THE RESURRECTION OF THE disHONOURABLE JOSEPH McCARTHY … Full length movie

Just-cause-you-got-the-monkey
*
It started with THIS ….


*

And Continues with THIS …

*

The New McCarthyism

By Michael Rivero FROM

Back in the year 1947, the House Select Committee began an investigation into the Motion Picture Industry. Ostensibly the goal was to ferret out communists working in the film industry. But in actuality the US Government was concerned that Hollywood was no longer as blindly supportive of government policy as it had been only a few years earlier at the height of WW2. In particular, J. Edgar Hoover had long held the opinion that the entertainment industry should be the propaganda arm for the government in peace time as well as war.

However, as WW2 had ended, the defense establishment had lobbied for the creation of a “Cold” war against the Soviet Union, a war not actually to be fought, but constantly to be prepared for at huge cost to the taxpayers. This cost was the visible manifestation of the “Military Industrial Complex” President Eisenhower referred to in his farewell address, and many in Hollywood openly wondered just why so much more money had to be thrown into the war machine during a time of peace, and more to the point, just why we were supposed to be so afraid of the communists.

Hoover’s desire to remake Hollywood into a gigantic propaganda machine had started at the end of WW1 when Hoover tried to persuade Charlie Chaplin to cease making films that portrayed authority figures as oafish buffoons. Chaplin refused, laughed at Hoover. Years later, as head of the FBI, Hoover was instrumental in having Charlie Chaplin’s citizenship revoked in retaliation.

Hoover’s mania with Hollywood was a seldom reported but constant factor in show business. The 1959 film, “The FBI Story” starring Air Force General Jimmy Stewart was reportedly directed by Mervyn LeRoy, but in actuality J. Edgar Hoover was personally supervising the film (and briefly appears in it, shown only from the back) to make certain the “correct” image of the FBI was shown.

In later years, FBI informants became permanent fixtures at movie studios, and spied for the FBI. When Disney Studios made “That Darned Cat”, a pre-production copy of the screenplay “somehow” made its way to the FBI, which promptly sent Disney a memo expressing concern at how the FBI was to be portrayed.

[That Darned Cat]Click for full sized page. [That Darned Cat]Click for full sized page.

Likewise, when Paramount Pictures produced,”Skidoo”, starring Jackie Gleason, it featured a single scene in which Gleason’s character is seen fleeing a building marked,”FBI” carrying a file cabinet on his back. That one single scene prompted the following four page memo.

[Skidoo page 1]Click for full sized page. [Skidoo page 2]Click for full sized page.
[Skidoo page 3]Click for full sized page. [Skidoo page 4]Click for full sized page.

Along with “nudging” the film studios to portray certain things certain ways, the FBI did not hesitate to wreck the careers of those people it felt posed a dangerous threat to the government’s public image. During the height of the FBI’s COINTELPRO program, the FBI destroyed the career of actress Jean Seberg

Jean Seberg was considered a threat to the US Government because of her public support for civil rights at a time when the Civil Rights movement was starting to point out the racial bias in the draft system that placed a disproportionate percentage of black kids on the front lines of Vietnam. Seberg was also a supporter of the Black Panthers in their pre-militant days when their agenda was breakfasts for the ghetto kids, local control of school curriculum, and ending the draft.
Jean Seberg, a well known actress in the 60s, became pregnant and the FBI sent out letters to the gossip columnists identifying the baby’s father as a Black Panther, in order to cheapen Seberg’s image. Keep in mind that the 60s was an era in which sexual relations between blacks and whites was still considered taboo by most Americans.

The scans below are of the official FBI letter from Los Angeles to Washington D.C. asking permission for the scam.

[Seberg Letter Page 1]letter requesting permission for the smearing of Jean Seberg.

[Seberg Letter Page 2]page two of request for permission to smear of Jean Seberg

The text of the letter:

“Bureau permission is requested to publicize the pregnancy of Jean Seberg, well-known movie actress by (name deleted) Black Panther (BPP) (deleted) by advising Hollywood “Gossip-Columnists” in the Los Angeles area of the situation. It is felt that the possible publication of Seberg’s plight could cause her embarrassment and serve to cheapen her image with the general public.
” ‘It is proposed that the following letter from a fictitious person be sent to local columnists:
“I was just thinking about you and remembered I still owe you a favor. So —- I was in Paris last week and ran into Jean Seberg, who was heavy with baby. I thought she and Romaine [sic] had gotten together again, but she confided the child belonged to (deleted) of the Black Panthers, one (deleted). The dear girl is getting around!
” ‘Anyway, I thought you might get a scoop on the others. Be good and I’ll see you soon.
‘Love,
” ‘Sol.,
“Usual precautions would be taken by the Los Angeles Division to preclude identification of the Bureau as the source of the letter if approval is granted.”

Permission to use the fake letter was granted, but with the suggestion that the smear be delayed until Jean Seberg’s pregnancy was in a very obvious condition.

[Seberg Letter Page 1] letter granting permission for the smearing of Jean Seberg.

The story was then run by Los Angeles Times propagandist Joyce Haber.

[Seberg Letter Page 2]Click for full size picture of the Haber Article that launched the smear.

The story was picked up by Newsweek and the international press. The shock of the story was so severe that Jean Seberg suffered a miscarriage. The funeral for the child was held with an open casket, so that the lie stood revealed in its most tragic form. Jean Seberg, her baby dead and her career shattered by this outright lie, attempted suicide several times, finally succeeding in a French Hotel.

[Seberg Letter Page 1] memo that accompanied copy of the Haber story sent to FBI files.

(The name which was redacted from the memo during the FOIA process is thought by many to have been Raymond Hewit, a Black Panther leader. His “outright lie” was far more direct. The FBI typed up a letter on official FBI stationary identifying Hewit as an informant and planted it where other Black Panthers would find it in the hopes that Hewit would then be killed.)

Following Seberg’s death, the Los Angeles Times, the key instrument of her torment, issued a statement by the FBI.

“The days when the FBI used derogatory information to combat advocates of unpopular causes have long since passed. We are out of that business forever.”

The Senate committee that looked into COINTELPRO disagreed, however.

“Cointelpro activities may continue today under the rubric of ‘investigation.’

Finally, no single celebrity filled the government with more fear than did ex-Beatle John Lennon. Lennon’s popularity, and hence his ability to influence popular opinion, coupled with his strong anti-war stance, made him a real threat in the event the United States decided it had to go to war. For this reason, Lennon was one of the most watched celebrities, and according to Lennon’s youngest son, the victim of a government assassination plot.

[Lennon 1]Click for full sized page. [Lennon 2]Click for full sized page.
[Lennon 3]Click for full sized page. [Lennon 4]Click for full sized page.
[Lennon 5]Click for full sized page. [Lennon 6]Click for full sized page.
[Lennon 7]Click for full sized page. [Lennon 8]Click for full sized page.
[Lennon 9]Click for full sized page. [Lennon 10]Click for full sized page.

Having documented the FBI’s willingness to destroy anyone they feel represents a threat to the government, let us return to the days of the House Select Committee on UnAmerican Activities.

While Senator Joseph McCarthy grabbed headlines with his shouts of “Communist”, Hoover set about his self-appointed task of purging Hollywood of any he viewed as “disloyal” to the United States, which meant anyone unwilling to make the movies they were told to make, when and how they were told to make them. Senator McCarthy’s screed of “Communist” provided Hoover with a bludgeon he could and did use with impunity on Hollywood’s creative talents. Careers were ruined. Some 400 people, mostly innocent of any actual wrongdoing, were destroyed. Some, like Jean Seberg would later do, committed suicide. Ten men (the famous Hollywood Ten), Alvah Bessie, Herbert Biberman, Lester Cole, Ring Lardner jr., John Howard Lawson, Albert Maltz, Samuel Ornitz, Adrian Scott, Dalton Trumbo, and eminent director Edward Dmytryk were jailed for contempt of Congress.

Others punished for refusing to cooperate included Larry Adler, Stella Adler, Leonard Bernstein, Marc Blitzstein, Joseph Bromberg, Charlie Chaplin, Aaron Copland, Hanns Eisler, Carl Foreman, John Garfield, Howard Da Silva, Dashiell Hammett, E. Y. Harburg, Lillian Hellman, Burl Ives, Arthur Miller, Dorothy Parker, Philip Loeb, Joseph Losey, Anne Revere, Pete Seeger, Gale Sondergaard, Louis Untermeyer, Josh White, Clifford Odets, Michael Wilson, Paul Jarrico, Jeff Corey, John Randolph, Canada Lee, Orson Welles, Paul Green, Sidney Kingsley, Paul Robeson, Richard Wright and Abraham Polonsky. Lee Grant was registered on the black list because she refused to give evidence against her husband Arnold Manoff.

Stars such as Larry Parks were destroyed because they refused to “name names” of other actors who were party members. Actor Philip Loeb committed suicide. Edward G. Robinson, never a communist, was put on a “grey list,” and spent the rest of his life making B movies (except for his final role opposite Charlton Heston in “Soylent Green”). Sam Jaffe, formerly a well-known actor and Oscar winner in 1950 was registered on the black list because he refused to cooperate with the committee. He spent the next 6 years working as a math teacher and living at his sister’s until he was able to return to films in 1957.

Of course, what was really involved was money. War is good for business. Business had been great during WW2 and the newly created “Cold War” was just a way to keep business good. The Military Industrial Complex NEEDED Hollywood to demonize the Soviets. Otherwise, too many people were going to ask why we were being told to be so afraid of them, and few in the government had a really convincing answer for that question. So, in order to perpetuate the Cold War, those in Hollywood who might sympathize with the designated villains had to be removed; their ruined lives a small price to pay for unending access to the taxpayers’ wallets.

But that was then and this is now.

Once again vast sums of money are being spent on a war, this time a hot one and getting hotter. Once again parties with a vested interest are out to smear and destroy anyone who dares ask if the wars are worth the sacrifice of our young people (not to mention the money), indeed if there really is any point at all to the wars aside from justifying the flow of money to defense contractors.

But the Soviet Union has gone out of business. The word “communist” doesn’t carry the same psychological impact it used to, so the war hawk smear squad has come up with a new one, “Anti-Semite.” Like “Communist”, “Anti-Semite” is used to ruin the lives of people who have not actually done anything wrong other than to challenge the war profiteers. It is a new word for an old trick, and I am amazed that they are still playing the same old game, but I guess the FBI can always find some dumb-assed idiot to fall for it and do their dirty work of wrecking a career for them.

Of course, it really isn’t that new a word. Oddly enough, Charles Lindbergh the famous aviator commented in a speech in Des Moines in 1941…

Our theaters soon became filled with plays portraying the glory of war. Newsreels lost all semblance of objectivity. Newspapers and magazines began to lose advertising if they carried anti-war articles. A smear campaign was instituted against individuals who opposed intervention. The terms “fifth columnist,” “traitor,” “Nazi,” “anti-Semitic” were thrown ceaselessly at any one who dared to suggest that it was not to the best interests of the United States to enter the war. Men lost their jobs if they were frankly anti-war. Many others dared no longer speak.

Today we are seeing once again the heavy hand of the war profiteers trying to reshape the film industry into a tool to propagandize the public into a high war-fever such that they will gladly trade their own blood for gold to line the pockets of the defense establishment. And those individuals who have the courage to speak out are attacked, and once again they are smeared to silence them. In the 1940s it was “Communist”, today it is “Anti-Semite”, but aside from the particular label used, the methods, goals, and morality are little changed from the days of Joseph McCarthy.

If there is a difference today it is that the American people are better educated. No longer dependent on the state schools, or controlled media, the public understands the tactics used to silence those who speak out. As a result, those who speak out are more and more not only accorded the sympathetic ear that their message deserves, but the effects of the smearing are far less ruinous than in times past.

Thus, when we see people like Willie Nelson, Sean Penn, and Marion Cotillard speak out and survive, or when people like Tom Shadyac (or myself) voluntarily walk away from Hollywood because speaking the truth matters more to them, it sends a message that it is now permissible, indeed imperative to speak out. This is not to say that there are not risks. Rosie O’Donnell lost her spot on “The View”, but the majority of Americans understand exactly why, and understand that Rosie sacrificed a great deal trying to get the truth out. Rosie is and will be remembered as a hero for truth long after her co-hosts on “The View” are properly forgotten.

In contrast, of course, we look back at those who aided the “Commie” witch-hunts of the 1940s with deserved contempt. No doubt many aided Hoover purely to rid themselves of competition, and then tried to lull themselves to sleep with the idea that in some way they had actually done something good for the nation by wrecking their neighbors’ careers. I have no doubt strong liquor played a role in this grossest of self-deception. But if the informants and smear artists of the 1940s are remembered in a poor light, that should serve as a reminder to the informants and smear artists of today. It does not matter what you do with the rest of your life, aiding the new version of McCarthyism is how history will remember you. While people like Charlie Sheen, Willie Nelson, Sean Penn, and Marion Cotillard (and to step out of entertainment, former President Jimmy Carter) will be remembered and honored for their courage, history will lump the smear artists together with Stalin’s “Useful idiots”, little more than no-talent opportunists for whom ratting out someone was the fastest path to advancement.

They say that history repeats itself, and indeed that is the major thing wrong with history. We are seeing history repeat itself again. We have been down this path before, in the 1940s. Whether the word is “Communist” or “Anti-Semite”, Hollywood is making the same mistake all over again. And Hollywood will have to live with that image in the coming decades.

DON’T BLAME GLOBAL WARMING ON COW FARTS …. NO MATTER WHAT OBAMA SAYS

6a00d83451bab869e200e54f2499908834-800wi

*

Regardless of what President Obama says, the truth is …

Another hoax from “settled science” bites the dust. 

Great News: Cow Farts Don’t Cause Global Warming

“In the past environmentalists, from Lord Stern to Sir Paul McCartney, have urged people to stop eating meat because the methane produced by cattle causes global warming.

However a new study found that cattle grazed on the grasslands of China actually reduce another greenhouse gas, nitrous oxide.

Authors of the paper, published in Nature, say the research does not mean that producing livestock to eat is good for the environment in all countries. However in certain circumstances, it can be better for global warming to let animals graze on grassland.”

Source

WAR OF THE HACKERS

 4 (1)
*
H.G. Wells couldn’t have written a better script if he tried….
Below are two reports from the Jerusalem Post about cyber attacks that took place on the eve of Holocaust Remembrance Day. The FACT that they are probably self inflicted in order to gain publicity is not mentioned….
*
Obviously just a ploy to discredit Palestinians …. just another one of many false flags.
*

Anonymous had announced it would strike at Israeli websites, claiming that Israel had attempted to curb Internet access for Palestinians. The attacks, Anonymous said in a video announcement released at the end of March, were an act of solidarity with the Palestinians.

Anonymous targets Israel, JPost repels hackers

By YAAKOV LAPPIN, JERUSALEM POST STAFF
*

“Concerted and pointed attempt to bring down the JPost website,” part of cyber attack which also targets Yad Vashem site.

Anonymous hackers logo
Anonymous hackers logo Photo: Wikimedia Commons

A limited cyber attack was launched on Israeli websites on Sunday, as hackers affiliated with the Anonymous group succeeded in leaking databases of small websites but failed to cause significant disruption. Major government websites remained functional throughout the day.

The Avnet information security company, which set up a situation room to monitor the attack throughout Sunday, said the small websites that were hacked had not taken basic security measures.

It added that several distributed denial of service (DDOS) attacks were launched on government websites, but that the sites withstood the attempts to flood their servers.

The attackers, who struck on the eve of Holocaust Remembrance Day, particularly targeted the website of Yad Vashem with “a fairly massive attack,” Ronni Becher, head of the cyber attack section at Avnet, said.

Nevertheless, Yad Vashem’s website remained online.

“It seems that these are simply quite basic attacks, that are not unusual in their complexity…and which suit amateur children,” he added.

The Jerusalem Post, too, successfully managed to thwart attempts Sunday to hack its website. “There was a concerted and pointed attempt to bring down the JPost website, in particular the blogs sections, through distributed denial of service,” said Post chief technical officer Yossi Aviv.

“I don’t want to go into the specifics of how we combated this attack, but suffice it to say, we were successful in neutralizing the threat. We have been taking all measures to protect the site since last week, in advance of the anticipated attacks by Anonymous.

“The Jerusalem Post places great importance on the smooth running of the website, with its hundreds of thousands of visitors every day from every corner of the world,” Aviv added. noting that hackers published lists containing hacked sites and Facebook accounts.

DDOS attacks target a website’s servers, flooding them with false requests for access, thereby making it impossible for surfers to access a particular site. They are distinct from attacks in which hackers gain access to servers, allowing them to steal content or alter the affected website.

Anonymous had announced it would strike at Israeli websites, claiming that Israel had attempted to curb Internet access for Palestinians. The attacks, Anonymous said in a video announcement released at the end of March, were an act of solidarity with the Palestinians.

Source

*

And the second related report …

*

Still more evidence that it is no more than an anti Palestinian ploy …
*

The Anonymous group’s took to their official OpIsrael Twitter account to send a personal message to members of Israel’s government:

“To the government of Israel: Welcome to the Hackintifada #FreePalestine.”

*

Israeli cyber activists attack anti-Israel hackers

By YAAKOV LAPPIN, JPOST.COM STAF
*

Israeli hackers break into website coordinating online attack on Israeli websites; group still successfully hacks Education Ministry.

Hacking [illustrative]
Hacking [illustrative] Photo: REUTERS/Thomas Peter

Israeli hackers responding to a campaign to launch cyber-attacks on the country’s websites and Facebook accounts by breaking into the server hosting a major anti-Israeli hacking nerve center.

The website, OpIsrael.com, which was run by the Anonghost hacking group to help coordinate an online attack on Israel, was taken over by an Israeli hacker calling himself EhIsR. Under the heading “A few forgotten facts,” the hacker posted content such as “Israel became a nation in 1312 BCE, 2,000 years before the rise of Islam.”

A video interview of Wafa Sultan, a Syrian critic of Islam, was also posted. Earlier, hackers operating under the name of “Israeli Elite” broke into websites in Pakistan and installed images of IDF soldiers and the Israeli flag.

On the other side of the cyber-divide, anti-Israel hackers claimed to have broken into hundreds of Israeli Facebook accounts, and updated their Twitter account with a list of Israeli websites they said have been hacked.

Roni Becher, who heads the cyber-attack division of the Avnet information security company said, “At this stage, we are mainly seeing a buildup of tension and power struggles between Israeli hackers and hackers from various groups who have joined Anonymous. Anonymous hackers are updating lists of websites they intend to attack.”

“In general, it is apparent that many organizations are making efforts to stop the attack, or at least to minimize damages,” he added.

Meanwhile, a list began circulating the internet Saturday of official Israeli websites that are currently either already under attack by the anti-Israel group, or sites they plan to bring down as part of their OpIsrael internet operation. The list includes the official website of the Prime Minister’s Office, the Israeli Defense Forces website, and more. Already under siege by the group was the official site of the Ministry of Education which came under attack early Sunday.

The Anonymous group’s took to their official OpIsrael Twitter account to send a personal message to members of Israel’s government:

“To the government of Israel: Welcome to the Hackintifada #FreePalestine.”

These statements follow an ongoing threat from Internet hackers belonging to the Anonymous group to launch a massive cyber-attack on Israel Sunday, which is Holocaust Memorial Day.

Nir Gaist, chief technology officer and founder of the Nyotron computer security firm, told The Jerusalem Post last week that the attack is not a national security issue, but called on home users to increase awareness, change passwords and not open strange or suspicious emails.

To avoid Facebook viruses, users should be on the lookout for strange messages on the social networking site, or avoid going on it altogether for the next day or two.

Also FROM

DEMONIZATION BY COVER-UP

From an Op-ed in today’s Ynet, you can see how silence and lies can destroy an elected official or a legitimate Peoples’ Movement. This practice is not only prevalent in the ‘only Democracy in the Middle East’, but in Western ‘Democracies’ as well. 
*
pens-schools
*
The attorney general should have acted more responsibly and declared that MK Zoabi was not involved in any illicit activity. Such a statement would have possibly hurt his popularity a bit, but it could have prevented a two-year incitement and demonization campaign against an elected official.
Cover-up led to anti-Zoabi campaign

Op-ed: AG concealed information that would have cleared Arab MK of any wrongdoing during Gaza flotilla

Sawsan Zaher*

 

The request to disqualify Balad MK Hanin Zoabi from running in the elections for the 19th Knesset raises serious questions regarding the easiness in which an Arab Knesset member can be delegitimized and demonized – to the point where she is branded a terrorist. The Knesset revoked some of Zoabi’s privileges following her participation in the Gaza-bound flotilla, and the attempt to physically attack her while she was addressing the plenum was the only such incident in the House’s history. In addition, numerous MKs hurled insulting sexist slurs at her – all due to her participation in the flotilla.

 

Most regrettable is the fact that those in charge of the investigation knew the truth, but not one of them, including the attorney general, told the public the truth about Zoabi’s involvement. While the attorney general did oppose her disqualification, he did not reveal to the public, the Supreme Court or the Central Elections Committee the information he had, which would have exonerated the Arab MK of all the allegations against her. Zoabi’s attorneys disclosed to the Supreme Court the details of AG Weinstein’s investigation after obtaining the information accidentally while working on another case.

 *

The investigation conducted by the attorney general, who watched footage from the Mavi Marmara, concluded that there was no evidence indicating that Zoabi was involved in the violence that transpired when Israeli commandoes raided the Turkish vessel. A governmental committee headed by Judge Turkel also investigated the incident and found that Zoabi was not connected to the violence. The state comptroller, who also investigated the incident, drew the same conclusion. But the attorney general did not disclose these findings to the government.

 

During the Central Elections Committee’s deliberations, those who demanded that Zoabi be disqualified claimed that the MK expressed support for IHH, the group behind the Gaza flotilla. The disqualification clause bans MKs from running in the elections if it is proven that they support the armed struggle of a terrorist organization against the State of Israel. But in his response to the committee and the Supreme Court, the attorney general failed to mention that the government designated IHH as a terror organization long after the Gaza flotilla.
*
Zoabi aboard the Mavi Marmara (archives)
Zoabi aboard the Mavi Marmara (archives)

*

The Zoabi affair must concern the entire public, which did not receive relevant information from the law enforcement agencies. What should concern us most is the possibility that these agencies did not speak up for fear of criticism from the political establishment. The AG’s silence over the past two years and the failure to reveal relevant information to the Supreme Court and the Elections Committee must concern all of Israel’s citizens, but particularly the Arabs. In cases where incitement and the spreading of lies reach the level of revoking privileges, you may find out that the law enforcement agencies will not protect you.

The attorney general should have acted more responsibly and declared that MK Zoabi was not involved in any illicit activity. Such a statement would have possibly hurt his popularity a bit, but it could have prevented a two-year incitement and demonization campaign against an elected official.

*Sawsan Zaher is an attorney at Adalah: The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel. She represented MK Zoabi in the disqualification case

ANOTHER 9/11? GUESS WHO MIGHT BE BEHIND IT

This is exactly backward. I absolutely believe that another 9/11 is possible. And the reason I believe it’s so possible is that people like Andrew Sullivan — and George Packer — have spent the last decade publicly cheering for American violence brought to the Muslim world, and they continue to do so (now more than ever under Obama). Far from believing that another 9/11 can’t happen, I’m amazed that it hasn’t already, and am quite confident that at some point it will. How could any rational person expect their government to spend a full decade (and counting) invading, droning, cluster-bombing, occupying, detaining without charges, and indiscriminately shooting huge numbers of innocent children, women and men in multiple countries and not have its victims and their compatriots be increasingly eager to return the violence?

*

What might cause another 9/11?

It is supporters of Obama’s aggression, not its opponents, who are likely to provoke another Terrorist attack

BY GLENN GREENWALD
*
What might cause another 9/11?

(Credit: Reuters/Pete Souza/The White House)

Today’s defense of President Obama from Andrew Sullivan is devoted to refuting Conor Friedersdorf’s criticism of Obama’s drone program. Says Sullivan:

What frustrates me about Conor’s position – and Greenwald’s as well – is that it kind of assumes 9/11 didn’t happen or couldn’t happen again, and dismisses far too glibly the president’s actual responsibility as commander-in-chief to counter these acts of mass terror.

This is exactly backward. I absolutely believe that another 9/11 is possible. And the reason I believe it’s so possible is that people like Andrew Sullivan — and George Packer — have spent the last decade publicly cheering for American violence brought to the Muslim world, and they continue to do so (now more than ever under Obama). Far from believing that another 9/11 can’t happen, I’m amazed that it hasn’t already, and am quite confident that at some point it will. How could any rational person expect their government to spend a full decade (and counting) invading, droning, cluster-bombing, occupying, detaining without charges, and indiscriminately shooting huge numbers of innocent children, women and men in multiple countries and not have its victims and their compatriots be increasingly eager to return the violence?

Just consider what one single, isolated attack on American soil more than a decade ago did to Sullivan, Packer and company: the desire for violence which that one attack 11 years ago unleashed is seemingly boundless by time or intensity. Given the ongoing American quest for violence from that one-day attack, just imagine the impact which continuous attacks over the course of a full decade must have on those whom we’ve been invading, droning, cluster-bombing, occupying, detaining without charges, and indiscriminately shooting.

One of the many reasons I oppose Obama’s ongoing aggression is precisely that I believe the policies Sullivan and Packer cheer will cause another 9/11 (the other reasons include the lawlessness of it, the imperial mindset driving it, the large-scale civilian deaths it causes, the extreme and unaccountable secrecy with which it’s done, the erosion of civil liberties that inevitably accompanies it, the patently criminal applications of these weapons, the precedent it sets, etc.). I realize that screaming “9/11″ has been the trite tactic of choice for those seeking to justify the U.S. Government’s militarism over the last decade, but invoking that event strongly militates against the policies it’s invoked to justify, precisely because those policies are the principal cause of such attacks, for obvious reasons.

In fact, one need not “imagine” anything. One can simply look at the explanations given by virtually every captured individual accused of attempting serious Terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. The Times Square bomber, the Pakistani-American Faisal Shahzad, said this:

As soon as he was taken into custody May 3 at John F. Kennedy International Airport, onboard a flight to Dubai, the Pakistani-born Shahzad told agents that he was motivated by opposition to U.S. policy in the Muslim world, officials said.

“One of the first things he said was, ‘How would you feel if people attacked the United States? You are attacking a sovereign Pakistan’,” said one law enforcement official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the interrogation reports are not public. “In the first two hours, he was talking about his desire to strike a blow against the United States for the cause.”

When the federal judge who sentenced Shahzad asked with disgust how he could try to detonate bombs knowing that innocent children would die, he replied: “Well, the drone hits in Afghanistan and Iraq, they don’t see children, they don’t see anybody. They kill women, children, they kill everybody.” Those statements are consistent with a decade’s worth of emails and other private communications from Shahzad, as he railed with increasing fury against the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, drone attacks in Pakistan, Israeli violence against Palestinians and Muslims generally, Guantanamo and torture, and asked: “Can you tell me a way to save the oppressed? And a way to fight back when rockets are fired at us and Muslim blood flows?”

Najibullah Zazi, one of the first Afghans ever to be accused of Terrorism on U.S. soil when he plotted to detonate bombs in the New York subway system, was radicalized by the U.S. occupation of his country (“This is the payback for the atrocities that you do,” he said). Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) expressly said that the Christmas Day bomb attempt by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was in retaliation for the Obama cluster-bomb airstrike in Yemen that killed dozens of women and children along with U.S. support for the Yemeni dictator. The Fort Hood shooter Nidal Hasan was motivatedby “the killing of Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

Anwar Awlaki was once such a moderate that he vehemently denounced the 9/11 attacks, got invited to the Pentagon to speak, and hosted a column in The Washington Post on Islam — but then became radicalized by the constant post-9/11 killing of Muslims by his country (the U.S.). David Rodhe, the former New York Times reporter who was held hostage by the Taliban for nine months,said after he was released that Taliban “commanders fixated on the deaths of Afghan, Iraqi and Palestinian civilians in military airstrikes, as well as the American detention of Muslim prisoners who had been held for years without being charged.”

Even The Washington Post just two weeks ago pointed out that the primary source of strength for AQAP — the Terror group which the U.S. Government insists is the greatest threat to the U.S. — are repeated U.S. drone strikes in Yemen; said The Post: “An escalating campaign of U.S. drone strikes is stirring increasing sympathy for al-Qaeda-linked militants and driving tribesmen to join a network linked to terrorist plots against the United States.” In late 2009 — almost three years ago – The New York Times pointed out exactly the same thing when quoting a Yemeni official after Obama’s civilian-killing cluster bomb attack (“The problem is that the involvement of the United States creates sympathy for Al Qaeda“). Even Sullivan acknowledges: “there does seem a danger, especially in Yemen, that drones may be focusing the Islamists’ attention away from their own government and onto ours.”

In other words, the very policies that Sullivan and Packer adore are exactly the ones that make another 9/11 so likely. Running around screaming “9/11″ at Obama critics to justify his ongoing American violence in the Muslim world is like running around screaming “lung cancer” to justify heavy cigarette smoking. It isn’t those of us who oppose American aggression in the Muslim world who need manipulative, exploitative reminders about 9/11; it’s those who cheer for these policies who are making a follow-up attack ever more likely.

Prior to 9/11, of course, the U.S. spent decades propping up dictators in that part of that world, overthrowing their democratically elected leaders, imposing devastating sanctions that killed hundreds of thousands of Muslim children — literally — and then blithely justifying it like it was the most insignificant problem in the world, arming, funding and diplomatically protecting continuous Israeli aggression, and otherwise interfering in and dominating their countries. There’s a reason they decided to attack the U.S. as opposed to, say, Peru, or South Africa, or Finland, or Brazil, or Japan, or Portugal, or China. It isn’t because The Terrorists put the names of all the countries into a hat and — bad luck for us — randomly picked out the piece of paper that said “The United States.”

It’s because the U.S. has been and continues to be guided by the imperial mindset that causes Andrew Sullivan, George Packer and people like them to cheer and cheer and cheer for U.S. violence and other forms of coercion in that part of the world — violence and coercion that they would be the first to denounce and demand war in response to if it were done to the U.S. rather than by the U.S. Indeed, that’s precisely how they reacted — and, a full decade later, are still reacting — to a one-time attack on U.S. soil.

In light of that, I can’t even conceive of the uncontrolled rage, righteous fury and insatiable desire for violence in which they would be drowning if those attacks lasted not a single day but a full decade, if it involved constant video imagery on American television of dead American children and charred American wedding parties and thousands of Americans imprisoned for years in cages in a distant ocean prison without charges and surveillance and weaponized drones flying constantly over American soil and unignited cluster bombs left on American soil that explode when American children find them.

Although I can’t conceive of the rage that would be produced in people like Sullivan and Packer from a decade’s worth of that kind of violence on American soil, they should spend some time trying toimagine it. Then perhaps they’d understand how much they — and the President whose foreign policy they venerate — are doing to bring about “another 9/11″ with the non-stop violence they so enthusiastically endorse.

* * * * *

For those who don’t understand or who like purposely to ignore the difference between observations about causation (A causes B) andarguments about justification (B is justified) — where “B” is “violent attacks on civilians” — see here. To be clear, this analysis is an example of the former (a causal argument), not the latter (an argument about justification).

On a related note: a Democratic Party club recently created a website to tout all of President Obama’s sterling achievements. AsCharles Davis and Reason both note, half of those “achievements” are corpses that he created. This, ladies and gentlemen, is your Democratic Party in the Era of Obama:

I have no idea who my President keeps killing — never heard of almost any of them — but I’m going to blissfully assume that they’re TERRORISTS and thus stand and cheer when their lives are ended.

Why do they hate us?

 

UPDATE [Wed.]: My Salon colleague Jefferson Morley has an excellent article documenting the mass political instability that Obama’s militarism in that part of the world is breeding; it’s well worth reading.

 

UPDATE II [Wed.]: A new poll from the Pew Research Center finds that “The Obama administration’s increasing use of unmanned drone strikes to kill terror suspects is widely opposed around the world“; in particular: “in 17 out of 21 countries surveyed, more than half of the people disapproved of U.S. drone attacks.” Caring about world opinion is so 2004.

 

Written FOR

NOVEMBER 22, 1963; A DAY ERASED FROM HISTORY

*
There are no conspiracy theories connected to this post …. just a few UNANSWERED questions…
*
Who killed JFK?
Why don’t they want us to know the truth??
*
Who killed Oswald?
Why don’t they want us to know the truth??
*
How and why did Jack Ruby die (shortly before a new trial date was set) ?
Why don’t they want us to know the truth??
*
Why and how did Dorothy Kilgallen (newspaper reporter) die shortly after interviewing Jack Ruby?
Why don’t they want us to know the truth??
*

CONCLUSION

The world will never know who the persons were that gave the “official” order to kill John F. Kennedy for those persons are either already dead, close to death, silent in fear of death, or they choose to remain silent until death.

*
The question remains….
WHY DON’T THEY WANT US TO KNOW THE TRUTH??

TEN YEARS AFTER 9/11 ~~ WAS IT THE ‘5 DANCING ISRAELIS’ OR ‘ AL-QUAEDA’?

I’ve never been one to follow or swallow conspiracy theories, facts are much more reliable…
BUT, the fact that the ADL is making such a fuss over this leaves much food for thought.
*
*
*
ADL: 9/11 anti-Semitic theories ‘alive and well’

*

Jewish group shows how conspiracy theories surrounding attacks have grown and evolved over past decade, including claim that Jews or Israel perpetrated attacks instead of al-Qaeda

*

The report can be read HERE, below is an excerp;

*

‘5 dancing Israelis’

The conspiracy theories, which surfaced immediately after 9/11, have continued to circulate widely on the Internet, where conspiracy-mongers and anti-Semites have found a built-in audience for their ideas. These theories are promoted and shared on conspiracy-oriented web sites, social networking sites, and video sites. In addition, there is a flood of books and DVDs that proclaim that Jews and/or Israelis were behind the 9/11 attacks.

Certain conspiracy theories have increased in popularity over the past decade, according to ADL. The most prevalent anti-Semitic conspiracy theory that initially circulated following the attacks alleged that “4,000 Israelis” or Jews were forewarned and told to stay home from the World Trade Center on 9/11. While this theory has largely receded into the background, other major anti-Semitic conspiracy theories have come to the forefront.
According to ADL, the most popular conspiratorial allegations include the following:
  • Variations of this theory assert that the Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency, was behind the 9/11 attacks; the “proof” is in the “five dancing Israelis” arrested on 9/11 who were allegedly celebrating as the Twin Towers burned. Today, the theory claims that the five Israelis were actually directing the attacks and began dancing when they realized that their mission of creating a “false flag” operation had been accomplished.
  • Proponents of this theory claim that neo-conservative American officials of Jewish faith within the Bush Administration methodically worked out a plan, with the assistance of the Mossad, to carry out the attacks to benefit Israel. This theory alleges that these officials orchestrated a plan well before 9/11, with the goal of invading Iraq and other Middle Eastern countries to allow the US and Israel to seize control of resources in that area.”
  • The “truth” about Israeli and Jewish involvement in the 9/11 attacks will not be allowed to emerge, claim conspiracy theorists, since Jews are or were in charge of the 9/11 Commission report and control the media and government.
*
Mike Rivero of What Really Happened will be a featured guest at the following symposium to be held in New York on 9/11…
*


*
If you cannot see the above banner (it is being blocked by some ad blockers) then click this link to see the information.

*
Clicking the above banner will take you to the web page for the event in New York on 9-11-11. The conference is being organized by INN World Report and will also be covered at WRH and on Jeff Rense Radio.
*

*
If you’d like to make a reservation for this year’s event, please email your name to innworldreport@gmail.com and we will add you to the reserve list.

ISRAEL STILL POINTING FINGERS IN ALL DIRECTIONS


IDF Spokesperson: We DIDN’T say PRC was behind Eilat attack

By Joseph Dana

Yesterday morning, I wrote a piece questioning the journalistic ethics of some in the Israeli media and, to a larger extent, the entire international press corps over of their rush to adopt the Israeli government claim that Gaza-based terror organization Popular Resistance Committees (PRC) were behind Thursday’s triple terror attack near Eilat. As the terror attack was unfolding, Israeli warplanes were warming up to carry out airstrikes in the Gaza strip without revealing any concrete proof  to the public confirming that the culprits of the attack were from Gaza.  After a night of bombing, a number of senior operatives in the PRC were killed along with a handful of civilians including children.

*

*

The Real News Network’s Lia Tarachansky asked IDF Spokesperson Lt. Colonel Avital Leibovitz  for evidence that the PRC was, indeed, responsible for the Eilat terror attack. Liebovitz responded that the Israel “did not say that this group was responsible for the terror attack.” This quote  distanced the IDF spokesperson from the public statements Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made on the evening of the attack placing clear responsibility on the PRC.  Backtracking in the interview, Liebovitz said,

We did not say that this group was responsible for the terror attack. We based this on intelligence information as well as some facts that [we] actually presented an hour ago to some wires and journalists. Some of the findings that were from the bodies of the terrorists, and they are using, for example, Kalashnikov bullets and Kalashnikov rifles [which] are very common in Gaza.

In response to this quote,  Paul Woodward at War in Context responded “So, the IDF says it “knows” the gunmen came from Gaza because they were using Kalashnikovs. That’s about as logical as saying they know they came from Gaza because they appeared to be Arabs.”

*

*

The simple yet difficult to answer question remains open, who is responsible for the Eilat terror attacks? If the PRC and Hamas, both of which have denied responsibility, are not the culprits, as Lt. Col Avital Liebovitz alleges in the Real News interview, why is Israel attacking targets in Gaza with overwhelming force?  Why are senior members of the Israeli and international press corps reporting unsubstantiated Israeli government claims as fact without doing the necessary legwork of revealing sources and providing verifiable proof of their material.

If the PRC episode is a harbinger of how the media is going to handle the next Israeli offensive in Gaza one sorry conclusion can be made, Prime Minister Netanyahu will be left unmolested with obloquy demanding that his government provide factual evidence to support their rationale for war.

 

Written FOR

FILLING IN THE BLANKS ON ‘TERROR’ ATTACK

STILL TOO EARLY TO TELL WHAT HAPPENED IN ISRAEL …. SO LET’S MAKE UP THE STORY

*

We’ve even learned how to ‘doctor’ photos ;)
*
It is still too early to tell whether the terrorists who carried out Thursday’s attacks exited Egypt, passed through Sinai and headed south toward the region of Eilat, or if this was the action of a terrorist cell of Islamic origins, acting for some time already in Sinai. In any case, it is clear that the Egyptian revolution that began in Tahrir Square and spread through other Arab states has now made its way into Israel.
*
That’s not the version we were fed yesterday by the Israeli press… now it’s ‘We don’t know what happened’.
*
Mubarak’s fall will lead to Israel’s demise? Is that what they want us to believe now? Read the following from HaAretz to see this viewpoint…
*

Mubarak falls, Sinai terror rises

The series of terror attacks near Eilat on Thursday indicate that the Egyptians are losing their grip on Sinai.

The series of terror attacks that took place early Thursday afternoon on the road leading from the Israeli-Egyptian border to Eilat did not come as a surprise to Israel’s senior security officials. They had expected it would occur at some stage or another.

The escalating security situation in the Sinai Peninsula, continuous work on the new border barrier and the frustration of terror groups within the Gaza Strip who – for some time now – have not managed to successfully carry out a terror attack from within the Strip, all pointed at the likelihood of an attempt to attack via the Egyptian border.

It is still too early to tell whether the terrorists who carried out Thursday’s attacks exited Egypt, passed through Sinai and headed south toward the region of Eilat, or if this was the action of a terrorist cell of Islamic origins, acting for some time already in Sinai. In any case, it is clear that the Egyptian revolution that began in Tahrir Square and spread through other Arab states has now made its way into Israel.

Over the past few months, Israel has allowed the Egyptian army to increase its forces in Sinai a number of times, allowing much larger Egyptian forces there than the Camp David Accords allowed for, including the entry of thousands of Egyptian soldiers and tanks in the El Arish region and northern Sinai, within the framework of a widespread mission against al-Qaida. It is now evident that the Egyptian efforts alone are not enough, and that the Israel Defense Forces – who over the past three decades has been able to reduce its forces along the Egyptian border, focusing instead on reinforcing the northern border, West Bank and Gaza Strip – will now have-to strengthen its presence in the south.

This is not just a case of transferring security forces. There is a far greater need to complete the construction of the southern border and its fortification via advanced observation posts, which requires hundreds of millions of shekels in increased funding for the security budget. The Finance Ministry’s spin two days ago about halving the security budget ended within 48 hours, as the gunmen opened fire near Eilat.

Beyond the financial aspect, Israel’s security heads will need to get used to a state in which, as it seems, they cannot depend on its ally, the Egyptian army, to protect its southern front.

Source

*

‘Terror Timetable’ … also from HaAretz

*

Timeline / Eight hours of terror in southern Israel

A series of terrorist attacks took place near Eilat on Thursday, killing at least six people and wounding dozens.

* 12:00 P.M. – Terror cell fires at Egged bus from a private vehicle, 7 hurt

* 12:30 P.M. – IDF forces called to the scene of the attack hurt by explosive device

* 12:35 P.M. – Mortar shells fired from Egypt into Israel, no one hurt

* 13:10 P.M. – Terror cell fires anti-tank missile toward private vehicle near border, 7 hurt

* 13:11 P.M. – Another anti-tank missile fired toward private vehicle, six people killed

* 18:00 P.M. – IDF begins military strike on Gaza, killing at least six Palestinians

* 19:00 P.M. – Fresh firefights erupt in southern Israel, 2 people gravely injured

*

Solution….. BOMB GAZA!

Why?

Because they can!

 

*
Photo Essay of Victims of Israeli strike on Gaza ( click HERE to view)
*


FRAUDULENT ANTI-TERRORIST ‘EXPERT’ EXPOSED

*

Late last year, Walid Shoebat, a self-styled “expert” on Islamic extremism, reportedly told public safety personnel attending a Las Vegas anti-terrorism conference that the way to solve the threat posed by terrorists was to “kill them…including the children.”

And on May 11, despite criticism of the Las Vegas speech, Shoebat, who continues to tout his credentials as an “ex-terrorist” in the Palestine Liberation Organization despite serious questions about his purported biography, was welcomed to a similar place. He delivered a keynote address to more public employees who attended the second annual South Dakota Homeland Security Conference held in Rapid City–a conference entirely funded by federal tax money. The topic was “Jihad in America.”

*

The entire report by Alex Kane can be read HERE

The above mentioned fraud is finally making headline news as CNN exposes Walid Shoebat, a fake terrorism expert (he claimed he is an ex-terrorist which is a lie and he rakes in hundreds of thousands from this scam). Watch this:
*
Part 1- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzkrhZldvko
*
Part 2 -http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74Tzz51VYXg
*
Videos sent by Mazin Qumsiyeh

FLOTILLAMANIA ~~ FROM A BAD SITUATION TO A RIDICULOUS ONE

Organizers of the 2011 Gaza flotilla have a provocation-seeking agenda: Deliberately provoke and humiliate Israeli soldiers. For example, organizers trained boat passengers on how to defiantly rebuff Israel Navy attempts to peacefully board the boats.
*

Israel army releases photographic proof of Flotilla “Threat to Israel”

 by Ali Abunimah

*

In a move intended to convince skeptics to finally accept Israel’s claims that the Gaza Freedom Flotilla 2 poses a real danger, the Israeli military spokesperson’s office has issued photographic evidence in a blog post titled “Flotilla II Seeks Provocation, Poses Threat to Israel.”

Well, it turns out that the “threat” is none other than Pulitzer Prize-winning American author and poet Alice Walker whose fearsome and terrifying smile can be seen in the Israeli-issued image. But the danger to Israel does not end there. As the “IDF” Spokesperson explains:

Organizers of the 2011 Gaza flotilla have a provocation-seeking agenda: Deliberately provoke and humiliate Israeli soldiers. For example, organizers trained boat passengers on how to defiantly rebuff Israel Navy attempts to peacefully board the boats.

The “IDF” must be referring to the nonviolence training all passengers received, as well as the nonviolence pledge they all signed. Indeed, Israel does show every day that it finds nonviolence very humiliating.

Still, the military spokesperson’s blog made me finally see the light: those poor Israeli soldiers at risk of “humiliation” from Alice Walker and 87 year-old Holocaust survivor Hedy Epstein among others. Of course no one can forget how Israel “peacefully” boarded the Mavi Marmara, part of last year’s flotilla, in international waters with a force that involved large warships, a swarm of armed speed boats carrying dozens of heavily-armed commandos, and airborne troops dropped from helicopters.

Israel insists that it was the passengers who were “violent” because they failed to receive the Israeli hijackers with tea and traditional Turkish börek pastries. Now in case you doubt Israel’s version of what happened, you can just watch all the footage taken by the hundreds of passengers and journalists on board. Oh wait, no, you can’t do that because Israel, the “only democracy in the Middle East,” confiscated all the evidence and is still refusing to return it.

Other than selectively edited and doctored images released by Israel, the only independent footage which escaped Israeli censorship and manipulation was Iara Lee’s, and analysis of that showed anything but a “peaceful” boarding. It was a full-scale military assault that took nine innocent lives. And yet it is Israel’s military that has the chutzpah to whine about “provocations” to its soldiers.

Written FOR

*

One of our regular contributors, Skulz Fontaine, sees the situation as a ‘Three Ring Circus’… it could be funny if it wasn’t such a serious matter.

*

*

The US Boat To Gaza issued the following Press Release last night….

*

Update… (check the above link for future updates)

*

Update – 8:00 pm NYC,
The 8 people listed below were detained. They were released  a few minutes ago. They were not arrested.

*

Just got word from Athens: the 8 people who were fasting in front of the U.S. Embassy have been arrested. They are Ken Mayers, Carol Murry, Medea Benjamin, Paki Wieland, Ray McGovern, Brad Taylor, Kit Kitteridge and Kathy Kelly. We will not have any more news until the morning. 
In the meantime, let’s keep the pressure on Washington. They need to pressure the Greek government to release our captain, our boat and now these 8 people as well! Let them sail to Gaza!!!

Throughout this country people have responded to our call to contact the U.S. State Department to demand that they take the steps necessary to ensure that the Greek authorities immediately release the captain and let our boat sail to Gaza. In fact, there has been such a strong response that we are hearing their voice mailboxes are full! That’s great, but of course frustrating for those of you trying to make those calls.

Here are some other phone numbers and email addresses to try:

  • State Department general number: 202-647-4000 – ask for the Overseas U.S. Citizen Services Duty Officer and you’ll get a live State Dept. official who has to hear you out.
  • The voicemail for Kim Richter – also at the State Dept. – says she’s out of the office for several days, and that callers with urgent issues should contact a colleague at 202-647-4578.
  • If you can place an international phone call, the number for the U.S. Embassy in Athens is 011-30-210-721-2951.

Please also try to call, fax or email your members of Congress as well.

Help us keep the pressure up!!

*

Here’s what you can do NOW….

*

BOYCOTT GREECE! NO PRODUCTS, NO TOURISM. SELL ALL INVESTMENTS IN GREECE.

GREECE HOVERS AT THE EDGE OF ECONOMIC COLLAPSE. A BOYCOTT WILL PUSH IT OVER THE EDGE AND BRING DOWN THE GOVERNMENT THAT CHOSE TO ACT AS ISRAEL’S PRIVATEERS AGAINST A US-FLAGGED SHIP! PAPANDREOU RISKS DESTROYING NOT ONLY HIS OWN ECONOMY BUT THAT OF ALL EUROPE MERELY TO PLEASE TEL AVIV.

POST THE CALL FOR A GLOBAL BOYCOTT EVERYWHERE THAT THE GOVERNMENT OF GREECE CAN SEE IT. LET THEM KNOW THAT THE THIRTY PIECES OF SILVER THEY GOT TO SELL OUT A US-FLAGGED SHIP TO ISRAEL WILL NOT COVER THEIR LOSSES WHEN THE REST OF THE WORLD STOPS BUYING THEIR PRODUCTS & STOCKS, OR TRAVELING TO SEE THEIR NATION.

BOYCOTT GREECE!

*

Add 520 To Your Boycott List!!*

*


THE ‘PROOF’ WE HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR ~~ BIN LADEN IS DEAD AGAIN! ~~ INCLUDING THE LATEST THREATS FROM THE GRAVE

See…. I told you I was dead!
*

 *
The non-existent group, and its supporters, Al Qaeda has finally come up with the ‘proof’ we have been waiting for regarding the latest death of their leader Osama Bin Laden, and their plans for the future.
*
The ‘proof’ is reported in one of Britain’s most reliable Internet Tabloid Sites known as NEWSTABULOUS. The Net has made life so easy for us, we no longer have to go to the Supermarket and stand in ques to get hold of such reading material.
*
To see more of their authentic ‘reporting’ click HERE ….. National Enquirer….. BEWARE! You finally have REAL competition! ‘ENQURING MINDS FINALLY KNOW!

*
Here is the report on Bin Laden…. followed by still another….
*
 Al Qaeda supporters and supporters of bin Laden, represented by members of the English right-wing English Defense League, marched to and in front of the London US Embassy, in protest of the killing of the leader of the al Qeada radical jihadist group.

Al Qaeda promised to avenge Osama bin Laden’s death and is determined to keep battling the United States.  Al Qaeda has finally acknowledged bin Laden’s death, in a statement made on the internet, intended to convince its ‘supporters that they will stay united, energetic and effective even though their founder has been killed.

The plots attributable to al Qaeda in the past have been costly and vastly detailed, made over an extensive period of time.  However, US intelligence noted more chatter regarding inexpensive, unimpressive attacks, possibly to be undertaken by small radical groups or single individuals, to avenge bin Laden’s death.

Over 100 protesters in a pro-bin Laden rally, in front of the London US Embassy shouted:

“USA, you will pay!”

To date, no solid, believable threat has been discovered.  Random violence, shootings and bombings, which are to be expected, were mentioned. Threat levels have not been elevated, by choice of US and European authorities.

Security forces and law enforcement in 188 countries have been warned by Interpol to be on alert for pay-back attacks.

Regardless of the chatter on the internet, the reaction of the Islamic world in response to the death of bin Laden has been quite low key, as opposed to the fury bin Laden inspired, which makes one wonder about his influence in the Mid East, an area that has been altered by the numerous pro democracy conflicts.

According to The CS Moniter, the words in the statement read:

“You lived as a good man, you died as a martyr”

However, the statement didn’t designate the next in line to be bin Laden’s successor.

Also in the statement, it said:

“The blood of the holy warrior sheik, Osama bin Laden, God bless him, is too precious to us and to all Muslims to go in vain.  We will remain, God willing, a curse chasing the Americans and their agents, following them outside and inside their countries.”

The authenticity of the statements couldn’t be verified although they are considered authentic.  Al Qaeda’s online media distribution network, the all-Fajir Center, posted information on militant websites, which was written in the style typical of al Qaeda.  A day after the death of bin Laden, the statement was made, supposedly, by the General Command of the organization or in his name.

According to Jay Carney, White House press secretary, US officials knew about the threat and statement.  He further stated:

“What it does obviously is acknowledge the obvious, which is that Osama bin Laden was killed.  We are quite aware of the potential for (terrorist) activity and are highly vigilant on that matter for that reason.”

The statement further read:

“Sheik Osama didn’t build an organization to die when he dies.  The university of faith, Quran and jihad from which bin Laden graduated will not close its doors.  The soldiers of Islam will continue in groups and united, plotting and planning without getting bored, with determination, without giving up until striking a blow.” 

It also said, of the action of the killing of bin Laden, it was done:

“along an established path followed by the best of those who came before him and those who will come after him.”

This acknowledgment made by al Qaeda ought take away the doubt from all, but the most determined “conspiracy theorists” the fact that bin Laden was truly killed and really is dead.

As President Obama said:

“Justice has been done!”

*

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 *

Following is the rest of the ‘proof’ I promised…. If these two reports fail to convince you that’s it’s all ‘true’ …. I’m at a loss. I have done my best to bring you the ‘facts’……

*

British zionism’s ‘resident Muslim’,  Shiraz Maher, contributed the following ‘pertinent’ information to anyone that still might have doubts…

 *

Jihadis React to Bin Laden’s Death

Islamist Web Sites and The Future of Al Qaeda
Shiraz Maher
 *
The view from jihadi Internet forums is fascinating these days as al Qaeda members and supporters react to the loss of their leader. Until al Qaeda officially confirmed Osama bin Laden’s death on Friday, confusion dominated the forums, with participants sharply divided between those who embraced the news and those who denied it.

The more stoic members were keen to ensure that their supporters did not lose heart. “We were not fighting for Osama,” Salmakh84 wrote on the Ansar forum. “We were fighting for Allah. The Jihad will continue even if the Amir [leader] is Shaheed [martyred]!!” Another user added: “Those who fought for shaykh usaamah know that shaykh usaamah has passed away, but those who fought for Allaah know that Allaah is alive and will never die.”

As forum members waited for al Qaeda to make a statement, one user pleaded, “Please be patient and put aside all speculations until we receive an official confirmation report from our brothers in the ranks.” Until yesterday, the only confirmation of bin Laden’s death had come from Western media –- an unacceptable source for jihadis. Links to mainstream news stories were flagged as coming from an “unconfirmed kafir [unbeliever] source,” and a user called Ansariyya wrote that he would never “believe a word that comes out of their lying deceitful mouths.” Another added, “Who cares what the kuffaruun [unbeliever] dogs are stating?”

Indeed, some jihadi forums even continued to insist that bin Laden was alive. As late as Thursday, the al Qimmah forum (which is linked to the al Shabaab movement in Somalia) and several others carried a video statement from a man calling himself Commander Waliu al Rahman, which claimed that bin Laden was alive.

Bin Laden’s followers have been quick promise new attacks. One warned that “a million new bin Ladens will be born! And the flag of jihad will be raised! Inshallah.”

Conflicting statements from senior U.S. officials regarding bin Laden’s last minutes only heightened distrust among forum users. According to U.S. President Barack Obama’s initial statement, there was a firefight at the compound, suggesting that bin Laden was armed. According to White House spokesman Jay Carney’s later statements, he was not. The administration also dismissed earlier suggestions that bin Laden had hidden behind his wife. The commenter Ummu Amarah, writing on the popular Ansar forum, summed up users’ frustration: “This is so crazy and confusing … maybe we should stop writing and talking about this news until our brothers have confirmed if the news is true or not.”

As forum members continued to speculate, a user calling himself Mujahid expressed his frustration at the lack of information: “Is there really still no official word out? It’s weird on both ends, the story the americans are saying doesn’t make sense and no official word has been put out yet by AQ pretty unusual.” Administrators from Ansar echoed those sentiments, pointing out that “More than 48 hours have passed and still there is no official statement from Al-Fajr media [al Qaeda’s official online news outlet] regarding the Martyrdom of Sheikh Osama bin laden. The supporters of the Mujahideen are waiting for the official statement with their hands on their hearts.”

Al Qaeda finally confirmed bin Laden’s death on Friday, May 6, on the Ansar and Shumukh forums. The fact “that the Americans have killed Osama is neither shameful nor disgraceful,” the announcement said, since ”men and heroes are only killed on the battlefield, and every soul has an appointed time.” It went on to warn that “Sheikh Osama did not build an organization that would die with him, nor would end with him.”

The delay between his death and the announcement was unusual. Typically, al Qaeda is quick to publicize the death of a leader and hail him as a martyr. In 2006, Ayman al-Zawahiri, then al Qaeda’s second in command, practically canonized Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, on the al Hesbah and Ikhlaas forums after he was killed by a U.S. air strike in Iraq. Similarly, when Mustafa Abu al-Yazid, al Qaeda’s alleged financial chief, was killed by a drone strike in Pakistan last year, al Qaeda wasted little time in eulogizing him. Bin Laden and Zawahiri both released official statements of mourning.

Al Qaeda uses such announcements to inspire a wide audience of members –- and potential recruits –- with tales of heroism and the promise of paradise if they participate in jihad. But just how much does the chatter on these forums actually matter? Although jihadi forum members were once considered benign, evidence in recent years suggests that some are anything but armchair jihadis. Take the example of Humam Khalil al-Balawi, who claimed the lives of seven CIA personnel working at Camp Chapman in Afghanistan in December 2009. It was the deadliest attack against American intelligence officers since the 1983 bombing of the American embassy in Beirut, and Balawi became a forum users’ hero because he was one of their own.

Although Balawi had long been associated with extremism, he was also an enthusiastic participant on al Qaeda—linked forums. Over many years, he had risen from contributor to administrator and then to suicide bomber. His case is not exceptional. Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula has also used jihadi Web forums to communicate directly with Muslims in the West, using encrypted messages to offer detailed instructions on how to conduct jihad. One al Qaeda member, Anwar al-Awlaki, directed Major Nidal Hasan to carry out a terrorist attack at Fort Hood in 2009.

Of course, forum participants do not always become killers in order to serve the jihadi cause. From 2003 to 2005, a young Moroccan in London, Younis Tsouli, ran sophisticated Web sites for the Iraqi insurgency under the pseudonym Irhabi 007 (Terrorist 007). Shortly before British police arrested him, in October 2005, he published a twenty-page document explaining how to hack Web sites. When the controversy surrounding Jyllands-Posten’s publication of cartoons satirizing the Prophet Mohammed flared up the following year, jihadi hackers systematically bombarded the newspaper’s servers, causing them to overload and crash. On an al Qaeda forum, one member acknowledged, “I am certain that I see his [Younis Tsouli’s] fingerprints on numerous projects.”

Al Qaeda’s increasing reliance on Web forums is telling. Denied safe havens and the ability to educate sympathizers in training camps, the group has prioritized online outreach to radicalize and inspire lone wolves. Almost impossible to detect and requiring practically no preparation, their attacks are primitive but effective, as the case of Hasan demonstrated. And within hours of bin Laden’s death, material aimed at inspiring that kind of attack was reissued on key forums, including one video called “And Incite the Believers” and another celebrating the “blessed Manhattan raid,” a reference to 9/11.

A well regarded and prolific member of the online jihadi community, Assad al-Jihad 2 (Lion of Jihad 2), frequently posts articles on the Ansar and Shumukh forums written on behalf of al Qaeda, and is thought to be a senior member of the group. After news of bin Laden’s death first emerged, he polled forum users to assess their reactions. The overwhelming majority, more than ninety percent, believed that attacks against the United States would increase, and that bin Laden’s death would embolden the movement.

Bin Laden’s influence will linger online for years to come. His followers have been quick to renew their pledge to the jihadi cause and are promising new attacks. One contributor warned on the Ansar forum that “a million new bin Ladens will be born! And the flag of jihad will be raised! Inshallah.” Another, Husain Mahmoud, wrote, “We are a nation who build a lofty fortress with the skulls of its chivalrous men. Whenever a man dies in war, the fortress growers even higher, remaining ever so lofty and elevated!”

The International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation recently convened a private seminar for leading experts and practitioners to explore whether al Qaeda is in strategic decline. It is — but, as one distinguished participant warned, “Don’t underestimate the ability of a declining threat to inflict great damage on its way down.” The al Qaeda statement confirming bin Laden’s death on Friday suggests that the movement will seek to avenge its leader’s demise, promising further attacks against the United States that “will even make the hair of babies turn grey.”

Source

THE OSAMA BIN DEAD TALES ARE AN ONGOING WORK IN PROGRESS

Finally.. A real pic of Osama dead.
*
*
It seems that everyone and his mother has doubts about the ‘killing’ of Bin Laden earlier this week. I personally believe he is dead …. has been so since 2001 …
 *
Perhaps a Warren type Commission needs to be set up to determine the validity on this issue. We have waited almost 50 years for the facts to emerge regarding President Kennedy’s assassination, surely we can wait for the facts on Bin Laden’s ;)
*
In the meantime, here are links to what others are saying…
*

Osama bin Laden Murder Fable: A Work in Progress

*

Bin Laden Story Continues to Change

*

WILL BIN LADEN’S ‘DEATH’ USHER IN THE END OF ISLAMOPHOBIA AND WAR?

*
Readers of this Blog and of other Alternative News Websites have known for a number of years that Osama Bin Laden has been dead since 2001. The rest of the world heard today that he was killed in Pakistan only yesterday by American forces. Nothing could have been a greater boost to Obama’s falling ratings …. a sure win factor for his bid to a second term as President.
*
But the question remains, how will the US and the rest of the world now deal with the REAL problem, that of Islamophobia. Will we now see that evil ideology finally be put to rest as well?
*
The ‘hunt’ for Bin Laden has been America’s excuse for the terror inflicted on the people of Afghanistan, will we see an end to that as well?
*
Will we now see moves to restore the world to some sort of normalcy or will another bogus enemy emerge from the drawing boards of the madmen in Washington? Will we now see an attempt by these madmen to stage an al Qaeda ‘revenge attack’ to justify an all out war in the Middle East?
*
The choices are obviously in the hands of those that have kept Bin Laden ‘alive’ for the past ten years………….. I have stated on many occasions that I am not one to follow conspiracy theories as truth, but in this case, there is no doubt in my mind about who the real terrorists are and the damage they are causing. In the words of Mike Rivero of What Really Happened, ‘But for the moment, let us stipulate that Osama Bin Laden is dead and when it happened does not matter. IF TRUE IT IS TIME TO END ALL THESE WARS AND BRING ALL OUR KIDS HOME NOW!’
*
NOW is the time for REAL CHANGE!
*
Carlos Latuff’s contribution to the day….
8
For an interesting insight from The Guardian, take a look at THIS article …..

Osama bin Laden corpse photo is fake

Image of bloodied man picked up by British newspapers has been circulating online for two years

JENIN MURDER ‘INVESTIGATION’ TURNING INTO ANTI HAMAS WITCH HUNT

“By way of deception, thou shalt do war”
Motto of the Mossad

How humble it was for Israel to ‘allow’ the defunct Palestinian Authority to conduct the investigation into the murder of Juliano Mer-Khamis. After all, the murder did take place on Palestinian soil, therefore it should be investigated by Palestinian authorities.

We must be reminded it was Hamas that was elected by the Palestinians to represent them in the last General Election…not the  Palestinian Authority which was chosen by Israel to represent Palestine instead..

As a result, we are witnessing a situation where the PA is pointing fingers at Hamas members, when very likely it was Israeli terrorists that were orchestrators of this horrendous crime. (look at this photo carefully, it wouldn’t be the first time settlers or the Mossad itself raised a false flag)…. Neither is this the first time the PA has covered up the crimes committed by their partner, the Israelis.



The above photo was a press release from Israeli sources purported to show Palestinian terrorists. However one of the suspected terrorists forgot to take off his star of David before being photographed. THIS IS NOT MEANT TO BE FUNNY, THIS IS TO SHOW YOU HOW FALSE FLAGS ARE RAISED BY THE ZIONISTS.


Israel leaving investigation of Mer-Khamis murder to PA

Zakaria Zubeidi, a former Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades commander who was granted amnesty by Israel and had been co-directing the Freedom Theatre with Mer-Khamis, says all signs point to a planned, professional hit.

JENIN – Palestinian Authority police have arrested a former Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades militant suspected of involvement in Monday’s fatal shooting of half-Jewish, half-Arab actor and director Juliano Mer-Khamis outside the theater he founded in Jenin.

The suspect, a Jenin resident who shifted his allegiance to Hamas after serving a five-year term in an Israeli prison for security offenses, was one of several suspects the PA police arrested within hours of the shooting, but he is the only one still in custody. He has also served eight months in a Palestinian jail.

It remains unclear whether police are convinced the suspect shot Mer-Khamis – he says he didn’t, unlike terror groups which often publicize their involvement in violent acts – and why the actor, who was raised in Israel and is the child of a Jewish mother and a Christian Arab father, was killed.

The investigation is complicated by the reluctance of possible witnesses to come forward.

“Everyone’s saying ‘I heard nothing, I saw nothing,” said an officer in the Palestinian security service. “They’re worried that they’ll be questioned by the PA and that they’ll have trouble.”

Zakaria Zubeidi, a former Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades commander who was granted amnesty by Israel and had been co-directing the Freedom Theatre with Mer-Khamis, said all signs point to a planned, professional hit.

“This was an organized action, not out of anger or rage over the theater’s activities or because of a personal quarrel with Jule,” Zubeidi told reporters in the theater yesterday. “This is something that was done deliberately by an organization or state. We will have no mercy on whoever harmed the man who led the Freedom Theatre. … We will not forgive this.”

But though Zubeidi did not specify which group he thinks may be behind the shooting, he said it looks like Mer-Khamis was killed by a Palestinian from Jenin.

After the shooting Monday, dozens of local residents gathered around the car of the man they knew as “Jule,” who they said never hid his intention of exposing Palestinian children to theater and fomenting a cultural revolution.

The theater has been vandalized by Islamists repeatedly, and there have been two attempts to torch it.

Israel is leaving the investigation of Mer-Khamis’ death to the Palestinian Authority, even though he has Israeli citizenship, Israeli security officials said yesterday.

The sources said the Shin Bet security service would be receiving regular updates from the Palestinian authorities, particularly since the PA has already begun investigating and since it does not appear that Mer-Khamis was killed because of his Israeli citizenship.

Friends of Mer-Khamis, who appears in Julian Schnabel’s recent movie “Miral,” about an orphaned Palestinian girl, dismiss the possibility that he may have been killed because of his Jewish heritage.

There has been unsubstantiated speculation that he may have been targeted for reasons related to financial debts or a romantic liaison.

Though he grew up in Israel, Mer-Khamis never referred to himself as an Israeli Arab, Khaled Abu al-Hijah, a board member at the theater, told the news agency AFP.

“He used to say: ‘I am both Palestinian and Jewish. I cannot divide myself between my mother and my father.'”

Mer-Khamis was born in Nazareth and raised partly in Haifa but has been living in Jenin in recent years. He was killed at 4:40 P.M. on Monday, when a young man called in Arabic for him to stop his car as he was driving away from the Freedom Theatre with his 8-month-old son and a babysitter. The gunman fired seven bullets into Mer-Khamis’ head and chest from close range, killing him on the spot.

The baby survived unscathed and the babysitter, Raida, who is originally from Bethlehem, was lightly wounded.

Raida said the gunman was not wearing a mask when he approached the car, but put one on as he was running away from the scene.

In being shot, Mer-Khamis appears to have become the first half-Jewish shahid, the Arabic word for martyr. Many photographs of him – in a V-for-victory pose – were pasted all over the theater announcing: “Juliano Mer-Khamis, Martyr for Freedom and Culture.”

Friends who gathered at the theater yesterday say his death will leave a huge vacuum but that they will work together to try to keep the theater running.

Source


ISLAMOPHOBIA IS DESTROYING AMERICA … NOT ISLAM

“The Constitution is not supposed to protect a tyranny of the minority, it is not discrimination to say no when a group is less than one percent of our population.”

Hate Rally Organizer Karen Lugo Appointed To California Civil Rights Commission Advisory Committee


By Max Blumenthal

Karen Lugo is protecting the culture of Disneyland from the "tyranny of the minority"
Karen Lugo is protecting the culture of Disneyland from the “tyranny of the minority”

The organizers of the anti-Muslim hate rally in Yorba Linda are suddenly on the defensive. Refusing to admit that they behaved like demented racists, or that there is anything wrong with demonizing Muslim citizens of the United States, the North OC Conservative Coalition’s Karen Lugo, Jewish Federation love instructor Rabbi David Eliezrie, and others are claiming that they participated in a peaceful “patriotic” rally that was corrupted by members of an unwanted “splinter group” (was it led by a one-armed man?) who appeared from out of the blue to shout racial slurs at families entering the Muslim charity event.

Lugo and Eliezrie must have been nowhere near Villa Park Councilmember Deborah Pauly when she made the following statement: “I have a wonderful 19 year old son who’s a United States Marine. As a matter of fact I know quite a few Marines who will be happy to help these terrorists [Pauly pointed towards the community center] to an early meeting in paradise.” Actually, Eliezrie has admitted to being in the audience and Lugo was on stage beside Pauly, where she served as the official emcee. How absolutely unfair of CAIR to turn its cameras on the extreme racists at the gates and not focus on the more moderate racists on stage!

Lugo has put herself forward as the official face of the hate rally, yet she has only been identified in the press as a “protester” or “demonstrator.” In fact, Lugo is a veteran right-wing operative and self-proclaimed constitutional law professor who dazzled the crowd with her knowledge of American’s founding documents: “The Constitution is not supposed to protect a tyranny of the minority,” she exclaimed. ”It is not discrimination to say no when a group is less than one percent of our population.”

Lugo speaks at 9:30

According to Lugo, who appears to be obsessed with the Muslim menace, patriotic Americans need to save the culture of Disneyland. As she said, “It is a matter of importance to our culture and society to tell a corporation like Disneyland, ‘We support you in keeping your culture and in not allowing the hijab to be worn as part of an employee’s garb.’”

Despite holding such views and having presided over what basically amounted to a cross burning, Lugo’s bio indicates that she has managed to secure an appointment on the California Civil Rights Commission Advisory Committee, which reports directly to the US Civil Rights Commission. I’m not sure how Lugo’s appointment came about, but perhaps it was inspired by the UN Human Rights Council awarding a seat to Col. Moammar Gaddafi.

Posted AT

WITCH HUNTS AND FIGHTBACKS

Image by Bendib

Four Things You Need to Know About Rep. Peter King’s Anti-Muslim Witch Hunt

1) The Threat of Homegrown Islamic Terrorism Has Been Greatly Exaggerated.

According to the FBI, Muslim-Americans were responsible for just 6% of all domestic terrorist attacks from 1980 to 2005.  Latinos were responsible for 42% of terrorist attacks, left-wing extremists for 24%, and Jewish extremists for 7%.  Yes, that’s right, Latinos and Jews have committed more domestic terrorist attacks since 1980 than Muslims (LoonWatch).

Since 9/11, America has drastically increased its terrorism against Muslims living overseas, thus fueling an increase in anti-American Islamic terrorism.  Despite this, the number of terrorist attacks committed by Muslim-Americans is still relatively low.  Last year, for instance, 10 Muslim-Americans were suspected of planning domestic terrorist attacks; of them, just one, Faisal Shahzad (aka the Times Square Bomber) actually carried out his plot, which, we all know, failed.  Let me repeat that: last year, one Muslim-American attempted an act of terrorism on US soil.  One.  One attempt, zero deaths (Duke).

By contrast, 20 non-Muslim-Americans were suspected of planning domestic terrorist attacks last year, including right-wing suicide terrorist Joseph Stack, who flew a small plane into an IRS building in Austin, Texas, killing himself and an innocent bystander, a father and grandfather named Vernon Hunter.  Richard Cohen points out that, “when measured against ordinary violent crime,” the threat of Muslim-American terrorism “is slight” and that “the threat from non-Muslims is much greater” (Washington Post).

2) Muslim-Americans Have Played a Key Role in Fighting Terrorism.

Although King has claimed that “85 percent of the mosques in this country are controlled by ‘extremist leadership’” (and also that there are “too many mosques in this country”) (Politico), the University of North Carolina’s Charles Kurzman notes that the evidence suggest that “Muslim-American communities have been active in preventing radicalization. This is one reason that Muslim-American terrorism has resulted in fewer than three dozen of the 136,000 murders committed in the United States since 9/11” (CNN).

A recent study conducted by Kurzman and others found that tips from Muslim-Americans have been the government’s “largest single source of initial information” in bringing terror suspects to the attention of authorities.  Since 9/11, Muslim-Americans have provided the government with tips in 48 of 120 terrorist cases (Duke).

3. King’s Witch Hunt Could Fuel Anti-American Terrorism.

As Paul Pillar notes: “The focus of the hearings should be of greater concern for the message they send overseas as well as to communities at home. They will be widely read as an indication that U.S. postures and policies that are ostensibly aimed at combating terrorism are really more about combating Muslims. And that reading will in turn stir more anti-Americanism among Muslims” (National Interest).

Pillar’s reasoning has been corroborated by the likes of General David Petraeus, who claimed during last year’s planned Koran-burning in Florida that such actions can be easily exploited by Islamic radicals overseas and in turn harm American national security (Washington Post).
Similarly, Brian Fishman, an associate at West Point’s Combating Terrorism Center, has warned “that anti-Islamic rhetoric feeds into the message of al Qaeda propagandists like Anwar al-Awlaki, who try to recruit terrorists by advancing claims that American Muslims face a dark future of ever-worsening discrimination and vilification” (Human Rights First).

4. Peter King Has a History of Supporting Irish Terrorism.

The Washington Post recently noted that in the 1980s King, “then a local politician on Long Island, was one of the most zealous American defenders of the militant IRA and its campaign to drive the British out of Northern Ireland. He argued that IRA violence was an inevitable response to British repression and that the organization had to be understood in the context of a centuries-long struggle for independence.
“‘The British government is a murder machine,’ King said. He described the IRA, which mastered the car bomb as an instrument of urban terror, as a ‘legitimate force.’ And he compared Gerry Adams, the leader of Sinn Fein, the IRA’s political wing, to George Washington…
“The IRA was responsible for half of the more than 3,500 people killed in the ensuing 30-year conflict; of those killed by the IRA, about 600 were civilians, according to statistics compiled by researchers in Northern Ireland” (Washington Post).

Image ‘Copyleft’ by Carlos Latuff

Meanwhile, Jon Stewart had a few things to say about King on his Daily Show…..
 

Jon Stewart: Has Rep. Peter King Met His Terrorist Sympathizing Past Self?

by Matt Schneider

Jon Stewart discussed Republican Congressman Peter King’s efforts to hold hearings on the alleged “radicalization” of Muslim Americans. In doing so, Stewart unearthed some past footage of King and suggested King might want to think twice about targeting people who might have any association with terrorist organizations.

Stewart asked, “it’s not enough for U.S. Muslims to be law-abiding – to avoid congressional investigation, they have to be actively stopping terror plots?” After humorously asking Italian celebrity chef Mario Batali about crime amongst people of his nationality, Stewart unveiled an old clip of King speaking favorably of the Irish Republican Army (IRA). Stewart concluded the terrorist sympathizing King of the past would be in big trouble if today’s Congressman King got a hold of him.

Click HERE to access a video of the show’s portion.

That’s not all…..

YouTube is once again censoring the truth about an ugly situation….

I posted THIS a few days ago …. if you try to access the video, the following is what you get…

Copyright Claim my arse! CENSORSHIP IS MORE LIKE IT!

If you haven’t seen the video, it’s a must-watch.

If you have seen it, watch it again.

This is America in 2011

Click HERE to watch it.



 

 

THOUGHTS ON IRAN’S NUCLEAR PROGRAM … FOR WHAT IT’S “WORTH”


Posted by Nima Shirazi*

In the two weeks, since I published my latest article, “The Phantom Menace: Fantasies, Falsehoods, and Fear-Mongering about Iran’s Nuclear Program,” on December 29, 2010, new predictions and allegations about Iran’s nuclear program have come to light, from retiring Mossad chief Meir Dagan’s assessment that Iran can’t produce a nuclear weapon until at least 2015 and IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano’s admission that “we cannot say that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program.”

I have been posting updates to my article with these new statements and analysis.  To read them, click here.

This is the latest:


UPDATE XI: For What It’s “Worth”

I think it’s time we stop, children, what’s that sound?
Everybody look what’s going down

January 13, 2011 - Larry Derfner of the Jerusalem Post has finally weighed in regarding outgoing Mossad head Meir Dagan’s prediction that, were Iran to actually have a nuclear weapons program and was actually trying to build a nuclear bomb (a claim with no basis in fact and without any evidence), the Islamic Republic would not even be able to have a working atomic weapon until 2015, at the absolute earliest.

Derfner, who calls himself part of the dovish “containment” camp, states bluntly his belief that “Iran is almost certain to get nuclear weapons,” though he tempers this assumption with his opinion that “while that’s not good at all, neither is it the catastrophe that the hawks foresee, because Iran will be deterred from using those nukes by the vastly superior ones held by Israel, the US and the other nuclear powers.” He continues, “And since a nuclear Iran would not be a catastrophe, it would be preferable to our starting a war, which would be a catastrophe, and would just delay Iran’s nuclear project anyway, not end it.”

Nevertheless, the article states that Dagan’s assessment presents an even more positive outlook for Israel-first-and-onlyers like Derfner, claiming that, based on Dagan’s conclusion, “sanctions work, sabotage and assassination work; the proof is that Iran’s nuclear project has been going backward.”

Just in case, lest anyone accidentally believe Derfner actually has a heart or any moral compass whatsoever, he then burnishes his Zionist, nationalist, exclusivist, ethnosupremacist, and survivalist credentials by declaring:

“Myself, I don’t like starting fights, I don’t like having scientists killed, even Iranian nuclear scientists. I don’t like giving anybody a score to settle against my side. But coming back to the idea that a nuclear Iran, while not a catastrophe, would not be a good thing, would instead be a really bad, dangerous thing, then I have to say that although blowing up some Iranian facilities and killing a few Iranian scientists were risky acts of aggression, they were worth it. They contributed to the hobbling of Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons, pushed its goal off by at least several years, so these acts of sabotage and assassination were justified.

“And they still are.”

They were worth it, he writes, blatantly recalling the despicable words of Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. In 1996, Leslie Stahl of 60 Minutes interviewed Albright about the tragic and genocidal effects of brutal economic U.S. sanctions against Iraq. Stahl asked, “We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?” Nonplussed, Albright immediately replied, “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price, we think the price is worth it.”


International law? Unimportant. The right to live without being murdered? Overrated, at least when it comes to Muslims, Arabs, or Iranians. Pretending Middle Eastern countries that challenge Israeli hegemony are acquiring nuclear weapons, despite the findings of the IAEA and all available evidence? Priceless.

Blithely justifying the murder of millions of innocent children or the assassinations of scientists and academics?

“Worth it.”

*****


*Nima Shirazi is a political commentator from New York City. His analysis of United States foreign policy and Middle East issues is published on his website, WideAsleepInAmerica.com, and can also be found in numerous other online and print publications.

Posted at his website at: www.wideasleepinamerica.com.

IRAN: THE PHANTOM MENACE

The Phantom Menace:
Fantasies, Falsehoods, and Fear-Mongering about Iran’s Nuclear Program

Submitted by Nima Shirazi

“To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies — all this is indispensably necessary.”

- George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four

Facts rarely get in the way of American and Israeli fear-mongering and jingoism, especially when it comes to anti-Iran propaganda. For nearly thirty years now, U.S. and Zionist politicians and analysts, along with some of their European allies, have warned that Iranian nuclear weapons capability is just around the corner and that such a possibility would not only be catastrophic for Israel with its 400 nuclear warheads and state-of-the-art killing power supplied by U.S. taxpayers, but that it would also endanger regional dictatorships, Europe, and even the United States.

If these warnings are to be believed, Iran is only a few years away from unveiling a nuclear bomb…and has been for the past three decades. Fittingly, let’s begin in 1984.

An April 24, 1984 article entitled “‘Ayatollah’ Bomb in Production for Iran in United Press International referenced a Jane’s Intelligence Defense Weekly report warning that Iran was moving “very quickly” towards a nuclear weapon and could have one as early as 1986.

Two months later, on June 27, 1984, in an article entitled “Senator says Iran, Iraq seek N-Bomb,” Minority Whip of the U.S. Senate Alan Cranston was quoted as claiming Iran was a mere seven years away from being able to build its own nuclear weapon. In April 1987, the Washington Post published an article with the title “Atomic Ayatollahs: Just What the Mideast Needs – an Iranian Bomb,” in which reporter David Segal wrote of the imminent threat of such a weapon.

The next year, in 1988, Iraq issued warnings that Tehran was at the nuclear threshold.

By late 1991, Congressional reports and CIA assessments maintained a “high degree of certainty that the government of Iran has acquired all or virtually all of the components required for the construction of two to three nuclear weapons.” In January 1992, Benjamin Netanyahu told the Knesset that “within three to five years, we can assume that Iran will become autonomous in its ability to develop and produce a nuclear bomb.”

Furthermore, a February 1992 report by the U.S. House of Representatives suggested that Iran would have two or three operational nuclear weapons by April 1992.

In March 1992, The Arms Control Reporter reported that Iran already had four nuclear weapons, which it had obtained from Russia. That same year, the CIA predicted an Iranian nuclear weapon by 2000, then later changed their estimate to 2003.

A May 1992 report in The European claims that “Iran has obtained at least two nuclear warheads out of a batch officially listed as ‘missing from the newly independent republic of Kazakhstan.'”

Speaking on French television in October 1992, then-Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres warned the international community that Iran would be armed with a nuclear bomb by 1999. The following month, the New York Times reported that Israel was confident Iran would “become a nuclear power in a few years unless stopped.”

The same year, Robert Gates, then-director of the CIA, addressed the imminent threat of Iranian nuclear weapons. “Is it a problem today?” he asked at the time, “probably not. But three, four, five years from now it could be a serious problem.”

On January 23, 1993, Gad Yaacobi, Israeli envoy to the UN, was quoted in the Boston Globe, claiming that Iran was devoting $800 million per year to the development of nuclear weapons. Then, on February 24, 1993, CIA director James Woolsey said that although Iran was “still eight to ten years away from being able to produce its own nuclear weapon” the United States was concerned that, with foreign assistance, it could become a nuclear power earlier.

That same year, international press went wild with speculation over Iranian nuclear weapons. In the Spring of 1993, U.S. News & World Report, the New York Times, the conservative French weekly Paris Match, and Foreign Report all claimed Iran had struck a deal with North Korea to develop nuclear weapons capability, while U.S. intelligence analysts alleged an Iranian nuclear alliance with Ukraine. Months later, the AFP reported Switzerland was supplying Iran with nuclear weapons technology, while the Intelligence Newsletter claimed that the French firm CKD was delivering nuclear materials to Iran and U.S. News and World Report accused Soviet scientists working in Kazakhstan of selling weapons-grade uranium to Iran. By the end of 1993, Theresa Hitchens and Brendan McNally of Defense News and National Defense University analyst W. Seth Carus had reaffirmed CIA director Woolsey’s prediction “that Iran could have nuclear weapons within eight to ten years.”

In January 1995, John Holum, director of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, testified before Congress that “Iran could have the bomb by 2003,” while Defense Secretary William Perry unveiled a grimmer analysis, stating that “Iran may be less than five years from building an atomic bomb, although how soon…depends how they go about getting it.” Perry suggested that Iran could potentially buy or steal a nuclear bomb from one of the former Soviet states in “a week, a month, five years.”

The New York Times reported that “Iran is much closer to producing nuclear weapons than previously thought, and could be less than five years away from having an atomic bomb, several senior American and Israeli officials say,” a claim repeated by Greg Gerardi in The Nonproliferation Review (Vol. 2, 1995).

Benjamin Netanyahu, in his 1995 book “Fighting Terrorism: How Democracies Can Defeat the International Terrorist Network,” wrote, “The best estimates at this time place Iran between three and five years away from possessing the prerequisites required for the independent production of nuclear weapons.”

At the same time, a senior Israeli official declared, “If Iran is not interrupted in this program by some foreign power, it will have the device in more or less five years.” After a meeting in Jerusalem between Defense Secretary Perry and Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, they announced that Iran would have a nuclear bomb in seven to 15 years.

On February 15, 1996, then-Israeli Foreign Minister Ehud Barak told members of the UN Security Council that Iran would be producing nuclear weapons by 2004.

On April 29, 1996, Israel’s then-Prime Minister Shimon Peres claimed in an interview with ABC that “the Iranians are trying to perfect a nuclear option” and would “reach nuclear weapons” in four years. By 1997 the Israelis confidently predicted an active Iranian nuclear bomb by 2005.

In March 1997, U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency director John Holum again attested to a House panel that Iran would develop a nuclear weapon sometime between 2005 and 2007.

The following month, according to a report in Hamburg’s Welt am Sonntag, the German Federal Intelligence Service (BND) believed Iran had an active nuclear weapons development program and would be able to produce nuclear weapons by 2002, “although that timeframe could be accelerated if Iran acquires weapons-grade fissile material on the black market.” Eight days later, in early May 1997, a Los Angeles Times article quoted a senior Israeli intelligence official as stating that Iran would be able to make a nuclear bomb by “the middle of the next decade.”

On June 26, 1997, the U.S. military commander in the Persian Gulf, General Binford Peay, stated that, were Iran to acquire access to fissile material, it would obtain nuclear weapons “sometime at the turn of the century, the near-end of the turn of the century.”

In September 1997, Jane’s Intelligence Defense Review reported that former U.S. Secretary of State Warren Christopher declared, “we know that since the mid-1980s, Iran has had an organized structure dedicated to acquiring and developing nuclear weapons,” as then-Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned that the Iranian nuclear technology program “may be the most dangerous development in the 21st century.”

Writing in the Jerusalem Post on April 9, 1998, Steve Rodan claimed “Documents obtained by the Jerusalem Post show Iran has four nuclear bombs.” The next day, U.S. State Department spokesperson James Rubin addressed this allegation, stating, “There was no evidence to substantiate such claims.”

On October 21, 1998, General Anthony Zinni, head of U.S. Central Command, said Iran could have deliverable nuclear weapons by 2003. “If I were a betting man,” he said, “I would say they are on track within five years, they would have the capability.”

The next year, on November 21, 1999, a senior Israeli military official was quoted by AP reporter Ron Kampeas (who was later hired as Washington bureau chief for the Jewish Telegraphic Agency) saying, “Unless the United States pressures Russia to end its military assistance to Iran, the Islamic republic will possess a nuclear capability within five years.”

On December 9, 1999, General Zinni reiterated his assessment that Iran “will have nuclear capability in a few years.”

In a January 2000 New York Times article co-authored by Judith Miller, it was reported that the CIA suggested to the Clinton administration “that Iran might now be able to make a nuclear weapon,” even though this assessment was “apparently not based on evidence that Iran’s indigenous efforts to build a bomb have achieved a breakthrough,” but rather that “the United States cannot track with great certainty increased efforts by Iran to acquire nuclear materials and technology on the international black market.”

On March 9, 2000, the BBC stated that German intelligence once again believed Iran to be “working to develop missiles and nuclear weapons.” The Telegraph reported on September 27, 2000 that the CIA believes Iran’s nuclear weapons capability to be progressing rapidly and suggests Iran will develop an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of reaching London or New York within the next decade. CIA Deputy Director Norman Schindler is quoted as saying, “Iran is attempting to develop the capability to produce both plutonium and highly enriched uranium, and it is actively pursuing the acquisition of fissile material and the expertise and technology necessary to form the material into nuclear weapons.”

By the summer of 2001, Israeli Defense Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer was warning that Iran could have nuclear weapons by 2005 and that, sometime in the next decade, the Iranian nuclear program would reach a “point of no return,” from which time “it would be impossible to stop it from attaining a bomb.” By the end of the year, despite an inquiry into the questionable validity of Israeli intelligence regarding the Iranian nuclear program, Mossad head Efraim Halevy repeated the claim that Iran is developing nuclear and other non-conventional weapons.

In early 2002, the CIA again issued a report alleging that Iran “remains one of the most active countries seeking to acquire (weapons of mass destruction and advanced conventional weapons) technology from abroad…In doing so, Tehran is attempting to develop a domestic capability to produce various types of weapons — chemical, biological, nuclear — and their delivery systems.” Soon thereafter, CIA Director George Tenet testified before a Senate hearing that Iran may be able to “produce enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon by the end of this decade…Obtaining material from outside could cut years from this estimate.”

During his “Axis-of-Evil” State of the Union address on January 29, 2002, George W. Bush declared that Iran was “aggressively” pursuing weapons of mass destruction.

On July 29, 2002, U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Marshall Billingslea testified to the Senate that “Iran is aggressively pursuing nuclear weapons.” Three days later, after a meeting with Russian officials on August 1, U.S. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham stated that Iran was “aggressively pursuing nuclear weapons as well as [other] weapons of mass destruction.” By the end of the year, White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer was reiterating U.S. concerns about, what he termed, Iran’s “across-the-board pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and missile capabilities.”

In an interview with CNBC on February 2003, U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton said that Iran is seeking technological assistance from North Korea and China to enhance its weapons of mass destruction programs. In April 2003, John Wolf, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State, accused Iran of having an “alarming, clandestine program.”

That same month, the Los Angeles Times stated that “there is evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction,” in a polling question regarding American attitudes toward Iran. The question followed, “Do you think the U.S. should or should not take military action against Iran if they continue to develop these weapons?” Fifty percent of respondents thought the U.S. should attack Iran.

The Telegraph reported on June 1, 2003 that “Senior Pentagon officials are proposing widespread covert operations against the government in Iran, hoping that dissident groups will mount a coup before the regime acquires a nuclear weapon.” The report contained a quote from a U.S. “government official with close links to the White House” as saying “There are some who see the overthrow of the regime as the only way to deal with the danger of Iran possessing a nuclear weapon. But there’s not going to be another war. The idea is to destabilize from inside. No one’s talking about invading anywhere.”

A CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll taken in late June 2003 asked Americans, “How likely do you think it is that Iran is developing weapons of mass destruction?” 46% of those surveyed said “very likely,” while another 38% said “somewhat likely.” Only 2% replied “not at all likely.”

An August 5, 2003 report in the Jerusalem Post stated that “Iran will have the materials needed to make a nuclear bomb by 2004 and will have an operative nuclear weapons program by 2005, a high-ranking military officer told the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee.”

On October 21, 2003, Major General Aharon Ze’evi, Israel’s Director of Military Intelligence, declared in Ha’aretz that “by the summer of 2004, Iran will have reached the point of no return in its attempts to develop nuclear weapons.” A few weeks later, the CIA released a semi-annual unclassified report to Congress which stated Iran had “vigorously” pursued production of weapons of mass destruction and that the “United States remains convinced that Tehran has been pursuing a clandestine nuclear weapons program.”

By mid-November 2003, Mossad intelligence service chief Meir Dagan testified for the first time before the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee and said that Iran was close to the “point of no return” in developing nuclear arms.

In early 2004, Ken Brill, U.S. Ambassador to the IAEA, reiterated the American position that Iran’s nuclear efforts are “clearly geared to the development of nuclear weapons.” One year later, on January 24, 2005, Mossad chief Meir Dagan again claimed that Iran’s nuclear program was almost at the “point of no return,” adding “the route to building a bomb is a short one” and that Iran could possess a nuclear weapon in less than three years. On January 28, the Guardian quoted Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz stating the same thing. He warned that Iran would reach “the point of no return” within the next twelve months in its covert attempt to secure a nuclear weapons capability. A week later, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said on CNN that Iran was “on a path of seeking a nuclear weapon,” but admitted that Iran was “years away” from building a nuclear bomb.

By August 2005, a “high-ranking IDF officer” told the Jerusalem Post that Israel has revised its earlier estimate that Iran would have a nuclear bomb by 2008, now putting the estimate closer to 2012. The same day, a major U.S. intelligence review projected that Iran was approximately ten years away from manufacturing the key ingredient for a nuclear weapon, doubling its previous estimate.

Two weeks later, however, Israeli military chief General Aharon Zeevi contradicted both the new Israeli and U.S. estimates. “Barring an unexpected delay,” he said, “Iran is going to become nuclear capable in 2008 and not in 10 years.”

In November 2005, Mohammad Mohaddessin, chair of the so-called National Council of Resistance of Iran (otherwise known as the Islamist/Marxist terrorist cult Mojahadeen-e Khalq, or MEK, which is currently designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the U.S. government) addressed a European Parliament conference and proclaimed that the “Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei is determined to pursue and complete Tehran’s nuclear weapons program full blast…[and] would have the bomb in two or three years time.”

On January 18, 2006, Donald Rumsfeld told Fox News that Iran was “acquiring nuclear weapons.”

A CNN/USA Today/Gallup survey conducted in late January 2006 asked, “Based on what you have heard or read, do you think that the government of Iran is or is not attempting to develop its own nuclear weapons?” 88% of those polled said Iran is.

82% of respondents to a Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll taken around the same time believed “Iran wants to use the uranium for military purposes, such as to build a nuclear weapons program.” 68% thought “Iran currently has a nuclear weapons program,” an increase of 8% from the previous year.

CBS News reported on April 26, 2007 that “a new intelligence report says Iran has overcome technical difficulties in enriching uranium and could have enough bomb-grade material for a single nuclear weapon in less than three years.”

In late May 2007, IAEA head Mohammad El Baradei stated that, even if Iran wanted to build a nuclear weapon (despite all evidence to the contrary), it would not be able to “before the end of this decade or some time in the middle of the next decade. In other words three to eight years from now.” On July 11, 2007, Ha’aretz reported that “Iran will cross the ‘technological threshold’ enabling it to independently manufacture nuclear weapons within six months to a year and attain nuclear capability as early as mid-2009, according to Israel’s Military Intelligence.” The report also noted that “U.S. intelligence predicts that Iran will attain nuclear capability within three to six years.”

A Fox News/Opinion Dynamics opinion poll taken in late September 2007 found that 80% of Americans believed Iran’s nuclear program was for “military purposes.”

Israeli President Shimon Peres issued an official statement on October 18, 2007 that claimed “everyone knows [Iran's] true intentions, and many intelligence agencies throughout the world have proof that Iran is seeking to develop nuclear weapons for the purpose of war and death.”

Less than two months later, the New York Times released “Key Judgments From a National Intelligence Estimate on Iran’s Nuclear Activity,” a consensus view of all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies. The analysis, entitled “Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities,” concluded with “high confidence” that the Iranian government had “halted its nuclear weapons program” in 2003, “had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007,” and admitted that “we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons.” The NIE also found that “Iran does not currently have a nuclear weapon” and that “Tehran’s decision to halt its nuclear weapons program suggests it is less determined to develop nuclear weapons than we have been judging since 2005.” Also included in the report was the assessment that, if Iran actually had a nuclear weapons program, “the earliest possible date Iran would be technically capable of producing enough HEU [highly enriched uranium] for a weapon is late 2009, but that this is very unlikely,” continuing, “Iran probably would be technically capable of producing enough HEU for a weapon sometime during the 2010-2015 time frame,” and adding that “All agencies recognize the possibility that this capability may not be attained until after 2015.”

A report released on February 7, 2008 by the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) asserted that Iran had tested a new, and more efficient, centrifuge design to enrich uranium. If 1,200 new centrifuges were operational, the report suggested, Iran could produce enough weapons-grade uranium for a bomb in one year.

Less than a week later, Israeli Prime Minster Ehud Olmert told reporters, “We are certain that the Iranians are engaged in a serious…clandestine operation to build up a non-conventional capacity.” Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, in a speech at West Point that Spring, claimed that Iran “is hellbent on acquiring nuclear weapons.”

On June 28, 2008, Shabtai Shavit, a former Mossad deputy director and influential adviser to the Israeli Knesset’s Defense and Foreign Affairs Committee, told The Sunday Telegraph that “worst-case scenario,” Iran may have a nuclear weapon in “somewhere around a year.”

In November 2008, David Sanger and William Broad of The New York Times reported that “Iran has now produced roughly enough nuclear material to make, with added purification, a single atom bomb, according to nuclear experts.” The article quoted nuclar physicist Richard L. Garwin, who helped invent the hydrogen bomb, as saying “They clearly have enough material for a bomb.” Siegfried S. Hecker of Stanford University and a former director of the Los Alamos weapons laboratory said in the report that the growing size of the Iranian stockpile “underscored that they are marching down the path to developing the nuclear weapons option,” while Thomas B. Cochran, a senior scientist in the nuclear program of the Natural Resources Defense Council declared, “They have a weapon’s worth.” Peter D. Zimmerman, a physicist and former United States government arms scientist, cautioned that Iran was “very close” to nuclear weapons capability. “If it isn’t tomorrow, it’s soon,” he said, indicating the threshold could be reached in a matter of months.

David Blair, writing in The Telegraph on January 27, 2009, reported that the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) “has said Iran is months away from crossing a vital threshold which could put it on course to build a weapon,” continuing that “Mark Fitzpatrick, the senior fellow for non-proliferation at the IISS, said: ‘This year, it’s very likely that Iran will have produced enough low-enriched uranium which, if further enriched, could constitute enough fissile material for one nuclear weapon, if that is the route Iran so desires.'”

On February 12, 2009, CIA Director-to-be Leon Panetta, told a Capitol Hill hearing, “From all the information I’ve seen, I think there is no question that [Iran is] seeking [nuclear weapons] capability.” Later that month, Benjamin Netanyahu, then a candidate for Israeli Prime Minister, told a Congressional delegation led by Maryland Senator Ben Cardin that “he did not know for certain how close Iran was to developing a nuclear weapons capability, but that ‘our experts’ say Iran was probably only one or two years away and that was why they wanted open ended negotiations.” Soon after that, Israel’s top intelligence official Amos Yadlin said Iran had “crossed the technological threshold” and was now capable of making a weapon.

In contrast to these allegations, National Intelligence director Dennis Blair told a Senate hearing in early March 2009 that Iran had only low-enriched uranium, which would need further processing to be used for weapons, and continued to explain that Iran had “not yet made that decision” to convert it. “We assess now that Iran does not have any highly enriched uranium,” Blair said.

Speaking in private with U.S. Congressmembers in late Spring 2009, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak “estimated a window between 6 and 18 months from now in which stopping Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons might still be viable.” In mid-June 2009, Mossad chief Meir Dagan said, “the Iranians will have by 2014 a bomb ready to be used, which would represent a concrete threat for Israel.”

On July 8, 2009, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen, speaking at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, warned that the “window is closing” for preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. Mullen claimed that Iran was only one to three years away from successfully building a nuclear weapon and “is very focused on developing this capability.” A week later, Germany’s BND foreign intelligence agency declared Iran was capable of producing and testing an atomic bomb within six months.

The following month, on August 3, The Times (UK) reported that Iran had “perfected the technology to create and detonate a nuclear warhead” and “could feasibly make a bomb within a year” if given the order by head of state Ali Khamenei.

Meanwhile, a Newsweek report from September 16, 2009, indicated that the National Intelligence Estimate stood by its 2007 assessment and that “U.S. intelligence agencies have informed policymakers at the White House and other agencies that the status of Iranian work on development and production of a nuclear bomb has not changed.”

Nevertheless, both ABC News/Washington Post and CNN/Opinion Research Corporation polls taken in mid-October 2009 found that, “Based on what [they]‘ve heard or read,” between 87% and 88% of respondents believed Iran to be developing nuclear weapons.

In November 2009, during a private meeting between U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, Alexander Vershbow, and a number of senior Israeli defense officials in Israel, the head of Israel’s Defense Ministry Intelligence Analysis Production, Brigadier General Yossi Baidatz, “argued that it would take Iran one year to obtain a nuclear weapon and two and a half years to build an arsenal of three weapons.”

The Times (UK) reported on January 10, 2010 that retired Israeli brigadier-general and former director-general of Israel’s Atomic Energy Commission Uzi Eilam “believes it will probably take Iran seven years to make nuclear weapons,” despite the dire warnings from Major-General Amos Yadlin, head of Israeli military intelligence, who had recently told the Knesset defense committee that Iran would most likely be able to build a single nuclear device within the year.

In an interview with the U.S. military’s Voice of America on January 12, 2010, the director of the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, Lieutenant General Ronald Burgess, said there was no evidence that Iran has made a final decision to build nuclear weapons and confirmed that the key NIE finding that Iran has not yet committed itself to nuclear weapons was still valid. “The bottom line assessments of the NIE still hold true,” he said. “We have not seen indication that the government has made the decision to move ahead with the program.”

Barack Obama, in his first State of the Union speech on January 27, 2010 claimed that Iran was “violating international agreements in pursuit of nuclear weapons.”

Speaking in Doha, Qatar on February 14, 2010, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton addressed, what she called, “Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons.” Although Clinton said that the United States was attempting to “influence the Iranian decision regarding whether or not to pursue a nuclear weapon,” she added that “the evidence is accumulating that that’s exactly what they are trying to do, which is deeply concerning, because it doesn’t directly threaten the United States, but it directly threatens a lot of our friends, allies, and partners here in this region and beyond.”

A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll, taken at the same time as Clinton’s Doha visit, revealed that 71% of Americans believed Iran already had nuclear weapons. Of those remaining respondents who didn’t think Iran already possessed a nuclear bomb, over 72% thought it either “very likely” or “somewhat likely” that “Iran will have nuclear weapons in the next few years.”

At an April 14, 2010 hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Lieutenant General Burgess, stated that Iran could develop a nuclear weapon within a year and in three years build one that could be deployed, despite having judged that Iran didn’t even have an active nuclear weapons program a mere four months earlier.

Perennial warmongers David Sanger and William Broad of the New York Times reported on May 31, 2010 that “Iran has now produced a stockpile of nuclear fuel that experts say would be enough, with further enrichment, to make two nuclear weapons.”

On June 11, 2010, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that “Most people believe that the Iranians could not really have any nuclear weapons for at least another year or two. I would say the intelligence estimates range from one to three years.”

The U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill on June 24, 2010, introduced by Democratic Congressman Jim Costa of California, that “condemn[ed] the Government of Iran’s continued pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability and unconventional weapons and ballistic missile capabilities.”

CIA Director Leon Panetta said on June 27, 2010, Iran would need two years to prepare two tested and operational nuclear weapons. “We think they have enough low-enriched uranium for two weapons,” Panetta told Jake Tapper of ABC News, continuing to explain that Iran would require one year to enrich the material to weapon-grade levels and “another year to develop the kind of weapon delivery system in order to make that viable.”

On July 22, 2010, nearly a third of House Republicans signed onto a resolution which stated that “Iran continues its pursuit of nuclear weapons” and “express[ed] support for the State of Israel’s right to defend Israeli sovereignty, to protect the lives and safety of the Israeli people, and to use all means necessary to confront and eliminate nuclear threats posed by the Islamic Republic of Iran, including the use of military force if no other peaceful solution can be found within reasonable time to protect against such an immediate and existential threat to the State of Israel.”

On August 19, 2010, the New York Times quoted Gary Samore, President Obama’s top adviser on nuclear issues, as saying that the U.S. believes Iran has “roughly a year dash time” before it could convert nuclear material into a working weapon.

Following the release of the latest IAEA report on Iran’s nuclear facilities, The Telegraph declared that Iran was “on [the] brink of [a] nuclear weapon,” had “passed a crucial nuclear threshold,” and “could now go on to arm an atomic missile with relative ease.”

In his attention-grabbing September 2009 cover story for The Atlantic, entitled “The Point of No Return,” Israeli establishment mouthpiece Jeffrey Goldberg wrote that, according to Israeli intelligence estimates, “Iran is, at most, one to three years away from having a breakout nuclear capability (often understood to be the capacity to assemble more than one missile-ready nuclear device within about three months of deciding to do so).”

Joint Chiefs chairman Mullen, speaking in Bahrain on December 18, 2010, said, “From my perspective I see Iran continuing on this path to develop nuclear weapons, and I believe that that development and achieving that goal would be very destabilizing to the region.”

A week ago, on December 22, 2010, the great prognosticator Sarah Palin wrote in USA Today that “Iran continues to defy the international community in its drive to acquire nuclear weapons.”

Just today, December 29, 2010, Reuters quotes Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Moshe Yaalon as claiming Iran would soon have a nuclear weapon. “I don’t know if it will happen in 2011 or in 2012, but we are talking in terms of the next three years,” he said, adding that in terms of Iran’s nuclear time-line, “we cannot talk about a ‘point of no return.’ Iran does not currently have the ability to make a nuclear bomb on its own.”

Despite all of these hysterical warnings, no evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program has ever been revealed. The IAEA has repeatedly found, through intensive, round-the-clock monitoring and inspection of Iran’s nuclear facilities – including numerous surprise visits to Iranian enrichment plants – that all of Iran’s centrifuges operate under IAEA safeguards and “continue to be operated as declared.”

As far back as 1991, then-Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Hans Blix, made it clear that there was “no cause for concern” regarding Iran’s attempts to acquire nuclear technology. Twelve years later, in an IAEA report from November 2003, the agency affirmed that “to date, there is no evidence that the previously undeclared nuclear material and activities referred to above were related to a nuclear weapons programme.” Furthermore, after extensive inspections of Iran’s nuclear facilities, the IAEA again concluded in its November 2004 report that “all the declared nuclear material in Iran has been accounted for, and therefore such material is not diverted to prohibited activities.”

During a press conference in Washington D.C. on October 27, 2007, IAEA Director-General El Baradei confirmed, “I have not received any information that there is a concrete active nuclear weapons program going on right now.” He continued, “Have we seen Iran having the nuclear material that can readily be used into a weapon? No. Have we seen an active weapons program? No.”

By May 2008, the IAEA still reported that it had found “no indication” that Iran has or ever did have a nuclear weapons program and affirmed that “The Agency has been able to continue to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material [to weaponization] in Iran.” On February 22, 2009, IAEA spokesperson Melissa Fleming even issued a statement clarifying the IAEA’s position regarding the flurry of deliberately misleading articles in the US and European press claiming that Iran had enriched enough uranium “to build a nuclear bomb.” The statement, among other things, declared that “No nuclear material could have been removed from the [Nantanz] facility without the Agency’s knowledge since the facility is subject to video surveillance and the nuclear material has been kept under seal.”

This assessment was reaffirmed in September 2009, in response to various media reports over the past few years claiming that Iran’s intent to build a nuclear bomb can be proven by information provided from a mysterious stolen laptop and a dubious, undated – and forgedtwo-page document. The IAEA stated, “With respect to a recent media report, the IAEA reiterates that it has no concrete proof that there is or has been a nuclear weapon programme in Iran.”

In his Annual Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, delivered on February 2, 2010, National Intelligence director Dennis Blair stated, “We continue to assess [that] Iran is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons in part by developing various nuclear capabilities that bring it closer to being able to produce such weapons, should it choose to do so. We do not know, however, if Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons.”

In a Spring 2010 Unclassified Report to Congress on the Acquisition of Technology Related to Weapons of Mass Destruction, Deputy Director of National Intelligence for Analysis Peter Lavoy affirmed that “we do not know whether Iran will eventually decide to produce nuclear weapons.”

Speaking with Charlie Rose in November 2010, Blair once again reiterated that “Iran hasn’t made up its mind” whether or not to pursue nuclear weaponry. On November 28, 2010, a diplomatic cable made available by Wikileaks revealed that, in December 2009, senior Israeli Defense Ministry official Amos Gilad told Undersecretary of State Ellen Tauscher that “he was not sure Tehran had decided it wants a nuclear weapon.”

Back in October 2003, the San Francisco Chronicle quoted former IAEA weapons inspector David Albright as saying, with regard to new reports about a possible Iranian nuclear weapons program revealed by the MEK, “We should be very suspicious about what our leaders or the exile groups say about Iran’s nuclear capacity.”

Albright continued, “There is a drumbeat of allegations, but there’s not a whole lot of solid information. It may be that Iran has not made the decision to build nuclear weapons. We have to be very careful not to overstate the intelligence.”

It appears that nothing much has changed in the past seven years, let alone the previous three decades.

Whereas the new year will surely bring more lies and deception about Iran and its nuclear energy program, more doublespeak and duplicity regarding the threat Iran poses to the United States, to Israel and to U.S.-backed Arab dictatorships, and more warmongering and demonization from Zionist think tanks, right-wing and progressive pundits alike, the 112th Congress and the Obama administration, the truth is not on their side.

“Facts are stubborn things,” John Adams said in 1770. “And whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”

Here’s hoping that, in 2011, the facts will begin to matter.

Happy New Year.

*****

UPDATE:

Just hours after this article was posted, United Press International published the findings of a new public opinion poll conducted by Angus-Reid. The poll found that 70% of respondents believe “the Government of Iran is attempting to develop nuclear weapons. Only 11 per cent of Americans do not believe that Iran is pursuing a nuclear program, while one-in-five (19%) are not sure.”

Originally posted AT

BLOGGERS, WIKILEAKS and CONSPIRACY THEORIES

Were we the first to ask?….

“Where is the real dirt on Israel?” these conspiracy theorists – messaging back and forth in the blogosphere – are asking one another.


Bloggers claim WikiLeaks struck deal with Israel over diplomatic cables leaks

The lack of information damaging to Israel in the cables released by WikiLeaks has provided fodder for conspiracy theorists.

PARIS – It was only a matter of time before conspiracy theorists came out of the woodwork to suggest that Israel is behind the publication of the WikiLeaks trove – and is manipulating the information coming out to help Israeli interests.

“Where is the real dirt on Israel?” these conspiracy theorists – messaging back and forth in the blogosphere – are asking one another.

 

“The answer appears to be a secret deal struck between WikiLeaks’ … Assange … with Israeli officials, which ensured that all such documents were ‘removed’ before the rest were made public,” wrote Gordon Duff, an editor of the anti-war website Veterans Today, who frequently opines about what he believes is Israeli’s secret influence over world events.

Speaking to Haaretz, Duff added that “it sticks out like a sore thumb that WikiLeaks is obviously concocted by an intelligence agency. It’s a ham-handed action by Israel to do its public relations.”

Meanwhile, Al Haqiqa, an Arabic language webzine, citing disgruntled WikiLeaks volunteers, adds more details to the conspiracy, suggesting that this “secret agreement” between Assange and “the Mossad,” which allegedly took place in Geneva, involved Assange’s promise not to publish any document that “may harm Israeli security or diplomatic interests.”

“The Israel government, it seems, had somehow found out or expected that the documents to be leaked contained a large number of documents about the Israeli attacks on Lebanon and Gaza in 2006 and 2008-9 respectively,” adds an anonymous blogger on IndyMedia. “These documents, which are said to have originated mainly from the American embassies in Tel Aviv and Beirut, were removed and possibly destroyed by Assange, who is the only person who knows the password that can open these documents, the sources added.”

Remy Ourdon, who is in charge of the WikiLeaks project for Le Monde – one of the five international newspapers that were given advance copies of the cables by Assange – counters that it is incorrect to claim there are no cables of interest about Israel.

“Not everything has come out yet,” he tells Haaretz. “There are tens of thousands of cables and many surprises still coming. There is almost no country which does not have some cables emanating from it.”

Moreover, stresses Ourdon, contrary to the conspiracy theorists’ charges, Assange is not in control of which cables WikiLeaks publishes – that is determined solely by what the person who obtained the cables was able to access and pass along.

Other observers offer an alternative explanation for the lack – so far – of many insightful cables out of Israel. For example, Ed Abington, a former U.S. consul general in Jerusalem (1993-1997 ) suggests, on facebook, that it might have something to do with the level of information being offered out of the country.

“The U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv has been so out of the loop for the last six years that their reporting is about what you read in the Israeli press (probably where they get most of their information ). .

“There’s a channel U.S. embassies use for very sensitive information and I don’t think WikiLeaks has those cables. As for Tel Aviv, the last two ambassadors have not been risk-takers and have had a very low profile. I doubt they have been willing to rock the boat, and may not have had much, if any, inside information.”

What would be more interesting, Abington persists, is the reporting from the U.S. Consulate in Jerusalem. “Where is that reporting?” he asks.

“Stay tuned,” says Ourdon.

 

 

Source

 

 

« Older entries

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,120 other followers