Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: [ROTFL!] Hacker rossobruni pubblicano un articolo sul JPost

Here we go again?
By GWYNNE DYER
11/12/2011 23:45
 
The same intelligence agencies are producing the same sort of reports 
about Iran that we heard eight years ago about Iraq.
 
‘We will not build two [nuclear] bombs in the face of [America’s] 
20,000,” said Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in response to an 
International Atomic Energy Agency report this week that accuses Iran of 
doing just that. He called Yukiya Amano, the head of the IAEA, a US 
puppet, saying: “This person does not publish a report about America and 
its allies’ nuclear arsenals.”
 
Well, that’s true, actually.
 
Amano will never publish a report about America’s nuclear weapons (only 
5,133 of them now, actually). He hasn’t said anything about Israel’s, 
Britain’s and France’s weapons of mass destruction either. And his 
report is largely based on information fed to him by Western 
intelligence agencies.
 
But apart from that, Amano is as impartial and free from US influence as 
you would expect a career Japanese diplomat to be.
 
Only cynical people will see any resemblance to Colin Powell’s 
performance at the United Nations in 2003, when the US defense secretary 
held up a test tube and assured us all that Iraq really was working on 
germ warfare.
 
Iraq was allegedly working on nuclear weapons, too: former president 
George W. Bush’s famous “smoking gun,” which also subsequently went missing.
 
And on the basis of this “intelligence” about Iraq’s “weapons of mass 
destruction,” the United States and its more gullible allies invaded the 
country. Hundreds of thousands died, no weapons were found, and nothing 
was learned. Here we go again.
 
Fool me once, shame on you.
 
Fool me twice, shame on me.
 
The same intelligence agencies are producing the same sort of reports 
about Iran that we heard eight years ago about Iraq’s nuclear ambitions, 
and interpreting the information in the same highly prejudiced way.
 
Many people in the West realize that they are being hustled into yet 
another attack on a Middle Eastern country, but they don’t really worry 
about it too much. After all, it will only be air strikes, and we all 
know that an air-only war is practically casualty-free for the side with 
air superiority. Look at Libya, for example.
 
But how many citizens of the United States or Britain know that Iran has 
10 times as many people as Libya? Maybe one in 10, maybe one in 20. How 
many know that Iran is a partially democratic, technologically 
proficient state with no history of attacking its neighbors, not a 
tin-pot dictatorship run by a vicious loon? About the same number. How 
many realize that the war would not end with a few days of air strikes? 
Practically none.
 
THE INTERESTING exception to all this is Israel, where people do know 
those things, and where there is a vigorous debate about whether 
attacking Iran is a good idea. Many think it is not, and that also goes 
for both of Israel’s intelligence agencies, the Mossad and Shin Bet 
(Israel Security Agency). Meir Dagan, the recently retired head of the 
Mossad, said last January that an attack on Iran was “the stupidest 
idea” he had ever heard.
 
So Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak, 
both of whom do apparently want to attack Iran (or rather, have the 
United States do it for them), have gone public. If the Western powers 
don’t act at once, they warn, then Iran will get nuclear weapons and 
Armageddon will be just around the corner.
 
There are two things wrong with this proposition. One is the evidence. 
If you believe it all, it shows that Iran wants the knowledge and 
equipment that would let it build a nuclear weapon very quickly if 
necessary: an Israeli nuclear threat, a military coup in nuclear-armed 
Pakistan that brings young Shia-hating officers to power, whatever.
 
The evidence does not show that Iran is actually building a nuclear 
weapon now, or has any present intention of doing so.
 
And having the knowledge and equipment that would let you do so fast in 
an emergency is entirely legal under IAEA rules.
 
The other problem with the accusations against Iran is the logic behind 
them. Building a nuclear weapon now would be extremely costly for Iran 
in terms of economic sanctions, global diplomatic isolation and the like 
if it became known. But it would be completely pointless from a 
deterrence point of view if it remained secret.
 
Deterrence is the only logical reason that Iran would ever want nuclear 
weapons, since it would be suicidal for it to attack anybody with them. 
As Mahmoud Ahmadinejad pointed out (above), it would have at the most a 
few nuclear warheads.
 
The United States has thousands of them, Israel has hundreds of them, 
and even Pakistan has dozens.
 
If Iran’s leaders were completely logical in their thinking, they 
wouldn’t waste a minute thinking about nuclear deterrence.
 
They’d just rely on the fact that their military can completely shut the 
Gulf to oil traffic and bring the global economy to its knees if anybody 
attacks them. However, they are still a lot more rational than their 
Western counterparts – or at least than their Western counterparts can 
afford to seem in public.
 
You heard about that recent exchange between French President Nicolas 
Sarkozy and US President Barack Obama that went out on an open 
microphone? Sarkozy said, “I can’t stand [Netanyahu] any more.
 
He’s a liar.” And Obama replied: “You’re sick of him? I have to deal 
with him every day.” What about? One gets you 10 that it’s about bombing 
Iran.
 
The writer is a London-based independent journalist whose articles are 
published in 45 countries.
 
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?ID=245347&R=R1
 
-- 
Sostieni Rete ECO
 
http://rete-eco.it/it/sostienici.html
 
 

 published in 45 countries.
 
Persio non riesce a immaginare qualcosa come un dibattito democratico.
Probabilmente perche' e' un pirla.

 Persio non riesce a immaginare qualcosa come un dibattito democratico.
 
su un quotidiano che ha cacciato un giornalista tagliando ad arte un
suo articolo? Direi proprio di no

  ha cacciato un giornalista
 
quando gli stalinisti si battono contro la censura mi causano
irrefrenabili crisi di riso. Ti rispondo quando ho finito di ridere.
 

 quando gli stalinisti si battono contro la censura
 
manipolare un articolo e ribaltarlo è peggio che censura. E' quel
fascismo che piace a chi si bea dei boicottaggi a istituzioni
culturali internazionali.

 culturali internazionali.
 
per esempio alle Universita' israeliane?
 


che non sono internazionali, a differenza degli istituti boicottati
del cui boicottaggio ti fregi, degno nipotino delle campagne antiSdN
del fascismo dopo la guerra d'Etiopia

 del fascismo dopo la guerra d'Etiopi
 
Quindi non c'e` niente di male nel boicottare Cuba, Iran e altri paesi?

 del cui boicottaggio
 
no, non ti intendi di grammatica.