There are 14 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. Nobelist: Anti-science climate "disastrous!" tvnl news
From: "reggie501" <reggie501@optonline.net>
2. I cannot post a Bravo for Charlie (somehow blocked) and afterdowningstreet.com obviously won't touch 9/11.
From: Joe Stokes <joestokes@sbcglobal.net>
3. Fw: London Review of Books Editor hits back over Israel Lobby row
From: "Dick Eastman" <olfriend@nwinfo.net>
4. Iran war plans laid out?
From: "Cait" <ansith@gmail.com>
5. Reframing 9/11 Truth
From: "Donald Stahl" <politicstahl@hotmail.com>
6. Re: I cannot post a Bravo for Charlie (somehow blocked) and afterdowningstreet.com obviously won't touch 9/11.
From: Chris Bell <somebigguy88@yahoo.com>
7. Former Head Of Star Wars Program Says Cheney Main 9/11 Suspect
From: Moondancermom@aol.com
8. Thank Charlie Sheen Here + Iran Attack Coming Soon !! BravoCharlie91
From: ranger116@webtv.net
9. Executive Order 13292 of March 16 was declaration of war -and H.R. 282 will be the Congressional rubber stamp
From: "Dick Eastman" <olfriend@nwinfo.net>
10. Fw: U.S. researchers to create a human-lethal bird flu virus mutation
From: "Dick Eastman" <olfriend@nwinfo.net>
11. [apfn-1] Secret Pentagon Report on Oklahoma City Bombing
From: APFN <apfn@apfn.org>
12. Mayan Priests Purify Bush's "Demons & Evil" on Mexico Visit During Bu
From: ranger116@webtv.net
13. Dennis Kyne: An Uncommon American Hero
From: Cathy Garger <savorsuccesslady@yahoo.com>
14. Two Days in the Life: 4/3-4/6 Plus Two Kennedys in the Death
From: "President, USA Exile Govt." <prez@usa-exile.org>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2006 15:30:42 -0000
From: "reggie501" <reggie501@optonline.net>
Subject: Nobelist: Anti-science climate "disastrous!" tvnl news
HEADLINES and NEWS LINKS Courtesy of TvNewsLies.org
http://tvnewslies.org/news
________________________________________________________________
Apr.03-2006
HEALTH & SCIENCE : http://www.tvnewslies.org/news/#health
**Nobel Laureate Eric Kandel Condemns Censorship' Of Scientists;
Calls Current Climate For Science As Disastrous" As McCa rthy
Era - "From a restrictive point of view, this is an even more
painful era in some ways than the Eisenhower-McCarthy era,"
Kandel said. The difference, he added, is that during the
Eisenhower-McCarthy era, the opposition to McCarthy was quite
strong, and the government itself felt ambivalent about McCarthy
WAR : http://www.tvnewslies.org/news/#war
· Sectarian Strife Fuels Gun Sales in Baghdad
· Right-wing bloggers attack freed hostage for 'treason'
· U.S. Says Copter Likely Shot Down in Iraq
· Sleuths look for the tiniest smoking gun that could lead to
war on Iran
· Halliburton's War - Instead of a comprehensive solution to
the Persian Gulf crisis, we got what can only be called
"Halliburton's War," the three-year descent into Hell
· IRAQ : U.S. Military There are no plans to leave Iraq.
ECONOMY : http://www.tvnewslies.org/news#economy
· Exxon Dethrones Wal-Mart on Fortune 500
9/11 News : http://www.tvnewslies.org/news/#911
· 60 Minutes Reinforces the 9/11 Conspiracy Theory!
· Lookin' for the 911 Truth - Maybe you don't want to listen to
any of these individuals, but the fact is, a lot of Americans
agree with them.
· Controlled Demolition - Free Video
· Watch Loose Change Second Edition On Line Free
CONGRESS : http://www.tvnewslies.org/news/#congress
· The Prostitution of John McCain
MILITARY & VETERANS : http://www.tvnewslies.org/news/#military
· Giant C-5 military jet crashes in Delaware
· US Army redraws its tattoo policy - The US Army has relaxed its
policy on tattoos in a bid to boost the number of new recruits
JOURNALISM & MEDIA : http://www.tvnewslies.org/news/#media
· ABC Suspends Producer Over Bush-Bashing E-Mail
HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH : http://www.tvnewslies.org/news/#rights
· 9/11 Detainees in New Jersey Say They Were Abused With Dogs
· Iraqi girl tells of US attack - If her story is true - and it
has been disputed by the US military - human rights workers say
it is the worst massacre of civilians by US troops in the country.
· When is Killing Arab Civilians Considered a Massacre? - "Old-style"
massacres of Iraqis have become so commonplace lately that even
Iraqi "allies" of the U.S. were forced to unreservedly condemn them.
OF INTEREST : http://www.tvnewslies.org/news/#interest
· Top Scientist Advocates Mass Culling 90% Of Human Population
· Bush Link to Kennedy Assassination - Watch Video for Free
· The JFK assassination and Bush's refusal to extradite Posada
Carriles to Venezuela? - I wish that respected journalists would
leave the debate whether Posada is a terrorist, and concentrate on
the question whether he and Orlando Bosch were involved in the
JFK assassination under direction of George HW Bush.
_______________________________________________________________________
Email the Oprah Winfrey today for a program to reopen 9/11!!
http://tvnewslies.org/html/9_11_truth_calling_oprah.html
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 15:53:39 -0700 (PDT)
From: Joe Stokes <joestokes@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: I cannot post a Bravo for Charlie (somehow blocked) and afterdowningstreet.com obviously won't touch 9/11.
I cannot post a "Bravo" for Charlie (somehow blocked)
and afterdowningstreet.com obviously won't touch 9/11.
I got through to Oprah's producers.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 17:03:59 -0700
From: "Dick Eastman" <olfriend@nwinfo.net>
Subject: Fw: London Review of Books Editor hits back over Israel Lobby row
From: bill.giltner@gmail.com
CRIMES AND CORRUPTIONS OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER NEWS
CRIMES AND CORRUPTIONS OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER NEWS - LiveJournal.com
London Review of Books Editor hits back over Israel Lobby row
Editor hits back over Israel row
London Review of Books stands its ground after being accused of anti-Semitism in an article attacking pro-Israeli influence on US policy
Peter Beaumont, foreign affairs editor
Sunday April 2, 2006
The Observer
She is, in the words of her many admirers, the 'mater familias of London's liberal intelligentsia'. This weekend, however, Mary-Kay Wilmers, editor of the London Review of Books, is on the defensive - speaking out for the first time in an escalating transatlantic row that has seen her respected journal accused of promoting anti-Semitism.
The argument has erupted over a cover article in the latest issue of the LRB by two prominent American academics on the influence of the pro-Israel lobby in the US. The article, which argues that the lobby holds a disproportionate and damaging sway over American foreign policy, prompted a bitter and growing controversy, particularly in the US, where rival camps have exchanged claims of anti-Semitism and intellectual intimidation by those accused of being members of 'the Lobby'.
The article, by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, was originally written for, but rejected by, the Atlantic Monthly and picked up by the LRB, when Wilmers 'became aware of its existence'.
The article set out at exhaustive length to list every way in which it claimed US foreign policy had been captured on behalf of Israel by an all-encompassing lobby of academics, campaign groups, journalists and pro-Israeli activists in government. Among the fiercest critics have been Eliot Engel, a Democratic congressman from New York, who branded the authors 'anti-Semites', and the right-wing New York Sun, which likened the piece to the 'rantings' of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
The article has been praised by white supremacist and former head of the Ku Klux Klan David Duke - a move that Wilmers admits was 'unsettling'.
'I don't want David Duke to endorse the article,' he told The Observer from France on Friday. 'It makes me feel uncomfortable. But when I re-read the piece, I did not see anything that I felt should not have been said. Maybe it is because I am Jewish, but I think I am very alert to anti-Semitism. And I do not think that criticising US foreign policy, or Israel's way of going about influencing it, is anti-Semitic. I just don't see it.'
Harvard University, where Walt is a professor, has also weighed into the row, distancing itself from the report.
It is not the first time in recent years that the LRB has been embroiled in controversy with the US - it was accused of anti-Americanism in a special issue following the attacks on 11 September.
President Bill Clinton's special Middle East envoy, Dennis Ross, cited by the authors as having 'close ties' to pro-Israel organisations, said the authors displayed a 'woeful lack of knowledge'.
For their part, the two authors, despite the row, describe themselves as 'philo-Semites'. Wilmers says they are members of the Realist School of US Foreign Policy which insists that America should be guided by its own interests and not by Israel's.
Wilmers defends the article: 'I know Israel thinks it is a monstrous presumption. But then I don't think that the way that Israel behaves is terribly helpful. The article doesn't talk about a "Jewish Lobby" or a "Cabal". I feel very clear about that. We were very conscious of that risk.'
But while Wilmers feels confident that the article examines legitimate concerns - in particular about the lobby group American Israel Public Affairs Committee - it is not a view shared by critics of the LRB. Among them is Professor Alan Dershowitz, a colleague of Walt at Harvard, who is criticised in the article for being an 'apologist' for Israel. Dershowitz denounced the authors last week as 'liars' and 'bigots' and compared their argument to neo-Nazi literature. It is a view shared by US academics Jeffrey Herf and Andrei Markovits, who wrote to the LRB: 'Accusations of powerful Jews behind the scenes are part of the most dangerous traditions of modern anti-Semitism.'
But while some have focused on the issue of anti-Semitism, others, following Dennis Ross's lead, have condemned the article as a shoddy piece of pseudo-academia. It is a view endorsed by journalist Christopher Hitchens, who has accused the authors of an exercise in Jewish 'name listing', and perhaps - most surprisingly - by Noam Chomsky, the Nobel-prize winning academic who has written on the pro-Israeli bias of the US media.
'Recognising that Mearsheimer-Walt took a courageous stand which merits praise,' he wrote for online magazine ZNet last week, 'we still have to ask how convincing their thesis is. Not very, in my opinion.'
Wilmers rejects the accusation by Hitchens, Ross and others that the Mearsheimer-Walt article has done little more than attempt to join up a disconnected list of people and organisations lobbying on different aspects of Israeli concern into a central 'Israel Lobby' - capitalised by the LRB. She admits now, however, that it would have been better to use a lower case 'l' for the word 'lobby' - to have avoided the risk of being misunderstood.
'It is not true that the authors simply lumped together a long list of people and organisations in the same piece to make their case for an "Israeli Lobby". To say that because someone is mentioned in context in a long piece is tainted by association with any other is wrong.'
Wilmers believes, too, that the most angry denunciations of anti-Semitism - while designed to serve the purpose of censorship by those attempting to forestall criticism of Israel - may actually encourage anti-Semitism in the long run.
'It serves a purpose. No one wants to be thought of as anti-Semitic because it is thought of as worse than anything else, although it is not worse being anti-Semitic than being anti-black or Islamophobic.
'Really, one of the most upsetting things is the way it can contribute to anti-Semitism in the long run just by making so many constant appeals and preventing useful criticism of Israel. No one can say Israel's posture does not contribute to anti-Semitism, yet charges of anti-Semitism are used to justify that policy.'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1745026,00.html
Comments
[This message contained attachments]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 14:42:08 -0500 (Central Daylight Time)
From: "Cait" <ansith@gmail.com>
Subject: Iran war plans laid out?
The links in this article are very informative. Especially the one for Hr.
282
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-282
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/hirsch.php?articleid=8788
War Against Iran, April 2006
Biological Threat and Executive Order 13292 by Jorge Hirsch
H istory repeats itself, but always with new twists. We are back to the good
old days when a Declaration of War preceded the start of a war. Such
declaration occurred on March 16th, 2006. Reversing the old order, we are
now in the "Sitzkrieg", to be followed shortly by an aerial "Blitzkrieg" in
the coming days.
In the old days, Congress declared war, and directed the Executive to take
action. In the new millenium, the Executive declared war last March 16th,
then Congress will pass H.R. 282, "To hold the current regime in Iran
accountable for its threatening behavior and to support a transition to
democracy in Iran." This bill and previous ones like it are in direct
violation of the legally binding Algiers Accords[pdf] signed by the United
States and Iran on January 19, 1981, that states "The United States pledges
that it is and from now on will be the policy of the United States not to
intervene, directly or indirectly, politically or militarily, in Iran's
internal affairs"; however, this is clearly of no interest to the 353
policymakers sponsoring the bill.
The US promised Russia and China that the UN Security Council statement just
approved will not be a trigger for military action after 30 days; true to
its promise, the US will attack before the 30-day deadline imposed by the
UNSC for Iran to stop its nuclear enrichment activity, i.e. before the end
of April. The "justification" is likely to be an alleged threat of imminent
biological attack with Iran's involvement.
The Declaration of War against Iran
I n the aftermath of Pearl Harbor, the Congressional Declaration of December
8, 1941 stated: " Whereas the Imperial Government of Japan has committed
unprovoked acts of war against the Government and the people of the United
States of America: Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That
the state of war between the United States and the Imperial Government of
Japan which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally
declared; and the president is hereby authorized and directed to employ the
entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of
the Government to carry on war against the Imperial Government of Japan."
Similarly, the formal war declaration against Iran, the National Security
Strategy of March 16, 2006, stated:
"We may face no greater challenge from a single country than from Iran."
"The Iranian regime sponsors terrorism; threatens Israel; seeks to thwart
Middle East peace; disrupts democracy in Iraq; and denies the aspirations of
its people for freedom."
"[T]he first duty of the United States Government remains what it always has
been: to protect the American people and American interests. It is an
enduring American principle that this duty obligates the government to
anticipate and counter threats, using all elements of national power, before
the threats can do grave damage."
"The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction – and the more
compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even
if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack. There
are few greater threats than a terrorist attack with WMD."
"To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United
States will, if necessary, act preemptively."
"When the consequences of an attack with WMD are potentially so devastating,
we cannot afford to stand idly by as grave dangers materialize."
"[T]here will always be some uncertainty about the status of hidden programs
"
"Advances in biotechnology provide greater opportunities for state and
non-state actors to obtain dangerous pathogens and equipment."
"Biological weapons also pose a grave WMD threat because of the risks of
contagion that would spread disease across large populations and around the
globe."
"Countering the spread of biological weapons .... will also enhance our
Nation's ability to respond to pandemic public health threats, such as avian
influenza."
This has to be combined with the 2005 U.S. State Department "FINDING. The
United States judges that, based on all available information, Iran has an
offensive biological weapons program in violation of the BWC."
In addition, the March 16 declaration makes it clear that the US will use
nuclear weapons in the war against Iran:
."..using all elements of national power..."
"Safe, credible, and reliable nuclear forces continue to play a critical
role. We are strengthening deterrence by developing a New Triad composed of
offensive strike systems (both nuclear and improved conventional
capabilities)."
and this is further reinforced by the just released "National Military
Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction"[pdf] that states "Offensive
operations may include kinetic (both conventional and nuclear) and/or
non-kinetic options (e.g. information operations) to deter or defeat a WMD
threat or subsequent use of WMD."
There is of course also the claim that Iran is a threat because it intends
to develop nuclear weapons. The sole purpose of that claim, which flies in
the face of all available evidence, is to generate a diplomatic stalemate at
the UN that will allow Bush to state that other nations share the US concern
but not the resolve to act. However the actual trigger for the bombing to
begin will not be the long-term and by now discredited nuclear threat,
rather it is likely to be the threat of an imminent biological attack.
Casus Belli
There is no casus belli against Iran based on its nuclear program. The IAEA
has found no evidence that in the 20 years of its development there has been
any diversion of nuclear material to military applications. The Bush
administration now officially acknowledges that the issue with Iran arises
from a "loophole" in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, that allows
non-nuclear countries to pursue uranium enrichment. However it is not a
loophole, the right to a full civilian nuclear program is an integral part
of the compromise, that made non-nuclear countries agree to it. For the US
to call it a loophole means to abrogate the treaty unilaterally and propose
a different treaty that non-nuclear countries will have no motivation to
agree to.
The Bush administration declares that a civilian nuclear program that gives
Iran "knowledge" or "capability" to build a nuclear weapon is unacceptable.
It could apply exactly the same logic to biotechnology. The State Department
says that "Iran is expanding its biotechnology and biomedical industries by
building large, state-of-the-art research and pharmaceutical production
facilities. These industries could easily hide pilot to industrial-scale
production capabilities for a potential BW program, and could mask
procurement of BW-related process equipment." Why isn't the US demanding
that Iran stops its biotechnology research and development, and that it
transfers all biotech related activities to Russia?
The key lies in Executive Order 13292, which made information on "weapons of
mass destruction" and on "defense against transnational terrorism"
classified. If concrete details about Iran's alleged biological weapons
programs were made public, they would be subject to public scrutiny and they
would be discredited, as the allegations on Iran's "nuclear weapons program"
have been. The US is likely to have "assembled" classified information on
Iran's biological weapons programs and shared it with selected individuals,
including members of Congress, under the constraint that classified
information cannot be made public. For example, at the June 25, 2004 House
subcommittee "MEMBERS ONLY CLASSIFIED BRIEFING on Iran, Middle East
Proliferation and Terrorist Capabilities." The unclassified portion of that
briefing states "It is time for Iran to declare its biological weapons
program and make arrangements for its dismantlement."
There is likely to be a team of "experts" lined up by the administration
that will support its claims that Iran had a biological weapons program
representing an imminent threat. There is always room in science for
differing opinions, and if an open scientific debate is not possible because
information is classified, any outlandish claim can find some supporters in
the scientific community. The most likely biological threat to be invoked,
because it has a natural time element associated with it, is the threat of a
bird flu pandemic caused by a deliberately mutated H5N1 virus carried by
migrating wild birds.
The Biological Threat
C onsider for example Dr. Ward Casscells, a renowned cardiologist that has
of late become an "expert" in bioterrorism. Even more recently, Dr.
Casscells joined the Army as a colonel . According to the US Defense
Department, "his years of research on now-spreading avian flu are now deemed
cutting edge." However, I know of no independent credible scientific body
that makes the same assessment: Dr. Casscells has written a total of four
papers on the effect of influenza on cardiac disease which have been cited
by no other scientists. His paper "Influenza as a bioweapon" has a grand
total of 5 citations, meaning a mere 5 other papers refer to it; "cutting
edge" scientific papers have hundreds or thousands of citations. His only
other paper on the subject, "Influenza as a bioterror threat: the need for
global vaccination" has zero citations.
Nonetheless, Dr. Casscells' outstanding credentials as a scientist will be
invoked by the administration if he vouches for the credibility of
intelligence" indicating that a dangerous mutated bird flu virus has been
developed in an Iranian underground bioweapons laboratory. Dr. Casscells has
been surveilling the Middle East to "scope out the possibility for a
widespread outbreak" of bird flu. Because he has been advocating the view
that "Bird flu is poised to be an explosive problem" and has predicted the
use of influenza as a bioweapon, he is likely to be inclined to believe such
claims. Similarly his scientific colleagues at the "Defense of Houston"
committee, that work on anticipating bioterrorism threats and are highly
lauded by the administration and very well funded by Army grants.
The Bush administration has spent vast sums of money in combating
bioterrorism threats, reportedly over $7 billion per year, without any
evidence or precedent for bioterrorism attacks. Nevertheless there will
always be plenty of scientists that will flock to where the grant money is
and devote efforts to validate conclusions that are valued by the
organizations giving the grants, and news media duly publicize the hyped
threat of bioterrorism. Still, last year over 700 scientists including 2
Nobel laureates signed a petition objecting to the diversion of funds from
projects of high public-health importance to biodefense, calling it a
misdirection" of priorities. Dr. Richard H. Ebright, a renowned molecular
biologist, states that "A majority of the nation's top microbiologists – the
very group that the Bush administration is counting on to carry out its
biodefense research agenda – dispute the premises and implementation of the
biodefense spending."
On the supposed threat of bird flu, while it is continuously being hyped by
the administration [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], expert opinion is that it is not
a serious threat [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] and is politically motivated.
The blaming of bird flu spread on wild birds is also highly questionable [1]
[2].
On March 15th, right before the disclosure of the new National Security
Strategy, I suggested the bird flu casus belli against Iran, that would
necessitate" bombing of Iranian facilities before the bird migration season
begins in the Spring. Several elements emphasized in the March 16 NSS appear
to support that scenario, as discussed above. In a March 20 press conference
concerning federal preparedness for avian flu, Secretary Michael Leavitt
(who also warned a few weeks ago to store tuna and milk under the bed to
prepare for bird flu ) stated "Think of the world if you will as a vast
forest that is susceptible to fire. A spark if allowed to burn will emerge
as an uncontainable fire. That's a pandemic. If we are there when the spark
happens, it can be squelched. But if allowed to burn for a time it begins to
spread uncontrollably." An aerial attack on Iranian installations may be
touted as the "squelching" of the bird flu pandemic spark.
Does Bush need congressional authorization to bomb Iran?
The answer is contained in the Statement by the president of October 16,
2002, in signing into law the congressional authorization to use force
against Iraq. It states
"...I sought an additional resolution of support from the Congress to use
force against Iraq, should force become necessary. While I appreciate
receiving that support, my request for it did not, and my signing this
resolution does not, constitute any change in the long-standing positions of
the executive branch on either the president's constitutional authority to
use force to deter, prevent, or respond to aggression or other threats to U
S. interests or on the constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution."
In other words: "I appreciate Congress' authorization but didn't need it and
will not need it next time with Iran."
The War Powers Resolution encourages the president to consult with Congress
in every possible instance", yet allows the president to introduce Armed
Forces into hostilities without Congressional authorization; it simply
compels him to terminate hostilities within 60 to 90 days unless Congress
authorizes an extension. Plenty time enough.
The Attack
I t is unlikely that there will be a public announcement of the impending
attack before it starts, since it would generate opposition. Allies do not
want to be implicated and will deny any knowledge. Who will be officially
notified that an attack is about to take place? Most likely, Iran itself.
Direct conversations between the US and Iran are about to start, nominally
on the subject of Iraq only. They will also provide the only direct conduit
for the US to communicate with Iran without intermediaries. An "ultimatum"
unacceptable to Iran, as was delivered publicly to Iraq on March 17th, 2003,
could be delivered privately to Iran through that route.
The reasons for our actions will be clear, the force measured, and the cause
just.
The initial US attack on Iranian facilities is likely to be "measured": a
highly accurate strike on selected facilities "suspected" of bioweapons work
with cruise missiles launched from submarines or ships in the Persian Gulf.
That is a component of the CONPLAN 8022 Global Strike mission, which
recently became operational and also includes nuclear preemptive strikes.
The "clear" reasons and "just" cause for the administration to attack can be
stated as follows: if a bird flu pandemic can cause 150 million deaths and
there is even a one percent probability that the "intelligence" is right, i
e. even if there is a 99% "uncertainty about the status of hidden programs",
the expected number of deaths that would be prevented by bombing the Iranian
facilities is the product of those two numbers, i.e. 1.5 million, vastly
larger than the few thousand Iranian casualties due to "collateral damage."
Any military reaction by Iran to the attack, perhaps even a verbal reaction,
will be construed as "aggression" by Iran towards the US and Israel, and
result in large scale bombing of Iranian missile, nuclear and other
facilities. Does that sound absurd? Recall that the US and Britain bombed
Iraq's no-fly zones well before the Iraq invasion, and Iraqi response was
labeled "aggression toward planes of the coalition forces."
Nuclear earth penetrating weapons may be used in the initial attack, and
certainly will be used in the large scale attack that will follow.
Why will this happen? Because it was "pencilled in" a long time ago. The
actions of the US against Iran in recent years have been clearly directed
towards a confrontation, to suppress the rise of Iran as a strong regional
power that does not conform to US interests.
Can it be Prevented?
A small group of thugs is about to lead America across a line of no return.
On the other side of this line there is no nuclear taboo, no restraint on
preemptive nuclear attacks on non-nuclear nations, and no incentive for
non-nuclear nations to remain non-nuclear. A global nuclear war and the
destruction of humanity will be a distinct possibility.
Americans are largely unaware of what is about to happen. Half a million
people go to the streets on immigration law, yet nobody is demonstrating
against the Iran war that will radically change the life of Americans for
generations to come. The more informed sectors of society, scientists, arms
control organizations, the media, the political establishment, the military,
are not taking a strong stand against the impending war. Congress is silent.
Only people in the know can stop this. Resigning from the job is not good
enough [1], [2], [3]. People in the know have to come forward with
information that brings the impending attack to the forefront of attention
of Congress and the American public and thwarts it. Not doing so is being
complicit in a plan that will bring tragic consequences to America and the
world.
Else, all that will be left is to bring the perpetrators to justice. Danton,
Robespierre, Mussolini, Petain, Ribbentrop, Goering, Ceausescu also occupied
positions of power and prominence at some point in their careers.
Stand up! Speak your mind!
My weblog:
"US Constitution, The Bill of Rights 12/15/1791";
'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the government for a redress of grievances.'
[This message contained attachments]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 5
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2006 01:25:27 -0000
From: "Donald Stahl" <politicstahl@hotmail.com>
Subject: Reframing 9/11 Truth
It is no secret to 9/11 activists that it's difficult to get the
truth across. We need to recognize that we are not alone here, and
that "progressives" and "liberals" have the same problem. They are
beginning to come up with some answers, and we need to know what they
are.
I'm speaking of George Lakoff and his Rockridge Institute:
http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/ .
Reframing isn't everything, as William A. Gamson and Charlotte Ryan
point out,
http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v19n2/gamson_elephants.html but it
is something, and it's a tool 9/11 Truth has much use for. This is
because every time someone, whether Truther or Bush-backer, says that
the WTC buildings "collapsed," they use vocabulary that frames and
supports the official story. This is not a habit we want to be
copying from the Democrats.
On p. 73 of Don't Think of an Elephant! Know Your Values and Frame
the Debate, (White River Junction, VT, 2004) Lakoff says:
"One of the fundamental findings of cognitive science is that people
think in terms of frames and metaphors¾conceptual structures like
those we have been describing. The frames are in the synapses of our
brains, physically present in the form of neural circuitry. When the
facts don't fit the frames, the frames are kept and the facts ignored.
"It is a common folk theory of progressives that `the facts will set
you free.' If only you can get all the facts out there in the public
eye, then every rational person will reach the right conclusion. It
is a vain hope. Human brains just don't work that way. Framing
matters. Frames once entrenched are hard to dispel." (73).
.
Every 9/11 activist will admit this.
Here is Doug Thompson answering responses to his anti-9/11 Truth
rant, "9/11 Conspiracy Theories Don`t Pass the Smell Test":
To answer some questions:
--I've watched "Loose Change." Didn't convince me. Lots of
speculation.
--Striking The Washington Monument didn't have enough kill potential.
The plane would have crashed short of the Pentagon.
--As a journalist, I based my conclusions on facts from experts, not
speculation from others with an agenda. The facts, as I see them,
don't support the theories. As someone who loves a good story I wish
they did. But they don't.
Doug
Posted by Doug Thompson at March 31, 2006 10:10 AM
Now here is Lakoff again:
"When we negate a frame, we evoke the frame." (3).
"Remember, don't just negate the other person's claims; reframe. The
facts unframed will not set you free. You cannot win just by stating
the true facts and showing that they contradict your opponent's
claims. Frames trump facts. His frames will stay and the facts will
bounce off. Always reframe." (115).
Note that Lakoff is not suggesting that you ignore facts.
As examples of framing Lakoff gives the phrases `tax
relief', `permission slip' and `wasteful spending` (as in Bush's
State of the Union speech), 'rogue states', 'friendly nations'
and `family values'.
"When the word tax is added to relief, the result is a metaphor:
Taxation is an affliction. And the person who takes it away is a
hero, and anyone who tries to stop him is a bad guy. This is a
frame. It is made up of ideas, like affliction and hero. The language
that evokes the frame comes out of the White House, and it goes into
press releases, goes to every radio station, every TV station, every
newspaper. And soon the New York Times is using tax relief. And it is
not only on Fox; it is on CNN, it is on NBC, it is on every station
because it is `the president's tax-relief plan.' And soon the
Democrats are using tax relief¾and shooting themselves in the foot."
(4).
An example of framing relevant to 9/11 Truth is saying that the WTC
Towers collapsed.
The official story has it that the three buildings of the World Trade
Center did what they did because they were on fire, but no one says
that the buildings "burned down." That would be ludicrously
inappropriate, even though they did turn into a kind of "ashes." The
official story has to use the term `collapse' because that term is so
general it conceals what really happened to the buildings. Buildings
collapse in earthquakes, but they don't turn into what the WTC
buildings turned into. Firefighter Joe Casaliggi, in the DVD 9/11,
created by Jules and Gedeon Naudet, says, "The building collapsed TO
DUST. [His emphasis.]" But he was only using the word that had been
given to him by the media. He knows as well as you or I that
nothing "collapses to dust." That is as silly as saying that
they "collapsed to smithereens."
Lakoff himself is misled into misdescribing what happened to the
Towers.
"Metaphorically, tall buildings are people standing erect. As each
tower fell, it became a body falling. … when we see a plane coming
toward the building and imagine people in the building, we feel the
plane coming toward us; when we see the building toppling toward
others, we feel the building toppling toward us. … If we see the
plane going through the building, and unconsciously we evoke the
metaphor of the building as a head with the plane going through its
temple, then we sense¾unconsciously but powerfully¾being shot through
the temple. If we evoke the metaphor of the building as a person and
see the building fall to the ground in pieces, then we sense¾again
unconsciously but powerfully¾that we are falling to the ground in
pieces." (54).
Anyone who watched the news during VietNam, as Lakoff did, has seen a
person being shot in the temple and falling to the ground; and they
know that the person does not fall to the ground in pieces, much less
disintegrate from the top down.
This is what happened to the WTC buildings: they didn't topple; they
disintegrated. When something falls down, it doesn't disintegrate, it
just falls down, or collapses. When something burns up, it may
disintegrate, but not in ten seconds. The only way to disintegrate
massive concrete and steel buildings is by means of explosives, and
that fact is apparent even to very frightened people.
It was good to have Hoffman and S.P.I.N.E. showing that what the
official story alleges is physically impossible; in fact, it was
necessary in the beginning because people are often unwilling to
trust their own judgment when it seems to be contradicted by experts
and authorities.
In the 1950s a psychology professor, Solomon Asch, did some
experiments on college students. He told them that he wanted to test
visual perception, but that was a lie. He had them sit in a classroom
with other students and showed them all some lines, asking which
lines looked like they were the same length, but only one student was
really being tested. The others were conspirators along with
Professor Asch, and they deliberately gave wrong answers. The student
being tested was always asked last, after having heard all the others
say that it looked to them like the wrong lines were the same length.
The experiment was really to find out how many people,
percentagewise, could be made to say that they saw what they didn't
see, just to go along with the crowd. The answer was: about one third.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments
Note that the pressure came only from their equals, other
undergraduates, not from any authority figure such as the teacher.
Suppose some crafty professor told his class that he was going to
illustrate the nature of some visual illusions for them, and then
showed them some unequal lines, saying that the appearance of
inequality was an illusion¾the lines were really equal. He then puts
out a bogus, but detailed, explanation of why the lines look unequal
when they're not. How many of the class will be fooled? Probably
quite a few; a majority, surely, if not all. What happened to the
Towers looked like a controlled demolition, but of course it really
wasn't. It couldn't have been, because the authorities, that is, the
government and the $1.3 trillion media industry, said it wasn't. It
may have looked like a missile hit the Pentagon and the abandoned
strip mine in Pennsylvania, but of course what really happened was
that a giant airliner, a Boeing 757 weighing 128,730 lbs. empty, hit
those places and disappeared, according to some highly convoluted
explanation.
"Even though the facts which prove this to be so [that is, that they
were lied to] may be brought clearly to their minds, they [the
people] will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that
there may be some other explanation."
Hitler was certainly right when he said this. Bring the facts clearly
to their minds, or even to their eyes; when the obvious is also the
unthinkable, what are they to do? The function of
government "experts" is to provide that "other explanation,"
those "facts as we (would like to) see them" which will allow people
to continue to think what they want to think, what they need to
think, in spite of their own eyes.
The point is that it is obvious that the Towers were exploded. Saying
that they collapsed obscures this and shoots us in the foot. The
Towers didn't "fall," or "come down," or "topple." They disintegrated
from the top down, as anyone with eyes can see. Shock and awe are
over now. It's time to start reframing the obvious as obvious.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 6
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 19:12:26 -0700 (PDT)
From: Chris Bell <somebigguy88@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: I cannot post a Bravo for Charlie (somehow blocked) and afterdowningstreet.com obviously won't touch 9/11.
You got through to Oprah's producers? How did it go? Anything the rest of us can do to help?
Joe Stokes <joestokes@sbcglobal.net> wrote: I cannot post a "Bravo" for Charlie (somehow blocked)
and afterdowningstreet.com obviously won't touch 9/11.
I got through to Oprah's producers.
---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
Visit your group "911TruthAction" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
911TruthAction-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates.
[This message contained attachments]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 7
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 22:15:38 EDT
From: Moondancermom@aol.com
Subject: Former Head Of Star Wars Program Says Cheney Main 9/11 Suspect
Former Head Of Star Wars Program Says Cheney Main 9/11 Suspect
Official version of events a conspiracy theory, says drills were cover for
attacks
_Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones/Prison Planet.com | April 4 2006_
(http://www.prisonplanet.com/index.html)
The former head of the Star Wars missile defense program under Presidents
Ford and Carter has gone public to say that the official version of 9/11 is a
conspiracy theory and his main suspect for the architect of the attack is Vice
President Dick Cheney.
_Dr. Robert M. Bowman_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._Bowman) , Lt.
Col., USAF, ret. flew 101 combat missions in Vietnam. He is the recipient of
the Eisenhower Medal, the George F. Kennan Peace Prize, the President´s
Medal of Veterans for Peace, the Society of Military Engineers Gold Medal
(twice), six Air Medals, and dozens of other awards and honors. His Ph.D. is in
Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering from Caltech. He chaired 8 major
international conferences, and is one of the country´s foremost experts on National
Security.
Bowman worked secretly for the US government on the Star Wars project and
was the first to coin the very term in a 1977 secret memo. After Bowman
realized that the program was only ever intended to be used as an aggressive and not
defensive tool, as part of a plan to initiate a nuclear war with the
Soviets, he left the program and campaigned against it.
In an interview with _The Alex Jones Show_ (http://www.prisonplanet.com/)
aired nationally on the GCN Radio Network, Bowman (pictured below) stated that
at the bare minimum if Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda were involved in 9/11
then the government stood down and allowed the attacks to happen. He said it is
plausible that the entire chain of military command were unaware of what was
taking place and were used as tools by the people pulling the strings behind
the attack.
Bowman outlined how the _drills on the morning of 9/11_
(http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/september2004/080904wargamescover.htm) that simulated
planes crashing into buildings on the east coast were used as a cover to dupe
unwitting air defense personnel into not responding quickly enough to stop the
attack.
"The exercises that went on that morning simulating the exact kind of thing
that was happening so confused the people in the FAA and NORAD....that they
didn't they didn't know what was real and what was part of the exercise," said
Bowman
"I think the people who planned and carried out those exercises, they're the
ones that should be the object of investigation."
Asked if he could name a prime suspect who was the likely architect behind
the attacks, Bowman stated, "If I had to narrow it down to one person....I
think my prime suspect would be Dick Cheney."
Bowman said that privately his military fighter pilot peers and colleagues
did not disagree with his sentiments about the real story behind 9/11.
Bowman agreed that the US was in danger of slipping into a dictatorship and
stated, "I think there's been nothing closer to fascism than what we've seen
lately from this government."
Bowman slammed the Patriot Act as having, "Done more to destroy the rights
of Americans than all of our enemies combined."
Bowman trashed the 9/11 Commission as a politically motivated cover-up with
abounding conflicts of interest, charging, "The 9/11 Commission omitted
anything that might be the least bit suspicious or embarrassing or in any way
detract from the official conspiracy so it was a total whitewash."
"There needs to be a true investigation, not the kind of sham investigations
we have had with the 9/11 omission and all the rest of that junk," said
Bowman.
Asked if the perpetrators of 9/11 were preparing to stage another false-flag
attack to reinvigorate their agenda Bowman agreed that, "I can see that and
I hope they can't pull it off, I hope they are prevented from pulling it off
but I know darn good and well they'd like to have another one."
A mainstay of the attack pieces against _Charlie Sheen_
(http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2006/200306charliesheen.htm) have been that he is not
credible enough to speak on the topic of 9/11. From the very start we have
put forth eminently credible individuals only for them to be ignored by the
establishment media. _Physics Professors_
(http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2005/121105twintowers.htm) , former _White House advisors and CIA
analysts_ (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/october2005/191005McGovern.htm) ,
_the father of Reaganomics_
(http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2006/080206towerscollapse.htm) , _German Defense Ministers_
(http://www.prisonplanet.com/021104vonbuelow.html) and _Bush's former Secretary of the
Treasury_
(http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2005/160605governmentcomplicit.htm) , have all gone public on 9/11 but have been uniformly ignored by the
majority of the establishment press.
Will Robert Bowman also be blackballed as the mainstream continue to
misrepresent the 9/11 truth movement as an occupation of the fringe minority?
Bowman is currently _running for Congress_ (http://www.bowman2006.com/) in
Florida's 15th District
[This message contained attachments]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 8
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 21:12:56 -0400
From: ranger116@webtv.net
Subject: Thank Charlie Sheen Here + Iran Attack Coming Soon !! BravoCharlie91
Thank Charlie Sheen Here + Iran Attack Coming Soon !!
BravoCharlie911 - Home
Address:http://www.bravocharlie911.com/
Actor Charlie Sheen Questions Official 9/11 Story
Address:http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/sheen_questions_official_911_story.htm
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Get your Dual Citizenship at the bottom
``````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Executive Order 13292
War Against Iran, April 2006
Biological Threat and Executive Order 13292 By Jorge Hirsch
04/01/06 "Anti-War" -- -- History repeats itself, but always with new
twists. We are back to the good old days when a Declaration of War
preceded the start of a war. Such declaration occurred on March 16th,
2006. Reversing
the old order, we are now in the "Sitzkrieg", to be followed shortly by
an aerial "Blitzkrieg" in the coming days.
In the old days, Congress declared war, and directed the Executive
to take action. In the new millenium,
The Executive declared war last March 16th, then Congress will
pass H.R. 282, "To hold the current regime in Iran accountable for its
threatening behavior and to support a transition to democracy in Iran."
This bill and previous ones like it are in direct violation of the
legally binding Algiers Accords[pdf] signed by the United States and
Iran on January 19, 1981, that states "The United States pledges that it
is and from now on will be the policy of the United States not to
intervene, directly or indirectly, politically or militarily, in Iran's
internal affairs"; however, this is clearly of no interest to the 353
policymakers sponsoring the bill.
The US promised Russia and China that the UN Security Council
statement just
approved will not be a trigger for military action after 30 days; true
to its promise, the US will attack before the 30-day deadline imposed by
the UNSC for Iran to stop its nuclear enrichment activity,
i.e. before the end of April. The "justification" is likely to be
an alleged threat of imminent biological attack with Iran's involvement.
The Declaration of War against Iran
I n the aftermath of Pearl Harbor, the Congressional Declaration of
December
8, 1941 stated: " Whereas the Imperial Government of Japan has committed
unprovoked acts of war against the Government and the people of the
United States of America: Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and
House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress
assembled, That the state of war between the United States and the
Imperial Government of Japan which has thus been thrust upon the United
States is hereby formally declared; and the president is hereby
authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces
of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war
against the Imperial Government of Japan."
Similarly, the formal war declaration against Iran, the National
Security Strategy of March 16, 2006, stated:
* "We may face no greater challenge from a single country than
from Iran."
* "The Iranian regime sponsors terrorism; threatens Israel; seeks
to thwart Middle East peace; disrupts democracy in Iraq; and denies the
aspirations of its people for freedom."
* "[T]he first duty of the United States Government remains what it
always has been: to protect the American people and American interests.
It is an enduring American principle that this duty obligates the
government to
anticipate and counter threats, using all elements of national power,
before the threats can do grave damage."
* "The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction
and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to
defend ourselves,
even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's
attack. There are few greater threats than a terrorist attack with WMD."
* "To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the
United States will, if necessary, act preemptively."
* "When the consequences of an attack with WMD are potentially so
devastating, we cannot afford to stand idly by as grave dangers
materialize."
* "[T]here will always be some uncertainty about the status of
hidden programs."
* "Advances in biotechnology provide greater opportunities for
state and non-state actors to obtain dangerous pathogens and equipment."
* "Biological weapons also pose a grave WMD threat because of the
risks of contagion that would spread disease across large populations
and around the globe."
* "Countering the spread of biological weapons .... will also
enhance our Nation's ability to respond to pandemic public health
threats, such as avian influenza."
This has to be combined with the 2005 U.S. State Department
"FINDING. The United States judges that, based on all available
information, Iran has an offensive biological weapons program in
violation of the BWC." In addition, the March 16 declaration makes it
clear that the US will use nuclear weapons in the war against Iran:
* ."..using all elements of national power..."
* "Safe, credible, and reliable nuclear forces continue to play a
critical role. We are strengthening deterrence by developing a New Triad
composed of offensive strike systems (both nuclear and improved
conventional
capabilities)."
and this is further reinforced by the just released "National Military
Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction"[pdf] that states
"Offensive operations may include kinetic (both conventional and
nuclear) and/or non-kinetic options (e.g. information operations) to
deter or defeat a WMD threat or subsequent use of WMD."
There is of course also the claim that Iran is a threat because it
intends to develop nuclear weapons. The sole purpose of that claim,
which flies in the face of all available evidence, is to generate a
diplomatic stalemate at
the UN that will allow Bush to state that other nations share the US
concern
but not the resolve to act. However the actual trigger for the bombing
to begin will not be the long-term and by now discredited nuclear
threat, rather it is likely to be the threat of an imminent biological
attack.
Casus Belli
There is no casus belli against Iran based on its nuclear program.
The IAEA has found no evidence that in the 20 years of its development
there has been
any diversion of nuclear material to military applications. The Bush
administration now officially acknowledges that the issue with Iran
arises from a "loophole" in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, that
allows non-nuclear countries to pursue uranium enrichment. However it is
not a loophole, the right to a full civilian nuclear program is an
integral part of the compromise, that made non-nuclear countries agree
to it. For the US to call it a loophole means to abrogate the treaty
unilaterally and propose a different treaty that non-nuclear countries
will have no motivation to agree to.
The Bush administration declares that a civilian nuclear program
that gives Iran "knowledge" or "capability" to build a nuclear weapon is
unacceptable. It could apply exactly the same logic to biotechnology.
The State Department
says that "Iran is expanding its biotechnology and biomedical industries
by building large, state-of-the-art research and pharmaceutical
production facilities. These industries could easily hide pilot to
industrial-scale production capabilities for a potential BW program, and
could mask procurement of BW-related process equipment." Why isn't the
US demanding that Iran stops its biotechnology research and development,
and that it transfers all biotech related activities to Russia?
The key lies in Executive Order 13292, which made information on
"weapons of
mass destruction" and on "defense against transnational terrorism"
classified. If concrete details about Iran's alleged biological
weapons programs were made public, they would be subject to public
scrutiny and they
would be discredited, as the allegations on Iran's "nuclear weapons
program"
have been. The US is likely to have "assembled" classified information
on Iran's biological weapons programs and shared it with selected
individuals, including members of Congress, under the constraint that
classified information cannot be made public. For example, at the June
25, 2004 House subcommittee "MEMBERS ONLY CLASSIFIED BRIEFING on Iran,
Middle East Proliferation and Terrorist
Capabilities." The unclassified portion of that briefing states "It is
time for Iran to declare its biological weapons program and make
arrangements for its dismantlement."
There is likely to be a team of "experts" lined up by the administration
that will support its claims that Iran had a biological weapons program
representing an imminent threat. There is always room in science for
differing opinions, and if an open scientific debate is not possible
because
information is classified, any outlandish claim can find some
supporters in the scientific community. The most likely biological
threat to be invoked, because it has a natural time element associated
with it, is the threat of a
bird flu pandemic caused by a deliberately mutated H5N1 virus carried by
migrating wild birds.
The Biological Threat
Consider for example Dr. Ward Casscells, a renowned cardiologist that
has of
late become an "expert" in bioterrorism. Even more recently, Dr.
Casscells joined the Army as a colonel . According to the US Defense
Department, "his years of research on now-spreading avian flu are now
deemed cutting edge." However, I know of no independent credible
scientific body that makes the same assessment: Dr. Casscells has
written a total of four papers on the effect of influenza on cardiac
disease which have been cited by no other scientists. His paper
"Influenza as a bioweapon" has a grand total of 5 citations, meaning a
mere 5 other papers refer to it; "cutting edge" scientific papers have
hundreds or thousands of citations. His only other paper on the subject,
"Influenza as a bioterror threat: the need for global vaccination" has
zero citations.
Nonetheless, Dr. Casscells' outstanding credentials as a scientist will
be invoked by the administration if he vouches for the credibility of
"intelligence" indicating that a dangerous mutated bird flu virus has
been developed in an Iranian underground bioweapons laboratory. Dr.
Casscells has
been surveilling the Middle East to "scope out the possibility for a
widespread outbreak" of bird flu. Because he has been advocating the
view that "Bird flu is poised to be an explosive problem" and has
predicted the use of influenza as a bioweapon, he is likely to be
inclined to believe such
claims. Similarly his scientific colleagues at the "Defense of Houston"
committee, that work on anticipating bioterrorism threats and are highly
lauded by the administration and very well funded by Army grants.
The Bush administration has spent vast sums of money in combating
bioterrorism threats, reportedly over $7 billion per year, without any
evidence or precedent for bioterrorism attacks. Nevertheless there will
always be plenty of scientists that will flock to where the grant money
is and devote efforts to validate conclusions that are valued by the
organizations giving the grants, and news media duly publicize the hyped
threat of bioterrorism. Still, last year over 700 scientists including 2
Nobel laureates signed a petition objecting to the diversion of funds
from projects of high public-health importance to biodefense, calling it
a "misdirection" of priorities. Dr. Richard H. Ebright, a renowned
molecular biologist, states that "A majority of the nation's top
microbiologists the very group that the Bush administration is
counting on to carry out its biodefense research agenda dispute the
premises and implementation of the biodefense spending."
On the supposed threat of bird flu, while it is continuously being hyped
by the administration [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], expert opinion is that it
is not
a serious threat [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] and is politically
motivated. The blaming of bird flu spread on wild birds is also highly
questionable [1], [2].
On March 15th, right before the disclosure of the new National Security
Strategy, I suggested the bird flu casus belli against Iran, that would
"necessitate" bombing of Iranian facilities before the bird migration
season
begins in the Spring. Several elements emphasized in the March 16 NSS
appear
to support that scenario, as discussed above. In a March 20 press
conference
concerning federal preparedness for avian flu, Secretary Michael Leavitt
(who also warned a few weeks ago to store tuna and milk under the bed to
prepare for bird flu ) stated "Think of the world if you will as a vast
forest that is susceptible to fire. A spark if allowed to burn will
emerge as an uncontainable fire. That's a pandemic. If we are there when
the spark happens, it can be squelched. But if allowed to burn for a
time it begins to
spread uncontrollably." An aerial attack on Iranian installations may be
touted as the "squelching" of the bird flu pandemic spark.
Does Bush need congressional authorization to bomb Iran?
The answer is contained in the Statement by the president of October 16,
2002, in signing into law the congressional authorization to use force
against Iraq. It states
"...I sought an additional resolution of support from the Congress to
use force against Iraq, should force become necessary. While I
appreciate receiving that support, my request for it did not, and my
signing this resolution does not, constitute any change in the
long-standing positions of
the executive branch on either the president's constitutional authority
to use force to deter, prevent, or respond to aggression or other
threats to U.S. interests or on the constitutionality of the War Powers
Resolution."
In other words: "I appreciate Congress' authorization but didn't need it
and
will not need it next time with Iran."
The War Powers Resolution encourages the president to consult with
Congress "in every possible instance", yet allows the president to
introduce Armed Forces into hostilities without Congressional
authorization; it simply compels him to terminate hostilities within 60
to 90 days unless Congress authorizes an extension. Plenty time enough.
The Attack
I t is unlikely that there will be a public announcement of the
impending attack before it starts, since it would generate opposition.
Allies do not want to be implicated and will deny any knowledge. Who
will be officially notified that an attack is about to take place? Most
likely, Iran itself.
Direct conversations between the US and Iran are about to start,
nominally on the subject of Iraq only. They will also provide the only
direct conduit for the US to communicate with Iran without
intermediaries. An "ultimatum" unacceptable to Iran, as was delivered
publicly to Iraq on March 17th, 2003,
could be delivered privately to Iran through that route.
The reasons for our actions will be clear, the force measured, and the
cause
just.
The initial US attack on Iranian facilities is likely to be "measured":
a highly accurate strike on selected facilities "suspected" of
bioweapons work, with cruise missiles launched from submarines or ships
in the Persian Gulf. That is a component of the CONPLAN 8022 Global
Strike mission, which recently became operational and also includes
nuclear preemptive strikes.
The "clear" reasons and "just" cause for the administration to attack
can be
stated as follows: if a bird flu pandemic can cause 150 million deaths
and there is even a one percent probability that the "intelligence" is
right, i.e. even if there is a 99% "uncertainty about the status of
hidden programs", the expected number of deaths that would be prevented
by bombing the Iranian facilities is the product of those two numbers,
i.e. 1.5 million, vastly larger than the few thousand Iranian casualties
due to "collateral damage."
Any military reaction by Iran to the attack, perhaps even a verbal
reaction,
will be construed as "aggression" by Iran towards the US and Israel, and
result in large scale bombing of Iranian missile, nuclear and other
facilities. Does that sound absurd? Recall that the US and Britain
bombed Iraq's no-fly zones well before the Iraq invasion, and Iraqi
response was labeled "aggression toward planes of the coalition forces."
Nuclear earth penetrating weapons may be used in the initial attack, and
certainly will be used in the large scale attack that will follow.
Why will this happen? Because it was "pencilled in" a long time ago. The
actions of the US against Iran in recent years have been clearly
directed towards a confrontation, to suppress the rise of Iran as a
strong regional power that does not conform to US interests.
Can it be Prevented?
A small group of thugs is about to lead America across a line of no
return. On the other side of this line there is no nuclear taboo, no
restraint on preemptive nuclear attacks on non-nuclear nations, and no
incentive for non-nuclear nations to remain non-nuclear. A global
nuclear war and the destruction of humanity will be a distinct
possibility.
Americans are largely unaware of what is about to happen. Half a million
people go to the streets on immigration law, yet nobody is demonstrating
against the Iran war that will radically change the life of Americans
for generations to come. The more informed sectors of society,
scientists, arms control organizations, the media, the political
establishment, the military,
are not taking a strong stand against the impending war. Congress is
silent.
Only people in the know can stop this. Resigning from the job is not
good enough [1], [2], [3]. People in the know have to come forward with
information that brings the impending attack to the forefront of
attention of Congress and the American public and thwarts it. Not doing
so is being complicit in a plan that will bring tragic consequences to
America and the world.
Else, all that will be left is to bring the perpetrators to justice.
Danton,
Robespierre, Mussolini, Petain, Ribbentrop, Goering, Ceausescu also
occupied
positions of power and prominence at some point in their careers.
Jorge Hirsch is a professor of physics at the University of California
San Diego.
``````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Get Your Dual Citizenship in the
Confederate States of America
Another Country that was invaded by Washington D.C. in
1862 and has been occupied ever since.
Address:http://www.csagov.org/
This has nothing to do with discrimination or slavery.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 9
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 22:38:40 -0700
From: "Dick Eastman" <olfriend@nwinfo.net>
Subject: Executive Order 13292 of March 16 was declaration of war -and H.R. 282 will be the Congressional rubber stamp
Executive Order 13292
War Against Iran, April 2006
Biological Threat and Executive Order 13292 By Jorge Hirsch
04/01/06 "Anti-War" -- -- History repeats itself, but always with new
twists. We are back to the good old days when a Declaration of War
preceded the start of a war. Such declaration occurred on March 16th,
2006. Reversing
the old order, we are now in the "Sitzkrieg", to be followed shortly by
an aerial "Blitzkrieg" in the coming days.
In the old days, Congress declared war, and directed the Executive
to take action. In the new millenium,
The Executive declared war last March 16th, then Congress will
pass H.R. 282, "To hold the current regime in Iran accountable for its
threatening behavior and to support a transition to democracy in Iran."
This bill and previous ones like it are in direct violation of the
legally binding Algiers Accords[pdf] signed by the United States and
Iran on January 19, 1981, that states "The United States pledges that it
is and from now on will be the policy of the United States not to
intervene, directly or indirectly, politically or militarily, in Iran's
internal affairs"; however, this is clearly of no interest to the 353
policymakers sponsoring the bill.
The US promised Russia and China that the UN Security Council
statement just
approved will not be a trigger for military action after 30 days; true
to its promise, the US will attack before the 30-day deadline imposed by
the UNSC for Iran to stop its nuclear enrichment activity,
i.e. before the end of April. The "justification" is likely to be
an alleged threat of imminent biological attack with Iran's involvement.
The Declaration of War against Iran
I n the aftermath of Pearl Harbor, the Congressional Declaration of
December
8, 1941 stated: " Whereas the Imperial Government of Japan has committed
unprovoked acts of war against the Government and the people of the
United States of America: Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and
House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress
assembled, That the state of war between the United States and the
Imperial Government of Japan which has thus been thrust upon the United
States is hereby formally declared; and the president is hereby
authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces
of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war
against the Imperial Government of Japan."
Similarly, the formal war declaration against Iran, the National
Security Strategy of March 16, 2006, stated:
* "We may face no greater challenge from a single country than
from Iran."
* "The Iranian regime sponsors terrorism; threatens Israel; seeks
to thwart Middle East peace; disrupts democracy in Iraq; and denies the
aspirations of its people for freedom."
* "[T]he first duty of the United States Government remains what it
always has been: to protect the American people and American interests.
It is an enduring American principle that this duty obligates the
government to
anticipate and counter threats, using all elements of national power,
before the threats can do grave damage."
* "The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction
and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to
defend ourselves,
even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's
attack. There are few greater threats than a terrorist attack with WMD."
* "To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the
United States will, if necessary, act preemptively."
* "When the consequences of an attack with WMD are potentially so
devastating, we cannot afford to stand idly by as grave dangers
materialize."
* "[T]here will always be some uncertainty about the status of
hidden programs."
* "Advances in biotechnology provide greater opportunities for
state and non-state actors to obtain dangerous pathogens and equipment."
* "Biological weapons also pose a grave WMD threat because of the
risks of contagion that would spread disease across large populations
and around the globe."
* "Countering the spread of biological weapons .... will also
enhance our Nation's ability to respond to pandemic public health
threats, such as avian influenza."
This has to be combined with the 2005 U.S. State Department
"FINDING. The United States judges that, based on all available
information, Iran has an offensive biological weapons program in
violation of the BWC." In addition, the March 16 declaration makes it
clear that the US will use nuclear weapons in the war against Iran:
* ."..using all elements of national power..."
* "Safe, credible, and reliable nuclear forces continue to play a
critical role. We are strengthening deterrence by developing a New Triad
composed of offensive strike systems (both nuclear and improved
conventional
capabilities)."
and this is further reinforced by the just released "National Military
Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction"[pdf] that states
"Offensive operations may include kinetic (both conventional and
nuclear) and/or non-kinetic options (e.g. information operations) to
deter or defeat a WMD threat or subsequent use of WMD."
There is of course also the claim that Iran is a threat because it
intends to develop nuclear weapons. The sole purpose of that claim,
which flies in the face of all available evidence, is to generate a
diplomatic stalemate at
the UN that will allow Bush to state that other nations share the US
concern
but not the resolve to act. However the actual trigger for the bombing
to begin will not be the long-term and by now discredited nuclear
threat, rather it is likely to be the threat of an imminent biological
attack.
Casus Belli
There is no casus belli against Iran based on its nuclear program.
The IAEA has found no evidence that in the 20 years of its development
there has been
any diversion of nuclear material to military applications. The Bush
administration now officially acknowledges that the issue with Iran
arises from a "loophole" in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, that
allows non-nuclear countries to pursue uranium enrichment. However it is
not a loophole, the right to a full civilian nuclear program is an
integral part of the compromise, that made non-nuclear countries agree
to it. For the US to call it a loophole means to abrogate the treaty
unilaterally and propose a different treaty that non-nuclear countries
will have no motivation to agree to.
The Bush administration declares that a civilian nuclear program
that gives Iran "knowledge" or "capability" to build a nuclear weapon is
unacceptable. It could apply exactly the same logic to biotechnology.
The State Department
says that "Iran is expanding its biotechnology and biomedical industries
by building large, state-of-the-art research and pharmaceutical
production facilities. These industries could easily hide pilot to
industrial-scale production capabilities for a potential BW program, and
could mask procurement of BW-related process equipment." Why isn't the
US demanding that Iran stops its biotechnology research and development,
and that it transfers all biotech related activities to Russia?
The key lies in Executive Order 13292, which made information on
"weapons of
mass destruction" and on "defense against transnational terrorism"
classified. If concrete details about Iran's alleged biological
weapons programs were made public, they would be subject to public
scrutiny and they
would be discredited, as the allegations on Iran's "nuclear weapons
program"
have been. The US is likely to have "assembled" classified information
on Iran's biological weapons programs and shared it with selected
individuals, including members of Congress, under the constraint that
classified information cannot be made public. For example, at the June
25, 2004 House subcommittee "MEMBERS ONLY CLASSIFIED BRIEFING on Iran,
Middle East Proliferation and Terrorist
Capabilities." The unclassified portion of that briefing states "It is
time for Iran to declare its biological weapons program and make
arrangements for its dismantlement."
There is likely to be a team of "experts" lined up by the administration
that will support its claims that Iran had a biological weapons program
representing an imminent threat. There is always room in science for
differing opinions, and if an open scientific debate is not possible
because
information is classified, any outlandish claim can find some
supporters in the scientific community. The most likely biological
threat to be invoked, because it has a natural time element associated
with it, is the threat of a
bird flu pandemic caused by a deliberately mutated H5N1 virus carried by
migrating wild birds.
The Biological Threat
Consider for example Dr. Ward Casscells, a renowned cardiologist that
has of
late become an "expert" in bioterrorism. Even more recently, Dr.
Casscells joined the Army as a colonel . According to the US Defense
Department, "his years of research on now-spreading avian flu are now
deemed cutting edge." However, I know of no independent credible
scientific body that makes the same assessment: Dr. Casscells has
written a total of four papers on the effect of influenza on cardiac
disease which have been cited by no other scientists. His paper
"Influenza as a bioweapon" has a grand total of 5 citations, meaning a
mere 5 other papers refer to it; "cutting edge" scientific papers have
hundreds or thousands of citations. His only other paper on the subject,
"Influenza as a bioterror threat: the need for global vaccination" has
zero citations.
Nonetheless, Dr. Casscells' outstanding credentials as a scientist will
be invoked by the administration if he vouches for the credibility of
"intelligence" indicating that a dangerous mutated bird flu virus has
been developed in an Iranian underground bioweapons laboratory. Dr.
Casscells has
been surveilling the Middle East to "scope out the possibility for a
widespread outbreak" of bird flu. Because he has been advocating the
view that "Bird flu is poised to be an explosive problem" and has
predicted the use of influenza as a bioweapon, he is likely to be
inclined to believe such
claims. Similarly his scientific colleagues at the "Defense of Houston"
committee, that work on anticipating bioterrorism threats and are highly
lauded by the administration and very well funded by Army grants.
The Bush administration has spent vast sums of money in combating
bioterrorism threats, reportedly over $7 billion per year, without any
evidence or precedent for bioterrorism attacks. Nevertheless there will
always be plenty of scientists that will flock to where the grant money
is and devote efforts to validate conclusions that are valued by the
organizations giving the grants, and news media duly publicize the hyped
threat of bioterrorism. Still, last year over 700 scientists including 2
Nobel laureates signed a petition objecting to the diversion of funds
from projects of high public-health importance to biodefense, calling it
a "misdirection" of priorities. Dr. Richard H. Ebright, a renowned
molecular biologist, states that "A majority of the nation's top
microbiologists the very group that the Bush administration is
counting on to carry out its biodefense research agenda dispute the
premises and implementation of the biodefense spending."
On the supposed threat of bird flu, while it is continuously being hyped
by the administration [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], expert opinion is that it
is not
a serious threat [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] and is politically
motivated. The blaming of bird flu spread on wild birds is also highly
questionable [1], [2].
On March 15th, right before the disclosure of the new National Security
Strategy, I suggested the bird flu casus belli against Iran, that would
"necessitate" bombing of Iranian facilities before the bird migration
season
begins in the Spring. Several elements emphasized in the March 16 NSS
appear
to support that scenario, as discussed above. In a March 20 press
conference
concerning federal preparedness for avian flu, Secretary Michael Leavitt
(who also warned a few weeks ago to store tuna and milk under the bed to
prepare for bird flu ) stated "Think of the world if you will as a vast
forest that is susceptible to fire. A spark if allowed to burn will
emerge as an uncontainable fire. That's a pandemic. If we are there when
the spark happens, it can be squelched. But if allowed to burn for a
time it begins to
spread uncontrollably." An aerial attack on Iranian installations may be
touted as the "squelching" of the bird flu pandemic spark.
Does Bush need congressional authorization to bomb Iran?
The answer is contained in the Statement by the president of October 16,
2002, in signing into law the congressional authorization to use force
against Iraq. It states
"...I sought an additional resolution of support from the Congress to
use force against Iraq, should force become necessary. While I
appreciate receiving that support, my request for it did not, and my
signing this resolution does not, constitute any change in the
long-standing positions of
the executive branch on either the president's constitutional authority
to use force to deter, prevent, or respond to aggression or other
threats to U.S. interests or on the constitutionality of the War Powers
Resolution."
In other words: "I appreciate Congress' authorization but didn't need it
and
will not need it next time with Iran."
The War Powers Resolution encourages the president to consult with
Congress "in every possible instance", yet allows the president to
introduce Armed Forces into hostilities without Congressional
authorization; it simply compels him to terminate hostilities within 60
to 90 days unless Congress authorizes an extension. Plenty time enough.
The Attack
I t is unlikely that there will be a public announcement of the
impending attack before it starts, since it would generate opposition.
Allies do not want to be implicated and will deny any knowledge. Who
will be officially notified that an attack is about to take place? Most
likely, Iran itself.
Direct conversations between the US and Iran are about to start,
nominally on the subject of Iraq only. They will also provide the only
direct conduit for the US to communicate with Iran without
intermediaries. An "ultimatum" unacceptable to Iran, as was delivered
publicly to Iraq on March 17th, 2003,
could be delivered privately to Iran through that route.
The reasons for our actions will be clear, the force measured, and the
cause
just.
The initial US attack on Iranian facilities is likely to be "measured":
a highly accurate strike on selected facilities "suspected" of
bioweapons work, with cruise missiles launched from submarines or ships
in the Persian Gulf. That is a component of the CONPLAN 8022 Global
Strike mission, which recently became operational and also includes
nuclear preemptive strikes.
The "clear" reasons and "just" cause for the administration to attack
can be
stated as follows: if a bird flu pandemic can cause 150 million deaths
and there is even a one percent probability that the "intelligence" is
right, i.e. even if there is a 99% "uncertainty about the status of
hidden programs", the expected number of deaths that would be prevented
by bombing the Iranian facilities is the product of those two numbers,
i.e. 1.5 million, vastly larger than the few thousand Iranian casualties
due to "collateral damage."
Any military reaction by Iran to the attack, perhaps even a verbal
reaction,
will be construed as "aggression" by Iran towards the US and Israel, and
result in large scale bombing of Iranian missile, nuclear and other
facilities. Does that sound absurd? Recall that the US and Britain
bombed Iraq's no-fly zones well before the Iraq invasion, and Iraqi
response was labeled "aggression toward planes of the coalition forces."
Nuclear earth penetrating weapons may be used in the initial attack, and
certainly will be used in the large scale attack that will follow.
Why will this happen? Because it was "pencilled in" a long time ago. The
actions of the US against Iran in recent years have been clearly
directed towards a confrontation, to suppress the rise of Iran as a
strong regional power that does not conform to US interests.
Can it be Prevented?
A small group of thugs is about to lead America across a line of no
return. On the other side of this line there is no nuclear taboo, no
restraint on preemptive nuclear attacks on non-nuclear nations, and no
incentive for non-nuclear nations to remain non-nuclear. A global
nuclear war and the destruction of humanity will be a distinct
possibility.
Americans are largely unaware of what is about to happen. Half a million
people go to the streets on immigration law, yet nobody is demonstrating
against the Iran war that will radically change the life of Americans
for generations to come. The more informed sectors of society,
scientists, arms control organizations, the media, the political
establishment, the military,
are not taking a strong stand against the impending war. Congress is
silent.
Only people in the know can stop this. Resigning from the job is not
good enough [1], [2], [3]. People in the know have to come forward with
information that brings the impending attack to the forefront of
attention of Congress and the American public and thwarts it. Not doing
so is being complicit in a plan that will bring tragic consequences to
America and the world.
Else, all that will be left is to bring the perpetrators to justice.
Danton,
Robespierre, Mussolini, Petain, Ribbentrop, Goering, Ceausescu also
occupied
positions of power and prominence at some point in their careers.
Jorge Hirsch is a professor of physics at the University of California
San Diego.
``````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Get Your Dual Citizenship in the
Confederate States of America
Another Country that was invaded by Washington D.C. in
1862 and has been occupied ever since.
Address:http://www.csagov.org/
This has nothing to do with discrimination or slavery.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 10
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 22:43:07 -0700
From: "Dick Eastman" <olfriend@nwinfo.net>
Subject: Fw: U.S. researchers to create a human-lethal bird flu virus mutation
U.S. to create a bird flu virus mutation
Atlanta, GA, Mar. 24 (UPI) -- The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has begun a series of experiments to see how likely the bird flu virus could result in a human pandemic.
The six-month series of experiments seeks to simulate the mixing and matching of genes from the H5N1 avian flu virus that has plagued Asia and a common human flu virus that public-health experts fear could turn avian flu into a pandemic, the Wall Street Journal reported Thursday.
CDC scientists inside an ultra-secure laboratory have started swapping the genes of the H5N1 avian virus with the genes of an H3N2 virus, the strain behind most recent human flu outbreaks.
The goal is to substitute the eight genes of each virus, one by one, with the eight genes from the other virus to see which of more than 250 possible combinations create flu viruses that could spread easily among humans.
The work responds to fears by global public health experts that the bird flu virus could mutate to form one that could spawn a global outbreak of the disease.
http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20050324-030452-8400r.htm
Steve
..
[This message contained attachments]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 11
Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2006 21:52:23 -0700
From: APFN <apfn@apfn.org>
Subject: [apfn-1] Secret Pentagon Report on Oklahoma City Bombing
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.1/292 - Release Date: 3/24/2006
[This message contained attachments]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 12
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 01:57:34 -0400
From: ranger116@webtv.net
Subject: Mayan Priests Purify Bush's "Demons & Evil" on Mexico Visit During Bu
Mayan Priests Purify Bush's "Demons & Evil" on Mexico Visit
During Bush's visit to Mexico four Mayan Priests performed a
Purification Ceremony to rid Bush of "Demons and Evil" They probably
exorcised their city also.
See Below Highlighted Area
They are smarter than the U. S. Congress !
Reuters Business Channel | Reuters.com
Address:http://today.reuters.com/business/newsarticle.aspx?type=tnBusinessNews&storyID=nN30290438
(Mayan purification ceremony)
By Matt Spetalnick and Adriana Barrera
CANCUN, Mexico, March 30 (Reuters) -
U.S. President George W. Bush reassured Mexican President Vicente Fox on
Thursday he was committed to getting the U.S. Congress to approve broad
immigration reforms, including a guest-worker program.
Speaking after talks with Fox in the Mexican resort of Cancun, Bush told
reporters, "I'm confident we can get a bill done." He made no prediction
on the timing of such legislation, which the U.S. Senate started
debating on Wednesday.
Bush also praised Fox for pledging to do more to police the U.S.-Mexican
border, the crossing point for most illegal immigrants entering the
United States.
"I'm committed to having a comprehensive immigration bill on my desk,
and by comprehensive I mean not only border security ... a bill that has
security enforcement in it, but a bill that has a worker permit program
in it," Bush said.
Hosting a North American summit, Fox said border security was a shared
responsibility and Mexico would do its part.
Mexicans account for more than half of the estimated 12 million illegal
immigrants in the United States.
"We want a safe border. We want it for the good of our people and also
for our relationship with the United States," Fox said.
Joining the two leaders was new Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper,
a fellow conservative who wants to improve relations with Washington
after friction during the government of his Liberal predecessor, Paul
Martin.
Despite an increase in anti-U.S. feeling in Latin America in recent
years, there were few protests in the resort, which is far from major
Mexican cities and too expensive for most Mexicans to stay in.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
! ! ! --> PURIFICATION CEREMONY
Four priests of the ancient Mayan religion held a purification
ceremony to rid Bush of "demons and evil" in a square in downtown
Cancun, some 10 miles (16 km) from the plush hotel strip where the
leaders met.
"We do not agree with the visit of this person. We see on television
how many people he has killed,"
Said priest Romualdo May, dipping herbs into water and sprinkling it
into the air.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Republicans are split over whether to back Bush's call for sweeping
reforms to create a guest worker program and put several million illegal
immigrants on the path to citizenship.
Conservatives in Bush's party, normally his allies, reject that as a
form of amnesty and seek instead to erect a fence along a third of the
U.S.-Mexican border and make illegal immigration a felony. The issue has
brought out tens of thousands of mostly Hispanic protesters in major
U.S. cities.
With his job approval ratings at a low ebb, immigration is a new test of
Bush's political strength.
Fox, who has failed for five years to convince Washington to let more
Mexicans get jobs in the United States legally, is making one more push
before leaving office in December.
He said Mexico would extradite 24 drug suspects sought by U.S. law
enforcement within a few weeks as part of a new program to send cartel
members to the United States for trial.
Bush, Fox and Harper toured hot, dusty ruins at the Mayan archeological
site of Chichen Itza ahead of their meetings.
But the leaders climbed only a few of the 91 steps of the impressive El
Castillo pyramid.
It was a rare sightseeing detour for Bush, who usually keeps to a tight
diplomatic schedule, and raised speculation he was trying to revive a
back-slapping relationship with Fox that saw them dubbed "the two
amigos" at the start of their administrations.
Bush and Harper agreed to open talks on a long-running trade dispute
over Canadian exports of softwood lumber and the Canadian leader spoke
frankly about past diplomatic discord.
"Iraq in particular has been a source of some disagreement, some
tensions," Harper said. But he praised the role of the U.S. and British
military in the recent freeing of Canadian hostages in Iraq, saying:
"This reminds us that when the chips are down, we all come together to
support each other."
Mexicans once had high hopes for Bush, who took office promising to make
America's southern neighbor a priority but pushed the region to a back
burner after the Sept. 11 attacks.
(Additional reporting by Steve Holland, Greg Brosnan and Lorraine
Orlandi)
© Reuters 2006. All Rights Reserved.
Reuters.com Help & Info | Contact Us | Feedback | Advertise |
Disclaimer | Copyright | Privacy | Corrections | Partner Newspapers |
Interactive TV | Mobile | RSS
About Reuters | Products & Services | Customer Zone | Careers
Reuters journalists are subject to the Reuters Editorial Handbook which
requires fair presentation and disclosure of relevant interests.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 13
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 04:24:03 -0700 (PDT)
From: Cathy Garger <savorsuccesslady@yahoo.com>
Subject: Dennis Kyne: An Uncommon American Hero
Dennis Kyne:
An Uncommon American Hero
Cathy Garger
3 April 2006
When filling out standard forms, under the question “Occupation,” people who do what I do all day long usually fill in the words “Freelance Writer.” Imagine the look on people’s faces when they read my stated occupation: “Truth Activist.” It’s a phrase that gets ’em talking every time about things that one does not typically get into with strangers.
Knowing this about me, it should come as no surprise that an activist for truth would collect such kindred spirits as friends. So knowing Dennis Kyne... well... just feels right...
http://mytown.ca/garger
---------------------------------
Blab-away for as little as 1¢/min. Make PC-to-Phone Calls using Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.
[This message contained attachments]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 14
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 07:44:22 -0500
From: "President, USA Exile Govt." <prez@usa-exile.org>
Subject: Two Days in the Life: 4/3-4/6 Plus Two Kennedys in the Death
GOVERNMENT OF THE USA IN EXILE
Free Americans
Reaching Out to Amerika's Huddled Masses Yearning to Breathe Free
Via <prez@usa-exile.org>
April 3-4, 2006
From: "Leslie Schwartz" <lhs_emf@pacbell.net>
Date: April 2, 2006 3:15:42 AM EST
To: "911TruthAction@yahoogroups. com" <911TruthAction@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [911TruthAction] The Assassination of JFK Jr. DVD another real
event in real history, brought to you by the same makers of 9/11
Reply-To: 911TruthAction@yahoogroups.com
http://jfkii.com/
Contact us at: info@JFKII.com
â–ª Visit your group "911TruthAction" on the web.
========================================================================
================================================
Contact: Potomac Books, Inc.
Rick Russell, Claire Noble
703.661.1548
NEW BOOK CRACKS THE CRIME OF THE
CENTURY
Who planned the murder of JFK, who carried it out, and who covered it up
From the new evidence in the National Archives' JFK Assassination
Records Collection and
interviews with 1200 people, author Joan Mellen proves in her
comprehensive new book A Farewell
to Justice (Publication date: November 16, 2005; $29.95 hardcover; 576
pages):
* There is conclusive new evidence that the clandestine services of the
CIA under
Deputy Director for Plans, Richard Helms, planned the assassination of
President John F.
Kennedy.
* Robert Kennedy was aware of Oswald and his connection to the FBI
before the
assassination. RFK put Oswald under surveillance and had his Cuban
associates tracking
Oswald's movements during the summer of 1963, new facts never before
revealed.
*Oswald was not a loner but a government agent who worked not only for
the New
Orleans FBI office, and was part of CIA counterintelligence chief James
AngletonÕs false
defector program, but also for U.S. Customs. Oswald was closely
connected to CIA-sponsored
anti-Castro figures in New Orleans, including Clay Shaw, David Ferrie
and a Cuban associate of
Shaw's at the International Trade Mart named Juan Valdes.
*Clay Shaw and David Ferrie, both Garrison suspects and CIA operatives,
implemented the assassination by helping frame Oswald as the murderer.
Mellen proves for the
first time that Ferrie, an aviator, flew to Dallas the week of the
assassination with the help of a loan
that was co-signed by Shaw. Ferrie's job was to fly the assassins away
to safety late on Friday,
November 22nd.
*A new witness confirms the testimony of Garrison's chief trial witness
Perry Russo,
showing that Russo saw Oswald at Ferrie's apartment, as Russo testified.
*The FBI, including "Deep Throat" Mark Felt, helped undermine the
Garrison
investigation.
*The massive cover-up began months before the assassination north of
Baton Rouge when
Oswald, in the company of Shaw and Ferrie, applied for a job at the
mental hospital in Jackson, LA.
Mellen has the only known interview with the director of the hospital
at that time, Dr. Frank
Silva.
*Government documents reveal that the FBI and CIA actively worked with
a number
of journalists who ÒcoveredÓ the Garrison investigation, including
reporters with Newsweek
and The Saturday Evening Post, as well as a government operative
ostensibly employed by
NBC television. An FBI document reveals J. Edgar Hoover directing his
field offices to "give
Garrison nothing!"
Biographer Joan Mellen met New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison
in 1969. His relentless
search for the truth about what happened to President Kennedy made a
deep impression upon her. In
1997, Mellen started to work on the story of Garrison's life.
Her biography turned into the story of Garrison's investigation and
then into a new investigation of
the assassination itself.
This book will become a landmark. As Mellen explains in the Preface, on
the 40th Anniversary of
President Kennedy's death in 2003, a Gallup Poll verified that twice as
many people believed that
the CIA was responsible for the assassination as believed that Oswald,
a man without a motive, acted
alone.
Joan Mellen, Temple University professor and author, is well-known for
her biographies of Lillian
Hellman and Dashiell Hammett, Kay Boyle and Bob Knight. She has written
seventeen books and
has contributed to the Baltimore Sun, New York Times, Los Angeles
Times, and Philadelphia
Inquirer, among many publications. In 2004, Temple University awarded
her one of their most
coveted "Great Teacher" awards, for outstanding achievement, in
particular in the graduate writing
program.
Ms. Mellen and Potomac Books, Inc. will launch A Farewell to Justice
with a 10-city author tour
beginning with a lecture at the National Archives.
We have 38 confirmed events to date with many more pending, including
lectures at public libraries,
bookstore readings and events, assassination symposia and major media
appearances. We encourage
you to call for an early interview.
Book Details
Title: A Farewell to Justice
Subtitle: Jim Garrison, JFK's Assassination, and the Case That Should
Have Changed History
ISBN: 1-57488-973-7
Size: 6 x 9 IN
Price: $29.95
Pages: 576
Illustrations: 74 B&W photos
Publication Date: November 2005
Sincerely,
Rick Russell
Associate Publisher
Potomac Books, Inc.
Enclosures
========================================================================
========================
From: Henri the Celt <henrithecelt@gci.net>
Date: April 2, 2006 2:20:10 AM EST
To: AAAHenri <henrithecelt@gci.net>
Subject: Fw: AUDIO: Andreas von Buelow, Top German 9/11 Expert
Webster Tarpley
AUDIO: Andreas von Buelow, Top German 9/11 Expert
Sun Apr 2, 2006 02:36
http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?disc=149495;article=100190;
title=APFN
APFN POGO: "RADIO YOUR WAY"
HTTP://WWW.APFN.NET/POGO.HTM
9/11 Sword out of the Sheath -
Andreas von Buelow, Top German 9/11 Expert on RBNLive World
Crisis Radio with Webster Tarpley
9/11 SYNTHETIC TERROR
----------
#1 http://www.apfn.net/audio/L001I060401141708-ground0A.MP3 (4.83MB)
Andreas von Buelow, Top German 9/11 Expert on RBNLive
#2 http://www.apfn.net/audio/L002I060401144500-ground0B.MP3 (3.87MB)
Webster Tarpley, Andreas von Buelow (Cont'd)
#3.http://www.apfn.net/audio/L003I060401150825-ground0C.MP3 (4.32MB)
Webster Tarpley, Andreas von Buelow (Cont'd)
#4 http://www.apfn.net/audio/L004I060401153707-ground0D.MP3 (4.47MB)
=================================
02/23/06 Coast to Coast re: 9/11
Part 1 http://www.apfn.net/audio/A001I06022400053600550-911a.MP3
(2.34MB) 10 min 15 sec
Part 2 http://www.apfn.net/audio/A002I06022400182400550-911b.MP3
(6.78MB) 29 min 38 sec
Part 3 http://www.apfn.net/audio/A003I06022401055200550-911c.MP3
(5.21MB) 22 Min 46 Sec
Part 4 http://www.apfn.net/audio/A004I06022401305400550-911d.MP3
(4.56MB) 19 Min 55 Sec
Part 5 http://www.apfn.net/audio/A005I06022402065000550-911e.MP3
(4.41MB) 19 Min 16 Sec
Part 6 http://www.apfn.net/audio/A006I06022402334200550-911f.MP3
(4.49MB) 19 Min 39 Sec
9-11 Attack on America
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/WTC.htm
Clip from movie 1984 - "We are the children"
http://www.apfn.org/audio/1984-Youth1.mp3
Charles Goyette 1010 Air America radio
2/03/06 re: Experts Claim Official 9/11 Story is a Hoax-audio:
http://www.apfn.net/audio/6020309001401010-goyette-911.MP3
----------
Somebody knew what was coming...
This album cover was posted to the internet on July 19, 2001! It depicts
the World Trade Center in the exact state it we all saw it in after the
attacks yesterday. The band, The Coup (a sudden overthrow of a
government by a usually small group of persons in positions of
authority),
displays the Red Communist Star representing Socialism on the cover
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/WTC.htm
Page 2 - Attack on America & Cover-Up
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/WTC2.htm
========================================================================
=================================================================
----------
Divine Strake: The Pentagon to set off
bunker buster bomb in Nevada
By Julian Borger
April 2, 2006
The Guardian
Pentagon plans in Washington Saturday April 1, 2006
The Pentagon is preparing to set off a record-breaking bang, detonating
635 tonnes of high explosives and sending a mushroom cloud into the sky
over the Nevada desert. The blast, on June 2, codenamed Divine Strake,
is likely to be the biggest controlled conventional explosion in
military history, experts said, and is designed to test the impact of
bunker-busting bombs aimed at underground targets. The blast comes at a
time of rising tension with Iran over its nuclear programme. The US has
refused to rule out military action and is considering the feasibility
of destroying underground warhead development sites Iran is alleged to
have built.
"We have several very large penetrators we're developing," James
Tegnelia, head of the Defence Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) told US
defence reporters. "We also have - are you ready for this? - an
explosively formed charge that we're going to be putting in a tunnel in
Nevada ... and that represents to us the largest single explosive that
we could imagine doing conventionally to solve that problem."
The explosive used will be ammonium nitrate soaked in fuel oil - a
cheap but potent combination. "I don't want to sound glib here but it
is the first time in Nevada that you'll see a mushroom cloud over Las
Vegas since we stopped testing nuclear weapons," Mr Tegnelia said.
Ivan Oelrich, a munitions expert at the Federation of American
Scientists, said: "I suspect this is primarily a test of their computer
modelling abilities, because I don't know how they could deliver a
weapon like this. They are looking at how different rocks respond to
shockwaves."
The White House and the Pentagon wanted to develop a nuclear
bunker-buster bomb, but the initiative was blocked by Congress,
obliging the defence department to experiment further with conventional
explosives.
Mr Tegnelia's remarks triggered some anxiety in Las Vegas. Shelley
Berkley, a Nevada Democrat, told the House of Representatives: "Anytime
an administration official starts talking about mushroom clouds and Las
Vegas, I want answers."
The DTRA later issued a statement saying: "All explosives, given the
right thermal characteristics, create a cloud that may resemble a
mushroom cloud."
"The dust cloud ... may reach an altitude of 10,000 feet and is not
expected to be visible off the Nevada test site," Major Susan Idziak, a
spokeswoman, said. "No adverse impact on the environment or health of
exercise participants or local residents is anticipated."
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole
responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of
the Centre for Research on Globalization.
To become a Member of Global Research
The Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) at
www.globalresearch.ca grants permission to cross-post original Global
Research articles in their entirety, or any portions thereof, on
community internet sites, as long as the text & title are not modified.
The source must be acknowledged and an active URL hyperlink address to
the original CRG article must be indicated. The author's copyright note
must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print
or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact:
crgeditor@yahoo.com
www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which
has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We
are making such material available to our readers under the provisions
of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of
political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is
distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest
in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to
use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must
request permission from the copyright owner.
To express your opinion on this article, join the discussion at Global
Research's News and Discussion Forum
For media inquiries: crgeditor@yahoo.com
© Copyright Julian Borger, The Guardian, 2006
The url address of this article is:
www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?
context=viewArticle&code=BOR20060402&articleId=2209
========================================================================
================================================
From: CherielJ@aol.com
Date: April 2, 2006 3:56:08 AM EST
To: undisclosed-recipients:;
Subject: Agent Orange: the legacy of a weapon of mass destruction
From Steven L. Robinson
Sat, April 1, 2006
Agent Orange : the legacy of a weapon of mass destruction
Jeremy Laurance reports from Ho Chi Minh City
Oublished April 1, 2006
On a table in the dimly lit room lay a small white bundle, tied with a
silver ribbon. With a brilliant smile and a barked order, Professor
Nguyen
Thi Phuong had directed me to the morgue of the Tu Du maternity
hospital to
see the latest evidence of the impact of a war that ended more than 30
years
ago.
Outside on the streets, thronged with motor scooters in the 30C heat,
young
men and women stopped to buy roses from the flower sellers at the
hospital
gates, preparing to give them to loved ones. In the morgue, an
anonymous
block at the back of this 1,000-bed hospital, love had had an
unexpected,
tragic outcome. Somewhere in the hospital, a mother was grieving for
the
loss of her son.
A porter donned latex gloves and untied the ribbon. Carefully
unwrapping the
bundle, he revealed a tiny corpse, delivered a few hours earlier, its
skin a
livid purple, fine black strands of hair plastered to its head. He
turned
the infant over and there, at the base of the spine where the tissues
had fa
iled to form, like a wound, was the unmistakable sign of spina bifida.
This is the only birth defect recognised by the US as a legacy of Agent
Orange, the chemical defoliant sprayed by American troops from 1965
until
1971 during the Vietnam war. But there is worse, far worse, in this
hospital, the largest in south Vietnam. Some of the most severely
affected
babies, abandoned by their parents, live on two floors in a wing known
as
the Peace Village.
Entering it is like stepping back 40 years to the days of Thalidomide,
the
morning-sickness pill prescribed in Britain in the 1960s that left
babies
hideously deformed. In the first room, cots line the walls. In one, a
four-year-old girl rocks on all fours, gently banging her head against
the
bars. A nurse turns her round to reveal a face with no eyes. Under a
thick
fringe of dark hair, there are soft indentations in the skin either
side of
her nose, where her eyes should be. Above her cot a printed label
gives her
name as Tran Sinh, and her date of birth as 27 February 2002.
According to
the nurses she was born in an area heavily sprayed with Agent Orange,
where
the land is still contaminated 35 years after the spraying stopped.
In the cot next to her, Tran Loan, aged five months, has a head the
size of
a melon and is whimpering softly. He has hydrocephalus - fluid on the
brain.
Next to him a child wearing a stripey red T-shirt has stumps for legs.
A
three-year-old with a crazily pointed skull and bulging eyes lies on
his
back staring at the ceiling. But for his Mickey Mouse T-shirt, he
looks as
if he belongs to another world.
A group of less severely affected children are setting off for school.
Minh
Phlic, 15, binds himself into his artificial legs with his one good
arm. "I
can be taller than you," he says proudly, levering himself to his feet.
There were 454 babies with congenital defects born in the hospital last
year, out of 36,000 deliveries. "Those are just the visible ones. We
do not
know about defects to internal organs, or those that only emerge years
later," Professor Phuong said. The Vietnamese government estimates
500,000
children have been born with birth defects caused by contamination with
Agent Orange and two million suffered cancers and other ill effects -
innocent victims of a chemical intended to harm plant life, not
humans. But
unlike the American soldiers who sprayed the defoliant, they have never
received compensation.
This month they have the best chance in a generation of obtaining
redress. A
lawsuit against the US manufacturers of Agent Orange to be heard in
the US
courts is generating unprecedented support, nationally and
internationally.
Agent Orange, so-called because of the orange stripe on the drums in
which
it was stored, contained dioxin, one of the most toxic chemicals
known. An
estimated 80 million litres of the defoliant, containing 386kg of
dioxin,
were sprayed on Vietnam. One millionth of a gram per kilo of body
weight is
enough to induce cancers, birth defects and other diseases when
exposure
persists over a long period - as the US veterans discovered in the
years
after the war.
Cancers, birth defects and other diseases struck the returning
veterans in
unexpected numbers. Those who had had contact with the chemical sued
the
manufacturers and in 1984 won what was then the largest ever
settlement of
$180m against seven of the world's biggest chemical companies,
including Dow
and Monsanto. But more than 20 years on, while the Americans who did
the
spraying have been compensated, the Vietnamese who had the toxic
chemical
sprayed on them are still waiting for redress.
Last year, Vietnamese veterans sued the same US chemical companies
claiming
that they knew Agent Orange contained a poison - dioxin - and their
action
in supplying it to the US government breached international law and
constituted a war crime. They lost in the first round but they are
pinning
their hopes on an appeal, due to be heard in Brooklyn, New York, this
month.
Dioxin is a by-product of the manufacturing process of Agent Orange
and a
key issue in the case is how much the manufacturers knew about their
product, and at what stage. If the appeal fails, the veterans have
pledged
to take their fight to the Supreme Court. In the run-up to the
hearing, they
have turned up the pressure on the US government with a tour of US
cities
last December, and an international petition co-ordinated from London.
An
early day motion put down by the Labour MP Robert Marshall-Andrews in
the
Commons this month calls for the Vietnamese to be "similarly
compensated" to
the Americans 20 years ago. The veterans' long campaign for justice has
seized the public imagination in Vietnam, according to British
diplomats in
Hanoi, with fund-raising parties and newspaper campaigns backing the
fight.
The veterans are ageing - many have died - and there is a sense that
time is
running out. But there is also anger at the continuing effects of the
toxin
on current generations.
The mother of the spina bifida baby whose body lay in the morgue of
the Tu
Du hospital had not been born when the Vietnam war ended. Yet high
levels of
dioxin remain in the soil in hotspots across southern Vietnam, taken
up by
plants and crops and leaching into the water to contaminate new
generations.
Professor Phuong, 63, consultant obstetrician and until last November
medical director of the Tu Du hospital, has spent much of her 40-year
career
researching the effects of Agent Orange and has watched the rate of
birth
defects rise. But she admits that obtaining hard evidence linking
individual
cases to the poison is difficult. "The US soldiers have diaries of
where
they were sent and what they were doing. We have no data. So how can
we have
proof?"
Vast areas of Vietnam were stripped bare of vegetation by the
defoliant. One
of the most contaminated is at Cu Chi, 25 miles outside Ho Chi Minh
City,
where tourists crawl through the famous network of Viet Cong tunnels.
Visitors are shown a film of women picking fruit in what was once
known as
the Garden of Cu Chi, where office workers came to picnic at weekends
and
watch the harvest.
Today the picnickers have gone. Slender saplings, no thicker than a
man's
arm, have grown up in the past 20 years to shade the tourists - but
there
are no fruit trees and no harvest. In a speech to the US Senate in
August
1970, displayed in the War Remnants Museum in Ho Chi Minh City, Senator
Nelson said: "Never in human history have people witnessed one
country's
making war on the living environment of another."
Bien Hoa, two hours' drive to the west along narrow roads jammed with
scooters, bicycles and carts, is the site of an old US military base
where
7,000 gallons of Agent Orange were spilt during the war. People who
live in
the town have among the highest levels of dioxin in the country - 413
parts
per trillion, 207 times higher than in unsprayed areas. But research
on the
health effects has never been done and pledges of support from America
have
come to nothing.
Soldiers standing guard at the base, now operated by the Vietnamese
military, turn away unauthorised visitors. As darkness fell at the
Quinh
Lanh cafi opposite the gate, where workers were settling down to watch
the
TV, I bought a bottle of mineral water. It was sourced from the
mountains in
the north. The water in nearby lake Bien Hung is so heavily
contaminated
with dioxin, more than 30 years since the spraying stopped, that
fishing is
still banned.
In Hanoi, Professor Nguyen Trong Nhan, former minister of health and
vice-president of the Vietnam Association of Agent Orange Victims, says
international support is growing for what he calls Vietnam's "great
social
and humanitarian problem". In January, a South Korean court ordered US
chemical companies to pay $63m compensation to 6,800 South Korean
soldiers
who fought in Vietnam. "No one can tell how many more generations will
be
affected. We think the compensation [for Vietnam] must be large.
People's
lives and health are severely affected. Unfortunately, the Americans
have
avoided their responsibility," he says.
Aged 76, and a veteran of the war against the French in which he lost
his
two brothers, he points to a picture of himself meeting Bill Clinton.
The
former US President in 1996 formally accepted a recommendation from the
American Institutes of Medicine that 13 conditions ranging from
prostate
cancer to peripheral neuropathy (numbness in the hands and feet),
should be
recognised as likely to have been caused by Agent Orange. That
decision led
to American veterans with the conditions receiving payments worth
thousands
of dollars a year while the Vietnamese get nothing. "It is a battle
even
more difficult than the battle with weapons. We must have confidence
that we
will win," said Professor Nhan.
There is one major barrier to success. The Vietnamese government is
anxious
to join the World Trade Organisation to open up new markets for its
booming
economy, and the Americans are the last big obstacle in their way.
Embarrassing the US government at this point could sink Vietnam's
hopes.
Portraying their country as poisoned is also not the best way to boost
trade. Vietnam is the world's second largest exporter of shrimp to the
European Union. Any suggestion of contamination could wipe out this
lucrative market. President Tran Duc Luong is thus caught on the horns
of a
dilemma. During a visit to the US last year, he raised the matter of
Agent
Orange but did not make an issue of it. The American embassy in Hanoi
declined The Independent's request for an interview.
The Americans hoped that concern in Vietnam about Agent Orange would
gradually die, along with the ageing war veterans. Instead, the sense
of
injustice has grown. In Tu Du hospital, and in the 10 Peace Villages
across
the country where the children with the worst birth defects live, they
are
pinning their hopes on the outcome of this month's court case.
With a shake of her head, Professor Phuong says: "Please ask for
justice for
the Vietnam victims. Time is running out."
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/article354940.ece
========================================================================
================================================================
From: "Graham Jukes" <grahamjukes@blueyonder.co.uk>
Date: March 30, 2006 9:21:47 PM EST
Subject: The Future of Food <VIDEO> (Requires Macromedia Flash) ~MUST
WATCH / U.S. House To Vote On Cancer Research and Program Bu
----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Kirwan
To: Graham Jukes
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2006 7:04 PM
Subject: Fw: The Future of Food <VIDEO> (Requires Macromedia Flash)
~MUST WATCH
----- Original Message -----
From: Lajocanda@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2006 9:55 AM
Subject: The Future of Food <VIDEO> (Requires Macromedia Flash) ~MUST
WATCH
The Future of Food
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12535.htm
The
Future of Food
There is a revolution happening in the farm fields and on the dinner
tables of America -- a revolution that is ... transforming the very
nature of the food we eat. THE FUTURE OF FOOD offers an in-depth
investigation into the disturbing truth behind the unlabeled, patented,
genetically engineered foods that have quietly filled U.S. grocery
store shelves for the past decade.
From the prairies of Saskatchewan, Canada to the fields of Oaxaca,
Mexico, this film gives a voice to farmers whose lives and livelihoods
have been negatively impacted by this new technology. The health
implications, government policies and push towards globalization are
all part of the reason why many people are alarmed by the introduction
of genetically altered crops into our food supply. Shot on location in
the U.S., Canada and Mexico, THE FUTURE OF FOOD examines the complex
web of market and political forces that are changing what we eat as
huge multinational corporations seek to control the world's food
system. The film also explores alternatives to large-scale industrial
agriculture, placing organic and sustainable agriculture as real
solutions to the farm crisis today
Click below to read or post comments on this article
postCount('article12535.htm');Comments (8) |
postCountTB('article12535.htm'); Trackback (0)
========================================================================
================================================================
From: Rick Davis <rdavis@yin.or.jp>
Date: March 31, 2006 6:57:32 PM EST
To: undisclosed-recipients:;
Subject: Swedish study says mobile phones are harmful
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,70555-0.html?tw=wn_index_10
Mobiles Safe? Hold the Phone
----------
Associated Press 08:00 AM Mar, 31, 2006
The use of mobile phones over a long period of time can raise the risk
of brain tumors, according to a Swedish study released on Friday,
contradicting the conclusions of other researchers.
Last year, the Dutch Health Council, in an overview of research from
around the world, found no evidence that radiation from mobile phones
and TV towers was harmful. A four-year British survey in January also
showed no link between regular, long-term use of cell phones and the
most common type of tumor.
But researchers at the Swedish National Institute for Working Life
looked at mobile phone use of 2,200 cancer patients and an equal number
of healthy control cases.
Of the cancer patients, aged between 20 and 80, 905 had a malignant
brain tumor and about a tenth of them were also heavy users of mobile
phones.
"Of these 905 cases, 85 were so-called high users of mobile phones,
that is they began early to use mobile and/or wireless telephones and
used them a lot," said the authors of the study in a statement issued
by the Institute.
Published in the International Archives of Occupational and
Environmental Health, the study defines heavy use as 2,000 plus hours,
which "corresponds to 10 years' use in the work place for one hour per
day."
Early use was defined as having begun to use a mobile phone before the
age of 20.
There was also shown to be a marked increase in the risk of tumor on
the side of the head where the telephone was generally used, said the
study, which took into account factors such as smoking habits, working
history and exposure to other agents.
Kjell Mild, who led the study, said the figures meant that heavy users
of mobile phones had a 240 percent increased risk of a malignant tumor
on the side of the head the phone is used.
"The way to get the risk down is to use handsfree," he said.
He said his study was the biggest yet to look at long-term users of the
wireless phone, which has been around in Sweden in a portable form
since 1984, longer than in many other countries.
========================================================================
=================================================================
From: Rick Davis <rdavis@yin.or.jp>
Date: April 3, 2006 9:23:18 PM EST
Subject: Former Head Of Star Wars Program Says Cheney Main 9/11 Suspect
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2006/040406mainsuspect.htm
Following Charlie Sheen's brave statements regarding 911, we now see
yet another prominent individual and more and more Americans are coming
out and stating what we Muslims have been saying all along, that 911
was done by the American government. Those Muslims who still believe
911 was done by al-Qaida should be the ones suspected of holding the
knife behind their backs ready to stab!
Former Head Of Star Wars Program Says Cheney Main 9/11 Suspect
Official version of events a conspiracy theory, says drills were cover
for attacks
Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones/Prison Planet.com | April 4 2006
The former head of the Star Wars missile defense program under
Presidents Ford and Carter has gone public to say that the official
version of 9/11 is a conspiracy theory and his main suspect for the
architect of the attack is Vice President Dick Cheney.
Dr. Robert M. Bowman, Lt. Col., USAF, ret. flew 101 combat missions in
Vietnam. He is the recipient of the Eisenhower Medal, the George F.
Kennan Peace Prize, the President’s Medal of Veterans for Peace, the
Society of Military Engineers Gold Medal (twice), six Air Medals, and
dozens of other awards and honors. His Ph.D. is in Aeronautics and
Nuclear Engineering from Caltech. He chaired 8 major international
conferences, and is one of the country’s foremost experts on National
Security.
Bowman worked secretly for the US government on the Star Wars project
and was the first to coin the very term in a 1977 secret memo. After
Bowman realized that the program was only ever intended to be used as
an aggressive and not defensive tool, as part of a plan to initiate a
nuclear war with the Soviets, he left the program and campaigned
against it.
In an interview with The Alex Jones Show aired nationally on the GCN
Radio Network, Bowman (pictured below) stated that at the bare minimum
if Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda were involved in 9/11 then the
government stood down and allowed the attacks to happen. He said it is
plausible that the entire chain of military command were unaware of
what was taking place and were used as tools by the people pulling the
strings behind the attack.
Bowman outlined how the drills on the morning of 9/11 that simulated
planes crashing into buildings on the east coast were used as a cover
to dupe unwitting air defense personnel into not responding quickly
enough to stop the attack.
"The exercises that went on that morning simulating the exact kind of
thing that was happening so confused the people in the FAA and
NORAD....that they didn't they didn't know what was real and what was
part of the exercise," said Bowman
"I think the people who planned and carried out those exercises,
they're the ones that should be the object of investigation."
Asked if he could name a prime suspect who was the likely architect
behind the attacks, Bowman stated, "If I had to narrow it down to one
person....I think my prime suspect would be Dick Cheney."
Bowman said that privately his military fighter pilot peers and
colleagues did not disagree with his sentiments about the real story
behind 9/11.
Bowman agreed that the US was in danger of slipping into a dictatorship
and stated, "I think there's been nothing closer to fascism than what
we've seen lately from this government."
Bowman slammed the Patriot Act as having, "Done more to destroy the
rights of Americans than all of our enemies combined."
Bowman trashed the 9/11 Commission as a politically motivated cover-up
with abounding conflicts of interest, charging, "The 9/11 Commission
omitted anything that might be the least bit suspicious or embarrassing
or in any way detract from the official conspiracy so it was a total
whitewash."
"There needs to be a true investigation, not the kind of sham
investigations we have had with the 9/11 omission and all the rest of
that junk," said Bowman.
Asked if the perpetrators of 9/11 were preparing to stage another
false-flag attack to reinvigorate their agenda Bowman agreed that, "I
can see that and I hope they can't pull it off, I hope they are
prevented from pulling it off but I know darn good and well they'd like
to have another one."
A mainstay of the attack pieces against Charlie Sheen have been that he
is not credible enough to speak on the topic of 9/11. >From the very
start we have put forth eminently credible individuals only for them to
be ignored by the establishment media. Physics Professors, former White
House advisors and CIA analysts, the father of Reaganomics, German
Defense Ministers and Bush's former Secretary of the Treasury, have all
gone public on 9/11 but have been uniformly ignored by the majority of
the establishment press.
Will Robert Bowman also be blackballed as the mainstream continue to
misrepresent the 9/11 truth movement as an occupation of the fringe
minority?
Bowman is currently running for Congress in Florida's 15th District.
========================================================================
=================================================================
From: "Charles Stegiel" <fidelityunionsquare@yahoo.com>
To: <kirwanstudios@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2006 11:21 AM
Subject: Fwd: The USFEDS ARE Monsters; They are Destroying Humanity
"If You Start Looking at Them as Humans, Then How Are You Gonna Kill
Them?"
By Inigo Gilmore and Teresa Smith, The Guardian UK
Wednesday 29 March 2006
They are a publicity nightmare for the US military: an ever-growing
number of veterans of the Iraq conflict who are campaigning against
the war. To mark the third anniversary of the invasion this month, a
group of them marched on Katrina-ravaged New Orleans. Inigo Gilmore
and Teresa Smith joined them. At a press conference in a cavernous
Alabama
warehouse, banners and posters are rolled out: "Abandon Iraq, not the
Gulf
coast!" A tall, white soldier steps forward in desert fatigues. "I
was in Iraq when Katrina happened and I watched US citizens being
washed ashore in New Orleans," he says. "War is oppression: we could
be setting up hospitals right here. America is war-addicted. America is
neglecting
its poor."
A black reporter from a Fox TV news affiliate, visibly stunned,
whispers: "Wow! That guy's pretty opinionated." Clearly such talk,
even three years after the Iraq invasion, is still rare. This, after
all, is the Deep South and this soldier less than a year ago was
proudly serving his nation in Iraq.
The soldier was engaged in no ordinary protest. Over
five days earlier this month, around 200 veterans, military
families and survivors of hurricane Katrina walked 130 miles from
Mobile, Alabama, to New Orleans to mark the third
anniversary of the Iraq war. At its vanguard, Iraq Veterans Against
the War,
a group formed less than two years ago, whose very name has aroused
intense hostility at the highest levels of the US military.
Mobile is a grand old southern naval town, clinging to the Gulf
Coast. The stars and stripes flutter from almost every balcony as
the soldiers parade through the town, surprising onlookers. As they
begin their soon-to-be-familiar chants - "Bush lied, many died!" -
some shout "traitor", or hurl less polite terms of abuse. Elsewhere,
a black man salutes as a blonde, middle-aged woman, emerging from a
supermarket car park, cries out, "Take it all the way to the White
House!" and offers the peace sign.
Michael Blake is at the front of the march. The 22-year-old from New
York state is not quite sure how he ended up in the military; the
child of "a feminist mom and hippy dad", he says he signed up
thinking that he would have an adventure, never imagining that he
would find himself in Iraq. He served from April 2003 to March 2004,
some of that time as a Humvee driver. Deeply disturbed by his
experience in Iraq, he filed for conscientious objector status and
has been campaigning against the war ever since.
He claims that US soldiers such as him were told little about Iraq,
Iraqis or Islam before serving there; other than a book of Arabic
phrases, "the message was always: 'Islam is evil' and 'They hate
us.' Most of the guys I was with believed it."
Blake says that the turning point for him came one day when his unit
spent eight hours guarding a group of Iraqi women and children whose
men were being questioned. He recalls: "The men were taken away and
the women were screaming and crying, and I just remember thinking:
this was exactly what Saddam used to do - and now we're doing it."
Becoming a peace activist, he says, has been a "cleansing"
experience. "I'll never be normal again. I'll always have a sense of
guilt." He tells us that he witnessed civilian Iraqis being killed
indiscriminately. It would not be the most startling admission by
the soldiers on the march.
"When IEDs [Improvised Explosive Devices] would go off by the side
of the road, the instructions were - or the practice was - to
basically shoot up the landscape, anything that moved. And that kind
of thing would happen a lot." So innocent people were killed? "It
happened, yes." (He says he did not carry out any such killings
himself.)
Blake, an activist with IVAW for the past 12 months, is angry that
American people seem so untouched by the war, by the grim abuses
committed by American soldiers. "The American media doesn't cover it
and they don't care. The American people aren't seeing the real war -
what's really happening there."
We are in a Mexican diner in Mississippi when Alan Shackleton, a
quiet 24-year-old from Iowa, stuns the table into silence with a
story of his own. He details how he and his comrades in Iraq
suffered multiple casualties, including a close friend who died of
his injuries. Then he pauses for a moment, swallows hard and
says: "And I ran over a little kid and killed him ... and that's
about it." He has been suffering from severe insomnia, but later he
tells us that he has only been able to see a counsellor once every
six weeks and has been prescribed sleeping pills.
"We are very, very sorry for what we did to the Iraqi people," he
says the next day, holding a handwritten poster declaring: "Thou
shall not kill."
As we get closer to New Orleans, the coastline becomes increasingly
ravaged. Joe Hatcher, always sporting a keffiyeh and punk chains,
reflects on his own time in the military and the hostility he has
met from pro-war activists at home in Colorado Springs, Colorado, a
town with five army bases where he campaigns against the war at town
hall forums. He says: "There's this old guy, George, an ex-colonel.
He shows up and talks shit on everybody for being anti-war
because 'it's ruining the morale of the soldier and encouraging the
enemy'.
"I scraped dead bodies off the pavements with a shovel and threw
them in trash bags and left them there on the side of the road. And
I really don't think the anti-war movement is what is infuriating
people."
When we reach Biloxi, Mississippi, the police say that there is no
permit for the march and everyone will have to walk on the pavement.
This is tricky because Katrina has left this coastal road looking
like a bomb site.
Jody Casey left the army five days ago and came straight to join the
vets. The 29-year-old is no pacifist; he still firmly backs the
military but says that he is speaking out in the hope of correcting
many of the mistakes being made. He served as a scout sniper for a
year until last February, based, like Blake, in the Sunni triangle.
He clearly feels a little ill at ease with some of the protesters'
rhetoric, but eventually agrees to talk to us. He says that the
turning point for him came after he returned from Iraq and watched
videos that he and other soldiers in his unit shot while out on
raids, including hour after hour of Iraqi soldiers beating up Iraqi
civilians. While reviewing them back home he decided "it was not
right".
What upset him the most about Iraq? "The total disregard for human
life," he says, matter of factly. "I mean, you do what you do at the
time because you feel like you need to. But then to watch it get
kind of covered up, shoved under a rug ... 'Oh, that did not happen'."
What kind of abuses did he witness? "Well, I mean, I have seen
innocent people being killed. IEDs go off and [you] just zap any
farmer that is close to you. You know, those people were out there
trying to make a living, but on the other hand, you get hit by four
or five of those IEDs and you get pretty tired of that, too."
Casey told us how, from the top down, there was little regard for
the Iraqis, who were routinely called "hajjis", the Iraq equivalent
of "gook". "They basically jam into your head: 'This is hajji! This
is hajji!' You totally take the human being out of it and make them
into a video game."
It was a way of dehumanising the Iraqis? "I mean, yeah - if you
start looking at them as humans, and stuff like that, then how are
you going to kill them?"
He says that soldiers who served in his area before his unit's
arrival recommended them to keep spades on their vehicles so that if
they killed innocent Iraqis, they could throw a spade off them to
give the appearance that the dead Iraqi was digging a hole for a
roadside bomb.
Casey says he didn't participate in any such killings himself, but
claims the pervasive atmosphere was that "you could basically kill
whoever you wanted - it was that easy. You did not even have to get
off and dig a hole or anything. All you had to do was have some kind
of picture. You're driving down the road at three in the morning.
There's a guy on the side of the road, you shoot him ... you throw a
shovel off."
The IVAW, says Hatcher, "is becoming our religion, our fight - as in
any religion we've confessed our wrongs, and now it's time to atone."
Just outside New Orleans, the sudden appearance of a reporter from
al-Jazeera's Washington office electrifies the former soldiers. It
is a chance for the vets to turn confessional and the reporter is
deluged with young former soldiers keen to be interviewed. "We want
the Iraqi people to know that we stand with them," says Blake, "and
that we're sorry, so sorry. That's why it was so important for us to
appear on al-Jazeera."
A number of Vietnam veterans also on the march are a welcome
presence. For all the attempts to deny a link between the two
conflicts, for both sets of veterans the parallels are persuasive.
Thomas Brinson survived the Tet offensive in Vietnam in 1968. "Iraq
is just Arabic for Vietnam, like the poster says - the same horror,
the same tears," he says.
Sitting on a riverbed outside New Orleans, Blake turns
reflective. "I met an Iraqi at one of the public meetings I was
talking at recently. He came up to me and told me he was originally
from the town where I had been stationed. And I just went up to this
complete stranger and hugged him and I said, 'I'm sorry. I'm so
sorry.' And you know what? He told me it was OK. And it was
beautiful ..." He starts to cry. "That was redemption".
more later;
vlad
========================================================================
=================================================================
[This message contained attachments]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/911TruthAction/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
911TruthAction-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
