My logic of truth is traveling on ..........

from : My logic of truth admin.

I have changed my Page to

http://mylogicoftruth.wordpress.com/

you are welcome to sneak a peak .

the "My Logic of truth" admin.


P.S. I'll leave the blog open for Archive reasons so feel free to roam in my Archives ,but the new News i¡ll post on the new page from now on .

Thanks for following !.

Flashback: Silenced: TWA 800 and the Subversion of Justice

from :

Jack Cashill
Google Video
Sun, 19 Jul 2009 19:17 EDT

How easily the world forgets.

In 1996, TWA Flight 800 was *shot down* south of Long Island. The government of the United States, despite the embarrassment of having been caught in court rigging lab tests and lying in its reports, still officially attributes the disaster to a spark in the 747's center fuel tank, while government spokespeople insist that the witnesses who saw a missile hit the jumbo jet are all drunks.

There were more than 737 official eyewitnesses.

Here's the best documentary available on the subject: Silenced: TWA 800 and the Subversion of Justice

This "pre-9/11" video proves beyond a doubt how conspiracies can be very effectively covered up. An excellent professional production, it proves, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the FBI and DOJ were involved in a serious felony crime and the outrageous cover-up of truth concerning the crash of TWA Flight 800.

As you will see, Flight 800 was actually destroyed by a surface-to-air missile. Every allegation made in this film is backed up with solid, verifiable facts -- none more dramatic than those that come from the Federal government itself.

You'll learn what the 736 official eyewitnesses actually saw; why aviators reject the CIA "cartoon" explanation; how the Feds criminally suppressed reporting; the critical witness drawings; the rigged NTSB hearings; the damning radar data and documentation; the altered physical evidence; undeniable proof of explosive residue proving a missile strike; the stinging report from the machinist union; and much more.

Highly recommended.

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website.

.

Germany begins Afghan pullout in 2011

from : http://www.presstv.ir

Sat, 10 Jul 2010 04:30:03 GMT

Font size :

Germany aims to begin handing over security responsibilities to Afghan local forces in at least one of the country's northern provinces by 2011.

The German Foreign Minister says the country aims to begin handing over responsibility for security for Afghanistan's northern provinces to local forces next year.

In a statement to the Bundestag, or lower house of parliament on Friday, German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle said Germany should transfer at least one of the nine provinces it controls in the war-torn country by 2011, Reuters reported.

"We want to create the conditions within this legislative period that will allow the step-by-step withdrawal of our military presence," he said.

The address came days ahead of an international conference on the region, to be held in the Afghan capital Kabul on July 20.

"Only the Afghan government itself can make peace with those they are fighting," Westerwelle said. "It's also the task of the international community to bring Afghanistan's neighbors into this process."

According to polls, the majority of the German population thinks the country should withdraw from Afghanistan, where some 4,600 soldiers are stationed.

Many lawmakers in the German ruling coalition believe the center-right government will have to take a considerable move towards bringing the troops home before the next federal election in 2013.

Westerwelle said Afghanistan cannot be stabilized by military or humanitarian means alone, but requires a political solution.

Despite an increase in the US-led forces deployed in Afghanistan, which now stands at approximately 140,000, the Taliban are stronger than they have been since their government's ouster in 2001.

MVZ/TG/MVZ

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website.

.

Pot Versus Alcohol: Experts Say Booze Is the Bigger Danger

from : http://www.alternet.org

For more than three decades, America's marijuana policies have been based upon rhetoric. Perhaps it's time to begin listening to what the experts have to say.

July 1, 2010

"That's right, that's right," Nixon agreed. "A person does not drink to get drunk A person drinks to have fun."

The following year Linkletter announced that he had reversed his position on pot, concluding instead that the drug's social harms were not significant enough to warrant its criminal prohibition. Nixon however stayed the course -- launching the so-called "war" on drugs, a social policy that now results in the arrest of more than 800,000 Americans each year for violating marijuana laws.

Decades later, the social debate regarding the use of marijuana versus alcohol rages on. Yet among objective experts who have studied the issue there remains little debate at all. Despite pot's long-standing criminalization, scientists agree that the drug possesses far less harm than its legal and celebrated companion, alcohol.

For example, in the mid-1990s, the World Health Organization commissioned a team of experts to compare the health and societal consequences of marijuana use compared to other drugs, including alcohol, nicotine, and opiates. After quantifying the harms associated with both drugs, the researchers concluded: "Overall, most of these risks (associated with marijuana) are small to moderate in size. In aggregate they are unlikely to produce public health problems comparable in scale to those currently produced by alcohol and tobacco On existing patterns of use, cannabis poses a much less serious public health problem than is currently posed by alcohol and tobacco in Western societies."

French scientists at the state medical research institute INSERM published a similar review in 1998. Researchers categorized legal and illegal drugs into three distinct categories: Those that pose the greatest threat to public health, those that pose moderate harms to the public, and those substances that pose little-to-no danger. Alcohol, heroin, and cocaine were placed in the most dangerous category, while investigators determined that cannabis posed the least danger to public health.

In 2002, a special Canadian Senate Committee completed an exhaustive review of marijuana and health, concluding, "Scientific evidence overwhelmingly indicates that cannabis is substantially less harmful than alcohol and should be treated not as a criminal issue but as a social and public health issue."

In 2007, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare hired a team of scientists to assess the impact of alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs on public health. Researcher reported that the consumption of alcohol was significant contributors to death and disease. "Alcohol harm was responsible for 3.2 percent of the total burden of disease and injury in Australia," they concluded. By comparison, cannabis use was responsible for zero deaths and only 0.2 percent of the estimated total burden of disease and injury in Australia.

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website.

.

The Media Empire Strikes Back: Reviewing Reviews of South of the Border

from : http://venezuelanalysis.com

By Cyril Mychalejko - UpsideDownWorld.org, June 28th 2010

Oliver Stone's new documentary about Latin America's leftward political shift and its growing independence from Washington is being lambasted by the media. This shouldn't come as a surprise as Stone calls out the mainstream media in his new film South of the Border for its mostly one-sided, distorted coverage of the region's political leaders—most significantly Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez .

In an interview with CBS about his new film Stone remarked about America's obsession with empire, maintaining global hegemony, and the paranoia that accompanies such obsessions, saying, "We're a sick country."

And as if on cue, the mainstream media has published a flurry of attacks on the documentary, consequently supporting Stone’s arguments in the film about ideological biases and misinformation tainting media coverage about the region, while revealing symptoms of this “sickness” he mentions, such as intellectual impotence, pathological lying, and ideological blindness.

One spectacular example is courtesy of The Wall Street Journal (WSJ), which published a hit piece by Ron Radosh entitled "To Chávez, With Love." In it Radosh remarkably calls out Stone for not mentioning the economic successes of Chile under the brutal dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet during the 1970's as a point of comparison to show how Venezuelan society under Chavez is suffering. For Radosh and the editors at the WSJ, a bloody regime who would kill, torture and/or disappear a filmmaker like Stone is not only a success, but a model to be duplicated. Sick indeed.

On the other end of the minuscule ideological spectrum represented in the U.S. mainstream media is a blog post by Martin Peretz, editor-in-chief of The New Republic. Peretz, who uses the same title as the WSJ piece, actually praises Rodosh, calling him a "brave historian." In a healthy society one could accuse Radosh of being brave, in a perverse sort of way, for thumbing his nose at decency and morality by publicly praising a murderous regime because you would expect widespread condemnation to follow. That, sadly, is not the case.

Peretz goes on to call the democratically-elected Latin American presidents interviewed in Stone's documentary "tyrants", while calling Stone's work "trash," nothing more than ideological-drivel and intellectual laziness. But how could we question the judgement and intellect of a journalism professional with 36 years at The New Republic, whose acute foreign policy judgements include urging former President Bush to attack Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein in a letter (which he co-signed) written by The Project for the New American Century and sent to Bush 9 days after the September 11 terrorist attacks?

The Village Voice also gets into the fray with a vacuous review by critic Karina Longworth. Longworth, who in the past was honest enough to admit that she "know[s] very little about journalism," displays that she knows even less about Latin American politics and Washington's historical relationship with the region. Longworth was upset that Stone would allow the leaders of these "regimes" to have a voice stating their positions, something seldom seen in the U.S. media (one of Stone's and the film's main complaints). She later mocks the idea that the United States might have anything to do with the political and economic underdevelopment of the region. The Village Voice would better serve its readers by leaving Longworth to review movies such as Macgruber, which unlike South of the Border she thoroughly enjoyed.

Tom Gregory, a self-described Democrat and contributor to another "lefty" outlet, The Huffington Post, writes that, "Stone wears the cynicism of a man looking for relevance." First, who the hell is Tom Gregory? Second, while he goes on to accuse Stone of spoon-feeding viewers propaganda he is the one guilty of spreading propaganda, such as his false assertion that Chávez is "anti-semetic", a charge based on a bulletin by the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles which misquoted Chávez. The media unfortunately perpetuated this lie because reporters and editors couldn't be bothered with fact-checking information they published, or with amply correcting their mistakes and amending subsequent public misperceptions created after the fact. Gregory, obviously, is no different.

As you can imagine Forbes, The Washington Times, and The New York Post are among other outlets that joined the circus of attacks and misinformation. But The New York Times seems to have taken particular umbrage to Stone's new film, maybe for being featured in it for its editorial celebrating the short-lived military coup against Chávez in 2002. Larry Rohter and his review "Oliver Stone's Latin America" attempts to fact check Stone (a practice the newspaper unfortuantely didn't employ during the Bush Administration's march to war in Iraq) and set the reader, and potential viewer straight.

One "questionable assertion" Rohter takes issue with is "Stone’s contention that human rights, a concern in Latin America since the Jimmy Carter era, is 'a new buzz phrase,' used mainly to clobber Mr. Chávez." But human rights is in fact a new "buzz phrase" (or imperial alibi) used selectively by Washington and media outlets like The New York Times against countries deemed Washington's adversaries. Human rights is now dangerously being used as a potential excuse for intervention through doctrines such as the U.N.'s "Responsibility to Protect". But for Rohter to know this he would actually have to read publications other than The New York Times.

Rohter also decides to draw attention to an ongoing dispute over the responsibility of the deaths of 19 people during the Washington-backed coup in Venezuela in 2002. He pits an anti-Chávez film X-Ray of a Lie against Stone's assertions which borrow from a film sympathetic to Chávez called The Revolution Will Not Be Televised. But while Rohter focused on this dispute he missed, or deliberately ignored, an opportunity to examine the big picture issue regarding his employer's coverage of the coup, its lack of coverage of the Bush Administration's role in it, and its continued hostile coverage of Venezuela's president. I guess self-criticism and reflection is not in Rohter's job description, nor a policy in general for journalists at the "newpaper of record".

Rohter later in his article labels Bolivian President Evo Morales as a "Chávez acolyte", an insulting and inappropriate label revealing his ideological biases, and then tries to defend Bechtel's role in an International Monetary Fund (IMF) scheme to privatize Bolivia's water system, which led to price gouging, and as a result a country-wide uprising which chased the multi-national corporation and its consortium out of the country.

Finally, Rohter lazily cites a review from his colleague at the Times, who called Stone's film a “provocative, if shallow, exaltation of Latin American socialism,” and Entertainment Weekly's quip that the film was “rose-colored agitprop.” Conspicuously missing are voices supporting Stone's documentary and point of view. But that is what Stone's been saying all along.

Honest criticism of Stone's film should be welcome. It is certainly debatable whether South of the Border will be a popular and effective "101 introduction to a situation in South America that most Americans and Europeans don’t know about.” I hope it is. I hope that it reaches a broad audience and moves viewers to seek out more information on the history and current events of Latin America. But the reviews aforementioned do little more than expose the ideological biases that dominate the U.S. media and the laziness that afflicts journalists today.

These failures of the media are part of the reason why America is ailing.

To Support Independent Media click HERE.

Cyril Mychalejko is an editor at www.UpsideDownWorld.org.

Source: Upside Down World.org

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website.

.

The Oil in the Gulf !

Oil reported just offshore Cuba; Forecast “clearly shows the oil moving southeastward”

from : http://www.floridaoilspilllaw.com

By oilflorida, on June 20th, 2010





USF model projects oil spill will expand further southward toward loop current, WTSP Channel 10 Tampa Bay, June 18, 2010:

A high pressure system centered over the Gulf of Mexico will bring light northwesterly winds to the oil spill area over the next few days.

As a result, models that attempt to predict the future track of the spill are suggesting that the oil will head back toward the southeast and closer to the loop current.

With mainly light winds in place, the heating of the surface by the sun will play a major role in the wind direction over the spill area. During the early morning hours winds will blow lightly out of the northwest. This pushes the oil away from the coast and toward the southeast out to sea.

As the land heats up during the afternoon hours, a sea breeze develops causing the wind to back to the SSW and blowing the oil back toward the shore. Later in the evening, as the air cools, the winds once again turn to the northwest. The overall affect this will have is to force the oil further toward the southeast and closer to the loop current.

The University of South Florida’s College of Marine Science and the Ocean Circulation Group and jointly produce a computer model that predicts the path of the oil spill. The latest run clearly shows the oil moving southeastward and pushing up against the current. This could lead to more oil entering the current over the next few days. …

The flow out of the loop current is not completely shut off and will likely never do so.

There are now reports of an oil sheen just offshore of Cuba. This implies the oil has reached the southeastern extent of the loop current and could continue east through the Florida straights.


The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website.

.

Food and Depopulation: International Takeover by the UN

from : http://www.infowars.com

Cassandra Anderson
Infowars.com
June 16, 2010

Part 3 of 4

Most people think that the United Nations is a noble enterprise and they don’t understand the history and malignant character of the UN.

Christina Aguilera, Drew Barrymore and Sean Penn are probably unaware, even though they are UN Ambassadors to the World Food Program (WFP), that the intent of the UN is to implement one world government (see videos below). The UN WFP, which spreads GMOs in poor countries, is just one tool used for advancing the goals of Agenda 21, the overarching blueprint for depopulation and total control.

The WFP is corrupt to its core, as evidenced by a leaked UN document about Somalia which exposed that most of the aid goes to UN workers, Islamic militants and contractors.

The UN grew out of the League of Nations, which withered after Woodrow Wilson ( Edward House’s puppet), failed to convince Congress that international treaties and entangling alliances were good for America. Later, Rockefeller was able to advance the globalists’ cause and even donated 18 acres of land for the UN headquarters, located in New York. The Rockefellers have conceived and funded most of the destructive UN programs.

The origin of the food monopoly began with the Rockefeller Dynasty, even before they funded biotech research and industry.(1) The major GMO seed companies like Monsanto, DuPont, Dow, etc. are based in America and the patent laws that protect their monopoly are American.(2) Therefore, it should come as little surprise that the forces behind toxic GMOs promote GMOs internationally by way of the United Nations, using American tax dollars.

USAID

USAID (US Agency for International Development) is a an independent federal agency that is concerned with economic growth and advancing US foreign policy and interests, under the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. The agency is funded by taxpayer money. These interests are often private companies, like Monsanto, that champion so-called humanitarian aid in the name of the American people, using our tax dollars. USAID’s humanitarian efforts include imposing GMO seeds on poor nations by way of complex methods that circumvent the laws of poor countries.(3) Poor countries rarely stand up to the US government directly and are under constant pressure, plus they risk losing financial benefits from the US. So, these poor and transitional countries sell out their own farmers and the population suffers because GMO crops are unhealthy, GMO crops yields are lower and they foster monopolies, resulting in ongoing dependence.

USAID funds many NGOs (Non Governmental Organizations) that carry out USAID’s objectives- here is a list nearly 200 pages long- of the NGOs that are supported by US taxpayers.(4) It is interesting to note how many of these NGOs are concerned with ‘reproductive rights’, which is a fancy term for eugenics (selective breeding programs, often brutally enforced via forced sterilization and genocide). Further, USAID entered into a Public- Private Partnership with the Rockefeller Foundation, with the help of Bill Clinton, in order to use investments to “address” social and environmental problems, under the shelter of a tax free organization.(5) This means that the tax free organization will be able direct ‘impact’ investing which is designed to have an effect on social and environmental problems. In other words, be on the lookout for large investors using their overwhelming influence upon infrastructures, utilities, sewage systems, water sources, etc, which will likely lead to corporate privatization, and total control in pursuit of the final goals of Agenda 21.

UN WORLD FOOD PROGRAM

The UN WFP (World Food Program) receives most of its funding from USAID.

The WFP is corrupt to its core, as evidenced by a leaked UN document about Somalia which exposed that most of the aid goes to UN workers, Islamic militants and contractors.(6) Another example is in Ethiopia where only 12% of the food aid was delivered to the intended poverty stricken area. Additionally, there are more examples of corruption with shipping and trucking fees inflated up to 300% over cost. Of course, NGOs are deeply complicit in this international scheme of theft and incompetence with zero accountability.

Further, USAID director, Rajiv Shah worked for the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the USDA, is also the director of A Green Revolution in Africa (Gates and Rockefeller funded). In fact, just last week, Shah said that the UN WFP is creating food systems that will eliminate “humanitarian” food aid over time; a cynic could interpret this as a depopulation plan, consolidation of monopolies and/ or privatization of all resources. Shah also wants to engage the private sector, which means establishing more PPPs (Public- Private Partnerships) which is the modern mechanism of fascism.(7)(5)

UN collectivists, trying to coerce governments to adopt GMOs, use urgent threats of starvation in poor countries to convince the masses that GMOs are beneficial, when the truth is that they have lower crop yields. The WFP, pushing GMOs, have exploited Africa’s famine problem by offering GMO seeds as the only aid/ help offered, in a ‘GM or Death’ ultimatum.(8)

UN WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION

The UN WTO (World Trade Organization) influences tariffs and can impose fines (of hundreds of millions of dollars) on countries when they trade internationally. While they promote the phrase “free trade”, it is anything but a free market, due to the favorable or unfavorable tariff taxes that the WTO sets. It fosters monopolies on a grand scale. It prohibits competition and true free market Capitalism.

F. William Engdahl, author of “Seeds of Destruction”, explains in detail how the Biosafety Protocol, a policy that requiring GMO testing and proof of safety, was undermined. This was done by forcing a clause into the Biosafety Protocol making its rules subordinate to the UN WTO, using the argument that banning GMOs was a barrier to trade under the WTO rules, because the concern over safety was “unproven”. Therefore, the burden of proof for the safety of GMOs was removed from Monsanto and the other manufacturers, which leaves consumers, independent farmers and anyone else harmed by GMOs the costly task of proving, scientifically and in court, that GMOs are unsafe.

In a related UN WTO decision, member countries were forbidden from using their own domestic standards for testing, their own food safety laws and their own product standards, claiming that it would set an “unfair barrier to trade”. Thus, the US government can threaten any government that bans GMOs with violating UN WTO so-called “free trade” rules which have resulted in costly monetary sanctions. The UN WTO settles international trade disputes in secret. Please read Engdahl’s excellent article about the WTO for more information on their manipulative policies.(9)

Incidentally, the Director of the WTO is Rufus Yerxa, former employee of the the US government and Monsanto. Vandana Shiva explains how the WTO imposed trade restrictions on India that limited exports and increased imports, crippling the market and increasing food dependency. The GMO crops also had lower yields because the seed was imported and not adaptable to India’s farming conditions, which resulted in the suicides of over 200,000 Indian farmers- often from drinking Round Up Ready herbicide. (Note that we do not agree with Shiva’s assessment of global warming):

UN NAFTA LAW

The UN NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) and other WTO agreements were signed introduced into law as “agreements”, instead of treaties. Under special legislation, NAFTA was passed into law after Congress authorized George W Bush to enter into tariff agreements and bypassed the usual process to make a treaty a law (requiring 2/3 Senate approval). After Bush entered into the agreements, both houses of Congress passed them into law (a mere 51% majority was needed) on a fast- track. The Supreme Court, acting as agents of the federal government, denied review of this misdeed.(10)

NAFTA has adversely affected both the US and Mexico because it promoted GMO farming in Mexico, contaminating their corn crops, which is a staple food. US grain and food subsidies were used to lower the prices of US food, which flooded the markets of Mexico, wreaking havoc on them. The subsidies were bankrolled by the unsuspecting US taxpayers. Mexico was once food self sufficient, but now it spends 78% of its oil exports to purchase food from the US. US food exports have decreased as a result of NAFTA because some educated countries reject GMOs.(11)

INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND

The UN IMF (International Monetary Fund) and UN World Bank are sister agencies that impose harsh conditions and penalties on loans made to governments, resulting in austerity and privatization. In fact, Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel Prize winner in 2001, former chief economist of the World Bank and formerly one of President Clinton’s economists, exposed the corruption of the UN IMF and World Bank’s practice of keeping developing countries on the loan repayment treadmill, which can lead to harsh measures when the countries fail to repay the loan, instead of allowing a country to go bankrupt and then start over. In 2003, The IMF actually admitted that its policies have often failed for over 60 years.(12)

The IMF and World Bank, working closely with the WTO, offer financial aid and guarantees to multinational companies to privatize in poor countries. Even worse, the IMF and World Bank pressure countries, crippled by debt, to privatize utilities and other resources, especially water. Remember, water is a resource that affects food production. The US Treasury funds 51% of the World bank. The UN derives much power from indebted countries and then is able to make outrageous demands upon the debtor nations, that then benefit corporations and individuals like Bill Gates.(13)

CODEX ALIMENTARIUS

• A d v e r t i s e m e n t
• 
  

Codex Alimentarius, the UN program to control food and health products internationally with the goal of HARMonization of food, means that plants, seeds, livestock, farming and how all food is processed is to become uniform. Of course, GMO food is a major component of this scheme. Codex Alimentarius is a program to codify food worldwide; it won’t work because there is a lack of consideration for local conditions (local weather, soil conditions, water availability, etc). This appears to be just plain stupid until one realizes its true intent: depopulation. Codex Alimentarius operates under two UN agencies: the WHO (World Health Organization), notorious for pushing unsafe vaccines for the H1N1 flu and insider deals with Big Pharma, and the corrupt FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). Kevin Miller’s excellent film “We Become Silent” is recommended for more details.(14)

There are several unpopular US “food safety” bills currently under consideration. By simply reading the short summary of Senate bill S 510, it is clear that the bill is not designed for food safety, but for government (Department of Health and Human Services, the EPA and the CDC) expansion, control and monetary gain. There are only a few representatives in Washington that are even remotely interested in true food safety and a real solution, which would include the abolition of GMOs, or at least the labeling of GMO food, so that consumers can make an informed choice. Barack Obama issued an Executive Order on June 10, 2010 that opens the door to Codex Alimentarius.(15)

In conclusion, it is obvious that the time is over-ripe for the US to get out of the UN. This action would result in the withering of the UN as it is funded primarily by US tax dollars. The American people will hopefully come to understand that our hard earned money is being used to poison and bankrupt us, and the rest of the world. Education of the masses is the key, and Americans must exert our power and sovereignty, especially now, with the November elections right around the corner.

Christina Aguilera

Drew Barrymore

Sean Penn

Please share this article and information

Please visit Cassandra Anderson’s website at www.MorphCity.comhttp://www.MorphCity.com> for more information about the construction of Agenda 21 and how to stop it

http://www.infowars.com/food-and-depopulation-rockefeller-family/

http://www.infowars.com/food-and-depopulation-monsantos-monopoly/

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website.

.

Hands off WikiLeaks!

from : http://www.uruknet.info

Patrick Martin ,June 14, 2010

Pentagon officials have announced the detention of Army private Bradley Manning, as well as stepped-up efforts to locate Julian Assange, the founder of the WikiLeaks web site, in a security crackdown sparked by the release of politically damaging video of a US military massacre in Iraq.

On June 7, Defense Department officials confirmed that Manning was in confinement in Kuwait "for allegedly releasing classified information." Three days later, Pentagon investigators told the web site Daily Beast that they were looking for Assange in connection with the Manning investigation. The Australian-born WikiLeaks founder had scheduled speaking engagements in New York City and Las Vegas last week, but canceled them, citing "security considerations."

WikiLeaks, which solicits leaks of government and corporate criminality worldwide and makes them public to a global audience on the Internet, published a decrypted and edited version of the video footage in April, using a special web site entitled "Collateral Murder." The original video was shot by the US military in 2007 in the course of a helicopter assault in eastern Baghdad which left some 15 people dead, including two Reuters journalists.

The video and the accompanying voiceover of radio traffic, in which American soldiers joked about exterminating Iraqis, sparked widespread international outrage and a furious counterattack by the American military/intelligence apparatus. Defense Secretary Robert Gates denounced the release of the video, although he conceded that the footage was produced by the US military and had not been doctored.

According to press accounts, Manning was detained May 26 after he made the mistake of confiding in an online acquaintance, Adrian Lamo, an experienced hacker. Manning told Lamo that, in the course of his work as an Army military intelligence analyst at Forward Operating Base Hammer, east of Baghdad, he had been able to acquire a vast stockpile of internal military and State Department documents and communications, including the original footage from which "Collateral Murder" was produced. Lamo turned Manning in to the Army and FBI.

Manning is reportedly being held at a military facility in Kuwait. Several computer hard drives taken from him arrived in Washington Thursday and are now being analyzed by government computer experts to determine what documents Manning downloaded and what he did with them.

Manning enlisted in the Army in 2007 and held a Top Secret/SCI clearance. He reportedly told Lamo that he had been looking through military and government networks for more than a year and found "incredible things, awful things… that belonged in the public domain, and not on some server stored in a dark room in Washington DC."

Besides the video which became "Collateral Murder," Manning said he supplied WikiLeaks with a second video showing a May 2009 US air strike near the village of Garani in Afghanistan, in which more than 100 people were killed, including many children.

The main focus of the military/FBI investigation is Manning’s claim to have downloaded some 260,000 secret diplomatic cables, which he described as showing "almost criminal political back dealings." Manning added, according to an e-mail to Lamo, "Hillary Clinton and several thousand diplomats around the world are going to have a heart attack when they wake up one morning and find an entire repository of classified foreign policy is available, in searchable format, to the public."

WikiLeaks has denied being in possession of the 260,000 secret cables. Assange has reportedly offered to help finance Manning’s legal defense.

The detention of Manning and the pursuit of Assange must be opposed by all those who defend democratic rights. The American people, and the people of the entire world, have a right to know of the crimes committed by the American military/intelligence apparatus under the orders of the American president.

The attack on WikiLeaks and its collaborators is part of a broader security crackdown by the Obama administration. As reported by the New York Times this week, the White House has decided to go ahead with the prosecution of Thomas Drake, a whistleblower at the National Security Agency, who sought to expose financial mismanagement at the NSA by providing information to a reporter for the Baltimore Sun.

According to the Times article, "The indictment of Mr. Drake was the latest evidence that the Obama administration is proving more aggressive than the Bush administration in seeking to punish unauthorized leaks. In 17 months in office, President Obama has already outdone every previous president in pursuing leak prosecutions."

This stepped-up crackdown on leaks came the same week as the issuance of a report by Physicians for Human Rights that doctors working for the CIA collaborated with interrogators who conducted torture of prisoners. The doctors monitored the torture sessions to make sure the prisoners did not die—so they could be interrogated and tortured further—and to refine the methods used to make them more painful and effective. The report’s title speaks for itself: "Experiments in Torture: Human Subject Research and Evidence of Experimentation in the 'Enhanced’ Interrogation Program."

The Obama administration is striving to plug leaks, not out of concern that the lives of American soldiers could be endangered, as it habitually claims, but for the same reasons that motivated the Bush administration: top government officials—in the Pentagon, CIA, NSA and in the White House itself—could face war crimes charges, either in the United States or before an international tribunal, based on the evidence produced by such revelations.

Relatives of those killed in the helicopter gunship attack in Iraq criticized Manning’s detention. Nabil Noor-Eldeen, whose brother Namir was one of the Reuters employees killed in the assault, told the press, "Justice was what this US soldier did by uncovering this crime against humanity. The American military should reward him, not arrest him."

Manning is not a criminal, but someone evidently motivated by revulsion against the crimes committed by "his" military and "his" government. The World Socialist Web Site joins with all those demanding that Manning be released without any charges being brought against him. We further demand the dropping of all efforts to investigate and suppress the activities of Julian Assange and other WikiLeaks activists.

Patrick Martin

The author also recommends:

Leaked video shows US military killing of two Iraqi journalists
[7 August 2010]

Following exposure of military massacre in Iraq: The New York Times fingers whistleblower WikiLeaks
[8 April 2010]

US soldier in WikiLeaks massacre video: "I relive this every day"
[28 April 2010]

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website.

.

UN "Green Light" for a Pre-emptive US-Israel Attack on Iran? Security Council Resolution Transforms Iran into a "Sitting Duck"

from : http://www.sott.net

Michel Chossudovsky
Global Research
Fri, 11 Jun 2010 19:59 EDT

© Unknown

"A sitting duck is a defenceless victim, an easy target, vulnerable to attack"

The UN Security Council voted on June 9 the imposition of a fourth round of sweeping sanctions against The Islamic Republic of Iran, which include an expanded arms embargo as well "tougher financial controls".

In a bitter irony, this resolution was passed within days of the United Nations Security Council's outright refusal to adopt a motion condemning Israel for its attack on the Gaza Freedom Flotilla in international waters.

It also followed the holding of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) conference in Washington under UN auspices, which called for the establishment, in its final resolution, of a nuclear free Middle East as well as the dismantling of Israel's nuclear weapons arsenal. Israel is considered to be the World's sixth nuclear power, with, according to Jane Defense, between 100 and 300 nuclear warheads. ( Analysts: Israel viewed as world's 6th nuclear power, Israel News, Ynetnews, April 10, 2010). Iran in contrast has no known nuclear weapons capabilities.

UNSC Resolution 1929 is based on a fundamental falsehood. It upholds the notion that Iran is an upcoming nuclear power and a threat to global security. It also provides a green light to the US-NATO-Israel military alliance to threaten Iran with a pre-emptive punitive nuclear attack, using the UN Security Council as rubber stamp.

The Security Council exercises double standards in the application of sanctions: Whereas Iran is the target of punitive threats, Israel's extensive nuclear arsenal, is either ignored or tacitly accepted by "the international community". For Washington, Israel's nukes are an instrument of peace in the Middle East.

Moreover, whereas all fingers are pointed at Iran which does not possess nuclear weapons, five so-called "non-nuclear" European states including Belgium, Holland, Germany, Italy and Turkey not only possess tactical nuclear weapons under national command, these warheads are deployed and targeted at Iran.

Resolution 1929 (June 9, 2010):

"7. Decides that Iran shall not acquire an interest in any commercial activity in another State involving uranium mining, production or use of nuclear materials and technology as listed in INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 1, in particular uranium-enrichment and reprocessing activities, all heavy-water activities or technology-related to ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons, and further decides that all States shall prohibit such investment in territories under their jurisdiction by Iran, its nationals, and entities incorporated in Iran or subject to its jurisdiction, or by persons or entities acting on their behalf or at their direction, or by entities owned or controlled by them;

"8. Decides that all States shall prevent the direct or indirect supply, sale or transfer to Iran, from or through their territories or by their nationals or individuals subject to their jurisdiction, or using their flag vessels or aircraft, and whether or not originating in their territories, of any battle tanks, armoured combat vehicles, large calibre artillery systems, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, missiles or missile systems .... , decides further that all States shall prevent the provision to Iran by their nationals or from or through their territories of technical training, financial resources or services, advice, other services or assistance related to the supply, sale, transfer, provision, manufacture, maintenance or use of such arms and related materiel, and, in this context, calls upon all States to exercise vigilance and restraint over the supply, sale, transfer, provision, manufacture and use of all other arms and related materiel;" (Security Council Imposes Additional Sanctions on Iran, Voting 12 in Favour to 2 Against, with 1 Abstention, Includes complete text of UNSC Resolution 1929, UN News, June 9, 2010, emphasis added, )

The Arms Embargo. Implications for Russia and China

Both the Russian Federation and the People's Republic of China have caved in to US pressures and voted in favor of a resolution, which is not only detrimental to Iran's security, but which seriously weakens and undermines their strategic role as potential competing World powers on the Eurasian geopolitical chessboard.

The resolution strikes at the very heart of the structure of military alliances. It prevents Russia and China to sell both strategic and conventional weapons and military technology to their de facto ally: Iran. In fact, that was one of major objectives of Resolution 1929, which Washington is intent upon enforcing.

At the same time, by barring Iran from purchasing conventional military equipment, the resolution prevents Iran from defending itself from a US-NATO-Israel attack.

The resolution, were it to be fully enforced, would not only invalidate ongoing bilateral military cooperation agreements with Iran, it would create a wedge in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO).

It would also significantly weaken trade and investment relations between Iran and its Russian and Chinese partners. The financial and banking provisions in the resolution also point to Washington's resolve to not only isolate Iran but also to destabilize its financial system.

Washington is intent upon enforcing this resolution. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has appointed Robert Einhorn, Special Advisor for Nonproliferation and Arms Control, as U.S. coordinator for the implementation of the sanctions regime directed against both Iran and North Korea:.

"U.S. President Barack Obama hailed the resolution, saying it will put in place the toughest sanctions ever faced by the Iranian government and send an "unmistakable message" to Tehran about the international community's commitment to stopping the spread of nuclear weapons."(Clinton appoints coordinator for sanctions against Iran, DPRK, Xinhua, June 10, 2010

"We expect every country to aggressively implement Resolution 1929" said State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley. Were China and Russia to decide not to abide by the resolution's provisions, particularly those relating to weapons sales to Iran (art. 8), Washington would use this as an opportunity to engage in an increasingly confrontational diplomacy in relation to Beijing and Moscow.

The resolution is also intended to establish a US led hegemony in the production and export of advanced weapons systems. It is is heavy blow, almost a "death sentence", for China and Russia's lucrative international weapons trade, which competes with the US, UK, France, Germany and Israel. In the post-Soviet era, the arms trade has become a central component of Russia's fragile economy. The potential repercussions on Russia's balance of payments are far-reaching.

Disabling Iran's Missile Defence System

UN Security Council resolutions are an integral part of US foreign policy. They are on the drawing board of Washington's think tanks, including the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and the Heritage Foundation. In this regard, it is worth noting that the substance of article 8 of UNSC Resolution 1929 (June 9, 2010 was contained in a January 2010 report of the Heritage Foundation, which calls for "blocking arms sales to Iran" including Russia's S-300 missiles:

"Washington and its allies should make every effort to deprive Iran of foreign arms transfers, particularly the impending sale of Russian S-300 surface to air missiles, which could provoke Israel to strike sooner rather than later. Stronger multinational efforts also need to be made to prevent Iran from trans­ferring arms to Hezbollah and Palestinian terror­ist groups, which pose a threat not only to Israel, but to stability in Lebanon, Egypt, and Jordan. On November 3, Israeli naval forces intercepted the Francop, an Antigua-flagged cargo ship that was transporting about 500 tons of weapons from Iran to Hezbollah, via Syria.[22] The U.S. should press other allies to join in giving greater assistance to Israeli efforts to intercept Iranian arms flows, particularly to Hezbollah and Hamas." (James Phillips, An Israeli Preventive Attack on Iran's Nuclear Sites: Implications for the U.S, The Heritage Foundation, Washington, DC, January 2010)

© Unknown
Russia's S-300 Surface to Air Missile

Did Moscow assess the implications of the proposed arms embargo?

Immediately following the adoption of the UNSC resolution on June 9th, several Russian press reports indicated that the sale of Russian S-300 missiles to Iran would be frozen, despite assurances by foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov that the UNSC resolution would not affect the air-defence deal..(Russia says in talks with Iran on new nuclear plants, Haaretz, June 10, 2010) These contradictory statements suggest that there are significant divisions within the Russian leadership, without which Russia would have duly exercised its veto power in the UN Security Council.

Without Russian military aid, Iran is a "sitting duck". Its air defence system depends on continued Russian military cooperation. Moreover, without Iran, Russia would be constrained to selling military equipment to countries in the US-NATO orbit. (See Russia to offset loss of Iran arms sales with Iraqi, Afghan deals, Russia, RIA Novosti, June 11, 2010)

Pre-emptive nuclear attack on Iran

The World is at dangerous crossroads. The real threat to global security emanates from the US-NATO-Israel alliance. The UN Security Council directly serves the interests of the Western military alliance. The Security Council resolution grants a de facto "green light" to wage a pre-emptive war against Iran, which has been on the Pentagon's drawing board since 2004.

"An operational plan to wage aerial attacks on Iran has been in "a state of readiness" since June 2005. Essential military hardware to wage this operation has been deployed. (For further details see Michel Chossudovsky, Nuclear War against Iran, Jan 2006). In 2005, Vice President Dick Cheney ordered USSTRATCOM to draft a "contingency plan", which would "include a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons." (Philip Giraldi, Attack on Iran: Pre-emptive Nuclear War , The American Conservative, 2 August 2005).

Under the Obama administration, the threats have become increasingly pervasive and far more explicit than under the NeoCons. In October 2009, The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) organized an Event at Washington's Wohlstetter Conference Center on "Should Israel Attack Iran?":

"Iran's nuclear weapons development continues apace, threatening the security of its neighbors and the international community. According to a recent survey by the Pew Research Center, more than 60 percent of the American public believes preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons warrants military action. Israel's deputy foreign minister, Daniel Ayalon, emphasized on September 21 that Israel has "not taken any option off the table" when it comes to countering the Iranian threat. The same day, Israel's top general, chief of staff Lieutenant General Gabi Ashkenazi, made it clear that he would not rule out a military strike on Iran's nuclear installations, repeating that "Israel has the right to defend itself and all options are on the table." As the debate intensifies over how to respond most effectively to Iran's provocations, it is timely to explore the strategic and legal parameters of a potential Israeli strike against the Islamic Republic and provide some thorough analysis about implications for the United States. (American Enterprise Institute, Should Israel Attack Iran?, October 2009, emphasis added)

From a military standpoint, Israel could not undertake a unilateral attack on Iran without the active coordination of the Pentagon:.

"As President Obama extends "an open hand", seeking direct talks with Tehran in his attempt to halt its nuclear programme, Mrs Clinton appeared [June 2009] ready to unnerve the Iranian leadership with talk of a pre-emptive strike "the way that we did attack Iraq". She said that she was trying to put herself in the shoes of the Iranian leadership, but added that Tehran "might have some other enemies that would do that [deliver a pre-emptive strike] to them". It was a clear reference to Israel, where Binyamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister, has talked about the possibility of military action to halt Iran's nuclear programme - something he views as a threat to the Jewish state. ( Don't discount Israel pre-emptive strike, Hillary Clinton warns Iran, Times Online, June 8, 2009, emphasis added)

In April 2010 the message was crystal clear: Washington "would use atomic weapons only in 'extreme circumstances' and would not attack non-nuclear states, but singled out "outliers" Iran and North Korea as exceptions." ( Iran to Take US to UN Over Obama's Threat to Use Nuclear Weapons against Iran, AlJazeera, April 11, 2010). Defence Secretary Robert Gates explained in a television interview "that Washington was making exceptions of Tehran and Pyongyang because they had defied repeated UN Security Council ultimatums over their nuclear programmes." (Ibid).

UN "Green Light" for a World War Three Scenario?

Is this latest Security Council resolution "the green light" which Washington has been seeking?

The substance of the Security Council resolution is also directed at Iran allies: China and Russia.

Ironically, while China and Russia failed to exercise their veto power, they are nonetheless the object of veiled US threats. China is surrounded by US military facilities. US missiles in Poland and the Caucasus are pointed towards Russian cities. More recently, the Obama administration has called for the extension of the sanctions regime directed against Russia's ally, Belarus.

Washington has also announced that "The Pentagon is preparing to embark on a mini-building boom in Central Asia, which would include the construction of strategic US facilities military "in all five Central Asian states, including Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan." (See Defense Dollars Building Boom: Pentagon Looks to Construct New Military Bases in Central Asia, Eurasianet, June 6, 2010). These various military cooperation agreements with former Soviet republics are not only intent upon weakening the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and the CSTO, they are part of the US-NATO strategic encirclement of Russia and China.

What this latest resolution suggests is that Washington and its NATO allies not only control the UN Security Council, they ultimately also call the shots on foreign policy in Moscow and Beijing.

This Security Council resolution should dispel the myth of competing super powers. Both China and Russia are an appendage of the New World Order.

As far as international diplomacy is concerned, both China and Russia are "Paper Tigers", with no teeth. "'Paper Tiger' [纸老虎 (zhǐ lǎohǔ)], meaning something that seems as threatening as a tiger, but is really harmless."

Both China and Russia are the victims of their own failed decisions within the United Nations Security Council.

An attack on Iran would immediately lead to military escalation. Syria and Lebanon would also be targeted. The entire Middle East Central Asian region would flare up, a situation which could potentially evolve towards a World War III scenario.

In a very real sense, the US-NATO-Israel military adventure threatens the future of humanity.

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author ,.... but do reflect those of this website for the most of its content .

.

Global protest planned over BP's handling of oil disaster

from : http://www.sott.net

CNN
Sat, 12 Jun 2010 12:51 EDT

Environmentalists plan to stage a worldwide protest against BP on Saturday as the petroleum giant takes hits from politicians and Gulf residents.

Worldwide BP Protest Day claims demonstrations will take place in more than 50 cities across five continents from Pensacola, Florida, to Christchurch, New Zealand.

"Let the world know YOU care," says a flyer on the group's Facebook page, which translates BP's initials to mean British Predator. "We need to let BP know that we are NOT okay with what they are putting in OUR oceans."

The protests come as politicians and Gulf residents slammed BP on Friday over its efforts to end the spew of oil into the Gulf of Mexico and make whole those who have been hurt.

"BP misrepresented what their technology could do," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Friday. "They misrepresented the amount of oil that was being spewed forth into the Gulf and continued to do so."

She was referring to Thursday's announcement by researchers that doubled estimates of how much oil has been gushing from the ruptured well: About 40,000 barrels (1.7 million gallons) a day may have escaped for weeks.

Pelosi said she met with President Obama on the matter and was pleased to hear that he had ordered the attorney general to look into whether there was negligence on BP's part.

"This is a matter of integrity," Pelosi said. "BP stated that they had the technology to drill deep, to prevent a blowout and that they had the technology to clean up, and none of these things happened to be a fact."

But the multibillion-dollar, multinational company found support for its efforts. In New York, that support came from billionaire Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

"The guy that runs BP didn't exactly go down there and blow up the well," he told a radio program. "And what's more, if you want them to fix it and they are the ones with the expertise, I think I might wait to assign blame until we get it fixed."

In London, England, a Downing Street spokesman said Prime Minister David Cameron spoke Friday with BP Chairman Carl-Henric Svanberg.

"The prime minister explained that he was frustrated and concerned about the environmental damage caused by the leak, but made clear his view that BP is an economically important company in the UK, US and other countries," the spokesman said in a news release.

"He said that it is in everyone's interests that BP continues to be a financially strong and stable company."

Svanberg, who is to meet Wednesday with Obama at the White House, "made clear that BP will continue to do all that it can to stop the oil spill, clean up the damage and meet all legitimate claims for compensation," it said.

British Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg appealed for a reduction in the vitriol that has gripped many observers. "I don't, frankly, think we're going to reach a solution stopping the release of oil into the Gulf any quicker by allowing this to spiral into a tit-for-tat political, diplomatic spat," he said.

That comment elicited no sympathy from Plaquemines Parish President Billy Nungesser. "Obviously, Nick hasn't been over here and touched the oil," he told CNN. "We get a tropical storm that brings that oil and lays it across coastal Louisiana, we're wiped out for the next 20 years. This community will be dead, and they're talking like we're being too tough?"

By law, the company is responsible for paying all the costs to stop the leak and clean the oil off the shore. That's likely to be the small bill: in the single-digit billions.

A bigger concern will be claims of economic damage from fishermen, hoteliers and other businesses who report losses. BP has said it will pay "all reasonable claims" but has been vague on what "reasonable" means.

BP said that nearly 42,000 claims have been submitted and more than 20,000 payments made, totaling more than $53 million.

So far, the cost of the response is $1.43 billion, it said.

Lawmakers want to make sure the company has enough money not only to remove the oil but to reimburse residents for lost wages and other damage to the economy.

BP has argued that the company has plenty of money to do both. Executives noted last week that BP had a cash flow last year exceeding $30 billion.

The government's response manager offered a new round of numbers as well on what it takes to clean a spill of this magnitude: an Exxon Valdez-like spill every few days that has now gone on for 55 days.

Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen said that more than 25,000 people -- contractors, volunteers and members of the military -- were involved on the ground.

Some 3.8 million gallons of oil burned, he said. About 1 million gallons of dispersant has been used to break up the slick. That has taken more than 500 skimmers, barges, ships and aircraft.

Piecemeal efforts to slow the flow are continuing.

As early as Monday, BP plans to deploy "Q4000 Direct Connect," the company's name for a containment device secondary to a primary cap that was put in place over the leaking well last week.

Allen has said he expects that the Q4000 will be able to take an additional 5,000 to 10,000 barrels per day.

A second Transocean drill ship is expected to arrive in mid- to late June, bringing an added capacity of 10,000 barrels per day, the company said.

By mid-July, the current cap will be replaced with a larger device that will provide a tighter seal, the company said.

The cap will be connected to another manifold and hose system to a free-floating riser 300 feet below sea level. The hose attached to the riser will connect with the containment vessel on the surface, giving cleanup workers the option of disconnecting from and then reconnecting to the riser should the ships need to return to port in the event of a hurricane.

The riser would remain in place at all times. This system could contain up to 50,000 barrels per day, according to BP.

The ultimate containment plan would insert mud and cement 18,000 feet under the seabed, effectively stopping the flow of oil, the company said.

Two such wells, one of which would be a backup, are under way and are slated for completion in August.

Meanwhile, a delegation of U.S. senators traveled Friday to the heart of coastal Louisiana to assess the damage.

"Until you see if firsthand, until you really smell it, get a sense of it, you can't understand it fully," said Sen. David Vitter, R-Louisiana.

They were the latest in a virtual parade of officials from Washington to make the trip to the coast. Labor Secretary Hilda Solis was in the region Thursday, and Obama is scheduled to make his fourth trip next week.

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website.


.

PHOTOS ISRAEL DOES NOT WANT YOU TO SEE : Hurriyet photos of disarmed Israeli commandos receiving medical care

from : http://desertpeace.wordpress.com

by Paul Woodward

(Photo via Ali Abunimah)

On the Mavi Marmara, the ship that Benjamin Netanyahu has dubbed “the hate boat”, Israeli soldiers who had been hurt were given medical aid. But some of the civilians who had been shot ended up dying because the Israelis refused to have them evacuated.

Accounts provided by activists on board claim that the first Israeli commandos to land on the ship were forcibly disarmed and then taken below deck for their own safety. Photographs now published by Turkey’s leading newspaper, Hürriyet, support this claim.

Soldiers from any military force rely on their weaponry to maintain their image of power. The Israeli military is no different from any other in wanting to avoid having the vulnerability of its own elite soldiers highlighted. What these photographs reveal, however, is that once these particular soldiers were no longer able to defend themselves, they were not lynched. On the contrary, they were taken out of harms way.

Given the terror that Israelis experience when faced with the risk of having soldiers taken hostage, it appears that one element in the over-reaction of the remaining armed commandos was that they thought it inconceivable that any of their comrades could be held without coming to further harm.

Humiliation and fear.

Was this the context in which enraged soldiers decided that they would then set about teaching their adversaries a lesson?

Did nine men, many of whom were well past an age where it seems at all likely they were engaged in any kind of combat, then become scapegoats?

Were the deaths on the Mavi Marmara the result of a few soldiers demonstrating their military muscle in a desperate effort to restore their tattered pride?

Source

---

Russia Orders Troops To Prepare For War With US

from : http://www.eutimes.net

Reports circulating in the Kremlin today state that Prime Minister Putin has ordered Russian military forces to prepare to confront American military forces in Afghanistan over what Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov warns is the “greatest threat to International peace and security”, Afghanistan’s thriving drug trade supported by the US and NATO.

Not being reported to the American people about the Afghanistan war is that it has nothing to do with their being protected from terrorists, but rather it involves the billions of dollars gained for many of the West’s top intelligence agencies (mainly the CIA) from the heroin produced in this region (90% of World’s total) that by 2001 the Taliban had virtually eliminated.

Immediately after the US invasion of Afghanistan in October, 2001, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) installed one of their main Afghan operatives, Hamid Karzai, as President, who then put into power his brother Ahmed Wali Karzai, who since then has increased heroin production to levels unseen in modern times and resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands of Russian citizens.

Viktor Ivanov, the head of Russia’s Federal Drug Control Service, Russia’s National drug enforcement agency, told parliament in May that it was reasonable to “call the flow of Afghan opiates the second edition of opium wars.” Ivanov was referring to the 19th-century war between Britain and China sparked by exports of opium from British India to China.

Ivanov isn’t alone.

“I can name you a lot of politicians in Russia who said that the Americans specially arranged the situation in Afghanistan so that we would receive a lot of drugs, and this is the real aim of their occupation,” said Andrei Klimov, the deputy head of the foreign affairs committee in Russia’s lower house of parliament. “I’m not sure this is true, but who knows.”

One person who definitely knew it was true was German President Horst Koehler, who after returning from Afghanistan last month linked the war with the defense of German economic interests because it was securing free trade routes for the West and had nothing to do whatsoever with terrorism. For his “outspokenness” President Koehler was forced to resign plunging an already battered Chancellor Merkel into even greater political turmoil.

Most shocking to understand about the CIA’s being the World’s largest drug trafficker is that it isn’t even kept secret anymore and has been embraced by their new President, Barack Obama, who has used billions of dollars earned through Afghan heroin deals to fund his sending US Special Forces teams to over 75 different Nations as well as building for them a new $100 million headquarters base in Afghanistan while his own citizens plunge deeper into poverty.

Important to note though is that Obama is far from being the first American President to embrace the drug trade as nearly all of his predecessors were likewise involved in starting and maintaining wars to keep the billions earned from this most despicable of crimes preying on the weakest people in their society, mainly the poor and people of colour.

For those few reporters seeking to inform the American people about this crime the hard and brutal lesson learned from the late Gary Webb’s blacklisting and suiciding by US intelligence agents after his revealing the CIA’s involvement in the drug trade presents a chilling example of what these monsters will do to protect themselves and their right to poison anyone they so choose.

Interesting to note too is that according to the head of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, Antonio Maria Costa, said he has seen evidence that the proceeds of organized crime were “the only liquid investment capital” available to some banks on the brink of collapse last year. He said that a majority of the $352 Billion of drugs profits was absorbed into the economic system as a result.

Though the American people still ignore the crimes being perpetrated by their so called leaders, the lessons of their own history should not be lost upon them, especially when viewed in the light of the use of drug and alcohol laws used for mass imprisonment while at the same time instituting around them a draconian tyrannical society where all their freedoms will be stripped from them.

And for those American’s thinking that their life couldn’t get any worse? They couldn’t be more mistaken! For just this past week Obama’s Federal Trade Commission (FTC) released what they call a “staff discussion draft” of “potential policy recommendations to support the reinvention of journalism” wherein they called for doctrine of “proprietary facts” that would outlaw anyone writing or reporting on anything that happens unless they use the “facts” provided to them by the government.

But than again, and as the history of these American’s seems to show, with their massive government debt about to eclipse their Gross National Product (GDP) for the first time in history, their once vital Gulf of Mexico region succumbing to the World’s worst oil spill catastrophe, and their NASA scientists now warning that the “awakening” Sun may destroy everything anyway, maybe they truly can’t be told the truth and must be treated like the children they act like.

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website.


.

Egypt: Gaza blockade a failure, border stays open

from : http://news.yahoo.com

Play Video Reuters – Palestinians killed off Gaza coast

• Slideshow:Photos, videos emerge from flotilla raid
• Play Video Video:Flotilla Raid Fallout FOX News
• Play Video Mideast Video:Legendary White House reporter's Israel gaffe AP

AP – A mourner reads from the Quran, Islam's holy book, next to the body of Palestinian militant Ibrahim …

By SARAH EL DEEB, Associated Press Writer Sarah El Deeb, Associated Press Writer – 44 mins ago

SHARM EL-SHEIKH, Egypt – An Egyptian security official declared the blockade of Gaza a failure Monday and said his country will keep its border with the Palestinian territory open indefinitely.

Keeping that crossing point open long term would ease the blockade imposed by Israel three years ago to isolate and punish Gaza's Hamas rulers. It also restores a link to the outside the world for some of Gaza's 1.5 million Palestinians.

Egypt opened its border with Gaza soon after Israel's deadly raid on an international flotilla of activists trying to break the blockade a week ago. Israel has not publicly protested the Egyptian move, but officials declined to comment Monday.

In another escalation of the tension off Gaza's shores, Israeli naval forces shot and killed four men wearing wet suits off the coast on Monday, and the militant group Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades said they were members of its marine unit training for a mission.

Vice President Joe Biden said Monday the U.S. is closely consulting with Egypt and other allies to find new ways to "address the humanitarian, economic, security, and political aspects of the situation in Gaza." He issued the statement after meeting Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in the Egyptian Red Sea resort of Sharm El-Sheikh.

Egypt and Israel have maintained the blockade since Hamas took control of Gaza in 2007, with Israel describing it as an essential measure to stop weapons from reaching Hamas militants, who have hit southern Israel with rockets and in past years killed hundreds in suicide bombings.

The Egyptian security official said, however, that the closure has failed to achieve its goals, including the release of an Israeli soldier held by Hamas since 2006. Israeli airstrikes and Egyptian security efforts have also yet to choke off a bustling smuggling trade that uses hundreds of tunnels along the Gaza-Egypt border, though the official said Egypt is determined to shut them down.

The crossing point at the border town of Rafah is still subject to restrictions, with Egypt letting in some humanitarian aid and allowing Palestinians into Egypt on a case-by-case basis for medical treatment or to travel onward to attend foreign universities, for example.

Egypt will not allow in large cargo shipments or construction material because the terminal is designed primarily as a crossing for travelers, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.

For its part, Israel allows through only basic humanitarian goods, blocking crucial items like cement needed to rebuild war damage because it argues the material could be used by Hamas. The closure has crushed Gaza's already fragile economy.

The Egyptian official said Israel must work out a new policy to end the suffering of the Palestinians while keeping pressure on Hamas.

Like Israel, Egypt also fears sharing a border with a slice of territory controlled by Islamic militants backed by regional rival Iran. Concerned about the flow of weapons, Egypt late last year began building an underground, metal barrier to seal the smuggling tunnels.

"We have a constant security concern, because Iran has its aims, Hezbollah has its aims, Hamas has its aspirations and aims, and al-Qaida can very well be present in Sinai and Gaza," the official said.

Egypt has been harshly criticized in the Muslim world for having helped maintain the blockade.

The official called it a "continuously embarrassing situation" for Egypt and blamed Israel for thinking the closure could pressure Hamas to release the captured soldier, Gilad Schalit.

"Israel still insists that the blockade is a pressure tool, it can release Schalit and force Hamas to stop resistance," the official said. "On the contrary, it becomes more extremist."

In Monday's clash, the Israeli military said a naval force spotted the Palestinians in the waters off Gaza and opened fire. It claimed the forces had prevented an attack on Israeli targets.

Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades said the four killed were training in Gaza's waters. The violent offshoot of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah faction, made the claim in a text message sent to reporters in Gaza.

Four bodies were retrieved and taken to a hospital in central Gaza, said Moawiya Hassanain, a Palestinian health official. The Palestinian naval police said two people were still missing.

"The bloody escalation today is a desperate attempt by the occupation government to divert the world attention away from the massacre committed against the flotilla," Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri told reporters in Gaza.

The May 31 flotilla clash, in which eight Turkish men and one dual American-Turkish citizen were killed aboard one of the vessels seized by Israeli commandos, has put Israel under international pressure to lift or at least ease the blockade.

The killings seriously damaged Israel's relations with Turkey, which had been its closest ally in the Muslim world. In Istanbul, a 20-member Asian security group kicked off a summit with Turkey seeking to condemn Israel for the raid.

Israel has sought to portray the nine activists killed as militants, saying they prepared for the fight before boarding the flotilla. The military Monday released the names of five of the activists it said have long-standing ties to terror organizations.

"The state of Israel is under attack," Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told lawmakers in his Likud party. He said the attack was a "direct continuation" of international condemnations of Israel's war against Hezbollah guerrillas in 2006 and last year's military offensive against Hamas in Gaza.

___

Associated Press Writers Aron Heller in Jerusalem, Ibrahim Barzak in Gaza City, Gaza Strip, and Selcan Hacaoglu in Istanbul, Turkey, contributed to this report.

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website.

.