Archive | June 22nd, 2010




June 17, 2010

by Gordon Duff

Cardboard Lotharios: Netanyahu - Kim Jong Il - Mullah Omar - Osama bin Laden - Hugo Chavez


By Gordon Duff STAFF WRITER/Senior Editor

“If those papers have to be produced over the nukes that later got lost in Oman, and on the watch of Dr. David Kelly, then it could be disastrous for David Cameron. This, particularly as one of the three atomic bombs lost back at the time of the first Gulf War, was exploded by North Korea on 25th May 2009.”

In 2006, North Korea exploded a plutonium based nuclear weapon, an unsuccessul test of  a  “found” nuke in poor repair, or something poorly designed.  America had predicted that they were at least five years from this capability, we always hear the same story, everyone is five years from having nuclear weapons. 

On May 25th, 2009, North Korea exploded its second bomb, its first clearly identifiable nuclear weapon, a “Hiroshima sized” bomb, tiny by US standards.  What we didn’t say is that the signature of this bomb had been seen before. 

An identical nuclear weapon, manufactured at the same facility, same design, same impurities,  had been exploded in September 22, 1979, in a test in the Indian Ocean conducted jointly by Israel and South Africa.  When UN inspectors were asked to come to South Africa in 1990 to arrange to dismantle their nuclear weapons, ten bombs were admitted to having been built with one tested. 

Today we claim six existed, none were tested and three never existed.  One of those three exploded in North Korea.  The mystery is, how did it get there?   Are American “broken arrow” nukes, recovered, sold and traded?  What “special country” might do this?

The cover story was that Pakistan through nuclear scientist,  Dr. A. Q. Khan, had supplied Korea with the required highly specialized centrifuges along with nuclear triggers and advanced missile technology.  Investigations have shown, however,  that the US had asked, or rather demanded, President Musharraf  “convince” Khan to confess to this and a seemingly endless series of nuclear proliferation violations from South Africa to Libya to Germany. 

The deal was that Khan had to confess but would be immediately pardoned.  We have another mystery, who was the US covering for and why?  Who wanted it to seem like North Korea had a real nuclear program, who would profit by this?  What could be more comical than “Cardboard Lothario” Kim Jung-il, war mongering mastermind terrorizing the world from one of the most isolated and poverty stricken nations on earth.  I could carve a better “axis of evil” dictator out of a banana.

Who are the Cardboard Lotharios?  They are world leaders and conflict driven icons who simply don’t seem to fit.  We knew where Hitler came from, we understood Napoleon, Mussolini, even George W. Bush.  With a world bereft of “prime movers,” no major ideological struggles, no national races for dwindling resources, only multi-national corporations carving away the world, today’s chaos is purely manufactured and the cardboard cutout bad-boys aren’t even good actors. 

Who invented Osama bin Laden, Bibi Netanyahu, Mullah Omar, Kim Jung-il, Hugo Chavez, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?  Do we add Hameed Karzai to the list?  How to people like Libya’s Muammar Gadaffi simply quit, get taken off the list and retire as though they had been to some sort of “terrorist mastermind rehab?”  Remember Muqtada al-Sadr, the Iraqi cleric whose Mahdi army was the cause of so much mayhem in Iraq? 

How can Gulbuddin Hekmatyar be number one on the world terror list and be asked by Americans to open negotiations with the Taliban at the same time?  Anyone smelling a rat? 

A hypothesis, several forces, conspiratorial in nature, hiding in plain sight are “out there.”  The players, oil, arms, banking, are the real powers in the world, easily “super-governments,” well beyond any Illuminati-Freemason or Bilderberg conspiracy. 

Their game, ”they” meaning the real powers that control the governments, is managing continual regional conflicts where none, according to respected studies of the dynamics of global conflict and the real clash of “civilizations,” should exist.  We live in a world where our wars, our news, the stories and myths we accept as gospel are little more than part of a play. 

 Shakespeare had said, “All the world’s a stage and the men and women merely players” (William Shakespeare, As You Like it, Act II, Scene VII)  How can we get to this point?  Lets take a look at today’s hotspot, Iran.

Iran and Iraq fought a war from 1980 to 1988, exhausting both countries, a war neither recovered from.  What is Iran today?  We are told they are a radical Islamic country run by the Hitleresque maniac, Ahmadinejad, who plans to “wipe Israel from the face of the earth.”  It isn’t important that he didn’t really say that. 

 He says enough things like that.  In fact, Ahmadinejad says anything that comes into his mind.  Why?  He is a stooge, put into office in a rigged election, someone with long financial and ethnic ties to banksters, Israel and the thieves that he complains about.  In fact, his life is a balancing act, working with his friends in Russia, China and, oh yes, Israel, to keep his few supporters in Iran believing he is looking after them in a hostile world.

Iran has no enemies, certainly not the United States, Russia, Israel or anyone else.  This is an advanced country with a totally inept government run by a petty thief backed by a pack of illiterate religious numb-skulls.  Sometimes I think Ahmadinejad and Netanyahu must have been twins, separated at birth. 

The concept of Iran as a strategic threat to the region is totalbunk.  Their relations with all their neighbors run from largely benign to cordial.  They have little ability to project a military presence more than a few miles.  What they are is an idiot talking on TV when he gets a call from Tel Aviv.  The people who want you to believe different are, well, Bibi Netanyahu and his partner in crime, “Bubbles” Ahmadinejad.

Two issues have sparked curiosity about Iran recently.  Why would Russia and China vote for sanctions for Iran when both countries are, not only strong supporters of Iran, both with records of debunking ideas of Iranian nukes, knowing quite well that the centrifuges Iran has could never, in a million years, produce weapons grade fuel. 

China does billions in trade with Iran, a nation that is China’s largest oil supplier.  The second issue is Russia withholding the sale of a purely defensive S300 air defense system. Iran may not have the newest “old technology” S300 system (Iran is using a Tor M1 system with all upgrades)  but whatevere they do have, Russians are in Iran running it for them. 

Everyone but Iran has one, they are all the rage.  Turkey is starting to manufacture them, Greece has had one for years, even Peru is getting one, concerned about a resurgence of Inca incursions into their airspace.  Air defense systems, something we need to get into more later.

All that Russia and China have accomplished, aided by phony news stories of Saudi Arabia facilitating an Israeli attack on Iran, is to keep “cardboard cutout” Ahmadinejad in power longer, despite demands by his own people for his ouster.  What is his value?  Who else will stand on their hind legs, braying like an ass, whenever a phony crisis is needed to hide something real, something threatening and something not as irrelevant as toothless Iran.

Running with our hypothesis, we could look at two tiers of conflict, geopolitical and “irregular warfare” or “global terrorism.”  Depending on your local school system, you might call terrorism and insurgency “asymetrical warfare.” 

Were neither to exist, either or both can be created and stimulated easily and inexpensively yet both are major sources of significant economic gain for those pulling the strings.  Conflict propagation is far more valuable than conflict resolution.  Quoting Robert Duval in Apocalypse Now, “Someday, this war could end….”

For the decades of the Cold War, east and west played a game of cat and mouse, each working to install puppet governments throughout the third world, particularly adjacent to the borders of the other whenever feasible.  Thus, Russia had Turkey, Iran and Pakistan on its border and Russia had Cuba and, for awhile, Nicaragua threatening the United States. 

However, most of the world’sgovernments with the exception of a very few “non-aligned states” operated under the virtual control of American corporations, backed the the CIA and US military.  A call to Langley from the Whitehouse, if the fruit or sugar company ordering the “hit” sought to include them in the loop, could have a revolution going in a matter of days, car bombs in the capital, suicides, assassinations, newspaper publishers jailed and a new “savior of democracy” in place. 

 Vice President Dick Cheney’s self annoited role as defacto “controller-grande” of the Joint SpecialOperations Command was a manifestation of the privatization of war, bereft of oversight and command structure, accountability, treaties or international law.

With the advent of a corporate multinational”one world government,” though the goals may have changed, the same capabilities have been used often, with the end result, as always, economic gain at the cost of social cohesion.  For years securing oil was the overwhelming need and driving force until it was found other industries could pay better.  

With peace accords ending strife between Egypt and Israel, the two “high threat” players in the Middle East, a rationale was needed for chaos and destabilization, but not just for oil.  The realmoney was in guns and drugs, “South Central-style” but on a massive international scale.  Instead of “Crips” and “Bloods” we created a new form of street theatre, the “global war on terror.”

You can’t turn on a TV without seeing something about the CIA and drugs.  Colonel Eugene Khrushchev (ret), former First Secretary of the Soviet Embassy in Kabul calls US Special Envoy to Afghanistan a “drug kingpin” working with the “Karzaibrothers incorporated” drug network, selling $65 billion dollars a year in heroin.  US drug interdiction policy in Afghanistan can’t be characterized in any terms other than one of the most successful agricultural enterprises in world history. 

Never has crop production and marketing know how been so succesfullyimplemented as under US drug control policy in Afghanistan.  Not only can the US and its Central Intelligence Agency be thanked but key groups from Israel, India, Pakistan and western Europe who handle transporation, distribution and splitting the profits.  A particular thanks comes from the government of Russia whose millions of heroin addicts require their daily fix from poppy fields protected by United States Marines. 

 Russia’s gratitude is increasing to the point where getting the thanks they are planning may be quite an awakening for some, ask our friends in Krygystan.  If they held an Academy Awards for crime, every acceptance speech would end with, “None of this would be possible without the support of the mainstream media and a special thanks to my friends at Fox News, we love you!”

To play the game, civilian rule in the United States had to be eliminated.  To do that, control of the media was a must, that and an iconic disaster, a “New Pearl Harbor” as author David Ray Griffin called it, had to push America into blind obedience.  Doubters became “soft on terror” and faced public scorn or worse.  The icon, of course, was 9/11, nearly a decade later barely surviving under the weak cover story of a dozen or so angry Arabs performing endless acts that violate, not only all probabilities but several physical laws as well. 

Even the whitewash of the 9/11 Commission blew up in their faces with demands for criminal investigations being refused and all real findings classified.  All that has been needed is for the media to push the myth, hide the real findings and ignore the controversy.  Thus, the most massive fraud in world history was created, a three trillion dollar looting of America, two nations invaded, over a million killed and a decade of war.

To keep it going, all that has been needed is a few perfectly timed terrorist acts, London, Madrid, Detroit, Times Square, Mumbai, dozens in Pakistan, all, like 9/11, showing “Oswald ” dupes traveling around the world with the ease of diplomats in private jets.

All that was required to provide cover for an imagined worldwide terrorist conspiracy, banding together groups that hate each other more than us is the same branding process we follow when buying soap and toothpaste.  “Can you give me a pack of bin Ladens, a bottle of the Mullah Omar and a bag of those Hezbollah’s please?  Oh, and a lottery ticket.”  You could spend a lifetime talking about terrorist leaders but one thing is true of all of them. 

They all worked for intelligence agencies, either the CIA, ISI, RAW, MI-6, Mossad, the Saudis or someone.  For those who don’t know, an ISI officer in Pakistan is more comfortable with a Mossad agent than, let’s say, a political opponent in his own country.  Anyone who works for or with one intelligence agency is likely to be handed around like a drunken sorority girl in a football locker room.

What does our hypothesis say?  No terrorists were in Iraq, we attacked and suddenly, we were up to our necks in terrorists for years.  When Osama bin Laden died in Afghanistan in 2001, the same bin Laden reputed to be in exile at the Kennedy compound in Palm Beach, he may have been the only person in the world America knew for certain had nothing to do with 9/11.  If you don’t think the FBI confirms this, go to

Bin Laden is a funny fellow.  His family has been tied to the Bush family for decades, still are.  They are respected and decent people who helped a young George W. Bush financially when he failed in the oil business.  Osama bin Laden, working closely with the CIA, was a very minor player in the war to expel Soviet forces from Afghanistan. 

As a wealthy Saudi Arab, he was welcomed in Afghanistan out of Islamic hospitality but in a part of the world, the center of the ethnic Pashtun universe, being a Saudi is the last thing you want.  Pashtunshave their own tribal military leaders, the best trained in the world, as we learn more of every day and deeply resent the idea that we would think that Osama bin Laden would be anything in Afghanistan but an irritating house guest. 

 This is the truth, everything else is simply storytelling, part of the myth used in branding the “war on terror” so endless billions could be pumped into the coffers of the “merchants of death.”

Seemingly, managing to keep people fearful of world terrorism to the point of running, not only the United States into hopeless debt but Europe as well, while tying much of the rest of the world into a series of low intensity regional conflicts, continual terror alerts with the concurrent destabilizing arms, security technolgy competitions has required little expenditure or even cleverness.  

 With management of most of the world’s news media in the hands of Israeli interests, the tiny country that is now the third largest exporter of arms in the world, almost no effort was needed at all.  The gang, the US, Russia, Israel, France, Britain and China appear to operate much as the Mafia familiesof Godfather era New York, with Israel sitting at the head of the table, something quite astounding taking into consideration to what degree their control and influence belies their insatiable desire for “keeping Israel secure” even if the whole world dies in the process.

Without the subtext of global terrorism, piracy and a series of religious and ethnic conflicts in Africa likely to continue for the next century, maintaining world chaos and instability through the “cardboard cutout” evildoers, nations the United States could militarily overwhelm with extreme ease, generalized peace would break out in most of the world.  Minor acts like Russian ships visiting badboy Hugo Chavez, push the nations in the region into a flurry of arms purchases.

As mentioned earlier, one of the ways of managing conflict, regional destabilization and economic and social entropy is through arms races.  India and Pakistan are classic examples.  Both are nuclear powers, claiming, in the most nationalistic terms to have risen to status as world class danger to themselves and others because of a since of nationalistic superiority. 

 Of course, other nations simply gave India and Pakistan their nuclear capabilities.  India was given “the bomb” by the United States.  They were supposed to represent a hedge against possible Chinese expansion.  In return, China gave Pakistan “the bomb.”  Questions?

Then Russia gave India stealth aircraft, actually American stealth technology stolen by Israel, sold to Russia and passed on to India.  Then China entered a joint venture with Pakistan to build the J-10 advanced strike fighter, largely American technology “borrowed” by Israel who sold it to the Chinese who gave it to India.  It doesn’t stop here, we have a dozen other weapons systems that are moving around the world the same way. 

Americans should consider this an amusing way of seeing their trillion dollars a year in military expenditures at work.

Lets take a minute to talk about air defense systems.  Many of us remember the US setting up Patriot missile batteries in Israel to ward off, quite unsuccessfully actually, Saddam Hussein’s SCUD missile attacks during Operation Desert Storm in 1991.  Since that time, technology has improved dramatically. 

Missiles have longer range, go faster, higher and radar systems are more advanced.  The newer versions of the Russian S300 air defense system, a quite affordable gift for any small nation, are reliably effective against pretty much everything.  They shoot down medium range missiles, short range missiles, cruise missiles, stealth aircraft and even the specialized jamming aircraft meant to destroy air defense systems. 

Flying little loops, dropping flares and chaff or typical television maneuvers are a waster of time.  These babies will follow you home and turn out your lights, end of story.   The aging Tor system Iran is using now has the following lethality index:

  • 0.92-0.95 against aircraft
  • 0.80-0.96 against helicopters
  • 0.60-0.90 against cruise missiles (with an effective range of around 5 km/3 miles)
  • 0.70-0.90 against precision munitions (LGBs, glide bombs, etc.)
  • 0.90 against UAVs

The S300 system is being withheld from Iran is considerably better than this as is the system Israel has now and wishes supplemented. 


The Russians have had the more advanced S400 system out for years and are deploying even more advanced systems.  Typically, this type of approach can track up to 100 targets at a time with interception at ranges of around 100 miles at altitudes up to 150,000 feet.  America has similar systems, equal to Russia in radar but well behind in quality of rocket boosters. 

Both the US and Russia are in the process, a seemingly endless process, of deploying “air defense umbrellas” over pretty much everything but with one problem, it never seems to happen.  India doesn’t have one but could easily afford it as can Pakistan.  Iran isn’t being allowed to have one and they can afford anything.  Air defense systems are marketed like appliances.  If you sell something “too good,” you lose a customer.

If Israel had such as system, and they do, paid for by the US and being updated with something even more advanced, they could repel any air attack including ballistic missiles with absolute certainty.  Problem for Israel, like admitting they are the only nuclear power in the Middle East, its hard to go whining to the world about how scared you are when you were never in any danger in the first place. 

So, if either Israel or America admit to the fact that Israel is a nuclear power with long range ballistic missiles and a total missile and air defense shield in place, then the billions we give them, the bunker buster bombs, the cluster bombs, the endless “defense funding” wouldn’t make any sense.  All the racket Israel makes, especially to the Christian Zionist community in America through their Fox News outlet about being surrounded by enemies is a joke. 

Israel’s air force, supplied by the United States, is two generations ahead of any of their neighbors and Israel itself is impenetrable to air attack, planes, missiles, anything.  In fact, we have overarmed Israel to such an extent they have become bullies.

These systems aren’t really so much destabilizing as they are dangerous to the localarms market.  Why buy a cluster bomb when you get shot down before dropping it on a playground or hospital?  What good is an AWAC if it can be shot down from over a hundred miles away despite its countermeasures. 

 Without our airplanes, our tanks and those millions of assault rifles we make are worthless.  We might as well be fight 17thcentury style.  So, the dealis, to keep weapons systems out of each conflict, or as our local MBA would call it, “market,” that would eliminate the sales of high priced, high maintenanceplatforms like Apache helicopters and F-35 fighter aircraft. 

The Russians have their versions, Israel has theirs, marketed, sometimes with China, sometimes with India and even, on occasion, with Russia but always good old American technology taken from the good old USA by one of those spies we hear so much about.

What then does our hypothesis demand?  Do we accept that the trillions spent, not billions mind you, trillions of dollars spent to defend America against nations that barely know who we are, nations we could erase without effort and the thousands of lives lost in conflicts we no longer remember why we are involved in seem ill advised? 

I remember being asked in a press interview how Israel, such a small country, could have so much influence in the United States.  I tried not to let my eyes roll back into my head thinking of the 444 members of congress considered “Israel Firsters” and thought of an answer suitable for television. 

He could, just as easily asked, why does the United States and its puppets, Canada, Britain, France, Germany, Spain, Poland, Pakistan, Egypt, Turkey along with their co-conspirators, Russia and China along with whatever Israel is, something none of us will understand, simply seek some other path for the world other than building debt, causing endless entropy, creating oligarchies, exploiting ethnic rivalries, destroying the world’s ecosystem, flooding our society with narcotics and pornography?

Then, is the basis of our hypothesis that some invisible criminal conspiracy, a genuine axis of evil, guides the world, a power above any nation, seemingly above the g-d’s themselves?  A hundred years ago, when a nation misbehaved, they had a reason, right or wrong, it was a reason. 

 If they won the war, their reason was right.  Today, we no longer ask for reasons.  Why do we fight?  We fight to be safe.  Safe from whom?  Safe from the people we fight.  Any question beyond this limited scope is considered philosophical and elitist, even “liberal” or “peace-mongering.”

The alternative is admitting that we are living in an Orwellian nightmare, one worse than any Orwell would have imagined.  As Orwell himself would point out, only a rare individual would recognize the senselessness and absurdity.  When we began believing, when we began to forget how to ask, “Why,” we created  world whose moral soil was fertile for the depredations of the myth makers, the storytellers, those who exist off chaos, fear, starvation and in conditioning people who consider themselves righteous to accept the suffering and death of children without a thought, much less a tear.

We have arrived.

Posted in UncategorizedComments Off on THE CARDBOARD LOTHARIOS



June 18, 2010

by Michael Leon

Helen Thomas Reporter

By Paul Craig Roberts

Information Clearing House – The propagandists for the Israel Lobby, who occupy the Wall Street Journal editorial page while pretending to be journalists, are determined to remove Helen Thomas from the annals of journalism. In case you have already forgotten, a few days ago the distinguished career of Helen Thomas, the 89-year-old doyen of the White House Press Corps, was ended by the Israel Lobby, which made an issue about her opinion that immigrant Jews should leave Palestine and go back to their home countries.

The White House Correspondents’ Association fell in line with the demands of the Israel Lobby, and the cowardly president of the organization added the association’s disapprobation to that of the neoconservative cabal.

Having removed Helen Thomas from the journalism scene, the Israel Lobby is now working with its agents on the Wall Street Journal editorial page to eliminate the Helen Thomas Award for Lifetime Achievement from the Society of Professional Journalists.

A nonentity in the world of journalism, James Taranto, apparently is associated with the Wall Street Journal editorial page, although Wikipedia reports that he was incapable of graduating from journalism school at California State University, Northridge. On a Wall Street Journal web site, Taranto writes: “We’ve been calling Thomas ‘American journalism’s crazy old aunt in the attic’ for years,” and he asks who would now accept the Helen Thomas award after Ms. Thomas revealed she really was crazy by criticizing Israel.

I would for one. Of course the Society of Professional Journalists would never give the award, assuming the distinguished award survives the assault of the Israel Lobby’s assassins, to a critic of Israel. Helen excepted, American journalists are cowards. With the concentrated ownership of the corporate media today, no independently-minded journalist can have a career in print or TV media. You defend the Washington/Tel Aviv line, or you are out of work.

The absence of independently-minded journalists on the Wall Street Journal editorial page is an extraordinary change from my days as Associate Editor of that page. The editorial page editor, Robert Bartley was ambitious and forced himself to tolerate talented colleagues. Mere opinion was not our task. Often we scooped the reporters on the news side of the paper. Our editorials reported new developments and provided factual analysis.

I was hired as Jude Wanniski’s replacement. Jude, Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal, was fired, allegedly because the journal’s brass caught him handing out election campaign literature on a train platform, but if you believe American journalism was ever that pure, I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale.

Jude was fired, because the neoconservatives got rid of him by telling Bartley that Wanniski was over-shadowing him. That was too much for Bob’s ego. Jude, of course, being a real journalist, was objective toward the Palestinians and thus had earned the enmity of the Israel Lobby.

Once Bob was rapidly declining with prostate cancer, neoconservatives engineered the takeover of the editorial page. Today the once proud Wall Street Journal editorial page is a leading apologist for Israeli/American war crimes and police states.

To return to the nonentity, James Taranto, who wants to throw Helen Thomas down the memory hole: Helen Thomas’ opinion that Israelis should stop stealing the villages, homes, and lands of Palestinians, while confining Palestinians to the equivalent of the Warsaw Ghetto, is equated by Taranto to the advocacy of “ethnic cleansing” by Helen.

Of course, it is the Israelis who are doing the ethnic cleansing. Many Jews have documented Israel’s ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, such as Uri Avnery, a former member of the Israeli terrorist organization, Irgun, Ilan Pappe, Israel’s most distinguished historian and author of The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, and the Israeli peace group, ICHAD, who have been my house guests. The Israeli newspaper, Haaratz, is far more critical of Israeli policy than Helen Thomas, and so is MIT professor Noam Chomsky, the distinguished British journalist and film maker John Pilger, and the distinguished scholar, Norman Finkelstein, the son of Holocaust survivors.

But Taranto prefers an 89-year old adversary.

Israel is an unnatural state. It was created by terror that was accommodated by craven British and US “diplomacy.” Israel exists for one reason only: the US government provides the money, weapons, and diplomatic protection. Any other government that murdered thousands of civilians in other countries, as Israel does routinely in Lebanon, Gaza, and the West Bank, would have its entire government and military on trial before the War Crimes Tribunal at the Hague. Israelis have no worst enemy than their own government.

Every time the rest of the world tries to hold the Israeli government accountable for its crimes, the US vetoes the UN resolution. America has become the enabler of the zionist-hijacked Israeli government. And the Israeli government knows it. Israeli government leaders have publicly bragged for decades about their control over the US government. US Admiral Tom Moorer, Chief of Naval Operations and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff after whom the F-14 “Tomcat” jet fighter was named, declared publicly: “No American President can stand up to Israel.” Apparently no American journalist can either.

I am a critic of Israel’s heartless policy toward the Palestinians, but I do not want Israel destroyed. I want it moved or reformed. Bring the small number of Israelis to America before there is a nuclear war over the fact that they are where they should not be. To try to claim a land and dispossess its people on the basis of a spurious two thousand year year old deed is an audacious act of conquest and dispossession.

My proposal to relocate Israelis in the US is rhetorical, but why not insist that the Israelis, who are heavily dependent on US largess, reform? Why should Americans support an apartheid racist state that denies citizenship to the rightful inhabitants? What kind of morality, if any, does the Wall Street Journal editorial page represent when it defends Israelis who force Palestinians into ever-shrinking ghettos, deprived of water, food, medical care and schools? Why must Palestinians live in dread of Israeli bulldozers arriving to flatten their homes in order to create space for zionist “settlers.”

Allegedly, the US is a superpower, but in fact it is a puppet state of the Israeli government. Witness, for example (the examples are numerous), the fate of the Goldstone Report on Israeli war crimes committed in Israel’s assault on Gaza during December 2008-January 2009. Goldstone is a zionist Jew and a distinguished judge. He was given the task by the United Nations to investigate the Israeli attack on Gaza. Being an honest person, he provided evidence of Israeli war crimes.

What was the result? The bought-and-paid-for US Congress voted, on the instructions of their master, the Israel Lobby, to deep-six the Goldstone Report by a vote of 344 to 36.

Amazing, isn’t it, there were only 36 US Representatives who were not owned by the Israel Lobby.

Of course, James Taranto serves the Israel Lobby. The Wall Street Journal editorial page, not even a shadow of its former self, when it speaks, speaks for Israel and for the Bush/Cheney militarist police state.

The Wall Street Journal editorial page has fallen into the low ranks of Brownshirt propaganda. The fact that management tolerates the continuation of totally nonobjective
journalism shows why print newspapers are failing everywhere.

The hubris of Taranto, a mere propagandist who will never come close to the league in which Helen Thomas resides, causes him to think that he is fit to pass judgment on a real journalist. Taranto epitomizes the hubris of the neoconservatives. Not a single one of them has the smallest accomplishment. Yet, blinded with arrogance, they remain in ignorant bliss of their status as prostitutes

Posted in UncategorizedComments Off on HELEN THOMAS: IN APPRECIATION



Turkey to freeze bilateral relations with Israel, excludes private sector

June 18, 2010

by Michael Leon


The Defense Industry Implementation Committee convened under the chairmanship of Prime Minister Erdoğan to discuss the issue of military agreements and projects with Israel.
The Defense Industry Implementation Committee convened under the chairmanship of Prime Minister Erdoğan to discuss the issue of military agreements and projects with Israel.

By Ercan Yavus

Ankara—Tension that broke out between Turkey and Israel when the latter killed eight Turkish citizens and a US citizen of Turkish origin in a raid on a Gaza-bound humanitarian aid flotilla has resulted in Turkey freezing bilateral relations with Israel — but joint projects and contracts signed with Israeli companies will remain as they are.

The Defense Industry Implementation Committee (SSİK) convened under the chairmanship of PM Recep Tayyip Erdoğan to take up the issue of military agreements and projects with Israel. Turkey — which recalled its ambassador to Tel Aviv and cancelled three military exercises in the aftermath of a bloody Israeli raid on the Mavi Marmara aid ship — has shelved 16 bilateral agreements due to Israel’s refusal to apologize for the killings or pay compensation.

 Thus, all Turkish-Israeli agreements at the state level have been cancelled. In a statement made during a trip to South Korea, President Abdullah Gül said Turkey had prepared a roadmap on the issue of sanctions against Israel but noted that this would be announced by the government. The first signs that such a plan was in the works appeared on Monday in a Cabinet decision.

The roadmap details a process through which Turkey will completely cut its ties with Israel and comprises several stages.

First, should Israel fail to send a member to a UN investigatory commission being formed to look into the deadly raid, Turkey will not send its ambassador back to Tel Aviv. Furthermore, Turkey will not in any way recognize the Israeli-led investigation into its own troops’ attack on the Mavi Marmara.

All bilateral projects in the field of military training and cooperation will be frozen; a $757 million plane and tank modernization project and a missile project worth over $1.5 billion have already been shelved. The majority of work on these projects was planned to be cooperative Turkish-Israeli efforts.

The Defense Industry Implementation Committee convened under the chairmanship of Prime Minister Erdoğan to discuss the issue of military agreements and projects with Israel.The Land Forces Command had been planning to collaborate with Israel on a $5 billion tank project within the next 10 years.

Israel wants to sell 1,000 Merkava Mark III combat tanks to Turkey, worth $5 billion, but this project has been shelved. In addition, Turkish military officers have abandoned a plan to modernize M-60 tanks in Kayseri with the Israelis for $50 million.Other abandoned projects would have modernized, through an Israeli-Singaporean consortium, 54 F-4 Phantom planes for $632.5 million and 48 F-5 jets for $75 million.

In addition to shelving 16 major agreements, Turkey has also decided not to cooperate on joint projects, particularly in the field of military training and cooperation. Turkish F-16 pilots will not be sent to Israel for training as planned, while joint military exercises with the Middle Eastern country will also not be held.

No international military exercises will be held with Israeli participation and Turkish airspace will be closed to Israeli military aircraft.

An agreement on cooperation in the field of fighting terrorism signed between Turkey and Israel — which provided Turkey with valuable intelligence on Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia (ASALA) terrorist organization camps in Lebanon in the 1980s — has also been frozen by the Turkish side.

Before the raid on the Mavi Marmara, Turkey had held preliminary meetings with the Israelis over Arrow missile defense systems, conventional and plastic mine detectors and terrestrial radar systems to prevent infiltrations into Turkey from its borders with Syria and Iraq.

Turkey has abandoned these plans as well as plans to purchase from Israel two patrol aircraft and Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) aircraft worth $800 million.A $500 million package for the joint production of Popeye I and Popeye II air-to-air missiles and another project to produce $150 million of long-range Delilah missiles has also been shelved.

Turkey has also decided to freeze a tank modernization project with Israel in the wake of its bloody raid on a boat carrying Turkish peace activists in international waters.


Corporate-level projects to continue

Meanwhile, Turkish Foreign Trade Minister Zafer Çağlayan warned against efforts in Israel to boycott Turkish goods, saying that Turkey would react harshly should such a thing occur. Reacting on Wednesday to reports yet to be confirmed with Israeli authorities that an Israeli court had, after the Mavi Marmara incident, ordered an injunction on the bank accounts and $10 million in receivables of Turkish Yılmazlar Group construction firm in Israel, Çağlayan emphasized that there should be a distinction made between political relations and commercial ties.

While the SSİK meeting led by Erdoğan decided to end all state-level relations with Israel, the committee left the issue of agreements between military industry firms to the discretion of those corporations. The committee said it would not be appropriate for it to decide upon the fate of agreements and joint projects operated by ASELSAN, HAVELSAN, ROKETSAN and the Turkish Mechanical and Chemical Industry Corporation (MKE). What the committee did decide is that should most of these agreements be cancelled, sanctions including compensation will be arranged — but the initiative has been left to the firms themselves.

At the same time, however, it is known that such firms, both in Israel and in Turkey, are government-supported.

In a statement made after the six-hour SSİK meeting ended, Defense Minister Vecdi Gönül said that despite the fact that the decision on the shelving of military agreements had been left at the command of the Foreign Ministry, it would not be proper for the ruling administration to decide on the actions of military companies in both countries.

The SSİK also decided the only path to a reversal of its decisions to freeze ties would be for Israel to apologize to Turkey and agree to an international investigation into the deadly Mavi Marmara raid.

In accordance with a Cabinet decision, Turkey’s roadmap from here on out will attempt to isolate Israel in the international arena. Following the condemnation of the Israeli military’s actions by the United Nations, NATO, the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), the Arab League and the Turkish-Arab Cooperation Forum, Turkey will attempt to isolate Israel in every arena, leaving the nation to stand alone.

A new strategy will also be implemented in an attempt to sway the attitude of the European Union with regard to Israel


Posted in UncategorizedComments Off on TURKEY FREEZE RELATION WITH NAZI REGIME



Militarists: Gordon Duff Smeared as an Anti-Semite! Crazy!

June 17, 2010

by Michael Leon

Just Crazy. We have written this before: Chomsky, Finkelstein, Ellsberg, Greenwald, Sullivan, [me too], Levy, Cook, Danger, Cockburn, Whitney, on and on; the list is growing of accredited anti-Semites demonstrated per force by their objection to Israeli militarism and human rights violations.

Looks like our own Gordon Duff is gaining notoriety for his coverage of Israeli violations of international law and human rights.


Gordon Duff Photoshopped as Nazi

So what that Duff is Jewish through part of his heritage.

So what that Duff is a Marine who could give two shits about anything but a man’s and woman’s character.

Gordon spares no words in exposing Israel and its Lobby’s complicity in the worst actions of the rogue state, perhaps the greatest purveyor of violence today, so we have discovered this charming picture suggesting that Gordon is a NAZI.

After a lifetime of work for civil rights, I have been called an anti-Semite as well. First time it hurts; after that it’s good for a laugh.

We’ll spare you the contradictions of the term ‘Semite,’ the conceptual vacuity of any kind of race, or the figures on the declining population of ‘Semites’ in Israel and growing populations outside Israel.

It’s a political slur meant to convey that one is a Jew hater, a racist pig, yada yada.

Israel can wage war, kill Arabs, commit piracy on the high seas and if you object, you hate Jews.

Anti-Semitism, though it still exists among the fools in this world, is a political sword that has lost its edge as the tip of the spear for militaristic-propaganda enterprises of Israel.

Lying, Zionist, militaristic trash v. Gordon Duff.

I’ll take the crazy Scotsman with Jewish blood coursing through his body in this fight: Political, moral or otherwise. Bring it on, Zionist, militaristic trash.


Posted in UncategorizedComments Off on IS GORDON ANTI-SEMITES?


What’s Next from Israel: Entropy or Outrage?

May 2, 2010

 by Jeff Gates

Israeli war-planners face a dilemma. After more than six decades of duplicitous behavior, their playbook is pretty well played out. Not that Tel Aviv will  not deceive again. Or at least try. Odds are we’ll see another round of either entropy or outrage or some lethal combination.

Their outrage tactics are well understood. This serial agent provocateur has long shaped events from the shadows by provoking well-profiled targets to respond to well-planned provocations.

With in-depth profiling, the response becomes a matter of probabilities. Thus Israel’s well-deserved reputation as the master of mental manipulation based on their use of game theory algorithms that anticipate reactions to provocations along with the reactions to those reactions.

Control enough of the variables and the desired outcome becomes foreseeable—within an acceptable range of probabilities. Therein lies the genius (others say the psychopathy) of those for whom conflicts serve as a profitable sideline while they pursue broader geopolitical goals.

In game theory war planning, the reaction of “the mark” emerges in the foreground while the agent provocateur disappears into the background. The response to that reaction then enables the provocateur to slip even deeper into the shadows, further obscuring the genius of the instigator.

Game theory modeling is a useful skill for a nation that built much of its economy on arms sales. Much of the rest is reliant on information technology. Those technologies enable Israelis to operate undetected in that invisible domain where data is the most critical form of capital. That includes financial markets where timely information has long been the most valuable asset.

Game Theory and 911

When provoked by a mass murder on American soil, we had elected to office a president with a known array of easily profiled dysfunctions. With phony intelligence, he was induced to order the U.S. military to invade a nation that had no hand in that event. From a game theory perspective, that is genuine genius.

Consistent with game theory war planning, that invasion advanced an Israeli strategy for “securing the realm” while expanding its sphere of influence well beyond its borders.

Not only was the U.S. induced to discredit itself by that (easily modeled) reaction, our response over-extended our military, destroyed our credibility and further weakened our already debt-weakened economy. All these effects are consistent with game theory modeling.

Even a cursory review of history confirms that debt is always the prize for those skilled at catalyzing serial conflicts. Some commentators might call that financial genius.

According to Nobel laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz, the fiscal cost may reach $3 trillion, all of it borrowed—a first. At the end of WWII, the U.S. had half the world’s productive power.

That financial strength ensured our bonds would remain dominant for at least two generations. Look at us now. The interest expense alone for this conflict could cost us $700 billion.

These game theory-foreseeable results suggest how war can be waged on a nation from within that nation—while the instigators fade into the mist. That too is a form of genius.

Entropy and Presidential Longevity

The next step in this game theory warfare may involve an entropy operation. Though less well known than run-of-the-mill provocations, this component also suggests applied genius.

As with the source of the outrage from provocations, the instigators of entropy strategies seek refuge in the shadows. That era may soon come to a close as “the mark” (the American public) grasps the regularity—and the lengthy premeditation—with which such duplicity is deployed.

For instance, 47 years ago, President John F. Kennedy sought to halt in its infancy a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. In June 1963, he wrote the last in a series of insistent letters to Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion. Each of those letters sought what Israel now demands of Iran: international inspections of its nuclear facilities.

The key difference: JFK knew for certain that Israeli officials, while insisting the Zionist enclave was a loyal friend and ally, lied to him about their nuclear weapons program at the Dimona reactor facility in the Negev Desert. We now know the Israelis were then secretly shipping highly enriched uranium to Dimona from at least one U.S. nuclear facility in Pennsylvania.

Best estimates date to sometime between 1962 and 1964 when Israel produced its first weapon. Their nuclear arsenal is now estimated at 200-600 warheads plus possibly hundreds of “dirty” devices and other nuclear-related weaponry.

Kennedy’s letter to Ben-Gurion was not cordial. The words chosen were drawn not from diplomacy but from the instructions that a judge provides a jury to assess criminal culpability.

In that brusque letter, a U.S. commander-in-chief demanded proof “beyond a reasonable doubt” that Zionists were not developing nuclear weapons. His insistence left no room for this purported ally to maneuver—except to deploy entropy as a means to avoid accountability.

The day after that June 15th letter was cabled to Tel Aviv for delivery by the U.S. ambassador, Ben-Gurion abruptly resigned citing undisclosed personal reasons. Because his resignation was announced before the cabled letter could be physically delivered, Israeli authors claim that Kennedy’s message failed to reach Ben-Gurion.

That interpretative gloss ignores what we now know about Israeli operations inside serial U.S. presidencies. And about Tel Aviv’s routine intercept of White House communications, particularly those most critical to our national security.

That duplicity has only rarely been made public. Typical was the behavior of Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard who provided Tel Aviv more than one million pages of classified materials. This Israeli operation—run from inside our government—compromised the entirety of our national security apparatus in which U.S. taxpayers had invested trillions of dollars.

When Ben-Gurion deprived President Kennedy of an Israeli government with which to negotiate, the resulting entropy denied the U.S. a critical strategic advantage. That entropy also set in motion the nuclear dynamics that JFK and his advisers feared a half-century ago.

When assessing the cost of the U.S.-Israeli relationship, what cost in dollars, lives and foregone opportunities should Americans put on this trans-generational deceit?

The consistency of Israel’s duplicitous conduct raises difficult questions about the ability to hold such religious extremists accountable—particularly a nuclear-armed enclave that considers its people Chosen by God and accountable only to God.

The Khazars vs. the Kennedys

During this same 1962-63 period, Senator William J. Fulbright of Arkansas, chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, convened hearings on the legal status of the American Zionist Council. The AZC received funds from the Jewish Agency, the predecessor to the state of Israel.

As a recipient of U.S. funds, the Agency used those funds to lobby for more funds. Under U.S. law, that conduct required the AZC to register as a foreign agent.

In seeking that registration, Fulbright was joined by Attorney General Robert Kennedy. Their effort was delayed by the fledgling Israel lobby and then ended with JFK’s assassination.

Concerns about Zionist influence on U.S. policy continued to grow among well-informed legislators. By 1973, Senator Fulbright could announce with confidence: “Israel controls the U.S. Senate.” In 1974, he lost his Senate seat.

Fast-forward to today and imagine a Middle East without an enclave of nuclear-armed Zionist extremists. The threat that JFK posed to their arsenal—and to their geopolitical goals—was resolved five months after Ben-Gurion’s resignation.

When Vice President Lyndon Johnson was sworn in as Kennedy’s successor, he immediately increased the U.S. budget for arms to Israel.

Imagine the Zionist influence on U.S. policy had Fulbright and the Kennedys succeeded in requiring that the lobby register as what it was and remains: a foreign agent.

See: How the Israel Lobby Took Control of U.S. Foreign Policy.

Following John Kennedy’s removal in November 1963, Johnson appointed Nicholas Katzenbach as his Attorney General to replace Robert Kennedy who LBJ loathed. Soon thereafter, the AZC evaded registration as it morphed into the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and began the pretense, still ongoing, that AIPAC operates in the U.S. as a domestic lobby.

[AIPAC and dozens of affiliate organizations coordinate a transnational network of pro-Israeli political operations commonly known as “the Israel lobby.”]

The Kennedy-Fulbright threat to the Zionists’ geopolitical goals reemerged five years later when Robert Kennedy announced his candidacy for the presidency during the height of an unpopular war. That war was vastly expanded under Johnson’s leadership.

Resolving the Kennedy Problem

From a game theory perspective, a second Kennedy presidency presented Tel Aviv with at least four troubling variables to manage.

First, Robert Kennedy’s peace candidacy offered the possibility of a speedy end to the war in Vietnam. Less war meant not only less debt but also less ability to arm Israel with U.S. weapons.

Second, his election so soon after the Six-Day War presented the possibility that a U.S. commander-in-chief might inquire into the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty that left 34 Americans dead and 175 wounded. Covered up by Johnson with the help of Admiral John McCain, Jr., an open inquiry threatened the carefully orchestrated perception that Israel was a victim rather than an aggressor in taking land that fueled outrage throughout the region.

Third, RFK’s global perspective on peace suggested that he might pursue his brother’s agenda and target Israel’s nuclear arsenal in order to preclude a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.

Fourth, with Fulbright still wielding substantial influence on U.S. foreign policy, a second Kennedy administration revived concerns about renewed restrictions on the domestic activities of the expansive Israel lobby.

When this charismatic presidential contender surged in nationwide political polls, those strategic variables were transformed from possibilities into probabilities. All four were resolved on June 5, 1968 at a campaign event held in the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles.

Robert Kennedy’s death at the hand of Sirhan Sirhan, a Palestinian émigré, coincided with the first anniversary of the Six-Day War.

The assassin later cited as his motive Kennedy’s campaign pledge to provide more fighter jets to Israel. That claim was used by Tel Aviv to argue its case for more U.S. arms.

With that second high-profile murder, the road to the presidency was cleared for former Vice-President Richard Nixon. When lobbied by Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir, he agreed to embrace the “ambiguous” status that the Zionists sought for their nuclear arsenal.

When waging game theory warfare, uncertainty is often a powerful persuader and a force multiplier.

Were these assassinations part of an entropy strategy? Was murder used to manage variables that posed a threat to a non-transparent geopolitical goals? Though the evidence remains murky, the outcome is consistent with an oft-recurring game theory modus operandi.

Neither U.S. national security nor federal law enforcement recovered from that entropy. The Israeli nuclear arsenal has grown steadily larger and far more lethal while the Israel lobby has grown steadily larger and far more influential.

Precluding Peace at Any Price

Entropy often emerges as part of a broader game theory strategy. After the failed Camp David agreements in 2000, President Bill Clinton realized the terms that he and Israel offered the Palestinians were unacceptable. In December, he proposed “parameters” that both sides accepted with reservations.

Israeli and Palestinian negotiators then met in Taba, Egypt in January 2001 to resolve their differences. As progress was being made, Tel Aviv canceled the negotiations, ending official progress. Unofficial discussions led to the Geneva Accord in 2003 that Israel rejected.

Were these developments part of an entropy strategy that remains ongoing?

As progress became detectible on the Road Map to Peace [proposed by the Quartet comprised of the U.S., the European Union, Russia and the U.N.], the coalition government of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert collapsed citing a long-brewing scandal that brought his resignation in July 2008.

After negotiations were put on hold for eight months, the right-wing coalition government of former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu promptly disavowed even the tentative progress made by the Olmert government. That stance not only ensured more delay, that entropy ensured an opportunity to stage more provocations and catalyst more conflict.

Should the Netanyahu government detect that progress toward peace is possible, watch for the collapse of yet another Israeli coalition. One possible scenario: the Shas Party will withdraw citing its unhappiness that the status of Jerusalem is raised as part of a final agreement.

Of course everyone knows that Jerusalem must be at the center of any final status agreement. The Shas Pary stance suggests a pending entropy maneuver. Note also that the possibility of this next game theory tactic makes transparent a critical element in game theory math.

The math enables those who are few in numbers to operate with a force-multiplier that remains opaque to analysts unfamiliar with how Zionist warfare is waged “by way of deception.” That’s the motto of the Israeli Mossad, Israel’s intelligence and foreign operations directorate.

To succeed, deception must be hidden in plain sight. In this case, the central deceit is Israel’s “special relationship” with the U.S. For this duplicity to work, the U.S.-Israeli relationship must be sustained.

Over the past two weeks, pressure applied by the Israel lobby resulted in letters to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton from four-fifths of the U.S. Congress. Those letters urged that the Obama administration restate an “unbreakable bond” between the U.S. and Israel.

That entangled relationship enables the game theory math that becomes the force-multiplier. By that bond, the U.S. agrees to maintain an Israeli government with which to negotiate. If another Israeli government collapses, progress toward peace stalls—to the detriment of our interests. Thus it becomes in our interest to keep the coalition intact—regardless of its policies.

That bond provides Israel with strategic leverage because even the potential for entropy is a force-multiplier in the hands of savvy game theory strategists. The relationship itself provides Tel Aviv with the indirect power it deploys to shape U.S. foreign policy.

When framed in game theory terms, who controls our policy in the region? At present, does the U.S. commitment to sustain this relationship (an unbreakable bond) enable the Shas Party to shape our options?

Who wields the real influence in this relationship? Who has the leverage—a U.S. president residing in Washington or Zionist extremists and religious fundamentalists living in Israel?

In practical effect, is U.S. foreign policy dominated by the goals of the most right-wing element of the most right-wing coalition in the most consistently right-wing government that the world community has endured since the defeat of WWII fascism?

Guilt By Association

By proclaiming an “unbreakable bond’ with this extremist enclave, American legislators enabled the very forces that undermine our security and put endangered our troops in the region.

Note that the Israel lobby did not ask that the Knesset pledge its allegiance to us. In this special relationship, loyalty flows in only one direction. If Israelis were loyal to us, why would their lobby insist on a loyalty oath from us?

U.S. diplomats have long defended Israel’s indefensible and lawless behavior. And we have done so in the world’s most high profile legal forum: the United Nations. By associating America’s goodwill with Zionism’s geopolitical goals, we enabled others to portray us as a fascist state.

By our own choice, we branded and discredited ourselves. There lies the genius in game theory.

Game theory warfare succeeds in plain sight. To betray, one must first befriend. To defraud, one must create a relationship based on trust. The relationship itself induced us to freely embrace the very forces that now jeopardize our freedom—from the inside out.

That’s why such deceit can only proceed in plain sight. And can only survive through a committed relationship—an “unbreakable bond” that the target freely chooses.

The challenge for Israel has suddenly turned deadly serious. Its trans-generational duplicity has become transparent not only to U.S. officials but also to a long-deceived American public. The Zionist state teeters on the brink of losing not only U.S. support but also its legitimacy as a state.

The U.S. Military vs. Zionism

Here’s the Big Question: what happens when the U.S. military grasps how their senior officers were deceived to wage war in Iraq? Obliged by a sworn oath to defend the nation from all enemies—both foreign and domestic—what conduct accompanies that oath of office?

From Tel Aviv’s perspective, what happens to Israel’s credibility as the “Jewish state” as this duplicity becomes transparent to the broader Jewish community? What happens when Jews grasp that they too were deceived? What conduct accompanies that realization?

Like many naïve Americans, naive Jews believed their interests were aligned with Israel. Yet since well before its founding Zionists consistently advanced what the Joint Chiefs in 1948 portrayed as “fanatical concepts.” Those concepts include efforts—still ongoing—to exert what the Pentagon then described as “military and economic hegemony over the entire Middle East.”

That assessment remains accurate. Thus the need for a U.S.-Israeli “bond” founded on deception. With applied game theory duplicity, our military could be induced to wage Zionist wars.

What happens when U.S. military leaders realize that the people in their command were put in harm’s way pursue the fanatical concepts of religious extremists?

Who then does their oath of office require them to obey in the chain of command?

Who then becomes the enemy?

Zionist fanatics duped commander-in-chief Harry Truman into extending to them the nation state status that Israeli operatives have since deployed to catalyze serial conflicts in plain sight. That duplicity includes waging war on the very nation that enabled this deceit.

The perception of nation state legitimacy was critical to the game theory-enabled warfare that can now be drawn to a close.

For those long deceived by this sophisticated treachery, it is difficult to imagine that such a devious mindset can survive in the Age of Transparency. In truth, it cannot.

Ensuring the earliest possible end to this treachery is the goal of these analyses: to sound the death knell for a trans-generational enterprise that never merited recognized as a state.

Israel has no place in a community of nations committed to the rule of law. Only an enemy within would suggest an “unbreakable bond” that undermines our national security. Though this form of treason remains ongoing, the forces are now coalescing to expose it and drive it out.

As both an enabler and a target of game theory warfare, Americans must grasp the mindset of these complicit. We must also acknowledge that this treachery is not traceable to a people; this is the work of an aberrant few within a broader community. Note the descriptors in bold:

psychopathy n. A mental disorder roughly equivalent to antisocial personality disorder, but with emphasis on affective and interpersonal traits such as superficial charm, pathological lying, egocentricity, lack of remorse, and callousness that have traditionally been regarded by clinicians as characteristic of psychopaths, rather than social deviance traits such as need for stimulation, parasitic lifestyle, poor behavioral controls, impulsivity, and irresponsibility that are prototypical of antisocial personality disorder. Whether psychopathy and antisocial personality disorder share a common referent is an open question.

The Lethal Combination


The facts and analyses required to restore national security are available. If our analysts are on top of their game (in game theory terms), they are monitoring how events are staged in real-time to advance a non-transparent agenda by deploying both entropy and outrage.

Tel Aviv just leaked intelligence suggesting that Syria transferred Scud missiles to Iran-backed Hezbollah. Intelligence agencies, including ours, doubt the reliability of Israeli intelligence.

Nevertheless, this story injected into the geopolitical mind space a combination of both outrage (“How dare they?”) and entropy as Israel continues its efforts to expand this latest conflict from Iraq to Iran as the next in a series of “plausible” Evil Doers.

Consistent with an attempt to gain traction for this latest Evil Doer narrative, Haaretz published an article on April 30th with the title, “Syria’s provocations may plunge Middle East into war.”

Note the “associative” component that indicts Iran due to its support of Hezbollah. The story also challenges Iran’s credibility as a partner for peace, at least among those who ascribe credibility to Israeli intelligence. Such reports often appear in the Israeli press and spread from there into mainstream media.

Rare are reports that challenge the prevailing narrative. Despite their relevance, almost no media outlet reported the off-the-cuff comment of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who, in a February 14th forum in Doha, Qatar, conceded “[Iran] doesn’t directly threaten the United States.”

Yet this game theory fact remains: if Tel Aviv can catalyze a conflict in Iran, the resulting entropy will help obscure the facts confirming who catalyzed the conflict in Iraq.

Note throughout the motivation for the Israel lobby to pressure Congress for a statement avowing an “unbreakable bond” while also ptomoying a conflict with Iran (or Pakistan) as the next Evil Doer.

Note too the April 29th statement of Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin. In the course of urging a dramatic shift in focus for Israel-Palestine peace talks, Rivlin conceded that he saw no point in Israel signing a peace agreement. Instead he proposed making Israeli citizens of the Palestinians rather than dividing Israel and the West Bank as part of a two-state solution to peace.

Is this a sincere step in the direction of a one-state solution? With each passing day, more analysts realize that a single state is the only solution consistent with sustainable peace and a genuine democracy.

Or is this yet another entropy strategy to delay yet again resolution of the Israeli occupation while game theorists stage yet another provocation to evoke more outrage?

The manipulations continue in plain sight. In March, the Netanyahu government announced plans to build 1,600 housing units in an ultra-orthodox neighborhood of East Jerusalem. Several analysts argue that peace talks have actually regressed over the past eight years.

Should the next round of negotiations gain traction, look for them to be disrupted either by violence or by another decision by Israel to build more housing on contested land.

With the tools for seeing how game theory works, those targeted by this duplicity can see for themselves who and why. With transparency will come accountability. With accountability will come the peace and stability that Zionist war planners must preclude—at any price.

Sustainable peace will come only when the nuclear arsenal now in the hands of religious fanatics is secured and when those responsible for this deceit are held accountable. Until then, both peace and the Palestinians will continue to be held hostage by those chronicled in this account.

Posted in UncategorizedComments Off on WHAT’S NEXT FROM ZIO=NAZI REGIME: ENTROPY OR OUTRAGE?



April 28, 2010

by Jeff Gates

Four-fifths of the U.S. House and Senate recently declared in correspondence to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that the U.S. must reaffirm its “unbreakable bond” with Israel. What persuaded our Congress to proclaim their loyalty to Israel while our military is waging war in the Middle East based on fabricated intelligence?

Any sober assessment of this bond must concede a need to reappraise its cost in blood and treasure. Yet the Congress—our Congress—opposed that reassessment even as our commander-in-chief seeks to end a brutal Israeli occupation of Palestine that has provoked worldwide outrage for more than six decades.

The Congress and the president are sworn to the same oath of office. That oath obliges them to protect the U.S. from all threats, both foreign and domestic. The facts confirm a common pro-Israeli source of the phony intelligence that took our military to war in Iraq. All the evidence points to Israel or its surrogates, including those in the Congress. Is that why the Israel lobby pressed the Congress for a pledge of allegiance to Israel?

Giving Aid and Comfort

The U.S.-Israeli relationship has proven itself a consistent threat to our national security. That peril has only worsened with time. Tel Aviv’s massive land grab in 1967 was not “defensive”— as Israeli leaders have since conceded. That assault on its neighbors was a long-planned seizure of territory that Zionists see as rightly theirs as part of Greater Israel.

That attack provoked precisely the reaction that any competent war-planning game theorist could foresee as Israeli conduct outraged everyone in the region. As Israel’s loyal ally, the U.S., was widely perceived as guilty for our unfailing support of an expansionist agenda that the Pentagon urged we shut down in 1948.

In advising President Harry Truman against recognition of this extremist enclave as a legitimate state, the Joint Chiefs detailed the Zionists’ “fanatical concepts” including their plans for “military and economic hegemony over the entire Middle East.” Our military was correct.

Facing a decline in his approval ratings and depleted campaign coffers in the lead-up to his 1948 presidential race, Truman put his signature on a two-sentence note that on May 14th gave the Zionists what they sought: U.S. recognition. That decision began a “special relationship” that has proven consistently harmful to U.S. interests.

The Truman campaign train was then “refueled” with $400,000 from grateful Zionists ($3.6 million in 2010 dollars). As editorial support from pro-Israeli media shifted in Truman’s favor, his approval surged long enough for him to prevail in November over New York’s Tom Dewey.

Absent the Holocaust, Truman could not have recognized Zionism as a lawful basis for a sovereign state in Palestine over intense opposition from Secretary of State George Marshall, the Pentagon, the State Department Policy Planning staff and the Central Intelligence Agency. All were adamantly opposed, as were members of the U.S. diplomatic corps. They knew better.

While the politics of campaign finance clearly played a role, Truman also acted out of humanitarian and religious concerns informed by his Christian Zionist upbringing in rural Missouri where he famously read the Bible cover-to-cover five times by age 15.

His decision was also shaped by sentiments developed as a youngster steeped in a fundamentalist Baptist theology that revered the Jews’ “return to Zion” as a prerequisite for the return of the Christian messiah.

Fast forward to 2001 when, in reaction to the provocation of a mass murder on U.S. soil, another Christian Zionist (G.W. Bush) was predisposed to support a military response that coincided with an expansionist agenda long sought by those our military earlier described as fanatics.

The Six-Day Land Grab

In the minds of those who comprise the Jewish Diaspora, the Six-Day War of 1967 reactivated the mental and emotional insecurity associated with the fascists of WWII. In combination, those two events catalyzed a worldwide “internal Diaspora” based on:

  • Nationalism—a shared emotional bond among those persuaded they share an identity of interest between themselves and a piece of real estate on which they may never set foot. After the Six-Day War, the state of Israel became the Land of Israel based on the more expansive area it occupied and the additional territory it has yet to seize.

  • Insecurity—a shared sense of vulnerability and victimhood as Jews saw themselves pitted against a widely marketed and steadily shifting threat. After September 2001, the 1967 “Arab Ring of Steel” morphed into the threat of “Islamo-fascism.” When, as now, Israeli policies come under attack, media campaigns claim an outbreak of “anti-Semitism.”

Throughout this saga, certain facts have been taken for granted that are now being questioned. The Zionist premise of the Right of Return relies on an historical account now under scholarly assault. In The Invention of the Jewish People, Israeli historian Shlomo Sand challenges the factual accuracy both of the Exile and the Exodus, thereby putting in question the legitimacy of the Return, the moral foundation for Israeli statehood in Palestine.

As Egyptologists point out, this ancient civilization records little of an Exodus even though Egyptian kings were meticulous in documenting details of their monarchies. How then did such a cataclysmic event as the parting of the sea and the drowning of a mighty king along with his army pass undocumented by the Egyptians while filling an entire chapter of the Torah? Where does fact end and fiction begin?

Christians and Muslims were weaned on similar oral histories. Both faiths are derived from Judaism, an earlier religion also “of the book.” Yet the two derivatives were induced to wage war with each other by those long skilled at displacing facts with what a targeted populace can be deceived to believe—as with the fabricated “facts” about Iraq WMD, Iraqi ties to Al Qaeda, Iraqi mobile biological weapons labs and so forth. All were false. Yet all were widely believed.

A Promised Land of Myth-Makers and Story Tellers

Bound by a shared anxiety and the allure of a Promised Land offering refuge through a Right of Return, Israel initially emerged as a shared mental state. In 1948, that mental state emerged as a physical “homeland” in Palestine offering residency for those it considered “Jewish.”

In combination, the Holocaust and the Six-Day War made Zionism a geopolitical possibility. Without the fascist abuses of WWII, Truman’s recognition of Zionism as a legitimate state would have proven impossible. Absent the 1967 war, moderate Jews would have continued their opposition to a “Jewish state” as a barrier to assimilation and contrary to their values.

By regarding an enclave of religious fanatics as an entity on a par with other sovereign nations, forces were set in motion that were destined to discredit and endanger the U.S. Anti-Zionist Jews rightly worried that this expansion-seeking “state” would imperil the broader faith tradition by enabling all Jews to be portrayed as foreign agents of an aggressor nation.Moderate Jews saw that charges of “dual loyalty” could be deployed to impugn by association even those Jews appalled at what Israel was destined to become—as the Pentagon predicted.

Meanwhile pressure from the Israel lobby discredited the U.S. worldwide by ensuring Congressional indifference to six decades of Palestinian suffering. Adding insult to injury, the lobby again prevailed by persuading Congress to proclaim this “unbreakable bond.”

Turning Fiction to Fact

Tel Aviv’s 1967 land grab also enabled the “Israelites”—with support from their Christian Zionist allies—to occupy territory that Jewish Zionists consider theirs—because they are Jewish.

Thus the strategic necessity to oppose anyone who challenges either Israel’s retention of occupied land or its seizure of more territory for a more expansive Land of Israel. Or, as Jewish fundamentalists argue, the “redemption” of land that is rightly theirs as The Chosen of God because the land they occupy was given to them—by a god of their own choosing.

Thus also the need to maintain an aggressive strategy that seeks to discredit, isolate, ostracize or marginalize anyone critical of Tel Aviv’s expansionist policies – even when those policies undermine the prospects for peace essential to protect U.S. interests in the region. Thus the perilous timing of this Congressional pledge of allegiance to an “unbreakable bond.”

Israel’s treatment of its Muslim neighbors has long been appalling. Yet it is clear to all but the willfully blind that Israeli behavior is enabled by its “special relationship” with the U.S. This latest pledge makes it appear that Israeli conduct is condoned and even welcomed by Americans—with precisely the effect on U.S. troops that the Israel lobby could anticipate. The perilous impact of this pledge on U.S. national security makes the lobby’s conduct reprehensible.

Americans who want to restore our national security must hold accountable under the law those pro-Israelis who conspired to displace the facts essential to informed choice with the false beliefs that took us to war in Iraq. We also must ensure that never again are foreign interests allowed to exert such control over what little remains of “our” representative government.

The Israel lobby should be forced to register as foreign agents subject to all the restrictions that implies, including a dramatic reduction in the funding it provides to Congress.

In practical effect, those Senators and Representatives who recently pledged their loyalty to Israel gave aid and comfort to an enemy within. Those who led this latest dual loyalty effort are adhering to an enemy and should rightly be indicted for treason while this nation is at war.

That crime, for good reason, was made a capital offense by those who founded this nation to protect our freedom as Americans from those who manipulate beliefs to influence behavior.

This behavior—traceable to a common source—has long undermined our national interest and endangered our military. Those elected to the Congress face a stark choice: either defend this nation and support our troops or resign.

Those who do not resign risk a charge of treason when a long-deceived American public grasps that this pledge of allegiance was made while our military remains at risk based on intelligence fabricated by those to whom Congress just pledged an unbreakable bond.

An informed public will see the signatories of this pledge as prime suspects when federal law enforcement turns to identifying and indicting those complicit in enabling this ongoing treason.

Any American not outraged is not yet fully informed. Members of the military, both active duty and retired, should let an ill-informed public know what is being done in their name.

Posted in UncategorizedComments Off on DUAL LOYALTY REVISITED



Guilt by Association explains how the U.S. was deceived by elites and extremists to wage war in the Middle East. It also describes how both deception and self-deceit were essential for this criminality to succeed.

This first book in the Criminal State series makes treason transparent so that national security can be restored and financial security protected from the transnational criminal syndicate chronicled in this account.

The book also shows how guilt by association was deployed to discredit the U.S. by its entangled alliance with the state of Israel. And how association is routinely used as a political tool either to accredit or discredit.

View the Table of Contents

View the Index

Read the Introduction

Read Ch. 4: McCain Family Secret: The Cover Up

Read Ambassador Kilgore’s Review

“Breathless just reading it.” – Noam Chomsky, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Explosively revelatory, powerful, compelling and certain to be highly contentious.”
– Ambassador Ed Peck, Deputy Director, Cabinet Task Force on Terrorism, Reagan White House; former Chief of Mission, Baghdad

“Magnificent, timely and persuasive.” – Paul Findley, Member of Congress 1961-1983 (first member openly removed by the Israel lobby)

“Brilliantly provocative.”- Ambassador Andrew Killgore, publisher, Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (review in October 2008 issue)

Posted in UncategorizedComments Off on GUILT BY ASSOCIATION



Helen Thomas: A Casualty of Zionist Duplicity

June 17, 2010

by Michael Leon

Guilt by Association, by Jeff Gates

By James M. Rockefeller in Criminal State

Zionist operatives ambushed veteran White House correspondent Helen Thomas, a friend and a great American. When they won, America lost.

When reviewing the unedited video of her “interview,” what you see is a rabbi rephrasing her answers to a question about Israel. Her response: “They should get the hell out of Palestine.“ The United Nations long ago endorsed that stance.

It was not Thomas but the rabbi that offended the Jewish community. Language cited as “anti-Semitic” came not from her but from responses that the rabbi restated as leading questions. She simply spoke the truth: Jewish settlers should leave the occupied territories and, as she rightly said: “go home.” 

The rabbi, an operative for the Anti-Defamation League, knew what he was doing when he ensnared this frail and distinguished 89-year old journalist. The ADL and other Zionist strategists have long sought her removal from this influential position. 

Preview Guilt by Association by Jeff Gates

This operation was carried out as part of Jewish Heritage Week, a first in White House history. Nothing was said about the perils to which America has long been subjected due to its entangled alliance with the Jewish state.

The campaign to force Thomas’ removal was led by former Bush White House press secretary Ari Fleischer. Recall that Fleischer is the Zionist insider who repeatedly insisted that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

How did those seeking recognition for their “Jewishness” repay the trust of a nation and its people? Zionist operatives targeted the only reporter who challenged Israel’s nuclear weapons program. By bushwhacking her on the White House lawn, Zionists reconfirmed that they are, in fact, in control. 

No one dared mention how Zionist Heritage has ravaged America from within. Or how Zionism was aided by a series of pathetic presidents and advisers offering their unflinching support for an increasingly unstable Israeli leadership. 

The Tel Aviv Two-Step

In the same news cycle when the current White House press secretary portrayed Thomas’ remarks as “reprehensible,” nothing was said about the Turkish-American teenager shot in the head when Israeli forces boarded a Gaza relief flotilla. As “our” media fixated on Ms. Thomas, the public’s attention was diverted from that murder.

What is reprehensible is this: no U.S. journalist has shown the courage to challenge a U.S. president on Israel.  When President Obama gave his first news conference, it was Helen Thomas who asked which country in the Middle East has nuclear weapons. Rather than reply, he did the Tel Aviv Two-Step and avoided her question.

That’s a key reason an ADL operative targeted her. The strategic objective: to serve notice that NO ONE can pose honest questions about the many perils that the U.S.-Israel “special relationship” poses to the security of the U.S. and other nations. 

Why Now?

When the latest “terrorist incident” fizzled in Times Square, the U.N. was then advancing an agenda pursued by President John F. Kennedy in the 1960s: a Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction. In a historic U.N. vote, even the U.S. agreed—over Israeli objections—to make the Middle East a Nuclear Free Zone.

That treaty would mandate that Israel dismantle its nuclear arsenal. An idealistic young U.S. president was vigorously pursuing that goal when his life was brought to an abrupt end. As the first woman to serve as a White House correspondent, Helen Thomas knew Kennedy as the first of ten presidents she covered over five decades.

This history was well known to those who brought her truth-seeking career to an abrupt end. That’s why she was ambushed.  She was the last mainstream American journalist who dared question a U.S. President about Israel’s nuclear weapons.

Had Zionists not removed her, they knew she would have asked President Obama: “When is the U.S. going to pressure its ally to give up a nuclear arsenal estimated to be in excess 200 nuclear warheads?”

Zionists won this round. No remaining White House correspondent is likely to ask the hard questions about Israel’s impact on America’s national security interests. ADL operatives, acting on behalf of a foreign government, made sure of it.

Meanwhile, Barack Obama’s love fest with the Jewish state continues while Zionist policies persist in undermining America’s credibility and endangering U.S. troops abroad. 

Today’s White House resident resembles previous occupants in his inability to say no to Zionist demands. By his silence, he enabled an agent of a foreign government to silence one of America’s most trusted voices covering the White House.

Helen Thomas knows the scope and scale of Zionist operations inside the U.S. She saw it firsthand through ten presidencies from both major U.S. political parties.

By silencing this voice of truth, Israel’s goals were advanced. Now the American public can once again be denied the facts they require to make informed choices.

 – An international businessman, Mr. Rockefeller resides in Arizona –


Posted in UncategorizedComments Off on H.THOMAS: A CASUALTY OF ZIONIST DUPLICITY



June 17, 2010

by Gordon Duff

By Gordon Duff

In a humorous segment on the Colbert Report, a comedy news show, Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren described to the audience the killing of nine Turkish citizens in the Israeli attack on the Mavi Marmara, a Turkish registered ship in the Freedom Flotilla.  Only hours before, the Flotilla had stopped to honor an American Naval ship, the USS Liberty, attacked by Israel with 34 killed and 171 injured. 

 Israel claimed the the American sailors, on a new $43 million dollar communications ship were also terrorists and had been carefully recognized and killed, using machine guns, cannons, napalm and torpedoes.  Later, Israel claimed at first that the incident had been done by another country and, later still, claimed it was all a misunderstanding.

Ambassador Oren indicated he was clear this time.  The men killed had been selected by Israeli troops and executed as terrorists.  He said Israel had conclusive proof that the nine killed had been active in terrorist organizations, were carrying guns and had shot several IDF personnel. 

 Oren never indicated how the 9 killed were selected or if they were known in advance.  Previously, Israel had claimed the killings were defensive and the victims unknown to them.  Oren’s claims that the victims were proven terrorists is a significant alteration in Israels account.

However, films of the attack indicated something quite different.  On examination by Jim W. Dean of Heritage TV, a former US Intelligence Official specializing in analysis of video and voice evidence, it was noted that the films had been altered and the people identified as terrorists were actually Israeli citizens, paid actors, who were put onto the video using a primitive and highly ineffective special effects process not used since the Godzilla films.  Dean describes the films:

These Photo shopped videos were done so poorly as to be almost comical if they were not done to cover up murders. You will have to watch the video several times to really visually catch their mistakes. Don’t be afraid to use the pause button to study the images.

The ending scenes on the fantail immediately struck me as a studio shoot. The lighting was way to bright for a ship in that situation. The actors…well…they did a really poor job. In the real videos you see more confusion…the clothes are not right. If was a completely staged event, even down to the tiny slingshot one guy raises up so it can be noticed. Also, the camera is stationary (on a tripod)…a huge mistake.

Though information on the alteration of both the films and video recordings of the incident were available to Colbert, he failed to bring this up to Orin.  Colbert, as part of what could be described as an attempt at comedy, demonstrated fear of retaliation by Ambassador Oren were the interview to become confrontational.

When asked how an obviously faked film could be presented on news networks and individuals such as Oren could be allowed to make wild accusations against murder victims without being “called” on it, Dean replied:

The real news here is how such an obvious fraud was pipelined into American mass media. Any experienced news video editor would have spotted the obvious fraud on these tapes. But they pushed it right out onto unsuspecting Americans who wrongly think that mass media would not pedal something they know to be totally bogus. And how wrong they are.  But it gets worse.

Our Intel and security agencies always do frame by frame analysis of important video material like this. They also had to have spotted this…yet they did not warn the American people that this was a fraud. Why not?

The answer is that Israel espionage has penetrated American government, media, politics, and even our security institutions to the point that the Zios have no fear of those responsible for our national security protecting us from the Israeli 5th column operating here. They are protected by powerful interests.

With hours of video smuggled out and analysis indicating that Israel forces had never met armed troops, and that Oren’s statements made on national television were totally false, networks in the US have still remained silent.

Video supplied by the Israeli government for news distrubution but debunked by CIA experts was offered to the Colbert show to be used in rebuttal for the statements made by Ambassador Oren.  Actor Stephen Colbert has yet to respond.  Colbert was asked to comment on his interview.  When asked if he feared violent reprisals from Israel if he had taken a more confrontational tone with Oren, Colbert refused to comment.

However, it is noted that Colbert finished his interview with Ambassador Oren with a statement made that seemed to condemn famed journalist Helen Thomas.  Colbert, in a “wink and nod” way, condemned Thomas for making the statement last week that Jews in Israel “should return to Germany or Poland or wherever the come from…”

Colbert said he thought that was ‘reprehensible.”

Colbert then turned to Ambassador Oren and said, “Sir, shouldn’t the Palestinians be subject to the same thing, shouldn’t they be forced to return to where they came from?”

On hearing this, Oren nearly swallowed his tongue.  After a stuttering recovery, Oren went onto a short “canned” tirade about Palestinians living where Israelis put them, end of story.  Maybe Colbert had reason to be afraid.  Was this enough to put him in danger? 

We thank Stephen Colbert for his clever and effective ambush of Ambassador Michael Oren.

Posted in UncategorizedComments Off on ZIO=NAZI AMBASSADOR: WE EXECUTED THEM!



Wow – over 900,000 of us against whale killing! The pressure is working but the next 72hrs are crucial, let’s get to 1 million! Forward this email to everyone you know:

Dear friends,

The international vote that could legalize commercial whale hunting is hours away. 900,000 of us have signed the petition, and an Avaaz team is on the ground — let’s super-charge this campaign by hitting 1 million signatures! Click below to act now, then forward this message:

In one week, the International Whaling Commission will hold its final vote on a proposal to legalize commercial whale hunting for the first time in a generation.

The outcome rests on whose voices are heard most clearly in the final hours: the pro-whaling lobby — or the world’s people?

More than 900,000 of us have signed the petition to protect whales — let’s get to 1 million!! At the whale summit in Morocco , an Avaaz team is setting up billboards, front-page newspaper ads, and a giant, constantly-updating petition counter — all to ensure that delegates, from the moment they step off the plane until they cast their votes, will see from our explosive numbers that the world will not accept legal whale slaughter. Click to sign, and forward this email to everyone:

Thanks to the worldwide outcry, many governments have already pledged to oppose the proposal. Each time the Avaaz whale petition added 100,000 signatures, it was sent again to the IWC and key governments — some of them thanked us, and Australia’s environment minister is set to accept the petition personally in the midst of the tense talks.

But pressure from the other side has been relentless — a newspaper investigation has triggered revelations about Japan effectively bribing small nations with aid. Other governments, especially in Europe and Latin America , could abstain… or even support the proposal. The vote could go either way.

Citizen pressure is our best hope — and it’s working. The whaling lobby expected to win easily, but thanks to actions like ours, champions of the ban are standing strong. It was an explosive worldwide social movement in the 1980s that led to the commercial whaling ban we’re now protecting. Now civil society access to the talks is being limited, so this powerful petition campaign is a vital channel of worldwide pressure in the final 72 hours of negotiations.

Let’s deliver 1 million signatures inside the talks before it’s too late! — sign now and spread the word:

After the global ban was first implemented on commercial whaling, the number of whales killed each year plummeted from 38,000 per year to just a couple of thousand. It’s a testament to the power of humanity to move forward. As we move to confront the other crises of the modern age, let’s cherish this legacy of progress — by joining together now to protect our majestic and intelligent neighbors on this fragile planet.

With hope,

Ben, Ben M, Maria Paz, Ricken, Benjamin, David, Graziela, Luis, and the whole Avaaz team

P.S.: Despite the ban, Japan , Norway , and Iceland have continued whaling — and are now pushing to make the IWC proposal as lenient as possible. Expecting permission to catch more whales than ever, Japan is reportedly planning to buy its largest whaling ship yet. Click here to sign the petition against commercial whaling!


IWC Voting on Whale Hunting Moratorium Next Week

“IWC whaling proposal ‘offensive'”, New Zealand Herald

“Flights, girls and cash buy Japan whaling votes” – a new exposé by the Times of London

The other side: IWC Chairman defends whaling proposal

“Nations Push To Develop New Whale-based Products” – anticipating the end of the whaling ban, whaling nations planning whale-based products including golf balls and detergent

Posted in UncategorizedComments Off on STOP WHALE HUNTING

Shoah’s pages