28 December 2006

The Litvinenko Mystery Train

As the Litvinenko Mystery Train rolls on, the theories surrounding his demise appear to be multiplying by the day. There are some who pose as op-ed columnists who appear to have it all sorted out. Charles Krauthammer invokes the scientific principle of Occam’s Razor to support his simplistic and utterly baseless conclusion that Putin is directly responsible for the murder. I don't know why this schmuck garners so many column inches, but he does. His own peculiar brand of bigotry, his blinkered approach and his neo-con rantings collectively wing their merry way across the Atlantic to grace the pages of the Irish Times, which is one more reason I can add to the ever-growing list of reasons why I refuse to buy the paper.

Occam's Razor may well be a suitable means of drawing conclusions from natural phenomena, but as a means of crime-solving, it ranks up there with 'The Butler Did It'. If this principle were to be universally applied to the world of crime detection, every murder will have been carried out by the next-of-kin (for financial motives, of course) and every burglary will have perpetrated by your next-door neighbour. A far more reliable method of getting to the bottom of a complex criminal case is to employ the maxim of Cassius, as quoted by Marcus Tullius Cicero.... "cui bono?". Krauthammer's article deserves a rebuttal, primarily because despite the usual strident self-confidence, it is full of fallacies that are spawned by the simplistic application of a scientific principle to the complexities of human behaviour.

For starters, he claims that the deathbed allegation by Litvinenko - directly accusing Putin of being responsible for his murder - as being a "testimony delivered on the only reliable lie detector ever invented". This is patent nonsense, as the reliability of deathbed lie detector really only comes into play when it is the perpetrator that is dying. Perhaps if Litvinenko was a religious man, and had a belief in an afterlife, he may have been reluctant to bear false witness, but there is no evidence to support this conclusion.

Next up he attempts to relate the murder of Litvinenko to that of Anna Politkovskaya when there is no evidence, not even a the slightest bit, that the two cases are connected. There is also no evidence that the Russian administration was responsible for her murder, but that doesn't stop Mr. Krauthammer from pushing his assumptions as if they were the next best thing to cold, hard facts. He then goes on to drag out that old chestnut - the 'poisoning' of Viktor Yushchenko, which remains unsolved despite a thorough investigation by Ukrainian police. Justin Raimondo at antiwar.com has more than adequately explored the evidence on the Yushchenko poisoning in articles that can be found here, here, and here. Suffice to say that far from being clear, the cause of the disfigurement of Yushchenko is still a mystery.

And one chestnut follows another... Krauthammer claims that "opponents of Putin have been falling like flies. Some jailed, some exiled, some killed.", when in fact it is members of the crimnal, kleptomaniac oligarchy that has gone into self-imposed exile or have found themselves in prison having been found guilty of fraud. He then goes on to make the claim that Russia has a "long and distinguished history of state-sponsored assassination" based solely on the murder of Trotsky and a wild assumption that the attempted assassination of late Pope implicated the involvement of more than just Bulgaria.

These poor, besieged individuals to whom Krauthammer bestows the seemingly innocuous status of "opponents of Putin" were guilty of purloining the natural resources and industries of the former Soviet Union, resources that rightly belonged to everyone in Russia. They did this with a slight of hand and with the assistance of the rigged privatisations of the Yeltsin administration. I find it hard to show these criminals the same sympathy that Mr Krauthammer obviously displays, but then again, perhaps that is because I don't share the same allegiences.

Based on currently available evidence, Russia has no more and no less of a history of state-sponsored targeted murder than any other nation. Indeed, I would hazard a guess that the United States and her allies are far more proficient at 'suiciding' opponents than Russia could ever be. This is, of course, only my opinion.

Next on the menu is the makings of a world-class eulogy..."If we were not mourning a brave man who has just died a horrible death". Give me a break! What's next? The campaign to canonise "Saint Sasha"? While the manner of his death was undoubtedly horrible, it is at least less prolonged than the deaths of those who have been the victims of any one of the cruel and inhumane methods used by the modern war machine, and I don't see Mr Krauthammer carving too many statues to their memories. Indeed, if I recall correctly, he is on frequently on the sidelines waving his pom-poms in support of his home team.

Let's take a moment remember who this guy Litvinenko was. He was an ex-spy and by definition was involved in the very murky underworld of espionage. He had counted numerous dodgy characters amongst his friends. Both Litvinenko and the shady associate he met in the London restaurant - self-styled "professor" and "environmental security expert" Mario Scaramella - have been implicated in arms-trafficking. Mr Scaramella has been arrested on weapons-smuggling charges in Italy, but the anti-Putin, Russphobe chorus seem to be reluctant to make any connection between his activities and the demise of his associate, Litvinenko. Litvinenko was reported to be desperate to get his hands on cash and as a consequence was involved in blackmail schemes with several Russian mafia figures and politicians as the targets.

In a fleeting glimpse of the rational, our esteemed op-ed columnist then points out the way poisoning "evokes the great classical era of raison d’etat rubouts by the Borgias and the Medicis" but then quickly ends this brief excursion to the land of lucidity when he barks that "the first reported radiological assassination in history adds an element of the baroque of which a world-class thug outfit such as the KGB (now given new initials) should be proud." He should remember the old saying - don't point the finger, as there will be four left to point back at you. In the eyes of the world outside of the neo-con world (the neosphere), the contest for "world-class thug outfit" has already finished and has ended with a tie between the CIA and Mossad for first place, with the former KGB taking a poor second place.

In a parting shot, Mr Krauthammer claims that Litivenko may have been 'small fry' but his so-called 'investigations' made him a far more credible target. I hate to burst this bubble, but the evidence points entierely in the other direction. Litvinenko's so-called 'investigations' are widely thought to be little more than the ravings of a lunatic. In one of the books he wrote he accused the Russian government of being responsible for the 1999 terrorist attacks carried out in Russian cities, for which Chechen terrorists were blamed. Not only did he fail to provide any evidence for this, but he then went on to make the utterly ludicruous claims that the FSB was secretly funding al-Qaeda (a database of terrorists for hire set up by the CIA) and that Russia was behind the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11th, 2001. With a pedigree like that, you can be sure that the guy was not perceived as a threat either by Putin or the FSB.

There's lots more in this story to discuss, but I'll leave it there for now, and perhaps return to it in the New Year. I'll leave you with this story, in The Times, that states "Sources in Spain last week said he had crossed Russian mafia figures. They claimed he had provided information that helped lead to the arrest in May of nine mafia members, including a senior gang leader with interests in Russia and Spain."

Unlike Charles Krauthammer, I can't claim to know who killed Sasha Litvineno. However, I am pretty sure who didn't kill him, and that's the Putin administration.

Continue reading...

25 December 2006

The Christmas Truce

One hundred and two years ago, after five months of World War I, German troops stationed on the Western Front at Ypres in Belgium decided to celebrate Christmas by decorating their trenches using placing candles on trees and by singing Christmas carols. The British, after firing a few shots at the decorated trees, became curious. Although they could not understand the language, they recognised the tune the Germans were singing. It was Stille Nacht, or Silent Night in English.

The English responded by singing carols and it was not long before the two sides were shouting Christmas greetings to each other across no-man's land. Then some soldiers made tentative ventures into no man's land bearing a makeshift flag of truce. Eventually thousands of war-weary soldiers from both sides poured into a no man's land strewn with the decomposing corpses of their fallen comrades. When they met, they exchanged small gifts from their rations - whiskey, jam, cigarettes. They also shared photos of loved ones and played a now famous game of soccer. The truce also provided an opportunity for the soldiers to bring their recently-fallen comrades behind their own lines for burial. In some instances, proper burials took place as soldiers from both sides mourned the dead and paid their respects together.

These men had done what the military command on both sides feared most. They had, in the midst of a bitter war, discovered their shared humanity and had made a spontaneous declaration of their common brotherhood, and as a logical consequence of this, they were refusing to fight. Generals from both sides declared this action to be treasonous and those who participated in it were to be the subject of court martial. Three months later, the 'fraternisation with the enemy' had been all but snuffed out and the killing machine was back in full sway. Perhaps if the generals were required to sit in the damp, cold trenches and fight for their lives, the outcome would have been different. Alas that was not to be the case, and war went on to claim over fifteen million lives.

The powerful song whose lyrics are reproduced below is based on the true story of the the Scottish commanding officer of the British forces involved in the story - Ian Calhoun. As a result of the truce, he was subject to court martial on the charge of 'consorting with the enemy' and sentenced to death - only to be pardoned by King George V.

Christmas in the Trenches
by John McCutcheon

My name is Francis Toliver, I come from Liverpool.
Two years ago the war was waiting for me after school.
To Belgium and to Flanders, to Germany to here,
I fought for King and country I love dear.

'Twas Christmas in the trenches, where the frost so bitter hung.
The frozen fields of France were still, no Christmas song was sung.
Our families back in England were toasting us that day,
Their brave and glorious lads so far away.

I was lying with my messmate on the cold and rocky ground,
When across the lines of battle came a most peculiar sound.
Says I, "Now listen up, me boys!" each soldier strained to hear,
As one young German voice sang out so clear.

"He's singing bloody well, you know!" my partner says to me.
Soon, one by one, each German voice joined in harmony.
The cannons rested silent, the gas clouds rolled no more,
As Christmas brought us respite from the war.

As soon as they were finished and a reverent pause was spent,
"God Rest Ye Merry, Gentlemen" struck up some lads from Kent.
The next they sang was "Stille Nacht," "'Tis 'Silent Night,'" says I,
And in two tongues one song filled up that sky.

"There's someone coming towards us!" the front line sentry cried.
All sights were fixed on one lone figure trudging from their side.
His truce flag, like a Christmas star, shone on that plain so bright,
As he, bravely, strode unarmed into the night.

Soon one by one on either side walked into No Man's Land,
With neither gun nor bayonet we met there hand to hand.
We shared some secret brandy and wished each other well,
And in a flare lit soccer game we gave 'em hell.

We traded chocolates, cigarettes, and photographs from home.
These sons and fathers far away from families of their own.
Young Sanders played his squeezebox and they had a violin,
This curious and unlikely band of men.

Soon daylight stole upon us and France was France once more.
With sad farewells we each prepared to settle back to war.
But the question haunted every heart that lived that wondrous night:
"Whose family have I fixed within my sights?"

'Twas Christmas in the trenches where the frost, so bitter hung.
The frozen fields of France were warmed as songs of peace were sung.
For the walls they'd kept between us to exact the work of war,
Had been crumbled and were gone forevermore.

My name is Francis Toliver, in Liverpool I dwell,
Each Christmas come since World War I, I've learned its lessons well,
That the ones who call the shots won't be among the dead and lame,
And on each end of the rifle we're the same.

Continue reading...

24 December 2006

The lunatics have taken over the asylum

An earlier post touched on the increasing militarisation of the American school system by way of armed police, in full riot gear and with weapons drawn, raiding junior and high schools – not to combat a specific threat, but as part of an 'exercise'. This lunacy is only the tip of the iceberg that is crammed full of examples not only of a big brother approach to the administration of education but also the crass and frankly insane results of a dogged adherence to the schizophrenic and destructive world of political correctness.

Suspended from class – for making an 'origami' gun

The student code of conduct of the Desoto Independent School District clearly states that no weapons or replica of weapons are allowed on school campus. That's fair enough – no argument there. However, where there is a rule like this there will always be some bozo who insists on taking it too literally, making a mockery of the rule itself and the school system enforcing that rule.

Destiny Thomas, an 11 year-old student at Amber Terrace Intermediate School in the Desoto School District, folded a piece of paper into the shape of a gun. You may be tempted to think that there is nothing remarkable in that and back in the sane world you would be right. However, in a bizarre application of the student code of conduct, the creator of this origami gun and two of her classmates were suspended and sentenced to 30 days of alternative school for 'flagrant violation of district anti-gun policies'.

Having reviewed the case on the following day, officials of the school district revoked the punishment and all three students will be allowed to return to class. What should be of concern is that the punishment was ever meted out in the first place.

[Source: Zero Intelligence]

Teacher's aide sexually harassed – by a four year old child

The detail of the story varies depending on who you listen to, but the official lunacy it represents does not alter that much. According to the child's father, his four-year-old child did nothing more than to hug his teachers aide. As a punishment for this offence the child was put into in-school suspension.

According the La Vega school administrators, the four-year-old was in a queue to get on the bus after school, when he was accused of rubbing his face in the chest of a female employee. The principal of the school sent a letter to the parents claiming that the child had demonstrated "inappropriate physical behaviour interpreted as sexual contact and/or sexual harassment."

The parents wrote to the school administrators demanding that the whole incident be erased from his son's academic file because his son is too young to know what it means to act sexually. The school agreed that sexual references on the discipline referral would be removed, but denied his request for an apology by the aide and removal of all paperwork regarding the incident.

[Source: KXXV TV]

Yet more kindergarten sexual harassment

Washington County school officials in Maryland told a parent that his son had pinched a girl's buttocks while in a hallway at Lincolnshire Elementary School, and that this meets the state's definition of sexual harassment. According to school officials, the incident will remain on record in the boy's file until he reaches middle school. A local newspaper, the Hagerstown Herald-Mail, reported that 28 kindergarten students in Maryland were suspended for sex offences in one school year, 15 of those suspensions being for sexual harassment.

[Source: AP/KUTV]

Taser abuse

While the tasering of UCLA student Mostafa Tabatabainejad gained worldwide attention and a great deal of criticism, other stories of the abuse of this potentially lethal weapon have flown well and truly under the radar. In May 2004, police were received a call to deal with a runaway from the Arizona Children's Home, a school for children with special needs. While dealing with the runaway, a veteran South Tucson police sergeant is alleged to have fired his taser to subdue a handcuffed 9-year-old girl.

The article cited below claims the weapon is non-lethal, but there is a growing body of evidence to the contrary. Whether or not the weapon is lethal is immaterial – we should be asking ourselves what sort of society would accept the use of such weapons against young children, handcuffed or not.

[Source: KMSB-TV]

School rules... even when you are at home

In some states, the pertinence of school rules and policy extends beyond the boundaries of the school and outside of school hours, as a student from an out-of-district school who was caught streaking at a Valparaiso High School football game found out when his school punished him for his actions. According to Dana Long, assistant director for legal services at the Indiana Department of Education, “Indiana law allows a school corporation to punish a student in violation of a school policy anywhere at any time”. Even if the student is not charged with any crime, schools are allowed to punish any "unlawful activity off school property that can reasonably be viewed as an interference with school purposes," according to Dave Emmert, general counsel for the Indiana School Board Association.

Although the wisdom of this student's decision to streak at a football game (or anywhere else for that matter) is open to question, the wisdom of allowing any school to direct the actions of their students outside of school premises and outside of school hours is far more questionable and the consequences far more intolerable.

[Source: Northwest Indiana Times]

Conclusion

These are but a few stories among a myriad that paint a distressing picture, not only of an educational system permanently at war with those it purports to serve, but of a nation in the throes of self-destruction. The education system, which plays an enormous part in shaping the society of the future, is beset not only by the overt militarism, religious dogmatism and faux patriotism of those on the right but also the morally vacuous and repugnant notions of political correctness peddled by those on the left.

The victims in this equation are, as ever, the children. Children who grow up with an unhealthy fear of authority instead of a healthy disrespect for authority. Children who are taught their purpose is to serve the state when in fact the reverse should be the case. Children who learn by example that displays of affection are deemed sexual harassment. Children who at a very early age are being deprived of their childhood by being introduced to sexual education. Children, who through diversity education are being propagandised into accepting single-sex relationships as the norm – when they are still very much the exception.

Note that I am not really interested in debating the pros and cons of gay marriage. There's simply too much else going on in the world that is of far higher importance. What I do object to is that children are not being afforded the courtesy of allowing them to grow up to discover the complexity of human sexuality for themselves at an appropriate age and only then to make up their own minds as to what they find acceptable.

Continue reading...

16 December 2006

Depleted Uranium - The New Agent Orange?

At a time when the ongoing occupation of Iraq is being compared to the Vietnam war, and when the use of depleted uranium munitions by the United States is both increasingly controversial and being dismissed as no threat to health by its advocates, it is maybe an appropriate time to revisit the effects of a 'safe' herbicide known as Agent Orange on a sizeable proportion of the population of Vietnam.

Forty five years ago, President Kennedy gave his assent to plans to utilise herbicides in the Vietnam war - to destroy foliage and in doing so deny cover to the Vietnamese insurgents. The herbicide would also be used to destroy crops that could potentially be used to supply the insurgents. By far the most commonly used herbicide was 2,4,5 –T , nicknamed “Agent Orange” because then barrels in which it was shipped were marked with an Orange stripe.

The Presidential approval for the use of the herbicide ran contrary to Title IV of 1907 Hague Convention which placed strict prohibitions on the use of poisons as weapons or the use of other materials designed to cause unnecessary suffering. It also was in contravention of the Geneva Protocol of 1925, which outlawed the use of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases. To be fair, the United States did not ratify the Geneva Protocol until 1975, a full fifty years after it was tabled, so it could be said that it was not bound by this protocol in 1961. However, the very fact that it took so long to ratify a protocol that outlawed some of the most barbaric practices of war-making is, in itself, very telling.

Agent Orange contained in 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzodioxin as a contaminant. TCDD, one of the most toxic substances known to humankind, was normally present in trace quantities, but sometimes accounted for as much 50 parts per million. The fact that this toxin represented a tiny fraction of the herbicide spray would be little cause for comfort. Laboratory tests on animals exposed to the most minute quantities of dioxin, as low as parts per billion, have suffered notable increases in the rates of birth defects.

Initially, most of the victims were agrarian workers and those in nearby villages who were repeatedly contaminated when they ate contaminated crops or drank tainted ground water. When ingested, dioxins will bioaccumulate, that is they build up and persist in living tissue, compounding their effect. Exposure to Agent Orange or any dioxin has been linked to disorders of the immune, endocrine, cardiovascular, metabolic, gastrointestinal, neurological and respiratory systems, and has been implicated in a number of skin disorders. The risk of terminal cancer amongst men and women exposed to dioxin is increased by 30% and children of parents exposed to Agent Orange are almost two and a half times more likely to be seriously deformed child than those of parents who were not exposed.

The chemicals used during the Vietnam War were produced by Dow, Monsanto, Uniroyal, Thomson Chemicals, Philips-Duphar, Diamond Shamrock, Hercules and others. Tests of the in affected areas found Dioxin concentrations to be 13 times higher than average in the soil and in human fat tissue, where the poison accumulates, up to 20 times as high. By the time the program was abandoned in 1971, thousands of square kilometres had been sprayed with almost 80 million litres of the herbicide. It is estimated that 3,181 villages were subjected to spraying and that as many as 5 million people would have been present during the spraying. In the city of Ben Tre an estimated 58,000 out of 140,000 residents were victims of Agent Orange.

Legal action for compensation by Vietnamese victims of this toxin have been stalled in court, due to the claimed absence of proof that their conditions are linked to the spraying of the herbicide. This is despite ample evidence that dioxins are highly toxic to practically all forms life and can give rise to tumours, systemic failures and genetic abnormalities. In the past, one of the primary sources of evidence to the contrary was Sir Richard Doll, a leading British epidemiologist, who stated that Agent Orange posed no carcinogenic hazard. For his evidence, he was paid consultancy fees of US$1,500 a day by Monsanto for nearly 30 years. These payments call into question the reliability and objectivity of the evidence he provided.

Our media and politicians have no difficulty in believing that the Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko was poisoned with dioxin based solely on the flimsy evidence that his symptoms resembled those of chloracne - one of the many conditions associated with dioxin poisoning. This despite the fact Yushchenko's own official medical records show conclusively that Yushchenko suffered pancreatitis and hepatomegaly - both of which could easily have given rise to the outward physical symptoms ascribed to dioxin.

In the face of overwhelming evidence, both from the laboratory and from the field, that dioxin in the sorts of concentrations found in Vietnam poses a severe risk to health, the media, government and judicial system is still failing the victims and protecting the purveyors of this poison from costly legal settlements.

While Agent Orange is no longer used, there are a number of substances used in modern warfare that are a serious cause for concern. One of the most commonplace is depleted uranium. It is claimed that the low level of radioactivity of depleted uranium means that DU is unlikely to be a radiological hazard in a conventional sense. However, it is also a heavy metal and as such shares the chemical toxicity properties of other heavy metals - exposure to high doses of any heavy metal can cause adverse health effects.

Despite the assurances that depleted uranium is a low radiological risk, a survey carried out by Dr. Khajak Vartaanian, a nuclear medicine expert from the Iraq Department of Radiation Protection in Basra, and Col. Amal Kassim of the Iraqi navy found that shell holes left by DU munitions in the vehicles along the so-called Highway of Death (the road between Basra and the border with Kuwait) show radiation levels 1,000 times above background. They also found that the desert surrounding the destroyed vehicles was up to 100 times more radioactive than normal background levels. Depleted uranium has been shown to be a problem in other former war zones. Experts from the United Nations have discovered radioactive hot spots in Bosnia - a direct result of the use of depleted uranium during NATO air strikes in 1995.

Ingestion or inhalation of fine uranium oxide dust resulting from the impact of depleted munitions on their targets is the primary potential exposure route and could potentially lead to high levels of radiological exposure. Since the first Gulf War there have has been a surge in birth defects. In 1989 defects number 11 in every 100,000 births whereas in 2001 they had risen to 116 for every 100,000 births. Children were born with a variety of defects - with everything from cleft palettes, leukemia and hydrocephalus. Infants are being born having their internal organs outside their body cavities, being born without brains, without spinal cords, without sexual organs. The list of defects is growing. For those of you who can cope with it, this site shows photos of some of these infants who were deformed at birth, many of whom stand no chance of survival, either because of the severity of their condition or the absence of affordable medication.

Continue reading...

15 December 2006

Olmert comes clean on nukes

According to an article in Arutz Sheva, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert admitted that Israel possesses nuclear weapons, after decades of Israeli "amimut" - a policy of deliberate nuclear ambiguity.

The disclosure occurred during an interview with the German TV network SAT 1, where Olmert was asked for his comments on a statement by US defense minister Robert Gates regarding Israel's nuclear ability. Olmert became quite upset when he was asked if the fact that Israel possessed nuclear power had the effect of weakening the position of Western nations with regard to Iran's nuclear ambitions.

His response was that "Israel is a democracy and does not threaten anyone," he exclaimed. "The only thing we have tried to do is to live without terror, but we have never threatened to destroy another nation. Iran explicitly, openly and publicly threatens to wipe Israel off the map." Olmert then admitted Israel's nuclear capability when he said "You can say that it is the same level as America, France, Israel and Russia," he said, adding that those countries had nuclear weapons but did not threaten any one with them.

This response is packed full of the usual duplicitousness and deceit to be expected of Israeli government statements. For starters, any nation that is set up solely for the benefit of one race of people and seeks to actively purge or suppress those who are not of that race is not a democracy. Secondly, for every day of its existence Israel has threatened the Palestinian nation. Over the years, the public statements of scores of Israeli officials and their cheerleaders bear witness to the fallacious nature of Olmert's claim. I have provided a small but representative sample of these statements below.

"When we have settled the land, all the Arabs will be able to do about it will be to scurry around like drugged cockroaches in a bottle."
Raphael Eitan, Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defence Forces,
New York Times, 14 April 1983.
"We have to kill all the Palestinians unless they are resigned to live here as slaves."
Chairman Heilbrun of the Committee for the Re-election of General Shlomo Lahat, the mayor of Tel Aviv, October 1983.
"Everybody has to move, run and grab as many hilltops as they can to enlarge the settlements because everything we take now will stay ours... Everything we don't grab will go to them."
Ariel Sharon, Israeli Foreign Minister, addressing a meeting of militants from the extreme right-wing Tsomet Party
Agence France Presse, November 15, 1998.

As for the allegations against Iran and their leaders, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad never once called for the destruction of Israel. What he did do was to pointout that regime change is both necessary and possible in Israel, just as it happened in Iran when the Shah was deposed.

His speech was deliberately mistranslated by the likes of the Middle East Media Research Institute, an organisation that could hardly be described as being impartial, as it was founded by Yigal Carmon, a retired colonel from Israeli military intelligence.

William Rugh, former US ambassador to the United Arab Emirates and Yemen, described MEMRI as a news/translation service that "does not present a balanced or complete picture of the Arab print media" and went on to say that "Quotes are selected to portray Arabs as preaching hatred against Jews and westerners, praising violence and refusing any peaceful settlement of the Palestinian issue."

The implication that although Israel possesses nuclear weapons, but is not threatening anyone with them, can only be seen as nonsense in the light of numerous threats made to other nations, including the slightly veiled but utterly chilling "Arabs may have the oil, but we have the matches." statement made by Ariel Sharon before he became Prime Minister.

Such sabre rattling is not limited to officials. Prof. Martin Van Crevel, a professor of military history at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, recently said “Our armed forces are not the thirtieth strongest in the world, but rather the second or third. Israel has the capability of hitting most European capitals with nuclear weapons. We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that this will happen before Israel goes under." This claim, even if it is true, is nothing less than blackmail and the product of a seriously unstable mindset.

Back to Olmert's statement and its ramifications... attempting to bolt the stable door after the horse has bolted, the Israeli Prime Minister's Office said the statement by Olmert was misinterpreted (an all too familiar Zionist refrain when anyone gets a little too close to the truth, whether by design or by accident). Haaretz report that Olmert faces a barrage of criticism for his slip of the tongue and there have been calls for his resignation. I really don't see the point. Israel's nuclear capability, much like the faux nature of its democracy, has always been Pulcinella's secret.

Continue reading...

10 December 2006

The end of a long goodbye

Augusto Pinochet, the man who ruled Chile with a rod of iron for 17 years has finally passed away. I have to say that I don't share the sadness expressed by Margaret Thatcher nor will I ever be in sympathy with the throngs of weeping supporters who gathered in Santiago to bid farewell to their former tyrannt.

Even though some clueless Chileans persist in believing that he "saved Chile from communism" and "stopped Chile from becoming another Cuba", the reality of his legacy is somewhat at odds with their fawning admiration.

The US-backed miltary coup he fronted was, alongside the Suharto regime in Indonesia, one of the earlier examples of the use of military power and political repression to subvert the democratically expressed will of the electorate to suit the requirements of multinational corporations.

Far from saving Chile from anything, he oversaw the brutal murders of over three thousand people and the torture of countless others. He also threw open the doors to foreign exploitation of Chilean natural resources and labour. This same model has been used the world over to overturn democratically elected regimes, to denude countries of their natural resources and to pave the way for exploitation of their workers.

The polar opposite of the hero that a section of the Chilean population think him to be, the man was a traitor and should have paid for his treachery as soon as he was pushed out of power in 1990. Instead he lived on for a full 26 years after his junta was thrown out.

Never once the 26 years since the end of his dictatorship was he subjected to the due process of law. Quite to the contrary, this vile tyrannt was awarded the post of "senator for life" under the provisions of the 1980 constitution. He remained on as head of the armed forces until 1998. Chilean lawyer Hugo Gutierrez could not have put it better when he said that "This criminal has left this world without ever having been sentenced for any of his horrific criminal acts he committed during his dictatorship."

No olvídemos los desaparecidos!

Continue reading...

04 December 2006

Chavez Victorioso!

With approximately 80% of the ballots counted, Chavez appears to have received about 61% of the vote, compared with the 38% received by his opponent Manuel Rosales, current governor of the oil-rich western state of Zulia. This is a decisive victory for Chavez and a resounding endorsement of his policies.

The opposition leader Señor Rosales, a so-called social-democrat, said he would go on "fighting for democracy" - in the streets if necessary. This Orwellian turn of phrase indicates that Señor Rosales does not accept that the will of the majority as expressed through the ballot box constitutes democracy. What Rosales really intends to do is to go on fighting the will of the majority –fighting against democracy. In other words, Rosales is a social democrat in name only.

Officials working with the Rosales campaign maintained that there were electoral irregularities, including the refusal of officials of the National Election Commission at some polls to open ballot boxes for audits, as is required by law. The Rosales campaign also complained that voting booths were kept open past the deadline. Given their shady history, it is not entirely unexpected that the opposition would make such accusations and they have yet to offer any substantive evidence that they contain even the tiniest shred of truth. It is true that polling stations remained open after the deadline, as it is electoral tradition in Venezuela that polls remain open until all in the queue at each station at the time of closing have had a chance to vote. So far there have been no comments on these alleged irregularities by international election observers.

Rosales maintains that the long-term future of the country lies in the implementation of free-market policies and through attracting foreign investment, and in doing so propagates the myth of a “free” market that in reality is anything but free. Rosales promotes the sort of foreign investment that is little more than the legalised pillage of his country’s resources by multinationals – for which he would probably expected to be paid handsomely and from which the average Venezuelan could expect to gain nothing. The foreign investment that Rosales so desperately seeks should be more correctly termed foreign divestment.

Chavez also stands accused by Rosales of having concentrated power in his own hands while at the same time having squandered Venezuela's resources – a charge that is loaded with irony, given that the repulsively wealthy and unbelievably tawdry “miami set”, the descendants of conquistadors and a comparatively small minority of Venezuelan society, have been guilty of concentrating the lion’s share of power in their own hands. This same group of people have also culpable of effectively handing over Venezuelan resources to foreign powers at knock-down prices so that they can feather their own nests, and carry on with their competitive petit- bourgeois displays of affluence.

Continue reading...

03 December 2006

Viva Chavez!

Later today, 16 million Venezuelans will be voting in a presidential election that, according to the BBC "offers starkly contrasting visions of their country's future course". Predictably, and somewhat simplistically, the BBC paint this election as a showdown between a socialist who "is seeking a new six-year term to complete his socialist revolution" and a candidate who wants to "keep" a market-based system.

The election could be more accurately be depicted as a battle between those on the one hand who...

  • are the poor descendants of indigenous indian populations and slaves
  • believe that the resources of a country should benefit all its citizens
  • think that the expressed will of the people is highly important
  • the constitution of the country is paramount
and those on the other hand who
  • are the wealthy, low-class descendants of conquistadors
  • believe that the resources of the country belong to their small clique and that they alone have the right to derive benefit
  • believe that the results of elections and the provisions of their constitution can be thrown aside whenever their insatiable greed so dictates
  • are not beyond organising an anti-democratic coup when it suits them
The BBC article states that "whoever wins the election will have to try to unite a deeply divided country or face much political instability". This paints a picture of a country fractured down the middle, which could not be further from the truth. In reality the divide is roughly between 80% of poor Venezuelans and the 20% who have had it too good for too long.

The gulf between the barrios and the trendy "little Miami" suburbs of Caracas will only be bridged if the programme of education and support for the poor in Venezuelan society started by Chavez is allowed to continue. Despite increasing reports of destabilisation tactics employed by the opposition and backed by the United States, support for Chavez remains strong. Assuming that any dirty tricks employed by the opposition do not have a detrimental effect, he should be re-elected with a significant majority - a majority that can look forward to another six years of his bolivarian redress of the hideous imbalances in Venezuelan society.

Continue reading...

02 December 2006

Q - When is a coup not a coup?

A - when John Bolton says it is.

Hundreds of thousands of people drawn from supporters of Hezbollah and other opposition parties participated in a mass protest designed to force the resignation of U.S. puppet Prime Minister, Fuad Siniora. Fully armed troops and armored vehicles were deployed around the Ottoman-style building housing the office where Siniora was holed up. As the protests were taking place, various spokespersons for Western governments and their Middle-Eastern client states chimed in with their support for the corrupt Siniora administration.

Lead chorister in the pro-Siniora / anti-Syria chorus was (soon to be ex) U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, who predictably labeled the peaceful but noisy demonstrations in Beirut as part of part of an Iran-Syria inspired coup d'etat. Apart from the sheer ludicrous nature of this statement, it is highly ironic coming from a representative of a country that has sponsored coups the world over. Perhaps he thinks the only acceptable coups are the ones his country organises? Like the unsuccessful coup to unseat Hugo Chavez, democratically elected by a significant majority of the Venezulan people?

The UK Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett chimed in harmony, when she met Siniora to express UK support for his government, saying that "This is a government elected by the people of Lebanon and which has the constitutional authority an election gives it". I know that coming from the Nu-Labour camp, Beckett may well be under the impression that being elected is a sort of blank cheque... a carte blanche to do as you please. Perhaps she regards the 100 billion dollars that are reputed to have gone "missing" from Lebanese coffers to be small change. Maybe the corruption that is reputed to be rife in the Siniora administration is okay by her.

Singing much the same tune on behalf of Lebanon's former colonial masters - France, Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin called from South Africa to express his full support for the corrupt administration. Piling on the sense of irony, King Abdullah, ruler of the utterly undemocratic Saudi Arabia telephoned Siniora to extend "Saudi Arabia's full backing".

Continue reading...

29 November 2006

Another Zionist "mistake" in Jenin

A woman in Jenin tried to save the life of young man shot during an Israeli invasion last Monday (27 November 2006) and ended up paying with her own life. During a time when the world is being told that Israel is observing a 'cease-fire', Israeli forces shot Mahmoud Abdul Razik Baker Nasser in front of the home of Fatima Mahmoud Ahmed Shriem in the northern part of the West Bank. Fatima was then shot while attempting to pull the young man, Mahmoud, to safety. She later died, with the cause of death being loss of blood. Israeli forces kept the area under siege for several hours, with the result that nobody could leave their homes and ambulances could not reach victims.

During this latest siege of the Jenin area, a number of Israeli soldiers had broken into homes in order to using them as cover for snipers. Members of the armed resistance from Qabatia tried to fend off the invaders, but had little success. A leader of the Salah Ed Deen Brigades, the armed wing of the Islamic Jihad, said that this is one of the tactics the Israelis have been re-employing as of late. "They hide inside a house and then open fire when no one knows they were there in the first place."

Fatima's husband, Mahmoud Hafez, said that his wife had heard the cries of the young man who lay injured at the gate of their home, adding that "she started screaming and rushed to save him. It was clear she was not a member of the armed resistance, so that cannot be the reason the Israelis use to explain this murder.”

The women of Qabatia Village, which lies just to the south of Jenin, sang for Fatima as they walked in her funeral procession. At the funeral, her husband had difficulty in holding back the tears, asking "Where is the 'calm', the 'cease-fire'... when they continue to kill in cold blood, leaving bodies to slowly bleed to death". His tears choked his words and he collapsed after saying, "The Israeli soldiers continued their shooting. They wouldn't stop."

Source: International Middle-East Media Center

Continue reading...

26 November 2006

Poisonous Minds

The ongoing war of propaganda against Vladimir Putin being played out in the editorial offices and television studios of the western mainstream media plumbs new depths with every passing day. The barrage of differing explanations for the condition and subsequent death of Alexander Litvinenko - with the suspected cause changing almost on a daily basis - looks very much like a classic use of misdirection. First it was thalium, then radioactive thalium and now the story has, for the time being at least, settled on a radioactive isotope, Polonium 210. The only one consistent theme in an otherwise constantly morphing story is the presumed guilt of Vladimir Putin.

The official reason for the all the finger pointing directed at Putin is that Litvinenko, a well-known fierce critic of Putin, had apparently been investigating the murder of journalist Anna Politkovskaya, another strident critic of Putin, who was gunned down at her Moscow apartment last month. In the absence of any substantive evidence - the circumstantial evidence that Litvinenko and Putin were far from the best of chums is far from substantive - the Russian president has been indicted, tried and found guilty by a media chorus. A large number of aspects of this case should give any thinking person cause for disquiet.

Public Spectacle
The “hit” was designed from the outset to be a public spectacle. If… and this is an if of monumental proportions… if Putin wanted Litvinenko dead for whatever reason, why on earth would those charged with carrying it out do it in such a sloppy and unprofessional manner? There are those who will argue that it was played out publicly as a warning to others, but this is a specious line of reasoning, not least because there is an assortment of methods for communicating such threats other than via the media in countries that are frequently hostile to Russia and Russian interests.

If he really did choose to publicly execute such a vocal critic, Putin would have to be masochistic beyond belief. As for the method, there are far more reliable methods of “getting the job done” than playing around with dangerous radioactive isotopes. Most if not all of the world’s secret services are well-versed in techniques designed to be indistinguishable from death by natural causes. So again, why choose such a novel and potentially unreliable method?

Attempts by the likes of the BBC to create a link between the Litvinenko case and a tiny number of poisonings carried out during the cold war serve only to add weight to the suspicion that this is a propaganda exercise aimed unfairly and squarely at Russia.

A rare isotope

Polonium, which apparent is the method of assassination du-jour, is considered a very rare element, and is present in uranium ores at around 100 micrograms for every metric ton, making it about 500 times less abundant than radium. It is so rare that it is estimated that only about 100 grams are produced per year. The polonium 210 isotope has a half-life of approximately 138 days, and emits enormous quantities of energy during its decay, sufficient energy to take the temperature of half a gram above 750 Kelvin, in other words, in excess of 470 Celsius. The energy is released in the form of alpha particles, which are hazardous to health only if ingested.

Experts in nuclear chemistry have suggested that large-scale processing equipment, such as a nuclear reactor, would be needed to produce amounts of Polonium 210 sufficient to result in death. According to Dr Andrea Sella, a lecturer in chemistry at University College London, "It is not as simple as the idea that somebody might have broken into a radioactivity cabinet at some local hospital and walked off with some polonium".

Assuming that a nuclear reactor was required to produce the substance, that reactor could just as easily be in Los Alamos or Dimona as it could be in Sarov.

A fierce critic, or a crank?
The charges made by Litvinenko against the Putin administration have frequently been lacking in hard evidence and on occasion have lapsed into bizarre fantasy. He co-authored a book “Blowing up Russia : Terror from Within” in which he accuses the Putin administration of actually responsible for the terrorist attacks on apartment blocks in various Russian cities, for which Chechen terrorists were officially blamed. However, having made the allegation, he failed miserably at producing even a prima-facia case to support his allegations. He also made the ludicrous claims that the FSB was behind the events of September 11th, 2001 and that senior Al-Qa'eda officials were actually agents of Russian intelligence. Litvinenko had a piece published by the now defunct Chechen Press in July of this year where he made the (unsubstantiated) claim that Putin was a paedophile.

Not a Russian Modus Operandi
According to Nigel West, a British intelligence expert, “neither the FSB nor the KGB has ever killed a defector on foreign soil and their predecessors, even under Stalin, did so only once in the case of Walter Krivitsky in Washington in 1941”. He stated that he would be “most surprised if the FSB had tried to kill Mr Litvinenko because it would fly in the face of 65 years of Soviet or Russian practice”.

The Israel connection
According to Israeli news media, Litvinenko had been passing documents to a former Yukos CEO in Israel in the months before his death. The suggestion by this former CEO that the information was harmful to the Russian administration is only to be expected and should be taken with a pinch of salt. After all, it was Putin who put an end to the reign of the kleptocrats, so it is not beyond belief that they would be committed in their attempts to besmirch his reputation.

You can tell a lot about a man from his choice of friends
Boris Abramovich Berezovsky. Need I say any more? Berezovsky is Russian Jewish billionaire who had served as Secretary of the Russian National Security Council, and who went into exile when it seemed he would be a victim of Putin's campaign against shady business practices. In an article entitled "Godfather of the Kremlin?" by Paul Klebnikov, published by Forbes magazine, Berezovsky was portrayed as a mafia don who thought nothing of having his rivals murdered. Although Berezovsky sued the magazine for libel and the magazine subsequently retracted both claims. Klebnikov made similar allegations in a book with the same title as the article. Berezovsky did not legally contest the claims made by Klebnikov in that book. Klebnikov went on to become the editor of the Russian edition of Forbes and was gunned-down in Moscow on the July
9th 2004.

Who benefits?
The web of intrigue weaved by the media on the death of Litvinenko reads like a thriller, albeit a third-rate bargain-basement offering written without the either the panache or knowledge of the likes of John Le Carré. Given the complete absence of substantive evidence, there is only one reliable way of getting close to what might be the truth behind images produced with smoke and mirrors – that is to ask “Cui Bono... Who benefits?” or to put it another way, "follow the money".

There is no shortage of potential candidates and Putin certainly is not one of them. The burgeoning Russophobe club has a diverse membership, ranging from assorted oligarchs and bankers - people who are almost universally reviled amongst ordinary Russians - who are very upset that their playthings have been taken from them and that Putin has put a stop to their perfidious theft. After that there are a host of multinational companies and their shareholders who have been denied unfettered access to Russian resources. Finally we come to the Chechens, and their assorted hangers-on in the west, many of who are hailing from the neo-con camp, such as the American Committee for Peace in Chechnya.

Russia has also proven to be an extremely tough nut to crack in energy supply negotiations and a persistent thorn in the side of the axis of hypocrisy, both in respect to their invasion of Iraq and to the putative invasion of Iran. Indeed, Putin has also had the audacity to enter into sizeable contracts to supply advanced weaponry to Iran.

There are plenty of individuals, organisations and governments who would prefer that Russia and her leadership tow the line. Those same individuals, organisations and governments want Putin to permit, if not actively encourage, the pillage of Russian resources by multi-national corporations. There is no shortage of parties who would stoop to such a low in order to punish a recalcitrant Putin.

Much like the poisoning of Yushchenko, the demise of Litvinenko will be continually discussed and disected in the media, with the narrative shifting as required, but the blame remaining locked on to the Kremlin. However, no serious effort will be made to find the perpetrators or solve the crime, as it is far easier to continue to use the affair as a foreign policy stick with which to beat Putin, demonise the FSB and force Russia to once again open its doors to wholesale larceny.

Continue reading...

20 November 2006

Swedish human rights worker subject of vicious attacked by Jewish extremists in Hebron

This vicious and unprovoked attack was perpetrated against a young woman who was simply trying to protect children from harassment on their way home from school. Apparently this is the way the run up to Universal Children's Day is "celebrated" by the illegal occupants of Hebron. Their behaviour towards the children and the human rights workers shows them up for what they are - nothing more than barbaric and hate-filled thugs fuelled by the delusions of grandeur bestowed upon them by a supremacist and fundamentally racist ideology. The article reproduced below tells the story....

A 19-year old Swedish human rights worker had her face slashed and cheekbone broken by a Jewish extremist in Hebron today. Earlier in the same day at least five Palestinians, including a 3-year-old child, were injured by other Jewish extremists who rampaged through Tel Rumeida hurling stones and bottles at local residents. Palestinian schoolchildren on their way home were also attacked. The Israeli army, which was intensively deployed in the area, did not intervene or attempt to stop the attacks.

Tove Johansson, who comes from Stockholm, walked through the checkpoint at Tel Rumeida with a small group of human rights workers accompanying Palestinian schoolchildren to their homes. They were confronted by around a hundred Jewish extremists who are reported to have chanted in Hebrew “We killed Jesus, we’ll kill you too!” — a taunt the settlers are reported to have been directing at international workers in Tel Rumeida all day.

After about thirty seconds of waiting at the checkpoint, a small group of very aggressive male Jewish extremists surrounded the international volunteers and began spitting at them, so much so that the volunteers described it as “like rain.” Then men from the back of the crowd began jumping up and spitting, while others from the back and side of the crowd kicked at the volunteers. The soldiers, who were standing at the checkpoint just a few feet behind the volunteers merely looked on as they were being attacked.

One settler then hit Tove on the left side of her face with an empty bottle, breaking it on her face and leaving her with a broken cheekbone. She immediately fell to the ground and the group of extremists who were watching began to clap, cheer, and chant. The soldiers, who had only watched until this point, then came forward and motioned at the settlers, in a manner which the volunteers described as “ok… that’s enough guys.”

The extremists, however, were allowed to stay in the area and continued watching and clapping as other human rights workers attempted to stem the flow of blood from the young woman’s face. Some even tried to take photos of themselves next to her bleeding face, while giving the camera a “thumbs-up” sign. At this point, a volunteer was taken into a police van and asked to identify who had attacked the group. The volunteer did this, pointing out three Jewish extremists who the police then took into their police vehicles. However, the extremists were all driven to different neighbouring areas and released almost immediately. When one of the three was released on Shuhada Street, the crowd that was still celebrating the woman’s injuries applauded and cheered.

A medic who is also a settler came to the scene about 15 minutes after the attack and instead of treating the young woman immediately began interrogating the volunteers as to why they were in Hebron. He refused to help the bleeding woman lying on the street in any way. Five minutes after he arrived, an army medic arrived and began treating the injured woman. When she was later put on a stretcher, the crowd again clapped and cheered. The injured woman, Tove, was taken to Kiryat Arba settlement and then to Hadassah Ein Keren hospital in Jerusalem.

Police officers at the scene then began threatening to arrest the remaining human rights workers if they did not immediately leave the area, despite the fact that they had done nothing illegal and had just been attacked.

The volunteers were later told by the police that they had not even taken the names of those who were identified as having carried out the attack and that one of the main assailants had simply told the police that he was due at the airport in two hours to fly back to France.

The incident was the latest attack by extremist Jews in Hebron. The small group of Khannist settlers in Tel Rumeida regularly attack and harass Palestinians in the area. The violence is also directed at international human rights workers who accompany Palestinians in an attempt to protect them from settler attack.

The settlers in Tel Rumeida encourage Jewish tourists to come to support them, as a way of making up for their small numbers. Today, hundreds had come from tours in Israel for a special event — many from overseas: France, England and the United States.

Edited from original article: ISM Hebron

By reproducing an edited version of the article originally posted on the International Solidarity Movement website it is not my intention to suggest that this sort of behaviour is representative of all Jewish people, nor that it is supported by all Jewish people, as this clearly is not the case. However, this is a significant part of what is Israel is and has become, and is a harsh daily reality for the Palestinian victims. The irrational hate manifested by these extremists can not be ignored or justified and needs to be both aired and addressed

Continue reading...

19 November 2006

Ex-KGB officer poisoned in UK

According to reports from the BBC and The Telegraph, UK police are investigating the alleged poisoning of a former KGB agent and critic of President Vladimir Putin who has been living in exile in Britain.

Litvinenko, who has a Ukrainian surname, despite being referred to as "Russian" by both the BBC and The Telegraph, has written several articles and contributed to books critical of Putin. His writings generally attempt to demonstrate that the most fundamental problems in modern Russia do not result from the smash-and-grab free-for-all of the so-called "liberal radical reforms" of the Yeltsin era, but instead from covert resistance to these reforms from within the Russian special services. He also espouses some very far-fetched beliefs - such as this article where he makes an outlandish and bizarre comparison between Putin and Hitler.

He also claimed that the right hand of Bin Laden, the Number Two in "Al-Qaeda" was trained at the secret base of the Russian secret services on Caucasus. Given that Al-Qaeda is nothing more than a collection of conveniently placed mirrors accompanied by the requisite amount of smoke, nothing more than a figment of fevered imaginations, and that no proof has been produced that the organisation actually exists, this claim is patently ludicrous.

According to newsru.com, Litvinenko was invited to a London restaurant by an Italian citizen, Mario Scaramella, who claimed he had some important information about a recent murder of Anna Politkovskaya. It is at this meeting where Mr Litvinenko was supposedly poisoned with Thalium, an extremely toxic heavy metal.

The Russian newspaper Moskovsky Komsomolets claims that Mario Scaramella is a CIA agent, whereas the ChechenPress claim that Mr. Scaramella is an FSB agent in Italy and a close friend and business partner of the FSB deputy chief Kolmogorov. They also claim that the Italian visited the FSB headquarters in Moscow several times.

It is possible that either of these claims are true, that Scaramella is an agent for the FSB or CIA. It is also possible that both claims are false - that Scaramella has nothing to do with either agency or the poisoning. It is even possible that both claims are simultaneously true, as double agents have not been exactly uncommon throughout history.

Given the accusations, counter-accusations and rhetoric on both sides, it can be difficult to discover what really happened. As always with such events, the first question I ask is "cui bono?". Who benefits?

Does it really benefit Putin that much to be rid of someone whose claims were so clearly subjective and often off-the-wall? Or does it benefit those who want to weaken the resurgent power that is Russia, in order to continue their previously-interrupted looting of Russian resources, unhampered by a strong Russian leadership? Does such an attempted murder benefit Russia and the Russian leadership, or would it be more beneficial, in a propaganda sense, to the country that is busy building bases in almost every state bordering Russia?

Continue reading...

18 November 2006

9/11 : The questions that remained unanswered - insider trading

The spate of put option purchases in the run-up to 9/11 was a clear indication of foreknowledge.

As this article by Don Radlauer explains, in cases where transactions deviate so wildly from normal trading levels, the timing of the transactions are just a little too convenient and the nature of the transactions are too specific, there very high possibility that insider trading is taking place. In the run up to 9/11, all of these factors were in play, indicating not only that insider trading had taken place, but that certain individuals had sufficient foreknowledge of events on that day to be able to play the insider trading game.

The unprecedented surge in put options and call options on certain key stocks in the days leading up to 9/11 remains unexplained. These suspicious changes to trading patterns include:

  • an enormous increase in trading of put options on stocks of United Airlines and American Airlines, the two airlines whose aircraft were allegedly involved in the attack.
  • increased trading of put options on stocks of Merrill Lynch & Co., Morgan Stanley and the Bank of America, three financial services companies whose operations were severely impacted by the attack.
  • increased demand for put options on stocks of Munich Re and the AXA Group, two reinsurance companies who would be expected to pay out billions of dollars to cover losses resulting from the attack.
  • a considerable increase in trading of call options of Raytheon stock, Raytheon being a weapons manufacturer that could be expected to gain considerably from the attack.
  • a higher than normal demand for 5-Year US Treasury Notes

  • Of these suspicious trading patterns, the flood of put options on the airlines stuck out like a sore thumb. Bloomberg reported that put options on the two airlines surged to an incredible high of 285 times their average levels, but noted that no similar trading occurred on any other airlines. CBS News reported a jump in American Airlines put options 60 times the normal level on the day before the attacks. As a result of the attack, the price of United Airlines stock fell 42 percent from $30.82 to $17.50 per share, and that of American Airlines fell 39 percent, from $29.70 to $18.00 per share - so these 'put option' folk walked away with a bundle of cash.

    Given foreknowledge of the attack, a number of reinsurance companies could be expected to suffer huge consequential losses. The world's two largest reinsurance companies, Munich Re and Swiss Re, along with the AXA Group of France, were the worst hit in terms of liabilities and also in terms of trading anomolies. Liabilities for Munich Re were believed to be in the order of $1.5 billion, as were those for their Swiss counterparts. The French AXA Group had estimated liabilities of just over a half a billion dollars. Trading levels on these reinsurance companies was double normal levels in the days leading up to the attack.

    Just like the reinsurance companies, financial services companies who were headquartered in the two towers or in the vicinity were the subject of apparent insider trading. Trading of put options on Merrill Lynch, who had offices close to the twin towers, was 48.5 times higher than normal in the four days before 9/11. Trading in put options on Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, who occupied 22 floors of the North Tower, had reached almost 80 times normal levels in the days preceeding the attack.

    Of course, not all companies would be expected to lose stock value as a result of the attack. Businesses involved in the military industrial complex could be pretty much guaranteed to gain stock value. Indeed, the stock value of Raytheon, the maker of Patriot and Tomahawk missiles, soared immediately after the attack. Again indicating that certain individuals had foreknowledge of this attack, call options on Raytheon stock increased to six times normal levels on the day prior to the attack.

    If you are a well-trained sheeple, then you can probably console yourself by thinking that it was the dreaded Bin Laden and his dodgy cohorts who not only planned and executed the whole thing, but played the stock markets so they could benefit financially from it as well. You might be tempted to believe that fairy tale for the sake of simplicity and to avoid thinking about the possibility that the world is a very different place than you have been lead to believe. However, if it were truly the case that the alleged perpetrators of 9/11 were also those who profited financially from it, the evidence would have been plastered over every newspaper and tv screen.

    Instead, despite years of SEC investigations, neither the exact amounts involved in this unprecedented insider-trading swindle nor the names of the individuals involved have been made public. Where they would normally be expected to carry out an open and transparent public investigation, the SEC moved to deputise employees of companies involved in or related to securities trading into its investigation, effectively muzzling them and making it impossible for them to make public any concerns or knowledge they may have. The net result is that this investigation has produced nothing substantial in the way of amounts and names, let alone indictments.

    Over five years have passed by and the questions about the financial irregularities around 9/11, amongst many others pertaining to that even, remain unanswered. The official line that the put option frenzy was as a result of "market pessimism" rings very hollow indeed. Such levels of put option trading suggest a market that is not only pessimistic but borderline suicidal. On the contrary, the frenzy was clearly a result of insider trading. It bears all the hallmarks. However, this is no ordinary insider trading, it suggests foreknowledge of a murderous act, and should be investigated accordingly. If it is not being investigated as a matter of utmost urgency, then don't you owe it to yourself to ask "Why not?....."?

    Continue reading...

    Here's your Patriot Act, here's your f&!$ing abuse of power

    This video was taken on a camera phone by a student of UCLA. It shows a violent and unprovoked assault on another student by the campus police whose "crime" was simply to fail to show ID when requested.



    The student, Mostafa Tabatabainejad, 23, was punished by being tazed several times, as police did a routine check of student IDs at Angeles Powell Library computer lab around 11pm.

    UCLA Police Department spokeswoman Nancy Greenstein stated that this check was a "long-standing library policy to ensure the safety of students during the late-night hours". She went on to say that police tried to escort Tabatabainejad out of the library after he refused to provide identification and claims that Tabatabainejad instead encouraged others at the library to join his resistance. When a crowd began to gather around them, police used the stun gun on him. On the video Tabatabainejad can be heard to "Here's your Patriot Act, here's your f&!$ing abuse of power" as he struggled with the officers. At this stage a crowd of 50 or 60 students had gathered and were shouting at the officers to stop and demanding their names and badge numbers.

    UCLA graduate David Remesnitsky of Los Angeles, who witnessed the incident, described it as "beyond grotesque". Remesnitsky added that "By the end they took him over the stairs, lifted him up and tazered him on his rear end. It seemed like it was inappropriately placed. The tasering was so unnecessary and they just kept doing it". The campus police, have, in turn, confirmed that Tabatabainejad was stunned multiple times. As one of the crowd who had gathered, Remesnitsky said that officers told him to leave or he too would be tazered.

    Tabatabainejad, who is a fourth-year Middle Eastern and North African studies and philosophy student, believes that he was the only one present who was asked to show ID and that this was clearly an incident of racial profiling.

    Even if the UCLA campus police had used the taser once at this incident, it would have been inappropriate given the level of threat they faced. Their continued use of the tazer is an abhorrent and disgusting abuse of their power. If the suggestion that they used the taser on the student after he was handcuffed turns out to be true, then it constitutes aggravated assault.

    An article in the Lancet Medical Journal in 2001 reported that a charge from a taser of three to five seconds can result in immobilisation for between five and fifteen minutes, yet the clueless power-crazed neanderthals repeatedly shout at the student to "stand up" after administering their own form of summary justice. What is notable is not only the excessive force used, but that Tabatabainejad was on his way out of the library when approached by the goons. Also noteworthy is that a another student, a bystander, was threatened with the tazer for simply demanding the badge number of the officer - a request which is well within his rights.

    This is the third incident in as many weeks where police in the LA area are suspected of serious abuse of power, the first resulting from a video showing a police officer repeatedly hitting a suspect in the face while pinning him to the ground with his knee on the neck. A subsequent video showed a Los Angeles Police Department officer directing pepper spray into the face of a handcuffed suspect as he sat in the back of a patrol car.

    If these UCPD rent-a-sadist cops are found to be guilty of an abuse of power, then they should be subject to summary dismissal without benefits. Perhaps a spell on food stamps will teach those who have been handed power that they abuse it at their peril. Mostafa Tabatabainejad will be filing a lawsuit against the UCPD, and I sincerely hope that they are forced to pay dearly for this felony.

    It used to be said that only those who break the law should fear the police. Now it is clear that even law-abiding citizens also have reason to fear. This should never be allowed to be the case - the police, after all, are public servants who paypackets are furnished from the pockets of taxpayers. When the role of the police clearly shifts from being to "protect and serve" to one where they routinely "attack and abuse", then this should be a matter of extreme concern to everyone.

    Continue reading...

    12 November 2006

    Bill Maher - telling it like it really is

    In this video of a recent show, Bill Maher gives his opinion on who it is that is the real threat to American kids. It is not for the easily offended or members of the so-called "moral majority", so don't click play if you belong to either of these groups.

    Continue reading...

    11 November 2006

    Barbarism in Bil'in

    This is what happened at just one of the weekly non-violent demonstrations against the illegal theft of land at Bil'in.



    This list of the casualties comes from the International Solidarity Movement site...

    • Lymor Goldstein, an Israeli lawyer, shot with 3 rubber bullets at close range, with injuries to head and neck. He is currently undergoing surgery.
    • Two villagers, El Haj Wa’el Fahene and Nimer Mustafa Abu Rahma were both shot with rubber bullets to their backs and legs.
    • Gavin from UK, beaten
    • Martin from Sweden, beaten
    • Rina from Denmark, hit with a rifle butt on side of head
    • Jonathon from Israel, shot with rubber bullet
    • Uri a 20 year old from Israel, struck by rubber bullet
    • Rojo Didier from France (43 years old), shot with rubber bullet in back and leg
    • Jonas from USA, struck with rubber bullets on hip and leg
    • Cheryl aged 45 from USA, struck with rubber bullet to the back
    • Margaret from UK, struck by exploding sound grenade
    • Yoshki, a 22 year old journalist from Japan, shot by rubber bullet
    • Abudullah Abu Rahma, beaten

    Continue reading...

    US blocks UN resolution condemning the accident prone state of Israel

    An attempt to officially condemn Israel for the recent massacres in Gaza has been vetoed by the United States, making it the second time this year that the United States, through its ambassador John Bolton, has used the veto to prevent the official censure of Israel for its military activity in Gaza. Ten of the fifteen members of the UN Security Council voted in favour of the resolution, with four abstentions - UK, Denmark, Japan and Slovakia.

    The resolution sought to bring Israel to book for its operation in Beit Hanoun last month, an operation that Israel claims was effort to root out militants who had been firing rockets in Israel. Ehud Olmert, Prime Minister of Israel apologised for the attack, describing it as a "technical failure".

    John Bolton, who is looking increasingly unlikely to continue in the post, described the resolution as unbalanced and politically motivated. In response, the Qatari ambassador said the credibility of the Security Council had been called into question by the vote and that the cycle of violence in the Middle East would continue.

    The Olmert apology for this travesty offends the intellect. How can anyone believe this massacre was accidental? It was accidental in the same way that the massacre at Jenin was accidental. It was no more accidental than the deliberate bombing of buildings in Beirut when IDF chief of staff Dan Halutz ordered the air force to destroy 10 multi-storey buildings in the Dahaya district (of Beirut) in response to every rocket fired on Haifa. It is no more a mistake than the siege of Jabalya late in 2004. It is not a mistake. This is not a "technical failure". It is merely the latest round in the slow-motion genocide that Israel has been perpetrating for decades, literally since the state of Israel was founded, since the time the myth about the land being "reclaimed from sand and swamp" was first propagated.

    The Israeli reaction to condemnation of their accident-prone terrorist state is always the same. Never accept responsibility. Always blame someone else. Always play the anti-semitism card at the slightest hint of criticism. Year after barbarous year, decade after murderous decade, the armed forces of this homicidal, truculent and racist state continue to massacre with impunity.

    The reaction of key elements in the so-called "international community" is equally unchanging - whether it is the outright refusal of the United States to condemn any Israeli attrocity, or the moral cowardice of the inevitable clutch of abstainers.

    The failure of the Security Council to act in the face of deliberate and systematic genocide does indeed call into question the credibility of the Security Council, as Nassir Al-Nasser, the Qatari envoy has already suggested.

    Continue reading...

    We are NOT afraid

    If Dame Mannigham-Buller is to believed, Britain is literally awash with Muslim terrorist cells. During a recent address, she made the claim that MI5 and the police were tackling 200 groups or networks totalling more than 1,600 identified individuals in the UK who were ‘actively engaged in plotting or facilitating terrorist acts’.

    Those who are not already in a fear-induced stupor should ask themselves what the purpose of this announcement might be. What possible benefit could be derived from making this intelligence known? As a general rule, you don't go showing your cards to the opposing players, so why has Dame Manningham-Buller done so, and so readily? During her address to the Department of Contemporary British History at Queen Mary College in London, she claimed that she "was not seeking to be alarmist, and did not wish to stir up fear". However, the nature of the revelations and the follow-up from P.M. Anthony Blair suggests that they have precisely the objective of inducing fear and paving the way for yet more repressive legislation - moving Britain further towards becoming a de-facto totalitarian state.

    I don't doubt that there are radicalised Muslims, both in Britain and elsewhere. I don't doubt that some of them might harbour ideas of using violence to further their aims or as a means of achieving redress for injustices, perceived or otherwise. However, the claimed scale of this so-called "terror network" simply does not add up. Those who were living in Britain during the 1980's will recall the death, destruction and havoc that was brought about by the IRA bombing campaign. I can remember reports at that time indicating that the number of active members of the IRA in Britain (as opposed to Northern Ireland) was in the tens, and most certainly not in the hundreds or thousands. So how come this "terror network" that is so taxing the resources of MI5 is so ineffective? If there are 1,600 or so identified individuals "actively engaged in plotting or facilitating terrorist acts" then why have they not been arrested, charged and tried?

    Outside of the fantasy, make-belief world of Tony Blair and his sidekicks, there is far less in the way of day-to-day terrorist activity in Britain now than there was in the 1980's - yet the British public is subject to the relentless mantra that Britain is in fact a far more dangerous place now than it was then.

    The as-yet unabated push to introduce ID cards to Britain is one of the objectives that will be well served by the disclosure of this "intelligence". A report by Mark Oliver in the Guardian around mid-October quotes Home Secretary John Reid as saying that...

    a litmus test would be how the opposition parties decide to vote on forthcoming ID card legislation which would be crucial in fighting terrorism


    Later in the same article, the reporter Mark Oliver goes on to point out that...

    Critics of ID cards say they do not stop terrorism and point to attacks such as the train bombings in Madrid, where ID cards already exist


    It is certainly true that there is more evidence to suggest that ID cards do nothing to prevent terrorism than there is evidence to the contrary. After all, all ID cards can be faked, given enough time - and that goes for the all-singing, all dancing, all spying wonder-ID proposed by the Blair government.

    Speaking of Tony Blair, it is notable that in his response to the comments made by Dame Manningham-Buller he stated that the threat of radical islamic terrorism would "be with us for a generation", the prime minister said today Britain faced a "long and deep struggle" to combat the danger posed by terrorism. How on earth does he know that this threat will be "with us" for a generation, unless his posse have planned it that way?

    This latest revelation is just another in a long line of fear-mongering brought to you by the same people who gave you the "Tanks At Heathrow" farce, the utterly absurd liquid bomb plots and a host of other fantastical stories all with the same purpose - to instill fear. Judging by the ceaseless and unrelenting nature of this campaign, it won't be long before internment without trial is extended, trial by jury is abolished and ID cards are foisted on the British public whether they like it or not. By then, of course, it will be too late, but at least the general public will know, in retrospect, who it was that posed the real threat to democracy and freedom - and I'll bet anything it won't be a handful of muslim terrorists.

    Continue reading...

    09 November 2006

    The deckchairs have been rearranged.

    While on the surface, a Democrat win of the control of both Houses of Congress may seem like a cause for some celebration, it is already clear that for anyone who cares about repairing the tattered remains of hard-won civil rights there is nothing to celebrate. Nothing. Whatsoever. For those who believe that quagmire of bloodshed and suffering that is Iraq is more than a mere "project" that is being badly managed, there is no reason to whoop it up.

    Howard Dean, Democratic National Committee Chairman, during an appearance on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart made it clear that he will not entertain calls for impeachment of G.W. Bush when he said...

    "I know half the audience wants us to impeach the President and all that kind of stuff but we're not gonna do that, we're not gonna do that."

    Of course, Mr Dean is simply following the lead first established by Nancy Pelosi, Speaker elect of the United States House of Representatives, when she clearly stated during an interview with "60 Minutes" (see video below) that...

    "Impeachment is off the table"

    and went on to say that...

    "that's a pledge"


    As of this moment, it seems that the Democrat effort over the next two years will be primarily concentrated on helping the President push through a mass amnesty for illegal immigrants (a move that his own party do not wholeheartedly support) and also on tinkering around with the minimum wage. Unless matters change very radically, they pose about as much threat to the neocon project as domestic cat would pose to a tiger. In other words, it will be business as usual.

    There are those who seem to think that the Democrat victory is living proof that the American democracy still works. One highly respected liberal blogger, attorney Glenn Greenwald, provided a prime example of the state of denial brought on by the euphoria of a Democrat victory, when in a recent post he claims that...

    "The basic mechanics of American democracy, imperfect and defective though they may be, still function."

    Mr. Greenwald then goes on to berate those who are alert to the ways in which their society is being destroyed from within and who do not just shrug their shoulders when their liberties are snatched away from them...

    "Chronic defeatists and conspiracy theorists — well-intentioned though they may be — need to re-evaluate their defeatism and conspiracy theories in light of this rather compelling evidence which undermines them."

    Try as I might, I see no compelling evidence. The evidence, such as it is, is at best flimsy and at worst utterly specious. Glenn, I sincerely hope that you present evidence far more compelling when you are working on behalf of your clients in court, as the evidence you claim here is compelling would not pass muster in front of any half-awake judge and would be torn to shreds in moments by opposing counsel. Using emotive but trite name-calling does not lend any weight to your insubstantial argument.

    The rest of the "evidence" presented by Mr Greenwald is equally fallacious....

    "Karl Rove isn't all-powerful; he is a rejected loser."

    True. Karl Rove is not all-powerful. However, he is just one cog in a mammoth machine.

    "Republicans don't possess the power to dictate the outcome of elections with secret Diebold software."

    How do you know they don't? Are you not using the absence of evidence in this one election as evidence of absence? I can say for certain that you are both getting the point and simultaneously missing it when you say "secret". The point is that the electronic voting software is secret. The source code of the software is not open to review.

    In theory, anything could be going on inside these machines and you would never know. Yet you appear to be stating that you know for certain that these machines, whether made by Diebold or not, are not used to rig elections. Why? Because the Democrats won this election? Is that what passes for evidence in your neck of the woods? Perhaps you also think that the computer programmer shown giving evidence in the video below was committing perjury?

    Many have voiced concerns that voter intimidation and electoral fraud reached an all-time high in this election. Is this really the triumph of democracy you so loudly trumpet?



    Then Mr Greenwald goes on piling one spurious argument on top of another...

    "they can't magically produce osama bin laden day before the election"

    They already did. Have you forgotten the October surprise where the Osama Bin Laden appeared on a video taking responsibility for the September 11 attacks? Have you forgotten the timing of the release of that tape, and the impact it would have had on the re-election chances of George W. Bush? They simply didn't try the same stunt twice.

    They don't have the power to snap their fingers and hypnotize zombified Americans by exploiting a New Jersey court ruling on civil unions, or a John Kerry comment, or moronic buzzphrases and slogans designed to hide the truth

    Just because the grip of the neocons and their financial backers has not yet totally asphyxiated the wheezing remnant of the American Republic does not mean that it is not vice-like and unrelenting.

    It simply isn't the case that we are doomed and destined to lose at the hands of all-powerful, evil forces.

    You are right that America is not necessarily so doomed or destined. However, as the Democrats have made it abundantly clear that they will not be rocking the boat then any expectation of positive change is misguided. Given that the Democrats will not be challenging the prevailing neocon orthodoxy or the might of their financial backers, then the whole election aftermath will take on a distinct hue of "steady as she goes". Given that the Democrats are unlikely to change their stance on the unprovoked and unrelenting aggression against a defenseless and broken country that is the Iraq war, then the puppeteers behind the Bush administration can rest easy. As long as the Democrats continue to provide tacit support for the idea of American and British hegemony, then democracy the world-over remains under serious threat.

    The sorry reality behind the smokescreen of the Democrat victory is that it will provide little in the way of substantive change where change is badly needed. The deckchairs have been rearranged, but the ailing ship is still ploughing headlong into more turbulent waters - instead of being brought back to a safe harbour as it should be.

    Continue reading...

    07 November 2006

    Olbermann - Bush is just making it up as he goes along

    The ever eloquent Keith Olbermann delivered yet another well-argued and highly damning criticism of the Bush administration in a pre-election "Special Comment". Click on play button in the video below to watch. For a full transcript, click on the "Continue reading" link below.


    TRANSCRIPT

    And finally tonight, a special comment about tomorrow's elections.

    We are, as every generation, inseparable from our own time. Thus is our perspective inevitably that of the explorer looking into the wrong end of the telescope.

    But even accounting for our myopia, it's hard to imagine there have been many elections more important than this one. Certainly not in non-presidential years.

    And so we look at the verdict in the trial of Saddam Hussein yesterday and with the very phrase "October, or November, Surprise" now a part of our vernacular, and the chest-thumping coming from so many of the Republican campaigners today, each of us must wonder about the convenience of the timing of his conviction and sentencing.

    But let us give history and coincidence the benefit of the doubt — let's say it's just happened that way and for a moment not look into the wrong end of the telescope.

    Let's perceive instead the bigger picture.

    Saddam Hussein, found guilty in an Iraqi court.

    Who can argue against that?

    He is officially, what the world always knew he was - a war criminal.

    Mr. Bush, was this imprimatur, worth the cost of 2,832 American lives, and thousands more American lives yet to be lost?

    Is the conviction of Saddam Hussein the reason you went to war in Iraq?

    Or did you go to war in Iraq because of the weapons of mass destruction that did not exist?

    Or did you go to war in Iraq because of the connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda that did not exist?

    Or did you go to war in Iraq to break the bonds of tyranny there, while installing the mechanisms of tyranny here?

    Or did you go to war in Iraq because you felt the need to wreak vengeance against somebody... anybody?

    Or did you go to war in Iraq to contain a rogue state which, months earlier, your own administration had declared had been fully contained by sanctions?

    Or did you go to war in Iraq to keep gas prices down?

    How startling it was, sir, to hear you introduce oil to your own stump speeches over the weekend.

    Not four years removed from the most dismissive, the most condescending, the most ridiculing denials of the very hint at, as Mr. Rumsfeld put it, this "nonsense", there you were, campaigning in Colorado, in Nebraska, in Florida, in Kansas - suddenly turning this unpatriotic idea… into a platform plank.

    You can imagine a world, you said, in which these extremists and radicals got control of energy resources. And then you can imagine them saying, "We're going to pull a bunch of oil off the market to run your price of oil up unless you do the following..."

    Having frightened us, having bullied us, having lied to us, having ignored and re-written the constitution under our noses, having stayed the course, having denied you've stayed the course, having belittled us about "timelines" but instead extolled "benchmarks", you've now resorted, sir, to this? We must stay in Iraq to save the two-dollar gallon of gas?

    Mr. President, there is no other conclusion we can draw as we go to the polls tomorrow.

    Sir - you have been making this up as you went along.

    This country was founded to prevent anybody from making it up as they went along.

    Those vaunted founding fathers of ours have been so quoted-up, that they appear as marble statues, like the chiseled guards of China, or the faces on Mount Rushmore, but in fact they were practical people and the thing they obviously feared most, was a government of men and not laws. They provided the checks and balances for a reason.

    No one man could run the government the way he saw fit, unless he, at the least, took into consideration what those he governed saw.

    A House of Representatives would be the people's eyes. A senate would be the corrective force on that House. An executive would do the work, and hold the constitution to his chest like his child. And a Supreme Court would oversee it all.

    Checks and balances.

    Where did all that go, Mr. Bush? And what price did we pay because we have let it go?

    Saddam Hussein will get out of Iraq the same way 2,832 Americans have, and thousands more. He'll get out faster than we will.

    And if nothing changes tomorrow, you, sir, will be out of the White House long before the rest of us can say we are out of Iraq.

    And whose fault is this?

    Not truly yours. You took advantage of those of us who were afraid, and those of us who believed unity and nation took precedence over all else. But we let you take that advantage.

    And so we let you go to war in Iraq. To oust Saddam, or find non-existent weapons. or avenge 9/11, or fight terrorists who only got there after we did, or as cover to change the fabric of our constitution, or for lower prices at the Texaco. Or… ?

    There are still a few hours left, before the polls open, sir, there are many rationalisations still untried.

    And whatever your motives of the moment, we the people have, in true good faith and with the genuine patriotism of self-sacrifice, of which you have shown you know nothing, we have let you go on…
    Making it up, as you went along.

    Un-checked, and un-balanced.

    Vote.

    Continue reading...