Archive | November 17th, 2012

Beyond Bayonets and Battleships: Space Warfare and the Future of U.S. Global Power

Global Research

It’s 2025 and an American “triple canopy” of advanced surveillance and armed drones fills the heavens from the lower- to the exo-atmosphere. A wonder of the modern age, it can deliver its weaponry anywhere on the planet with staggering speed, knock out an enemy’s satellite communications system, or follow individuals biometrically for great distances. Along with the country’s advanced cyberwar capacity, it’s also the most sophisticated militarized information system ever created and an insurance policy for U.S. global dominion deep into the twenty-first century. It’s the future as the Pentagon imagines it; it’s under development; and Americans know nothing about it.

They are still operating in another age. “Our Navy is smaller now than at any time since 1917,” complained Republican candidate Mitt Romney during the last presidential debate.

With words of withering mockery, President Obama shot back: “Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military’s changed… the question is not a game of Battleship, where we’re counting ships. It’s what are our capabilities.”

Obama later offered just a hint of what those capabilities might be: “What I did was work with our joint chiefs of staff to think about, what are we going to need in the future to make sure that we are safe?… We need to be thinking about cyber security. We need to be talking about space.”

Amid all the post-debate media chatter, however, not a single commentator seemed to have a clue when it came to the profound strategic changes encoded in the president’s sparse words. Yet for the past four years, working in silence and secrecy, the Obama administration has presided over a technological revolution in defense planning, moving the nation far beyond bayonets and battleships to cyberwarfare and the full-scale weaponization of space. In the face of waning economic influence, this bold new breakthrough in what’s called “information warfare” may prove significantly responsible should U.S. global dominion somehow continue far into the twenty-first century.

While the technological changes involved are nothing less than revolutionary, they have deep historical roots in a distinctive style of American global power. It’s been evident from the moment this nation first stepped onto the world stage with its conquest of the Philippines in 1898. Over the span of a century, plunged into three Asian crucibles of counterinsurgency — in the Philippines, Vietnam, and Afghanistan — the U.S. military has repeatedly been pushed to the breaking point. It has repeatedly responded by fusing the nation’s most advanced technologies into new information infrastructures of unprecedented power.

That military first created a manual information regime for Philippine pacification, then a computerized apparatus to fight communist guerrillas in Vietnam. Finally, during its decade-plus in Afghanistan (and its years in Iraq), the Pentagon has begun to fuse biometrics, cyberwarfare, and a potential future triple canopy aerospace shield into a robotic information regime that could produce a platform of unprecedented power for the exercise of global dominion — or for future military disaster.

America’s First Information Revolution

This distinctive U.S. system of imperial information gathering (and the surveillance and war-making practices that go with it) traces its origins to some brilliant American innovations in the management of textual, statistical, and visual data. Their sum was nothing less than a new information infrastructure with an unprecedented capacity for mass surveillance.

During two extraordinary decades, American inventions like Thomas Alva Edison’s quadruplex telegraph (1874), Philo Remington’s commercial typewriter (1874), Melvil Dewey’s library decimal system (1876), and Herman Hollerith’s patented punch card (1889) created synergies that led to the militarized application of America’s first information revolution. To pacify a determined guerrilla resistance that persisted in the Philippines for a decade after 1898, the U.S. colonial regime — unlike European empires with their cultural studies of “Oriental civilizations” — used these advanced information technologies to amass detailed empirical data on Philippine society. In this way, they forged an Argus-eyed security apparatus that played a major role in crushing the Filipino nationalist movement. The resulting colonial policing and surveillance system would also leave a lasting institutional imprint on the emerging American state.

When the U.S. entered World War I in 1917, the “father of U.S. military intelligence” Colonel Ralph Van Deman drew upon security methods he had developed years before in the Philippines to found the Army’s Military Intelligence Division. He recruited a staff that quickly grew from one (himself) to 1,700, deployed some 300,000 citizen-operatives to compile more than a million pages of surveillance reports on American citizens, and laid the foundations for a permanent domestic surveillance apparatus.

A version of this system rose to unparalleled success during World War II when Washington established the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) as the nation’s first worldwide espionage agency. Among its nine branches, Research & Analysis recruited a staff of nearly 2,000 academics who amassed 300,000 photographs, a million maps, and three million file cards, which they deployed in an information system via “indexing, cross-indexing, and counter-indexing” to answer countless tactical questions.

Yet by early 1944, the OSS found itself, in the words of historian Robin Winks, “drowning under the flow of information.” Many of the materials it had so carefully collected were left to molder in storage, unread and unprocessed. Despite its ambitious global reach, this first U.S. information regime, absent technological change, might well have collapsed under its own weight, slowing the flow of foreign intelligence that would prove so crucial for America’s exercise of global dominion after World War II.

Computerizing Vietnam

Under the pressures of a never-ending war in Vietnam, those running the U.S. information infrastructure turned to computerized data management, launching a second American information regime. Powered by the most advanced IBM mainframe computers, the U.S. military compiled monthly tabulations of security in all of South Vietnam’s 12,000 villages and filed the three million enemy documents its soldiers captured annually on giant reels of bar-coded film. At the same time, the CIA collated and computerized diverse data on the communist civilian infrastructure as part of its infamous Phoenix Program. This, in turn, became the basis for its systematic tortures and 41,000 “extra-judicial executions” (which, based on disinformation from petty local grudges and communist counterintelligence, killed many but failed to capture more than a handfull of top communist cadres).

Most ambitiously, the U.S. Air Force spent $800 million a year to lace southern Laos with a network of 20,000 acoustic, seismic, thermal, and ammonia-sensitive sensors to pinpoint Hanoi’s truck convoys coming down the Ho Chi Minh Trail under a heavy jungle canopy. The information these provided was then gathered on computerized systems for the targeting of incessant bombing runs. After 100,000 North Vietnamese troops passed right through this electronic grid undetected with trucks, tanks, and heavy artillery to launch the Nguyen Hue Offensive in 1972, the U.S. Pacific Air Force pronounced this bold attempt to build an “electronic battlefield” an unqualified failure.

In this pressure cooker of what became history’s largest air war, the Air Force also accelerated the transformation of a new information system that would rise to significance three decades later: the Firebee target drone. By war’s end, it had morphed into an increasingly agile unmanned aircraft that would make 3,500 top-secret surveillance sorties over China, North Vietnam, and Laos. By 1972, the SC/TV drone, with a camera in its nose, was capable of flying 2,400 miles while navigating via a low-resolution television image.

On balance, all this computerized data helped foster the illusion that American “pacification” programs in the countryside were winning over the inhabitants of Vietnam’s villages, and the delusion that the air war was successfully destroying North Vietnam’s supply effort. Despite a dismal succession of short-term failures that helped deliver a soul-searing blow to American power, all this computerized data-gathering proved a seminal experiment, even if its advances would not become evident for another 30 years until the U.S. began creating a third — robotic — information regime.

The Global War on Terror

As it found itself at the edge of defeat in the attempted pacification of two complex societies, Afghanistan and Iraq, Washington responded in part by adapting new technologies of electronic surveillance, biometric identification, and drone warfare — all of which are now melding into what may become an information regime far more powerful and destructive than anything that has come before.

After six years of a failing counterinsurgency effort in Iraq, the Pentagon discovered the power of biometric identification and electronic surveillance to pacify the country’s sprawling cities. It then built a biometric database with more than a million Iraqi fingerprints and iris scans that U.S. patrols on the streets of Baghdad could access instantaneously by satellite link to a computer center in West Virginia.

When President Obama took office and launched his “surge,” escalating the U.S. war effort in Afghanistan, that country became a new frontier for testing and perfecting such biometric databases, as well as for full-scale drone war in both that country and the Pakistani tribal borderlands, the latest wrinkle in a technowar already loosed by the Bush administration. This meant accelerating technological developments in drone warfare that had largely been suspended for two decades after the Vietnam War.

Launched as an experimental, unarmed surveillance aircraft in 1994, the Predator drone was first deployed in 2000 for combat surveillance under the CIA’s “Operation Afghan Eyes.” By 2011, the advanced MQ-9 Reaper drone, with “persistent hunter killer” capabilities, was heavily armed with missiles and bombs as well as sensors that could read disturbed dirt at 5,000 feet and track footprints back to enemy installations. Indicating the torrid pace of drone development, between 2004 and 2010 total flying time for all unmanned vehicles rose from just 71 hours to 250,000 hours.

By 2009, the Air Force and the CIA were already deploying a drone armada of at least 195 Predators and 28 Reapers inside Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan — and it’s only grown since. These collected and transmitted 16,000 hours of video daily, and from 2006-2012 fired hundreds of Hellfire missiles that killed an estimated 2,600 supposed insurgents inside Pakistan’s tribal areas. Though the second-generation Reaper drones might seem stunningly sophisticated, one defense analyst has called them “very much Model T Fords.” Beyond the battlefield, there are now some 7,000 drones in the U.S. armada of unmanned aircraft, including 800 larger missile-firing drones. By funding its own fleet of 35 drones and borrowing others from the Air Force, the CIA has moved beyond passive intelligence collection to build a permanent robotic paramilitary capacity.

In the same years, another form of information warfare came, quite literally, online. Over two administrations, there has been continuity in the development of a cyberwarfare capability at home and abroad. Starting in 2002, President George W. Bush illegally authorized the National Security Agency to scan countless millions of electronic messages with its top-secret “Pinwale” database. Similarly, the FBI started an Investigative Data Warehouse that, by 2009, held a billion individual records.

Under Presidents Bush and Obama, defensive digital surveillance has grown into an offensive “cyberwarfare” capacity, which has already been deployed against Iran in history’s first significant cyberwar. In 2009, the Pentagon formed U.S. Cyber Command (CYBERCOM), with headquarters at Ft. Meade, Maryland, and a cyberwarfare center at Lackland Air Base in Texas, staffed by 7,000 Air Force employees. Two years later, it declared cyberspace an “operational domain” like air, land, or sea, and began putting its energy into developing a cadre of cyber-warriors capable of launching offensive operations, such as a variety of attacks on the computerized centrifuges in Iran’s nuclear facilities and Middle Eastern banks handling Iranian money.

A Robotic Information Regime

As with the Philippine Insurrection and the Vietnam War, the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan have served as the catalyst for a new information regime, fusing aerospace, cyberspace, biometrics, and robotics into an apparatus of potentially unprecedented power. In 2012, after years of ground warfare in both countries and the continuous expansion of the Pentagon budget, the Obama administration announced a leaner future defense strategy. It included a 14% cut in future infantry strength to be compensated for by an increased emphasis on investments in the dominions of outer space and cyberspace, particularly in what the administration calls “critical space-based capabilities.”

By 2020, this new defense architecture should theoretically be able to integrate space, cyberspace, and terrestrial combat through robotics for — so the claims go — the delivery of seamless information for lethal action. Significantly, both space and cyberspace are new, unregulated domains of military conflict, largely beyond international law. And Washington hopes to use both, without limitation, as Archimedean levers to exercise new forms of global dominion far into the twenty-first century, just as the British Empire once ruled from the seas and the Cold War American imperium exercised its global reach via airpower.

As Washington seeks to surveil the globe from space, the world might well ask: Just how high is national sovereignty? Absent any international agreement about the vertical extent of sovereign airspace (since a conference on international air law, convened in Paris in 1910, failed), some puckish Pentagon lawyer might reply: only as high as you can enforce it. And Washington has filled this legal void with a secret executive matrix — operated by the CIA and the clandestine Special Operations Command — that assigns names arbitrarily, without any judicial oversight, to a classified “kill list” that means silent, sudden death from the sky for terror suspects across the Muslim world.

Although U.S. plans for space warfare remain highly classified, it is possible to assemble the pieces of this aerospace puzzle by trolling the Pentagon’s websites, and finding many of the key components in technical descriptions at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). As early as 2020, the Pentagon hopes to patrol the entire globe ceaselessly, relentlessly via a triple canopy space shield reaching from stratosphere to exosphere, driven by drones armed with agile missiles, linked by a resilient modular satellite system, monitored through a telescopic panopticon, and operated by robotic controls.

At the lowest tier of this emerging U.S. aerospace shield, within striking distance of Earth in the lower stratosphere, the Pentagon is building an armada of 99 Global Hawk drones equipped with high-resolution cameras capable of surveilling all terrain within a 100-mile radius, electronic sensors to intercept communications, efficient engines for continuous 24-hour flights, and eventually Triple Terminator missiles to destroy targets below. By late 2011, the Air Force and the CIA had already ringed the Eurasian land mass with a network of 60 bases for drones armed with Hellfire missiles and GBU-30 bombs, allowing air strikes against targets just about anywhere in Europe, Africa, or Asia.

The sophistication of the technology at this level was exposed in December 2011 when one of the CIA’s RQ-170 Sentinels came down in Iran. Revealed was a bat-winged drone equipped with radar-evading stealth capacity, active electronically scanned array radar, and advanced optics “that allow operators to positively identify terror suspects from tens of thousands of feet in the air.”

If things go according to plan, in this same lower tier at altitudes up to 12 miles unmanned aircraft such as the “Vulture,” with solar panels covering its massive 400-foot wingspan, will be patrolling the globe ceaselessly for up to five years at a time with sensors for “unblinking” surveillance, and possibly missiles for lethal strikes. Establishing the viability of this new technology, NASA’s solar-powered aircraft Pathfinder, with a 100-foot wingspan, reached an altitude of 71,500 feet altitude in 1997, and its fourth-generation successor the “Helios” flew at 97,000 feet with a 247-foot wingspan in 2001, two miles higher than any previous aircraft.

For the next tier above the Earth, in the upper stratosphere, DARPA and the Air Force are collaborating in the development of the Falcon Hypersonic Cruise Vehicle. Flying at an altitude of 20 miles, it is expected to “deliver 12,000 pounds of payload at a distance of 9,000 nautical miles from the continental United States in less than two hours.” Although the first test launches in April 2010 and August 2011 crashed midflight, they did reach an amazing 13,000 miles per hour, 22 times the speed of sound, and sent back “unique data” that should help resolve remaining aerodynamic problems.

At the outer level of this triple-tier aerospace canopy, the age of space warfare dawned in April 2010 when the Pentagon quietly launched the X-37B space drone, an unmanned craft just 29 feet long, into an orbit 250 miles above the Earth. By the time its second prototype landed at Vandenberg Air Force Base in June 2012 after a 15-month flight, this classified mission represented a successful test of “robotically controlled reusable spacecraft” and established the viability of unmanned space drones in the exosphere.

At this apex of the triple canopy, 200 miles above Earth where the space drones will soon roam, orbital satellites are the prime targets, a vulnerability that became obvious in 2007 when China used a ground-to-air missile to shoot down one of its own satellites. In response, the Pentagon is now developing the F-6 satellite system that will “decompose a large monolithic spacecraft into a group of wirelessly linked elements, or nodes [that increases] resistance to… a bad part breaking or an adversary attacking.” And keep in mind that the X-37B has a capacious cargo bay to carry missiles or future laser weaponry to knock out enemy satellites — in other words, the potential capability to cripple the communications of a future military rival like China, which will have its own global satellite system operational by 2020.

Ultimately, the impact of this third information regime will be shaped by the ability of the U.S. military to integrate its array of global aerospace weaponry into a robotic command structure that would be capable of coordinating operations across all combat domains: space, cyberspace, sky, sea, and land. To manage the surging torrent of information within this delicately balanced triple canopy, the system would, in the end, have to become self-maintaining through “robotic manipulator technologies,” such as the Pentagon’s FREND system that someday could potentially deliver fuel, provide repairs, or reposition satellites.

For a new global optic, DARPA is building the wide-angle Space Surveillance Telescope (SST), which could be sited at bases ringing the globe for a quantum leap in “space surveillance.” The system would allow future space warriors to see the whole sky wrapped around the entire planet while seated before a single screen, making it possible to track every object in Earth orbit.

Operation of this complex worldwide apparatus will require, as one DARPA official explained in 2007, “an integrated collection of space surveillance systems — an architecture — that is leak-proof.” Thus, by 2010, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency had 16,000 employees, a $5 billion budget, and a massive $2 billion headquarters at Fort Belvoir, Virginia, with 8,500 staffers wrapped in electronic security — all aimed at coordinating the flood of surveillance data pouring in from Predators, Reapers, U-2 spy planes, Global Hawks, X-37B space drones, Google Earth, Space Surveillance Telescopes, and orbiting satellites. By 2020 or thereafter — such a complex techno-system is unlikely to respect schedules — this triple canopy should be able to atomize a single “terrorist” with a missile strike after tracking his eyeball, facial image, or heat signature for hundreds of miles through field and favela, or blind an entire army by knocking out all ground communications, avionics, and naval navigation.

Technological Dominion or Techno-Disaster?

Peering into the future, a still uncertain balance of forces offers two competing scenarios for the continuation of U.S. global power. If all or much goes according to plan, sometime in the third decade of this century the Pentagon will complete a comprehensive global surveillance system for Earth, sky, and space using robotics to coordinate a veritable flood of data from biometric street-level monitoring, cyber-data mining, a worldwide network of Space Surveillance Telescopes, and triple canopy aeronautic patrols. Through agile data management of exceptional power, this system might allow the United States a veto of global lethality, an equalizer for any further loss of economic strength.

However, as in Vietnam, history offers some pessimistic parallels when it comes to the U.S. preserving its global hegemony by militarized technology alone. Even if this robotic information regime could somehow check China’s growing military power, the U.S. might still have the same chance of controlling wider geopolitical forces with aerospace technology as the Third Reich had of winning World War II with its “super weapons” — V-2 rockets that rained death on London and Messerschmitt Me-262 jets that blasted allied bombers from Europe’s skies. Complicating the future further, the illusion of information omniscience might incline Washington to more military misadventures akin to Vietnam or Iraq, creating the possibility of yet more expensive, draining conflicts, from Iran to the South China Sea.

If the future of America’s world power is shaped by actual events rather than long-term economic trends, then its fate might well be determined by which comes first in this century-long cycle: military debacle from the illusion of technological mastery, or a new technological regime powerful enough to perpetuate U.S. global dominion.

Posted in USAComments Off on Beyond Bayonets and Battleships: Space Warfare and the Future of U.S. Global Power

International Committee of IslamicHuman Rights denounces Nazi genocide against Gaza



As in 2009, in Operation Cast Lead, the Zionist state has planned a new extermination against Gaza where this year has killed children and women with their bombing of civilians

(GAZA/PALESTINIAN TERRITORIES) The International Committee of  Islamic Human Rights “Faisal Sergio Tapia”, complaint with the international community to Israel to plan and implement a new plan of extermination against the Gaza Strip in 2009, a new Palestinian genocide, massacring women and children and 24 hours violating the human rights of the Palestinian nation, usurped and occupied by the Israeli occupation army.

The Israeli government with his army of occupation have expressed more than once a desire to exterminate the Gaza Strip and perform a criminal exceeding that Operation Cast Lead, which leaves no doubt about the intent of the attacks, systematically bombed homes, hospitals, auto nonmilitary people fleeing with the evident purpose of killing as many civilians posible.Todos highlight acts for their coordination, consistency and continuity, that the civilian population has been targeted military, Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip.

The leader and islamic human rights defender Faisal Sergio Tapia, recalls that during Operation Cast Lead, the Israeli soldiers decided to use methods of extermination against the civilian population, such as target shooting, using pregnant women as their targets. The Zionist criminal competition was to see which of them murdered more women in pregnancy status, decided to give worldwide publicity, standing where exhibited flannels messages alluding to his terrifying hunt: “1 shot, 2 dead.” The feat of the competition was that for every woman killed (one shot), with the infant died she was in gestation (2 dead).

Likewise, the International Committee of  Islamic Human Rights “Faisal Sergio Tapia”says that Palestinian children in the Gaza Strip live under the Genocide of the bombs, machine guns by the Israeli army, “where there are 700,000 children in Gaza are subjected to massacres, murders, crimes against humanity, genocide, humanitarian blockade, seizure and destruction of their schools, their homes, their families, their homes “sufficient evidence of the commission of the worst atrocities that Palestinian children living in the Gaza Strip, a concentration camp, a camp massacres of Israeli barbarism, under the blessing of the spiritual leaders in their sermons Zionists who tell the young Israeli soldiers present that “there are no innocents in Gaza “therefore all massacres carried out against Palestinians are absolutely” legitimate. “

Cadena de Noticias Palestinas
Palestinian News Network
شبكة الأخبار الفلسطينية

Redaccion contacto:

Site Internacional:

Registro de Propiedad Intelectual
Global N°1109300170471
Safe Creative – Union Europea.
Todos los Derechos Reservados.
All Rights Reserved.

Cadena de Noticias Palestinas
Palestinian News Network
شبكة الأخبار الفلسطينية

Redaccion contacto:

Site Internacional:

Registro de Propiedad Intelectual
Global N°1109300170471
Safe Creative – Union Europea.
Todos los Derechos Reservados.
All Rights Reserved.

Cadena de Noticias Palestinas
Palestinian News Network
شبكة الأخبار الفلسطينية

Redaccion contacto:

Site Internacional:

Registro de Propiedad Intelectual
Global N°1109300170471
Safe Creative – Union Europea.
Todos los Derechos Reservados.
All Rights Reserved.

Cadena de Noticias Palestinas
Palestinian News Network
شبكة الأخبار الفلسطينية

Redaccion contacto:

Site Internacional:

Registro de Propiedad Intelectual
Global N°1109300170471
Safe Creative – Union Europea.
Todos los Derechos Reservados.
All Rights Reserved.

Cadena de Noticias Palestinas
Palestinian News Network
شبكة الأخبار الفلسطينية

Redaccion contacto:

Site Internacional:

Registro de Propiedad Intelectual
Global N°1109300170471
Safe Creative – Union Europea.
Todos los Derechos Reservados.
All Rights Reserved.

3 attachments — Download all attachments   View all images
faisalsr41.jpg faisalsr41.jpg
378K   View   Download
z35.jpg z35.jpg
690K   View   Download
faisalweb901.jpg faisalweb901.jpg
245K   View   Download 

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, Gaza, Human RightsComments Off on International Committee of IslamicHuman Rights denounces Nazi genocide against Gaza

Some Notes on the Current Scandal


1. Justin Raimono has an outstanding piece today regarding Penisgate. He’s just been reading the M$M and he’s been putting two and two together, something no one in the M$M is actually interested in doing.

And it just so turns out that Israel-Firster, Congressman Eric Cantor (Likud, Va), is deeply involved. Yup, it was decided that Cantor, who does not serve on an intelligence committee, needed to know about this and  then Cantor served as a liason between an FBI whistleblower and the FBI director. What? What the fuck? Yup, that’s what the New York version of the Jerusalem Washington New York Times Post had to say.

Cantor is quoted in the New York Crimes:

“I was contacted by an F.B.I. employee concerned that sensitive, classified information may have been compromised and made certain Director Mueller was aware of these serious allegations and the potential risk to our national security,” Mr. Cantor said in a statement.”

Interestingly enough though, it seems that the whistleblower went to Dave Reicherrt (Likud, Wa), who by the way is a supporter of genocide against the Palestinians, but I digress. Reichert then hooked this person up with Cantor. Oh, Reichert also approves the killing of unarmed American citizensby Israel, but that, just like his support for genocide, hardly distinguishes him from the rest of the criminals in Congress.

Raimondo also looks into the background of the well-heeled Paula Broadwell, who it just so happens was dining at an outrageously expensive inn in Virginia while the scandal was breaking. Turns out she’s got quite the neocon connections. I’m shocked, really shocked. It’s a good read and typical Raimondo.

2. Today’s Jerusalem Washington New York Times Post rehashes a lot of the stuff Raimondo covers, but it does add a couple of interesting twists. For example, was Broadwell using her access to Petraeus to leak classified information? I’m also really curious as to what the hell she was doing with access to Petraeus allegedy private and not his CIA-related email in box.  How was she accessing it and why was she using it to threaten another rich girl, Jill Kelly?

The Post (in an article written by Karen DeYoung and Sari Horwitz) reports:

Lawmakers are likely to question whether Broadwell was improperly given access to sensitive information about the (Benghazi) attack. In a late October speech at the University of Denver, she said that the CIA annex where two of the Americans were killed “had actually taken a couple of Libyan militia members prisoners” and that the attack was thought to be “an effort to get them back.” U.S. officials have not made reference to that possible motive in numerous accounts of the Benghazi attack.

Gee, I find that to be pretty fucking interesting.  Where did she get that information from?  Wonder if it is true? The CIA denies this, but at the CIA they lie just to keep in practice.

(Here is the link to the speech where she says what is mentioned above. Go to 36:52 into the video and give it a listen. )

This on top of other reports (which I linked to yesterday) about other people being very concerned that Broadwell was posting sensitive information on Facebook, makes me wonder just how deep neo-con-connected Broadwell got into Petraeus.

And I still can’t help but wonder why Petraeus resigned after knowing that he had been exonerated and that Broadwell  had too?  Seems that Clapper didn’t buy that shit and told him to resign. Wonder what Clapper knew that we haven’t been told yet.

In the meantime, the Israel-firsters who run Congress are hollering and screaming about how they should have been informed by the FBI long ago about the investigation and they are screaming for heads to roll at the FBI.

Let me get this straight: The FBI can harass the shit out of Muslim-Americans for no reason at all and set some retarded American Muslims up as terrorist scapegoats, but that’s okay. But not telling Peter King about an investigation into Broadwell’s shenanigans when it was still in its early stages is unacceptable?

Get a load of this from two big-time Israel-firsters:

“This is something that could have had an effect on national security,” Feinstein said. “I think we should have been told.” She said the panel will “absolutely” investigate why the FBI did not notify relevant officials sooner.

Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.), chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said: “It just doesn’t add up that you have this type of investigation. The FBI is investigating e-mails, the ­e-mails leading to the CIA director, taking four months to find out that the CIA director was involved.”

Please, please, please let’s have Jane Harman replace Petraeus. It is possible, as the Cabalah News Network reports:

“Another possibility for the position: Jane Harman, the former congresswoman from California who is well-respected within intelligence circles.

“While in Congress she served as the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, chaired the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence, and was a member of the Armed Services Committee. Although a social liberal, Harman was seen as a moderate on intelligence and defense issues. She voted for the war in Iraq and initially supported the controversial domestic surveillance program run by the Bush administration.”

“Well respected in intelligence circles” – this has to be a reference to Mossad and AIPAC.

Slate also notes:

“Jane Harman, the former congresswoman from California, could also be a contender, particularly considering she is well-respected in the intelligence community.”

Sadly, she’s a long shot. But it would be awesome.

3. Damn, I almost to forget to mention another article in the Post today by Greg Jaffe: (Funny how many Muslims are involved in this scandal, isn’t it? But I digress.)

I find this paragraph in Jaffe’s puff piece very troubling:

“Prominent members of conservative, Washington-based defense think tanks were given [by Petraeus] permanent office space at his headquarters [in Afghanistan] and access to military aircraft to tour the battlefield. They provided advice to field commanders that sometimes conflicted with orders the commanders were getting from their immediate bosses.”

I also don’t like this:

“Broadwell, who first met Petraeus when she was a doctoral student at Harvard, was treated as though she were a member of Petraeus’s inner circle and was afforded VIP housing at the main U.S.-NATO headquarters in Kabul.”

So he’s running a bullshit war in Afghanistan getting all kinds of  people killed and he’s surrounded by an entourage that had to be shot through and through with neo-cons.  And he’s rewarded for this by becoming the head of the CIA?

Even before he was sworn in as CIA director in September 2011, Petraeus was bending the rules of his own doctrine in Afghanistan. He reversed McChrystal’s counterinsurgency-inspired limits on air strikes, which can cause heavy civilian casualties, and bombed the hell out of the Taliban. He also oversaw a steep increase in Special Forces raids and armed drone strikes. Petraeus brought that attitude to the CIA, fighting to expand the spy agency’s drone fleet so that it can more easily kill suspected terrorists from Pakistan to Yemen to Northern Africa.”

If you still wonder why just about everybody fucking hates us, then you should sign up for Shas Party membership.

4. Well it’s video time. Here’s some cool stuff. They are all short.

Dave Reichert kissing Israel’s ass right after Israel murdered 9 people, one of them an American citizen.

Here Paula Broadwell, unwittingly, shows how completely fucking dumb the Military Industrial Complex is. She also tells us about Petraeus’ tender side.

Below Broadwell talks about Petraeus’s “wonderful marriage”. Very touching. You can’t make this shit up.

By the way, to get to that part of the clip go to the sixty-second mark – it’s after the interview that she did with a fawning shit-eating-grin-faced Jon Stewart.

Posted in USAComments Off on Some Notes on the Current Scandal

Nazi Lies that Deceive the World: Hamas’ Rockets are a Holo-Hoax


Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Nazi Lies that Deceive the World: Hamas’ Rockets are a Holo-Hoax

On Veterans Day: Don’t thank us–join us in demanding justice A message from March Forward! organizers

On Oct. 6, the 11th anniversary of the Afghanistan war, March Forward! led a shut-down of
a military recruitment center in Los Angeles, highlighting the loss of life abroad.

“The point of public relations slogans like ‘Support our troops’ is that they don’t mean anything. That’s the whole point of good propaganda. You want to create a slogan that nobody’s going to be against, and everybody’s going to be for. Nobody knows what it means, because it doesn’t mean anything. Its crucial value is that it diverts your attention from a question that does mean something: Do you support our policy? That’s the one you’re not allowed to talk about.” –Noam Chomsky
Former infantry Staff Sergeant Kevin Baker, 
co-author, spent 28 months in Iraq.

Throughout the day, we will be thanked for our service countless times from friends, family, acquaintances and strangers, all who feel a genuine debt of gratitude to those who volunteered to put life, limb and mind on the line in the name of service to country. There will be ceremonies, celebrations, parades, lots of free appetizer coupons, TV specials, sales, parties, and all sorts of honors to make us feel appreciated.

And the outpouring of thanks on this day shows that natural tendency of human beings to want to care about each other, sacrifice for each other, and bond together for the good of the whole society.

We understand and deeply feel the sentiment of those gracious enough to express their gratitude. But as a generation of new veterans that is struggling to be heard, as a growing group with our own litany of hardships and battles we are fighting, we want to add to the discourse how many of us feel on Veterans Day and the burning issues that affect veterans.

Many of us feel deep guilt and remorse. On a day full of praise and thanks, we are reminded of what we are being thanked for. We are reminded of the people who would never thank us for our service.

Many of us have become friends and developed close personal bonds and relationships with people from Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Many of us have family members, spouses and children from those countries. Many of us have become close colleagues with people from those countries, become brothers and sisters in common struggle, and have taken part in historic political actions side-by-side against the same enemy.

Our service in the U.S. military consisted of carrying out the greatest loss of life, destruction, and humanitarian crisis of our generation against those people who we hold so close to our hearts. That is why receiving “thanks” for what we did can be very difficult.

For many of us, our entire lives since have been defined by the solidarity we feel with the people hurt by the war, the people we encountered who changed the way we thought about everything, and the deep regret we feel for the role we played. On a day filled with fanfare and recognition, we feel especially remorseful towards our colleagues, friends and loved ones hurt by the military we served in.

For all those millions (yes, millions) of innocent people who watched family members killed, had their homes and livelihoods destroyed, their limbs blown off, given birth to deformed or stillborn babies, suffered psychological trauma, endured being tortured—we can only imagine what it must sound like to them for us to be thanked and honored.

Former Corporal Mike Prysner, co-author, 
spent 12 months in Iraq.

Of course we know these are not the things our friends and family are thanking us for on Veterans Day, but it is a very real and painful trigger for the thousands of veterans who realized their commonality with the people we’re sent to fight.

The problem with Veterans Day is that the United States is an imperialist country. Our generation’s wars have been for the banks and the Military Industrial Complex. Despite many of our best hopes, we do not serve “our country” in the U.S. military. We end up serving a tiny sector in the United States—a very small, very rich sector that profits from defense contracts, access to untapped resources and regional economic control—at the expense of innocent people who are just like us.

No matter how good-intentioned we were, or how honorably we served despite the situation the politicians put us in, we will not let Veterans Day eclipse the fact that there were people on the other side of the wars, who are just like our friends and family, whose lives were destroyed.

We get the opposite of “thanks” from our politicians and officers.  Military service is looked at as the highest form of sacrifice to this country without ever questioning in which way the military is used, or how the military and political leadership views its service members. The reality facing veterans today is a crisis that this government would rather keep wrapped in an American flag and tied with a yellow ribbon hidden from the American people. The truth is the suicide rate amongst veterans is 18 a day—one a day among active-duty service members. The truth being that the VA and military hospitals on base are flooded with broken service members who are not only receiving inadequate treatment, but are being actively denied legitimate PTSD diagnoses, compensation and treatment. A recent Pentagon study found that the vast majority of soldiers who attempt suicide do not want to die and have tried unsuccessfully and painstakingly to get help, but “do not see any other way out of the situation they are in.”

And as much as our esteemed officers will stand at the head of Veterans Day “thank you” ceremonies, they are responsible for the historic neglect of wounded troops. This is how they see us: “I have now come to the conclusion that suicide is an absolutely selfish act,” wrote Major General Dana Pittard, who commands Fort Bliss, one of the nation’s largest military bases, in an official blog post. “I am personally fed up with soldiers who are choosing to take their own lives so that others can clean up their mess … be an adult, act like an adult, and deal with your real-life problems like the rest of us.” This is the sentiment across the officer ranks—take Col. Dallas Homas, medical commander at Fort Lewis who ordered his psychologists to deny legitimate PTSD diagnoses to “save money.” These stories of intentional denial of care, and contempt and punishment for wounded troops, are the status quo in today’s military.

Veterans experience extremely disproportionate rates of homelessness, unemployment and mental health issues. There could easily be immediate relief for all of these veterans. But our elected leaders in Washington and our un-elected leaders in the Pentagon seem to only have funds to pour into the for-profit defense industry.

And, of course, the biggest issue facing U.S. service members is the constant, repeated deployment to the 11-year-long, wildly unpopular, failed neo-colonial project in Afghanistan. Our government cares so little about the bloodbath we’re being sent to, that President Obama and Mitt Romney collectively spent less than two minutes discussing it in the foreign policy “debate.”

This quote from SSG Matthew Sitton while serving in Afghanistan sums up just how much this government cares about the lives of service members:

“I know the threat of casualties in war and am totally on board with sacrifice for my country, but what I do not agree with is the chain of command making us walk through—for lack of a better term—basically a minefield on a daily basis.

As a brigade, we are averaging at a minimum an amputee a day from our soldiers because we are walking around aimlessly.

There is no end state or purpose for the patrols given to us from our higher chain of command, only that we will be out for a certain period of time.”

He was killed by an IED in Afghanistan on Aug. 2, 2012, just weeks after writing this message, leaving behind a wife and newborn child. How can we take serious the “thanks” from our politicians and generals while they continue to send us on completely meaningless missions?

So many of us lost friends, both in combat and to suicide. As we remember them, we must remember that the politicians and general officers standing at the front of ceremonies today are responsible for their senseless death through their lies and abuse.

If Veterans Day really meant anything to our political and military leaders, they would end the war immediately, bring everyone home, and provide us adequate care and services. Their attempts to use this day to highlight their own empty “support the troops” image means nothing to us—especially while they are sending our brothers and sisters in uniform to a completely pointless bloodbath.

Not all of us wanted this life. We are praised because we made a decision to sign a contract giving ourselves completely to a job that involves the worst kind of risk and danger for the so-called “greater good.” But many of us made this decision because we felt there was no other option to make ends meet.

Today, thousands of young people are flooding into the military because their prospects for being able to get an education have grown unaffordable and out-of-reach. Thousands of youth—in particular youth of color—are faced with upwards of 50 percent unemployment in their communities, with the only available jobs being low-wage and temp work. Thousands of parents go into the military because there is no other way to provide their family with adequate health care and housing. Thousands of undocumented immigrants—especially now with the new militarized DREAM Act—join because they have no other option for citizenship.

The reason that there is such hardship for poor and working people is because this system must maintain a massive military budget, occupying and bombing countries that U.S. banks and corporations want to dominate. Then we are sent to fight the very same wars that led to such crisis in our communities to begin with.

So many have lost their lives, their bodies and their minds out of the dedication and commitment to provide a decent life for their children. But nobody should have to choose between war and poverty. Veterans Day should remind us of the devastating economic conditions that our communities suffer to feed the Pentagon war machine.

Let Veterans Day inspire you to join us in struggle. We raise these issues not to criticize people who want to express sincere thanks for those who sacrificed in their name, but to help everyone realize the key lessons we can learn from our generation of veterans and inspire you to join us in the new war we are fighting.

Today, our generation of veterans is in crisis. We are sent on constant deployments to endless wars we have no reason to fight. We come home to criminally inadequate treatment and services.  Just like in the past, we have no choice but to organize amongst ourselves and fight this government’s complete disregard for our lives and the lives of innocent people abroad.

Veterans and service members have never been given rights. We have always had to organize together and fight against the U.S. government to get them.

From the WWI veterans in the Bonus Army, who occupied Washington, D.C. and were beaten, shot and killed by the police, who won us the GI Bill and the Adjusted Compensation Payment Act; to Black service members who organized against segregation in the military; to the widespread GI uprisings that stopped our lives from being thrown away in the Vietnam War and eliminated the draft; to lesbian, gay, bi-sexual and transgendered service members who protested and got arrested in uniform to repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell; to female service members fighting for equality and against the scourge of sexual assault and the refusal of our leaders to address it; to service members today fighting for their right to conscientious objection—we have always had to organize and fight to win any respect for our lives.

This Veterans Day, let the gratitude for our willingness to die “serving our country” become more than slogans, thanks and celebrations. Let it evoke the real, lived reality for veterans and service members; let it recognize the pain of those suffering from U.S. policy around the world; let it become a catalyst for resistance to this system’s unwavering commitment to imperialist war and militarism at the expense of millions at home and abroad.

This Veterans Day, and in the days ahead, join us in demanding an immediate withdrawal of US/NATO forces from Afghanistan, the punishment of the war criminal generals, politicians and Wall Street CEOs who created this suffering, reparations for the populations decimated, and real care for veterans.

 Click here to learn about our latest initiative to fight against the Afghanistan war.

 Click here to make an urgently needed donation to help us carry out this important work.

Posted in USAComments Off on On Veterans Day: Don’t thank us–join us in demanding justice A message from March Forward! organizers

WSJ Reports that Broadwell Had Classified Documents on Her Computer and It’s Okay


It really is all about controlling the narrative. The WSJ has published a piece that states that Paula Broadwell, who fucked CIA Director David Petraeus for months, had classified documents on her personal computer.  The FBI, according to the article, had no problems with this.

I’m not making this up.

The following quotation is from the WSJ article and the “she” is Broadwell.

“On her computer, investigators found classified documents, the U.S. officials said, a discovery that raised new concerns.

“At Mr. Petraeus’s interview in the week before the election, he also admitted the affair and said he hadn’t provided the classified documents to Ms. Broadwell.Agents conducted a second interview with Ms. Broadwell on Nov. 2. She also said Mr. Petraeus wasn’t the source of the documents.

“That information helped resolve concerns that there was a national-security breach, although the source of the documents hadn’t been determined. The officials offered no specifics about what was in the documents.”

What in the fuck are you talking about? She’s been literally sleeping with the head of the CIA for months, has classified documents on her personal computer, and there was “no national-security breach.” Now that is nothing but pure unadulterated Zionist Bullshit.  In fact, it would be even more interesting to find out if Petraeus was not the source of the documents – cause then you’d have to ask “Who was?”

But according to this article, the FBI decided there was no security breach even though a woman who had been fucking the head of the CIA for months had classified documents on her computer.  And Broadwell said they didn’t come from Petraeus. That might be true. My next question would have been, “Who else are you spying on?” Oh, and then, “Who are you spying for?”

The article does not indicate whether or not such questions were asked.

This thing gets worse by the minute.

Posted in USAComments Off on WSJ Reports that Broadwell Had Classified Documents on Her Computer and It’s Okay

TUT Special Broadcast: The latest butchery in Gaza by Nazi’s

TUT Special Broadcast Nov 16, 2012

by crescentandcross

Tonight’s program–The latest butchery in Gaza by Israel as YET ANOTHER installment of Jewish ritual murder.


Download Here


Posted in Gaza, InterviewComments Off on TUT Special Broadcast: The latest butchery in Gaza by Nazi’s

PCHR submits an Individual Complaint to the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief


On Monday, 12 November, the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR) has made a written submission, in the form of an Individual Complaint, to Mr. Heiner Bielefeldt, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, which draws attention to the case of Sheikh Omar Mahmoud Ahmed Nofal (47) from Gaza City, Gaza Strip (occupied Palestinian territory).

During the First Intifada, which began in 1987, following the outbreak of the Second Intifada in September 2000, and as part of the ongoing illegal closure imposed on the Gaza Strip by Israel since 2007, Israel has placed severe restrictions on the movement of Palestinians living in the occupied Palestinian territory, banning them from traveling between Gaza Strip and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and preventing them from exercising their right to freedom of worship.

As a Muslim worshipper from the Gaza Strip, Sheikh Omar Nofal, along with all other Muslims from Gaza, is categorically denied access to Islamic holy sites located in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. Most significantly, this prevents Sheikh Nofal from performing religious prayers and rituals in the Al Aqsa mosque, which is located in East Jerusalem. This mosque is considered the third holiest place in the world by Muslims. Accessing the Al Aqsa compound and praying in the Al Aqsa mosque constitute an important and valuable part of the practicing of religion for Muslim Palestinians throughout the occupied Palestinian territory.

On 7 August 2012, Israel’s Supreme Court confirmed a District Court ruling which approves the policy that allows Christians from Gaza to access holy sites in Israel and the West Bank during their religious holidays, but categorically denies similar access to Muslim Palestinians from the Gaza Strip.

Arbitrarily barring Palestinians’ movement from one place to another within the occupied Palestinian territory is an unlawful and punitive restriction of freedom of movement, which constitutes a form of collective punishment, in violation of Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. These restrictions lead to a lack of access for Muslim Palestinians to their places  of worship, which is a violation of Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 27 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.


PCHR will be submitting either Memorandums or Individual Complaints on a bi-weekly basis to UN Working Groups and Special Rapporteurs, to draw attention to issues facing the Palestinian people.



Posted in Human RightsComments Off on PCHR submits an Individual Complaint to the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief



Here is a rare opportunity to watch Ali Abunimah doing what he is good at.

Abunimah is certainly one of the best Palestinian spokespersons, Here he manages to present the correct time line that led to the current escalation in Gaza.  Abunimah better concentrate on exposing Israeli criminality, rather than chasing the enemies of Israel within our ranks.

However, in this short interview Abunimah refers twice to Israel’s ‘irrational lust for violence’ and I am left slightly puzzled.  Just a year ago, the same Abunimah was outraged by my criticism of Jewish and Israeli culture. I would love to learn from  Abunimah what he has in mind when he talks about ‘Israel’s lust for violence’.  Isn’t he directly referring here to some sort of collective culture or even biology? Can we grasp the notion of ‘lust’ without a reference to biology or culture?

Abunimah better spend some time reading The Wandering Who. The book will provide him with a deep insight into ‘Israel’s lust for violence’. It will also provide him with the necessary information regarding the cultural heritage that led toward the emergence of such a genocidal cult.

The Wandering Who? A Study Of Jewish Identity Politics, Jewish political interest and ‘Israel’s lust for violence’ in the context of Biblical Jewish secular interpretations.  or




Shoah’s pages


November 2012
« Oct   Dec »