Mark Stapleton

Mark,

It's not my PR problem. I can't take on the disinforation of nations, but I can set you straight about Americans bombing children and committing acts of war.

I can see how these emotions can be whipped up by propagandists who say Americans bombed innocent Syrian workers and children when that is pattently not the case.

Will you please acknowldge that the US did not bomb innocent Syrians, that the British were also part of the operation, and announce what your nationality is?

And I'd like to hear from John Simkin when he checks in to see what he has to say about the British being involved in this American Imperialism.

Thanks,

BK

No, I certainly won't ackowledge that the US did not bomb innocent Syrians.

I would not be surprised if the British were part of the operation, despite the fact it in no way softens my stance on US Imperialism, but I would prefer to confirm that fact with my sources rather than yours.

I am from Sydney, Australia.

Like John Simkin, I am deeply ashamed that my Government also supports US Imperialism and I also condemn it without reservation.

Will that be all, sir?

Mark,

Please point out where I missrepresent the situation and you don't.

You said the USA invaded and bombed Syria, an act of war, when in fact, as the details come out, a joint British SAS/US Task Force unit went in and killed a dozen terrorists, including Abu Ghadiya, sentenced to death by Jordan and primary supplier of documents to al Quada fighters in Iraq.

You don't want to discuss or learn more about this incident, you just want to rant and rave about Americans.

Are you British? Where's the outrage against the British for this bombing of innocent civilians and invasion of Syria?

Because you're not interested in what really happened, just ranting and raving against America.

And yes, I read Ron, and if you think the economy will have any effect on Americans going after guys like Abu Ghadiya then you just don't understand.

But Abu Ghadiya, and the "Sword of Justice," understood.

BK

I already said I'm not getting into a slanging match. I'll let those who read this thread make up their own minds. But it seems that I''m not the only one ranting and raving about America:

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2008/10/30-4

Syria Puts US Embassy Under Guard as Tens of Thousands Join Protest

Troops carrying batons and shields are stationed in Damascus as crowds decry American 'terrorist' raid on border

by Haroon Siddique and agencies

Hundreds of Syrian riot police surrounded the US embassy in Damascus today as tens of thousands of protesters gathered nearby to denounce a US raid that killed eight people near the Iraqi border.

The crowds converged on Youssef al-Azmi square, about a mile from the embassy - which was closed for the day because of security concerns.

Troops wearing helmets and carrying batons and shields took up positions around the embassy and the adjacent US residence building. Two fire engines were parked nearby.

There were no signs of violence as protesters formed circles and danced traditional dances

"America the sponsor of destruction and wars," read one banner, as protesters waved national flags and pictures of the Syrian president, Bashar Assad.

"We will not submit to terrorism," read another banner.

Hussam Baayoun, a 20-year-old university student, said the US raid was a "criminal act". "We want the Americans to stop their acts of terrorism in Syria, in Iraq and the rest of the world," he said.

The Syrian government has demanded a US apology for the attack in the eastern border community, which it says left eight civilians dead. It has threatened to cut off cooperation on Iraqi border security if there are more raids on its territory.

Syrian security around the embassy is usually tight and Americans in the country are generally made to feel welcome but when the US invaded Iraq protesters attacked the embassy.

The American school has been shut for the day. The Syrian government has ordered the school to shut down - this is expected within a week - and the immediate closing of the American cultural centre linked to the embassy.

In Washington, a state department deputy spokesman, Robert Wood, said yesterday that the White House was considering how to respond to the order to shut the cultural centre and American school. He stressed that the US expected the Syrian government to "provide adequate security for the buildings". The US embassy warned its citizens in Syria to be vigilant.

There has been no formal acknowledgment of the raid from Washington, but US officials speaking on condition of anonymity have said it killed Badran Turki al-Mazidih, a top al-Qaida figure who operated a network smuggling fighters into Iraq. An Iraqi national, he also uses the name Abu Ghadiyah.

Washington lists Syria as a state sponsor of terrorism and has operated sanctions since 2004. In recent months Damascus has been trying to end years of global isolation. Assad is seen as less hardline than his father, the previous president.

US accusations that Syria is not doing enough to prevent foreign fighters from crossing its borders into Iraq remain a sore point in relations. Syria says it is doing all it can to safeguard its long, porous border.

Looks like you have a major PR problem on your hands. Good luck with that.

Yea, Mark, we do have a fundamental difference on this. Especially after you ignore the fact that there was no bombing and it was a Joint-British-US team that went into Syria to take out this killer, who you hypothisize was converted to al Quada by witnessing Americans killing babies.

I've seen Team America, and thought it was pretty funny, but if that's the way you look at the World and Americans you're the one with the perverted cartoonish view of things.

If given the choice of supporting TF88 guys or Abu Ghadiya, I'll side with TF88. Abu Ghadiya was a mean MF and I'm glad there's TF88 guys out there chasing down the Bad Guys and killing them, whereever they are.

BK

There are a few misrepresentations of what I said in your post above but I'm not going to linger on them because a slanging match doesn't get us anywhere.

Suffice to say you will continue your belief that America's actions are justified and I'll have to settle for my perverted cartoonish view of things.

btw, did you read Ron's post? I fully agree with it.

Boy, oh boy, is the United States lucky Syria didn't declare war against them.

Typical hubris coming from a nation which refuses to recognise that anyone else has rights except themselves. We have the firepower--we do whatever we want.

Now Mark, and John, how would you like Abu al-Gadia as your dentist?

Actually I do need a bit of work done, but I guess it's a bit late to make an appointment.

Here's a more detailed report on the operation, conducted by Task Force 88.

And why is the US Treasury Dept. releasing official info on this?

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/200..._in_syria_d.php

Now it seems that Task Force 88 isn't even a dedicated American unit, but is a milti-national one that is made up primarily of British SAS and American SEALS.

http://www.eliteukforces.info/special-air-...sk-force-black/

Following the toppling of Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, 2003 it has been reported that an SAS Squadron has been assigned to a joint US/UK group of Special Operations units operating in the country, known previously as Task Force 145 (TF-145).

Now reportedly renamed to TF-88, this cream of Western Special Operators consists of several elements:

• TF Black - - made up of an SAS sabre squadron, supported by a Company of SFSG (TF Maroon). Some SBS operators are thought to be attached to TF Black.
  
• TF Blue - US Navy SEALs from DEVGRU (Seal Team 6)
  
• TF Green - 1st Special Forces Operational Detachment - or 'Delta Force'
  
• TF Orange - signals intelligence gathers from the ISA
  

The primary role of TF-88 is to hunt down senior members of Al-Qaeda operating in Iraq. To this end, the Task Force has had several successes including the killing of Al-Zarqawi. In response to a spate of kidnappings involving Westerners, TF-88's remit expanded to include countering this threat.

TF-Black is based in headquarters known as 'the Station', within Baghdad's green zone.\

Task Force Black Operations:

• In July 2003, an SAS team performed a close target reconnaisance of a residence in Mosul, thought to contain Uday and Qusay Hussein, Saddam's sons. British commanders pushed for the SAS to raid the house but are denied. A combined force of US Delta Force and the 101st Airborne eventually attacked the building and killed Uday and Qusay.
  
• Operation Marlborogh
  In July 2005 an SAS sniper team neutralized an insurgent suicide bomb squad before they could reach their targets in the city.
  
• In March 2006, in a bloodless operation, the SAS rescued British peace campaigner, Norman Kember, and 2 Canadians who had been kidnapped in Baghdad
  read more : SAS rescue Norman Kember
  
• September 5th, 2007 - A 30-man SAS team assaulted a house that intel had pinpointed as the location of a senior Al-Qaeda figure. The mission was a success but sadly it costs the life of one of the SAS assaulters.
  

As with its other commitments such as counter-terrorism and training, the SAS rotates a Squadron into Task Force Black on a 6-monthly basis.

Here's more:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2461368.ece

Here's a profile of the innocent civilian fdentist from a few years ago:

http://www.jamestown.org/terrorism/news/ar...ticleid=2370052

Abu al-Ghadia to Build on al-Zarqawi's Legacy in Iraq

By Sami Moubayed

Very little is known about one of the late-Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's top operatives, Abu al-Ghadia al-Soori (or sometimes known as Abu al-Ghadia al-Shami). Some refer to his real name as Sulayman Khalid Darwish. There is no photograph of Abu al-Ghadia, and not a single interview with him. No one in Syria will confess to having met him, not even classmates who had graduated from Damascus University Dentistry School with him in the 1990s. Arab newspapers ran a story in July 2005 saying that he had been killed in a U.S. air strike (as part of Operation Spear) in the al-Qaim village, near the Syrian-Iraqi border; Iraqi TV, however, said that he had been killed in the Sunni Anbar province. Nothing was revealed about him back then, except that he was al-Zarqawi's right-hand man. Both stories appeared to be false, however, as his name resurfaced after al-Zarqawi's June 7 death and word spread that he was a candidate for becoming the new "al-Qaeda prince in Iraq."

The bits and pieces that are known about Abu al-Ghadia reveal that he was born in Syria in 1976 and raised in the suburbs of Damascus. The influential Arabic website, Middle East Transparent (http://www.metransparent.com), claims that he carries two Syrian passport numbers, #11012 and #3936712 (metransparent.com, July 25, 2005). According to the website, he lived in the vicinity of Damascus, leading an ordinary life until going to Afghanistan to join al-Qaeda in the 1990s. Too young to have been active in the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, which went to war against the government of Syria when he was six years-old in 1982, Abu al-Ghadia was influenced by their teachings. No evidence points to exactly why Abu al-Ghadia abandoned Syria and went to Afghanistan in the 1990s. As a dentist, he should have been able to secure a good income in Syria. Yet, the attractiveness of jihad and the promises of martyrdom probably influenced the young Islamist. He served as one of the main intelligence commanders under al-Zarqawi in Iraq, and is a member of the Mujahideen Shura Council, a coalition of Sunni insurgent groups. He is a co-founder of Jund al-Sham and the Tawhid and Jihad Group in Iraq.

Abu al-Ghadia became close to al-Zarqawi after the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Their relationship had been cemented in Afghanistan after the September 11 attacks. According to Mohammed Makkawi, known by the war name Sayf al-Adl (Sword of Justice), Abu Musab and Abu al-Ghadia became good friends at a training camp in Afghanistan, occupied by 42 Arab families, three of which were Syrian (metransparent.com, testimony of Mohammed Makkawi on May 29, 2005). Al-Zarqawi took Abu al-Ghadia under his wing, personally training him in the use of firearms and explosives. He also took lessons in topography and electronics. He received further training in the Palestinian Ain al-Hilweh refugee camp in Lebanon, becoming a master of document fraud. From hereon, al-Zarqawi relied on him to secure fake passports for jihadists traveling around the world. The young Syrian had accompanied al-Zarqawi to Jordan where he introduced al-Ghadia to a Jordanian woman. They married and moved to Iraq to join al-Zarqawi after 2003 (al-Arabiya, June 8). Shortly afterwards, his name emerged as one of the terrorists whose property in the United States, if any, was frozen by the U.S. government.

Abu al-Ghadia also worked as al-Zarqawi's moneyman in Iraq (metransparent.com, July 25, 2005). He is said to have channeled $10,000-$12,000 to al-Zarqawi every 20-25 days. This money came from Islamic sources in the Arab world. In 2004, Abu al-Ghadia was charged with building bridges with "Arab Afghans" who had fought with Osama bin Laden against the Soviets in the 1980s. Many had been dispersed after the war in Afghanistan, and Abu al-Ghadia was asked to find them and recruit them to work with al-Zarqawi in Iraq.

In February, Jordan sentenced Abu al-Ghadia to death in absentia. He, like al-Zarqawi, was found guilty of planning chemical attacks in Amman. Among other things, both al-Ghadia and al-Zarqawi wanted to target Jordanian intelligence services and the U.S. Embassy in Jordan in April 2004. Abu al-Ghadia was sentenced for sending money to al-Zarqawi and recruiting and training members of al-Qaeda in Iraq (al-Jazeera, May 24, 2004). Another Syrian, Anas Sameer al-Sheikh (19 years-old), was arrested and also sentenced to death. He is believed to have been recruited into al-Qaeda by Abu al-Ghadia. Jordanian TV had interviewed some of the terrorists, and one confessed to having received funds, fake passports and arms from al-Ghadia, who charged him with setting up an arms factory on the Iraqi side of the Syrian-Iraqi border. These activities show that despite the death of al-Zarqawi, al-Ghadia will continue to work with al-Qaeda and build on al-Zarqawi's legacy in Iraq.

I can see that you and I have a fundamental disagreement on this, Bill. Abu al-Ghadia obviously had form and terrorism is a poor career choice but I see people like him as largely a product of America's own making. When he was growing up, how many times did he witness members of his own and extended family being killed by Israeli or American attacks? Which brings me to the central point (one you have yet to address)--it doesn't matter how many al-Ghadia's or bin-Laden's you kill because more will always spring up.

TF-88 can pat themselves on the back, go back to Headquarters for de-briefing and cocktails, and boast to the world about the great job they've done. But while America remains an occupying force, while it murders innocents in pursuit of the guilty, while it supports the brutal repression of Palestine, the multi-headed Hydra will just grow another head to replace guys like al-Ghadia.

It locks in an eternal conflict but apparently many Americans have too much crude hubris to see or give a dam. And you also can't afford it any more---America's broke, remember?

You need to see Team America, twice.

The bombing of Syria was clearly an act of war.

John, the attack on Americans whereever they are is an act of war. The Americans are responding to their being attacked.

Oh, for heaven's sake. Geez Bill.

Americans should ask themselves how they would react if any country bombed their territory.

Nobody bombed anybody. We're talking about the helicopter attack on the al Quada coordinator in Syria and the taking of two prisoners.

Er, yes, somebody bombed somebody. It was an aerial bombardment from helicopters. Eight dead from most reports.

Lucky for the world (and Obama) the Syria did not declare war on the United States.

John, do you refuse to read or believe this report that the attack had the green light from Syrian Intelligence?

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Syria-Helicopter-Attack-Carried-Out-By-US-With-Knowledge-Of-Syrian-Intelligence-Says-Ronen-Bergman/Article/200810415130766?lpos=World_News_Top_Stories_Header_1&lid=ARTICLE_15130766_Syria_Helicopter_Attack_Carried_Ou

Can't speak for John, but I wouldn't believe a bloody thing I see on SkyNews (especially when they're getting their info from 'Ísraeli spokesmen'. And I think Syria would have been fully justified in declaring war on the US.

Yea, he's a Lame Duck President with all the power in the world and no one to account for what he does. That may be scarry, but I'm going to kind of miss him, as I like having real bad guys in power - like LBJ, Nixon and Bush, so its easier to be against the government.

So I guess that makes you a McCain supporter then, Bill.

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=...40-ef3ac16a42b5

On Sunday, U.S. helicopters accompanied by a special forces team struck in Sukkariyeh, Syria, just over the border from Iraq. It was a raid with enormous implications for the war in Iraq and the broader war on terror. The target of the raid was a man named Badran Turki Hishan al-Mazidih, better known in his circles as Abu Ghadiya. Since 2004, intelligence officials have been targeting Abu Ghadiya for his pernicious role in Iraq: helping fuel the Sunni insurgency by transporting foreign fighters, money, and weapons. Never before had Americans struck within Syria with such visible fingerprints. But officials believe that killing Abu Ghadiya justified that kind of action. One military official told me that the elimination of Abu Ghadiya represents a significant triumph over al Qaeda in Iraq. "The organization is pretty much finished now," he told me.

That is a big story. But it doesn't begin to capture the magnitude of the strike in Sukkariyeh. We have entered a new phase in the war on terror. In July, according to three administration sources, the Bush administration formally gave the military new power to strike terrorist safe havens outside of Iraq and Afghanistan. Before then, a military strike in a country like Syria or Pakistan would have required President Bush's personal approval. Now, those kinds of strikes in the region can occur at the discretion of the incoming commander of Central Command (Centcomm), General David Petraeus. One intelligence source described the order as institutionalizing the "Chicago Way," an allusion to Sean Connery's famous soliloquy about bringing a gun to a knife fight.

The new order could pave the way for direct action in Kenya, Mali, Pakistan, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen--all places where the American intelligence believe al Qaeda has a significant presence, but can no longer count on the indigenous security services to act. In the parlance of the Cold War, Petraeus will now have the authority to fight a regional "dirty war." When queried about the order from July, deputy spokesman for the National Security Council Ben Chang offered no comment.

Bring on the war crimes trials.

And, make no mistake, that Obama's nominee for Attorney General will be Eric Holder

Has Obama already indicated this or is this an educated guess?

The recent US helicopter attack in Syria, near the Iraq border, and the missile attack by US drones in Pakistan has caused outrage in those countries. The White House has remained silent, as has the cowardly Western media. The combined death toll was about 34.

The US considers itself above the rule of law and continues to violate the sovereignty of other nations with impunity. In this regard they share a common trait with Israel. Indeed, it's clear they are working in tandem, most likely with some larger strategy in mind. One would hope they are not setting a precedent for an unprovoked attack on Iran--the US/Israel axis of evil is clearly itching for a war with Iran--with the tired old 'war on terror' line as their flimsy but ever reliable excuse. Iran shares land borders with seven countries, including Pakistan, Iraq and Afghanistan so it's possible the US might send in Team America for another attack close enough to the Iranian border to provoke an Iranian military response. This is what the Bush regime, and especially Israel, dearly want.

Bring on the war crimes trials.

The bombing of Syria was clearly an act of war. Americans should ask themselves how they would react if any country bombed their territory. Lucky for the world (and Obama) the Syria did not declare war on the United States.

What else can Bush try to get the Republicans elected? He probably realised it is too late to do anything to help McCain now. However, Bush will remain president for 12 more weeks. He is no longer accountabe to American electors and he can do what he likes.

Some presidents have used this time wisely. For example, Ronald Reagan in January 1989, upset the Jewish lobby by recognizing the PLO as the representatives of the Palestinian people.

In the dying days of his administration, George Bush put US forces in Somalia and gave pardons to his mates involved in the Iran-Contra conspiracy.

Clinton spent the final weeks of his time as president to get a peace deal with Israel and Palestine.

What will George Bush do? Probably, he will do the same as his father. Whereas he left Clinton to deal with the foreign policy disaster of Somalia, he will probably cause Obama problems in Iran. As Jonathan Freedland recently pointed out: "Bush may be thinking of a parting gift more in keeping with the record of the last eight years. He and Cheney might decide, what the hell, we have one last chance to whack Iran - and let the new guy clear up the mess."

Will they go out with a bang or a whimper? Definitely worth mulling over. I tend toward the latter because provoking an Iranian war would just be too transparent. The world is watching. Europe, China and Russia won't like it and America is in a bad bargaining position at the moment. And despite what the media allows us to see and hear, I really think the ranks of the politically illiterate are shrinking. But of course you never know when Texas gamblers, Zionists and Neocons get together, they live in a bubble.

In regard to your first paragraph, I share your amazement. While watching their military attack nation after nation, Americans stare into space like lovesick cows.

Bak. Derk-derk-Allah. Derka derka, Mohammed Jihad. Haka sherpa-sherpa. Abaka-la.

Team America - World Police

Yeah.

Team America is one of my favorite films. Maybe in the top three. Stone and Parker set out to offend as many people as possible but it's just so screamingly funny.

And now.........................Mister Arek Borwin.

p.s. freedom costs a buck o five.

Mark,

I was wondering how long it would take before you brought up Palestine.

Well it is the elephant in the living room of US foreign policy, so I think it rates a mention, even if many supposedly well informed American members don't like talking about it.

I'm pretty sure Obama has made a deal with the Isralies, and I know that he supports the crossboarder engagements in Pakistan, but like the White House, has remained silent about the Syria raid.

Well he's had to kiss plenty of butt, otherwise he would never get elected. But if he doesn't have a realistic plan for Palestine--as opposed to an Israeli plan for Palestine--the rest of the world will know he's just another phony. Obama will have to offend the Zionist lobby (of course, they are very easily offended), but I reckon he'll talk over the heads of the lobby and it's Western media cheerleaders and ride a wave of global opinion to get real changes. Of course, this might get him killed and we know where his VP stands on the issue---he's a unapologetic Zionist. The lobby knows the benefit of having a starter in every race.

And no, the United States and the muliti-national forces in Afghanistan can't just leave and let them settle their own problems because the Islamic fundamentalists impose Islamic law over everyone, a tyrianical system that the US fought in 1800 in the Barbary Wars and fight today.

I didn't mean leave tomorrow, but rather draw up a realistic plan for a prompt withdrawal. As for your fear of tyranny subsequently reigning supreme, there's only so much the US can do, unless you believe the US is duty bound to eradicate tyranny globally. If so, why are there no US troops occupying Zimbabwe, where the UN recently concluded that 50% of the population are starving? US foreign policy loves to cherrypick its crusades and there's usually some stinking motive behind its selections. Also, why do you think the US is more capable of sorting out Afghanistan than Afghans themselves? Oh, that's right--they need the US to point out the goodies from the baddies.

The foreign occupation of Afghanistan dates back much further than the Soviets, hundreds of years with the British and thousands of years with Alexander.

I know. Interesting but not directly relevant.

As for the growing outrage over the US attacks, consider what is slowly coming out - Bush gave Gen. Petraus the operational freedom for crossboard operations last July, and that the Syrian Intelligence service was briefed before hand, and have been supplied with the intelligence gained from the missions, including two captured prisoners.

We haven't heard the last on this.

They've done it twice, so you can be sure they will do it again. It's just a matter of when, where and who they are after.

Of course. The game plan is to trigger a war with Iran. Many thousands would be killed. US foreign policy needs to turn 180 degrees. Bush, Chaney and all the neocon Zionist zealots belong in jail. One day that's where they'll be.

And I hope you are right about Obama being able to settle the Middle East disputes, but I wouldn't count on it.

Nor would I.

Where's the outrage of over 3,000 civilians killed at the WTC while al Quada laughed?

9/11 is still largely unresolved and as you know, there are many critics of the official Government investigation. Some think that there were elements within the intelligence community who knew in advance that it would occur and did nothing to stop the attack. And from what I've read, it wasn't only Al Queda doing the laughing. The Israeli 'art students' were whooping it up as well.

Whose killing civilians?

The US is killing civilians.

They didn't send a missle into Abu Ghadiya's house in Syria, they sent in soldiers in helicopters who went in and got the guy they were looking for. They didn't pick a house with a buch of innocent old ladies sitting around drinking tea to kill. They knew who they were looking for and they got the bastard. They killed his pals And they took a prisoner out with them. How come nobody's bitchin' about him? Talk about radical extradition. They don't bitch about him because he was a bastard they're glad to get rid of.

Fine. In 1946, the Jewish terrorist group Irgun blew up Jerusalem's King David Hotel, killing 91 people (mostly Arabs and British). Menachem Begin, leader of Irgun, carried out the attack. He then fled to the US where he used to hang out with West Coast mobsters like Mickey Cohen. According to your logic, the British forces would have been entirely justified in pursuing Begin to America and then killing him. Any innocent American civilians killed in the process would just be bad luck, right?

I'm sure the American school they closed in Syria wasn't teaching radical islamic thug fundamentalism, as practiced by al Quada, who enslave women, kill kids who have American dollars or candy on them, and terrorize people into submission.

I don't like Islamic fundamentalism any more than you do but it's not like an army you can defeat. It's an idea, an ideology. No amount of bullets or missiles will defeat it. When you kill the Al queda 'bastard and his pals' you can rest assured the leadership vaccuum will be rapidly filled. It's folly with no end. Can't you see that?

The principles of the American revolution are as radical and revolutionary today as they were in 1776, and I'm sure the American school in Syria taught reading, writing, arithmatic, freedom, liberty, democracy and justice, radical ideas in an ignorant world.

Ah yes, you're out to save the world from ignorance---whether they like it or not. Reading, writing and arithmatic are radical ideas in Syria are they? As for freedom liberty and justice, perhaps America should practice what it preaches rather than preaching what it doesn't practice.

America shouldn't be the world's policeman, and they don't belong in Iraq, but there is not a more just cause than the war against al Quada in Afghanistan and whereever they are in the world.

God Bless the American Special Forces hunting al Quada thugs, and the Afghan, Aussie, Brits, Israle and other volunteers who fight with them.

What crap. Don't you think Afghanistan deserves a break? They've had occupying forces in their country since the Soviets invaded in '79. The best way to starve Islamic fundamentalism of oxygen is for America to withdraw, stop trying to incite conflict throughout the world with weapons sales and starting addressing its massive domestic problems. The seige mentality imposed on the Islamic world by the US would diminish. And If Obama shows leadership on the 60 year old problem of Palestine--which I believe he will--then the ideology of Islamic fundamentalism will rapidly lose appeal throughout the Islamic world.

Did you get the message?

If you are al Quada or pals with al Quada, they're comming to get cha, where ever you are. Not kidding.

BK

No, I don't get the message at all.

Who the hell annointed the US to be the world's police? You don't have the right to roam the globe in pursuit of your enemies, real or imagined, mowing down civilians in the process. What #### arrogance.

How would you like it if the forces of another country--from the other side of the world no less--regularly killed US citizens in pursuit of shadowy enemies?

Furthermore, such bloodlust only perpetuates the endless cycle of bloodshed. The more civilians you kill, the more new terrorists are recruited. It will never end. There's no glorious victory waiting for you, just war and death.

I hope Obama gets America out of Iraq and Afghanistan and starts attending to the needs of US citizens--and stops waging wars on behalf of its so-called allies.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...a&aid=10738

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...a&aid=10737

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...a&aid=10735

The recent US helicopter attack in Syria, near the Iraq border, and the missile attack by US drones in Pakistan has caused outrage in those countries. The White House has remained silent, as has the cowardly Western media. The combined death toll was about 34.

The US considers itself above the rule of law and continues to violate the sovereignty of other nations with impunity. In this regard they share a common trait with Israel. Indeed, it's clear they are working in tandem, most likely with some larger strategy in mind. One would hope they are not setting a precedent for an unprovoked attack on Iran--the US/Israel axis of evil is clearly itching for a war with Iran--with the tired old 'war on terror' line as their flimsy but ever reliable excuse. Iran shares land borders with seven countries, including Pakistan, Iraq and Afghanistan so it's possible the US might send in Team America for another attack close enough to the Iranian border to provoke an Iranian military response. This is what the Bush regime, and especially Israel, dearly want.

Bring on the war crimes trials.

Wait a minute. Both of these incursions were US attacks on al Quada units who coordinated across border attacks on US forces and then retreat into Syira and Pakistan.

While I don't think the USA should be in Iraq at all, both Syria and Pakistan are ostensibly safe harbors for those who attack US forces, so they are fare game, as far as I'm concerned.

If Syria and Pakistan don't want US forces to violate their soverignty, they shouldn't allow al Quada to violate their soverignty either.

Bill Kelly

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-New...tack_Carried_Ou

Remember Poncho Villa!, Muhammad Omar and Abu Ghadiya.

Look out Osama Bin Laden.

Ah, you've got to be kidding me, Bill.

That would mean the US could pre-emptively strike any other country, and always claim they were chasing Al queda. Anyway, where's the proof that justifies such a deadly strike? Down the drain with the WMD's probably. Civilian casualties don't seem to matter to blinkered Yanks. They're only ragheads after all.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...a&aid=10738

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...a&aid=10737

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...a&aid=10735

The recent US helicopter attack in Syria, near the Iraq border, and the missile attack by US drones in Pakistan has caused outrage in those countries. The White House has remained silent, as has the cowardly Western media. The combined death toll was about 34.

The US considers itself above the rule of law and continues to violate the sovereignty of other nations with impunity. In this regard they share a common trait with Israel. Indeed, it's clear they are working in tandem, most likely with some larger strategy in mind. One would hope they are not setting a precedent for an unprovoked attack on Iran--the US/Israel axis of evil is clearly itching for a war with Iran--with the tired old 'war on terror' line as their flimsy but ever reliable excuse. Iran shares land borders with seven countries, including Pakistan, Iraq and Afghanistan so it's possible the US might send in Team America for another attack close enough to the Iranian border to provoke an Iranian military response. This is what the Bush regime, and especially Israel, dearly want.

Bring on the war crimes trials.

9,Most likely to be a CIA, Mossad, MI6 plant.

It's a tie among "Len Colby."

Hi Everyone,

A friend of mine is interested in reading about the assassination of JFK and has asked me to recommend several books.

I am hoping some of you will suggest some for him, maybe 4 or 5 that would basically serve as a complete guide to the whole event with possibly 1 or 2 of them more recent and therefore acting as an update on developments since – any ideas?

I sincerely appreciate any help with this, thanks - Steve

I think the two Mark Lane books, 'Rush To Judgement' and 'A Citizen's Dissent' are the best grounding for assassination newbies who are after the basic facts.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...a&aid=10698

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...a&aid=10670

It's hard to believe it's really happening. The eastern European countries, whom experts predicted would escape the global meltdown, are starting to fall like dominoes. Hungary hopes an IMF loan will stave off collapse while Latvia, Lithuania and others wait on death row. Their problem is heavy reliance on credit from international lending institutions, which has now evaporated. Their currencies are in freefall. Ukraine's stock market has lost 75% of its value in a year. Even Russia is in trouble, despite--and because of--it's status as a net energy exporter. The slowdown with its resultant fall in commodity prices including oil, has caused a drastic revenue shortage. Russia relied on American-led global consumerism more than it realised.

The potential for social dislocation throughout Europe boggles the mind.

As has been noted here and elsewhere, it's the end for free market capitalism, especially the extreme variety formerly practised by Wall Street. The lunacy of a dogma which rewards greed and punishes honesty is now abundantly clear. The recent public denunciation of greed by the American political establishment as the root cause of these problems is a huge belly laugh. I would guess the US political and power establishment has already been told that the rest of the world wants Obama elected full stop. This should put an end to any last ditch plans for vote rigging or false flag stunts by the GOP and their backers.

.....However, in that same year, 1923, the PGA Champion and the winner of the most important golf tournament, the US Open, was Gene Sarazen. What became of him?

He played golf until he was 92, died in 1999 at the age of 95. He was financially secure at the time of his death.

What is the moral of this story?

Gene Sarazen was one of only five players to win the Grand Slam - each of the four Majors in their lifetime. Who were the others?

BK

Off the top of my head-seriously-I would say Nicklaus, Watson, Woods and Player. I know Arnie Palmer never won a PGA.

Like the Soviet Communist Party, you cannot afford the dominant ideology to be questioned.

Come off it, John.

Racism is the wild card that could send America hurtling backwards, and McCain appealed to that audience by treating his Senate colleague Obama with a measure of contempt throughout the debate -- he was unable to bring himself to address Obama directly when asked to by the moderator. He reminded me of the attitude of white South Africans back in the days of apartheid.

Yes, I noticed this too. While Obama often turned to face McCain, the latter rarely reciprocated.

Also, McCain's tone was condescending, regularly implying that Obama 'didn't understand' or 'shows naivete'. It was quite a dismissive and insulting display from McCain, imo.

For me the most nauseating part was when McCain cited Reagan as some kind of role model for great Presidency. What an astonishingly inappropriate comment, holding up the pinup boy of Wall Street at the same time as Wall Street was in the process of bringing America to its knees.

McCain lavished praise on all the usual groups, appeared to defend the absurd orthodoxy of 'not speaking to our enemies' and made me sick with his teary-eyed declaration that he loves all veterans.

McCain was pathetic.

A McCain no-show would mean he forfeits any hope of the Presidency.

This happened in Australia in the 1983 election when incumbent PM Malcolm Fraser refused to debate Labor Party Leader Bob Hawke. The Labor Party then ran damaging commercials with a narrator asking questions to an empty chair.

Peter DeFazio on the bailout package. Good stuff

Great DeFazio vid, Terry.

Paulsen got a 50 million bonus in 2006 and Wall Street gave itself 60 BILLION in bonuses. Incredible.

I think some people might be asked to return the loot.

The entire financial system is bankrupt. They should put the system into bankruptcy protection. No the bail out will not work. And they're trying to scare people into going along with the bailout. But how do you bail out $200-$400 trillion in derivatives?

I think you're right, Terry. The free market system is disintegrating and we might all go with it.

What a circus the bailout summit turned out to be and so much for the authority of Bush and McCain. It's going to be a fiesty debate, if McCain shows up.

Now Bush is bringing a combat brigade back from Iraq to 'support of civilian authority'.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...a&aid=10341

Why should I pay for someone who did, and see my savings eaten up by inflation after the government prints 700 billion dollars in new bills to distribute to limousine beggars on Wall Street?

Because you have been given the privilege of living in God's country, Ron. This is the system America tries to export (often with force) to the unenlightened masses around the globe.

It looks like there might be trouble with getting the bailout package through the Congress:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/3073543...al-markets.html

The wording is too loose and the election is only about 40 days off. The consequence of stalling is a lockdown of the finanacial system as credit evaporates. The consequence of its passage will mean homeowners (and the rest of the population) take the pain of the asset writedowns and economic readjustment. Not very palatable either way.

It's times like these, surely a national emergency, that Americans must regret electing a buffoon as President.

Meanwhile, this analyst doesn't like the Greenback's chances, claiming it is backed by bananas:

http://www.presstv.ir/Detail.aspx?id=70069...ctionid=3510302

Finally, it seems that the economic crisis has forced the US to suspend its pernicious foreign policy agenda, at least for now. The members of the European US alliance have now cancelled talks aimed at increasing sanctions on Iran:

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=70404...ionid=351020101

Could be a sign of things to come.

It looks like in the short term at least, the future prosperity of American citizens rests on the value of the dollar. The signs are not good.

http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff09232008.html

September 23, 2008

What Nobody's Saying

The Bailout Will Kill the Dollar

By DAVE LINDORFF

What nobody in the corporate media is mentioning amid all the blather about the $700-billion Paulson bailout proposal is the impact it will have on the US dollar.

We are told that this huge gift to the financial sector—the assumption, at top dollar, of all the bad debt they’ve piled up--will be at taxpayer expense, but that’s only the half of it. (Really only the quarter of it because since the US government is technically bankrupt already, spending more than it takes in each year, all that money will be borrowed, and will be added to the national debt, meaning that just as the real cost of the $500-billion Iraq War is closer to $2 trillion, the real cost of the $700 billion bailout will be more like $1.5-2.5 trillion.)

But besides the direct bill handed to taxpayers for this gigantic con, there is the fact that adding that much to the national debt is also going to drive the dollar down precipitously against foreign currencies. We’re already seeing that happen, even while they’re just talking about the bailout. The dollar is falling against all major currencies—the Euro, the Yen, the Renminbi and the British pound. And it will continue to fall as the details of the bailout come out.

This will add to already powerful pressures in countries like Saudi Arabia and China, which hold huge quantities of US dollars and US dollar-denominated debt, to shift out of dollars and into other currencies—particularly the Euro and the Yen. Last week, an article in China’s People’s Daily, which like Pravda in the old Soviet Union, is the official voice of the leadership in China, called for just such a move. Russia is also calling for an end to the dollar as the underpinning of the global economy.

For some years now, many economists have been predicting an end to the dollar as the world’s reserve currency, but this latest plan by the US Treasury will push such a shift forward from “some day” to “now.”

As long as the dollar has been the reserve currency—the currency in which key commodities like gold or oil were priced, and the currency that exporting nations stocked in their treasuries as a store of value – it was protected against collapse. But once it loses that status, there will be nothing to prop it up any longer, and it will quickly slide to a value that it deserves. We got an inkling of what is going to happen today, as crude oil prices leapt in the short time it took me to research and write this essay (less than an hour!) by 25%, the biggest jump in the history of the oil market. This timely vindication of my point was purely a move caused by loss of confidence in the dollar. There was no oil supply disruption. In fact, demand for oil has been sinking as the economic crisis grows. Oil producers and traders simply realized that the dollar is going poof, so they radically jacked up the cost of oil in dollars.

If you want to see what where the dollar is headed, look to the currencies of the debtor nations—countries like Mexico or perhaps Mozambique. A nation that makes almost nothing, and that imports most of its needs, cannot have a strong currency.

This might not matter much if we had a functioning domestic economy, where people could find the goods and services they needed without turning to sources from abroad. A big country like the US could simply turn inward and function on by its own domestic economic standards.

I remember back when the former Soviet Union was in a state of economic and political free fall in the early and mid 1990s, the currencies of the constituent countries, like Russia, Ukraine and Belarus had had collapsed to virtual worthlessness on the international market. A Byelorussian friend, an engineering professor from Minsk, living and working near me in China at the time, explained that although when he traveled the world, he felt like a pauper, things weren’t so bad back home Belarus, where he and his family would go in the summer. “My apartment only costs a few dollars a month to rent,” he explained, “and our food is bought on the local market using rubles, so it is very affordable.” The same was true for other needs, like clothing and books for school, he explained. The only problem was buying gas for his Russian Volga. “Gas,” he explained, “is priced as an international commodity, so it takes me one month’s wages in Belarus to buy the gas to drive once to and from our country dacha.”

You can start to see the problem. Since agriculture has been killed off in most of the US, in favor of giant agribusiness enterprises situated in the western part of the country and some parts of the Midwest, most people elsewhere will not have local produce available, and the cost of transporting food from California to places like New York or Pennsylvania will be prohibitive once the dollar collapses, since oil is priced internationally. Meanwhile, goods like TV sets, computers, phones, cars (or at least the key components of cars), clothing, etc., are no longer even made in the US, and will thus be completely unaffordable. As for the service jobs that are supposed to have replaced our old manufacturing sector, no one will be interested in buying what they’re offering, because they’ll be scrimping just to buy the key staples they need to survive, so of course joblessness will soar.

Eventually, of course, entrepreneurially minded people will begin establishing local farms again where they once flourished generations ago, and small factories will be built to provide key essentials, but all this will take time, and will have to cater to a market of people operating at a much lower standard of living.

The banking sector, meanwhile, which is the proximate cause of this monumental disaster, won’t mind any of this, for it will continue operating on the international stage, shifting its focus to lending money (no longer dollars, though), to growing economies in Asia and Latin America and eastern Europe. And this is what, in truth, the “rescue” of Wall Street is all about.

It’s not about saving Main Street, as Paulson claims. Main Street, under the bailout, is toast. It’s about helping the banks and investment banks and insurance companies that brought on this crisis to ride it out in style, their astronomical losses bankrolled or absorbed by the American public, so that they can shift their operations overseas and continue with their rape and pillage of the global economy.

The US will be left behind, a smoking ruin, with Americans, like Weimar Germans before them, going shopping with wheelbarrows full of worthless green paper to exchange for a few days’ groceries.

DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based journalist and columnist. His latest book is "The Case for Impeachment" (St. Martin's Press, 2006 and now available in paperback edition). His work is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net