Wednesday, March 28, 2007

The Attack on Iran... Good Friday at 4 A.M.?

Get bigger maps here and here.

How I Know Blair Faked the Map
(click the link above or below to read the entire text)

"There is no agreed boundary in the Northern Gulf, either between Iran and Iraq or between Iraq and Kuwait. The Iran-Iraq border has been agreed inside the Shatt al-Arab waterway, because there it is also the land border. But that agreement does not extend beyond the low tide line of the coast.

Even that very limited agreement is arguably no longer in force. Since it was reached in 1975, a war has been fought over it, and ten-year reviews - necessary because waters and sandbanks in this region move about dramatically - have never been carried out.

But what about the map the Ministry of Defense produced on Tuesday, with territorial boundaries set out by a clear red line, and the co-ordinates of the incident marked in relation to it?

I have news for you. Those boundaries are fake. They were drawn up by the MoD. They are not agreed or recognised by any international authority.

To put it at its most charitable, they are a potential boundary. It is accepted practice, where no boundary exists, to work by a rule-of-thumb idea of where a boundary, based on a median line between the two coasts, might be.

But to elevate that to a hard and fast boundary, and then base a major international incident on being a few hundred yards one side or the other, is out of order." _Craig Murray

As illustrated in the Encarta encyclopedia territorial map above, the position of the (Iranian) ship (under an Indian flag) denoted by the red circle is nearer the Iranian border than the Iraq border. The blue circumference touches the edge of the Iranian border. As illustrated in the top map, all of the activity took place within Iran's 12-mile territorial limit. As any one with eyes can see, the Limeys and the Limey ship Cornwall were trespassing in Iranian territorial waters. The Northern dotted line does not exist as any recognized boundary between Iran and Iraq, as its location has been disputed since 1639 or so. Blair is just coming up with something his folks made up. To rely on dubious boundaries that are not supported by the geography but drafted by his own Ministry of Defense is certainly not a strong argument for further aggressions. How can Blair come up with a map and boundaries when there are none and then bluster about "illegal" and going to the UN? One thing that keeps coming out is a weasel word sentence where the Brits insist the sailors were "picked up" in Iraqi waters. Bliar never says that the sailors "were never in Iranian waters". He lies by not stating the whole truth.
It should be noted that the onboard radar on the Cornwall would have spotted any approaching Iranian patrol boats, since the radar has a range of 30 miles. So allowing the Brits to be captured appears to be deliberate.
And then there's the curious case of the disappearing Lynx helicopter. This arrived with the boarding party as standard procedure to provide "top cover". The MOD briefing mentions only that it "returned" to the scene of the crime (pictures of GPS over anchored (un-named) vessel to "validate" GPS data - which in the picture are actually variant from figures given in the briefing).

Mark Urban on NewsNight last night (the mouthpiece for the MOD) said it returned for re-fuelling to the Cornwall, some few miles. Do the Navy pilots regularly go out on sorties with inadequate fuel for the completion of the mission leaving their boarding parties without "top cover" ? The Missing Lynx... indeed."

Here is what a British expert had to say to the BBC:

Richard Schofield, an expert in international boundaries at King's College London, questioned whether the dispute would be eased if the Royal Navy released co-ordinates of where the sailors were seized.
"Releasing the co-ordinates wouldn't necessarily help us as there is no formally agreed boundary," he said.

"It isn't clear the incident happened off the water of Shatt al-Arab. We are talking about territorial waters beyond." In other words, the Brits engaged in belligerent behavior in "no-man's-land". Their lame excuse was that they were looking to collect taxes on cars possibly being smuggled into Iraq. What a brilliant reason to start a war!

Here's an audio track that gives some details on how these scuzzbuckets operate.

"Iran and Iraq have never agreed on a boundary of their territorial waters. There is no legal definition of the boundary beyond the Shatt al-Arab."

"When the British announced the border and the location point of the boat, it confused me. I thought I recalled, from the incident a couple years ago, that there was something very squirrely about that water border between Iran & Iraq. Yet here the Brits had a diagram with a nice clear boundary line. No mention is made of boundary uncertainty or the ship's path or recent past incidents in any reports I found.

Has the press entirely given up the old-fashioned journalistic principle of recapitulating background and relevant historic details at the end of a news report, establishing historical context and perspective? Or do reporters no longer have memory or knowledge of even the recent past?

Of course, with Abdullah of the Saudis calling US occupation of Iraq "illegitimate", others in that neighborhood may soon make the argument that British & US ships have no right to be on the Iraqi side of the border either."

"The Royal Navy boarded the ships not to conduct inspections on weapons smuggling, but to look for tax evaders. Their government's handling of the resulting situation has been thoroughly stupid and confrontational, especially as expressed in remarks by Tony Blair and Ms. Beckett.
"In international law the Iranian government were not out of order in detaining foreign military personnel in waters to which they have a legitimate claim," said former British Ambassador Craig Murray, (who also headed the Maritime Section of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office from 1989 to 1992) adding "For the Royal Navy to be interdicting shipping within the twelve mile limit of territorial seas in a region they know full well is subject to maritime boundary dispute, is unnecessarily provocative."
UNCLOS provides that, in the absence of an agreed boundary, neither side should attempt to enforce territorial water claims beyond a median line. It is very plain that this is for the purpose of conflict avoidance, and does not prejudice either state's rights in the eventual resolution of the boundary dispute. Britain has been repeatedly obnoxious in its violations of Iranian territory, on land & sea. Is a simple apology too much to ask? Blair and Bush have no right any more to lecture any other country on universal rights and treatment of captives.

[Not to mention being an act of piracy. As another commentator said, "They are illegal invaders of Iraq claiming permission from a puppet government while the legitimate government is partly murdered and partly imprisoned.

Boarding a foreign vessel at gunpoint is piracy and unless things have changed over the decades the maximum sentence for piracy under naval law is execution.
it *was* hanging from a yardarm or being chained to "traitors-gate" on the Thames next to the Tower of London for 3 tides under U.K. maritime law originally - did it get changed?
These stupid globalists are looking for WW III. I hope I survive to see their faces when they finally get their wish."]
["All England had to do was just say sorry it was a mistake and it wouldn't happen again. And the 15 would be released--no big deal. Just imagine if Iran gunboats were boarding American or Brit cargo ships and checking for smuggling of Lada cars or Panda bears?
The West has always being meddling in this area . Millions have died for oil lust. England pieced Iraq together and is still trying to make it bigger by stealing Iran's territory. All the Middle East was stolen from what was once the Turkish Empire on lies. English @sshole terrorist pirates !"] end quote, edited for grammar, spelling & punctuation.

claiming HMS Cornwall was within Iraqi territorial waters, the British government and the media have covered up the fact that there is no agreed upon Iraqi-Iranian maritime border, as other bizarre coincidences and dubious circumstances surrounding the hostage crisis begin to emerge. (Such as the staged "Hollywood production" filming of the lady sailor the day before she was captured). This smells like another Jessica Lynch staged affair, merged with another "Gulf of Tonkin" affair. I wonder how many servicemen they will kill this time to prevent the truth from being told.
As the Moon of Alabama blog points out, "That boundary is simply not well defined and Iran and Iraq have fought several wars about the Shatt al-Arab and its waterways. There is no binding or otherwise recognized international agreement about the maritime boundaries." See the full-size map here, along with full details.

"If one would use a maritime boundary defined by equidistance from the Iraqi and Iranian coastlines, as is commonly (see Art.7) done in such cases, the result would be something like this purple line."

As becomes obvious from looking at the map, taking the equidistant measurement from the Iraqi and Iranian coastlines,
the ship is clearly within Iranian territory.
Iranian news source IRNA claims that
this represents Britain's sixth violation and trespass of Iranian territory in the last three years, while also stating that the western media has been complicit in "a wave of propaganda campaign against Iran immediately after Iranian border guards arrested British marines."

Even if you dismiss judging territorial water boundaries by the method detailed above, the fact is that the media parroted carte blanche the British government's version,
without even pointing out that there is no recognized and agreed upon Gulf water boundary between Iraq and Iran.
Former British Ambassador Craig Murray and others are highlighting the fact that the maritime border between Iraq and Iran is contested, and the British have essentially manufactured a border to make it appear as if HMS Cornwall was within Iraqi territorial waters.
The mainstream media has uniformly failed to address this issue.
According to high ranking CIA officials, Defense department officials, former UN officials and retired US air force Colonels, the British and Americans have been running Black Ops inside Iran for months, (fomenting riots and unrest, shooting policemen in the streets and carrying out exactly the same kinds of terrorist bombings that the lying two-faced Neocons say they are trying to stop in Iraq. And do you know that a lot of THOSE [in Iraq] are Black Ops too?) and the current affair of 15 captured Brit sailors was probably intentional (intended as a provocation). The idea that the Brits are deliberately trying to provoke and escalate the situation is bolstered by the FACTS that the Brits are using a bogus map that has no force of law, and have violated Iranian territorial rights six times in 3 years.
"The inescapable conclusion (including the "coincidental" filming by BBC who "coincidentally were on the Cornwall filming our brave lads" and it appears sassy mother of 3 year old child is interviewed) is that this is Gulf of Tonkin version 2.0 presented by Dodgy Dossier of the MOD with fake legal reasoning. Which is bad news all round. Maybe we will get to see if those Iranian Sunbursts can destroy aircraft carriers after all."
Today, we have this: "British forces stormed Iranian consulate in Iraq's southern city of Basra and surrounded the office during a shootout with unknown gunmen in Iraq on Thursday, Islamic Republic of Iran's consulate announced.

"British forces sealed off the Iranian consulate in Basra. They went inside for 10 minutes and after that there was intense gunfire on them," Iranian Consul Mohammed Reva Nasir told reporters in Basra.

"This is a provocative act against the Iranian consulate in Basra. I believe it has something to do with the British detainees in Iran," he said."
"As others have pointed out the question is what are the British and American warships doing in Iraqi waters?
The answer is they have invaded and occupied Iraq and are now using its territorial waters as a base of operations from which to cause an "incident" to be used as "cover" for the destruction of as much of Iran as is possible.
It is unclear what will happen once they do that, but it will not be good. It will be very, very bad it seems to me for everyone on Earth.

How can it be that the whole world watches this unfold and does nothing to prevent it?

I'm not making this up. If you don't believe it, you've just been too damned lazy to do a bit of research. I don't CARE what people "think" any more, mostly because the kind of people who get upset DON'T THINK. Or read, except for the pablum puke put out by the corporate "news" media. Their broadcasts are so devoid of factual content, all they can do is make "fat jokes" and threaten to lynch Rosie O'Donnell for asking questions about 9/11. Rosie may have made mistakes in the past about gun rights, and she may have a lesbian lover, but despite that, she is a better human being than ANY of the smarmy Neocon media whores... O'Reilly, Savage, Limbaugh, Bonaduce, and Scarborough foremost. Bonaduce was quick to cry foul, claiming his own family had received death threats after he appeared in a You Tube video being asked about 9/11 conspiracies, but it seems he has no qualms about advocating the murder of Rosie O'Donnell.
In the face of all this, the Iranians are being amazingly cordial and reasonable.
"A) The Iran/Iraq maritime boundary shown on the British government map does not exist. It has been drawn up by the British Government. Only Iraq and Iran can agree on their bilateral boundary, and they never have done this in the Gulf, only inside the Shatt because there it is the land border too. This published boundary is a fake with no legal force.

B) Accepting the British coordinates for the position of both HMS Cornwall and the incident, both were closer to Iranian land than Iraqi land. Go on, print out the map and measure it. Which underlines the point that the British produced border is not a reliable one."

The whole situation is highly suspicious.

Recently, U.S. forces grabbed 5 Iranian government officials in Iraq, and still hold them captive.

"Iran also released on Thursday new footage of the British crew being seized which it said showed they were illegally in Iranian waters.

Iran's state TV also showed a military briefing in which charts were shown indicating the crew were in Iranian waters. This is in accordance with the recognized code for determining international boundaries.
(And all the Brits can produce is a fake map that has no force of law?)
Before the release of the second letter Prime Minister Tony Blair said Iran's decision to show footage of LS Turney was a "disgrace".

"I just think it's completely wrong, a disgrace actually, when people are used in that way," he said. Oh, you mean like the way the U.S. Military used Jessica Lynch? And then murdered the soldiers who talked about what really happened?

Personally, I think both Bush and Blair need to be bitch-slapped.

First of all, the Brits had no business boarding ships in an area where the border has been disputed for centuries. Secondly, the Iranians' GPS could have been fed false information from a plane, drone, or satellite. False Flags and set-ups have a long and sordid history. So even if the Iranians were wrong (and it looks like they were NOT wrong) it would be wise for the Brits to tread lightly. But then... they aren't really looking for a peaceful resolution here. After all, this is the sixth time they have trespassed in less than 3 years.
Their hubris is astounding. All that "righteous indignation"... makes me want to barf.

Secondly, there are 2 U.S. Carrier Fleets (USS Dwight D. Eisenhower, which this week took part in war games exercises in the Gulf with another carrier, USS John S Stennis) in the Persian Gulf for a reason, and they (or their replacement) will be used... SOON! Having 2 Carrier Fleets in the Persian Gulf at the same time is a bit of a strain on the credibility of Bu$hCo's attempt to project an image of "just trying to get along", as this is the biggest build-up since 2003, just before the Iraq War began.

"As pointed out above, the main issue is that the Limeys were operating out of territory unlawfully and illegally captured by them and the Yanks, who launched their attacks from aircraft carriers and missile cruisers on the sea, which makes the invasion itself and the occupation of Iraq an act of piracy. That they also sent in forces from land (Kuwait) is irrelevant. Therefore, as criminals cannot resort to the law to protect any of their acts, the whining protests of the Limeys against the Iranians are to be ignored. The Iranians are to be commended for capturing the Limey pirates.

The Nimitz will relieve the Eisenhower and join the Stennis. Don't be surprised if the Eisenhower heads for Venezuela or the Mediterranean. However, there could be 3 carriers in the area in early April (April 6!!) with 3 more available on short notice.

Don't be surprised if we see a “dirty bomb” event or even a suicide bombing at the mall, conducted by a crazed Muslim patsy or mental patient with a Persian surname.

"How is it that the Iranian speedboats were able to surprise the Limey landing party (or is it called "OA Team" these days?)? It's not like a boat on water has any place to hide. And why did the Cornwall not fire on the Iranian speedboats when they saw them coming towards the landing party? And did the Limey pirates' landing party lack any weapons at all to be able to repulse the Iranians before they got close enough to surround them? That's readiness for you!
All this points to the conclusion that the Limeys deliberately sent their boarding party to provoke the Iranians and get captured, just as the Israelis sent their forces into Lebanon to be captured by Hezbollah last summer so that they would have a pretext to attack Lebanon. Bliar seems to be doing everything to scuttle a settlement/agreement with the Iranians so that the Limeys will have an excuse to attack Iran. Since he is out of office in a month anyway he doesn't have anything at stake like the Americans and Israelis do, which has prevented them up till now from launching an attack on Iran. So the Limeys attack Iran and NATO (North Atlantic Terrorist Organization) buddy Amerikkka is obligated to join the fray to protect their asses." The Brits have a long history of screwing the Iranians.

If there is an attack on Iran, it is probable that China will dump massive quantities of U.S. government bonds on the market, resulting in a catastrophic collapse of the dollar. Buyers are already shifting away from the dollar to other currencies, notably the yen. Oil futures are already climbing, with some analysts predicting that an American attack could push oil prices above $200 a barrel, resulting in worldwide economic collapse. This will be on the scale of another Great Depression, except that this time around, the NWO intends to eliminate 80% to 90% of the world's population. And they shall think that they do "god" service. IMHO, the rider of the red horse may be about to begin his ride.

Today, we have Blair and Bush demonstrating to the world what self-conceited, arrogant, hypocritical obnoxious @-holes they are, while the Iranians have treated their captives with courtesy and civility, even showing video of all 15 of them well-rested and eating a meal, and offering to allow the Brits to visit them, requesting only the civil courtesy of a polite apology. The only "proof" Britain has produced to show that the capture took place in "Iraqi territory" is a snapshot of a handheld GPS device, and a bogus map that they invented. C'mon guys! This is the Persian Gulf in the heat of a military build-up! HOW ABOUT LIVE
C-130 OR SATELLITE SURVEILLANCE PHOTOS AND VIDEO??! That area HAS to be the most heavily-surveiled area on the planet right now. They want us to believe a SNAPSHOT taken after the fact? (Ever heard of Ken Trentadue? Well, at least they didn't have to get the FBI Crime Lab to fabricate this one.) Where is the satellite imagery? Where were all the support vessels (and all the radar coverage!) when this "capture" was happening? It's not POSSIBLE that they didn't know the Iranian patrol boats were coming. This absolutely STINKS of conspiracy to provoke a war. Bush and Blair actually have the unmitigated audacity to whine about the Iranians "violating the Geneva Convention" (for showing a video of 15 sailors hale and hearty after their capture). In case you haven't been paying attention, BUSH AND BLAIR are two war criminals who for 4 years have expressed no outrage whatsoever over the U.S. and British criminal use of depleted uranium, white phosphorus, cluster bombs, and microwave weaponry in civilian-occupied areas of Iraq. And then there's the whole topics of "extraordinary rendition" and of C.I.A. and British MI6 activities in Iran...
Which, by the way were responsible for the past 54 years of hellish conditions in Iran, beginning with the overthrow of Mossadegh in 1953.
Mossadegh's great "sin" against Britain was that he wanted to keep a small part of British Petroleum's profits for the people of Iran, rather than allow BP to bleed Iran dry. He was pro-Western and had just defeated the communists in Iran. "If there had not been a military coup, there would not have been 25 years of the Shah’s brutal regime, there would not have been a revolution in 1979 and a government of clerics,” Ibrahim Yazdi, a former foreign minister and leading member of a political party that traces its origins to Mossadegh’s National Front, told the Christian Science Monitor on the 50th anniversary of the coup and installation of the Shah. “Now it seems that the Americans are pushing towards the same direction again." Bullying and attacking Iran now only bolsters tyranical control of Iran by its unpopular rulers.
"Of course, the average American, who likely would have a difficult time finding Iran on a map, is almost completely ignorant of these historical facts. He does not know that the Shah’s secret police, SAVAK, trained by the CIA and Israel’s Mossad, “became a law unto itself, having legal authority to arrest and detain suspected persons indefinitely” and “operated its own prisons in Tehran (the Komiteh and Evin facilities) and, many suspected, throughout the country as well. SAVAK’s torture methods included electric shock, whipping, beating, inserting broken glass and pouring boiling water into the rectum, tying weights to the testicles, and the extraction of teeth and nails,” according to the Federation of American Scientists."
Furthermore, the average American is oblivious to the fact that our beloved CIA funded and encouraged Sadaam's right wing terror groups, the MEK in Iran. Bush continues to rant about Iran's dreaded nuclear ambitions, despite the fact that they were 9 years from development even BEFORE the Russians stopped development. There is NO REASON for war, other than to grab the oil.
Finally, Britain’s largest newspaper, in fact the highest circulation newspaper in the world, neocon Rupert Murdoch’s Sun, amidst banner ads of naked women showing off curvy derrieres, declares Leading Seaman Faye Turney “was forced on the orders of ranting president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to write a letter of apology to the Iranian people.” Civility is beyond the pale for Bush and Blair, just as it was for "Poppy" Bush ("I will never apologize for the United States"). They are the kind of rude, obnoxious bullies who need to be taken away from their S.S. agents and beaten senseless. Shrub is no better than his daddy. He is known for drunkenness and (recently, in front of press witnesses) calling Laura a "c**t".
That's a quote. If you want to get mad, get mad at the drunken slob who uttered it. If you're mad at me, stuff it.
The Iranians remember Iran Air Flight 665 vividly. And there is no lack of recent provocations.

Even if British allegations of "wrong-doing" are true, this detention of the British sailors by Iran is a shade better than being kidnapped in Afghanistan, Iraq, or on the streets of Milan, Italy, and “extraordinarily” rendered by the CIA and sent to Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Morocco, or Uzbekistan to be tortured.

Oh... by the way... Bush, Cheney, Gonzalez and Rice have been lying about THAT for years. They were so desperate to get some monstrous "admission" out of KSM that they authorized torturing his 7 and 10 year old sons. And after all that torture, we have gained... what? NOTHING. Most detainees are completely innocent and many were captured only for the "bounty" money. Unfortunately for them, they looked "Arabic".

No doubt Ahmadinejad’s alleged rant is mild when compared to water boarding or the sort of severe trauma inflicted on prisoners at the Bagram torture facility (said to be comparable to being run over by a bus) or for that matter rape by way of chemical light at Abu Ghraib.
You can read the rest of the article for yourself. Another flaming a-hole, Rupert Murdoch, uses his media control to brainwash two thirds of the world's population in favor of the Neocons' agenda of world conquest. What a waste of human skin.

I'm sick of the hypocrisy of the Neocons. According to them it's right when British and American forces capture Iranian Intelligence operatives (who were also government officials and had some right to be talking with their neighbors) but wrong and evil when Iranians capture British intelligence operatives trespassing in their waters. On the Moon of Alabama blog you will find this comment, telling it like it is. VERY enlightening.

Iran has Oil, Gas and Uranium, while European countries have to import their own uranium, Iran can sell enriched uranium 30% cheaper than the whole world. This is serious control over future energy, and ENERGY CONTROL is what the globalists are after, in order to secure world domination and perpetual tyranny (the New World Order). Before attacking Iraq, they made plans to have a hundred years of war. And you thought they cared about 3000 people on 9/11.

I'm sick of the lies being told by Bush and his cronies. And I'm in real good company.
Click here for a more complete list.

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." – Teddy Roosevelt

"Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it." – Mark Twain

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot." – Mark Twain

Click here for Sean Penn's letter to Bu$hCo. (audio).

More braying jackasses weigh in against freedom of information. Obviously, debating the facts is beyond their mental capacity and morally out of their league. Anybody more than 8 years old should see through their act.

Friday, March 16, 2007

Media Watch Debunks the Globaloney

The photo was taken two and a half years ago, in August, at the end of the summer, just a little offshore (a short swim for a bear). The photographer's name is Amanda Byrd, and she was not complicit in this scam. You have the impression the bears are in the middle of the ocean and they are going to die. The photo was exploited for propaganda purposes in the "war on global warming". Associated Press released the photo two and a half years after it was taken, on the day the United Nations released its major global warming report. They lied about its origin, according to Neil Breen, Editor of the Sunday Telegraph. He said, "Associated Press in their caption to us told us that the picture was taken of melting ice caps and to do with global warming and that it was sent to them by a Canadian ice authority and we had no reason to question it." Watch the video here, or click the top image on this post.

That photo was published not only in the Sunday Telegraph.
It made it onto the front page of the New York Times.
And the International Herald Tribune.
It also ran in London's Daily Mail, The Times of London and Canada's Ottawa Citizen - and that's just to name a few.
All used it as evidence of global warming and the imminent demise of the polar bear.

But the photo wasn't current. It was two and a half years old.
And it wasn't snapped by Canadian environmentalists.

It was taken by an Australian marine biology student on a field trip. Summer, when every year the fringes of the Arctic ice cap melt. And then they freeze again.

New Arctic Ice Cap Story Is A Hoax

Laurence Hecht
21st Century Science & Technology

A non sequitur and a fallacy of composition are the essence of scare stories circulating on major wire services today, which report on a new study of the extent of Arctic sea ice melt.

The study, published in the May 1 issue of Geophysical Research Letters, reports an historical review of satellite and other data which indicates that the extent of Arctic sea ice at the end of the summer melt season in September has been declining since 1953. The news stories twist this statistical fact into scare stories, the one circulated by Agence France Presse claiming that sea level will rise by seven meters.

In fact, as anyone who observes ice melting in a cold drink can determine, when floating ice melts, the water level remains the same or falls very slightly. The claim of a rise in sea level is thus a non sequitur. It is justified on the basis of a wild fallacy of composition--the claim that the melting of the Arctic sea water will inevitability lead to the melting of the entire Greenland glacier.

Never reported is the fact that the last major study of the Greenland ice sheet [Zwally, et al. Journal of Glaciology (2005)] showed a slight increase in ice mass from 1992-2002. The one- to two-mile thick Greenland ice sheet was thinning at the margins but growing by a greater extent inland. Polar specialists know well that the Arctic climate is highly variable and very sensitive to small changes in local temperature. As Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu of the International Arctic Research Center in Alaska noted, the extent of Arctic sea ice melt in the 1920s was greater than today (with far less contribution from human-produced carbon dioxide), and was followed by a period of thickening. Akasofu called Al Gore's movie "science fiction."

The theory that human-produced carbon dioxide produces climate warming has no scientific validity, and has been amply refuted by hundreds of leading scientists in thousands of papers.

The new study (Stroeve, et al. "Arctic sea ice decline: Faster than forecast") is questionable in that it focuses entirely on statistical methods of modeling and extrapolation. In general, extrapolation from short-term statistical trends is meaningless in scientific investigation. Three astronomical phenomena suggest that the Earth is moving towards an Ice Age: northern hemisphere summer is occurring near aphelion; orbital inclination is high at 23.5 degrees; and ellipticity is moderate.

But far worse than the methodological problems of the Arctic sea ice study are today's news reports of it. These represent the height of politically motivated irresponsibility. At bottom, greenhouse warming is a hoax. Its purpose is to stop industrial development, reduce population, and condemn two thirds of the world to continued poverty and misery. As the science isn't there to prove it, the theory can only be justified by fabrications of the sort circulating on wire services today.

The secret words for today are "corporatist mercantilism". Understand their meaning, and you will understand what the global warming hype is really about. It's a con game.

Satanic Possession

Selling Your Soul to Satan

So you want to be successful in the music business? Here's one way to succeed, although I wouldn't recommend it. (Click on either the text or the image above.)

Tuesday, March 06, 2007

Smedley Butler on Interventionism

Click on the image above to go to the Wikipedia entry.
Smedley Butler on Interventionism
__Excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933, by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC.

War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.
I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.
I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.
There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.
It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.
I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.
I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (Where have I heard that name before? Oh yeah... that was the bank that laundered money to Hitler, and its front man was Prescott Bush- George W. Bush's grandfather.) I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.
During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.

Click the link below to read the book online. (It's a little one.)
WAR IS A RACKET by Two-Time Congressional Medal of Honor Recipient:
Major General Smedley D. Butler, USMC [Retired]

On a kinder & gentler note, there's this: Hearts of the Fathers
and this: A Good Pair of Glasses

Sunday, March 04, 2007

So... what's for dinner?

Global Warming 101
John Perna
Wednesday, March 7, 2007

Here is an undeniable scientific truth: The volume of the water that is produced when ice melts is exactly equal to the volume of the water that the ice displaced, when it was floating. Water expands when it freezes into ice. That is why freezing pipes break. That is why ice floats on top of water.

If every iceberg in the world were to melt, the level of the ocean would not go up by one inch, or by one millimeter. If every iceberg in the world were to melt, the level of the ocean would not go up at all.

There is no land at the North Pole. There is land at the South Pole. The surface area of the oceans is many times as large as the surface of the land which contains ice. If all of the ice that is on land was to melt, this would make almost no difference in the level of the ocean.

Carbon dioxide is to a plant what oxygen is to an animal. More carbon dioxide means that plants grow better and faster. When plants grow better and faster, the total amount of plant matter increases. Increases in the amount of plant matter cause more consumption of carbon dioxide. More consumption of carbon dioxide lowers the level of carbon dioxide.

New ozone is continuously produced, at an incredible rate, by sunlight passing through air. Ozone is continuously decomposing back into oxygen, no matter what man does. The natural production and decomposition of ozone is so large that mankind could not change this balance of nature if he wanted to do so. Halogenated hydrocarbons would be destroyed by contact with ozone, but halogenated hydrocarbons are heavier than air, and do not go up to the ozone layer. Mankind has never produce enough halogenated hydrocarbons to have any effect at all on the total amount of ozone. Ozone fluctuations are results of the cycles of the sun.

These cycles have been occurring since the beginning of Earth. Every species that is still here is one that has been able to adapt and to survive them. The equilibriums of nature are more powerful than anything that man can do. Trying to shift any of the equilibriums of nature would be like trying to make an ocean have two different water levels.

Government uses a lack of understanding of basic science on the part of the public to increase its own power by convincing people that they are in danger, and that they can only be saved by letting the government institute more controls.

In short, nature regulates itself. Government could never regulate nature. But it can regulate people. And when government uses junk science and disinformation as part of its coordinated effort to put us all in a psychic iron cage, THAT is dangerous. We need to dismantle the prison they're building for us.
Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?
I've come to the conclusion that the reason "News for Yahoos" has removed their "discuss" feature is because the "news" they publish is propaganda and they wish to avoid at any cost exposure to any information that might expose their lies. For example, they wish to keep you in the isolated pseudo-intellectual hot-house environment of global warming hysteria. Here's a good example. Yes, it does sound "like a sick joke about global warming, with a series of horrible punch lines." The problem is in the interpretation of the data.
What these people propose is that we must prevent the earth from recovering from its last global catastrophe in order to preserve the "human rights " of the Inuit people. In the first place, mankind didn't cause global warming, and we are powerless to stop it. If "allowed" to continue (as if we have a choice?!) the present trend (IF it continues) may result in temperate zones being extended 750 miles further toward the poles (think food production and habitable land mass) and eventually, if a worldwide mean temperature rise of 4 to 5 degrees Celsius occurs, the earth will eventually acquire a tropical climate without its present (abnormal) climatic extremes. Evidence proves that these conditions existed in the fairly recent past.
We know that rising ocean temperatures cause the release of dissolved CO2 from seawater. We also know that the current warming trend preceded the rise of atmospheric CO2 levels by 800 years, and the sharp increase in human-related CO2 emissions after WWII was followed by a 40 year cooling trend. So it is not clear that human-related CO2 emissions can cause or have caused global warming. The most influential "greenhouse gas" is water vapor, not CO2, and water vapor prevents runaway heating of the earth and its atmosphere by reflecting solar radiation back into space before it can be absorbed by the earth or lower atmosphere.
The current global warming scare by the self-appointed "scientific establishment" (a self-conceited vociferous minority) is a pathetic dog and pony show.

The article gets pretty interesting if you scroll down a little over half-way to just below the heading "According to Orr, Jr:" If you take the time to read it, you're in for a real eye-opener.

So, in terms of "human rights", what is preferable? Eating seal blubber in the Arctic Circle, or raising wheat, corn, farm animals, timber, vegetables and fruit trees 750 miles further toward the poles than is presently possible? This has been done, and not very long ago.
In the past 100 years, it has become possible to grow corn and wheat 500 miles further north than was previously possible. If this trend were reversed, (an ignorant thing to do even if it were possible) the result would be a net loss of huge areas of productive farm land in the northern U.S. and Canada. It's time to expose the global warming hysteria for what it really is: a global power grab by the Neocon corporatist "Church of Satan." They seek the kind of artificial monopolistic price controls that were imposed by de Beers in the diamond market. Same strategy, but with much more sinister implications for "human rights."
Quoting from an article on Lew
"We need to put things in perspective. It gives a warm feeling to accept Hollywood’s depiction of global warming and its "noble efforts to save us all from ourselves" – this echoes big brother’s intents exactly. And the Oscars went green! How many of the stars walked or rode the bus or their bicycles instead of taking limos or Hummers? Have a look at their electric bills." (Al Gore's is 20 times that of the average American household.) "It is reminiscent of Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh who collected the fortunes of educated and affluent people on the belief that material possessions were evil, yet he had fleets of private jets and Rolls Royce cars. How many actors or politicians or academics would be willing to give up their comforts and live in rustic cabins to save the human race? Who in Hollywood is ever concerned with the facts, other than in their own financial and career advancements?

We will never become enlightened and free to experience life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness until we learn to think for ourselves and reject the sensational generalizations of the ruling class. Thomas Jefferson said, "Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty." Americans of all sects should learn about the logical thought process and the scientific method. It will help in all aspects of life and lead to a real understanding of the world. And then maybe we can pull together and fix the true problems that we face. It is unlikely that our "leaders" will solve these problems; it is their mindset that created them."
The UN report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was published in February. At the time it was promoted as being backed by more than 2,000 of the world's leading scientists.
But Professor Paul Reiter, of the Pasteur Institute in Paris, said it was a "sham" given that this list included the names of scientists who disagreed with its findings. Furthermore, of the 2000 listed, only about 100 were experts qualified to be "authorities" on the subject matter. If you want to talk "numbers of scientists", there are over 17000 who have signed their names to a petition disclaiming allegiance to the global warming hype and agenda.

Professor Reiter, an expert in malaria, said his name was removed from an assessment only when he threatened legal action against the panel.
"That is how they make it seem that all the top scientists are agreed," he said. "It's not true."
Truth be told, the UN IPCC was nothing but a politicized group encounter session run by a trained "facilitator" using the "Tavistock method" or "Alinsky approach" perfected in Russian and Korean reeducation camps. The "outcome" was determined in advance. This is not planetary or climatic science at all. It is a sinister mutated form of political and behavioral science.

Saturday, March 03, 2007

Bird Flu

Dr. Sherri Tenpenny

This is an exerpt from an interview with the good doctor (pictured above). To read it in its entirety, click the link and scroll down the list of articles to March 2006 & click on "Fowl! Bird flu: what it's really about" or download this pdf file.

Harkins: Is the H5N1 virus a new virus or has it been around for a long time?

Tenpenny: H5N1 has been identified in domestic fowl before. The first outbreak of an H5N1 bird flu was recorded by the WHO in 1959 in Scotland and then in 1991 in England. More recent outbreaks were identified in Hong Kong in chickens in 1997 and 2002. All of the influenza A viruses are known to exist in the intestines of wild birds symbiotically and asymptomatically. This virus, which has been around a long time, is being used to advance political and mega-corporate agendas.

Harkins: What are those "political and corporate" agendas?

Tenpenny: It appears that the lobbying power of pharmaceutical companies and the global poultry and egg-producing companies have influenced the development of the bird flu scare. The world is being convinced that the H5N1 virus will mutate so that it can spread from human-to-human. The corporate benefit to the pharmaceutical companies is selling billions of dollars worth of drugs and vaccines. The huge, multinational poultry producers will survive the costs associated with the mass killing of their factory-farmed, genetically-modified birds while most small poultry producers will be forced out of business and into servitude to multinational agribusiness. Politically, bird-flu hysteria will allow governments to grow as they develop new schemes to regulate entire industries, implement mass vaccination programs and put into operation police states as a consequence of the predicted pandemic.

Friday, March 02, 2007

Who Killed FBI Man John O'Neill?

The subject matter related to the "title" of this blog post appears at the end of the post. The intro material is something that came to my attention at the last minute.
Read the complete story by clicking here.
This photo was released by the FBI on or before Sept 26, 2001. It is a fake, as is the FBI's story of its origin. The complete story is accessible via the link above.
1 World Trade Center was topped with a distinctive 360 foot television mast, which supported 10 major television antennas and a host of ancillary antennas.

2 World Trade Center was topped with an observation deck that would allow viewers, on a good day, to see 45 miles in any direction (except down).

At 8:45 AM EST, a hijacked American Airlines jet - Flight 11 out of Boston's Logan Airport, a Boeing 767 - plowed into the north face of 1 World Trade Center.

Barely 15 minutes later, at roughly 9 AM, a second hijacked jet, United Airlines Flight 175 - also a Boeing 767 out of Logan Airport - approached from the south and impacted the south face of 2 World Trade Center.

Within an hour and a half, both towers, in reverse order, would collapse. The damage and resulting fires would eventually bring down or irreparably damage every building in the World Trade Center complex.

If this picture was indeed taken from the World Trade Center's observation deck, then both the camera and the fellow against the railing are standing on the roof of 2 World Trade Center.

The tower that the American Airlines flight crashed into was 1 World Trade Center, which would be outside this photo's frame to the left - the aircraft in this photo is plainly heading toward the right and into 2 WTC.

The airplane that did collide with 2 World Trade Center, a United Airlines 767, neither shares coloration with the aircraft in this photo, nor approached 2 WTC from the direction this photograph shows; United Flight 175 approached from the south - the photographer has their back to that side of the building.

By the time the United Airlines jet hit 2 WTC, 1 World Trade Center was billowing a giant plume of smoke that, because of the prevailing winds that morning, had enveloped the top of 2 WTC. That, and the fact (reported on multiple other sites) that September hours for the observation deck meant it wouldn't have opened until 9:30am, (45 minutes after the first plane hit) tell that no tourist photos could have been taken on 2 WTC's deck either before or after the attack.

Additionally, the plane in the photograph is a Boeing 757, an entirely different plane from the 767s used in the attack.

The weather in New York City on September 11 averaged nearly 70° Farenheit according to The Weather Channel's website, with early morning lows around 61° F. Even at the top of a 1,362 foot building, I can scarcely conceive of someone requiring a parka and knit hat on a lovely day like that.

Though the above has hopefully shown factually why this image is a fraud, let's approach the same conclusion from a different direction. Part of my livelihood involves retouching photos. Let's talk about troubling visual details in the photo...

The aircraft in this picture would have been approaching the World Trade Center buildings at nearly 300 miles per hour, and yet it shows no sign of blurring due to motion. Photographers cannot even crisply capture a baseball in flight without adjusting the camera's shutter speed, and yet we're expected to believe that an airplane moving three times as fast as the best fastball in the American League is sitting as clearly rendered in the air as if it were motionless?

The jet is also in perfect focus. In fact, the airplane appears to be more sharply defined than the person in the picture. Odd, wouldn't you say? (Photographers will understand the problem here.)

The photograph (minus the airplane) is underexposed. Photographs from that day show the sky to be a much brighter, more saturated blue than the subdued sky we see in this picture. The railings on the observation deck of 2 World Trade Center were bright white, and yet in the photo, they appear to be grey. That wouldn't be so odd of it weren't for the fact that the white stripe in the three-color American Airlines banding on the airplane in this photo is a brilliant white. If they were both part of the same photo, you would expect the brightness of white to be consistent, right?

Further, compare the way the airplane is lit as opposed to how the young man is lit... The airplane, unlike everything else in this image, seems to be lit from nearly overhead and slightly to the front. Examine the way light reflects off the nose of the airplane and this is easily visible, most tellingly in the brilliant glare above the cockpit. This is completely unlike the shadows across the young man's face and the railing on the observation deck, which are due to an oblique light source much lower to the horizon.

Please read the entire article accessible here.

Click the image above to view available download options.
This movie (Who Killed John O'Neill?) gives the best analysis I have ever seen of the structure of the criminal corporate global cartel (Greed, Oil, Drugs) and its relationship to governments, industry, banking, the intelligence community and the "War on Terror". It names the players and details their history.
Al Qaeda (al-CIA-duh) is not what we have been told it is. It's "soldiers" protect the international drug trade. And our government is a criminal protection racket. Terrorist events will occur whenever anyone or anything threatens that racket. Can YOU handle the truth?