The Neocons' open up the Pakistani Warfront
bob finch: carbonomics@...
Sun, 13 Jan 2008


The Jewish Neocons' success in raising the issue of Pakistan's Nuclear
Weapons.

America's jewish neocons, and their allies throughout the western
world, have always had the goal of eradicating pakistan's nuclear
weapons and provoking the disintegration of pakistan as part of their
plan to rearrange the greater middle east for the sake of jewish
supremacism. Uncharacteristically for them, they've rarely discussed
this objective. Firstly, because even in terms of their own grandiose
warmongering designs, such a goal has been politically for many years
far beyond their reach. And, secondly, because if they'd put pakistan
in their cross hairs this would have made it obvious just how insanely
ambitious they were about manipulating america into invading the whole
of the greater middle east not just afghanistan, iraq, and iran, but
syria, saudi arabia, egypt, and pakistan. For many years after
pakistan developed nuclear weapons, the neocons had little traction
over pakistan's politics to stand any chance of achieving their twin
objectives. This situation changed over the summer of 2007. It has
changed dramatically since the assassination of benazir bhutto.

The september 11, 2001 pentagon and new york (p*ny) bombings gave the
neocons their first significant degree of leverage over pakistani
politics to enable them to believe they might eventually achieve their
strategic objectives. The bush regime warned musharraf it would nuke
pakistan if he did not join america in the so-called `war against
terrorism' and help to crush his former proxies, the taliban. In the
1990s, successive pakistani governments had set up the taliban and
provided it with the logistical support to take control of
afghanistan. Pakistani leaders saw it as a means of protecting their
country's interests in afghanistan. So when the bush regime forced
musharraf to join the `war against terrorism' it was in effect forcing
him to act against his country's own interests. But he had little
other option than to fall in line.

The jewish neocons pushed america and other western states into the
invasions of afghanistan and iraq. Although these invasions have
turned out to be economically, militarily, and politically, disastrous
for america they have been highly beneficial to the jews-only state in
palestine. The jewish neocons have been condemned for these disasters
but they have always known that once the american military had been
planted in the middle east this would give them the opportunity to
stir up trouble throughout the region. This gamble is now paying off
in spectacular fashion as regards pakistan.

When the war in afghanistan spilt over into pakistan this opened up
new opportunities for the jewish neocons to interfere in pakistani
politics. After america's invasion of afghanistan, al qaeda and most
of the taliban fled to the tribal areas of pakistan. They used these
areas as hideouts to recouperate, reorganize, and rearm, themselves.
This enabled them to launch new attacks on nato troops in afghanistan
which started turning the war in their favour. The bush regime forced
musharraf, against his considered judgment, to launch an invasion of
the tribal areas to capture or kill al qaeda/taliban fighters and
prevent them from using the area as a sanctuary.

The invasion of the tribal areas was deeply unpopular in pakistan.
"The White House and much of Congress seem unaware that most
Pakistanis, regardless of their political outlook, oppose their
country's role in the Bush administration's war on terrorism." (Rajan
Menon `Leave Pakistan alone'
http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/fairenough/latimesB85.html
September 6, 2007). It undermined musharraf's popularity. It pushed
tribal leaders into the war alongside al quaeda/taliban. And it
boosted popular support for al quaeda/taliban.

The pakistani military suffered considerable losses during the
invasion and this provided musharraf with the excuse to ignore
american pleas to prosecute the war with even more vigour. He forged a
truce with tribal leaders in february 2005.

It is suspected the americans used pakistan's invasion as cover to
launch secret attacks on al quaeda/taliban fighters in the tribal
areas.  These attacks continued after musharraf's ceasefire with
tribal leaders. The more these secret attacks became public knowledge,
the more they inflamed anti-american sentiments in pakistan, the
further they boosted public opposition to musharraf's military
dictatorship, and the more they increased popular support for al
quaeda/taliban fighters. They also had the effect of boosting the
numbers of pushtuns willing to fight to protect their homelands. This
has created what simon jenkins calls the "Pashtun mujahideen" (Simon
Jenkins `The west has not just repressed democracy. It has aided
terror'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2237569,00.html
January 9, 2008).

As pushtun mujahideen attacks on nato's occupation of afghanistan
increased, one of america's leading jewish neocons took the
opportunity to demand american military intervention in pakistan.
Despite the disasters the american military had suffered in
afghanistan and iraq, jewish neocons concluded the remedy was a new
military adventure in pakistan. "In a perhaps not unrelated
development, neocon and chief Iraq War propagandist Bill Kristol has
been hired by the New York Times as a columnist in 2008. He told Fox
News last July, "I think the president's going to have to take
military action there over [in Pakistan] in the next few weeks or
months. Bush has to disrupt that [al-Qaeda] sanctuary. I think,
frankly, we won't even tell Musharraf. We'll do what we have to do in
Western Pakistan and Musharraf can say, 'Hey, they didn't tell me.'"
Notice how he leaves the Pakistani people and their reaction to such
"action", military aggression against a sovereign state, entirely out
of the picture." (Gary Leupp `Madness Compounding Madness Calls for
Intervention in Pakistan'
http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp01022008.html January 2, 2008). Once
again the jewish neocons were trying to manipulate the american
military into fighting yet another proxy zionist war: this time in
pakistan.

In july 2007, the jewish neocons and the bush regime eventually
prevailed upon musharraf to embark on a second invasion of pakistan's
tribal areas to crush al quaeda/taliban fighters and the pushtun
mujahideen. This has had even more adverse political, and military,
consequences than musharraf's first invasion. It has not merely
further undermined musharraf's popularity, it has even pushed the
country towards civil war.

By late 2007, the bush regime had pushed pakistan into such a state of
crisis that, for the first time, the jewish neocons were able to raise
doubts about the `safety' of pakistan's nuclear weapons. No matter how
grossly unrealistic these doubts may have been, the neocons succeeded
in putting the issue on america's political and military agenda.  "US
special forces snatch squads are on standby to seize or disable
Pakistan's nuclear arsenal in the event of a collapse of government
authority or the outbreak of civil war following the assassination of
Benazir Bhutto. The troops, augmented by volunteer scientists from
America's Nuclear Emergency Search Team organisation, are under orders
to take control of an estimated 60 warheads dispersed around six to 10
high-security Pakistani military bases." (Ian Bruce `Special forces on
standby over nuclear threat'
http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/foreign/display.var.1933388.0.Special_forces_on_\
standby_over_nuclear_threat.php
December 31 2007).

The jewish neocons are currently building a case for increased
american military intervention in pakistan. They want further military
protection for america's military bases in pakistan and for american
military supply routes through pakistan to afghanistan. "In November,
USA Today quoted Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell as saying that
the US military was reviewing contingency plans in case unrest in
Pakistan began to affect the flow of supplies for American troops
fighting in Afghanistan. He underscored that the supply lines were
"very real areas of concern", since three-quarters of the supplies for
the 26,000-strong US military deployment in Afghanistan flowed via
Pakistan by land and air. "Clearly, we do not like the situation we
find ourselves in right now," Morrell commented." (M K Bhadrakumar
Bhutto's death a blow to 'war on terror'
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/JA03Df02.html January 3,
2008). They want american military action to combat al qaeda/taliban
in the tribal areas. But most of all they want military action to
`protect' pakistan's nuclear weapons. The greater the case they can
build for further military interventions in pakistan, the greater the
support they might win from the american public, and the closer they
will get to their ultimate objective of neutralizing or even
abolishing pakistan's nuclear weapons.

It behoves critics of the jewish neocons to understand the
complexities surrounding pakistan's politics lest they should end up
inadvertently supporting neocon objectives for partitioning the
country. In particular this means understanding the political
objectives of former general pervez musharraf. There are those who
denounce musharraf as busharraf i.e. george bush's puppet. Some go
even further and suggest musharraf is just another of the jewish
neocons' puppets like bush, blair/brown, sarkosy, merkel, howard,
hosni mubarak, siniora, abbas, etc. The evidence suggests, however,
that musharraf is a pakistani nationalist. He is neither busharraf nor
another member of this disgustingly traitorous group of jewish puppets.

It is undoubtedly true that musharraf has often been forced into
complying with many of the jewish neocons' demands but there is also a
case for arguing he has resisted many more of their demands. He is not
their puppet and is not willing to devastate his own country to boost
the regional dominance of the jews-only state in palestine. The
neocons' puppet in pakistan was benazir bhutto. Many of those on the
progressive wing of politics who support democracy and human rights
were well aware that bhutto was a member of the country's landowning
elite and that she permitted extensive corruption both in power and
out of power. And yet they still clung to the hope she would have
acted more democratically if she'd become pakistan's prime minister
for the third time. It seemed as if it was as difficult for
progressives to resist the allure of her claims to be the country's
best hope for democracy and human rights, as it was to ignore her
beguiling beauty. And yet, after the last three decades but especially
the last six years, progressives should hear alarm bells whenever
western, or westernized, politicians start talking about democracy and
freedom because these concepts have been usurped by the jewish
neocons. They have become the neocons' trojan Horse for promoting
jewish supremacism throughout the greater middle east.

M k bhadrakumar has argued that after bhutto's assassination, the
jewish neocons are peeved that pakistan has suddenly shot to the top
of the global political agenda. "In one swift sweep, almost overnight,
Pakistan replaces Iran on the Bush administration's radar screen.
Israel may not like what is happening, but Vice President Dick Cheney
and company won't have even a fighting chance of reviving the Iran
bogey in the remaining term of the administration." (M K Bhadrakumar
`Al-Qaeda to the rescue for Bush's legacy'
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/JA05Df02.html January 05,
2008). Having spent the last decade or so trying to push iran to the
top of the international community's political agenda it is
understandable why they might seem frustrated by such a turnaround.
But this would be a major political mistake, a failure to understand
the neocons' warmongering ideology. The jewish neocons' ultimate
objective in the greater middle east has always been the dismantling
of pakistan and its nuclear weapons. This is by far and away the
biggest "existential threat" faced by the jews-only state within the
greater middle east. Sure, for the last decade or so, the neocons have
been in a belligerent, paranoid frenzy to stop iran from acquiring
nuclear weapons but this is as nothing in comparison to the all too
real posed by pakistan's nuclear weapons. Just as afghanistan was a
mere stepping stone for iraq, and iraq was supposed to be a stepping
stone for iran, so iran would, in turn, lead to pakistan. The neocons
were pursuing a long term strategy to gradually encircle pakistan. To
the north, there is the american military occupation of afghanistan;
to the west there would one day be a devastated iran; and, to the
east, there is now an india which has become increasingly compliant to
the interests of the jewish neocons.

The neocons' war front against iran was temporarily closed after
america's national intelligence services denied iran had a nuclear
weapons programme. For a few short weeks it seemed the jewish neocons
would be forced to take a long detour to get back on track to achieve
their long term objectives. But, as it turned out, events in pakistan
opened up a major short cut to the achievement of their objectives.
The jewish neocons have opened up a new war front: pakistan.

The Jewish Neocons' Constitutional Tango.
The bush regime's pressure on musharraf to wipe out al qaeda/taliban
in pakistan's tribal areas has caused an ever widening spiral of
violence. The more the bush regime forced musharraf to take military
action against al qaeda/taliban, the more it undermined his
popularity, the more it boosted anti-american sentiments in pakistan,
the more it increased the pushtun mujahideen, and the more it boosted
support for al qaeda/taliban in afghanistan. The bush regime's
response was to increase pressure on musharraf for more decisive
military action.

By the summer of 2007, the jewish neocons had become so dissatisfied
with musharraf's implementation of the `war on terrorism' they started
dropping hints about finding a replacement for him. They treated his
efforts with contempt even though the pakistani security services had
arrested hundreds of al qaeda supporters, far more than any other
country, and even though pakistan's military losses in the tribal
areas were larger than those suffered by nato forces in afghanistan.
The jewish neocons have always been disdainful of the sacrifices they
have forced others to make on their behalf. They couldn't care less
what pakistan's military losses were, what the damage was to
pakistan's national interests, and how they were pushing the country
closer to a civil war. What they wanted was a quisling who would be
ruthless enough to do their bidding no matter what the military,
economic and political, costs might be to pakistan. Indeed, in terms
of their long term plan for the abolition of pakistan's nuclear
weapons and the partition of the country, the greater the damage they
could cause pakistan to inflict on itself, the better it would be for
jewish supremacism. They first looked for a replacement for musharraf
within the pakistani military but when nothing came of this they
turned increasingly to benazir bhutto because she was willing to do
their bidding.

The neocons, however, simply did not have the power to remove
musharraf and replace him with bhutto. They were forced into adopting
a compromise strategy. They would promote bhutto to share power with
musharraf before she eventually replaced him altogether. They spun
this strategy to suggest that bhutto would rescue musharraf
politically because of his increasing unpopularity even though it was
more plausible to believe that if musharraf gave away his powers to
bhutto he would end up with less power not more power.

The jewish neocons concocted a highly elaborate constitutional tango
for musharraf and bhutto.  Musharraf would start off with all the
power but by the end of the dance it would have passed seamlessly to
bhutto.
Number 1: Musharraf would pass a ruling known as the `national
reconciliation ordinance' withdrawing all corruption charges against
bhutto.
Number 2: Bhutto would return to pakistan and her political party in
the pakistani parliament would help to elect musharraf as president.
Number 3: Musharraf would then step down from the army.
Number 4: The army would then appoint a new leader. "The Bush
administration has not formally presented any new proposals to Mr.
Musharraf, who gave up his military role last month, or to his
successor as the army chief, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, who the White
House thinks will be more sympathetic to the American position than
Mr. Musharraf. Early in his career, General Kayani was an aide to Ms.
Bhutto while she was prime minister and later led the Pakistani
intelligence service." (Steven Lee Myers, David E. Sanger and Eric
Schmitt `U.S. Considers New Covert Push Within Pakistan'
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/washington/06terror.html?ex=1357275600&en=d2c6\
10d29c92dd8d&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all
January 06, 2008).
Number 5: Bhutto would then win the general election and be elected
prime minister.
Number 6: Thereafter bhutto and musharraf would work together
harmoniously. (The fact that they held markedly different political
objectives suggests the neocons suspected this collaboration would
last for only a short thereby allowing them to get rid of musharraf
altogether).
Number 7: Pakistan's ruling political parties would launch a publicity
barrage to win public support for america's highly unpopular `war
against terrorism' which is just a front for the jews' promotion of
world war three. "Washington will expect the civilian components of
the new regime, the Pakistan Muslim League faction led by the
Choudhury clan, Bhutto's Pakistan People's Party, the Jamiat
Ulema-e-Islam (JUI) led by Maulana Fazlur Rahman and the Awami
Nationalist Party (ANP), to hold the fort of public opinion whilst the
army cracks down on the militants in the tribal border tracts." (M K
Bhadrakumar `Benazir's second homecoming'
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/IJ20Df03.html October 20, 2007).

There was one big flaw with the neocons' dance choreography. Musharraf
didn't want bhutto back in pakistan. He didn't want her back in power.
He didn't want to hand over his powers to her. He didn't want to work
with her in what he knew would be a highly impracticable, power
sharing, arrangement. "The element of uncertainty still remains
whether the "powers that be", the establishment, which includes the
armed forces, will be prepared to accommodate Bhutto. Her return to
Pakistan has been almost completely choreographed by Britain and the
United States. The Musharraf regime needed to be dragged by the collar
to the promised land of political cohabitation with Bhutto. Top
officials of the George W Bush administration, laden with rich
experience in making brutal despots in Latin America behave,
repeatedly intervened with the Musharraf regime to play ball, at times
cajoling, at times threatening, at times blackmailing." (M K
Bhadrakumar `Benazir's second homecoming'
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/IJ20Df03.html October 20,
2007).   Musharraf must have suspected that once bhutto was in power,
she and the neocons would seek to sideline him as quickly as possible
especially when his position as president would have been too weak to
prevent them from deposing him.

Musharraf rewrites the Choreography.
Musharraf was being cajoled into going along with this elaborate
charade. But he had no intention of co-operating in his own demise so
he started rewriting the choreography. Musharraf knew that once he'd
been elected president and then stepped down from the army, his
political position would be vulnerable to challenge especially from
the supreme court which had overturned some of his earlier rulings.
So, before he stepped down as head of the pakistani military he
scuttled the supreme court to prevent it from challenging his
presidency. "On 3 November Musharraf, as chief of the army, suspended
the 1973 constitution and imposed a state of emergency: all
non-government TV channels were taken off the air, the mobile phone
networks were jammed, paramilitary units surrounded the Supreme Court.
Certainly no US spokesperson or State Department adjunct in the
Foreign Office criticised the dismissal of the eight Supreme Court
judges or their arrest: that was the quid pro quo for Washington's
insistence that Musharraf take off his uniform. If he was going to
turn civilian he wanted all the other rules twisted in his favour. A
newly appointed stooge Supreme Court would soon help him with the
rule-bending." (Tariq Ali `Daughter of the West'
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n24/ali_01_.html December 13, 2007). He
replaced his enemies in the supreme with his allies who would help to
protect his political power when he became president.

The choreography outlined above would have left musharraf politically
vulnerable to the judiciary so by rewriting the moves he significantly
increased his chances of survival. Musharraf also took steps to boost
the political prospects of his political party, and others, to make it
difficult for bhutto's party to win a majority in the general
election. "The opinion polls show that her old rival, Nawaz Sharif, is
well ahead of her. Musharraf's hasty pilgrimage to Mecca was probably
an attempt to secure Saudi mediation in case he has to cut a deal with
the Sharif brothers, who have been living in exile in Saudi Arabia,
and sideline her completely. Both sides deny that a deal was done, but
Sharif returned to Pakistan with Saudi blessings and an armour-plated
Cadillac as a special gift from the king. Little doubt that Riyadh
would rather him than Benazir." (Tariq Ali `Daughter of the West'
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n24/ali_01_.html December 13, 2007). The more
he could do to undermine bhutto's power in parliament, the stronger he
would have been as president.

If benazir bhutto had succeeded in winning the general election and
becoming pakistan's prime minister this would not have been a triumph
for democracy. On the contrary, it would have been another triumph for
the jewish neocons in successfully implementing a plan they'd designed
to boost the interests of the jews-only state in palestine. In effect,
they would have chosen pakistan's new leader and then orchestrated
another of their trade-mark, colour-coded, astro-turf, `democratic
revolutions' to dupe pakistanis into electing their quisling. Indeed,
installing a jewish quisling in a country openly hostile and
contemptuous of jewish supremacism, might have been their greatest
political achievement. The jewish neocons demanded a general election
in pakistan not because they wanted the pakistani people to choose
their own leader but so they could manipulate the electorate into
voting for the neocon candidate. If bhutto had become prime minister
and implemented her jewish masters' policies, who knows how much
damage she would have inflicted on her own country before being booted
out of power. Indeed, it is highly questionable whether pakistan would
have survived her treacherous loyalty to the jews-only state. Real
freedom and democracy emerges from the grassroots not from
manipulations carried out by the world's jewish colonialists.

Bhutto was a Jewish Quisling.
There is more than enough evidence to suggest that, whilst in exile,
bhutto sold out to the jewish neocons so they would help her to return
to power in pakistan. She seemed to have become a quisling willing to
carry out the jewish neocons' policies no matter how damaging this
would be for pakistan's national interests.

Hiring an American Lobbying Firm.
"She had been schmoozing the Washington crowd for years. She had even
hired a public-relations firm to help her do it at one point."
(Charley Reese `The Bhutto Mistake'
http://www.antiwar.com/reese/?articleid=12160 January 5, 2008).

Cosying up to militant, Hardline, Jewish Fundamentalists.
"The Harvard-educated Benazir had close ties to US and British
intelligence as well. She used the offices of neo-conservative US
Congressman Tom Lantos when she was in Washington, according to
informed reports, one reason Vice President Dick Cheney backed her as
a "safe" way to save his Pakistan strategic alliance in the face of
growing popular protest against Musharraf's declaring martial law last
year." (F William Engdahl `Back to business in Pakistan'
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/JA05Df01.html January 05, 2008).

Support for America's Proxy Zionist invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.
"She had returned the favour in advance by expressing sympathy for the
US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, lunching with the Israeli ambassador
to the UN (a litmus test) and pledging to `wipe out terrorism' in her
own country." (Tariq Ali `Daughter of the West'
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n24/ali_01_.html December 13, 2007).

Bhutto's recognition of the Jews-only state in Palestine.
Pakistan does not recognize the jews-only state in palestine and
limits its political and economic dealings with the racist state. In
contrast, bhutto was willing to recognize and accommodate the jewish
apartheid state.

Support for the Neocons so called `War against Non-Jewish Terrorism'.
Bhutto supported the bush regime's `war against terrorism' which is
just a front for the jewish neocons' third world war. "Once again, to
win American backing for her return to Pakistan in 2007, which could
only happen with US pressure on General Musharraf, Benazir Bhutto used
the same strategy that had worked before: she would promise to do
better than General Musharraf in advancing American interests in
Pakistan. Over the past year, Benazir Bhutto has repeatedly pointed
out that General Musharraf's war against terrorism in Pakistan was
failing. Instead of curbing terrorism, the militants had become more
daring during the General's tenure. She promised to do better. She
would wipe out the "religious extremists," shut down "extremist"
madrasas, and even hand over Dr. Qadeer Khan, the architect of
Pakistan's nuclear program, to the US for questioning. Insistently,
and loudly, Benazir Bhutto was seeking to assure the United States
that she would do a lot better than their General." (M. Shahid Alam `A
Pakistani Tragedy: The Life and Death of Benazir Bhutto'
http://www.counterpunch.org/shahid01022008.html January 2, 2008).

For bhutto, pakistan's problems stemmed from islamic extremists
causing violence and chaos within the country rather than the jewish
neocons corrupting the country's national interests to such an extent
it was driving the country to civil war. She would rather provoke
civil war than try to reach a peace accord between pakistan's
disparate groups. "Asked why she wanted to return to front-line
Pakistani politics, Benazir said she felt her country was being
threatened by extremists. "If the people from Pakistan vote for me,
certainly I would to take on that job," Benazir said. "But this is
more than a struggle for me: this is a struggle for the heart and the
soul of Pakistan. We stand at the crossroads. Very critical choices
have to be made between the forces of the past and the forces of the
future. There is militancy, terrorism and violence. My government and
I have had experience of dealing with it. If we could get another
opportunity, I would certainly take the challenge. "The Red Mosque was
just a warm-up for what will happen if the religious schools are not
disarmed," Benazir told the news weekly Focus. She added that Islamist
extremist leaders were plotting to overthrow Musharraf's government
and had converted Madrassas in cities into military headquarters with
well-stocked arsenals." (`Benazir refuses to back uniformed president'
http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=9304 July 30, 2007).

Support for American attacks on Pakistan.
Bhutto "said she would permit such attacks under certain
circumstances." (Willis Witter `Musharraf to bar U.S. in Pakistan'
http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20071004/FOREIGN/110040028/1003
October 4, 2007); "Bhutto, after all, favored bringing U.S. military
forces into Pakistan, according to Michael Scheuer, a former CIA
analyst and region specialist. If that's an option President Bush
planned to exercise, the loss of Bhutto is a grave blow to his
policy." (Sheldon Richman `Hands Off Pakistan'
http://www.fff.org/comment/com0801a.asp January 4, 2007).

Promise to Purge the Pakistani Military of Islamists.
"She also made clear in a British television interview shortly before
her death that she would clean out the Pakistan military and security
services of corrupt and Islamist elements." (F William Engdahl `Back
to business in Pakistan'
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/JA05Df01.html January 05, 2008).

Bhutto and Pakistan's Nuclear Weapons.
Bhutto was willing to follow the bush regime's neocon agenda for
pakistan rather than protest against imperialist interventions and
stand up for the country's independence. It is not known what her
views were about pakistan's nuclear weapons. The jewish neocons have
made it clear that they wish to see them neutralized/abolished so
bhutto's support for the bush regime's plan was decidedly flirting
with the possibility of acquiescing in their abolition. How could she
follow the jewish neocons' plans for pakistan without ending up
helping them to realize their objectives about dissolving pakistan and
its nuclear weapons?

Musharraf's Defiance of the Jewish Neocons.
Although musharraf was forced into making a number of compromises with
the bush regime (which should not be difficult to understand given its
threat to nuke pakistan) he opposed virtually all of the neocons'
demands. If he had been busharraf he would have agreed with the same
policies as bhutto.

Musharraf's Refusal to Launch the First Invasion of the Tribal Areas.
Musharraf was opposed to using the pakistani army to invade the tribal
areas because he knew what the political and military consequences
would be. In the end he was forced to go through with the invasion
but, after the all too predictable failures, he quickly reached an
agreement with tribal leaders and withdrew the pakistani military from
the tribal areas.

Musharraf's Refusal to Launch the Second Invasion of the Tribal Areas.
For nearly three years musharraf defied the neocons' demands for a
second invasion of the tribal areas. "The Bush administration knows
that Musharraf has been playing a double game over al-Qaeda and
Taliban networks. Four months earlier, it had tried to exert quiet
pressure on Musharraf over the issue, but had also continued its
policy of portraying Musharraf as a loyal ally in the "war against
terror", even after he signaled his rejection of any pressure."
(Gareth Porter `It could be curtains for the Busharraf show'
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/IG10Df02.html July 10, 2007);
"After eight years in power since his bloodless military coup in 1999,
Musharraf finally appears to have been convinced that the time has
come for him to shed his uniform and return the country to a semblance
of democratic normalcy. The deal has been finalized at a critical
juncture of the "war on terror" as Pakistan is under immense pressure
to carry out a powerful military assault against al-Qaeda and Taliban
bases in Pakistani territory. New US legislation aims to tie aid for
Pakistan to its performance in fighting terrorism. Pakistan has
received more than US$10 billion in US aid since 2001. The
administration of President George W Bush has also made it clear that
it will take matters into its own hands if necessary and conduct its
own raids inside Pakistan to tackle militants." (Syed Saleem Shahzad
`Pakistan ripe for regime change'
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/IH01Df01.html August 01,
2007); "A US weekly, Newsweek, has written that the Pentagon "wants
[Musharraf] to turn much of Pakistan's military into a
counterinsurgency force, trained and equipped to combat Al-Qaeda and
its extremist supporters along the Afghan border." There, you have it,
dear Pakistanis, in clear, bold print. What is this if not a plan for
plunging your country into civil war, into a carnage far worse than
what the Algerians have gone through?" (M. Shahid Alam `The Killer
Elites of Pakistan: The Mercenary State'
http://www.counterpunch.org/shahid10122007.html October 12, 2007).

It was only in july 2007, after many leaks in the american media about
the bush regime's search for a new leader in pakistan, that musharraf
was forced into launching a second invasion of the tribal areas.

It is doubtful whether musharraf will ever abandon the taliban because
it had served pakistan's interests in the 1990s and then again after
america's invasion of afghanistan by attacking the american backed
karzi government which had excluded taliban representation. Musharraf
succeeded in protecting the taliban whilst fleecing the bush regime of
$10 billion of american military aid and then using some of this money
to finance the taliban's war against america's proxy in afghanistan.

Musharraf's Refusal to give up Qadeer Khan.
The jewish neocons in the bush regime had repeatedly demanded that
musharraf allow them to `question' qadeer khan, the father of
pakistan's nuclear bomb. They were desperate to interrogate him about
the nuclear secrets he sold to iran so they could use this information
as an excuse to attack that country. But musharraf refused their
requests. This is even more remarkably defiant given that it would
have been a relatively easy matter for him to have handed khan over to
the americans.

Musharraf has opposed American Military attacks on Pakistan.
Musharraf has repeatedly opposed the use of american military forces
in pakistan to attack al quaeda/taliban. He even defied dick cheney
after a personal visit to press home his demands. "Vice President Dick
Cheney visited Islamabad in late February, accompanied by Stephen R
Kappes, deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), when
unnamed US officials told the Washington Post that there was evidence
al-Qaeda operatives in camps in Pakistan had resumed training of
foreign jihadis. Just hours after Cheney had reportedly delivered a
warning that aid would be cut by the US Congress if something was not
done, the Musharraf government issued a statement insisting that
"Pakistan does not accept dictation from any side or any source"."
(Gareth Porter `It could be curtains for the Busharraf show'
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/IG10Df02.html July 10, 2007).

M k bhadrakumar believes musharraf would have relented to american
demands before bhutto's assassination but believes this is no longer
politically feasible. "However, Bhutto's assassination may have
upturned the project for the deployment of US special forces in
Pakistan. In the present volatile situation there is bound to be an
overwhelming popular uproar if Musharraf is seen as acquiescing with
US military operations, under whatever pretext, on Pakistani soil.
With Bhutto's death, there has been a paradigm shift in the power
calculus. Bhutto might have, arguably, gone along with the new US
plan, but not Sharif." (M K Bhadrakumar Bhutto's death a blow to 'war
on terror' http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/JA03Df02.html
January 3, 2008).

Musharraf's Refusal to hand over Pakistan's Nukes to the Jewish Neocons.
Whilst bhutto might have handed over supervision of pakistan's nukes
to the americans, or to an international force of jewish muppets, this
is not something musharraf would have done. If the jewish neocons
succeed in pushing the american military into further interventions in
pakistan which lead to a war between the two countries over pakistan's
nuclear weapons, such a war would be even more disastrous for america
than a war against iran.

Musharraf's Refusal to go Charging after Baitullah Mehsud.
The zionist dominated american media quickly placed the blame for
bhutto's assassination on a particular individual and demanded that
musharraf launch an attack to capture or kill him. But musharraf has
no intention of doing so. "The Pakistan government has identified a
militant leader with links to Al Qaeda, Baitullah Mehsud, who holds
sway in tribal areas near the Afghanistan border, as the chief suspect
behind the attack on Ms. Bhutto. American officials are not certain
about Mr. Mehsud's complicity but say the threat he and other
militants pose is a new focus. He is considered, they said, an "Al
Qaeda associate." In an interview with foreign journalists on
Thursday, Mr. Musharraf warned of the risk any counterterrorism
forces, American or Pakistani, faced in confronting Mr. Mehsud in his
native tribal areas. "He is in South Waziristan agency, and let me
tell you, getting him in that place means battling against thousands
of people, hundreds of people who are his followers, the Mehsud tribe,
if you get to him, and it will mean collateral damage," Mr. Musharraf
said." (Steven Lee Myers, David E. Sanger and Eric Schmitt `U.S.
Considers New Covert Push Within Pakistan'
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/washington/06terror.html?ex=1357275600&en=d2c6\
10d29c92dd8d&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all
January 06, 2008).

Musharraf's Opposition to a US attack on Iran.
Musharraf even stuck his neck out by suggesting that an american
attack on iran would be disastrous. "President Pervez Musharraf said a
possible US attack on Iran would be a "terrible mistake", in an
interview published here on Friday. "It will be a terrible mistake if
President George Bush orders an attack against Iran," Musharraf told
Sarajevo daily Dnevni Avaz ahead of his visit to Bosnia. "I'm
concerned about the possibility that a US attack on Iran (would cause)
turbulence in the region," he said, warning it would spark
"radicalism"." (`Iran attack would be terrible mistake: Musharraf'
http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=7479 April 28, 2007).

Conclusions.
There are some revealing comparisons between musharraf and bhutto.
There were some similarities. She used her political power to enrich
her family, her relatives, and the landowning elite to which she
belonged. Musharraf has also enriched himself and the pakistani
military elite.  He was no democrat but, in practice, this wasn't all
that much different from her. The biggest political difference between
them was that whilst he is a nationalist, she was not. Musharraf
passed through the ranks, and eventually commanded, the highly
nationalistic pakistani army. He defied the bush regime over a wide
range of issues because he is a pakistani nationalist.

As a nationalist, musharraf opposed the bush regime's `war against
terrorism' because it threatened to undermine pakistan's national
interests and the progress he had made in transforming the country.
"The leaders of the Pakistan military, of which Musharraf is a typical
example, do not see themselves primarily as "pro-American moderates"
battling with "anti-American extremists." They see themselves as
responsible for building a powerful militarized state in Pakistan
representing the heritage of Islamic empires in South and Central Asia
against the threat from India and the selfish maneuvers of politicians
(not necessarily in that order). In the course of doing so, they have
enriched themselves and gained control of much of the economy and
civilian administration. The military has always aspired to control
the judiciary as well, and Musharraf has now restored to that
institution the supine illegitimacy that it possessed under General
Zia. This means of course that the use of institutional power for
private gain by the military is legal (as the judiciary has no power
over the military), while similar use of institutional power by
civilians is "corruption."" (Barnett R. Rubin `Pakistan's Power
Puzzle' http://icga.blogspot.com/2008/01/pakistans-power-puzzle.html
January 1, 2008).

In stark contrast, bhutto was a jewish quisling, a traitor to
pakistan's national interests. She was all too willing to support `the
war against terrorism' which is a front for the jewish neocons' insane
`world war three' whose sole beneficiary is believed to be the
jews-only state in palestine.

Musharaff's disarmingly amiable defiance of the bush regime has been
remarkable, even more so given the bush regime's threat to nuke
pakistan if he did not abandon his country's national interests and
support america's invasion of afghanistan. Such a threat would have
crushed many political leaders but musharraf not merely survived the
ultimatum but recovered his composure to frequently defy bush's
demands. Musharraf has played a brilliant game of deception to
maintain his country's independence whilst fooling the americans into
believing he was working on their behalf. "This wouldn't be the first
time that the generals in Rawalpindi have done their homework as
regards their corporate interests and proceeded to set aside
Washington's unsolicited counsel. Time and again in Pakistan's history
it has appeared that the unequal relationship between the US and
Pakistan is far from a one-dimensional tie-up. It would be a mistake
to regard Pakistan as a mindless American proxy, which is part of the
reason why China and Russia have an abiding interest in that country."
(M K Bhadrakumar `Pakistan shakes off US shackles'
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/IK06Df02.html November 06, 2007).

One of the main reasons for musharraf's success in protecting his
country's national interests, and its sovereignty, against almost
overwhelming american political interference, was his deliberate
fostering of china's involvement in pakistan. Musharaff cultivated
highly beneficial economic, technological, and military, links with
china in order to significantly reduce pakistan's dependence on
american aid. From its side, china is all too willing to assist
pakistan because it serves as a geopolitical counterweight to india
and even to america. It is possible that musharaff's attack on the red
mosque in july 2007 was carried out to punish the islamic
fundamentalists who'd earlier killed a number of chinese civilians
working in islamabad rather than because of american insistence on
implementing the so-called `war against terrorism'. The last thing
that musharaff wanted was for china to withdraw its personnel from the
country because he couldn't protect them.

M. shahid alam has suggested that all those in pakistan's political
elite are as corrupt as each other. The implication being that
musharraf was just as corrupt as bhutto. "That was Benazir Bhutto's
fatal flaw; but it was not only a personal flaw. Behind this fatal
flaw lay the sad history of a country whose elites time and again
chose to prostitute the state, to compromise national interests, and
sacrifice the lives of Pakistanis for their personal gains. That is
what makes Benazir Bhutto's murder a Pakistani tragedy. In a single
tragic event, it crystallizes the malfeasance of Pakistan's political
classes and the failure of Pakistanis to bring them to account for
their treasonous crimes." (M. Shahid Alam `A Pakistani Tragedy: The
Life and Death of Benazir Bhutto'
http://www.counterpunch.org/shahid01022008.html January 2, 2008). It
has to be counterted, however, that whilst both may have enriched
themselves musharraf didn't sell himself to the jewish neocons as
bhutto did. If he'd wanted to enrich himself he would have worked
harder to fulfil the neocons' demands.

What sort of Military Dictator was Musharraf?
During his time as the country's military dictator, musharraf has been
nothing like as barbaric as his military predecessor general zia
ul-haq. He is much more akin to a benevolent dictator. It's true that
after the protests arising from his removal of supreme court chief
justice iftikhar mohammed chaudhry, he arrested thousands of middle
class protestors. He was duly condemned for such an action. "But
Musharraf has demonstrated readiness to use harsh, authoritarian
measures to hang on to power, as he did during emergency rule, when he
jailed more than 5,000 political opponents and suspended the
constitution." (Laura King `Musharraf apparently riding out crisis'
http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/itsonlyfair/latimes0012.html
January 6, 2008). But he didn't string up their leaders as ul-haq or
the shah of iran would have done.

Musharaff has been fairly lenient towards critics of his dictatorship.
"The independent TV networks continued to broadcast reports that
challenged official propaganda. Investigative journalism is never
popular with governments and the general often contrasted the
deference with which he was treated by the US networks and BBC
television with the `unruly' questioning inflicted on him by local
journalists: it `misled the people'." (Tariq Ali `Daughter of the
West' http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n24/ali_01_.html December 13, 2007).
There has been more criticism of musharraf in the pakistani media than
there has been criticism of bush in the zionist dominated american media.

Tariq ali condemns musharraf's use of his dictatorial powers but also
points out the considerable freedoms he allowed pakistanis to enjoy
which we in the west can only marvel at. "The state of emergency
targeted the judiciary, opposition politicians and the independent
media. All three groups were, in different ways, challenging the
official line on Afghanistan and the `war on terror', the
disappearance of political prisoners and the widespread use of torture
in Pakistani prisons. The issues were being debated on television in a
much more open fashion than happens anywhere in the West, where a
blanket consensus on Afghanistan drowns all dissent. Musharraf argued
that civil society was hampering the `war on terror'. Hence the
emergency." (Tariq Ali `Daughter of the West'
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n24/ali_01_.html December 13, 2007).

It could even be argued that musharraf is more democratic than bhutto
because he's more of a nationalist than she is. He's intent on meeting
the wishes of the people who oppose a civil war in pakistan whilst
bhutto would have defied their wishes to promote such a proxy zionist war.

Musharraf currently has a bad image in the western media. This is
partly because he was a military dictator who usurped power from a
democratically elected prime minister. It is also partly because of
his sacking of iftikhar mohammed chaudhry. He has also been made to
look bad because so many commentators suggested he was responsible for
bhutto's assassination. But, most critically of all, musharraf's
negative image is due to america's zionist dominated media which is
critical of his refusal to implement the jewish neocons' wishes. The
neocons have been publicizing the need for democracy in pakistan. From
this perspective, bhutto appeared to be the hero, no matter how
corrupt she was and how indebted she was to a foreign power, whilst
musharraf seemed to be the villain for standing in the way of
progress. The zionist-dominated western media has given musharraf good
publicity when he appeared to be complying with the jewish neocons'
demands but bad publicity for defying his jewish masters. The fact
that he has been given more bad publicity than good publicity is
testament to his independence. The zionist dominated western media has
treated musharraf almost as bigotedly as it has treated vladimir putin.

Democracy or Sovereignty, Individual Liberties or Pakistan's National
Independence?
Any progressively minded person would welcome full scale democracy and
constitutional rights in pakistan. But such goals would not have
achieved by the jewish neocons forcing musharraf and bhutto to
participate in a bizarre constitutional tango. Some might argue,
however, that this meticulous choreography would at least push the
country in the direction of these political principles. It could be
countered, however, that there is another factor in pakistani politics
which is even more important than the flowering of democracy i.e. the
preservation of pakistan's sovereignty, pakistan's ability to make its
own choices in its own best interests. In turn, this proposition could
be challenged by suggesting that the establishment of musharraf/bhutto
led semi-democratic system in pakistan would have contributed
substantially to enhancing the country's independence. But the reality
is that the musharraf-bhutto tango was a jewish neocon plan. It was
yet another example of the bush regime imposing its own solution on
pakistan thereby underlining the country's loss of national independence.

America has always interfered in pakistani politics, as it has
interfered in many other countries around the world to protect
whatever it conceived of at the time as its national interests.
However, after the september 11, 2001 p*ny bombings this interference
in pakistan has become so extensive as to almost resemble a
nation-building enterprise. The most blatant example of this
interference was the bush regime's threat to nuke pakistan if it did
not support america's invasion of afghanistan. Since then the bush
regime has become involved in virtually micro-managing pakistani
politics as could be seen most blatantly from the charade of the
musharraf-bhutto tango. "One of the most remarkable developments in
Pakistani politics since the events of 9-11 is the transparency, shall
we say, daring, with which the United States now intervenes in
Pakistan's affairs. Conversely, Pakistani leaders also work openly to
advance American interests in Pakistan. In an earlier era, the
Americans generally took care to conceal their meddling in Pakistani
politics. As a result, only the politically astute understood the
depth of their influence over Pakistan. Now, this knowledge has become
commonplace." (M. Shahid Alam `A Pakistani Tragedy: The Life and Death
of Benazir Bhutto' http://www.counterpunch.org/shahid01022008.html
January 2, 2008).

In terms of the political values of pakistan's two leading
politicians, musharraf sought to protect pakistani sovereignty at the
expense of democracy whilst bhutto supported democracy whilst
sacrificing the country's sovereignty. What bhutto was offering was a
sham democracy which might have benefited, to a minor degree, the
interests of the country's landowning elite but which was intended
primarily to further the jewish neocons' plans for world war three.
Bhutto had sold herself in exile to the jewish neocons and, in power,
she would have sold the country to them as well. In the process, she
would have undermined musharraf's courageous and wily efforts to
uphold his country's independence. If musharaff had bhutto
assassinated there is a strong case for arguing he did so for the sake
of protecting pakistani sovereignty. There was a clear cut choice of
political principles between these two political leaders. Bhutto
represented democracy and servility to the jewish neocons, whilst
musharraf may have been a military dictator but he was also pakistan's
best prospect for maintaining the country's independence. Whilst
musharraf defied global jewish power, bhutto relished it like a blair
or brown.

It is proposed here that pakistan's primary political objective should
be the fight for its independence, its ability to make its own
decisions based on its own national interests. The last development
that pakistan needs is to be manipulated by the jewish neocons' sham
democracy. First comes a war of liberation, then comes democracy. A
democracy under occupation is a quislings' paradise. Pakistanis should
fight for a democracy once they've liberated themselves from jewish
neocon imperialism. They should be especially wary of being fooled
into supporting elections to install leaders chosen by foreign powers
to reinforce foreign control over the country.

Pakistanis should not belittle musharraf's achievements lest they lose
the degree of independence he has won for them. The former prime
minister of pakistan nawaz sharif, head of the muslim league has
called for musharraf's resignation. "He is a one-man calamity and the
source of all the problems. The country is burning."" (Quoted in Juan
Cole `Nawaz: Musharraf Must Go'
http://www.juancole.com/2008_01_01_juancole_archive.html January 01,
2008). But musharraf is not the problem in pakistan. He has done much
to protect his country from the bush regime which wanted him to
relinquish pakistani influence over afghanistan and to crush al
qaeda/taliban which would have devastated the tribal areas and
boomeranged badly on the rest of pakistan. And he has protected the
country from the jewish neocons who are as intent on destroying
pakistan's nuclear weapons as they were on destroying saddam's,
iran's, and syria's, non-existent nuclear weapons.

The priority for national sovereignty is not some optional extra. The
difference between an independent country and one ruled by
democratically elected leaders loyal to another country, the jews-only
state in palestine, is fundamental. The jewish neocons would force
their quislings in pakistan to attack al qaeda/taliban which would
lead to a civil war between pushtuns and punjabis. This would unleash
further ethnic tensions that could result in the break up of pakistan.
It could even lead to increasing american military interventions in
pakistan to protect american military facilities but, most
importantly, to take control of pakistan's nuclear weapons.

The Global struggle for National Independence against Global Jewish
Imperialism.
The recommendation that the primary goal of pakistani politics should
be the establishment of sovereignty over the country's own affairs,
rather than allowing jewish neocon imperialists to determine the
country's policies, should be applied to many other countries. Jewish
neocons have usurped power not merely in pakistan but in america and
the rest of the western world to name but a few. These countries need
to liberate themselves from the jewish neocons who control their
political systems and are trying to push them into world war three.

The best thing the american military can do for world peace is to piss
off back to america and start laying seige to congress and the white
house until it forces the jewish neocons to surrender. It can then put
them on trial for treason against the american people and the american
republic.

The Jewish Neocons have swopped Iran for Pakistan.
After the publication of america's intelligence services' report, the
national intelligence estimate, that iran did not have a nuclear
weapons' programme, the prospects of the jewish neocons manipulating
america into an attack/invasion of iran has receded. The death of
benazir bhutto seemed like another huge setback for the jewish neocons
because they lost a quisling who seemed willing to give them whatever
they wanted. However, it quickly became a huge boost to their
political objectives since it put pakistan's nuclear weapons onto
america's political agenda. The jewish neocons opened up a new front
in their pursuit of world war three: boosting american military
involvement in pakistan. They are publicizing four main rationales for
further american intervention in pakistan.

Protecting america's military facilities in pakistan.
Protecting the american military's supply lines through pakistan to
afghanistan.
Crushing al quaeda/taliban, and,
Preventing moslem extremists from getting their hands on pakistan's
nuclear bombs.

The jewish neocons are already baying for an invasion of pakistan. "It
is during a crisis that the establishment hoists its true colors for
all to see. With few exceptions, the most prominent voices in politics
and the news media are chanting in unison that Bhutto's assassination
proves that the United States needs to be more involved in Pakistan
than it has been. What is so fascinating is how impervious the
political and media establishments are to the lessons of reality.
After all that's happened, the dominant voices still insist that Bush
redouble efforts to determine Pakistan's future." (Sheldon Richman
`Hands Off Pakistan' http://www.fff.org/comment/com0801a.asp January
4, 2007).

The jewish neocons' goal is to abolish or at the very least neutralize
pakistan's nuclear weapons, bring about the country's partition into
ethnic mini-states, and boost america's military presence in these
mini-states in preparation for an attack/invasion of iran. After the
invasion of iraq, they'd hoped world war three would unfold from
afghanistan to iraq, and then iran, followed by pakistan and the arab
states. After bhutto's assassination, they believe they might be able
to take a shortcut to a war with pakistan which would enable them move
against iran.

Pakistan's descent into a Nightmare is solely due to the Jewish Neocons.
The jewish neocons were hoping to use bhutto to edge musharraf out of
power. Now that bhutto is no longer there to do this, the question is
just how much they have politically wounded musharraf by forcing him
to give up his post as the head of the pakistani military. "It is the
military as an institution that delivers the goods, not individual
generals. Musharraf has no legitimacy left since he discarded his
uniform. Hence Bush's insistence that the elections go ahead despite a
mass boycott, imprisoned judges, a neutered media, key politicians
under house arrest and the public execution of Ms Bhutto." (Tariq Ali
`The Dark Night is Far From Over: Pakistan: the Aftermath'
http://www.counterpunch.org/tariq12312007.html December 31, 2007). The
jewish neocons wanted to get rid of him but he is one of the few
politicians who is capable not merely of defying bush and the neocons
but of balancing the various centrifugal forces within pakistan to
maintain civility.

When musharaff was a military dictator he faced an almost impossible
position. Since he became president its become an impossible
situation. The pakistani military is the symbol and guarantor of
national unity. "In fact, it would be the height of folly for
Washington to try to create dissensions within the Pakistani army,
which is the only institution that transcends the various templates of
ethnic, regional, and religious differences that threaten the
country's unity and integrity. As long as the army stays united, the
Pakistani state has inherent stability and a fair chance of outliving
the weaknesses of its civilian institutions, democratic elections or
any of the fragilities associated with civil society." (M K
Bhadrakumar `Musharraf remains the US's best option'
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/IK17Df05.html November 17,
2007). But it opposes democracy. Pakistan's middle classes, many with
relatives in the west, want western style democracy. Many pakistanis
want a nation-state like those in the west but increasing numbers of
people with different ethnic backgrounds want independence from
pakistan. Musharaff needs the taliban to promote pakistan's national
interests in afghanistan countering indian influence in that country.
But the americans want him to wage a war against al qaeda/taliban.
Pakistani military attacks in the tribal areas are provoking
resistance from tribal leaders and what is fast becoming a pushtun
mujahideen. The more that musharraf is forced to associate himself
with american policies, and the more american attacks there are in
pakistan's tribal areas many of which miss their targets and end up
killing innocent people, the more unpopular musharraf becomes and the
greater the likelihood of a civil war. A civil war would cause
ruptures within the pakistani military and bring about the country's
disintegration.

The americans argue they must take military action in the tribal areas
of pakistan to stop al qaeda/taliban attacks from attacking nato
forces in afghanistan. But the more they do so the more popular the
pushtun mujahideen becomes requiring an even bigger american
militarily intervention. Whilst it is in america's national interests
to get out of south east asia before they suffer even bigger political
and military disasters, the jewish neocons within the bush regime
insist on further american military adventures because of the huge
benefits they bring to the jews-only state in palestine. Whilst the
disintegration of pakistan would not be in america's national
interests, it would provide a huge benefit to jewish supremacism in
the greater middle east. Given such complexities: "The idea that a
sudden infusion of "democracy" is going to solve Pakistan's problems
is a Western delusion that should have died a quick death in the sands
of Iraq, and didn't." (Justin Raimondo `Panic Over Pakistan: Why
precipitous intervention is not the answer'
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=12141 December 31, 2007).

Breaking up the War Mongering States.
This article has criticized the jewish neocons for seeking pakistan's
disintegration. It has to be suggested, however, that if pakistan
dissolved into its ethnic constituencies this would not be anything
like as devastating as might be thought. Although in the short term it
might cause some bloodshed, in the longer term punjabis, pushtuns,
baluchis, and shiites, might live more peacefully within their own
states. When countries try to establish democracies they require,
initially, a degree of ethnic homogeneity if they are to stand a good
chance of survival. It is perfectly possible for mature democracies to
become increasingly heterogeneous but in the beginning they need
homogeneity to help consolidate stability. Pakistan has never been
such a homogenous entity. The break up of pakistan into its ethnic
components could create mini-states with sufficient homogeneity to
enable them to establish and maintain functioning democracies. The
break up of pakistan would not necessarily lead to chaos and ethnic
wars. However, it would probably lead to the end of the pakistani bomb
since it would be unlikely that any of the successor states would be
wealthy enough to sustain such enormously expensive weapons over the
long run.

This article is not recommending the break up of pakistan. On the
contrary, what is being advocated here is the break up of america. For
many decades the american constitution seemed strong enough to prevent
america from lapsing into an empire but the jewish neocons, experts in
constitutional gerrymandering, have shown this is no longer true.
America's pre-emptive and illegal war against vietnam was hugely
destructive: far more so than the pre-emptive and illegal invasions of
afghanistan and iraq. But it wasn't being fought to enable america to
set up an empire. However, this is precisely what the jewish neocons
are intent on doing - but not for the benefit of america or the world
but to increase the regional dominance of the jews only state in
palestine.

The best way to prevent the jewish neocons from manipulating america
into a third world to create a global empire is to break up america
into its 50 states. The power of america's ruling jewish elite cannot
be curbed through political reforms of the federal state. It can be
achieved only by abolishing the federal government.

This would not necessarily mean the end of freedom and democracy in
the former united states. All of these states could adopt a miniature
version of the american constitution. Indeed, americans might even be
able to win back the freedoms they have had to sacrifice during the
efforts made to establish a jewish led american empire. At the very
least they would be better off because they would no longer be
burdened by paying federal taxes. They would no longer have to fund
america's grossly bloated military nor an equally grossly bloated
homeland security agency. America could break up as a consequence of
the boomerang effects of the jewish neocons' efforts to forge an
american empire. But it would be better if americans abolished the
federal state before the american empire grows too unwieldy and
eventually collapses thereby devastating the country.

*********************************************************************

WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE

To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
wvns-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/

Need some good karma? Appreciate the service?
Please consider donating to WVNS today.
Email ummyakoub@... for instructions.

To leave this list, send an email to:
wvns-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Controversy of Zion: The Jewish Soul
Written by Douglas Reed
Thursday, 20 December 2007
ENTIRE BOOK: http://knud.eriksen.adr.dk/Controversybook/


Chapter 45 of Douglas Reed's anti-Zionist classic "Controversy of Zion"


The first fifty years of "the Jewish century" have had their natural
effect on the Jewish soul, which once again is in violent unrest. They
have made chauvinists of a mass of Jews who, a hundred and fifty years
ago, seemed committed to involvement in mankind. They are once more in
captivity (the recurrent "captivities" of the Jews were always
captivity by the elders and their creed of exclusion, not by alien
taskmasters). In the Zionist captivity, and under the pressure of the
elders, they have been made into the most explosive force in recorded
history. The story of this century, of its wars and revolutions and
the denouement yet to come, is that of Talmudic chauvinism, which has
its roots in Deuteronomy.

The very word, chauvinism, means an extravagant emotion; Nicolas
Chauvin was the Napoleonic soldier whose bombastic and unbridled
fervour for his Emperor brought patriotism into disrepute even at a
period of patriotic ardour. Nevertheless, the word is inadequate to
describe the effect of Talmudic Zionism on the Jewish soul; no word
exists, other than "Talmudism", for this unique and boundless frenzy.

In 1933 Mr. Bernard J. Brown wrote, "Being consciously Jewish is the
lowest kind of chauvinism, for it is the only chauvinism that is based
an false premises". The premises are those of the Talmud-Torah;
namely, that God promised a certain tribe supremacy over all enslaved
others in this world, and exclusive inheritance of the next world in
return for strict observance of a law based on blood sacrifice and the
destruction or enslavement of the lesser breeds without this Law.
Whether Talmudic chauvinism or Zionist chauvinism (I believe either
term is more correct than Mr. Brown's "Jewish chauvinism") is or is
not "the lowest kind" of chauvinism, these fifty years have shown that
it is the most violent kind yet known to man.

Its effect on the Jewish soul is reflected in the changed tone of
Jewish literature in our time. Before adducing examples of this, an
illustration of its effect between one generation and the next may be
given by briefly citing the cases af two Jews, father and son. Mr.
Henry Morgenthau senior was a notable Jew of America who became an
ambassador. He was the product of Jewish emancipation during the last
century; he was what the Jews today might have been, but for Talmudic
chauvinism. He said:

"Zionism is the most stupendous fallacy in Jewish history. I assert
that it is wrong in principle and sterile in its spiritual ideas.
Zionism is a betraval, an Eastern European proposal, fathered in this
country by American Jews. . . which, if they were to succeed, would
cost the Jews of America most of what they have gained of liberty,
equality and fraternity, I refuse to allow myself to be called a
Zionist. I am an American". [480]

In the next generation the name of the son, Mr. Henry Morgenthau
junior, became inseparably associated with the founding of the Zionist
state (his father's "stupendous fallacy") and with the Talmudic
vengeance in Europe. In the sequel the son might prove to be one of
the men most responsible for bringing about the consequences which the
father feared.

Dr. Weizmann records the great part played by the junior Mr.
Morgenthau in the backstage drama in New York which culminated in the
violent establishment of the Zionist state and an American president's
"recognition" of the deed. In Europe he fathered (through the
"Morgenthau Plan") the bisection of the continent and the advance of
therevolution to its middle. Some passages in that plan (initialled by
Messrs. Roosevelt and Churchill, who both repudiated it when the
damage was done) are of especial significance, namely, those which
propose that "all industrial plants and equipment not destroyed by
military action" (in Germany) "shall be . . . completely destroyed. .
. and the mines wrecked". The original source of this idea of "utter
destruction" apparently can only be the Talmud-Torah, where it is part
of the "Law of God". The Zionist state itself, as I have shown, was
founded on a deed of "utter destruction", and thus of literal
"observance" of this Law, at Deir Yasin.

But for Zionist chauvinism and the Western politicos who served it in
the office of "administrators", the son might have been another such
man as the father, and this particular illustration is valid for a
great mass of Jews and the change which has been produced in the
Jewish soul: When Jews of great name lent themselves to such
undertakings, and proved able to command the support of American
presidents and British prime ministers, the Jewish masses were bound
to follow. This general trend is reflected in the growing literature
of Talmudie chauvinism.

Up to the middle of the last century distinctively "Jewish" literature
was small and was in the main produced for and read in the closed
communities. In the general bookshops Jewish writers held a place
roughly proportionate to their numbers in the population, which was
the natural thing, and in their works did not in the rule write as
"Jews" or dwell on the exclusively Jewish theme. They addressed
themselves to the general audience and avoided the chauvinist appeal
to Jews, as well as anything that non-Jews might regard as blasphemy,
sedition, obscenity or slander.

The transformation that has come about in the last fifty years
reflects equally the spread of Talmudic chauvinism and the enforced
subordination of the non-Jewish masses to it. Today books by Jews and
non-Jews about Jewish things, if they were counted, might be found to
form the largest single body of Western literature, outside fiction,
and the change in tone and standard is very great.

As it has come about gradually, and critical comment today is in
practice virtually forbidden as "antisemitic", the change has not been
consciously remarked by the mass of people. Its extent may be measured
by this comparison; [481] a good deal of what is contained in the
literature of Talmudic chauvinism today (a few examples follow) would
not have been published at all fifty years ago, as offensive to the
standards then generally accepted. Fear of critical and public
anathema would have kept publishers from issuing many of these works,
or at all events from including in them the most flagrant passages.

The starting-point of this process, which might be called one of
degeneration in Jewry, was possibly the appearance in 1895 of Max
Nordau's Degeneration, which struck the keynote for the chorus to
come. This book was in effect an epistle to the Gentiles, informing
them that they were degenerate, and it enjoyed great vogue with fin de
si�cle "Liberals", as the accumulating mass of kindred literature has
enjoyed among their kind ever since. Jewish degeneracy was no part of
its theme, and the author would have seen Jewish degeneracy only in
opposition to Zionism, for he was Herzl's lieutenant, and the man who
at the Zionist Congress after Herzl's death foretold the first World
War and the part played in it by England in setting up the Zionist
"homeland". Degeneration was significant both in time and theme; it
appeared in the same year as Herzl's The Jewish State and this was
also the year of the first revolutionary outbreak in Russia. The
revolution and Zionism are both essential to the Deuteronomic Talmudic
concept, and both movements, in my estimate, were developed under
Talmudic direction.

After Degeneration followed the full tide and spate of
Talmudic-chauvinist literature. An example from our time is a book
published in New York in the year, 1941, when Hitler and Stalin fell
out and America entered the Second War.

Germany Must Perish, by a Mr. Theodore N. Kaufmann, proposed the
extermination of the German people in the literal sense of the Law of
the Talmud-Torah. Mr. Kaufmann proposed that "German extinction" be
achieved by sterilizing all Germans of procreation age (males under
60, females under 45) within a period of three years after the war's
end, Germany to be sealed off during the process and its territory
then to be shared among other people, so that it should disappear from
the map together with its people. Mr. Kaufmann calculated that, with
births stopped through sterilization, the normal deathrate would
extinguish the German race within fifty or sixty years.

I feel sure that public abhorrence would have deterred any publisher
from issuing this work during the First War, and possibly at any
previous time since printing was invented. In 1941 it appeared with
the commendation of two leading American newspapers (both Jewish-owned
or Jewish-controlled). The New York Times described the proposal as "a
plan for permanent peace among civilized nations"; the Washington Post
called it "a provocative theory, interestingly presented".

This proposal was more literally Talmudic than anything else I can
find, but the spirit that prompted it breathed in many other books.
The hatred evinced was not limited to Germans; it extended to Arabs
and for a period to the British; as it [482] had earlier been directed
against Spaniards, Russians, Poles and others. It was not a personal
thing; being the end-product of Talmudic teaching it ranged
impartially over all things non"Judaist, taking first one symbolic
enemy and then another from a world where, under the Levitical Law,
all were enemies.

The growth and open expression of this violent feeling, no longer held
in bounds by the earlier need to take account of generally-accepted
standards in the West, explains the misgivings expressed by Mr. Brown
in 1933, by the Rabbi Elmer Berger in the 1940's, and by Mr. Alfred
Lilienthal in the present decade. Its reflection in the Jewish
published word justified their anxiety. In one book after another
Jewish writers with introspective writings examined "the Jewish soul"
and at the end came up with expressions of contempt or hatred for some
body or other of non-Jews, couched in chauvinist terms.
Mr. Arthur Koestler, describing his scrutiny of Judaism, wrote, "Most
bewildering of all was the discovery that the saga of the 'Chosen
Race' seemed to be taken quite literally by traditionalist Jews. They
protested against racial discrimination, and affirmed in the same
breath their racial superiority based on Jacob's covenant with God".
The effect of this "bewildering discovery" on this particular Jewish
soul was that "the more I found out about Judaism the more distressed
I became, and the more fervently Zionist".

The presumable cause ("reason" cannot be used to describe so illogical
a reaction) of this strange effect on Mr. Koestler is indicated by his
two hundred pages of complaint about Jews being persecuted in and
driven from Europe. He avoided this complaint of justice by his
assumption that the Arabs, who were not to blame, should suffer,
depicting an Arab family (persecuted in and driven from Palestine by
the Zionists) in these words: "The old woman will walk ahead leading
the donkey by the rein and the old man will ride on it .

. . sunk in solemn meditation about the lost opportunity of raping his
youngest grandchild". In this depictment the acts of persecution and
driving-out are made to appear respectable, others than Jews being the
sufferers, by the attribution of a revolting thought to the victim.

The change in the tone and standards of Jewish literature in our time
is again shown by the writings of Mr. Ben Hecht, some of which were
earlier quoted, including his complaint that if Jesus had only been
made into mincemeat, instead of being dignified by crucifixion,
Christianity would never have taken shape. I doubt whether newspapers
or publishers at any previous period would have given currency to
words which patently had only the purpose of offending others.

Mr. Hecht once wrote, "I lived forty years in my country" (America)
"without encountering antisemitism or concerning myself even remotely
with its existence". Therefore Mr. Hecht logically intended to live
nowhere else. Nevertheless, when the Zionist state was being set up,
he wrote that every time a British soldier was killed in Palestine
"the Jews of America make a little holiday in their hearts".[483]

Deep, if not enlightening insight into the development of the Jewish
soul during this century is given by the books of a Mr. Meyer Levine;
these also contain things which, in my estimation, would not have
found print in earlier times. Mr. Levine's In Search shows what Mr.
Sylvain L�vi meant when, at the 1919 Peace Conference, he gave warning
against the "explosive tendencies" of the Eastern Jews.

Mr. Levine, born in America of immigrant parents from Eastern Europe
was reared to hatred of Russians and Poles. He seems to have found
little to please him in "the new country" where he was born and when
he grew to young manhood busied himself in agitation among the Chicago
workers.

He tells of half a lifetime of tortured efforts to escape from
Jewishness and to immerse himself in Jewishness, alternately. If some
Jews believe themselves unchangeably distinct from all other mankind,
Mr. Levine gives two glimpses which make the reader feel that this
belief is the product of a strained, almost mystic perversity. He says
he finds himself constantly asking himself "What am I?" and "What am I
doing here?", and asserts that "Jews everywhere are asking the same
questions". Subsequently he related some of the discoveries to which
this self-scrutiny led him.

Describing the Leopold-Loeb murder in Chicago (when two young Jews, of
wealthy parents, killed and mutilated a small boy, also a Jew, from
motives of extreme morbidity) he says, "I believe that beneath the
very real horror that the case inspired, the horror in realizing that
human beings carried in them murderous motives beyond the simple
motives of lust and greed and hatred, beneath all this was a
suppressed sense of pride in the brilliance of these boys, a sympathy
for them in being slaves of their intellectual curiosities; a pride
that this particular new level of crime, even this should have been
reached by Jews. In a confused and awed way, and in the momentary
fashionableness of 'lust for experience', I felt that I understood
them, that I, particularly, being a young intellectual Jew, had a
kinship with them".

On another occasion he describes his part (he calls it that of "a
volunteer aid", but the-term "agitator" might be fairly applicable) in
the Chicago steelworkers strike of 1937, when strikers and police came
into conflict and shots were fired, several persons being killed. Mr.
Levine, as "a volunteer aid", had "fallen in alongside" the strikers'
procession and he "ran with the others" when the firing began. He was
not a steelworker or striker. Subsequently he and others, apparently
also volunteer aids, organized a mass meeting. At this he showed
slides made from newspaper-pictures from which he had removed the
descriptions. He accompanied these pictures with a recital of his own,
in words chosen to give the pictures an inflammatory interpretation,
different from that of the original captions. He says:

"So strange a roar arose that it seemed to me as though the vast
auditorium was a cauldron of rage, overturning upon me. . . I felt I
could never control the [484] crowd, that they would burst through the
doors, rush out and burn the city hall - the impact of the pictures
was so enraging. . . In that instant I experienced the full sense of
the danger of power, for I felt that a few words would have unleashed
violence beyond what we had seen on Memorial Day . . . If I had
sometimes felt unincluded as a stranger, artist and Jew, I knew that
universal action exists . . . I felt that perhaps one of the reasons
for the social reformism of the Jew is the need to melt himself into
these movements that engulf his own problem".

Once again, the words recall Mr. Maurice Samuel's lament or menace,
(whichever was intended) of 1924, "We Jews, the destroyers, will
remain the destroyers forever". Only in the incitement of others, Mr.
Levine appears to say, could he, the "stranger", feel himself
"included", or "his problem" engulfed. The incitement of the
unreasoning, stupid "mob" is the theme that runs through the
"Protocols" of 1905. In the passage quoted Mr. Levine seemed to imply
that he could only feel involvement in general mankind when so
inciting a mob.

His later travels were made in the same spirit. In his youth Zionism
was almost unknown and in 1925, when he was twenty, it was still "a
question that had scarcely penetrated to Jews born in America . . . It
was something that occupied the bearded ones from the old country and
if an American Jew happened to be dragged to a Zionist meeting he
found that the speakers talked with Russian accents, or simply
reverted to Yiddish. My own family, indeed, had no interest in the
movement".

As in the case of the Morgenthaus, father and son, one generation saw
the change. Mr. Levine's parents, migrants from a country of alleged
"persecution", were content to have found another where they
prospered. The son was not content. Soon he was in Palestine, and
developed vengeful feelings towards the Arabs of whom he had never
heard in his youth. He tells, as a good jest, of an incident in a
Zionist settlement when an Arab, coming across the fields, humbly
asked for a drink of water. Mr. Levine and his friends pointed to a
barrel, at which the Arab thankfully drank while they laughed; it was
the horse-water.

Ten years after that he was in Germany and played his part in the
Talmudic vengeance there. He was an American newspaper correspondent
and describes how he and another Jewish correspondent roamed about
Germany as "conquerors", armed (illicitly), in a jeep, looting and
wrecking as they pleased. He then says that the passive submission of
German women to the "conquerors" thwarted the furious desire to rape
them and "sometimes the hatred in a man rose so high that he felt the
absolute need of violence". In this mood, his companion and he swore
that "the only thing to do was to throw them down, tear them apart",
and they discussed "the ideal conditions for such a scene of violence;
there would have to be a wooded stretch of road, little traffic, and a
lone girl on foot or a bicycle". The pair then made "a tentative
sally" in search of these "ideal conditions" and at length found a
lonely girl and "the conditions, all fulfilled". (He says the
terrified girl was spared at the last and wonders if the reason, in
each [485] man, was that the presence of the other embarrassed him).
Mr. Levine began his book of 1950, "This is a book about being a Jew".
It and the many like it account for the anxiety expressed by the rare
Jewish remonstrants about the development of the last fifty years, for
they testify to the degeneration of the Jewish soul under the stress
of Talmudic chauvinism. The only thing proved by the book is that at
its end Mr. Levine knew as little as at the start of his quest about
what "being a Jew" meant (presumably he would not wish the
above-quoted passages to be taken as supplying the answer). Hundreds
of others on this same elusive and unproductive theme have appeared;
so might an electric eel devour its own tail in search of the source
of its peculiar sensation, and come to no enlightening conclusion. A
book by a Jew on being a human being among other human beings was by
the mid-century rare.

The accumulating literature of incitement and hatred, of which a few
examples have been given, and the virtual suppression of objection to
it as "anti-semitism", give the 20th century its distinctive
character; it is the age of Talmudic chauvinism and Talmudic
imperialism. Our present situation was foretold nearly a hundred years
ago by a German, Wilhelm Marr.

Marr was a revolutionary and conspirator who helped the Jewish-led
"secret societies" (Disraeli) prepare the abortive outbreaks of 1848.
His writings of that period are recognizably Talmudic (he was not a
Jew); they are violently anti-Christian, atheist and anarchist. Later,
like Bakunin (Marr was a similar man) he became aware of the true
nature of the revolutionary hierarchy, and in 1879 he wrote:
"The advent of Jewish imperialism, I am firmly convinced, is only a
question of time. . . The empire of the world belongs to the Jews. . .
Woe to the conquered! . . . I am quite certain that before four
generations have passed there will not be a single function in the
State, the highest included, which will not be in the hands of the
Jews . . . At the present moment, alone among European states, Russia
still holds out against the official recognition of the invading
foreigners. Russia is the last rampart and against her the Jews have
constructed their final trench. To judge by the course of events, the
capitulation of Russia is only a question of time . . . In that vast
empire. . . Judaism will find the fulcrum of Archimedes which will
enable it to drag the whole of Western Europe off its hinges once for
all. The Jewish spirit of intrigue will bring about a revolution in
Russia such as the world has never yet seen . . . The present
situation of Judaism in Russia is such that it has still to fear
expulsion. But when it has laid Russia prostrate it will no longer
have any attacks to fear. When the Jews have got control of the
Russian state. . . they will set about the destruction of the social
organization of Western Europe. This last hour of Europe will arrive
at latest in a hundred or a hundred and fifty years".

The present state of Europe, as it has been left by the Second War,
shows this forecast to have been largely fulfilled. Indeed, only the
full denouement remains, [486] for its complete fulfilment. As to
that, Marr may have seen too darkly. The history of the world thus far
knows no irrevocable decisions, decisive victories, permanent
conquests or absolute weapons. The last word, so far, has always
proved to lie with the New Testamentary dictum: "The end is not yet".

However, the last stage in Marr's forecast, the third act in the 20th
Century drama, is evidently at hand, whatever its outcome and whatever
its subsequent aftermath, and in preparation for it the Jewish soul
has been made captive by Talmudic chauvinism once again. Mr. George
Sokolsky, the notable Jewish diarist of New York, observed in January
1956 that, "There was considerable opposition" (to Zionism) "inside
world Jewry, but over the years the opposition died down and where it
still exists it is so unpopular as generally to be hidden away; in the
United States opposition to Israel among Jews is negligible".

The few warning voices which are still being raised, like Jeremiah's
of old, are nearly all those of Jews. The reason is not that
non-Jewish writers are worse informed, shorter sighted or less
courageous; it has long been the unwritten rule that Jewish objectors
may within limits be heard, as they are of "ourselves", but that
objection from non-Jews must not be tolerated.* In the condition of
the Western press today, in the third quarter of the 20th century,
this rule is enforced almost without exception.

On this account the few warnings here quoted are Jewish ones. Mr.
Frank Chodorov told the American Government (Human Events, March 10,
1956) that in the Middle East "in reality it is not dealing with the
government of Israel but with American Jews. . . It is a certainty
that many good, loyal Americans of the Jewish faith would welcome a
showdown, not only to register their loyalty to this country and
against world Zionism, but also to loosen the grip the Zionists have
on them".

Similarly, Mr. Alfred Lilienthal (Human Events, September 10, 1955)
echoed the despairing plea of the late Mr. James Forrestal eight years
before; as the shadow of the 1956 presidential election fell across
America he, too, begged the [487] two great political parties, when
they joined conflict, "to take the Arab-Israeli issue out of domestic
politics". Both these Jewish warnings appeared in a Washington
newsletter of repute but small circulation; the mass-circulation
newspapers were closed to them.

* A good example: during 1956, a presidential election year, criticism
of Zionism or of "Israel" was an almost inconceivable thing in the
United States, especially in the later months, as the actual vote
approached. Israeli attacks on the neighbouring Arab countries were
invariably reported in all leading newspapers as "reprisal" or
"retaliation". The President, his Cabinet members and State Department
officials remained silent as one attack followed another, each of them
resulting in an act of merciless destruction on the pattern af Deir
Yasin in 1948. Indeed, leading candidates of the opposing parties, as
in 1952 and 1948, vied with each other in demanding arms for Israel
and in competing by this means for the Zionist-controlled vote which
was supposed to be decisive. At the same time (11 September 1956) over
two thousand Orthodox Jews met in Union Square, New York, to protest
against "the persecution of religion in the state of Israel". The name
of the Israel Premier, Ben-Gurion, was jeered and several rabbis made
violent attacks on him and his government. These in no way related to
the case af the Arabs, who were not mentioned; the attack was solely
on ground of religious orthodoxy, the Ben-Gurion government being
assailed for its disregard of orthodox ritual in Sabbatarian and other
questians. Nevertheless, the attack was public, whereas criticism an
any ground whatever from non-Jewish quarters was in fact virtually
forbidden at this time. At the same period (1 September 1956)
recurrent Jewish riots in Israel itself culminated in an outbreak
which was suppressed by police, one man being killed. The dead man
belonged to a group which refused to recognize the Israel government,
maintaining that "re-establishment of a Jewish state must await the
divine will" (incidentally, this is one of the main theses of the
present, non-Jewish writer's book). The victim, on account of his
belief, was described by New York newspapers as "a religious extremist".

Other latterday Jewish remonstrants raised the ancient cry of a coming
"catastrophe". In 1933 Mr. Bernard J. Brown had seen disaster coming:
"Never in the history of the human race has there ever been a group of
people who have enmeshed themselves into so many errors and persisted
in refusing to see the truth, as our people have done during the last
three hundred years" (the period which saw the emergence of the
Talmudic "Eastern Jews" and the victorious Talmudist war against
Jewish assimilation).

Fifteen years after that warning Jewish remonstrants were pronouncing
the word which it only implied: "catastrophe". Rabbi Elmer Berger
wrote in 1951, "Unless Americans of Jewish faith and a great many
Americans of other faiths who have been misguided into supporting
Zionism return to the fundamentals both of American life and of
Judaism we are headed for something af a catastrophe".

The foreword to Rabbi Berger's book was written by a non-Jewish
authority, Dr. Paul Hutchinson, editor of The Christian Century. He
was more explicit: "This claim of the right of American Jews to refuse
amalgamation is building towards a crisis which may have lamentable
consequences. Already it is becoming clear that every time Israel gets
in a jam (and many of its policies, especially with regard to
economics and immigration, seem almost designed to produce jams)
American Jews will be expected to high-pressure the United States
government to step in and straighten matters out. Zionist leaders have
not hesitated to carry this sort of thing to the extremes of political
blackmail" (this was written many years before ex-President Truman in
his memoirs confirmed the fact). "This can continue for a little while
because of our peculiar electoral system. . . but New York is not the
United States, and if this sort of strong-arm intervention in behalf
of a foreign state keeps up, look out for an explosion".

These warnings, though clear to Jews, might produce in non-Jewish
minds the false impression that "the Jews" are headed towards "a
catastrophe" of their own making; that in that event Talmudic
chauvinism will recoil on their own heads; and, schliesslich, that
they will then only have themselves to thank. The smug and the
rancorous, especially, might fall into this delusion.

Delusion it would bee. That recurrent phenomenon of
history-as-it-is-written, "the Jewish catastrophe", is invariably the
small Jewish share in a general catastrophe, the proportion being,
say, around one percent of the total woe. The montrous prevarication
of the Second War about the "six million Jews who perished" does not
change that enduring truth. The catastrophe which has been brewed in
these fifty years will be a general one, and the Jewish share of it
will be fractional. It will be depicted as "a Jewish catastrophe", as
the Second War was [488] so depicted, but that is the false picture
shown on the lighted screen to "the mob" in its dark room.

Jews often, and quite genuinely, cannot envisage a calamity involving
Jews, and no matter how many more non-Jews, as anything but "a Jewish
catastrophe". This is a mental attitude deriving from the original
teaching of the Talmud-Torah, wherein the chosen people alone have
true existence and the others are shadows or cattle. Mr. Karl Stern's
book, Pillar of Fire, provides an illustration.

Mr. Stern (a Jew who grew up in Germany between the wars, went to
Canada and there was converted to the Catholic faith) says that there
was in the Jewish youth Movement in Germany in the 1920's "a general
mood which seemed to point at events which later came to pass. Latent
in the situation were sorrows, questions and doubts pointing towards
the great Jewish catastrophe - or rather the great European
catastrophe with which the fate ofthe Jews was interwoven in so
mysterious a fashion".

In this passage the truth appears in an obvious, corrective
afterthought, which would not occur to or be expressed by the run of
Jewish writers. Mr. Stern's is an exceptional case, and when he had
written the words "the great Jewish catastrophe" he saw their untruth
and qualified them; nevertheless, even he left the original statement
to stand. The influence of his heredity and upbringing were still
strong enough in him, a Catholic in North America, to form his first
thought in those terms: the ordeal of 350,000,000 souls in Europe,
which has left nearly half of them enslaved, was "the great Jewish
catastrophe".

In a different case Mr. Stern would be the first to object to such a
presentation. Indeed, he relates that he was offended by reading in a
Catholic paper the statement that so-many members of the crew of a
sunken British submarine were "Catholics". He was affronted because
one group of the victims was singled out in this way; "I do not
understand why anyone would care for such statistics". And yet: "the
great Jewish catastrophe . . ."

The "catastrophe", involving all, which has been prepared in these
fifty years, will not be distinctively Jewish in the predominance of
Jewish suffering, but in its domination, once again, by "the Jewish
question", by the effort to subordinate all the energy generated to
aims represented to be Jewish, and in the use of the Jewish masses to
help detonate it. The Jewish mass, or mob, is in one respect different
from any other mob, or mass: it is more prone to surrender itself to
chauvinist incitement, and more frenzied in this surrender. The Jewish
Encyclopaedia, in a small section devoted to the subject of hysteria
among Jews, affirms that their tendency towards it is higher than
average. As a layman, I would hazard the guess that this is the result
of the centuries of close confinement in the ghettoes and of Talmudic
absolutism in them (for today we have to do almost exclusively with
the "Eastern Jews" who but yesterday lived in those confines). [489]
I have given some examples af this rising wave of chauvinist hysteria
from literature accessible to the general reader. This shows the
results, but not the root cause. To locate that the reader needs to do
something more difficult; namely, attentively to follow the Yiddish
and Hebrew press, in the original or in translation. Then he will
receive the picture of an almost demoniac scourging of the Jewish soul
so that it shall never find rest and he might conclude that nowhere
outside Jewry is anything so anti-Jewish to be found as in some of
these utterances, which show a scientific mastery of methods of
implanting and fostering fear.

Before studying the examples which follow the reader might consider
that the great mass of "explosive Eastern Jews" is now in America.
This fact, more pregnant with possible consequences than any other of
our day, seems scarcely to have entered the consciousness of the
Western world, or even of America. The extracts which now follow show
what is said in Hebrew and Yiddish (that is, outside the aural range
of the non-Jew) among the Jewish masses, and the effect produced on
them within the short space of five years.

Mr. Willian Zukerman, one of the most notable Jewish diarists of
America and of our time, in May 1950 published an article called
"Raising the Hair of the Jewish People" (South African Jewish Times of
May 19, 1950; I imagine it also appeared in Jewish publications in
many countries). He began by saying, "A great debate is on in the
Zionist world. As yet it has not reached the non-Jewish, or even
English-Jewish press; but it is raging in the Hebrew newspapers in
Israel and in the Yiddish press in America and in Europe . . . it
reveals, as nothing else has done in recent years, a cross-section of
Jewish thought and emotions in the period following the emergence af
Israel". The debate, he explained, was "on the question of Chalutziot;
organized and prepared emigration of Jews to Israel from all over the
world - but particularly from the United States".

At that time (1950) Mr. Zukerman wrote with only an undertone of
foreboding. He quoted Mr. Sholem Niger, "dean of Yiddish literary
critics and essayists", as attacking, not "the campaign for emigration
of American Jews to Israel", but "the manner in which it is being
presented to American Jews . . . " This, said Mr. Niger, was entirely
negative, being anti-all others rather than pro-Israel: "the
nationalists conduct a campaign of negation, vilification and
destruction of everything Jewish outside Israel. Jewish life in the
United States and everyhere else in the world is depicted as
contemptible and hateful. . . Everything Jewish outside Israel is
declared to be slavish, undignified, suppressed and dishonourable. No
Jew with any self-respect can live fully as a Jew in the United States
or anywhere else except in Israel is the major contention of the
nationalists in this debate".

Another favourite technique in selling Chalutziot to American Jews
(the article continued) "is to undermine Jewish morale, faith and hope
in their American home; to keep Jews constantly on edge with the scare
of anti-semitism: not to let [490] them forget the Hitler horrors and
to spread doubts, fear and despair about the future of Jews in
America. Every manifestation of anti-semitism is being seized upon and
exaggerated to create an impression that American Jews, like the
Germans under Hitler, stand on the brink of a catastrophe, and that
sooner or later they, too, will have to run for safety".
Mr. Niger quoted as example from an article by "a leading Israeli
Zionist, Jonah Kossoi, in a highly literary Jerusalem Hebrew journal,
Isroel":

"Upon us, Zionists, now lies the old responsibility of constantly
raising the hair of the Jewish people; not to let them rest; to keep
them forever on the edge of a precipice and make them aware of the
dangers facing them. We must not wait until after the 'catastrophe'
because if we do, where will we take the hundreds af thousands of Jews
needed to build up our State? . . . Not in the future, but right now
is the time for Jews to save themselves. . ."

The reader will see: the "catastrophe" is a political necessity, or an
inevitability; and from these extracts he may begin to understand why
the Jewish Encyclopaedia records a tendency towards hysteria among
Jews. Mr. Zukerman said that this "extreme form of Chalutziot
propaganda is the most prevalent one in Israel now". He quoted a "more
moderate form of the theory" expounded by Mr. L. Jefroikin, editor of
the Zionist Kiyum in Paris. Mr. Jefroikin, said Mr. Zukerman, "while
he subscribes to the truth of every word of the nationalistic theory
that no Jew can live a full and dignified life anywhere else but in
Israel, and while he too says that 'American Jews live in a fool's
paradise', nevertheless admits that in their present state of mind
American Jews will never agree that the U .S.A. is to be placed in the
same category as Germany and Poland and that they would not consent to
regard their home as a place of transit for Israel. He concludes,
therefore, that American Jews should be propagandized to become only
'Lovers of Israel', not actual Israelis in body and soul".

The effect of this "propaganda" carried by Zionist emissaries from
Israel into the United States, may next be studied in some remarks
printed eighteen months later (December 1951) in the Intermountain
Jewish News of Denver, Colorado. Its editor, Mr. Robert Gamzey, was
critical of the action of the Jewish Agency and the World Zionist
Congress for allocating $2,800,000 to promote Chalutziot in the United
States. He said he knew "from personal experience in Israel of the
widespread erroneous attitude there that America has no future for the
Jews and that anti-semitism dooms U.S. Jewry to the fate of German
Jews". He added, "It is inconceivable therefore that the sending of
Israel emissaries here to encourage American youth to settle in Israel
would be conducted in any other way but to deride and deprecate the
future of American Judaism".

These forebodings of 1950 and 1951 were justified in the next five
years, when "the campaign" and "the emissaries" from Israel succeeded
in injecting "the nationalistic theory", as above expounded, into the
minds of the Jewish masses in America. Thus in 1955 Mr. William
Zukerman, who in 1950 had been but faintly [491] alarmed, was greatly
so. He wrote (Jewish Newsletter, November 1955, reprinted in Time
Magazine of New York, November 28):

"There cannot be the slightest doubt that a state of mind very much
like that of Israel now prevails among American Jews. There is a
fanatical certainty abroad, that there is only one truth and that
Israel is the sole custodian of it. No distinction is made between the
Jews of the world and Israel, and not even between the Israeli
government and Israel. Israeli statesmen and their policies are
assumed to be inviolate and above criticism. There is a frightening
intolerance of opinions differing from those of the majority, a
complete disregard of reason, and a yielding to the emotions of a
stampeding herd.

"There is only one important difference between the Israeli and the
American Jews. In Israel, the outburst of emotionalism, as far as one
can judge from outside, has a basis in reality. It wells from the
hidden springs of a disillusioned people who were promised security
and peace and find themselves in a war trap. The American-Jewish brand
of hysteria is entirely without roots in the realities of
American-Jewish life. It is completely artificial, manufactured by the
Zionist leaders, and foisted on a people who have no cause for
hysteria by an army of paid propagandists as a means of advancing a
policy of avowed political pressure and of stimulating fund raising.
Never before has a propaganda campaign in behalf of a foreign
government been planned and carried out more blatantly and cynically,
in the blaze of limelight and to the fanfare of publicity, than the
present wave of hysteria now being worked up among American Jews".

These two quotations, separated by five years, again portray the
degeneration of the Jewish soul under the tutelage of Talmudic
Zionism. They also bring this tale of three wars to the eve of the
third one, if "eve" is the apt word. In fact the third war began when
the fighting in the Second War ended and has been in unbroken
progress, somewhere or other in the world, ever since. It needs only a
puff from any bellows to ignite it into another general war.

The process could have been, and possibly still could be halted by two
responsible statesmen, one on either side of the Atlantic, speaking in
unison, for it is in essense the biggest bluff in history. Today such
mortal salvation seems too much to hope for and the writer probably
does not exaggerate in opining that only God, who has done much bigger
things, could avert the third general war. Unless that happens the
concluding decades of this century foreseeably will see either the
fiasco or the transient triumph of Talmudic chauvinism. Either way, in
failure or success, the accompanying "catastrophe" would be that of
the non-Jewish masses and Jewish suffering would be a minute fraction
of it.

Afterwards, as the world obviously will not accept the Talmud, the
Jews would at last have to accept the world as it is.
Source: ZioPedia.org
http://www.ziopedia.org/en/articles/zionism/controversy_of_zion%3a_the_jewish_so\
ul/

*********************************************************************

WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE

To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
wvns-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/

Need some good karma? Appreciate the service?
Please consider donating to WVNS today.
Email ummyakoub@... for instructions.

To leave this list, send an email to:
wvns-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

The Scam of "Reconstruction" in Afghanistan

Student Researchers: Madeline Hall and Julie Bickel
Faculty Evaluator: James Dean, Ph.D.


A report issued in June 2005 by the non-profit organization Action Aid
reveals that much of the US tax money earmarked to rebuild Afghanistan
actually ends up going no further than the pockets of wealthy US
corporations. "Phantom aid" that never shows up in the recipient
country is a scam in which paychecks for overpriced, and often
incompetent, American "experts" under contract to USAID go directly
from the Agency to American bank accounts. Additionally, 70 percent of
the aid that does make it to a recipient country is carefully "tied"
to the donor nation, requiring that the recipient use the donated
money to buy products and services from the donor country, often at
drastically inflated prices. The US far outstrips other nations in
these schemes, as Action Aid calculates that 86 cents of every dollar
of American aid is phantom.

          Authors Ann Jones and Fariba Nawa suggest that in order to
understand the failure and fraud in the reconstruction of Afghanistan,
it is important to look at the peculiar system of American aid for
international development. International and national
agencies—including the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and
USAID, that traditionally distribute aid money to developing
countries—have designed a system that is efficient in funneling money
back to the wealthy donor countries, while undermining sustainable
development in poor states.

          A former head of USAID cited foreign aid as "a key foreign
policy instrument" designed to help countries "become better markets
for US exports." To guarantee that mission, the State Department
recently took over the aid agency. USAID and the Army Corps of
Engineers now cut in US business and government interests from the
start, making sure that money is allocated according to US economic,
political, strategic, and military priorities, rather than according
to what the recipient nation might consider important.

          Though Afghans have petitioned to allocate aid money as they
find appropriate, donor countries object, claiming that the Afghan
government is too corrupt to be trusted. Increasingly frustrated and
angry Afghan communities meanwhile claim that the no-bid, open-ended
contracts being awarded to contractors such as Kellogg, Brown, and
Root/Halliburton, DynCorp, Blackwater, and the Louis Berger Group are
equivalent to licensed bribery, corruption, theft, and money laundering.

          The Karzai government, confined to a self-serving American
agenda, has delivered little to the average Afghan, most of whom still
live in abject poverty. Western notions of progress evident in
US-contracted hotels, restaurants, and shopping malls full of new
electronic gadgets and appliances are beyond the imaginations or
practicalities of 3.5 million war torn Afghan citizens who are without
food, shelter, sewage systems, clean water or electricity.

          Infrastructure hastily built with shoddy materials and no
knowledge or respect for geologic or climatic conditions is
culminating in one expensive failure after another. USAID's website,
for example, boasts of its only infrastructure accomplishment in
Afghanistan—the Kabul-Kandahar Highway—a narrow and already crumbling
highway costing Afghanis $1 million a mile. The highway was featured
in the Kabul Weekly newspaper in March 2005 under the headline,
"Millions Wasted on Second-Rate Roads." The article notes that while
other bids from more competent construction firms came in at one-third
the cost, the contract went to the Louis Berger Group, a firm with
tight connections to the Bush administration—as well as a notorious
track record of other failed and abandoned construction projects in
Afghanistan.

          Former Minister of Planning, Ramazan Bashardost, complained
that when it came to building roads, the Taliban had done a better
job. "And," he also asked, "Where did the money go?" Now, in a move
certain to lower President Karzai's approval ratings and further
diminish US popularity in the area, the Bush administration has
pressured Karzai to turn this "gift from the people of the United
States" into a toll road, charging each driver $20 for a road-use
permit valid for one month. In this way, according to American
"experts" providing highly paid technical assistance, Afghanistan can
collect $30 million annually from its impoverished citizens and
thereby decrease the foreign aid "burden" on the United States.

          Jones asks, "Is it any wonder that foreign aid seems to
ordinary Afghans to be something only foreigners enjoy?"

UPDATE BY Fariba Nawa

Afghanistan, Inc. is a thirty-page report that digs deep into the
corruption involved in the reconstruction of Afghanistan. The report
focuses on US government-funded companies contracted to rebuild
Afghanistan. The importance of this report is that it's the first
serious look at corruption of aid money spending from a grassroots
level. It includes an emphasis on various projects in villages and the
cities and it covers all sides of the issue. It shows how big money is
spent on bad work.

          The report was first published in English through CorpWatch,
a watchdog of corporations, on May 2, 2006. It was translated into the
Persian languages of Dari and Pashto in September 2006. The companies
investigated in the report continue to receive millions of dollars in
contracts from the US government despite their incompetence and
wasteful spending. Louis Berger, Bearing Point, Chemonics, and DynCorp
are still taking American taxpayers' money and showing minimum results
in Afghanistan.

          Some of the mainstream press gave the report coverage,
including NPR's Morning Edition, KRON Channel 4 news in San Francisco
when it was first published, and later on, BBC radio and many other
European outlets continue to call and ask the author about the report.
However, that's a limited response to the fact that this was a
groundbreaking report with important information for policy change.
The report has been a source for many others researching the subject.
If you'd like more information on corruption on reconstruction in
Afghanistan, please refer to CorpWatch's website www.corpwatch.org.
Integrity Watch Afghanistan is another organization that monitors
corruption in the country and produces various reports.

UPDATE BY ANN JONES

Nine months later the conundrum I described—no peace, no security, no
development—still pertains, and Afghan hopes sour.

The US still looks for a military solution. In the first five months
of 2007, seventy-five coalition troops were killed (compared to
fifty-three in the same period last year), including thirty-eight
Americans. Civilian casualties were variously reported—some sources
said "almost 1,800"—including 135 killed by US or NATO forces.

The US position on military "progress" against the Taliban, expressed
by Defense Secretary Robert Gates on June 4, 2007, as he prepared to
visit Afghanistan, remained "guarded optimism." Gates told reporters a
goal of his trip was to insure close coordination of combat operations
and development and reconstruction efforts. That's a switch,
suggesting some clue that reconstruction may be a better way to "kill"
the Taliban, but leaving unanswered the question of how to coordinate
war and peaceful activity.

The real importance of "Why It's Not Working in Afghanistan" lies
behind the front page military coverage—in what it reveals of the
systemic scams and should-be scandals of American aid. The story makes
news now and then when billions "disappear" from reconstruction
projects in Iraq, but to my knowledge it has yet to be investigated by
media or congress. What's discussed is the occasional budgetary black
hole that suggests some random malfeasance, in much the same way that
torture at Abu Ghraib was discussed as the work of a few "bad apples."

Maybe reporters don't want to take up the story because it's
complicated. It's about numbers. Like Enron. Dreary, ho-hum,
life-shattering stuff. I don't know. But one curious thing: when my
book Kabul in Winter appeared in 2006, a very long section on this
topic was the one part no reviewer touched.

Now bigger voices than mine speak out. Abdullah Abdullah, the
distinguished former Foreign Minister of Afghanistan, recently
complained that of every $100,000 promised to Afghan development, less
than a third reaches the country. Matt Waldman, head of Afghanistan
policy for Oxfam, one of the most respected humanitarian NGOs in the
world, wrote in The Guardian (May 26, 2007) that "America is
bankrolling Afghanistan" but "as in Iraq, a vast proportion of aid is
wasted." And more to the point, "Close to half of US development
assistance goes to the five biggest US contractors in the country."

Waldman argues that too much aid money is lost to high salaries and
living costs of international experts, purchase of non-Afghan
resources, and corporate profits. He figures the cost of the average
expat (read "American") expert at half a million dollars a year.
So why is it left to representatives of foreign governments, foreign
humanitarian organizations, and foreign press to expose this fraud?

To keep up with news about Afghanistan see
news @ afghanistannewscenter.com, a daily roundup of stories from the
world's English language press. For policy issues see the Web site of
New York University's Center on International Cooperation
(www.cic.nyu.edu) or that of the Center's senior fellow and
Afghanistan expert Barnett Rubin (brr5@...). To keep an eye on the
corridors of power see the website of the Center for Public Integrity
(www.publicintegrity.org), and specifically for information on
corporate scams see www.corpwatch.org.

Journalists should also be advised that several professional
organizations are protesting the increasing difficulty of covering
Afghanistan because of interference by US, Afghan, and ISAF forces.
They include IFJ (International Federation of Journalists), AIJA
(Afghan Independent Journalists Association), and CPAJ (Committee to
Protect Afghan Journalists). Currently Afghan journalists are also
boycotting the Afghan Wolesi Jirga (lower house of Parliament) to
protest its enactment of repressive media laws and the consequent
imprisonment of journalists.

*********************************************************************

WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE

To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
wvns-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/

Need some good karma? Appreciate the service?
Please consider donating to WVNS today.
Email ummyakoub@... for instructions.

To leave this list, send an email to:
wvns-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Bush's Twenty-Billion Dollar Arms Sale to Saudi Arabia

The Zionist Power Configuration Defeats Big Oil, the Military
Industrial Complex, the White House and the Pentagon
James Petras
Global Research


The debate on which forces determine US Middle East policy has cut
across the usual political spectrum: On one side most neo-conservative
and progressive writers, academics and journalists argue that the
military-industrial complex and Big Oil interests are the most
influential forces shaping US policy. On the other, a small group of
conservative and leftist writers and a few academics have identified
what some call the Israel or Zionist Lobby and others refer to the
Zionist Power Configuration (ZPC) as the prevailing influence in
deciding US strategic policies in the Middle East.

While the debate rages over who and what interests got us into the
Iraq war and the escalating confrontation with Iran, there is no
better test of conflicting positions than the proposed US sale of $20
billion dollars of military equipment to Saudi Arabia.

The Pentagon led by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates agreed to the
sale; it was backed by President Bush, Vice President Cheney and at
least tacitly by the entire executive branch, including the National
Security Council. All of the biggest US, European and Asian
multi-national petroleum companies, refiners and importers were in
favor of upgrading the military defensive capacity of the world's
biggest oil producer, since hundreds of billions in commercial and
financial profits are transacted there every year. The US Middle East
Command (CENTCOM) with major air bases and strategic logistic support
systems in Saudi Arabia could not but support Saudi acquisition of a
defensive high-tech air reconnaissance system.

Saudi Arabia is the most reliable and biggest single supplier of
petroleum to the US world-wide. Saudi Arabia has been a staunch ally
of the US – more like a client state -- in all the US military and
surrogate wars and interventions from the co-financing of anti-Soviet
Muslim fundamentalist in Afghanistan, the attack on Yugoslavia and
support of break-away Bosnia and Kosovo, to the two Gulf Wars and
present confrontation with Iran, to its opposition of each and every
Arab nationalist or leftist regime over the past 60 years. From the
perspective of US imperial interests, dominance and influence in Asia,
the Balkans and especially the Middle East, one would thing that a
military sale worth $20 billion dollars to the Saudi monarchy would be
automatically and overwhelmingly approved by the US Congress.

This is especially the case because a $20 billion dollar sale will
generate thousands of new jobs and will lessen the huge trade deficit.
At the recent OPEC meeting, the Saudis strongly opposed dumping
hundreds of billions of depreciating dollars they currently hold as
foreign reserves – or even discussing the matter.

There is no greater contrast from the point of view of costs-benefit
in comparing Saudi Arabia to Israel. The latter is subsidized by the
US, which has given over $120 billion dollars over the last 30 years
while it competes, as the second largest arms exporter, with the
US-military industrial complex thus costing American jobs and supplies
absolutely no strategic materials to the US economy. Indeed Israel has
direct access to the most up-to-date US funded military technology,
which it then sells to its clients. This is in stark contrast to Saudi
Arabia's servile relation with the US. Israel has constantly demanded
and received US support and financing for its wars, its illegal
colonization of Palestinian land and has unwavering US support for its
repudiation of international law and numerous violations of United
Nations mandates. While Saudi Arabia supports the US economy and is a
strategic supplier of petroleum, Israel drains the US economy and
secures its petroleum from it. Beginning in early 2007, the entire
Zionist power configuration (ZPC) mobilized to block the US arms and
military technology sales to Saudi Arabia. Zionist pressure was so
intense and its control over Congress was so evident to the White
House and Pentagon that Defense Secretary Gates did not even try to
counter the ZPC's campaign in the US Congress. Instead he went
straight to the ZPC's control center in Israel and not with empty
hands. He pleaded with Israel to call of its American attack dogs in
exchange for a 'donation' of over $30 billion dollars in US military
handouts to Israel over the next ten years. Olmert accepted Gates
offer: The US had paid the price but still the ZPC did not turn over
their hostage Congress. President Bush and Secretary Gates were
convinced that Israel would muzzle the Presidents of the Major
American Jewish Organizations to allow the Saudi sale to go through.
This did not happen. Why should it? President Bush could not withdraw
the well-publicized pay-off to Israel; it was already in the
legislative books. He could not retaliate – the ZPC-controlled
Congress would oppose any and all counter measures.

So Bush and Gates went ahead and sent the bill to Congress authorizing
the $20 billion sales to Saudi Arabia, a trillion dollar economy with
a two-bit military wholly dependent on its US military protector.

Immediately the ZPC rounded up its automatic 190 members of the House
of Representatives to sign a letter opposing the sale. The ZPC
formulated the position embodied in the letter and oversaw its draft
with the collaboration of its co-religionists in Congress. Zionist
Congress members Shelley Berkeley and Anthony Weiner teamed up with
Michael Ferguson. The Zion-Cons claimed justifiably that they could
mobilize over three quarters of the Congress on any issue affecting
Israel's 'security'. Zionist lawmakers claimed, "the sale would
undermine Israel's superiority in the region". Every major independent
military think tank would dispute this argument since Israel is the
only nuclear power in the region, has the biggest and most
technologically sophisticated air force and missile system, while
Saudi Arabia and all the Gulf States have trouble even controlling
local ground level bomb throwers.

There are two likely outcomes both demonstrating categorically that it
is the ZPC that dictates US policies in the Middle East:

The military sales will not fly.

The military sale will be approved on conditions that Israel is privy
to all its details and can modify or omit any part of the agreement.

The ZPC was even able to strong arm the Congress-people who have made
a lifelong career out of aggressively promoting the interests of Big
Oil (BO) and the Military Industrial Complex (MIC) to switch sides and
vote against the sale of weapons to Saudi Arabia – BO's strategic
partner and the MIC's best overseas customer. Congress members from BO
states like Texas and states with large military industries like
California endorsed the ZPC letter prejudicing their constituents and
big campaign financers. The feeble 'lobbying' by BO and the MIC in
favor of the White House were crushed by the ZPC Congressional juggernaut.

The major trade unions of the AFL-CIO, like the steel workers,
machinists, oil and chemical workers, electrical workers – whose
members' jobs were at stake, did not protest, let alone challenge the
ZPC, demonstrating the high degree of Zionist influence over the trade
union bosses. The obvious point is that the Congress and the ZFL-CIO
are both Zionist colonized institutions.

The issue is not whether the US should or should not sell arms to
Saudi Arabia (I oppose all arms sales and the MIC and BO around the
world). The fundamental issue is whether we, the citizens, the elected
representatives and the trade unionists in the United States, can be
free of foreign colonization to decide the issue. The issue is whether
we are or can be a free and independent nation or a subject of a tiny
powerful elite acting for a foreign power.

The narrative on the US proposed multi-billion dollar arms sales to a
wealthy third rate military power demonstrates once again that Israeli
interests have priority over US trade, jobs and geopolitical
interests. Secondly the narrative confirms that the Israeli state
dictates US political relations in the Middle East through its US
conduit – the ZPC. Finally it refutes the Zionist geo-politicians and
'oil' and 'military experts' who cover up for the ZPC by falsely
blaming Big Oil for policies they oppose because it prejudices their
strategic partnership.

By blackmail and deceit, the Israelis got their additional $30 billion
dollars over the next ten years and they double-crossed 'their'
president by unleashing their Fifth Column to block his military sales
to the Saudis. And if Bush dares a complaint, he will be added to the
list of 'anti-Semites' – the only honorable list in his entire 8 years
in office.

*********************************************************************

WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE

To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
wvns-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/

Need some good karma? Appreciate the service?
Please consider donating to WVNS today.
Email ummyakoub@... for instructions.

To leave this list, send an email to:
wvns-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

The National-Bribe is D.O.A.
Jim Kirwan - kirwanstudios @ sbcglobal.net
1-24-08


The dust is settling, and the farce becomes clearer with every passing
hour. If the nation's 'leadership' were serious they would reinstate
the taxes they removed from the mega-corporations, and add a War-tax
on top of that.

Then they could easily follow up by cutting taxes in half on everyone
earning under $75,000 - and that would put real money in real pockets,
and take money from those that have reaped far too much in the illegal
and unilateral wars of aggression that are breaking the backs of
everyone that still has to work in this country.

As it is now, the "rebates" won't arrive until the targeted population
has already run out of both luck and hope. On top of that insult;
which the pathetic amount of money per person involves - it is crystal
clear that those who are making the decisions have no idea that this
tiny bit of money in this economy will do less than nothing to assist
the recipients with anything of substance.

Listening to the discussions with all the "experts," there is a total
absence of any working people on any of those programs. No one has
consulted any real people. Those they choose to talk to, do not live
as the rest of us must. Whether it is $300, $600 or $800 in these
times, that bit of money provides virtually nothing against the
massive uncertainties, the ever climbing prices, and especially the
overwhelming problems which this government has dumped onto the backs
of the working poor in this country. These are things that the rest of
the world have noted - and that's why the rest of the world is
beginning to panic over what we are not doing about the situation into
which this country has gotten itself.

All of the problems can be traced directly back to the Decider and his
policies that go hand and hand with his wars! He blames things on 'the
increased costs of fuel.' When he invaded Iraq Oil was selling at $25
a barrel. Today that same barrel of oil has more than quadrupled. The
military is disillusioned and war weary; their equipment has been
driven into the ground or been blown to pieces, along with the GI's
that tried to use it: Yet all this administration seems to care about
is starting a much bigger war, a war that will spill over from Iran
into Syria and Lebanon and possibly into Egypt and Saudi Arabia as
well: All because our foreign policy has been hijacked by Israel.
These war plans were designed by Israel, these are her enemies not
ours and yet the US government refuses to even talk to these sovereign
nations that we threaten on a daily basis, because Netanyahu and
Cheney have demand that we do it this way.

This barbaric behavior has captured the attention of both the Russians
and the Chinese, neither of whom share our empirical attitudesâ€"in
fact they oppose this new Colonialism by the United States and Israel
- vehemently!

Still Cheney and Netanyahu continue unabated with their plan to start
the Third World War, supposedly to protect poor little Israel. This is
insanity, and the people of this nation do not seem to give a damn
about anything we do overseas, so long as they don't have to look at
it on the nightly news.

And thanks to the complicity of the entire Network of media outlets
here in the USA - we don't ever see what's really going on
"over-there!" (1)

It may be all over the net - but apparently the news divisions of the
major Networks don't have computers or access to the world-wide web -
because the real stories never make it to American Network News
programs. Even if they might get into a news room three-fourths of
every broadcast consists of criminally trivial gossip, about elections
that are still ten months away. The Americans that are dying each and
every day in our wars of aggression, often, don't even rate a mention.
And since their deaths are classified, their funerals are almost never
covered either.

Americans are so desensitized that many do not realize that we are no
longer living in 1958 ~ apparently a huge number of you still think
that you are going to accomplish something by becoming members of
Patriotic Letter-Writing-Brigades: that concept ended over a half
century ago! This nation is now the world's most visible Criminal
Enterprise, and apparently we are proud of that. We have no laws that
can restrict our Outlaw-Overlords from doing anything they might
choose to do to any one of us: Meanwhile they have increased
zero-tolerance on all of us for the slightest infractions of any
existing civil law or code.

Our "Peace Officers" have become Storm Troopers that seem to believe
that the ordinary people of this nation are the real enemy; given the
facts of their propensity to Taser, to Stun, or to just shoot people
for no particular reason - other than - 'Because they can!' The US
Department of Justice, the agency that supposedly is charged with
overseeing these-thugs-in-uniform, is the same licensing authority
that now enforces new rules on torture, on indefinite detention
without charges, no rights to an attorney, and there is no need to
defend any of their actions because everything they do now is
protected by National Security. Oh, and their boss over in the White
House, he's in favor of anything and everything "that might protect
American lives."

The problem with that is that those he chooses to spy on, harass, and
generally convert into the army of the unemployed - are for the most
part American citizens? And if he (and his handlers), actually care so
much about our welfare - why the hell do they do everything possible
to insure that we are worse off each and every month than we were the
month before!

The nation has never before even approached the kind of national and
international debt that we have now! In case you care every man woman
and child, in America, now already owes the government $400,000.00
each, directly because of the failed polices over the last seven years
- when will this stop: "Never - because we are in the never-ending
war" according to President Cheney.

NO - this new band-aid means nothing at all, it's just another waste
of time while they try and figure out how to start the final "War to
End All Wars"!

What happened to the simple anger that should have been automatic -
what about the Outrage that seems to have vanished into thin air. That
same bunch of old-white-men that's been dragging the herd around by
the short-hairs for decades just keeps on going on the tube and making
noises about 'the plight of the people,' then laughing all night long
about it, in the sumptuous luxury of their very private mansions.

Congratulations America on your refusal to get involved and your
staunch belief in the systems that have been selling you out for over
four decades! That must take a great deal of patience: Some might see
this as cowardice in the face of your real enemies, but if this fails
to bother you - then I guess whatever might be coming next will also
be 'okay' with you. Whatever you do Mr. and Mrs. America never, ever
Question anything; because then you might be noticed, and if enough of
you did that - Well there's just no telling what might happen is there?

Let's review: Each of us owes this government $400,000.00 each - for
what this government has been doing in our names for at least the last
seven years, much of that for even longer. The nation is now
completely broke and none of the criminals that put us in this
position have been prosecuted. We've been at war continuously since
2001 and we're losing in both Afghanistan and Iraq - yet now we want
to not only "stay-the-course" we want to expand our military intrigues
to include as many as five more nations. None of the military
war-criminals that mismanaged these wars, or those who followed
illegal orders and fought or tortured in these wars - have faced any
real charges either. Still there are no demands coming directly from
the people that these wars were created to protect. Why should we
protest? The costs to our values, our way of life, and that matter of
the $400,000.00 debt that this government has laid off on each and
every one of us - regardless of income.

But what this really is about is that in this "bargain" not only is
there nothing for US, but there are problems with the way that
everything is being done to us in the meanwhile. Our jobs are there
one day and just gone the next - and no one has any say in that,
except those who will make billions from each company that is
outsourced. Does anyone ask us what we might prefer: of course not,
because the laws that govern all the thefts of all those jobs, come
from the Global World Order that trumps all US laws: Be sure to thank
Bill & Hillary for GATT & NAFTA on that one.

Or you might wonder just why it was that you never got to vote on
selling off the Interstate highways, bit by bit, and turning parts of
them into toll roads that are owned by foreign corporations -
especially given the fact that those roads were bought and paid for by
Americans and built by and with American labor - now all that is going
to the highest bidder - because the Bushwhackers can't manage money,
or debt, or even manage to successfully manage the aftermath (an
occupation) of the wars they start but cannot win.

Same question about selling off our water rights to foreign
corporations that are privatizing our water; or mineral rights from
our national parks, along with logging rights in our national forests,
all of it going, going, gone to the highest bidder, because:  Hey -
We're in DEBT!

Did I miss something here - when exactly did anyone ask us if this was
something that we actually wanted to do, in any of the above instances?

Were we consulted about giving away the rights of American workers
just to comply with the terms of international Cabals masquerading as
Multi-national Corporations in service to GATT or NAFTA or possibly in
the future, to the FTAA or the NAU? When did we find out that the
Israeli's are now in charge of our nuclear weapons storage facilities
(this leaked out during the mysterious missing cruise missile from the
errant B-52 flight from South Dakota down to Louisiana)?

In fact all sorts of things have changed in this country about the way
we live our lives, including what we call the nation. Did you never
wonder how we came to call ourselves "the Homeland"? That term was
lifted straight out of the Nazi field manuals for the camps being
built in 1934. It has nothing whatever to do with anything "American."
We used to just call this place our country - and that used to be good
enough: but you can see now that this is no longer "our" country it
belongs to "Anybody but Americans Now."

Just thought you might want to think about this latest bribe you're
being offered a bit more before you begin to "jump for joy." Think
about what a ridiculous gesture this actually is: especially since
that $140 billion or whatever it ends up being -  will have to be
borrowed money and the interest, on that money, will only add to the
$400,000.00 DEBT you personally already OWE to the US government!

The biggest problem I have with that $400,000.00 debt - is that I
cannot see what I received that could have cost every human in the
nation that much money - can you?

*********************************************************************

WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE

To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
wvns-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/

Need some good karma? Appreciate the service?
Please consider donating to WVNS today.
Email ummyakoub@... for instructions.

To leave this list, send an email to:
wvns-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Dealing with Christian Zionists in Our Own Churches and Families
Charles E. Carlson
We Hold These Truths
http://whtt.org/straitgate/index.php?id=14&news=1


A long time friend named John wrote in frustration about a reply he
received from his pastor in response to his letter about the church's
lack of concern for the ongoing slaughter in Iraq.  John sought an
answer to two scriptural references, and to his frustration the
pastor's reply was entirely secular. This big church pastor ignored
the questions involving Jesus and the Apostle Paul's words. Instead,
John was told how evil Saddam Hussein was; that Islam must be stopped,
and that the State of Israel is an example of why all wars are not
evil. (1)

Secular and even bloodthirsty replies from religious leaders are not
the exception. They usually ignore scripture, especially the New
Testament.  As an extreme example, John Hagee has held %u2018Night To
Honor Israel' programs where Jesus' name has never been mentioned.
War-favoring, war-excusing, and war-enabling church leaders avoid New
Testament scripture because in it there is no justification for
killing anyone. Your friends and family who are under Judeo-Christian
influence do not realize this until they are shown, which is our
self-appointed job.

We are often asked how one can pick a church to attend that is not
Judeo-Christian.  To this we offer our own experiences. Our Christian
Zionism Blog is our next step in lending a hand to those who want to
listen and participate.  We hope readers will post letters, questions
and experiences of their own, and the names of churches they like.  We
will post letters we receive, and if we do not have the writer's
permission we will keep them anonymous, as we have done with John's
letter.

We Hold These Truths and Project Strait Gate can share what we have
learned from uncounted conversations at vigils in front of about 50 of
the biggest Judeo-Christian churches in America. We have come to view
those who have strong feelings about their faith and who profess to be
Christians in two general camps, Judeo-Christians and Christ
followers, the first being a large camp and the latter a very small
one, which we call the Strait Gate.(2)*

It should be obvious that many do not fit in either of the above
camps, are either ambivalent or confused, but for reasons of their own
they go to church.  Some who read this will say they have, at times,
been in all three camps.

Christ followers, by our label, generally believe that Jesus is the
fulfillment of biblical prophesies, mostly fulfilled in the first
century AD when Jesus came, taught, set up his earthy discipleship,
was crucified under the will of the Pharisees, and arose from the
dead. They think Jesus told His followers about His heavenly kingdom
so they would seek it, a state of spiritual reward; but not without a
judgment that would be visited upon each when we exit physical life.

By contrast, Judeo-Christians may believe all or part of what Christ
followers believe, but they have an added layer superimposed over the
top, like frosting on a cake, that holds to the notion that the
physical, political State of Israel is the fulfillment of God's Old
Testament prophesies.  In order to make room for Israel as sort of an
extra deity, most Judeo-Christians accept the explanation that Jesus
left unfinished worldly business behind that will require His return
to manage an earthly kingdom for 1000 years.

It is not your writer's place to decide if Jesus will return to earth
again, as there is some Biblical evidence both ways and Jesus did not
firmly say. I do not see how this question mattered to Paul or the
Apostles because they all died 1,950 years ago without seeing this
rapture and millennium kingdom, yet surely they have met Christ and
been judged.  The same is true of about 100 generations of good and
bad people that have come and gone since Paul and the disciples were
on earth. It did not matter to them that they died without seeing
Armageddon and 'the rapture,' so why should it matter to me?  I would
like to think He never left.

Certainly the odds are also against this writer witnessing the
"rapture."  However as a consolation, D. James Kennedy and Jerry
Falwell both missed it too.  But Jesus promised that either we are
faithful and will receive Christ's promise, or we are faithless and
will be shunned by Jesus in His Kingdom.  Either way, rapture or a
millennial reign is not likely to be important to me, and I find no
reason I have to know or debate the issue. This is the position WHTT
Christian Zionism Blog will take until someone convinces us otherwise.

Unfortunately most pastors, even those in traditional churches, have
been influenced by the opulent worldly success of the Judeo-Christian
churches.  Many cannot identify with a poor and humble Jesus and
penniless apostles, and have compromised.  I visited a church on
Sunday that may be a case in point, a part of the Evangelical Covenant
church where I once was a member.

Covenant churches are rightly considered "mainline Protestant," with a
home in Chicago, IL, the Evangelical Covenant Church tends to be
traditional, and describes itself as such. But this one taught, at
least on this day, a mixture of Judeo-Christianity veneered onto
following Christ.

Fred, as I will call the lead pastor, is a graduate of Fuller
Theological Seminary, and calls himself a 'Christ Follower.' I like
that term, it's what we call ourselves, and Pastor Fred began with a
moving account of Isaiah 9 which I also liked.  The story is poetic
and it furnishes an important chorus to George Frideric Handel's
Messiah: 'And His name shall be called Wonderful, Marvelous, the
mighty God, the everlasti ng father, the prince of peace.'

This is the prophesy of Jesus' first coming to earth as the Messiah to
the Gentiles (that's us). Pastor Fred stressed that Jesus was the
peacemaker in a time of terrible war and evil conflict, and he went on
to suggest to the audience that most of us have had enough wars. The
audience responded positively, Pastor Fred is clearly not promoting
more war from the pulpit.  So far so good, right out of scripture...
the traditional view of Jesus, who could be more traditional than
George Frideric Handel?

Pastor Fred almost had me won over, starting off on the right foot as
he did, but then came a disappointment.  He made a simple statement,
given as fact, that Jesus was indeed coming again to set up the system
of Justice and Peace promised in Isaiah 9, 'and the government shall
be upon his shoulders,' meaning he said, Jesus will be very much in
charge! The pastor did not say when he expects Jesus to come again,
nor did he explain why He did not set up his kingdom when he came the
first time.

Until Judeo-Christianity came along in the 19th Century, Isaiah 9 was
accepted by almost everyone as a prophesy of Jesus' first coming two
thousand years ago. It is a stretch to consider it is talking about a
future coming, ignoring that all who call themselves Christians
believe this is history.  But Pastor Fred confused this in all our
minds.  He superimposed a thin, but a very hard veneer of
Judeo-Christianity over following Christ.

It is basic that we who call ourselves by Jesus' name are supposed to
be following the living Christ day-to-day on this earth, our testing
ground. Jesus' kingdom is "not of this earth" as he told Pilot, but is
a spiritual one.  Pastor Fred did not say where or when Jesus' next
'coming' would take place, and he did not mention a 'rapture,' or a
millennial kingdom' where Jesus would rule, nor did he project when
this event would take place, but he certainly asserted it was coming
in our future. Except for this one Judeo-Christian admission Pastor
Fred appears to be a traditional Christ follower.  It is our job to
seek a dialogue with those like him and talk about the layer of
Judeo-Christianity that is spoiling the whole cake .

What is the damage in believing Jesus will come back to earth for a
1000 year reign of goodness and justice?  First Jesus does not say
this; it is implied by some aggressive assumptions.  If we expect
another coming it removes from us the need to do our part to maintain
His Kingdom on earth.  This is exactly what He told us we must do in
His book, the New Testament.  If indeed  Jesus came, finished His
work, and left as planned, then we had best be very serious about
doing our work and following His commands on earth if we are to have
our own personal "second coming.'  Jesus told us to love our brother,
even love our enemy and hate and revile no one.  If this is indeed His
last word to us, until we face Him in some distant year at the doorway
of His kingdom, we must be diligent, constantly on guard and never
slacking from our work. If we are indeed followers and don't want
anyone else to do our task or carry our cross for us.

Judeo-Christianity is a great mega-church builder because it relieves
us of the burden Christ placed on us of following regardless of the
cost of inconvenience.  To all the Disciples that meant death.
Judeo-Christianity shifts the burden back to God.  Judeo-Christians
have only to confess that they believe in Judeo-Christianity (not
simply Jesus), an apostate concept. Are we to give up the chance to
walk in Jesus' footsteps for a lie?

If there are wars and slaughters, even natural disasters, do not be
too concerned, these must be God' ordained acts for his ordained
reasons, or so goes the Judeo-Christians' logic.  They will invariably
testify: 'You do not have to do a thing to be saved; Jesus did it all
for you. You have but to believe.'  These are the implications of
Pastor Fred's disappointing words.

The illogical conclusion of Judeo-Christianity is that we must tell
lots of people about Jesus and his impending next coming, and to stay
out of the thankless grind of trying to make the world we live in a
better place to live. It is indeed fortunate that most
Judeo-Christians are good people who are not ambivalent, and who do a
lot of work in spite of all the coordinated efforts to teach them they
need not do it.

Jesus never told us He planned to fail in His first try on earth, and
that He would have to try it a second time when conditions were more
conducive to His Kingdom.  But this is what Judeo-Christians rely
upon. The 'government' and all earthy matters are to be settled by
Jesus at his return, so following him becomes quite irrelevant.  After
all, if Jesus is coming again, and 'the Government shall be upon his
shoulders' why even vote?  We have only to believe, but in what? This
is the result of the Judeo-Christian heresy and it is why our country
is at war all the time and has many other ills...everyone in politics
knows that the Judeo-Christians are the key to his or her political
succ ess.  We Hold These Truths believes this will soon change.(5)

The great turning in the age of Judeo-Christianity

Leaders of a growing number of seminaries and universities are finally
making themselves heard, and are saying we need to be involved because
the blood shed is on our hands as we just sit and watch.  Those who
are demanding fair treatment for Palestinians are, by their acts,
telling us Jesus' Kingdom is here and His righteousness is ours to
defend.  We had best pay attention to the killing being done in our
name in Iraq, Palestine and everywhere else.  This sense of
responsibility defines traditional Christ followers.

Among those college presidents who want to take a stand are Richard
Mouw, President, Fuller Theological Seminary, where Pastor Fred
learned his theology, Glenn R. Palmberg, President, Evangelical
Covenant Church, the home of Pastor Fred's church, and David L.
Parkyn, President, North Park University, the Covenant Church's
University in Chicago, long a leader in exposing the Israelis' abuse
of the Palestinians, plus thanks to its' Dr. Donald Wagner, also a
signer. Several professors at other schools signed the letter in the
November issue of Christianity Today's Magazine, which states in part: (4)

'Over 80 educators and ministry heads affirm efforts to negotiate
lasting peace, and warn of consequences of failure...The Bible clearly
teaches that God longs for justice and peace for all people. We
believe that the principles about justice taught so powerfully by the
Hebrew prophets apply to all nations, including the United States,
Israel, and the Palestinians. Therefore we are compelled to work for a
fair, negotiated solution for both Israelis and Palestinians."*

These 80 are firmly distancing themselves from the popular
Judeo-Christian (evangelical) view that Israel is the fulfillment of
Old Testament scripture.  This is a sure sign of the coming of great
change now in the wind. One of our best allies is Dr. Mark Hanna, an
anti-Zionist dispensationalist, who believes Jesus is coming to earth
again, but does not believe the State of Israel fulfills Bible
prophesies.  He is the exception that proves the point.

Whatever one thinks his creed, preoccupation with the State of Israel
is Christian-Zionism.  A Christ follower is one who does his faltering
human best to follow Christ's teachings and examples every day,
regardless of what else one believes or reasons.(2)

We began this epistle with John's frustration over his pastor's
letter.  We have posted both letters to our Christian Zionist Blogs,
and we suggest that John again write a simplified letter, too, with
only scriptural questions, asking the Pastor to answer his
questions... nothing else.  He should also insist on an answer to the
key litmus test question, does his pastor think "Political Israel is
the fulfillment of Bible prophesy?"  Then he should consider
circulating both letters.

In dealing with pastors and church leaders, it is we, the laymen
critics, who must force them to stay scriptural, even when they try to
lead us into a secular story.  We must not allow them to drag us into
secular arguments like those John's pastor raised.  Only in this way
can we change them, and change our churches, and protect those we love
from them.


(1) WHTT Christian Zionism Blogs

http://whtt-christianzionism.blogspot.com/

(2) Project Strait Gate

(http://cp.whtt.org/straitgate/index.php?id=14&news=1)

(3) Mark M. Hanna: An Analysis of Cufi and a Dispensational Critique
of Christian Zionism  ( http://whtt.org/index.php?news=2&id=1286)

(4) Evangelical Leaders Reiterate Call for Two-State Solution

( http://cp.whtt.org/index.php?news=2&id=1954 )

(5) The Beginning of the End of Christian Zionism
(http://cp.whtt.org/index.php?news=2&id=1739)

*********************************************************************

WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE

To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
wvns-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/

Need some good karma? Appreciate the service?
Please consider donating to WVNS today.
Email ummyakoub@... for instructions.

To leave this list, send an email to:
wvns-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

W.H.O. Says Iraq Civilian Death Toll Higher Than Cited
By LAWRENCE K. ALTMAN and RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr.
January 10, 2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/10/world/middleeast/10casualties.html?_r=1&oref=s\
login&pagewanted=print


The World Health Organization on Wednesday waded into the
controversial subject of Iraqi civilian deaths, publishing a study
that estimated that the number of deaths from the start of the war
through June 2006 was at least twice as high as the oft-cited Iraq
Body Count.

The study is the latest in a long series of attempts to come up with
realistic numbers of civilian deaths. The numbers are politically
fraught, and researchers' work has been further complicated by
problems in collecting data while working in a war zone.

The estimates have varied widely. The Iraq Body Count, a
nongovernmental group based in Britain that bases its numbers on news
media accounts, put the number of civilians dead at 47,668 during the
same period of time as the World Health Organization study, the W.H.O.
report said. President Bush in the past used a number that was similar
to one put forward at the time by the Iraq Body Count.

But another study, by Johns Hopkins, which has come under criticism
for its methodology, cited an estimate of about 600,000 dead between
the war's start, in March 2003, and July 2006.

The World Health Organization said its study, based on interviews with
families, indicated with a 95 percent degree of statistical certainty
that between 104,000 and 223,000 civilians had died. It based its
estimate of 151,000 deaths on that range.

Those figures made violence the leading cause of adult male deaths in
Iraq and one of the leading causes of death for the population as a
whole, the health organization research team reported online in the
New England Journal of Medicine. More than half the violent deaths
occurred in Baghdad.

While the new study appears to have the broadest scope to date,
increasing its reliability, well known limitations of such efforts in
war areas make it unlikely to resolve debate about the extent of the
killing in Iraq.

Iraqi officials gave conflicting assessments of the newest study, with
one senior Health Ministry official praising it and another saying the
numbers were exaggerated.

The White House said that it had not seen the study and would not
comment on its estimated death toll, but that the recent increase in
American forces had reduced civilian and military casualties. "We
mourn the deaths of all people in Iraq," said Jeanie Mamo, a White
House spokeswoman.

In any case, the study ended four months after the bombing of a
revered Shiite shrine in Samarra helped set off a wave of killings
throughout Baghdad and other mixed Sunni-Shiite areas. So because of
its timing, the study missed the period of what is believed to be the
worst sectarian killings, during the latter half of 2006 and the first
eight months of 2007.

The figures on violent deaths were part of a large study of chronic
illnesses, mental health status, environmental risk factors and other
factors affecting family health in Iraq. The figures were based on
interviews with 9,345 heads of households across the country that had
been selected according to statistical methods that are standard in
peaceful areas. The interviewers, who were employees of the Iraqi
Ministry of Health, had been trained how to ask the survey questions
and to assign the stated causes of deaths.

The surveyors largely conducted their work in August and September
2006. In Baghdad, Shiite militiamen, often acting in coordination with
or with the acquiescence of fellow Shiites in the Iraq security
forces, purged many neighborhoods of Sunnis. Many were grabbed,
handcuffed, shot in the head and dumped with other victims. Sunni
insurgents continued their campaign of terrorizing Shiite areas with
car bombs and other attacks.

In fact, one co-author, Louay Hakki Rasheed, was killed on his way to
work on Aug. 2, 2007. The extraordinarily dangerous security situation
prevented surveyors from visiting about 11 percent of the areas that
the researchers had intended to visit.

Most of the places that were off-limits to the researchers were in
Anbar Province, the Sunni-dominated region of western Iraq. While
there have been significant security improvements in Anbar in the past
year — after Sunni tribal leaders joined with United States troops to
drive out extremist militants — in 2006 the province was a lawless
haven dominated by insurgents.

Most of the other areas into which the researchers could not go for
safety reasons were in Baghdad, which at the time was being ripped
into balkanized concentrations of Shiites and Sunnis. Some
neighborhoods looked like urban ghost towns, as the residents who did
not have the money or the ability to flee the country stayed holed up
in their homes rather than risk being abducted or killed by the death
squads and gangs of criminals and insurgents who roamed much of the
capital freely.

Iraqi authorities often have asserted that estimates of deaths
provided by outside groups and researchers are too high. But there is
a significant political element to the numbers, and as the surge in
violent deaths in 2006 from death squad activities and other killings
became a major embarrassment, the Iraqi government moved to sharply
curb access to the data.

At the same time, Iraqi officials have asserted that they made
improvements in their ability to track fatalities using morgue counts
and other means. One shortcoming has always been that the corpses of
many victims, if they are identifiable, are taken by family members
straight to the cemetery, bypassing the morgue and hospital. Yet Iraqi
authorities say that relatives still have an incentive to obtain a
death certificate because it is required for inheritance, for
government compensation, and for other purposes.

In a telephone news conference organized by the health organization, a
voice identified as that of the Iraqi health minister, Salih Mahdi
Mutlab al-Hasnawi, said, "It is a very sound survey, and the sample is
a good sample," and "I believe in those numbers."

But a senior official in the Iraq Health Ministry's inspector
general's office cast doubt on the findings, saying 151,000 was far
too high. The official, who said he was not allowed to speak about the
matter and refused to allow his name to be used, said the numbers
cited by the study were much larger than figures tracked by the
ministry. But he refused to provide any alternative tallies for the
death toll, saying he was not authorized to do so.

Mohamed M. Ali, a health agency statistician and co-author of the
report, said that "in the absence of comprehensive death registration
and hospital reporting, household surveys are the best we can do."
Even then, the figures collected are likely to be underestimates
because "some homes could not be visited because of high levels of
insecurity and more people move residence in times of conflict," Mr.
Hasnawi, the health minister, said in a statement issued by the W.H.O.

To come up with estimates for the 11 percent of target areas they
could not reach, the researchers used a formula that was based
primarily on the Iraq Body Count to determine how much higher the
number of deaths could have been there than in other areas of the country.

The Iraq Body Count project bases its numbers on news media reports.
That count registered 47,668 civilian deaths because of violence in
the study period, a figure that the health organization considered low
because many such deaths are not reported in the news media.

The Johns Hopkins study, which was published in The Lancet in October
2006, estimated that 601,027 Iraqi civilians had died from violence.
That study, which was conducted with researchers from Al-Mustansiriya
University in Baghdad, involved one-fifth the number of households and
one-twentieth the number of areas surveyed by the new W.H.O. study.


Gardiner Harris contributed reporting..

*********************************************************************

WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE

To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
wvns-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/

Need some good karma? Appreciate the service?
Please consider donating to WVNS today.
Email ummyakoub@... for instructions.

To leave this list, send an email to:
wvns-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Gandhi resigns from his own institute under Jewish pressure
Saturday, 26 January, 2008


Beirut / New York: The resignation of Arun Gandhi, Mahatma Gandhi's
grandson, as president of the M.K. Gandhi Institute of Non-Violence he
founded has been accepted following a furor over his critical remarks
about Jews and Israel.


Arun Gandhi, 73, was in India when the controversy over his column in
a Washington Post blog erupted.

What upset many Jew was his piece titled "Jewish identity can't depend
on violence" Jan 7 on Post's blog, "On Faith".

He sent his resignation by email to Joel Seligman, president of the
University of Rochester, which hosts the prestigious institute, in
upstate New York. Seligman asked him to sort out the matter in person
with the institute's board.

"I resigned to relieve pressure on the university and the institute. I
met the institute's board on Thursday on my return and they went by my
decision," Gandhi told IANS.

He said the storm was mainly in the Jew-dominated Rochester community.

Starting with the statement "Jewish identity in the past has been
locked into the holocaust experience", he wrote: "Jews not only want
the Germans to feel guilty but the whole world must regret what
happened to the Jews. The world did feel sorry for the episode, but
when an individual or a nation refuses to forgive and move on, the
regret turns into anger."

Gandhi added: "The Jewish identity in the future appears bleak. Any
nation that remains anchored to the past is unable to move ahead and,
especially a nation that believes its survival can only be ensured by
weapons and bombs."

As the website was swarmed by irate messages, some calling him
anti-Semitic, Gandhi posted Jan 10: "My apology for my poorly-worded
post... I do not believe and should not have implied that the policies
of the Israeli government are reflective of the views of the Jewish
people."

Next day, a statement criticizing Gandhi from Seligman appeared on the
Post website. "I believe that Gandhi's subsequent apology inadequately
explains his stated views, which seem fundamentally inconsistent with
the core values of the University of Rochester."

Feeling the heat, the blog's moderators regretted Gandhi's posting,
asking readers for "a measure of forbearance and tolerance as the site
endeavors to conduct a civil and illuminating conversation".

By then, the larger Jewish community had got into the act, asking for
Gandhi's resignation from the institute, even urging Rochester
University to sever its ties with the institute.

Far away in Israel, The Jerusalem Post too took note of the
controversy as "Gandhi's grandson blasts Israel, Jews".

Today, Gandhi feels sorry for the episode because he wanted people to
see his opinion about the proliferation of violence in a better light.
He is not apologetic about his apology on the blog, "which was not for
the content".

"Now, my first task is to start the healing process in the Rochester
community," he said. He lives in his house near the campus.

But he is not crestfallen that he has to leave the institution he set
up 17 years ago to spread the Mahatma's message.

"I used to wonder whether the institute, which became dependent on me,
will die with me. Now it is a test for the board and others whether
they can run it," he said.

"In six months, this storm will blow over and I can get back to the
institute, if necessary," he said.

He will continue as a panelist to write weekly on the Post blog and
will continue to lecture in the US and elsewhere. His next book, he
said, is on "my understanding of the Mahatma's non-violence".

*********************************************************************

WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE

To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
wvns-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/

Need some good karma? Appreciate the service?
Please consider donating to WVNS today.
Email ummyakoub@... for instructions.

To leave this list, send an email to:
wvns-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Troops on the offensive in Darra, occupy militants' stronghold
By Munawar Afridi & Abdul Sami Paracha
http://www.dawn.com/cgi-bin/dina.pl?file=top1.htm&date=20080126


DARRA ADAMKHEL/ KOHAT, Jan 25: Troops, backed by tanks and helicopter
gunships, launched an operation in Darra Adamkhel on Friday after
local militants refused to hand over army's four ammunition trucks
they had seized on Wednesday. The militants are also holding hostage
five Frontier Corps personnel they had kidnapped a fortnight ago.

The operation was launched after failure of talks held with the help
of a jirga for the retrieval of the trucks and release of the hostages.

Also on Friday, the militants occupied the famous Kohat FC Fort.

A jirga intervened to get the fort vacated, but the militants returned
the weapons they had taken away but refused to leave the fort till the
army withdrew from the area. The troops hit back and destroyed the
fort with the help of gunships. Several militants were reported to
have been killed in the attack.

In Darra Adamkhel, security forces took control of the militant
stronghold of Akhorwal after a fierce battle.

The Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR) said that the Frontier
Corps had cleared important heights in the south of Spina Thana and
claimed that between 25 and 30 militants had been killed.

An exchange of fire near the Kohat Tunnel and the Frontier Corps held
off militants' advance in the area. According to the ISPR, two
paramilitary soldiers were killed and 10 others injured in the operation.

Local people said that security forces had cleared the Akhurwal area
of militants and started advancing towards the main Darra town.
Large-scale displacement of people was reported and families moved
away to Peshawar and nearby areas.

Residents of Darra said that firing had stopped at about 6.30pm when
security forces captured five bunkers of the militants in Akhurwal,
some 30km south of Peshawar.

Tanks pounded the hills around Akhorwal after militants blew up a
bridge on the Indus Highway near Darra Adamkhel and a PTCL tower on a
hilltop. Reports reaching here indicated that three security men,
including a subedar and two soldiers, were killed in the mortar attack
on the tower, while 13 others were injured.

In Kohat, some local sub-clans covertly assured their support to the
government against militants but could not speak out openly, fearing
reprisals.

The political agent of the Frontier Region of Kohat, Mr Kamran Zeb,
said he was optimistic that the fighting would end soon and the matter
of the snatched trucks would be settled without further bloodshed.

He said they had tried their best to avert the operation, adding that
they had sent five jirgas to the militants but all efforts had failed
to be futile because of their refusal to hand over the trucks.

He said he still believed that fighting was not the solution, adding
that innocent people were suffering because of the operation, which
had been launched mainly because of the rigid attitude of the militants.

Helicopter gunships also attacked hideouts in Akhorwal, Tor Chappar
and Sheraki areas from where personnel of security forces were being
attacked. In the morning, militants continuously attacked the
Friendship Tunnel in a bid to block the army's supply line from the
south, but troops successfully defended the strategic place although
militants had come quite close to it.

The army cordoned off an area of about one-kilometre radius around the
tunnel after receiving reports that militants might try to damage the
tunnel by sending a suicide bomber in a vehicle.

The in-charge of forces guarding the tunnel, Maj Sabir, told Dawn that
they had been ordered to shoot any vehicle trying to cross the barbed
wire along the offices of the NHA in Kohat.

A Taliban spokesman claimed capturing 13 soldiers and killing more
than a dozen. But the report could not be confirmed independently.

The gunship fire was continuing till the filing of this report and the
authorities were expected to call off the operation tomorrow if the
militants did not attack Kohat or army posts.

The Kohat cantonment was sealed and all entry passes were cancelled.

In the night, thousands of tribesmen were trying to move away from the
area to Kohat. They made a temporary stopover near Gulshanabad
checkpost where they were in the open without warm clothes and food.

However, some local people brought milk and biscuits and also provided
transport to the people who were trying to go to Kohat on foot.

Thousands of people are still trapped in the area where the fighting
is raging.

The administration is trying to engage militants in talks, fearing
collateral damage in case a full-scale assault is launched.

The intensity of the resistance from the militants' side indicated
that the operation might continue for a day or two if they received
support from other parts of the tribal belt.
===

Pakistan tests ballistic missile
By Iftikhar A. Khan
http://www.dawn.com/cgi-bin/dina.pl?file=top9.htm&date=20080126


ISLAMABAD, Jan 25: Pakistan on Friday conducted a successful training
launch of the Shaheen-1 (Hatf-IV) medium-range ballistic missile.

The launch by the Strategic Missile Group (SMG) of Pakistan Army's
Strategic Force Command (ASFC) was conducted at the conclusion of the
annual field training exercises of the Shaheen-1 Missile Group.

The Shaheen-1 Ballistic Missile System, with a range of 700km, is an
operationalised weapon system and is routinely fired during training
exercises by ASFC troops.

The field launch exercise was witnessed by the Chief of the Army
Staff, Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, senior military officers and
scientists, a press release issued by the ISPR said. Addressing the
troops, Gen Kayani congratulated them on achieving high standards of
training and excellent results.

He said that the nation had developed a strong nuclear deterrence
capability and expected that those entrusted with the task of
deterring aggression would continue to maintain professional excellence.

The army chief said that Pakistan had no aggressive designs against
anyone and Pakistan's nuclear capability was solely for the purpose of
deterring all types of aggression.He dismissed international concerns
regarding speculative scenarios as unrealistic and based on lack of
understanding of Pakistan's control mechanisms.

Gen Kayani said that the highly professional, motivated and
well-trained armed forces of Pakistan were capable of safeguarding and
securing nuclear assets against all categories of threat. He added
that the nation stood behind the armed forces.

He stressed that the irresponsible alarm created by certain quarters
would be counter-productive.

===

Two soldiers killed in attack on checkpost
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dawn Report
WANA, Jan 25: Two soldiers were killed and seven others wounded when
militants attacked with rockets an outpost on a hill in Spinkai
Raghzai area of South Waziristan on Friday.

Informed sources said the injured soldiers were taken to a military
hospital. However, militants claimed that five troops had been killed
in the attack.....

http://www.dawn.com/cgi-bin/dina.pl?file=top2.htm&date=20080126

----------------------------------------------------------------
Foreign troops must not enter Pakistan, says Musharraf
---------------------------------------------------------------
By Our Special Correspondent
LONDON, Jan 25: President Pervez Musharraf kicked off his three-day
visit to the UK here on Friday with an hour-long talk on `Vision for
Pakistan and Regional Harmony' at a prestigious think tank as small
groups of flag-waving and slogan-chanting people of Pakistani origin
staged demonstrations against him outside and at the hotel where he
and his entourage are staying.

The content of his talk at the think tank, the Royal United Strategic
Institute (RUSI), was almost the same that he had delivered in other
European capitals and Davos over the week....

http://www.dawn.com/cgi-bin/dina.pl?file=top3.htm&date=20080126

*********************************************************************

WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE

To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
wvns-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/

Need some good karma? Appreciate the service?
Please consider donating to WVNS today.
Email ummyakoub@... for instructions.

To leave this list, send an email to:
wvns-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

‏Zionism, Penisism, and Joseph Massad

Jumping through Israel Advocacy Hoops
by Joachim Martillo (ThorsProvoni @ aol.com)
eaazi.blogspot.com


On November 20, 2007, Richard Miniter, who is a fellow at the Neocon
Hudson Institute, published an attack on Columbia Professor Joseph
Massad in the New York Post.  The article's title is "Hate Monger U?
Columbia May Tenure Extremist." (See HATEMONGER U?, which is appended
below.) Miniter regurgitates material that individual and
organizational Israel advocates like the David Project and StandWithUs
have crafted as part of an organized campaign or conspiracy to drive
critics of Zionism or of Israel out of US academia.

Israel advocacy organizations have extensively used Jewish or Zionist
media gatekeepers and facilitators in a coordinated effort to place
articles and reports like Miniter's column in journals and news
broadcasts for the purpose of defaming Arab and Muslim Americans.
Jewish government officials like Abigail Thernstrom of the US
Commission on Civil Rights have perverted their mandates in order to
provide hate-mongers like David Project President Charles Jacobs with
the highest political access in Washington. (See Ethnic Ashkenazim
Against Zionist Israel: Civil Rights for Some Americans and the
paragraph excerpted below from Forward 50.)

Other academics targeted for similar slander and libel have included
Professors Rashid Khalidi, Georges Saliba, Hamid Dabashi, Nadia Abu el
Haj, and Wadie Said. Zionist and Jewish extremists like Daniel Pipes,
who heads CampusWatch and who frequently collaborates with the David
Project and StandWithUS, have also targeted primary and secondary
school personnel like Debby al-Montaser through organizations like the
Stop-the-Madrassa "Community Coalition," of whose national advisory
board Daniel Pipes is a member.

A cabal consisting of Stop-the-Madrassa, NY media corporations, NY
city politicians, and various Zionist or Jewish-dominated
organizations like the United Federation of Teachers used lies,
incitement and intimidation to drive al-Montaser from her position as
principal of the Khalil Gibran International Academy in a probable
violation of US Code 18.241 "Conspiracy Against Rights"
(http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/241.html).

In his NY Post article, Miniter follows a similar script in making the
following false or misleading accusations, which mostly come from
David Project literature and from that organization's film entitled
Columbia Unbecoming.

   # In class and in public, Massad has argued that Israel massacred
Palestinians at Jenin in 2002. A UN investigation found no evidence of
a massacre at Jenin.
   # Writing in the Egyptian weekly al-Ahram, he suggested that Israel
poisoned Yasser Arafat. He cited no evidence. In reality, Israel
provided for Arafat's medical evacuation to France.
   # Massad claims "Jewish colonists [in Israel] were part of the
British colonial death squads that murdered Palestinian
revolutionaries between 1936 and 1939 while Hitler unleashed
Kristallnacht against German Jews." Note the false equivalency between
British police and Jewish residents and the Nazis.
     ...
   # His published work suggests that his heart lies with the
terrorists of Hamas. In March, he mourned the "economic choking and
starvation" caused by the "international isolation" of Hamas. Last
November, he wrote that Hamas "can defend the rights of the
Palestinians to resist the Israeli occupation and the well-armed
Palestinian collaborators that help to enforce it."
     ...
   # The only book on Israel that he assigned in his introductory class
was "Israel, a Colonial Settler State?" by a French Marxist scholar,
Maxime Rodinson. It concludes, "Jews have as much right to Israel as
Arabs have to Spain."

In addition, Miniter parrots the following anti-Massad talking points.

     Three students recently came forward to say that Massad
"repeatedly likened Israel to apartheid South Africa, dismissed its
legitimacy as a Jewish state and almost never addressed human-rights
abuses in countries such as Iraq, Iran and Syria."

     Massad regularly told his students that "Zionism got its name from
the Hebrew slang for penis, Zayin." While this is plainly untrue, is
this the language of a Columbia professor?

The State of Israel prevented the UN from investigating Israeli
Defense Force actions at Jenin.

Israeli Mossad agents attempted to poison Hamas leader Khaled Mashal
in 1997. Because there is no particular reason to believe that the
Israeli government would have any qualms about poisoning any
Palestinian or non-Jewish leader under circumstances that would
benefit the State of Israel, Professor Massad was hardly unreasonable
when he suggested in Al-Ahram Weekly | Opinion | Israel's right to be
racist that Israeli operatives might have poisoned Arafat.

Professor Massad wrote the following in Al-Ahram Weekly | Opinion |
The legacy of Jean-Paul Sartre.

     While suspending the status of European Jews as holocaust
survivors, these European intellectuals fail to see that much of
Zionist colonialism began half a century before the holocaust and that
Jewish colonists were part of the British colonial death squads that
murdered Palestinian revolutionaries between 1936 and 1939 while
Hitler unleashed Kristallnacht against German Jews. Zionism's
anti-Semitic project of destroying Jewish cultures and languages in
the Diaspora in the interest of an invented Hebrew that none of them
spoke, and in the interest of evicting them from Europe and
transporting them to an Asian land to which they had never been, is
never examined by these intellectuals. Nor do they ever examine the
ideological and practical collusion between Zionism and anti-Semitism
since the inception of the movement.

Numerous mainstream histories of Zionism and the Zionist colony in
British Mandatory Palestine outline precisely the same facts even if
they might offer alternative interpretations. Here is the Wikipedia
description of Jewish Special Night Squads
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Night_Squads) of the 1930s.

     The Special Night Squads (SNS) were a joint British-Jewish force
consisting of British soldiers and Jewish Settlement Police,
established by Charles Orde Wingate in Palestine in 1936, during the
1936-1939 Arab revolt.

     Wingate hand-picked his men, among them Yigal Allon and Moshe
Dayan, from the ranks of the Notrim and trained them to form mobile
ambushes. As practical support from the British was minimal Wingate
collaborated illegally with the Haganah, reinforcing his unit with
FOSH regulars.

     The force was highly successful in bringing attacks by Arab
guerillas on the pipeline of the Iraqi Petroleum Company to a halt.
However, the squads were known for their ruthless efficiency and
brutal methods. According to Israeli military historian Martin van
Creveld their training included "... how to kill without compunction,
how to interrogate prisoners by shooting every tenth man to make the
rest talk; and how to deter future terrorists by pushing the heads of
captured ones into pools of oil and then freeing them to tell the
story".[1]

     Yoram Kaniuk writes:

         The operations came more frequently and became more ruthless.
The Arabs complained to the British about Wingate's brutality and
harsh punitive methods. Even members of the field squads complained...
that during the raids on Bedouin encampments Wingate would behave with
extreme viciousness and fire mercilessly. Wingate believed in the
principle of surprise in punishment, which was designed to confine the
gangs to their villages. More than once he had lined rioters up in a
row and shot them in cold blood. Wingate did not try to justify
himself; weapons and war cannot be pure.[2]

     The British viewed Wingate as a security risk and the SNS were
disbanded in 1938. Wingate was posted out of the country and his
passport was stamped "NOT ALLOWED TO ENTER PALESTINE".[3]

     Field Marshall Montgomery, who as commander of northern Palestine
had authorised the SNS, told Dayan in 1966 that he considered Wingate
to have "been mentally unbalanced and that the best thing he ever did
was to get killed in a plane crash in 1944".[4]

     The Special Night Squads came to be viewed as the British army's
first special forces and the forerunners of the Special Air Service
regiments.[5]

Massad is somewhat terminologically sloppy when he describes Zionist
anti-Diasporatism as anti-Semitic, but the attitudes of anti-Semites
and anti-Diasporatists were for the most part completely congruent and
indistinguishable.

At the webpage MEALAC | Joseph Massad posts a long reply to the
calumnies of the David Project and other Israel advocates.  Massad's
response contains the following statement.

     During the discussion of Nazi Germany, we addressed the racist
ideology of Nazism, the Nuremberg Laws enacted in 1934, and the
institutionalized racism and violence against all facets of Jewish
life, all of which preceded the extermination of European Jews. This
information was also available to Noah in his readings, had he chosen
to consult them. Moreover, the lie that the film propagates claiming
that I would equate Israel with Nazi Germany is abhorrent. I have
never made such a reprehensible equation.

Massad's unwillingness either to identify Zionism as a member of the
same class of extremist politicized ethnic fundamentalisms as German
Nazism and the Polish Endeks or to describe the clear and obvious
similarities of Zionist Israel and Nazi Germany before the 1941
invasion of the Soviet Union can only result from Zionist intimidation
or from lack of expertise in modern Central and Eastern European
Jewish and non-Jewish history.

Americans often confuse the historical German Nazis with the Hollywood
depiction of German Nazis as absolute evil. Walter Rinderle and
Bernard Norling point out some of the complexity of the phenomenon of
German Nazism in The Nazi Impact on a German Village (p 135).

     Until 1938 Jewish families in Lahr county [Germany] believed
themselves to be well-integrated into their communities. In Lahr city
they received permission to form an NSDAP "Party of Jewish Youth" in
1935, and in Offenburg Jewish founded their own group of patriotic War
Veterans.

In contrast, the Palestinian family that considers itself
well-integrated into Zionist Israeli society is extremely rare and
probably non-existent while a "Party of Palestinian Youth" as an
adjunct of a Zionist political party is practically inconceivable.

Since the 1960s, when Georges Tamarin documented the effect of Israeli
Bible education on the attitudes of Israeli Jewish 4th through 8th
graders, sociological studies have demonstrated that an ever
increasing percentage of Israeli Jewish citizens would commit genocide
against non-Jews. If anything, the social-political system that the
State of Israel has created is worse than Apartheid as Desmond Tutu
and other victims of Apartheid have occasionally noted.

One could wish that Professor Massad had a better command of German
and Jewish history, but in an American political environment
characterized by a relentless effort to enforce a false consensus on
the equivalence of Israeli and US interests by means of
scare-mongering, courageous academics like Professor Massad and the
late French Jewish scholar Maxine Rodinson, who provide alternative
interpretations of the conflict over Palestine, are the last hope for
democracy.

In his book, Rodinson was making a point that would have been obvious
if Zionists had not so poisoned American discourse over Palestine.
Believing that German Jews and Eastern European Jews have the right to
steal Palestine from the native population on the basis of the
etymological relationship between "Jew" and "Judea" is so extreme that
it is psychotic.  The idea is logically equivalent to believing that
the Irish, who are mostly Roman Catholic, would have the right to
steal and ethnically cleanse the city of Rome because of the
morphological connection between "Roman" and "Rome."

Miniter's last accusation against Professor Massad appears to come
from the David Project film Columbia Unbecoming (at least according to
Solomonia,
http://www.solomonia.com/blog/archive/2007/11/professor-massads-penis-lecture-at\
-colum/).

Below is a videoclip in which Jerusalem Center for Communications and
Advocacy Training (JCCAT) founder and director David Olesker, who
appears to have a fondness for phallus-related puns, comments on the
"Penis" Lecture, which Professor Massad is alleged to have given as
part of one of his Columbia courses.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhuZIR0x32I
watch video

In his defense against this accusation, Professor Massad writes the
following.

     Noah [Liben] seems not to have done his reading during the week on
gender and Zionism. One of the assigned readings by Israeli scholar
and feminist Simona Sharoni spoke of how in Hebrew the word "zayin"
means both penis and weapon in a discussion of Israeli militarized
masculinity. Noah, seemingly not having read the assigned material,
mistook the pronunciation of "zayin" as "Zion," pronounced in Hebrew
"tziyon."

According to http://www.spiroark.org/advocatingforisrae/4517978001,
"David Olesker was born in Britain in 1957. He studied at Sunderland
Polytechnic College and, after Aliya in 1982, at Yeshivah Ohr Somayach
in Jerusalem." A yeshivah is a Jewish seminary. Ohr Somayach is a
yeshivah for baalei teshuvah (returnees to Jewish religion -- hozrim
bitshuvah is probably a better term).  Noah Weinberg, Mendel Weinbach
and Nota Schiller founded Ohr Somayach. Noah Weinberg left to create
the Aish haTorah Yeshivah while Weinbach and Schiller continued to run
Ohr Somayach.  Aish haTorah is the Jewish face of HonestReporting.

In terms of politics, the principals associated with these
organizations tend to identify less with the religious nationalist
(mizrahi) Zionism of the Israeli Mafdal party and more with the occult
nationalist Zionism of HaRav Avraham Yitzhak Kook and his son or with
an extreme antigoyism (anti-Gentilism) that enables the members of the
organizations to support a racist Jewish colony in Palestine without
contamination by secular Zionist ideas.

Although occult nationalist or Kookian Zionists like Jack Abramoff or
Michael Medved disdain secular Zionism even in the Jabotinskian form
that characterizes Neocons, Kookians (or Kooks as Noam Chomsky prefers
to call them) concede that secular Zionists fulfill important
religious commandments despite themselves. Extremist antigoyish
non-Zionists and anti-Zionists like the Lubovitcher Hasidim, who
perceive the State of Israel as an opportunity to bring more Jews back
to Judaism, abominate secular Zionism even as they profess to love
secular Zionists as Jews.

In the early 1980s, a pun popular among American hozrim bitshuvah in
Kookian or extremist antigoyist educational programs used the
identical pronunciations of the American Yeshivish word zayin (penis)
with an un-Israeli accent on first syllable and the standard English
noun Zion from which the term Zionist is derived to suggest that
secular Zionism was Penisism and that secular Zionists were degenerate
immoral sexually obsessed Penisists.

While the pun is inadvertently reminiscent of the obsession of Zionist
thinkers like Herzl and Nordau with proving Jewish masculinity in the
face of common European Jewish and non-Jewish assumptions of Jewish
effeminacy (see Smart Jews by Sander Gilman, pp. 103-143), I doubt
that any of the any of the Yeshivah students, who made the joke, were
actually aware of the fin de siècle Jewish sexual inferiority complex
that played such an important role in early Zionist thinking..

I heard the pun the New Haven, CT, Monsey, NY, and Chicago, IL, where
Ohr Somayach often ran recruitment programs. This play on words almost
certainly traveled to the Ohr Somayach Yeshivah in Jerusalem, where
David Olesker would have heard it.

Charles Jacobs, David Project Director Ralph Avi Goldwasser and other
Israel advocates associated with producing Columbia Unbecoming
probably got a good laugh by making Columbia faculty and
administrators like President Lee Bollinger, whom they almost
certainly viewed as a goyisher kop (stupid non-Jew), jump through
hoops over an old yeshivah joke.

 
http://pictures.aol.com/ap/singleImage.do?pid=0e90FeYNhSZk6k7PJEx0PwHvBNHWf*gn2p\
e-v4xQp5Fd3Ig=
View full size

HATEMONGER U?
COLUMBIA MAY TENURE EXTREMIST

By RICHARD MINITER


November 20, 2007 -- COLUMBIA University is about to give tenure to an
anti-Israel extremist. Joseph Massad, an associate professor of modern
Arab politics, has a history of shouting down his students. He
compares Jews to Nazis and bizarrely accuses Israel of "anti-Semitism"
for its treatment of the Palestinians. (Massad is a Palestinian.) In a
course description, he describes his class on Israeli-Arab relations
as "not balanced."

Why does this ivory-tower controversy matter? After 9/11, we simply
can't leave Middle East studies to partisans. We need genuine scholars
to train future diplomats, analysts and officers. The government and
the press rely on professors to explain events in the Arab world.

Of course, Columbia has long been home to anti-Israel scholars. Edward
Said, who taught there until his death in 2003, spent more time
worrying about "US imperialism" and "Zionism" than on injustices such
as terrorism and the oppression of women and religious minorities in
Arab societies. Most recently, Columbia's sister school, Barnard,
tenured Nadia Abu El-Haj, who called the ancient Jewish kingdoms of
David and Solomon "a modern nation's [ongoing] myth . . . " Why add
one more?

Some Internet rumors claim Massad was denied tenure, but Columbia
sources say that the process is ongoing; a spokesman insists the
details are "confidential." The final decision is due soon.

Why shouldn't Massad get tenure - lifelong job security?

His critics cite three broad flaws that, taken together, could
undermine Columbia's reputation:

Misstatement of facts: These are not simple errors; when they've been
called to his attention, he has brushed them aside or unconvincingly
denied making the statement.

     * In class and in public, Massad has argued that Israel massacred
Palestinians at Jenin in 2002. A UN investigation found no evidence of
a massacre at Jenin.
     * Writing in the Egyptian weekly al-Ahram, he suggested that
Israel poisoned Yasser Arafat. He cited no evidence. In reality,
Israel provided for Arafat's medical evacuation to France.
     * Massad claims "Jewish colonists [in Israel] were part of the
British colonial death squads that murdered Palestinian
revolutionaries between 1936 and 1939 while Hitler unleashed
Kristallnacht against German Jews." Note the false equivalency between
British police and Jewish residents and the Nazis.

And, of course, there is no evidence of organized Jewish involvement.
Indeed, the British also took armed action against the Jews.

Mistreating students: Over the last few years, a number of students
have come forward to talk about how Massad treated them in the classroom.

One is Deena Shanker, who attended Massad's course in 2002. She said
that Massad shouted her down and ordered her to leave his class if she
kept denying that Israel committed atrocities.

Massad denied her account and said a faculty panel exonerated him. In
fact, the panel's published report found him guilty. The relevant passage:

"Upon extensive deliberation, the committee finds it credible that
Professor Massad became angered at a question that he understood to
countenance Israeli conduct of which he disapproved, and that he
responded heatedly. While we have no reason to believe that Professor
Massad intended to expel Ms. Shanker from the classroom [she did not,
in fact, leave the class], his rhetorical response to her query
exceeded commonly accepted bounds by conveying that her question
merited harsh public criticism.

"Angry criticism directed at a student in class because she disagrees,
or appears to disagree, with a faculty member on a matter of substance
is not consistent with the obligation 'to show respect for the rights
of others to hold opinions differing from their own,' to exercise
'responsible self-discipline' and 'to demonstrate appropriate
restraint.' "

Why grant tenure to a professor who has an adversarial relationship
with his students?

A non-scholarly temperament: Massad often seems far more a
propagandist than an impartial analyst.

     * His published work suggests that his heart lies with the
terrorists of Hamas. In March, he mourned the "economic choking and
starvation" caused by the "international isolation" of Hamas. Last
November, he wrote that Hamas "can defend the rights of the
Palestinians to resist the Israeli occupation and the well-armed
Palestinian collaborators that help to enforce it."

And, yes, he is critical of Palestinians who criticize Hamas.

     * The only book on Israel that he assigned in his introductory
class was "Israel, a Colonial Settler State?" by a French Marxist
scholar, Maxime Rodinson. It concludes, "Jews have as much right to
Israel as Arabs have to Spain."

To students, Massad often seems less like a scholar than a prosecutor
presenting his case. Three students recently came forward to say that
Massad "repeatedly likened Israel to apartheid South Africa, dismissed
its legitimacy as a Jewish state and almost never addressed
human-rights abuses in countries such as Iraq, Iran and Syria."

Massad regularly told his students that "Zionism got its name from the
Hebrew slang for penis, Zayin." While this is plainly untrue, is this
the language of a Columbia professor?

If he's awarded tenure, Massad will be at Columbia for life. He will
have no incentive to become dispassionate - and every incentive to
become even more of an activist.

Can't Columbia do better?

Richard Miniter is a bestselling author and fellow at the Hudson
Institute.

From http://www.forward.com/forward-50/

Charles Jacobs and Roz Rothstein

When it comes to defending Israel in the media, on campus and in the
streets, America's long-established Jewish groups no longer have a
monopoly. Increasingly, the agenda is set by scrappy startups like
Boston's The David Project and the Los Angeles-based StandWithUs ―
often dragging the rest of the community along behind them.
StandWithUs was founded in 2001 by a group of activists assembled by
Roz Rothstein, a family therapist driven by what she saw as the larger
community's anemic response to growing anti-Israel activism. The David
Project was launched the following year by Charles Jacobs, co-founder
of the American Anti-Slavery Group, which targeted slavery in Sudan.
Neither Rothstein, 55, nor Jacobs, 63, shies from confrontation. The
David Project captured headlines in 2003 with a documentary alleging
faculty intimidation of pro-Israel students at Columbia University.
More recently, it waged a high-profile legal and media battle with the
Islamic Society of Boston over its controversial associates and its
plans for a new mosque. This summer, StandWithUs took the lead in
responding to a planned pro-Palestinian rally in Washington. While the
D.C. Jewish Community Relations Council opted to ignore the
demonstration (which was a dud in the end), StandWithUs organized a
counter-protest and answered pro-Palestinian ads on Washington's
subway system with ads of its own. Both groups have focused on campus
activism, multimedia projects, leadership training and curriculum
development. The courses Rothstein and Jacobs charted have proven
popular with action-hungry donors: Their two startups already boast
multimillion-dollar budgets and sizable staffs.

*********************************************************************

WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE

To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
wvns-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/

Need some good karma? Appreciate the service?
Please consider donating to WVNS today.
Email ummyakoub@... for instructions.

To leave this list, send an email to:
wvns-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Letter to a Liberal Friend
The Left and Ron Paul
By JEFF TAYLOR
http://www.counterpunch.org/taylor01022008.html


"Equal rights for all; special privileges for none."

"Though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that
will, to be rightful, must be reasonable . . . the minority possess
their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate
which would be oppression."

"[The purpose of representative government is] to curb the excesses of
the monied interests."

"The influence over government must be shared among the people. If
every individual which composes their mass participates in the
ultimate authority, the government will be safe; because the
corrupting of the whole mass will exceed any private resources of wealth."

"Peace, then, has been our principle, peace is our interest, and peace
has saved to the world this only plant of free and rational government
now existing in it."

"Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling
alliances with none."

-- Thomas Jefferson


You asked for a treatise to explain my support for the "lunatic" Ron
Paul. Since you asked, I'll send you some thoughts.

Why should Americans left-of-center--with commitments to peace,
justice, and democracy--see Congressman Paul as a real option rather
than as a right-wing wacko? That's the question. Several years ago, I
was hoping that Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) would run for president
in 2008. He's a principled statesman with a consistent record of
opposition to war and empire, and support for democracy and civil
liberties. He also has the potential to reach beyond his base of
liberal Democrats to conservatives and libertarians with his stance on
government frugality and bureaucratic waste. So, I was excited about a
Feingold candidacy until he bowed out of the race.

Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) did not appeal to very many voters
in 2004 and he is repeating that dismal showing in 2008. Part of his
problem was his flip-flop on abortion when he entered the '04 race. A
principled pro-choicer like Feingold and a principled pro-lifer like
Paul can earn respect from a wide range of people, but it's hard to
admire someone who jumped from pro-life to pro-choice seemingly as a
matter of political convenience. As if the Democratic power brokers
would ever consent to the nomination of Kucinich, regardless of how
enthusiastic he becomes for "reproductive freedom"! So, from the
get-go, Kucinich hobbled his efforts by undercutting his strongest
selling point: his integrity.

My favorite candidate for the '08 Democratic presidential nomination
is Mike Gravel, former U.S. Senator from Alaska. But Gravel, like
Kucinich, is treated as a joke by the mainstream media, has not raised
substantial money, and languishes at the bottom of the polls. Thomas
Jefferson was not perfect, but the founder of the Democratic Party had
a platform that is not only remarkably good but still applicable and
popular in 21st century America. Leavened with the racial
egalitarianism of King, Abernathy, and Hamer, the Jeffersonian
platform could be used by politicians for electoral success and wise
policy.

Senator Feingold and Representative Paul, who have often voted
together on major issues of the day despite being tagged as a "liberal
Democrat" and "conservative Republican," are examples of modern
Jeffersonians. Senator Gravel is the most Jeffersonian candidate
running among the Democrats this year, but he has failed to catch on
with a wide portion of the citizenry. That's where Ron Paul comes in.

Not only does Ron Paul represent Jeffersonian values usually termed
"conservative" or "libertarian" today (fidelity to the Constitution,
frugal government, states' rights, Second Amendment, national
sovereignty), but he is also a leading example of support for
Jeffersonian positions nowadays described as "liberal" or "leftist"
(e.g. opposition not only to the Iraq War but to war in general,
anti-imperialism, ending the federal war on drugs, hostility to the
Patriot Act and other violations of civil liberties). This accounts
for the wide appeal of the Paul campaign. It's precisely the sort of
trans-ideological, cross-generational populist-libertarian-moralist
coalition that I was hoping to see with a Feingold presidential campaign.

If we stipulate that a candidate polling at least 5% in national polls
is a "major candidate," there is simply no other major candidate in
2008 who is more Jeffersonian, more committed to peace, justice, and
democracy, than Ron Paul. He puts pretenders like Edwards and Obama to
shame. I like a lot of what John Edwards is saying on the campaign
trail today, but I don't think he means a word of it. He's a limousine
liberal phony when it comes to the rich/poor issue. He supported the
Iraq War until it became widely unpopular. He voted for the Patriot
Act. He claims to be against outsourcing of American jobs but he voted
for permanent normalized trade relations (MFN) for China.

I think Barack Obama would be much preferable to Hillary Clinton as
president, but his campaign is built on glossy generalities like
"hope," "youth," and "unity." It's more about style than substance. If
you study what he's had to say about foreign policy when addressing
elite audiences, you see that he's not much different from Clinton and
the DLC crowd. He's in the mainstream of the U.S. foreign policy
establishment and its perpetual commitment to empire and
globalization. Even his strongest selling point for the left--his
opposition to the Iraq War in 2002-03--is suspect upon close
examination. In his October 2002 speech, he told the anti-war crowd
FOUR times that he was not opposed "to all wars." He summed up his
philosophy by saying, "I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to
dumb wars." There is nothing about war in general that is offensive to
Obama. He objected to the Iraq War only on strategic grounds, not
ethical grounds.

Referring to the U.S. Senate authorization vote of 2002, in July 2004,
Obama told the New York Times, "What would I have done? I don't know."
Asked about the pro-war votes of Kerry and Edwards, Obama told NPR, "I
don't consider that to have been an easy decision, and certainly, I
wasn't in the position to actually cast a vote on it. I think that
there is room for disagreement in that initial decision." Not exactly
a stunning statement of the peace position! Obama told the Chicago
Council on Global Affairs, in November 2006, "We cannot afford to be a
country of isolationists right now. 9/11 showed us that try as we
might to ignore the rest of the world, our enemies will no longer
ignore us. And so we need to maintain a strong foreign policy,
relentless in pursuing our enemies and hopeful in promoting our values
around the world." So 9/11 occurred during a period in our history
when we were minding our own business (practicing "isolationism")?
That's a novel explanation of events!

In April 2007, Obama told the CCGA, "I reject the notion that the
American moment has passed. I dismiss the cynics who say that this new
century cannot be another when, in the words of President Franklin
Roosevelt, we lead the world in battling immediate evils and promoting
the ultimate good. I still believe that America is the last, best hope
of Earth. We just have to show the world why this is so." Spoken like
a true neoconservative. This messianic imperialism continues
throughout the speech: "In today's globalized world, the security of
the American people is inextricably linked to the security of all
people. . . . World opinion has turned against us. And after all the
lives lost and the billions of dollars spent, many Americans may find
it tempting to turn inward, and cede our claim of leadership in world
affairs. I insist, however, that such an abandonment of our leadership
is a mistake we must not make. . . . We must lead the world, by deed
and example."

Obama even endorsed the Persian Gulf War of 1991, a bloodletting that
had nothing to do with U.S. national security: "No President should
ever hesitate to use force--unilaterally if necessary--to protect
ourselves and our vital interests when we are attacked or imminently
threatened. But when we use force in situations other than
self-defense, we should make every effort to garner the clear support
and participation of others--the kind of burden-sharing and support
President George H.W. Bush mustered before he launched Operation
Desert Storm."

In contrast to Obama's narrow and perhaps opportunistic reasons for
opposing the Iraq War, Ron Paul has consistently opposed every U.S.
military intervention since the 1970s. He's the only major candidate
who openly speaks out against the American empire and imperialism. Can
you even imagine Hillary Clinton or John Edwards using the e-word or
the i-word? Not in connection with our own government! When it comes
to foreign policy, Ron Paul sounds as radical as Noam Chomsky. In
fact, Paul is more radical because he refused to vote for Bush in 2004
while Chomsky was willing to vote for Kerry over a real anti-empire
candidate like Nader. Paul not only talks the talk; he walks the walk.
Yet he's more acceptable to Middle America than someone like Chomsky
or Howard Zinn because he volunteered to serve in the U.S. Air Force
in the early 1960s and he has an obvious patriotism that makes him
less vulnerable to the "hate-America" smear.

Ron Paul is the only major contender who calls for cutting off the
billions of dollars of foreign aid we give to the Israeli government
each year (and all other foreign aid as well, including the money
going to Egypt and Colombia). None of the "progressive" Democrats care
about justice for the Palestinians or dare to question the power of
the pro-Israeli-government lobby. Congressman Paul does.
None of the leading Democrats voted against the Iraq War or the
Patriot Act. Paul voted against both. All of the leading Democrats
have voted time and again to fund the war in Iraq, thereby ceding the
only power they have to end the war. Paul has always voted against
Defense Department appropriations which include funding for the war.
Unlike leading Democrats in the Clinton-Gore-Kerry tradition, Ron Paul
opposes the death penalty because he believes in the sanctity of life.

Only Ron Paul funds his campaign without the assistance of PACs and
the corporate rich. There is simply no other Democrat, including John
Edwards, who has an equal record when it comes to relying on
grassroots support, opposing plutocratic policies, and earning the
enmity of Big Business. This is why the Wall Street Journal and FOX
News detest the "Ron Paul Revolution." The revolution includes
stripping the overprivileged of many of their political and economic
privileges. While the Manhattan-K Street-Hollywood crowd disdain Paul,
supporters working on his behalf raise $6 million in a single day from
the "common people" (average contribution: $100). If that's not
democracy at work, I don't know what it is.

Ron Paul opposes both the warfare state and the welfare state. The
welfare state includes much-publicized handouts to poor people
(although far fewer than in the past, thanks to the Bill Clinton-Newt
Gingrich gutting of AFDC), but even more importantly it includes
middle-class entitlements and billions in taxpayer giveaways to the
wealthy. Paul's opposition to NAFTA and GATT is motivated not only by
his belief in national sovereignty, but also by his suspicion of cozy
deals between Big Government and Big Business.

Ron Paul does not play favorites. He wants to end corporate welfare
across the board. His monetary policy of using sound, constitutional
money would help the poor by curtailing the hidden "inflation tax." A
Paul effort to eliminate the U.S. Department of Education and other
manifestations of federal big government would make special interest
lobbies unhappy but they would not hurt poor or average citizens. On
the contrary, it would free up money and power to deal with problems
at the state and local levels. Lower levels of government have been
far more "progressive" than the feds in most policy areas over the
years, in things ranging from corporate regulation to health policy to
medicinal use of marijuana.

Ron Paul is not perfect as either a candidate or a policy maker. I
don't agree with him on everything. He has a few personal flaws and
weaknesses. He has some disreputable supporters (e.g., racists and
anti-Semites who like his opposition to globalization and plutocracy).
As I write in my book, in contrasting the mainstream media's depiction
of politicians like John Kerry to more genuine liberals like Cynthia
McKinney, "The disingenuous nature of their careers and campaigns is
politely ignored while the flaws, real and imagined, of party
mavericks are trumpeted by the smug talking heads and the frothy news
magazines." (p. 256) As with possible Green Party candidate McKinney,
Paul's real and imagined flaws are in the process of being magnified
by the mainstream media as his popularity rises.

Journalists with the corporate press are enthusiasts of war, empire,
global capitalism, political correctness, Leviathan statism, and other
respectable projects of the Power Elite. Such things are the
antithesis of Ron Paul. If you're forming your opinion of Paul on the
basis of coverage by the New York Times, The New Yorker, and NPR, it's
not surprising that you think he's a "lunatic." If you listen
carefully, you'll "learn" that he's not only a lunatic, but a
dangerous "racist lunatic." It's not true, but the truth is irrelevant
when the special interests of the wealthy and powerful are threatened.

Meanwhile, a principled leftist like Alexander Cockburn recently
wrote, "Huckabee's single rival as a genuinely interesting candidate
is another Republican, Ron Paul, who set a record a few days ago, by
raising $6 million in a single day. Unlike Huckabee, Paul's core
issues are opposition to the war and to George Bush's abuse of civil
liberties inscribed in the U.S. Constitution. His appeal, far more
than Huckabee, is to the redneck rebel strain in American political
life--the populist beast that the US two-party system is designed to
suppress. On Monday night Paul was asked on Fox News about Huckabee's
Christmas ad, which shows the governor backed by a shining cross.
Actually it's the mullions of the window behind him, but the illusion
is perfect. Paul said the ad reminded him of Sinclair Lewis's line,
that 'when fascism comes to this country it will be wrapped in a flag
and bearing a cross.' In the unlikely event they had read Lewis, no
other candidate would dare quote that line." (CounterPunch, December
22/23, http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn12222007.html)

Even though they disagree on some policies, Cockburn can respect a
Republican who publicly warns against imperialism and fascism, and who
views the Constitution as a still-binding set of rules . . . instead
of "just a G**-d***** piece of paper," as George W. Bush was quoted as
saying to members of Congress in 2005.
(http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml)

I know it's hard for many to see the possibility of any good
Republican, but it's worth remembering that the GOP heritage includes
not only the plutocracy of Calvin Coolidge but also the democracy of
Robert La Follette, not only the Wall Street of Thomas Dewey but also
the Main Street of Robert Taft. Paul is in that La Follette-Taft
tradition of anti-monopoly at home and non-intervention abroad. If the
Gravel or Kucinich campaigns had caught fire during the past year, we
would see some anti-war Republicans crossing party lines to support
one of their candidacies as the vehicle of choice in 2008. Instead,
we're seeing some Democrats backing Paul.

While the stray neo-Confederate may like Ron Paul, he is also the
recipient of more African American support than any other Republican.
Paul is backed by both realistic veterans and idealistic pacifists,
Christians and atheists, John Birchers and NORML members. It's a
kaleidoscope campaign--not of pandering or double-talking but of an
honest commitment to an array of deeply held American values. Liberty
and peace are popular. It's not a cult of personality like Obama.

Who's the real kook: the middle-class woman in Peoria concerned about
the unconstitutional monetary system or the neoconservative in
Washington who wants to remake the world in our image through the
barrel of a gun? Who's the real threat: the yahoo in Mississippi who
thinks multiculturalism is destroying our traditional culture or the
corporate lobbyist who buys and sells elected officials? Who's the
real isolationist: the young person who doesn't want to tell people in
other countries how to live their lives or the intellectual who turns
our nation into the pariah of the world by sending Americans off to
kill foreigners?

I don't expect that you'll support Ron Paul during the primary season,
but I wanted you to at least understand why he could have some appeal
for a three-time Nader voter such as myself. Many anti-war,
pro-limited-government, grassroots democracy advocates will support
Edwards, Obama, or some other mainstream candidate in the coming
months, but I think we're selling ourselves short when we do so. We
may well end up with crumbs from the table in the end because that's
how the system is set up. But if we start the process by making it
clear that we'll settle for crumbs, we assure that we'll never get
anything more. Radical change will never happen because the
Establishment understands that progressive voters can be taken for
granted. In the end, most will fall into line behind the candidate
with the (D) behind her/his name, no matter how unprogressive s/he is.

To me, voting for Kucinich, Gravel, McKinney, or Paul makes some sense
even though they're unlikely to win. At least we're asking for
something honest and principled during the first round of voting. Ron
Paul isn't the perfect candidate and his Jeffersonianism is not as
full-bodied as I would prefer (e.g., he's too weak on the ecological
dimension), but at least he's a step in the right direction and his
ability to attract a wide range of grassroots support is commendable.
He's not the only good choice, but he's no lunatic and there is some
logic behind his campaign. It's not everything, but it is something.
In a rigged system with a populace divided by secondary issues and
exploited by a bipartisan elite, it may be the best we can do in 2008.

The Ron Paul campaign does not represent a madness brought on by the
moon. It's closer to the truth to say it's a hopeful manifestation of
the sun shining on the political realm. It brings some clarity and
accountability to government.

Jeff Taylor is a political scientist. His book Where Did the Party
Go?: William Jennings Bryan, Hubert Humphrey, and the Jeffersonian
Legacy was published last year by University of Missouri Press. He
contributed a chapter to the book A Dime's Worth of Difference
(Cockburn and St. Clair, eds.). For more information, see:
http://www.popcorn78.blogspot.com.

*********************************************************************

WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE

To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
wvns-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/

Need some good karma? Appreciate the service?
Please consider donating to WVNS today.
Email ummyakoub@... for instructions.

To leave this list, send an email to:
wvns-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

The Israeli Relief Convoy was on its way
Saturday 26/01/08
http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/events/1201433012


The initiative for the large action that took place today (26.1.08)
started when the well-know psychiatrist, Dr. Eyad al-Sarraj, the
human-rights activist from Gaza, met in the Gush Shalom office with a
small group of Israeli peace activists, in order to tell them about
the desperate situation in the strip. It was decided on the spot to
organize in Israel a relief convoy for the Gaza Strip people, and to
fight by all political and juridical means for the right to get it in.
It was agreed that two parallel protest rallies would be held
simultaneously on the two sides of the wall.

26 Israeli peace groups joined the initiative, under the single
slogan: "Gaza: Lift the siege!" Many activists from different
organizations worked day and night. Gush Shalom prepared a special
poster and started a fund-raising campaign among its sympathizers.
Hundreds of checks came pouring in from Israel and a dozen other
countries, enabling the Gush to carry alone the full costs of the
supplies. Many added words of thanks for the opportunity given them to
express their opinion this way and join the struggle.

Warm thanks to all of them!

In consultation with Dr. al-Sarraj it was decided to buy not only five
tons of essential foodstuffs - flour, sugar, rice, oil, salt, beans
and lentils - but also water distillers. "The water in the Gaza Strip
is undrinkable," al-Sarraj reported, "therefore there is an urgent
need for distillers."

The weather forecasts promised rain and thunderstorms all over the
country. In spite of this, old and young peace activists came to the
starting points in six towns. As requested by the organizers, hundreds
of families came in their private cars. Together with the people who
came by bus, their number reached about two thousand.

"In the night we were woken up by strong thunderbolts. It started to
rain cats and dogs, and we were very worried: who is going to get up
early on Shabbat morning in such stormy weather in order to
participate in an open-air protest rally and carry sacks of food?"
recounted one of the organizers.

Ya'akov Manor had the idea to ask the demonstrators to bring private
relief parcels and to add personal letters "from family to family".
The response was beyond all expectations. Families brought not only
food and mineral water, but also blankets, warm clothing and many
other useful articles, even electrical stoves. The parcels were
fastened to the tops of the cars or put in the baggage holds of the
buses. They added up to two tons.

When the demonstrators assembled in the towns - Tel Aviv, Jerusalem,
Haifa, Nazareth and others - a slight rain was falling. But all who
hoped for a brightening up were soon disappointed: during the drive to
the Erez border crossing, a very heavy rain started to pour down,
making it almost impossible to see the road, and slowed down the huge
convoy towards the Gaza strip extremely difficult.

About half of the protesters were Jewish, the other half Arab. The
rally was conducted the same way: Side by side with the Jewish
speakers - Uri Avnery, Nurit Peled-Elhanan, Professor Jeff Halper and
former minister Shulamit Aloni (who was ill and sent a written speech,
read by Teddy Katz), speeches were made by advocate Fatmeh al-Ijou,
and MKs Izzam Mahul and Jamal Zahalke.

At the height of the rally, the moderator, Huloud al-Badawi, called
Dr. Sarraj by cellular phone. He was participating at the parallel
rally in Gaza and his words were conveyed by loudspeaker. They
amounted to a stirring call to the Israeli peace camp to support the
Palestinians in their struggle against the blockade.

A sensation was caused by a young woman from Sderot, Shir Shusdig, who
called out: "For seven years I am suffering from the Qassams in
Kibbutz Zikim and Sderot. I know that the people on the other side are
also suffering very much. That's why I am here!"

Jeff Halper mentioned that demonstrations of solidarity with the
people of Gaza were taking place in dozens of cities around the world.
Advocate al-Ijou pointed out that the Attorney General had asserted in
a Supreme Court hearing that the blockade on Gaza was similar to the
boycott against the former apartheid regime in South Africa. "This is
absurd when it comes from a government which is building apartheid
roads all over the West Bank!"

Miraculously, the rain stopped just before the rally, and started
again a few minutes after it was finished.

Since the Israeli army has not allowed the relief supplies into the
Gaza strip, they were stored in a neighboring kibbutz. If the military
will not permit their transfer to Gaza in the next two days, we shall
apply to the High Court of Justice and start a legal fight until we
succeed.

===

Uri Avnery's speech at the rally:

Three days ago, a wall fell here – Just as the Berlin Wall fell, Just
as the apartheid wall will fall, And just as all walls and fences in
this country Will come down.

But the inhuman blockade That has been imposed on A million and a half
human beings in Gaza By our government By our army, In our name – This
siege is continuing in its full cruelty. We, Israelis from various
political camps, Have come to bring basic supplies And to say to the
Israeli public And to the whole world: We will not participate in
crime! We are ashamed of the blockade!"

Our hearts are with our Palestinian brothers Who are at this moment
demonstrating with us On the other side of the fence – Don't lose
faith that one day We will meet together in this place Without fences,
without walls, Without violence, Without fighting, The sons of two
peoples living next to each other In peace, in friendship, in partnership.

Our hearts are with our brothers, the residents of Sderot – The threat
of Qassams must stop! It won't stop by a policy of "an eye for an
eye", Or a hundred eyes for one eye, Or a thousand eyes for one eye,
Because that only leaves us all blind. It will end when we speak to
the other side – Yes, yes, even with Hamas! And we'll together create
a total and mutual ceasefire – Without Qassams, without murderous
incursions, Without mortars, without extrajudicial assassinations,
Without blockade, without starvation.

This is our call, this is our demand: Set up an immediate ceasefire!
Open the crossings immediately! Make peace with all parts of the
Palestinian people! MAKE PEACE!"

===

Worse than a Crime

26/01/08


IT LOOKED like the fall of the Berlin wall. And not only did it look
like it. For a moment, the Rafah crossing was the Brandenburg Gate.

It is impossible not to feel exhilaration when masses of oppressed and
hungry people break down the wall that is shutting them in, their eyes
radiant, embracing everybody they meet - to feel so even when it is
your own government that erected the wall in the first place.

The Gaza Strip is the largest prison on earth. The breaking of the
Rafah wall was an act of liberation. It proves that an inhuman policy
is always a stupid policy: no power can stand up against a mass of
people that has crossed the border of despair.

That is the lesson of Gaza, January, 2008.

ONE MIGHT repeat the famous saying of the French statesman Boulay de
la Meurthe, slightly amended: It is worse than a war crime, it is a
blunder!

Months ago, the two Ehuds - Barak and Olmert - imposed a blockade on
the Gaza Strip, and boasted about it. Lately they have tightened the
deadly noose even more, so that hardly anything at all could be
brought into the Strip. Last week they made the blockade absolute - no
food, no medicines. Things reached a climax when they stopped the
fuel, too. Large areas of Gaza remained without electricity -
incubators for premature babies, dialysis machines, pumps for water
and sewage. Hundreds of thousands remained without heating in the
severe cold, unable to cook, running out of food.

Again and again, Aljazeera broadcast the pictures into millions of
homes in the Arab world. TV stations all over the world showed them,
too. From Casablanca to Amman angry mass protest broke out and
frightened the authoritarian Arab regimes. Hosny Mubarak called Ehud
Barak in panic. That evening Barak was compelled to cancel, at least
temporarily, the fuel-blockade he had imposed in the morning. Apart
from that, the blockade remained total.

It is hard to imagine a more stupid act.

THE REASON given for the starving and freezing of one and a half
million human beings, crowded into a territory of 365 square
kilometers, is the continued shooting at the town of Sderot and the
adjoining villages.

That is a well-chosen reason. It unites the primitive and poor parts
of the Israeli public. It blunts the criticism of the UN and the
governments throughout the world, who might otherwise have spoken out
against a collective punishment that is, undoubtedly, a war crime
under international law.

A clear picture is presented to the world: the Hamas terror regime in
Gaza launches missiles at innocent Israeli civilians. No government in
the world can tolerate the bombardment of its citizens from across the
border. The Israeli military has not found a military answer to the
Qassam missiles. Therefore there is no other way than to exert such
strong pressure on the Gaza population as to make them rise up against
Hamas and compel them to stop the missiles.

The day the Gaza electricity works stopped operating, our military
correspondents were overjoyed: only two Qassams were launched from the
Strip. So it works! Ehud Barak is a genius!

But the day after, 17 Qassams landed, and the joy evaporated.
Politicians and generals were (literally) out of their minds: one
politician proposed to "act crazier than them", another proposed to
"shell Gaza's urban area indiscriminately for every Qassam launched",
a famous professor (who is a little bit deranged) proposed the
exercise of "ultimate evil".

The government scenario was a repeat of Lebanon War II (the report
about which is due to be published in a few days). Then: Hizbullah
captured two soldiers on the Israeli side of the border, now: Hamas
fired on towns and villages on the Israeli side of the border. Then:
the government decide in haste to start a war, now: the government
decided in haste to impose a total blockade. Then: the government
ordered the massive bombing of the civilian population in order to get
them to pressure Hizbullah, now: the government decided to cause
massive suffering of the civilian population in order to get them to
pressure Hamas.

The results were the same in both cases: the Lebanese population did
not rise up against Hizbullah, but on the contrary, people of all
religious communities united behind the Shiite organization. Hassan
Nasrallah became the hero of the entire Arab world. And now: the
population unites behind Hamas and accuses Mahmoud Abbas of
cooperation with the enemy. A mother who has no food for her children
does not curse Ismail Haniyeh, she curses Olmert, Abbas and Mubarak.

SO WHAT to do? After all, it is impossible to tolerate the suffering
of the inhabitants of Sderot, who are under constant fire.

What is being hidden from the embittered public is that the launching
of the Qassams could be stopped tomorrow morning.

Several months ago Hamas proposed a cease-fire. It repeated the offer
this week.

A cease-fire means, in the view of Hamas: the Palestinians will stop
shooting Qassams and mortar shells, the Israelis will stop the
incursions into Gaza, the "targeted" assassinations and the blockade.

Why doesn't our government jump at this proposal?

Simple: in order to make such a deal, we must speak with Hamas,
directly or indirectly. And this is precisely what the government
refuses to do.

Why? Simple again: Sderot is only a pretext - much like the two
captured soldiers were a pretext for something else altogether. The
real purpose of the whole exercise is to overthrow the Hamas regime in
Gaza and to prevent a Hamas takeover in the West Bank.

In simple and blunt words: the government sacrifices the fate of the
Sderot population on the altar of a hopeless principle. It is more
important for the government to boycott Hamas - because it is now the
spearhead of Palestinian resistance - than to put an end to the
suffering of Sderot. All the media cooperate with this pretence.

IT HAS been said before that it is dangerous to write satire in our
country - too often the satire becomes reality. Some readers may
recall a satirical article I wrote months ago. In it I described the
situation in Gaza as a scientific experiment designed to find out how
far one can go, in starving a civilian population and turning their
lives into hell, before they raise their hands in surrender.

This week, the satire has become official policy. Respected
commentators declared explicitly that Ehud Barak and the army chiefs
are working on the principle of "trial and error" and change their
methods daily according to results. They stop the fuel to Gaza,
observe how this works and backtrack when the international reaction
is too negative. They stop the delivery of medicines, see how it
works, etc. The scientific aim justifies the means.

The man in charge of the experiment is Defense Minister Ehud Barak, a
man of many ideas and few scruples, a man whose whole turn of mind is
basically inhuman. He is now, perhaps, the most dangerous person in
Israel, more dangerous than Ehud Olmert and Binyamin Netanyahu,
dangerous to the very existence of Israel in the long run.

The man in charge of execution is the Chief of Staff. This week we had
the chance of hearing speeches by two of his predecessors, generals
Moshe Ya'alon and Shaul Mofaz, in a forum with inflated intellectual
pretensions. Both were discovered to have views that place them
somewhere between the extreme Right and the ultra-Right. Both have a
frighteningly primitive mind. There is no need to waste a word about
the moral and intellectual qualities of their immediate successor, Dan
Halutz. If these are the voices of the three last Chiefs of Staff,
what about the incumbent, who cannot speak out as openly as they? Has
this apple fallen further from the tree?

Until three days ago, the generals could entertain the opinion that
the experiment was succeeding. The misery in the Gaza Strip had
reached its climax. Hundreds of thousands were threatened by actual
hunger. The chief of UNRWA warned of an impending human catastrophe.
Only the rich could still drive a car, heat their homes and eat their
fill. The world stood by and wagged its collective tongue. The leaders
of the Arab states voiced empty phrases of sympathy without raising a
finger.

Barak, who has mathematical abilities, could calculate when the
population would finally collapse.

AND THEN something happened that none of them foresaw, in spite of the
fact that it was the most foreseeable event on earth.

When one puts a million and a half people in a pressure cooker and
keeps turning up the heat, it will explode. That is what happened at
the Gaza-Egypt border.

At first there was a small explosion. A crowd stormed the gate,
Egyptian policemen opened live fire, dozens were wounded. That was a
warning.

The next day came the big attack. Palestinian fighters blew up the
wall in many places. Hundreds of thousands broke out into Egyptian
territory and took a deep breath. The blockade was broken.

Even before that, Mubarak was in an impossible situation. Hundreds of
millions of Arabs, a billion Muslims, saw how the Israeli army had
closed the Gaza strip off on three sides: the North, the East and the
sea. The fourth side of the blockade was provided by the Egyptian army.

The Egyptian president, who claims the leadership of the entire Arab
world, was seen as a collaborator with an inhuman operation conducted
by a cruel enemy in order to gain the favor (and the money) of the
Americans. His internal enemies, the Muslim Brothers, exploited the
situation to debase him in the eyes of his own people.

It is doubtful if Mubarak could have persisted in this position. But
the Palestinian masses relieved him of the need to make a decision.
They decided for him. They broke out like a tsunami wave. Now he has
to decide whether to succumb to the Israeli demand to re-impose the
blockade on his Arab brothers.

And what about Barak's experiment? What's the next step? The options
are few:

    1. To re-occupy Gaza. The army does not like the idea. It
understands that this would expose thousands of soldiers to a cruel
guerilla war, which would be unlike any intifada before.
    2. To tighten the blockade again and exert extreme pressure on
Mubarak, including the use of Israeli influence on the US Congess to
deprive him of the billions he gets every year for his services.
    3. To turn the curse into a blessing, by handing the Strip over to
Mubarak, pretending that this was Barak's hidden aim all along. Egypt
would have to safeguard Israel's security, prevent the launching of
Qassams and expose its own soldiers to a Palestinian guerilla war -
when it thought it was rid of the burden of this poor and barren area,
and after the infrastructure there has been destroyed by the Israeli
occupation. Probably Mubarak will say: Very kind of you, but no thanks.

The brutal blockade was a war crime. And worse: it was a stupid blunder.

*********************************************************************

WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE

To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
wvns-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/

Need some good karma? Appreciate the service?
Please consider donating to WVNS today.
Email ummyakoub@... for instructions.

To leave this list, send an email to:
wvns-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Judge won't release 3 in Muslim charity case
By Lee Hammel - lhammel @ telegram.com
TELEGRAM & GAZETTE STAFF
Saturday, January 26, 2008


WORCESTER, MA— Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV yesterday refused to set
conditions for the release of three defendants jailed since their
conviction Jan. 11 for conspiracy to defraud the government in a
Muslim charity case in U.S. District Court.

Judge Saylor said Muhamed Mubayyid, 43, of Shrewsbury, and Emadeddin
Z. Muntasser, 43, of Braintree, and Samir Al-Monla, 50, of Brookline,
both formerly of Worcester, "have not carried their heavy burden of
establishing by clear and convincing evidence that they are not likely
to flee" before they are sentenced in April. Judge Saylor held bail
hearings Jan. 18 at the federal courthouse inWorcester to consider
whether to set conditions under which they could be freed.

Yesterday's decision was not without good news for the defendants,
with Judge Saylor observing that "at a minimum, this case — which is
both complex and relatively unique — presents a variety of substantial
issues for possible appeal, and has a significantly
greater-than-average chance of resulting in a reversal." Judge Saylor
is scheduled to hear defense requests to acquit the defendants or to
set a new trial.

All three were convicted of the conspiracy charge and of scheming to
conceal material information from the government. Mr. Mubayyid was
also convicted of three counts of making a false statement on an
income tax return and of obstructing the Internal Revenue Service. Mr.
Muntasser was also found guilty of making a false statement, while Mr.
Al-Monla was acquitted on that charge.

The government charged the three officials of the defunct Muslim
charity in Boston, Care International, received and kept tax-exempt
status that it might not have gotten, had the officials not withheld
information from the government. That information, the government
said, is that Care was an outgrowth and successor to Al-Kifah Refugee
Center, which later was named a specially designated global terrorist
organization, and that Care supported and gathered contributions for
Muslim holy war and the mujahedeen who fought it.

Judge Saylor noted the arguments for freeing the defendants, including
that each has substantial ties to the community and that Mr. Muntasser
offered to put up $1.9 million in addition to the $422,000 — both in
real estate — that he previously put up for security and Mr.
Mubayyid's offer of the home in which he has more than $100,000 equity.

But he said he was swayed by the U.S. Attorney's arguments that the
defendants are citizens of other countries with family, financial and
other substantial supports outside this country.

Assistant U.S. Attorney B. Stephanie Siegmann said the defendants are
citizens of Lebanon, Libya and Kuwait, respectively, which do not have
extradition treaties with the United States.

She said that they are convicted of serious crimes for which the
government is likely to seek higher sentences than the 3-1/2 to 4
years recommended by the advisory sentencing guidelines.

*********************************************************************

WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE

To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
wvns-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/

Need some good karma? Appreciate the service?
Please consider donating to WVNS today.
Email ummyakoub@... for instructions.

To leave this list, send an email to:
wvns-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

A Crusader in King Abdullah's Court
Mohamed Khodr
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19132.htm


Bush: "God Bless Israel"
Arabs: "God Bless Bush"


"Past experience provides little basis for confidence that reason can
prevail in an atmosphere of mounting war fever. In a contest between a
hawk and dove the hawk has a great advantage, not because it is a
better bird but because it is a bigger bird with lethal talons and a
highly developed will to use them."

William Fulbright: "On the Arrogance of Power" (The Late Senator and
Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations)


Barely weeks after the failure of the Annapolis meeting Bush headed to
the Middle East for his first visit in seven years. His purpose:
Enlisting Arab support, although never needed, to attack Israel's
neo-existential threat---Iran, regardless of the fact that Iran
neither has nuclear weapons nor will it commit suicide by attacking
Israel or American interests in the Gulf. When it comes to Israel's or
America's preemptive wars and occupations of Arab land, facts,
international laws, and human rights are irrelevant as expressed by
George H. W. Bush, the father of Bush Jr. who considers himself the
divinely guided crusader for Israel and MidEast peace: "I will never
apologize for the United States of America - I don't care what the
facts are".

Arriving in Israel under the pretense of energizing the peace
"process" Bush and Olmert's discussion concentrated on attacking Iran,
damn the Palestinians. Despite Bush's feigned statements that
occupation must end and that "outposts" must be dismantled, Ehud
Olmert publicly dressed down the American President by saying that
settlements will continue to be built.

During Bush's visit to Israel dozens of Palestinians were murdered and
injured by the Israeli military. Bush did not utter a word on the loss
of Palestinian lives. On the contrary, Bush visited the Holocaust
memorial and was moved by the persecution of the Jews in Europe who
today are the persecutors of the Palestinians. He wrote in the guest
book; "God bless Israel, George Bush". It's hard to imagine that God
blesses Israel's inhumanity against the Palestinians or Bush's
savagery in Iraq and Afghanistan. Mr. Bush, thankfully you will leave
office in one year after inflaming the world for decades to come. Your
only contributions to this planet are Global Warming and Global Warring.

With insensitivity and callousness to the daily harassment
Palestinians undergo as they navigate hundreds of military
checkpoints, Bush joked about his unimpeded drive through a checkpoint
in full sight of the "Apartheid Wall" by saying: "You'll be happy to
know, my whole motorcade of a mere 45 cars was able to make it through
without being stopped. I'm not so exactly sure that's what happens to
the average person". The man who touts freedom was blind to the lack
of freedom of movement of the occupied Palestinians on their own land.

Gaza has been under siege for over a year for daring to democratically
elect Hamas, a resistance movement founded with Israel's aid and
blessing that legitimately fights to expel Israel's brutal occupation
from their land. This overcrowded strip of 1.5 million people has
become the world's largest prison suffering from a massive
humanitarian crisis courtesy of Israel's democracy.

Gaza today is under a total blockade of fuel, without electricity,
heat, bread, clean water, medicines, and overflowing sewage in the
streets. The only light that brightens Gaza's night sky is exploding
Israeli bombs and shells. Israel is also blocking all U.N.
humanitarian goods from entering Gaza which includes baby formula;
such collective punishment of an entire population is illegal under
International Law; but thanks to America, Israel has always been above
the law, both divine and human.

John Dugard, U.N. Human Rights rapporteur in the Occupied Territories,
called Israel's military offensive in Gaza a "war crime" and called
for the punishment of the responsible parties. John Holmes,
undersecretary general of the U.N. for Humanitarian Affairs condemned
the "collective punishment of the people of Gaza". Holmes expressed
his grave concern on Israel's sealing of border crossings because
"they are the lifeline for the delivery of humanitarian assistance and
other goods to Gaza."

The World Bank, the International Red Cross, and many international
organizations and human rights groups are warning of a humanitarian
catastrophe.

While the world, the U.N., and the Arab leaders are expressing
"concern" and "condemnation", Israel rests assured that as long as it
has American in its grip, the voices of the world cannot save a single
Palestinian child from an Israeli sniper's bullet

Many Israelis and Jews around the world have made the analogy that
Israeli tactics against the Palestinians are akin to Nazi tactics

Bush Arrives in the Gulf: Home to America's Rulers, Oil and Military Bases

After blessing Israel Bush headed to the awaiting arms, lavish
receptions, and extraordinarily expensive gifts from his aides, the
Gulf oil rulers who oversee and safeguard America's oil and military
bases. From Kuwait, to Bahrain, the Emirates, and Saudi Arabia, Bush
was dined, praised, danced for, and toured the crass wealth of a
region awash in petrodollars. (Bush skipped Qatar probably to avoid an
interview with Aljazeera)

The oil rulers welcomed Bush with pandering honor, more reflective of
their inferiority complex as servants than as rulers. They embraced
the very man whose hands are soaked with the blood of millions of
Muslims, who described his war on terror as a war against
"Islamofascism", who called the genocidal Sharon a "man of peace", who
usurped all U.N. Resolutions and previous U..S policy by adopting
Israel's demands that its borders are not the pre-1967 borders, that
the illegal settlements are fait accompli, and that Palestinians have
no right of return, the man who supported with money, arms, and fuel,
Israel's all out devastation of Lebanon in 2006, yet, King Abdullah,
the Protector of the Two Holy Mosques, presented Bush with the highest
order of the Kingdom, the Order of the King Abdul Aziz, the founder of
Saudi Arabia.

Bush reminded his oil managers that extremists "hate freedom and they
hate democracy" ignoring the reality that extremists and the majority
of Muslims object to his global warring policies, not to the freedom
they desperately seek. Using Bush's logic that extremists hate freedom
and democracy it must logically follow that such extremists actually
love, not oppose, the undemocratic Arab regimes who deprive their
people of basic freedoms. With Chutzpah, Bush told the Arab leaders
that Israel, the killer of Gaza, should serve as a role model for
their democracy.

Bush left the Gulf after witnessing the expenditure of Petrodollars at
work including massive construction projects in the desert that
includes building new islands, extravagant hotels, palaces, theme
parks, lavish malls, golf courses, even entire cities named after the
egotistical dictators; all the while Muslims in Palestine, Iraq,
Afghanistan, Chechnya, Kashmir and elsewhere are being killed,
ethnically cleansed, hungry, cold, thirsty, without shelter or
medicines, or living as refugees by the millions due to American and
Israeli weapons of mass destruction. To Arab leaders these Muslims are
not as worthy as American treasury bonds.

How shockingly ironic that Arab Gulf nations are awash in oil while
Palestinians in Gaza can't find any oil to heat their homes and
prevent hypothermia deaths in the young, elderly, and ill patients.

In heartless fashion Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, the new Arab
peace partner, commenting on Gaza's deprivation oil, fuel, and
electricity said: "As far as I'm concerned, all the residents of Gaza
can walk and have no fuel for their cars". (Ha'aretz, Jan. 21, 2008)

Is it any wonder that because Arabs have no sense of self respect,
honor, or dignity, that the entire world disrespects their faith,
lives, and culture. To the world they are barbaric and primitive,
hence the trillions of Petrodollars spent on "modernizing" buildings
as a substitute for building the intellect. Like everything else they
purchase at will these Gulf rulers are attempting to buy their way
into western acceptance, not realizing how the west mocks their very
existence and wealth. The west was built by intellectual rigor,
science, hard work, education, training, and skills. None of these
factors exist in the Arab world. If only these sheiks could spend
their wealth on developing their people along similar lines rather
than facing the daunting decision of where to spend a billion dollars
a day.

According to the Institute of International Finance, a global
association of banks based in Washington D.C., the Persian Gulf
countries earned $1.5 trillion ($100 for every Muslim man, woman and
child) in oil revenue from 2002 to 2006. This overwhelming wealth due
to rising oil prices is so vast for these countries to absorb that
they're investing hundreds of billions of dollars in creative
construction projects at home (such as the $500 Billion Saudi project
to build new cities), or investing abroad to save American banks, like
Citigroup and Merrill Lynch, as well as investing in American real
estate, movie and computer companies, hotel corporations like the MGM
Mirage and the Four Seasons, or in the purchase of personal toys such
as Prince Walid bin Talal's new super jumbo jet, the Airbus 380, which
will be the first and largest private jet in the world fully equipped
with all the luxurious amenities. The cost--a staggering $300 million
for the unfurnished plane.

If only they could invest such wealth in American media companies, the
most powerful institution that influences public opinion and foreign
policy. Such investments would contribute more to the freedom of
Palestinians, Iraqis, and other Muslims than any potential army. Media
is king, not Casinos and hotels.

Arab leaders have long ignored, neglected, and oppressed their own
people thereby allowing the perfect storm of Islamic ignorance,
poverty, frustration, and anger against them and their foreign
handlers. In such a vacuum sectarianism between the rulers and the
ruled, the haves and have nots, extremism, and terrorism arose.
Ignorant clerics manipulated these wayward youth to believe that only
violence can restore Islamic glory and the Caliphate. That is an
impossibility in a Muslim world devoid of true Islam, where tribalism
has replaced allegiance to God, where unity is non-existent, and where
education and intellectual development barely exist. Islam began with
the intellectual command "READ", today the word is 'GREED".

Ironically through their abandonment of true Islamic principles and
the general welfare of Muslims, Arab and Muslim leaders are committing
their own violence against Islam.

*********************************************************************

WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE

To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
wvns-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/

Need some good karma? Appreciate the service?
Please consider donating to WVNS today.
Email ummyakoub@... for instructions.

To leave this list, send an email to:
wvns-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

The Untermensch Syndrome: Israel's Moral Decay
By Manuel Valenzuela
http://valenzuelasveritas.blogspot.com/2006/07/untermensch-syndrome-isr\
  aels-moral.html


The labeling as anti-Semitic of anyone critical of the state of
Israel's policies in the continued destruction of Palestinian
identity, and now Lebanese society and infrastructure, and the
increasing domination into American foreign policy no longer has the
sting of threat or intimidation it once mastered. For too long this
masquerade has been used to silence those opposing anything Israel,
shouted at anyone disseminating truth and seeking justice. Like the
boy who cried wolf, this charade has lost its power or hypnotic
control, and today only serves to breed more anger and resentment
against the apologists and smear mongers protecting the cancerous
tentacles of Zionism and the crimes against humanity it spawns.

A once powerful marketing tool used to sequester valid criticism and
deny truth to millions has been eroded thanks to its overlords'
continued over abuse and labeling of the term 'anti-Semite' to anyone
even remotely critical of anything associated with Israel and the
tentacles of Zionism. To criticize Christianity does not make one
anti-Christian. To criticize Islam does not make one anti-Muslim or
anti-Arab, just as uncovering truths about the Bush administration
does not make one anti-American or unpatriotic. To speak truth about
any government in the world does not make us racist or xenophobic to
the people of that nation. Why then should criticism of Israeli and/or
Sharon's policies subject us to false labeling and acts of
intimidation whose only purpose is to silence truth into submission
and hijacking justice from ever emerging and being served?

The time has come to stop bending over to the dictates of intimidation
and scare tactics used by Israel's protectors, defenders and
apologists. The time has come to say "Never Again" to such fictional
libel and slander whose only purpose is the continued subjugation of
truth and awakening. The labeling of "anti-Semite" does not bother us,
nor does it stop us from writing truth to justice and reality to
intimidation because we refuse to be frightened into submission and
silenced into acquiescence by a mechanism we know to be false.

Our convictions, search for truth and want for justice supercedes the
trash invented to protect the malfeasance ruining humanity and the
crimes perpetrated against our fellow human beings. The time has come
to stand up and be heard, refusing to believe the smears and the
labels, instead living life in truth, devoid of veiled threats and
intimidation tactics whose power over us continues to erode thanks to
its incessant overuse and abuse. So smear if you must, defenders,
appeasers and apologists of human wickedness, continue to blindly
believe in the majesty of a fiction you know to be false, ensuring
your daily complicity in the crimes against humanity being committed
by those you protect and defend.

We are above your labels, above your intimidation and smear tactics,
following the path of truth in the voice of our writings and in the
convictions of humanity. If pursuing truth, fighting criminality and
awakening justice makes us anti-Semites, then guilty we are. If seeing
the dehumanization, exploitation and utter destruction of the
Palestinian people makes the voices of reason anti-Semitic, then
guilty we stand. To defend the humanity of other Semitic people is to
defend humanity itself. To speak out against injustice and
dehumanization makes us human, to defend it makes you complicit.

An Unbearable Likeness of Being

Here we are, living in the first decade of the 21st century, and still
the violent animal in the human condition exists, thriving inside our
carnal passions and still primitive mammalian brains, oozing out of
humanity to release the demons of evil that only homo sapiens are
capable of wielding.

Persisting in our primate selves as it has for millions of years, the
greatest symptom of our disease remains uncontrolled, dominating the
far reaches of man's Earth, turning barren once fertile soil and
forever despoiling the utter beauty our civilization possesses. Man
killing man, erupting violence upon our fellow humans, destroying what
our own hands create, decimating energy and beauty, life and
opportunity, this is the story of what our species has become. Through
tribal affiliation and identity, which the nation state now is, (a
tribe on steroids) the potency of violence and ill-treatment against
others seen as different or alien is manifested.

The human condition dictates that auras of superiority appear with
every tribe. What is nationalism today but a belief that our tribe is
the best in the world, that the group of humans we are attached to in
unity, be it of ethnic, racial, religious or regional (nation state)
parameters, is the preeminent assembly of all humanity? Beliefs of
supremacy of one's tribe and inferiority of others have marked man
from the very first cluster of family clans. In order to achieve this
most human psychological need, other subgroups have to be considered
lower in stature, considered third-world, savages, barbarians and
lesser humans, while others must be conquered and subjugated.

In the minds of those groups seeking to invade, conquer, pilfer and
exploit, the invaded and conquered must be seen as sub-human,
creatures not worthy of protection or life. The human mind, in order
to justify the ruthlessness it will inflict on less able peoples,
creates the impression that those now controlled are sub-humans and
therefore not immune to the restrictions of human morality. Sub-humans
are not humans, after all, and can be treated like animals or worse,
like dirt.

The Nazi ideology of placing its Aryan blood above all others,
believing its Germanic peoples the pinnacle of civilization, reflects
a perverted mass psychosis brought on by a malevolent leader and a
hypnotized tribe - namely Germany. In the delusional world of the
Nazis, Jews, Gypsies and Slavs were considered inferior. These peoples
were labeled 'untermensch,' the German word for sub-human. As such,
labels became reality and reality became a holocaust, resulting in
millions of deaths and untold levels of suffering. When a group of
people like the Nazis begin to believe in the sub-human label they
propel, the group afflicted becomes the equivalent of animals, free to
be killed, tortured and dehumanized, free to be robbed of freedom,
opportunity and happiness.

The Nazis, however, are not alone in exacerbating this phenomenon. On
the contrary, it has been as pronounced in human history as
advancements in technology. As long as there have been competing
tribes the concept of untermensch has existed, released over and over
through centuries and millennia. No nation or culture is immune; no
epoch is innocent. With every war, invasion, occupation, domination,
enslavement, oppression, exploitation, genocide and ethnic cleansing
that has marked human time on Earth untermensch has been implemented,
used by the powerful to justify the crimes, rapes, murders and
dehumanization inflicted upon innocent fellow human beings.
Untermensch is the tool used by the human brain that grants man the
power to destroy humanity and all its virtues while inflicting untold
levels of misery onto men, women and children without the interference
or burden of human guilt, laws, theology, morality or righteousness
getting in the way.

Yet our minds cannot fathom the long reaches of a history marked by
incessant war, death and violence. Understanding the constructs of
time and space are not talents we have evolved. Grasping the enormity
of the passage of time, with the rise and fall of tribes, clans, city
states and empires, the evolution of human society and spirituality
from cave to metropolis, the genetic altering and evolution of
diversity coming together and adding to the human spectrum, and the
conquests, genocides and environmental changes created by our
ancestors is not a skill endowed into our primate brains, and thus the
enormous jigsaw puzzle that is human history remains a mystery. We can
barely put together the pieces of our own eighty year existence on the
planet, even as it is a puzzle that we experience first hand. How then
are we to fathom hundreds of thousands of years of modern human
existence, generation upon generation, century after century?

In an existence estimated at five million years, from primates living
in trees to the dawn of living in one-hundred story skyscrapers, man
has not deviated from our mammal selves. Our passions, emotions and
behaviors yield to the animal inside us, and throughout our existence
it has come out again and again to unleash terror on our unsuspecting
species. For millions of years our species has consisted of one
continuous epoch of aggression against each other, with periods of
calm in between, - controlled at the individual level but becoming an
unleashed monster at the tribal - destroying all we have achieved and
the beauty inherent in our existence. Mammals we are, and mammals we
will remain, yet the ego of our existence and the theology of our
beliefs will not let us awake to our greatest truth.

Humankind's greatest demon is also our greatest threat, condemning us
to continue a long history of self-inflicted war, death, suffering and
subjugation. In this quandary we find ourselves trapped in, much like
every generation that has come before, and, if we fail to learn and
evolve, every generation that has yet to come. The worst of humanity
opens the books of history once more, and in Iraq and Palestine we
find what has been, what is, and what will become. The Reign of Terror
upon ourselves continues the slow erosion of our existence along the
inevitable path of self-destruction we traverse.

Is it any wonder that the virus attached to us since we left the
jungles of east Africa keeps reappearing again and again, stomping its
seal of death, violence and misery on the face of human civilization,
especially when we punish our own kind with the tools of despair,
suffering and dehumanization? Can we expect the microscopic reign of
modern man to purge an evil that primitive man could not exorcise in
hundreds of thousands of years?

Untermensch is part of the disease we possess, or rather possesses us,
attached to the constructs of fear and hatred, ignorance and
superiority, emboldened by the tribe or nation state. The mega-tribes
of today only serve to strengthen and release the fury of human evil
onto those less fortunate. It is a syndrome that, until now, has yet
to be contained. Its vicious mechanisms erode the basic foundations of
humankind, birthing suffering and human destruction, both in spirit
and in life, rendering all six billion of us less human every day.
Into the depths we descend, living the misery of Iraqis and
Palestinians, feeling the pain that the powerful inflict on the weak,
losing energy with each drop of blood that is shed and cowering in
shame with each act of decaying dehumanization.

The Untermensch Syndrome is alive and well, resilient as ever,
surviving as long as humans exist, thriving off our own shortcomings,
evolving with each passing generation and festering once more to
infect yet one more amalgam of human tribes from which enlightenment
seems never to arrive.

Unholy Land

In the land claimed holy and promised the madness of humankind
persists, extending the perpetual violence and oppression of the weak
by the powerful. Palestine today tells a story of human evils past and
present, of the worst actions capable of being manifested by the human
phenomenon. Lands ancient and strategic, crossroads and focal points
of man's brief history, once more seem engulfed by competing claims
and boiling hatreds.

Malevolent crimes against humanity, those activities that repulse and
anger, are methodically being perpetrated against peoples who have
been raped of all their ancestors once possessed. Atrocities and
dehumanization on an unparalleled scale are being committed, becoming
the present reincarnation of the past's dreaded evils.

In no other place on Earth is the suffering of our brothers and
sisters so prevalent. In no other region is the tyranny and wickedness
of humanity so present. For the lands holy and promised have been
cursed by archaic fables, beliefs and myths, by fictional claims of
days long extinct, condemning its native inhabitants to the bowels of
Hades and the desolate realities from which loud cries go unheard.

To be Palestinian Arab in the land usurped by European Jews is to be
considered untermensch in the territory your forefathers once called
home. The devastation fifty-five years of invasion, occupation and
state terrorism has had on both people and land has created the
conditions by which Gaza and the West Bank can today be called Hell on
Earth, pockets of destitute emptiness where opportunity is extinct and
any relevant future is a but a hollow fantasy.

Unearthed from the colon of the planet Palestinians dwell, the squalor
in the occupied territories is beyond compare, instituted and
exacerbated by the state of Israel in acts of unhindered and systemic
malevolence. The intent of such inflictions of emotional distress and
incessant pain and suffering is the breaking point of millions of
Palestinians, the realization that it is better to leave the land you
know and love rather than live in perpetual imprisonment of spirit and
humanity.

The desire to expand borders and territory, an addiction to greed and
the aspiration to cleanse Palestine of Arabs manufactures in the
Israeli government a policy of wicked objectives bursting with cold
and calculated cruelty. Thus, the ill-treatment of Palestinians by
Israel makes life so unbearable, so hard and depressing that it is a
triumph of the human spirit that so many remain, unwavering and
strong, even as the weight of utter wickedness is enforced generation
to generation.

Living in the occupied territories is like living in Warsaw ghettos of
the 1930's and South African Bantustans. It is akin to dwelling in
Indian reservations, those cesspools of nothingness in the lands of
America from where millions rotted away their once vibrant existence.
Gaza and the West Bank are squalors of humanity acting as giant
prisons, where dense refugee camps are considered cities, their
perimeters encircled by fences, walls, Israeli tanks and the ever
watchful eyes of trigger-friendly snipers. Enormous prisons within
occupied lands, preventing contiguity, freedom of movement and any
semblance of a sovereign state are the true definition of the West
Bank and Gaza Strip.

To live inside these vast prisons and internment camps is to struggle
with the daily existence of Israeli suffocation and dehumanization
that you know is purposeful as it is deliberate. It is to feel Israeli
claws strangulating your esophagus, denying you of the air to breathe
and the sustenance you need to survive. Life under Israel's merciless
rule means that sixty to seventy percent of your people are
unemployed, unable to provide for their families, as commerce is
almost non-existent and access to Israeli business almost impossible.
It is to live in worlds of child undernourishment and lack of
healthcare, as Israel's policies make indigent millions of families
who desperately need to feed and treat their children.

To be Palestinian is to be trapped in a vicious circle that refuses to
let you escape. From birth your undernourishment outmaneuvers your
development, stunting your growth, making your immune system weak and
altering your ability to learn. Lack of nutrients and perpetual levels
of stress make your environmental upbringing unlike anything on Earth,
a constant battle being lost by both your body and mind.

Psychological behaviors associated with extreme levels of stress and
dangerous levels of undernourishment affect hundreds of thousands of
your fellow brothers and sisters. Feelings of imprisonment and virtual
subjugation, not to mention the extreme hatred of anything Israel your
environment forces upon you creates unsurpassed hatred in your mind.
Education is limited, resources to tap the oasis inside you is but a
dream and the talents and abilities ingrained in your being get eroded
more and more with each passing year.

You see the vanishing energies of neighbors, acquaintances and family
that die at the hands of the IDF and the Israeli government's callous
disregard for your people. After all, to them you are nothing but
untermensch, lower to or on equal par with animals. From an early age
you realize that, since you are seen as sub-human, IDF soldiers treat
you with impunity, allowing themselves the pleasure of taunting your
friends, shooting your cousins, demolishing your home and dehumanizing
your mother, all done knowing that accountability does not exist.

Growing up Palestinian is to see with one's eyes the hatred boiling
inside the cities you live in, where the fruitless throwing of rocks
towards tanks by dozens of youth is the only vent from where their
bursting fumes can be released. Later on in life, these youngsters
will become members of the resistance, graduating to Kalashnikovs and
home-made bombs, lurking at night to defend their ever disappearing
homeland. In this society, death at the hands of the Israelis is so
commonplace that it is celebrated, becoming both a rallying cry and
mechanism of strength. Martyrs are elevated to the skies above,
becoming the role models of the very young and the heroes of the
populace, their faces plastered on posters lining streets and walls.

In this society, born of occupation and seething hatred, the only way
to keep living is to keep dying, and the sadness of such reality is
that just as our children wish to become pilots and firemen, theirs
strive for nothing more than martyrdom. It is this that Israel's
policy of untermensch has created, a mechanism where every day creates
new resistance fighters and revolutionaries seeking the triumph of the
human spirit and the dawn of independent freedom.

Collective punishment upon millions of Palestinians goes hand in hand
with the Untermensch Syndrome, where the acts of a few result in the
decimation of the many. When millions of Arabs are considered
sub-human, long living in lands claimed by false divinity and thousand
year old fables of peoples primitive and unenlightened, their death,
destruction and prolonged suffering is inconsequential. It is state
sponsored terrorism that has lasted more than eighty years in a
pre-emptive attempt to ethnically cleanse by subjugation,
dehumanization and cold and calculated suffering.

Breeding of fear by the intimidation of army incursions, tank
deployments, sniper killings, Apache helicopter missiles and fighter
jet low altitude flyovers is state sponsored terror, stressing out
millions and making life under occupation an unbearable existence.
Imprisoning millions and subjecting them to perpetual indigence,
without ability to traverse their own lands or go one day breathing
tranquil airs of calm and freedom is collective terror upon a
populace. Not knowing if your home is next to be demolished by
monstrous Caterpillar bulldozers, usually with a few minutes warning
by the IDF is state terrorism, robbing families of their homes and
their belongings, leaving thousands without the only dignity they ever
possessed.

Treating Palestinians as untermensch allows young Israeli soldiers,
most of whom are born hating Palestinians, to walk over innocent
people only trying to survive day to day. Stinging verbal abuse,
humiliating body searches, purposeful closures and damning delays at
checkpoints, where the Untermensch Syndrome can be seen in full bloom,
exhibits the wicked treatment of the powerful over the weak. Selected
closures that can last days that in effect prevent Palestinians from
getting to work, indiscriminate authority to harass and stop anyone
from passing, the apartheid mechanism of different license plates for
Jewish settlers - with unhindered passage through checkpoints - and
Palestinians - who oftentimes wait hours in line before being allowed
through - are all symptoms of the sub-human treatment and collective
punishment of Palestinians.

Even ambulances, oftentimes transporting gravely injured or sick
people, many of them pregnant women on the verge of giving birth, are
forced to endure long hours waiting at IDF checkpoints, with the full
knowledge of soldiers. Many of these people, not unexpectedly, end up
dying while waiting, as precious time is squandered and criminally
left to pass. If this is not terror, then what is? If this is not
collective punishment and a symptom of the Untermensch Syndrome, then
where has our humanity gone?

When an occupying power gives carte blanche to its military to treat
the occupied as sub-human, crimes against humanity are not too far
behind and the moral fabric of those imposing the will of the powerful
through the barrel of a gun quickly vanishes. In Palestine, and as has
become quite apparent in Iraq, indiscriminate and methodical
dehumanization, without regard for human rights, has flourished
through the aura of ethnic, state and cultural superiority and the
invincibility of modern military might.

Pitting rock throwers against Apache helicopters and Abrams tanks is
nobody's idea of a fair fight, and in this unequal capacity to wage
war we can see how the Untermensch Syndrome is furthered. One side
seeks independence using only the weapons their dwindling land
provides while the other is provided with the most sophisticated and
lethal technology known to man. It is a battle of primitive versus
modern, the Arab animals versus the Israeli westerner. And so, in
order to try evening out the fight, suicide bombers, with the
desperation, hate, thirst for vengeance and hopelessness ingrained in
their atrocious actions, compete with the state sponsored terrorism of
guided missiles raining down from the sky, artillery from tanks and
incursions by an infantry trained and supplied with the best equipment
American money can buy.

The equation of occupied and occupier has been the same for time
immemorial, with the subjugated resorting to the creations of the
human imagination and the resources at their disposal for weapons
while the conqueror uses rationales of untermensch to deceive its own
morality and unleash the fires of human hell with the grand weapons of
war that riches provide onto the people invaded.

In Palestine, untermensch has meant the demolition of thousands of
homes without regard for human life. It has meant the dehumanizing
conditions by which millions live under, usually in poverty and
lacking meaningful education, healthcare, infrastructure, opportunity
and future. Israel's treatment of an entire race of people has
destroyed the fabric of society and the aspirations of its citizens.
The Untermensch Syndrome has resulted in centuries old olive trees
bulldozed for no reason other than to make miserable the lives of the
farmers who owned them. It has categorized Palestinian as inferior to
Jew, marginalizing millions who are expropriated of their land and homes.

Because of the Untermensch Syndrome Palestine has been carved up into
dozens of enclaves, separated by walls or fences, imprisoning people
in their towns and refugee camps. Traveling from town to town is
virtually impossible. Children have been separated from their schools,
university students from their colleges, workers from their jobs,
families from each other and farmers from their fields. This has been
accomplished by Israel systematically and without remorse, serving no
purpose other than to dehumanize and make unlivable the daily lives of
millions.

Lands with higher ground are routinely expropriated, as are those with
fertile soil and abundant water aquifers. These stolen lands are then
granted to the swell of settlers rushing into once Palestinian lands
and farms. In other instances, Palestinian land is taken for bypass
road construction that now dissects the West Bank into easily
controllable blocks. Of course these roads can only be used by
Israelis and Jewish settlers, while the Palestinians, whose land is
now covered by asphalt, can only watch as Jewish cars circumvent the
last vestiges of a land they once flourished in.

In the course of the present intifadah 3000 Palestinians have died
compared to 1000 Israelis. The terrorism has been mutual, one modern
and technological, the other born out of hatred and desperation.
Palestinians see their native contiguously- inhabited land being
gobbled up by Israel and the never-ending stream of European and
American settlers. Their water is being taken, their crops destroyed,
their livelihoods eviscerated. An enormous apartheid wall is being
built, separating camp from camp, robbing them of still more land as
it snakes deep into occupied territory, making the West Bank an
amalgam of Bantustan-style reservations and internment camps. The
Untermensch Syndrome has been unleashed by an Israel that is intent on
'transferring' out an entire race of people.

Like a Virus the Syndrome Spreads

Like an enormous wave crashing on shore, the Untermensch Syndrome is
devastating everything in its path. In order to maintain a Jewish
majority, which demographics tells us is impossible if Arabs remain,
Israel is making the life of Palestinians a virtual dungeon of misery
from where air and light are squeezed out of the dark, damp caves
where Palestinians now dwell. The goal is as simple as it is macabre:
the ethnic cleansing of Arabs from the 'Promised Land' by means of
starving millions of a life worth living and through the self-exodus
of Palestinians who cannot take the severe punishment and
dehumanization any more. This clandestine maneuver would thus be seen
as self-inflicted and as an independent move by the Palestinians, yet
it is Israel pushing them off the cliff through its criminal acts
against humanity.

Much is said of physical torture, yet it is the mental kind that truly
kills and maims, condemning the millions of Palestinians to a life
unbearable at best and cruel at worst. For many decades now Israel has
waged collective war against the native inhabitants of Palestine,
slowly but surely implementing the means by which it can achieve its
ends. Mental torture is a crime against humanity, in direct
contradiction to universal principles of humanity. It has been
persistent, incessant and coldly calculated. If the treatment of the
Palestinian people by the state of Israel is not terrorist in nature
and evil in substance, then we have vanished underneath a rock of
shamelessness and barbarity, becoming that which we most loathe.

What is occurring in Palestine today is nothing short of criminal,
reminiscent of the Nazi treatment of Jews and all other untermensch
during 1930's Germany. It reminds us of the extermination and
subsequent incarceration of Native Americans by a fledgling US
government riding the coattails of Manifest Destiny. Reservations are
today a sad reminder of the cruelty and inhumanity by which the
American government methodically eliminated the indigenous peoples
from the birth of a new nation. Parallels with the South African
Apartheid Bantustans are being made as more truth emerges from the
cages of the West Bank. The worst in humanity is now compared to the
Israeli treatment of the Palestinian people, and not without merit.

The Nazi ghettos and treatment of all untermensch in 1930's Europe
during the reign of human malevolence, which caused untold levels of
suffering, anguish and mental torture, lasted about a decade. The
Palestinian ghettos, Bantustans, reservations, cantons, prisons,
gulags or enclaves, - however you wish to call them - on the other
hand, have withstood the sands of time for several decades now. Under
virtual imprisonment, unable to move freely, without rights, liberties
and freedoms and increasingly under a state of siege and apartheid,
Palestinians find themselves struggling to survive and remain living
in the lands they have continuously inhabited for thousands of years.
Their very existence is being threatened; their society is being
imploded. Mental torture has become their way of life, like an
unrelenting leash controlling their lives, ceaseless in time and
devastating in magnitude.

They are, if you will, an endangered species, considered sub-human by
their occupiers and the Israeli puppets in the White House and the
Congress, who, even after the International Court of Justice
overwhelmingly condemned the Apartheid Wall as illegal under
international law, voted overwhelmingly to support Israel and condemn
the Court, also pressuring the cowardly UN to prevent the imposition
of sanctions on Israel. If our elected leaders in Washington show such
solidarity with the state of Israel in its inhuman acts of
criminality, do they think of Palestinians as untermensch as well? The
implication sure makes it seem that way, as does their treatment of
the Iraqi people.

Those who were once called untermensch are today subjugating those
they consider untermensch. The sub-humans of decades past have become
the subjugators and exploiters, spreading the disease that once
tormented their ancestors. Those who once suffered enormously are
today inflicting untold levels of suffering onto an entire group of
human beings. As if committing human evil on those it considers
sub-humans will exorcise the demons of horrors past, Israel's
treatment of the Palestinians serves no possible purpose other than to
devastate millions who are rotting away their existence in sewers of
hopelessness, hoping an entire people will simply disappear or pack up
and leave, thereby springing forth a final solution to the Palestinian
question.

The Untermensch has become the Übermensch, the Nazi word for overlord,
or supermen. The cleansed have become the ones doing the cleansing,
and those upon whom human evil once enveloped are today reincarnating
that same malice onto a world trying to never again repeat the errors
of past generations. Yet the Untermensch Syndrome refuses to be laid
to rest, living like rats among humans, forever to follow in our
footsteps, feeding off our crumbs and forever destined to haunt our
inner demons. If those it was once inflicted upon are today its
conductors and proliferators, does there exist hope for the human race?

As long as we let it control us, the Untermensch Syndrome will linger,
separating us from each other, seeing ourselves as superior and others
as sub-human. The situation in Iraq is a truth to this reality, it
simply repeats itself, no matter how enlightened we think we are and
no matter how modern we claim to be. If the pattern persists
throughout our existence, is there reason to hope for its demise?

What makes us human is not our ability to kill and destroy each other
but our vast potential to bring goodness to our fellow beings.
Killing, maiming and inflicting misery onto ourselves is nothing new.
It is rather easy for humans to do this. Just look back at history.
What is hard, and what makes us human, differentiating us from the
animal world, is the ability to turn the other cheek, see each other
as equals, accept our incredible diversity and stop the madness before
we all end up smoldering from the fiery hell we have contained in
silos and missiles. If we can create nuclear technology, enough to
destroy this planet thousands of times over, can we not put our heads
together and get along?

What is happening to the Palestinian people is a travesty, one more
black mark on an already bruised human society. It is up to the Other
Superpower to seek change, helping to bring an oasis of humanity to a
suddenly barren strip of earth. Our elected leaders will not act, and
neither will world organizations. It is up to us, the people of the
world, to stand tall and shout with one united voice from deep within
our bodies that we are in solidarity with those considered as
untermensch, that if Palestinians are sub-human, then so are we,
because they are human just like you and me, deserving of a life lived
in happiness and opportunity, free of occupation and tyranny.

For the moral high ground cannot be usurped as easily as Israel robs
Palestinian lands bearing higher ground, strategic locations, water
aquifers and fertile land. The moral high ground in this battle is on
the side of the occupied and subjugated, of justice and humanity, of
those resisting and fighting for land they once possessed and freedom
once enjoyed. It is void and non-existent in the grip of the
occupiers, exploiters and criminals who produce life unbearable and
dehumanizing. For this battle they cannot win because the travesty of
the Palestinians is the reality billions of eyes and minds now see. Is
it any wonder why the rise in anti-Semitism worldwide coincides with
the escalating campaign to destroy the Palestinian people? Can we not
see why Israel is considered the most hated nation on Earth, from
opinions resulting in the last few years, and why its policies are
endangering innocent and peace loving people of Jewish faith worldwide
who only want to live free of the hatreds of the past and in full
acceptance of the happiness of the years to come?

Never Again, Never Again

The time to boycott Israeli products has arrived. Let the sanctions
imposed by the Other Superpower begin, unleashing the economic might
of billions to punish those few who care nothing for international law
or the universal declarations of human rights. May the cancer
spreading dehumanization and misery on our fellow human beings stop
being spread by the power and medicine of the people of the world. We
succeeded once before, halting the destructive forces of apartheid
South Africa, now a nation evolving forward in time, not regressing
backwards in history. We will once more quash wrongness, wickedness
and human evil. It is the echoes of justice and human rights emanated
by the voices of truth that will tear down yet another wall of shame
being built to imprison and condemn.

Let us punish American and multinational corporations that help arm
the IDF, those that help bulldoze homes and lives, those that profit
from human misery and those that through their instruments of death
and destruction contribute to the murder and slaughter of innocents.
Let us pressure our so-called representatives to stand for human
rights, dignity and justice, not tyranny, misery and subjugation.

What is transpiring in the Holy Land is anathema to human
civilization; it is an embarrassment to six billion people who are
good, decent human beings. If our governments refuse to act, then so
we must, for the sake of innocent and peaceful Palestinian and Israeli
people, for the sake of human decency and for the sake of our future
generations. Walls and fences that imprison and dehumanize cannot
stand, for they help set mankind back in time to days dark and
repressive, unenlightened and barbaric. Together, united as one we can
become the massive tremor that helps bring walls and tyranny down.

"Never Again" should not just be a catchy slogan, an artifact at
museums, a banner espoused but never practiced or a phrase attached to
nostalgia. It should mean what it says, and, as the Other Superpower,
we should interpret it literally, enforcing it upon those whose crimes
against humanity make us all less human by the day.

In numbers we find strength; in conviction, reason to exist. Those
seeking freedom can never be defeated; the triumph of the human spirit
can never be erased. The seeds of justice have been planted, let us
reap its bountiful reward. Let us once more make a beautiful oasis of
a land both holy and promised, devoid of barren intentions and evil
inclinations. Let olive trees grow anew, let children play and laugh,
may the light of day return and once more bring forth skies of blue.



This essay, first published in August 2004, is dedicated to the over
3000 Palestinian and 1000 Israeli dead, who, in the last five years,
have perished thanks to the sickness of human nature, as well as to
the hundreds of Lebanese civilians and tens of northern Israelis
slaughtered by the latest wave of Middle East violence. This essay is
also dedicated to the thousands of injured on both sides, the
thousands more who have lost loved ones, and the peace-loving,
tolerance-striving, justice-seeking peoples of the Holy Land, all of
whom have suffered enormously for the last four years. May you have
the strength to put an end to madness and the worst in the human
condition. May your troubled land find the peace you and the world
desperately needs.

*********************************************************************

WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE

To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
wvns-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/

Need some good karma? Appreciate the service?
Please consider donating to WVNS today.
Email ummyakoub@... for instructions.

To leave this list, send an email to:
wvns-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

FLASHBACK: To Saddam Hussein
Layla Anwar
An Arab Woman Blues
http://www.arabwomanblues.blogspot.com/2006/12/to-saddam-hussein.html


To Saddam Hussein.


When I hear a piece of news , a verdict, or a story that touches me
deeply , I freeze.

I usually can't comment on it straight away nor gather my thoughts and
feelings in any coherent form. It takes me time to distill , digest
and absorb.

I am not a journalist , I cannot report "things". Reporting takes a
certain detachment and when it comes to Iraq , am not detached . I am
very attached. Terribly attached.

Such piece of news reached me yesterday . That of your Execution.
I will address you as Saddam Hussein, Sir.

Even though I still consider you to be the legitimate President of
Iraq, allow me not to use any formalities here. Let us forget titles ,
ranks and the rest .

When it comes to Death , all protocols fall. Death has this even power
- We are all equal in the face of it. Death knows no kings, no heads
of state, no generals. It strikes and it leaves. And you know that too.

What remains though is the Legacy left behind. A Legacy made of words
and acts.

When I compare for instance Your Legacy to that of george bush the
american , I see that:

You have remained true to your word until your last breath.

I don't care what they say about You . The misuses and abuses of
power, the Dujails, the Anfals and the rest of the well knitted pieces
of grossly exaggerated melodramas. I know one Truth Sir,You stayed in
Iraq and did not run away like the rest. You did not seek asylum in
the USA , Egypt or Jordan like others. You did not pack your bags nor
your millions. You stayed and that is what matters to me.

Forgive me Sir, I am not a very sophisticated woman. I speak a simple
language , the language of the heart. No one hardly ever recognizes
this dialect these days. But I have a feeling, that despite all your
alleged hardness, You would.

You know, my Dad before passing away said to me a few sentences that
have remained with me since. He said : My Daughter, many things will
come to pass in this life. You will face many trials and many errors.
One thing you need to be certain of though, don't ever loose your
integrity nor your dignity. The day you SELL those, you would have
sold your soul. And all is downhill from there.

Sir, I am proud that you have not sold neither.

In that you have helped us preserve our "own" intact.

As for the rest , don't worry about them. They will end up in the
dustbins of history. They will end up cited as thugs, profiteering,
sectarian, opportunistic, hypocrites. I feel sorry to say that about
the people you believe in . But that is the Truth.

Sir, take an example . Even your so called tribunal is made of an ex
accountant, turned waiter turned thief. This is no verdict , this is a
circus, a zoo . And they are the animals.

What pains me most is that they succeeded in massacring yet another
TRUE IRAQI.

A true Iraqi amongst many thousands. And this is what You are .
Granted, you had your downsides , your shadow. But it pales in
comparison to what the "Land of the Free " is doing to us. Your shadow
is like a ray of sunlight, Sir.

A friend who is not an Iraqi, nor an Arab , nor a Muslim wrote to me .
She said :

" I feel a pit in my stomach that will not go away. My sister cried
upon hearing the verdict. How dare they ? What is this collective
punishment by the White Man? I will not stay quiet..."

Another wrote a poem in your honor and she is from England.

And others wrote some more.

Even Iraqis who left the country and had known the coldness of exile,
wrote denouncing ...

I am aware that words serve nothing now. But just to let you know that
you are not alone.

Sir, If you allow me, try to imagine this. Try to imagine barbaric
hordes coming from across oceans. Try to imagine herds of
indoctrinated sheep from across borders dressed in black . Try to
imagine every single scum bag in the land that you so eloquently
praise, rising up and ganging up against you. What does that make You?
It makes you a Hero Sir. Yes it does.

If all those armies , sectarians and sellout vermins conspired against
You it is because You have stayed True to something. And darkness
hates the Truth.

They say you were authoritarian and totalitarian. Come and see them now.

See their Fascism infesting the streets. See it in every neighborhood,
see it in every corner.
You said Women are the Pioneers of this Arab Ummah , come and look at
us now.

Rape has replaced sexual intercourse, censorship replaced education
and forced domestication has replaced public life.

You said Education is the sign of a Progressive Ummah. Our schools and
universities are empty.And our Brains drained and killed.

You said Health is Free for all. Our hospitals are dilapidated and our
doctors in exode.

You said Kurds are our brothers, they are now being trained as snipers
by Israel.

You said Christians and Muslims are part of this mosaic called Iraq.
The Christians are fleeing by thousands and the churches are deserted.

Look at me Sir. I am a product of this wonderful mosaic called Iraq. I
am half Muslim and half Christian. And the Muslim half has Shi'as and
if you dig hard enough you will find Kurdish, Armenian, Turkish,
Chaldean, Arabic roots all the way back...

Where is my place now Sir ?

You are about to find your place soon. Like a bird flying to nest into
the arms of the Sky.

Whilst, I am left behind waiting for my turn. And in the meantime,
searching , desperately searching for a place to rest my tired head
and finding none.

Sir, I heard they will execute You within 36 hours. In time for the
Eid. Our sacrificial feast.

You did say you are willing to be sacrificed for Iraq . You still
believe they are worth it.

I envy your Faith.

May you go in Peace now, my True Iraqi...

===

US 'to build 14 permanent bases in Iraq'
Jaakko Laakso
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=27511§ionid=351020201


A Finnish lawmaker has revealed that the US is planning to stay in
Iraq by building as many as fourteen permanent bases in the country.

Jaakko Laakso told a group of Arab journalists-- who visited the
Finnish Parliament in Helsinki recently-- that "the bases are not the
bases the US government plans to build on the Iraq borders with Syria,
but they are permanent bases located in the heartland of the country. "

"There is no difference between Republicans and Democrats as far as
these permanent bases are concerned," Laakso added, according to
Arabnews website.

The Finnish MP said that it is very unlikely that the EU would
criticize the permanent presence of the US in Iraq.

The Finnish lawmaker also touched on Iran's nuclear issue and said
that negotiation is the only way to resolve the issue.

"I hope the next president of the US would show some sort of positive
attitude and would recognize that Iranians have the right to develop
peaceful nuclear technology in the framework of international
treaties, "he concluded.

*********************************************************************

WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE

To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
wvns-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/

Need some good karma? Appreciate the service?
Please consider donating to WVNS today.
Email ummyakoub@... for instructions.

To leave this list, send an email to:
wvns-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

UN Now Will Not Disclose Its No-Bid Lockheed Contract,
But Summarizes, Toh Jam
innercitypress.com


Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at the
UN: News Analysis


UNITED NATIONS -- A day after saying that
the UN's no-bid $250 million contact with Lockheed
Martin for infrastructure in Sudan's Darfur region
would be made public, the UN on Wednesday reversed
course and announced that the contract will not be
disclosed, only a summary. An response subsequently
provided by the UN to Inner City Press' asked and
anticipated questions confirms that Lockheed can
sub-contract out much of the work, calling into
question whether it was the only qualified company, or
whether the $250 million contract could or should have
been separated into small contracts on which others
could have bid.

     The sole-source contract award to Lockheed was
presaged by an October 2 letter by Secretary-General
Ban Ki-moon to the president of the General Assembly,
claiming the powers to enter such contracts. Wednesday
Inner City Press asked Pakistan's Ambassador Munir
Akram, head of the Group of 77 and China, what the GA
will do. He said, "It will have to be considered in
the Fifth Committee" of the Assembly, which ostensibly
controls the UN's budget.

             On October 16, as reflected by the UN's
own transcript:

Inner City Press: And is the contract going to be made
public?

Spokesperson:  Sure, yes, yes.

          the transcript:

Inner City Press: I also wanted to ask about this
contract –- the infrastructure contract in Darfur, the
$250 million, no-bid contract.  Yesterday at the
stakeout, Mr. Ban said you were going to be totally
transparent about it and yesterday your colleague, Ms.
Montas, said the contract would be made public.  So
first, I just sort of want to nail it down, if it's
now finalized, when will it be made public and also If
I could get an explanation... Yesterday, a proponent
of the contract, said the reason it shifted from $700
million to $250 million was that the terms were
changed.  Some of the equipment that was part of it
was moved out of it.  So, I don't know if you can
describe that or someone can come brief us about the
contract details?

Deputy Spokesperson:  Okay, the Secretary-General did
answer your questions at the stakeout in regards to,
and sorry I was going to mention this at the end of
the briefing, but the guests were here, so I didn't,
but in terms of the contract question from yesterday:
As per the established procedures, summary information
of the contract –- that is price, name of company,
dates, etc. –- will be posted on the UN procurement
website.  Actual copies of the contract are not posted
for commercial, legal and security reasons.  So that's
the answer to your question on the contract.  And the
answer to your question on the price –- you're talking
about the $700 million to $250 million reduction –-
following negotiations with the vendor, the initial
planning requirements were either clarified or better
specified by the logisticians and experts in the
Department of Field Support.  Therefore, much
uncertainty was eliminated, thus, substantially
reducing the price.  The contractual risk for the
vendor and the UN was reviewed in depth, thus
resulting in further savings.  Finally, additional
savings had been achieved through the normal
negotiating process using benchmarking, market survey,
etc.  And it should be noted that the $250 million is
a "not-to-exceed" amount.  The price is actually
component-based type, meaning that the UN pays only
for those goods and services it actually ordered,
delivered and approved for payment.  I can give this
to you in writing because it's rather technical.

Inner City Press: Because of that briefing that was
given to ACABQ (Advisory Committee on Administrative
and Budgetary Questions) saying you negotiated the
price down from $700 million to $250 million, if in
fact parts of the work to be required were taken out,
does the Secretary-General stand behind the negotiated
down price…

Deputy Spokesperson:  Why don't you take a look at
what I just read to you and we'll take it from there.

             Subsequently, this written explanation was
provided, as a sort of "Is Asked" to Inner City Press'
questions:


From: Deputy Spokesperson [at] un.org
To: matthew.lee [at] innercitypress.com

1.    Why the sole source contract?

The nature and complexity of the requirements along
with the challenging timeline  mandated by the
Security Council to have initial operations ready  by
October and a transfer of authority to UNAMID by 31
December, required the United Nations to enter into
negotiations with a contractor with considerable
experience and infrastructure in the  Darfur
environment.  The search for a suitable short term
solution has led to PAE, a contractor which has been
in Darfur since 2004 constructing and maintaining  all
logistical  services  to the existing 34 African
Union camps. Due to its presence in the country, PAE
was deemed to be the only vendor able to mobilize
large scale construction teams and assets within a
short time due to its existing supply chain into
Darfur.

2. What caused this to be an exigency? Has the mission
not been under consideration for more than 1 year?

UNAMID was established by the Security Council in its
resolution 1769 (2007) on 31 July  2007.  In  the
same  resolution,  the Council has requested  that  by
October 2007, the mission shall establish an initial
operational   capability for the  Headquarters  and
shall  complete preparation  to  assume  operational
command  authority  over the Light Support  Package,
personnel  currently  deployed  to African Mission In
Sudan  (AMIS),  Heavy  Support  Package and hybrid
personnel deployed by that  date.   The  transition
of  authority between AMIS and the UNAMID should be
completed by 31  December  2007.   Although political
negotiations for approval  of UNAMID have been
undertaken for the past year,  there  was not legal
basis to enter into procurement arrangements until  31
July  2007. In order to meet the Security Council
timeline it was  necessary to enter into negotiation
with the vendor already present in Darfur and which
could meet the mobilization period.   As a result, the
requirement  had to be treated as an exigency.
Exigency is defined by  a GA document  as an
"...exceptional compelling and emergent need... that
will lead to serious damage, loss or injury to
property or persons if not addressed immediately..."

3. As per 5th Committee presentation, price was
reduced from $700m to $250m.  Why the big difference?

Following negotiations with the vendor, the initial
"planning" requirements were further clarified and
better specified by the logisticians and experts from
the Department of Field Support (DFS), therefore much
uncertainty was eliminated thus substantial reduction
in price.  The contractual risk for the vendor and the
UN was reviewed in depth  thus resulting in further
price savings.  Finally, additional savings have been
achieved through the normal negotiation process using
benchmarking, market survey, etc. It should also be
noted that the $250 M is a "Not To Exceed (NTE)"
amount.  The price is actually component based ("a
catalog –type") , meaning that UN pays only for those
goods and services actually ordered, delivered, and
approved for payment.

4. Does it allow for subcontracting?

Yes, this is a critical component of this undertaking.
As PAE is already in Darfur this will help to procure
through local suppliers thus building capacity in
country. In addition, it is envisaged that PAE would
employ over 600 local staff which is important to
local economy.

5. Where is money coming from to pay for contract?
Some funds will come from advance mission funding from
UNAMID.  Some funding will be required to come from
the Heavy Support Package under UNMIS.

6. Will the contract be made public?

    As per the established procedures, summary
information of the contract (price, name of company,
dates, etc.) will be posted on the UN Procurement
website.  Actual copies of the contract are not posted
for commercial, legal and security  reasons.

7. Who signed the contract?  Did DPKO sign contract?

DPKO did not sign the contract.  DFS Logistics and
Supply Division requisitioned the provision of a multi
dimensional logistic services contract through the
Department of Management as would be the case for any
UN Department requiring goods or services.   Following
negotiations with the vendor, the proposed contract
was submitted to the Headquarters Committee on
Contract (HCC) for review and recommendation to the
ASG / Controller.  The Controller, following
consultation with Senior Management, approved the
recommendations of the HCC. The contract was
subsequently signed by the Chief Procurement Division
as usual.

             Strangely, the Secretariat's presentation
to ACABQ referred to the USG for Management's role in
signing the contract. As to DPKO, to which the
Spokesperson referred Inner City Press, on October 17
at a screening at the UN of a film about Darfur, Inner
City Press approached DPKO's Jack Christofides and
asked about the no-bid Lockheed contract, and was
referred to a DPKO spokesperson who has proved
unwilling to answer any of Inner City Press'
questions. So we are left with the above, and with a
mere summary of the contract -- for now.


Andrew Toh and Louise Frechette at the UN

             In other UN procurement news, while
questions swirl about the fate of Andrew Toh, Inner
City Press has been told by multiple separate sources
that the UN's resolution of the case is to demote Toh
from ASG to a D-2 position and fine him two months
salary -- based on not filing financial disclosure.
Only at the UN....

* * *

Clck here for a Reuters AlertNet piece by this
correspondent about Uganda's Lord's Resistance Army.
Click here for an earlier Reuters AlertNet piece by
this correspondent about the Somali National
Reconciliation Congress, and the UN's $200,000
contribution from an undefined trust fund.  Video
Analysis here

Feedback: Editorial [at] innercitypress.com

UN Office: S-453A, UN, NY 10017 USA Tel: 212-963-1439

Reporter's mobile (and weekends): 718-716-3540

===

THE UNITED STATES' WAR IN DARFUR
keith harmon snow
Daily Hampshire Gazette
http://allthingspass.com/


"The humanitarian tragedy in Darfur revolves around natural resources…
Given current realities, no intervention in Darfur will proceed, and
if it did it would fail."

So opined the authors of the September 2006 OPED "Keeping Peacekeepers
out of Darfur" [GN1](DHG, 9/15/06). Now, over a year later, the
situation in Sudan is grimmer than ever, the Darfur conflict remains
widely mischaracterized, and many of the predictions of that OPED have
come true. Meanwhile, the "Save Darfur" advocates pressing military
intervention in Darfur as a "humanitarian" gesture have escalated
pressure in the face of mounting failures, including allegations that
millions of "Save Darfur" dollars fundraised on a sympathy for victims
platform have been misappropriated.

The Darfur region of western Sudan has been a hotbed of clandestine
activities, gunrunning and indiscriminate violence for decades. The
Cold War era saw countless insurgencies launched from the remote
deserts of Darfur. Throughout the 1990's factions allied with or
against Chad, Uganda, Ethiopia, Congo, Libya, Eritrea and the Central
African Republic operated from bases in Darfur, and it was a regular
landing strip for foreign military transport planes of mysterious
origin. In 1990, Chad's Idriss Deby launched a military blitzkrieg
from Darfur and overthrew President Hissan Habre; Deby then allied
with his own tribe against the Sudan government. Sudanese rebels today
have bases in Chad, and Chadian rebels have bases in Darfur, with
Khartoum's backing.[GN2] When the regime of Ange-Félix Patassé
collapsed in the Central African Republic in March 2003, soldiers fled
to Darfur with their military equipment. Khartoum supported the West
Nile Bank Front, a rebel army operating against Uganda from Eastern
Congo, commanded by Taban Amin, the son of the infamous Ugandan
dictator, Idi Amin, who heads Uganda's dreaded Internal Security
Organization. Darfur is the epicenter of a modern-day international
geopolitical scramble for Africa's resources.

Conflict in Darfur escalated in 2003 after in parallel with
negotiations "ending" the south Sudan war. The U.S.-backed insurgency
by the Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA), the guerilla force that
fought the northern Khartoum government for 20 years, shifted to
Darfur, even as the G.W. Bush government allied with Khartoum in the
U.S. led "war on terror." The Sudan Liberation Army (SLA)—one of some
27 rebel factions mushrooming in Darfur—is allied with the SPLA and
supported from Uganda. Andrew Natsios, former USAID chief and now US
envoy to Sudan, said on October 6, 2007 that the atmosphere between
the governments of north and south Sudan "had become poisonous." This
is no surprise given the magnitude of the resource war in Sudan and
the involvement of international interests.

Darfur is reported to have the fourth largest copper and third largest
uranium deposits in the world. Darfur produces two-thirds of the
world's best quality gum Arabic—a major ingredient in Coke and Pepsi.
Contiguous petroleum reserves are driving warfare from the Red Sea,
through Darfur, to the Great Lakes of Central Africa. Private military
companies operate alongside petroleum contractors and "humanitarian"
agencies. Sudan is China's fourth biggest supplier of imported oil,
and U.S. companies controlling the pipelines in Chad and Uganda seek
to displace China through the US military alliance with "frontline"
states hostile to Sudan: Uganda, Chad and Ethiopia.
Israel reportedly provides military training to Darfur rebels from
bases in Eritrea, and has strengthened ties with the regime in Chad,
from which more weapons and troops penetrate Darfur. The refugee camps
have become increasingly militarized. There are reports that Israeli
military intelligence operates from within the camps, as does U.S
intelligence. Eritrea is about to explode into yet another war with
Ethiopia.

African Union (AU) forces in Darfur include Nigerian and Rwandan
troops responsible for atrocities in their own countries. While
committing 5000 troops for a UN force in Darfur, Ethiopia is
perpetrating genocidal atrocities in Somalia, and against Ethiopians
in the Ogaden, Oromo and Anuak regions. Uganda has 2000 U.S.-trained
troops in Somalia, also committing massive atrocities, and the
genocide against the Acholi people in northern Uganda proceeds out of
sight. Ethiopia is the largest recipient of U.S. "Aid" in Africa, with
Rwanda and Uganda close on its heals. France is deeply committed to
the Anglo-American strategy, which will benefit Total Oil Corp.

AU troops receive military-logistic support from NATO, and are widely
hated. Early in October 2007, SLA rebels attacked an AU base killing
ten troops. In a subsequent editorial sympathetic to rebel factions
("Darfur's Bitter Ironies," Guardian Online, 10/4/07) Smith College
English professor Eric Reeves espoused the tired rhetoric of
"Khartoum's genocidal counter-insurgency war in Darfur," a position
counterproductive to any peaceful settlement. To minimize the damage
this rebel attack has done to their credibility Reeves and other "Save
Darfur" advocates cast doubt about the rebels' identities and
mischaracterized the SLA attackers as "rogue commanders." However,
there is near unanimous agreement, internationally, that rebels are
"out of control," committing widespread rape and plundering with
impunity, just as the SPLA did in South Sudan for over a decade.

Debunking the claims of a "genocide against blacks" or an "Islamic
holy-war" against Christians, Darfur's Arab and black African tribes
have intermarried for centuries, and nearly everyone is Muslim. The
"Save Darfur" campaign is deeply aligned with Jewish and Christian
faith-based organizations in the United States, Canada, Europe and
Israel. These groups have relentlessly campaigned for Western military
action, demonizing both Sudan and China, but they have never addressed
Western military involvement—backing factions on all sides. By
mobilizing constituencies sympathetic to the "genocide" label and the
cries of "never again" they do a grave disservice to the cause of
human rights.

There is growing dissent within the "Save Darfur" movement as more
supporters question its motivations and the Jewish/Israeli link. "Save
Darfur" leaders have been replaced after complaints surfaced about
expenditures of funds. Many rebel leaders reportedly receive tens of
thousands of dollars monthly, and rebels emboldened by the "Save
Darfur" movement commit crimes with impunity. There is a growing
demand to probe the accounts of "Save Darfur" to find out how the tens
of millions collected are being spent due to allegations of arms-deals
and bribery—rebel leaders provided with five-star hotel
accommodations, prostitutes and sex parties.

"Save Darfur" is today the rallying cry for a broad coalition of
special interests. Advocacy groups—from the local Massachusetts
Congregation B'Nai Israel chapter to the International Crises Group
and USAID—have fueled the conflict through a relentless, but
selective, public relations campaign that disingenuously serves a
narrow policy agenda. These interests offer no opportunity for
corrective analyses, but stubbornly press their agenda, and they are
widely criticized for inflaming tensions in Darfur. Rhetoric,
aggression and propaganda do not make a strong foreign policy, and the
African people suffering from this brutal international conflict
involving China, Saudi Arabia, France, Britain, Canada, the United
States and Israel cannot eat good intentions foolishly delivered under
the banners of "humanitarian aid" and a poorly cloaked militarism.

The West is desperate to deploy a "robust peacekeeping" mission in
Darfur, to press the Western agenda, but United Nations forces will
only deepen the chaos. The UN forces will cost billions of dollars and
will achieve nothing positive. Indeed, the results will be disastrous,
creating another Iraq and Afghanistan—only increasing the chaos and
devastation already apparent. The United States is hated for this kind
of aggression and posturing, and the U.S. economy will continue to suffer.

***

keith harmon snow is an independent human rights investigator and war
correspondent who worked with Survivors Rights International
(2005-2006), Genocide Watch (2005-2006) and the United Nations (2006)
to document and expose genocide and crimes against humanity in Sudan
and Ethiopia. He has worked in 17 countries in Africa, and he recently
worked in Afghanistan.

*********************************************************************

WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE

To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
wvns-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/

Need some good karma? Appreciate the service?
Please consider donating to WVNS today.
Email ummyakoub@... for instructions.

To leave this list, send an email to:
wvns-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

When we talk about Christians in Palestine-Israel it is important to
pay attention to our language of who is "in" and who is "out."


Christian Zionists Want Palestinian Christians Out
By Timothy Seidel
http://windowintopalestine.blogspot.com/2007/09/christian-zionists-want-pal=
estinian.html


For he is our peace; in his flesh he has made both groups into one and
has broken down the dividing wall, that is, the hostility between
us. -Ephesians 2:14


"On a pleasant Sunday afternoon in July 2000, members and pastors
belonging to local Palestinian Evangelical congregations from the
Palestinian territories gathered at the Bethlehem Hotel to celebrate
the formation of their council. An American woman who was present at
the meeting approached one of the pastors and asked him if she could
say a few words to the assembly�When the lady took the
microphone, I
couldn't believe the words that came out of her mouth. She professed
to the Palestinian Evangelical Christians assembled there that she had
a word from the Lord for them. 'God,' she said, 'wanted them all to
leave Israel and go to other Arab countries.' She added that they must
leave to make room for God's chosen people, the Jews. She warned the
pastors and the audience that if they did not listen to the
instructions which God had given her, God would pour his wrath on
them. When her agenda was recognized, one of the pastors came and
whisked her away from the pulpit, but not before she served the whole
assembly a mouthful of what is known today as Christian Zionism."

This story, related by Alex Awad, the Palestinian pastor of the East
Jerusalem Baptist Church, poignantly reveals the extent to which some
Christian voices invalidate the concrete historical realities of their
Christian brothers and sisters living under occupation. Such Christian
Zionist voices not only ignore the realities of dispossession that
have marked the experiences of both Christian and Muslim Palestinians,
past and present, but also go so far as to justify violence,
dispossession, and discrimination perpetrated against Palestinians.

Stories like these reveal our need to be constantly vigilant about how
we read Scripture and how we do theology. We need to ask basic
questions about our identities, the agendas that we bring to the text,
and about who benefits from our reading and interpretation, so as to
avoid doing violence to others.

When we talk about Christians in Palestine-Israel it is important to
pay attention to our language of who is "in" and who is "out." As the
story above indicates, some people may not see our Palestinian
brothers and sisters as being "in." From one perspective,
Palestinians, be they Christians or Muslims, are usurpers who should
leave the land. A reading of Scripture that erases Palestinians from
the land is tantamount to a biblically-justified ethnic cleansing of
the Palestinian people.

Reflecting biblically on these lines we draw, if we take a look at the
ministry of Jesus and the witness of the early church we see that all
people are invited to become part of God's household. In the book of
Ephesians, Gentiles are welcomed into "one new humanity" (2:15),
because Christ has made peace between Jew and Gentile.

For Christians living in the United States, it is sometimes difficul
to think about the church as the new multi-ethnic, multi-racial people
of God. Many Christians have a hard time seeing and relating to
Christianity in the Arab world as living, vibrant communities of faith
with rich spiritual and theological traditions. This may be partly due
to our lack of understanding about the shape of Christianity in other
parts of the world, and may also be partly due to our often racist and
ethnocentric notions of what a Christian should look like.

Christianity in Palestine-Israel today is experiencing what many
describe as a crisis. This crisis is not due to the growth of
so-called Islamic fundamentalism or the persecution of "believers" by
their Muslim neighbors, misrepresentations that are unfortunately used
to distract from the realities of military occupation. Instead, the
plight of the Palestinian Christian is very much connected to that of
the Palestinian Muslim in that both, whether in the Occupied
Territories or inside Israel itself, are experiencing daily injustices
in the form of oppressive policies imposed on them by the Israeli
government.

Palestinian Christians, like their Muslim brothers and sisters, have
experienced a long history of dispossession and have not been immune
to Israeli policies of occupation and discrimination. If anything,
they have felt more strongly the feelings of forsakenness, knowing
full well that many Christians in North America and Europe support
without question the state of Israel in its oppression of their people.

Meanwhile, daily experiences of humiliation at checkpoints, of land
confiscation to make way for the separation barrier, the illegal
occupation and colonization of Palestinian territory, lack of mobility
and access to basic services, unemployment, poverty, and no sense of
hope for a better future for their children all contribute to a
growing emigration of Palestinian Christians from the historical land
of Palestine.

Struggling with the tensions of feeling forsaken while seeking a
critical hope is a great challenge. Despair in the Holy Land is very
real, and learning how to talk about God in the midst of such pain
requires recognizing that the starting point of any relevant
theological reflection must begin with the question "My God, why have
you forsaken us?" For Western Christians concerned with justice, peace
and reconciliation in Palestine-Israel, discovering our role as one of
listening to the cries of despair seriously while being a witness to
critical hope begins with seeing our inextricable connectedness�it
begins with us not forsaking each other.

As Christians who come from a privileged part of the world, our
convictions should compel us to listen to the voices of our
Palestinian brothers and sisters, voices too often silenced. As we
learn from Jesus' experience of "God-forsakenness" we should also
learn from Palestinians who share their lives with us - their despair
and their hopes - what it means to participate in God's reign of peace
and justice.


-A regular contributor to PalestineChronicle.com, Timothy Seidel is
   Peace and Justice Ministries Director for Mennonite Central
Committee U.S. He and his wife Christi served as peace development
workers with MCC in the Occupied Palestinian Territories from 2004 to
2007. This article is taken from his chapter "Palestinian Christians:
The Forgotten Faithful" found in Under Vine and Fig Tree: Biblical
Theologies of Land and the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict (Cascadia
Publishing House, 2007).

*********************************************************************

WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE

To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
wvns-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/

Need some good karma? Appreciate the service?
Please consider donating to WVNS today.
Email ummyakoub@... for instructions.

To leave this list, send an email to:
wvns-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

"They wanted them poor niggers out of there."
- Malik Rahim of Common Ground Relief


New Orleans two years after
by Greg Palast
http://www.gregpalast.com/%e2%80%9cthey-wanted-them-poor-niggers-out-of-there%e2\
%80%9d/


"They wanted them poor niggers out of there and they ain't had no
intention to allow it to be reopened to no poor niggers, you know? And
that's just the bottom line."

It wasn't a pretty statement. But I wasn't looking for pretty. I'd
taken my investigative team to New Orleans to meet with Malik Rahim.
Pretty isn't Malik's concern.

We needed an answer to a weird, puzzling and horrific discovery. Among
the miles and miles of devastated houses, rubble still there today in
New Orleans, we found dry, beautiful homes. But their residents were
told by guys dressed like Ninjas wearing "Blackwater" badges: "Try to
go into your home and we'll arrest you."

These aren't just any homes. They are the public housing projects of
the city; the  Lafitte Houses and others. But unlike the cinder block
monsters in the Bronx, these public units are beautiful townhouses,
with wrought-iron porches and gardens right next to the tony French
Quarter.

Raised up on high ground, with floors and walls of concrete, they were
some of the only houses left salvageable after the Katrina flood.

Yet, two years later, there's still bars on the windows, the doors are
welded shut and the residents banned from returning. On the first
anniversary of the flood, we were filming this odd scene when I saw a
woman on the sidewalk, sobbing. Night was falling. What was wrong?

"They just messing all over us. Putting me out our own house. We come
to go back to our own home and when we get there they got the police
there putting us out. Oh, no, this is not right. I'm coming here from
Texas seeing if I can get my house back. But they said they ain't
letting nobody in. But where we gonna go at?"Patricia Thomas

Idiot me, I asked, "Where are you going to go tonight?"

"That's what I want to know, Mister. Where I'm going to go - me and my
kids?"

With the help of Patricia Thomas, a Lafitte resident, we broke into an
apartment. The place was gorgeous. The cereal boxes still dry. This
was Patricia's home. But we decided to get out before we got busted.

I wasn't naïve. I had a good idea what this scam was all about: 89,000
poor and working class families stuck in Homeland Security's trailer
park gulag while their good homes were guarded against their return by
mercenaries. Two decades ago, I worked for the Housing Authority of
New Orleans. Even then, the plan was to evict poor folk out of this
very valuable real estate. But it took the cover of a hurricane to do it.

Malik's organization, Common Ground, wouldn't wait for permission from
the federal and local commissars to help folks return. They organized
takeovers of public housing by the residents. And, in the face of
threats and official displeasure, restored 350 apartments in a
destroyed private development on the high ground across the
Mississippi in the ward called, "Algiers." The tenants rebuilt their
own homes with their own sweat and their own scraps of cash based on a
promise of the landlords to sell Common Ground the property in return
for restoring it.

Why, I asked Malik, was there this strange lock-out from public housing?

Malik shook his dreds. "They didn't want to open it up. They wanted
them closed. They wanted them poor niggers out of there."

For Malik, the emphasis is on "poor." The racial politics of the Deep
South is as ugly as it is in Philadelphia, Pa. But the New Orleans
city establishment has no problem with Black folk per se. After all,
Mayor Ray Nagin's parents are African-American.

Common Ground BuildingIt's the Black survivors without the cash that
are a problem. So where New Orleans once stood, Mayor Nagin, in
connivance with a Bush regime more than happy to keep a quarter
million poor folk (i.e. Democrats) out of this swing state, is
creating a new city: a tourist town with a French Quarter,
loose-spending drunks, hot-sheets hotels and a few Black people to
perform the modern version of minstrel shows.

Malik explained, "It's two cities. You know? There's the city for the
white and the rich. And there's another city for the poor and Blacks.
You know, the city that's for the white and rich has recovered. They
had a Jazz Fest. They had a Mardi Gras. They're going to have the
Saints playing for those who have recovered. But for those who haven't
recovered, there's nothing."

So where are they now? The sobbing woman and her kids are gone: back
to Texas, or wherever. But they will not be allowed back into Lafitte.
Ever.

And Patricia Thomas? Patricia found work sweeping up tourists' vomit
and beer each morning at a French Quarter karioke joint. Not much pay,
no health insurance, of course. A few months ago, Patricia died - in a
city bereft of health care. New Orleans has closed all its public
hospitals but for one "charity" make-shift emergency ward in an
abandoned department store.

And the one bright star, Malik's housing project? The tenants' work
was done this past December. By Christmastime, they received their
eviction notices - and all were carried out of their rebuilt homes by
marshals right after the New Year, including a paraplegic resident
who'd lived in the Algiers building for decades.

Hurricane recovery is class war by other means. And in this war of the
powerful against the powerless, Mr. Bush can rightly land his fighter
plane in Louisiana and declare that, unlike the war in Iraq, it is,
indeed, "Mission Accomplished."

*********************************************************************

WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE

To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
wvns-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/

Need some good karma? Appreciate the service?
Please consider donating to WVNS today.
Email ummyakoub@... for instructions.

To leave this list, send an email to:
wvns-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Time's Man of the Year will have the world hanging on his every move
in 2008, muses Eric Walberg


Defining Diplomacy in Russia
Eric Walberg
January 24, 2008
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2008/881/in6.htm

Time's Man of the Year will have the world hanging on his every move
in 2008, muses Eric Walberg

There are several irons in the East-West fire these days — Kosovo,
Poland, NATO, pipeline routes through Eastern Europe, to name just the
most obvious bones of superpower contention. Yes, Russia is back in
the big league again, after two decades of chaos and restructuring,
and the US imperial constellation is not at all happy. As if to prove
the point, President Vladimir Putin recently appointed Dmitry Rogozin,
former head of the vigorously nationalist Rodina party his new
ambassador to NATO.

Stating the obvious, Rogozin commented that Russian relations with
NATO were "at their lowest point", no doubt having in mind NATO's
expansion into Eastern Europe and the Baltics, the US missile bases
planned for Poland and the Czech Republic, the dispute over the
Conventional Forces in Europe treaty, and Kosovo's planned independence.

Western observers, whether in desperation or with tongue in cheek,
tried to downplay this appointment — the equivalent of US President
George W Bush appointing UN-basher John Bolton as ambassador to the
UN, saying the appointment of such a high-profile figure suggests an
upgrade in relations. Fyodor Lukyanov, editor of Russia in Global
Affairs, dryly said, "I don't think he will conduct himself as he
would at a rally in Moscow." True, Rogozin served as chairman of the
International Affairs Committee of the Duma and as Putin's envoy for
talks with the European Union on the status of Kaliningrad. In fact,
it puts paid to any lingering hope that Russia will turn a blind eye
to NATO's attempts to act as window-dressing for the US imperial
agenda. Rogozin told Ekho Moskvy that while he doesn't consider NATO
hostile, Russians have good grounds for feeling that NATO and the US
are direct threats to Russia. Read: he does consider NATO hostile and
will do his Pioneer's best to thwart their nefarious plans. Recall the
anecdote about what defines a diplomat: if he says "yes" he means
"maybe", if he says "maybe" he means "no", and if he says "no" he's
not a diplomat.

The recent electoral upset of the hysterically anti-Russian prime
minister Jaroslav Kaczynski and his Law and Justice Party in Poland
was very much due to sensible Poles coming out in droves (the highest
turnout since the heady days after the Communists lost power),
realising his slavish pro-Americanism — Polish troops in Iraq and free
US missile bases at home — was very, very foolish. Kaczynski's defense
minister, Radek Sikorski, had tried to talk some sense into him, only
to be summarily dismissed. The new prime minister, Donald Tusk of the
Civic Platform Party, immediately promoted Sikorski to foreign
minister, announced the US base was on hold and he would have Polish
troops out of Iraq by the end of the year. Poland had got nothing in
return for providing thousands of troops for the US folly in Iraq, and
Kaczynski didn't even ask for US funding for upkeep of the proposed US
missile base. Tusk wasted no time in calling for a meeting with Putin
— in February — to discuss the base. The first high-level meeting with
Russia has already taken place, with Witold Waszczykowski, the vice
foreign minister, meeting his Russian counterpart, Sergei Kislyak in
Warsaw a few weeks ago.

Furthermore, Tusk made the Czech Republic one of his first state
visits "to coordinate our steps and proceedings in the course of
negotiations" concerning the US bases planned for the both of them.
The London-based Centre for European Reform director, Tomas Valasek,
predicts that any missile base would necessitate "the US putting boots
on the ground in Poland and helping Poland to upgrade its air
defenses." If a deal is in fact struck, Tusk wants no less than
Patriot missiles as part of a US-funded modernisation of Poland's air
defenses, supposedly so that "its troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have
better protection," Valasek reasoned, in a truly brilliant Polish
flourish. Yes, a peaceful Poland, with no enemies in sight, will, with
the selfless aid of the US, be armed to the teeth, prompting Russia to
aim missiles at it.

Not to worry. Valasek is sitting pretty in London, far from
Kaliningrad, where Russian missiles will probably be stationed. And
Sikorski's "maybe" will only come into effect after the US
presidential elections. With the unenthusiastic Democrats poised to
continue their erosion of Bush's imperial madness, this could well be
diplo-talk for "no". And is "coordinate" diplo-speak for "let's both
scuttle this insanity"?

The pot that's about to boil over very, very soon, however, is in
Serbia. Yes, Kosovo is still legally a province of Serbia, despite the
presence of tens of thousands of UN troops. Albanian nationalists have
been chomping on the bit for months now, and were just barely reined
in by the US and EU, angrily agreeing to put off their declaration of
independence till after Serbian elections 3 February, supposedly to
avoid playing into the hands of Serbian nationalists. How clever and
restrained of the Kosovans. However, the Serbs were not fooled, and
look like they will opt for Tomislav Nikolic, the nationalist
presidential candidate, in next month's run-off election.  And the new
EU president, Slovenian Foreign Minister Dmitrij Rupel, in a
delightful gaff, said, "Serbia belongs to the EU and can't join the US
or the Russian Federation. It is absurd to think otherwise, and we
should do our utmost to push Serbia toward the EU." Counting on the
lure of filthy lucre, Rupel noted that Serbia's per-capita GDP is
$3,000 vs Slovenia's $23,000. "Coming closer to the EU will help
change that." No mention of how Slovenia was always far ahead
economically of the rest of the former Yugoslavia, or why Serbia might
be such a basket case — the EU/US-abetted disintegration of
Yugoslavia, and the subsequent sanctions and bombing by NATO. But
compared to Iraq, I suppose Serbia got off lucky. In any case, it is
unlikely that the plucky Serbs will give up their ancient lands
without a fight, and sell their souls for some EU crumbs. This is one
NATO pimple that will not respond to Clarisol.

This US scheme to create yet another nominally Muslim client state is
being enthusiastically supported by German Chancellor Angela Merkel,
who has brought France, the UK and Italy onboard. "The cake has been
baked because the Americans have promised Kosovo independence, and if
Washington recognises Kosovo and the European nations do not follow,
it will be a disaster," said a senior EU official. So by implication,
it won't be a disaster if Europe refuses to cave in to US imperial
policy and create another illegitimate offspring? Can we hope that
these diplomatic "yeses" are really just "maybes"? And perhaps the
reluctant "maybes" of Spain, Slovakia, Romania and Cyprus, fearful
that such a move would spur secessionist movements on their own
territories, are not so shortsighted. A tiny, absurd, "independent"
Kosovo will give pause to jingoists in Scotland, Sicily, Basque,
Turkish Cyprus, even Bavaria. Watch out what you wish for, Angela. You
just might get it. In spades.

Finally, there is the issue of energy supplies from Russia to Europe.
Much as the Merkels would love to give Putin the finger, they must
continue to bite their tongues because they are hopelessly addict to
Russian oil and gas. And Gazprom's march west continues unabated, with
Putin's visit 17-18 January to Bulgaria, a country that depends almost
entirely on Russia for its energy. Putin chose Sofia, Bulgaria, as the
destination of his last official foreign visit as president, to start
the Year of Russia celebration and observe the 130th anniversary of
Bulgaria's liberation from the Ottoman Empire. "We reached agreement
on a number of important projects; this would not have been possible
if we were not trusted partners," he said.

His visit finalised the contracts on the construction of two nuclear
power plants at Belene, the Bourgas-Alexandroupolis oil pipeline and
the South Stream natural gas pipeline, putting the final pieces into
the Euro-Russian energy jigsaw puzzle, by clinching the participation
of Bulgaria and Greece. Gazprom and Eni signed a memorandum of
understanding last June to build the 900-kilometre leg of the South
Stream pipeline from Russia to Bulgaria via the Black Sea. Despite the
disapproval of its new Euro-friends, Bulgaria is delighted, since such
a project would weaken Gazprom's dependence on its age-old foe Turkey,
which is now a major transit country for Russian natural gas. Bulgaria
is also a member of the Nabucco natural gas pipeline consortium, so
Putin's visit could mean the beginning of the end for this attempt by
Europe to wean itself from Russian energy, and by implication Russian
political pressure.

Gazprom is also poised to take control of the state-owned Petroleum
Industry of Serbia, which controls the bulk of Serbia's refining
facilities and distribution networks for oil products. The $400
million contract — which energy experts contend is underpriced as part
of the price of Russia's continued veto of Kosovo's independence —
would give Russia a big advantage over the EU in the region. The deal
would allow Gazprom to build a pipeline across Serbia, making it a key
link in its South Stream plans, and turning the western Balkans into a
hub for Russian energy. It coincidentally would further weaken the
EU's goal of building the stalled Nabucco pipeline.

What a turn-around. The anti-Russian troubled waters once raging in
the likes of Poland and Bulgaria have now been transformed into a sea
of peace and cooperation — almost as if the Soviet Union had never
collapsed at all. Is there nothing the iconic
president-who-came-in-from-the cold can't turn to Russia's advantage?
Will Time have to make their last Man of the Year their next Man of
the Decade, joining the troubled 1990s candidate, the first (and last)
Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev, in their pantheon?


Eric Walberg writes for Al-Ahram Weekly. You can reach him at
www.geocities.com/walberg2002/

*********************************************************************

WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE

To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
wvns-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/

Need some good karma? Appreciate the service?
Please consider donating to WVNS today.
Email ummyakoub@... for instructions.

To leave this list, send an email to:
wvns-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

'Americans have got her eliminated'
THE WISDOM FUND
www.twf.org

February 2, 2008
Tehelka Magazine (India), Vol 5, Issue 4


"Get America out of the way and we'll be okay"

Former ISI Chief Hamid Gul tells HARINDER BAWEJA the troika of army
chiefs, politicians and the US has Pakistan on the verge of civil war

Is Benazir Bhutto's assassination a death knell for Pakistan?

Accidents and wars don¹t destroy a country. It is the political
process that can damage it. Fortunately the emerging leadership of the
Pakistan People¹s Party has shown solidarity with the federation.

But the assassination of a former prime minister indicates the growing
threat to Pakistan from the jehadis.

It is not the jehadis who have killed her. She was rather protective
of the jehadis in the past. Benazir was never soft on the Kashmir
issue, let me tell you that. I served as the ISI director-general
under her. The Taliban emerged during her second tenure in office and
captured Kabul when she was still the prime minister. Her interior
minister used to patronise them openly. It was not the jehadis but
that is what the Americans would have us believe. They have designs
for Pakistan and I strongly believe that the Americans have got her
eliminated because this is the way they deal with countries like
Pakistan. They either use them or subdue them. In the case of
Pakistan, it is both. The Americans worked out a model during the days
of Zia-ul-Haq. Junejo was brought in to give the label of democracy
and to gradually ease Zia-ul-Haq out of office after he had been used
but it didn¹t work out. Zia got wind of it and removed Junejo from
office. The Americans got very upset and destroyed Zia- ul-Haq. I make
no bones about saying this. I¹ll quote from Nixon¹s book In the Arena
(page 109) in which he says when Zia-ul-Haq¹s plane went down,
³instantly it came to my mind that why we Americans destroy our
friends after we have used them². America is a very important player
in our domestic politics. They can¹t be naïve to understand
that Benazir cannot work with a man like Musharraf and if they were
trying to cobble together a dream team comprising Benazir and
Musharraf, then either they were very stupid or had other designs.
Could the charismatic Benazir work with Musharraf when he could not
tolerate even a mild and placid man like former PM Zaffarullah Jamali.

But she apparently came back after a nod from the Americans?

She came back because she had a sense of history and she wanted this
blemish of corruption to be removed from her name. She was pushed into
this situation. Benazir had said two things before she landed here ‹
one was about AQ Khan (the father of Pakistan¹s nuclear bomb) and the
other about Al Qaeda ‹ that she would permit the Americans to strike
Al Qaeda targets. These are two things the Americans very badly want.
One is a pre-emptive doctrine which has not yet been consummated. Even
Musharraf has been resisting a direct ingress, howsoever pro- America
he might be. So, how could Benazir do this? How could she hand over AQ
Khan to them? But she came and in the 70 days she spent, not once did
she mention either AQ Khan or the Taliban. She had drifted from the
agenda and no wonder Musharraf said before and after her death that
the lady had broken her promises. I have direct knowledge that my name
was included in the list of people she felt she was threatened by but
immediately after she landed here, she sent me a message and then
another just three days before her assassination. She asked a source
to tell General Saab to understand who got my name included. She said
she would come to my house soon after the campaigning ended. She also
told me through the source that haven¹t I noticed that she is not
talking of AQ Khan. Everyone knows that the Americans will never
accept a populist leader, particularly in a Muslim country.

Isn¹t it one of Pakistan¹s essential problems‹ being willing to be led
by the Americans?

This is one of the fundamental contradictions in Pakistan¹s governance
and political system. Unfortunately, you in India don¹t realise this.
America wants to be the master not a friend.

Pakistan is often referred to as the most dangerous place on earth.
Does this bother you and the Pakistanis a great deal?

The Americans call it a dangerous place because they have designs for
Pakistan. The Israeli lobby will never rest in peace until they have
snatched our nuclear weapons. In the war against terror, Pakistan is
the target.

But the jehadi stranglehold is evident from the increasing number of
suicide attacks.

That is pure and simple revenge. It is in Pashtun blood. It has
nothing to do with Islam. These are revenge attacks. The girls who
were burnt in Lal Masjid were from Swat. I know that Lal Masjid
inmates were ready to surrender.

The Army and the ISI have not allowed democracy to take root, right?

Partly the politicians have been responsible for this but it is true
that the army has not allowed the politicians either. The Army is the
strongest organ in the executive branch. Even now, when the judiciary
rebelled, see how the Army fell upon it and strangulated it. And when
the media started to side with the judiciary, they tried to kill the
media too. This is the story of Pakistan.

Being a former chief you are absolving the ISI.

It is the Army chief who has had ambitions not the ISI. I have served
the institution for 36 years and the ISI never wanted to have anything
to do with politics. But the Army chiefs always wanted to enjoy power.
He doles out ambassadorial posts after retirement and allocates
housing plots, agricultural land.

You are willing to concede the Army¹s hold over the Pakistan polity.
What about the ISI?

The ISI is a branch related to security. The first line of defence has
to be handled by the intelligence agency so it continues to grow in
power. The ISI has played an important role and it has in its charter
‹ through a prime ministerial decree signed by Zulfiqar Bhutto ‹ a
political cell, so the politicians are at fault and the Army chief and
his coterie of generals are at fault.

The Indian Army has never had political ambitions.

I will not reveal the names now but some Indian generals were
seriously thinking of emulating the Pakistani model, especially after
Operation Blue Star. I agree, the political leadership of India was
far more mature and committed to the idea of democracy than the
leadership of Pakistan, after Quaid-e-Azam and Liaquat Ali Khan.

Please reveal the names.

I will not. That¹s my choice.

The common Pakistani feels let down by its politicians who are willing
to go into exile instead of fighting it out. So, the Establishment
does dominate?

This is true because they have been the products of the Army. The
political leadership here is brought up and nurtured by the army,
including Mr Bhutto. He used to call Ayub Khan daddy. They were
brought up under the shadow of the military generals and they did not
have the guts to stand up to them.

So unless America understands the need for real democracy in Pakistan,
you don¹t think that it will happen?

Understand? They do understand but it does not serve their interest.
They know it but they have helped destroy the very institutions on
which a democracy is built. When you destroy the judiciary, when you
limit the jurisdiction of the legislation and gag the media then where
are the pillars on which the edifice of democracy is going to be built.

How does the future of Pakistan improve?

By saying no to America. And I believe that is not difficult. America
is not being able to handle even a country like Afghanistan. What are
they going to do? Attack us. Do they have the troops to attack? At the
most they can bomb a few places. Let them, we¹ll come back to life.

How important is it for Musharraf to step down?

It is essential for the success of Pakistan because we are otherwise
drifting towards a chaotic civil war kind of situation, like the
Iranian revolution. One man is being supported by America against the
will of an entire nation.

If he is so unpopular, why is the Pakistani street not more proactive?

Because the two largest political parties decided, even after the
assassination of Benazir Bhutto, not to take on Musharraf. That¹s my
point. Get the America factor out of the way and we¹ll be okay. No one
is wiser than the victim and I think we are getting wiser.

MORE at
http://www.twf.org/New
s/Y2007/1228-Bhutto.html [
http://www.twf.org/News/Y2007/1228-Bhutto.html ]

---

9/11: WHAT REALLY HAPPENED (video interview)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5716905530320387662&hl=en

*********************************************************************

WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE

To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
wvns-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/

Need some good karma? Appreciate the service?
Please consider donating to WVNS today.
Email ummyakoub@... for instructions.

To leave this list, send an email to:
wvns-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

America's Days of Reckoning
Good-Bye to All That
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts11262007.html



Pat Buchanan is too patriotic to come right out and say it, but the
message of his new book, Day of Reckoning, is that America as we have
known her is finished. Moreover, Naomi Wolf agrees with him. These two
writers of different political persuasions arrive at America's demise
from different directions.

Buchanan explains how hubris, ideology, and greed have torn America
apart. A neoconservative cabal with an alien agenda captured the Bush
administration and committed American blood, energy, and money to
aggression against Muslim countries in the Middle East, while
permitting America's domestic borders to be overrun by immigrants and
exporting the jobs that had made the US an opportunity society. War
and offshoring have taken a savage economic toll while open borders
and diversity have created social and political division.

In her new book, End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot,
Wolf explains America's demise in terms of the erosion of freedoms.
She writes that the ten classic steps that are used to close open
societies are currently being taken in the US. Martial law is only a
declaration away.

The Bush administration responded to September 11 by initiating
military aggression in the Middle East and by using fear and the "war
on terror" to implement police state measures at home with
legislation, presidential directives, and executive orders
Overnight the US became a tyranny in which people could be arrested
and incarcerated on the basis of unsubstantiated accusation. Both US
citizens and non-citizens were denied habeas corpus, due process, and
access to attorneys and courts. Congress gave Bush legislation
establishing military tribunals, the procedures of which permit people
to be condemned to death on the basis of secret evidence, hearsay, and
confessions extracted by torture. Nothing of the like has ever been
seen before in the US.

The cancer might have metastasized if the Guantanamo detainees had
actually been the dangerous terrorists and enemy combatants that the
Bush regime declared them to be. Had the administration actually
possessed evidence against the detainees, the Bush regime might have
succeeded in dispensing with the Constitution. Conviction of the
detainees could have led to what Wolf calls a "fascist expansion."
Following the exercise of its new powers, the regime could have
broadened the definition of terrorist to include the regime's critics,
thus pulling citizens in general into tribunals devoid of civil
liberty protections.

It could still turn out this way in the event of another 9/11 attack,
whether real or orchestrated. But momentarily the drive toward tyranny
has been blunted, because the vast majority of detainees turned out to
be hapless individuals sold into American captivity by warlords
responding to the bounty the US paid for "terrorists." Any unprotected
individual was vulnerable to being captured by Afghan and Pakistani
warlords and sold as a "terrorist." The Americans needed to show
results, and the Bush regime needed "terrorists" in order to feed the
fear its propaganda had generated.

In Stalinist Russia or Nazi Germany, the absence of evidence would not
have mattered as the judicial system produced the results demanded by
the tyrants. However, the US military had not been sufficiently
corrupted for the Bush regime's Guantanamo agenda to succeed.
Honorable officers, such as Lt. Col. Stephen Abraham, were able to
discern that the US government had no information on the detainees and
used interrogations in order to rubber stamp the a priori
determination that a detainee was a terrorist or enemy combatant.
Military officers made these revelations known to real courts before
the tribunal process could establish itself.

CounterPunch writer Andy Worthington's recently published book, The
Guantanamo Files: The Stories of the 759 Detainees in America's
Illegal Prison, proves that the regime's claim that it had hundreds of
dangerous terrorists at Guantanamo was just another Bush
administration lie.

Currently, support for Bush, Cheney, and the neoconservative agenda is
low. However, Congress, the press, and elections have proven to be
feeble opponents of the Bush regime's drive toward war and tyranny. It
remains to be seen whether the regime has sufficient credibility or
audacity to initiate war with Iran or a false flag attack that would
revive the fascist expansion of which Naomi Wolf warns.

The Bush administration has been a catastrophe. Its failures are
unprecedented. Energy prices are at all time highs. The US is deeply
in debt and dependent on foreign creditors. The dollar has lost 60 per
cent of its value against other tradable currencies, and its reserve
currency status, the basis of American power, is in doubt. The US has
lost millions of middle class jobs which have been replaced with low
paid domestic service jobs. Except for the very rich, Americans have
experienced no gains in real income in the 21st century. As the
ladders of upward mobility are dismantled and the middle class
struggles and fails, America is left with a few rich and many poor.

America's reputation and credibility are damaged perhaps beyond
repair. Congress and the press have enabled the executive branch's
disregard of the Constitution and civil liberty. The US is mired in
two lost wars which are pushing Lebanon and nuclear-armed Pakistan
into deepening political crises.

As Buchanan concludes, "Our day of reckoning is at hand."


Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the
Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street
Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He
is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.He can be reached at:
PaulCraigRoberts@...
===


The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot.
November 21, 2007

If you think we are living in scary times, your worst fears may be
confirmed by reading Naomi Wolf's newest book, The End of America:
Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot . In it, Wolf proves the old
axiom that history does repeat itself. Or more accurately, history
occurs in patterns, and in order to understand where our country is
today and where it is headed, we need to read the history books.

Wolf began by diving into the early years leading up to fascist
regimes, like the ones led by Hitler and Mussolini. And the patterns
that she found in those, and others all over the world, made her hair
stand on end. In "The End of America," she lays out the 10 steps that
dictators (or aspiring dictators) take in order to shut down an open
society. "Each of those ten steps is now under way in the United
States today," she writes.

If we want an open society, she warns, we must pay attention and we
must fight to protect democracy.

I met with Wolf to discuss what she learned while researching this
book, how the American public has received her warnings, and what we
can do to squelch the fascist narratives we are fed in this country
each day.

Don Hazen: Let's take up a big question first -- your fears about the
upcoming U.S. presidential election and what the historical blue print
about fascist takeovers shows in terms of elections.

Naomi Wolf: We would be naive given the historical patterns to have
hope that there's going to be a transparent, accountable election in
2008. There are various ways the blueprint indicates how events are
much more likely to play out. Historically, the months leading up to
the national election are likely to be unstable.

What classically happens is either there will be a period of
provocation, and we have a history of this in the United States --
agitators who are dressed as or act like activist voter registration
workers, anti-war marchers ... but who engage in actual violence,
torch property, assault police officers. And that scares people.
People are much less likely to vote for change when they're scared,
and it gives them the excuse to crack down.

In addition, I'm concerned about the 2007 Defense Authorization Act,
which makes it much easier for the president to declare martial law.

DH: Are you saying that they keep on adding coercive laws for no
apparent reason?

NW: Yes. Why amend the law so systematically? Why do you need to make
martial law easier? Another thing historical blueprints underscore is
the hyped threat; intelligence will be spun or exaggerated, and
sometimes there are faked documents like Plan Z with Pinochet in Chile.

DH: Plan Z?

NW:Yes, Plan Z. Pinochet, when he was overthrowing the Democratic
government of Chile, told Chilean citizens that there was going to be
a terrible terrorist attack, with armed insurgents. Now there were
real insurgents, there was a real threat, but then he produces what he
called Plan Z, which were fake papers claiming that these terrorists
were going to assassinate all these military leaders at once.

And this petrified Chileans so much that they didn't stand up to fight
for their democracy. So it's common to take a real threat and hype it.
And close to an election it's very common to invoke a hype threat and
scare people so much that they will not want to have a transparent
election.

Americans have this very wrong idea about what a closed society looks
like. Many despots make it a point to try to hold the elections, but
they're corrupted elections. Corrupted elections take place all over
the world in closed societies. Ninety-nine percent of Austrians voted
yes for the annexation by Germany, because the SA were standing
outside the voting booths, intimidating the voters and people counting
the vote. So you can mess with the process.

One current warning sign is the e-mails that the White House is not
yielding about the attorney general scandal. The emails are likely to
show that there were plans afoot to purge all of the attorneys at
once, like overnight. And then to let the country deal with the shock.

Now that's something that Goebbels did in 1933 in April, overnight. He
fired everyone, focusing on lawyers and judges who were not a
supporter of the regime. So you can still have elections ... in an
outcome like that. If that had happened, if the bloggers and others
actually hadn't helped to identify the U.S. attorney scandal, and they
had been successful and fired them all, our election situation would
be different.

Basically we'd still have an election, but it is possible the outcome
would be predetermined because it's the U.S. attorneys that monitor
what voting rights groups do, what is legal and who can decide the
outcome of elections.

DH: Well there's a lot of activity currently in terms of the Justice
Department aimed at purging voters ... reducing voter rolls ... that's
an ongoing battle to try to keep voters eligible. Conservatives are
always trying to reduce the electorate. By the way, are you familiar
with Naomi Klein's book The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster
Capitalism ?

NW: Yes, and it all makes a lot of sense. And its certainly
historically true. We're in this post-9/11 period when there is a lot
of potential for these kind of "shock therapy" things to happen, but
virtually everything ... has happened previously in history in
patterns. It's just the blueprint. It's not rocket science.

I could tell last fall when a law was passed expanding the definition
of terrorists to include animal rights activists, that people who look
more like you and me would start to be called terrorists, which is a
classic tactic in what I call a fascist expansion.

DH: Don't look at me -- I'm not a vegetarian. Just kidding.

NW: (Laughs) Right. It's also predictive ... according to the
blueprint, that the state starts to torture people that most of us
don't identity with, because they're brown, Muslim, people on an
island. They're called an enemy.

That there will be a progressive blurring of the line, and six months,
two years later, you're going to see it spread to others. ...
According to the blueprint, we're right on schedule that this kid
recently got tasered in Florida, I gather, for asking questions.

There was a study by people who pioneered tasers, and the state
legislature supported it; a Republican legislator put pressure on the
provost, who put pressure on the university, and then the police at
this university implemented the taser use. So unfortunately, it's
likely that we're going to see more demonstrators, typical society
leaders, in a call to restore "public order," leading up to the
election. You put all those cases together ...

DH: I want to shift gears a bit and ask you to talk about what the
response to the book, what kind of people have heard you speak, and
what kind of reactions have they had?

NW: I'm really gratified by the response to the book. I have found,
with the book's publication, though I'm not following everything
that's been written about it, that most of America gets it -- people
across the political spectrum.

All kinds of people, including very mainstream people. Republican
people. Progressive. Libertarian. Very moderate people. Very
conservative people. They are basically saying to me, "Thank you for
confirming our fears and showing us how these things fit together, and
what we can do about them."

DH: I'm also interested in your process of deciding that you were
comfortable in using words like "fascism," "Nazism," "Hitler,"
"Mussolini." Michael Ratner talks about it in the jacket of your book,
when he writes: "Most Americans reject outright any comparisons of
post-9/11 America with the fascism and totalitarianism of Nazi Germany
or Pinochet's Chile. Sadly, what Wolf calls the echoes between those
societies and America today are too compelling." At some point you
must have come to this turning point in terms of the language -- how
far am I going to go, how am I going to talk about this? Was it a
difficult decision?

NW: It was hard emotionally but it was unavoidable intellectually. The
book actually got started with the influence of a holocaust survivor
-- a dear friend, who's the daughter of two holocaust survivors from
Germany. She basically forced me to start reading history.

Not the end or outcome. She was talking about the early years and the
effects on rights groups, gay rights groups, and sexuality forums and
architecture, At first I didn't even want to draw conclusions, but my
hair was just standing on edge.

When I saw that, then I went and read other history books, and looked
at Stalin and Hitler, a real "innovator." I thought, if people want an
open society, they need to pay attention.

You see the same things happening again and again and again. And
historically people were really mislead and just reading kind of
teaches us the blueprint. People use the same approach all over the
world because it works. This is what they do.

Now we've just seen it in Burma. It is like clock work: monks in the
street ... and because I know the blueprint, how long before they
start curtailing free assembly, shooting monks, and cutting off that
communication? And two days later ... you know what happened.

So intellectually I couldn't avoid using the language. Now in terms of
the word "fascist," it's a very conservative usage in the book. I used
the dictionary definition. There are many definitions of fascism. And
even fascists disagree with other fascists. It's kind of like the
Germans thought the Italian fascists weren't butch enough.

DH: So the Italians were wussier fascists than the Germans?

NW: Exactly. It gets better. The definition is pretty straightforward:
"When the state uses violence against the individual to oppose
democratic society." And that's what we're seeing.

And then looking back at Italy and Germany, which were the two great
examples of modern constitutional democracies that were illegally
closed by people that were elected ... duly elected ... most Americans
don't remember. Mussolini, a National Socialist, came to power
entirely legally. And they used the law to shut down the law. So
that's what I call a fascist shift.

DH: So let's talk about what could happen here. Is America in denial?
Or is avoidance an attitude that seemed to be present in all
historical examples? That people assume it's not going to happen to
them. Does the Americans' denial at this point run parallel with the
denial of Germans and Italians? Or do we have our own version of
denial here?

NW: That's a really great question; both are true. It's really
instructive to read memoirs and journals from Germany. People writing,
"This can't last ... we surely will come to our senses"; "they can't
gain any ground in the next election ... you know, we're a civilized
country"; "this is ridiculous, they're a bunch of thugs; no one takes
them seriously."

History is particularly instructive in the early days of the fascist
shifts in Germany and Italy, when things were really pretty normal.
People go about their business, just like we're doing now. It's not
like goose stepping columns of soldiers are everywhere. It looks like
ordinary life. Celebrities, gossip columns, fashion, before getting
caught up in a snare. People kept going to movies, worrying about
feeding the cat. (laughs) Even while you watch the sort of inevitable
unfold.

DH: And now in America?

NW: Right. So in some ways it is human nature to be in denial ... but
Americans have our own special version, which is profoundly dangerous.
Europeans know democracies are fragile, and they could close. They had
closed. Bismarckian Germany was not a democracy.

But here we're walking around ... we usually have that sense that
somehow our air will sustain us, even when no one else's air does. And
we don't have to do anything about it. We have this like bubble, that
somehow democracy will just take care of us, and we don't have to
fight to protect democracy.

They can mow down democracies all over the world, but somehow we'll be
just fine. But what's so ironic about that is that the Founding
Fathers drafted the Bill of Rights in fear. They knew that you had to
have checks and balances, because it's human nature to abuse power, no
matter who you are. They knew the damage that the army could do
breaking into your home. ... they knew that democracy is fragile, and
the default is tyranny. They knew that. And that's why they created
the system of checks and balances.

DH: In your book, on page 36, you write in terms of the political
environment we are in: "But we are not wracked by rioting in the
streets or a major depression here in America. That is why the success
that the Bush administration has had in invoking Islamofascism is so
insidious. We have been willing to trade our key freedoms for a
promised state of security in spite of our living conditions of
overwhelming stability, security, affluence and social order."

How and why has it been so easy here in the U.S. in terms of taking
away liberties?

NW: I assume you mean how did it succeed even though we don't have
Bolsheviks rioting in the street? Yes. I mean it is incredible looking
back, but in a way it's not. I mean 9/11 was a complete left brain
shock. If we had had wars at home, experienced the kind of violence at
home that other countries have, we would not have gone into shock ...
not have been willing to trade in our heritage in exchange for a
manipulated false sense of security.

DH: Most people were not affected directly by 9/11 except
traumatically by seeing it on the screen.

NW: Yes, but you can't undercredit the incredible sophistication of
the way the Bush administration manipulates fear. For example, the
sleeper cells narrative, which is Stalin's narrative, was totally made up.

And I give lots of examples in the book of alleged sleeper cells that
never turned out to be the creepy, scary, nightmare scenario that the
White House claimed they would be.

DH: In the book you say that fascists have great skills at changing
public opinion.

NW: That's correct. That's exactly right. They've been very skillful
at creating extremely terrifying narratives. And this is why looking
at Goebbels is so instructive. Our leaders have been busy creating
footage and sound bites that can be petrifying, and as a result, some
of us live in a state of existential fear.

In contrast, in England and Spain, where they were hit by the same bad
guys we're fighting, they're going after terrorists, but the
population isn't walking around in a state of existential anxiety.

Gordon Brown said it, "Fighting terror ... well, terror's a crime."
You can't underplay how sophisticated the Bush team has been about
manipulating our fears. And one reason we really can't ignore is our
home-grown ignorance. We now have two generations of young people who
don't know about civics. A study came out that showed that even
Harvard freshmen really don't understand how our government works.

And so we really don't know what democracy is anymore. I had to do a
lot of learning to write this book -- I'm not a constitutional
scholar. I'm just a citizen. And we've been kind of divorced from our
democracy. We've let a pundit class take it over. Where the Founders
wanted us to know what the First Amendment was and what the Second
Amendment does for us.

So as a consequence we don't feel the kind of warning bell of "Oh, my
God, arbitrary search and seizure! That's when they come into your
house and take your stuff and scare your children! We can't have that!"

Because there's this class of politicians, scholars and pundits who do
the Constitution for us, so we don't bother educating ourselves. It's
hard to educate yourself now these days.

All of that plays into how easily we can be manipulated. We really
don't read history in America, so we don't notice warning signals. We
tend not to pay attention to the rest of the world or the past, so we
don't know what the classic scenarios are.

DH: In terms of your personal narrative, the kinds of books you've
written about feminism and gender like the Beauty Myth, Fire With Fire
and Promiscuities ... this book seems pretty far a field. It seems
like it would have to be a wrenching realization to lead you to read
everything and produce the book. Was it traumatic?

NW: Well, I would say that it's been traumatic.

DH: Is it because you are out there on the front lines now?

NW: That's not the trauma. I feel like I'm living inside a
consciousness of urgency and potential horrific consequences. And that
is much more uncomfortable than living inside my prior being where I
generally thought, "We're living in a democracy where there are some
annoying people doing the wrong things" kind of mindset.

But I know that there's a "true consciousness" that we need to
overcome the false consciousness. I know it's the right consciousness
to get the facts. And I guess what's heartening is that a bunch of
other people seem to be collectively entering this consciousness. They
are saying: "My gosh, there is a real emergency here with very
devastating stakes." That is traumatic but necessary.

It is a loss of innocence to see how easy it is to degrade democracy.
I certainly walk around with kind of hyperawareness tuned into, for
example, the toll in Guantanamo and those children in Iraq. It doesn't
get covered well.

There's basically a concentration camp being established in Iraq with
children in it. And no one appears to be digging in to it ...

DH: As we are coming to an end here, there are a couple of concepts I
found particularly interesting in the book. One is when you talked
about the "10 steps," or the "blueprint" that fascists have used time
and time again to close down democracies. You say that that these
factors, ingredients, are more than the sum of their parts, which
suggests a kind of synergy, "each magnifies the power of the others
and the whole," as you write.

You also write about the pendulum cliché, that we have this illusion
through our history that the pendulum always swings back. But because
of the permanent war on terrorism, that may not be true anymore. Can
you say a little bit more about those two things, and how that might
fit together?

NW: Well part of the illusion is created because it seems we are in
two different countries, operating at home and abroad. For example,
they can come at you, anyone and claim you're an enemy combatant. They
rendered people in Italy ... they can render people all over the
world. And they can put people like Jose Padilla in solitary
confinement for three years, literally drive sane healthy people insane.

If the president can say, Well, "Don is an enemy combatant," there is
nothing you can do. It's like "Tag, you're it!" To that extent we can
not be innocent. And then someone is in jail for three years without
being able to see their families or have easy access to a phone.

If they can do that, the pendulum can't swing, because after the first
arrest, it generally goes in one direction, and according to the
blueprint, the time has come for those first arrests. We're having
this conversation now, before these arrests. But if tomorrow you read
in the New York Times or the Washington Post that New York Times
editor Bill Keller has been arrested, the staff will all be scared,
others will get scared. And people don't understand that that's how
democracy closes down. And when that happens first, it's the tipping
point at which we think it's still a democracy.

DH: That is when the rules have changed?

NW: Yes, and people need to believe and realize that that kind of
negotiation is pretty much over. And there's just the lag time, which
is so dangerous, when people still think it's a democracy, even while
the martial law steps have begun. And that's where we are at, unless
we get it.

Because you know, Congress keeps saying, "Hello, we're Congress." You
have to answer us when we ask for information. The president's like,
"Sorry, I'm ignoring you!" It starts becoming thinking like an abused
woman, like: "Surely he's going to do it right this time, surely he's
not going to do it again." And he does.

Don Hazen is the executive editor of AlterNet.

http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/68399

*********************************************************************

WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE

To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
wvns-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/

Need some good karma? Appreciate the service?
Please consider donating to WVNS today.
Email ummyakoub@... for instructions.

To leave this list, send an email to:
wvns-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Israel will not indict police for killing of Arabs
Writing by Ari Rabinovitch; Editing by Matthew Tostevin
http://www.reuters.com/article/middleeastCrisis/idUSL27355169


JERUSALEM, Jan 27 (Reuters) - Israel's attorney general said on Sunday
he would not indict police officers involved the killing of 13 Israeli
Arab protesters in 2000, prompting accusations of discrimination from
Arab citizens.

Meni Mazuz's decision, consistent with the findings of past Israeli
inquiries, effectively closed the case against police over the
protesters' deaths soon after the eruption of a Palestinian uprising
in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip.

"There is insufficient evidence in the investigative material to
indict any of the suspects," Mazuz's decision said.

Police used live ammunition to disperse Israeli Arabs who threw stones
and Molotov cocktails at police and passersby in October 2000 during
demonstrations in northern Israel in support of the Palestinian uprising.

A Jewish motorist was killed by a rock that went through his car
windscreen, and several police were injured. None of the protestors
was found to have used guns. "Mazuz's decision doesn't reflect Israel
relating to Arabs as citizens but as enemies," said Suhad Bishara, a
lawyer with the advocacy group Adalah, which represents the families
of those killed in 2000.

Some Arabs became Israeli citizens after the Jewish state was created
in 1948 in part of British-ruled Palestine. Hundreds of thousands of
other Palestinian Arabs fled or were driven from their homes during
fighting at the time.

Israeli Arabs now make up about a fifth of the country's population
and often complain of institutional discrimination. The government
rejects this.

*********************************************************************

WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE

To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
wvns-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/

Need some good karma? Appreciate the service?
Please consider donating to WVNS today.
Email ummyakoub@... for instructions.

To leave this list, send an email to:
wvns-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Top-ranking Russian military figure Says America had better watch out


RUSSIA THREATENS NUKE STRIKE
By Mark Glenn
http://americanfreepress.net/html/russia_threatens123.html


Recent statements coming from one of Russia's highest-ranking military
commanders indicate that America and Israel plan to go ahead with war
on Iran despite the release of the National Intelligence Estimate late
last year.

Russia's military chief of staff General Yuri Baluyevsky threatened
the use of nuclear weapons in case of a major threat. He said that,
although they have no plans of attacking anyone, they nevertheless
"consider it necessary for everyone around the world community to
clearly understand, that to defend the sovereignty and territorial
integrity of Russia and its allies, military forces will be used,
including, preventively, the use of nuclear weapons."

His statements (which can only have been made in concert with the
overall policies established by his boss President Vladimir Putin)
come a week after George Bush's visit to the Persian Gulf, in which he
attempted to rally the nations in that region around U.S. and Israeli
plans of "confronting Iran's nuclear program before it is too late."

Baluyevsky's statement, despite the stark and apocalyptic themes
pervading it, comes as no surprise. Over the course of the past year,
Russia has taken on an increasingly aggressive defensive posture with
regard to the West as a result of what it sees as an overall plan of
encircling her with NATO forces that threaten her existence.

Russia has resumed long-range bomber patrols (halted with the fall of
the Soviet Union), sometimes coming within inches of NATO airspace.
She has pulled out of several treaties with the West limiting the size
of Russian military forces on Europe's eastern flank. Incensed at the
U.S. plan of using new NATO member nations in Eastern Europe as a
staging area for missile defense systems (said to be a necessary
defense against Iran), Russia has developed and successfully test
fired new missiles—both land- and sea-launched. Russia claims they are
sophisticated enough to trump any U.S. missile shield.

Beginning in December (after the release of the NIE), Russia began
delivering the nuclear fuel supplies promised to Iran according to
their agreement. As of this moment, four shipments have been made
totaling 45 tons of the estimated 80 tons necessary for the Bushehr
facility to begin refinement.

Israel is furious, as evidenced by Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi
Livni's recent meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov where she
called the fuel deliveries "inconceivable."

What is of particular importance in General Baluyevsky's statement is
his mention of "defending the sovereignty and territorial integrity"
of, not just Russia, but her "allies" as well. Russia has not, as of
this moment, signed formal mutual defense agreements with nations such
as Iran and Syria.

Both are on Israel and America's list of countries targeted for
destruction. Both are important trading partners occupying Russia's
peripheries and therefore a first-line defense of Russian territory.

Throughout this nightmare in the Middle East, Russia has demonstrated
a sane and rational character. By contrast, Israel and the United
States under the administration of George Bush, have been irrational
and unpredictable. Iraq and Afghanistan are unmitigated disasters and
the fact that neither the U.S. nor Israel has learned from these
disasters proves they are dangerous to all nations seen as
uncooperative in the drive for U.S. and Israeli world hegemony.

Indeed, Putin recently compared Bush to a "maniac running around
threatening everyone with a razor."


A former schoolteacher fluent in several languages, Mark Glenn spoke
at the AFP-TBR conference on the Middle East panel. He is a prolific
writer whose provocative essays have been published worldwide. He and
his wife Vicki and their eight children maintain a ranch in northern
Idaho. His book, No Beauty in the Beast, can be ordered from TBR BOOK
CLUB (1-877-773-9077) for $28 ppd

*********************************************************************

WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE

To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
wvns-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/

Need some good karma? Appreciate the service?
Please consider donating to WVNS today.
Email ummyakoub@... for instructions.

To leave this list, send an email to:
wvns-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Report on Afghanistan the latest example of Ottawa hiding the truth
from Canadians


Government Panel Gets It Wrong on Afghanistan
by Eric Margolis
Sunday, January 27, 2008 by The Toronto Sun


The report on Afghanistan delivered Monday by the Manley panel was
deeply disappointing. Its totally predictable findings could have been
written without the panel of instant Afghan experts wasting millions
of tax dollars.

This whitewash was designed to provide political cover for the Harper
government, which has hung its hat on the failing war in Afghanistan,
and provide it an escape hatch if the kabob hits the fan. It's the
latest example of the Liberals pathetic failure to demand Ottawa
answer tough questions about the mess in Afghanistan.

Most disturbing, the report claimed continued military operations in
Afghanistan, which has so far cost 79 Canadians dead and untold
billions, were necessary to "enhance" Canada's international
influence. Two days later, another Canadian soldier died in action.

As one who spends half his time abroad, I can attest that Canada's
military role in Afghanistan is virtually unknown to Americans, save
occasional pats on the back to the Harper government from Bush
administration officials. Many Americans can't find Canada, never mind
Afghanistan, on the map.

In Europe and Asia, most people regard the Afghanistan conflict as a
19th century-style colonial war over future oil pipeline routes, and
NATO's role there the result of severe arms-twisting by Washington.
That's why most NATO troops are kept out of combat.

Canada's position as one of the world's most respected, admired
nations has nothing to do with its military role in Afghanistan. Quite
the contrary.

RASH BLUNDER

Ottawa's rash blunder into a tribal civil war in Afghanistan, and
one-sided policy in the Mideast, have put Canada squarely in the gun
sights of violent anti-western groups, and make it appear an eager
spear carrier in the Bush/Cheney wars in the Muslim world. Every
bombed Afghan village breeds new enemies for Canada.

Ottawa is hiding the full truth about Afghanistan from Canadians. Our
flag-waving media has further obscured the facts.

When did we last see a report filed from the side of the Taliban and
its growing number of allies?

The report's claim that Afghanistan's U.S.-imposed regime is
"democratic" is absurd. CIA "asset" Hamid Karzai was installed by
Washington and is kept in power by U.S. troops and a stream of cash
payoffs to drug-dealing tribal chiefs. His rigged "election" was
supervised by U.S. troops and bought with $100 bills.

Afghanistan's so-called "national army" is made up of U.S.-paid
mercenaries. The "army" does not need more training, as Manley claims.
It needs loyalty to a legitimate national government — which does not
exist.

Half of Afghanistan's population, the Pashtun tribes (source of
Taliban), has been largely excluded from political power. Until
included, there will be no stability, never mind democracy.

Ominously, the war is spreading into Pakistan. Canada is backing
Musharraf's dictatorship in Pakistan while claiming to be fighting for
"democracy" in Afghanistan.

The report soft-soaped government corruption. It ignored the 800-lb.
gorilla in Kabul: Senior government officials up to their turbans in
the heroin trade. Canada, the U.S. and NATO find themselves patrons of
the world's leading narcostate, which supplies 90% of the world's
heroin and runs on drug money.

The drugs are exported through Pakistan, another key western ally.
Taliban eliminated the drug trade before being overthrown.

Most important, Manley's report completely ignored the biggest problem
of all. Canada has no political objective in this aimless war beyond
making high-ranking Ottawa officials feel self-important at NATO meetings.

The Karzai regime, which rules only Kabul, would not last a week
without western troops. There is no prospect of national political
consensus until the Taliban and its allies are brought into the
process. The reborn Afghan Communist Party is again a dominant
influence in Kabul, including running torture prisons to which Canada
had, until recently, been sending captives.

Canada is not being ennobled by this sordid, ugly, drug-fueled war.
Its honour and reputation are being injured, its security endangered.

The Manley report is the political equivalent of a subprime mortgage.
It does the nation a disservice.


Eric Margolis writes a regular column for the Toronto Sun.

*********************************************************************

WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE

To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
wvns-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/

Need some good karma? Appreciate the service?
Please consider donating to WVNS today.
Email ummyakoub@... for instructions.

To leave this list, send an email to:
wvns-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Brothers and Sisters,

While hateful sentiments are certainly a normal response to US
history, never in the history of the world has hate dispelled hate.
When the Prophet Mohamed (pbuh) began to preach, the most powerful
people tried to stop him and they put the Muslims under torture and
starvation just like today. But when the Muslims grew in power and
came back to Mecca the Prophet (pbuh) decided NOT to destroy Mecca.
This decision resulted in Islam becoming the most powerful nation on
earth. God gives people victory only when they are acting for His
sake. When Ali (pbuh) was about to kill one of the enemies of Islam,
the guy spit in his face. Immediately Ali released him. When asked why
he released the man, he said that when he has spit in Ali's face, it
made him feel angry. He knew that if he killed a man out of anger he
would burn in hell.

If we want truth and justice to prevail in the land, we have to use
cold objectivity. NOT revenge. The most powerful force is the warrior
free of emotion. Who looks where there is an opening to exploit, and
is awake.

America is a house that is burning. It is falling apart. We don't
really have to do much because it's done.

Our job is to create an alternative government: SELF government. That
is actually boring and tedious work that requires you to talk to your
neighbors. It's not as fun as being angry and vengeful. But the fact
is America is full of deceived people. Why are they deceived? Because
true Christians and Muslims, including Arabs have not been doing their
job to explain to Americans what is going on, how they are being lied
to, how they are being manipulated. In their sadness and hatred, they
wrap themselves in a shawl of fake helplessness and fake
self-righteousness. Then, when push comes to shove, they start
character assassinating or even murdering each other. What kind of
example is this to wake anyone up from their self-deception? Most
people would prefer to go back to sleep than to deal with fixing this
chaos.

So when we see an opening - Americans looking around, scratching their
heads, trying to figure out the disconnect between FOX News and
reality, wondering why they voted for Bush - this is when and where we
are needed. We have known the truth for years. Here we have a group of
people willing to listen. And what do Muslims and Arabs do, and
leftist peace activists? They behave arrogantly. They turn up their
noses and gossip with each other. To say that they are "following God"
is as absurd as George Bush saying he is following God. They are both
doing the same thing. ALLOWING CRIMINALS TO RUN THIS COUNTRY.

The neocons are going to split with the money and after that the
entire country of USA will be bankrupt like Detroit, Michigan. At that
point, Islam will become the dominant force and we will take over the
social services and participate in re-educating the people so that
they can overcome their delusions.

Basically if you want to "do something" about the situation in the
world you can either submit to your lust for revenge and talk about
how much you hate Americans and want them all dead, or you can BE
America. If you are so great, then why are YOU not doing what it takes
to turn this country around? All it takes is 20 people per precinct to
elect whoever you want into office. Why are you sitting on your behind
complaining?

I'm tired of all the arrogant bad-mouthing by Muslims, towards those
of us who are working 18 hours a day to save this country and help the
people shake off the Federal Government. Do you want to help us shake
off the Feds or not? At this stage of history Muslims are marching in
lockstep with the Jews. Don't you want to do something new? Since this
"attitude" of yours has NOT stopped a single death of one Iraqi in 16
years? Einstein said the definition of insanity is doing the same
thing over and over and expecting different results.

Now, and this is urgent: if anyone really wants to stop the neocon
rampage that is destroying the world, then join the movement of
Americans who are intensely organizing to stop the neocons. Ron Paul
is running as a Republican but his philosophy does not have anything
to do with Reagan or Bush. He is a Constitutional Libertarian. That
means he wants you to be able to keep your money instead of giving it
to the Federal Government. Given that your biggest sin as a Muslim is
those income taxes you pay that get sent to Israel, you should be the
first in line to make sure you offer yourself as a human shield to
protect Ron Paul's life and help him totally. He is not a figurehead
that's going to "make it all better." All he has promised to do is
give you back your money and let YOU run your life instead of letting
the Federal government do it.

If all you had to do to stop Iraqis and Afghanis and Africans from
dying like flies is that you had to organize your neighborhood and
start talking to people and encouraging them to work together
politically, why not?

The real reason a lot of Arabs and Muslims hate Ron Paul is simply
because they are LAZY. They use their anger as an excuse to become
paralyzed with grief and rage, and therefore they are of no use to
anyone. As long as you just keep having your post traumatic stress
symptoms and inflicting more and more pain on those who love you,
there is no way you are going to stop Israel or America. You will just
turn America into Iraq. And what will that solve? Who is going to
clean up the mess that America made, if you kill America?

No, America will have to work for the next seven generations to clean
up the mess we made and it's YOUR responsibility to make sure that we
do. Join the movement for Liberty, or at least clean up your own act.

The basic underlying reason that the Liberals are trying to pressure
Muslims not to help Ron Paul, and filling their heads with vacuous
garbage, is because the "peace movement" WANTS to disarm everyone.
They WANT a strong Federal Government that not only takes the guns
away from the American citizens but also takes the guns away from the
citizens of other countries. It makes us more manageable. One of the
basic disagreements that Muslims and Arabs usually have with Liberal
peace activists is the issue of whether or not Muslims and Arabs have
the right to bear arms against their military occupiers. They think
that we should all take the "higher road" of allowing ourselves to be
killed, in order to not be seen as "naughty."

Only Ron Paul has a long history of defending the American people's
Constitutional right to bear arms, and that specifically included a
person's right to own assault weapons. That makes freedom sound like
the real thing, not just the choice between Coke or Pepsi. Peace
activists are at core loyal to the Jews. They fear American freedom as
much as the pro-war people. They want to wrap themselves in a fake
cloak of self-righteousness and feigned helplessness, and just stand
there with a sign that says "Peace." "Peace! Peace!" is what a bunch
of hippies were shouting while a gangster pounded a friend of mine's
head on the sidewalk, breaking his teeth. Slogans of peace do not stop
a bully. The bottom line when it comes to tossing off the Feds is the
personal right to bear arms and the necessity of protecting this
Constitutional liberty.

That is why Muslims need to wake up and join the true citizens of
whatever country they are in, and stop joining the Jews in undermining
the integrity of their own country. Freedom is not about
self-gratification. As Khomeini taught, "True Revolution is about
self-sacrifice." The biggest sacrifice Muslims can make without
breaking a single fingernail is sacrificing their egos: start
considering their non-Muslim neighbors as human, and work together on
a local level to make sure America survives even if the federal
administration goes belly up. If there is no more gasoline and the
stores have no more food on the shelves, do we have a plan yet?

Umm Yakoub

*********************************************************************

WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE

To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
wvns-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/

Need some good karma? Appreciate the service?
Please consider donating to WVNS today.
Email ummyakoub@... for instructions.

To leave this list, send an email to:
wvns-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Brahmans in Karbala
By Intizar Husain
January 20, 2008
http://dawn. com/weekly/ books/books12. htm


LITERARY NOTES
The history of Husaini Brahmans, as told by Nonica Dutt, begins with
ten Brahmans going to Karbala with the determination to die fighting
for Imam Husain. Among them were Rahib Dutt and his seven sons who
fought bravely and resolutely. With the blessings of Imam Husain they
met their death in a heroic way. Rahib Dutt was the lone survivor of
the battle.

WITH the arrival of Muharram this year, I was reminded of an encounter
I had with an unusual, intelligent girl in Delhi who asserted that she
was a Husaini Brahman. I recall referring to Prem Chand's play
'Karbala' in one of my addresses, which was based on a legend.

The legend was about a group of eight Hindu brothers
who had somehow reached Karbala determined to die fighting
for the cause that Imam Husain stood for. They fought bravely
and sacrificed their lives in devotion to Imam Husain. It was in
this context that I was talking about Husaini Brahmans, who
seemed to have vanished from the social scene in India.

All of a sudden, a girl from among the audience stood up and
challenged my statement.

She said, 'Here I am before you. My name is Nonica Dutt. I belong to a
Husaini Brahman family.'

It was clearly a pleasant surprise for me, something like discovering
a rare bird while walking through a jungle.

The girl promised me an exclusive meeting to enlighten me with
interesting information about the Husaini Brahmanian background of her
family. But the proposed meeting kept on being postponed for one
reason or the other. Finally, on the last day of my stay in Delhi,
I received a call from her.

'Let us meet now,' she said

'But I have no evening to spare for you. Today is the last day of my
stay in your city,' I said.

'But I am already in the lounge and I must meet you,' she said.

So we finally had a meeting. She entered my room with two large
volumes under her arm. I proposed a detailed sitting on my next visit,
which was due after a month or so. 'But in the coming months, I will
not be in Delhi. I am moving to Germany and will spend four months at
the Humboldt University.' Nonica Dutt taught history at Jawahar Lal
University and had been honoured with a fellowship from the Humboldt
University. Hence she was on her way to Germany.

'I,' she said, 'told my mother about your comments regarding Husaini
Brahamans and how I introduced myself as one. To that she said, did
you tell him that we don't perform the rituals the Brahmans are
obliged to perform. That we don't go to the temples?'

'Should I presume from this,' I asked, 'that you have turned Muslim.'

'No, we are not Muslims,' she exclaimed.

'Then what are you?' I inquired.

'We are Husaini Brahmans,' she said with a certain sense of pride and
added, 'Now, I will tell you about a sign each and every Husaini
Brahman carries with him/her. On his/her throat s/he bears a line of
cutting, which is indicative of the fact that s/he is the descendant
of those Brahmans whose throats were cut in the battle of Karbala.'
Then she told me about the ritual carried out on the birth of every
child in her family.

She said, 'Among Brahmans, after child birth, the ritual of Moondan is
performed. In our family this ritual is performed in the name of Imam
Husain.'

She then went on to tell me the historical facts. 'I will now tell you
about the history of our martyred forefathers.' Pointing to the two
books placed on the table she said, 'our entire history is conserved
within these two books. When needed, I will quote from them.'

Considering their worn out and pale pages, the books, which were
written in English, seemed to be centuries old.

The history of Husaini Brahmans, as told by Nonica Dutt, begins with
ten Brahmans going to Karbala with the determination to die fighting
for Imam Husain. Among them were Rahib Dutt and his seven sons who
fought bravely and resolutely. With the blessings of Imam Husain they
met their death in a heroic way. Rahib Dutt was the lone survivor of
the battle. From Karbala he escaped to Kufa, where he stayed for some
time. It is said that Rahib had the privilege of meeting the members
of the Imam's family after the massacre. He introduced himself by
saying, 'I am a Brahman from Hindustan.' The reply came, 'Now you are
Husaini Brahman. We will always remember you.'

Rahib went from Kufa to Afghanistan, and from there came back to India
where he stayed for a few days in Nankana. Nonica paused for a while
and then spoke, 'In the Sialkot district there is a town known as
Viran Vatan. That place is our ancestral home. We are the descendants
of Rahib Dutt. He had brought with him a hair of Imam Husain,
which is ensconced in the Hazratbal shrine in Kashmir. She then
recited a few couplets from the book she had brought along with her,
in which these incidents have been recorded. 'These couplets,' she
said, 'are very popular among the Husaini Brahmans.'

Nonica shut the book and said 'Let me inform you that Sunil Dutt was
also a Husaini Brahman. And the father of Nargis too was a Husaini
Brahman.'

She got up saying 'Now I must go.'

'I think,' I said, 'after you return from Germany, I should make a
point to come to Delhi so that you can introduce me to your father. I
will perhaps be able to know much more about your ancestors from him.'

She said goodbye and left hurriedly.

I had been under the impression that the story of the eight Brahmins
was just a legend. But Nonica firmly believed that it is a historical
fact. And it is the belief of Nonica and her community that really
counts. For them the event is a reality.

*********************************************************************

WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE

To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
wvns-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/

Need some good karma? Appreciate the service?
Please consider donating to WVNS today.
Email ummyakoub@... for instructions.

To leave this list, send an email to:
wvns-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Global Poll Finds that Religion and Culture are Not to Blame
for Tensions between Islam and the West


The global public believes that tensions between Islam and the West
arise from conflicts over political power and interests and not from
differences of religion and culture, according to a BBC World Service
poll across 27 countries.

While three in ten (29%) believe religious or cultural differences are
the cause of tensions, a slight majority (52%) say tensions are due to
conflicting interests.

The poll also reveals that most people see the problems arising from
intolerant minorities and not the cultures as a whole. While 26
percent believe fundamental differences in cultures are to blame, 58
percent say intolerant minorities are causing the conflict – with most
of these (39% of the full sample) saying that the intolerant
minorities are on both sides.

The idea that violent conflict is inevitable between Islam and the
West is mainly rejected by Muslims, non-Muslims and Westerners alike.
While more than a quarter of all respondents (28%) think that violent
conflict is inevitable, twice as many (56%) believe that "common
ground can be found."

The survey of over 28,000 respondents across 27 countries was
conducted for the BBC World Service by the international polling firm
GlobeScan together with the Program on International Policy Attitudes
(PIPA) at the University of Maryland. GlobeScan coordinated the
fieldwork between November 2006 and January 2007.

"Most people around the world clearly reject the idea that Islam and
the West are caught in an inevitable clash of civilizations," said
Steven Kull, director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes
at the University of Maryland.

Doug Miller, president of GlobeScan, added: "Perhaps the strongest
finding is that so many people across the world blame intolerant
minorities on both sides for the tensions between Islam and the West."

Views in More Detail

Asked about the source of tensions between Islam and the West, the
most common view in 24 of the 27 countries surveyed is that they arise
"from conflicts about political power and interests"— endorsed by 52
percent overall. Another three in ten (29%) say that tensions
primarily arise from "differences of religion and culture." This is
the dominant view in one country (Nigeria), while two countries have
equal numbers taking both points of view (Kenya and Poland).

Respondents were also asked whether tensions arise from fundamental
differences between the cultures as a whole or from intolerant
minorities. Only 26 percent say they are due to differences in
culture, while 58 percent attribute these tensions to intolerant
minorities—with 39 percent saying that these intolerant minorities are
on both sides, 12 percent saying they are primarily on the Muslim
side, and 7 percent saying they are mostly on the Western side. The
view that the problem arises from intolerant minorities is found in 24
of the 27 countries surveyed, with two countries (Brazil and the UAE)
equally divided between the two points of view and with one in two
Nigerians (50%) saying fundamental differences are the cause."

Asked whether "violent conflict is inevitable" between Muslim and
Western cultures or whether "it is possible to find common ground," an
average of 56 percent say that common ground can be found between the
two cultures, which is the most common response in 25 countries. On
average almost three in ten (28%) think violent conflict is
inevitable; Indonesia is the only country where this view
predominates, while views are divided in the Philippines.

The belief that it is possible to find common ground between Islam and
the West rises with education from 46 percent among those with no
formal education to 64 percent among those with post secondary education.

The minority of people who believe that tensions between Islam and the
West arise from differences of religion and culture are much more
likely to believe that violent conflict is inevitable compared to
those who think the problem derives from issues of political power or
intolerant minorities.

A belief that violent conflict is inevitable is somewhat more common
among Muslims (35 percent) than Christians (27 percent) or others (27
percent). But overall, 52 percent of the 5,000 Muslims surveyed say it
is possible to find common ground, including majorities in Lebanon
(68%) and Egypt (54%) as well as pluralities in Turkey (49%) and the
United Arab Emirates (47%). Even in religiously divided Nigeria, a
large majority of Muslims (63%) believe it is possible to find common
ground, while Christians are divided on the question. Only in
Indonesia do a slim majority (51%) of Muslims take the view that
violent conflict is inevitable.

Countries with the largest majorities believing that Islam and the
West can find common ground include Italy (78%), Great Britain (77%),
Canada (73%), Mexico (69%) and France (69%). A strong majority of
Americans (64%) also think it is possible to find common ground,
though about a third (31%) believe violent conflict is inevitable.
Pluralities in the Philippines (42%) and India (35%) agree that common
ground can be found, despite the former's Muslim insurgency and the
latter's history of sectarian strife.

In all but three countries, citizens are more likely to think that
tensions between Islam and the West arise from "conflicts about
political power and interests" than from "differences of religion and
culture". A majority (56%) in Nigeria—a country that has suffered
clashes between its Muslim and Christian communities—say that tensions
primarily arise from religion and culture, including 51 percent of
Christians and 59 percent of Muslims. Kenyans and Poles are divided on
the question.

Worldwide, Muslims (55%) are somewhat more certain than Christians
(51%) that the problem mostly derives from political conflict. This is
a widely held view in Lebanon (78%), Egypt (57%), Indonesia (56%) and
Turkey (55%) as well as in the United Arab Emirates (48% vs. 27%
cultural differences).

Respondents were asked not only their religious affiliation but also
the extent to which their religion plays a strong role in how they
approach political and social issues. Results were then analyzed to
assess whether the views of people who are more religious (regardless
of their affiliation) differ from people who are less so. The analysis
shows no consistent pattern. In a few countries, those who are more
religious are somewhat more likely to say that conflict is inevitable
(Turkey, Hungary), but in more countries such people are slightly more
likely to say that it is possible to find common ground (Argentina,
Chile, Nigeria, Poland). Those who are more religious are more likely
to see the problem arising from culture in France, South Korea, and
Turkey, but more likely to attribute it to conflicts of power in
Hungary, UAE and the Philippines. So globally, there is no consistent
effect.

In total 28,389 citizens in Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada,
Chile, China, Egypt, France, Germany, Great Britain, Greece, Hungary,
India, Indonesia, Italy, Kenya, Lebanon, Mexico, Nigeria, Philippines,
Poland, Portugal, Russia, South Korea, Turkey, United Arab Emirates,
and the United States were interviewed between 3 November 2006 and 16
January 2007. Polling was conducted for the BBC World Service by the
international polling firm GlobeScan and its research partners in each
country. In 10 of the 27 countries, the sample was limited to major
urban areas. The margin of error per country ranges from +/-2.5 to 4
percent. For more details, please see the Methodology section or visit
www.globescan.com or www.pipa.org.


For media interviews with the participating pollsters, please contact:

Doug Miller, President

GlobeScan Incorporated, London
Doug.Miller @ GlobeScan.com

Steven Kull, Director
Program on International Policy Attitudes, Washington
Skull @ pipa.org

GlobeScan Incorporated is a global public opinion and stakeholder
research consultancy with offices in Toronto, London, and Washington.
GlobeScan conducts custom research and annual tracking studies on
global issues. With a research network spanning 50+ countries,
GlobeScan works with global companies, multilateral agencies, national
governments, and non-government organizations to deliver
research-based insights for successful strategies.

The Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) is a joint
program of the Center on Policy Attitudes and the Center for
International and Security Studies at the University of Maryland. PIPA
undertakes research on attitudes in publics around the world on a
variety of international issues and publishes the website/webzine
WorldPublicOpinion.org.

The BBC exists to enrich people's lives with great programmes and
services on television, radio and online that inform, educate and
entertain. Its vision is to be the most creative, trusted organization
in the world. BBC reporters and correspondents at home and abroad can
be called on for expert coverage across a huge range of subject areas.
With over sixty foreign bureaux, the BBC has the largest newsgathering
operation in the world. BBC World Service provides international news,
analysis and information in English and 32 other languages.

===

Backgrounder

EUROPE

Great Britain: A very large majority (77%) of Britons say that it is
possible to find common ground between Muslim and Western cultures;
only 15 percent see violent conflict as inevitable. A modest 52
percent majority thinks conflicts over political power and interests
are primarily responsible for tensions between Islam and the West; 29
percent believe differences of religion and culture are primarily
responsible, and 9 percent say both. Seven in ten (70%) say
"intolerant minorities on both sides" are the primary cause of current
tensions—the highest response recorded among the study's 27 countries.
Another 8 percent blame an intolerant Muslim minority, and 1 percent
an intolerant Western minority. Only 9 percent think fundamental
cultural differences are responsible.

Germany: A large plurality of Germans (49%) think that it is possible
to find common ground between Muslim and Western cultures, but a
sizable 39 percent thinks violent conflict is inevitable—the highest
percentage among the European countries polled. A clear majority (55%)
says that the tensions between Islam and the West arise primarily from
conflicts about political power and interests, not about religion.
Sixty –eight percent see the conflicts arising from intolerant
minorities, with 44 percent saying "intolerant minorities on both
sides;" another 20 percent choosing an intolerant Muslim minority; and
4 percent saying an intolerant Western minority. Only 25 percent blame
fundamental differences between the cultures.

France: The French—like the English and Italians—emphatically reject
the idea that conflict between Islam and the West is inevitable.
Sixty-nine percent say it is possible to find common ground between
Western and Islamic cultures; only 23 percent say conflict is
inevitable. Asked about the causes of tensions, just 29 percent see
them as primarily arising from differences of religion and culture,
while a 56 percent majority see them as based on power conflicts (with
11% saying "both"). Offered four options, an exceptionally high 68
percent say that global tensions between Islam and the West are caused
primarily by "intolerant minorities on both sides." Another 17 percent
say "an intolerant Muslim minority" is primarily responsible. Only 7
percent blame fundamental cultural differences.

Russia: Russians tend to agree with the rest of the world that Muslim
and Western cultures are capable of finding common ground. Forty-nine
percent of Russians hold this view, while just 23 percent consider
violent conflict to be inevitable. A slight majority also rejects the
idea that tensions between Islam and the West are the result of
religious and cultural differences. Fifty-three percent of Russians
believe that these tensions arise from conflicts over political power
and interests; only 19 percent blame culture. Given the option of
naming fundamental cultural differences or intolerant minorities as
the cause of tensions between Islam and the West, just 18 percent
prefer the cultural explanation. Nearly six in ten (59%) blame
intolerant minorities, with the largest number citing minorities on
both sides (40%) rather than just Muslim (13%) or Western (6%) minorities.

Italy: More than three out of four Italians—78 percent—say it is
possible to find common ground between Muslim and Western cultures,
the greatest number of all 6

the European publics polled. A very small minority—14 percent—sees
conflict as inevitable. Fifty-eight percent see conflicts over
political power and interests as the primary causes of tensions
between Islam and the West; 22 percent cite religious and cultural
differences. Offered four options, a 45 percent plurality blames
"intolerant minorities on both sides" for current tensions; another 18
percent blame an intolerant Muslim minority, and 1 percent an
intolerant Western minority. Twenty-three percent blame fundamental
cultural differences.

Portugal: Two in three Portuguese (66%) think common ground can be
found between Muslim and Western cultures, with only 26 percent saying
that violent conflict is inevitable. A modest majority of 52 percent
think the tensions between Islam and the West arise more from
conflicts about political power and interests, but a third (34%) see
them as arising more from differences of religion and culture (both,
11%). In answer to a question with four options, a bare majority of 52
percent see the current tensions as caused more by intolerant
minorities (on both sides, 40%; on the Muslim side, 10%; on the
Western side, 2%). Thirty-nine percent attribute the tensions more to
fundamental cultural differences.

Poland: Forty-six percent of Poles think it possible to find common
ground between Muslim and Western cultures, while 19 percent think
violent conflict is inevitable (34 percent decline to answer). Poles
are unique in that they are divided on whether tensions between Islam
and the West arise more from differences of religion and culture (34%)
or from conflicts about political power and interests (37%). But,
given four options only 18 percent think these tensions are caused
more by fundamental differences between the two cultures, while 46
percent blame intolerant minorities, with 33 percent citing
"intolerant minorities on both sides" as the biggest cause of current
tensions; another 11 percent blame an intolerant Muslim minority, and
2 percent an intolerant Western minority.

Hungary: While Hungarians' positions are consistent with the global
trends, they are unique in that these positions are held by relatively
modest pluralities. A 42 percent plurality thinks it is possible to
find common ground in the relationship between Muslim and Western
cultures, while 27 percent thinks violent conflict is inevitable (31
percent declined to choose either response). Similarly, 42 percent
thinks the tensions between and Islam and the West arise more from
conflicts over political power than from differences of religion and
culture (25%). Thirty-nine percent see intolerance (of minorities) as
the primary cause of global tensions, whether on both sides (20%), on
the Muslim side (12%), or on the Western side (7%). Twenty-nine
percent blame fundamental differences between the two cultures.

Greece: Sixty-two percent of Greeks think it is possible to find
common ground between Muslim and Western cultures; only 26 percent see
violent conflict as inevitable. Fifty-nine percent see the tensions as
primarily arising from conflicts about political power and interests;
only 23 percent say that differences of religion and culture are
primarily at fault. A 49 percent plurality views "intolerant
minorities on both sides" as responsible for tensions; another 11
percent blame an intolerant Muslim minority, and 4 percent an
intolerant Western minority. Eleven percent say instead that tensions
are based on fundamental cultural differences.

===

ASIA

Indonesia: Indonesians are unique in that a slight majority (51%) say
that violent conflict between Islam and the West is inevitable, while
40 percent believes that it is possible for the two sides to find
common ground. However only 35 percent say global tensions between
Islam and the West are due to "fundamental differences between the two
cultures," while 55 percent attribute it to the intolerance of
minorities: 28 percent hold intolerant Muslims responsible, 23 percent
blame both sides, and 4 percent blame Western minorities. Further,
when asked about the source of tensions between Islam and the West,
only 35 percent blame them on "differences in religion and culture"
while a majority (56%) blames them on conflicts over political power
and interests.

China: The Chinese public tends to agree that Muslim and Western
cultures can find common ground. Half of Chinese respondents believe
this while only one-third (34%) feels that violent conflict between
the two is inevitable. More than three in five (62%) say that
"conflicts about political power and interests" are responsible for
the tensions between Islam and the West; very few (14%) blame cultural
or religious differences. Similarly, a majority (53%) of Chinese
respondents select the intolerance of minorities as the chief cause of
current tensions between Islam and the West, while just 19 percent
attribute them to fundamental differences between the two cultures.
One-third (33%) blames intolerant minorities "on both sides;" 11
percent an intolerant Western minority, and 9 percent an intolerant
Muslim minority.

India: The most common view among Indians is that Muslim and Western
cultures can find common ground (35%) but a significant number feel
that conflict between the two is inevitable (24%). Indian views about
the source of tensions between Islam and the West are also somewhat
mixed, with many not taking a position. About a third (32%) say that
tensions arise from conflicts over political power and interests,
while a quarter (25%) blame differences in religion and culture.
Similarly, while 43 percent of Indians believe that intolerant
minorities are the cause of current tensions between Islam and the
West, 27 percent cite fundamental differences between the two
cultures. Among those who blame intolerant minorities, nineteen
percent specify a Muslim minority, while smaller numbers say an
intolerant Western minority (12%) or intolerance on both sides (12%).

Australia: Most Australians believe that it is possible for Muslim and
Western cultures to find common ground. Sixty-eight percent hold this
view, while just 26 percent think "violent conflict is inevitable."
Half of Australians (50%) believe tensions between Islam and the West
arise primarily from conflicts about political power and interests,
while considerably fewer (35%) feel "differences of religion and
culture" are the source. Asked to identify the main cause of current
global tensions between Islam and the West, a very large majority
(80%) selects intolerant minorities, including 68 percent who blame
minorities "on both sides." Very few Australians (14%) attribute these
tensions to fundamental differences between the two cultures.

South Korea: South Koreans generally feel that Muslim and Western
cultures are capable of finding common ground. A significant majority
(57%) believes that such agreement is possible and just 29 percent say
that violent conflict is inevitable. More 8

than three in five Koreans (61%) attribute tensions between Islam and
the West to "conflicts about political power and interests." Only 32
percent say that these tensions have arisen from religious and
cultural differences. A large majority (72%) sees intolerance by
minorities as the main cause of current global tensions between Islam
and the West, including 46 percent who blame "both sides." Very few
Koreans blame only an intolerant Western (16%) or Muslim (10%)
minority for the tensions. Less than one-quarter (24%) of Koreans
think fundamental cultural differences are responsible.

Philippines: The public in the Philippines stand out in that it is
divided over whether Muslim and Western cultures can find common
ground. While 42 percent of Filipinos believe that it is possible for
the two cultures to find areas of agreement, 39 percent think that
violent conflict is inevitable. A slight majority (51%) believes that
tensions between Islam and the West arise from conflicts over
political power and interests but more than a third (36%) blames
religious and cultural differences. Asked to identify the main reason
for current global tensions between Islam and the West, a majority of
Filipinos (50%) blames intolerant minorities, while just 36 percent
cite fundamental cultural differences. Filipinos generally say
intolerant minorities on both sides (42%), are responsible, rather
than an intolerant Muslim (6%) or Western (2%) minority.

MIDDLE EAST

Lebanon: Among the Middle Eastern publics surveyed, the Lebanese are
the most optimistic that Muslim and Western cultures can find common
ground. More than two out of three (68%) Lebanese hold this view while
only a quarter (26%) believes that violent conflict between Muslim and
Western cultures is inevitable. The Lebanese overwhelmingly (78%)
attribute current tensions between Islam and the West to conflicts
over political power and interests rather than differences in religion
or culture. Similarly, most Lebanese (59%) blame the tensions on
intolerant minorities, whether such minorities are from both sides
(24%), Western (20%), or Muslim (15%). Only about one-third (35%) of
Lebanese believes these tensions are rooted in "fundamental
differences between these two cultures."

Egypt: A majority (54%) of Egyptians believes that Muslim and Western
cultures can find common ground, though a somewhat high percentage
(43%) think that violent conflict between Islam and Western cultures
is inevitable. Asked about the causes of tension between Islam and the
West, 57 percent cite conflicts over political power and interests
rather than differences of religion and culture (36%). Most Egyptians
(59%) also blame such tensions on "intolerant minorities" from both
sides (24%), Muslim (20%), or Western (15%). A significant minority
(39%) of Egyptians, however, believes fundamental differences between
Islam and Western cultures are the main source of the "current global
tensions between Islam and the West." This is higher than any other
public polled in the Middle East.

Turkey: Almost half (49%) of Turks believe that it is possible for
Muslim and Western cultures to find common ground, while nearly a
third (29%) think that violent conflict between Islam and the West is
inevitable. Asked about the source of tensions between Islam and the
West, a majority (55%) of Turks attributes them to 9

political power and interests rather than religious and cultural
differences (23%). A majority of Turks (57%) blame current tensions
between Islam and the West on intolerant minorities. Among those who
blame intolerance, 35 percent say it is found on "both sides" and 20
percent say "an intolerant Western minority." Only a limited number
(2%) of Turks blame "an intolerant Muslim minority." About a quarter
(23%) of Turks believes that tensions arise out of fundamental
differences between these two cultures.

United Arab Emirates: A significant portion of the public in the
United Arab Emirates rejects the notion that conflict between Islam
and the West cannot be avoided, believing instead the two cultures can
find common ground. A plurality (47%) of Emiratis holds this
optimistic view, while slightly more than a quarter (27%) says that
violent conflict between Muslim and Western cultures is inevitable. A
plurality (48%) of Emiratis also believes that the tensions between
Islam and the West are generated by conflicts over political power and
interests rather than differences in religion or culture. Only 27%
think that these tensions "arise from differences in religion and
culture." However, Emiratis seem divided about whether the tensions
between Islam and the West are caused more by fundamental differences
between the two (37%) or by the intolerance of minorities (38%). Of
those who blame minorities, most fault both sides (20%), while very
few hold either a Western minority (11%) or a Muslim minority (7%)
responsible.

NORTH AMERICA

United States: Twice as many Americans believe that Muslim and Western
cultures can find common ground than say that violent conflict is
inevitable. A large majority (64%) feels the two cultures can find
areas of agreement while just 31 percent believe that violence is
inevitable. Nearly half (49%) of Americans believe the tensions
between Islam and the West result from conflicts about political power
and interests, yet a significant number (38%) also say that these
tensions arise from "differences in religion and culture." Asked
whether fundamental differences or the intolerance of minorities was
the main cause of current tensions between Islam and the West, nearly
three-quarters (73%) of Americans blame intolerant minorities, whether
on both sides (54%), Muslim (12%) or Western (7%). Only 17 percent say
that "fundamental differences" between the two are responsible.

Canada: More than seven in ten Canadians believe common ground can be
found between Muslim and Western cultures. Seventy-three percent say
that common ground can be found, while just 16 percent believe that
violent conflict is inevitable. A significant majority (56%) of
Canadians sees "conflicts about political power and interests" as the
source of tensions between Islam and the West, while fewer than three
in ten (29%) believe they arise from religious and cultural
differences. Three in four Canadians (74%) also see intolerant
minorities as a primary reason for tensions between Islam and the West
compared to just 19 percent who blame cultural differences. Fifty-five
percent of Canadians fault intolerant minorities on both sides, far
more than those who specifically cite a Muslim (12%) or Western (7%)
minority.

===

LATIN AMERICA

Argentina: More Argentines believe that Muslim and Western cultures
can find common ground than feel that violent conflict between the two
is inevitable. Forty-six percent in Argentina believe it is possible
to find common ground, while just 29 percent take the opposing
viewpoint that conflict is unavoidable. A significant majority (58%)
sees the tensions between Islam and the West as the result of
conflicts over "political power and interests." Very few (18%)
attribute these tensions to "differences of religion and culture."
Asked to identify whether fundamental differences between Islam and
the West or intolerance by specific minority groups has given rise to
tensions between the two cultures, just 26 percent select fundamental
differences. Forty-four percent assigns responsibility to intolerant
minorities, including 37 percent who blame minorities "on both sides."

Brazil: A large number of Brazilians feel that Muslim and Western
cultures are capable of finding common ground. A majority (60%)
believes that reaching this understanding is possible, nearly twice as
many as those who feel that "violent conflict is inevitable" (31%).
However, Brazilians are less confident about the source of tensions
between Islam and the West. While a plurality (42%) sees these
tensions as the product of "conflict about political power and
interests," 28 percent hold religious and cultural differences
responsible. Brazilians appear even more conflicted when asked to
choose whether fundamental differences between Islam and the West or
intolerance by minority groups are the primary cause of global
tensions. Respondents are divided about this: 39 percent select
intolerant minorities (including 32 percent who choose intolerant
minorities on both sides), while 36 percent name "fundamental
differences between the two cultures."

Chile: Chileans tend to reject the idea that Muslim and Western
cultures face inevitable violent conflict and instead believe that
they can find common ground. A plurality (45%) believes that common
ground is attainable, while just 30 percent see violent conflict
between the two cultures as inescapable. Nearly half (49%) of Chileans
believe that global tensions between Islam and the West arise from
conflicts over political power and interests. Fewer than three in ten
(28%) in Chile attribute these tensions to "differences of religion
and culture" between the two. Similarly, Chileans see intolerant
minorities as the primary cause of global tensions between Islam and
the West: 41 percent say these minorities are responsible, including
29 percent who blame minorities "on both sides." Again, only 30
percent feel that fundamental differences between Islam and the West
are the source of these global tensions.

Mexico: Most Mexicans feel that common ground can be established
between Muslim and Western cultures. A large majority (69%) believes
that the two can find common ground. Just one in ten (11%) says that
violent conflict is inevitable. Mexicans are similarly certain that
tensions between the two cultures result from conflicts over political
power and interests, not inherent religious and cultural differences.
Seventy-two percent take the view that political and power-driven
conflicts are the primary source of these tensions, while just 14
percent believe they stem from differences in religion and culture.
Furthermore, an equally large majority (73%) of Mexicans sees the
intolerance of minority groups as a source of tension 11

between Islam and the West, including two-thirds (67%) who blame
minorities on both sides. Just 12 percent blame such tensions on
"fundamental differences."

AFRICA

Kenya: Only a plurality (46%) of Kenyans believe Muslim and Western
cultures can put aside their differences, while a significant number
(35%) believe violent conflict between the two "is inevitable."
Kenyans are somewhat divided on the source of tensions between Islam
and the West. Thirty-nine percent say tensions between the two groups
arise mainly from "differences of religion and culture," while 41
percent cite "conflicts about political power and interests." Kenyan
opinion is mixed about whether current Islam-West tensions should be
attributed to fundamental differences between the two cultures or the
attitudes of intolerant minorities. While a plurality (42%) says
intolerant minorities are responsible, one-third (34%) chooses
"fundamental differences between these two cultures." Kenyans are more
likely to identify "an intolerant Muslim majority" (20%) as the source
of such tensions than minorities on "both sides" (14%) or a "Western
minority" (8%).

Nigeria: A majority of Nigerians (53%) feel Muslim and Western
cultures can find common ground, while 37 percent say violent conflict
between the two is inevitable. Nigerian Muslims were more optimistic
about this than Christians. Sixty-three percent of Nigerian Muslims
say such agreement is possible and only 31 percent say violence is
inevitable. Christian Nigerians, in contrast, were equally divided
about the possibility of common ground or the inevitability of
violence (43% each). A majority of Nigerians overall (56%), including
majorities of both Muslims (59%) and Christians (51%), believes that
tensions between Islam and the West arise more from "differences of
religion and culture" than conflicts over political power and
interests. In none of the other countries polled, did a majority chose
cultural differences over political ones. Only one-third (33%) of all
Nigerians believe tensions between Islam and the West arise out of
conflicts over political power. Half (50%) of Nigerians feel that
current global tensions between Islam and the West are caused more by
"fundamental differences between these two cultures," rather than by
"intolerant minorities" on both sides (42%). Nigerian Muslims (55%)
were more likely than their Christian counterparts (43%) to identify
fundamental differences as the source of global tensions. More
Nigerian Christians name "an intolerant Muslim minority" (23%) as the
source of tensions, and more Muslims identify "an intolerant Western
minority" (18%). Similar numbers of Christian (20%) and Muslim (18%)
respondents, however, indicate that minorities "on both sides" are
responsible for current global tensions.12

Detailed Results

===

Questionnaire

M4. Thinking about the relationship between Muslim and Western
cultures do you think that violent conflict is inevitable or that it
is possible to find common ground?

01 Violent conflict is inevitable

02 Possible to find common ground

03 Depends

04 Neither

M5. Thinking about the tensions between Islam and the West—do you
think they arise more from differences of religion and culture or from
conflicts about political power and interests?

[Interviewer Note: If they say both equally, prompt with, "Which do
you believe is more important?"]

01 Differences of religion and culture

02 Conflicts about political power and interests

03 Both equally (accept if volunteered after prompt)

04 Neither (accept if volunteered after prompt)

99 DK/NA

M6. Would you say that the current global tensions between Islam and
the West are caused more by . . . READ IN ORDER

[Interviewer Note: If they say both equally, prompt with, "Which do
you believe is more important?"]

01 Fundamental differences between these two cultures as a whole

02 An intolerant Muslim minority

03 An intolerant Western minority

04 Intolerant minorities on both sides

05 All equally (accept if volunteered after prompt)

06 None / Other (accept if volunteered after prompt)

*********************************************************************

WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE

To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
wvns-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/

Need some good karma? Appreciate the service?
Please consider donating to WVNS today.
Email ummyakoub@... for instructions.

To leave this list, send an email to:
wvns-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Street life for aboriginal poor in Montreal proving more and more deadly


A life of daily danger
by Stefan Christoff
http://hour.ca/news/news.aspx?iIDArticle=13178


As night falls over Montreal, the disturbing reality facing many First
Nations people in this city becomes apparent as the park benches,
alleyways and stairwells surrounding Cabot Square, at Atwater metro,
transform into sleeping dens for dozens of urban indigenous people,
most originating from Northern Quebec.

As the winter months rest around the corner, fear of freezing deaths
within Montreal's urban indigenous communities is on the rise.

"[E]xposure to the elements is a major concern throughout the year,
especially in the freezing months," explains Brett Pineau,
co-ordinator of the street patrol team for Montreal's Native
Friendship Centre, a non-profit community organization on the corner
of St-Laurent and Ontario that serves an estimated 1,750 indigenous
people in the greater Montreal area. "In January, February, as
temperatures drop to minus 25 [Celsius] or lower, a number of
Montreal's urban aboriginals fall asleep at night and never wake up
the next morning."

"Each year the Native Friendship Centre loses community members to the
streets," continues Annie Pisuktie, an Inuktitut-speaking outreach
worker for the centre.

Around five indigenous people die on the streets of Montreal each year
due to multiple factors including freezing, drug overdose and physical
abuse or street violence, according to the centre. The majority of
indigenous people who die on Montreal streets are from Northern
Quebec's Inuit communities or from Nunavut.

"Three years ago my niece died on the streets of Montreal," explains
Pisuktie. "After the death, as we were in mourning, her body stayed in
the morgue for two full weeks as I frantically raised the thousands
[of dollars] involved in sending the body back to the north, without
any assistance from the government."

Street suicide is another growing reality for urban First Nations in
Montreal, according to the Native Friendship Centre.

"One man who was in contact with us at the centre recently committed
suicide on the street," continues Pisuktie. "This man who took his own
life had been beaten by the Montreal police numerous times in the
past, and when a friend called the police in the middle of a dispute,
[he] committed suicide that same evening."

Walking around in the early morning hours, accompanied by an outreach
team from Montreal's only grassroots centre servicing urban indigenous
people, quickly illustrates the striking extent of the crisis facing
Montreal's homeless First Nations people. Alleged abuses and violence
at the hands of police are widely discussed in conversations that
crisscross between English, French and Inuktitut in city alleyways.

"Many people from our communities end up in Montreal for medical
reasons, specialized medical treatment, which you can't access on the
reservations," says Pineau. "Given that life on the reservation in
Northern Quebec is basically Third World conditions, often people are
forced to relocate to the city as basic needs on the reservations
aren't being met in terms of health care, education [and] clean
drinking water."

Relocating to Montreal from Northern Quebec translates into major
readjustments in terms of language, culture and lifestyle.

"Most people in Canada don't understand the ongoing trauma facing our
people due to colonization. Rage is still inside of our people, as
many of our families were ripped apart by the Canadian government,"
continues Joey Saganash, a youth outreach worker at the centre,
"especially in past generations when many children went to government
residential schools and never returned."

Life for indigenous people on the streets of Montreal is like war.
"Our people are on the streets, facing a hard life of drugs, alcohol,
cold weather," explains Saganash. "You can look really good coming
into the street, and five years later you can look like you went
through a war. Every day there is danger coming at you."


Information on the Native Friendship Centre is at www.nfcm.org.

*********************************************************************

WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE

To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
wvns-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/

Need some good karma? Appreciate the service?
Please consider donating to WVNS today.
Email ummyakoub@... for instructions.

To leave this list, send an email to:
wvns-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Forgotten Fallujah


Fallujah Under a Different Siege
by Ali al-Fadhily
Asia Times
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IK21Ak01.html


FALLUJAH - Three years after a devastating United States-led siege of
the city, residents of Fallujah continue to struggle with a shattered
economy, infrastructure and lack of mobility.

The city that was routed in November 2004 is still suffering the worst
humanitarian conditions under a siege that continues. Although
military actions are down to the minimum inside the city, local and US
authorities do not seem to be thinking of ending the agonies of the
over 400,000 residents of Fallujah.

"You, people of the media, say things in Fallujah are good," Mohammad
Sammy, an aid worker for the Iraqi Red Crescent in Fallujah, told
Inter Press Service (IPS). "Then why don't you come and live in this
paradise with us? It is so easy to say things for you, isn't it?"

His anger is due to the fact that the embattled city is still
completely closed and surrounded by military checkpoints to make it
look like an isolated island. Those who are not genuine residents of
the city are not granted the biometric identification badge from the
US Marines, and are thus not allowed to enter the city.

Since the November 2004 US-led attack on the city, named Operation
Phantom Fury, which left approximately 70% of the city destroyed, the
US military has required residents to undergo retina scans and
finger-printing to gain a bar-code for identification.

"This isolation has destroyed the economy of the city that was once
one the best in Iraq," Professor Mohammad al-Dulaymi of al-Anbar
University told IPS. "All of the other cities in the province used to
do their wholesale shopping in Fallujah, but now they have to find
alternatives, leaving the city's businesses to starve," he explained.

All of the residents interviewed by IPS were extremely angry with the
media for recent reports that the situation in the city is good. Many
refused to be quoted for different reasons.

"Fallujah is probably the city that has had the most media coverage in
the history of the occupation," Hatam Jawad, a school headmaster in
Fallujah, told IPS. "People are tired of shouting and appearing on TV
to complain, without feeling any change in their sorrowful living
situation. Some of them are afraid of police revenge for telling the
truth."

Many residents told IPS that US-backed Iraqi police and army personnel
have detained people who have spoken to the media.

"I am not going to tell you whether it is good or bad to be a Fallujah
resident," 55-year-old lawyer, Shakir Naji, told IPS. "Why don't you
just ask what the prices of essential materials are and judge for
yourself? Kerosene for heating is almost US$1 per liter, a jar of
propane gas is $15, and it is not winter yet when the prices will
definitely be doubled."

Water and electricity services are at a minimum in the city. An Oxfam
International report released in July found that 70% of Iraqis do not
have access to safe drinking water.

Since the November 2004 siege, entire neighborhoods remain totally
destroyed, and with no water or electricity. Most of the businesses in
Fallujah remain closed.

"We depend on the private sector for electricity," Fatima Saed, a
woman whose husband was detained in 2005 and has not been released
yet, told IPS. "In my situation, to pay $50 a month [for electricity]
is a disaster because I have to cut it from the quantity and quality
of food that I buy for myself and my kids."

The Oxfam report also stated, "At the beginning of May 2007, the
Central Office for Statistics and Information Technology, part of the
Iraqi Ministry of Planning, released a survey highlighting the fact
that 43% of Iraqis suffer from "absolute poverty". The poverty of many
families "is rooted in unemployment, which affects probably more than
50% of the workforce".

Fallujah General Hospital, situated across the Euphrates River from
the city, is still functioning, but with a minimal number of
specialist doctors and medical supplies. The only doctor who would
speak to IPS did not want his name published.

"The manager of this hospital is a good man and he is trying hard to
improve the services, but the Ministry of Health in Baghdad still
treats us here as a bunch of terrorists. We are suffering both
corruption from the ministry and ignorance about al-Anbar province
from this [Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki] administration," he
explained. "We do not have enough medicines, and the equipment brought
to us by contractors is still in boxes and seems to be part of the
corrupt contracts of the province. It is impossible to work under such
conditions."

People coming for treatment or surgery in the hospital appeared
desperate to get their essential needs met.

"We have to buy cotton, bandages, medicines and all we need from
private pharmacies," 35-year-old Muath Tahir, a teacher who had his
appendix removed three days earlier, told IPS. "Those who can manage
go to the private hospital for better treatment, but my $230 salary is
not even enough for my daily needs. This city has become impossible to
live in."


Ali al-Fadhily, Inter Press Services' correspondent in Baghdad, works
in close collaboration with Dahr Jamail, Inter Press Services'
US-based specialist writer on Iraq who travels extensively in the region.

===

The Department of Defense announced today the death of soldiers who
were supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom.


             Sgt. Kenneth R. Booker, 25, of Vevay, Ind., died Nov. 14,
in Mukhisa, Iraq, of wounds sustained when an improvised explosive
device detonated near his vehicle. He was assigned to the 2nd
Battalion, 23rd Infantry Regiment, 4th Stryker Brigade Combat Team,
2nd Infantry Division, Fort Lewis, Wash.

             Sgt. Mason L. Lewis, 26, of Gloucester, Va., died in
Baghdad on Nov. 16, as a result of a non-combat related training
accident. He was assigned to the 26th Brigade Support Battalion, 2nd
Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division, Fort Stewart, Ga.

             Sgt. Steven C. Ganczewski, 22, of Niagara Falls, N.Y.,
died Nov. 16, in Balad, Iraq, wounds suffered from a combat-related
incident.  The incident is under investigation. He was assigned to the
3rd Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment, Fort Benning, Ga.

===

Radioactive Ammunition Fired in Middle East May Claim More Lives Than
Hiroshima and Nagasaki
By Sherwood Ross


By firing radioactive ammunition, the U.S., U.K., and Israel may have
triggered a nuclear holocaust in the Middle East that, over time, will
prove deadlier than the U.S. atomic bombing of Japan.

So much ammunition containing depleted uranium(DU) has been fired,
asserts nuclear authority Leuren Moret, "The genetic future of the
Iraqi people for the most part, is destroyed."

"More than ten times the amount of radiation released during
atmospheric testing (of nuclear bombs) has been released from depleted
uranium weaponry since 1991," Moret writes, including radioactive
ammunition fired by Israeli troops in Palestine.

Moret is an independent U.S. scientist formerly employed for five
years at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and also at the
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, both of California.

Adds Arthur Bernklau, of Veterans For Constitutional Law, "The
long-term effect of DU is a virtual death sentence. Iraq is a toxic
wasteland. Anyone who is there stands a good chance of coming down
with cancer and leukemia. In Iraq, the birth rate of mutations is
totally out of control."

Moret, a Berkeley, Calif., Environmental Commissioner and past
president of the Association for Women Geoscientists, says, "For every
genetic defect that we can see now, in future generations there are
thousands more that will be expressed."

She adds, "the (Iraq) environment now is completely radioactive."

  Dr. Helen Caldicott, the prominent anti-nuclear crusader, has
written: "Much of the DU is in cities such as Baghdad, where half the
population of 5 million people are children who played in the
burned-out tanks and on the sandy, dusty ground."

"Children are 10 to 20 times more susceptible to the carcinogenic
effects of radiation than adults," Caldicott wrote. "My pediatric
colleagues in Basra, where this ordnance was used in 1991, report a
sevenfold increase in childhood cancer and a sevenfold increase in
gross congenital abnormalities," she wrote in her book, "Nuclear Power
is not the Answer"(The New Press).

Caldicott goes on to say the two Gulf wars "have been nuclear wars
because they have scattered nuclear material across the land, and
people---particularly children--- are condemned to die of malignancy
and congenital disease essentially for eternity."

  Because of the extremely long half-life of uranium 238, one of the
radioactive elements in the shells fired, "the food, the air, and the
water in the cradle of civilization have been forever contaminated,"
Caldicott explained.

  Uranium is a heavy metal that enters the body via inhalation into the
lung or via ingestion into the GI tract. It is excreted by the kidney,
where, if the dose is high enough, it can induce renal failure or
kidney cancer. It also lodges in the bones where it causes bone cancer
and leukemia, and it is excreted in the semen, where it mutates genes
in the sperm, leading to birth deformities.

  Nuclear contamination is spreading around the world, Caldicott adds,
with heaviest concentrations in regions within a 1,000-mile radius of
Baghdad and Afghanistan.

These are, notably, northern India, southern Russia, Turkey, Egypt,
Saudi Arabia, Tibet, Pakistan, Kuwait, the Gulf emirates, and Jordan.

"Downwind from the radioactive devastation in Iraq, Israel is also
suffering from large increases in breast cancer, leukemia and
childhood diabetes," Moret asserts.

Doug Rokke, formerly the top U.S. Army DU clean-up officer and now
anti-DU crusader, says Israeli tankers fired radioactive shells during
the invasion of Lebanon last year. U.S. and NATO forces also used DU
ammunition in Kosovo. Rokke says he is quite ill from the effects of
DU and that members of his clean-up crew have died from it.

As a result of DU bombardments, Caldicott writes, "Severe birth
defects have been reported in babies born to contaminated civilians in
Iraq, Yugoslavia, and Afghanistan and the incidence and severity of
defects is increasing over time."

Like symptoms have been reported among infants born to U.S. service
personnel that fought in the Gulf Wars. One survey of 251 returned
Gulf War veterans from Mississippi made by the Veterans Administration
found 67% of children born to them suffered from "severe illnesses and
deformities."

Some were born without brains or vital organs or with no arms, hands,
or arms, or with hands attached to their shoulders.

  While U.S. officials deny DU ammunition is dangerous, it is a fact
Gulf War veterans were the first Americans ever to fight on a
radioactive battlefield, and their children apparently are the first
known to display these ghastly deformities.
Soldiers who survived being hit by radioactive ammunition, as well as
those who fired it, are falling ill, often showing signs of radiation
sickness.  Of the 700,000 U.S. veterans of the first Gulf War, more
than 240,000 are on permanent medical disability and 11,000 are dead,
published reports indicate.

  This is an astonishing toll from such a short conflict in which fewer
than 400 U.S. soldiers were killed on the battlefield.

  Of course, "depleted uranium munitions were and remain another
causative factor behind Gulf War Syndrome(GWS)," writes Francis Boyle,
a leading American authority on international law in his book
"Biowarfare and Terrorism," from Clarity Press Inc.

  "The Pentagon continues to deny that there is such a medical
phenomenon categorized as GWS---even beyond the point where everyone
knows that denial is pure propaganda and disinformation," Boyle writes.

Boyle contends, "The Pentagon will never own up to the legal,
economic, tortious, political, and criminal consequences of admitting
the existence of GWS. So U.S. and U.K. veterans of Gulf War I as well
as their afterborn children will continue to suffer and die. The same
will prove true for U.S. and U.S. veterans of Bush Jr.'s Gulf War II
as well as their afterborn children."

  Boyle said the use of DU is outlawed under the 1925 Geneva Convention
prohibiting poison gas.

  Chalmers Johnson, president of the Japan Policy Research Institute,
writes in his "The Sorrows of Empire"(Henry Holt and Co.) that, given
the abnormal clusters of childhood cancers and deformities in Iraq as
well as Kosovo, the evidence points "toward a significant role for DU."

  By insisting on its use, Johnson adds, "the military is deliberately
flouting a 1996 United Nations resolution that classifies DU
ammunition as an illegal weapon of mass destruction."

Moret calls DU "the Trojan Horse of nuclear war." She describes it as
"the weapon that keeps killing." Indeed, the half-life of Uranium-238
is 4.5-billion years, and as it decays it spawns other deadly
radioactive by-products.

Radioactive fallout from DU apparently blew far and wide. Following
the initial U.S. bombardment of Iraq in 2003, DU particles traveled
2,400 miles to Great Britain in about a week, where atmospheric
radiation quadrupled.

  But it is in the Middle East, predominantly Iraq, where the bulk of
the radioactive waste has been dumped.

  In the early Nineties, the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority
warned that 50 tons of dust from DU explosions could claim a half
million lives from cancer by year 2000. Not 50 tons, but an estimated
two thousand radioactive tons have been fired off in the Middle East,
suggesting the possibility over time of an even higher death toll.

  Dr. Keith Baverstock, a World Health Organization radiation advisor,
informed the media, Iraq's arid climate would increase exposure from
its tiny particles as they are blown about and inhaled by the civilian
population for years to come.

The civilian death toll from the August, 1945, U.S. atomic bombings of
Hiroshima and Nagasaki has been put at 140,000 and 80,000,
respectively. Over time, however, deaths from radiation sickness are
thought to have claimed the lives of another 100,000 Japanese civilians.


Sherwood Ross is a Miami, Florida-based free-lance writer who covers
military and political topics. Reach him at sherwoodr1@.... Ross
has worked as a reporter for the Chicago Daily News and several wire
services and is a contributor to national magazines.

*********************************************************************

WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE

To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
wvns-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/

Need some good karma? Appreciate the service?
Please consider donating to WVNS today.
Email ummyakoub@... for instructions.

To leave this list, send an email to:
wvns-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com