Attack on Iran - IMMINENT!

The flimsy evidence that the Bush administration proposed as facts turned out to be wrong, not surprisingly. You're trying to obfuscate this with the media.

.

 

Nice tactic too the way the Bush administration and the Republican Congress scheduled the vote for the Iraq war a few weeks before Congressional mid-term elections so that politicians would be afraid to vote against it out of fear of not being patriotic and losing re-election.
.

 

Oh Matthew.... surely you remember the December 27, 2004 (or so) confirmed nuclear attack on a Texas city?

How can posters of such claims continue to post here? :tongue:

 

Well I never believed it - you never believed it - 30% of americans did not believe it.
God only knows how many people around the world did not believe it.
Too the best of my recollection I did hear connections from the media extrapalated from what Bush said in a few speaches - more than I did hear him say anything to connect the two.

I'm talking about the UK goverment - Bush did not convince me of anything.
For me it was a long list of resolutions and the two final resolutions.
Ofcourse the media had a hand in making peoples mind up for them.
''imminent war with Iran'' thread highlights how the media have played a hand in creating a history that is not true.

 

Matthew. Heh.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html

CSM had a prophetic article before Bush even invaded Iraq. It mentioned how much more the public will turn against a war if it is going badly and if entering it under false pretense as the Bush administration did.

It mentioned the 'Saddam-911' mantra also. Some polls pre-invasion showed 70% of the public thought Saddam was involved in 911. Others showed that 60% thought that the hijackers were Iraqis.

.

 

Unfortunately the U.S. mainstream media was in lock-step with the Bush administration pre-invasion and for a few years after the invasion. They've only recently come back to their senses a little. The press should be questioning all of these matters.

.

 

you can only make sense of the press unless you have some

 

'fraid so.

I'v read that - I know the statistics - i'm not questioning you on that.
Why not post the press conference verbatim and we can see how accurate a assesment it was.

 

You consider that prophetic?

 

I suppose you base your support on Revelations.

 

Fifteen of the nineteen that were labeled as being responsible for the 09/11 bombings were Saudis...what have we done to prevent further Saudi involvement in future attacks?

It was all about marketing and it worked to a point.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html

 

Unlike Iraq, if Iran is attacked, most of the public will be unaware.

In some articles I have read, Iran was attacked back in April 2007.

This is something that will be much more secretive than Iraq I am sure. passed under our noses.

 

In regards to my quote: "Unlike Iraq, if Iran is attacked, most of the public will be unaware." I just found the quote and story in fact http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6025

quote from article:
"But what will happen here in the U.S. after the Iran attack? How will we react? If it happens, it won't be announced the way the invasion of Iraq was. There will be more and more unattributed reports of Iranian arms deliveries to unlikely recipients like the Taliban or Sunni "insurgents" in Iraq. More alarmist reports on Iran's nuclear progress. More propaganda about Iran's intention to nuke Israel and produce a second Holocaust. More indignant statements about Iran's defiance of UNSC resolutions. But the timing might come as a surprise."

Now I just have to find the second article which made the quote about the possibility that Iran has already been struck.

 

Cheney promised 4 back in may?

13 total 11 in service.

they already have an excuse, Iran's nuclear quest.

 

Iran's quest for nuclear weapons and one of the worst administrations on the planet?

 

Do some work for a change, Matt. We can't do everything for you. You can look up all the other instances of people in the Bush administration using Saddam and 911 in the same breath. We didn't hear the Bush people using 'Saudi Arabia' and '9/11' in the same breath again and again.

This administration has done nothing but play off of people's fear. What's worse is people who know better continuing to defend that type of sleezy tactic.

.

 

Even the journalists had more insight than the Bush administration into the problems that would occur when using false pretense to invade another country.

.

 

FFS I do a hell of a lot of work to find info' a lot more than most - I think you know that or should.
So what if I do not want to buy into your paradigm - don't get all frosty with me - your better than that.
Okay i'll be cynical and defamatory:
Well sure I could and I was being a little lazy but I assumed because you mentioned it - it would be easier for you to find it. I think we will find your assesment is as accurate as this:

''Actually, that was the only part of the speech that the media showed and that they could show. The firemen were laughing at him leading up to that one line. They couldn't hear him and he was fumbling through his speech. The firemen were chanting sarcastically, "We can't hear you!". That's why the U.S. media only shows that one line. ''http://hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3552067#post3552067
Very much wide of the mark and packed with lies.

I'm sorry for being rude.