Friday, December 01, 2006

Sub-Human Rights

The single biggest reason "why they hate us" -- at least until we invaded Iraq -- was the U.S.'s FINANCING of Israel's genocide of the Palestinian people, which has been going on more or less continuously since 1948.

We're supposed to believe that there is some kind of inherent "anti-semitism" (anti-Jewishness) in the Islamic world. But "anti-semitism" over the centuries was a CHRISTIAN phenomena, not Arabic. There was virtually no Arabic anti-semitism UNTIL Israel was created and proceeded to systematically murder, displace, starve, and imprison the Palestinians who had been there for many centuries. They now have effectively been driven into the equivalent of American Indian Reservations, where even there they are not safe.

Or, if you prefer, they've been herded into "Bantustans," the phrase used in the infamously racist South African regime for the ghettoes into which the native Africans were herded and kept.

Anyway, note from the article copied below (and linked) that recently the U.S. for the THIRTY EIGHTH TIME:

" used its veto in the UN Security Council to protect Israel from condemnation for murdering Palestinian civilians in the Gaza town of Beit Hanoun."

This topic has been almost literally taboo in the U.S. press. Recently Jimmy Carter, of all people, had the courage to try and break it. ("Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid," 2006). When Carter writes a book about, say, fly fishing, it's big news. But guess what? THIS book, as of yesterday, has NOT BEEN MENTIONED by the NY Times, LA Times, or Washington Post. What are the odds?

Anyway, check this out:



By Richard Walker

On Nov. 11, the United States for the 38th time since 1972 used its veto in the UN Security Council to protect Israel from condemnation for murdering Palestinian civilians in the Gaza town of Beit Hanoun.

The deaths of the 19 civilians, who included nine children, four women and six men, all from one family, and the injuring of 40 others came at the end of a five-day Israeli military operation in which a total of 50 Palestinians were killed. The 19 who died were asleep in adjoining homes when Israeli artillery shells blew apart their dwellings.

The UN resolution condemning Israel for the atrocity had the support of nine members of the 15-member Security Council. Britain, Denmark, Japan and Slovakia abstained, but the United States used its veto power to prevent the resolution’s passage.

Aside from a condemnation of Israel, the resolution called for the withdrawal of Israeli military forces from Gaza.

There had been several drafts of the resolution offered. The final one also condemned Hamas, calling for an end to the firing of rockets into Israeli territory.

Still, U.S. Ambassador to the UN John Bolton (right) claimed the last
draft was “one-sided and politically motivated.” He complained that it did not use the term “terrorism” to describe the Palestinian government of Hamas.

French Ambassador to the UN Jean Mar de Sabliere said he was disappointed by America’s decision because the final draft resolution was a balanced one. Even the word “massacre” had been removed to make it more palatable to the United States and Israel.

Arab observers were quick to assail Bolton’s use of the veto, describing it as a deliberate attempt to protect Israel. In their view, it sent the wrong message to the Arab world. Moderate Palestinians, who are opposed to Hamas, viewed the U.S. move as yet another example of its lack of concern for the killing of innocent Palestinians and its acquiesence to the Israeli government.

Within the corridors of the UN, America’s heavy use of its veto power to give cover to Israel is regarded as nothing new. Some recent vetoes included a U.S. refusal to pass a resolution condemning Israel for the building of a massive barrier wall. The International Criminal Court in The Hague and major human rights organizations worldwide have described the wall as a criminal act because it splits Palestinian villages and forces some Palestinians off their property.

In 2002, a resolution condemning Israel for the killing of three UN staff in Gaza and the West Bank was blocked by then U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte. In language now familiar in American vetoes he described the resolution as “one-sided and politically motivated” and added that its backers, especially Syria, were more intent on condemning Israeli occupation than protecting UN staff. Negroponte unsuccessfully lobbied Syria to remove a reference to Israel in the resolution and to use generalizations to describe the deaths of the UN staffers.

Most members of the Security Council felt Israel also deserved criticism for blowing up a World Food warehouse containing 500 tons of food in Beit Lahiya in the Gaza Strip. Only five permanent members of the Security Council have a right of veto­Britain, France, China, Russia and the United States­and while Britain has recently abstained on resolutions condemning Israel the United States has taken the lead in blocking resolutions.

Between 1972 and 1997, for example, the United States vetoed 29 resolutions critical of Israel. Had U.S. officials not done so the total number of resolutions condemning Israel throughout that period would have risen to 95.

The 66 resolutions that were passed in that time frame represented a unique number in UN history. As a rule, Israel has ignored the UN, always certain in the knowledge that its vassal state, the United States of America, will manage somehow to block any resolution that would require Israel to concede territory to the Palestinians or to negotiate on other disputes with neighbors like Syria or Lebanon.

The first U.S. veto in Israel’s favor was cast in 1972 by the then-U.S. Ambassador to the UN George H. W. Bush. A year later, America again blocked a resolution that would have called for Israel to withdraw from Palestinian territories as part of previously recommended UN General Assembly proposal for a Palestinian-Israeli settlement.

Henry Kissinger, as secretary of state, was fond of using America’s veto power, but his record in no way matched that of his successor, George Schultz, during the Reagan years. In fact, the Reagan administration, until this present one, stands alone in blocking 18 UN resolutions critical of Israel. In 1982 alone, Schultz promoted the use of the veto nine times to prevent the UN Security Council from condemning Israel’s invasion of Lebanon, its killing of civilians and its unwillingness to give up parts of south Lebanon that were at the center of the recent conflict.

(Issue #48, November 27, 2006)

Friday, May 12, 2006


by Jim Glover

When Clinton relentlessly bombed the former Yugoslavia (Bosnia, Serbia, Kosovar) throughout much of the 90s, it was, of course, a "humanitarian" intervention.

By pure coincidence, the U.S. also gained a couple of large military bases in a very strategic location just in case there might ever be a war for oil and gas.

Anyway, it turns out our presence there also offers another great opportunity -- to smuggle 200,000 machine guns into Iraq. Or maybe not Iraq, since the 200,000 Kalishnikovs have disappeared. see,,1773106,00.html

It's hard to tell the U.S. from the official terrorists in stuff like this. The "complex web" of firms used includes an air company that was reportedly engaged in diamond smuggling, and others that "were also engaged in illegal arms shipments from Serbia and Bosnia to Liberia and to Saddam Hussein four years ago."

It's also interesting to note that, while the new and improved "international government" of Serbia has tried to disarm the place after its bloody civil wars, none other than the U.S. -- peacekeeper to the world -- has BLOCKED the effort.(see paragraphs 6-8)

Two questions present themselves: where did the guns go, and why? And two answers, I think, are equally likely. One is that they are going to the mysterious Iraqi "death squads" we've heard about. If an occupation is not going well, the fall-back position is to get the occupied people to fight among themselves. The U.S. was so good at this in Central America that it has come to be called the "Salvador Option." It's been talked about for a couple of years now. (see, for example: "John Pilger Detects the Salvador Option,"

The other possibility is that they are going to the officially-designated terrorist organization that the U.S. has employed in the first phase of our Iran invasion. That would be the "MEK," an acronym for Mujahedeen-e Khalq (see ; ;

The last story has an interesting quote regarding the U.S. use of the kind of terror group we're supposedly fighting. An unnamed intelligence source says: "These guys are nuts."

But you can't tell if he's talking about the terrorist group or the Americans employing them.

Saturday, April 15, 2006

Bomb, Bomb, Bomb. Bomb Bomb Iran

In case anyone needs any more examples of the insanity and hypocrisy around the trumped-up “crisis” of Iran enriching uranium, you might enjoy these tidbits:

1. An “Iran-Syria Operations Group (ISOG),” has been set up by Dick Cheney's daughter to engineer regime change in Iran ~ with a direct line to Dick Cheney. Lizzie’s little group is apparently the sister to the infamous “Office of Special Plans” that created the reasons for invading Iraq.

(No word on Lizzie Cheney’s regime change credentials beyond the obvious one.)

2. When Cheney was Sec Def, he seems to have managed to LOSE several nuke Warheads INTO IRAN. Hey, you can’t make this stuff up.

3. Read all about “How the US Supplied Iran with Nuclear Know-How,” By SAUL LANDAU here:
4. The war on Iran is already underway. Rumsfeld is using a known terrorist group, the “MEK,” as his advance guard. Seehttp: //

5. And finally, our old friends the Brits, loving profits above all, couldn’t resist selling Iran nuke bomb material in 2001.

As the BBC reported:

“British officials have approved the export of key components needed to make nuclear weapons to Iran and other countries known to be developing such weapons.”
“…the Department of Trade and Industry allowed a quantity of the metal, Beryllium, to be sold to Iran last year.”

Tuesday, April 11, 2006

Qoute of the Day

"This is indeed strange history in the making: Western officials who invaded a country, wiped out its mechanisms of order, unleashed pent-up ethnic furies, and indirectly rule it with their military divisions are advising the natives to speed up their grasp of democracy..."

---Rami G. Khouri , editor-at-large of the Beirut-based Daily Star


Monday, April 10, 2006

It's Official: We'll Bomb Iran

Well, it's now official: the smirking chimps in the White House are seriously considering not just bombing Iran but NUCLEAR bombing Iran. (see )

This has been rather widely known for a couple of years but as usual the "journalists" at the corporate news shops have ignored it. But now it's official because Seymour Hersh wrote it in the most recent NEW YORKER.

And so the Bomb Iran question has changed. It's no longer, Will we? It's, Will we use nukes or "conventional" bombs (that are nearly as destructive as nukes)?

This seems to pass for sane, rational discussion in the New Millennium USA.

Aside from the obvious irony of nuking a country because they MIGHT be going nuclear,a couple of other points ought to be made:

One is that Iran has every right to develop nuclear energy if it cares to. That right is recognized in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that Bush, Condoleeza, and others love to cite. Yet the U.S. is trying to stop Iran from doing so because nuclear energy might, conceivably, some day, lead to nuclear weapons.

Second is that the evidence of Iran actually working on nuclear weapons is exactly as strong as that famous "WMD" evidence in Iraq was.

Third is that if Iran does indeed want nuclear weapons (and I would guess they do), they want those weapons AS A DETERRENT from invasion by the U.S. They have seen that the U.S. likes to invade weakly defended countries like Panama, Afghanistan, and Iraq, but shies away form those, like North Korea or China or Pakistan, who could retaliate in spades.

Fourth is that one (but ONLY one)country in the Middle East is allowed to have nukes. That is Israel, which sports (by the most common estimate) some 200 atomic missiles and bombs. If Israel would disarm, its Middle Eastern neighbors would be MUCH more likely to slow down their own military shopping sprees.

Finally, of course, there's the absolute hypocrisy of the U.S. deciding not only which countries should have what kinds of bombs but what kind of energy as well. For as the moral midgets left in charge of the U.S. make such decisions, they also go on their own merry way at home, subsidizing the domestic nuclear industry, improving our own nuclear weapons, and (let's not forget) forging ahead on the development of chemical and biological weapons as well.

This is an empire out of control, out of touch with reality, out of touch with any kind of humane moral system. And just think, we all get to contribute by doing what we've been taught to do best: go along meekly and pay those taxes.

Thursday, April 06, 2006


By Jim Glover



Once-Proud American Questions Government, Tosses Away Reputation!!!

Dr. Robert Bowman is not the kind of guy you'd expect to engage in whacky conspiracy theories. In fact, he's "a man so decorated with medals and honors they could fill a patriotic Christmas tree."[1]

But he apparently has gone off the deep end. He's been saying that the official government story of NINE-ELEVEN is sheep dip.

Here are a few items from whacko Bowman's resume:

-former head of the strategic missile defense program ("Star Wars") under Presidents Ford and Carter

-Lt. Col., USAF, retired.

-flew 101 combat missions in Vietnam.

-recipient of the Eisenhower Medal, the George F. Kennan Peace Prize, the President’s Medal of Veterans for Peace, the Society of Military Engineers Gold Medal (twice), six Air Medals

-Ph.D. in Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering from Caltech.

-chaired 8 major international conferences, and is one of the country’s foremost experts on National Security.

That's right. He's a whacko!

Bowman finds it hard to believe that a small gang of anti-modernist, religion-crazed malcontents, using laptops in remote mountain caves in Afghanistan, got 19 non-Afghan religious nuts to hijack three planes in the U.S., then perform aerial stunts worthy of the Blue Angels as they flew said planes into three buildings, including the heaviest guarded building in the world, (the Pentagon), while the entire system of U.S. attack protection stood around doing nothing, followed shortly thereafter by the complete collapse of three industrial-grade steel-reinforced buildings because their steel must have melted, even though steel does not begin to melt at anywhere near as low a temperature as smoldering plane fuel does and even though one of the buildings was hit by no plane at all and even though no such building has ever before or since collapsed in such a manner (including several that burned at much hotter temperatures) and even though all three buildings collapsed right into their own footprints in a manner that looked and sounded remarkably like controlled demolitions and even though these attacks resulted in two already-planned invasions of countries that have critical "strategic" interest to the energy and war industries.

This guy's a NUT! What's not to believe? More importantly, who's not to trust? Didn't the White House TELL us who did it, almost immediately? And how? And why?

Are we supposed to suspect our government might not be telling the truth, when their record of truth-telling has been so clearly established in the years since 9/11?

Hey Bowman! What do you take us for? Gullible fools?

Anyway, here's a link to a story about Bowman's whacky theories, and also to another recent article that WOULD be extremely convincing IF -- fortunately -- our government had not already told us what to believe:

And hey! Enjoy World War Three!



Wednesday, April 05, 2006

King's Murder, Like His Message, is Largely Forgotten

by Jim Glover

The anniversary of Martin Luther King’s murder came and went recently without much notice. It was April 4.

King’s advocacy for black civil rights was tolerated (barely) for many years. But when he came out against the U.S.’s immoral war in southeast Asia, his doom was sealed.

In announcing his war opposition, King said one especially interesting thing. “My own government,” he observed, “is the biggest purveyor of violence in the world.” That fact has since become obvious to most people around the world. Here in the “homeland” (as our government absurdly likes to call the U.S.), we prefer to remain in denial.

The Bush administration has raised the ante with its various war crimes against the people of Iraq and Afghanistan. But we should recall that Clinton bombed Iraq incessantly for eight straight years and imposed sanctions that resulted – by U.N. estimates – in the death by starvation and disease of half a million Iraqi children.

Clinton also signed off on the saturation bombing of Kosovo (part of the former Yugoslavia) that went on for 72 straight days. Over 20,000 tons of explosives were used. That’s more than were used by the Nazis in all of World War II.

We may, and no doubt will, continue to pretend that our government bombs and invades for peace. Some continue to believe that 9/11 justifies everything. But, as King also observed (echoing the voices of such radicals as Jesus of Nazareth and Mahatma Ghandi), “returning violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars.”

Jim Glover
202 N. Parrish Lane
Carbondale, IL 62901