Skip navigation.

I've Heard That Song Before

The <i>Real</i> Lincoln

Thursday, 19. April 2007, 05:54:45

. . . it came as a surprise that anyone should find a tribute to the sixteenth president objectionable. Who could object to Lincoln? As a national symbol he is unavoidable; the piece of real estate he occupies in the American imagination is immeasurably vast. He seems too big even to have an opinion about. It would be like objecting to the moon.

'The Weekly Standard' Feigns Objectivity
by Thomas J. DiLorenzo

In the December 29, 2003, issue of The Weekly Standard, senior editor Andrew Ferguson discusses the controversy surrounding the new Lincoln statue that was erected in Richmond, Virginia, last April. Ferguson makes a weak attempt to appear objective by mentioning a few of the reasons why there were objections to the statue; but upon close reading of his piece it is evident that he fails miserably in explaining to his readers why the Lincoln statue was so controversial.

Coming from the premier neocon magazine, it may seem shocking to some that Ferguson actually mentions a few of the well-documented criticisms of Lincoln: During his lifetime he was "one of the least popular presidents the country has ever known"; he was either an agnostic or, more likely, an atheist despite his prolific use of Scripture in his political speeches; and every minister in Springfield, Illinois, opposed his election.


He was a consummate politician who spoke out of both sides of his mouth, saying one thing to one audience and the opposite to another.

He was adamantly opposed to racial equality, actually using the words "superior and inferior" to describe the "appropriate" relation between the white and black races.

He opposed giving blacks the right to vote, to serve on juries, or to intermarry with whites.

He supported the legal rights of slave owners and pledged his support of a constitutional amendment that would have prohibited the federal government from ever interfering with Southern slavery.

He was a mercantilist and a political tool of corrupt Northern business interests.

He was a railroad industry lobbyist who championed corporate welfare.

He once represented a slave owner in a case in which he sought to recover his runaway slaves. Lincoln lost the case and the slaves gained their freedom.

He advocated sending all blacks back to Africa, Central America, or Haiti – anywhere but the U.S.

He proposed strengthening the Fugitive Slave Law.

He opposed the extension of slavery into the territories so that "free white people" would not have to associate with blacks or compete with them for jobs.

He opposed black citizenship in Illinois and supported the state’s constitution which prohibited the emigration of black people into the state.

He was the head of the Illinois Colonization Society, which advocated the use of state tax dollars to deport the small number of free blacks that resided within the state.

He nullified the early emancipation of slaves in Missouri and Georgia early in the war.

He sent troops to New York City to put down a draft riot by shooting hundreds of them in the streets.

He was an enemy of free-market capitalism.

He started a war over tax collection that ended up killing 620,000 Americans and wounding and maiming even more.

He conjured up the spectacular lie that no such thing as state sovereignty ever existed to "justify" his invasion and conquest of the Southern states.

He refused to meet with Confederate peace commissioners before the war to work out a peaceful compromise.

He provoked the upper South – Virginia, North Carolina, Arkansas and Tennessee –
to secede by launching a military invasion of their sister states.

He supported economic interventionism through protectionist tariffs, corporate welfare, and central banking that would plunder one section of the country (the South) for the benefit of his Northern political supporters.

He started a war without the consent of Congress; illegally declared martial law; illegally blockaded Southern ports; illegally suspended habeas corpus and arrested tens of thousands of political opponents; illegally orchestrated the secession of West Virginia; shut down hundreds of opposition newspapers and imprisoned their editors and owners; deported the most outspoken member of the Democratic Party opposition, Congressman Clement L. Vallandigham of Ohio; confiscated private property, including firearms; ignored the Ninth and Tenth Amendments; tolerated the arrest of ministers who refused to publicly pray for him; arrested duly elected members of the Maryland legislature as well as Congressman Henry May of Baltimore; and supported a law that indemnified federal officials from all of these illegal acts.

He orchestrated the rigging of Northern elections.

Introduced the slavery of conscription and income taxation.

Censored all telegraph communication.

Waged war on civilians by having his armies bomb Southern cities and destroy or steal crops, livestock and private property throughout the South.

Created an enormous political patronage system that survives today.

Allowed the unjust mass execution of Sioux Indians in Minnesota.

Destroyed the system of federalism and states’ rights that was created by the founding fathers, thereby destroying the voluntary union.

Promoted generals for their willingness to use troops as cannon fodder.

Created an internal revenue bureaucracy that has never diminished in size and power.


These are just a few examples of Lincoln’s tyrannical behavior that have been well documented for decades by mainstream, pro-Lincoln scholars but which were completely ignored by Ferguson. He ignored them despite the fact that they are the main reason why there was a controversy over the Lincoln statue in Richmond . . .

Thomas J. DiLorenzo is the author of the LRC #1 bestseller, The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War, ... re-released in paperback with a new chapter by Three Rivers Press / Random House.

Website: lewrockwell.com

Their Only Source of Income: Opium Farming

Wednesday, 18. April 2007, 05:49:43

Nowadays the Taliban is more deadly than it has been since the American troops set foot on Afghanistan's difficult terrain more than five years ago!

Aljazeera Magazine - 04/17/07

"Bush's Afghan Dilemma"
by Mustafa Fetouri
NATO countries supported their American ally by providing troops, expertise, and hardware on the ground in Afghanistan. Although reluctantly NATO promised help and delivered on its promise.

Though the alliance was forthcoming with its contribution to America's war in Afghanistan, lately it appeared noncommittal. In their last meeting in Brussels NATO foreign ministers appeared in disagreement with their American colleague Condoleezza Rice.

Germany and France repeated their refusal to sending more troops to Kabul let alone sending combat troops to the Southern region where Taliban appears to have the upper hand!

Italian prime Minister, Romano Prodi's coalition is against any deployment of more Italian soldiers, and actually calling on Mr. Prodi to withdraw the 1800 strong contingent already in Afghanistan. Mr. Prodi managed to renew the financing of the troops without which is the most he could manage at least now.

The German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, has got the approval of its parliament to provide few reconnaissance planes. France has refused out right any change in its role and completely against the idea of more combat troops. No French troops will leave the relative safety of Kabul!

The Canadian government is under strong public opinion to withdraw its troops.

NATO commanders on the ground have long since called for additional combat troops if the mission is to succeed, and Taliban to be defeated. The United Kingdom is sending more troops and the US will do the same, however; its bulk is devoted to fighting "terrorism" and defeating the Taliban in the south, while the rest of the NATO troops will redeploy outside Kabul where they have been for the last five years in order to rebuff any insurgent activities which are increasing.

All this while no serious construction project in the country is taking off. The infrastructure is still a shambles, communications non existence, corruption is dominant, hospitals are a joke, and the poor farmers went back to their only source of income: opium farming; after the Taliban succeeded in nearly wiping out the drugs trade, now, the world's number one supplier of drugs is Afghanistan!!

The Afghan government is at no position to lead any major initiative and it has virtually no powers outside Kabul leaving the poor Afghans to their fate and easy potential recruits for the Taliban.
Mr. Bush is now facing a hostile and suspicious Congress as his presidency winds down while his ally, Tony Blair, is almost certain to leave Downing Street before the end of 2007. It is certain that the ills of Afghanistan will not be remedied in the two years Mr. Bush still has at the helm, and alternative policy has to be worked out sooner than later. A policy that does not rest on military solutions to usual and very common social, tribal, and economic problems.

The recent upsurge in violence in the Southern parts of Afghanistan can only further enhance the position of the democratic congress in the States and further alienates the public from a war that seemed pointless and without any actual realistic results.

Since the invasion of 2001 the American Administration succeeded in achieving none of its major goals of the war. The top leaders of "Alqaeda" are still free, attacks are increasing on wider international scale, and more "Jihad" hotspots have been created from Casablanca to Algiers let alone Baghdad and Kabul.

This policy mess seems to further misguide the Bush administration which is losing its public support at home and abroad and can only produce further mess unless the whole military adventures are re-thought.
Dr. Mustafa Fetouri is a lecturer at the Academy of Graduate Studies, Tripoli. He can be reached at mustafafetouri@yahoo.com

Read Article

April 19, 1993: Remembering The Massacre

Tuesday, 17. April 2007, 03:23:36

Many people believe that David Koresh (or the Branch Davidians) were responsible for the deaths of the 74 men, women and children who died in the inferno at Waco on April 19, 1993. This is the story that the FBI put out. It is a lie.


The guns they had were legal. The local sheriff investigated and found no basis for complaints against them.

These were law-abiding American citizens, even if they thought differently to most other folks. They trusted the U.S. Constitution to ensure their political rights, but they were murdered by agents acting under the authority of the U.S. government.

Read this page if you believe otherwise. If you still have doubts, get the video "Rules of Engagement" for visual evidence. Or read the book "Armageddon in Waco". Or see the film "Waco: A New Revelation".

Waco occurred under the presidency of Bill Clinton, with Janet Reno and Wesley Clark in supporting roles. Already back in 1993 the [ zionist occupied ] US government demonstrated its contempt for the American people by carrying out a massacre in order to "demonstrate" (on prime time TV) its supposed "authority" (a tactic favored by fascist governments) . . .

On 9/11 about forty times as many people were murdered as at Waco.
In both cases the murderers have so far gone unpunished.


After the February raid by the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) of David Koresh's dissident religious community at Waco, Texas, the FBI and the U.S. Army took over, mounting a 51-day siege. This included such psy-war tactics as sleep deprivation of the inhabitants of the community by means of all-night broadcasts of recordings of the screams of rabbits being slaughtered.

Finally, despite David Koresh's pledge to surrender upon completion of his written explanation of the meaning of the Seven Seals, the FBI and the Army attacked.

At dawn on April 19, 1993, and throughout the morning, tanks rammed holes in the main building and pumped (in the FBI's words) "massive amounts" of CS gas into the building, despite knowing that inside were more than a dozen children. The tanks demolished parts of the compound and created tunnels for the wind to blow through. The buildings at this point were saturated with inflammable CS gas and spilled kerosene.

Around midday two U.S. military pyrotechnic devices were fired into the main building, igniting a fire which (because of the holes in the walls allowing the wind to gust through) spread rapidly through the complex of buildings and became an inferno. 74 men, women and children died — including twelve children younger than five years of age.


Fire trucks were prevented by the FBI from approaching the inferno.

After the compound had burned down the BATF flag was hoisted aloft to signify 'victory'. Subsequently the burned-out ruin was razed in an attempt to remove all evidence of this premeditated murder of innocent civilians by agents of the U.S. government.

Thus occured an atrocity which many Americans believe could never happen in their country.

A look at the evidence presented in the film "Waco: Rules of Engagement" and in the BBC documentary broadcast 11/28/98 in the UK, shows that it did happen.

The lawyer for one of the survivors said at one of the U.S. government 'investigations' (or rather, whitewashes):
In this country when people are accused of a crime they are arrested and given a trial — that's 'due process'. If found guilty of murder then maybe they are killed. We don't just kill them first — which is what happened at Waco. :worried:
Website: serendipity.li

No concept of <i>civilised</i> behaviour! -- It's outrageous!

Monday, 16. April 2007, 11:37:49

The Guardian - 03/31/07

Call that humiliation?
by Terry Jones

No hoods. No electric shocks. No beatings.

These Iranians clearly are a very uncivilised bunch.

I share the outrage expressed in the British press over the treatment of our naval personnel accused by Iran of illegally entering their waters. It is a disgrace. We would never dream of treating captives like this - allowing them to smoke cigarettes, for example, even though it has been proven that smoking kills.

And as for compelling poor servicewoman Faye Turney to wear a black headscarf, and then allowing the picture to be posted around the world - have the Iranians no concept of civilised behaviour? For God's sake, what's wrong with putting a bag over her head?

That's what we do with the Muslims we capture: we put bags over their heads, so it's hard to breathe. Then it's perfectly acceptable to take photographs of them and circulate them to the press because the captives can't be recognised and humiliated in the way these unfortunate British service people are.

It is also unacceptable that these British captives should be made to talk on television and say things that they may regret later. If the Iranians put duct tape over their mouths, like we do to our captives, they wouldn't be able to talk at all. Of course they'd probably find it even harder to breathe - especially with a bag over their head - but at least they wouldn't be humiliated.

And what's all this about allowing the captives to write letters home saying they are all right? It's time the Iranians fell into line with the rest of the civilised world: they should allow their captives the privacy of solitary confinement. That's one of the many privileges the US grants to its captives in Guantánamo Bay.
And this brings me to my final point. It is clear from her TV appearance that servicewoman Turney has been put under pressure. The newspapers have persuaded behavioural psychologists to examine the footage and they all conclude that she is "unhappy and stressed". :rolleyes:

What is so appalling is the underhand way in which the Iranians have got her "unhappy and stressed". She shows no signs of electrocution or burn marks and there are no signs of beating on her face. This is unacceptable.

If captives are to be put under duress, such as by forcing them into compromising sexual positions, or having electric shocks to their genitals, they should be photographed, as they were in Abu Ghraib. The photographs should then be circulated around the civilised world so that everyone can see exactly what has been going on.
Read Article

Henry Makow: A New Dark Age

Monday, 16. April 2007, 08:14:43

, ,

"Mankind Is Entering A New Dark Age"
by Henry Makow, Ph.D.

Communism, Zionism & Feminism Share NWO Pedigree

George Orwell's warning in "1984" of the enslavement of humanity in a global police state was not an idle exercise. It was coming true in 1949 when the novel was published. The attack on the World Trade Center Sept. 11, staged by NW0 controllers with Hollywood flair, heralded the next phase in this centuries old plot.

Veteran journalist Douglas Reed, writing in 1951, was also aware: "We might logically assume that a primary object of any third war, though cloaked at the start, would be the expansion of the Zionist State, and the imposition of a 'world federation' and a new 'management' of mankind. In the aftermath of the Second War such aims, earlier concealed, were much more openly admitted by leading politicians" (Far and Wide, p.291).

In 1913, the shareholders of the Federal Reserve took a major step toward the enslavement of humanity when they finagled the right to create money out of thin air based on the credit of the American people. This monopoly which rightly is the responsibility of Congress, is worth more than $360 billion annually in interest alone. They are doing everything to protect this monopoly, including the establishment of a global police state.

I discovered this mind-boggling intrigue last December when I probed for the reason why the "establishment" actively promotes the socially destructive Marxist lesbian ideology of "feminism."

By "feminism" I am NOT referring to the right of women to fair and equal treatment in the workplace. That is a façade for a far more pernicious agenda, which I discuss elsewhere. 1

This week I became aware that Communism and Zionism are also part of the same pattern.

If you wanted to enslave humanity, would you announce your intentions?

Rather, you would bait your hook with promises of public ownership, sharing and universal brotherhood. This appeals to the public's naivete, idealism, and self-interest.

At its heart, Communism is a system of social control and oppression dedicated to smashing the pillars of western civilization: nationhood, democracy, Christianity, free enterprise and the nuclear family. It cares for no other principle than raw power and exercises it ruthlessly.

Members of the Comintern referred derisively to people who bought the party line as "innocents." This is the Communist "modus operandi." There is a publicly stated goal (like equal rights) that appeals to everyone. Only the inner circle knows that the true agenda is to subvert social institutions and gain arbitrary power.

The Soviet Union was the banker's original version of the "New World Order" (the Communists used that term). In Wall Street & the Bolshevik Revolution, which is on line, Antony Sutton describes how the bankers and their allies engineered the Russian Revolution and bankrolled the Soviet Union. 2

Because the same financiers control our media and education system, this was news to me. Likewise, it was surprising to learn that (Jews dominated Communist Russia from its inception. 3

If you want to undermine the social order, you empower minorities that are ostracized by society. In the Jewish people, the bankers, who were often Jewish themselves, found an ideal instrument for their NW0 agenda. In The Last days of the Romanovs, (1920) Robert Wilton writes,
Taken according to the number of population, the Jews represented one in ten; among the commissars that rule Bolshevik Russia they are nine in ten, if anything the proportion of Jews is still higher.
Marxism appealed to a sublimated religious urge on the part of largely atheistic Jews to "build a better world" on secular humanistic basis. When their usefulness was over, many of these Jews were imprisoned or liquidated. Arthur Koestler is an example of many Communist Jewish writers who recorded his disillusionment (The God that Failed, The Invisible Writing, Darkness at Noon).

Ayn Rand, a Russian Jewess, also denounced Communism and extolled individualism and freedom (Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged). Nevertheless we don't hear much about atrocities
that Jewish Communists perpetrated in the USSR. 4

They attempted to eradicate all vestiges of the traditional Czarist social structure. In the collectivization of the Ukrainian farmers (kulaks), an estimated 10 million people were starved or shot. Millions more died in mass executions in the Baltic, massacres of Cossacks and Volga Germans, in the genocide of three million Muslims, and in Gulag slave labor camps.

As a Canadian Jew, and the son of Holocaust survivors, I feel an obligation to educate myself about Jewish responsibility in this era in Russian history.

Like Communism, I'm afraid Zionism may be another example of how the bankers manipulate the Jewish people for their own ends. Most Israelis would be happy to live in peace within the 1967 borders. They are not aware of a possible hidden agenda: Israel may have been funded for the
purpose of imposing New World Order hegemony on the Middle East, or even the world.

Israel doesn't make a lot of sense in any other terms. The Israeli founding elite mostly originated in Russia where after 1917 Jews apparently had a privileged position. One of Stalin's first acts was to make anti-Semitism "punishable by death." The Zionist elite was atheist so the biblical injunction to return to the Holy Land was for propaganda purposes only.

In his book Fallen Pillars: US Policy towards Palestine since 1945, (1995) Donald Neff tells how in 1919 Hugh Gibson, the newly installed ambassador to Poland, was chastised by Col. Edward Mandell House for reporting that Zionists were exaggerating Anti-Semitism in Poland for their own purposes. House threatened to block Gibson's confirmation in the Senate. Also present: American Zionist chiefs Louis Brandeis and Felix Frankfurter.

Who was Col. House? You won't hear about him in establishment histories.

He was Rothschild's agent and President Woodrow Wilson's handler. He later controlled FDR with the help of Bernard Baruch, Louis Howe and Harry Hopkins.

Gibson was young enough (36) to be incensed. He wrote a 21-page report for his colleagues in which voiced his suspicion that the Zionists had "a conscienceless cold-blooded plan to make the condition of the Jews in Poland so bad that they must turn to Zionism for relief." 5

One wonders if Jewish immigration to the US and elsewhere from Nazi occupied Europe was curtailed for the same reason.

Modern feminism is another NW0 Communist front inspired and led by Marxist Jews. Most of the leaders of the "second wave" were "red diaper babies", so called because their parents were Communists. They are characterized by a bizarre conviction that Western Civilization is evil because it was created by men, and therefore needs to be torn down. It has turned the university humanities curricula to mush and psychologically sterilized two generations of women.

In the view of Kenneth Minogue, Professor Emeritus of Political Science, London School of Economics, "the radical feminist revolution is nothing less than a destruction of our civilization. It has all happened in such a way that people have not yet realized what has happened." (see: How Civilizations Fall)

Communists, Zionists or Feminists -- Jewish or not -- are simply not aware that they are being used by the international bankers to create an Orwellian New World Order. If they strip away the rhetoric, they will discover that the NWO is a long-term plot to consolidate global wealth and power in a few hands. It is a scheme to degrade, enslave and even exterminate people, and to divorce humanity from God and nature.

Mankind is entering a new Dark Age.

Henry Makow Ph.D. is the inventor of the board game Scruples and the author of "A Long Way to go for a Date." His articles are archived at www.savethemales.ca and he welcomes your comments at henrym@mts.net
1 savethemales.ca
2 reformed-theology.org"
3 revisionisthistory.org
4 jewwatch.com
5 jewwatch.com

"My Heroes Have Always Been Cowboys"

Sunday, 15. April 2007, 09:21:14

My Heroes Have Always Been Cowboys
Recorded by Willie Nelson

I grew up dreaming of being a cowboy
And loving the cowboy ways.
Pursuing the life of my high riding heroes
I burned up my childhood days.

I learned all the rules of a modern day drifter
Don't you hold on to nothing too long
Just take what you need from the ladies and leave them
With the words of a sad country song.

Cowboys are special with their own brand of misery
From being alone too long.
You could die from the cold in the arms of a nightmare
Knowing well that your best days are gone

Picking up hookers instead of my pen
I let the words of my youth fade away.
Old worn out saddles and old worn out memories
With no one and no place to stay.

My heroes have always been cowboys
And they still are it seems
Sadly in search of and one step in back of
Themselves and their slow moving dreams.

Bringing Them Home

Sunday, 15. April 2007, 01:22:30

Herald on Sunday - 04/13/07

Bodies of British soldiers arrive home




The bodies of four British soldiers killed in Iraq last week were flown back home today.



The two men and two women, along with a civilian interpreter, died after a roadside bomb struck their Warrior armoured vehicle in Basra as they returned from a routine patrol.

The bomb blast left a crater several metres across and a metre deep in the road.

The victims were Second Lieutenant Joanna Yorke Dyer, a friend of Prince William; Corporal Kris O'Neill; Private Eleanor Dlugsoz and Kingsman Adam James Smith.

Their coffins, draped in Union Jack flags, were carried off a military aircraft during a sombre ceremony at RAF Lyneham in Wiltshire.

In total, six British soldiers were killed in Iraq last week, making it one of the deadliest for British forces since the US-led invasion in 2003.

Since the war began, 140 British soldiers have been killed.

Website: nzherald.co.nz

“Illegal Combatants” (Sound Familiar?)

Saturday, 14. April 2007, 09:37:10

Aljazeera Magazine - 04/12/07

Hezbollah, Israel in legal battle over captured fighters

Eight months after the war between Israel and Hezbollah ended, the two enemies took their battle to the courtroom as three Hezbollah fighters captured during the conflict demanded legal protection as prisoners of war.

The lawyers for the three fighters say they should be protected by the same international treaties that apply to prisoners of war.

But Israel, which officially declared last summer's conflict as “the Second Lebanon War”, wants to brand the three men as “illegal combatants” – the same term that the U.S. uses to indefinitely detain Guantanamo Bay detainees and deny them due process in American courts.

As enemy combatants, the three fighters would face murder charges and the prospect of long jail sentences in Israeli prisons. As prisoners of war, they would be sent back to Lebanon as soon as a prisoner exchange deal can be agreed.

The three fighters – Mohammed Adelhamid Srour, 20, Hussein Suleiman, 23, and Maher Hassan Kurani, 30 – were captured by Israeli troops on August 4 in southern Lebanon. They are being charged with attempted murder for setting an ambush for Israeli soldiers and "membership in a terrorist organization."

Suleiman is separately accused in taking part in the capture of two Israeli soldiers in July, an incident that Israel used as an excuse to launch the deadly offensive on Lebanon.
A UN-brokered ceasefire ended the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict in August, with Hezbollah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah declaring a strategic victory over Israel.

More than 1,200 mostly Lebanese civilians were killed in Israel's vast bombardment of the country and land invasion in the south. Lebanon's infrastructure also suffered extensive damage.

The Israeli army lost 116 soldiers. Forty-three Israeli civilians were also killed by more than 4,000 Hezbollah rocket attacks.

Israel’s failure to retrieve the two captured soldiers, crush Hezbollah and halt its daily cross-border rocket attacks led the Israelis to view the war as a failure.

Read Article

Window Dressing

Saturday, 14. April 2007, 06:23:47

Aljazeera - 04/13/07

Israel in fresh 'human shield' row

Israel has suspended an army commander and launched an investigation into the apparent use of two Palestinians as "human shields".

Videotape of the incident in Nablus has been obtained by Al Jazeera and shows Israeli soldiers seemingly forcing two Palestinian men to stand in front of an armoured jeep to shield them from stones.

The Israeli military on Friday said the commander has been suspended "from all operational activity" and an investigation launched into Wednesday's incident in the West Bank city.

Human shields banned

In 2005 Israel's supreme court ruled that the army's use of human shields was illegal.

However, Palestinian officials and some human rights groups say such incidents have become common practice during the seven-year-old Palestinian uprising and that it endangers the lives of civilians.

Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator, said: "The Israeli government must stop such unethical practices immediately."

The Research Journalism Initiative said it filmed the incident in the course of an Israeli raid on the home of a "wanted militant".

During the operation, troops damaged the house, but did not find the man.

Standard practice

Sam Neil, an activist with the Research Journalism Initiative, in a phone call with Al Jazeera from Nablus, said the use of civilians as shields was "extremely common". He said:
I'd go so far as to say they are standard practice ... I've personally witnessed Israeli soldiers using human shields in various capacities nearly a dozen times since 2002.
Last month, Israeli soldiers used an 11-year-old Palestinian girl as a human shield during a raid in Nablus, an Israeli human rights group said.

Mustafa Barghouti, the Palestinian information minister, denounced the officer's suspension as "window-dressing". Ne Said:
They are treating it as an isolated incident. The problem is systematic and ... they [the troops] continue the practice despite the court order.
Website: aljazeera.net

Jewish Defense League: A Terrorist Organization

Saturday, 14. April 2007, 02:11:27

American Free Press
Issue #16 - 04/16/07
by Mark Glenn

Domestic Hate Group Strikes Again?

Temple of Anti-Zionist Rabbi Weiss Torched; JDL Arsonists Suspected of Terrorist Act

Neturei Karta (NK), a group of orthodox Jews well-known to readers of American Free Press for their staunch opposition to the state of Israel and Zionism, suffered the loss of its Monsey, N.Y., synagogue March 31 to a fire that has been ruled “suspicious” by authorities.

In addition to the synagogue, the residence of an NK member who occupied the top floor of the building was destroyed as well. The building was empty and as a result no one was injured.

The reason the fire has been ruled suspicious by the authorities is due to the group’s outspoken political positions that have attracted world-wide attention in recent years, and particularly after the recent Holocaust conference in Iran attended by members of NK.

Since the time of that conference, organized Jewish groups—including the dangerous and fanatical Jewish Defense League (JDL), which is listed as a terrorist organization by the U.S. government, and the Jewish Defense Organization (JDO) have mounted campaigns to destroy the NK group.
In a recent JDO “Intelligence Report,” the names, addresses, phone numbers and other pieces of personal information concerning many NK members were published along with “suggestions” by the JDO headquarters as to what actions should be taken with them.
It should be remembered that—in addition to threats, whether overt or subtle, arson has been standard operating procedure for groups such as these in terrorizing their political opponents into silence. As of the time of this writing, however, no group or individual has come forward claiming responsibility for this latest incident.

If this latest case involving the fire that destroyed the NK synagogue is indeed one of arson, then it would not be the first time that NK property was assaulted. In July 2002, the same building, as well as two cars, owned by the organization were defaced with graffiti on the Jewish festival of Tisha B’Av, the day commemorating the destruction of the first temple in Jerusalem. In this case the graffiti in question included Stars of David and Hebrew words glorifying Jerusalem as the Jewish state’s eternal capital.

More recent than this was the physical assault on Moshe Arye Freedman of NK by two Orthodox Jews [ Zionist Jews ] in Poland, one Yehuda Meshi-Zahav of ZAKA (a Jewish organization that coordinates relief efforts in the wake of terrorist incidents where the victims are Jewish) and another unnamed member, who assailed Freedman with a barrage of punches and kicks.

As a reward for his actions, Meshi-Zahav was called up to read the Torah in synagogue on the following Sabbath. Rabbi Dovid Israel Weiss, spokesman for NK, said that arson “is assumed” because of previous threats the group has received. He said:
There’s no question that the issue is to stifle the opposition to Zionism
Neturei Karta is well-known for its position on Israel, Zionism and the other items swirling around the current Middle East situation. Their position is that Israel is not supposed to be re-constituted as a nation until the Messiah arrives, up until which time Jews are supposed to remain loyal citizens of the nations they presently occupy.

Since Zionism’s inception a century ago, there has been a continual and sometimes heated debate between groups who maintain positions similar to NK and those Jews who take a more secular position. One thing is clear: If this latest incident is indeed a case of arson, then what it constitutes is terrorism as the term is defined by that Zionist-engineered assault on the Bill of Rights known as the Patriot Act.

Furthermore, by looking over the rantings and ravings of Jewish extremist groups such as the JDL and JDO concerning those who choose to exercise their First Amendment rights by voicing their opinions, it is obvious that the U.S. government is wise to classify these organizations as dangerous and fanatical, and the American citizen, jealous of his God-given rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness would be wise to see them in this light as well.

Read Article

Political Correctness Not Helping

Friday, 13. April 2007, 10:49:04

The Guardian - 04/12/07
by P. Wintour & V. Dodd

Blair blames spate of murders on black culture

- Political correctness not helping, says PM

- Community leaders react angrily to comments

Tony Blair yesterday claimed the spate of knife and gun murders in London was not being caused by poverty, but a distinctive black culture. His remarks angered community leaders, who accused him of ignorance and failing to provide support for black-led efforts to tackle the problem.
Black community leaders reacted after Mr Blair said the recent violence should not be treated as part of a general crime wave, but as specific to black youth. He said people had to drop their political correctness and recognise that the violence would not be stopped "by pretending it is not young black kids doing it".

It needed to be addressed by a tailored counter-attack in the same way as football hooliganism was reined in by producing measures aimed at the specific problem, rather than general lawlessness.
Mr Blair said he had been moved to make his controversial remarks after speaking to a black pastor of a London church at a Downing Street knife crime summit, who said: "When are we going to start saying this is a problem amongst a section of the black community and not, for reasons of political correctness, pretend that this is nothing to do with it?"

Mr Blair said there needed to be an "intense police focus" on the minority of young black Britons behind the gun and knife attacks. The laws on knife and gun gangs needed to be toughened and the ringleaders "taken out of circulation".
The Home Office has already announced it is looking at the possibility of banning membership of gangs, tougher enforcement of the supposed mandatory five-year sentences for possession of illegal firearms, and lowering the age from 21 to 18 for this mandatory sentence.
Answering questions later Mr Blair said:
Economic inequality is a factor and we should deal with that, but I don't think it's the thing that is producing the most violent expression of this social alienation.

I think that is to do with the fact that particular youngsters are being brought up in a setting that has no rules, no discipline, no proper framework around them.

Some people working with children knew at the age of five whether they were going to be in "real trouble" later.
Mr Blair is known to believe the tendency for many black boys to be raised in families without a father leads to a lack of appropriate role models. He said:
We need to stop thinking of this as a society that has gone wrong - it has not - but of specific groups that for specific reasons have gone outside of the proper lines of respect and good conduct towards others and need by specific measures to be brought back into the fold.
The Commission for Racial Equality broadly backed Mr Blair, saying people "shouldn't be afraid to talk about this issue for fear of sounding prejudiced".

Mr Blair spoke out as a second teenager was due to appear in court charged with the murder of 14-year-old Paul Erhahon, stabbed to death in east London on Friday. He was the seventh Londoner under 16 to be murdered since the end of January, and his 15-year-old friend, who was also stabbed, remains in hospital.

Read Article

Making Kids Pay

Friday, 13. April 2007, 08:17:54

Just tell the kids it's good to have war debt. Tell them war debt makes our country safe. Go on, tell them. Kids will believe anything. Their parents did!
:worried:


The occupation of Iraq: Bringing It to an end

Friday, 13. April 2007, 04:33:21

The US-led and British-backed war on terror is only fuelling more violence by focusing on military solutions rather than on root causes, a think tank has warned.
The Austrailian - 04/11/07

US-British war on terror 'backfires'

-- War on terror fuelling more violence

-- US forces should be replaced by UN

-- Anti-British sentiment growing elsewhere

"The 'war on terror' is failing and actually increasing the likelihood of more terrorist attacks," the Oxford Research Group said in its study, titled Beyond Terror: The Truth About The Real Threats To Our World.

It said Britain and the United States have used military might to try to "keep the lid on" problems rather than trying to uproot the causes of terrorism.

It said such an approach, particularly the 2003 invasion of Iraq, had actually heightened the risk of further terrorist atrocities on the scale of September 11, 2001.

"Treating Iraq as part of the war on terror only spawned new terror in the region and created a combat training zone for jihadists," the report's authors argued.

It pointed out that the Islamist Taliban movement was now resurgent, six years after it was overthrown in 2001 by the US-led invasion in the wake of the September 11 attacks.

"Sustainable approaches to fighting terrorism would involve the withdrawal of US-led forces from Iraq and their replacement with a United Nations stabilisation force," it said.

It also recommended the provision of sustained aid for rebuilding and developing Iraq and Afghanistan as well as closing the US prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where most suspects are held without charge or trial.

And it called for a "genuine commitment to a viable two-state solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict".

The study warned that military intervention in Iran over its nuclear ambitions would be "disastrous", calling instead for a firm and public commitment to a diplomatic solution.

There is nothing to solve, diplomatically or otherwise. Iran is a signatory to the
non-proliferation treaty. Under its terms and provisions, Iran has an unequivocal
right to develop its nuclear program for domestic and peaceful purposes, uranium enrichment not withstanding.

Iran insists the program is peaceful, despite [ unfounded ] claims from Washington [ Israel ] that it masks a drive for nuclear weapons.

The study also said the British Government's plans to upgrade the submarine-based Trident nuclear deterrent could produce international instability.

"Nuclear weapon modernisation is likely to serve as a substantial encouragement to nuclear proliferation as countries with perceptions of vulnerability deem it necessary to develop their own deterrent capabilities," it said.

Anti-British sentiment growing

Meanwhile, Oxfam [ a global relief organization ] said today that Britain's part in the Iraq war had seriously hurt its ability to stop war crimes and human rights abuses elsewhere.

A poll also shows more than half the British public consider the war unethical.

Reviewing British foreign policy during Prime Minister Tony Blair's 10 years in power, the international aid body said his successor - widely expected to be Finance Minister Gordon Brown - needed to introduce a tough new stance of standing up to Britain's allies [ especially the United States ] if they violate human rights.

It said its workers in war zones around the world were reporting a trend of anti-British sentiment driven by perceived double standards in Britain's foreign policy.

According to a YouGov opinion poll released by Oxfam, 59 per cent of the British public considered Britain's decision to send troops to Iraq was unethical. However 67 per cent said they would support Britain sending troops as a last resort to stop genocide and other atrocities in the future.

Does that include sending troops to stop genocide and other atrocities
being perpetrated upon the Palestinians by Israel? . . . Well, does it? . . .

I didn't think so. :worried:

Website: theaustralian.news.com

What Are They Trying To Hide?

Thursday, 12. April 2007, 11:22:29

uruknet.info

What is AIPAC trying to hide?

Sabbah's blog - April 10, 2007

Media seeks public access in upcoming AIPAC lobbyists’ trial:

News organizations filed documents in federal court Monday opposing a government request to close portions of an upcoming trial of two former pro-Israel lobbyists accused of violating the Espionage Act.

Media organizations, including The Associated Press, are concerned the government wants to keep large portions of evidence in the case out of public view when former American Israel Public Affairs Committee lobbyists Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman go to trial.

What they are trying to hide?

Aipac Prosecution - Limited Access Is Constitutional:

A government proposal to limit public access to evidence in the trial of two pro-Israel lobbyists is constitutional and represents a reasonable attempt to safeguard classified information, prosecutors argued in a brief filed last week in federal court in Virginia.

The prosecution rejected claims by attorneys for the two lobbyists, Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman, that giving jurors headphones to listen to recordings not played aloud in the courtroom would violate the Sixth Amendment guarantee to a public trial.

But still, what do they want to hide?

In case you missed it: Ex-AIPAC staffers say Condi Rice leaked them classified info:

Two former lobbyists for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) say Condoleezza Rice was their informant on sensitive national security matters.

Lawyer for Steve Rosen (AIPAC’s former foreign policy director) said Rice had not merely been Rosen’s interlocutor, but had leaked information identical to and at times more sensitive than examples cited in the indictment. In addition the lawyer said, the information Rice provided was more "volatile" than the information described in the indictment.

I’ll be surprised if the court charge Condi for anything, not because she has not done it, but because the court will soon find out (if not already) that the whole administration is a puppet agent for AIPAC and they are just doing the job they were assigned to.

It is unfortunate that majority of Americans don’t know ( or don’t want to believe ) that their country is also _ occupied _ by _ the _ Zionists. :worried:

Website: uruknet.info
All details here

"Liberating America From Israel"

Wednesday, 11. April 2007, 23:14:10

"For 35 years, not a word has been expressed in that committee or in either chamber of Congress that deserves to be called debate on Middle East policy."
Western Voices - 04/10/07

"Liberating America From Israel"
by Paul Findley - 09/12/02

Nine-eleven would not have occurred if the U.S. government had refused to help Israel humiliate and destroy Palestinian society. Few express this conclusion publicly, but many believe it is the truth. I believe the catastrophe could have been prevented if any U.S. president during the past 35 years had had the courage and wisdom to suspend all U.S. aid until Israel withdrew from the Arab land seized in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war.

The U.S. lobby for Israel is powerful and intimidating, but any determined president — even President Bush this very day — could prevail and win overwhelming public support for the suspension of aid by laying these facts before the American people:

Israel’s present government, like its predecessors, is determined to annex the West Bank — biblical Judea and Sumaria — so Israel will become Greater Israel. Ultra-Orthodox Jews, who maintain a powerful role in Israeli politics, believe the Jewish Messiah will not come until Greater Israel is a reality. Although a minority in Israel, they are committed, aggressive, and influential. Because of deep religious conviction, they are determined to prevent Palestinians from gaining statehood on any part of the West Bank.

In its violent assaults on Palestinians, Israel uses the pretext of eradicating terrorism, but its forces are actually engaged advancing the territorial expansion just cited. Under the guise of anti-terrorism, Israeli forces treat Palestinians worse than cattle. With due process nowhere to be found, hundreds are detained for long periods and most are tortured. Some are assassinated.

Homes, orchards, and business places are destroyed. Entire cities are kept under intermittent curfew, some confinements lasting for weeks. Injured or ill Palestinians needing emergency medical care are routinely held at checkpoints for an hour or more. Many children are undernourished. The West Bank and Gaza have become giant concentration camps. None of this could have occurred without U.S. support. Perhaps Israeli officials believe life will become so unbearable that most Palestinians will eventually leave their ancestral homes.

Once beloved worldwide, the U.S. government finds itself reviled in most countries because it provides unconditional support of Israeli violations of the United Nations Charter, international law, and the precepts of all major religious faiths.

How did the American people get into this fix?

Nine-eleven had its principal origin 35 years ago when Israel’s U.S. lobby began its unbroken success in stifling debate about the proper U.S. role in the Arab-Israeli conflict and effectively concealed from public awareness the fact that the U.S. government gives massive uncritical support to Israel.

Thanks to the suffocating influence of Israel’s U.S. lobby, open discussion of the Arab-Israeli conflict has been non-existent in our government all these years. I have firsthand knowledge, because I was a member of the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee in June 1967 when Israeli military forces took control of the Golan Heights, a part of Syria, as well as the Palestinian West Bank and Gaza. I continued as a member for 16 years, and to this day maintain a close watch on Congress.

For 35 years, not a word has been expressed in that committee or in either chamber of Congress that deserves to be called debate on Middle East policy. No restrictive or limiting amendments on aid to Israel have been offered for 20 years, and none of the few offered in previous years received more than a handful of votes. On Capitol Hill, criticism of Israel, even in private conversation, is all but forbidden, treated as downright unpatriotic, if not anti-Semitic.

The continued absence of free speech was assured when those few who spoke out — Senators Adlai Stevenson and Charles Percy, and Reps. Paul “Pete” McCloskey, Cynthia McKinney, Earl Hilliard, and myself — were defeated at the polls by candidates heavily financed by pro-Israel forces.

As a result, legislation dealing with the Middle East has been heavily biased in favor of Israel and against Palestinians and other Arabs year after year. Home constituencies, misled by news coverage equally lop-sided in Israel’s favor, remain largely unaware that Congress behaves as if it were a subcommittee of the Israeli parliament.

However, the bias is widely noted beyond America, where most news media candidly cover Israel’s conquest and generally excoriate America’s complicity and complacency. When President Bush welcomed Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, sometimes called the Butcher of Beirut, as “my dear friend” and “a man of peace” after Israeli forces, using U.S.-donated arms, completed their devastation of the West Bank last spring, worldwide anger against American policy reached the boiling point.


The fury should surprise no one who reads foreign newspapers or listens to BBC. In several televised statements long before 9/11, Osama bin Laden, believed by U.S. authorities to have masterminded 9/11, cited U.S. complicity in Israel’s destruction of Palestinian society as a principal complaint. Prominent foreigners, in and out of government, express their opposition to U.S. policies with unprecedented frequency and severity, especially since Bush announced his determination to make war against Iraq.

The lobby’s intimidation remains pervasive. It seems to reach every government center, and even houses of worship and revered institutions of higher learning. It is highly effective in silencing the many U.S. Jews who object to the lobby’s tactics and Israel’s brutality.

Nothing can justify 9/11. Those guilty deserve maximum punishment, but it makes sense for America to examine motivations promptly and as carefully as possible.

Terrorism almost always arises from deeply-felt grievances. If they can
be eradicated or eased, terrorist passions are certain to subside.

Today, a year after 9/11, President Bush has made no attempt to redress grievances, or even to identify them. In fact, he has made the scene far worse by supporting Israel’s religious war against Palestinians, an alliance that has intensified anti-American anger. He seems oblivious to the fact that nearly two billion people worldwide regard the plight of Palestinians as today’s most important foreign-policy challenge.

No one in authority will admit a calamitous reality that is skillfully shielded from the American people but clearly recognized by most of the world: America suffered 9/11 and its aftermath and may soon be at war with Iraq, mainly because U.S. policy in the Middle East is made in Israel, not in Washington.

Israel is a scofflaw nation and should be treated as such. Instead of helping Sharon intensify Palestinian misery, our president should suspend all aid until Israel ends its occupation of Arab land Israel seized in 1967. The suspension would force Sharon’s [or his successor] compliance or lead to his removal from office, as the Israeli electorate will not tolerate a prime minister who is at odds with the White House.

If Bush needs an additional reason for doing the right thing, he can justify the suspension as a matter of military necessity, an essential step in winning international support for his war on terrorism. He can cite a worthy precedent. When President Abraham Lincoln issued the proclamation that freed only the slaves in states that were then in rebellion, he made the restriction because of "military necessity."

If Bush [or his successor] suspends U.S. aid, he will liberate all Americans from long years of bondage to Israel’s misdeeds.

Website: wvwnews.net


Paul Findley, a U.S. Congressional Representative from Illinois 1961-83, is the author of three books related to the Middle East, including They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel’s Lobby (1985) and, most recently, Silent No More: Confronting America’s False Images of Islam. He resides in Jacksonville, Illinois. This essay was issued on Sept. 12, 2002.

The Silent Witness Rule

Wednesday, 11. April 2007, 09:29:36

AP - 04/10/07

Media seeks public access in upcoming AIPAC lobbyists’ trial

Alexandria, Va. — News organizations filed documents in federal court Monday opposing a government request to close portions of an upcoming trial of two former pro-Israel lobbyists accused of violating the Espionage Act.

Media organizations, including The Associated Press, are concerned the government wants to keep large portions of evidence in the case out of public view when former American Israel Public Affairs Committee lobbyists Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman go to trial.

Defense attorneys have expressed a similar concern, filing a motion to ''Strike the Government's Request to Close the Trial.''

U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III rejected a similar motion filed last month and said at the time that he thought defense lawyers were being overdramatic in portraying the government as seeking to ''close the trial.''

In rare cases, courts have allowed the government to use what is called ''the silent witness rule,'' in which a jury sees certain evidence against the defendants that is never made available publicly.

Rosen and Weissman are accused of violating a rarely prosecuted [?] World War I-era law that bars the receipt and disclosure of national defense information.

Website: dailyreportonline.com

For Sale: Thermobaric Weapons

Tuesday, 10. April 2007, 23:25:41

Majority Rights
posted by: James Bowery - 03/28/07

Chinese Selling Shoulder Launched Thermobaric

Capable of Downing 3-Story Buildings From 200 Meters

As I reported previously thermobaric weapons threaten to turn the gasoline supply of the world into a world-wide urban demolition bomb wielded by virtually any group of disenfranchised people. “Centrist” moaning will be worthless. Well the day of reckoning just got closer with the Chinese entering the arms market with their own highly effective shoulder launched thermobaric grenades.

According to Wired News:
The Chinese version, called the WPF 2004, looks to be just as lethal. According to Jane’s, it’s a “fin-stabilised rocket” with “a launch weight of 3.2 kg and becomes armed 35 m to 50 m from the launcher. Muzzle velocity is 89 m/s with an effective accurate range quoted as 200 m against a 0.45x0.45 m target.”

In other words, you can aim at a window and knock down a two or three story building from 200 meters away.
What they fail to point out is the potential I previously pointed out which is that thermobarics make perfect improvised explosive devices using ubiquitous petroleum products—yes like gasoline—and the US has already used thermobarics against the Iraqi insurgents.

The Iraqi insurgents are already using RPG-7 grenade launchers—which are the logistic equivalent of the WPF 2004—lacking only a thermobaric grenade. When the IED “open source community” starts using thermobaric IED technology it will make its way back to the US via ethnic gang members who joined the military for urban warfare training which they can apply to US urban targets. The first likely targets: court houses. :rolleyes:

As a nostalgic addendum to this post I’d like to present you with a medieval catapult designed with an open source system:


Website: majorityrights.com

Open Source: Thermobaric Weapons

Tuesday, 10. April 2007, 22:54:23

Majority Rights
posted by: James Bowery - 09/04/06

Real Estate Demolition Weapon Could Backfire

”Thermobaric Urban Destruction” is the title of the “users manual” for the latest weapon being deployed by US Marines against “urban targets”. Basically it is a cheap, highly portable building leveler that mixes “fuel” with air and then sparks it. This could backfire. Seriously backfire. As in “Burning Down the Civilization” backfire.

Thermobarics, as a kind of fuel-air explosive technology, use air for the oxydizer, into which a fuel is sprayed—sort of the way coal mine dust, grain elevator dust and natural gas leak explosions do.

Unlike Ammonium Nitrate Fuel Oil (ANFO), you can’t lock onto a substance like ammonium nitrate for detection and control, anymore than you can control access to, uhm, air. That means you can’t use a substance-control strategy against them without getting rid of gasoline, diesel, natural gas—you know—fuel.

Since everyone drives around in vehicles with tanks filled with the chemical energy equivalent of 500lbs of explosives just waiting for a technology to disperse it efficiently into an aerosol near an enemy’s real estate assets (and/or the enemy himself), it is rather easy to imagine things getting out of hand if the right aerosol technology gets developed.

And with the critical materials so redily available, experimentation with techniques for dispersal—techniques that don’t require a lot in the way of special equipment or materials—will evolve Improvised Explosive Devices terribly rapidly.

To sum up, with the US deploying thermobarics in Iraq for demolishing buildings and killing their occupants, I can easily imagine two things happening:

1. The Iraqi resistance will start to use it in an “open source” developed Improvised Explosive Device.

2. US Hispanic soldiers will acquire this “open source” technology while in Iraq and do a “technology transfer” to US gangs as they have already done with other technology acquired during military service in Iraq.

Once that happends the days of Timothy McVeigh will seem like “the good old days” - :worried:

Website: majorityrights.com

Their Story Was Not Told

Tuesday, 10. April 2007, 11:45:14

Sunday Magazine - 04/09/07

Sunday Exclusive:

The Battle of Baghdad & the Unreported Neutron Bomb

April 5-8 marks the fourth anniversary of the Battle of Baghdad, the bloody battle that was the lead-up to President Bush’s infamous and untruthful claim on May 1, 2003, of “Mission Accomplished.”

Now we know more about the Battle of Baghdad Airport, which began on Friday night, April 4th, 2003, and involved the near complete annihilation of the US 3/7 Cavalry. At that time mainstream media covered these these events with a great deal of confusion and contradiction, and no mention of major US losses.

The US then apparently counter attacked the Iraqi defenders at the airport,
using a single neutron bomb, which wiped out all resistance.

Of course this was not mentioned by the media at all. However the evidence has been discussed in some unlikely places, including soldier testimonies from Iraqi sources in the infamous youth culture VICE Magazine.

However, according to news sources overseas, including American military operatives and various investigators, all was not what it seemed at Baghdad Airport.

They claim that the Battle of Baghdad was largely covered up as something the American public should not see, with U.S. news coverage instead focusing on a staged photo-op rescue of captive Private Jessica Lynch and later the pulling down of the Saddam Hussein statue, as symbolic of an easy victory.

“The biggest story of the war became a non-event when the truth of the matter was that it was simply too bloody an event to report.” Captain Eric H. May, a former intelligence and public affairs officer in the military, was quoted.

“The bogus rescue of Private Lynch was merely a distraction from the truth,” said May. “And the staged photo-op of the pulling down of Saddam Hussein’s statue was nothing more than a way to cement into people’s minds that it was an easy victory.

But what about the hundreds of soldiers who gave their lives on the battlefield?
Their story was not told. Theirs was the real truth of this segment of the war.

The truth is that the battle started April 5, the night that Baghdad Bob said that they had counterattacked us at the Baghdad Airport and there was a sustained fight that went on for several hours.

The best evidence from international sources, scientific sources, is that US position was becoming untenable at the Baghdad Airport and they used a neutron warhead, at least one. That is the big secret of Baghdad Airport.

If one looks into international data, there are reportings of enhanced radiation of some livestock, and of human metabolic effects – death and disease. It explains why, after the Battle of Baghdad, we got fragmentary stories of things like truckloads of dirt being moved out and moved in. It made no particular sense at the time, until one puts it into perspective, as a decontamination operation.

Again, that part of the Battle of Baghdad, the fact that we went nuclear, explains a lot of things that came out afterwards and also explains why it is that it had to be covered up. You can’t go to a country to try to make sure that nobody tries to start a war with WMDs against you and WMD ’em. It’s a highly embarrassing position to be in.
Unlike the nuking of Japan, which was admitted to the American people, the nuking of Baghdad was kept from them, meaning that we had decided to keep them in the dark about the conduct of the war.

Further, the Arab world knows very well what we did in Baghdad, and that only added to their hatred for the United States, so the big picture of the Baghdad Airport neutron bomb is that we saved ourselves from limited military failure, but thereby caused ourselves unlimited domestic and foreign disaster.

It’s one of history’s great ironies that the Bush Administration was screaming that WMDs would be used on us in the Iraq war, and then when all is said and done, WMDs were used — not on us, but by us. :worried:

( More )

The Jack of Clubs

Tuesday, 10. April 2007, 09:52:07

Aljazeera - 04/09/07

US accused of using neutron bombs

The former commander of Iraq's Republican
Guard has accused the US of using non-conventional weapons in its war against the Middle East country.

Saifeddin Fulayh Hassan Taha al-Rawi told Al Jazeera that US forces used neutron and phosphorus bombs during their assault on Baghdad airport before the April 9 capture of the Iraqi capital.

Al-Rawi is one of the most wanted associates of Saddam Hussein, still on the run.

"The enemy used neutron and phosphorus weapons against Baghdad airport... there were bodies burnt to their bones," he said.

The bombs annihilated soldiers but left the buildings and infrastructure at the airport intact, he added.

A neutron bomb is a thermonuclear weapon that produces minimal blast and heat but releases large amounts of lethal radiation that can penetrate armour and is especially destructive to human tissue.

Al-Rawi, who carries a $1m US bounty on his head, was also the jack of clubs on the deck of cards of 55 most wanted Iraqis distributed by the Pentagon before the invasion in 2003.

Read Article

« Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 39 Next »

Showing posts 41 - 60 of 773.