Disputes over arms for Syria cloud U.S.-Russian peace drive

14 hours ago
By Alissa de Carbonnel | Reuters 
Source: Yahoo News

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Disputes between Russia and the West over arming warring sides in Syria on Tuesday dimmed prospects for peace talks that were also clouded by disarray among President Bashar al-Assad's political foes.

As Western nations debate what action, if any, they should take on Syria, Assad's main allies - Russia, Iran and Lebanon's Shi'ite Hezbollah group - have been closing ranks behind him.

Russia, which has protected Assad diplomatically since the Syrian uprising erupted in March 2011, said it would deliver an advanced S-300 air defense system to Damascus despite U.S., French and Israeli objections, arguing that it would help deter "hotheads" intent on intervention in the conflict.

Moscow also accused the European Union of "throwing fuel on the fire" and "undermining" the chances of holding a peace conference at Geneva by letting an arms embargo on Syria expire.

France and Britain, the EU's strongest military powers and most ardent advocates of scrapping the embargo, said they had not yet decided to arm Syrian rebels, but wanted to put Assad under pressure to negotiate.

"Our focus in the coming weeks is the Geneva conference," said British Foreign Secretary William Hague. "What this is doing is sending that signal loud and clear to the regime and ... being very clear about the flexibility that we have if it refuses to negotiate."

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Western powers were putting the very idea of a conference at risk while his deputy, Sergei Ryabkov, defended Moscow's missile shipment.

"We think this delivery is a stabilizing factor and that such steps in many ways restrain some hotheads," he said.

The S-300s can intercept manned aircraft and guided missiles and their delivery could improve Assad's chances of retaining power. Western nations criticize such arms deliveries in much the same terms as Moscow assails weapons supplies to rebels.

Israel's defense minister said the air defense missiles had not yet left Russia, but hinted at military action if they were delivered: "I hope they will not leave, and if, God forbid, they reach Syria, we will know what to do," Moshe Yaalon said.

Despite their differences, the United States and Russia are trying to convene an international conference next month to end a 26-month-old conflict that has killed more than 80,000 people and threatens to ignite wider Middle Eastern confrontations.

But the opposing sides remain far apart on whether Assad should play any role in any political transition - and the main Western-backed opposition has not even said if it will attend.

Diplomats in Geneva said a meeting could be held at the U.N. there on June 15-16 just before the U.S., Russian and EU leaders meet at a Group of Eight summit in Northern Ireland on June 17.

"CHASE THEM TO HELL"

Fighting in Syria has intensified on several fronts in recent weeks and is spilling dangerously into Lebanon, whose Hezbollah guerrillas now openly fight alongside Assad's forces.

In a weekend speech, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah promised victory for his Iranian-backed group, saying the battle in Syria was vital for its primary struggle against Israel.

On the ever more volatile Lebanese-Syrian border, gunmen killed three Lebanese soldiers at a checkpoint in the Bekaa Valley before fleeing toward Syria, Lebanese officials said.

Hours earlier a rocket fired into the mainly Shi'ite town of Hermel in the Bekaa killed a woman and wounded two people.

A Syrian rebel leader threatened reprisals against Hezbollah unless the Arab League and the United Nations acted within 24 hours to halt the militant group's intervention in Syria.

"We will chase them all the way to hell if a decision is not taken to stop Hezbollah's attack on Syrian land," Brigadier-General Salem Idris told Al-Arabiya television channel.

Idris, a defector from Assad's military, is a favored channel for Western aid to rebels, although his control over diverse armed factions is thought to be limited.

Violence in Syria is gradually spreading to Lebanon, raising fears for the fate of a small nation that lost anywhere between 100,000 and 150,000 dead in its own 1975-90 civil war.

Syria's civil war has divided Lebanon, with most Lebanese Shi'ites supporting Assad, whose minority Alawite sect is rooted in Shi'ite Islam. Many Lebanese Sunnis back the mostly Sunni Syrian rebels, putting the Lebanese army under extra pressure to keep a lid on sectarian tensions.

Assad's government, whose forces have been staging fierce offensives on rebel strongholds around Damascus and the border town of Qusair, has named representatives for the peace talks Washington and Moscow hope to convene in Geneva in June.

But opposition political factions, not to mention the rebel combatants over whom they wield scant control, remain riven by internal divisions even after six days of talks in Istanbul.

The 60-member Syrian National Coalition has failed to agree to include more liberals in its ranks to the dismay of Western and some Arab backers keen to reduce the influence of Islamists.

The disarray raises questions about the opposition's ability to agree any sort of inclusive transitional government and could strengthen Assad's hand before any peace talks.

Western and Arab envoys sought to break the opposition deadlock which could even scupper the U.S.-Russian initiative.

"Effectively, without an opposition overhaul there will not be a Geneva," a frustrated regional official in Istanbul said.

Pakistan's Sharif sends mixed message to US

 2 hrs 3 mins ago
By SEBASTIAN ABBOT | Associated Press
Source: Yahoo News

RAIWIND, Pakistan (AP) — Pakistan's presumptive prime minister said Monday that he wants good relations with the United States but criticized American drone strikes on militants as a violation of the country's sovereignty — perhaps hinting the government's grudging compliance may change.

A devout Muslim and a populist, Nawaz Sharif is expected to supplant President Asif Ali Zardari as the international face of Pakistan following his party's resounding victory in Saturday's election. He is set to rule over a nuclear power whose increasing instability and Islamic militant havens are a global concern, especially at a time when the West is looking to end the war in neighboring Afghanistan.

The 63-year-old Sharif often hit out at the U.S. in statements while lobbying for votes, and he accused the outgoing government ruled by the Pakistan People's Party of selling out the country's sovereignty in exchange for U.S. aid.

However, analysts have cautioned that while such rhetoric sells on the campaign trail in a country where anti-American sentiment is high, Sharif is likely to take a more nuanced approach to U.S. relations once in office.

Sharif reinforced that sense Monday with his first comments since the vote about how he viewed the relationship with the U.S. — a key issue since Washington relies on Islamabad for help in fighting Islamic militants and negotiating an end to the Afghan war.

"I think we have good relations with the United States of America. We certainly have to listen to each other," said Sharif. "If there are any concerns on any side, I think we should address those concerns."

Pakistan and the U.S. have had an extremely fraught relationship in recent years, especially following the American raid that killed Osama bin Laden in a Pakistani army town in 2011. The U.S. didn't tell Pakistan about the operation beforehand, and the government was outraged at the breach of its sovereignty.

Even before the raid, the U.S. accused Pakistan of supporting Taliban militants who use the country's rugged northwest tribal region to launch cross-border attacks against American troops in Afghanistan — allegations denied by Islamabad.

The relationship has improved somewhat over the last year, but U.S. drone attacks targeting Taliban and al-Qaida militants in Pakistan's tribal region continue to create serious friction between the two countries.

The strikes are extremely unpopular in Pakistan, where many people believe they mostly kill innocent civilians — something Washington denies.

"Drones indeed are challenging our sovereignty," said Sharif. "I think this is a very serious issue, and our concern must be understood properly."

But Pakistan has a long history of officials condemning the strikes in public and supporting them in private, and how aggressively Sharif pushes the U.S. may depend on how much he needs it in other areas.

Pakistan relies on the U.S. for hundreds of millions of dollars in aid every year. More importantly, Pakistan would likely need U.S. support to get a bailout it desperately needs from the International Monetary Fund because of the government's shaky financial situation.

Sharif spoke with reporters at his palatial estate in the rural town of Raiwind near the eastern city of Lahore. The estate is filled with acres of plush lawns and manicured gardens, where scores of majestic peacocks roam freely. The inside of his house is opulently decorated in a style reminiscent of Louis XIV and features two stuffed lions — the symbol of Sharif's party — at the entrance to his living room.

Sharif's supporters believe his pro-business background and years of experience in government make him the right person to tackle the country's many economic woes, like growing power cuts, painful inflation and widespread unemployment.

His stance on reining in violent Islamic extremism, however, remains uncertain.

Critics have accused his Pakistan Muslim League-N party of being soft on radicals because it hasn't cracked down on militant groups in its stronghold of Punjab province.

Even if Sharif wanted to shut down the U.S. drone program, he would have to contend with the wishes of the Pakistani army, which is considered the strongest institution in the country and often plays a dominant role in national security issues.

The army is known to have supported the drone program in the past. That cooperation has decreased over time as the relationship between the two countries has deteriorated. Many analysts believe there is still grudging acceptance of the strikes — both because of U.S. aid and because of the harm it would do to the relationship if Pakistan really put its foot down.

The number of strikes targeting militants has dropped from a peak of more than 120 in 2010 to close to a dozen so far this year, but it's unclear how much this trend has been driven by U.S. decisions about targeting versus the political sensitivity of carrying out strikes.

The U.S. is reliant on Pakistan for help in neighboring Afghanistan, where it will likely play a strong role in any reconciliation deal with Taliban militants. Also, much of the American military equipment that must be shipped out of Afghanistan when the international coalition there ends its combat mission in 2014 will go through the port city of Karachi in southern Pakistan.

Sharif said that he would facilitate the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan.

"American troops are being withdrawn in 2014. We will extend full support to them. We will see that everything goes well and smoothly," he said.

Sharif's party, the Pakistan Muslim League-N, appeared set to get a majority of seats in the national assembly following Saturday's election. That would place Sharif in the position of becoming prime minister for a third time and give him a strong mandate to address the country's many problems.

Following a constitutional amendment passed in 2010, the post of prime minister is much stronger than that of the presidency in Pakistan.

But Sharif's party will have to run most legislation through the Senate, where the former ruling party, the Pakistan People's Party, will retain a much higher number of seats until the next election in 2015. That means he will have to find some way to cooperate with his rival.

Sharif, meanwhile, appealed to former cricket star turned politician Imran Khan to drop his claims of vote rigging in Karachi and Punjab.

"I think we should all show sportsman's spirit and accept the results of the elections," Sharif said.

Several thousand supporters of Khan's Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf party protested the alleged vote rigging in Karachi and the capital, Islamabad, on Monday.

Election observers from the European Union said they saw some "serious problems" in Karachi, and Pakistan's election commission said it was investigating. The commission already has said it would re-do the vote in 40 polling stations in one constituency in Karachi.

But the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, which had observers monitoring the vote, said they did not find any evidence of systematic rigging and called on all parties to accept the vote.

The Free and Fair Election Network, a Pakistani monitoring group with thousands of observers, has described the balloting in Punjab as "relatively fair."

Sharif's victory in the election represented a remarkable comeback. He was toppled in a coup in 1999 by then-army chief Gen. Pervez Musharraf during his second stint as prime minister and sent into exile in Saudi Arabia for years. He returned in 2007 and ended up serving as the main opposition leader in the country.

Sharif's history with the military has led some observers to predict clashes with the army once he takes office, although the service has pulled back from overt interference in domestic politics in recent years.

Sharif sought to play down his perceived enmity toward the army, saying he only blamed Musharraf for the coup, not the entire service.

"I think the rest of the army resented Mr. Musharraf's decision," said Sharif. "So I don't hold the rest of the army responsible for that."

___

Associated Press writers Rebecca Santana and Zarar Khan contributed to this report from Islamabad.

The second American revolution has begun

October 25, 2011
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Source: Natural News

(NaturalNews) There's a sense of desperation in America today. Their jobs are being exported out of the country, their health insurance is being dropped by employers, their dollars are becoming increasingly worthless with each passing day and their futures don't look very promising. They're angry, frustrated and desperate, so they take to the streets and protest. Occupy Wall Street! Occupy The Fed! Take to the streets!

It's the right thing to do, but what most protesters -- and nearly all Americans -- don't fully grasp is that nearly every powerful institution is a criminal racket. It's not just Wall Street that's operated like a criminal mob, folks: It's the U.S. Congress. It's the health care industry. It's conventional agriculture, the mainstream media, the processed food manufacturers, the government regulators and of course the entire military industrial complex.

Nearly everything around you is a criminal operation. The banks openly steal your homes while laundering money for global drug lords. The U.S. government runs illegal guns into Mexico while allowing cocaine and heroin back into the USA to be sold at pumped-up black market prices. The mainstream media broadcasts outright lies and complete fabrications as if they were fact. Much of modern medical "science" is complete quackery or fiction, funded by corporations for the purpose of expanding corporate power. The local water supply is intentionally contaminated with toxic poisons known as "fluoride," and the local food supply is tainted with other dangerous chemicals like aspartame, MSG and BPA.

Your local hospital is almost certainly involved in a medical racket that seeks to insert high-profit medical procedure charges onto patient bills, and your local nursing home most likely throws granny in the hospital for a few days in order to get triple billing from Medicare upon their return. Doctors prescribe antibiotics because they get kickbacks from the drug companies, and the medical journals are little more than science whores who have been bought and paid for by the pharmaceutical industry. And don't forget vaccines, which have become the pathway through which infectious disease is actually spread among the population using live viruses injected into innocent children (http://www.naturalnews.com/033447_I...).

Wake the heck up, people! Most of modern society is a giant con. Nearly every institution, every mega corporation, every government and nearly every politician or bureaucrat is really just a criminal mobster trying to steal your wealth or gain control over your actions and thoughts. Most institutions actually cause the very things they claim to be fighting against!

Why does the cancer industry promote cancer?
The cancer industry actually promotes cancer, didn't you know? The DEA runs drugs! The ATF runs guns (http://www.naturalnews.com/032934_A...). The FDA keeps deadly drugs legal while trying to outlaw safe, affordable natural remedies.

The EPA openly allows deadly toxic chemicals to be dumped into the environment (like mercury fillings from dental offices). The CDC actually promotes complete falsehoods about infectious disease in order to scare people into thinking everybody needs to get vaccinated. And then the vaccines are intentionally contaminated with live viruses in order to spread disease and make the CDC look even more important! (http://www.naturalnews.com/025760.html)

Meanwhile, the President is actively destroying the economic base of America, aided by feds who threaten business owners like Gibson Guitars which are only trying to manufacture quality American-made products. The purpose of all this? To destroy America's economy from the inside out. It is intentional. It is being engineered. The U.S. economy is supposed to collapse by design, get it?

Beyond the economy alone, the entire "war on terror" is a complete and utter hoax, having been fabricated from the very start by government insiders. From 9/11 to present-day terror, it has all been a pathetic and cowardly string of fabrications and staged events for the sole purpose of destroying freedom in America.

Most of what you're told from "official" sources is flat-out false
Are you getting this? Nearly everything you've been told is a lie. Everything you hear on the mainstream news is either a complete fabrication or a wild distortion of reality. And the things you don't hear on the evening news are the things that really matter -- things like the fact that your money is being quietly stolen from you by the Federal Reserve.

Nearly everything you are told by the White House, or the FDA, or the EPA -- or any government regulator -- is a complete and total lie. There is no room for truth in a system of outright tyrannical lawbreaking. That's what we have today instead of government: A cabal of criminal thugs who operate with impunity while violating laws with complete disregard for human rights or the Bill of Rights.

Did you know, for example, that the Obama administration runs a secret death panel that decides which Americans to add to a "kill list?" This kill list is then handed over to the President who decides which Americans to simply assassinate or murder. Think I'm making this up? Then why was it openly reported by Reuters? (http://www.naturalnews.com/033835_W...)

Watch this astonishing interaction between ABC News reporter
Jake Trapper and White House Spokesperson Carney, who completely excuses the Obama administration's outright murder of an American citizen with absolutely zero evidence, no due process, no trial and no proper legal justification whatsoever:
http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=1E3C8...

Why things are the way they are - the honest truth
Do you wonder why so many people are sick and diseased today? Because the health care system is designed to make you sick!

Do you wonder why so many people are bankrupt today? Because the financial system is designed to keep you bankrupt!

Do you wonder why voters have so little power versus the corporations today? Because the political system is designed to keep the corporations in power while keeping you enslaved.

Do you wonder why you are still paying $3 or $4 per gallon of gas? Because the energy industry is designed to keep you enslaved to high-profit energy sources while oppressing free energy technology.

Do you ever wonder why the best innovations in medicine, free energy and human consciousness are always suppressed? Because the system is designed to destroy or censor any technologies that would lend themselves to longevity, freedom or increased awareness.

Do you wonder why America remains in perpetual war with an unseen enemy? Because the whole system is designed to operate in a state of perpetual warfare so that the people can be kept in a state of constant fear while being denied their freedoms.

Join the revolution
This is why I invite you to join the revolution in whatever constructive way you can. Now is the time to make your voice heard, just as all those protesting right now are doing.

My only bit of wisdom to pass along in this regard is to make sure it's your OWN voice and don't let yourself be played by some organized globalist agenda that now wants to hijack the protests for their own nefarious purposes.

The essence of freedom is LIBERTY, honest money, private property rights and a system of law that applies to everyone.

YES, the globalist bankers are crooks. They probably deserve to be strung up in a public square somewhere, but even such actions should never be taken without due process and a proper trial. What's really wrong with America today is that the criminal elements are running the show, from the White House to Wall Street. And it's time the People demanded that EVERYONE abide by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. After all, didn't the President swear to protect it when he became President? So why does he now selectively ignore it?

The revolution happening right now is a revolution borne out of frustration, and although it seems to lack focus in the mixed messages heard on the street right now, it will soon coalesce into a call for justice and an end to the systems of tyranny that dominate the American landscape today.

The transition out of freedom and justice will be fraught with violence, I fear, and there will soon be Martial Law declared across our land. Be prepared for what's coming, and have no illusions that the second American revolution is now at our doorstep. I only ask: What will you do with this opportunity? Will you stand for liberty and justice when it really counts?

Keep reading NaturalNews for more coverage of all this. And if you want to learn the latest preparedness information, I've just released a new course with Daniel Vitalis called The Surthrival Series (http://premium.naturalnews.tv/Surth...).

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/033974_American_revolution_Occupy_Wall_Street.html#ixzz1bnzAJT6b

Iraq rejects US request to maintain bases after troop withdrawal

21 October 2011
by Ewen MacAskill
Source: The Guardian


Obama announces the full withdrawal of troops from Iraq but fails to persuade Nouri al-Maliki to allow US to keep bases there

Obama presented the troop withdrawal as the fulfilment of one of his election promises Link to this video

The US suffered a major diplomatic and military rebuff on Friday when Iraq finally rejected its pleas to maintain bases in the country beyond this year.

Barack Obama announced at a White House press conference that all American troops will leave Iraq by the end of December, a decision forced by the final collapse of lengthy talks between the US and the Iraqi government on the issue.

The Iraqi decision is a boost to Iran, which has close ties with many members of the Iraqi government and which had been battling against the establishment of permanent American bases.

Obama attempted to make the most of it by presenting the withdrawal as the fulfilment of one of his election promises.

"Today I can report that, as promised, the rest of our troops in Iraq will come home by the end of the year. After nearly nine years, America's war in Iraq will be over," he told reporters.

But he had already announced this earlier this year, and the real significance today was in the failure of Obama, in spite of the cost to the US in dollars and deaths, to persuade the Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki to allow one or more American bases to be kept in the country.

Obama was formally told of Maliki's final decision on Friday morning in a video conference.

Speaking later to reporters, Obama glossed over the rejection, describing it as Iraq shaping its own future.

He told reporters that the "tide of war is receding", not only in Iraq but in Afghanistan and in Libya.

"The United States is moving forward to a position of strength. The long war in Iraq will come to an end by the end of this year. The transition in Afghanistan is moving forward and our troops are finally coming home," he said.

Obama rose to political prominence on the back of his opposition to the Iraq war.

"Over the next two months, our troops in Iraq, tens of thousands of them, will pack up their gear and board convoys for the journey home," he said.

"The last American soldier will cross the border out of Iraq with their heads held high, proud of their success, and knowing that the American people stand united in our support for our troops," he said. "That is how America's military efforts in Iraq will end."

But Republicans criticised the failure to secure a deal with the Iraqis, describing it as a setback for the US.

John McCain, one of the leading foreign affairs specialists in the Senate and Obama's Republican opponent in the 2008 White House race, said: "Today marks a harmful and sad setback for the United States in the world. I respectfully disagree with the president: this decision will be viewed as a strategic victory for our enemies in the Middle East, especially the Iranian regime, which has worked relentlessly to ensure a full withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq."

Mitt Romney, front-runner in the race to take on Obama in the 2012 White House race, said: "The unavoidable question is whether this decision is the result of a naked political calculation or simply sheer ineptitude in negotiations with the Iraqi government."

One of the sticking points in the negotiations with Iraq was a US demand that American forces remaining in the country after December would enjoy the same immunity from prosecution as they do now. The Iraqi government, conscious of public anger over many controversial incidents involving US troops and defence contractors over the last decade, refused.

The Pentagon had wanted the bases to help counter growing Iranian influence in the Middle East. Just a few years ago, the US had plans for leaving behind four large bases but, in the face of Iraqi resistance, this plan had to be scaled down this year to a force of 10,000. But even this proved too much for the Iraqis.

Denis McDonough, the White House deputy national security adviser, speaking to reporters after Obama's press conference, denied that the withdrawal was a sign of growing Iranian influence.

"You see an Iran that is weaker and more isolated," he said, noting various incidents such as a sense of international outrage over an alleged plot by Iran to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to Washington.

Although the US is pulling out all troops, it will keep its embassy in Baghdad and two consulates. There will also be about 4,000-5,000 defence contractors, White House aides said.

Since the invasion in 2003, 1 million members of the US military have been deployed to Iraq, of whom 4,482 have been killed and 32,200 wounded.

Obama said there were 180,000 troops deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan when he took office in January 2009, and that number has been halved and will continue to fall.

A few US military personnel will be based in Iraq temporarily from time to time, just as they are in other countries with links to the US such as Egypt and Jordan, White House aides said. These would primarily be trainers helping out with new equipment bought from the US, such as F-16 fighters Iraq purchased last month.

Maliki, though he has been criticised in the past for being too close to Iran, had wanted to keep some US troops in Iraq to help train Iraqi security forces and to help in the event of a resurgence of sectarian violence. But he had to bow to pressure from pro-Iranian politicians and others in his coaliton government who wanted all US troops out.

Obama was ambivalent on the issue, seeing a total withdrawal as a good sell to a US public tired of war. But the Pentagon had wanted the bases, and the president reluctantly sided with the military staff.

It will be a major logistical exercise, moving not only the remaining 39,000 US troops but mountains of equipment from bases that are the size of small American suburbs, complete with coffee-shops, bowling alleys and cinemas.

The Pentagon is wary of a final attack as the final pullout gets under way.

• This article was corrected on 23 October 2011 because it described Nouri al-Maliki as Iraqi's president instead of as its prime minister, and at one point said he had wanted to keep some US troops "in Iran".

Pakistani commanders meet after US criticism

September 25, 2011 — ISLAMABAD (AP) — Pakistan's army chief convened a special meeting of senior commanders Sunday following U.S. allegations that the military's spy agency helped militants attack American targets in Afghanistan, the army said.

The government also summoned home the country's foreign minister early from a trip to the United States to attend a meeting of all major political parties to discuss the American allegations of support for the militant Haqqani network.

Senior Pakistani officials have lashed out against the allegations, accusing the U.S. of trying to make Pakistan a scapegoat for its troubled war in Afghanistan. The public confrontation has plunged the already troubled U.S.-Pakistan alliance to new lows.

Pakistan's leaders have shown no indication they plan to act on renewed American demands to attack the Haqqani network in its main base in Pakistan, even at the risk of further conflict with Washington, which has given the country billions in aid.

U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said Sunday that the U.S. should consider military action to defend U.S. troops if Pakistan's spy agency continues supporting militants who are attacking American forces.

Unilateral U.S. raids into Pakistan could have explosive implications in a country where anti-American sentiment is widespread. Pakistanis were outraged by the covert U.S. commando raid that killed al-Qaida chief Osama bin Laden in a garrison town not far from Islamabad in May. The U.S. did not tell the Pakistani government about the operation beforehand for fear bin Laden would be tipped off.

Pakistani Interior Minister Rehman Malik warned the U.S. on Sunday against sending troops into Pakistan. "Any aggression will not be tolerated," Malik told reporters in Islamabad. "The nation is standing united behind the armed forces, which is the front line of Pakistan's defense."

The top U.S. military officer, Adm. Mike Mullen, last week accused Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency of supporting Haqqani insurgents in planning and executing a 22-hour assault on the U.S. Embassy in Afghanistan on Sept. 13 as well as a truck bomb that wounded 77 American soldiers days earlier.

Pakistan's army chief, Gen. Ashfaq Pervez Kayani, widely considered the most powerful man in Pakistan, has dismissed the allegations, saying they were baseless and part of a public "blame game" detrimental to peace in Afghanistan.

Pakistan army spokesman Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas said Kayani presided over Sunday's commanders meeting but would not provide detail on the discussions. Later in the day, Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani's office issued a statement saying Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar was summoned back to attend a meeting of all major political parties on "threats emanating from outside the country."

Pakistan claimed to have severed its ties with Afghan militants after the 9/11 attacks and supported America's campaign in Afghanistan, but U.S. officials have long suspected it maintained links. The comments by Mullen, who is chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, were the most serious yet accusing Pakistan of militant ties, although he didn't cite any specific evidence.

Despite the seriousness of the U.S. claims, which appear to accuse Pakistan of state-sponsored terrorism, Mullen and other U.S. officials have said Washington needs to keep engaging with Islamabad, a reflection of its limited options in dealing with the country.

Around half of the U.S. war supplies to Afghanistan are trucked over Pakistani soil, and even as it accuses Islamabad of complicity with Afghan insurgents, Washington knows that it will likely need Islamabad's cooperation in bringing them to the negotiating table. Washington is also concerned about the danger of further instability in the nuclear-armed state.

The head of U.S. Central Command, Gen. James Mattis, called for continued cooperation after a meeting with Kayani in Islamabad. In a statement issued Sunday by the U.S. Embassy, Mattis emphasized "the need for persistent engagement among the militaries of the U.S., Pakistan and other states in the region."

Afghan officials have also accused Pakistan of stoking instability in Afghanistan. The Afghan Defense Ministry accused the Pakistani arm Sunday of firing more than 300 artillery and rockets into the country's northeast during the past five days.

The provinces of Kunar and Nuristan are a haven for hardcore insurgent groups fighting in both Pakistan and Afghanistan and have relatively few Afghan or foreign forces. Pakistan has complained that militants from the area have staged repeated cross-border attacks that have killed Pakistani security forces and civilians.

Pakistan army spokesman Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas said he had asked security officials in the northwest about the Afghan allegations and was waiting for a reply. He said those officials were surprised by the accusations since no activity had been reported in the area.

"I assume this is not correct news," said Abbas, referring to the Afghan allegations.

Source:www.mail.com

EPA declares hay a pollutant in effort to drive small, mid-sized family cattle ranchers out of business

September 09, 2011
by: Ethan A. Huff, staff writer
Source: Natural News

(NaturalNews) The assault against American industry and individual livelihood continues -- and no, it is not coming from Al-Qaeda or other foreign terrorists. A recent report from R-CALF USA, an advocacy group for American cattle producers, says the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has declared harmless cattle hay a "pollutant," which is part of the agency's agenda to squelch family-scale cattle ranches in favor of corporately-owned, mega-sized feedlot operations.

At the recent 12th Annual R-CALF USA Convention in Rapid City, SD, an audience member asked Mike Callicrate, a Kansas cattle feeder, if the EPA had, indeed, declared hay a pollutant. His affirmative answer was startling to many, but not necessarily surprising in light of the US government's apparent agenda to destroy every single producing sector in the nation and to reduce the country to a poverty-stricken, corporately-dominated wasteland.

"Now that EPA has declared hay a pollutant, every farmer and rancher that stores hay, or that leaves a broken hay bale in the field, is potentially violating EPA rules and subject to an EPA enforcement action," responded Callicrate. "How far are we going to let this agency go before we stand up and do something about it?"

Callicrate currently operates what is considered a mid-sized cattle ranch, and was ostracized by some of the nation's largest beef packers back in 1998 for exposing their illegitimate buying practices. Callicrate ended up having to cease operations for two years, but later reopened as a direct marketer of meat to consumers.

"I believe the EPA's enforcement action is a premeditated effort by EPA to partner with the beef packers to finish the job the beef packers couldn't do alone," added Callicrate, referring to EPA's failure to enforce the same rules for large meat packers like JBS-Brazil and Cargill (the two largest beef packing operations in the country).

Between 2008 and 2010, 45 small to mid-sized family cattle operations were forced out of business, according to R-CALF USA. During the same time, the nation's largest feedlots expanded their operations, and now own and feed roughly 25 percent of the nation's cattle.

"EPA is turning a blind eye toward the mega-feedlots that are a real risk for pollution and, instead, is antagonizing small to mid-sized family operations in an effort to help their packer-partners capture the entire live cattle supply chain away from family farm and ranch operations."

Sources for this story include:

http://r-calfusa.com/news_releases/...

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/033537_hay_pollutant.html#ixzz1XZnOZi37

Jobs woes sink Wall Street

Sep 2, 2011
By Ryan Vlastelica | Reuters
Source: Yahoo News


NEW YORK (Reuters) - Stocks tumbled 2 percent on Friday after data showing zero jobs growth in August brought investors face-to-face with the prospect of another recession.

The declines left Wall Street lower for the sixth week out of seven as declining issues far outweighed winners on a light-volume day ahead of the long U.S. Labor Day holiday weekend.

Stocks had rebounded recently on expectations the Federal Reserve would introduce new stimulus to boost the sluggish economy. But the Labor Department's latest report underscores that action by the Fed alone cannot address the economy's deep problems.

"By itself the Fed can't restore confidence or create jobs, so any steps it might take won't be game-changing for the economic growth prospects," said Leo Grohowski, chief investment officer at BNY Mellon Wealth Management in New York, where he oversees about $171 billion in client assets.

Bank shares were again among the day's biggest losers, with Bank of America Corp tumbling 8.3 percent to $7.25, making it the top decliner on the Dow, where all 30 components fell. JPMorgan Chase & Co fell 4.6 percent to $34.63 and the KBW banks index lost 4.5 percent.

A U.S. housing regulator filed a lawsuit against Bank of America Corp, JPMorgan Chase & Co, Goldman Sachs Group Inc and other big lenders over mortgage practices that led to losses at government-owned Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

There was no growth in nonfarm jobs in August as sagging consumer confidence discouraged already skittish businesses from hiring, keeping pressure on the Federal Reserve to provide more monetary stimulus to the economy.

U.S. President Barack Obama, in a speech set for Thursday, will unveil a jobs program he hopes will provide "meaningful" tax relief and help the nation's long-term unemployed, a top aide told Reuters Insider.

"The likelihood of more stimulus has increased dramatically as a result of this and some other recent data, but at this point it's unclear how much that will really help markets," said Derek Hoyt, chief investment officer at KDV Wealth Management in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

The Dow Jones industrial average was down 253.16 points, or 2.20 percent, at 11,240.41. The Standard & Poor's 500 Index was down 30.46 points, or 2.53 percent, at 1,173.96. The Nasdaq Composite Index was down 65.71 points, or 2.58 percent, at 2,480.33.

Friday marked the S&P's biggest drop in two weeks.

Despite the day's sharp decline, stocks were only modestly lower for the week, after a rally in the first three day of trading. For the week, the Dow fell 0.4 percent, the S&P lost 0.2 percent, and the Nasdaq was flat.

Losing stocks outnumbered winners by more than six-to-one on both the New York Stock Exchange and Nasdaq. The CBOE Volatility index, a gauge of investor fear, rose 5.9 percent.

Volume was light ahead of the holiday, with about 6.88 billion shares traded on the New York Stock Exchange, the American Stock Exchange and Nasdaq, below last year's daily average of 8.47 billion.

Netflix Inc weighed on the Nasdaq, falling 8.6 percent to $213.11 after the collapse of its content distribution talks with pay-TV operator Starz Entertainment.

Energy shares dropped as U.S. crude futures fell 2.5 percent on concerns economic weakness could curb fuel demand. Chevron Corp dipped 2.1 percent to $96.41, while the PHLX Oil service sector index declined 3.3 percent.

As investors sought safer assets, gold prices climbed 3 percent. Newmont Mining was the S&P's top gainer, rising 3.2 percent to $64.47.



I









'



































*

Job growth stalls, fuels recession fears

Sep 2, 2011
By Lucia Mutikani | Reuters
Source: Yahoo News

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. employment growth ground to a halt in August, reviving recession fears and piling pressure on both President Barack Obama and the Federal Reserve to provide more stimulus to aid the frail economy.

For the first time in nearly a year the economy failed to create new jobs on a net basis according to the Labor Department's monthly nonfarm payrolls survey on Friday.

Economists had expected nonfarm employment to rise 75,000 last month but they cautioned against viewing the data as a surefire sign of recession.

A worsening debt crisis in Europe and an acrimonious political fight over the U.S. government budget and debt, which led Standard & Poor's to strip the country of its AAA credit rating, ignited a massive stock market sell-off last month and sent business and consumer confidence tumbling.

"The economy is struggling against stiff headwinds, which appear to have intensified in recent months," said Millan Mulraine, senior macro strategist at TD Securities in New York. "While it has clearly not fallen off the cliff, there is little to suggest it is anywhere close to regaining its momentum."

Investors fled riskier assets on the news, sending stocks tumbling, pushing up the price of gold, and lowering U.S. Treasury bond yields.

Employment was dampened by 45,000 striking workers at Verizon Communications. Those workers have since returned to work and will be counted as on the payroll in September.

But even taking that into account the report was largely bleak. The unemployment rate, however, held at 9.1 percent as a survey of households found both job growth and, for the first time in a year, an expanding labor force.

With the jobless rate stuck above 9.0 percent and confidence collapsing, President Barack Obama faces pressure to come up with ways to spur job creation. The health of the labor market could determine whether he wins re-election next year.

5 WikiLeaks Revelations Exposing the Rapidly Growing Corporatism Dominating American Diplomacy Abroad

June 21, 2011
By Rania Khalek
Source: Alternet

One of WikiLeaks' greatest achievements has been to expose the exorbitant amount of influence that multinational corporations have over Washington's diplomacy.

One of the most significant scourges paralyzing our democracy is the merger of corporate power with elected and appointed government officials at the highest levels of office. Influence has a steep price-tag in American politics where politicians are bought and paid for with ever increasing campaign contributions from big business, essentially drowning out any and all voices advocating on behalf of the public interest.

Millions of dollars in campaign funding flooding Washington's halls of power combined with tens of thousands of high-paid corporate lobbyists and a never-ending revolving door that allows corporate executives to shuffle between the public and private sectors has blurred the line between government agencies and private corporations.

This corporate dominance over government affairs helps to explain why we are plagued by a health-care system that lines the pockets of industry executives to the detriment of the sick; a war industry that causes insurmountable death and destruction to enrich weapons-makers and defense contractors; and a financial sector that violates the working class and poor to dole out billions of dollars in bonuses to Wall Street CEO's.

The implications of this rapidly growing corporatism reach far beyond our borders and into the realm of American diplomacy, as in one case where efforts by US diplomats forced the minimum wage for beleaguered Haitian workers to remain below sweatshop levels.

In this context of corporate government corruption, one of WikiLeaks' greatest achievements has been to expose the exorbitant amount of influence that multinational corporations have over Washington's diplomacy. Many of the WikiLeaks US embassy cables reveal the naked intervention by our ambassadorial staff in the business of foreign countries on behalf of US corporations. From mining companies in Peru to pharmaceutical companies in Ecuador, one WikiLeaks embassy cable after the next illuminates a pattern of US diplomats shilling for corporate interests abroad in the most underhanded and sleazy ways imaginable.

While the merger of corporate and government power isn't exactly breaking news, it is one of the most critical yet under-reported issues of our time. And WikiLeaks has given us an inside look at the inner-workings of this corporate-government collusion, often operating at the highest levels of power. It is crystal clear that it's standard operating procedure for US government officials to moonlight as corporate stooges. Thanks to WikiLeaks, here are five instances that display the lengths to which Washington is willing to go to protect and promote US corporations around the world.

1. US officials work as salespeople for Boeing. The merger of state and corporate power is striking in a slew of cables detailing US State Department officials acting as marketing agents on behalf of one lucky corporation. Earlier this year the New York Times revealed details about how US diplomats have actively promoted the sale of commercial jets built by the US company Boeing.

Hundreds of cables from WikiLeaks show that Boeing had a sales force of US diplomats that went up to the highest levels of government, even going as far as sabotaging sales for Boeing's European rival Airbus. Enticing deals for the jetliners were offered to heads of state and airline executives in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Jordan, Turkey and other countries. The WikiLeaks documents also suggest that demands for bribes, or at least payment to suspicious intermediaries, still take place.

In a deal that was valued at about $3.4 billion, the US Embassy in Istanbul pushed for the sale of Boeing jetliners to Turkish Airlines (THY), according to a cable from January 2010. In return, the president of Turkey asked the Obama administration to let a Turkish astronaut sit in on a NASA space flight.

The most puzzling and ironic tidbit in the cable is the US ambassador's bewilderment at the "conflation of USG-GOT interactions and what is ostensibly a commercial sale between private firms," which he complains is "an unwelcome, but unsurprising degree of political influence in this transaction." The accusation that inappropriate political influence exists among the Turkish government and a private airline is laughable considering that the US State Department is the one pitching the sale on behalf of a private firm.

The cable goes on to say, “We probably cannot put a Turkish astronaut in orbit, but there are programs we could undertake to strengthen Turkey’s capacity in this area that would meet our own goals for improved aviation safety. In any case, we must show some response to the minister’s vague request if we want to maximize chances for the sale.”

In November of last year, Saudi Arabia announced a deal with Boeing to buy more than $3.3 billion worth of airliners, a deal that WikiLeaks reveals was preceded by years of intense lobbying by American officials of the highest order.

In late 2006, then President George W. Bush wrote a personal letter he had hand-delivered to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, practically begging the king to buy as many as 43 Boeing jets to modernize Saudi Arabian Airlines and 13 jets for the Saudi royal fleet.

King Abdullah responded by asking the US government and President Bush to trick out his private airplane with the same high-tech equipment used on Air Force One. He hinted that if the US fulfilled his request, he would make a large purchase of Boeing planes for the royal family's fleet and Saudi Arabian Airlines. And lo and behold, King Abdullah got his airplane upgrade, and Boeing made billions.

A cable from early 2008 details a plan that successfully sabotaged an Airbus sale. In December 2007, the Bahrain-owned airline Gulf Air announced plans to buy a new fleet of Airbus planes. Boeing officials alerted the State Department, which immediately intervened urging them to buy from Boeing instead. Following months of intense lobbying by the ambassador, the crown prince and king of Bahrain agreed to kill the Airbus purchase. They ordered Gulf Air to reopen negotiations with Boeing, ultimately winning the deal valued at $6 billion, which was signed while President Bush was visiting Bahrain.

2. US diplomats by day — Monsanto henchmen by night. Boeing isn't the only multi-billion-dollar corporation US diplomats have been shilling for. In a cable from late 2007, former ambassador to France, Craig Stapleton, advised Washington to launch a military-style trade war against any European Union country that opposed genetically modified (GM) crops.

"Country team Paris recommends that we calibrate a target retaliation list that causes some pain across the EU since this is a collective responsibility, but that also focuses in part on the worst culprits. The list should be measured rather than vicious and must be sustainable over the long term, since we should not expect an early victory," he wrote.

Stapleton was reacting to efforts by France to ban a Monsanto GM corn variety. He specifically asked Washington to punish the EU countries that did not support the use of GM crops.

"Moving to retaliation will make clear that the current path has real costs to EU interests and could help strengthen European pro-biotech voices."

An embassy cable from 2009 written by the ambassador to Spain directly cites meetings with Monsanto executives, showing that US diplomats were taking orders directly from GM companies.

Monsanto's director for biotechnology for Spain and Portugal briefed embassy officials about the region, complaining that "Spain is increasingly becoming a target of anti-biotechnology forces within Europe. If Spain falls, the rest of Europe will follow."

In a random insult thrown into the cable, the ambassador says, "Within the agriculture sector, only left-wing farmers' unions have negative opinions of GMOs."

The cable ends with a dramatic call for intervention by the US government on behalf of Monsanto: "ACTION REQUESTED: In response to recent urgent requests by [Spanish rural affairs ministry] State Secretary Josep Puxeu and Monsanto, post requests renewed US government support of Spain's science-based agricultural biotechnology position through high-level US government intervention."

3. Pharmaceuticals + US diplomats = best friends forever. In October 2009, Ecuador's President Rafael Correa issued a decree to improve access to medicines and support public health programs through a protocol that would reduce drug costs. Cables from US embassy personnel in Ecuador to the U.S. Department of State show the United States, multinational pharmaceutical companies, and three ministers within the government shared information and worked to undermine Ecuador's emerging policy.

In a cable dated October 13, 2009, before the decree was issued, the US ambassador was troubled by Correa's plans because it would prioritize local production and eliminate pharmaceutical patents. In other words, Ecuador was about to makes changes that would negatively impact the profits of US pharmaceutical companies.

Immediately following word of Correa's plans, the US embassy staff met with local representatives of US pharmaceutical companies Pfizer, Merck, Sharp and Dohme, Scering-Plough, and Wyeth to share strategies that would prevent or limit Ecuador's licensing changes.

US concerns intensified as revealed by a cable written days later, which refers to meetings with "well-placed contacts" with "potentially sympathetic ministries." In what sounds like attempted blackmail, Minister of Health Caroline Chang -- one of the "well-placed contacts" described as an ally — assured multinational pharmaceuticals that she was looking into financial irregularities and business dealings of some of the local producers with the intent of gaining some leverage.

Despite efforts to undermine Ecuador’s access protocol, Ecuador issued its first compulsory license in April 2010, enabling generic imports of the HIV/AIDS drug ritonavir.

4. Washington 'hearts' abusive mining companies in Peru. From Bolivia to Venezuela to Peru, American diplomats are obsessed with securing the profits of multinational mining corporations at the cost of indigenous rights and the environment. At least that is the impression given by WikiLeaks cables that detail the eruption of anti-mining protests near the Ecuador border against the mining firm Minera Majaz.

In August 2005, a group of protesters in northern Peru marched to the site of a copper mine operated by the firm Minera Majaz, a subsidiary of the British mining company Monterrico Metals. Of the hundreds of people who converged at the mine site from the surrounding communities, 28 were brutally tortured and three were shot, one of whom bled to death.

But you wouldn't know this from the WikiLeaks US embassy cables that describe the protests. The tone is one of sympathy for the mining company, while depicting the protesters as dark and sinister "militant anti-mining protesters" maliciously sabotaging Majaz.

In a cable following the protests, J. Curtis Struble, the former US ambassador to Peru, toes the Majaz line that communists and unions were to blame for sowing the seeds of rebellion, an accusation that reeks of Washington's typical red-baiting of anything opposed to abusive corporate practices in the developing world.

"The anti-mining forces in action in Majaz represent a strange group of bedfellows indeed -- the Catholic church, violent radical leftists, NGOs, ronderos and perhaps narcotraffickers. Working behind the scene are a combination of the Peruvian Communist Party/Patria Roja, national teachers, union SUTEP and perhaps opium poppy traffickers," says Struble.

Struble's glowing profile of the mining company reads: "Majaz has spent $20 million exploring for copper for over a year, building roads and providing services and employment to area residents. Militants still deny access to most of the pipeline route."

Not once does Struble acknowledge the long history of devastation that mining companies have caused throughout the region, such as pollution of the local water supply and land, the use of brutal paramilitaries in assassinating indigenous leaders who challenge them, or the displacement caused by theft of indigenous lands.

Just days after the blatant human rights violations committed against the protesters, another cable reveals that the US and Canadian ambassadors hosted a meeting with representatives from several international mining companies in Peru. Struble expresses his pan to reinforce security in the mines, to avoid the closing of highways by demonstrators which would disrupt commerce, and to encourage the Peruvian government to prosecute the protesters.

5. Diplomats as corporate spies. A more recent US embassy cable dated March 17, 2008, reveals that US diplomats spied on indigenous activists and their supporters who were organizing anti-summit protests against the European Union-Latin American Heads of State summit that was scheduled in Lima that year.

US ambassador to Peru James Nealon identified specific indigenous activists and tracked the involvement of Bolivian President Evo Morales, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, Bolivia Ambassador Pablo Solon, prominent Quechua activist Miguel Palacin Quispe and other influential community leaders.

What do all these people have in common? Their unwavering support for indigenous rights and the environment along with their successful organizing tactics and popularity among indigenous populations, which has Washington's corporate masters shaking in their boots.

Nealon describes the anti-summit groups as "a variety of radical Peruvian social movements and European anti-globalization NGOs," citing specific peasant and indigenous groups along with the names of prominent organizers who the US embassy was keeping tabs on. The cable is riddled with insulting references to Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and Bolivia's Evo Morales, particularly Morales and his supporters. One Bolivian social leader is described as a "pro-Morales ideologue" and another as a "top Evo Morales adviser and anti-free trade and globalization guru."

In almost all of the Peru cables, the US government interprets the enemies of corporate power as being enemies of the United States. As a result, leftist activists and community organizers, particularly those who threaten corporate profits, are regularly targeted. Unions, environmentalists and indigenous communities that challenge multinationals are consistently regarded with disdain and viewed as hostile villains. The US government's propensity at conflating threats to corporate interests as threats to US interests should alarm anyone who values democracy.

What don't we know about?

Besides getting a good laugh at watching pathetically corrupt diplomats whore themselves out to corporate executives, these cables give us a rare glimpse at American diplomatic subservience to corporate behemoths regardless of the costs to people and the environment.

It appears that the collusion between corporate executives and US diplomats is taking place at an ever accelerating rate around the globe, yet more and more, these shady endeavors are shrouded in secrecy. Transparency and accountability have taken such a devastating blow over the past decade, that whistleblowers and media outlets such as WikiLeaks are the only mechanisms left still capable of shedding light on the consequences of the unbridled corporate influence infecting our government.

With tens of thousands of WikiLeaks embassy cables still waiting to be published, there’s sure to be hundreds if not thousands of episodes involving US corporate and government collusion that have yet to be discovered.


Rania Khalek is a progressive activist. Check out her blog Missing Pieces or follow her on Twitter @Rania_ak. You can contact her at raniakhalek@gmail.com.

Ahmadinejad: Israel, U.S. will 'collapse'

04-06-2011

Al Qassam website

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Friday predicted the disappearance of Israel and the United States in the near future, saying he was certain the nations would soon collapse.

"I am certain that the region will soon witness the collapse of Israel and the U.S.," Ahmadinejad said in a speech at the shrine of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the late supreme leader of the 1979 Islamic revolution.

Ahmadinejad accused Israel of being the main factor in regional and global insecurity and blamed the administration of U.S. President Barack Obama for supporting the Jewish state.

The Iranian president said, in 2005, that Israel should be eliminated from the Middle East map and transferred to Europe or North America.

In 2006, Ahmadinejad held a Holocaust conference, he questioned that the killing of 6 million Jews in Europe during World War II had ever happened.

Does America Want Peace in Afghanistan?

Rabi ul Sani 13, 1431 A.H, Tuesday March 30, 2010

In the name of Allah, the Merciful, the Compassionate

This is a main question every one asks. Does America want peace in Afghanistan? However, the following data can help us reach a rationale conclusion: At the beginning of 2009, American had 30,000 troops in Afghanistan which they increased to 68,000 soldiers until the end of the year. This shows 110 percent boost of military man power. In December 2009, US president Obama announced 30,000 more troops for Afghanistan, showing further 30% increase.

In January this year in London Conference on Afghanistan, US supported Hamid Karzai program of reintegration and reconciliation with Taliban i.e. the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. Two weeks later, on 13 February, Pentagon launched a massive military operations against Marjah township in Nad Ali district, Helmand province, violating their own commitment to work for peace in the country. Now they are talking of taking the offensive to Kandahar.

So far, America has built 700 bases in the country, the major of them being in Kandahar and Bagram. They allocate hundreds of millions of dollars each year for construction of more bases in Afghanistan. In view of these facts, no one can say America wants peace in Afghanistan. They have hidden and long-term colonialist objectives, not only in Afghanistan but in the whole region.

By using Afghanistan as outpost, Washington wants to follows its policy of expansionism, regime change and disintegration in the neighboring countries. No doubt, America has been flaring up racial discord and religious differences among the people in Afghanistan and the neighboring countries. CIA agents and black water operatives have been given task to destabilize the region as per the long-term American strategy. Those who express common cause with America, should know that Washington would never become their strategic friend. Rather it is a tactical ally which wants to use them against their own people for its colonialist objectives and then discard them as it has done this in the past.

In Afghanistan, the White House rulers and the Pentagon generals do not want peace but only want to weaken the momentum of the war. They never intend to end the war. That is why on the one hand, Robert Gates, says Taliban leadership is irreconcilable or now it is not the right time to talk with Taliban but on the other hand, they offer cash, jobs and retirement bonuses for Taliban's ranks and files. The reason is that Pentagon is not interested in ending the war but they only want to reduce the scope of attacks on their soldiers.

The Afghan Mujahideen are aware of this war stratagem of the enemy. They have shown that Americans can't deceive them by phony overtures of peace. If America really wants peace in Afghanistan, they should draw up a national strategy of reconciliation; stop blind bombardment and night raids; release innocent prisoners and remove the blacks list, send black water and CIA agents back home from Afghanistan and close down all secret prisons in American military bases in Afghanistan which are run by intelligence teams of the Special Force.

There, innocent prisoners are tortured, killed by the Special Force and drowned in Helmand River and other rivers in Afghanistan during the night, with their hands being tied up, without any legal verdict of court. The Americans are committing gross violation of human rights in Afghanistan. However, no one, including the human rights advocacy entities all over the world, raise their fingers because all these are done under the name of promoting democracy and fighting terrorism. The world still has to know that the war started under the name of terrorism is, in fact, an illegitimate war of neo-colonialism, being waged for subjugation of the Afghans and all free people.

We call on all those with wake and free conscience to raise their voice against the American brutalities and violation of humane values in Afghanistan. All should know that Americans kill children, women and old men with impunity and cross all limits in their brutalities.

The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan


Theunjustmedia.com

Food Stamp Usage Soars Among Working Families

HONOLULU — Lillie Gonzales does whatever it takes to provide for three ravenous sons who live under her roof. She grows her own vegetables at home on Kauai, runs her own small business and like a record 42 million other Americans, she relies on food stamps.

Gonzales and her husband consistently qualify for food stamps now that Hawaii and other states are quietly expanding eligibility and offering the benefit to more working, moderate income families.

Data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture reviewed by The Associated Press shows that 30 states have adopted rules making it easier to qualify for food stamps since 2007. In all, 38 states have loosened eligibility standards.

Hawaii has gone farther than most, allowing a family like Gonzales' to earn up to $59,328 and still get food stamps.

Prior to an Oct. 1 increase, the income eligibility limit for a Hawaii family of five was $38,568 a year.

"If I didn't have food stamps, I would be buying white rice and Spam every day," said Gonzales, whose Island Angels business makes Hawaiian-style fabric angel ornaments, quilts, aprons and purses.

Eligibility for food stamps varies from state to state, with the 11 most generous states allowing families to apply if their gross income is less than double the federal poverty line of $22,050 for a family of four on the U.S. mainland. The threshold is higher in Alaska and Hawaii.

With more than 1 in 8 Americans now on food stamps, participation in the program has jumped about 70 percent from 26 million in May 2007, while the nation's unemployment rate rose from 4.3 percent to 9.2 percent through September of this year.

"We've seen a huge increase in participation due to the economic downturn," said Jean Daniel, a spokeswoman for the USDA's Food and Nutrition Service. "That's the way this program was designed."

In addition to helping alleviate economic pressures, many states embrace the popularity of food stamps because their cost – $50 billion last year – is paid entirely by the federal government. States are only responsible for paying half of their programs' administrative costs.

Food stamps have been blasted by some Republicans in this midterm election season as just another federal entitlement program, with former House Speaker Newt Gingrich framing the vote as a choice between "the party of food stamps" and Republican policies that create jobs.

Participants in the food stamp program, technically called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, receive a per person average of $133 per month to buy staples including milk, bread and vegetables.

Shortly after Hawaii announced it was raising its eligibility limits starting this month, three carloads of 10 seniors drove to the Kauai Independent Food Bank to ask if they qualified. Nine of them did, said Judy Lenthall, executive director for the food bank, which helps people apply for food stamps.

"We saw an immediate and overwhelmingly wonderful response," Lenthall said. "It surprised us how fast it's spreading."

States that have relaxed food stamp eligibility did so by moving to a system where applicants could qualify based on their income, and their other assets such as real estate, vehicles and savings accounts could be ignored.

Basing food stamps on income alone allows the newly unemployed and the elderly to seek government food aid without having to first sell their property or exhaust every dollar they've earned, said Sue McGinn, director of the food stamp program in Colorado, which will expand eligibility beginning in March.

"They won't have to wipe out their savings to apply for benefits," McGinn said.

Many of these states also raised income limits, although applicants still have to show they're essentially living at the poverty line after accounting for allowable deductions, including elder medical expenses and child support.

"It helps moderate and low-income people who are struggling," said Stacy Dean of the Washington-based Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. "They're doing everything we want: they're working, paying all their bills, taking care of their kids, and they still don't have enough money at the end of the month to put food on the table."

Since 2000, the only states that haven't enacted the lower food stamp eligibility requirements are Alaska, Arkansas, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia and Wyoming.

In Hawaii, where everything from milk to gasoline is typically the highest in the nation, the changes are welcomed by Gonzales and others.

"As long as my kids have good food, that's all I care about," Gonzales said. "It makes a tremendous difference."

Defense, Facebook One and the Same

By Bob Brewin 04/29/10 01:51 pm ET

While the average Facebook employee probably does not meet Defense Department attire or haircut standards, Defense Deputy Secretary William J. Lynn III told a group of Facebookers at the company's headquarters in Palo Alto, Calif., on Wednesday that he viewed the two cultures as congruent.

In a sign that social media has been embraced by an at-first-reluctant Defense Department, Lynn told the employees, "You're very much a part of our world." He then added, "We're also very much a part of your world. We use social media just as other organizations do. It's a critical element for us."

Lynn is visiting Silicon Valley companies on his road trip, and he told Facebook workers that Defense needs a few good force-multiplier ideas from commercial pioneers.

Who would have thunk that a top Defense official would view Facebook and its technology as a force multiplier?

Blackmail: How The Controlling Elite Owns Politicians

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Monday, April 26, 2010

Homosexual rumors surrounding Senator Lindsey Graham underscore the core reason why the vast majority of Congress members habitually support legislation that is anathema to the interests of the people they are supposed to represent, because politicians rarely achieve positions of influence without being beholden to one form of blackmail or another.

ALIPAC’s William Gheen provoked national headlines last week during a speech in front of thousands of Tea Party supporters when he publicly requested that Graham come out of the closet and admit that he is gay.

“William Gheen called on Senator Lindsey Graham to be honest with American voters about his homosexual lifestyle to assure that Graham’s desire to keep it a secret could no longer be potentially used by political insiders to manipulate Graham’s behavior,” reports Before It’s News. “There are many precedents in American politics where affairs, corruption, addictions, and other situations that politicians wanted concealed were used to manipulate them with unfair advantage.”

“When you have a U.S. Senator from such a conservative state like South Carolina working hand in hand with Obama and New York liberals like Senator Chuck Schumer to pass an Amnesty bill for illegal aliens, there is something very wrong,” said Gheen. “After today’s national broadcasts, the American public will know what the DC insiders know and that was my goal.”

Gheen’s speech has since gone viral on You Tube and prompted a national debate about Graham’s sexuality and if it is being used to blackmail him into pushing the big government agenda.

The open secret that Graham is an alleged homosexual explains why he constantly supports legislation and policies that are almost universally abhorred by his South Carolina constituency – carbon taxes and the phony global warming agenda, pro-amnesty immigration reform, as well as his hostility towards the Tea Party movement.

Graham has been labeled a “Democrat in drag,” a “traitor” and a “disgrace” by conservatives for his policies and was confronted on his global warming advocacy during a town hall meeting in October last year.

This strikes at the very root of why government is broken – politicians may pay lip service to the will of the people to get elected but once in office they click their heels and march to the tune of the controlling elite. That’s because almost every one of them has some dark secret that they can be blackmailed over if they fail to follow the Washington consensus.

This is precisely what we’ve witnessed with President Obama. Despite his promises of hope and a change from the direction of the Bush administration, Obama has followed the same agenda with aggressive uniformity – beefing the war in Afghanistan while expanding it into Pakistan, renewing the Patriot Act, extending warrantless wiretaps, and growing the size of the federal government to unthinkable levels while preparing massive tax hikes.

Obama’s dubious origins, not only the “birther” controversy but the admitted fact that his real name is Barry Soetoro, have been manipulated by the controlling elite to perfection. While never blown wide open, the scandal is kept suitably bubbling under the surface as a threat that if Obama ever does try to be a real leader, his legacy will be completely destroyed.



A more sinister aspect of the same process of blackmail being exercised against Obama is the fact that he is constantly reminded that he is a target for assassination. This was in the news again today with the story of a man who was arrested carrying a gun at a North Carolina airport as President Obama was leaving on board Air Force One.

As we reported earlier this year, throughout the presidential campaign, the public was constantly told that Obama was an assassination target and that his safety was always in jeopardy, a claim that was given credibility after numerous odd secret service security lapses at public events where Obama really was put in danger, whether intentionally or otherwise.

The “gatecrashers” story also served to increase awareness about Obama being vulnerable to attack by people who can seamlessly slip through security and get face to face with the President relatively easily.

It is clear that the neo-cons are holding Obama hostage and issuing a thinly veiled threat by repeating the mantra that the only way to save his political career and his presidency is to attack Iran. There is undoubtedly a mountain of dirt being held back regarding Obama’s past that is being used to blackmail the President into following the new world order agenda – the same as with any President before him.

Becoming President of the United States and indeed being elected top any prominent political office isn’t an opportunity to change things for the better, it’s a deal that politicians make to follow the agenda or if they don’t, to have every intricacy of their private lives exposed to the attack dog media.

Being outed as a homosexual, an adulterer, or having any other personal secret exposed for the endless titillation of the press is the lightest possible punishment a politician can face for stepping out of line. If they don’t have sufficient dirt on them that can be brought out to discredit their name, then all together more unpleasant methods are used.

Blackmail is the primary reason why those in Washington consistently ignore their electorate and push for policies that enjoy little or no support from the majority of Americans.

This is why Congress has an approval rating of a paltry 10 per cent. Nine in ten Americans think Congress is doing a terrible job. This disconnect between politicians and the people isn’t merely due to inherent corruption, it’s primarily because Congress members are completely compromised before they even take office. In most cases, politicians are destroyed by the media before they can even get elected if they don’t have dirt on them that can later be used for blackmail.

Indeed, this is why the cult of personality behind Obama was allowed to be built up to sweep him into office. This is why Wall Street poured billions of dollars into Obama’s campaign fund – because they knew he was compromised, could be easily blackmailed, and would therefore dutifully acquiesce to the orders of the banking elite that he obediently serves.

SABROSKY INTERVIEW TIES ISRAEL TO 9/11

Veterans Today

March 19, 2010

DR ALAN SABROSKY, FORMER DIRECTOR OF STUDIES AT THE US ARMY WAR COLLEGE

“ISRAEL DID IT”

Meet Dr. Alan Sabrosky, a brave man, a USMC Vietnam vet, an American of Jewish ancestry and someone devoted to the security of the United States at any cost. Ask any Jew what it takes to stand up against the most powerful and ruthless group in the world, the Israeli lobby inside the United States.

Sabrosky has been calling for a new 9/11 investigation for some time. What makes him unique is that we have a Jew who can hardly be called “self-hating” or “anti-Semitic” or against Israel. He is consistent in everything he says. His point is that you are an American or you are an Israeli but you can’t be both, especially now with Zionism turning Israeli foreign policy into a “runaway train.” 9/11, as Sabrosky sees it was the watershed in a relationship between America and Israel that has gone from bad to unsurviveable, especially for America. He contents that AIPAC exercises near total control over the electoral process in America through the ability to outspend any other group and destroy anyone who stands against them.

The unwillingness of the US to stand with the international community on humanitarian and war crime issues where Israel is found in continual violation is, to Sabrosky, a critial issue. In discussion the US and her lack of support for the Goldstone Report, Sabrosky says:

US criticism of the HRC resolution should be disregarded, as Washington only parrots Israel’s wishes here…

… it might have been better to have included Goldstone’s condemnation of Hamas offenses as well, but it is legitimate as it stands for five reasons: (1) Israel committed the great majority of the violations; (2) Israel had an overwhelming preponderance of military power; (3) Palestinians suffered almost all of the death and destruction; (4) Israel has a long, sordid history of ignoring UN commissions and resolutions, and of attacking UN facilities and killing UN staff, as when the clearly marked UNRWA facility in Gaza was bombed; and (5) the HRC focus is properly on the actions of the oppressor (Israel) and not on those of the oppressed (the Palestinians).

Another is that it did not accord Israel the right of self-defense. But Israel’s claim to self-defense in its savaging of Gaza is specious, because Israel — like all occupiers and oppressors — has no inherent right of self-defense against its victims. Who, for instance, would have accepted Nazi Germany’s assertion that its brutal reprisals against the Czechs for their assassination of a Nazi commander named Reinhard Heydrich was an exercise in self-defense? No one, and no one should accept Israel’s claim, either.

A third is that holding Israel accountable for its actions will somehow endanger the Middle East peace process. But there is no peace process, simply meaningless discussions to the dead end (for Palestinians and the rest of the region) of Israeli hegemony, and under Netanyahu or any electable government in Israel, there is not and cannot be one. There will be an enforced peace imposed from outside of the Middle East, over the objections and obstruction of Israel, or there will be none at all.

ZIONISM AND ISRAELI NATIONALISM

This is how Sabrosky describes the nature of Jewish nationalism as described within the term we call “Zionism”:

The differences between Jewish nationalism (Zionism) and that of other countries and cultures here I think are fourfold:

1. Zionism is a real witches’ brew of xenophobia, racism, ultra-nationalism and militarism that places it way outside of a “mere” nationalist context — for example, when I was in Ireland (both parts) I saw no indication whatsoever that the Provisional Irish Republican Army or anyone else pressing for a united Ireland had a shred of design on shoving Protestants into camps or out of the country, although there may well have been a handful who thought that way — and goes far beyond the misery for others professed by the Nazis;

2. Zionism undermines civic loyalty among its adherents in other countries in a way that other nationalist movements (and even ultra-nationalist movements like Nazism) did not — e.g. a large majority of American Jews, including those who are not openly dual citizens, espouse a form of political bigamy called “dual loyalty” (to Israel and the US) that is every bit as dishonest as marital bigamy, attempts to finesse the precedence they give to Israel over the US (lots of Rahm Emanuels out there who served in the Israeli army but NOT in the US armed forces), and has absolutely no parallel in the sense of national or cultural identity espoused by any other definable ethnic or racial group in America — even the Nazi Bund in the US disappeared once Germany and the US went to war, with almost all of its members volunteering for the US armed forces;

3. The “enemy” of normal nationalist movements is the occupying power and perhaps its allies, and once independence is achieved, normal relations with the occupying power are truly the norm, but for Zionism almost everyone out there is an actual or potential enemy, differing only in proximity and placement on its very long list of enemies (which is now America’s target list); and

4. Almost all nationalist movements (including the irredentist and secessionist variants) intend to create an independent state from a population in place or to reunite a separated people (like the Sudeten Germans in the 1930s) — it is very rare for it to include the wholesale displacement of another indigenous population, which is far more common of successful colonialist movements as in the US — and perhaps a reason why most Americans wouldn’t care too much about what the Israelis are doing to the Palestinians even if they DID know about it, is because that is no different than what Europeans in North America did to the Indians/Native Americans here in a longer and more low-tech fashion.

Sabrosky is one of the few Americans who sees the nuclear threat of Israel as it is, blackmailing the United States, not only in how it could be used to draw America into an unwanted war, but how it could actually be used at some point to attack the United States itself. Only recently, Israel put Western Europe on notice that it would be attacked if its actions threatened Israel, attacked by nuclear weaons from Israel without warning. Martin van Creveld’s threat combined with Sabrosky’s analysis of Israeli intentions and culpability for 9/11 brings to mind something Sabrosky had once written.

He has always seen Moshe Dyan as a hero. Dyan saw Israel’s military role as that of a “junk yard dog,” ready to bite without warning, attack anything and anyone. Sabrosky notes that, eventually such an animal is always put down or as he puts it, ”the preferred response of everyone else is to kill that mad dog before it can decide to go berserk and bite.”

9/11

Sabrosky makes a case, not just for a coverup of 9/11 but goes much further. He points out as do so many that the physics of the attack are unworkable. He, however, is one of the few to point to a conclusion many find obvious but few have the nerve to admit, that it would have been impossible to stage 9/11 without the full resources of both the CIA and Mossad and that 9/11 served the interests of both agencies quite well.

There was nothing they could have wished for more.

Sabrosky also makes a point involving media coverage of 9/11:

Finally, we need to take a hard look at why the mainstream media (MSM) have paid more attention to Sarah Palin’s wardrobe than they have to dissecting blatant falsehoods, discrepancies and inconsistencies in the US Government’s treatment of 9/11 and its aftermath.

ZIONISM AND TREASON

The inescapable point isnt the 60,000 Americans killed or wounded in a war started out of treason or the world it threatens to destroy. Americans have been looking away from these glaring realities the way they looked away from Vietnam. Sabrosky leaves Israel and her American Jewish supporters who he sees as traitors with a warning:

If these Americans and those like them ever fully understand just how much of their suffering — and the suffering we have inflicted on others — is properly laid on the doorsteps of Israel and its advocates in America, they will sweep aside those in politics, the press and the pulpits alike whose lies and disloyalty brought this about and concealed it from them. They may well leave Israel looking like Carthage after the Romans finished with it. It will be Israel’s own great fault.

Do we take Sabrosky seriously because he is a Marine or a Jew? Do we wonder why the things he says reach so few? Is American in a shooting war where our biggest enemy sits behind us, killing us off, robbing us blind and whispering gently in our ears how much they love us?

It would seem so.