26 August, 2010


Mendoza demanded his reinstatement to the police service.
He and four others were sacked from the service
for a drug case involving a Manila hotel chef
wherein they allegedly extorted money from a suspected drug pusher.

Amazingly, the police made the
signs and papers with the demands
ILLEGIBLE with bullets,
and killing Hong kong Chinese visitors.

What was this police scandal that needed to be
suppressed with the blood of tourists?

Look at what the Philippine police DID?
They didn't care about the life of the hostages in the bus.... 
they smashed the windows
ONLY didn't want the gunman's claim to be disclosed to the public!?

At first, matters proceeded peacefully. The hijacker freed nine hostages — three women, three children and two men — leaving 15 tourists on board.


Gunman, 7 hostages die in 11-hour bus drama By Marlon Ramos, DJ Yap
Philippine Daily Inquirer   First Posted 01:22:00 08/24/2010

Filed Under: Grandstand Hostage, hostage taking, Police

MANILA, Philippines

Rolando Mendoza knew he was not going to come out alive of the bus he had seized with 25 people aboard, mostly Hong Kong Chinese, when SWAT teams began moving toward the van parked in front of Quirino Grandstand as night fell Monday.

"They are all around," the former police senior inspector demanding reinstatement after he was dismissed on extortion charges two years ago said in Filipino in what was his last radio interview after an 11-hour standoff turned into a bloodbath at Rizal Park under a heavy downpour.

"I know they will kill me, I’m telling them to leave because anytime I will do the same here," said Mendoza, who was armed with an M-16 rifle.

Gunfire rang out moments later before local and international television cameras.

"I shot two Chinese. I will finish them all if they do not stop," he told Radio Mindanao Network. Troops then stormed the bus.

At 8:45 p.m., 11 hours after he commandeered the vehicle at nearby Intramuros after a stop at Fort Santiago, Mendoza was dead with a bullet wound in the head, according to Supt. Nelson Yabut.

At least five hostages, including a Chinese woman, survived the massacre inside the bus and were taken to hospitals. They were among 15 hostages left after Mendoza earlier released nine bus passengers during the negotiations.

Officials said at least seven died in the gunfire, but there was still no overall death toll as of press time. The bodies were pulled out of the bus under a pouring rain at press time but it was unclear if they were dead.

One survivor, Filipino driver Alberto Lubang, said he saw bodies slumped on the steps of the bus as he fled miraculously unscathed in the fusillade after he managed to unlock the handcuffs holding him to the steering wheel with a nail cutter.

Gov’t is ‘very sorry’

Malacañang said that President Benigno Aquino III met with officials of the Department of Interior and Local Government.

Interior Secretary Jesse Robredo later visited the crime scene and told reporters, "The government is very sorry that the hostage taking ended like this." He said the government had been in touch with Chinese authorities.

The Office of the Ombudsman said that Mendoza was among five officers charged with robbery, extortion and grave threats and dismissed after a Manila hotel chef filed a complaint alleging the policemen falsely accused him of using drugs to extort money.

Hong Thai Travel Services Ltd. general manager Susanna Lau told Hong Kong’s Cable TV the group tour had left Hong Kong on Aug. 20 for a visit to Manila and was scheduled to fly back to Hong Kong Monday.

Lau said a Hong Kong tour guide and 20 tourists from the territory—three children and 17 adults—were on the bus.

At about 9 a.m., Mendoza hitched a ride on the bus from Intramuros and then "declared he is taking the passengers hostage" when the bus reached Rizal Park, said Chief Supt. Rodolfo Magtibay, the chief of the Manila Police District (MPD).

Apart from demanding his reinstatement, Mendoza also wanted to talk to reporters and asked that his son—also a policeman—be brought to him. He scribbled some of his demands on paper and plastered it on the bus windows and a windshield.

‘Injustice was done on him’

A representative from the Office of the Ombudsman talked to Mendoza on the phone and promised to look into his case again, Mendoza’s brother, Florencio, told reporters.

Magtibay said his men had used the driver’s cell phone to talk to Mendoza. Another brother of Mendoza, Senior Police Officer Gregorio Mendoza, also helped in the negotiations, Magtibay said.

Gregorio, who is assigned to the MPD traffic bureau, said that his brother felt that "injustice was done on him" when he had been fired.

"He was disappointed that he did well in police service but was dismissed for a crime he did not do," he said.

The firing began shortly after Gregorio was arrested for attempting to enter the bus while armed to talk to his brother without authorization, police said.

Interviewed by reporters as he was being dragged away from the scene, Gregorio pleaded to President Aquino for help, which was heard by the brother on the TV receiver and radio inside the bus, according to the driver.

Media blamed for tragic end

A police official who requested anonymity blamed the media for the tragic end to the drama.

"If it were not for the live TV footage of his brother being arrested, we could have negotiated a solution to this, he said.

Police had asked the TV networks not to air sensitive portions of the negotiations and police actions because Mendoza was monitoring the media coverage.

Senior Supt. Fidel Posadas, MPD deputy chief, said he thought that Mendoza had "calculated his actions."

"As a former chief of the District Mobile Force, he knew it would be best if he positioned the bus in front of Quirino Grandstand," he said.

Posadas said Mendoza contacted former police colleagues that he had held captive a busload of tourists. He also posted a handwritten note saying that a "big deal" would happen after 3 p.m. but the deadline passed without incident.

‘Big mistake’

Gregorio Mendoza was heard by reporters urging the gunman to extend the deadline by another 30 minutes.

He asked for food for those remaining on the bus, which was delivered, and fuel to keep the air-conditioning going.

A handwritten note, signed by Mendoza, saying "BIG DEAL WILL START AFTER 3 PM TODAY" was stuck to the door of the bus.

A sign stuck to a window said "3PM TODAY DEAD LOCK".

Also stuck to the bus door was a piece of paper with the handwritten message: "BIG MISTAKE TO CORRECT A BIG WRONG DECISION". A larger piece of paper on the front windshield was headed "RELEASE FINAL DECISION" and then what appeared to be details of his case.

‘No due process’

Gregorio earlier told a local TV station that his brother was upset by his treatment and dismissal from the force.

"His problem was he was unjustly removed from service. There was no due process, no hearing, no complaint," he said.

Police had established a landline connection with the bus, which was stopped across the eight-lane park road in front of Quirino Grandstand, where President Aquino took his oath of office on June 30.

The road was cordoned off, with the bus isolated inside the park. Nearby construction work was halted. A sizeable crowd gathered near the area. Several ambulances and a fire engine were on standby about 500 meters away, behind the police line.

Gregorio and Mendoza’s friend, SPO4 Roberto Agoho, were able to talk with the hostage-taker on the mobile phone after the 3 p.m. deadline had lapsed.

"Please let me talk with the authorities before you do what you want to do. Please let me negotiate first. I‘m trying to talk to them," Gregorio begged on the phone.

After their brief conversation, Gregorio and Agojo immediately went to the police precinct to relay Mendoza’s message to the police official.

‘He was very upset’

Gregorio later told the media that his brother extended the deadline indefinitely and that he had asked for a media personality to act as negotiator.

"He was very upset that after he was illegally dismissed from the service, the PNP forfeited all his retirement benefits," he said.

A police official, who asked not to be named for security reasons, said Mendoza had initially told the negotiators that he would "fire a warning shot" if the police refused to grant his request to talk with a representative from the Ombudsman.

"His demand was very simple, but it was beyond our authority," the official said.

Along with Mendoza’s wife Aurora, Gregorio and other family members were brought to a police precinct a few meters away from the bus carrying the hostages as authorities tried to negotiate for the safe release of the hostages.

Aurora wept as she begged the media not to interview her.

"She still could not believe that her husband had to resort to this. She was very worried about the safety of my brother after this," Gregorio said.

Chief Insp. Gerald Dee said the police negotiators underestimated Mendoza.

"He was very cooperative at first. We did not think that he could do what he did - the arrest of his brother Gregorio and nephew triggered Mendoza to kill his hostages," Dee said

According to newspaper reports, the former senior inspector was among five officers who had been charged with robbery, extortion and grave threats after a Manila hotel chef filed a complaint alleging they falsely accused him of using drugs to extort money. Mendoza was fired last year but claimed he was innocent.

With the bus parked on a Manila park parade ground, Mendoza stuck leaflets on windows, handwritten in English, saying "big mistake to correct a big wrong decision," demanding media attention and threatening "big deal will start after 3 p.m. today."

The bloodbath happened in front of a grandstand where Aquino had been sworn in as president on June 30. After midnight he was back there, staring at the bloodstained, bullet-riddled bus.

The hijacker's brother Gregorio, a policeman, was flown in to talk to him through the driver's window but grew so agitated in claiming Mendoza had been unfairly sacked that police hustled him away.

Bookmark and Share
posted by u2r2h at Thursday, August 26, 2010 0 comments

18 August, 2010


They know full-well that GLADIO murdered innocent civilians and blamed it on muslims (oops, lefties).

but they cannot write about it.  Everone would ask "WHY DID YOU NOT WRITE ABOUT IT BEFORE?"

criminal ASSHOLES!!


Mr. Cossiga admitted to having played a part in the 1960s in organizing a clandestine NATO-sponsored operation, code named Gladio, that involved training guerrilla fighters who would enter into action in the event of an invasion by Warsaw Pact nations.

DON'T SAY CIA!!   The italian courts have established the link!!   Imagine if it had been IRANIAN Agents!!  

He resigned in April 1992, two months before his seven-year term was to expire, amid criticism about the Gladio operation.

CRITICISM!!   WHAT??   Murdering innocent people for political gain?

info http://u2r2h.blogspot.com/2008/02/turkey-gladio-nato-staybehind-false.html

The New York times should be replaces by the YES MEN, who published this:


albeit a dream

Cheney:  War that will not end in our lifetimes.  RIGHT!  Because it can't.
9/11 inside job would be exposed officially!

Bookmark and Share
posted by u2r2h at Wednesday, August 18, 2010 0 comments

17 August, 2010

+Cossiga and BLOOMBERG mentions GLADIO!!

Gladio was a CIA/NATO black operation that blew up innocent civilians and blamed it on leftists.

Francesco Cossiga, Italy's Combative Former President, Dies at Age 82

By Steve Scherer and Lorenzo Totaro - Aug 17, 2010 1:58 PM GMT+0200

Former President Francesco Cossiga, one of Italy's most prominent Christian Democrat leaders who was nicknamed "the pickaxe" for his frequent criticism of fellow politicians, died today. He was 82.

The ex-president was hospitalized in Rome's Gemelli Hospital on Aug. 9 with cardio-respiratory problems, and his condition turned "drastically" worse overnight, the hospital said earlier. A spokesman for Cossiga's son Giuseppe confirmed his death, which newswire Ansa said was caused by heart failure.

Bologna train station bomb 1980 was done by CIA instigation.

Cossiga joined the Christian Democrat party, a Catholic bloc that ruled Italy for five decades, in 1945, when he was just 17 years old. In 1976, Cossiga became Italy's youngest interior minister at the age of 47. He resigned after the Red Brigades communist terrorist group murdered Aldo Moro, the party secretary and his friend, in May 1978.

A key player in Cold War politics, Cossiga supported the U.S. in the clandestine fight against the Soviet Union.


Cossiga backed Gladio, the code name for an operation after World War II where clandestine NATO forces stayed in the country to counter a Warsaw Pact invasion of Western Europe. As president, he turned what had traditionally been a ceremonial post into a bully pulpit to criticize the failings of Italy's political system and its ruling elite.

As an unelected, honorary senator late ihttps://mail.google.com/mail/?shva=1#drafts/12a8054c7cc69637n his life, Cossiga maintained contacts with Italy's police commanders, military leaders and spymasters. He was fascinated with the world of espionage and loved spy thrillers written by John le Carre.

'Spies Like Flowers'


"I like spies the way most people like flowers," Cossiga wrote in his book "Per Carita di Patria: Dodici Anni di Storia e Politica Italiana," or "For the Good of the Nation: 12 Years of Italian Political History 1992-2003," published in 2003.

Francesco Cossiga was born on July 26, 1928 in Sassari, on the Italian island of Sardinia. He managed to complete a law degree by age 20 and taught constitutional law at the University of Sassari as he began to make his way into politics.

Cossiga was elected president by parliament in 1985 and served until 1992. During his last two years in office, he regularly attacked the political establishment for not recognizing that the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 meant that Italy too had to renew its political system.

Cossiga gave the office of president a voice, and became known as "the pickaxe" for his blunt and sometimes offensive commentary, often peppered with information about politicians that had never been revealed publically. His outspoken manner during the final years of his presidency prompted some of his own party leaders to claim that he had lost his mind.

Andreotti the Poker Player

Last year, in an interview with Corriere della Sera newspaper to commemorate the 90th birthday of seven-time former Prime Minister Giulio Andreotti, Cossiga lauded his party colleague while also exposing his friend's love for gambling on horses and playing poker.

"He's a great Vatican statesman," Cossiga said of Andreotti. "His political calling was a religious calling."

"I've been through periods of depression, and taken antidepressants," Cossiga said in an October 2003 interview with la Repubblica newspaper. "But there's a difference between being depressed and being crazy," he said, denying any mental instability.

In recent years, Cossiga has been known to make controversial statements about Italian and international politics. In 2007, Cossiga said the 2001 terrorist attacks on New York's Twin Towers had been organized by the Central Intelligence Agency, Israel's Mossad and the "Zionist world" to justify the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.

After the collapse of the Christian Democrat party in the early 1990s caused by the Bribesville investigations into widespread corruption and illegal political financing, Cossiga formed the Democratic Union of the Republic party.

Cossiga's party backed the formation of a government by Massimo D'Alema in 1998, the first Italian administration ever headed by a former communist.

He is survived by a son, Giuseppe Cossiga, who is an undersecretary of defense in the current government, and a daughter, Anna Maria, who published her first novel in June.

To contact the reporters on this story: Steve Scherer in Rome at scherer@bloomberg.net Lorenzo Totaro in Rome at ltotaro@bloomberg.net

If TOTARO managed to smuggle in that GLADIO sentence, the masters of the Newspaper operation will fire him-
The code (every newspapaer-man knows) is:  DO NOT OFFEND THE HIERARCHY!

more info on GLADIO

turkey does a GLADIO clean up (CIA not happy!)

e Brigate Rosse Aldo Moro - He was murdered by CIA because
he wanted peace with the voters WHO VOTED COMMUNIST
(who governs?)

Cossiga passed away at Rome's Agostino Gemelli polyclinic, where he had been hospitalized eight days earlier suffering from acute respiratory problems, public television RAI reported.

A Sardinian, Cossiga served as Italy's president - a mostly ceremonial head-of-state position - from 1985 to 1992.

His election by parliament was seen as the crowning achievement of a long, and at times controversial political career which also included a spell as prime minister in 1979-80.

Born on July 26, 1928 in Sassari, a city in northern Sardinia, Cossiga joined the Christian Democrats in his teens. After completing his studies, he worked as a university lecturer in constitutional law. Following his election to parliament aged 30, he turned his attention to politics.

Cossiga was interior minister during one of the most tumultuous periods in Italy's post-World War II history - the 1978 kidnapping and murder of the then Christian Democrat leader and former prime minister Aldo Moro.

Amid divisions within the then governing coalition, Cossiga was among those who rejected negotiations with Moro's captors, the leftist Red Brigades terrorists, who were demanding the release of their group's imprisoned founders in exchange for Moro.


Cossiga resigned shortly after Moro's bullet-ridden corpse was found in a car parked in central Rome on May 9, 1978 - almost three months after the abduction.

But he returned to the political limelight a year later as prime minister, and subsequently also served as a parliament speaker before his election as state president at the age of 57, the youngest in the country's history.

Near the end of his seven-year term as president, Cossiga was threatened with impeachment - a move later dismissed - over his admission that he had played a key role in an alleged, clandestine US-sponsored military organization known as Gladio (sword).

The so-called "stay-behind" structure was aimed at preventing a Warsaw Pact takeover in Italy, a country which for several decades after World War II had the largest Communist party in Western Europe. Critics said Gladio had undermined Italian democracy.

How do they avoid telling us about GLADIO FALSE FLAG murder? Journalists must be VERY afraid for their jobs.
Like all former Italian presidents, Cossiga was entitled to the position of lifetime senator and from this seat he mostly supported the views of the centrist Catholic parties which were formed after the Christian Democrats were swept away in a widespread 1990s bribery scandal.

Bookmark and Share
posted by u2r2h at Tuesday, August 17, 2010 0 comments

USA UN vetoes - anti-democratic Criminal

"What we say goes."


In the United Nations, five countries (called the Permanent Members of the Security Council) can veto a United Nations Security Council resolution. These five are the USA, the UK, France, Russia (USSR before 1990), and China (Taiwan before 1971). This is a list of these resolutions vetoed by the USA as well as resolutions in the General Assembly of the United Nations where the USA vote is against the majority of the world. The USA used its veto over 70 times during the 20th century. On the majority of occasions, the USA vetoed resolutions that were favoured by the majority of the world's nations.

Very little of the USA's voting patterns is reported in the Western media. When other countries consider voting against a resolution put forward by the USA, they are usually demonised in the Western media and the whole basis of the United Nations called into question.

The United Nations and its voting system was set up at the end of World War II by the victorious nations from that conflict. There is, perhaps, an argument to modify the United Nations voting system and make it more representitive of the modern world.

Even with its faults, the United Nations is not a few people in an office - it is the world community. It is the rest of the world - the 94% of the world's population that is not from the USA. By damning and ignoring the United Nations, the USA is snubbing the majority of the world's population. This will not make the USA more popular around the world.

As one commentator on USA baseball in the UK noted: "Only the USA could have a World Series and not invite the rest of the world". This is the political equivalent.


Resolution Vetoed by the USA

If Multiple
Voting Figures


Condemns Israel for killing hundreds of people in Syria and Lebanon in air raids.




Afirms the rights of the Palestinians and calls on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories.




Condemns Israel for attacking Lebanese civilians.



Condemns Israel for building settlements in the occupied territories.



Calls for self determination for the Palestinians.



Afirms the rights of the Palestinians.




Condemns South Africa's attempts to impose apartheid on Namibia.




For the admission of Vietnam to the United Nations.

(from 1975)



Condemns the apartheid situation in South Africa.




Urges the permanent members (USA, USSR, UK, France, China) to insure United Nations decisions on the maintenance of international peace and security.



Criticises the living conditions of the Palestinians.



Condemns the Israeli human rights record in occupied territories.




Calls for developed countries to increase the quantity and quality of development assistance to underdeveloped countries.




Calls for an end to all military and nuclear collaboration with the apartheid South Africa.



Strengthens the arms embargo against South Africa.



Offers assistance to all the oppressed people of South Africa and their liberation movement.



Concerns negotiations on disarmament and cessation of the nuclear arms race.



Calls for the return of all inhabitants expelled by Israel.



Demands that Israel desist from human rights violations.



Requests a report on the living conditions of Palestinians in occupied Arab countries.



Offers assistance to the Palestinian people.



Discusses sovereignty over national resources in occupied Arab territories.



Calls for protection of developing counties' exports.



Calls for alternative approaches within the United Nations system for improving the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms.



Opposes support for intervention in the internal or external affairs of states.



For a United Nations Conference on Women.



To include Palestinian women in the United Nations Conference on Women.



Safeguards rights of developing countries in multinational trade negotiations.




Requests Israel to return displaced persons.



Condemns Israeli policy regarding the living conditions of the Palestinian people.



Condemns Israeli human rights practices in occupied territories.


Afirms the right of self determination for the Palestinians.




Offers assistance to the oppressed people of South Africa and their national liberation movement.




Attempts to establish a New International Economic Order to promote the growth of underdeveloped countries and international economic co-operation.



Endorses the Program of Action for Second Half of United Nations Decade for Women.



Declaration of non-use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states.



Emphasises that the development of nations and individuals is a human right.



Calls for the cessation of all nuclear test explosions.



Calls for the implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples.




Promotes co-operative movements in developing countries.



Affirms the right of every state to choose its economic and social system in accord with the will of its people, without outside interference in whatever form it takes.




Condemns activities of foreign economic interests in colonial territories.



Calls for the ending of all test explosions of nuclear weapons.



Calls for action in support of measures to prevent nuclear war, curb the arms race and promote disarmament.



Urges negotiations on prohibition of chemical and biological weapons.



Declares that education, work, health care, proper nourishment, national development, etc are human rights.



Concerns changes to the United Nations accounting methods.




Condemns South Africa for attacks on neighbouring states, condemns apartheid and attempts to strengthen sanctions.



Condemns an attempted coup by South Africa on the Seychelles.




Demands that Israel cease excavations in areas of East Jerusalem considered by the United Nations to be part of the occupied territories.



Condemns Israel for bombing Iraqi nuclear installations.



Condemns Israeli policy regarding living conditions of the Palestinian people.


To establish a nuclear weapon free zone in the Middle East.



To establish rights for the Palestinian people.


To clarify the status of Jerusalem.



Discusses Palestinian refugees in the Gaza Strip.



Concering the rights of displaced Palestinians to return to their homes.



Concerning revenues from Palestinian refugees' properties.



Establishment of the University of Jerusalem for Palestinian refugees.



Concerning Israeli human rights violations in occupied territories.



Condemns Israel closing of universities in occupied territories.



Opposes Israel's decision to build a canal linking the Dead Sea and the Mediterranean Sea.



Discusses sovereignty over national resources in occupied Palestine and other Arab territories.



Affirms the non-applicability of Israeli law over the Golan Heights.




Condemns the Israeli invasion of Lebanon.




Condemns the shooting of 11 Muslims at a shrine in Jerusalem by an Israeli soldier.



Calls on Israel to withdraw from the Golan Heights occupied in 1967.




For the ratification of the convention on the suppression and punishment of apartheid.



To promote international action against apartheid.



Condemns apartheid in sports.



Calls for the cessation of further foreign investments and loans for South Africa.




Calls for the setting up of a World Charter for the protection of the ecology.



Sets up a United Nations conference on succession of states in respect to state property, archives and debts.



Nuclear test bans and negotiations and nuclear free outer space.


Supports a new world information and communications order.



Prohibition of chemical and bacteriological weapons.



Development of international law.



To prevent the exclusion of certain United Nations employees.



Protects against products harmful to health and the environment.



Declares that education, work, health care, proper nourishment, national development are human rights.



Implementation of the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States.



Concerning the adequacy of facilities of the Economic Commission for Africa in Addis Ababa in Ethiopia.



Development of the energy resources of developing countries.



Restructuring international economic relations towards establishing a new international economic order.




Afirms the right of every state to choose its economic and social system in accord with the will of its people, without outside interference in whatever form it takes.



Resolutions against apartheid South Africa.


Prevention of an arms race in outer space.



Declares that education, work, health care, proper nourishment, national development are human rights.



Concerning international law.



Concerning the Transport and Communications Decade in Africa.



Prohibition of manufacture of new weapons of mass destruction.



Reversing the arms race.



Prohibition of chemical and bacteriological weapons.



Requests a study on the naval arms race.



Concerning disarmament and security.



Strengthening the United Nations to respond to natural and other disasters.




Condemns support of South Africa in its Namibian and other policies.



International action to eliminate apartheid.




Condemns Israel for occupying and attacking southern Lebanon.




Cooperation between the United Nations and the League of Arab States.



Condemns Israeli attack against Iraqi nuclear installation.



On the elimination of racial discrimination.



Affirms the rights of the Palestinian people.



For the convening of a Middle East peace conference.



Prohibition of new types of weapons of mass destruction.



Prohibition of chemical and bacteriological weapons.



Concerning the law of the sea.



Concerning Israeli human rights violations in occupied territories.



Condemns assassination attempts against Palestinian mayors.



Condemns Israel for failing to place its nuclear facilities under international safeguards.



Concerning a nuclear test ban.



To study military research and development.



Commemorating the 25th anniversary of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples.



Proposing economic assistance to the Palestinian people.



Support for the United Nations Industrial Development Organsiation.



Concerning the Industrial Development Decade for Africa.



Questions regarding the Economic Commission for Western Asia.




Condemns Israel for occupying and attacking southern Lebanon.



Condemns Israel for using excessive force in the occupied territories.




Resolutions about cooperation, human rights, trade and development.


Measures to be taken against Nazi, Fascist and neo-Fascist activities.




Calls on all governments (including the USA) to observe international law.




Condemns Israel for its actions against Lebanese civilians.



Calls on Israel to respect Muslim holy places.



Condemns Israel for sky-jacking a Libyan airliner.




To set up a zone of peace and cooperation in the South Atlantic.



To eliminate existing imbalances in the information and communications fields.



To Strengthen of international security.



Dialogue to improve the international situation.



For the establishment of a comprehensive system of international peace and security.



Declaration on the right to development.



Measures to improve the situation and ensure the human rights and dignity of all migrant workers.



Protection against products harmful to health and the environment.




Calls on Israel to abide by the Geneva Conventions in its treatment of the Palestinians.



Calls on Israel to stop deporting Palestinians.




Condemns Israel for its actions in Lebanon.



Calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon.




Cooperation between the United Nations and the League of Arab States.



Calls for compliance in the International Court of Justice concerning military and paramilitary activities against Nicaragua and a call to end the trade embargo against Nicaragua.


Measures to prevent international terrorism, study the underlying political and economic causes of terrorism, convene a conference to define terrorism and to differentiate it from the struggle of people from national liberation.



Resolutions concerning journalism, international debt and trade.


Opposition to the build up of weapons in space.



Opposition to the development of new weapons of mass destruction.



Opposition to nuclear testing.


Proposal to set up South Atlantic "Zone of Peace".




Condemns Israeli practices against Palestinians in the occupied territories.




Condemns USA invasion of Panama.



Condemns USA troops for ransacking the residence of the Nicaraguan ambassador in Panama.




Condemns USA for shooting down 2 Libyan aircraft.




Condemns USA support for the Contra army in Nicaragua.



Condemns illegal USA embargo of Nicaragua.



Opposing the acquisition of territory by force.



Calling for a resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict based on earlier UN resoltions.




To send three UN Security Council observers to the occupied territories.




Afirms that land in East Jerusalem annexed by Israel is occupied territory.




Calls on Israel to cease building settlements in East Jerusalem and other occupied territories.



Calls on the USA to end its trade embargo on Cuba.



To send unarmed monitors to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.



Condemns Israel for acts of terror against civilians in the occupied territories.



To set up the International Criminal Court.




To renew the peace keeping mission in Bosnia.




Condemns the killing of UK worker for the United Nations by Israeli forces. Condemns the destruction of the World Food Programme warehouse.




Condemns a decision by the Israeli parliament to "remove" the elected Palestinian president, Yasser Arafat.



Condemns the building of a wall by Israel on Palestinian land.




To end the USA's 40 year embargo of Cuba.




Condemns the assassination of Hamas leader, Sheik Ahmad Yassin.




Condemns the Israeli incursion and killings in Gaza.




Production and processing of weapon-usable material should be under international control.



Calls for an end to Israeli military incursions and attacks on Gaza.



Calls for an end to the financial embargo against Cuba.




Calls for peaceful uses for outer space.


Calls for a convention against female descrimination.


Concerning the rights of children.



Concerning the right to food.



On the applicability of the Geneva Convention to the protection of civilians in time of war.



Calls for the protection of the global climate.



Calls for Indian Ocean to be declared a zone of peace. Calls for a nuclear weapon free South East Asia.



Calls for the right of self determination for the Palestinian people. Other resolutions regarding the Palestinians and their rights.



Calls for progress towards an arms trade treaty.


Banning the development of new weapons of mass destruction.



Assuring non-nuclear states they will not be attacked or threatened with nuclear weapons.


Prevention of the development of an arms race in outer space and transparency in outer space activities.


Calls to decrease the operational readiness of nuclear weapons systems and to ban nuclear weapons.


Calls to end the use of depleted Uranium in weapons.



Concerning the trade in illicit small arms.


Calls for a nuclear free Central Asia and a nuclear free Southern Hemisphere. Prevention of proliferation in the Middle East.


Calls for a comprehensive (nuclear) test ban treaty. Calls for a nuclear weapon free world.



Calls for a treaty on children's rights.



Condemns Racial Descrimination.



Affirms the soverignty of Palestinians over the occupied territories and their resources.



Affirms the right of the Palestinians to self determination.



Calls on Israel to pay the cost of cleaning up an oil slick off the coast of Lebanon caused by its bombing.



Calls for a new economic order.



Calls for a right of development for nations.



Calls for a right to food.



Respect for the right to universal freedom of travel and the vital importance of family reunification.



Concerning developments in IT for international security.



Resolutions concerning Palestine, its people, their property and Israeli practices in Palestine, including settlements.



Calls for an end to the 22 day long Israeli attack on Gaza.



Richard Perle, USA Pentagon advisor: "I do not believe that the United States should be bound by the same rules as the smallest African nation. Life isn't like that."

Madeleine Albright, former USA Secretary of State to the United Nations:

"[The USA will] behave, with others, multilaterally when we can and unilaterally as we must."

Daniel Patrick Moynihan, USA ambassador to the United Nations writing in his book, A Dangerous Place:

"The [USA] Department of State desired that the United Nations prove utterly ineffective in whatever measures it undertook. This task was given to me and I carried it forward with no inconsiderable success."

George Bush, USA president during the bombing of Iraq:

"What we say goes."

Edward S Herman, USA writer on the Middle East:

"Thus, instead of having to leave the occupied territories Israel continues to push out the locals by force, uproot their trees, steal their water, beggar them by 'closures' and endless restrictions, and it suffers no penalties because it has USA approval, protection, and active assistance. The partners also deny Palestinians any right to return to land from which they were expelled, so 140+ contrary United Nations votes, and two Security Council Resolutions (both vetoed by the United States) have no effect; and in a remarkable Orwellian process of doublethink - and double morality - Israel is free to expel more Palestinians in the same time frame in which their protector spent billions and great moral energy in a campaign to return worthy victims in Kosovo."

"Another remarkable Orwellian process is this: the abused and beggared Palestinian people periodically rebel as their conditions deteriorate and more land is taken, homes are demolished, and they are treated with great ruthlessness and discrimination. Many are among the hundreds of thousands expelled earlier, or who have still not forgotten their relatives killed and injured by Israeli violence over many years - and Palestinian deaths by Israeli arms almost surely exceed Israeli deaths from 'terrorism' by better than 15 to 1. And after this long history of expulsion and murder they are still under assault. In this context, if they rise up in revolt at their oppressors this is not 'freedom fighters' or a 'national liberation movement' in action, it is 'irrational violence' and a return to 'terrorism,' and both Israeli and USA officials (and therefore the mainstream USA media) agree that the first order of business is to stop this terrorism."

"But in the definitional system of oppressor and patron this is TERRORISM, horrifying and intolerable. What Israel has done making this people desperate is not terror. As [USA] State Department PR man James Rubin explained after another spate of Israeli demolitions of Palestinian houses, this was 'a wrong signal' for a delicate stage in peace talks. Not bad in themselves and a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, just a wrong signal. Madeleine Albright called on the Israelis to refrain from 'what Palestinians see as the provocative expansion of settlements, land confiscation, house demolitions and confiscation of IDs'. Only 'the Palestinians' see these actions as 'provocative;' Albright does not find them objectionable in themselves or illegal. In fact, under Clinton the United States finally rejected the international law and almost universal consensus on the occupation, declaring the territories not 'occupied Palestinian lands' but 'disputed territories' (Albright). By USA fiat Palestinian lands became open to settlement by force by the ethnic cleanser who the United States has armed to the teeth, and who has aggressively brutalized while creating 'facts on the ground' during the 'dispute,' which will not be settled until the victims end their terrorism."

"And Albright has stressed that there is 'No moral equivalency between suicide bombers and bulldozers' (Newsweek, Aug. 18, 1997). Clinton, standing next to Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres as the latter defended a blockade of the Palestinians that was adding to their misery, put the blame on Hamas who were allegedly 'trying to make the Palestinians as miserable as possible' (Phila. Inquirer, March 15, 1996). There was not the slightest hint that Israel was contributing to Palestinian misery despite massive expropriations and 300 devastating "closures" after 1993."

"So it is not Israeli policy, which amounts to a continuous and illegal assault on and displacement of the Palestinians, that is ultimately at fault and that must be changed to resolve this conflict. Albright can't recognize that decades of 'bulldozers' necessarily produce suicide bombers, although she was quick to find that much less repression in Kosovo produced 'freedom fighters;' nor can she distinguish between systematic policy (i.e., bulldozers) and uncontrollable outbursts from victims that do NOT constitute policy. The inability of these USA officials to see Israel's hugely discriminatory and brutal expulsions, demolitions, mistreatment and plain exploitation as seriously wrong in themselves, illegal, or causal manifests a complete identification with and apologetic for the ethnic cleansers. Five years ago a senior Clinton White House official declared that 'We are not going to second-guess Israel'. [Later] Colin Powell assured the Jewish lobbying group AIPAC that 'We are dedicated to preserving this special relationship with Israel and the Israeli people...[and] a secure Israel with internationally-recognized borders remains a cornerstone of the United States foreign policy.' In short, now as in the past, and with only rare exceptions, as in the case of the unauthorized Israeli attack on Egypt in 1956, Israel will get strong USA support for whatever it does, and the ethnic cleansing of its unworthy victims can proceed as required."

"One of the triumphs of [the] Oslo [Agreement] was its buying off of Arafat, making him into a second class client and an enforcer of the pathetic 'settlement,' with USA and Israeli funds and training exchanged for his commitment to keep his people in line and control 'terrorism.' The formula for the wholesale terrorists (Israel) has always been: whatever violence we perpetrate is 'retaliation' and it is up to the retail terrorists (Palestinians) to stop terrorizing and then we might 'negotiate' with them in a 'peace process.' Israeli leaders say 'You can't ask us to stop expanding existing settlements, which are living organisms' (Netanyahu), as if this were not in violation of UN resolutions, the Fourth Geneva Convention, and even the 1993 Oslo agreement itself."

"USA officials can never bring themselves to say that what Israel is doing is wrong - at worst it may send 'a wrong signal,' etc. And they follow closely the Israeli party line that 'terrorism' (Palestinian, not Israeli) must be stopped first, so that the 'peace process' can be put back on track. For Albright, 'security' is primary, and she told Arafat that 'she needed a commitment and action on the subject of security' before she could make a credible approach to Israel on other issues. 'Security' always means Israeli security, not Palestinian, for Albright - or for Colin Powell - just as for Israeli officials. Here as elsewhere these high USA officials internalize the Israeli perspective and the idea of 'security' for the unworthy victims doesn't arise, any more than the notion that Israeli insecurity arises from the much greater Palestinian insecurity that inevitably results from Israeli policies. In his visit to Jerusalem in March 1996, Clinton spoke of 'the awful persistence of fear' - but only in reference to Israelis, not to Palestinians. This is an internalized racist bias that has characterized USA official statements and media and expert opinion here for decades."

"Why does the United States support Israel's ethnic cleansing? Broadly speaking, the reasons boil down to two factors. One is Israel's role as a USA proxy in the Middle East and its integration into the USA security system, which encompasses not only keeping the Arab world in line, but also providing services like supplying arms to the Somoza regime in Nicaragua, the Pinochet government of Chile, Mobutu, Idi Amin, apartheid South Africa, and the Guatemalan and Argentinian terror states. Because of these services, Israel's victims are not merely unworthy, they also become 'terrorists' and part of the 'Islamic threat' for the USA political elite and mainstream media."

"The second factor is the exceptional power of the pro-Israel lobby, which for many years has bought and bullied politicians and the media, so that they all vie with one another in genuflections to the holy state. This bullying is especially strong and effective in Canada and the United States, but it applies widely, and the distinguished British reporter Robert Fisk, describing the abuse he has suffered in reporting on the Middle East, says that 'the attempt to force the media to obey Israel's rules is now international'."

"These factors feed into the intellectual and media culture in complex ways that institutionalize the huge bias, with pro-Israeli and anti-Palestinian perspectives internalized and / or made obligatory by potential flak and pressure from above and without. This is extremely important, as there is no reason to believe that the USA public would support a massive and brutal ethnic cleansing program if they were given even a modest quantum of the ugly facts, if the main victims rather than the ethnic cleansers were humanized, and if the media's frames of reference were not designed to apologize for Israeli expropriation and violence. However, the ongoing media and intellectual biases do very effectively complement the national policy of support for the ethnic cleansing state, just as they helped cover up national policy supporting Indonesia's murderous occupation of East Timor, and just as they roused the public to a pitch of frenzy over the unapproved Yugoslav violence in Kosovo."

Der Spiegal, news magazine from Germany (1 September 1997):

"Never before in modern history has a country dominated the earth so totally as the United States does today... America is now the Schwarzenegger of international politics: showing off muscles, obtrusive, intimidating... The Americans, in the absence of limits put to them by anybody or anything, act as if they own a kind of blank cheque in their 'McWorld'".

NoControllingLegalAuthority, from a post on a forum about the USA's role in the United Nations:

"The UN is headed for the dust bin of history. It has no moral authority. It is dominated by cowards, scoundrels and thieves. It's participants do not even obey the laws of the city of New York. Many of us are ready to help UN personnel pack and to drive them to the airport for a one-way trip out of our country. Today would not be soon enough. Good riddance to the self-serving human debris."

Reuel Marc, former (USA) CIA covert operator in February 2003:

"The tougher Sharon becomes, the stronger our image will be in the Middle East".

Subjects of all UN Security Council vetoes (1946 to 2008) with references.


Bookmark and Share
posted by u2r2h at Tuesday, August 17, 2010 0 comments

16 August, 2010

USrael Afghanistan War - BECAUSE OF ?????

So please tell me again: What's the war about?

When facts are inconvenient, when international law, human rights and history get in the way, when war crimes can't easily be justified or explained away, when logic doesn't help much, the current crop of American political leaders turns to what is now the old reliable: 9/11. We have to fight in Afghanistan because ... somehow ... it's tied into what happened on September 11, 2001. Here's Vice-President Joe Biden: "We know that it was from the space that joins Afghanistan and Pakistan that the attacks of 9/11 occurred." 1

Here's Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC): "This is the place [Afghanistan] we were attacked from 9/11." 2

Rep. Mike Pence, the third-ranking House Republican, asserted that the revelations in the Wikileaks documents do not change his view of the Afghan conflict, nor does he expect a shift in public opinion. "Back home in Indiana, people still remember where the attacks on 9/11 came from." 3

Here's President Obama a year ago: "But we must never forget this is not a war of choice. This is a war of necessity. Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans." 4

And here is the president, two days after the release of the Wikileaks documents, referring to Afghanistan and Pakistan as "the region from which the 9/11 attacks were waged and other attacks against the United States and our friends and allies have been planned". 5

Never mind that out of the tens of thousands of people the United States and its NATO front have killed in Afghanistan not one has been identified as having had anything to do with the events of September 11, 2001.

Never mind that the "plot to kill Americans" in 2001 was devised in Germany and Spain and the United States more than in Afghanistan. Why hasn't Washington bombed those countries?

Indeed, what actually is needed to plot to buy airline tickets and take flying lessons in the United States? A room with some chairs? What does "an even larger safe haven" mean? A larger room with more chairs? Perhaps a blackboard? Terrorists intent upon attacking the United States can meet almost anywhere, with Afghanistan probably being one of the worst places for them, given the American occupation.

There are many people in Afghanistan and Pakistan — the ones still living — who deeply resent the US presence there and the drones that fly overhead and drop bombs on their houses, their wedding parties, their funerals, their life. As in Iraq, the American "war on terrorism" in Afghanistan regularly, routinely, and conspicuously creates numerous new anti-American terrorists.

The only "war of necessity" that draws the United States to Afghanistan is the need for protected oil and gas pipelines from the Caspian Sea area, the establishment of military bases in this country that is surrounded by the oil-rich Caspian Sea and Persian Gulf regions, and making it easier to watch and pressure next-door Iran. What more could any respectable imperialist nation desire? Oh, did I mention that the military-industrial-security-intelligence complex and its shareholders will be further enriched?

But the war against the Taliban can't be won. Except perhaps by killing everyone in Afghanistan. The United States should negotiate the pipelines with the Taliban, as the Clinton administration tried to do, without success, then get out, and declare "victory". Barack Obama can surely deliver an eloquent victory speech.

USrael and Iran

If and when the United States and Israel bomb Iran (marking the sixth country so blessed by Barack Obama) and this sad old world has a new daily horror show to look at on their TV sets, and we then discover that Iran was not actually building nuclear weapons after all, the American mainstream media and the benighted American mind will ask: "Why didn't they tell us that? Did they want us to bomb them?"

The same questions were asked about Iraq following the discovery that Saddam Hussein didn't in fact have any weapons of mass destruction. However, in actuality, before the US invasion Iraqi officials had stated clearly on repeated occasions that they had no such weapons. I'm reminded of this by the recent news report about Hans Blix, former chief United Nations weapons inspector, who led a doomed hunt for WMD in Iraq. Last week he told the British inquiry into the March 2003 invasion that those who were "100 percent certain there were weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq turned out to have "less than zero percent knowledge" of where the purported hidden caches might be. He testified that he had warned British Prime Minister Tony Blair in a February 2003 meeting — as well as US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in separate talks — that Hussein might have no weapons of mass destruction. 6

In August 2002, Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz told American newscaster Dan Rather on CBS: "We do not possess any nuclear or biological or chemical weapons." 7

In December, Aziz stated to Ted Koppel on ABC: "The fact is that we don't have weapons of mass destruction. We don't have chemical, biological, or nuclear weaponry." 8

Hussein himself told Rather in February 2003: "These missiles have been destroyed. There are no missiles that are contrary to the prescription of the United Nations [as to range] in Iraq. They are no longer there." 9

Moreover, Gen. Hussein Kamel, former head of Iraq's secret weapons program, and a son-in-law of Saddam Hussein, told the UN in 1995 that Iraq had destroyed its banned missiles and chemical and biological weapons soon after the Persian Gulf War. 10

There are yet other examples of Iraqi officials telling the world that the WMD were non-existent.

If you don't already have serious doubts about the mainstream media's devotion to questioning the premises and rationales underlying American foreign policy, consider this: Despite the two revelations on Dan Rather's CBS programs, and the other revelations noted above, in January 2008 we find CBS reporter Scott Pelley interviewing FBI agent George Piro, who had interviewed Saddam Hussein before he was executed:

PELLEY: And what did he tell you about how his weapons of mass destruction had been destroyed?

PIRO: He told me that most of the WMD had been destroyed by the U.N. inspectors in the '90s, and those that hadn't been destroyed by the inspectors were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq.

PELLEY: He had ordered them destroyed?

PIRO: Yes.

PELLEY: So why keep the secret? Why put your nation at risk? Why put your own life at risk to maintain this charade? 11

Would it have mattered if the Bush administration had fully believed Iraq when it said it had no WMD? Probably not. There is ample evidence that Bush knew this to be the case, as did Tony Blair. Saddam Hussein did not sufficiently appreciate just how psychopathic his two adversaries were. Bush was determined to vanquish Iraq, for the sake of Israel, for control of oil, and for expanding the empire, though it hasn't all worked out as the empire expected; for some odd reason, it seems that the Iraqi people resented being bombed, invaded, occupied, and tortured.

The result of Bush's Iraqi policy can be summed up by saying that it would be difficult to cite many other historical examples of one nation destroying another so completely, crushing and perverting virtually every aspect of their society and humanity.

Now Israel presses Washington relentlessly to do the same to Iran — not that the US necessarily needs much prodding — primarily because Israel is determined to remain the only nuclear power in the Middle East; this despite Iran telling the United States and the world many times that it is not building nuclear weapons. But if Iran is in fact building nuclear weapons, we have to ask: Is there some international law that says that the US, the UK, Russia, China, Israel, France, Pakistan, and India are entitled to nuclear weapons, but Iran is not? If the United States had known that the Japanese had deliverable atomic bombs, would Hiroshima and Nagasaki have been destroyed? Does USrael believe that there is not already enough horror and suffering in the news?

In what could be part of the preparation for an attack on Iran, 47 members of the House of Representatives recently put forth a non-binding resolution declaring Iran to be "an immediate and existential threat to the State of Israel". To illustrate this threat, the resolution quoted Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on several occasions avowing sentiments like: "God willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world without the United States and Zionism" ... calling for "this occupying regime [Israel] to be wiped off the map" ... "Like it or not, the Zionist regime is heading toward annihilation" ... "I must announce that the Zionist regime, with a 60-year record of genocide, plunder, invasion, and betrayal is about to die and will soon be erased from the geographical scene" ... "Today, the time for the fall of the satanic power of the United States has come, and the countdown to the annihilation of the emperor of power and wealth has started".

Pretty damning stuff, isn't it? N'est-ce pas? Nicht wahr? But there's a lot less here than meets the eye. Notice that it doesn't quote Ahmadinejad in a single specific, explicit threat of an Iranian attack upon Israel or the United States. No mention or indication that "I" or "We" or "Iran" is going to do any of this, carry out any act of violence. And I would say that that's because it's not what he meant. In another quote, which the resolution fails to cite, the Iranian president in December 2006 said: "The Zionist regime will be wiped out soon, the same way the Soviet Union was, and humanity will achieve freedom." 12 Obviously, the man is not calling for any kind of violent attack upon Israel, for the dissolution of the Soviet Union took place very peacefully. Furthermore, in June 2006, Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, stated: "We have no problem with the world. We are not a threat whatsoever to the world, and the world knows it. We will never start a war. We have no intention of going to war with any state.13 Why didn't the authors of the congressional resolution quote that one?

I think that one can derive a better understanding of the Iranian president's statements by seeing them as metaphor, as bragging, as wishful thinking, as well as poor translation (for example: "wiped off the map" 14), coming from a man foolish enough to publicly claim that there are no gays in Iran.

But more significantly, the resolution offers no reason why Iran actually would attack Israel or the United States. What reason would Iran have to use nuclear weapons against either country other than an irresistible desire for mass national suicide? Indeed, the very same question could have — and should have — been asked before the invasion of Iraq. Of the many lies surrounding that invasion, the biggest one of all was that if, in fact, Saddam Hussein had had those weapons of mass destruction the invasion would have been justified.

With all the lies exposed about the American Iraqi misadventure, I and many others had allowed ourselves the luxury, the hidden pleasure, of believing that the United States government and media had learned a lesson which would last for some time. They'd been caught and exposed. But it's the same all over again with the lies about Iran and Ahmadinejad. (No, he's not even a Holocaust denier.)

In any event, Israel probably doesn't believe its own propaganda. In March of last year, the Washington Post reported: "A senior Israeli official in Washington" has asserted that "Iran would be unlikely to use its missiles in an attack [against Israel] because of the certainty of retaliation." 15 This was the very last sentence in the article and, according to an extensive Nexis search, did not appear in any other English-language media in the world.

And earlier this year we could read in the Sunday Times of London: "Brigadier-General Uzi Eilam, 75, a war hero and pillar of the [Israeli] defence establishment, believes it will probably take Iran seven years to make nuclear weapons. The views expressed by the former director-general of Israel's Atomic Energy Commission contradict the assessment of Israel's defence establishment and put him at odds with political leaders." 16

If any country in this world is a threat to use nuclear weapons with remarkably little regard for the consequences it's Israel. Martin van Creveld, an Israeli professor of military history, and loyal Israeli citizen, remarked in 2002: "We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that this will happen before Israel goes under." 17 Think of the closing scene of "Dr. Strangelove". That's Israel sitting astride the speeding nuclear missile waving the cowboy hat.

There's no business like show business
She played Mozart's Piano Concerto in D Minor.

And accompanied the one and only Aretha Franklin.

A gala benefit performance in Philadelphia.

At the home of the Philadelphia Orchestra.

Before 8,000 people.

And they loved it.

How many of them knew that the pianist was a genuine, unindicted war criminal?

Guilty of crimes against humanity.

Defender of torture.

With much blood on her pianist hands.

Whose style in office for years could be characterized as hypocrisy, disinformation, and outright lying.

But what did the audience care?

This is America.

Home of the Good Guys.

She was fighting against the Bad Guys.

And we all know that the show must go on.

So let's hear it, folks ... Let's have a real all-American hand ... Let's hear it for our own darling virtuoso ... Miss Condoleezza Rice!

1. State Department Documents and Publications, March 10, 2009 ↩
2. Face the Nation, CBS, July 4, 2010 ↩
3. Washington Post, July 27, 2010 ↩
4. Talk given by the president at Veterans of Foreign Wars convention, August 17, 2009 ↩
5. White House press release of Obama's remarks of July 27, 2010 ↩
6. Associated Press, July 28, 2010 ↩
7. CBS Evening News, August 20, 2002 ↩
8. ABC Nightline, December 4, 2002 ↩
9. "60 Minutes II", February 26, 2003 ↩
10. Washington Post, March 1, 2003 ↩
11. "60 Minutes", January 27, 2008. See also: Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting [FAIR] Action Alert, February 1, 2008 ↩
12. Associated Press, December 12, 2006 ↩
13. Letter to the Washington Post from M.A. Mohammadi, Press Officer, Iranian Mission to the United Nations, June 12, 2006 ↩
14. See Anti-Empire Report, October 1, 2008, second part ↩
15. Washington Post, March 5, 2009 ↩
16. Sunday Times (London), January 10, 2010 ↩
17. Originally in the Dutch weekly magazine, Elsevier, April 27, 2002, pages 52-3; picked up in many other international publications ↩

Bookmark and Share
posted by u2r2h at Monday, August 16, 2010 0 comments

15 August, 2010

islamo-fascist TED RALL Cartoon

keywords: Islamo-Fascist Judeo Libertarian, Christo-Anarchist, Satano-Socialist, Buddho-Capitalist, and Hindo-Communist"  Satano Socialists Ted Rall cartoon comic  christano-archist buddha hindu islamic-fascist nazi


Ted Rall (born August 26, 1963, Cambridge, Massachusetts), is an American columnist, syndicated editorial cartoonist, and author. His political cartoons often appear in a multi-panel comic-strip  format and frequently blend comic-strip and editorial-cartoon conventions. The cartoons appear in approximately 100 newspapers around the United States. He is President of the Association of American Editorial Cartoonists.


Rall draws three editorial cartoons a week for syndication, draws illustrations on a freelance basis, writes a weekly syndicated column, and edits the Attitude series of alternative cartooning anthologies and spin-off collections by up-and-coming cartoonists. He is an award-winning graphic novelist and the author of non-fiction books about domestic and international current affairs. He also travels to and writes about Central Asia, a region he believes to be pivotal to U.S. foreign policy concerns. In November 2001 he went to Afghanistan as a war correspondent for The Village Voice and KFI Radio in Los Angele


Rall says his drawing style was originally influenced by Mike Peters, the editorial cartoonist at his hometown paper, the Dayton Daily News. Later influences included Jules Feiffer, Garry Trudeau, Charles Schulz and Matt Groening. He says meeting Keith Haring in 1986, at a subway station, inspired him to pursue cartooning as a full-time profession.


Syndicated since 1991, Rall has enjoyed success in mainstream newspapers like the New York Times and Washington Post.

Rall's cartoons have appeared regularly in Rolling Stone, Time, Fortune and Men's Health magazines, and were for several years the most reproduced cartoons in the New York Times.


Iran war - israel Cartoon  pakistan saudi arabia friends

Rall began frequent travels to Central Asia in 1997, when he attempted to drive the Silk Road from Beijing to Istanbul via China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan as a staff writer for P.O.V. magazine. P.O.V. published his adventures as Silk Road to Ruin, a title he used for his 2006 collection of essays and cartoons about Central Asia. Rall returned to the region for P.O.V. in 1999 to travel the Karakoram Highway  from Kashgar, in western China, to Islamabad. Subsequent trips included two trips in 2000, "Stan Trek 2000"--in which Rall brought along 23 listeners to his radio show for a bus journey from Turkmenistan to Kyrgyzstan via Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan—and a U.S. State Department-sponsored visit to Turkmenistan, where he met with Turkmen college students and dissidents to explain the nature of free press in a democracy. A 2002 assignment for Gear magazine to cover the world championships of buzkashi in Tajikistan was not published due to the magazine's going out of business, but turned up in an edited form in Silk Road to Ruin. He returned to Tajikistan, Xinjiang Province in western China and Pakistan during the summer of 2007.


The Attitude: The New Subversive Cartoonists series of books is a series of anthologies of alternative comics edited by Rall. Frustrated that cartoons prevalent in alternative weekly newspapers were being ignored in favor of mainstream and art comics, Rall edited the first "Attitude" anthology, Attitude: The New Subversive Political Cartoonists, in 2002, with its mission to bring together cartoonists who were "too alternative for the mainstream and too mainstream for the alternative." Attitude 2: The New Subversive Alternative Cartoonists followed in 2004, and in 2006 Attitude 3: The New Subversive Online Cartoonists appeared. Each volume contains interviews with, cartoons by and personal ephemera related to 21 different cartoon creators. The first and second volumes emphasized political and humor cartoons; the third volume exclusively features webcartoonists.

Rall also edited three cartoons collections by Andy Singer, Neil Swaab and Stephanie McMillan under the name "Attitude Presents:".

Rall has called for Barack Obama  to resign as President of the United States, stating: "the gap between the soaring expectations that accompanied Barack Obama's inauguration and his wretched performance is the broadest such chasm in recent historical memory. This guy makes Bill Clinton look like a paragon of integrity and follow-through."


Three characters in another strip described Pat Tillman  as an "idiot" a "sap" and a "hero" for abandoning his NFL career to enlist in the armed forces. Tillman is depicted saying "Sign me up, as long as I get to kill Arabs."

Later, after revelations of Tillman's privately held anti-Iraq-war sentiments became public, Rall wrote that he regretted making such sweeping assumptions about Tillman's motives, describing Tillman as "one hell of an interesting human being."


His July 5, 2004, cartoon mocked Condoleezza Rice, depicting her character being sent to a "racial re-education camp" where she refers to herself as a "house nigga" and George W. Bush's "beard". Rall, a white man, was accused of racism by Project 21, a conservative organization with black membership


Rall is listed at #15 in Bernard Goldberg's book 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America  described by the author as a "vicious, conspiracy-minded, hate-filled jerk." Rall perceived the listing as an honor, replying, "Not only am I grouped with many people whom I admire for their achievements and patriotism, I'm being demonized by McCarthyite thugs I despise."

Bookmark and Share
posted by u2r2h at Sunday, August 15, 2010 0 comments

14 August, 2010

Hiroshima - Israel blackmail WMD vs Iran


Iran nuclear programme -- unlike Pakistan's -- is not helped by western powers.


3 Reasons Israel will attack Iran

and in red, this blogger's comments


A long article out this week in The Atlantic argues there's a good chance Israel will attack Iran over its nuclear program next summer. While there are strong grounds for doubt, here are some reasons author Jeffrey Goldberg could be right.

- Dan Murphy, Staff writer

1. A nuclear Iran would shift the regional strategic balance

That is the ONLY reason.  Israel is loosing it's power to blackmail and dominate.
Iran will have Pan-arabic Television  (Power of thought-control) and it has OIL and MONEY.
Israel has NOTHING except Weapons of Mass Destruction, and pure coercion by violence!
PEACE should be the foremost goal in Israel's foreign policy, yet they employ right-wing lunatics to run their government.
Who needs to scale back their WMD programme? Who needs to stop oppressing whole populations?

One thing everyone who debates whether Iran is seeking a nuclear bomb, and what to do about stopping them if they are, agrees on is this: A nuclear-armed Iran would profoundly shift the strategic balance of the Middle East.

Israel, with an arsenal of 100

over 200!  Christian Sciene Monitor knows it well.  Obviously the article is BIASED.

or so nuclear bombs and the missiles to deliver them, is the region's only current nuclear power. While that sole status doesn't give it carte blanche to do as it pleases,

EVEN TO THINK THAT!!  outch!  Nazis would think along the same lines!  "How can we dominate?"

the day Iran has a nuclear weapon is the day Israel's ability to directly attack Iran - or perhaps other regional countries - is taken off the table.

IRAN HAS NOT ATTACKED ANY COUNTRY IN 2000 YEARS.  Israel has "preemptively" attacked its neighbours on 5.June 1967 and many times thereafter.

Iran in turn would be able to act with greater freedom in what it sees as its own sphere of influence. This alarms many of Arab states in the region, who many predict would start considering nuclear weapons programs of their own in response. The last thing Israel wants is a nuclear arms race in a neighbourhood where a number of regimes still don't recognize its right to exist.


The more nuclear countries there are, the greater the chance, however unlikely, that someone will push the button first, or that a terrorist group could somehow get its hands on a bomb. Defence Minister Ehud Barak explained one of Israel's greatest fears this way last year: "It's not just the end of any non-proliferation regime," he said of Iran obtaining a bomb. "I believe that it starts the countdown that... would lead, within another half a generation, to a crude nuclear device in the hands of some terrorist group."

2. Fear that Iran is 'meshugana'

WRONG AGAIN!  Iran has been very rational, while ISRAEL has in deed and in thought executed it's "Samson Option".
(Biblical figure Samson, who destroyed a Philistine temple, killing himself and thousands of Philistine enemies.)

Israel refuses to admit officially that it has nuclear weapons!!


Israel has bullied not only Arab and Muslim nations, but the United States and Russia with its Samson Option threats.  Mordechai Vanunu has alleged that Israel uses for purposes of blackmail its ability to "bombard any city all over the world, and not only those in Europe but also those in the United States."


The Samsun Option!!  REMEMBER THIS..   Iran has not invaded another country in 2000 years!!

If the public statements of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and a number of Israeli officials are taken at face value, they believe irrational behavior on the part of Iranian officials could lead them to use a nuclear weapon if they ever obtain it.

Iran says it has no intention of building a bomb, and senior clerics there have said the use of nuclear weapons are un-Islamic and forbidden, but many Israeli leaders don't buy that.

Mr. Netanyahu told Atlantic writer Jeffrey Goldberg for a separate article last year: "You don't want a messianic apocalyptic cult controlling atomic bombs... When the wide-eyed believer gets hold of the reins of power and the weapons of mass death, then the world should start worrying, and that's what is happening in Iran."

While that seems an extreme characterization, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad never seems to pass up a chance to fuel Israeli fears. Mr. Ahmadinejad has called the Holocaust "a lie based on an unprovable and mythical claim" and once referred to Israel as a "tumor" that should be "wiped off the map" – though some say that's a mistranslation, and a better one would be "vanish from the map of time."

Wayne White, a former senior State Department intelligence analyst focusing on the Middle East, says that the Iranian government isn't monolithic in its views and that "regime survival" is a top priority for most senior figures, including Ayatollah Ali Khamanei. But he says the antics of Ahmadinejad are a constant irritant that increase the likelihood of conflict. "He's absolutely the worst nightmare for anyone trying to move this forward," he says. "His rhetoric has been outrageous since 2005."

To be sure, some Israeli officials don't precisely share Prime Minister Netanyahu's view. In a speech last year, Defense Minister Ehud Barak said his fear was that a nuclear armed Iran would some day arm a stateless terrorist group. As for the regime itself? "I don't think that the Iranians, even if they got the bomb, they are going to drop it immediately on some neighbor. They fully understand what might follow. They are radicals but not total meshuganas," he said, using a Yiddish word that means "crazies."

bibi netanyahu - ideologue and murderer.


3. Holocaust denial and Holocaust fears

Iran insists its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only. But Israel quite simply doesn't believe the Islamic Republic and fears what a nuclear weapon in the hands of a government with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at the top of the heap could mean for them.

Israel is a country whose national psyche was crafted by the Holocaust



BLABLA..  Israel (like all humans) is interested in MONEY and OWNERSHIP.

Iran EXPORTS to pay its own way .. while Israel cannot support its huge weapons of mass destruction programme, nor its industry without massive help from the USA!

Iran is independent, and continues to grow, but Israel needs the blackmail of wars and weapons to keep its books from being properly audited.

and has said time and again that it will take preemptive action if it thinks the nation is threatened. Fear of Iran has been a long-running theme for the country – in the wake of 9/11

9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB!  Imagine! Israel *K*N*O*W*S* what it is doing, it is not a leaf in the terrorist wind, it does the blowing itself!

 Israeli officials mused that Iran might have had a hand in the attack (it didn't) and since, they've kept up a steady stream of warnings about what a nuclear-armed Iran would mean for the Jewish state's future.

"Iran is developing nuclear weapons and poses the greatest threat to our existence since the war of independence. Iran's terror wings surround us from the north and south," Benjamin Netanyahu said shortly after regaining the premiership last year.

The "never again" credo of Israel drives alarm inside the country's security establishment. While most Iran watchers believe that an Iran with a few nuclear weapons wouldn't launch a first strike on Israel – something sure to bring withering retaliation – the presence of Mr. Ahmadinejad at the top of the government (thought he's still subordinate to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the country's supreme leader) has some Israelis fearing irrational behavior.

Saudi Arabia has already agreed to Israeli flights over its territory.





Here is a cute film about a nuclear strike


more history:


Bookmark and Share
posted by u2r2h at Saturday, August 14, 2010 0 comments

Locations of visitors to this page Politics Blogs - Blog Top Sites