Friday, April 2, 2010
There They Crucified Him -“Oh, but they were just following orders.”
By Laurence M. Vance
They didn’t just crucify him; they scourged him, stripped him, put a purple robe on him, put a crown of thorns on his head, mocked him, smote him with their hands, spit on him, cast lots for his garments, smote him on the head, feigned worship to him, and nailed him to a cross.
Crucifixion was an ancient, brutal, gruesome, painful, humiliating, and public method of execution. The "him" referenced above who was crucified is, of course, Jesus Christ. He was crucified even though he was declared to be without fault, not worthy of death, and a just person.
Who in the world would do such a thing? Who would nail the Son of God to a cross and crucify him?
Of all the horrible things that soldiers have done throughout history, this is certainly the most reprehensible.
Oh, but they were just following orders.
Apologists for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, most people who are indifferent to these wars, and even many of those who oppose them all generally agree on one thing: We should never condemn the soldiers; they are just following orders.
I have often been chastised, even by those who condemn the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, denounce the abuses of the U.S. government, and oppose an interventionist U.S. foreign policy, because I have criticized the institution of the military and the soldiers who mete out death and destruction on its behalf: Soldiers, I am told:
• Are trained to kill people and break things
• Are required to follow the orders of their officers
• Must never question the orders they are given
• Must follow orders to maintain discipline and effectiveness
I agree completely.
The problem here is two fold: These things are true and the people who recite them the most don’t actually believe them.
It is because these things are true of soldiers that no American should enlist in the military and fight for what Will Grigg calls "the world’s most powerful terrorist syndicate, the United States Government." When someone joins the military of a country like the United States with such an interventionist foreign policy and an empire of troops and bases that encircles the globe, he will be expected to not only uphold and maintain the policy and the empire, but carry it out and expand it by military force. When someone works for the policeman, fireman, bully, busybody, and social worker of the world – the U.S. military – he will be expected to participate in acts of military intervention.
But, some will reply in retreat, there are some things that soldiers shouldn’t do when ordered to do them by their superiors – like commit war crimes.
My point exactly.
But if that is so then soldiers would not be doing what they are trained to do, would not be following the orders of their superiors, would not be never questioning the orders they are given, and would not be maintaining discipline and effectiveness.
You can’t have it both ways.
And what are the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan anyway but crimes against not only the Iraqi and Afghan peoples, but also the thousands of U.S. soldiers who gave their lives in vain and for a lie.
In spite of the blame game that is played when it comes to soldiers being culpable for their actions, they are responsible and will have to answer to a higher power than their commanding officers. That higher power may be their religion, philosophy, moral code, or conscience, but unless they have made a god out of the military , it will be something.
Christ forgave those who crucified him; millions of Koreans, Vietnamese, Laotians, Cambodians, Iraqis, and Afghans killed by the U.S. military are not only not so forgiving, they never even had the chance.
"And when they were come to the place, which is called Calvary, there they crucified him, and the malefactors, one on the right hand, and the other on the left."~ Luke 23:33
They didn’t just crucify him; they scourged him, stripped him, put a purple robe on him, put a crown of thorns on his head, mocked him, smote him with their hands, spit on him, cast lots for his garments, smote him on the head, feigned worship to him, and nailed him to a cross.
Crucifixion was an ancient, brutal, gruesome, painful, humiliating, and public method of execution. The "him" referenced above who was crucified is, of course, Jesus Christ. He was crucified even though he was declared to be without fault, not worthy of death, and a just person.
Who in the world would do such a thing? Who would nail the Son of God to a cross and crucify him?
“Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments, and made four parts, to every soldier a part; and also his coat: now the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout.”~John 19:23
Of all the horrible things that soldiers have done throughout history, this is certainly the most reprehensible.
Oh, but they were just following orders.
Apologists for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, most people who are indifferent to these wars, and even many of those who oppose them all generally agree on one thing: We should never condemn the soldiers; they are just following orders.
I have often been chastised, even by those who condemn the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, denounce the abuses of the U.S. government, and oppose an interventionist U.S. foreign policy, because I have criticized the institution of the military and the soldiers who mete out death and destruction on its behalf: Soldiers, I am told:
• Are trained to kill people and break things
• Are required to follow the orders of their officers
• Must never question the orders they are given
• Must follow orders to maintain discipline and effectiveness
I agree completely.
The problem here is two fold: These things are true and the people who recite them the most don’t actually believe them.
It is because these things are true of soldiers that no American should enlist in the military and fight for what Will Grigg calls "the world’s most powerful terrorist syndicate, the United States Government." When someone joins the military of a country like the United States with such an interventionist foreign policy and an empire of troops and bases that encircles the globe, he will be expected to not only uphold and maintain the policy and the empire, but carry it out and expand it by military force. When someone works for the policeman, fireman, bully, busybody, and social worker of the world – the U.S. military – he will be expected to participate in acts of military intervention.
But, some will reply in retreat, there are some things that soldiers shouldn’t do when ordered to do them by their superiors – like commit war crimes.
My point exactly.
But if that is so then soldiers would not be doing what they are trained to do, would not be following the orders of their superiors, would not be never questioning the orders they are given, and would not be maintaining discipline and effectiveness.
You can’t have it both ways.
And what are the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan anyway but crimes against not only the Iraqi and Afghan peoples, but also the thousands of U.S. soldiers who gave their lives in vain and for a lie.
In spite of the blame game that is played when it comes to soldiers being culpable for their actions, they are responsible and will have to answer to a higher power than their commanding officers. That higher power may be their religion, philosophy, moral code, or conscience, but unless they have made a god out of the military , it will be something.
Christ forgave those who crucified him; millions of Koreans, Vietnamese, Laotians, Cambodians, Iraqis, and Afghans killed by the U.S. military are not only not so forgiving, they never even had the chance.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Tea Party Calls Congressman “N” word and Spits on him because he was Black
This was at least the headline on a McClatchy newspaper site. For two days all we heard was how racist this was and how horrible the people are who disagree with the government.
Of course this is all false and typical propaganda.
Watch this video; it is short and pretty clear.
In Liberty – c2084
Of course this is all false and typical propaganda.
Watch this video; it is short and pretty clear.
In Liberty – c2084
Army 'Showdown' at Eligibility Corral
Joe Kovacs at WND.com
March 31, 2010
Top doctor refuses orders, tells Obama to show birth certificate – 'if you have 1'
A top-ranking, highly decorated officer in the U.S. Army says he's now refusing all orders until President Barack Obama finally releases his long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate to prove his eligibility to serve as commander in chief.
"I feel I have no choice but the distasteful one of inviting my own court martial," said Lt. Col. Terry Lakin, an active-duty flight surgeon charged with caring for Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey's pilots and air crew. "The Constitution matters. The truth matters."
"For the first time in all my years of service to our great nation, and at great peril to my career and future, I am choosing to disobey what I believe are illegal orders, including an order to deploy to Afghanistan for my second tour of duty there. I will disobey my orders to deploy because I – and I believe all servicemen and women and the American people – deserve the truth about President Obama's constitutional eligibility to the office of the presidency and the commander in chief.
"If he is ineligible, then my orders – and indeed all orders – are illegal because all orders have their origin with the commander in chief as handed down through the chain of command."
In his video message now posted on YouTube , the 18-year veteran personally pleads with the president to stop withholding the key document which would put to rest many of the doubts that continue to linger more than a year into Obama's term.
"President Obama, I ask you to respect and uphold the Constitution. Be transparent and show your honesty and integrity. Release your original, signed birth certificate, if you have one, thus proving your birth on American soil, and thus assure the American people that you are lawfully eligible to hold the office of the presidency and serve as commander in chief of the Armed Forces."
"Any reasonable person looking critically at the evidence currently in the public domain would have questions about President Obama's claim to be a natural-born citizen," Lakin continued, stating this "troubling" information has gone unanswered "because he refuses to release his original birth certificate dating from 1961 and bearing the signature of the doctor who delivered him. This burden of proof must fall upon the president."
Read Rest of Article
March 31, 2010
Top doctor refuses orders, tells Obama to show birth certificate – 'if you have 1'
A top-ranking, highly decorated officer in the U.S. Army says he's now refusing all orders until President Barack Obama finally releases his long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate to prove his eligibility to serve as commander in chief.
"I feel I have no choice but the distasteful one of inviting my own court martial," said Lt. Col. Terry Lakin, an active-duty flight surgeon charged with caring for Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey's pilots and air crew. "The Constitution matters. The truth matters."
"For the first time in all my years of service to our great nation, and at great peril to my career and future, I am choosing to disobey what I believe are illegal orders, including an order to deploy to Afghanistan for my second tour of duty there. I will disobey my orders to deploy because I – and I believe all servicemen and women and the American people – deserve the truth about President Obama's constitutional eligibility to the office of the presidency and the commander in chief.
"If he is ineligible, then my orders – and indeed all orders – are illegal because all orders have their origin with the commander in chief as handed down through the chain of command."
In his video message now posted on YouTube , the 18-year veteran personally pleads with the president to stop withholding the key document which would put to rest many of the doubts that continue to linger more than a year into Obama's term.
"President Obama, I ask you to respect and uphold the Constitution. Be transparent and show your honesty and integrity. Release your original, signed birth certificate, if you have one, thus proving your birth on American soil, and thus assure the American people that you are lawfully eligible to hold the office of the presidency and serve as commander in chief of the Armed Forces."
"Any reasonable person looking critically at the evidence currently in the public domain would have questions about President Obama's claim to be a natural-born citizen," Lakin continued, stating this "troubling" information has gone unanswered "because he refuses to release his original birth certificate dating from 1961 and bearing the signature of the doctor who delivered him. This burden of proof must fall upon the president."
Read Rest of Article
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Republicans Plan to Avoid Obamacare Repeal Demands of the American People
Infowars.com
March 31, 2010
It is not only Democrats who fear a political backlash come November. So do Republicans. “Top Republicans are increasingly worried that GOP candidates this fall might be burned by a fire that’s roaring through the conservative base: demand for the repeal of President Barack Obama’s new health care law,” reports the Associated Press
Criticizing Obamacare and the authoritarian tactics of the Democrats is one thing. Actually repealing Obamacare is quite another, according to establishment Republicans.
“Repeal is politically and legally unlikely, and grass-roots activists may feel disillusioned by a failed crusade.” In short, they may hold Republicans responsible, as they should.
“Democrats are counting on that scenario. They say more Americans will learn of the new law’s benefits over time and anger over its messy legislative pedigree will fade. For months, Democrats have eagerly catalogued Republican congressional candidates who pledge to repeal the health care law, vowing to make them pay in November,” claims the AP.
Democrats are crossing their fingers and hoping Obama’s propaganda campaign hits pay dirt. It will not. Americans are opposed to Obamacare in large numbers. Most of them realize the program will jack up the national debt and increase the power of the federal government.
“Republican leaders are stepping cautiously, wary of angering staunchly conservative voters bent on repealing the new law. In recent public comments, they have quietly played down the notion of repealing the law while emphasizing claims that it will hurt jobs, the economy and the deficit.”
In other words, Democrats and Republicans are on the same page. Republicans do not oppose an ever growing and more tyrannical federal government — so long as they are in control.
Republican strategist Kevin Madden told the AP Republican candidates should not get bogged down in the mechanics of a repeal and focus instead on issues such as costs.
Republicans have no intention of running on the fact that Obamacare is unconstitutional and needs to be repealed immediately. Instead they will pay a numbers game. It should be obvious by now that Republicans, just like their Democrat colleagues, have instructions to crank up the national debt.
A growing number of Americans understand this.
Come November, we are likely to see a fresh crop of independents running for Congress. Let’s hope most of them want to roll back the power of government and send the bankers packing.
Short of that, we will get more of the same.
March 31, 2010
It is not only Democrats who fear a political backlash come November. So do Republicans. “Top Republicans are increasingly worried that GOP candidates this fall might be burned by a fire that’s roaring through the conservative base: demand for the repeal of President Barack Obama’s new health care law,” reports the Associated Press
Criticizing Obamacare and the authoritarian tactics of the Democrats is one thing. Actually repealing Obamacare is quite another, according to establishment Republicans.
“Repeal is politically and legally unlikely, and grass-roots activists may feel disillusioned by a failed crusade.” In short, they may hold Republicans responsible, as they should.
“Democrats are counting on that scenario. They say more Americans will learn of the new law’s benefits over time and anger over its messy legislative pedigree will fade. For months, Democrats have eagerly catalogued Republican congressional candidates who pledge to repeal the health care law, vowing to make them pay in November,” claims the AP.
Democrats are crossing their fingers and hoping Obama’s propaganda campaign hits pay dirt. It will not. Americans are opposed to Obamacare in large numbers. Most of them realize the program will jack up the national debt and increase the power of the federal government.
“Republican leaders are stepping cautiously, wary of angering staunchly conservative voters bent on repealing the new law. In recent public comments, they have quietly played down the notion of repealing the law while emphasizing claims that it will hurt jobs, the economy and the deficit.”
In other words, Democrats and Republicans are on the same page. Republicans do not oppose an ever growing and more tyrannical federal government — so long as they are in control.
Republican strategist Kevin Madden told the AP Republican candidates should not get bogged down in the mechanics of a repeal and focus instead on issues such as costs.
Republicans have no intention of running on the fact that Obamacare is unconstitutional and needs to be repealed immediately. Instead they will pay a numbers game. It should be obvious by now that Republicans, just like their Democrat colleagues, have instructions to crank up the national debt.
A growing number of Americans understand this.
Come November, we are likely to see a fresh crop of independents running for Congress. Let’s hope most of them want to roll back the power of government and send the bankers packing.
Short of that, we will get more of the same.
An Unaccustomed Truth: American Commander Admits Afghan Atrocities
by Chris Floyd
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Well, John the Baptist after torturing a thief
Looks up at his hero the Commander-in-Chief
Saying, “Tell me great hero, but please make it brief
Is there a hole for me to get sick in?
-- Bob Dylan, "Tombstone Blues"
One can only assume that the regular editors of the New York Times were all out at a party, or left early for a weekend in the Hamptons, or something -- but somehow, the paper published a front webpage story that stated -- without the usual thousand excuses and extenuations -- that American troops are routinely slaughtering Afghan civilians at checkpoints. What's more, the story unequivocally ties the civilian killings to the "surge" ordered by the noble Nobel Peace laureate, Barack Obama.
Here's what the Times says:
Let's repeat the much-media-lauded general's statement again: “We have shot an amazing number of people, but to my knowledge, none has ever proven to be a threat." Now, what would the authorities say if you or I shot "an amazing number of people who have never proven to be a threat?" Why, they would call us murderers -- even mass murderers. Yet this is precisely what "the senior American and NATO commander in Afghanistan" has just declared, on videotape.
The story goes on to make the extraordinarily straight -- and indisputable -- point that these wanton killings of civilians who have never even "proven to be a threat" is fanning the very "insurgency" (which is the Beltway term of art for any resistance to American military presence") whose quelling is the ostensible reason for the Laureate's "surge" in the first place:
The story even states plainly that the official figures of admitted killing of unthreatening civilians -- already unconscionably high -- might not be the true extent of these atrocities:
The story also presents an example of one slaughter of civilians, and shows how it leads directly to the rise of resistance against the American military presence:
Finally, the story depicts McChrystal -- again, the handpicked commander of the commander-in-chief -- stating flatly when it comes to the widely ballyhooed "counterinsurgency doctrine" that is supposedly now governing the military occupation of Afghanistan, the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing. In other words, it's a full-scale, four-star FUBAR:
Read Entire Article
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Well, John the Baptist after torturing a thief
Looks up at his hero the Commander-in-Chief
Saying, “Tell me great hero, but please make it brief
Is there a hole for me to get sick in?
-- Bob Dylan, "Tombstone Blues"
One can only assume that the regular editors of the New York Times were all out at a party, or left early for a weekend in the Hamptons, or something -- but somehow, the paper published a front webpage story that stated -- without the usual thousand excuses and extenuations -- that American troops are routinely slaughtering Afghan civilians at checkpoints. What's more, the story unequivocally ties the civilian killings to the "surge" ordered by the noble Nobel Peace laureate, Barack Obama.
Here's what the Times says:
American and NATO troops firing from passing convoys and military checkpoints have killed 30 Afghans and wounded 80 others since last summer, but in no instance did the victims prove to be a danger to troops, according to military officials in Kabul.
And what is the paper's authority for this astounding admission of atrocity? Not the usual "unnamed sources" or "senior official in a position to have knowledge of the situation," but none other than Obama's hand-picked commander on the Af-Pak front, General Stanley "Black Ops" McChrystal his own self:
“We have shot an amazing number of people, but to my knowledge, none has ever proven to be a threat,” said Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, who became the senior American and NATO commander in Afghanistan last year. His comments came during a recent videoconference to answer questions from troops in the field about civilian casualties.
Let's repeat the much-media-lauded general's statement again: “We have shot an amazing number of people, but to my knowledge, none has ever proven to be a threat." Now, what would the authorities say if you or I shot "an amazing number of people who have never proven to be a threat?" Why, they would call us murderers -- even mass murderers. Yet this is precisely what "the senior American and NATO commander in Afghanistan" has just declared, on videotape.
The story goes on to make the extraordinarily straight -- and indisputable -- point that these wanton killings of civilians who have never even "proven to be a threat" is fanning the very "insurgency" (which is the Beltway term of art for any resistance to American military presence") whose quelling is the ostensible reason for the Laureate's "surge" in the first place:
Failure to reduce checkpoint and convoy shootings, known in the military as “escalation of force” episodes, has emerged as a major frustration for military commanders who believe that civilian casualties deeply undermine the American and NATO campaign in Afghanistan.
Many of the detainees at the military prison at Bagram Air Base joined the insurgency after the shootings of people they knew, said the senior NATO enlisted man in Afghanistan, Command Sgt. Maj. Michael Hall.
“There are stories after stories about how these people are turned into insurgents,” Sergeant Major Hall told troops during the videoconference. “Every time there is an escalation of force we are finding that innocents are being killed,” he said.
The story even states plainly that the official figures of admitted killing of unthreatening civilians -- already unconscionably high -- might not be the true extent of these atrocities:
Shootings from convoys and checkpoints involving American, NATO and Afghan forces accounted for 36 civilian deaths last year, down from 41 in 2008, according to the United Nations. With at least 30 Afghans killed since last June in 95 such shootings, according to military statistics, the rate shows no signs of abating.
And those numbers do not include shooting deaths caused by convoys guarded by private security contractors. Some tallies have put the total number of escalation of force deaths far higher.
A spokesman for the Afghan Interior Ministry, Zemary Bashary, said private security contractors sometimes killed civilians during escalation of force episodes, but he said he did not know the number of instances.
The story also presents an example of one slaughter of civilians, and shows how it leads directly to the rise of resistance against the American military presence:
One such case was the death of Mohammed Yonus, a 36-year-old imam and a respected religious authority, who was killed two months ago in eastern Kabul while commuting to a madrasa where he taught 150 students.
A passing military convoy raked his car with bullets, ripping open his chest as his two sons sat in the car. The shooting inflamed residents and turned his neighborhood against the occupation, elders there say.
“The people are tired of all these cruel actions by the foreigners, and we can’t suffer it anymore,” said Naqibullah Samim, a village elder from Hodkail, where Mr. Yonus lived. “The people do not have any other choice, they will rise against the government and fight them and the foreigners. There are a lot of cases of killing of innocent people.”
Finally, the story depicts McChrystal -- again, the handpicked commander of the commander-in-chief -- stating flatly when it comes to the widely ballyhooed "counterinsurgency doctrine" that is supposedly now governing the military occupation of Afghanistan, the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing. In other words, it's a full-scale, four-star FUBAR:
More recently, General McChrystal moved to bring nearly all Special Operations forces in Afghanistan under his control. NATO officials said concern about civilian casualties caused by these forces was partly behind the decision, along with the need to better coordinate units and ensure that local commanders were aware of what was happening.
One unit could be doing counterinsurgency, while another carried out “a raid that might in fact upset progress,” General McChrystal explained during the videoconference.
Read Entire Article
Preparations for a Hit against Iran: Stopping Israel’s Next War
by Muriel Mirak-Weissbach Posted at Global Research
March 20, 2010
“A new war in the region is inevitable.” This is the pronouncement made by Mohammad Seyyed Selim, political scientist and professor at the universities of Cairo and Kuweit. Prof. Selim delivered his forecast on February 13, in a program on Nile TV’s “Cairo Watch,” in which I also participated. The moderator, Mohamed Abdel-Rahim, started off by asking what crisis situations in the region were most acute; Iran and the Arab-Israeli conflict were the obvious answers.
That war is on the agenda, Selim noted, is beyond doubt. Israeli political and military leaders have been broadcasting such bellicose intentions loudly enough for the deaf to hear. Yossi Peled said he thought conflict with Hezbollah was inevitable. Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman warned the Syrian government that if it were to intervene in an Israeli-Lebanese conflict, it would disintegrate. As if that were not sufficient, the Israeli Mossad had staged a Hollywood-style extravaganza to murder Hamas leader Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in Dubai on January 20. Four days later, Netanyahu declared that Israel would maintain control over parts of the West Bank for all eternity. He followed up with the announcement that Israel would designate three sites on the West Bank as part of Israel’s national heritage. These were all deliberately crafted provocations, aimed solely at eliciting a violent response from the other side: perhaps that Hezbollah would kidnap an Israeli soldier, or that Hamas would lob a few rockets across the border to Israel. Fortunately, to date, their response has been measured.
Whenever Israel threatens military action against Hamas, Hezbollah, and/or Syria, it is certain that the actual target is Iran. This was the case in the 2006 war in Lebanon, and in the 2008 year-end aggression against Gaza. (See: “The Target is Iran: Israel’s Latest Gamble May Backfire,”). As a preparation for a hit against the Islamic Republic in both cases, Tel Aviv was attempting to remove from the scene, or at least weaken, those factors in the region which could respond militarily and politically. Israel lost both wars, albeit at a heavy price for the civilians of the targeted populations. Now it is gearing up for renewed attacks, in tandem with an artfully orchestrated international campaign around Iran’s alleged nuclear bomb program.
The targeted nations and political movements are well aware of this fact. It is no coincidence that the leaders of those forces joined in a public display of solidarity on March 4 in Damascus. As pictured in major media, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad hosted talks with Iranian President Ahmadinejad and Hezbollah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrullah. Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal and other Palestinian rejection front representatives were also on hand. There is no need to inquire into the agenda of their talks. They are preparing for the worst case scenario: a direct Israeli attack.(1)
Whether or not the ongoing escalation will spark conflict-- one that would quickly spread beyond the region—will depend on several interrelated considerations: first, will the U.S. embrace the suicidal option of endorsing and/or joining an Israeli “preemptive” strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities? As a corollary, will leading Arab states allow themselves to be pummeled into acquiescing to yet another disastrous conflict? Then, will the Iranians fall into the trap being laid for them, and react according to profiles drafted in psychological warfare think-tanks, by responding in terms of brinkmanship? Or will they elude the trap with determined but cool-headed political and diplomatic initiatives? Further, will other world powers, namely Russia and especially China, wield their clout to prevent such a scenario? Finally, will the growing censure of Israeli methods catalyze a change inside Israel itself?
The Casus Belli: Nuclear Energy
Ostensibly, the impetus for renewed calls to attack Iran came after Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced on February 11 that scientists had achieved 20% enrichment. There followed the ritual exclamations of condemnation on the part of the major powers, especially those in the 5+1 group (the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany who have been engaged in negotiations around the issue).
A week later, the new Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Yukiya Amano, issued his first report on Iran, which all but the Chinese seized upon like vultures preying on carrion, to claim that it confirmed Tehran’s alleged intentions to build an atom bomb, and to demand new action to force Tehran’s compliance. A worldwide mobilization unfolded, spearheaded by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and flanked by the French and Germans. Chancellor Angela Merkel chimed in with her vow that tougher sanctions would be imposed on Iran. Either such sanctions would be voted up in the U.N. Security Council, or, in the likely event that China refused, they would be imposed outside the U.N. framework. Merkel went out of her way to say that the Europeans should declare independent sanctions (for reasons we will see below). (2) As for Israel, its leaders turned up the volume in their demands for “crippling sanctions, or else,” meaning: if the international community were not disposed to take effective action against Iran, then Israel would go it alone with a military strike.
Read Entire Article
March 20, 2010
“A new war in the region is inevitable.” This is the pronouncement made by Mohammad Seyyed Selim, political scientist and professor at the universities of Cairo and Kuweit. Prof. Selim delivered his forecast on February 13, in a program on Nile TV’s “Cairo Watch,” in which I also participated. The moderator, Mohamed Abdel-Rahim, started off by asking what crisis situations in the region were most acute; Iran and the Arab-Israeli conflict were the obvious answers.
That war is on the agenda, Selim noted, is beyond doubt. Israeli political and military leaders have been broadcasting such bellicose intentions loudly enough for the deaf to hear. Yossi Peled said he thought conflict with Hezbollah was inevitable. Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman warned the Syrian government that if it were to intervene in an Israeli-Lebanese conflict, it would disintegrate. As if that were not sufficient, the Israeli Mossad had staged a Hollywood-style extravaganza to murder Hamas leader Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in Dubai on January 20. Four days later, Netanyahu declared that Israel would maintain control over parts of the West Bank for all eternity. He followed up with the announcement that Israel would designate three sites on the West Bank as part of Israel’s national heritage. These were all deliberately crafted provocations, aimed solely at eliciting a violent response from the other side: perhaps that Hezbollah would kidnap an Israeli soldier, or that Hamas would lob a few rockets across the border to Israel. Fortunately, to date, their response has been measured.
Whenever Israel threatens military action against Hamas, Hezbollah, and/or Syria, it is certain that the actual target is Iran. This was the case in the 2006 war in Lebanon, and in the 2008 year-end aggression against Gaza. (See: “The Target is Iran: Israel’s Latest Gamble May Backfire,”). As a preparation for a hit against the Islamic Republic in both cases, Tel Aviv was attempting to remove from the scene, or at least weaken, those factors in the region which could respond militarily and politically. Israel lost both wars, albeit at a heavy price for the civilians of the targeted populations. Now it is gearing up for renewed attacks, in tandem with an artfully orchestrated international campaign around Iran’s alleged nuclear bomb program.
The targeted nations and political movements are well aware of this fact. It is no coincidence that the leaders of those forces joined in a public display of solidarity on March 4 in Damascus. As pictured in major media, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad hosted talks with Iranian President Ahmadinejad and Hezbollah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrullah. Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal and other Palestinian rejection front representatives were also on hand. There is no need to inquire into the agenda of their talks. They are preparing for the worst case scenario: a direct Israeli attack.(1)
Whether or not the ongoing escalation will spark conflict-- one that would quickly spread beyond the region—will depend on several interrelated considerations: first, will the U.S. embrace the suicidal option of endorsing and/or joining an Israeli “preemptive” strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities? As a corollary, will leading Arab states allow themselves to be pummeled into acquiescing to yet another disastrous conflict? Then, will the Iranians fall into the trap being laid for them, and react according to profiles drafted in psychological warfare think-tanks, by responding in terms of brinkmanship? Or will they elude the trap with determined but cool-headed political and diplomatic initiatives? Further, will other world powers, namely Russia and especially China, wield their clout to prevent such a scenario? Finally, will the growing censure of Israeli methods catalyze a change inside Israel itself?
The Casus Belli: Nuclear Energy
Ostensibly, the impetus for renewed calls to attack Iran came after Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced on February 11 that scientists had achieved 20% enrichment. There followed the ritual exclamations of condemnation on the part of the major powers, especially those in the 5+1 group (the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany who have been engaged in negotiations around the issue).
A week later, the new Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Yukiya Amano, issued his first report on Iran, which all but the Chinese seized upon like vultures preying on carrion, to claim that it confirmed Tehran’s alleged intentions to build an atom bomb, and to demand new action to force Tehran’s compliance. A worldwide mobilization unfolded, spearheaded by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and flanked by the French and Germans. Chancellor Angela Merkel chimed in with her vow that tougher sanctions would be imposed on Iran. Either such sanctions would be voted up in the U.N. Security Council, or, in the likely event that China refused, they would be imposed outside the U.N. framework. Merkel went out of her way to say that the Europeans should declare independent sanctions (for reasons we will see below). (2) As for Israel, its leaders turned up the volume in their demands for “crippling sanctions, or else,” meaning: if the international community were not disposed to take effective action against Iran, then Israel would go it alone with a military strike.
Read Entire Article
Mumbai Terrorist was US Agent
Alex Newman posted at JBS
After terrorist conspirator and “former” U.S. government agent David Coleman Headley received promises of leniency and extradition protection from American prosecutors for his role in the 2008 Mumbai massacre, speculation about his true masters was set ablaze as outrage erupted across India.
Headley — a former Drug Enforcement Administration agent and the son of a Pakistani diplomat — pled guilty to various criminal charges on March 18 in connection with his terrorist activities in India, Pakistan and Denmark. He is reportedly “cooperating” with investigators.
In exchange, the government vowed not to allow foreign authorities to question him or subject him to trial. Prosecutors also agreed not seek the death penalty, and he may not even serve a life sentence. Links to U.S. intelligence agencies will remain classified. And his guilty plea ensures that there will be no drawn-out trial that could publicly reveal any relationships with various intelligence agencies — most notably, the Central Intelligence Agency-linked Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence. Headley admitted in the plea bargain that he helped plan the bloody massacre by conducting surveillance and selecting targets, gathering GPS coordinates for the terrorist team’s boat landing along the coast, and more. He was also helping to plan an attack on a Danish cartoonist. And while the Federal Bureau of Investigation was given almost 10 hours to question the only surviving attacker in India, a team of Indian investigators who traveled to the U.S. to interrogate Headley was turned away.
The plea deal and the lack of American cooperation immediately sparked fury and despair in India, as the U.S. is reportedly bound by treaty to surrender Headley to Indian authorities. It also fueled accusations in the media that Headley still may have been linked to the American or Pakistani governments in some capacity. He began his terrorist training around the time that he was working for the U.S. government. But the connections, however, remain shrouded in mystery.
The terrorist group he was known to be working with — the ISI-Linked pakastani Lashkar-e-Tabia — carried out the devastating Mumbai attack in November of 2008 that dominated headlines around the world. The terrorists rampaged through the city with machine guns and grenades, leaving over 150 dead and hundreds more wounded. And as it turns out, the terrorist group was actually created with the help of Pakistan’s secret services, which have well-known ties to the American Central Intelligence Agency and other government agencies.
Read Entire Article
After terrorist conspirator and “former” U.S. government agent David Coleman Headley received promises of leniency and extradition protection from American prosecutors for his role in the 2008 Mumbai massacre, speculation about his true masters was set ablaze as outrage erupted across India.
Headley — a former Drug Enforcement Administration agent and the son of a Pakistani diplomat — pled guilty to various criminal charges on March 18 in connection with his terrorist activities in India, Pakistan and Denmark. He is reportedly “cooperating” with investigators.
In exchange, the government vowed not to allow foreign authorities to question him or subject him to trial. Prosecutors also agreed not seek the death penalty, and he may not even serve a life sentence. Links to U.S. intelligence agencies will remain classified. And his guilty plea ensures that there will be no drawn-out trial that could publicly reveal any relationships with various intelligence agencies — most notably, the Central Intelligence Agency-linked Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence. Headley admitted in the plea bargain that he helped plan the bloody massacre by conducting surveillance and selecting targets, gathering GPS coordinates for the terrorist team’s boat landing along the coast, and more. He was also helping to plan an attack on a Danish cartoonist. And while the Federal Bureau of Investigation was given almost 10 hours to question the only surviving attacker in India, a team of Indian investigators who traveled to the U.S. to interrogate Headley was turned away.
The plea deal and the lack of American cooperation immediately sparked fury and despair in India, as the U.S. is reportedly bound by treaty to surrender Headley to Indian authorities. It also fueled accusations in the media that Headley still may have been linked to the American or Pakistani governments in some capacity. He began his terrorist training around the time that he was working for the U.S. government. But the connections, however, remain shrouded in mystery.
The terrorist group he was known to be working with — the ISI-Linked pakastani Lashkar-e-Tabia — carried out the devastating Mumbai attack in November of 2008 that dominated headlines around the world. The terrorists rampaged through the city with machine guns and grenades, leaving over 150 dead and hundreds more wounded. And as it turns out, the terrorist group was actually created with the help of Pakistan’s secret services, which have well-known ties to the American Central Intelligence Agency and other government agencies.
Read Entire Article
U.S. reverses stance on treaty to regulate arms trade
(c2084-This is nothing short of using international treaties to circumvent the US Constitution and disarm Americans – gun control is the key to tyranny )
Reuters
Reuters - The United States reversed policy on Wednesday and said it would back launching talks on a treaty to regulate arms sales as long as the talks operated by consensus, a stance critics said gave every nation a veto.
The decision, announced in a statement released by the U.S. State Department, overturns the position of former President George W. Bush's administration, which had opposed such a treaty on the grounds that national controls were better.
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the United States would support the talks as long as the negotiating forum, the so-called Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty, "operates under the rules of consensus decision-making."
"Consensus is needed to ensure the widest possible support for the Treaty and to avoid loopholes in the Treaty that can be exploited by those wishing to export arms irresponsibly," Clinton said in a written statement.
While praising the Obama administration's decision to overturn the Bush-era policy and to proceed with negotiations to regulate conventional arms sales, some groups criticized the U.S. insistence that decisions on the treaty be unanimous.
"The shift in position by the world's biggest arms exporter is a major breakthrough in launching formal negotiations at the United Nations in order to prevent irresponsible arms transfers," Amnesty International and Oxfam International said in a joint statement.
However, they said insisting that decisions on the treaty be made by consensus "could fatally weaken a final deal."
"Governments must resist US demands to give any single state the power to veto the treaty as this could hold the process hostage during the course of negotiations. We call on all governments to reject such a veto clause," said Oxfam International's
policy adviser Debbie Hillier.
The proposed legally binding treaty would tighten regulation of, and set international standards for, the import, export and transfer of conventional weapons.
Supporters say it would give worldwide coverage to close gaps in existing regional and national arms export control systems that allow weapons to pass onto the illicit market.
Nations would remain in charge of their arms export control arrangements but would be legally obliged to assess each export against criteria agreed under the treaty.
Governments would have to authorize transfers in writing and in advance.
The main opponent of the treaty in the past was the U.S. Bush administration, which said national controls were better. Last year, the United States accounted for more than two-thirds of some $55.2 billion in global arms transfer deals.
Arms exporters China, Russia and Israel abstained last year in a U.N. vote on the issue.
The proposed treaty is opposed by conservative U.S. think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, which said last month that it would not restrict the access of "dictators and terrorists" to arms but would be used to reduce the ability of democracies such as Israel to defend their people.
The U.S. lobbying group the National Rifle Association has also opposed the treaty.
A resolution before the U.N. General Assembly is sponsored by seven nations including major arms exporter Britain. It calls for preparatory meetings in 2010 and 2011 for a conference to negotiate a treaty in 2012.
Reuters
Reuters - The United States reversed policy on Wednesday and said it would back launching talks on a treaty to regulate arms sales as long as the talks operated by consensus, a stance critics said gave every nation a veto.
The decision, announced in a statement released by the U.S. State Department, overturns the position of former President George W. Bush's administration, which had opposed such a treaty on the grounds that national controls were better.
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the United States would support the talks as long as the negotiating forum, the so-called Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty, "operates under the rules of consensus decision-making."
"Consensus is needed to ensure the widest possible support for the Treaty and to avoid loopholes in the Treaty that can be exploited by those wishing to export arms irresponsibly," Clinton said in a written statement.
While praising the Obama administration's decision to overturn the Bush-era policy and to proceed with negotiations to regulate conventional arms sales, some groups criticized the U.S. insistence that decisions on the treaty be unanimous.
"The shift in position by the world's biggest arms exporter is a major breakthrough in launching formal negotiations at the United Nations in order to prevent irresponsible arms transfers," Amnesty International and Oxfam International said in a joint statement.
However, they said insisting that decisions on the treaty be made by consensus "could fatally weaken a final deal."
"Governments must resist US demands to give any single state the power to veto the treaty as this could hold the process hostage during the course of negotiations. We call on all governments to reject such a veto clause," said Oxfam International's
policy adviser Debbie Hillier.
The proposed legally binding treaty would tighten regulation of, and set international standards for, the import, export and transfer of conventional weapons.
Supporters say it would give worldwide coverage to close gaps in existing regional and national arms export control systems that allow weapons to pass onto the illicit market.
Nations would remain in charge of their arms export control arrangements but would be legally obliged to assess each export against criteria agreed under the treaty.
Governments would have to authorize transfers in writing and in advance.
The main opponent of the treaty in the past was the U.S. Bush administration, which said national controls were better. Last year, the United States accounted for more than two-thirds of some $55.2 billion in global arms transfer deals.
Arms exporters China, Russia and Israel abstained last year in a U.N. vote on the issue.
The proposed treaty is opposed by conservative U.S. think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, which said last month that it would not restrict the access of "dictators and terrorists" to arms but would be used to reduce the ability of democracies such as Israel to defend their people.
The U.S. lobbying group the National Rifle Association has also opposed the treaty.
A resolution before the U.N. General Assembly is sponsored by seven nations including major arms exporter Britain. It calls for preparatory meetings in 2010 and 2011 for a conference to negotiate a treaty in 2012.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
The real anti-Americans
Patrick J. Buchanan posted at WorldNetDaily
As Democrats, after a Sunday rally on the Capitol grounds, marched to the House hand-in-hand to vote for health-care reform, tea partiers reportedly shouted the "N-word" at John Lewis and another black congressman. A third was allegedly spat upon. And Barney Frank was called a nasty name.
Tea partiers deny it all. And neither audio nor video of this alleged incident has been produced, though TV cameras and voice recorders were everywhere on the Hill.
Other Democrats say their offices were vandalized and they've been threatened. A few received, and eagerly played for cable TV, obscene phone calls they got.
If true, this is crude and inexcusable behavior. And any threat should be investigated. But Democrats are also exploiting these real, imaginary or hoked-up slurs to portray themselves as political martyrs and to smear opponents as racists and bigots.
This is the politics of desperation.
Majority Whip James Clyburn accuses Republicans of "aiding and abetting ... terrorism." New York Times columnist Frank Rich compared the tea-party treatment of Democrats to Nazi treatment of the Jews during Kristallnacht:
"How curious that a mob fond of likening President Obama to Hitler knows so little about history that it doesn't recognize its own small-scale mimicry of Kristallnacht."
Kristallnacht, "Crystal Night," the "Night of Broken Glass," was the worst pogrom in Germany since the Middle Ages. Synagogues were torched and hundreds of businesses smashed. Shattered glass covered the streets. Women were assaulted and men beaten and murdered. After that terrible night, half the Jews remaining in Germany fled.
To compare a brick tossed through the window of a congressional office and two shouted slurs to Kristallnacht suggests a growing paranoia on the left about the populist right.
Not since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 made "some Americans run off the rails," said Rich, have we seen anything like this.
Was Rich awake in 1964? Because it wasn't the right that went off the rails. The really big riot in 1964 was in Harlem, lasting five days, with 500 injured and as many arrested. The Watts riot in 1965, Detroit and Newark in 1967, Washington, D.C., and 100 other cities in 1968, all bringing troops into American cities, were not the work of George Wallace populists or Barry Goldwater conservatives. They were the work of folks who went "all the way with LBJ."
Nor was it Young Americans for Freedom that burned ROTC buildings, vandalized professors' offices, toted the guns at Cornell or took over Columbia in 1968. And it was not the Birchers who set off that 1970 explosion in the Greenwich Village townhouse that killed three radicals and aborted the terrorist bombing of the NCO club at Fort Dix.
No, this was not the New Right. This was the New Left, and it was Obama not John Boehner who used to "pal around" with one of the boys who did the Pentagon and Capitol Hill bombings.
As for calling Barney Frank a naughty name, that is not nice. But one wonders what Rich thought of the students marching under Viet Cong flags chanting, about the man who signed that Civil Rights Act, "Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?" and, "Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh, the NLF is going to win," when American boys were dying in the hundreds every week fighting the communist NLF?
The 1967 attack on the Pentagon, where thousands tried to break through military police to get into the building, was the work of left-wing radicals. Did the tea-party folks who chanted, "Kill the bill," outside the House behave worse than that?
Some of us recall the anarchy of May Day 1971, when 15,000 leftists tried to shut down Washington on a Monday morning by rolling logs onto Canal Road, smashing car windows, blocking traffic circles and wilding in Georgetown. Most wound up behind a chain-link fence at the Armory.
How many were arrested on Capitol Hill Sunday a week ago?
Not one tea partier, man or woman.
The "mass hysteria" of the tea-party right, writes Rich, is at root about race. "By 2012 ... non-Hispanic white births will be in the minority. The tea party is virtually all white. ... Their anxieties about a rapidly changing America are well-grounded."
Rich is implying that when America's white majority disappears, in 2042 according to 2008 Census Bureau projections, the day of the white conservative is over.
Given the rise in ethnic consciousness among all Americans, Rich may be right. But it is not just white folks who want illegal aliens deported and legal immigration curtailed, while 25 million of our own are out of work or underemployed.
A Zogby poll for the Center for Immigration Studies found that 56 percent of Hispanics, 57 percent of Asian-Americans and 68 percent of African-Americans think legal immigration is too high.
If the tea-party folks think it is leftist elites who detest and wish to be rid of the America they grew up in and love, they are right.
As Democrats, after a Sunday rally on the Capitol grounds, marched to the House hand-in-hand to vote for health-care reform, tea partiers reportedly shouted the "N-word" at John Lewis and another black congressman. A third was allegedly spat upon. And Barney Frank was called a nasty name.
Tea partiers deny it all. And neither audio nor video of this alleged incident has been produced, though TV cameras and voice recorders were everywhere on the Hill.
Other Democrats say their offices were vandalized and they've been threatened. A few received, and eagerly played for cable TV, obscene phone calls they got.
If true, this is crude and inexcusable behavior. And any threat should be investigated. But Democrats are also exploiting these real, imaginary or hoked-up slurs to portray themselves as political martyrs and to smear opponents as racists and bigots.
This is the politics of desperation.
Majority Whip James Clyburn accuses Republicans of "aiding and abetting ... terrorism." New York Times columnist Frank Rich compared the tea-party treatment of Democrats to Nazi treatment of the Jews during Kristallnacht:
"How curious that a mob fond of likening President Obama to Hitler knows so little about history that it doesn't recognize its own small-scale mimicry of Kristallnacht."
Kristallnacht, "Crystal Night," the "Night of Broken Glass," was the worst pogrom in Germany since the Middle Ages. Synagogues were torched and hundreds of businesses smashed. Shattered glass covered the streets. Women were assaulted and men beaten and murdered. After that terrible night, half the Jews remaining in Germany fled.
To compare a brick tossed through the window of a congressional office and two shouted slurs to Kristallnacht suggests a growing paranoia on the left about the populist right.
Not since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 made "some Americans run off the rails," said Rich, have we seen anything like this.
Was Rich awake in 1964? Because it wasn't the right that went off the rails. The really big riot in 1964 was in Harlem, lasting five days, with 500 injured and as many arrested. The Watts riot in 1965, Detroit and Newark in 1967, Washington, D.C., and 100 other cities in 1968, all bringing troops into American cities, were not the work of George Wallace populists or Barry Goldwater conservatives. They were the work of folks who went "all the way with LBJ."
Nor was it Young Americans for Freedom that burned ROTC buildings, vandalized professors' offices, toted the guns at Cornell or took over Columbia in 1968. And it was not the Birchers who set off that 1970 explosion in the Greenwich Village townhouse that killed three radicals and aborted the terrorist bombing of the NCO club at Fort Dix.
No, this was not the New Right. This was the New Left, and it was Obama not John Boehner who used to "pal around" with one of the boys who did the Pentagon and Capitol Hill bombings.
As for calling Barney Frank a naughty name, that is not nice. But one wonders what Rich thought of the students marching under Viet Cong flags chanting, about the man who signed that Civil Rights Act, "Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?" and, "Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh, the NLF is going to win," when American boys were dying in the hundreds every week fighting the communist NLF?
The 1967 attack on the Pentagon, where thousands tried to break through military police to get into the building, was the work of left-wing radicals. Did the tea-party folks who chanted, "Kill the bill," outside the House behave worse than that?
Some of us recall the anarchy of May Day 1971, when 15,000 leftists tried to shut down Washington on a Monday morning by rolling logs onto Canal Road, smashing car windows, blocking traffic circles and wilding in Georgetown. Most wound up behind a chain-link fence at the Armory.
How many were arrested on Capitol Hill Sunday a week ago?
Not one tea partier, man or woman.
The "mass hysteria" of the tea-party right, writes Rich, is at root about race. "By 2012 ... non-Hispanic white births will be in the minority. The tea party is virtually all white. ... Their anxieties about a rapidly changing America are well-grounded."
Rich is implying that when America's white majority disappears, in 2042 according to 2008 Census Bureau projections, the day of the white conservative is over.
Given the rise in ethnic consciousness among all Americans, Rich may be right. But it is not just white folks who want illegal aliens deported and legal immigration curtailed, while 25 million of our own are out of work or underemployed.
A Zogby poll for the Center for Immigration Studies found that 56 percent of Hispanics, 57 percent of Asian-Americans and 68 percent of African-Americans think legal immigration is too high.
If the tea-party folks think it is leftist elites who detest and wish to be rid of the America they grew up in and love, they are right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_sPQBqqPhRnQKWFd1ceJki64m5_waVO4JSnSAmorDo8Rou0ShDmg9F9jvm4MrKIMddA5Q8XyromXpH1WnLDB9AnnqjeNpC0cXkAuNCPsb4uv8dZgJ6uc_L6883PPNDNN8PwTg=s0-d)
