Truth News Australia

Subscribe to TNRA

Deflating the HYPE - Can the seemingly imminent War with Iran be Stopped?

03 March 2012 | Permalink | comments: 5
By John Bursill

Categories: [ Iran ]

John Bursill
Article by John Bursill

Unfortunately it now appears that a war between the US and it’s allies with Iran is imminent. By any military analysts assessment this has a real chance of changing the current multi-theatre war against terrorism and so called rogue/terrorist states into a real World War III scenario!

Stop Iran War

Following the Main Stream Media (MSM) in the west over the last few months, you would be sensing that many things have happened to support the war with Iran rationale; hearing that Iran wants a Nuclear bomb and would be prepared to use it against Israel and the US. Other alarming stories include Iran trading in weapons with “rogue states”, Iran killing innocent people abroad, Iran’s President is insane and wants to “wipe Israel off the map”, Iran has been involved in terrorist plots/bombings and may attack inside the US and Iran is trading drugs. The list of baseless accusation goes on and on.

Interesting to remember that after 9/11 the MSM did little to question the actual events and who benefited but devoted massive media speculation to Iraq being involved while no evidence existed; managing to convince the vast majority of the American public that Saddam was involved with the 9/11 attacks leading to growing public support for the 2003 invasion.

Many times over the last decade it was obvious by the rhetoric out of Washington and from their many think tanks like PNAC (The Project for the New American Century) and leaked memos from the Pentagon that the Caspian Basin would be central to their future plans of an expanding Empire. The only obstacle was then generating the public and political support to do so. Prophetically the Neo-Con document “Rebuilding America's Defences (year 2000)” had said a “New Pearl Harbour” type event was required for this purpose and then very conveniently, it happened on September 11 2001. This facilitated the new American Empire they wanted by enraging the US population to a war mentality and allowing massive budget increases.

It was soon obvious which countries were marked for “regime change” or worse in the Middle East including Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Iran. The most probable reasons for the desire to control these countries was to complete it’s dominance of the Caspian Basin oil reserves, protect its allies Israel and Saudi Arabia and to ultimately usurp any possible arrangements between Iran, China, India and Russia that could threaten the trading of oil in US Dollars. In my opinion the US deep state believe if oil rich countries get the idea they can trade direct with sovereign nations without using the US dollar, the US Empire will certainly be finished, well economically at least. If this means the death of millions in the Middle East and of tens of thousands of their own troops by these wars then that’s fine with them as long as they keep control of the oil trade.

Oil Empire
This increasing projection of US force is even more likely as the US Empire begins to crumble for it will wish to deny the rising economic giants a secure supply of energy. To quote Michel Chossudovsky and Finian Cunningham in their recent article “War Plan Iran” “From the Western powers’ point of view, Iran is both an elusive prize and a frustrating obstacle. Bringing Iran back into the orbit of Western capitalist control has the added significance of depriving energy and other geopolitical advantages to rival powers, in particular Russia and China.” This situation is not going to be allowed to eventuate without pushing diplomatic relationships with China and Russia and many others to breaking point. Will they act economically or militarily is the only question in my view. Either way the world will be in for more economic stress, debt and expanding military budgets but most worryingly, a possible nuclear exchange.

So lets look at the picture being painted at present, i.e. the hype and propaganda v’s the actual situation and why this confrontation is now apparently imminent.

The situation;

Iran has no Nuclear Weapons Program says all US and western intelligence agencies
Iran is ideologically opposed to Nuclear Weapons
Iran has continued to threaten the US Dollar dominance trading through it’s own oil bourse dropping US dollar trade completely on March 20 this year
- China and Russia is increasingly upset by US Policy in the gulf and an Iran/Syria intervention may be the last straw
Massive build up of US military force in Persian Gulf
Positioning of large troop contingents in Israel and Kuwait 
War Games have recently escalated in the strait of Hormuz
US has recently announced the biggest ever arms sale to Saudi Arabia(60 Billion USD)
Israel is “ready” for war with Iran and could strike at any time
- US Sanctions on Iran, while diplomacy ends, historically means the next step is a military intervention
Russia prepared to use military force to protect interests in Gulf region say Russian Military Experts
Main Stream Media Critics of US Middle East Policy barely exist and continue to be shut down or sacked

 

The propaganda and hype;

Mainstream Media (MSM) support the Neo-Con agenda that Iranians are “determined to become a nuclear power” are “crazy” and will use it
The current US policy of sanctions is required to persuade Iran to stop it’s Nuclear Weapons Program 
Many allegations have been made by the US and its allies that implicates Iran in terrorist/criminal activities without any hard evidence
MSM are beating the drums of war again with baseless stories. A quick search of YouTube shows many spun stories making it seem like Iran is determined to get a nuclear weapon
Iranian Elected President Mamoud Ahmadinejad is continually misquoted to give a sense that he will “wipe Israel of the map” and believes the Jewish Holocaust never happened
The current line up of Republican Candidates ( except Ron Paul ) continue to call for war with Iran
Israel pushing hard for war and blaming Iran for attacks against their country without hard evidence 
Attacks against Iran and the murder of its scientists, supported by media and political talking heads as required and acceptable
Iran being set up for the next 9/11 “false flag” to give reason for US attack

So there’s the background, now to the question: ‘can the war with Iran be stopped’ by rational actors calling for truth and sanity in the face of such propaganda produced by strong Neo-Con/Israeli control of the media, the US Congress and even within the UN itself? Can we deflate the hype?

Well I would say it’s unlikely with the current state of the paralysed Peace Movement and completely controlled MSM world wide. But I do believe with a raising of awareness in the general public, of exactly how dangerous this war could be for us all, both physically and economically it is possible to put a stop to the Neo-Con/Israeli plan once again. Also the broad awareness that 9/11 and other pretexts to war are not what we are told, has weakened the popular support of governments pushing for war without proper investigation of the events that lead to them.

I have found that the argument against a war with Iran leading to a possible WWIII is very easy to make, even if you propose it to those who support the US Empires’ control of the Caspian Basin or it’s support of Israel. Because turning the Middle East into one big war theatre by a likely confrontation between the US and China/Russia is obvious madness. This only makes sense to a few warmongering power elite who care little for life; the progress towards peace or the stability of the region. As hard as it is to conceive, their are people controlling America who have always been prepared to risk nuclear war, seriously thinking they can win and rule the world.

I personally recently decided to start a process to address this situation in Sydney Australia by organising a truth awareness rally see: Say NO to a WAR with Iran! Deflate the WAR HYPE with Truth Awareness

 

Comments

WAR WHAT IS IT GOOD FOR (Besides banker profits)
 
  ABSOULTLEY NOTHING

the eastern pacific/carribeean/atlantic region according to FEMA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kx3D5lxUJpU&feature=relmfu

http://therandomfact.com/concept-of-scientific-geo-engineering-to-artificially-cool-the-earth-is-discussed-by-the-un/2210732/

Concept of Scientific Geo-engineering to artificially cool the Earth is discussed by the UN

Radiation Management SRM (AKA geoengineering) for short is being discussed at COP 17 in Durban as a possible means of reducing the amount of radiation reaching the earth from the sun. Rather strange really as most of the IPCC type scientific lackeys have disputed the possibility of this actually causing changed weather systems on earth . They are far more prone to accusing you and I of being greedy with our use of carbon fossil fuels.

“Solar radiation management might sound, at first, like something from science fiction – but it’s not. There are already serious discussions beginning about it, and that’s why we felt it was urgent to create this governance initiative. Solar radiation management could be a Plan B to address climate change, but first we must figure out how to research it safely.” (plan A is to cut carbon dioxide emissions – what is known as AGW or CAGW)

So what exactly would this Plan B potentially comprise of? Various techniques have been suggested such as placing huge space reflectors in orbit to reflect the sun’s energy, releasing stratospheric aerosols into the upper atmosphere, and brightening clouds with seawater.

Playing God

Those who tend to be in the scientists shouldn’t “play God” school of thought are simply aghast that anybody could even seriously consider such a possibility for more than a split second. Their argument is that the unforeseen results could be utterly catastrophic, and that the report’s acknowledgement that deliberately attempting to pervert the course of the weather is fraught with danger is an understatement. The divine creation is magnificent and far more complex than humans could ever understand, so just let God, or nature if you prefer, get on with it, they say.

I MUST ADMIT I TEND TO AGREE WITH THAT STATEMENT.

Silvia Ribeiro, the Latin American director of the ETC Group, which campaigns against geoengineering, said:

“This report is dominated by scientists engaged in geoengineering research in the UK, US and Canada. They are advocates for more research; several of them have claimed patents and have significant financial, institutional and professional interests in the field of geoengineering research. There are the same familiar names that we have seen in a whole series of recent reports: John Shepherd or David Keith.

The Global warming – cooling – climate changing or whatever they are currently naming it mob, all have vested interests as far as I can tell. From the scientists who would lose immense amounts of funding were the truth to be known, and should they come out of their insulated closets to publicly admit they really have no proof, to the Green Energy Companies and right down to the Carbon Trading giants, all have a vested interest in seeing to it that we are told rather large fibs so that the money keeps flowing right into their bank accounts.

Should it be shown that there is no human causation for climate change and variations etc, then they would all be out of work – and good riddance I say!  No man-made climate change then all these new fangled taxation schemes would have to be done away with - hence the reason your governments won’t allow the truth to be known - they would lose your money arghhhhhh!

I am one of the many who are thrilled to see a second serving of delicious emails released, affectionately being called Climategate 2. These are finally putting into context the first round of emails released approximately two years ago. Some claimed all these emails have been taken right out of context, so now we have them in all their ugliness - in context for the world to see. Check them out do please.

“Solar radiation management technologies are high-risk and extremely dangerous and they should be treated under international law like nuclear weapons – except, unlike nuclear weapons, we have an opportunity to ban their testing and their proliferation them before the technology is fully developed, rather than trying to prevent their proliferation after the fact. This is where we should be looking to for guidance on governance. We need to ban these technologies, not facilitate their development.”

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8386006/court-security-orders-woman-to-take-off-tent

http://peterbdunn.wordpress.com/2010/07/03/processed-white-sugar-is-a-terrible-poison

By pbd62 on 2012 03 04 - 00:52:12

Spead this video over the world:
Attention! 3. Pearl Harbor stands just before http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRx4JlSVwWs

By wonderbird on 2012 03 22 - 05:20:50

Close HAARP at once! Secret weapon ist spread with 6 installations over the world. They can hover the athmosphere and smash it down! Have they caused Fukoshima, worldwide birds mass death, fish and bees dying??? When are we aim of this mass elimination weapon???

HAARP WEATHER CONTROL could be part of NWO DEPOPULATION PLAN, here’s the science.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TdIkI1ory8&feature=related 

Project ENOCH 2012: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOMq7axOvkY
Doomsday Project and deep events: http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20111123050622362
How Bush helped Hitler - http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar - SS=Skull and Bones - look at this video of John Buchanon: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aj1OdjNpqdI&feature=endscreen&NR=1

What about Georgia Guidestones? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones

By jesuits had founded illuminati - masonry - bilderb on 2012 03 22 - 06:13:24

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nY4HGs-9JiU HAARP

By Jesse Ventura clears up on 2012 03 22 - 07:38:44

Great article! Hopefully there will not be any war. We should pray about it actually.

By Bill Weavers on 2012 10 03 - 09:16:41

Enter comments below, then click Submit:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Listen Live

Recent Comments

Andrew Adams,

you say “if that were the case.. there would be other clouds present”.

And there often are other cirrus clouds around when contrails persist for long! In clear blue skies, contrails are quite often not persisting. Both does not always apply though; see quote further below which has the reason for that.

The process I described is how persistent contrails form; it’s not just a claim I make. Read NASA’s contrail pages for a starter. It has to say:

Persistent contrails are ice clouds, so they are mostly made of ice. They also are likely to contain aircraft exhaust products (including soot and dissolved gases like sulfur dioxide), but they are overwhelmingly made from moisture condensed out of the surrounding air.” (Emphasis is mine)

Or read Ulrich Schumann’s concise 2005 paper on contrails, which contains this sentence:

Contrails evaporate quickly if the ambient air is dry; they persist, evolve into more extended cirrus clouds and grow in particle size by deposition of ambient water vapour on the ice particles in the contrails if the ambient air is humid enough.” (Emphasis is mine)

In the conclusion of the paper, you’ll find a hint why it’s quite possible that there may be persistent contrails without surrounding clouds:

Many aspects of contrail formation are well understood. Contrails from for thermodynamic reasons when the ambient air is cold enough. Persistent contrails form in ice-supersaturated air masses. In such cases often contrail cirrus forms where no cirrus would form otherwise because ice supersaturation is often too low for natural cirrus particle nucleation.” (Emphasis is mine)

Now can you tell me where you think there is a lie?

By Josh on 2014 11 01 - 09:25:53
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

“If a contrail persists and grows, the additional mass comes from the humidity that is already present in the air - just like when natural clouds form, seemingly out of nothing.”

if that were the case.. there would be other clouds present, ones that have not come out the back of an aircraft. if the humidity is there, you wouldnt need an aircraft going past in order for clouds to appear in an otherwise perfectly clear blue sky.

appareently fenton likes truth here, yet not only does he tolerate your lies, he encourages it.

not the first sign of hypocristy we see from him though. still cant tear himself away from facebook i see )

By Andrew Adams on 2014 11 01 - 08:34:00
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Burden of proof. Clever legal chess play.
Isn’t it the case that those that rule us do so in deference to our sovereignty.
Isn’t it the case that .many of us do not consent to the above mentioned rulership.
Isn’t it the case that if one were to ask one of the said rulers to write down and sign at their own individual unlimited commercial liability that geoengineering, including but not limited to “chemtrails”, for the purpose of weather manipulation is not being conducted that there would be a refusal.
Is it not the case that a refusal to the previous proposition would amount to tacit agreement that what is referred to is happening.
The burden of proof rests on him who affirms not on him who denies….but there are ways snaring the slippery.

By Cris on 2014 11 01 - 08:26:55
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

““i have been neither dictatorial, nor abusive” - yes, you have mate. Earlier you said “how about just taking a big gulp from the mug of STFU”. That is both dictatorial and abusive. We’ll now add “dishonest” to the list of your shortcomings. Have a nice day.”

i think you need to look up the definition of dictatorial fenton. banning people here simply because you can would more fit the definition than me suggesting someone take a drink from a mug.

as far as honesty goes, i really doubt you have a leg to stand on there, because if i were to believe you really want me to “have a nice day” instead of it being a smarmy glib sarcastic jibe, then id be as gormless as josh, who still cant seem to understand the fact that nothing he can say here, in his role as unqualified mendacious shill, is of any interest to me.

further on honesty, you say “i think we can all agree that a plane hit the pentagoin” - not verbatim, but its close - so perhaps you can show us what you base that falsehood on?

further on honesty you continue to pretend chemtrails are a non issue, disregarding the concerns of thousands more qualified than you.

further on henesty, you call this site truthnews…

have a shitty day <—- at least im honest

By Andrew Adams on 2014 11 01 - 08:26:21
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Cris,

the point that rational people make is that the stuff coming from the airplane exhaust stays indeed the same, but what’s changing is the situation around the plane. At one day there is dry air, at annother there is a lot of humidity. (See my explanation how the latter can happen when a front is approaching.)

If a contrail persists and grows, the additional mass comes from the humidity that is already present in the air - just like when natural clouds form, seemingly out of nothing.

By the way, that is a well-known plausibility argument against chemtrails - no plane is able to carry the mass equivalent of even a small persistant trail (search “ice budget”).

By Josh on 2014 10 31 - 23:46:16
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Andrew Adams,

I don’t claim to be an expert. However, I have read a lot about both chemtrail claims and their dissection from a scientic point of view, from sources that are accessible to everyone.

If something specific that I wrote is wrong, I certainly welcome a correction. Usually, I’m giving references from actual experts, so it’s only fair that any rebuttal should include specific references too. Also, I’d welcome if we could stay polite.

The science of persistent contrails is well established. They were observed since the early days of aviation (see also the top article), and the conditions that favour them were researched in the middle of the 20th century (Schmidt and Appleman, see for instance the introduction of this paper).

The Appleman Chart is a rule of thumb for contrail prediction. It is not very intuitive, but there is a visualization available which allows to adjust the parameters and see how the contrail properties are changing (needs Java).

Any claim that a specific persistent contrail cannot be explained with this knowledge needs to be based on very good evidence. If the evidence is reviewed and still stands, science has to be corrected. That’s the whole idea about scientific research - but the burden of proof lies with the person who makes the claim.

By Josh on 2014 10 31 - 22:38:08
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

It amazes me how rational people can think that the same stuff coming out the back of a plane can one day increase to enormous size and exhibit strange transformations(usually when rain is forecast) and other days is either non existent or merely dissipates from visibility within a minute.

By Cris on 2014 10 31 - 21:51:08
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

“i have been neither dictatorial, nor abusive” - yes, you have mate. Earlier you said “how about just taking a big gulp from the mug of STFU”. That is both dictatorial and abusive. We’ll now add “dishonest” to the list of your shortcomings. Have a nice day.

By Hereward Fenton on 2014 10 31 - 21:01:25
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Moderate Muslims:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=253_1412566275

By Eugene Donnini on 2014 10 31 - 20:28:52
From the entry 'A review of violence and intolerance in Islamic and other societies'.

fenton, i didnt say i didnt want to engage in rational debate, i said i wasnt interested in engaging with an obviously mendacious shill. i have been neither dictatorial, nor abusive, and as far as failure to prove anything goes, ignoring evidence does not mean evidence has not been provided, nor proof been established.

you have certainly not proven by any stretch of the imagination, that chemtrails are imaginary, and the concern of thousands of credible experts worldwide is without justification.

may i suggest if you can not prove what you are asserting, that you also take a hearty sip yourself. have a shitty day.

By Andrew Adams on 2014 10 31 - 15:33:15
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Categories