Steven Gaal

========== OH !!! SOOOOOO hurt Cry cry cry cry cry !!!!!!!! Now back to reality GEE OTHER PEOPLE WITH SIMILAR IDEA =============================================== A Solar-Powered Death Ray http://io9.com/37922...wered-death-ray (no citations obscure blooger (Colby Time machine response) Except Colby misses point....if one person has idea then another well then elites can have same idea)

COLBY in red Gaal++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ GEE I COULD LEAN TO ASSAD IDEA .....he doubled back Salifi operative ...yup sounds good to DOD. PART ONE ################################# US-supported Salafi terrorists tarnish image of true Islam: Analyst http://www.presstv.i...disgrace-islam/ An American peace activist tells Press TV that the US-backed Salafi terrorist groups operating inside Syria represent an anti-social and anti-human interpretation of Islam. The leader of the foreign-backed al-Nusra militant group fighting against the Syrian government has pledged allegiance to the al-Qaeda chief, Ayman al-Zawahiri. Meanwhile, former leader of Syria’s opposition National Coalition Ahmed Moaz al-Khatib tried to distance the bloc from the al-Qaeda-linked al-Nusra Front following Baghdadi's statement, saying, “There has never been and there will never be a decision at the command level to coordinate with al-Nusra.” The foreign-sponsored unrest in Syria began in March 2011, and many people, including large numbers of soldiers and security personnel, have been killed in the violence. Press TV has conducted an interview with Randy Short, with Dignity, Human Rights and Peace Organization from Washington D.C. He is joined by Anjem Choudary, with the Shairah Court of UK from London. What follows is a rough transcription of the interview. Press TV: Randy Short you just heard Anjam Choudary, saying that this is going to be a global phenomenon now. Please give us your reaction to the statements? Short: Well, he is clearly on to something; it is a global phenomenon. Where I take issue with him is, this global phenomenon has been supported by the very states that prop up Israel. So I am curious as to if they are successful in achieving their first end how are they are going to get to the second if, in fact, they are armed by the very forces that have empowered Israel with nuclear weapons and have backed them for over 60 years. It is not clear. So it seems as if, to me, that you have people who have an end to achieve but they are getting support from the very same people they are going to have to fight. So it so going to be a very interesting transition, how do they turn on the people that are arming and empowering them. Press TV: Randy Short your reaction to that [the Facebook comment of one of the viewers]? Short: Well, I would agree with that comment and further to respond to the gentleman in London, I am far from superficial. The superficiality is to presuppose that somehow under the banner of Islam that everyone is going to come together when we look at Libya and for that matter if we look at Saudi Arabia, where you have this pure Islam you have conflict. When you put the guns and this divided opposition together if you were to have a fall in a matter of the days for the Assad regime it is going to be a bloodbath. It would not be anything that anyone would want and so no one was talking about America’s foreign interest, when I was speaking I am thinking about the people on the ground that live in Syria. It is very interesting that the perspective of the gentleman ignores the self-determination or human rights of the people within Syria. What about minorities? And what about the hatred against different groups like Christians and Shias? How are they going to be treated and does this new shariah pure Islam state that he proposes, is it going to be like Libya is now? Or Afghanistan and that is where they will get enough help to destroy a state from the West but not enough help to create even the pure Islamic state that they want and so I am far from superficial. I think that his ideology drives him to look at it in a very, very pristine way that it will be achieved but I am not so certain because they rarely happen that way. There is always fallout after a revolution or change in power. [in response to Anjam Choudary]: Iran is not a secular regime and Iran is... Press TV: Randy short go ahead. Short: Well, he is acting as if the Shias do not have a right to practice Islam as they understand it and to dismiss this is the highpoint of sectarian bigotry. Who runs Iran? Who is the leading power? And it is an Islamic republic. To deny that is it because that they are Shia? Is that the kind of change that they are going to come [bring about]? So they are going to attack the Shias and they are going to have Muslims fight each other? This plays right into the hands of the same people who are providing the humanitarian assistance to al-Nusrah, the people that you are saying, help. This is Western supply; these people do not have food and books, so this is coming from America, the same country that you said have a superficial policy. You are coming to them and from Britain and France, to get humanitarian aid to make it seem as if the folks have a compassion for the folks, when in reality they can provide nothing right at this moment and the infrastructure of the state and that aside in particular Syria has been destroyed. So maybe the people want the food because you have destroyed their capacity to feed themselves and to educate themselves. I would take it too, if I was in a refugee camp but I would never forget who made me hungry, who destroyed my home, who ruined my society and I would be very suspicious of whether I would want them to be a government over me. [in response to Anjam Choudary]: You reject human rights? I believe you [do]. They are not my colleagues in the White House, I beg to differ with you and you are the one that gives assistance..., your colleagues get the assistance from the White House. As an African American nationalist my perspective is not supported by this “Anglo-American” government. You are more likely to receive, from the very same people you keep criticizing, help than I will. Because you are working for them even though you do not want to acknowledge it and you are hiding behind the same pure Islam but who is funding you? Going all the way back to T.E Lawrence supporting the rebellion against the Ottoman Empire, that you have always been supported by Britain, France and the United States. There is no separation from the powers that be in the West, from your movement. You have always gotten that help whether it is Afghanistan, whether it is Libya. You cannot divide it; you may want to but you cannot. I never said that they [uS and Britain regimes] were not [the Muslims’ enemies]. You keep talking to me from a very sectarian bigoted view without recognizing my particularity, without understanding that. So when you talk to me it is not if you talk to George Bush and we have got nothing alike but that shows your lack of understanding of the world and differences even within the United States. Speaking of superficial, you are a textbook case. You do not understand and I am not here to argue the American foreign policy. As a human rights advocate and a peace advocate I have been denouncing the American foreign policy at every chance I could. I have a lot of respect for Islam, especially when it is peaceful and it follows the Prophet Mohammad’s, peace be upon him, and the Surahs but not the senseless killing, the mortars and the violation of humanity. This does not sound like the Islam that I was taught about in school. If you cared about Palestine why do not you do everything that you can, to help the Palestinians? You said that you do not believe in the human rights, so you do not support the human rights. So why would people travel thousands of miles to kill and to hurt people? Press TV: Randy short go ahead. Short: He said earlier in the program that they did not support the human rights, so why not kill people wherever you could? Why not? If you do not respect the sanctity of human life, why not kill people? So, I mean, I would not just say that right here, I will not back off of that. That is exactly what is happening in Syria, that is exactly what people have done in Libya. That is a kind of anti-social, anti-human misrepresentation of Islam that some people are pushing. And it justifies and rationalizes the Islamophobia in the West where you yourself, your civil liberties and are at risk in Great Britain because of the behaviors of the people who think like this in other places in the world. I am not talking about the caveman rights. In fact the people who are just like you..., the caveman rights are the murder of Libyans who happen to be black. That is what they have gotten when folks have taken power talking about a pure Islam based on Shariah and it has been quite brutal and inhumane against people. I am an advocate for rights for people in Guantanamo but because you, I saw ideologically blind to the fact that you do not recognize they are people who are just living in societies that are not in your teeny-tiny sectarian concept of the only way people can live. So, you know, I have no apologies. I am against Guantanamo being in possession of the United States. Whether you know that or not and whether you try to outtalk or outyell me, which you will not do, it is very clear that your order that you want to push, to me, seems no more humane than the Western people that you denounce, who my folks have been fighting for our freedom for 500 years but obviously you do not know anything about black folks except for when you have them killed in Libya and in Mauritania. I mean let us talk about the racism of this pure shariah that you Salafis have been pushing. The murder of people because of the color of their skin when the Prophet Mohammad, peace be upon him, said that there is no black, there is no white, there is one. I mean you guys practice sectarianism and racism and you are calling that divine right? You must be crazy. Do not try to insult ... ######################## PART TWO Jordan extremist praises Boston bombing http://www.app.com/c...-Boston-bombing AMMAN, JORDAN — The head of an extremist Jordanian Muslim Salafi group says he’s “happy to see the horror in America” after the explosions in Boston. “American blood isn’t more precious than Muslim blood,” said Mohammad al-Chalabi, who was convicted in an al-Qaida-linked plot to attack U.S. and other Western diplomatic missions in Jordan in 2003. “Let the Americans feel the pain we endured by their armies occupying Iraq and Afghanistan and killing our people there,” he said early Tuesday. A Mideast counterterrorism official based in Jordan said the blasts “carry the hallmark of an organized terrorist group, like al-Qaida.” He did not give actual evidence. A Jordanian official said security was beefed up around the U.S. Embassy in Amman. Both officials insisted on anonymity, as they were not authorized to brief reporters.

SEQUESTER CUTS counter terrorism CNO: Defense cuts hurt counter-terror efforts http://www.navytimes.com/article/20130213/NEWS/302130320/CNO-Defense-cuts-hurt-counter-terror-efforts ============================= Napolitano on sequestration: Cuts make anti-terrorism efforts 'awfully tough' http://www.politico.com/multimedia/video/2013/02/napolitano-on-sequestration-cuts-make-ant-terrorism-efforts-awfully-tough.html

TIME MACHINE SAYS ....... So a GUN NUT ANTI TAXER PERSON GROUP DID IT / A FBI INFORNMANT ALSO almost STOPPED IT> SEQUESTER CUTS HINDERED THE INVESTIGATION (IF CORRECT SOME WILL SAY ITS A LUCKY GUESS) or Syria's ASSAD ..... +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Boston marathon bombing happened on same day as 'controlled explosion' drill by Boston bomb squad Monday, April 15, 2013 by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger Editor of NaturalNews.com (See all articles...) (NaturalNews) Two bombs have rocked the streets of Boston and reportedly injured 22 marathon runners (two have reportedly died). It's too early to know the cause of these explosions, but you can rest assured both the state and federal government will try to use this tragic event to blame whatever convenient enemies are most advantageous for the government. No one has yet stepped forward to claim responsibility for the bombs, and the fact that no firearms were used in the attack may indicate this was NOT part of a false flag effort by the government to try to blame gun owners. (But it's still way too early to tell...) Here at Natural News, we are horrified at this loss of innocent life, and we are praying for the victims of this bombing as well as their families. Bomb squad was running "controlled explosion" on the same day What's not yet being reported by the mainstream media is that a "controlled explosion" was under way on the same day as the marathon explosion. As the Boston Globe tweeted today, "Officials: There will be a controlled explosion opposite the library within one minute as part of bomb squad activities." Some people believe this explosion might have been part of the demolition of another bomb. It seems unlikely, however, that a bomb at the library, one mile away, could be so quickly located and rigged to be exploded by the bomb squad in less than one hour following the initial explosions at the marathon. Bloomberg news is now saying, "This is very likely a terrorist attack." The question is: Who are the terrorists? It's far too early to take an informed guess on all this. However, it is indisputable that the FBI is actively engaged in carrying out bomb plots in the United States, then halting them at the last minute to "catch the terrorists." This fact has been covered by the New York Times, among other publications. Also read FBI 'entrapment' tactics questioned in web of phony terror plots and paid informants. Keep in mind I am in no way blaming the FBI for this. Most men and women who work with the FBI are upstanding citizens who would be appalled at such acts. But it is theoretically possible that one of the FBI's many "terror plots" went too far and turned into a live bomb instead of a dud followed by an arrest for "domestic terrorism." For the record, the explosions seemed relatively small for a false flag, and most false flags target children in order to maximize the emotional leverage after the event. That these explosions did not target children is yet more evidence that it may not have been a false flag at all. Either way, terrorism always works in the favor of the state. It makes presidents look presidential, and it gives the government an excuse to crack down on civil liberties all across the country. Be wary of who ultimately gets blamed for this, especially if it's a veteran or patriot. Additional information: http://www.heavy.com...bomb-explosion/ Learn more: http://www.naturalne...l#ixzz2QYIcKijf Learn more: http://www.naturalne...l#ixzz2QYIVRY8F

LEFTY OBAMA ?? Obama Approves Raising Permissible Levels of Nuclear Radiation in Drinking Water. Civilian Cancer Deaths Expected to Skyrocket Rollback in Nuclear Radiation Cleanup By Helen Caldicott Global Research, April 14, 2013 ##################################### Civilian Cancer Deaths Expected to Skyrocket Following Radiological Incidents The White House has given final approval for dramatically raising permissible radioactive levels in drinking water and soil following “radiological incidents,” such as nuclear power-plant accidents and dirty bombs. The final version, slated for Federal Register publication as soon as today, is a win for the nuclear industry which seeks what its proponents call a “new normal” for radiation exposure among the U.S population, according Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). Issued by the Environmental Protection Agency, the radiation guides (called Protective Action Guides or PAGs) allow cleanup many times more lax than anything EPA has ever before accepted. These guides govern evacuations, shelter-in-place orders, food restrictions and other actions following a wide range of “radiological emergencies.” The Obama administration blocked a version of these PAGs from going into effect during its first days in office. The version given approval late last Friday is substantially similar to those proposed under Bush but duck some of the most controversial aspects: In soil, the PAGs allow long-term public exposure to radiation in amounts as high as 2,000 millirems. This would, in effect, increase a longstanding 1 in 10,000 person cancer rate to a rate of 1 in 23 persons exposed over a 30-year period; In water, the PAGs punt on an exact new standard and EPA “continues to seek input on this.” But the thrust of the PAGs is to give on-site authorities much greater “flexibility” in setting aside established limits; and Resolves an internal fight inside EPA between nuclear versus public health specialists in favor of the former. The PAGs are the product of Gina McCarthy, the assistant administrator for air and radiation whose nomination to serve as EPA Administrator is taken up this week by the Senate. Despite the years-long internal fight, this is the first public official display of these guides. This takes place as Japan grapples with these same issues in the two years following its Fukushima nuclear disaster. “This is a public health policy only Dr. Strangelove could embrace. If this typifies the environmental leadership we can expect from Ms. McCarthy, then EPA is in for a long, dirty slog,” stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch, noting that the EPA package lacks a cogent rationale, is largely impenetrable and hinges on a series of euphemistic “weasel words.” “No compelling justification is offered for increasing the cancer deaths of Americans innocently exposed to corporate miscalculations several hundred-fold.” Reportedly, the PAGs had been approved last fall but their publication was held until after the presidential election. The rationale for timing their release right before McCarthy’s confirmation hearing is unclear. Since the PAGs guide agency decision-making and do not formally set standards or repeal statutory requirements, such as the Safe Drinking Water Act and Superfund, they will go into full effect following a short public comment period. Nonetheless, the PAGs will likely determine what actions take place on the ground in the days, weeks, months and, in some cases, years following a radiological emergency.

===================== Ding dong, the … BBC to cut Thatcher protest song short | Media ... www.guardian.co.uk › Media › BBCCached 3 days ago – Corporation will not play the song Ding Dong! The Witch Is Dead in full on Radio 1 after furious reaction from Thatcher supporters.

US media baffled by attacks on Lady Thatcher, Ronald Reagan's ally In America, divisions are ignored as Britain's first female prime minister is mourned by right and left alike Paul Harris Observer 4/13/13 In America, divisions are ignored as Britain's first female prime minister is mourned by right and left alike "It's difficult to imagine the death of an American politician being met with similar protests," sniffed one recent news report on ABC News. The funeral of Margaret Thatcher is proving to be one of the few events where British culture appears less formal and less respectful than the usually independent-spirited United States. Thatcher is not viewed as a divisive figure on this side of the Atlantic. Across the political aisle, she is thought of firmly in the context of her partnership with Ronald Reagan during the cold war, seen as a stalwart part of the patriotic double act that helped to bring about the collapse of the Soviet Union. Her reputation basks in being part of the warm afterglow of Reagan's presidency – where Democrats and Republicans alike see the 1980s as a sort of highwater mark of muscular Americanism at home and abroad. Certainly Thatcher's domestic policies are either little known or positively portrayed as being part of an effort that "saved" Britain from the threat of socialism – an ideology that is anathema to both of America's political parties. Thus many Americans have been baffled at some of the critical reaction and coverage of her death in Britain, especially given her status as the first woman prime minister in the United Kingdom's history. Barack Obama himself, echoing words once used about Hillary Clinton's 2008 bid for the White House, portrayed her as "…an example to our daughters that there is no glass ceiling that can't be shattered". Even Donna Brazile, a top Democrat strategist and a key ally of the Clintons, was generous in her praise. "Margaret Thatcher was tough, decisive and fearless," she said. But that was nothing compared with the outpouring of grief on the right from all levels of US politics from ordinary Republican congressman to former Alaska governor Sarah Palin. "We have lost an amazing leader," said North Carolina governor Nikki Haley. Palin said she was "deeply saddened" and lavished praise on her: "Her lessons to all of us will live on forever. She was a trailblazer like no other. We lost an icon, but her legacy, as solid as iron, will live on in perpetuity." Indeed, the usually fractious American right, which is engaged in a fierce civil war over its future direction, displayed a currently rare united front in the wake of Thatcher's death. The one thing that all rightwing Republicans could agree on was looking backwards in time and seeing Thatcher as a sort of heroic figure of a Golden Age. When it comes to actually attending her funeral, the response has been patchy. The Obamas may not be attending, but Newt Gingrich, the former House Speaker and resolutely unapologetic free market conservative, is. Representatives of Ronald Reagan's family will attend but it will not be Nancy Reagan, who is "heartbroken" but too ill to make the long journey. Also unable to come will be both presidents George HW and George W Bush. Reportedly all living American presidents have been invited, but it is not clear that any of them will come. However, one possible future president might show up. The weight of being America's top presence at the funeral at the moment appears to be falling on the shoulders of former First Lady and ex-secretary of state Hillary Clinton, whose attendance has been confirmed. Clinton, whose period in Obama's cabinet prepared her expertly for the high affairs of state of a foreign nation, will be used to the ceremony of the occasion. But she may still be unprepared for the bitterly split attitudes towards the most high-profile funeral of a British politician in recent times.

NGO/CIA/STATE DEPT = ARAB SPRING = COLONIALISM = WHAT GAAL'S TALKING ABOUT ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Editor’s Note: The EU must be moving towards the establishment of The Union for the Mediterranean. A plan put forward by Nicolas Sarkozy to economically control all of North Africa and other Arab states. It will be more interdependence and a loss of sovereignty for those nations. In this light, the Arab spring benefits Europe greatly. Morocco could be the first victim among the emerging democracies of Southern Mediterranean, a European strategy for economic independence and political sovereignty. April 14, 2013 STRATRISKS DCFTA : A European colonialism in Morocco? The World Social Forum held recently in Tunis, associative altermondialists Maghreb, South European and Scandinavian, had preached an alarming discourse: It would be according to what was discussed by them, a wide ranging a war that is about to pit the EU-27 countries against the democratic spring countries in the southern Mediterranean. Thus, Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt and to a lesser extent Jordan, whether it decides its orientation towards democracy or not, will be kept on a leash by Europeans through Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Areas (DCFTAs) This is because the thorough and complete free trade agreement including Morocco, among the four target countries, is the first to have indeed begun negotiations with the EU. The government of Abdelilah Benkirane, which has not informed the Moroccans , in its government program, seems bound hand and foot, thus throwing away a number of founding principles of the sovereignty and independence of the country, especially in the economic and legislative levels. Thus, under this agreement, when adopted by the kingdom and the powerful giant bloc of the northern neighbour, it will be a question of discussing the integration of the Moroccan economy into the European market. While this title may sound appealing to some, a danger needs watching. A wide range of new areas will be included in , such as liberalisation in agriculture, goods, services, intellectual property issues, investment protection and liberalisation of public procurement. In sum, the principle of national preference, the government of Abdelilah Benkirane, has championed since its election, will simply go up in smoke and with it, the small farmer and Moroccan SMEs / SMIs, industrial and service sectors . The DCFTA plans to ensure foreign investors the same rights as domestic investors, which will force national companies with their limited means, to face competition from major European groups, resulting in a deficit of activity exacerbating unemployment. The little foreign currency that Morocco gains through its small tourist activities or through transfers of MRE funds, is not sufficient to pay the fat bills of European companies, which will always have the advantage of technical capital, their objective being the quick repatriation benefits and the investment itself. WHEN THE MOROCCAN PARLIAMENT WILL HAVE NO RIGHT TO LEGISLATE A European colonialism in Morocco? Worse, European activists warn that DCFTA will dispossess Morocco of its most basic right as a sovereign State, to legislate. And European firms can drag Morocco before international arbitration courts, when the House of Representatives which is the legal representative of the Moroccan people have initiated changes in legislation or taxation, which would be against the interest of foreign investors, on behalf of a broader concept of expropriation. At WSF Tunis,the voracious neoliberalism of Europe was criticised for facing newly emerging democracies in the southern Mediterranean, in which the EU had laid the groundwork for its designs of absolute control by the first generation of FTAs, which reducedthe financial resources of these countries because of missing receipts from customs duties, Budget gaps caused were then filled by debt, accompanied by heavy conditionalities, thereby heaping others on the necks of those countries, still in their democratic apprenticeship . Related Articles: (NGO = COLONIALISM <Gaal) Europe's Fund For 'Democracy' Puts Its Money Openly Behind Regime Change Editor’s Note: Who benefits from this arrangement. Will the money for sparking and sustaining the uprising be politically focused for the betterment of the EU? Will they hand pick countries like Belarus, Ukraine and Georgia? Europe had their fingerprints all over Libya and that was a real shining example of establishing a democracy. They cannot and will not be able to understand the impacts of their actions until it is too late. When it happens will they fund the new ‘democracy’ to oust the old ‘democracy’? The idea of a democracy is built upon the people and not some technocrats with cash and bullet points on a map. This reeks of hubris and stupidity. (GAAL,CANT AGREE MORE)

related Obama sets record for rejections of Freedom of Information Requests http://xrepublic.tv/node/2944

CAMERON TO UK WORKERS,"DROP DEAD !! " ,Gaal Business Backs David Cameron Call to Renegotiate UK Membership of EU By Shane Croucher: IBT April 15, 2013 9:16 AM GMT ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Almost two-thirds of business back Prime Minister David Cameron's proposal of Britain having a renegotiated membership of the European Union, according to a survey by the British Chambers of Commerce. Cameron has promised an in/out referendum on Britain's membership of the EU if he is re-elected at the next general election, likely to be in 2015. There is a common perception among Britons that the EU is a costly, undemocratic, bloated bureaucracy that has eroded national sovereignty. BCC research found that 64 percent of businesses support a renegotiated relationship with the EU, with a focus on bringing certain business regulation - such as health and safety and employment law - back under the control of Westminster, not Brussels. Of the 4,387 businesses surveyed, only 18 percent wanted full withdrawal from the EU. "These results say a lot about the UK business community's attitudes towards Britain's relationship with the European Union," said John Longworth, director general of the BCC, which represents 104,000 firms employing 5m people. "Companies believe that renegotiation, rather than further integration or outright withdrawal, is most likely to deliver business and economic benefit to the UK." The prime minister said he would like the UK to remain a part of the EU, which accounts for around half the country's trade, on fresh terms, but wants to have the question over membership conclusively answered. Tories think promising a referendum could be the election clincher they need to secure a full majority, something they failed to do in May 2010 which left them in a coalition government with the Liberal Democrats. Cameron recently toured Germany, France and Spain to drum up support from their leaders for his call for a UK renegotiation of its relationship with Europe as well as for broader reform to make the single market more competitive and cut its costs. Business is keen to cut red tape from Europe to make running a firm cheaper and more efficient. However, European leaders have accused Cameron of treating the EU like an "a la carte menu" and that he cannot simply pick and choose which parts he wants the UK to be involved in as he wishes. "This is not cherry-picking, but to argue as some do that you can't have a flexible Europe is wrong," said Cameron ahead of his mini-EU tour. "We can have a flexible Europe where we don't all have to do the same things in the same way." Frances O'Grady, general secretary of the Trades Union Congress, has accused Cameron of a "sinister" attack on workers' rights in his efforts to repatriate employment law from Europe to Britain. "The UK government is making the most vulnerable pay for a crisis they didn't cause, and is set on a wholesale scrapping of workers' rights," said O'Grady at a January speech in Madrid. "But there's one set of workers' rights David Cameron can't touch. Those are the rights provided for by social Europe - paid holidays, health and safety, equal treatment for part-time workers and women, protection when a business is sold off, and a voice at work. "The prime minister wants to 'repatriate' those rights, and not because he thinks he can improve them. "David Cameron wants to make it easier for bad employers to undercut good ones, drive down wages, and make people who already work some of the longest hours in Europe work even longer. To do that, he needs agreement from the rest of Europe."

How The Criminal Banking Cartel Is Destroying America dailybail Part Two: How Obama Surrendered Sovereignty to the Criminal Banking Cartel By John Titus --- Summary of Part One: The U.S. government openly conceded that its sovereign authority to enforce its own laws is gone when Attorney General Eric Holder testified that the Justice Department’s failure to prosecute any big banks is based on anonymous “expert” opinions that prosecutions would destabilize the financial system. This notion of “systemic importance” has been thoroughly discredited. According to Tim Geithner, it’s an intellectually bankrupt phrase. What’s more, it’s been debunked both legally and empirically, which is likely one reason the DOJ’s “experts” wish to remain anonymous. If it turns out that these “experts” are in fact agents of the big banks whose crimes are being immunized by the very entities whose discredited opinions the DOJ is relying on, then those “opinions” are nothing more than assertions of criminal sovereign immunity—a privilege that is legally limited to the President of the United States. Since “the King can do no wrong”—the legal foundation of sovereign immunity—the real King here is the criminally immune cartel of banks, not the President, since real sovereigns don’t surrender the right to enforce their laws. And following the long series of unprosecuted crimes by the cartel, in which the President’s own constituents are the undisputed victims, “surrender” is the most charitable description of the Obama’s acts before the banking cartel. -- Part Two: Inside The Criminal Banking Cartel There are two very big and related clues as to the identity of the anonymous experts behind whose opinions U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder hides whenever explaining away his failure to prosecute big banks on the basis of their “systemic importance.” The first, noted in an article last week by Golem XIV, is a list of international banks that parade under the rather obvious label of “Globally Systemically Important Financial Institutions,” or G-SIFIs. There are 28 banks in total, 9 of them headquartered in the U.S.: Citigroup Deustsche Bank HSBC JP Morgan Chase Barclays BNP Paribas Bank of America Bank of New York Mellon Credit Suisse Goldman Sachs Mitsubishi UFJ FG Morgan Stanley Royal Bank of Scotland UBS Bank of China BBVA Group BPCE Group Credit Agricole ING Bank Mizuho FG Nordea Santander Societe Generale Standard Chartered State Street Sumitomo Mitsui FG Unicredit Group Wells Fargo This list of cartel members is updated annually by the Financial Stability Board, a collection of international organizations. The FSB is a global meta-body of bankers. But the formal edifice, whether called the FSB or the NWO (hat tip Alex), really doesn’t matter, because, as Golem XIV states: “Guess which institutions provide the membership for all of the above international bodies? Yes, you got it—the big banks.” These are the banks that are above the law in the U.S. In Part One, we mentioned four banks—Citigroup, Wells Fargo, HSBC, and UBS—whose massive crimes had been taxed at a de minimis rate by the Department of Justice rather than prosecuted. All four are on the list of G-SIFIs above. So what, you may ask, that’s just a list compiled by some international convention of cokehead bankers, how do they make sure a rogue federal prosecutor doesn’t break ranks and haul a cartel member or two off to criminal trial? Enter clue no. 2: Covington & Burling, the law firm from which both the head of the DOJ (Eric Holder) and the DOJ’s head of criminal enforcement (Lanny Breuer) were recruited. Actually, Breuer is no longer with the DOJ. Following a four-year stint in which “the enforcer” failed to prosecute a single big bank, Breuer has returned to Covington & Burling, where he will earn be rewarded with $4 million in annual compensation. The significance of Covington & Burling lies in its list of current clients, which looks remarkably like the list of criminally immune cartel members above (particularly the more recognizable names): Citigroup, Deutsche Bank, JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, UBS, Wells Fargo, and ING Bank. Not to put too fine a point on it, but Eric Holder and Lanny Breuer have the financial motivation not to prosecute their firm’s clients. In Breuer’s case, it turned out to be $4 million of motivation. Per year. Under any functioning system of law, of course, both Holder and Breuer would submit to screening procedures at the DOJ to insulate them from prosecutorial decisions involving their former clients. We're sure they did the same thing under our impotent system as well. But so what? When laws against crimes are a dead letter, who in his right mind would put any trust in a conflict screen? As Cheyenne told Jill in Once Upon a Time in the West, “when you’ve killed four, it’s easy to make it five.” Now commentators are starting to point out where the slippery slope of sovereign immunity for criminal banks will lead. Jim Chanos, who detected the fraud at Enron well before it destroyed the company and its shareholders, notes that not only are criminal cartel members now motivated to continue cheating and stealing, they have a fiduciary duty to do so. (Speaking of the Enron-ization of the U.S., Eric Holder is working to release CEO Jeff Skilling from prison early in yet another act of prostrate submission before his real masters, the criminal banks.) As Golem XIV points out, immunity extends not only to criminal behavior, but to assets that a cartel member bank acquires through crime: “if by doing those illegal things [the bank] makes out-sized profits for its shareholders and staff, that money, those profits are also above the law.” -- Cyprus Vs. MF Global: The Rule Of Law Is Dead Thus, anyone who thinks account confiscation a la Cyprus can’t happen in the U.S. is dreaming of a bygone republic. Not only is account seizure possible in the U.S., or even likely, it is guaranteed. Just ask MF Global’s segregated account holders or GM senior bondholders if you have any doubts. In the MF Global case, Jon Corzine "brazenly took liquid assets like Treasuries and warehouse receipts, but not cash which would have been more quickly missed, from customer accounts to post as illegal collateral for emergency funding with a lender who must have known that they were receiving stolen goods." The lender, of course, turned out to be JP Morgan--a prominent international cartel member. Jon Corzine was of course one of Obama's top fundraisers and an alumnus of Goldman Sachs--a cartel member. In the GM bankruptcy, the age-old pecking order of creditor priority was turned upside down, literally "rewriting law," when senior unsubordinated secured creditors' claims were trumped by payouts to junior unsecured creditors in a patently political sop to Obama's perceived union supporters. In both cases, the black letter law that's supposed to gird markets with trust and predictablity was trampled in favor of Obama's political allies. Now that Obama has altogether surrendered the DOJ's law enforcement functionality to the criminal international banking cartel, those dangerous precedents turn out to have been short-sighted in the extreme: there is nothing left to stop the plunder of customer accounts in Cyprus from crashing like a tidal wave across U.S. shores. The timing depends only on the restraint that the banking cartel elects to show. There is no remedy in sight, only more financial crime as Americans are robbed deeper into serfdom. The Executive Branch is merely an agent of the criminal banking cartel for the reasons given. That fact, in turn, has cut the Judiciary out of the equation altogether: a court cannot try criminals who are never brought before it to face charges. That leaves Congress, which in theory could initiate impeachment proceedings. But how likely is success when the Senate, which would try any impeachment cases, couldn’t even obtain the names of the DOJ’s so-called experts in the first place? As noted in Part One, Senator Grassley asked the DOJ for the experts’ names in a letter on January 29, 2013. Eric Holder testified on March 6, more than a month later. The issue of the experts’ identities was thus as ripe as could be, but rather than obtaining the names, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee put on a clinic in how to conduct an incompetent examination: Q. On January 29, Senator Sherrod Brown and I requested details on who these so-called 'experts' are. So far we have not received any information. Maybe you're going to but why have we not yet been provided the names of experts the DOJ consults as we requested on January 29? We continue to find out why we aren't having these high-profile cases. A: We will endeavor to answer your letter, Senator. We did not, as I understand it, endeavor to obtain experts outside of the government in making determinations with regard to HSBC. Just putting that aside for a minute though, the concern that you have raised is one that I, frankly, share. I'm not talking about HSBC here, that would be inappropriate. But I am concerned that the size of some of these institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them when we are hit with indications that if we do prosecute — if we do bring a criminal charge — it will have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps even the world economy. I think that is a function of the fact that some of these institutions have become too large. Again, I'm not talking about HSBC, this is more of a general comment. I think it has an inhibiting influence, impact on our ability to bring resolutions that I think would be more appropriate. I think that's something that we — you all [Congress] — need to consider. The concern that you raised is actually one that I share. Note that Senator Grassley asked one question: why haven’t you answered our letter? Holder doesn’t answer it. Instead, he promises to supply the names later. At that point, Grassley should have put two questions to Holder. First, answer my question by explaining why you ignored our letter. Second, when will you supply the names of the “so-called experts”? A mediocre first-year litigation associate would’ve gotten this information within seconds. But not Senator Grassley, who earned his masters degree during the Eisenhower Administration. Here is his completely irrelevant follow-up question: Q: Do you believe that the investment bankers that were repackaging bad mortgages that were AAA-rated are guilty of fraud or is it a case of just not being aggressive or effective enough to prove that they did something fraudulent and criminal? Huh? Not surprisingly, Eric Holder has been in no hurry to disclose the names of the “experts” retained by Covington & Burling’s clients since dancing around Grassley like a cigar store Indian. Holder has completely blown off the Senate, which has done nothing to follow up the issue. Frankly this disgusting charade has surprised no one who’s paying any attention, coming, as it does, from the same august body that exempted itself from insider trading laws and has failed to pass any meaningful reform legislation since the 2008 meltdown, an even worse repeat of which is on its way. On the contrary, both Congress and the Executive Branch are now just tools of fraud used by the criminal international banking cartel against the people, who for their part are drooling iDope dreams oblivious to their own last act, proving Edward Murrow right, a nation of sheep having begotten a government of wolves. *** Postscript: for an altogether different analysis that reaches the same conclusion (it's open season for international bankers on U.S. bank accounts), please see what Jesse has to say.

In August 1994, al-Bayoumi moved to the United States and settled down in San Diego, California, where he became involved in the local Muslim community. He was very inquisitive, and was known to always carry around a video camera. According to several sources[1] [2] (Newsweek 11/22/03, 11/24/03) [3], al-Bayoumi was strongly suspected by many residents of being a Saudi government spy. The man the FBI considered their "best source" in San Diego said that al-Bayoumi "must be an intelligence officer for Saudi Arabia or another foreign power," according to Newsweek Magazine. At this time, al-Bayoumi was paid about $3,000 per month by Dallah Avco, a Saudi company closely tied to the Saudi Ministry of Defense and Aviation, al-Bayoumi's former employer. The salary was officially for a project in Saudi Arabia, although he was living in the United States at the time and apparently did no work for them. For five years, the Saudi ministry reimbursed Dallah Avco for al-Bayoumi's salary, and he was considered a civil servant. When the company tried to fire al-Bayoumi in 1999, a Saudi government official replied with a letter marked "extremely urgent" that the government wanted al-Bayoumi's contract renewed "as quickly as possible."[4] Al-Bayoumi was quickly rehired. Dallah Avco is currently[when?] being investigated by the FBI for ties to al-Qaida.[citation needed] In June 1998, an anonymous Saudi philanthropist donated $500,000 to have a Kurdish mosque built in San Diego, on the condition that al-Bayoumi hired as maintenance manager with a private office. The donation was accepted, but because al-Bayoumi rarely showed up for work, the mosque's leadership became unhappy with him.[citation needed] Eventually, they moved to fire him. Some time in late 1999 or early 2000, Omar al-Bayoumi began receiving another monthly payment–this one from Princess Haifa bint Faisal, the wife of Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi ambassador to the U.S. Checks for between $2,000 and $3,000 were sent monthly from the princess, through two or three intermediaries, to al-Bayoumi.[5] The payments continued for several years, totaling between $50,000 and $75,000. An FBI timeline put together later that month further clarifies that on a rental application on February 5, 2000, the two hijackers specified they had lived with al-Bayoumi from January 15 to February 2. [Federal Bureau of Investigation, 10/2001, pp. 52 ] In fact, as he tells some people, he receives a monthly stipend from Dallah Avco, a Saudi aviation company that has extensive ties to the same Saudi Ministry of Defense and Aviation. [Los Angeles Times, 9/1/2002; Newsweek, 11/24/2002] Al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar In January 2000, al-Bayoumi drove to Los Angeles, saying he was going "to pick up visitors", according to an FBI source.[6] First, al-Bayoumi visited the Saudi consulate there in LA and had a closed-door meeting with Fahad al Thumairy, according to Newsweek. (After 9/11, al Thumairy was barred entry into the U.S. due to his links to terrorism.[7]) It was only afterward that al-Bayoumi met his visitors. On January 15, 2000, future 9/11 hijackers Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar flew to Los Angeles, California from Bangkok, Thailand, just after attending the 2000 Al Qaeda Summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The final 9/11 Commission Report noted: Hazmi and Mihdhar were ill-prepared for a mission in the United States. . . Neither had spent any substantial time in the West, and neither spoke much, if any, English. It would therefore be plausible that they or [Khalid Sheikh Mohammed] would have tried to identify, in advance, a friendly contact for them in the United States. . . We believe it unlikely that Hazmi and Mihdhar. . . would have come to the United States without arranging to receive assistance from one or more individuals informed in advance of their arrival." Al-Bayoumi met the hijackers at a restaurant after their landing; he claims he met them by accident. He invited the two hijackers to move to San Diego with him, and they did. Al-Bayoumi found them an apartment, co-signed the lease, and gave them $1500 to help pay for their rent. Al-Bayoumi also helped the two obtain driver's licenses, rides to Social Security, and information on flight schools. Al-Bayoumi says he was being kind to fellow Muslims in need, and had no idea of their plans. But according to Newsweek magazine a former top FBI official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said, "We firmly believed that he had knowledge [of the 9/11 plot], and that his meeting with them that day was more than coincidence." Al-Hazmi and al-Mihdar's neighbors later reported that the two struck them as quite odd. They had no furniture, they constantly played flight simulator games, and limousines picked them up for short rides in the middle of the night.[8] [9] During this time, al-Bayoumi lived across the street from them. Throughout this period, the payments from Dallah Avco, his titular employer, greatly increased. Al-Hazmi and al-Mihdar later moved into the house of Abdussattar Shaikh, a friend of al-Bayoumi's, who was secretly working as an FBI informant at the time.[10] [11] Arrest and release In July 2001, Omar al-Bayoumi moved to England to pursue a PhD at Aston University. Ten days after the September 11 attacks he was arrested by British authorities working with the FBI. He was held on an immigration charge while the FBI and Scotland Yard investigated him. His phone calls, bank accounts, and associations were researched, but the FBI says they found no connections to terrorism. He was released, and went back to studying at Aston,[12] and later moved to Saudi Arabia. Anonymous British officials suggest al-Bayoumi must have been protected by the FBI, because "giving financial aid to terrorists is a very serious offense and there is no way [the FBI] would have let him go scot-free."[13] Chairman of the 9/11 Congressional Inquiry Senator Bob Graham (D-FL) and his investigators will, in author Philip Shenon’s words, “find it obvious that the amiable al-Bayoumi was a low-ranking Saudi intelligence agent,” and “someone who had been put on the ground in San Diego by his government to keep an eye on the activities of the relatively large Saudi community in Southern California.” [Shenon, 2008, pp. 52]

GLOBALIST CONNECTED SHAW PLANNED A TRIP TO JOLLY OLD ENGLAND http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=888&dat=19670318&id=7nlQAAAAIBAJ&sjid=m1oDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4215,5252574

Amazing for the 2nd time today you show up minutes after I post, you must live here 24/7. Yes I looked into which is why the author's name was familiar to me, +++++++++++++++++++ OK DEBATE SIMKIN ON THE ISSUE Simkin Posted 23 August 2007 - 12:46 PM I have argued that it is possible that Winston Churchill ordered the deaths of the General Sikorski and the Duke of Kent to cover-up peace negotiations with Hitler in 1940 and 1941. It was not in the interests of other neo-Nazis such as the Duke of Hamilton, Samuel Hoare, the Duke of Buccleuch, Sir Archibald Ramsay to reveal their role in these activities after the war had finished. The aristocracy and the Tory establishment went along with the myth that Britain had fought the Second World War on behalf of freedom and democracy. Not that the British public was fooled and Churchill was ousted from power when the Tory Party suffered a landslide defeat in the 1945 General Election. The main problem for Churchill and his co-conspirators was Rudolf Hess. He was the one German involved in these negotiations who was still alive after the war. According to Dr Hugh Thomas, who physically examined the man claiming to be Hess in Berlin in 1973, the prisoner was an imposter (Prisoner Number 7). Thomas argues his case in two books, The Murder of Rudolf Hess (1979) and Rudolf Hess: A Tale of Two Murders (1988). The most convincing aspect of his argument is that the prisoner he examined did not bear the scars from the First World War. In June 1916 Hess suffered gunshot wounds to his body, left hand and arm. As doctors will tell you, scars might fade with time, but they never disappear. Yet a total of 58 doctors examined Hess after 1941 and not one mentioned these scars. The most detailed medical examination of Hess was carried out by Dr. Ben Hurewitz in Nuremberg in 1945. Even though Hurewitz listed every wart and blemish on the prisoner’s body, including a quarter-inch wart on his chest and a very faint half-inch-long scar on one of his fingers, there is no mention of the war wounds he received in 1916. (J. R. Rees, The Case of Rudolf Hess, 1947, page 136) Nor did Hurewitz, or the other 57 doctors, mention the scar on the back of his head that was caused during a fight with communists in the early 1920s. (Hugh Thomas, A Tale of Two Murders, 1988, page 15) It has been argued that Hess had made up this First World War injury as part of the Nazi propaganda campaign during the 1920s. However, Dr Thomas was able to find Hess’ medical records at the Berlin Documents Centre. It clearly states that Hess was “severely wounded in the storming of the Ungureana” in June 1916. It clearly states that a rifle bullet hit his left lung and that he spent four months in various hospitals, followed by a further six week’s convalescent leave. (Hugh Thomas, A Tale of Two Murders, 1988, pages 27-29) We also know that Hess wrote a letter to his parents while recovering from hospital where he described the injury as “a clean through-shot, in under the left shoulder, out of the back.” (quoted in Peter Padfield’s Hess: The Führer’s Disciple, 1995, page 9) In 1989, BBC journalist, Roy McHardy, found a more detailed medical file of Hess’s 1916 war wound in the Bavarian State Archives. (Lynn Picknett, Clive Prince and Stephen Prior, Double Standards, 2001, page 358) It includes details of his final examination before being released from hospital. “Three fingers above the left armpit, a pea-sized, bluish-coloured, non-reactive scar from an entry wound. On the back, at the height of the fourtb dorsal vertebra, two fingers from the spine, a non-reactive exit gunshot wound the size of a cherry stone.” (Military Doctors Certificate, dated 12 December, 1917) When Hess died in 1987, there were two post-mortem examination. The official one by Professor J. Malcolm Cameron and an independent autopsy carried out on behalf of the Hess family. Neither report mentioned the scars caused by the 1916 gunshot wounds. However, they did find the scars caused by the so-called 1945 suicide attempt. This only shows that the man identified as Hess in 1945 was the person who died in 1987. When Thomas interviewed Cameron he admitted that as far as he was concerned, the scars from the 1916 shooting did not exist (Hugh Thomas, A Tale of Two Murders, 1988, page 192) Hess was examined many times by British doctors between 1945 and 1987. Not one mentioned the scars caused by the 1916 shooting. (Lynn Picknett, Clive Prince and Stephen Prior, Double Standards, 2001, page 361) In August 1988, Dr. David Owen raised the question about the missing scar. The Foreign Secretary Sir Geoffrey Howe wrongly said that Cameron had noted the scar in his report. When Cameron denied this, the Foreign Office issued a statement in November 1988 to say that there was “a fibrous, irregular, roughly circular old scar typical of an exit wound…. in a posterior position on the left side of the chest”. The government failed to explain why this was not put in either of the original autopsy reports. (Duff Hart-Davies, Reign of Silence at the Foreign Office, Independent, 11th August, 1988) However, Duff Hart-Davies, a journalist working for “The Independent” newspaper, found a high-level source within the Foreign Office who claimed that they made strenuous efforts to find the missing scars at the time of the death of Prisoner Number 7. However, they were unable to do so. When Dr. David Owen asked the question in the House of Commons a year later they were forced to try again. This time they were able to find the missing scar. (Duff Hart-Davies, The Curious Case of the Reappearing Scar, Independent, 10thNovember, 1988) It seems very strange that doctors could not find these scars between 1945 and 1987 but could find them over a year after his death.

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with ... GOLLY WHAT IF THE BRITISH CROWN HAD MUSKET SENSING DRONES ??

+++++++++++++++++++ THE IMPLICATION OF A LITTLE POPULATED POLITICAL ORGANIZATION IS DECREASED LEGITIMACY. WHEN TAKEN IN THE CONTEXT OF AN NGO WITH ADDITIONAL COVERT AGENDAS THE IMPLICATION REACHES A OVERT CONFIRMATION OF NONLEGITIMACY =FRAUD.

++++++++++++++++ NOPE, I SUBMIT NO READING SKILLS IN Mr. COLBY. ITS THE BEAM THAT KILLS .(AS POSTED) A FEW DEATHS ARE BY A CUREABLE BUG. THE SKIN PAMDEMIC COVERS THE WIDESPREAD BEAM DEATH and THE DEATH BUG GIVES GOOD VIDEO TO SELL LETALITY OF SKIN BUG. PANDEMIC SKIN PROBLEMS SELL THE IDEA OF A WIDESPREAD KILLING BUG AND THE KILLING BUGS SELLS THE LETALITY OF SKIN BUG ONE BUG SELLS THE OTHER BUG. ITS THE MEDIA THAT CONFLATES THE TWO BUGS AND THE MEDIA ALSO CONFLATES BUG DEATH WITH BEAM DEATH ( THIS ABOVE AS I POSTED BEFORE.) I SUBMIT NO READING SKILLS IN Mr. COLBY. I SUBMIT NO READING SKILLS IN Mr. COLBY. I SUBMIT NO READING SKILLS IN Mr. COLBY. I SUBMIT NO READING SKILLS IN Mr. COLBY. I SUBMIT NO READING SKILLS IN Mr. COLBY. I SUBMIT NO READING SKILLS IN Mr. COLBY. I SUBMIT NO READING SKILLS IN Mr. COLBY. I SUBMIT NO READING SKILLS IN Mr. COLBY. Of course Colby could be purposely misunderstanding just to irritate. IF SO COLBY QUALIFIES AS A TOTAL ORIFICE

Translation Gaal was desperate to post anything. //end Colby ############################### TRANSLATION COLBY CAN AND WILL POST ANYTHING, IE SACHA BARON COHEN THREAD. US Heading Toward a Social Explosion. IS ON TOPIC TO THIS THREAD ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ April 10, 2013 DHS Tests Gun-Sensing Drones In Oklahoma The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is testing a wide variety of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (SUAS) sensor platforms, including one that can determine whether individuals are armed or unarmed, for use by first responders and frontline homeland security professionals. The testing is taking place at the Oklahoma Training Center for Unmanned Systems (OTC-UC), a unit of University Multispectral Laboratories (UML), a not-for-profit scientific institution operated for Oklahoma State University (OSU) by Anchor Dynamics, Inc. UML is a “Trusted Agent” for the federal government, technology developers and operators. DHS’s Science and Technology Directorate’s (S&T) Borders and Maritime Security Division’s Robotic Aircraft for Public Safety (RAPS) testing program is evaluating numerous SUA and sensor systems to identify possible applications for first responders, including search-and-rescue scenarios, response to radiological and chemical incidents and fire response and mapping. In addition, the testing will help to determine whether SUAs are suitable for use by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and US Coast Guard to provide lower altitude, quick response situational awareness in tactical situations. SUAS sensor platforms are being tested for use by ”first responder and homeland security operational communities” that “can distinguish between unarmed and armed (exposed) personnel,” as well as conducting detection, surveillance, tracking and laser designation of targets of interest at stand-off ranges, according to the RAPS Test Planobtained by Homeland Security Today. There’s also a requirement to test SUAS sensors for how well they can capture crime and accident “scene data with still-frame, high definition photos.” But there’s nothing nefarious about having these sensor capabilities on SUAs for the needs of law enforcement and other first responders, said a RAPS program official, who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the program publicly. DHS’s chief privacy official concluded that the testing program posed no privacy issues in the Nov. 16 Privacy Impact Assessment for the RAPS Project. The RAPS Test Plan also involves testing sensor suites to “enhance the search and rescue capabilities of first responders by increasing [their] situational awareness.” And to that end, SUA sensors are being tested for their ability to “locate and provide the position of targets of interest satisfactorily for search and rescue personnel in a variety of terrain and day conditions.” To enhance fire and disaster response capabilities of first responders by increasing their situational awareness, SUA sensors are being tested for their ability to locate and provide the position of fire or hot spots despite the presence of objects that obscure their line-of-site; locate and provide the position and concentration of chemical agents; and locate and provide the position and concentration of radiological agents. The RAPS Test Plan explained that “Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems may soon become valuable tools for first and emergency responders and for those responsible for US border security.” It emphasized that “SUAS can provide tactical, rapid-response capabilities and much better situational awareness before field officers and agents respond to and engage in potentially dangerous operations.” The test plan explained that “Within the United States, almost 50,000 police and fire departments exist but only about 300 (less than 1 percent) have aviation departments, owing primarily to the significant cost of acquiring, operating and maintaining manned fixed-wing and rotary-wing platforms. The estimated cost per flight hour for these assets is 300 times more expensive than commercially available SUAS which can be operated at costs lower than those of a typical police cruiser. But for state, county or city entities to become potential users of SUAS, their adoption must be justifiable and affordable. Improved sensor and platform capabilities, and economies of scale, now bring SUAS within reach of the budgets of many small first responder organizations.” “Considering the size and diversity of the user communities targeted by this program,” the RAPS Test Plan said, “our approach concerning SUAS requirements is to focus primarily on advancing the near-term transition of good, affordable SUAS capabilities using relatively mature solutions. Working closely with senior law enforcement and fire operators in the field, we derived high-level SUAS needs tied to notional, top-priority scenarios for SUAS that, if realized, may or would provide good value to users — depending partly on the results of testing as envisioned” in the RAPS testing plan. Consequently, the test plan explained that “The purpose of [the RAPS] project is to assess the extent to which SUAS can enhance situational awareness in support of first responder and border security events,” the test plan says, noting that “such events include, but are not limited to, law enforcement response, fire response, search and rescue, response to hazardous material (HAZMAT) spills or incidents and response to intrusions at US international borders.” In addition, “Where feasible and applicable, our testing will verify SUAS performance characteristics that may impact their eventual integration into the National Air Space System.” “As one of many first responder support initiatives within DHS S&T, the primary outcome of RAPS will be a knowledge and database resource consisting of test reports, user testimonials and guidelines for adoption by the operational community,” the RAPS Test Plan pointed out. “The RAPS team will study fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft having gross takeoff weights of 25 lbs. or less, typically, using key performance measures in a variety of simulated but realistic, real-world operational scenarios that focus on the use of SUAS technology in response to situations where human lives are in imminent danger.” The RAPS testing is being carried out at the Ft. Sill Army Post near Lawton, Okla. because DHS found the Army base “to be the optimal site to conduct RAPS test operations,” the test plan said. “The ready availability of restricted airspace at Ft. Sill and its central location within the continental US make it logistically accessible and convenient to participating vendors.” In addition, the test plan said “the Ft. Sill test sites offer good flying conditions year-round and provide a variety of terrain features needed for conducting search-and-rescue and other test scenarios.” Oklahoma has emerged as a leader in Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS). DHS is working closely with the state on the RAPS program through Gov. Mary Fallin’s Unmanned Aerial Systems Council, as the federal initiative is being conducted through OSU’s University Multispectral Laboratories’ advanced testing facility that’s uniquely positioned within Ft. Sill’s 200 square miles of restricted airspace. “The strong support of the State of Oklahoma first responder community underscored the benefits of the Ft. Sill test site,” DHS said. “Aerospace represents a significant portion of our state economy and UAS is expected to be the most dynamic growth sector within the aerospace industry in the next decade,” said Unmanned Systems Alliance of Oklahoma (USA-OK) President, James L. Grimsley. “This is an important time for the unmanned aerial systems industry and for Oklahoma.” “Successful SUAS test operations at Ft. Sill may lead, later, to more complex SUAS operational testing at two other Oklahoma sites,” the RAPS Test Plan said. These sites are the Oklahoma National Guard’s Camp Gruber and the University Multispectral Laboratory’s test site at Chilocco, Okla., “both of which have varied and realistic urban complex facilities.” The RAPS program began with DHS’s Request for Information (RFI) issued on Sept. 24, 2012 seeking white papers from SUAS vendors interested in participating in the testing project. The deadline for the papers was Oct. 31, 2012. However, the testing program “is not linked to any intended procurement action, nor does it imply intent to initiate such action,” DHS explained. Public and congressional concerns over the expanding use of UAVs of all kinds by federal, state and local law enforcement were exacerbated recently following a report by CNET.com that DHS has “customized its Predator drones” to be able to “identify civilians carrying guns and tracking their cell phones.” CNET.com reported that DHS’s “specifications for its drones … ‘shall be capable of identifying a standing human being at night as likely armed or not,’” and that “They also specify ‘signals interception’ technology that can capture communications in the frequency ranges used by mobile phones and ‘direction finding’ technology that can identify the locations of mobile devices or two-way radios.” The disclosure was based on an apparent “unredacted copy” of the May 26, 2005, CBP Office of Air and Marine (OAM) Performance Specification for the DHS/Customs and Border Protection Unmanned Aerial Vehicle System documentthat DHS released in redacted form to the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. An updated March 10, 2010 CBP OAM performance specifications document for CBP’s Predator B UAV also was obtained by EPIC under the FOIA, and portions of it also were redacted. Most of the redactions, though, were made pursuant to legitimate FOIA exemptions authorizing the withholding of records compiled for law enforcement purposes or that would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations. Much of the redacted information deals with sensitive operational and performance capabilities of CBP’s fleet of Predators, as well sensitive technical data on the UAVs’ sensor packages and specifications. A CBP spokesman told CNET.com the agency “is not deploying signals interception capabilities on its UAS fleet. Any potential deployment of such technology in the future would be implemented in full consideration of civil rights, civil liberties and privacy interests and in a manner consistent with the law and long-standing law enforcement practices.” DHS’s RAPS Program Manager, Dr. John Appleby, told Homeland Security Today the department “is very sensitive to the privacy and civil rights issues that are involved with our [uAV] systems and testing.” But privacy rights advocates don’t see it that way. EPIC’s Ginger McCall, director of the group’s Open Government Project, has said CBP’s UAS requirements documents “clearly evidence that the Department of Homeland Security is developing drones with signals interception technology and the capability to identify people on the ground,” and that “This allows for invasive surveillance, including potential communications surveillance, that could run afoul of federal privacy laws.” A DHS official who spoke to Homeland Security Today on background about the issue explained that CBP needed to have “a whole host of requirements for its [Predators] for all possible needs to support border security operations, but that doesn’t mean they’re all being used … people jump to all sorts of conclusions based on what they think they know or understand.” The official said the Predators are capable of distinguishing whether objects detected on the ground are people, animals, vehicles or something else, and emphasized that this capability is needed when, for example, the UAVs are being used to support Border Patrol agents on the ground who are trying to apprehend human- or narco-traffickers in difficult terrain or circumstances, or when conducting border surveillance missions for potential illegal cross-border activity. But this capability isn’t any different from ground-based radar that can distinguish between a human and a truck CBP has tested that may be incorporated into its Integrated Fixed Tower program Homeland Security Today examined in detail last Oct. As for the deployment of communications interception technology on CBP’s Predators, officials adamantly said there are numerous legal issues involved “that would have to be worked out” before this capability can routinely be used.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ OH !! THE NYT >>>>> OH !!!! [...] If you'd bothered to have read the stuff you spamed here you'd have known that your source claimed 'NYT admits fraudulent Syrian human rights group is UK-based "one-man band"' I was asking to substantiate that claim. ####################### Search Results News for Syrian Observatory for Human Rights New ... A Very Busy Man Behind the Syrian Civil War's Casualty Count New York Times ‎- 4 days ago Yet, despite its central role in the savage civil war, the grandly named Syrian Observatory for Human Rights is virtually a one-man band. 3 seconds at Google

man held as Hess in the UK and then Spandau was not really Hess.// end Colby ======================= Gee you never looked into HESS matter >???

+++++++++++++++++ THERE IS ON THE INTERNET "THE LAST INTERVIEW OF GG ALLIN" >>> GOLLY WHO DID THEY SAY LIKED LITTLE BOYS ??? JUST ASKING QUESTION. Is that supporting evidence ?? Lord Mountbatten linked to Kincora child abuse ring It was alledged in the book 'War of the Windsors', and the Sunday People newspaper pg17, that Lord Mountbatten was rumoured to have been linked to the Kincora boy's abuse network. Lord Mountbatten the last viceroy in India, was reknowned to be wildly promiscuous, bisexual and to enjoy a bit of 'rough' or the plesures of young working class boys or indeed peasant indian boys. In other words Lord Mountbatten enjoyed rogering the children of lower classes and peasants globally. This is revealed in the book 'War of the Windsors', and may account for the non prosecution of Kincora clients and the relunctance of the authorities to act against those running the Kincora care home untill 1981, despite the vice ring being in operation since 1977, and the repeated allegations made against those pillars of society, upright citizens in charge of Kincora. The very Reverend William McGrath and co. Those operating the Kincora child vice ring were eventually prosecuted in 1981, but no charges were ever brought against the elite VIP clientelle of the Kincora child abuse vice ring, which included, prominent buisnessmen, hanging judges and government officials who were never prosecuted for their exploitation and sexual abuse of young working class boys. In court it was found that the so called pillars of society running the home, were guilty of the RITUAL sexual abuse of defenceless young boys in their care, whom they exploited and sold to their VIP clientelle. The authorities relunctance to act against the Kincora paedophiles also may have been because of the proven MI5/special branch interest in the VIP clientelle of the Kincora child vice network. These powerful authortarian figures would prove useful and supportive of any RUC actions in the future, given the MI5 files complied on the Kincora clientelle. Many of the VIP clientelle who sexually abused and degraded young working class boys are still prominent members of Ulster society, still highly respected pillars of society, some still High court judges, magistrates etc, some even have roles which give them direct access to children, some are now governors of schools, some are doctors etc. Their sordid grubby elite existence unaffected and unsoiled by their perverted behaviour and abuse of young working class children. These scumbags got off scot free from the Kincora child abuse scandal with their reputations and social status intact and unaffected, because the authorities chose not to prosecute them, afterall it was only young working class children they abused, and the working class are always expendable to the rich. In the world and exclusive social circles of these scumbags it is ok for rich perverts to sexuallly and physically abuse the children of the poor. The moral code of the filthy rich and powerful says this is clearly acceptable behaviour. Now we know why they're called the filthy rich. Add Your Comments >> http://www.indymedia.ie/article/20885

Context of 'Summer 2000: San Diego Hijackers Meet Atta and Al-Bayoumi' This is a scalable context timeline. It contains events related to the event Summer 2000: San Diego Hijackers Meet Atta and Al-Bayoumi. You can narrow or broaden the context of this timeline by adjusting the zoom level. The lower the scale, the more relevant the items on average will be, while the higher the scale, the less relevant the items, on average, will be. see http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=asummer00attabayoumi December 1998-December 2000: Hijacker Associate Al-Bayoumi Stays in Contact with Saudi Consulate Official After 9/11, the FBI will examine phone records and determine that hijacker associate Omar al-Bayoumi calls Saudi official Fahad al Thumairy many times between December 1998 and December 2000. Al-Bayoumi calls al Thumairy’s home number at least ten times, and al Thumairy calls al-Bayoumi much more often—at least 11 times in the month of December 2000 alone. At the time, al Thumairy is working at the Saudi consulate in Los Angeles, and is a well-known Islamic radical. For part of 2000 at least, al-Bayoumi is living at the Parkwood Apartments in San Diego at the same time as hijackers Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almihdhar. Al Thumairy will later deny knowing al-Bayoumi, but al-Bayoumi will admit knowing al Thumairy. [9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 514; Shenon, 2008, pp. 310-311] January 15-February 2, 2000: 9/11 Hijackers Alhazmi and Almihdhar Allegedly Stay in Omar Al-Bayoumi’s Apartment An FBI document from shortly after 9/11 states, “Rental records for the Parkwood Apartments [in San Diego] indicate that, prior to moving into apartment 150, hijackers Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almihdhar lived with Omar al-Bayoumi” in apartment 152 at the same apartment complex. [Federal Bureau of Investigation, 10/3/2001 ] An FBI timeline put together later that month further clarifies that on a rental application on February 5, 2000, the two hijackers specified they had lived with al-Bayoumi from January 15 to February 2. [Federal Bureau of Investigation, 10/2001, pp. 52 ] January 15 is the same day the two hijackers arrive in the US (see January 15, 2000), which suggests the hijackers immediately went from the Los Angeles airport to al-Bayoumi’s apartment. Al-Bayoumi, a suspected Saudi intelligence agent, will later claim he only meets the hijackers by chance at a Los Angeles restaurant two weeks later (see February 1, 2000). Summer 2000: San Diego Hijackers Meet Atta and Al-Bayoumi Anonymous government sources later claim that Mohamed Atta visits fellow hijackers Nawaf Alhazmi, Khalid Almihdhar, and Omar al-Bayoumi. These same sources claim al-Bayoumi is identified after September 11 as an “advance man” for al-Qaeda. [uS Congress, 7/24/2003 ]

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ OH !! THE NYT >>>>> OH !!!! IMHO NYT EDITORIAL HEADS WHO WORKED IRAQ WAR SHOULD BE PUT ON TRAIL FOR CIMES AGAINST HUMANITY. I SUPPORT FREE SPEECH 24/7 BUT EVEN GOEBBELS PUT ON TRIAL. TO ME SOME EQUVIALENCE. SOME TYPE OF PENALTY SHOULD BE PAID BY THEM....... COLBY DEEP WORSHIP NYT....HOLY HOLY THE PRINT ALMIGHTY !!! see http://mgx.com/blogs/2005/10/19/ny-times-culpable-for-starting-a-war/ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ EVIDENCE FROM WHERE ?? OH !! THAT WOULD BE INFORMATION FROM COLBY'S BELOVED MSM +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The New York Times and "Liberal Media" Helped Sell the Iraq War Wednesday, 20 March 2013 11:32 By Paul Jay, The Real News Network | ========================================================== Michael Ratner: The NYT and other "liberal" commentators led the way in selling the WMD myth and justified the Iraq war; their mea culpas ring hollow. TRANSCRIPT: PAUL JAY, SENIOR EDITOR, TRNN: Welcome to The Real News Network. I'm Paul Jay in Baltimore. And welcome to this week's edition of The Ratner Report with Michael Ratner, who joins us now from New York City. Michael's president emeritus of the Center for Constitutional Rights in New York, chair of the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights in Berlin, and a board member of The Real News. Thanks for joining us again, Michael. MICHEAL RATNER, PRESIDENT EMERITUS, CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS: Good to be with you, Paul. So we're coming up on the 10th anniversary of the Iraq War, March 20, 2003, when it began. In a few days it'll be March 20, 2013. And I think it's really important for everybody out there to know how many people we murdered in Iraq, how we got into that war, and who were some of the liberals, supposed liberals, who led us into that war, so that we don't depend on--we don't make that mistake again. And, of course, people should know how many people were killed. Nobody knows the real figure. There's numbers that go from 170,000 people killed, including combatants, maybe 120,000 civilians, up to 1 million. The Lancet reports 600,000 people killed with some kind of violence, whether that includes starvation or just plain old murders, but it's a huge number. And when you think about that number, you have to think: how did we get into this war, which I considered at the time an illegal and unnecessary war, in which I was not alone? It was the biggest demonstrations ever in the world against a war. In fact, they called the demonstration in Rome against the war in February 2003--it was 3 million people in Rome, 36 million people worldwide, hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions in the United States as well. And yet we went to war in the United States, or on behalf of the United States, despite this. And, of course, many of us called it Bush's war, but as I'll explain, it's not just Bush's war. It was The New York Times' war, it was Bill Keller's war, Tom Friedman's war, and a number of other people who I will mention. The way they sold the war to the American people were two primary things. One was that Iraq was somehow developing weapons of mass destruction, of which they have literally no evidence, none at all. There were weapons inspectors who kept going there, came back with no evidence. The weapons inspectors group said there was no evidence of weapons of mass destruction. Yet they sold us to war based in part on weapons of mass destruction. The other way--and it's an important lesson going forward--they sold us the war: by claiming that there was a relationship between Saddam Hussein, who led Iraq at the time, and al-Qaeda. And of course al-Qaeda was on everyone's minds, because this was just two years after 9/11. And how did they go about getting and achieving and establishing that relationship, which even Colin Powell spoke about when he spoke to the UN in a speech that convinced many people that we had to go to war with Iraq? They did it through torture. And in particular there was a man named al-Libbi who was waterboarded. And when he was waterboarded, as he said later, I would have said anything to stop being waterboarded. And what he said and what actually Cheney, our vice president at the time, was looking for and why he was actually torturing people--or directing them to be tortured was because he wanted to prove a link between al-Qaeda and Iraq. And what al-Libbi said was that members of al-Qaeda were sent to Iraq for training in how to use weapons of mass destruction. Of course, it was an utterly false story. It was actually a story, in some way, you could say was manufactured, because they tortured people to try and get that story. But it also shows you how bad torture is, in the sense that people will say anything to stop it. And whatever people say about the ticking time bomb scenario and torture and saving a life of someone's here or there, in the end, this torture was a key element in proving something, allegedly proving something that led us into a war that killed well over, probably, a half a million people. So that's one lesson you ought to take out of this, or we ought to all take, is torture is one of the worst things you can use for gaining actual intelligence. A second thing which has always bothered me is the role of the so-called liberal media, whether that's The New York Times, The New Yorker, New Republic, and the key people who ran all of that media. This is called the liberal media. You know, I don't think, Paul, that there's a war that The New York Times has not supported. But it was a particularly nasty piece of business on the Iraq War. You had, first of all, Bill Keller--I'm not sure he was executive editor during the beginning, but right around that period the head of The Times, a major reporter, major person at The New York Times. He wrote earlier, after 9/11, a 8,000-word article in The New York Times Magazine about what the effect of one kiloton bomb would be if it went into Times Square, in other words, getting everybody totally fearful of what would happen if Iraq had a weapon of mass destruction. Then The Times published column after column by Judy Miller and others pushing the idea that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, columns that The Times ultimately had to apologize for. So we have Bill Keller, The New York Times; Tom Friedman, columnist for The New York Times; George Packer, New Yorker writer; Zakaria, Newsweek reporter; Jeffrey Goldberg, The Atlantic; Peter Beinart; Hitchens; Paul Berman; a whole host of what I would have to call almost neoliberal liberals going for this war, going for it either because they thought we were in a war of civilizations or because they accepted [incompr.] there were weapons of mass destruction, etc. I asked myself at the time, how can these people believe this stuff? Any rational person can see that this is a BS story. This is a Bush war. This is a war in which they want to slap around a country that they can easily topple. This is about continuing U.S. hegemony in the Middle East, continuing our hegemony over oil, etc., making sure China and Russia are out there, whatever reasons. But how did these guys buy it? You know, I came--it's not that they just made a mistake. What I really have come to is that they are part and parcel of a belief in who this country--they really believe that this country is exceptional, it has to rule the world, and they buy into that fact. And therefore they're willing to really suspend their judgment and their reason and go for a war that was just completely fictitious. Now, I should say, when I have talked to some of these people about it, they say, well, we've done our mea culpas. We agree we were wrong about this war. This was a huge mistake. It's one of the worst wars we could have ever gone into. But when you read their explanations for it, their mea culpas, it's not that they thought the war itself was bad--or most of them didn't think the war itself was bad or that it was a bad idea; they thought it was executed badly, that we went into Iraq expecting or overestimating that the people would welcome us when they didn't, we botched up the post-war, we made lots of mistakes, we allowed the counterinsurgency to move forward, etc., etc. So they don't actually get at what I'm saying, which is they actually believed in this war. And I find mea culpas just completely insufficient, because at the core what these people did was believe in an American aggressive, illegal foreign policy that wound up killing half a million people. And in my view, there's no apologies for that. The best writer on this, and wrote an incredibly good article, was an intellectual who died, a writer, Professor Tony Judt. He died within the last couple of years. He wrote an article, and what he said in that about all of these so-called liberals who supported the war, what he said was today America's liberal armchair warriors are the, quote, "useful idiots," end quote, of the war on terror. And what he titled his article was "Bush's Useful Idiots". Now, I wish I could say that things have gotten better among this crowd--maybe a few of them a little better. You know. But a lot of them are still very, very aggressive about supporting the so-called war on terror, what was Bush's policy. Their mea culpas are just not very good. Bill Keller I want to single out because he still has these incredibly bloated, you know, superficial columns in The New York Times. And they had one recently that was related to my clients, particularly WikiLeaks' Julian Assange, and it was in the context of talking about Bradley Manning. And again he shows his stripes as completely biased and irrelevant. What he says is--first of all, he says that, well, had Bradley Manning given the documents directly to The New York Times, there probably wouldn't have been as much anger at either Bradley Manning or Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. And I must say that's the one thing he got right in the article, because Bill Keller is right, because Bill Keller, like he did in the case of the warrantless wiretap story, he ran to the White House and said, should I expose the warrantless wiretapping story, and they said, no, hold it up, don't do it, and he only did it when James Risen was going to go forward with it in a book. So Bill Keller, this man who brought us into the war in many ways, at least paved the way, is still writing the kind of bunk he was writing in 2001, '02, and '03. I mean, he did the same thing with Bradley Manning's motives. He said about Bradley Manning's motives, well, I don't think they were necessarily that political; his talk that he gave pleading guilty, which said they were all political, seems to be made up after the fact. And in fact that's not true. In fact, if you go to the early Bradley Manning statements that he made way before he was actually indicted, you would find that he was making political reasons. So this same core of so-called liberals is still out there. They're still controlling--I mean, another one is David Remnick at The New Yorker. He supported the war. So they just go on and on. And the question is, for all of us--I mean, just in some way it's an advertisement for you, Paul. But, you know, how do we get an accurate picture out there and how do we get journalists out there who are not just going to lead us into the next war? One of the stories I think you plan on doing is the Pentagon links to the Iraq torture centers. That's, of course, another story about the Iraq War and a story in 2004 and 2005 in which the U.S. sent two people there, a guy named Steele and Kaufmann, to essentially oversee what were set up as many, many detention and torture centers, in which literally tens of thousands of people were tortured. As a close to that, 'cause I know you're going to cover the story, I just want to point out that it again brings out the importance of WikiLeaks documents. When I talk to the people who did that story, what they did was they combed through the Iraq War Logs, which were revealed by Bradley Manning to WikiLeaks. Those war logs had reports in it of soldiers from the U.S., their daily logs, telling about that they had perceived or seen that there was torture going on at these torture centers, or illegal activity, etc. And those are in the War Logs. And as a result of that, this important story, Guardian-BBC story, came out about the U.S. link to these detention and torture centers, and the link ultimately up the chain of command to Petraeus, and even to Rumsfeld. So, again, it's again about Iraq, it's about WikiLeaks, and it's about really great reporting. JAY: There's one other thing, I think, one other piece to this, because not all the liberals were in favor of this war--and by liberals, using your terminology, I'm talking about Democrats--and some Republicans, if you want--who believe in projecting American power but thought the Iraq War was stupid and opposed it on that basis 'cause it actually wasn't useful for projecting American power. And one of those people was Barack Obama, who came out against the war not 'cause he's against projecting American power any--this is back pre-Iraq War, and clearly we can see as president he's very gung-ho about projecting American power. But he and a lot of other foreign policy professionals thought this was just a completely dumb move in Iraq. And The New York Times should have known that. You'd think The New York Times would have reflected that. So there's something--I think there's something else going on other than being useful idiots, which is also the case. There's something about the money that gets made in the lead-up to war. The newspapers it sells, the fervor, the bloodlust, the chauvinism that this section of this kind of supposed liberals, they get excited by all this. And then there was also direct, nefarious connections between Judith Miller and the Bush White House. But The New York Times in theory is at odds with that White House, one would think, politically. There's some interest here. RATNER: You're making a very interesting point. You know, I talked to some people who were at the Barack Obama speech that he gave against the war--quote, against the war--in Chicago at the time. And what they said was he was careful, as you're sort of implying. What he said is he was against this particular thing, this war, but in fact he wasn't, like, just an antiwar person in general, that there were certain times that you would need to do war, I think. And that's what you're saying, that he'd still believe in the projection of American force. JAY: Yeah, I watched that very carefully, that speech, and he says, I'm not a pacifist; I'm against this war. But he did a followup interview, more in-depth--I can't remember if it was with 60 Minutes or somewhere else--not too long after that interview. Maybe it was six months or a year. And he was very explicit. He said, I thought this would actually weaken our ability to project power around the world. He said, I'm for projecting American power, I believe in it. RATNER: I think that's a good point, and I think he certainly illustrated that from the surge, both in Iraq and in Afghanistan and all the wars we're now carrying out in Somalia and Yemen. One important person I left out of this--and I'd be interested in how you see how she fit in here--is Hillary Clinton. I mean, it's hard to forgive Hillary Clinton for her vote, really hard, because let's assume she's, like, a projection person like you're saying Obama was, a projection of American force. What it seems to is she clearly could never have believed that this war was necessary. You had to be, as Tony Judt said, a useful idiot to believe that this war was actually a weapons of mass destruction war or an al-Qaeda, you know, BS war. You had to be a dummy. So the only thing I can think about Hillary is that she made a wrong judgment. Barack Obama must have felt this was going to help him be president. Hillary made a judgment that said, I need to vote for the war so I can be president. If I vote against the war, I won't be president. And it's actually what ultimately was her Achilles' heel. So I think she was an opportunist, which is to me almost the worst thing you could be is to actually kill people in the name of opportunism. JAY: Yeah. I think actually this goes--what you're saying goes to the core of it, because for The New York Times--remember the days. This is post 9/11. This is when there's all this tremendous buildup that we have to defend America and you're a traitor if you even critique the White House. And the way the media succumbed to that, they were--you know, both from the point of view of being worried about being labeled traitors, and even from a straight--and maybe more from a straight business interest, you know, you'd lose some of your market share if you're seen as soft on this stuff. RATNER: No, I think that's right. I agree. I mean, as I said, when I opened, I think I said, I don't think there's any war The New York Times has ever opposed. You know, I haven't looked back in history before probably the Second World War, but I think it's been right up there with the best of them. JAY: Alright. Thanks very much, Michael. RATNER: Thanks for having me, Paul, and I really appreciate what was a very useful discussion, particularly in the end. JAY: Thank you. ############################ Pleased to be Shutting the Piehole Now: Charles P. Pierce on the NYT and the anniversary of the war Pleased to be Shutting the Piehole Now By Charles P. Pierce Esquire Tuesday 19 March 2013 The "public editor" of The New York Times tells us today that the paper's coverage of the 10th anniversary of the Iraq War is likely to be less of a hoot than back in the drum-banging days when Judy Miller was standing atop a great pile of stove-piped bullxxxx while Bill Keller threw roses at her feet. I asked Dean Baquet, a managing editor, about the low-key approach. He said that while a few stories are planned, editors did not see a need for a major project or special section, as they did with the 10th anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. "The war itself has been dissected to a tremendous degree," he told me. "You have to have something new or fresh to say." He would not provide specifics about the articles that are planned, but said there might be one or two that would make their way onto the front page this week...Is The Times's own role in the run-up to the war a part of this relative reticence, as some readers have suggested to me? Is there reluctance to revisit a painful period in the paper's history? Mr. Baquet said that's not a factor. "The Times has probably acknowledged its own mistakes from that period more than anyone," he said. "We certainly haven't been shy about doing that. We're doing the stories that make sense to us and that offer our readers something worthwhile." That is, of course, all bollocks. Keller still writes a column. The Times is playing this on the downlow precisely because it never truly has atoned for its role in a fiasco. The op-ed page still welcomes submissions from people whose work on this most grotesque foreign-policy blunder should have been as definitive a career-killer as were Joe Hazlewood's navigational abilities. (snip) Shut up, all of you. Go away. You are complicit in one way or another in a giant crime containing many great crimes. Atone in secret. Wash the blood off your hands in private. Because there were people who got it right. Anthony Zinni. David Shiseki. Hans Blix. Mohamed ElBaradei. The McClatchy Washington bureau guys. Dozens of liberal academics who got called fifth-columnists and worse. Professional military men whose careers suffered as a result. Hundreds of thousands of people in the streets around the world. The governments of Canada and France. Those people, I will listen to this week. Go to hell, the rest of you, and go there in silence and in shame. The rest: http://www.esquire.c...ppy_Anniversary A tour de force. Read it. ################## ALSO http://rinf.com/alt-...hypocrisy/30591

++++++++++++++++++++++ LIFE COMPLEX THINGS INTERTWINED.....for establishment man hack its comforting to divide and simplify. ON TOPIC US Heading Toward a Social Explosion.

It sounds like this research concerns how to treat not inflict biowarfare, what was your point? // end Colby ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ GEE DIDNT YOU READ WHAT I SAID ??? THE INFECTION HAD TO HAVE A CURE TO BE GIVEN TO SOME (I DID WRITE THAT), IN ADDITION BEAM CAN BE ADD HOC QUARANTINE OF DEATH BIOLOGICAL.(posted such) INFECTIVITY/ IS BEING STUDYED 1918 FLU (THAT MEANS (interpretation = UP and DOWN INFECTIVITY of 1918 flu) (posted such) I POSTED THAT SAID FLU COULD CAUSE SKIN PROBLEMS (no read ??) Comments but no read, fair ?? +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ LARGE SCALE GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS REGARDING RESEARCH MICROWAVE http://www.microwave...pedia/darpa.cfm