As a barbarian, I'm not much for politics. It doesn't make sense to declare war on a people and then waste valuable resources on occupying a region that will never give in to you; either annihilate them or leave them be. It also doesn't make sense to tell the world that you're listening and then refuse to discuss possible solutions, such as single-payer healthcare. And when did we decide that following orders justified war crimes? I'm pretty sure we covered that at Nuremberg.
So here I am, outside the Holy City. They know I'm here. And I know that if they send their little Praetorian Guard out after me, I'm toast. But if Caesar won't listen . . . well, at least he'll know I was here, won't he. And with a little luck, the Romans , tucked away all safe and warm behind that wall, will hear what I have to say and have a question or two for their emperor. The worst they can do is kill us. They can't eat us: cannibalism is against the law.
In General, Christians, Baha’i, Kurds, Jews, Azeris, Baluchis, Ahwazi Arabs
The 2500 year old Jewish community, which numbered over 80,000 thirty years ago at the time of the Khoemeni Revolution which overthrew the Shah, has dwindled to about 20,000. Those remaining Jews live restricted personal and religious lives, always under suspicion of being traitors for pro “Zionist” activities.Despite the official distinction between “Jews,” “Zionists,” and “Israel,” the most common accusation the Jews encounter is that of maintaining contacts with Zionists. The Jewish community does enjoy a measure of religious freedom but is faced with constant suspicion of cooperating with the Zionist state and with “imperialistic America” — both such activities are punishable by death. Jews who apply for a passport to travel abroad must do so in a special bureau and are immediately put under surveillance. The government does not generally allow all members of a family to travel abroad at the same time to prevent Jewish emigration. Again, the Jews live under the status of dhimmi, with the restrictions im posed on religious minorities. Jewish leaders fear government reprisals if they draw attention to official mistreatment of their community.
Iran’s official government-controlled media often issues anti-Semitic propaganda. A prime example is the government’s publishing of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a notorious Czarist forgery, in 1994 and 1999.2 Jews also suffer varying degrees of officially sanctioned discrimination, particularly in the areas of employment, education, and public accommodations.The Islamization of the country has brought about strict control over Jewish educational institutions. Before the revolution, there were some 20 Jewish schools functioning throughout the country. In recent years, most of these have been closed down. In the remaining schools, Jewish principals have been replaced by Muslims. In Teheran there are still three schools in which Jewish pupils constitute a majority. The curriculum is Islamic, and Persian is forbidden as the language of instruction for Jewish studies. Special Hebrew lessons are conducted on Fridays by the Orthodox Otzar ha-Torah organization, which is responsible for Jewish religious education. Saturday is no longer officially recognized as the Jewish sabbath, and Jewish pupils are compelled to attend school on that day. There are three synagogues in Teheran, but since 1994, there has been no rabbi in Iran, and the bet din does not function.At least 13 Jews have been executed in Iran since the Islamic revolution 30 years ago, most of them for either religious reasons or their connection to Israel. For example, in May 1998, Jewish businessman Ruhollah Kakhodah-Zadeh was hanged in prison without a public charge or legal proceeding, apparently for assisting Jews to emigrate.Other religious groups are persecuted too. This week Iran admitted that seven Bahai leaders arrested and detained more than eight months ago would be charged with spying for Israel. The Bahai faith, which began in the 19th century in what is now Iran, claims their founder, Baha’a'llah, is the last Moslem prophet, not Mohammed. Bahai’s international headquarters are located in Haifa, Israel where Bahais, along with Moslems and Christians of various backgrounds, plus other religions in addition to Jews can practice freely.This is not true in Iran.Bahais claim 300,000 followers in Iran, but there are no independent statistics on the denomination’s size in the country. The Islamic republic allows Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians, who are regarded as members of monotheistic religions, to hold religious gatherings. Bahais are forbidden to hold such meetings, and those who make their faith public are banned from studying at universities serving in the army and working in government offices. The Iranian prosecutors claim“All evidence points to the fact that the Bahai organization is in direct contact with the foreign enemies of Iran,” Dorri-Najafabadi wrote in the letter, (snip) “The ghastly Bahai organization is illegal on all levels, their dependence on Israel has been documented, their antagonism with Islam and the Islamic System is obvious, their danger for national security is proven and any replacement organization must also be dealt with according to the law,”This charge is part of the latest prosecution against Iranian Bahais. The Bahai International Community, which represents members of the faith worldwide, says hundreds of followers have been jailed and some executed in the years since Iran’s 1979 Islamic revolution.http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/02/again_religious_persecution_in.html
Religious minorities in Iran: Information from Answers.com http://www.cambridge.org/us/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521770734
Iran Minority Newshttp://iranminoritynews.org/
Middle East Minorities Unite! by Joseph … Iran ’s Islamic republic has created serious problems for the large communities of non-Persian minorities, including the Azeri’s and the Baluchis and is … http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=24209
Q&A: Iran’s Waning Human Rights - New York Times, Iran is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which affords legal rights to minorities and minors. Persecution of religious minorities …http://www.nytimes.com/cfr/world/slot1_081006.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
I was mulling around and I found this page with a YouTube link: http://palestinian.ning.com/video/propaganda-promised-land.
Watch it and what do you think.
I've also found another link within that site with photos, but some of the images are a bit disturbing.
That link is in the extended post, but please read the note before viewing.
What are your thoughts about them?
EMK
(NOTE: Please let me know if the links don't work. Thank you.)
[UPDATE: YT DISABLED THE VID LINK, DUE TO "A VIOLATION OF TERMS OF SERVICE," BUT I DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING THAT WAS A "VIOLATION." A SAD EXCUSE!]
by Ira Chernus - Published on Wednesday, December 17, 2008 by CommonDreams.org
If I were a Palestinian, watching Jews in Israel and around the world preparing to celebrate Hanukkah, I might be a bit confused. The holiday recalls a time, way back in the second century BCE, when Judea was ruled by a much stronger neighboring nation. The Jews took up arms to free themselves from a military occupation. Yet when Palestinians even talk about taking up arms against the occupying army of their powerful neighbor today, the Israeli government and its supporters call that unjustified, immoral, an outrage. And the government of the United States generally agrees, no matter which party is in power.
It doesn't seem fair, because there is so much similarity between today's Palestinians and the Jews of old. Ancient Judea was administered by the Seleucid empire, just as Palestine is administered by Israel. The Seleucids had local Jewish agents on the scene to help them keep control, just as Israel is helped by some number of Palestinians who see resistance as futile.........
ENTIRE ARTICLE - http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/12/17-0
Arabism - Violence
The front runners of Pan-Arabism, brutal tyrants and waged large scale wars, such as Egypt's Nasser [168], Saddam Hussein [169], Syria's Assad (on Lebanon [170] [171] [172] and on it's own people [173] [174] including the Hama massacre [175] [176] and the dictator in Sudan Al Bashir [177] [178].
The linkage to terror
Protecting terrorism, Pan-Arabism: the inhuman progenitor of Islamic Terrorism [179]. "Terror was used by the Arabs against the Jews in the Land of Israel since the dawn of Zionism." [180].
An Arabist group called Jamiat-e Dawa el al Qurani Wasouna. The J.D.Q., as it is known by American intelligence, is suspected of having links to both the Saudi and Kuwaiti governments [181]
Osama bin Laden is in fact the latest and quintessential product of pan-Arabism [182]
Palestinian Fatah Leader, School Books Supports Terrorism Against US in Iraq, quote: "We [however,] take pride in this [Arab nationalist] language because we are the authentic Arabs who believe in our Arabism, our faith, our cause" [183]
Barack Obama's recent salvo: "..fnd and KILL Bin Laden..." didn't really rool off the tongue very well. I don't feel that this kind of Bush-esque cowboy talk is fitting for this President.
Indeed, the entire Osama Bin Laden - "9-11" connection still doesn't make much sense to even the most asture observers. Hell, its doesn't even make sense to those with the proprietary knowledge of the US Government's relationship to Osama Bin Laden.
I submit that Osama Bin Laden is merely a symbol to invole fear in the Xtrian west and that there is no war with American (or any western country) people. The "terrorst" driven, oil focused campaign is actually a battle within a greater war of societal philosophies. The unfortunate felling of the World Trade Centre was only between the Reagan-Bush(s)-Clinton regime and nothing more. There were broken promises on the highest levels and a small group of Western sponsored killers too their revenge. But not on the West as a society - but on their puppeteers and political enablers. I say this asn a Former US Marine with a Masters Degree.
SO, who are you kidding? Why continue this kind of talk? There is no "Bin Laden" to kill. Rather, Its time to stop occupying small defenseless countries and try your hand at Russia. Not.
There is no "war" ... never was one. The Iraqi operation is merely an occupation. Just like Kirchner and Churchill in Northern Africa ...Now wot are u mugs prepared to really do about it?
-------
by Eric Margolis
Those Wall Street financial alchemists who turned garbage into gold must have helped John McCain prepare for his debate with Barack Obama last Friday.
Senator McCain’s insistent claims that the US is winning the war in Iraq thanks to his "surge" strategy are the military-political equivalent of the junk securities that Wall Street’s shady financiers have been selling around the globe.
McCain successfully peddled this latest untruth about Iraq on Friday night with skill and verve. Sen. Barack Obama mostly let him get away with it. Obama should have skewered McCain over Iraq and all the lies he supported to ignite this unnecessary conflict. There is enough criminal behavior over the Iraq War to fill a phone book. Two out of three America’s think it was a terrible mistake.
But Obama’s gentle, professorial criticism of the Iraq war was tepid and ineffective, leaving McCain to capture the flag of patriotism with his reheated Cold War rhetoric.
Why didn’t Obama tell Americans that the ill-begotten Iraq War has played a key role in the nation’s current financial near-death experience?
Obama should also have riposted to McCain’s bombast over Georgia: "Senator McCain, are you ready to go to war with Russia over Georgia? That’s where your plans could lead."
The two candidates did reasonably well in the debates, and both emerged looking presidential. But McCain seized the jingoistic high ground by using carefully selected slogans like "victory" and "free world," and lambasting America’s favorite hobbyhorses, Iran’s Ahmadinejad and Russia’s Putin. The two vied over who could more fulsomely support Israel.
McCain’s claims that the US is heading toward victory in Iraq thanks to his inspired military leadership immediately recalled the epic words of Pyrrhus, King of Eprius. In 281 BC, after defeating a Roman army at Heraclea in an extremely bloody, hard-fought battle in which his forces suffered grave losses, Pyrrhus famously exclaimed, "one more such victory and we are ruined!"
The Red King of Epirus (modern Albania) might as well have been speaking of Iraq. Far from the victory described by McCain, the Roman historian Tacitus’s words are appropriate: "they make a desert and call it peace."
That is precisely what the US has so far done in Iraq, a small, devastated nation of only 25 million. After five years of war, over four thousand American GI’s are dead, and 30,000 seriously wounded (some figures say 75,000), many with incurable head injuries.
No one knows how many Iraqis have died, but estimates run as high as one million – and this does not include the 500,000 who died from hunger and disease as a result of the draconian US-led embargo of Iraq and the destruction of its national water purification and sewage system by the US Air Force in 1991.
The "surge," an addition of over 30,000 US troops to the Iraq conflict, was not the primary cause of the sharp drop in violence there over the past 12 months, as McCain claims, though it did play a supporting role.
The real reason for the drop in violence and attacks on US occupation forces lies in three other areas. First, ethnic cleansing. The US occupation quietly abetted the ethnic cleansing by Shia militias of millions of Sunni Iraqis. The US took yet another page from Israel’s West Bank occupation copybook by segregating off entire neighborhoods of Iraqi cities with high, concrete walls, and conducting round-the-clock house search operations.
Today, between four and five million Iraqis are either refugees in neighboring nations or internally displaced, one of the world’s biggest number of refugees. Most are Sunni Muslims. The United States is wholly responsible for this human disaster.
The US has done what it vowed to oppose: the partition of Iraq into three weak parts: Shia, Sunni, and Kurdish. There are now three Iraqi de facto mini-states. Breaking up Iraq and US-approved ethnic cleansing by Shia death squads – just the type of criminal behavior the US condemned in Bosnia and Kosovo – has put the damper on the Sunni-Shia conflict. But it has left Iraq a ruined state, with the Sunni region a no-man’s land, the Shia region dominated by Iran, and the Kurds under US and Israel tutelage.
Second, US occupation forces finally got smart and realized it’s cheaper to buy off your foes than try to kill them all. So the US now pays 80,000 Sunni gunmen, called Awakening Councils, to fight resistance forces. Attacks by al-Qaida fanatics in Iraq against fellow Sunnis opposing US occupation drove the more moderate resistance groups into the arms of the US.
But now, the US is handing control of these Sunni gunmen, which were patterned on death squads in El Salvador, over to Shia control. The US-armed Sunni militias who sought protection against Shia government forces by siding with the Americans are now likely to become a major new problem.
Third, the firebrand Shia militia leader, Muktada al-Sadr, whose ragtag Mehdi Army used to fight US forces, has gone to ground and ordered his gunmen to stack their arms. His volte-face reflects changes in internal Shia politics but also pressure from Iran which, fearing attack by the US, ordered Muktada to stop his attacks.
But less violence, at least for now, does not in any way mean victory. Polls show 75% of Iraqis want US troops to depart. Iraq remains a nation under foreign occupation. Its US-installed regime controls nothing but the Baghdad Green Zone. Real power remains in the hands of the Shia and Sunni militias, and the two Kurdish parties in their by now almost independent state. There is still no agreement on sharing oil.
The occupation is costing the US at least $10 billion per month, not counting depreciation, $67 billion replacement costs for equipment, and billions for medical care of wounded and veterans benefits. By the end of 2008, the supposed "cake walk" in Iraq will have cost US taxpayers $1 trillion, a good part of its borrowed from Japan and China, making it America’s second most expensive war in history.
Half the US Army is bogged down in Iraq. This war and Afghanistan have led the US ground and air forces "to the breaking point," in the words of senior American commanders. History shows that all occupation armies become brutalized, corrupted and demoralized.
At least 30,000 Iraqi prisoners are held by the US and routinely tortured or executed without trial. They should be considered political prisoners. Saddam Hussein’s prisons held less inmates. The brutality of the US occupation of Iraq has enraged the Muslim world against America and, according to US intelligence agencies, has created a whole new generation of anti-American militants.
The Bush administration’s torrent of lies about Iraq and ongoing occupation are seen around the globe as crude imperialism worthy of the 19th-century British Raj or old Soviet Union. Sen. Obama was at least right in the debate when he noted that America’s image is an important factor in national security. Today, America is hated around the globe, thank you George Bush and Dick Cheney.
Washington’s current plans to continue ruling Iraq by means of a puppet government and mercenary army backed by US air power are an attempt to copy the way the British Empire ruled Iraq and exploited its oil. But once most of the US forces are withdrawn, Iraq may dissolve once again into violence and chaos, or complete its process of splintering into three mini-states, inviting intervention from its covetous neighbors. Iran has already become the dominant power in eastern Iraq, and Turkey, hungry for Iraq’s oil, is watching menacingly.
I wish Obama had riposted: "Senator McCain, one more victory like this and America is ruined. You had better think about this as you and your neocon alter ego Joe Lieberman urge confrontation against Iran, Hezbullah, Pakistan, Taliban, al-Qaida, insubordinate Arabs, Russia and China."
PS: And don’t forget Venezuela, Cuba, Somalia, and Sudan.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/margolis/margolis124.html
Don’t call it the War in Iraq. Call it what it is . . . an invasion. An occupation. When you call it a war, you give George Bush and John McCain credit they don’t deserve. When you call it a war, you lose because like it or not, a war has two sides, and Americans don’t want to be losing. But we aren’t fighting a war. The United States, under false pretenses, invaded Iraq, and is currently occupying it. Adam Kokesh, Iraq veteran and anti-invasion activist, asked the question best at the Republican National Convention: How do you win an occupation?
Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2008. The invasion of Iraq, because they violated a United Nations resolution, was wrong. And as Senator McCain says, in the “twenty-first century, nations don’t invade other nations.”
John McCain’s thought process (I’m being generous by calling it that), is a knee-jerk, pick up your guns and go shoot someone reaction, which incidentally also explains his choice of Sarah Palin. But both decisions leave not only his detractors, but his supporters wondering: what is he thinking? He’s not. And that’s not the person that I want running the country. As early as September 12th, 2001, John McCain was on record for invading Iraq in retaliation for the terrorist attacks. September 12th. 24 hours after the planes crashed into the building, John McCain was already pointing his guns at people without any evidence to support it.
John McCain also likes to claim that “the surge is working.” What does that mean? Lindsey Graham at the RNC kept yelling “Victory!” How do you win an occupation?
We’re not winning a war in Iraq. Osama Bin Laden, the actual architect of the attack, is still at large; Al Qaeda, his terrorist organization, is stronger than it was when they attacked us; Afghanistan, where they were training and the first country invaded by the United States, has fallen back into lawlessness; Saudi Arabia, where 15 of the 19 hijackers originated, is still a leading US ally thanks to President Bush; the United States military, the strongest in the world, is spread thin and staggering (not to mention ill-equipped, but I digress).
John McCain deserves credit for what he has done: voted to authorize military force in Iraq; vocally supported a surge in troops, putting more American service-people in danger; failing to realize the importance of the war against terrorists in Afghanistan; understanding the difference between Sunni and Shia and their allies, since those are the people we’re working with and fighting against in the region; supported deregulation for twenty-six years in Congress and then changed his mind when the banks crashed; toured with cameras for Hurricane Gustav and ignored Hurricane Ike; let his friends, surrogates, & campaign workers lie about Barack Obama while saying, “I’m John McCain, and I approve this message.”
You can call him an honorable man, who is qualified to be president. You can call his ideas “change,” and his running mate a “crack in the glass ceiling.” You can call him a maverick, who’s “even bucked his own party to do what is right.” You can call him knowledgeable about the economy, and in touch with average Americans.
You can call shit Shinola. But you can’t use it to shine your shoes.
Crossposted at Will Rhodes Portmanteau and Spreading the Word on September 19, 2008.
For folks that find this type of operation incredible, here is an extensively, well documented false-flag example:
"Operation Northwoods, or Northwoods, was a false flag conspiracy plan, proposed within the United States government in 1962. The plan called for CIA or other operatives to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Castro-led Cuba. One plan was to "develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington". This operation is especially notable in that it included plans for hijackings and bombings followed by the use of phony evidence that would blame the terrorist acts on foreign governments. The plan states, "The desired resultant from the execution of this plan would be to place the United States in the apparent position of suffering defensible grievances from a rash and irresponsible government of Cuba and to develop an international image of a Cuban threat to peace in the Western Hemisphere." Operation Northwoods was drafted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and signed by then-Chairman Lyman Lemnitzer, and sent to the Secretary of Defense."OPERATION NORTHWOODS, BAMFORD VIDEOJanuary 31st, 2003 Bush’s proposal to Tony Blair was to paint a U.S. plane in UN colors and fly it over Iraq in the hopes of getting it shot down was straight out of Operation Northwoods (Philippe Sands, Lawless World)
"Operation Northwoods, or Northwoods, was a false flag conspiracy plan, proposed within the United States government in 1962. The plan called for CIA or other operatives to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Castro-led Cuba. One plan was to "develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington". This operation is especially notable in that it included plans for hijackings and bombings followed by the use of phony evidence that would blame the terrorist acts on foreign governments. The plan states, "The desired resultant from the execution of this plan would be to place the United States in the apparent position of suffering defensible grievances from a rash and irresponsible government of Cuba and to develop an international image of a Cuban threat to peace in the Western Hemisphere." Operation Northwoods was drafted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and signed by then-Chairman Lyman Lemnitzer, and sent to the Secretary of Defense."
OPERATION NORTHWOODS, BAMFORD VIDEO
January 31st, 2003 Bush’s proposal to Tony Blair was to paint a U.S. plane in UN colors and fly it over Iraq in the hopes of getting it shot down was straight out of Operation Northwoods (Philippe Sands, Lawless World)
*
Brzezinski: On The Path To War With IranThe Rationale for War “...a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran...” Zbigniew Brzezinski.01 Feb 2007 The National Security Advisor to former President Carter testified before the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on 1 Feb 2007. Dr.Zbigniew Brzezinski delivered a scathing assessment of the core mistakes made by the Bush administration in the Middle East. Just before describing what he termed the “mythical historical narrative” of the policy, he offered a scenario that the Bush administration might use as a convenient invitation to attack Iran...“…by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a ‘defensive’ U.S. military action against Iran…”
Brzezinski: On The Path To War With Iran
The Rationale for War
“...a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran...” Zbigniew Brzezinski.
01 Feb 2007 The National Security Advisor to former President Carter testified before the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on 1 Feb 2007. Dr.Zbigniew Brzezinski delivered a scathing assessment of the core mistakes made by the Bush administration in the Middle East. Just before describing what he termed the “mythical historical narrative” of the policy, he offered a scenario that the Bush administration might use as a convenient invitation to attack Iran...
“…by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a ‘defensive’ U.S. military action against Iran…”
To Provoke War, Cheney Considered Proposal To Dress Up Navy Seals As Iranians And Shoot At ThemThink Progress | July 31, 2008Speaking at the Campus Progress journalism conference earlier this month, Seymour Hersh -- a Pulitzer-Prize winning journalist for The New Yorker -- revealed that Bush administration officials held a meeting recently in the Vice President's office to discuss ways to provoke a war with Iran.In Hersh's most recent article, he reports that this meeting occurred in the wake of the overblown incident in the Strait of Hormuz, when a U.S. carrier almost shot at a few small Iranian speedboats. The "meeting took place in the Vice-President's office. 'The subject was how to create a casus belli between Tehran and Washington,'" according to one of Hersh's sources.During the journalism conference event, I asked Hersh specifically about this meeting and if he could elaborate on what occurred. Hersh explained that, during the meeting in Cheney's office, an idea was considered to dress up Navy Seals as Iranians, put them on fake Iranian speedboats, and shoot at them:HERSH: There were a dozen ideas proffered about how to trigger a war. The one that interested me the most was why don't we build -- we in our shipyard -- build four or five boats that look like Iranian PT boats. Put Navy seals on them with a lot of arms. And next time one of our boats goes to the Straits of Hormuz, start a shoot-up.Hersh argued that one of the things the Bush administration learned during the encounter in the Strait of Hormuz was that, "if you get the right incident, the American public will support it.” "Look, is it high school? Yeah," Hersh said. "Are we playing high school with you know 5,000 nuclear warheads in our arsenal? Yeah we are. We're playing, you know, who's the first guy to run off the highway with us and Iran."Transcript: HERSH: There was a meeting. Among the items considered and rejected -- which is why the New Yorker did not publish it, on grounds that it wasn't accepted -- one of the items was why not...There was a dozen ideas proffered about how to trigger a war. The one that interested me the most was why don't we build -- we in our shipyard -- build four or five boats that look like Iranian PT boats. Put Navy seals on them with a lot of arms. And next time one of our boats goes to the Straits of Hormuz, start a shoot-up. Might cost some lives...
To Provoke War, Cheney Considered Proposal To Dress Up Navy Seals As Iranians And Shoot At Them
Think Progress | July 31, 2008
Speaking at the Campus Progress journalism conference earlier this month, Seymour Hersh -- a Pulitzer-Prize winning journalist for The New Yorker -- revealed that Bush administration officials held a meeting recently in the Vice President's office to discuss ways to provoke a war with Iran.
In Hersh's most recent article, he reports that this meeting occurred in the wake of the overblown incident in the Strait of Hormuz, when a U.S. carrier almost shot at a few small Iranian speedboats. The "meeting took place in the Vice-President's office. 'The subject was how to create a casus belli between Tehran and Washington,'" according to one of Hersh's sources.
During the journalism conference event, I asked Hersh specifically about this meeting and if he could elaborate on what occurred. Hersh explained that, during the meeting in Cheney's office, an idea was considered to dress up Navy Seals as Iranians, put them on fake Iranian speedboats, and shoot at them:
HERSH: There were a dozen ideas proffered about how to trigger a war. The one that interested me the most was why don't we build -- we in our shipyard -- build four or five boats that look like Iranian PT boats. Put Navy seals on them with a lot of arms. And next time one of our boats goes to the Straits of Hormuz, start a shoot-up.
Hersh argued that one of the things the Bush administration learned during the encounter in the Strait of Hormuz was that, "if you get the right incident, the American public will support it.” "Look, is it high school? Yeah," Hersh said. "Are we playing high school with you know 5,000 nuclear warheads in our arsenal? Yeah we are. We're playing, you know, who's the first guy to run off the highway with us and Iran."
Transcript: HERSH: There was a meeting. Among the items considered and rejected -- which is why the New Yorker did not publish it, on grounds that it wasn't accepted -- one of the items was why not...There was a dozen ideas proffered about how to trigger a war. The one that interested me the most was why don't we build -- we in our shipyard -- build four or five boats that look like Iranian PT boats. Put Navy seals on them with a lot of arms. And next time one of our boats goes to the Straits of Hormuz, start a shoot-up. Might cost some lives...
False Flags by Captain Eric H. May Global Research, February 23, 2008The easiest way to carry out a false flag attack is by setting up a military exercise that simulates the very attack you want to carry out. As I'll detail below, this is exactly how government perpetrators in the US and UK handled the 9/11 and 7/7 "terror" attacks, which were in reality government attacks blamed on "terrorists."...
False Flags by Captain Eric H. May
Global Research, February 23, 2008
The easiest way to carry out a false flag attack is by setting up a military exercise that simulates the very attack you want to carry out. As I'll detail below, this is exactly how government perpetrators in the US and UK handled the 9/11 and 7/7 "terror" attacks, which were in reality government attacks blamed on "terrorists."...
The necon regime has had plenty of precedent to study and exploit. Let’s hope we can throw a monkey wrench into their schemes to prevent another.
More Info Here:
The Power of Nightmares - Why We Fight
When is a Surge not a Surge: When an Invasion/Occupation is not a War
Peace, Best Wishes and Hope
The interviewee in the following article argues for an end to the US occupation in Afghanistan as the first step to improving the situation there. That's a useful counterpoint to Senator Obama's call to fight "the good war" in Afghanistan.
http://www.counterpunch.org/whitney07312008.html
What is known as the Iraqi government has been asking the US to leave for months and, until Barack Obama visited there, the US media was reluctant to report this fact. Now that the truth is out, the advocates of expanding the US military mission in the region are disappointed that the story has finally broken to the public and are now screaming that Obama has overstepped his bounds. Until Obama's visit, no one of any stature here in the US was communicating this truth, though it had been roundly reported around the world. Our press was negligent as usual. Now that the proverbial djinn is out of the bottle, let's see how much more of the Cheney kayfabe will come tumbling down!
Here's a challenge: Can anyone out there document the earliest instance of Iraq officials asking the US to leave?
In this campaign, there are honest differences over Iraq, and we should discuss them with the thoroughness they deserve. Unlike Senator McCain, I would make it absolutely clear that we seek no presence in Iraq similar to our permanent bases in South Korea, and would redeploy our troops out of Iraq and focus on the broader security challenges that we face. But for far too long, those responsible for the greatest strategic blunder in the recent history of American foreign policy have ignored useful debate in favor of making false charges about flip-flops and surrender. It’s not going to work this time. It’s time to end this war.
In this campaign, there are honest differences over Iraq, and we should discuss them with the thoroughness they deserve. Unlike Senator McCain, I would make it absolutely clear that we seek no presence in Iraq similar to our permanent bases in South Korea, and would redeploy our troops out of Iraq and focus on the broader security challenges that we face. But for far too long, those responsible for the greatest strategic blunder in the recent history of American foreign policy have ignored useful debate in favor of making false charges about flip-flops and surrender.
It’s not going to work this time. It’s time to end this war.
I think that getting rid of Saddam & Company was a positive step. Obama's prediction in 2002 of what would ensue after we invaded was not inevitable. I did not support going to war, but the "strategic blunder" was disbanding the Iraqi army, dismantling the Iraqi bureaucracy, and the introduction of "supply-side" economics, with the Iraqi people as unwitting "beneficiaries". Add to that Rumsfeld's refusal to recognize the insurgency for what it was and to send in more troops.
In light of the recent reports that the Israelis and Hamas negotiated a truce (imagine that, negotiating a truce with "terrorists"), I am copying the link to a video I made and put on Youtube when the IDF launched their last huge offensive against the citizens of Gaza.
If Obama gets elected, I hope I never have to make another of these videos again.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ZM55sFQzCcQ
For our own country, I hope I never have to create another video like this.
This war, so much like Viet Nam, has to be ended. The same way Nixon ended Viet Nam. We must leave them to their civil war. It has worked out well for the Viet Namese and the United States. The only exception is, we left many of those who aided us behind to face death and consequences of their choice.
Because of U.S. fear of anyone Arab, we have failed to offer refuge to those who aided the occupation. Sweden, a country of only 8 million people has done far better than we have. It is time for us to do the moral thing.
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/6/20/world_refugee_day_us_criticized_for
When McCain was asked on NBC television yesterday— given the drop in Iraqi violence — if he had a better estimate for when American forces could leave the country.
"No, but that's not too important," McCain said. "What's important is casualties in Iraq.
"Americans are in South Korea. Americans are in Japan. American troops are in Germany. That's all fine. American casualties, and the ability to withdraw. We will be able to withdraw. ... But the key to it is we don't want any more Americans in harm's way."
The United States is a party to more than 80 such bilateral agreements in countries where American forces are stationed, but its proposals for the Iraq accord far exceed the terms of any of the others
Bush set a deadline of July 32 to get status of forces agreement setting out the legal rights and responsibilities of U.S. troops in Iraq and a broader "security framework" defining the political and military relationship between the two countries.
Signing the agreement would mean that the Iraqi government had given up its sovereignty by its own consent"
Maintaining 60 permanmnt bases, authority to detain and hold Iraqis without turning them over to the Iraqi judicial system, immunity from Iraqi prosecution for both U.S. troops and private contractors, and the prerogative for U.S. forces to conduct operations without approval from the Iraqi government, continued control over Iraqi airspace and the right to refuel planes in the air. That sounds like the United States is preparing to use Iraq as a base to attack Iran.
Senator McCain is daring Senator Obama to go to Iraq. I seem to recall Mr. McCain's last few trips there. The market he visited two times ago - under heavy security, wearing flak vests, having no meaningful contact with the locals - was off-limits on his latest trip. It was deemed too dangerous to appear there again. So much for America's "successes" on that front. And that was in the Green Zone, supposed to be the safest sector there is.
On visits like this I can't imagine any senator / dignitary truly learning the real skinny. They learn what the generals want them to learn, nothing more. Their contacts are so limited, in part due to security issues, which I certainly understand. In part due to garnering further support for "The War" (read: military budgets).
Mr. McCain has recently announced from the podium his total commitment to victory and honor (whatever that means). In light of such a statement, his grasp of military history is not only lacking but must omit the fates of all occupying armies, particularly in modern times. They are despised, picked off and eventually defeated, with animosity that can linger for centuries.
