Friday, December 29, 2006

Saddam Executed

Many officials within the Bush Administration will be heaving sighs of relief, including ex Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and others. Saddam Hussein, if he had been tried for the illegal invasion of Kuwait (amongst other crimes) could have caused a huge amount of trouble for numerous US and European officials and corporate executives, by calling witnesses pertaining to the sales of chemical and biological weapons throughout the 1980s, in its war against Iran.

He might also have called into evidence the Bush Sr. administration's complicity in the brutal suppression of the anti-Saddam revolt shortly after the conclusion of the Gulf War.

Finally, it would have also brought into public light illicit manipulations of international oil prices by Kuwait and other OPEC nations, which forced the then bankrupt Iraq to sell oil at a loss, leaving Hussein with no choice but to take military action, on the US assurance that there would no repercussions as a result of taking such actions.

It's hardly a wonder that Saddam was tried specifically for a rather obscure event (a massacre in Dujail, an Iraqi town) for which there was no easy connection with figures of current international standing, rather than the numerous, far more visible atrocities, with which (Saddam Hussein) was linked.

Monday, December 11, 2006

U.S. spied on Princess Diana?

Well, well. Surprise surprise.

Diana was a most unpopular figure with the (US and European) arms manufacturing industry:she was the world's most 'visible" woman, and she was heavily involved with the global movement to ban anti-personnel and other types of landmines: landmines are of little military use; the huge majority of people who are maimed and killed by these weapons are civilians. Her actions in spreading awareness of the effects of these types of weapons was extremely bad PR for a number of corporations which are not only household names, but also profit handsomely from the purveying of death and destruction.

Diana was just one of many people who were trying do something decent and moral in an uncaring world ,on behalf of civilized values and humanity, and end up being targeted by those who don't give a flying fvck about anything other than power and profit margins.

It's hardly surprising that she was "spied upon". Business as usual, whether if be under Clinton, Bush, or whoever.

Sunday, December 10, 2006

Pinochet gets off the hook, yet again

Brutal dictator, supported by thugs allied to the Nixon regime, has escaped justice once more, in this lifetime that is. For those who acknowledges karma, Pinochet's next pairs of shoes will not be comfortable fits. For those who acknowledges the concept of heaven 'n' hell, Augusto had better don his asbestos suit.

However, his death meant that justice was never done. Tens of thousands of living relatives of innocent folk who were tortured, murdered or simply disappeared, have never had the chance of even that (unsatisfactory) degree of closure.

Back in the 1990s, the British Government had the chance to bring this slimebag to justice, when the Spanish government was trying to extradite him ... but in its usual form, Tony Blair's weasel administration chickened out, like the political cowards they are. They let him go back home to Chile, under the pretence (or lie) that he was "mentally incapacitated and unable to stand trial". He spent the rest of his days in comfort, instead of the jail cell he should have been in.

Then we have the disgusting spectacle of former UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, who on one hand, blathered on about 'democracy and the rule of law"... and ridding the world of vicious dictators, (blah blah freakin' blah)... yet she was a close personal friend and supporter of this vicious scumball.

The most important question of all, of course, is how did someone like this manage to overthrow a democatically elected government, and get away with it?

Pinochet: What a sorry excuse for a human being.. a total non-starter.

Tuesday, December 05, 2006

John Bolton: Good Riddance

It is with relief that John Bolton's tenure as US Ambassador to the U.N. is about to finish: it is evident from his track record that he has an unstable nature, and an anger management problem. Those in senior diplomatic positions should at least be capable of exhibiting diplomacy first and foremost.

With the United States' reputation for promoting liberty in shreds as a result of the last 5 years of foreign and domestic policy, it is now even more inappropriate for the likes of Bolton, an ideologue who shares the same extremist Neoconservative viewpoints as the crew who got us into this current mess, to be in public office.

Furthermore, the way in which he was appointed to this vitally important position, when Congress was out of session, added insult to injury.

His resignation will be for the good of all.

Friday, December 01, 2006

Our (d)evolving system in the US?

Mussolini did say that Fascism "should more properly be called corporatism, being a merger of state and corporate power". However, the modern term "fascism" has been redefined to imply totalitarianism and all that accompanies such (military or other style dictatorship, no real democratic/electoral process, relatively few civil liberties and rights, arbitrary imprisonment/kangaroo justice... and all the baggage that goes with such).

Bearing that redefinition in mind, it is absurd to suggest that the current system in place in the US is anywhere near that variety of "fascism", despite a number of current trends in that direction. However, "corporatism" is a pretty good fit: One just has to look at the parties and organizations who influence peoples' lives and livelihoods to the greatest extent.. and one comes up with non-governmental, private, unelected parties in big business every time... expecially the big banks and credit card companies. To argue that our elected representatives are the ones whose decisions affect us the most is also moot... since they are also in the pockets of big business and financial institutions.

No conspiracy required here: its the natural evolution of the system we have in place, which could be described as a "Quasi-Democratic Republicorporatocracy". (ouch)

Saturday, November 25, 2006

Iraq: When is the US getting out?

The investment in permanent military bases is massive. I can't quote a$ figure in what has been directly spent by the US Government on these bases, but they are like small US cities, with facilities to match. Similarly re. the new US Embassy in Baghdad: this covers an area larger than the Vatican. We are not about to quit Iraq, leaving these multi $10s of billion facilities to the insurgents. We are staying there, probably permanently. I feel that the length of the war is directly related to the length of the occupation: without the US military occupation as a focal point for all the insurgent groups, they would instead turn increasingly on each other.. with a period of utter chaos (as if what is happening now isn' t just that).. and out the power vacuum would rise a Saddam Hussein-like strongarm (dictator)... and we would all be back to square one. No democracy for Iraq, but at least relative stability.

I wish the US government and media had taken the anti-war movement in 2002 and early 2003 seriously. Their dire predictions were spot on: Everything that they were warning against has taken place, and is taking place as we write....and even worse. The endless parade of Bush Administration officials, defense analysts, high ranking military personnel and (neo)conservative commentators who had a perpetual free lunch with the mainstream US media in the build-up to the war were absolutely pathetic. They got everything wrong; totally and utterly, 100% wrong. Their analyses were pie-in-the-sky fantasies of Lewis Carroll proportions that any 16 year old with half a brain, and a bit of a handle on human nature, could have seen through.....

There is no answer to this conundrum, when all parties are paranoid of being seen as losing. Nobody in power in D.C. is going to be looking for a real answer in the near future. The recent switch-over of power in Congress from GOP to Democrat will tell all. My take is that the GOP will take full advantage of what will be the Congressional Democrats' utter inability to deal with Iraq effectively. The GOP don't/didnt have the will, and the Dems do not have the spine. Sure they will pretend to make it appear as if they are trying to take some responsibility.... and people will be taken in...

The only way this nightmare will end... is when the (largely unrepresented) US public gets aware enough, and so angry with the continuing astronomical waste of taxpayer funds, and human life, that they take matters into their own hands.

Thursday, November 23, 2006

Another Lebanese Assassination....

This time, its the turn of Pierre Gemayal, the anti-Syrian Industry minister. Think back to the assassination of Rafik Hariri. Who got the blame for that? Syria. How much evidence was there that Syria was involved? Zero, apart from conspiracy theories spread by enemies of Syria, involving secret tunnels, remote controlled detonators, pre-knowledge by the Syrian authorities etc. etc. none of which in existed in reality. The murder weapon was a car-bomb, and the assassin (or one of them) was Ahmed Adas, a 24-year-old Palestinian refugee living in the poor Beirut neighborhood of Tarik Jadida. and was a member of an unknown jihadist group,"Advocacy and Holy War in the Levant".

Regarding this latest atrocity: Who is getting the blame this time around in Lebanon itself: Hezbollah and Syria. Their rivals in the region will link Gemayel's killing to Damascus, by default, and this will be backed up by Washington, by default. The administration of Bashar al-Assad is a pretty unsavory bunch of thugs, but they are not so stupid and politically naive enough to go pulling cheap stunts like these... being fully aware of the obvious outcome. Logically, the most likely perpetrators, in both cases are enemies of Syria.

Sunday, November 19, 2006

Murdoch versus Simpson: Scumbags United!

It really goes without saying that anyone with somewhere near half a brain knows that O. J. Simpson had some part to play in the murder of his ex-wife and her friend, back in the mid 1990s. He might even have been the one who wielded the murder weapon. Now, media tycoon Rupert Murdoch, just at the point when one thought that human beings could not descend to greater depths of depravity and bottom feeding, surpasses even his own extraordinary standards of plumbing the abyss, all for the sake of his jungle law standard of ethics and anti-humanity. To sponsor a double murderer in what is seen as a smug "confession", but laced with a "haha...tried me once, can't get me now, suckers..." is really the ultimate example of scouring the bottom of the parrot's cage for the sake of accumulating more almighty dollars.

What does Mr. Murdoch want to prove from this bizarre and perverted exercise? Is he trying to prove to the world that when it comes to the race to be the world's biggest sleazebag, he is the worthy winner of the gold medal? Surely he doesn't need or even want another yacht, mansion or Rolls Royce.. that kinda swag gets old after awhile. Does he just want some extra cash in order to eat up another perfectly decent business in his effort to destroy the essence of free enterprise in media by relentless monopoly building? No, I don't really think it's anything like that: Murdoch can afford to buy a few entire cities if he wanted to, just from the annual interest from his investments. No, for him, this life is a shallow game, borne about by a condition of the mind that renders its sufferer incapable of feeling empathy with ordinary humans, in which he just plays them, like so many inanimate pieces on a board game, manipulating them, moving them, using them and eventually wasting them. To Murdoch, O.J. Simpson is just another chip on his monopoly board, and just this once, he has almost found his match, when it comes to human dregs.

"Almost" being the operative word.

Wednesday, November 08, 2006

The people spoke. Well, about HALF of them did!

I have to admit to being somewhat relieved. I don't want to gloat, as I remain very skeptical that the Democrats are finally going to grow a spine. However, I am so sick and tired, of being sick and tired, of the sick and tired people who are ruining the country and the world, that just a little hint of a change away from encroaching fascism, is a welcome relief. It's like we are in a hurricane, and one of the fiercer squalls has just eased up; are we to enter a relatively calmer region between rain bands?

The whole world, apart from organized crime networks, corrupt big business and terrorist groups (the main beneficiaries of the Bush Administration's disastrous and destructive policies), is going "phew" right now. However, let is not bank on anything, and lets not get complacent. Yes, Rumsfeld resigned. Big deal. The Neocons, such as Richard Perle, now divorce themselves from their own policy set that brought on the Iraq war and civil rights and liberties restrictions (etc etc) enabled by the 9/11 attacks. But there is so much work to do, in uncovering the solutions to awful crimes and answering some very difficult questions... and I remain skeptical that the Democrats under Speaker Pelosi will have the courage to do what is necessary. America grew up, painfully, on 9/11/2001, and now we must be able to handle the nastier-tasting adult medicine, rather than the fruit flavored kiddy stuff.

(1) Articles of impeachment against President Bush, VP Cheney and others must be enacted. Listen up, Nancy Pelosi! Do it!
(2) A full truly independent inquiry into the 9/11 attacks must be held, with no holds barred.

America's future standing in the world depends upon openness and transparency of government. Are the Democrats, and moderate Republicans, capable of such?

Monday, November 06, 2006

Saddam Death Penalty

So Saddam gets the death penalty. If he deserved his punishment, then so do all the people who enabled his crimes, as accessories both before and after the fact. In many legal systems, accessory before the fact is punishable by a similar sentence as the principal offender. If there was any true justice, Saddam's supporters and enablers would get their day in court as well... but we all know who they are (senior officials in the Reagan, Bush Senior and current Bush administrations), and that they are insulated from the requirements of the law.

Sunday, November 05, 2006

Devolution towards fascism in the U.S., (continued)

Good heavens. I don't know how much truth there is in this kind of threat; it does bear watching, with both alarm but also a healthy dose of skepticism.

It does looks odd, on the surface at least. The US makes huge revenue from the tourist industry, and this legislation, if it does exist, given widespread publicity, would make a great many people uneasy about visiting the US. I imagine that the huge majority of Americans would be pissed (royally so), if they were to read about kangaroo court laws of this variety. What sort of people support this sort of legislation? And if so, what would be the justification for that support?

This is a counterproductive type of measure, if it indeed exists. The only way this sort of measure could ever be brought into play, and accepted without vigorous protest by the general public, would be another very large terrorist attack in the US. Dare one suggest that HSA "expects" an incident like this, and the law has already been prewritten to go into effect when the public will accept it? After all, that is exactly what happened with the "Patriot" Act... the bulk of which was drafted several months before the September 11 attacks, but never saw the light of day until a week or afterwards.

Wednesday, November 01, 2006

John Kerry: Weasel.

So few people in Congress understand that the insurgency exists largely because of the presence of a hostile, foreign occupying force. There will always be violence in Iraq as long as US troops remain there. Congress just don't seem to understand that the vast majority of the Iraqi people, (as opposed to the puppet government), want US/coalition troops out of Iraq, now or very soon. You can bet that if more Congressmen and Senators had kids who are over there in harm's way, there would be a different take on the Iraq fiasco in DC now. As it happens, out of the 100 Senators and 435 Repesentatives, only 3 have children who are serving there. Senator Tim Johnson (D-South Dakota), and Representatives Joe Wilson (R-South Carolina) and Duncan Hunter (R-California).

Kerry's comment about "being stuck in Iraq" was a stark warning to all those who do not complete their education. He was referring to the NeoCon's abuse of the US military, who are over there in Iraq, fighting not for America, but as a private security force, paid for by the US taxpayer, for and on behalf of multinational corporations well connected with the Bush Administration. Many are there, getting killed and maimed because they come from poorer, disproportionately black, latino and working class white families, who do not/did not have access to the same standard of education as wealthier folk, and many of whom would be out of work, or working two or three minimum wage jobs just to pay the bills, had they not enlisted in the military.

John Kerry: "I can't overstress the importance of a great education. Do you know where you end up if you don't study, if you aren't smart, if you're intellectually lazy? You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq."

Senator Kerry was correct. If "you don't complete your education, the only job open to you that pays better than $5-50 per hour will be in the military, as cannon fodder for big business. He wasn't insulting any troops, even though it was cynically spun that way. And now Kerry, in true Election 2004 form, apologized, needlessly. What a wimpy, spineless weasel. He should have used the opportunity to explain to the troops exactly why they are "stuck in Iraq", and blast the insane and counterproductive foreign policy program that put them there in the first place.

Right now, the troops have no clue "why they are in Iraq". >80% say they are there to avenge 9/11, which was perpetrated by Saddam Hussein (!). Why are they so misinformed and ignorant about the campaign in which they are risking their lives and limbs? One reason is that the only television/media they are allowed to receive is Rupert Murdoch's FOX Channel.

Kerry should leave politics now. Not for what he first said, but for appeasing the warmongers.

Friday, October 27, 2006

Waterboarding, and more of Cheney's serial lies.

I can't believe this maniac. Who the hell does he think he's kidding? Now he's saying the the U.S. doesn't torture people: what a complete and total liar this person is.

Does anyone know exactly what "waterboarding" really is? According to Cheney, it's a "dunk in water".

Not quite. Wiki describes it as follows: but the version of waterboarding described here is the mildest form of waterboard torture there is. In Iraqi and Afghan prison camps, waterboardings are often carried out in far more extreme fashion: the prisoner is held underwater until he properly drowns - he actually dies. Then he is forcibly revived. If the interrogators are not satisfied with the prisoner's answers, then he is drowned again. And so on. The process involves intense pain and complete terror. Some prisoners subjected to this hell end up with irreversible brain damage. These techniques have been used in Iraq and Afghanistan since the wars started there, but a problem being, the standard of intelligence acquired via torture is often useless garbage, yet more spurious noise to obscure any worthwhile signal, should it exist. A prisoner will say literally anything just to stop the pain and terror, especially those who are innocent. And judging by the incredibly miniscule number of "terrorist" prisoners in US custody who have been charged with any kind of "terrorism" offense, and just held in limbo without access to legal representation, incommunicado, the logical extension is that most of these people are innocent, and when tortured, will give useless answers. It was recently revealed that the "intelligence" that was used to "justify" the Iraq war fiasco, was obtained via torture. If that was a waterboarding session, then each gallon of water used has so far cost the US taxpayer about $50,000,000,000.

When it comes to rogue governments, riddled with corruption, corporate scams, double-dealing, setting up fake terror attacks to justify war, and the mass killing of 655,000 Iraqis on the basis of lies, (amongst other evil deeds), the Bush Administration surely leads the pack.

Tuesday, October 24, 2006

ABC's Path to 9/11, and other embarrassing 9/11 weasel productions

That "movie", for want of a better term, contained some of the most embarassingly preposterous garbage ever released on American television. It was also an exhibition of unremitting hearsay "evidence" for which in the most part zero proof has been offered. The way most of that material has been accepted as "true" by a large section of the gullible American public, is through endless repetition, ad nauseam, on our mainstream weasel-media. It is amazing how so often, what we want to believe, because it is inoffensive to out comfort zones, is what usually makes it into the history books. Lets call it faithbased bullshit, in the Bush Administration's ongoing war against science and rationality.

Another appalling effort was DC 9/11: A time of crisis, a "made for television" movie directed by one Lionel Chetwynd. It was dubbed a "mind-numbingly boring propaganda" film by salon.com. In reality, it was far worse than that: the actions of Bush and co. are so far removed from even the officially endorsed timeline... the entire movie is based on false premises.

Enter the big Hollywood budget productions: Flight 93. If this movie was based on sound, verified facts, then it might be construed as being well done. But the official story of Flight 93 is so based on hearsay that it might as well be discounted: none of the material comprising the central plot of the movie (the official offal) would stand up in a U.S. court of law. For questions about Flight 93, this site as well as this one, are both essential references.

More recently, Oliver Stone's "World Trade Center" was released. With relief, I discovered it contained a minimum of propaganda, and the content was largely non-political, and concentrated on the heroic story of two Port Authority police officers. It is a shame that Oliver Stone wouldn't talk to William Rodriguez, who was undoubtedly one of the greatest heroes of the day, now shunned by the media because he wouldn't keep his mouth shut about the basement blast under the North Tower just before the first plane slammed into the 90th floor.

One day, someone will make a feature movie on 9/11 that doesn't insult the memory of the almost 3000 Americans who perished in order to kick-start the NeoCon Agenda.

Sunday, October 22, 2006

A 9/11 Inquiry needed, as opposed to a White House White Wash

On November 7 this year, there is a possibility that the Democratic Party may regain control of Congress, and perhaps even the Senate. Not that I have much hope of this, due to their appalling record of weasel behavior during the last 5 years or so, but if they actually regain a majority and then regrow a SPINE, instead of assuming the position of Bush Administration lapdogs, we may finally get a REAL INQUIRY into the 9/11 attacks, to replace that embarassing exhibition of ineptitude, the national disgrace that the Kean-Hamilton (or more accurately Philip Zelikow) Commission became.

It is about time that Mr. Cheney and others were put in the hotseat, and forced to answer some tough, unanswered questions, not only about the numerous military drills and exercises under his command that morning and why, as a direct result, the USAF/Air National Guard failed to intercept the rogue jets, but also some 400+ other facts, problems and timeline aspects that make the Bush Administration's explanation of the attacks appear bogus.

Friday, October 20, 2006

Visualizing another false flag operation?

There are a lot of people talking on the blogs and alternative media sites about some kind of attack (terrorist or perhaps open warfare) during the lead up to the elections. One I heard (this was via word of mouth) was a major attack on a US naval ship, somewhere off the Iranian coast near the Straits of Hormuz. The ship involved could be aircraft carrier Eisenhower, USS Anzio, USS Ramage, or the USS Mason which are currently in the region. The attack would be blamed on Iran (either if it was they, or some other party, who did it). The attack would give the US the justification to retaliate in what would be viewed as defense, and the much vaunted part of the neoconservative agenda, to engage Iran, would be started on what appeared on the surface to be a more legitimate basis than an Iraq war style preemptive strike.

Saturday, October 14, 2006

Air America goes yellow belly up

As far as I'm concerned, good riddance to Air America. (Btw, Al Franken was complaning awhile back that "his paychecks has suddenly dried up, but I don't think he was exactly "hurting", somehow. His and other stars' fees were most likely a big hit on AA's bank balance). Also, if Air America couldn't sustain itself, then it was probably perceived by its listenership as being too close to the mainstream Democratic Party, which is now all about "going where the wind blows".

Their Republican counterparts have effectively invented a perception within mainstream America (and effectively exploited it to the maximum) that 'liberals' and left of center ideology exhibit a number of traits that can be quite easily framed as 'unpatriotic', 'anti-military', 'soft on crime', 'bad for business', and so on. In fact the Bush Adminitration has even gone to the ultimate extreme with this tactic, accusing some of their political enemies as "siding with al Qaeda", implying an allegiance with terrorist groups. Under such assault, what is a Democrat to do? They have two choices.. either they can regroup and become the party which places the interests of the working and middle class Americans as priority, or cowardly creep along the path of appeasement, and go "conservative-lite".

It is quite obvious which path Air America chose; the compromised and insincere one: the listenership saw through it, and wouldn't support it. They went 'yellow belly up".

Monday, October 09, 2006

Smoking in public places

In the wake of France's measure to ban tobacco smoking in public places, as well as less stringent moves in a number of cities in the US and UK, we might ask the question, "what's so sacred about tobacco anyway"? Yes, there's a long tradition of tobacco smoking in both modern industrial and tribal societies, but the tradition took hold long before we were aware of the extreme health risks. There are regulations governing the incineration of toxic materials in public places in most nations, for glaringly obvious reasons. Perhaps we should ask ourselves, why one rule for tobacco and another rule for everything else?

Relatively speaking, tobacco smokers are on easy street, and might appreciate the fact. First of all, their addiction and habit is legal, despite it's use being responsible for over 400,000 deaths in the US each year. For those who prefer to smoke a marijuana joint however, incarceration and/or a fine is the likely outcome should they get caught by law enforcement.... as well as indirect effects of a drug bust, such as losing your job, your house, and custody of your children....

I dont think tobacco should be illegal however; we all know the folly of prohibition (even those who own shares in the private corrections corporations). For those who insist on their right to smoke, just remember, that when you light up your cancer stick, non-smokers have rights as well.

Saturday, October 07, 2006

The "Liberal" media? Has anyone seen it yet?



Conservatives love to make this statement: "Most of the media are 'left". But that doesn't make much sense, honestly. 'Left' and 'right' are relative, rather than absolute positions on the closed-loop political "spectrum", and if most the media are defined (by you) as being "left", then what are they 'left" of?

The content of the mainstream media in the US (radio, newspapers, periodicals, magazines, television whatever) is defined by what is acceptable to their advertising sponsors, most of which are private corporations (usually) run by conservative minded business folk, as opposed to some fictitious army of "pot-smoking tree-hugging commie-pinko birkenstock-wearing ex-hippies" who "hate the military and Christians".

If the media was truly representative of a "socialist" leaning, or true "left" position, then there would be no need for websites like "Project Censored":

and a whole bunch of similar sites online. Why are these extremely newsworthy stories not given any space in a supposedly free society with a free flow of information?

Is there a similar set of censored stories that fail to get published in the mainstream media because they lean the other way? Not a chance in hell, believe me. If the US media was truly "left", then why have they been cheerleaders for the Bush Administration's program of perpetual war? The media's behavior and conduct in the run up to the Iraq war , for example, was nothing short of prostitution.

The "left" media in the U.S. is represented by periodicals like Mother Jones, The Nation, Utne Reader etc., and the freebies that you find in major cities... and even they have mild content compared to some of the stories they could run, should they so wish, but don't; these "gatekeepers of the left" seem to have as much bite as a wet lettuce.

Ironically, the most courageous media out there is run by folk on the right with a libertarian or constitutional agenda, who are fuming and horrified at the distortion of what they see as true conservatism at the hands of the plutocrats, authoritarians and 'wannabes-for-a-theocracy'.

Tuesday, October 03, 2006

The sky is falling... oh is it?

Lets have a look around this link: some interesting information is apparent that doesn't quite fit with the overarching message from both british and US administrations.. namely.. "Muslims are the big threat and they are all terrorists by default".

One of the things one might stumble across is the following, inconvenient statistic:
Since 7/7/05 (the date of the multiple bombings in London), 1000 Muslims have been arrested in British terror swoops/police ops - of course with the obligatory accompaniment of ratcheting the fear of muslims to inhuman levels by all available mainstream media outlets.

Of these 1000 arrestees, only 12% have been charged with anything.

Of this 12% - that is of the 12% of 1000 that have been charged with an offence - 80% have been acquitted, (that is, they have been found to have had nothing to do with any criminal activity of any description whatsoever.)

This adds up to little over 2% of the entire 1000 charged with anything that sticks - and of that virtually nothing is related to "terrorism".

The miniscule police "success" rate refer not to terrorism but to other crimes that the police have found whilst trying to frame them up on spurious terror charges.

Of course, this information will never be published in any mainstream media outlet like the BBC, for example. Weasels, by definition, behave like weasels, and do not roar like lions.

The noise will have to come from the bullhorns; the billion-watt public address system of the mainstream remains predictably mute.

Sunday, October 01, 2006

Video of *alleged* hijackers. Should we believe it is authentic, and why?

A videotape of "Mohamed Atta" and "Ziad al-Jarra" has surfaced via the UK Sunday Times newspaper. The newspaper alleges that it was shot in a "training camp in Afghanistan", and the documents were of the mens' "last will and testament". Lip readers have been unable to decipher the words on the soundless tape.

Considering that so many of the videotapes released by alleged "al Qaida" members in the past few years have been proven fraudulent, the issue of "no sound" on this latest release, as well as unidentifiable background, raises the eyebrows again. Then there is the overarching issue of indeterminate "CHAIN OF CUSTODY VERIFICATION". Verification of such is absolutely essential in determining the authenticity and date of any media. Being aware of the CHAIN OF CUSTODY of any videotape allows us to know, with confidence, that it has not (or otherwise) been tampered with, or ended in places and situations where the tape could has been creatively edited, etc.

This particular tape is dated January 18, 2000. How do we know is this date is real? The answer is, we have no idea; the tape could have been shot 10 years, or 10 days ago. Regarding the ongoing series of taped releases from "terrorists", "hijackers" or whatever: Since so many of these recent videotapes have been proven to be faked, a precedent has already been set. Unfortunately, most Americans have seen these fake products presented by national news-anchors in primetime spots, repeated ad nauseam as gospel, unassailable truth; the justification for the wars and anti-people measures that quickly followed on the heels of the 9/11 attacks, as well as a litany of other frauds that have been widely circulated in the weasel-appeaser mainstream media as genuine, on behalf of the myth makers.

Friday, September 29, 2006

Coddling Dictators, again.

Oh my!!!! It's hardly a wonder the U.S. has lost all credibility with the rest of the planet. Bush is currently having nice easy going talks with Kazakhstan's Thug-In-Chief President Nursultan Nazarbayev. Business as usual, despite the presidential proclamation in 2004: " Proclamation by the President: To Suspend Entry as Immigrants or Nonimmigrants of Persons Engaged in or Benefiting From Corruption". By the way, Kazakhstan has as much oil as Iran.... but this dictator is a nice US friendly dictator, who supported the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. But a corrupt one nonetheless.

Successive US governments have always preferred interfacing with friendly, easily malleable dictators and thugs, rather than democracies which put PEOPLE first. With this administration, priority goes by default to multinational corporations, tinhorn dictators and organized crime syndicates.

Business as usual. Are we ever going to rewarded with "business not as usual", or have we become at one with the weasels?

Thursday, September 28, 2006

House Approves Warrantless Wiretaps Law

The bad guys who supposedly "hate America for our freedoms" just got a massive victory, handed to them by the House. Changing our laws and giving more absolute power to the federal government is acknowledging that "the terrorists are winning the war." In actuality, it is a rogue element within the U.S. military/government power structure that is the REAL terrorist syndicate.

But this group, who set the ball rolling with the 9/11 False Flag attack on America on behalf of the NeoCons, and then gave the excuse that were we attacked "because they hate our freedoms" were ironically correct; in passing all the anti-American measures that have happened since 9/11, now allowing Big Government to spy on citizens without a warrant, the NeoCons (as well as the weasel appeasers in the House and Senate) have proved that they really do hate America and its freedoms.

If a "terrorist group" can get America to change its laws, then they've won. A lapdog (i.e. WEAK) legislative branch, in cowering to the terrorists, has handed EVEN MORE power to the executive branch. Despite being at risk of invoking Godwin's Law here, one can safely say that the entire course of events since 9/11 is reminiscent of Germany in the 1930s.

Wednesday, September 27, 2006

the undoing of the Flying Toilet Terror Lab!

Just before the 5th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, the British Government came out with the discovery of a scheme whereby "terrorists could bring down planes in mid-air using explosives (TATP) manufactured in situ (on the plane) from common liquid household products smuggled on board". As a result, security was upped, liquids were banned from hand luggage, and we were all perpetually bombarded by the fearmongers of the corporate weasel-media appeaser brigade. It worked a treat for the "war on terror" scam, and "9/11-scare-consciousness" was brought to the fore once again.

Yesterday, the federal government suddenly relaxed the rules as regards the same liquids in carry-on baggage. My goodness, what happened here? Did the chemical properties of nail polish remover, toothpaste, shampoo and denture cleaner suddenly change, as if by federal decree, from being the harbinger of doom and destruction, to just mere household products again? Or is it because the date is now "post 9/11" and the authorities milked that item of political fear-capital to the greatest extent possible? Perhaps now, the inconvenience to passengers and airlines has registered, and been balanced against the known impossibility of making a bomb on board a plane using these products, enough to warrant this subtle relaxationof the rules.

This article tells it the way it is. Hilarious, and true. What a refreshing change.

Whatever happened, the threat was bogus to start, and by arbitrarily changing the rules for no apparent reason, they have all but admitted it.

Tuesday, September 26, 2006

Who's soft on real crime?

Andrew Fastow, former CFO of the Enron (Organized Crime) Empire has just been sentenced to 6 years in "jail". My liberal heart, it bleedeth all over. Fastow will no doubt be released from his presumably well-appointed "cell" within 2 years, (if President Bush doesn't pardon him sooner), and he will probably be at his old tricks all over again, this time with more knowledge in how to avoid breaking the 11th Commandment of big business corruption: "THOU SHALT NOT GET CAUGHT!"

Incidentally, most of the real damning evidence against these crooked friends of the Bush Administration (amongst many others) was housed in World Trade Center Building 7, which "collapsed" (read demolished?) at 5-30 pm, 9/1/2001. How very, very convenient.

Friday, September 22, 2006

9/11 deaths now equalled by US troops death

As usual, the Associated Press, a fully paid up member of the corporate media weasel brigade, tell lies in their "reporting". Jayson Blair should apply for a job.

Quote, from last paragraph: "In contrast, the United States had no imminent war intentions against anyone on Sept. 10, 2001. One bloody day later, it did".

Full article here:

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were planned well before 9/11, and units of the US military campaign to oust the Taliban were already in place, in the area, by August 2001. They were just waiting for the go ahead and "justification, which was 9/11.

More here:

Without 9/11, BushCorp and the Neocons would be dead in the water, marooned, a ship with no engine to power it, and no rudder to guide it. Their entire policy set, prewritten before 9/11, was wholly dependent upon those attacks being successful.

Thursday, September 21, 2006

The U.N. at an impasse.

After the recent commentaries at the U.N. by President Bush, Iran's President Ahmadi Najad and Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez, it is plain that the U.N. is in trouble. It has been for years. Security Council Resolutions are arbitrarily enforced; for example, one small nation (which I shall not name) with a close relationship to the U.S. can flout some 5 decades of U.N. Resolutions with impunity. This kind of privilege is fuel for unrest, and is the antithesis of fair international relations. The planet does needs some kind of international body, but the current U.N. is out of date, and needs restructuring. Right now, it's a forum for the largest and most powerful nations to undermine stability, presumably with the aim of furthering aggression and war.

The world is run on the principles of capitalism, and war-making is one of mankind's most profitable enterprises. Always follow the money trail.

Humanity evolves very slowly; expect no changes anytime soon.


***


The U.N. is a fairweather friend to US conservatives. When the S.C. makes a "favorable decision", for example Resolution 1442 authorizing BushCorp to make a preemptive strike against a sovereign nation..., the enmity of the rightwing towards the U.N. was conveniently forgotten.

Now the black helicopters are swarming again.