Archive | October 30th, 2012

IsraHell warns Argentina against reaching deal with Iran over 1994 bombing


Senior Argentinian and Iranian officials meet to discuss the attack on a Jewish center which killed 85; Jerusalem tells Buenos Aires it won’t tolerate any agreement that does not include the extradition of suspects and compensation of victims’ families.

ed note–let us here at TUT translate what is really being said here.

Israel is TERRIFIED that what will actually take place is that the Argentinian government will announce that it was not IRAN that did the bombing, but rather Israel’s MOSSAD, the most efficient terrorist organization in the world.

Such an announcement–particularly at this time, when the world is beginning to understand the MO of the Jewish state, going back more than 100 years to include all the other acts of false flag terror authored by Israel in order to bring about certain pre-conconceived political outcomes–would be devastating to Israel when right now she needs to muster as much of the world’s sympathy as possible in order to ONCE AGAIN escape indictment/conviction of her mountain of war crimes.



The Foreign Ministry has sent a senior delegation to Argentina to clarify that Israel will respond harshly to any attempt to reach a deal with Iran over the 1994 bombing of the Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires, which will not include the extradition of Iranian suspects and the compensation of the victims’ families.

A senior source in the ministry said that the delegation landed in Buenos Aires last week, ahead of talks held in Geneva between senior Iranian and Argentinian officials on Monday. Argentina’s Foreign Ministry said that the purpose of the talks is to discuss the 1994 bombing which killed 85 people and wounded 300, most of them Jews.

The attack was carried out by terrorists of Lebanese origin, who blew up a car loaded with explosives near the building. After over a decade of whitewashing, Argentina’s chief prosecutor Alberto Nisman, who headed the inquiry, announced that Iran and Hezbollah were behind it.

The Foreign Ministry’s Deputy Director for Latin America Itzhak Shoham and Deputy Director of Intelligence Reuven Ezer met in Buenos Aires with Argentina’s undersecretary for Latin America and with the director of Middle East affairs. A request to schedule a meeting with Foreign Minister Hector Timerman, submitted by the Israeli embassy in the Argentinian capital, was denied.

The Israeli officials relayed a sharp message concerning the talks with Iran, highlighting that Israel will not agree to a deal between Iran and Argentina on the expense of the victims. The Israeli diplomats demanded that Argentina insist on the extradition of Iranian suspects and payment of compensation to the victims’ families. The Israelis warned that the talks might be used by Iran to bring the investigation to a dead end.

“We’re not naive and we told the Argentinians that we will be on alert, and not allow the issue to fade,” a senior source in the Foreign Ministry told Haaretz. “We recommended they be very careful vis-a-vis the Iranians, since they might find themselves giving much, but receiving nothing in return.”

Argentinian Foreign Ministry officials clarified that the victims were Argentinian citizens entitled to justice, and therefore there would be no giving in to Iranian demands. Minister Timerman relayed a similar message to his Israeli counterpart in a phone call last week with Avigdor Lieberman.

Deputy Foreign Minister Eduardo Zuaim, the Finance Ministry’s chief prosecutor and the Foreign Ministry’s legal adviser were sent to the talks on Monday at the UN Office in Geneva. Israel expects to receive full details of the talks from Argentina, a source in the Foreign Ministry said.

For a decade, especially during the reign of President Carlos Menem, Argentina refrained from holding a serious, comprehensive investigation of the attack. Menem’s successor, Nestor Kirchner, directed Nisman to renew the inquiry. In his 2006 report, Nisman determined that the bombing was carried out by Hezbollah, which was assisted and directed by the most senior ranks of the Iranian regime.

Senior current and former Iranian leaders were involved in the ordering of the attack, Nisman said, naming Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, Intelligence Minister Ali Fallahian and the head of Revolutionary Guard Mohsen Rezae.

The report went on to determine the involvement of Hezbollah’s chief of staff Imad Mughniyeh, Iranian Ambassador in Argentina Hadi Soleimanpour, cultural attache at the embassy Mohsen Rabbani – who actually served as the operation officer of the attack – and Ahmad Reza Asghari, a diplomat at the Iranian embassy who was in fact an intelligence officer.

Upon the request of the Argentinian government, Interpol issued international arrest warrants in 2007 against several senior Iranian officials, including Fallahian, Rezae, Rabbani and Asghari, as well as Ahmad Vahidi, Iran’s current defense minister.

Iran has repeatedly denied any connection to the attack and has refused to extradite the suspects. The Islamic Republic argued that Nisman’s report was based on false information supplied to Argentina by the U.S. and Israel.

In March 2011, Argentinian newspaper Perfil reported that Timerman had offered Iran a deal, according to which Argentina would ‘forget’ the attack on the Jewish center and freeze the inquiry in return for upgrading relations and trade ties between the two countries. The report said that Timerman offered that Syrian President Bashar Assad be used as a mediator between the sides.

Timerman avoided unequivocally denying the report. Even during his visit to Israel last April, he didn’t take advantage of the joint press conference with Foreign Minister Lieberman in order to refute the report. On his part, at the press conference Lieberman said that the issue was clarified. However, several months later in July 2011, Iran announced that it would be willing to open talks with Argentina in effort to solve the “misunderstandings” concerning this affair.

During last month’s UN General Assembly, Timerman met with Iran’s Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salhi. The two officials decided to open negotiations over the attack. Meeting Lieberman later on, Timerman promised that his country ‘would not be fooled’ by the Iranians and that Argentina would continue to demand the extradition of the suspected officials.

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, IranComments Off on IsraHell warns Argentina against reaching deal with Iran over 1994 bombing

Joel Gilbert’s Wet “Dreams”


by mantiqaltayr

By Skulz

1. Steve Lendeman writes:

“Obama stands guilty on multiple counts. His rap sheet includes much more than spurning Palestinian rights. He’s complicit in grand theft and war crimes multiple times over. He’s unfit to serve. He should be in prison, not government. ”

Readers of this blog know that I agree with the above.  In addition, readers of this site know that I have no problem with people speculating about Obama’s origins and whether or not  he qualifies under the Constitution to be president.

But I’m sick of Joel Gilbert and I’m sick to hell of people constantly referring to his asinine film claiming that Frank Davis is Barry’s daddy and that Barry’s mommy posed in men’s magazines and I think it is a damn shame that people who should know better have fallen for this transmuted form of Zionist Bullshit.

Gilbert, who claims he is a Middle East scholar, that he knows both Hebrew and Arabic, and who has made a 100% Zionist-Bullshit movie, was recentlyexposed  by Richard Bartholomew for his utterly absurd claim that Obama’s secret decoder ring – or something like that – has the first half of the Muslim testimony of faith written on it in Arabic.  Absolute total bullshit. In the meantime, Atlanta attorney Loren Collins has completely debunked the photo issue. He has also been documenting Gilbert’s duplicity over the course of a long series of posts on his blog.

In this post he openly calls Gilbert a “liar”. He then concludes his post with the following:

“Joel Gilbert. He lies to his research subjects about who he works for. He lies about what he’s researching and why. And he lies about his findings to his audience.”

And in this post he has openly challenged Gilbert to a debate, so far Gilbert doesn’t seem to be interested.

Gilbert has also done DVD’s on Paul McCartney and Elvis. You see, Elvis faked his death in 1977 and then turned into an federal agent named Jon Burrows – who also happens to dislike Barack Obama.

According to Collins:   “Gilbert features himself prominently in the film, as he claims to track down the living Elvis, who he interviews and convinces to record a new album. Somewhat inexplicably, Gilbert’s Elvis even rants about Bill Ayers and “Barry Soetoro,” conveniently segueing into Gilbert’s next project.”

Being clearly an ardent Zionist, Gilbert seems to have access to money. I’m sure you are shocked. He has mailed out 4 million (no, not 6 million) copies of his DVD to residents of swing states. Reminds of me of the Clarion Fund’s distribution of the racist move “Obsession” via mail and newspaper inserts back in 2008. The “Clarion Fund” was founded by a dual Israeli-Canadian who clearly is obsessed with Islam.   So Gilbert is following exactly the path of right-wing Zionist Islamophobe crazies.

That’s because he is one.

Zionist propagandists just make shit up and then honest researchers have to spend hours and hours showing their lies.

I’ve added a link to Collins’ site to the links. His many articles on Gilbert and his movie make for very good reading.  I’m not real pleased that Gilbert ran against Cynthia McKinney, but Collins appears to me to be a solid researcher. I’ve not read his book.

Posted in USAComments Off on Joel Gilbert’s Wet “Dreams”

A slogan-filled speech from the PM, a frenzied wave of yellow papers, and ‘Likud-Beytenu’ is born


A member of Likud raises a yellow note in favor of the joint Likud-Yisrael Beytenu Knesset list, Monday at the Likud Central Committee meeting (photo credit: Roni Schutzer/Flash90)

A revolt? A secret ballot highlighting widespread dissent? Not a bit of it. With the grumblers marginalized, Netanyahu steers his alliance with Liberman through an ecstatic Central Committee
Conventions of the Likud Party’s Central Committee are usually protracted affairs, and sometimes spectacular.

In recent years, they have proved contentious forums in which Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has known successes and failures in seeking to marginalize hawkish members led by Moshe Feiglin. Further back, and most memorably, in February 1990, someone mysteriously turned off the power when then-prime minister Yitzhak Shamir was in mid-speech, several times, and the evening deteriorated into a Shamir-Ariel Sharon shouting match.

Monday’s get-together, at which members overwhelmingly approved an alliance with Avigdor Liberman’s Yisrael Beytenu party for a joint Knesset list, was extremely short and, for Netanyahu, extremely sweet.

Opponents of “Likud Beytenu” — and there were a bunch of them, party greenhorns and veterans alike — were swept aside as hundreds of their fellow party members waved aloft the yellow pieces of paper they had been given when asked if they approved the deal, amid much frenetic shouting of “Bibi, Bibi.”

At first, it proved difficult to get the masses who had gathered at the Tel Aviv Fairgrounds to take their seats. But then, surprisingly early — no waiting for the 8 p.m TV news — Netanyahu entered the hall, to be greeted by wild cheering. No face-off against the Feiglin-ists tonight.

He was briefly introduced by the departing Communications Minister Moshe Kahlon, a Central Committee favorite who was chairing the event in one of his last leadership acts before he quits politics for a while. And then, without further ado, the prime minister addressed the crowd.

There was no long policy speech. Just a few slogan-filled sentences, highlighting the need for “a strong Likud” in order to ensure “a strong Israel.”

“We need unity and responsibility,” Netanyahu said to raucous applause — unity, but not a full merger, he made clear, with Liberman’s largely Russian immigrant-supported party.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu waves to Likud members during the Likud convention in Tel Aviv. October 29, 2012. (photo credit: Roni Schutzer/Flash90)

It all seemed so easy, even though it hadn’t looked that easy in the first couple of days after Thursday’s press conference, where Netanyahu and Liberman announced the shock deal. Many party veterans were unhappy about the political (and personal) ramifications this alliance would have. Orthodox Likudniks in particular were shocked about the prospect of a union with the “pork-eating Russians.” But the first opinion polls have not been too bad, and Netanyahu evidently knew a few well-chosen sentences would suffice to win the day.

“The Likud will remain an independent party that will continue our path in preserving Israel’s security and the Jewish heritage,” he stressed, underlining a rather different tone from Liberman’s initial talk late last week of a “big” and “serious” joint party. “The unity agreement will allow us to continue leading vigorously when we can rely on the massive bloc of a unified national camp.”

The Likud chairman wasted no time on the details of what exactly he and Liberman had agreed upon, or on questions such as how the “Biberman” partnership, if elected, would deal with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. (Liberman considers him a “political terrorist” with whom Israel could never make peace, while Netanyahu wants to resume negations with him.) And what will become of plans for a universal draft law? (Yisrael Beytenu wants the Haredim to enlist, while Netanyahu would like to go gently on his potential ultra-Orthodox coalition allies.)

Questions for another night. A night after an anticipated January 22 election victory.

Instead, Netanyahu said simply that the alliance was necessary so that he could remain prime minister and continue to fulfill all the promises he has made and will continue to make during the upcoming campaign — “preserve the security of Israel’s citizens, preserve the workplace of Israeli citizens and lower the cost of living, and first and foremost bring down housing prices.”

The speech over, and efforts to force a secret ballot having failed, Kahlon called the vote, by show of hands clutching yellow tickets. It was a no contest. The national anthem played and the whole affair was over.

Veteran Likud MK and Minister of Improvement of Government Services Michael Eitan, the only prominent overt critic of the alliance, had tried desperately to get a secret ballot, thinking that unhappy committee members might privately defy the party leader. Walking around the teeming hall armed with a clipboard and pen, he and his aides sought in vain for enough signatories.

There were some takers, but there would be no revolt tonight.

Minister Michael Eitan signing up Likud members opposing the joint list with Yisrael Beytenu, Tel Aviv, October 20, 2012. (photo credit: Raphael Ahren/Times of Israel)

“We need to maintain some level of democracy in the party,” said Yisrael Shuldiener, a skullcap-clad party member opposed to the deal, who was about the 250th signatory of the 400 Eitan needed. Shuldiener, 33, said the alliance “will hurt the Likud and our MKs.” Liberman’s wordview was “totally different from the Likud’s core values,” such as an appreciation for Jewish tradition.

Speaking to The Times of Israel after the event, Deputy Prime Minister Dan Meridor, presumed to oppose the alliance, seemed disappointed but was circumspect. “We will see what happens now — we will make the best of it,” he said. Hardly a ringing endorsement.

Shimon Sheetrit, the head of Likud’s Dimona branch, by contrast, said he was at Netanyahu’s home in Jerusalem on Sunday, where the prime minister briefed him and other Likud leaders on the details of the deal. “I told Netanyahu that I see the media is panicking, and whenever the press goes into such a frenzy over something, it’s a sign that you did exactly the right thing.”

‘It was a mistake, but I’m not sure it would be good to change the plan now. The damage is done’

In fact, Sheetrit favors a complete merger of the two parties. “We grew up on Yvette, he’s one of ours,” he said, using Liberman’s nickname. “We already saw in the polls today, we’re leading with a huge gap over the second-place party.”

Central Committee member Benjamin Ungar said running on a united list with Yisrael Beytenu was a bad idea, but that he was backing the proposal anyway. “It was a mistake, but I’m not sure it would be good to change the plan now. The damage is done,” he said.

Ungar was far more exercised by the fact that he was denied the right to address the gathering. A former pre-state Irgun underground fighter, he wanted to advance a demand for the Likud to save four spots on its Knesset list for veterans like himself.

As is customary at Likud meetings, political hopefuls and their helpers handed out flyers, business cards and CDs outside the Fairgrounds, recommending themselves for the Knesset list. They didn’t have much time to garner support.

Unlike some recent central committee meetings, the crowd seemed to accurately reflect the party’s broad base. Lately, these gatherings have been dominated by skullcap-wearing activists from the Likud’s right flank, but on Monday activists of all stripes were present: old and young, ultra-Orthodox, settlers and secular Jews, Ashkenazim and Sephardim, Russians and Ethiopians, and several Druze in traditional garb including a Knesset candidate named Moustafa Jihad.

And all of them, or almost all, were content to throw in their lot with the new Netanyahu-Liberman partnership.

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on A slogan-filled speech from the PM, a frenzied wave of yellow papers, and ‘Likud-Beytenu’ is born

Whore for IsraHell & America–Qatar PM Al Thani says Syria war amounts to genocide


Emirate’s premier denounces Assad forces’ brutality; slams international community, UN over inability to effectively bring bloodshed to its end


The Prime Minister of Qatar Hamad bin Jassem al-Thani denounced Tuesday the ongoing civil war in Syria, calling it a “war of extermination.”

Al-Thani, who also serves as the emirate’s foreign minister, strongly denounced Syrian President Bashar Assad’s crackdown on the pro-democracy opposition, saying that the ongoing bloody conflict in Syria amounted to genocide.

The United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHCR) says that more than 35,000 people have been killed since the uprising against Assad’s regime began, in March 2011.

“What is happening in Syria is not a civil war but a war of extermination against the Syrian people,” the sheik told Al-Jazeera TV.

Qatar’s proposal to deploy an Arab peacekeeping force in Syria, brought before the Arab League, was unsuccessful.

The UN’s peace envoy to Syria, Lakhdar Brahimi, said Monday that despite efforts so far, the situation in Syria is getting worse. The Syrian regime denies that the country is in the midst of a civil war, but according to Brahimi, “If this is not civil war, I do not know what is.”

Al-Thani said that the Syrian government had given Assad’s forces “a license to kill,” adding that the international community’s attitude towards the crisis was, was, in effect, a similar license.

He criticized that international community over its lingering inability to effectively bring the bloodshed to its end.

“We have confidence in Mr. Brahimi… but we need to develop a clear idea for a solution before any transfer of power is possible,” he said.

Brahimi idea for a ceasefire between the fighting forces for the Muslim holiday of Eid al-Adha was short-lived, as it was violated within 24 hours

Posted in Middle East, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Whore for IsraHell & America–Qatar PM Al Thani says Syria war amounts to genocide

Qatar’s foray into Gaza politics: Bad for Iran, good for IsraHell?


The Emir of Qatar, Hamad Bin Khalifa al-Thani, right, meets with Gazan Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh. (Ali Ali/Associated Press)

The monarch of oil-rich Arab gulf nation Qatar, Sheik Hamad Bin Khalifa al-Thani, this week became the first foreign head of state to visit Gaza’s militant Islamist rulers since they won power over the Palestinian territory in 2007. The emir, who has long deployed Qatar’s astounding energy wealth toward outsized international influence, also handed over $400 million in Gazan reconstruction aid. Hamas, long seen as an ally of Iran, opposes Israel, sometimes violently. 

Nothing dashes hopes and humbles would-be peacemakers quite like the Israel-Palestine peace process, so there’s little reason to think that al-Thani will succeed where more experienced statesmen have failed. Still, there is some reason to think that Qatar’s outreach to Hamas could do some good for a part of the world that badly needs it. Here’s what some Middle East analysts are saying about it.

Pro-Western Qatar could undermine Iran’s often-nefarious influence in the region, analyst David B. Roberts argues at Foreign Policy. “While Israel and the Palestinian Authority may view Qatar’s embrace of Hamas with chagrin, it is Iran that is the central loser in this drama. The emir’s visit is part of a larger Qatari policy to unseat and reorient crucial Iranian allies around the Middle East — and by extension, amputate a long-used, effective limb of Iranian foreign policy,” he writes. This is a bit surprising, since Qatar has long maintained friendly relations with Iran, its much more powerful northern neighbor. He adds, “The fact that Qatar is overturning one of the key tenets of its foreign policy by antagonizing Iran is a surprising and forthright move by the Qatari elite, which clearly does not accept conventional limits on what is and what is not possible in the Middle East.”

Reuters analysis suggests that Qatar could help soothe divisions between Hamas and another major Palestinian political group, Fatah: “Analysts think Qatar, building up a leader’s role in the Sunni Muslim world and influence beyond the Gulf, hopes to tame Hamas, get it to reconcile with the Fatah movement of Western-backed Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, and perhaps advance the cause of Middle East peace.” It’s a long way from Palestinian unity to Middle East peace, but the former would still be a step in the direction of the latter, in part by making negotiations easier for Israel.

That may explain why some analysts believe Israel and the United States gave Qatar the go-ahead for this trip, as Israel-Palestine watcher Hamadi El-Aouni told Deutsche Welle. Their goal seems to be to “re-orient” Palestinian groups away from supporters Iran and Syria and help them establish “new partners in the western-oriented and Sunni Middle Eastern countries,” the paper explains, such as Egypt, Turkey, Jordan, and yes, Qatar. As Syria burns and Iran struggles under sanctions, these stabler and richer Sunni states — though at times perceived as too close to the U.S. or even to Israel — could be attractive allies for Hamas. Cash-strapped Palestinian groups such as Hamas must prove to Palestinians that they can provide for them, which costs money.

Posted in Middle East, GazaComments Off on Qatar’s foray into Gaza politics: Bad for Iran, good for IsraHell?

Nazi Border Police officer acquitted of shooting death of Palestinian child


Nazi Gestapo Omri Abu charged of killing Ahmed Moussa, 10, during a demonstration against the separation fence near the West Bank town of Na’alin; Abu: If you don’t respond, it’s perceived as weakness.


A Border Police officer was acquitted Tuesday of causing the death of a 10-year-old Palestinian boy on the grounds of ‘reasonable doubt’.

The officer was charged with causing the death of the boy four years ago. In his testimony he said: “If they see you don’t respond, it will be seen as a weakness.”

In 2008,. Border Policeman Omri Abu’’s unit was called to the site of a demonstration against the fence being constructed in the West Bank town of Na’’alin, after protesters had breached the fence.

The unit was was met with a barrage of stones when they arrived. Abu opened the door of the SUV his jeep and fired two live bullets, fatally shooting Ahmed Moussa, 10, in the forehead.

Abu was indicted in May 2010 at the Ramle Magistrate’’s cCourt for causing death by negligence. The trial lasted for two years due to the difficulties in bringing witnesses from the Palestinian Authority.

In his testimony, Abu said: ““I opened the door to evaluate the situation and felt immediate danger and alarm. The stones were hurled with such intensity that the vehicle rocked, so I saw fit to shoot in the air.””

Asked what factors he considered when he opened fire, Abu said ““there was fear concern that the incident would escalate. Even in a bullet-proof car, you have to respond. If they see you don’’t respond, it can be perceived as weakness. They can crowd around us and the incident can escalate to 1,001 other possibilities.””

Abu testified that he felt in danger despite being in a bullet-proof vehicle because ““these vehicles are only protected to a certain level, and in some cases vehicles have been rendered useless after being damaged in the hood … The Windshields have also been also shattered. That’’s not something you get used to.””

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Nazi Border Police officer acquitted of shooting death of Palestinian child

Imperialism In The X-Factor Age

Global Research

In Vietnam, Agent Orange was dropped by the US to poison a foreign population. In Iraq and the former Yugoslavia, depleted uranium was used. In Western countries, things are a bit more complicated because various states have tended to avoid using direct forms of physical violence to quell their own populations (unless you belong to some marginalized group or hit a raw nerve, as did the Occupy Movement last year). The pretence of democracy and individual rights has to be maintained.

One option has been to use South American crack cocaine or Afghan heroin to dope up potential troublesome sections of the population. It’s worked wonders: highly lucrative for the drug running intelligence agencies and banks awash with drug money (1), while at the same time serving to dampen political dissent in the most economically and socially deprived areas. Another tactic has of course been the massive ever-increasing growth of the surveillance industry to monitor ordinary citizens.

But drugs, surveillance and direct violence are kind of a last resort to keep a population in check. Notwithstanding baton charges, tear gas and the use of rubber bullets on the European mainland and that the US Government is not ruling out the use of violence on its own people (2), ideology via the media has and continues to be the choice of method for population control in Western countries.

Whether it’s through the paranoia induced by the fear of terrorism or more general propaganda spewed out by the mainstream ‘news’ channels, political agendas and modes of thought are encouraged which seek to guarantee subservience and ‘integration’, rather than forms of critical thought or action that may lead to a direct questioning of or a challenge to prevailing forms of institutionalised power.

From trade unions to political parties, oppositional groups are infiltrated, deradicalised and incorporated into the system (3) and critical stances are stifled, ridiculed or marginalized. Consensus is manufactured both in cultural and political terms. The result is that presidential candidate TV debates, political discourse and much of the popular mass media is void of proper analytical discussion: public theatre scripted by speech writers and PR people, presented in manipulative, emotive, ‘human-interest’ terms.

From the TV news and commercials to the game-shows and latest instant fame programme, misinformation, narcissism and distraction pervade all aspects of life. Why be aware of the world’s ills and challenge anything when you can live in the dark, watch X-Factor, wear Reebok and shop till you drop? It is an infotainment paradise where lies are truth and unfettered desire a virtue.

It’s a world of crass consumerism and gleaming shopping malls bathed in designer lifestyle propaganda where people drown in their Friday night alcohol vomit, shop till they drop for things they don’t really need or indeed want and bask in their emptiness by watching TV with eyes wide shut.

But this is ‘free market’ democracy. And the concept behind it is that the mass of the population are a problem, and any genuine debate or the electorate’s ability to see what is actually happening must be prevented. People must be distracted – they should be watching millionaire footballers kick a ball around, mind numbing soap operas or some mindless sitcom. Every once in a while, at voting time, they are called on to parrot or back some meaningless slogans.

Politics is no longer about great ideas. The acquisition of power has become the core value in itself, not socialism or any other radical philosophy. What is required from mainstream political leaders is technocrat not, radical; middle manager, not firebrand. In an era of advanced capitalism, the role of mainstream glove puppet political leaders is to demonstrate competence when it comes to managing the machinery of state in order to fine tune the status quo, not overhaul it.

If ‘serious’ debate does even attempt to rear its head, it is increasingly to be found as part of a standardized, corporate TV news-cum-chat show format that is the same from country to country. There is usually some or other smug, user-friendly couple fronting the show, lying about how we may smooth away the wrinkles, according to the gospel of some grossly overpaid beauty guru to the stars.

But then, moving on to the next topic and with an anguished expression, no doubt well rehearsed in front of the mirror that morning, one of the hosts states: “A recent report says that high street fashion retailers use children in the developing world to make its clothes.”

A light and punchy studio debate among the show’s hosts and a ‘fashion expert’ will ensue, peppered with a certain degree of moral outrage. But only a ‘certain degree’ because hypocrisy abounds: “Stay tuned as next up you will be informed of how you too can dress like the celebs but for a fraction of the price.”

The next day it’s competition time. Win vouchers to go shopping for the latest high street fashion items. “Top of the range stuff… But the prices are so cheap… Just how do they do it?” one of the hosts remarks: the very same person from the day before who fronted the ‘in-depth debate’ about how they actually manage to do it by exploiting poverty and child labour.

It’s all very cony and comforting, with its sanctimonious world view of sexed up infotainment and bland titillation. It’s TV to inspire. TV to inspire the masses into apathy, fatalism and acceptance.

“Next up, we have a man who swallowed a live rabbit and lived to tell the tale” is sandwiched between “How you can save on your weekly wine bill” and “Knife crime – lock ‘em up and throw away the key.”

Forget about informed debate when platitudes, simple emotion and ‘common sense’ outlooks will do. You will rarely find anything radical or challenging here or elsewhere on mainstream TV because that’s not the point of it. The point of it all is to convince the public that their trivial concerns are indeed the major concerns of the day and that the major world events and imperialist wars can be trivialised or justified with a few ridiculous clichés about saving oppressed woman in Afghanistan or killing for peace in Africa.

From Fox to CNN, the BBC and beyond, this mind altering portrayal of the world is devoured as avidly as the health-altering, chemically-laden TV dinner that accompanies it. How about can of pesticide-ridden, cancer inducing cola to finish off (4)? Feel the spray. It’s all so refreshingly toxic. No need for Agent Orange here. So many people are already swallowing the poison via their plates or TV. If that fails and the drugs no longer work, the drones are waiting overhead.


1) Afghan heroin and the CIA, Geopolitical Monitor:

2) DHS to purchase another 750 million rounds of ammo, Press TV:

3) The influence of intelligence services on the British left, Lobster Magazine:

4) Things grow better with Coke, The Guardian:

Copyright © 2012 Global Research

Posted in USAComments Off on Imperialism In The X-Factor Age

How to Bomb Iran


Israel Defense Forces / Flickr

During the Napoleonic Wars, when it was reported that the French were preparing to invade England, Admiral John Jervis said “I do not say they the French cannot come–I only say they cannot come by sea.” Barring the movement of a regiment of sans culottes across the English Channel by a fleet of Montgolfier balloons, the Jervis comment pretty much summed up the limits to French ambitions as long as Britannia ruled the waves.

A similar bit of military overreach appears to be surrounding the alleged planning by the Israelis to stage an air assault on Iran’s nuclear facilities. The US media and even some Pentagon spokesmen have suggested that Israel cannot do the job alone, but the problem is much larger than that, leading to the question whether Israel can do it at all. Israel hasover 400 fighters, but many of them are configured to establish air superiority over an opponent by shooting down opposing aircraft and disabling air defense facilities on the ground. They are fighters supporting ground operations first with a limited secondary capability as bombers.

Israel has no dedicated bomber force but it does have an estimated 125 advanced F-15I and F-16I’s, which have been further enhanced through special avionics installed by the Israel Aircraft Industry to improve performance over the types of terrain and weather conditions prevailing in the Middle East. The planes are able to fly long range missions and very capable in a bombing role but they do have their limitations.

It is generally agreed that any attempt to destroy the hardened and well-defended Iranian nuclear sites would require use of the United States-provided GBU-28, a five thousand-pound laser-guided smart bomb that can be directed to the target. The GBU-28 is regarded as accurate and able to penetrate deep into a target, which is why it has been described as the “bunker buster.” Exact performance specifications of the weapon are classified, but it is believed to be able to penetrate twenty feet of reinforced concrete.

Whether that would be enough to take out the expected Iranian targets at the research centers in Natanz and Fordow, the heavy water facility at Arak, and the operating reactor at Bushehr is unknown and some analysts have opined that it might require multiple hits on the same spot to do the job. As Bushehr, the most accessible target of the three, is an active reactor, an attack would release considerable contamination.

Assuming that the US has supplied Israel with a sufficient supply of GBU-28s to go around to all the available aircraft, there remain two additional problems with the weapon that impact Israeli ability to stage an attack. First, it is so heavy that only Israel’s twenty-five F15Is are able to carry it, one bomb for each plane. For optimum use against a target, the GBU-28 also requires a clear line of sight, which means that the plane has to be flying low and relatively slowly, making the fighters more vulnerable to ground defenses, particularly with their maneuverability limited due to the bomb load. This first problem creates the second problem, which is that an attack will require a separate fleet of F-16 fighters unencumbered by GBU-28s to go in first and suppress the defensive fire, further complicating the mission.

Assuming that all the Israeli fighters capable of carrying the GBU-28 are available, which would not normally be the case, twenty-five bombs might not be enough to do critical damage to the targets. Perfect intelligence is required to place the bombs where they will do the most harm, an element that will likely be lacking with the underground targets. Some bombs will miss while others might not function perfectly and will detonate before penetration. And before the bombs are dropped the planes have to arrive over Iran.

Let’s assume that the Israelis opt for an attacking force of 50 fighters, one third of which would be designated for suppression of ground fire. The planes would be equipped with conformal fuel tanks built into the fuselages for extended range. They would also have auxiliary tanks that could be jettisoned when empty. Nevertheless, the attacking force would have to take off from Israeli airfields and then almost immediately refuel either over Israel or above the Mediterranean because fighters burn considerable fuel in getting off the ground. Refueling from Israel’s twelve modified Boeing 707 and C-130 tankers would take some time even though a plane using a flying boom for refueling can top up in thirty seconds. It is the maneuvering and connecting to enable the refueling that takes considerably longer.

Refueling all 50 planes will be a major task essential to the success of the mission and while the planes are in the air and forming up they will be detected by radar in Egypt and Lebanon, information that one must assume is likely to be shared with Iran.

The objectives in Iran are more than 1,000 miles from Israel and the planes must be able to spend some time over their targets, which is why the refueling is necessary. But even then there would be problems if the Israeli jets have to engage any enemy planes either en route or over Iran. They would have to drop their auxiliary tanks to take defensive action and would probably have to return immediately to Israel.

There are three possible routes to Iran. One route to the south violates Saudi airspace and it is by no means certain that the very capable 80 plus F-15s of the Saudi Air Force would not scramble to intercept. The other is to the north over Syria, skirting the Turkish border. Syria is unlikely to be able to interfere much given its current troubles though it does possess some capable Russian made anti-aircraft missiles, but a Turkish response to possible airspace violations cannot be ruled out. The third and most likely option is to fly along Syria’s southern border, avoiding Jordan, and then through Iraq, which has only limited air defense capabilities since the US military’s departure at the end of 2011.

Israel’s previous attacks on nuclear facilities in Iraq and Syria hit targets that were above ground while relying on the element of complete surprise. Upon arrival over Iran, the Israelis would be confronted by something quite different, targets that are deep underground or hardened with reinforced concrete and further protected by layers of ground defenses that will be alert and waiting. Iran is known to have batteries of Russian supplied SA-5s for high altitude targets and SA-15s for lower level attackers. Both systems are regarded as very effective. It has also been alleged that Tehran has been able to acquire advanced Russian S-300 long range missiles, which, if true, would pose a serious problem for the Israeli fighters. The Israelis would have to be very lucky to avoid losses.

Assuming that the Israeli Air Force is able to carry out the refueling, fly successfully to Iran, suppress ground defenses, and carry out its bombing, it still has to return home, again flying over Iraq with every air force and air defense battery in the region on full alert. Depending on how much maneuvering was required while over Iran, some planes might well need to be refueled again which would mean deploying highly vulnerable tankers over Iraq or Jordan.

Back at home the Israelis would have to expect volleys of missiles of all kinds and varieties launched by Hezbollah in Lebanon to retaliate for the attack. The US-funded Iron Dome defense missile system would intercept many of the incoming missiles, but some would certainly get through and Israeli civilian casualties could be high.

It is clear that staging the attack on Iran would be fraught with difficulties and intelligence estimates suggest that at best the bombing would set back the Iranian ability to construct a weapon by only a year or two. Plus the attack would make certain that Iran would pursue a weapon, if only for self-defense, an essentially political decision that has not yet been made by the country’s leadership.

Israel has other military assets–including ballistic missiles and submarine-launched cruise missiles–that could be used to attack Iran, that would invite retaliation from Iran’s own ballistic and cruise missiles, considerably complicating post-attack developments. There is also the Israeli nuclear weapons capability, use of which would invite worldwide condemnation and instantly escalate the fighting into a regional or even broader conflict.

On balance, all of the above suggests that the frequently repeated threat by the Israeli leadership to attack Iran is not a serious plan to take out Iran’s nuclear sites. It is more likely a long running disinformation operation to somehow convince the United States to do the job or a deliberate conditioning of the Israeli and US publics to be supportive if some incident can be arranged to trigger an armed conflict. If one believes the two presidential candidates based on what they said in Monday’s debate, both have more-or-less conceded the point, agreeing that they would support militarily any Israeli attack on Iran. Whether Romney or Obama is actually willing to start a major new war in the Middle East is, of course, impossible to discern.


Posted in IranComments Off on How to Bomb Iran

Iran says has images of restricted IsraHell areas


Chair of Iranian parliament’s defense committee claims drone launched into Israeli airspace earlier this month transmitted pictures of ‘sensitive bases’ before it was shot down


Iran holds pictures of Israeli bases and other restricted areas obtained from a drone launched into Israeli airspace earlier this month, an Iranian lawmaker was quoted as saying on Monday.

Earlier this month, Israel shot down a drone after it flew 25 miles (55 km) into the Jewish state. Lebanese militant group Hezbollah claimed responsibility for the aircraft, saying its parts had been manufactured in Iran and assembled in Lebanon.

The drone transmitted pictures of Israel’s “sensitive bases” before it was shot down, said Esmail Kowsari, chair of parliament’s defense committee, according to Iran’s Mehr news agency. He was speaking to Iran’s Arabic-language Al-Alam, Mehr reported on Monday.

“These aircraft transmit their pictures online, and right now we possess pictures of restricted areas,” Kowsari was quoted as saying.

Israeli air space is closely monitored by the military and, except for commercial air corridors, is restricted, with special attention paid to numerous military and security installations.

Israeli threats to bomb Iranian nuclear sites if diplomacy and sanctions fail to stop Tehran’s nuclear program are a flashpoint for tensions in the Middle East. The West suspects the program is designed to develop a nuclear weapons capability, something Tehran steadfastly denies.

Iran’s military regularly announces defense and engineering developments though some analysts are skeptical of the reliability of such reports.

On Sunday Iranian Defense Minister Ahmad Vahidi said the downed drone did not represent Iran’s latest know-how in drone technology, according to Mehr.

In April, Iran announced it had started to build a copy of a US surveillance drone, the RQ-170 Sentinel, captured last year after it came down near the Afghan border.

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, IranComments Off on Iran says has images of restricted IsraHell areas

Naziyahu–Palestinian bid in UN may push him to ‘harsh unilateral reaction,’ diplomats say


PA expected to seek UN General Assembly recognition as ‘non-member observer state’ in November; Israeli envoys warn European Union that move could could lead to a new Intifada.


The Palestinian Authority’s bid for UN recognition as a non-member observer state could lead to a new intifada or the PA’s collapse, Israeli diplomats are warning countries worldwide as part of an intensive diplomatic campaign against the move.

The risk is exacerbated, Foreign Ministry officials say, by the timing: The PA is expected to seek a vote in the UN General Assembly next month, at which point Israel’s election campaign will be in full swing, with several parties holding primaries in late November. This is liable to lead ministers and Knesset members to vie with each other over who can offer a tougher response.

Thus even delaying the vote by a few months, until after the Israeli elections, would help prevent a disaster, ministry officials say.

“Even today, the atmosphere in the Prime Minister’s Bureau is one of ‘this time, we’ll show them what’s what,’” said a former senior official who was involved in discussions on the matter between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his aides. “Likud ministers will pressure him, the polls will scare him. And from there it’s not far to a response that would bring about a violent conflagration or the collapse of the Palestinian Authority.”

Senior Foreign Ministry officials and Israeli diplomats abroad have been warning of a scenario in which Israel’s government “goes crazy” the day after the UN vote. And far from being insulted, politicians are encouraging this campaign.

“We suggest that the European Union take Israel’s political needs into account,” said a document ministry staffers prepared for Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon before his meeting this week with EU envoy Andreas Reinicke. “Israel is entering a campaign season, and consideration must be given to the fact that its government, too, is liable to find itself under political pressure to respond suitably to unilateral Palestinian moves.”

A similar briefing paper was prepared for Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman before his meeting with EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton on Wednesday, and ambassadors worldwide have been asked to give their host governments similar messages.

A senior government official said both Netanyahu and Lieberman warned Ashton that the PA’s UN bid would be a “game-changing move” that would spark unilateral Israeli measures in response. “We’re asking all these states to make the dangerous ramifications of this move clear to the Palestinians,” he added.

Lieberman also told Ashton that the Foreign Ministry has prepared a “toolbox” of possible responses, ranging from relatively mild steps – like revoking PA officials’ VIP passes or canceling work permits for Palestinians in Israel – to severe measures like approving construction of thousands of new houses in the settlements or halting tax transfers to the PA. The latter could result in the PA’s financial collapse.

Israel could even declare Abbas “irrelevant,” meaning it would sever all dealings with him, just as it did with his predecessor, Yasser Arafat.

“We’re telling the Europeans openly that if Abu Mazen [Abbas] goes to the UN, he won’t be a partner in the eyes of Israel’s leadership the day after,” the senior official said. “We’re also explaining that the gap between the decision made at UN headquarters in New York and the reality on the ground is liable to be so large it will lead to frustration, and thence to violence.”

If, as seems likely, efforts to deter Abbas fail, the next step is trying to sway the vote. Israel plans to lobby over 100 of the UN’s 193 members – those it feels it has a chance of influencing – in the hopes of persuading them to vote no, or at least abstain.

The PA is also waging a worldwide lobbying campaign. Though it usually commands an automatic majority in the General Assembly, it wants to win by a landslide, with 160 to 170 countries voting in favor. To meet that goal, it needs the support of at least half of EU members.

The Foreign Ministry claims that key EU states like Germany, France and Britain oppose the PA’s UN bid. Even many Arab states aren’t enthusiastic, it says, especially Jordan and Saudi Arabia – both because they fear it could spark escalation, and because they think it will distract from their primary goal of toppling Bashar Assad’s regime in Syria and ending the civil war there.

The move also has many opponents in the PA – led by Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, who understands full well that it could lead to the PA’s collapse. But Abbas, said ministry officials, seems determined: “He’s afraid of ending like [former Egyptian President Hosni] Mubarak,” said one.

Posted in Palestine AffairsComments Off on Naziyahu–Palestinian bid in UN may push him to ‘harsh unilateral reaction,’ diplomats say

Shoah’s pages