Sullivan's Eye

German Bishops rock the Israeli boat

2007-03-11T14:07:00.000Z

FRANKFURT: A pilgrimage to Israel last week by 27 Roman Catholic bishops from Germany was meant to be a historic symbol of reconciliation between Jews and German Catholics.

Instead, after two bishops drew a link between the plight of Palestinians in the West Bank and that of Jews in the Warsaw ghetto during World War II, it has become a fresh source of recrimination.

Nothing new there then. Those who dare to criticise the barbaric behaviour of the Israeli state can expect to be subject to megaphoned "recriminations" as a matter of course.

German-Jewish groups and the Israeli ambassador to Germany condemned their comments, which were reported in newspapers here, saying they were demagogic and "verging on anti-Semitism."

For crying out loud, think up a new slur! The 'anti semite' slur is, like the protests of the boy who cried wolf, rapidly losing its power. Nobody takes it seriously anymore, because it has become a byword not for those who hate Jewish people, but for those whom the Jewish people hate.

"If one uses terms like Warsaw ghetto or racism in connection with Israeli or Palestinian politics, then one has forgotten everything, or learned nothing," the Israeli ambassador to Germany, Shimon Stein, said in a statement.

What precisely is it that we have failed to learn? That Jewish suffering trumps all others? That anti-Jewish prejudice is the only true racism? What you and others like you have failed to learn, Mr Stein, is that you do not engage in a genocide in order to right perceived wrongs. What you have also failed to learn is that the world is rapidly growing wise to your two-faced admonishments.

The Warsaw ghetto, established by the Nazi regime in 1940 as a holding pen for Polish Jews before they were deported to concentration camps, has come to epitomize the barbarity of the Holocaust.

And seems to blind some to the barbarity of the open concentration camp into which a large percentage of the Palestinian population has been literally shoe-horned. The concentration camp is known as Gaza.

The top Catholic official in Germany, Cardinal Karl Lehmann, disavowed the bishop's remarks in a letter made public Wednesday to the director of Yad Vashem, the holocaust memorial in Jerusalem. But the outrage among Jews living in Germany has not yet subsided.

Why is it that those at the top lack the moral courage to stand up to the bullies? The outrage is just going to have to subside, and if those who doth protest too much don't like being called on their prejudice and barbarism then it is up to them to change.

"I made my point. Cardinal Lehmann made his point, unfortunately a bit late," Stein said in an interview. "Now we have to find other ways to deal with this. It tells us we have a problem."

Of course we have a problem. We have Israeli insensitivity to the plight of the Palestinian people. The people who had their land stolen from under their noses in order to facilitate the creation of the supremacist and hate-filled state of Israel.

The trouble started back in Germany when newspapers published more blunt remarks by two southern German bishops: Gregor Maria Hanke of Eichstätte and Walter Mixa of Augsburg.

"In the morning, we see the photos of the inhuman Warsaw ghetto, and this evening we travel to the ghetto in Ramallah," Hanke was quoted as saying by Suddeutsche Zeitung, the German newspaper. "That makes you angry."

That's your chance of making Pope blown, boys!

Mixa described the situation in Ramallah as "ghetto-like" and said the situation was "almost racism."

It is not "ghetto-like". It is a ghetto and much more besides. The West Bank is a concentration camp in everything but name, as is Gaza. It is not "almost racism" but undisguised, unrepentant and belligerent supremacism.

A third member of the delegation, Cardinal Joachim Meisner, the archbishop of Cologne, was quoted by the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung as likening the separation barrier in the West Bank to the Berlin Wall. "I never thought I would have to see something like this ever again in my life," said Meisner, who is from the former East Germany.

Well, you did, although I am sure your hosts tried to persuade you that what you were seeing was not a wall, or a barrier, but a mere fence, of the sort most people have separating their gardens.

German-Jewish leaders said the bishops either had a shaky grasp of history or were trying to draw a comparison between the genocide of the Nazis and the policies of the current Israeli government.

I think it was probably the latter, and they were absolutely on-target in doing so. The fact that outspoken representatives of the Jewish community are upset by such comparison is neither here nor there.

Hanke said in a statement that he had not intended such a comparison. In his letter, Lehmann wrote, "It is inappropriate to connect contemporary problems or situations of injustice, in any way, with the National Socialists' mass murder of the Jews."

I don't get this. Why not? It is as plain as the nose on your face what the ultimate objective of the Israeli state is, and that objective is genocide. It is also blindingly obvious that those who feel themselves chosen by the great real-estate agent in the sky regard the rightful owners of the land as being a sub-species not worthy of humane treatment. Such obsequiousness in the face of obviously irrational, prejudiced and emotional complaints is tantamount to condoning the denial of justice, freedom and basic human rights to a people who are being severely oppressed right now, not over half a century ago.

Top US Spy points finger at Putin

2007-03-02T22:23:00.000Z

Relations between the US and Russia appeared to sink to a new low yesterday after Moscow angrily dismissed accusations that democracy in Russia had taken a "back step".

Too damn right. At least democracy exists in Russia, even if it isn't perfect in every way. The United States, on the other hand, having abandoned what semblance of democracy it had, is busy projecting its flaws onto others.

Russia's foreign ministry called the accusation by Mike McConnell, Washington's national intelligence director, in a speech to the US Senate's armed services committee on Tuesday, "outmoded" and "totally groundless".

Such silly and petty accusations were never in mode and have lways been totally groundless. It still doesn't stop Uncle Sam's megaphone merchants from trying to paint Russia as a demon though.

Mr McConnell, an expert on the former Soviet Union,

An expert, along the lines of the Russian expert Condi "Lizard" Rice, who can barely speak a few lines of basic Russian without making fundamental mistakes?

said Russia's president, Vladimir Putin, was preparing to fix next year's presidential elections so that the Kremlin's preferred candidate would win.

The fixing of elections is far more likely to happen in Washington than it would in Moscow. Sorry, McConnell, but the evidence paints a different picture. As they say, don't point the finger, as there are four more pointing back at you.

"The march to democracy has taken a back step. And now there are more arrangements to control the process and the populace and the parties and so on, to the point of picking the next leader of Russia," Mr McConnell said, at a hearing to discuss global threats to the US.

All your bad-mouthing of Russia simply won't wash, McConnell. The truth of the matter is that Russia is regaining her power after the US-inspired/aided rape and pillage of the country during the presidency of the idiot Yeltsin. Russia is doggedly independent and won't bow to the snakes in Washington. That bothers the likes of you, doesn't it, McConnell?

"That's my worry, is the march toward democracy, the way we understand it ... now being controlled in a way that it is less of a democratic process."

Unless this statement was put in context, I would have no choice but to assume that it was written about the United States. As it is in the context of an attack on Russia, it comes across as yet another instance of the projecting of the flaws of the United States onto others.

Mr Putin had surrounded himself with "extremely conservative" advisers suspicious of America, he said.

Would you blame him? Would you blame any country for being suspicious of a belligerent, sociopathic bully? Would you blame the Russians for being extremely suspicious when the self-appointed spreader of "freedumb and demonocracy" has established bases in practically every country bordering Russia?

Yesterday the Kremlin accused Mr McConnell of harbouring obsolete and outmoded notions about Russia. The intelligence chief's assessments were "totally unfounded", the foreign ministry's spokesman, Andrei Krivtsov, said. The exchange came amid a sharp deterioration in US-Russian relations to what analysts said yesterday was probably their worst level since the US-led Nato bombing of Serbia in 1999.

Relations between Russia and United States certainly have become much frostier. However, anyone with two eyes in their head and a brain to match can see who the instigator of this "new cold war" is.

Moscow has been angered by the US administration's plans to site two anti-missile interceptor and radar bases in Poland and the Czech Republic.
Mr Putin has ridiculed America's claim that the sites are meant to deter a possible rogue attack by North Korea or Iran and has said they are clearly aimed at Russia and its vast nuclear arsenal.
Last month he delivered his most scathing attack yet on US power. Speaking in Munich, he accused the US of acting unilaterally and seeking to become the world's sole decision-making "master".
Analysts said yesterday that public opinion on both sides was hardening.

Public opinion around the world is hardening and is shifting rapidly against the United States. As much as it might irritate the likes of McConnell, Vladimir Putin is winning this little war of words being played out on the world stage.

"In Russia, Putin's speech has produced a tremendous effect among those who want Russian primacy and think in terms of Russia's empire," said Victor Kremenyuk, deputy director of Moscow's US-Canada Institute.

It is important to those who are thinking in terms of Russian independence and ability to defend itself. If Kremenyuk wants to call that primacy, he is welcome to use the terminology of his choosing.

"In the US, a growing number of people think that Russia has outwitted them.

Duh, gee, really? Dag Nabbit!

Instead of becoming a normal democratic state it has become an energy superpower.

What the freakin' hell constitutes a normal democratic state to these poisonous neocon types? One where elections are routinely stolen and rights abrogated on a daily basis?

They see it both as a threat to the US and its allies in Europe."

McConnell, Kremenyuk and their ilk can speak on behalf of their own. Any sensible European knows where the real threat comes from.

Other observers said they expected the chill in US-Russian relations to go on beyond the Bush-Putin era. "I think we are very close to an arms race," Ivan Safranchuk, head of the Moscow bureau of the World Security Institute, a US thinktank, told the Guardian. "Neither side trusts the other. Russia reacts to the missile defence sites. The US reacts to Russia's reaction."

I would be naturally suspicious of any US think tank, and in particular one that calls itself "The World Security Institute", given Uncle Sam's demonstrated penchant for double-speak.

The government-owned newspaper Rossiiskaya Gazeta said on Wednesday that Russian scientists were alarmed by the US's High-frequency Active Auroral Research Programme, or Haarp. They believed US scientists were close to developing a system that would allow them to disrupt an enemy's entire nuclear capability using ionic rays. Russia was determined to develop a similar technology, the paper reported.

This is not unexpected. That's how it works. The US builds some nasty new weapon and others feel compelled (by their own need for security) to play catch-up.

With increasing talk of a new cold war, Russia's political parties, including the Communists, agreed this week to suspend their differences on foreign policy.

That's good. It is nice that the United States can have a positive influence in the world and even bringing some Единство to the Duma.

"Russia has become stronger and America doesn't like it," Konstantin Kosachev, the head of parliament's foreign affairs committee, told Moskovsky Komsomolets, a mass-circulation daily. "They still have the same notions from the 1990s, when American became the only political power centre on the planet."

Kosachev is right on the money there. The United States wants to be the world power and does not take kindly to any challenges to that power. All empires come to an end, all brutal regimes fall. The end is coming for the ruling junta in the US, and with it will go any future hope of American primacy. Now if only the United States would wake up and smell the coffee before they remain without a friend in the world.

The house of cards continues to topple

2007-02-18T19:30:00.001Z

Israeli Police Chief Resigns in Scandal

JERUSALEM Feb 18, 2007 (AP)

Israel's police commander resigned Sunday after a government commission said he ignored ties between senior officers and underworld figures and failed to ensure a thorough investigation into the 1999 killing of a suspected crime boss.

So it's business as usual in the Middle East's only democracy and most moral of nations.

The resignation of Moshe Karadi was the latest in a series of public scandals and controversies involving Israel's top leadership including rape allegations against the president and questions over the prime minister's role in a bank sale.

Anyone starting to notice a pattern here?

Earlier Sunday, commission chairman Vardi Zeiler, a retired judge, said Karadi should lose his job for the incomplete investigation and for ignoring ties between senior police officers and top organized crime figures. Karadi was not police commissioner at the time of the killing, but a departmental head.

Terminating Karadi's appointment would "highlight a clear norm for generations to come that someone who behaves like Karadi would be unable to complete his term as police commissioner," Zeiler told reporters.

So Karadi is not just a sacrificial lamb being offered up to create the illusion that the Israeli police force are accountable to anyone other than themselves?

"If the (panel's) suspicions are correct, this is the beginning of a very corrupt police force, and the infiltration of underworld figures to the police, which corrupts the police and the regime," Zeiler added.

I sincerely doubt that this is "the beginning". Such corruption is woven into the fabric of Israeli society.

The commission was formed to examine whether police properly closed the case of the murder, in which a rogue police officer confessed to shooting a suspected crime boss hospitalized under police guard after an assassination attempt.

The officer, who said he operated at the behest of a well-known Israeli crime family, was later murdered in Mexico, allegedly by members of the crime family angered by his confession. The case was later closed after police concluded there was not enough evidence.

These guys do get around, don't they?

Karadi insisted that the allegations against him were untrue, but said he was resigning to "set a personal example" and spare the police the harm of a scandal.

How magnanimous of him. If you were falsely accused, would you leave your job quite so easily? I don't think so.

Surprise Development - Israel, U.S. May Shun Palestinian Government

2007-02-18T14:47:00.000Z

In what seems to be the Israeli-Palestinian version of groundhog day, it's very much business as usual it seems...

JERUSALEM Feb 18, 2007 (AP)

The U.S. and Israel agreed ahead of a three-way meeting with the Palestinians to shun any new Palestinian government that does not renounce violence, recognize Israel and accept existing peace agreements, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Sunday.

That's a surprise move, is it not? I can't say I am particularly stunned by this announcement, but I am still left wondering about a few lose ends in these demands, small but important details that seem to be absent from every pronouncement and debate on the matter...

When does Israel intend to renounce violence, given that it was born out of violence and has lived by violence for every moment of its existence?
Even if the Palestinians were inclined so to do, which I believe would be a huge error, how can they possibly recognise Israel when the latter steadfastly refuses to define its own borders?
Can Israel name a date from which it intends to accept,
implement and stick to existing peace agreements?

The platform of a new Palestinian power-sharing agreement, reached in Saudi Arabia earlier this month, speaks only of "respect" for existing peace deals.

Perhaps the Israelis simply don't understand this statement because the whole notion of respecting agreements is foreign to them?

"A Palestinian government that won't accept the Quartet conditions won't receive recognition and cooperation," Olmert said. "The American and Israeli positions are totally identical on this issue."

Another first. Total unanimity between the U.S. and Israel. What next? Billions of dollars of subsidy from U.S. taxpayer's pockets to prop up the failed state of Israel?

The Palestinians should make it clear that they recognise do recognise the state Israel... that they recognise it as a violent, supremacist and hate filled state illegally established on Palestinian lands through the use of intimidation, terrorism and ethnic cleansing.

No Dal Molin

2007-02-16T19:49:00.000Z

While the gaffe-prone Italian ex-premier Silvio Berlusconi points out the obvious but perfectly Italian contradiction of politicians from the current government making known their intention to demonstrate against their own administration's policies, protestors are preparing to descend on the northern Italian town of Vicenza to show their opposition to the planned construction of an expanded U.S. base there.

The demonstration, which takes place tomorrow (17th February), is hoping to persuade the broad-left coalition government of Italy to rescind permisssion to expand the controversial base. Italy, no stranger to rainbow coalition governments, has several senior government members who are vocal in their opposition to the plans for the base, but who can not attend the protest because of their high-profile positions in the administration.

Some 250 coaches and 10 trains have been chartered to ferry an estimated 80,000 protestors from around Italy to Vicenza for the demonstration. Many Italian trade unions have signalled their intention to support the protests, but some of the so-called moderate unions, such as UIL, CISL and ACLI have made it clear that they will not participate, partly because the protests might be seen as “anti-American”. Amongst those who are attending, there is considerable concern about the possibility of infiltration by the so-called 'black-bloc', agent-provocateurs who widely thought to be the instigators of the violence at the 2001 G8 protests in Genova.

The issue of the expansion of this base at Vicenza is not only a matter for the Italian population, but has serious ramifications for the security of Europe and much further afield. At this juncture, and given the events of the past five years, no European country should be facilitating a ramping up of the U.S. presence in the region. On the contrary, in the interests of the safety and security of Europe and the wider world, they should be pressing for a phased withdrawl of all U.S. troops from European soil. The hard-pressed U.S. taxpayer will thank them for it, in the long run.

Is there a new Israeli weapon?

2007-02-13T00:08:00.000Z

Late last year, in a post in the Jerusalem File on ABC News, Wilf Dinnick reported on a possible new Israeli weapon.

Anwar Abu Holy sits in a plastic lawn chair by his home in Al Brij Camp in Gaza and likes to tell stories. He promises this story is true.

Abu Holy is an ambulance driver and this was his worst year.

“I have never seen anything like the injuries this summer”

Like many Palestinians Abu Holy is sure the Israelis are using a mysterious and deadly new weapon against the Palestinians.

Abu Holy often raced to the front line when Palestinian militants and Israeli soldiers clashed. He would be one of the first on the scene after an Israeli missile zeroed in on a Palestinian militant’s home. He would sift through the rubble looking for victims.

In July he started seeing people with odd burns, mutilated limbs and he rarely saw shrapnel. Most unusual, he says, were little dark spots on the skin.

“Like this”, he says lifting his right pant leg and revealing a stump. Most of his leg is gone and on his upper thigh, his hands and his right leg are hundreds of small black spots.

On July 19th Abu Holy was helping the wounded after an Israeli missile attack. Shortly after arriving on the scene a second missile hit a nearby home and he was injured.

While he carefully inspects the spots on his fingers and legs he says, “they call it the black dust. And I am afraid now I am going to die of cancer because of this”

Given what Dr al-Wahid says later in this piece, this prognosis is sadly probably correct.

There are plenty of rumors but few facts.

Isn't that always the case when it comes to the Israeli war machine?

The non-profit group Physicians for Human Rights is convinced the Israeli Army is using a weapon called D.I.M.E. (Dense Inert Metal Explosive). The weapon is now being tested in the United States.

The blast area of D.I.M.E. is intended to be small with almost no shrapnel. It is suppose to reduce the collateral damage in any attack. It has a very powerful and hot explosive.

If the fatality rate is as high as is suggested later in the piece, it sounds like there is more at work than just hot and powerful explosive.

In a statement the Israel Defense Forces “deny the possession or use of such weapons”

They didn't! Did they? How out of character! As they say, denial is not just a river in Egypt (and the planned Western edge of Eretz Israel).

but admits it is looking into ways to cut down on collateral damage.

That's another irony meter that will need replacing, dammit!

Habas al-Wahid, head of the emergency at the Shuhada al-Aqsa hospital is sure there is a new weapon being used.

As ever, it is those on the front line, those having to deal with the horrendous consequences of the killing machine that have a handle on what is actually going on.

In his sparsely decorated second floor office, Dr al-Wahid says he could never find a clear wound or much shrapnel in the patients he was treating. The effected areas he says were just severely mutilated.

“Most of the patients that came in did not survive”

Sounds like reduced collateral damage to me. Make sure they don't live to tell the tale.

Dr al-Wahid then stopped the interview, put his head in his hands, leaned forward on his desk and began to sob.

There is no concrete proof the Israeli Army is using a new weapon but for Palestinians like Dr al-Wahid there is no doubt the wounded in Gaza are being injured like never before.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck. Likewise, if it maims and kills in a manner that can not be attributed to existing weaponry, then it is not beyond the bounds of reason to conclude that there is indeed a new weapon in the Israeli arsenal. I'd also bet the farm on this new killing toy being either the product of U.S. research or Israeli research funded by the ever-suffering U.S. taxpayer.

2007-02-11T11:48:00.000Z

The latest round of war-pimping comes to you courtesy of Dr. Richard Saccone, a retired Air Force captain who served as a counterintelligence consultant in Iraq and teaches international relations at Saint Vincent College in Pennsylvania. This article was originally published by USA Today but can also be found at worldthreats.com.

"An objective look at the ominous threat from Iran provides a clear solution to the policy the United States must pursue."

The author of any truly 'objective look' would not be so bold as to attempt to portray Iran as an 'ominous threat' when the evidence points to the contrary. On the other hand, the author of a distinctly partisan appraisal might be tempted to use such phraseology in a vain attempt to add substance to a flacid line of argument.

"Iran is easily the most significant source of terror worldwide,"

Once again, anyone coming from an objective perspective would conclude that the most significant source of terror worldwide is the United States, followed closely by its ally/proxy/master (take your pick) - Israel.

"providing financing, training, advice, support and supplies to its proxy Hezbollah"

The extent of Iranian backing for Hezbollah has yet to be properly demonstrated. Even if Iran is backing Hezbollah, so what? The amount of financing, training, support and supplies finding its way from Iran to Syria/Southern Lebanon pales when compared against the billions of dollars looted from the pockets of the U.S. taxpayer to provide funding, training, advice, support and supplies to a state that was born from terrorism and lived by it for every day of its miserable existence.

"as well as other groups as far away as Asia."

What groups? Where? Do you have any hard evidence to back up this specious claim? By the way, "Dr" Richard... look at a map of the world some time. Asia is not that far away.

"That makes it a major opponent in the war on terror."

Any opposition to your "war of terror" is to be applauded, in my opinion.

"In addition, Iran has increased efforts to undermine the U.S. mission in Iraq through operations in the south as well as in Baghdad."

Yet again you fail to back up apparently factual statements with anything resembling supporting evidence. Just like the weapons of mass destruction that magically failed to appear during the invasion of Iraq, the extent of Iranian involvement in Iraq may well be vastly over-stated in order to provide war pimps like yourself with the opportunity to once again beat the drums of war.

"It has dared to confront the United States,"

How dare it do that! After all, the United States is the paragon of virtue, the model civilisation, a shining example for the world to follow. Actually, the United States is a bully, and like all bullies, it needs to be confronted.

"stirring Shiite sectarian violence"

The internecine violence is the result of a deliberate strategy on the part of the occupiers and has nothing whatsoever to do with Iran.

"and providing Shiite militias with advanced weapons and knowledge of constructing sophisticated explosive devices for use against U.S forces."

The I.E.D.s used against the U.S. forces and others may fufill their intended purposes, but they are anything but sophisticated. Those who possess the advanced weapons and sophisticated explosive devices are those who illegally invaded a sovereign state.

"Iran has consistently followed its goal of becoming a regional power while secretly hoping to gain control of combined oil reserves (in Iran and southern Iraq) that reportedly would stand second only to Saudi Arabia's."

Let me guess... that oil really belongs to Uncle Sam? Once again you make specious claims without providing any corraborating evidence. Let's look at the evidence as it stands. Not once in living memory has Iran attempted to invade the territory of others. Not once has it engaged in offensive warfare against any other nation. Not once! This is in stark contrast to the behaviour of the United States and its proxy, Israel. In fact, if any nation seeks to become a regional power, it's Israel.

"Iranian officials have showed almost no inclination of pausing in their efforts to acquire nuclear weapons, even openly cooperating with the North Koreans to expedite the process."

I suppose if you start your war chant by demonstrating that you suffer from a form of fact-phobia, then why change midway through? As ever, the facts fly in the face of your ludicrous claims. Iran is, unlike Israel, a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Iran has, unlike Israel, allowed inspectors from the Internation Atomic Energy Agency to inspect its fledgling nuclear facilities. Iran has shown almost no inclination to acquire nuclear weapons, and there is no evidence whatsoever that they are cooperating with North Korea. Even your own CIA have concluded that Iran is at least a decade away from being able produce nuclear weaponry. In the unlikely event that Iran is acquiring nuclear-weapons capability on the quiet, would you blame them, given the unstable, beligerent and trigger-happy Israel sitting on over two-hundred nukes?

"President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad routinely threatens to wipe out our closest ally in the region, Israel, and drive the United States from the Middle East."

Oh not the old 'wiping Israel off the map' canard again! The statement as attributed to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the product of deliberate mistranslation. In other words, it is a fabrication... a bald-faced lie... Is repeating falsehoods the best this "academic" like you can do? As for Iran wishing to drive the united States from the Middle East, the United States has no business being there, so it comes as no surprise that Iran would like to drive them out. I'm sure they are not alone in that.

"And what have our multilateral efforts of diplomacy accomplished so far? Almost nothing."

What attempts at diplomacy? The United States has proven time and time again over the past five decades that diplomacy is its weakest suit. What has passed for attempts at diplomacy were in fact thinly veiled bullying to attempt to force Iran into giving up their right to under the NPT to exploit nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.

"Iran has defied United Nations deadlines, played Europe and China against U.S. interests and deceived U.N. inspection teams with false reports on storage, processing and importing of nuclear materials."

I know I run the risk sounding like a scratched recording here, but where is the evidence to back up this claim? Inspection teams have yet to make any claims that they are the victims of deception. In reality we only have the word of war-pimps like you to go by. Europe is not being 'played' by Iran or anyone else. I know the notion of independence is probably foreign to your worldview, but European politicians are perfectly capable of forming their own opinions that are distinct from those of your increasingly-unpopular administration.

"Even more troubling, we are dealing with a president who firmly believes in an apocalyptic vision that the 12th Imam will return to Earth to establish a worldwide Islamic caliphate. Ahmadinejad told a cleric that he felt the "hand of God" mesmerizing world leaders as he spoke at the U.N. General Assembly in September."

In the United States you have a president who has claimed publically that he 'talks to God' and you have the gall to make such remarks?

"The stakes are far too high to allow Iran to buy any more time through feigned receptivity to diplomacy."

The stakes are too high indeed, but not in the way you think.

"Iran must be confronted quickly and persistently,"

Why? What business is it of yours? Iran poses no threat to the United States, other than their desire to control their own natural resources. You have already illegally invaded one country that posed no threat to your nation, and you want to do it all over again?

"and the growing dissent within the country fanned so that it challenges the current regime."

Another 'color' revolution? What colour will it be this time? Blood red?

"The clock is on the side of Ahmadinejad."

You betcha it is. And time is running out for the self-appointed world policeman.

"Dealing resolutely with Iran is the only option that promises to yield tangible results."

If by tangible results you mean unnecessary death and destruction, more regional instablility and more looting of resources, I suppose, for once, you are right.

Silencing Saddam

2007-01-07T14:28:00.000Z

Call it what you like, but don't pretend for a moment that the hanging of Saddam Hussein was the end result of a fair and open judicial process. The trial of the former dictator made a complete mockery of the concept of justice. It was nothing short of a kangaroo court. Lawyers for the defence were intimidated and murdered. Witnesses were threatened. Judges who did not tow the official line were unceremoniously removed and replaced with compliant puppets. The trial was anything but open and apart from a few short sessions, it took place behind firmly closed doors.

The hurried manner in which Saddam Hussein was executed only serves to raise suspicions that there was something that the so-called "coalition of the willing" wanted to hide. It is quite possible that, not unlike the suspicious demise of Slobodan Milošević, the war criminals decided that they risked having their own crimes exposed to the world if they allowed him to remain alive. The lack of footage from the trial, the non-existent coverage of Saddam's own defence and the general aura of secrecy surrounding the trial all point to this being more than a passing possibility. Perhaps if he had lived, Saddam would have spilled the beans on who it was who provided him with his weaponry and who it was who gave him the go-ahead to carry out the mass-murders. Perhaps he would have shed further light on the unsavoury nature of United States / British involvement in the region.

The execution - in effect a lynching - took place on the Muslim feast of Eid ul-Adha, which celebrates the deliverance of Ismael (Ishmael) from sacrifice by Ibrahim (Abraham). The significance of this choice of date should not go unnoticed. During this feast it is customary to pardon and release prisoners, not execute them. The date was deliberately chosen to be seen as an affront to the entire Islamic world. The filming and subsequent release of the jerky mobile phone footage of the execution including the juvenile taunts of those present is also anything but a mistake. It was a deliberate act calculated to further fuel already highly volatile sectarian divisions in Iraq. It is nothing more than the latest application of the classic strategy of "divide et impera" - divide and conquer.

Saddam was executed for signing 148 death warrants for acts of high treason for people in Dujail who had apparently been tried and sentenced to death by a legal Iraqi court for their parts in an alleged attempt to assassinate him. It is worth noting that George Bush signed 152 warrants as Governor of Texas - many for far lesser crimes. I also can not help but wonder if the response of the Bush administration to an assassination attempt would have been any less severe than that of the Ba'athist regime.

There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein had blood on his hands. He was, after all, a creation of colonialists ruling a country whose borders were determined by colonialists. However, the British have had their hands far more deeply soaked in the blood of the entire region for centuries and have been responsible not only for creating the modern borders of Iraq - complete with potentially explosive rival religious and ethnic factions - but also for countless acts of barbarism in the pursuit of maintaining their empire.

The United States, a late entrant into the empire game, has made up for lost time and it too is wading chest deep in the blood of the Arab world. First and foremost, it is responsible for putting Saddam into power. Originally a CIA asset, Saddam was recruited to assassinate the then Iraqi president Abdel-Karim Qassem, who had the gall to start imposing taxes on British and US oil companies as a first step in the nationalisation of Iraq's oil resources. Saddam failed in this attempt and made his escape to Egypt. When the CIA successfully brought down the Qassam presidency, Saddam returned to Iraq to act as Head of National Security. Later he became president for life - with the full support of the United States and was supposed to return the favour by blocking any attempts to nationalise the Iraqi oil industry.

If Saddam was a monster, the "monster" was created by the United States. The United States continued to support and feed the "monster" until he decided to stop taking his orders from Washington. It is only when he refused to provide western multinationals with unfettered access to Iraqi oil reserves (and other assets) and when he subsequently took the decision to denominate Iraq's oil in Euros instead of Dollars that he suddenly became a "monster" instead of a "usefull ally".

The United States inspired and directed sanctions against Iraq after Gulf War 1 are estimated to have resulted in the deaths of up to 800 thousand innocent civilians. The illegal invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq by the United States, Britain and various other hangers-on has resulted in at least a further 700 thousand casualties, most of whom were civilian.

Iraq was a progressive secular muslim state (albeit where political opposition was repressed) where it was safe to walk the streets, primary education was compulsory for all, higher education was free, everyone was provided with housing and women had far greater rights than in other muslim nations. As a direct result of the actions of the so-called "coalition of the willing" Iraq has become a hellish quagmire of religious bigotry, spiralling violence and insecurity. Compared to attrocities committed during the invasion and occupation of Iraq, the alleged crimes of Saddam pale into insignificance.

In the face of international condemnation of the hanging, spokespersons for the occupying powers resolutely supported the execution and the new U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon simultaneously demonstrated the farcical nature of the United Nations and signalled a new direction for the General Secretariat when he announced that capital punishment should be a decision of individual countries. His failure to reiterate UN opposition to the death penalty on his first day in the post is shameful, shocking and disgusting.

Winston Churchill is reputed to have said that "grass may grow on the battlefield but never under the gallows". Nowhere in the world will this prove to more true than in Iraq.

The Litvinenko Mystery Train

2006-12-28T19:47:00.000Z

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.

The Christmas Truce

2006-12-25T09:14:00.000Z

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.

The lunatics have taken over the asylum

2006-12-24T13:28:00.000Z

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.

Depleted Uranium - The New Agent Orange?

2006-12-16T20:38:00.000Z

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.

Olmert comes clean on nukes

2006-12-15T11:30:00.000Z

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.

The end of a long goodbye

2006-12-10T21:45:00.000Z

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!

Chavez Victorioso!

2006-12-04T10:59:00.000Z

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.

Viva Chavez!

2006-12-03T11:21:00.000Z

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.

Q - When is a coup not a coup?

2006-12-02T20:35:00.000Z

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".

Another Zionist "mistake" in Jenin

2006-11-29T13:48:00.000Z

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

Poisonous Minds

2006-11-26T19:08:00.000Z

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.

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

2006-11-20T19:35:00.000Z

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

Ex-KGB officer poisoned in UK

2006-11-19T11:33:00.000Z

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?

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

2006-11-18T19:46:00.000Z

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?....."?

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

2006-11-18T10:38:00.000Z

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.

Bill Maher - telling it like it really is

2006-11-12T12:29:00.000Z

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.

Barbarism in Bil'in

2006-11-11T23:51:00.000Z

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

US blocks UN resolution condemning the accident prone state of Israel

2006-11-11T19:28:00.000Z

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.

We are NOT afraid

2006-11-11T12:33:00.000Z

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.

The deckchairs have been rearranged.

2006-11-09T22:27:00.000Z

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.

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

2006-11-07T22:17:00.000Z

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.

The Dupes of Haggard

2006-11-05T23:10:00.000Z

The megachurch pastor who was the also titular leader of the U.S. evangelical lobby has finally admitted that he is guilty of "sexual immorality". Haggard, a man with an apparent hotline to God and a weekly conference call with someone who thinks he is God, is deeply anti-intellectual, a notorious homophobe and a highly vocal opponent of gay marriage.

Haggard became a born-again Christian in 1972, and then went on to study at the aptly named Oral Roberts University, a charismatic Christian university in Tulsa, Oklahoma. He took up the position of associate pastor of a megachurch in Louisiana in 1984 and moved to Colorado to establish the New Life Church shortly afterwards. This church grew from a small group meeting in his house to the huge congregation and enormous campus it currently occupies.

The scandal came to public attention last week, after a claim made by masseur Mike Jones on a Colorado radio station that he had been paid to have sex with Mr Haggard almost every month over the past three years. Ted Haggard has denied the claims made by Mr Jones but said he did receive a massage from him. He also admitted to buying methamphetamine but claims that he "never used it".

He was fired by the church on Saturday 4th of November, having stepped down as the head of the National Association of Evangelicals the previous Thursday.

For anyone interested, Harpers have a very interesting article with lots of background info on the church, its former pastor and their somewhat bizarre beliefs.

On the issue of gay marriage, I guess I am what most fundie Christians would describe as 'luke warm'. In reality, I think there are far more urgent and important issues to occupy my thoughts and my time than the relatively trivial question of whether two people of the same sex should be able to have a piece of paper that declares them to be in a legally recognised civil union.

One of the issues that I feel does warrant concern is the enormous undue influence the fundamentalist evangelical lobby has on the United States government and in particular the foreign policy of the administration. I am also concerned about the unquestioning support that lobby has for the state of Israel and the utter contempt it displays for those who happen to find themselves in Israel's firing line.

Quite a few members of that same lobby decry anyone who shows any concern for the environment or the future of the planet as being an 'earth worshipper' and believe that the dominion over the earth that was given them by the great real-estate agent in the sky is a right to plunder, consume and destroy the finite resources of the planet.

I am convinced that the sort of duplicitousness and hypocrisy displayed by Ted Haggard is but the tip of the iceberg and that many more such skeletons are hiding out in the closets of various high-profile fundamentalist leaders. The sooner the rest of them are outed, the better for all of us.

Obsession: FOX News and the war for votes

2006-11-05T14:33:00.000Z

Newshounds, whose tagline is "We watch FOX so you don't have to" have revealed that Faux News has rearranged its weekend line-up in order to be able to air a terror film "Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West", presumably to scare the wits of out floating voters and send them to the polls - voting for the ruling junta- the GOP.

Faux News, in announcing that it will air the film, claims that it is a "frightening new documentary by filmmaker Wayne Kopping" and that "what he found, is something FOX News believes every American should know."

The documentary, far from being new, is actually a year old, and will be aired four times over the weekend in what consitutes unabashed electioneering.

Ignoring the fact that a significant proportion of the American public do not believe the official line on the events of 9/11 and that the supposed facts of what happened that day simply fail to add up, an article at the the Faux News site tries to stir up the fear factor using the tried and not so trusted line on 9/11...

"We often hear that 9/11 was a wake-up call for Americans. But have Americans really woken up to the truth of how much radical Islamists want us dead, and the lengths to which they are willing to go to fulfill their mission?"

Back in the real world, outside of the Faux News world of manufactured fear and support for state-sponsored terrorism, this piece would have to be reworded to read...

"We often hear that 9/11 was a wake-up call for Americans. But have Americans really woken up to the truth of how much the neoconservative administration have used 9/11 to turn America into a dictatorship in all but name, and the lengths to which they are willing to go to fulfill their mission?"

This so-called documentary will, of course, work its magic on less news-savvy and may well scare the living daylights out of them. What it won't do, of course, is deliver the true picture.

It won't discuss the relatively powerless nature of radical Islam when compared against the hostile and aggressive policies of the United States, Israel and the United Kingdom. It won't touch on the debate surrounding the inconsistencies of the 9/11 story, and the distinct possibility that the perpetrators are not those who have shouldered the blame so far. It will steer clear of any discussion on the idea that radical behaviour, where it exists, is an merely an effect for which the cause must be identified and dealt with. In other words, it will paint a simplistic and partisan view of affairs with the sole purpose of rallying support for the current administration and its ongoing "war on terra".

Whether or not the target audience for this electioneering blitz possesses the required attention span to sit out a documentary of this length remains to be seen - but the intention of Faux News is crystal clear - bolster the GOP vote by manufacturing fear and in doing so, manufacturing votes.

Remembering Deir Yassin

2006-11-02T21:13:00.000Z

In the early morning of April 9th 1948, commandos from the Irgun, headed by Menachem Begin and members of the Stern Gang attacked the village of Deir Yassin and its 750 Palestinian residents, even though the village was located outside the area assigned by the United Nations to the new state of Israel.

Deir Yassin, known to be a peaceful and trouble-free village, had one strategic advantage that was to be its downfall. It was built on high ground on a corridor between Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, and as such was earmarked for occupation under Plan Dalet.

The Haganah, the main Israeli defense force had given authorisation to the irregular terrorist forces of the Irgun to perform the takeover, working side-by-side with a rag tag bunch of terrorists known as the Stern Gang. Over 100 men, women, and children were murdered and fifty-three children were left orphaned, literally dumped along the wall of the old city.

This unprovoked massacre, and others carried out since in the name of Zionism, should never be forgotten. The organisation Deir Yassin Remembered was set up to ensure the memory of those who perished is kept alive and their suffering not forgotten.

Welcome to school - fascist style

2006-11-01T21:46:00.000Z

Associated Press reported that armed riot police recently carried out a raid on Michigan junior and high schools as part of an exercise. Of course the children were not made aware of what was about to take place and even teachers were given just a few minutes notice.

Marge Bradshaw, a parent with four children attending Godfrey-Lee Schools said "Some of these kids were so scared, they just about wet their pants. I think it's pure wrong that the students and parents were not informed of this".

Judging by the YouTube video below, a similar incident took place in Goose Creek, South Carolina some years ago, where armed police raided a high school with their weapons drawn - ostensibly in search of drugs. I have to say that the time stated on the video is a little suspect, as nobody in their right mind is at school at 6:45am. Judge for yourself.

I really fail to see any purpose in terrorising children in this way, other than to condition them to accept such brutal intrusions into their lives as routine and unavoidable. It really does not matter what rationale you might come up with... a society that has to resort to such tactics in the education of their children let alone accept them as routine on the streets of our cities, is a society that has failed in a fundamental way. It is not, no matter what way you spin it, a hallmark of a successful, thriving and free society.

If you are voting in the elections on November 7th, will you be voting for someone who will only give you more of the same, or even worse? Or will you be voting for someone who will commit to reversing the decimation of your civil liberties and turning back from the headlong march towards total fascism?

More Inconvenient Truths

2006-10-31T18:10:00.000Z

In a report sponsored by the UK government, and bearing his name, Sir Nicholas Stern, former chief economist at the World Bank stated that "our actions over the coming few decades could create risks of major disruption to economic and social activity, later in this century and in the next, on a scale similar to those associated with the great wars and the economic depression of the first half of the 20th Century". In the report he also warns that we are too late to prevent any damaging consequences from climate change.

Responding to the report, Richard Lambert, Director General of the Confederation of British Industry stated that “Provided we act with sufficient speed, we will not have to make a choice between averting climate change and promoting growth and investment”. While this conclusion could be accurate, it is based on the twin assumptions that growth rather than stability is the way forward and that we will act immediately, making the right moves and choices. It assumes that we can have our cake and eat it.

Our pursuance of growth at all costs is a major contributing factor in this mess. Growth should not be a non-negotiable factor in our economic policies. The end-game of growth is that companies have produce more and more, and consequently pollute more and more. Is the cost of growth really worth paying?

Whether or not we as a species can act sensibly is debatable and evidence so far is not good. The failure of the world of business in particular, and that of society in general, to take the threat of global warming seriously has already brought us to this impasse.

We continue to embrace, without question, the utterly wasteful concept of “planned obsolescence” first mooted by Brooks Stevens in the 1950’s. Although the average person will have nothing to lose by a return to manufacturing goods designed to last – and perhaps paying a little more for them – there is little impetuous to do so.

Few of us pay sufficient attention to energy wastage in our homes, despite the fact that remedying this waste will have minimal impact on our precious “quality of life”. Any recently produced piece of domestic electronic equipment will have an on/standby switch in place of on/off switch – forcing those who want to cut waste to unplug these devices from the wall socket. I can not see any evidence of public pressure to reintroduce the less wasteful but perhaps less couch-potato-friendly on/off switch.

Yet more of us choose, usually for infantile and ostentatious reasons, to drive fuel-guzzling four-by-four off-road vehicles even when those same vehicles will only ever be used to drive our increasingly obese children to school. Some people even believe that to be ‘free’ means having the right to consume as much as they wish and to pollute as much as they wish. Those same people are normally those who won’t even utter a whimper when their true freedoms are taken away under their noses.

We continue to tolerate the lunacy of shipping food and beverages thousands of kilometres when precisely the same food or beverage is available locally. Beppe Grillo, the Italian comic, gave an excellent example of this when he showed how bottled water produced in the south of Italy was being shipped to the north, where ample supplies of locally produced mineral water were already available. Some may defend this profligacy as ‘choice’, but in reality you are defending a choice between two things are for all intents and purposes identical – with the exception of labelling.

While I agree that it is impossible to avoid the deleterious consequences of climate change, I would suggest that to allow economics to dictate the remedies will hamper attempts to limit the damage. We can prevent our demise and that of the majority of species we share the planet with, and minimise the worst of the impact of global warming, but in order to do so we have to stop trying to fit our environmental action around established economic principles – putting the cart before the horse. Forget saving the planet – the planet will survive long after our demise – if we are to save ourselves and the world we live in now, we must act without compromise on the environmental front and then revisit the economics, shaping our future economic system around the steps we need to take to survive.

The long-term targets proposed by the Stern report may be sufficient to protect economic growth, but are unlikely to deliver the sort of environmental impact to stave off climate changes that will spell disaster for large swathes of populations in the developing world, and perhaps even for many of those in the developed world too.

Media disinformation and the renewed demonisation of Russia

2006-10-27T21:15:00.000+01:00

Over the past year, the previously understated but regular drip-feed of articles in the Western media critical of the Russian establishment has become more frenzied and purposeful, reflecting an increase in the level of hostility towards Russia from the powers-that-be in the West. Of course, no state is perfect and no state should be beyond criticism, but I can’t help but wonder why Russia is the target of such much condemnation when their ‘crimes’ whereas the absolute tyranny being imposed on the people of Uzbekistan by Islam Karimov goes relatively unreported.

Behind the media disinformation - the veiled allegations that President Putin was somehow complicit in the murder of Anna Politkovskaya; the deliberate misinterpretation of a deeply ironic remark made to the Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert about Israeli President Moshe Katsav; the customary wailing about the “rolling back democratic reforms” in Russia; the endless fake outrage at Russian actions in Chechnya - lie the real reasons for the renewed vigour in the campaign to demonise Russia.

What has Putin done to draw fire from assorted mouthpieces of Western governments and various hacks in the Western media? The reason for their ire is that he has established an effective and solid resistance to the rape and pillage of Russia by the globalised forces of unfettered greed. Putin has come to the conclusion that the powers that be in the West, in other words, the trans-national corporations and their ultimate owners, don’t just want access to Russian oil, nor do they want control of Russian oil, they want total control of every aspect of the Russian economy. For them, nothing short of total economic submission will do.

Putin is guilty of the ultimate sin, that of economic nationalism. The sin is that of putting the needs of your country before those of international capital. It is the real reason why Salvador Allende was ousted and replaced with the despot Pinochet. It is the true motive for the ousting of Saddam Hussein. It is the reason why Hugo Chavez is dishonestly depicted as a tyrant. It will be the actual rationale for any future war against Iran, despite claims to the contrary. In the case of Russia and the Putin administration, this 'sin' has manifested itself in number of ways, each of which is discussed in detail below.

Control of NGOs
On April 17th of this year, a law passed by the Russian Parliament, the Duma, took effect. This law, vociferously denounced as ‘controversial’ and ‘retrogressive’ by the media in the West, imposes restrictions on domestic and foreign nongovernmental organizations operating in Russia. The law puts in place strict registration requirements and imposes rigorous financial oversight on the operations of NGOs. The law also provides for the dissolution of an NGO if its activities "threaten Russia's independence or sovereignty".

The motive for this legislation is not to deny freedom of speech or to attempt undermine the rights of citizens, but to protect Russia from the insidious activities of certain foreign-funded NGOs that are established to do precisely three things:

undermine the governments of sovereign nations and in doing so subjugate their economies
promote the bland, insipid and ultimately impotent brand of western democracy
press for the market liberalisation that is in reality little more than legalised plundering and wholesale racketeering

Vladimir Putin seeks to prevent a repeat of the "colour" revolutions in Ukraine and Georgia, where anti-ultra-nationalist xenophobes were funded by NGOs set up by the likes of the US National Endowment for Democracy, ostensibly to free the countries from their Soviet past and to establish them as independent democracies. The reality of these pseudo-revolutions is somewhat different, however. Their purpose was solely to move the countries out of the sphere of influence of Russia and into that of the United States. Democracy - or at least the concept of democracy unadulterated with corporatist fundamentalism, electoral fraud and the threat of tyranny - played no part in the proceedings.

In the most ironic of all ironies, the most vituperative disapproval of this move to curtail the activities of foreign NGOs came from the United States, a country that had previously put in place two versions of the freedom-busting "Patriot Act". Piling insult on top of injury, the political class and media in the United States remain fierce critics of Russia and her apparent lack of freedoms, despite having descended into a deeper dystopic state following recent the signing into law of the Military Commissions Act.

Dollar Independence
On May 10th of this year, Vladimir Putin, in his State of the Nation speech to the Russian Duma (Parliament), announced that Russia would make the rouble a convertible currency, in order that it could be used for payment in oil and natural gas transactions. At the present time, oil sales are exclusively transacted in dollars and are made solely through the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMX) and the London Petroleum Exchange (LPE), both of which are owned by American investors.

Any move away from the denomination of oil in dollars will severely impact on the demand for the greenback on the global market and would result in billions of dollars flooding back into the United States, causing at the very least a severe economic slump and potentially resulting in total economic meltdown.

Like Saddam Hussein before him, the real threat Vladimir Putin poses to the United States is his desire to free his country and the sale of its resources from the shackles of the US fiat currency. In November 2000, Saddam Hussein had started selling oil in euros, thus threatening the absolute hegemony of the dollar. Up to this point, oil had never been transacted in euros - as Britain and Norway, two major oil producers, one of which is a member of the EU and the other a member of the European Economic Area (EEA) decided to retain their own currencies and to continue denominating the sales of their oil in dollars. The result of the insolence of Saddam Hussein in threatening the hegemony of the almighty dollar was illegal invasion of Iraq. The pretext for the invasion was a lie - a smokescreen. The impending destruction of Iraq would have nothing whatsoever to do with the dictatorial nature of the Hussein regime, or his attacks on the Kurds. The true motive for the invasion was solely because he threatened US supremacy and the domination of its currency.

Similarly, the real reason for the posturing on Iran has nothing to do with alleged plans on the part of the Iranians to develop nuclear weapons. It is because the Iranians have announced plans to establish an Iranian Oil Bourse (Market) transacting oil in Euros. The exchange would be based on Kish Island in the Persian Gulf, an Iranian duty-free and tax-free zone. The launch date for the bourse has been delayed, and when and if it does go into operation it will have to overcome the major obstacle that the current amount of euro currency in circulation is insufficient. However, any moves away from the use of the dollar, however putative, can be considered a threat to the long-term viability of the greenback. Those who dismiss such suggestions as conspiracy theory may like to explain why the privately-owned U.S. Federal Reserve has cancelled the publishing of the M3 monetary aggregate, a report that details the extent dollar holdings globally.

If President Putin continues with his plans to establish the rouble as a convertible currency and to transact all sales of Russian oil in the rouble, then expect the demonisation of Russia in general and Putin in particular to increase dramatically.

Conflict with Georgia
Georgian President, Mikail Saakashvili is frequently painted as being a nationalist, but as always the reality of his presidency bears little relationship to the propaganda. Although he has fought hard to have Russian bases removed from Georgian soil, he has quickly replaced them with those of another foreign power - The United States. Since the downfall of the Soviet Union, the United States and her allies have been busy cultivating lackies and establishing bases in the former Soviet states bordering Russia.

For the authorities in Moscow, the Caucasus region and other former satellite states are their geopolitical backyard and therefore critical to their national security. The United States has bases in 130 of 160 countries in the world, and Russia has every right to be concerned about the presence of forces from an increasingly hostile nation on their borders - and have rightly used this incursion into the region as a reason to renew investment in their military.

The publicly stated rationale for Western support for Georgia in their conflict with Russia is that Saakashvili is committed to democracy and that Putin is somehow the contrary. This is undiluted nonsense.

A report by OSCE Watch concluded that the March 2004 poll effectively produced a one party state in Georgia with a small nominal and utterly ineffective opposition. Since that time, Saakashvili has busied himself with appointing close relatives to important governmental posts and despite having stated that “it was unacceptable for the Georgian president to have an inflated staff or a luxurious residence” he is now constructing a veritable palace for himself on the outskirts of Tbilisi - having demolished the police headquarters and a considerable number of neighbouring dwellings. This palace is reported by the British Helsinki Human Rights Group to be larger in scale than the White House in Washington. It is amazing that such a small country could afford such a disproportionate display of wealth and status. Despite its new status as a ‘democratic nation’ Georgia continues to be mired by outright corruption, cronyism, political racketeering and murder. Life for ordinary Georgians has not improved one iota since the colour revolution, and in many respects has worsened considerably.

A scale model of the new palace
(Photo by the British Helsinki Human Rights Group)

The fascist and totalitarian credentials of Saakashvili are close to impeccable. Constitutional amendments that were hastily pushed through parliament in February 2004, shortly after Saakashvili took power, effectively confer unlimited powers on the president. Also, in a move redolent of similar events in Nazi Germany, Saakashvili decreed that the symbol of the National Movement would become the new flag of Georgia, effectively making the symbols of the state and the party one and the same.

From the behaviour of the victor of the Rose Revolution, it is apparent that Georgia is not a democratic state, at least not by any commonly accepted definition of the word. Georgia has become a mini-dictatorship in all but name, a regime tied to and governed by the interests of the United States. Given the deep-seated connections between Saakashvili and the United States administration, the recent arrest of four Russian officials in Georgia can only be seen as deliberate action designed to provoke Russia - so that the Russian rejoinder can be dissected, analysed, criticised and demonised in the Western media.

Support for Byelorussia
Like Georgia, Byelorussia is a state sharing a border with Russia. Unlike Georgia, Byelorussia is an ally to Russia, and that - along with a shared history- is the primary reason for the close relationship between the two countries. The relationship does not imply Russian approval of the methods Lukashenko uses to remain in power, but is simply an attempt by Russia to ensure that Byelorussia does not become the 131st country in the world to host U.S. military bases.

Like Russia, Byelorussia has curtailed the activities of foreign NGOs and probably for much the same reasons. While there is an undoubted need for reform in Byelorussia, if the NGOs have their way, the reforms will be similar to those imposed on Georgia and Ukraine, and will not have the effect of improving the quality of life of Byelorussian citizens or making their government more accountable.

Any guesses as to who is sponsoring this putative "revolution"?
(photo by the British Helsinki Human Rights Group)

Alexander Lukashenko does have (as he said himself) "an authoritarian ruling style" and there is cause for concern about human rights violations and the actions of the state against independent journalists, national minorities and opposition politicians. However the true extent of such violations - when compared against those of "friendly" authoritarian regimes, such as the new Georgian administration- are exaggerated by the usual interested parties.

Ironically, Byelorusssia has been criticised by various U.S. funded NGO's for retaining the death penalty for certain crimes, despite the fact that the biggest culprit in the terminal dispatch of criminals is the chief cheerleader in anti-Lukashenko lobby. Also, in another supreme irony, in a testimony to the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice labelled Belarus, along with five other nations, as one of the United State's list of "outposts of tyranny".

The dismantling of oligarchy
Putin, much to the annoyance of the global kleptocracy, has started making moves to bring oil and gas production back under Russian control. The moves against Khodorkovsky, the ousting of Royal Dutch Shell from the Sakhalin II gas fields on the grounds of their failure to meet environmental regulations and the creation of the super corporation Gazpromneft have all contributed to the process of wrestling back control of resources that were literally given away to foreign companies and investors by the Yeltsin government. Of course, some in Russia, such as the newspaper Газета (Gazeta), will paint this as "a rather peculiar system of power where the nation’s key economic assets are run on behalf of the state by a group of close associates", but remained strangely silent while a small group of ultra-wealthy foreigners looted what they could of Russia's natural resources.

Military resurgence and Security Co-operation
The Russian army, navy and air-force are showing signs of recovering from their former dilapidated state. Despite years of economic problems, Russia has remained very much at the forefront of military technology and Vladimir Putin has made it clear in May 2003 through his annual State Of The Nation address that he would strengthen and modernise the Russian nuclear arsenal in order to “ensure the defence and capability of Russia and its allies in the long term”.

Through the Collective Security Treaty Organisation, Russia has been working together with Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan to bolster their collective defensive capability. On a broader front, Russia participates in the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, whose members held war-games in Kazakhstan in August 2006. Russia has also signed a comprehensive military cooperation agreement with India, again in August of this year.

Conclusion
Without doubt, the rationale for the upsurge in anti-Russian propaganda in the Western media is triggered by the re-emergence of Russia as a global power and the decision of the Russian administration to put the strategic interests of Russia ahead of those of the United States. Indeed, the U.S. Council for Foreign Relations is urging George Bush to “stop regarding Russia as a strategic partner” because “Russia has become an increasingly authoritarian state with a foreign policy that is sometimes at odds with the interests of the United States and its allies”. It is true that the Russian administration is acting against the interests of the United States. After all, it is doing what any government should do… it should act in the interests of its own people. If clamping down on the Trojan Horses that are the western-funded NGOs is authoritarian, then I guess Russia is also authoritarian.

So, for once, it appears that the Council for Foreign Relations, a neocon think-tank that laughably describes itself as a “Nonpartisan Resource for Information and Analysis” has got something right.

The Stakes

2006-10-23T22:26:00.000+01:00

With all the subtlety of a sledgehammer, a recent Republican advertisment goes a long way towards threatening the American people with further terrorist attacks and potential nuclear annihilation... unless...of course.. they cast their vote for the GOP on the 7th of November. The spot, which recalls the infamous "Daisy" advert that was the brainchild of Lyndon Johnson, is a jumbled video montage of assorted terrorist-types vowing to attack the United States, backed by the sound of a ticking time bomb that morphs into a thumping heartbeat and finally becoming an explosion.

The sad truth is that this kind of electoral blackmail will probably work its peculiar charm on that sizeable percentage of the American popuplation who have given up the will to think for themselves, or who will always implicitly believe that the actions of government are by their very nature benign.

Of course it is debatable as to whether a victory for the GOP or for the Democrats will make even the slightest bit of difference, but my suspicion is that a win for the latter would at least bring a halt to the headlong slide into totalitarianism. Of course, for the oligarchs, kleptocrats and plutocrats who pull the strings behind the scenes, it does not matter one bit who the eventual victor is - as the underlying and unwritten agenda will stay unchanged no matter what the outcome.

The Republican ~~blackmail~~ advert is at least truthful in claiming that failure to act will drive the stakes higher than can be imagined. What it fails to be truthful about is the exact nature of those stakes, the true identity of those who pose a very real and present threat to the American people and also the corrective action that needs to be take in order to ensure that the stakes don't become higher.

Scary Movie - Jesus Camp

2006-10-21T22:25:00.000+01:00

Judging by the cuts shown in this news report, this movie is proof that radical, fanatical and ultimately dangerous fundamentalism comes in more than one flavour, each as utterly distasteful as the other.

It may be that the type of indoctrination practised at the "Kids On Fire" childrens camp is not particularly commonplace and so can be considered relatively insignficant, but it does seem like this type of ultra-fundamentalist worldview is on the up and up. This should give any rational person cause for concern about the sort of adults this wholesale indoctrination of children will produce.

Essential viewing...

2006-10-21T19:28:00.000+01:00

If you have not yet seen it, you should give Keith Olbermann’s commentary on the Military Commissions Act of 2006 a look.

The 'sin' of omission

2006-10-21T10:42:00.000+01:00

In an article earlier this month, the Northwest Evening Mail reported that a retired dentist in the Lancaster area had been arrested and charged with "being in possession of an explosive substance for an unlawful purpose" after "a record number of explosives" were seized. It is claimed that police found "rocket launchers, chemicals, British National Party literature and a nuclear or biological suit" in his house . This find appear came shortly after the discovery of twenty-two 'chemical components' at the house of his alleged accomplice, Robert Cottage, a former BNP election candidate, who lives in nearby Colne.

A further article, published by The Burnley Citizen, reported that local police superintendent Neil Smith had "moved to reassure residents and stressed: It is not a bomb making factory" before adding that the find was "not related to terrorism". Another local newspaper, The Nelson Leader reported on the first appearances by the two before magistrates courts.

Given the nature of the find, you would imagine that the national news media would be all over this story in no time. Wrong! Here we have a substantial haul of weaponry that would do real damage to real people, and it receives precisely ZERO coverage in the national media.

This is in stark contrast to the almost frenzied blanket coverage of the trial of Dhiren Barot, who is being tried for conspiracy to carry out terrorist acts, despite the fact that only evidence against him are some deranged scribblings he made on a notepad where he fantasised about carrying out terrorist attacks on major public buildings in the United Kingdom and United States. Never mind the fact that "The Crown could not dispute claims from the defence that no funding had been received for the projects, nor any vehicles or bomb-making materials acquired".

According to the mainstream media, Mr Barot, who has obvious mental-health problems, is the real terrorist - despite having no means whatsoever to bring his crazed ideas to fruition, and having no known connection with anyone who does. However, when presented with the largest haul of items likely to be used in terrorist acts, voices in the same mainstream media fall strangely silent.

Of course, the guilt or innocence of those arrested in Lancashire is up to a court to decide and they have a right not to be tried in the media. However, the same careful avoidance of publicly discussing matters that are sub-judice does not seem to have come into play in the case of Dihren Barot.

His guilt or innocence should be determined by a court of law, based on the evidence presented. The outcome of his trial should not depend upon or be in anyway influenced by the feverish salivating of the gutter press (or gutter TV news for that matter) , nor the selective reporting of the so-called quality media and their servile acquiescence to the relentless demonisation of selected groups. Regretably, it seems that large swathes of the mainstream media have already been happy to act as his judge, jury and executioner.

An apple a day... the faulty rhetoric of Yabloko and the faux outrage of the 'international community'

2006-10-14T16:41:00.000+01:00

During a recent visit to Germany, blame for the murder of the Russian journalist, Anna Politkovskaya, was laid at the feet of Vladimir Putin by a crowd of 2000 protesters, one of whom shouted "murderer!" as Mr Putin got out of his limousine.

Later Mr Putin publicly acknowledged her death for the first time during a joint press conference with the German chancellor, Angela Merkel. During the press conference, he stated that although Ms Politkovskaya was a journalist known to be critical of the authorities in Russia, her influence on political life in Russia was insubstantial. He also promised that the murder, which he described as a "dreadful and unacceptable crime" will be fully investigated and the perpetrators apprehended. During talks with Mr Putin, Angela Merkin is reported to have raised the concerns of the mythical 'international community' with regard to the possibility of state involvement in the murder.

The murder of Ms. Politkovskaya is without doubt a cause for concern, as would be any suggestion of state intimidation of the media. However, the assumption that the murder was carried out on the orders of Mr Putin is either the product of simplistic thinking or ulterior motives. As with any significant event of this type, the first question any sane person should ask is 'cui bono'?

Who benefits? Certainly not Vladimir Putin, who is - without any real evidence - being accused of using murder to suppress media freedoms. If the Russian state had wanted to do away with a vocal opponent, their demise would have been made to look like an accident. Whoever perpetrated this murder wanted it to be clearly seen as an execution - in order to once more make the Putin administration the focus of the faux righteous indignation and moral outrage so beloved of those who regularly instigate or perpetrate atrocities all over the world. Those who benefit from this murder are those who want to demonise and punish the current Russian administration for their strident economic nationalism and for their attempts to review the flawed privatisations of the Yeltsin era.

When asked for comment about the murder, Grigory Yavlinsky, leader of the opposition Yabloko party stated that "Russia is becoming an authoritarian and corrupt country". The reality is that Russia is less corrupt now than it was when Yeltsin was busy selling off the Russian family silver to a small number of ultra-greedy oligarchs.

He went on to say that "This killing opens a new phase when the physical elimination of political opponents becomes possible". He has obviously had his eyes closed while the oligarchs and other assorted criminals were busy ordering hits on each other in their drive to establish exclusive control over the natural resources that rightly belong to all of the Russian people.

While I do not for one minute believe that the administration of Vladimir Putin is blameless or free from mistakes, I am sickened by the hypocritical critique of those who point fingers at Russia for their actions in Chechnya while simultaneously committing far greater atrocities in the Middle East, or at least tacitly supporting them.

I also find it ironic that the leader of a party that espouses the kind of liberal economic policies that allowed Yeltsin to divest the Russian state of its natural resources and large industries has the audacity to bemoan the increasing corruption in the country. Mr Yavlinsky believes that these fundamentally corrupt privatisations should be deemed legal and should not be open to administrative review. It is clear from this that Mr Yavlinsky does not represent the interests of the Russian populace at large, but is far more interested in protecting the ill-gotten assets of a small clique of kleptocrats.

Dalits seeking dignity

2006-10-14T15:21:00.000+01:00

According to a report by the BBC, low-caste Hindus - otherwise known as Dalits, are converting to other religions, particularly Buddhism and Christianity. The Dalits, who number 167 million people and represent over 16% of the population of India, are considered to be the lowest-ranking members of Hindu society - and are limited to performing only the most absolutely menial of jobs. They are not even the lowest level of the obnoxious caste system, they are considered to be outside of and beneath it.

Even if Hinduism is not alone amongst religions in promoting racist or supremacist ideologies, the ugly, institutionalised racism that the caste system represents is probably the most clear-cut example of discrimination whose basis lies in religious belief. It is highly ironic that a religion which markets itself to western cultures as fluffy, huggy, tolerant and inclusive is in fact quite the opposite.

While India may be one of the world's fastest growing economies, a social order based on highly institutionalised discrimination can only ensure that the largely undeserving Brahmin caste will reap the benefits. Thankfully, the Dalits, who have long been an oppressed people, have also grown in political influence, particularly in northern India and steps are being taken to rid Indian society of this divisive and discriminatory concept.

A word in your $hell...like...

2006-10-13T12:25:00.000+01:00

The Irish Daily Mail, in their editorial comment from yesterday's edition, rails against the left-wing agitators who are attempting to stoke a conflict so they can revive a long-discredited ideology. The conflict in question is the long-standing protest over the Shell Corrib pipeline.

Precisely which long-discredited ideology the Daily Mail has in mind is left unsaid, but through the references later in the piece where the protesters are described as dreamers who seek to turn back the tide of internationalisation and global trade. Admittedly, there are two distinct threads to the protests against the pipeline and the tendency has been for the two to become intertwined. The first thread of the protests objects to the pipeline route on the grounds of public safety. The second objection is broader and encompasses the economics of the project, and in particular the lack of benefit to the Irish people - the beneficiaries will be Norway's Statoil - who own a 36.5% stake, Shell - who own a 45% stake and Marathon - who own the remaining 18.5%. That the government of Ireland has been selling off the national resources at bargain-basement prices is evident, when even the likes of Mike Cunningham, the former director of Statoil Exploration (Ireland) stated that "No other country in the world has given such favourable terms as Ireland."

The Irish media have largely been subservient to the corporate cause, liberally sprinkling their editorial comment with anonymous allegations claiming that protesters are only interested in violence and destruction.

For instance the Sunday Independent of July 17th, 2005 claimed that:

Paramilitary style death threats have been made against workers on Shell's controversial Corrib gas pipeline project in Co Mayo.

The article in the Sunday Independent went on to claim that:

Two Scottish workers employed by the Norwegian-owned Statoil corporation were approached by a gang of men outside a pub in Belmullet and told they would be shot "in the back of the head".

What the Sunday Independent article did not make clear in that article, or in any article on the subject since then, is that their owner, Tony O'Reilly, is also part-owner of an Irish exploration company, Providence Resources, in which he holds a 45 per cent stake. Through this company he is the part-owner, along with Exxon-Mobil, of oil and gas fields off the coast of County Clare.

He has even admitted that he (mis)used his position as a "media mogul" to access the most lucrative exploration licenses, when in September 1983, he told Forbes magazine that “Since I own 35 per cent of the newspapers in Ireland I have close contact with the politicians. I got the blocks he wanted". The "he" referred to in the statement is the geologist working for the company.

So the Sunday Independent can hardly claim to be neutral on this issue - leaving aside their obvious attachment to neo-liberal economic principles. Whether the The Irish Daily Mail and their sister paper, the Sunday Mail, have any fiscal interest in the project is open to question, but their religious belief in the legalised pillage that goes by the name of globalisation - and the attendant repressive legislation to stiffle protest most certainly is not.

Going back to the Irish Daily Mail editorial, the ideology to which they refer - which is best expressed as economic nationalism - is hardly long-discredited, despite how much their wags might like to think it is. It is the reason why Iraq was invaded (forget the toppling a repressive regime excuse - the coalition of the willing tolerate far more repressive regimes elsewhere). It is the reason why Iran is ripe for invasion. It is the reason why Hugo Chavez is being demonised. It is the underlying motive for the constant attacks on the administration of Vladimir Putin, despite the fact that his alleged "crimes" pale in comparison to those of the current U.S. administration.

This ideology is a straightforward concept that states that the exploitation of the natural resources of a country should directly benefit all the people of that country and not just line the pockets of a few vested interests, and it is rapidly gaining ground. Globalisation - the legalised and unhindered plundering of the assets of countries and the exploitation of their peoples by corporations - is, on the other hand, becoming increasingly unpopular - despite how many times the Daily Mail stamp their collective feet in opposition.

Despite the attempts by the likes of the Daily Mail to smear all opposition as "left wing", opposition to the dominance of corporations is far from exclusively left-wing territory, as anyone who reads the writings of the likes of Paul Craig Roberts - a former advisor to former U.S. President Ronald Reagan will conclude.

Coffee & Cigarettes

2006-10-12T23:46:00.000+01:00

Non fumer!

It seems that France has decided to follow the example set by Ireland in setting a date for a public smoking ban. From next February, smoking will be banned in airports, railway stations, schools, universities and offices throughout France. However, the traditional French breakfast of coffee and cigarettes will survive for a further year, as smoking in bars, restaurants and clubs will be banned from February 2008. In order to set an example, the tobacco kiosk in the parliament will cease selling cigarettes from the end of this year, according to health minister Xavier Bertrand, quoted in Le Journal du Dimanche. Quite how a public smoking ban will go down in a country where chain-smoking took on an air of cool, and whose citizenry have a healthy disrespect for imposed rules, is anybody's guess.

Fancy a game of tag?

2006-10-12T23:18:00.000+01:00

The BBC have reported that scientists working for a new research centre at University College London are busy developing the prototypes of an orwellian system that will represent yet another encroachment on the civil liberties of otherwise law-abiding citizens. Following on from the ludicrous frenzy stirred up by the patently fake 'liquid explosives plot', the device, an electronic tag, will be issued to passengers at check-in and will be used to “track the movement patterns of passengers deemed to be suspicious and prevent them from entering restricted areas”. The system will go through trials at Debrecen airport in Hungary and if successful it could be coming to an airport near you within two years.

Going by the statements of the designers in the BBC article cited above, this device will be fixed to the passenger in such a way as to be difficult to remove. In order to soften the blow to civil liberties this development represents, the scientists claim that “It could also aid airports by helping evacuation in case of a fire, rapidly locating children, and finding passengers who are late to arrive at the gate”. With such a soft and fluffy pedigree, presumably it will also help find lost puppies and retrieve kittens caught up trees.

Criminalising speech

2006-10-12T22:48:00.000+01:00

I believe it is counter-productive and contrary to basic human rights to seek to criminalise any form of speech, or at least any form of speech that does not directly incite violence against others. So I approach the decision of the French parliament to criminalise denial of the Turkish genocide against the Armenians with more than a little trepidation. Although I have no doubts that a genocide took place, I simply don't see how society benefits by forcing everyone to express just that one accepted viewpoint and no other.

For a start, using the law as a gag acts as an effective barrier to research by anyone seeking to clarify the circumstances and numbers involved or to ascertain for themselves the veracity of any claims made. It may stop people saying things, but it won't stop people thinking them. Indeed, it may have opposite effect to that intended.

The really worrying implication of this law is that it sets a precedent where any claim can be imbued with the status of 'fact', considered incontrovertible and beyond question - by the simple waving of a legislative wand.

Of course this may be a simple ruse to delay the entry of Turkey into the EU – but there are simpler ways of making opposition known – without compromising the right to free speech. For the record, I count myself amongst those who believe that Turkey does not belong in the EU – mainly because as a state they have some pretty ugly bedfellows amongst their allies.

Hey Big Spender

2006-10-12T21:58:00.000+01:00

Titled using a turn of phrase that would put the 1980's "Loadsamoney" culture in the UK to shame, the Irish newspaper "The Sunday Business Post" is organising a property exhibition in Dublin this month. The exhibition, quaintly called "Hey Big Spender" will no doubt be full of sharp-eyed wolves waiting to empty the wallets of those who have hit it big with the payouts on their state-sponsored investment accounts (otherwise known as SSIAs).

If the past is anything to go by, most of the exhibitors will, no doubt, be selling 'investment opportunities' in properties abroad... of course they are abroad, because no property in Ireland could be remotely considered an investment. The hyper-inflated Irish property market – where prices have been literally talked up to hyper-inflated levels by a small number of interested parties – offers no real investment opportunities. I believe there is moral dubiousness in treating residential property as an investment and not as a place to live, but I will leave that for another day.

Back to the overseas property people... in the absence of any real regulation of this burgeoning marketplace, the chances of encountering a cowboy are far higher than normal. Some of these companies have scant knowledge of the property law in the countries they are 'selling' - preferring to leave that to local legal experts. Having been accosted by staff from these 'overseas property' companies at shopping centres and other exhibitions, I gleaned that quite a few of them are staffed by people who possess no more than a rudimentary 'tourist' knowledge of the language of those countries they deal with. So caveat emptor! You have been warned.

In reality the “Hey Big Spender” exhibition and its vulgar moniker is but the tip of the iceberg. It is just another facet of the self-congratulatory, self-obsessed, morally vacuous, arrogant, uncaring, “me fein” country that Ireland has become since taxpayers in other EU countries and various international corporations decided to fund the so-called Celtic Tiger.

There is a certain irony in this overseas property boom that should not be lost on those who remember how Ireland was twenty years ago. I can remember families complaining bitterly in the media that the Germans were buying up so much property in the west of Ireland that people had to move away from the area they were born in to find affordable housing. Now that self-same media is busy urging us to price the Poles, Bulgarians, Romanians and assorted others out of their own property markets – and maybe even marketing these overseas properties to people who would probably object strongly to the Bulgarians and Romanians having the freedom to come here to live.

Alors Delors

2006-06-03T08:56:00.000+01:00

In the run up to the French plebiscite on the proposed European Constitution, former European Commission president, Jacques Delors warned of a 'cataclysm' should the French electorate fail to do their duty, and ratify the constitution. This was only one amongst many apocalyptic contributions from the europhile elite. Such contributions varied from dragging out and dusting down various skeletons from the European closet - to remind us of the barbaric nature of Europe prior to integration, to prophesying impending calamity should the federalist project not be allowed to proceed unchecked by the great unwashed. A prime example of such hysteria is the statement made by Sweden's EU Commissioner, Margot Wallstrom, on visiting the Terezin concentration camp in the Czech Republic that "... there are those today who want to scrap the supranational idea. They want the European Union to go back to the old purely inter-governmental way of doing things. I say those people should come to Terezin and see where that road leads." This is a shameless and disgraceful exploitation of one of the more disturbing episodes in European history, a cheap scare tactic to force through an ill thought-out constitution. It is worth noting that this gaffe was removed from the official version of the speech published on the Commission website. Wallstrom claims she was misquoted, but the printed text her staff handed out to reporters contained the section quoted above. In an interview with the newspaper NRC Handelsblad, Dutch Prime Minister Jan-Peter Balkenende closed with the remark: "I've been in Auschwitz and Yad Vashem. The images haunt me every day. It is supremely important for us to avoid such things in Europe. We really ought to think about that more." This is yet another example of hysterical scaremongering and is a cynical exploitation of the horrors of the past. Not all politicians stooped to such new lows. Others, such as French President Jacques Chirac, took upon themselves the mantle of arbiters of what is or is not 'European'. In a television interview prior to the plebiscite, Chirac opined... "You can't say, 'I'm a European and I'm voting No". I hate to break this news to you, Monsieur Chirac, but it is possible to be both pro-Europe and against the badly designed and executed legal instrument that you call a constitution. Indeed it is the duty of every "good European" to thoroughly examine, question and possibly even reject any such document put before them. What was notable in the pro-ratification campaigns in both countries was the almost complete absence of any discussion on the text of the constitution itself. Maybe this is because even the architects of this wandering 482 page tome are unable to plumb the depths of its vague and confusing structure and language. Maybe it is because it is not really a constitution, but merely an international treaty, and moreso, a treaty with serious consequences for that significant part of the populace of the European Union that can not consider themselves what is laughably termed as 'the elite'.

Non? Pourquoi?
As with the Dutch referendum, held a few days after the French gave their thumbs down, the reasons behind the French rejection of the constitution are many and varied.

The primary motivation for the rejection of the constitution has been to defend their excellent public services from the onslaught of market liberalisation proposed in the constitution. The French medical system is considered one of the best in the world, and the French have little desire to see that system become like their equivalents in the UK or Ireland, which are, as a result of monetarist policies, a shadow of their former selves. They have no desire to subject their transport infrastructure to the sort of lax standards that resulted in a rash of accidents on the British rail network after privatisation. The principle of providing all citizens with equal access to essential services as medicine, transport and communication is fundamental to the French outlook. One of the reasons why this system works so well is that these social services draw from a broad base of funding and are implemented in a way such that most profitable operations will subsidise less profitable operations, such as the delivery of services in remote areas with a small, widely scattered population.
In order to achieve these noble goals, government regulation is a prerequisite. When such services are opened up to private operation and financing it inevitably means that the more profitable parts of the infrastructure will end up in the hands of private businesses and the parts that fail to make a profit and those that make a net loss are left in the hands of the state, funded by the taxpayer. Because the counterbalancing effect of profitable services funding the less profitable is removed, the burden on the taxpayer increases and the the end result is that the loss-making services are drastically reduced or even shut down irrespective of whether they are needed or not. Public service is not and never can be the modus operandi of private companies, as they exist to make a profit, and to deliver that profit to their shareholders in the form of ever-increasing dividends. The French are correct in their desire to defend their public services, and to draw attention to the alternative reasons for the existence of services other than the profit-making motive.
Next, and almost as important, there is the fear of the 'Polish Plumber', considered a straw man argument by some, but as ever, there is, as the cliché says, no smoke without fire. As I write, a group of Polish workers in Dublin are battling with their company in order to be paid the same as Irish workers on the Dublin Port Tunnel project. In a similar case, a Turkish company, Gamma Construction, has been found to be importing workers, controlling their passports and work permits and giving them no choice to accept accommodation in company 'barracks', accommodation for which they are forced to pay. This company has been paying unskilled construction workers between €2 and €3 per hour, with basic pay for skilled workers being put a somewhere just over €3 an hour. These rates of pay are less than half of the accepted minimum wage for Ireland. Granted, Turkey is not a member of the EU, but the principle remains the same.
Where indigenous workers are being forced out of the labour market by imported workers who are working for a pittance, then the 'Polish Plumber' will become an increasingly potent symbol of all that is wrong with unfettered globalisation and EU expansion, and a clear rejection of the mentality of those who can't wait to usher in a new golden era of globalised misery in order that they can profit from it. Those who urged voters to remember the atrocities committed during Nazi Germany before they voted 'no' might do well to be a little broader in their recollection of history, and recall the past consequences for countries like France, Italy and Germany of allowing unemployment to rise unchecked.
The cause of the 'yes' lobby was not helped by the appearance, not long after the start of the campaign, of the Draft Directive on liberalisation of services, otherwise known as the "Bolkestein Directive" after the name of its author, Frits Bolkestein, a right-wing Dutch politician and former boss of Shell Oil. The draft legislation, which soon became known as "The Frankenstein Directive" hinges around the principle that services sold to other countries would be subject to the rules and norms of their country of origin. In effect, this would mean that companies in France, Ireland or any other Western European nation, could purchase services from lower-cost economies in Eastern Europe, complete with the lower wages and variable standards of their country of origin. This proposal had the effect of (perhaps unwittingly) clarifying the intentions of Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution are when it refers to "an internal market where competition is free and undistorted". Of course, in this case, "undistorted" means free from interference by nation states in order to maintain or improve social equality and justice, but it does not mean free from corruption, political clientelism and fraud.
The proposed constitution is not, in fact, a constitution. It lacks the singularity of purpose and clarity of vision traditionally expected from such documents. It does not limit itself to enshrining rights and responsibilities of the citizen and the government, but instead goes on to rigidly define the economic principles under which the Union is expected to operate. In addition to being a long, wandering and impenetrable document weighed down with a plethora of additional annexes and protocols and lacking, relatively speaking, the brevity and clarity of established constitutional instruments, it also falls far short of the mark when compared with many European constitutions and even with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Many rights that are the cornerstone of these documents, and that have been enjoyed by Europeans to a greater or lesser extent, are simply washed away by the neo-conservative nature of the proposed constitution.
The proposed unlimited time period to which the constitution applies. Add to this the fact that, once ratified, it can only be altered by a unanimous decision of all member states. This is a major cause for concern, not only because it is fundamentally undemocratic in the requirement for unanimity, but it is also removes the power to change the constitution from the place it really belongs... in the hands of the people of Europe. If anything has the potential to ferment the future fracturing of Europe it is this unabashed departure from the principle of representative democracy.
The disproportionate nature of the emphasis on security and the development of Europe as a military power. To date, the people of Europe have failed to cower in fear when bombarded with the doom-laden prophesies of fear-mongering politicians. Even those who have been subjected to terrorist action appear to be inoculated against the constant babbling of those who use fear as a means of shoring up political control. However, unlike other fiscal areas addressed in the constitution, military spending is exempted from the proposed regime of austerity and indeed will see a significant increase should the proposal go ahead.

Finally, many say that the French were, in fact, voting again on the previous referendum on the Nice Treaty. Many of those who voted in favour of that treaty did so because they were lead to believe that the social aspects of further integration would be properly addressed once it was in place. This turned out not to be the case, and the proposed constitution is written proof of that betrayal. As the U.S. President, George Bush once attempted (and failed) to say... "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me". It would appear that the French electorate are proving that "once bitten, twice shy" is more than just a cliché.

Europe at the crossroads
Much of the political commentary in the wake of the two plebiscites makes the claim that the populace of the two countries in question is out of touch with the 'real world' and specifically, the 'real world' of competition from China and India. The 'Freeman' column in the Irish Independent of Thursday, June 2nd claims in its headline that "You can't vote away the modern world". It may not be possible to vote away the modern world, but when the modern world does not reflect the needs and aspirations of the people who live in it, it is the duty of those people to try to change it and not just to accept it as a given just because a gaggle of business, economics and political commentators declare it to be the one true way. Such cheerleaders for the globalisation cause cite the longer working hours, lower remuneration and poorer working conditions of these countries as something that poses a significant threat to the economic powerhouse of Europe. I will not disagree that these countries pose a threat, but should Europe be responding to this threat by subjecting our workers to the sort of slave-labour conditions commonplace in the so-called 'special economic zones' in China or do we want to adopt the less than ideal working conditions that apply to workers in India? We may lag behind these two countries in terms of productivity and the cost of the workforce, but we are streets ahead in terms of the quality of our output and that of our workforce. Europe has a choice. In economic and social policy, it can adopt the lowest common denominator, law-of-the-jungle approach of certain nations, and in doing so be ipso facto lead by those countries. Alternatively, it can be a beacon of sanity in a world of profit über alles, championing quality over quantity and espousing a proper reward for labour against the low-wage at all costs mentality of the Thatcherite hordes. In military and foreign policy, Europe could be a model for a different way of doing things instead of being content to ride on the coat-tails of Uncle Sam. Europe is at the crossroads. Before it, one of the roads leads to unfettered market liberalisation and all of the social ills that attend it. Further down that same road are makings of a tyrannical totalitarian regime, designed to maintain the status quo instituted by the constitution, a status quo in which very few benefit greatly from the labours of the many. Down the other road lies a Europe dedicated to human rights and dignity, to a modus vivendi in which everything is not reduced to being a mere commodity that can be bought or sold, to a Europe where the heros of business are those who champion innovation and excellence instead of the current trend towards cost-cutting, penny-pinching and compromises in quality.