Archive | October 24th, 2012

Russia: Syria rebels have US-made weapons


A senior Russian general has said Syrian rebels now have anti-aircraft weapons, including US-made Stingers.

Gen Nikolai Makarov was quoted by the Interfax news service as saying the origin of the surface-to-air missiles should be “cleared up”.

Russia is the biggest supplier of arms to its Syrian government ally.

Aerial bombardment of rebel-held towns continued on Wednesday, as the UN’s Syria envoy prepared to brief the Security Council on ceasefire efforts.

Lakhdar Brahimi has been trying to arrange a ceasefire between rebels and government forces over the Muslim festival of Eid al-Adha, which begins on Friday.

Weapon supplies
“We have reliable information that Syrian militants have foreign portable anti-aircraft missile systems, including those made in the USA… it should be cleared up who delivered them,” Gen Makarov told journalists in Russia.

There have been earlier unconfirmed reports of the Syrian opposition having shoulder-mounted missiles, but the West has been reluctant to openly arm the rebels.

In August, Syrian rebels said they had shot down a fighter jet near the border with Iraq.

Syrian warplanes have stepped up their bombardments of rebel-dominated areas in recent months, particularly in the north of the country. Deadly air raids are now daily events in towns around the city of Aleppo.

Recent footage has emerged of Syrian opposition fighters using old Soviet SA-7 heat-seeking missiles, which can destroy a plane flying at up to 14,000ft.

US-made Stinger missiles are shoulder-mounted anti-aircraft weapons designed to target low-flying planes and helicopters.

A US decision to supply them to the mujahideen in Afghanistan in the 1980s to fight the Russians proved to be a turning point in the war.

The UN says that more than 18,000 people have died so far in the uprising against Bashar al-Assad’s government, which began in March 2011, but activists and opposition groups put the figure closer to 30,000.

Posted in USA, SyriaComments Off on Russia: Syria rebels have US-made weapons

Informant: NYPD paid me to “bait” Muslims


NEW YORK A paid informant for the New York Police Department’s intelligence unit was under orders to “bait” Muslims into saying incriminating things as he lived a double life, snapping pictures inside mosques and collecting the names of innocent people attending study groups on Islam, he told The Associated Press.

Shamiur Rahman, a 19-year-old American of Bengali descent who has now denounced his work as an informant, said police told him to embrace a strategy called “create and capture.” He said it involved creating a conversation about jihad or terrorism, then capturing the response to send to the NYPD. For his work, he earned as much as $1,000 a month and goodwill from the police after a string of minor marijuana arrests.

“We need you to pretend to be one of them,” Rahman recalled the police telling him. “It’s street theater.”

Rahman, who said he plans to move to the Caribbean, said he now believes his work as an informant against Muslims in New York was “detrimental to the Constitution.” After he disclosed to friends details about his work for the police — and after he told the police that he had been contacted by the AP — he stopped receiving text messages from his NYPD handler, “Steve,” and his handler’s NYPD phone number was disconnected.

Rahman’s account shows how the NYPD unleashed informants on Muslim neighborhoods, often without specific targets or criminal leads. Much of what Rahman said represents a tactic the NYPD has denied using.

The AP corroborated Rahman’s account through arrest records and weeks of text messages between Rahman and his police handler. The AP also reviewed the photos Rahman sent to police. Friends confirmed Rahman was at certain events when he said he was there, and former NYPD officials, while not personally familiar with Rahman, said the tactics he described were used by informants.

Informants like Rahman are a central component of the NYPD’s wide-ranging programs to monitor life in Muslim neighborhoods since the 2001 terrorist attacks. Police officers have eavesdropped inside Muslim businesses, trained video cameras on mosques and collected license plates of worshippers. Informants who trawl the mosques — known informally as “mosque crawlers” — tell police what the imam says at sermons and provide police lists of attendees, even when there’s no evidence they committed a crime.

The programs were built with unprecedented help from the CIA.

Police recruited Rahman in late January, after his third arrest on misdemeanor drug charges, which Rahman believed would lead to serious legal consequences. An NYPD plainclothes officer approached him in a Queens jail and asked whether he wanted to turn his life around.

The next month, Rahman said, he was on the NYPD’s payroll.

NYPD spokesman Paul Browne did not immediately return a message seeking comment about Tuesday. He has denied widespread NYPD spying, saying police only follow leads.

In an Oct. 15 interview with the AP, however, Rahman said he received little training and spied on “everything and anyone.” He took pictures inside the many mosques he visited and eavesdropped on imams. By his own measure, he said he was very good at his job and his handler never once told him he was collecting too much, no matter whom he was spying on.

Rahman said he thought he was doing important work protecting New York City and considered himself a hero.

One of his earliest assignments was to spy on a lecture at the Muslim Student Association at John Jay College in Manhattan. The speaker was Ali Abdul Karim, the head of security at the Masjid At-Taqwa mosque in Brooklyn. The NYPD had been concerned about Karim for years and already had infiltrated the mosque, according to NYPD documents obtained by the AP.

Rahman also was instructed to monitor the student group itself, though he wasn’t told to target anyone specifically. His NYPD handler, Steve, told him to take pictures of people at the events, determine who belonged to the student association and identify its leadership.

On Feb. 23, Rahman attended the event with Karim and listened, ready to catch what he called a “speaker’s gaffe.” The NYPD was interested in buzz words such as “jihad” and “revolution,” he said. Any radical rhetoric, the NYPD told him, needed to be reported.

Talha Shahbaz, then the vice president of the student group, met Rahman at the event. As Karim was finishing his talk on Malcolm X’s legacy, Rahman told Shahbaz that he wanted to know more about the student group. They had briefly attended the same high school in Queens.

Rahman said he wanted to turn his life around and stop using drugs, and said he believed Islam could provide a purpose in life. In the following days, Rahman friended him on Facebook and the two exchanged phone numbers. Shahbaz, a Pakistani who came to the U.S. more three years ago, introduced Rahman to other Muslims.

“He was telling us how he loved Islam and it’s changing him,” said Asad Dandia, who also became friends with Rahman.

Secretly, Rahman was mining his new friends for details about their lives, taking pictures of them when they ate at restaurants and writing down license plates on the orders of the NYPD.

On the NYPD’s instructions, he went to more events at John Jay, including when Siraj Wahhaj spoke in May. Wahhaj, 62, is a prominent but controversial New York imam who has attracted the attention of authorities for years. Prosecutors included his name on a 3 ?-page list of people they said “may be alleged as co-conspirators” in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, though he was never charged. In 2004, the NYPD placed Wahhaj on an internal terrorism watch list and noted: “Political ideology moderately radical and anti-American.”

That evening at John Jay, a friend took a photograph of Wahhaj with a grinning Rahman.

Rahman said he kept an eye on the MSA and used Shahbaz and his friends to facilitate traveling to events organized by the Islamic Circle of North America and Muslim American Society. The society’s annual convention in Hartford, Conn, draws a large number of Muslims and plenty of attention from the NYPD. According to NYPD documents obtained by the AP, the NYPD sent three informants there in 2008 and was keeping tabs on the group’s former president.

Rahman was told to spy on the speakers and collect information. The conference was dubbed “Defending Religious Freedom.” Shahbaz paid Rahman’s travel expenses.

Rahman, who was born in Queens, said he never witnessed any criminal activity or saw anybody do anything wrong.

He said he sometimes intentionally misinterpreted what people had said. For example, Rahman said he would ask people what they thought about the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya, knowing the subject was inflammatory. It was easy to take statements out of context, he said. He said wanted to please his NYPD handler, whom he trusted and liked.

“I was trying to get money,” Rahman said. “I was playing the game.”

Rahman said police never discussed the activities of the people he was assigned to target for spying. He said police told him once, “We don’t think they’re doing anything wrong. We just need to be sure.”

On some days, Rahman’s spent hours and covered miles in his undercover role. On Sept. 16, for example, he made his way in the morning to the Al Farooq Mosque in Brooklyn, snapping photographs of an imam and the sign-up sheet for those attending a regular class on Islamic instruction. He also provided their cell phone numbers to the NYPD. That evening he spied on people at Masjid Al-Ansar, also in Brooklyn.

Text messages on his phone showed that Rahman also took pictures last month of people attending the 27th annual Muslim Day Parade in Manhattan. The parade’s grand marshal was New York City Councilman Robert Jackson.

Rahman said he eventually tired of spying on his friends, noting that at times they delivered food to needy Muslim families. He said he once identified another NYPD informant spying on him. He took $200 more from the NYPD and told them he was done as an informant. He said the NYPD offered him more money, which he declined. He told friends on Facebook in early October that he had been a police spy but had quit. He also traded Facebook messages with Shahbaz, admitting he had spied on students at John Jay.

“I was an informant for the NYPD, for a little while, to investigate terrorism,” he wrote on Oct. 2. He said he no longer thought it was right. Perhaps he had been hunting terrorists, he said, “but I doubt it.”

Shahbaz said he forgave Rahman.

“I hated that I was using people to make money,” Rahman said. “I made a mistake.”

Posted in USA, CampaignsComments Off on Informant: NYPD paid me to “bait” Muslims

Joe Klein’s Sociopathic Defense of Drone Killings of Children


Reflecting the Obama legacy and US culture, the Time columnist says: “the bottom line is: ‘whose 4-year-olds get killed?’”

By Glenn Greenwald

On MSNBC’s Morning Joe program this morning, which focused on Monday’s night presidential debate, the former right-wing Congressman and current host Joe Scarborough voiced an eloquent and impassioned critique of President Obama’s ongoing killing of innocent people in the Muslim world using drones. In response, Time Magazine’s Joe Klein, a stalwart Obama supporter, offered one of the most nakedly sociopathic defenses yet heard of these killings. This exchange, which begins at roughly the 7:00 minute mark on the video embedded below, is quite revealing in several respects.

Here are the relevant portions of the exchange, which was triggered when regular guest Mike Barnicle announced how amazing he found it that so little public attention and debate is paid to the fact that Obama simply kills whomever he wants “without any kind of due process”:

SCARBOROUGH: “What we’re doing with drones is remarkable: the fact that over the past eight years during the Bush years – when a lot of people brought up some legitimate questions about international law – my God, those lines have been completely eradicated by a drone policy that says: if you’re between 17 and 30, and within a half-mile of a suspect, we can blow you up, and that’s exactly what’s happening . . . . They are focused on killing the bad guys, but it is indiscriminate as to other people who are around them at the same time . . . . it is something that will cause us problems in the coming years” . . . .

KLEIN: “I completely disagree with you. . . . It has been remarkably successful” –

SCARBOROUGH: “at killing people” –

KLEIN: “At decimating bad people, taking out a lot of bad people – and saving American lives as well, because our troops don’t have to do this . . . You don’t need pilots any more because you do it with a joystick in California.”

SCARBOROUGH: “This is offensive to me, though. Because you do it with a joystick in California – and it seems so antiseptic – it seems so clean – and yet you have 4-year-old girls being blown to bits because we have a policy that now says: ‘you know what? Instead of trying to go in and take the risk and get the terrorists out of hiding in a Karachi suburb, we’re just going to blow up everyone around them.’

“This is what bothers me. . . . We don’t detain people any more: we kill them, and we kill everyone around them. . . . I hate to sound like a Code Pink guy here. I’m telling you this quote ‘collateral damage’ – it seems so clean with a joystick from California – this is going to cause the US problems in the future.”

KLEIN: “If it is misused, and there is a really major possibility of abuse if you have the wrong people running the government. But: the bottom line in the end is – whose 4-year-old get killed? What we’re doing is limiting the possibility that 4-year-olds here will get killed by indiscriminate acts of terror.”

There are several points worth noting about this exchange:

(1) Klein’s justification – we have to kill their children in order to protect our children – is the exact mentality of every person deemed in US discourse to be a “terrorist”. Almost every single person arrested and prosecuted over the last decade on terrorism charges, when asked why they were willing to kill innocent Americans including children, offered some version of Joe Klein’s mindset.

Here, for instance, is what the Pakistani-American Faisal Shazad said after he pled guilty to attempting to detonate a bomb in Times Square, in response to an angry question from the presiding US federal judge as to how he could possibly be willing to kill innocent children:

“Well, the drone hits in Afghanistan and Iraq, they don’t see children, they don’t see anybody. They kill women, children, they kill everybody. It’s a war, and in war, they kill people. They’re killing all Muslims. . . .

“I am part of the answer to the U.S. terrorizing the Muslim nations and the Muslim people. And, on behalf of that, I’m avenging the attack. Living in the United States, Americans only care about their own people, but they don’t care about the people elsewhere in the world when they die.”

The mentality of Faisal Shazad and Joe Klein are completely identical and indistinguishable: it is justified for us indiscriminately to kill even your innocent children because doing so will help stop you from killing ours.

And here’s what Osama bin Laden had to say on the same topic:

“The call to wage war against America was made because America has spear-headed the crusade against the Islamic nation, sending tens of thousands of its troops to the land of the two Holy Mosques over and above its meddling in its affairs and its politics, and its support of the oppressive, corrupt and tyrannical regime that is in control. These are the reasons behind the singling out of America as a target. . . .

“Besides, terrorism can be commendable and it can be reprehensible. Terrifying an innocent person and terrorizing him is objectionable and unjust, also unjustly terrorizing people is not right. Whereas, terrorizing oppressors and criminals and thieves and robbers is necessary for the safety of people and for the protection of their property. . . .

“The terrorism we practice is of the commendable kind for it is directed at the tyrants and the aggressors and the enemies of Allah, the tyrants, the traitors who commit acts of treason against their own countries and their own faith and their own prophet and their own nation. Terrorizing those and punishing them are necessary measures to straighten things and to make them right. . . .

“It is not enough for their people to show pain when they see our children being killed in Israeli raids launched by American planes, nor does this serve the purpose. What they ought to do is change their governments which attack our countries.

The hostility that America continues to express against the Muslim people has given rise to feelings of animosity on the part of Muslims against America and against the West in general. Those feelings of animosity have produced a change in the behavior of some crushed and subdued groups who, instead of fighting the Americans inside the Muslim countries, went on to fight them inside the United States of America itself.”

The only difference between the Joe Kleins of the world and Osama bin Laden is that they’re on different sides. To the extent one wanted to distinguish them, one could say that the violence and aggression brought by the US to the Muslim world vastly exceeds – vastly – the violence and aggression brought by the Muslim world to the US. That’s just a fact.

(2) Leaving aside the sociopathic, morally grotesque defense of killing 4-year-olds with a “joystick from California”. Klein’s claims are completely false on pragmatic grounds. Slaughtering Muslim children does not protect American children from terrorism. The opposite is true. That is precisely what causes the anti-American hatred that fuels and sustains terrorism aimed at Americans in the first place, as even a study commissioned by the Rumsfeld-era Pentagon recognized almost a decade ago.

The reason American 4-year-olds are in danger from terrorism – to the very limited extent they are – is precisely because those empowered in US government and media circles think like Joe Klein does. Soulless cheerleaders for indiscriminate killing like Joe Klein – who once went on national television and advocated that the US should preserve the right to launch a first-strike nuclear attack on Iran in order to stop their nuclear program, prompting host George Stephanopoulos to label that statement “insane” – are the reason there is a terrorism risk to Americans, not the solution for that risk.

If you want to understand why there is such a widespread desire to engage in violence against the US, look at Joe Klein’s face and listen to his words. Every Muslim who has ever engaged in violence against the US will make that as clear as can be.

(3) This exchange is a perfectly vivid expression of the Obama legacy. Here we have a standard Democratic/progressive pundit who is one of the media’s most stalwart Obama fanatics defending indiscriminate slaughter of Muslim children. Meanwhile, it’s left to a former right-wing, Gingrich-era congressman to raise objections, call for more public scrutiny, and cite the moral and strategic dangers, one of the very few commentators on MSNBC – the progressive network – who has ever voiced such passionate criticism of Obama’s ongoing killings.

Obama has led all sorts of progressives and other Democrats to be the most vocal supporters of unrestrained aggression, secret assassinations, and “crippling” the Iranian people with sanctions. It is completely unsurprising that the most sociopathic defense of drones comes from one of the most committed Obama supporters, and that it’s now left to a former GOP Congressman to raise objections. As much as anything, that is the Obama legacy.

(4) One of the primary reasons war – especially protracted war – is so destructive is not merely that it kills the populations at whom it is aimed, but it also radically degrades the character of the citizenry that wages it. That’s what enables one of America’s most celebrated pundits to go on the most mainstream of TV programs and coldly justify the killing of 4-year-olds, without so much as batting an eyelash or even paying lip service to the heinous tragedy of that, and have it be barely noticed. Joe Klein is the face not only of the Obama legacy, but also mainstream US political culture.


Speaking of killing children, the Afghanistan government said this morning that a NATO operation on Saturday killed three more Afghan children, ones who were tending to livestock.


There’s one other vital point to be made here. Klein says that “there is a really major possibility of abuse [of drone power] if you have the wrong people running the government” – in other words, we can trust Obama with it, but not the big bad Republicans. This was precisely what Bush followers used to say about his claimed powers of due-process-free eavesdropping and detention: maybe this would be scary if Hillary Clinton could do this, but I trust Bush to use it only against the Bad Guys.

Leaving aside the authoritarian willingness to trust certain leaders with unchecked power, this is not how the US government works. Once a power is legitimized and institutionalized, then it is vested in all presidents, current and future, Democratic and Republican.

That is why Thomas Jefferson warned: “In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” Those who cheer for the unchecked power to assassinate in secret because it’s Obama who currently wields that power will be the ones fully responsible when some leader they don’t trust exercises it – abuses it – in the future.

Posted in USAComments Off on Joe Klein’s Sociopathic Defense of Drone Killings of Children

Jimmy Carter: Netanyahu has Abandoned Two-state Solution in Favor of Greater IsraHell




Times of Israel

Former US president Jimmy Carter said Monday that Israel’s current government has abandoned the two-state solution, making a “catastrophic” one-state solution increasingly inevitable. Speaking to reporters in Jerusalem, Carter endorsed the Palestinians’ plan to ask the United Nations to accept Palestine as a nonmember state, and said he hoped Israel and the US, who oppose the move, would nonetheless accept the outcome of the UN’s vote.

“We are heading towards a one-state outcome, which will fail to ensure the security and democratic rights of the people of Israel and renege on the promise of self-determination for Palestinians,” Carter said. “The two-state solution is vanishing. We urgently need a fresh approach by all parties if a Palestinian state is to be achieved.”

Carter, who is visiting Israel as the head of a delegation of former statesmen, said that all Israeli prime ministers since Golda Meir supported the two-state solution — until Benjamin Netanyahu.

“Every prime minister I’ve known has been a pursuer of the two-state solution and I don’t know that [US] President [Barack] Obama has found that prime minister Netanyahu is going to go that route,” Carter said in the American Colony Hotel in East Jerusalem. “All indication to us is that the two-state solution has basically been abandoned and we’re now moving toward a Greater Israel, or Eretz Israel, taking over all of the land between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River, which I think is contrary to the two-state solution concept.”

“That policy of promoting a two-state solution seems to be abandoned now,” Carter added. “And we’re deeply concerned about this move toward a catastrophic one-state choice — it’s not a solution, it’s a choice. This is a major concern.”

Carter, who sat in the White House from 1977 to 1981, is touring in the Middle East as a member of “The Elders,” a group of former statesmen who seek to promote peace across the globe. Carter is traveling with former Norwegian prime minister Gro Harlem Brundtland and Mary Robinson, the former president of Ireland, who both also spoke very critically of Israel.

Robinson said she had witnessed “so many discriminations and human rights concerns” during her visit to Israel.

“Each time we come, I see a real deterioration in the lives and in the situation of Palestinians,” she said. “The growth of settlements — each time it’s quite remarkable, it takes your breath away.”

Earlier on Monday, the three “Elders” met with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas in Ramallah. Abbas told them that he has decided to go ahead with the plan to ask the UN General Assembly to accept Palestine as a nonmember state in November. While Israel and the US fiercely oppose such a move, saying it doesn’t change facts on the ground and would preempt the outcome of future negotiations, Carter, Robinson and Brundtland wholeheartedly endorsed the plan, as it would give the Palestinians “a new stature.”

“My hope is that the Israelis will say: We were opposed to it but we accept it, and the same for the United States,” Carter told The Times of Israel at the press conference. “I’d hope that any country that votes against the Palestinian move or abstains, after the decision is made by the General Assembly will accept the results of the vote.”

The Elders delegation’s next stop is Cairo, where they are expected to meet senior officials, including President Mohammed Morsi. Carter said he has known Morsi for a long time and that Morsi intends to maintain the 1979 peace agreement with Israel.

Posted in USAComments Off on Jimmy Carter: Netanyahu has Abandoned Two-state Solution in Favor of Greater IsraHell

John Friend’s ‘News from the Jews’


In this week’s edition of News from the Jews, I have a few news items from Jewish newspapers and media outlets I’d like to highlight. Reading the Jewish press – as opposed to the Jewish owned mainstream press – is often quite revealing.The first article is from the Jewish Telegraphy Agency and is titled, “Israel features prominently in final debate.” We saw in the last debate how the entire tone of the conversation was set by Jews, with The Jewish Daily Forward calling it the “Jewiest debate ever.” Given that American politics is completely controlled by Jewish interests, and that both mainstream political candidates are merely servants of international Jewry and Israel, it should not surprise us that the recent “debate” between Obama and Romney was centered around Israel, with each candidate desperately seeking to prove to their Jewish masters that they are the bigger Jew ass kisser.

The U.S.-Israel alliance and the need to keep Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon were major themes in the final presidential debate.

Both President Obama and Mitt Romney said Monday during their foreign policy debate that they would stand with Israel in an attack by Iran.

“Israel is a true friend,” Obama said when debate moderator Bob Schieffer of CBS News asked the candidates whether they would see an attack on Israel as an attack on the United States. “It is our greatest ally in the region. And if Israel is attacked, America will stand with Israel.”

Romney, the Republican hopeful, concurred.

“I want to underscore the same point the president made, which is that if I’m president of the United States, when I’m president of the United States, we will stand with Israel,” Romney said at the debate at Lynn University in Boca Raton, Fla. “And if Israel is attacked, we have their back, not just diplomatically, not just culturally, but militarily.”

Along with Iran, China, Afghanistan, Syria and Pakistan, Israel was among the most mentioned countries at the debate. […]

“It is absolutely true that we cannot just beat these challenges militarily,” Obama said, “and so what I’ve done throughout my presidency and will continue to do is, No. 1, make sure that these countries are supporting our counterterrorism efforts; No. 2, make sure that they are standing by our interests in Israel’s security, because it is a true friend and our greatest ally in the region.”

Romney later accused Obama of distancing the United States from Israel.

“I think the tension that existed between Israel and the United States was very unfortunate,” Romney said in arguing that he would better stand by U.S. allies.

Obama countered that during his presidency, military and intelligence cooperation with Israel was “unprecedented.”

Israel returned as a topic in one of the debate’s most heated exchanges when Romney reminded Obama that he had not visited the country during a 2009 Middle East tour.

“By the way, you skipped Israel, our closest friend in the region, but you went to the other nations,” Romney said. “And by the way, they noticed that you skipped Israel.”

Obama responded by first noting that he had visited Israel and U.S. troops abroad as a candidate — a reference to criticism of Romney for not visiting troops during his campaign travels abroad. He also attacked Romney for organizing a fundraiser during his own Israel trip in July.

“And when I went to Israel as a candidate, I didn’t take donors, I didn’t attend fundraisers, I went to Yad Vashem, the Holocaust museum there, to remind myself the — the nature of evil and why our bond with Israel will be unbreakable,” Obama said.

The second news item also comes from the Jewish Telegraph Agency, and is titled, “Jane Fonda to host Holocaust event on sexual violence.” Here we have yet another event to perpetuate the mythology of the Jewish “Holocaust” and Jewish persecution.

Jane Fonda will host an event in Los Angeles focusing on sexual violence during the Holocaust.

More than 200 people are expected for the invitation-only event on Nov. 8 at the Ray Kurtzman Theater. The event is sponsored by the USC Shoah Foundation and Remember the Women Institute.

Fonda, an award-winning actress and a political activist, was asked to be involved because she is active with programs and charities that deal with genocide and gender, a source familiar with the event told JTA. Fonda will read aloud works from Israeli playwright and author Nava Semel, and also will introduce a reel of testimonial clips from Holocaust survivors discussing sexual violence.

“Sexual violence during the Holocaust is rarely spoken about; many historians and scholars don’t want to address it,” said Rochelle Saidel, executive director of Remember the Women Institute. “It’s hard to have rape documentation of the Holocaust because many of the victims were silenced, since it was against Nazi law to have any sexual involvement with Jews. But the reels being shown are gathered testimonials, and it’s a part of history that shouldn’t be forgotten.

Following Fonda’s presentation, a panel will feature Saidel and Stephen Smith, executive director of the USC Shoah Foundation, moderated by Jessica Neuwirth, president of Equality Now.

Of course there is no real evidence or documentation that those “evil Nazis” raped or otherwise sexually assaulted the Jews of Europe, or any other racial or ethnic group for that matter, during WWII.

There is, however, all sorts of evidence that the Jewish Bolsheviks and their Communist hordesdid in fact rape and murder countless German and Eastern European women. In fact, Soviet troops were encouraged to murder Germans – men, women, and children – and often did following the fall of the Third Reich. Let’s recall what the Jewish Bolshevik monster and Soviet propagandist Ilya Erhenburg encouraged the Red Army to do to Germans:

The Germans are not human beings… If you have not killed at least one German a day, you have wasted that day… If you cannot kill your German with a bullet, kill him with your bayonet… There is nothing more amusing for us than a heap of German corpses.  Do not count days… Count only the number of Germans killed by you.  Kill the German – that is your grandmother’s request.  Kill the German – that is your child’s prayer.  Kill the German – that is your motherland’s loud request.  Do not miss.  Do not let through.  Kill… Kill, Red Army men, kill!

See here and here for more on the rape of German women and young girls at the hands of the Jewish controlled Soviet Red Army.  These atrocious crimes truly are a part of history that shouldn’t be forgotten.

For some reason, I don’t think Fonda will be mentioning any of this at her event in Los Angeles… after all, Jewish suffering, persecution, and plight – both real and manufactured – is all that matters in this Jew World Order we find ourselves in.

The third article, from The Times of Israel, documents Jewish Holohoaxster Polina Breyter’s recent sentencing to 18 months in jail for her role in an estimated $60 million scam involving the Claims Conference, which dishes out money to “Holocaust” survivors extorted from the German government.

A former caseworker for the Claims Conference was sentenced to prison and ordered to make restitution for her role in a fraud scam.

Polina Breyter, 69, was sentenced Friday in US District Court in New York to 18 months in federal prison for her participation in the nearly $60 million scam against the Conference on Jewish Material Claims against Germany, or Claims Conference. She also must pay back $500,000.

Breyter pleaded guilty in May to mail fraud. Thirty-one people have been charged in the scam, and 18 have pleaded guilty.

The inquiry into the fraud at the Claims Conference, which has been carried out by Claims Conference officials along with the FBI, was discovered in November 2009 but dated back at least to 1993. The investigation has uncovered 3,839 false claims with the Hardship Fund and 1,112 false claims with the Article 2 fund.

The next time you talk to someone about the “Holocaust”, simply tell them to do a Google search for “Holocaust survivor scam” or “Holocaust survivor fraud”. They will find countless news items documenting all these Jewish liars and con artists who have claimed to be “Holocaust” survivors. If the “Holocaust” actually happened, why are there so many Jews out there getting caught lying about their past, sometimes entirely making up stories and “experiences” in “Nazi death camps”?

Virtually all of these people are liars, and their scam has to be put to a stop.

Finally, in yet another desperate attempt to demonize Iran and manufacture another war on behalf of international Jewry, Benjamin Weinthal tries his best to tie Iran and “al-Qaida” together, writing that a “growing body of evidence shows that al-Qaida and the Islamic Republic [of Iran] are mirror images of each other and continue to flourish as agents of terror.” The Jerusalem Post has the entire article, which begins:

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s comparison between al-Qaida and Iran during his September 27 address to the UN has garnered greater urgency since the US Treasury department on Thursday put a price on the head of Tehran-backed al-Qaida terror operatives.

“Some say a nuclear armed Iran would stabilize the Middle East. Yeah, right. That’s like a saying a nuclear armed al-Qaida would usher in world peace,” Netanyahu said at the UN in New York.

The fiercely anti-Western and anti-Israel systems of the Islamic Republic and al-Qaida are no longer a matter of a mere parallel, but rather an increasingly potent joint-operation that seeks to destabilize the Middle East, and to murder Western, particularly US, forces in the Pakistan/Afghanistan war theaters as well as in Iraq.

David S. Cohen, the US under secretary for terrorism and financial intelligence, announced on Thursday a combined reward of $12 million for the capture of two Iran-sponsored and -based terrorists – Muhsin al-Fadhli and Adel Radi Saqr al-Wahabi al-Harbi.

“Today’s action, which builds on our action from July 2011, further exposes al- Qaida’s critically important Iran-based funding and facilitation network,” Cohen said.

“We will continue targeting this crucial source of al- Qaida’s funding and support, as well as highlight Iran’s ongoing complicity in this network’s operation.”

In an email to The Jerusalem Post on Sunday, Thomas Joscelyn, the leading expert on the role of al-Qaida in Iran, wrote, “From Israel’s perspective, it says a lot about its principal enemy that Iran has more in common with al- Qaida than [with] the international community.”

Joscelyn, a senior fellow at the Washington-based Foundation for Defense of Democracies, added, “The Treasury Department makes it clear that Iran continues to support al-Qaida despite international pressure. The US government has officially recognized Iran’s complicity in al-Qaida’s terrorism on at least five occasions since July 2011. Three times the US government has designated the Iranian government as a terrorist sponsor for its collusion with al- Qaida.”

Stephen F. Hayes, a senior writer with the conservative Weekly Standard magazine, who has penned articles with Joscelyn over the years on the longstanding relationship between al-Qaida and Iran, wrote on his Twitter micro blog on Saturday, “Deeply skeptical of any direct talks between Iran-US. For a decade Iranian regime facilitated killing of US troops in Iraq/Afghanistan.”

He further noted, “Beyond that, Iranian regime harbored senior al-Qaida leadership & facilitated their operations.

The regime itself is the problem.”

Hayes zooms in on the Iranian regime’s intrinsic jingoism and hostility toward the West. The big question mark over Barack Obama’s policy is whether his administration — should he prevail in the November election – will move from targeted sanctions of merged al-Qaida-Iranian operations to announcing that Tehran’s activity is a declaration of war against the United States.

Of course we know that the real axis of evil – Israel, the US, and the UK – are the world’s leading state-sponsors of terrorism and false flag attacks.  The standard Jewish, neocon line on the “Global War on Terror” – literally, the entire narrative – is exactly the opposite of reality: Muslims did not do 9/11, Jews did.  Iran and the completely manufactured group “al-Qaida” are not the leading sponsors of terrorism around the world, Israel and her puppets in the Jewish controlled Western world are.

The only country the US and NATO have a legitimate reason to be at war with is the terrorist, criminal usurping Jewish state occupying Palestine, period, end of story.

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on John Friend’s ‘News from the Jews’


World Economic Forum’s Mining & Metals Scenarios to 2030 
This video presents the scenario development process and scenario stories for the World Economic Forum’s ‘Mining and Metals to 2030’ project.
[EDITOR NOTE: YOU CAN WATCH WHOLE VIDEO LINK ABOVE  OR READ THE TRANSCRIPT (I WILL SKIP TO 2ND PART) Now this is where it gets good and revealing….go to 3 minutes 45 seconds SCENARIO (2 ) REBASED GLOBALISM – in rebased globalism supposedly the world is committied to realizing the benefits of inter-connectedness but globalism gets far more complex and multi-polar.The liberalized(neoliberal) economies like
China’s(neoliberal)India’s(neoliberal)Russia’s(nationalist)Brazil’s(neoliberal)forge ahead and will end up majority of the top 10 world global mining companies.By 2030 this will reflect two other major power global shifts.First ecocomic power is no longer by strong demand markets(with scarcity and acess the biggest consumers will lose priority)but also by countries will control over strategic important resources.
They will emerge from spheres of influence and will play by their own rules,With more voices at the table,global collaboration becomes more cumbersome and agreements are only possible thru smaller groups.Second, local Government’s and communities become more agile,and sophisticated in harnessing technologies,communicate and mobilize both locally and globally.Public pressure leads some resource rich countries to capture more social value thru processing and manufacturing or introducing national development taxes.Global investors and companies will be held accountable for the local impact of operation both morally and thru tough local laws.
(3)RESOURCE SCARCITY-in resource security ,a growing sense emerges,that future economic growth will depend on securing access to resources.Globalization breaks down amidst a resurgence in Nationalism.State intervention in markets and protectionist barriers .In the quest for resource security,countries prioritize domestic use of resources.Cartels emerge around strategically important resources.
Neocolonialism sees economic political or military power used to secure resources and import substitution strategies wich will make use of whatever resources are most readily available regardless of their enviromental impacts.
As global growth slows,instability grows.The threat of coup’s ,sovereign defaults and nationalizations,mean prices remain volatile and lil capital is available for international investments,by 2030 the era of globalization is a distant memory.END OF VIDEO…
[ed note:who are the people behind this project offering scenarios and strategies?World Economic Forum 
“The World Economic Forum’s origins stem from Klaus Schwab’s initiative to bring together Europe’s chief executives for an informal gathering in the Swiss mountain town of Davos in 1970. These chief executives formally met in January 1971 to discuss a coherent strategy for European business to face challenges in the international marketplace. He secured the patronage of the Commission of the European Communities, as well as the encouragement of Europe’s industry associations.Over the course of three decades, the World Economic Forum has grown from those humble beginnings to a unique, member-based institution comprised of the 1,000 foremost corporations worldwide
[ED NOTE; Klaus Schwab who originated the concept of this think tank still debating strategies he expoused 30 years ago ?? Klaus Schwab, President, World Economic Forum. Founding Member, Earth Council Alliance [1] International Board of Governors, Peres Center for Peace [2who is behind peres center? The Peres Center for Peace “is an independent, non-profit, non-partisan, non-governmental organization founded in 1996 by President of Israel and Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Mr. Shimon Peres (FATHER OF ISRAHELLS ILLEGAL NUCLEAR PROGRAM)… this video …30 years later afte rklaus establishing of wef… is working out scenarios and opening discussion for its 1000 Foremost Corporate members in the wake of this coming  resource scarcity access their countries will be facing?
What is  ammounts to…ever since the first summit,the Business Chief Executives and Europe’s Industries Associations along with Their frontmen the European Governments,for the most part,have relied and indeed become richer(impoverishing third world) by failing to adopt true alternative energy policies by relying on fossil fuels and other raw materials they imported.
(THRU OUTRIGTH PLUNDERING,LOOTING,COUPS,MILITARY INTERVENTIONSNEOLIBERAL IMPOSITIONS,BTA’S,FTA’S,EPA’S ETC)…INTERESTING NUMBERS!!! EU Trade Commission bta’s with region and Andean countries   EU imports from Andean countries are fuels (41.1%) (SEE LINK FOR MORE RESOURCES IMPORTED BY EUalso see  discussions at EU level between EUtrade commision,Business class,Trade Associations ,Ngo’s...Raw materials: Heading for a global resource crunch?
Eurometaux, a trade association representing the non-ferrous metals industry, said access to raw materials is “vital for the survival” of the sector. European industry, it says, is currently dependent on imports for “the essential part” of its raw materials, a market which amounted to “more than 20 billion euro in 2008”. For this reason, Eurometaux calls for “an integrated strategy to tackle the issue of access to raw materials, liberalising the markets and the mutual lifting of commercial barriers”.]]][[[ 
Friends of the Earth Europe (FoEE), an environmental NGO, has expressed “severe concerns” about the European Commission’s raw materials initiative, saying it “will have a detrimental effect on the environment and developing countries”.FoEE pointed to “fundamental contradictions” in the EU’s proposed strategy which, on the one hand, reiterates the need for increased resource efficiency and recycling of raw materials and on the other, spells out “aggressive plans to grab other countries’ resources”. Environmentalists said they are “particularly concerned that the proposals challenge other countries’ rights to restrict trade on environmental grounds and their ability to process raw materials themselves”.
[ED NOTE:also see…WTO’s first official visit by Karel De Gucht as EU Trade Commissioner 
EU Trade Commissioner Karel De Gucht has met with the Director-General of the World Trade Organisation Pascal Lamy in his first official meeting after taking office earlier this week.see...EU Trade Commissioner Karel De Gucht openly states with conviction”protectionism is evil.’watch video 

Posted in Politics1 Comment

Russia to block any UN bid for military action against Iran – Lavrov

Russia to block any UN bid for military action against Iran – Lavrov

PanARMENIAN.Net – Russia will scuttle any UN Security Council resolution that could be interpreted as allowing military action against Iran, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrovsaid on Tuesday, October 23, according to RIA Novosti.

“As the Libyan experience has shown, sadly, a military scenario is possible,” he said in an interview with the daily Rossiiskaya Gazeta when asked whether Israel or the United States could start military operations in Iran.

Russia will therefore exercise an extremely cautious approach at the UN Security Council.

“We won’t allow any more such disingenuous interpretations. We will see to it that no resolution is open to interpretation like the one on Libya,” he said.

The West, led by the United States, suspects Iran of pursuing a secret nuclear weapons program, but the Islamic Republic says it needs nuclear power solely for electricity generation.

There is “absolutely no evidence” that Iran has decided to include a military component in its nuclear program, Lavrov said.

Posted in RussiaComments Off on Russia to block any UN bid for military action against Iran – Lavrov


Foreign Corporations Dump Million$ Into Coffers of Presidential CandidatesPowerful alien interests using loopholes in U.S. election laws to influence presidential race

By Keith Johnson

Should a government of the people, by the people and for the people allow foreign-ownedcorporations to have a say in U.S.politics? Like it or not, that’s precisely what’s happening in America. Thanks to loopholes in campaign finance laws, groups aligned with candidates from both major political parties have been raking in millions of dollars in contributions from a variety of multinational companies headquartered outside the United States.

On October 5, the Center for Public Integrity reported that “Restore Our Future,” the superPAC supporting Mitt Romney’s run for president, received a $1M donation in mid-August from reinsurance company OdysseyRe of Connecticut, a ‘wholly owned subsidiary’of Canadian insurance and investment management giant Fairfax Financial Holdings Unlimited.”

Due in large part to vague language in the Supreme Court’s controversial 5-4 Citizens United ruling, foreign contributions to political action committees (PACs) are legal as long as foreign nationals are not part of the decision-making process. Existing laws dictate that only American citizens and immigrants with green cards are allowed to contribute to federal politics. However, American divisions of foreign companies can form PACs and collect contributions from their American employees.

As such, spokesmen from OdysseyRe and Fairfax Financial insist that they broke no U.S. laws since their firm’s contribution was executed by a subcommittee of U.S. nationals who sit on the company’s board of directors.

Fortunately, at least one politician has raised concerns about foreigners exploiting loopholes in existing law to influence U.S. elections.

“You can bet that wholly owned subsidiaries of foreign commercial entities have an agenda when they spend millions to sway the outcome of an election,” said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.). “And you can bet that agenda is not promoting the interests of middle-class American voters.”

Although OdysseyRe’s sizable contribution has sparked considerable controversy in recent days, it is only a fraction of what has been pouring into the coffers of GOP and Democratic campaigns from international donors. According to data collected by the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP), $12,848,813 has been raised so far this year from foreign-connected PACs. Democrats received $5,322,517, while Republicans took in $7,526,296.

Anheuser-Busch, which was acquired in 2008 by Belgian-Brazilian brewing company InBev, stands out as one of the largest contributors in 2012, channeling a whopping $641,110 to groups aligned with political candidates from both major parties, who do their bidding on Capitol Hill. Contributions were almost evenly split between Democrats and Republicans—but none to third parties. In fact, Anheuser-Busch was the major sponsor of the lastpresidential debate, which deliberately excluded candidates from the Green, Libertarian and Constitution parties.

Of the top 50 most influential foreign-controlled PACs, CRP reports that 14 have parent companies based in London, making it the largest overseas source of campaign money. According to a recent article in The Observer, “Among the industries already well versed in bankrolling U.S. politics are finance, pharmaceuticals, energy and defense. British multinationals such as HSBC, Barclays, Experian, Prudential, Glaxo-SmithKline, AstraZeneca, BP, Shell and BAE all have political action committees that channel donations from employees to U.S. politicians.”

Though Democrats have received their fair share, Republicans are by far the biggest recipients of money from the UK. Of these British multinationals, BAE Systems, one of the world’s largest private military firms, was the biggest UK spender in 2012, with $372,250 out of a total of $609,750 going to Republican candidates. The scope of the company’spolitical influence was demonstrated in November 2011 when GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney spoke before a group of BAE employees and proposed abolishing the federalMedicare program in order to prevent $600M in cuts to the defense budget over the course of the next 10 years.

HSBC Holdings, one of the world’s largest banks, is another major UK contributor to the Republican Party, giving the lion’s share of their $170,500 to various GOP PACs. HSBC is currently being investigated by the Justice Department for laundering $7B in Mexican drug cartel money between 2007 and 2008.

Experian, a global credit information group that maintains files on 215M American consumers, contributed 78% of $320K in donations to GOP PACs during 2012. This isn’tsurprising. Experian’s parent company, Great Universal Stores, acquired the credit giant through a deal that was orchestrated by Romney while he worked as a management consultant for Bain Capital in 1996.

Foreign corporations are also buying influence via “bundled” contributions collected by their U.S. registered lobbyists. According to CRP, Patrick Durkin, Sr., a lobbyist for British banking giant Barclays, has personally contributed $532,143 and bundled $1,111,790 from other donors for Romney’s 2012 presidential campaign.

Campaign watchdog group Think Progress reports: “Romney’s lobbyist-bundler list also includes Ignacio E. Sanchez ($86,700) of DLA Piper, a registered foreign agent for the United Arab Emirates and a presidential candidate in the Dominican Republic.”



Romney Foreign Policy Advisor a 9-11 SuspectBy Pat Shannan

On September 10, 2001, President George W. Bush’s secretary of defense, DonaldRumsfeld, held a press conference to announce that over $2.3T in Pentagon funds were missing and could not be found.The inspector general later confirmed that, in fact, the Pentagon never accounts for 25% of what it spends.

The next day’s attacks in New York and Washington were enough of a distraction for the scandal surrounding the missing funds to be largely ignored. Rumsfeld’s subsequent report claimed the explosion at the Pentagon had conveniently destroyed the tracking records of the missing funds. Thus, the matter was effectively swept under the pile of debris.

The comptroller of the Pentagon at the time—and thus the chief financial officer overseeing the Pentagon’s affairs—was a Bush appointee, Dov S. Zakheim, who is now, in 2012, a top foreign policy adviser to GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney.

What commands attention are Zakheim’s personal and corporate affiliations leading up to the missing Pentagon trillions and the 9-11 atrocities.

An ordained rabbi since 1973, Zakheim is a member of the influential Council on Foreign Relations, and long identified as a hard-line supporter of Israel, evidenced, among other things, by his association with the neoconservative Project for the New American Century (PNAC). Zakheim was among those who signed off on a PNAC position paper, entitled Rebuilding America’s Defenses that called for “a New Pearl Harbor” to set the stage for U.S. adventurism in the Middle East and around the globe.

In 2004, independent 9-11 researchers Nick Kollerstromand and Jim Fetzer were threatened by Zakheim’s lawyers for reporting that Zakheim, an executive with the System Planning Corporation (SPC), specializing in electronic warfare technology, was a likely key figure in the 9-11 attacks because of SPC access as well as its development of equipment capable of remotely-controlling aircraft. While the insightful articles were removed from the “Truthseeker” website, the information, never disproved, can still be found on the Internet.

According to reports, “This highly sophisticated war-game technology allows the control of several ‘drones’ from a remote location, on varying frequencies, and has a range of several hundred miles and can be used on many different types of aircraft, including large passenger jets.”

Whatever an investigation of Zakheim might have proven, the fact remains that Romney’s campaign is being ramrodded by this controversial figure who was a suspect in the Pentagon’s missing trillions as well a person-of-interest in the 9-11 false-flag attacks.



Special 2012 Third Party Presidential Debate: Live Streaming Video on AFPLarry King will serve as moderator for this special 2012 Presidential debate on October 23 at 9:00pm EDT at the Hilton Chicago.

The Free and Equal Elections Foundation, the only organization offering a platform to every major candidate, has assembled a diverse group of ballot-qualified candidates in order to offer a truly multi-partisan debate for American voters. With sponsoring organizations spanning the ideological spectrum from The Nation to The American Conservative, it is clear that both the left and right in this country agree that the two-party system is broken. Free and Equal’s debate will be the type of open, honest, and solutions oriented discussion that the American people deserve.

“We are honored to have Larry King moderate this historic debate,” stated Christina Tobin, Founder and Chair of Free & Equal. “The previous debates between President Obama and Governor Romney have failed to address the issues that really concern everyday Americans. From foreign policy, to the economy, to taboo subjects like our diminishing civil liberties and the drug war, Americans deserve a real debate, real solutions, and real electoral options.”

Unlike traditional mainstream debates, viewers will be invited to submit questions via the web and social media, creating the first truly open and democratic debate on record. People can submit questions via Free and Equal’s website, or they can use the hashtag #AskEmThisLarry on Twitter.


Shoah’s pages