Thursday, January 31, 2008

Xenophobia, An Incurable Disease?

Lately I have been mulling over a few comments made, usually in passing about my picture. It sparked the need to reexamine xenophobia and racism in modern day America, and why it won't seem to go away.

When the country wasn't even a country it was the Native Americans that caught our hatred of all things different. Then it was ever increasing minority groups, typically immigrants or slaves, coming here for opportunities (or because they were the opportunity). African Americans, Hispanics, Irish, Italians, Japanese...they all took their turn at the whipping post. So too, did homosexuals, and Pagans and Communists or Socialists.

Today, however, it's Muslims, or anyone who even looks like they might be from the Middle East really, who are being regularly whipped.

Think about this, look at my photo, and ask yourself what you see. Many people haven't said a word about it because to them, it probably doesn't matter. To some, I have been told that I look like a ninja, and as a joke at that. Others understand this is typical protest gear for a person of my political persuasion. Or that it is a social statement. The average person who doesn't know, but isn't a racist simply asks what it is, or what it means.

There have been a handful of people however, that immediately think "terrorist". This bothers me for a number of reasons, the fact that I'm not a terrorist is the least of all to boot. (I know what I am and what I stand for, thats not why it bothers me so). Part of it is that the association of terrorist is also typically paired with some derogatory epithet, such as "camel turd, camel jockey, towel head or sand n****r" and so on. So the association isn't one that is based only on appearance, but mainly on bias. I have been wracking my brain trying to come up with a viable explanation as to why this thought process is inherently racist, and what needs to be done about this. Because apparently, there are a great deal of folks out there who don't seem to understand that it is, in fact, racist. Tell me what you think about this for an explanation;

What you see - a covered face
What you know - some Muslims cover their face
What you're told - the majority of terrorists are Muslim

What you assume - a covered face means a Muslim person, and terrorists are Muslim therefore, you are a terrorist.

Why this is racist;

Not all Muslims cover their face, and not all covered faces are done so for cultural or religious reasons.

You're told that most terrorists are Muslims, not that most Muslims are terrorists. Yet, that connection is made anyway.

Therefore, you assume that a covered face means a person is Muslim, and therefore they must be a terrorist. Which positions all Muslims as terrorists, and starts the racist propaganda machine.

This, at least to me, is a major problem because it is perpetuating the "red scare" all over again, but this time aimed at a group of people who can be identified by ethnicity alone. Not to mention the fact that the red scare is still alive and well, at least in some folk's minds. It is doubly scary because otherwise intelligent people are falling for it hook, line and sinker.

Do we really need another group of people to hate? Furthermore, is hatred really that hard for people to see that it requires an explanation?

name 3 things you love in this picture!

Tuesday, January 29, 2008

As Clinton dips, Israel Lobby remembers why they LOVE Obama!

Jerusalem Post:

[Why AIPAC supports Obama]

Sunday, January 27, 2008

The folly of attacking Iran

A tour is being organized across the US to counter the Administration's confrontational policies towards Iran. - More information here.

Friday, January 25, 2008

Democrats cleared a key hurdle for the spying-freedome act

The Nation Thu Jan 24, 3:24 PM ET

The Nation -- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid cleared a key hurdle for the FISA Amendments Act on Thursday, advancing President Bush's preferred version of the spying bill, a move opposed by the majority of Reid's Democratic colleagues. The vote, 60-34, sets the Senate on a course to validate more warrantless spying by the Bush administration and provide retroactive amnesty to telephone companies accused of breaking surveillance laws -- an unpopular approach.

The mostion passed 60/34, the chickens abstained!
Grouped By Vote Position
YEAs ---60
Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Carper (D-DE)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Inouye (D-HI)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCaskill (D-MO)
McConnell (R-KY)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
Wicker (R-MS)
NAYs ---36
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Casey (D-PA)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)
Not Voting - 4
Clinton (D-NY)
Graham (R-SC)
McCain (R-AZ)
Obama (D-IL)

NBC poll: near 90% favor Bush impeachment

Thursday, January 24, 2008

UN Rights Body Condemns Israel Over Gaza

But who stands opposed to critisizing Israel?

GENEVA (AP) — The U.N.'s top human rights body on Thursday condemned Israeli military action in Gaza and the West Bank.

The resolution, which also demands the lifting of the blockade on Gaza and calls for international action to protect Palestinian civilians, was proposed by Arab and Muslim countries and passed by 30 votes in favor, one against and 15 abstentions, during an emergency session of the 47-member U.N. Human Rights Council.

Canada voted against the measure.

European countries abstained on the grounds that the resolution did not address the firing of rockets by Palestinian militants into Israel.

"We believe that this council should deplore the fact that innocent civilians on both sides are suffering," Slovenia's ambassador, Andrej Logar, said on behalf of the seven EU members of the council.

The United States is not a member of the council. (But hinted opposition)

The Palestinian representative in Geneva said the resolution was intended to highlight abuses committed by Israel.

"We recognize Israel, but we are against what Israel is practicing against our people," Mohammad Abu-Koash told journalists after the meeting.

During a debate Wednesday on the situation in Gaza, a majority of countries lined up to denounce the closure of Gaza's border by Israel. The U.N.'s top human rights official, Louise Arbour, said the closure had caused "desperation" among Palestinians.

Israel, which is not a member of the council, did not take part in the two-day special session.

"I am glad that Israel did not participate in this circus," said Itzhak Levanon, Israel's ambassador to the U.N. office in Geneva.

"I hope that in the future special sessions will only be called for matters which need to be discussed seriously, and to find solutions," Levanon told The Associated Press.

The resolution is the third to explicitly condemn Israel — and the 10th to address Israeli actions in the region in some form — since the council was created two years ago.

The council, which lacks enforcement powers, has been accused of spending excessive amounts of time focusing on Israel since replacing the widely discredited and highly politicized Human Rights Commission in June 2006.

The U.S. Senate voted in September to cut off funding to the council, accusing it of bias.

Here is a list of US Vetoes on resolutions critical of Israel.

Wednesday, January 23, 2008

While we are not watching

Bush pushes Turkey to go nuclear too!

Bush on Tuesday sent the US Congress a July 2000 agreement, signed by then-US president Bill Clinton, that would clear the way for transfers of nuclear know-how to Turkey's planned civilian atomic sector, it said.

"In my judgment, entry into force of the Agreement will serve as a strong incentive for Turkey to continue its support for nonproliferation objectives and enact future sound nonproliferation policies and practices," Bush said in a letter to lawmakers dated Tuesday.

"It will also promote closer political and economic ties with a NATO ally, and provide the necessary legal framework for US industry to make nuclear exports to Turkey's planned civil nuclear sector," it said.

Lawmakers could pass legislation blocking the accord.

And Turks start standing up to Israel, TOO!
Fallon extends America's military actions to Pakistan!
Cheney pushes for EXPANSION of wiretapping freedom!! He asks for "permanent warrantless wiretapping!!"
Russia fires missiles off France!
17 Civilians are killed in Iraq!
Saudi Arabia Beheads 3 Burglars!

Rabid warmonger Podhoretz's Iran obsession

Here is Norman Podhoretz's latest whining in Commentary magazine, as reported by The Australian:
IF Iran is to be prevented from becoming a nuclear power, it is the US that will have to do the preventing, to do it by means of a bombing campaign, and to do it soon. When I first predicted a year or so ago that (George W.) Bush would bomb Iran's nuclear facilities once he had played out the futile diplomatic string, the obstacles that stood in his way were great but they did not strike me as insurmountable. Now, thanks in large part to the new US National Intelligence Estimate, they have grown so formidable that I can only stick by my prediction with what the NIE itself would describe as low-to-moderate confidence.

For Bush is right about the resemblance between 2008 and 1938. In 1938, as Winston Churchill later said, Hitler could still have been stopped at a relatively low price and many millions of lives could have been saved if England and France had not deceived themselves about the realities of their situation. It is the same in 2008, when Iran can still be stopped from getting the bomb and even more millions of lives can be saved, but only provided that we summon up the courage to see what is staring us in the face and then act on what we see.

Unless we do, the forces that are blindly working to ensure that Iran will get the bomb are likely to prevail even against the clear-sighted determination of Bush, just as the forces of appeasement did against Churchill in 1938. In which case, we had all better pray that there will be enough time for the next president to discharge the responsibility that Bush will have been forced to pass on, and that this successor will also have the clarity and the courage to discharge it.

If not - God help us all - the stage will have been set for the outbreak of a nuclear war that will become as inescapable then as it is avoidable now.

What a thoroughly evil entity! "Low and dishonest", he's called here. Indeed! Given his age, it is quite possible that Podhoretz is very much aware of who really conjured up Hitler! He'd much rather sweep all that under the carpet while he and his band of nutjobs try to conjure up WW III.

Cross-posted @ The Cylinder

Israel's frustration, Bolton's solution

Ha'arez quotes the Bolton:'Near zero' chance Pres. Bush will strike Iran'
(seems like Mr Bolton's frustrated too and thus is having others do his dirty job for him)
It's close to zero percent chance that the Bush administration will authorize military action against Iran before leaving office," he told the Herzliya Conference. Bolton also said that Israel's "stunningly successful" military strike on Syria last September could constitute a precedent for a similar attack on Iran in the future. "It seems that for the next few years the United States will be a bystander to the process," Bolton said.

[having unleashed the dogs, Israel's] Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz told the conference that the probability of a military strike against Iran has increased given "the deterioration of efforts to stop Iran diplomatically.

And, relying on Bolton's blood thirsty analysis, other Israeli News decries: Iran's sweet oil Is the reason for NIE Intel report:

Ms. Condoleezza Rice, you have apparently become the best ally Palestinian Terrorists ever had. The legacy you see for yourself and President Bush will be remembered because you have carved your own history in stone. A glaring part of that history is ignoring the fact that not one Arab/Islamic nation whom you tried to appease, is a reliable friend and ally, including Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, Egypt, Libya, Lebanon, et al.

Congressman calls for Cheney's Impeachment

Please Sign the petition if you are American. (h/t Brother Tim)

Monday, January 21, 2008

Gaza Watch

Sophia's: Les Politiques
Ann's: People's Geography
Dave's: Complex System of Pipes
Furgaia's: Filasteen

Prelude to Genocide

"The European Union, Israel's largest trade partner in the world, is watching by as Israel tightens its barbaric siege on Gaza, collectively punishing 1.5 million Palestinian civilians, condemning them to devastation, and visiting imminent death upon hundreds of kidney dialysis and heart patients, prematurely born babies, and all others dependent on electric power for their very survival." writes Omar Barghouti, an independent Palestinian political analyst and founding member of the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (

If Europe thinks it can thus repent for its Holocaust against its own Jewish population, it is in fact shamefully and consciously facilitating the committal of fresh acts of genocide against the people of Palestine. But Palestinians, it appears, do not count for much, as we are viewed not only by Israel, but also by its good old "white" sponsors and allies as lesser, or relative, humans. The continent that invented modern genocide and was responsible for massacring in the last two centuries more human beings, mostly "relative humans," than all other continents put together is covering up crimes that are reminiscent in quality, though certainly not in quantity, of its own heinous crimes against humanity.

How 'bout Canada?

This bothers me!

First, based on civil servants expert, Canadianly Pedantic and technocratic analysis, Canada puts US and Israel on the list of countries where prisoners "may" be tortured.

Then, Israel waves her finger in disapproval and the Foreign Minister forces the list changed! This I call, governance A la Ameriquin!

Well for the novice:
America HAS a propensity for landing prisoners in torture chambers.
The Jewish State HAS ADMITTED to torturing prisoners!

So what's the big taboo?!!

One may delude themselves that Canada is the cradle of multiculturalism, a welcoming society that takes care of the poor and is interested in none but keeping peace and tranquility of the world?

It so may be, to a large degree! (Or perhaps it was so under the Liberal government)

Yet, Canada is also the little low self-esteemed, in a hidden identity crisis, doorman for Israel and he USA. I would say, Canada is more of a servant to Israel than it is to USA. Why? Because it has a very strong Jewish lobby!

Since its inception several years ago, this hard-line lobby [Canadian Council for Israel and Jewish Advocacy (CIJA) ] has used its power, first, to gain political hegemony and impose ideological conformity on the matter of Israel within a heretofore diverse Jewish community, and second, to influence government decisions and shape public opinion regarding Israel — ostensibly in the name of all Canadian Jewry. From the outset, a primary focus of this lobby’s attentions has been the university campus, alleged centre of anti-Israel sentiment, conveniently construed as anti-semitism. Over the last two years, the lobby has by various means attempted to pacify these campuses and bring them into line, particularly Concordia and York. While the lobby has made some significant gains, at York their effort has been stalled.

And also because it is still very much attached to its colonial past, thus not immune to its legacy of colonial racism!

I used to love Canada, but I am increasingly frustrated when I hear a paralyzed refugee who is seeking asylum in a church, who is supported by his community, and who has done no crime other than entring Canada on false passport (how else can one become a refugee, I wonder) is being forced to leave Canada!

Racism in Canada is hidden beneath the surface! It is masked in the intricacy of institutional politics. You almost certainly have twice a chance of becoming anything if you are a Jew! I have had black friends who have been born in Canada and who have left, because they felt they are visible minority. Canada's racism is threefold: a class of French, a class of British, and a class of Jewish; the three unpenetrable ruling classes.

And among those, as shamelessly "self-righteous" as the Jewish lobby tends to be, nothing in Canada can be done without their approval!

Israel starves over 800,000 Palestinians in Gaza!

UN unable to bring food to already freezing Gaza!

Sunday, January 20, 2008

UN inspector: US on brink of war with Iran

Looks like it's not over yet . . . Scott Ritter, UN inspector who opposed the Iraq invasion, says Bush is at it again. Click through on the link for details.

Scott Ritter, one of the former United Nations inspectors who didn’t find any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, denounced the Bush administration for going to war with WMDs as the primary rationale in March 2003. 0120 05 1

Now he fears the United States is on the brink of war with Iran. Ritter points to a military buildup in the region, the so-called threats to the U.S. Navy from Iranian speed boats last week and a U.S. Senate resolution that labels elements of Iran as a terrorist organization.

“It’s like filling up a house with gasoline and flicking matches at the door,” Ritter said. “Sooner or later it will connect.”

His conclusion: “What’s really going on is a road map for global domination. The war in Iraq initiated a long-term strategy neo conservatives have been formulating to divide the world into spheres of influence and dominate them economically, militarily and diplomatically.”

blog it

Navy's version of Iran speedboat story unravels

But networks don't correct inflammatory early versions
clipped from
0111 01
WASHINGTON - Despite the official and media portrayal of the incident in the Strait of Hormuz early Monday morning as a serious threat to U.S. ships from Iranian speedboats that nearly resulted in a “battle at sea”, new information over the past three days suggests that the incident did not involve such a threat and that no U.S. commander was on the verge of firing at the Iranian boats....[New information] includes the revelation that U.S. officials spliced the audio recording of an alleged Iranian threat onto to a videotape of the incident....Further undermining the U.S. version of the incident is a video released by Iran Thursday showing an Iranian naval officer on a small boat hailing one of three ships. ...Furthermore, as the New York Times noted Thursday, the recording carries no ambient noise, such as the sounds of a motor, the sea or wind, which should have been audible if the broadcast had been made from one of the five small Iranian boats....

Wednesday, January 16, 2008

Those Ungrateful Saudis: Why don't they like Bush?

San Farncisco Chronicle:

Why is it that George W. Bush only gets a 12 percent favorability rating in Saudi Arabia? Even Osama bin Laden and Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad scored higher in a poll last month by the nonpartisan Terror Free Tomorrow group that counts both Republican Sen. John McCain and Democrat former Rep. Lee Hamilton on its advisory board. What ingrates those Saudis are - didn't the Bush family save them twice from Saddam Hussein?

What more can this president do to curry favor with the Saudis?

  • He forgave them for nurturing the Wahhabism that spawned al Qaeda, and
  • he never embarrasses them with the fact that bin Laden and 15 of the 19 hijackers who attacked America on 9/11 were born and raised in the Kingdom.
  • Nor did Bush let the inconvenient fact that the Saudi government had backed the Taliban until 9/11 intrude on his cozy relations with the royal family.
  • That warmth, displayed at ranching cookouts in both countries, has now been reinforced by $20 billion in U.S. arms sales to the Saudis and their Persian Gulf allies, officially announced by Bush on Monday.

At first, the Bush administration feared that some pro-Israel members of Congress might be able to derail the arms sale deal, but they solved that one by offering Israel $30 billion in new weapons. That's a good deal for the Israelis and for U.S. arms manufacturers, although not for U.S. taxpayers stuck with the tab. No problem - neither the media nor Congress notices the cost to taxpayers of anything carrying the label of "national security." Heck, Iraq's defense minister was just in Washington with his shopping list for new weapons and didn't cause much of a stir when he said the United States will have to defend Iraq for at least another decade. So much for the impact of the $1 trillion already wasted on the Iraq debacle.

At least the Saudis pay their own way and then some, when you look at how our main banks would now be kaput were it not for the almost daily bailouts from gulf-based holding companies. It's a good deal all around: The gulf sheikhs get their money by raising oil prices that drive up inflation, thus raising the interest rates on home mortgages, and then, when the banks foreclose on those homes at a loss, the oil money comes pouring in to make the banks whole again. A good deal for everyone, that is, except for the folks who lose the equity in their homes, but they don't have a lobby that Congress or the president has to worry about.

As Bush's imperial fantasy fades into dismal reality, leaving our nation saddled with record debt, an immense trade gap and an American public that has seen through his "What, me worry?" con, the president has bizarrely sought validation through visiting the scene of his foreign policy crimes. Just how bizarre a ploy was summarized in a Wall Street Journal news report predicting that, "As President Bush tours the Middle East on his first official visit, he will encounter an Arab public deeply critical of his policies in the region and skeptical that the U.S. means what it says." The WSJ article quotes the editor of a leading newspaper aligned with Lebanon's U.S.-backed government stating unequivocally: "Democracy in the Middle East is now part of history. Nobody believes Bush anymore. He has turned the Middle East into a big mess, and you can't bring democracy and change with instability."

A big mess! It turns out they hate us not for our success, as Bush once claimed, but for our incompetence, which he has done much to exhibit. The poll of Saudis found that, while only 12 percent hold a favorable opinion of Bush, a much more comfortable 40 percent like the United States. That's a lower approval rating than for China - or from Iran, from which Bush now wants to protect them, but it's a start. The problem is that few believe that Bush is the least bit serious about addressing any of the region's problems. As an editorial in the Arab News, a Saudi English-language newspaper put it on the occasion of Bush's visit: " ... no Palestinian, no Arab believes, he will, or can, deliver ... Everything he touches turns to dust and ashes. Iraq, Afghanistan, maybe now even Iran."

There they go again, worrying only about themselves. Didn't Bush also touch New Orleans? What about Enron? Things have gotten so tough here that even Halliburton's CEO moved his headquarters to Dubai. The bad news for the Saudis is that Bush broke the United States - but they own it.

E-mail Robert Scheer at

Bush's Present to Gaza!

Palestinians on strike over Israel's killing 18

Tuesday, January 15, 2008

Low Stoop

George Bush offers allies $20bn of arms to counter Iran

President Bush backed his political rhetoric against Iran yesterday with the promise of a $20 billion arms deal to boost the military clout of Washington’s key allies in the Gulf.

The deal, which could still be blocked by Congress, would see weapons, including Patriot missiles and precision-guided bombs, parcelled out to Gulf states, including Saudi Arabia, to counter Iran. The announcement was timed to coincide with Mr Bush’s arrival in Riyadh, where he sought further support from King Abdullah for his continuing campaign against the Islamic Republic.

However, the President’s central message of his Middle East tour – that Gulf States need to confront Iran – has so far failed to gain much traction in this troubled region.

some of the comments:

Another $20 billion that all the Central Banks will just have to print off... Oh well, c'est la vie. Addicted to oil and military equipment as I have said...

Robert Miller, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

Bush is acting as a traveling salesman for the U.S. arms manufacturers who contribute to his campaigns and his party. His "arms package" is supposed to look like "aid," but really it's just a sale like any other, a good way to repatriate oil money and get it back in the pockets of working Americans. It's a shame though, that those Americans are working to produce instruments of death rather than clean energy, updated infrastructure, better educated children or better health care.

JimBob, Los Angeles, USA

Unbelievable the friends the USA keeps. They suffer major terrorist attacks from multiple Saudi nationals, and relatives of Saudi leaders, yet find it compelling to offer the leadership more weapons. Creating peace and security by exporting powerful weaponry is not only deadly, but dead wrong. One only needs to follow the trail of arms exports from regime to regime to understand clearly that the prime motivation here is profit not peace.

Eric, El Cerrito, USA / California

Sunday, January 13, 2008

CIA reveals 32 years old evidence of Israel's Nuclear Bombs "CIA Israel's nuclear weapon 1974"!
What do you see?
(At 8:27 Eastern Time, Sunday January 13, 2008: only 12 items, none published by any of the MSM channels. I thought this would be a big news, given that the news was reported
by Ha'aretz on Jan10, 2008: (emphasis is mine)
The Central Intelligence Agency, backed by bodies including the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research and the Defense Intelligence Agency, determined in August 1974 that Israel had nuclear "weapons in being," a "small number" of which it "produced and stockpiled."

Israel was also suspected of providing nuclear materials, equipment or technology to Iran, South Africa and other then-friendly countries.

This top secret document, consigned to the CIA's vaults for almost 32 years, was suddenly released to the public this week, during U.S. President George W. Bush's visit to Israel and on the eve of his trip to the Persian Gulf.

A small part of the document was released in early 2006 under a Freedom of Information Request placed by scholars Avner Cohen and William Burr, but only as an attachment to a 1975 State Department paper ostensibly disputing the the portrayal of Israel's nuclear weapons as a fact.

This served the Department of State's effort to avoid addressing Israel's nuclear status in response to a query by Congressman Alan Steelman.

The Department of State, led in this exercise by officials Joseph Sisco, Alfred (Roy) Atherton and Harold Saunders, tried to depict the 1974 Special National Intelligence Assesment, "Prospects for further proliferation of nuclear weapons," as a CIA project, while in fact it was an agency-wide effort that included its own intelligence chief, William Hyland, as a senior member of the board that agreed to the conclusions.

The CIA was asked yesterday via e-mail about the strange coincidence of the document's release a mere month after the publication of its awkwardly worded NIE on Iran's nuclear weapons program. It did not respond by deadline.

The issue of an American double standard regarding the nuclear activities of Israel and Iran often comes up when senior American officials visit the Gulf, as Secretary of Defense Robert Gates did last month.

In both the original 1974 document and the 1975 State Department paper (in which it was retyped), the entire intelligence community determined, "Israel already has produced nuclear weapons." This analysis was based on "Israeli acquisition of large quantities of uranium," in part covertly; on Israel's ambiguous efforts to enrich uranium; and on the huge investment in the "Jericho" surface-to-surface missile "designed to accommodate nuclear warheads." Short of a grave threat to the nation's existence, Israel was not expected to confirm its suspected capability "by nuclear testing or by threats of use."

While Israel's nuclear weapons "cannot be proven beyond a shadow of doubt," several bodies of information point strongly toward a program stretching back over a number of years, the document states.

The 1974 document describes the Jericho project, from its inception in France through its migration to Israel to the replacement of the original inertial guidance system by an Israeli design "based on components produced in Israel under licenses from U.S. companies."

Israel Aircraft Industries is responsible for the development of the missile and has constructed a number of facilities for production and testing north of Tel Aviv, near Haifa, at Ramle and nearby it "a missile assembly and checkout plant."

On Iran, the 1974 NIE said, "there is no doubt of the Shah's ambition to make Iran a power to reckon with. If he is alive in the mid-80's, if Iran has a full-fledged nuclear power industry and all the facilities necessary for nuclear weapons, and if other countries have proceeded with weapons development, we have no doubt that Iran will follow suit."

The Shah's ouster in 1979 (and death a year later) apparently slowed down Iran's nuclear project.

The authors of the NIE wrote that the U.S. helped France expedite its nuclear program, France in turn helped Israel, and much like France and India, Israel, "while unlikely to foster proliferation as a matter of national policy, probably will prove susceptible to the hue of economic and political advantages to be gained from exporting materials, technology and equipment relevant to nuclear weapons programs."
Let's be cynical: Either CIA is pressuring Bush to abandon his warmongerings; or the CIA is paving the way for nuclear proliferation in the middle east, nodding to Arabs to acquire nuclear weapons/technology, which will of course be bought from the US or Israel, and in either case, it's a booster to America's war-economy.

Saturday, January 12, 2008

Eavesdropping on Expert Opinions on Hormuz Straits.

My favorite blogger, MarcLord has made a lawyerly post on the Hormuz Straits:

Without his permission, I have stolen excerpts. But you must visit his blog because much devil is in the details that are further discussed in the comments. My excerpts are intended to draw attention to historical FACTs about US aggression against Iran.

With a formal protest lodged by the US, the incident will be taken seriously, yet the case against Iran is a loser. In the second video above, the Iranian patrol boat captain hails vessel 73, which replies to his hail and identifies itself as a coalition warship. The Iranian then requests the vessel's course and speed. The warship replies that it is "operating in international waters," and gives the same reply to repeated requests for clarification of course and speed. The warship's reply is false, since the Straits of Hormuz are only 21 miles at their widest, and much narrower for large-ship navigation. Ships can't pass through there without being in territorial waters claimed by either Oman or Iran under the transit passage provisions of UNCLOS, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. ... [this point is challenged by a caitlyna, commenting on legal aspects of LOS, however ...]

Given past US actions in its waters, and its recent hostile stance, there's abundant basis for Iran to cite the US as a security threat.
  • On 18 April 1988, the U.S. Navy waged a one-day battle against Iranian forces in and around the strait. The battle, dubbed Operation Praying Mantis by the U.S. side, was launched in retaliation for the 14 April mining of the USS Samuel B. Roberts (FFG-58). U.S. forces sank two Iranian warships and as many as six armed speedboats in the engagement.
  • On July 3, 1988, 290 people were killed when an Iran AirAirbus A300 passenger jet was shot down over the strait by the United States Navy guided missile cruiser USS Vincennes. There is still lingering controversy about the event, considered among the most controversial tragedies in aviation history.
  • On January 10, 2007, the nuclear submarine USS Newport News, traveling submerged, struck M/V Mogamigawa, a 300,000-ton Japanese-flagged large oil tanker just south of the strait. (Wikipedia credit for links in this paragraph.) The tanker had suddenly slowed before impact, indicating the US submarine was attempting clandestine underwater passage in its prop wash. Hardly innocent transit.

Does legality matter in the Persian Gulf? Not yet, and Iran may have reason to feel contemptuous of the UN's impartiality. Ultimately, however, legality could become very important, and knowing how laws regarding coastal sovereignty are supposed to be handled calls the competing official versions out into clearer, less bullshit-clouded light.
Read MarcLord's post

Wednesday, January 9, 2008

How to persuade Americans?

Shed a few tears, so they know you have "emotions"!
Bring your husband to lecture people on "their stupidity"!

Well, I for one am disappointed that America is not as awakened as I assumed it would be!

Tuesday, January 8, 2008

Is America Being Destroyed

It has been six years since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, yet the United States of America lies beaten, battered and defeated not by an enemy of extremists who plot the demise of America through war,but by its own government and leaders who sold out their nation for power and wealth.

The America that exists today is far different from the one that woke up on the morning of September 11, 2001. It is a rotting corpse of a nation, eaten out by a cancer of power, greed corruption and endless war.

Bin Laden didn't destroy America when his followers slammed into the twin towers with airliners filled with innocent passengers. He simply provided the spark to ignite a coup to take over the United States government, a coup staged by a group of traitorous men and women who swore to uphold the Constitution but, instead, set about to dismantle that sacred document and destroy the freedoms that once defined a great nation.

George W Bush and his band of corporate minions are conspirators in this saga of power and dominion. It was their agenda to use this tragedy to take as much power and wealth that was humanly possible.

The once great United States of America is now despised around the world as an international bully, a threat to world peace far greater than any militants or communist dictators ever were.

America lost any chance for respect when Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction in order to launch a war for control of Mideast oil. It lost all chance for respect when its leaders sanctioned torture of prisoners, abuse of freedoms and spying on its own citizens.

It is said that a nation that does not practice democracy at home cannot claim to export it to other nations. A government that lies to its own people cannot expect respect or support.

George W Bush is responsible for the deaths of at least 3907 U.S soldiers and he is responsible for the injuries so severe in nature of thousands more U.S soldiers that they will never recover. Bush is also responsible for the deaths of thousands of Iraqi's who had nothing to do with his war for power.

It is George W. Bush who represents the real evil that threatens America. He is a vile, heartless man who deserves no respect, and one who should be led from the White House in shackles and tried as a traitor.

Bush didn't act alone in the ongoing destruction of America. Cheney, Rumsfield, Rice and Gonzales all had a hand in stripping Americans of many of their freedoms, while those disinterested members of Congress stood by doing nothing.

This is no longer simply a case of voting bad leaders out of office. These men and women are crazed individuals, who have sold out their country and must face swift, justice as traitors.

We can still save what is left of America by restoring the real America and punishing those who are ultimately responsible, a corrupt Presidential administration and a Congress of co-conspirators who used a national nightmare for political benefit and a way to seize absolute control of a helpless nation.

Rice: Iran greatest threat to Mideast we want to see!!

Iran greatest threat to Mideast we want to see!

Who the @#$& is "we"??!?!?

Monday, January 7, 2008

The Tonkin Commemorative Geography Quiz

Ok people, now pay attention this won't be too difficult.

Q1. Now who knows where the strait of Hormuz is?

A: Anyone.... it's the narrow bit of water between Iran and the United Arab Emirates with a hint of Oman (see map)

Q2. How far away is this area of water from- a: Iran. b: the USA?

A: It is zero miles from Iran as it laps on the sandy shores of Persia, it is approximately 8,684 miles (as the crow flies) from the USA.

Q3. So which country's naval forces are simply mooching around off their own coast defending their nation from attack (with occasional hilarious -and very irresponsible, ahem- pranks such as this) and which are thousands of miles from home belligerently occupying the area?

Hint: Come on, it really isn't that hard, just go over the figures- 0 or 8,684 miles. Here let's make it easy we'll round down the large (extra hint) number to 8,000. So is 8,000 bigger...or smaller than 0?

A: Yes 8,000 is bigger than 0! It's the USA who are occupying an area thousands of miles from home. Well done!

Now I understand that might have been difficult because of the media reflecting elite Imperial opinion-
US Navy warships over the weekend came "very close" to shooting at an Iranian Revolutionary Guard vessels, which American officials say provoked US ships in international waters, according to CNN. "US officials are confirming to CNN that five Iranian Revolutionary guard boats, in their words, 'harassed and provoked' three US Navy warships sailing in the Strait of Hormuz," reports CNN's Barbara Starr. "One of those Iranian boats came within 200 yards of a Navy warship."
But that's what we have to do, unlearn the established nationalistic biases and see the world from eyes not tattooed in red, white and blue. (nb. this answer also applies to 'which side of the line were the British sailors on?' which was asked & debated by retards everywhere last year. They were thousands of miles over their line, m'kay?).

Sunday, January 6, 2008

Confused? You Might Be

ISRAELI security officials are to brief President George W Bush on their latest intelligence about Iran’s nuclear programme - and how it could be destroyed - when he begins a tour of the Middle East in Jerusalem this week.

Ehud Barak, the defence minister, is said to want to convince him that an Israeli military strike against uranium enrichment facilities in Iran would be feasible if diplomatic efforts failed to halt nuclear operations. A range of military options has been prepared.
Hey! I've just realised a major software flaw in all media word processing applications. They print 'Iran' when the user types 'Israel', see there is no Mearsheimer & Walt-ian Israel lobby it's the software! When journalists are reporting on Israeli aggression the article comes out as 'Iranian aggression'. It also makes understanding the news a lot easier, we all know Israel has an active nuclear weapons program but because of the glitch we all got worked up about the 'Iranian nuclear weapons program'.

There is also an intermittent fault when sometimes 'America' is printed as 'Iran'- When the media write about Iranian influence they mean 'American influence' which makes so much more sense:- American influence in the middle east is suspected of backing dictators, puppet leaders and client regimes exporting oil to a technologically inefficient swamp of carbon horror! I'm going to have to do some thorough testing but I suspect there may be other bugs affecting media perception:-

Capitalist greed euphemistically hidden as the subprime crisis, will destroy our entire economy.

Actually prints out as- 'Britney Spears'

The invasion was specifically designed to funnel public money into private hands while impoverishing future generations, government programs for the needy can now be cut under the guise of balancing the budget WHILE at the same time spreading imperial influence in key oil producing areas which enables greater profits for transnational corporations while destroying the people of the country unfortunate enough to play host to these sociopathic power hungry ruling class parasites.
Actually prints as- 'Election '08'

Raped, flailing, sizzling burning limbs coated with pain as babies incinerate in the melted eyes of their mothers.
Prints as- 'winning hearts & minds' also sometimes- 'peace talks'

We are going to reintroduce slavery.
Prints as- 'competitiveness'

Prints as- 'entertainment' sometimes- 'beer'

Have a look around yourself and see if you notice any, it's a game the whole family can play!

Israel fails to lure Jews out of Iran

According to Jewish Journal:

In October, IFCJ had set up funds to offer 10,000 to Jews who wish to leave Iran for Israel.

The officials of the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews (IFCJ), which has offices in Chicago and Jerusalem, of the 20,000 Jews still living in Iran, only 125 have accepted the funds.

Saturday, January 5, 2008


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush said on Saturday he would use part of a weeklong Middle East trip next week to press allies to help keep Iran's "aggressive ambitions" in check. Bush will travel to Israel and the Palestinian West Bank as he tries to help the two sides reach a peace agreement. But he will focus on Iran when he visits five regional allies -- Kuwait, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and Bahrain.

"I will discuss the importance of countering the aggressive ambitions of Iran," Bush said in his weekly radio address.

He has got some good writers, that is some deadpan ironic shit right there. 'Peace agreement' stop it you're killing me (which when applied to Palestinians I think is what he means by 'help'). Oh and also if you care to look at the human rights record of those allies mentioned, erm the term 'axis of evil' is not wholly inappropriate. Yet still this nonsense is presented with a straight face by the media without countervailing arguments or basic factual refutation of this moron's idiocy. This is going to be a long year.

2008 Wish: try Bush & Cheney for Violation of Human Rights.

The buzz word on the news (from which I am deliberately retiring for now) is "desire for change" in America!

"I have a dream":

What do you say if America reclaims her honor by having Bush and Cheney stand trial and apologize to the human society for their crimes? I don't want them hanged, imprisoned or punished, just made an example of .

In a way, America gets to escape goat these obvious criminals and perhaps whitewash its entire history, that, thanks to the sloppy actions of these dudes, has become rather exposed.

That would be a change, wouldn't it?

On that note, I express gratitude to all those who aided in kicking Mrs Clinton's bottom! But a question, how is the Zionist money doing in Obama's camp? I remember the last videos of AIPAC I saw, he was trying to outdo Clinton in the little monkey dance (clapping for some warmonger, whose unholy name escapes me) performed for the chosen ones!