).

                    If you aren't outraged....you aren't paying attention

                    by happenstance on Mon Feb 27, 2012 at 05:46:57 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                •  I didn't Rec this diary, actually, (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  happenstance, Claudius Bombarnac

                  exactly because I determined it to be speculative.  With different, stronger evidence it really WOULD be important breaking news.   But I can hold reservations on front-paging something -- while still thinking its ok to talk about without being accused of promoting lies.

                  It's true that even with warnings and disclaimers attached, that discussion of unfounded conjectures can amplify them -- but it can also provide a venue to challenge and debunk them.  

                  I certainly hated watching our country being lied into Iraq.  It was so transparently a lie from day one -- or so it seemed to me.   Just maddening.   But with respect to Iran I am cautiously optimistic that Americans have little stomach at this time for opening new hostilities anywhere.  

                  Clearly Iran has active nuclear program(s). Distinguishing between power-production capability and weapons capability is a job for technical experts, who mostly seem to agree that Iran has no verified current weapons program ... but that it's hard to prove a negative.  I don't think it's at all crazy to say they want one and are moving that way.  I do think it's crazy to say they have the bomb or will in five minutes.  Anywhere in between ... up for grabs and open to debate.  

                  "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

                  by lgmcp on Mon Feb 27, 2012 at 03:33:39 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

        •  OH does you haz a Sad over this story? (0+ / 0-)

          Yep, I put unverified and clearly stated that I don't know if it's true or not. So tell me... where exactly am I "repeating" untrue statements and claiming they are true?

          Please illustrate (using quotes in full context).

          Of course you can't, but I look forward to your twisting yourself into new and interesting shapes to try.

          Sorry you haz a sad over this.

      •  I was just underlining the "Caution" (0+ / 0-)

        Explosive subjects (ahem) often overshadow the qualifiers in initial reports.  That's all.

  •  The Tinfoil Hat Brigade Is Off And Running (0+ / 0-)

    Julian Assange seems to have seized another fifteen minutes/months of fame by associating himself with these stolen emails.  Now we get to enjoy months more of wild speculation and conspiracy theories, along with preening self-congratulation by the Anonymous crime network.

    Meantime, Brother Julian gets ready for his closeup on RT, the Kremlin-backed Russian media outlet that is giving him a talk show. Yes, the same RT that flaks for Putin, who is presently engaged in crushing Russian democracy.  Guess Assange needs to pay his attorney bills.

    For another take on this see:

    http://www.csmonitor.com/...

    "Hidden in the idea of radical openness is an allegiance to machines instead of people." - Jaron Lanier

    by FDRDemocrat on Mon Feb 27, 2012 at 09:53:51 AM PST

  •  The Christian Science Monitor... (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    buddabelly, DRo, Geekesque, G2geek, Dexter

    is poo-pooing the story:

    On Stratfor, Assange and Anonymous just don't get it

    Wikileaks' Julian Assange is trumpeting the release of emails stolen from the security analysis and consulting firm Stratfor as a major coup. Here's why he's wrong.

    By Dan Murphy, Staff writer / February 27, 2012

    Julian Assange and Wikileaks have been desperate for another home run in the 24 months since they began releasing a vast library of US diplomatic cables and military reports from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    Mr. Assange's organization has been on the decline since, with credit card companies refusing to process donations, infighting among early Wikileaks programmers that has left it without a secure "drop box" to receive leaks, and early journalistic collaborators like The New York Times and The Guardian falling out with Assange.

    But Assange thinks he's hit paydirt again, with seven years of emails stolen from the Texas-based Stratfor, a company that provides intelligence and geopolitical analysis. Stratfor says it generates its own intelligence for reports, though it also relies heavily on open-source data collection. I've read dozens of their reports over the years. I've found some wildly speculative, others accurate but banal, and still others intriguing.

    SEE ALSO WikiLaughs: Top 8 WikiLeaks jokes

    And while I've found some Stratfor analysis to be flat wrong, and so perhaps harmful if conclusions are taken by policymakers at face value, I've never seen anything nefarious or dangerous. Yet today, the internet is filled with claims that the Stratfor is some kind of "shadow CIA," with ominous warnings about its hidden influence and functions.

    The emails were stolen by hackers who claim to be aligned with the amorphous activist group "Anonymous." Though Assange hasn't confirmed they're the source, there was much online crowing by the Anonymous crowd in December that they'd broken into Stratfor's computers.

    Assange is of the view there's something dangerous about Statfor. "Here we have a private intelligence firm, relying on informants from the US government, foreign intelligence agencies with questionable reputations and journalists," he told Reuters. "What is of grave concern is that the targets of this scrutiny are, among others, activist organizations fighting for a just cause."

  •  So Israel works with the PKK now? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Terra Mystica

    Or is this another group of Kurdish "freedom fighers"being discussed in the meme? And weeks ago, it was revealed that Israel may have trained the MEK to take out Iranian scientists.  Both parties are listed as terror groups by the US and Europe.

  •  Anything to back up this claim? (8+ / 0-)
    ...the Iranian Nuclear Facility where weapons were being developed
    Is this just your assumption, or is there evidence that Iran is or was developing nuclear weapons? If there is no evidence, why would you assume this?
  •  Iran is not boxed in (0+ / 0-)

    If you consider the third possibility that the report remains unverified and Iran never acknowledges anything has happened.  In the article, at least one analyst doubts that an attack occurred.

    But if the attack did occur, does publication of this, if verified, cause Iran to feel obligated to launch some sort of retaliatory attack as a point of honor?

  •  The objective is to set up a Middle East (0+ / 0-)

    Nuclear Weapons Free Zone to complement the one that was set up in Central Asia.  Egypt is already committed, Iraq has no weapons so should be eager to join. The current president of the UN General Assembly has made this a goal and there's a conference scheduled later in the spring or early summer.

    http://www.un.org/...

    People to Wall Street: "LET OUR MONEY GO"

    by hannah on Mon Feb 27, 2012 at 10:15:24 AM PST

  •  Hmmm. (4+ / 0-)

    It seems unlikely to me that multiple Israeli attacks inside Iran, dating back to fall 2011, are something we would be hearing about only now and in this way.  Color me sceptical.  

    "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

    by lgmcp on Mon Feb 27, 2012 at 10:21:15 AM PST

  •  Complete rubbish (7+ / 0-)

    You have fallen into the trap laid by the right wing or are you just scare mongering?

    Yep, you read that headline right. No snark here. Wikileaks released a report claiming that Israeli and Kurdish Fighters destroyed the Iranian Nuclear Facility where weapons were being developed
    Maybe you would like to quote where it states that these facilities were being used to develop weapons? The only references are to nuclear "facilities" and "infrastructure"

    Fight poverty, oppression, hunger, ignorance, disease and aggression wherever they occur.

    by Lib Dem FoP on Mon Feb 27, 2012 at 10:22:13 AM PST

  •  The Russians benefit immensely from any increase (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    elliott, wu ming, KenBee, Terra Mystica

    in the price of oil.

    According to the leaked emails, Europe and China would suffer from an Israeli attack on Iran (according to wikileaks) but that the Saudis and the Russians would benefit greatly. One can see the Saudi's but the Russians?
    The Russian's Reserve Fund was in dire straights when the Libyan conflict broke out and boosted oil prices. Anything that keeps oil prices high benefits Russia. Russia is the world's largest oil/gas producer.
    Russia to double Reserve Fund by end of 2011
    April 20

    Russia will double its Reserve Fund to 1.43 trillion rubles ($50 billion) by the end of this year, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said in his annual address to parliament on Wednesday.

    "I think we need to resume saving and consolidating our reserves, which is why I suggest we send most of oil and gas revenues to the Reserve Fund," Putin said.

    •  Thanks for addressing that....n/t (2+ / 0-)
      •  BTW, so does Iran. Prices are up over 25% (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        volleyboy1, KenBee, Terra Mystica

        since 1 year ago. This is not good for Obama, especially if the higher oil prices put a crimp on economic recovery just before the election.

        Interesting forces at play here, don't you think?

        •  I do indeed (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Claudius Bombarnac

          Personally I think it is someone trying to trash the economy in order not to have President Obama get re-elected but that is (at this point ) CT, as I don't really understand the innerworkings of this. It's just an opinion and an uninformed one at that.

          But, I would not be surprised if this story had some truth to it and was mostly false.

          I do believe that Iran is attempting to make a bomb even if their facilities have a long way to go. I also don't think the situation is as dire as many present it on the other hand. I think there are a lot of factors at play and I don't know half of them.

          So yes I would agree that there are many "interesting" forces at play here.

          •  Doesn't need to be a conspiracy - completely (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            volleyboy1, Terra Mystica

            independent entities, each acting in their own best interests and taking advantage of situations as they develop, can lead us into dire consequences.

            A further problem is that these entities, whether banks, corporations or institutions seldom have to pay the costs in blood and treasure. Many times they profit whether things go as planned or not.

  •  Still partial to 'covert US airstrike' theory (0+ / 0-)

    With regards to November blast.  The Iranians have since shifted their language on the destruction of the facility.  Whereas they've called other attacks and assassinations 'terrorism' or 'sabotage' they recently called this one a 'military strike.'

    Combine that with the apparent complete destruction of the facility and not even any rumors from Iranian sources of a ground assault...

     I'm inclined to conclude it was some sort of air strike that the Iranians covered up to avoid embarassment over their air defense grid failure. And as such, the only force in the region with the capability of quickly and stealthily knocking out the facilities is us. F-22 stealth fighters and/or Tomahawk missiles with drone support. Since a long-range missile was being tested that day its reasonable to conclude that President Obama received time sensitive information and made the judgment the facility posed an imminent threat. Blew it up in a covert operation, and then happily let the Israelis get the wink and nod, adding to their aura.

    All speculative on my part, but just my reading. Very curious what happened with this incident in particular. Very different from all the other 'mysterious events' plaguing Iran.

    •  any sources for this? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Terra Mystica
      they recently called this one a 'military strike.'

      Combine that with the apparent complete destruction of the facility

      not doubting, just haven't seen it..thanks..

      From those who live like leeches on the people's lives, We must take back our land again, America!...Langston Hughes

      by KenBee on Mon Feb 27, 2012 at 01:39:01 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  New York Times story from January (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        volleyboy1

        Citing a an open letter written from the Iranian UN Ambassador after the most recent killing of a nuclear scientist.

        http://www.google.com/...

        Iran’s ambassador to the United Nations, Mohammad Khazaee, sent a letter of protest to Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, blaming “certain foreign quarters” for what he called “terrorist acts” aimed at disrupting Iran’s “peaceful nuclear program, under the false assumption that diplomacy alone would not be enough for that purpose.”

        The ambassador’s letter complained of sabotage, a possible reference to the Stuxnet computer worm, believed to be a joint American-Israeli project, that reportedly led to the destruction in 2010 of about a fifth of the centrifuges Iran uses to enrich uranium. It also said the covert campaign included “a military strike on Iran,” evidently a reference to a mysterious explosion that destroyed much of an Iranian missile base on Nov. 12.

        That explosion, which Iran experts say they believe was probably an Israeli effort, killed Gen. Hassan Tehrani Moghaddam, who was in charge of Iran’s missile program. Satellite photographs show multiple buildings at the site leveled or heavily damaged.

        And here's satellite photos of the facility before and after.

        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

        The letter clearly singles out one event as being a 'military strike' instead of "terrorism" or sabotage. I'd have to think even if the Israelis hired a bunch of Kurdish brigands to overwhelm and destroy the facility on the ground Tehran would have labeled it a terrorist act. The language suggests something in the vein of an airstrike to me.

        Hope this helps :)

  •  I dunno (3+ / 0-)

    This has CT oozing out all over it.

    "The current 'let's bomb Iran' campaign was ordered by the EU leaders to divert the public attention from their at home financial problems."

    from a bright young conservative: “I’m watching my first GOP debate…and WE SOUND LIKE CRAZY PEOPLE!!!!”

    by Catte Nappe on Mon Feb 27, 2012 at 11:04:31 AM PST

  •  Iran nuclear program faltering because of old tech (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BigAlinWashSt, KenBee, Terra Mystica
    Iran nuclear program faltering because of old technology: UN watchdog
    Reuters  Feb 27, 2012

    ... contrary to some Western media reports in the run-up to Friday’s International Atomic Energy Agency report, Iran does not yet seem ready to deploy advanced enrichment equipment for large-scale production, despite years of testing.

    Instead, the IAEA document showed Iran was preparing to install thousands more centrifuges based on an erratic and outdated design, both in its main enrichment plant at Natanz and in a smaller facility at Fordow buried deep underground.
    ...
    “The testing of advanced-centrifuge production-scale cascades … is going far more slowly than expected,” he said in an analysis. Iran’s “advanced centrifuge programme appears troubled,” the ISIS report added.

    The IAEA said Iran had informed it in early February of plans to install three new types of centrifuge – IR-5, IR-6 and IR-6s – as single machines at the Natanz R&D site.

    When so many models are tested simultaneously, “it indicates that Iran has not yet reached a point where it can decide which would be the next generation centrifuge to be deployed,” Heinonen, now at Harvard University’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, said.
    ...

  •  "where weapons were being developed"? (4+ / 0-)

    I missed that part.  Is that something that was verified?

    •  Yes. It was a long-range missile R & D complex (2+ / 0-)

      It was where long-range ballistic missiles were developed.

      Nothing officially CBRN-related (chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear) but frankly...there's not much point to having a missile with that range and that expense if all you are going to do is stick a conventional warhead on top of it.

      Indeed one of the big tells that Saddam wasn't pursuing WMDs is there was little evidence of any efforts at developing ballistic missiles aside from short-range Scud variants.

      •  Meant to add, the Iranians themselves... (2+ / 0-)

        said it was a missile complex and initially tried to say the explosion was because of an accident during a missile development test.

      •  So Israel's ORBITAL vehicle capabitlity is a sign (3+ / 0-)

        of the same intent?  

        Where does this imputing dire motives to one party, and one party only, come from, and not others with the same capability (including the US)?

        Surely there have to be some other principle considerations, like being surrounded by hostile military, and/or constantly threatened with attack, and/or never having attacked another country in the last couple of centuries, as considerations in what Iran does with it's missile technology (or lack thereof).

        You (and they) also have to consider that the US has in place multiple Aegis boost phase intercept (BPI) installations that could and would intercept Iranian MRBMs heading west.

        This whole bloody scenario is an exaggeration designed to inflame.

        •  LOL you do realize (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Mets102

          that up until the Iranians started in on the rhetoric about the "Zionist Entity", Israel had no designs on Iran whatsoever. I mean generally telling a country you are going to wipe them out (and Juan Cole is full of shit that they didn't do that), buying their enemies tons of missles and putting them on the Lebanese border,  and having massive GOVERNMENT SPONSORED rallies where people chant "Death to Israel" is, oh I don't know... going to make Israel just a bit skittish about the Iranians having a nuke.

          As for interception defense... Yeah.... That is a proven winner - perhaps we should also refernce that to "Star Wars" - because you know... all those tests were so very effective.

          But anyway... don't let me challenge the narrative....

          •  All anyone has to do to refute this particular (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Claudius Bombarnac

            line of BS is to go to:

            http://www.veteranstoday.com/...

            Iranian "nukes!" been going on for decades now.  Decades.

            It's only recently that it has become a centerpiece of US diplomacy, even though it is not a real issue.  Just issue-du-jour.

            BTW, I have seen the word-for-word translation of A-jad's (nutcase) statement and it does in fact state "regime" (meaning government) rather than "Israel."  Cole is absolutely correct.

            You clearly know nothing about BPI or why it is effective and stationed in Iraq.  Not perfect, but effective.

            And as long as you're broadening the discussion, the Lebanese have been killed by the tens of thousands by Israel.  Is it any wonder they are angry and/or would welcome some means of self-defense?

            •  Uh-huh... Yeah... Missle defense is a perfect art (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MBNYC, Mets102, leftynyc

              I mean well it is not perfect - so meh... One or two  little nukes get through - what can they do? (/snark)

              Boost Phase Missle defense is far less effective than you make it seem, but, I am glad to see you buying the defense industries propaganda on this.

              Oh and I am not broadening the discussion. But I can see that you want to turn this into the "Ebilz Izrailees vs. teh bunnies in Hizbollah discussion" and you are going to do it anyway so why let me stop you. Oh but of course those missles in Southern Lebanon are purely for defense - I mean it is of course defensive to launch on Haifa and civilian targets (all while complaining about the Israelis hitting Beirut - but again why mess with the Narrative).

              We can go 'round and 'round about Lebanon if you really want too I have no problem there. Interesting how the border has been pretty quiet since 2006 when after the sort of failed Israeli attack, Hizbollah has stopped trying to kidnap soldiers and has stopped firing rockets into Israel. I wonder why that is since their propaganda was that they were so successful. Hmmmm........

            •  OH SHIT.. you just referenced this site (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Mets102, MBNYC, leftynyc

              for a source... LOL that has this article in the What's Hot section:

              The Confessions of an Anti-Semite

              It was common knowledge that many powerful and prominent Jews were leery of the constant blaring Holocaust® remembrances, which they saw as cause for alarm.

              It’s acknowledged fact that if you toss enough money at anything, you will get more of it. The Zionist branch of Jewry has certainly tossed enough vague allegations of Anti-Semitism into the ether to get an abundance of it.

              Piper, in clear language nails it with numerous citations from the writings of Jewish authors around the world. Mike has not only written many books on the issue of Zionism and Jewish power worldwide, but he has lectured extensively to audiences around the world who appreciate the detailed citations.

              Michael Collins Piper, one of the most jovial “people persons I have ever known, ironically has been publicly tarred for being a “Hater” by the hateful Jewish Lobby, based upon his fact-filled lectures and books.

              Nice source you link to there Terra... AHAHAHAHAHA
              •  And it gets better... it is a Paulist Propaganda (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Mets102, MBNYC

                Site to boot featuring the following articles:

                Ron Paul Only Candidate To Warn of a Fascist Takeover in America

                To date, Paul’s shining contribution to the 2012 campaign is educational—even if the major networks and cable powerhouse Fox News downplay his candidacy in their primary night election coverage. Some of what he says gets through to the public, particularly youthful voters. On the grave issues of totalitarianism at home and tyranny abroad, Paul is the last truth-teller. As such, Paul is a dove fighting for survival among a flock of hawks, and his chances are not bright.
                And articles about the nefarious Zionist Lobby...

                ROLFMAO - and we are supposed to take you seriously.

                Say bye-bye to that.

              •  The article was originally printed: (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Terra Mystica, poco

                at Nima Shirazi's blog Wide Asleep in America Not sure that you'll like that link any better though but for different reasons.

                •  That is irrelevant... (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  MBNYC, volleyboy1, hikerbiker, JNEREBEL

                  One would imagine that when an article published at multiples is linked to, that the commenter reads the site linked to irrespective of where the article was initially published.  Therefore, one would imagine that the commenter in question here reads the hate site Veterans Today.

                  To put it in simple terms, Article N is originally published at Site A.  Site B then republishes Article N.  Commenter C, when linking to Article N uses Site B.  It is therefore reasonable to assume that Commenter C reads Site B with some degree of regularity and accepts its analysis.  Now, let's plug in all your examples with hate site Veterans Today being Site B.

                  Preserve sanity in our government. Re-elect and strengthen and recapture. Proud to be a Democrat!

                  by Mets102 on Mon Feb 27, 2012 at 05:34:25 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  No actually it's not reasonable (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    poco, Terra Mystica

                    I read a whole variety of sites and I don't think that it is reasonable to accept that I therefore 'accept its analysis'. Now if the site TM used is forbidden by dKos rules (I haven't been around much lately so if it's been added I would be grateful to be informed) then I'll pull my uprate. If not, then let's discuss the point that Nima Shirazi has brought up - which is that the calls for war on Iran have been ongoing for decades:

                    An April 24, 1984 article entitled "'Ayatollah' Bomb in Production for Iran" in United Press International referenced a Jane's Intelligence Defense Weekly report warning that Iran was moving "very quickly" towards a nuclear weapon and could have one as early as 1986.

                    In response, a U.S. Department of State spokesman was reportedly quick to point out the official government belief that "it would take at least two to three years to complete construction of the reactors at Bushehr," adding that the light water power reactors at the Bushehr plant "are not particularly well-suited for a weapons program." He also noted that "we have no evidence of Iranian construction of other facilities that would be necessary to separate plutonium from spent reactor fuel."

                    Two months later, on June 27, 1984, in an article entitled "Senator says Iran, Iraq seek N-Bomb," Minority Whip of the U.S. Senate Alan Cranston was quoted as claiming Iran was a mere seven years away from being able to build its own nuclear weapon. In April 1987, the Washington Post published an article with the title "Atomic Ayatollahs: Just What the Mideast Needs – an Iranian Bomb," in which reporter David Segal wrote of the imminent threat of such a weapon.

                    and so on....
                •  Oh, isn't that special. (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Mets102, volleyboy1, leftynyc

                  Fire Bad bending over backwards to justify her buddy's use of a hate site.

                  How about the Protocols? I mean, why the fuck not? Totally popular in the Middle East, so why the hell not?

                  You don't even understand what a horrifying lapse in judgment this is. Dear God.

                  Fuck me, it's a leprechaun.

                  by MBNYC on Mon Feb 27, 2012 at 05:41:13 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  You know (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    poco, Terra Mystica

                    I try my best to comment here on very contentious issues in good faith. Upon being informed of the nature of the site I pulled my uprate (and noted that this was because of the site not the article itself). But this denigration of me is something I find despicable. Not only that, the implication that TM or anyone else here would be happy with the Protocols is beyond despicable.

                    •  I think you underestimate (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Mets102, volleyboy1, leftynyc

                      the degree of anger that deplorable incidents like this cause in others. One would think that people who have been on Daily Kos for more than a few days would employ more discretion, especially on, as you note, contentious issues. It's a sad fact, but even the most broken clocks can be right twice a day, and that's what happened here.

                      All of that said, however, everyone involved has know realized what happened and tried to make it right, so the matter is settled as far as I'm concerned.

                      Fuck me, it's a leprechaun.

                      by MBNYC on Mon Feb 27, 2012 at 06:15:24 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Really? (0+ / 0-)

                        You think that having seen the responses by your and others (and having my own rather negative views about racism and killing) has not somehow sensitised me to this issue? You haven't been watching closely enough.

                        Now if TM had linked to a story on that site that was consistent with the site's views, I'd be outraged. But you turn a mistake into insinuations of racism and accepting the Protocols. Why don't you look to see if you should start shooting before you activate the trigger?

                        •  Yeah.. I mean why when Terra Rec'd. a ZOG (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Mets102

                          Comment in the past and then had us linked to a Hate Site would we have any questions? Silly us - I cannot imagine how we could have thought this could be anything other than a mistake. (/snark)

                          When I link to a site, I usually check what that site is just to be sure. I bet if I linked to a site like Israel Thrives or Israel Matsav I would never hear the end of it.

                          Plus, what in tarnation was "googled" that Veterans Today came up as the first thing? I notice that question was not answered.

                          I get you want to stick up for your pal here but... you know the rule about digging holes? Right?

                  •  Ya know, as fbtp said, I could have just as easily (2+ / 0-)

                    linked the same article from a non hate site.

                    My Very bad.  I apologize.  Lesson learned.  The facts remain.

              •  I just picked the first one. Refute the facts. nt (0+ / 0-)
            •  It's always nice to see good quality uprates... (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MBNYC, volleyboy1, hikerbiker, leftynyc

              of comments that link to hate sites, as volley has amply demonstrated.  This, unfortunately is not the first time that this poster has supported people or entities engaging in ZOG, as demonstrated by the support offered to the ZOG comment of this banned poster.

              Preserve sanity in our government. Re-elect and strengthen and recapture. Proud to be a Democrat!

              by Mets102 on Mon Feb 27, 2012 at 05:28:30 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Are you out of your fucking mind? (5+ / 0-)

              That's a fucking white supremacist hate site. Here, proof.

              This shit doesn't belong here. This is Daily Kos, not Stormfront.

              Fuck me, it's a leprechaun.

              by MBNYC on Mon Feb 27, 2012 at 05:28:52 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  It's is not only Cole that refutes the quote... (2+ / 0-)
            Lost in translation

            Experts confirm that Iran's president did not call for Israel to be 'wiped off the map'. Reports that he did serve to strengthen western hawks.

            Here's another piece from the Guardian:

            and another from The Washington Post no less:

            Did Ahmadinejad really say Israel should be ‘wiped off the map’?

            “Wipe off the map,” in other words, has become easy shorthand for expressing revulsion at Iran’s anti-Israeli foreign policy. Certainly attention needs to be focused on that — and Iranian behavior in the region. But we’re going to award a Pinocchio to everyone — including ourselves — who has blithely repeated the phrase without putting it into context.

            One Pinocchio

            I give you One Pinocchio for propagating the misleading information.
      •  Maybe the US should get rid of it's thousands (0+ / 0-)

        of long range cruise missiles that are tipped with conventional warheads?

        North Korea's greatest threat to South Korea is it's conventional weapons - not it's nuclear ones.

        The first nation to use a nuclear weapon automatically loses. The world will not put up with that. Iran knows this.

        So, why does Israel need it's two to three hundred nuclear weapons? Who's the irrational player here?

        •  It needs it's nuclear weapons because they (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Mets102

          and (everyone else) knows that if they didn't have them they would be conventionally attacked PDQ... They don't have the armed forces or man-power for a sustained conventional campaign and everyone knows this.

          But while we are on this, can you tell me who Israel has initially threatened with it's nukes? Are there any countries that Israel has said should be "wiped from the pages of history"? Has anyone even seen an Israeli nuke put up in threateing posture (that would be displayed in a bellicose or even non bellicose manner)?

          SO since you are implying Israel is the Irrational player here can you provide documentation from reputable soures that show Israel threatening to use nukes in an irrational manner.

          Thanks in advance.

          •  The US wouldn't protect them? (0+ / 0-)
            Are there any countries that Israel has said should be "wiped from the pages of history"?
            Iran has never said that and you know it. They were talking about the Israeli regime ending - not killing the people.

            BTW, why hasn't Israel signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty? Iran has signed and ratified the treaty.

            You have made a case for Iran to also possess a nuclear weapon...

            •  Not really.... what case have I made (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Mets102

              for Iran to possess a nuke? In fact, I showed just the opposite. Their irresponsible rhetoric, sponsorship of terrorist, genocidal,  para-governmental organizations (Hizbollah, and Hamas), their irresponsible and fascistic government ALL points to them not having having nukes and not being allowed to develop them.

              Iran has never said that and you know it. They were talking about the Israeli regime ending - not killing the people.
              Iran, did say that the "Zionist Regime" (Israel) should be wiped from the pages of history. They sponsor rallies where the PRESIDENT HIMSELF leads chants of "Death to Israel".

              As to why hasn't Israel signed the NPT - they claim they don't have nukes. Now, everyone in the world knows differently but... has anyone ever seen an Israeli nuke? They don't brag about them and don't threaten to use them.

              In any case, you might ask them that question. I don't really care why they didn't sign it. But I imagine that claiming not to have nukes has a lot to do with that.

              In any case I am against a full on Military Strike by either the U.S. or Israel at this point in time. So, I am not sure what you are arguing for.

              •  I'll leave you with this... (0+ / 0-)
                The Supreme Leader’s View of Nuclear Energy

                Nuclear weapons, not necessary for Iran

                They mix up nuclear technology with development of nuclear weapons. The truth is different from what they say. Nuclear technology and nuclear weapons are two different things which are not closely related to one another.

                How come we don't see this in the MSM? All we hear is the constant drumbeat of war against Iran based on misconceptions and downright lies.

                I used to be an ardent supporter of Israel 20/30 years ago - but due to events which have unfolded in those years, I no longer support the government of that country.

  •  In my experience (4+ / 0-)

    Stratfor is full of mis-information and lies, whether hacked or what they put out themselves. Always has been a source for disinformation.

    What possessed Wikileaks to leak Stratfor is beyond me.
    Nobody honestly believes Iran is building nuclear weaponry, least of all the nuclear-armed Israel. It is in the same category of truth about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq before the Republican-ordered invasion.  

    I believe this "leaking" to Wikileaks is an effort to destroy Wikileaks. Wikileaks took the bait. COINTELPRO could not have done a better job of spreading fear and lies. The blowback will blow against Wikileaks. Stratfor will continue doing what it does best: spreading lies.

    Read Asia Times and especially Pepe Escobar weekly to be informed about the nuances of Iran and western policy toward Iran. News in the US about Iran isn't worth spending any time reading as it is untrustworthy.  

    When the threat of bombing Iran ends, the price of oil will go down.

    •  I love Pepe's acerbic wit. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BigAlinWashSt, skywriter, KenBee

      Here's another site that I find fairly trustworthy for Iran news

      http://therealnews.com/...

    •  From The Telegraph: (0+ / 0-)
      Stratfor: Osama bin Laden 'was in routine contact with Pakistan's spy agency'

      Osama bin Laden was in routine contact with several senior figures from Pakistan's military intelligence agency while in hiding in the country, according to a large cache of secret intelligence files.

      snip

      Stratfor provides analysis of world affairs to major corporations, military officials and government agencies and was once likened by an American business magazine to a "shadow CIA".

      According to one of the e-mails, the firm was shown the information papers collected from bin Laden's Abbotabad compound after the US special forces attack last May that resulted in his death.

      The e-mail, from a Stratfor analyst, suggested that up to 12 officials in Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency knew of the al-Qaeda leader's safe house.

      The internal email did not name the Pakistani officials involved but said the US could use the information as a bargaining chip in post raid negotiations with Islamabad.

      snip

      "On the surface it presents as if it's a media organisation providing a private subscription intelligence newsletter," the activist, who is awaiting extradition to Sweden on rape charges said in London. "But underneath it is running paid informants networks."

      snip

      Stratfor rejected claims that there was anything improper in the way it handled information gathered.

      "Stratfor has worked to build good sources in many countries around the world, as any publisher of global geopolitical analysis would do," the company said. "We have done so in a straightforward manner and we are committed to meeting the highest standards of professional conduct.

      "Having had our property stolen, we will not be victimized twice by submitting to questioning about them," the statement said.

      snip

      "Having had our property stolen, we will not be victimized twice by submitting to questioning about them," the statement said.

      The Texas-based subscription-based publisher providing political, economic and military analysis to help customers reduce risk.
      What the hell is this guy selling and to whom? I wanna see his client list.
      •  Nobody needed Stratfor to tell us this (0+ / 0-)
        The e-mail, from a Stratfor analyst, suggested that up to 12 officials in Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency knew of the al-Qaeda leader's safe house.
        Yes, of course, ISI knew bin Laden had been living down the block from their major military installation for six years. There's no news there. The obvious reaction is: "Well, duh."

        If Stratfor's clients are paying for this kind of drivel, they are pissing away their money. Anyone reading the news of the bin Laden take-down knew this.

  •  Herzeliya Conference - The conference is Israel's (0+ / 0-)

    main security and strategic gathering with speakers from the army, various ministries, major corporations, and security think tanks.


    More at The Real News

  •  Where in Haaretz article does it say that weapons (4+ / 0-)

    were being developed?

    In fact the Haaretz subtitle says it is "doubtful" that Iranian nuclear infrastructure (for the kazillionth time, only for medical and electric power) has been "taken out."

    It does say there was an attack that "destroyed" facilities.  In which case we should be contemplating a war for Israel and all the destructiveness that entails for the US.

    Edit or delete.

  •  In re the benefit to the Russians: they SELL (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    volleyboy1, KenBee, Terra Mystica

    oil & gas abroad, remember ..........

    LBJ & Lady Bird, Sully Sullenberger, Molly Ivins, Barbara Jordan, Ann Richards, Drew Brees: Texas is No Bush League! -7.50,-5.59

    by BlackSheep1 on Mon Feb 27, 2012 at 12:20:15 PM PST

  •  Stratfor didn't think that report was real. (4+ / 0-)
    "Would anyone actually accept that this could let the Europeans forget about the Euro crisis, something they have been experiencing every day for over a year?!" the analyst added, asking: "Do we attribute any credibility to this item at all? I don't even see what possible disinfo purposes this could serve."
    I'm inclined to agree with them.
    •  They may well be right - Probably there (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KenBee, lgmcp

      is some small truths mixed in with a lot of falsehood here. I think the Israeli covert operations are far more successful than Iran is letting on. I also think there other things at play in this call to war... A call which at this point I don't support... It is an interesting story in any case.

  •  Russia would benefit from a rise in oil price. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    volleyboy1, Terra Mystica

    Just as Saudi would.  Maybe that's what they were thinking of.

    The influence of the [executive] has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.

    by lysias on Mon Feb 27, 2012 at 01:47:25 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site