USA: Obama Lawyer Claims they Can Murder U.S. “Belligerents”

 Obama Lawyer Claims they Can Murder U.S. “Belligerents”

 

Posted on February 24, 2012 by willyloman

by Scott Creighton

 bel·lig·er·ent –

1. Inclined or eager to fight; hostile or aggressive.

2. Of, pertaining to, or engaged in warfare.

These adjectives mean having or showing an eagerness to fight. Belligerent refers to a tendency to hostile behavior: A belligerent reporter badgered the politician.

The Obama administration’s top Pentagon lawyer, the Defense Department general counsel Jeh C. Johnson, said on Wednesday that the Obama administration has the right to target and kill U.S. citizens deemed “belligerents” by the Obama administration no matter what the location of the “belligerent” (outside or inside the United States) without due process and that the courts have no jurisdiction to intervene under any circumstances.

“Belligerents who also happen to be U.S. citizens do not enjoy immunity where non-citizen belligerents are valid military objectives,” Jeh C. Johnson

Since when did someone who our White House decides has a “tendency” toward aggressive behavior toward our occupation of foreign lands become a “valid military objective”?

What does that mean? It means that anyone who could pose a threat to our invasion and occupation of sovereign nations can and will be killed. We used to call these operations “black bag ops” or death squads. Now, with the advent of the new left-cover president, we normalize the process, legitimizing outright state sanctioned murder and death squads under the cover of Peace Prize Obama, the “Greatest Man of Our Generation“

And now his mouthpieces claim they can do it to anyone anywhere no matter what your constitutional rights say. Remember the left-wing outcry back when the Bush administration’s lawyers convoluted the law and claimed the right to detain, rendition, and torture foreign “combatants” at will? Remember the dramatic beating of the breasts and gnashing of the teeth of all those “progressives” when McCain and Lieberman pushed the Enemy Belligerent  Bill in 2010 and 2011? Where is the moral outrage now? Seems to me all I hear coming out of the “progressive” left is angst about how many women were on the panel hashing out insurance coverage of contraceptives. I guess the party line towers in the democratic party have bigger concerns about whether or not they get reimbursed for their morning after pills than they do about “belligerents” down the block being deemed a valid military objective. They’re only concerned with what directly effects them.

How quickly they forget.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out –
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out –
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out –
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me — and there was no one left to speak for me. Martin Niemoller

Joha, in the Arabic culture, is a character on which stories were spun; he, Joha, sometimes was smart, wise, and some other times stupid or funny, depending on the situation, political or whatever it may be, involving the people.

One day, a man came running to Joha and said, "Joha, fornication has become rampant in the eastern side of the village. Joha said, "I do not care. It is not in my side of the village"

A month later, the same man said to Joha, "Now fornication has hit your side of the village". Joha answered, "I do not care. It did nor hit the quarter in which I live"

A few weeks later, the same man said, "Now, Joha, fornication is in your quarter". Joha replied, "I do not care. It has not yet reached the street on which I live".

A week later, the man said to Joha, "Joha, fornication has completely comromised your stree". Joha said, "I do not care. My House is clean"

A few days later, the man told Joha that his house is no more clean. Joha told him that he did not care as long as his rear-end is untouched.

For how long Joha, or the American people, are going tostop being submissive before their personal rear-ends get abused by their government and politicians?!  - The Blogger.

USA/ISRAEL/IRAN: The Slide to War.

The Slide to War

Posted: 24 Feb 2012 11:10 AM PST

by CONN HALLINAN

Wars are fought because some people decide it is in their interests to fight them. World War I was not started over the Archduke Ferdinand’s assassination, nor was it triggered by the alliance system. An “incident” may set the stage for war, but no one keeps shooting unless they think it’s a good idea. The Great War started because the countries involved decided they would profit by it, delusional as that conclusion was.

It is useful to keep this idea in mind when trying to figure out if there will be a war with Iran. In short, what are the interests of the protagonists, and are they important enough for those nations to take the fateful step into the chaos of battle?

First off, because oil and gas are involved, a war would have global ramifications. Iran supplies China with about 15 percent of its oil, and India with 10 percent. It is a major supplier to Europe, Turkey, Japan and South Korea, and it has the third largest oil reserves and the second largest natural gas reserves in the world. Some 17 million barrels per day pass through the narrow Strait of Hormuz, a significant part of the globe’s energy supply.

In short, the actors in this drama are widespread and their interests as diverse as their nationalities.

According to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Iran is building nuclear weapons that pose an “existential” threat to Israel. But virtually no one believes this, including the bulk of Tel Aviv’s military and intelligence communities. As former Israeli Chief of Staff Dan Halutz said recently, Iran “is not an existential” threat to Israel. There is no evidence that Iran is building a bomb and all its facilities are currently under a 24-hour United Nations inspection regime.

But Israel does have an interest in keeping the Middle East a fragmented place, riven by sectarian divisions and dominated by authoritarian governments and feudal monarchies. If there is one lesson Israel has learned from its former British overlords, it is “divide and conquer.” Among its closest allies were the former dictatorships in Egypt and Tunisia, and it now finds itself on the same page as the reactionary monarchies of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC): Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Qatar, and Oman.

Iran is not a military threat to Israel, but it is a political problem, because Tel Aviv sees Teheran’s fierce nationalism and independence from the U.S. and Europe as a wildcard. Iran is also allied to Israel’s major regional enemy, Syria—with which it is still officially at war— and the Shiite-based Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, and the Shiite-dominated government in Iraq.

In the Netanyahu government’s analysis, beating up on Iran would weaken Israel’s local enemies and at little cost. Tel Aviv’s scenario features a shock and awe attack, followed by a United Nations mandated ceasefire, with a maximum of 500 Israeli casualties. The Iranians have little capacity to strike back, and, if they did attack Israeli civilian centers or tried to close the Hormutz Strait, it would bring in the Americans.

Of course that rose-colored scenario is little more than wishful thinking. Iran is not likely to agree to a ceasefire—it fought for eight long years against Iraq—and war has a habit of derailing the best-laid plans. In real life it will be long and bloody and might well spread to the entire region.

Iran’s leaders use a lot of bombast about punishing Israel if it attacks, but in the short run, there is not a lot they could do, particularly given the red lines Washington has drawn. The Iranian air force is obsolete, and the Israelis have the technology to blank out most of Teheran’s radar and anti-aircraft sites. Iran could do little to stop Tel Aviv’s mixture of air attacks, submarine-fired cruise missiles, and Jericho ballistic missiles.

For all its talk about “everything being on the table.” The Obama administration appears to be trying to avoid a war, but with the 2012 elections looming, would Washington remain on the sidelines? On the “yes” side are polls indicating that Americans would not look with favor on a new Middle East war. But on the “no” side are a united front of Republicans, neo-conservatives, and the American Israeli Political Action Committee pressing for a confrontation with Iran.

Israeli sources suggest that Netanyahu may calculate that in the run-up to the 2012 American elections, an Israeli attack might force the Obama Administration to back a war and/or damage Obama’s re-election chances. It is no secret that there is no love lost between the two leaders.

But the U.S. also has a dog in this fight, and one not all that different than Israel’s. American hostility to Iran dates back to Teheran’s seizure of its oil assets from Britain in 1951. The CIA helped overthrow the democratically elected Iranian government in 1953 and install the dictatorial Shah. The U.S. also backed Saddam Hussein’s war on Iran, has had a longstanding antagonistic relationship with Syria, and will not talk with Hezbollah or Hamas. Tel Aviv’s local enemies are Washington’s local enemies.

When the Gulf monarchs formed the GCC in 1981, its primary purpose was to oppose Iranian influence in the Middle East. Using religious division as a wedge, the GCC has encouraged Sunni fundamentalists to fight Shiites in Lebanon, Iraq and Syria, and blocked the spread of the “Arab Spring” to its own turf. When Shiites in Bahrain began protesting over a lack of democracy and low wages, the GCC invaded and crushed the demonstrations. The GCC does not see eye-to-eye with the U.S. and Israel on the Palestinians—although it is careful not to annoy Washington and Tel Aviv—but the GCC is on the same page as both capitals concerning Syria, Lebanon and Iran.

The European Union (EU) has joined the sanctions, although France and Germany have explicitly rejected the use of force. Motivations in the EU range from France’s desire to reclaim its former influence in Lebanon to Europe’s need to keep its finger on the energy jugular vein. In brief, it isn’t all about oil and gas but a whole lot of it is, and, as CounterPunch’s Alexander Cockburn points out, oil companies would like to see production cut and prices rise. A war would accomplish both.

Iran will be the victim here, but there will be some who would take advantage of a war. An attack would unify the country around what is now a rather unpopular government, allow the Revolutionary Guard to crush its opposition, and give cover to the current drive by the Ahmadinejad government to cut subsidies for transportation, housing and food. A war would cement the power of the most reactionary elements of the current regime.

There are other actors in this drama—China, Russia, India, Turkey, and Pakistan for starters, none of whom support a war—but whether they can influence events is an open question. In the end, Israel may just decide that its interests are served by starting a war, and that the U.S. will go along because it is much of the same mind.

Or maybe this is all sound and fury signifying nothing?

The sobering thought is that the three most powerful actors in this drama—Israel, the U.S. and its European allies, and the Gulf Cooperation Council—have many of the same interests, and share the belief that force is an effective way to achieve one’s goals.

On such illusions are tragedies built.

The United States Of Israel. 

What a joke!

 

JUDAISM/TALMUDISM: Anti-None-Semites; Jewish hatred towards all none Jews...

Rabbi Mayer Schiller's Skver Sect Teaches its Children to Hate Non-'Jews': "Gentiles are wholly evil. They spiritually pollute the world"

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Hoffman's Note: Talmud teacher Mayer Schiller is one of Orthodox Judaism's most successful infiltrators of both the American right-wing, including American Renaissance, and the Roman Catholic Fatima movement led by Fr. Nicholas Gruner. Rabbi Schiller is a member and leading spokesman for the racist anti-goyimite Skver Hasidim of New York which, as the following documentation attests, adhere to the rabbinic dogma that all gentiles are irredeemably evil. Rabbi Schiller's virtuoso writing and speaking engagements in right wing circles are partly responsible for the widespread dissemination of the delusional notion that Talmudic Orthodox Judaism is a sincere ally of Christian conservatives and the pro-life "Family values" movement.

 

Catholic investigative reporter Maurice Pinay (http://mauricepinay.blogspot.com/) writes as follows: From Failed Messiah we have a translation of a text of the Skver [also spelled "Skvere"] Hasidic sect. Rabbi Mayer Schiller who for decades has ingratiated himself with traditional Catholics and was even invited to speak at the SSPX seminary in Ridgefield Connecticut on numerous occasions, is a member and spokesperson for the Skver Hasidic sect. We have been warning against his cajolery for years to no notable effect. Mayer Schiller is featured in a Fatima video, "Heaven's Key to Peace" alongside traditional Catholicism's most respected pundits. 

Here are the master race teachings of hatred imparted to the youth of Rabbi Mayer Schiller's Skver Hasidic sect…

Exclusive: Hate All Non-Jews, Skvere Rabbis Say

A recently published book written by a Skvere hasidic rabbi and endorsed by the Skvere Rebbe himself tells Skvere hasidim and other Jews to hate all gentiles. Gentiles are wholly evil, the book says. They spiritually pollute the world, and even looking at their faces is harmful.

The book is called Yalkut Shaiylos u'Teshuvos. As the title indicates, it is a collection of questions and answers on halakhic (legal) topics. The questions were asked by young Skvere yeshiva students in New Square, New York. The answers are rabbinic.

The section translated below is titled, "Goyyim" and it explains the Skvere hasidic view of non-Jews, citing among other sources, the Skvere Rebbe himself.

The anti-gentile hatred is based on rabbinic sources. Those sources are heavily influenced by kabbalah and by hasidic thought.

A similar attitude toward non-Jews can be found in the Tanya, the so-called bible of Chabad hasidic thought written by the first rebbe of Chabad, Schneur Zalman of Liadi, and reprinted thousands of times by Chabad worldwide.

The translation was made by the noted filmmaker Menachem Daum, who sent it to me along with the scans of the book posted below and requested that I post it.

All remarks in square brackets [ ] are Daum's. All remarks in these brackets { } are Failed Messiah's. All text within normal parenthesis ( ) are the book's author's.

Question:  Is it appropriate to not love, or to hate, a gentile?

Answer:  A Jew is intrinsically good.  A Jew is a part of God above.  Even if at times he strays it is not because he has become evil.  It is only that there is evil within him that he has to cleanse.

However, to separate with a million degrees of separation, a gentile is an impure thing.  The entire essence of the gentile is evil and impure.  Even if he occasionally does good deeds he does not thereby become good.  As the Holy Light of Life {i.e., the author of the book Ohr HaHayyim] says regarding gentiles, even such a one who is very careful in his actions does not obtain any degree of holiness thereby.

As is also well known, even educated gentiles who guarded themselves because of their clear understanding of what is right, nonetheless failed when they were tested, because a gentile has no power for goodness within him.

On the contrary, the evil thoughts of gentiles contaminate the world’s atmosphere and create ordeals for Jewish children. As the Remnant for Pinchos {i.e., the author of the book Sheairit L’Pinchas} says, the thoughts of gentiles, even when they are dead, still linger in and contaminate the atmosphere.

He says that to be protected from this there is only one solution; to completely despise the thoughts of gentiles and to realize that all their thoughts are only evil. (Hate doesn’t mean wanting to do something to a gentile, but it means not being able to tolerate him, not being able to stand him, because of his great impurity, especially when one realizes how harmful this {impurity} is {to Jews and to the world}.) Understandably, loving a gentile is the exact opposite of this.

The Holy Light of Life {i.e., the author of the book Ohr HaHayyim} says that for a person to be totally protected from evil he must hate the thing that has caused him to sin. This is why God commanded to uproot the trees of Midian. Since the Midianites caused the Jews to sin with the Peor idol, so therefore Jews must hate everything connected to Midian. Consequently, gentiles, whose thoughts bring upon us ordeals, may be hated.

So also the Holy Light of Life {i.e., the author of the book Ohr HaHayyim} writes, in the portion of Vayigash {in his book entitled Oh HaHayyim}, that the nature of the righteous ones is to hate gentiles.

Speaking of gentiles it is worth mentioning two points. First, with respect to conversing with a gentile: a gentile is impure, as we have mentioned, and he defiles one who speaks to him and this brings evil upon a person. (Except when one is forced to do so because then, as is explained by the Enlightener of the Eyes {i.e., the author of the book Me’or Eynayim}, we thereby extract the little bit of good which has fallen into the gentile, since everything in the world is a mixture of evil and good.)

Especially if one converses with friendship, because the texts tell us that when two people speak with affection then a portion of each one’s soul becomes connected to the other and no one wants to become connected to a gentile, God forbid.  (Understandably, when one must converse one must do so like a human being.  However, in his heart one should not love him.  And it is worth knowing that “it is a well-known law that Esau [the gentile] hates Jacob [the Jew].” The gentile hates you.  It is only because of his ulterior motives that he is talking in a friendly manner, because it is in his best interests to do so at this moment, because of his job or for tens of others reasons. Even the righteous gentiles among the nations are often so because they hate inhumanity and murder but not because they love Jews.)

The second point is; one is not to concentrate on the face of a gentile. As the Willows of the Valley {the author of the book Arvei Nahal} writes on the Talmudic passage, “it is forbidden to look upon the face of an evildoer”, because the other side [the devil] {the sitra achra} cloaks himself in the guise of an evildoer and it is a danger to look at him. This passage refers to a Jew who has, God forbid, become an evildoer. Certainly, beyond any doubt, a gentile whose whole nature is essentially evil, looking at his appearance is defiling.

In the Abbreviated Set Table {Kitzur Shulkhan Arukh} it states that if one sees beautiful creatures, even a gentile, one makes a blessing. The Abbreviated Set Table {Kitzur Shulkhan Arukh}adds this is only if one caught a casual glimpse, however concentrating on a gentile is forbidden.

Once, in middle of the night, The Perfumed Bed {the author of the book Arugot Haboshem} sent a messenger to his son, the Jacob Speaks {i.e., the author of the book Vayagid Yaakov}, requesting he should immediately come over. He quickly came running and the Perfumed Bed {the author of the book Arugot Haboshem} looked upon him and told him he can now leave. He only called upon him since a gentile doctor was there earlier and he didn’t want that the last thing he sees before he sleeps to be a gentile, so he called him only to take a look at him.

Our Honorable Holy Teacher, Our Master, Our Guide, Our Rebbe [of Skver], may he live a long and good life, repeated in the name of the Maharal that gentiles are referred to as “wicked waters” while Jews are akin to fire. Naturally, when fire and water mix the water extinguishes the fire. However, when there is an iron barrier between them, for example, water in a pot, then on the contrary, the fire cooks and evaporates the water.  Similarly, if one has connections to a gentile the gentile can, God forbid, extinguish the fire in the soul. However, if one is separated in all matters then the Jewish soul will triumph.

This is what they are

Updates: News and Links

 

 You can’t sell occupation in a postcolonial age

February 19th, 2012

This Op-Ed review of Peter Beinart's new book is startling only because of its prominent position in an influential American newspaper. Beinart castigates Israel and its wealthy right-wing supporters in the US for perpetuating a narrative of victimhood to justify their oppression of Palestinians. Meanwhile they kick sand in our face to conceal the real question - how to exercise their power and wealth in an ethical way.

 

American Jews turn their backs on Israel in fear and silence

February 16th, 2012 

On her recent visit to the USA, Dahlia Scheindlin was shocked by how liberal Jews have turned away from Israel, appalled by the treatment of Palestinians but intimidated by the pro-Israel lobby. This is her impassioned plea to them to engage by speaking out against the violations of liberal humanitarian values in a country they once admired.

 

Khader Adnan: UN rapporteur condemns this ‘state barbarism’

February 16th, 2012 

Khader Adnan is on the 61st day of his hunger strike (16th Feb) and cannot survive much longer if the Israeli authorities persist in their refusal to charge him, indicate the evidence against him or try him. Their refusal to follow judicial procedure is the cause of his hunger strike. Richard Falk deplores the indifference to his, and other Palestinian prisoners', plight.

 

EU duty to act on violations of human rights law as main obstacle to peace

February 16th, 2012 

The failure of the EU to respond to violations of human rights in the occupied territories is a principal obstacle to peace; it is these violations the EU should focus on, not restarting peace negotiations concludes the EHMRN, a network of civil society groups from around the Mediterranean and APRODEV, a group of Christian churches. The introduction is posted here with a link to the full report.

 

Public meeting: Economic Development in Arab Towns in Israel

February 16th, 2012 

Feb 23rd, London: Dr David Wesley will discuss his book 'State Practices and Zionist Images: Shaping Economic Development in Arab Towns in Israel' and the professional and personal aftermath of its publication. JfJfP public meeting

 

As soon as village builds own school, army says will demolish

February 15th, 2012 

The old Palestinian village of Susiya in the occupied South Hebron hills has been beleagured since a settlement was established near by. Last year, the residents completed a small school they had built themselves with the help of NGOs It is now threatened with demolition by the 'Civil Administration' on the ground of poor amenities. The school's principal and the Villages Group are asking for help to keep it open.

 

Fall-out with Finkelstein on Palestinian political strategy

February 15th, 2012 

Widely admired for his calm marshalling of the facts, Norman Finkelstein has stirred controversy as he has ventured into questions of political strategy, notably a 2-state solution, Palestinian right of return and BDS as the dominant movement. While many Palestinians and supporters of their rights work harmoniously together, there are always questions about how this relationship can and should work.

 

Crying ‘antisemitism’ and embracing racism in Israel

February 14th, 2012 

Ben White's latest book, on Palestinians in Israel, earned him, and Knesset member Hanin Zoabi the bogeyman epithet of antisemitism. Ramzy Baroud tries to disentangle what values lie behind this, followed by Ludwig Watzal's review of the book.

 

Israel stands by to gain from Syrian disarray

February 14th, 2012 

In contrast to the loud and belligerent words from Netanhyahu about Iran, the actions of Iran's ally, the Syrian government, have been met with silence from Israel. Roxanne Horesh reports on what the generals ane security experts are saying at this year's annual Herzliyah conference.

 

Courageous Canadian journalist fired for criticism of Israel

February 14th, 2012 

What has happene to free speech in Canada when thoughtful and responsible journalist Michael Harris can be fired from a radio station because he has criticised his government's policy towards Israel? JfJfP supports the campaign of Independent Jewish Voices, Canada for his reinstatement

 

UN: Israel’s land development model based on racial discrimination

February 14th, 2012 

Prof. Raquel Rolnik, the UN's Special Rapporteur on the right to adequate housing, has just completted a two week tour of housing provision in Israel and the occcupied territories She finds a land in which Palestinians have effectively no housing rights and a discriminatory legal and planning system which makes Palestinian housing subject to demolition and virtually impossible to build but favours building by Jewish settlers.

 

Fateful victory of nationalism over class ideals

February 13th, 2012 

Jadaliyya is an unusual ezine. Product of the Arab Studies Institute, Washington DC and Beirut, it promotes intellectually serious articles. This month, Stuart Sherwin connects last summer's social protest in Israel with the early socialist Zionist ideals - and the exclusion of Palestinians from their socialist vision. The legacy of that exclusion was evident in last summer's protest, for all its ideals of social justice

 

Jewish extremists call for replacement of Al-Aqsa mosque with third temple

February 13th, 2012 

This is the main part of a complex post by Ali Abuminah as he tries to track efforts to create pressure to destroy the Al-Aqsa mosque on Temple Mount and replace if with a third temple. The main agitator is Moshe Feiglin who created Manhigut Yehudit (Jewish Leadership) in 1996 then took it into Likud in 2000 as a faction. Israeli media have been cautious about covering his deliberately inflammatory moves.

 

Co-existence is the only future, it’s mindsets that stop it

February 13th, 2012 

A psychological approach to the Palestine/Israel conflict can hardly add more mutual distrust than exists already and may bring insights that create movement. Dr. Alon Ben Meir has long experience of the conflict, both formally and informally. His journalism is published in Al Quds and Al Ahram and this article is the first of a series.

 

Squeezing the Palestinians out of fertile Jordan valley

February 13th, 2012 

Tha latest report from OCHA on the Jordan valley puts facts and figures to the grim process of making a large pary of the West Bank uninhabitable for its native population. Checkpoints that confine their movement, homes demolished, a water supply system which provides them with 20 litres a day(l/c/d) and settlers with 300 l/c/d. It's a familiar story - but no less intolerable for that. 

USA/ISRAEL/IRAN: Israel Betrays America into War with Iran

Israel Betrays America into War with Iran

War with Iran -George Galloway

Egypt

USA/ISRAEL/IRAN: Deception and Shadow Wars

Explosions are being blamed on an "Iranian national." Until now, China has refused to support a war on Iran.

Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman, Ramin Mehmanparast, stated: "Israel has bombed its embassies in New Delhi, India and Tbilisi, Georgia to tarnish Iran's friendly ties with the host countries," adding, "Israel perpetrated the terrorist actions to launch psychological warfare against Iran."

False flag operations are a means by which the secret services of nations like the Israeli entity and the US Federal government rule the world. The Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 and the 9/11 terror attacks are but two examples of this.

The media are complicit by reporting the bombings in India and Thailand according to the American/Israeli script, rather than stating the fact that the Mossad is an organization known to have mastered false flag "black ops," and then launching an investigation into the likelihood that the recent attacks attributed to Iran are the work of the CIA and/or the Mossad.

  Record of Terror by U.S. and Israelis Dwarf Alleged Acts by Iran

Harvard University Prof. Steven M. Walt observes: "...two very capable states -- the United States and Israel -- threatening to attack a country that hardly seems worth the effort. The U.S. and Israel together spend more than $700 billion each year on their national security establishments; Iran spends about $10 billion. The U.S. and Israel have the most advanced military hardware in the world; Iran's weapons are mostly outdated and lack spare parts. The U.S. and Israeli militaries are well-educated and very well-trained; not true of Iran.

"The United States has thousands of nuclear weapons and Israel has several hundred, while Iran has a vast arsenal of -- zero. Iran does have a nuclear enrichment program (which is the reason for all the war talk), but the most recent National Intelligence Estimates have concluded that Iran does not presently have an active nuclear weapons program.

"The United States has several dozen military bases in Iran's immediate vicinity; Iran has exactly none in the Western hemisphere. The United States has powerful allies in every corner of the world; Iran's friends include a handful of minor nonstate actors like Hezbollah or minor-league potentates like Bashar al Assad (who's not looking like an asset these days) or Hugo Chávez.

"Moreover, the United States has fought four wars since 1990. It has bombed, invaded or occupied a half dozen countries in that period, leading to the deaths of thousands of people.

"Israel has been colonizing the West Bank since 1967, it invaded and occupied much of Lebanon from 1982 to 1999, andits armed forces pummeled Lebanon again in 2006 and Gaza in 2008-09.

"Prominent U.S. politicians have repeatedly called for "regime change" in Iran, and U.S. government officials now report that Israel has been murdering civilian scientists in Iran, in cahoots with the MEK, a terrorist organization that is still on the State Department's terrorist "watchlist." Iran's past conduct is far from pure, but it has done nothing remotely similar in recent years..."

As Prof. Walt points out, the United States and Europe are not actually threatened by Iran, even as we terrorize the Iranians with crippling sanctions, sabotage of their infrastructure and assassination of their scientists. All of these acts are, as Rep. Ron Paul has stated, acts of war.

Iran does threaten the status quo in two areas: in Palestine, where the rest of the world, including the Arab world, are sunk in complacency concerning the periodic masacres which the Israelis inflict and the ongoing theft and occupation of Palestinian land; and in countries such as Bahrain and Saudi Arabia which viciously repress Shiite populations. In Bahrain the Shia are a majority tyrannized by a Sunni minority.

Neither situation is any of our business. We should be sending medical and humanitarian aid and goodwill and cultural ambassadors to all sides in the Middle East, and otherwise taking a hands off approach to these never-ending religious wars which are none of our affair, especially in view of our "budget deficit."

Thanks to a Zionist-dominated American media however, and church leaders who teach that contemporary Israelis are genetic descendants of Abraham and the Israeli state is a Biblical (rather than a Talmudic) nation, we have a U.S. Congress which is Israeli-occupied territory.

Not all the fault is with the Traditional Enemies of Truth. For the past thirty years the Iranians and Syrians have done almost nothing to cultivate influence over the propagation and marketing of news and information in the United States. As a result of their neglect, quite naturally their enemies have obtained a monopoly on reporting conflicts to the American people.

If Iran does become a threat it will be due to the fact that we made them a threat and goaded them into attacking us, just as the administration of President Franklin D. Roosevelt did to Japan on the eve of America's entry into World War Two (cf. Freedom Betrayed: Herbert Hoover's Secret History of the Second World War, edited by George H. Nash; and Day of Deceit by Robert B. Stinnett).

We’ve forgotten the lies that prodded us into war just nine years ago

In a speech by then President George W. Bush of October 7, 2002, Bush cited alleged Iraqi chemical, biological and nuclear programs - as well as concerns about possible Iraqi connections to international terrorist groups. With respect to how close Iraq was to developing a nuclear weapon, Bush said that "we don't know exactly." He went on to state that "If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year."

In the face of requests that the U.S. provide further evidence in support of its position that Iraq was failing to comply with U.N. resolution 1441 and that a resort to military force would be necessary unless Iraq's behavior changed, Secretary of State Colin Powell addressed the U.N. Security Council on Feb. 5, 2003. The bulk of Powell's remarks involved his presentation of "additional information about what the United States knows about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, as well as Iraq's involvement with Al Qaeda associates. In his February 5 presentation to the U.N. Security Council, Secretary of State Colin Powell charged that Iraq had begun constructing mobile facilities to produce biological weapons.

On September 8, 2002, the New York Times published a front page article by Michael Gordon and Judith Miller about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction which was one of the most serious cases of misreporting in the entire run-up to the war. The piece provided a major boost to the administration’s case for war and proved to be wrong in almost every detail.

Michael Massing writes: "It was the prospect of Saddam Hussein’s getting an atomic bomb that caused the most fear about his regime, and it was this fear that the Bush administration most sought to fan as it pushed the case for war. Yet it had little concrete evidence to show that Iraq was actively seeking a bomb. Enter the New York Times. In that September 8 story, Gordon and Miller, leaning heavily on Bush officials, offered the aluminum tubes as evidence that Iraq was actively seeking a nuclear weapon. The article did not simply raise this as a possibility — it asserted it in bold and unequivocal language. 'US Says Hussein Intensifies Quest for A-Bomb Parts' ran the headline. Iraq, the lead declared, 'has stepped up its quest for nuclear weapons and has embarked on a worldwide hunt for materials to make an atomic bomb, Bush administration officials said today."

Another New York Times report by government mouthpieces Gordon and Miller, published on Sept. 13 was heavily slanted to the CIA’s position. It iced out critics of the claims that Iraq was trying to gain nuclear weapons and insulted the critics, trivializing and dismising them. Prior to Sept. 13 David Albright of the Institute for Science and International Security warned Judith Miller concerning her support for CIA claims. He states: "...an administration official was quoted as saying that 'the best' technical experts and nuclear scientists at laboratories like Oak Ridge supported the CIA assessment. These inaccuracies made their way into the story despite several discussions that I had with Miller on the day before the story appeared — some well into the night. In the end, nobody was quoted questioning the CIA’s position, as I would have expected."

Massing notes "...the Times‘s heavy reliance on official sources and its dismissal of other sources...on the critical issue of whether Iraq was actively seeking a nuclear bomb, the International Atomic Energy Administration (IAEA) had found strong indications that it was not. And how did the Times cover these key statements? With two short, pro forma stories buried inside the A section...The Times ran three front-page stories on Colin Powell's speech to the U.N. Security Council speech, one by Michael Gordon...Gordon offered unqualified praise for Powell's assertions about Iraq’s WMD. 'The case Mr. Powell presented today regarding Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction' was 'remorseless,' Gordon wrote. “Even the skeptics,” he added, 'had to concede that Mr. Powell’s presentation had been an important milestone in the debate. Critics may try to challenge the strength of the administration’s case and they will no doubt argue that inspectors be given more time. But it will be difficult for the skeptics to argue that Washington’s case against Iraq is based on groundless suspicions and not intelligence information.'

"On the nuclear issue, Gordon wrote, Powell 'presented new details to buttress the administration’s case;' in particular, he cited Powell’s claim that the United States 'has intercepted aluminum tubes that had a special coating that would make them useful for making centrifuges to enrich uranium.' Remarkably, Gordon did not see fit to mention the IAEA findings that undermined this claim and that he, Gordon, had twice written about in the previous month. So, at this key juncture in the debate on Iraq, Gordon uncritically transmitted a key US claim, one that the inspectors had effectively discredited. In the light of such reporting, is it any surprise that the IAEA findings had such limited impact?"

Doomed to repeat ruinous scripts from past wars

The American people continue to maintain faith in the credibility of the corporate media and as a result of this willful gullibility, they are on a nightmarish merry-go-round, doomed to repeat ruinous scripts from past wars like the war with Iraq, which was fought on the basis of a barrel of (now forgotten) lies about weapons of mass destruction and Iraqi tries to Al Qaeda.

Any armed resistance against Israeli occupation on the part of national liberation organizations such as Hezbollah, which years ago liberated the El Khiam concentration camp in Lebanon from the control of the Israeli proxies who ran that hellhole, is considered "terrorism." In the eyes of the West the sacred nation of fraudsters who deceitfully call themselves "Israel" cannot be opposed by force of arms. Shiite Islam views the Israelis as Nazis and uses the same tactics against them which the much hallowed partisans of World War Two employed against the Germans.

America's Talmudic mentality will not entertain the analogy however: bombing German Nazis is considered heroic; bombing Israeli Nazis is regarded as the lowest form of demonic evil. Unfortunately for the Zionist occupiers of the U.S. government and media, much of the rest of the world doesn't buy this Talmudic double-standard.

We doubt that the recent spate of bombings on the doorstep of China and Russia, and in India's backyard, will be viewed by the governments of those nations as Iranian in origin.

What a coincidence that the three nations most sympathetic to Iran are suddenly experiencing "Iranian" bombings within or near their territory.

SHADOW WAR

Deconstructing a Mossad dirty tricks campaign and how the media spin it

Some important hints are dropped in this New York Times blog report, beginning with its revealing title. In the corpus of the article we have highlighted in boldface the passages which cumulatively constitute a Twilight Language revelation.  See our Afterword (below). This column is also online, here. 

Claim and Counter-Claim in a Shadow War

 New York Times blog

LONDON — In war, truth is proverbially the first casualty. The maxim also holds true for shadow wars, like the one currently being waged between Iran and its enemies.

Anyone trying to make sense of the escalating tensions over Tehran’s nuclear ambitions is faced with a bewildering array of claims and counter-claims, none of which would it be wise to take at face value.

This week saw Iran and Israel accusing each other of mounting bomb attacks in three countries — India, Georgia and Thailand — that were aimed at Israeli targets.

The identity of the victims and intended victims establishes one element of a strong prima facie case against Iran: motive. It is logical to assume Iran was striking back for a series of assassinations of its nuclear scientists and unexplained explosions at military facilities, which Tehran has blamed on the Israeli intelligence agency Mossad.

The nub of Iranian allegations after this week’s attacks abroad is that Mossad was prepared to put its fellow citizens in harm’s way in order to damage Tehran’s relations with the friendly governments of the countries where the bombings took place.

“The Islamic Republic of Iran regards the Zionist regime’s agents as perpetrators of such terrorist actions with criminal and hidden purposes,” an indignant Ramin Mehmanparast, Iran’s foreign ministry spokesman, told the press on Tuesday.

Mr. Mehmanparast’s allegations of a Mossad dirty tricks campaign were somewhat undermined when Thai authorities identified two arrested suspects as Iranians. A third Iranian man was detained in Malaysia and a female Iranian suspect was being sought. Thai police said the group’s intended targets were Israeli diplomats.

Mr. Mehmanparast will be placed in a quandary if investigations in Thailand link the suspects directly to Iranian intelligence. The only logical way to maintain the charge of Israeli responsibility then would be to assert that Mossad had somehow duped the Iranians into mounting a series of bombing operations only to have Iranian involvement exposed.

It is far-fetched, but not impossible. As every reader of the spy novels of John le Carré or Robert Ludlum knows, the machinations and motivations of undercover warriors are never straightforward. Some decades ago, Mossad set up a Palestinian “terrorist” in a London flat as part of some nefarious black op, according to former British officials familiar with the case. The Israeli agency’s failure to inform their British counterparts put relations between the two services into deep freeze for years. Spies are not above deceiving one another, even when they are ostensibly on the same side.

In the recent chain of events, however, it is difficult not to reach the conclusion presented by Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister, that either Iran or its Lebanese ally Hezbollah was responsible. As my colleagues Scott Shane and Robert F. Worth write, the latest outrages fit into a pattern of aggressive behavior by an Iranian regime under pressure.

As for Hezbollah, its leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah contradicted received Western wisdom this month by saying Tehran would not ask his movement to do anything if Iran were attacked. Hezbollah, for its part, would have to sit and think about it.

What was his game? Was he warning Iran it would be on its own? If so, why the public statement rather than a private message? Was it a trick to put their mutual enemies off the scent? In the shady undercover war, you might need a John le Carré to decipher the answer.

Harvey Morris of the New York Times opines that it is "logical" to assume and a "prima facie" case can be made that Iran was behind the Asian bombings because it wanted revenge for bombings in Tehran by Mossad. Au contraire, there is nothing "logical" in attacking nations that are Iran's allies like India, or a supplier, like Thailand.

Equally obtuse is the claim by Morris that "... allegations of a Mossad dirty tricks campaign were somewhat undermined when Thai authorities identified two arrested suspects as Iranians." 

Morris never heard of patsies? Can he really believe that Mossad operations are only perpetrated by Israelis carrying Israeli passports and with a "Star of David" pinned on their back? False flag operations use foreign nationals; that's axiomatic. Morris pretends he isn't aware of that.  But wait -- he is aware of it! -- he admits that "decades ago" the Israelis "set up" a "Palestinian" in London as part of a "black op." He just can't believe they'd do anything like that in Thailand. Ha.

Morris:  "...it is difficult not to reach the conclusion presented by Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister, that either Iran or its Lebanese ally Hezbollah was responsible."

Now the picture is becoming a little clearer. The media up to this point in the Asian "Iranian" bombings story have been presenting a simplistic black hats/white hats dichotomy of terror in which Israeli secret services play fair and act like Boy Scouts, while the Iranians are behind most every wickedness in the world. This tale has failed to gain believers. To maintain the media's credibility, Morris penned his blog with Revelation-of-the-Method hints sprinkled throughout a report wherein he concludes, on specious grounds that undercut the tenor of his own writing, that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who even Sarkozy of France calls a liar, is telling the truth.

The fact is, a case of criminal terror can't be decided on the editorial page or in a blog essay. It takes investigative reporting like that of the late, great Don Bolles of Arizona who specialized in (and was assassinated because of) sticking his ballpoint pen in the darkest corners of the rich and powerful. Mr. Bolles engaged in the type of reporting the television news networks and the print media undertook when the US government was in the hands of Richard Nixon, for whom the Establishment harbored a residual fear, and the Vietnam War was raging. Now that Washington D.C. is firmly in the grip of ZOG (the Zionist Occupation Government), contrarian Leftist frogs have become the government's handsome prince mouthpieces. 

In the preceding essay, Morris departs from the script slightly, with the System's blessing of course, to both affirm and deny the Israeli account of the recent bombings. This paradoxical approach gives the American public a vague and nebulous impression that the media are perhaps not Mossad mouthpieces after all -- they are just as puzzled and befuddled as the rest of us.

Morris is assuaging nagging anxieties in the minds of savvy Americans over the "weird coincidence" of India recently agreeing to defy the West's embargo and buy Iranian oil, and then being almost immediately bombed by "Iranian government agents." 

To maintain faith in Mossad's cover story, we are supposed to believe that the Iranians are that stupid. Few people outside John Hagee's revival tent are swallowing it, however. Enter the New York Times and their blogger Harvey Morris.  

Notice how Morris concludes his essay not with a rally-round-the-Mossad cheer, but with a somewhat spine-tingling repeat of the counter-thread he has weaved throughout his writing: the issue is shady and if we want an "answer" it requires a pattern-detection oracle (John le Carré) to decipher what still is a mystery.

Morris is undercutting his own thesis and signaling that he has not actually reached a conclusion that provides any answers. Talk about the "fog of war," this is the fog of journalism, intended to befuddle, while revealing the extent of our befuddlement and then subtly spicing it with Netanyahu's spin.

When the Times publishes checkerboard material like this, it's an indication that the Israelis have not yet convinced the American people of their innocence. 

That fact, in turn, signals that independent Internet journalists with high audience numbers should strike now in order to crack the facade and cast further doubt on Mossad and the truthfulness of "our ally Israel," by publishing reports such as we published for your benefit earlier this week -- Those "Iranian" Bombings (read it online here).

Speaking of which, if you are benefiting from our analysis, how about giving something in return? If you haven't donated in the past three months consider doing so today, via Paypal to: rarebooks14[at]mac[dot]com -- or click here. Or buy a book, newsletter or recording here.

We are living in interesting times. The big question is whether we can summon the will power, organization and wisdom to rise to the challenge our adversaries have put before us.

Deception