rigorousintuition.ca

<!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2006/10/remember-eisenhower.html">cannonfire.blogspot.com/2...hower.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>"Remember the Eisenhower!"<br>A "strike group" led by the nuclear aircraft carrier Eisenhower is heading to the Persian Gulf today. Many observers presume that Bush plans to hit Iran. I think the strategy is more devious.<br><br>As noted in earlier posts, the Iranians possess a new class of cruise missiles which can easily destroy any ship in the Gulf. I believe that the neocons are placing the Eisnhower in harm's way precisely because they know that sunk ships justify wars. Any number of covert tactics (faked signals intelligence, bogus information fed to Iranian agents) could lead the Iranians to believe that they are under attack and must hit first or be hit.<br><br>Would the necons sacrifice an aircraft carrier to get their war? In my opinion, yes. Not only will that oil-rich nation be reduced to nuclear rubble, neocon ideology will experience a resurgence within the U.S. -- where the law now allows Bush to kidnap and torture all progressive activists and writers<br><br>The strike group includes a submarine, probably equipped with nuclear missiles, which will handle the response after the Eisenhower goes down. <p></p><i></i>

The fact of the matter is, there's going to be a war with Iran, whether we want it or not. The mullahs are hell-bent on war with the west, and there's no way to prevent it. The only real choice we have is if we'll fight them before or after they succeed in building nuclear weapons. I'm very much in favour of "before".<br> <p>-Sepka the Space Weasel</p><i></i>

There was an excercise a little while ago in which a recently retired American aircraft carrier was sunk. The premise of the excercise was that they wanted to understand how it behaved subject to explosives and sinking.<br><br>There was much tinfoil hat thinking that this was to aid in planning of a future "USS Maine" incident. <br><br>I can't remember the vessel and couldn't find any articles on it; maybe someone else can.<br><br>A factor that lends plausibility to the Iranians REALLY being able to sink a carrier is the Sunburn Missle. Lord; I always swore I'd never source a Rense article; please forgive me........ (ha ha tinfoil hat pretensions!) anyways irrespective of source it is interesting:<br><br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.rense.com/general59/theSunburniransawesome.htm" target="top">www.rense.com/general59/theSunburniransawesome.htm</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--> <p></p><i></i>

<!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.twofrog.com/ussamerica.html">www.twofrog.com/ussamerica.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> <p></p><i></i>

What a clever wayn that would be to turn the name Eisenhower into a new war instead of a warning against the military-industrial complex.<br><br>Just as JFK keeps getting buried there is a campaign to portray Eisenhower as a scheming Cold Warrior who masterminded massive propaganda mechanisms which was done on his watch but by other people.<br><br>See the latest book by Kenneth Osgood who is very 'State Department'-friendly.<br><br>I don't think they'd actually sink the Eisenhower because that would be too big a display of vulnerability in the intended psy-ops.<br><br>All that would be needed was a missile strike and some dead Americans and off to the races. And missiles zipping in from outta nowhere are probably pretty easy to generate as undetected friendly fire. <p></p><i></i>

Maybe somebody should register "remembertheeisenhower.com/.org" just to be prepared. Or some less cumbersome name that might be used. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=jingofever>jingofever</A> at: 10/1/06 10:08 pm<br></i>

That carrier group is just sitting out there with a big bull's eye on it. And, a job like this one would be a lot easier to pull off than another domestic terror attack. Dov Zakheim would be pleased, I'm sure.<br><br><br><br>Rense is actually a very good place to source material, as long as you can link away from his site. It is where a lot of the most pertinent information is to be found, parked alongside aliens and other ridiculous stuff. And thus, the baby goes out with the bathwater. That's the game. <p></p><i></i>

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Maybe somebody should register "remembertheeisenhower.com/.org" just to be prepared. Or some less cumbersome name that might be used.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>I think the desire to portray people who share opensource info on the internet as a bunch of potential extremists inciting terror makes that a bad idea.<br><br>'Foreknowledge' would be the excuse to chill us by making an example of someone. <br><br>Y'know, like the airline put-options just before 9/11. <br>Oops. Nobody was pursued over that, were they? <p></p><i></i>

<br> Just found this analysis of the ongoing deployment, or is that "exercise" currently underway.<br><br> <!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=NAZ20061001&articleId=3361">www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=NAZ20061001&articleId=3361</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br><br> Im sure I dont need to remind RI'ers of the "coincidental" deployment from the UK to the region of the largest assembled UK flotilla since the Falklands ( or even including - i cant just remember ) , just prior to the "coincidental' 9/11 attacks which resulted in the invasion of Afghanistan.<br><br> " the lunatics are in the hall" <p></p><i></i>

<!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/5274374.stm">attacked</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--> oil rigs don't seem to start wars, particularly Romanian oil rigs with <!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://clusty.com/search?input-form=clusty-simple&v%3Asources=webplus&query=romanian+oil+rig+iran+kish+island+%2Bhaliburton">connections</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--> to Haliburton......... <p></p><i></i>