AIPAC of Raving Lunatics

Friday, 12 March 2010 Keith Johnson

Without regard for the severe economic devastation and loss of life that a war with Iran would create, Israel’s agents in the United States continue to aggressively stoke the fires of anti-Iranian rhetoric and mobilize their minions on the floor of the House. The Brzezinski-Soros machine failed in their attempt to effect regime change in Iran by way of a “color revolution” in the summer of 2009. This has only emboldened the Israeli lobby to pursue more drastic measures. There is only one card left for them to play before provoking conflicts that will most certainly catapult the United States into direct military action against the Islamic state.

Tuesday, the American Israeli Political Action Committee gave their marching orders to their congressional War Hawks. The message was short, concise and clear. Here is the text of the letter AIPAC sent to members of Congress:

Dear Congressman XXXX,

We are writing to every member of Congress to express outrage at the U.S. government’s continuing relationship with dozens of companies doing business with Iran. These ongoing financial dealings undermine longstanding American efforts to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability.

As the New York Times reported on Sunday, the federal government during the past decade has awarded $107 billion in contracts and grants to more than 70 companies that are doing business in Iran. More than two-thirds of these contracts have gone to companies involved in Iran’s energy industry despite American law to discourage such involvement.

The time has long since passed this policy to change. Unfortunately, as the Times points out, three successive American administrations have failed to enforce the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996, which mandates U.S. sanctions on firms investing more than $20 million in Iran’s energy sector. While Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama may have discouraged some investment in Iran through their rhetoric, the United States has sent the American and international business community a contradictory message by failing to enforce the law.

Despite publicly acknowledged investments by several companies of hundreds of millions of dollars in Iran’s energy sector, the U.S. Government has inexplicably failed to make even one determination of an investment of $20 million during the course of the past decade. Yet, throughout this entire time, Iran has pursued a nuclear weapons capability, flouting its international obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and presenting the international community with a growing, and now urgent, threat.

As Iran continues to reject U.S.-European engagement efforts and to defy U.N. Security Council resolutions requiring that it halt its illicit uranium enrichment efforts, the United States must take action now.

We call on Congress to:

1. Investigate why successive administrations have failed to implement the law by failing to determine what companies have invested in the Iranian energy sector;

2. Enact—without delay—the Iran sanctions legislation currently before Congress, which, inter alia, contains provisions barring federal contracts to companies which are investing in Iran’s energy sector or providing sensitive technology, and their parents or subsidiaries who are engaged in such activity;

3. Demand that the U.S. Government enforce existing sanctions law and impose crippling new sanctions on Iran.

In addition to these actions, we hope you will join with us in urging the administration to impose tough new multilateral sanctions with like-minded states without delay while continuing to pursue the widest possible sanctions through the U.N. Security Council.

Sincerely,

David Victor
President

Howard Kohr
Executive Director

These are pretty strong words coming from an organization which has stood in defiance of U.S. law that requires them to register as agents of a foreign power. It proves once again that the “A” in AIPAC really should be removed from their acronym. There is nothing “American” about them. This is the Israeli lobby, plain and simple. They represent Israel first and last. The United States is nothing more than a host to their endless parasitism. This letter should be an insult to anyone familiar with the State of Israel and it’s long history of refusing to comply with International laws and treaties. It reeks of hypocrisy. It’s an exercise in contempt. There is no country on the face of this earth with less justification to level these charges or make such demands.

First of all, Iran has no nuclear weapons capability. As recently as February 11, 2010, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs responded to a claim by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that Iran had produced the first stock of 20 percent enriched uranium. Gibbs said, “The Iranian nuclear program has undergone a series of problems throughout the year. We do not believe they have the capability to enrich to the degree to which they now say they are enriching.” The enriched uranium that Ahmadinejad was referring to was not for building a nuclear weapon but rather for medical isotopes used to treat cancer patients. And even if they did have the capability of enriching to 20 percent, it still falls far short of the nearly 98% that is required for building a weapon of mass destruction. As a signer of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran has a legal right to enrich uranium in the manner that they are claiming. On the other hand, Israel has refused to sign the NNPT and has no right to make demands of anyone pertaining to nuclear technology.

While the author of this letter points out that “the federal government has awarded $107 billion in contracts and grants to more than 70 companies that are doing business in Iran,” it fails to recognize that 14 of those companies have already pulled out and that 11 plan no future investment. Of the 49 remaining, only 3 are suspected of being in violation of the “Iran Sanctions Act”. Those three companies are Daelim (South Korea), Dutch Royal Shell (Netherlands) and Total (France). Of the $174 million that Daelim received in contract money from the U.S., $111 million was used to build family housing towers for the U.S. Army. Dutch Royal Shell received $11.2 billion in contracts and that investment was instrumental in supplying a significant amount of gasoline to the U.S. military. Not one American company currently doing business and planning future investment in Iran is suspected of being in violation of the “Iran Sanctions Act”.

The author demands that Congress enact current legislation that bars companies from investing in Iran’s energy sector. But this is in direct conflict with Article IV of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Iran is a signer of that treaty, and that obligates the United States to help them build power plants and other facilities for non-military purposes.

If anyone should be barred from receiving federal contracts or aid it is the State of Israel, who has refused to sign the NNPT and have illegally pursued a nuclear weapons program of their own. The 1976 Symington Amendment to the Foreign Appropriations Bill of 1961 forbids the United States from giving foreign aid to any nation that is developing nuclear technology outside the NNPT. Despite this, approximately 1/3 of the total foreign aid budget of the United States is annually sent to Israel even though they comprise less than .001 of the world’s population and has one of the world’s highest per capita incomes. Former Congressman James Traficant rightly pointed out recently that between the direct foreign aid grants to Israel, along with all of the other benefits including trade compacts, economic and military assistance, “Israel gets approximately $15 billion a year from the American taxpayers. That $15 billion is $30,000 for every man, woman and child in Israel.”

In his list of demands, the author urges Congress to “pursue the widest possible sanctions through the U.N. Security Council.” This is the height of hypocrisy. Neither the State of Israel nor its agents have any standing with the United Nations in this regard. Since its inception, the State of Israel has been in violation of more UN resolutions than any other nation on earth.

Who else but a raving lunatic would even dare to write such a letter in light of the insurmountable evidence that contradicts each and every line of their text? There is no other explanation; a lunatic wrote this letter. And if Congress acts in lock step to their demands, then it should be abundantly clear to all of us that the lunatics, have indeed, taken over the asylum.

Source : Rebel News

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Feel free to repost but be polite and include an active link back to the original blog post on Malteseken , please.

Gaza in Plain Language

Photo by DALIDA

The article "Gaza in Plain Language", by Joe Mowrey, first published by Dissident Voice was brought to my attention by Robert H. Stiver, and I immediately agreed to do a video treatment of it. Joe and I shared the research effort, and we would like to thank all of those whose video and photographic work is included in this chilling tale of a fledgling nation gone mad. We have used this material in good faith; as fair comment; for no personal gain and in the interests of truth and justice.

We have not been able to contact and thank every contributor, personally, but we do so now. Without your efforts, which were so much more harrowing than ours, because you saw the slaughter, the devastation and the grief first hand, this video would not have been possible. We dedicate this video to the people of Gaza, and to all of those decent people who are trying to help them.

Although some people will attempt to characterised it as such, what I have read and the pictures put to Joe Mowrey's words do not amount to anti-Semitism. If it needs an "ism", call it anti-Nasty-Peopleism. Which is an ism that decent people, the world over, should adopt and develop, because if we don't, the nasty people will always win.

Many thanks to Kim Petersen, Joshua Frank and Sunil K. Sharma of Dissident Voice, where one will always find unflinching commentary in support of human rights and social justice. Also thanks to the Coalition for Prisoners' Rights (CPR), in Santa Fe, New Mexico

http://www.realcostofprisons.org/coal...
The seed for "Gaza in Plain Language," as well as other articles by Joe Mowrey, was originally planted in the form of a brief commentary called, "Crime of the Month" in the monthly CPR newsletter.

Source links for the statistics relayed in this presentation are available on request from Joe Mowrey,
jmowrey@ix.netcom.com
Or better yet, do your own research. You will discover documentation for many more horrors concerning the fate of the children of Gaza than have been elucidated in this video.



Source for researce and video by alawson911

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Feel free to repost but be polite and include an active link back to the original blog post on Malteseken , please.

The Falseness of the Zionist State of Israel

This Video is to show the deception that has gone on for more then 61 years, The Palestinians were robbed of there Land by Zionists who were aided by the US UK and the UN. The World has seen crime after crime committed by the first Irgun then IDF against innocent civilians and even human rights workers from outside and groups such as doctors with out borders. We Honour the Courage and Strength of the Palestinian People and also the many Brave Warriors who have and still are fighting for Freedom, Justice and the end of the Occupation in Palestine Inshallah. This Video also in Memory of Rachel Aliene Corrie for her work in Palestine in exposing the injustices of the Zionist who had her murdered in 2003 for trying to protect a Palestinian family.



FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Feel free to repost but be polite and include an active link back to the original blog post on Malteseken , please.

Obama's Legal Team Copies Bush's 'State Secrets' Trick to Cover Up Torture and Renditions

Attorneys representing the Obama administration are defending one of the most controversial practices of the Bush administration.

On Monday in San Francisco, attorneys representing the Obama administration did what many of the president's supporters would have considered unthinkable on election day: they arrived in a federal courtroom and defended one of the most controversial practices of the Bush administration.

"Eric Holder's Justice Department stood up in court today and said that it would continue the Bush policy of invoking state secrets to hide the reprehensible history of torture, rendition and the most grievous human rights violations committed by the American government," Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union said in an impassioned statement. "This is not change. This is definitely more of the same."

The case was Mohamed et al. v. Jeppesen Dataplan, a lawsuit originally brought in 2007 by the ACLU on behalf of five victims of extraordinary rendition, the notorious CIA program in which terror suspects are kidnapped, thrown on a plane and flown to another country to be tortured and interrogated.

Jeppesen Dataplan, a subsidiary of Boeing, is said to have provided the logistical support for the rendition of all five plaintiffs, among them, Binyam Mohamed, an Ethiopian national who, in July 2002, was taken from Pakistan to Morocco, where for 18 months he was imprisoned and brutally tortured, including being cut with razorblades on his testicles. Mohamed was later sent to Guantanamo Bay, where he supposedly awaits imminent plans for his release. He has never stood trial.

Under Bush, the ACLU's lawsuit was thrown out multiple times on "state secrets" grounds -- a bogus excuse according to human rights lawyers who have long argued that the real goal was to keep evidence of the sort of torture endured by Mohamed away from a courtroom.

"To date, not a single torture victim has had his day in court in the United States," ACLU attorney Ben Wizner told reporters last week. Thus, the objective of yesterday's hearing was simple: the ACLU was asking that the lawsuit move forward. But to the dismay of many who believed Obama would open the door to justice for torture victims in the so-called war on terror, it appears his administration is instead following in Bush's footsteps.

"This case cannot be litigated," Department of Justice lawyer Douglas Letter said on Monday. "The judges shouldn't play with fire in this national security situation."

For those who spent the past eight years fighting back against cynical claims of "national security" to justify illegal and inhumane practices, the words smack of the Bush era.

"If the Obama administration, so early on, is toeing the Bush line," Romero warns, "that speaks volumes for where we might end up years from now."

The Debate Over Rendition

The Jeppesen hearing came on the heels of a week that saw the topic of extraordinary rendition -- and Obama's approach to it -- under particular scrutiny. On Feb. 1, the Los Angeles Times ran a story that caused a stir around the issue in the media, the blogosphere and the human rights community.

"The CIA's secret prisons are being shuttered," the article began. "Harsh interrogation techniques are off-limits. And Guantanamo Bay will eventually go back to being a wind-swept naval base on the southeastern corner of Cuba.

"But even while dismantling these programs, President Obama left intact an equally controversial counterterrorism tool.

"Under executive orders issued by Obama recently, the CIA still has authority to carry out what are known as renditions, secret abductions and transfers of prisoners to countries that cooperate with the United States."

The article quoted an anonymous administration official, who said,

"Obviously you need to preserve some tools -- you still have to go after the bad guys.

"The legal advisors working on this looked at rendition. It is controversial in some circles and kicked up a big storm in Europe. But if done within certain parameters, it is an acceptable practice."

The official's statement was backed up with a quote from a representative from Human Rights Watch: "'Under limited circumstances, there is a legitimate place'" for renditions, said Tom Malinowski, the Washington advocacy director for Human Rights Watch."

The article sparked anger and controversy from op-ed pages to the blogosphere. ("So, it would appear that we will not see the end of torture under this administration after all," lamented blogger Digby.) But backlash against the LA Times quickly followed.

In a post titled "Renditions Buffoonery," attorney Scott Horton, who writes the Harpers blog "No Comment," called it a "breathless piece of reporting," which, among other problems, "misses the difference between the renditions program, which has been around since the Bush 41 administration at least … and the extraordinary renditions program which was introduced by Bush 43 and clearly shut down under an executive order issued by President Obama in his first week."

The earlier renditions program regularly involved snatching and removing targets for purposes of bringing them to justice by delivering them to a criminal justice system. It did not involve the operation of long-term detention facilities and it did not involve torture. There are legal and policy issues with the renditions program, but they are not in the same league as those surrounding extraordinary rendition.

The LA Times, said Horton, "got punk'd."

Constitutional lawyer and blogger Glenn Greenwald had his own criticisms about the article, and got into an e-mail debate with its author, Greg Miller, whose response defending his report was posted on Greenwald's blog.

"The story made clear that Obama intends to administer the rendition program in a very different way," Miller argued. "… This is not a story saying it's business as usual under Obama."

"Nevertheless, the rendition program is controversial. Even if administered in the most enlightened manner, it is a program that involves the use of the CIA in secret abductions and prisoner transfers."

Even as some backpedaled on their initial reactions ("You'd think I'd know better than to take a newspaper article about the intelligence community at face value by now," Digby wrote), for some who have closely followed the Obama administration's handling of torture in his first days in office, the discussion was far from over.

"Liberal bloggers have jumped on the bandwagon defending President Obama's executive order calling for a review of the practices of transferring individuals to other nations in order to ensure that such practices comply with the domestic laws, international obligations, and policies of the United States," wrote psychologist and blogger Jeffrey Kaye, who has spent the past few months waging a one-man crusade against the torture loophole embedded in the Army Field Manual. "Forget that Obama did not outlaw the practice of rendition. But this is because, according to certain liberal bloggers, and a few human rights spokespeople (like Tom Malinowski of Human Rights Watch), 'Under limited circumstances, there is a legitimate place' for renditions."

According to Horton et al., extraordinary renditions are war crimes, because the government sends prisoners to foreign countries to be tortured. (That is certainly correct, so far as that goes.) "Legal" renditions -- as defined by Richard Clarke in a recent article … are examples of "renditions performed by the American government [and] are legal, effective and done within the scope of human rights" (emphasis added). And if you think differently, then you are "ridiculously misinformed," a "buffoon," a "moron" (the latter by a Daily Kos commenter to yours truly).

Like other defenders of Obama's right to maintain some version of the policy in place, Clarke, a counterterror advisor to Bill Clinton, sought to clear up "the confusion over rendition." Rendition "proved workable before the Bush administration," Clarke wrote, "And it need not be something to fear in the future."

What Is Really at Stake

The differences between Bush-era rendition and its precursors are not insignificant -- in fact, Horton and Center for Constitutional Rights President Michael Ratner debated them on Democracy Now! last week. But, given that they largely boil down to what the CIA did as a matter of policy under Bush (torture) versus what was allegedly done under Clinton unofficially (torture), neither are they the most urgent issue at hand. Obama's much-lauded executive orders are vague enough to elicit endless speculation when it comes to rendition and other intelligence policies. But the actions of his Department of Justice on Monday were not.

"This was an opportunity for the new administration to act on its condemnation of torture and rendition, but instead it has chosen to stay the course," Ben Wizner said. "Now we must hope that the court will assert its independence by rejecting the government's false claims of state secrets and allowing the victims of torture and rendition their day in court."

Indeed, at stake in the Jeppesen case is not only justice for the victims of a hideous policy -- one that, in whatever form, should not be exercised by a country that claims to be a beacon of democracy and human rights -- but a changing of course when it comes to the flagrant abuse of the state-secrets doctrine, which was repeatedly used by the Bush administration to stamp out lawsuits against the government for its myriad abuses, from torture to illegal spying.

Both Obama and his Attorney General, Eric Holder, have vowed to review the Bush administration's use of the state secrets privilege. As a DOJ spokesperson told the Washington Post yesterday. "It is vital that we protect information that if released could jeopardize national security, but the department will ensure the privilege is not invoked to hide from the American people information about their government's actions that they have a right to know."

But as Romero told reporters last week, the actions of the Obama administration "are unfortunately speaking louder than their words."

"What this is clearly about is shielding the U.S. government and Bush officials from any accountability," wrote Glenn Greenwald following the Jeppesen hearing Monday. "Worse, by keeping Bush's secrecy architecture in place, it ensures that any future president -- Obama or any other -- can continue to operate behind an impenetrable wall of secrecy, with no transparency or accountability even for blatantly criminal acts.

By Liliana Segura, AlterNet. Posted February 10, 2009.


FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Feel free to repost but be polite and include an active link back to the original blog post on Malteseken , please.

Keith Olbermann SAVAGES Dick Cheney on continued interference

Dick Cheney You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately ... Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!

Keith Olbermann looks back at what Cheney has been saying and finds the old pot of poison wrong on ALL accounts. Cheney tried to scare the World into backing his and Bushs terrible regime, this is a superb counterblast to an age of paranoia not seen in the West since McCarthyism

Hijacking Catastrophe: 9/11, Fear & the Selling of American Empire

Now that U.S. government has stop searching the weapons of mass destruction, it is not very delighting to hear Bush, Cheney and others say that there is "no doubt that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction". Of course they won't be saying it anymore, but it's all here, in Hijacking Catastrophe.

The war against Iraq is also a never-ending subject for debates between left-wing and right-wing, but this documentary shows and reminds us all from the facts and reasons, that drove U.S. to attack middle-east once again. Michael Moore gave his personal view with Fahrenheit 9/11 and successfully told what he thinks about Bush and his friends in Capitol Hill. Hijacking Catastrophe on the other hand, gives us much more and goes very deep into economy of America and history and presence of Project for the New American Century (yes, there is a "project" that has a website at http://www.newamericancentury.org). If Fahrenheit 9/11 was disturbingly great political stance, Hijacking Catastrophe is frightening experience that gives you emotions of anger, sadness and also fear.

Direction of Jeremy Earp and Sut Jhally is strong with perfectly controlled and respectable use variety of persons interviewed. Those who are first to blame Hijacking Catastrophe as left-wing slander propaganda, should know that you can hear and see ex-Delta Force, Rangers and Special Forces soldier Stan Goff, Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski from U.S. Air Force and Scott Ritter, a ballistic missile technology expert telling what they have been seeing and experiencing during their years in military. Of course, they are sharp interviews of Noam Chomsky, Norman Mailer and many other intelligent individuals who are credible enough to open our eyes. The fact that there are no fanatic and overblown preaching involved, makes Hijacking Catastrophe a strong experience that needs to be seen many times. On top of interviews and TV news flashes, the narration of civil rights activist Julian Bond tightens the information that doesn't leave you with many questions. In the end, you can understand the reasons of these neo-conservatives but you don't have to accept them.

Hijacking Catastrophe: 9/11, Fear & the Selling of American Empire is intelligent piece of documentary cinema, that deserves a lot of more attention. It raises up many interesting views between the acts of U.S. government and Nazi leader Herman Goering. Quote of Goering from Nuremberg trials: "The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.". Just visit the before-mentioned website of Project for the New American Century, watch Fox News Channel or their website at foxnews.com and take a look what Dubya have recently said (about Iran and Syria, for example). Or just watch Hijacking Catastrophe. It's all here, before Bush said anything. The makers of the film are not prophets, they have only collected visible information into one film in very intelligent way.

Media Education Foundation does a great and respectable job producing critical documentaries to people (and living up to its name!), who are all alone with corporate-controlled media - television and newspaper. If you are in doubt, check Hijacking Catastrophe out as soon as possible. There are fine examples of TV propaganda included in this documentary, that you haven't been noticing. Until now.




FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Feel free to repost but be polite and include an active link back to the original blog post on Malteseken , please.


Article source

The Doomsday Code

In this Channel 4 documentary Tony Robinson investigates the people with powerful political friends in the White House, who are trying to bring about the end of the world. Julia Bard reports

Revelation, the last book in the New Testament, is filled with bizarre, violent and terrifying images. Its origins are unclear and its content is controversial. Some say it is the work of St John but many others believe he could not have been the author. But whoever wrote it, described apocalyptic visions of plagues, famines, wars, devils, wild beasts and rivers of blood. It is so strange and complex that scholars down the centuries have continually reinterpreted its message and meaning.

Today, though, a growing number of American evangelical Christians reckon they have cracked the code. These End Timers believe that every weird word of Revelation predicts real events. Like a Hollywood sci fi movie they say that any time now the world will end. And when it does, true believers in Christ will be whisked up to heaven in an event called The Rapture while non-believers are left behind on earth to face famine, war, terror and destruction as the forces of good and evil fight to the bitter end.
Political implications

If this was confined to the personal beliefs of a few fundamentalists it would be of little significance but, says Tony Robinson, the leaders of the End Time movement are rich, well-connected and very powerful. Though the USA constitution enshrines the separation of church and state End Timers are frequent visitors to the White House. No one knows if George W Bush is an End Timer himself, but his policies are at one with those of the evangelical Right and his language is often apocalyptic, such as when he describes the 'war on terror' as 'the epic struggle of good and evil'.
Jerusalem

According to the prophecy, Jerusalem is where this final battle is to be played out. No stranger to conflict and violence, this city is the focus of End Timers' dreams of eternal paradise, because, according to their beliefs, this is where Christ will come back to earth. But first, they say, the Jews must return. End Timers believe that the establishment of the State of israel in 1948 was a fulfilment of the biblical prophecy and that since then 'the last days clock has been ticking'.

Many of them interpret the US government's policies on Israel and the Middle East from a biblical point of view. Before the war in Iraq, the USA supported a negotiated settlement in which Israel would return the Occupied Territories to the Palestinians. By 2004, after a torrent of criticism of the Roadmap to Peace, Bush's position had changed and now there is no call for a large-scale withdrawal from the West Bank.

End Timers parade through the streets of Jerusalem and take large amounts of cash to illegal West Bank settlements to encourage the residents to entrench themselves more deeply on this Palestinian land. In Jerusalem itself, Jews are being bankrolled by Christian fundamentalists to reside in Arab houses. The End Timers think that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon suffered a stroke ('was removed from the scene') because he wanted to give back some of the Palestinian land.

Many Israelis are very worried about the kind of 'support' they are being offered. One journalist says that this is not based on Israel's needs and that there is no support for peacemaking. On the contrary, the agenda of the Evangelicals is war, so as to fulfil violent prophecy of Revelation.

Provocatively, some End Timers have joined forces with a fundamentalist Jewish group who want to rebuild the Temple of Solomon – touching on the ancient Jewish yearning for their destroyed Temple. But the place where they plan to build it has deep meaning for the three Abrahamic religions – Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The Temple Mount, where Islam's 3rd most holy site, Al-Aqsa Mosque, is situated, is the spot where Muslim, Jewish and Christian believers think that God created Adam, Abraham prepared his son Isaac to be sacrificed, and according to his vision, Muhammed was carried on a winged horse.

Mainstream Christians in the locality are appalled. They say attempts to rebuild the Temple are inflammatory and threaten to unleash even more bloodshed in the Middle East.
Predictions of war

Could it be that this is precisely what they are trying to provoke, in order to hasten the end of days? According to End Timers, when the believers are whisked up to heaven those left behind will face the ultimate battle between good and evil. It will take seven years to count the dead, they say – the time of Tribulation, a hell on earth. Israel will survive, according to this story, but will have a sudden victory only after a long war. Some say this means nuclear war and they support the war in Iraq because they believe that will bring it closer. Megiddo is the Hebrew name for Armageddon: the town where this carnage will occur.

For some End Timers, all this is big – very big – business. Tim LaHaye's Christian fiction series, Left Behind, has sold 63 million books, and movies of the books have been made by Cloud Ten Pictures. The internet is awash with websites which tell you how to prepare for The Rapture, and there are American shops to sell you everything you need to survive (for around $3,000) if you're unfortunate enough to be left behind.

The concept of the Antichrist originated in Medieval times, and is not found in the Bible. Nevertheless these evangelical Christians believe that the Antichrist is 'walking among us right now', the incarnation of evil, luring people to his cause with false promises of peace. For End Timers, the United Nations, whose role is to seek and maintain peace across the world, fits this description perfectly.
Undermining Africa

Now End Time beliefs are now spreading to Africa, with dire consequences. Uganda's President, Yoweri Museveni, is a born again Christian who is lionised by American End Timers. An American preacher in the capital, Kampala, says that the answers to Uganda's problems are not political, economic or educational, but can be found in the Bible, which he describes as 'God's constitution for the planet'.

Newspaper editor Andrew Mwenda is appalled by these Doomsday preachers, who he believes are converting young people and diverting them from fulfilling their potential and pursuing their careers. He says: 'This country is on a highway to hell.'

Uganda was a model in Africa of AIDS education and prevention and the rate of infection was falling. Now Museveni is promoting abstinence rather than safer sex, the number of cases is rising.Teacher Julius Othieno describes children being taken out of school, and not taking medicine when they are ill, in order to hasten their death.
Revelation

What is the real source of these ideas that so many people attribute to the book of Revelation? Whoever wrote it sheltered in a cave on the Greek island of Patmos, probably a refugee from Roman occupied Palestine. He is also likely to have consumed the local hallucinogenic magic mushrooms. So rather than taking these bizarre visions literally, it might make more sense to try to understand them in their historical context.

There are some 40 apocalyptic books from this era but this was the only one that made it into the Bible. If the author was writing about the hated Roman Empire, it could be that the seven heads of the beast meant the seven emperors. The mark of the beast could be the head of the emperor on the coins. The dreaded 666 very likely represented three letters indicating the Emperor Nero – representing letters by numbers was, and is, common in Hebrew. If so, instead of being a description of a world in chaos, it could be seen as a book of morality, optimism and faith.

Let's hope the End Timers start to see it like that before their actions really do bring about the end of the world.



First shown on Channel 4 in September 2006

OCCUPATION 101

A thought-provoking and powerful documentary film on the current and historical root causes of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Unlike any other film ever produced on the conflict -- 'Occupation 101' presents a comprehensive analysis of the facts and hidden truths surrounding the never ending controversy and dispels many of its long-perceived myths and misconceptions.

The film also details life under Israeli military rule, the role of the United States in the conflict, and the major obstacles that stand in the way of a lasting and viable peace. The roots of the conflict are explained through first-hand on-the-ground experiences from leading Middle East scholars, peace activists, journalists, religious leaders and humanitarian workers whose voices have too often been suppressed in American media outlets.

The film covers a wide range of topics -- which include -- the first wave of Jewish immigration from Europe in the 1880's, the 1920 tensions, the 1948 war, the 1967 war, the first Intifada of 1987, the Oslo Peace Process, Settlement expansion, the role of the United States Government, the second Intifada of 2000, the separation barrier and the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, as well as many heart wrenching testimonials from victims of this tragedy.

Featured Interviews

Occupation 101 features a leading list of some of the most credible Middle East scholars, historians, peace activists, journalists, and humanitarian workers.

For a complete listing, please click here.

The Money Masters - How International Bankers Gained Control of America

"The powers of financial capitalism had a far-reaching plan, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole...Their secret is that they have annexed from governments, monarchies, and republics the power to create the world's money..."

." THE MONEY MASTERS is a 3 1/2 hour non-fiction, historical documentary that traces the origins of the political power structure that rules our nation and the world today. The modern political power structure has its roots in the hidden manipulation and accumulation of gold and other forms of money. The development of fractional reserve banking practices in the 17th century brought to a cunning sophistication the secret techniques initially used by goldsmiths fraudulently to accumulate wealth. With the formation of the privately-owned Bank of England in 1694, the yoke of economic slavery to a privately-owned "central" bank was first forced upon the backs of an entire nation, not removed but only made heavier with the passing of the three centuries to our day. Nation after nation, including America, has fallen prey to this cabal of international central bankers.

Bush Covered up Musharraf Ties with Qaeda, Khan

Analysis by Gareth Porter*


WASHINGTON, Aug 19 (IPS) - Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf's resignation Monday brings to an end an extraordinarily close relationship between Musharraf and the George W. Bush administration, in which Musharraf was lavished with political and economic benefits from the United States despite policies that were in sharp conflict with U.S. security interests.

It is well known that Bush repeatedly praised Musharraf as the most loyal ally of the United States against terrorism, even though the Pakistani military was deeply compromised by its relationship with the Taliban and Pakistani Islamic militants.

What has not been reported is that the Bush administration covered up the Musharraf regime's involvement in the activities of the A. Q. Khan nuclear technology export programme and its deals with al Qaeda's Pakistani tribal allies.

The problem faced by the Bush administration when it came into office was that the Pakistani military, over which Musharraf presided, was the real terrorist nexus with the Taliban and al Qaeda. As Bruce Riedel, National Security Council (NSC) senior director for South Asia in the Bill Clinton administration, who stayed on the NSC staff under the Bush administration, observed in an interview with this writer last September, al Qaeda "was a creation of the jihadist culture of the Pakistani army".

If there was a state sponsor of al Qaeda, Riedel said, it was the Pakistani military, acting through its Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) Directorate.

Vice President Dick Cheney and the neoconservative-dominated Bush Pentagon were aware of the intimate relationship between Musharraf's regime and both the Taliban and al Qaeda. But al Qaeda was not a high priority for the Bush administration.

After 9/11, the White House created the political myth that Musharraf, faced with a clear choice, had "joined the free world in fighting the terrorists". But as Asia expert Selig S. Harrison has pointed out, on Sep. 19, 2001, just six days after he had supposedly agreed to U.S. demands for cooperation against the Taliban regime and al Qaeda, Musharraf gave a televised speech in Urdu in which he declared, "We are trying our best to come out of this critical situation without any damage to Afghanistan and the Taliban."

In his memoirs, published in 2006, Musharraf revealed the seven specific demands he had been given and claimed that he had refused both "blanket overflight and landing rights" and the use of Pakistan's naval ports and air bases to conduct anti-terrorism operations.

Musharraf also famously wrote that, immediately after 9/11, Undersecretary of State Richard Armitage had threatened to bomb Pakistan "back to the stone age" if Musharraf didn't side with the United States against bin Laden and his Afghan hosts. But Armitage categorically denied to this writer, through his assistant, Kara Bue, that he had made any threat whatsoever, let alone a threat to retaliate militarily against Pakistan.

For the next few years, Musharraf played a complicated game. The CIA was allowed to operate in Pakistan's border provinces to pursue al Qaeda operatives, but only as long as they had ISI units accompanying them. That restricted their ability to gather intelligence in the northwest frontier. At the same time, ISI was allowing Taliban and al Qaeda leaders to operate freely in the tribal areas and even in Karachi.

The Bush administration also gave Musharraf and the military regime a free ride on the A. Q. Khan network's selling of nuclear technology to Libya and Iran, even though there was plenty of evidence that the generals had been fully aware of and supported Khan's activities.

Journalists Douglas Frantz and Catherine Collins wrote in their book "The Nuclear Jihadist" that one retired general who had worked with Khan told them there was no question that Khan had acted with the full knowledge of the military leadership. "Of course the military knew," the general said. "They helped him."

But the Bush administration chose to help Musharraf cover up that inconvenient fact. According to CIA Director George Tenet's memoirs, in September 2003, he confronted Musharraf with the evidence the CIA had gathered on Khan's operation and made it clear he was expected to end its operations and arrest Khan.

The following January and early February, Khan's house arrest, public confession of guilt and pardon by Musharraf was accompanied by an extraordinary series of statements by high-ranking Bush administration officials exonerating Musharraf and the military of any involvement in Khan's activities.

That whole scenario had been "carefully orchestrated with Musharraf", Larry Wilkerson, then a State Department official but later Colin Powell's chief of staff, told IPS in an interview last year. The deal that had been made did not require Musharraf to allow U.S. officials to interrogate Khan.

But the Bush administration apparently conveyed to the Pakistani military after that episode that it now expected the Musharraf regime to deliver high-ranking al Qaeda officials -- and to do so at a particularly advantageous moment for the administration. The New Republic magazine reported Jul. 15, 2004 that a White House aide had told the visiting head of ISI, Ehsan ul-Haq, that "it would be best if the arrest or killing of any HVT [high value target] were announced on 26, 27 or 28 July." Those were the last three days of the Democratic National Convention.

The military source added, "If we don't find these guys by the election, they are going to stick the whole nuclear mess up our a**hole."

Just hours before Democratic candidate John Kerry's acceptance speech, Pakistan announced the capture of an alleged al Qaeda leader.

Meanwhile, Musharraf was making a political pact with a five-party Islamic alliance in 2004 to ensure victory in state elections in the two border provinces where Islamic extremist influence was strongest. This explicit political accommodation, followed by a military withdrawal from South Waziristan, gave the pro-Taliban forces allied with al Qaeda in the region a free hand to recruit and train militants for war in Afghanistan.

Yet another deal with the Islamic extremists in 2006 strengthened the pro-Taliban forces even further.

But Bush chose to reward Musharraf by designating Pakistan a "Major Non-NATO Ally" in 2004 and by agreeing to sell the Pakistani Air Force 36 advanced F-16 fighter planes. Prior to that, Pakistan had been denied U.S. military technology for a decade.

In July 2007, a National Intelligence Estimate concluded that al Qaeda's new "safe haven" was in Pakistan's tribal areas and that the terrorist organisation had reconstituted its "homeland attack capability" there. That estimate ended the fiction that the Musharraf regime was firmly committed to combating al Qaeda in Pakistan.

Had the Bush administration accurately portrayed Musharraf's policies rather than hiding them, it would not have avoided the al Qaeda safe haven there. But it would have facilitated a more realistic debate about the real options available for U.S. policy.

*Gareth Porter is an investigative historian and journalist specialising in U.S. national security policy. The paperback edition of his latest book, "Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam", was published in 2006.

Source IPS

To Provoke War: Cheney Considered Proposal To Dress Up Navy Seals As Iranians & Shoot At Them

Sy Hersh at Campus Progress journalism conference






faizshakir

Dandelion Salad

Think progress

THE EMPIRE OF "THE CITY" (World Superstate)

City of London + City of Vatican + City of columbia are the 3 independent states within states which composes the empire of the city. The first is financial control over earth economy, the second is religion control over the earth and the third one is military control over the earth. Together they make the very unholy trinity which forms the Egyptian pyramid that we can see on the back of the privately owned federal reserve note that is used as American dollar to maintain the colony in debt and under the Queen. Many people realize that this mystifying situation, in which an alleged democratic and self-governing nation is actually controlled against the will of the people, is a clear indication that there must be a very powerful and well-financed occult organization which plans and directs world affairs, and for lack of a more specific identification the suspected secret organization is popularly referred to as the International Financiers, Banksters cartel or "The Crown corporation".

Part 1



Part 2

Dahr Jamail: Iraq and U.S Military expansion

Posted on June 27, 2008 by dandelionsalad

talkingsticktv

Talk by independent journalist Dahr Jamail author of “Beyond the Green Zone: Dispatches from an Unembedded Journalist in Occupied Iraq” given June 7, 2008 in Seattle.



see

Iraq

Israel Lobby

Jamail-Dahr

GI Resistance

It’s March 19 and Blogswarm Day! Posts on Iraq War by Lo (list of Winter Soldier posts)