A note to the non-ravers out there: codshit is
NOT a derogatory or insulting term and bears no relation in offensiveness to its four-letter
cousin, it's a word used to describe the nonsense that people sometimes talk
when they're off their heads.
So there, we have figured it out, go back to bed America, your government has figured out how it all transpired. Go back to bed America, your government is in control again. Here, here's American Gladiators. Watch this, shut up. Go back to bed America, here's American Gladiators. Here's 56 channels of it. Watch these pituitary retards bang their fuckin skulls together and congratulate you on living in the land of freedom. Here you go America, you are free... to do as we tell you.
.: Bill Hicks :.
Americans have different ways of saying things. They say 'elevator', we say 'lift'...they say 'President', we say 'stupid psychopathic git'....
.: Alexi Sayle :.
If you confront the Universe with good intentions in your heart it will reflect that and reward your intent. It just doesn't always do it in the way you expect.
.: G'kar :.
Man has struggled throughout time with proving that what exists in his mind also exists in the world outside his mind. When the idea relates to a physical object or a law of motion, the proof might be difficult, but still possible. Man was able to prove that the world is not flat, for example, and with time could even prove that the sun is at the center of the universe and that it is possible to split an atom. These ideas existed in man's mind before they were proven, and the proof came because the physical world allowed man the opportunity to test his hypothesis.
But what of ideas that relate to an abstraction? How can I prove that there is an afterlife, or that a forgotten dream I had ten years ago was a premonition of what happened to me yesterday, or that an abstract concept such as God is not just an idea but reality? St. Anselm (1033-1109) attempted to prove such an abstract concept in his ontological proof, by which he formulated that if one can 1) understand the concept of God as an omniscient and all-powerful being, and 2) if the belief in God truly exists in one's mind, then 3) God must exist in reality because if he did not exist in the outside world he would not be omniscient, and would not exist in one's mind as a perfect being. Even if St. Anselm's proof leaves doubters skeptical, he succeeded in addressing an abstract hypothesis in rational terms that led, at least in theory, to a proof of what had existed in his mind. His theorem, however, leaves many with the feeling that the argument is impressive in thought, but has God really been proven? We yearn for hard proof, something we can see, feel, touch.
But what if St. Anselm could relate his knowledge of God to an observable act in the future, a sign that the being he was acquainted with in his mind actually was present in the world and could be observed through signs foretold by those who knew Him? What if a crazy preacher that you see on the street corner each day were to say, "You must believe me, I know of what I speak. This perfect being that I have described will appear at 1 p.m. this Saturday in Central Park—he will rise out of the lake at this time and grow to a height of 60 feet . . . he is a bearded figure, and will be wearing a white robe." What then? You might continue to dismiss him, but if you do show up at 1 p.m. on Saturday and God does rise up from the lake in a figure 60 feet tall, hasn't the madman made his point? He has, for his abstract concept has been revealed in an observable form.
Our government's secrecy leaves many in the position of wondering and hypothesizing: what is really going on, why does it all seem like a staged production, a script closely followed? Specifically, those who are certain that Bush and Cheney were responsible for 9-11, that it was a US-based covert operation, an engineered attack that would serve as the justification for a radical shift in foreign and domestic policy, are dismissed as paranoid conspiracy theorists. The air force that did not fly despite over an hour's warning of an attack in progress? Hogwash, they say. The pre 9-11 stock option trades in American Airlines and United Airlines that were never investigated? Bull, couldn't be true. The suppressed FBI investigations into the flight schools before 9-11? No way, not our government, not the FBI. The fact that at least five of the nineteen hijackers were trained at US military installations? The military would never allow it, comes the rejoinder. The fact that the head of Pakistan's intelligence service, the ISI, was in Washington, DC, the week of the attack meeting with US intelligence officials, and was later directly connected to a $100,000 payment to Mohammed Atta, alleged leader of the hijackers? Come on, they say, the CIA would never condone something like this . . . do you really think the government would kill 3,000 of our own citizens in order to advance policies that enrich and empower a small circle of Bush supporters?
Fake terror used to justify fascism, no where have I heard that one before...?
US officials knew months before September 11, 2001, that the Al-Qaeda network planned to use aircraft to commit a terrorist attack, according to a former FBI translator interviewed in a British newspaper.
Sibel Edmonds told the Independent daily that a claim by US President George W. Bush's national security advisor Condoleezza Rice that there had been no such warnings was "an outrageous lie".
The former translator with the Federal Bureau of Investigation said that she has provided information about her claims to a US commission investigating the September 11 attacks.
Edmonds told the Independent: "There was general information about the timeframe, about methods to be used -- but not specifically about how they would be used -- and about people being in place and who was ordering these sorts of terror attacks.
"There were other cities that were mentioned. Major cities -- with skyscrapers."
The 33-year-old Turkish-American translator said that based on documents she had seen during her time with the FBI, after September 11, it was "impossible" that US intelligence officials had no forewarning of the attacks.
Bush's administration is currently under investigation for its anti-terrorism policies before and after the strikes on New York and Washington that claimed some 3,000 lives.
The Independent reported that the administration had sought to silence Edmonds and had obtained a gagging order from a court.
A previous war on terrorism that was based on as much bullshit as the current one... It's not that Tony is unique, the British government has always been full of underhanded elitist scumbags.
Sections of the security forces in Northern Ireland saw themselves as above the law and conducted a one-sided dirty war in which solicitors representing republicans were apparently seen as legitimate targets, according to a series of damning reports published yesterday.
They paint a picture of agents allowed to set up murders and loyalists given army intelligence which may have been used to kill nationalists.
The investigation by retired Canadian judge Peter Cory into four of the most controversial killings of the 30-year Troubles makes disturbing reading, even with 10 pages blanked out by the government, which had already caused fury by delaying publication of the reports for nearly six months. But yesterday four full public inquiries into the murders were ordered.
Judge Cory said the army, MI5 and police special branch knew of the plot to assassinate the Belfast solicitor Pat Finucane - who was shot 14 times as he ate dinner with his family - but they failed to warn him or do anything to prevent it. One of the murder weapons, an army pistol sold by a drunk soldier to loyalist paramilitaries, may have been hidden later by an agent.
The judge said documents showed death threats by loyalist groups like the UDA, who shot Mr Finucane, were often disregarded, in contrast to IRA activity. Special branch may have failed to take any steps to stop planned attacks it knew about.
The security services regarded human rights solicitors like Mr Finucane and Rosemary Nelson - whose death in a car bomb eight years later also showed signs of collusion, Judge Cory said - who defended prominent republicans as close "associates" of the IRA. This failure to make a distinction between "law-abiding" solicitors and their clients went right to the top of the police and included the former chief constable, Ronnie Flanagan.
Terrorists here, terrorists there; terrorists everywhere! Except that the only terrorists in this country are Blair and his corporate friends. All governments are lying cockcsuckers, I hope you know that.
Relatives of two brothers suspected of plotting a terrorist bombing outrage in Britain today made extraordinary claims that they were visited by an MI5 agent in the weeks before they were arrested.
The bizarre story was immediately dismissed by security sources as “complete rubbish” but the men’s family remained adamant that an agent called “Mr Gould” spoke with them three times and urged them to leave the UK.
Computer student Omar Khyam, 22, and his brother Shujah Khyam, 17, from Crawley, Sussex were tonight undergoing a second night of questioning at high security Paddington Green police station in London along with their cousin Ahmad Khan, 18, a journalism student, and five other men.
The eight suspects, all British citizens and Muslims, were held under the Terrorism Act as police found half a ton of ammonium nitrate fertiliser which they believe could have been used in a devastating blast.
Sajjad Ahmad, the uncle of Omar and Shujah Khyam, claimed an MI5 agent had first appeared a month ago.
“He came to my house. We got in my car and went down to Sainsbury’s car park,” he said.
The agent allegedly told him there were two categories of people the authorities were concerned with – those who were a threat to national security and those who were in trouble but did not pose a threat to national security.
Mr Ahmad said the agent did not think his nephews posed an immediate threat but urged the family to send the boys to Pakistan for a year.
“He said if they would be willing to leave, it would make (the security services’) life easier.” said Mr Ahmad.
He claimed tickets had been booked for Omar and Shujah to fly to Pakistan on April 6 at 8.30am and he was “absolutely gobsmacked” when the police arrived to arrest them.
“I have faith in the police and the intelligence services. I think they are there to protect us. Something happened at the last hour,” he said.
Mr Ahmad showed reporters his mobile phone with what he claimed was the MI5 agent’s number on the display.
If, as Washington, London, and Tel Aviv increasingly claim, the war on terror is going well, why is it spreading, and its attacks are becoming more deadly? The reason is that the Coalition of the willing has never had a strategy for dealing with terrorism, just a series of increasingly ad hoc, uncoordinated plots to get rid of individuals and groups as circumstances apparently demanded by leaders whose unfocused attempts just fled the flames, as the following events amply demonstrate:
(1) President Clinton, despite the claims of his former counterterrorist chief Richard Clarke, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, and Secretary of Defense William Cohen, never had a clear strategy for dealing with terrorism, just hit-or-miss plots to assassinate or capture Osama bin Laden after his followers chased the American troops out of Somalia.
Clinton, not willing to deal with Sudan, Saudia Arabia, and Pakistan for evidence to see to Osama's arrest, and prosecution for the bombings of the American Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania for fear of getting involved in the genocide in neighbouring Rwanda, just tried to assassinate him, and ruin his assets - especially when he faced the prospect of being removed from office during his impeachment for lying to a grand jury about his sexual misconduct in the White House.
All the attempts accomplished was to turn the Sudan solidly against the war on terrorism, make the Saudis have second thoughts about it, and see to the overthrow of the elected government of Pakistan. Clinton was so wounded, and demoralised by events that he even helped the State and Justice Departments prevent the FBI's chief counterterrorist John O'Neill from taking the measure of bin Laden's agents who blew up the USS Cole in Yemen in October 2000.
(2) President George W. Bush, despite the claims of holdover counterterrorist expert Clarke, did develop a strategy of sorts for dealing with terrorism, once the zealots, headed by Bureau Director Louis Freeh, for attacking Iran as the center of its source had been removed from power, and the fallout out from the spying for the Soviets by the FBI's Robert Hanssen had been cleared up, though the plot was worse than the problem.
The Republican White House decided to top up its plan for getting rid of bin Laden, and his Taliban supporters by isolating them, funding internal opposition in Afghanistan, and bringing in the new military government in Pakistan to help out by capturing all the hijacked airliners on 9/11 with the help of CIA agents in mufti as they were flown to Los Angeles. Instead of the hijackers then being able to demand the plan being scrapped in return for the release of the planes and its passengers, Washington would mount an attack to accelerate the project.
The only problem with the strategy was that the hijackers were suicide bombers whose wrath left it too in ruins, spoiling the birthday plans that Solicitor General Ted Olson had with his wife, Barbara, who coordinated the operation, the champagne breakfast that DCI George Tenet was having with Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence David Boren, and the speech that NSA Condi Rice had drafted without any mention of Al-Qaeda or bin Laden for announcing the strategy's success later in the day - what she would supply extemporaneously while delivering it.
(3) The Israelis then joined in the operations, it seems, Mossad agent US Army Lt. Col. Philip Zack, formerly at Maryland's Fort Detrick, seeing that anthrax-filled letters were sent to many Americans, especially Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle, and Vice Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee Patrick Leahy, and raising the alarm that Dr. Ayaad Assaad was the culprit. Once several Americans had died, many came down with the disease, and the country was panicked over the prospect of it spreading, Washington was persuaded, after more input from Tel Aviv and London, that Al-Qaeda, with help from Saddam Hussein's Iraq, was behind the attacks, leading to the war to oust the Taliban government in Afghanistan.
Once the bombing commenced, the FBI increasingly lost interest in who was behind the attacks - seeing them as the result of a disgruntled individual rather than a rogue state or a terrorist group - settling for various fallguys, especially Dr. Steven Hatfill.
(4) The bombing campaign of Afghanistan and military thrusts towards Kabal only disbursed the Taliban deeper into the country where it could regroup, and spread its terrorism elsewhere, particularly in the Muslim dictatorships of Central Asia and Pakistan. The war only suited the interests of Israel, ruining the prospects of shipping crude from Central Asia through Afghanistan to Pakistan, while raising all kinds of long-term threats to the suppliers themselves. In the meantime, Israel would continue to benefit from Iraqi oil shipped to Jordan, and guaranteeing that it would always be so.
(5) Calls for assassinating Al-Qaeda leaders, especially Ayma Al-Zawahiri, Mohammed Atef, and Osama himself, just compounded problems, whether successful or not. By killing Atef, the mastermind of the attacks on the embassies in Africa, Washington just shot itself in the foot by denying itself information about the network of cells that he had built up, with the help of Spanish cell leader Abu Dahdah aka Edin Barakat Yarkas, across Europe as far as Indonesia. While Dahdah was imprisoned, awaiting trial for involvement in the 9/11 attacks, he still managed terrorist operations with North Africans around Iberia and Western Europe.
The apparent failure to assassinate Al-Zawahiri and bin Laden just created an impossible situation where Washington is constantly vowing to get them, yet not knowing if they were already victims of the massive bombing campaign in Tora Bora, and special operations along the Pakistani border. If they are already dead, there is no way that Washington will ever know. The search for them could go on indefinitely without any prospect of success though the costs in collateral damage to others are bound to continue. Little wonder that the Americans are periodically announcing sighting them in the hope of keeping the myth about getting them alive.
(6) At this point, London became the most active player in expanding the war on terror, claiming that Saddam's WMD were not only a threat to the region, especially Israel, but also to Western Europe, particularly the United Kingdom. In doing so, the Blair government not only politicized its bureaucracies responsible for monitoring Iraq's weapons programs, but also those of the United States and Nations. This was the 'sexed up' intelligence that Blair had promised Bush after the 9/11 attacks when he threatened to take out Saddam's regime immediately for them. In doing so, Britain had repeated the favor Washington had done for Israel after the anthrax attacks by mobilizing everyone in the West, certainly its governments, behind the needs of the Israelis. With Saddam gone, Tel Aviv would punch a gigantic hole in the ring of potential enemies surrounding it.
This is enough reasons for now - the first half-dozen - but I shall continue the accounting in my next article - what is intended to show that the war on terrorism has become an endless wild goose chase - what is only getting worse by the day.
Finally the smoke is clearing from the skies over the events of 9-11. Several things are becoming clear. First the Bushites did indeed make plans that altered the Clinton administrations approach to terrorism. One of them was to strip commanders in the field, within the USA, of any authority to act. All that authority was placed directly upon the Secretary of Defense. The head of that department is Donald S. Rumsfeld.
It should be remembered here that Rummy spent the duration of the attacks on 9-11 in his office at the Pentagon: without even trying to communicate with his department--never mind the fact, that all of this blood that spilled after the first tower, was by law, his responsibility. Is this one of the reasons that Rice is reluctant to testify under oath? Because when this gets out that the Bushites violated their own twisted revisions of national defense procedures, and then dropped the ball completely: then there may well be a demand for heads to roll! Below in the following four paragraphs, is what the records show:
This document requires that the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, be personally responsible for issuing intercept orders. Commanders in the field are stripped of all authority to act. This amazing order came from S.A. Fry (Vice Admiral, US Navy and Director, Joint Staff) so it appears that responsibility for the US armed forces "Failure to Respond" rests directly with Fry for issuing this instruction, as well as with Rumsfeld for failing to execute his responsibility to issue orders in a timely fashion.
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction CJCSI 3610.01A (dated 1 June 2001) was issued to provide "guidance to the Deputy Director for Operations (DDO), National Military Command Center (NMCC), and operational commanders in the event of an aircraft piracy (hijacking) or request for destruction of derelict airborne objects." This new instruction superseded CJCSI 3610.01 of 31 July 1997.
This CJCSI states, "In the event of a hijacking, the NMCC will be notified by the most expeditious means by the FAA. The NMCC will, with the exception of immediate responses as authorized by referenced, forward requests for DOD assistance to the Secretary of Defense for approval."
Reference D refers to Department of Defense Directive 3025.15 (Feb. 18, 1997) which allows for commanders in the field to provide assistance to save lives in an emergency situation -- BUT any requests involving "potentially lethal support" (including "combat and tactical vehicles, vessels or aircraft; or ammunition") must still be approved by the Secretary of Defense. So again, the ability to respond to a hijacking in any meaningful fashion is stripped from the commanders in the field and given directly to Rummy!
Another discovery that these documents clarifies, is that this administration did not give a damn about what happened, as it was happening, which could explain part of their hostility to having anyone apologize for those attacks on that day.
For all of this worry about "terrorism" and the alleged bombers being arrested and everyone panicing that they may get blown up on the Number 22 bus going home. NOBODY is asking the right questions, nobody is quesitoning the official line. As a result the REAL terrorists (our governments and corporations) can do whatever the hell they like! Terrrorism is a fucking SHAM! All governments are lying cocksuckers!
The Israeli government could not have perpetrated a ghastlier and more counter-productive act than it did by killing the Hamas "spiritual leader" Sheikh Ahmed Yassin in cold blood. Millions across the globe were stunned at the sight of an old paraplegic in a wheelchair being shot with high-tech missiles. The argument that this was retaliation for Hamas’s killing of 10 Israelis in a terrorist attack will convince nobody. The proposition that a crippled, frail, old man planned or organised that attack defies credibility. There is no evidence that Sheikh Yassin was involved in Hamas’s military operations for many, many years.
Israel’s action is morally indefensible, totally illegal and unbecoming of a minimally civilised state. It is a brazen form of extra-judicial killing. In plain English, this means murder by the state. Yet, as Prime Minister Ariel Sharon announced, it is only the beginning of the systematic elimination of Hamas’s entire leadership.
Israel, quite simply, plans to annihilate who ever it regards as an enemy and a threat. This fits the clinical definition of state terrorism. If powerful governments were to resort to extra-judicial killings of those suspected — but legally unproved — to be sources of threat or purveyors of terrorism, the whole world would become a cauldron of lawlessness, brigandage and bloody chaos.
Most countries have condemned the Israeli action. Even the United States — which has long indulged Israel’s actions — has finally come around to deploring Yassin’s assassination. The Western European states were more forthright. European Union Commissioner Chris Patten compared the Israeli action to dealing with a fire by pouring gasoline on the flames. Even India, which has developed close "anti-terrorism cooperation" and a strategic relationship with Israel, called the action "appalling".
To condemn the action is not to condone Hamas or to paper over the fact that it is a fundamentalist group, which indiscriminately kills civilians. But the thousands upon thousands of Palestinians who poured out in the streets of Gaza and the West Bank, and above all, in Israeli cities like Nazareth, were not condoning or supporting Hamas. They were appalled at Israel’s outrageous conduct. When states take revenge by imitating sub-state terrorists, they reduce themselves to their level. Indeed, morally, they sink even lower, and physically, they can be incomparably more brutal.
The assassination is certain to provoke an unspeakably bloody response through another series of revenge attacks by Hamas. Many Hamas leaders have gone underground, and their newly appointed leader in Gaza, Abdal-Aziz Ranteesi, has vowed apocalyptic revenge — to "make the earth tremble under the feet of the Zionists". The slogan is "war, war, war" on Israel.
Sharon’s plan to assassinate Sheikh Yassin was opposed, not just by his interior minister, but also the head of the Israeli Security Service, Shin Bet — men who cannot be accused of being "soft on terrorism" or covert "Hamas supporters". The Sharon government could not have but willed terrorist attacks. It is inconceivable that it acted in a knee-jerk manner, without knowing of the likelihood of more terrorist strikes.
Sharon does not mind sacrificing the lives of scores, even hundreds, of innocent Israeli civilians, by provoking a large-scale violent response to "targeted assassinations". Such diabolical cynicism has long been integral to Israeli policy. It bears recalling that Hamas is itself the creation of Israel. It has been revealed by Israeli General Yitzhak Sager that beginning in 1978, the Israeli state funded Sheikh Yassin to divide the Palestine national movement and divert it from its PLO-centred secular mainstream.
Two and a half years into the 'war on terror', the US is running a $500 billion budget deficit, its highest ever and the country is struggling to cover war costs. Terrorism seems to be a very costly business. So how can terrorists afford it? The answer is simple: terrorism is their business.
1. Terrorism has always been a business During the Cold War terrorism was the trade of the superpowers. They fought wars by proxy across the world by funding local armed groups with legal or covert operations (for example the Contras in Central America). In the late 1970s-early 1980s, some of these groups managed to privatize terrorism. To raise money, they used a mixture of legal and illegal activities -- the IRA had the monopoly of private transport in Belfast; the PLO got a cut out of the Hashish trade from the Bekaa Valley; Carlos the Jackal and Aby Nidal became 'guns for hire' for Arab leaders such as Gaddafi.
2. Globalization boosted terrorism In the 1990s, as international economic and financial barriers were lowered, terror groups expanded their businesses, which become transnational. Today, money is raised cross border, as proved by the joint business empires of Yousef Nada and Idris Nasreddin, two of bin Laden's associates. According to the UN, their portfolios, which range from real estate to fisheries, sprawl across Europe and Africa, and are worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
3. Each time an American reads a newspaper or takes a sip at a soft drink, they contribute to Osama bin Laden's financial empire Terror businesses could not stay out of the largest consumer market in the world, the US. In the mid 1990s, while residing in Sudan, Osama bin Laden acquired 70% of Gum Arabic Company Ltd, which produces about 80% of the world supply of gum arabic. Extracted from the sap of the acacia trees that grow in Sudan, gum arabic is used to make ink stick to newspapers, to prevent sediment forming in soft drinks and to create a protective shell around sweets and pills to keep them fresh. The US is the largest importer in the world. Bin Laden's investment proved to be a very sound one. In November 1997, when Clinton imposed economic sanctions on Sudan, a number of American importers including the Newspaper Association of America, and the National Soft Drinks Association of America, objected. Eventually, Gum Arabic was exempted.
4. The Terror Economy is Bigger than the GDP of the United Kingdom Globalization also facilitated the merging of terror enterprises with criminal and illegal activities. This meant big business. Today their joint yearly turnover is a staggering $1.5 trillion dollars, higher than the GDP of the United Kingdom.
5. The terror economy props up western capitalism The bulk of the $1.5 trillion flows into Western economies and gets money laundered in the US and Europe. This is a vital infusion of cash into these economies. If we were to cut it overnight, the West would be plunged into a recession.
6. The illegal/terror economy grows faster than the US economy Up to now, terror business has been conducted in dollars, primarily in 100 dollars bills; so are arms and drugs smuggling and other criminal and illegal activity. Thus, a rough indication of the rate of growth of the terror economy is given by the yearly infusion of new stock of US dollars. In the year 2000, as much as two third of the US money supply, equivalent to $500 billion, was taken out of the US monetary system for good and is now held abroad. This figure refers to money taken abroad in suitcases or via offshore accounts. If these statistics are correct, then the rate of monetary growth of the terror/illegal economy is higher than that of the US economy.
7. 9/11 was one of the greatest insider-trading events in modern history Terrorists are also very skilled speculators. During the week before 9/11, an unusually high volume of trading was reported in certain sectors, e.g. air transport, energy and insurance. Shares of American Airlines and United, the US airlines involved in the 9/11 attack, were targeted. A similar trend was reported in the insurance business, with leading companies becoming the object of exceptional and unexpected speculation on the futures market. The weekend following the attack, Ernst Welteke, president of the German Bundesbank, admitted that there had been insider trading by 'terrorists' and added that the commodities markets had also been targeted. Indeed, days before the attack, oil and gold experienced a sudden and inexplicable rise in price. This was followed by a surge in activity on the futures market. On 12 September, oil prices jumped by more than 13 per cent and gold prices went up by over 3 per cent. Prices continued to climb all week. Anybody who knew what was going to happen on 11 September could have predicted such a trend.
8. Profiteering on Terrorism Terrorism is such a good business that even the US government tried to get a stake in it. Last summer, the Pentagon was forced to abandon a 20 months project, Future PAM, to launch an online futures market that allowed speculators to bet on assassinations, coups and acts of terrorism. The project was headed by a leading expert on state sponsored terrorism, retired vice admiral John Poindexter, formerly national security adviser under President Reagan. In the1990s, Poindexter was convicted on five felony counts, including lying to Congress, destroying documents and obstructing congressional inquiries into the Iran-Contra scandal. Several US senators strongly opposed the project on the ground that terrorists would be the biggest beneficiaries as they are the ones who carry out the attacks.
9. Terrorism is such a good business that nobody really wants to eradicate it So far, international efforts to curb terror financing have failed. An insignificant $140 million of terror money have been frozen since 9/11, 70% coming from accounts held in the West. Business profits generated by Al Qaeda front companies and donations from the Muslim world are mostly untouched. For example, Haramain Charitable Foundation, a Saudi charity worth $30 million per year, is still active in several countries. Recently Haramain has opened a new Islamic school in Jakarta, a hot bed of Islamist terror in South East Asia. Twice the Saudis have agreed to shut this charity, which is headed by Sheikh Saleh bin Abdul Aziz al-Ashaikh, Saudi minister for Islamic affairs, but never did it. So far the Saudis have frozen $4.7 million of terror money, closed 6 of the 241 Saudi charities and prohibit the collection of coins at the entrance of shopping malls. Not a lot when compared with UN reports stating that prior to 9/11, as much as 20% of Saudi GDP went to fund Al Qaeda alone.
10. Twice the US passed on the opportunity to get hold of Osama bin Laden Is terror such good business as to prevent the arrest of bin Laden? In 1996, the Sudanese Minister of Defence, Major General Elfatih Erwa, offered to extradite Osama bin Laden, then resident in Sudan, to the US. American officials declined the offer. Instead, they told General Erwa to ask bin Laden to leave the country. 'Just don't let him go to Somalia,' they added. In 1993, 18 US soldiers had been brutally killed in Somalia in street riots involving Al Qaeda supporters and the US feared that bin Laden's presence in the country would create further unrest. When Erwa disclosed that bin Laden was going to Afghanistan, the American answer was 'let him go'. A few weeks after 9/11 the leaders of the two Pakistani Islamist parties negotiated with Mullah Omar and bin Laden for the latter's extradition to Pakistan to stand trial for 9/11. Once again the US refused the offer.
Two and a half years into the 'war on terror' it is apparent that the winners are the terrorists -- while Al Qaeda's finances are still intact the US is running the highest budget deficit in history. What can be done? Start by treating terrorism for what it is: a global business; force our Muslim allies to act immediately to curb terror funding and concentrate our efforts to hunt terror money in our countries, even if that implies putting under investigation the strongholds of Western capitalism: Wall Street, the City of London and the thousand offshore centres linked to them.
Loretta Napoleoni is an economist who has worked for banks and international organizations in Europe and the US. She has written novels and guide books in Italian and translated and edited books on terrorism. She is among the few people who interviewed the Red Brigades in the early 1990s. She developed the idea to research and write a book on the economics of terrorism while interviewing the leaders of the Red Brigades.
Napoleoni's latest book, published September 2003, is Modern Jihad: Tracing the Dollars Behind the Terror Networks
Condoleezza Rice wants to bring democracy to the Middle East. Ms. Rice, an expert on what is now an obsolete subject, the Soviet Union, believes this can be done the way the United States brought democracy to Chile or Iran or Afghanistan - that is, by violently overthrowing governments.
Does democracy come from the full belly of a B-52 and the murderous aftermath of coups?
Apparently not. Virtually none of the countries that America's freedom-loving army of enlightenment has bombed and shot-up over the last sixty years is today a democracy.
One is reminded of the claims of Napoleonic France that it was spreading revolutionary principles by conquest. The conquest part was vigorously pursued, but the liberté, egalitié, et fraternité part left a little something to be desired.
Ms. Rice displays little understanding of the history of democracy or of the circumstances which make it possible. She is not alone in this. Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright's efforts on "democracy initiatives" displayed a similar lack of understanding, although it must be said in Ms. Albright's favor, she was less inclined than the ever-hysterical Ms. Rice to classify unprovoked attack by a great power as an initiative for democracy.
Democracy is simply a natural development of a healthy, growing society. Over the long term, it requires no revolution, no coup, and no sacred writ. It grows and blooms as automatically as flower seeds tossed in a good patch of earth, although it is a plant whose maturity is measured in human lifetimes rather than seasons.
Lockerbie is another of those dirty little secrets that are hiding out there, make sure you check out the two links at the end of this story for more information on this particular conspiracy "theory".
by Paul Foot
As he basks in the success of his controversial visit to Libya, the prime minister has to grapple at once with an awkward letter. It was delivered on Monday by UK Families Flight 103 representing most of the British families bereaved by the 1988 Lockerbie bombing. The letter starts by reminding Blair that the families supported his visit to Libya in the expectation that the talks with Colonel Muammar Gadafy would lead to more information about the bombing. Moreover, the letter says, their support for the visit was widely used by ministers to justify the visit to Libya. Yet the visit has not led to any more information about the bombing.
And recent letters to the secretary of the group, Pamela Dix - whose brother died at Lockerbie - from Baroness Symons, minister of state at the Foreign Office, and from the Crown Office in Edinburgh, have argued that any further questions to the Libyans about Lockerbie would not be helpful. In short, ministers took the credit of the families' support without asking a single question about Lockerbie to justify that support. In a sense of deep outrage, the families are asking the prime minister for a meeting to discuss Lockerbie as a matter of urgency.
More people died at Lockerbie than in Madrid, and you would have thought that the government, if only as proof of its horror at terrorism, would be keen to question its new friends in Tripoli about the bombing. Not so, apparently. So the only hard information the families have is that Abdul Basset al-Megrahi, a Libyan official, apparently working in intelligence, was convicted in January 2001 of bombing the airliner. How he accomplished this feat is still a mystery. The details of the crime did not emerge at the trial, which was held by Scottish judges sitting without a jury in Holland. It lasted 18 months and cost an estimated £50m.
Megrahi's co-accused was acquitted, so the prosecution's suggestion that the two men conspired to bomb the plane cannot be right. Indeed, the crucial evidence that the bomb was put on a feeder flight at Malta and was transferred twice, at Frankfurt and at Heathrow, was so thin it was derisory.
No one knows whether anyone else took part in this sophisticated crime of terror. One man has been convicted. The Libyan government has forked out many millions in compensation. And that, apparently, is the end of the matter. Many of the bereaved relatives, including Dix, are increasingly disturbed at the behaviour of ministers who talk business and politics to the Gadafy regime, but are not remotely interested in pressing anyone in it to tell the whole story about Lockerbie.
Clinton was less savage than the current administration but he was still a tool of the globalists just like Bush and Blair. They are faithful little lapdogs bought long ago with promises of whatever they needed to secure their allegiance. Or they really thought they were in charge, in which case they are bigger fools than I imagined. Things will not change with Kerry, they may chnage tone but the essential trust of what is occuring is now unstoppable, probably always was. It will play itself out and we may or may not survive the experience, I guess it depends on whether there is any sanity left in the world of men.
Classified papers show Clinton was aware of 'final solution' to eliminate Tutsis
President Bill Clinton's administration knew Rwanda was being engulfed by genocide in April 1994 but buried the information to justify its inaction, according to classified documents made available for the first time.
Senior officials privately used the word genocide within 16 days of the start of the killings, but chose not to do so publicly because the president had already decided not to intervene.
Intelligence reports obtained using the US Freedom of Information Act show the cabinet and almost certainly the president had been told of a planned "final solution to eliminate all Tutsis" before the slaughter reached its peak.
It took Hutu death squads three months from April 6 to murder an estimated 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus and at each stage accurate, detailed reports were reaching Washington's top policymakers.
The documents undermine claims by Mr Clinton and his senior officials that they did not fully appreciate the scale and speed of the killings.
"It's powerful proof that they knew," said Alison des Forges, a Human Rights Watch researcher and authority on the genocide.
The National Security Archive, an independent non-governmental research institute based in Washington DC, went to court to obtain the material.
It discovered that the CIA's national intelligence daily, a secret briefing circulated to Mr Clinton, the then vice-president, Al Gore, and hundreds of senior officials, included almost daily reports on Rwanda. One, dated April 23, said rebels would continue fighting to "stop the genocide, which ... is spreading south".
Three days later the state department's intelligence briefing for former secretary of state Warren Christopher and other officials noted "genocide and partition" and reported declarations of a "final solution to eliminate all Tutsis".
However, the administration did not publicly use the word genocide until May 25 and even then diluted its impact by saying "acts of genocide".
Israeli prosecutors were persuaded to recommend charging Ariel Sharon with corruption in part by secret recordings of the prime minister rehashing one of the most famous army signals of the 1967 war.
According to the Haaretz newspaper, Mr Sharon, who was foreign minister in 1999, was captured on tape in a conversation with a businessman, David Appel, who has already been charged with paying him to pressure the Greek government to approve construction of a casino on an Aegean island.
In the tape recording, Mr Sharon is reportedly heard telling Mr Appel: "The island is in our hands" - a reworking of the signal renowned throughout Israel after troops stormed East Jerusalem, "the Temple Mount is in our hands".
Later in the recording, Mr Appel says: "Your son is going to earn a lot of money."
Haaretz reported that the two comments appearing in the same conversation were important in persuading prosecutors to recommend that Mr Sharon be indicted.
The comments also establish that Mr Sharon knew about Mr Appel's attempts to build the casino, undermining his attempts to say he was not involved in promoting the project. Miryam Rosenthal, a former senior attorney at the Israeli prosecution service, told army radio yesterday that Mr Sharon's remark was "almost equivalent to an admission of guilt".
According to the draft indictment, Mr Sharon is alleged to have received about £390,000 in bribes through a bank account for the family ranch in the Negev, and to his son, Gilad, in return for Mr Sharon's help.
All governments are lying cocksuckers, I hope you know that. -= Bill Hicks
Face it, if you still believe the official line on 9/11 then you're not only a fool but a clear and present danger to the freedom and welfare of the rest of us. If you still believe the official line on 9/11 then you are helping the people who want to bring about a huge war that will make WW1 and WW2 look like car accidents. If you still believe the official line on 9/11 you seriously need to wake the fuck up!
by Stephen Crockett and Al Lawrence
The recent controversy swirling around the Bush White House, the 9-11 Commission and the Richard Clarke book, Against All Enemies has been very enlightening. Sensing that Bush has almost nothing else to run on in the 2004 elections, the Bush Republican attack machine and their fellow travelers in the Corporate Media have been vigorously trying to change the subject away from their competency in dealing with terrorism before and after the 9-11 terrorist attacks.
Instead of publicly dealing with the serious issues involved, the Bush Republicans have been attacking the character of anyone who raises any questions about their poor performance on national security issues. This has been the Karl Rove approach to anyone standing in the way of Bush obtaining and retaining political power. This tactic was key in defeating John McCain in the 2000 South Carolina Republican Primary Election.
The tactic was used in the 2002 Congressional Elections to give the Republicans control of Congress. The tactic backfired when used illegally by someone highly placed in the Bush Administration to out the CIA agent wife of Ambassador Wilson over the false "African uranium-nuclear weapons" claims that helped Bush sell his invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Most recently, the Republican attack machine went after former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neil, when the book The Price of Loyalty was published. This book confirmed many of the charges made against the Bush White House in the Clarke book.
While Clarke did his job in our government under Reagan, Bush (the Senior), Clinton and the current Bush very well, the Bush Republicans are now blaming their failings on him.
As part of any White House team, any highly placed team member will publicly highlight the best-case scenario for the Administration's performance while downplaying their failures. Clarke did this while serving in the Bush Administration. The Bush White House and their allies in Congress are trying to make these comments into a serious contradiction with the Clarke book and public statements of today.
Clarke left the Bush team because they were failing to meet the threat posed by the Bin Laden terrorist network both before and after 9-11. The former FBI lead investigator of Islamic terrorism and Bin Laden, John O'Neill resigned just weeks before the 9-11 attacks because he claimed the Bush Administration was blocking his investigation of Saudi ties to Islamic terrorists attacking the United States.
This hero took the job as head of security for the World Trade Center and died in the 9-11 attack. Clarke to his credit tried to work within the system first. He was probably the only member of the Bush White House effectively doing their job in dealing with the Islamic fundamentalist terrorist threat.
Meanwhile, the Bush team along with Bush and Cheney were using the 9-11 attacks to launch an unrelated war with Iraq. Military and national security resources were diverted to this Oil War in Iraq just when America had a real chance of eliminating the Bin Laden organization in Afghanistan and the Taliban forces. Our enemies in Afghanistan have shown signs of renewed strength while the bulk of our military is tied down in another war in Iraq. The Iraq War has turned into both a terrorist training ground and a recruiting goldmine for our enemies.
Before the 9-11 attacks, the Bush Administration was simply asleep on the job. Instead of planning military actions against Afghanistan, they were negotiating with the Taliban for an oil pipeline designed to financially profit American oil companies.
When I left Stockholm for Barcelona on March 11th, right after the 13 canister-bomb attacks on four trains had occurred at three railway stations in Madrid, killing upwards of 200 people, and wounding at least another 1,800, it was with the greatest excitement, trepidation, and concern. The attacks had the potential of changing dramatically not only the Iberian peninsula but also the Western world if part of a clearly coordinated plot.
If they were the result of domestic terrorists, especially the Basque separatists ETA (Euzkadi Ta Askatasuna), it could have thrown Spain into a downward spiral of violence - reminiscent of how General Augusto Pinochet seized power from Chile's President Salvadore Allende back in 1973 - which could have been legally strenghtened by the upcoming Sunday, parliamentary elections. The Madrid government, a strong supporter of the risk-seeking Anglo-American Coalition despite the overwhelming opposition to its position by its people, could have seen its position legitimized at the polls.
If the attacks were the work of outside terrorists, especially Israel's Mossad or Osama bin Laden's Al-Qaeda, they could have handed the government of Popular Party's leader José Maria Aznar's successor such an increased majority that pre-emptive strikes against alleged rogue states, and terrorist organizations would have become a matter of course in the war on terrorism.
If this were the case, one could not rule out Coalition complicity in the conspiracy as Washington and London are becoming increasingly desperate over the chances of surviving the growing opposition in the Arab world, and across the West to their counter-productive policies. While allegedly committed to stamping out terrorism, they are only feeding it.
Then, one could not rule out right-wing supporters of General Franco being behind the plot, especially since they have been so upset about how politics have been developing in Spain's democracy, and are in a position, thanks to their prevalence in the intelligence and security services, especially in the Higher Defense Intelligence Center (CESID), to do something drastic about it. Counterterrorists are in an ideal position, as their American counterparts learned during the Iran Contra Affair, to engage, and expand terrorism if they are so inclined. Also, they could have been led astray by their Anglo-American counterparts.
In this case of terrorism, one must also consider the target, and how it was attacked, as one Spanish locale or city is not the same as another, given Spain's regional and cultural differences. Hitting Madrid hard, as opposed to Barcelona, for example, would make much more sense for some possible culprits rather than others. While the Mossad would be the prime suspect if Barcelona had been attacked - what could get the Catalans behind the war on terror - the Spanish capital, esepcially its citizens, would be the ideal target for Al-Qaeda. ETA would be prone to attack hard targets there.
After the attacks of 9/11, Spain was in the forefront of stopping terrorists. On November 18th, Spanish security police raided a house in Madrid, arresting eight men thought to be connected to Al-Qaeda, and planning to attack various high-profile targets in Western Europe, including NATO headqarters in Brussels, and the American Embassy in Paris. The leading suspect arrested was Syrian Abu Dahdah aka Edin Barakat Yarkas who took orders directly from Muhammed Atef, Al-Qaeda's military commander responsible for organizing the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
By the following April, CESID agents clinched their closure of the cell operating out of Majorca by arresting Ahmed Brahim, Al-Qaeda's financial wizard behind the bombings of the American Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania which killed 220 people, in an apartment of the San Joan Despit secton of Barcelona. Brahim used his businesses on the Spanish island as the cover for such covert operations through stolen credit cards to pay for telephone communications, and false invoices to hide illegal money transfers for agents and equipment.
With the help of National Security Agency (NSA) intercepts, the Spanish police were able to connect Brahim to Mahdouh Mahud Salin, one of the founders of Al-Qaeda in Spain, and with that of German police, to leading hijacker Mohamed Atta a year before the attacks occurred. Salin was later tried, and convicted of conspiring to blow up the embassies. German police found an address book in a Hamburg apartment which connected Atta to Yarkas.
In the process, CESID learned how Spain, a "rear guard base", was able to propagate similar cells around Europe, and connect them in ways which would lead to more destructive terrorisim unless there was more effective counterterrorism by all countries concerned. The only downside of the whole operation was that the United States Air Force - so eager to redeem itself after the humiliations of 9/11 - used the NSA intercepts of calls between Atef and the Spanish base to take him out by an air attack during an Al-Qaeda meeting in Kabal on November 14th. In killing him, the Coalition lost a vital source of information.
The stupid killing to Atef was compounded by the unnecessary assault on Iraq - what threw the war on terrorism into the greatest disarray. Bathasar Garzon, Spain's most dedicated and successful investigative judge, put it this way: "The war against Iraq will not eradicate the threat of terror but perversely, it may bolster it." Unfortunately, he knew what he was talking about, and the deadly Madrid attacks are the best evidence of this being so.
During the build-up of the war with Saddam Hussein, Al-Qadea's recruiter in Britain, cleric Abu Qatada, was apparently recruited by the Security Service as a double agent to keep track of all the visitors, especially from Spain, joining its ranks. Before Christmas 2001, Qatada and his family went into hiding from their home in Acton, his critics claiming that he had fled the country, but operatives in Britain implying that he had switched sides, spilling the beans on all his formers colleagues for London's authorities. In October 2002, he was jailed as a terrorist, but this could just have been to keep up his cover as the war with Iraq came into focus. In January, he sought release from custody, but his appeal was rejected.
Whatever Qatada told MI5 about possible attacks in Britain (was he responsible for all the overkill in counterterrorism last year at Heathrow?), he obviously did not keep Spanish authorities informed of what his disciples did in London, and planned in Madrid, as The Australian reported just the other day in the article entitled, "Al-Qaeda Double Agent Duped MI5:" "Among the scores of young militants who visited him was the chief suspect in the Madrid train bombings." The suspect is, of all people, Abu Dahdah, who visited Qatada no less than 25 times, bringing money and recruits. Obviously, the visits were intended to throw everybody off, MI5 thinking that the targets were in Britain while they were actually in Spain. London must have assured Aznar's government that it had nothing to worry about with Abu Dahdah.
Little wonder that Madrid went berserk when the totally unexpected attacks occurred, blaming ETA, the only likely other source. In doing so, the PP government ruined what little chance it had with the already disbelieving electorate about the war on terror. When Britain realized how it too had played into the hands of Spain's Al-Qaeda network, Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir John Stevens, Britain's clean-up man when it comes to botched covert operations, understandably announced that similar attacks in the UK were just a matter of time, and now its forces are arresting all Qatada's visitors that they can lay their hands on. Unfortunately, like actions after the 9/11 attacks, they are simply grabbing at straws.
US Citizens Cheer Their Criminal Nation Savaging The Whole World
by John Kaminski
The presidential election, Bush vs. Kerry, what a joke! Two privileged plutocrats, two psychotic perverts from the same demonic college fraternity, neither ever had to hold a job, each advocating continuing crimes against humanity, even against their own people. And to make matters worse, they no longer count the votes honestly. The computer spits out a predetermined total, and the TV whores tell you to believe it. And just like in the election itself, you have no real choice.
Two spoiled children of privilege, born into incomprehensible wealth, constantly gathering more as they go on their immoral ways, devising ever more evil strategies by which to fleece the slaves of the world, preparing to divide America into armed camps, all the while taking their lead from the evil Israelis, who build walls against humanity and murder whomever they please. The few people who try to point out the injustice are either prohibited from speaking or thrown into jail without trial, or outright murdered. The new American way is the old Israeli way. But Americans embrace it, as they continue their sleepwalking march toward slavery and oblivion. Cheering with empty eyes as they go.
Does it not strike you as odd " assuming you are a thinking, feeling human being not yet too retarded by flouride, chemtrails, food additives, antidepressants and demonically engineered food that will eventually poison you to death " that there is not a single principled public figure in America who has pointed out that America's rape of Iraq violates every international law and moral precept that has ever been written by the great minds of the past? That the dispersal of uranium all over Central Asia will kill millions? That the clumsy coverup of the inside job of mass murder on 9/11 was the ultimate betrayal of all Americans?
What ARE Americans doing? Cowering in their undefendable homes and waiting for the end?
Does it not strike you as odd that no one speaks out about America's crimes against the world? Against poor people everywhere? Against its own citizens?
Now the real deal is on the table. A New Orleans judge has ruled that the cops can invade your own home without a warrant. That's the end of the Fourth Amendment, a citizen's protection against unreasonable search and seizure, the very basis of freedom in America. This is merely the expected verification of the Patriot Act, that Soviet-style law that allows the government to control every aspect of your life. Now, no one is safe from American tyranny. 1984 has finally arrived.
Just in case you're thinking that it's different in the UK, it isn't. We are just as much slaves of Israel as our American counsins are.
Iraq under Saddam Hussein did not pose a threat to the United States but it did to Israel, which is one reason why Washington invaded the Arab country, according to a speech made by a member of a top-level White House intelligence group.
IPS uncovered the remarks by Philip Zelikow, who is now the executive director of the body set up to investigate the terrorist attacks on the United States in September 2001 -- the 9/11 commission -- in which he suggests a prime motive for the invasion just over one year ago was to eliminate a threat to Israel, a staunch U.S. ally in the Middle East.
Zelikow's casting of the attack on Iraq as one launched to protect Israel appears at odds with the public position of President George W. Bush and his administration, which has never overtly drawn the link between its war on the regime of former president Hussein and its concern for Israel's security.
The administration has instead insisted it launched the war to liberate the Iraqi people, destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and to protect the United States.
Zelikow made his statements about ”the unstated threat” during his tenure on a highly knowledgeable and well-connected body known as the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB), which reports directly to the president.
He served on the board between 2001 and 2003.
”Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I'll tell you what I think the real threat (is) and actually has been since 1990 -- it's the threat against Israel,” Zelikow told a crowd at the University of Virginia on Sep. 10, 2002, speaking on a panel of foreign policy experts assessing the impact of 9/11 and the future of the war on the al-Qaeda terrorist organisation.
”And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don't care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And the American government doesn't want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell,” said Zelikow.
The statements are the first to surface from a source closely linked to the Bush administration acknowledging that the war, which has so far cost the lives of nearly 600 U.S. troops and thousands of Iraqis, was motivated by Washington's desire to defend the Jewish state.
The administration, which is surrounded by staunch pro-Israel, neo-conservative hawks, is currently fighting an extensive campaign to ward off accusations that it derailed the ”war on terrorism” it launched after 9/11 by taking a detour to Iraq, which appears to have posed no direct threat to the United States.
Israel is Washington's biggest ally in the Middle East, receiving annual direct aid of three to four billion dollars.
Even though members of the 16-person PFIAB come from outside government, they enjoy the confidence of the president and have access to all information related to foreign intelligence that they need to play their vital advisory role.
An army of thousands of mercenaries has appeared in Iraq's major cities, many of them former British and American soldiers hired by the occupying Anglo-American authorities and by dozens of companies who fear for the lives of their employees.
Many of the armed Britons are former SAS soldiers and heavily armed South Africans are also working for the occupation. "My people know how to use weapons and they're all SAS," said the British leader of one security team in southern Baghdad. "But there are people running around with guns now who are just cowboys. We always conceal our weapons, but these guys think they're in a Hollywood film."
There are serious doubts even within the occupying power about America's choice to send Chilean mercenaries, many trained during General Pinochet's vicious dictatorship, to guard Baghdad airport. Many South Africans are in Iraq illegally - they are breaking new laws, passed by the government in Pretoria, to control South Africa's booming export of mercenaries. Many have been arrested on their return home because they are do not have the licence now required by private soldiers.
Casualties among the mercenaries are not included in the regular body count put out by the occupation authorities, which may account for the persistent suspicion among Iraqis that the US is underestimating its figures of military dead and wounded. Some British experts claim that private policing is now the UK's biggest export to Iraq - a growth fueled by the surge in bomb attacks on coalition forces, aid agencies and UN buildings since the official end of the war in May last year.
Many companies operate from villas in middle-class areas of Baghdad with no name on the door. Some security men claim they can earn more than £80,000 a year; but short-term, high-risk mercenary work can bring much higher rewards. Security personnel working a seven-day contract in cities like Fallujah, can make $1,000 a day.
Although they wear no uniform, some security men carry personal identification on their flak jackets, along with their rifles and pistols. Others refuse to identify themselves even in hotels, drinking beer by the pool, their weapons at their feet. In several hotels, guests and staff have complained that security men have held drunken parties and one manager was forced to instruct mercenaries in his hotel that they must carry their guns in a bag when they leave the premises. His demand was ignored.
One British company director, David Claridge of the security firm Janusian, has estimated that British firms have earned up to £800m from their contracts in Iraq - barely a year after the invasion of Iraq. One British-run firm, Erinys, employs 14,000 Iraqis as watchmen and security guards to protect the country's oil fields and pipelines.
A test of how effective this is going to be is easy to illustrate; I live in the UK, I'm a news junkie, and I got this off an American website linking to an Australian newspaper website. Now what does that tell you about the so-called "freedom" of the press and the independence (and vigour) of our journalists. Most of those useless cocksucking sycophantic idiots spend more time telling "conspiracy theorists" like me that we're making it all up or "barking mad" than they do actually coming up with good data to refute the BLEEDING OBVIOUS! The truth is so much stranger than fiction that even if they made a 100% accurate movie about it, you probably wouldn't believe it!
A British Member of Parliament from the ruling Labour party, Gerald Kaufman, has called for economic sanctions against Israel, including cutting off arms supplies, to force it back to the negotiating table with the Palestinians.
"It is not enough for the world community, including our own Government, to condemn the Israeli Government's brutal policies of repression," he said, addressing members of his Manchester constituency.
"Only widespread economic sanctions on Israel, together with cutting off arms supplies, can make any impact on this Government without a conscience".
Mr Kaufman, himself Jewish, said US President George W Bush's father, the former president Bush, had "understood the importance of forcing the Israelis to the conference table by imposing economic sanctions on a previous Likud Prime Minister, Yitzhak Shamir".
Mr Kaufman, once a frontbench Labour foreign affairs spokesman when the party was in opposition, criticised a decision by Mr Bush to receive Mr Sharon in Washington.
by Manuel Valenzuela - Axis of Logic Contributing Editor
"Anti-occupation, anti-apartheid and anti-dehumanization is not anti-Semitism nor anti-Israel. Pro-peace, pro-human rights and pro-freedom is not pro-Palestinian. The power of freedom is pointing out when it is being denied. The search for justice and equality comes not from hiding from fear of criticism but rather from taking the road less traveled up the mountain of truth." -Manuel Valenzuela
What were Sharon and the Israeli government thinking when they decided to decapitate Hamas through the assassination of its founder, Sheik Ahmed Yassin? If the state sponsored murder of Yassin was not so recklessly self-defeating, one might be inclined to think that Sharon is on a mission to implode the state of Israel.
The evaporation of a wheelchair-laden Yassin through American Apache helicopter missiles underscores the vicious cycle the state of Israel has thrust upon itself for years on end. Its ceaseless terror-inducing actions on an occupied and resisting people continue to haunt it and its own citizens; its continued oppression, violence and dehumanization on the indigenous people of Palestine inevitably always boomerangs, yet Israel does not relent, nor understands, nor seems to care about the consequences of its actions.
As if addicted to perpetual death, fear and violence, the state of Israel continues to escalate a war it cannot win, an occupation it cannot escape and a state of siege it does not fully care to understand. Israel has through the years only increased its oppression of a population it cannot erase, no matter how hard it tries to cleanse the Holy Land of its native inhabitants. It continues to masochistically seek the principle of kill and be killed, of cause and effect and action and reaction, making one wonder if suffering and hardship are necessary ingredients for life in the Middle East. For decades Israel has tried everything to no avail, collective punishment, virtual imprisonment, economic genocide, killing, maiming, oppressing, occupying, cleansing and dehumanizing. Does it not see that her continued actions are leading not to the "promised land" but rather straight to hell on Earth and that life is only getting harder and much less safe?
The trouble in the Middle East stems from the fact that a European people with no continuity with the land arrived and colonized a native population that did. Today, this colonization has morphed into outright apartheid and dehumanization. The state of Israel, it must be understood, was born in sin. It was created in large part thanks to the ethnic cleansing and dispossession of a native people who today are trapped in large concentration camps of suffering and utter decay, living encaged in the last vestiges of their original land. Israel's birth coincided with the spawning of serious crimes against humanity that have through time only been exacerbated, continuing to this day with ever more barbaric levels of suppression, persecution and subjugation.
Israel was a dream of European Zionists who colonized the native Palestinian people (thanks to the British) who had contiguously occupied the land for millennia. These Zionists arrived and proceeded to open the floodgates of European Jewish immigration onto Palestine. Hundreds of thousands arrived while hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were forced out, oftentimes with a barrel of a gun pointed their way. Immigrants took possession of those lands and buildings left behind by the indigenous population.
Arab-Israeli wars that followed drove still more natives out of their lands and lives, pushing them further away from their historical homes. Large sections and populations of Jordan, Syria, the West Bank and Gaza are today but vast refugee camps for those who were ethnically cleansed from their livelihoods in order to appease the Zionist dream of a Jewish state in the so-called "promised land."
Those who would deny this reality should be categorized along with Holocaust non-believers and those revisionists of history who would have the world believe otherwise. The reality of the formation of Israel has been tried to be made to disappear into the dustbins of forgotten history, for the truth of how the "promised land" was acquired would no doubt send waves of disgust into those who today believe in the perceived nobility and blessings of the creation of Israel and the humanity and enlightenment of modern man. Indeed, to study the history of the formation of Israel is to undertake a study into colonization, occupation, oppression, apartheid and the worst in the human condition.
The latest act in the violent and horrendous tragedy that is the cycle of revenge and death in the Middle East will only assure that the Arab world, as well as the world at large, continues its exponentially-increasing animosity and resentment toward Israel and the Zionists who seem not to care about the growing tremors of negative energy seemingly emanating from all corners of the globe.
Sorry not to have written for such a long time, but I have been having all kinds of problems with Mad Maggie. You must have thought that I was dead. She still thinks that she occupies the imperial throne, wears the purple robes, and carries the mighty scepter.
She wanted us to go to Washington to tell our good King George to swat some more of the unwashed colonials - the targets and weapons being of his own choice - but I persuaded her instead to visit Greater Gibraltar, planning to drop in on our vicegerent at Madrid, the jovial Prince José. Of course, by the time we got there, the whole plot to manufacture at the Basques's expense an election victory had proven a complete fiasco, with nearly 200 residents killed in the process.
Still, Spain got off easy when you consider what happened to the people in Afghanistan and Iraq after the 9/11 attacks. Prince José, according to Maggie, gave the ploy its best shot by telling everyone in no uncertain terms he could contact that ETA was behind the bombings of the commuter trains, but the Spaniards, unlike our Britons, are so unplugged into official propaganda that it backfired. Spain has apparently become a nation of gutless Catalans who are unable to think beyond what's on the table for supper.
Maggie said that José's efforts to deceive the Spanish public reminded her of her attempts to disorient the British public about what was going on in Northern Ireland with the Provisionals just before she got the sack from the throne. While she claimed that she was not for turning when it came to terrorism in the province - what was manifestly untrue - José was willing to let Al-Qaeda play the part of Euzhadi Ta Askatasuna just to top up the electoral vote for the Popular Party.
Its plight now is a far call from what is facing her successor, Emperor Tony, and his party. He has actually been stripped of all his clothing but none of the courtiers or scribblers are willing to say so. He and Empress Cherie, of course, attended the memorail service in Madrid for José's fall, sitting in the royal box with all the other dignitaries. They certainly looked happier in the third row than their former Spanish agent in the front one. In fact, the Emperor was so encouraged by his reception that he went on to Tripoli to shake hands with Libya's 'courageous' leader, Muammar Qaddafi. This must have been a slipup by one of his new spin doctors as no one has thought of the Libyan madman in this way before.
Of course, everyone knows that he has always been a fallguy for what London and Washington have been attempting when it came to the Soviet Union, the Provisionsals, terrorism, and the like, but now it is necessary to close ranks with the oil suppliers, as the discarded Michael Meacher has been crowing, to keep it flowing no matter what. The Emperor certainly looked more uncomforable, though, than he had in Madrid, shaking hands, and making the rounds for the photo opportunity with the most eccentric leader.
Things are simply bizarre back home now. Only retired diplomats and fallen courtiers are willing to say anything about how Emperor Tony has been handling affairs. Sir Christopher Meyer, obviously irked, as Chairman of the Press Complaints Coimmission, by the continuing spin operation that he is conducting from imperial headquarters, has talked about his days in Washington as his ambassador, discussing how King George wanted to squash their joint-agent, of all people in the Middle East, Iraq's Saddam Hussein, after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Fortunately, the Emperor prevailed upon him to strike Afghanistan and the Taliban first, giving London and Washington time to 'sex' up the case for attacking the now useless Iraqi dictator.
George, it seems, is simply a nut case, making our predecessor by the same name, who helped instigate the colonies informally breaking off, look like a figure of stability and probity. Rumor has it that the Emperor physically had to restrain crazy George before he would settle for attacking Al-Qaeda and Afghanistan. Fortunately, George is not another Jacques Chirac when it comes to fisticuffs. Who knows who or what George will hit next with José's fate at the polls in November increasingly staring him in the face.
The Emperor's most difficult moments occurred when he waited anxiously to learn if Oxfordshire Coroner Nicholas Gardiner would resume the inquest into Dr. David Kelly's death. Fortunately, for His Majesty, the coroner declined to do so, claiming that it was better to have people squabbling about various conspiracy theories regarding his apparent murder rather than helping come up with the suspects who did it.
Gardiner simply accepted the conclusions of Professor Keith Hawton, the psychiatric expert in explaining suicides who had been hired by the Hutton Inquiry to end the controversy. In the process, Hawton overlooked the doubts and misgivings of the official forensic pathologists and others - the absence of enough blood at the alleged death site, and drugs in Kelly's body to account for suicide, how Kelly actually died, the physical injuries done to him while he was being killed, the movement of the body, etc.
In declining to resume the inquest in order to at least answer some of these questions, Gardiner was satisfied in doing so because of advice offered by the Lord Chancellor, one of Emperor Tony's best friends now on the Woolsack, and feelings for the deceased's family, especially since it is now most eager to get compensation for the killing from the MoD. Of course, if Gardiner had done otherwise, he risked opening a Pandora's box of evidence which could quite easily result in the Emperor and his entourage being seen as guilty of aiding and abetting murder by parties yet to be discovered. The press has been completely willing to go along with the whole fraudulent process, offering only the most feeble reasons - e. g., the body was moved at the site where it was found - for resuming the inquest.
Maggie has decided that things have become so crazy, especially because of the hopeless efforts by her followers, that she is thinking about making a comeback. She has decided that being certifiable for the loonie bin is now a leading qualification for office.
This story brings to mind that line from the Sting song back in the Evil Eighties, "Do the Russians love their children too?"
Palestinian leaders have accused Israel of fabricating a story about a 14-year-old Palestinian boy who planned to blow himself up.
The Israeli army said he was caught wearing an explosive belt at an army roadblock in the northern West Bank.
The boy, identified as Husam Abdu from Nablus, was shown on TV screens around the world, with an explosive belt strapped to his waist.
The Israeli army said the boy told interrogators that his dispatchers promised that he would have sex with 72 virgins in heaven soon after his death.
"We know for sure this is a fabricated story from A to Z. Would you believe that a 13 or 14-year old would agree to blow up himself in return for a hundred shekels which he would receive after his death?
"It seems to me that the Israelis are bad liars as well," said Yaqub Shahin, a director-general of the Palestinian Authority ministry of information.