Analysis of White House Propaganda on Iran IED
Ref The slides are here.
Ref IEDs made in Iraq, not in Iran.
Ref: Bush making inconsistent statements on whether Iranian leadership is or is not involved. Uncertainty is not a credible threat of "imminence".
Iran Does Not Make the Shell Shown: Ref -- It's from Pakistan.
Calendar Problems on Production Lots
___ The Iranian calendar is 600 years behind the Western celandar. Ref Why do the dates on Iranian missiles match the Western Calendar? OOps. [ ( h/t manisnv: February 12, 2007 - 10:07pm ]
Numbering: Ref When marking munitions, the Iranians do not always use Roman numerals, but Arabic-Farsi numbers. ( h/t ) [ Caldwell screwed this one: 79-lot number; 3579 ( h/t ) ]
"Anonymous" Briefer Identity: The name of one of the three briefers on the Iran issue was Major General William Caldwell, born about 1954, 52 years old [ WikiBio Images ]
Why Cladwell wants to remain anonymous:"We will hold ourselves accountable for our actions." --- Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell IV Ref
Inside the soul of every General is an insecure Colonel wishing for a star.\
Guess which NeoCon heathen was at the hart of the Gulf of Tonkin deception over what kind of weapons were involved? [ Darth Cheney ] ( h/t: Peustro ) ]
The information is worthless, untimely, and not correctly labeled. There are too many questions, not enough answers, too much uncertainty, and information is not linked with named-personnel.
The Japanese example of WWII sheds light on the events. "Protect our troops" is an excuse to expand illegal warfare. This violates Geneva and matches what Japan claimed after the US interfered with Japan's illegal activity. Like Iran, the US legally opposed Japan's war of aggression; resistance to illegal activity is no legal foundation to expand America's illegal war of aggression.
Even if Iran was doing this, there is nothing that Iran is doing that is illegal. The solution is for the US to remove its forces and end the unlawful war of aggression in Iraq, send them home, and keep them out of Iran.
Lesson 1: Start the Briefing With A Quote
Notice the President's quote: Sets the tone. However, there is a problem; he did the same thing with the Iraq WMD issues. Ref
He lied then, he's lying now.
Lesson 2: Iran is allowed to do what the US Claims
Putting aside the illegal war of aggression and unsubstantiated claim, the President offers nothing.
Lesson 3: Lack of Precision Despite Claims of Certainty
There is no definition for "material support". The intelligence community is not in agreement that Iran or is not doing something.
Even if Iran was doing something, Iran is legally permitted to do what the US claims is happening.
Lesson 4: Assert a problem without proof
The US claims that the flow of material from Ireland and Pakistan is going through Syria and Iran. If the US is going to "interrupt the flow of support" what is the US plan to attack Ireland and Pakistan?
If the US is serious about "seek[ing] out and destroy[ing] the networks providing advance weaponry and training" when will the US attack the MI5 intelligence personnel supporting this activity in Ireland? Ref
"Necessary steps" to protect forces includes ending illegal warfare, not expanding illegal warfare,
For the US to claim that it is doing something for Iraqi forces, the US government must show that it is suited to provide assistance which the Iranians have offered.
The US cannot explain why, despite claims that the weapons appeared in 2004, why there is still disagreement in 2007 on what happened. Ref
Three years to complete a test that takes only a few short days means the test was not done; and the results are not conclusive. Giving the President more time isn't a solution, but enables him to commit more war crimes in Iraq and Iran. This is impermissible.
There is no basis to claim that Iran is a "significant" contributor to attacks. Ref
Even if true, using the American analogy, US troop war crimes against Iraqi civilians forms the basis for other nations to attack the United States, as permitted under the laws of war.
The "growing body of evidence" is illusory, contradictory, and inconclusive. Ref
"Additional evidence" is not a meaningful statement, especially when connected with "suggests". Ref I could suggest the moon is made of cheese. It is not true. It is made of honey. [/snark]
___ Which evidence does not support your assessments?
___ Which evidence contradicts you assessment that Iran is involved?
___ How were other views on the evidence handled?
___ Why should we believe the evidence you have reviewed is real? Ref
___ Discuss the chain of custody for this "evidence" -- what was done to ensure Abraxas-placed personnel working for the CIA did not plan this information?
The Vice President’s illegal war of aggression force US civilian activity at the ballot box. The Vice President and Addington are alleged war criminals. Ref
___ Why are there disagreement about the connection between Iran and the activity?
___ What evidence do you have that the training, if it exists, is illegal?
___ Why the frequent use of "terrorism" -- this is not terrorism; it is lawful resistance to American war crimes in Iraq.
___ How much training does the US provide to insurgents in Iran?
___ Using the US leaders' logic, does not the US support for illegal activity in other countries expose the US to like retaliation this briefing supports against Iran?
Abraxis personnel do not use correct identifying information. Ref
___ Should foreign nations attack Abraxis headquarters?
___ Should CIA personnel using bogus information from Abraxis be detained around the globe?
___ Should Abraxis cover-stories be used to say that the personnel working for Abraxis should be targeted, detained, and tortured?
___ Should Abraxis personnel captured be treated better, worse than, or the same as prisoners illegally tortured under US care?
War criminals get their rear-ends kicked. Ref
___ What is the plan of the US government to prevent Members of Congress from being detained, and rendered to The Hague?
The US has a problem maintaining security, especially against combatants who are lawfully opposing an illegal war of aggression and occupation in Iraq. Ref
Things captured five months ago, two months before the November 2006 election, but silence. Ref
US still not able to agree what is going on. Not impressive.
Weapons found in May 2006, still not able to agree what is going on nine  months later.
Information available five months before the November 2006 election, but White House refuses to provide information that may have tipped the balance, avoid blame for Iraq, and maintain control of Congress.
White House had an interest in providing this information but didn't. Unconvincing.
Events on Iraq-Iran border have been fabricated, in light of phony ballot box story. Ref
Supposedly seized Dec 2005; why wasn't this "impressive action" by the Iraqi security forces advertised to the Iraqi people so the Americans could blame another scapegoat for their incompetent handling of Iraq's reconstruction?
Silence means the US wasn't able to figure out how to use this information for more than 1 year, until 2007. Yawn.
Which Abraxis-connected people placed the evidence? Ref
Be specific with a number when you say: "Numerous" -- Exactly how many. Don't classify it. Tell us.
Ref Here is an Iranian mortar for comparison. (h/t: drobert_bfm : February 11, 2007 - 9:30pm )
Ref More mortar photos. [ h/t: billy 68 February 11, 2007 - 10:02pm ]
What is the basis to conclude the Iranians are putting English on weapons? Ref
___ Where is the facility in Iran that is making this?
___ What other facilities have been linked with these "mortars"?
___ What are the "known Iranian samples" and where were they acquired?
___ Why is the font different on the samples: Notice the type face is different. The one on the left has small, almost no space between the 2006; while on the right, there is space between the 2001. Why the difference?
I want to know exactly which printing device was used to put the labels on the "known" Iranian sample [on the right]; and why there is a different stenciling devise on the on the left.
___ What is the printing devise used to make the stencil?
___ What physical layout is required to produce the 6-2001 emblem?
___ When, by evidence which NSA should have if it is was real, did the Iranians supposedly change their contract type face for the production lot?
___ How was the contractor decision documented in a contract?
___ Where is the central registry for the stencil typefaces?
___ How does the change in stencil compare with what the Iranian government supposedly uses, authorizes, and requires in the contracts?
___ What is the explanation for the change: The original fuze [fuse or fuze -- why using a "z" in something that is supposedly English?] does not mention "MORTAR" or "Fuze" or fuse type; while the new version, supposedly from Iran, does have this information.
___ When did the Iranian government specifically require the change in designation on the Fuze label?
___ How was this decision recorded, documented, and applied to other locations and weapons?
This is linked with Pakistan. Ref
Note the slide does not say anything about Iran. The word "Iran" is not on the slide.
How convenient: Secretary of Rice whining, "Nobody every said . . ."
This is misleading and part of a briefing about Iran. This is not acceptable.
___ What is the name of the analyst who knows this weapon is from Pakistan?
___ Why is this weapon in a briefing about Iran?
___ Who in the CIA, White House, and DoD approved the incorporation of this information in this slide?
___ How long has this Flag Officer been assigned to the Joint Staff?
___ Which DoD planning cells has which lawyer, by name, who reviewed this data before it was released?
Which Abraxis-placed employee positioned this equipment in Iraq? Ref
Notice this slide, again, does not have the word "Iran" anywhere.
___ What comments were shared about this slide?
___ What is the reason that "Iran" is not on this slide?
Wow, 2004 -- almost 1,000 days ago -- two years before the GOP lost the November 2006 election. Suddenly, the Vice President and Addington think its time to show the "big scary stuff" that might have made Rove a hero in November 2006.
___ Who did the stress testing on this device?
___ Where is the test report, with photographs, of the material analysis done under IEEE and ANSI testing standards?
___ What is the name of the materials engineer who did the analysis of this material?
___ Why did it take three years to release this information despite this test only taking a few short days?
___ What is the explanation for why this material, that could have been tested in 2004, still cannot be linked in the minds of all analysis to a specific country?
___ Why is the US talking about 2004 defenses may have existed in 2007, three years later?
Note: "Iranian produced" -- even if it were true -- is not the same as "Iranian supplied".
___ Who in Iraq may have legally bought the weapons from Iran before the US invasion?
___ How many weapons did the Iranians and Iraqis prior to the US invasion in 2003 exchange?
The US didn't know about the Iraq WMD ruses.
___ What is to say that the Iraqis, as the case with WMD, pretended to do something, but were buying these weapons?
Note: There is no specific data other than 54 - 02 - 05: Does February have 54 days now; or is the "05" a lot number?
___ What is the date of production of this device?
___ How does the production date square with the stamp provided?
The US military has a reputation fro planting evidence to justify abuse of Iraqi civilians.
It’s odd for weapons supposedly made in an Arabic-Farsi country to have English markings, especially when the "intended user" of those weapons is in an Arabic-Farsi country.
___ Is it possible that non-Iranian production companies may have produced these in NATO countries? Ref
___ How many weapons in Lebanon bear English words?
___ What is the connection between US contractors in Lebanon and Hezbollah?
___ Which US arms dealers are working with intermediaries to provide shipments to Iraqi fighting Americans?
___ Could this device have been moved by US forces in Iraq?
Illegal Torture of Prisoners Under American Care Ref
___ What is the incentive of people to lie to American interrogators?
___ Are any of the detainees/prisoners interrogated have knowledge of the laws of war?
___ Which of the prisoners mentioned the Geneva conventions permitting other nations to lawfully use force to oppose illegal American ground actions?
___ When you say "references" to Iranian provision of weapons, discuss the details: Who made the original references -- the prisoner, or the interrogator?
___ Where is a transcript of the interrogation of these prisoners?
___ Are the prisoners dead?
___ Did the prisoners' interrogation transcript get retroactively created, and is it a composite transcript of things that the Vice President wanted someone to say?
___ How are people supposedly [a] stupid enough to get caught with English-stenciled weapons; in a position to [b] know about training in Iran; but [c] they only made references to things, without certainty?
___ Which Abraxis training facility provides the guidance to Lincoln Group when fabricating this evidence?
___ How is the information gleaned from this torture sessions used to target NSA surveillance and abuse of American civilians in the Continental United States?
___ Why does the US interrogator believe the prisoner; but the interrogators do not follow the laws of war banning illegal occupation and mistreatment of civilians? Ref
___ Why does the US government believe a prisoner that could have been tortured; but it ignores the specific laws banning illegal Geneva Convention violations?
Lower Map: Ref
___ Why aren't the UAV's able to track these routes?
___ Where is the infrared detection of the tire tracks in the Iraqi sands?
___ What is the evidence the money is being used illegally?
___ Who/what is "escort[ing]" the convoy?
___ How do you know this "only" happens "at night"?
___ What is the basis to say that this transportation of money/weapons is "regular" -- how are you defining "regular" -- why not say that precisely?
___ Who are the "named individuals" who supposedly provided the IEDs from Iran -- what is their connection with Abraxis?
___ Who are the "extremist group members"?
___ How do you know where they are crossing?
___ Is what they are doing illegal?
___ What does the US plan to do to end the American illegal activity of American troops in this illegal war?
___ When the US says, "Extremist group members" -- what does that mean?
___ How does the US know who is "responsible" for something, yet the analysts are privately saying there is "no smoking gun"?
___ What is the plan to determine whether there are or are not weapons transfers during the day?
Prisoner Interrogation Inconsistencies
Note closely the problem between the two white boxes: Ref
Top box says, "included references"; while the said box says things were certain: "Provides" and "responsible" are not qualified.
___ Why are the discussions about the prisoner statements less certain than the assertions about who was or was not responsible?
___ Discuss how many different interrogations are behind this slide?
___ Why is some information asserted as fact; but specific comments attached to a prisoner-interrogation are not certain?
___ Why are statements which are certain not linked with a specific source; while the vague comments are specifically associated with a person?
___ Where were the "named individuals" -- were they approached; detained; captured; or was the NSA reviewing the information from Echelon?
The US has problems with HUMINT in Iran and Iraq. There are not enough translators.
___ Who made the recordings of the translation sessions?
___ Is there a person under the US military command which knows exactly what was said; or were US contractors involved in the translations?
___ How much money will these US contractors get paid in bonuses if they can create information which would justify US government supporting contracts for weapon system purchases from US defense contractors?
___ Which Titan, Abraxas, or SAIC employees were involved in the translations?
___ How much money does the translator stand to get in NYSE stock gains if they can provide material that is conveniently consistent with what the Vice President wants?