Jump to content
Islamic Forum

yusufar

IF Guardian
  • Content count

    250
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by yusufar

  1. The Gospel Of Paul

    Greetings and peace to you too Ignatius, Knowing that the evidence has been mostly destroyed by their forefathers especially after the Council of Nicea, it is of course convenient for the present Trinitarian Christians to attempt to request for production of this evidence. Nevertheless such evidence does exist and they and you know it. This request for production of evidence is an old and futile trick, as is the totally unnecessary comment regarding my claims being "rhetoric" and "unsubstantiated". However, I shall humour you in good spirit and we shall see whose claim is "rhetoric" and "unsubstantiated". Nice try! But this is not about who wins or loses a debate. This is about truth and untruth. The truth of the matter is that many early "Christians" did not believe in the "Trinity". The truth is that such a doctrine did not even exist in early "Christianity", which was essentially a Jewish Essenic-Nazarene movement. The further truth is that, even after the "Christian" movement outgrew its Jewish Essenic-Nazarene (the so-called "Judaic-Christian") roots and spread amongst the non-Jews, there were many who still believed that Jesus was an ordinary human being. On what basis did they believe so and how did the truth of the Unity of God become heresy and the heresy of the "Trinity" become the truth? Your claim that the 4 Gospels being the "earliest" is disputable and itself unsubstantiated. When I say "hundreds" I do not mean literally hundreds. This was perhaps hyperbole, and I plead guilty to exaggeration. But then again I could be right. As Peter Novak put it in his book, (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.hamptonroadspub(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/bookstore/product_info.php?products_id=458&ex=71"]"Original Christianity- A New Key to Understanding the Gospel of Thomas and other Lost Scriptures"[/url]: "Thousands of books were destroyed, and hundreds of thousands of “heretics” with them. Less than 100 years after Constantine’s conversion, the church burnt down the famous Library of Alexandria in Egypt. It continued to launch similar campaigns for the next 1,000 years. It massacred tens of thousands of Christian “heretics” in France in the Albigensian crusade of 1209–1255, and possibly hundreds of thousands more during the Inquisition. Like George Orwell’s fictional “Big Brother,” the official church sought complete control over public and private opinion. When the printing press was invented in the fifteenth century, the church demanded the right to approve all manuscripts before publication. The church even refused to let people read its own book. As unlikely as it seems today, it was actually illegal to possess the Bible, and simply reading it was considered proof that someone was a heretic. Men and women were actually burned at the stake for reading the Roman Catholic Bible." and "A great many of these lost scriptures have been dated to the first or second century, making them some of the earliest Christian literature. Despite that, these teachings were erased from the church’s legacy; we never inherited them because the church didn’t want us to. For 1,500 years, from Constantine’s conversion in the fourth century until the end of the Spanish Inquisition in 1834, the church burned these books and killed their owners. It was the longest censorship campaign in human history. There is no way to calculate how much we lost. Although a few listings of titles of missing early Christian scriptures still exist, we know these listings aren’t inclusive. They are just the only listings that managed to survive the editing process of the church. Still, they are enough. They make it clear that many more early Christian scriptures once existed. In the first centuries of the church, the faithful once read the following, alongside the familiar titles in today’s Bible: listing omitted Today’s official New Testament only offers its readers the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, along with a handful of letters from Paul, Peter, James, and Jude. Early congregations also read dozens of gospels and holy scriptures that no longer exist. All we have left today are a few of the titles, which stand as witness to the power and thoroughness of the church’s censorship campaign. Although only eight authors are represented in the official New Testament, in the earliest years of Christianity the faithful read the work of at least 38 additional authors that we know of. The earliest disciples spent their lives teaching a literate culture about Christ, and, as Luke himself testifies, a great many written works emerged from their passionate commitment to that mission: Many have taken pen in hand to draw up an account of the things that have taken place among us, just as they were handed down to us from the first eyewitnesses and ministers of the word. Since I have perfectly followed all these things from the very beginning, it therefore seemed good for me to also write you an orderly account. (Luke 1:1–3) Before Luke got around to writing his version of events, many others had already done so. The official church, however, condemned all of those early reports, all except the 27 books that made it into the New Testament. In making those decisions, the church demonstrated favoritism toward one author in particular: Paul, who wrote 14 of the 27 books in the New Testament—and never even met Jesus in the flesh. Today the official church embraces Paul’s letters as the standard by which all other Christian scripture is to be judged, primarily because his work, before the discovery of the Gospel of Thomas, seemed to be the oldest surviving Christian literature. Paul’s writings were given preference over a great many other scriptures, including many allegedly written by some of the actual Twelve Apostles, such as Peter, James, Andrew, Thomas, and Philip. The church’s only possible defense of this would be if all those writings were falsely attributed and were not actually written by the true Twelve; for if they were authentic, then the testimony of those who spent a year or more being instructed by Christ during His ministry would surely be preferred over someone who had only had visions of Him after His Resurrection. The church does deny that these scriptures were written by members of the original Twelve. There are two things wrong with this position, however. First, if these scriptures were not originally written by the apostles, then where are the scriptures they wrote? Luke says that a sizable percentage of the apostles wrote their recollections or teachings. If these recently discovered scriptures are not the ones they wrote, then where are the ones they did write? Second, a very good case can be made that both the Gospel of Thomas (found at Nag Hammadi, Egypt, in 1945) and the Gospel of Peter (found in Akhmim, Egypt, in 1886)actually date from the mid-first century, which is exactly when the Twelve would have been most likely to produce written works. We know our lists of lost works are incomplete, because the Nag Hammadi find contained no fewer than 41 early Christian scriptures that we’d never heard of. Their titles had previously appeared in no list, no correspondence, no surviving document of any kind. These scriptures were considered so dangerous to the church that not one mention of them was allowed to survive. In the last century, for example, we discovered that there had once been a Gospel of Mary. We never knew that because the church didn’t want us to. If the church had wanted that text to survive, no power on earth could have erased it from our heritage. These texts and all trace of them were to be rooted out, the church decided. History was wiped clean of any memory or mention of the ideas in these works, until their texts were unearthed in Egypt. How many more were there? Were there another 41 scriptures written in the earliest years of the church that we still don’t know anything about? Were there a hundred? Two hundred? There doesn’t seem to be any way to know. If the church could successfully erase all memory of these 41 scriptures, it could do anything; 1,500 years is a long time to get a story straight." Truth through Censorship The official church openly admits this censorship. It claims that all these lost texts were erroneous representations of Christianity and so deserved to be destroyed; and in support of that position, it points to some extant writings of early church figures that say as much. This argument is disingenuous, however, for the church is arguing its case with evidence it has admitted tampering with. For all we know, the vast majority of Christians in the first two centuries preferred these forbidden scriptures over those the official church canonized. But now that all evidence that might have reflected this has been erased, we will never know. As soon as the official church began tampering with the evidence, it lost all credibility. Partial List: o The Prayer of the Apostle Paul o The Apocryphon of James (also known as the Secret Book of James) o The Gospel of Truth o The Apocryphon of John o The Gospel of Thomas a sayings gospel o The Gospel of Philip a sayings gospel o The Book of Thomas the Contender o The Apocryphon of John o The Gospel of the Egyptians o The Sophia of Jesus Christ o The Dialogue of the Saviour o The Gospel of the Egyptians o The Apocalypse of Paul o The First Apocalypse of James o The Second Apocalypse of James o The Apocalypse of Adam o The Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles o Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter o The Letter of Peter to Philip o Melchizedek o The Testimony of Truth o The Interpretation of Knowledge o A Valentinian Exposition, On the Anointing, On Baptism and On the Eucharist The Gospel of the Apostles The Gospel of Basilides The Gospel of Matthias The Gospel according to the Hebrews The Gospel of Peter The Gospel of Mary Magdalene The Gospel of the Nazareans The Gospel of the Ebionites etc. Enough diversion for the time being. Definitely Paul wasn't the only one with a "different" Gospel and there were many more Gospels - other than the 4 Gospels - in existence at the time. I shall deal with the rest of your points later. Regards, yusufar (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.islamicunityfoundation(contact admin if its a beneficial link)"]The Islamic Unity Foundation[/url]
  2. Was Jesus Really God?

    Greetings Ignatius, If you say so... :D Regards, yusufar (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.islamicunityfoundation(contact admin if its a beneficial link)"]The Islamic Unity Foundation[/url]
  3. The Gospel Of Paul

    Greetings Ignatius, Bring it on. After all Christianity is the biggest supposition of all. Critical dialogue? I'm all for it. Regards, yusufar (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.islamicunityfoundation(contact admin if its a beneficial link)"]The Islamic Unity Foundation[/url]
  4. Assalaamualaikum This is the link for: (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.islamicunityfoundation(contact admin if its a beneficial link)"]The Islamic Unity Foundation[/url] Wassalaam, yusufar UNITY One God One Religion One Community One Nation
  5. Was Jesus Really God?

    While we can conceive and accept that God is Almighty and All-Powerful and able to do all things, yet there are obviously things which He cannot do or will not do, such as have a "Son", since this will raise all kinds of problems not just for us humans but for God Himself. If he can or wants to have one "Son" why not many more? Can such a "Son" be equal to Him, separate yet not separate from Him? Would such a Son have the same power and attributes (nature) as Him? If the "Son" is not equal nor have the same attributes, why should he share in the Godhead? If the "Son" is equal and has the same attributes as Him, whose Will will prevail? If neither, has not God then compromised Himself? Is the "Son" God? Can "Son" and "Father" be One and the Same? How is this possible? On what evidence is it so? Why should it even be so? Why has God in the whole of the OT never once mentioned that He was going to send His "Son" to be sacrificed for the sake of humankind? If God is the Creator, what is everything else other than God but the Created? Was Jesus Creator or Created? Who exactly is this "Holy Spirit" - Creator or Created? (Why don't we know anything about him at all?) It is either one or the other but can never be both. God cannot be Creator AND Created at the same time - that is His very own nature - His Essence so to speak. We cannot really know what God is like but conversely we can certainly know what He is NOT like. Anything human is NOT God. Jesus is human, therefore Jesus is not God. Christians will never be able to pursue each of these and many more such questions to their logical and truthful conclusion, because the doctrine of the Trinity is illogical and completely made up by the fallible mind of men. As one Christian finally admitted when unable to pursue the above questions logically, even with reference to the Bible, the doctine of the Trinity is a working hypothesis. Hypothesis? Go figure out for yourself what a "working hypothesis" is, since he couldn't even explain that. Is it a theory that works just because it got a few billion people over the centuries believing it? Paul must be laughing in his grave because even he apparently did not teach such a doctrine, yet the doctrine traces it roots to his teachings and became the central doctrine in Christianity. Yet it was not always central to Christian theology and there are many Christians even today who do not subscribe to it. These are the Unitarian Christians (who believe that Jesus (pbuh) was fully human) who were known as Arians or Arianists during the time of Constantinople, although many Unitarians today, such as the Unitarian Universalists, are no longer even "Christian". On the site (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.biblicalunitarian(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.biblicalunitarian(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/[/url], it is made very obvious that they are different. However they still believe Jesus to be the "Son of God" but not the "Supreme God". Only in this do they differ from the Trinitarians, which is of course why they still consider themselves Christians. Excerpt from Transylvania Unitarian Catechism: "We do not call Jesus God, because we know that he was in reality a man . . . His real humanity is verified by his whole life. He was born, grew up in body and spirit, was happy, sorrowful, hungry, thirsty, suffered and died . . . After Jesus' death, his loyal disciples and followers took his body down from the cross and buried it in the tomb . . . His disciples and followers loyalty kept the memory of their master and teacher, and proclaimed his teachings . . . Our most important duty is to love God, to love our neighbors and to build the kingdom of God on Earth. In fulfillment of our duty we shall listen to voice of our conscience, we shall always choose good, truth and beauty, and we shall be loyal to these. If we lived in that way, our reward will be a restful heart, and peace among us". To mainstream Christianity this of course is heresy.
  6. The Gospel Of Paul

    Paul's Different Gospel 2 In my opinion, Paul's writings should not qualify as Scripture. They are the purported writings of Paul. Scripture is the Word of God conveyed through a Prophet (Messenger). Nothing else can qualify as Scripture. Man's interpretation of Scripture or commentary on it is not Scripture. This should be obvious. The other 4 "gospels" also fall into this category. There is no "Gospel of Jesus" in existence being entirely his own sayings as revelealed to him by God. The context of Paul's "Letter to the Galatians" is Paul's admonition to his followers who appeared to be turning towards a 'different gospel' (although, in reality, as I have pointed out, it would seem that Paul's gospel was the different gospel), and were being 'misled' (or being led back to the right path, depending on your viewpoint) by certain people who were throwing them into confusion (or perhaps enlightening them, again depending on your viewpoint) and trying to pervert the gospel of Christ (here one can of course query who was doing the real perverting, Paul or his opponents). It is clear from the context that Paul's opponents were calling his congregation to come back to the Law. It has always been the context that righteous Jews (and I do not mean the Sadduccees or the Pharisees) when referring to the Law to talk about zealousness for it. Paul uses the word 'zealous' no less than 3 times almost immediately preceding the verses below (Galatians 4:17-18). With regard to Galatians 4:21-4:31 "21. Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says?" Paul's purpose here seems to be to dissuade his congregation from going back to the Law, which previously he has stated God sent His 'Son' to redeem those under from (Gal. 4:5), being under slavery (Gal. 4:3) and going back to which he deemed to be to 'weak and miserable principles' (Gal. 4:9). Paul showed his full contempt for the Law and those who were zealous for it. He went on to attempt to justify his contempt of the Law by citing the case of Abraham and his 2 wives and sons. "22. For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. His son by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. 23. His son by the slave woman was born in the ordinary way; but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a promise. 24. These things may be taken figuratively, for the women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar." [if we follow the 'slave' imagery which Paul uses in the previous verses, the children of Hagar are therefore supposed to be under the Law (slaves to it). This of course is an amazing 'prophecy' by Paul, since it did indeed come to be with the advent of Muhammad (bpbuh), a descendant of Ishmael (pbuh) son of Hagar and Abraham. How did Paul know that Hagar's descendants would come to be called 'slaves' of God, i.e. 'Muslims' or 'those who have submitted' (to God and His Law)? Quite extraordinary. But then again perhaps he was only letting his slip show, since he would certainly have been aware of the prophecies relating to 'that Prophet' (bpbuh), the one who would come with a fiery law. Or he could merely have been trying to decrepate those he terms as "slaves" to the Law, which in all certainty is what Jesus (pbuh) and his followers were. But Paul, not having known Jesus in the flesh, had a different "Jesus" he wanted to teach people about. Those who fell from it of course deviated from the original teachings of the Law, which Jesus (pbuh) came to fulfil not abrogate.] "25. Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jesusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. 26. But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother." [This is probably an allusion either to Jesus in Heaven or the Kingdom of God in Heaven (or in Spirit), free from the Law. This is merely Paul's deliberate and calculated way of looking at things, to bolster which he had absolutely no qualms about misquoting or quoting the OT out of context.] "27. For it is written: "Be glad, O barren woman, who bears no children; break forth and cry aloud, you who have no labor pains; because more are the children of the desolate woman than of her who has a husband". [This refers to Isaiah 54:1 and to the future glory of Zion, or so it is believed, but appears in the whole context of Isaiah to be more an expression both of despair and hope than of prophecy. The words are rather ambiguous and do not refer to any specific person as Paul would have us believe. I do not intend to go now into a study of Isaiah, but all I will say for the time being of its purported Messianic prophecies is that either a large part remain unfulfilled or were fulfilled in a different person from that whom the Jews expect(ed) or the Christians avow.] "28. Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. 29. At that time the son born in the ordinary way persecuted the son born by the power of the spirit. It is the same now." [There is no evidence for such an assertion, but Paul has no trouble at all in twisting facts to enable his conclusions to bear a semblance of logic as well as 'scriptural' authenticity.] "30. But what does the Scripture say? "Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman's son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman's son". It is not God who says this, but Sarah. Does what Sarah says qualify as Scripture? Anyway, the actual wording is: "Get rid of that slave woman and her son, for that slave woman's son will never share in the inheritance with my son Isaac." [As a side note, is this where the israeli/Zionist/Judaists get the justification for their treatment of Ishmael's decendants? Whatever the case it certainly has been their attitude since at least the time of Sarah, and even Paul is of the same attitude. Do we wonder then that some if not most of the Christians are no different?] It certainly gets very difficult to trust Paul when he quotes 'Scripture' to make his point: "31. Therefore, brothers, we are not children of the slave woman, but of the free woman." Personally, I would say that it is better to be a righteous (and zealous) slave than a free man with no Law, for the latter is what most Jews and Christians have become. In the verses following the above we get more ideas of one of Paul's pet bug-bears: circumcision. If, as Paul himself said, "For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value" (Gal 5:6) what was he making such a big fuss about it for then? He even went to the extent of saying that "Christ will be of no value" (at all) to those who allowed themselves to be circumcized, that they would be "alienated from Christ" and have "fallen away from grace". (Gal. 5:2,4). But then he must have forgotten that Jesus (pbuh) was himself circumcised. Could Jesus (pbuh) who, as we have seen according to Paul's teaching in Part 1 above, has become a curse, also become of no value, alienated from himself and fallen away from grace because he was circumcised? Obviously Paul must have been teaching a completely different "gospel". He also said with regard to those whom he called "those agitators" that he wished "they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!" (Gal. 5:12). In Phillipians 3:2 he calls them "dogs" and "mutilators of the flesh". This does not quite sound like a holy man speaking. He seems to have become not only anti-Nazarene but also a rabid anti-Semite, in spite of being a Semite himself (but then of course he was also a Roman citizen, and the equivalent of being Roman in those days is what being American is today, except that the Romans expelled the Jews while now the Americans keep them in). I think it is quite clear by now that Paul taught a different gospel to the Gentiles and that he was never really accepted into the community of the early followers of Jesus (pbuh) who probably regarded him with some suspicion, since he was one of those who had persecuted them. And so it became that "Christianity" left its original roots among the Jews, especially of the Nazarene sect, and became a completely different religion that Jesus (pbuh) and his immediate followers never knew or taught. This was almost all of it due to Paul's teachings and his different gospel. The Nazarenes who were also dispersed after the fall of Jerusalem abided in the deserts of Arabia until the time of the coming of the Prophet (bpbuh) when most if not all of them became Muslims. Because of Paul, the purported founder of Christianity, Christians today are as far away from the real teachings of Jesus (pbuh) as they can be. These teachings were not even supposed to be for them, but for the Jews and to prepare the way for the last Prophet (bpbuh). It is rather unfortunate that there is no extant copy of Paul's original "Gospel" (the one which he claimed he received by direct revelation from "Jesus Christ" himself). All we have to go on are his letters (which are possibly only a small portion of those he actually wrote). In any event, Christians should perhaps critically re-assess the teachings that they have allowed themselves to be misled by all these centuries. Only then will they be able to find the truth and real salvation in submission to God.
  7. I have read with great interest the various posts here and elsewhere on the subject of "terrorism". Islam condemns any acts of "terrorism" against innocent people. Islam is completely against taking one's own life. So-called "suicide attacks" are therefore against Islamic teachings. Islam does not propagate tit-for-tat retaliation even against attacks on innocent Muslims. The reality of the situation is that more innocent Muslims have died and suffered at the hands of the Americans and their allies than the 6,000 odd Americans (and others) in the WTC attacks. But who cares? They're only Muslims. It does not matter that millions of Afghans may be killed or become homeless, they're only Muslims, but America must have its revenge. Notwithstanding that oppressive "Muslim" governments may agree with and even support such unwarranted action, does America expect Muslims to stand idly and watch this happen? Or perhaps this is deliberate provoction? Tens of thousands of innocent Palestinians, even babies and children, have been killed, massacred and driven from their homes by an israeli regime that is supported, funded and armed by America and many more still live in fear everyday as they have for the last 50 years. Hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians have been killed directly in American air raid attacks or have died or suffered from malnutrition and other diseases and deprivation as a result of previous American-led sanctions and now of course in the so-called "war". But who cares? They're only Muslims. Maybe it is precisely because they are Muslims and perhaps the goal is to wipe out the Islamic "menace" which threatens American liberty and freedom, especially the freedom to viciously and violently interfere in other people's lives and affairs. The reality is that the so-called "Islamic" terrorists (the worst of who were in fact funded and equipped by the CIA) who are reacting in frustration (even if wrongly) to these and thousands of others acts of oppression committed by America and its allies against Muslims are in no position to commit acts of violence on the scale that America and its allies can and have. The further reality is that it is America and its voracious business interests backed by its ultra-violent military might that have been and are the greatest threat to world peace than the frustrated actions of any purported terrorists. America is the greatest terrorist nation of all time and will probably remain so for a long time to come. Ponder this: "The United States spends more on arms annually, $275 billion presently, than the rest of the Security Council combined. U.S. arms expenditures are approximately 25 times the gross national product of Iraq. The U.S. has in its stockpiles more nuclear bombs, chemical and biological weapons, more aircraft, rockets and delivery systems in number and sophistication than the rest of the world combined. Included are twenty commissioned Trident II nuclear submarines any one of which could destroy Europe." — Ramsey Clark former U.S. Attorney General Letter to the U.N., November 1998 Unless America stops or is stopped, the backlash against its foreign policies, excursions, incursions and attacks as well as active support for oppression of all kinds around the world will result in an ever-increasing vicious cycle of violence that will affect innocent civilians of all nationalities and religions. Unfortunately, the way America and its media have played this deadly game now threatens to turn it all into a conflict of Western versus Islamic civilisation, which it is not and should not be. Regards, yusufar "The fact that some elements (of the U.S. government) may appear to be potentially "out of control" can be beneficial to creating and reinforcing fears and doubts within the minds of an adversary's decision makers... "That the U.S. may become irrational and vindictive if its vital interests are attacked should be a part of the national persona we project to all adversaries... It hurts to portray ourselves as too fully rational and cool-headed..." — U.S. Strategic Command "Essentials of Post-Cold War Deterrence" 1995 (The U.S. Strategic Command, or STRATCOM, is the military entity responsible for formulating U.S. nuclear policy.)
  8. What Christians don't know about israel Grace Halsell American Jews sympathetic to israel dominate key positions in all areas of [the U.S.] government where decisions are made regarding the Middle East. This being the case, is there any hope of ever changing U.S. policy? American presidents as well as most members of Congress support israel, and they know why. U.S. Jews sympathetic to israel donate lavishly to their campaign coffers. The answer to achieving an even-handed Middle East policy might lie elsewhere - among those who support israel but don't really know why. This group is the vast majority of Americans. They are well-meaning, fair-minded Christians who feel bonded to israel and Zionism often from atavistic feelings, in some cases dating from childhood. I am one of those. I grew up listening to stories of a mystical, allegorical, spiritual israel. This was before a modern political entity with the same name appeared on our maps. I attended Sunday school and watched an instructor draw down window-type shades to show maps of the Holy Land. I imbibed stories of a good and chosen people who fought against their bad "un-chosen" enemies. In my early 20s I began traveling the world, earning my living as a writer. I came to the subject of the Middle East rather late in my career. I was sadly lacking in knowledge regarding the area. About all I knew was what I had learned in Sunday school. And typical of many U.S. Christians, I somehow considered a modern state created in 1948 as a homeland for Jews persecuted under the Nazis as a replica of the spiritual, mystical israel I heard about as a child. When in 1979 I initially went to Jerusalem, I planned to write about the three great monotheistic religions and leave out politics. "Not write about politics?" scoffed one Palestinian, smoking a water pipe in the Old Walled City. "We eat politics, morning, noon and night!" As I would learn, the politics is about land, and the co-claimants to that land: the indigenous Palestinians who have lived there for 2,000 years and the Jews who started arriving in large numbers after the Second World War. By living among israeli Jews as well as Palestinian Christians and Muslims, I saw, heard, smelled, and experienced the police state tactics israelis use against Palestinians. My research led to a book entitled Journey to Jerusalem. My journey not only was enlightening to me as regards israel, but also I came to a deeper, and sadder, understanding of my own country. I say sadder understanding because I began to see that, in Middle East politics, we the people are not making the decisions, but rather that supporters of israel are doing so. And typical of most Americans, I tended to think the U.S. media was "free" to print news impartially. In the late 1970s, when I first went to Jerusalem, I was unaware that editors could and would classify "news" depending on who was doing what to whom. On my initial visit to israel-Palestine, I had interviewed dozens of young Palestinian men. About one in four related stories of torture. israeli police had come in the night, dragged them from their beds and placed hoods over their heads. Then in jails the israelis had kept them in isolation, besieged them with loud, incessant noises, hung them upside down and had sadistically mutilated their genitals. I had not read such stories in the U.S. media. Wasn't it news? Obviously, I naively thought, U.S. editors simply didn't know it was happening. On a trip to Washington, DC, I hand-delivered a letter to Frank Mankiewicz, then head of the public radio station WETA. I explained I had taped interviews with Palestinians who had been brutally tortured. And I'd make them available to him. I got no reply. I made several phone calls. Eventually I was put through to a public relations person, a Ms. Cohen, who said my letter had been lost. I wrote again. In time I began to realize what I hadn't known: had it been Jews who were strung up and tortured, it would be news. But interviews with tortured Arabs were "lost" at WETA. The process of getting my book Journey to Jerusalem published also was a learning experience. Bill Griffin, who signed a contract with me on behalf of MacMillan Publishing Company, was a former Roman Catholic priest. He assured me that no one other than himself would edit the book. As I researched the book, making several trips to israel and Palestine, I met frequently with Griffin, showing him sample chapters. "Terrific," he said of my material. The day the book was scheduled to be published, I went to visit MacMillan's. Checking in at a reception desk, I spotted Griffin across a room, cleaning out his desk. His secretary Margie came to greet me. In tears, she whispered for me to meet her in the ladies room. When we were alone, she confided, "He's been fired." She indicated it was because he had signed a contract for a book that was sympathetic to Palestinians. Griffin, she said, had no time to see me. Later, I met with another MacMillan official, William Curry. "I was told to take your manuscript to the israeli Embassy, to let them read it for mistakes," he told me. "They were not pleased. They asked me, 'You are not going to publish this book, are you?' I asked, 'Were there mistakes?' 'Not mistakes as such. But it shouldn't be published. It's anti-israel'." Despite obstacles to prevent it, the presses started rolling. After its publication in 1980, I was invited to speak in a number of churches. Christians generally reacted with disbelief. Back then, there was little or no coverage of israeli land confiscation, demolition of Palestinian homes, wanton arrests and torture of Palestinian civilians. Speaking of these injustices, I invariably heard the same question, "How come I didn't know this?" Or someone might ask, "But I haven't read about that in my newspaper." To these church audiences, I related my own learning experience, that of seeing hordes of U.S. correspondents covering a relatively tiny state. I pointed out that I had not seen so many reporters in world capitals such as Beijing, Moscow, London, Tokyo, Paris. Why, I asked, did a small state with a 1980 population of only four million warrant more reporters than China, with a billion people? I also linked this query with my findings that The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post and most of our nation's print media are owned and/or controlled by Jews supportive of israel. It was for this reason, I deduced, that they sent so many reporters to cover israel and to do so largely from the israeli point of view. My learning experiences also included coming to realize how easily I could lose a Jewish friend if I criticized the Jewish state. I could with impunity criticize France, England, Russia, even the United States. And any aspect of life in America. But not the Jewish state. I lost more Jewish friends than one after the publication of Journey to Jerusalem, all sad losses for me and one, perhaps, saddest of all. In the 1960s and 1970s, before going to the Middle East, I had written about the plight of blacks in a book entitled Soul Sister, and the plight of American Indians in a book entitled Bessie Yellowhair, and the problems endured by undocumented workers crossing from Mexico in The Illegals. These books had come to the attention of the "mother" of The New York Times, Mrs. Arthur Hays Sulzberger. Her father had started the newspaper, then her husband ran it, and in the years that I knew her, her son was the publisher. She invited me to her fashionable apartment on Fifth Avenue for lunches and dinner parties. And, on many occasions, I was a weekend guest at her Greenwich, Conneticut home. She was liberal-minded and praised my efforts to speak for the underdog, even going so far in one letter to say, "You are the most remarkable woman I ever knew." I had little concept that from being buoyed so high I could be dropped so suddenly when I discovered, from her point of view, the "wrong" underdog. As it happened, I was a weekend guest in her spacious Connecticut home when she read bound galleys of Journey to Jerusalem. As I was leaving, she handed the galleys back with a saddened look: "My dear, have you forgotten the Holocaust?" She felt that what happened in Nazi Germany to Jews several decades earlier should silence any criticism of the Jewish state. She could focus on a holocaust of Jews while negating a modern day holocaust of Palestinians. I realized, quite painfully, that our friendship was ending. Iphigene Sulzberger had not only invited me to her home to meet her famous friends but, also at her suggestion, The Times had requested articles. I wrote op-ed articles on various subjects including American blacks, American Indians as well as undocumented workers. Since Mrs. Sulzberger and other Jewish officials at the Times highly praised my efforts to help these groups of oppressed peoples, the dichotomy became apparent: most "liberal" U.S. Jews stand on the side of all poor and oppressed peoples save one: the Palestinians. How handily these liberal Jewish opinion-molders tend to diminish the Palestinians, to make them invisible, or to categorize them all as "terrorists." Interestingly, Iphigene Sulzberger had talked to me a great deal about her father, Adolph S. Ochs. She told me that he was not one of the early Zionists. He had not favored the creation of a Jewish state. Yet, increasingly, American Jews have fallen victim to Zionism, a nationalistic movement that passes for many as a religion. While the ethical instructions of all great religions, including the teachings of Moses, Muhammad and Christ, stress that all human beings are equal, militant Zionists take the position that the killing of a non-Jew does not count. israelis today, explains the anti-Zionist Jew israel Shahak, "are not basing their religion on the ethics of justice. They do not accept the Old Testament as it is written. Rather, religious Jews turn to the Talmud. For them, the Talmudic Jewish laws become 'the Bible.' And the Talmud teaches that a Jew can kill a non-Jew with impunity." In the teachings of Christ there was a break from such Talmudic teachings. He sought to heal the wounded, to comfort the downtrodden. The danger, of course, for U.S. Christians is that having made an icon of israel, we fall into a trap of condoning whatever israel does, even wanton murder, as orchestrated by God. Yet I am not alone in suggesting that the churches in the United States represent the last major organized support for Palestinian rights. This imperative is due in part to our historic links to the Land of Christ and in part to the moral issues involved with having our tax dollars fund israeli-government-approved violations of human rights. While israel and its dedicated U.S. Jewish supporters know they have the president and most of Congress in their hands, they worry about grassroots America, the well-meaning Christians who care for justice. Thus far, most Christians were unaware of what it was they didn't know about israel. They were indoctrinated by U.S. supporters of israel in their own country and when they traveled to the Land of Christ most did so under israeli sponsorship. That being the case, it was unlikely a Christian ever met a Palestinian or learned what caused the israeli-Palestinian conflict. This is gradually changing, however. And this change disturbs the israelis. As an example, delegates attending a Christian Sabeel conference in Bethlehem earlier this year said they were harassed by israeli security at the Tel Aviv airport. "They asked us," said one delegate, "'Why did you use a Palestinian travel agency? Why didn't you use an israeli agency?'" The interrogation was so extensive and hostile that Sabeel leaders called a special session to brief the delegates on how to handle the harassment. Obviously, said one delegate, "The israelis have a policy to discourage us from visiting the Holy Land except under their sponsorship. They don't want Christians to start learning all they have never known about israel." Grace Halsell is a Washington, DC-based writer and author of Journey to Jerusalem and Prophecy and Politics.
  9. Holy Holocaust!

    Many people have fallen into the Zionist trap of loose and etymologically incorrect use of the term "anti-semitism", as if this only applied with regard to Jews. Kudos to their propaganda of course. The Arabs (not all of whom are Muslims) are also a semitic race. Therefore the term "anti-semite" can also mean "anti-Arab". It would also be very strange for an Arab to be "anti-semitic". Islam is against racism in any form. A Muslim who is a racist would be going against the teachings of his own religion which teaches that no race is superior to another. Muslims don't need racists to tell us that we are racists. If we were we wouldn't be Muslims. Muslims have absolutely no reason to hate Jews in particular or any other race in general. If this was so there would not be any Jews becoming Muslims, yet there are. But I have yet to come across any Muslim becoming a Judaist! Is it because the Jews are racists themselves or is there any other reason for this? Does this even make the Jews in general racist? I would think not, given that not all Jews nowadays actually practice Judaism and being Jewish to many merely means their cultural and racial identity. Not all Jews even support Zionism - which is itself a racist ideology. It is all very easy and convenient for criticism against a group of people of a particular race to be labelled as "racist" when it may not be so, since not all members of that race may be the subject of that criticism. Such labelling of course is nothing but a well-calculated smear which would deflect from having to respond to the actual criticism itself by the implication that being "racist" there is no basis for it, even if it was actually justified or true. Very convenient when one wants to avoid having to deal with the real issues or to face the truth! But this is nothing but a cheap trick employed by bigots. It puts an abrupt end to all intellectual discussion and betrays not only the deceptive shallowness of anyone using it but also his utter and complete moral and spiritual bankruptcy. Such a person is in fact if not a racist himself then a supporter of racism, whether he realises it or not! As Lenni Brenner concludes in his contribution to the anthology "The Politics of Anti-Semitism", "Bluntly put: if you want to end today's "anti-Semitism" against Jews, end Zionism's "anti-Semitism" against Palestinians." Regards, yusufar islamicunityfoundation Anti-Arab = Anti-Semite Anti-Palestinian = Anti-Humanity Anti-Muslim = Anti-Peace Anti-Islam = Anti-Civilisation Are You Any Or All Of The Above?
  10. Greetings Eoin, Do israelis need any reason to do anything anywhere they please? Regards, yusufar islamicunityfoundation Anti-Arab = Anti-Semite Anti-Palestine = Anti-Humanity Anti-Muslim = Anti-Peace Anti-Islam = Anti-Civilisation
  11. This is the final part of an article "The Ascendancy of Finance Capital: Record Profits and Rising Authoritarianism" by James Petras Finance Capital and the War in the Middle East Finance capital was until recently predominantly made up of white Protestants and Jews. In the most recent period, Wall Street’s ethnic and religious base has broadened as corporate capital has taken over from family-owned banks. Nevertheless among the new generation of upwardly mobile speculators, there is a pronounced disproportion of individuals of Jewish origin, who are not necessarily religious or involved in Jewish or israeli communal activities, fund raising or politics. Nevertheless a significant affluent minority of prominent Jewish banking and real estate millionaires are active in financing and promoting israeli policy either directly or through the key pro-israel lobbies like AIPAC and the President of the Major Jewish Organizations. These lobbies have been in the forefront of promoting the Iraq War, a boycott or military attack on Iran and the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. The political muscle of this minority of israel-First wealthy Jewish financiers is not countered by any countervailing organization by other Jewish financial bankers or for that matter by Gentile, Muslim or Hindu financial tycoons. Through the political use of their wealth, strategic location and high status, this minority of politically active financiers is in a position to establish the parameters and policies of Middle East policies vie their dominant role in funding political parties (especially the Democratic Party), candidates and congressional representative. The Jewish and Gentile critics of the war deliberately exclude the role of the minority of wealthy Jews and their political lobbies in shaping US policy in the Middle East by focusing on the US and overseas oil companies (“No blood for oil!”). There is an abundance of evidence for the past 15 years that: 1. The oil companies did not promote a war policy 2. The wars have prejudiced their interests, operations and agreements with prominent Arab and Islamic regimes in the region 3. The interests of the oil companies have been sacrificed to the state interests of israel 4. The power of financial capital via the pro-israel lobbies exceeds that of the oil companies in shaping US Middle East policy. A thorough search through the publications and lobbying activities of the oil industry and the pro-israel lobbies over the past decade reveals an overwhelming amount of documentation demonstrating that the Jewish lobbies were far more pro-war than the oil industry. Moreover the public records of the oil industry demonstrate a high level of economic co-operation with all the Arab states and increasing market integration. In contrast the public pronouncements, publications and activities of the most economically powerful and influential pro-israel Jewish lobbies were directed toward increasing US government hostility to the Arab countries, including maximum pressure in favor of the war in Iraq, a boycott or military attack on Iran and US backing for israeli assassination and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. The most striking illustration of Jewish power in shaping US policy in the Middle East against the interest of Big Oil is demonstrated in US-Iran policy. As the Financial Times notes: “International oil companies are putting multi-billion dollar projects in Iran on hold, concerned about the diplomatic standoff (sic – US economic-military threats) over the country’s nuclear programme” (FT March 18/19, 2006 p.1). Despite the fact that billions of dollars in oil, gas and petro-chemical contracts are in play, the pro-israel lobby has influenced Congress to bar all major US oil companies from investing in Iran. Through its all out campaign in the US Congress and Administration, the US-Jewish-israeli lobby has created a war-like climate which now goes counter to the interests of all the world’s major oil companies including BP, the UK-based gas company, SASOL (South Africa, Royal Dutch Shell, Total of France and others. The myth of “war for oil” is circulated by almost all the major progressive Jewish intellectuals and parroted by their Gentile followers, who are in word and deed prohibited from mentioning the AIPAC word in any public meetings or manifestos. The power of the minority of politically active Jewish financiers in the pro-israel lobby is spreading far beyond the area of US foreign policy into the cultural, academic and economic life of the US. Three major events immediately come to mind. In New York City, a major theater production of the life of Rachael Corrie, an American humanitarian volunteer murdered in the Occupied Territories by an israeli Defense Force soldier driving a bulldozer, was cancelled because of Jewish pressure and financial threats. The theater admitted that the cancellation had to do with the “sensitivities” (and pocket book) of the issue to israel-Firsters. The pro-israel lobby’s defense and support of a minority opinion in favor of Middle East aggression is now extending its authoritarian reach into undermining the basic freedoms of American to free and open expression. The second example of the growing tyranny of the pro-israel minority over our civil liberties is the virulent campaign waged by all the major Jewish publications and pro-israel organizations against a well-documented essay written by Professor Walt of Harvard University and Professor Mearsheimer of University of Chicago critical of the lobby’s influence on US Middle East policy. From the ultra-rightwing Orthodox Jewish Press (which claims to be the largest “independent” Jewish newspaper in the US), to the formerly Social Democratic Forward, to the Jewish Weekly , all have launched together with all the major Jewish organizations, a propaganda campaign of defamation (“the new Protocols of Zion”, “anti-Semitic”, “sources from Neo-Nazi websites…”) and pressure for their purge from academia. The Jewish authoritartians have already partially succeeded. Their press releases have been published by the mass media without allowing for rebuttal by the academics under attack. Harvard University has demanded the identification of the Harvard Kennedy School be removed from the paper. The financier of the professorial chair (in his name) which Professor Walt, as academic dean, occupies at the Harvard Kennedy School, is no longer mentioned it in his publication. Ultra-Zionist Professor Dershowitz and his fellow Harvard zealots call into question their moral and academic qualification to teach. Both in the United States and France, legislation is being prepared to equate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism and to criminalize as a ‘hate crime’ the free expression of outrage over israeli atrocities and any criticism of the Lobby’s control of US Middle East policy. In the US, the proposed legislation would take the form of withdrawing federal funding from any academic institution where the policies of israel are criticized. As yet there is no organized opposition in the US by Jewish or Gentile academics or journalists to this erosion of free expression or a defense of the integrity of the two critics of the Lobby. There is no group of Jewish investors or financiers willing to fund a civil rights campaign in defense of free speech, academic and artistic freedom, to counter the minority Zionist financial elite. It is business as usual. Some Myths and a Few Insights: Capitalism and War In addition to the myth of the “war for oil” there are several facile misconceptions: Myth 1) - the dominance of financial capital leads to war: There is no evidence that financial capital performs better under war time conditions than in peace. In fact recent history demonstrates that ‘crisis’ provokes market volatility and sudden disruption which prejudices important financial ‘bets’ even as other benefits. Most of financial profits accrue from mergers and acquisitions with tend to increase due to competitive market conditions – not wars. The financiers who support war do so for their own personal-ideological reasons, ethnic identification and usually do so via ethnic-affiliated organizations not through financial associations. Thus the big contributions by a minority of Jewish financiers to the pro-war Zionist lobbies have less to do with their class affiliation and more to do with their identification with israel First organizations. Myth 2) – While financiers are a major funding source for the bellicose pro-israel lobbies and their congressional spokespeople, they are a minority among Jewish investment bankers, whose prime concern is maximizing the earnings of their banks and hence their incomes, and engaging in many non-Jewish social cultural and professional activities. Over half do not even marry within the Jewish community. Myth 3) - Many writers cite polls which suggest that most Jews, like other Americans now oppose the Iraq war. The fact remains however that they are not willing to criticize the pro-war Jewish lobby or to mention israel’s involvement in precipitating the war through its occupation of Palestine. Myth 4) – The pro-israel lobby is just like many other lobbies. The Jewish pro-israel lobby is uniquely powerful because it commands a vast network of grass roots organizations,150 full-time functionaries in Washington operating under discipline and commitment to a foreign power, israel. Moreover the lobby is financed by wealthy individuals in highly lucrative growth sectors (such as in the banking sector). Thirdly its long established reputation of threats and rewards to recalcitrant and to loyal Congress people, executives and opinion makers makes it an extraordinary and dangerous lobby. Conclusion The ascendancy of finance capital and its influence over US economic policy has had major, largely negative, consequences for the US economy, especially our living standards, external accounts and budget. The deregulated financial markets have led to record profits for Wall Street but it has also led to a series of speculative bubbles, which have bankrupted millions of retail investors. The loss of US industrial competitiveness is largely the result of the transfer of capital from productive innovations which increase competitiveness to speculative activity several times removed from the actual production of goods and services. “Derivative” and “Hedge funds” now equal the size of the US economy at $12 trillion dollars…a financial collapse waiting to happen. Financial capital in its most advanced stage of derivatives is based on bets on bets on bets…which has vastly increased the likelihood of economic collapse even as it widens the chasm between bankers and wage earners. The political power of finance capital has been exercised in the realm of economic policy and executive appointments; it has not been directly involved in formulating or benefiting from the war policies. However it has been compatible, supportive and benefited from its close ties and relations with the militarist policy elite in Congress and the Executive. The relation is mutually supportive. The Executive deregulates financial markets, lowers taxes, cuts social spending, appoints Wall Street friendly Federal Reserve Presidents, and in exchange Wall Street supports the imperial war ministers in the Cabinet and in Congress. Investment banks have been deeply involved in recycling Arab petroleum funds and engaging in large-scale mergers and acquisitions in the Middle East, while a minority but deeply engaged Jewish financiers have funded the pro-israel lobbies pushing for a more bellicose US policy toward the Arab and Islamic world. Wall Street’s position on the erosion of democratic freedoms has ranged from ambiguous to authoritarian. While backing the Administration’s Patriot Act, they opposed the blocking of Dubai’s purchase of US port terminal management. While an active minority backed the banning of the Rachael Corrie theater production and funds pro-israel organizations attempting to purge academics critical of israel, the majority look on with indifference. Rising authoritarianism and lucrative financial profiteering are compatible with the ascendancy of finance capital.
  12. America’s "Noble" Cause: Preserving its Right to Murder, Exploit, Torture, and Impoverish with Impunity By Jason Miller America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between. - Oscar Wilde “Why are we over there in Iraq?” “To protect our freedoms.” “How are the Iraqis threatening our freedoms?” “They attacked us on 9/11.” “If that is true, why are so many Americans against the war?” “I don’t know, but I think Cindy Sheehan and all the other war protestors should be rounded up and shot.” 04/10/06 "ICH" -- -- I was involved in this exchange with a co-worker about two months ago. I was utterly perplexed at how this individual managed the obvious cognitive dissonance created by thinking that we are fighting to protect our “freedoms” while simultaneously holding the notion that non-violent dissidents “should be rounded up and shot”. In retrospect, why was I so surprised? As a vehement critic of the United States government’s foreign and domestic policies, I have received numerous death threats from “patriotic” loyalists to the American Empire over the last year. Recently, a severely brain-washed US resident who maintains a site called American Jihad issued a “Farwa” (his spelling) against the editors of Counterpunch, Dissident Voice, and Uruknet and against dissident writers Mike Whitney and Kurt Nimmo. Many of my essays have appeared on Dissident Voice and Uruknet, so I suppose I am a target of the “Farwa” too. Violent Extremists Abound While many death threats issued by American hate-mongers may be hollow, the nations of the Middle East do not have the market cornered on fanatical ideologues who commit acts of terror. Timothy McVeigh, Eric Rudolph, Michael Griffin, Paul Hill, Ted Kaczynski, Baruch Goldstein, David Lane, Donald DeFreeze, Clayton Waagner and Earl Krugel are but a few of America’s home-grown violent extremists. America, and often components of its government, have a history of assassinating dissidents who become too powerful as they pursue equality and human rights. Fred Hampton, Malcolm X, RFK, MLK, and Paul Wellstone each met a premature demise which ended their efforts to introduce real social justice into the Empire. Your Mind is our Vessel Actually, I suspect many of the ardent supporters of the American Empire truly believe that they are preserving and spreading noble principles like freedom, democracy, equality, and human rights. There is no shortage of propaganda to convince them of this “fact”. Delusions and illusions “generously” provided by the corporate-controlled mainstream media afford Empire loyalists with the opportunity to avoid the burden of independent thinking. Sound-bites, canards, propaganda, stereo-types, and white-washed versions of the truth supply their programmed minds with a virtually endless loop of rationalizations to justify their approbation of a morally reprehensible entity. People who continue to nurse at the bosom of Lady Liberty, the noble symbol of an imaginary land which has never existed, rail against those who seek peace, social and economic justice, and human rights. In their perverse worldview, health care, safety, ample nourishment, and adequate shelter are reserved for a select segment of the population in the Empire’s homeland. Those of us who believe in a more just and equitable world are indeed a threat to the oppressive capitalist imperialism of the United States. To perpetuate the Empire’s military dominance and parasitic exploitation of humanity, our attempts to awaken and rally the masses must be stopped by any means necessary. Often accusing proponents of a more just and humane world of seeking “entitlements” for the poor and oppressed, the foot soldiers of the Empire are actually struggling with virtually every fiber of their being to preserve what they believe to be their own entitlements. Since the concept of “might making right” reinforces their belief that their “special rights” supersede the Bill of Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it is time to identify and enumerate these exclusive privileges: Inalienable Rights of Select Citizens of the American Empire 1. We have the right to pre-emptively attack the nation or region of our choice simply based on our belief that they may be a threat to the Empire. No evidence necessary. 2. We have established and will maintain the right to murder an unlimited number of innocent civilians so long as our military machine does the killing and we label the victims as “collateral damage”. 3. We have the right to label whomever we choose as “terrorists” or “enemy combatants” and to hold them indefinitely without a trial. 4. We are exempt from the Geneva Conventions and have the right to commit acts of torture or to rendition our unconvicted prisoners to other countries which will torture them. 5. We have the right to continue glorifying and justifying the land theft and genocide we committed against Native Americans. 6. We have the right to continue to claiming we are the “leader of the free world” when slavery was a legal institution in our nation until the Civil War, women were not able to vote until the Twentieth Century, institutionalized segregation existed until the 1960’s, and we deny 5% of our population (Gays and Lesbians) equal rights and protection under the Constitution. 7. We have the right to sell ourselves as a “democracy” despite the fact that we are a constitutional republic, and despite the fact that corporate interests, lobbyists, wealthy campaign donors, and israel shape most of our foreign and domestic policy. 8. We have the right to bill ourselves as a “bastion of human rights” (and thus justify our imperial interventions) despite the fact that we have the highest prison population in the world, we have a government which tortures on a wide scale, and we are one of the few “developed” nations which metes out the death penalty. 9. We have the right to hoard the largest stockpile of weapons of mass destruction in the history of humankind while prohibiting other nations from possessing such weapons. We also are the only nation with the right to employ WMD’s on a wide scale, as evidenced by our annihilation of over 100,000 Japanese civilians. 10. We have the right to plunder 25% of the world’s resources to provide for a scant 5% of the world’s population, while blustering that if the rest of the world embraced laissez-faire capitalism, they could reap the same bountiful harvest. (Forget the mathematical impossibilities involved. Those just get in the way of the propaganda!) 11. We have the right to continue to empower multi-national corporations with the rights of person-hood, limit their exposure to criminal prosecution and civil suits, and to enable them to exploit human beings in other nations. As long as our corporate friends are showing a profit, they can operate sweat-shops, facilitate the murder of labor agitators, maintain monopolies, off-shore American jobs while exploiting the foreign workers who take them, avoid paying taxes by setting up “shell headquarters” in places like Bermuda, destroy the environment, and continue the race to the bottom in wages and benefits, here and abroad. 12. We have the right to maintain and enhance a socio-economic system that places a significant portion of the world’s wealth in the hands of about 3 million people (approximately one percent of the US population). Tax cuts and an end to estate taxes will ensure that the Empire’s plutocracy perpetuates its reign. We have the right to foster a malevolent world economic order which results in 3 billion human beings living on less than $2 per day. 13. We have the right to account for half of the world’s military expenditures to “provide for the common defense” of 5% of the world’s population while 46 million of our people have no health insurance, 13% of the overall American population lives in poverty, over a million are homeless, an alarmingly high percentage of Black America suffers poverty and receives a pathetic education, and crises like New Orleans result in passive mass murder and diasporas of “undesirables”. 14. We have the right to send military recruiters into public schools. Our recruiters have access to student addresses and phone numbers and we pay them to use propaganda and financial incentives to entice our youth into sacrificing themselves for the latest imperial crusade. 15. We have the right to accrue as much public and personal debt as we deem “necessary” to perpetuate the American Dream for our nation and to satiate our personal obsessions with acquiring material possessions. 16. We have the right to impose our hollow, shallow, and violent cultural values on a world cowed into acceptance by the raw military and economic power of the American Empire. 17. We have the right to spy on our citizens, eliminate habeas corpus, and contract private companies like Blackwater to avoid the constraints of posse comitatus. It is of no concern to us that our actions seriously conflict with the US Constitution. 18. We have the right to produce 25% of greenhouse gasses, ignore and discount mounting evidence of global warming, and refuse to sign the Kyoto Treaty. 19. We have the right to malign, threaten, intimidate, or kill those within the Empire who have the audacity to question or oppose our agenda. 20. We have the right to maintain a corrupt Duopoly consisting of the Republican and Democratic Parties, which consistently present American voters with candidates whose goals are to perpetuate the Empire and the agendas of its corporate and plutocratic leaders. 21. We have the right to use the IMF and World Bank to impose our economic will on “developing” nations which we “help” by burdening them with crushing debt. 22. We have the right to ignore and violate international law while demanding that the rest of the world (excepting Great Britain and israel) adhere to it stringently. 23. We have the right to subsidize and support israel’s ongoing ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians. 24. We have the right to concentrate the power of the United States government in the hands of the Executive Branch under the pretext that it is necessitated by the “War on Terror”. 25. We have the right to label those who dare to oppose our invasions or genocides as savages or terrorists and strip them of their human rights. There you have it. Now the American Empire’s principal supporters and beneficiaries have their own “Bill of Rights”. Ironically, it has more than twice the number of rights guaranteed to all Americans under the original Constitutional Amendments. Since the true Bill of Rights is anathema to their cause, it is essential that the Empire loyalists’ “special rights” outnumber the rights protected by our Constitution. A Severe Spiritual Malady Certainly believing in America’s and its supporters’ entitlement to these “special rights” would qualify one as a sociopath (one with minimal concern for the welfare and feelings of others) within the world community. However, in the American Empire, those subscribing to such depraved and self-centered “rights” receive affirmation and acceptance. Obviously this Bill of Rights II is my construct and does not formally exist. However, each of the entitlements I enumerated is necessary to enable the United States to exist in its current perverse form. If you truly support and pledge allegiance to the American Empire, this Bill of Rights II represents the core of your sociopolitical beliefs. For those of you who embrace the notion that Divine Providence bestowed these “inalienable rights” upon you and your nation, I call upon you to search your souls. I challenge you to do a long and fearless moral inventory. If you do, and the maleficent elements of the United States of America have not managed to burn your conscience out of your psyche, I predict you will begin the journey to rejoin the brotherhood of humanity by renouncing your support of the American Empire. If you are so narcissistic (or perhaps morally bereft) that you have no problem with the means by which the American Empire sustains its unregenerate existence, at least consider a pragmatic angle. The United States is pursuing a ruthless course which will eventually lead to a fierce and violent backlash, which will probably affect you. The 6.2 billion other members of the human race are only going to accept so much abuse before they strike back in a powerful way. Jason Miller is a 39 year old sociopolitical essayist with a degree in liberal arts and an extensive self-education. When he is not spending time with his wife and three sons, researching, or writing, he is working as a loan counselor. He is a member of Amnesty International and an avid supporter of Oxfam International and Human Rights Watch. He welcomes responses at willpowerful[at]hotmail(contact admin if its a beneficial link) or comments on his blog, Thomas Paine's Corner, at (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_civillibertarian.blogspot(contact admin if its a beneficial link)"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_civillibertarian.blogspot(contact admin if its a beneficial link)[/url].
  13. "to Hell With All Of You"

    "To Hell With All of You" The Power of Saying No By JEFF HALPER Counterpunch 3/20/06 As the new Hamas government is sworn into power in the Palestinian Authority, we might ask: What would bring a people, the most secular of Arab populations with little history of religious fundamentalism, to vote Hamas? Mere protest at Fatah ineffectualness in negotiations and internal corruption doesn't go far enough. While warning Hamas that their vote did not constitute a mandate for imposing an Iran-like theocracy on Palestine, the Palestinians took the only option left to a powerless people when all other avenues of redress have been closed to them: non-cooperation. Gandhi put it best: "How can one be compelled to accept slavery? I simply refuse to do the master's bidding. He may torture me, break my bones to atoms and even kill me. He will then have my dead body, not my obedience. Ultimately, therefore, it is I who am the victor and not he, for he has failed in getting me to do what he wanted done. Non-cooperation is directed not againstthe Governors, but against the system they administer. The roots of non-cooperation lie not in hatred but in justice." Non-cooperation, perhaps the most powerful means of non-violent resistance, arises in situations when the oppressed have no other avenues to achieve their freedom and their rights. Since it is the international community, the US, israel and, yes, Fatah, who have closed all avenues of redress to the Palestinians, they carry the "blame" for the rise of Hamas. It is to them that the message of the Palestinian electorate is aimed: "To hell with all of you!" To hell with the international community that closed off Palestinians' appeal to international law and human rights conventions. Had only the Fourth Geneva Convention been applied, israel could never have constructed its Occupation in the first place. International law defines an occupation as a temporary military situation that can only be resolved through negotiations. Therefore an Occupying Power such as israel is prohibited from taking any unilateral action that makes its control permanent. Besides its military bases, every single element of israel's Occupation is patently illegal: settlements and the construction of a massive system of israel-only highways that link the West Bank settlements to israel proper; the extension of israel's legal and planning system into occupied Palestinian areas; the plunder of Palestinian water and other resources for israeli use; house demolitions and the expropriation of Palestinian lands; the intentional impoverishment of the local population; military attacks on civilian populations -- to name but a few. Even when israel's construction of the "Separation Barrier" was ruled illegal by the International Court of Justice in the Hague and its ruling ratified by the General Assembly, nothing was done to stop it. To hell with the United States that closed off negotiations as an avenue for redressing Palestinian rights and for enabling israel to make its Occupation permanent. At the very start of the Oslo "peace process," at israel's urging, the US reclassified the Palestinian areas from "occupied" to "disputed," thus removing international law as the basis of negotiations and pulling the rug out from under the Palestinians. Had international law been respected, the Occupation would have ended under the weight of its own illegality. But once power became the only basis of negotiations, israel easily overwhelmed the Palestinians. Until today Palestinians have nothing to look for in negotiations. With the Americans supporting israeli unilateralism, with the US veto neutralizing the UN as an effective avenue of redress, and with European passivity, they have been cut adrift. To hell with israel that has closed off even the possibility of a viable Palestinian state by expanding into Palestinian areas. The world ignored the Palestinians' "generous offer" to israel: recognition within the 1967 borders in return for a Palestinian state in the Occupied Territories. Or in other words, an israel on 78% of historic Palestine with the Palestinians--today a majority in the country--accepting a state only on 22%. israel is now posed, with American support and international complicity, to make its Occupation permanent and reduce the Palestinians to a prison-state truncated into five "cantons" all controlled by israel. No borders, no freedom of movement, no water, no viable economy, no Jerusalem, no possibility of offering a hopeful future to the traumatized, brutalized, undereducated, unskilled, impoverished Palestinian youth. And to hell with Fatah that, in addition to enabling corruption, did not effectively pursue the Palestinians' national agenda of self-determination. The Palestinian Authority ran its affairs removed from the people, failing to provide material and moral support to victims of israeli attacks and policies of house demolitions. Most Palestinians did not vote Hamas (only 44% did), so the door was not closed on Fatah which, most Palestinians seem to hope, will learn its lesson from this setback. Indeed, the vote for Hamas was not a closing of the door at all, but a rational, intentional and powerful statement of non-cooperation in a political process that is only leading to Palestinian imprisonment. Hamas, if anything, stands for steadfastness, sumud, the refusal to submit. This conflict is too destabilizing to the entire global system to let fester, the Palestinians are saying. You can all impose upon us an apartheid system, blame us for the violence while ignoring israeli State Terror, pursue your programs of American Empire or your notions of a "clash of civilizations," we the Palestinians will not submit. We will not cooperate. We will not play your rigged game. In the end, for all your power, you will come to us to sue for peace. And then we will be ready for a just peace that respects the rights of all the peoples of the region, including the israelis. But you will not beat us. As an israeli Jew who sees how the Occupation has eroded the moral foundations of my society and, indeed, my entire people, and as a resident of israel-Palestine who knows that my fate is intricately intertwined with that of the Palestinians, I pray that such an end will come sooner rather than later.
  14. Israeli Soldier Killed In Jenin

    Assalamualaikum/Peace, I'm afraid I have to agree with Darla on this issue. Death, even of our worst enemy, should never be a cause for rejoicing, relief perhaps, but not rejoicing. Killing is sometimes necessary, especially when faced with an aggressor also bent on eliminating us. But this does not mean that we should be happy about killing. Rather it should make us sad that we were forced to kill someone, even to save ourselves. Are we to be like our enemies? Let them rejoice. That does not mean we should forget or overlook their transgressions, merely that we should maintain our dignity, honour and self-respect by not succumbing to the temptation to gloat as they do. Do we resort to killing, torturing and raping innocent people just because our enemies do? I think it is clear that Islam does not allow the harming of civilian non-combatants in any way in war. Indiscriminate suicide bombings, even more so suicide bombings which target civilians, do more harm than good to the Palestinian and Muslim cause, much as we can understand the frustration behind the same. On top of that, it can be considered to be murder, even in Islam. Would the suicide then be matyrdom? I thought any suicide was wrong in Islam, even if the target was a legitimate military one. Now, israeli soldiers are fair targets and if I was a Palestinian I would probably make it my duty to kill as many as possible. But given the situation in Palestine today, will more killing make the Jews disappear or israel withdraw? Not unless the Palestinians became more effective killing machines than the israeli Devils' Force. Palestinians have to face the fact that israel is there to stay, at least for now. The question therefore is what do they want to do about it? Do they want to carry on fighting forever or until the whole Muslim world is strong and united enough to eliminate israel? Is the elimination of one side or the other the only way that the conflict must end? Would the Palestinians be willing to leave israel alone and be happy with their own independent state? The way I see it, if both sides want peace, then each must be prepared to give up some land which they could or would otherwise claim. The longer the conflict drags on, the more land the Palestinians stand to lose. There comes a time when one has to be practical, bitter though it may be to compromise. War and killing each other is not always the only answer. There is no shame in such a compromise. The Palestinians have tried their best, but without a united Muslim world behind them, there is a limit to which they can defend their homeland. The israelis also realise that they cannot continue to occupy all of Palestinian land on an extended basis. Let there be peace for a while and see how it goes. If israel continues or extends its transgressions, it will one day be dealt with just as it was 2000 years ago.
  15. Iran Plans

    THE IRAN PLANS Would President Bush go to war to stop Tehran from getting the bomb? by SEYMOUR M. HERSH Issue of 2006-04-17 Posted 2006-04-10 The Bush Administration, while publicly advocating diplomacy in order to stop Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapon, has increased clandestine activities inside Iran and intensified planning for a possible major air attack. Current and former American military and intelligence officials said that Air Force planning groups are drawing up lists of targets, and teams of American combat troops have been ordered into Iran, under cover, to collect targeting data and to establish contact with anti-government ethnic-minority groups. The officials say that President Bush is determined to deny the Iranian regime the opportunity to begin a pilot program, planned for this spring, to enrich uranium. American and European intelligence agencies, and the International Atomic Energy Agency (I.A.E.A.), agree that Iran is intent on developing the capability to produce nuclear weapons. But there are widely differing estimates of how long that will take, and whether diplomacy, sanctions, or military action is the best way to prevent it. Iran insists that its research is for peaceful use only, in keeping with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and that it will not be delayed or deterred. There is a growing conviction among members of the United States military, and in the international community, that President Bush’s ultimate goal in the nuclear confrontation with Iran is regime change. Iran’s President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has challenged the reality of the Holocaust and said that israel must be “wiped off the map.” Bush and others in the White House view him as a potential Adolf Hitler, a former senior intelligence official said. “That’s the name they’re using. They say, ‘Will Iran get a strategic weapon and threaten another world war?’ ” A government consultant with close ties to the civilian leadership in the Pentagon said that Bush was “absolutely convinced that Iran is going to get the bomb” if it is not stopped. He said that the President believes that he must do “what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do,” and “that saving Iran is going to be his legacy.” One former defense official, who still deals with sensitive issues for the Bush Administration, told me that the military planning was premised on a belief that “a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government.” He added, “I was shocked when I heard it, and asked myself, ‘What are they smoking?’ ” The rationale for regime change was articulated in early March by Patrick Clawson, an Iran expert who is the deputy director for research at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and who has been a supporter of President Bush. “So long as Iran has an Islamic republic, it will have a nuclear-weapons program, at least clandestinely,” Clawson told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on March 2nd. “The key issue, therefore, is: How long will the present Iranian regime last?” When I spoke to Clawson, he emphasized that “this Administration is putting a lot of effort into diplomacy.” However, he added, Iran had no choice other than to accede to America’s demands or face a military attack. Clawson said that he fears that Ahmadinejad “sees the West as wimps and thinks we will eventually cave in. We have to be ready to deal with Iran if the crisis escalates.” Clawson said that he would prefer to rely on sabotage and other clandestine activities, such as “industrial accidents.” But, he said, it would be prudent to prepare for a wider war, “given the way the Iranians are acting. This is not like planning to invade Quebec.” One military planner told me that White House criticisms of Iran and the high tempo of planning and clandestine activities amount to a campaign of “coercion” aimed at Iran. “You have to be ready to go, and we’ll see how they respond,” the officer said. “You have to really show a threat in order to get Ahmadinejad to back down.” He added, “People think Bush has been focussed on Saddam Hussein since 9/11,” but, “in my view, if you had to name one nation that was his focus all the way along, it was Iran.” (In response to detailed requests for comment, the White House said that it would not comment on military planning but added, “As the President has indicated, we are pursuing a diplomatic solution”; the Defense Department also said that Iran was being dealt with through “diplomatic channels” but wouldn’t elaborate on that; the C.I.A. said that there were “inaccuracies” in this account but would not specify them.) “This is much more than a nuclear issue,” one high-ranking diplomat told me in Vienna. “That’s just a rallying point, and there is still time to fix it. But the Administration believes it cannot be fixed unless they control the hearts and minds of Iran. The real issue is who is going to control the Middle East and its oil in the next ten years.” A senior Pentagon adviser on the war on terror expressed a similar view. “This White House believes that the only way to solve the problem is to change the power structure in Iran, and that means war,” he said. The danger, he said, was that “it also reinforces the belief inside Iran that the only way to defend the country is to have a nuclear capability.” A military conflict that destabilized the region could also increase the risk of terror: “Hezbollah comes into play,” the adviser said, referring to the terror group that is considered one of the world’s most successful, and which is now a Lebanese political party with strong ties to Iran. “And here comes Al Qaeda.” In recent weeks, the President has quietly initiated a series of talks on plans for Iran with a few key senators and members of Congress, including at least one Democrat. A senior member of the House Appropriations Committee, who did not take part in the meetings but has discussed their content with his colleagues, told me that there had been “no formal briefings,” because “they’re reluctant to brief the minority. They’re doing the Senate, somewhat selectively.” The House member said that no one in the meetings “is really objecting” to the talk of war. “The people they’re briefing are the same ones who led the charge on Iraq. At most, questions are raised: How are you going to hit all the sites at once? How are you going to get deep enough?” (Iran is building facilities underground.) “There’s no pressure from Congress” not to take military action, the House member added. “The only political pressure is from the guys who want to do it.” Speaking of President Bush, the House member said, “The most worrisome thing is that this guy has a messianic vision.” Some operations, apparently aimed in part at intimidating Iran, are already under way. American Naval tactical aircraft, operating from carriers in the Arabian Sea, have been flying simulated nuclear-weapons delivery missions—rapid ascending maneuvers known as “over the shoulder” bombing—since last summer, the former official said, within range of Iranian coastal radars. Last month, in a paper given at a conference on Middle East security in Berlin, Colonel Sam Gardiner, a military analyst who taught at the National War College before retiring from the Air Force, in 1987, provided an estimate of what would be needed to destroy Iran’s nuclear program. Working from satellite photographs of the known facilities, Gardiner estimated that at least four hundred targets would have to be hit. He added: I don’t think a U.S. military planner would want to stop there. Iran probably has two chemical-production plants. We would hit those. We would want to hit the medium-range ballistic missiles that have just recently been moved closer to Iraq. There are fourteen airfields with sheltered aircraft. . . . We’d want to get rid of that threat. We would want to hit the assets that could be used to threaten Gulf shipping. That means targeting the cruise-missile sites and the Iranian diesel submarines. . . . Some of the facilities may be too difficult to target even with penetrating weapons. The U.S. will have to use Special Operations units. One of the military’s initial option plans, as presented to the White House by the Pentagon this winter, calls for the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, against underground nuclear sites. One target is Iran’s main centrifuge plant, at Natanz, nearly two hundred miles south of Tehran. Natanz, which is no longer under I.A.E.A. safeguards, reportedly has underground floor space to hold fifty thousand centrifuges, and laboratories and workspaces buried approximately seventy-five feet beneath the surface. That number of centrifuges could provide enough enriched uranium for about twenty nuclear warheads a year. (Iran has acknowledged that it initially kept the existence of its enrichment program hidden from I.A.E.A. inspectors, but claims that none of its current activity is barred by the Non-Proliferation Treaty.) The elimination of Natanz would be a major setback for Iran’s nuclear ambitions, but the conventional weapons in the American arsenal could not insure the destruction of facilities under seventy-five feet of earth and rock, especially if they are reinforced with concrete. There is a Cold War precedent for targeting deep underground bunkers with nuclear weapons. In the early nineteen-eighties, the American intelligence community watched as the Soviet government began digging a huge underground complex outside Moscow. Analysts concluded that the underground facility was designed for “continuity of government”—for the political and military leadership to survive a nuclear war. (There are similar facilities, in Virginia and Pennsylvania, for the American leadership.) The Soviet facility still exists, and much of what the U.S. knows about it remains classified. “The ‘tell’ ”—the giveaway—“was the ventilator shafts, some of which were disguised,” the former senior intelligence official told me. At the time, he said, it was determined that “only nukes” could destroy the bunker. He added that some American intelligence analysts believe that the Russians helped the Iranians design their underground facility. “We see a similarity of design,” specifically in the ventilator shafts, he said. A former high-level Defense Department official told me that, in his view, even limited bombing would allow the U.S. to “go in there and do enough damage to slow down the nuclear infrastructure—it’s feasible.” The former defense official said, “The Iranians don’t have friends, and we can tell them that, if necessary, we’ll keep knocking back their infrastructure. The United States should act like we’re ready to go.” He added, “We don’t have to knock down all of their air defenses. Our stealth bombers and standoff missiles really work, and we can blow fixed things up. We can do things on the ground, too, but it’s difficult and very dangerous—put bad stuff in ventilator shafts and put them to sleep.” But those who are familiar with the Soviet bunker, according to the former senior intelligence official, “say ‘No way.’ You’ve got to know what’s underneath—to know which ventilator feeds people, or diesel generators, or which are false. And there’s a lot that we don’t know.” The lack of reliable intelligence leaves military planners, given the goal of totally destroying the sites, little choice but to consider the use of tactical nuclear weapons. “Every other option, in the view of the nuclear weaponeers, would leave a gap,” the former senior intelligence official said. “ ‘Decisive’ is the key word of the Air Force’s planning. It’s a tough decision. But we made it in Japan.” He went on, “Nuclear planners go through extensive training and learn the technical details of damage and fallout—we’re talking about mushroom clouds, radiation, mass casualties, and contamination over years. This is not an underground nuclear test, where all you see is the earth raised a little bit. These politicians don’t have a clue, and whenever anybody tries to get it out”—remove the nuclear option—“they’re shouted down.” The attention given to the nuclear option has created serious misgivings inside the offices of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he added, and some officers have talked about resigning. Late this winter, the Joint Chiefs of Staff sought to remove the nuclear option from the evolving war plans for Iran—without success, the former intelligence official said. “The White House said, ‘Why are you challenging this? The option came from you.’ ” The Pentagon adviser on the war on terror confirmed that some in the Administration were looking seriously at this option, which he linked to a resurgence of interest in tactical nuclear weapons among Pentagon civilians and in policy circles. He called it “a juggernaut that has to be stopped.” He also confirmed that some senior officers and officials were considering resigning over the issue. “There are very strong sentiments within the military against brandishing nuclear weapons against other countries,” the adviser told me. “This goes to high levels.” The matter may soon reach a decisive point, he said, because the Joint Chiefs had agreed to give President Bush a formal recommendation stating that they are strongly opposed to considering the nuclear option for Iran. “The internal debate on this has hardened in recent weeks,” the adviser said. “And, if senior Pentagon officers express their opposition to the use of offensive nuclear weapons, then it will never happen.” The adviser added, however, that the idea of using tactical nuclear weapons in such situations has gained support from the Defense Science Board, an advisory panel whose members are selected by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. “They’re telling the Pentagon that we can build the B61 with more blast and less radiation,” he said. The chairman of the Defense Science Board is William Schneider, Jr., an Under-Secretary of State in the Reagan Administration. In January, 2001, as President Bush prepared to take office, Schneider served on an ad-hoc panel on nuclear forces sponsored by the National Institute for Public Policy, a conservative think tank. The panel’s report recommended treating tactical nuclear weapons as an essential part of the U.S. arsenal and noted their suitability “for those occasions when the certain and prompt destruction of high priority targets is essential and beyond the promise of conventional weapons.” Several signers of the report are now prominent members of the Bush Administration, including Stephen Hadley, the national-security adviser; Stephen Cambone, the Under-Secretary of Defense for Intelligence; and Robert Joseph, the Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security. The Pentagon adviser questioned the value of air strikes. “The Iranians have distributed their nuclear activity very well, and we have no clue where some of the key stuff is. It could even be out of the country,” he said. He warned, as did many others, that bombing Iran could provoke “a chain reaction” of attacks on American facilities and citizens throughout the world: “What will 1.2 billion Muslims think the day we attack Iran?” With or without the nuclear option, the list of targets may inevitably expand. One recently retired high-level Bush Administration official, who is also an expert on war planning, told me that he would have vigorously argued against an air attack on Iran, because “Iran is a much tougher target” than Iraq. But, he added, “If you’re going to do any bombing to stop the nukes, you might as well improve your lie across the board. Maybe hit some training camps, and clear up a lot of other problems.” The Pentagon adviser said that, in the event of an attack, the Air Force intended to strike many hundreds of targets in Iran but that “ninety-nine per cent of them have nothing to do with proliferation. There are people who believe it’s the way to operate”—that the Administration can achieve its policy goals in Iran with a bombing campaign, an idea that has been supported by neoconservatives. If the order were to be given for an attack, the American combat troops now operating in Iran would be in position to mark the critical targets with laser beams, to insure bombing accuracy and to minimize civilian casualties. As of early winter, I was told by the government consultant with close ties to civilians in the Pentagon, the units were also working with minority groups in Iran, including the Azeris, in the north, the Baluchis, in the southeast, and the Kurds, in the northeast. The troops “are studying the terrain, and giving away walking-around money to ethnic tribes, and recruiting scouts from local tribes and shepherds,” the consultant said. One goal is to get “eyes on the ground”—quoting a line from “Othello,” he said, “Give me the ocular proof.” The broader aim, the consultant said, is to “encourage ethnic tensions” and undermine the regime. The new mission for the combat troops is a product of Defense Secretary Rumsfeld’s long-standing interest in expanding the role of the military in covert operations, which was made official policy in the Pentagon’s Quadrennial Defense Review, published in February. Such activities, if conducted by C.I.A. operatives, would need a Presidential Finding and would have to be reported to key members of Congress. “ ‘Force protection’ is the new buzzword,” the former senior intelligence official told me. He was referring to the Pentagon’s position that clandestine activities that can be broadly classified as preparing the battlefield or protecting troops are military, not intelligence, operations, and are therefore not subject to congressional oversight. “The guys in the Joint Chiefs of Staff say there are a lot of uncertainties in Iran,” he said. “We need to have more than what we had in Iraq. Now we have the green light to do everything we want.” The President’s deep distrust of Ahmadinejad has strengthened his determination to confront Iran. This view has been reinforced by allegations that Ahmadinejad, who joined a special-forces brigade of the Revolutionary Guards in 1986, may have been involved in terrorist activities in the late eighties. (There are gaps in Ahmadinejad’s official biography in this period.) Ahmadinejad has reportedly been connected to Imad Mughniyeh, a terrorist who has been implicated in the deadly bombings of the U.S. Embassy and the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, in 1983. Mughniyeh was then the security chief of Hezbollah; he remains on the F.B.I.’s list of most-wanted terrorists. Robert Baer, who was a C.I.A. officer in the Middle East and elsewhere for two decades, told me that Ahmadinejad and his Revolutionary Guard colleagues in the Iranian government “are capable of making a bomb, hiding it, and launching it at israel. They’re apocalyptic Shiites. If you’re sitting in Tel Aviv and you believe they’ve got nukes and missiles—you’ve got to take them out. These guys are nuts, and there’s no reason to back off.” Under Ahmadinejad, the Revolutionary Guards have expanded their power base throughout the Iranian bureaucracy; by the end of January, they had replaced thousands of civil servants with their own members. One former senior United Nations official, who has extensive experience with Iran, depicted the turnover as “a white coup,” with ominous implications for the West. “Professionals in the Foreign Ministry are out; others are waiting to be kicked out,” he said. “We may be too late. These guys now believe that they are stronger than ever since the revolution.” He said that, particularly in consideration of China’s emergence as a superpower, Iran’s attitude was “To hell with the West. You can do as much as you like.” Iran’s supreme religious leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, is considered by many experts to be in a stronger position than Ahmadinejad. “Ahmadinejad is not in control,” one European diplomat told me. “Power is diffuse in Iran. The Revolutionary Guards are among the key backers of the nuclear program, but, ultimately, I don’t think they are in charge of it. The Supreme Leader has the casting vote on the nuclear program, and the Guards will not take action without his approval.” The Pentagon adviser on the war on terror said that “allowing Iran to have the bomb is not on the table. We cannot have nukes being sent downstream to a terror network. It’s just too dangerous.” He added, “The whole internal debate is on which way to go”—in terms of stopping the Iranian program. It is possible, the adviser said, that Iran will unilaterally renounce its nuclear plans—and forestall the American action. “God may smile on us, but I don’t think so. The bottom line is that Iran cannot become a nuclear-weapons state. The problem is that the Iranians realize that only by becoming a nuclear state can they defend themselves against the U.S. Something bad is going to happen.” While almost no one disputes Iran’s nuclear ambitions, there is intense debate over how soon it could get the bomb, and what to do about that. Robert Gallucci, a former government expert on nonproliferation who is now the dean of the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown, told me, “Based on what I know, Iran could be eight to ten years away” from developing a deliverable nuclear weapon. Gallucci added, “If they had a covert nuclear program and we could prove it, and we could not stop it by negotiation, diplomacy, or the threat of sanctions, I’d be in favor of taking it out. But if you do it”—bomb Iran—“without being able to show there’s a secret program, you’re in trouble.” Meir Dagan, the head of Mossad, israel’s intelligence agency, told the Knesset last December that “Iran is one to two years away, at the latest, from having enriched uranium. From that point, the completion of their nuclear weapon is simply a technical matter.” In a conversation with me, a senior israeli intelligence official talked about what he said was Iran’s duplicity: “There are two parallel nuclear programs” inside Iran—the program declared to the I.A.E.A. and a separate operation, run by the military and the Revolutionary Guards. israeli officials have repeatedly made this argument, but israel has not produced public evidence to support it. Richard Armitage, the Deputy Secretary of State in Bush’s first term, told me, “I think Iran has a secret nuclear-weapons program—I believe it, but I don’t know it.” In recent months, the Pakistani government has given the U.S. new access to A. Q. Khan, the so-called father of the Pakistani atomic bomb. Khan, who is now living under house arrest in Islamabad, is accused of setting up a black market in nuclear materials; he made at least one clandestine visit to Tehran in the late nineteen-eighties. In the most recent interrogations, Khan has provided information on Iran’s weapons design and its time line for building a bomb. “The picture is of ‘unquestionable danger,’ ” the former senior intelligence official said. (The Pentagon adviser also confirmed that Khan has been “singing like a canary.”) The concern, the former senior official said, is that “Khan has credibility problems. He is suggestible, and he’s telling the neoconservatives what they want to hear”—or what might be useful to Pakistan’s President, Pervez Musharraf, who is under pressure to assist Washington in the war on terror. “I think Khan’s leading us on,” the former intelligence official said. “I don’t know anybody who says, ‘Here’s the smoking gun.’ But lights are beginning to blink. He’s feeding us information on the time line, and targeting information is coming in from our own sources— sensors and the covert teams. The C.I.A., which was so burned by Iraqi W.M.D., is going to the Pentagon and the Vice-President’s office saying, ‘It’s all new stuff.’ People in the Administration are saying, ‘We’ve got enough.’ ” The Administration’s case against Iran is compromised by its history of promoting false intelligence on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. In a recent essay on the Foreign Policy Web site, entitled “Fool Me Twice,” Joseph Cirincione, the director for nonproliferation at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, wrote, “The unfolding administration strategy appears to be an effort to repeat its successful campaign for the Iraq war.” He noted several parallels: The vice president of the United States gives a major speech focused on the threat from an oil-rich nation in the Middle East. The U.S. Secretary of State tells Congress that the same nation is our most serious global challenge. The Secretary of Defense calls that nation the leading supporter of global terrorism. Cirincione called some of the Administration’s claims about Iran “questionable” or lacking in evidence. When I spoke to him, he asked, “What do we know? What is the threat? The question is: How urgent is all this?” The answer, he said, “is in the intelligence community and the I.A.E.A.” (In August, the Washington Post reported that the most recent comprehensive National Intelligence Estimate predicted that Iran was a decade away from being a nuclear power.) Last year, the Bush Administration briefed I.A.E.A. officials on what it said was new and alarming information about Iran’s weapons program which had been retrieved from an Iranian’s laptop. The new data included more than a thousand pages of technical drawings of weapons systems. The Washington Post reported that there were also designs for a small facility that could be used in the uranium-enrichment process. Leaks about the laptop became the focal point of stories in the Times and elsewhere. The stories were generally careful to note that the materials could have been fabricated, but also quoted senior American officials as saying that they appeared to be legitimate. The headline in the Times’ account read, “RELYING ON COMPUTER, U.S. SEEKS TO PROVE IRAN’S NUCLEAR AIMS.” I was told in interviews with American and European intelligence officials, however, that the laptop was more suspect and less revelatory than it had been depicted. The Iranian who owned the laptop had initially been recruited by German and American intelligence operatives, working together. The Americans eventually lost interest in him. The Germans kept on, but the Iranian was seized by the Iranian counter-intelligence force. It is not known where he is today. Some family members managed to leave Iran with his laptop and handed it over at a U.S. embassy, apparently in Europe. It was a classic “walk-in.” A European intelligence official said, “There was some hesitation on our side” about what the materials really proved, “and we are still not convinced.” The drawings were not meticulous, as newspaper accounts suggested, “but had the character of sketches,” the European official said. “It was not a slam-dunk smoking gun.” The threat of American military action has created dismay at the headquarters of the I.A.E.A., in Vienna. The agency’s officials believe that Iran wants to be able to make a nuclear weapon, but “nobody has presented an inch of evidence of a parallel nuclear-weapons program in Iran,” the high-ranking diplomat told me. The I.A.E.A.’s best estimate is that the Iranians are five years away from building a nuclear bomb. “But, if the United States does anything militarily, they will make the development of a bomb a matter of Iranian national pride,” the diplomat said. “The whole issue is America’s risk assessment of Iran’s future intentions, and they don’t trust the regime. Iran is a menace to American policy.” In Vienna, I was told of an exceedingly testy meeting earlier this year between Mohamed ElBaradei, the I.A.E.A.’s director-general, who won the Nobel Peace Prize last year, and Robert Joseph, the Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control. Joseph’s message was blunt, one diplomat recalled: “We cannot have a single centrifuge spinning in Iran. Iran is a direct threat to the national security of the United States and our allies, and we will not tolerate it. We want you to give us an understanding that you will not say anything publicly that will undermine us. ” Joseph’s heavy-handedness was unnecessary, the diplomat said, since the I.A.E.A. already had been inclined to take a hard stand against Iran. “All of the inspectors are angry at being misled by the Iranians, and some think the Iranian leadership are nutcases—one hundred per cent totally certified nuts,” the diplomat said. He added that ElBaradei’s overriding concern is that the Iranian leaders “want confrontation, just like the neocons on the other side”—in Washington. “At the end of the day, it will work only if the United States agrees to talk to the Iranians.” The central question—whether Iran will be able to proceed with its plans to enrich uranium—is now before the United Nations, with the Russians and the Chinese reluctant to impose sanctions on Tehran. A discouraged former I.A.E.A. official told me in late March that, at this point, “there’s nothing the Iranians could do that would result in a positive outcome. American diplomacy does not allow for it. Even if they announce a stoppage of enrichment, nobody will believe them. It’s a dead end.” Another diplomat in Vienna asked me, “Why would the West take the risk of going to war against that kind of target without giving it to the I.A.E.A. to verify? We’re low-cost, and we can create a program that will force Iran to put its cards on the table.” A Western Ambassador in Vienna expressed similar distress at the White House’s dismissal of the I.A.E.A. He said, “If you don’t believe that the I.A.E.A. can establish an inspection system—if you don’t trust them—you can only bomb.” There is little sympathy for the I.A.E.A. in the Bush Administration or among its European allies. “We’re quite frustrated with the director-general,” the European diplomat told me. “His basic approach has been to describe this as a dispute between two sides with equal weight. It’s not. We’re the good guys! ElBaradei has been pushing the idea of letting Iran have a small nuclear-enrichment program, which is ludicrous. It’s not his job to push ideas that pose a serious proliferation risk.” The Europeans are rattled, however, by their growing perception that President Bush and Vice-President Cheney believe a bombing campaign will be needed, and that their real goal is regime change. “Everyone is on the same page about the Iranian bomb, but the United States wants regime change,” a European diplomatic adviser told me. He added, “The Europeans have a role to play as long as they don’t have to choose between going along with the Russians and the Chinese or going along with Washington on something they don’t want. Their policy is to keep the Americans engaged in something the Europeans can live with. It may be untenable.” “The Brits think this is a very bad idea,” Flynt Leverett, a former National Security Council staff member who is now a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution’s Saban Center, told me, “but they’re really worried we’re going to do it.” The European diplomatic adviser acknowledged that the British Foreign Office was aware of war planning in Washington but that, “short of a smoking gun, it’s going to be very difficult to line up the Europeans on Iran.” He said that the British “are jumpy about the Americans going full bore on the Iranians, with no compromise.” The European diplomat said that he was skeptical that Iran, given its record, had admitted to everything it was doing, but “to the best of our knowledge the Iranian capability is not at the point where they could successfully run centrifuges” to enrich uranium in quantity. One reason for pursuing diplomacy was, he said, Iran’s essential pragmatism. “The regime acts in its best interests,” he said. Iran’s leaders “take a hard-line approach on the nuclear issue and they want to call the American bluff,” believing that “the tougher they are the more likely the West will fold.” But, he said, “From what we’ve seen with Iran, they will appear superconfident until the moment they back off.” The diplomat went on, “You never reward bad behavior, and this is not the time to offer concessions. We need to find ways to impose sufficient costs to bring the regime to its senses. It’s going to be a close call, but I think if there is unity in opposition and the price imposed”—in sanctions—“is sufficient, they may back down. It’s too early to give up on the U.N. route.” He added, “If the diplomatic process doesn’t work, there is no military ‘solution.’ There may be a military option, but the impact could be catastrophic.” Tony Blair, the British Prime Minister, was George Bush’s most dependable ally in the year leading up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. But he and his party have been racked by a series of financial scandals, and his popularity is at a low point. Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, said last year that military action against Iran was “inconceivable.” Blair has been more circumspect, saying publicly that one should never take options off the table. Other European officials expressed similar skepticism about the value of an American bombing campaign. “The Iranian economy is in bad shape, and Ahmadinejad is in bad shape politically,” the European intelligence official told me. “He will benefit politically from American bombing. You can do it, but the results will be worse.” An American attack, he said, would alienate ordinary Iranians, including those who might be sympathetic to the U.S. “Iran is no longer living in the Stone Age, and the young people there have access to U.S. movies and books, and they love it,” he said. “If there was a charm offensive with Iran, the mullahs would be in trouble in the long run.” Another European official told me that he was aware that many in Washington wanted action. “It’s always the same guys,” he said, with a resigned shrug. “There is a belief that diplomacy is doomed to fail. The timetable is short.” A key ally with an important voice in the debate is israel, whose leadership has warned for years that it viewed any attempt by Iran to begin enriching uranium as a point of no return. I was told by several officials that the White House’s interest in preventing an israeli attack on a Muslim country, which would provoke a backlash across the region, was a factor in its decision to begin the current operational planning. In a speech in Cleveland on March 20th, President Bush depicted Ahmadinejad’s hostility toward israel as a “serious threat. It’s a threat to world peace.” He added, “I made it clear, I’ll make it clear again, that we will use military might to protect our ally israel.” Any American bombing attack, Richard Armitage told me, would have to consider the following questions: “What will happen in the other Islamic countries? What ability does Iran have to reach us and touch us globally—that is, terrorism? Will Syria and Lebanon up the pressure on israel? What does the attack do to our already diminished international standing? And what does this mean for Russia, China, and the U.N. Security Council?” Iran, which now produces nearly four million barrels of oil a day, would not have to cut off production to disrupt the world’s oil markets. It could blockade or mine the Strait of Hormuz, the thirty-four-mile-wide passage through which Middle Eastern oil reaches the Indian Ocean. Nonetheless, the recently retired defense official dismissed the strategic consequences of such actions. He told me that the U.S. Navy could keep shipping open by conducting salvage missions and putting mine- sweepers to work. “It’s impossible to block passage,” he said. The government consultant with ties to the Pentagon also said he believed that the oil problem could be managed, pointing out that the U.S. has enough in its strategic reserves to keep America running for sixty days. However, those in the oil business I spoke to were less optimistic; one industry expert estimated that the price per barrel would immediately spike, to anywhere from ninety to a hundred dollars per barrel, and could go higher, depending on the duration and scope of the conflict. Michel Samaha, a veteran Lebanese Christian politician and former cabinet minister in Beirut, told me that the Iranian retaliation might be focussed on exposed oil and gas fields in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates. “They would be at risk,” he said, “and this could begin the real jihad of Iran versus the West. You will have a messy world.” Iran could also initiate a wave of terror attacks in Iraq and elsewhere, with the help of Hezbollah. On April 2nd, the Washington Post reported that the planning to counter such attacks “is consuming a lot of time” at U.S. intelligence agencies. “The best terror network in the world has remained neutral in the terror war for the past several years,” the Pentagon adviser on the war on terror said of Hezbollah. “This will mobilize them and put us up against the group that drove israel out of southern Lebanon. If we move against Iran, Hezbollah will not sit on the sidelines. Unless the israelis take them out, they will mobilize against us.” (When I asked the government consultant about that possibility, he said that, if Hezbollah fired rockets into northern israel, “israel and the new Lebanese government will finish them off.”) The adviser went on, “If we go, the southern half of Iraq will light up like a candle.” The American, British, and other coalition forces in Iraq would be at greater risk of attack from Iranian troops or from Shiite militias operating on instructions from Iran. (Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, has close ties to the leading Shiite parties in Iraq.) A retired four-star general told me that, despite the eight thousand British troops in the region, “the Iranians could take Basra with ten mullahs and one sound truck.” “If you attack,” the high-ranking diplomat told me in Vienna, “Ahmadinejad will be the new Saddam Hussein of the Arab world, but with more credibility and more power. You must bite the bullet and sit down with the Iranians.” The diplomat went on, “There are people in Washington who would be unhappy if we found a solution. They are still banking on isolation and regime change. This is wishful thinking.” He added, “The window of opportunity is now. from (www.)"http://newyorker/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact"]newyorker/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact[/url]
  16. Iran Plans

    Assalamualaikum, I just realised that it happens when my cursor passes over any link I've made and this could be something peculiar only to my browser. I don't think it's the limit of individual posts. When I check the limit it says maximum allowable characters is 102400. Thank you once again anyway, Kind Regards, Wassalam, yusufar
  17. Iran Plans

    Assalamualaikum, Thank you for the links. I'm just wondering why a large portion of the post gets reversed. Would you happen to know? I check the length of each post I make. Could I be doing something wrong? Kind Regards, Wassalam, yusufar
  18. US and the Allies of Evil’s Next Target – Iran What Are We Going To Do About It? by yusufar 10.4.06 It has become increasingly obvious over the past few months that the US government and its military-industrial cohorts, bogged down by insurgency in Iraq and desperately in need of a “victory”, insensibly think that they can bomb, and possibly even nuke, Iran – a civilization far older and richer than theirs - back into the stone age, while the rest of the world, especially the Islamic world, watches in impotent horror, fury and sadness. Will Muslims and their governments keep quiet while this is going on and only wake up when it is too late, when the American terror rains bombs, devastation and destruction from the skies with impunity on largely civilian Iranian populations who will bear the brunt of the “collateral damage” - caused by a US government that is getting more insane by the day? For that is what it is – insanity. Insanity even worse than that which produced the attacks on the New York World Trade Centre and which seemingly tipped the US over the brink into an insensible and incomprehensible “war against terror” which itself has caused arguably a hundred times more casualties and deaths than the attacks on the WTC. Let us confront the truth of the matter - all US actions so far have been calculated to destabilize the whole region, not to enhance security of the world. This will give them an excuse intervene militarily and to have a commanding presence in all Muslim countries of the region. Why else would the US be building the costliest embassy in the world – at a billion USD – in Iraq? Iraq will become just another colony of the US, once the purported threat from Iran has been neutralized or eliminated. What adequate response can the Muslim world have to an attack such as this? What retaliatory response would serve the purpose of dissuading any further insanity on the part of the US? We have kept quiet long enough. The Muslim world must rise with one voice and tell America, “enough is enough!” If this is not enough, then we must be prepared for harder responses and measures. While the Muslim response must always be peaceful, the question is can it remain so in the face of extreme provocation by the US? Professor Jorge Hirsh of the University of California San Diego has argued that a US war against Iran could take place as early as the end of April, 2006 and that the pretext for this war would be an “imminent” biological threat emanating from Iran as opposed to the “by now-discredited nuclear threat”. (See (www.)"http://informationclearinhouse.info/article12593.htm)"]informationclearin house.info/article12593.htm)[/url] (Also “Biological attack on West 'simply a question of time': US official”) Whatever, we can trust the US to manufacture a threat even if one didn’t exist. That is how low the US has sunk in the esteem of the rest of the world, even if it doesn’t care to face this reality. Bullies and thugs never do. CNN has been rattling the sabers and beating the drums of war with Iran since as early as February 2005, possibly earlier. On its site on 18.2.05 is a link to a rather provocative video “How would US troops match up in a war with Iran?” This is on the same page as a report of Putin saying he was convinced Iran was not developing nuclear weapons (See (www.)"http://edition.cnn/2005/WORLD/meast/02/18/iran.russia/)"]edition.cnn/2005/WORLD/meast/02/18/iran.russia/)[/url]. Now what could that video be in aid of? Peace? One doubts that the US would send ground forces into Iran to be mired in an even worse quagmire than that it finds itself in in Iraq, but will probably opt for war from afar via aerial and naval bombardment, the objective being not to defeat Iran but to cripple it without suffering any loss of ground troops as well as minimizing loss of aircraft or naval vessels. This can be deduced from US Conplan 8022, a Presidential Directive signed by Bush in January 2003, which calls for a highly concentrated strike combining bombing with electronic warfare and cyberattacks to cripple an opponent’s response—cutting electricity in the country, jamming communications and hacking computer networks. Conplan 8022 also explicitly includes a nuclear option, specially configured earth-penetrating ‘mini’ nukes, to hit underground sites such as Iran’s. (See “Calculating the Risk of War in Iran” by F. William Engdahl, 29.1.06). Even the Hon. Ron Paul of Texas, in his speech to the US House of Representatives on 5.4.2006, hardly a week ago, has warned that Iran will be the next Neocon target. According to him, “…Though Iran is hardly a perfect democracy, its system is far superior to most of our Arab allies, about which we never complain. Already the coordinated propaganda has galvanized the American people against Iran for the supposed threat it poses to us with weapons of mass destruction that are no more present than those Saddam Hussein was alleged to have had. It is amazing how soon after being thoroughly discredited over the charges levied against Saddam Hussein the neoconservatives are willing to use the same arguments against Iran. It is frightening to see how easily Congress, the media and the people accept many of the same arguments against Iran that were used to justify an invasion of Iraq… …Even this apparent failure of policy (in Iraq) does nothing to restrain the current march towards a similar confrontation with Iran. What will it take us to learn from our failures? Common sense tells us the war in Iraq soon will spread to Iran. Fear of imaginary nuclear weapons or an incident involving Iran, whether planned or accidental, will rally the support needed for us to move on Muslim country number three… …There is no evidence of a threat to us by Iran and no reason to plan and initiate a confrontation with her. There are many reasons not to do so: Iran does not have a nuclear weapon and there is no evidence that she is working on one, only conjecture. Even if Iran had a nuclear weapon, why would this be different from Pakistan, India, and North Korea having one? Why should Iran have less right to a defensive weapon than these other countries? If Iran had a nuclear weapon, the odds of her initiating an attack against anybody, which would guarantee her own annihilation are zero, and the same goes for the possibility she would place weapons in the hands of a nonstate terrorist group… …At present, the likelihood of reason prevailing in Congress is minimal… …The clincher in the National Security Document (The President’s 2006 National Security Strategy) is if diplomatic efforts fail, confrontation will follow. The problem is the diplomatic effort, if one wants to use that term, is designed to fail by demanding the Iranians prove and unprovable negative… …The President states: Iran’s “desire to have a nuclear weapon is unacceptable.” A desire is purely subjective and cannot be substantiated nor disproved. Therefore all that is necessary to justify an attack is if Iran fails to prove it does not have a desire to be like the United States, China, Russia, Britain, France, Pakistan, North Korea, India and israel whose nuclear missiles surround Iran… …Hysterical fear of Iran is way out of proportion to reality…” It is at once apparent that the US strategy is to purposely put Iran in a no-win situation no matter what Iran does. What can such twisted logic signify other than an all-consuming irrational belligerence at all costs and a reckless, even homicidal, disregard for human life and property? This purported “hysterical fear” of Iran is actually coldly calculated. America’s military-industrial complex is clearly out of control. Where is the real “axis of evil” now or has that become the “allies of evil”? The US’ own possession and use of weapons of mass destruction shows its blatant hypocrisy. As Michel Chossudovsky drily put it, “None of these weapons in the Pentagon's "tool box", including conventional bunker buster bombs, cluster bombs, mini-nukes, chemical and biological weapons are described as "weapons of mass destruction" when used by the United States of America and its coalition partners)”. (“Is the Bush Administration Planning a Nuclear Holocaust? Will the US launch "Mini-nukes" against Iran in Retaliation for Tehran's "Non-compliance"?” by Michel Chossudovsky, 22.2.06). Seeking a convenient scapegoat for their failures in Iraq, the US has even resorted to blaming Iran for the purported sectarian/civil strife now taking place, and for which there is evidence that the US itself could be provoking – deliberately or ignorantly, or even setting up through special “black ops” operatives. That, however, is another story in itself. (See “US accuses Iran of meddling in Iraq”, Aljazeera, 17.3.06 and “Iraq’s Militia Problem: Go Blame Iran”, Another Day in the Empire, 26.3.06). But all this death and destruction is actually good news to the US military-industrial complex - which Dwight D. Eisenhower had forebodingly warned about in his farewell speech to the nation in 1961. It is what they want. Who after all are the chief beneficiaries of the more than USD 270 billion (conservatively) spent by the US in the war on Iraq and which keeps increasing at the rate of USD5.8 billion a month? Certainly not the Iraqi people, who are now worse off than they were under Saddam except for the semblance of democracy. Of what use is such democracy if there cannot be peace? It is worthwhile quoting Eisenhower at some length, as his words appear to have been forgotten by most Americans today, especially by their government. They will fail to take heed only at their own peril, if they are able to overcome their own arrogance in being for the present time the world’s arguably richest and most powerful nation. As Eisenhower said then, “…We now stand ten years past the midpoint of a century that has witnessed four major wars among great nations. Three of these involved our own country. Despite these holocausts America is today the strongest, the most influential and most productive nation in the world. Understandably proud of this pre-eminence, we yet realize that America's leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment. Throughout America's adventure in free government, our basic purposes have been to keep the peace; to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among people and among nations. To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people. Any failure traceable to arrogance, or our lack of comprehension or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us grievous hurt both at home and abroad… …Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties… …The record of many decades stands as proof that our people and their government have, in the main, understood these truths and have responded to them well, in the face of stress and threat. But threats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise. I mention two only. A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction. Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea. Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations. This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together… …Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we -- you and I, and our government -- must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow. Down the long lane of the history yet to be written America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect. Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of the battlefield. Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war -- as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years -- I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight… …You and I -- my fellow citizens -- need to be strong in our faith that all nations, under God, will reach the goal of peace with justice. May we be ever unswerving in devotion to principle, confident but humble with power, diligent in pursuit of the Nation's great goals. To all the peoples of the world, I once more give expression to America's prayerful and continuing aspiration: We pray that peoples of all faiths, all races, all nations, may have their great human needs satisfied; that those now denied opportunity shall come to enjoy it to the full; that all who yearn for freedom may experience its spiritual blessings; that those who have freedom will understand, also, its heavy responsibilities; that all who are insensitive to the needs of others will learn charity; that the scourges of poverty, disease and ignorance will be made to disappear from the earth, and that, in the goodness of time, all peoples will come to live together in a peace guaranteed by the binding force of mutual respect and love.” Let us all pray that it is not to late for the US to learn responsibility and charity, and to foster liberty, dignity and integrity among people and nations, and to realize that war is the antithesis of all that. If Eisenhower’s words mean nothing to the present generation of Americans and US establishment, then the US deserves to be treated as a pariah nation shunned by all and it may itself not call other states “rogue states”. A study (“The Economic Costs Of The War In Iraq: An Appraisal Three Years After The Beginning Of The Conflict”) by Linda Blimes of the Kennedy School, University of Harvard and Joseph E. Stiglitz, University Professor, Columbia University states “with some degree of confidence” that these costs exceed a trillion US dollars. The previous Gulf War or any other conflict pales by comparison. The US has probably not even spent that much on israel or even its own domestic welfare programmes over the last 30 years. One has really got to question whether the US is at all serious about peace in the Middle East or not. But peace will not be good news for the military-industrial complex, which will lose its very reason for existence and for the excessive spending that conflict and war bring. Never mind the cost in terms of innocent people’s lives lost and property destroyed – if they are Muslims, so much the better. We cannot be faulted for thinking that the last thing on their agenda is bringing about a safer world to live in and that they would rather prolong the “war on terror” as long as they can. Can anyone imagine what such an amount spent on bringing about world-wide peace could achieve? It would probably eliminate all of the justifiable grouses of the less well-to-do people of the world which form the basis of so-called terrorist activities against the West – not that terrorism against innocent civilians anywhere, whether inflicted by individuals or states such as the US, can be justified for any reason whatsoever, and certainly not by Islam or Muslims. The National Priorities Project estimates that the USD270 odd billion could fully fund global anti-hunger efforts for 11 years. As stated on their website, (nationalpriorities##### /index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182) “The UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) in its ‘The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2003’ estimates that over 800 million people worldwide are hungry and undernourished. The FAO has also stated that an annual increase of $24 billion in anti-hunger efforts would reduce world hunger by half (to 400 million people) by 2015.” Or it could also fully fund worldwide AIDS programmes for 27 years. “In remarks to the World Bank on November 20, 2003, Dr. Peter Piot, the executive director of UNAIDS, spoke of the need for "a minimum $10 billion needed annually to mount an effective, comprehensive response in low- and middle-income countries." In reporting to the UN General Assembly in September, 2003, on the proceedings of the high-level interactive panel on HIV/AIDS, Secretary-General Kofi Annan also spoke of the "$10 billion required annually by 2005 to stem the tide of AIDS."” Or it could have ensured that every child in the world be given basic immunizations for the next 90 years. “The United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) has estimated the additional monies needed to immunize every child in the developing world at $2.808 billion annually. The report (Table 8) calculates that 3 million children die annually from vaccine preventable diseases. To account for inflation and provide a margin for error, the Cost of War calculator uses a figure of $3 billion to calculate the number of years that the war in Iraq could pay for the immunization of all children in the developing world.” Doesn’t America have a social conscience any more? Does it now believe that it has to “pacify” (read exterminate) the rest of the world, especially the Muslim world which has had a far longer tradition of civilization than it, just like its own native population had to be “pacified” (read exterminated)? Whatever the answer to these questions are, it is clear that all Muslims, Sunni or Shi’ah, and the whole world in fact, are at risk and that Muslim countries must unite in more ways than one to face the threat of an increasingly irrational, belligerent and imperialist America and its allies. Make no mistake, the future of all Muslims and Islam and the very freedom of the world itself is at stake here. There are also still many right-thinking people in the West who can be counted on to assist in any peaceful way possible to avert an unprecedented yet avoidable disaster which will affect not just the Muslim world but the non-Muslim world as well. May Allah protect us from the allies of evil, but His Will be done. Regards, yusufar islamicunityfoundation One God One Religion One Community One Nation Anti-Arab = Anti-Semite Anti-Muslim = Anti-Peace Anti-Islam = Anti-Civilisation Which One Are You?
  19. Throughout America's adventure in free government, our basic purposes have been to keep the peace; to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among people and among nations. To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people. Any failure traceable to arrogance, or our lack of comprehension or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us grievous hurt both at home and abroad… …Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties… …The record of many decades stands as proof that our people and their government have, in the main, understood these truths and have responded to them well, in the face of stress and threat. But threats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise. I mention two only. A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction. Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea. Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations. This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together… …Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we -- you and I, and our government -- must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow. Down the long lane of the history yet to be written America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect. Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of the battlefield. Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war -- as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years -- I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight… …You and I -- my fellow citizens -- need to be strong in our faith that all nations, under God, will reach the goal of peace with justice. May we be ever unswerving in devotion to principle, confident but humble with power, diligent in pursuit of the Nation's great goals. To all the peoples of the world, I once more give expression to America's prayerful and continuing aspiration: We pray that peoples of all faiths, all races, all nations, may have their great human needs satisfied; that those now denied opportunity shall come to enjoy it to the full; that all who yearn for freedom may experience its spiritual blessings; that those who have freedom will understand, also, its heavy responsibilities; that all who are insensitive to the needs of others will learn charity; that the scourges of poverty, disease and ignorance will be made to disappear from the earth, and that, in the goodness of time, all peoples will come to live together in a peace guaranteed by the binding force of mutual respect and love.” Let us all pray that it is not to late for the US to learn responsibility and charity, and to foster liberty, dignity and integrity among people and nations, and to realize that war is the antithesis of all that. If Eisenhower’s words mean nothing to the present generation of Americans and US establishment, then the US deserves to be treated as a pariah nation shunned by all and it may itself not call other states “rogue states”. A study (“The Economic Costs Of The War In Iraq: An Appraisal Three Years After The Beginning Of The Conflict”) by Linda Blimes of the Kennedy School, University of Harvard and Joseph E. Stiglitz, University Professor, Columbia University states “with some degree of confidence” that these costs exceed a trillion US dollars. The previous Gulf War or any other conflict pales by comparison. The US has probably not even spent that much on israel or even its own domestic welfare programmes over the last 30 years. One has really got to question whether the US is at all serious about peace in the Middle East or not. But peace will not be good news for the military-industrial complex, which will lose its very reason for existence and for the excessive spending that conflict and war bring. Never mind the cost in terms of innocent people’s lives lost and property destroyed – if they are Muslims, so much the better. We cannot be faulted for thinking that the last thing on their agenda is bringing about a safer world to live in and that they would rather prolong the “war on terror” as long as they can. Can anyone imagine what such an amount spent on bringing about world-wide peace could achieve? It would probably eliminate all of the justifiable grouses of the less well-to-do people of the world which form the basis of so-called terrorist activities against the West – not that terrorism against innocent civilians anywhere, whether inflicted by individuals or states such as the US, can be justified for any reason whatsoever, and certainly not by Islam or Muslims. The National Priorities Project estimates that the USD270 odd billion could fully fund global anti-hunger efforts for 11 years. As stated on their website, (nationalpriorities##### /index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182) “The UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) in its ‘The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2003’ estimates that over 800 million people worldwide are hungry and undernourished. The FAO has also stated that an annual increase of $24 billion in anti-hunger efforts would reduce world hunger by half (to 400 million people) by 2015.” Or it could also fully fund worldwide AIDS programmes for 27 years. “In remarks to the World Bank on November 20, 2003, Dr. Peter Piot, the executive director of UNAIDS, spoke of the need for "a minimum $10 billion needed annually to mount an effective, comprehensive response in low- and middle-income countries." In reporting to the UN General Assembly in September, 2003, on the proceedings of the high-level interactive panel on HIV/AIDS, Secretary-General Kofi Annan also spoke of the "$10 billion required annually by 2005 to stem the tide of AIDS."” Or it could have ensured that every child in the world be given basic immunizations for the next 90 years. “The United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) has estimated the additional monies needed to immunize every child in the developing world at $2.808 billion annually. The report (Table 8) calculates that 3 million children die annually from vaccine preventable diseases. To account for inflation and provide a margin for error, the Cost of War calculator uses a figure of $3 billion to calculate the number of years that the war in Iraq could pay for the immunization of all children in the developing world.” Doesn’t America have a social conscience any more? Does it now believe that it has to “pacify” (read exterminate) the rest of the world, especially the Muslim world which has had a far longer tradition of civilization than it, just like its own native population had to be “pacified” (read exterminated)? Whatever the answer to these questions are, it is clear that all Muslims, Sunni or Shi’ah, and the whole world in fact, are at risk and that Muslim countries must unite in more ways than one to face the threat of an increasingly irrational, belligerent and imperialist America and its allies. Make no mistake, the future of all Muslims and Islam and the very freedom of the world itself is at stake here. There are also still many right-thinking people in the West who can be counted on to assist in any peaceful way possible to avert an unprecedented yet avoidable disaster which will affect not just the Muslim world but the non-Muslim world as well. May Allah protect us from the allies of evil, but His Will be done. Regards, yusufar islamicunityfoundation One God One Religion One Community One Nation Anti-Arab = Anti-Semite Anti-Muslim = Anti-Peace Anti-Islam = Anti-Civilisation Which One Are You?
  20. (www.)"http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20060213&articleId=1965"]Globalresearch.ca[/url] More Evidence Nuking Iran is on Schedule Sunday February 12th 2006, 3:38 am In a story appearing in the Sunday Telegraph, the newspaper once owned by the Canadian criminal finagler and neocon “Lord” Conrad Black, amoral strategists “at the Pentagon are drawing up plans for devastating bombing raids backed by submarine-launched ballistic missile attacks against Iran’s nuclear sites as a ‘last resort’ to block Teheran’s efforts to develop an atomic bomb.” If not so deadly serious, the idea that the Straussian neocons will shock and awe Iran only as a “last resort” would be comical. In fact, they have long planned to bomb Iran—imaginary nukes or not—and kill as many Iranians as possible and decimate the civilian infrastructure, as they have done in Iraq (some estimates put the death toll thus far above 130,000). “Central Command and Strategic Command planners are identifying targets, assessing weapon-loads and working on logistics for an operation, the Sunday Telegraph has learnt.” In fact, the Pentagon has long mapped out its targets, including “secondary targets,” usually civilian airports, radio and TV installations, telecommunications centers, government buildings, conventional power plants, water and waste treatment plants, highways and bridges, and rail lines. In Iraq (twice) this sort of “targeting” resulted in massive suffering and death (coupled with sanctions after the first Bush Iraq Invasion, more than a million Iraqis died of starvation and disease, a stunning crime against humanity). These criminal strategists, basically no different than the German Wehrmacht strategists who planned Operation Barbarossa, “are reporting to the office of Donald Rumsfeld, the defense secretary, as America updates plans for action if the diplomatic offensive fails to thwart the Islamic republic’s nuclear bomb ambitions.” Of course, this “diplomatic offensive” is designed to fail, as the “diplomatic offensive” prior to the Iraqi invasion failed (and the “diplomatic offensive” in Afghanistan failed, even though the Taliban were ready to turn over Osama bin Laden, if only the Americans were able to provide evidence of his complicity in nine eleven, something the Americans were unable and unwilling to do because they did not have compelling evidence and, besides, they had planned to invade Afghanistan well before nine eleven, as plenty of evidence attests). “This is more than just the standard military contingency assessment,” a senior Pentagon adviser told the Telegraph. “This has taken on much greater urgency in recent months.” Indeed, the shock and awe dismemberment of Iranian society is considered more “than just the standard military contingency assessment,” as the PNAC Straussian neocons have long told us. It has “taken on much greater urgency in recent months” because the Bush administration, a front for the Straussian neocon nihilists, is winding down and it will take months to obliterate Iranian culture and civil society. Moreover, the neocons need to fit in Syria, at minimum—they would prefer to do Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, but this is obviously too ambitious, that is unless they can figure out a way to keep Bush in office. “The prospect of military action could put Washington at odds with Britain which fears that an attack would spark violence across the Middle East, reprisals in the West and may not cripple Teheran’s nuclear program. But the steady flow of disclosures about Iran’s secret nuclear operations and the virulent anti-israeli threats of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has prompted the fresh assessment of military options by Washington. The most likely strategy would involve aerial bombardment by long-distance B2 bombers, each armed with up to 40,000lb of precision weapons, including the latest bunker-busting devices. They would fly from bases in Missouri with mid-air refuelling.” Nonsense, Tony Blair is fully onboard with the plan to reduce the Middle East to a simmering cauldron of violence and dead, mutilated bodies. Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice, et al, are ecstatic over Ahmadinejad’s highly suspect anti-Semitic (or rather, anti-Ashkenazi, since the majority of Jews in israel are white Europeans and not Semites) declarations, leading more than a few people to believe he is a Mossad agent or has an as of yet unknown reason for egging on the israelis and Americans. Either way, Ahmadinejad is courting disaster. As former CIA intelligence analyst Philip Giraldi told the American Conservative last July, the United States plans to nuke the be-jesus out of Iran. “The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Cheney’s office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons.” All of this despite the fact Iran is a non-nuclear country, a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and working with the IAEA, although the latter reported Iran to the UN Security Council last week. So itchy is the Pentagon to use nukes against non-nuke countries, they wrote the “policy” in their “Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations” (pdf doc). “Senator Joe Lieberman, a Democrat, [said] Mr. Bush is expected to be faced by the decision [to criminally bomb Iran] within two years.” More balderdash—the United States plans to bomb Iran next month, or soon thereafter. It wants Iran wasted sooner before later. Last week Vladimir Zhirinovsky, leader of the Liberal Democrats in Russia, told the Ekho Moskvy radio station “that the Muslim [cartoon] riots were orchestrated by the US to garner European backing for the military strike” and the “war is inevitable because the Americans want this war. Any country claiming a leading position in the world will need to wage wars. Otherwise it will simply not be able to retain its leading position,” as well spelled out by the PNAC maniacs who have captured the flag in Washington. Kurt Nimmo
  21. Greetings Livius, My apologies if you felt insulted. However I don't think it was an idiotic question at all - or perhaps I am too much of an idiot to be insulted by this counter-remark. I was merely exasperated at the cynicism, scepticism and just plain negativism of your comments about Kurt Nimmo, whose views I would venture to say have a more than modest following. Who are you to decide what are websites with little or more validity any way? Your saying so doen't make them so. Not all of us have access to the CIA or the NSA or the White House. In any event, with all the cover-ups and the amount of disinformation coming out of US Government sources especially after the WWII, who would trust the mainstream sources and media these days? Can Kurt Nimmo - an American - be anti-American? You sound like a US Government propaganda machine. Does expressing anti-US government sentiments = anti-American? That is rather disingenous isn't it? The same goes for anti-Zionism and anti-israel government views as well - these do not and cannot amount to being anti-Jewish. It's Bush and his whole administration and all those in the West that support him who are using worse than screwed up logic to rile the whole world up against Islam, Muslim countries and Muslims everywhere. Regards nonetheless, yusufar islamicunityfoundation One God One Religion One Community One Nation Anti-Arab = Anti-Semite Anti-Muslim = Anti-Peace Anti-Islam = Anti-Civilisation Are You Any Of The Above?
  22. Iran: The Next Neocon Target

    See the Video at: (www.)"http://informationclearinhouse.info/article12640.htm"]informationclearin house.info/article12640.htm[/url] Iran: The Next Neocon Target It’s been three years since the U.S. launched its war against Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction. Of course now almost everybody knows there were no WMDs, and Saddam Hussein posed no threat to the United States. Though some of our soldiers serving in Iraq still believe they are there because Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11, even the administration now acknowledges there was no connection. Indeed, no one can be absolutely certain why we invaded Iraq. The current excuse, also given for staying in Iraq, is to make it a democratic state, friendly to the United States. There are now fewer denials that securing oil supplies played a significant role in our decision to go into Iraq and stay there. That certainly would explain why U.S. taxpayers are paying such a price to build and maintain numerous huge, permanent military bases in Iraq. They’re also funding a new billion dollar embassy- the largest in the world. The significant question we must ask ourselves is: What have we learned from three years in Iraq? With plans now being laid for regime change in Iran, it appears we have learned absolutely nothing. There still are plenty of administration officials who daily paint a rosy picture of the Iraq we have created. But I wonder: If the past three years were nothing more than a bad dream, and our nation suddenly awakened, how many would, for national security reasons, urge the same invasion? Would we instead give a gigantic sigh of relief that it was only a bad dream, that we need not relive the three-year nightmare of death, destruction, chaos and stupendous consumption of tax dollars. Conceivably we would still see oil prices under $30 a barrel, and most importantly, 20,000 severe U.S. causalities would not have occurred. My guess is that 99% of all Americans would be thankful it was only a bad dream, and would never support the invasion knowing what we know today. Even with the horrible results of the past three years, Congress is abuzz with plans to change the Iranian government. There is little resistance to the rising clamor for “democratizing” Iran, even though their current president, Mahmoud Almadinejad, is an elected leader. Though Iran is hardly a perfect democracy, its system is far superior to most of our Arab allies about which we never complain. Already the coordinating propaganda has galvanized the American people against Iran for the supposed threat it poses to us with weapons of mass destruction that are no more present than those Saddam Hussein was alleged to have had. It’s amazing how soon after being thoroughly discredited over the charges levied against Saddam Hussein the Neo-cons are willing to use the same arguments against Iran. It’s frightening to see how easily Congress, the media, and the people accept many of the same arguments against Iran that were used to justify an invasion of Iraq. Since 2001 we have spent over $300 billion, and occupied two Muslim nations--Afghanistan and Iraq. We’re poorer but certainly not safer for it. We invaded Afghanistan to get Osama bin Laden, the ring leader behind 9/11. This effort has been virtually abandoned. Even though the Taliban was removed from power in Afghanistan, most of the country is now occupied and controlled by warlords who manage a drug trade bigger than ever before. Removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan actually served the interests of Iran, the Taliban’s arch enemy, more than our own. The longtime Neo-con goal to remake Iraq prompted us to abandon the search for Osama bin Laden. The invasion of Iraq in 2003 was hyped as a noble mission, justified by misrepresentations of intelligence concerning Saddam Hussein and his ability to attack us and his neighbors. This failed policy has created the current chaos in Iraq-- chaos that many describe as a civil war. Saddam Hussein is out of power and most people are pleased. Yet some Iraqis, who dream of stability, long for his authoritarian rule. But once again, Saddam Hussein’s removal benefited the Iranians, who consider Saddam Hussein an arch enemy. Our obsession with democracy-- which is clearly conditional, when one looks at our response to the recent Palestinian elections-- will allow the majority Shia to claim leadership title if Iraq’s election actually leads to an organized government. This delights the Iranians, who are close allies of the Iraqi Shia. Talk about unintended consequences! This war has produced chaos, civil war, death and destruction, and huge financial costs. It has eliminated two of Iran’s worst enemies and placed power in Iraq with Iran’s best friends. Even this apparent failure of policy does nothing to restrain the current march toward a similar confrontation with Iran. What will it take for us to learn from our failures? Common sense tells us the war in Iraq soon will spread to Iran. Fear of imaginary nuclear weapons or an incident involving Iran-- whether planned or accidental-- will rally the support needed for us to move on Muslim country #3. All the past failures and unintended consequences will be forgotten. Even with deteriorating support for the Iraq war, new information, well planned propaganda, or a major incident will override the skepticism and heartache of our frustrating fight. Vocal opponents of an attack on Iran again will be labeled unpatriotic, unsupportive of the troops, and sympathetic to Iran’s radicals. Instead of capitulating to these charges, we should point out that those who maneuver us into war do so with little concern for our young people serving in the military, and theoretically think little of their own children if they have any. It’s hard to conceive that political supporters of the war would consciously claim that a pre-emptive war for regime change, where young people are sacrificed, is only worth it if the deaths and injuries are limited to other people’s children. This, I’m sure, would be denied-- which means their own children are technically available for this sacrifice that is so often praised and glorified for the benefit of the families who have lost so much. If so, they should think more of their own children. If this is not so, and their children are not available for such sacrifice, the hypocrisy is apparent. Remember, most Neo-con planners fall into the category of chicken-hawks. For the past 3 years it’s been inferred that if one is not in support of the current policy, one is against the troops and supports the enemy. Lack of support for the war in Iraq was said to be supportive of Saddam Hussein and his evil policies. This is an insulting and preposterous argument. Those who argued for the containment of the Soviets were never deemed sympathetic to Stalin or Khrushchev. Lack of support for the Iraq war should never be used as an argument that one was sympathetic to Saddam Hussein. Containment and diplomacy are far superior to confronting a potential enemy, and are less costly and far less dangerous-- especially when there’s no evidence that our national security is being threatened. Although a large percentage of the public now rejects the various arguments for the Iraq war, 3 years ago they were easily persuaded by the politicians and media to fully support the invasion. Now, after 3 years of terrible pain for so many, even the troops are awakening from their slumber and sensing the fruitlessness of our failing effort. Seventy-two percent of our troops now serving in Iraq say it’s time to come home, yet the majority still cling to the propaganda that we’re there because of 9/11 attacks, something even the administration has ceased to claim. Propaganda is pushed on our troops to exploit their need to believe in a cause that’s worth the risk to life and limb. I smell an expanded war in the Middle East, and pray that I’m wrong. I sense that circumstances will arise that demand support regardless of the danger and cost. Any lack of support, once again, will be painted as being soft on terrorism and al Qaeda. We will be told we must support israel, support patriotism, support the troops, and defend freedom. The public too often only smells the stench of war after the killing starts. Public objection comes later on, but eventually it helps to stop the war. I worry that before we can finish the war we’re in and extricate ourselves, the patriotic fervor for expanding into Iran will drown out the cries of, “enough already!” The agitation and congressional resolutions painting Iran as an enemy about to attack us have already begun. It’s too bad we can’t learn from our mistakes. This time there will be a greater pretense of an international effort sanctioned by the UN before the bombs are dropped. But even without support from the international community, we should expect the plan for regime change to continue. We have been forewarned that “all options” remain on the table. And there’s little reason to expect much resistance from Congress. So far there’s less resistance expressed in Congress for taking on Iran than there was prior to going into Iraq. It’s astonishing that after three years of bad results and tremendous expense there’s little indication we will reconsider our traditional non-interventionist foreign policy. Unfortunately, regime change, nation building, policing the world, and protecting “our oil” still constitute an acceptable policy by the leaders of both major parties. It’s already assumed by many in Washington I talk to that Iran is dead serious about obtaining a nuclear weapon, and is a much more formidable opponent than Iraq. Besides, Mahmoud Almadinjad threatened to destroy israel and that cannot stand. Washington sees Iran as a greater threat than Iraq ever was, a threat that cannot be ignored. Iran’s history is being ignored, just as we ignored Iraq’s history. This ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation of our recent relationship to Iraq and Iran is required to generate the fervor needed to attack once again a country that poses no threat to us. Our policies toward Iran have been more provocative than those towards Iraq. Yes, President Bush labeled Iran part of the axis of evil and unnecessarily provoked their anger at us. But our mistakes with Iran started a long time before this president took office. In 1953 our CIA, with help of the British, participated in overthrowing the democratic elected leader, Mohamed Mossedech. We placed the Shah in power. He ruled ruthlessly but protected our oil interests, and for that we protected him-- that is until 1979. We even provided him with Iran’s first nuclear reactor. Evidently we didn’t buy the argument that his oil supplies precluded a need for civilian nuclear energy. From 1953 to 1979 his authoritarian rule served to incite a radical Muslim opposition led by the Ayatollah Khomeini, who overthrew the Shah and took our hostages in 1979. This blowback event was slow in coming, but Muslims have long memories. The hostage crisis and overthrow of the Shah by the Ayatollah was a major victory for the radical Islamists. Most Americans either never knew about or easily forgot our unwise meddling in the internal affairs of Iran in 1953. During the 1980s we further antagonized Iran by supporting the Iraqis in their invasion of Iran. This made our relationship with Iran worse, while sending a message to Saddam Hussein that invading a neighboring country is not all that bad. When Hussein got the message from our State Department that his plan to invade Kuwait was not of much concern to the United States he immediately proceeded to do so. We in a way encouraged him to do it almost like we encouraged him to go into Iran. Of course this time our reaction was quite different, and all of a sudden our friendly ally Saddam Hussein became our arch enemy. The American people may forget this flip-flop, but those who suffered from it never forget. And the Iranians remember well our meddling in their affairs. Labeling the Iranians part of the axis of evil further alienated them and contributed to the animosity directed toward us. For whatever reasons the Neo-conservatives might give, they are bound and determined to confront the Iranian government and demand changes in its leadership. This policy will further spread our military presence and undermine our security. The sad truth is that the supposed dangers posed by Iran are no more real than those claimed about Iraq. The charges made against Iran are unsubstantiated, and amazingly sound very similar to the false charges made against Iraq. One would think promoters of the war against Iraq would be a little bit more reluctant to use the same arguments to stir up hatred toward Iran. The American people and Congress should be more cautious in accepting these charges at face value. Yet it seems the propaganda is working, since few in Washington object as Congress passes resolutions condemning Iran and asking for UN sanctions against her. There is no evidence of a threat to us by Iran, and no reason to plan and initiate a confrontation with her. There are many reasons not to do so, however. Iran does not have a nuclear weapon and there’s no evidence that she is working on one--only conjecture. If Iran had a nuclear weapon, why would this be different from Pakistan, India, and North Korea having one? Why does Iran have less right to a defensive weapon than these other countries? If Iran had a nuclear weapon, the odds of her initiating an attack against anybody-- which would guarantee her own annihilation-- are zero. And the same goes for the possibility she would place weapons in the hands of a non-state terrorist group. Pakistan has spread nuclear technology throughout the world, and in particular to the North Koreans. They flaunt international restrictions on nuclear weapons. But we reward them just as we reward India. We needlessly and foolishly threaten Iran even though they have no nuclear weapons. But listen to what a leading israeli historian, Martin Van Creveld, had to say about this: “Obviously, we don’t want Iran to have a nuclear weapon, and I don’t know if they’re developing them, but if they’re not developing them, they’re crazy.” There’s been a lot of misinformation regarding Iran’s nuclear program. This distortion of the truth has been used to pump up emotions in Congress to pass resolutions condemning her and promoting UN sanctions. IAEA Director General Mohamed El Baradi has never reported any evidence of “undeclared” sources or special nuclear material in Iran, or any diversion of nuclear material. We demand that Iran prove it is not in violation of nuclear agreements, which is asking them impossibly to prove a negative. El Baradi states Iran is in compliance with the nuclear NPT required IAEA safeguard agreement. We forget that the weapons we feared Saddam Hussein had were supplied to him by the U.S., and we refused to believe UN inspectors and the CIA that he no longer had them. Likewise, Iran received her first nuclear reactor from us. Now we’re hysterically wondering if someday she might decide to build a bomb in self interest. Anti-Iran voices, beating the drums of confrontation, distort the agreement made in Paris and the desire of Iran to restart the enrichment process. Their suspension of the enrichment process was voluntary, and not a legal obligation. Iran has an absolute right under the NPT to develop and use nuclear power for peaceful purposes, and this is now said to be an egregious violation of the NPT. It’s the U.S. and her allies that are distorting and violating the NPT. Likewise our provision of nuclear materials to India is a clear violation of the NPT. The demand for UN sanctions is now being strongly encouraged by Congress. The “Iran Freedom Support Act,” HR 282, passed in the International Relations Committee; and recently the House passed H Con Res 341, which inaccurately condemned Iran for violating its international nuclear non-proliferation obligations. At present, the likelihood of reason prevailing in Congress is minimal. Let there be no doubt: The Neo-conservative warriors are still in charge, and are conditioning Congress, the media, and the American people for a pre-emptive attack on Iran. Never mind that Afghanistan has unraveled and Iraq is in civil war: serious plans are being laid for the next distraction which will further spread this war in the Middle East. The unintended consequences of this effort surely will be worse than any of the complications experienced in the three-year occupation of Iraq. Our offer of political and financial assistance to foreign and domestic individuals who support the overthrow of the current Iranian government is fraught with danger and saturated with arrogance. Imagine how American citizens would respond if China supported similar efforts here in the United States to bring about regime change! How many of us would remain complacent if someone like Timothy McVeigh had been financed by a foreign power? Is it any wonder the Iranian people resent us and the attitude of our leaders? Even though El Baradi and his IAEA investigations have found no violations of the NPT-required IAEA safeguards agreement, the Iran Freedom Support Act still demands that Iran prove they have no nuclear weapons-- refusing to acknowledge that proving a negative is impossible. Let there be no doubt, though the words “regime change” are not found in the bill-- that’s precisely what they are talking about. Neo-conservative Michael Ledeen, one of the architects of the Iraq fiasco, testifying before the International Relations Committee in favor of the IFSA, stated it plainly: “I know some Members would prefer to dance around the explicit declaration of regime change as the policy of this country, but anyone looking closely at the language and context of the IFSA and its close relative in the Senate, can clearly see that this is in fact the essence of the matter. You can’t have freedom in Iran without bringing down the Mullahs.” Sanctions, along with financial and political support to persons and groups dedicated to the overthrow of the Iranian government, are acts of war. Once again we’re unilaterally declaring a pre-emptive war against a country and a people that have not harmed us and do not have the capacity to do so. And don’t expect Congress to seriously debate a declaration of war resolution. For the past 56 years Congress has transferred to the executive branch the power to go to war as it pleases, regardless of the tragic results and costs. Secretary of State Rice recently signaled a sharp shift towards confrontation in Iran policy as she insisted on $75 million to finance propaganda, through TV and radio broadcasts into Iran. She expressed this need because of the so-called “aggressive” policies of the Iranian government. We’re seven thousand miles from home, telling the Iraqis and the Iranians what kind of government they will have, backed up by the use of our military force, and we call them the aggressors. We fail to realize the Iranian people, for whatever faults they may have, have not in modern times aggressed against any neighbor. This provocation is so unnecessary, costly, and dangerous. Just as the invasion of Iraq inadvertently served the interests of the Iranians, military confrontation with Iran will have unintended consequences. The successful alliance engendered between the Iranians and the Iraqi majority Shia will prove a formidable opponent for us in Iraq as that civil war spreads. Shipping in the Persian Gulf through the Straits of Hormuz may well be disrupted by the Iranians in retaliation for any military confrontation. Since Iran would be incapable of defending herself by conventional means, it seems logical that some might resort to a terrorist attack on us. They will not passively lie down, nor can they be destroyed easily. One of the reasons given for going into Iraq was to secure “our” oil supply. This backfired badly: Production in Iraq is down 50%, and world oil prices have more than doubled to $60 per barrel. Meddling with Iran could easily have a similar result. We could see oil over $120 a barrel and, and $6 gas at the pump. The obsession the Neo-cons have with remaking the Middle East is hard to understand. One thing that is easy to understand is none of those who planned these wars expect to fight in them, nor do they expect their children to die in some IED explosion. Exactly when an attack will occur is not known, but we have been forewarned more than once that all options remain on the table. The sequence of events now occurring with regards to Iran are eerily reminiscent of the hype prior to our pre-emptive strike against Iraq. We should remember the saying: “Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.” It looks to me like the Congress and the country is open to being fooled once again. Interestingly, many early supporters of the Iraq war are now highly critical of the President, having been misled as to reasons for the invasion and occupation. But these same people are only too eager to accept the same flawed arguments for our need to undermine the Iranian government. The President’s 2006 National Security Strategy, just released, is every bit as frightening as the one released in 2002 endorsing pre-emptive war. In it he claims: “We face no greater challenge from a single country than from Iran.” He claims the Iranians have for 20 years hidden key nuclear activities-- though the IAEA makes no such assumptions nor has the Security Council in these 20 years ever sanctioned Iran. The clincher in the National Security Strategy document is if diplomatic efforts fail, confrontation will follow. The problem is the diplomatic effort-- if one wants to use that term-- is designed to fail by demanding the Iranians prove an unproveable negative. The West-- led by the U.S.-- is in greater violation by demanding Iran not pursue any nuclear technology, even peaceful, that the NPT guarantees is their right. The President states: Iran’s “desire to have a nuclear weapon is unacceptable.” A “desire” is purely subjective, and cannot be substantiated nor disproved. Therefore all that is necessary to justify an attack is if Iran fails to prove it doesn’t have a “desire” to be like the United States, China, Russia, Britain, France, Pakistan, India, and israel—whose nuclear missiles surround Iran. Logic like this to justify a new war, without the least consideration for a congressional declaration of war, is indeed frightening. Common sense tells us Congress, especially given the civil war in Iraq and the mess in Afghanistan, should move with great caution in condoning a military confrontation with Iran. Cause for Concern Most Americans are uninterested in foreign affairs until we get mired down in a war that costs too much, last too long, and kills too many U.S. troops. Getting out of a lengthy war is difficult, as I remember all too well with Vietnam while serving in the U.S. Air Force from 1963 to 1968. Getting into war is much easier. Unfortunately the Legislative branch of our government too often defers to the Executive branch, and offers little resistance to war plans even with no significant threat to our security. The need to go to war is always couched in patriotic terms and falsehoods regarding an imaginary eminent danger. Not supporting the effort is painted as unpatriotic and wimpish against some evil that’s about to engulf us. The real reason for our militarism is rarely revealed and hidden from the public. Even Congress is deceived into supporting adventurism they would not accept if fully informed. If we accepted the traditional American and constitutional foreign policy of non-intervention across the board, there would be no temptation to go along with these unnecessary military operations. A foreign policy of intervention invites all kinds of excuses for spreading ourselves around the world. The debate shifts from non-intervention versus interventionism, to where and for what particular reason should we involve ourselves. Most of the time it’s for less than honorable reasons. Even when cloaked in honorable slogans-- like making the world safe for democracy-- the unintended consequences and the ultimate costs cancel out the good intentions. One of the greatest losses suffered these past 60 years from interventionism becoming an acceptable policy of both major parties is respect for the Constitution. Congress flatly has reneged on its huge responsibility to declare war. Going to war was never meant to be an Executive decision, used indiscriminately with no resistance from Congress. The strongest attempt by Congress in the past 60 years to properly exert itself over foreign policy was the passage of the Foley Amendment, demanding no assistance be given to the Nicaraguan contras. Even this explicit prohibition was flaunted by an earlier administration. Arguing over the relative merits of each intervention is not a true debate, because it assumes that intervention per se is both moral and constitutional. Arguing for a Granada-type intervention because of its “success,” and against the Iraq war because of its failure and cost, is not enough. We must once again understand the wisdom of rejecting entangling alliances and rejecting nation building. We must stop trying to police the world and instead embrace non-interventionism as the proper, moral, and constitutional foreign policy. The best reason to oppose interventionism is that people die, needlessly, on both sides. We have suffered over 20,000 American casualties in Iraq already, and Iraq civilian deaths probably number over 100,000 by all reasonable accounts. The next best reason is that the rule of law is undermined, especially when military interventions are carried out without a declaration of war. Whenever a war is ongoing, civil liberties are under attack at home. The current war in Iraq and the misnamed war on terror have created an environment here at home that affords little constitutional protection of our citizen’s rights. Extreme nationalism is common during wars. Signs of this are now apparent. Prolonged wars, as this one has become, have profound consequences. No matter how much positive spin is put on it, war never makes a society wealthier. World War II was not a solution to the Depression as many claim. If a billion dollars is spent on weapons of war, the GDP records positive growth in that amount. But the expenditure is consumed by destruction of the weapons or bombs it bought, and the real economy is denied $1 billion to produce products that would have raised someone’s standard of living. Excessive spending to finance the war causes deficits to explode. There are never enough tax dollars available to pay the bills, and since there are not enough willing lenders and dollars available, the Federal Reserve must create enough new money and credit for buying Treasury Bills to prevent interest rates from rising too rapidly. Rising rates would tip off everyone that there are not enough savings or taxes to finance the war. This willingness to print whatever amount of money the government needs to pursue the war is literally inflation. Without a fiat monetary system wars would be very difficult to finance, since the people would never tolerate the taxes required to pay for it. Inflation of the money supply delays and hides the real cost of war. The result of the excessive creation of new money leads to the higher cost of living everyone decries and the Fed denies. Since taxes are not levied, the increase in prices that results from printing too much money is technically the tax required to pay for the war. The tragedy is that the inflation tax is borne more by the poor and the middle class than the rich. Meanwhile, the well-connected rich, the politicians, the bureaucrats, the bankers, the military industrialists, and the international corporations reap the benefits of war profits. A sound economic process is disrupted with a war economy and monetary inflation. Strong voices emerge blaming the wrong policies for our problems, prompting an outcry for protectionist legislation. It’s always easier to blame foreign producers and savers for our inflation, lack of savings, excess debt, and loss of industrial jobs. Protectionist measures only make economic conditions worse. Inevitably these conditions, if not corrected, lead to a lower standard of living for most of our citizens. Careless military intervention is also bad for the civil disturbance that results. The chaos in the streets of America in the 1960s while the Vietnam War raged, aggravated by the draft, was an example of domestic strife caused by an ill-advised unconstitutional war that could not be won. The early signs of civil discord are now present. Hopefully we can extricate ourselves from Iraq and avoid a conflict in Iran before our streets explode as they did in the 60s. In a way it’s amazing there’s not a lot more outrage expressed by the American people. There’s plenty of complaining but no outrage over policies that are not part of our American tradition. War based on false pretenses, 20,000 American casualties, torture policies, thousands jailed without due process, illegal surveillance of citizens, warrantless searches, and yet no outrage. When the issues come before Congress, Executive authority is maintained or even strengthened while real oversight is ignored. Though many Americans are starting to feel the economic pain of paying for this war through inflation, the real pain has not yet arrived. We generally remain fat and happy, with a system of money and borrowing that postpones the day of reckoning. Foreigners, in particular the Chinese and Japanese, gladly participate in the charade. We print the money and they take it, as do the OPEC nations, and provide us with consumer goods and oil. Then they loan the money back to us at low interest rates, which we use to finance the war and our housing bubble and excessive consumption. This recycling and perpetual borrowing of inflated dollars allows us to avoid the pain of high taxes to pay for our war and welfare spending. It’s fine until the music stops and the real costs are realized, with much higher interest rates and significant price inflation. That’s when outrage will be heard, and the people will realize we can’t afford the “humanitarianism” of the Neo-conservatives. The notion that our economic problems are principally due to the Chinese is nonsense. If the protectionists were to have their way, the problem of financing the war would become readily apparent and have immediate ramifications-- none good. Today’s economic problems, caused largely by our funny money system, won’t be solved by altering exchange rates to favor us in the short run, or by imposing high tariffs. Only sound money with real value will solve the problems of competing currency devaluations and protectionist measures. Economic interests almost always are major reasons for wars being fought. Noble and patriotic causes are easier to sell to a public who must pay and provide cannon fodder to defend the financial interests of a privileged class. The fact that Saddam Hussein demanded Euros for oil in an attempt to undermine the U.S. dollar is believed by many to be one of the ulterior motives for our invasion and occupation of Iraq. Similarly, the Iranian oil burse now about to open may be seen as a threat to those who depend on maintaining the current monetary system with the dollar as the world’s reserve currency. The theory and significance of “peak oil” is believed to be an additional motivating factor for the U.S. and Great Britain wanting to maintain firm control over the oil supplies in the Middle East. The two nations have been protecting “our” oil interests in the Middle East for nearly a hundred years. With diminishing supplies and expanding demands, the incentive to maintain a military presence in the Middle East is quite strong. Fear of China and Russia moving into this region to assume more control alarms those who don’t understand how a free market can develop substitutes to replace diminishing resources. Supporters of the military effort to maintain control over large regions of the world to protect oil fail to count the real costs once the DOD budget is factored in. Remember, invading Iraq was costly and oil prices doubled. Confrontation in Iran may evolve differently, but we can be sure it will be costly and oil prices will rise. There are long-term consequences or blowback from our militant policy of intervention around the world. They are unpredictable as to time and place. 9/11 was a consequence of our military presence on Muslim holy lands; the Ayatollah Khomeini’s success in taking over the Iranian government in 1979 was a consequence of our CIA overthrowing Mossadech in 1953. These connections are rarely recognized by the American people and never acknowledged by our government. We never seem to learn how dangerous interventionism is to us and to our security. There are some who may not agree strongly with any of my arguments, and instead believe the propaganda: Iran and her President, Mahmoud Almadinjad, are thoroughly irresponsible and have threatened to destroy israel. So all measures must be taken to prevent Iran from getting nukes-- thus the campaign to intimidate and confront Iran. First, Iran doesn’t have a nuke and is nowhere close to getting one, according to the CIA. If they did have one, using it would guarantee almost instantaneous annihilation by israel and the United States. Hysterical fear of Iran is way out of proportion to reality. With a policy of containment, we stood down and won the Cold War against the Soviets and their 30,000 nuclear weapons and missiles. If you’re looking for a real kook with a bomb to worry about, North Korea would be high on the list. Yet we negotiate with Kim Jong Il. Pakistan has nukes and was a close ally of the Taliban up until 9/11. Pakistan was never inspected by the IAEA as to their military capability. Yet we not only talk to her, we provide economic assistance-- though someday Musharraf may well be overthrown and a pro-al Qaeda government put in place. We have been nearly obsessed with talking about regime change in Iran, while ignoring Pakistan and North Korea. It makes no sense and it’s a very costly and dangerous policy. The conclusion we should derive from this is simple: It’s in our best interest to pursue a foreign policy of non-intervention. A strict interpretation of the Constitution mandates it. The moral imperative of not imposing our will on others, no matter how well intentioned, is a powerful argument for minding our own business. The principle of self-determination should be respected. Strict non-intervention removes the incentives for foreign powers and corporate interests to influence our policies overseas. We can’t afford the cost that intervention requires, whether through higher taxes or inflation. If the moral arguments against intervention don’t suffice for some, the practical arguments should. Intervention just doesn’t work. It backfires and ultimately hurts American citizens both at home and abroad. Spreading ourselves too thin around the world actually diminishes our national security through a weakened military. As the superpower of the world, a constant interventionist policy is perceived as arrogant, and greatly undermines our ability to use diplomacy in a positive manner. Conservatives, libertarians, constitutionalists, and many of today’s liberals have all at one time or another endorsed a less interventionist foreign policy. There’s no reason a coalition of these groups might not once again present the case for a pro-American, non-militant, non-interventionist foreign policy dealing with all nations. A policy of trade and peace, and a willingness to use diplomacy, is far superior to the foreign policy that has evolved over the past 60 years. It’s time for a change.
  23. Bush 'planning nuclear Iran strike' Article in New Yorker says that U.S. government is preparing a massive campaign to neutralize Iranian nuclear sites. Iranian President Ahmadinejad is compared in the White House to Hitler Ynet The U.S. government is planning to carry out massive bombardment against Iran and using bunker-busting nuclear bombs in order to destroy facilities and development centers in which nuclear weapons exist. These details will be exposed in a new report as part of an investigation in the New Yorker, to be publicized April 17. The AFP paraphrases Seymour Hersh, the article's author, as saying that “Bush and others in the White House have come to view Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a potential Adolf Hitler.” "'That’s the name they’re using.' They say, ‘Will Iran get a strategic weapon and threaten another world war? ” a former senior U.S. intelligence agent is quoted as saying. The same agent described the plan being formulated in the White House as "enormous" and "emotional." The article states that "a government consultant with close ties to the civilian leadership in the Pentagon said that Bush was 'absolutely convinced that Iran is going to get the bomb' if it is not stopped. He said that the President believes that he must do 'what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do,” and “that saving Iran is going to be his legacy.'" Another Pentagon official said that the current White House believes that the only way to solve the problem is to change the balance of power in Iran. 'Hizbullah comes into play' The official added that "Hizbullah comes into play.” The article reported that "one of the military’s initial option plans, as presented to the White House by the Pentagon this winter, calls for the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, against underground nuclear sites. One target is Iran’s main centrifuge plant, at Natanz, nearly two hundred miles south of Tehran. Natanz, which is no longer under I.A.E.A. safeguards, reportedly has underground floor space to hold fifty thousand centrifuges, and laboratories and workspaces buried approximately seventy-five feet beneath the surface. That number of centrifuges could provide enough enriched uranium for about twenty nuclear warheads a year." In the course of the article, a former Defense Minister clerk tells the New Yorker that the White House is planning “a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government.” He added, “I was shocked when I heard it, and asked myself, ‘What are they smoking?’” from (www.)"http://ynetnews/articles/0,7340,L-3237583,00.html"]ynetnews/articles/0,7340,L-3237583,00.html[/url]
  24. Greetings Livius "Kurt Nimmo Born 1952, Detroit, MI Recent Teaching As a multimedia developer, photographer, and educator for New Mexico State University at Las Cruces, I am involved in teaching other educators graphic and photographic techniques with Adobe Photoshop. Selected Recent Exhibitions 2002 Fifteen Photographs, The Bean Gallery, Mesilla, New Mexico 2001 Subversion of Order: Selected Photographs by Kurt Nimmo, Impecunious Art Gallery, Kent, Ohio Awards First Place, Foto Dimension Magazine Honorable Mention, Apogee Photo Magazine Feature Articles Kurt Nimmo's Southwest, Digital Camera Magazine, September, 2001 The Poetry of Incongruity - The Photographs of Kurt Nimmo, The Ink, January, 2002 Print Publication Long Shot, Volume 24, 2001 Online Exhibitions Yourwall (www.)"http://yourwall/portfolio.asp?ArtistID=255"]yourwall/portfolio.asp?ArtistID=255[/url] PhotoArts (www.)"http://photoarts/journal/nimmo/nowhere/"]photoarts/journal/nimmo/nowhere/[/url] ZoneZero (www.)"http://zonezero/comunity/portfolios/paisaje/nimmo/1en.html"]zonezero/comunity/portfolios/pa.../nimmo/1en.html[/url] Guerilla One (www.)"http://guerillaone/photography_02_07/kurt_1.html"]guerillaone/photography_02_07/kurt_1.html[/url] Artists-in-residence (www.)"http://artists-in-residence/~nimmo/""]artists-in-residence/~nimmo/"[/url] Is this the same person? You forget that you are talking to a Muslim - our Prophet (pbuh) was illiterate. I don't care whether Kurt Nimmo is a janitor at the Wal-Mart in Antartica - he writes quite well and sensibly to me and, as far as I can gather, to a lot of other people as well. I don't see anywhere that he claims to be an expert and even that does not matter to me - I've seen many purported experts who were just plain wrong. Are you rooting for Bush to nuke Iran? Regards, yusufar islamicunityfoundation One God One Religion One Community One Nation Anti-Arab = Anti-Semite Anti-Muslim = Anti-Peace Anti-Islam = Anti-Civilisation Please Identify Yourself - Which Are You? All of the above? Shame on You!
  25. (www.)"http://geocities/carbonomics/MCtfirm/10tf24/10tf24a.html"]geocities/carbonomics/MCtfi...24/10tf24a.html[/url] The Zionists’ Rise to World Domination. List of Contents Dedication. Welcome to Terra Firm no.24. Globalization, Unilateralism, and Zionization. Nomenclature. 1. A Short History of Zionist Occupied Palestine. 1.1: Palestine was a Brutish Protectorate. 1.2: The Zionists wholesale Theft of Palestinian Land. 1.3: Zionists have created Millions of Stateless Refugees. 1.4: The Appalling Poverty which Crypto-Nazi Zionists are Inflicting on Palestinians. 1.5: The Crypto-Nazi Nature of the Zionist state in Palestine. 1.6: The Turning Point in Zionist History was the 1967 War. 1.7: The Zionists Consolidate their Military Grip on Palestine by Building Zionist Settlements. 1.8: Rich Jews using Palestinians as Cheap labour. 1.9: The West believes only Arab Countries have to abide by United Nations’ Resolutions .... but not America nor the Zionist State in Palestine. 1.10: Sharon’s Massacres in Lebanon. 1.11: The Zionists’ Illegal Occupation of Southern Lebanon. 1.12: The Gulf War was a Proxy Zionist War. 1.13: Proxy Zionist Sanctions to Deindustrialize Iraq. 1.14: Sharon’s Policies of Provocation. 1.15: Sharon will use his Provocation Policies in the Middle East. 1.16: Sharon is Worse than Bin Laden. 1.17: After the Gulf War the Allies Promised to Solve the Zionist-Palestinian Conflict. 1.18: The Zionist State in Palestine is a Terrorist State. 1.19: The Zionist State in Palestine is one of the world’s most Odious States. 1.20: The Zionists’ Dominance of the Middle East. 1.21: America provides the Weapons and Munitions for Zionists to Murder Palestinians. 1.22: Strengthening the Zionists to encourage them to sue for Peace. 1.23: The United Nations’ Resolutions being ignored by the Zionist Government. 1.24: The American Government is a Zionist Puppet. 1.25: The Zionist State is a Crypto Nazi State - the Similarities between the Zionist State and the Nazi State. 2. Zionist Propaganda. 2.1: Introduction. 2.2: Zionists’ Global Conspiracy of Silence. 2.3: Zionists’ Global Propaganda about Jews and Jewish History. 2.4: Zionists’ Global Propaganda concerning the P*ny Bombings and about Moslems. 3. The Zionists’ April 2002 Invasion of Palestine. The Zionist State is Aiming to Reoccupy Palestine, carry out the Mass Deportation of Palestinians, and provoke the Aerial Bombing of Iran, Iraq, and Syria. 3.1. Reducing Palestine to Rubble. 3.2. The Crypto-Nazi Tendencies of Ariel bin Sharon 3.3. The Zionists Exploitation of the Holocaust. 3.4. America’s Foreign Policies being Dictated by Zionists. 3.5. The Consequences of Zionists’ Control of America’s Foreign Policies. 4. The Zionists’ Global Conspiracy for World Domination. 4.1: Background and Connections. 4.2: Similarities between the Zionist State and the former Apartheid Government in South Africa. 4.3: Doesn’t this sound like Neo-Nazism? 4.4: The Zionists’ Global Conspiracy of Silence, Zionists’ Global Jewish Propaganda, and the Zionists’ step towards World Domination. 4.5: Zionists’ Control over America’s Foreign Policies. 4.6: The Paradoxes of Zionists’ Relationships with the Nazis. 4.7: The Zionist State is Different from the White Apartheid Regime in South Africa. 4.8: Sympathy for Poor Jews; the Antiquated notion of the Jews as Victims. 4.9: Hyping up ‘the Jewish Holocaust’ for the sake of Vast Political and Financial Profits. 4.10: The Vast Costs of Zionists’ Hype over the Jewish Holocaust. 4.11: What would the Jewish victims of the Nazi Concentration Camps think about their Exploitation? 4.12: Fundamentalist Religious Extremists are behind the Zionists’ Goal of World Domination. 4.13: Zionists’ Holocaust Fixation. 4.14: Zionists’ can’t get over their Obsessions with the Nazis. 4.15: Zionists’ Hatred of the Palestinians. 4.16: Putting Jewish Suffering in its Proper Perspective. 4.17: The Greatest Paradox of Jewish History. 4.18: Standing by whilst the Zionists Create a Palestinian Free Palestine. 4.19: Individual Jews Contributing to the Earth’s Greatest Holocaust. 5. The Increasing Evidence of Zionists’ World Domination. Introduction: Who Rules the World? 5.1: America. 5.1.1: Zionists’ Domination of the American Political Process. 5.1.1.1: Zionists’ Domination of the American Government. 5.1.1.1.1: A Short History of Zionists' Take-over of America’s Foreign Policies. 5.1.1.1.2: America’s Unilateralism is the Consequence of Zionists’ Domination of the American Political Process: Zionists are infecting the American Government with their Contempt for the United Nations. 5.1.1.1.3: Examples of American Unilateralism. 5.1.1.1.4: Jewish/Zionist Members of pre-Bush jr American Administrations. 5.1.1.1.5: The Jews and Zionists in and around the Bush jnr Administration. 5.1.1.1.5.1: A List of the Jews and Zionists in and around the Bush jnr Administration. 5.1.1.1.5.2: Jewish Zionists on Short Term Contracts in the Bush jnr Administration - The Office of Special Plans (OSP). 5.1.1.1.5.3: The Jewish Zionists' that Bush sent to Occupy Iraq. 5.1.1.1.5.4: The Non-Jewish Zionists' that Bush sent to Occupy Iraq. 5.1.1.1.5.5: A List of the non-Jewish, Zionists in and around the Bush Jnr Administration. 5.1.1.1.5.6: A List of the Politically Powerful, Jewish Zionists outside the Bush jnr Administration. 5.1.1.1.5.7: A List of the Politically Powerful, Non-Jewish Zionists outside the Bush jnr Administration. 5.1.1.1.6: The Jews and Zionists in and around John Kerry's 2004 Presidential Election Campaign. 5.1.1.1.7: Zionists’ influence over America’s Domestic Policies. 5.1.1.2: Zionists’ Domination of the American Congress. 5.1.1.3: Jews and Jewish Zionists in the American State. 5.1.1.4: Zionists’ Domination of American Political Parties. 5.1.1.5: Jews and Zionists in American State/Local Government Legislative Assemblies. 5.1.1.6: Zionists' Control of America’s Trade Union Movement. 5.1.1.7: Zionists' Influence over America’s Left/Liberal/Green/Progressive/Anti-War/Protest Groups. 5.1.1.8: The American Zionist Lobby. 5.1.1.8.1: The Electoral Power of the Jews. 5.1.1.8.2: The Zionist Block Vote in the 2001 Presidential Election. 5.1.1.8.3: The Need to Curb the Zionist Lobby. 5.1.1.8.4: A List of Neo-conservative (Zionist) Lobby Groups/Organizations/Think Tanks. 5.1.1.8.5: The Social Targets of the Zionist Lobby. 5.1.1.8.6: Jewish Funders of Neoconservative Groups. 5.1.1.8.7: Zionist Funders of Neoconservative Groups. 5.1.1.8.8: Neoconservative (Zionist) Publications. 5.1.1.8.9: Zionist Lobby Groups feeding the American Media. 5.1.2: Zionists’ Dominance of the American Media. (Updated august 29th 2004). 5.1.3: The Tribute Payments that Zionists extract from the American Government. 5.1.4: Zionists’ Control of America’s Tele-communications’ Systems. 5.1.5: Local Examples of Zionists’ Dominance over the American Media and Political Process. 5.1.6: De-christianized Zionists (the so-called Christian Zionists). 5.1.7: Zionists' Anti-Moslem Hatred. 5.1.8: Zionism on the Internet. 5.1.9: Zionist Terrorism in America. 5.1.10: Zionist Dominance of the American Economy. 5.2: Brutland. 5.2.1: Zionists’ Domination of the Political Process. The Jews and Zionists Stirring up Racism in Britain. Richard Desmond. The Zionist Attacks on Ken Livingstone. Stephen Pollard. Julie Birchill. The Zionist Attacks on George Galloway. The Zionist Attacks on Lenni Brenner. Christopher Hitchens and David Holovitz. The Zionist Attacks on Atzmon, Shamir, and Eisen. Jack Straw. 5.3: Russia. 7. Addenda. 7.1: Zionist Dominance of the Brutish Economy. 7.2: Zionists’ Global Economic Power. 7.3: The Zionist State. 7.4: Proponents of the War in Aghanistan. 7.5: The Irrelevance of the Brutish Parliament. 7.6: The Mundi Club’s Demands.
×