Israel Hires Internet Soldiers!

Source

Straight out of Avigdor Lieberman’s Foreign Ministry: a new Internet Fighting Team! Israeli students and demobilized soldiers get paid to pretend they are just regular folks and leave pro-Israel comments on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and other sites. The approach was test-marketed during Israel’s assault on Gaza, and by groups like Give Israel Your United Support, a controversial effort to use instant-access technology to crowd-source Israel advocates to fill in flash polls or vote up key articles on social networking sites.

Will the responders who are hired for this also present themselves as “ordinary net-surfers”?

“Of course,” says Shturman. “Our people will not say: ‘Hello, I am from the policy-explanation department of the Israeli Foreign Ministry and I want to tell you the following.’ Nor will they necessarily identify themselves as Israelis. They will speak as net-surfers and as citizens, and will write responses that will look personal but will be based on a prepared list of messages that the Foreign Ministry developed.”

The full article, translated by Occupation Magazine into English here:

The Foreign Ministry presents: talkbackers in the service of the State
By: Dora Kishinevski
Calcalist 5 July 2009

Translated for Occupation Magazine by George Malent

After they became an inseparable part of the service provided by public-relations companies and advertising agencies, paid Internet talkbackers are being mobilized in the service in the service of the State. The Foreign Ministry is in the process of setting up a team of students and demobilized soldiers who will work around the clock writing pro-Israeli responses on Internet websites all over the world, and on services like Facebook, Twitter and Youtube. The Foreign Ministry’s department for the explanation of Israeli policy* is running the project, and it will be an integral part of it. The project is described in the government budget for 2009 as the “Internet fighting team” – a name that was given to it in order to distinguish it from the existing policy-explanation team, among other reasons, so that it can receive a separate budget. Even though the budget’s size has not yet been disclosed to the public, sources in the Foreign Ministry have told Calcalist that in will be about NIS 600.000 in its first year, and it will be increased in the future. From the primary budget, about NIS 200.000 will be invested in round-the-clock activity at the micro-blogging website Twitter, which was recently featured in the headlines for the services it provided to demonstrators during the recent disturbances in Iran.

“To all intents and purposes the Internet is a theatre in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and we must be active in that theatre, otherwise we will lose,” Elan Shturman, deputy director of the policy-explanation department in the Foreign Ministry, and who is directly responsible for setting up the project, says in an interview with Calcalist. “Our policy-explanation achievements on the Internet today are impressive in comparison to the resources that have been invested so far, but the other side is also investing resources on the Internet. There is an endless array of pro-Palestinian websites, with huge budgets, rich with information and video clips that everyone can download and post on their websites. They are flooding the Internet with content from the Hamas news agency. It is a well-oiled machine. Our objective is to penetrate into the world in which these discussions are taking place, where reports and videos are published – the blogs, the social networks, the news websites of all sizes. We will introduce a pro-Israeli voice into those places. What is now going on in Iran is the proof of the need for such an operational branch,” adds Shturman. “It’s not like a group of friends is going to bring down the government with Twitter messages, but it does help to expand the struggle to vast dimensions.”

Internet Police Soldiers

The missions: “monitoring” and “fostering discussions”

The Foreign Ministry intends to recruit youths who speak at least one foreign language and who are studying communications, political science or law, or alternatively those whose military background is in units that deal with information analysis. “It is a youthful language”, explains Shturman. “Older people do not know how to write blogs, how to act there, what the accepted norms are. The basic conditions are a high capacity for expression in English – we also have French- and Swedish-speakers – and familiarity with the online milieu. We are looking for people who are already writing blogs and circulating in Facebook”.

Members of the new unit will work at the Ministry (“They will punch a time card,” says Shturman) and enjoy the full technical support of Tahila, the government’s ISP, which is responsible for computer infrastructure and Internet services for government departments. “Their missions will be defined along the lines of the government policies that they will be required to defend on the Internet. It could be the situation in Gaza, the situation in the north or whatever is decided. We will determine which international audiences we want to reach through the Internet and the strategy we will use to reach them, and the workers will implement that on in the field. Of course they will not distribute official communiquיs; they will draft the conversations themselves. We will also activate an Internet-monitoring team – people who will follow blogs, the BBC website, the Arabic websites.”

According to Shturman the project will begin with a limited budget, but he has plans to expand the team and its missions: “the new centre will also be able to support Israel as an economic and commercial entity,” he says. “Alternative energy, for example, now interests the American public and Congress much more than the conflict in the Middle East. If through my team I can post in blogs dealing with alternative energy and push the names of Israeli companies there, I will strengthen Israel’s image as a developed state that contributes to the quality of the environment and to humanity, and along with that I may also manage to help an Israeli company get millions of dollars worth of contracts. The economic potential here is great, but for that we will require a large number of people. What is unique about the Internet is the fragmentation into different communities, every community deals with what interests it. To each of those communities you have to introduce material that is relevant to it.”

The inspiration: Covert advertising on the internet

The Foreign Ministry admits that the inspiration comes from none other than the much-reviled field of compensated commercial talkback: employees of companies and public-relations firms who post words of praise on the Internet for those who sent them there – the company that is their employer or their client. The professional responders normally identify themselves as chance readers of the article they are responding to or as “satisfied customers” of the company they are praising.

Will the responders who are hired for this also present themselves as “ordinary net-surfers”?

“Of course,” says Shturman. “Our people will not say: ‘Hello, I am from the policy-explanation department of the Israeli Foreign Ministry and I want to tell you the following.’ Nor will they necessarily identify themselves as Israelis. They will speak as net-surfers and as citizens, and will write responses that will look personal but will be based on a prepared list of messages that the Foreign Ministry developed.”

Test-Firing in the Gaza War

According to Shturman, although it is only now that the project is receiving a budget and a special department in the Foreign Ministry, in practice the Ministry has been using its own responders since the last war in Gaza, when the Ministry recruited volunteer talkbackers. “During Operation Cast Lead we appealed to Jewish communities abroad and with their help we recruited a few thousand volunteers, who were joined by Israeli volunteers. We gave them background material and policy-explanation material, and we sent them to represent the Israeli point of view on news websites and in polls on the Internet,” says Shturman. “Our target audience then was the European Left, which was not friendly towards the policy of the government. For that reason we began to get involved in discussions on blogs in England, Spain and Germany, a very hostile environment.”

And how much change have you effected so far?

“It is hard to prove success in this kind of activity, but it is clear that we succeeded in bypassing the European television networks, which are very critical of Israel, and we have created direct dialogues with the public.”

What things have you done there exactly?

“For example, we sent someone to write in the website of a left-wing group in Spain. He wrote ‘it is not exactly as you say.’ Someone at the website replied to him, and we replied again, we gave arguments, pictures. Dialogue like that opens people’s eyes.”

Elon Gilad, a worker at the Foreign Ministry who coordinated the activities of the volunteer talkbackers during the war in Gaza and will coordinate the activities of the professional talkbackers in the new project, says that volunteering for talkback in defence of Israel started spontaneously: “Many times people contacted us and asked how they could help to explain Israeli policy. They mainly do it at times like the Gaza operation. People just asked for information, and afterwards we saw that the information was distributed all over the Internet. The Ministry of Absorption also started a project at that time, and they transferred to us hundreds of volunteers who speak foreign languages and who will help to

spread the information. That project too mainly spreads information on the Internet.”

“you can’t win”

While most of the net-surfers were recruited through websites like giyus.org, which was officially activated by a Jewish lobby [and has basically the same goal and modus operandi], in some cases is it was the Foreign Ministry that took the initiative to contact the surfers and asked them to post talkbacks sympathetic to the State and the government [of Israel] on the Internet and to help recruit volunteers. That’s how Michal Carmi, an active blogger and associate general manager at the high-tech placement company Tripletec, was recruited to the online policy-explanation team.

“During Operation Cast Lead the Foreign Ministry wrote to me and other bloggers and asked us to make our opinions known on the international stage as well,” Carmi tells Calcalist. “They sent us pages with ‘taking points’ and a great many video clips. I focussed my energies on Facebook, and here and there I wrote responses on blogs where words like ‘Holocaust’ and ‘murder’ were used in connection with Israel’s Gaza action. I had some very hard conversations there. Several times the Foreign Ministry also recommended that we access specific blogs and get involved in the discussions that were taking place there.”

July 19, 2009 Posted by Elias

Obama and Palestine: Standing for Something, Falling for Anything?

Link

By Alan Sabrosky*

Young Palestinian police cadets killed by Israel in Gaza

There’s an American country song that goes “You’ve got to stand for something, or you’ll fall for anything.” So far, President Obama’s words show he stands for something. But where Palestine and Israel are concerned, his actions show he’ll apparently fall for anything, at least if there is enough pressure from the Jewish lobby behind it.

Obama’s instincts are good, and intellectually he understands the problem, but emotionally he doesn’t appear to feel it. So I’m going to try to convey the issue’s dynamics differently.


Falling for Anything?

Mr. President, the core issues are visibly Palestinian relief and Jewish settlements. In Cairo, you accurately described the conditions in Gaza as “intolerable.” They are intolerable because of the devastation caused by Israeli military onslaughts and the suffering produced by the illegal Israeli-enforced blockade. You know this.

Within weeks, two private groups made their own effort at their own expense to get humanitarian relief supplies to the people there. “FreeGaza” sent a small boat, The Spirit of Humanity, with 21 volunteers, several of them Americans. “Viva Palestina” assembled some 200 volunteers, almost all Americans, with a convoy to enter Gaza from the Egyptian side. Faced with Israeli piracy and Egyptian obstructionism, you said and did nothing.

Now look at the settlements. They need to go, although “no new settlements” is a beginning. But after weeks of talks, your mediator, George Mitchell, smilingly announced a compromise that allowed Israel to build “only” 2,500 housing units – at least until the next time. I obviously missed something here – “no” means “none,” which Mitchell obviously did not understand – or didn’t it matter?

Think of it, President Obama. Think how it would be for you and your wife and your children to grow up under a regime worse than existed in the old Deep South here, far worse than the one that existed under apartheid in the old South Africa, far worse and far more murderous even than would have existed in the US had a government dominated by the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) come into existence. Think of that, and feel in your bones what Palestinians feel under Israeli oppression.
Or think of the young Palestinian police cadets at two separate graduation ceremonies slaughtered at the onset of the Israeli attack in December 2008. Think of those young people in their fresh uniforms waiting for the ceremonies to begin, with their families and friends and the bands all there. And then the Israeli jets strike, bringing death to hundreds of people – almost all so-called “militants,” according to the Israelis, which by this time must include virtually every living Palestinian out of the cradle. Then look at the pictures of the bodies afterwards, realizing that all of this is “Made in America” – the aircraft, the munitions, and most of all the protection that America has given unreservedly to Israel.

Standing for Something

President Obama, you bravely and directly defined your appreciation of the plight of Palestinians in Gaza and elsewhere in your Cairo speech. You bravely and directly defined your understanding of the issues confronting African-Americans in your speech to the NAACP. Why can you not stand up before AIPAC and tell them the equivalent: that the defining purpose of America is not to support Israeli colonialism in the Occupied Territories and to shield Israel from its just desserts for its crimes.

President Obama, how can you look but not see, listen but not hear, know but do nothing? What would you do if it were apartheid-era South Africa instead of Israel, and the black township of Soweto shattered and suffering in Gaza’s place? Would you sit at home with your family after speaking fine words and then doing nothing because of the pressure of some lobby or another? I think not. And just because the oppressors in this instance are Jews and the victims are Palestinians, your instincts and actions should be the same.
President Obama, how can you describe something as “intolerable” without seeing conditions first-hand? Why do you not go yourself to Gaza, walk its streets and meet its people, and see with your own eyes the devastation and heartbreak wrought by those Israelis you define as our “special allies” – you’ll be safer than if you walked the streets of Chicago, unless, of course, the Israelis attack again, which itself would be a good learning experience for you. Walk the ground of Gaza, Mr. President, walk the ground, look and see, listen and hear, understand in your heart that you can have justice for the Palestinians and an end to their intolerable conditions, or a special relationship with Israel, but you absolutely cannot have both.
You can change things. You have what Theodore Roosevelt called a “bully pulpit” – the very best in the land – and you can go directly to the American people over the Congress and the filters of the mainstream media and all of the propaganda AIPAC and company throw out. You can tell the American people what you have seen, and the truth will more than suffice. You can acknowledge what we have done wrong in the past, and why. You can change things, and if you go directly to the American people they, too, will listen and hear, and while they will not be pleased with what has been done in their name in the past, most will support you as you undo past injustices and strike out on a new course.

So act, with your head and your heart and your instincts in accord. Support UN resolutions and sanctions, break the Israeli blockade, put US forces as part of an international presence on the ground if necessary to stop the assaults, and cut off every penny and bullet heading to Israel. If you don’t do it, no one else will even try, the devastation will remain and the suffering will continue. That wouldn’t be much of a legacy for a president and a man raised in the traditions of Martin Luther King, Jr. and John F. Kennedy.
________________________________________________________________________
*Alan Sabrosky (Ph.D, University of Michigan) is a ten-year US Marine Corps veteran and a graduate of the US Army War College. He can be contacted at docbrosk@comcast.net .
*To Read other articles by Dr. Sabrosky, click on the link to his Articles Archive on the right-hand-side bar of this page..

July 19, 2009 - Posted by Elias

Arab camp kids humiliated in Jerusalem

Source

Police officers force children to remove 'al-Quds t-shirts' before entering Temple Mount

Tal Rabinovsky

A group of Arab summer camp children were banned from entering Temple Mount in Jerusalem while wearing their camp t-shirts.

When the children arrived at Temple Mount wearing their orange summer camp shirt, which read ''Al-Quds – Arab Culture Capital,' police officers told them that if they wish to enter, the shirts must come off.

The incident took place Tuesday when children from the east Jerusalem neighborhood of Tzur Baher toured Jerusalem's Old City as part of their summer camp activities. However, what should have been an enjoyable day out quickly became a humiliating experience.

Fuad Abu Hamed, whose son was among the children, told Ynet that "The officers held them up at the entrance to Temple Mount for more than an hour and a half, and demanded (all children) take off their shirts...including the ones who didn't have an undershirt".

The camp's guides tried to diminish the sense of humiliation for the children wearing no undershirts and quickly purchased clothes for them in the Old City.

Hamed says his son returned home wearing only an undershirt.

"My son learned at a bilingual school, he speaks Hebrew well, and he was educated in lines with the values of coexistence and culture," Hamed said. "Now he's asking me: 'What do the police want from us? Why do they have a problem with our shirts?'"

Lose-lose situation

Hamed said he was forced to send his son to the neighborhood summer camp, set up by Tzur Baher residents, as the city of Jerusalem did not offer neighborhood residents a camp program.

"Israel on one hand doesn't provide for a camp and on the other when one is set up, doesn't allow it to operate," Hamed said.

Hamed, a former investigator for the B'Tselem organization, said: "Eventually, whenever there is an incident in east Jerusalem, we don't even get ambulances, so it's my son's shirt of all things that gets their efficient treatment?"

Jerusalem police responded by saying that camp children indeed arrived wearing shirts with the "Al-Quds – Arab Culture Capital" caption, and that their guides were told that anyone wearing that type of shirt will not enter the Temple Mount – which resulted in the children leaving the premises.

"Mousavi, Karroubi assassination plots foiled’

Link

July 19, 2009

Sun, 19 Jul 2009 , Press TV

Iran’s security services have foiled an attempt by terrorists to assassinate defeated presidential candidates Mir-Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi, a report says.

Jahan News quoted an unnamed source that five hit squads, had entered Iran as part of a concerted effort with the aim of assassinating the two opposition figures.

In the event, the report says, “with the vigilance of the intelligence and security bodies,” these plans were foiled when four of the hit-squads were arrested and one fled.

According to the report, the would-be assassins were from the terrorist Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization (MKO) and had entered the country from the southwestern province of Khuzestan, bordering Iraq and the Persian Gulf.

They were reported to have received training at the MKO-run Camp Ashraf in Iraq.

The main intention of the operation was to attribute the assassination of Mousavi and Karroubi to the Iranian government, the report added.

The report notes that in the run-up to the June 12 presidential election, “a number of anti-revolutionary groups had intended to carry out a similar plan by placing a bomb in the aircraft carrying [former President] Seyyed Mohammad Khatami, which was foiled by the flight security forces.”

Jahan News did not reveal the identities or genders of the terrorist detainees, or whether the assassination plan was foiled before or after the election.

The MKO, a terrorist group on the proscribed lists in Iran, Iraq, USA and Canada, was housed, funded and armed by the former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein in return for attacks against Iran.

Posted in Politics Tagged assassination, Iran, Karroubi, MKO, Mousavi, news, Politics, terrorism, Western interference

"... the Arab side is wary of US incrementalism & wants Obama to offer a "big bang" framework for a Palestinian state .."

Link

Ignatius in the WaPo, here

"... Obama has boldly pushed Israel to freeze settlements as a way of prodding the Arabs to make reciprocal concessions and get the ball rolling toward a peace agreement. But the Arab side is wary of U.S. incrementalism and wants Obama to offer a "big bang" by enumerating the framework for a Palestinian state. If Obama takes this decisive step, he will lose Israeli support; if he doesn't, he'll lose the Arabs.

On Iraq, Obama is pushing ahead with his plan to withdraw troops. When the White House got nervous last month about the slow pace of political reconciliation among Iraqis, Emanuel proposed sending Vice President Biden as a special emissary. That raised the visibility of the issue, but it's still unclear -- especially to Iraqis -- how involved America will be in containing chaos in that still-fragile country. The gut-wrenching decisions are ahead.

Iran is the administration's biggest challenge, and here its vision has been clearest. Obama wants to engage Iran's leadership in discussions about its nuclear program, even after the uproar that followed the June 12 elections. Emanuel argues that with a divided and disoriented Iranian leadership, "engagement and pressure are not polar opposites, but engagement is a form of pressure." Fair enough, but what happens when Iran says no to U.S. demands to curb its nuclear program?

Afghanistan is already being called "Obama's Vietnam," and it's a topic on which the administration is divided. Biden is skeptical that more troops will subdue the Taliban insurgency there, and he wants a review this fall of U.S. strategy to discuss whether goals should be narrowed. The Centcom commander, Gen. David Petraeus, thinks a real evaluation won't be possible until next summer. There's a policy battle ahead, with the hard choices still in the balance.

A final challenge for Obama is getting the foreign policy process right. So far, it has been a somewhat confusing, ad hoc system in which every hot spot gets a special envoy, and the principals -- Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and national security adviser Jim Jones -- sometimes are treated as ceremonial doormats.

The White House rejoinder to such criticism is to say: Look at results. In six months, officials argue, they have turned around America's image; the proof is in the pudding. True, but so far we have been tasting the appetizers. We haven't really taken the first bite of that pudding yet...."

Posted by G, Z, & or B at 3:41 AM

The Insatiable American Thirst for Blood

Link


Dr MUZAFFAR IQBAL

"Opionion Maker" - The Anti-War Movement in America, Canada, and Britain has virtually become a non-entity. This was not unpredictable because the diverse groups which make up the so-called Anti-War Movement have neither the resources, nor the leadership, nor any solid ideological foundation beyond the apparent loathing for war. The invasion of Afghanistan by the United States took place at a time of high fever (September 11, 2001 attacks) and no one thought much of the long-term agenda of Americans at the time of Afghan invasion. Hence, Afghanistan never gained the kind of front end importance which Iraq immediately achieved with the Anti-War Movement. But now the Anti-War Movement is in total disarray over the continuous occupation of Afghanistan and the expanding military operations.

This has given a free hand to the three main governments which lead Afghan operations to do whatever they wish to do in Afghanistan without any fear of homegrown opposition. Thus President Obama had no one to oppose him when he decided to send more troops into Afghanistan. He did this to make his first term as "successful" as that of his predecessors, assuming that the time-tested American definition of success still holds good: America must be engaged in a war to be successful.

The insatiable American thirst for blood is now in full bloom in this killing season as its drones continue to take the lives of men, women, and children in various parts of Pakistani FATA and its soldiers continue to dig deeper and deeper into Afghanistan. Although it is moving its soldiers out Iraqi towns, it is simply redeploying them. This continuous lust for blood is something that now defines America. Its war machine has become so blood thirsty that there is no end in sight of American occupation of Afghanistan, even though there is absolutely no moral or legal justification for its continuous operations in that war-ravaged land.
Yet neither the increased troops, nor the huge monetary resources being pumped into Afghan war indicate anything but failure. Just two weeks into July, 46 foreign troops have already been killed, making July 2009 a record month. But for the NATO spokesman Rear Admiral Greg Smith, these deaths were "something we did anticipate occurring as we extend our influence in the south." He also touted the "pretty intensive set of objectives being met in terms of routing the insurgents." Blood and death is simply what is expected, there is absolutely no shame, no regret, no qualms about loss of human lives; it is all expected and that, somehow justifies it!

On July 10, 2009, the death of eight British soldiers in one 24 hour period set a record: British military’s death toll in Afghanistan (184) now surpasses the number of its soldiers killed in Iraq (179). Yet, speaking at the G8 summit in L'Aquila, Italy, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown defended the Afghan mission: "Our resolution to complete the work we have started is undiminished," he said. "It is in tribute to the members of our forces who have given their lives that we should succeed in the efforts we have begun… it has been a very hard summer, and it is not over."

It is this circular rhetoric of the American, Canadian, and British politicians that has become the bedrock of their raison d’etre to be in Afghanistan: we need to complete the mission we started. But if one asks them: what mission? what exactly is the reason for your presence in Afghanistan, they have no answer except vague plenitudes: defending the hard-won progress, eliminating terrorism, defending our ideals, safeguarding our nation.

The same rhetoric is regurgitated by the Canadian politicians whenever a Canadian soldier is killed, the most recent being the 124th solider, Cpl. Nick Bulger, killed on July 3, 2009 in Kandahar province. (The explosion was a near miss for Canadian Brigadier-General Jonathan Vance, whose vehicle passed the Improvised Explosive Device (IED) just metres ahead Bulger's vehicle.) Prime Minister Stephen Harper expressed regrets and condolences to the Bulger family, saying: "Hard-won progress is being made in Afghanistan." Adding; "Remarkable Canadians like Corporal Bulger will be remembered for their dedication and ultimate sacrifice for peace and freedom."

Whose freedom, what peace? One may ask. These men and women are being sacrificed simply in pursuit of a phantom enemy in a far away land. No Canadian in his or her right mind believes that Taliban in Afghanistan are going to attack their country. There is simply no reason for Canadian soldiers to be in Afghanistan but this most simple, most apparent fact does not enter the calculations of Canadian politicians because they immediately start to think of the economic consequences of pulling out of Afghanistan: what would happen to the trade with the big trade partner to the south if we pulled out. How many jobs will be lost and what would be the consequence of these job losses in the next elections. Such is the "logic", if one can call it logic.

If history can be any guide, one can say with certainty that sooner or later the foreign troops will have to leave Afghanistan and they will leave behind nothing but broken families, severed bodies, scared children, and a trail of corruption and destruction at a level and scale never witnessed in Afghan history. Yet, this will not happen until the Americans find another place to send their soldiers so that their insatiable thirst for blood has new killing fields.

Posted by JNOUBIYEH at 3:11 PM 0 comments

Labels: Barack Obama's wars, Civilian slaughter in Afghanistan

THE REAL REASON BEHIND GULF WAR 1

Link

TRUTH TELLING TIME, BOYS AND GIRLS!
MORE WHITEWASHING OF MODERN HISTORY~ THE REAL (HIDDEN) REASON BEHIND THE GULF WAR

NORTHERNTRUTHSEEKER
July 19, 2009

There has always been speculation that Iraq was given the green light to invade Kuwait in 1990 by the actions of April Gillespie. Even today, people are never told this sordid detail, and left to believe in the lies put out by the media.... My job is of course to bring the FACTS to light!

I strongly believe that Saddam thought he had the full backing by the US for his invasion of Kuwait. It does make you wonder what kind of game the US itself was playing here.... The lies of history must be brought to light and the truth always come forward. ~ NTS

A Basic Map of the Area showing where Kuwait, Iraq and Iran join

I picked this article up from NOTHERNTRUTHSEEKER who found it at URUKNET.

There is significant material here. The world, especially North Americans, has never been told the truth behind the GULF WAR I. Of course North Americans are never told much truth about anything. The history taught has been revised by the Zionists so often that one must do serious digging to find relics of the past to piece together the truth.

They do not want an informed or intelligent public capable of reading through words and possibly not accept their Zionist/Bolshevic/Communist doctrine at face value.

This piece covers what we can now see as part of the ground preparations for the Iraq war. Every reason for this"war" has been proven baseless but now, 20 years later, Iraq is a broken nation wracked with hatred and war, millions of her people gone, DNA of all its creatures permanently altered due to Depleted Uranium, American soldiers demoralized and many dead, damaged or worse by their experiences there.

It can be said that Bush Poppa set Saddam up for this war for just the reasons given above.

AND NOW THEY DO IT IN AFGHANISTAN! They kill off your young men America! These are preplanned endless baseless wars for the financial gain of but a few men.while every American becomes enslaved by the debt these creatures create. This particular war was among the first great deceptions to get America where she is today.

The rubble left from Iraqi troops fleeing slaughter.

We are approaching the 19^th anniversary of the infamous meeting between April Glaspie, former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, and Saddam Hussein on July 25, 1990. Sadly, this incident has been virtually eliminated from the history of Iraq-U.S. relations. After the cease-fire agreement between the U.S. and Iraq in February 1991, some media attention was given, but that quickly disappeared.

April Glaspie met with Saddam Hussein on July 25, 1990 to discuss the future of Kuwait and Iraq.

Before we discuss her meeting, let’s look at background information that led to the point where Iraq was on the verge of invading its Arab neighbor to the south. For many years, the country known as Kuwait was culturally, geographically, racially and economically a part of the area known as Iraq today. Iraq has been identified by different names over the centuries and has been a part of various empires, but present-day Kuwait was always a province of Basra, the southernmost component of Iraq.

In the early part of the 20^th century, the British laid the boundaries that led to the current Middle East. Many of those overran traditional cultures and identities, making the area a hotbed of violence from then until the beginning of the 21^st century.

Today, it looks like the conflicts created by these borders may yet spill over into the next century. The Kuwaiti-Iraqi border created hostility and mistrust. Despite the British placing of stooges in power in Iraq during their 20^th century occupation of the country, two of the quisling governments protested the status of Kuwait as an independent country.

Work of the bankers again. Chopping up countries to their own design with no care to the effects it might have on the people of the lands. Profit is all.

Doom and war seem to follow this woman's every visit to other countries.

Until 1990, the Ba’ath government of Iraq and the emirate of Kuwait held an uneasy truce. At times, both countries experienced amiable relations, but at others, there was an aloofness. The common denominator was that both were populated by Arabs and both used this brotherhood to keep peace.

The Iran ~ Iraq War

In 1980, Iran and Iraq went to war. The two countries fought a bloody eight-year conflict that ended in a stalemate. Iran wanted to spread its own Islamic revolution throughout the Middle East and Iraq was the only country in the area that could stop the territorial designs of Iran. Iraq was the buffer that stopped the countries of the Arabian Peninsula, including Kuwait, from falling into Iranian hands.

Interesting. Israel destroyed Iraq who worked to their betterment turning it into the the pathetic state it is today and now they want to take Iran however way they can. By now we realist there is more than greed involved in Israel's long term plans of Middle East Imperialism.

Unlike the hostile attitude of neighboring countries brought on by U.S. intervention in the area, during the 1980s, Iraq’s Arab neighbors stood solidly behind the country that was sacrificing its soldiers to keep the independence of Gulf Arabian countries.

American Involvement

In the 1990s, with forceful persuasion by the U.S., countries like Saudi Arabia, U.A.E., Qatar, and others turned against their former ally. Kuwait, with much U.S. assistance, was the first to betray Iraq and others followed. Some, however, such as Yemen and Jordan, kept cordial relations with Iraq because the people of these countries forced their leaders not to ostracize the Iraqis.

By the end of the Iran-Iraq War, Iraq’s economy had been greatly weakened. The incidents leading to Desert Storm began to emerge.

Kuwaiti Betrayal

Kuwait lent money to Iraq during the war. The money was allocated for the defense of Kuwait, as well as that of Iraq, and the Iraqi government did not expect to be hard-pressed to repay the loans after the hostilities ended, especially because much of the money was used in thwarting Iran from invading Kuwait.

Soon after the cease-fire, Kuwait demanded repayment. Saddam Hussein was shocked that Kuwait would apply so much pressure after his country had spent eight bloody years defending Kuwait from Iranian aggression. When Iraq attempted to discuss the matter of repayment with Kuwait, the Kuwaitis became ever more insistent about immediate remission. The Iraqis knew at that time that the CIA and Kuwait had already instituted measures to further undermine the Iraqi economy, yet they did not realize the severity and progress of those plans.

CIA ~ American Coalition

After Iraq crossed the Kuwaiti border on August 2, 1990, many aspects of this anti-Iraq scheme came out in the open. The Iraqis found a copy of a letter dated November 22, 1989 and marked "Top Secret and Private" that was sent by Brigadier Ahmed Al Fahd (Director General of the State Security Department of Kuwait) to Sheikh Salem Al Sabah Al Sabah (Minister of the Interior of Kuwait). The letter mentions the coalition of the CIA and the Kuwaiti government and their plans to undermine the Iraqi economy. Here are a few highlights:

In accordance with Your Highness’s orders, as given during our meetings with you on October 22, 1989, I visited the headquarters of the United States Intelligence Agency, together with Colonel Ishaq Abd Al Hadi Shaddad, Director of Investigations for the Governorate of Ahmadi, from November 12 to 18, 1989. The United States side emphasized that the visit should be top secret in order not to arouse the sensibilities among our brothers in the Gulf Cooperation Council, Iran and Iraq …

We agreed with the United States side that visits would be exchanged at all levels between the State Security Department and the Central Intelligence Agency, and that information would be exchanged about armaments and social and political structures of Iran and Iraq …

We agreed with the American side that it was important to take advantage of the deteriorating economic situation in Iraq in order to put pressure on that country’s government to delineate our common border. The Central Intelligence Agency gave us its view of appropriate means of pressure, saying that broad cooperation should be initiated between us, on condition that such actions are coordinated at a high level.

This letter proved the Iraqi allegations of a definite U.S. plan to keep Iraq’s economy weak so Kuwait could benefit. The release of this letter put a different look on the events of August 2, 1990 and the following few months.

Iraq did not enter Kuwait simply

to stake claim to Kuwait’s oil.

(Which Iraq had no need of.)

It did so to stop Kuwait and the U.S.

from permanently damaging its economy.

Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz quickly spread the word about the U.S.-Kuwait collusion, but the agenda was written by Bush I and barely a peep was heard about the damning evidence.

The world was hearing about "naked aggression" and "another Hitler." In an October 24, 1990 letter to the United Nations, Aziz highlighted the actions of the U.S. and Kuwait that led to the eventual occupation of Kuwait by Iraq. Many crucial points are brought up, so it is important to publish the entire letter:

I am sending you a copy of a letter dated November 22, 1989, from the Director-General of the State Security Department to the Minister of the Interior of the former Kuwaiti regime. This dangerous document proves the existence of a conspiracy between that government and the government of the United States to destabilize the situation in Iraq.

I mentioned this conspiracy in a letter dated September 4, 1990, that I addressed to foreign ministers around the world. In that letter, I explained the historical background and the machinations of the Kuwaiti leaders against Iraq as follows:

"We must therefore conclude that the leaders of the former regime wished to pursue their plots until Iraq’s economy was destroyed and its political system destabilized. It is impossible to believe that a regime like that formerly in power in Kuwait could have embarked on such an ambitious conspiracy without the support and protection of a great power. That power can only be the United States."

I also made the following remarks in my letter:

"It is evident from my historical account and from the description I have given of events, that the disagreement was not simply about economic or border questions. We had many differences of that nature over 20 years, and we always tried to maintain the best possible relations with the former leaders of Kuwait, in spite of their contemptible behavior and their despicable attitude toward Iraq.

The fact of the matter is that there was an organized conspiracy, in which the former leaders of Kuwait deliberately took part with the support of the United States, to destabilize Iraq’s economy and undermine its defense capabilities against the imperialist aims of Israel and acts of aggression on part of the Arab world.

To achieve that, it was necessary to undermine Iraq’s political system and to strengthen the hegemony of the United States over the region, especially over its oil resources. In fact, as President Saddam Hussein declared at the Baghdad summit, and as I indicated in my letter to the Secretary-General of the Arab League, it was a war against Iraq."

This document proves, clearly and unequivocally, that the CIA and the intelligence services of the former government of Kuwait were in league with each other in plotting against the national security, territorial integrity, and national economy of Iraq.

I should be grateful if you would kindly circulate this letter and the appended text as official Security Council documents.

Months before the beginning of Desert Storm, Tariq Aziz had exposed Kuwait’s duplicity. Instead of looking at the facts, however, much of the world allowed George Bush I to revamp them and portray a different scenario — one in which the Iraqis invaded Kuwait for no reason other than greed and the acquisition of Kuwaiti oil. Logic would tear holes in this assessment. Iraq already had the world’s second-largest oil reserves, so it did not need to grab those of Kuwait. Iraq’s economic existence had been threatened by the U.S. and Kuwait, but it seemed no one was listening.

Kuwait Theft of $14 Billion of Iraqi Oil

In 1989, another strange scenario emerged. Iraq began to lose oil from its wells in the Rumailah oil fields, located in the Iraq/Kuwait border area. Iraq discovered that the Kuwaitis had installed a slant drilling operation on the border, enabling them to drill under the boundary and steal Iraqi oil.

At the time, the Iraqi government assessed the oil losses at $2.7 billion, but after discovering the enormity of the operation, losses were re-assessed to about $14 billion. The stealing of Iraqi oil was well-documented by Iraq. On July 15, 1990, Tariq Aziz, in a letter to the Secretary of the Arab League, described the theft in detail.

Because of the cooperative relationship between Kuwait and Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War, Saddam Hussein was aghast at the Kuwaiti’s change of heart once the hostilities ceased. Iraq began to find pieces of the puzzle and put them together. The findings were corroborated after August 2, 1990 when the Iraqis found evidence in Kuwait, such as the top secret letter previously mentioned.

Saddam's Prediction

Prior to August 2, 1990, the Iraqis had enough facts to present to the Arab world showing Kuwaiti involvement in undermining their economy. To Iraq, this was the beginning of a U.S. intrusion into the area that would not be reversed once put into action.

In a speech in Amman, Jordan on February 24, 1990, Saddam Hussein told those assembled of the imminent danger of allowing the U.S. to become involved in regional affairs. (See Appendix XII of the book The Mother of All Battles: The Endless U.S.-Iraq War for the entire speech.)

Remember, at the time, the Soviet Union was in existence and was considered a world superpower. The Iraqi president stated:

The country that exerts the greatest amount of influence on the region, on the Gulf and its oil, will consolidate its superiority as an unrivaled superpower.

"This proves that if the population

of the Gulf ~ and of the entire

Arab world~ is not vigilant,

this area will be ruled

according to the wishes

of the United States."

Despite this ominous prediction, the Arab world did not take much notice. Most of the countries in the region could not envisage a permanent U.S. presence that would dictate U.S. policy to them. Events since 1990, much to the chagrin of regional Arab countries, proved Saddam Hussein’s statement accurate. Today, countries such as Qatar and Kuwait are virtual U.S. possessions.

American and Kuwaiti Treachery

Kuwait, despite the wishes of its oil-producing partners in OPEC, began to pump much more oil than its agreed quota, bringing the price of oil down on world markets. Every time Kuwait’s actions forced a decrease in the price of oil, Iraq lost millions, if not billions, of dollars, further eroding its economy.

The situation became more tense and Saddam Hussein called for a meeting with April Glaspie, the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq. On July 25, 1990, they met and Saddam explained his country’s plight to her. He discussed Kuwait’s breaking of OPEC agreements and that his country was in desperate need of money to help rebuild its infrastructure that was damaged in the eight-year Iran-Iraq War. (See Appendix I of The Mother of All Battles for the full transcript.)

After listening, Glaspie then assured Saddam that the U.S. was on Iraq’s side and that the U.S. was in sync with the desires of Iraq to rebuild. She explained:

I think I understand this. I have lived here for years. I admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. I know you need funds. We understand that, and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. But we have no opinion on Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border dispute with Kuwait.

Saddam Hussein then complained that the U.S. was blocking most orders his government had placed with the U.S. He said:

There is nothing for us to buy from America. Only wheat. Because every time we want to buy something, they say it is forbidden. I am afraid that one day you will say, "You are going to make gunpowder out of wheat."

Those words were quite prophetic. After Desert Storm, with a full embargo in place, Iraq could not import food, so it had to create more agriculturally-based business. In June 1992, U.S. military jets, with their afterburners, destroyed 23 Iraqi wheat fields.

Getting back to the Saddam Hussein-April Glaspie meeting, she responded to Saddam’s complaints about lack of access to American markets with, "I have a direct instruction from the president to seek better relations with Iraq."

Glaspie Teller of Non Truth

The U.S. administration maintained that it was Iraq’s business and not that of the U.S. in the matter of Iraq’s dispute with Kuwait. On July 26, 1990, the day after the Saddam-Glaspie meeting, Margaret Tutweiler, U.S. Department of State spokesperson was asked by the press, "Has the United States sent any type of diplomatic message to the Iraqis about putting 30,000 troops on the border of Kuwait? Has there been any type of protest communicated from the United States government?" She replied, "I’m entirely unaware of any such protest."

On July 31, 1990, John Kelly, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, testified to Congress that the "United States has no commitment to defend Kuwait and the U.S. has no intention of defending Kuwait if it is attacked by Iraq."

These messages are not ambiguous, but they were false. Bush had plans ready to destroy Iraq and the crossing of the Iraq-Kuwait border was an appropriate excuse to implement Bush’s designs.

During the war propaganda buildup of the next few months, the subject of the Saddam-Glaspie meeting was kept under wraps. Few Americans knew of the incident. Adding to the intrigue, Glaspie seemingly disappeared. From August 4, 1990 until May 1991, no government official mentioned her or could account for her whereabouts. A few reporters worked up the nerve to ask, but they were ignored.

Glaspie the Liar

In May 1991, April Glaspie appeared before the U.S. Senate. Questions were not asked about where she had been for the prior nine months, and the public will probably never know. During her report to the Senate, she told of warning Saddam Hussein not to take action against Kuwait.

Most of the senators believed her because she alleged that the transcripts of her meeting with Saddam were altered by the Iraqi government. (The CIA admitted that the transcripts were accurate and that Glaspie had not issued such a statement to Saddam Hussein.) After her testimony, the Senate virtually granted Glaspie hero status.

In July 1991, Senators Clayborne Pell of Rhode Island and Alan Cranston of California came up with a totally different scenario from the one Glaspie presented. They read the contents of secret messages from Glaspie to the U.S. government and assessed that Glaspie blatantly lied to the U.S. Senate.

Pell and Cranston appeared on national television and called Glaspie’s testimony deceitful and shameful. They vowed to get to the bottom of the incident, all the time lambasting Glaspie and her testimony before the Senate. Pell and Cranston announced that they were putting the machinery in motion for a full investigation to begin in September 1991. By mid-October, there was no word of an investigation.

On October 11, 1991, I called Senator Cranston’s office in Washington D.C. When I asked about the impending investigation, there was silence. After a brief pause, I was hesitatingly told that they knew nothing about it and I was advised to call the Foreign Affairs Committee.

I took the recommendation of Cranston’s office and called the committee. After I gave a brief description of the incident, I asked, "Is there any information available?" The woman, who would not identify herself, snapped "Nope!" After a moment’s pause, she tersely added, "There was a meeting scheduled and then postponed indefinitely." Then, she abruptly hung up.

Somehow, the administration squashed the only chance we had of learning the truth behind the Glaspie affair. The question that will never be publicly addressed and answered is: "Did April Glaspie give Saddam Hussein a green light for invading Kuwait out of incompetence (i.e. was the Arab-Arab statement her own?) or was she instructed to say that by the U.S. administration?"

Glaspie Agent of Death ~ Somalia and Rowanda

April Glaspie is a shady character at best. According to the U.S. administration, in 1992, she accepted a position at the University of San Diego. Her phone number was listed, yet there never was an answer when it was called, and, there was no answering machine.

In June 1993, the U.S. involvement in Somalia turned from a "humanitarian" mission to one that attempted to capture the newly-demonized Mohammed Aidid. There was much bloodshed. Shortly before the public denigration of Aidid, Glaspie was re-assigned to Somalia. She wrote the new script.

Soon after the Somalia debacle, Glaspie again disappeared, only to turn up in the Rwanda area, where the slaughtering of more than a million people was just getting underway. Prior to her stint in Iraq, Glaspie was stationed in Lebanon during that country’s bitter and bloody civil war. Is the fact that Glaspie happens to appear in areas in which there is violence shortly after her debut a matter of chance, or, possibly the prelude to destruction

Posted by Barbara L at 1:41 PM

Labels: Bush, DECEPTION, Depleted Uranium, Iraq, Kuwait, Oil, war

We’ll Never Give Up al-Aqsa!

link
July 19, 2009

by Umaya Jiha-Al Raya newspaper-Qatar

Sheikh Khatib: We’ll Never Give Up al-Aqsa

Al manar

19/07/2009 Thousands of Arab children headed to occupied Jerusalem Saturday to celebrate the annual festival of the Al-Aqsa Children’s Fund initiative, which prompts Muslim youngsters to donate their allowance in favor of the mosque and Islamic Movement institutions.

The Islamic movement’s Northern Branch’s Deputy Chairman, Sheikh Kamel Khatib, spoke to the children and stressed that Muslims will never give up any parts of the holy Muslim site.

About 200 buses packed with children from Arab communities nationwide headed to occupied Jerusalem since early morning hours. The children presented the cashboxes from their communities, and Islamic Movement officials estimated that a total of NIS 3 million (roughly $750,000) was raised this year. The event was attended by movement heads, sheikhs, and Arab dignitaries, including Sheikh Khatib who arrived with his four children.

In his speech to the youngsters, Khatib said: “We have no partners here at the mosque,” referring to Israeli occupation Internal Security Minister Yitzhak Aharonovich’s recent visit to the site. “The al-Aqsa Mosque is a holy and occupied place, just like the whole of Jerusalem, which was occupied by the Israeli army in 1967. The occupation must be removed from the mosque in particular, and from Jerusalem in general.”

“The Jews should not be thinking that they can build their Temple on the ruins of the al-Aqsa Mosque,” Khatib said. “This day won’t come. Those who dream that we, the Muslims, will renounce part of the al-Aqsa mosque should know that their dream will not see the light.”

The Al-Aqsa Children’s Fund initiative was launched eight years ago and has become increasingly popular among Islamic Movement members. Homes of movement members are equipped with cashbox that the children contribute to daily.

Israeli police officials seized the money raised by the movement last year, claiming it was meant to fund Hamas. Northern Branch activists say that the move was tantamount to theft. “They stole the children’s money, and the time has come to pay it back,” Khatib said. “The claim that we collected money for Hamas is a big lie. The money is aimed for one and only objective – the al-Aqsa Mosque.”

Posted in Caricature, Politics Tagged al aqsa, Caricature, Israeli crimes, Israeli policies, Jerusalem, news, Occupation, palestine, Palestinians, Politics

Israelis turn on their own: Israeli commanders ‘wanted to see blood’

Link
July 19, 2009

by Ben Heine

Sat, 18 Jul 2009, Press TV

In another outburst of brutality, Israeli commanders turn against their own forces, beating and harassing the IDF’s newly recruited soldiers.

In one incident, Commanders of the IDF’s Armored Corps brigades ordered seven service members to beat the new recruits, who suffered substantial bruising and scarring.

“All the soldiers stood in one row and lifted up their shirts, while the staff was yelling ‘cowards, no-goods, you’re worth nothing.’ The commanders would start beating us, slapping us, and whipping us. The pains were terrible,” one abuse victim told Ynet on Saturday.

Such abuses were authorized by the Armored Corps brigades’ commanders, who would not physically get involved in the brutality.

The incidents would take place in ‘hazing ceremonies’, which according to Ynet are held on two occasions — at the end of training, and upon receiving sergeant ranks.

“Those were terrible blows, which had to be sustained silently. Everyone got beaten up, because the commanders wanted to see blood,” a victim said.

Following the last of such incidents, which took place on July 8, twenty soldiers were left with red marks on their backs, bruises, and sharp pain.

Although there is a record of such brutalities in the IDF, it is not known for how long the practice was in use because the soldiers subjected to abuse observed the code of silence.

Israeli military officials say that the incident was probed in depth shortly after it came to their attention.

The Israeli military has always been marred by brutality and violence. Following Tel Aviv’s three-week-long onslaught on the Gaza Strip, Israelis confessed that they were instructed by their superiors to target innocent civilians.

“Better hit an innocent than hesitate to target an enemy,” an Israeli soldier remembered his seniors as repeating at pre-invasion briefings.

Zionist army kills then cries and lies

link

2009-04-23,00:00

Al-Qassam website - Despite the images of live broadcasts and the international reports, the Deputy Chief of Staff of the army of occupation, Dan Harel, denied the illegal use of phosphorous bombs, and said that the use is consistent with international law. He added that during the war, they stop the use of those bombs because of international criticism. However, he pointed out that the army has no intention of stopping the use of such bombs.

About the Zionist soldiers� witnesses on the Zionist television a month ago in Gaza, killing civilians without justification, and the accusation of Zionist politicians of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity during the war on the Gaza Strip. Despite the confessions of the soldiers in the war on Gaza, Zionist entity acquitted itself of the charge.

The acquaintance came after alleged investigations and a report concludes that the army had not �intentionally affect Palestinian civilians�, admitting to �some of intelligence errors that led to the deaths of civilians�.

Palestinian lawyer Shawqi Al-Esa said, commenting on the report, that the Zionist entity deliberately expose some of the confessions by the soldiers and then set up a military commission of biased inquiry to reach this result, to hoodwink the international observers, to prevent the formation of an international commission of fair inquiry and to stop international criticism.

The media quoted from Deputy Chief of Staff of the army of occupation, Dan Harel, who presented the findings of the report, saying:�small part of cases indicates the existence of intelligence or operational errors caused the harm the civilian population�. He said that some of the claims of Palestinians turned out to be true or greatly exaggerated. Strangely, Harel blamed part of the "mistakes" of the Hamas movement. He added:�An intelligence mistake led to the bombing of the house of �Ad-Daya� family in Az-Zeitoun neighborhood and killed in 21 people. We found a few mistakes after examining dozens of cases".

Commenting on this, Dr. Ahmed Tibi said: �The Zionist army kills then start crying and lying. He added:" The credibility of the Zionist army and its leadership is shaky; this army kills and then cries and lies".

Tibi called for the government and the army in the Zionist entity to back down from their refusal to deal with the Commission of Inquiry established by the United Nations because it is the authority in charge of this investigation.