Welcome to The Truth News.Info
'IF AMERICANS KNEW' MADE THE ADL’S ANTI-ISRAEL LIST!
(From Michael,news contributor)
October 23, 2010Debbie Menon
We are pleased that the ADL has noticed that If Americans Knew is influencing the debate on Israel Alison Weir, Executive Director The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) recently released a report on the top 10 “anti-Israel” organizations affecting the mainstream discourse in the United States. We are pleased to announce that If Americans Knew is in this elite group of principled organizations. Despite its alleged mission “to secure justice and fair treatment to all” the ADL (sometimes pointedly referred to as “the Arab Defamation League”) has a record of supporting Israel’s most egregious human rights violations and extremist leaders and of attacking anyone who speaks up on behalf of Palestinian rights. It recently joined the bigots who opposed the building of a New York Muslim Community Center and has a history of illegal spying against American citizens. We are pleased that the ADL has noticed that If Americans Knew is influencing the debate on Israel, that our materials are widely circulated, and that Alison Weir is a frequent speaker at campuses and elsewhere around the country. And we are proud to be in such good company. Alison has long been on the ADL’s list of the top five individuals in the country opposing Israeli injustice, the only non-Arab/Muslim on the list. Your work and donations are the reason that we are able to have such a sizable impact — and your continued efforts will allow us to do even more. Please consider making a donation, ordering materials, or taking another action today! As the ADL acknowledges in its report, the paradigm is shifting — more and more Americans are paying attention, receptive to factual information, and willing to work for justice. Please help us continue to help build this powerful movement for justice. (As you know, criticism of Israel does not constitute anti-Semitism. While our organization is focused on Israel-Palestine, we oppose injustice and discrimination wherever it is found and whoever the perpetrator. Unfortunately, this does not appear to be the case for the ADL.) Read More from Alison Weir: If Americans Knew What Israel Is Doing! Ethan Bronner’s Conflict With Impartiality US Media and Israeli Military: All in the Family As Israel kills and maims, Outrage is directed at Helen Thomas Alison Weir: The NYT and Israel’s Flotilla “Inquiry” PHILIP GIRALDI & RAY MCGOVERN CALL ON PRESIDENT TO PREEMPT ISRAELI ATTACK ON IRAN ////////////////////////////////
(Info from Al, news contributor)
/////////////////////////////
Tuesday, October 19, 2010 by: David Gutierrez
(NaturalNews) Eighty-five percent of beverages marketed to children contain levels of lead high enough to require a warning under
California's Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, popularly known as Prop. 65. ///////////////////////////////////
(From Zen, news contributor)
by Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett
When Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad traveled to Lebanon last week, attracting huge crowds and what seemed like an overwhelmingly positive public response,
many Western analysts dismissed the trip as a kind of cheap political trick, meant to distract attention from Ahmadinejad's allegedly unpopular standing at home. But,
after returning from Lebanon, Ahmadinejad made a trip to Ardabil, one of Iran's three Azeri-majority provinces. One of our readers
provided a link to photos of the crowds that greeted
Ahmadinejad in the provincial capital (also called Ardabil), which we very much appreciated. That Ahmadinejad could attract this sort of popular response in Ardabil is particularly noteworthy. According to the official
results of the Islamic Republic's June 12, 2009 presidential election, Ahmadinejad won a majority of the votes cast in two of Iran's
Azeri-majority provinces, Ardabil and East Azerbaijan. His chief opponent in the election, Mir-Hossein Mousavi, won the majority of the
votes cast in the third, West Azerbaijan. Many Western critics of the election pointed to these outcomes as clear evidence of fraud.
How could Ahmadinejad have won two of the three Azeri-majority provinces against Mousavi, who is ethnically Azeri? Among the more
absurd observations that Karim Sadjadpour has made about Iranian politics during the past year and a half was his observation that this was
about as plausible as John McCain winning the African-American vote in his 2008 presidential contest against Barack Obama. But that kind of fact-free analysis ignores Ahmadinejad's long, personal history in Iran's Azeri-majority regions. Ahmadinejad was a
provincial official in West Azerbaijan early in his career and served as governor of Ardabil during 1993-1997. In the second round of
the Islamic Republic's 2005 presidential election, a run-off contest between Ahmadinejad and former President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani,
Ahmadinejad won substantial majorities of the votes cast in all three Azeri-majority provinces. In 2009, Ahmadinejad's margin of
victory in Ardabil and East Azerbaijan was smaller than in 2005, and he narrowly lost the popular vote in West Azerbaijan (Ahmadinejad's
percentage of the vote there was roughly 47 percent). Thus, the official results indicate that Mousavi attracted a higher percentage of the vote in Azeri-majority areas (and also in
Baluchistan) than he did across the country as a whole. But the results also indicate that Ahmadinejad retained a significant level of
popular support in Azeri-majority areas. The reception he received in Ardabil a few days ago would seem to confirm that reading.
By arguing that Ahmadinejad has a substantial base of genuine popular support we do not mean to imply that he does not face opposition.
We judge Ahmadinejad to be, in his political context, a uniquely effective populist leader. But he is also a deeply polarizing
figure. That part of the Iranian body politic which dislikes Ahmadinejad seems really to dislike him. Nevertheless, the
available evidence indicates that popular support for Ahmadinejad is greater than dedicated opposition to him. And, of course, the vast
majority of those who might be counted among Ahmadinejad's political opponents have no interest in undermining the Islamic Republic's
fundamental integrity and stability. Unfortunately, Western media coverage of/commentary about Iranian politics seems unable, for the most part, to take account of inputs from
sources outside of north Tehran and expatriate supporters of the Green Movement. As part of our work on www.RaceForIran.com over the past year, we have tried to highlight instances where
high-profile Western media outlets seemed to abandon normal standards of journalistic rigor and perhaps even integrity in their coverage of
Iranian issues. For example, we critiqued a number of stories by Nazila Fathi of the New York Times along these lines (see here and here). In our critique, we identified specific
instances in which Ms. Fathi sought to pass off un-sourced assertions as factual claims. In other instances, Ms. Fathi sourced apparent
claims of fact only to opposition or other anti-Islamic Republic websites, but without identifying those sources as such. In one
instance, we even found that Ms. Fathi's link to a particular website did not substantiate the claim for which she was using it as a source.
And, in an especially egregious lapse, Ms. Fathi neglected to inform her readers that the "Kurdish rebel group" to which five
Kurdish activists executed in Iran had belonged -- PJAK -- had been formally designated by the Obama Administration as a terrorist organization. (The five Kurdish activists were
executed as a consequence of having been convicted of criminal charges stemming from their alleged participation in lethal terrorist attacks
inside Iran.) After we wrote about these agenda-driven lapses in journalistic professionalism, we noticed more of an effort to have Ms.
Fathi's stories source particular points in a more credible, or at least transparent, way. Then, we noticed that the New York
Times was no longer running her "reporting" on Iran from her outpost in Toronto and we thought that might represent a real
step towards accountability. But, instead, she has been rewarded for her past performance with the opportunity to spend the 2010-2011
academic year at Harvard University as a Nieman Fellow. But the problem, of course, goes well beyond one journalist at one newspaper. That was affirmed for us by a story this week by the Christian Science Monitor's Scott Peterson. Scott Peterson's coverage of Iranian
politics over the last year and a half has regularly exhibited deficiencies in adherence to normal standards of journalistic professionalism
similar to those observed in Ms. Fathi's work, prompted by a similarly "pro-Green" outlook. Just last week, Peterson offered
his own take on Ahmadinejad's Lebanese trip, entitled, "Ahmadinejad Visit to Lebanon Brings Little Rapture Back Home." In his article this week, about the visit
of the Islamic Republic's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to Qom, Mr. Peterson ignores the crowds that turned out to support Khamenei
(for video of the mass crowds in Qom for Khamenei, see below) and focuses instead on a sourcesless claim that "Iran's senior clerics
were divided by the June 12, 2009, presidential vote, in which Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was anointed president for a second term amid credible
charges of fraud." Perhaps we should count it as progress of a sort -- and possibly even a marginal indicator of our impact -- that Mr. Peterson now depicts
assertions that the June 2009 election was fraudulent as "credible charges of fraud." But Mr. Peterson offers absolutely no
substantiation for this depiction. What are the charges of fraud? Who made these "credible charges of fraud"? And
what, exactly, made their charges credible? For those who care about objective assessments of the available evidence, there is no better place to look than two papers written by
regular readers of www.RaceForIran.com: Eric Brill (see here); and Reza Esfandiari and Yousef Bozorgmehr (see here). Unless one can refute the
analyses presented in these two papers, then there are no "credible charges of fraud" regarding the June 2009 presidential
election. There is only agenda-driven assertion. Regrettably, agenda-driven "journalism" continues to distort discussions of Iran-related issues in the United States and other
Western countries, helping perpetuate dysfunctional policies toward the Islamic Republic which should have been discredited and discarded
long ago. ////////////////////////////////////
///////////////////////////////////////
( videos from Zen, news contributor)
9/11 Incontrovertible Proof the Government is Lying
///////////////////////////// Is Leading 9/11 Truth Site Working For The Other Side?The ongoing censorship and libel of Citizen Investigation Team by 911blogger has been closely examined by the staff of the "fiercely independent" newspaper The Rock Creek Free Press (RCFP) in a new article titled "Is Leading 9/11 Truth Site Working For The Other Side?". Read the full report here Read my Sept 2010 report here ////////////////////////////// Piers Brendon: Will China seek revenge for its century of humiliation at the hands of the West?National Interest (10-20-10) [Piers Brendon is a fellow of Churchill College, Cambridge University. His most recent book is The Decline and Fall of the
British Empire 1781?1997.] /////////////////////////////// Your Social SecurityJust in case some of you young whippersnappers (& some older ones) didn't know this. It's easy to check out, if you don't believe it. Be sure and show it to your kids. They need a little history lesson on what's what and it doesn't matter whether you are Democrat or Republican. Facts are Facts!!!Social Security Cards up until the 1980s expressly stated the number and card were not to be used for identification purposes. Since nearly everyone in the United States now has a number, it became convenient to use it anyway and the message was removed.[9] An old Social Security card with the "NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION" message. Our Social Security
Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised: 1.) That participation in the Program would be Completely voluntary, No longer Voluntary 2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the Program, Now 7.65% on the first $90,000 3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year, No longer tax deductible 4.) That the money the participants put into the independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the general operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and, Under Johnson the money was moved to The General Fund and Spent 5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income. Under Clinton & Gore Up to 85% of your Social Security can be Taxed Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to 'put away' -- you may be interested in the following: ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---- Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it? A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically controlled House and Senate. ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -- Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding? A: The Democratic Party. ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ----- Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities? A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the 'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the US ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- - Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants? AND MY FAVORITE: A: That's right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it! ------------ -- ------------ --------- ----- ------------ --------- --------- Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away! And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it! If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of awareness will be planted and maybe changes will evolve. Maybe not, some Democrats are awfully sure of what isn't so. But it's worth a try. How many people can YOU send this to? Actions speak louder than bumper stickers. AND CONGRESS GIVES THEMSELVES 100% RETIREMENT FOR ONLY SERVING ONE TERM!!! /////////////////////////////// Southeast Asia: West Completes Plans For Asian NATOOctober 21, 2010 Stop NATO In keeping with the global trend manifested in other strategically vital areas of the world,
the United States and its allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization – a consortium of all major Western military (including
nuclear) powers and former colonial empires – are increasing their military presence in Southeast Asia with special emphasis on the
geopolitically critical Strait of Malacca. The latter is one of the world’s most important shipping lanes and major strategic chokepoints. In an opinion piece The Times of London granted to George Robertson and Paddy Ashdown – the first a former NATO secretary general
and current Baron Robertson of Port Ellen, the other a past intelligence officer and the West’s viceroy in Bosnia at the beginning of
the decade who nearly reprised the role in Afghanistan two years ago – in June of 2008 which in part rued the fact that “For the
first time in more than 200 years we are moving into a world not wholly dominated by the West.” [1] In fact for the first time in half a millennium the founding members of NATO in Europe and North America are confronted with a planet not
largely or entirely under their control. With the elimination of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and its network of allies around the world a generation ago, the prospect
of the West reestablishing uncontested worldwide domination appeared a more viable option than it had at any time since the First World War.
Much as the British Empire had done earlier in positioning its navy and its military outposts overlooking maritime access points to
monitor and control vital shipping lanes and to block adversaries’ transit of military personnel and materiel, the West now
collectively envisions regaining lost advantages and gaining new ones in areas of the world previously inaccessible to its military
penetration. Southeast Asia is one such case. Divided during the colonial epoch between Britain, France, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain (with the
U.S. supplanting the last-named in the Philippines in 1898), it has a combined population of approximately 600 million, two-thirds that of
the Western Hemisphere and almost three-quarters that of Europe. The Strait of Malacca runs for 600 miles between Thailand, Malaysia and Singapore to the east and the Indonesian island of Sumatra to the
west. According to the United Nations International Maritime Organization, at least 50,000 ships pass through the strait annually,
transporting 30 percent of the goods traded in the world including oil from the Persian Gulf to major East Asian nations like China, Japan
and South Korea. As many as 20 million barrels of oil a day pass through the Strait of Malacca, an amount that will only increase with the
further advance of the Asian Century. When the U.S. went to war against Iraq in 1991, notwithstanding claims concerning Kuwait’s territorial integrity and fictitious
accusations of infants being torn from incubators in the country’s capital, one of the major objectives was to demonstrate to a new
unipolar world that Washington had its hand on the global oil spigot. That it controlled the flow of Persian Gulf oil north and west to
Europe and east to Asia, especially to the four nations that import the most oil next to the United States: Japan, China, South Korea and
India. The first three receive Persian Gulf oil primarily by tankers passing through the Strait of Malacca. The U.S. Department of Energy has provided a comprehensive yet concise blueprint for the Pentagon to act on: “Chokepoints are narrow channels along widely used global sea routes. They are a critical part of global energy security due to the
high volume of oil traded through their narrow straits. The Strait of Hormuz leading out of the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Malacca
linking the Indian and Pacific Oceans are two of the world’s most strategic chokepoints. Other important passages include: Bab el-Mandab
which connects the Arabian Sea with the Red Sea; the Panama Canal and the Panama Pipeline connecting the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans; the
Suez Canal and the Sumed Pipeline linking the Red Sea and Mediterranean Sea; and the Turkish/Bosporus Straits joining the Black Sea and the
Caspian Sea region to the Mediterranean Sea.” [2] The U.S. has moved its military into the Black Sea and Central Asia as well as into the Persian Gulf, and two years ago the Pentagon
inaugurated U.S. Africa Command primarily to secure oil supplies and transport in Africa’s Gulf of Guinea and in the Horn of Africa.
The Strait of Malacca is the main channel connecting the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Ocean. On its southeastern end it flows into the
South China Sea where the natural resource-rich Paracel and Spratly island groups are contested between China on the one hand and several
members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) on the other. The Spratly Islands are claimed in part by ASEAN member states
Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines and Vietnam as well as Taiwan. The Paracel Islands were seized by China in a naval battle with South
Vietnam in 1974. The U.S. deployed the USS George Washington nuclear-powered supercarrier and the USS John S. McCain destroyer to the South China Sea in
August for the first joint military exercise ever conducted by the U.S. and (unified) Vietnam, three weeks after Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton said while attending the ASEAN foreign ministers’ meeting in the Vietnamese capital that “The United States…has a
national interest in freedom of navigation, open access to Asia’s maritime commons, and respect for international law in the South
China Sea,” adding “The United States is a Pacific nation, and we are committed to being an active partner with ASEAN.”
Clinton’s trip to Hanoi was preceded by visits to the capitals of Pakistan, Afghanistan and South Korea, all three Asian nations
solidly in the U.S. military orbit. While in the last country she traveled to the Demilitarized Zone separating South from North Korea with
Pentagon chief Robert Gates, in the first such joint visit by U.S. Secretaries of State and Defense, to commemorate the 60th anniversary of
the start of the Korean War (which led to war with China within three months). Four days after Clinton left Seoul the U.S. launched the Invincible Spirit joint war games in the East Sea/Sea of Japan with South Korea,
the following month the latest of annual Ulchi Freedom Guardian military exercises with 30,000 American and 56,000 South Korean troops, and
in September anti-submarine drills in the Yellow Sea. [3] Reflecting on Clinton’s statements at July’s ASEAN summit, Malaysian-based journalist and analyst Kazi Mahmoud wrote: “Washington is using the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) regional group for a bigger military purpose and this
strategy is becoming clear to observers due to the U.S. push for greater influence in Asia. By reaching out to nations like Vietnam, Laos and even Myanmar (Burma) as it has lately – ASEAN consists of Indonesia, Malaysia, the
Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Brunei, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar and Vietnam – “The United States is fomenting a long-term
strategy to contain both China and Russia in Southeast Asia….Before the Afghan war, the Americans could count on Thailand, Singapore,
Malaysia and Indonesia along with Brunei in the region. Today the U.S. has Vietnam and Cambodia on its side.” (In July U.S. Pacific
Command and U.S. Army Pacific led the Angkor Sentinel 2010 multinational exercises in Cambodia.) Furthermore, Washington’s recruitment of ASEAN nations, initially over territorial disputes with China, will lead to
“turn[ing] ASEAN into a…military corps to fight for American causes in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen and surely Georgia and North
Korea….Once the U.S. has achieved such goals, it will control the Malacca Straits and the seaways of the region.” [4] Non-ASEAN nations Taiwan, with which the U.S. formalized a $6.4 billion arms deal earlier this year [5], is involved in a Spratly Islands
territorial dispute with China and Japan is at loggerheads with China over what it calls the Senkaku Islands and China the Diaoyu Islands in
the East China Sea. On October 11 U.S. Defense Secretary Gates met with Japanese Defense Minister Toshimi Kitazawa at the ASEAN defense ministers’
meeting in Hanoi, and the “defense chiefs agreed in their talks…that their countries will jointly respond in line with a
bilateral security pact toward stability in areas in the East China Sea covering the Senkaku Islands that came into the spotlight in disputes
between Japan and China….” [6] The pact in question is the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between Japan and the United States signed in 1960, comparable to
mutual military assistance arrangements the Pentagon has with Australia, the Philippines, Singapore, South Korea and Thailand in the
Asia-Pacific region. “It is also developing a strong strategic relationship with Vietnam, of all places. It is also working hard on
Indonesia and Malaysia, both of which have indicated they want to get closer to Washington.” [7] During the Shangri-La Dialogue defense ministers’ meeting in Singapore this June Gates stated: “My government’s
overriding obligation to allies, partners and the region is to reaffirm America’s security commitments in the region.” [8] Singapore and, since July, Malaysia are official Troop Contributing Countries for NATO’s war in Afghanistan. In June Malaysia and
Thailand joined this year’s version of the annual U.S.-led Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) naval exercises, the largest in the world (with
20,000 troops, 34 ships, five submarines and over 100 aircraft this year), hosted by the U.S. Pacific Fleet in Hawaii. RIMPAC 2010 marked the
two Southeast Asian nations’ first participation in the war games. Other nations involved were the U.S., Australia, Canada, Chile,
Colombia, France, Indonesia, Japan, the Netherlands, Peru, Singapore and South Korea. In addition to occupying Afghanistan with 152,000 U.S. and NATO troops, building an Afghan army and air force under the West’s
command, and integrating Pakistan in joint commissions with the U.S. and NATO [9], Washington is also consolidating a strategic military
partnership with India. Last October the U.S. Army participated in the latest and largest of Yudh Abhyas (training for war) war games held
since 2004 with its Indian counterpart. Exercise Yudh Abhyas 2009 featured 1,000 troops, the U.S.’s Javelin anti-tank missile system and the
first deployment of American Stryker armored combat vehicles outside the Afghan and Iraqi war theaters. [10] The U.S. has also been holding annual naval exercises codenamed Malabar with the world’s second most populous country and in the
past four years has broadened them into a multinational format with the inclusion of Canada, Australia, Japan and Singapore. Malabar 2007 was conducted in the Bay of Bengal, immediately north of the Strait of Malacca, and included 25 warships from five nations:
The U.S., India, Australia, Japan and Singapore. This September 28 India and Japan held their first army-to-army talks in New Delhi which “aimed at reviewing the present status of
engagements, military cooperation and military security issues….” Japan thus became the ninth country with which the Indian Army
has a bilateral dialogue, joining the U.S., Britain, France, Australia, Bangladesh, Israel, Malaysia and Singapore. At the same time the
Indian Chief of Air Staff, Air Chief Marshal Pradeep Naik, was on a “three-day goodwill visit” to Japan to meet with his Japanese
counterpart, Air Self-Defense Force chief of staff General Kenichiro Hokazono. [11] On October 14 the Pentagon launched the latest bilateral Amphibious Landing Exercise (PHIBLEX) and Cooperation Afloat Readiness and
Training (CARAT) in the Philippines, with over 3,000 U.S. troops and six ships and aircraft involved. If a recurrence of the 1974 Battle of the Paracel Islands or the 1988 Chinese-Vietnamese clash over the Spratly Islands erupts between
China and other claimants, the U.S. is poised to intervene. On October 13 South Korea for the first time hosted an exercise of the U.S.-formed Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) naval
interdiction operation, launched by President George W. Bush in 2003 with initial emphasis on Asia but which in the interim has assumed a
global scope. [12] To end on October 22, it involves the participation of 14 nations including the U.S., Canada, France, Australia and Japan, which are
contributing a guided missile destroyer, maritime patrol planes and anti-submarine helicopters. Six years ago Admiral Thomas Fargo, at the time head of U.S. Pacific Command, promoted a Regional Maritime Security Initiative which was
described as “grow[ing] out of the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI)” and designed to “deploy US marines with high-speed
boats to guard the Malacca Straits….” [13] Both Indonesia and Malaysia objected to the plan to station American military forces
off their coasts. In January of 2009 NATO announced plans for the Standing NATO Maritime Group 1 (SNMG1), part of the NATO Response Force of up to 25,000
troops designed for global missions, to engage in “a six-month deployment to the Arabian Sea, Indian Ocean and Pacific Ocean” and
to travel “through areas such as the Strait of Malacca, Java and the South China sea, an area of the world that is not frequented by
NATO fleets.” [14] The Indian Ocean, which the Pentagon divides between its Central Command, Africa Command and Pacific Command, is now
also being patrolled by NATO warships. [15] The SNMG1, which was the first NATO naval group to circumnavigate the African continent two years before, was diverted to the Gulf of Aden
for NATO’s Operation Allied Provider begun in April of 2009 and succeeded in August with the still active Operation Ocean Shield. Also
last April, the NATO naval group, with warships from Canada, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain, arrived in Karachi, Pakistan “to
conduct a two-day joint naval exercise with the Pakistan Navy in the North Arabian Sea” [16] en route to Singapore. According to the
Alliance, “The deployment of warships in South East Asia demonstrates the high value NATO places on its relationship with other
partners across the globe….” [17] Just as the U.S. has reactivated Cold War-era military alliances in the Asia-Pacific region in the first decade of this century, [18] so
have its main NATO allies. Shortly after Washington deployed the USS Abraham Lincoln nuclear-powered supercarrier with “F/A-18C Hornet, F/A-18E/F super Hornet,
C-2A Greyhound, MH-60R Seahawk and MH-60S Seahawk helicopters and other fighter jets” [19] to the Port Klang Cruise Centre in Malaysia
this month, the defense ministers of the United Kingdom-initiated Five Power Defence Arrangements (FPDA) collective – whose members are
Britain, Australia, Malaysia, New Zealand and Singapore – met in the capital of Singapore for the 13th FPDA Defence Chiefs’ Conference.
“The Defence Chiefs…issued the FPDA Exercise Concept Directive during the conference. “The directive aims to guide the development of future FPDA exercises and activities to strengthen interoperability and interactions
between the armed forces of the five member countries. “It also aims to further enhance the FPDA’s capacity in conducting conventional and non-conventional operations….” [20]
The five defense chiefs then left Singapore to attend the opening ceremony of Exercise Bersama Padu 2010 at the Butterworth Airbase in the
Malaysian state of Penang on October 15. The military exercise continues to October 29 and includes “13 ships and 63 aircraft from the five FPDA countries working together
in a multi-threat environment.” [21] The FPDA was set up in 1971, at the height of the Cold War, and along with similar military groups – NATO most prominently –
has not only continued but expanded in the post-Cold War period. According to the Australian Department of Defence, Bersama Padu 2010, “is a three-week exercise [commenced on October 11] designed
to enhance regional security in the area. “The exercise, which is part of the Five Power Defence Arrangement (FPDA), will take place at various locations across the Malaysian
Peninsula as well as the South China Sea.” It includes four Australian warships and eight F/A-18 multirole fighter jets. Australian
Lieutenant General Mark Evans, Chief of Joint Operations, said “the FPDA countries shared a common interest in the security and
stability of the region, and the exercise would enhance the interoperability of the combined air, ground and naval forces of member
nations.” [22] All five FPDA members are engaged in NATO’s war in Afghanistan as part of a historically unprecedented exercise in warfighting
interoperability with some 45 other nations. Britain has the second largest amount of troops assigned to NATO’s International Security
Assistance Force, an estimated 9,500, and Australia the most of any non-NATO member state, 1,550. [23] Afghanistan is the training ground for a global expeditionary NATO. And for a rapidly emerging Asian NATO, one which is being prepared to confront China in the South China Sea and elsewhere. 1) The Times, June 12, 2008 http://www.eia.doe.gov/cabs/world_oil_transit_chokepoints/background.html 3) U.S.-China Conflict: From War Of Words To Talk Of War, Part I http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2010/08/15/u-s-china-conflict-from-war-of-words-to-talk-of-war-part-i Part II: U.S.-China Crisis: Beyond Words To Confrontation http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2010/08/17/part-ii-u-s-china-crisis-beyond-words-toward-confrontation 4) Kazi Mahmood, U.S. Using ASEAN To Weaken China http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2010/01/20/u-s-china-military-tensions-grow 6) Kyodo News, October 11, 2010 http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2010/07/23/nato-pulls-pakistan-into-its-global-network 10) India: U.S. Completes Global Military Structure http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2010/09/10/india-u-s-completes-global-military-structure 11) The Hindu, September 29, 2010 http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/08/26/proliferation-security-initiative-and-us-1000-ship-navy-control-of-worlds-oceans-prelude-to-war
13) Financial Times, April 5, 2004 http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2010/01/08/u-s-nato-expand-afghan-war-to-horn-of-africa-and-indian-ocean-2 16) The News International, April 27, 2009 http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2010/09/15/asia-pentagon-revives-and-expands-cold-war-military-blocs U.S. Marshals Military Might To Challenge Asian Century http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2010/08/21/u-s-marshals-military-might-to-challenge-asian-century 19) Bernama, October 8, 2010 http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/09/01/afghan-war-nato-builds-historys-first-global-army ////////////////////////////////
JIM CONDIT Jr: Help Make Attack on USS Liberty a Household WordOctober 20  WHY IS A STRAFED LIFE RAFT FROM THE USS LIBERTY IN AN ISRAELI MUSEUM Attack on the USS Liberty by Israel an Offense to All AmericansBy Jim Condit Jr., Candidate for Congress, Ohio 8th District Constitution Party for Veterans Today Is it possible to break the censorship NOW around the attack on the USS Liberty in 1968, and its implications today? Yes. Utilizing the little known Reasonable Access Law, I, as a congressional candidate, have been airing radio ads over major talk show stations in the Midwest since October 8th, 2010.
Here is the text of the radio ad:
You can hear the radio ad at our website, www.TheRestOfTheStory2010.com – and there you can help us air these ads. We are also able to air Sunday night radio shows for one hour at 10 PM eastern time on WKRC (550 AM), which carries Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, etc. Anyone in the world can listen to our live shows with Phil Tourney by going to www.55krc.com at 10 PM eastern on Sunday night. Our remaining shows as of this date will run on October 24th and October 31st. Veterans Today editor Gordon Duff will be appearing on the radio show with Phil Tourney on October 31st. Consider these following reasons why this strategy is so powerful:
Needless to say the USS Liberty is a sensitive issue. I am 1/4th Italian – and Sicilian Italian at that. Just as only a tiny fraction of Italians were in the Mafia, so only a tiny fraction of Jews are driving the Zionist organizations that are a major part of the impetus behind so many problems today. It was not anti-Italian to try and break the evil influence of the Mafia several decades ago. And it is not anti-Semitic to try and break the evil influence of the Zionists organizations today. 400 people going to www.TheRestOfTheStory2010.com and donating $25 to our radio ads campaign for the USS Liberty would help us achieve saturation advertising in an important part of the Midwest during the last 7 days of this 2010 campaign. Working together, we can make the attack on the USS Liberty and its implications a topic of discussion in households all over the USA. This will provide a springboard for Americans to understand and reevaluate what is happening in our world today. Remember the USS Liberty.
|
