Timeless or most popular

ICAN, in Vienna, calls for negotiations on a treaty banning nuclear weapons

More than 150 states gather in Vienna for global conference on nuclear weapons

International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War | December 8, 2014

In a demonstration of overwhelming support from the international community, representatives from more than 150 states are gathering in Vienna, Austria for the third international conference to examine the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons.

Prior to the government talks, more than 500 activists assembled in the biggest gathering of civil society on a treaty to ban nuclear weapons.

“We are closer than we have ever been to starting negotiations on a treaty to ban nuclear weapons”, said Beatrice Fihn, Executive Director of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons. “We are confident that governments will find the courage to embark on a diplomatic process to develop a new international treaty to outlaw nuclear weapons,” Fihn said.

Previous conferences of this process held in Norway and Mexico concluded that there could be no adequate response if one or more nuclear weapons were to be detonated, either intentionally or by accident.

These global talks have represented a collective reframing exercise that has fundamentally changed the way nuclear weapons are discussed internationally.

The Vienna meeting will be the first time that an intergovernmental conference will have a focus on survivors of nuclear testing, who will testify about the long-term effects of nuclear explosions on human health. Vienna will also be the first time that states comprehensively address the gap in international law whereby nuclear weapons are the only weapons of mass destruction not subject to an international ban treaty.

“The evidence presented during this process so far has been overwhelming. The impact of nuclear weapons is even worse than we previously understood and the risk of their use is even greater than governments have admitted,” said Thomas Nash, a representative of ICAN and director of a UK-based weapons monitoring NGO, Article 36. “We expect states to respond to this evidence by launching a process towards a ban on nuclear weapons by the time of the 70^th anniversary of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki next August,” Nash added.

Of the 150 states that will participate in the Vienna conference, nuclear-armed states such as the United Kingdom and the United States that have previously boycotted talks in this process will participate alongside India and Pakistan.

“Even those states that dismissed these conferences as a “distraction” only a few months ago have changed their minds and are coming to Vienna to discuss the unacceptable consequences of their nuclear weapons. Nobody can now ignore this humanitarian initiative on nuclear weapons. It must be the starting point for all discussions on nuclear weapons in the future,” said Ray Acheson of ICAN and the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom.

###

The Austria conference is the latest step in a process that has changed the way nuclear weapons are discussed at the international level. Since 2010, when states parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty recognized “the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons,” a new narrative has emerged in which the actual effects of these weapons are the basis for renewed actions to address them. The Red Cross movement, United Nations relief agencies, civil society and the majority of the world’s nations have endorsed this humanitarian initiative. In October, 155 states joined a statement by New Zealand at the United Nations noting that “the catastrophic consequences of nuclear weapons must underpin all approaches and efforts towards nuclear disarmament.”

Among civil society representatives that will address the Conference in Vienna, atomic bomb survivor from Hiroshima (“Hibakusha”) Setsuko Thurlow, and for the first time several atomic testing survivors including Karipbek Kuyukov, will provide a testimony on the experience surviving nuclear exposure. Renowned author of “Command and Control” Eric Schlosser and former US military officer Bruce Blair will address nuclear weapons risks, miscalculations and accidents. Camille Francois from Harvard Law School Berkman Center for Internet and Society and Columbia University will discuss the difficulties of securing nuclear facilities from cyber threats. ICRC President Peter Maurer and Austrian Minister of Foreign Affairs Sebastian Kurz will introduce the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons.

December 8, 2014 Posted by aletho | Militarism, Solidarity and Activism, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | ICA), International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, Nuclear weapons | Leave a comment

Is Torah Jewish, or is it Zionist?

By Nahida the Exiled Palestinian

For years, I was asking to be shown the most revered, most glorified, most bragged about values, namely the “Jewish values”, to no avail.

At every occasion, defenders of “Jewishness” and Jewish ideology, would repeat the mantra, Judaism has NOTHING to do with Zionism, and Zionism does not originate from Judaism, nor does it represent “Jewish values”.

Then when I ask about these “Jewish values”, and request to be shown what they are, I am faced with deafening silence. In my quest for answers, I dove into the heart of the matter, I set off on a mission, searching for these mystical values, by myself. What better place to start, but the Jewish Bible, Torah?

This is what I found

Yeshayahu- Isaiah – Chapter 60

10. And foreigners shall build your walls, and their kings shall serve you, for in My wrath I struck you, and in My grace have I had mercy on you. י. וּבָנוּ בְנֵי נֵכָר חֹמֹתַיִךְ וּמַלְכֵיהֶם יְשָׁרְתוּנֶךְ כִּי בְקִצְפִּי הִכִּיתִיךְ וּבִרְצוֹנִי רִחַמְתִּיךְ:

11. And they shall open your gates always; day and night they shall not be closed, to bring to you the wealth of the nations and their kings in procession. יא. וּפִתְּחוּ שְׁעָרַיִךְ תָּמִיד יוֹמָם וָלַיְלָה לֹא יִסָּגֵרוּ לְהָבִיא אֵלַיִךְ חֵיל גּוֹיִם וּמַלְכֵיהֶם נְהוּגִים:

12. For the nation and the kingdom that shall not serve you shall perish, and the nations shall be destroyed. יב. כִּי הַגּוֹי וְהַמַּמְלָכָה אֲשֶׁר לֹא יַעַבְדוּךְ יֹאבֵדוּ וְהַגּוֹיִם חָרֹב יֶחֱרָבוּ:

14. And the children of your oppressors shall go to you bent over, and those who despised you shall prostrate themselves at the soles of your feet, and they shall call you ‘the city of the Lord, Zion of the Holy One of Israel.’ יד. וְהָלְכוּ אֵלַיִךְ שְׁחוֹחַ בְּנֵי מְעַנַּיִךְ וְהִשְׁתַּחֲווּ עַל כַּפּוֹת רַגְלַיִךְ כָּל מְנַאֲצָיִךְ וְקָרְאוּ לָךְ עִיר יְהֹוָה צִיּוֹן קְדוֹשׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל:

16. And you shall suck the milk of nations and the breast of kings you shall suck, and you shall know that I am the Lord, your Savior, and your Redeemer, the Mighty One of Jacob. טז. וְיָנַקְתְּ חֲלֵב גּוֹיִם וְשֹׁד מְלָכִים תִּינָקִי וְיָדַעַתְּ כִּי אֲנִי יְהֹוָה מוֹשִׁיעֵךְ וְגֹאֲלֵךְ אֲבִיר יַעֲקֹב:

Devarim – Deuteronomy – Chapter 23

20. You shall not give interest to your brother, [whether it be] interest on money, interest on food or interest on any [other] item for which interest is [normally] taken. כ. לֹא תַשִּׁיךְ לְאָחִיךָ נֶשֶׁךְ כֶּסֶף נֶשֶׁךְ אֹכֶל נֶשֶׁךְ כָּל דָּבָר אֲשֶׁר יִשָּׁךְ:

21. You may [however,] give interest to a gentile, but to your brother you shall not give interest, in order that the Lord, your God, shall bless you in every one of your endeavors on the land to which you are coming to possess. כא. לַנָּכְרִי תַשִּׁיךְ וּלְאָחִיךָ לֹא תַשִּׁיךְ לְמַעַן יְבָרֶכְךָ יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ בְּכֹל מִשְׁלַח יָדֶךָ עַל הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר אַתָּה בָא שָׁמָּה לְרִשְׁתָּהּ:

Devarim – Deuteronomy – Chapter 7

1. When the Lord, your God, brings you into the land to which you are coming to possess it, He will cast away many nations from before you: the Hittites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivvites, and the Jebusites, seven nations more numerous and powerful that you. א. כִּי יְבִיאֲךָ יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ אֶל הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר אַתָּה בָא שָׁמָּה לְרִשְׁתָּהּ וְנָשַׁל גּוֹיִם רַבִּים | מִפָּנֶיךָ הַחִתִּי וְהַגִּרְגָּשִׁי וְהָאֱמֹרִי וְהַכְּנַעֲנִי וְהַפְּרִזִּי וְהַחִוִּי וְהַיְבוּסִי שִׁבְעָה גוֹיִם רַבִּים וַעֲצוּמִים מִמֶּךָּ:

.
2. And the Lord, your God, will deliver them to you, and you shall smite them. You shall utterly destroy them; neither shall you make a covenant with them, nor be gracious to them. ב. וּנְתָנָם יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ לְפָנֶיךָ וְהִכִּיתָם הַחֲרֵם תַּחֲרִים אֹתָם לֹא תִכְרֹת לָהֶם בְּרִית וְלֹא תְחָנֵּם:

3. You shall not intermarry with them; you shall not give your daughter to his son, and you shall not take his daughter for your son. ג. וְלֹא תִתְחַתֵּן בָּם בִּתְּךָ לֹא תִתֵּן לִבְנוֹ וּבִתּוֹ לֹא תִקַּח לִבְנֶךָ:

5. But so shall you do to them: You shall demolish their altars and smash their monuments, and cut down their asherim trees, and burn their graven images with fire. ה. כִּי אִם כֹּה תַעֲשׂוּ לָהֶם מִזְבְּחֹתֵיהֶם תִּתֹּצוּ וּמַצֵּבֹתָם תְּשַׁבֵּרוּ וַאֲשֵׁירֵהֶם תְּגַדֵּעוּן וּפְסִילֵיהֶם תִּשְׂרְפוּן בָּאֵשׁ:

6. For you are a holy people to the Lord, your God: the Lord your God has chosen you to be His treasured people, out of all the peoples upon the face of the earth. ו. כִּי עַם קָדוֹשׁ אַתָּה לַיהֹוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ בְּךָ בָּחַר | יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ לִהְיוֹת לוֹ לְעַם סְגֻלָּה מִכֹּל הָעַמִּים אֲשֶׁר עַל פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה:

13. And He will love you and bless you and multiply you; He will bless the fruit of your womb and the fruit of your soil, your grain, your wine, and your oil, the offspring of your cattle and the choice of your flocks, in the land which He swore to your forefathers to give you. יג. וַאֲהֵבְךָ וּבֵרַכְךָ וְהִרְבֶּךָ וּבֵרַךְ פְּרִי בִטְנְךָ וּפְרִי אַדְמָתֶךָ דְּגָנְךָ וְתִירשְׁךָ וְיִצְהָרֶךָ שְׁגַר אֲלָפֶיךָ וְעַשְׁתְּרֹת צֹאנֶךָ עַל הָאֲדָמָה אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּע לַאֲבֹתֶיךָ לָתֶת לָךְ:

14. You shall be blessed above all peoples: There will be no sterile male or barren female among you or among your livestock. יד. בָּרוּךְ תִּהְיֶה מִכָּל הָעַמִּים לֹא יִהְיֶה בְךָ עָקָר וַעֲקָרָה וּבִבְהֶמְתֶּךָ:

15. And the Lord will remove from you all illness, and all of the evil diseases of Egypt which you knew, He will not set upon you, but He will lay them upon all your enemies. טו. וְהֵסִיר יְהֹוָה מִמְּךָ כָּל חֹלִי וְכָל מַדְוֵי מִצְרַיִם הָרָעִים אֲשֶׁר יָדַעְתָּ לֹא יְשִׂימָם בָּךְ וּנְתָנָם בְּכָל שׂנְאֶיךָ:

16. And you shall consume all the peoples which the Lord your God gives you; you shall not spare them, nor shall you worship their gods, for that will be a snare for you. טז. וְאָכַלְתָּ אֶת כָּל הָעַמִּים אֲשֶׁר יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ נֹתֵן לָךְ לֹא תָחוֹס עֵינְךָ עֲלֵיהֶם וְלֹא תַעֲבֹד אֶת אֱלֹהֵיהֶם כִּי מוֹקֵשׁ הוּא לָךְ:

20. And also the tzir’ah, the Lord, your God, will incite against them, until the survivors and those who hide from you perish. כ. וְגַם אֶת הַצִּרְעָה יְשַׁלַּח יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ בָּם עַד אֲבֹד הַנִּשְׁאָרִים וְהַנִּסְתָּרִים מִפָּנֶיךָ:

23. But the Lord, your God, will deliver them to you, and He will confound them with great confusion, until they are destroyed. כג. וּנְתָנָם יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ לְפָנֶיךָ וְהָמָם מְהוּמָה גְדֹלָה עַד הִשָּׁמְדָם:

24. And He will deliver their kings into your hand, and you will destroy their name from beneath the heavens; no man will be able to stand up before you, until you have destroyed them. כד. וְנָתַן מַלְכֵיהֶם בְּיָדֶךָ וְהַאֲבַדְתָּ אֶת שְׁמָם מִתַּחַת הַשָּׁמָיִם לֹא יִתְיַצֵּב אִישׁ בְּפָנֶיךָ עַד הִשְׁמִדְךָ אֹתָם:

Devarim – Deuteronomy – Chapter 7

Devarim – Deuteronomy – Chapter 9

5. Not because of your righteousness or because of the honesty of your heart, do you come to possess their land, but because of the wickedness of these nations, the Lord your God drives them out from before you, and in order to establish the matter that the Lord swore to your forefathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. ה. לֹא בְצִדְקָתְךָ וּבְישֶׁר לְבָבְךָ אַתָּה בָא לָרֶשֶׁת אֶת אַרְצָם כִּי בְּרִשְׁעַת | הַגּוֹיִם הָאֵלֶּה יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ מוֹרִישָׁם מִפָּנֶיךָ וּלְמַעַן הָקִים אֶת הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּע יְהֹוָה לַאֲבֹתֶיךָ לְאַבְרָהָם לְיִצְחָק וּלְיַעֲקֹב:

.
6. You shall know that, not because of your righteousness, the Lord, your God, gives you this land to possess it; for you are a stiffnecked people. ו. וְיָדַעְתָּ כִּי לֹא בְצִדְקָתְךָ יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ נֹתֵן לְךָ אֶת הָאָרֶץ הַטּוֹבָה הַזֹּאת לְרִשְׁתָּהּ כִּי עַם קְשֵׁה עֹרֶף אָתָּה:

Devarim – Deuteronomy – Chapter 28

1. And it will be if you obey the Lord, your God, to observe to fulfill all His commandments which I command you this day, the Lord, your God, will place you supreme above all the nations of the earth. א. וְהָיָה אִם שָׁמוֹעַ תִּשְׁמַע בְּקוֹל יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ לִשְׁמֹר לַעֲשׂוֹת אֶת כָּל מִצְו‍ֹתָיו אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוְּךָ הַיּוֹם וּנְתָנְךָ יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ עֶלְיוֹן עַל כָּל גּוֹיֵי הָאָרֶץ:

12. The Lord will open up for you His good treasury, the heaven, to give your land its rain in its [right] time, and to bless everything you do. And you will lend many nations, but you will not [need to] borrow. יב. יִפְתַּח יְהֹוָה | לְךָ אֶת אוֹצָרוֹ הַטּוֹב אֶת הַשָּׁמַיִם לָתֵת מְטַר אַרְצְךָ בְּעִתּוֹ וּלְבָרֵךְ אֵת כָּל מַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶךָ וְהִלְוִיתָ גּוֹיִם רַבִּים וְאַתָּה לֹא תִלְוֶה:

Devarim – Deuteronomy – Chapter 11

23. then the Lord will drive out all these nations from before you, and you will possess nations greater and stronger than you. כג. וְהוֹרִישׁ יְהֹוָה אֶת כָּל הַגּוֹיִם הָאֵלֶּה מִלִּפְנֵיכֶם וִירִשְׁתֶּם גּוֹיִם גְּדֹלִים וַעֲצֻמִים מִכֶּם:

.
24. Every place upon which the soles of your feet will tread, will be yours: from the desert and the Lebanon, from the river, the Euphrates River, and until the western sea, will be your boundary. כד. כָּל הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר תִּדְרֹךְ כַּף רַגְלְכֶם בּוֹ לָכֶם יִהְיֶה מִן הַמִּדְבָּר וְהַלְּבָנוֹן מִן הַנָּהָר נְהַר פְּרָת וְעַד הַיָּם הָאַחֲרוֹן יִהְיֶה גְּבֻלְכֶם:

.
25. No man will stand up before you; the Lord your God will cast the fear of you and the dread of you on all the land upon which you tread, as He spoke to you. כה. לֹא יִתְיַצֵּב אִישׁ בִּפְנֵיכֶם פַּחְדְּכֶם וּמוֹרַאֲכֶם יִתֵּן | יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם עַל פְּנֵי כָל הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר תִּדְרְכוּ בָהּ כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר לָכֶם:

29. And it will be, when the Lord, your God, will bring you to the land to which you come, to possess it, that you shall place those blessing upon Mount Gerizim, and those cursing upon Mount Ebal. כט. וְהָיָה כִּי יְבִיאֲךָ יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ אֶל הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר אַתָּה בָא שָׁמָּה לְרִשְׁתָּהּ וְנָתַתָּה אֶת הַבְּרָכָה עַל הַר גְּרִזִּים וְאֶת הַקְּלָלָה עַל הַר עֵיבָל:

31. For you are crossing the Jordan, to come to possess the land which the Lord, your God, is giving you, and you shall possess it and dwell in it. לא. כִּי אַתֶּם עֹבְרִים אֶת הַיַּרְדֵּן לָבֹא לָרֶשֶׁת אֶת הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם נֹתֵן לָכֶם וִירִשְׁתֶּם אֹתָהּ וִישַׁבְתֶּם בָּהּ:

Devarim – Deuteronomy – Chapter 12

1. These are the statutes and ordinances that you shall keep to perform in the land which the Lord God of your fathers gives you to possess all the days that you live on the earth. א. אֵלֶּה הַחֻקִּים וְהַמִּשְׁפָּטִים אֲשֶׁר תִּשְׁמְרוּן לַעֲשׂוֹת בָּאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר נָתַן יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֵי אֲבֹתֶיךָ לְךָ לְרִשְׁתָּהּ כָּל הַיָּמִים אֲשֶׁר אַתֶּם חַיִּים עַל הָאֲדָמָה:

.
2. You shall utterly destroy from all the places where the nations, that you shall possess, worshipped their gods, upon the lofty mountains and upon the hills, and under every lush tree. ב. אַבֵּד תְּאַבְּדוּן אֶת כָּל הַמְּקֹמוֹת אֲשֶׁר עָבְדוּ שָׁם הַגּוֹיִם אֲשֶׁר אַתֶּם יֹרְשִׁים אֹתָם אֶת אֱלֹהֵיהֶם עַל הֶהָרִים הָרָמִים וְעַל הַגְּבָעוֹת וְתַחַת כָּל עֵץ רַעֲנָן:

.
3. And you shall tear down their altars, smash their monuments, burn their asherim with fire, cut down the graven images of their gods, and destroy their name from that place. ג. וְנִתַּצְתֶּם אֶת מִזְבְּחֹתָם וְשִׁבַּרְתֶּם אֶת מַצֵּבֹתָם וַאֲשֵׁרֵיהֶם תִּשְׂרְפוּן בָּאֵשׁ וּפְסִילֵי אֱלֹהֵיהֶם תְּגַדֵּעוּן וְאִבַּדְתֶּם אֶת שְׁמָם מִן הַמָּקוֹם הַהוּא:

10. And you shall cross the Jordan and settle in the land the Lord, your God, is giving you as an inheritance, and He will give you rest from all your enemies surrounding you, and you will dwell securely. י. וַעֲבַרְתֶּם אֶת הַיַּרְדֵּן וִישַׁבְתֶּם בָּאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם מַנְחִיל אֶתְכֶם וְהֵנִיחַ לָכֶם מִכָּל אֹיְבֵיכֶם מִסָּבִיב וִישַׁבְתֶּם בֶּטַח:

20. When the Lord, your God, expands your boundary, as He has spoken to you, and you say, “I will eat meat,” because your soul desires to eat meat, you may eat meat, according to every desire of your soul. כ. כִּי יַרְחִיב יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ אֶת גְּבֻלְךָ כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר לָךְ וְאָמַרְתָּ אֹכְלָה בָשָׂר כִּי תְאַוֶּה נַפְשְׁךָ לֶאֱכֹל בָּשָׂר בְּכָל אַוַּת נַפְשְׁךָ תֹּאכַל בָּשָׂר:

29. When the Lord, your God cuts off the nations to which you will come to drive them out from before you, and when you drive them out and dwell in their land, כט. כִּי יַכְרִית יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ אֶת הַגּוֹיִם אֲשֶׁר אַתָּה בָא שָׁמָּה לָרֶשֶׁת אוֹתָם מִפָּנֶיךָ וְיָרַשְׁתָּ אֹתָם וְיָשַׁבְתָּ בְּאַרְצָם:

.
30. beware, lest you be attracted after them, after they are exterminated from before you; and lest you inquire about their gods, saying, “How did these nations serve their gods? And I will do likewise.” ל. הִשָּׁמֶר לְךָ פֶּן תִּנָּקֵשׁ אַחֲרֵיהֶם אַחֲרֵי הִשָּׁמְדָם מִפָּנֶיךָ וּפֶן תִּדְרשׁ לֵאלֹהֵיהֶם לֵאמֹר אֵיכָה יַעַבְדוּ הַגּוֹיִם הָאֵלֶּה אֶת אֱלֹהֵיהֶם וְאֶעֱשֶׂה כֵּן גַּם אָנִי:

Devarim – Deuteronomy – Chapter 20

10. When you approach a city to wage war against it, you shall propose peace to it. י. כִּי תִקְרַב אֶל עִיר לְהִלָּחֵם עָלֶיהָ וְקָרָאתָ אֵלֶיהָ לְשָׁלוֹם:

.
11. And it will be, if it responds to you with peace, and it opens up to you, then it will be, [that] all the people found therein shall become tributary to you, and they shall serve you. יא. וְהָיָה אִם שָׁלוֹם תַּעַנְךָ וּפָתְחָה לָךְ וְהָיָה כָּל הָעָם הַנִּמְצָא בָהּ יִהְיוּ לְךָ לָמַס וַעֲבָדוּךָ:

.
12. But if it does not make peace with you, and it wages war against you, you shall besiege it, יב. וְאִם לֹא תַשְׁלִים עִמָּךְ וְעָשְׂתָה עִמְּךָ מִלְחָמָה וְצַרְתָּ עָלֶיהָ:

.
13. and the Lord, your God, will deliver it into your hands, and you shall strike all its males with the edge of the sword. יג. וּנְתָנָהּ יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ בְּיָדֶךָ וְהִכִּיתָ אֶת כָּל זְכוּרָהּ לְפִי חָרֶב:

.
14. However, the women, the children, and the livestock, and all that is in the city, all its spoils you shall take for yourself, and you shall eat the spoils of your enemies, which the Lord, your God, has given you. יד. רַק הַנָּשִׁים וְהַטַּף וְהַבְּהֵמָה וְכֹל אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה בָעִיר כָּל שְׁלָלָהּ תָּבֹז לָךְ וְאָכַלְתָּ אֶת שְׁלַל אֹיְבֶיךָ אֲשֶׁר נָתַן יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ לָךְ:

.
15. Thus you shall do to all the cities that are very far from you, which are not of the cities of these nations. טו. כֵּן תַּעֲשֶׂה לְכָל הֶעָרִים הָרְחֹקֹת מִמְּךָ מְאֹד אֲשֶׁר לֹא מֵעָרֵי הַגּוֹיִם הָאֵלֶּה הֵנָּה:

.
16. However, of these peoples’ cities, which the Lord, your God, gives you as an inheritance, you shall not allow any soul to live. טז. רַק מֵעָרֵי הָעַמִּים הָאֵלֶּה אֲשֶׁר יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ נֹתֵן לְךָ נַחֲלָה לֹא תְחַיֶּה כָּל נְשָׁמָה:

.
17. Rather, you shall utterly destroy them: The Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivvites, and the Jebusites, as the Lord, your God, has commanded you. יז. כִּי הַחֲרֵם תַּחֲרִימֵם הַחִתִּי וְהָאֱמֹרִי הַכְּנַעֲנִי וְהַפְּרִזִּי הַחִוִּי וְהַיְבוּסִי כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוְּךָ יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ:

Devarim – Deuteronomy – Chapter 25

5. If brothers reside together, and one of them dies having no son, the dead man’s wife shall not marry an outsider. [Rather,] her husband’s brother shall be intimate with her, making her a wife for himself, thus performing the obligation of a husband’s brother with her. ה. כִּי יֵשְׁבוּ אַחִים יַחְדָּו וּמֵת אַחַד מֵהֶם וּבֵן אֵין לוֹ לֹא תִהְיֶה אֵשֶׁת הַמֵּת הַחוּצָה לְאִישׁ זָר יְבָמָהּ יָבֹא עָלֶיהָ וּלְקָחָהּ לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה וְיִבְּמָהּ:

.
11. If [two] men, a man and his brother, are fighting together, and the wife of one of them approaches to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she stretches forth her hand and grabs hold of his private parts יא. כִּי יִנָּצוּ אֲנָשִׁים יַחְדָּו אִישׁ וְאָחִיו וְקָרְבָה אֵשֶׁת הָאֶחָד לְהַצִּיל אֶת אִישָׁהּ מִיַּד מַכֵּהוּ וְשָׁלְחָה יָדָהּ וְהֶחֱזִיקָה בִּמְבֻשָׁיו:

.
12. you shall cut off her hand You shall not have pity. יב. וְקַצֹּתָה אֶת כַּפָּהּ לֹא תָחוֹס עֵינֶךָ:

17. You shall remember what Amalek did to you on the way, when you went out of Egypt, יז. זָכוֹר אֵת אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה לְךָ עֲמָלֵק בַּדֶּרֶךְ בְּצֵאתְכֶם מִמִּצְרָיִם:

19. [Therefore,] it will be, when the Lord your God grants you respite from all your enemies around [you] in the land which the Lord, your God, gives to you as an inheritance to possess, that you shall obliterate the remembrance of Amalek from beneath the heavens. You shall not forget! יט. וְהָיָה בְּהָנִיחַ יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ | לְךָ מִכָּל אֹיְבֶיךָ מִסָּבִיב בָּאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ נֹתֵן לְךָ נַחֲלָה לְרִשְׁתָּהּ תִּמְחֶה אֶת זֵכֶר * (זֶכֶר) עֲמָלֵק מִתַּחַת הַשָּׁמָיִם לֹא תִּשְׁכָּח:

Devarim – Deuteronomy – Chapter 21

10. If you go out to war against your enemies, and the Lord, your God, will deliver him into your hands, and you take his captives, י. כִּי תֵצֵא לַמִּלְחָמָה עַל אֹיְבֶיךָ וּנְתָנוֹ יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ בְּיָדֶךָ וְשָׁבִיתָ שִׁבְיוֹ:

.
11. and you see among the captives a beautiful woman and you desire her, you may take [her] for yourself as a wife. יא. וְרָאִיתָ בַּשִּׁבְיָה אֵשֶׁת יְפַת תֹּאַר וְחָשַׁקְתָּ בָהּ וְלָקַחְתָּ לְךָ לְאִשָּׁה:

.
12. You shall bring her into your home, and she shall shave her head and let her nails grow. יב. וַהֲבֵאתָהּ אֶל תּוֹךְ בֵּיתֶךָ וְגִלְּחָה אֶת רֹאשָׁהּ וְעָשְׂתָה אֶת צִפָּרְנֶיהָ:

15. If a man has two wives-one beloved and the other despised-and they bear him sons, the beloved one and the despised one, and the firstborn son is from the despised one. טו. כִּי תִהְיֶיןָ לְאִישׁ שְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים הָאַחַת אֲהוּבָה וְהָאַחַת שְׂנוּאָה וְיָלְדוּ לוֹ בָנִים הָאֲהוּבָה וְהַשְּׂנוּאָה וְהָיָה הַבֵּן הַבְּכֹר לַשְּׂנִיאָה:

18. If a man has a wayward and rebellious son, who does not obey his father or his mother, and they chasten him, and [he still] does not listen to them, יח. כִּי יִהְיֶה לְאִישׁ בֵּן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה אֵינֶנּוּ שֹׁמֵעַ בְּקוֹל אָבִיו וּבְקוֹל אִמּוֹ וְיִסְּרוּ אֹתוֹ וְלֹא יִשְׁמַע אֲלֵיהֶם:

.
19. his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city, and to the gate of his place. יט. וְתָפְשׂוּ בוֹ אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ וְהוֹצִיאוּ אֹתוֹ אֶל זִקְנֵי עִירוֹ וְאֶל שַׁעַר מְקֹמוֹ:

.
20. And they shall say to the elders of his city, “This son of ours is wayward and rebellious; he does not obey us; [he is] a glutton and a guzzler.” כ. וְאָמְרוּ אֶל זִקְנֵי עִירוֹ בְּנֵנוּ זֶה סוֹרֵר וּמֹרֶה אֵינֶנּוּ שֹׁמֵעַ בְּקֹלֵנוּ זוֹלֵל וְסֹבֵא:

.
21. And all the men of his city shall pelt him to death with stones, and he shall die. So shall you clear out the evil from among you, and all Israel will listen and fear. כא. וּרְגָמֻהוּ כָּל אַנְשֵׁי עִירוֹ בָאֲבָנִים וָמֵת וּבִעַרְתָּ הָרָע מִקִּרְבֶּךָ וְכָל יִשְׂרָאֵל יִשְׁמְעוּ וְיִרָאוּ:

Devarim – Deuteronomy – Chapter 22

15. Then the girl‘s father and her mother shall obtain evidence of the girl’s virginity, and take it out to the elders of the city, to the gate. טו. וְלָקַח אֲבִי הַנַּעֲרָה וְאִמָּהּ וְהוֹצִיאוּ אֶת בְּתוּלֵי הַנַּעֲרָה אֶל זִקְנֵי הָעִיר הַשָּׁעְרָה:

.
16. And the girl’s father shall say to the elders, “I gave my daughter to this man as a wife, and he despised her; טז. וְאָמַר אֲבִי הַנַּעֲרָה אֶל הַזְּקֵנִים אֶת בִּתִּי נָתַתִּי לָאִישׁ הַזֶּה לְאִשָּׁה וַיִּשְׂנָאֶהָ:

.
17. And behold, he made libelous charges, saying, ‘I did not find evidence of your daughter’s virginity.’ But this is the evidence of my daughter’s virginity!’ And they shall spread the garment before the elders of the city. יז. וְהִנֵּה הוּא שָׂם עֲלִילֹת דְּבָרִים לֵאמֹר לֹא מָצָאתִי לְבִתְּךָ בְּתוּלִים וְאֵלֶּה בְּתוּלֵי בִתִּי וּפָרְשׂוּ הַשִּׂמְלָה לִפְנֵי זִקְנֵי הָעִיר:

.
18. Then, the elders of that city shall take the man and chasten him. יח. וְלָקְחוּ זִקְנֵי הָעִיר הַהִוא אֶת הָאִישׁ וְיִסְּרוּ אֹתוֹ:

.
19. And they shall fine him one hundred [shekels of] silver because he defamed a virgin of Israel, and he give it to the girl’s father. And she shall be his wife; he shall not send her away all the days of his life. יט. וְעָנְשׁוּ אֹתוֹ מֵאָה כֶסֶף וְנָתְנוּ לַאֲבִי הַנַּעֲרָה כִּי הוֹצִיא שֵׁם רָע עַל בְּתוּלַת יִשְׂרָאֵל וְלוֹ תִהְיֶה לְאִשָּׁה לֹא יוּכַל לְשַׁלְּחָהּ כָּל יָמָיו:

.
20. But if this matter was true: [indeed,] no evidence of the girl’s virginity was found כ. וְאִם אֱמֶת הָיָה הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה לֹא נִמְצְאוּ בְתוּלִים לַנַּעֲרָה:

.
21. they shall take the girl out to the entrance of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall pelt her with stones, and she shall die, for she did a disgraceful thing in Israel, to commit adultery [in] her father’s house. So shall you clear away the evil from among you. כא. וְהוֹצִיאוּ אֶת הַנַּעֲרָה אֶל פֶּתַח בֵּית אָבִיהָ וּסְקָלוּהָ אַנְשֵׁי עִירָהּ בָּאֲבָנִים וָמֵתָה כִּי עָשְׂתָה נְבָלָה בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל לִזְנוֹת בֵּית אָבִיהָ וּבִעַרְתָּ הָרָע מִקִּרְבֶּךָ:

.
22. If a man is found lying with a married woman, even both of them shall die the man lying with the woman and the woman. So shall you clear away the evil from Israel. כב. כִּי יִמָּצֵא אִישׁ שֹׁכֵב | עִם אִשָּׁה בְעֻלַת בַּעַל וּמֵתוּ גַּם שְׁנֵיהֶם הָאִישׁ הַשֹּׁכֵב עִם הָאִשָּׁה וְהָאִשָּׁה וּבִעַרְתָּ הָרָע מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל:

.
23. If there is a virgin girl betrothed to a man, and [another] man finds her in the city, and lies with her, כג. כִּי יִהְיֶה נַעֲרָה בְתוּלָה מְאֹרָשָׂה לְאִישׁ וּמְצָאָהּ אִישׁ בָּעִיר וְשָׁכַב עִמָּהּ:

24. you shall take them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall pelt them with stones, and they shall die: the girl, because she did not cry out [even though she was] in the city, and the man, because he violated his neighbor’s wife. So shall you clear away the evil from among you. כד. וְהוֹצֵאתֶם אֶת שְׁנֵיהֶם אֶל שַׁעַר | הָעִיר הַהִוא וּסְקַלְתֶּם אֹתָם בָּאֲבָנִים וָמֵתוּ אֶת הַנַּעֲרָ עַל דְּבַר אֲשֶׁר לֹא צָעֲקָה בָעִיר וְאֶת הָאִישׁ עַל דְּבַר אֲשֶׁר עִנָּה אֶת אֵשֶׁת רֵעֵהוּ וּבִעַרְתָּ הָרָע מִקִּרְבֶּךָ:

28. If a man finds a virgin girl who was not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, כח. כִּי יִמְצָא אִישׁ נַעֲרָה בְתוּלָה אֲשֶׁר לֹא אֹרָשָׂה וּתְפָשָׂהּ וְשָׁכַב עִמָּהּ וְנִמְצָאוּ:

.
29. the man who lay with her shall give fifty [shekels of] silver to the girl’s father, and she shall become his wife, because he violated her. He shall not send her away all the days of his life. כט. וְנָתַן הָאִישׁ הַשֹּׁכֵב עִמָּהּ לַאֲבִי הַנַּעֲרָה חֲמִשִּׁים כָּסֶף וְלוֹ תִהְיֶה לְאִשָּׁה תַּחַת אֲשֶׁר עִנָּהּ לֹא יוּכַל שַׁלְּחָהּ כָּל יָמָיו:

Vayikra – Leviticus – Chapter 26

38. I am the Lord, your God, Who took you out of the land of Egypt, to give you the land of Canaan, to be a God to you. לח. אֲנִי יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם אֲשֶׁר הוֹצֵאתִי אֶתְכֶם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם לָתֵת לָכֶם אֶת אֶרֶץ כְּנַעַן לִהְיוֹת לָכֶם לֵאלֹהִים:

44. Your male slave or female slave whom you may have from the nations that are around you, from them you may acquire a male slave or a female slave. מד. וְעַבְדְּךָ וַאֲמָתְךָ אֲשֶׁר יִהְיוּ לָךְ מֵאֵת הַגּוֹיִם אֲשֶׁר סְבִיבֹתֵיכֶם מֵהֶם תִּקְנוּ עֶבֶד וְאָמָה:

45. And also from the children of the residents that live among you, from them you may acquire [slaves] and from their family that is with you whom they begot in your land, and they shall become your inheritance. מה. וְגַם מִבְּנֵי הַתּוֹשָׁבִים הַגָּרִים עִמָּכֶם מֵהֶם תִּקְנוּ וּמִמִּשְׁפַּחְתָּם אֲשֶׁר עִמָּכֶם אֲשֶׁר הוֹלִידוּ בְּאַרְצְכֶם וְהָיוּ לָכֶם לַאֲחֻזָּה:

.
46. You shall hold onto them as an inheritance for your children after you, as acquired property, and may thus have them serve you forever. But as for your brethren, the children of Israel, a man shall not work his brother with rigor. מו. וְהִתְנַחַלְתֶּם אֹתָם לִבְנֵיכֶם אַחֲרֵיכֶם לָרֶשֶׁת אֲחֻזָּה לְעֹלָם בָּהֶם תַּעֲבֹדוּ וּבְאַחֵיכֶם בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אִישׁ בְּאָחִיו לֹא תִרְדֶּה בוֹ בְּפָרֶךְ:

December 7, 2014 Posted by aletho | Ethnic Cleansing, Militarism, Subjugation - Torture, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes, Wars for Israel | Human rights, Israeli settlement, Judaism, Palestine, Torah, Zionism | Leave a comment

Golden Age of Pearl Harbor

By David Swanson | War is a Crime | December 5, 2014

As we read Ulysses on Bloomsday every June 16th (or we should if we don’t) I think that every December 7th should not only commemorate the Great Law of 1682 that banned war in Pennsylvania but also mark Pearl Harbor, not by celebrating the state of permawar that has existed for 73 years, but by reading The Golden Age by Gore Vidal and marking with a certain Joycean irony the golden age of anti-isolationist imperial mass-killing that has encompassed the lives of every U.S. citizen under the age of 73.

Golden Age Day should include public readings of Vidal’s novel and the glowing endorsements of it by the Washington Post, New York Times Book Review, and every other corporate paper in the year 2000, also known as the year 1 BWT (before the war on terra). Not a single one of those newspapers has ever, to my knowledge, printed a serious straightforward analysis of how President Franklin D. Roosevelt maneuvered the United States into World War II. Yet Vidal’s novel — presented as fiction, yet resting entirely on documented facts — recounts the story with total honesty, and somehow the genre used or the author’s pedigree or his literary skill or the length of the book (too many pages for senior editors to be bothered with) grants him a license to tell the truth.

Sure, some people have read The Golden Age and protested its impropriety, but it remains a respectable high-brow volume. I may be hurting the cause by openly writing about its content. The trick, which I highly recommend to all, is to give or recommend the book to others without telling them what’s in it.

Despite a filmmaker being a main character in the book, it’s not been made into a film, as far as I know — but a widespread phenomenon of public readings could conceivably make that happen.

In The Golden Age, we follow along inside all the closed doors, as the British push for U.S. involvement in World War II, as President Roosevelt makes a commitment to Prime Minister Winston Churchill, as the warmongers manipulate the Republican convention to make sure that both parties nominate candidates in 1940 ready to campaign on peace while planning war, as FDR longs to run for an unprecedented third term as a wartime president but must content himself with beginning a draft and campaigning as a drafttime president in a time of supposed national danger, and as FDR works to provoke Japan into attacking on his desired schedule.

The echoes are eerie. Roosevelt campaigns on peace (“except in case of attack”), like Wilson, like Johnson, like Nixon, like Obama, and like those members of Congress just reelected while blatantly and unconstitutionally refusing to stop or authorize the current war. Roosevelt, pre-election, puts in Henry Stimson as a war-eager Secretary of War not altogether unlike Ash Carter as a nominee for Secretary of “Defense.”

Golden Age Day discussions might include some known facts of the matter:

On December 7, 1941, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt drew up a declaration of war on both Japan and Germany, but decided it wouldn’t work and went with Japan alone. Germany, as expected, quickly declared war on the United States.

FDR had tried lying to the American people about U.S. ships including the Greer and the Kerny, which had been helping British planes track German submarines, but which Roosevelt pretended had been innocently attacked.

Roosevelt had also lied that he had in his possession a secret Nazi map planning the conquest of South America, as well as a secret Nazi plan for replacing all religions with Nazism.

As of December 6, 1941, eighty percent of the U.S. public opposed entering a war. But Roosevelt had already instituted the draft, activated the National Guard, created a huge Navy in two oceans, traded old destroyers to England in exchange for the lease of its bases in the Caribbean and Bermuda, and secretly ordered the creation of a list of every Japanese and Japanese-American person in the United States.

On April 28, 1941, Churchill wrote a secret directive to his war cabinet: “It may be taken as almost certain that the entry of Japan into the war would be followed by the immediate entry of the United States on our side.”

On August 18, 1941, Churchill met with his cabinet at 10 Downing Street. The meeting had some similarity to the July 23, 2002, meeting at the same address, the minutes of which became known as the Downing Street Minutes. Both meetings revealed secret U.S. intentions to go to war. In the 1941 meeting, Churchill told his cabinet, according to the minutes: “The President had said he would wage war but not declare it.” In addition, “Everything was to be done to force an incident.”

From the mid-1930s U.S. peace activists — those people so annoyingly right about recent U.S. wars — were marching against U.S. antagonization of Japan and U.S. Navy plans for war on Japan — the March 8, 1939, version of which described “an offensive war of long duration” that would destroy the military and disrupt the economic life of Japan.

In January 1941, the Japan Advertiser expressed its outrage over Pearl Harbor in an editorial, and the U.S. ambassador to Japan wrote in his diary: “There is a lot of talk around town to the effect that the Japanese, in case of a break with the United States, are planning to go all out in a surprise mass attack on Pearl Harbor. Of course I informed my government.”

On February 5, 1941, Rear Admiral Richmond Kelly Turner wrote to Secretary of War Henry Stimson to warn of the possibility of a surprise attack at Pearl Harbor.

As early as 1932 the United States had been talking with China about providing airplanes, pilots, and training for its war with Japan. In November 1940, Roosevelt loaned China one hundred million dollars for war with Japan, and after consulting with the British, U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau made plans to send the Chinese bombers with U.S. crews to use in bombing Tokyo and other Japanese cities.

On December 21, 1940, China’s Minister of Finance T.V. Soong and Colonel Claire Chennault, a retired U.S. Army flier who was working for the Chinese and had been urging them to use American pilots to bomb Tokyo since at least 1937, met in Henry Morgenthau’s dining room to plan the firebombing of Japan. Morgenthau said he could get men released from duty in the U.S. Army Air Corps if the Chinese could pay them $1,000 per month. Soong agreed.

On May 24, 1941, the New York Times reported on U.S. training of the Chinese air force, and the provision of “numerous fighting and bombing planes” to China by the United States. “Bombing of Japanese Cities is Expected,” read the subheadline.

By July, the Joint Army-Navy Board had approved a plan called JB 355 to firebomb Japan. A front corporation would buy American planes to be flown by American volunteers trained by Chennault and paid by another front group. Roosevelt approved, and his China expert Lauchlin Currie, in the words of Nicholson Baker, “wired Madame Chaing Kai-Shek and Claire Chennault a letter that fairly begged for interception by Japanese spies.” Whether or not that was the entire point, this was the letter: “I am very happy to be able to report today the President directed that sixty-six bombers be made available to China this year with twenty-four to be delivered immediately. He also approved a Chinese pilot training program here. Details through normal channels. Warm regards.”

The 1st American Volunteer Group (AVG) of the Chinese Air Force, also known as the Flying Tigers, moved ahead with recruitment and training immediately and were provided to China prior to Pearl Harbor.

On May 31, 1941, at the Keep America Out of War Congress, William Henry Chamberlin gave a dire warning: “A total economic boycott of Japan, the stoppage of oil shipments for instance, would push Japan into the arms of the Axis. Economic war would be a prelude to naval and military war.”

On July 24, 1941, President Roosevelt remarked, “If we cut the oil off , [the Japanese] probably would have gone down to the Dutch East Indies a year ago, and you would have had a war. It was very essential from our own selfish point of view of defense to prevent a war from starting in the South Pacific. So our foreign policy was trying to stop a war from breaking out there.” Reporters noticed that Roosevelt said “was” rather than “is.” The next day, Roosevelt issued an executive order freezing Japanese assets. The United States and Britain cut off oil and scrap metal to Japan. Radhabinod Pal, an Indian jurist who served on the war crimes tribunal after the war, called the embargoes a “clear and potent threat to Japan’s very existence,” and concluded the United States had provoked Japan.

On August 7, 1941, the Japan Times Advertiser wrote: “First there was the creation of a superbase at Singapore, heavily reinforced by British and Empire troops. From this hub a great wheel was built up and linked with American bases to form a great ring sweeping in a great area southwards and westwards from the Philippines through Malaya and Burma, with the link broken only in the Thailand peninsula. Now it is proposed to include the narrows in the encirclement, which proceeds to Rangoon.”

By September the Japanese press was outraged that the United States had begun shipping oil right past Japan to reach Russia. Japan, its newspapers said, was dying a slow death from “economic war.”

In late October, U.S. spy Edgar Mower was doing work for Colonel William Donovan who spied for Roosevelt. Mower spoke with a man in Manila named Ernest Johnson, a member of the Maritime Commission, who said he expected “The Japs will take Manila before I can get out.” When Mower expressed surprise, Johnson replied “Didn’t you know the Jap fleet has moved eastward, presumably to attack our fleet at Pearl Harbor?”

On November 3, 1941, the U.S. ambassador sent a lengthy telegram to the State Department warning that the economic sanctions might force Japan to commit “national hara-kiri.” He wrote: “An armed conflict with the United States may come with dangerous and dramatic suddenness.”

On November 15th, U.S. Army Chief of Staff George Marshall briefed the media on something we do not remember as “the Marshall Plan.” In fact we don’t remember it at all. “We are preparing an offensive war against Japan,” Marshall said, asking the journalists to keep it a secret, which as far as I know they dutifully did.

Ten days later Secretary of War Stimson wrote in his diary that he’d met in the Oval Office with Marshall, President Roosevelt, Secretary of the Navy Frank Knox, Admiral Harold Stark, and Secretary of State Cordell Hull. Roosevelt had told them the Japanese were likely to attack soon, possibly next Monday.

It has been well documented that the United States had broken the Japanese’ codes and that Roosevelt had access to them. It was through intercept of a so-called Purple code message that Roosevelt had discovered Germany’s plans to invade Russia. It was Hull who leaked a Japanese intercept to the press, resulting in the November 30, 1941, headline “Japanese May Strike Over Weekend.”

That next Monday would have been December 1st, six days before the attack actually came. “The question,” Stimson wrote, “was how we should maneuver them into the position of firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves. It was a difficult proposition.”

The day after the attack, Congress voted for war. Congresswoman Jeannette Rankin (R., Mont.) stood alone in voting no. One year after the vote, on December 8, 1942, Rankin put extended remarks into the Congressional Record explaining her opposition. She cited the work of a British propagandist who had argued in 1938 for using Japan to bring the United States into the war. She cited Henry Luce’s reference in Life magazine on July 20, 1942, to “the Chinese for whom the U.S. had delivered the ultimatum that brought on Pearl Harbor.” She introduced evidence that at the Atlantic Conference on August 12, 1941, Roosevelt had assured Churchill that the United States would bring economic pressure to bear on Japan. “I cited,” Rankin later wrote, ” the State Department Bulletin of December 20, 1941, which revealed that on September 3 a communication had been sent to Japan demanding that it accept the principle of ‘nondisturbance of the status quo in the Pacific,’ which amounted to demanding guarantees of the inviolateness of the white empires in the Orient.”

Rankin found that the Economic Defense Board had gotten economic sanctions under way less than a week after the Atlantic Conference. On December 2, 1941, the New York Times had reported, in fact, that Japan had been “cut off from about 75 percent of her normal trade by the Allied blockade.” Rankin also cited the statement of Lieutenant Clarence E. Dickinson, U.S.N., in the Saturday Evening Post of October 10, 1942, that on November 28, 1941, nine days before the attack, Vice Admiral William F. Halsey, Jr., (he of the catchy slogan “Kill Japs! Kill Japs!”) had given instructions to him and others to “shoot down anything we saw in the sky and to bomb anything we saw on the sea.”

General George Marshall admitted as much to Congress in 1945: that the codes had been broken, that the United States had initiated Anglo-Dutch-American agreements for unified action against Japan and put them into effect before Pearl Harbor, and that the United States had provided officers of its military to China for combat duty before Pearl Harbor.

An October 1940 memorandum by Lieutenant Commander Arthur H. McCollum was acted on by President Roosevelt and his chief subordinates. It called for eight actions that McCollum predicted would lead the Japanese to attack, including arranging for the use of British bases in Singapore and for the use of Dutch bases in what is now Indonesia, aiding the Chinese government, sending a division of long-range heavy cruisers to the Philippines or Singapore, sending two divisions of submarines to “the Orient,” keeping the main strength of the fleet in Hawaii, insisting that the Dutch deny the Japanese oil, and embargoing all trade with Japan in collaboration with the British Empire.

The day after McCollum’s memo, the State Department told Americans to evacuate far eastern nations, and Roosevelt ordered the fleet kept in Hawaii over the strenuous objection of Admiral James O. Richardson who quoted the President as saying “Sooner or later the Japanese would commit an overt act against the United States and the nation would be willing to enter the war.”

The message that Admiral Harold Stark sent to Admiral Husband Kimmel on November 28, 1941, read, “IF HOSTILITIES CANNOT REPEAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED THE UNITED STATES DESIRES THAT JAPAN COMMIT THE FIRST OVERT ACT.”

Joseph Rochefort, cofounder of the Navy’s communication intelligence section, who was instrumental in failing to communicate to Pearl Harbor what was coming, would later comment: “It was a pretty cheap price to pay for unifying the country.”

The night after the attack, President Roosevelt had CBS News’s Edward R. Murrow and Roosevelt’s Coordinator of Information William Donovan over for dinner at the White House, and all the President wanted to know was whether the American people would now accept war. Donovan and Murrow assured him the people would indeed accept war now. Donovan later told his assistant that Roosevelt’s surprise was not that of others around him, and that he, Roosevelt, welcomed the attack. Murrow was unable to sleep that night and was plagued for the rest of his life by what he called “the biggest story of my life” which he never told.

Have a Meaningful Golden Age Day!

December 7, 2014 Posted by aletho | Book Review, Deception, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | United States | Leave a comment

America’s epidemic of killer cops

By David Hoffman | Pravda | December 1, 2014

Question: Why would cops in America shoot, strangle, or beat to death an unarmed person?

Answer: Because they can.

It is a sad reality in today’s America that cops can not only do these things with immunity and impunity, they can actually do them in front of thousands, sometimes millions, of witnesses, and still get away with it.

Don’t take my word for it. Look at the horrific beating death of Kelly Thomas, a homeless man in Fullerton, California. Videotaped evidence showed six (yes six) cops beating an unarmed Thomas as he begged for his life. According to the Website Police State USA, some of these officers are laughing after the incident, and one even boasts about hitting Thomas “probably twenty times in the face with [his] Taser.”

Yet, in an all too predictable pattern, a jury of idiots acquitted the cops charged in Thomas’s death.

Although protests erupted after this egregious verdict, both Thomas’s death and its aftermath failed to receive the extensive media coverage that has been devoted to the killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. Some have argued that this is because Thomas was white, so his case lacked the racial elements America’s corporate-controlled media love to exploit for ratings and profits.

But even though the media may be guilty of selectively promoting stories of police brutality based upon their racial components, it should also be remembered that these same media are equally complicit in making African-Americans the “face of crime,” thus fueling an environment of suspicion and fear that often causes African-Americans to be treated more harshly by police, prosecutors, and judges, and for crimes committed against them to be taken less seriously.

If there is one positive that can be salvaged from the events in Ferguson, it is that alleged cases of excessive force and police brutality that did not influence national news like the Brown killing are now being revisited. According to the Los Angeles Times, South Bend Tribune, and Huffington Post, other victims include James Boyd, a homeless man who was shot by police in Albuquerque, New Mexico; Amadou Diallo, an innocent man who was shot nineteen times in New York City after being mistaken for a fugitive; Samantha Ramsey, shot to death by a sheriff’s deputy in Boone County, Kentucky; Christopher Moreland, who was, according to a federal judge, beaten “mercilessly” by two cops in St. Joseph County, Indiana; and Jonathan Ferrell, shot ten times by a Charlotte, North Carolina police officer while looking for help after a traffic accident.

Sadly, the names on this list could go on, but the message is clear: In all these cases, except for Ferrell’s, either the killings were ruled to be justified, prosecutors and/or grand juries refused to indict, or the cops were acquitted of any wrongdoing. And in Ferrell’s case, it actually required a second grand jury to secure an indictment because the first apparently thought “voluntary manslaughter” was too severe a charge for a white police officer who gunned down an unarmed African-American.

Which raises two more questions: How and why?

The “How” is simple. Investigations of excessive force follow predictable patterns. First, there is the “investigation” (aka cover-up). In this phase, cops seize cellphones and other videos from witnesses as “evidence,” to ensure the media and public don’t have access to them. Then police reports, stories, and testimony are fabricated to ensure an officer’s actions comport with existing laws regarding use of force. Next, all officers are coached to get their stories straight, and to conceal any evidence that contradicts the “official” version.

Then comes the prosecutor’s role. In America, most county prosecutors are elected officials. As such, they usually campaign on the basis of their “conviction rates,” and/or being “tough on crime.” The office of prosecutor often segues into opportunities to obtain higher political offices or judgeships. But achieving these ambitions requires a symbiotic relationship with the police; therefore, prosecutors will do nothing to injure that relationship, and anything to maintain it.

So if victims of police brutality and/or excessive force survive their ordeals, they are likely to be charged with a plethora of imaginary crimes. The prosecutor then tells the victim that the charges will be dropped if he/she agrees to not take further action against the police. If the victim refuses this “deal,” the prosecutor will work zealously to obtain a bogus guilty verdict, to not only “justify” what the cops did, but also to weaken any potential civil lawsuit the victim might file. If a police brutality and/or excessive force victim dies, all the better, because only the cops are around to tell their well-rehearsed version of events.

If prosecutors are concerned about the political fallout from refusing to indict cops accused of using excessive force, they will frequently conceal their biases behind a so-called “grand jury.” Evidence and testimony presented to a grand jury is largely in the control of a prosecutor and thus can be extremely one-sided, leading many in the legal profession to joke that a prosecutor could obtain a grand jury indictment against a grapefruit with little difficulty.

This is why many in Ferguson, and throughout America, are looking askance at the grand jury verdict in the Michael Brown case, and how prosecutorial bias favoring the police might have affected how testimony and/or evidence was presented.

What a grand jury really does is give prosecutors a facade to hide behind. They can face the public with a, “Gee whiz, it’s not my fault an indictment wasn’t issued. It was the grand jury’s decision.”

On those extremely rare occasions when cops are actually put on trial for using excessive force, it is almost a certainty that defense attorneys will be blessed with a panel of jurors who view every cop as Andy of Mayberry, and therefore will readily swallow canned arguments about how police officers have dangerous jobs and risk their lives to protect the public; how these officers were simply “following their training”; and how the person they injured or killed was being “non-compliant,” “combative,” and/or “appeared to be reaching for a weapon.”

The answer to the “Why” question is a little more complex.

I have argued in several previous Pravda.Ru articles that America’s so-called “legal system” is not designed to obtain truth, nor is it concerned with even the most rudimentary principles of right and wrong. In fact, the “system” will work harder to perpetuate and rationalize injustice than it will to obtain justice, and will almost always ignore, and in some cases even reward, criminality that serves it.

But juries are only exposed to the system on a case by case basis. So why do so many of them routinely excuse actions by cops (and wannabe cops like George Zimmerman) that would cause them revulsion and outrage if committed by civilians?

As I suggested above, one problem is the media-created perception that causes white, middle class Americans to fear crime more than they fear interactions with the police, and to associate criminality with racial minorities. Racial minorities, however, while sharing this fear of crime, must also struggle with the burden of being automatically perceived as criminals by the police, because of their skin color, dress, hair style, music, and/or location where they happen to be walking or driving.

Another problem is the fear of acknowledging police brutality. Several of the alleged excessive force victims I’ve discussed in this article were white, so it is evident that nobody is exempt from being victimized by police brutality.

But that is a discomforting scenario to live with. People do not want to believe that a late-night trip to the grocery store, or a stroll through a parking lot (Kelly Thomas), driving home from a party (Samantha Ramsey), or seeking assistance after a traffic accident (Jonathan Ferrell) can result in an encounter with police that ends in their death. So the natural instinct is to blame the victims of police brutality, to find something, anything, no matter how minute, that can be used to rationalize a cop’s actions.

Lastly, and perhaps most tragically, is the belief that some people are disposable. Predominantly white, middle class juries, whether they consciously admit it or not, may not consider the life of a racial minority, or a homeless person, to have the same value as theirs.

The final question that many are reluctant to discuss is “Who really wants to be a cop?” After all, some of the canned arguments used by defense attorneys have undeniable veracity: Cops do have dangerous jobs, and they routinely witness the worst in human behavior.

There are (with some exceptions) usually two types of people who want to be police officers: Bullies who desire the power over others being a police officer brings; and idealists who enter the profession with the noblest of intentions, but eventually find themselves succumbing to a bitterness and disillusionment that compels them to either cover-up for the bullies or become one. This means that incidents of police brutality and/or excessive force frequently evolve from egotistical anger against individuals whose only “crime” is disrespecting a cop’s authority.

The reason so many cops go unpunished is because those who control America’s so-called “criminal justice” system fear that punishing cops for their criminality will not only result in the loss of officers currently employed, but also discourage others from wanting to become cops.

In other words, ignoring, excusing, or covering up incidents of police brutality and/or excessive force are considered by those in power to be acceptable alternatives to having a shortage of police officers.

The irony is that all the cops, prosecutors, and jurors willing to ignore, excuse, or cover-up police brutality and/or excessive force are not doing society any favors. They are causing all cops, not just the bullies, to be viewed as corrupt, brutal, and racist; they are fueling a cynicism that reduces the public trust and cooperation so essential to solving crimes; and they are further dividing America along racial and economic lines.

David R. Hoffman is the Legal Editor of Pravda.Ru

December 1, 2014 Posted by aletho | Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Subjugation - Torture, Timeless or most popular | Human rights, United States | Leave a comment

Postcards from Pripyat, Chernobyl

Postcards from Pripyat, Chernobyl from Danny Cooke on Vimeo.

November 30, 2014 Posted by aletho | Nuclear Power, Timeless or most popular, Video | Ukraine | Leave a comment

Here are 10 things about 9/11 that deserve more attention – and 5 that deserve less

People need to know just how absurd the official story of the Shanksville “crash” is

By Craig McKee | Truth and Shadows | October 2, 2014

Let’s face it: the 9/11 Truth Movement is all over the place. But that’s not surprising – nor necessarily bad.

When you have an official story that is so clearly false in so many ways, there are going to be a multitude of valid angles from which to examine and expose the deception. There are also going to be many directions the movement can take to advance the cause and to awaken the uninitiated.

But all these ways are not created equal. When you have many thoughtful and intelligent truthers, some not-so-intelligent and not-so-thoughtful truthers, and an undetermined number of outright disinformation agents, you’re bound to get a “diversity of opinion” that would make Cass Sunstein very happy indeed.

So how do we decide what is important and was is not? How do we know where our efforts are best directed? It’s clear that we must keep our focus on things that will advance the cause, which is to expose the lies of 9/11 and other false flag operations. To this end, there are clearly some areas of 9/11 research that deserve all the attention they get and more. Meanwhile, there are areas that are getting attention to the detriment of the cause. Below, I list the areas I feel deserve more attention and those that deserve less, or none, especially when it comes to awakening newcomers. I know that readers will have their own items that they feel should be included. Some will also want to contest the items on my two lists.

We need to be fighting this battle on a multitude of fronts because the movement as a whole has to expose all elements of the 9/11 lie. When you look at the entirety of the bogus official story, the case for inside job becomes overwhelming. For the movement as a whole, picking just one area to concentrate on is not the best approach. What convinced me was an accumulation of all the evidence. The twin towers, Building 7, the Pentagon, Shanksville, the military stand down, the absence of proof that any alleged hijackers boarded any planes, the bogus Bin Laden “confession” video. And so much more.

Of course, individuals and organizations can be extremely effective by specializing – Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth continues to be very valuable by focusing on the controlled demolition of the twin towers and Building 7. It is also doing a great job reaching out to the public and the media with the Rethink 9/11 campaign and other efforts in an effort to advance the cause.

And, no, it’s not as simple as saying let’s avoid obvious disinformation. Yes, overcoming disinformation is one of the greatest challenges we face, but sometimes the cure is worse than the disease – or perceived disease. We’ll never be able to eradicate all the ideas we don’t like, especially if those ideas are being promulgated by fake truthers, because they’ll never get tired and go away. If we turn our attention away from our best evidence and instead spend all our time trying to crush bad ideas and attack those who may or may not sincerely believe them, we risk bringing more attention to those ideas than they really deserve. And the idea that if we don’t obliterate everything we think is disinfo then “we’ll look stupid to the world” is overstated, in my opinion.

We can’t destroy disinformation completely but we can expose the mechanisms that make it function and in doing so, marginalize it. And we can stay on message with the strongest and most undeniable evidence.

And there’s so much to choose from.

MORE ATTENTION SHOULD GO TO…

1. Shanksville and the self-burying plane: Without a doubt, the single major area of 9/11 study that has received the least attention is the impossible tale of Flight 93, which is supposed to have crashed in a field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. The plane, so the absurd story goes, is supposed to have crashed into the field and buried itself in the “soft” soil with the hole covering itself in. That’s right, the government claims (without a shred of proof offered to the world) that the plane ended up completely underground. They had to dig the whole thing up (except for the drivers license of one of the alleged hijackers, which was suitably singed and found above ground). It’s really more accurate to say that most people – at least 99 out of 100 – have no idea that this is what the official story says. How many have a clue, for example, that the scar in the field that was supposedly made by the wings penetrating the ground could be seen in aerial photographs taken by the U.S. Geological Survey in 1994? The only thing added on 9/11 was the nice round crater in the middle that represented the supposed impact of the hollow, aluminum fuselage. And people actually believe this…

2. Evidence that a 757 did not hit the Pentagon: The claim that annoys me more than any other is that we should ignore the Pentagon evidence because it is “too controversial” and “too divisive.” This is nonsense and plays right into the hands of the perpetrators. The only reason it appears controversial is because some misguided members of the Truth Movement, along with some real live disinfo agents, are trying to convince us that the part of the official story that says a plane crashed into the Pentagon – and plowed through three of its five rings – is actually true.

I get why disinfo agents would want us to ignore the overwhelming evidence that a plane crash was faked there, because a faked crash would positively implicate the Pentagon itself, but I have never understood why any sincere truther would do so. The justification given – that if it proves untrue later it will embarrass the movement – is paper thin. Some even use the demonstrably faked video images as proof that a real plane zipped along the lawn, parallel to the ground. They point to pictures of scraps of metal as proof of the crash (Look! There’s a piece painted with American Airlines colors!). They’ll even resort to claiming that the DNA evidence proved that a real plane crashed.

When did these people forget that this was an event designed to look like one thing (terrorist hijackings and crashing of commercial planes into specific targets) when it was actually another? The World Trade Center “attack” was supposed to create the impression that plane impacts caused so much damage that the buildings collapsed. But we know that the buildings were destroyed by explosives, not jet fuel and not plane impacts.

So why do we want to toss out the overwhelming evidence that the Pentagon event was not what it appeared to be? When you combine: the wreckage (or lack of it), the damage to the building (or lack of it), the absence of trenches dug in the lawn and building foundation by the engines; the two video views that are incompatible with each other; the withheld video from 85 other Pentagon cameras, the aviation evidence, the highly credible witnesses interviewed by CIT, the Flight Data Recorder (which, whether the data is fake or not still discounts the official story), and quite a lot more, you get a very clear picture that no airliner crashed into the Pentagon.

3. The absence of evidence that any “hijackers” ever boarded any planes: This is a hugely important area that needs a great deal more attention (It will be the subject of a future post). The fact is that there is not a shred of hard, verifiable evidence that any one of the 19 alleged hijackers ever boarded any of the four alleged 9/11 flights. Not one.

There is no video footage that proves any of them boarded. All we have is video showing Mohamed Atta and Abdul al-Omari in the Portland airport earlier that morning, and we have the five alleged hijackers of Flight 77 in Washington’s Dulles International Airport (with no time stamp or camera identification number that would authenticate the footage).

There are no witnesses that can positively place any of them on any of the planes. There are no authenticated flight manifests that place any of them on any planes. Nor are there any authenticated boarding passes. We can add to that the fact that several alleged hijackers turned up alive after 9/11 and that the 19 alleged hijackers’ identities have changed numerous times without an explanation being given for how the replacement names were arrived at.

4. Positive initiatives to advance the cause: it’s easy to dismiss some of the public awareness and legal efforts to punch holes in the official 9/11 lie, but I think we do so to our own detriment. Yes, we might think that one initiative or another may not succeed, but I believe we need to continue to hack away at the official story until we find a vulnerable point that will begin unravelling the public’s trust in that story. Certainly the worst thing we can do is nothing. To be sure, we have all been frustrated by the court failures of Ellen Mariani, April Gallop, and others. But there have also been hopeful signs, including video of the destruction of Building 7 is showing on a huge digital screen in New York City’s Times Square as we speak. We also have the rest of the Rethink 9/11 campaign; the High-Rise Safety Initiative; the recent documentaries September 11: The New Pearl Harbor by Massimo Mazzucco and The Anatomy of a Great Deception by David Hooper; Richard Gage’s appearance on C-Span and on Jesse Ventura’s Off the Grid, the opportunity afforded by the 9/11 Memorial and Museum to focus opposition and reach the public, and many other developments. In fact, we should be thinking of new and creative ways every day to shine a light on 9/11.

The 9/11 Truth Movement appears to be revitalized and making progress. We even saw a mainstream newspaper, the Fresno Bee, publish an opinion piece calling for a new investigation into 9/11. We could be discouraged by the fact that 13 years have passed, but I think people are starting to notice that we’re still here and we’re not going anywhere.

5. The workings of disinformation: There is no question that the 9/11 Truth Movement has been under assault from agents, infiltrators, and shills since very early in its existence. It is also clear that this assault has had a damaging effect on the movement. As a result, it has become essential that we discuss and come to understand how disinformation works, how it is being used against us, and how best to react to it (and when not to react at all).

Disinformation, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, is:

“The dissemination of deliberately false information, esp. when supplied by a government or its agent to a foreign power or to the media, with the intention of influencing the policies or opinions of those who receive it; false information so supplied.”

DELIBERATELY false information.

So when someone who purports to be a 9/11 truther shares information that he or she knows to be false, this is disinformation. This does NOT mean that all incorrect information and poorly supported arguments are disinformation.

6. The connection between the Anthrax attacks and 9/11: This one is excellent timing considering the recent publication of Graeme MacQueen’s new book The 2001 Anthrax Deception: The Case for a Domestic Conspiracy. MacQueen shows how the original official story of the anthrax attacks – that it was the same Muslim extremists who supposedly perpetrated 9/11 – had to be tossed when it became clear that al-Qaeda did not have the means to produce or acquire highly sophisticated and weaponized anthrax. MacQueen shows us the role the media played in raising the fear level of a biological attack (and specifically an anthrax attack) even before the first case was reported. He also explains how the targeting of Senators Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy helped facilitate passage of the Patriot Act. MacQueen has done his part to reveal the depth of this deception, now it’s up to the rest of us to make sure everybody hears about it and understands its implications.

7. The links between 9/11 and the advancing police state: The intelligence apparatus of the United States (and those of other Western countries, including my native Canada), has grown massively since 9/11, and this is no accident. The Patriot Act, the National Defense Authorization Act and many other legal (and illegal) initiatives are steadily hacking away at the U.S. Constitution. And it’s all done under the guise of protecting the population against terrorists. The problem is that most of these supposed terrorists and their groups end up having ties to Western intelligence (and this was going on before 9/11: Try Googling operations Gladio and Northwoods). The war on terror is a deception that is designed to scare us into surrendering our freedom, our privacy, our safety, and our right to determine our own future.

We’ve seen recently how local police forces have been equipped with military equipment that they could not – under any reasonable conditions – ever need. But they are using it against the population. People are no longer to be served and protected, they are the enemy to be controlled.

It seems very clear that the infrastructure is being put in place for complete martial law. This includes FEMA camps and Fusion Centers and immigration checkpoints and Constitution free zones. Add to that, the erosion of the sovereignty of nations being orchestrated by a global elite through the Bilderberg Group, Council on Foreign Relations, and other organizations, and you have a very disturbing picture of where our future is headed.

8. The links between 9/11 and past deceptions and false flags: 9/11 is not unique, except maybe in its scope and its audacity. Operations like the Kennedy and King assassinations, the London 7/7 bombings, the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, Operation Northwoods, Operation Gladio, MK-Ultra, Pearl Harbor, and a host of other events and programs fit into a historical context that includes 9/11 and recent events like the Boston Marathon bombing (which was a dress rehearsal for martial law). The more we educate the public about the history of false flag operations and other deceptions that trick us into supporting things we otherwise would not, the better chance we have of waking some people up and reaching a critical mass.

And a major part of this, of course, is looking at who was and is responsible for all of these events. Who benefited? Who had foreknowledge? Who picked the morning of Sept. 11, 2001 to be out of their office because his wife made an appointment for him with his dermatologist?

9. Why the “let it happen on purpose” position is untenable: Some people cling to the notion that incompetence was the reason for the “success” of the 9/11 operation. This is the position that the U.S. government itself would like us to take. But it holds no water at all.

Others are willing to believe that the government found out about a coming terrorist attack and decided to allow it to happen. This is known as the “let it happen on purpose” or LIHOP position. But the position that the evidence points to is that 9/11 was an inside job involving the U.S. government (and likely other governments). This is known as the “made it happen on purpose” or MIHOP position.

On a moral level, LIHOP and MIHOP amount to the same thing: mass murder for political gain. But the critical difference – and the reason we must expose the full spectrum of the lie – is that the LIHOP position allows the myth of the Muslim terrorist threat to stand. It accepts that real terrorists wanted to attack the United States (presumably for its “freedoms”) and that they remain a real threat. The truth, of course, is that the terrorist threat is manufactured and groups like al-Qaeda are really instruments of Western intelligence.

10. Eliminating language that supports the official story: We must carefully consider the words we use to describe what happened on 9/11 so that we don’t inadvertently reinforce the official story. This means we should never refer to “what hit the Pentagon” or “the terrorist attacks of 9/11” or “the plane that crashed in Shanksville” or “the 9/11 hijackers.” I know it means using “allegedly” and “supposedly” a lot, but it has to be done. As Barrie Zwicker says, each of these phrases carries the DNA of the 9/11official story.

AND LESS ATTENTION SHOULD GO TO…

1. Judy Wood and Directed Energy Weapons: I just don’t get it. With so much strong evidence available to the Truth Movement, I see no value in arguing about Judy Woods and her non-theory about directed energy weapons and dustified steel. Yes, she has raised some questions. And yes, she authored the glossiest textbook that has been produced about 9/11, but fighting about her won’t bring new and constructive attention to the movement or the effort to tell people that this event was an inside job. To Woods’ opponents, stop obsessing about her.

2. Nukes at the World Trade Center: Even mentioning this (or no planes) is going to get me into trouble with somebody. The nuclear position has been getting a lot of attention lately with the efforts of Jim Fetzer, Don Fox, Gordon Duff, and others to raise the profile of the issue and to take on established figures in the movement like Richard Gage of AE911Truth, Steven Jones, and Niels Harrit over their position that thermite (or nano-thermite) played an important, although not exclusive, role in destroying the three WTC towers. (It is important to note that AE does not claim that thermite destroyed the towers on its own; their position is that it was combined with explosives of some kind.) The proponents of the nuke position say they have already proven their case. Their opponents say there’s no evidence at all to support their claim.

I can’t see how this fight at this time can help us to advance our cause, particularly since AE911Truth has been making some real progress with its public outreach initiatives. Why would we want to work against those efforts when they seem to be bearing some fruit? There is just so much evidence that these buildings were blown up that I think our focus should be on bringing this truth the widest audience possible.

3. Excessive preoccupation with disinformation: This case has been made in the article already. And I mean “excessive” preoccupation. I’m not saying we ignore all disinformation, but I am saying that we have to try and reduce its power to dominate the agenda.

4. Excessive cynicism about the future of 9/11 Truth: it’s an uphill battle and it won’t be won in a year or two. And yes, the deck is stacked against us. But we have to see the positives in small victories and keep pushing forward. Telling each other that it’s hopeless and that we’re tired of making this argument or that argument is not going to help us achieve our goals. If you’re tired and fed up with fighting, take a break. Recharge the batteries. Don’t discourage others from the efforts they are making.

5. The incompetence defense: We have seen a lot of supposed 9/11 truthers like Abby Martin of Russia Today talk about the Aug. 6 memo “warning” the Bush administration about Bin Laden’s intention to attack the U.S. and all the other supposed warnings that an attack was coming. But all of this supports the lie that 9/11 was a real terrorist event that could have been prevented by a stronger and more alert defense. The incompetence theory is the worst thing that anyone who calls themself a truther should ever push. It reinforces the terrorist threat and justifies the continued war on terror.

November 29, 2014 Posted by aletho | Deception, False Flag Terrorism, Timeless or most popular | 9/11, United States | Leave a comment

The Fight for $15 Shakes Awake the U.S. Labor Movement

By Shamus Cooke | CounterPunch | November 28, 2014

Something big is happening. The union-led victories for a $15 minimum wage in Seattle and San Francisco have reverberated throughout the labor movement, spawning copycat campaigns across the country. Most notably the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) is nationally demanding $15 for its home care workers and the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) is demanding $15 for Walmart workers as a strategy to finally unionize the mega-corporation. Other unions with low wage members are demanding and winning $15 at the bargaining table.

Only a year ago a $15 minimum wage was denounced as “crazy.” But Seattle and San Francisco proved it was possible, and now $15 has seized the imagination of people across the country, pushing them into action.

By fighting for and winning a $15 minimum wage across the country, labor unions can win better contracts for low-wage workers, organize new members, raise the status of unions and defend against anti-union attacks such as the Harris vs. Quinn Supreme Court decision. After winning $15, unions will be empowered enough to put forth new demands that can bring even more people into the labor movement.

In San Francisco it was SEIU Local 1021 that led the victorious campaign for a $15 minimum wage, building a comprehensive community and labor coalition within the San Francisco labor movement. The Vice President of politics for SEIU 1021, Alysabeth Alexander, recently spoke at a public event in Portland, Oregon.

According to Alexander, there are several key lessons to take from their fight for $15 in San Francisco.

1) Build Strong Coalitions.

Unions and workers’ organizations are powerful when they act collectively, and forming an unbreakable union coalition was the backbone of the $15 campaign in San Francisco. Once united, the labor movement found its voice and realized its power.

In response to an off-the-cuff statement by SF Mayor Ed Lee that a $15 hour minimum wage was worth “considering,” SEIU 1021 went into action. When Mayor Lee was having a meeting with business leaders to discuss the city’s growing wealth disparities, SEIU 1021 staged a protest outside for a $15 minimum wage.

Just days later progressive unions and community labor organizations came together to discuss the real possibilities of passing such a wage increase. In order to create leverage and make the minimum wage fight real, SEIU 1021 filed for a ballot measure for a straight $15 minimum wage and the coalition began to collect signatures. While gathering signatures, the coalition was faced with real decisions of how to balance the demand for $15 with the possibility that the Mayor could put a lower minimum wage measure on the ballot with the support of the business community and city-funded non-profits, thereby creating the potential of all-out war.

According to Alysabeth Alexander:

“There were a lot of balls in the air — the same coalition that was pushing the minimum wage increase was also fighting to close loopholes to our health care ordinance, and pass a ‘retail workers bill of rights’ and ‘fair scheduling’ law. Overall, we created leverage through having an aggressive pro-worker agenda, focusing on positive media and in-depth features of low-wage workers, and by having full discussions within the coalition. We didn’t agree every step of the way, but we kept talking and listening to each other. This made us a strong coalition and built an incredible amount of trust between all the groups involved.”

The Mayor tried several tactics to pressure the unions to drop their $15 demand, going so far as putting forward a “last and final offer,” to which the unions responded “that’s a non-starter.” The balance of power had tipped towards the coalition, which felt empowered to act boldly.

2) Control the process.

According to Alysabeth Alexander, the politicians and business interests in San Francisco were eager to get involved to “work together” with the unions to draft minimum wage legislation, with the likely intention of injecting dozens of loopholes, and extending the phase-in time for implementation.

This is the key reason why the $15 legislation in San Francisco is superior to Seattle’s victory: in Seattle the politicians maneuvered to get a seat at the table in drafting the legislation, while in San Francisco the coalition wrote a strong ballot initiative where they were willing to make only a few concessions. San Francisco’s union-led coalition bargained from a position of strength, essentially imposing their will on politicians.

This example can be copied in cities and states that have a ballot initiative process, where unions can immediately bring a $15 minimum wage to the voters.

3) Control the narrative.

Too often labor and community groups fall victim to the business-friendly media or corporate-friendly politicians, whose communications skills and talking points prioritize the needs of corporations while putting unions on the media defensive.

SEIU 1021 changed this dynamic by taking the initiative, grounding all of their talking points on the premise of “no one deserves poverty wages.” They used this point as a foundation and added workers’ stories about trying to live on minimum wage. They took complete control of the conversation, and politicians were never able to recapture it, since “no one deserves poverty wages” is irrefutable.

Conclusions:

By building a strong coalition of labor and community groups and boldly putting forth a demand for a $15 minimum wage, the unions in San Francisco and Oakland lifted up tens of thousands of workers, and consequently uplifted the status and power of unions in the Bay Area.

Once the coalition acted as a united, independent force, the Mayor and other politicians saw the writing on the wall; it would have been political suicide to publicly oppose the extremely popular $15 ballot initiative, which a stunning 77 percent of San Franciscans voted in favor of.

The $15 minimum wage is a demand that has been gift-wrapped to the national labor movement. Fighting for and winning $15 strengthens the status of unions in the community and consequently helps shield against anti-union attacks. The demand is $15 and unions and community groups needn’t settle for anything less.

Shamus Cooke is a social service worker, trade unionist, and writer for Workers Action (www.workerscompass.org). He can be reached at shamuscooke@gmail.com

November 29, 2014 Posted by aletho | Economics, Solidarity and Activism, Timeless or most popular | United States | Leave a comment

9/11 researcher exposes failure of 2001 false flag ‘Anthrax attacks’

Review by Barrie Zwicker | Truth and Shadows | November 27, 2014

The “anthrax attacks” that followed on the heels of the “9/11 attacks” have receded into memory for most people, even including those of us who were extremely skeptical about alleged al-Qaeda biowarfare at the time.

Prof. Graeme MacQueen, in his latest book, The 2001 Anthrax Deception: The Case for a Domestic Conspiracy, [1] sheds light on why most of us have all but forgotten the sensational “anthrax attacks.” They’ve been dropped down the memory hole as a touchstone to justify the “war on terror” because the “anthrax attacks” fraud fell apart.

In his tight (just 214 pages) but definitive account, MacQueen proves beyond doubt that the “anthrax attacks” were a false flag operation. Those who need to be persuaded need look no further than this overdue book.

The “anthrax attacks” were intended as a powerful evil twin of the 9/11 terror fraud. Taken together these ops were to be a one-two punch that would launch the “war on terror,” while simultaneously justifying the illegal invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. The invasion of Afghanistan because allegedly Osama bin Laden directed 9/11 from a cave there. The invasion of Iraq because allegedly Iraq provided al-Qaeda with the anthrax.

But the wheels fell off of the anthrax wagon. MacQueen tracks the twists and turns of the official narrative to show how that happened.

This book, so long overdue, is also most contemporary. The “war on terror” now has been ramped up to the deadly and costly status of a permanent global “war,” a Manichean struggle between “the West” on one side and “the Islamic State” (IS) on the other. The “Islamic State” is a creation of “Western intelligence” serving the corporate militarists of “the West.”

MacQueen could not get deeply into this, since he had to keep his focus on the “anthrax attacks.” But the evidence obliged him to deal with 9/11 because they were twinned at the time. And he has the historical perspective that enables him to write:

… the documentary evidence […] when studied critically, raises serious questions not only about the FBI’s account of the anthrax attacks but also about the U.S. government’s account of what happened on September 11, 2001. Taken together, these sets of evidence erode the rationale for the Global War on Terror.

MacQueen is the founding director of the Centre for Peace Studies at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, where he taught for 30 years. He’s a leader among the few academics who dare joust with the 800-pound Gorilla of Deception known as 9/11 – and its spinoffs. [2]

The 2001 Anthrax Deception shows how academically-sound evidence, marshaled in plain language in a rational framework, can be a counterforce against any deception.

And what a whack of deceptions MacQueen has to deal with. Take the intentions of the perpetrators, Cheney & Co. MacQueen invented the term the “Double Perpetrator hypothesis” to describe the intendedly clever deception.

The Double Perpetrator hypothesis had advantages over the simple al-Qaeda hypothesis. Spreading anthrax through mailed letters was a primitive and ineffective means of dispersing anthrax if the goal was multiple casualties. This crudity was reinforced by the text of the letters, with their misspellings and unidiomatic English. In the Double Perpetrator hypothesis these primitive elements could be laid at the feet of al-Qaeda, while the source of the sophisticated B. anthracis spores in the envelopes to the senators had to be a state, Iraq, which was known to have once possessed a stockpile of anthrax. A peculiar paradox was thus resolved.

Adding to the credibility of MacQueen’s Double Perpetrator hypothesis is the fact that the twinning effort had already been launched by George Bush. “…on the day of 9/11 there were plenty of allusions to the possibility of a state sponsor of the attacks,” MacQueen writes. “The formal warning to state sponsors occurred at 8:30 p.m. on September 11 with Mr. Bush’s words: ‘We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.’”

Then, addressing a joint session of the 107^th Congress on September 20, Bush said: “From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.”

MacQueen notes that “what Bush said formally, many others said crudely. Neoconservative Charles Krauthammer explained on September 28 that the war against terrorism was not about chasing Osama bin Laden or other terrorists. The war was about getting rid of regimes.”

This theme was echoed by columnist George Will. He wrote that the choice to be given to state sponsors of terrorism was “reform or extinction.” Both Krauthammer and Will “spoke openly about Iraq as a target.”

But it was not just columnists’ opinions that were part of what MacQueen calls “a grand plan, not an opportunistic foray.” He writes:

Already in their surprisingly timely book, Germs: Biological Weapons and America’s Secret War, published in early October of 2001, Judith Miller and co-authors William Broad and Stephen Engelberg explained that Iraq might use a “surrogate, a terrorist group” to deliver a bioweapon to its target.

My wish is that MacQueen would be stating outright that Miller was clearly a CIA asset planted within the New York Times. She was subsequently disgraced when her 37-year career at the paper was terminated on November 9, 2005. This was, as I wrote in my book Towers of Deception, “six months after the Times found itself obliged to examine some of her work…” and found that 10 of 12 “flawed stories” on explosive issues had been written or co-written by Miller, including those infamously reporting that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). All of her journalism, I suggested in my book, bear the “hallmarks [of] extreme dependence on official sources, especially within the national security state apparatus, a dearth of supporting evidence for numerous assertions, and an ideological through-line in perfect sync with that of the White House, just as her … through-line on alleged WMDs in Iraq matched that of the White House.”

It will not surprise anyone reading The 2001 Anthrax Deception who is knowledgeably critical of the grotesque output of mainstream media (MSM) on issues of war, peace and “intelligence” that much of MacQueen’s book, perhaps a third of it, is devoted to MSM lies and propaganda. Without the almost blanket collusion of “news” outlets, the likes of Bush and Cheney would have been revealed as pathetic emperors with no clothing.

But the wheels fell off Cheney & Co.’s wagon when it became too widely known that the weaponized anthrax could only have come from one of the 15 sophisticated labs in the USA making this deadly stuff.

This is when the perps had to switch gears, change the narrative. “Suddenly,” MacQueen writes, “the White House began retreating not only from the Iraq hypothesis but also from the al-Qaeda hypothesis. Ari Fleischer, making an about-face, said on October 26 that, in the words of the Washington Post, ‘a skilled microbiologist and a small sophisticated lab would be capable of producing’ the Daschle anthrax.” (Thomas Daschle was an influential anthrax-targeted U.S. senator.)

This in turn cleared the way for the Plan B “lone wolf” theory, the eventual frame-up of Bruce Ivins, his almost-certainly-not “suicide” and the subsequent dispatch down the memory hole of the entire botched “anthrax attacks” illusion.

It turned out not to be much of a loss for the Machiavellian perps, however, because Cheney & Co. could go head and launch war on Afghanistan and Iraq as they intended all along without the aid of this substance-abusing false flag op. The monster 9/11 deception was alone enough to do the heavy lifting there.

The general brainwashing was easily accomplished through a surplus of media-megaphoned lies, propaganda and spin. These greased the skids for the illegal and bloody aggressions of the USA and its “allies,” including in the case of Afghanistan, Canada.

Perhaps my favourite chapter is eight, in which the author traces the origin and uses of the term “the unthinkable.” Numerous quotes from establishment figures and media pundits show that their use of the term serves radical right wing ideological fear-mongering purposes.

“Why does this matter?” MacQueen asks. “It matters because ‘the unthinkable’ is an expression that functioned to help launch a new conflict framework, the Global War on Terror.”

Part of chapter eight is devoted to a “simple word study” of the language of the infamous document entitled Rebuilding America’s Defenses, released in the year 2000 by the extreme pro-military right wing Project for the New American Century. MacQueen notes that although the term “security” occurs 94 times in the document, the term “Security Council” does not occur at all. Nor does the term “international law.” Keyword counts count, even when they’re zero.

MacQueen’s admirable critique of language leads me to a shortcoming, in my estimation, of The 2001 Anthrax Deception. This may be minor compared to the book’s strengths, but still is worth mentioning.

The author should in my view have drawn more attention throughout the text to the multitudinous and ongoing abuses of language by the perpetrators and the MSM, particularly their abuse of the word “attack” (as applied to 9/11 or the anthrax situation). Any conceivable attack – the word clearly denotes an assault from outside – is severely at odds with “a domestic conspiracy,” as the book’s title has it. The conspiracy of this book unmistakably is an inside phenomenon. A feigned attack should never be called “an attack.” Period.

In fairness, MacQueen addresses the language issue at the outset, but only briefly and in part, and in my view mistakenly. At the end of the Introduction, under the sub-head “A Note on the Hijackers,” he explains:

The alleged hijackers of four planes on September 11, 2001 play an important role in the anthrax story and will be mentioned frequently. To avoid repeated use of the word “alleged” or annoyingly frequent scare quotes (“the hijackers’” I will capitalize the term: Hijackers.

This to me is an odd way to downplay the reality that the alleged hijackers never boarded any of the planes, as Elias Davidsson painstakingly proves in his book Hijacking America’s Mind on 9/11: Counterfeiting Evidence.

In other words, for a book such as The 2001 Anthrax Deception: The Case for a Domestic Conspiracy to be as effective a counterforce against deception as it can be, the language bombs of the perpetrators must be defused before they can explode. Each. And. Every. One. Even within the pages of a dissenting academic activist’s book such as MacQueen’s.

The tools of word bomb dismantling include, besides a robust disquisition on the power of language, a plethora of synonyms such as alleged, supposed, claimed, asserted, made out to be, so-called, professed, purported, ostensible, putative, unproven, charged, declared, stated, contended, argued, maintained – and this is not a complete list.

Deployment of the many synonyms available plus quote marks would not, to me, be “annoyingly frequent” but rather refreshingly combative. They necessarily and importantly must be repeated. This is standard operating procedure required when de-fusing word bombs.

Notwithstanding my rant about language use, I fervently hope for more books from Graeme MacQueen. The world needs his assiduous research skills, his courageous tackling of the really big deceptions, his astute analyses and his clear thinking and writing. (Obviously, I don’t mean to attack him.

[1] From Clarity Press, Inc., Ste. 469, 3277 Roswell Rd. NE, Atlanta GA USA 30305, www.claritypress.com. Available in paper and as an e-book 978-0-9860731-3-7

[2] Graeme MacQueen makes a substantial contribution in Adnan Zuberi’s superb 2013 documentary 9/11 in the Academic Community. McQueen is the first person to be seen in a preview of the doc. The preview runs 3:15 and can be found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFzVKDdCa6s

November 28, 2014 Posted by aletho | Book Review, Deception, False Flag Terrorism, Timeless or most popular | 9/11, United States | Leave a comment

Save the Children from Tony Blair and Others Like Him

By Preeti Kaur | teleSUR | November 27, 2014

The reason why Tony Blair can be given a global legacy award, despite his crimes, comes down to the level of awareness of the British public.

Save the Children gave Tony Blair, a man who contributed massively to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis during the decade he was the UK Prime Minister, a “global legacy award.” How can this charity get away with doing something so monstrous?

The reason is simple. The vast majority of the UK public do not have a clue about the consequences of the war Blair and his superiors in the USA launched in 2003. As of May 2013, a professionally done poll found that 59% of the UK public believed fewer than 10,000 Iraqis died as consequence of the war. The UK media buried this ComRes poll (they routinely mention other polls done by ComRes) as effectively as they buried the death toll in Iraq. Very similar polls done years earlier in the USA found an equivalent level of ignorance. Little wonder that Save the Children can openly honor a mass murderer. Scientific studies support estimates of 500,000 – 1 million Iraqi deaths as a result of the war Blair played such a key role in bringing about. Only 6% of the respondents in the ComRes poll estimated more than 500,000 Iraqi deaths.

Before the illegal war was launched in 2003, US/UK policy was one of crippling sanctions (enforced by the UN) combined with airstrikes. Two of the UN officials (Denis Halliday and Hans Von Sponeck) who ran the oil-for-food program in Iraq resigned in disgust at the barbarism of policies they claimed (citing UNICEF statistics) killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children during the 1990s.

The best available evidence shows that US/UK actions over the past 24 years have killed between 1-2 million Iraqis, hundreds of thousands of them children. Blair aggressively backed the war and the sanctions during the decade he was in power. It’s therefore beyond any reasonable doubt that hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children were killed, orphaned or otherwise traumatized for life because of crimes he perpetrated. The UK public just doesn’t know about it. Even Russell Brand, in what is, overall, quite a fine book (“Revolution”), neglected to mention the human cost of war in Iraq in Chapter 17 where he devotes attention to the fraudulent pretexts for it.

The InterventionsWatch blog points to other factors that explain Save the Children’s award for Blair:

“…their Chief Executive is a fellow named Justin Forsyth. According to his biography on the Save The Children website, Forsyth was in 2004:

. . . recruited to Number 10 by Tony Blair where he led efforts on poverty and climate change . . . He was to stay on under Gordon Brown, becoming his Strategic Communications and Campaigns Director.”

The blog also points out that in 2013 the wife of the current UK Prime Minster was appointed Save the Children’s Ambassador to Syria – where the UK continues to help fuel the civil war by arming and funding rebels.

Some may argue that charities cannot afford to denounce people in high places. But what Save the Children is doing by honoring Blair (not simply keeping quiet about him) is enthusiastically contributing to a propaganda system that keeps millions of the West’s victims invisible. Save the Children is helping to ensure that Blair’s successors are well positioned to do similar damage to innocent people around the world.

Timothy Schwartz, who has decades of experience working with charities in Haiti, commented on the work of Save the Children and other prominent NGOs, “I find myself in a kind of argument with a woman who works for Save the Children. It was completely unexpected. I’m trying to be one of the guys, so to speak, so I’m blabbing on about a program for children and how it’s based on misinformation. It turns out that the woman I’m talking to ran the program. But, instead of continuing to defend the program she says something that completely threw me for a loop, she says, ‘it’s not our fault. It’s the donors fault. They keep giving money without verifying what’s really going on. Of course people are going to keep coming up with stories… they create the opportunity… they create the problem.” At some point she finishes saying that, ‘donors are paying to feel good and so they get what they paid for.’ The point is disturbing but rather profound. She was saying that NGOs give a service by taking money from donors and assuring them that it is well spent; the service is that the donor feels good.”

That’s worth repeating. The key service charities must provide to keep going is to make their donors feel good. That’s horrible enough, but it gets worse when you consider who their key donors are. In the USA, studies have shown that the poorest 20% of the population gives about 4% of their meager incomes to charities while the richest 20% give only about 2% of their huge incomes. However, the richest 20% today have roughly sixteen times more income than the poorest 20%. That means charities get roughly eight times more money from the richest 20% despite that group’s lack of generosity. None of the middle income groups gave more than 3% of their incomes to charities in the study I cited above which is from 2007. That means the richest 20% give more money to charities than the poorest 60% of the population. See the table below.

The worse inequality gets, the more heavily charities depend on the rich; the more charities must make elite donors feel good about themselves and also feel good about war criminals like Tony Blair who stuff their pockets.

November 28, 2014 Posted by aletho | Deception, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | UK | Leave a comment

Lebanon’s war on ‘hashish’ indistinguishable from war on the poor

A cannabis farmer in the Bekaa Valley prays as Lebanese army men come to destroy his harvest. Al-Akhbar/Rameh Hamieh

By Amer Mohsen | Al-Akhbar | November 27, 2014

The cultivation of cannabis is popular in specific areas that have special characteristics like high altitude and sunlight, similar to the Bekaa region. This differential feature of Lebanon, which can revive the Lebanese countryside, has been overcome by the alternative agricultural policies required from abroad. The health risks associated with the use of cannabis are minimal compared to alcohol and tobacco, and compared with the results of the war on cannabis cultivation which only affects the poor segments of society.

A few years ago, Lebanese organizations, including left-wing movements, launched a media campaign warning against cannabis and the risk of its spread among the youth. The intention behind the campaign was noble, but it had several flaws: The first is related to the medical claims that accompanied the campaign – which are similar to the propaganda that was disseminated in America during the forties to scare people away from marijuana – saying that marijuana drives people crazy, makes them jump out of windows, and causes delinquency and crime. The main problem was in the “central-Beiruti” mentality, which led left-wing movements to claim their devotion to the grievances of the poor and the marginalized, and thus sought to combat and criminalize hashish rather than demand its legalization and lifting the ban on its cultivation.

The issue is very clear. There is a disregard – even contempt – by urban activists for the fates of hundreds of thousands of peasants in their country. They support policies and laws that have impoverished large parts of the Lebanese countryside, either because of their focus on “more important” issues (such as the rejection of the [parliamentary] extension and the “revolt against the sectarian system”), or because of a bourgeois view aimed at preserving morality and normalcy. There is no harm in adopting or defending such a view, but not when it is at the expense of the most vulnerable and disadvantaged segments of society. To date, there are no adequate studies on the social and economic deterioration that affected the villages of Bekaa and Hermel after the prohibition of cannabis cultivation in the nineties, and others on the prosperity witnessed in the region and the local development that resulted from it, while the rest of the country – paradoxically – was experiencing the worst stages of the civil war, and so the government left the farmers alone.

From the history of cannabis

In his book about the history of cannabis, Martin Booth (who also published a well-known book about opium) says that the cannabis is one of the oldest plantations that spread in human societies. He refers to one of the three major species of cannabis today, the “cannabis sativa,” whose name in Latin means “cultivated hemp” because it reached us in its hybrid version, which means that Neanderthals cultivated and hybridized it for thousands of years until the original “wild” seed has been lost and we now have the agriculturally-improved species.

The cultivation of cannabis was widespread not only because of its narcotic effect. Archeological excavations have shown that the consumption of cannabis was also part of religious rituals, and that the plant was an economic asset and resource used in the manufacturing of cloth, linen, ropes, and oils. A conspiracy theory popular among supporters of marijuana in the United States claims that the ban on cannabis cultivation is linked to influential circles in the timber industry, who sought to exclude cannabis as a competitive resource in the paper-manufacturing industry.

We also find many references to hashish and cannabis in Arab and Islamic history, which show its spread and recreational use in our countries through the eras, such as in the writings of chronicler Abdel Rahman al-Jabarti (who talked about his meeting with a mosque orator in Cairo, who claimed to be “under the effect of hashish” to justify his lack of focus during the sermon), as well as in the fatwas of Ibn Taymiyyah, where “Sheikh al-Islam” discussed the topic of hashish and ended up outlawing most of its uses. Based on his jurisprudential arguments, it appears that the people at the time used to consume cannabis either through melting it in tea, eating it directly, or cooking it with food (since the United States had not been discovered yet, and tobacco had not yet reached the ancient world). However, the prolonged explanation provided by Ibn Taymiyyah on the topic and his detailed justification of the prohibition show that the scholars of his day did not have a clear or decisive stance on the matter.

Lebanon and the differential feature

To be able to understand the secret behind the special relationship between Lebanon and hashish, and the differential feature that characterizes the Bekaa Valley and its surrounding hills in this regard, we have to know a few basics about the cultivation of this plant. According to Martin Booth, the “quality” of the hashish – i.e., the concentration of the principal psychoactive constituent Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in the female plants – is directly linked to two factors: altitude and sunlight. Cannabis needs large amounts of solar radiation during the maturity period so the plant can grow rapidly, and the growth of its genital parts, which contain the active substance, needs infrared (IR) radiation, whose concentration in the sun increases with altitude.

In other words, high-quality cannabis needs high-altitude mountainous areas, which are, at the same time, hot and exposed to the burning sun during the summer, which is rare in the world. For this reason, the cultivation of cannabis is prominent in specific areas that combine the characteristics of altitude and sunlight, like the Atlas Mountains in Morocco, the hills of Afghanistan … and the Lebanese Bekaa. This is a “geographic gift” that cannot be cloned or bought with money. It is limited to a few regions in the world – Booth says that the best and most expensive types of hashish are grown in India, on the foothills of the Himalayas and over-3,000-meter heights, and due to their rarity are preserved in special leather bags. These qualities have made Lebanon’s Bekaa and Hermel a center for cannabis cultivation since ancient times.

The charming town of Yamuna, which lies in a small internal valley in the highlands of Lebanon’s western mountain range, acquired its “market” reputation in the production of cannabis not because of its special soil, or the magic touch of al-Sharif. It is simply due to its high altitude in the barren areas and abundant water sources, which allows the cultivation of cannabis in perfect conditions. If the Hermel heights – which are rain fed areas today – were covered by irrigation projects – as it was supposed to be decades ago – the whole area would have been like Yamuna.

Lebanon’s gold

In the past two decades, new varieties of marijuana were bred in the West, and plantation techniques were developed in closed spaces under controlled lighting and temperature conditions to produce crops in which the concentration of the psychoactive constituent exceeds any product grown in nature.

However, this pattern of agriculture (which supplies the medical and commercial marijuana market in the West) requires the consumption of large amounts of energy for each plant separately. It is also less competitive – in the commercial sense – compared with lands that are, by nature, ideal for the cultivation of cannabis, and have been inherited by farmers over long years. Millions of meters of these lands can be cultivated at a low cost, and by relying solely on the generosity of the sun and the sky.

From here, we conclude that any kind of agriculture is – naturally – ideal for the marginal areas of Lebanon, and some have real differential features on a global level. A quick look at the labor force working in Lebanon, the price of land, and state policies is enough to understand that Lebanon’s competitive commodity – which will eliminate rural poverty and create development in rural areas – is most likely not potatoes or wheat. In addition, a main characteristic of agricultural property in eastern Lebanon is that [owned lands] are relatively small and fragmented. Also, most farmers own their land, which prevents the emergence of feudal and semi-feudal cartels (as in Afghanistan and South America), or huge agricultural companies that would exploit the peasants as laborers and monopolize profits for the benefit of major landowners. A significant part of proceeds from the cultivation of “contraband” plants in the Bekaa traditionally went to farmers.

This question should be raised, while the country that pressured and forced Lebanon to ban the cultivation of cannabis – the United States – has legalized the use of hashish in several states. The governments of the West no longer have a moral or legal excuse to impose such policies on our country. The general direction in the West is heading toward the legalization of cannabis derivatives, or at least not criminalizing it and prosecuting its users. But Lebanon is required to arrest its farmers who are seeking to avoid hunger and migration.

War on the poor

One of the reasons that triggered the wave of marijuana legalization in the West, even for recreational use, is the absence of a convincing medical argument – i.e. a threat to “public safety” – to justify the prohibition of hashish while allowing the sale of other “drugs” like alcohol and tobacco, which are far more dangerous and harmful than marijuana. As Professor As`ad AbuKhalil once wrote, if whiskey was produced by the countries of the South, while hashish was monopolized by the West, wine would be forbidden and frowned upon in Lebanon while ads by hashish companies would have filled the streets.

Science has become clear in this regard. Serious proven tests have shown that the consumption of cannabis may have side effects and can be dangerous for people who suffer from certain neurological problems. Also, heavy consumption can cause addiction and dependency in one out of 10 cases. However, these risks are insignificant compared with those of alcohol and tobacco, or even stress. Tobacco combustion may be the most dangerous thing in a “marijuana cigarette.” During the writing of this article, I consulted with a professor and researcher of Lebanese origin at Harvard Medical School, who graciously provided me with scientific studies and summaries. He expressed his opposition to the criminalization of cannabis cultivation, adding that its advantages in medical use are “very real,” and that the greatest harm results from the war on cultivation, as evidenced by the American experience, since it mainly affects – in Lebanon, as in America – the poorer classes, which do not have a voice in society.

This is one of the issues that will not be of concern to civil society organizations, and will not receive financing from European governments and institutions. However – unlike a lot of campaigns created by these organizations to justify their existence – it is achievable and can change – in the actual direct sense – many people’s lives.

It is possible to imagine a different future for large areas in Lebanon that are marginalized and disadvantaged today, in which farmers will be able to live in dignity and prosperity in their areas, and land and production will have real value.

The people living on the coast may migrate to internal areas, this time, in search of work and opportunities.

November 27, 2014 Posted by aletho | Economics, Timeless or most popular | Afghanistan, Bekaa, Human rights, Latin America, Lebanon, Morocco, United States | Leave a comment

Neil Sander – Diamonds Are For Suckers

November 27, 2014 Posted by aletho | Deception, Timeless or most popular, Video | Leave a comment

US helping Israel boycott Geneva summit on occupied territories – diplomatic sources

RT | November 27, 2014

Switzerland is under diplomatic pressure from Israel, the US, Canada and Australia, which are trying to prevent an international conference in Geneva from taking place in mid-December on Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories, Haaretz reports.

Delegations from nearly 200 countries are expected to head to Geneva to discuss the situation in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem. Yet, according to Haaretz, Israeli and Western diplomats are ready to go for broke to prevent the gathering from taking place.

Switzerland, as the main sponsor of the summit, is bearing the brunt of diplomatic pressure from all sides.

Israeli authorities told the media outlet that Palestinians and Arab states are also pressing Swiss officials to send out letters of invitation to the conference within a matter of days, the Israeli daily reported on Wednesday.

It was in early April when Israel announced plans of constructing 700 new houses in occupied East Jerusalem, a move that pushed Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to ask 15 international conventions to join them in the name of the Palestinian state.

One of those was the Fourth Geneva Convention (signed 1949, came into force 1950), which specifically addresses protection of civilians in war zones and territories under military occupation.

Washington finally accepted that its efforts to extend peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians have been torpedoed. Several weeks later, Palestinians and the Arab League sent an official request to Switzerland to hold an international conference of the Fourth Geneva Convention signatory states on the issues of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, together with the damage caused by Israel’s armed forces to civilians in Gaza.

The last time the signatories to the Fourth Geneva Convention gathered in regard to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was in 2001, after the outbreak of the second intifada. That conference was boycotted by Israel and the United States.

After that summit there have been four fruitless attempts to gather the Fourth Geneva Convention on the issue of Israeli-Palestinian relations. Even the bloody Israeli military Operation Cast Lead in the Gaza Strip in 2009 failed to raise broad international support for holding such a conference, according to the Swiss Foreign Ministry at the time.

The necessity to call the new conference has been not evident this time, too, so Swiss diplomats asked every Fourth Geneva Convention signatory separately whether the time had come to hold a summit.

What the Swiss diplomats have proposed is a three-hour conference at an ambassadorial level, no discussions and no media coverage except for a final press statement. The conference is set to be focused on implementation of the international humanitarian law in troubled Israeli-Palestinian relations.

“We made it clear we didn’t want a political event or debate club, or a conference that would blame or criticize one of the sides,” a Swiss diplomat said.

However small the scale of the proposed event is, Israel strongly objected to it. Israeli diplomats reportedly conducted negotiations in Bern and Geneva, trying to persuade Swiss counterparts to call off the initiative and threatening to boycott it anyway.

“They told us that holding the conference would help a one-sided Palestinian move intended to make Israel look bad and attack it in an international forum,” the Swiss diplomat said.

The US and Canada told Switzerland they are going to boycott the conference, too.

“We strongly oppose the convening of the High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Conventions and have made our opposition unmistakably clear,” a spokesman for the US State Department, Edgar Vasquez, told Haaretz.

It is true that the conference will have no authority to make any binding decisions, yet its work could engender further international criticism of Israel’s settlement policy on the occupied Palestinian territories.

Besides that, once Israeli diplomats received an updated draft of the conference’s proposed contents, they found out that the updated draft text had been phrased in a politicized way, directly naming Israel and going into detail on the issue of West Bank settlements.

Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman has reportedly been ringing colleagues around the globe, attempting to talk them into declaring a boycott to the conference. Part of this work has been delegated to Israeli ambassadors worldwide.

With all due support on the part of the US, Canada and Australia, these efforts are likely to be in vain, and the Swiss diplomacy is decisive to go on with the plan and announce the conference officially soon.

The Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits harming those uninvolved in a conflict, be they civilians, wounded soldiers or POWs, as well as obliging the occupying side to maintain human rights and decent living conditions of an occupied civilian population.

Israel joined the convention, but has never ratified it legislatively. The Israeli government regards the West Bank and East Jerusalem as ‘disputed’, not occupied, areas, therefore considering Israeli settlements as not violating the treaty.

November 27, 2014 Posted by aletho | Timeless or most popular, War Crimes, Wars for Israel | Australia, Canada, History, Human rights, Israel, Palestine, Palestinian statehood, Switzerland, United States, USA, Zionism | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries Next Entries »

BRITAIN’S WARNING: PREPARE FOR WAR

Aletho News Videos

or go to

Aletho News Archives – Video-Images

From the Archive

How Ukraine Tortured and Slaughtered Donbass

By Kit Klarenberg | Al Mayadeen | July 11, 2024

Almost immediately after the proxy war erupted, ISIS-tier footage of the torture and murder of Russians in Ukrainian custody emerged.

On July 6th, the New York Times published an astonishing investigation: In Ukraine, Killings of Surrendering Russians Divide an American-Led Unit. The article documents in grim detail how Chosen Company, an international volunteer battalion for Kiev, routinely executes Russian prisoners of war. It is the very first mainstream admission that this practice – a brazen breach of the Geneva Conventions, and a grave war crime – is widespread among Ukraine’s fighters, both foreign and homegrown. … continue

Blog Roll

Subscribe to Aletho News

Enter your email address to receive new posts by email.

Email Address:

Join 2,366 other subscribers
Visits Since December 2009
- 7,780,885 hits
Looking for something?

Search for:
Archives
Archives
Calendar

October 2026

M T W T F S S

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8 9 10 11

12 13 14 15 16 17 18

19 20 21 22 23 24 25

26 27 28 29 30 31

« Sep
Categories

Aletho News Civil Liberties Corruption Deception Economics Environmentalism Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism Fake News False Flag Terrorism Full Spectrum Dominance Illegal Occupation Mainstream Media, Warmongering Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity Militarism Progressive Hypocrite Russophobia Science and Pseudo-Science Solidarity and Activism Subjugation - Torture Supremacism, Social Darwinism Timeless or most popular Video War Crimes Wars for Israel
Tags
Afghanistan Africa AIPAC al-Qaeda Australia BBC Benjamin Netanyahu Brazil Canada CDC Central Intelligence Agency China CIA CNN Covid-19 COVID-19 Vaccine Donald Trump Egypt European Union Facebook FBI FDA France Gaza Germany Google Hamas Hebron Hezbollah Hillary Clinton Human rights Hungary India Iran Iraq ISIS Israel Israeli settlement Japan Jerusalem Joe Biden Korea Latin America Lebanon Libya Middle East National Security Agency NATO New York Times North Korea NSA Obama Pakistan Palestine Poland Qatar Russia Sanctions against Iran Saudi Arabia Syria The Guardian Turkiye Twitter UAE UK Ukraine United Nations United States USA Venezuela Washington Post West Bank WHO Yemen Zionism

October 2026
M	T	W	T	F	S	S
	1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25
26	27	28	29	30	31

Aletho News
If Americans Knew
No Tricks Zone
Contact:

atheonews (at) gmail.com
Disclaimer

This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.

This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.

Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.

Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.

The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.

The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.

Fair Use

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

DMCA Contact

This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.

If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.

We will respond and take necessary action immediately.

If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.

All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Share this:

People need to know just how absurd the official story of the Shanksville “crash” is

A cannabis farmer in the Bekaa Valley prays as Lebanese army men come to destroy his harvest. Al-Akhbar/Rameh Hamieh

Featured Video

From the Archive

By Kit Klarenberg | Al Mayadeen | July 11, 2024

Blog Roll

Subscribe to Aletho News

Visits Since December 2009

Looking for something?

Archives

Calendar

Categories

Tags

Contact:

Disclaimer

Site info