2013/12/15
response to Thomas L. Knapp
antiwar/Glaser: Discussing Israeli ‘Apartheid’
(full text)
(Short version = paragraph after intermezzo near end of article...)
Thomas L. Knapp @ December 10th, 2013 at 4:04 am ...
jumped (UN-talk, seized?) upon this statement:
«all of Palestine was conquered in 1967»
with part of his retort being:
«the 90% of Palestine called "Jordan"»
which prompted my 1st response @ December 10th, 2013 at 12:07 pm.
Next from Thomas @ December 11th, 2013 at 12:24 pm included:
«As of 2013, 73% of Israel's Jewish population was born in PALESTINE, idiot.» [note term of abuse, by no means a oncer]
which, after an intermediate exchange prompted my:
«That would mean 65.7% I/Js were born in Jordan? – Please explain.»
which Thomas @ December 11th, 2013 at 12:24 pm, after another intermediate exchange *finally* came up with:
«Israel is in Palestine. Jordan is in Palestine. It does not follow from that that Israel is in Jordan, ...»
Note: Thomas has shifted from "PALESTINE" to "Israel," with neither leave nor explanation. This might 'normally' be ½-acceptable – but not in an induced pettifogging setting. [update:] Note also, that it's gone from «90% of Palestine called "Jordan"» to «Jordan is in Palestine.»
Now - but only now, do I admit that my "90% of 73% = 65.7%" was a gambit (which could be true or not = ambivalent, depending on input assumptions, recalling GIGO). Not because Thomas has *once again* deployed antagonistic language:
«I still see that you have a math and/or logic deficiency going,»
but because the bulls**t approaches terminal silliness, namely in the face of the 90% and 73% *provocations* (deliberate distractions? red herrings? non-sequiturs? simply irrelevant? what? why?)
Intermezzo: IMHO, Palestine was not 'conquered' so much, as 'ethnically cleansed,' by aggressive, alien Z-invaders, using *genocidal* methods. Just because the (remnant) Palestinian population is growing is *no* argument against (attempted) genocide, only that the rate of killing is not keeping up with the 'natural increase.' The main ethnic cleansing occurred in two waves, namely 1st = ~1948, ~700,000 'expelled' = fled from active terrorism (Plan Dalet; all such outrages before (King David Hotel bombing, say), during (Deir Yassin massacre, all etc.), and after ('08/9 Gaza massacre, say), down to the 'current moment' (Bedouin 'resettlement,' say)); 2nd wave = 1967, ~300,000 expelled, ~½ of them for the 2nd time.
Recall Herzl, 1897+: "Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the" [natives] (motive = coveting + illegal from the beginning)
Jabotinsky, ~1923: «only Jewish armed force would ensure the Jewish state.» (premeditation, modus operandi)
Meir raised ~$50mio in the US for arms. (means)
The Irgun&ilk used them.
The Zs' main m.o. is murder for soil = ethnic cleansing by aggressive, *genocidal* methods.
IMHO, the Zs have *zero* claim on any of Palestine, outside of the ~6% they managed to wangle from the natives by 1948; refer: "a fair exchange is no robbery."
The excess over the 'legal 6%,' gained exclusively via armed force (in contravention of UNSC242; inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war, withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied); prior 'legal guidelines' = Nuremberg ~1946, prior 'moral guidelines' = 'mosaic,' "Thou shalt not kill (lie, cheat or steal)" -
that excess should revest and/or the Zs fully, acceptably recompense and in all cases pay appropriate reparations (all in UNGA194) - but let me guess: Fat chance.
End intermezzo.
Thomas, I request that you both a) substantiate, and b) justify your 90% claim (i.e. accuracy and *relevance*, say, recalling that Transjordan was 'split off' from the British mandate ~1922), and c) explain what relevance and/or significance your 73% statement might have - to the headline topic, the developing argument, or to the price of fish?
PS This republish from comment to article so that content may be searchable; IF response @ antiwar THEN expect update here.
2013/12/14
response to T. L. Knapp
antiwar/Glaser: Discussing Israeli ‘Apartheid’
(Short version as submitted here; see comment for long version.)
With all due respect, perhaps we could dispense with the jousting?
Thomas, I request that you both a) substantiate, and b) justify your 90% claim (i.e. accuracy and *relevance*, say, recalling that Transjordan was 'split off' from the British mandate ~1922), and c) explain what relevance and/or significance your 73% statement might have - to the headline topic, the developing argument, or to the price of fish?
2013/09/12
antiwar comment - anti-hasbarah - delayed by censor-robot
@Clarence: "... angry, delusional people who care much more about their own hateful agenda than they do about things like accuracy and truth."
Me: No; there is nothing at all hateful about merely making neutral observations based on inspection of available facts (see #-points below), and the "hateful agenda" belongs to the aggressive alien Zionist invaders, illegally (not to mention immorally) squatting on improperly alienated land/property (ethnically cleansed by genocidal, murdering violence); by law land never to be theirs. If Clarence (or anyone else) can't see this, IMHO they must be totally blind, by physics, ideology and/or idiocy.
#-points; some *real* (= verifiable) accuracy and truth:
1. Herzl: "Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discretely and circumspectly ..."
2. Balfour: "For in Palestine we do not propose to even go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country ..."
3. Jabotinsky: "No native population would stomach the intrusion ... Unremitting force ... to Arab objections to Zionist control of the territory."
4. Immigration by Jews into Palestine (1934-48), partly illegal (Aliyah Bet) = alien invasion.
5. Ben-Gurion(1936-39): “We ... are the attackers and the Arabs are those defending ... [they] own the land ...”
6. The King David Hotel bombing was an attack carried out on July 22, 1946 by the militant right-wing Zionist underground organization the Irgun ...
7. Plan Dalet/Deir Yassin (1948) = ethnic-cleansing using genocidal attacks - plus all the other similar, down through the bloody years.
8. "On September 17, 1948, Cohen ... fired inside the car with a MP40 machine gun, killing Bernadotte and his aide, Andre Serot."
...
9 + a few squillions. The latest incursions by the IDF into Gaza; 2008/9 = ~1300 dead Palestinians, again in 2012 = between 158 and 177 Palestinians were killed in that operation.
=====
Here's another way of looking at it:
Consider a crime investigation; means, motive, and opportunity + modus operandi, presence & premeditation then cui bono?
means: Meir, ~$US50mio for arms
motive: Herzl, Zionism
opportunity: Balfour, Holocaust, UNGA181 (text: "an area ... shall be evacuated" - which *no* power on this planet may so order)
modus operandi: Jabotinsky = "Iron Wall" = perpetual aggressive war = murdering violence
presence: before Herzl little, then immigration, partly illegal = alien invasion
premeditation: latest 1897, 1st Z-conference Basel
cui bono? only Zs; US helps, partly against own interests
proof, Ben-Gurion(1936-39): “We must see the situation for what it is. ... But in the political field we are the attackers and the Arabs are those defending themselves. They are living in the country and own the land, ..."
proof, terrorism: King David Hotel bombing
proof, ethnic cleansing: Plan Dalet, ~700,000 forced from homes
proof, genocidal methods: Deir Yassin & etc., Gaza '08/9, continues
observation: erstwhile legal owner/occupiers displaced by violence
observation: Israel squats on improperly alienated land/property
observation: a war between recent immigrants and long-time natives is neither a 'civil' war, nor war of 'independence’ but aggressive invasion (partly by stealth) - see next
summary: fits description of "supreme international crime"
further;
UNGA181 specified Palestinian state, still none.
UNGA194 specified Palestinian right of return, still out.
UNGA273 cites 181 & 194, *accepted* by Israel, *still* not honoured
UNSC242 inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war
Q: What is wrong with this picture?
A: Israel is an active/un-remedied crime scene, of the Nuremberg-class.
Q: Why does the world tolerate it?
Q: What if anything am I missing?
Compare to a burglary/home invasion with deadly violence; SWAT teams are sent in, the perpetrators brought to justice and all stolen property revests, with reparations paid by those found guilty.
Q: Why are we kept waiting, for truth + justice = peace?
=====
The use of "hateful" is absolutely wrong vis-à-vis my work; "anger" is correct; anger that the Zs are so hateful as to mass-murder for spoil, then tell the most outrageous lies to try to disguise their vicious crimes. Enough.
=====
Clarence may be unfortunately ignorant, more likely an hasbarist, in any case has malice aforethought (proof = deploying "hateful") - care to confess? No? Thought not; another nail in the coffin.
-----
Submitted, 17:19 local time, but then: Grrr!
0
aletheia · less than 1 minute ago
Your comment must be approved by the site admins before it will appear publicly.
Hopefully, the wait for release will not be long ...
Phew;
All's well, that ends well.
Me: No; there is nothing at all hateful about merely making neutral observations based on inspection of available facts (see #-points below), and the "hateful agenda" belongs to the aggressive alien Zionist invaders, illegally (not to mention immorally) squatting on improperly alienated land/property (ethnically cleansed by genocidal, murdering violence); by law land never to be theirs. If Clarence (or anyone else) can't see this, IMHO they must be totally blind, by physics, ideology and/or idiocy.
#-points; some *real* (= verifiable) accuracy and truth:
1. Herzl: "Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discretely and circumspectly ..."
2. Balfour: "For in Palestine we do not propose to even go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country ..."
3. Jabotinsky: "No native population would stomach the intrusion ... Unremitting force ... to Arab objections to Zionist control of the territory."
4. Immigration by Jews into Palestine (1934-48), partly illegal (Aliyah Bet) = alien invasion.
5. Ben-Gurion(1936-39): “We ... are the attackers and the Arabs are those defending ... [they] own the land ...”
6. The King David Hotel bombing was an attack carried out on July 22, 1946 by the militant right-wing Zionist underground organization the Irgun ...
7. Plan Dalet/Deir Yassin (1948) = ethnic-cleansing using genocidal attacks - plus all the other similar, down through the bloody years.
8. "On September 17, 1948, Cohen ... fired inside the car with a MP40 machine gun, killing Bernadotte and his aide, Andre Serot."
...
9 + a few squillions. The latest incursions by the IDF into Gaza; 2008/9 = ~1300 dead Palestinians, again in 2012 = between 158 and 177 Palestinians were killed in that operation.
=====
Here's another way of looking at it:
Consider a crime investigation; means, motive, and opportunity + modus operandi, presence & premeditation then cui bono?
means: Meir, ~$US50mio for arms
motive: Herzl, Zionism
opportunity: Balfour, Holocaust, UNGA181 (text: "an area ... shall be evacuated" - which *no* power on this planet may so order)
modus operandi: Jabotinsky = "Iron Wall" = perpetual aggressive war = murdering violence
presence: before Herzl little, then immigration, partly illegal = alien invasion
premeditation: latest 1897, 1st Z-conference Basel
cui bono? only Zs; US helps, partly against own interests
proof, Ben-Gurion(1936-39): “We must see the situation for what it is. ... But in the political field we are the attackers and the Arabs are those defending themselves. They are living in the country and own the land, ..."
proof, terrorism: King David Hotel bombing
proof, ethnic cleansing: Plan Dalet, ~700,000 forced from homes
proof, genocidal methods: Deir Yassin & etc., Gaza '08/9, continues
observation: erstwhile legal owner/occupiers displaced by violence
observation: Israel squats on improperly alienated land/property
observation: a war between recent immigrants and long-time natives is neither a 'civil' war, nor war of 'independence’ but aggressive invasion (partly by stealth) - see next
summary: fits description of "supreme international crime"
further;
UNGA181 specified Palestinian state, still none.
UNGA194 specified Palestinian right of return, still out.
UNGA273 cites 181 & 194, *accepted* by Israel, *still* not honoured
UNSC242 inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war
Q: What is wrong with this picture?
A: Israel is an active/un-remedied crime scene, of the Nuremberg-class.
Q: Why does the world tolerate it?
Q: What if anything am I missing?
Compare to a burglary/home invasion with deadly violence; SWAT teams are sent in, the perpetrators brought to justice and all stolen property revests, with reparations paid by those found guilty.
Q: Why are we kept waiting, for truth + justice = peace?
=====
The use of "hateful" is absolutely wrong vis-à-vis my work; "anger" is correct; anger that the Zs are so hateful as to mass-murder for spoil, then tell the most outrageous lies to try to disguise their vicious crimes. Enough.
=====
Clarence may be unfortunately ignorant, more likely an hasbarist, in any case has malice aforethought (proof = deploying "hateful") - care to confess? No? Thought not; another nail in the coffin.
-----
Submitted, 17:19 local time, but then: Grrr!
0
aletheia · less than 1 minute ago
Your comment must be approved by the site admins before it will appear publicly.
Hopefully, the wait for release will not be long ...
Phew;
aletheia · 2 hours ago
@Clarence:All's well, that ends well.
2013/09/11
comment submited to
"US credibility is MIA in battle to solve Syrian crisis"
@Tom Switzer: "American credibility and prestige"
I made these notes as I read the article:
Obama sound-snips sounded weak and unconvincing
arab spring fomented ?% by NED, went violent ?% CIA
no right to call for regime change
no right to call "red line" - sets false-flag bait
no 'smoking gun' on CW attack, *most likely* US-baited false-flag
the offer noCW=noSA (Syria gives up their Chemical Weapons, and US won't bomb them back to the Stone Age) publicised by Kerry's 'blunder'
"Moscow’s interest" vs. Zs' (Golan Heights; m4s++) + US' (WC7in5)
"ineffectiveness:"
{Kerry: We won't attack ... if you do this impossible thing.
Syria: Oh, We'll do it.
Russia: They'll do it.
UN: They'll do it.
Kerry: S**t!}
"strict self-defence?" No, + UNSC *correctly* stalemated
US' true (criminal) motive = 'help' Zs steal more land; the road to Tehran goes through Damascus.
arms/$s from KSA + Qatar, jihadis from outside, many Libyan Al-Q
*not* US business; MYOB!
The mission?
see Iraq, see Libya; Syria back to the Stone Age.
prolong and exacerbate it?
~21Aug, new arms = 400tonnes, perhaps 1000+, all to 'rebels'
Obama has been all over the place
"all over the place" = US rhetoric; see 'digestive-tract accident'
Prestige and credibility?
no US-attack (supreme international crime), no risk &/ embarrassment
US/UK has coveted ME oil continuously since pre-WW1
biggest problem is: "Say one thing, do another."
they try to disguise their true intentions with lofty principles, latest R2P
but secretly pursue resources by force - as if it's not obvious?
secrecy is a mortal enemy of democracy
no more attacks, no more killing (to steal), no more war!
===== definitions added:
m4s++ = mass-murder for spoil, soil, oil
WC7in5 = Wesley Clark leaking Pentagon intentions: 'US to take out 7 countries in 5 years.'
In full:
Wesley Clark: «About ten days after 9/11, I went through the Pentagon ... "This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran."»
I made these notes as I read the article:
Obama sound-snips sounded weak and unconvincing
arab spring fomented ?% by NED, went violent ?% CIA
no right to call for regime change
no right to call "red line" - sets false-flag bait
no 'smoking gun' on CW attack, *most likely* US-baited false-flag
the offer noCW=noSA (Syria gives up their Chemical Weapons, and US won't bomb them back to the Stone Age) publicised by Kerry's 'blunder'
"Moscow’s interest" vs. Zs' (Golan Heights; m4s++) + US' (WC7in5)
"ineffectiveness:"
{Kerry: We won't attack ... if you do this impossible thing.
Syria: Oh, We'll do it.
Russia: They'll do it.
UN: They'll do it.
Kerry: S**t!}
"strict self-defence?" No, + UNSC *correctly* stalemated
US' true (criminal) motive = 'help' Zs steal more land; the road to Tehran goes through Damascus.
arms/$s from KSA + Qatar, jihadis from outside, many Libyan Al-Q
*not* US business; MYOB!
The mission?
see Iraq, see Libya; Syria back to the Stone Age.
prolong and exacerbate it?
~21Aug, new arms = 400tonnes, perhaps 1000+, all to 'rebels'
Obama has been all over the place
"all over the place" = US rhetoric; see 'digestive-tract accident'
Prestige and credibility?
no US-attack (supreme international crime), no risk &/ embarrassment
US/UK has coveted ME oil continuously since pre-WW1
biggest problem is: "Say one thing, do another."
they try to disguise their true intentions with lofty principles, latest R2P
but secretly pursue resources by force - as if it's not obvious?
secrecy is a mortal enemy of democracy
no more attacks, no more killing (to steal), no more war!
===== definitions added:
m4s++ = mass-murder for spoil, soil, oil
WC7in5 = Wesley Clark leaking Pentagon intentions: 'US to take out 7 countries in 5 years.'
In full:
Wesley Clark: «About ten days after 9/11, I went through the Pentagon ... "This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran."»
2013/06/26
unl,4780778
In defence of Obama's cautious Syrian policy
Introduction: The headline article discusses possible US-intervention into Syria, *dishonestly* not recognising that the US has been active in all of fomenting, subverting, importing mercenaries and arming 'rebels' from the inception of the 'covert invasion/regime-change' operation currently being run against Syria.
aletheia :
26 Jun 2013 5:43:13pmMitor the Bold :
26 Jun 2013 7:46:09pmSo, it's a global conspiracy - that explains everything. Surely they could beat Iran by simply shape-shifting into lizards?Azrael the Cat :
26 Jun 2013 8:09:05pmNot quite re: Syria and Iran.
The infamous Iran wargaming was where a retired US general commanding the Iran side of the wargame and utterly schooled his younger more 'modern' successors by inflicting monumental casualties on the US force. The backbone of the US force was a massive bluewater naval armada, including 2 carriers. The retired general had basically Iran's weapons - a good number of Chinese-supplied A+++ quality silkworm anti-ship missiles, but not enough ships to make much use of them, a series of Russian A+++ anti-aircraft defense systems that makes a straight air invasion rather scary (hence the US combination of carriers flanked by ships bearing missiles to take out the Russian SAMs, and frigates+gunboats to play defence), B+ encryption (good, but the US would crack it immediately) and enormous numbers of speedboats that lacked any serious ordinance (i.e. the occasional light machinegun on some, but nothing that's going to sink a carrier). The Iran side did have a HUGE number of Russian and Chinese missiles (SAMs, anti-ship and offensive ground-to-ground) but the US had the best missile detection+defence systems and didn't see that as a threat.
The very first thing the retired general did was go full radio silence, taking out the US encryption advantage immediately. Instead he used WWI style messengers and freaken carrier pigeons to coordinate his side. The first thing the US side saw was about 400 missiles fired at them simultaneously, which quickly proved that the very best anti-missile tech gets overwhelmed when your enemy is willing to fire half its arsenal at once, sinking 1/3 of the fleet. Then they saw hundreds of those 'barely armed' speedboats, except that now some were armed with the aforementioned silkworm missiles - only a tiny proportion mind you (Iran has MANY more speedboats than silkworms) - but with so many it was impossible to find out WHICH boats posed a threat. There goes another 1/3 of the fleet, including one of the carriers (the other carrier survived but was limping badly).
From there the US would still have managed to get a clear win, but at the cost of their most expensive loss since Pearl Harbour, and would have been financially and militarily devastating. I.e. clear win, but too costly.
Syria is also an easy clear win. But the cold war 'spheres of influence' still operate, and Syria belongs to Russia, just like China gets lumped with having to keep North Korea from going full war. Syria has little strategic value to the US - not much oil, and Israel and Saudi Arabia make for much more secure middle eastern launch points. But the Russians love it - it has their main mediterranean naval base, and they've got military bases spread throughout, to remind Assad who's in charge. Hence no US invasion of Syria.aletheia :
26 Jun 2013 8:58:46pmAzrael the Cat: "I.e. clear win, but too costly."
Me; Q: When is a win not a win? A: When it's a loss.
In case you, or Peter of Melbourne (and any/all other such ilk), wish to argue 'legality,' aggressive armed forces crossing a border in-bound is precisely the definition of the "supreme international crime," and all perpetrators should be tried then *when* found guilty (not 'if;' I assume an honest judicial process), then appropriately punished, à la Nuremberg.
Such an action took place on and around 19Mar'03, again on 19Mar'11, currently covertly against Syria and going back a bit, another took place from "autumn 1947 to spring 1948." None of the 'target' countries has ever recovered, and one continues to by squatted upon by the alien invaders. 'Legality' is a squirmy process, since laws are 'man made,' and nothing (presumably, apart from good sense, humanity, etc.) could stop some jurisdiction passing a law enabling war. In fact, that's what the US Congress would be doing, if it called on the US president to defend against some attack (clearly not an issue here). Going back to Nuremberg, to attack is a "supreme international crime."
US, F+UK/NATO+Zs are all at it; that's where our world is; the UN looks on.crow :
27 Jun 2013 10:05:31am"When is a win not a win? A: When it's a loss."
as Phyyrhus said to a supporter congratulating him on his victory "One more such victory would utterly undo me'
He may have totally beaten the Romans, but it cost him such a great part of his forces and commanders that there was little left for any further battle, whereas the Romans quickly recruited another army - one that was now angry for revenge.
the US for instance may have 'won' in Iraq, but its cost them such an enormous amount of money and casualties that they are now hesistant to start another similar war, whereas they have also vastly increased the amount of their opponents
Moi :
26 Jun 2013 5:09:01pmI wish someone would tell the full story with as little spin as possible. A brief synopsis as I understand it:
Assad, an ex London eye doctor, enjoys 70% domestic support. The rebels to date are more or less criminals who've been systematically looting captured territory. The al-Nusra terrorists who are doing the bulk of the fighting are more popular than other rebels because they don't steal.
Syria engaged in steadily imporving diplomatic relations until the US started its destabilisation efforts around 2008. The reason is energy and their determination to find alternate routes into Europe that don't involve either Russia or Iran.
There is a massive gas field shared by both Qatar and Iran. There are 2 proposed pipelines for this gas. One is Qatar/Jordan/Syria/Turkey/Europe and what do you know, Qatar is funding the terrorists and the arms are passing through Jordan and Turkey. The second pipeline is Iran/Syria/Lebanon/Europe and Iran is backing the Syrian government. The first is favourd by the US, the second by Russia.
The US chemical weapons claim is beyond pathetic. Al-Nusra terrorists were caught with 2kg of Sarin in Turkey just a couple of days before Iraqi Sunni terrorists were caught near the Syrian border trying to make the stuff. This was in turn a week or so before the US made its claim.
Google any of the above - you'll get more honesty than reading the ABC.aletheia :
26 Jun 2013 7:27:05pmYes to Moi: Your summary is close; I would argue we don't know enough about any of the 'rebels' since many are imports and most MSM/PFBC reporting is outright lies. Assad was trying to fit to the West, and had implemented some (erring ideology) neoliberalisation - which, sadly for him, upset some of his people.
Yes to Peter Schmidt: Guardian snip, Wesley Clark's warning, Hersh's "Redirection" report: "... has brought the U.S. closer to an open confrontation with Iran and propelled it into the sectarian conflict ..."
Yes to Fred: "Obama is now every bit as culpable as the Saudis and Qataris."
All parts of the ME with oil, now gas, are in the murderers-for-spoil sights, as is the pre-UNGA181 soil. Proof;
Ben-Gurion(1936-39): “We must see the situation for what it is. ... But in the political field we are the attackers and the Arabs are those defending themselves. They are living in the country and own the land, ..."
Just about says it all. The A/Ms own the lot, and rather than negotiate for it or what's under it, certain countries or country-less agencies are trying to take it without going through the free&fair-exchange mechanism usually known as "buying."
Max :
26 Jun 2013 1:38:45pm
If you look at how the US and NATO handled Libya - they broke the law - they (nato) declared war on libya and armed the rebels who are mostly al queda, when libya posed no imminent threat to the US or any other nation in the world. Now they are doing the exact same thing, who the hell does Obama think he is?? He should of been impeached by attacking Libya, he along with NATO are now arming al queda forces in Syria to help bring down Assad, what threat has he posed to the US or any other country?? What right does America or NATO have - absolutely zero, and if Assad goes - it will be free reign for al queda just like what is going on now in Libya. Its funny how no one ever talks about Libya anymore. What a shame, and thank Goodness for real leaders like Putin who stick their nose right in America's face
Peter of Melbourne :
26 Jun 2013 2:18:56pmExactly what law was broken? C'mon be precise rather than ambiguous. Was it a law which the United States is bound to by its Constitution as that is the heart of all US law. What about NATO, exactly which NATO "law" was broken? Hell I dont see how NATO can break a law if they are not a nation. International agreements are only that. A country needs to eanble those agreements into local law for them to become legal. There are currently no illegal wars which the US and its allies are involved in, nor have there been any illegal wars in the past that the US or its allies have been involved in.
You may be confusing illegal with immoral... however the only immoral act I have seen from the US and its allies in the recent past is in allowing their citizens, the military, to be used as target practice by terrorists when they have the might to send these troublemakers back to the stoneage for the next century.
Was the invasion of Kuwait illegal? or was it an act of war? do you understand the that war has no laws, it only has the victors and vanquished (recent screw ups by Western forces in not vanquishing all oppostion the exception)Max :
26 Jun 2013 3:04:51pmJoe biden who has taught constitutional law and is an experty on foreign relations stated unequivically that declaring war on a country that poses no imminent threat is against the constitution of the united states, he also went on to say and I quote "I dont say it lightly, but any president who declares war against a country that opposes no imminent threat should be impeached" That was from Joe Biden - a guy who is a lot smarter than myself or you fr that matter, do your own research, look at the interviews on youtube and read various articles on the web, then come back with your question. Without congressional approvement it is against the law, it is unconstitutional and Obama should of been impeached, even listen to his press conferences on the matter, please do your own research before asserting someone doesnt know what they are talking aboutEric the Echidna :
26 Jun 2013 3:30:11pmPeter of Melbourne, did you not see the post I addressed to you on 18 June containing an extract from The Nuremberg Principles? Have you not heard of the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunals?Peter of Melbourne :
26 Jun 2013 6:14:31pmThey are not part of "our" local laws! That is when an act is made illegal - when the act is contrary to a country's local laws... I dont understand why you and your ilk have such difficulties understanding such a simple principle. International agreements are only that ... agreements, they are not bound by law until enshrined in a local constitution (or similar)
Wishing it was different like you want to, does not make it so. Otherwise the world would be full of fairies (the magical kind, not the debased type we actually do have) and flying pink unicorns (that would be a sight to see, my kids would love it)aletheia :
26 Jun 2013 10:32:43pmPeter of Melbourne: «They are not part of "our" local laws! That is when an act is made illegal ...»
Me: Try not be so stu... err, silly.
«Iraq war was illegal and breached UN charter, says Annan
Ewen MacAskill and Julian Borger in Washington
The Guardian, Thursday 16 September 2004 02.28 BST
The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared explicitly for the first time last night that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal.
Mr Annan said that the invasion was not sanctioned by the UN security council or in accordance with the UN's founding charter. In an interview with the BBC World Service broadcast last night, he was asked outright if the war was illegal. He replied: "Yes, if you wish."»
Me: IF anyone, THEN Annan. Agree with kenj; we should *not* be subjected to the same *erroneous* sillinesses, over and over ... /ad nauseam/.
Yes, "innocent until proven guilty," and yes, there isn't even a court-case - but that's because of corruption in the justice-system, not because of obvious to the point of in-your-face guilt.
People defend criminals for $s (or other pecuniary interests, like mercenaries, say) OR defender/apologists make themselves accessories = share guilt.Peter of Melbourne :
26 Jun 2013 6:26:40pmin case my other post is not published. The Nuremberg Principles are not enshrined in Australian Law, they are in International Law which is only an agreement until enshrined in local laws.Eric the Echidna :
26 Jun 2013 6:57:19pmPeter of Melbourne,have you read the UN Charter? Especially Article 2.Peter of Melbourne :
27 Jun 2013 9:18:06amEric
We are not governed by the UN world government. Get that through your head! Australia is a sovereign nation and the UN is a collective organisation (even so called International law means nothing unless it is on the books of a country) The UN does not govern nor does it have the capacity to govern any country on this planet, it is an organisation designed to reach agreements not implement laws.
Once again, show me proof that wars are illegal in the countries you all keep spouting about. Point me to specific laws on their books, if you cant then just grow up and accept the world for what it is and not some little fantasy you have.
I will make it even easier since we are Australians, show me where in Australian law is illegal to wage/declare war! That shouldnt be too hard, then we will all agree that war is illegal.Eric the Echidna :
27 Jun 2013 9:52:29amPeter of Melbourne, I refer you to comments you masde on 18 June:
"In western society losers may be convicted of so called "crimes against humanity" for committing heinous acts however I have never heard of criminal convictions for waging "illegal war"."
At the Nuremberg War crimes tribunal for the Nazi leadership the indictments were:
" 1) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of crime against peace.
2) Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crime against peace.
3) War Crimes
4) Crimes against humanity."
Some of the accused were found guilty of 1) and 2).
Were you truly not aware of this famous trial?
I now refer you to the UN Charter, Article 2, which includes:
"1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.
2. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.
3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."
I suggest you do a lot of earnest research before commenting further on internationsal law.
Peter Schmidt :
26 Jun 2013 3:37:41pmMaybe covertly supplying deadly weapons from Croatia since the start of the conflict (3,500 tonnes so far) or using the CIA to train terrorists in Jordan and send them over to Syria.
Read this if you want to know more:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/12/syrian-opposition-doing-the-talkingPeter of Melbourne :
26 Jun 2013 6:15:36pmNot illegal, just covert actions undertaken within the legal framework of countries all around the world. Try again.aletheia :
26 Jun 2013 11:09:14pmPeter of Melbourne: "Exactly what law was broken? C'mon be precise rather than ambiguous."
Me: Hmmm. Q: How many ways?
A: One is enough. See last para; meanwhile:
Peter (or ilk) may care to explain the 'legality' of a group of out-of-towners turning up out of other-where and breaking/entering a block of flats, threatening then killing residents who don’t immediately flee, then setting out to live there, THEN declaring themselves independent (of the law, morals and everything good) and claiming ownership of the block. Short name: The burglary/home invasion with actual murdering violence analogy.
The violated law is "Don't touch things not yours," and it is often taught in kindergartens. Failure to learn/honour such laws is called 'failed socialisation,' giving rise to 'sociopathy.' IMHO not close enough; I prefer the term 'psychopathy' for murderers-for-spoil, from 'executives' through generals down to all 'grunts' firing the guns. Then see accessory mechanism vis-à-vis accomplices, apologists and even idle bystanders.
"Not illegal, just covert actions" - secrecy is a mortal enemy of (proper) democracy. But not only; these covert actions are leading directly to mass-murder and mayhem. Good one, world 'leaders!' Good one, idle bystanders; thumbs up (or down) = Syrians die.Peter of Melbourne :
27 Jun 2013 9:19:53amso no proof of law just conjecture... sorry wouldnt stand up in a legal environment. War is not illegal.Eric the Echidna :
27 Jun 2013 10:07:17amPeter of Melbourne: "War is not illegal."
In an earlier poincluded the following extract:
"The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared explicitly for the first time last night that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal. ..."
Do you think you have greater knowledge of international law than a secretary-general of the UN. If so, why?
2013/06/21
unl,4770094(important!)
Selective memory: Latham's Labor hypocrisy
Alternate title: Ex-ALP, now little other than a thug. Sad.
Note: This one is important; think about it!
aletheia :
21 Jun 2013 5:53:45pm
unl,4770094 "Get a briefing!"
Mark Latham approached 'superman' status - until he was elected Lab-leader and possible 'PM to be.'
Most famous line: "A conga line of suckholes!"
To which a common response was "Get a briefing!"
But Latham avoided the briefing - on good grounds (*I surmise*); namely that before a briefing is given, there comes a little address by the briefer(s) along the lines of "The story you are about to hear is true, and if you leak a single detail we'll have you killed, and your children eaten."
(This is the 'fun' bit about people keeping secrets - we (the democratically sovereign people) never get all *critical* details; secrecy is a mortal enemy of democracy.)
Recall that Latham was EGW's anointed successor.
At least three parts of the briefing are significant; a) that Aus economic policy is fixed (within boundaries), as is b) 'defence' ditto fixed, and c) the fixing is by the US and the enforcers are CIA black/psy-operators.
This totally removed Latham's raison d'etre, and his collapse began on the spot. This *theory* explains pretty-well all there is to explain - and not just about Latham.
Mark Latham approached 'superman' status - until he was elected Lab-leader and possible 'PM to be.'
Most famous line: "A conga line of suckholes!"
To which a common response was "Get a briefing!"
But Latham avoided the briefing - on good grounds (*I surmise*); namely that before a briefing is given, there comes a little address by the briefer(s) along the lines of "The story you are about to hear is true, and if you leak a single detail we'll have you killed, and your children eaten."
(This is the 'fun' bit about people keeping secrets - we (the democratically sovereign people) never get all *critical* details; secrecy is a mortal enemy of democracy.)
Recall that Latham was EGW's anointed successor.
At least three parts of the briefing are significant; a) that Aus economic policy is fixed (within boundaries), as is b) 'defence' ditto fixed, and c) the fixing is by the US and the enforcers are CIA black/psy-operators.
This totally removed Latham's raison d'etre, and his collapse began on the spot. This *theory* explains pretty-well all there is to explain - and not just about Latham.
[Alert moderator]
PS [added] Need any more? Like the erring economics both Lib&Lab have stuck us with? A: WC10Ps. The illegal wars are many; I thought it was 'all over' when the US lost in Vietnam - but no; ask B,B&H about "Shock'n whore," and all other "supreme international crimes" the US and its SQSHsO = snivelling quisling sycophantic hangers-on get up to.
PS [added] Need any more? Like the erring economics both Lib&Lab have stuck us with? A: WC10Ps. The illegal wars are many; I thought it was 'all over' when the US lost in Vietnam - but no; ask B,B&H about "Shock'n whore," and all other "supreme international crimes" the US and its SQSHsO = snivelling quisling sycophantic hangers-on get up to.
2013/05/25
ICH,35068
Syria as a Game-Changer: US Political Impotence in the Middle East
C#1 submitted as comment to: "ICH 35068/Ramzy Baroud", here slightly revised.
I don't agree with Baroud's "Political Impotence" posit, but take issue here with a commenter:
Me: No. Assertions must be a) obvious enough that they brook no argument (not so here), OR b) substantiated (no such here).
To substantiate the *opposite* of "collapse:"
1. Jabotinsky(~1923): "No native population would stomach the intrusion ... Unremitting force ... to Arab objections to Zionist control of the territory."
2. Ben-Gurion(1936-39): "We must see the situation for what it is. ... But in the political field we are the attackers and the Arabs are those defending themselves. They are living in the country and own the land, ..."
3) frus1945v08: "Oil resources constitute a stupendous source of strategic power, and one of the greatest material prizes in world history"
4) Memo PPS23(George Kennan): "...we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts."
My assertion #1: That Jabotinsky's 'perpetual aggressive war' has not stopped, and the only way for it to *be* stopped is for a large enough majority in the rest of the world to *force* it to stop, possibly by 'sending Israel to Coventry' = a *total* boycott, *no* trade, *no* dialogue - no contact at all, only fence them in and ignore them - until they at least honour their promise to implement UNGA181(Palestine state)+194(return). That in turn means all stolen land/property to revest and/or full recompense/reparations, including 65+yrs lost rent.
My assertion #2: That the US is intent on total subjugation of any resistance, and will not stop unless stopped, and the only way that might happen is if both a) its subjugated satellites rebel and b) some effective muscle is put in the US' way, only perhaps possible by Russia and China combined (with India, if they ever got a pair).
As my substantiation, I simply say: Look and see. The aggressive Zionist invaders continually attack their neighbours, the US continually attacks the 'arc of instability' (includes all ME oil, then there's Africa and South America); actually fomenting = *creating* instability - also to attack Russia (Chechnya, say) and China (Uighurs, say) - About 2,820,000 results.
As "supreme international crimes" go, they are all "Go!" - for US/Zs.
-=*=-
Then, another interesting comment + 2 responses:
C#2:
Clovis · ~14:00 25May'13
While Barzoud's cataloguing of the world of sorrow and death the US's imperial adventures have left in their wake is a necessary though depressing exercise, I think he is working from a flawed premise and therefore missing the forest for the trees. That is, I do not think the sociopaths in power measure the "success" of these adventures in the present functionality of the societies they have ravaged, in the "increased influence" they may or may not have gained in these societies, or in the military "victory" (or not) over the peoples whose regimes they have destroyed. On the contrary, I think the short-term goal is the "process" itself: i.e., the destruction of the relatively self-sufficient societies of Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc., the decimation of their fighting populations and military capabilities, the continual creation of new theatres of combat, the invention of a new class of international mercenary soldier, and the fragmentation of the respective polities of these countries. This is the precisely "new Middle East" they wanted: crippled, politically and socially dysfunctional, disunified and fragmented into warring ethnic enclaves, effectively incapable of independent existence. They have achieved a goal at once short-term and long-term, with the Empire's and the West's (and Israel's) hegemony increasing by default, as these countries flounder in their newfound abjection, powerless to affect the geopolitics of the region.
R#1:
Fitzhenrymac · ~14:50 25May'13
Yes, Clovis. They are like the black death, a plague that left nothing but destruction in its wake. I agree that that was their partial aim - to so terrify other countries that none will stand up to them particularly India and China.
It's not just about profit anymore, its about power and control.
A side aim for some parties was to control oil, gas and the many other huge deposits of minerals their satellites and Russian geologists discovered in Afghanistan and Iraq.
R#2:
Ipse_Dixit · ~0:55 26May'13
Excellent comment which I think may apply equally to our own societies whose democracies and standards of living are also being negatively affected by these wars.
-=*=-
Me: It's not just "these wars" (which, being 'murder for spoil,' illustrate the psychopathic depravity of the tyrants that *undemocratically* rule over us), but the wholesale destruction of "the Enlightenment" plus society in general. Thatcher: "There is no such thing as society" as self-fulfilling prophecy; check full context here = unmistakeable rhetoric to cut social services, à la Rand + Hayek -> wretched serfdom for any needy and squalid struggle for most. From the justified-optimism of the 60s, we the people now have *no* hope - except for first ousting the tyrants (who keep trying for an overwhelming monopoly on guns, thus *proving* their fear of us), then reinstalling truth + justice = peace.
I don't agree with Baroud's "Political Impotence" posit, but take issue here with a commenter:
C#1:
aletheia · ~12:10, 26May'13
@Andy Perry: "the ideological framework that underpinned all actors in
the Middle East collapsed with the end of the Cold War." aletheia · ~12:10, 26May'13
Me: No. Assertions must be a) obvious enough that they brook no argument (not so here), OR b) substantiated (no such here).
To substantiate the *opposite* of "collapse:"
1. Jabotinsky(~1923): "No native population would stomach the intrusion ... Unremitting force ... to Arab objections to Zionist control of the territory."
2. Ben-Gurion(1936-39): "We must see the situation for what it is. ... But in the political field we are the attackers and the Arabs are those defending themselves. They are living in the country and own the land, ..."
3) frus1945v08: "Oil resources constitute a stupendous source of strategic power, and one of the greatest material prizes in world history"
4) Memo PPS23(George Kennan): "...we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts."
My assertion #1: That Jabotinsky's 'perpetual aggressive war' has not stopped, and the only way for it to *be* stopped is for a large enough majority in the rest of the world to *force* it to stop, possibly by 'sending Israel to Coventry' = a *total* boycott, *no* trade, *no* dialogue - no contact at all, only fence them in and ignore them - until they at least honour their promise to implement UNGA181(Palestine state)+194(return). That in turn means all stolen land/property to revest and/or full recompense/reparations, including 65+yrs lost rent.
My assertion #2: That the US is intent on total subjugation of any resistance, and will not stop unless stopped, and the only way that might happen is if both a) its subjugated satellites rebel and b) some effective muscle is put in the US' way, only perhaps possible by Russia and China combined (with India, if they ever got a pair).
As my substantiation, I simply say: Look and see. The aggressive Zionist invaders continually attack their neighbours, the US continually attacks the 'arc of instability' (includes all ME oil, then there's Africa and South America); actually fomenting = *creating* instability - also to attack Russia (Chechnya, say) and China (Uighurs, say) - About 2,820,000 results.
As "supreme international crimes" go, they are all "Go!" - for US/Zs.
-=*=-
Then, another interesting comment + 2 responses:
C#2:
Clovis · ~14:00 25May'13
While Barzoud's cataloguing of the world of sorrow and death the US's imperial adventures have left in their wake is a necessary though depressing exercise, I think he is working from a flawed premise and therefore missing the forest for the trees. That is, I do not think the sociopaths in power measure the "success" of these adventures in the present functionality of the societies they have ravaged, in the "increased influence" they may or may not have gained in these societies, or in the military "victory" (or not) over the peoples whose regimes they have destroyed. On the contrary, I think the short-term goal is the "process" itself: i.e., the destruction of the relatively self-sufficient societies of Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc., the decimation of their fighting populations and military capabilities, the continual creation of new theatres of combat, the invention of a new class of international mercenary soldier, and the fragmentation of the respective polities of these countries. This is the precisely "new Middle East" they wanted: crippled, politically and socially dysfunctional, disunified and fragmented into warring ethnic enclaves, effectively incapable of independent existence. They have achieved a goal at once short-term and long-term, with the Empire's and the West's (and Israel's) hegemony increasing by default, as these countries flounder in their newfound abjection, powerless to affect the geopolitics of the region.
R#1:
Fitzhenrymac · ~14:50 25May'13
Yes, Clovis. They are like the black death, a plague that left nothing but destruction in its wake. I agree that that was their partial aim - to so terrify other countries that none will stand up to them particularly India and China.
It's not just about profit anymore, its about power and control.
A side aim for some parties was to control oil, gas and the many other huge deposits of minerals their satellites and Russian geologists discovered in Afghanistan and Iraq.
R#2:
Ipse_Dixit · ~0:55 26May'13
Excellent comment which I think may apply equally to our own societies whose democracies and standards of living are also being negatively affected by these wars.
-=*=-
Me: It's not just "these wars" (which, being 'murder for spoil,' illustrate the psychopathic depravity of the tyrants that *undemocratically* rule over us), but the wholesale destruction of "the Enlightenment" plus society in general. Thatcher: "There is no such thing as society" as self-fulfilling prophecy; check full context here = unmistakeable rhetoric to cut social services, à la Rand + Hayek -> wretched serfdom for any needy and squalid struggle for most. From the justified-optimism of the 60s, we the people now have *no* hope - except for first ousting the tyrants (who keep trying for an overwhelming monopoly on guns, thus *proving* their fear of us), then reinstalling truth + justice = peace.
2013/05/17
unl,4694748
China is no threat to our dominance in the Pacific Islands
Just because Chinese companies are engaged in economic competition in the Pacific Islands does not mean Australia's dominance in the region is under threat, writes Jenny Hayward-Jones.
Comment 1: Of course, I found the title to be 'confronting,' as did Pink Diamond (as uncounted others) below. What it means is 'Aus as deputy-sheriff' is back - another filthy demonstration of both Aus' vassal/quisling status and bipartisan = un- & anti-democratic so-called 'leaders,' plus the truly offensive notion that any country should even think of dominating any other. That the theme comes via an r-whinger think-tank justifies the inclusion of such in the M/I/C/$4a†-plex = military, industrial, Congress (US-speak for parliament); $ = banksters, 4 = 4th estate = MSM+PFBCs, 'a' = academia incl. think-tanks, † = the churches. That Lib equals Lab to too many decimal places is proven by Lab continuing Lib's wars.
...
«The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society»
[wikiquote/Edward_Bernays]
Comment 3: A shocker. Keywords: 'conscious and intelligent manipulation,' then 'unseen mechanism,' 'invisible government' and 'true ruling power.' What all that means is *no* people-power, which is neither 'logical' nor fair - let alone acceptable. Either one has a democracy "of, by, for the people" - or one has something else - and I suggest what we have is tyranny, run (dominated!) by psychopaths.
Bernays "felt this manipulation was necessary in society, which he regarded as irrational and dangerous as a result of the 'herd instinct' ..."
Me: So following this, we the people's minds are 'manipulated' into utter irrelevance. Q: Did any of us approve this system by a free and fair, fully informed vote? A: Silly question; *by definition* not, yet it 'fits' our situation 100% and tyranny dominated by psychopaths is proven.
Comment 1: Of course, I found the title to be 'confronting,' as did Pink Diamond (as uncounted others) below. What it means is 'Aus as deputy-sheriff' is back - another filthy demonstration of both Aus' vassal/quisling status and bipartisan = un- & anti-democratic so-called 'leaders,' plus the truly offensive notion that any country should even think of dominating any other. That the theme comes via an r-whinger think-tank justifies the inclusion of such in the M/I/C/$4a†-plex = military, industrial, Congress (US-speak for parliament); $ = banksters, 4 = 4th estate = MSM+PFBCs, 'a' = academia incl. think-tanks, † = the churches. That Lib equals Lab to too many decimal places is proven by Lab continuing Lib's wars.
Pink Diamond :
17 May 2013 4:04:34pm
'Dominance in the region...'
Says it all.
Says it all.
aletheia :
17 May 2013 6:49:15pm"'Dominance ...' Says it all."
Yes. Our tyrants play at least 4 'games:' democracy, diplomacy and monopoly... err, Q: That's only three? A: Yes, the 4th is called being loose with the truth. Actually, very loose; for a particular, involuntarily retired 'representative' (perhaps seeking anonymity in large numbers): "All politicians lie!"
The game of monopoly mostly results in us, we the people (UWTP) being ripped-off (keywords: race to the bottom = spiral-down; neoliberalism, globalisation, privatisation (latter = theft from UWTP, followed by being toll-boothed into penury). Proof = privatised electricity, worst = medicine for profit.)
The game of diplomacy results in many others than UWTP being killed (keywords: mass-murder for spoil.)
The game of democracy mostly results in UWTP being *mis*-represented.
The game of being loose with the truth results in UWTP being deceived, enabling the other three games to proceed.
We, the people are being dominated by tyrants. Boo, hiss! Give us our country, democracy, (once bright) future, flogged-off government(egalitarian)enterprises + everything else stolen from us - back!
R.Ambrose Raven :
17 May 2013 11:45:39am
Whether or not Australia's dominant role in the region is "under threat" from China, it is the interests of the Pacific Islanders themselves that should matter.
We saw how eagerly the Australian Government colluded in the cover-up of the murder of the Balibo Five in order to curry favour with the Indonesian mass-murderer and war criminal Soeharto; even now, a third of a century later, the Australian Government still hasn't sought to arrest any remaining killers should they leave Indonesia. For all the arrogant and pompous talk of "human rights" and the "responsibility to protect" so favoured by such as KRudd and Gareth Evans, North Korea could not more ruthlessly discard such "values" once our Imperial interests are inconvenienced.
While Jenny's article is timely, as with so many such articles the serious shortcomings in economic and social development of the peoples themselves is effectively ignored despite its significance. Australia has taken part in military stabilisation operations in Bougainville, East Timor, the Solomons, and is attempting to improve the appalling governance of a number of other littoral states, not least PNG. Fortunately, notwithstanding the serious social and economic tensions – and corruption - most of them do live better than refugees recently released from our concentration camps, but not necessarily by much.
It is in fact exactly the same challenge as ending the cycle of poverty and dysfunction in Aboriginal communities, for exactly the same reasons. Any true balance requires that work, and income, be made to serve social interests, whereas ever since the Second World War consumerism has perverted society, requiring paid work to dominate with family and personal commitments being left the time and resources not wanted by employers. It would seem unlikely that any economic structure with a strong orientation towards cultural commitments would survive the brutality of market forces; it would need to be protected from the forces of greed if it was to deliver balance.
While those of the Den of Thieves - the NFF, CCI, AiG, the squatters' denialist organisation the PGA, etc - such as the IPA may write of Aboriginal improvement (meaning their conversion to culture-free aspirationals) their mentality is that of the sweatshop. They would ferociously oppose putting people before PROFITS.
As it is, we have a Hard Right-dominated media (particularly a Murdoch rag, The Australian) ferociously hostile to Labor's comparatively enlightened approach in dealing with increasingly profound challenges (though often due to Green and Independent pressure). To it Labor's greatest crime is in not embracing and imposing Austerity and institutionalising ruling class power by joining with Joe Hockey in pronouncing the End of the Age of Entitlement.
We saw how eagerly the Australian Government colluded in the cover-up of the murder of the Balibo Five in order to curry favour with the Indonesian mass-murderer and war criminal Soeharto; even now, a third of a century later, the Australian Government still hasn't sought to arrest any remaining killers should they leave Indonesia. For all the arrogant and pompous talk of "human rights" and the "responsibility to protect" so favoured by such as KRudd and Gareth Evans, North Korea could not more ruthlessly discard such "values" once our Imperial interests are inconvenienced.
While Jenny's article is timely, as with so many such articles the serious shortcomings in economic and social development of the peoples themselves is effectively ignored despite its significance. Australia has taken part in military stabilisation operations in Bougainville, East Timor, the Solomons, and is attempting to improve the appalling governance of a number of other littoral states, not least PNG. Fortunately, notwithstanding the serious social and economic tensions – and corruption - most of them do live better than refugees recently released from our concentration camps, but not necessarily by much.
It is in fact exactly the same challenge as ending the cycle of poverty and dysfunction in Aboriginal communities, for exactly the same reasons. Any true balance requires that work, and income, be made to serve social interests, whereas ever since the Second World War consumerism has perverted society, requiring paid work to dominate with family and personal commitments being left the time and resources not wanted by employers. It would seem unlikely that any economic structure with a strong orientation towards cultural commitments would survive the brutality of market forces; it would need to be protected from the forces of greed if it was to deliver balance.
While those of the Den of Thieves - the NFF, CCI, AiG, the squatters' denialist organisation the PGA, etc - such as the IPA may write of Aboriginal improvement (meaning their conversion to culture-free aspirationals) their mentality is that of the sweatshop. They would ferociously oppose putting people before PROFITS.
As it is, we have a Hard Right-dominated media (particularly a Murdoch rag, The Australian) ferociously hostile to Labor's comparatively enlightened approach in dealing with increasingly profound challenges (though often due to Green and Independent pressure). To it Labor's greatest crime is in not embracing and imposing Austerity and institutionalising ruling class power by joining with Joe Hockey in pronouncing the End of the Age of Entitlement.
...
aletheia :
17 May 2013 5:58:19pm"... institutionalising ruling class power by joining with Joe Hockey in pronouncing the End of the Age of Entitlement."
Agreed - partly, also to "comparatively enlightened approach."
Also agreeing - more strongly, to "unlikely that any [compassionate policy] would survive the brutality of market forces" and "They would ferociously oppose putting people before PROFITS."
It was not Fraser (accused of 'wasting time') but Cheating [thnx] who copycatted Thatcher's TINA! + "There is no such thing as society," also implied 'no community' = no working together. Then came Smirk; neoliberalism is bipartisan = un- & anti-democratic (since it offers the voter *zero* choice.)
Recall that a choice between evils still results in evil - put Lab/Lib (your preferred order?) last!
TheAus was active against EGW, a disgusting, dishonest campaign against a twice properly-elected PM (possibly Aus' best, in my lifetime anyway). Note that theAus did/does such a 'good' job that many (who really should know better) still spit when they hear Gough/other target(s) mentioned.
To theAus must be added PFBCs, when they agree on some anti-fact meme; Proof: the "David vs. Goliath" myth, circa 1967. Recall 'hell/no fury/misinformed.' When one is given zero choice, and the result is anti-99%, it's not democracy, see Bernays: "Those who manipulate..."
«The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society»
[wikiquote/Edward_Bernays]
Comment 3: A shocker. Keywords: 'conscious and intelligent manipulation,' then 'unseen mechanism,' 'invisible government' and 'true ruling power.' What all that means is *no* people-power, which is neither 'logical' nor fair - let alone acceptable. Either one has a democracy "of, by, for the people" - or one has something else - and I suggest what we have is tyranny, run (dominated!) by psychopaths.
Bernays "felt this manipulation was necessary in society, which he regarded as irrational and dangerous as a result of the 'herd instinct' ..."
Me: So following this, we the people's minds are 'manipulated' into utter irrelevance. Q: Did any of us approve this system by a free and fair, fully informed vote? A: Silly question; *by definition* not, yet it 'fits' our situation 100% and tyranny dominated by psychopaths is proven.
2013/05/10
unl,4680810
The wrongly accused deserve compensation
aletheia made 3 comments; no response was made before comments were closed, ~1.5hrs after aletheia's last.
Zing :
10 May 2013 12:11:29pm
Police, court and prosecutors should only be punished in clear cases of incompetence or malice.
The public has confidence in the justice system when it makes the correct decision based on the available facts.
If the court was expected to be perfect, then we wouldn't have courts of higher appeal.
The public has confidence in the justice system when it makes the correct decision based on the available facts.
If the court was expected to be perfect, then we wouldn't have courts of higher appeal.
aletheia :
10 May 2013 3:48:42pmZing: "Police, court and prosecutors should only be punished in clear cases of incompetence or malice."
Agreed, especially when there is blatant /prima facie/ evidence of an on-going vicious, murdering home-invasion/burglary, and that evidence is not followed up by SWAT-teams; arrest, prosecution and then the imposition of appropriate punishment, with the stolen land/property revesting, and acceptable reparations paid by the perpetrators (including foregone rent) to the improperly dispossessed erstwhile legal owner/occupiers. Of course, the very worst in such a situation, is that the vicious, terrorising home-invader/burglars are left to continue their foul crimes – which, as I'm assuming Zing would agree, is a massive miscarriage of justice on top of the exposure of the public to further mortal danger.
Zing :
10 May 2013 1:24:52pm
There is a fairly standard definition of "guilty beyond reasonable doubt".
It means that irrespective of your actual guilt, a reasonable person would be satisfied that you have most likely committed a crime and should be punished on the principle that you most likely deserve it.
Sometimes, that means an actual innocent person gets punished. Them's the breaks.
It means that irrespective of your actual guilt, a reasonable person would be satisfied that you have most likely committed a crime and should be punished on the principle that you most likely deserve it.
Sometimes, that means an actual innocent person gets punished. Them's the breaks.
...
aletheia :
10 May 2013 6:25:05pmZing: "... a reasonable person would be satisfied that you have most likely committed a crime and should be punished on the principle that you most likely deserve it."
Let's say we have means, motive, and opportunity + modus operandi, presence & premeditation, and even a confession and a plea-bargain.
All above previously demonstrated, some including the latter two are mentioned here:
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4675324.html#m1597260
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4675324.html#m1597339
Sooo, how reasonable is it, to a) assume a conviction would follow a court-case, and b) who do we hold responsible for no court-case, and exposing the region to a danger not theoretical, but almost continually seen to be fatally real?aletheia :
10 May 2013 6:48:07pmZing: "Sometimes, that means an actual innocent person gets punished. Them's the breaks."
Cynical, much? When the innocent persons have been continually getting punished, since the first alien invaders armed themselves behind an iron wall?
Comment: See 'acquiescence' in some definitions; no response is taken as agreement (at least until point acceptably negated), meanwhile IF an assertion is made contrary to an uncontested fact THEN that response will be deemed out of order.
2013/05/08
unl,4675324
Where will these weapons end up?
The subject is chemical weapons, and whether Assad is mad/bad enough to have used them. What do you think, on 'balance of probabilities?' Does Assad look suicidal? Most likely not, since he's lasted this long, under attack from the US/Zs' worst of the worst jihadis. But such discussions often wander.
snip#1
Comment 2: Orly's "Fact: Hezbollah did not win. In fact, it was losing so badly, it had to offer to disarm in order to secure a ceasefire" must also be a lie, on the grounds that Israel thinks only it ever decides, is never forced, etc. - so no surrender, short of absolute = territorial loss by some target, is ever accepted by Israel. Sooo, some "higher power" must have prevailed over the Zs, but again, as never taking orders, the only "higher power" here would be a stop-loss for the Zs = Israel itself withdrew = loss for Zs, again.
snip#2
snip#3
Comment 2: Normally, "Innocent until proven guilty" is correct. The problem here, though, is that despite prima facie evidence of vicious crimes in progress, 65+ bloody years long, there are no SWAT teams sent in to arrest the perpetrators (or heirs and successors); the crimes continue unchecked, with those same perpetrators (or heirs and successors) squatting on improperly alienated land/property = benefiting from the proceeds of crime. Where's an honest cop or three, when the world needs them? Zing concludes with what amounts to an ad hominem, a lot of these being hurled by z-trolls of late. Indicates that they know they're losing?
snip#1
Orly :
08 May 2013 11:05:04am
Do you really think Hezbullah won the 2006 war? In what way?
Lebanon was screaming for a ceasefire. Israel occupied territory in South Lebanon and only left to keep the international community happy.
As part of the ceasefire terms, Hezbullah was supposed to be completely disarmed by Lebanon. Hezbullah agreed to pull back all it's forces south of the Litani river.
Does that sound like an Israeli loss to you?
Lebanon was screaming for a ceasefire. Israel occupied territory in South Lebanon and only left to keep the international community happy.
As part of the ceasefire terms, Hezbullah was supposed to be completely disarmed by Lebanon. Hezbullah agreed to pull back all it's forces south of the Litani river.
Does that sound like an Israeli loss to you?
AJC :
08 May 2013 1:42:31pmYes, Hezbollah won that 2006 war. Simple facts of the matter are that Israel attacked first, tried to invade Lebanon, got kicked back out. Israel didn't leave willingly, suffered far more casualties than the Hebollah (counting Lebanese civilians as "combatants" is ridiculous, but I see many Israeli apologists pretend that these are equivalent) and diplomacy is also a tool of war. Israel never got very far at all within the Lebanese borders and was forced to leave. The IDF proved to be totally unprepared for what they were taking on. Hezbollah won. You can keep trying to spin it, but revisionist attempts are just as silly as claiming that the USA won in Vietnam.Orly :
09 May 2013 12:13:42amLie: Israel got kicked out.
Fact: Israel was not kicked out. It was still occupying South Lebanon when the ceasefire occurred.
Lie: Hezbollah won.
Fact: Hezbollah did not win. In fact, it was losing so badly, it had to offer to disarm in order to secure a ceasefire.
Lie: Israel lost more casualties.
Fact: The UN doesn't agree with you there. Neither does the Lebanese government. Neither does Hezbollah, for that matter.
Face it. The only way you can claim Hezbollah won is by ignoring reality. Or by lying.
Comment 2: Orly's "Fact: Hezbollah did not win. In fact, it was losing so badly, it had to offer to disarm in order to secure a ceasefire" must also be a lie, on the grounds that Israel thinks only it ever decides, is never forced, etc. - so no surrender, short of absolute = territorial loss by some target, is ever accepted by Israel. Sooo, some "higher power" must have prevailed over the Zs, but again, as never taking orders, the only "higher power" here would be a stop-loss for the Zs = Israel itself withdrew = loss for Zs, again.
snip#2
aletheia :
08 May 2013 5:58:05pm
Orly: "...produced by the Syrian government. Where do you think the rebels got such weapons from? Prayer? ... So that's going to be the narrative."
Me: No.
I recently found this curious bit: "... although the original core areas, the Iron Age kingdoms of Israel and Judah, are often considered outside the core of present-day Israel."
Two more quotes:
Jabotinsky: "... only Jewish armed force would ensure the Jewish state".
Ben-Gurion(1936-39): “But in the political field we are the attackers and the Arabs are those defending themselves. They are living in the country and own the land, ..."
As improper dispossessors (proof = self-evident and "iron wall"), Israel has no valid title to most of the land it squats on; thus it has no right to 'defend' anything - except their own lives, but that only in the case of "an instant and overwhelming necessity for self-defense, leaving no choice of means, and no moment of deliberation" *attack*.
So the Israeli attack on Syria fulfils the definition of "supreme international crime." Further, the *real* narrative includes US-fomented via-Turkey invasion (*not* civil war), equipped by Saudi Arabia, Qatar with Croatian-type arms – we know this because NYT et al. told us; more "supreme international crime."
Me: No.
I recently found this curious bit: "... although the original core areas, the Iron Age kingdoms of Israel and Judah, are often considered outside the core of present-day Israel."
Two more quotes:
Jabotinsky: "... only Jewish armed force would ensure the Jewish state".
Ben-Gurion(1936-39): “But in the political field we are the attackers and the Arabs are those defending themselves. They are living in the country and own the land, ..."
As improper dispossessors (proof = self-evident and "iron wall"), Israel has no valid title to most of the land it squats on; thus it has no right to 'defend' anything - except their own lives, but that only in the case of "an instant and overwhelming necessity for self-defense, leaving no choice of means, and no moment of deliberation" *attack*.
So the Israeli attack on Syria fulfils the definition of "supreme international crime." Further, the *real* narrative includes US-fomented via-Turkey invasion (*not* civil war), equipped by Saudi Arabia, Qatar with Croatian-type arms – we know this because NYT et al. told us; more "supreme international crime."
[Alert moderator]
Comment: This post went un-answered; but on the principle of silence is acquiescence, it means that the Zs are not contesting aletheia's material - they hardly could, since the quotes are a) true and b) utterly damning... so the z-trolls' only recourse is to ignore, itself signalling a surrender to 'inconvenient truths.'
Comment: This post went un-answered; but on the principle of silence is acquiescence, it means that the Zs are not contesting aletheia's material - they hardly could, since the quotes are a) true and b) utterly damning... so the z-trolls' only recourse is to ignore, itself signalling a surrender to 'inconvenient truths.'
snip#3
aletheia :
08 May 2013 6:54:31pm
Skeptic: "...about the Sarin gas. So the lone UN inspector told her version of facts which got in the way of the West's good story. She was discredited. Did that remind us of Mr.Hans Blix ?"
Me: Yes, but not only.
This week, Israel attacked Syria, a sovereign country - oh, that makes at least two, they (as 'immigrants,' partly illegal = alien invaders) attacked the place they squat on, starting before WW2 following Jabotinsky's strategy, amounting to perpetual war. Proof; Ben-Gurion(1936-39): “But in the political field we are the attackers and the Arabs are those defending themselves. They are living in the country and own the land, ..."
Now some say that there has been no court-case, but guilt is *totally independent* of courts; the real Q: Did 'modern' Israel result from improper dispossession, partly done by ethically cleansing ELO/Os = erstwhile legal owner/occupiers, by genocidal methods? IF A: Yes THEN QED.
Now, to the UN; "Iraq war was illegal and breached UN charter, says Annan," who ought to know. But no court-case there either; *proof* of UN corruption, self-convicted. Also self-convicted, by *not* enforcing UNGA273 (cites 181&194); even agreed to by Israel but to this day not honoured.
Me: Yes, but not only.
This week, Israel attacked Syria, a sovereign country - oh, that makes at least two, they (as 'immigrants,' partly illegal = alien invaders) attacked the place they squat on, starting before WW2 following Jabotinsky's strategy, amounting to perpetual war. Proof; Ben-Gurion(1936-39): “But in the political field we are the attackers and the Arabs are those defending themselves. They are living in the country and own the land, ..."
Now some say that there has been no court-case, but guilt is *totally independent* of courts; the real Q: Did 'modern' Israel result from improper dispossession, partly done by ethically cleansing ELO/Os = erstwhile legal owner/occupiers, by genocidal methods? IF A: Yes THEN QED.
Now, to the UN; "Iraq war was illegal and breached UN charter, says Annan," who ought to know. But no court-case there either; *proof* of UN corruption, self-convicted. Also self-convicted, by *not* enforcing UNGA273 (cites 181&194); even agreed to by Israel but to this day not honoured.
Zing :
09 May 2013 12:31:12amThere's nothing wrong with attacking a sovereign country when there is cause. Last time I checked, Syria and Israel are still officially at war.
Guilt is not independent of courts. Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, remember?
After all, taking someone else's land away from them isn't automatically a crime. It's only a crime in some cases.
And even if you could prove that Israel somehow "stole" the land, what then? To have a crime, you have to presume someone has the right to judge the criminal for his actions.
Fact is, no nation has the right to judge the legality of Israel's creation any more then Israel can judge the legality of the creation of any other nation.
Incidently, Kofi Annan is a politician. He is not a judge and his opinions have no legal value. Given that your legal arguments are gibberish, I'll presume you're not a judge either.Eric the Echidna :
09 May 2013 7:40:25amZing: "Incidently, Kofi Annan is a politician. He is not a judge and his opinions have no legal value. Given that your legal arguments are gibberish, I'll presume you're not a judge either."
As you claim greater expertise than a Secretary-general of the UN, what are your legal qualifications? Particularly in the area of interrnational law.
On a particluar sta"tement:
"After all, taking someone else's land away from them isn't automatically a crime. It's only a crime in some cases."
What cases would those be?
Comment 2: Normally, "Innocent until proven guilty" is correct. The problem here, though, is that despite prima facie evidence of vicious crimes in progress, 65+ bloody years long, there are no SWAT teams sent in to arrest the perpetrators (or heirs and successors); the crimes continue unchecked, with those same perpetrators (or heirs and successors) squatting on improperly alienated land/property = benefiting from the proceeds of crime. Where's an honest cop or three, when the world needs them? Zing concludes with what amounts to an ad hominem, a lot of these being hurled by z-trolls of late. Indicates that they know they're losing?
2013/03/28
ICH 34448
Obama Beats [Z-PM] on TKO
[drafting - intro to come]
1)
Consider means, motive, and opportunity + modus operandi, presence & premeditation & cui bono?
means: Meir, ~$US50mio for arms
motive: Herzl, Zionism
opportunity: Balfour, Holocaust, UNGA181 (text: "an area ... shall be evacuated" - which *no* power on this planet may so order)
modus operandi: Jabotinsky = "Iron Wall" = perpetual aggressive war = murdering violence
presence: before Herzl little, then immigration, partly illegal = alien invasion
premeditation: latest 1897, 1st Z-conference Basel
cui bono? only Zs; US helps, partly against own interests
proof; Ben-Gurion(1936-39): “We must see the situation for what it is. ... But in the political field we are the attackers and the Arabs are those defending themselves. They are living in the country and own the land, ..."
proof, terrorism: King David Hotel bombing
proof, ethnic cleansing: Plan Dalet, ~700,000 forced from homes
proof, genocidal methods: Deir Yassin & etc., Gaza '08/9, continues
observation: erstwhile legal owner/occupiers displaced by violence
observation: Israel squats on improperly alienated land/property
observation: a war between recent immigrants and long-time natives is neither a 'civil' war, nor of 'independence’ - see next
summary: fits description of "supreme international crime"
further;
UNGA181 specified Palestinian state, still none.
UNGA194 specified Palestinian right of return, still out.
UNGA273 cites 181 & 194, *accepted* by Israel, *still* not honoured
UNSC242 inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war
Q: What is wrong with this picture?
Q: Why does the world tolerate it?
Q: What if anything am I missing?
Compare to a burglary/home invasion with deadly violence; SWAT teams are sent in, the perpetrators brought to justice and all stolen property revests, with reparations paid by those found guilty. Why are we waiting?
2)
'Normally' I would not even open an article containing such 'baby-names' as this one does, but I was 'hooked' by the possibility that not only had Obama engaged Netanyahu, but had 'pulled a swifty' - and bested not just Netanyahu but, since the two are one, Obama had bested the whole of the I/J/Z-plex to boot; the proposition seems preposterous on its face.
1st, 'baby-names' as an example of *enemy* language; Lakoff says that IF you use their language or special terms, here a totally unwarranted familiarity, THEN you enter the enemy's frame, at great if not fatal disadvantage to yourself.
2ndly, getting Netanyahu to apologise and agree to reparations definitely is a step in the correct direction (it's *part* of what's required vis-à-vis the ethnically cleansed erstwhile legal owner/occupiers of Palestine, the main part being the revesting of all stolen land/property, best by exiting the region), but any 'victory' here is minor-to-none, since:
3rdly, as some/many/most may know, the road to Teheran *allegedly* passes through Damascus. TR is in NATO, it is conduiting arms and (Al-Qaeda!) mercenaries into Syria, the (mostly?) Serbian[*] arms are being financed by Saudi Arabia, and *Qatar*; here a comment from elsewhere on ICH:
"The agreement, signed last year, between Iran, Iraq, and Syria, to build a gas pipeline, with terminal on the Syrian coast, evoked an absolute hissy fit in Qatar, in that the IIS gas pipeline plan would render obsolete its own gas-line project with Turkey and the EU. Hence Qatar's eager and active participation in the destruction of Syria."
Sooo, finally, geopolitics rears its ugly head (again? No, still), as a continuation of some 'great game,' not in itself a game but rather more of the same-old-same-old, namely mass-murder for spoil. Surprise! And this x-spy walks all around it, apparently not noticing? On the whole quite telling, really. TR gets this mention, possibly designed to cause outrage somewhere:
"... that Turkey is an actual ally and critical to American regional interests while Israel is not, though it was likely expressed more diplomatically than that." Conclusion: A Giraldi psyop.
@peacenik: "And why do Americans apparently accept this crazy state of affairs?"
A: Because ~315mio US citizens have as good as *no* influence, only the <1% + the I/J/Z-plex not already in that <1%.
[*] ooops) antiwar,Apologies; Serbs, the new matériel is Croatian.txt
3)
Intro: Consider the concept of "Airstrip One." a) What would become today's I/J/Z-plex wanted an homeland to escape widespread persecution (one has to ask "Why?" - as in why were they persecuted = what did they do to attract same?) - and b) 1st England, then America wanted oil. Not 'just' oil, note, but control over oil (to exclude perceived 'competitors' like currently R&C, say), and 'vertical integration' of the oil business, to be masters of oil from the sand to the sales-point = 'harvesting' as much of the economic rent that they could get, neglecting any/almost all claims by sovereign owners to same. Proof = open your eyes and look.
But criminals can't afford to be too obvious, and will always work behind a screen of (planned, hoped) deception. It is known that IL wants to expand beyond all reason; the original partition was never enough (one blogger repeatedly raves: "Up to the Litani River!") - specifically here, they want the Golan Heights and more, they *always* want to attack - and slaughter - any/all perceived 'enemies,' up to and including Iran. All should know this by now; proof = again, open your eyes and look.
Since the ME oil-sands mostly lie under Arab/Muslims, they become the US, UK & IL's 'natural' enemies (makes it tough to be an Arab/Muslim, no matter how innocent). But by the 'hiding behind lies' rule, it's hard for the US, UK &/ IL to attack directly - far too obvious, especially after the utterly disastrous Iraq imbroglio. So they need a proxy; what *better* than deranged religious jihadi nuts of Al-Qaeda, to attack and slaughter "their own people?" Same proof.
Argument: But IL made another of their frequent errors; they attacked the Turkish flagged ship Mavi Marmara, the IDF brutally killing peace advocates, as is their wont. This caused a rift with TR, interrupting cooperation in various nefarious shared activities. Q: How to repair the rift? A: Put it on Obama, blame it on Obama, give the I/J/Z-plex a little frisson of fear: Could Obama really dare defy us? Obama is, after all, disposable? Just as long as the US-M/I/C/$4a†-plex keeps supporting IL and the 'free' (to IL) guns and $s keep arriving in IL, all is well - for IL (after all, who could be more important?) This too, the 'smear' on Obama, will pass; partly thanks to this article - or so the author may hope. But the main work has been done; IL off the TR-hook and may now use the people/arms-pipeline through TR to help smash Syria, not caring, as all the other attackers by proxy don't, how many innocent Syrians get slaughtered in the process, nor how much damage is done to infrastructure; main chance is the joint US/Zs' geopolitical objectives of land- and oil-grabs.
3a)
[end to come]
1)
aletheia · 8 weeks ago
Background (surely known to some, sadly not to most): Consider means, motive, and opportunity + modus operandi, presence & premeditation & cui bono?
means: Meir, ~$US50mio for arms
motive: Herzl, Zionism
opportunity: Balfour, Holocaust, UNGA181 (text: "an area ... shall be evacuated" - which *no* power on this planet may so order)
modus operandi: Jabotinsky = "Iron Wall" = perpetual aggressive war = murdering violence
presence: before Herzl little, then immigration, partly illegal = alien invasion
premeditation: latest 1897, 1st Z-conference Basel
cui bono? only Zs; US helps, partly against own interests
proof; Ben-Gurion(1936-39): “We must see the situation for what it is. ... But in the political field we are the attackers and the Arabs are those defending themselves. They are living in the country and own the land, ..."
proof, terrorism: King David Hotel bombing
proof, ethnic cleansing: Plan Dalet, ~700,000 forced from homes
proof, genocidal methods: Deir Yassin & etc., Gaza '08/9, continues
observation: erstwhile legal owner/occupiers displaced by violence
observation: Israel squats on improperly alienated land/property
observation: a war between recent immigrants and long-time natives is neither a 'civil' war, nor of 'independence’ - see next
summary: fits description of "supreme international crime"
further;
UNGA181 specified Palestinian state, still none.
UNGA194 specified Palestinian right of return, still out.
UNGA273 cites 181 & 194, *accepted* by Israel, *still* not honoured
UNSC242 inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war
Q: What is wrong with this picture?
Q: Why does the world tolerate it?
Q: What if anything am I missing?
Compare to a burglary/home invasion with deadly violence; SWAT teams are sent in, the perpetrators brought to justice and all stolen property revests, with reparations paid by those found guilty. Why are we waiting?
2)
aletheia · 8 weeks ago
It's not what they say (so much) as what they do. 'Normally' I would not even open an article containing such 'baby-names' as this one does, but I was 'hooked' by the possibility that not only had Obama engaged Netanyahu, but had 'pulled a swifty' - and bested not just Netanyahu but, since the two are one, Obama had bested the whole of the I/J/Z-plex to boot; the proposition seems preposterous on its face.
1st, 'baby-names' as an example of *enemy* language; Lakoff says that IF you use their language or special terms, here a totally unwarranted familiarity, THEN you enter the enemy's frame, at great if not fatal disadvantage to yourself.
2ndly, getting Netanyahu to apologise and agree to reparations definitely is a step in the correct direction (it's *part* of what's required vis-à-vis the ethnically cleansed erstwhile legal owner/occupiers of Palestine, the main part being the revesting of all stolen land/property, best by exiting the region), but any 'victory' here is minor-to-none, since:
3rdly, as some/many/most may know, the road to Teheran *allegedly* passes through Damascus. TR is in NATO, it is conduiting arms and (Al-Qaeda!) mercenaries into Syria, the (mostly?) Serbian[*] arms are being financed by Saudi Arabia, and *Qatar*; here a comment from elsewhere on ICH:
"The agreement, signed last year, between Iran, Iraq, and Syria, to build a gas pipeline, with terminal on the Syrian coast, evoked an absolute hissy fit in Qatar, in that the IIS gas pipeline plan would render obsolete its own gas-line project with Turkey and the EU. Hence Qatar's eager and active participation in the destruction of Syria."
Sooo, finally, geopolitics rears its ugly head (again? No, still), as a continuation of some 'great game,' not in itself a game but rather more of the same-old-same-old, namely mass-murder for spoil. Surprise! And this x-spy walks all around it, apparently not noticing? On the whole quite telling, really. TR gets this mention, possibly designed to cause outrage somewhere:
"... that Turkey is an actual ally and critical to American regional interests while Israel is not, though it was likely expressed more diplomatically than that." Conclusion: A Giraldi psyop.
@peacenik: "And why do Americans apparently accept this crazy state of affairs?"
A: Because ~315mio US citizens have as good as *no* influence, only the <1% + the I/J/Z-plex not already in that <1%.
[*] ooops) antiwar,Apologies; Serbs, the new matériel is Croatian.txt
3)
aletheia · 8 weeks ago
The psyop; it always pays to ask cui bono? Intro: Consider the concept of "Airstrip One." a) What would become today's I/J/Z-plex wanted an homeland to escape widespread persecution (one has to ask "Why?" - as in why were they persecuted = what did they do to attract same?) - and b) 1st England, then America wanted oil. Not 'just' oil, note, but control over oil (to exclude perceived 'competitors' like currently R&C, say), and 'vertical integration' of the oil business, to be masters of oil from the sand to the sales-point = 'harvesting' as much of the economic rent that they could get, neglecting any/almost all claims by sovereign owners to same. Proof = open your eyes and look.
But criminals can't afford to be too obvious, and will always work behind a screen of (planned, hoped) deception. It is known that IL wants to expand beyond all reason; the original partition was never enough (one blogger repeatedly raves: "Up to the Litani River!") - specifically here, they want the Golan Heights and more, they *always* want to attack - and slaughter - any/all perceived 'enemies,' up to and including Iran. All should know this by now; proof = again, open your eyes and look.
Since the ME oil-sands mostly lie under Arab/Muslims, they become the US, UK & IL's 'natural' enemies (makes it tough to be an Arab/Muslim, no matter how innocent). But by the 'hiding behind lies' rule, it's hard for the US, UK &/ IL to attack directly - far too obvious, especially after the utterly disastrous Iraq imbroglio. So they need a proxy; what *better* than deranged religious jihadi nuts of Al-Qaeda, to attack and slaughter "their own people?" Same proof.
Argument: But IL made another of their frequent errors; they attacked the Turkish flagged ship Mavi Marmara, the IDF brutally killing peace advocates, as is their wont. This caused a rift with TR, interrupting cooperation in various nefarious shared activities. Q: How to repair the rift? A: Put it on Obama, blame it on Obama, give the I/J/Z-plex a little frisson of fear: Could Obama really dare defy us? Obama is, after all, disposable? Just as long as the US-M/I/C/$4a†-plex keeps supporting IL and the 'free' (to IL) guns and $s keep arriving in IL, all is well - for IL (after all, who could be more important?) This too, the 'smear' on Obama, will pass; partly thanks to this article - or so the author may hope. But the main work has been done; IL off the TR-hook and may now use the people/arms-pipeline through TR to help smash Syria, not caring, as all the other attackers by proxy don't, how many innocent Syrians get slaughtered in the process, nor how much damage is done to infrastructure; main chance is the joint US/Zs' geopolitical objectives of land- and oil-grabs.
3a)
aletheia · 8 weeks ago
Not so much BTW, the quote on the IIS was from loefingstonn on ICH 34426.[end to come]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
A: They *think* they have the right - which, of course, is totally wrong.
UK started the 'oil-rush' before WW1 when they switched their warships off coal.
US thuggery really got underway latest 6 August and 9 August 1945.
frus1945v08: "Oil resources constitute a stupendous source of strategic power, and one of the greatest material prizes in world history."
PPS23_by_George_Kennan: "... we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts."
The US is big on planning, and the Pentagon on war-gaming.
The only reason they have not so far smashed Iran is because the gaming does not show a clear US-win. Ditto for Syria; but it is delusional not to acknowledge that the smashing of Syria is driven by the US, themselves hagridden.
The US could stop the carnage in a heartbeat, merely by saying "stop."
We are deliberately forced to live in a lie-cloud (what I call the pushed-propaganda paradigm), proof;
Bernays: "manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses ... Those who [manipulate] ... constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country."
Arguing within the pushed-propaganda paradigm is fraught, proof = the headline article.