Supressed News

Wednesday, August 23, 2006

A profile of a new wave terrorist

  • Wears a jacket with a patch with Arabic lettering , the patch displayes an airplane flying over a building heading towards a tower. with the lettering "midnight mission"(The patches appear to be military badges)
  • Speaks fluent spanish and is assisted by the Mexican military..

Sounds crazy? I was reading an article this morning on newsmax called "Texas Sheriffs: Terrorists Entering U.S. from Mexico" and i couldn´t stop laughing..

You have to be dumb as hell to buy this sh*t..who comes up with this nonsense? Really? And top of it all, the article suggests that the "terrorists" are getting "smarter".. Are they? Tagging themselfs with patches witch basically says:"Hi, im a terrorist" is very clever.

The article also raises a legitimate concern..; Is the Government now targeting the hispanic community?

check it out and read for yourself:

Texas Sheriffs: Terrorists Entering U.S. from Mexico

by Kevin Mooney

The chief law enforcement officers of several Texas counties along the southern U.S. border warn that Arabic-speaking individuals are learning Spanish and integrating into Mexican culture before paying smugglers to sneak them into the United States. The Texas Sheriffs' Border Coalition believes those individuals are likely terrorists and that drug cartels and some members of the Mexican military are helping them get across the border.

Sheriff Sigifredo Gonzalez of Zapata County, Texas told Cybercast News Service that Iranian currency, military badges in Arabic, jackets and other clothing are among the items that have been discovered along the banks of the Rio Grande River. The sheriff also said there are a substantial number of individuals crossing the southern border into the U.S. who are not Mexican. He described the individuals in question as well-funded and able to pay so-called "coyotes" - human smugglers - large sums of money for help gaining illegal entry into the U.S.

Although many of the non-Mexican illegal aliens are fluent in Spanish, Gonzalez said they speak with an accent that is not native.

"It's clear these people are coming in for reasons other than employment," Gonzalez said.

That sentiment is shared by Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.).

"For years, Muslims and other 'Special Interest Aliens' from places other than Mexico have been streaming into the U.S. across our porous border," Tancredo told Cybercast News Service. "These people are not paying $50,000 or more a head just to 'take jobs no American will do.'

"Terrorists are working round the clock to infiltrate the United States," he added. "Congress and this administration must address this gaping hole in our national security and they must do it now."

Some of the more high profile pieces of evidence pointing to terrorist infiltration of the U.S. have been uncovered in Jim Hogg County, Texas, which experiences a high volume of smuggling activity, according to local law enforcement.

"We see patches on jackets from countries where we know al Qaeda to be active," Gonzalez explained.

The patches appear to be military badges with Arabic lettering. One patch in particular, discovered this past December, caught the attention of federal homeland security officials, according to Gonzalez and local officials familiar with the investigation.

Sheriff Wayne Jernigan of Valverde County, Texas, told members of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee in March about one patch that read "midnight mission" and displayed an airplane flying over a building heading towards a tower. Translators with DHS have said some of the various phrases and slogans on the items could mean "martyr," "way to eternal life," or "way to immortality."

Gonzalez told the House International Relations Subcommittee on International Terrorism and Nonproliferation in July that the terrorists are getting smarter.

"To avoid apprehension, we feel many of these terrorists attempt to blend in with persons of Hispanic origin when entering the country." Gonzalez stated. "We feel that terrorists are already here and continue to enter our country on a daily basis."

Sheriff Arvin West of Hudspeth County, Texas, told Cybercast News Service that he believes some Mexican soldiers are operating in concert with the drug cartels to aid the terrorists.

"There's no doubt in my mind," he said, "although the Mexican government and our government adamantly deny it."

Statistics made available through the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) show more than 40,000 illegal aliens from countries "Other Than Mexico," designated as OTMs, were apprehended by the U.S. Border Patrol in the period ranging from October 2003 to June 2004, as they attempted to cross the southwestern border. An overview of border security challenges produced through the office of Texas Gov. Rick Perry indicates that almost 120,000 OTMs were apprehended while attempting to cross into the state from January through July 2005.

Local authorities are particularly concerned about illegal aliens arriving from Special Interest Countries (SICs) where a radical version of Islam is known to flourish. Perry's office cites Iraq, Iran, Indonesia and Bangladesh among those countries. A Tancredo spokesperson said the list also includes Afghanistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Somalia and Yemen.

As Cybercast News Service previously reported an internal audit of DHS that combines the number of illegal aliens arriving from SICs with the documented instances of illegal aliens arriving from countries identified as being state sponsors of terrorism (SSTs) yields a grand total of over 90,000 such illegal aliens who have been apprehended during the five year period from fiscal year 2001 to fiscal year 2005.

The border security report delivered by Perry's office focuses attention on the "Triborder region" of Latin America, which spans an area between Brazil, Argentina and Paraguay.

"The Triborder Region is a focal point of Islamic extremism," the report states. "Al Qaeda leadership plans to use criminal alien smuggling organizations to bring terrorist operatives across the border into the U.S."

Carlos Espinosa, a press spokesman for Tancredo, said his office is aware of a training camp in Brazil that actually teaches people from outside of Latin America how they can assimilate into the Mexican culture.

"They come up as illegal aliens and disguise themselves as potential migrant workers," Espinosa said.

Read more!

Tuesday, August 22, 2006

Only 20% Of British citizens Believe Blair On Terror Threats

Neo-Fascists need to stage real attack to reclaim cl credibility and obedience

A figure that is both telling and foreboding - that only one fifth of British citizens believe the Blair government is telling the truth on terror alerts - increases the chances of a staged attack to reinforce the notion that Islamo-Fascism is a real danger and not the invention of a ruthless Neo-Fascist government that has all but abolished freedom in the United Kingdom.

A Guardian/ICM poll today reveals that just 20% of British voters believe the government is telling the truth about the threat to bomb transatlantic airliners using liquid explosives - meaning 80% of the country do not trust Blair and the war on terror agenda. Blair's re-election itself was carried with a majority of just 33% and since only half of the country actually voted, that means only just above a quarter of British citizens actively support their government.

Paul Joseph Watson / Prisonplanet

whole article here

Read more!

Under Fire! U.S. Army Intelligence Analyst Targeted For Suggesting New Independent 9/11 Investigation

Army: Doubting Official 9/11 Story Is ‘Disloyal To The United States’

FT. SAM HOUSTON, Texas — Forty-one-year-old Sergeant First Class Donald Buswell is a hero. Having served over 19 years in the United States Army, Buswell has seen a lot of terrain. On April 15, 2004, he was injured in a rocket attack while serving a tour in Iraq. For this, SFC Buswell was given a Purple Heart. And until recently, Buswell was an Intelligence Analyst stationed at Ft. Sam Houston, Texas.

Sergeant First Class Donald Buswell:
I say Occums razor is the best way to deduce this ‘day of infamy’; if you weigh all options, do some simple studying you will see 911 was clearly not executed by some arabs in caves with cell phones and 3 day old newspapers! I mean how are Arabs benefiting from pulling off 911? They have more war, more death and dismal conditions, so, how did 911 benefit them? Answer: It didn’t. So, who benefited from 9-11? The answer is sad, but simple; The Military Industial [sic] Complex.

It’s not a paranoid conspiracy to think there are conspiracies out there...and, it’s not Liberal Lunacy either, nor is it Conservative Kookiness! People, fellow citizens we’ve been had! We must demand a new independent investigation into 911 and look at all options of that day, and all plausabilities [sic], even the most incredulous theories must be examined...

by Stephen Webster

Read the whole story here

Read more!


Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff recently floated the idea that our nation's domestic antiterrorism laws should be reviewed. He suggested that the United States might benefit from the sort of aggressive surveillance and arrest powers that British authorities used to foil the supposed plot to bomb as many as 10 airliners.

With Congress getting ready to question the scope of the Bush administration's powers in the so-called war on terror, a review certainly is in order. However, Britain shouldn't be held up as a model for the United States. That's because the Labour government of Prime Minister Tony Blair has shown an extraordinary streak of authoritarianism, and it started well before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

In Britain, under the Protection from Harassment Act of 1997, sending more than two unsolicited e-mails to a person constitutes harassment.

In Britain, under the Terrorism Act of 2000, police are allowed to stop and search people in a designated area, which could be set up anywhere without warning.

In Britain, under the Serious Organized Crime and Police Act of 2005, protests are banned within one kilometer - a little more than a half-mile - of Parliament Square, unless a permit is obtained from the commissioner of the Metropolitan Police.

In Britain, something called an Anti-Social Behaviour Order (ASBO) allows people to be hauled into court and threatened with prison terms of up to five years for offenses as trivial as playing a stereo too loudly or not keeping the front yard tidy. It can also be used to go after people who make remarks the government deems harmful to public order. And once a person is arrested for any offense, from littering to murder, that person must surrender a DNA sample to police, by force if necessary.

In Britain, under the Civil Contingencies Act of 2004, the prime minister has the power to declare a state of emergency and seize assets without compensation, ban public assemblies, forcibly move or detain people from designated areas, and set up special courts. Parliament does not have a say in the matter until seven days after such an emergency is declared.

In Britain, under the Inquiries Act of 2005, if Parliament decided to investigate the actions of a prime minister, the prime minister would have the power to set the terms of the investigation, suppress evidence, close the hearings to the public and even terminate the investigation without explanation.

Britain already has one of the most extensive surveillance camera systems in the world, but the Blair government is also pushing for a national ID card. The daily use of that card would be connected to a central government database that would effectively track and log the details of every person's life. Those details can be inspected at will by any law enforcement agency.

If Chertoff's model for the United States is Britain, we should all be concerned.

Under the guise of preserving social order, the Blair government has created a legal system where due process and the presumption of innocence no longer exists, where the standards of evidence are lowered to allow rumor and hearsay, where people can be punished even if no law was broken. His Britain is a place where total surveillance is becoming commonplace and individual rights come second to the needs and desires of the state.

Unfortunately, the British model looks mighty attractive to an administration that is more interested in preserving its power than in preserving the Constitution and has zero respect for civil liberties and the rule of law.

Is this the sort of nation we want to live in? Are we willing to allow our civil liberties to be taken away in the name of safety and security?

A free society always has to balance freedom and security, but it must always err on the side of freedom. But in fearful times, as Ben Franklin long ago observed, people are all too willing to sacrifice freedom for security. In the end, they end up with neither.

By Randolf T Holhut


Read more!

A damning admission: New York Times concealed NSA spying until after 2004 election

A column by New York Times public editor Byron Calame August 13 reveals that the newspaper withheld a story about the Bush administration’s program of illegal domestic spying until after the 2004 election, and then lied about it.

On December 16, 2005, the Times reported that President Bush had authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to monitor thousands of telephone conversations and e-mails in the US without court approval. At the time, the Times acknowledged that it had, at the urging of the Bush administration, withheld publication of the story, saying it held its exposé back “for a year.” This time frame suggested that the newspaper made the decision to withhold publication of the story until after the 2004 presidential election.

Such a delay was, in itself, unpardonable, and provoked angry criticism. Now we learn, from an interview with Executive Editor Bill Keller conducted by Calame, that internal discussions at the Times about drafts of the eventual article had been “dragging on for weeks” before the November 2, 2004, election, which resulted in a victory for Bush.

“The process,” the public editor notes, “had included talks with the Bush administration.” A fresh draft was the subject of discussion at the newspaper “less than a week” before the election.

Involved here is not a trivial sex scandal or some moral peccadillo committed by one or another of the major candidates. At issue was a major policy question—one that goes to the core of constitutionally guaranteed civil liberties and basic democratic rights.

The electorate had the right to know that the incumbent president was systematically breaking the law in order to secretly wiretap, without court warrants, the communications of American citizens. As the Times was well aware, similar illegalities—although on a smaller scale—were among the charges leveled against Richard Nixon in the second article of impeachment, entitled “Abuse of Power,” approved by the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives in July 1974, leading to Nixon’s resignation the following month.

The NSA spying, authorized by Bush shortly after September 11, 2001, violates the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Security Act, which was passed in the aftermath of the Watergate scandal specifically to prohibit the type of warrantless wiretaps and intercepts ordered by Nixon against his political opponents, and secretly sanctioned by Bush without congressional approval after 9/11. (As the Bush administration revealed in the wake of the Times’s December, 2005 exposé, some leading members of Congress of both parties were briefed on the program after it was initiated, and Democrats and Republicans alike remained silent.)

As a federal judge pointed out in her ruling last week ordering the shutdown of the NSA program, it also breaches the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, which bans unreasonable searches and seizures, and the First Amendment, which protects free speech.

The NSA spying operation is a major component of a massive and unprecedented assault on the democratic rights of the American people, involving a drive by the Bush administration to establish what amounts to a presidential dictatorship.

In the fall of 2004, the Times, under pressure from a lawless president running for reelection, chose to conceal the existence of the surveillance program from the electorate. The history of this decision and its cover-up is quite revealing.

In his August 13 column, entitled “Eavesdropping and the Election: An Answer on the Question of Timing,” Calame makes reference to “a number of readers critical of the Bush administration” who “have remained particularly suspicious of the [original Times] article’s assertion that the publication delay dated back only ‘a year’ to Dec. 16, 2004.” Clearly, Calame’s piece comes in response to protests and inquiries as to when the decision was made to withhold the domestic spying story.

His admission is itself an effort at damage control.

Calame asks in the second paragraph of his August 13 commentary, “Did the Times mislead readers by stating that any delay in publication came after the Nov. 2, 2004, presidential election?” The answer, although the public editor doesn’t care to say so directly, is unequivocally “Yes,” based on his own findings.

Calame writes: “Mr. Keller, who wouldn’t answer any questions for my January column, recently agreed to an interview about the delay, although he saw it as ‘old business.’ But he had some new things to say about the delay and the election.”

These “new things” include the following:

“ ‘The climactic discussion about whether to publish was right on the eve of the election,’ Mr. Keller said. The pre-election discussions included Jill Abramson, a managing editor; Philip Taubman, the chief of the Washington bureau; Rebecca Corbett, the editor handling the story, and often Mr. [James] Risen [one of the article’s co-authors]. Arthur Sulzberger Jr., the publisher, was briefed, but Mr. Keller said the final decision to hold the story was his.

“Mr. Keller declined to explain in detail his pre-election decision to hold the article, citing obligations to preserve the confidentiality of sources. He has repeatedly indicated that a major reason for the publication delays was the administration’s claim that everyone involved was satisfied with the program’s legality. Later, he has said, it became clear that questions about the program’s legality ‘loomed larger within the government than we had previously understood.’ ”

If one is believe this account, Keller and company chose to accept the Bush administration’s arguments about the legality of its own unconstitutional domestic surveillance operation. The Times hierarchy took the word of a government that epitomizes the rise of the political underworld and its consolidation of power. Not only did the Bush administration come to power on the basis of a stolen election, it used lie after lie to drag the American people into a bloody and unprovoked war in Iraq.

Either Keller is being disingenuous, or he is so ignorant of elementary political realities that he is unfit to edit a newspaper of any kind, let alone the supposed “newspaper of record.”

Concerning the Times’s change of heart in 2005, Calame notes that Keller recently e-mailed him “a description of how that picture had changed by December 2005, and it cast some new light on the pre-election situation for me. It implied that the paper’s pre-election sources hadn’t been sufficiently ‘well-placed and credible’ to convince him that questions about the program’s legality and oversight were serious enough to make it ‘responsible to publish.’ But by December, he wrote, ‘We now had some new people who could in no way be characterized as disgruntled bureaucrats or war-on-terror doves saying we should publish. That was a big deal.’”

This ostensible justification is itself damning. The Times knew that the secret program existed, that it flouted the letter and spirit of the 1978 FISA Act, and that it was a matter of immense political import. Why, otherwise, would the Bush administration be so insistent that the story be killed? There was no credible rationale, given what the newspaper knew at the time, to withhold the existence of the domestic spying program from the public—especially on the eve of an election.

Particularly significant is Keller’s contemptuous reference to “war-on-terror doves,” which only reveals the fundamental agreement of Keller and the rest of the Times leadership with the administration’s all-purpose pretext for war abroad and repression at home. Those who question or challenge the so-called “war on terror” are, evidently, relegated by the Times to the lunatic fringe of politics.

As for the description of the newspaper’s devotion to the most scrupulous and conscientious regard for verifiable facts and unimpeachable sources, one need only consider its approach to the current British terror scare. Take last Sunday’s Times editorial (“Hokum on Homeland Security”), which begins with the following phrase: “Ever since British intelligence did such a masterly job in rounding up terrorists intent on blowing up airliners....”

Really? How do they know that those imprisoned in London were “terrorists intent on blowing up airliners?” Because Bush and British Home Secretary John Reid say so? Not a shred of evidence has been presented by either the British or American authorities to substantiate this claim. No charges were even lodged until yesterday, and even sections of the American media have decided to somewhat downplay the alleged plot because of lack of proof and growing public skepticism.

Calame goes on to quote Keller, approvingly, that the decision to withhold the NSA story only days before the election “also was an issue of fairness.” Calame says he agrees “that candidates affected by a negative article deserve to have time—several days to a week—to get their response disseminated before voters head to the polls.”

Aside from the sophistry arising from the fact that Keller admitted to having the basic story in hand for weeks before the election, what is truly astounding is that neither Calame nor Keller shows the slightest concern for “fairness” toward the voters, who went to the polls not knowing, thanks to the Times, that the Republican candidate was tearing up the Constitution.

As for Keller’s dishonest claim last December that the story had been held up only “for a year,” Calame quotes his executive editor, without comment, saying, “It was probably inelegant wording.”

This entire affair is one more devastating example of the cowardice of the Times and its capitulation to the White House and the most ruthless elements in the ruling elite, who are irremediably hostile to any signs of opposition and democratic political life in general. More broadly, the Times’s conduct speaks to the virtual integration of the American mass media into the state apparatus. It reveals the degree to which the media functions as a propaganda appendage of the government, concealing or distorting facts on cue.

See Also:
US court rules NSA spying program unconstitutional
Bush appeals decision and denounces judge
[19 August 2006]
US Congress moves to sanction domestic spying
[10 August 2006]
July 4th 2006: The state of US democracy 230 years after the American Revolution
[4 July 2006]

By David Walsh and Barry Grey

Read more!

Is the US planning a coup in Iraq?

On August 16, an extraordinary article appeared in the New York Times providing details of a top-level private meeting on US strategy in Iraq at the Pentagon last week. President Bush, who was present along with his war cabinet and selected “outside experts”, voiced his open dissatisfaction that the new Iraqi government—and the Iraqi people—had not shown greater support for US policies.

“More generally, the participants said, the president expressed frustration that the Iraqis had not come to appreciate the sacrifices the United States had made in Iraq, and was puzzled as to how a recent anti-American rally in support of Hezbollah in Baghdad could draw such a large crowd,” the newspaper reported. The angry protest on August 4 against the US-backed Israeli war in Lebanon drew more than 100,000 people from the capital and other Iraqi cities.

The New York Times article, which had all the hallmarks of a planted story, did not of course speak openly of a coup against Maliki. Nevertheless it constituted an unmistakable threat to the Baghdad regime that its days were numbered if it did not toe the US line. Prior to his trip to Washington last month, Maliki publicly condemned the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. While his comments were just a pale reflection of popular sentiment in Iraq and throughout the Middle East, they soured the Bush administration’s plans to use the visit as a much-needed boost prior to mid-term US elections.

The New York Times followed up the report with a further article on August 17 on the latest Defence Department indices of the catastrophe in Iraq: the number of roadside bombs aimed mainly against American forces reached an all-time high of 2,625 in July as compared to 1,454 in January. “The insurgency has gotten worse by almost all measures, with insurgent attacks at historically high levels. The insurgency has more public support and is demonstrably more capable in numbers of people active and in its ability to direct violence than at any point in time,” a senior Defence Department official told the newspaper.

Buried at the conclusion of the article, however, was the astonishing admission by one of the participants in the Pentagon meeting that Bush administration officials were already beginning to plan for a post-Maliki era. “Senior administration officials have acknowledged to me that they are considering alternatives other than democracy,” an unnamed military affairs expert told the New York Times. “Everybody in the administration is being quite circumspect, but you can sense their own concern that this is drifting away from democracy.”

The Bush administration’s attempts to dress up its illegal occupation of Iraq as “democratic” have always been a fraud. Ever since the 2003 invasion, US officials have had a direct hand in drawing up constitutional arrangements, steering elections and forming cabinets. Maliki was only installed as prime minister in May after a protracted White House campaign to force his predecessor Ibrahim al-Jaafari to stand aside. To speak of “considering alternatives other than democracy” can only have one meaning—that the Bush administration is contemplating plans to ditch the constitution, remove Maliki and insert a regime more directly amenable to Washington’s orders.

This would not be the first time that US imperialism has ousted one of its own puppets. In 1963, as American strategy in Vietnam was floundering, the Kennedy administration gave the green light to army plotters to overthrow South Vietnamese President Ngo Dinh Diem. While loyal to Washington, Diem’s autocratic methods had provoked popular opposition and undermined US efforts to strengthen the South Vietnamese army in its war against the National Liberation Front.

On November 1, 1963, rebel army units mutinied and marched on the presidential palace in Saigon. Diem, who had escaped, rang the US ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge, who assured the Vietnamese president that the US had no hand in the coup and expressed concern for his safety. A few hours later, the reassured Diem surrendered, only to be shot dead along with his notorious brother Ngo Dinh Nhu, and replaced by a military junta.

The Bush administration has plenty of reasons to get rid of Maliki. In launching its invasion of Iraq, Washington never wanted an independent or democratic government in Baghdad. Its aims were to transform the country into a pliable client state that would function as a base of operations to further its designs throughout the region, particularly against Iran. But the White House has become increasingly dissatisfied with the political results of its military adventure. Because of its own disastrous miscalculations it has been forced to rely on a coalition government dominated by Shiite parties with longstanding connections to Tehran.

Inside Iraq, the Bush administration’s calculations that Maliki’s “government of national unity” would quell anti-American resistance and halt the descent into civil war have already proven worthless. Far from scaling back, the Pentagon has had to maintain troop levels and dispatch thousands of extra soldiers to Baghdad in a desperate effort to reconquer the capital. With Congressional elections looming, the defeat of the pro-war senator Joseph Lieberman in the Democratic Party primary on August 8 raised fears in the White House that widespread antiwar sentiment would decimate the Republican Party at the polls amid US debacles in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Middle East as a whole.

The removal of Maliki and the imposition of a subservient military regime would, at least in the short term, solve a few of the Bush administration’s political problems by removing any objections in Baghdad to a ruthless crackdown in the country and to US plans for new provocations against Iran and Syria.

Significantly, the New York Times’ accounts of discussions in the White House and Pentagon have been paralleled in Baghdad by persistent rumours of a coup. On July 29, the Washington Post reported the remarks of prominent Shiite politician Hadi al-Amiri, who warned that “some tongues” were talking about toppling the Maliki coalition and replacing it with a “national salvation government”. It would mean, he said, “cancelling the constitution, cancelling the results of the elections and going back to square one... and we will not accept that.”

Having pursued a policy of reckless militarism in the Middle East for the past five years, the Bush administration is more than capable of toppling an Iraqi regime that no longer suits its immediate purposes. However, far from stabilising the American occupation, a coup in Baghdad would no more extricate the White House from its political crisis than the ousting of Diem did in 1963. As in Vietnam, the US is sinking deeper and deeper into a political and military quagmire in Iraq.

See Also:
Huge protest in Baghdad against US-Israeli war in Lebanon

[8 August 2006]
Iraq faces civil war and sectarian partition
[5 August 2006]
Bush administration deploys thousands more troops in Baghdad
[31 July 2006]
Sectarian violence escalates in Iraq
[19 July 2006]

By Peter Symonds

Read more!

Monday, August 21, 2006

Israel: a State built on lies

The outcome of Israeli military's own inquiry into Qana II was to Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International something far from the truth. HRW said that the massacre of at least 28 Lebanese – mostly children and women -- on July 30 was the "latest product" of Israel's indiscriminating bombing. Amnesty added that Israel had a history of either not investigating civilian deaths or conducting flawed inquiries. It was the same excuse this time as the one Israel offered for the horrific killing of 106 Lebanese refugees and four UN soldiers by artillery fire on a UNIFIL compound at the same village of Qana in Lebanon ten years ago. On both occasions, Israel did not know there were civilians at the targeted points. So pretended Israel's leaders. And they claimed that they were aiming only at Hezbollah each time. Where was Hezbollah? Among so many dead there was not one Hezbollah body nor any relic of its equipment either in 1996 or in 2006.

Israel has a history not only of trying to cover up its massacres of harmless civilians but of downright lying to camouflage every one of its dark designs. It goes back to the beginning of political Zionism and its "spiritual father", Theodore Herzl (1860-1904), Hungarian-born journalist, who was fascinated by the French proverb: Qui veut la fin, veut les moyens (he who desires the end, desires the means). In an explanation of what made him start thinking of a Jewish State in Palestine he came out with a doctored view of his own hindsight. He wrote in an essay in defence of his Zionism that during the trial and public humiliation of Dreyfus in France, he had heard crowds shout "Death to the Jews". Herzl had reported the notorious trial of Alfred Dreyfus, a Jewish captain in the French army, for a Vienna newspaper, a few years earlier. His news dispatches said that the crowds had roared: "Death to the Traitor." Herzl gave away his own game later when he admitted that the Jews in France saw themselves as almost within the social mainstream. Faced with charges from the French Jews that his Zionism was hindering their total assimilation in the French nation, he turned sarcastic and wrote: "If any or all of French Jewry protest against this scheme [of a Jewish State], because they are already 'assimilated', my answer is simple. They are Israelite Frenchmen? Splendid. This is a private affair for Jews alone."

Herzl spent his final years waiting at the gates of European monarchs and Turkey's Sultan, begging for any kind of a signal for him to carry Occidental civilization to Palestine by turning "this plague-ridden, blighted corner of the Orient" into a Jewish State. He spoke also of "spiriting the penniless Palestinians away" from Palestine. But when an Arab notable in Jerusalem asked him if he was really contemplating driving the Palestinians out of their homes, Herzl wrote: " Who would think of sending them away? It is their well being, their individual wealth which we will increase by bringing in our own."

The forked tongue is a constant in the history of Zionism. Over long years the Zionists worked single-mindedly for a take-over of Palestine but kept on denying that aim until they had achieved it. Who exactly coined the crisp slogan of a "land [Palestine] without people to a people [Jews] without land" is not known. The credit is given sometimes to Herzl himself and sometimes to his English collaborator, Israel Zangwill. Max Nordeau, another Hungarian-born associate of Herzl , had a twinge of conscience when he learnt that Palestine was not a land without people. He said: "I did not know that – but then we are committing an injustice!" But he quickly recovered and claimed that the word "homeland", used in the Balfour Declaration and the League of Nations Mandate to camouflage the contemplated State for the Jews in Palestine was his idea. The infamous Balfour Declaration (1917) was the first tall feather in the cap of Chaim Weizmann, an arrogant Jewish biochemist who dined with British prime ministers and helped British war efforts in 1914-18. In fact, his was the first draft of the document by which one country pledged to give away another to some people scattered over the world. Albert Einstein, who opposed the idea of a Jewish State and later refused to become Israel's first President, asked Weizmann: "What about the Arabs if Palestine were to be given to the Jews?" Weizmann replied: "What Arabs? They are hardly of any consequence." To Emir Feisal, son of Sherif Hussein of Mecca, whom Lawrence of Arabia had courted for help against Turkey during World War I, Weizmann said: "The Jews do not propose to set up a Jewish government." Even as late as in 1930, the cunning Weizmann thought it politic to keep his scheme under wraps: He said: "If a Jewish State were possible, I would be strongly for it. I am not for it because I consider it unrealizable." When near the goal, thanks largely to Jewish terrorism, Weizmann made a show of his anguish at UN and in his own words, hung his head in shame because the Jews had violated the commandment: Thou shall not kill. That, of course, did not prevent Weizmann from feeling "proud of our boys" when they blew up Hotel King David, administrative headquarters of Britain's Palestine Mandate in Jerusalem, killing 92 and injuring 58 Britons, Arabs and Jews. When the Jewish State was realized Weizmann became its first President.

Israel is the only State admitted to UN membership on condition that it would be obedient to the world body and be bound, more specifically, by two General Assembly resolutions – of November 1947 for partition of Palestine and of December 1948 enshrining the right of the Palestinian refugees to return to their homes or be satisfied with compensation. A document on UN record, dated 29 November 1948, reads: "On behalf of the State of Israel, I, Moshe Shertok, Minister for Foreign Affairs, being duly authorised by the State Council of Israel, declare that the State of Israel hereby unreservedly accepts the obligation of the UN Charter and undertakes to honour them from the day when it becomes a Member of the United Nations." Four days after Israel had been accepted by UN as one of its members, David Ben Gurion, Israel's first prime minister, declared in the Knesset that UN's Palestine partition resolution no longer held any moral force because the Arabs had violated it and for Israel the resolution was "null and void" as far as Jerusalem was concerned. The Zionists needed a UN resolution as a birth certificate for their State and a second one to attain UN membership or the mark of the minimum in international respectability. Once they thought they had overcome all doubts about the legitimacy or viability of their State, they no longer needed the United Nations, currently the main source of international law. Israel has been condemned or censured by UN many hundreds of times for its lawlessness and for going back on its words but no leader in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem has ever betrayed any concern. Some Israelis have even taken to calling its legal creator its enemy.
By Punyapriya Dasgupta

Punyapriya Dasgupta is a journalist and author of Cheated by the World: The Palestinian Experience

Read more!

FACT:Osama bin Laden has NOT been indicted for his involvement in 9/11

While Democrats on the campaign trail attempt to convince voters that the War on Terror and the War in Iraq are not interdependent or interconnected, the neo con Republicans are seizing every media opportunity to shout that any vote for a candidate seeking office in the U.S. Congress who isn’t lockstep with the neo con war-mongering agenda is an invitation for a terror attack in the United States. Just in case you haven’t noticed, the neo con controlled Republican Party talking points for this election cycle are the same talking points used in 2002 and 2004. The summary of these points is that the neo cons will protect America from terrorists and keep the people safe while the Democrats will put America at risk and potentially endanger American lives. It’s called fear mongering.

For Americans that question the government’s account of 9/11, this lack of indictment is yet another awkward misfit stumbling among a crowd of government inconsistencies that makes maintaining even partial subscription to the neo con rhetoric regarding 9/11 happenings and the War on Terror, logically impossible. How can any critical-thinking American continue to believe the government lines on bin Laden, Al-Qaeda, terrorism, and terrorist plots when it has yet to legally produce the evidence required to gain a federal indictment of Osama bin Laden? After all, the evidence threshold for gaining a federal indictment is much lower than for gaining a conviction. Yet for reasons that remain obscure from the public record, the U.S. government, under full neo con For rightful doubters of what the U.S. government and the mainstream media have been and continue to report about the bazaar War on Terror, this lack of indictment only fuels suspicion of the U.S. government. control, has not gained such an indictment of Osama bin Laden.

Read whole story

Read more!

The Loose Cannon of 9/11

How a 23-year-old Army grunt-turned-film producer is undermining the 9/11 Commission Report with $8,000 and a laptop.

It took two governors, four congressmen, three former White House officials and two special counsels two years to compile. They reviewed over two and half million pages of classified and declassified documents, consulted 1,200 sources in 10 countries, and spent over $15 million of the taxpayers' money in the process. And on July 22, 2004, the 9/11 Commission issued its final report on the terror attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Is it possible that two twentysomethings from "a small hippie town that time forgot" could undermine that entire effort with $8,000 and a laptop?

The Loose Cannon of 9/11

By Michael Slenske, SMITH Magazine.

How a 23-year-old Army grunt-turned-film producer is undermining the 9/11 Commission Report with $8,000 and a laptop.

Yes, if you ask ex-Army specialist Korey Rowe. The 23-year-old from Oneonta, New York returned home from two tours -- one to Afghanistan, the other to Iraq -- to help his best friends, Dylan Avery (director) and Jason Bermas (researcher), produce the sensational 80-minute, Web-based documentary "Loose Change," which seeks to establish the government's complicity in the terror attacks by addressing some very tough questions: Why wasn't Ground Zero treated like a crime scene? How did both towers "free-fall" to the ground "in 9.2 seconds" in just under two hours? And where are the black boxes from American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175?

While the film is admittedly flawed and draws on some dubious new media sources, including Wikipedia, it's inarguably sparked a new interest in the "9/11 Truth movement." Since its April 2005 debut online, "Loose Change" (the first and second edition) has received over 10 million viewings, it was just featured in the August issue of Vanity Fair, and the final cut of the film is expected to debut at the Sundance Film Festival in January.

"I've got four movie studios [including Paramount and Miramax] beating down my door to make the final cut," says Rowe, who's now got offices from California to London to handle his growing company. Last week SMITH caught up with Rowe -- who's been labeled everything from a traitor to a CIA operative in the past year -- to see how he went from protecting the Iraqi-Syrian border against Muslim insurgents to a self-described "conspiracy theorist" poised to take Hollywood (and the country) by storm.

MICHAEL SLENSKE: Do you work for the CIA?

KOREY ROWE: No, I do not work for the CIA.

SLENSKE: Just wanted to get that out of the way. What made you want to join the military?

ROWE: The fact that I was doing nothing. I was 18; I wasn't ready to go to college yet. I knew that if I went to college I wouldn't have spent too much time in class, I would have spent my time partying. I wouldn't have gotten done what I needed to do. It would have been a waste of my parents' money. So I decided it would probably be best if I joined the military -- this was pre-Sept. 11 -- Bush was in office, there wasn't a whole lot going on, I didn't foresee a war happening, I just thought it would be a good way to get out of town, man-up a little, and then move on with the rest of my life. Before I knew it, I just joined.

SLENSKE: Did you want to go to war?

ROWE: At first I did. I wanted to retaliate for Sept. 11. The government told me it was Osama bin Laden, the government told me he was hiding in caves in Afghanistan, they told me he had killed a bunch of innocent Americans, so at first I wanted to go over there and defend just like everyone else. It was the hooah thing to do at the time.

SLENSKE: What were you doing in Afghanistan?

ROWE: My primary MOS (military occupational specialty) was 11 Bravo, which is infantry, frontline infantry. I was carrying a gun, humping a lot of weight on my back. That was what I did in Afghanistan full time. I was at the Kandahar airfield, Bagram, and Khost. But in Afghanistan I really didn't do much. I was there for six months, pulled a lot of guard; I went on, I think, three missions. Never got any enemy contact, never got fired on. I watched it on my perimeter, a couple hundred meters out while someone else was getting shot at, but I never really got any action.

SLENSKE: And in Iraq?

ROWE: In Iraq I rode in the back of a truck from the southern tip, through the desert into Al-Hillah, took the battle of Al-Hillah, which was pretty crazy. It looked like a Vietnam movie. Then we moved further north into Baghdad, where we were in Medical City. I was stationed in an emergency room door for about a month and a half just watching these bodies of children and their families come in. Then I moved north into Mosul, swung west into Sinjar, on the Syrian-Turkey border where we had to watch for insurgents coming across the border.

SLENSKE: How did that experience change you?

ROWE: I went from being some kid who had no idea about anything in the military--I didn't even know what the infantry was when I joined, I just told them I wanted to shoot stuff and blow stuff up -- to being a communications specialist for my commander. That was really when I started to see the bigger picture -- when I started working for higher commanders -- seeing how things ran.

SLENSKE: When was the first time you heard from Dylan Avery about what he was doing with "Loose Change" back in New York?

ROWE: After I got back from Afghanistan, he started to talk about the idea that 9/11 was an inside job, and started letting me know about some of the information he had come across. It was between returning from Afghanistan and redeploying for Iraq that my mind started to click on. I was like, "Wait a minute -- I was in Afghanistan three months ago, and now I'm going to be in Iraq in four months. I've got to invade another country; where is this going?"

Then -- and I hate to say this -- I saw "Fahrenheit 911," which to me is a terrible movie. But a lot of it made sense in the pretext and military build-up to Afghanistan before we were actually attacked. When I walked out of that movie I was like, "Wow, that messed with my head." Right before I deployed for Iraq, I had the inclination that something was seriously wrong. But then it didn't matter because at that point I had to go. My unit needed me. I was the company RTO (radio telephone operator); I was running communications. It didn't matter what my personal beliefs were. I just had to go over and shut my mouth for another year.

SLENSKE: So why this film?

ROWE: "Loose Change" happened by accident. The whole thing started out as a fictional screenplay about me and Dylan and another friend of ours finding out 9/11 was an inside job. It started out as a comedic action film with us being chased by the FBI and all that. But when Dylan started researching the screenplay, he found out the attacks really were an inside job, so we made it into a documentary. I see myself as a person who's a buffer between conspiracy theorist and military informant, so I thought my help on "Loose Change" would make it a better quality piece, something more mainstream people who aren't into conspiracies could really watch and take in.

I call it the gateway drug because it can take someone totally green to the information -- who believed Muslims carried out 9/11, that the World Trade Center was brought down because of jet fuel, and that the Pentagon was hit by a plane -- you put them in front of this movie, and 80 minutes later they are going to question it at least. Bottom line: They're going to question it. It makes people think. It made me think, so I wanted to make other people think.

SLENSKE: When you got back from Iraq did you know you wanted to go work on the film?

ROWE: No, I went back to work. I was training. That's what you do. When you're not deployed, you're in the rear either fixing your gear or using your gear. I was stationed in Fort Campbell, Ky., the whole four years besides the time I was overseas. When you're back from overseas you get a month off, you clean your gear, and then go fight again.

SLENSKE: Didn't you ever stop and think, "Wait, Dylan is just a kid"?

ROWE: Yeah, several times. I thought, I'm in the military, I know stuff. But Dylan was way more informed than me. Like I said, I'm getting the Army Times, I'm getting the AFN, and now it's out. It's reported that the government spent millions of dollars spinning false articles to newspapers across the world. So who's to say the Armed Forces Network and the Army Times aren't chockfull of bullshit?

SLENSKE: How prevalent is that mindset in the Army?

ROWE: That they know what's going on?


ROWE: It's 98 percent. It's a fantasy world those people live in. I mean it's really something. I call them infected. They can't come back to civilian life. They're like, "You can't get out of the Army, you ain't gonna get no job, you ain't gonna do nothing. You gonna work at Burger King. What are you gonna do at Burger King? You still wear a uniform; you still get a haircut at Burger King. So why don't you just stay in the Army, join up, sign again, get $6,000." If you don't reenlist, they just make you sit in a chair. They made me sit in a chair for a week. Sit in that chair until you reenlist. I just sat there. "You want me to sit in this chair," I said, "I'll sit in this chair for a month, because in a month I'm out of here."

SLENSKE: When you came back, was there anything that really bothered you about the American public?

ROWE: Yeah, their ability to believe the B.S. they see on TV. They're so in tune with their television and CNN and Fox News and the New York Post. They watch the news and the news reporter, whoever it is, forms an opinion for them. Take the release of the Pentagon video. CNN had been bashing conspiracies all day because people kept writing in about conspiracy theories. They build it up for two hours, then they show the video, then Jamie McIntyre, who we actually use in our video says, "All right, there's the plane, you can see it. There's the vapor trail, and there's the explosion. They only shoot in half-second frames; it's the only shot of the Pentagon. We'll be right back to cover more of this. This is undisputed proof that a plane hit the Pentagon."

They go to commercial, and instead of coming back and going to Flight 77, they go to "American Idol." They just implant the idea, there's Jamie McIntyre saying he sees a 757 flying into the Pentagon, and then they switch to "American Idol." So then when someone says there's no plane that hit the Pentagon, someone else can say, "That's not true; I watched CNN this afternoon. Jamie McIntyre saw the plane; he showed me." People believe anything because it's on CNN.

SLENSKE: What do you think about the Popular Mechanics cover story about "Debunking 9/11 Myths"?

ROWE: That's a good article. It covers some good information, but it directly takes away from some of the facts. It states that NATO scrambled planes at one time that could've intercepted the planes but couldn't because they couldn't reach them in time. That's bullshit. That article reports they only would've had to have flown at 24 percent of their full-blower, and an F15 flies at 1,800 mph. You're telling me when the first plane was hijacked at 8:20 a.m. until 9:45, when the plane was flown into the Pentagon, you're telling me that not one F-15 could be scrambled and taken down one of those planes. Not to mention the ("Debunking 9/11 Myths") piece stands on the Nova theory (the "Pancake Theory") that one floor collapsed on another floor creating a succession of collapses where the towers fell.

If that's true, you have a 75-story office building untouched by fuel, fire, any debris whatsoever. You have a 30-story chunk above that, which is also untouched. You have the 78th to 82nd floor, which is on fire. Think about that. You have a 70-something story office building, untouched, unscathed by fuel. You're going to tell me that the steel supposedly weakened, fell on one floor, on top of another floor, on top of another floor, for 78 floors, reaching the ground floor, and fell in 9.2 seconds. 9.2 seconds is the exact rate of freefall for a building that tall, which is 1,368 feet tall.

If you take Galileo's Law of Falling Bodies and you calculate the distance by the time it takes to fall, it's 9.2 seconds. That means that all those floors fell without any resistance from any of those untouched floors below it. It's completely impossible. Not only do you have to do that, you just have to watch the collapse of the towers. You can see the bombs going off. It is so obvious. It's an umbrella theory. You blow up the top to conceal what's going on beneath it.

SLENSKE: The "Blair Witch Project" also looked real to people who were in on the documentary preceding it. It totally worked. The first time you watch it, it grabs you. But "Loose Change" isn't meant to be fictional. It's a watchable film, but what do you expect people to do with it?

ROWE: What I encourage people to do is go out and research it themselves. We don't ever come out and say that everything we say is 100 percent. We know there are errors in the documentary, and we've actually left them in there so that people discredit us and do the research for themselves -- the B52 (remarked to have flown into the Empire State Building), the use of Wikipedia, things like that. We left them in there so people will want to discredit us and go out and research the events yourself and come up with your own conclusions. That's our whole goal, to make Americans think. To wake up from the 16 amps of your television to watch something and get a passion in something again.

And that's what America has always been about. From the Vietnam protests … it's always been about a passion. And now we're trying to build that passion in people, to wake up, to stop watching television, to stop reading the crappy newspapers, and go online and find those declassified documents. Go find the scientists that aren't young filmmakers, but the ones after Steven E. Jones at BYU, who has steel from the World Trade Center and has conducted tests on the steel. And it's come to the point, over and over again, that what they (the 9-11 Commission) say can't be true. That it had to be brought down by controlled demolition. Our whole goal is to wake Americans up to do something about it.

SLENSKE: What do you say to people who'd say you're doing this to make a dollar?

ROWE: You should see my dilapidated house in upstate New York. I drive a Ford F-150 that has a tape player. We sell DVDs, we make money, but we just give the shit away because we don't want to be war profiteers. We're not about making money on the whole thing -- we're about getting information out. That's why we've turned down seven figures, more than once, from people looking to buy our film and put it in theaters -- because they don't care about it. They only see the moneymaking aspect of it.

We want to make sure it's handled correctly. That the movie gets out 100 percent accurate when it comes out in theaters, because it's obviously not now, and that it's projected in the right light so people aren't threatened by it. If we coordinate 500 theaters across the country to start playing it, it's going to start a wave. We're going to have a whole weekend of events on 9/11 just to raise awareness among New Yorkers so that we can try to get an independent investigation to look back into the facts that every news agency in the world has ignored. Americans are going to be pissed.

Michael Slenske writes the "Back Home From Iraq" column for SMITH Magazine.

Read more!

International of Torture: The Documents the Crown Would Like to Censor

The United Kingdom Foreign
and Commonwealth Office (FCO) has forbidden Craig Murray to publish documents he obtained under the Freedom of Information Act and Freedom of Data Act, which clearly show the responsi
bility of the Crown in the International of torture. Having not dared resorting to military censorship, the Blair government has claimed copyright on the official documents in order to block their publication. This manoeuver is of course a breach of the international commitments of the United Kingdom of Great-Brittain and Northern Ireland. Indeed, Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and jurisprudence of the Strasbourg Court of Justice state that freedom of speech prevails on any other consideration and cannot be restrained by State imperatives. By bringing its support to Ambassador Murray, the Voltaire Network has decided to bypass censorship of Her Majesty and publish the documents. It calls for all other information websites to do the same.


Read more!

Sunday, August 20, 2006

Congress Poised to Unravel the Internet

Lured by huge checks handed out by the country's top lobbyists, members of Congress could soon strike a blow against Internet freedom as they seek to resolve the hot-button controversy over preserving "network neutrality." The telecommunications reform bill now moving through Congress threatens to be a major setback for those who hope that digital media can foster a more democratic society. The bill not only precludes net neutrality safeguards but also eliminates local community oversight of digital communications provided by cable and phone giants. It sets the stage for the privatized, consolidated and unregulated communications system that is at the core of the phone and cable lobbies' political agenda.
by Jeffrey Chester

Full Story

Read more!

The Enemy Within

by Len Hart

Carl Jung predicted our present sense of malaise as early as 1957 in his "The Undiscovered Self", decrying "...apocalyptic images of universal destruction" brought on by WWII and an atomic age ushered in when the United States dropped weapons of mass destruction on two cities in Japan. In its wake, Jung was fearful that 40 percent of the population -called a "mentally stable stratum" -might not be able to keep the lid on mass psychosis; it might be unable to restrain the spread of "dangerous tendencies", presumably: fascism, fanaticism, militarism, and intolerance. Jung seems to have been less concerned with external threats. The dangerous tendencies he feared were home grown.

The list above is mine -not Jung's, though I believe Jung would have approved. To that list I would add that most dangerous symbiotic cocktail: fear and hate.

Clearly -terrorism is a real threat but no more so than the dangerous and deliberate exploitation of it. Clearly -the subversion of Democratic ideals is a clear and present danger but no more so than home grown subversion by demagogues. What difference does it make to me if my "inalienable rights" are denied me by Alberto Gonzales or by the Taliban? Clearly -terrorist attacks upon the soil of any Democratic nation is worrisome but no more so than a home grown policy that both nurtures, feeds, and inspires opposition at home and terrorism abroad. Clearly -Jung's list of "dangerous tendencies" must include our own tilt toward fascism, an unintended result that will have accomplished Bin Laden's goal without his ever having to leave his mythic cave in Afghanistan.

Clearly -the spector of terrorism has been of greater benefit to Bush than it has been to those who espouse terrorism -those who, we are told, sow the seeds of fear and hate. Hitler, for example, could only seize dictatorial powers after a "terrorist" attack on the Reichstag building in 1933. Hermann Göring would later boast of having ordered the torching himself. Marinus van der Lubbe was executed but when a score of usual suspects were acquitted, an enraged Hitler dismissed the court itself. In both Himmler's Secret War by Martin Allen and The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William Shirer, the Reichstag fire was the work of SS agents who accessed the Reichstag through a tunnel that connected Göring's official residence with the Reichstag.

Meanwhile, Hitler would raise the spector of communist terrorism and assume new powers. Later, Hitler would start World War II with a lie: that Polish troops had invaded German territory to blow up a radio tower. The culprits -not surprisingly -were Nazi SS in Polish Army uniforms.

We are now familiar with this tactic. Bush attacked and invaded Iraq though his administration knew there were no WMD to be found. Colin Powell's presentation to the United Nations was known at the time to have been a fraud -consisting of plagiarized student papers and out-of-date satellite photos. Since that time, Bush has told some five or six rationales for the attack -all of them ex post facto. None of them were cited as reasons for the attack before the attack or at the time of the attack. They were seemingly pulled out of grab bag one by one as the official cover stories were exposed.

When all the various rationales proved hollow, Bush resorted to the Saddam was a bad man tact. But, of course, he was a bad man; but this nation could not possibly wage aggressive war on all bad men. And what difference does that make to the Iraqi in the street for whom Bush is a worse man? Bush's body count must surely exceed Saddam's by now and there is no law, no order -only chaos. With every milestone cited by Bush as progress, the situation has only gotten worse.

Very recently, there were two versions of the capture of Israeli soldiers. In my opinion, the more credible report is that the soldiers were captured inside Lebanon -not kidnapped inside Israel as had been claimed. Even conservatives concede that Bush most certainly encouraged Israel to invade Lebanon. In retrospect the over-reach is obvious: crush Hezbollah while weakening Syria and Iran. Like Bush's own invasion of Iraq, the power of the air attack was over-estimated. When no one else proclaimed an Israeli victory, Bush did. But that was public. Behind the scenes, Bush had changed the rules. He encouraged Israel to accept a cease fire that destroyed forever the myth of Israeli invincibility. As this blog predicted -even as the war raged -Hezbollah emerged stronger and, by proxy, Syria and Iran. On the other side, Israel is weakened, and, by proxy, Bush and his increasingly inept regime.

Is it only a matter of governments deceiving their peoples? Governments lie all the time -especially governments who now more than ever believe that lying to the public is not only permissible but desirable. They have it the wrong way 'round. Assured of their invincibility, they have convinced themselves that they must deceive the public in order to achieve some all important agenda. The arguments they have made to themselves are delusions of psychotic proportions.

This is the very segment of any population that so concerned Jung. This is a sub-stratum that Jung estimated as high as 60 percent of the population. It is these people that Jung feared might not be checked. As Jung feared, we have failed to restrain that sub-stratum of incipient psychotics inside our own country.

After Jung had written of his fears in "The Undiscovered Self", Ronald Reagan would come along and make it okay to be marginal or outright psychotic! Ronald Reagan showed Bush Jr how best to exploit the symbiotic relationship between fear and hate for GOP advantage. It's really a psychological "binary" bomb -a bit of fear plus a dash of hate, stir in a tape from Bin Laden and you've got yourself a fascist dictatorship. Reagan would make it okay to blame victims of Reagan's misrule. Reagan left Bush a legacy of absolving the selfish and self absorbed from all guilt. Reagan gave legitimacy to bigotry, making up -full cloth -a story about a Cadillac driving welfare grandmother. Reagan would make right wing nut cases "...feel good about themselves" and Bush would learn all those wrong lessons. Hitler taught them all.

Len Hart is a Houston based film/video producer specializing in shorts and full-length documentaries. He is a former major market and network correspondent; credits include CBS, ABC-TV and UPI. He maintains the progressive blog: The Existentialist Cowboy

Read more!

Saturday, August 19, 2006

Major Weapons Costs Double Since 9/11

Systems to have little direct role in terror fight

Surprise, surprise. The Boston Globe's Bryan Bender is reporting this morning that Major arms soar to twice pre-9/11 cost:

WASHINGTON -- The estimated costs for the development of major weapons systems for the US military have doubled since September 11, 2001, with a trillion-dollar price tag for new planes, ships, and missiles that would have little direct role in the fight against insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The soaring cost estimates -- disclosed in a report for the Republican-led Senate Budget Committee -- have led to concerns that supporters of multibillion-dollar weapons programs in Congress, the Pentagon , and the defense industry are using the conflicts and the war on terrorism to fulfill a wish-list of defense expenditures, whether they are needed or not for the war on terrorism.

The report, based on Defense Department data, concluded that the best way to keep defense spending in check in the coming years lies in ``controlling the cost of weaponry," especially those programs that the Pentagon might not necessarily need.

The projections of what it will cost to acquire "major weapons programs" currently in production or on the drawing board soared from $790 billion in September 2001 to $1.61 trillion in June 2006, according to the congressional analysis of Pentagon data.

The Globe's story seems to have been sparked by the little known Budget Bulletin, a weekly publication of the Republican-controlled Senate Budget Committee.
by Meteor Blades

Full story

Read more!

Two Strange Deaths in European Wiretapping Scandal

European investigators are tracking the mysterious deaths of two security experts who had uncovered extensive spyware in their telecommunications firms.

"Bove was a master at detecting hidden phone networks. Recently, at the direction of Milan prosecutors, he'd used mobile phone records to trace how a "Special Removal Unit" composed of CIA and SISMI (the Italian CIA) agents abducted Abu Omar, an Egyptian cleric, and flew him to Cairo where he was tortured. The Omar kidnapping and the alleged involvement of 26 CIA agents, whom prosecutors seek to arrest and extradite, electrified Italian media. U.S. media noted the story, then dropped it. "

by Paolo Pontoniere & Jeffrey Klein New America Media

Full story

Read more!

Friday, August 18, 2006

America Duped on British Terror Plot

The story of the British liquid-bombers is quickly falling apart, not that the Times or the Post is taking any notice.
  1. First comes the NBC report that many of the accused hijackers did not own passports, thus making them ineligible to board an international flight (Remember, Michael Chertoff said that "We were really getting quite close to the execution phase" of the plot);
  2. NBC also reports that the U.S. pressured Britain to arrest the plotters earlier than they had otherwise wanted;
  3. The only statement that the accused were planning to use liquid explosives on planes came from an accused murderer who was on the run in Pakistan and subsequently tortured;
  4. The explosive the plotters were supposed to be using was identified by government officials to be TATP, or triacetone triperoxide, which as Thomas C. Greene explains, is extremely volatile during preparation, requires carefully controlled conditions to properly mix, including refrigeration (difficult to do in "false-bottomed sports drink bottles") and would require an extremely large quantity in order to damage an aircraft. The idea that a) sufficient quantities of TATP precursors could be smuggled aboard and b) it could be successfully mixed without either blowing up or overcoming the would-be terrorist with its fumes is preposterous.
Folks, this plot was never a plot. National security is being used as a political football, and the media, which could take this nonsensical story to pieces with a couple of days of research, is silent.

Read more!