Archive | July 28th, 2011

Jewish Medic refuses to treat Sudanese refugee injured in traffic accident


by crescentandcross

Upon arriving at the scene of the accident, the medic looked at the injured man and refused to treat him, stating that doing so would go against “standard procedure”.

A medic working at Bank Hapoalim refused on Thursday to treat a Sudanese refugee who was injured in a traffic accident near the central Tel Aviv branch.

The refugee was struck by a taxi while he was riding his bycicle along Tel Aviv’s Rothschild Boulevard with a friend. The refugee was was thrown from his bycicle and began bleeding from his head.

The accident occurred only meters away from the entrance to the central Tel Aviv branch of Bank Hapoalim. A guard at the entranceway witnessed the accident, and immediately called for an ambulance, as well as another guard who was trained as a medic.

Upon arriving at the scene of the accident, the medic looked at the injured man and refused to treat him, stating that doing so would go against “standard procedure”. The two guards began arguing until the medic asked the guard to leave the premises. After approximately four minutes, an ambulance arrived and took the injured man in for tests and medical treatment.

In response to the incident, Bank Hapoalim released a statement saying that security guards are responsible for treating “any injured person”, and that during this specific incident the guard claimed he left the injured man “upon arrival of the ambulance”.

However, eyewitnesses claimed that both the medic and the guard left the area four and a half minutes before the arrival of the ambilance, and did not remain to ensure that the injured man’s condition did not deteriorate.

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Jewish Medic refuses to treat Sudanese refugee injured in traffic accident

Face of Defense: Soldier Sees Progress in Iraq


by Army Spc. Kandi Huggins U.S. Division North

CONTINGENCY OPERATING SITE WARRIOR, Iraq, July 26, 2011 – Since the onset of Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003, thousands of soldiers have witnessed progress throughout their deployments to Iraq.

For Army Sgt. Kevin Chapman, a squad leader with the 1st Infantry Division’s Company D, 2nd Battalion, 12th Cavalry Regiment, 1st Advise and Assist Task Force, being a part of the transition from Operation Iraqi Freedom to Operation New Dawn has shaped his career as a soldier.Chapman said he always wanted to serve in the armed forces, and enlisted in the Army in 2005.

“I joined the Army to try to make a difference for my country,” the Conyers, Ga., native said. “I knew it was something I could make a career out of and do for the rest of my life.”

From 2005 to 2007, Chapman said, he was as a gunner for the mortar platoon with the 1st Armored Division’s 1st Battalion, 36th Infantry Regiment, from Friedberg, Germany. He later was tasked as the radio and telephone operator in the fire direction center.

After the deployment, Chapman was reassigned to Fort Hood, Texas, where he currently serves.

After deploying twice during the middle and latter parts of Operation Iraqi Freedom, Chapman said, his current Iraq tour in support of Operation New Dawn is different because of U.S. forces’ current role to advise Iraqi security forces.

“During my first deployment we did presence patrols and terrain denial,” said Chapman. “We would go out to show we were there, and we were a force. We were more aggressive during [my first tour], and we didn’t work directly with the [Iraqi forces].”

Chapman said he saw the transition in operations begin during his second deployment in 2008.

“In 2008 and 2009, I witnessed transition,” he said. “After the agreements between the U.S. and Iraq, we had to have an [Iraqi] counterpart with us, and we worked closely with them, training them on how to shoot mortars.

“Instead of being the dominant force and telling them what to do and how to do it,” he added, “we asked for suggestions and their opinions on the training we gave.”

U.S. and Iraqi forces cooperated and combined strengths to develop training and mission schedules, while Iraqis took the lead, Chapman said.

Army Spc. John Charles, one of Chapman’s squad members, said prior experiences definitely influence Chapman’s ability to be a great leader.

“He gets a lot of responsibility dumped on him, more than anybody else, and he handles it with a sense of humor and a pride about him that I’ve not seen from another soldier,” said Charles, a Houston native.

Chapman consistently performs above his current rank, Charles added.

Now, with the mission of an advise and assist task force, Chapman said it is important for U.S. forces to teach the Iraqi forces to maintain an active presence in their country.

“We want them to take the reins, step in and continue taking over everything we do,” Chapman said. “It’s important for us to teach and show them, and hopefully when we leave, they will be better able to utilize the training we’ve given them, and it will continue making them better.”

Posted in Iraq1 Comment

Even Birds Have Withdrawn From Afghanistan


by David Swanson


Comparing the brain sizes of migratory birds and U.S. presidents may not help explain this one.  Birds have been avoiding Afghanistan for some years now.  Afghans with higher educations have been leaving for decades.  War profiteers, and occupation profiteers, and “reconstruction” profiteers seem to know their way out.  But imperial rulers, whether British or Soviet or U.S., seem utterly incapable of withdrawing other people’s kids from Afghan wars until no other option remains.

Speaking with Afghans via Skype over the weekend, I heard their top concern as avoiding a “strategic partnership agreement” that includes permanent U.S. military bases.  This concern seems not to diminish in the slightest if the bases are called “enduring” or “stable” or anything other than permanent that means permanent.  The top concern of the Pentagon, and of the President who works for it, and of the Congress that does what the President tells it, is clearly the exact opposite: establishing permanent bases.  Americans fantasizing that President Obama has said everyone will be gone in 2014 need to go back and read the transcripts of his speeches.

The desire of the majority of U.S. citizens, on the other hand, seems to be to end the “war.”  If the occupation could last forever, but involve less financial cost and less cost in U.S. lives, even if Afghans continued to die and hostility continued to build, I’m not sure my country wouldn’t favor that.  We’re against particular wars when the patriotic pomp wears off, but are we against the ever-growing and ever-weakening empire of bases we fund without comment smack in the middle of a manufactured spending “crisis”?

I’ve long been a huge fan of Howard Zinn’s “A People’s History of the United States,” but only recently did I read Chris Harman’s “A People’s History of the World.”  Harman starts with what we can discern of prehistory before describing the first civilizations.  Long before he gets to what we call the year zero, and then building ever more through the end of the book, a pattern emerges not entirely unlike that in Paul Kennedy’s “The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers.”  As civilizations in various ages, on every continent, develop, they often grow top-heavy.  They stop investing in what made them grow.  They stop caring for their infrastructure and for the mass of their people.  They start dumping more and more of their resources into an extremely wealthy minority and into wars.  This is not some sort of natural cycle.  Some cultures do it right away, some not for millennia.  Some start to do it and pull back.  Some slide slowly into it.  But eventually, if you wait long enough, everybody seems to get there.  Whether increased awareness of this pattern can help prevent it remains to be seen.

Empires’ path to the graveyard may be examined particularly well in the graveyard of empires, Afghanistan.  Edward Girardet has been reporting from Afghanistan since 1979, and has just published an account of that entire period, called “Killing the Cranes: A Reporter’s Journey Through Three Decades of War in Afghanistan.”  I highly recommend it.  Girardet’s focus is on Afghanistan, a nation whose fate was dramatically worsened by the Soviet invasion, again dramatically worsened by the Soviet withdrawal and what followed, and yet again devastated by the U.S. occupation.  Afghanistan just cannot seem to catch a break.  But the flip side of this story is the damage that the USSR and US have done to themselves in the process.

Girardet’s story of national tragedy begins pre-Soviet invasion, with Kabul an international city, its people fashionably dressed in western clothes, rock music blaring out of cafes.  One could have imagined the 1980s as a time of tourism rather than what it was, a time of genocide.  The Soviets deliberately made conditions unlivable in Afghanistan, so that its fourteen to fifteen million people would leave, die, or obey.  Sayed Abdullah, the Khalqi commander of Kabul’s Pul-e-Charki prison, announced in a party speech: “A million Afghans are all that should remain alive — a million communists.  That’s all we need.”  Girardet witnessed and reported on the exodus to Pakistan, the accompanying atrocities, and the growth of Afghans’ armed resistance.  On April 20, 1979, the communists executed over 1,000 men and boys at Kerala.  Girardet’s narrative constantly jumps back and forth in time (for example, to point out that many members of the Afghan government both in the 1980s and now were/are well known supporters of the resistance), but he fails to mention or suggest any comparison between Kerala and the Dasht-i-Leili massacre of 2001.

Back in 1979, “Western interest in media reports from Afghanistan reemerged during the Soviet-Afghan war,” Girardet writes, “only when the United States seriously upped the ante by supporting the mujahedeen in what became known as Operation Cyclone.  Well over three billion U.S. dollars (some put the figure as high as eighteen billion) of military aid was supplied, including the Stinger anti-aircraft missile.  Highly favorable coverage of how successful the United States was in helping the mujahedeen was orchestrated by Washington.  In one case, the CIA invited the publishers of Newsweek and Time for lunch.  The next week embarrassingly similar stories lauding the U.S. role appeared in the two magazines.”

Girardet describes his encounters and conversations with numerous key figures.  In one incident he is nearly lynched by a crowd in Pakistan that has mistaken him for Salman Rushdie.  In another tense scene, he and Osama bin Laden are arguing with each other, standing at some distance in the mountains, as groups of supporters gather behind each of them.  But before bin Laden and other Arabs arrive on the scene, two leaders loom largest in Girardet’s account: Ahmad Shah Massoud and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar.  Girardet describes them:

“Massoud was Tajik, and Hekmatyar Pushtun.  Massoud was a shrewd and persevering guerrilla commander whose heroes were Charles de Gaulle, General Giap, Che Guevara, and John F. Kennedy, and who had proven himself in battle.  Hekmatyar was a calculating, deceitful politician whose inspiration was Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini, but who had started out as a communist.”

Massoud also befriended Girardet, while Hekmatyar tried to kill him.  Massoud appears in this book heroic, noble, and larger than life.  He makes it a priority to avoid civilian deaths.  He welcomes foreigners.  His word is solid, his followers love him, and he risks his own life to try to achieve peace.  The United States fails to seriously support him.  Al Qaeda kills him two days before the attacks of September 11, 2001.

Hekmatyar, who is still alive, was funded by but hated the West (the United States gave him at least a half a billion dollars), sacrificed the lives of others recklessly, attacked Afghan rivals as much as Soviet occupiers, and looked out primarily for his own selfish interests.  Girardet suggests that the Pentagon may have preferred Hekmatyar largely because he spoke English.  Massoud, who spoke Dari, Pushto, Urdu, Arabic, and French, was clearly a savage barbarian who could not communicate in a civilized language.  Another theory Girardet cites is that the United States did not want the Afghan resistance to be too effective and end the war too quickly.

Girardet does not hold back about his feelings for these two men.  He recounts admirable actions by Massoud, and the time when Hekmatyar ordered Girardet killed.  The reporter immediately went to Hekmatyar’s house to confront him.  Massoud deployed several men to guard Girardet.

So, this story is very personal, but the author also employs Massoud and Hekmatyar, the lion and the hyena, as representations of all that was best and is worst about Afghan culture.  The arrival of cable television in the 1990s and early 2000s, he writes, ended the function of travelers as bearers of news.  But the arrival of foreign fighters most deeply damaged codes of hospitality and honor, introducing suicide killings and vicious religious hatred to Afghanistan, and eroding the idea of a unified Afghan nation.  The drug trade and prostitution have taken their toll as well.  The United States turned a blind eye to Saudi trafficking in human beings.  Added to these influences, the brutality of the U.S. occupation, with its disappearances and torture, has fueled horrific violence, just as earlier missteps fueled the attacks of 9-11.

Girardet faults Afghans for where they have gone wrong, as well as faulting the Saudis and the Chinese, but be reserves the most blame for Americans and Pakistanis: “By 2000, Massoud was trying to persuade the West to understand that without Pakistani support, there was no way the Taliban could continue.”  But in April and May 2001, Pakistan was sending 30 trucks a day across the border.  “On Vice President Cheney’s orders, the U.S. government also provided the Taliban with a grant worth forty-three million dollars.  While U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft later relentlessly pursued the ‘American Talib’ John Walker Lindh, a twenty-year-old Californian, as its scapegoat for consorting with the enemy, no action was ever taken against those within the Bush administration who supported the Taliban financially or with other means — including American intelligence ‘observers’ operating with the ISI.”

In 2001, Massoud made his first trip to Europe.  He warned both publicly and in private meetings with U.S. officials that al Qaeda was preparing a significant strike against the West, and that Pakistan must be pressured to end its support for the Taliban.  “The Taliban would not last a year without Pakistan’s support,” he said.

Also, four months prior to 9-11, Girardet recounts how ABC News was informed that al Qaeda was planning to hijack aircraft to attack the West.  “ABC never used this information because of pressure brought by a ‘certain intelligence agency,’ presumably the CIA which wanted the runner [the informant] returned [to Afghanistan].”

In recent years, rather than trying to improve on its understanding of Afghanistan and avoid deadly mistakes in the future, the U.S. government has put resources into trying to silence people like Girardet, including hiring the Rendon Group to draft a press release for the Afghan Ministry of the Interior accusing him of financial crimes.  A better use of U.S. resources would be paying someone to read “Killing the Cranes.”
Girardet’s book should be read for the fascinating accounts of his reporting adventures — as good as or better than “The Photographer” by Emmanuel Guibert, Didier Lefevre, and Frederic Lemercier — but also for the richness of the understanding he conveys of how Afghan culture has been changed by these decades of war, and in particular by the foreign jihadists imported to oppose the Russians.  Girardet writes with some authority when he arrives at a similar conclusion to that of just about everybody not in the pay of the Pentagon:

“Not unlike their Red Army counterparts during the 1980s, the Americans and their military allies are increasingly perceived by ordinary Afghans as an unwelcome foreign occupying force.  Their behavior and lack of cultural awareness often emerge as affronts to Afghan customs and their sense of independence. . . .  The growing resentment of Afghans toward the Western presence is not because Afghans necessarily prefer the Taliban and other insurgents, but because they have always resented outsiders, particularly those who insist on imposing themselves.  Even more disconcerting, many Afghans no longer differentiate between soldiers and aid workers.  Western policies have largely undermined the recovery process by usurping the traditional humanitarian role through the deployment of military Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) and the deployment of foreign mercenaries and private contractors with little or no understanding of the country.  Afghans also legitimately question the purpose of the United States spending one hundred million dollars a day on its military effort given that such funds might be better spent on recovery itself.”

Posted in AfghanistanComments Off on Even Birds Have Withdrawn From Afghanistan

Norway’s monster and THE question


How much was the mind of Anders Behring Breivik conditioned and warped by Zionist propaganda as peddled with the assistance of Christian fundamentalism by much of the Western mainstream media and many web sites?

by Alan Hart

It’s bad enough that Zionist propaganda has prevented a cure for the Israel-Palestine conflict, but if now that same propaganda is inspiring Europeans in Europe to slaughter their own, the future is very, very frightening.

How much was the mind of Anders Behring Breivik conditioned and warped by Zionist propaganda as peddled with the assistance of Christian fundamentalism by much of the Western mainstream media and many web sites?

Norwegian mass killer Anders Behring Breivik

In his summary of what the monster had stated behind closed doors in court, Judge Heger said he had argued that he wanted to create “the greatest loss possible to Norway’s governing Labour Party”, which he accused of failing the country on immigration and opening the door to the “Muslim colonization” of Norway and all of Europe.

There could not have been a more effective way of inflicting at a single stroke a great loss than gunning down many members of the Norwegian Labour Party’s youth wing, the Workers Youth League (AUF), which was assembled on Utoya Island.

Two days before the massacre there, and as Gilad Atzmon has researched and noted, the AUF’s leader, Eskil Pedersen, gave an interview to Dagbladet, Norway’s second largest tabloid newspaper. In it he said: “The AUF has long been a supporter of an international boycott of Israel but the decision of the last Congress demands that Norway impose a unilateral economic embargo on the country… I acknowledge this is a drastic measure but I think it gives a clear indication that, quite simply, we are tired of Israel’s behaviour.” (My own view is that behind closed doors all Western governments, including the one in Washington D.C. in the person of President Obama, are tired of Israel’s behaviour).

There are two things we know for sure.

One is that Breivik is fanatically anti Islam and pro Zionism.

The other is that Zionism’s propaganda machine has been set to work at full speed, day and night, eight days and nights a week, to demonize, discredit and destroy all who are calling and campaigning for Israel to be boycotted.

From the obscenity of the Nazi holocaust to the present, Zionism’s success in selling its propaganda lies as truth is the reason why the search for peace based on an acceptable amount of justice for the Palestinians has been, and remains, a mission impossible.

I describe the Israel-Palestine conflict as the cancer at the heart of international affairs which threatens to consume us all. It’s bad enough that Zionist propaganda has prevented a cure for it, but if now that same propaganda is inspiring Europeans in Europe to slaughter their own, the future is very, very frightening.

I don’t know the answer to my headline question but I think investigators in Norway, prosecutors and psychiatrists, must dig deep enough to find it.

Posted in CampaignsComments Off on Norway’s monster and THE question

Exclusive: Stranger than Fiction, Debt Default In Gaddafi’s Hands


Saving Gaddafi Part of Debt Deal

By Gordon Duff, Senior Editor

A deal is afoot, begun in France, moved to Britain and now taking hold in Washington to keep Gaddafi in Libya, out of power, but safe from rendition and punishment, even safe from the fate of Mubarak. 

Though unstated, the deal being brokered would secure Gaddafi in a safe haven among his own enemies, something considered unworkable by those who understand Libya’s tribal divides.  Why would a solution, knowingly impossible, gain so much momentum so quickly?  The answers are several and Gaddafi’s new backers a quite unexpected crowd, including the Tea Party element in Washington.

First, however, let’s take a look at Britain’s “new” policy on Libya.

This morning, the British government folded up, backing down from demands that Gaddafi leave Libya and face trial for war crimes.  This is how their position was publicly expressed in this article in the Mail by Jason Groves:

Ministers were accused of a major U-turn over Libya last night after William Hague confirmed Britain has dropped its demand that Colonel Gaddafi must leave the country.

The Foreign Secretary said that although the UK still hoped the tyrant would eventually face justice in the International Criminal Court, his future was a matter for the Libyan people.

Speaking at a joint press conference in London with the French foreign minister Alain Juppe, Mr Hague said the two countries were ‘absolutely united’ in backing the military intervention in Libya.

He insisted Gaddafi must leave power and ‘never again be able to threaten the lives of Libyan civilians, nor to destabilise Libya once he has left power’.

However, he stopped short of repeating previous demands that the dictator must leave the country.

Deal? The ministers said that Gaddafi could see out his days in Libya provided he relinquished power

Former foreign secretary Sir Malcolm Rifkind said allowing Gaddafi to stay in Libya was ‘less than perfect, but it might be the best available (option) under the circumstances’.
He said it was ‘not inconceivable’ that there would be a siege in Tripoli but insisted it was also possible there could be an uprising in the city if insurgents got close enough.

‘The important thing to avoid is a bloodbath in Tripoli,’ he told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme.

Behind this, there were two levels of cover stories.  The first was that Gaddafi still has 3 barrels of VX gas, produced in South Africa as part of a joint operation between that nation, Libya,Iraq and Israel.  Saddam was said to have used VX on the Kurds.

Following a trail begun by a Wikileaks cable, we were able to learn that the WMD programs in Libya had not been dismantled by 2003, as agreed upon, but the process had been held up.

In fact, Libya had agreed, in 2003, to destroy all chemical weapons. However, in this Wikileaks cable, one not made public in the United States, we learn that as late as 2011, Libya maintains its stocks of chemical weapons. Gaddafi had been allowed extensions year after year claiming he had no money.

In fact, the Daily Telegraph reported:

Scientists from Britain and America visited the chemical weapons facility as it was being built in August 2006.  The cable, a copy of which was leaked to the WikiLeaks website and seen by The Daily Telegraph, detailed a visit by the scientists to a military facility in Tajura, on the outskirts of Tripoli.

The communique reports: “US and UK experts were both told that a lab under construction at the facility would be for chemical weapons defensive purposes.”

Andy Oppenheimer, editor of Chemical and Biological Warfare Review, said the facility described in the cable was “quite clearly” being used to develop chemical and biological weapons agents.

“The Libyans may well claim that this facility is for defence, but that’s a very thin argument because in order to defend against chemical weapons you have to build them and test them first,” he said.

He continued: “Libya clearly did develop chemical weapons. There was a load of mustard gas and blistering agent that that was being destroyed under the terms of the Chemical Weapons Convention, but there are now fears that the Libyans are lying and that they have stocks which haven’t been declared.

Libya is estimated to have 13.6 metric tonnes of sulphur mustard and 556 metric tonnes of CW precursor chemicals by the OPCW.

The real story went much further with highly placed sources in the UK telling us that Gaddafi had, in the UK as he had done in France and Italy, financed political races, pouring millions into the country in a convoluted scheme cooked up with Tony Blair and American former Vice President Dick Cheney.  Companies “close to the hearts” of Blair and Cheney, BAE and Haliburton in particular, raked in hundreds of millions, even billions from Gaddafi.  This article from the Sunday Times outlines one such deal:

Tony Blair helped to secure defence contracts worth £350m and the promise of more as part of the deal with Libya that allowed the Lockerbie bomber to return home.

The deals were signed during his meeting with Colonel Gadaffi in May 2007, when the then prime minister agreed to a prisoner transfer deal between the two countries. The disclosure has led to renewed accusations that the Labour government entered into a “terrorist for trade” agreement.

Senior officials with two companies which accompanied Blair on his “deal in the desert”, left with large hardware orders under the defence accord between the two countries.

MBDA, in which British Aerospace (BAe) has a 38% stake, left with a £147m contract for anti-tank missiles and a £112m related communication system contract. General Dynamics UK (GDUK) was given a deal worth £85m to supply the Libyan army with radios which could be extended to other elements of its armed forces.

During the talks, Libya also spoke with MBDA about its intention to buy surface to air missiles, a deal which would have been worth at least £200m but later fell through. The firm was also in the running to win further lucrative weapons contracts linked to a sale by France to Libya of Rafale jet fighters.

GOP:  Gaddafi Free or No Debt Deal

The GOP has brought nearly every what they term “entitlement” to the table for deep cuts.  One area that has not been suggested, not a whisper is the $15-20 billion a year in aid to Israel, one of the worlds richest nations on a per-capita basis.  Among the cuts suggested are deep cuts in veterans benefits including health care and disability compensation, areas that have been traditionally, not only underfunded by intentionally sabotaged, particularly during the Bush administration.

Thus, finding the political wing willing to alienate this key and universally considered most deserving of American groups, disabled veterans, should be surprising unless we take a close look at recent history, “Bush” history, his history with Liyba.

The same deals that went to France, Italy and Britain, arms for sure, but more, oil and gas, exploration, pipelines, refinery expansion, went to American companies closely aligned to the Bush administration, over 300 American companies.

Moreover, Gaddafi had, for decades, invested Libya’s oil wealth, much of it in personal accounts, with the Rothschild banks in Europe, perhaps as a hedge against occasions such as those that have recently befallen him.  Chris Bollyn makes his case:

The Qaddafi family is closely tied to and invested with the Rothschild family, which raises the question: Is Muammar Qaddafi, the brutal and mercurial Libyan dictator, working with Israel’s Mossad? The evidence suggests that he is.

We need to remember that the Mossad works hand-in-hand with the Rothschild family, which controls global mining and oil production operations. Libya has the largest proven reserves of oil in Africa and exports about1.5 million barrels per day and has important refineries that supply essential petroleum products to Europe.  Let’s look at the evidence that Qaddafi is working with the Rothschild family and their intelligence agency, the Mossad.

First, Libya invested a reported $500 million into Allen Stanford’s money laundering operation that was exposed two years ago this month to be a scam in which some $8 billion disappeared. Stanford’s operation, based in Antigua and Houston, was one in which senior Mossadniks were both investors and recipients of investments from Allen Stanford. The Israeli venture capital funds which received millions of dollars from Stanford are all closely linked to the Mossad. Yair Shamir, the son of the infamous terrorist leader Yitzchak Shamir, was one of the investors in Stanford’s “bank” in Antigua.

Yair Shamir (inset), the son of the notorious Zionist terrorist Yitzchak Shamir, is chairman and managing partner of the Catalyst Fund, a Mossad venture capital fund that received tens of millions of dollars from the Allen Stanford money-laundering operation. Shamir was also an investor in the Stanford bank.

Bollyn goes further:

Qaddafi invested the $500 million in Stanford’s operation three weeks before the fund collapsed owing investors some $8 billion. The Stanford bank was reportedly a Mossad money-laundering operation funded with illegal drug profits. Libya, however, has never made a claim for the lost $500 million. Why would Qaddafi invest half a billion dollars in a Mossad-linked scam and not ask for the money back?Secondly, there is the Rothschild connection to Qaddafi, through his son Saif.

As the Daily Mail reported on February 24:

The friendship of oddball financier Nat Rothschild, 39, scion of one of Europe’s most distinguished Jewish families, with Colonel Gaddafi’s epicene son, Saif, is remarkable. Colonel Gaddafi confiscated all Jewish property in Libya when he came to power. All debts to Jews were cancelled and emigration legally prohibited. But in 2004 – the year Tony Blair befriended the Libyan madman – Gaddafi said he would discuss compensating Jews stripped of their possessions. It’s said Saif – who hoped to succeed his father – was behind these moves. A sop to Nat Rothschild?

Bollyn’s case;  Gaddafi, through his son Saif, has been partnering with the Rothschilds and courting Israel for years.  Through his Rothschild connections and reputed Jewish birth, Gaddafi has done much more than cozy up to Israel, he has also built on his power base in the United States, a base that now has control of one house of congress and is in position to blackmail President Obama.

Thus, when sources in the UK intelligence community come to us with the story that the pro-Israeli Tea Party wing of the Republican Party has put ending American military activity against Gaddafi on the table as a negotiating position tied to coming to a deal over debt default, we are not surprised.

Rothschild money put most of them in office, laundered through corporations taking advantage of new lax campaign finance rules, a huge loophole opened by the Supreme Court, one of the most controversial acts by that body in its history.

Further, as mentioned today by Alan Hart, former BBC Mideast Bureau Chief and onetime friend of Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir:

Eskil Pedersen, gave an interview to Dagbladet, Norway’s second largest tabloid newspaper. In it he said: “The AUF has long been a supporter of an international boycott of Israel but the decision of the last Congress demands that Norway impose a unilateral economic embargo on the country… I acknowledge this is a drastic measure but I think it gives a clear indication that, quite simply, we are tired of Israel’s behaviour.” (My own view is that behind closed doors all Western governments, including the one in Washington D.C. in the person of President Obama, are tired of Israel’s behaviour).

If Hart is right in his article written for Veterans Today, a divide within the US not publicly acknowledged exists, one that puts the resignation of Rahm Emmanuel as White House chief of staff in an entirely different light.

The seeming dilemma facing many is explaining why a political sector closely allied to Israel and known for its rabid Islamophobia is working so hard to save a dictator under indictment for war crimes by the ICC.  This represents the “U-turn” of all times, from universal torture and rendition and “regime change” on a whim to croc tears for a multi-billionaire dictator with secret Rothschild ties.

At stake, it seems, is the economic future of America, held hostage by Gaddafi and the very long reach of his very powerful friends.

Posted in LibyaComments Off on Exclusive: Stranger than Fiction, Debt Default In Gaddafi’s Hands

Brutally Isolating Detainees in IsraHell Prisons

by Stephen Lendman


The Al Mezan Center for Human Rights, Adalah and Physicians for Human Rights/Israel (called Mezan et al below) June 2011 report headlined, “Solitary Confinement of Prisoners and Detainees in Israeli Prisons” explains harsh and abusive conditions they endure.

For so-called “security prisoners,” treatment is especially brutal because of extreme restrictions, including when out of isolation. It affects everyone physically and emotionally, notably after long periods with no human contact.

The report focuses on one type of isolation called “separation,” whether for punitive or administrative reasons. Mezan et al calls all forms of isolation “cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment….”

As a result, it violates fundamental international laws, including:

  • – Geneva’s Common Article 3, prohibiting all forms of cruel, humiliating and degrading treatment;

  • – the International Covenant Against Torture (CAT), prohibiting it at all times, under all conditions with no allowed exceptions; and

  • – International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), stipulating that:

“All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person (Article 10.1).”

International laws unequivocally prohibit torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. Depriving detainees of human contact violates minimal conditions under which they may be held.

In fact, Israel’s Supreme Court ruled that state obligations include protecting the constitutional rights of prisoners, especially to humane treatment and dignity. According to Chief Justice Aharon Barak:

“The walls of the prison do not separate the prisoner from human dignity. Life in prison intrinsically involves a violation of many liberties that a free person enjoys. But life in prison does not require denial of the prisoner’s right to bodily integrity or protection against violation of his dignity as a person.”

In fact, Israel’s Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty protects them for everyone, including prisoners.

Types of Solitary Confinement

(1) During interrogation:

It continues throughout the process, regardless of how long. Under Israeli law, it can last 30 days prior to an indictment or as long as authorities wish with the Attorney General’s approval. For alleged security offenses, confinement includes harsh procedures, including torture and other forms of abuse.

(2) As a disciplinary measure:

Punitive isolation can be for whatever reasons authorities wish or none at all. Prisoners are held in small cells 24 hours a day with only a bed or mattress on the floor.

(3) Prolonged isolation:

Called “separation,” it’s for prisoners posing an alleged threat to others interned or threatened by them, or have mental problems severe enough to threaten other inmates.

Mezan et al’s report focuses on this type of isolation.

As of December 2010, Israel held about 150 prisoners in solitary confinement, 120 sentenced, the others awaiting it. About two-thirds were held alone, the others with another prisoner. Some have been isolated for years. About 40 are Palestinians.

According to Article 19B of Israel’s Prison Ordinance, “separation” isolation is a last resort. However, Israel’s Combating Criminal Organization’s Law permits it for disciplinary reasons, to prevent violations to prison rules, or for a violent offense.

Keeping inmates isolated for over six months requires district court approval, renewed every six months indefinitely. As a result, prisoners may remain in solitary confinement for years.

However, the UN Committee Against Torture calls the practice cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment (CIDT), violating CAT’s Article 11, requiring State parties to ensure incarceration conditions are systemically reviewed, and Article 16, obligating them to protect prisoners from CIDT procedures.

Moreover, in 1990, the General Assembly declared that isolation should be abolished or rarely used. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights also called prolonged solitary confinement a violation of Article 5(2) of the American Covenant on Human Rights, prohibiting torture, inhuman and cruel treatment of prisoners.

Numerous studies confirmed the effects, including sleep disorders, depression, anxiety, hallucinations, paranoia, disorientation, confusion, cognitive disorders, and many other humanly destructive ones. For mentally ill prisoners, the effects are devastating. When prolonged for extended periods, mental and/or physical illnesses often result.

In fact, a joint 1996 Israel Prison Service (IPS)/Ministry for Public Security solitary confinement report concluded that:

“Research findings on the issue are unequivocal and show that imprisonment in isolation (for prolonged periods) causes deep psychotic reactions.”

Since the 1990s, Physicians for Human Rights/Israel (PHR/I) has campaigned for the abolition of solitary confinement. Moreover, the Israel Psychiatric Association (IPA) agreed that prolonged isolation harms body and mind without stating an official position on the practice.

It argued for the Israel Medical Association (IMA) to decide. Its Ethical Board published a 2009 paper seeking “to balance between the needs of the state to defend its security and the security of prisoners, and the obligation to protect the health and dignity of prisoners.”

In other words, though IMA agreed on prolonged isolation’s harm, it equivocated on its practice. As a result, it passed the buck unethically to prison authorities in violation of their sworn Hippocratic Oath to do no harm. Physicians are obligated solely to patients, not prison rules or practices.

According to Mezan et al:

“A physician who is complicit in solitary confinement acts in the same improper manner as a physician who is complicit in torture. Both cause great harm to the prisoner, and in both cases, a physician’s role is to take every possible measure to prevent their occurrence.”

Isolated Palestinian Prisoners

Those held in “separation” solitary confinement remain isolated at least 23 hour a day in cells ranging from 1.5 x 2 meters to 3 x 3.5 meters. They include a toilet and shower.

Prisoners have no eye contact with other prisoners or guards. Whether or not there’s a window, almost no natural light or fresh air is gotten. Fluorescent bulbs provide lighting. Most often, television, DVD players and books are allowed, as well as the right to send and receive letters.

Inmates not called “security prisoners” have telephone use for up to one hour a day. Spotty visitation rights are given for first-degree relatives. However, Palestinians rarely ever get permission to travel to Israel, and Gazan prisoners have no visitation rights.

Many inmates are held in detention centers and prisons inside Israel, a clear violation of Fourth Geneva’s Article 76, stating:

“Protected persons accused of offenses shall be detained in the occupied territory, and if convicted they shall serve their sentences therein.”

In December 2010, a scathing Israel Bar Association report concluded that isolation conditions “in most of the various Prisons Service facilities do not meet minimal standards and are not suitable for living and certainly not for an unlimited period of time.”

Conditions for isolated Palestinians are far more severe than for Israelis. All are classified as “security prisoners” subject to cruel and unusual treatment. Many get no family visits for extended periods, even years, nor have telephone privileges.

In addition, they’re denied due process rights, including to compulsory legal representation before courts that rule on whether to extend isolation periods. They also have no access to “secret evidence” or ability to contest it. Overall, they’ve subjected to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment for extended periods up to years.

As a result, Mezan et al concluded that isolation shouldn’t be used for any prisoner “for any reason, as it undeniably causes harm to (their) physical and mental health….constitut(ing) illegal and disproportionate punishment and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.”

In fact, for Palestinian prisoners, including “security” ones, that’s precisely Israel’s intent, in violation of fundamental international law and its own.

A Final Comment

On July 21, the Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR) “strongly condemn(ed)” the Israeli Prisons Administration July 20 decision to deny Palestinian prisoners higher education henceforth.

Moreover, PCHR “call(ed) on the international community to (compel) Israel….to respect international law and (cease) systematic and continued inhumane and degrading treatment of” thousands of Palestinian prisoners.

Denying education followed followed Netanyahu’s June order to prison authorities to end what he called “advantages granted” Palestinian prisoners. Other measures taken against them include “intensifying searching (them) after forcing them to take off their clothes and placing (their) leaders….in solitary confinement.”

In response, prisoners went on hunger strikes “for sporadic days over the past two months.” Hardening already cruel and inhumane practices assures even greater barbaric treatment will be commonplace. It’s another way Israel shows disdain for non-Jews, especially Palestinian Muslims.

Posted in Human RightsComments Off on Brutally Isolating Detainees in IsraHell Prisons

Norway’s 9/11


Bali Bombing, Reported as Suitcase Nuclear Weapon

Deep Parallels Surface – Norway, 9/11, 7/7 and Bali

By Gordon Duff, Senior Editor


The greatest controversy in the world today is Israeli involvement in 9/11.  Israeli terrorists were captured with explosives in New York on 9/11, others with electronics gear. 

A planeload were flown out of the country on presidential order the next day but, in the end, Muslims were blamed and two “revenge” wars buried America.

In fact, then Mossad operations chief Mike Harari, who escaped Norwegian police in 1973, after murder charges were leveled against him for killing an innocent Muslim he misidentified as a terror suspect, is the same Mike Harari who confessed to organizing the 9/11 attacks while having breakfast with VT staffer, Dimitri Khalezov on September 12, 2001 in Bangkok.

If you don’t remember the Bali bombing of 2002, it was Australian’s 9/11 just as 7/7 was Britain’s 9/11.  These attacks were all political, all involved the same people, the same “event planners” and benefited the same players, Israel and right wing extremists in the US, Britain and Australia.  Mike Harari planned and executed the Bali bombing but he needed help, he said.  What he needed was a “fall guy” to blame and Dimitri Khalezov, former Soviet nuclear weapons intelligence officer was a perfect patsy, or so Harari believed when he approached him.

Harari was looking for help in a bombing project he was doing in Bali.  Murdering innocent people for economic and political ends can be so tiresome.  202 people died that day, Muslims were blamed, the media said it was planned in Bangkok 10 months before.  They just had the wrong “event planners.”  If Khalezov were stupid enough to join the crew, news would have gotten out.  Bali was a “suitcase nuke” bombing.

YouTube – Veterans Today –

Now, despite the fact that a “domestic terrorist” has confessed in Norway, the terror attacks there are being tied to Israel, just as with 9/11 and the 7/7 attacks in London.  The organizations in Norway and the United Kingdom, tied to the Tea Party in America, being hunted down by police are Israeli trained and funded, part of an operation tying “Islamophobia” to Christian Zionism, bringing to the surface dormant racist traditions.

YouTube – Veterans Today –

The US result was the Project for a New American Century, the Bush administration and 9/11.  In Britain, Tony Blair became an Israeli “lapdog,” joining Bush in America’s failed wars.  Britain’s “9/11″ was July 7, 2005.  Again, Muslim terrorists were blamed, another one of those predictable coincidences.  9/11 sold a decade of war, 7/7 kept Blair in office and was meant to propel the British into another Galipoli/Dieppe in Iran.

Again it was a false start and a far more dangerous enemy proved responsible, having covered its tracks carelessly, perhaps with even less skill than the Neocon/Israeli nexus responsible for 9/11.  Not long ago, responsibility for the 7/7 attack was laid at the feet of the British government and its Israeli friends.

You missed that one in the news?  Two months ago, a British jury, based on evidence presented by John Anthony “Maud Dib” Hill, found exactly that.  No, you didn’t see it in the press but you can read about it here and see the video that started one of the most controversial human rights cases in history.

After 151 days in dismal Wandsworth Prison, much of it in solitary confinement, John Anthony Hill is finally free. The crime he was accused of was the mailing of a “7/7 truther” DVD from Ireland to the United Kingdom. Yes, you are hearing me right, he was extradited from Ireland for sending a copy of the film, “Ripple Effect,” which outlines complicity by the Blair government in terror attacks that killed 56 back in 2005, including 4 “suicide bombers” now believed by many to have been murdered in a bizarre plot.

(see that “restricted” video here)

This week, a Norwegian ultra-nationalist laid down his weapons before police after having butchered 93 people.  Beyond this, we know little.  It is now clear he had accomplices, on the island, more waiting, he says, to duplicate his effort.  The puny police response, a “Keystone Cops” schtick, piling into a jalopy and then into a leaking rowboat made it all possible as did counter-terrorism officials who turned a highly focused “blind eye” to the real threat of domestic terrorism.

As the day has gone on, the search for accomplices has, overtly, crossed Norway, Sweden and Denmark.  The search has spread to the UK, to the ranks of the infamous EDL and even to the United States and the Christian Zionist community, once the “apple” of George “W” Bush’s eye.  The very real enemy, right wing terrorism, international in flavor, fascist in nature and underwritten by ultra-nationalists across Europe, closely allied to security agencies in Israel, has finally become a real target.

We have seen all this before, New York City, September 11, 2001.

Who was arrested that day?  A white van filled with explosives was stopped by police on the George Washington bridge.  The passengers, armed terrorists, were arrested and jailed.  A second white van was pulled over, 5 were arrested there.  They had been seen “photographing” the attack on the World Trade Center and openly celebrating the carnage.

The “Larynx,” a Cruise missile, circa 1925

However, no film, no digital media was seized, in fact no filming went on at all.  Why?  The “cameras” were very likely something else, laser marking systems such as those used for guiding remote controlled bombs to their targets.  Remote controlled aircraft used as weapons are old as the hills, the first dating to September 1925, yes, that old, the British  “Larynyx.   This radio controlled ramp launched plane traveled at 200 mph and was intended to be used against attacking Zeppelins.

What are the parallels with 9/11? The terrorists arrested in the “White Van” incidents were Israeli citizens, “art students” they claimed.  Months later, over the objections of the FBI, they were repatriated to Israel without criminal charges tied to 9/11.  Why?  The Abe Foxman and the ADL, AIPAC, Netanyahu, Barney Frank and the entire Israeli wing of congress demanded it.

The real 9/11 terrorists were arrested by NYPD on 9/11, two of the teams at least.  How did we honor the dead?  We released the culprits, failed to follow the leads which went, went where?  Tel Aviv?  The White House?  This is where all evidence, endless evidence, now leads and America is stuck in neutral, forever damned to a false history.  A decade later, America is foiled by two imaginary enemies, the non-existent “Al Qaeda” and the long dead CIA operative, bin Laden while a small group of half starved tribesmen has beaten the greatest military machine in history to, not a standstill, but to full retreat.  Where have I seen this before?


The initial flurry of “Islamo-blamia” died down, crushed by tons of evidence and, perhaps, the most theatrical mass murderer of all time.  Photos have been pouring onto the internet, Brevik dressed in comic opera garb, many of the photos in the monumental style of Mussolini or his young protege, Julian Assange.

Only hours after the police announced that they had captured the “lone gunman,” 6 accomplices were arrested.  They have since disappeared.

One accomplice was seen on the island, a fact pushed out of police statements but which has resurfaced.  More are sought but, more likely, the real accomplices are in government itself, inside the security services and the police.  It was that way in 1973, according to the Guardian, and it is likely that way still.

Israel’s intelligence service, Mossad, acted without Norwegian help in a botched 1973 assassination in the ski resort of Lillehammer, a national commission concluded yesterday.Norwegians have long speculated about involvement by their own police or intelligence service in the killing, which has been shrouded in secrecy for 27 years, and which has been a sore point in otherwise warm relations between Norway and Israel

The killers in 1973 were released, unpunished.  The real planners of this weeks mass murder are probably already out of the country and will remain unpunished

Mike Harari escaped prison and planned both 9/11 and the Bali bombing that we know of.  He is one of Israel’s greatest national heroes.

Who are the secret heroes this week?

Posted in CampaignsComments Off on Norway’s 9/11

BREAKING NEWS: Obama Reaction To Norway Massacre Betrays US “War on Terror” Fundamentalism


By Finian Cunningham

Global Research,

Within hours of Norway’s deadly bomb and gun attacks claiming at least 91 victims it has become clear that the horror was perpetrated by a Norwegian loner with rightwing Christian fundamentalist affiliations.

Yet President Barack Obama reacted immediately to the news of the atrocity to insinuate an Islamic connection and to justify America’s war on terror.

Obama spoke on Friday while hosting New Zealand Prime Minister John Key in the White House.

The US President said of the attacks: “It’s a reminder that the entire international community has a stake in preventing this kind of terror from occurring, and that we have to work co-operatively together both on intelligence and in terms of prevention of these kinds of horrible attacks.”

Prime Minister Key added: “If it is an act of global terrorism I think it shows that no country, large or small, is immune from that risk, and that is why New Zealand plays its part in Afghanistan as we try and join others like the United States in making the world a safer place,” he said.

On Friday evening local time, 32-year-old Anders Behring Breivik was captured by police moments after he went on a two-hour shooting rampage at a youth summer camp, killing at least 84 people, most of whom were aged between 14 and 18.

Hundreds of teenagers had gathered on the island of Otoeya, about 20 miles northwest of the capital, Oslo, for an annual summer camp organised by the Scandinavian country’s ruling Labour party.

Six-foot blond-haired Breivik was heavily armed and dressed as a policeman when he arrived on the island and beckoned the youths to assemble near him. About two hours earlier, a massive car bomb had exploded in the downtown area of Oslo ripping through government buildings and killing at least seven.

The youths on the island of Otoeya thought that Breivik was carrying out a security check in connection with the bombing in the capital. He proceeded to open fire on the campers and ran amok for nearly two hours before being arrested. There were scenes of pandemonium as the gunman chased after victims through wooded areas on the tiny resort island. Some youths dived into the water in a bid to swim back to the mainland, with Breivik shooting at those trying to escape.

The gunman is believed to have also carried out the bombing. Days before the massacre, Breivik reportedly posted a message on the internet saying: “One person with belief can achieve more than one hundred thousand without belief.”

The Norwegian is also reportedly associated with extremist rightwing groups in Northern Europe. A Christian fundamentalist, Breivik is believed to have shared rabid “Islamophobic views”.

He is said to have been living with his mother in a wealthy district of Oslo and to have run a farming business. This is how he obtained the fertilizer materials believed to have been used in making the car bomb.

The profile of Breivik that emerged minutes after the incidents was clearly that of a Norwegian citizen who acted on a deranged loner mission.

However, this did not restrain Obama or his New Zealand guest from issuing wild insinuations about Islamic terrorism. Obama is reported to have been briefed by intelligence officials before he spoke on the matter. Which makes his response an all the more odious bit of politicking to turn a horrific, tragic event into a propaganda stunt to stir up anti-Islamic fears and shore up Washington’s illegal “wars on terror”.

What should be disturbing is the level of inculcation of such irrational propaganda. It seems that every and any horror no matter how obviously unrelated to Islamic countries can now immediately be attributed by Obama and other Western leaders to “Islamic terrorists”.

It is as astounding act of reality inversion. The US leader who has taken international wars of aggression to record heights of lawlessness and who has made such a big deal of “embracing the Muslim world” nevertheless shows a disgraceful ability to prolong these wars by twisting any tragedy into a snide vilification of Islam.

Posted in USAComments Off on BREAKING NEWS: Obama Reaction To Norway Massacre Betrays US “War on Terror” Fundamentalism

Propaganda and the War on Truth Independent media strikes back


By Global Research

Global Research

This past weekend, news outlets across the world have turned their lenses to focus on the horrific events that took place in Norway on Friday, July 22. The picture that emerges is of a lone gunman opening fire at a children’s camp (latest figures indicate anywhere between 76 and 93 deaths), following a bomb explosion that claimed at least 8 lives in the nation’s capital of Oslo earlier that day.

Already we see mainstream media indiscriminately putting its spin of choice on this tragic event and, not surprising, buzzwords being tossed around casually without regard for truth or fact include everything from “Muslim terrorists” to the omnipresent propagandistic “war on terror”.

In his article on “News Without Facts“, Edward Teller lists several specific examples:

“As the story developed Friday, almost every news outlet was quick to provide experts on Muslim terrorism and how that might have a growing negative impact on Norway and Europe. On Anderson Cooper, Friday afternoon, as he had his experts on Jihadism on camera, he was being told by another person – a CNN reporter – that the shooter, possibly the bomber, was a blond Norwegian. Cooper seemed to be taken aback, turning back to his Jihad experts, who were dismissive of the new information.”

And the war on truth doesn’t stop with mainstream media; it goes right to the top echelons of America’s government. As Finian Cunningham wrote for Global Research this past weekend:

“Within hours of Norway’s deadly bomb and gun attacks claiming at least 91 victims it has become clear that the horror was perpetrated by a Norwegian loner with rightwing Christian fundamentalist affiliations.

Yet President Barack Obama reacted immediately to the news of the atrocity to insinuate an Islamic connection and to justify America’s war on terror…

Obama is reported to have been briefed by intelligence officials before he spoke on the matter. Which makes his response an all the more odious bit of politicking to turn a horrific, tragic event into a propaganda stunt to stir up anti-Islamic fears and shore up Washington’s illegal “wars on terror”.”

Such neglectful and downright manipulative reporting of a devastating event will undoubtedly be used in future to justify further US/NATO aggression against perceived “threats”, long after the truth may be revealed and rumours exposed as false speculations.

But independent media like Global Research is also waging war; it is fighting to cut through the falsehoods and bring the truth to the public. We may not be able to fully stop corporate media from capitalizing on tragedies like what took place in Norway, or block the stream of disinformation spewing forth. But what independent media CAN do is deliver the truth, unclouded by corporate interests, and driven by the need to bring about real understanding. The goals are lofty but the need is paramount.

If you agree that it’s time to fight back against media lies and disinformation, then we ask that you consider making a donation or starting a membership with Global Research to help us and our correspondents continue our efforts to deliver the truth. Your support is truly appreciated.

With best wishes,

-The Global Research Team

Posted in PoliticsComments Off on Propaganda and the War on Truth Independent media strikes back

9/11: Who Really Benefited? Fact and Not Fiction…


By Captain America

Global Research

Global Research Editor’s Note

We bring to the attention of our readers this provocative review of the strategic and corporate interests behind 9/11 including Wall Street, the Texas oil companies and the defense contractors. 

The statements in this article are corroborated by numerous studies, books, news articles and research reports published since September 2001. 

In the course of almost ten years, Global Research has conducted a detailed review and analysis of the 9/11 attacks, focussing on their broad implications as well as their historical significance. See our 9/11 and the War on Terrorism Dossier

Michel Chossudovsky

Forget so-called conspiracy theories. Instead look at reality. Dare ask yourself who actually seems to have benefited from the 9-11 calamity. In light of the debt ceiling debates and the continuous corrupt politics as usual of Washington D.C., it is time for the American people, and individual states of this federation, to look at a troubling set of facts. It seems there were “several” beneficiaries of 9-11 that don’t exactly fit the story line we were constantly fed by the propaganda machine and mainstream media as to how to connect the dots (which we were rhetorically asked to do).

Here is a list of peoples that benefited. Most of this list is factual. Some are more opinion but with strong support in reality-based argument:

1) The New York Port Authority was having difficulty renting out space in the Twin Towers. More importantly there was a huge asbestos liability. Surprisingly these Towers were sold to a new owner Larry Silverstein just three months prior—who managed to get an insurance contract for a big payout if any of the Tower buildings got hit by an airplane. This is a fact.

2) Our first international move was to bomb Afghanistan under the assumption that people there were involved. So the heroin industry of Afghanistan came back to life in a big way—that is international and local drug cartels rediscovered a gold mine of money supply. Bin Laden and the Taliban, because of their religious fanaticism, pretty much closed down the trade to a trickle. But after the bombing shake-up, people connected with the heroin trade in Central Asia reaped billion dollars rewards—including money-laundering groups of financiers—such as banksters, etc. (And this is pretty much all the U.S. military/ intelligence has really accomplished—despite all the rhetoric and high-sounding goals about exporting democracy.) This is fact and not fiction.

3) Investors of profitable corporations connected to the military industrial complex made a killing (pun intended). Obviously war has been profitable for some industries for eons as we are told by most war historians profits are an inevitable consequence of war for merchants of death yet they say profit is “not” the driving force behind war. Think again. For our American culture, since at least the Vietnam War, it seems to have become the driving force. (What else does America still manufacture?) Prior to 9/11 there was little in the way of war material inventories being depleted. But soon after 9/11 this all changed. In fact some corporate stocks immediately went up in value—as did some military contracts. Note as well that after the cold war both the Pentagon and the Intelligence apparatus should have cut their budgets in half. (But then no one would have been promoted and the Pentagon would have lost some of its clout.) That did not happen. Rather the budgets doubled in size. How is that for financial austerity? This is fact and not fiction.

4) Some powerful industry leaders and think tank politicos believed it was necessary for certain “companies” to “control” various strategic resources such as oil and gas. And not surprisingly the very countries in which we declared a war against terrorists are surprisingly the same countries that contain such resources—especially in the Middle East.

Gas and oil reserves are coveted by every industrial civilization and every military as a necessity. For example, there was a plan to build an oil pipeline through Afghanistan and Pakistan to ship out from the Indian ocean—requiring stable societies that don’t sabotage pipelines. Nevertheless despite things not going as planned oil companies for whatever reason reaped huge profits. Fact and not fiction.

5) Advocates, such as Paul Bremer, for extreme laissez faire economic policies, attempted to rewrite an Iraqi constitution to promote a free market system of neo-liberal economic principles to make it especially easy for foreign nations to own Iraq’s resources. And if you do your research you will come to learn that the U.S. did not have any gripes with Saddam Hussein until he kicked oil companies out of Iraq because they wanted to take the lion’s share of the profits. He nationalized oil. This is fact and not fiction.

6) Israel benefited by having one of their neighboring enemies, namely Saddam Hussein and his standing army, weakened and preoccupied. It is not a coincidence that advocates and newspaper pundits most defensive about our invasion happen to be strong advocates of Israel’s right-wing will. Evidence clearly shows that some Israeli supporters were part of the culture of deception to take us to war with Iraq—as they are now working to take us to war with Iran with a similar pattern of phony intelligence. Equally it is a fact that whatever Middle East group harbors hostility toward Israel is now considered terrorist in nature to Americans. It is a fact that the Israeli lobby pushed hard for war with Iraq.

7) Right-wing politicos, especially Christian and Judaic, who like to promote prejudice against anything Muslim and Arab benefited. Since 9-11 there has been a constant propaganda war against Muslims throughout Western countries. (This is not to argue that Americans should not be wary of foreign motives.) But the fact is that those who do not wish Muslims to have influence in this culture have clearly wages a major propaganda campaign for Westerners to fear and distrust a huge segment of the world’s population—as a “cultural clash” or clash of civilizations like the medieval era of The Crusades. This is to say that Israel’s enemies have become our enemies as “neocon” propaganda campaign harps on “Islamo-fascism,” “Islamo-extremism,” and “Islamo-fanaticism”. Meanwhile this event is used to further persuade Americans Israel is America’s “natural” ally and partner against the forces of evil. (Yet rightwing Israelis too are not willing to separate Church and State and so they discriminate against those not Jewish. Therefore they too do not share our democratic values of equality for “all” people—like many of the theocratic countries in the Middle East.) This is opinion but it still reflects reality.

8) Politically motivated people with the desire to use “fear,” namely terrorism, as an excuse to curtail and destroy civil liberties and freedoms normally honored in democratic countries. We have become more a fascist state with Homeland Security surveillance. This curtailment is similar to those who continue to try to censor free speech—and make it more difficult to have the right to “associate” via technologies such as the Internet. Such mentality has allowed spying on citizens by “privatized” corporations not accountable to the tax paying public who pay organizations to secretly spy and keep records on its own citizenry. Obama and his team have done nothing to make real, substantive changes, and in fact have reinforced this tyranny. The curtailment of our freedoms is fact and not fiction.

9) Some international political operatives willing to take American bribe money in exchange to playing and saying our tune have benefited, such as some political factions in the Middle East who equally play they game with our tax dollars—including journalists who will write and say whatever Uncle Sam wants as long as there is a brick of one hundred dollar bills as “disappeared” just like military contracts that did not get performed—but were still played. This could also include those creating phony websites to spew messages or take credit for events done by others.

10) People with a desire to destroy the political strength and good will of the American people and government. Our country is no longer looked upon as a “positive” force for democracy. Further our economy has been severely damaged by corrupt forces willing to sacrifice real national security to greedy and self-interested ends. We are seen as the rogue state by too many. It doesn’t seem to bother some profiting that America goes broke invading foreign countries—irrespective of what the rest of the world thinks—and what could be a long term disaster—if not a World War 3. (It almost seems like a deliberate foil to destroy military preparedness and to weaken our security.) Furthermore, those who believe in a two class system benefited because the wealth investor class, including most of the Congress and Senate, are “not” sending their kids to die—rather they rely on a volunteer military of lower and middle class kids that can’t find jobs or have few prospects to go to school.

11) Along with this financial bust is a drive to destroy liberal notions of any kind of welfare for the less fortunate—save welfare for corrupt corporations. While it is true that there is no free lunch (unless you live in the beltway) there is also way too much scorn for people who are not super-rich as deserving some kind of humanity.

Perhaps Obama should let the country default. Perhaps individual states “should” give serious consideration to secede from the Union. It has become one massive failure anyway. This litany is as contentious as the list of grievances in the Declaration of Independence written over two hundred years ago. And there is good reason to modify our current banking system and the Federal Reserve.

The U.S. Congress, like most pseudo-liberal chicken lefties, who have not had the guts to look seriously at what likely happened on 9/11, or why, have succumbed to the cowardliness of voting to not close the U.S. gulag. They are more afraid of their own lost of stature than they are of honoring the rights of law and justice. Meanwhile the legal system—id est lawyers—have been far too compliant.

This is to say that the U.S. is being strangulated by corporate America and its finance sector. This is a form of slavery to be manipulated into doing things under false assumptions. Why the ultra rich became even more so, they “own” Congress with their bribery of lobby money and especially the Republican party—despite all the Tea Party advocates.

You may not like these realities. Few do. So go ahead and continue to shun all “theories” about 9-11 as mere skewed imagination. Because while it is true that 99.99% of the Government is innocent that doesn’t mean a relatively small, but high-ranking cabal, could not have been involved—especially given all the security transgressed and air force stand down that ensued.

Still it is easy to point fingers at identifiable groups of people as over-generalizations. Nevertheless many people looked the other way to not notice the dots the machine was drawing was itself tainted—which had its own wisdom of reticence. But where are we to go as a culture if we continue to play blind?

You can believe in fantasy as most people choose—because in the short term it feels easier. But it may turn out to be worse in the longer term with both parties being irremediably corrupt. More importantly to the sell out of our human rights to corporations with laws like Citizens United vs. the Federal Elections Commission.

Good Luck to all people who think they know something because they have been conditioned to believe what they currently do. Yet ask yourself how many Muslims actually benefited? Then ask that irrespective of who did it, does it not seem that our culture has some issues to contend with and some bureaucracy to address besides the liberal agenda? If lawyers don’t start making more noise we could have some serious problems.

Posted in USAComments Off on 9/11: Who Really Benefited? Fact and Not Fiction…

Shoah’s pages