| Submit your comments on this article | ||
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran | ||
| Terrorists Going Nuclear | ||
| 2006-02-07 | ||
Evidence Points to a New Class of Global WarfareA closer look at the calendar of events immediately preceding terrorist acts and Muslim unrest in Western countries over the past seven months offers provocative clues about Iran's cunning in defining this new class of warfare on a global scale. The London transport bombings, the New Delhi terrorist attacks, and Muslim civil unrest that brought France to a halt for 20 nights were all executed at a time soon after each country had exerted significant pressure on Tehran to give up its nuclear ambitions. Consider the following calendar data:London Bombings, July 7, 2005 May 16, 2005: British Prime Minister Tony Blair argues that Iran should be hauled before the United Nations and sanctioned for its pursuit of nuclear weapons. June 17 & 24, 2005: Dark-horse Iranian presidential candidate, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, becomes the sixth president of the Islamic Republic of Iran. June 23, 2005: British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, chairing the Foreign Minister's meeting of G-8 nations two weeks before the full G-8 summit in London, dramatically ratchets up the pressure on Iran, chiding its quest for nuclear weapons and urging Tehran not to restart uranium enrichment at its Natanz and Isfahan facilities. June 26, 2005: Ahmadinejad threatens openly to restart uranium enrichment, and soon thereafter threatens to "wipe Israel from the map," among other declarations of hostile Iranian intent. July 7, 2005: Multiple bombs are set off on London's subways and buses at morning rush hour, killing 52 and injuring over 700. The perpetrators appear to be British Muslim citizens, organized in local cells loyal to al Qaeda. MI5 and MI6 intelligence analysis suggests there may have been foreign support for the terrorist attacks. July 21, 2005: A repeat performance of the bombings takes place, this time with dud bombs that gave the impression of copycat crimes. A month after the first London transport bombings, Iran restarts its nuclear-enrichment facilities at Isfahan on 8 and 10 August 2005. Coincidence? Or purposeful warning shots? Perhaps there was no correlation between Britain's harsh reaction to Iran's nuclear intent in the months leading up to and just after Ahmadinejad's election, and perhaps the British Muslims charged with killing their fellow citizens three weeks after Ahmadinejad was elected had no foreign influences over their actions. But in a country known for its extreme tolerance of the wildest hate-spewing Islamist personalities, the timing of the July 7 attacks, predicted and rationalized for years because of Britain's unwavering support for U.S. policies in Afghanistan and then Iraq, doesn't seem like a coincidence. The pattern of a foreign power either pressuring Tehran, or even reversing a previously friendly stance to pressure the mullahcracy on its nuclear plans, repeated itself again when, just months after taking a hard line against the Iranian nuclear program, France and India also suffered Muslim violence and terrorist attacks. Indian Terrorist Attacks, October 29, 2005 July 18, 2005: Washington and New Delhi sign a Global Partnership pact allowing India access to U.S. nuclear technology that had previously been banned because New Delhi had refused to sign onto conditions of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The move, which requires U.S. congressional approval, is widely seen as an effort to show how the U.S. can help to responsibly develop a civilian nuclear program in a developing country, a message squarely aimed at Tehran's mullahs. August 8 & 10, 2005: Iran resumes uranium enrichment at its Isfahan nuclear plant, in direct contravention of its international commitments under the NPT. September 15, 2005: Ahmadinejad, speaking to the U.N. General Assembly, makes Iran's nuclear intent clear — the Islamic republic has a right to develop its civilian nuclear capabilities and will not answer to those who confront him with evidence of an intent to weaponize highly enriched uranium and plutonium stocks. September 24, 2005: Framing its resolution as a matter of international peace and security, the IAEA's board of governors votes by 22 to 1 with 12 abstentions to refer Iran to the U.N. Security Council for failing to comply with NPT terms. The significance of the resolution's passage is that for the first time, two previously staunch defenders of Iran's right to develop its civilian nuclear facilities, France and India, side with the United States to vote against Iran, and two client-states, Russia and China, abstain from the vote, having vetoed any efforts to bring Iran before the U.N. Security Council a year earlier. October 29, 2005: With eerily similar timing to the London bombings — nearly a month after intense pressure is applied to Tehran to comply — three bombs go off in residential districts of New Delhi that kill 61 and injure 188 as the Hindu Diwali festival is about to begin. The meticulously planned and executed attacks are blamed on Kashmiri separatists from Lashkar-e-Taiba (whose links to al Qaeda are well known). With senior al Qaeda leaders residing comfortably in the confines of the Pasdaran's safe houses, very little imagination is required to connect dots that Tehran would rather not see connected about its potential complicity in such acts of fingerprint-less terror. The reasoning behind such an attack, however, was crystal clear. New Delhi's decision to vote against Iran at the IAEA meeting politically shocked Iran. It was perceived as the ultimate betrayal: Tehran had offered a $5 billion Iran-India pipeline deal and $22 billion natural gas deal that would bring long-term stability to India's energy needs. India, instead, chose to side with the Great Satan in the loftily named "U.S.-India Global Partnership" that would send U.S. nuclear technology to India to help it develop its civilian nuclear reactors. Muslim youth riots throughout France, October 27, 2005, to November 17, 2005 October 27, 2005: Two days before New Delhi is attacked, a seemingly innocuous incident in a Parisian suburb involving north African Muslim youth and French police turns into Jacques Chirac's worst nightmare when riots erupt and spread like wildfire throughout 274 different municipalities in France over the next 20 nights. One hundred and twenty-six police officers are injured, over 8,900 vehicles are torched, and nearly 2,900 arrests are made during a three week period that essentially brings the French nation to a grinding halt politically, economically, and socially — perhaps not terrorism in the defined sense, but the effect on France's national government and political identity is devastating. France, too, sided with the U.S. in the September IAEA vote. The riots that besieged it for 20 days and nights were by all accounts meticulously planned, coordinated, and provisioned logistically through a countryside warehouse supplying gasoline and kerosene pipe bombs as if it were churning out Peugeot automobiles. The work of a ragtag group of youthful Muslim zealots acting on their own? Or a state that had outsourcing infrastructure at the ready to take advantage of an incident rooted in the culture clash brewing in France's Arab and Muslim communities for decades? Judging by Jacques Chirac's comments last week, it would seem he doesn't consider what happened to his country was not a coincidence. He warned Tehran that France would not hesitate to use its own nuclear arsenal against any nation that sought to destabilize it, whether with nuclear weapons or by any other means. If the pattern that emerges from the calendar analysis above is accurate, an attack against Germany, the only member of the EU-3 negotiating with Iran for an amicable settlement that has not suffered Islamist violence, cannot be far off. On January 13, 2006, newly elected German Chancellor Angela Merkel visited President George W. Bush at the White House and emerged with a unanimous declaration condemning Tehran for its nuclear ambitions. Germany, under Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, had previously been opposed to Washington's heavy hand in dealings with Iran. On Saturday, Germany's interior minister, Wolfgang Schaeuble, validated the concern expressed herein about the nexus between state sponsors of terror and their execution squads when he said, "The question is probably no longer whether there'll be an attack with a dirty [radiological] bomb; the question is when and where it's going to happen." He went on to cite the victory of Hamas in the Palestinian elections with support from Iran's nuclear-toting clerics as the type of nexus the West would have to deal with in the future to insure its security.
| ||
| Posted by:Admiral Allan Ackbar |
| #3 IRAN is just but one cog in the chain of the mostly politicized International Terror network - unfortunately for Americans, the anti-US Socialists are using terror as a PC/PDeniable catalyst and diversion for carrying out their agendums. BETWEEN NOW AND 2008, POTUS DUBYA AND ADMIN MUST WATCH THEIR SIX, as the reactionist-opportunist-anarchist DemoLefties are waiting for the Spetzlamies to initiate Amer Hirsohima/new 9-11's which will PC turn Fascist = Limited Socialist-Commie Washington NPE into full-fledged Commie Totalitarian-Centralist, anti-American American, pro-anti-sovereignty Washington NPE. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2006-02-07 21:28 |
| #2 ..increased emphasis on homeland defense. All very fine and dandy, but the best defense would be to put Iran out of commission permanently. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2006-02-07 09:33 |
| #1 "The question is probably no longer whether there'll be an attack with a dirty [radiological] bomb; the question is when and where it's going to happen." This is one of the motivators for the Presidents increased emphasis on homeland defense. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2006-02-07 07:36 |