A Very Dangerous New Year

Newspaper

A Very Dangerous New Year

Newspaper

A Very Dangerous New Year

May_Be_News

OMINOUS SIGNS:

May_Be_News

OMINOUS SIGNS:

Earth_News

Photos

Latest comments

TopNews

EarthNews

US_News

Sci/TechNews

HealthNews

HeadlineNewsUSA

HeadlineNewsEarth

SpainHeadlines

FranceHeadlines

ItalyHeadlines

KoreaHeadlines

NewZealandNews

ArgentinaHeadlines

BelgiëHeadlines

BrasilNews

Canada_frHeadlines

ChileHeadlines

U.K.Headlines

SwissHeadlines

NorgeHeadlines

MéxicoHeadlines

NetherlandHeadlines

SouthAfricaHeadlines

PortugalHeadlines

AustriaHeadlines

GermanNews

ChinaHeadlines

HongKongHeadlines

TaiwanHeadlines

CanadaHeadlines

Recent visitors

May_Be_News

OMINOUS SIGNS:

Earth_News

Photos

Latest comments

Tags

TopNews

EarthNews

US_News

Sci/TechNews

HealthNews

HeadlineNewsUSA

HeadlineNewsEarth

SpainHeadlines

FranceHeadlines

ItalyHeadlines

KoreaHeadlines

NewZealandNews

ArgentinaHeadlines

BelgiëHeadlines

BrasilNews

Canada_frHeadlines

ChileHeadlines

U.K.Headlines

SwissHeadlines

NorgeHeadlines

MéxicoHeadlines

NetherlandHeadlines

SouthAfricaHeadlines

PortugalHeadlines

AustriaHeadlines

GermanNews

ChinaHeadlines

HongKongHeadlines

TaiwanHeadlines

CanadaHeadlines

Recent visitors

Earth_News is blogging on My Opera

Write a comment

Write a comment

Write a comment

Friday, December 22, 2006 6:41:12 PM

facts, history, worldtheories, ...Links, Videos, hotels, travel, news, stories, comments

9/11 Truther Next British Prime Minister?

Michael Meacher MP, former environment minister and 9/11 truther who attracted press attention for publicly questioning the official story behind the terrorist attack in a September 2003 article, could be in contention for the Labour Party leadership race and thus replace Tony Blair as the next British Prime Minister.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/december2006/211206primeminister.htm ******** NEWS

*********

Earth_Herold_News_VideoThe Arab League - Death Star

YouTube | December 21, 2006

"For People " ...

***

**** Background
BY EARTH_HEROLD

**
Rare TV NEWS report about

Is It Now Illegal To Link To Other Websites? A landmark legal ruling in Sydney goes further than ever before in setting the trap door for the destruction of the Internet as we know it and the end of alternative news websites and blogs by creating the precedent that simply linking to other websites is breach of copyright and piracy. http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/december2006/201206illegaltolink.htm

***

Story I

by ROBERT PARRY The first two or three months of 2007 represent a dangerous opening for an escalation of war in the Middle East, as George W. Bush will be tempted to double-down his gamble in Iraq by joining with Israels Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and outgoing British Prime Minister Tony Blair to strike at Syria and Iran, intelligence sources say.

</script>

President Bush;s goal would be to transcend the bloody quagmire bogging down U.S. forces in Iraq by achieving regime change in Syria and by destroying nuclear facilities in Iran, two blows intended to weaken Islamic militants in Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories. The Israeli army and air force would carry the brunt of any new fighting albeit with the support of beefed-up U.S. ground and naval forces in the Middle East, the sources said. Bush is now considering a surge in U.S. troop levels in Iraq from about 140,000 to as many as 170,000. He also has dispatched a second aircraft carrier group to the coast of Iran.

So far, however, Bush has confronted stiff opposition from the Pentagon;s Joint Chiefs of Staff to the plan for raising troop levels in Iraq, partly because the generals don;t think it makes sense to commit more troops without a specific military mission.

But it;s unclear how much the generals know about the expanded-war option which has been discussed sometimes in one-on-one meetings among the principals Bush, Olmert and Blair according to intelligence sources.

Since the Nov. 7 congressional elections, the three leaders have conducted a round-robin of meetings that on the surface seem to have little purpose. Olmert met privately with Bush on Nov. 13; Blair visited the White House on Dec. 7; and Blair conferred with Olmert in Israel on Dec. 18.

A Hail Mary strategy: Bush, Olmert and Blair could salvage their reputations if a wider war broke out in the Middle East and then broke in their favor.

All three leaders could salvage their reputations if a wider war broke out in the Middle East and then broke in their favor.

Bush and Blair spearheaded the March 2003 invasion of Iraq that has since turned into a disastrous occupation. In summer 2006, Olmert launched offensives against Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon, drawing international condemnation for the deaths of hundreds of civilians and domestic criticism for his poorly designed war plans.

The three leaders also find themselves cornered by political opponents. Bush;s Republican Party lost control of both the House and Senate on Nov. 7; Blair succumbed to pressure from his own Labour Party and agreed to step down in spring 2007; and Olmert is suffering from widespread public disgust over the failed Lebanese war.

The three leaders have rebuffed advice from more moderate advisers that they adopt less confrontational strategies and consider unconditional negotiations with their Muslim adversaries.

Yet, despite these reversals, the three leaders have rebuffed advice from more moderate advisers that they adopt less confrontational strategies and consider unconditional negotiations with their Muslim adversaries.

Most dramatically, Bush spurned a bipartisan Iraq Study Group plan that was co-authored by the Bush Family;s long-time counselor, former Secretary of State James Baker.

Instead of heeding Baker;s advice to begin a drawdown of U.S. troops from Iraq and start talks with Iran and Syria, Bush rejected the notion of a graceful exit and then set unacceptable preconditions for talks with Iran and Syria.

In other words, Baker tossed a life preserver to Bush who threw it back.

Victory Agenda

Bush has continued to insist on victory in Iraq and has again ratcheted up his rhetoric. He now talks about waging a long war against Islamic radicals and extremists, not just the original goal of defeating terrorists with global reach.

At his news conference on Dec. 20, Bush cast this wider struggle against Islamists as a test of American manhood and perseverance by demonstrating to the enemy that they can;t run us out of the Middle East, that they can;t intimidate America.

Bush suggested, too, that painful decisions lay ahead in the New Year.

I;m not going to make predictions about what 2007 will look like in Iraq, except that it;s going to require difficult choices and additional sacrifices, because the enemy is merciless and violent, Bush said.

Rather than scale back his neoconservative dream of transforming the Middle East, Bush argued for an expanded U.S. military to wage this long war.

We must make sure that our military has the capability to stay in the fight for a long period of time, Bush said. I;m not predicting any particular theater, but I am predicting that it;s going to take a while for the ideology of liberty to finally triumph over the ideology of hate. ...

We;re in the beginning of a conflict between competing ideologies a conflict that will determine whether or not your children can live in a peace. A failure in the Middle East, for example, or failure in Iraq, or isolationism, will condemn a generation of young Americans to permanent threat from overseas.

So, rather than looking for a way out of the Iraq quagmire, Bush now waist deep in the muck is determined to press on.

Bushs dilemma, however, is that time is working against him. Not only are the American people increasingly angry about U.S. troops caught in the middle of a sectarian civil war in Iraq, but Bush;s domestic and international political bases continue to erode.

Blair, who is widely derided in the United Kingdom as Bush;s poodle, is nearing the end of his tenure, and Bushs Republican Party is worried about Election 2008 if American soldiers are still dying in Iraq in two years.

Plus, few military analysts believe a temporary troop surge alone will stop the steady deterioration in Iraq. Bush acknowledged as much at his news conference.

In order to do so [the surge], there must be a specific mission that can be accomplished with more troops; Bush said. That;s precisely what our commanders have said, as well as people who know a lot about military operations. And I agree with them that there;s got to be a specific mission that can be accomplished with the addition of more troops before I agree on that strategy.;

Though not making much sense as a way to quell the civil strife in Iraq, a U.S. military buildup could help protect American interests in Iraq if Israeli attacks on Syria and Iran touch off retaliation against U.S. and British targets.

Wider War

For Bush, this idea of expanding the war outside Iraq also is not new.

Since spring 2006, Bush reportedly has been weighing military options for bombing Iran;s nuclear facilities, but he has encountered resistance from senior U.S. military officers.

As investigative reporter Seymour Hersh wrote in The New Yorker, a number of senior U.S. officers were troubled by administration war planners who believed bunker-busting tactical nuclear weapons, known as B61-11s, were the only way to destroy Irans nuclear facilities buried deep underground.

A former senior intelligence official told Hersh that the White House refused to remove the nuclear option from the plans despite objections from the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Whenever anybody tries to get it out, they;re shouted down, the ex-official said. [New Yorker, April 17, 2006]

By late April 2006, however, the Joint Chiefs finally got the White House to agree that using nuclear weapons to destroy Iran;s uranium-enrichment plant at Natanz, less than 200 miles south of Tehran, was politically unacceptable, Hersh reported. Bush and [Vice President Dick] Cheney were dead serious about the nuclear planning, one former senior intelligence official said. But even with the nuclear option off the table senior U.S. military officials worried about the political and economic fallout from a massive bombing campaign against Iran. Hersh wrote:

Inside the Pentagon, senior commanders have increasingly challenged the Presidents plans, according to active-duty and retired officers and officials. The generals and admirals have told the Administration that the bombing campaign will probably not succeed in destroying Irans nuclear program. They have also warned that an attack could lead to serious economic, political, and military consequences for the United States.

Hersh quoted a retired four-star general as saying,;The system is starting to sense the end of the road, and they don;t want to be condemned by history. They want to be able to say,We stood up. [New Yorker, July 10, 2006]

Beyond the dangers from Iran;s nuclear program, the Bush administration views the growing Shiite crescent across the Middle East as a threat to U.S. influence.

Washington Post foreign policy analyst Robin Wright wrote that U.S. officials told her that for the United States, the broader goal is to strangle the axis of Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria and Iran, which the Bush administration believes is pooling resources to change the strategic playing field in the Middle East. [Washington Post, July 16, 2006]

By summer 2006, Israeli sources were describing Bush;s interest in finding a pretext to hit back at Syria and Iran. That opening came when border tensions with Hamas in Gaza and with Hezbollah in Lebanon led to the capture of three Israeli soldiers and a rapid Israeli escalation of the conflict into an air-and-ground campaign against Lebanon.

Bush and his neoconservative advisers saw the Israeli-Lebanese conflict as an opportunity to expand the fighting into Syria and achieve the long-sought regime change in Damascus, Israeli sources said.

One Israeli source told me that Bushs interest in spreading the war to Syria was considered nuts by some senior Israeli officials, although Prime Minister Olmert generally shared Bushs hard-line strategy against Islamic militants. [See Consortiumnews.com;s Bush Wants Wider War

In an article on July 30, 2006. the Jerusalem Post also hinted at the Israeli rejection of Bushs suggestion of a wider war into Syria. Defense officials told the Post ... that they were receiving indications from the US that America would be interested in seeing Israel attack Syria, the newspaper reported.

In August 2006, the Inter-Press Service provided additional details, reporting that the message was passed to Israel by Bush;s deputy national security adviser Elliott Abrams, who had been a central figure in the Iran-Contra scandal of the 1980s.

In a meeting with a very senior Israeli official, Abrams indicated that Washington would have no objection if Israel chose to extend the war beyond to its other northern neighbor, leaving the interlocutor in no doubt that the intended target was Syria, a source told the Inter-Press Service.

In December 2006, Meyray Wurmser, a leading U.S. neoconservative whose spouse is a Middle East adviser to Vice President Cheney, confirmed that neocons in and outside the Bush administration had hoped Israel would attack Syria as a means of undermining the insurgents in Iraq.

If Syria had been defeated, the rebellion in Iraq would have ended,Wurmser said in an interview with Yitzhak Benhorin of the Ynet Web site. A great part of it was the thought that Israel should fight against the real enemy, the one backing Hezbollah. ... If Israel had hit Syria, it would have been such a harsh blow for Iran that it would have weakened it and (changed) the strategic map in the Middle East.

In early 2007, the revival of this neoconservative strategy of using the Israeli military to oust the Syrian government and to inflict damage on Irans nuclear program may represent a last-ditch and high-risk gamble by Bush and the neocons to salvage their historic legacy.

If that is the case, then Bush will approve the surge in U.S. forces into Iraq, which likely will be followed by some provocation that can be blamed on Syria or Iran, thus justifying the expanded war.

Betting the lives of American soldiers and countless civilians across the Middle East, Bush will follow the age-old adage of gambling addicts: in for a dime, in for a dollar.

SECRETS
of **

Surveillance camera's track aggression

******

****** Image_story

Secret Societies: They Are Not Just at Yale - They Are Running a University Near You

Associated Content | December 21, 2006
Artevia Wilborn

The world over has heard of Skull and Bones of Yale University. This elite secret society holds within its membership at least four U.S. Presidents. George W. Bush and Senator John Kerry are both members of Skull and Bones. This made the 2004 presidential election the first known election where two secret society members ran against each other. However, names like the Order of the Bull's Blood, Mystical Seven Society, The Order of Gimghoul , Burning Spear, and Machine are less familiar. Make no mistake these too are powerful societies. The clear pronounceable difference between these organizations and Skull and Bones is that these secret societies were founded and continue to wield power at universities where ivy does not grow.
At the University of Virginia the number 7 mysteriously pops up on campus buildings and other campus fixtures and checks in the amount of 1,777 or 7,777 are sent to the university. For nearly 100 years candidates picked by the most secretive society have virtually always won the University of Alabama's student government elections. How is it that a group that claims only 13 years of existence on Florida State University's 156-year-old campus became the natural choice to sponsor FSU Homecoming? On the campus of Baylor University the school fountains turn pink, announcements declare Homecoming canceled, and figures are seen parading around campus adorning wigs and fake noses.

If the average college freshman is expecting to step on a campus where he or she leaves behind the stereotypical high school cliques then most will be given a false sense of freedom. Most college students are unknowingly under the yoke of the definite yet predominantly silent hold university secret societies possess on what is popularly called college life.

There are many aspects of college life. One could argue that there are so many diverse parts of campus life that it would be impossible for secret societies to control all of them. The mistake is thinking that these societies need to physically control all of these parts. In all fairness there are some aspects of college life these societies wouldn't want to touch with a ten-foot pole. But what societies like Spades aim to do is build an ever growing web of influence; and like a bunch of spiders they position themselves in key places on their web so that their slightest touch affects the entire college web. So what parts of the college web do these secret societies position themselves upon and how does this affect college life? The physical landscapes and traditions of the school, student government and student leadership, and social events are where these societies seem to assert their control.

Secret societies put university politics into play like a well-oiled machine. In fact, it is well documented that Machine, University of Alabama's secret society, has used all manner of illegal tricks and threats to both win university elections and discourage opponents from running against them. One year on their order groups of students boycotted a popular pizzeria to the point of running it out of business. Why? Well the son of the pizzeria owners ran against a Machine student government candidate. No one knows the exact membership, their leadership is especially secretive, but Machine's representatives inform potential election candidates what student positions Machine will allow them to pursue. Burning Spear is comprised of the most elite of the student senate and student government association, incidentally most currently belong to Insight Party, the FSU political party that has been sweeping university elections, under one name or another, for several years.

The reason these societies fight so earnestly to control the political makeup of their universities is simple, the pursuit of ever more power. What is most alarming is that many universities pay student government officers, thus compensating these secret society members for exerting their control in everyday student life. They control student organizations' budgets and place students on the student judicial board. They write legislation that affects the student body and hold representatives in every college or school on their university's campus. They allocate funds for student festivities and events and safeguard the interests of groups like fraternities and sororities, of which many secret society members also hold membership.

Just how these societies impact the physical landscapes and traditions of school are probably the easiest thing to observe about them. For instance, The Seven Society writes 7s on school property at the University of Virginia. Members of Burning Spear begin the beating of a large drum in the FSU's Student Union when the university plays a rival like UM or UF. The Noze has painted school bridges pink , dyed the water in school fountains pink, and made false announcements declaring Homecoming canceled. Michigamu, unlike any other group on campus, is given a free office space on campus.

Some may see these acts as mysterious or cool, foolish or petty vandalism, or simply harmless but they have been mistakenly viewed as part of these Universities' distinctions and traditions. These organizations are physically making a clear statement: This university and everything you think is yours belongs to us. They are given the power to take up space and "decorate" the university as they see fit without question, without revealing their motives or membership, and without campus reprisal and without being subjected to following standard university rules .

Homecoming, and Alumni Weekend, and concerts oh my. Oh these are just a few of the events these society members host. Oh how they like the limelight (so long as you don't focus too much attention on their membership in said societies) and being the life of the party. A university's time honored events and most awaited social spotlights are under the command of these organizations. After only 13 years of proclaimed existence Burning Spear unquestionably is given the honor of sponsoring FSU's homecoming. Florida Blue Key also sponsors colossal events such as University of Florida's Homecoming and Gator Growl. Students who secretly hold membership in these groups get to represent themselves as everyday students while they gain and build professional, social, and alumni connections. What is ironic is that the university funds the parties these societies sponsor under the guise of school spirit. It is however, the sprit of their own society and influence over these events that they are most interested in maintaining.

With the power of government, influence over tradition, and determination to plan the goings on at your local university know that elite secret societies participate in all these activities with only one goal - their ever advancing power. The aforementioned colleges and universities don't immediately endear visions of prestige that one thinks of when Harvard or Yale is mentioned. However, like the members of Skull and Bones these secret societies members on public university campuses go on to powerful positions in local, state, and federal government, they become successful business men, and continue the ever connecting web of power.

Kevin Phillips, author of American Theocracy, puts the best case of why these societies succeed. Phillips states, "People have wondered why these secret societies have been hotbeds of future success. Rather than competing with fraternities and student organizations, these 'secret societies' augment or leverage other organizations. What makes them unique and singularly successful is that they stress goal-oriented vision among a limited and distinguished group. Often they assist each other, secretly, in gaining prominent campus positions as practice for what they want to do in the real world. As opposed to larger organizations they maintain the strength of their ties post graduation."

وورلدثوريس -WorldtheoriesHope_Holiday_News

New comments have been disabled for this post.

April 2012June 2012