America Has Been Here Before

By Eric Margolis for the Toronto Sun (via Informationclearinghouse)

"We should hang a huge neon sign over Afghanistan: "CAUTION: DEJA VU."

Afghanistan's much ballyhooed recent election staged by its foreign occupiers turned out to be a fraud wrapped up in a farce -- as this column predicted a month ago. It was as phony and meaningless as U.S.-run elections in Vietnam in the 1970s.

Canada played a shameful role in facilitating this obviously rigged vote.

Meanwhile, American and NATO generals running the Afghan war amazingly warn they risk being beaten by Taliban tribesmen in spite of their 107,000 soldiers, B-1 heavy bombers, F-15s, F-16s, F-18s, Apache and AC-130 gunships, heavy artillery, tanks, radars, killer drones, cluster bombs, white phosphorus, rockets, and space surveillance.

Washington has spent some $250 billion in Afghanistan since 2001. Canada won't even reveal how many billions it has spent. Each time the U.S. sent more troops and bombed more villages, Afghan resistance sharply intensified and Taliban expanded its control, today over 55% of the country.

Now, U.S. commanders are begging for at least 40,000 more U.S. troops -- after President Barack Obama just tripled the number of American soldiers there. Shades of Vietnam-style "mission creep." Ghost of Gen. William Westmoreland, rattle your chains.

The director of U.S. national intelligence just revealed Washington spent $75 billion US last year on intelligence, employing 200,000 people. Embarrassingly, the U.S. still can't find Osama bin Laden or Mullah Omar after hunting them for eight years. Washington now fears Taliban will launch a Vietnam-style Tet offensive against major cities.

This week, in a wildly overdue observation, U.S. military chief Adm. Mike Mullen told Congress, we must rapidly build the Afghan army and police."

'Vietnamization'

But the U.S. record in foreign army-building is not encouraging. Remember "Vietnamization?" That was the Pentagon's effort to build a South Vietnamese army that could stand on its own, without U.S. air cover, supplies, and "advisers." In early 1975, it collapsed and ran.

Any student of Imperialism 101 knows that after invading a resource-rich or strategic nation you immediately put a local stooge in power, use disaffected minorities to run the government (divide and conquer), and build a native mercenary army. Such troops, commanded by white officers, were called "sepoys" in the British Indian Army and "askaris" in British East Africa.

America's attempts to build an Afghan sepoy army of 250,000 failed miserably. The 80,000 men raised to date are 95% illiterate and only on the job for money to feed their families. They have no loyalty to the corrupt western-installed government in Kabul. CIA's 74,000 "contractors" (read mercenaries) in Afghanistan are more reliable.

But the biggest problem in Afghanistan, as always, is tribalism. Many of the U.S.-raised Afghan army troops are minority Tajiks, Uzbeks, and Hazara who used to collaborate with the Soviets. They are scorned by the majority Pashtun tribes as enemies and foreign stooges. These U.S.-paid troops also know they will face death when the U.S. and its western allies eventually quit Afghanistan.

The Soviets had a much better understanding of Afghanistan than the American military, which one senior British general recently called, "culturally ignorant." Moscow built an Afghan government army of around 240,000 men. Many were loyal Communists. They sometimes fought well, as I experienced in combat against them near Jalalabad. But, in the end, they smelled defeat and crumbled. The Soviet-backed strongman, Mohammad Najibullah, was castrated and slowly hanged from a crane.

The American command, deprived of men and resources by the Bush administration, only managed to cobble together an armed rabble of 80,000 Afghans. The Afghan army, like the post-Saddam Iraqi army, is led by white officers -- in this case, Americans designated "trainers" or "advisers."

Afghanistan keeps giving me deja vu back to the old British Empire, and flashbacks to those wonderful epic films of the Raj, Drums, Lives of a Bengal Lancer, and Kim. The British imperialists did it much, much better, and with a lot more style. Many of their imperial subjects even admired and liked them.

Obama's predictable surprise

The big news this morning is that it appears that the Obama administration has scrapped the plans for the deployment of a ABM system in Europe. Finally. This is somewhat of a surprise, although the Russians were heavily hinting that this might happen already a week ago, but this is also something we should have expected.

The first thing to keep in mind here is that this anti-ballistic system made no sense whatsoever. None. First, the argument that this system was designed to protect Europe from Iranian missiles is a quasi-official joke. Not only does Iran not have any missiles of that range, but Iran has no motive to attack Europe. Even if the Iranians had such missiles, as they might sometime in the future, it is simply unthinkable to imagine a scenario in which the Iranians would start shooting missiles at Europe as in any future conflict the Iranians would have their hands full in the Middle-East. Oh, and Iran *already* has very good ballistic missiles capable of reaching any country or city in the Middle-East.

Second, the Russians did come up with a very effective military response to the planned US deployment. By a combination of short and long range missiles, including the powerful Iskander-M theatre ballistic missile, the Russians could simply eliminate this system in less than 30min. Alternatively, they could engage GRU Spetsnaz forces who, we should remember, were created during the Cold War precisely with the task of destroying NATO missile systems in Europe.

So why were the Russians so angry about this plan if it represented no military threat for Russia? Because it represented a very real political threat, an arrogant provocation of truly continental proportions. Nevermind that this missile system was militarily useless, it gave the East Europeans, in particular the Poles, a (false) sense of "being an important part of NATO" and it encouraged the Europeans to thumb their noses at Russia. Furthermore, by re-igniting an arms race in Europe it created exactly the kind of tensions which the US Empire always fosters to then justify various "defensive responses" for the "sake of stability".

Needless to say, this kind of hubris is typical of the kind of sick Russophobic obsession which is the trademark of the Bush Neocons. The Obama Neocons - yes, they are also Neocons - clearly came to realize that this grand pissing contest with Russia was not something the USA could afford at this moment in time.

The American about face on this issue leaves the snivelling Poles (alongside a good chunk of the Czech political elites) looking really stupid. They put so much hopes (and in the case of the Czechs, so much political capital) into this grand scheme, that they now look like the irrelevant idiots that they are. Of course the Obama administration took this decision without consulting its East European puppets. While the Poles and, to a somewhat lesser degree, the Czechs are useful for the US Empire to do such things as being members of various "coalitions of the willing" - as a figleaf for US imperialism - they really don't matter in the grand scheme of things. Besides, what are they going to do about it anyway? It's not like they can cuddle up to the Russians, or anyone else for that matter.

At the end of the Cold War, Eastern European countries missed a truly historical opportunity to become sovereign, independent countries. Instead, they sheepishly ran away from their former masters straight into the hands of a new, equally cynical, masters (I would even argue that the GDR was getting more respect from the old USSR than what Poland gets from the USA today). Now they have to pay the price of their own lack of dignity. I can't say that I feel sorry for them.

The thing which worries me now are the rumors that some kind of deal was made between Russia and the USA over Iran. I think that some caution needs to be used here.

Some observers noted that Russia had allowed US supplies to transit through Russia on the way to Afghanistan and they concluded that Russia had "caved in" to US pressure. I disagree. Russia has a fundamental interest in not allowing a complete military defeat of the USA in Afghanistan. Why? Because as long as the US and the Taliban are fighting each other, the Talibans and the rest of the Wahabi/Deobandi crazies are not busy trying to export their model to Tadjikistan, Uzbekistan and the rest of the region. The Russians - and the Iranians for that matter - understand Afghanistan very well, and they fully realize that nothing could be worse for them than a return to power of the Pashtun crazies. The decision to allow US/NATO to resupply through Russia was, I strongly believe, the correct one. However, to help the Empire in Afghanistan and to help it in Iran are dramatically different propositions.

With regards to Iran, Russia has a fundamental interest in *not* allowing the US Empire to prevail. For all their differences, Russia and Iran are objective allies, key allies I would even say. Furthermore, there is no doubt in my mind that the Russians fully know and understand that the Iranians are not hiding some secret nuclear program right under the nose of IAEA inspectors - that kind of nonsense is only good for propaganda purposes. The real issue in Iran is that the Islamic Revolution is clearly succeeding in turning Iran into a modern, technologically sophisticated, and politically independent country and *that* is the real threat to the USA and Isarel. The USraelians simply cannot accept that a nation which stood in defiance for their diktats for now three decades would succeeded and prosper. So the real purpose of this entire hysteria over Iran is to put enough pressure on Iran to force it to drop on its knees and accept a massive surrender of its national sovereignty. If the USraelian Empire achieves this goal it will be able to send its Borg-like message to the rest of the world: " resistance is futile - you shall be assimilated". And that is precisely what Russia - and the rest of the SCO countries - cannot afford to let happen. You can either have a Borg-like dominion or a multi-polar world, but you cannot have it both ways.

Do the Russians understand that? Oh yes, I am quite sure they do. However, understanding is one thing, but acting on this understanding is quite another.

The folks ruling Russia today and not idealists by any means and they are quite capable of back-stabbing Iran, or anyone else for that matter, if that brings them some kind of advantage. Not only that, but there is also a real danger that the Russians will allow the USraelians to bring on more pressure on Iran just in order to force Iran into becoming a more compliant ally. I think that this would be a grievous mistake, but I would not put it past Medvedev and his team.

My hope is, of course, that Russia will make no concessions on the Iran matter at all. Or if there is some kind of quid pro quo in this business, then at least it is not a major one. For example, the Russians could decided to shelve/delay the much announced plans to sell the S-300PMU missiles to Iran. That would be rather annoying to Iran, and that would make the USA and Israel very happy. But that would not, I believe, fundamentally alter the equation of a USraelien strike on Iran. Yes, S-300PMU missiles are awesome, but only as part of a modern and integrated air-defense system (which Iran currently lacks). Besides, the best strategy for Iran is not to shoot down Israeli or US planes, but not to present a lucrative set of targets to the enemy. Hezbollah utterly defeated the Israeli Air Force in 2006 without firing a single air-defense missile during the entire war!

All in all, I am cautiously (and uncharacteristically) optimistic in this case. I don't believe that the Russians bargained away anything significant. We will know pretty soon as all sorts of negotiations are scheduled for the month of October, both at the UN and bilaterally between the USA and Iran.

The main problem is, of course, that Israel is run by a clique of total crazies and that the Israeli public opinion is solidly behind them. I still fully expect an Israeli attack on Iran, and I expect the AIPAC-controlled White House, Congress and US corporate media, to fully support Israel. In fact, the Israel Lobby probably sees the various negotiations in October as a pious excuse ("see - we did try to talk to them and resolve our differences peacefully, but the Mullahs would not listen") before striking out at Iran. But if the decision of attacking Iran has already been made, as I believe that it has, then there is nothing Russia could do to really prevent it in the first place. The one thing Russia will *never* do is allow for a UNSC Resolution authorizing the use of force under Chapter 7 against Iran. Neither will China, for that matter. And since that is just about the only thing which the USraelians would really need from Russia - what could Medvedev have bargained away anyway other than some "good will" on the issue of Afghanistan?

And let's not forget one very important thing here: Iran also offered a "grand bargain" to the USA which reportedly even included some major concession on the Iranian support for Hezbollah in Lebanon. And Iran is - objectively - shall we say "working not against" the USA in Iraq, at least on a tactical level (strategically, I think that Iran is brilliantly outmaneuvering the USA in Iraq, using it to keep down the Baathists and the Sunni crazies, and securing the grip of the Shia majority on power, before giving Uncle Sam the boot). So it's not like the Russian stance is much different from the Iranian one: both governments are willing to talk and, yes, to negotiate with the USraelian Empire. Talking and negotiating, by the way, does absolutely *not* mean surrendering. All this really proves is that pragmatic politics is the subtle art of the possible and that grandstanding is not the best way to achieve anything.

I believe that the US decision to scrap the plans for a missile defense in Europe is not as much a reflection of some concessions made by the Russians as it a reflection of the reality on the ground: the USraelians simply don't have the means to constantly confront every country out there, much less so a powerful one like Russia. That the White House has finally understood this just shows that the Obama Neocons are somewhat more pragmatic and less ideological than the Dubya Neocons.

The Saker

I don't want to talk about this, except...

I have just read two pretty good articles on informationclearinghouse, one by Paul Craig Roberts entitled Health Care Deceit and another by Mark Taibbi Sick and Wrong. They both make some very good points. Paul Craig Roberts, in particular, seems to have a unique ability to be right on almost every issue he writes about.

Anyway - I have had too many arguments with otherwise nice and sane Americans over healthcare to start one here. I often feel like I am living in a continent in which about 95% of the population are proud, card-carrying members of the Flat Earth Society and, frankly, I don't feel like attempting to prove to anyone that the Earth is really spherical. But I do want to say a couple of things about these Americans themselves.

Most Americans (I use this word in the obnoxiously self-aggrandizing way it is used in the USA - "UnitedStatesers" would be far more appropriate, like "Estadounidense" in Spanish) seem to be oblivious to the fact that they seriously and, at times, passionately, argue about things which have been settled for a long while elsewhere in the civilized world. It's not only health care. That goes for the death penalty, drug laws, social and labor rights and a host of other issues. The ruling elites of the USA have succeeded in convincing a majority of the population of the rather far-fetched idea that the USA (or, "America", as they would say) is somehow different from the rest of the planet, that for some strange and obscure reason, what applies in the rest of the world simply does not apply here. Over here, we need to re-invent the wheel, preferably a non spherical one at that (and, presumably, leave the round "sissy" wheels for the Eurotrash faggots across the Atlantic).

The debate on healthcare is a perfect example of this. In the USA, the world "socialism" evokes images of hammers and sickles, of Gulags, of barbed wire and midnight secret police raids. Even the word "social" or "solidarity" have too many letters in common with the much hated "socialism" to be acceptable. So to most Americans the idea of socialized medicine immediately elicits a hysterical phobic response which instantly prevents any serious discussion of the concept.

This goes even further. Let me give you another example. When Richard Stallman created the free software movement (Linux, Apache, Firefox, OpenOffice, etc.) a number of American software developers got together and coined the concept of "open source" to replace the original "free software" concept. You know why? Because, yes, you guessed it, the idea of "free" *anything* elicits in Americans images of communes, pot-smoking hippies, tree hugging peaceniks and all sorts of other terrible and disgusting thing which true "red, white n' blue Americans" know they should hate.

In the confused mind of the average American having a gun is sacred a guarantee of his/her freedoms, but free software is inherently unamerican. The picture to the right is a joke, of course, but it is a good illustration of the kind of arguments which are used by the US elites to indoctrinate the US population into a fundamentally idiotic and un-civilized system of beliefs which is shared by nobody else on the planet.

Ever since Reagan and his speech about the "government being the problem" the US elites have successfully brainwashed the (TV watching) general population into believing that the government, the state itself, is the enemy. Nevermind that this absurd belief is absolutely unique to the USA and that it undermines ideas about the Social Contact which have their roots in the late Renaissance. I have personally been told by self-described "liberals" that a single payer healthcare system would be "socialism" and would "not be the solution to the problem". Mind you - these idiots had travelled abroad, spoke several languages and had friends and relatives living outside the USA. Yet, the parroted the same idiocy without even realizing how stupid that made them look.

The average American pays a truly terrible price for this folly. In my life I have lived a total of 12 years in the USA, and another 33 in countries with a socialized medical systems (where. among other procedues, my wife delivered my our kids), I had to visit many doctors in both private practices and hospitals and I have seen many people operated, sometimes with very serious conditions. There is no doubt in my mind that the healthcare system in the USA is far, far worse than any the socialized healthcare systems of the rest of the industrialized world. Likewise, I can attest that US workers have the worst social. labor and political rights of any country I have ever visited, that the US prison system is the most backward and barbaric of any Western nation and that nobody in the rest of the industrialized world has such an utterly insane and evil policy as the so-called "War on Drugs" in the USA.

The sad truth is that Americans live in a fundamentally un-civilized society.

Sure - there are other equally barbaric societies out there - think Saudi Arabia or Taliban controlled Afghanistan. The ironic thing of course is that while Americans are outraged that in some Wahabi countries women cannot drive, be a witness in a court, or can be stoned to death for adultery, they find it perfectly normal that nonviolent offenders get sentenced to decades of hard prison time, that kids can be tried and executed as adults, or otherwise affluent families can be bankrupted because one family member as contacted a serious disease.

Most Americans are utterly oblivious to the fact that they live in a society which is at least as backward, uncivilized and insane as any Taliban run Islamic Caliphate. But, not unlike the Talibans, in fact, Americans at least now one thing: that as long as they get to keep their guns the "commies in Washington DC" won't be able to take away their freedoms.

But what freedoms are we talking about here? Obviously, not the freedom to keep your home if one of your kids has cancer and not the freedom to take out an insurance against economic hardship (known in other countries as "unemployment benefits).

Let's take a typical example. An American is working for company X and the boss tells him that he has to come to "open doors" days on week-ends to engage in some publicity for his company in the community. Nevermind that his American has a family which he can only see on week-ends or that he is so overworked that he needs to spend most time in bed. Needless to say, his presence at the "open doors" day will not be paid for. It is assumed that this is just something he "has" to do. If that American refuses to comply and tells his boss that he doesnt' think that it is right to make him come on week-ends without any kind of pay, his boss can simply fire him. Now comes the best part - this American has gastric reflux, courtesy of the corporate shit food he can afford with this minimal income. And he needs to take Nexium on a daily basis to control this hyperadicity. Well, if he looses his job, he will loose his health insurance too, and since his salary was crappy to begin with - like most Americans he lives month to month - he cannot afford his Nexium out of pocket. But if he does not take it, he will be in a great deal of pain, won't be able to sleep properly, and will risk damaging his oesophagus. So he shuts up and meekly comes to his bosses open house day.

What would you call a situation in which a worker risks physical pain and even severe injury if he does not obey his bosse's orders? That's correct. Slavery.

Of course, the doubleplusgoodthinking libertarians of the laissez-faire capitalist persuasion will tell you that the market can easily resolve this problem: the worker can just leave and get another job. And God forbid anybody suggest that the much hated State should come up with some laws regulating such labor situation. That would be communism!!

But how does "The Market" achieve that in a country whose real unemployment rate is something in the 20-25% range and in which so-called unempoyment "benefits" are a big fat joke anyway?!

Amazingly - this is exactly what is going on in the USA. That, and much worse. On a daily basis.

In my own state, Florida, to get disability, you MUST HAVE a lawyer. No matter how disabled you are, you simply will not get anything at all unless you can afford to hire a lawyer. Then, you will ALWAYS be rejected on your first application. Only your SECOND one might be accepted. And nobody knows how you are supposed to survive until that second application is finally accepted (if you are "lucky" and *very* disabled, that it). Last, but not least, what you get in terms of disability payments in Florida is such a joke that you simply cannot afford keeping a roof over your head and eat something too. You do have the freedom to choose whether to eat outdoors or sleep hungry in a trailer. Most importantly - you do get to have a gun (if you can afford one, that is).

I have personally seen disabled homeless folks in Florida cruising around the streets in their wheelchairs in the sweltering Florida heat with a American flag and a POW/MIA flag flapping in the humid air behind their backs Yes, even these guys are so proud to be Americans...

From time to time, some Americans like Kucinich or Nader do speak up and denounce the abhorrent obscenity which the US society has become. And over and over again they fail to convince most Americans. Why? Because most Americans sincerely believe the status quo is FREEDOM whereas what Nader & Co. want is COMMUNISM. That's why!

Forget it! This is hopeless. When I hear such arguments I always want to slap my interlocutors. Not because I am mad, not at all, but because I feel the urge to wake them up from their TV-induced stupor and get them to realize that no, the Earth is not flat, not even in the USA. As it happens, it is spherical and it rotates dammit!

In "Flatland USA" all his talk about healthcare reform is going nowhere. The terrible, sad, and ridiculous fact is that most Americans do not want their society to change, lest is somehow become "Communist" overnight.

So while Obama makes great speeches, don't expect anything real out of it. It ain't happening. The corporate plutocracy which runs this USA will continue screwing the rest of the country again and again, and the richer will become richer and the poor - poorer.

I know a lost cause when I see it.

Frankly, most Americans are just like the bulls in Spain who spend the last 15 minutes of their lives trying to fight a piece red (Communist?) cloth while being utterly oblivious to the dude who is shaking it in front of their noses until he kills them.

There ain't no real change coming to the US of A. Not anytime soon anyway. The real slogan of the Obama Administration might as well become "No, we can't!".

The Saker

PS: before any dimwit starts calling me a "Communist" let me say here that unlike 99% of wannabe armchair anti-Communists out there, I actually fought against the Communist system, and that it even got me a rare honor: death threats from a bone fide KGB officer. So don't bother with that crap, ok?

A typical example of "debuking"

Charlie Sheen has recently released a video on YouTube asking Barak Obama for a meeting and a new investigation into 9/11. Here is the video:

Far more interesting than the video itself (which I personally find rather mediocre), is the response from the 'debunkers'. Check out this one:
-------
Charlie Sheen and Pathetic Conspiracy Theorists

By Greg Gutfeld

Charlie Sheen has penned a fictitious conversation with President Obama regarding the 9/11 attack.

See, the star of "Scary Movie 3" — and "Scary Movie 4" — believes that Bush/Cheney planned it all and feels Obama should investigate it immediately, in an effort to answer a "bottomless warren of unanswered questions."

Now, never mind how repulsive this is to anyone personally affected by the terror attack. Sheen is just awesome for revealing what makes conspiracy theorists so pathetic.

First, the egomania. In this "open letter," Sheen writes that the president admits liking "Two and a Half Men." And here I thought Martin was the crazy one in the family.

Second, there's the mental masturbation. When it comes to "truther" obsession, the questioning will always be — as Sheen says — "bottomless." That's the joy of conspiracy: It's an endless bag of Doritos, except instead of chips you get comebacks like "that's what they want you to think," and "open your eyes, dude."

It'd be funny if it wasn't so sad.

And third: the contradictions. Sheen claims that 9/11 was the pretext for the "systematic dismantling of our Constitution." He says this without realizing that since 9/11, not a single person has shut him up. His relentless babble has done more to prove there is no cover-up than anything, ever! Damn, I wish the government would silence him or at least get him a haircut better suited for a middle-aged man.

But look, I love Sheen because he's a man unencumbered by self-awareness. Think about it: The world's most famous clueless druggie, gambling-addicted, whore-banger thinks he's uncovered a conspiracy and we should all believe him.

How cute is that?

And if you disagree with me, then you're probably a racist.

-------

That's it. Now, there is nothing surprizing at all that the debunkers would systematically resort to ad hominem attacks, but the amazing thing is that they still succeeded in framing the public perception of the issue at hand. The loud shrieks of the debunkers are essentially achieving the same effect as the labal "anti-Semite": they immediately "switch off" any possibility for a logical discussion of the issues. Add to this the "well-known fact" that listening to a "truther" or an "anti-Semite" is, in itself and self-evidently futile, if not outright immoral, and you will see why the 9/11 issue is not going anywhere.

New 911 investigation in New York?

The 911 Truth Movement

Eight years have now passed since the attacks of 911, and for these eight years I have steered clear from the debate about what exactly happened on 911. Mostly, I defined myself as a '911 agnostic', meaning literally that I had no knowledge of what took place that day. However, being an agnostic does not mean not thinking about a topic. I watched every single 'truther' movie out there, read quite a few books on this topic, compared and contrasted the 'truther' and 'debunker' arguments and stances. Now, eight years later, a number of aspects of this debate have become clear in my mind and I would like to share with you some of my thoughts.

From the very beginning one thing did strike me: the systematic vilification of those who doubted the official version of the events on 911 by not only the corporate media and their talking heads, but even a lot of people in the blogosphere. '911 kooks' was the most frequently used term to refer to the 'truthers'. From the outset I was shocked by that. Why should those who ask question be vilified in such a manner? Does the US government not have a well-known history of false flag operations? Was the CIA not involved at every single step of the creation and growth of what became later known as al-Qaeda? If there any doubt at all that the folks in power on 911 are evil to the very core and more than capable of killing not thousands, but millions of innocent people to achieve their goals? Last, but not least, who benefited most from 911 if not the US Imperial High Command and the Israel Lobby?

The answers are rather obvious, aren't they?

But then why were 'truthers' vilified? I suppose that the fact that there are real crackpots and kooks among the 911 Truth movement did not help. Some of these guys are, indeed, raving lunatics and plainly idiots. And having the likes of Alex Jones screaming all sorts of things on the streets of NY with his megaphone did little to help the image of the 911 Truth movement (Alex Jones is the kind of guy I just love to hate. Everything about him offends me, his tone, his behavior and, worst of all, his voice). This is all true, but none of this is in any way a logical reply to the issues which were raised by the 'truthers'. I mean - if a person says 'how could WTC7 collapse in free fall' it is just not enough to answer 'Alex Jones is a lunatic!!!!'. Even though the latter might be true, this is hardly an adequate reply. Yet this kind of 'argument' is mostly what I saw from the alternative blogosphere.

The other thing which amazed me is that from day 1, the Dubya administration did pretty much everything it could to prevent a real investigation from 911. Why would they? The logical thing to do for them would have been to make a huge and open investigation looking into every single aspect of the 911 attacks with maniacal care. After all, if a bunch of Saudis armed with cutters lead by a small group of people sitting in a cave in Afghanistan really did commit these acts, as the government says they did, why not maximize the outrage of the public opinion by keeping an endless flows of details about this operation coming in day after day after day into the public domain?

But no - every single step taken to investigate these events was at best a farce and at worst a pathetic attempt to bury the truth forever. Let's just take one simple example: there was enough debris left on 911 to send samples to every single laboratory on the planet. Yet, all of it was removed at warp speed and, of all things, sent to China! (keep in mind that legally speaking the debris from WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 represented evidence on a crime scene). Now how can the politicos in Washington complain when the 'truthers' allege that traces of thermate were found in the 911 dust? Hey - had they kept the stuff they could easily, rapidly and painlessly disprove such allegations! But they kept nothing (or if they did, they are hiding the stuff).

Not only that, but the government's story changed time after time after time. This is as true for the list of alleged hijackers as it is in the case of the mechanisms which brought down the buildings. With that type of constantly changing stories, it is no wonder that people start asking questions, I would say.

Yet another kind of response to the Truth movement was what the Papist call the 'argument of authority'. It goes like this 'if Ron Paul does not question 911, neither will I'. Frankly, this is kind of dumb, in particular in the case of a politician who, no matter how courageous and honest, simply cannot afford to say anything and everything he thinks. Yet, a lot of people did exactly that, and not only Ron Paul supporters - exactly the same argument was made with Noam Chomsky's name. I personally have a great deal of respect for both Ron Paul and Noam Chomsky, but that respect does not translate into a mindless and unconditional support for everything they say or, in this case, do *not* say.

Another thing which got me thinking is the amazingly dishonest arguments used by 'debunkers'. Only yesterday evening I read the following thing on a debunker website: "the truthers say that a cruise missile hit the Pentagon, yet they also says that the way the light poles were cut down is suspicious - but how could a cruise missile cut down these poles? Obviously, an aircraft did this!"

This kind of "argument" is fundamentally un-scientific. The scientific method consists of making an observation, asking a question, form a hypothesis, conduct an experiment and then either accept or reject the hypothesis; in the latter case a new hypothesis has to be made taking into account the outcome of the experiment. In the case of 911, it is the government who presented us with a hypothesis (the official version) and this hypothesis did not fit the observed facts at all. What the truthers primarily did is to challenge this hypothesis. But the 'debunkers' instead of re-working their initial hypothesis immediately challenged the 'truthers' to present a more solid explanation. This is not logical or scientific at all.

In reality, of course, the 'truthers' did force many revisions of the official version. It's just that the government and the debunkers will never admit to it. That, and the fact that some of what has been observed is, not matter what the 'debunkers' say, very hard, if not impossible, to explain.

Consider this: the 'debunkers ' love to call the 'truthers' 'conspiracy theorists'. Yet these very same 'debunkers' fully buy into the official government version(s) which, as it happens, is nothing but a big conspiracy theory (and a utterly incredible one, I would add). How are the real 'kooks' here - they folks who question the official theory or those who fully buy into it, even when it changes over and over again?!

I realize that all of the above is little more than my personal, subjective, impressions and musings. True. And I don't claim to have the answers. In that sense, I am still a '911 agnostic' I suppose. But one thing I do know is that 911 was never properly investigated or, even much less so, adequately explained. Therefore, the 911 Truth Movement demand for a new, independent, and fully transparent investigation is absolutely legitimate and to reject it is fundamentally un-democratic. If millions of dollars can be spend by the US taxpayer to investigate Clinton's sexual actuvities with Monica Lewinsky, then the death of 3000 Americans surely deserves a real and independent investigation, no?!

The other thing which strikes me a indisputable is that the 911 Truth movement cannot be reduced to a bunch of 'kooks', 'conspiracy theorists' or 'loonies'. This the likes of Alex Jones make you sick, then please watch the following video and ask yourself whether these guys are 'kooks' too:




If you can dismiss it all (not just some stuff here and there, no I mean dismiss it *all*) as kookery - good for you! I personally most definitely cannot.

Then try this one:


(there are some glitches at the end of this video - please keep watching)

Are these guys also just 'kooks'? You know - they might be. But if they are, then these 'kooks' sure are doing a world-class job investigating what happened that day. More relevantly, they are doing the *government's* job and that is where the real outrage is!

I still don't have a clear idea of what happened that day. While there is no doubt in my mind that the official version is absolute bullshit, at least as currently presented by the 'debunkers', I don't insist on any one version of the events. But I definitely agree with Sherlock Holmes' view that "When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth".

I suppose that this makes me a 'truther' too.

The Saker

PS: for a typically obnoxious and condescending vilification of the 911 Truth, movement check out this recent video by National Geographic, complete with all the bells and whistles including David Aaronovich. The video will show you all the tools used by the corporate media to silence doubters and truthers.

Obama's extraordinary speech

For those of you who have not seen this, please listen to Obama's speech on health care:





Now, please, do not conclude that I am posting this speech here because I suddenly became an Obama-groupie. Not at all. I know full well that Obama is a puppet in the hands of backstage puppeteers, and don't believe in his health care plan at all (I favor the single payer solution). No, what I want to draw your attention to are Obama's truly extraordinary oratory skills, and the fact that for the first time in years he is openly challenging the kind of ideological crap which the so-called "conservatives" have been spewing about 'liberal values'.

Not since Reagan has an American president spoken with such convincing power. And unlike Regan, I get a strong sense that Obama actually understands what he is saying.

For some of us, this is good news a, .at this point, *any* improvement in the backward and barbaric US "health(not)care" system would be a tremendous relief for millions of people. But this is also very bad news for the rest of planet.

First, in Obama we are faced with a formidable US President who will be extremely skilled in making his case. Following 8 years of truly simian buffoonery this is a radical shift. Just remember how Obama cynically (also but very skillfully) asked how those who traditionally oppose US interventions in Latin America how they now could accuse the USA of not intervening enough in Honduras. This is a fallacy, of course, but it sounds terrific.

On substance, what we are seeing in Obama is mostly a 3rd Bush term. Simply put - almost nothing has changed: the Neocon Israeli Lobby still runs the USA, the USA still fights several imperial wars, the so-called "nuclear shield" in Europe is still on the table, as is the war with Iran, the USA still openly supports the Ukraine and Georgia, and Uncle Shmuel still spies on its citizens with impunity. But the style has changed tremendously and we should not under-estimate the difficulty which this new reality will present to the peace movement worldwide.

It was easy to hate Dubya. It is hard not to like Obama. And for most people, that will be a key factor in defining their stance towards US policies domestically and/or abroad.

Just imagine how convincing Obama will sound when the Empire decides to strike at Iran or Venezuela...

With Obama in power, the piece movement is in deep deep trouble, I am afraid.

The Saker

New York police arrest Jewish gang trafficking organs of Algerian children

Watan reports:

An Algerian official revealed Sunday the New York city police were able to catch a Jewish gang involved in the abduction of children from Algeria and trafficking of their organs headed by Levy Rosenbaum.

Rosenbaum was directly involved in the recent case of trading human organs which raised a storm of reactions in the US and Israel.

Dr. Mustafa Khayatti, the head of the Algerian national committee for the development of health and research, said that the arrest of the gang came after Interpol investigations showed that Algerian children were abducted from cities in western Algeria and taken to Morocco in order to harvest their kidneys and traffic them in Israel and the US for $20,000 and $100,000 dollars each.

“The arrest of Jewish organ trafficking gangs does not mean that the danger has gone, top officials and specialists in this issue assert that there are other Jewish gangs who remain active in several Arab countries,” Dr. Khayatti noted.

US authorities had arrested 44 people including Rabbis and mayors in New Jersey last July; they all were prosecuted for money laundering activities and sale of human organs.

Last month, a report issued by Aftonbladet, a newspaper Swedish, accused Israeli soldiers of kidnapping Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip to kill them and steal their organs, indicating a possible link between these crimes and the mafia of human organs detected in the US.

In another related context, the humanitarian relief committee affiliated with the union of Egyptian doctors declared Monday its intention to organize an international and Arab media campaign to expose the Israeli crimes of stealing organs from Palestinians.

The committee called in a statement for opening an investigation into these crimes, stressing that a number of Israeli surgeons are involved in harvesting human organs of Palestinians.

Dr. Abdelkader Hegazy, the head of the committee, said that the union of Egyptian doctors received a letter from the Jordanian union about the ways of cooperation in prosecuting every Israeli involved in committing such crimes.

Revolver Rabbis - how Jews are kept terrified in the USA

Check this hilarious, and very interesting, video:



This short video is just about the perfect illustration of kind of sicko paranoia rabbinical "Judaism" fosters in its ranks. First, the gut wrenching fear of some anti-Semite coming to kill them all. Second, the putative anti-Semite is seen as screaming "Allahu Akbar" (hint, hint). Then the typically convoluted Talmudic logic in allowing guns to be carrying on the Sabbath. But most amazing of all is the obvious buffoonery of the kind of "training" this rabbi delivers (turns out that the Revolver Rabbi - Moscowitz - had been fired from the NYPD in the early 1990s)

In reality, of course, the security of synagogues is typically trusted to ad-hoc defense groups, often under the "Betar" label, which, rather than training people on how to hide behind plastic tables from bullets, do such things as occupy all the parking spaces around a synagogue to prevent a possible car bomb from getting too close. These groups are typically kept informed of possible security risks by the local Israeli representation which, in turn, can rely on them as auxiliaries.

No, the kind of stuff you see on this video serves one purpose only: to terrify the "trainees" into a "us versus them - we are on our own" kind of paranoia which will make them circle the wagons and not question their leaders. Think of it as the rabbinical version of the "color coded alert levels" of the Bush administration: utterly useless, but quite scary nonetheless.

It is all too often forgetten that many, I would say most, Jews are the first victims of the ugly system of control which their leaders (religious or secular) have held over them for centuries and which is still present today. Sure, rabbis nowadays cannot sentence somebody to death or have him/her flogged as they could in the Jewish shtetls in Europe before the second half of the 19th century. But while their methods have changed, their goals have not.

Labor Day / May Day

The observation of Labor Day on the first Monday in September is usually attributed to the Knights of Labor who held their first parade on September 5, 1882. But far more important is the Haymarket Riot/Massacre of 1886. (See also graveyards.com and kentlaw.edu. There are several interpretations of what occurred, and monuments have been constructed to both the demonstrators and the police. A reasonable summary is that the labor organizers were peacefully demonstrating for an eight hour day, an anarchist threw a bomb in to the crowd, which killed a policeman, the police killed several demonstrators and some policemen, the powers that be arrested the labor leaders.

It was in 1887 that Oregon became the first state to establish Labor Day as a holiday, which it put on the first Saturday in June. Colorado, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York observed Labor Day on the first Monday in September that year. Then in 1889, the First (Paris) Congress of the Second Socialist International selected May First as a day for international celebration of the working man, no matter what day of the week it fell on. May first was chosen in commemoration of the Haymarket Massacre which occured in Chicago in 1886. In 1894, the first Monday in September was established as a federal holiday in the United States.

Why should the American working man celebrate Labor Day in September when the workers of the world are celebrating it on May first in commemoration of American Martyrs to the labor movement? This question is clarified by the fact that May first is observed unilaterally by workers (not by management), while the September holiday is enjoyed by all, perpetuating the myth that Labor and Management are both working together. The proclamation of Labor Day in September in the United States can only be interpreted as an effort to isolate the working American from his colleagues around the world, and obscure the history of what Management did to Labor in Chicago in 1886. Labor Day in the United States is better described as mocking than celebrating the working man in America.

[The immediate cause of the establishment of Labor Day as a holiday in September was to appease the working man after the Crushing of the Pullman strike in 1894.]

[A sanitized history of Labor Day can be found at History of Labor Day.]

June 2007

campbell@math.uni.edu
http://www.math.uni.edu/~campbell

source: http://faculty.cns.uni.edu/~campbell/gened/labour.html

The Missing Link In Palestinian Organ Theft?

By Jonathan Cook for Information Clearing House

Nazareth: The hyperventilating by Israel’s leaders [1] over a story published in a Swedish newspaper last month [2] suggesting that the Israeli army assisted in organ theft from Palestinians has distracted attention from the disturbing allegations made by Palestinian families that were the basis of the article’s central claim.

The families’ fears that relatives, killed by the Israeli army, had body parts removed during unauthorised autopsies performed in Israel have been overshadowed by accusations of a “blood libel” directed against the reporter, Donald Bostrom, and the Aftonbladet newspaper, as well as the Swedish government and people.

I have no idea whether the story is true. Like most journalists working in Israel and Palestine, I have heard such rumours before. Until Bostrom wrote his piece, no Western journalist, as far as I know, had investigated them. After so many years, the assumption by journalists was that there was little hope of finding evidence -- apart from literally by digging up the corpses. Doubtless, the inevitable charge of anti-semitism such reports attract acted as a powerful deterrent too.

What is striking about this episode is that the families making the claims were not given a hearing in the late 1980s and early 1990s, during the first intifada, when most of the reports occurred, and are still being denied the right to voice their concerns today.

Israel’s sensitivity to the allegation of organ theft -- or “harvesting”, as many observers coyly refer to the practice -- appears to trump the genuine concerns of the families about possible abuse of their loved ones.

Bostrom has been much criticised for the flimsy evidence he produced in support of his inflammatory story. Certainly there is much to criticise in his and the newspaper’s presentation of the report.

Most significantly, Bostrom and Aftonbladet exposed themselves to the charge of anti-semitism -- at least from Israeli officials keen to make mischief -- through a major error of judgment.

They muddied the waters by trying to make a tenuous connection between the Palestinian families’ allegations about organ theft during unauthorised autopsies and the entirely separate revelations this month that a group of US Jews had been arrested for money-laundering and trading in body parts. [3]

In making that connection, Bostrom and Aftonbladet suggested that the problem of organ theft is a current one when they have produced only examples of such concern from the early 1990s. They also implied, whether intentionally or not, that abuses allegedly committed by the Israeli army could somehow be extrapolated more generally to Jews.

The Swedish reporter should instead have concentrated on the valid question raised by the families about why the Israeli army, by its own admission, took away the bodies of dozens of Palestinians killed by its soldiers, allowed autopsies to be performed on them without the families’ permission and then returned the bodies for burial in ceremonies held under tight security.

Bostrom’s article highlighted the case of one Palestinian, 19-year-old Bilal Ahmed Ghanan, from the village of Imatin in the northern West Bank, who was killed in 1992. A shocking picture of Bilal’s stitched-up body accompanied the report. [4]

Bostrom has told the Israeli media that he knows of at least 20 cases of families claiming that the bodies of loved ones were returned with body parts missing, [5] although he did not say whether any of these alleged incidents occurred more recently.

In 1992, the year in question, Bostrom says, the Israeli army admitted to him that it took away for autopsy 69 of the 133 Palestinians who died of unnatural causes. The army has not denied this part of his report.

A justifiable question from the families relayed by Bostrom is: why did the army want the autopsies carried out? Unless it can be shown that the army intended to conduct investigations into the deaths -- and there is apparently no suggestion that it did -- the autopsies were unnecessary.

In fact, they were more than unnecessary. They were counterproductive if we assume that the army has no interest in gathering evidence that could be used in future war crimes prosecutions of its soldiers. Israel has a long track record of stymying investigations into Palestinian deaths at the hands of its soldiers, and carried on that ignoble tradition in the wake of its recent assault on Gaza.

Of even greater concern for the Palestinian families is the fact that at around the time the bodies of their loved ones were whisked off by the army for autopsy, the only institute in Israel that conducts such autopsies, Abu Kabir, near Tel Aviv, was almost certainly at the centre of a trade in organs that later became a scandal inside Israel.

Equally disturbing, the doctor behind the plunder of body parts, Prof Yehuda Hiss, appointed director of the Abu Kabir institute in the late 1980s, has never been jailed despite admitting to the organ theft and he continues to be the state’s chief pathologist at the institute.

Hiss was in charge of the autopsies of Palestinians when Bostrom was listening to the families’ claims in 1992. Hiss was subsequently investigated twice, in 2002 and 2005, over the theft of body parts on a large scale.

Allegations of Hiss’ illegal trade in organs was first revealed in 2000 by investigative reporters at the Yediot Aharonot newspaper, which reported that he had “price listings” for body parts and that he sold mainly to Israeli universities and medical schools. [6]

Apparently undeterred by these revelations, Hiss still had an array of body parts in his possession at Abu Kabir when the Israeli courts ordered a search in 2002. Israel National News reported at the time: “Over the past years, heads of the institute appear to have given thousands of organs for research without permission, while maintaining a ‘storehouse’ of organs at Abu Kabir.” [7]

Hiss did not deny the plunder of organs, admitting that the body parts belonged to soldiers killed in action and had been passed to medical institutes and hospitals in the interests of advancing research. Understandably, however, the Palestinian families are unlikely to be satisfied with Hiss’ explanation. If the wishes of a soldier’s familiy were disregarded by Hiss, why not Palestinian families’ wishes too?

Hiss was allowed to continue as director of Abu Kabir until 2005 when allegations of a trade in organs surfaced again. On this occasion Hiss admitted to having removed parts from 125 bodies without authorisation. Following a plea bargain with the state, the attorney general decided not to press criminal charges and Hiss was given only a reprimand. [8] He has continued as chief pathologist at Abu Kabir.

It should also be noted, as Bostrom points out, that in the early 1990s Israel was suffering from an acute shortage of organ donors to the extent that Ehud Olmert, health minister at the time, launched a public campaign to encourage Israelis to come forward.

This offers a possible explanation for Hiss’ actions. He may have acted to help make up the shortfall.

Given the facts that are known, there must be at least a very strong suspicion that Hiss removed organs without authorisation from some Palestinians he autopsied. Both this issue, and the army’s possible role in supplying him with corpses, needs investigation.

Hiss is also implicated in another long-running and unresolved scandal from Israel’s early years, in the 1950s, when the children of recent Jewish immigrants to Israel from Yemen were adopted by Ashkenazi couples after the Yeminite parents had been told that their child had died, [9] usually after admission to hospital.

After an initial cover-up, the Yeminite parents have continued pressing for answers from the state, and forced officials to reopen the files. [8] The Palestinian families deserve no less.

However, unlike the Yemenite parents, their chances of receiving any kind of investigation, transparent or otherwise, look all but hopeless.

When Palestinian demands for justice are not backed by investigations from journalists or the protests of the international community, Israel can safely ignore them.

It is worth remembering in this context the constant refrain from Israel’s peace camp that the brutal, four-decade occupation of the Palestinians has profoundly corrupted Israeli society.

When the army enjoys power without accountability, how do Palestinians, or we, know what soldiers are allowed to get away with under cover of occupation? What restraints are in place to prevent abuses? And who takes them to task if they do commit crimes?

Similarly, when Israeli politicians are able to cry “blood libel” or “anti-semitism” when they are criticised, damaging the reputations of those they accuse, what incentive do they have to initiate inquiries that may harm them or the institutions they oversee? What reason do they have to be honest when they can bludgeon a critic into silence, at no cost to themselves?

This is the meaning of the phrase “Power corrupts”, and Israeli politicians and soldiers, as well as at least one pathologist, demonstrably have far too much power -- most especially over Palestinians under occupation.

Jonathan Cook is a writer and journalist based in Nazareth, Israel. His latest books are “Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East” (Pluto Press) and “Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human Despair” (Zed Books). His website iswww.jkcook.net.

Notes

[1] http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1109437.html
[2] http://www.tlaxcala.es/pp.asp?reference=8390&lg=en
[3] http://www.slate.com/id/2223559/
[4] http://www.aftonbladet.se/kultur/article5652583.ab
[5] http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3766093,00.html
[6] http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1173179
[7] http://www.israelfaxx.com/webarchive/2002/01/2fax0104.html
[8] http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/90518
[9] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/israel-seeks-lost-children-of-yemen-exodus-1318037.html
-------
Note: For more information on this topic please check out the following stories:

http://palestinethinktank.com/2009/08/30/gilad-atzmon-organ-donation-and-theft-in-contemporary-jewish-folklore/
http://palestinethinktank.com/2009/09/06/kawther-salam-palestinian-organs-for-sale-and-experiments/
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=4&section=0&article=126089&d=4&m=9&y=2009
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-2086-Foreign-Policy-Examiner~y2009m8d29-Egypt-reports-on-allegations-of-Israels-organ-harvesting#
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=105140&sectionid=351020202
http://alisonweir.org/journal/2009/9/1/israeli-organ-harvesting.html
http://www.geocities.com/organdonate/organsellingorgantheft.html
http://www.israelfaxx.com/webarchive/2003/07/3fax0730.html
http://rainbowwarrior2005.wordpress.com/2009/08/24/butchers-the-hidden-truth-about-israels-kidney-theft-ring/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZxyD931dEQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjKh7G8fH1U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eipil73cA2k

Many thanks to B. for almost all of these link!

Steve Clemmons interviewed on DN! about the election of Democratic Party leader Yukio Hatoyama in Japan

“In the fundamentalist pursuit of capitalism people are treated not as an end but as a means… Unrestrained market fundamentalism and financial capitalism… are void of morals or moderation.”

Yukio Hatoyama