No Dal Molin

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.

Continue reading...

Summary only...

Is there a new Israeli weapon?

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.

Continue reading...

Summary only...

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.

Continue reading...

Summary only...

The Christmas Truce

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

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

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

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

Christmas in the Trenches
by John McCutcheon

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading...

Summary only...