Report: Iran planned to bomb Israeli ship in Suez Canal
By Avi Issacharoff
Iran had planned to bomb an Israeli ship while it crossed the Suez Canal, the prosecution in Egypt’s state security court said, the Egyptian newspaper Al-Ahram reported on Saturday.
According to the report, two Egyptians were recently arrested and investigated for allegedly planning an attack on an Israeli ship in the Suez Canal.
The investigation of the two found that they had received their instructions from Iranian agents, and that the two asked a third person, by the name of Mohamed Zakri, to carry out the act in exchange for 50 million Egyptian pounds.
The two denied the accusations against them.
In the past, Hezbollah terror cells that planned terror attacks, including in the Suez Canal, were found in Egypt. Moreover, Israeli officials have recently warned that Iran is setting up terror infrastructure on Egyptian soil to ready the ground for an operation.
What are your thoughts on this issue? Follow Haaretz.com on Facebook and share your views
Haaretz reported last week that a high-ranking official in Jerusalem said that Iranian military experts have been active in Sinai and the Gaza Strip.
Several terror groups are now at large in Sinai, the source explained: local Bedouin, who are adopting the ideology of the Global Jihad; groups supported by Iran, who are trying to recruit and train militants not only in Sinai but throughout Egypt; and Palestinian organizations. Joining them are Global Jihad militants from Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen and Saudi Arabia, said the official, adding that Israel and Egypt have a common interest in combating these terrorist elements.
He explained that “many Palestinian organizations use the Sinai peninsula as a convenient area for activity,” and added that Libya has meanwhile been transformed into a huge arms depot, from which weapons are transferred to Egypt and then the Gaza Strip.
Israel believes it could carry out strikes on Iran with under 500 civilian fatalities
By Adrian Blomfield,
Ehud Barak raised the prospect of military action with Iran once again as he hinted that splits in the international community over imposing sanctions regarded as crippling enough by Israel could leave the Jewish state with no option but to take matters into its own hands.
The warning came as a report by UN weapons inspectors into Iran’s nuclear activities was made public, concluding that the Islamist regime is closer to building an atom bomb than ever before.
Mr Barak conceded that the price of air strikes against Iran would be high, with Iran retaliating by firing long-range missiles at Israeli cities and encouraging its allies Hizbollah and Hamas to unleash their vast rocket arsenals at the country.
But he insisted that claims of huge destruction in Israel were overblown and that the country could survive the retaliation.
“There is no way to prevent some damage,” he said. “It will not be pleasant. There is no scenario for 50,000 dead, or 5,000 killed – and if everyone stays in their homes, maybe not even 500 dead.”
Mr Barak said the International Atomic Energy Agency’s report represents “the final opportunity” for the United Nations Security Council to punish Iran with sanctions of sufficient severity to force Iran into abandoning its nuclear ambitions.
Demanding that the international community finally take action to target Tehran’s vital energy sector, he called for a naval blockade to prevent Iran exploiting oil.
Although such a measure would undoubtedly do serious harm to Iran’s energy-dependent economy, even the United States is said to be concerned about the impact it would have on oil prices at a time of heightened vulnerability for the world economy.
Mr Barak predicted that opposition by Russia and China would make it impossible to achieve consensus in the Security Council for such sanctions, leaving military action increasingly as the only option.
“I don’t think it will be possible to form such a coalition,” he told Israeli radio.
“As long as no such sanctions have been imposed and proven effective, we continue to recommend to our friends in the world and to ourselves not to take any action off the table.”
Mr Barak’s comments crown a week of increasingly bellicose language in Israel that is widely seen as more an attempt to force the United Nations Security Council into using the toughest possible sanctions against Iran rather than presaging imminent military action.
Even so, his rhetoric will cause alarm, with Russia and even some European states warning against the folly of unilateral Israeli action.
Alain Juppe, the French foreign minister, said on Tuesday that though concerns remained high about Iran’s nuclear programme, “we have to do everything we can to avoid the irreparable damage that military action would cause”.
Dmitry Medvedev, the Russian president, said a military strike on Iran could be a “catastrophe” for the Middle East.
“We should exhale, calm down and continue a constructive discussion of all issues on the Middle East agenda, including the Iranian nuclear program,” said Mr Medvedev, a day after an Asian security summit in St Petersburg that included Iran.
US officials said they hoped the IAEA report would increase leverage for tougher sanctions, rather than short term pressure for air strikes.
The “war camp” in the Israeli cabinet is believed to be in a minority that is championed primarily by Mr Barak and Benjamin Netanyahu, the prime minister.
But many Israeli politicians will agree with the defence minister’s assertion that the IAEA report represents “the last opportunity for coordinated, lethal sanctions that will force Iran to stop”.
Israel believes that Iran is intent on moving the bulk of its nuclear production underground within months, after which it will be harder than ever to launch effective military action.
Saudis say Iran must ‘pay the price’ for alleged plot as US resists retaliation
Ewen MacAskill and Saeed Kamali Dehghan
Tehran denies it was behind plot to kill Saudi ambassador and says US is using it to divert attention from problems at home
The Saudi Arabian government has issued a menacing warning to Iran that it will have to “pay the price” for the alleged plot to hire a Mexican drugs cartel to assassinate its ambassador in Washington.
The threat from the Saudis came as the Obama administration resisted calls from within the US, mainly from the conservative right, to retaliate against Iran with military action.
But Iran denied it was behind the alleged plot, with officials claiming Washington had fabricated the story to divide Sunni Muslims – the dominant group in Saudi – and Shias, the dominant group in Iran. Tehran’s leadership claimed Barack Obama was using the story to divert attention from the Occupy Wall Street protesters.
The foreign ministry summoned the Swiss ambassador, who handles US interests in the country, to condemn what it called “baseless claims” and warn “against the repetition of such politically motivated allegations.”
A Saudi prince, Turki al-Faisal, a former ambassador to Washington and a former head of the Saudi intelligence service, told a conference in London: “The burden of proof and the amount of evidence in the case is overwhelming, and clearly shows official Iranian responsibility for this. This is unacceptable. Somebody in Iran will have to pay the price.”
The US justice department announced on Tuesday that two men had been charged over the plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to Washington, Adel al-Jubeir, in a bomb explosion at one of his favourite restaurants.
Manssor Arbabsiar Manssor Arbabsiar
One of the men, Manssor Arbabsiar, an American-Iranian, is alleged to have sought the help of a Mexican drugs cartel, Zetas, to provide explosives and carry out the attack. The other man, Gholam Shakuri, is in Iran, according to the US.
Relations between Saudi Arabia and Iran have long been strained, exacerbated this year by the Saudis sending forces into neighbouring Bahrain to help put down protesters, many of them Shia Muslims.
In spite of increased tension between Saudi Arabia and Iran as a result of the episode, the alleged plot is being met with scepticism within the diplomatic community, as well as from foreign affairs analysts specialising in Iran, who said the plot was amateurish and did not fit in the usual Iranian modus operandi, and questioned what Iran would gain from such an episode.
A former western diplomat with an intimate knowledge of Iranian affairs said: “I don’t believe Iran’s regime was behind the plot. If we assume it was Iran’s plot, it would seem like a group of professional gangsters hiring a careless agent for their most important project. It’s impossible.”
Fresh details emerged on Wednesday about Arbabsiar, the man at the centre of the supposed plot, who appeared in court in New York on Tuesday charged with conspiracy, and who is allegedly linked to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.
He was a car salesman in Corpus Christi, Texas, where he ran a number of businesses, largely unsuccessful. He does not fit the usual profile of an Iranian agent, who tend to be professional.
The US is taking the issue to the UN security council to seek action against Iran – but it will need to offer evidence to back its claim. One of the main pieces of evidence is a $100,000 sum transferred to the US, allegedly from Iran, as a downpayment for the assassination attempt.
Susan Rice, the UN ambassador to the UN, and a team of experts from the justice department, were briefing individual members of the security council about the plot on Wednesday.
“It is a dangerous esclation of Iran’s long-scale use of violence,” Jay Carney, the White House spokesman, told reporters at a briefing. On a possible military response, he said no options had been taken off the table, but emphasised that the US was focusing on diplomatic and economic measures against Iran, including new sanctions against an airline accused of transporting revolutionary guard personnel.
The vice-president Joe Biden, in an ABC television interview, said the administration was focused on mounting a major diplomatic effort to persuade its allies in Europe and elsewhere to impose tougher economic sanctions on Iran.
As the State Department issued a three-month worldwide travel alert for American citizens, secretary of state Hillary Clinton described the alleged plot as a “reckless act”.
“Such worn-out approaches are … part of the special scenarios staged and pursued by the enemies of Islam and the region to sow discord among Muslims,” the semi-official Fars news agency quoted foreign ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast as saying.
Fars also quoted Alaoddin Boroujerdi, the head of the parliamentary committee on national security and foreign policy, who said: “No doubt this is a new American-Zionist plot to divert the public opinion from the crisis Obama is grappling with.
Today, the United States is witnessing a popular uprising called Wall Street protests which have targeted the hostile policies of that country’s statesmen.
“Thus, Americans are seeking to derail the public opinion from the Wall Street uprising.”
War on the ‘Red Empire’: How America planned for an attack on BRITAIN in 1930 with bombing raids and chemical weapons
By David Gerrie
Details of an amazing American military plan for an attack to wipe out a major part of the British Army are today revealed for the first time.
In 1930, a mere nine years before the outbreak of World War Two, America drew up proposals specifically aimed at eliminating all British land forces in Canada and the North Atlantic, thus destroying Britain’s trading ability and bringing the country to its knees.
Previously unparalleled troop movements were launched as an overture to an invasion of Canada, which was to include massive bombing raids on key industrial targets and the use of chemical weapons, the latter signed off at the highest level by none other than the legendary General Douglas MacArthur.
The plans, revealed in a Channel 5 documentary, were one of a number of military contingency plans drawn up against a number of potential enemies, including the Caribbean islands and China. There was even one to combat an internal uprising within the United States.
In the end there was no question of President Franklin D. Roosevelt subscribing to what was known as War Plan Red. Instead the two countries became the firmest of allies during WW2, an occasionally strained alliance that continues to this day.
Still, it is fascinating that there were enough people inside the American political and military establishment who thought that such a war was feasible.
While outside of America, both Churchill and Hitler also thought it a possibility during the 30s – a time of deep economic and political uncertainty.
In 1930, a mere nine years before the outbreak of World War Two, America drew up a terrifying plan specifically aimed at eliminating all British land forces in Canada and the North Atlantic, thus destroying Britain’s trading ability and bringing our country to its knees
The documents, were unearthed buried deep within the American National Archives in Washington, D.C. – a top-secret document once regarded as the most sensitive on earth
The top-secret papers seen here – once regarded as the most sensitive on Earth – were found buried deep within the American National Archives in Washington, D.C.
The highly classified files reveal that huge pushes were to be made into the Caribbean and West Coast to block any British retaliation from either Europe, India or Australia.
In 1931, the U.S. government even authorised record-breaking transatlantic flying hero and known Nazi sympathiser Charles A. Lindbergh to be sent covertly as a spy to the west shore of Hudson Bay to investigate the possibility of using sea-planes for warfare and seek out points of low resistance as potential bridgeheads.
In 1931, the U.S. government authorised transatlantic flying hero and known Nazi sympathiser Charles Lindbergh to be sent covertly as a spy to the west shore of Hudson Bay
In 1931, the U.S. authorised flying hero and known Nazi sympathiser Charles Lindbergh to be sent as a spy to Hudson Bay to look into using sea-planes for warfare and seek out points of low resistance as potential bridgeheads
Four years later, the U.S. Congress authorised $57million to be allocated for the building of three secret airfields on the U.S. side of the Canadian border, with grassed-over landing strips to hide their real purpose.
All governments make ‘worst case scenario’ contingency plans which are kept under wraps from the public. These documents were unearthed buried deep within the American National Archives in Washington, D.C. – a top-secret document once regarded as the most sensitive on earth.
It was in 1930, that America first wrote a plan for war with ‘The Red Empire‘ – its most dangerous empire.
But America’s foe in this war was not Russia or Japan or even the burgeoning Nazi Germany.
Plan Red was code for an apocalyptic war with Britain and all her dominions.
After the 1918 Armistice and throughout the 1920s, America’s historic anti-British feelings handed down from the 19th century were running dangerously high due to our owing the U.S. £9billion for their intervention in The Great War.
British feeling against America was known to be reciprocal.
By the 1930s, America saw the disturbing sight of homegrown Nazi sympathisers marching down New York’s Park Avenue to converge on a pro-Hitler rally in Madison Square Garden.
Across the Atlantic, Britain had the largest empire in the world, not to mention the most powerful navy.
Against this backdrop, some Americans saw their nation emerging as a potential world leader and knew only too well how Britain had dealt with such upstarts in the past – it went to war and quashed them.
Now, America saw itself as the underdog in a similar scenario.
In 1935, America staged its largest-ever military manoeuvres, moving troops to and installing munitions dumps at Fort Drum, half an hour away from the eastern Canadian border.
By the 1930s, America saw the disturbing sight of homegrown Nazi sympathisers marching down New York’s Park Avenue to converge on a pro-Hitler rally in Madison Square Garden
It was from here the initial attack on British citizens would be launched, with Halifax, Nova Scotia, its first target.
‘This would have meant six million troops fighting on America’s eastern seaboard,’ says Peter Carlson, editor of American History magazine.
WAR PLAN RED, GREEN, PURPLE…
During the 1920s and 30s, the U.S. devised several colour-coded war plans to deal with potential adversaries.
Many of these war games were submitted to the Military Information Division by officers working in their own time.
Among the contingency plans developed were:
Orange: War against Japan
Green: Against Mexico
Purple: South America
White: Domestic uprising
Grey: Caribbean republics
Not surprisingly, many of these were hypothetical exercises – and provided only broad strategic outlines.
However, the planning was considered by the military to be good practice for its personnel.
‘It would have been like Verdun,’ alluding to the brutal conflict between German and French troops in 1916 which resulted in a death toll of 306,000.
Even Winston Churchill said while people regarded a war with the U.S. as inconceivable, it was not.
‘America felt Britain had thrown it under the bus in order to stay top dog,’ says Professor Mike Vlahos, of the U.S. Naval War College.
‘The U.S. was forced to contemplate any measure to keep Britain at bay.’
Even Hitler thought such a war was inevitable, but astonishingly wanted Britain to win, believing that to be the best outcome for Germany, since the UK could then join his forces to attack the U.S.
‘You have to remember the U.S. was born out of a revolutionary struggle against Britain in 1776,‘ says Dr. John H. Maurer, of the U.S. Naval War College.
Using available blueprints for this war, modern-day military and naval experts now believe the most likely outcome of such a conflict would have been a massive naval battle in the North Atlantic with very few actual deaths, but ending with Britain handing Canada over to the U.S. in order to preserve our vital trade routes.
However, on June 15, 1939, the same year as the German invasion of Poland, an internal U.S. memo states these plans for an invasion were ‘wholly inapplicable‘, but nevertheless ‘should be retained’ for the future.
This is now seen as the dawn of and prime reason behind the ‘special relationship‘ between our two countries.
Huge troop movements were launched as an overture to an invasion of Canada, which was to include bombing raids on industrial targets and the use of chemical weapons – the latter signed off by the legendary General Douglas MacArthur.
Isolationism, prosperity and decline: America after WWI
As close allies in numerous conflicts, Britain and America have long enjoyed a ‘special relationship’.
Stemming from Churchill and Roosevelt, it has since flourished – from Thatcher and Reagan, and Clinton and Blair, to the Queen and Obama.
We know now that FDR ultimately rejected an invasion of Britain as ‘wholly inapplicable’.
But just how special was that relationship in the decade leading up to WWII?
By the start of the 1920s, the American economy was booming.
The ‘Roaring Twenties’ was an age of increased consumer spending and mass production.
But after the First World War, U.S. public opinion was becoming increasingly isolationist.
This was reflected in its refusal to join the League of Nations, whose principal mission was to maintain world peace.
U.S. foreign policy continued to cut itself off from the rest of the world during that period by imposing tariffs on imports to protect domestic manufacturers.
After a decade of prosperity and optimism, America was thrown into despair when the stock market crashed in October 1929 – marking the start of the Great Depression
These children were part of a squatter community, known bitterly as ‘Hoovervilles’ because of the President’s inability to even admit to the existence of a national crisis after the stock market crash in 1929
And its liberal approach to immigration was also changing.
Millions of people, mainly from Europe, had previously been welcomed to America in search of a better life.
But by 1921, quotas were introduced and, by 1929, only 150,000 immigrants per year were allowed in.
After a decade of prosperity and optimism, America was thrown into despair when the stock market crashed in October 1929 – marking the start of the Great Depression.
The ensuing economic hardship and mass unemployment sealed the fate of President Herbert Hoover’s re-election – and Franklin D Roosevelt stormed to victory in March 1933.
He was faced with an economy on the brink of collapse: banks had been shut in 32 states, and some 17million people had been thrown out of work — almost a third of the adult workforce.
And the reality of a worldwide economic depression and the need for increased attention to domestic problems only served to bolster the idea that the U.S. should isolate itself from troubling events in Europe.
When Franklin D Roosevelt was elected as President in 1933, he was faced with an economy on the brink of collapse
When Franklin D Roosevelt was elected as President in 1933, he was faced with an economy on the brink of collapse. Banks had been shut in 32 states, and some 17million people had been thrown out of work
However, this view was at odds with FDR’s vision.
He realised the necessity for the U.S. to participate more actively in international affairs – but isolationist sentiment remained high in Congress.
In 1933, President Roosevelt proposed a Congressional measure that would have granted him the right to consult with other nations to place pressure on aggressors in international conflicts.
The bill faced strong opposition from leading isolationists in Congress.
As tensions rose in Europe over the rise of the Nazis, Congress brought in a set of Neutrality Acts to stop America becoming entangled in external conflicts.
Although Roosevelt was not in favour of the policy, he acquiesced as he still needed Congressional support for his New Deal programmes, which were designed to bring the country out of the Depression.
By 1937, the situation in Europe was growing worse and the second Sino-Japanese War began in Asia.
In a speech, he compared international aggression to a disease that other nations must work to ‘quarantine’.
But still, Americans were not willing to risk their lives for peace abroad – even when war broke out in Europe in 1939.
A slow shift in public opinion saw limited U.S. aid to the Allies.
And then the Japanese attack on Pear Harbor in December 1941 changed everything.
Will Washington foment war between China and India?
By Paul Craig Roberts
What is Washington’s solution for the rising power of China? The answer might be to involve China in a nuclear war with India.
The staging of the fake death of Osama bin Laden in a commando raid that violated Pakistan’s sovereignty was sold to President Obama by the military/security complex as a way to boost Obama’s standing in the polls.
The raid succeeded in raising Obama’s approval ratings. But its real purpose was to target Pakistan and to show Pakistan that the U.S. was contemplating invading Pakistan in order to make Pakistan pay for allegedly hiding bin Laden next door to Pakistan’s military academy. The neocon — and increasingly the U.S. military — position is that the Taliban can’t be conquered unless NATO widens the war theater to Pakistan, where the Taliban allegedly has sanctuaries protected by the Pakistan government, which takes American money but doesn’t do Washington’s bidding.
Pakistan got the threat message and ran to China. On May 17, Pakistan’s prime minister Yousaf Raza Gilani, as he departed for China, declared China to be Pakistan’s “best and most trusted friend.” China has built a port for Pakistan at Gwadar, which is close to the entrance of the Strait of Hormuz. The port might become a Chinese naval base on the Arabian Sea.
Raza Rumi reported in the Pakistan Tribune (June 4) that at a recent lecture at Pakistan’s National Defense University, Husain Haqqani, Pakistan’s ambassador to the US, asked the military officers whether the biggest threat to Pakistan came from within, from India, or from the U.S. A majority of the officers said that the U.S. was the biggest threat to Pakistan.
China, concerned with India, the other Asian giant that is rising, is willing to ally with Pakistan. Moreover, China doesn’t want Americans on its border, which is where they would be should Pakistan become another American battleground.
Therefore, China showed its displeasure with the U.S. threat to Pakistan, and advised Washington to respect Pakistan’s sovereignty, adding that any attack on Pakistan would be considered an attack on China. I do not think China’s ultimatum was reported in the U.S. press, but it was widely reported in India’s press. India is concerned that China has stepped up to Pakistan’s defense.
The Chinese ultimatum is important, because it is a WWI or WWII level of ultimatum. With this level of commitment of China to Pakistan, Washington will now seek a way to maneuver itself out of the confrontation and to substitute India.
The U.S. has been fawning all over India, cultivating India in the most shameful ways, including the sacrifice of Americans’ jobs. Recently, there have been massive U.S. weapons sales to India, US-India military cooperation agreements, and joint military exercises.
Washington figures that the Indians, who were gullible for centuries about the British, will be gullible about the “shining city on the hill” that is “bringing freedom and democracy to the world” by smashing, killing, and destroying. Like the British and France’s Sarkozy, Indian political leaders will find themselves doing Washington’s will. By the time India and China realize that they have been maneuvered into mutual destruction by the Americans, it will be too late for either to back down.
With China and India eliminated, that leaves only Russia, which is already ringed by U.S. missile bases and isolated from Europe by NATO, which now includes former constituent parts of the Soviet Empire. A large percentage of gullible Russian youth admires the U.S. for its “freedom” (little do they know) and hates the “authoritarian” Russian state, which they regard as a continuation of the old Soviet state. These “internationalized Russians” will side with Washington, more or less forcing Moscow into surrender.
As the rest of the world, with the exception of parts of South America, is already part of the American Empire, Russia’s surrender will let the U.S. focus its military might on South America. Chavez will be overthrown, and if others do not fall into line, more examples will be made.
The only way the American Empire can be stopped is for China and Russia to realize their danger and to form an unbreakable alliance that reassures India, breaks off Germany from NATO and defends Iran.
Otherwise, the American Empire will prevail over the entire world. The U.S. dollar will become the only currency, and therefore be spared exchange-rate depreciation from debt monetization.
Gold and silver will become forbidden possessions, as will guns and a number of books, including the U.S. Constitution.
Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury in the Reagan Administration, Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal, Senior Research Fellow in the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and held the William E. Simon Chair in Political Economy, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Georgetown University. He is the author or coauthor of nine books and has testified before committees of Congress on thirty occasions.
Proof Of Fukushima Weapons Program Rests On A Pile Of Manure
By Yoichi Shimatsu
Former editor of The Japan Times Weekly,
Soon after Japan’s triple disaster, I suggested that an official cover-up of a nuclear-weapons program hidden inside the Fukushima No.1 plant was delaying the effort to contain the reactor meltdowns. Soon after the tsunami struck, the Tokyo Electric Power Company reported that only three reactors had been generating electricity on the afternoon of March 11.. (According to the initial report, these were the older GE-built reactors 1,2 and 6.). Yet overheating at five of the plant’s six reactors indicated that two additional reactors had also been operating (the newer and more advanced Nos. 3 and 4, built by Toshiba and Hitachi). The only plausible purpose of such unscheduled operation is uranium enrichment toward the production of nuclear warheads.
On my subsequent sojourns in Japan, other suspicious activities also pointed to a high-level cover-up, including systematic undercounts of radiation levels, inexplicable damage to thousands of imported dosimeters, armed anti-terrorism police aboard trains and inside the dead zone, the jamming of international phone calls, homing devices installed in the GPS of rented cars, and warning visits to contacts by government agents discouraging cooperation with independent investigations. These aggressive infringements on civil liberties cannot be shrugged off as an overreaction to a civil disaster but must have been invoked on grounds of national security.
One telltale sign of high-level interference was the refusal by science equipment manufacturers to sell isotope chromatography devices to non-governmental customers, even to organizations ready to pay $170,000 in cash for a single unit. These sensitive instruments can detect the presence of specific isotopes, for example cesium-137 and strontium-90. Whether uranium was being enriched at Fukushima could be determined by the ratio of isotopes from enriched weapons-grade fissile material versus residues from less concentrated fuel rods.
Now six months after the disaster, the smoking gun has finally surfaced, not on a Japanese paddy field but inside a pile of steer manure from a pasture near Sacramento, California. Bull crap though it may be, a sample of bovine excrement provides incontrovertible proof.
Dropping from the Sky
The sample of cattle dung and underlying soil was sent to the nuclear engineering lab of the University of California, Berkeley, which reported on September 6:
We tested a topsoil sample and a dried manure sample from the Sacramento area. The manure was produced by a cow long before Fukushima and left outside to dry; it was rained on back in March and April. Both samples showed detectable levels of Cs-134 and Cs-137, with the manure showing higher levels than the soil probably because of its different chemical properties and/or lower density.
One interesting feature of t the Sacramento and Sonoma soil samples is that the ratio of Cesium-137 to Cesium-134 is very large – approximately 17.6 and 5.5, respectively. All of our other soil samples until now had shown ratios of between 1 and 2. We know from our air and rainwater measurements that material from Fukushima has a cesium ratio in the range of approximately 1.0 to 1.5, meaning that there is extra Cs-137 in these two soil samples. The best explanation is that in addition to Fukushima fallout, we have also detected atmospheric nuclear weapons testing fallout in these soils. Weapons fallout contains only Cs-137 (no Cs-134) and is known to be present in older soils ..Both of these samples come from older soils, while our samples until this point had come from newer soils.
To cut the bull, permit me these simple observations: The last atmospheric nuclear blast at the Nevada Test Site occurred in 1962, whereas the manure was presumably dropped less than 49 years ago. Over the past year, the approximate life-span of a cow patty, the rain that fell on the plain came not from a former province of Spain. Within that short time-frame, the only possible origin of radioactive fallout was Fukushima.To think otherwise would be lame.
Sun-dried manure is more absorbent than the rocky ground of Northern California, which explains the higher level in Sacramento dung than in the Sonoma soil. As a rule of thumb, the accuracy of radiation readings tends to improve with higher concentration of the test material.The manure acted like a sponge for the collection of radioactive rainfall. Its ratio of Cs-137 (resulting from enriched uranium) to Cs-134 (from a civilian fuel rod) is more than 17-to-1. Larger by 1,700 percent, this figure indicates fission of large amounts of weapons-grade material at Fukushima.
What about the findings of lower ratios in samples gather earlier? The recent higher readings were probably based on either late releases from a fire-destroyed extraction facility or the venting of reactor No.3, a Toshiba-designed unit that used plutonium and uranium mixed oxide or MOX fuel. Unannounced nighttime airborne releases in early May caused radiation burns in many people, as happened to my forearms. Those plumes then drifted toward North America.
Enrichment of uranium for nuclear warheads is prohibited under constitutional law in Japan and by terms of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Since no suspects have been charged by prosecutors, this cannot be a plot by a few individuals but stands as the crime of a national entity. Japan is a rogue state and international outlaw.This should not come as a surprise, considering its past.
Yellow-Cake Factory 608
Fukushima Province has a history of involvement in atomic weapons development, according to a New York Times article by Martin Fackler titled “Fukushima’s Long Link to a Dark Nuclear Past” (Sept. 6). Following the lead of Japanese news reports, the correspondent visited the town of Ishikawa, less than an hour’s drive south of the Fukushima No.1 nuclear plant. There he interviewed Kiwamu Ariga who as a student during the war was forced to mine uranium ore from a local foothill to supply the military-run Factory 608, which refined the ore into yellow-cake.
“Then one day, Mr. Ariga recalled, an officer finally explained what they were after: ‘With the stones that you boys are digging up, we can make a bomb the size of a matchbox that will destroy all of New York.'”
Following up on Fackler[s account, I did a quick search to find that Tohoku University, located in nearby Sendai, was and continues to be a leading center of nuclear physics research. In 1934, faculty professor Tadayoshi Hikoshaka wrote a paper stating the atom contains unimaginably enormous energy, suggesting its use as a weapon. Nuclear theory frm the Imperial universities – Tokyo, Kyoto and Tohoku – were based on calculations reputedly more accurate than those of Werner Heisenberg and the German physicists working on the Nazi-sponsored A-bomb program.
Several research groups worked on building a super-weapon for militarist Japan. The Naval Technology Research Institute was best-positioned due to its secret cooperation with the German Navy. Submarine U-234 was captured in the Atlantic after Germany’s surrender with a cargo of uranium along with two dead passengers – Japanese military officers .Soon after departing Norway, U-864 was bombed and sunk, carrying a load of two tons of processed uranium..
U-Boats Break Blockade
Other submarines slipped through the Allied blockade transferring a variety of advanced technologies, some of which would later spur Japan’s postwar economic miracle. As the Red Army converged on Berlin in summer 1945, German leaders determined that Japan was key to the future triumph of Nazism and so the Gestapo set up its new international headquarters in Kobe. My relatives, belonging to a naval family in Yokohama, remember arrivals of huge U-boats with crews of “fair-haired German sailors, such polite young gentlemen”, some of whom performed concerts of Bach at receptions. (That’s compared with the uncouth behavior of American GIs who went on rampages of rape, robbery and assault, which forced the Japanese government to revive “comfort women” or sex slavery at the gates of U.S. military bases.)
The Japanese military labs in Nagoya came close to completion of an atomic bomb, but then had to flee the incendiary attacks on Japanese cities, relocating its 3,000-member staff to the uranium-rich island of Konan, since renamed Hungnam, in north Korea (soon to be taken over by Stalin and now the center of the DPRK nuclear program). This transfer deprived Japan of three critical months in the race against the Manhattan Project.
Running Hog Wild
In the article for the Atlanta Constitution, dated, Oct. 2, 1946, David Snell reported that the Japanese military had successfully tested a nuclear weapon off Konan on Aug. 12, 1945. There are detractors who dispute the account by a decommissioned Japanese intelligence officer to the American journalist, stationed in occupied Korea with the 24th Criminal Investigation Detachment of the U.S. Army. A cursory check on his background shows Snell to have been a credible reporter for Life magazine, who also contributed to the Smithsonian and The New Yorker magazines. A new book is being written by American and Russian co-authors on the Soviet shoot-down of the Hog Wild, a B-29 that flew over Konan island soon after the war’s end..
Due to its endemic paranoia about all things nuclear, the U.S. government had a strong interest in suppressing the story of Japan’s atomic bomb program during the war, just as Washington now maintains the tightest secrecy over the actual situation at Fukushima. Despite these best-laid plans of officialdom, pieces of the jigsaw puzzle are falling into place.
The emerging picture shows that nuclear-weapons development, initiated in 1954 by Prime Minister Nobusuke Kishi and supervised by Yasuhiro Nakasone, was centered inside civilian nuclear plants, since the Self-Defense Forces were bound by strict Constitutional rules against war-making and the Defense Agency is practically under the direct supervision of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff. Funding came from the near-limitless budget of the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), which today claims financial insolvency without explanation of how its vast cash holdings disappeared. A clandestine nuclear program must be expensive, since it would include the cost of buying the silence of parliament, the bureaucracy and foreign dignitaries.
The bomb program was accelerated during the media-inflamed “North Korean crisis” of 2005-06, which led to the ascendancy of Kishi’s grandson as prime minister. On taking office, Shinzo Abe repeated verbatim his patriarch’s statement that nuclear weapons are defensive and permissible under the postwar “peace” Constitution.
The final step of warhead testing was likely given a wink and nod from the Bush administration, which favored a militaristic regime in Tokyo. In early 2011, an unannounced underground nuclear test was conducted in northwest Japan, according to sources in Japanese intelligence. A slight atmospheric shock wave was picked up by GPS monitors in South Korea and China, and blogs later speculated that a nuclear blast had caused the Tohoku earthquake. Though implausible since these test devices are miniscule compared with the Soviet blockbusters that triggered quakes in Iran and Turkey, northeast Japan is a geophysical zone with extraordinary seismic sensitivity. An international investigation is urgently needed, and if a causal relationship can be established, the bomb planners should be indicted for mass murder.
Following the March 11 disaster, TEPCO sent a team of 250 emergency personnel into the plant, yet only 50 men were assigned to cooling the reactors. The other 200 personnel stayed out of sight, possibly to dismantle an underground plutonium-extraction facility. No foreign nuclear engineers or Japanese journalists were ever permitted entry into the reactor structures.
Radiation leakage from Fukushima No.1 prevented local police from rescuing hundreds of tsunami survivors in South Soma, many of whom consequently went unaided and died of wounds or exposure. Tens of thousands of farmers have lost their ancestral lands, while much of Japan’s agriculture and natural areas are contaminated for several generations and possibly longer, for the remaining duration of the human species wherever uranium and plutonium particles have seeped into the aquifers.
TEPCO executives, state bureaucrats and physicists in charge of the secret nuclear program are evading justice in contempt of the Constitution. As in World War II, the Japanese conservatives in their maniacal campaign to eliminate their imagined enemies succeeded only in perpetrating crimes against humanity and annihilating their own nation. If history does repeat itself, Tokyo once again needs a tribunal to send another generation of Class-A criminals to the gallows.
We are presented with what we are told are isolated crises. In reality, from Desert Storm to the Eastern European color revolutions, to the “War on Terror” to the current “Arab Spring,”we are witnessing one linear campaign for world domination – the creation of what George Bush Sr. called “the New World Order.”
Regime change in Syria was a foregone conclusion as early as 1991. General Wesley Clark in a 2007 speech in California relayed a 1991 conversation between himself and then Under Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz. Wolfowitz indicated that America had 5-10 years to clean up old Soviet “client regimes,” namely Syria, Iran, and Iraq, before the next super power rose up to challenge western hegemony. The “next super power” includes ironically Russia, recovering from the treasonous attempted sellout by oligarchs like Mikhail Khodorkovsky, and of course a rising China.
Setting the Stage
The entire “Arab Spring” was a preplanned, meticulously engineered foreign-funded operation that began as early as 2008, with the West’s imperial network of “civil society” and NGOs in place for decades. The New York Times has recently admitted as much in their article, “US Groups Helped Nurture Arab Uprising,” implicating the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute, the National Endowment for Democracy, Movements.org, and Freedom House for their roles in recruiting, training, and supporting the unrest.
As this plot unfolds, we see in hindsight that each destabilization was triggered and nurtured with a specific order in mind. Tunisia and Egypt were collapsed on either side of Libya while the tremors of destabilization shook the entire region in general, including in Saudi Arabia and Jordan. The newly “reordered” Middle East would be extorted into backing Western military intervention in Libya, which was targeted next. The vulnerable governments of Tunisia and Egypt began serving as conduits for weapons and supplies to reach US-backed rebels in their bid to oust Qaddafi. Likewise, the grand prize in the Middle East being Iran, Syria is being systematically picked apart first to further weaken and isolate Tehran.
Iran itself has been under siege for years by covert operations including US special forces and intelligence operating inside Iran, training, arming and supporting terrorist organizations in activity against the government of Iran, as well as assassinations and sabotage of Iranian infrastructure. All of this has been meticulously documented, planned, and prepared amongst the pages of Brookings Institute’s “Which Path to Persia?” report.
The corporate-financier funded think-tanks have reached the general consensus that their unipolar world order of “international law,” and “international institutions” have primacy over national sovereignty and the time has come to assert such primacy or lose it. This was stated quite clearly within the corporate lined Brookings Institute report titled, ” “Libya’s Test of the New International Order” back in February 2011. In it they overtly state that intervening in Libya “is a test that the international community has to pass. Failure would shake further the faith of the people’s region in the emerging international order and the primacy of international law.”
The Syrian port of Tartus (highlighted in orange) is set to serve as a Russian naval base, upgraded this year and to host Russian warships by 2012. This will allow Russia to counteract NATO’s aggressive encirclement of its borders.
The globalist International Crisis Group, whose trustee Mohamed ElBaradei played a direct, hands-on role in overthrowing the government of Egypt on behalf of foreign interests, recently reiterated Brookings’ sentiments in an article titled, “The Rise and Fall of International Human Rights,” where once again “international law” and “international citizenship” is held above national sovereignty. The “responsibility to protect (R2P)” is cited as the impetus to assert such “international law.” Considering that R2P is called on after foreign-funded sedition and violence is created within a target nation, we can see “international law” as the poorly dressed euphemism for imperial invasion that it is. The term “international” in fact describes the evolution of the Anglo-American empire as it absorbs and dismantles nation-states across the globe.
The Build-up Against Syria
Syria is not only a defiant nation unwilling to participate in “globalization,” it is also an integral part of both Iran’s and Russia’s growing counterbalance throughout the region, in direct contrast to Western hegemony. The Syrian port city of Tartus is being renovated and is set to host heavy Russian warships in a bid to establish a significant presence in the Mediterranean. This would counteract NATO’s expansion along Russia’s borders as well as keep in check Western fleets north of the Suez.
Syria has long served this purpose, with the Tartus facility having originally been opened in 1971 through an agreement with the Soviets. When Paul Wolfowitz was referring to Soviet “client regimes” in his 1991 conversation with Wesley Clark, this sort of challenge to Western hegemony was what he was referring to.
Following the September 11, 2001 attacks, Clark was again passed plans drawn to implement regime change throughout the Middle East, specifically to attack and destroy the governments of 7 countries; Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Iran, Lebanon and Libya. In 2002, then US Under Secretary of State John Bolton, would add Syria to the growing “Axis of Evil.”
In a recent CNN article, acting State Department spokesman Mark Toner stated, “We’re not working to undermine that [Syrian] government. What we are trying to do in Syria, through our civil society support, is to build the kind of democratic institutions, frankly, that we’re trying to do in countries around the globe. What’s different, I think, in this situation is that the Syrian government perceives this kind of assistance as a threat to its control over the Syrian people.”
Toner’s remarks come after the Washington Post released cables indicating the US has been funding Syrian opposition groups since at least 2005 under the Bush administration and was continued under Obama. As we can see, the campaign against Syria transcended presidential administrations for nearly two decades.
In a recent AFP report, Michael Posner, the assistant US Secretary of State for Human Rights and Labor, stated that the “US government has budgeted $50 million in the last two years to develop new technologies to help activists protect themselves from arrest and prosecution by authoritarian governments.” The report went on to explain that the US “organized training sessions for 5,000 activists in different parts of the world. A session held in the Middle East about six weeks ago gathered activists from Tunisia, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon who returned to their countries with the aim of training their colleagues there.” Posner would add, “They went back and there’s a ripple effect.
Lieberman on Syrian intervention.
The ripple effect of course are the uprisings themselves, facilitated by yet more aid, equipment, and the complicity of the corporate owned media, disingenuously portraying the events as “spontaneous,” “genuine,” and “indigenous.” Recent calls have been made by US Senators Mark Kirk and Richard Blumenthal for a “non-military intervention” in Syria, while warmongering puppets Nicolas Sarkozy of France and US Senator Joe Lieberman used Libya’s bombardment as a warning aimed specifically at Assad of Syria.
The Intervention Is Beginning
Now, in calls that echo the build-up to Libya’s bombardment, US Senators John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Joe Lieberman have made a joint statement that Assad has “lost the legitimacy to remain in power in Syria.” They continued by stating, “Rather than hedging our bets or making excuses for the Assad regime, it is time for the United States, together with our allies in Europe and around the world, to align ourselves unequivocally with the Syrian people in their peaceful demand for a democratic government.”
The level of deception behind these comments is almost unimaginable, after the US State Department openly admitted to funding, training, organizing, and supporting this unrest to begin with. Compounding the intellectual dishonesty from which these three senators have made their treasonous comments from is the fact that each of them, in addition to their role as “elected representatives,” are members of unelected, shadowy organizations that receive funding directly from US tax payers as well as corporate-financier interests to undermine and destroy foreign governments. McCain and Graham are both members of the International Republican Institute, openly implicated by the New York Times for their role in funding the “Arab Spring.” Lieberman is a member of the Neo-Conservative war profiteering lobbying firm deceptively named, the “Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD).”
FDD features many Project for a New American Century (PNAC) signatories including William Kristol, Richard Perle, James Woolsey, and Paula Dobriansky, as well as CFR members Newt Gingrich and Charles Krauthammer, along with the disingenuous “War on Terror” paid propagandist Bill Roggio of the “Long War Journal.” Shockingly, this cabal of warmongering liars, many of whom are responsible for reckless and disingenuous war propaganda films such as “Iranium” openly admits to being funded in part by the US State Department. It is amongst unelected, unaccountable organizations like the IRI and FDD that US foreign policy reaches foregone conclusions, with propaganda like “Iranium” left to sell these conclusions to an unwitting, immensely ignorant public.
The chatter amongst the corporate funded think-tanks such as the Brookings Institute has reached a crescendo in their calls for Assad to step down. As in Libya, the calls are based on unverified, purposefully ambiguous reports of violence squarely blamed on the ruling regime. Regardless of reports of armed groups working amongst the protesters, the corporate owned media and the think-tanks that hand them their talking points maintain that the protests are peaceful and that crackdowns are “repressive.”
In Brookings’ latest piece, “In Syria, Assad Must Exit the Stage” the cycle of violence initiated by “mysterious gunmen” targeting funerals is cited as the line Assad had crossed which now requires his departure from power. The article states, “With the cycle of ever-increasing protests met by regime violence and then more funerals intensifying in all areas of the country, it is time for Assad, the “Hamlet” of the Arab world, to consider his future. It is time for him and those who influence him abroad to search for a swift and orderly exit.” As evidence begins to trickle out confirming Assad’s accusations of armed elements amongst the protesters, as well as possible foreign gunmen being employed to create broader unrest, just as in Libya, the West rushes forward to initiate irreversible intervention.
The Greater World War
With the broad level of openly engineered destabilization aimed not only at the Middle East but at Moscow, Beijing and their peripheries as well, there is little chance the West will call off their gambit now. There is no retreat or return to normalcy for a world now locked in increasingly aggressive confrontation between the Anglo-American empire and the remaining nation-states. It is an all or nothing gambit being executed by a financially and strategically precarious West rushing to complete an agenda at least 2 decades in the making. Syria and ultimately Iran will not escape this campaign without confronting and confounding the real force behind the destabilization.
World government is most certainly a conspiracy, but by no means merely a theory. Here Bush calls for a “New World Order.”
This is not an isolated, regional conflict, this is the first step toward greater world war. The destabilization extends from Tunisia to Thailand, from Belarus to Beijing. There are rumblings of confrontation and the positioning of strategic pieces well beyond the current “Arab Spring.”
The rest of the world, including the people of the West who will bear the brunt of the West’s failure or success with equal destitution, must recognize and reject this megalomania-fueled self-serving campaign. We must begin generating a new consensus based on individual and national sovereignty, reclaim the responsibilities we have pawned off to these mega-corporate-financier interests along with the terrible power they now wield because of our continued complicity, apathy, and ignorance. After Syria and Iran, comes Moscow and Beijing. It is unlikely such conflicts will remain confined to far off regions of the world pictured on our TV screens – just as unlikely those that initiated this confrontation will pay with their own blood and treasure before we the people are all thrown into the crucible of war and consumed entirely.
This article first appeared on Tony Cartalucci’s blog, Land Destroyer Report.
Jewish World Review March 31, 2011 / 25 Adar II, 5771
What if Qaddafi is actually telling the truth?
By Scott Peterson
While most experts say Qaddafi is grossly exaggerating the influence of Al Qaeda, new questions are being raised about its true scope as Washington debates arming the opposition
JRIPOLI — (TCSM) The young Qaddafi loyalist wove together a grim tale that fits the official Libyan narrative perfectly. Al Qaeda fighters torched his home in the rebel-held enclave of Misratah, he claimed, and then killed his father. The crazed Islamists, he charged, were dismembering their victims.
“May G0d be my witness, it is true!” shouted Osama bin Salah, pointing to the sky.
Since Libya’s popular uprising began in mid-February, Col. Muammar Qaddafi has repeatedly declared that this rebellion is different: He is not facing pro-democracy activists who want to end his four decades in power, but Al Qaeda militants determined to make Libya a base for global jihad.
“This is the Al Qaeda that the whole world is fighting,” warned the Libyan leader, who demands that the Western-led alliance help him fight a common enemy instead of decimating his military apparatus.
Yet as debate commences in Washington about arming antigovernment rebels — men who largely hail from eastern Libya, which per capita sent more Islamist fighters to Iraq in 2006-2007 than anywhere else — questions are being raised about the true scope of Al Qaeda’s influence among the Libyan opposition.
“We have seen flickers in the intelligence of potential Al Qaeda, Hezbollah,” said Admiral James Stavridis, commander of NATO forces, who testified before the Senate Tuesday. “We have seen different things. But at this point I don’t have detail sufficient to say there is a significant Al Qaeda presence or any other terrorist presence.”
Overall, he said, the opposition leaders appear to be “responsible men and women.”
And yet while the regime’s true believers like Mr. Salah echo Qaddafi’s Al Qaeda allegations in Tripoli, on the ground in rebel-head territory there is only marginal evidence of Al Qaeda fighters or their ideals.
Outside Ajdabiya, Abdullah ElHeneid, who helps run the pro-rebellion Libya Hurra (“Free Libya”) satellite channel, surveyed the wreckage of Qaddafi’s tanks.
“The dead? A lot of them are brainwashed and think they’re fighting Al Qaeda,” he says. “They’re Qaddafi’s victims too. But we have to fight for liberty.”
So far, the opposition has largely demonstrated that its demand for change echoes those expressed throughout the Arab world in recent months: an end of dictatorship. They codified those aims in an eight-point “vision of democratic Libya” issued Tuesday.
While most experts agree that Qaddafi is grossly exaggerating the Al Qaeda threat to discredit his opposition, eastern Libya has had a history of Islamic militancy. Documents captured by the US military from Al Qaeda in Iraq show that eastern Libya — and especially the city of Derna — provided per capita far more foreign fighters in Iraq from August 2006 to August 2007 than anywhere else in the world.
Today, no one knows how many Libyan veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan are taking up the fight against Qaddafi. And while Islamists are reported to be among the most active on the fluctuating frontline, they are a small minority among the mosaic of fighters who earlier this week made huge territorial gains, backed by US and French-led allied airstrikes, only to lose the ground in panicked retreat Tuesday.
The Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) in early 2007 publicly supported the insurgency in Iraq, calling on all “Muslim peoples” to wage jihad there. The LIFG declared in November 2007 that it had joined Al Qaeda.
The documents captured in 2007 in Sinjar, Iraq, give details of 595 foreign fighters in Iraq who crossed from Syria and listed a nationality, according to a late 2007 report by the Combating Terrorism Center (CTC) at West Point, which first published the Sinjar documents. Most of the fighters (41 percent) were from Saudi Arabia. Libya was second, accounting for 18.8 percent.
But when tallied on a per capita basis, the documents — known as the Sinjar Records — show that Libya accounted for virtually twice the number of insurgents as came from Saudi Arabia. And of the half of Libyans who listed their intended “work” in Iraq, more than 85 percent — the highest of any nation — said they wanted to be suicide bombers, according to the documents.
“Both Derna and Benghazi have long been associated with Islamic militancy in Libya, in particular for an uprising by Islamist organizations in the mid-1990s,” notes the CTC report. “The Libyan uprisings became extraordinarily violent,” it reads. “Qaddafi used helicopter gunships in Benghazi, cut telephone, electricity, and water supplies to Derna and famously claimed that the militants ‘deserve to die without trial, like dogs.’ ”
In recent years, Qaddafi has largely made peace with Libya’s homegrown Islamist groups, and released a number from prison after they denounced violence and any affiliation with Al Qaeda.
In a dialogue overseen by Qaddafi’s son Saif al-Islam, some 200 LIFG members were freed, including many top figures who issued recantations in 2009 and foreswore violence, according to a mid-March report by the US Congressional Research Service. A further 110 members were released at the beginning of the uprising in February.
THE SPECTER OF IRAQ
Despite that apparent reconciliation, Libyan officials are warning that the popular uprising against Qaddafi’s nearly 42-year rule is, in fact, the latest jihadist front.
“Today Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb has raised its voice and the level of its threats,” government spokesman Musa Ibrahim said in the past week, referring to the Al Qaeda affiliate in North Africa.
“We believe they have the power; we believe they have the logistics. Their strategic depth goes from the Libyan-Algerian border to the coast of Mauritania on the Atlantic. This is not a secret,” said Mr. Ibrahim.
Militants could easily move through the Sahara Desert and “enter Libya in the thousands,” Ibrahim said. “We know how Qaeda operates … so we are expecting to see death on the ground, car explosions, bombs in the streets of Tripoli. It’s the story of Baghdad being played again in Tripoli. If the world cares about civilians … they should not allow Libya to become another Iraq.”
The specter of Iraq also worries US military planners, as they consider arming what they deem to be pro-democracy rebels to finally oust Qaddafi, versus the uncertain outcome of adding firepower to those from areas known for Islamic militancy.
“Al Qaeda in that part of the country is obviously an issue,” a senior US official told The New York Times on Tuesday.
Tripoli has fanned those concerns also, charging that the rebel-held enclave of Misratah, 125 miles east of Tripoli, is a militant hotbed.
In the city, “unfortunately we have hardcore, violent pockets of violence,” says spokesman Ibrahim. “These people — because they are Al Qaeda affiliates — they are prepared to die, they want to die, because death is for them is happiness, is paradise. So they know they are going to die, they want it and they are working hard for it.”
‘WE WANT THIS FREEDOM IN LIBYA’
Among true believers in the rule of Qaddafi, there is little doubt about the danger — and the miscalculation by the West.
“France, the US, and UK in Libya are trying to replace moderate Islam with radical Islam,” says a visibly angry man at a recent funeral ceremony in Tripoli. He would only identify himself as a “citizen.”
“There will be revenge [because] they are providing extremists and Al Qaeda with support. Libya was a moderate country; 90 percent of these people don’t have beards. Now Al Qaeda will extend its presence,” he says.
Few on the ground in rebel-held territory of eastern Libya describe an Al Qaeda advance, though there clearly are fighters of an Islamist turn of mind at the front, sprinkled among the less ideologically committed rank and file. But they insist their devotion to their faith has nothing to do with Al Qaeda or international ambitions.
“I’m fighting because Qaddafi wouldn’t let people pray freely, think freely,” said Mohammed Shuwaidy, a young fighter from Derna, speaking outside Ras Lanuf earlier this month. “But we want this freedom in Libya. Qaddafi is the terrorist, with his wars outside the country and his torture of us.”
Joe Lieberman and the neocons will not be satisfied until the Muslim and Arab Middle East is reduced to a smoldering ruin like Iraq. The next target on the list following Libya is Syria.
On Sunday, Lieberman said he would support military intervention in Syria if its president, Bashar al-Assad, resorts to the kind of violent tactics used by Libya’s Muammar al-Qaddafi, according to Fox News. Lieberman is the chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee.
“There’s a precedent now that the world community has set in Libya, and it’s the right one,” he said.
In essence, Lieberman said the “Arab street” wants us to kill civilians and bomb hospitals.
The precedent in Libya is the slaughter of Arabs, same as it continue to be in Iraq. This was recently confirmed by a team of Russian doctors in the country. NATO bombs have hit hospitals – including the Beir al-Osta Milad hospital – and residential areas in Tripoli and other cities, but this of course is not mentioned by the corporate media. “The bombing of Tripoli and other cities in Libya is aimed not only at the objects of air defense and Libya’s Air Force and not only against the Libyan army, but also the object of military and civilian infrastructure,” the doctors from Ukraine, Belarus and Russia wrote.
Medical infrastructure and personnel are protected under the rules of war established in the Geneva Law, specifically Article 12 of Protocol II. Neocons and neolibs of Obama’s stripe do not follow such laws, of course. Democrats and supposed anti-war libs are more than happy to support this murderous insanity, so long as a Democrat president calls the shots.
Beginning with Bush Senior’s 1991 invasion, the U.S. and its coalition partners – now described as the “international community” – have consistently inflicted “apocalyptic damage” to the civilian infrastructure of Iraq, at one time the envy of the Arab world.
Iraq now has 25 to 50 percent unemployment, rampant disease, an epidemic of mental illness, and sprawling slums, writes Adil E. Shamoo. Libya, Syria, and other recalcitrant Arab nations can expect the same globalist medicine if they continue to resist the forays of the globalists, who plan to turn the entire planet into a slave labor gulag.
For the time being, though, Syria will not become another Libya, despite the wishes of Joe Lieberman. Secretary of State Clinton said that there is a need to differentiate between what’s going on in Syria and in Libya.
In other words, for now, Freedom House-style external troublemaking imported into Syria will suffice. The Freedom House NGO is shorthand for the State Department, USAID, NED, the CIA, and the usual globalist suspects endeavoring to overthrow governments and make it look like the will of the people.
Military intervention is not required until there is a “humanitarian” crisis of the sort the globalists declared in Libya. They are in the process of cooking one up in Syria as well.
Joe Lieberman has jumped the gun. But he always does that when it comes down to invading impoverished Arab and Muslim nations and killing civilians in the name of saving them – after the CIA overthrows their governments, of course.
TRIPOLI/UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) – The United Nations authorised military action to curb Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi on Thursday, hours after he threatened to storm the rebel bastion of Benghazi overnight, showing “no mercy, no pity.”
“We will come, zenga, zenga. House by house, room by room,” he said in a radio address to the eastern city.
Al Jazeera television showed thousands of Benghazi residents in a central square celebrating the U.N. vote, waving anti-Gaddafi tricolour flags and chanting defiance of the man who has ruled for four decades. Fireworks burst over the city.
Gaddafi had warned that only those who lay down their arms would be spared vengeance to be exacted on ‘rats and dogs’.
“It’s over. The issue has been decided,” Gaddafi said. “We are coming tonight…We will find you in your closets.
“We will have no mercy and no pity.”
The U.N. Security Council passed a resolution endorsing a no-fly zone to halt government troops now around 100 km (60 miles) from Benghazi. It also authorised “all necessary measures” — code for military action — to protect civilians against Gaddafi’s forces.
But time was clearly running short for the city that has been the heart of Libya’s revolution.
Residents said the Libyan air force unleashed three air raids on the city of 670,000 on Thursday and there has been fierce fighting along the Mediterranean coastal road as Gaddafi moves to crush the month-old insurrection.
French diplomatic sources said military action could come within hours, and could include France, Britain and possibly the United States and one or more Arab states; but a U.S. military official said no immediate U.S. action was expected following the vote.
Ten of the Council’s 15 member states voted in favour of the resolution, with Russia, China and Germany among the five that abstained. There were no votes against the resolution, which was co-sponsored by France, Britain, Lebanon and the United States.
Rebel National Council head Mustafa Abdel Jalil told Al Jazeera television air strikes were essential to stop Gaddafi.
“We stand on firm ground. We will not be intimidated by these lies and claims… We will not settle for anything but liberation from this regime.”
It was unclear if Gaddafi’s threat to seize the city in the night was anything more than bluster. But at the very least it increased the sense that a decisive moment had come in an uprising that only months ago had seemed inconceivable.
Some in the Arab world sense a Gaddafi victory could turn the tide in the region, weakening pro-democracy movements that have unseated autocrats in Tunisia and Egypt and raised mass protests in Bahrain, Yemen and elsewhere.
By late evening, telephone lines to Benghazi and internet connections appeared to be cut.
Gaddafi’s Defence Ministry warned of swift retaliation, even beyond Libyan frontiers, if the U.N. voted for military action against the oil-exporting nation.
“Any foreign military act against Libya will expose all air and maritime traffic in the Mediterranean Sea to danger and civilian and military (facilities) will become targets of Libya’s counter-attack,” the ministry said in a statement.
(Additional reporting by a Reuters reporter in Benghazi, Michael Georgy in Tripoli, Mariam Karouny and Tarek Amara in Tunisia, Louis Charbonneau and Patrick Worsnip at the United Nations, John Irish in Paris; writing by Ralph Boulton; Editing by Louise Ireland)
« Previous | Main
Libya airstrikes could start ‘within hours of resolution’
Mark Mardell | 20:06 UK time, Thursday, 17 March 2011
The United Nations seems on the brink of taking a momentous decision. After hanging back for days the Americans have now not only backed the British and French resolution on Libya but beefed it up. The fact that the French foreign minister, Alain Juppe, will be here in person is a sign of French confidence that the Russians and Chinese won’t block the resolution.
The latest draft I have seen goes well beyond calling for a no-fly zone. It says that the Arab League, individual nations and organizations like Nato are authorized to “take all necessary measures…to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat…including Benghazi, while excluding an occupation force.”
I am told the first strikes will be unilateral ones by British and French aircraft. They could be in the air within hours. It is likely five Arab air forces will take part. Hillary Clinton has said it will mean bombing Libyan air defences. Nato will step up if asked but could take a while.
Although there have been other recent UN operations this would be the most serious intervention in a crisis for a long time, a marked contrast to the division over Iraq. That does not ease the worries of some in the administration that this will still be labeled an American war and they will be dragged deeper and deeper into the affairs of another Arab nation.