Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Breivik massacre has “Gladio” clues from previous massacres in Belgium

By Wayne Madsen | Intrepid Report | September 19, 2011

The CIA’s infamous “stay-behind” networks, originally established by the CIA to commit acts of sabotage against an expected Soviet invasion of Western Europe, was, instead, used in the 1970s and 1980s, amid calls for peace and an end to the Cold War in Europe, to stage “false flag” terrorist attacks that were blamed on Communist cells in Western Europe. In fact the terrorist attacks were carried out by right-wing paramilitaries on the payroll of the CIA.

The terror visited by the Gladio fear-stoking paramilitaries was especially felt in the Belgian province of Brabant where the Brabant Gang, active from 1982 and 1985, the height of Europe’s anti-nuclear and anti-U.S. military campaign. Twenty eight people were killed by the Brabant Gang with scores of others injured. Particularly targeted were Delhaize supermarkets, the chain that owns Food Lion in the United States.

Oddly, money stolen from victims was sometimes found dumped by the gang members. Three of the killings stemmed from the robbery of an arms dealer. There were several reports that the Brabant Gang was run by elements of the Belgian Gendarmerie SDRA6 (Service de documentation, de renseignments et d’action VI)—a secret branch of Belgian security—and the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, acting on behalf of the CIA. The Brabant Gang was also linked to the activities of a neo-Nazi organization in Belgium called the Westland New Post, whose terrorist actions were blamed by authorities on the Communist Combatant Cells, also believed to be a construct of the Belgian and American security services.

Among the victims of the Brabant Gang were Belgian real estate tycoon Jacques Fourez and his secretary, Elise Dewit, killed by the gangsters in 1983. Their deaths as well as others were linked to the evidence they possessed of secret parties, called “pink ballets,” at which Belgium’s elite, including members of the royal family, NATO officers, and politicians, participated in orgies with underage males and females.

There is another link between the Belgian Gladio operations in the 1980s and the activities of Anders Behring Breivik in Norway. A number of Belgian neo-Nazi paramilitary members were connected to the Order of the Solar Temple, a secret society founded in the 1960s by French Nazis. The Order of the Solar Temple is a cult following of the Knights Templar. Breivik and his closest associates were also affiliated with anti-Islamic Knights Templar groups. Between 1994 and 1997, a number of Solar Temple members were murdered ritualistic-style or committed mass suicide. The deaths occurred in Cheiry and Salvan, in western Switzerland; Vercors, France; and Morin Heights and Saint-Casimir, Quebec.

Japanese television journalists who contacted this editor in 2000 had discovered similar links between the Solar Temple and the CIA, as they had previously discovered existed between the CIA and the Japanese murder and suicide religious cult, Aum Shinrikyo. The Order of the Solar Temple was founded in 1984 by Joseph di Mambro, a former Rosicrucian, and Luc Jouret, born in the Belgian Congo and a Marxist-turned-neo-Nazi. In 1984, Shoko Asahara founded Aum Shirinkyo, which means “Supreme Truth.” Aum Shirinkyo soon attracted a number of influential adherents, including members of the Japanese royal family. In 1995, Aum attacked the Tokyo subway system with sarin.

In the mid-1990s, Belgian gangster Marc Dutroux was arrested for carrying out a series of kidnappings of young girls, who he proceeded to sexually abuse, torture, and in four cases, murder. Dutroux’s parents had emigrated to the Belgian Congo but later returned to Belgium. Dutroux’s kidnappings and abuse of young girls occurred during the 1980s, the same time frame that members of the Belgian elite were engaging in orgies with underage girls and boys. Dutroux was constantly being let off the hook by the Belgian authorities and the police’s failure to take prompt and severe action against the pedophile rapist ultimately led to the reorganization of Belgian law enforcement. One of the first trial judges in the Dutroux case, Jean-Marc Connerotte, testified that he was threatened by shadowy figures in the highest echelons of the government for trying the case against Dutroux. Dutroux was finally convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment in 2004. Dutroux was also convicted of having murdered his one-time accomplice, Bernard Weinstein.

WMR has been informed by reliable sources that the Belgian pedophile scandal also involved top American officials and is linked to the pedophile networks active in Washington, DC, Los Angeles, and Omaha during the same time frame, the 1980s. In some cases, Belgian and other European politicians who engaged in Pink Ballet activities were blackmailed by the CIA into backing NATO initiatives in Europe.

Previously published in the Wayne Madsen Report.
Copyright © 2011 WayneMadenReport.com

September 19, 2011 Posted by | Corruption, False Flag Terrorism | 2 Comments

Is Tea Party Congressman Joe Walsh supporting a one-state solution for Palestine?

By Ali Abunimah – The Electronic Intifada –  09/19/2011

Illinois Republican Congressman Joe Walsh has introduced a resolution in the US House of Representatives that seems to support formal Israeli apartheid. Or does it in fact support a one-state solution with equal voting rights for Israelis and Palestinians alike?

Walsh was elected last year in Illinoi’s 8th Congressional District (north and west suburbs of Chicago) with strong Tea Party support.

Walsh has also introduced legislation to cut $600 million of funding the United States gives to the Palestinian Authority.

Walsh’s House Resolution 394 calls for:

Supporting Israel’s right to annex Judea and Samaria in the event that the Palestinian Authority continues to press for unilateral recognition of Palestinian statehood at the United Nations.

“Judea and Samaria” is the name Israel gives to the Israeli-occupied West Bank.

After a lengthy preamble setting out standard Israel lobby talking points, the draft bill declares:

Resolved, That the House of Representatives firmly supports Israel’s right to annex Judea and Samaria in the event that the Palestinian Authority continues to press for unilateral recognition of Palestinian statehood at the United Nations.

There’s just one tiny catch. What happens to the almost three million Palestinians who live in the Israeli-occupied West Bank if they are annexed by Israel?

Does Israel then have the “right” to expel them? Do they live under permanent second class status, as African Americans did before US Civil Rights legislation, or like blacks in South Africa under apartheid?

Or is Walsh actually proposing a one-state solution in which Palestinians get to vote in Israeli elections?

Walsh is mysteriously silent on this crucial point. I have put the question to him via Twitter (@RepJoeWalsh):

@avinunu
Ali Abunimah .@RepJoeWalsh If Israel annexes West Bank as you propose, should Palestinians living there get equal voting rights? Yes or no? cc @RJCHQ
Sep 19 via Twitter for MacFavoriteRetweetReply

He’s an avid and active Twitter user, so let’s see if he has an answer for this straightforward query.

September 19, 2011 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | 2 Comments

THE ZIONIST BIG LIE ABOUT THE PALESTINIAN ‘BIG LIE’

Damian Lataan | September 18, 2011

Zionist and neoconservative rhetoric often refer to the Palestinian claim that they were expelled from Palestine in 1948 as the “Big Palestinian Lie”. Instead, the Zionists argue that, rather than being expelled from Palestine, they fled.

It is, of course, classic Zionist Chutzpah. The obvious question is; why then did they flee? It wasn’t just to escape the fighting; it was through fear of what would happen to them if they stayed. The Palestinians that fled had heard of the atrocities that the Israeli fighters had committed on Palestinians elsewhere such as at Deir Yassin, Lydda, Ein al Zeitun, among many others.

The Palestinians that left weren’t refugees from the fighting; they were expelled through fear of being killed by the Palmach, the Irgun or the Haganah forces of Zionist Israel.

The latest lie about the Palestinian expulsion came from Sol Stein writing in the neocon online rag National Review Online. This time, however, Sol Stein has exposed himself as a liar. His lie is so obvious. I have emailed him to let him know that his claims are false and why they are. This is what I said to him:

Hi Sol

In your article “The Palestinian Big Lie: The Palestinians distort the origins of the conflict with Israel” which recently appeared in National Review Online, you wrote:

“Almost immediately, Safed’s Arabs began streaming out toward the Syrian border. There were no expulsions of Arab civilians by Israeli forces.”

Yet Ben Gurion wrote in his diary on 7 June 1948:

“Abraham Hanuki, from Ayelet Hashahar, told me that since there were only 100 old people left in Safed they were expelled to Lebanon.”

How can you say there were no Arab civilians expelled by Israel? You are contradicting, not just a Palestinian claim that, indeed, there were expulsions, but a claim by Ben Gurion himself.

I look forward to your explanation.

Kind regards
Damian Lataan

Needless to say, I’m not holding my breath waiting for a response or any form of explanation because any response, other than an apology to the Palestinian people, would simply compound the Big Zionist Lie.

September 19, 2011 Posted by | Deception, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | 1 Comment

CBC and Pacifica Disgraced by Kay

Public Broadcasters Disgraced as Agents of the 9/11 Cover-Up

Anthony Hall | Salem News | September 18, 2011

(LETHRIDGE, Alberta) – Pacifica and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation have joined forces in featuring Jonathan Kay in 9/11/11 coverage aimed at renewing the psychological warfare essential to the invasions, torture, Genocide, illegal occupations and Islamophobia characterizing the 9/11 wars.

Jonathan Kay was a featured guest highlighted in the network coverage of the tenth anniversary of 9/11 as broadcast by both Pacifica Radio in the United States and the English-language radio division of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Kay wrote for Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation a hate-inspired, tenth-anniversary text claiming that those engaged in seeking answers for the copious unanswered questions concerning 9/11 are engaged in “absolving” all Muslims collectively of a “terrible crime.” (p. 167)

Kay’s diatribe was funded by a prominent Israeli-based think tank whose leadership comes largely from the Project for the New American Century. PNAC is the think tank which observed in 2000 that its ambitious program of military expansion and invasions could not be met without a “catalyzing event” like a new Pearl Harbor. Entitled “Among the Truthers”, Kay diverts attention away from the evidence of what did and did not happen on 9/11. Instead Kay appoints himself as a psycho-anthropologist in pursuit of what this war promoter and Isamophobe describes as “the growing conspiracist underground.”

In his 9/11/11 coverage Michael Enright, host of CBC Radio’s flag ship show, Sunday Morning, demeaned on air his old colleague, Barrie Zwicker. Zwicker and Enright worked together for many years as reporters at The Globe and Mail, the main competitor in Canada of Kay’s National Post. Zwicker is the author of “Towers of Deception: The Media Cover-Up of 9/11”. As his wonkey subtitle proclaims, Kay equates even the most accomplished of those engaged in the quest for 9/11 truth, investigators like Zwicker as well as Professor David Ray Griffin, with “Birthers, Armageddonites, Vaccine Hysterics, Hollywood Know-Nothings and Internet Addicts.”

Aged 77, the fit, mentally-agile Zwicker was a guest earlier today on Michael Enright’s program. The struggling host could not come anywhere close to keeping up with Zwicker. Instead Enright displayed an ignorance of his subject matter unbefitting of a broadcaster holding a high level of public trust in Canada’s Crown-owned agency. Like the CBC, the Pacifica stations in the United States have frequently featured Kay as an expert commentator on 9/11. While the CBC did not broach the subject of 9/11 skepticism in its 9/11/11 coverage, at least Pacifica did include in its tenth-anniversary broadcast the perspectives of, for instance, architect Richard Gage and University of Copenhagen Chemistry Professor, Niels Harrit. Both educators are highly critical of the official conspiracy theory of 9/11.

See

http://www.cbc.ca/thesundayedition/shows/2011/09/18/paul-martin—a-cruel-coincidence—the-interns/#socialcomments

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/05/27/jonathan-kay-defends-the-sacred-myth-of-911/

http://www.amazon.com/Towers-Deception-Media-Cover-up-11/dp/0865715734

http://davidraygriffin.com/books/911-ten-years-later-when-state-crimes-against-democracy-succeed/

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/september072011/911-facts-ah.php

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=217783

September 19, 2011 Posted by | Deception, False Flag Terrorism, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | 3 Comments

Settlers Plan “Sovereignty Marches” In Palestinian Towns

By Saed Bannoura | IMEMC & Agencies | September 19, 2011

Israeli Ynet News reported that Israeli settlers living in the occupied territories are planning what they dubbed as “Sovereignty Marches” in the Palestinian territories, starting on Tuesday afternoon.

Fanatic settlers’ leader, Itamar Ben-Gvir stated that “the settlers will be taking off to the streets to show the Palestinians who really owns this land”, and that the settlers “will not wait while the Palestinians get close to the borders of the settlements”.

He added that the settlers will be marching towards Palestinian towns and villages.

A security officer at a settlement in the West Bank stated that the settlers are prepared to use live rounds against Palestinian protesters, adding that the settlers believe that the Israeli Army is too naive to believe that the Palestinian Security forces will be able to prevent massive Palestinians marches towards the settlements.

Settlement Councils in the occupied territories decided that the settler marches will be held starting from Itamar settlement to the northern West Bank city of Nablus, from Beit El near Ramallah to the closest Liaison Office, and from Kiryat Arba’ settlement in Hebron.

The settlers are also planning to distribute tens of thousands of Israeli flags to be raised in different settlements and on thousands of settlers’ cars.

Meanwhile, thousands of Israeli army soldiers and policemen started training in order to prepare to counter Palestinian protests in the West Bank. The drills are meant to prepare for massive Palestinian protests, and what was described as “Palestinian attempts to break into Israeli settlements.

The Ynet said that the Israeli Police are preparing to counter possible attacks in Israel, attacks against West Bank settlements, and homemade shells fired from the Gaza Strip.

But, Israeli army leaders believe that some local incidents will likely take place, yet, the massive popular protests conducted by the Palestinians will be largely nonviolent.

Israeli sources stated that Israel Army Central Command Chief Major-General, Avi Mizrahi, instructed the soldiers to “show restraint”, and also instructed the army to be prepared to stop Palestinians demonstrations should the Palestinian Security Forces fail to prevent marches towards the settlements.

Last Thursday, Palestinian Authority spokesperson, Dr. Ghassan Al Khatib, warned that attacks and threats by the settlers are increasing.

Palestinian legislator, Dr. Mustafa Barghouthi, said that the armed population of Israeli settlers in the occupied territories would commit massacres against the Palestinian people, and that the setters carried out several serious attacks against Palestinian villages earlier this month.

He added that the Israeli Army is participating with the settlers in the “organized crime” against the Palestinian people.

September 19, 2011 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Illegal Occupation, Subjugation - Torture | 1 Comment

Is South Sudan’s Largest Land Deal a Land Grab?

A new study alleges that a land deal threatens local people in Central Equatoria, South Sudan.

By Michaela Rhode | Think Africa Press | September 7, 2011

50 million hectares of land, an area twice the size of the UK, have been acquired by foreign companies or governments in Africa over the last few years. From Brazil to China to Saudi Arabia, demand is widespread and this trend was recently continued in South Sudan. With almost  10% of the country already in foreign hands, a report by The Oakland Institute (OI) published details of its largest and potentially most divisive land deal to date, the  2008 agreement between Nile Trading and Development and the Mukaya Payam Cooperative.

Good intentions? – A question of perspective

How prominently did the needs of the local community feature in this deal? Think Africa Press spoke to two experts, Anuradha Mittal, founder of the Oakland Institute, an American think tank specialising in the exposure of land grabs, and Howard Douglas, head of Kinyeti Development, partners with Nile Trading and Development, to uncover the ramifications of this deal. Ms. Mittal is an expert on trade, development, human rights and agriculture and the author of numerous books on the subject. In 2008, Nation magazine named her ‘Most Valuable Progressive Thinker’ of the year. Howard Douglas is a former US ambassador and US Coordinator for Refugee affairs. He has worked extensively with the US government and with the Episcopalian Church in post conflict countries.

Earlier this year, The Oakland Institute reproduced a copy of the  lease agreement along with a  report identifying the worrying aspects of the deal. Both sides attest that the needs of the community are a priority. Mr.Douglas dismissed the report as “a piece of trash”, accusing the OI and NGOs of scandal-seeking and headline grabbing. Ms.Mittal was equally scathing, branding Mr.Douglas a “thief”.

The agreement in question is for a 49-year lease of 600,000 hectares of land with a possibility of another 400,000 hectares and full rights to exploit all natural resources of the land. The OI report draws attention to the astonishingly low price paid for the lease of the land; 75,000 Sudanese pounds ($25,000) which works out to $16 a hectare. Mr.Douglas argued that this figure was not the price paid for the land but a fee levied by the government. The figure in the lease is indeed attributed to a “land charge” and he asserts that the agreed price was for Nile Trading and Development to organise and finance the development of the land in return for a percentage of the profits. This would involve spending high, unspecified sums on infrastructure such as roads and schools for the community. However, this promise is not stipulated in the lease agreement and has failed to materialise in the past three years. The document published by OI provides no legal imperative for Nile Trading and Development to give anything back to the community in terms of infrastructure.

The report also points to another worrying aspect of this deal. It draws attention to the claims made by Sudan’s Agency of Independent Media that the Mukaya Payam Cooperative is a “fictitious cooperative” comprised of, “a group of influential natives from Mukaya Payam and the neighbouring payams…The influential natives leased out the land behind the backs of the entire community.” Ms.Mittal identifies the Cooperative as three individuals living in Juba who are totally disconnected from the people of Mukaya Payam. She affirms that, “the people did not even know about the deal until the OI report came out this year.” This is an allegation that Mr.Douglas vehemently denies. If true, then it would mean that land which has been used by the same communities for generations has been given away without their consent and the compensation they are supposed to receive for this put in the hands of an elusive entity. It would not then be surprising that the people are, as Ms.Mittal claims, “very very angry”.

The Mukaya Payam Cooperative is an elusive entity with only one name attached to it, the lease agreement being signed by Magistrate James Yosia Ramdalla, the Paramount Chief of the Cooperative. Although four other “payams” (communities) were involved in the deal, there is only one signature on the lease.

According to the terms of the agreement, “any profits generated by Nile Trading and Development in respect of the leased land shall initially and through 2012 be divided 60% to the company and 40% to the Mukaya Payam Cooperative.” Whether the cooperative, whoever they may be, will distribute the rents amongst the other payams and how they will do so is uncertain. Mr.Douglas claims that, “the intention was that every man, woman and child who was associated with the Mukaya Payam would be the beneficiaries of the agreement.” He claims that they intend to set up a Mukaya Payam Trust to administer the funds to the community members. However, intentions are not legally binding and there are no stipulations in the lease agreement concerning distribution of funds.

What remains unclear is how NTD plans to develop this land. Mr.Douglas claims that large scale agriculture is the long-term goal. He speaks of creating “agricultural cooperatives” with schools, clinics and facilities to produce enough food for export, giving farmers a disposable income and political security. This vision is one which, according to Ms. Mittal, is to be taken with a pinch of salt. She points to the fact that nothing in the lease agreement indicates that agriculture is on NTD’s agenda. The real detail in the document is afforded to exploration rights.

Plans for the future

Investment in South Sudan ought to be seen as a great opportunity. These companies should provide jobs and contribute to the development of the country. According to Jonathan Brooks of the OECD, an estimated $18 billion a year needs to be invested in agriculture in order for the world to be able to feed itself by 2050. Developing all available land is a necessary step for the world to take and Africa will not be able to meet this level of investment on its own.

Ms. Mittal makes it clear that OI is pro-investment in South Sudan. However, she adds that, “to assume that foreign investors coming in will lead to better job security or food security is a myth”. She claims that unscrupulous investors are jumping on the bandwagon of agricultural investment, to disguise an attempt to control resources. She points to the fact that there is no legal framework in place in South Sudan to protect the people leaving them with only, “the empty words and empty promises of these investors”.

It is important to look beyond the disagreement on both sides. As Ms. Mittal says, “in regard to Mr. Douglas and his lease in South Sudan it is really not about his word against OI’s word. It is about his word against the word of the community and more important their own documents such as the contract; they speak the truth.”

Some representatives of the community have spoken. A  petition signed on the 23 July this year has been handed to the state governor in Juba. It states that, “we the chiefs, elders, religious leaders and the youth of Mukaya Payam, unanimously, with strong terms condemn, disavow and deny the land lease agreement reached on 11 March 2008 between the two parties.” The petition states that the lease agreement was reached without the knowledge of the community and that it is illegal. It is signed by seven chiefs, a reverend, two elders and two others. The President of South Sudan, H.E Salva Kiir, has subsequently given his support to the community stating, “you are the government and you have the powers”. The government must act quickly and decisively to produce stringent guidelines for investors in order to ensure that the rights of its people are protected. If done correctly, foreign investment could flourish. However, until those rights are guaranteed in law, land deals remain dangerous territory.

September 19, 2011 Posted by | Economics, Timeless or most popular | Leave a comment

Zelikow’s Key Role in 9/11 Cover-Up

By argonium79 on October 18, 2010

 

Bush regime retread, Philip Zelikow, appointed to Obama’s Intelligence Advisory Board

Written by Atheo | Aletho News | September 19, 2011 – Scroll down for video

President Obama has appointed Philip Zelikow to serve on the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board the White House announced this past week.

Zelikow served on the same presidential board between 2001 and 2003 under Bush during which time he revealed the perceived threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s Iraq which necessitated preemptive invasion.

“Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us?” asked Zelikow. “I’ll tell you what I think the real threat (is) and actually has been since 1990 — it’s the threat against Israel. 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 at the University of Virginia on September 10, 2002, speaking on a panel of foreign policy experts.

Apparently a war, sold to the world on false pretenses, for the sole benefit of Israel presented no dilemma for Zelikow. But then, Zelikow’s academic background places him squarely in league with the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) proponents of wars for Israel as reported at Wikipedia.

In writing about the importance of beliefs about history, Zelikow has called attention to what he has called “‘searing’ or ‘molding’ events [that] take on ‘transcendent’ importance and, therefore, retain their power even as the experiencing generation passes from the scene.” […]

In the November-December 1998 issue of Foreign Affairs, Phillip D. Zelikow co-authored an article with Ashton B. Carter, and John M. Deutch entitled “Catastrophic Terrorism” describing a “Pearl Harbor” type of event that might occur in the United States that would result in the suspension of civil liberties and the increased surveillance of citizens. It seemed to describe exactly what has come to pass under the Bush Administration. They speculated that if the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center had succeeded, “the resulting horror and chaos would have exceeded our ability to describe it. Such an act of catastrophic terrorism would be a watershed event in American history. It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented in peacetime and undermine America’s fundamental sense of security, as did the Soviet atomic bomb test in 1949. Like Pearl Harbor, the event would divide our past and future into a before and after. The United States might respond with draconian measures scaling back civil liberties, allowing wider surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects and use of deadly force. More violence could follow, either future terrorist attacks or U.S. counterattacks.”

Of course Zelikow was indispensable in heading up the 9/11 commission, an appointment which was opposed by the 9/11 Family Steering Committee which cited his “close ties” to the Bush administration. Zelikow had an obvious conflict of interest, having previously worked on the Bush transition team, which recommended candidates for Cabinet positions and other top national security appointments. Many Bush administration security positions had been filled by people associated with the PNAC (such as Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld) which advocated for war on Iraq, and lamented that the goal would take a long time, unless there was a catalyzing event like “a new Pearl Harbor.”  After completing his work with the 9/11 Commission, Zelikow was hired by Condoleezza Rice as Counselor at the State Department until 2007.

Zelikow authors Bush Doctrine of preemptive war

David Ray Griffin points out another conflict of interest in Zelikow’s appointment to the 9/11 commission, “the document in which the Bush Doctrine was first fully articulated—the 2002 version of The National Security Strategy of the United States of America (NSS 2002) —was written by the same person who was primarily responsible for the 9/11 Commission’s report: its executive director, Philip Zelikow.”

Griffin describes the connection between the events of 9/11 and the subsequent Bush Doctrine:

People known as neoconservatives (or simply neocons), the most powerful member of whom has been Dick Cheney, did not like the idea that America’s use of military power could be constrained by the prohibition against preemptive-preventive war. In 1992, Cheney, in his last year as secretary of defense, had Paul Wolfowitz (the undersecretary of defense for policy) and Lewis (“Scooter”) Libby write the Defense Planning Guidance of 1992, which said that the United States should use force to “preempt” and “preclude threats.” In 1997, William Kristol founded a neocon think tank called the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). In 1998, a letter signed by 18 members of PNAC—including Kristol, Wolfowitz, John Bolton, Richard Perle, Donald Rumsfeld, and James Woolsey—urged President Clinton to “undertake military action” to eliminate “the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction.”

Only after 9/11, however, were the neocons able to turn their wish to leave international law behind into official US policy. As Stephen Sniegoski wrote, “it was only the traumatic effects of the 9/11 terrorism that enabled the agenda of the neocons to become the policy of the United States of America.” Andrew Bacevich likewise wrote: “The events of 9/11 provided the tailor-made opportunity to break free of the fetters restricting the exercise of American power.”

The idea of preemptive-preventive war, which came to be known as the “Bush doctrine,” was first clearly expressed in the president’s address at West Point in June 2002, when the administration began preparing the American people for the attack on Iraq. Having stated that, in relation to “new threats,” deterrence “means nothing” and containment is “not possible,” Bush dismissed preemption as traditionally understood, saying: “If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long.” Then, using the language of preemption while meaning preemptive-prevention, he said that America’s security “will require all Americans . . . to be ready for preemptive action.” […]

This unprecedented doctrine was, as we have seen, one that neocons had long desired. Indeed, neocon Max Boot described NSS 2002 as a “quintessentially neo-conservative document.” And, as we have also seen, the adoption of this doctrine was first made possible by the 9/11 attacks. Halper and Clarke themselves say, in fact, that 9/11 allowed the “preexisting ideological agenda” of the neoconservatives to be “taken off the shelf . . . and relabeled as the response to terror.”

The 9/11 attacks, we have seen, allowed the Bush-Cheney administration to adopt the doctrine of preemptive-preventive war, which the neocons in the administration—most prominently Cheney himself—had long desired. One would assume, therefore, that the 9/11 Commission would not have been run by someone who helped formulate this doctrine, because the Commission should have investigated, among other things, whether the Bush-Cheney administration might have had anything to gain from 9/11 attacks—whether they, in other words, might have had a motive for orchestrating or at least deliberately allowing the attacks. Amazing as it may seem, however, Philip Zelikow, who directed the 9/11 Commission and was the primary author of its final report, had also been the primary author of NSS 2002.

Lying behind Zelikow’s authorship of NSS 2002 was the fact that he was close, both personally and ideologically, to Condoleezza Rice, who as National Security Advisor to President Bush had the task of creating this document. Zelikow had worked with Rice in the National Security Council during the Bush I presidency. Then, when the Republicans were out of power during the Clinton years, Zelikow and Rice co-authored a book together. Finally, when she was appointed National Security Advisor to Bush II, she brought on Zelikow to help with the transition to the new National Security Council.

The Obama regime has expanded upon the Bush doctrine, claiming unchecked executive privilege to assassinate perceived enemies, even US citizens. Drone attacks are now occurring in six different countries. These operations are not being subjected to any outside scrutiny whatsoever. While the US regime claims that Yemen and Pakistan for example are “terrorist sanctuaries” there is little or no evidence that any threat to the US or even to its interests could be emanating from these places. What we are actually seeing is the methodical subjugation and terrorizing of the global Islamic population whom seem to have been reduced to having no human rights at all as well as having been marked for dispossession.

Military dominance over any nation which might attempt to resist this new order is a primary goal with Iran in particular in the cross hairs, though regime change is being pursued  by State Department associated entities such as the National Endowment for Democracy through various non-military means as well in any nation which has supported the Hamas or Hezbollah resistance movements in any manner.

The background that Zelikow brings into the Obama regime bodes ill for the prospects of peace or the restoration of any respect for US or international law and frankly suggests that the Obama regime is headed toward further escalation of aggression and violence wherever threats or subversion fail to achieve Israel’s aims.

 

Also by Atheo:

January 9, 2012

Three Mile Island, Global Warming and the CIA

November 13, 2011

US forces to fight Boko Haram in Nigeria

March 8, 2011

Investment bankers salivate over North Africa

January 2, 2011

Top Israel Lobby Senator Proposes Permanent US Air Bases For Afghanistan

October 10, 2010

‘A huge setback for, if not the end of, the American nuclear renaissance’

July 5, 2010

Progressive ‘Green’ Counterinsurgency

February 25, 2010

Look out for the nuclear bomb coming with your electric bill

February 7, 2010

The saturated fat scam: What’s the real story?

January 5, 2010

Biodiesel flickers out leaving investors burned

December 26, 2009

Mining the soil: Biomass, the unsustainable energy source

December 19, 2009

Carbonphobia, the real environmental threat

December 4, 2009

There’s more to climate fraud than just tax hikes

May 9, 2009

Obama, Starving Africans and the Israel Lobby

September 18, 2011 Posted by | Author: Atheo, Deception, False Flag Terrorism, Timeless or most popular, Video, Wars for Israel | 20 Comments

‘An Important Irritant’: The Attack on the Mavi Marmara

By Jeremy Salt | Palestine Chronicle | September 18, 2011

Ankara – In September, 2010, the UN General Assembly’s Human Rights Council issued a report on the Israeli attack on the Mavi Marmara. It concluded that the blockade of the Gaza Strip was unlawful; that the blockade constituted collective punishment of the civilian population of Gaza; that the interception of the Mavi Marmara ‘cannot be justified even under Article 51 [self defence] of the UN Charter’; that the attack involved violations of human rights law and international humanitarian law, and that the flotilla posed no threat to Israeli security.

Out of the Secretary-General’s office has now come a report that turns all these earlier findings upside down. Ban Ki Moon’s Panel of Inquiry finds that the naval blockade was imposed ‘as a legitimate security measure in order to prevent weapons from entering Gaza by sea and its implementation complied with the requirements of international law’. This is extraordinary, first of all, seeing that the Panel of Inquiry had already conceded that ‘the panel is not a court’ and was not asked to determine legal issues ‘or to adjudicate on liability’.

On the question of legality, no-one on the panel spoke with authority on maritime law or the laws of war. Geoffrey Palmer, the chairman of the panel (of four) is a professor of international environmental law. He has no known experience of the Middle East and the background which might help him understand why Israel feels itself entitled to attack ships on the high seas, the Mavi Marmara being not the first or the only one. Alvaro Uribe, the vice-chair and a strong supporter of Israel, is a former president of Colombia. His tenure in office was marked by widespread abuse of human rights, including torture and murder. Both he and Palmer were chosen to sit on the panel from a list of names approved by Israel.

The report goes on to say that ‘whether what occurred here was legally defensible is important but in diplomatic terms is not dispositive of what has become an important irritant not only in the relationship between two important nations but also in the Middle East generally’. Nine Turks (one a Turkish American) were shot dead on the Mavi Marmara. Most of them were shot at close range in what the Human Rights Council report described as summary executions. More plainly they might be more accurately described as murders. Furkan Dogan, a young man of 19, was shot from behind, and apparently finished off at point blank range by being shot in the face as he lay wounded on the deck. A video circulating on the internet showed an Israeli soldier standing over someone lying on the deck – apparently Furkan Dogan – and kicking him repeatedly before aiming a gun at his face. To reduce all of this to an ‘irritant’ spoiling relations between Israel and Turkey and the smooth flow of international relations is surely offensive, insensitive and grossly insulting to the families of the dead.

The Panel of Inquiry, while describing the violence as ‘disproportionate’, avoided the issue of culpability at the command or individual level. It noted that ‘no satisfactory explanation has been provided to the panel by Israel for any of the nine deaths’. The panel apparently did not feel itself obliged to come up with explanations of its own. While emphasizing the need to find solutions ‘that will allow Israel, Turkey and the international community ‘to put the incident behind them’, it clearly did not regard the allocation of responsibility as the best way to reach this point. As Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has observed, the attack on the Mavi Marmara was ‘grounds for war’. If any of the actors acted recklessly it was Israel; if any acted with restraint it was Turkey and in asking for an apology Turkey was staking out a minimal position. By refusing to issue an apology, Israel has allowed no one to put the ‘incident’ behind them.

While running through the findings of the Turkish commission of inquiry and Israel’s Turkel committee – a whitewash of the entire Israeli operation from start to finish – the panel made no independent attempt to reconcile the contradictions between the two reports or come up with its own conclusions about what actually happened. All of its findings flowed on logically from its judgment that the blockade was legal and that the Israelis were justified in enforcing it. Thus the passengers had no right to defend themselves against armed attack. Thus the Israelis did have the right to subdue them even if the level of force they used was ‘disproportionate’.  Evidence placed before the Human Rights Council suggests that the Israelis had already shot two passengers dead from helicopters before the boarding party landed on the upper deck of the Mavi Marmara. The panel offered no opinion on this crucial point. The attack took place on the high seas, 72 miles from land and 64 nautical miles from the blockade zone.  The panel concluded that the boarding of the Mavi Marmara so far from the blockade zone was ‘excessive and unreasonable’ but had nothing to say about its possible illegality even within the context of the laws of war and naval blockades.

Without producing any evidence the panel implied that some of the Mavi Marmara passengers may have been carrying guns. It also casts doubts on the motives of the flotilla organisers and suggested that had they been more concerned with getting aid to the Palestinians rather than provoking a confrontation with Israel and drawing attention to themselves, in its view, the ship could have docked at Ashdod so that the aid could have been taken to Gaza by land.  In other words, the aid should have been placed in the hands of the blockading power for it to decide what should be sent to Gaza and what should be withheld.

The panel claimed that Israel’s effective control over the Gaza Strip ended when disengagement ‘was completed’ in 2005. Here the Panel of Inquiry admitted that it was relying on a decision of the Supreme Court of Israel.  It made no independent judgment of its own. In fact, although Israel withdrew from Gaza, it has never disengaged. The territory has been fenced off and is blockaded on land and from the air and sea. Its population lives under the constant threat of Israeli military attack from sea, land and air. The onslaught of 2008-9 took the lives of 1400 people, most of them civilians. Massive destruction was caused to civilian and government infrastructure. Israel tightly controls the flow of goods into Gaza through the land gates and has repeatedly bombed the tunnels through which Gazans have been able to obtain the necessities of life from Egypt. Taking the view that Gaza and Israel ‘are both distinct political and territorial entities’, the panel said the conflict between the Hamas government and Israel should be treated as an international one. In fact, Gaza, historically, culturally and politically, is an inseparable part of the territory of Palestine. The conflict is not between the Hamas government and Israel but between the Palestinian people and Israel. It does not have the ‘trappings of an international armed conflict’ because Palestine is not a state and has no army, navy or air force.  Whether in Gaza or the West Bank the Palestinians have virtually no means of defending themselves against Israeli assaults.

The Panel declared that the naval blockade would only be illegal if its imposition was to starve or collectively punish the civilian population of Gaza. Attempting to split the naval blockade from the land blockade, the panel says that ‘there is no evidence before the Panel that would permit a finding confirming the allegations that Israel had either of those intentions [starvation and collective punishment] or that the naval blockade was imposed in retaliation for the takeover [sic.] of Hamas in Gaza or otherwise. On the contrary, it is evident that Israel had a military objective’.  In fact, again,  the  two Israeli blockades  (along with control of air space)  constitute an integrated strategy designed to impose Israeli control over everything going into Gaza, arms, food, medicine and so on, as well as anything going out, including fishing boats. The land blockade was imposed immediately after the election of the Hamas government in January, 2006. The naval blockade was a logical extension of this policy,  and cannot be separated from it. The dominant view internationally is that the blockade of Gaza, with no division being made between the land blockade and the sea blockade, violates international law in several respects.

The panel claimed that Israel has faced and is facing a threat to its security from militant groups within Gaza. Of course, this is true even if the threat is minimal compared to the threat Israel poses to the security of Palestinians in the West Bank or Gaza. The panel argues that Israel has the right to self defence against armed attack from outside its territory. As Israel is the only state in the world which has never defined its borders,  and as the territory falling within the 1949 armistice lines includes more than 20 per cent of Palestine set aside for the Arab state in the partition resolution of 1947,  but seized by Zionist militias in 1948, what  constitutes Israeli territory remains an interesting but unresolved  point.    Furthermore, most Gazans are refugees (or the children of refugees) from somewhere else in Palestine.  They were driven into Gaza during the ethnic cleansing of 1948.  Not far from the fence penning them in, settlements have been built on their land and the ruins of their villages.  Their right of return to the place of their birth has been affirmed in numerous UN resolutions specific to Palestine as well as conventions dealing with universal human rights. Israel has never complied with any of these resolutions. Yet it is Israel and not its victims to which Ban Ki Moon’s panel grants the right of self-defence.

Turkey has rejected this biased report out of hand. It has sent the Israeli ambassador home and will now ask the International Court of Justice to issue a legal opinion on the blockade of Gaza and thus the attack on the Mavi Marmara. If Israel is now friendless in the region it only has itself to blame. Protected by the US from ever having to face up to the consequences of its actions, it is now waking up to the cold light of a new day.

~

Jeremy Salt is associate professor in Middle Eastern History and Politics at Bilkent University in Ankara, Turkey. Previously, he taught at Bosporus University in Istanbul and the University of Melbourne in the Departments of Middle Eastern Studies and Political Science. Professor Salt has written many articles on Middle East issues, particularly Palestine, and was a journalist for The Age newspaper when he lived in Melbourne.

September 18, 2011 Posted by | Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | 1 Comment

Siemens to leave nuclear business

Press TV – September 18, 2011

Siemens has announced plans to turn the page on nuclear energy and stop building nuclear power stations after Germany’s decision to phase out the use of atomic energy.

“We will no longer be involved in overall managing of building or financing nuclear plants. This chapter is closed for us,” Siemens Chief Executive Officer Peter Loscher said in an interview with Der Spiegel weekly published on Sunday, AFP reported.

He added that the German engineering and power giant would restrict its activity to dual-use technology.

“We will from now on supply only conventional equipment such as steam turbines. This means we are restricting ourselves to technologies that are not only for nuclear purposes but can also be used in gas or coal plants,” Loscher said.

Siemens chief executive officer said the group’s decision to withdraw from the nuclear industry reflects “the very clear stance taken by Germany’s society and political leadership.”

Europe’s largest economy announced the decision to decommission its atomic power plants within the next decade in the wake of the disaster at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant.

The Fukushima plant has leaked radiation into air, soil and the Pacific Ocean ever since it was hit by a 9-magnitude earthquake and a devastating tsunami on March 11.

The tremor triggered a nuclear crisis by knocking out power to cooling systems and the reactor meltdown at the nuclear power plant on Japan’s northeast coast.

The number of the dead and missing from Japan’s March 11 quake and tsunami stands at over 28,000, according to the Japanese National Police Agency. The crisis has also displaced thousands of residents from around the plant.

Siemens, which has been active in nuclear power for decades, has gradually scaled back its nuclear-power operations in recent years and sought to exit the business.

The Munich-based company has helped with the construction and operation of some of the world’s largest reactors in the last part of the previous century.

September 18, 2011 Posted by | Nuclear Power | 1 Comment

London Philharmonic Suspends Musicians for anti-Israel Remarks

By Dr. Ashraf Ezzat on September 17, 2011

A report in UK daily The Guardian stated that the London Philharmonic Orchestra has suspended four of its musicians for nine months for adopting its name when they called for the cancellation of an Israeli orchestra’s concert at the Royal Albert Hall.

According to the Guardian, the orchestra suspended cellist Sue Sutherley, as well as violinists Tom Eisner, Nancy Elan and Sarah Streatfeild until June 2012, after they signed a letter as members of the LPO condemning the Israel Philharmonic Orchestra as an instrument of Israeli propaganda.

The musicians’ statement claimed that “denials of human rights and violations of international law are hidden behind a cultural smokescreen. The IPO is perhaps Israel’s prime asset in this campaign”, and that Israel’s policy toward the Palestinians “fits the UN definition of apartheid.”

The Guardian’s report states that both Orchestra chief executive Tim Walker, as well as chairman Martin Hohmann released a statement regarding the suspensions, which were meant to send a “strong and clear message that their actions will not be tolerated … the orchestra would never restrict the right of its players to express themselves freely, however such expression has to be independent of the LPO itself.”

The statement also said that the Orchestra has no desire to “end the careers” of the musicians, but that “for the LPO, music and politics to not mix.”

The move comes after protestors interrupted a performance by the Israel Philharmonic Orchestra on September 1 during an annual BBC Proms concert series.

Several demonstrators in the venue shouted as Zubin Mehta stood to conduct Bruch’s Violin Concerto, while other audience members booed in response to the protest.

Sarah Colborne, director of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, which organised protests against the concert, said: “Would the London Philharmonic Orchestra have punished musicians speaking out against apartheid South Africa, when a similar call for boycott was supported by artists, performers and sports people internationally?

“It is staggeringly bad judgment for the LPO to be seen to be attacking musicians who are simply voicing support for human rights and defending the civil right to call for a boycott of institutions which lend strategic support to Israel’s occupation.

“If the LPO really wishes not to appear to be taking sides, and supporting an occupying nation against an occupied people, it must end the ridiculous suspension of these four musicians immediately.”

September 17, 2011 Posted by | Solidarity and Activism | 1 Comment

Who Is Killing People in the Middle East?

ORIENTAL REVIEW | September 15, 2011

Russian and Chinese refusal to support UN sanctions against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad at the end of August has caused a dramatic outburst of criticism in Western media and from the local human rights activists. On Tuesday the Facebook group ‘Syrian Revolution 2011’ posted a banner in Russian condemning Moscow for allegedly ‘killing the Syrians’. Let’s have a brief look at who is actually killing in Syria and other Arab countries.

Despite a common prejudice the rioters opposing the Syrian authorities are by no means ‘peaceful protestors’. The Syrian army and police fight against well-trained and properly armed professional raiders supported by the West and the fifth column inside Syria.

Since April the total record of Syrian soldiers, policemen and security officers assassinated by the ‘demonstrators’ has reached 600, while the number of injured is even higher. Many of them are killed by knifes with utmost cruelty. Every second shot by the long range sniper fire from upper locations (tops of the multistory buildings) precisely above or under the vest. That’s a notably professional pattern of action. Although typical for Syria, Soviet and Russian-made arms are being widely used in the clashes, many victims were hit by the weapons of Western origin having higher killing power, including pump rifles. There are many mutilated by improvised explosive devices.

A number of other photos of injured and killed Syrian soldiers were published on the RT web-site.

The tactics of provocations is another distinctive feature of the opposition’s modus operandi set to keep the situation destabilized and create havoc and bloodshed. Having the most significant gangs already dispersed by the governmental forces, the opposition renews these tactics. Here is the message from Elena, who has relatives in Syria:

‘The gangsters were planning a series of debacles on 27th day of Ramadan (August 26). This is a special day for Muslims, Laylat al-Qadr (the Night of Destiny), when the sky is believed to be open and Allah is fulfilling all dreams. They wanted to organize a series of explosions and assassinations to cause people’s outrage. Syrian security agencies were timely informed about these plans and managed to detain around 200 plotters. There were several foreign specialists in subversive actions among the detained as well as Arab mercenaries from Qatar, Saudi Arabia and other countries. According to the evidence obtained, they were about to capture al Abbasein and al-Amaween squares in Damascus by pretending to organize pro-Assad march. When on the site, they schemed to change the slogans generating chaos, scuffles and eventually victims among the civilians.’ (Source in Russian)

NATO’s ‘humanitarian intervention’ in Libya has already led to unprecedented suffering of the Libyan people. The so-called ‘new government of Libya’ has shown to their former patrons in the UK, France and Italy that they do not care much about the sentiments of the international community. The mass lynching of black-skinned foreigners is now typical on the Libyan territories controlled by anti-Qaddafi forces. Mustafa Abdul Jalil, one of the leaders of the Libyan Transitional National Council (TNC), has even admitted that ‘there are no bloodless revolutions… We should not be surprised if some casual victims of skirmishes are the case. Our soldiers cannot afford wasting time for identifying detained personalities. Their loyalty to the new authorities will be determined subjectively.’

As a result the number of victims of the new regime among Libyan residents from Chad, Niger and Sudan is counted in thousands. Khamis al-Bass, a Saudi journalist reports from Libya: ‘On my eyes several uniformed men dragged an entire black family off their asylum, accused them in espionage for Qaddafi and hanged them all.’

The chairman of the African Union commission, Jean Ping, said many members of the Union had not yet recognized the TNC as the legitimate government of Libya because of reports of anti-black violence. He warned that the rebellion had left Libya unstable and its huge arms caches prey to looting by extremists and smugglers.

The perspective of turning Libya into a new lawless territory resembling Somalia or Liberia is tangible. The civil war is gaining momentum as the NATO Special Forces get seemingly restrained from further involvement into conflict. Their loss toll is already too high. According to several insider reports, e.g. British SAS has lost 21 to 35 soldiers, most of them during the storm of Tripoli and helicopter crash on the Algerian border in August. So NATO apparently decided to pump the ‘new Libyan government’ with more weapons in the endeavor to turn the scale of the on-going faceoff in Libya in favor of the TNC and wash their hands. For example, this week the Russian news agencies reported a massive arms shipment to the TNC from Moldova. An air-craft IL-76 arrived in Kishinev from Benghazi on Tuesday to be loaded by a ‘cargo of Moldavian army’s stores with expired date of usage’. Defense Ministry of the Republic of Moldova officially commented that ‘the shipment is being carried out according to the contract between the Ministry and a Latvian company’. Most likely the delivery of the second-hand Soviet weapons (there are no other sources actually available at Moldavian stores) to Benghazi was arranged by K.S.A via Ltd, a Latvian Riga-based transportation firm and used Soviet arms supplier…

Factually we can see that a small mediator from Latvia, a NATO country, starts playing a key role in channeling old Soviet-made weapons to the Afro-Asian conflict zones. The outcome of such arming would be extremely dangerous. That will lead to the escalation of civil war in Libya and other hotspots meaning more victims and more sufferings for the civilians. We have already written about this strategy in previous posts here and here.

Last but not least, it would be surprising if NATO pumping up the Islamic Orient with old Soviet arms had not played the propagandistic card of ‘Russian weapons killing Arabs’. Indeed, since late August they have launched a ridiculous press campaign in Yemen, accusing Russia (!) of ‘supplying equipment to Saleh regime to be used against peaceful pro-democracy protesters’. In a propaganda stupor they are even claiming that the presidential palace in Sana’a is being defended by the Russian tanks T-92, a model that does not exist in nature! Here we will not get into details of US$ 4 billion deal for military modernization program of Yemeni army and police that United States provided to President  Saleh in the framework of counter-terrorism cooperation in 2010. We just take a note that the ‘military convoys’ coming to Yemeni port of Hodeida are contracted by the same dubious Latvian company K.S. Avia transporting arms to the Libyan Transitional National Council.

So who is killing people in the Middle East?

September 17, 2011 Posted by | Deception, Wars for Israel | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »