Articles

Of, by and for the people
June 5, 2011
USA
NOVANEWS   America still hasn’t achieved the democracy that Abe Lincoln’s words revered or that Obama’s campaign hopes nourished. Abraham ...Read more
Former Political Prisoner Geronimo Pratt Dies
June 5, 2011
USA
NOVANEWS   by Stephen Lendman     Reporting his death, AP said: “Former Black Panther Party leader Elmer ‘Geronimo’ Pratt” died ...Read more
Qaddaffi and the Vampire Squid
June 5, 2011
Libya
NOVANEWS If we’d hang a few investment bankers, life would be good again. by Mike Farrell I’ve been feeling lousy and ...Read more
Empire or Republic: from Joplin, Missouri to Kabul, Afghanistan
June 5, 2011
Pakistan & Kashmir
NOVANEWS   President Obama visits Joplin Missouri   The current activity of Homeland Security destroys lives abroad and neglects survival ...Read more
America’s Twisted Policy in Pakistan
June 5, 2011
Pakistan & Kashmir
NOVANEWS The Worst Is Yet To Come by Asif Haroon Raja   The US in pursuit of its strategic and ...Read more
Kabul: Banking and Oil, a Tale of Corruption
June 5, 2011
Pakistan & Kashmir
NOVANEWS   An Afghan Businessman has no part in Loan Business of Kabul Bank by Zabiullah Rashidi   Following the New ...Read more
Obama's Foreign Policy Objectives: The Geopolitical Middle East, North Africa, Central Asia Mosaic
June 5, 2011
Middle East
NOVANEWS   By Jack A. Smith Global Research, You’ve seen the headlines in the last weeks and days:   The ...Read more
"No Shred of Evidence", Iran Building Nukes, Ex Head of IAEA Says
June 5, 2011
Iran | USA
NOVANEWS By Sherwood Ross Global Research,   The former Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency(IAEA) said in a new ...Read more
Saudi Arabia/Japan: Japanese High Tea in the Land of Sweet Tea and Bibles
June 5, 2011
Japan | Saudi Arabia
NOVANEWS When I was in Saudi Arabia I found it easy and wonderful to meet individuals from all differing parts ...Read more
5 Zionist's arrested in drug mule case
June 5, 2011
ZIO-NAZI
NOVANEWS   Suspects allegedly ordered cocaine found in stomach of Peruvian woman who arrived at Ben Gurion Airport. Another Peruvian ...Read more
Nazi snipers kill 6 Syrians
June 5, 2011
Human Rights
NOVANEWS Syrian media says six killed, dozens wounded after hundreds attempt to storm occupied Palestine border; protestors: We’ll either die ...Read more
‘Ofer ships transferred arms to Zio-Nazi Gestapo's in Iran’
June 5, 2011
Iran | USA | ZIO-NAZI
NOVANEWS   Britain’s Sunday Times reports that Ofer’s ships were used by commando teams in reconnaissance missions against Iran’s secret ...Read more

Of, by and for the people

NOVANEWS

 

America still hasn’t achieved the democracy that Abe Lincoln’s words revered or that Obama’s campaign hopes nourished.


Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address

by Paul J Balles

One of the most interesting stories in the history of the United States involved Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg address.

President Lincoln had a minor role in dedicating a cemetery at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania for the burial of those who had died for the union in the American Civil War.

As is true of many wars, Lincoln had lost popularity as a result of the loss of lives. He was also given a short time to prepare his dedication speech.

After a two-hour oration by Edward Everett, Lincoln’s address took only a few minutes devoted to maintaining support for the war.

Lincoln’s moving address was completed in ten powerful sentences beginning with:

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

He then noted briefly their purpose in being there “to … dedicate …a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live.”

Lincoln summed up his position by reminding his audience of “…the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain.”

His conclusion: “–that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

President Barack Obama’s presidential ideal has been Abraham Lincoln, the man who made famous the phrase “Of the people, by the people, for the people”.

One can see why the author of that captivating rubric for a democracy would have endless appeal to Obama, a natural icon “of the people”.

Obama is one of the few presidents not from the highest stratosphere of an elite oligarchy, but descendant from ordinary people.

“By the people” informed much of Obama’s rhetoric that stimulated so many people to vote for him. The appeal of his arguments and promises for change earned him the presidency.

Unfortunately, once he got into office, he no longer reflected a government “by the people”. The government, controlled by corporate barons, lobbies and Wall Street, devoured Obama.

Equally pernicious, Obama totally reneged on his promise of change to a government for the people.

The bailouts of his early days in office did not benefit the people.  Help for home owners whose mortgages were being foreclosed would have. Instead the help went to the financial institutions of Wall Street to save them.

The ideals of Lincoln’s of, by and for the people and the unfulfilled promises of Obama have lessons to be learned.

These are the ideals of democracy. The ideals don’t become reality simply by stating them in a speech or by marching with flags and slogans in a demonstration.

They don’t become reality through protests or speeches promising change. As English journalist and novelist Arnold Bennett said, “Any change, even a change for the better, is always accompanied by drawbacks and discomforts.”

America still hasn’t achieved the democracy that Abe Lincoln’s words revered or that Obama’s campaign hopes nourished.

One of America’s leading senators, J. William Fulbright, said “It’s unnatural and unhealthy for a nation to be engaged in global crusades for some principle or idea while neglecting the needs of its own people.”

Instead of exerting pressure on others for democracies, America needs to focus on improving its own.

Former Political Prisoner Geronimo Pratt Dies

NOVANEWS

 

by Stephen Lendman

 

 

Reporting his death, AP said:

“Former Black Panther Party leader Elmer ‘Geronimo’ Pratt” died at age 63 in a small (Tanzania village) “where he had lived for at least half a decade, a friend of Pratt’s in Arusha, former Black Panther Pete O’Neal, said.”

He lived a peaceful life in Tanzania, O’Neal explained, adding:

“He’s my hero. He was and will continue to be. Geronimo was a symbol of steadfast resistance against all (he) considered wrong and improper. His whole life was dedicated to standing opposition to oppression and exploitation….He gave all that he had and his life, I believe, struggling, trying to help people lift themselves up.”

His lawyer and longtime friend, Stuart Hanlon, who spent years working for his release, also announced his death, saying:

“What happened to him is the horror story of the United States. This became a microcosm of when the government decides what’s politically right or wrong. The COINTELPRO program was awful. He became a symbol for what they did.”

He had southern, rural roots, and hardworking parents who sent all their kids to college. “He (went) to the military, (fought) and (was awarded two Bronze Stars, a Silver Star, and two Purple Hearts) in Vietnam, (came) home, (and became) a football star in college. That would be an American hero. It was different because he was black and he became a Panther and then the road went the wrong way.”

Calling Pratt one of his closest friends, Hanlon said his case “defined me as a lawyer.”

David Hilliard helped recruit Pratt to provide leadership for the Los Angeles Panther chapter. “He symbolized the best human spirit,” he said. “His spirit of endurance, his strength, his service to his people. He (was) very positive and a real example for young people who want to look into the direction of Che Guevara, Malcolm X and the leader of our party, Huey P. Newton. He (was) one of the true heros of our era. He dedicated his life to (serve) his people. There is nothing more honorable than that.”

On June 3, Los Angeles Times writer Robert Lopez headlined, “Former Black Panther whose murder conviction was overturned dies at 63,” saying:

He became “a symbol of racial injustices during the turbulent 1960s….a cause celebre for a range of supporters, including elected officials, activists, Amnesty International, clergy and celebrities, who believed he was framed by Los Angeles police and the FBI” because he was Black and a Panther member.

In fact, he was under FBI surveillance in Oakland when the murder he was convicted of happened in Santa Monica, hundreds of miles south. Nonetheless, he was unjustly framed and served 27 years until freed.

In 1970, he was arrested and falsely charged with Caroline Olsen’s murder, a Los Angeles teacher. In 1968, she and her husband Kenneth were attacked on a Santa Monica tennis court by two Black men. Three years later, Kenneth said Pratt was one of the assailants, pressured to name him after first identifying three other suspects from LAPD photos. In 1972, he was falsely convicted.

In fact, Pratt was framed, victimized by LAPD authorities working with the FBI’s illegal COINTELPRO  counterintelligence program against political dissidents, including communists; anti-war, human and civil rights activists; the American Indian Movement; and Black Panther Party members, among others.

In their book “Agents of Repression,” Ward Churchill and Jim Vander Wall said:

“(T)he term came to signify the whole context of clandestine (mostly illegal) political repression activities, (including) a massive surveillance (program via) wiretaps, surreptitious entries and burglaries, electronic devices, live ‘tails’ and….bogus mail” (to induce paranoia and) foster ‘splits’ within or between organizations.”

Other tactics included black propaganda, disinformation or gray propaganda, rumor spreading, manufactured evidence, harassment arrests on bogus charges, and assassinations, notably against Fred Hampton and Mark Clark on December 4, 1969 by Chicago police while they slept.

In Pratt’s case, Julius Butler was the prosecution’s main witness, an FBI/LAPD informant, expelled from the Panthers by Pratt for advocating violence. At trial, he falsely claimed Pratt confessed to the killing.

Later, when Butler was outed as an informer, paid to lie, LA authorities denied Pratt a retrial, keeping him imprisoned wrongfully for another 20 years.

Moreover, according to former FBI agent Wesley Swearingen, Los Angeles Panther headquaters wiretap information showed Pratt was in Oakland when it happened, also confirmed by agency surveillance evidence there. Pratt’s defense wasn’t told. In addition, in both cities, tapes and other evidence were destroyed to keep an innocent man wrongfully imprisoned for 27 years, eight in solitary confinement, as well as parole denied 16 times.

Delayed Justice Finally Achieved

On May 29, 1997, Judge Everett W. Dickey (an Orange County Reagan appointee), in a sharply worded opinion, reversed Pratt’s conviction, ruling prosecutors suppressed evidence to unjustly imprison him in ordering a new trial. At the time, he was America’s longest held political prisoner, yet to be fully exonerated.

Over 30 years later in February 1999, it came in a four paragraph Los Angeles County District Attorney, Gil Garcetti, statement, saying:

“We accept the decision of the court of appeals. The murder at issue in this case occurred over 30 years ago. Most of the witnesses to the case are deceased. It would be virtually impossible to retry this case. In our professional judgment, there would be no reasonable likelihood of conviction.”

Omitted was any admission of FBI, LAPD, or prosecutorial wrongdoing. In fact, Hanlon at the time said Garcetti fought him and fellow Pratt attorney Johnnie Cochran, Jr. “every step of the way,” trying to keep him wrongfully imprisoned.

In May 2000, in a civil rights lawsuit, a federal judge awarded Pratt $4.5 million for false imprisonment, but couldn’t return his 27 lost years, or undo the toll it took even on someone with his inner strength.

Journalist and author Jack Olsen wrote about Pratt’s ordeal in his book titled, “Last Man Standing: The Tragedy and Triumph of Geronimo Pratt,” recounting his southern roots, loving parents, self-reliance and dedication to right over wrong.

At UCLA, in fact, his awareness of police brutality and racial injustice inspired him to join the Panthers at a time FBI and local police harassed the organization nationally to undermine its solidarity by neutralizing its leaders. As a result, Pratt became a prime target, culminating in his arrest and wrongful conviction, nearly keeping him imprisoned for life.

While there, Olsen explained, he spent years in solitary confinement, his only toilet a hole in the floor that routinely backed up. In addition, he got only three hours of daylight a week, and was routinely harassed, beaten, drugged, moved from one “dungeon” to another, targeted for assassination at times, and falsely accused of other offenses, including attempted murder of guards, inciting riots, planning mass escapes, and masterminding Patty Hearst’s kidnapping.

Only his inner strength saved him, using meditation, chanting, astral projection and yoga, along with studying law and other self-help practices to survive despite everything prison authorities threw at him to destroy him. They couldn’t, but at age 63 he passed, a major loss to those who loved him, but not his spirit inspiring others to fight the good fight against injustice affecting anyone.

A Final Comment

In October 1966, Huey Newton and Bobby Seale founded the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense. It was progressive, activist, militantly for ethnic justice, racial emancipation, and real economic, social, and political equality across gender and color lines. Radical ideas then and now, the party’s ten-point program stood for:

(1) freedom and “power to determine the destiny of our black community;”

(2) full employment for Black people and everyone;

(3) “an end to the robbery by the capitalists of our Black community;”

(4) decent housing;

(5) education to expose “the true nature of this decadent American society (and teach) us our true history and our role in the present-day society;”

(6) for “all Black men to be exempt from military service” at a time they were drafted for foreign wars;

(7) “an immediate end to police brutality and murder of Black people;”

(8) “freedom for all Black men held in federal, state, county and city prisons and jails;”

(9) for Black people in court “to be tried….by a jury of their peer group or people from their Black communities;” and

(10) “land, bread, housing, education, clothing, justice and peace.”

They also added words from the Declaration of Independence, saying:

  • – “all men are created equal”;

  • – “to secure (their) rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed;”

  • – “that, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and institute a new government;”

  • – “to throw off (despotism), and to provide new guards for (peoples’) future security.”

They believed in rule of law principles, published a newspaper with 250,000 readers, and articulated fundamental wants and needs. They also practiced what they preached with:

  • – nutritious breakfasts for poor children;

  • – food for needy families;

  • – free clinics for medical care;

  • – a free ambulance service

  • – help for the homeless;

  • – free legal aids and bussing to prisons;

  • – after-school and summer classes teaching Black history; and

  • – Black voter registration drives.

They helped elect Oakland’s first Black mayor, Lionel Wilson, in the city where the Panthers were founded.

They were young and idealistic, willing to put their lives on the line for their beliefs and activism. Their goal – to make the world a better place for Black people and everyone.

They were revolutionaries for justice, hostile to repression. In Huey Newton’s words, they were “never a group of angry young militants full of fury toward the ‘white establishment.’ ”

The Party, in fact, advocated love for Black people, not hate for Whites. They fought for change from over 30 branches throughout the country with over 2,000 members at their peak.

They wanted redress of longstanding grievances, including slavery, Jim Crow, segregation, discrimination, neglect and abuse. Practicing what Jefferson preached, they were targeted viciously and illegally for destruction, an agenda still ongoing against other activists and dissident groups to make America safe for wealth and power at the expense of beneficial social change, what heroic Panthers and others like them fought and died for and still do. What better reason to do it for than that.

Qaddaffi and the Vampire Squid

NOVANEWS

If we’d hang a few investment bankers, life would be good again.

by Mike Farrell

I’ve been feeling lousy and just now starting to feel better. However, I’m still enough out of it to not be able to really sustain a piece of writing.    Fortunately, there are things that really amaze and don’t need a lot of commentary, or if they do, there’s someone who does a great job. In this case,  Quadaffi and Goldman, Sachs as dissected by the inimitable Matt Taibbi and Rolling Stone.

... there was a widespread feeling of relief within the walls of the bank after news broke that Goldman a few years ago offered to  sell Moammar Qaddafi a $3.7 billion equity stake in their company. The relief, it seems, stemmed from the fact that the deal was  never struck – and therefore Goldman doesn’t have to answer charges now of having funded repression in the Middle East. From  the Carney piece:

“The last thing we need right now would be headlines reading ‘Vampire Squid Profits Funding Libyan Dictator,’” one senior Goldman investment banker told NetNet.

I appreciated the shout-out there, but I also had to laugh: only a Goldman, Sachs executive would fail to see that offering to sell yourself to a ruthless anti-Semitic dictator/terror sponsor is just as bad as actually completing the sale. If anything, it’s worse. There is no modern-day Goethe or Faust with the genius to even invent an anti-hero pathetic enough to not only try to sell his soul to the Devil, but fail! But apparently, this shameful episode is what counts as a PR win for the esteemed i-banking King these days…

Now, the story is involved and somewhat convoluted…Goldman had managed to lose 98% of a Libyan investment of several billion dollars in a fairly short time — amazingly short time, as Matt points out, unfavorably comparing Goldman’s skill for it’s clients in this case with a “blind three legged donkey sent into Caesar’s with $1.5B in chips.” Then, for some reason, the Goldman people were surprised that the people who brought you Lockerbie were incensed and threatened more than just some more lawsuits for misrepresentation, malfeasance and misfeasance. So, the obvious thing to do is to offer Q and the gang a large equity stake. Odder still, showing that some thieves have some honor someplace, the Libyans turned them down. Hilarity ensues…

Here’s the thing. Forget about any relationship between a lot of senior Goldman employees and Israel…these guys were dealing with Quadaffi. Obviously, scruples are trumped by profit, and that’s probably something the various conspiracy theorists ought to keep in mind. When you’re looking for a motive, sex, greed and power tend to come to the top in about equal amounts.  In this case, they robbed him using the electronic skills that they had honed so sharp, and then were surprised at possible repercussions. This is a piece with everything — knowing how to screw money out of stange mathematics is not an effective way to run a world. There are people like the Libyans who are perfectly capable of bringing things down to reality really quickly. So, let’s let Matt sum it up:

In con-man parlance, this is called the reload. You beat someone in a Ponzi scheme for his life’s savings, and when he shows up at your door with an axe, you get him to mortgage his house to buy a stake in the Brooklyn Bridge. After blowing $1.5 billion of Libya’s money almost instantaneously, Goldman’s solution to the problem was to immediately get Qaddafi reaching back into his pocket for a cash sum over twice the size of the original losses. It’s really hard not to admire the sheer balls of the whole deal.

If we’d hang a few investment bankers, life would be good again.

Speaking of good, I like Anthony Weiner. He’s articulate, smart and generally on the right side of things. He also just made a complete ass out of himself and Taibbi makes the point very clearly. Frankly, I find the thought of taking pictures of your erect member in or out of your shorts is kind of infantile. I recall a soldier questioned about how he ended up in the emergency room with a lightbulb shoved up his ass responding to the company commander with, “Sir, my sex life is none of your business…” Hard to make it clearer than that…except if you want to be Mayor of New York and a national spokesman for the Democratic party, you don’t get to have pictures of your dick around. Anywhere. Not even an etch-a -sketch. The correct answer to “Is that your penis in the picture that was tweeted?” is “No, goddamnit. And if I can find out who did this, I’ll do whatever it takes to ruin him, her, it or them!” Certitude? Again, let someone who writes better than I have the last word…

In other words, when you’re a certain kind of famous, there are a few things you’ve just got to give up in life – like uploading pictures of your dick, for instance, or tweet-herding hot twentysomething women by the hundreds. Is it really that hard to find other hobbies? Why do I feel like this kind of thing isn’t a problem for someone like Bernie Sanders? Politicians never cease to amaze.

Yep.

Empire or Republic: from Joplin, Missouri to Kabul, Afghanistan

NOVANEWS

 

President Obama visits Joplin Missouri
 

The current activity of Homeland Security destroys lives abroad and neglects survival at home

by Prof. James Petras


Five percent of HS (Homeland Security) budget would have prevented many of Joplin’s ‘tragedy’ (and saved us from Obama’s gaseous oratory!) and the other 400 deaths from this year’s crop of tornadoes.

Introduction

On May 29, 2011, President Obama visited Joplin, Missouri, the site of a devastating tornado that killed 140 and pronounced it a terrible “tragedy”.  But were the deaths the inevitable result of ‘natural events’ beyond the human intervention?

PRESIDENT KARZAI WARNS US STOP RAIDS KILLING CIVILIANS

Coincidentally the same week Afghan President Karzai condemned the killing of a family of 14 by a NATO fighter bomber, running the total to several hundred civilians killed so far this year and thousands over the decade.

The relation between the civilian deaths in Joplin and Afghanistan raises fundamental questions about the priorities, character and direction of the US Empire and the future of the American republic.

Geography of Tornados

Every year at least 20 major violent tornadoes – with winds exceeding 200 mph – hit “tornado alley” and beyond, including central Texas, northern Iowa, central Kansas, Nebraska, western Ohio, Missouri, Indiana, Mississippi, Louisiana and Alabama.  Each and every year at least sixty are killed and several hundred are maimed and injured.  This year, through May 2011, over 519 have been killed, 25% of whom were in mobile homes, almost three times as many as those in standard houses.

In other words, these tornado-related deaths are predictable, annual, and region-specific and have a higher incidence among low income households.  Government agencies and academics have compiled data banks and time series information mapping the route, frequency and impact of tornadoes.

Information about the nature of killer tornadoes is plentiful. Nevertheless deaths mount from year to year. Fear and insecurity stalks the region’s most susceptible to the violent whirlwinds, even as the Congress and White House have increased personnel and funding for ‘Homeland Security’ twenty fold over the decade .The current budget is over $180 billion.  If we add the deaths caused by other ‘natural’ disasters like the flooding of New Orleans, the numbers of deaths are staggering.  What explains this perverse relation between huge public funding for ‘homeland security’ and the increased insecurity of vulnerable Americans in clearly identified danger zones?

The reason is clear: ‘Homeland Security’ (HS) is an Orwellian misnomer.  The agency is not concerned with domestic, civilian, American security. HS is part of a military-police response to imagined overseas threats, which have not materialized or at least have not produced deaths comparable to tornadoes and floods in the last 11 years.

HS (Homeland Security) spends billions and employs thousands to investigate, spy and harass citizens engaged in legal-constitutional activities.  HS and the Pentagon spend tens of billions on overseas infrastructures – buildings, bases, camps -and over 900 billion in arms.  HS and the Defense Department forcefully intervenemilitarily throughout the world via overt and clandestine operations.

To be precise HS (Homeland Security) intervenes offensively overseas, attacking civilian targets, while it fails to engage domestically to protect American civilians who are left defenseless in the face of predictable natural disasters.

HS and the Pentagon’s sustained violent overseas operations are rejected and regarded as a hostile imperial intervention by the civilians in those countries adversely affected.  In contrast, defenseless citizens in the US would welcome large-scale intervention in the form of community shelters, which would provide survival, security, life-saving protection and financial aid for rebuilding their lives.  Moreover, Pentagon and HS spending on overseas infrastructure, bases and bombs results in deficits, whereas investments in tornado and flood shelters would stimulate jobs, growth and investment in the US.

The current activity of HS destroys lives abroad and neglects survival at home:  It has nothing to do with our “homeland” and even less with our “security”.  Five percent of HS budget would have prevented many of Joplin’s ‘tragedy’ (and saved us from Obama’s gaseous oratory!) and the other 400 deaths from this year’s crop of tornadoes.

Systemic Bases of Perpetual Domestic Neglect

Death from ‘natural’ events raises a fundamental POLITICAL question:  Why is the budget of Homeland Security and the Pentagon directed overseas, toward destructive, offensive, military activity rather than to domestic, constructive, defensive activity to protect American lives and productive economic activity?

The problem is systemic not due to some personal flaw or political idiosyncrasy of the moment. The structuresof the US economy and military institutions are oriented ‘outwardly’ to conquering foreign financial markets and building a military empire.  The ideology which informs strategic policymakers is imperial-centered not republican:  They do not speak of developing and deepening the economy and security of ‘middle America’. Every member of the political and corporate elite talks of ‘world’ or ‘global’ leadership – a thinly veiled euphemism for the drive to sustain world dominance.  Within the imperial framework the entire ‘security’ budget is directed toward maintaining offensive military supremacy. No wonder there is a steep decline in all spheres of domestic security – natural, social, personal, health and employment –a phenomenon that proceeds with little public debate. The only exception is when threats to security impinge most directly and forcefully on a significant sector of the population.  For example, witness the storm of protest from those directly affected when the politicians moved to privatize social security and Medicare.

Nevertheless, the entire political spectrum, the two parties, the Congress and the White House over the past 30 years, have created an artificial consensus in which overseas wars, foreign aid to patrons (Israel) and clients (Pakistan and Egypt) absorbs the greatest percentage of budgetary spending.  No political or economic leadership has stepped forward to articulate the obvious connection between global expansion and domestic decay; to forcefully state that the deterioration of the republic is a direct product of the vast resources channeled into military and economic empire building.  Who on New York City’s Wall Street or Washington’s Pentagon  is going to even look at or consider a ‘security plan’ with regard to the geography of catastrophes – tornado alley covering a dozen states and the floods and deaths that overwhelm the lowlands from Montana to Louisiana?

Listen America! Their message is loud and clear:

Small towns and trailer parks do not count!  You have your 2nd amendment (the ‘right to bear arms’), you have your ‘small government’, and you have your flags:  ‘Wav ‘em and weep’ as tornadoes blow down your houses and your sons and daughters return wrapped in flags to the Battle Hymn of the Empire!

Conclusion

One might argue that community storm shelters won’t break the Treasury or reverse the empire. More to the point, their absence, from the federal, state and local political agenda, is emblematic of the total subordination of domestic America to imperial Washington. The ‘cost’ of building community shelters at the strip malls and trailer parks in Joplin, Missouri is less than a regional training outpost in Kandahar, Afghanistan. It is not a question of money.

Conquering Afghanistan villages enhances the prestige of the Generals, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and NATO officials. Can saving 145 lives in Joplin, Missouri match that in terms of world politics or the politics of imperial leadership? For Afghanistan, Washington builds a thousand military shelters and bomb proof bunkers .For the Americans living in tornado alley and the flood plains of the Mississippi people must make do.

When you hear the tornado warning, it’s up to you. As a proud, free American you can find a rock to crawl under and say your prayer: the Federal government and Homeland Security have the Endless, World-wide War against Terror to fight and cannot be bothered by a Joplin, Missouri nursing home in the path of a tornado.

We exaggerate: Obama will jet in and speak before the cameras in solemn terms of the ‘tragedy’ and ‘courage’ of the people of Joplin…  But will any local politician stand up and speak truth to power? Most of these deaths and (many more to come) are avoidable; under a democratic American republic, the government ‘intervenes’ to provide protection, health and employment for its people.

In the meantime, as the empire continues to grow it destroys its own people, just like the sow that devours its offspring.

America’s Twisted Policy in Pakistan

NOVANEWS

The Worst Is Yet To Come

by Asif Haroon Raja

 

The US in pursuit of its strategic and economic objectives in this part of the world arm twisted Gen Musharraf in September 2001 soon after 9/11 and made him do its bidding. Pakistan forces were pushed into the inferno of war on terror which was not Pakistan’s war. To start with, flames were lit on two extreme flanks resting in Baloch inhabited interior Balochistan and Pashtun inhabited FATA.

The course of flames was gradually channeled towards settled areas of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP), then to other cities of KP and subsequently to major cities of Punjab as well as Islamabad. Flames of terrorism were stoked by CIA and FBI outposts established in 2002 with the concurrence of the ruling regime. ISI and other intelligence agencies were asked to take up a backseat and intelligence collection, collation and dissemination was taken over entirely by CIA on the plea that it had superior technological means.

The CIA then brought in RAW and RAAM agents to boost its strength and collectively gave birth to Pakistani Taliban, who later got organized and formed Tehrik-e-Taliban-Pakistan (TTP) in December 2007. They were won over by providing them bagfuls of dollars and meeting all their weapons and equipment demands and also promising them that FATA will be made an independent caliphate and submerged with Pashtun belt of Afghanistan.

In Balochistan, disgruntled Baloch Sardars of Bugti, Mengal and Marri were cultivated to start insurgency. They were lured by promising them independent Balochistan full of mineral resources and Gwadar Port falling in the path of envisaged energy corridor from Central Asia. About sixty Farari (training) camps were established in interior Balochistan and supply routes both from Afghanistan via Spin Boldak and Shahgarh in India were made operational to meet all their demands. Later on, several terrorist outfits like BLA, BRA and BLF came into being and their leaders were given asylum in Afghanistan and London.

While our intelligence agencies got busy in nabbing terrorists from all over the country and the Army got embroiled in fighting tribesmen in FATA and Balochistan, CIA and FBI helped by MI-6, RAW and RAAM agents got on with their job of destabilizing Pakistan from within. Besides sabotage and subversion by terrorists, drones were also introduced by CIA to further fuel terrorism. Shamsi airbase was used for the purpose. Sold to the idea of enlightened moderation Musharraf accepted the US advice to expand and liberate the media.

It was then decisively penetrated by foreign powers to be able to promote their coined themes and to change perceptions of the desired audiences in Pakistan. India promoted its culture through electronic media and also took help of our media to hide its ugly face. All these processes which weakened Pakistan went on unabatedly throughout Musharraf’s stint in power till March 2008 and Pakistan’s sovereignty kept eroding. By that time all institutions of Pakistan including Army, ISI and judiciary stood discredited.

When the US realized that Musharraf had lost his popularity and would not be helpful in changing the perceptions of people from religious conservatism to secularism, and was not in a position to make compromises on joint Pak-US operations in FATA, or opening up nuclear and missile assets and placing them under a joint control mechanism, or reducing Chinese activities in Gwadar Port and Balochistan mineral projects, or shelving Pak-Iran gas pipeline and in curbing anti-Americanism, it decided to bring in Benazir and make a dream team of liberal parties.

When Benazir started to act too independent, she was removed from the scene and handpicked puppets were given reins of power. They pursued Musharraf’s policies in letter and spirit and went a step ahead in keeping their patrons appeased. The Army, ISI and the judiciary however made recoveries by recapturing lost spaces and soon were able to re-establish their image and credibility.

The political leaders deeply engrossed in lot and plunder were slapped and humiliated but were also given blandishments and a free hand to milk the country and reduce it to a carcass. Their incompetence to govern and their corrupt practices were acceptable since they obediently served Washington’s interests. In order to cripple Pakistan’s economy and make it dependent upon US aid, rulers were told to put Pakistan’s neck in the stranglehold of IMF and to keep borrowing and keep spending lavishly.

They were told to ignore terrorism and ethnic cleansing of non-locals by Baloch insurgents seeking separation simply because they are seculars and pro-USA and India. Rulers were directed to use full force against militants in northwestern tribal area particularly against those who were anti-American and supporting Jihad in Afghanistan. Haqqani group based in North Waziristan (NW) is their chief foe. Ilyas Kashmiri outfit and Lashkar-e-Taeba are also on US hit list, and to a lesser degree are Hafiz Gul Bahadur and Maulvi Nazir. Dozens of other militant groups including TTP located in NW which are anti-Pakistan but not involved in Afghanistan do not bother USA.

TTP which has its tentacles in all seven tribal agencies as well as in settled areas of KP, Swat, Malakand, South Punjab, Pashtun belt of Balochistan and its long arm can reach any part of Pakistan is of chief concern for Pakistan. Several foreign agencies are providing massive funds, weapons, equipment, explosives, training facilities, guidance and manpower replenishments from Afghan soil to TTP since they desire this force to possibly defeat or as a minimum contain bulk of Army. But for foreign support in huge quantities, it would not have been possible for the TTP to rebound after its backbone had been broken in the two decisive battles of Bajaur and South Waziristan in 2009. Footprints of foreign hands were clearly seen in all the regions that were recaptured from the militants by security forces. In the Bajaur battle which raged from July 2008 till February 2009, large number of Tajik and Uzbek fighters used to supplement Maulana Faqir’s force. Even now Afghans are involved in Mohmand Agency and in Dir.

While launching of military operations by the Army in Waziristan led to emergence of Pakistani Taliban, two drone attacks in Bajaur Agency in 2006 instilled hatred against the Army particularly when October strike on a seminary killing 80 students was wrongly owned by the Army. Brutal military action against inmates of Lal Masjid and Jamia Hafza including women and children in July 2007 triggered recruitment of young Taliban in a big way. It also ignited spate of suicide bombings in cities. Thereon, it became easy for the senior members of TTP like Qari Hussein to motivate young boys aged 12-16 years to become suicide bombers. The schemers then shifted terrorism to major cities particularly Peshawar, Rawalpindi, Islamabad, Lahore. This was made possible after the induction of Blackwater in 2008. Several security companies cropped up in capital cities.

Mumbai attacks on 26/11 were masterminded to deflect attention of the world from the atrocities committed by Indian security forces in Indian occupied Kashmir where the situation had become explosive, and to nail down ISI and to pave way for carrying out surgical strikes in Pakistan similar to drone strikes. New tactics involving double suicide bombers and group attacks were introduced in 2009. Drone attacks were intensified and so were target killings in Balochistan and Karachi.

In order to keep the judiciary subservient, the ruling regime was emphatically told not to restore the sacked judges led by chief justice Iftikhar. Shahbaz Sharif’s Ministry in Punjab which was relatively stable was brought down and Governor Rule imposed on Washington’s direction in early 2009. Restoration of judges and Punjab government was not to the liking of plot makers. After the enactment of Af-Pak policy in March 2009, which heralded the beginning of the final phase against Pakistan’s strategic assets and passage of Kerry-Lugar Bill, large number of under cover CIA operatives mostly belonging to US Special Forces made their way into Pakistan in 2010. Their inflow increased in second half of 2010 as a result of removal of all security checks by ISI and Special Police. Raymond Davis who had earlier on been deported due to his shady activities also managed to sneak back. By end 2010 an effective countrywide CIA-Blackwater network duly connected with militant groups and criminal gangs had become operational. Roadmaps leading to various defence installations and nuclear sites had been prepared.

This network provides the local militants intelligence and intimate guidance of marked target areas. Its ramifications came to light after the arrest of Raymond but also led to intensification of CIA-ISI rivalry and nose-diving of Pak-US relations. Till April, the militants targeted mostly soft targets in cities to create harassment and fear among the public and to accentuate problems of security forces and intelligence agencies. Mosques, worship places and markets were targeted to pitch Islamists against Islamists and defame Islam.

Helicopter assault on 02 May duly assisted by CIA base in Abbottabad was executed to achieve multiple objectives. The foremost was to restore declining popularity of Obama and US military in the eyes of Americans in particular and world in general. Second; lower the image of Army, air force and ISI that had risen high and to discredit the three institutions in the eyes of the public. Former CIA Director Panetta who had crossed swords with Lt Gen Pasha on several occasions had sworn to teach him a lesson. Third; embarrass Pakistan and to put it in a tight corner, leaving it with little space to defy US dictates.

Having created the desired effects through media and Congressmen, US high officials visited Islamabad and further harassed the already hassled leadership by conveying that Pakistan would from now on be judged by its acts and deeds. To give heart to the fainting leaders, the visitors gave a clean chit to them saying that they were not directly involved in hiding OBL but there was a support group inside Pakistan which had protected OBL. This certification was music to the ears of our leaders. Feeling relieved, they readily agreed to let CIA inspect the Abbottabad House compound where OBL lived, hand over the tail of the destroyed Blackhawk helicopter, launch an operation in NW and to conduct joint operations to eliminate terrorists. These concessions were doled out in violation of the spirit of 14 May unanimous resolution of the parliament.

Mehran Naval Base attack was executed on 22 May to dishearten the navy, to shatter the confidence of the people in armed forces and to completely demoralize the nation. Among several hypotheses, one of the assumptions was an attack conducted by Ilyas Kashmiri group. If so, he has been reportedly killed on 04 May fearing that he may spill the beans. Apparently 02 May and 22 May incidents were also intended to create divisions within forces by suggesting that there were sympathizers and supporters of al-Qaeda and Taliban in each service and intelligence agency and that there was an urgent need to purge such undesirable elements. Mehran Base attack is a prelude to many more suchlike attacks since it seems that the conspirators have now started the final destructive stage to hit hardened military installations including nuclear sites.

In continuation of ISI bashing, Human Rights Watch and western media has come out with another wacky story that the ISI was behind the unfortunate murder of eminent and bold journalist Syed Salim Shehzad. Had it been so, he would have been taken to KP or FATA and not towards Sarai Alamgir? It seems to be a clear cut case of Blackwater which is ever ready to exploit a situation whenever any person makes several enemies and becomes prominent. ISI’s plate is already full to the brim and would be mad if it buys another headache for itself. The situation assumes greater curiosity and mystification after expression of deep concern by high US officials like John Kerry and Hillary Clinton on his death.

While the people have not come out of the shock of two attacks in May, the foreign and local media is adding to their apprehensions by floating rumor balloons of despondency and trying to undermine the capabilities of armed forces. An impression is being created that the military is incapable of safeguarding our vital interests. There is a very small segment that still talks good of USA otherwise great majority distrusts USA and suspect that it will again strike Pakistan to denuclearize it. They are not convinced with John Kerry assurances that the US is not interested in Pak nukes particularly after NATO Secretary General’s statement that it is the collective responsibility of international community to secure nuclear assets of Pakistan.

Stories of our nukes falling into wrong hands have begun to reappear in western media. Despite multi-layered system of security evolved by Pakistan which is second to none, doubts are still being aired by vested interests that Pakistan’s nuclear program is unsafe and needs to be secured. Pakistan Army managed to get out of the deathtrap laid by its adversaries in Swat and SW. They have now prepared another deadly deathtrap in NW and are once again trying to lure in Pak Army with a hope that this time it will get trapped. It is only when major portion of our combat divisions get embroiled in the war in northwest that India will make its Cold Start doctrine operational on the weakened eastern front. Coming months are fraught with extreme dangers but our rulers are naively thinking that after John Kerry and Hillary Clinton’s visit worst is over. In my view the worst is yet to come.

While I am quite confident that our security forces would be able to thwart all hostile attempts made on our nuclear arsenal and delivery means and will also be able to safeguard the frontiers against foreign aggression, what I am worried is that we have still not identified our foes and taken preventive measures. Unless we guard against the designs of our foes pretending to be friends, we will not be able to confront the worst threat which is staring into our eyes and has got closer to our vital ground.

Kabul: Banking and Oil, a Tale of Corruption

NOVANEWS

 

An Afghan Businessman has no part in Loan Business of Kabul Bank

by Zabiullah Rashidi

 

Following the New York Times article published on 28 March 2011 under title of Afghan Elite Borrowed Freely from Kabul Bank in which names of the prominent businessmen were indicated in connection to the huge outstanding loans from the Kabul Bank. As stated in the article one of the unpaid loans for US$ 21 million to the Kabul Oil Company involving several shareholders among them Mr. Kamal Nabizada’s name was allegedly mentioned without proof as it is considered a defamatory allegation against him. It has never been substantiated with evidence that Mr. Kamal Nabizada has received loans from the Kabul bank in his private capacity or in association with other shareholders or through Kabul Oil Company.

There is clear evidence that shows he has never been an official shareholder of the Kabul Oil Company in order to be able to receive loan on behalf of the company. There are e-mail correspondences and copies of contracts for purchase of oil by Kabul Oil Company, which indicates that Mr. Kamal Nabizada is not a shareholder of the Kabul Oil Company and he has never been involved in loan business from the Kabul Bank which led the bank towards insolvency. Therefore, this issue needs to be talked as soon as possible and thus, the publishers of the article should reconsider their publication to retract the portion which falsely judged about Mr. Kamal Nabizada a remarkable figure among the Afghan businessmen.

For further reference we have attached scanned copies of evidence that clears his name from the list of those who borrowed money from the Kabul Bank. However, Mr. Kamal Nabizada has always supported financial institutions and has greatly contributed for reconstruction of the war torn country. Moreover, he runs a humanitarian foundation to help poor and needy people in the country. By copy of this substantiated assessment report, the publishers of the so called article are requested with due respect to retract their false and unsubstantiated comments about Mr. Kamal Nabizada and publish the attached proof not only to clear his name but to support his efforts as a prominent business man in the region.

Translation of the letter from Sher Khan to Kamaludin Nabizada

by Zabiullah Rashidi

KABUL NEFT

No: 14/24

Date: 08/04/1387

To: The Respected Company of Kamaludin Nabizada

Attention: To the head of the company

In response to your e-mail message of 23/06/2008 we inform you that your e-mail correspondence was delivered to Mr. Shir Khan the general manger of Kabul Bank and in reply he instructed that Kamaludin Nabizada is not a shareholder of the Kabul Neft nor he has any responsibility in the company and I hereby inform him that he should not interfere in the affairs of Kabul Neft and Kabul Bank, and also does not involve himself in the work of Mr. Haji Sahib Hussain and Mahmood Karzai.

However, regarding the outstanding loan that Kabul Neft owes you, if you don’t mind you can travel to Dubai in order to discuss the issue with Shir Khan and find a solution for it. Since, our duty is to inform you that you have no any responsibility in the Kabul Neft, we informed you through this letter in writing.

Regards,

Readership of Kabul Neft

Obama's Foreign Policy Objectives: The Geopolitical Middle East, North Africa, Central Asia Mosaic

NOVANEWS

 

By Jack A. Smith

Global Research,

You’ve seen the headlines in the last weeks and days:
 
The Arab uprisings, the killing of Osama Bin Laden, Washington’s efforts to keep troops in Afghanistan and Iraq beyond pullout schedules, Egypt’s reopening of the border with Gaza, Pakistan’s role in the Afghan war, President Barack Obama’s speeches on the Middle East and Israel, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s intransigence, the Fatah-Hamas unity moves and plans to gain UN recognition of Palestinian statehood — and that’s not the half of it.
Each event looms large in the mass media and in political discourse, but each is only part of a much larger mosaic that constitutes the Middle East/North Africa (MENA) and Central Asia component of the Obama Administration’s foreign and military strategy.
This component is Washington’s top priority because any significant deterioration of U.S. domination in MENA, and the frustration of its ambitions in Central Asia — especially in combination with weakening economic and political influence in the world — could hasten America’s decline as the unipolar global “leader,” i.e., hegemon.
The U.S. inherited this position two decades ago upon the implosion of the Soviet Union and the socialist camp and is hardly prepared to step aside. The policy Washington adopted at that time, and which remains in force today, is to prevent the emergence of any powerful rival or military force potentially able to undermine American dominion.
No other country is grabbing for the global supremacy, but a number of states with advanced and developing economies think it’s time for a new international construct with multipolar leadership.
The Obama Administration’s sacrosanct mission, as with earlier Washington governments, is to keep the political and geographic ground gained by the U.S. in the 66 years since the end of World War II, when it became leader of the capitalist world’s Cold War contention with communism.
This ground was extended in the post-Cold War period mainly through U.S. control of global economic institutions, the political absorption of the states of Eastern Europe that had been in the Soviet orbit, unequaled military power, and for the last decade the “war on terrorism” launched by former President George W. Bush.
President Barack Obama took over from Bush in Iraq, greatly enlarged the Afghan war and extended fighting to western Pakistan, Yemen and now Libya. In addition, Obama seeks to retain smaller but substantial U.S. military forces in Iraq and Afghanistan years beyond their anticipated pullout dates at a time when public opinion backs a total withdrawal.
Washington has had its eye on dominating MENA for its energy resources for over 70 years and attracted several key regional nations such as Saudi Arabia to its orbit many decades ago. In more recent years, U.S. hegemony has been extended throughout the entire region with the exception of Iran, the acquisition of which was postponed because of the military-political debacle caused by the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
In the decade since 9/11 Washington lengthened its imperial reach into Central Asia by projecting its formidable military power into Afghanistan, one of the poorest countries on Earth. The ostensible purpose was to capture bin Laden and defeat al Qaeda, the organization he founded in the 1980s with support from Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the U.S. during the civil war against a progressive government in Kabul and its Soviet military protectors.
Washington’s $10-billion-a-month Afghan foray has become a military stalemate, but the adventure also allowed the U.S. to plant its flag for the first time in Central Asia — a major geopolitical advance, as we will explain. The Bush Administration was hardly unaware of this fact when it chose to wage war in Afghanistan instead of mounting an international police effort to apprehend bin Laden.
It is within this context of MENA/Central Asia strategy that the May 2 slaying of bin Laden by a Navy SEALS killer-team in Pakistan fits into the broader picture, as do the Iraq and Afghan wars, settling the Israel-Palestine conflict, the U.S. attitude toward the Arab uprisings and the other recent headlines regarding this region.
In domestic U.S. politics, the eradication of bin Laden has generated a brief renewal of national self-confidence, and the strengthening of Obama’s “national security” credentials, leading to elevated opinion poll ratings which the White House hopes will contribute to his reelection victory next year.
Internationally, the removal of bin Laden will only touch lightly upon most of the Obama Administration’s immediate foreign/military objectives. We will discuss some of these objectives under these subheadings: The Arab Uprisings, Keeping the Troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and The Importance of Palestine.
••• THE ARAB UPRISINGS: First and foremost, the White House is dedicated to co-opting, neutralizing or ending the progressive uprisings taking place these last months against dictatorships and oppressive monarchies throughout the Arab world.
Washington has extended its support to nearly all these reactionary regimes for many decades, in return for which they contentedly spin in America’s hegemonic orbit. President Obama has extended his belated rhetorical blessings upon the democratic trend, but in actual practice all the White House has done is lead NATO into an unjust war for regime change in Libya. [1]
The U.S. government supports democracy except when it produces a government not to its liking or when a subject country renounces Uncle Sam’s jurisdiction or expresses opposition to America’s policies. President Obama does not want another Venezuela or Bolivia or Brazil to take root in MENA and is working to insure that does not happen, even though all were the products of democratic elections.
The Obama Administration seems no longer worried about the successful popular Egyptian uprising because it brought about a regime change that may only produce the form of democracy but not its full content. The U.S. government, which supported and helped finance the Mubarak dictatorship for over 30 years, is breathing easily because its continuing relations with the powerful armed forces and the ruling elite evidently insures that a democratic Egypt will remain within the imperial fold. Tunisia, which initiated the popular struggle against tyrants, also seems to have remained in Washington’s camp even though the long-term dictator they sent packing to Saudi Arabia was backed by the U.S. to the end.
KEEPING TROOPS IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN:
The Obama Administration is anxious to retain military bases and thousands of troops in Iraq, which it is supposed to leave entirely at the end of this year, and in Afghanistan as well, when the U.S. is scheduled to depart at the end of 2014. President Obama is applying heavy pressure to Baghdad and Kabul to “request” the long-term presence of U.S. troops and “contractors” after the bulk of the occupation force withdraws.
Why keep troops in Iraq? The neoconservative Bush White House invaded Iraq, which was considered a pushover after 12 years of U.S.-British-UN killer sanctions, not only to control its oil but as a prelude to bringing about regime change in neighboring Iran, thus providing Washington with total control of the immense resources of the Persian Gulf. The Iraqi guerrilla resistance destroyed the plan, for now.
Thus, the upshot of the war — in addition to costing American taxpayers several trillion dollars over the next few decades in principal and interest — is that Shi’ite Iran’s main enemy, which was the Sunni regime of Saddam Hussein in Baghdad until 2003, has been replaced by the Shi’ite government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, a politician who usually bends the knee to Washington but is quite friendly to Tehran, as are many Iraqi politicians. (The Shia are nearly 65% of the population; the Sunnis, nearly 35%.)
On May 16 Maliki declared that “Security, military and political cooperation between Iran and Iraq is essential, and we will certainly see the expansion of relations in these areas in the future.” Washington’s big fear is that Maliki may eventually thumb his nose at Uncle Sam, and that in time Iraq and Iran will draw much closer together — a prospect deeply opposed by the U.S., Israel and Saudi Arabia.
According to Stratfor, the private intelligence resource, on April 26: “[T]he U.S. has reportedly offered to leave as many as 20,000 troops in the country” after its “pullout” at the end of this year. In addition, a large but undetermined number of “contractors” — often paramilitary hirelings — are to remain.
Further, according to an Inter Press Service report May 9, the State Department “intends to double its staff in Iraq to nearly 16,000 and rely entirely on private contractors for security.” So large a staff is almost unbelievable, but so is the immense size of the new U.S. embassy in Baghdad’s Green Zone — the largest such facility in the world.
Perhaps the most important obstacle to retaining troops isn’t Maliki , who may cave in to domestic or American pressure, but the fighting cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army, which once fought U.S. troops but has been quiet in recent years. Sadr threatens to unleash the army to fight any occupation forces left behind. In making his decision Maliki must keep in mind that it was the votes of the Sadr forces that assured his election victory. The U.S. suggests Sadr is doing Iran’s bidding.
Washington has told Maliki he must make his decision by August. There’s lots of maneuvering going on, and which way he will decide is unknown.
Why keep troops in Afghanistan? The Obama Administration has several different reasons for seeking to retain a reduced fighting force in Afghanistan, and it is applying increasing pressure on its errant factotum in Kabul, President Hamid Karzai, to sign a post-2014 Strategic Partnership Declaration that includes U.S. troops and bases.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made oblique reference to this “long-term framework for our bilateral cooperation” in a Feb. 18 speech to the Asia Society: “In no way should our enduring commitment be misunderstood as a desire by America and our allies to occupy Afghanistan against the will of its people. We do not seek any permanent military bases in their country.”
In translation: Clinton indicted the U.S. was first going to seek approval from the Afghan government, and that its need for troops and bases would not last forever.
Washington is not without resources in this matter. It’s going to take up to $10 billion a year — which Kabul simply cannot afford — to pay for the nearly 400,000 Afghan troops and police that the Pentagon plans to have ready by the end of 2014. The money can only come from Uncle Sam, and the possible price may be accepting America’s “enduring commitment.”
According to a Reuters dispatch May 24, a “senior U.S. official who spoke on condition of anonymity,” told the British news agency: “Our goal is to end the war in Afghanistan, bring our troops home, leave behind enough capability to conduct CT [counter-terrorism] operations and to sustain necessary support to the local forces and Afghan state…. It remains a major, long-term U.S. commitment.” Here are some reasons why:
(1) The U.S. has been holding “secret talks” with the conservative Islamic Taliban for months with the objective of reaching an agreement that will bring the Taliban into the Kabul government and perhaps in some provinces as well, under the authority of President Karzai. The purpose is to end the 10-year stalemated war against the Taliban and several fighting groups opposed to the American invasion, and to convey the impression that it has achieved victory. But the White House doesn’t trust the Taliban, or Karzai for that matter, and wants its own “boots on the ground” after the main force departs.
According to an April 18 article in the Financial Times, the Obama Administration was so intent upon negotiating an agreement with the Taliban that it “quietly dropped its precondition that the Taliban sever links with al Qaeda and accept the Afghan constitution before holding face-to-face talks.” These conditions now have to be met “at the end of talks.” The U.S. acknowledges there are only about 50 al Qaeda members in Afghanistan these days.
(2) Neighboring Pakistan, which is essential to keep the Taliban under control in Afghanistan and as a transmission line for war supplies, is deeply distrusted by Washington, but Pakistan’s assistance in the region is required to bring about a peace agreement. Since Islamabad likewise distrusts the U.S. but appreciates its cash subsidies and needs a superpower friend as protection against its perhaps exaggerated fear of Indian enmity, the relationship remains viable — but the Obama government wants American troops to guide the process on the ground and for possible incursions into western Pakistan.
There have been reports that the U.S. was aggrieved to discover bin Laden was hiding in Pakistan for years. But cooperation will continue and the full details may not be revealed for years by either side, though each probably knows everything about the other’s role in this affair. As they cooperate, both countries have been spying upon and keeping secrets from each other, and their findings may best remain among themselves.
(3) Most importantly the U.S. has no desire to completely withdraw from its only foothold in Central Asia, militarily positioned close to what are perceived to be its two main enemies with nuclear weapons (China, Russia), and two volatile nuclear powers backed by the U.S. but not completely under its control by any means (Pakistan, India). Also, this fortuitous geography is flanking the extraordinary oil and natural gas wealth of the Caspian Basin and energy-endowed former Soviet Muslim republics such as Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. Lastly, Iran — a possible future imperial prize — is situated between Iraq to the west and Afghanistan to the east. The U.S. wants to keep troops nearby for any contingency.
Washington’s foothold in Central Asia is a potential geopolitical treasure, particularly as Obama, like Bush before him, seeks to prevent Beijing and Moscow from extending their influence in what is actually their own back yard, not America’s.
Both former Cold War adversaries are acutely aware of Washington’s intentions and are trying to block U.S. maneuvers through the regional Shanghai Cooperation Organization and other means, such as Beijing’s recent warm and supportive gestures toward an appreciative Islamabad. While China and Russia have supported the U.S. war in Afghanistan, they both — and no doubt Pakistan and India as well — strongly oppose the prospect of a long term U.S./NATO military presence in the region.
The White House has been twisting the Kabul government’s arm to sign a “status of forces” agreement allowing a relatively large American contingent of troops, special forces, CIA operatives, paramilitary contractors, military trainers, etc. — perhaps between 10,000-20,000 occupying up to six military bases — to remain in Afghanistan after the end of the 2014 pullout date. President Obama might then claim that the Afghans requested the forces for their own security. So far the Karzai government is holding out, but eventual agreement is probable.
The closest Obama has come to publicly acknowledging the partial withdrawal effort was on 60 Minutes May 8 with the obscure comment that “we don’t need to have a perpetual footprint of the size we have now.”
The main problem in keeping a smaller “perpetual footprint” is that the Taliban insists on a total withdrawal and abandonment of all U.S. bases as well as troops. Otherwise they won’t agree to the truce that is necessary to justify Obama’s “honorable” withdrawal. The U.S. seems intent upon pounding the Taliban militarily until it agrees. Eventually, Washington may prevail by offering the Taliban more money and more political and administrative power in the new arrangement. Perhaps the troops might be renamed “contractors” and the U.S. could transfer the bases to Kabul, which would lease them back to the Americans.
THE IMPORTANCE OF PALESTINE:

Before mentioning the Obama/Netanyahu brouhaha in late May, we’ll touch upon why the Israel-Palestine situation is central to America’s MENA/Central Asia policy, and note why the U.S. seeks a two-state solution to the Palestinian question and why the present Israeli government won’t go along.
The U.S. and most of its European allies view Israel as an important “Western” political, military and intelligence outpost in a resource-strategic, volatile and now “unstable” region of the world populated almost entirely by Arab Muslims. It will not allow Israel to go under.
Washington’s superpower influence has convinced most Arab governments to mute their criticisms of Israel’s mistreatment of the Palestinians, (Syria and Libya have been exceptions), but the Arab masses have always supported the cause of the Palestinian people and denounce both Israel and its American enabler. Now that these masses are beginning to speak for themselves the Palestine question is more important than ever.
The oppression of the Palestinian people is the main cause of anti-American attitudes throughout the Islamic world of about 1.4 billion people, mostly in 47 countries with majority Muslim populations. This number will grow to 2 billion by 2030.
At this time the U.S. is fighting in five Muslim countries, and seeking to seduce several resource-rich Central Asian Muslim countries while retaining its Arab satellites in MENA. Meanwhile, Washington is presiding over a debt-ridden ailing economy, its world leadership is declining, and several developing countries, led by China, are rising and seeking a more equitable world order than that put into place at the end of World War II when half the globe was subjugated to the big colonialist and imperialist powers.
Obviously, something has to give — and “resolving” the Palestinian crisis with two states seems to be the quickest and least expensive way for Washington to win the good graces of a fifth of the world population at a time when U.S. “leadership” is losing clout.
A fairly broad section of Israeli opinion also sees two states as a way out of the Palestinian dilemma — but the country is presently in the hands of a right/far right government led by Netanyahu’s Likud Party, the anti-democratic and racist Yisrael Beiteinu extremists led by Avigdor Lieberman, and the ultra-orthodox religious party Shas. Most of these right wing extremists will do everything possible to stall an agreement with the Palestinians in hopes that in time something — anything — will happen that will allow the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza to be annexed to Israel proper.
The ultra-orthodox community (10% but growing fast), backed by many other religious citizens, adhere to the superstition that the deity “gave” Israel to the Jews, and that the Arabs are interlopers who should emigrate elsewhere. Many in Yisrael Beiteinu also want the Arabs to leave, but for ultra-nationalist reasons. Likud seems less fanatical but depends on the far right to retain power.
Since the U.S. government has made it clear for decades that it will defend, support and subsidize the State of Israel under all conditions, what’s behind the headlines in recent days about a sharp disagreement between Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Obama?
Frankly, during his visit to the U.S. — where he met with Obama, addressed Congress and delivered a speech to the pro-Israel lobby AIPAC — Netanyahu made a mountain out of a molehill to divert attention from his government’s refusal to take the basic steps required to resume negotiations with the Palestinians leading toward creation of two states.
The “molehill” was Obama’s call for the resumption of talks between both sides based on the boundaries that existed before the June war 1967 with “mutually agreed land swaps.”(Israel still occupies and is building settlements upon the land it seized in contravention of international law.)
The “molehill” was Obama’s call for the resumption of talks between both sides based on the boundaries that existed in 1967 with “mutually agreed land swaps.”
Actually, this has been the basic U.S. position for nearly two decades in discussions with Israel and talks between both sides. The Clinton and Bush 2 Administrations were in general agreement. The Palestinian Authority in the West Bank agrees with it, and now Hamas in Gaza as well, as did previous Israeli governments. They understood — as Obama made sure to articulate to the Israeli leader — that the “mutually agreed swaps” of land would be part of a final boundary agreement.
This means that a method would be found for Israelis to obtain much of the Palestinian land where it has illegally settled 500,000 of its citizens in the West Bank and East Jerusalem in exchange for swapping some of its own land and other concessions. Naturally, land would be exchanged to make it possible for the two parts of Palestine to be connected, even if just a narrow corridor.
The “mountain” was Netanyahu’s intentional misunderstanding that as a result of talks Israel was being told to return to the 1967 borders, which he charged were now “indefensible.” All that was missing from his distortion was the allegation that Obama was now adding one more “existential” menace to the plethora of dangers facing Israel, but it was implied. Both AIPAC and Congress focused on protecting Israel and genuflecting to Netanyahu. Obama’s cautious and weak call for talks was brushed aside, as Netanyahu had planned.
The House and Senate — Democrats and Republicans, in a rare display of bipartisanship — gave the Israeli leader a tremendous welcome replete with a score of standing ovations. Congress has been even more pro-Israel than the White House over the last decades. Part of the reason is the remarkable effectiveness of the pro-Israel lobbies on election campaigns. Some politicians owe their careers to AIPAC, and some have lost their careers when they publicly questioned Israel’s sanctity.
Another part stems from the political power of tens of millions of Christian evangelicals and fundamentalists who not only accept the supernatural theory that a divine being “gave” Israel to the Jews but believe the Christian superstition that the Jews must be in full possession of Israel (Palestine) before Jesus Christ will return to Earth for the “Rapture.”
Aside from Obama’s 1967 borders remark, all his comments just before and during Netanyahu’s self-serving visit were paeans to Israel and pledges of America’s support. He also displayed a dismaying inability to recognize a difference between oppressed and oppressor.
Obama (1) refused to call on Israel to stop building settlements in Palestinian territory; (2) omitted mention of Israel’s illegal demand to annex all Jerusalem; (3) did not refer to the Palestinian refugee situation; (4) insisted that the PA withdraw its application for statehood set to be debated at the UN in September, with a good chance of General Assembly approval (though an inevitable U.S. Security Council veto will obviate the vote); (5) opposed the unity moves between Fatah/PA in West Bank and Hamas in Gaza.
In addition Obama argued that the Palestinians must not only recognize the existence of Israel but should acknowledge “Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland of the Jewish people.” In normal diplomatic exchanges mutual recognition is sufficient, without all the bending over backward expected of the Palestinians.
As far as state and homeland are concerned, there are more than a million Palestinians who have been living in what is now Israel since 1948 and for many generations earlier, in addition to refugees whose demand for a “right to return” has not been addressed. This is a matter for the negotiations, not dismissal beforehand by defining Israel in such fashion.
Many demands on both sides will be negotiated — but any commitments take place after, not before, negotiations. One more point on recognition. Much is made out of the fact that Hamas (and Fatah as well, but this usually is not mentioned) does not “recognize” Israel. But according to international law, recognition is between two states, not between a political party and a state.
Even when the right/far right coalition led by Netanyahu is defeated in a couple of years by the center right Kadima Party, it will be somewhat easier but still very rough going for the Palestinians. The political left is very small. There is no powerful center or center left party (though the weakened center-right Labor Party, which would join the new ruling coalition, sometimes thinks of itself as center left), and Kadima would have to make concessions to its coalition partners, then to the powerful right/far right in parliament, and then to the settlers and the die-hards.
Kadima, an offshoot of Likud, is led by former Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni who calls for negotiations with the PA, including land swaps, leading to a Palestinian state. But both Obama and Livni have made it clear in the past that the state they envisage for the Palestinians would be extremely weak, dependent on conservative Arab countries and the U.S., and probably not even allowed to have its own defense forces.
Right now, even that hurdle seems to be a long distance down a road that resembles an obstacle course, but the Palestinian people have shown themselves to be extremely persistent in the face of great odds, and whatever their final objective in the struggles to come they just might get there.
For our three-part article on “The U.S.-NATO War Against Libya,” see the April 9, 2011, Activist Newsletter at http://activistnewsletter.blogspot.com/

"No Shred of Evidence", Iran Building Nukes, Ex Head of IAEA Says

NOVANEWS
By Sherwood Ross
 

The former Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency(IAEA) said in a new published report that he had not seen “a shred of evidence” that Iran was “building nuclear-weapons facilities and using enriched materials.”

Mohamed ElBaradei, the Nobel Peace Prize recipient who spent 12 years at the IAEA, told investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, “I don’t believe Iran is a clear and present danger. All I see is the hype about the threat posed by Iran.”

El Baradei, who is now a candidate for the presidency of Egypt, added, “The core issue is mutual lack of trust. I believe there will be no solution until the day that the United States and Iran sit down together to discuss the issues and put pressure on each other to find a solution.”

El Baradei’s remarks are contained in an article by Hersh titled “Iran And The Bomb,” published in the June 6th issue of The New Yorkermagazine.

Hersh points out that the last two U.S. National Intelligence Estimates (N.I.E.s) on Iranian nuclear progress “have stated that there is no conclusive evidence that Iran has made any effort to build the bomb since 2003.”

An N.I.E. Report supposedly represents the best judgment of the senior offices from all the major American intelligence agencies.

The latest report, which came out this year and remains highly classified, is said by Hersh to reinforce the conclusion of the last N.I.E. Report of 2007, that “Iran halted weaponization in 2003.”

A retired senior intelligence officer, speaking of the latest N.I.E. Report, told Hersh, “The important thing is that nothing substantially new has been learned in the last four years, and none of our efforts—informants, penetrations, planting of sensors—leads to a bomb.”

Hersh revealed that over the past six years, soldiers from the Joint Special Operations Force, working with Iranian intelligence assets, “put in place cutting-edge surveillance techniques” to spy on suspected Iran facilities. These included:

# Surreptitiously removing street signs and replacing them with signs containing radiation sensors.

# Removing bricks from buildings suspected of containing nuclear enrichment activities and replacing them “with bricks embedded with radiation-monitoring devices.”

# Spreading high-powered sensors disguised as stones randomly along roadways where a suspected underground weapon site was under construction.

# Constant satellite coverage of major suspect areas in Iran.

Going beyond these spy activities, two Iranian nuclear scientists last year were assassinated and Hersh says it is widely believed in Tehran that the killers were either American or Israeli agents.

Hersh quotes W. Patrick Lang, a retired Army intelligence officer and former ranking Defense Intelligence Agency(DIA) analyst on the Middle East as saying that after the disaster in Iraq, “Analysts in the intelligence community are just refusing to sign up this time for a lot of baloney.”

The DIA is the military counterpart of the Central Intelligence Agency(CIA).

Hersh writes that Obama administration officials “have often overstated the available intelligence about Iranian intentions.” He noted that Dennis Ross, a top Obama adviser on the region, told a meeting of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee that Iran had “significantly expanded its nuclear program.”

Hersh noted further that last March, Robert Einhorn, the special arms control adviser to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, told the Arms Control Assn. The Iranians “are clearly acquiring all the necessary elements of a nuclear-weapons capability.”

Additionally, Senator Joseph Lieberman, a strong Israel supporter, told Agence France-Presse, “I can’t say much in detail but it’s pretty clear that they’re(Iran) continuing to work seriously on a nuclear-weapons program.”

Hersh recalled that “As Presidential candidates in 2008, both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton had warned of an Iranian nuclear arsenal, and occasionally spoke as if it were an established fact that Iran had decided to get the bomb.”

But last March, Lieutenant General James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence which creates the N.I.E. Assessments, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that Iran had not decided to re-start its nuclear weapons work. When asked by Committee Chairman Carl Levin, “What is the level of confidence that you have (in that estimate)? Is that a high level?” Clapper replied, “Yes, it is.”

At a round of negotiations in Istanbul five months ago, Iranian officials told Western diplomats that the United States and its allies need to acknowledge Iran’s right to enrich uranium and that they must lift all sanctions against Iran.

Clinton adviser Einhorn has said that because of those sanctions Iran may have lost as much as $60 billion in energy investments and that Iran had also lost business in such industries as shipping, banking, and transportation. “The sanctions bar a wide array of weapons and missile sales to Iran, and make it more difficult for banks and other financial institutions to do business there,” Hersh writes.

However, Hersh says, “The general anxiety about the Iranian regime is firmly grounded” even if there is no hard evidence it is working to build a nuclear weapon. “President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has repeatedly questioned the Holocaust and expressed a desire to see the state of Israel eliminated, and he has defied the 2006 United Nations resolution calling on Iran to suspend its nuclear-enrichment program.”

He goes on to write that while IAEA inspectors “have expressed frustration with Iran’s level of cooperation and cited an increase in production of uranium…they have been unable to find any evidence that enriched uranium has been diverted to an illicit weapons program.”

One approach to resolving the Iran nuclear issue has been suggested by former ranking American diplomat Thomas Pickering, a retired ambassador who served in Russia, Israel, Jordan and India, and who has been active in the American Iranian Council, devoted to the normalization of relations with Iran.

According to Hersh, Pickering has been involved “in secret, back-channel talks with…some of the key advisers close to Ahmadinejad” and has long sought a meeting with President Obama. Hersh quotes one of Pickering’s colleagues as saying if Obama were to grant a meeting, Pickering would tell him: “Get off your no-enrichment policy, which is getting you nowhere. Stop your covert activities. Give the Iranians a sign that you’re not pursuing regime change. Instead, the Iranians see continued threats, sanctions, and covert operations.”

The website Politico.com reports in its May 31 issue that a senior Administration intelligence official asserted Hersh’s article was nothing more than “a slanted book report.”

Saudi Arabia/Japan: Japanese High Tea in the Land of Sweet Tea and Bibles

NOVANEWS


When I was in Saudi Arabia I found it easy and wonderful to meet individuals from all differing parts of the world.  A Saudi friend and I created our own grassroots group which we dubbed the “Women’s Exchange Experience.”  We invited our expatriate and Saudi friends (female) through word of mouth or email to plan on getting together once a month as a group.  The gathering had a planned agenda and ending time.  The first 20 minutes or so would be dedicated to introductions and networking since most women did not know each other.  Once the majority of guests had arrived, either my friend or I would give the formal introduction of welcome and share the agenda of the evening.  Our agenda’s would vary from discussing topics of interest between Saudis and expatriates or could even be demonstrations of food and culture from one of the Saudi woman or expatriate woman.  What was important is that the Women’s Exchange Experience brought together women who would otherwise not have met each other.  It broke barriers between Saudi women and expatriate women.

It’s easy for expatriates to routinely meet other expats or for Saudis to meet other Saudis.  But it had not been easy for expatriate and Saudi women to have opportunities to socialize and get to know one another.

I’m in Charlotte, NC now as I continue the battle with cancer.  I am living in the Bible belt of the Southern United States!  Initially as I was settling in I thought that perhaps my hey days of getting to know individuals from differing cultures and customs might be over but thankfully I was very mistaken.  This blog has continued to bring me close to people from all over the world and share experiences, culture and customs.

Thanks to my blog, I’ve been brought together with some amazing and well-traveled American women who have each spent significant time in the GCC, to include Saudi Arabia.  They are in the same area as me and they also miss the opportunities to reminiscence about the “expat days.”  We got together a few weeks ago and you could say had our own small version of “WEE.”  One of the dear ladies who is soon departing to Riyadh to join her husband who is already working there brought her Japanese neighbors with her to the gathering at my home.

One of the Japanese ladies is a Master at preparing and serving a Japanese High Tea.  We three American expatriate ladies were treated to such a unique and lovely experience where from my living room in Charlotte we transposed ourselves as if we were VIP guests in a five star hotel in Tokyo and presented with a high tea.  I would try to explain the step by step process but I’m afraid I would mangle it.  I learned that each guest’s tea is prepared and served individually in a bowl with meaning and beauty.  There is a protocol followed when receiving and accepting the bowl as well as how one drinks the tea in a few short gulps.  After drinking the tea the bowl is carefully turned and admired before giving it back to the Master.  It was an honor to have this experience.  Through this experience not only were my horizons broadened but I now have some lovely Japanese friends here within the Southern tranquility of Charlotte, North Carolina.

I am hopeful that at some point I may get to know some Saudis who are in the Charlotte area too.

5 Zionist's arrested in drug mule case

NOVANEWS

 

Suspects allegedly ordered cocaine found in stomach of Peruvian woman who arrived at Ben Gurion Airport. Another Peruvian found dead on same flight, evidently from burst drug pellets

Five Zionist’s were arrested Saturday on suspicion of ordering a cocaine delivery that was discovered in the stomach of a Peruvian citizen who was apprehended on Friday at the Ben Gurion Airport.

Another Peruvian citizen was found dead on the same flight, evidently killed when drug pellets burst in his stomach. Police are investigating whether the two cases are linked.

Since her arrest on Friday afternoon, the Peruvian woman discharged about half a kilogram (1 lb) of cocaine that was hidden in plastic pellets in her body.

International Crime Investigation Unit detectives, lead by Brigadier-General Haim Ifargan, discovered that a large crime family from central IsraHell is behind the drug order.

Intelligence information obtained ahead of the flight’s arrival showed that the drug mule was to attempt to contact the crime family upon landing in order to transfer the cocaine.

Investigators raided the crime family’s residence early on Saturday morning, arresting five people. Police intend to motion the Rishon Letzion Magistrate’s Court to extend their remand on Saturday night.

Passengers on the El Al flight that arrived from Brazil on Friday witnessed part of the drama unfolding; some said that the Peruvian man turned to the flight crew saying that he felt ill.

He vomited in the bathroom and was lead by the stewards into the kitchen, where he received first aid from a medic and a doctor who were on the flight. At one point he went into seizure; the crew attempted to revive him but to no avail. He was pronounced dead.

Police later estimated that the man was poisoned, which made them suspect that he might have been smuggling drugs as well.

Nazi snipers kill 6 Syrians

NOVANEWS

Syrian media says six killed, dozens wounded after hundreds attempt to storm occupied Palestine border; protestors: We’ll either die for Allah or return to our occupied land

Despite reports suggesting the mass rallies planned in Syria and Lebanon to mark “Naksa Day” – the 44th anniversary of the Arab “downfall” in the Six Day War – were cancelled, some 500 people gathered Sunday on the Syrian side of the northern border.

According to reports, around noon, about 150 protesters made their way to the international border fence and began stoning Nazi troops and attempting to cut through the fence.

Nazi Gestapo, deploy in all sectors ahead of ‘Naksa Day’ despite reports of canceled border marches. ‘We won’t let anyone infiltrate Israel, and if need be will use live ammunition,’ military source says

Nazi Gestapo called on the demonstrators to cease their progress, before firing warning shots in mid-air. Once those were ignored as well, the troops fired at the lower extremities of several major dissidents inflaming the crowds.

Unconfirmed reports by Syrian media suggest six people, including two teens, were killed and about 100 others injured, by Nazi sniper fire. Red Cross Ambulances evacuated the injured.

Syrian medical officials told Damascus TV that the Nazi soldiers “are shooting live rounds and aiming for the abdomen, chest and head.”

Nazi Gestapo has not confirmed any information about casualties.

The entire parameter has been declared a restricted military zone. The military is broadcasting warnings in Arabic for the demonstrators – who have yet to reach the border-adjacent minefield – to stay away from the barbed wire fence.

Zio-Nazi Gestapo have increased deployment across all sectors ahead of “Naksa Day.” The deployment includes tanks, jeeps and infantry forces. A military source said that “the tension on the border is palpable.”

A corresponding rally of about 400 people, mostly Druze and reporters, took place on the Zionist occupied side of the border.

Ali Younis, head of the Syrian Prisoners Committee, who was among the protesters, told Syrian television that “the Zio-Nazi soldiers are using tear gas and live rounds.

“The terrorist Zionist entity is using savage means against boys, just like they do in the prisons. Despite all of this, our youth is not afraid. The moment of liberation and return to the Golan in close.”

The IDF reported that a riot also broke out near the Quneitra Crossing. IDF forces fired warning shots at them as well, reporting hitting several.

Military officials noted that Syrian security forces were doing nothing to stop the demonstrators from trying to cross the border illegally.

The defense establishment issued adamant warnings saying it will not allow any illegal entry to Israel by protesters. Forces deployed across the northern borders have been issued special crowd-control measures, and are under orders to open fire – if all else fails.

Zio-Nazi Spokesman Brigadier-General Yoav Mordechai said that “the Syrian government and military are helpless to stop what is going on. I hope this is not an attempt by the Syrian regime to divert international attention from what in is going on in the country.”

Zio-Nazi Spokesperson Unit’s Arab Media Liaison Avichai Adrei went on al-Jazeera and said that IsraHell “wants to see this incident end as soon as possible and all demonstrators retune home safely. We urge them to stop all provocations. The IDF is here to protect Israeli lives.”

Zio-Nazi Prime Minister Benjamin Naziyahu addressed “Naksa Day” in Sunday’s Cabinet meeting, saying that “Unfortunately, there are radical elements around us that are trying to breach our borders and threaten our citizens.

“We have instructed security forces to exercise restraint, but still secure the borders,” he said.

‘Ofer ships transferred arms to Zio-Nazi Gestapo's in Iran’

NOVANEWS
 

Britain’s Sunday Times reports that Ofer’s ships were used by commando teams in reconnaissance missions against Iran’s secret nuclear sites, allowing Zio-Nazi’s to reach Iran clandestinely

Following the publication of a post on Richard Silverstein’s blog claiming that cargo vessels owned by the Ofer Brothers were used to ferry Mossad agents to Iran, military experts told Britain’s Sunday Times that it is possible that the ships also carried Blackhawk helicopters which were hidden in modified containers.

According to the British paper, the cargo ships that docked in Iran were used by commando teams in reconnaissance missions against Iran’s secret nuclear sites, allowing the Zio-Nazi Gestapo’s to reach Iran without arousing suspicion.

Ofer’s death came just days after the United States accused his company of breaching sanctions by selling an oil tanker to Iran and aiding in financing Iran’s nuclear program.

A US state department press release stated that the Ofer Group, along with two other shipping companies from Monaco and Singapore were in September 2010 involved in a deal through which they supplied shipping services worth $9 million to Iranian shipping company IRISL.

Last week, Clacalist revealed that between 2004 and 2010 at least four oil tankers owned by the Ofer Group’s Tanker Pacific Company docked in Iranian ports.

A Clacalist report also revealed that seven of Tanker Pacific’s ships docked in Iranian ports at least eight times at a time when Zio-Nazi was lobbying fiercely for the US to impose sanctions on trade with Iran.

This at a time when the US said that it would implement severe sanctions against any company that would be found to be in some way involved in trade with Iran, including transport in any way connected with the country’s oil industry.