9/5/7 Bin Laden as Fantasy Figure: Riches Beyond Belief Consequences of War Against Iran Israel's Educational System

"The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do."
Samuel Huntington, Harvard Professor, "The Clash of Civilizations"

On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers.

"It's not a matter of what is true that counts but a matter of what is perceived to be true."
Henry Kissinger
quotes from ICH

War and the "New World Order"
By Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya
War is the ultimate means of attempting to change societies and reshape nations. It is through war that national economies and political structures can be forcibly restructured. War is, potentially, the ultimate economic shock therapy. The wars in the Middle East are stepping stones towards establishing a vision of global order that has been in the hearts and minds of the Anglo-American establishment for years. That vision is global ascendancy.

"We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men"
"In a time of universal deciet telling the truth is a revolutionary act"
Geroge Orwell

6th. anniversary of made-in-usa 911, U.S. imperialist global war of state terror and U.S. is in deeper shit by the day. but planning war against Iran too... "VOILA, ABSURDLY PREDICTABLE "TERRORIST PLOT" ["AGAINST AMERICAN CITIZENS" FOR MAXIMUM RACIST POLITICAL RETURNS.] ..AND A NEW TAPE FROM BIN LADEN
German Police Arrest 3 in Terrorist Plot
The three Islamic militants arrested on Wednesday were in
the advanced stages of plotting large-scale attacks against
several sites frequented by Americans, officials said.

Bin Laden As A Fantasy Figure: Riches beyond belief
By Ibrahim Warde
Most of the factoids that have become canon about Osama bin Laden and the financing of terror were estimates, guesstimates or simply made up, as in the case of his presumed $300m personal fortune. But these fantasies have driven real and dangerous actions.
With the 9/11 attacks, the lines between fact and fiction were further blurred since the unbelievability of the events lent credence to many of the wildest assertions about Arabs and Muslims. Nobody then knew much about al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden. Americans were ready to believe he was a James Bond villain, rich enough to fund his own wars. Indeed, his hidden wealth has captured the imagination of many novelists. Chris Ryan's Greed (a bestseller, at least according to its cover) bears more than a passing resemblance to non-fiction purporting to reveal the secrets of terrorism financing. A character says: "Al-Qaida has a lot of money. Its roots are in Saudi Arabia, and that's a rich place. But it has a lot of support right across that region. There are contributions coming from everywhere - Jordan, Egypt, Pakistan, Malaysia. That's what makes them so deadly. Fanatics we can handle. Fanatics with cash are a different story. Overall, we estimate the organisation has at least $5bn at its disposal. They hide their money, and they are good at it. So it could be a lot more" (10). It could be said, to borrow from satirist Stephen Colbert, that there is much more truthiness than truth in the terrorist financing discourse - with truthiness defined as what you want the facts to be as opposed to what the facts are. The parallels between Bin Laden's hidden stash and Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction are striking. They caused the financial war against global terrorism and regime change in Iraq. The usual suspects of terrorist financing - rich Arabs, the Saudis, Islamic charities, etc - became as familiar as the smoking guns of WMD - mobile labs, aluminum tubes, Niger uranium, etc - that helped sell the invasion of Iraq to the US public. Both wars created created a new and very real problem through pursuing an imaginary one.

A plan long in the making: destroy Arab nationalist anti-imperialist resistance to get control of Iran as first move for political-economic control of 'Middle East' energy resources, the leverage essential for U.S. global dominance:

Iraq Oil: The Vultures are [not just] Waiting
Sarah Meyer, Index Research

CIA March 2003 oil map of Iraq
The oil majors met at the Iraq Oil, Gas, Petrochemical & Electricity Summit from 2 – 4 September 2007 in Dubai to discuss "the future of Iraq’s abundant energy resources." Attending were US puppets, described as "some of the most important figures from Iraq’s energy sector." Also attending were the waiting vultures, BP, Exxon, ConocoPhillips, Chevron, Lukoil, Statoil, Marathon Oil, Total, Shell, Kuwait National Petroleum, Annadarko, Schlumberger, ABB, ONGC, General Electric, Cummins Power, Mitsui, Aegis, ArmorGroup, Janussian, Control Risks Group, Unity, Hart, Olive Security, GardaWorld and Triple Canopy.

The history of the Iraq Oil law is sordid. An outstanding article by A.K. Gupta, The Great Iraq Heist, outlines the US imperial ownership of Iraq via Bush Executive orders, through his Arch-Deacon-of Hades, Paul Bremer.
Since March 2003, a series of executive orders by Bush, UN documents, and regulations and orders issued by Iraqi Proconsol Paul Bremer have put the U.S. in absolute control of the state of Iraq, its oil industry and monies, all while lifting barriers to repatriating profits . …
On the same day UN resolution 1483 passed, May 22, Bush signed Executive Order 13303 granting blanket immunity to any U.S. corporation dealing with Iraqi oil through 2007 . Researcher Jim Vallette, who stumbled across the order in the Federal Register, says it "unilaterally declares Iraqi oil to be the unassailable province of U.S. corporations.... In other words, if ExxonMobil or ChevronTexaco touch Iraqi oil, it will be immune from legal proceedings in the United States." …
So in a little more than two months the Bush administration staked claim to and received UN approval to every significant asset and resource Iraq has in the world, established sole power over how to spend Iraq’s oil money, and indemnifies its corporate cronies from liability.[...]
Sarah Meyer is a researcher living in the UK. She is on the BRussels Tribunal advisory committee.

in case you wonder still who he works for...
Top Iraq spokesman applauds Sadr
Ben Lando, UPI Energy Editor
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates, Sept. 4 (UPI) -- The Iraqi government's top spokesman applauded cleric Moqtada Sadr's call to calm his militia and urged all violence from any sect to stop.
Ali al-Dabbagh said on the sidelines of an Iraq oil conference the call from the leader of the Sadr Movement and Jaysh al-Mahdi militia is a "welcome" move by one of many sides blamed for fanning sectarian violence in Iraq.
"We welcome the declaration of Mr. Sadr, Mr. Moqtada. We feel this will lift any coverage for JAM to do anything," Dabbagh said at the Iraq Oil, Gas, Petrochemicals and Electricity summit, organized by the London-based Iraq Development Program.
The relationship between Sadr and the government has taken a rough turn. Once a supporter of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, Sadr has withdrawn Cabinet members and boycotted Parliament over complains Maliki, from a rival Shiite party, Dawa, isn't doing enough to stem Sunni violence. Rouge elements of Sadr's militia are blamed for some violence. Sadr, however, after the recent violence in the Holy City of Karbala, announced a six-month cease-fire. "And at the same time the government should take all the steps needed to implement the rule of the law on anyone, independent of where he is from," Dabbagh said. "This will give a great chance to the government to implement the rule of law on everyone, at the same time we do ask the others to have the same declaration and the most important thing to take the practical step to stop the threat to Iraqis and multinational forces."
Link: www.upi.com/International_Security/Emerging_Threats/Briefing/2007/09/04/...

B-52 flew nuclear bombs across US by mistake
A B-52 bomber flew the length of the United States mistakenly loaded with as
many as six nuclear armed cruise missiles, US military officials confirmed
today. The mix-up last week was only discovered after the aircraft landed at
Barksdale air force base in Louisiana after making the three and a half hour
journey from Minot Air Base in North Dakota.... up to six cruise
missiles loaded on to the plane were found to have nuclear warheads on them
by mistake. The incident was first reported by the Military Times newspaper, which said
the air launched cruise missiles can carry nuclear warheads of five to 150
kilotons, or 15 times the strength of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.
The aircraft was loaded with cruise missiles as part of a mission to
decommission 400 of the weapons.

U.S. Staging Nukes for Iran?
By Larry Johnson
09/06/07 " Booman Tribune" -- -Why the hubbub over a B-52 taking off from a B-52 base in Minot, North Dakota and subsequently landing at a B-52 base in Barksdale, Louisiana?... I called a old friend and retired B-52 pilot and asked him.... he...reminded me that the only times you put weapons on a plane is when they are on alert or if you are tasked to move the weapons to a specific site....
Barksdale Air Force Base is being used as a jumping off point for Middle East operations. ...
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18325.htm http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2007/9/5/171126/7241


all at: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/search/pisearch.asp?rank=date&matches=250&...
$10 million pilot program for Seattle port security
The Department of Homeland Security's Domestic Nuclear Detection Office has begun a three-year, $10 million pilot program in Puget Sound and, soon, the San Diego area, to attempt to head off nuclear or radiological threats.

Judge denies Hanford dismissal motion
YAKIMA, WA. -- A judge has denied the federal government's request to dismiss part of a lawsuit seeking an assessment of natural resource damages caused by decades of plutonium production at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation.

WA. State's plutonium going to South Carolina
The Energy Department plans to send plutonium in Washington state and at research laboratories in New Mexico and California to the Savannah River nuclear complex in South Carolina to improve security and reduce storage costs.

Depleted Uranium, Increased Risk:
Weapons the Department of Defense claims are harmless have serious and lasting effects.
... Gulf War veterans have been found to be more likely to develop cancers of the bone, skin, and liver than other veterans. Even more alarming, Iraqi doctors have reported up to a five-fold increase in cancer rates among populations living near sites contaminated by depleted uranium. DU also has an environmental impact, since its half-life is about 4.5 billion years. UN teams found traces of DU in Bosnia seven years after the war there, and Iraq has hundreds of radioactive sites left over from the first Gulf War. This persistent contamination puts DU in violation of the Geneva Conventions prohibition on weapons that "cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment." Given the evidence linking DU exposure with numerous health problems, it is shameful that the United States continues to field such weapons without further research on their human impact.... http://www.uruknet.de/?p=36013

Iran's nuclear program is lawful and in accordance with international rules and measures.

polls: propaganda to create, not reflect, 'public opinion'
US more eager than Europe for military strikes on Iran: survey :
The report suggested that 47 percent of Americans believe in reserving the option of military action against Iran if diplomatic talks over its nuclear program collapse. In Europe, the equivalent figure was just 18 percent, while 47 percent wanted military force against Tehran to be ruled out. http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070906/wl_mideast_afp/useueuropeiranpoll

Russian Leader Calls For Urgent Delivery Of Anti-aircraft Missile Systems To Iran :
Vice Chairman of Russia's Parliament Duma, Vladimir Zhirinovsky, has urged the fast delivery of the sophisticated S-400 anti-aircraft missile systems to Iran to enable the Middle Eastern country to defend its air space, http://tinyurl.com/2vdotb

French Leader Raises Possibility of Force in Iran :
In his first major foreign policy speech as president, Nicolas Sarkozy of France said Monday Iran could be attacked militarily if it did not live up to its international obligations to curb its nuclear program. http://tinyurl.com/yp8zag

February 2006
This briefing paper, written by our Global Security Consultant, Professor Paul Rogers, provides a comprehensive analysis of the likely nature of US or Israeli military action that would be intended to disable Iran's nuclear capabilities. It outlines both the immediate consequences in terms of loss of human life, facilities and infrastructure, and also the likely Iranian responses, which would be extensive.

Executive Summary 2
Introduction 3
The US Context 4
The Israel Factor 4
The Iranian Context 5
Current Circumstances in Iran 6
The Nature of US Military Action 7
Pre-empting Iranian Responses 8
Casualties 9
Iranian Responses 9
Wider Responses 11
Israeli Military Action 11
Conclusion 12

Executive Summary
An air attack on Iran by Israeli or US forces would be aimed at setting back Iran’s nuclear programme by at least five years. A ground offensive by the United States to terminate the regime is not feasible given other commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan, and would not be attempted. An air attack would involve the systematic destruction of research, development, support and training centres for nuclear and missile programmes and the killing of as many technically competent people as possible. A US attack, which would be larger than anything Israel could mount, would also involve comprehensive destruction of Iranian air defence capabilities and attacks designed to pre-empt Iranian retaliation. This would require destruction of Iranian Revolutionary Guard facilities close to Iraq and of regular or irregular naval forces that could disrupt Gulf oil transit routes.

Although US or Israeli attacks would severely damage Iranian nuclear and missile programmes, Iran would have many methods of responding in the months and years that followed. These would include disruption of Gulf oil production and exports, in spite of US attempts at pre-emption, systematic support for insurgents in Iraq, and encouragement to associates in Southern Lebanon to stage attacks on Israel. There would be considerable national unity in Iran in the face of military action by the United States or Israel, including a revitalised Revolutionary Guard.

One key response from Iran would be a determination to reconstruct a nuclear programme and develop it rapidly into a nuclear weapons capability, with this accompanied by withdrawal from the Non-Proliferation Treaty. This would require further attacks. A military operation against Iran would not, therefore, be a short-term matter but would set in motion a complex and long-lasting confrontation. It follows that military action should be firmly ruled out and alternative strategies developed.

In November 2002, four months before the Iraq War started, Oxford Research Group published a report, Iraq: Consequences of a War,1 that examined the possible outcomes of military action to terminate the Saddam Hussein regime. Two of its conclusions were that regime termination was certainly feasible but that the occupation of Iraq by coalition troops would increase support for radical elements in the region and also incite an insurgency. The United States has sufficient forces to ensure regime destruction but the regime’s replacement by occupying forces or by a client regime, even if the war is not greatly destructive, should be expected to increase regional opposition to the US presence. It is likely, in particular, to increase support for organisations such as al-Qaida and to prove counter-productive to peace and security in the region.


It is also possible that a paramilitary movement could develop from within Iraq. While there is abundant evidence of the unpopularity of the Saddam Hussein regime, it is certainly possible that internal opposition to US occupation and the subsequent installing of a client regime would result in an evolving insurgency. Internal opposition to the current regime does not equate with the future acceptance of foreign occupation....

US Context
Although major difficulties have arisen with US military operations in Iraq, there is still a dominant feeling in neo-conservative [ed. also among neoliberals as evident from protestations of democrat presidential candidates because entire U.S. ruling class is united on strategic necessity for U.S. global dominance under aegis of war of terror] circles in Washington that Iran is, and always has been, a much greater threat to US regional and global interests than Iraq was. A common view before the start of the Iraq War in March 2003 was that “if we get Iraq right, we won’t have to worry about Iran”. In other words, if military force proved easily able to terminate the Saddam Hussein regime and replace it with a stable client government supported by permanent US bases, then Iran would bow to US policy in the region, causing little trouble. The fact that Iraq was not “got right” and that there is considerable potential for Iranian influence in Iraq is one consequence of the decision to terminate the Saddam Hussein regime.

The perception of Iran as the major threat to US interests in the Middle East stems, in part, from the long-term consequences of seeing the apparently secure, authoritarian and pro-American regime of the Shah so easily deposed in a matter of weeks in 1979. The Shah’s Iran had been seen as the lynch-pin of US security interests in the Gulf – a bulwark against Soviet interference. The sudden regime collapse, followed by the traumatic impotence of the United States at the time of the hostage crisis and the subsequent and bitter antagonism to the US demonstrated by the Islamic Republic under Ayatollah Khomenei, meant that Iran was a direct and persistent obstacle to US regional interests. These were, and are, centered on the Gulf region’s immense oil reserves and the trend of the United States becoming increasingly dependent on imported oil. If the oil factor was important at the start of the 1990s, it is far more so 15 years later, with US oil import dependency increasing year by year, with China in a similar position, and with Gulf fossil fuel resources likely to make the region of profound geopolitical significance over the next thirty years or more. In such circumstances it is fundamentally unacceptable to the United States for a “rogue” state such as Iran to be allowed to get even remotely near having its own nuclear capability. Such a “deterrent” would greatly limit US options in the region, and would provide a threat to its closest ally – Israel. While Washington may not be implacably opposed to diplomatic options to ensure that Iran does not go down the path of a major nuclear infrastructure, if those fail, then it has to be recognised that destruction of the suspected nuclear weapons infrastructure and associated facilities is likely to be undertaken at some stage.

The Israel Factor
Israel has maintained a nuclear capability since the late 1960s and is believed to have around 200 nuclear warheads, principally for delivery by aircraft or surface-to-surface missiles. It may also be developing warheads for submarine-launched cruise missiles. Even so, Israel regards it as essential to its security that it is the only state in the region with a nuclear capability. Since the Iranian Revolution at the end of the 1970s, successive Israeli governments have regarded Iran as the greatest long-term regional threat.“A diplomatic solution to the profound differences between Washington and Tehran is still possible, but is becoming progressively less likely. As major difficulties persist and possibly intensify, the possibility of military action by the United States or Israel increases.”

Units of the Israeli Air Force destroyed the Iraqi experimental Osiraq reactor near Baghdad in 1981, limiting Iraq’s potential to take the plutonium route to nuclear weapons. Baghdad was within range of Israeli aircraft whereas the Iranian facilities were, until recently, at the limit of Israeli Air Force capability. That has now changed with the importing of long-range versions of the US F-15 and F-16 strike aircraft – the F-15I and the F-16I. 25 of the F-15I are currently in service and Israel is building up a force of 102 F-16I aircraft, deliveries having stared in 2003.2 The Israeli Air Force has also acquired 500 earth penetrating bombs from the United States for use against underground facilities.

Israeli military units have also been involved in a range of operations in Iraq, especially in the Kurdish north-east of the country where, among other activities, they have been training commando units. More generally, the normally close relationship between the US military and the Israeli Defence Force. (IDF) has been greatly strengthened in the past two years as a result of US experiences in Iraq. There has been a substantial exchange of experience, especially between the IDF and the US Army’s Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC).3 Israeli arms companies have also provided the US armed forces with a wide range of specialist counter-insurgency weaponry and equipment, much of it developed as a result of Israeli experience in controlling the occupied Palestinian territories. Although not commonly covered in the western media, this relationship is well known across the Middle East and would contribute to an assumption that any Israeli attack on Iran would be undertaken with the knowledge, approval and assistance of the United States. It is certainly the case that an Israeli air attack on Iran would involve flights through air space currently dominated by the United States.

For the purposes of this paper, it is assumed that if the IDF was to engage in actions to seriously damage Iran’s nuclear weapons developments, it would therefore do so with the tacit support of the United States, would have access to facilities in North-East Iraq if needed, would be aiming simply to set back any nuclear programme for five years or more, and would also target Iranian missile developments. It would not extend beyond these aims whereas US action would need to do so, for reasons discussed later.

The close links between Israel and the United States are far more widely recognised across the Middle East than in the US or Europe. As a result, any Israeli military action against Iran would be seen as essentially a joint operation, with Israel acting as a surrogate and doing so with direct US support.[...]

1996 A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm
Policy blueprint prepared for the incoming B. Netanyahu Israeli government by The U.S. Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies’ "Study Group on a New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000."

2007 Netanyahu: Israeli pullout means ceding land to Iran's extensions
During a special Knesset session Tuesday, opposition leader Benjamin Netanyahu warned that the establishment of a Palestinian state would increase Israel's vulnerability to rocket attacks.

as we are bombarded with propaganda about isreali kids 'terrified' by shelling near a school...
Palestinian Children And The Facts
Window Into Palestine
Since September 2000, approximately 883 Palestinian children have been killed in the Occupied Territories. The majority of these children were shot and killed by the Israeli military. However, Israeli settlers have also shot and killed Palestinian children. - 124 Palestinian children were killed in 2006, more than twice the number killed the previous year. From January–July 2007, 31 children were killed. The vast majority of child deaths in Palestine are caused by live ammunition shots to the head or chest, generally indicative of an Israeli "shoot to kill" policy. - On July 4th 2007 Israeli troops shot and killed a 15-year-old Palestinian boy in Hebron. Ahmad Abed Al-Muhsin Skafi was shot 4 times in his upper torso. Israeli troops then allowed a military dog to maul the boy’s dead body, tearing his intestines from his stomach and mutilating his right hand. - 20,000 Palestinian children have been injured since September 2000. Almost 1,500 of them sustained life-long disabilities...

Israel’s Terrorist Educational System
By Dr. Elias Akleh
September 7, 200
After 911 the major American media outlets were directed to attack and criticize Arab and Islamic educational systems to present them as Madrassas (schools in Arabic) breeding hate, prejudice, religious extremism, and violence. Barbara Walters from 20/20 program (ABC TV) traveled to Saudi Arabia to criticize Islamic schools. She selected some Qur’anic phrases out of context against the Jews, when at the time the Jews broke peace treaty and betrayed Moslems, and portrayed them as hate provoking and anti-Semitic. Saudis took her criticism with open mind promising to “modernize” their curriculum.
Due to political reasons critics, including Barbara Walters, had ignored to recognize all the good teachings Islamic schools are offering including acceptance of Judaic and Christian religions, tolerance to other cultures, moderation of behaviors, family values, compassion towards the poor, equality of rights, freedom and slave emancipation, and democracy (Islamic Shoura) among a long list of others.
Walters and others, on the other hand, did not dare even to look at the Israeli educational system and compare it with others. Such an examination would expose Israeli educational system as racist, chauvinist, elitist, intolerance, hate provoking, violent, militarized and terrorist system.

Zionist founders recognized that an Israeli state in the heart of the Arab World on usurped Palestinian land would never be accepted. To exist Israel needs to use brutal military force to impose itself. Thus the Israeli society needs to be a militarized society. David Ben Gurion, first Israeli president, expressed this fact by stating that “Israel is merely a militarized society”.

Militarization is reflected in every aspect of the Israeli life; starting in their families and moving on to their cities, their culture, their businesses, their institutions, their industries, their education, and even in their art and entertainment. Virtually every Israeli is a military personnel of one type or the other. Armed Israeli soldiers are found everywhere you go in any Israeli community; in the streets, in the markets, in stores, in restaurants, in buses, on trains, and in every place you could think of. Military and ex-military generals and personnel run every piece of the Israeli machinery.

To create such a militarized society, who lives and dies for war, people need to be militarily indoctrinated since childhood, and what a better way of indoctrinating and programming the young than within their educational system when their minds are still pliable and moldable. The Israeli scholar and reporter “Erna Kazin” noted that the Israeli scholastic curriculums are designed to raise students, since childhood, within a militarized atmosphere glorifying the military in order to prepare students to become soldiers in the Israeli army. Military service in Israel is considered the highest religious duty that every Israeli citizen aspires to.

The first lesson an Israeli child learns is the most racist, chauvinist, prejudiced, religiously extremist, homo-phobic lesson of the persecuted (prejudice) God’s chosen people in God’s Promised Land. The Israeli child discovers that he has the Jewish divine birth right of being God’s chosen, and that this divine privilege comes with the envy, the anti-Semitic hatred, and the persecution the others (the Goyim; other people) inflicted on him. He learns that these Goyims are mere animal souls incarnated in human bodies for the service and pleasure of the God’s chosen people. He also learns that his God’s Promised Land had been stolen by heathen thieves (Arabs and Moslems) and it is his religious duty to follow God’s wish of cleansing that Promised Land from these heathens and building a house for God.

The Israeli scholastic books are written with extreme militarized Zionist ideology with a deep color of distorted religiosity. The Israeli researcher “Eli Bodia”, at Haifa University, conducted a study of the Israeli scholastic historical curriculum called “Israeli Struggle in the Hebrew Scholastic History Books”. “Bodia” concluded that the curriculum perpetuates the Israeli Arab conflict, and had been a contributing obstacle to any real peace treaty with Palestinians. He described the curriculum as deeply distorted by extreme Zionist ideology. It breeds hatred against Arabs generally and Palestinian specifically by stripping them from their humanity and describing them as savages, violent, terrorist, retarded, criminal, dirty, and animalistic. The Israeli scholar “Sigrid Lehman” stated: “We, the Jews, are inclined to perceive an Arab as Goyim, as Europeans we perceive him as an Asian enemy against our national aspirations, and as socialists we perceive him as a representative to the worst type of retardation”

The Israeli social and religious curriculums on the other hand are also full with extreme religious prejudice and social elitism over all the goyim. Religious books are full with stories of ancient Jewish prophets, who on their murdering god’s orders, sent the Jews to commit crimes against the goyim, sparing none and murdering all; infants and old on both sexes, to commit crimes against farm animals; slaying all the flocks, and to commit crimes against environment; burning cities, cutting down fruit trees and burning crops. The story of prophet Samuel and king Saul is just one example of many in the Old Testament and the Talmud. At times this murdering god joins in the war and cast down hailstones and fire on Israel’s enemies. Thus Israeli students learn that murdering goyims and destroying their cities are not just sanctioned by god but they are religious duties.

God is still talking to Israeli Rabbis to direct Israel in its war against the Arabs. Israeli Rabbis publish religious decrees sanctifying Israelis’ aggression against Palestinians. Rabbi “Murdachai Eliahu”, Israel’s previous Chief Rabbi, published religious decrees calling for genocide of all Palestinians as a religious duty. Rabbi “Eleazar Malmid” published religious decrees encouraging Israelis to steal and burn Palestinian crops, to kill their farm animals, and to poison their water wells. Such crimes have become nightly adventurous passing time for Israeli youth from Israeli colonies against their neighboring Palestinian farming towns. The extremist religious decrees were published by Israeli Chief Spiritual Leader Rabbi “Yosef ‘Obadia”, who described the Palestinians as critters and cockroaches to be stepped on. He also preaches that the coming Messiah will shove all heathen Arabs in hell. In September 2005 prominent Israeli Rabbis, led by Rabbi “Dov Lenor”, sent a religious decree to then Israeli Prime Minister “Ariel Sharon” permitting him to target Palestinian civilians, citing ancient Israeli kings such as Saul and David, who were directed by god to target all goyims without exception; children as well as adults.

These religious decrees become laws and are taught in Israeli schools side by side with other religious books that glorify Israeli war criminals describing them as saints for killing Palestinian goyims, such as the book “Baruch, the Hero” written by Rabbi “Izhak Genzburg”. The book glorifies the terrorist “Baruch Goldstein”, who in 1994 murdered 29 Palestinians and wounded many others while kneeling in prayer in the Ibrahimi Mosque in Hebron before being killed by other prayers. “Baruch” was called a saint for his crime. He was buried in Israeli colony of “Kiryat Arba’” and his grave became a pilgrimage to extreme religious Israelis.

The militarization of the Israeli educational system has three major characteristics:

First: the system glorifies military power and war as a way of Israeli life, and reinforces the concept of might is right. Military service is the ultimate religious service that god asks from the Israelis. This warring god commands the Israelis to cleanse his promised land from all Arab goyims and to build him a temple. It seems that this god wants humans to wage his own war, and wants to leave his vast universe to live in a tiny earthly temple. To indoctrinate (brainwash) the new generations with the military spirit the schools organize school field trips to military bases, where students can be exposed to military life, to get familiar with all kinds of weapons, to take pictures with soldiers, and to attend live ammunition training. They are also encouraged to put their signatures on bombs to be dropped on Arab neighborhoods as was broadcasted during Israeli attack on Lebanon in summer 2006. As school assignment the students write letters and greeting cards to soldiers thanking them for killing the enemies of god’s chosen people. Military generals and soldiers regularly visit schools to give speeches about the war, about the undefeated Israeli army due to god’s help, and about the atrocities of war to desensitize the students.

Second: the most prominent characteristic of the Israeli schools is its militarized color, where military personnel are entrusted with the management of educational institutions and the teaching of students. A general standing in front of students demands serious attention and is an example to follow. The Israeli Ministry of Education had adopted a training program called “Tsafta” to qualify ex-military and ex-intelligence officers and generals to become teachers and school headmasters. The director of this program, “Motti Saji” explained that the goal of the program is not to find qualified professional teachers but military leaders with special skills. After “Limor Lifnat” from Likud party became the Educational Minister in 2000 the extreme military right was able to occupy the higher positions in the ministry, thus making the educational system even more militarized.

Third: the establishment of religious military institutions, known as “Yishovot Hahsadir”, that combine religious and military extremism. These institutions are run by Rabbis, where Israeli high school graduates are subjected to racist Zionist religious teachings as well as military training. Although the military finance these institutions it has no control over it. These institutions exist mainly in colonies on the usurped Palestinian land and in occupied Jerusalem. Their religious curriculum is based on extreme Zionist religious decrees that are filled with prejudice and hatred towards the goyims especially Arabs. The Rabbi teachers of these institutions are known for their attacks on Arabs and their criticism and opposition to any peace treaty with them. Rabbi “Eli Elbaz”, a prominent Eastern Rabbi, is known for his overt aggressive attacks on Islam and its prophet Muhammad. Rabbi “Eliahu Reskin”, from “Efrat” colony built on usurped land from city of Bethlehem, mocks all attempts of interfaith dialogue between Jewish Rabbis on one side and Christian priest and Moslem Sheikhs from Arab World on the other hand. He preaches that the only language the Arabs understand is the “language of bullets”.

These Zionist religious military institutions threaten not only the Arabs but peace in the Middle East generally and the Israeli state itself specifically. Many observers, including Israeli military generals, believe that these institutions are preparing for the overthrow of the secular Israeli government and turning it into a Zionist religious one. A study done by Israeli Bar-Ilan University at Ramat Gan had found that 99% of students in these religious military institutions, and that 90% or Orthodox religious Israelis would ignore the secular Israeli laws and follow their Rabbi’s religious decrees when and if these two contradict each other. These findings were confirmed by an opinion poll done by “Hertzlia Center” in 2006 indicating that 95% of the religious Israeli soldiers and generals see themselves following religious decrees rather than secular laws when they contradict. This was apparent in 2004 while late Prime Minister “Ariel Sharon” implemented the “Disengagement Plan” by withdrawing Israeli colonies from Gaza Strip. The prominent Rabbi “Abraham Shapiro” called on his students and followers to desert the Israeli army if the plan is implemented, while Rabbi “Haim Druckman” called on his students and followers to open fire on the Israeli security forces if they try to implement the plan by force.

These are just few facts about the terrorist Israeli educational system. I invite concerned reporters, such as Barbara Walters, to further investigate this matter, and to do a fair comparison between Arab and Israeli educational systems.

"China threatens 'nuclear option' of dollar sales"
By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard
The Chinese government has begun a concerted campaign of economic threats [SIC] against the United States, hinting that it may liquidate its vast holding of US treasuries if Washington imposes trade sanctions to force a yuan revaluation... Beijing may use its $1.33 trillion (£658bn) of foreign reserves as a political weapon to counter pressure from the US Congress... such action could trigger a dollar crash at a time when the US currency is already breaking down through historic support levels. It would also cause a spike in US bond yields, hammering the US housing market and perhaps tipping the economy into recession. It is estimated that China holds over $900bn in a mix of US bonds.
Xia Bin, finance chief at the Development Research Centre (which has cabinet rank), kicked off what now appears to be government policy with a comment last week that Beijing's foreign reserves should be used as a "bargaining chip" in talks with the US. "Of course, China doesn't want any undesirable phenomenon in the global financial order," he added.
# Blog - Dollar to collapse?

Is China quietly dumping US Treasuries?
By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard
A sharp drop in foreign holdings of US Treasury bonds over the last five weeks has raised concerns that China is quietly withdrawing its funds from the United States, leaving the dollar increasingly vulnerable.
# China threatens `nuclear option' of dollar sales
Data released by the New York Federal Reserve shows that foreign central banks have cut their stash of US Treasuries by $48bn since late July, with falls of $32bn in the last two weeks alone.... Mr Powell said the switch out of Treasuires was a purely commercial decision. "If if turns out that the Chinese are behind this, it is merely an attempt to increase returns on investment. It has nothing to do with settling protectionist scores," he said.
Any evidence that China was pulling out would risk setting off an unstoppable stampede, which is why such a policy would never be announced. It holds the world's biggest pool of resrves, followed by Japan. "We won't know if China is behind this until the Treasury releases its TIC data in November, but what it does show is that world central banks are in a hurry to get out of the US....

North American Integration and the Militarization of the Arctic
by Michel Chossudovsky
The Battle for the Arctic is part of a global military agenda of conquest and territorial control. It has been described as a New Cold War between Russia and America. Washington's objective is to secure territorial control, on behalf of the Anglo-American oil giants, over extensive Arctic oil and natural gas reserves. The Arctic region could hold up to 25% of the World's oil and gas reserves, according to some estimates. (Moscow Times, 3 August 2007). These estimates are corroborated by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS): "he real possibility exists that you could have another world class petroleum province like the North Sea." (quoted by CNNMoney.com, 25 October 2006)

From Washington's perspective, the battle for the Arctic is part of broader global military agenda. It is intimately related to the process of North American integration under the Security and Prosperity Partnership Agreement (SPP) and the proposed North American Union (NAU). The SPP envisages, under the auspices of a proposed "multiservice [North American] Defense Command", the militarization of a vast territory extending from the Caribbean basin to the Canadian Arctic.

It also bears a relationship to America's hegemonic objectives in different parts of the World including the Middle East. The underlying economic objective of US military operations is the conquest, privatization and appropriation of the World's reserves of fossil fuel. The Arctic is no exception. The Arctic is an integral part of the "Battle for Oil". It is one of the remaining frontiers of untapped energy reserves.
The Arctic nations (with territories North of the Arctic circle) are Russia, Canada, Denmark, the US, Norway, Sweden, Finland and Iceland. The first three countries (Russia, Canada and Denmark) possess significant territories extending northwards of the Arctic circle. (see Map).... Washington's Arctic strategy is tied into a broader process of militarization and territorial integration. [...]

Big Brother USA: Surveillance Via "Tagging, Tracking, and Locating"
The Militarization of U.S. Public Service Agencies
Laurel Federbush, Global Research

According to the 2005 Strategy for Homeland Defense and Civil Support, "the terrorist enemy now considers the US homeland a preeminent part of the global theater of combat, and so must we."

The program of "defense transformation," initiated by former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, included, among other things, two particular concepts: "persistent surveillance" and the need to "deny the enemy sanctuary." In military thinking, these concepts give rise to the need for constant monitoring of individuals suspected of being terrorists.

There is a special term for that: "Tagging, Tracking, and Locating." The Defense Science Board’s 2004 Summer Study entitled Transition To and From Hostilities has a whole chapter on this, called "Identification, Location, and Tracking in Asymmetric Warfare." "Asymmetric warfare," incidentally, refers to war not against other countries but against unconventional enemies, such as "terrorists." According to the first paragraph of the Study: "U.S. military forces currently have a superb capability for finding and tracking conventional war targets, such as weapons and military facilities. However, these intelligence assets have a poor capability for finding, identifying, and tracking unconventional war targets, such as individuals and insurgent or terrorist groups that operate by blending in with the larger society."

The study suggests: "Tagging individuals and material can provide a powerful new tool for locating these modern threats. A tag is defined as something that is attached to the item to be located and/or tracked, which increases its ability to be detected or its probability of identification by a surveillance system suitably tuned to the tag. Tags can be either active (such as radio-emitting tags) or passive (such as radio frequency identification [RFID] tags)." It also says: "The technologies for tagging and associated surveillance represent a very important area for research and technology development." The report goes so far as to recommend a "Manhattan Project"-like focus on tagging, tracking, and locating. (The Manhattan Project was the effort during World War Two to develop the first nuclear weapons.)

One organization working on tagging, tracking, and locating technologies is the Technical Support Working Group. The Technical Support Working Group, or TSWG, is funded by the Department of Defense and the Department of State, and has many divisions, all of which do research in counterterrorism technology. One of these divisions is the Surveillance, Collection, and Operations Support Subgroup. This Subgroup includes the National Security Agency, the Secret Service, the FBI, the Special Operations Command, the Defense Intelligence Agency, and the National Reconnaissance Office. One of its projects is Tagging, Tracking, and Locating, which is sometimes referred to as "TTL." The Secret Service, in fact, has been specifically charged by the Department of Homeland Security with spearheading the use of TTL. The subgroup also works on special sensor technologies–sensors being frequently associated with target tracking and other military surveillance applications. According to this subgroup’s own literature, its programs are "classified or highly sensitive. Program requirements, the success of programs, and specific program capabilities cannot be discussed in an open document."

One of TSWG’s member entities, the Special Operations Command (SOCOM), has been given power, under the Bush administration, to engage in counterterrorism actions all over the world. SOCOM is allowed to operate within the United States under certain circumstances. According to the SOCOM 2002 Report Layout, the Special Operations Command "is more heavily involved in Homeland Defense taskings than originally had been expected, with no let-up in sight." [...]

American Inquisition: Video:
Interviews with journalists, psychologists and legal scholars attempt to peel away the layers of denial and secrecy that obscure the truth about a practice that is widespread, illegal, and ongoing.

U.S. Deports Parents of Dead Soldiers:
One tenth of the U.S. soldiers who have died in Iraq have been immigrants. But not all of their parents have qualified for green cards.