June 11, 2010
Russia and China are still not convinced that North Korea was behind the attack on the Cheonan last month.
|The UN has voted to put sanctions on Iran, the first step of economic warfare before the real war starts, either under Obama or the next president.|
Mainly questions surrounding the event center around training exercises that were taking place in the area between the US and South Korea at the time, the enormous security breach that the supposed torpedo attack exposed on South Korea’s part, the injuries of victims on the ship not being consistent with a torpedo attack, and the fragment of torpedo that was offered up as conclusive proof of North Korea’s guilt saying “1 beon” on it instead of one “1 ho” (Apparently the North Koreans don’t use the term “beon”)
All these points alone don’t necessarily prove an inside job but when compounded and measured by the political ramifications of the attack on U.S. relations with Japan, it warrants giving the event a second look.
The previous prime minister of Japan campaigned on the platform of closing the U.S. bases there. With the supposed attack from North Korea taking place, Japan again felt threatened. In the weeks following, a new prime minister was swept into office and talk of closing the US bases was swept out.
Was the sinking of the Cheonan an act of North Korean aggression, or part of a silent U.S. backed coup in an allied country?
Putting aside the possibility of a false flag for a moment, if North Korea were guilty of sinking the Cheonan as the media and Obama administration believe it is, their response to this act of aggression is striking. Here you have a country that is still technically at war with its U.S. allied neighbor, often stating its intention to acquire nuclear weapons, launching a torpedo at a South Korean ship and killing many of those on board.
Sounds a little like the Gulf on Tonkin, except that event didn’t actually happen while this one supposedly did.
Where is the drummed up media outrage?
The kind they use on Iran?
A few years ago during the last presidential election there was an incident in the Straight of Hormuz in which the U.S. claimed that five Iranian speedboats threatened and harassed a Navy frigate and two Navy destroyers. At first the details were sketchy and nothing really came of the incident, but that didn’t stop the media from fear-mongering and using the non-crisis to demonize Iran. Soon after, it was revealed that the incident had been exaggerated. Still, our political leaders took advantage of the TV crisis to voice their fiery rhetoric of hypothetical revenge.
Said Mike Hukabee during a GOP debate:
“I think we need to make it clear, not just to the Iranians but to anybody, that if you think you’re going to engage the United States military, be prepared not simply to have a battle…be prepared first to put your sights on the American vessel and then be prepared that the next thing you see will be the the gates of Hell, for that is exactly what you will see after that.”
Since then the barrage of “threats” from Iran hasn’t stopped, even under the new president. Last fall the American people were presented with the discovery of a nuclear enrichment facility in Iran outside the city of Qom that Iran itself had voluntarily reported the existence of to the IAEA. Obama, backed by other western world leaders, made a grave speech about it at the G20 meeting in Pittsburgh, the media fear-mongered, then it fizzled. The public didn’t adequately tear its collective hair out so the test balloon deflated and fell.
Last week the New York Times reported:
“In their last report before the United Nations Security Council votes on sanctions against Iran, international nuclear inspectors declared Monday that Iran has now produced a stockpile of nuclear fuel that experts say would be enough, with further enrichment, to make two nuclear weapons.”
Skip down the article further and you read:
“Until recently, all of Iran’s uranium had been enriched to only 4 percent, the level needed to run nuclear power reactors. While increasing that to 20 percent purity does not allow Iran to build a weapon, it gets the country closer to that goal.”
And what is the amount needed to reach that goal? 90 percent! Iran is not close to enriching uranium to that level, nor would it ever be according to the deal it reached with Brazil and Turkey a few weeks ago that would have had Iran getting its uranium enriched outside its borders in Brazil…a goal that President Obama expressed support for in a letter to President Lula of Brazil until the deal was reached and Obama suddenly decided he was against it.
Now the UN has voted to put sanctions on Iran…the first step of economic warfare before the real war starts, either under Obama or the next president.
With all this hype against Iran, the question remains– what if instead of North Korea sinking a South Korean ship, Iran had sunk an Israeli ship?
The question hardly needs to be answered. Imagining the fallout presents images of endless news cycles covering the aftermath…the official investigation…the Israeli and U.S. political responses…speculation on the the possibility of another attack…the threat Iran poses on the American home front…the demand from the U.S. for the Iranian government to “come clean” on its guilt…Obama’s cronies on the talk shows speaking of military action…Bush’s old cronies on the talk shows doing the same…the Israeli military retaliation…the Iranians striking back…the U.S. coming to Israel’s side (its military action given a name that sounds dramatic when said on TV like “Operation Allied Justice” .)
Since the U.S. and Israel have beat the drum over Iran’s hypothetical nuclear weapons, (while Israel possess its own and refuses to sign the most recent U.N. nuclear non-proliferation treaty) one can’t help but speculate on the hypothetical sinking of an Israeli ship by Iran. Such an action would give the globalists inside the United States government the excuse they need to clench their collective fists over Iran’s strategic resources…a gift delivered to them with a big red bow on top.
Meanwhile, the desire by the U.S. to stand firm against North Korea has faded in the minds of its political and media establishment, so the rhetoric has toned down. The Cheonan event was either a false flag operation that accomplished its goal of disrupting the political leadership in Japan, or it was an inconvienent distraction, perpetuated by a foe that doesn’t currently fit inside the cross-hairs of the globalist hijacked United States government.
To say there’s a double-standard when it comes to picking which international events constitute a threat to the United States is an understatement. Iran has done nothing except watch its neighbors get invaded and finds itself the target of sanctions and threats of military action.
North Korea supposedly attacked its U.S. supported neighbor, yet the White House and the media now say very little about it.
The truth is that in the end, it’s not events themselves that shape the actions of nations, but rather the leadership of nations shepherding public perception of those events, allowing them to push ahead with their own agendas.
This article was posted: Friday, June 11, 2010 at 6:46 am