Device for sniffing out terrorists. It gets more incredible...

The war on terrorism (read war of terrorism) is even spawning some material which is so bizarre that it verges on the humorous.... see link here: A device is being developed to enable security officials to "sniff out terrorists". (!!!!!!) This warrants a little bit of nice, old-fashioned "Anglo Saxon": 

BOLLOCKS!

The chance of succumbing in a terrorist incident in a lifetime is about 550 times less likely than being struck by lightning... which is rare enough in itself. How about a war on thunderstorms? Governments and their media lackeys are obsessed with terrorism, and the security and surveillance industries are benefitting handsomely with such lucrative spinoffs in government grants and additional funding for such dubious technologies. Promoting/exaggerating terrorism is an effective way of scaring (read terrorizing) the public, and thus manipulating public impressions and opinions. Nervous travelers also exude these pheromones ... that's a large percentage of travelers; the number of false positives will make this device useless in airports, but probably very effective for harassing groups we have been taught to hate (read Arabs and Muslims). I guess that's good enough for the powers that be.

More on the gatekeepers of the 'left", the NeoCons' unexpected ally...

The petulant, duplicitous behavior of the the likes of Max Blumenthal, Arianna Huffington, DailyKos, Noam Chomsky, Amy Goodman and numerous other "gatekeepers of the so-called left" is a truly bizarre position, way beyond the extraordinary, reaching into the realms of the "Outer Limits", or the "Twilight Zone". By their cowardly (and anti-American) position of blanket censorship of expression and analysis regarding the elements of 9/11 that fail to conform to their heads-in-the-sand opinions, they have placed themselves in a logically untenable place. On the one hand, they keep bleating about the serial lies, abuses, the multitude of illegal/unconstitutional acts other appallingnesses carried out by the Bush Administration (which is fair enough, they happened)... but whenever 9/11 rears its ugly head, first they close ranks and pigeonhole the NeoCons in the "paragons of honesty" checkbox, and then attack people asking questions as "conspircay theorists". This is not only 6th grade level of "thinking", but borders on the insane. The "left gatekeeper" crew are arguably the NeoCons' greatest frends, in that they form an impenetrable wall between the likely perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks and a bunch of prison cells on Death Row.

Perhaps, in the absence of rationality on the part of these"gatekeepers", one is tempted to manufacture excuses in order to explain why they are doing this; one prime motivation of this kind of ostrich behavior is arguably to maintain an artificial and arbitrary comfort zone. For example, a racist possibilty crops up: we here in the mainstream US, view our white western squeaky-clean Judaeo-Christian culture as morally and ethically superior to those of "brown-skinned Arab/Muslim" sorts, and "we" are fundamentally incapable of committing such a dastardly act, whereas "they" could, (regarding the killing of 3000 people). To doubt this viewpoint obviously causes some to blow fuses, despite the long track record by Western governments (in particular the US and UK) for plannng and/or conducting false flag type events, to further "difficult to sell" agendas, especially including warfare.

Furthermore, to conduct a proper, no-holds barred investigation of the 9/11 attacks, with full subpoena power, would undoubtedly dilute (or perhaps even eliminate) Arab/Muslim involvement, by the inclusion of others.To the cowardly gatekeepers and the corporate media whores and weasels, that is the absolute no-no area; they will refuse to listen, and they will censor and ban others for bringing up the subject.

It is quite the eye-opener to quote Chomsky himself on this very issue: 

"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate."

A lie can get half way around the world before the truth has got its boots on.

The "left" media is coddling the hardline neocons!

We are faced with the bizarre notion that the major icons on the left, such as Noam Chomsky, David Corn, David Swanson, Amy Goodman, Victor Navasky, Michael Moore, Arianna Huffington, Howard Zinn, and the other self-styled "left-gatekeepers" are the very people who are helping the planners, organizers and perpetrators of 9/11 get away with mass murder (whoever "they" happen to be). Goodman et al are helping maintain the status quo by not rocking the boat, keeping the 9/11 issue taboo, preventing their left-oriented readership from getting the salient facts, and using the "conspiracy theory accusation" as the default (kneejerk) response. Some supposedly "left" leaning websites, such as the Daily Kos and Arianna Huffington, have even gone to the extreme measure of banning anyone who even brings up the notion that 9/11 was other than what was sold to the world by the Bush Administration, the Pentagon and intelligence officials! (Freedom's fried, or what!). From all the best evidence that is out there, it is abundantly clear that "the planners, organizers and perpetrators of 9/11" were not "19 arabs and a man in a cave who hate our freedoms", but unknown parties who are motivated by some very "NON-liberal" politics, such as across-the-board corporate welfare, a quantum leap in militarism and warmongering, a general rollback of civil liberties and human rights, imposition of a big brother type "surveillance society", an obsession with security, secrecy and conformity, and all the other ugly consequences and programs that were rapidly enabled by the events of 9/11.

If there was any logic or justice, Amy Goodman and the so called "progressive" publications should have jumped all over 9/11 with a fine-tooth comb, especially considering that many of the demonstrable lies, absurdities and untenabilities of the official fairy-tale became glaringly apparent from very soon after the event. But no... they clammed up and closed ranks, just like the weasels and appeasers in the mainstream corporate media. To evade and deny the subject that has been the direct cause of all the policy set which Goodman etc. have been bellyaching about so bitterly for the last 8 years, is a bit like investigating the destruction in New Orleans and the Gulf Coast in 2005, while simultaneously ignoring the fact that a massive Category 3 hurricane had just barrelled through the area (!!); it is that blatant and illogical.

I am not one to idly speculate, but the fact that all these left-media leaders have been effectively protecting their apparent political enemies leads one to consider the possibility that they have been coerced (by parties unknown) into such an illogical and mysterious set of non-reactions and silence. Perhaps advertisers threatened to withdraw sponsorship if pro-9/11 truth material was published? Perhaps they are scared of being name-called as "tinfoil hatters" or "wackos" in the mainstream press and television? Perhaps they are scared of losing tenured positions in academia? Perhaps they did indeed get threats directed against themselves and/or family members... these things really can, and do happen. I am purely guessing here... because without threats, the stand take by the "left" media makes absolutely *zero* sense. To be fair, I am sure that Amy Goodman (and her cohorts) are enjoying their often well-paid careers in broadcasting, and in these crazy economic times, I am sure that nobody is that keen to jeopardize their livelihoods. However, the inaction of the progressive left is brought more starkly into focus by the fact that many of those who *have* stepped up to the plate are represented by the (libertarian) right, not to mention that two of the most important movers and shakers in the 9/11 Truth movement (physicist Dr. Steven Jones and architect Richard Gage) are moderate Republicans.

Oklahoma City Bombing... Being lied to AGAIN.

The recent security camera tapes issued under the "FOIA" (fwiw these days) is very revealing, in what they do not reveal. A link to to yahoo news is here... for now.

Quote:

"Four cameras in four different locations going blank at basically the same time on the morning of April 19, 1995. There ain't no such thing as a coincidence," Trentadue said. He said government officials claim the security cameras did not record the minutes before the bombing because "they had run out of tape" or "the tape was being replaced." "The interesting thing is they spring back on after 9:02," he said. "The absence of footage from these crucial time intervals is evidence that there is something there that the FBI doesn't want anybody to see."

I am most aware that most of the US population have have been indoctrinated to believe implicitly in "lone gunmen", "lone bombers", "lone nutters", "impossible/unlikely suicides", "convenient small plane crashes" and the like, but this story here defies likely probability. 

Common sense makes the below statement from the powers-that-be seem beyond the absurd to the point of being comedic (if thats possible in such circumstances):

Quote:

(Trentadue) said he is seeking more tapes along with a variety of bombing-related documents from the FBI and the CIA. An FOIA request by Trentadue for 26 CIA documents was rejected in June. A letter from the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, which reviewed the documents, said their release "could cause grave damage to our national security."

How does pictorial evidence of past bombings, including this one, endanger national security? *Shakes head in utter disbelief*.

BALONEY. NATIONAL SECURITY, MY A$$ . 

This little piece of history courtesy of Dean Jackson, editor of "D Notice":

Quote:

The Reagan and Bush I administrations wanted Congress to pass anti-terror legislation with unconstitutional provisions that included the "resurrection of guilt by association, association as grounds for exclusion or deportation, the ban on supporting lawful activities of groups labeled terrorist, the use of secret evidence, and the empowerment of the Secretary of State to designate groups as terrorist organizations, without judicial or congressional review." The legislation languished in Congress, with both Democrat and Republican members of the House Judiciary Committee questioning the need for such drastic legislation. Not even the 1993 WTC bombing was a good enough reason to convince Congress to pass the ‘anti-terror’ legislation (only six were killed). However the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995 changed the political atmosphere on this issue (168 were killed). The next year the anti-terror legislation became law. In the Murrah Federal Building bombing incident it is known that there were two other bombs located in the building that were larger than the initial bomb that exploded. This news was suppressed by the national media, but managed to leak out through the local media in Oklahoma City. The unexploded bombs are not to be confused with the TOW antitank missile that was revealed seven years after the incident to have been found during the Murrah Federal Building rescue operations. Since the two bombs found were said by the authorities to be larger than the first that exploded, then one of those bombs could not have been a TOW missile, since a TOW missile would not come anywhere close to destroying one-third of the Murrah Federal Building. Furthermore, the Oklahoma City media reported authorities saying two bombs larger than the first were found, not one bomb with less destructive power than the bomb that went off. The FBI also refused the testimonies of 22 eyewitnesses that contradicted the official narrative of the Oklahoma City bombing.

The lesson here, is whenever a major incident happens, is to listen carefully and take note of the initial reports and raw unedited video and radio coming from the scene, most especially the local media, which is under less pressure to toe the line. Inevitably, the story becomes shaped by the national corporate media, the object being to tie things up in a neat, easily digestible package by cherrypicking certain information, and censoring burying everything that doesnt quite fit properly. The 9/11 Commission Report was the classic case of this kind.

The Megrahi release furore...

The recent kerfuffle and "outrage" expressed by certain US lawmakers (and others around the world) is a sanctimonious and duplicitous maneuver to distract the public away from the undeniable fact that the man convicted of bombing PanAm Flight 103 was railroaded. There was but one witness, Tony Gauci, a Maltese shopkeeper who was the only man to identify Megrahi. His evidence was that the Libyan, who he picked out at an identity parade, had bought the clothes at his shop.

But his police statements are inconsistent, and prosecutors failed to tell the defence that shortly before he attended an identity parade, Mr Gauci had seen a magazine article showing a picture of Megrahi, and speculating he might have been involved.

Mr Gauci now lives in Australia, and according to defence claims is believed to have been paid several million dollars by the Americans for his evidence.

Secret documents before the Appeal Court - which even the defence has not seen - might have provided new information. They will now remain undisclosed, after the foreign secretary issued a Public Information Immunity certificate stating that to publish them would be to the detriment of UK national security.

National Security! This is the blanket excuse issued by governments to shut people up. However, almost always, its not "national" security that is at stake on these occasions, but the security and material wellbeing of corrupt officials. Its the same the world over regarding this.

According to British journalist Hugh Miles in a 2007 article for London Review of Books, many “lawyers, politicians, diplomats and relatives of Lockerbie victims now believe that the former Libyan intelligence officer is innocent.” 

Miles quoted Robert Black QC, an Edinburgh University professor emeritus of Scottish law, as saying, “No reasonable tribunal, on the evidence heard at the original trial, should or could have convicted him and it is an absolute disgrace and outrage what the Scottish court did.” 

Al-Megrahi was tried along with fellow Libyan intelligence officer Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah. With distraught relatives of victims filling the courtroom, the Scottish judges understandably feared the reaction to two not guilty verdicts. Instead, the judges acquitted Fhimah and found al-Megrahi guilty.

A U.N. observer to the trial, Austrian philosophy Professor Hans Koschler, noted, "You cannot come out with a verdict of guilty for one and innocent for the other when they were both being tried with the same evidence.”

The validity of the guilty verdict is totally dependent upon the integrity of the hearing. Was this a trial with a predetermined outcome? There were two principle defendants, both charged with the same crimes, on the same shaky "evidence" (some provided by the same loose-cannon witness who was described as "an apple short of a picnic", and who was allegedly paid handsomely to say what he did). One defendant, Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah, was "acquitted", and the other, Al-Megrahi, was found "guilty". Unless there was some evidence that was privy to the 3 judges, what did Al-Megrahi do that distinguished his fate so drastically from that of his alleged accomplice? Furthermore, since they were both charged with the same offenses, logic dictates that both Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah and Al-Megrahi knew of each other's alleged involvement in the attack. Since they found Al Megrahi guilty, it makes little sense that they acquitted Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah when he was clearly accessory to the crime, both before and after the fact, if the allegations are true? Accessory before (and after) the fact in British (and US) law carries sentences on a par with that given to the actual perpetrators of a crime. They could easily have gotten two guilty verdicts...  yet the panel of judges decided that these two conspired to carry out a bombing, but they knew not of the other's involvement. Very good. Yikes. Excuse me while I ROTFLMAO.

This case still stinks, no matter how much weaseling around the facts can be done by the mainstream media and government officials. Just because the trial happened in a British court does not automatically mean that the case was immune to tampering and rigging. If Al-Megrahi, who still proclaims his innocence (kinda unusual for a terrorist bomber, who usually brag about such things) survives long enough, cancer permitting, he is within his rights to sue the ass off the UK authorities for wrongful arrest, detention and imprisonment.. and more. And I honestly hope he does. 

The PanAm bombing was almost certainly a false flag event. Who gained by that isn't totally clear, but it sure wasn't Libya! The sworn testimony of Victor Ostrovsky in the Lockerbie trial points to the probability that the Israeli MOSSAD intelligence agency may have had a part to play. What's new?

**

Those who gain by terrorism have on countless times in history used such, even against their own people or nation, while blaming an established enemy, in order to gain public support for a program, agenda, or war(s) that would otherwise be a no-go in the minds of the public of that nation.

"False flags" are very commonplace. Whenever there's a major terrorist case (or other "funny business" that leads to war), they should be considered as one of the more likely scenarios; they are a common modus operandum in politics, and many nations have tried such methods sometime in their histories. 

"False flags" sometimes don't even require actual violence to get the public support for an agenda. 3 of the US recent major wars all started as a result of a variant on the false flag principle, by solely using deception:

(a) Gulf of Tonkin Incident. A public not keen on a military involvement in south east Asia were swayed by this report of North Vietnamese military aggression, splayed all over the US media, which never checked into the accuracy of the story. It never happened.

(b) 1991 Gulf War. The US public was split 50:50 on whether to support a US led coalition to respond to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. The GHWB admin, itching for military action, hatched a plot with the PR firm Hill Knowlton and the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador: Along comes came the outrageous, emotionally sapping, tear-jerking story of Kuwaiti babies being tossed out of incubators by Saddam's army to die on the unheated hospital floors. The US mainstream media lapped up the story and gave it blanket coverage (again without checking their sources' credibility), and spoon-fed the gullible US public. Overall support for military action rocketed to 90%, and other nations bought into it as well. Mission accomplished, indeed. The problem being, the Kuwaiti babies story was 100% bogus.

(c) 2003-2XXX Iraq War. The GWB admin. was busting for war, and had been planning it since well before 9/11. The neocons got Colin Powell to lie to the world in his UN speech all about WMDs, including mobile bioweapons labs which could launch biological and chemical weapons at 45 minutes notice. The US public was scared near shitless by Fox, CNN and the rest, with stores quickly selling out of plastic sheeting and duct tape. None of this stuff was true, ad the admin knew it all along...., but the media, as usual never checking the veracity of this material and sources, did their part in persuading the public to support the invasion. (This case is slightly different, as GWB was going ahead with the war, no matter what). 

Its not wild conspiracy speculation to suggest alternative realities to the often fabricated fairy tales presented by government(s) of all stripes and political persuasions, all over the world, with mainstream media always dutifully in tow. Governments (including ours) have lied and pulled so many stunts like the above (and on occasions far, far worse), on so many occasions, that we really have shaky grounds to believe their versions of such events, as regards the motivation and/or perps behind major events relating to terrorism and the motivation for wars that often follow.

Perhaps our blanket denial is expected: we all feel disbelief and outrage when told unacceptable news, for example, 'I am sorry, but your favorite uncle just happens to be a child molester".

Duplicity, Part X!

The world is full of double standards when it comes to "terrorism". Just look at the FBI's definition of "terrorism" and we get the following: 

"The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives". 

This opens a "can of worms". Lets look at a few cases which regularly get glossed over, or not even mentioned:

The Provisional IRA's bombing campaign which targeted civilians in the UK and Europe for many decades fits the definition like a glove. This group of "Irish freedom fighters" as often portrayed in the US mainstream media, were largely funded by wealthy Irish Americans, and one contributing organization "NORAID" is headquartered in, ironically, Manhattan. Conversely on the other side of the argument, groups supporting Northern Ireland's union with Britain also qualify as terrorist organizations, but because they have received (tacit) support from London, these groups are never categorized under the "terrorist" moniker from a British perspective, despite their long record of bombings and shootings targeting civilians, in their case, Irish Catholics. 

The Iranian MEK, despite being listed as a terrorist group by the State Dept., is a current recipient of covert funds via US central intelligence, as were the Afghan Mujahadeen in the 1980s which had already carried out numerous terrorist acts against the Afghan government prior to the Soviet invasion before they eventually directed their fight against the USSR. (The CIA's computer database of the Afghan Mujahadeen fighters who were supplied with state of the art US weaponry and funding, is the origin of the term "al Qaeda" which in Arabic, loosely translates as "the base", "the foundation" or even "the toilet". In other words, "al Qaeda" is a western term and hardly surprisingly, people in middle eastern countries prior to 9/11 had never heard of them). 

Venturing into even more politically incorrect territory, if I dare, the origins of the state of Israel is heavily rooted in the terrorist activities of Irgun and the Stern Gang, which were responsible for a string of bombings and massacres in that region lasting many years. These groups were arguably the originators of modern terrorist techniques, and even provide an early example of "false flag" type of operations; in the bombing of the King David Hotel, those responsible were disguised as Arabs, ie "the enemy", making sure that they were seen by numerous witnesses in the vicinity of the crime scene. One of their number, Menachem Begin, eventually became Prime Minister, the top position in Israeli politics. (How about Ayman Zawahiri or Osama bin Laden, for example, becoming the President of Pakistan?). 

In more recent times, former CIA operative Luis Posada Cariles, the man allegedly responsible for bombing of a Cubana airliner in 1976 killing 73 people has close links with former Florida Governor Jeb Bush and the Miami Cuban community, and one of his close associates, Otto Reich held a variety of senior positions during the previous Bush Administration, including the President's Special Envoy for the Western Hemisphere; Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs; United States Ambassador to Venezuela; and Assistant Administrator of the US Agency for International Development. This case is quite breathtaking as it is a clear instance of someone closely connected with terrorism being appointed to senior positions of authority at a time when the United States is pursuing a "war on terrorism". 

This is the tip of an ugly iceberg; the list of duplicity and shame goes on and on, and I would be here typing for a week just to get started. No country has a clean sheet in this regard; the US and Israel are as guilty as anywhere else one cares to mention.

Duplicity, Part 2463c

Israel has a unique privilege in the world: unwritten protection against any form of criticism, effective enough to deflect attention from much wrongdoing in the last few decades. This includes serial flouting of some 50+ U.N.S.C. resolutions, numerous bombings of civilian targets by terrorist groups Irgun and the Stern Gang (for example the King David Hotel), carrying out or aiding and abetting massacres (Sabra, Shatila), spying on America, even attacking the USS Liberty (a US navy ship, for no apparent reason ... and this is just for starters.

Critics of Israeli policies are routinely name-called as "anti-semitic" or even "Holocaust deniers" and it is this hot button issue, the Holocaust, which is used to exploit emotional blackmail by conflating legitimate criticism of the state of Israel with the act of murdering millions of Jewish people. These are clearly two separate issues.

The constant invocation of "the Holocaust" as a method to silence critics allows Israeli hard-liners on the political right wing to break international law on a regular basis with absolute impunity. This not only undermines the long term stability and moral credibility of Israel as a nation in its own right, but also cheapens the memory of the Holocaust and those 6 million Jews who perished as a result of the gross excesses of hardline right wing doctrine in Europe over 60 years ago.

Obama: Investigate 9/11, like yesterday.

What America and the world needs is an investigation into 9/11, a real one that is, with full subpoena power. The "9/11 Commission"'s findings represent the backbone of the official story of what happened that day, but its conclusions have now been thoroughly shredded, even by the most senior Commission officials. The two co-chairs, Kean and Hamilton, said the Commission had been deliberately "set up to fail" by the Bush White House and the Pentagon. Witnesses were intimidated throughout the proceedings by government "minders". Patrick Leahy resigned in disgust. The Commission was grossly underfunded and was under severe time limitations. Bush and Cheney refused to testify under oath, with all questions pre-screened, in secret, and no written transcripts or cameras were allowed. The Commission's senior counsel now claims that most of its findings were "untrue". Furthermore, the Bush Administration refused to authorize *any* form of inquiry until 441 days after the attacks. (!!!). (Inquiries into other national tragedies are traditonally set up in a matter of a few days, such as the JFK assassination, the two Space Shuttle accidents etc). And it goes on. The 9/11 Commission report appears to be a 571 page lie.

So, what do we have here? If (as the mainstream media and the Bush and Obama administrations claim) it was 19 fundamentalist Islamic terrorists who were solely responsible for carrying out these attacks, firstly: why would there be such a vigorously concerted effort on the part of the Executive Branch and the military to avoid an inquiry into what went so badly wrong re. security, defense and intelligence? And secondly, when the inquiry was finally and most reluctantly authorized, why did they they go to such great lengths to (successfully) scupper it? The answer most certainly cannot be "incompetence"; the heads of the departments that failed so badly (all simultaneously, against extraordinarily long odds) were all promoted or transferred to other posts (go figure).. and not a single solitary soul was fired... (again, go figure).

For this argument, we don't need to get into material such as "the prior preparation of the Twin Towers with explosive charges", or "the failure to scramble jets", or the "22 simultaneous war games, drills and exercises", etc; let the investigation sort these issues out; the previous charade studiously avoided awkward facts. What we have here is a clear case of a federal inquiry being severely compromised by some of the nation's most senior officials. Common sense tells anybody that this inquiry was tampered with for a very specific purpose, and that purpose had everything to do with keeping elements of what happened out of the public scrutiny... (what other reasons could there be?). Even if it *was* 19 arabs who "did the deed", at the very least it appears that the Bush Administration did not want certain material relating to the attacks to be exposed in open court. At a minimum, there is a possible case that some Bush Administration, and/or military/intelligence officials were "accessory before and/or after the fact" to the mass murder of 3000 people and the destruction of some $20 billion of real estate and at least two commercial airliners. 

We now know that the former Mossad agents Dominic Suter, Sivan Kurzberg and three others from the Israeli spy agency were arrested by the FBI in New Jersey that morning for suspicious behavior; they had a videocamera set up on a tripod recording the attack on the WTC from the NJ side of the water, they had maps with the WTC circled in ink, $4700 in cash hidden in a sock and foreign passports; explosives- sniffing dogs apparently went "beserk". These men were sequestered for 6 weeks before being quietly deported to Israel without being charged, and our own media was ordered to "back off" in no uncertain terms; all video of the Fox News story on this affair with Carl Cameron was removed from the Fox archives and the issue was dropped faster that you can say "damage control". According to a senior official, as quoted on the Carl Cameron piece: "Evidence linking these Israelis to 9/11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It's classified information". Dominic Suter later admitted on an Israeli national television chat show, without hesitation, that "they were sent there to document the event by their bosses in the (Mossad) agency". The video of this chatshow was even on youtube for at least two years before being removed (it periodically gets re-posted there, and google video). So, if the Israeli government knew what was about to go down (to the most detailed specifics), does anyone honestly concede that they would keep it to themselves, knowing that the US and Israel are the closest of allies? Common sense tell us that people in our own intelligence community must have also known, and this implies that such intelligence would have been relayed to the White House.

In law, "accessory before or after the fact to a crime", carries with it penalties very similar to those dished out to the actual perpetrators. We have a clear case that members of the Mossad intelligence service were accessory before the fact to mass murder (on their own admssion!). We should now re-convene a rigorous, no-holds-barred inquiry to find out if any US officials are guilty of the same, or worse. If nobody has anything to hide, then they should welcome it, so we can clear the air once and for all and get on with our lives.

And regarding the "professional debunkers" and paid shills in the mainstream media, you won't have to spend any more of your valuable time being weasels on behalf of people who skewered a federal inquiry with impunity, more than likely in order to save their sorry, treacherous asses from possible lengthy jail sentences.

Cheney craves a terrorist attack against the United States

Why does former VP Dick Cheney want another big terrorist event, as alleged by CIA Chief Leon Panetta? Well, think about it. Cheney and his peers would benefit enormously from an attack politically, ideologically, financially, and religiously. 

(1) The Obama Administration would be utterly discredited because "there was a successful attack on its watch", and he/they would be flayed 24/7 in the corporate media for "going soft on terrorism and terrorists". In fact, the entire media would skewer "liberal politics and politicians" for failing to prevent that attack, even "allying themselves to "Islamofacists", "al Qaida" and every other 'terror-branded' label on the State Dept. list. It would be an utter rout by the right wing media, and left/liberal/socially conscious politics would be in complete tatters as the Obama Admin and members of Congress and the Senate respositioned their ideologies from centrist to hard right to satiate the renewed jingoism.

(2) The Neoconservative agenda, which got bogged down after the Iraq invasion, would get a major shot in the arm, and the Obama Admin. would be forced into a frenzy of damage control, going to all lengths to reassure the US public that a massively "stepped up war on terrorism" and US global hegemony was the only way to go. The US and a new coalition of the willing/coerced would target various Middle Eastern (and other Islamic) nations, especially those with natural resources, for an extended "shock and awe MkII" program, possibly even including the first use of tactical (low yield) nuclear weapons.

(3) The security industry would get massively reinvigorated. After 9/11, this sector of business was the big $$beneficiary after the dot.com meltdown of the late 1990s. Numerous US, UK and Israeli companies sprung up like mushrooms to capitalize on the security-related spending-spree by government (not just the US but pretty much every western industrialized nation). These businesses were one of the largest benefactors of this surge in paranoia spending, and numerous members of the previous admin. and their friends and associates got fantastically wealthy as a result. The same industries and people would make out like bandits once again if another big "terrorist attack" happened on US soil.

(4) The "war industry" would also be a great beneficiary. To service a new series of global conflicts "justified" by a new attack, there would be major new government orders and contracts covering everything from MREs to warships.

(5) A big new attack could probably spell the end of life in the US as we know it; freedom of speech, assembly, expression, religious faith (or otherwise), and more. Civil rights, which the people have taken a century or more to claw out of the powers-that-be ata great price, would be easily dismantled (literally overnight) for security's sake; those voicing concern would be lambasted in the media for siding with the "evildoers". The internet, re. alternative media would become regulated/censored as it is in China. The majority of the US people, infantilized by propaganda, and frightened by the paranoia-mongering from the corporate media, would go along with it, largely without complaint or examination. Recall Gen. Tommy Franks' comments re. the fate of the US Constitution in the event of a new major attack?

(6) Demands for health care reform (and other socially-conscious measures) would suddenly assume the lowest rungs on the pecking order of priorities, should there be a new "big incident". In fact, it could delay the onset of a sensible health care program for decades, on the notion that the new security measures/wars are of such paramount importance and will cost so much, that the aforementioned luxury of access to affordable healthcare treatment will have to take a back seat. We will be informed that "it will be impossible to know when the security situation will become stable enough" for such programs to assume importance to warrant the spending that they demand. Accompanying the drive towards total global security, there would be a renewed wave of Milton Friedman-style economic programs thoughout the world.

It is "understood" by a large segment of the US public, that members of the white Judeo-Christian population are morally incapable of committing such a atrocities against our own people, because our "human nature" is "better" than that of everyone else on the planet. "We" are the good guys and "they" are the bad guys, whose culture/religion/race/genetics allow them to become terrorists. Thus the blame can be assigned very easily to "them Muslims" (etc) without so much as the blink of an eye, even if the evidence against "them" is slim to non-existent, and even when "we" have a track record of setting up false-flag events for political and other gain.

To add to that, it is our nature to obey an authority figure even when ordered or instructed to do things that are morally reprehensible. It is also in our nature (sadly) to comply with an authority opinion, even when we know that it is untrue, but when believed by a majority. We as a species find that conforming with the majority position is far more comfortable than going with what is correct and truthful, because we have a natural aversion against being scorned or spurned by the majority. The planners of any false-flag terror attack are well versed in human psychology, and this aspect of human nature likely plays a vital role in the planning of such events, allowing for mistakes to be made without endangering the perpetrators. 

Success for the planners and perpetrators of such events is largely as a result a (dys)function of human beings, rather than the clever planning of the powers-that-be. In other words, we bring the bad stuff upon ourselves, largely because of our unbending trust in authority and unwillingness to acknowledge that people in power are also human beings with faults and foibles, who attain positions where there is a far greater opportunity and thus temptation) to commit heinous acts than the ordinary person. They are also far less likely to be caught, and farmore likely to get away with the consequences

And last, but by no means least, it is most fashionable these days to display a Pavlovian "kneejerk" reaction against anyone who fails to conform to authority opinion by labeling them as "conspiracy theorists" or "nutters", by conflating known absurdities like "aliens", "flying saucers", "paranormal events", "crypto-zoological entities" and others, with allegations and evidence of mundane, straightforward, criminal activities by officials. Insodoing, even verifiable facts and sound scientific research can be effectively buried. Then there is the issue of those who write the history books, and the role played by the mainstream media in shaping/distorting the public perception on such events.

Just like any crime, motivation is the great decider... although in the case of 9/11 and many more recent terror attacks ascribed to Muslims, the concept of "motivation" has been inverted... it seems as if these alleged "Islamic radicals" have an obsession with furthering the aims of their enemies who have a morbid and pathological hatred of the global muslim community. The new breed of "Islomofascist" revel in their countries of origin being pulverized by the US, Israeli and other militaries. How bizarre! And insodoing, they even forfeit those promised few dozen virgins, by going against the most fundamental precepts of Allah. Oh well, "whatevar".

If there was a big new attack, Dick Cheney and gang (and every wanna-be authoritarian hack) would be having multiple orgasms... privately of course. (!!) Everything that they ever dreamed of would come to fruition, and and so much more rapidly than otherwise imaginable. Without such an event "the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor". The changes they seek and crave for would probably not happen in their lifetimes, and for them that is 100% unacceptable.

Motivation. Motivation. Motivation. One cannot repeat it enough

Holocaust Denial? The victims becoming the victimizers?

Slightly off topic, but in an age where duplicity is de rigeur, for example the so-called "war on terrorism", it deserves space:

Facebook has been toying with the idea of removing Holocaust deniers from their website. However, actively preventing these nutcases from spouting their drivel only gives publicity to their perverted fantasies, giving them a sense of "martyrdom". In the same way as allowing them space online, the act of banning them could also provide fodder to their "cause", by attracting people who would be comfortable with those beliefs. Furthermore, it is an authoritarian, anti-freedom-of-speech stance, which is exactly the philosophy that the perpetrators of the Holocaust wished to impose on the people, had they prevailed in WWII. With freedom of speech and expression comes some unsavory baggage; a mature society should be able to handle such, rather than sweeping it under the rug to fester.

Regarding the death toll of the Holocaust, the most visible organizations of Holocaust Remembrance, together with the mainstream media perpetually refer to that "6 million" death toll; as a result, most people have that figure firmly implanted in their awareness as the true history. The 6 million actually refers only to the Jewish victims, who suffered the largest loss as a group. The total death roll varies between at least 11 million and possibly as high as 25 million, depending on the survey, and includes at least 5 million people, and perhaps many more, of non-Jewish faith and ethnicity, including Blacks, Romanies, Gays, Poles of all religions, Slavs, Disabled people, and others; in other words, those who did not conform to the Nazi regime's hellish vision of society.

It is very sad that there appears to be a drive to exclude, or DENY these forgotten victims from history's pages. Surely the non-Jewish victims are not considered "lesser" human beings by the writers of history, thus less deserving of their place of remembrance in the worst human tragedy of the 20th century, perhaps of all time? Their exclusion, in sad irony, is yet another form of Holocaust denial, but one that I am sure most people would prefer to ignore.

The unlikeliest of connections: What's Susan Boyle have to do with Khaled Sheikh Mohammed

The discussion of the extraordinary vocal performance in UK television 10 days ago has encompassed all kinds of areas of thought, including self-analysis, pop psychology, comfort zones, support of the underdog, how much was it a "set-up" by the shrewd businessman Simon Cowell, and numerous other areas. it has also given rise to some very peculiar material on certain entertainment sites, and related commentary. One of the oddest of all involves a concocted comparison between Ms. Boyle and Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, or all people! How did the popular conspiracy hogwash about Khaled Sheikh Mohammed creep into a discussion about Susan Boyle? I can only guess... but people can manufacture a connection between something and anything.

Anyway, for background, KSM has been accused of not only plotting 9/11, but also committing the horrific execution journalist Daniel Pearl. There is zero proof that KSM was responsible for Daniel Pearl's murder. According to CIA and other US government sources, KSM lied through his teeth, on multiple occasions, that resulted in the compilation of his so-called "confession". Not only that, but in that video of Pearl's execution, two of the men were clearly Caucasians.. they didnt cover-up well enough.

Furthermore, a very mild version of waterboarding that US Navy Seals undergo in training causes these so-called ultra-tough individuals to break down in hysterics within a minute. The type of waterboarding practised at Gitmo on suspects WHO HAVE NOT BEEN PROVEN GUILTY by a court is many times more vicious and prolonged; it involves the suspect actually being drowned, (sometimes clinical death occurs), and then being revived by a military physician. Many waterboarding victims are brain-damaged as a result of this variety of torture. The corporate media have presented an easily digestible, ersatz version of what really happens in a Gitmo version of waterboarding, and as always, the public have swallowed the koolaid. "America doesnt torture?" Maybe not 8 years ago, but we sure do now.

After WW2 a US military court found Japanese officers guilty of committing torture via waterboarding. The sentences ranged from 15 years hard labor, to DEATH BY HANGING. The difference, is that the Japanese men had a fair trial, whereas the 100s of Gitmo concentration camp detainees haven't even been charged with anything. It is only just that those who ordered the waterboarding of the "not guilty until proven so" suspects should be subject to a similar set of punishments, that is, if they are found guilty in a fair trial, and if we have any sense of standards.

It is highly unlikely that KSM was involved in the planning and masterminding of 9/11; his timeline as available in the public domain clearly indicates otherwise. Furthermore, his "confessions" were obtained under conditions of torture, and thus they have ZERO legal standing in court, according to US law. It seems clear that there was an attitude of "get someone, get anyone", because of pressure from an angry public to do just that; guilty or innocent was irrelevant.

There are a lot of people who WANT TO BELIEVE that KSM killed Pearl, and masterminded 9/11, because he is (a) ugly and unkempt, (b) a middle eastern Muslim guy, and (c) because the mainstream "axis of weasel' media have pounded the lies about him for so long now that it has become a part of history, even if the facts don't fit. It makes us comfortable to lay the blame on someone who looks as nasty and ugly as the crimes ascribed to him. KSM is probably a criminal of sorts, but masterminding 9/11? Lets use our common sense before we engage our ugly biases with a series of equally Pavlovian knee-jerks.

*

There is a parallel here with our attitude towards Susan Boyle before she sang, and wowed the world with her wonderful angelic voice and interpretation: her unglamorous image didn't fit with what the media have brainwashed the public into expecting how a great sounding singer should look, or how she should dress. Susan Boyle smashed the marketers' shallow mold and now the naysayers are eating platefuls of crow.

At some point in the fairly near future (perhaps before this time next year), the army of cowards baying for Khaled Sheikh Mohammed's death without allowing him a fair trial, will also be eating heaping platefuls of crow. I hope people understand what I am saying; a far greater wake-up call than Susan Boyle's masterful performance is going to descend on the world in due course as regards the world's most heinous crime of modern times. Those invested in their comfort zones should brace themselves.

Weasels Ripped our flesh, Part 1000

This is pretty "rich".. or what? Democratic congresswoman Jane Harman, (who sponsored HR1955, the "Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act", a piece of draconian dictatorial-type of legislation designed, it seems, not so much for catching terrorists or preventing terrorism, but more for criminalizing dissent and infiltrating lawful organizations), has apparently been caught red-handed by the very methods set to be expanded by her bill.

Harman was overheard in an NSA wiretap in which she allegedly made an "inappropriate deal with an AIPAC lobbyist". Oi Veh. Now she's moaning and bitching about it like a spoiled brat. Her sleazebag legislation is just fine and dandy when it comes to taking away our rights and privacy.. but when theirs is infringed, its a "cause for outrage", and "an abuse of power".. in Harman's words. Just wow. The duplicity festering in DC takes the breath away, literally. And yet again.

This is slimy beyond all believable bounds. It's bad enough that the extremists within BushCorp were pushing for Nazi-esque legislation, but when the supposed opposition bathe in the same foul excrement, one has to wonder who bought Rep. Harman. However, I imagine very little is going to come of this, by way of who was involved, these parties being largely above and beyond the law. Had any other nation on the planet been involved (with the possible exception of the UK), all hell would have broken loose.

9/11 and "Government Incompetence"

This is a theory that many people have tried to put forward as a way of trying to let officials off the hook. This theory does not hold water; it is also a misnomer, and relies on intellectual cowardice for its support. The U.S. "Government" is a huge interconnected web and hierarchy of officialdom and bureaucracies across a country of 300 million people in 2 million square miles, and 50 states. "Government" employs hundreds of thousands of people, all the way from local city officials, to the office of the president.

For those who propound the "incompetence" theory, they are relying on the popularly held notion that "the Government" is an inefficient, unwieldy, error-prone dinosaur, and that the huge monolith of thousands was responsible for the attacks. They exploit those times that government appears to be "bumbling" to make their case, for example the non-response of FEMA in the wake of Hurricane Andrew and Katrina). What they fail to mention, however, presumably because it would wholly undermine their case, is that the official story does NOT contend that the plot was planned and executed by a huge bureaucracy of thousands of "al qaeda" agents, but instead, a tiny handful, a conspiracy of 25 at the very most. If it took a mere 25 foreigners with few resources to pull off the crime of the millennium, then by logical extension (and contrast), 25 highly-trained, handpicked military experts within a strict and compartmentalized chain of command, with access to limitless funding and resources, should also have been able to pull it off! Talk about the obvious......

History demonstrates that "Government" can exhibit extraordinary speed and efficiency, when the motivation is there: for example, the 384 page "Patriot" Act was signed into law in a month. The wrecked freeway overpasses in Los Angeles following the 1994 Northridge Earthquake were rebuilt within a few weeks. The public school system in New Orleans was almost entirely replaced by a private charter system with great speed and precision in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, yet the lower 9th Ward is still like a war zone. When "government" is prodded in the appropriate places, can accelerate very quickly indeed.

The 9/11 government "incompetence" theory is clever disinformation of the most weasly and underhanded variety, because it appeals to not only the populist position of "mistrust of government", but at the same time squarely placing the blame on an outside party (muslims) which the mainstream media has taught us over decades to distrust, or even hate, thus very conveniently killing two birds with one stone. "Incompetence theory" peddlars are also fully aware of the acquired negative connotation of the phrase "conspiracy theory" and they use this mass psychological weapon liberally when trying to deflect the focus of blame away from an obviously guilty party.

It seems as if "Incompetence Theorists" are willing to believe that *our* people in positions of power are all decent, honest, law-abiding folk who are incapable of pulling off such a dastardly event. By extension, they also seem to want to believe that *our* government agencies/departments and traditional institutions have the same unsullied and unblemished record, despite the lengthy historical record of false flag operations, and wars started on the basis of lies, which have been responsible for the deaths of countless millions. However, when it comes to people of a different national, racial, ethnic, cultural and religious background, the "incompetence theorists" have no difficulty in spreading the notion that the darker side of human nature is more applicable to those "who are different to us".

Welcome, "Junta Lite". The real war, is We the People v. the Criminal Elite

The premise which is becoming more irrelevant by the day is the "divide between left and right". This division may be the perception amongst the unwashed masses, highlighted and exploited by the mainstream media and politicians campaigning for votes... but the real war that is really tearing this country (and many others) apart is now being waged by a corporate/banking/mercantile etc. etc. elite, far above the law, who, alongside their whores in government, see we-the-regular-people increasingly as "an enemy", or a part of the enemy, upon whom some degree of maximum security society must be imposed.

Their broad program includes "financial terrorism" and this is nothing new. It happened in a severe form in Indonesia in the 1970s under Suharto, or Chile under Pinochet.. and also in Argentina, Bolivia, Uruguay, Brazil, Honduras Guatemala, Peru, Poland, Russia and many other nations to a greater or lesser extent. The old M.O.s of coups and dictatorial regimes, were mass disappearances, tanks in the streets, secret police, bans on public gatherings etc. Such blatant methods probably would not work that well today in modern westernized industrial nations... (it's not worth soiling one's own living room when we can use our military and intelligence agencies to trash that of others', on the taxpayers)... but what does seem to be currently working rather "well" domestically, is the "softly softly" approach. Like the proverbial frog in the bowl, the water is very gradually being heated up in small increments so as to not be overtly noticeable.

Actually, the capacity of the masses to realize their lot, especially when herded by the constant bombardment of (largely faked or imaginary) terrorism threats, is reduced still further, allowing a faster track to tyranny. In just eight short years, what has changed, without any resistance from the people? What is new? (1) the repeal of the centuries old Habeas Corpus legal framework (2) and (3) The "Patriot" Acts I and II (4) The Department of Homeland Security (the framework of which was modeled after the German S.S.) (5) Torture as an officially approved punishment for people not even found guilty of any crimes (6) The Military Commissions Act (7) Signing Statements (8) The wholesale criminalization of dissent (9) The politicization of domestic law enforcement (10) the repeal of Posse Comitatus (11) No Fly Lists (12) the KBR detention center program (13) "Terrorism" watch lists (over One Million people so far) (14) Spying on US citizens (15) "First amendment zones" (16) rigged elections (17) a war on reason and science.... the list goes on and on...

The above were all Bush Administration measures... but has the Obama team made any attempt to repeal, or halt any of this [B]CRAP[/B]? Not a chance in hell, and I would bet the farm, and some, that after 4 years, all this legislative cesspool-slime will still be in place, and probably strengthened and streamlined. People had hope™ when Obama was elected. But after just two months, this is evaporating like snow on a Sahara summer afternoon, as it becomes plain that we have gone from an Oil Industry Croney Administration, to a Wall Street "Bankster" Administration. Yes, Obama has made a couple of cosmetic alterations in a halfbaked attempt distance his administration from the previous one, to pander to his alleged base and shore up the perception of a real "difference" between the two parties. The side issues of stem cell research and abortion are obvious candidates: they traditionally distract large numbers of people from the important stuff which is changing their lives for the much worse.

Back in the 1950s, a gas station attendant could afford to put money down on a modest home, and pay a mortgage... the American Dream™. Wow! These days, a gas station attendant's pay probably pays half the rent on a grotty apartment, and he's working two other jobs just to pay for necessities. This is the way of the future, as America slides towards an ugly hybrid of 1984, Brave New World and Blade Runner, with most people seemingly eager to embrace it, because, like the frog, they don't know they are being boiled. And... the guy with his hand on the temperature control knob is intelligent, good looking, a great speaker, and... he is black. It is much harder to criticize the new guy because he's also got the all important weapon of political correctness on his side as well.

We are on a hiding to nothing. Welcome "Junta Lite".

Terrorists R US. By accessory, and by funding.

Yesterday, I wrote this response to the atrocities in Gaza. Copies have been sent to persons of interest.

The recent actions in Gaza have prompted me to write you. The Bush Administration has, quite rightly in itself, called for Hamas to stop launching rockets into Southern Israel. And equally wrongly, that is where the administration stops, by branding one side guilty by default, probably because they are Palestinian?

Since September 11, 2001, the United States has been fighting a "war against terrorism". If this war truly lived up to its name, namely a war against *all* terrorism throughout the world, then there might be some reason to support it, despite the obviously unwinnable aspect of such a campaign, in the same way that it is impossible to win a war against bad weather, earthquakes, or premarital sex. However, there is one aspect of this so-called "war against terrorism" that is becoming abundantly plain to peoples all over this nation and the rest of the globe: it is a duplicitous, hypocritical war against *some* terrorists, while others are ignored or even rewarded.

I talk with people all over the country and abroad, of all races, colors, creeds and political orientations. I am hearing the increasingly uniform opinion, that one of the most inexcusable aspects of US foreign policy is our long and shameful record of duplicity, which, under the current administration (especially as regards the "war on terrorism") is now attaining new records, or more aptly, plumbing new depths. One law for certain privileged, favored parties, and another law for the remainder is not a worthy characteristic of any civilized society. The United States remains the preeminent global superpower, and our responsibility as global policeman must be taken with the utmost seriousness: when the world increasingly views this nation, sadly, as a rogue or corrupt cop and we are ever more likely to be branded as a pariah, our respect amongst nations irreversibly damaged.

When some nations end up hating us, our future national security is thus compromised. Here in the West, we have a relatively short, and ever shortening attention span, due to the ever-increasing pressures and distractions of life in a fast-paced modern industrialized society. For people in Middle Eastern nations, this is far less the case. They remember things. They harbor resent towards us, and for many valid reasons. One of many examples, despite being an event from more than 50 years ago, is that many Iranians (including some who were not even alive at the time) are still furious at the United States for the violent overthrow of their democratically elected leader Mohammed Mossadegh, replacing him with a hated despot, Mohammed Reza Shah. To add insult to injury, the Bush Administration now claims that the United States supports "democracy" in the Middle East, while at the same time, closely supporting brutal dictatorial regimes such as that of Islom Karimov in Uzbekistan.

The list of double standards and hypocrisy regarding terrorism by successive US administrations is far too long to type in this message. If I got started on the events of recent decades in Central America alone, I would be typing for hundreds of pages: I am sure that as a senior politician, these facts are not news to you. I do understand that diplomacy is not a uniform art; each case must be addressed according to its unique circumstances. However, terrorism is terrorism is terrorism, no matter who is responsible: There can be no getting away from this. Not only that, but the definition of terrorism cannot be twisted in order to exclude US allies, or US personnel. According to the U.S.'s own definition of terrorism, Israel is clearly an arch offender: Under Section 3 of Executive Order 13224 "Blocking Property and prohibiting Transactions with Persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support Terrorism", the term “terrorism” means an activity that "involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life, property, or infrastructure; and appears to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, kidnapping, or hostage-taking". This order and its definition of terrorism was signed on 23 September, 2001 by President George W. Bush. Plainly, it has been used to outlaw and crush any organization, individual or country that is not in favor with this administration. The Israeli regime’s "amoral thugs", as a British MP recently branded them, have plainly been terrorizing the Palestinians for the last 60 years.

The long drawn-out siege and blockade of Gaza, and the numerous military assaults on its people and their legitimate government, are only the latest crimes in a catalog of torment and terror. There are clearly attempts to "intimidate and coerce", while the mass destruction of Gaza's infrastructure, the withholding of humanitarian aid, the assassinations, the abductions, the bulldozing of Palestinian homes, villages, farms and orchards, and the many violent and dangerous acts including indiscriminate bombing and shelling (and the use of cluster bombs in Lebanon), ensure that Israel's actions are a perfect fit for America’s "war on terrorism".

I do understand that Hamas has been designated a terrorist group by the US State Department. For sure, they have been lobbing rockets at Israel, in retaliation for the above atrocities: I do not condone this, or any other violence. However, Israel responded to the Hamas rockets with a barrage of half a million pounds of military grade explosives raining down from the skies, right at the time when thousands of Palestinian schoolchildren were on the streets heading home. And the bombings continue. If this attack is merely an outrage, then the timing of it is a truly evil act.

Looking back a couple of decades, it shouldn't be forgotten that Hamas was created by Israel in the 1980s as a counter to the Palestine Liberation Organization, in order to create disunity amongst the Palestinian people. Was Hamas a "terrorist" group back then when endorsed by the Israelis? Right now, they are the sole elected representatives of the Palestinian people. Hamas won in an a free, fair and verified election. The United States supports free elections and democracy in the Mid East? Apparently not.

As a representative democracy, the US taxpayers have no power in directing how and where we spend our hard earned tax dollars. The US has been supplying the Israeli military with state-of-the-art weaponry for decades, and they in turn are using it indiscriminately against a people who have no army, navy or air force. By association, our tax dollars are funding big-budget state terrorism by the Israeli government. I abhor violence, no matter who is responsible, and our forced contribution towards the enabling of acts of terrorism against a civilian population does not sit well with either me, or 99.99 percent of everyone I have ever met.

Duplicity of an even grander scale has also been employed in "presenting the facts" of the Israel/Palestinian conflict to the American people by the corporate media, to such an extent that the word "Palestinian" is now almost synonymous with "terrorist" in the minds of those who do not have the time or inclination to learn real history. (Since 9/11, a not-so-subtle campaign has been waged in the US corporate media to demonize all people of the Islamic faith as "terrorists" or "potential terrorists"). Our mainstream media, in the same vein as the old Soviet national media has reached a new low in one-sided, administration-friendly reportage. Even translations of many news items reaching the US people are inaccurate and biased, courtesy of organizations such as MEMRI etc. A recent example of such egregious bias was in the build-up to the Iraq war: a survey conducted by the popular ex BBC director-general Greg Dyke found that some 99.5 percent of all major interviews, articles, essays were by "pro war" pundits, always keen to go which ever way the wind blows. It was also revealed in a 2005 poll of US troops stationed in Iraq, that some 80 percent still believed that Saddam Hussein was the instigator of the 9/11 attacks. In the Israel/Palestine conflict, the daily outrages and terrorist acts perpetrated by the IDF remain unknown to the vast majority of the American people. In this, and so many recent events especially during the George W. Bush years, the army of appeasers within the US corporate media is the major element which has permitted criminal behavior by top people to go unaddressed, unpunished and thus could be seen by successors as "if they can do it, then so can we".

Is it possible for an Obama administration to halt this debacle, and address *all* sources of terrorism with a policy set that is geared towards even-handedness (i.e. *change*), in contrast to the in our faces "scorched-earth-for-some-and-rewards-for-others" methods of the neo-conservative-dominated Bush Regime? I would love to think that our country could regain at least a portion of the respect that has been lost across the globe during the last 7.5 years of infamy. Being aware of the well known principle of "repeating the same actions and expecting a different result is the definition of madness", will the United States under an Obama administration keep pursuing 60 years of duplicitous, reckless and "known to fail" foreign policies in the region? Can courage and sanity prevail over prejudices and madness? Will we be able to treat all the peoples of the Middle East without arbitrarily demonizing some because of their relatively disfavored religious and racial backgrounds? Perhaps to acknowledge the Palestinian people as "fellow human beings who also deserve life, liberty and happiness will be seen as "losing face" by those who are invested in the continuation of the conflict? Is it possible for change to prevail, or was the notion of "change" merely an election gimmick?

I write this, not as a screed against Israel as a nation of course, but instead as a warning that what we are doing in the name of this phony "war on terrorism" will be coming back to haunt us for decades to come. The relatives and friends of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi dead will not forget in a hurry. The huge reservoir of resent that is inexorably building throughout the Islamic world could become a genuine national security nightmare.

A phrase commonly used amongst people who wish to portray themselves as patriotic, is the following: "our country, right or wrong". In the last few years I have heard this said so many times that I was prompted to look up the origins of the expression. It was heartening to discover that that it has been taken out of context. From Senator Carl Schurz (WI) in 1899: "I confidently trust that the American people will prove themselves … too wise not to detect the false pride or the dangerous ambitions or the selfish schemes which so often hide themselves under that deceptive cry of mock patriotism: ‘Our country, right or wrong!’ They will not fail to recognize that our dignity, our free institutions and the peace and welfare of this and coming generations of Americans will be secure only as we cling to the watchword of true patriotism: ‘Our country - when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put right.’”

And in parallel, to quote: "the evil we fight is a shadow of the evil we do". Let us end the cycle of evil right now. Any sincere intent of "Change" demands this, at the very least. Enough already.

Very sincerely,

Bloggulator.

*

And one final thought, prompted by a recent news item, (Monday pm, December 29, 2008): To support what is obviously state-sponsored terrorism by Israel puts the sympathizer on the same, dangerous legal grounds as those who support terrorism committed by Al Qaeda. There can be no valid legal differentiation between the same acts, perpetrated by different groups. As mentioned earlier, terrorism is very easy to recognize: one merely has to apply the definitions as coined by the FBI, and the additional order signed by George W. Bush in 2001. Israel is not merely guilty, but flagrantly so. For obvious reasons, I cannot support an administration which approves of international terrorism. The approval of these terrorist acts by President Elect Obama and House Leader Nancy Pelosi is an absolute outrage: I fervently hope that every American would feel the same way, if the reality were known. No amount of "weaseling out" by the clever use of euphemism, hawking the perennial excuse regarding the atrocities committed by the Nazis in World War II, and obfuscations via complex legalese can change the fact that the Israeli Government and its military are guilty of committing terrorist acts.

L.A. Police Chief Bratton: weasels ripped my flesh.

William Bratton, LAPD Commissioner, predicted a "Bin Laden October Surprise", but just like so many dozens of similar dire warnings of "impending terrorism" via intelligence and law enforcement agencies which the US corporate media have eagerly rushed to embrace without question since the 9/11 attacks, nothing happened. No "October Surprise", and no surprise there: they are deliberately making it all up, in effect, extending the mission of these imaginary "terrorists" by spreading fear and paranoia amongst the US public. What they are doing, in effect is similar to hoaxers who call in fake bomb warnings by phone: we know what happens to them, if caught, don't we! (lengthy jail sentences, and well deserved at that). Genuine terrorism is an extremely rare event in the US. Statistically, one is 100 times more likely to be killed by lightning (itself highly unlikely), than succumbing to a terrorist's bomb. So, are we all running scared from thunderstorms? No comment. But the shadowy fictitious "al qaeda" agents of modern lore, with their US sleeper cells, waiting for the go-ahead command from the famous bearded one in the cave, have been exploited by the authorities to the point of actually promoting terrorism. Who needs "al qaeda's" bombs and bullets when you've got Bratton and his cronies, with the weasels of the corporate media in tow, doing the dirty work, spreading the seeds of fear, mistrust and hatred?

Commissioner Bratton also claims that Osama bin Laden is still alive. If true, the best evidence of this is that he is a highly protected figure, and has been for almost a decade: after all, he is the superstar boogeyman who has been elevated by the authorities and media as the raison d'etre for the so-called "war on terrorism", and the figure who is eternally capable of scaring the living daylights out of those who get their "news" from the US corporate media: a "dead" Osama bin Laden is useless in accomplishing this end. He must either be protected at all cost, or in the event of his death, such news must not be published. Since he had (or still has) numerous friends and acquaintances from his CIA days on the 1980s, agency protection would be an assumed given. He was visited by CIA station chief Larry Mitchell in a Dubai hospital in 2001 but was neither arrested nor detained despite being on the FBI's most wanted list for pre-9/11 incidents; he spent the night of 9/10/2001 in the hospital wing of a Rawalpindi US/Pakistani joint military-intelligence facility which reports to DC 24/7, under heavy guard, and also failed to be detained; he somehow "evaded" capture by coalition forces in the Afghanistan/Pakistan border region no less than 4 occasions; he is a highly recognizable 6 ft 4 inch guy hauling a dialysis machine about, but can't be found by the most most advanced military-intelligence-security-law enforcement/spy satellite network in human history.... and there's been a $25million reward on his head, dead or alive, for over 7 years. Nobody in Pakistan, or Afghanistan, or wherever, is interested in such a huge fortune? Again no comment. Also, the FBI doesn't want him in connection with 9/11 because "they have no hard evidence connecting UBL (sic) to 9/11.... etc". And CIA has said "there is no link between the 9/111 funding and OBL's personal finances. Bratton is either talking out of his ass.... or being a paid weasel (and traitor I might add).

Commissioner Bratton also claims that Israel is "our ally". Well, it seems that in the run up to 9/11, they might well have been the polar opposite. I imagine that most people here recall the reports, in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, of the infamous group of men who were arrested by FBI agents after a woman reported their bizarre and suspicious activity. These fellows were wildly celebrating, "high-fiving" and dancing, whilst videotaping the attack and destruction of the Twin Towers from the New Jersey shore opposite. When arrested by FBI agents, they blamed "the Palestinians". Also, they had $thousands concealed in a sock, maps of Manhattan with various targets highlighted, including the World Trade Center (!), and explosives-sniffing dogs reportedly went "berserk". It just turned out that these guys were Israeli agents, working for "Urban Moving System", a front company which abandoned their offices right after 9/11 leaving numerous angry clients in the lurch. According to Dominic Suter (one of the "Urban Moving Systems "employees"), speaking on a recent Israeli TV talk show, they had been "sent by their bosses", to "record the event". In short, WTF????? A very strange kind of ally indeed....

So, what does this mean? First, it appears that Israeli intelligence knew, in detail before the event, not just what was going to happen, but also how, when and where. OK, fair enough: Mossad knows their stuff. Did they inform the US intelligence services? I guess that doesn't matter, since nobody acted on it. Why not? Were intelligence and law enforcement agents ordered to keep quiet under threats of prosecution under the 1947 National Security Act, just like those three FBI agents 6 weeks prior to 9/11, as recounted by lawyer David Schippers?

But, there is a problem, a huge issue of inconsistency and duplicity, typical of that which successive US administrations have displayed for decades re. certain foreign policy issues, in which the Israel--Palestinian issue is a glaring example. These 5 Israeli guys were on U.S. soil, then taken into U.S. custody, having been ACCESSORY BEFORE THE FACT to the mass murder of 3000 people and the destruction of (maybe) 4 commercial jets and $several billion worth of New York and Washington DC real estate. This was a crime of massive proportion, resulting in two major wars, the trashing of the Bill of Rights, the creation of a huge new bureaucracy, the Department of Homeland Security (structurally modeled after the KBG and the Gestapo rather than what one might expect in a western democratic republic), and a long list of other paranoid Orwellian measures.
In US law, accessory to a crime before or after the fact, carries with it similar sentences and penalties that the perpetrators are liable to receive, if found guilty in court. So... what happened to these men? Nothing! Absolutely Squat. Having being questioned, they were quietly returned to Israel with no charges and no media coverage or interest. When asked to clarify, a US official responded: "Evidence linking these Israelis to 9/11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It's classified information."

Here's a thought experiment... I make no apologies if it makes some people uncomfortable, because of its politically incorrectness to the point of being taboo, even in 9/11 Truth circles: Imagine what would have happened if five Iranians, or Iraqis, or Palestinians..... or Syrians, or Saudis, or Libyans, or... (name the Islamic/Arab country of choice) had been arrested on that NJ apartment roof, filming the destruction, in possession of the same highly incriminating evidence? A question with an obvious answer: They would have been the first people thrown into the Guantanamo Bay concentration camp, the first to be tortured, the first to be charged with involvement in the attacks, and the first to be denied legal representation, and the first to be summarily executed after the first kangaroo court "trial". The FBI agents who arrested them would have been lauded as national heroes, honored by Bush, and would have been recipients of medals and job promotions. It would have been a huge coup for law enforcement, a much-needed consolation prize after such a massive and complete intelligence and security failure. But no... these guys were Israelis, and the words "Terrorist" and "Israeli" never appear in the same sentence in this country, unless accompanied by the word "victim".

Regarding the issue of glaring double standards: how come Israel, over the course of several decades, has been, and is routinely allowed to commit massacres and terrorist attacks, flout dozens of U.N.S.C. resolutions, even attack a US Navy ship, or, in the case of 9/11, possess detailed advance knowledge and act upon it, with absolute impunity... while at the same time, any other nation in the region is liable to attack by the full force of the US military, for far, far less? In 2003, Iraq was attacked for no valid reason, all "justified" by a series of lies. Even recently, this duplicity has been extended to Obama's cabinet selection of Rahm Emanuel as chief of staff: in itself, his selection is no problem: he is a highly capable politician, but the skeleton in his closet, is that his father was a *terrorist* whose organization (Irgun) was responsible for hundreds, if not thousands of civilians being brutally murdered or maimed by bombs and bullets. Imagine, in another thought experiment, that Obama had selected someone for a senior position who had a close relative was a former Islamic terrorist? Yikes! Say no more! A redundant question, naturally, but in Emanuel's case, a taboo question.

We have a huge issue here of "one set of laws and treatments for some, and another set for others", and the Bush Administration, under the control of neo-conservative power broker thugs have exhibited this duplicity far in excess of that of others before them. How can we expect the world to respect America when we use our superpower military and economic status to demonize one population, or country, or religion, or ideology, while allowing others to get away with anything they can and want? There is a parallel double standard regarding how we treat (communist) Cuba and China: we stomp on the little guy, because its easy, whereas we sidle up to the big, powerful wealthy guy with nukes, and do business with him, just like the cowardly bully on the school playground. For those who might have misinterpreted this as a screed against Jewish folk, I am sorry to disappoint you: you are so wrong. The last 60 years of trouble in the mid east has only been of benefit to hardliners, warmongers and militants on *both* sides, whereas ordinary people. whether Israeli or Arab, Jewish or Muslim have been on the business end of heavy manners. Noting is going to change unless people in positions of power here have a drastic change of attitude, and treat all peoples, faiths, races, and ideologies, as equals. It has been said that "repeat the same actions, in the expectancy of a different result, is a sure sign of madness"; unless we do a 180º in the way we address the problems in the middle east, we should expect more of the same. Perhaps that is what the powerbrokers want, because peace is not profitable enough?

And when the likes of Police Commissioner Bratton insult reasonable peoples' intelligence with unlikely, or even ludicrous "answers" to very reasonable, relatively softball questions such those put forth by "We are Change", it is hardly surprising that those who read outside of the baby formula and gibberish dished up by the US (and UK etc) mainstream media will continue to take what the powers-that-be say with a very large pinch of salt, at best.

Maximum Security Society? Give me civilization any time.

No matter how much "security" there is anywhere, there will always be attacks. It's a hazard of human existence; terrorist attacks have been happening throughout history, the difference being that each attack is now treated by the media as the major news item du jour, dwarfing all other current affairs. Constant news of terrorism, real and imaginary, keeps the populace in a constant state of fear... and the ongoing reporting of "probable future attacks", such as the recent "wmd attack on the US by 2013 forecast" and numerous other bogus or fabricated reports of upcoming terror incidents by the corporate media (especially in the last 7 years) is equally effective at scaring.... read terrorizing the public. In other words, government agencies and the media are, in effect, extending and enhancing the work of terrorist gangs by scaring the living hell out of the people. That is what terrorism is.

Terrorism is largely motivated via oppression.. where a targeted demographic (for example Palestinians) feel they have nothing worthwhile in life, where anger and abject poverty rule their miserable, hellish existence; the focus of the militant element in their society is "taking out their rage and frustration out on their oppressors". The most effective way of making sure that terrorist attacks (and thus internal strife) are ongoing is to continually target a particular group, thus rendering their most hotheaded and unbalanced folk (which are present in all societies) as angry and as vengeful as possible. And the US has been incredibly effective at doing such during the last several decades, all over the world. Why? Maybe because war, and the manufacture of weapons with which to fight them, is one of modern mankind's most profitable activities. And we can only make war when we have an enemy... so lets make some enemies.

The chance of getting hit by a terrorist's bomb or bullet is remote (in India or anywhere else in the world), and the odds in the US are even longer (terrorist attacks in the US are extremely rare). There are literally millions of soft targets in the US which have little or no security, but they are not being hit by terrorists' bombs and bullets. Anyone with a creative mind, given enough anger combined with a unbalanced personality, could become a very "good" terrorist. I heard mention a few days back, in the wake of the recent California fires, that all the investment a terrorist gang would require to cause major devastation in the dry West during fire season would be a few boxes of matches combined with Santa Ana winds; there are literally hundreds of other similar "opportunities" for terrorism which no practical degree of security could counter. What would it take to make everything "secure"? Prodigious numbers of personnel, like an equal ratio of of cops to civilians? Total restrictions on personal freedoms and rights? Complete surveillance of everyone and their activities, 24/7? This, of course is incompatible with the notion of a civilized society, but there are many folk in current US politics who crave that type of society and the control that can be lorded over the population. They been doing everything in their power, especially in the last 7+ years to impose it such a "national security state", provided that the sharp end of such authoritarianism don't affect them or their peers. As far as they are concerned, lets throw the rest of us under heavy manners.

These people to which I refer are certain individuals within the US military/intelligence/security community. They know who they are, as do many of our senior politicians, who are all too cowardly to expose them, barring a These people have the profile of common psychopaths, but with access to unbridled power and immune to any form of policing or scrutiny, they can get away with murder, and they know it. They can get away with the killing of 1 million+ innocents in Iraq, via a one trillion dollar terrorist campaign (so far) disguised as a "legitimate" war, to enrich their corporate crony fat-cat friends, all based on a pack of lies. They can get away with dismantling the U.S. Constitution, which they swore when taking office, to uphold. And they can get away with ordering the deaths of 3000 Americans in Manhattan and DC in order to kick start their preordained agenda of neo-fascism and endless war.

Those traitors to whom I refer can roast in hell with their terrorist friends, patsies and accomplices. For a tiny first step in restitution and universal justice, let's have General Myers take the first steps into the fiery pit, when his time on Earth is done.

Why does Alex Jones et al include absurdities to discredit otherwise great work?

Alex Jones' pioneering work in exposing the 9/11 false flag operation, the Iraq war fiasco/lies, and numerous other contemporary scams and atrocities is all for nothing when he gives this kind of absurd, ridiculous article headline status.

If PrisonPlanet.com regards one autumnal cold snap as evidence of "no global warming", one might as well dig a hole in the ground and and believe, by default, the trash presented on Fox, CNN, and the proponents of the neocon agenda.

Perhaps Alex Jones et al are so enamored by "libertarianism" that evidence of climate change must be squashed, lest irresponsible industrial activity is molested by emission regulations. Or, maybe Alex Jones, to continue to earn a living with his media work has been coerced (by the powers-that-be) into including an absurd element (such as "no global warming") that renders the rest of his work suspect by association.

UK/US corporate media: Weasels and Shills, for Crooks and Liars

The BBC has lost what tiny morsel of credibility they had left, since the summary firing of the (hugely popular) manager Greg Dyke in 2003, after he voiced his opposition to the Bliar regime’s criminal collaboration with BushCorp’s illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq. The BBC have since morphed into a cowardly, pathetic shill for the most well financed gang of war criminals and thugs since WW2. The current axis of corporate media in the UK and the US is the equivalent of what Joseph Goebbels presided over during WW2: fascist propaganda, neatly disguised by operating within governments that pretend to be “democracies”.

The real enemy of the people is the corporate media: if we the people are to regain control of our EMPLOYEES in government and stop the accelerating decay, then our first task is to take down the mainstream media, and regain control of OUR airwaves, by whatever methods are appropriate and civilized, and at time(s) of our choosing.

The next task is to excise the cancer of ultra-politicized and terminally corrupt elements within our federal law enforcement/intelligence agencies and the Defense department, and introduce a bill into Congress to ensure fiscal responsibility, accountability to their mission(s), namely working for we the people, their paymasters, to protect our national security. Currently, the system is geared toward creating instability throughout the world to enrich corporations and individuals who benefit from war and strife, thus encouraging terrorism and other reactionary fallout.

Then, lets fix our electoral system so America *never* sees a repeat of the stolen, fraudulent fiascos of 2000 and 2004.

Then, we can start 50 years of hard work to get back on track.

Powell endorses Obama. A liability.

I used to think that Colin Powell was his own man.

That notion was squashed flat when on February 5, 2003 at the UN Security Council, he knowingly told baldfaced lies to the world's people about Iraq's "WMDs and biological weapons labs" that he knew did not exist. He could have been a true hero of the 21st century and told it the way he knew it was, possibly avoiding an unwinnable war that has trashed our economy, killed thousands of US service people, more than 1 million Iraqi civilians, and all but destroyed any sense of respect the US has in the rest of the world. But instead, Powell selected cowardice and appeasement, rather than statesmanship, heroism and patriotism. He went what was then the easy route, when 65% of the country, denied the facts by a complicit lapdog media, was baying for middle eastern blood in revenge for an attack that had zero connection with Iraq (and precious little to do with Afghanistan as well).

Powell endorsed Barack Obama. He went whichever way the wind blows, yet again. Obama is now endorsed by not only a liar and a coward, but also the army officer who helped cover up the My Lai massacre atrocity in Vietnam. If the American people knew the facts, a Powell endorsement would be a true liability.

We really do have a own-party system.