George Bush "radical Islamic empire" or The Empire Strikes Back?
(07.10.2005)

George Bush accused militants of seeking to establish a "radical Islamic empire", but this was more of an opportunity to place another nail in Iran's coffin and quickly followed an accusation from Tony Blair about Iran's link with Iraq.

Some of the mainstream media called his speech an attempt to revive his flagging support for the war in Iraq, but Bush (or Blair) don't really need or worry about that as they have sufficient powers now to continue this war (or create new ones) regardless of whether the public want it or not.

Bush again warned nations about supporting or harbouring groups with Al-Qaeda ties, saying that Islamic radicals are using these nations as a base for attacks and mentioned "allies of convenience like Syria and Iran"

It is no coincidence that both Bush and Blair have openly attacked Iran (on the same day) as has having some involvement in Iraq, and this signals a renewed effort to promote the need for a military strike against Iran.

Obviously, such talk is not sufficient to gain the UN's approval for military action, but as with Iraq (and the weapons of mass destruction), the seeds are being sown and we can expect an almost exact repeat of that tactic being delivered shortly, including a new 9/11 to help launch the offensive.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan, when asked why Iran and Syria had been named as "allies of convenience" replied "They continue to move in the wrong direction". Unfortunately, it doesn't really matter what direction they move in, there is a bullet with their name on it and it is coming their way very soon.

Tony Blair made an amusing comment when he said "There is no justification for Iran or any other country interfering in Iraq". There was no justification for the United States or Britain to invade Iraq either, but this didn't stop them. Why is it alright for one side to do this and no one else?

Bush mentioned that Islamic extremists hope to use an "American retreat" to gain control of Iraq and use it to launch attacks on other countries. He didn't say which countries and only one springs to mind. But if Iran is involved, why do they need Iraq, they have sufficient power to launch an attack from their own country, if they really want to. Perhaps Bush is a little confused about who has gained control of where and who might use it to launch an attack?

We feel sure that Iran (and probably Syria) know what to expect soon, the question is when. We can perhaps help them in that area, it will be before the end of the year!

News Feed