The Blogiston Post

Politics, money, and war.

Sunday, October 5

tin foil hat

Not many people read this blog, which is ok. Over time, we have decided it was best to act as a minor repository of information to help those researching on the web. Most of those who visit us come from search engines.

But even so, bpost would like to comment further on the gloves contract we recently posted. And so, donning our tin foil hat, we wish to share our fear with you.

The gloves contract set off a small alarm bell on first reading. As mentioned, had the contract been for standard replacement, or issued just prior/after the conflict in Iraq began, we would have given it little thought. Our concern is the timing. Here is why.
The CIA has already briefed friendly foreign intelligence services on a contingency plan for air and missile strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites, according to western diplomats.
(See Iran defies US over weapons hunt by Ian Mather Scotland on Sunday October 5, 2003)

The IAEA has given Iran until October 31st to prove it does not have a hidden nuclear weapons program. On Sunday, Israel launched an air strike against what is described as a terrorist base inside Syria. The air strike inside of Syria is an indication that a strike inside of Iran, by either Israel or the US, is no longer outside the realm of possibility.

Note: On June 7, 1981, in a surprise air attack, Israel struck Iraq's Osirak Nuclear Research Facility then under construction. More recently, CNN has reported Israel has warned that Iran's nuclear program posed a threat.

Should the US or Israel launch an air strike inside of Iran, retaliation likely would be directed into Iraq where roughly 130,000 American troops are now stationed. Given the long history of animosity between Iran and Iraq, collateral damage, the deaths of civilians, is something Iran might find acceptable.

Iran also has a history of using chemical weapons, hence our concern over the ordering of a large quantity of gloves. While Saddam Hussein's regime has been blamed for the gassing of Kurds at Halabjah in March 1988, there are competing reports that suggest Iran was more likely to have been the culprit given the chemicals involved. No matter who actually did gas the Kurds, the history of chemical weapons' usage by both countries is known.

(See US Suppressed Gas Charge Report by Raju Thomas Times of India September 16, 2002 and A War Crime or an Act of War? by Stephen C. Pelletiere New York Times January 31, 2003)

Bpost shared its concerns with others. Much to our dismay, a blogger who we respect reported the following to us:
I've heard from two people through my weblog that there's a buzz among troops that 'something big' might be about to happen.
We at bpost pray that we are simply having a tin foil hat moment that will soon pass as nothing more than a petty anxiety.

The alternative is unthinkable.


Post a Comment

<< Home