Wikileaks, Assorted Actors And Faith-Based Frolics In The War On Terror

Does anyone believe it anymore? I really wish I had access to a reliable census on what the majority of people in this world believe about the purported 'Islamic terror threat', 9/11 etc. etc. Over the past 10 years several US 9/11 polls have been published. Depending on which of the shockingly few mainstream media corporations you prefer, somewhere between 36% and 62% of the US public believe that the US government is, at the very least, not telling the truth about the 9/11 attacks. If true, (and we have every reason to believe that the media corps down-play the figures) what does that mean for public perception of the 'Islamic terror threat' on which the 9/11 attacks are based?

If a majority of human beings can, at this stage, see through most of the increasingly crass US, British, French and Israeli government and assorted 'Intelligence' agency hyperbole and propaganda, can we expect them to just drop the whole charade any time soon? Sadly, recent media reports suggest otherwise and point to a deepening of the global psychological operation to which we have all been subjected these past 10 years.

A still from the most recent 'al-Qaeda' video released by Intel Center featuring Adam Gadhan

"Media reports". We use and hear that term so often in reference to the 'war on terrorism' that we can easily forget what it actually means. It means that everything you know, or think you know, about the global terror threat has come to you via media corporations that are either owned or controlled by the governments that are waging the 'war on terror' and profiting handsomely from it. Does that bother anyone?

To make matter worse, the stories you watch, listen to and read concerning what's what and who's who in Muslim terror-land are invariably provided by the intelligence arms of the same governments. There are no 'al-Qaeda' TV or radio stations, no 'Muslim Terrorism' weekly magazines with articles and Op-Eds penned by Osama and his alleged cohorts. And before you protest, all of the 'al-Qaeda' internet video and audio tapes that you vaguely remember seeing and hearing have long since been deemed so suspect by objective analysis that they are inadmissible as reliable evidence.

Take for instance the recent reappearance of 'Adam Gadhan', the all-American 'home-grown' spokesman for Osama bin Laden. Gadhan was born Adam Pearlman, the son of Californian hippy goat-rearing parents and the grandson of Anti-Defamation League board member, Dr. Carl Pearlman with whom Adam lived during his childhood. During his teenage years, Adam dabbled in the death metal scene before finally opting for Islam, to which he converted when he was 17. Soon thereafter, he seems to have disappeared off the face of the planet for a while, with reports (from Intel agencies) claiming that he moved to Pakistan in 1998, where, at the tender age of 19, he is said to have married an Afghan refugee.

In March 2001, he cut off all contact with his family, just before Muslim Terror Inc. went live. Later that year, he reemerged (on the internet) with a new name, Adam Yahiye Gadahn', a new Muslim beard and elevated to the position of "senior commander to Bin Laden translator, video producer, and cultural interpreter." I kid you not. Since then Adam has been the front man for 'As-sahab', allegedly the media arm of 'al-Qaeda', and has starred in several video messages where he attempts to combine Californian schmooze with radical Islamic ideology...to limited success. Here's one such video dispatch for your viewing pleasure (note, you can tell he's reading a prompter):



That particular video was released a few years ago by Intel Center, which has released most of the 'al-Qaeda' audio and video tapes. Intel Center claims to be a "private contractor working for intelligence agencies" that "studies terrorist groups and other threat actors and disseminating that information in a timely manner to those who can act on it." It is also a stone's throw from CIA HQ in Virginia. Owned by Verisign, which operates "two of the Internet's thirteen root nameservers, the generic top-level domains for .com, .net, .cc, .name and .tv", Intel Center's CEO is Ben Venzke, a former US intelligence officer. Alongside Venzke is 'Director of Threat intelligence', Jim Melnick who served 16 years in the US army and the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and worked in psychological operations. The IDEFENSE website described him this way a few years ago:

Prior to joining iDefense, Mr. Melnick served with distinction for more than 16 years in the U.S. Army and the Defense Intelligence Agency. During this period, Mr. Melnick served in a variety of roles, including psychological operations, international warning issues with emphasis on foreign affairs and information operations and Russian affairs. He also served in active political/military intelligence roles with an emphasis on foreign affairs. Mr. Melnick is currently a U.S. Army Reserve Colonel with Military Intelligence, assigned to the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

Note that Melnick was assigned to the Office of Donald "Go massive sweep it all up. Things related and not" Rumsfeld'. Melnick does more or less the same job for another company called ISight Partners. Basically, he has his finger on the pulse of all potential 'cyber-threats' and works for a company (Verisign) that should have no problem at all in identifying precisely where in the world any 'al-Qaeda' video or audio message had been uploaded to a server. With his military Intel background, surely he could then notify the recruits manning the predator drones in the CIA's Arizona bunker? Apparently not, because the stars of all these 'al-Qaeda' videos are still at large, after 10 years, and the only people receiving the predator's special brand of freedom and democracy are innocent Afghan and Pakistani villagers. Although I shouldn't be too hard on the Intel Center guys, they are clearly a talented bunch, after all, it takes serious intel savvy to predict the release of an 'al-Qaeda' video in advance!

New Al Qaeda Tape to Be Released

July 05, 2006

Al Qaeda is set to release a new video tape featuring one of the suicide bombers from last year's London attacks, according to Ben Venzke at the IntelCenter. Venzke says the as-Sahab production house will be putting out a tape on the Internet sometime Thursday that includes a video last will and testament of Shahzad Tanweer as well as a new statement from the al Qaeda number two leader Ayman al-Zawahiri.

The tape is also expected to include former Californian Adam Gadahn, who now goes by the name of Azzam al-Amriki. Gadahn is believed by U.S. authorities to be running the al Qaeda propaganda operation from a secret location somewhere inside of Pakistan.

If you'd like the inside scoop on when the CIA Intel Center 'al-Qaeda' plans to release another fascinating dispatch from the front lines of Langley 'Tora Bora', their 'Terrorism Threat Intel Package' can be yours for $1,499 per user per year. Really, it's well worth the money, they put a lot of effort into making these videos available. Consider, for example, the 2006 'al-Qaeda' video featuring Islamic terrorism's Mr Magoo, Ayman al-Zawahiri. After its release, the video was analyzed by computer security consultant Neil Krawetz. During a presentation he gave at the BlackHat security conference in Las Vegas in 2007 about analyzing digital photographs and video images for alterations and enhancements, Krawetz showed that the video had been altered in a very interesting way.

Using a program he wrote (and provided on the conference CD-ROM) Krawetz could print out the quantization tables (that indicate how the image was compressed) and determine the last tool that created the image - that is, the make and model of the camera if the image is original or the version of Photoshop that was used to alter and re-save the image.

This is the image from the video he analyzed.


A still from the the Intelcenter-faked "al-qaeda" video

After conducting his error analysis, Krawetz was able to determine that the writing on the banner behind al-Zawahiri's head was added to the image afterward and at the same time as the logo of Intel Center.

Hmmm...

Moving along. Remember al Zarqawi? He was the guy who almost single-handedly provoked 'civil war' in Iraq, or so we were told. Apart from the fact that he could barely shoot a gun, (here's a quick video clip)

there was also this from a few years ago:

How the U.S. Fuelled the Myth of Zarqawi The Mastermind

Adrian Blomfield
The Telegraph, UK
03 Oct 2004

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the terrorist leader believed to be responsible for the abduction of Kenneth Bigley, is 'more myth than man,' according to American military intelligence agents in Iraq.

Several sources said the importance of Zarqawi, blamed for many of the most spectacular acts of violence in Iraq, has been exaggerated by flawed intelligence and the Bush administration's desire to find "a villain" for the post-invasion mayhem.

US military intelligence agents in Iraq have revealed a series of botched and often tawdry dealings with unreliable sources who, in the words of one source, "told us what we wanted to hear".

"We were basically paying up to $10,000 a time to opportunists, criminals and chancers who passed off fiction and supposition about Zarqawi as cast-iron fact, making him out as the linchpin of just about every attack in Iraq," the agent said.

"Back home this stuff was gratefully received and formed the basis of policy decisions. We needed a villain, someone identifiable for the public to latch on to, and we got one.

None of which prevented the mainstream media from regaling us with this the other day:

British blunder may have let al-Qaida kingpin Zarqawi go free

British troops came close to capturing al-Qaida's top commander and the occupation forces' most wanted target in Iraq - but the operation collapsed after the only surveillance helicopter ordered to monitor him [followed him for 15 minutes and then] ran out of fuel and had to return to base, secret military intelligence logs suggest.

If I had a penny, (or a no-bid US govt. contract to rebuild a formerly flourishing Middle Eastern nation) for every time I've read about how close the US or British military came to catching [insert name of your favorite Islamic terrorist] only to have him somehow miraculously slip away, I'd be at least as rich as Tony Blair. But sadly, my chances of getting a no-bid US govt. contract are about as slim as Osama bin Laden after ten years living with kidney failure in a cave in Afghanistan, so I suppose I'll just have to grin and bear the ignominy of having my intelligence insulted with further fantastic tales of terrorist Houdinis. It's still kind of rude though. I mean, the official story of al Zarqawi's life was ridiculous enough, but the story of his death must surely have provoked a massive bout of cognitive dissonance in even the most eager believer in Western benevolent militarism.

Here's a little recap for your edification:

The official file on Zarqawi, whose real name was Ahmad Fadil al-Khalayleh, tells us that he was born in Jordan. Barely literate, he became a petty criminal until the call to arms came with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. After his time in the terror training camps of Afghanistan Zarqawi returned to his home with a radical Islamist agenda. The interesting part of his file, the part that is generally omitted from such reports, is that the training camps in Afghanistan before and during the soviet invasion of that country that Zarqawi attended, were funded and run by the CIA, making Zarqawi and others like him, assets of the US government.

Consider the words of Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser, in an interview in the 15-21 January 1998 edition of Le Nouvel Observateur

Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise. Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

B: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?

B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.

B: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn't a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.

Zarqawi was on the CIA's books for over twenty years by the time the Neocons came to power in 2000. When 9/11 just happened to gift them the 'casus belli falsus' to beat them all, they immediately went about the task of gathering together a group of likely fundamentalist Islamic patsies to take the rap for the Neocon's war on fake Islamic terrorism, which wasn't a war at all but rather the bludgeoning of millions of innocent people in the Middle East and S.E Asia in the interest of Empire or, to be more precise, the externalization of the Neocon's psychopathology.

At 6am on June 7th 2006, a U.S. airforce F-16 dropped two 500lb bombs on a single isolated safe-house outside the city of Baqubah, 30 miles northwest of Baghdad, where, we are told, Zarqawi was staying with 5 comrades. In doing so, the NeoCons sacrificed a valuable 'Islamic terrorist' bogeyman. That is not to say, however, that Zarqawi was actually in that "safe house".

Here's an image of the house before it was bombed:



Now, have you ever seen the effects of a 500lb bomb? Have you ever seen the effects of two? Have a look:

Here's an image of what was left of the house:



Now remember, we were told Zarqawi was in that house at the time of the bombing.

So after two massive pieces of ordinance were dropped, essentially on his head, this is the condition in which US troops allegedly found him



An abrasion on his cheek and a cut on his forehead and above his left eye. Is that ok then? Good.

So the question is, or rather, the question I am asking myself right now is: why am I even saying any of this? What's my point? Do I even have one? The main reason for this little trip down the memory hole is Julian Assange. You see, I hold him (and what's left of his Wikileaks shop front) responsible for the fact that I couldn't just stop at Adam Gadahn/Pearlman. You're probably aware that Wikileaks has released yet another armored truck-load of 'war logs', this time from Iraq, among which was the above tale of Zarqawi's fortuitous escape from the clutches of the British. In this most recent download, the mainstream media has, once again, been gifted with a plethora of 'logs' that allow them to do three main things:

1) Dig up and retell the officially fabricated history of Muslim terrorists and terrorism

2) Remind the world that Iran is really to blame for everything

3) Reveal selected isolated stories of complicity in torture and killing of civilians by US and British forces and thereby provide Wikileaks' bone fides as an honest anti-war organisation, despite the fact that much worse abuse had already been exposed long ago.

And so, I'm forced to try and set the record straight.

Number 1: has already been dealt with above:

Number 2:

Wikileaks: how Iran devised new suicide vest for al-Qaeda to use in Iraq

Iranian-backed forces supplied insurgents attacking coalition troops and devised new forms of suicide vests for al-Qaeda, according to assessments released by Wikileaks.

Number 3

Wikileaks Iraq war logs: US turned over captives to Iraqi torture squads

Before anyone had heard of Wikileaks:

US soldiers shoot and kill Iraqi shoe thrower

US military admits soldiers killed unarmed Iraqi civilians

US military says it shot and killed a young Iraqi girl

US soldiers charged with murder over baiting of Iraqis

US Soldiers Murder Iraqi Women and Children In Reprisal Attack

Haditha victims' kin outraged as Marines go free

Soldiers 'hit golf balls before going out to kill family'

US soldiers smiled before killings in Iraq: witness

Iraqi women killed at US checkpoint

US Soldiers Danced Around Dead Iraqi Civilians

Added to this is the fact that, conveniently for the US military, the Wikileaks documents also affirm that most civilian deaths in Iraq have been caused by Iraqis and that the total number of Iraqi civilians who died as a result of the US invasion is a little higher than the official number recognised by the US government. In all, the Wikileaks documents claim an extra 15,000 civilians were killed, bringing the total to about 100,000. Assuming no one in the mainstream media or Wikileaks dares to mention the most reliable estimates of over 1 million excess Iraqi civilian deaths as a direct result of the invasion, both the Pentagon and Wikileaks can feel content that they've done their job.

Ground Zero Mosque? Stone Me! It's a Shiny Iranian Drone!

Iran - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Sunday inaugurated the country's first domestically-built, long-range, unmanned bomber aircraft, calling it an "ambassador of death to Iran's enemies.

Oooh! it's gold and shiny!

Ya know, I'm sort of getting tired of all this. There isn't going to be an attack on Iran any time soon, and Israel, the US and the Iranians know it. That's why they're all having so much fun. The major reason all of the sabre-rattling is going on is for OUR benefit, to keep humanity afraid, corralled and controlled, physically, mentally, emotionally and therefore, indirectly, spiritually.

Check out this link from a rabid, brain-dead right-winger in the US. It's about the "ground zero Mosque". Scroll down and look at the pictures from a recent demonstration. Read the slogans on the placards etc.

These people's understanding of what is really going on in the world is so abysmal, so utterly wrong, that it's 'not even wrong'!

This is why civilisations and entire species disappear. When "consciousness units" reach a certain point of saturation with an entirely false and illusory perception of what actually IS, they are moved to the obsolete list. They no longer serve any purpose from the point of view of creation. They MIGHT survive and find a place for themselves in the grand scheme of things IF they had the power to manifest and maintain a world where their own illusions were actually real, but folks down here don't have that power. The only reason they are still around is because they are not entirely to blame, they have, after all, been deceived by others into believing what they believe, but even the universe has a limit to its patience.

So all of a sudden we have "ground zero Mosque" and stories like that of Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, the Iranian woman who has been "saved from stoning" in Iran. Does ANYONE think it is a coincidence that these stories appear as the US and Israel are banging the war drums about Iran and its non-existent/no threat whatsoever, nuke program? Just look at these stories and REALISE just how controlled our world and our perception of it is.

But let's look on the bright side; the situation is SO bad that, for the next 6 months, when you see ANY stories that paint Muslims or Iran in a negative light, you can very safely assume, without any investigation (if you so choose), that they are 100% false. In fact, you can back-date that advice...oh, about 100 years.

For the record:

On the Mosque:

People who may or may not be Muslim purchased property. It is an abandoned Burlington Coat Factory, about 2 blocks from Ground Zero. There are no plans for a Mosque there.

On the stoning:

Iran doesn't stone anyone. It doesn't appear as a punishment on their penal books.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoning#Iran

Mainstream Media and Government Are Not Credible

Two things to remember:

Number 1:

It has been proven that the US, British and Israeli governments and affiliated 'intelligence' agencies deliberately lied about the Iraq war and the 'war on terrorism' in general. It is not about terrorism, it is (largely) about oil and control of that vital resource. Any testimony from the the US, UK or Israeli governments and 'Intelligence' agencies about the war on terrorism should therefore be automatically rejected as not credible.


Number 2:

Don't expect the mainstream media to ever admit the truth about the Iraq war or that which led to it. The mainstream media's promotion of the Bush government lies about the Iraq invasion means they are complicit in the murder of more than 1 million Iraqi citizens. Like any accomplice to a crime, they will do all they can to hide their culpability.

CIA's Man 'Wins' Iraqi General Election

"I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows, that the Iraq war is largely about oil" - Alan Greenspan former head of the Federal Reserve

Tin-pot Iraqi dictator-in-waiting, Ayad Allawi was the US-appointed 'interim-Iraqi Prime Minister' for 9 months in 2004-5. Today he defeated incumbent Nouri al-Maliki to the position of Prime Minister by 10,000 votes according to reports.

Now there's one more CIA stooge ruling over yet another formerly sovereign nation and people.

Under CIA direction he ran an exile organization, the Iraqi National Accord, in the early 1990s that sent agents into Baghdad to plant bombs and sabotage government facilities in an effort to depose Saddam Hussein. Their targets included a mosque, a movie house and a newspaper -- the latter strike killing a child passing by. Ex-CIA operatives said a bus full of schoolchildren was also blown apart.

As interim Iraqi Prime minister in 2004-5, Allawi was responsible for operating death squads out of the Iraqi interior ministry in an effort to divide Iraqi society and create the appearance of 'civil war' between Iraq's Sunni and Shia populations and thereby divide and conquer the Iraqi resistance to US occupation lead by Moqtada al Sadr.

On Thursday 14 October 2004, Allawi stated: "[w]e have asked Fallujah residents to turn over al-Zarqawi and his group. If they don't do it, we are ready for major operations in Fallujah". Fallujah, a city of 300,000 people was then mercilessly bombed. Tens of thousands of innocent civilians were killed, many of them horribly burned with illegal white phosphorus shells.

In 2004 it was reported that Allawi personally executed six bound 'insurgents' - ordinary Iraqis fighting US occupation.

On at least one occasion in 2004 Allawi personally intervened to prevent a ceasefire and peace talks with the Iraqi resistance because he realised that any just peace settlement in Iraq would, by popular mandate, not include either him or his CIA masters in a controlling position.

In 2005 arrests were issued for Allawi and 27 of his former 'ministers' in the interim government over the alleged disappearance or misappropriation of $1 billion in military procurement funds.

With Allawi as Prime Minister, Iraq will be more secure as the latest trophy in the American Empire's cabinet, as will the the illegal contracts originally signed by Paul Bremer in 2004 to give all of Iraq's resources to American companies.

MI5 Picks Up 'Chatter' - Invents 'Boob Bombers' - Media Likes It

Strange things, such strange and stoopid things...



Back in February this year, we were treated to the ridiculous story of 'Terrorists With Explosive Breast and Implants', although at that point the story appears not to have been given much in the way of wide-spread coverage.

Fast forward to the end of March and amid reports that the images of your private parts taken by airport scanners are not exactly private and resistance to the use of the scanners on the rise, the follow story broke:

Woman 'ogled': airport worker warned over body scanner use

A security worker at London's Heathrow Airport has received a police warning and faces disciplinary action over claims he ogled a female colleague using a full-body scanner, officials said yesterday.

The 25-year-old worker made lewd comments after his colleague Jo Margetson, 29, mistakenly strayed into the scanner, which can see through clothes to produce an image of the body, the Sun newspaper reported.

Ideally this story would have been used by the mainstream press to represent the growing public consensus that the scanners are a serious breach of privacy, but this is no ideal world, and the mainstream press has long since been little more than the government's press office. The very same day then that the 'Ogling' story broke, for some cynical reason, mainstream media outlets chose to revisit the 'Boob bomber' with a vengeance. Google "breast implant bomb" and you'll see that virtually all reports are from the 24th and 25th of March.

As to the very idea of boob and butt bombers, that apparently came courtesy of England's private army, MI5/MI6, by way of right wing pundit and editor of Worldnetdaily Joseph Farah who originally published the claim on his news outlet back in February. Apparently Farah then spoke to the UK Sun tabloid newspaper and the story got new legs, breasts and buttocks. The Sun reported that, after the Christmas knicker bomber farce, MI5 "picked up chatter" that led them to the belief that boobs might be the new bombs. If this is true, then it's probably not, given that English 'intelligence' agencies have a long track record of telling humongous porkie pies about terrorism.

Clearly the crotch bomb was a failure. Would boob or buttock bombs fare any better? It's unlikely. First of all is the fact that the would-be bombers body would absorb most of the blast. Secondly you have the problem of how to detonate the fantastical device. "Excuse me madam, what is the purpose of those wires attached to your bosom?" You get the picture. It's all for your entertainment, or your brainwashing, depending on how informed you are.

Porn -- Watching Bruised, Drugged Prostitutes

Editors note: I personally don't believe that getting mainstream religion is a positive thing, but in this case, whatever works. Porn is an affliction on the human mind and soul, and it is widely and actively promoted by the powers that be.


February 22, 2010
David Richards

(for HenryMakow.com)

(David Richards, 22, is a Uk citizen teaching English in China. See his personal statement at end.)

Shelley Lubben (left) believed she was ready to shoot her first porn film. She was in for a shock: 'When I walked in, it's like a dark satanic anointing just fell on me. It was creepy, it was dark, it was eerie, and it was nothing like prostitution. I knew I was in the devil's territory; this was the final frontier of Satan.'

During the little satanic ritual that followed she hit rock bottom: 'I sold what was left of my heart, mind and femininity to the porn industry and the woman and person in me died completely on set.'

Then something remarkable began to happen; Shelley's survival instincts kicked in and she re-connected with the Christian God of her childhood and, after taking a long and slow period of rehab to recover from her ordeal, she started on a crusade to expose the reality of porn.

She has marketed herself as a charismatic public figure in the televangelist style, telling her life story in a confessional manner as an entertaining way to deliver her message. The hub of her operation is the Pink Cross, a charity that launches fierce grassroots activism and collects data on the industry.

There is one overriding truth to Shelley's work; behind whatever thin veil of glamour they might masquerade with: porn stars are prostitutes. Delete any notion in your mind of a glamorous 'porn star' now.

Using Shelley's research, I have written this article with the hope that it will act as a wake up call to men in the western world with an addiction to a quite pathetic act; self-pleasure to film footage of prostitutes at work.

Motivation

Porn stars rarely get started out of a free-willed love of sexual exhibitionism. Along with poverty and broken families, childhood abuse is very common.

Shelley said: 'Many actresses admit they've experienced sexual abuse, physical abuse, verbal abuse and neglect by parents. Some were raped by relatives and molested by neighbors. When we were little girls, we wanted to play with dollies and be mummies, not have big scary men get on top of us. So we were taught at a young age that sex made us valuable.'

Often they are teenage runaways picked up by pimps. They only escape one circle of abuse by entering another; they can't run from the pain so they go towards it. Fast forward a few years and they find themselves in a zombified state, drunk and drugged on a porn set as they re-live the same abuse they experienced growing up.

Shelley continues: 'The same horrible violations we experienced then, we relive through as we perform our tricks for you in front of the camera. And we hate every minute of it.'

Crissy Moran was a famous and 'successful' porn star. Did she enjoy it?

'I went through more heartbreak and became suicidal. I was taken to the hospital for panic attacks. I tried to overdose on xanax, strangle myself, and cut my wrists but not nearly deep enough. I was too scared of the pain. I prayed God would just take me away! I felt helpless. I even went to church for a few months but the guilt I felt was overwhelming that I would feel as if I were choking when I was at church. I had to choose and once again I chose to continue sinning. It was easier and I needed the money.'

Brutality

The brutality of most porn videos is obvious to anyone who has seen one. A typical film consists of one or more huge guys on steroids having violent sex with a girl.

Porn users only see a well-edited film. They don't see what happens behind the scenes; the girls that are crying and throwing up because they can't handle the hardcore acts they are being told to do. Jersey Jaxin explains what awaits you on set: 'Guys punching you in the face. You have semen from many guys all over your face, in your eyes. You get ripped. Your insides can come out of you. It's never ending."'

A girl's first time on camera can be horrific. She is disorientated under the bright lights and the sex is shockingly violent. The experience is more akin to an abusive alien abduction than a pleasurable sexual one. This is how Genevieve described her first scene:

'It was one of the worst experiences of my life. It was very scary. It was a very rough scene. My agent didn't let me know ahead of time... I did it and I was crying and they didn't stop. It was really violent. He was hitting me. It hurt. It scared me more than anything. They wouldn't stop. They just kept rolling.'

Her horror was in sharp contrast to the indifference of the crew.

'I had bodily fluids all over my face that had to stay on my face for ten minutes. The abuse and degradation was rough. I sweated and was in deep pain. On top of the horrifying experience, my whole body ached, and I was irritable the whole day. The director didn't really care how I felt; he only wanted to finish the video.'

Whatever artifice of control the girl had is now removed and Lubben has described what is left as 'traumatised little girls living on anti-depressants, drugs and alcohol acting out our pain in front of YOU who continue to abuse us.'

Drugs

The sex you see in porn is a lie; sexual enhancement drugs are used on set. 'Drugs are huge. They're using viagra. It's unnatural. The girls will be on xanax and vicodin,' according to Sierra Sinn. No wonder the sex is so vicious.

Perhaps there should be a disclaimer at the bottom of the screen noting what drugs the performers are on: Gary is on Viagra and coke. Candy drank half a bottle of Jack Daniels and then smoked some crack. Enjoy the film.

Most porn stars take drugs, in fact they are often on film to pay for their habit. The girls are traumatised and get high to numb their pain, as Becca Brat will tell you: 'I hung out with a lot of people in the Adult industry, everybody from contract girls to gonzo actresses. Everybody has the same problems. Everybody is on drugs. It's an empty lifestyle trying to fill up a void.'

However it is a void that cannot be filled, and as the drug abuse spirals more and more out of control their lives get dangerous. Brat said: 'I became horribly addicted to heroin and crack. I overdosed at least three times, had tricks pull knives on me, have been beaten half to death - the only reason I am still here is God.'

Ask a young guy when he last saw a drug addict; chances are he pleasured himself while looking at one that very morning.

Disease

It should be no surprise that sexual diseases are at pandemic level in the porn industry.

With chlamydia, gonorrhoea, and herpes being passed from performer to performer there is a backdrop of sickness to a porn set. In fact, they often act as laboratories for the creation of whole new sexual diseases, such as the novel herpes of the throat.

When disease is added to the already traumatic nature of being a porn actress, it can all get too much, as Tamra Toryn found out: 'I caught a moderate form of dysplasia of the cervix and later that day, I also found out I was pregnant. I had only one choice which was to abort the baby during my first month. It was extremely painful emotionally and physically. When it was all over, I cried my eyes out.'

Most performers develop some form of incurable sexual disease during their career and some are killers; AIDS is still loose in the industry. Every time a performer steps in front of the camera they are playing Russian roulette with their lives.

Lara Roxx got HIV on film without knowing the risks. She said: 'We should think about these issues right now, to change stuff around to make this a safer f**kin' business. It isn't a safe business, and I thought it was, and I would not have done that scene with no condom with Darren James if it would have crossed my mind that those tests weren't good and that I couldn't trust him or the people he's been with. I thought porn people were the cleanest people in the world.'

There is nothing clean about porn; it is diseased prostitutes having sex with other diseased prostitutes.

It is incredible to realise that it has become the norm for young men to grow up watching videos of trafficked women being abused for their amusement. It is legitimised by the silence of the media, education system and religious groups, who rarely denounce it.

A porn habit can terribly pollute a man's image of women and sex. He will become cynical and believe that any nice qualities a girl has mask her true essence; the whore he sees on screen.

Shelley was that girl on screen. It nearly killed her. What saved her was spiritual elevation to a state where she could make judgments on good and evil. When she awoke to see demons running amok in the sex industry, she finally had the strength to leave it.

This is her most important lesson: to reclaim what is right and wrong and start imposing it on our amoral culture.

David is a 22 year old British man. He writes: "My generation have been conditioned to accept porn from a young age.... In primary school I even remember my classmates having soft porn material and phoning sex lines. Then, growing up watching porn online was sort of 15, 16 onwards all the way through university was normal for all the guys my age.

This was all normal to me. What set alarm bells ringing was that I went to a college in university with a diverse range of foreign students and met girls form India, Kenya, China, Japan, Ghana and so on and they were very different. They warmer, more gentle and caring than english girls and thought english guys acted like sexual animals. So I had to figure out why we were like that and porn is the main reason. I dated a chinese girl, she was caring and presumed we would always be together, for my english generation that's dinosaur thinking, but when with her I suddenly felt tremendous stability for the first time in my life. She would care and love me no matter what and I felt free to focus on my two main passions, politics and music. I then realised how much pornography and lack of stable relationships were making men too obsessed with sex to focus on anything important. So I came to the conclusion porn was an attack on us."

Mossad Psychopaths Behind Murder of Hamas Official In Dubai

Above, Mahmoud al-Mabhouh exits the elevator on his floor in the Al-Bustan Rotana hotel, Dubai. Moments later he will be murdered by Mossad agents hiding in his room.

Israel is a young nation, yet its intelligence apparatus has a long and sordid history. From staging Muslim terror attacks in Egypt in 1954, to orchestrating 'Arab' terrorist hijackings in 1976, to directing 'al-Qaeda' terror attacks in 2006, there seems little that the Mossad will not do in an effort to give legitimacy to the Israeli government's slow genocide of the Palestinian people and bolster the American government's phony 'war on terror'.

That the Mossad eagerly assassinates all enemies of Israel (real, imagined and fabricated) is generally accepted, if not condoned, but the details of precisely how agents go about their dirty work has remained sketchy to say the least, with the revelations of former agents like Victor Ostrovsky the most reliable reference. The recent murder of Hamas official Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in a Dubai hotel, however, gives a never-before seen inside look at the extent to which the Mossad operates 'by way of deception'.

Mahmoud al-Mabhouh was found dead in his Al-Bustan Rotana hotel room in Dubai by hotel staff on Janurary 20th 2010. Several coroners reports claimed that al-Mabhouh had been tortured and killed either by electrocution to the head, strangulation, poisoning, suffocation or by way of a pill that provoked a heart attack.

The unsavory affair developed in the following way:

Mahmoud al-Mabhouh arrived in Dubai at 3:15pm on January 19th on some unknown business. The previous night the Mossad assassination squad had arrived from different destinations and settled into their respective hotels. al-Mabhouh was being followed so closely that even as he exited immigration in the airport he was forced to walk around a Mossad assassin with an luggage cart. He checked into his hotel and went out for several hours. At around 8 pm two Mossad agents gained access to his room and prepared themselves. al-Mabhouh arrived back at 8:24 pm and went up to his room. During this time at least 4 different two-person Mossad surveillance teams had been watching his every move, including dressing up as tennis players and riding in the same elevator as him when he initially arrived at the hotel and following him to his car when he left. Throughout, the 11 individuals were in constant communication by way of "special communication devices". When al-Mabhouh arrived back and went to his room he was followed by two agents (a man and woman) who kept watch in the corridor while their comrades plied their grisly trade. At 8:46 pm the execution team has left the hotel. By 11 pm, less than 20 hours after they had arrived, all were on planes out of the country.

Dubai police initially pointed the finger at Israel, which seemed logical given Israel's historic targeting of Palestinians individually and collectively. It's interesting to note that it was the Israeli media that first reported on January 31 that this was an Israeli operation, specifically that "a four-person squad of Israeli Shin Bet and Mossad operatives arrived in Dubai on European passports". This perhaps prompted Dubai's chief of police to announce on February 5 that Dubai would seek an arrest warrant for Netanyahu himself:

Dahi Khalfan Tamim, Dubai's police chief, claimed that the dead man was killed using methods known to be employed by Mossad, Israel's foreign intelligence agency. He added that Mr Netanyahu would be held personally responsible if Mossad was identified as the culprit.

"Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, will be the first to be wanted for justice as he would have been the one who signed the decision to kill al-Mabhouh in Dubai," Gen Tamim told The National, an English language newspaper in Dubai.

"We will issue an arrest warrant against him."

General Tamim next released CCTV footage of the 11 suspects that detailed how, over the course of 20 hours, they went about the job of identifying, following and ultimately murdering al-Mabhouh. With their work done, the Mossad agents left to several different destinations including, Hong Kong, South Africa and Germany. Based on telephone calls that members of the group made while in Dubai, authorities there suspect that Austria was their "command center".



Above, Mossad operatives Eli Cara and Uriel Kelman

Within the last few days however, the Dubai authorities released the passport details of the suspects and are now looking for six British citizens, three Irish citizens, one French citizen and one German citizen! It's hard to know if the Dubai regime is simply unaware of the Mossad's history of stealing the identities and passports of innocent people, or if they are deliberately attempting to divert attention from the obvious culprits. After all, it was just 6 years ago that Uriel Kelman and Eli Cara were caught by New Zealand police attempting to use the identity of a mute tetraplegic New Zealand man to get a passport for a third Mossad agent, Zev Barkan. And it was just two years before that, in 2004, that the Sydney Morning Herald revealed that the very same Zev Barkan, identified as a "fugitive Israeli Mossad intelligence agent", had been dealing with Asian criminal gangs to obtain Australian and other passports stolen in Asia.

Barkan has been named by New Zealand authorities as the kingpin in a passport scam for which two Israelis with Australian links were jailed for six months last week in Auckland.

One of the jailed men, Eli Cara, 50, had his rented home in Turramurra raided by ASIO in March. A short time later, he was arrested in New Zealand.

The New Zealand Government has named Barkan, Cara and the other convicted man, Uriel Kelman, as Mossad agents.

Barkan fled New Zealand before police swooped. There are unconfirmed reports that Barkan, allegedly using a fraudulent Canadian passport, has since made visits to North Korea.

The New Zealand aid worker, who has intelligence connections in Asia, said Barkan was also connected to an Israeli security company operating out of Thailand.

"He goes to Laos, Cambodia, Burma and Thailand and deals with gangs who rob tourists of their valuables and passports", the aid worker said.

"Barkan is mostly interested in passports and there have been a number of Australian passports."

Intelligence analysts in New Zealand believe Barkan, a former navy diver in the Israeli Defence Force, was trying to secure a "clean" passport for use in a sensitive Israeli undercover operation in the region, less risky than a forged passport.

The Herald has also been told that Barkan had grown up in Washington as Zev Bruckenstein, where his father was director of religious studies at a synagogue.

The fact that Mr Barkan and therefore the Mossad, were keen to get ahold of Australian passports in 2004 is very interesting. On Valentine's day 2005, former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri was murdered, in all likelihood by the Mossad, in a massive car bomb in downtown Beirut. I wrote about the details of the attack and why the Mossad were the obvious culprits in this editorial. What I was unaware of at the time was that the Lebanese authorities were looking for twelve Australian men in connection with the attack. Or rather, twelve men carrying Australian passports.

In 1997 Canada pulled its ambassador from Israel after two Mossad agents were caught using Canadian passports during a failed assassination attempt on Hamas official Khalid Mashaal, a leading Hamas official in Jordan. And then there's this from 1987, as reported by the New York Times:

Britain said today that Israel had admitted using fake British passports, and a newspaper said the documents were intended to help agents of the Israeli secret service attack foes abroad.

The Foreign Office said it made a strong protest last October to the Israeli Ambassador, Yehuda Avner, about ''misuse by the Israeli authorities of forged British passports". It said Israel later apologized and promised not to do it again.

The Sunday Times said in a front-page article on February 17th that eight fake British passports intended "for Mossad secret service hit men to attack opponents abroad were discovered by chance last summer in a bag inside a telephone booth in West Germany."

So are we to assume that the Dubai police are incapable of putting these puzzle pieces together? Or is it a case of Israeli government pressure once again forcing justice onto the back burner?

There was more than a hint of irony in the Dubai government's call for Interpol to help to track down the gang of assassins. For it was just a few weeks ago that Interpol Secretary-General Ronald Noble declared passport fraud as 'the biggest threat facing the world'. "Right now in our database we have over 11 million stolen or lost passports. These passports are being used, fraudulently altered and are being given to terrorists, war criminals, drug traffickers, human traffickers", he said.

Unfortunately, Mr. Noble and Interpol don't seem to be looking in the right places.

In any case, both the British and Irish governments wasted no time in stating that they had no record of passports being issued to the names provided by the Dubai authorities. In short, the passports are faked, as are the names (or most of them) but naturally the pictures on them are the real Mossad operatives. Have a look:

Above, Roll of ignominy, from left to right, top to bottom - 'Evan Dennings' - 'Irish'. 'Gail Folliard' - 'Irish'. 'James Leonard Clarke' - 'British'. 'Jonathan Louis Graham' - 'British'. 'Michael Bodenheimer' - 'German'. 'Paul John Keeley' - 'British'. 'Michael Barney' - 'British'. 'Peter Elvinger' - 'French'. 'Kevin Daveron' - 'Irish'. 'Melvyn Mildiner' - British'. 'Stephen Hodes' - 'British'.

It should be noted that the people above have undoubtedly disguised themselves to some extent. Just imagine all of the above individuals with or without glasses, beards, mustaches, short hair, long hair, differently colored hair, etc., in each case. From the CCTV footage provided by Dubai authorities we can at least be certain the decidedly masculine-looking 'Gail Folliard' is wearing a wig. See this link for larger versions of each person.

At the time of writing, three people have come forward to cry foul over the use of their names (but not their faces) in the operation - British/Israeli citizens Melvyn Mildiner, Paul Keeley and Michael Barney. All three have been living in Israel for several years. A resident of a town near Jerusalem, Mr. Mildiner insisted he had nothing to do with the assassination and had never been to Dubai.

"I woke up this morning to a world of fun", he said, after newspapers around the world splashed names and photos of the suspects distributed by Dubai.

"I am obviously angry, upset and scared - any number of things. And I'm looking into what I can do to try to sort things out and clear my name", he said in a telephone interview. "I don't know how this happened or who chose my name or why, but hopefully we'll find out soon."

Paul Keeley, 42, a builder originally from Kent who has lived on a kibbutz for 15 years, said: "It's scary when someone steals your identity. I'm in shock and I don't understand what I am seeing. It doesn't even look like me."

Michael Barney, 54, from North London but who emigrated to Israel many years ago, said "I've just had a quadruple heart bypass, I'm not exactly spy material."

Perhaps the three men should now reconsider their allegiance to the state of Israel. Then again, as members of that increasingly rare breed of person who choose to do 'aliya' to Israel, perhaps they are secretly proud that they (or at least their names) were of some use to the Mossad in their duplicitous campaign of phony terrorism and assassination.

The three men's surprise at finding out that they were temporary suspects in a Mossad operation on foreign soil, it is hard not to remember a similar incident about 8 years ago.

Remember this line up?



In the end, seven of the above alleged '9/11 hijackers' were officially confirmed as being alive and well and innocent of any involvement in the 9/11 attacks, with several of them expressing similar shock and surprise that their names (and in the case of 9/11 their faces too) were used by the 9/11 authors. While the world was being fooled with the greatest fake passport survival story of all time, no one was interested in the story of the group of Israelis doing the happy dance while filming the collapse of the WTC towers.

It is certainly interesting therefore to see these same passport shenanigans being employed in the Mossad murder of al-Mabhouh. Is it too much to suggest the possibility of a common source in both operations?

The story of the assassination of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh by a mysterious 'hit squad' is receiving an unusual amount of coverage in the mainstream press. There is however very little, if any, condemnation of the callous, cold-blooded murder of a man whose only real detractors are those who have been waging a war of annihilation against his people for decades. On the contrary, there is a palpable sense of glorification in the press (and in comments left by readers) of the 'skilled' way in which the Mossad went about their task. There is a sense of awe or respect for these psychopaths, a perverse respect which is closely tied to the acceptance by so many people in Western nations of wholesale killing of Palestinians and Muslims in general.

When we really look at what these deranged individuals did, the meticulousness with which they went about maneuvering another defenseless human being into a position where he could be silently murdered in a hotel room, fully sponsored and supported by major Western governments, in the name of 'freedom and democracy', we are left with a lingering and disturbing feeling that, somewhere along the way, we, as a civilization, have taken a seriously wrong turn. We, as a global civilization, appear to have taken a turn, firmly, into a world where psychopathic actions are not only the norm, but the ideal.

I leave you to judge for yourself. Below you can view the extensive CCTV footage (with notations) of the movements of the glorious Mossad assassination team. Note, there is no audio.

Underwear Bomber Redux - Was Mutallab An Israeli "Secret Weapon"?

After repeatedly denying that the Christmas Underwear Bomber™ had any help in his misguided attempt to blow up Detroit-bound Flight 253 on Christmas day 2009, or that there was any sign of an accomplice on over 200 hours of Amsterdam airport security tapes, the US government recently, and very quietly, chose to admit that it had been watching Mutallab all along and that it's now looking for his accomplice at Amsterdam airport.

In one of only a few mainstream news reports on the US government's reversal, the Detroit News stated:

The State Department didn't revoke the visa of foiled terrorism suspect Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab because federal counter-terrorism officials had begged off revocation, a top State Department official revealed Wednesday.

Patrick F. Kennedy, an undersecretary for management at the State Department, said Abdulmutallab's visa wasn't taken away because intelligence officials asked his agency not to deny a visa to the suspected terrorist over concerns that a denial would've foiled a larger investigation into al-Qaida threats against the United States.

"Revocation action would've disclosed what they were doing," Kennedy said in testimony before the House Committee on Homeland Security. Allowing Adbulmutallab to keep the visa increased chances federal investigators would be able to get closer to apprehending the terror network he is accused of working with, "rather than simply knocking out one soldier in that effort."

ABC News also reported:

Federal agents also tell ABCNews.com they are attempting to identify a man who passengers said helped Abdulmutallab change planes for Detroit when he landed in Amsterdam from Lagos, Nigeria.

Of course, that's not an admission that Mutallab had an accomplice, but it says a lot following six weeks of repeated denials on the existence of accomplices.



If US federal counterterrorism officials, aka the FBI, specifically requested that Mutallab be allowed to fly to Detroit from Amsterdam, it lends a lot more credence to the report by lawyer and eyewitness Kurt Haskell who has repeatedly claimed that Mutallab was escorted to the gate in Amsterdam by a "sharply dressed Indian-looking man". If we accept Haskell's statement (and at present there is no reason not to) then a reasonable explanation is that the accomplice was tasked with ensuring that Mutallab got on the plane and was a member of either the US intelligence services or the intelligence services of another US-friendly nation.

Haskell himself has presented just such an analysis on his web site.

But what are we to make of the claim by the US State Department that the goal of this little maneuver was to "get closer to apprehending the terror network he [Mutallab] is accused of working with"?

Surely if US intelligence was aware that Mutallab was a terrorist threat they would have at least taken the precaution of making very sure that the flight onto which he was to be escorted was not a target of the "terror network"? Surely a thorough rub down, or a strip-search would not have been out of the question for such a threat to US national security?

Take your pick; either US intelligence is so incompetent that they did not first check if this known terrorist was carrying a bomb onto the plane, or they staged the entire operation themselves in order to keep the Islamic terrorism bandwagon rolling.

One of the most interesting things about the Christmas day underwear bombing fiasco is that it played out on a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit. If Mutallab had no passport and was escorted to the gate by a "sharply-dressed man", then it is unlikely that he went through normal security checks at the airport. We have no doubt that an agent of the US government could quite easily bypass security at any airport, but we also believe it would be difficult to prevent this fact from leaking out to the press, particularly from officials and security personnel working at Amsterdam Schiphol airport.

To enable a person to bypass all airport security would require a very particular presence at the airport in question, something akin to a little self-contained "kingdom".

Recently, We exchanged a few emails with a Dutch reporter who has extensive experience of the internal workings of Amsterdam airport. He told us:

Israel [...] needs US-weapons - and spare-parts. Most of this stuff is since many years brought to Israel by cargo planes (Hercules, B-747) that used Schiphol (Amsterdam) as the needed half-way-stop. Officially they were civil planes, but they were treated as state - (military) planes. There is legally a big difference in status.

Because this weaponry was in many cases of a very sophisticated and for that reason classified kind, it needed protection on the way from the US to Israel. The Dutch authorities therefore agreed upon the fact that Israel was given a special secluded area (hangar and apron) that would be guarded by Israeli personnel.

These guardians were not of El Al (Israeli national airline). They were members of Shin Bet, the Mossad-branch that looks after civil safety. For the young people that manned it, it was a way of performing their conscription duties.

Members of Shin Bet did not only guard military airplanes. They also provide for safety of passenger-planes. I do not know whether it is the same at other airfields, but at Schiphol everyone could see them at work at the gates of El Al planes.

In fact the young girl who flew as a passenger with the Israeli cargo-plane that crashed in Amsterdam (Anat Solomon) had done a tour as a Shin Bet safety-officer at Schiphol and flew home for her wedding.

After the crash members of the Shin Bet-group at Schiphol were speedily brought to the crash-site, to see if they could gather some of the classified stuff that was on board the crashed plane. Officially this was in contradiction with Dutch laws about the treatment of crash-sites, but it was agreed to by a secret agreement between the Dutch and Israeli government - as a logical consequence of the fact that only Israelis would know what sort of classified weaponry was onboard.

Facts about the existence of an 'Israeli part of Schiphol' were officially given by the Parliamentary Enquiry Commission; they were given in interrogation reports (of El Al and Shin Bet personnel) by the police, they were given by Mr. Jeroen Pelttenberg, El Al's station-manager at Schiphol, and by some other people that were in some way or another confronted with the situation.

The El Al cargo crash into an appartment block in the Bijlmer suburb of Amsterdam in 1992 gives us an idea of the "sophisticated weaponry" and "spare parts" the Mossad was (still is) siphoning from the US arsenal through its transport hub at Amsterdam airport. Israelis arrived at the scene of the crash to retrieve incriminating evidence (the dead and injured residents of Bijlmer be damned). Over 1,000 local residents and emergency workers had developed respiratory, neurological and mobility ailments, as well as a rise in cancer and birth defects, by the time an investigation by Dutch journalists in 1998 brought the cargo's true manifest to light:

Almost six years after the event, on 30 September 1998, editors Harm van den Berg and Karel Knip of the Dutch paper NRC Handelsblad published the results of an extensive investigation they had carried out into the crash. They had obtained the freight documentation for the flight, and made public for the first time its real cargo. The manifest confirmed the plane was carrying 400 kilograms of depleted uranium as ballast, but also showed that it carried among its cargo about 10 tons of assorted chemicals. The chemicals included ten 18.9-litre plastic drums of dimethyl methylphosphonate (DMMP), and smaller amounts of isopropanol and hydrogen fluoride: three of the four chemical precursors for the production of Sarin nerve gas.

A spokesman for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's office immediately denied that Flight 1862 had been carrying Sarin precursors. When this was contradicted hours later by an El Al spokesman, the Prime Minister's office acknowledged that the chemicals were onboard but stated that "the material was non-toxic and was to have been used to test filters that protect against chemical weapons". An explanation that Earth Island Journal found "puzzling", since "it only takes a few grams to conduct such tests. Once combined, the chemicals aboard Flight 1862 could have produced 270 kilos of sarin - sufficient to kill the entire population of a major world city."

On January 29, 1999, Dutch attorney general Vrakking testified at official hearings that the El Al security detachment at Schiphol was a branch of the Mossad. It also emerged that El Al planes are never inspected by Dutch customs or the Dutch Flight Safety Board at Amsterdam Schiphol.

Journalists say Dutch security officials have told them that the Netherlands has allowed Israel to make secret military air shipments through Schiphol since the 1950s. Former Dutch Defense minister Henk Vredeling, in an interview with Dutch TV NOS - and apparently caught unawares of the legal implications of admitting complicity in a war crime - proudly recounted secret weapons transports to Israel during the Yom Kippur war in 1973. These shipments apparently lie outside the Atlantic Alliance military treaties because the aircraft going to Israel are not refueled at NATO air bases but at the commercial airport of Schiphol.

The Mossad "state within a state" at the airport has taken full advantage of this loophole. "Schiphol has become a hub for secret weapons transfers because El Al has special status there. Dutch authorities have no jurisdiction over Israeli activities at the airport," said Henk van der Belt, a member of an investigation team set up by Bijlmer residents.

One of the investigators working on behalf of the Bijlmermeer survivors said that Schiphol had become, and continues to be, "a hub for Israeli secret weapons transfers". The question we need to answer is; was Mutallab also an Israeli secret weapon in the promotion of the war on terror?

Given the Mossad's free reign over its little "kingdom" within Amsterdam Schiphol, coupled with the fact that Israeli security firm ICTS is in charge of the regular security operation there, it's worth reflecting upon a couple of other incidents in recent years. Before the Underwear Bomber came the Shoe Bomber:

Six months prior to Reid's near shoe bombing of American Airlines flight 63 from Paris to Miami in December 2001, while memories of 9/11 were still fresh in everyone's mind, Reid attempted to board an El Al flight from Schiphol to Tel Aviv.

Reid was taken aside by El Al security and identified as a terrorist suspect. Reid paid for a one-way ticket with cash and would not reveal what he planned to do in Israel.

However, rather than turning Reid into Dutch security for further action, he was allowed to board the El Al flight by Israel's Shin Bet security so his movements during his five days in Israel could be monitored.

Six months later, Reid attempted to ignite his shoe on the flight from Paris to Miami. Israel had not informed British, American, or any other security agency of the concerns about Reid. Reid's aunt, Claudette Lewis who raised Reid in south London, was quoted as saying she believed her nephew had been "brainwashed."

Reid later said El Al failed to detect that he had explosives in his shoes on the flight to Tel Aviv, an amazing revelation considering the Israeli airline's tight security.

The links between El Al security and Mossad are extremely close with abundant cross-pollination of senior personnel back and forth.

The security company that allowed Reid to board American Airlines 63 at Charles de Gaulle airport in Paris was ICTS (International Consultants on Targeted Security) International. ICTS's senior management are all ex-Israeli security officials, many of whom for El Al security.

It was ICTS that largely developed the passenger "profiling" procedures used at Schiphol and other airports around the world through its subsidiary, ICTS Holland Products BV.

Bear in mind that ICTS also shared security duties on 9/11 at Boston's Logan Airport and handled security for London's bus system. This Israeli security firm, effectively a front for the Mossad, has therefore had its personnel on the ground to oversee arguably the four most notorious "al-Qaeda terrorist attacks" against American and British targets.

According to former Mossad spy Victor Ostrovsky, the Mossad organisation is relatively small. But the ethos it embodies - rule over others by way of deception - runs deep through its front companies that link ramified networks comprising some of the 'best' (most noxiously evil) psychopaths globally.

In 2006 a Northwest Airlines flight from Amsterdam to Mumbai was escorted back to Schiphol by Dutch fighter planes after the crew became suspicious of some passengers' behaviour. Granted that in the hysterical post-9/11 climate you only need to wear a beard and whisper Allah to warrant suspicions, but 12 people were nevertheless arrested before the Dutch government announced it was a false alarm. A trial run for future scenarios involving Northwest Airlines perhaps?

Last February a Turkish Airlines Boeing crashed upon landing at Schiphol. Another incident that smacks of spy vs spy games, four of the nine passengers killed were US "Boeing employees" returning from Turkey after pitching a "sophisticated airborne radar station" - to be installed in a Turkish airforce Boeing 737 - to the Turkish military brass on behalf of the Pentagon.

Zombie nation

Amsterdam Schiphol has had the DNA-tearing 'naked' scanners in operation since 2007. Although that's irrelevant in Mutallab's case because he was escorted around normal security procedure, the incident was used to promote these machines en-masse, a plan we are told was on the backburner until now because of 'fears for people's privacy.'

Completely overlooked is the brazen conflict of interest exemplified by former head of the Department of Homeland Security and dual US-Israeli citizen Michael Chertoff, who ran around giving dozens of media interviews touting the need for the US government to buy more full-body scanners. He stands to net a tidy profit through his security consultancy firm Chertoff Group, which along with other notable former Senators and TSA officials make up the "full-body scanner lobby" that represents the manufacturers cashing in on the sale of these insidious dehumanisation devices.

Along with the psychopaths in the US government, racist hard-liners in Israel believe the survival of the state of Israel lies solely in its military strength and that this strength arises from the need to answer the constant threat of war.

Of course, fighting a real and well-equipped enemy is very risky. After all, you might lose. The next best thing is to create the enemy yourself and play both sides against the middle, as they say. Unfortunately it is the masses of ordinary people that find themselves in the middle of the deranged games that psychopaths play.

Obama's State of the Union speech

A good friend passed on this excellent analysis

-------------------------------

Obama's State of the Union speech is occurring at the moment, and against my better judgment I actually turned it on. It's about 20 minutes into the incongruous jocularity of the President and the Chamber - and he just said that he will encourage legislation to reverse the ruling of the Supreme Court that Corporations are 'persons' and can donate to election funding. He says this is wrong - this will allow society's most powerful to influence elections, as well as foreign interests - he won't have it.

The Supreme justices sit there on camera like stunned corpses as a bipartisan standing ovation exploded in the chamber. He's addressed ear mark spending, lobbying limits and transparency, changing political discourse, the super-majority dictated by the Republican minority leadership (60% majority needed to do anything), and futher tax cuts for education and child credits. He states that voting no on everything is hindering progress (what an astonishingly brilliant observation!).

He then goes into Al Queda (trademarked courtesy CIA) and that as a candidate he promised he would end the war and that this is what he is doing - he will "have all the combat troops out of Iraq by August".

"All of our troops are coming home." (flash to a general's face who looks bewildered and Joe Lieberman mouthing something that looked a lot like 'yeah right'.) No mention of Afghanistan or the many other countries where we are killing because it is what we (or our drones) do.

Then - to supporting the troops when they come home, Michelle and Joe Biden are heading a new committee to support military families! (rousing applause - yes - yes to the military families, the Chamber responds! Camera zooms in on those in uniform.)

Sheesh - I take it the "5D city on a hill" is next week with all these promises that cannot be fulfilled?

No way all of this is going through - he is righting all the most obvious (to the sleeping populace) wrongs in one speech - down to reducing our nuclear stockpiles and "the farthest reaching arms control treaty in two decades"... ( what? )

"Securing all vulnerable nuclear material around the world in 4 yrs so they never fall into the hands of terrorists." Which brings us to isolating North Korea and Iran - A HAAAA - "they too will face consequences", he says!

I now know why I've avoided these speeches in the past. "America must always stand on the side of human dignity and freedom" ... (the nation glances nervously in the direction of the 'naked' airport scanners.)

"If you abide by the law, you should be protected by it" ... (who defines the law?)

He has "finally reversed legislation that prevents gays and lesbians from serving their country in the armed forces" ... (great, that's really important while the globe is on fire! To get more cannon fodder - gay cannon fodder is even better!)

Now he's attacking pundits "turning serious issues into soundbites" and how citizens are losing hope - "no wonder there is so much cynicism and disappointment" - "there are few Americans who believe we can change or that I can deliver it. I never said it would be easy or that i could do it alone." (The nation thinks, 'didn't you?' - could have sworn you said that somewhere between 'yes we can' and 'hope'... somewhere between my KFC dinner and McDonald's breakfast, I could have sworn you said you were the answer...)

"When you try to do big things it stirs controversy - we can respond to that by playing it safe and avoid hard truths and pointing fingers and keep our poll numbers high and get through the next election, instead of doing what is best for the next generation. I know if the people who were in this position had made that decision 100 years ago, we wouldn't be here tonight - we must do what is hard, even if success is uncertain..." (paraphrased due to excessive rhetorical leading that caused my mind to spasm momentarily - or more than momentarily).

Then a rousing crescendo of hyperbolic emotional rhetoric of what it means to be an American - "USA, USA, USA" (he actually said that) - "it lives IN you" (get it out!!)

"a new decade!" "We don't quit! I don't quit! Strengthen our union!"

You get the point - he is a spell binder. As the pressure behind my brow increases to the point of pounding, I turn off the mind control device that is television, understanding why the sheeple are now more comfy, more sleepy and more secure in their dream - no matter what crashes in on them in the next few years.

Even the Republicans were applauding, so it must be the truth, right? "Any more KFC left in that bucket, honey?"

(No actual msg laden poisonous food was ingested during this experience - however I do now feel that I need a shower.)

Disaster Capitalism Comes To Capitol Hill

Many civil liberties groups in the US are up in arms over Thursday's Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United V Federal Election Commission, that gives corporations free reign to spend as much money as they can afford (which is a lot) to influence American political election outcomes. This is the same gaggle of Supreme Court Justices (more or less) that gave us, literally, the glorious reign of George Dubya Bush. MSNBC's Keith Olbermann dedicated one of his 'special messages' to the ruling which he said made all US politicians 'prostitutes' to big corporations.

Eh....so what's new?

Here's the relevant part of the ruling:

The relevant factors in deciding whether to adhere to [precedents] beyond workability - the precedent's antiquity, the reliance interests at stake, and whether the decision was well reasoned - counsel in favor of abandoning Austin, which itself contravened the precedents of Buckley and Bellotti. As already explained, Austin was not well reasoned. It is also undermined by experience since its announcement. Political speech is so ingrained in this country's culture that speakers find ways around campaign finance laws. Rapid changes in technology - and the creative dynamic inherent in the concept of free expression - counsel against upholding a law that restricts political speech in certain media or by certain speakers.

In addition, no serious reliance issues are at stake. Thus, due consideration leads to the conclusion that Austin should be overruled. The Court returns to the principle established in Buckley and Bellotti that the Government may not suppress political speech based on the speaker's corporate identity. No sufficient governmental interest justifies limits on the political speech of nonprofit or for-profit corporations.

Forgive me if I can't find it within me to get worked up over a ruling that allows multinational corporations to legally do that which they have been doing for many years. Has everyone in the US suddenly forgotten the word 'lobby'? Or the fact that almost every member of Congress has, at some point, been bought and paid for by corporate lobby groups? Go to the Open Secrets web site and pick any congressman or woman or senator you like and see for yourself. Is there a difference between direct or indirect corporate influence of politicians and those same corporations spending money on, say, advertising to influence the same politicians? Up until now, corporations had to be satisfied with donating large sums of money to candidates that the candidates then used to run their campaigns, i.e. electioneering etc. Now the corporations can run the campaigns of candidates themselves. I can see it now, John Doe, presidential nominee, 'sponsored by Coca Cola'. You like Coca Cola, right? Well you're gonna LOVE our candidate!

And let's be clear that influencing US politicians today is an activity that is owned, lock, stock and pork barrel by the corporations, because corporations effectively dictate government policy in the US. Unions have long since been neutered and lobby groups that actually represent ordinary people simply don't have the financial clout to make any difference. It's all about money in the land of the free market capitalist corporation and banker.

So what, in real terms, has changed? Nothing. So what's the problem? Is it that corporations can now openly advertise for or against candidates for office at all levels, and in that way influence public opinion? Don't worry about it! Because it's not who gets elected (or appointed as the case may be), but rather the amount of money it takes to bribe them when they attain office.

My only gripe however is that the Supreme Court didn't go ahead and 'corporatize' the state of Israel and the Israel lobby in its ruling and declare them eligible to legally manipulate, bribe and blackmail US politicians to ensure a continuing Israel-friendly US foreign policy.

Getting worked up over the Supreme Court ruling is akin to fretting over the door of the barn being unlocked while ignoring the fact that the barn itself is on fire. But the hubris doesn't stop there. Not only are many deluded US-centric individuals and activist groups concerned about native corporations being let off their very long leash, but there is now also the looming specter of, horror of horrors, foreign corporations and governments muscling in on the farce that is the US political process!

Newsweek commented:

The biggest questions with this ruling is the scope of the term "corporation," says Edward Foley, law professor at the Ohio State University College of Law and director of the election-law program. Does the high court want this decision to apply to foreign corporations as well as domestic ones, he ponders? The truth is, the court didn't make a decision one way or the other.

Foley best explains the potential issues by talking about the electronic, video, and communication giant, Sony. The corporation is headquartered in Japan, but a large number of its shareholders reside in the United States. In fact, people can even buy and trade Sony's stock on the New York Stock Exchange. The issue is whether this corporation, with strong ties to a foreign country and the United States, should be permitted to independently contribute money to presidential and congressional campaigns.

The Center For Public Integrity carried the headline:

Will the Citizens United Ruling Let Hugo Chavez and King Abdullah Buy U.S. Elections?

And wondered:

it's one thing for U.S. firms to have their say. What about foreign companies that operate U.S. subsidiaries? Many of these, like American businesses, are owned by ordinary shareholders - but a host of others are owned, in whole or in part, by the foreign governments themselves.

One prominent examples is CITGO Petroleum Company - once the American-born Cities Services Company, but purchased in 1990 by the Venezuelan government-owned Petróleos de Venezuela S.A. The Citizens United ruling could conceivably allow Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who has sharply criticized both of the past two U.S. presidents, to spend government funds to defeat an American political candidate, just by having CITGO buy TV ads bashing his target.

Given that the US has for many years been a global empire, it seems only fair that some of its subjects should have a say in, or exert an influence over the deliberations of the empire builders. Isn't Hugo Chavez due a little payback after the CIA tried to oust him in 2002? If it were able to, what kind of influence might Venezuela exert on the US politics and the lives of 300 million Americans? Free health care and third level education for all perhaps? Or subsidized gas in the winter time at least? Would that be a bad thing for the more than 10% of US citizens living below the poverty line?

And what about the Saudis? Well, they're unlikely to stray far from the Neo-Liberal script, but they might nudge US politicians towards a more equitable treatment of Middle Eastern Arab states. They might even encourage the President not to invade any more Arab nations and to lay off slaughtering their people. Again, is that a bad idea? It is a bad idea that other nations would be in a position to check the power of the US military-industrial complex and forestall the worst of its excesses? Personally I think it's a great idea, but its unlikely to happen, mainly because the Supreme Court ruling does not explicitly allow it and can therefore prohibit it at any stage, which it would very likely do, if US corporations paid the Supreme Court Justices enough money.

So there's nothing to see here folks, other than the next logical step along the path that the USA began many years ago when everyone ignored Eisenhower's warning about the threat from a military industrial complex. If that explanation doesn't satisfy you, then just think of the US political scene as being a bit like Haiti is today, and as in all such wastelands of despair, the corporate vultures waste no time in finding a way to profit.