Amiram Magid, who resides in Jerusalem at the Israeli Foreign Ministry, has been promising the Caribbean states security and intelligence assistance in return for their votes in the UN General Assembly against recognition of Palestine's sovereignty. Many Caribbean travel officials scoff at Magid's promise of an influx of money-tossing Israeli tourists in return for pro-Israel UN votes by the Caribbean nations
Informed Caribbean sources have reported to WMR that Israel's Foreign Ministry personnel, including the Israeli non-resident ambassador to Guyana, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, Barbados, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, and St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Amiram Magid, who resides in Jerusalem at the Israeli Foreign Ministry, has been promising the Caribbean states security and intelligence assistance in return for their votes in the UN General Assembly against recognition of Palestine's sovereignty. Many Caribbean travel officials scoff at Magid's promise of an influx of money-tossing Israeli tourists in return for pro-Israel UN votes by the Caribbean nations. Israelis are known by many Caribbean hotel owners as among the stingiest and cheapest tourists who have vacationed in the islands. Hotel owners often complain that Israeli tourists damage rooms, steal room fixtures, and leave the islands without fully paying their bills.
Magid is clearly trying to shore up the Caribbean states' votes against Palestine at this September's General Assembly meeting. What is hypocritical in the Israeli approach to the small Caribbean islands is that Israel is promising Israeli security assistance to fight organized crime, largely stemming from Colombian drug cartels that are allied with Russo-Israeli mafia syndicates. The latter's ranks include and have included a number of veterans of the Israeli Defense Force, Shin Bet, and Mossad, including the notorious Yair Klein, aka Jair Klein, expelled from Russia after pressure was exerted on Moscow by the European Court of Human Rights. Klein is now living in Israel.
Klein's extradition to Colombia has been requested by Bogota for his activities in training and arming the Colombian drug cartels of Pablo Escobar and Gonzalo Rodriguez Gacha and right-wing paramilitary militias against the progressive forces of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC).
Monday, July 18, 2011
Another take on Libya hubris for China
Western self-regard was on full display in a United States headline describing the Libya Contact Group confab in Istanbul over the weekend. It read: World leaders open Libya talks in Turkey.
China and Russia recognize the LCG as an effort by the proponents of military intervention in Libya to take the political bit in their teeth as well, in order to keep any further Libya discussions out of the UN Security Council where China and Russia - which were spectacularly burned by Resolution 1973 - would undoubtedly wield their veto power to the fullest to sidetrack the NATO/GCC-led campaign.
China has been relatively circumspect in its criticisms of the LCG, politely declining Turkey's invitation to join the Istanbul meeting - and thereby adding a further veneer of political legitimacy to the exercise - with the statement that it would skip the meeting "because the function and method of operation of this contact group need further study".
The Russians have been much more blunt. In May, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov declared that it was the LCG, and not Muammar Gaddafi, that had a legitimacy problem:
China and Russia recognize the LCG as an effort by the proponents of military intervention in Libya to take the political bit in their teeth as well, in order to keep any further Libya discussions out of the UN Security Council where China and Russia - which were spectacularly burned by Resolution 1973 - would undoubtedly wield their veto power to the fullest to sidetrack the NATO/GCC-led campaign.
China has been relatively circumspect in its criticisms of the LCG, politely declining Turkey's invitation to join the Istanbul meeting - and thereby adding a further veneer of political legitimacy to the exercise - with the statement that it would skip the meeting "because the function and method of operation of this contact group need further study".
The Russians have been much more blunt. In May, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov declared that it was the LCG, and not Muammar Gaddafi, that had a legitimacy problem:
Saturday, July 16, 2011
George Soros, Feds Seize Control of America’s Flooded Farmland
Amid the chaotic weather systems thus far in 2011, the federal government has twisted and exacerbated a natural catastrophe to victimize
American farming families, while subsequently staging a land grab to further the UN’s Agenda 21 protocols, all at once.
When asked if the government would be compensating them for losses, Ms. Barnhardt told this reporter: “Of course not. The feds are calling it an act of God.” Ms. Barnhardt also makes the stunning connection of George
Soros and a company he is investing in called Ospraie Capital Management. It seems Ospraie is also buying farmland, and Soros’s investments have netted him control of “the third-largest grain company in the U.S., with 280 million bushels of storage capacity.”
The liberal Center for American Progress receives large donations from Soros. Plus, its former executive vice president for policy, Melody Barnes, was recently named to the White House Rural Council.
According to a popular news website, The Blaze, this council “makes recommendations to the president on streamlining and leveraging federal investments in rural areas to increase the impact of federal dollars and create economic opportunities to improve the quality of life in rural America.” The group’s staffers also “coordinate federal efforts directed toward the growth and development of geographic regions that encompass both urban and rural areas” which, The Blaze states, “sounds very similar to the language found in the UN plan for sustainable cities known as Agenda 21.”
American farming families, while subsequently staging a land grab to further the UN’s Agenda 21 protocols, all at once.
When asked if the government would be compensating them for losses, Ms. Barnhardt told this reporter: “Of course not. The feds are calling it an act of God.” Ms. Barnhardt also makes the stunning connection of George
Soros and a company he is investing in called Ospraie Capital Management. It seems Ospraie is also buying farmland, and Soros’s investments have netted him control of “the third-largest grain company in the U.S., with 280 million bushels of storage capacity.”
The liberal Center for American Progress receives large donations from Soros. Plus, its former executive vice president for policy, Melody Barnes, was recently named to the White House Rural Council.
According to a popular news website, The Blaze, this council “makes recommendations to the president on streamlining and leveraging federal investments in rural areas to increase the impact of federal dollars and create economic opportunities to improve the quality of life in rural America.” The group’s staffers also “coordinate federal efforts directed toward the growth and development of geographic regions that encompass both urban and rural areas” which, The Blaze states, “sounds very similar to the language found in the UN plan for sustainable cities known as Agenda 21.”
Former CIA Official: Israel Will Bomb Iran in September
A longtime CIA officer who spent 21 years in the Middle East is predicting that Israel will bomb Iran this fall, dragging the United States into another major war and endangering U.S. military and civilian personnel (and other interests) throughout the Middle East and beyond.
Robert Baer made his prediction on the provocative KPFK Los Angeles show Background Briefing, hosted by Ian Masters.
Baer has had a storied career, including a stint in Iraq in the 1990s where he organized opposition to Saddam Hussein. (He was recalled after being accused of trying to organize Saddam's assassination). Upon his retirement, he received a top decoration for meritorious service. Incidentally, George Clooney won an Oscar for playing a character based on Baer in the film Syriana (Baer also wrote the book).
Baer didn't name sources for his prediction of an Israeli attack, but the few he did cite are all Israeli security figures who have publically warned that Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak are hell-bent on war.
Robert Baer made his prediction on the provocative KPFK Los Angeles show Background Briefing, hosted by Ian Masters.
Baer has had a storied career, including a stint in Iraq in the 1990s where he organized opposition to Saddam Hussein. (He was recalled after being accused of trying to organize Saddam's assassination). Upon his retirement, he received a top decoration for meritorious service. Incidentally, George Clooney won an Oscar for playing a character based on Baer in the film Syriana (Baer also wrote the book).
Baer didn't name sources for his prediction of an Israeli attack, but the few he did cite are all Israeli security figures who have publically warned that Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak are hell-bent on war.
Why Banks Aren't Lending: The Silent Liquidity Squeeze
Local Business Lending Depends on Ready Access to Liquidity
Without access to the interbank lending market, local banks are reluctant to extend business credit lines. The reason was explained by economist Ronald McKinnon in a Wall Street Journal article in May:
Banks with good retail lending opportunities typically lend by opening credit lines to nonbank customers. But these credit lines are open-ended in the sense that the commercial borrower can choose when - and by how much - he will actually draw on his credit line. This creates uncertainty for the bank in not knowing what its future cash positions will be. An illiquid bank could be in trouble if its customers simultaneously decided to draw down their credit lines.
If the retail bank has easy access to the wholesale interbank market, its liquidity is much improved. To cover unexpected liquidity shortfalls, it can borrow from banks with excess reserves with little or no credit checks. But if the prevailing interbank lending rate is close to zero (as it is now), then large banks with surplus reserves become loath to part with them for a derisory yield. And smaller banks, which collectively are the biggest lenders to SMEs [small and medium-sized enterprises], cannot easily bid for funds at an interest rate significantly above the prevailing interbank rate without inadvertently signaling that they might be in trouble. Indeed, counterparty risk in smaller banks remains substantial as almost 50 have failed so far this year.
The local banks could turn to the Fed's discount window for loans, but that, too, could signal that the banks were in trouble; and for weak banks, the Fed's discount window may be closed. Further, the discount rate is triple the Fed funds rate.
Without access to the interbank lending market, local banks are reluctant to extend business credit lines. The reason was explained by economist Ronald McKinnon in a Wall Street Journal article in May:
Banks with good retail lending opportunities typically lend by opening credit lines to nonbank customers. But these credit lines are open-ended in the sense that the commercial borrower can choose when - and by how much - he will actually draw on his credit line. This creates uncertainty for the bank in not knowing what its future cash positions will be. An illiquid bank could be in trouble if its customers simultaneously decided to draw down their credit lines.
If the retail bank has easy access to the wholesale interbank market, its liquidity is much improved. To cover unexpected liquidity shortfalls, it can borrow from banks with excess reserves with little or no credit checks. But if the prevailing interbank lending rate is close to zero (as it is now), then large banks with surplus reserves become loath to part with them for a derisory yield. And smaller banks, which collectively are the biggest lenders to SMEs [small and medium-sized enterprises], cannot easily bid for funds at an interest rate significantly above the prevailing interbank rate without inadvertently signaling that they might be in trouble. Indeed, counterparty risk in smaller banks remains substantial as almost 50 have failed so far this year.
The local banks could turn to the Fed's discount window for loans, but that, too, could signal that the banks were in trouble; and for weak banks, the Fed's discount window may be closed. Further, the discount rate is triple the Fed funds rate.
Friday, July 15, 2011
"Isolationism" Now Center Stage in GOP Tent? Oh My!
It seems strange sometimes, the things that trouble Senator John McCain. Take the NATO war on Libya, for example, in which the United States is a participant, if not the outright leader.
Libya has, so far as is generally known, committed no recent offense against the United States or our NATO allies, nor threatened to do so. The African nation poses no threat to America and her interests abroad, nor has it made any assault on our nation’s honor. Yet President Barack Obama has waged an air war against Libya without any authorization by Congress, let alone a declaration of war, which power the Constitution assigns to Congress. He has gone past the time allotted by the 1973 War Powers Act for either obtaining the support of Congress or ceasing the military action.
Robert Taft died in 1953, and he took Old Guard conservatism to the grave with him. The Republicanism that survived during the Eisenhower years and after would not be called “isolationist.” Eisenhower himself mainly did the bidding of the Eastern establishment internationalists who got him the nomination at a fiercely divided Republican National Convention and won him the election over fellow global interventionist Adlai Stevenson. Richard Nixon, mentored and promoted by former New York Governor and two-time presidential loser Tom Dewey, was as thorough-going an internationalist as his Democratic opponent for President in 1960, Sen. John F. Kennedy. And while critics called Sen. Barry Goldwater, the 1964 GOP presidential candidate, a great many things, none accused him of being isolationist.
But because Ron Paul and other Republicans are moving the Republican Party once again in the direction of non-interventionism and a growing number of Americans see no rhyme or reason to be bombing Libya and want President Obama to obey the War Powers Act and the Constitution of the United States, John McCain is once again warning of the dangers of isolationism. In truth, isolationists have never been any more prevalent in the United States than the Viet Cong John McCain fought in Southeast Asia were on the streets of New York and Los Angeles. We must not be complacent about our national security. But we don’t need Sen. John Quixote of Arizona tilting at the windmills of “isolationism” he discovered with great alarm at a candidates forum in New Hampshire.
Libya has, so far as is generally known, committed no recent offense against the United States or our NATO allies, nor threatened to do so. The African nation poses no threat to America and her interests abroad, nor has it made any assault on our nation’s honor. Yet President Barack Obama has waged an air war against Libya without any authorization by Congress, let alone a declaration of war, which power the Constitution assigns to Congress. He has gone past the time allotted by the 1973 War Powers Act for either obtaining the support of Congress or ceasing the military action.
Robert Taft died in 1953, and he took Old Guard conservatism to the grave with him. The Republicanism that survived during the Eisenhower years and after would not be called “isolationist.” Eisenhower himself mainly did the bidding of the Eastern establishment internationalists who got him the nomination at a fiercely divided Republican National Convention and won him the election over fellow global interventionist Adlai Stevenson. Richard Nixon, mentored and promoted by former New York Governor and two-time presidential loser Tom Dewey, was as thorough-going an internationalist as his Democratic opponent for President in 1960, Sen. John F. Kennedy. And while critics called Sen. Barry Goldwater, the 1964 GOP presidential candidate, a great many things, none accused him of being isolationist.
But because Ron Paul and other Republicans are moving the Republican Party once again in the direction of non-interventionism and a growing number of Americans see no rhyme or reason to be bombing Libya and want President Obama to obey the War Powers Act and the Constitution of the United States, John McCain is once again warning of the dangers of isolationism. In truth, isolationists have never been any more prevalent in the United States than the Viet Cong John McCain fought in Southeast Asia were on the streets of New York and Los Angeles. We must not be complacent about our national security. But we don’t need Sen. John Quixote of Arizona tilting at the windmills of “isolationism” he discovered with great alarm at a candidates forum in New Hampshire.
The Banksters and American Foreign Policy
How did this happen? There are two versions of this little immorality tale, one coming from the "left" and the other from the "right" (the scare-quotes are there for a reason, which I’ll get to in a moment or two).
The "left" version goes something like this:
The evil capitalists, in league with their bought-and-paid for cronies in government, destroyed and looted the economy until there was nothing left to steal. Then, when their grasping hands had reached the very bottom of the treasure chest, they dialed 911 and the emergency team (otherwise known as the US Congress) came to their rescue, doling out trillions to the looters and leaving the rest of America to pay the bill.
The "right" version goes something like the following:
Politically connected Wall Streeters, in league with their bought-and-paid-for cronies in government, destroyed and looted the economy until there was nothing left to steal. Then, when their grasping hands had reached the very bottom of the treasure chest, they dialed BIG-GOV-HELP and the feds showed up with the cash.
The first thing one notices about these two analyses, taken side by side, is their similarity: yes, the "left" blames the free market, and the "right" blames Big Government, but when you get past the blame game their descriptions of what actually happened look like veritable twins. And as much as I agree with the "right" about their proposed solution – a radical cut in government spending – it is the "left" that has the most accurate analysis of who’s to blame.
The "left" version goes something like this:
The evil capitalists, in league with their bought-and-paid for cronies in government, destroyed and looted the economy until there was nothing left to steal. Then, when their grasping hands had reached the very bottom of the treasure chest, they dialed 911 and the emergency team (otherwise known as the US Congress) came to their rescue, doling out trillions to the looters and leaving the rest of America to pay the bill.
The "right" version goes something like the following:
Politically connected Wall Streeters, in league with their bought-and-paid-for cronies in government, destroyed and looted the economy until there was nothing left to steal. Then, when their grasping hands had reached the very bottom of the treasure chest, they dialed BIG-GOV-HELP and the feds showed up with the cash.
The first thing one notices about these two analyses, taken side by side, is their similarity: yes, the "left" blames the free market, and the "right" blames Big Government, but when you get past the blame game their descriptions of what actually happened look like veritable twins. And as much as I agree with the "right" about their proposed solution – a radical cut in government spending – it is the "left" that has the most accurate analysis of who’s to blame.
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Police Intelligence Analyst Fired For Blowing Whistle On False Flag Terror
A British police intelligence analyst who was asked to create a strategic assessment concerning terror threats was fired when he told his superiors that the threat of an “internal tyranny” was far greater than that of Islamic terrorism, after discovering that both 7/7 and 9/11 were false flag attacks.
Tony Farrell, who has a university degree in statistics, was employed for 12 years as a ‘Police Intelligence Analyst’ with South Yorkshire Police. His job was to provide a yearly ‘Strategic Threat Assessment Matrix’ to enable police to prioritize resources and activities. Fully expecting Farrell to regurgitate the contention that Muslim extremists posed the biggest threat, his bosses were stunned when Farrell instead reported that the 2005 London bombings were staged by British intelligence and that the official story was a “monstrous lie”.
During an hour-long interview with Richard D. Hall which was broadcast nationwide on UK television last week, Farrell revealed how one week before the 5th anniversary of 7/7 in 2010, he began researching information suggesting that the official story behind 9/11 was a total fabrication. Farrell cites the Alex Jones Show as being instrumental in his awakening to this knowledge.
After sharing his concerns with the resident police church minister, it was suggested to Farrell that he also investigate the July 2005 London bombings.
“Something he had not suspected ‘in his wildest dreams’ then started to unfold,” writes Nick Kollerstrom. “After reading much of the available but publicly-unreported witness statements and other evidence relating to 7/7, Tony found that he could only conclude that the official 7/7 narrative was ‘a monstrous lie.’ Instead of the official ‘suicide bombers’ narrative, which he and all of his colleagues had believed without question, he realized that the weight of evidence strongly points far more towards 7/7 being an event stage-managed by British intelligence than anything else.”
Tony Farrell, who has a university degree in statistics, was employed for 12 years as a ‘Police Intelligence Analyst’ with South Yorkshire Police. His job was to provide a yearly ‘Strategic Threat Assessment Matrix’ to enable police to prioritize resources and activities. Fully expecting Farrell to regurgitate the contention that Muslim extremists posed the biggest threat, his bosses were stunned when Farrell instead reported that the 2005 London bombings were staged by British intelligence and that the official story was a “monstrous lie”.
During an hour-long interview with Richard D. Hall which was broadcast nationwide on UK television last week, Farrell revealed how one week before the 5th anniversary of 7/7 in 2010, he began researching information suggesting that the official story behind 9/11 was a total fabrication. Farrell cites the Alex Jones Show as being instrumental in his awakening to this knowledge.
After sharing his concerns with the resident police church minister, it was suggested to Farrell that he also investigate the July 2005 London bombings.
“Something he had not suspected ‘in his wildest dreams’ then started to unfold,” writes Nick Kollerstrom. “After reading much of the available but publicly-unreported witness statements and other evidence relating to 7/7, Tony found that he could only conclude that the official 7/7 narrative was ‘a monstrous lie.’ Instead of the official ‘suicide bombers’ narrative, which he and all of his colleagues had believed without question, he realized that the weight of evidence strongly points far more towards 7/7 being an event stage-managed by British intelligence than anything else.”
CFR to Thailand: Accept US-Stooge or Else
The corporate-funded, corporate-serving unelected arbiters of US domestic and foreign policy at the Council on Foreign Relations have recently written an article titled, "Is Thailand Headed for Another Coup? What Should the United States Do About It?" Considering Thailand is a sovereign nation, the obvious answer as to what the US should do is mind its own business. However CFR shill Joshua Kurlantzick, a "Fellow for Southeast Asia" suggests otherwise.
Kurlantzick first misleads a readership he must regard with utter contempt by stating, "Thailand's voters decisively backed the populist Puea Thai Party," in recent July elections. In reality, of the 74% of Thais that turned out to vote on July 3, only 48% actually cast votes for Peua Thai (PTP). Of all eligible voters, that is a tenuous 35% mandate, hardly what can be called "decisively backed." While Kurlantzick states, "Thaksin, who faces a jail term in Thailand on charges of corruption and has lived in exile since the coup, seems to have had his revenge: His sister, Yingluck, whom he has called “his clone,” runs Puea Thai, and she appears poised to become Thailand's first female prime minister," he utterly fails to point out how Thaksin literally runs the party by proxy from abroad, with the party's slogan being "Thaksin thinks, Peua Thai does."
Kurlantizick, to address Thailand's rejection of a US-backed convicted criminal and his illegitimate proxy-party, suggests that the US should cut its military aid to Thailand as well as applying sanctions that would cut off military transfers. He also suggests that Congress begin subjecting Thailand to the same "scrutiny' applied to other Asian nations. Kurlantzick also suggests that Thailand is drifting toward "civil war" and that "the U.S. must do its part to ensure that this doesn't come to pass."
In reality, Thaksin's proxy party failed to garner support from more than 35% of Thailand's eligible voters. In the past, Thaksin's attempts at triggering violent uprisings yielded only a small group of hardcore supporters willing to commit to such violence, augmented by a paltry 300 armed mercenaries, put down by the Thai military two years consecutively. While PTP will undoubtedly attempt to bring in more arms and spill more blood, and while CFR is clearly signaling the US elitist establishment will throw its full weight behind PTP, recent election results lays bare the true moral and political bankruptcy of Thaksin's proxy movement. Any violence they now commit to, they do so in a climate of complete illegitimacy. With revelations regarding pro-Thaksin, pro-PTP, pro-red shirt propaganda outlet "Prachatai" and their wall-to-wall United States foundation funding, Thais must decide for themselves whether they sort out their own problems inwardly and work pragmatically to improve their nation's future, or invite in the self-serving meddling of the US and their stooge Thaksin Shinwatra via his proxy party PTP.
Kurlantzick first misleads a readership he must regard with utter contempt by stating, "Thailand's voters decisively backed the populist Puea Thai Party," in recent July elections. In reality, of the 74% of Thais that turned out to vote on July 3, only 48% actually cast votes for Peua Thai (PTP). Of all eligible voters, that is a tenuous 35% mandate, hardly what can be called "decisively backed." While Kurlantzick states, "Thaksin, who faces a jail term in Thailand on charges of corruption and has lived in exile since the coup, seems to have had his revenge: His sister, Yingluck, whom he has called “his clone,” runs Puea Thai, and she appears poised to become Thailand's first female prime minister," he utterly fails to point out how Thaksin literally runs the party by proxy from abroad, with the party's slogan being "Thaksin thinks, Peua Thai does."
Kurlantizick, to address Thailand's rejection of a US-backed convicted criminal and his illegitimate proxy-party, suggests that the US should cut its military aid to Thailand as well as applying sanctions that would cut off military transfers. He also suggests that Congress begin subjecting Thailand to the same "scrutiny' applied to other Asian nations. Kurlantzick also suggests that Thailand is drifting toward "civil war" and that "the U.S. must do its part to ensure that this doesn't come to pass."
In reality, Thaksin's proxy party failed to garner support from more than 35% of Thailand's eligible voters. In the past, Thaksin's attempts at triggering violent uprisings yielded only a small group of hardcore supporters willing to commit to such violence, augmented by a paltry 300 armed mercenaries, put down by the Thai military two years consecutively. While PTP will undoubtedly attempt to bring in more arms and spill more blood, and while CFR is clearly signaling the US elitist establishment will throw its full weight behind PTP, recent election results lays bare the true moral and political bankruptcy of Thaksin's proxy movement. Any violence they now commit to, they do so in a climate of complete illegitimacy. With revelations regarding pro-Thaksin, pro-PTP, pro-red shirt propaganda outlet "Prachatai" and their wall-to-wall United States foundation funding, Thais must decide for themselves whether they sort out their own problems inwardly and work pragmatically to improve their nation's future, or invite in the self-serving meddling of the US and their stooge Thaksin Shinwatra via his proxy party PTP.
Why the US won't leave Afghanistan
It all comes back, once again, to Pipelineistan - and one of its outstanding chimeras; the Turkmenistan/Afghanistan/Pakistan (TAP) gas pipeline, also known once as the Trans-Afghan Pipeline, which might one day become TAPI if India decides to be on board.
The US corporate media simply refuses to cover what is one of the most important stories of the early 21st century.
Washington has badly wanted TAP since the mid-1990s, when the Clinton administration was negotiating with the Taliban; the talks broke down because of transit fees, even before 9/11, when the Bush administration decided to change the rhetoric from "a carpet of gold" to "a carpet of bombs".
TAP is a classic Pipelineistan gambit; the US supporting the flow of gas from Central Asia to global markets, bypassing both Iran and Russia. If it ever gets built, it will cost over $10 billion.
It needs a totally pacified Afghanistan - still another chimera - and a Pakistani government totally implicated in Afghanistan's security, still a no-no as long as Islamabad's policy is to have Afghanistan as its "strategic depth", a vassal state, in a long-term confrontation mindset against India.
It's no surprise the Pentagon and the Pakistani Army enjoy such a close working relationship. Both Washington and Islamabad regard Pashtun nationalism as an existential threat.
The US corporate media simply refuses to cover what is one of the most important stories of the early 21st century.
Washington has badly wanted TAP since the mid-1990s, when the Clinton administration was negotiating with the Taliban; the talks broke down because of transit fees, even before 9/11, when the Bush administration decided to change the rhetoric from "a carpet of gold" to "a carpet of bombs".
TAP is a classic Pipelineistan gambit; the US supporting the flow of gas from Central Asia to global markets, bypassing both Iran and Russia. If it ever gets built, it will cost over $10 billion.
It needs a totally pacified Afghanistan - still another chimera - and a Pakistani government totally implicated in Afghanistan's security, still a no-no as long as Islamabad's policy is to have Afghanistan as its "strategic depth", a vassal state, in a long-term confrontation mindset against India.
It's no surprise the Pentagon and the Pakistani Army enjoy such a close working relationship. Both Washington and Islamabad regard Pashtun nationalism as an existential threat.
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
9/11 Truth Isn’t Going Away
As 9/11’s tenth anniversary approaches, the issues surrounding that seminal event are just as relevant today and a lot more urgent. Despite the change of management, we still bomb, still rendition, still torture, still illegally wiretap, still detain indefinitely without habeas corpus and without counsel, among other international crimes. These days we can add a few more items to that list like irradiate children, feel up grandma at the airport, and throw people in jail for not paying their credit card bills. Another thing we still do in America: obstruct the truth when it conflicts with the official 9/11 storyline.
“Hysteria” has been defined as a compulsion in which the actor repeats the same action over and over in the face of a negative outcome. Our politicians and civic leaders, through the mainstream media machine are hysterical on the subject of 9/11, parroting the same tired lies as if by cramming that sandwich in our faces enough of us will eventually swallow it. While we may see the pre-packaged fantasy internalized by dullards, most of us aren’t buying the government’s heroic tragedy, a fictional catalyst that has propelled the United States into war in Afghanistan, Iraq, now Libya and who knows where next. Syria? Pakistan? Yemen? Iran?
There has been much analysis of the psychological roadblocks thrown up by those who cannot or will not accept the reality of a 9/11 false flag attack on domestic soil. As described by activist Ken Jenkins, such denial may be attributed to the scale and sheer audacity of the act, the paradigm-shifting implications of 9/11, blind nationalist faith, shame on the part of those fooled, PTSD, and simple ignorance of historical precedents.[1] Factor in an embarrassing level of credulity and these elements have contributed to the thumb-sucking compliance of a population dumbed down and infantilized to the point where it believes our government has its best interests at heart.
Of course history does not support the gumdrop and gingerbread view of government to which so many folks subscribe. But the myth of America is powerful. We are the good guys, revolutionaries who threw off the yoke of British imperialism two hundred thirty-five years ago and created the Constitution, a document so powerfully associated with rebellion that the FBI identifies those who reference or defend it as domestic terrorists.
“Hysteria” has been defined as a compulsion in which the actor repeats the same action over and over in the face of a negative outcome. Our politicians and civic leaders, through the mainstream media machine are hysterical on the subject of 9/11, parroting the same tired lies as if by cramming that sandwich in our faces enough of us will eventually swallow it. While we may see the pre-packaged fantasy internalized by dullards, most of us aren’t buying the government’s heroic tragedy, a fictional catalyst that has propelled the United States into war in Afghanistan, Iraq, now Libya and who knows where next. Syria? Pakistan? Yemen? Iran?
There has been much analysis of the psychological roadblocks thrown up by those who cannot or will not accept the reality of a 9/11 false flag attack on domestic soil. As described by activist Ken Jenkins, such denial may be attributed to the scale and sheer audacity of the act, the paradigm-shifting implications of 9/11, blind nationalist faith, shame on the part of those fooled, PTSD, and simple ignorance of historical precedents.[1] Factor in an embarrassing level of credulity and these elements have contributed to the thumb-sucking compliance of a population dumbed down and infantilized to the point where it believes our government has its best interests at heart.
Of course history does not support the gumdrop and gingerbread view of government to which so many folks subscribe. But the myth of America is powerful. We are the good guys, revolutionaries who threw off the yoke of British imperialism two hundred thirty-five years ago and created the Constitution, a document so powerfully associated with rebellion that the FBI identifies those who reference or defend it as domestic terrorists.
Taliban deliver hammer blow to NATO
Spin masters from Washington to Brussels to Kabul are bound for many a sleepless night. World public opinion has been relentlessly shocked and awed by the chimera that the United States and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) are "winning" the AfPak combo war.
Now for the facts on the ground. Immediately after the US government decided to "suspend" US$800 million in aid to the Pakistan army, Pakistan Defense Minister Ahmed Mukhtar told local Express TV channel, "If at all things become difficult, we will just get all our forces back" - hinting there would be no more troops from Islamabad fighting Pashtun-majority guerrillas in the tribal areas.
Mukhtar couldn't have been more explicit; "If Americans refuse to give us money, then okay ... We cannot afford to keep the military out in the mountains for such a long period."
Arguably not many Afghans will feel "the same kind of pain" when confronted by the assassination of Ahmad Wali Karzai, the president's half-brother, a major drug dealer, an asset on the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) payroll and the top powerbroker in Kandahar as head of the Kandahar provincial council.
Now for the facts on the ground. Immediately after the US government decided to "suspend" US$800 million in aid to the Pakistan army, Pakistan Defense Minister Ahmed Mukhtar told local Express TV channel, "If at all things become difficult, we will just get all our forces back" - hinting there would be no more troops from Islamabad fighting Pashtun-majority guerrillas in the tribal areas.
Mukhtar couldn't have been more explicit; "If Americans refuse to give us money, then okay ... We cannot afford to keep the military out in the mountains for such a long period."
Arguably not many Afghans will feel "the same kind of pain" when confronted by the assassination of Ahmad Wali Karzai, the president's half-brother, a major drug dealer, an asset on the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) payroll and the top powerbroker in Kandahar as head of the Kandahar provincial council.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)