The widening abyss between people and government

People reading my blog might think I am anti-American, anti-Bush or that my blog has political agendas. This is not the case. Currently in the world environment, the American issue has just become such a vivid example of how far apart governments of our world and their people (who supposedly elected for them in the first place), have drifted apart.

This can be seen everywhere in the world, even more so in Africa where corrupt officials live in luxury, fly around the world to conventions in their private planes, are transported in their luxury vehicles under heavily armed escorts, while many people living in their country wonder where their next meal will come from! Because of the large media exposure it is easier to show what is happening in America.

Here is the latest example of the abyss between government and the people:

They came to praise King and bury Bush

George W. Bush’s pathetic attempt to turn Coretta Scott King’s funeral into a politically-advantageous photo op fell flatter than his State of the Union speech Tuesday – a textbook example of just how out of touch the President has become with the American people.

"This commemorative ceremony this morning and this afternoon is not only to acknowledge the great contributions of Coretta and Martin, but to remind us that the struggle for equal rights is not over," said former President Carter, who remarks brought loud cheers. "We only have to recall the color of the faces of those in Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi, those who were most devastated by Katrina, to know that there are not yet equal opportunities for all Americans."

Carter’s comments ring true about Bush and his right-wing Republican followers – a group of rabid racists whose tokenism only deepens the racial divide in this country.

But Carter drew even louder cheers when he compared King’s struggles against FBI harassment and surveillance to Bush’s use of the National Security Agency and other government agencies to spy on Americans.

“It was difficult for them personally,” Carter said of both Kings, “with the civil liberties of both husband and wife violated as they became the target of secret government wiretapping, other surveillance, and as you know, harassment from the FBI."

Bush tried his usual plastic smile but his body language clearly showed discomfort as speaker after speaker zeroed in on the hypocrisy of his Presidency – one that talks unity but practices division.

He offered phony applause when the Rev. Joseph Lowery, King protege and longtime critic, who cited Coretta King's opposition to the war in Iraq and scored the administration’s phony commitment to helping the poor.

"She deplored the terror inflicted by our smart bombs on missions way afar," Lowery said. "We know now there were no weapons of mass destruction over there. But Coretta knew and we knew that there are weapons of misdirection right down here. Millions without health insurance. Poverty abounds. For war, billions more, but no more for the poor."

When Bush’s turn came, the audience, for the most part, sat on their hands, offering only muted applause for his seven-minute eulogy. It was a pitiful performance by a President whose legacy is marked all too often by shameless self-promotion.

Longtime political scientist George Harleigh, who worked in both the Nixon and Reagan White House, called the President’s appearance at King’s funeral “the equivalent of a walk-on, a token but-failed attempt to show compassion that does not exist for a cause he does not support.

“George Bush has never been a compassionate man,” says Harleigh, “but lately he looks more detached than normal, like someone going through the motions, marking his time and hoping against hope that his time is not up.”

But Bush, despite his clumsy attempts to put on a strong public face, should realize he is living on borrowed time, not only as a lame duck President but as one who could well face impeachment if enough Democrats win seats in this fall’s House and Senate elections.

“The Bush era is coming to an end – in 2008 or perhaps even sooner,” Harleigh says. “It is an era that will not be remembered fondly.”

There is little doubt that George W. Bush will go down in history as one of the most controversial, morally-challenged, dishonest Presidents to serve at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. What remains in doubt is how his Presidency will end and whether or not there will be an America left to put that painful memory behind it.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_doug_tho_060208_they_came_to_praise_.htm

Another Bush and Blair lie exposed

A new memo was released where again the lies of the leaders of the “free” world are exposed. I can bet you that instead of the world media asking the real questions; like how can these leaders consider to use “false flag” operations, painting planes in UN colours and then draw Saddam into attacking them…creating a war situation, instead they will most likely go after whoever released this memo. The authorities will most likely prosecute whoever released this memo under some secrecy act, while the real deceivers and tyrants go free, unquestioned! If they are prepared to paints planes in UN colours and send them into Iraq to be attacked, then we should ask to what other measures they would take to get what they want. Would they for instance fake a 911 attack, using fake “terrorists” to create a perfect enemy and an endless war?

Here is a copy of the memo news article printed by Mail and Guardian Online:

Blair-Bush deal before Iraq war revealed in memo

British Prime Minister Tony Blair told United States President George Bush that he was "solidly" behind US plans to invade Iraq before he sought advice about the invasion's legality and despite the absence of a second United Nations resolution, according to a new account of the build-up to the war published on Friday.

A memo of a two-hour meeting between the two leaders at the White House on January 31 2003 -- nearly two months before the invasion -- reveals that Bush made it clear the US intended to invade whether or not there was a second UN resolution and even if UN inspectors found no evidence of a banned Iraqi weapons programme.

"The diplomatic strategy had to be arranged around the military planning", the president told Blair. The prime minister is said to have raised no objection. He is quoted as saying he was "solidly with the president and ready to do whatever it took to disarm Saddam".

The disclosures come in a new edition of Lawless World, by Phillipe Sands, a QC and professor of international law at University College, London. Sands last year exposed the doubts shared by British Foreign Office lawyers about the legality of the invasion in disclosures which eventually forced the prime minister to publish the full legal advice given to him by the attorney general, Lord Goldsmith.

The memo seen by Sands reveals:

• Bush told Blair that the US was so worried about the failure to find hard evidence against Saddam that it thought of "flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft planes with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours". Bush added: "If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach [of UN resolutions]".
• Bush even expressed the hope that a defector would be extracted from Iraq and give a "public presentation about Saddam's WMD". He is also said to have referred Blair to a "small possibility" that Saddam would be "assassinated".
• Blair told the US president that a second UN resolution would be an "insurance policy", providing "international cover, including with the Arabs" if anything went wrong with the military campaign, or if Saddam increased the stakes by burning oil wells, killing children, or fomenting internal divisions within Iraq.
• Bush told Blair that he "thought it unlikely that there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups". Blair did not demur, according to the book.

The revelation that Blair had supported the US president's plans to go to war with Iraq even in the absence of a second UN resolution contrasts with the assurances the prime minister gave Parliament shortly after. On February 25 2003 -- three weeks after his trip to Washington -- Blair told the Commons that the government was giving "Saddam one further, final chance to disarm voluntarily".

He added: "Even now, today, we are offering Saddam the prospect of voluntary disarmament through the UN. I detest his regime -- I hope most people do -- but even now, he could save it by complying with the UN's demand. Even now, we are prepared to go the extra step to achieve disarmament peacefully.

"On March 18, before the crucial vote on the war, he told MPs: "The UN should be the focus both of diplomacy and of action... [and that not to take military action] would do more damage in the long term to the UN than any other single course that we could pursue."

The meeting between Bush and Blair, attended by six close aides, came at a time of growing concern about the failure of any hard intelligence to back up claims that Saddam was producing weapons of mass destruction in breach of UN disarmament obligations. It took place a few days before the then US Secretary Colin Powell made claims -- since discredited -- in a dramatic presentation at the UN about Iraq's weapons programme.

Earlier in January 2003, Jack Straw, the British Foreign Secretary, expressed his private concerns about the absence of a smoking gun in a private note to Blair, according to the book. He said he hoped that the UN's chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, would come up with enough evidence to report a breach by Iraq of is its UN obligations.

Downing Street did not deny the existence of the memo on Thursday night, but said: "The prime minister only committed UK forces to Iraq after securing the approval of the House of Commons in a vote on March 18, 2003." It added the decision to resort to military action to ensure Iraq fulfilled its obligations imposed by successive security council resolutions was taken only after attempts to disarm Iraq had failed. "Of course during this time there were frequent discussions between the UK and US governments about Iraq. We do not comment on the prime minister's conversations with other leaders."

Menzies Campbell, the British Liberal Democrat acting leader, said on Thursday night: "The fact that consideration was apparently given to using American military aircraft in UN colours in the hope of provoking Saddam Hussein is a graphic illustration of the rush to war. It would also appear to be the case that the diplomatic efforts in New York after the meeting of January 31 were simply going through the motions.

"The prime minister's offer of February 25 to Saddam Hussein was about as empty as it could get. He has a lot of explaining to do."

Sands says Jeremy Greenstock, Britain's UN ambassador at the time, told a foreign colleague he was "clearly uncomfortable" about the failure to get a second resolution. British Foreign Office lawyers consistently warned that an invasion would be regarded as unlawful. The book reveals that Elizabeth Wilmshurst, the FO's deputy chief legal adviser who resigned over the war, told the Butler inquiry into the use of intelligence during the run-up to the war, of her belief that Goldsmith, the attorney general, shared the FO view. According to private evidence to the Butler inquiry, Goldsmith told FO lawyers in early 2003: "The prime minister has told me that I cannot give advice, but you know what my views are".

On March 7 2003 he advised the prime minister that the Bush administration believed that a case could be made for an invasion without a second UN resolution. But he warned that Britain could be challenged in the international criminal court. Ten days later, he said a second resolution was not necessary. - Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005

http://www.mg.co.za/articlepage.aspx?area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__international_news/&articleid=263174

Another 911 was a hoax news article

Where do people have to go to read the Truth? Many people belief if something has not been reported in the main stream news, it has not happened. So if the main stream news sources are under limited control and they are told what and how to report, then only their “propaganda” will be “advertised”. Not only that, they will also be in control to divert attention away from a “difficult” topic or totally ignore it. And if all fails, they can claim that the people saying "controversial" things are only conspiracy theorists or totally nuts. They can also bombard you with their official versions of events and because it was broadcasted by the famous xyz, it must be true hey? So where do you go for your news today?

Well here is a copy of a recent article published by eMedia Wire:

Experts Claim Official 9/11 Story is a Hoax

Scholars for 9/11 Truth call for verification and publication by an international consortium.

Duluth, MN (PRWEB) January 30, 2006 -- A group of distinguished experts and scholars, including Robert M. Bowman, James H. Fetzer, Wayne Madsen, John McMurtry, Morgan Reynolds, and Andreas von Buelow, have concluded that senior government officials have covered up crucial facts about what really happened on 9/11.

They have joined with others in common cause as members of "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" (S9/11T), because they are convinced, based on their own research, that the administration has been deceiving the nation about critical events in New York and Washington, D.C.

These experts suggest these events may have been orchestrated by elements within the administration to manipulate Americans into supporting policies at home and abroad they would never have condoned absent "another Pearl Harbor."

They believe that this White House is incapable of investigating itself and hope the possibility that Congress might hold an unaccountable administration accountable is not merely naive or wishful thinking.

They are encouraging news services around the world to secure scientific advice by taking advantage of university resources to verify or to falsify their discoveries. Extraordinary situations, they believe, require extraordinary measures.

If this were done, they contend, one of the great hoaxes of history would stand naked before the eyes of the world and its perpetrators would be clearly exposed, which may be the only hope for saving this nation from ever greater abuse.

They hope this might include The New York Times, which, in their opinion, has repeatedly failed to exercise the leadership expecedt from our nation's newspaper of record by a series of inexplicable lapses. It has failed to vigorously investigate tainted elections, lies leading to the war in Iraq, or illegal NSA spying on the American people, major unconstitutional events. In their view, The Times might compensate for its loss of stature by helping to reveal the truth about one of the great turning-point events of modern history.

Stunning as it may be to acknowledge, they observe, the government has brought but one indictment against anyone and, to the best of their knowledge, has not even reprimanded anyone for incompetence or dereliction of duty. The official conspiracy theory--that nineteen Arab hijackers under control of one man in the wilds of Afghanistan brought this about--is unsupportable by the evidential data, which they have studied. They even believe there are good reasons for suspecting that video tapes officially attributed to Osama bin Laden are not genuine.

They have found the government's own investigiation to be severely flawed. The 9/11 Commission, designated to investigate the attack, was directed by Philip Zelikow, part of the Bush transition team in the NSA sector and the co-author of a book with Condoleezza Rice. A Bush supporter and director of national security affairs, he could hardly be expected to conduct an objective and impartial investigation.

They have discovered that The 9/11 Commission Report is replete with omissions, distortions, and factual errors, which David Ray Griffin has documented in his book, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions. The official report, for example, entirely ignores the collapse of WTC7, a 47-story building, which was hit by no airplanes, was only damaged by a few small fires, and fell seven hours after the attack.

Here are some of the kinds of considerations that these experts and scholar find profoundly troubling:

* In the history of structural engineering, steel-frame high-rise buildings have never been brought down due to fires either before or since 9/11, so how can fires have brought down three in one day? How is this possible?

* The BBC has reported that at least five of the nineteen alleged "hijackers" have turned up alive and well living in Saudi Arabia, yet according to the FBI, they were among those killed in the attacks. How is this possible?

* Frank DeMartini, a project manager for the WTC, said the buildings were designed with load redistribution capabilities to withstand the impact of airliners, whose effects would be like "puncturing mosquito netting with a pencil." Yet they completely collapsed. How is this possible?

* Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700*F, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800*F under optimal conditions, and UL certified the steel used to 2,000*F for six hours, the buildings cannot have collapsed due to heat from the fires. How is this possible?

* Flight 77, which allegedly hit the building, left the radar screen in the vicinity of the Ohio/Kentucky border, only to "reappear" in very close proximity to the Pentagon shortly before impact. How is this possible?

* Foreign "terrorists" who were clever enough to coordinate hijacking four commercial airliners seemingly did not know that the least damage to the Pentagon would be done by hitting its west wing. How is this possible?

* Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta, in an underground bunker at the White House, watched Vice President Cheney castigate a young officer for asking, as the plane drew closer and closer to the Pentagon, "Do the orders still stand?" The order cannot have been to shoot it down, but must have been the opposite. How is this possible?

* A former Inspector General for the Air Force has observed that Flight 93, which allegedly crashed in Pennsylvania, should have left debris scattered over an area less than the size of a city block; but it is scattered over an area of about eight square miles. How is this possible?

* A tape recording of interviews with air traffic controllers on duty on 9/11 was deliberately crushed, cut into very small pieces, and distributed in assorted places to insure its total destruction. How is this possible?

* The Pentagon conducted a training exercise called "MASCAL" simulating the crash of a Boeing 757 into the building on 24 October 2000, and yet Condoleezza Rice, among others, has repeatedly asserted that "no one ever imagined" a domestic airplane could be used as a weapon. How is this possible?

Their own physics research has established that only controlled demolitions are consistent with the near-gravity speed of fall and virtually symmetrical collapse of all three of the WTC buildings. While turning concrete into very fine dust, they fell straight-down into their own footprints.

These experts and scholars have found themselves obliged to conclude that the 9/11 atrocity represents an instance of the approach--which has been identified by Karl Rove, the President's closest adviser--of "creating our own reality."

http://www.emediawire.com/releases/2006/1/emw339303.htm

Who benefits from a Hamas win?

Who could have predicted a win by Hamas? Not even they themselves predicted for this to happen! The exit poles gave Hamas only a third of the potential vote, so how did it differ so drastically? Where in the world has this also happened where exit poles shows someone else will win and the final “count” resulted in the opposite effect? In United States of America of course! In the presidential election where Bush won with fewer votes over Gore.

So I wonder how this new “upset” in the world of “democracy” has happened. Is it possible that the result was again fabricated? Who would benefit from a militant group like Hamas taking control through an “open and free” election? Does this not maybe play into the hands of people looking to create an enemy for the world? Does this not maybe suit the “war lords”; United States of America’s fight against “terrorism”? Does this not play into the hands of Israel to justify putting up the wall of “apartheid” faster, further dividing the region?

So many questions, I know…I don’t have the answers for them! Or I should rather say, I think I know a portion of them but they are to depressing and scary to write about on this blog. Hamas winning this election is almost as scary as Bush winning a second term in the office!

Who writes our history?

I have thought about this subject many times. Who is responsible to write history books? I use the country I reside in (South Africa) as an example. Here we only have around 350 years of recorded history since the Europeans arrived. Those days it was mostly Dutch settlers but soon they were joined by French, English and other nationalities. After the Boer war this country became part of the British government and history books were written how the English defeated the Boers in their stand to try and establish their own country. Later the land was handed back to “the people” of South Africa and history books and school training manuals were changed to show awful that Boer war was and how the English were only able to win it by burning farms and placing thousands and thousands of women and kids in concentration camps, causing many fatalities. Now South Africa’s “ownership” belongs to the people who were here originally before the Europeans arrived. So history books are being changed again to reflect the evils of the previous Apartheid system and how the current regime has defeated the previous.

This is a short example of how in a short space of time, with three regime changes, writing different history books, highlighting their causes and victory over the other. A person being born today in South Africa will be told the evils of Apartheid and the fall of the Afrikaner regime, if you were born 50 years ago, you would be taught about the Afrikaner regime overcoming the British despite suffering huge losses and destruction and if you were born another 100 years before that, you would be told how your fellow Europeans overcome and killed the local “savages” of the time residing in this land. So it all depends in what period you were born and what the current “story” is that will form inside you an idea of what the world is about.

So who wrote religious books like the Bible? What were their agenda when it was decided in this format the book should be written. What pieces of history were left out or added to suit their view of the world? People are very quick to question a new piece of scientific discovery when it is slightly controversial, but the same somehow doesn’t apply with religion. It is as if we belief that the people that lived 2000 years ago were not deceitful, that somehow everything that was written by various people and changed and translated over and over again, that the truth remained. It is quite interesting that books like the Da Vinci Code (Dan Brown) had been so popular because that book questions so many things about our history of Christianity. I’ve also read an interesting article on the Internet by Laura Knight-Jadczyk titled: The Ark of the Covenant and the Temple of Solomon about ideas around who actually wrote the Bible. The link to the first page is here: http://cassiopaea.org/cass/biblewho1.htm

Who is busy writing the history books on 911? There are so many conflicting reports on what really happened that day, but I can bet you the US government will write the history books, ignoring all the questions asked and blaming the Arab, extremist terrorists for that fateful day. Will they also confuse the issues by saying on one page it was Bin Laden and on the next, link him to Sadam Hussein to justify “their” war on Iraq? The United States of America wrote history books for a long time and it goes back to Christopher Columbus. It is sad that the local Indian population never had a chance to write their own history books after almost being wiped out by the settlers. There are now reports of a Chinese map dating back to 1418 showing the world not yet discovered then:
(http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/01/0118_060118_chinese_map.html)

I am sure this map will be explained as some kind of fake. Surely our history books tells us that we crawled out of the ocean as a fish after developing lungs, to eventually become a “modern” human after developing through millions of years. We must now be at the peak of human development. Surely those stories of previous advanced civilizations like Atlantis are all myths…surely we develop in a straight line, always improving? I wonder what historical “facts” will be written in our new history books by our future governments.

Did a Boeing REALLY crash into the Pentagon?

I have written about the question around the truth of what happened on 911 before. There seems to be now lots of counter websites to mislead and re-direct any person searching for the truth. I have come across two sites that explain firstly the details of the Boeing 757 and how it was not possible for a plane that size to leave such a small hole in the wall, not to mention being able to maneuver a few inches from the ground not touching the lawn before impact!

The excellent self explanatory article can be found under the title: Evidence That a Frozen Fish Didn't Impact the Pentagon on 9/11 and Neither Did a Boeing 757 and the link is: http://signs-of-the-times.org/signs/Above_Top_Secret_article.htm

The next article I found was posted on a blog and was a very nice article about how and to what measures are being taken to counter the exposing of truth. The article titled: COINTELPRO Updates: Above Top Secret Forum and the link is: http://laura-knight-jadczyk.blogspot.com/

I wish more and more people can start to ask questions and look more objectively into matters. Maybe if we continue to write articles and question things as the average world citizen, then mainstream media might become compelled to actually start doing real investigative reporting. If a crime like 911 was committed by a government or individuals within the government using its own citizen’s lives to justify a war against Afghanistan and Iraq, then these crimes needs to be exposed. If we don’t and allow for more lies to be covered up, then we are destined to experience more of them!

What happens when mindsets of the architects of war are exposed?

I reported this story in my previous blog article where it seems that the United States of America has decided to bombed civilian targets in their illegal invasion of Iraq. It was about a discussion between George W Bush and Tony Blair, with Bush wanting to bomb Al-Jazeera (which seemed to have happened soon after this discussion). Now if there was no truth to that article, why are the men exposing this letter being taken to court for leaking this “secret” document? Here is the story of the men being prosecuted:

British men in court over Al-Jazeera row

London - Two men appeared in court on Tuesday charged with violating the Official Secrets Act by leaking a document which reportedly detailed a private conversation between United States President George W Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair.

The Daily Mirror newspaper, citing unidentified sources, has claimed that the document reveals that Blair argued against Bush's suggestion of bombing the headquarters of the Arabic television channel Al-Jazeera in Doha, Qatar. The Daily Mirror said its sources disagreed over whether it was a serious suggestion.

Civil servant David Keogh, 49, appeared on a charge of passing a document to Leo O'Connor, who formerly worked for a British parliamentarian.

Keogh was charged with an offense under Section 3 of the Official Secrets Act relating to "a damaging disclosure" by a civil servant of information relating to international relations, between April 16 and May 28 last year.

O'Connor, 42, was charged under Section 5, which relates to receiving and disclosing the information.

O'Connor indicated he intended to plead not guilty. Keogh did not say how he intended to plead.

Judge Timothy Workman ordered both men to appear again at London's Bow Street magistrates court on January 10.

Neil Clark, O'Connor's lawyer, said it was important that the court saw the contents of the document.

"As far as we are concerned, it needs to be disclosed because it is impossible to defend unless you know the case you are defending," Clark said outside court.

He said his client, who worked as a researcher for former Labour Party lawmaker Tony Clarke, had simply passed on the document hoping his employer would then return it to the government - which he did.

Clark said he did not know what was in the document, and could not confirm the Daily Mirror report.

Last week, legislator Adam Price asked Blair in a written parliamentary question "what information you received on action that the United States administration proposed to take against the Al-Jazeera television channel".

In his one-word reply published on Monday, Blair replied: "None."

White House spokesperson Scott McClellan has called the newspaper's claims "outlandish and inconceivable."- Sapa-AP

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=3&art_id=qw1133268120376B216

Who are bombing civilian targets in Iraq?

It is not often that I copy news articles in my blog, but this one makes me wonder what others civilian targets were on the US invasion target list? I copy this recent article from www.news24.com

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,,2-10-1460_1838413,00.html:

London - United States President George W Bush planned to bomb pan-Arab television broadcaster al-Jazeera, British newspaper the Daily Mirror said on Tuesday, citing a Downing Street memo marked "Top Secret".

The five-page transcript of a conversation between Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair reveals that Blair talked Bush out of launching a military strike on the station, unnamed sources told the anti-war-in-Iraq daily.

The transcript of the pair's talks during Blair's April 16, 2004 visit to Washington allegedly shows Bush wanted to attack the satellite channel's headquarters.
Blair allegedly feared such a strike, in the business district of Doha, the capital of Qatar, a key western ally in the Persian Gulf, would spark revenge attacks.

The Mirror quoted an unnamed British government official as saying Bush's threat was "humorous, not serious".
Al-Jazeera's perspectives on the war in Iraq have drawn criticism from Washington since the US-led March 2003 invasion.

The station has broadcast messages from al-Qaeda terror network chief Osama bin Laden and the beheadings of Western hostages by insurgents in Iraq, as well as footage of dead coalition servicemen and Iraqi civilians killed in fighting.
A source told the Mirror: "The memo is explosive and hugely damaging to Bush.
"He made clear he wanted to bomb al-Jazeera in Qatar and elsewhere. Blair replied that would cause a big problem.
"There's no doubt what Bush wanted to do - and no doubt Blair didn't want him to do it."
Another source said: "Bush was deadly serious, as was Blair. That much is absolutely clear from the language used by both men."

A spokesperson for Blair's Downing Street office said: "We have got nothing to say about this story. We don't comment on leaked documents."
The Mirror said the memo turned up in the office of then British lawmaker Tony Clarke, a member of Blair's Labour Party, in May 2004.
Civil servant David Keogh, 49, is accused under the Official Secrets Act of handing it it to Clarke's former researcher Leo O'Connor, 42. Both are bailed to appear at Bow Street magistrate?s court in central London next week.
Clarke returned the memo to Downing Street. He said O'Connor had behaved "perfectly correctly".
He told Britain's domestic Press Association news agency that O'Connor had done "exactly the right thing" in bringing it to his attention.

The Mirror said such a strike would have been "the most spectacular foreign policy disaster since the Iraq war itself".
The newspaper said that the memo "casts fresh doubt on claims that other attacks on al-Jazeera were accidents". It cited the 2001 direct hit on the channel's Kabul office.
Blair's former defence minister Peter Kilfoyle challenged Downing Street to publish the transcript.

"I hope the prime minister insists this memo be published," he told the Mirror.
"It gives an insight into the mindset of those who were architects of the war."

Who's been caught using chemical weapons in Iraq?

Now it is interesting that there is a legal case going on where Saddam Hussein and seven co-defendants are on trial over the killing of more than 140 Shia men in Iraq in 1982. He is charged for using chemical weapons (a contravention of the UN) and these weapons were supplied by the United States. Interesting that this is not highlighted in news reports, that the US supplied the chemical weapons in the first place?

This Iraq war is getting out of hand. First the war or invasion was “justified” by “intelligence” reports (lies) that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and that he was capable of using this within 24 hours. So based on this lie America invaded Iraq, killed thousands and thousands of innocent people with the bombings. For some reason Bush could not wait another week or two for the UN weapons inspectors to complete their search for these weapons of mass destruction, he had to invade the country, why? Did he know that there were no weapons and then he could not justify the invasion?

Now it is becoming known that America used chemical weapons on the people of Iraq. There are reports that were aired on an Italian TV station showing how the US military used a chemical weapon – white phosphorus against civilian targets. The report shows scenes of burned and melted bodies, burned children and women. Apparently white phosphorus kills indiscriminately; it spread out in a cloud and will burn every human and animal within a wide radius.

Now I should ask the question; if Saddam Hussein is on trial for killing innocent civilians using chemical weapons, when are we going to see George W Bush on trial for invading a country illegally (without UN approval) and then also use chemical weapons on civilians?

When did Sonic Blasters become everyday weapons?

It is getting scary to read about all the “non-lethal” weapons being developed to use against people and crowds. Most of the time you think at least the police force and military has a weapon that doesn’t kill and if this is used against criminals, it is safer. But what if this becomes the weapon of use against anybody not necessarily criminals but for example a crowd of people demonstrating their cause? What if in the future any sort of verbal or visual disapproval of the government in power is seen as not protest but labeled anti-government or worse; terrorist and those weapons are used against you?

Why I bring this up is because I’ve read a news article earlier this week describing the unfortunate event that happened when on the East Coast of Africa (Somalia), a group described as pirates, attached a passenger liner. I will quote parts of the story from http://www.news24.com/ here:

“Pirates fired a rocket-propelled grenade and machine guns on Saturday in an attack on the luxury cruise liner Seabourn Spirit off the coast of the east African nation of Somalia, the vessel's owners said.”

"The ship's crew immediately initiated a trained response and as a result of protective and evasive measures taken the occupants of the small craft were unable to gain access to the ship," Dingle said.

Now what this article didn’t say but what was further discussed on http://www.timesonline.co.uk/ is the following:
“The liner used a sonic blaster to foil the pirates. Developed by American forces to deter small boats from attacking warships, the non-lethal weapon sends out high-powered air vibrations that blow assailants off their feet. The equipment, about the size of a satellite dish, is rigged to the side of the ship.”

Now here we are seeing that this “military” technology is available and used on civilian ships. I was really surprised to read this! Well it is great for the passenger liner to have this technology in this case, because who knows what would have happened if they managed to board the ship.
I just find it unusual to read what until now I thought was almost science fiction, using a “sonic blaster” on this vessel, to be reported as an almost everyday thing that just happened there. When did these weapons become standard issue for passenger liners? Are they being installed on other civilian transport like aircraft, trains, and private security vehicles?

Just getting back to the pirate story as well, I wonder if this is something we are going to see more off. Is this another way of making people think twice before they travel? Are we going to see an escalation of attacks on passenger liners and holiday resorts? Are these people as was described just pirates, thugs looking for quick cash or are they going to be labeled “terrorist” to further install the fear in people’s minds that terrorists are real?

Are we REALLY in control of our thoughts?

At my office today two of my colleagues described how their respective clients spoke to them about their current solutions with our company. They both said that they were looking for information on new solutions that we currently offer and on hearing this they both replied and said that not only have they already offered them the new solution but they have already signed new contracts to have the new solutions implemented! They responded with, oh ok, go ahead then.

Now this makes me question how it is possible for those clients; successful businessman with senior management positions not being able to remember that they have signed 24 month contracts. These contracts will not only have an effect on the way they do business, but will also have a CAPEX implication on their Balance Sheet! Then how can they have forgotten this? Were they “present” when they signed the contracts?

This makes me think if this can happen on a business level what happens to them and other people on a normal day to day basis? Are we always in our present state of mind or do we go into a day dreaming or hypnotized “robotic” mode? What is the cause of this, is it boredom, distraction, fantasizing or an external influence? I’ve noticed before that if I travel the same route to work everyday that my mind drifts off, I will arrive at work and not remember my journey. In a way I find this very scary. It means “I” was not driving the car, someone else was. I was not driving the car because otherwise I would have noticed unique things on the route. I would have remembered something unique in the journey, a new car, a person in the vehicle next to me or the beautiful sunrise.

So I’ve decided to make a conscious effort to start noticing myself more. The need for discovering myself and notice every time my mind drifts off to day dreaming or fantasizing about all kinds of things. In fact I tried to slow down the thoughts running through my mind and although I found this very difficult, I made some interesting discoveries. I started to notice that I “see” more things. Also because I am “there” all the time, I don’t forget things, like where I’ve left the car keys. The only time I forget where I left something is when “I” was not there when I placed at that location in the first place.
Try this for yourself and you will notice how your world of discovery will open up. You will become less “robotic” and more in control of your body, mind, feelings, emotions and thoughts. You will start to notice the smaller things in life and at the same time discover more about yourself (remember your Self).

What REALLY happened on 911?

This is a question that keeps coming back to me. Are we going to experience the same feeling of something unusual did happen on that day but the major news networks aren’t talking about it? Many people feel that John F Kennedy was assassinated by the government or something deeper than that. Does this all sound like conspiracy theory stuff to you? Well what is conspiracy anyway? According to the dictionary this means; “a plan or agreement between two or more people to commit an illegal or subversive action.”

Now you can argue that all organizations are somehow already involved in some kind of conspiracy. It might not be termed illegal but they do “secretly” plan their marketing approach and strategy to obtain more business and take business away from their competitors. Only certain individuals in the organization know the real plans that were laid out for the company. Sometimes different things are deliberately told to the employees than what was discussed in the boardroom. Can’t this also be seen that this organization is conspiring in secret to gain in the long run at the cost of their competitors and sometimes employees to benefit the shareholders? So conspiracy is almost an everyday event, now the question remains whether this also includes governments and more importantly, will they conspire against their own citizens, the ones paying their salaries in the first place?

I’ve performed a lot of research on what happened on 911 and there are many websites, books and video clips on this subject. What I find the strangest about the incident is that the major news networks don’t run extensive research and coverage on what happened on 911. Why don’t they question the discrepancies? Aren’t they normally the ones that run these adverts saying they bring the news first and do all the research? Why are they so quiet on this subject and yet for those who seek will find things on the internet that so blatantly show something seriously went wrong on that day that can’t be explained away with a couple of terrorists who planned this operation from a cave in Afghanistan. That the same “terrorists” could foil what is arguably the best military defense system in the world.

Let’s look at that best defense system first at the Pentagon. They have anti-aircraft missiles that unless disabled will fire at any non-military signature entering the no fly zone. Why did this system fail? Why did a large Boeing virtually disappear into the wall of the Pentagon? No sign of broken wings or significant amount of debris that are always present at passenger aircraft crashes. How did it make such a small hole in the wall and penetrate so deep inside reinforced steel walls? It went into the building at such a low approach angle that the engines must have dragged on the ground before it made contact with the wall, however the lawn right in front of the crash site had no markings at all. It is strange that video camera’s footage that would have shown the aircraft’s approach into the Pentagon (a garage and hotel), that the FBI arrived minutes after the crash and removed the tapes from the respective sites, never to be seen and never viewed again.

Let’s look at the twin towers. Those two buildings came down as if they were demolished by a professional demolition company. Nowhere in history has a steel frame building collapsed because of fire and also never in a fashion of the buildings falling down perfectly. Some people say it was the “pancake” effect. That the planes destroyed the column structures and once it started falling, the one floor fell on top of the other causing the one to collapse on the next floor and so on. Now you expect the one falling on the other will cause a building of 110 floors to take lets say a second for each floor to hit the next, collapse and then fall again. If you look at the video of the buildings falling, it took only 10 seconds for it to collapse (that is almost freefall speed), which means the floors encountered no resistance at all, just like in a demolition. Also very little was mentioned about building no7, a 50 story building. This building wasn’t hit by a plane, but somehow it also manages to collapse as if it was demolished. How did this happen?

The other strange thing that happened that day was that President Bush was at a Primary School and this was a televised event, yet he was allowed to remain at this venue endangering him and all the kids, while all the planes were crashing not far from his location in New York! Now either knowledge that he was not a target was known, or it was a huge oversight.

What I am describing here sounds very much like a conspiracy theory doesn’t it? The trouble is if you look at all these events that took place, you can either decide that 911 happened because of a comedy of errors and mistakes that prevented fighter planes to be scrambled to intercept the planes. The anti-aircraft missiles at the Pentagon was turned off or malfunctioned (unless the plane gave off a military signature). This means gross incompetence from military defense and/or incredible luck on behalf of the terrorists. Or alternatively, the government allowed this to happen or even worse; they planned and participated in this event from the start.

What is far worse than the loss of life at this tragic event is what conspired directly after 911. Many times over lives (mostly innocent) were lost in the “fight for freedom” with the invasion of Afghanistan and later Iraq. Then more and more control measures were put in place everywhere, monitoring and spying on people. This was all done with the view to protect our “freedoms” but if you see how the most powerful nation in the world reacted to “protect” and rescue its own citizens in Louisiana after hurricane Katrina stuck, you have to wonder what the real intentions of all these control systems are?

What are dreams REALLY about?

Today I am asking this question because I’ve had a strange dream last night. I dreamt that I was going to a concert, or at least tried to get into the concert but could not find any tickets for the event. This concert was held at a large hotel resort and it was fully booked. I can remember looking for ways to get in like trying to book a hotel room and see if I cant somehow get access to the concert that way.

I went through a door and walked down a flight of spiraled steps and strangely enough found myself inside the concert venue. There were a lot of people but very few showed interest in the performers. Most people were in fact sitting on the steps and floor looking very bored with themselves. The strange thing was that the group performing was Led Zeppelin, a band I know by name only, I can’t recall any of their songs and also there were two guys performing on the stage (supposedly them) but I did not recognize the song. They were also standing behind a glass wall during the performance and after the song no one applauded.

They disappeared back stage for a minute and then the one guy came back and said; “you are not alone”, then I woke up. I can remember the way it was said, almost implying that we are not alone on this planet, there are others…

This morning I thought I’ll have to look it up and performed a search on Google for Led Zeppelin. The results brought up a lyrics page for Stairway to Heaven. This intrigued me because it is strange that I dream about a rock band I don’t know and after searching the web I’ve picked up that they actually performed the song I knew; Stairway to Heaven and this also reminded me of the dream where I was walking on the spiral staircase.

I will copy the lyrics of the song Stairway to Heaven as performed by Led Zeppelin here; the lyrics do make for interesting reading:

There's a lady who's sure
all that glitters is gold
and she's buying the stairway to heaven.

When she gets there she knows
if the stores are all closed,
with a word she can get what she came for.

Ooo,......................
and she's buying a stairway to heaven.

There's a sign on the wall,
but she wants to be sure,
`cause you know sometimes words have two meanings.

In a tree by the brook,
there's a songbird who sings,
sometimes all of our thoughts are misgiven.

Ooo,......................
It makes me wonder.
Ooo,......................
Makes me wonder.

There's a feeling I get
When I look to the west,
and my spirit is crying for leaving.
In my thoughts I have seen
rings of smoke through the trees,
and the voices of those who stand looking.
And it's whispered that soon
if we all call the tune,
then the piper will lead us to reason.
And a new day will dawn,
for those who stand long,
and the forests will echo with laughter.

If there's a bustle in your hedgerow,
don't be alarmed now,
it's just a spring-clean for the May queen.

Yes, there are two paths you can go by,
but in the long run,
there's still time to change the road you're on.

And it makes me wonder.

Your head is humming and it won't go,
in case you don't know,
the piper's calling you to join him.

Dear lady can you hear the wind blow,
and did you know
your stairway lies on the whisp'rin' wind.

And as we wind on down the road,
our shadows taller than our soul,
there walks a lady we all know
who shines white light and wants to show
how everything still turns to gold.
And if you listen very hard,
the tune will come to you at last,
when all are one and one is all (yeah),
to be a rock and not to roll.

And she's buying a stairway to heaven.

What is planet Earth REALLY about?

My whole life I questioned things. I never really knew why, but somehow I always felt or looked at things differently than other people. We are all influenced by the way we are brought up from a very young age. So many things “program” us the way we are today. Our parents teach us their version of the world, the education system does the same and then there are all the other external influences in our daily lives like TV, movies, radio, Internet, friends, colleagues and off course, religion.

After going through all these “normal” programming methods in my life, I have reached a point in my life where I am trying to de-program some of them, removing all the “clothes” so to speak to identify the real me. I am not sure if this is REALLY possible but I know it means a lot of personal work. It also means that I have to be “awake” all the time. Every time my mind drifts of into a state of dreaming I need to awaken myself again, know where I am and also know what is REALLY going on around me. This is easier said than done. Just try for 5 minutes not to think of anything at all or to make it slightly easier, focus on just one thing. Can you do it? Does your mind drift off to other thoughts? Can you stay “awake” for only 5 minutes?

Also, whenever a thought comes into your mind, do you analyze it? Where did the thought come from…, why do you think about it? Has the thought originated from you or were you influenced by external influences or different “motivation” methods? Energy seems to be linked to thoughts and the effect of thoughts. I wonder if writing does the same thing…

Is this world a kind of prison?

I get the feeling that we are living in a prison, we are an experiment and only a few REALLY know this. In a prison you have walls, high fences and the threat or fear of what will happen to you if you try to escape (this reminds me of that movie; The Village). You also have guards making sure you follow the rules and they enforce them, but then you also have the owners of the prison. The problem with prisons are that they are difficult and expensive to police. The ones on the inside want to find a way out or at least anticipate for the day they get out. The ones that patiently wait are not the problem; the ones who plan to escape and get others to escape with them are the ones to worry about.

So what do you do when you want the “prisoners” to follow the rules? What if this world is a prison but the walls are invincible to us? What if our walls are the day to day work (jobs) we mechanically do? What if our prison wires, fences and potential threats are our religions wanting to make sure we must stay our “term” because after our “sentence” we are promised “freedom”? We are expected to accept our “sentence” and wait for parole or the release date when we move onto a better place, is this not what religions are saying? Or maybe we must wait for that “one” that will come to release us and save us from this sentence? So we must be happy with the “cells” we’ve got, eat the food we are “given”, learn the rules of the prison and one day we will be released or set free? Does this sound familiar to you?

Maybe the best way is to make sure this world doesn’t look like a prison at all. In fact, get the “prisoners” to accept their fate and even get them to love it, to fight for what they have now, fear losing what they already have and fight for their “freedoms”. Again that sounds very familiar doesn’t it?

I will quote a story out of a book I’ve read (Ouspensky-In Search of the Miraculous):

"There is an Eastern tale which speaks about a very rich magician who had a great many sheep. But at the same time this magician was very mean. He did not want to hire shepherds, nor did he want to erect a fence about the pasture where his sheep were grazing. The sheep consequently often wandered into the forest, fell into ravines, and so on, and above all they ran away, for they knew that the magician wanted their flesh and skins and this they did not like.
"At last the magician found a remedy. He hypnotized his sheep and suggested to them first of all that they were immortal and that no harm was being done to them when they were skinned, that, on the contrary, it would be very good for them and even pleasant; secondly he suggested that the magician was a good master who loved his flock so much that he was ready to do anything in the world for them; and in the third place he suggested to them that if anything at all were going to happen to them it was not going to happen just then, at any rate not that day, and therefore they had no need to think about it. Further the magician suggested to his sheep that they were not sheep at all; to some of them he suggested that they were lions, to others that they were eagles, to others that they were men, and to others that they were magicians.
"And after this all his cares and worries about the sheep came to an end. They never ran away again but quietly awaited the time when the magician would require their flesh and skins.

End quote.

This book goes into a lot of other things I don’t want to discuss here but this story tells us something about our current condition.

Who are the guards anyway? Were these “privileged” few given the task to control us? They interact directly with the owners of this prison and report to them. Who are the owners? It might be in the interest for them to keep us under control by any means possible. They might have technology and all the worlds’ resources at their disposal for this purpose. In fact the owners of this prison most likely have technology available to them that will make our “prison” technology look ancient. They can observe and affect us in many ways using this technology. It is very important for them to make sure we accept our walls and cells as real and distract us all the time.

To keep us occupied, we need to be kept busy too. We need to be kept “entertained” to distract us from what is REALLY happening here. Our multiple sport channels, 24 hour news feeds, work and “world events” all seem to make sure we are kept very busy indeed. Then there are the many who can’t afford all these “luxuries” and they are kept in a state of ignorance by just trying to survive, living from one day to the next. I wondered so many times why this world has reached such a state of utter poverty in many regions of this world. People are dying from malnutrition and treatable diseases, when we are supposed to have reached the most advanced state ever from a world development, scientific and technological advancement point of view.

While I was writing this article I was thinking of the best way I could end this discussion, but I can’t think of a way to do this. Maybe I should leave the questions unanswered for now and observe more, discover more, learn more? I think so many things have been put in place to distract an enquiring mind and there are also many wrong paths to deflect and misdirect anyone on the road of true discovery.

I don’t expect to find the answer “out there” anyway; I think it is very important to REALLY know yourself, where you are and what REALLY is happening around you. This requires a lot of work and dedication on the personal level.

Do we REALLY receive impartial news?

Most people’s reality of the world is based upon what they hear and see. We read books and magazines, listen to the radio, watch television, access the Internet but when it comes to news, we normally read newspapers or watch televised news reports. These news stations have become pure business driven entities. It doesn’t matter how many adverts they run on impartial news reporting, their news items are driven by well researched target groups. They have a target group that needs to feed the “correct” news. When Rita was threatening the US, several huge storms were affecting China and Bangladesh, yet all the attention was on Rita and the US. Then we have the added element of ownership of these large Media corporations. Will they ever report a damaging report on something like Genetic Modified Food if one of their major shareholders is a producer and manufacturer of these goods? By the way, if you are interested in reading more on Genetic Modification a good read is; Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies About the Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods by Jeffrey Smith.

Getting back to impartial, unbiased and neutral news reporting, will the major news networks report any controversial material or ask controversial questions to heads of state? Are there network broadcasting licenses dependent on “elected” government’s approval? Will they be “invited” to the next White House News briefing when they ask controversial questions or divert from standard protocol and ask non pre-approved questions?

I ask these questions to myself and then copy a news article that did not make the mainstream news. This is a sad story that REALLY happened in that illegal invasion of Iraq and here is the article:

The deadly danger of working as a journalist in Iraq
by Ghaith Abdul-Ahad

I had been dreading this moment for weeks, but I knew it would come inevitably. The night before leaving for Baghdad; preparing for yet another trip to that doomed city to report on yet more violence. For weeks at a time, I had lived in denial. I had told myself, no, it's not happening; no, I am not going back there. I have had enough, I am not going back to Iraq. But then I gave in, I started assuring my worried friends that I would be safe there - after all, it's not that dangerous.

Last Monday night I sat, sheepishly, in my bedroom, packing my bags. I was drowning in depression -- a mixture of fear and anxiety smouldering in my guts. I wanted to distract myself, so I started going through my favourite bedtime routine: checking the wires for the latest pictures from Iraq. What atrocity had I missed that day by hiding in London?

I soon came across an out-of-focus image of a policeman lifting a cover to show a dead body lying in a hospital morgue. It was the sort of photograph I had seen a hundred times before. Then I read the caption: "A policeman lifts ... the body of Fakher Haidar al-Tamimi ..."

My heart stopped and my eyes started watering. It can't be Fakher, I told myself, and started to frantically search the web for more details. Seeing his byline on a New York Times story from the day before, I was briefly reassured. But then I read the story of his death on the same website.

"An Iraqi journalist and photographer working for the New York Times in Basra was found dead early Monday after being abducted from his home by a group of armed men wearing masks and claiming to be police officers," read the report.

"The journalist, Fakher Haidar (38) was found with his hands bound and a bag over his head in a deserted area on the outskirts of Basra, in southern Iraq, hours after being taken from his house in that city. A relative who viewed his body in the city morgue said he had at least one bullet-hole in his head and bruises on his back as if he had been beaten."

I finished the article and started to search again. I soon found another picture of him on the web: Fakher, standing next to a cameraman in Basra with his most distinctive feature -- his big smile -- on full display. Fakher always smiled and always shook your hand firmly, a small notebook in his other hand. He was the sole authority on anything that happened in Basra. Journalists from all over the world would seek Fakher's help and insider's knowledge on the south of the country. He knew everybody and everything.

Because of his big smile, shadowed by a huge, bushy moustache wildly out of proportion with his gaunt face, Basra always felt safe to me when I was with him. I saw him for the last time two months ago. We were in Baghdad, in a dark street outside the fortified castles of one of the western newspapers. He looked wary, but still forced a thin smile.

One of the things that made him such a good journalist was his near obsession with details. I once called him to ask about some rumours that were circulating of clashes between rival tribes in Basra. He told me the story, the numbers of people fighting, the weapons, the time. I had to remind him, apologetically, that I was interested in writing a few hundred words about the battle, not a book.

Fakher is one of 56 journalists to be killed in Iraq since the war started. He is also the 36th Iraqi journalist to be killed, according to the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists. Last Wednesday Ahlam Youssef became number 37. An engineer working for the Iraqi TV network, she was gunned down in Mosul with her husband.

"With the foreign press unable to move around freely for fear of attack, Iraqis have become the eyes and ears of the world in this conflict," reads a statement by CPJ executive Ann Cooper on their website. "The recent violence is threatening to cut off this critical source of information."

As reporting from Iraq is becoming almost impossible, new ground rules have been set for most of the foreign media. Apart from a handful of journalists, everyone goes out in armed convoys, if they go out at all. If you are six feet tall, fair-haired and stupid enough to come to Baghdad, then you might as well stick to the hotel swimming pool or your agency fortress, and the occasional trip embedded with the US Army. Instead you can count on your Iraqi employees to go out and get you the story.

A mixture of guilt, responsibility and ambition keeps driving Iraqi journalists to push the limits a bit further every time. The intoxication you get from reporting the truths after so many decades of lies is indescribable. You feel you can tell the world what is really happening, but you also feel that you are safe because of the way you look, because of your scruffy beard or your moustache. But far from being immune, the Iraqis are the ones getting killed.

Iraqi journalists, like local journalists all over the world, don't have the luxury of leaving the country every few weeks at the end of their stint. The few who do get to leave the country end up like refugees, drinking heavily in London pubs before being dragged back into the inferno.

The idea of independent Iraqi journalism is being killed only two years after it was born, a little of it dying with each of these brave 37 people. Iraqi journalists are being killed by the Americans, the insurgents, the militias and the police. They are often intimidated and threatened by anyone who doesn't like their coverage. There are no ground rules for them; they won't be allowed the luxuries of the fast car and the bodyguard, and they often have houses and families in the local area. They can be located easily, which is why they are often in the firing line.

News agencies are dependent on native journalists covering events in their local towns, where even Iraqis from another city cannot go. Those people are left there to fend for themselves, vulnerable in the midst of the insurgents. Americans often consider them to be cooperating with the insurgency or insurgents themselves, especially if they work for an Arab news channel. If they are not shot dead in fighting, they can end up in American custody.

This is not a phenomenon unique to Iraq. Local journalists are killed all over the world, from Colombia and the Philippines to the Lebanon. The difference is that "the Iraq war" is the biggest story in the world right now, and Iraqi photographers, cameramen and reporters are all under pressure from their bosses -- not to mention themselves -- to deliver something that is becoming increasingly impossible to deliver.

How can you establish a free media in such fear and anarchy? How can you expect thugs with Kalashnikovs to respect the media?

When, in August, the American journalist Steven Vincent was killed in Basra, his death was widely reported, and newspapers around the world used the occasion to discuss the horrible militia killings in the south. When Fakher was murdered, apart from the New York Times story, his death barely merited a mention. - Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005

Who are REALLY the terror in Iraq?

In the news yesterday was the story of two British agents wearing full Arab dress, with a car full of explosives opening fire on Iraqi Police and civilians. Two Iraqi Polices Officers were killed but luckily these agents were caught, unfortunately they were "released" by forceful means by the British forces. Now suddenly there are stories of them being handed over to Shiite militias and that there are rouge Iraqi Police Officers, but this all seems to be reports to deflect the issue.

Maybe these British agents were on a mission to plant a car bomb, maybe they were suppose to look like the "enemy" dressed up in Arab disguise creating the illusion of a rouge enemy inside Iraq, disrupting peace? Maybe the reason for the forceful "release" of these two agents is to hide the truth of who the REAL terrorists are? If the "terrorists" are in fact not real, then maybe questions should be asked about the London bombings, not to mention what REALLY happened at 911.

The other problem also exists. With two very conflicting stories in Iraq; who do you belief? Mainstream media whose interest lies in their allegiance with large corporate entities and close relationship with government? The government/s who has lied to the public and UN about WMD in Iraq? Where will people get the truth? Maybe it is time for people to rely on their own intuition when it comes to stories like these. Be informed, read news, question everything and do your own research. Knowledge is power and ignorance endangers you to become a robot. A robot that can only receive information and accept anything it receives as real. That is as dangerous as shutting your eyes to what is REALLY happening and think happy thoughts!

President Chavez's Speech to the United Nations

I think this speech should be compulsory reading for everyone on this planet! It says so much about what is happening in this world! How we are being fed by lies by the mainstream media and for him to openly speak about this is refreshing to read. We need more leaders of countries around the world to speak openly about issues and problems and calling things what they REALLY are! For this reason will I copy his entire speech in this blog. I will however highlight one sentence at the end of his speech here: "We are thirsty for peace and justice in order to survive as species." I hope I am not alone in this world that agrees with this particular statement!

President Chavez's Speech:

"Your Excellencies, friends, good afternoon:

The original purpose of this meeting has been completely distorted. The imposed center of debate has been a so-called reform process that overshadows the most urgent issues, what the peoples of the world claim with urgency: the adoption of measures that deal with the real problems that block and sabotage the efforts made by our countries for real development and life.

Five years after the Millennium Summit, the harsh reality is that the great majority of estimated goals- which were very modest indeed- will not be met.

We pretended reducing by half the 842 million hungry people by the year 2015. At the current rate that goal will be achieved by the year 2215. Who in this audience will be there to celebrate it? That is only if the human race is able to survive the destruction that threats our natural environment.

We had claimed the aspiration of achieving universal primary education by the year 2015. At the current rate that goal will be reached after the year 2100. Let us prepare, then, to celebrate it.

Friends of the world, this takes us to a sad conclusion: The United Nations has exhausted its model, and it is not all about reform. The XXI century claims deep changes that will only be possible if a new organization is founded. This UN does not work. We have to say it. It is the truth. These transformations – the ones Venezuela is referring to- have, according to us, two phases: The immediate phase and the aspiration phase, a utopia. The first is framed by the agreements that were signed in the old system. We do not run away from them. We even bring concrete proposals in that model for the short term. But the dream of an ever-lasting world peace, the dream of a world not ashamed by hunger, disease, illiteracy, extreme necessity, needs-apart from roots- to spread its wings to fly. We need to spread our wings and fly. We are aware of a frightening neoliberal globalization, but there is also the reality of an interconnected world that we have to face not as a problem but as a challenge. We could, on the basis of national realities, exchange knowledge, integrate markets, interconnect, but at the same time we must understand that there are problems that do not have a national solution: radioactive clouds, world oil prices, diseases, warming of the planet or the hole in the ozone layer. These are not domestic problems. As we stride toward a new United Nations model that includes all of us when they talk about the people, we are bringing four indispensable and urgent reform proposals to this Assembly: the first; the expansion of the Security Council in its permanent categories as well as the non permanent categories, thus allowing new developed and developing countries as new permanent and non permanent categories. The second; we need to assure the necessary improvement of the work methodology in order to increase transparency, not to diminish it. The third; we need to immediately suppress- we have said this repeatedly in Venezuela for the past six years- the veto in the decisions taken by the Security Council, that elitist trace is incompatible with democracy, incompatible with the principles of equality and democracy. And the fourth; we need to strengthen the role of the Secretary General; his/her political functions regarding preventive diplomacy, that role must be consolidated. The seriousness of all problems calls for deep transformations. Mere reforms are not enough to recover that “we” all the peoples of the world are waiting for. More than just reforms we in Venezuela call for the foundation of a new United Nations, or as the teacher of Simón Bolívar, Simón Rodríguez said: “Either we invent or we err.”

At the Porto Alegre World Social Forum last January different personalities asked for the United Nations to move outside the United States if the repeated violations to international rule of law continue. Today we know that there were never any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The people of the United States have always been very rigorous in demanding the truth to their leaders; the people of the world demand the same thing. There were never any weapons of mass destruction; however, Iraq was bombed, occupied and it is still occupied. All this happened over the United Nations. That is why we propose this Assembly that the United Nations should leave a country that does not respect the resolutions taken by this same Assembly. Some proposals have pointed out to Jerusalem as an international city as an alternative. The proposal is generous enough to propose an answer to the current conflict affecting Palestine. Nonetheless, it may have some characteristics that could make it very difficult to become a reality. That is why we are bringing a proposal made by Simón Bolívar, the great Liberator of the South, in 1815. Bolívar proposed then the creation of an international city that would host the idea of unity.

We believe it is time to think about the creation of an international city with its own sovereignty, with its own strength and morality to represent all nations of the world. Such international city has to balance five centuries of unbalance. The headquarters of the United Nations must be in the South.

Ladies and gentlemen, we are facing an unprecedented energy crisis in which an unstoppable increase of energy is perilously reaching record highs, as well as the incapacity of increase oil supply and the perspective of a decline in the proven reserves of fuel worldwide. Oil is starting to become exhausted.

For the year 2020 the daily demand for oil will be 120 million barrels. Such demand, even without counting future increments- would consume in 20 years what humanity has used up to now. This means that more carbon dioxide will inevitably be increased, thus warming our planet even more.

Hurricane Katrina has been a painful example of the cost of ignoring such realities. The warming of the oceans is the fundamental factor behind the demolishing increase in the strength of the hurricanes we have witnessed in the last years. Let this occasion be an outlet to send our deepest condolences to the people of the United States. Their people are brothers and sisters of all of us in the Americas and the rest of the world.

It is unpractical and unethical to sacrifice the human race by appealing in an insane manner the validity of a socioeconomic model that has a galloping destructive capacity. It would be suicidal to spread it and impose it as an infallible remedy for the evils which are caused precisely by them.

Not too long ago the President of the United States went to an Organization of American States’ meeting to propose Latin America and the Caribbean to increase market-oriented policies, open market policies-that is neoliberalism- when it is precisely the fundamental cause of the great evils and the great tragedies currently suffered by our people. : The neoliberal capitalism, the Washington Consensus. All this has generated is a high degree of misery, inequality and infinite tragedy for all the peoples on his continent.

What we need now more than ever Mr. President is a new international order. Let us recall the United Nations General assembly in its sixth extraordinary session period in 1974, 31 years ago, where a new International Economic Order action plan was adopted, as well as the States Economic Rights and Duties Charter by an overwhelming majority, 120 votes for the motion, 6 against and 10 abstentions. This was the period when voting was possible at the United Nations. Now it is impossible to vote. Now they approve documents such as this one which I denounce on behalf of Venezuela as null, void and illegitimate. This document was approved violating the current laws of the United Nations. This document is invalid! This document should be discussed; the Venezuelan government will make it public. We cannot accept an open and shameless dictatorship in the United Nations. These matters should be discussed and that is why I petition my colleagues, heads of states and heads of governments, to discuss it.

I just came from a meeting with President Néstor Kirchner and well, I was pulling this document out; this document was handed out five minutes before- and only in English- to our delegation. This document was approved by a dictatorial hammer which I am here denouncing as illegal, null, void and illegitimate.

Hear this, Mr. President: if we accept this, we are indeed lost. Let us turn off the lights, close all doors and windows! That would be unbelievable: us accepting a dictatorship here in this hall.

Now more than ever- we were saying- we need to retake ideas that were left on the road such as the proposal approved at this Assembly in 1974 regarding a New Economic International Order. Article 2 of that text confirms the right of states to nationalizing the property and natural resources that belonged to foreign investors. It also proposed to create cartels of raw material producers. In the Resolution 3021, May, 1974, the Assembly expressed its will to work with utmost urgency in the creation of a New Economic International Order based on- listen carefully, please- “the equity, sovereign equality, interdependence, common interest and cooperation among all states regardless of their economic and social systems, correcting the inequalities and repairing the injustices among developed and developing countries, thus assuring present and future generations, peace, justice and a social and economic development that grows at a sustainable rate.”

The main goal of the New Economic International Order was to modify the old economic order conceived at Breton Woods.

We the people now claim- this is the case of Venezuela- a new international economic order. But it is also urgent a new international political order. Let us not permit that a few countries try to reinterpret the principles of International Law in order to impose new doctrines such as “pre-emptive warfare.” Oh do they threaten us with that pre-emptive war! And what about the “Responsibility to Protect” doctrine? We need to ask ourselves. Who is going to protect us? How are they going to protect us?

I believe one of the countries that require protection is precisely the United States. That was shown painfully with the tragedy caused by Hurricane Katrina; they do not have a government that protects them from the announced nature disasters, if we are going to talk about protecting each other; these are very dangerous concepts that shape imperialism, interventionism as they try to legalize the violation of the national sovereignty. The full respect towards the principles of International Law and the United Nations Charter must be, Mr. President, the keystone for international relations in today’s world and the base for the new order we are currently proposing.

It is urgent to fight, in an efficient manner, international terrorism. Nonetheless, we must not use it as an excuse to launch unjustified military aggressions which violate international law. Such has been the doctrine following September 11. Only a true and close cooperation and the end of the double discourse that some countries of the North apply regarding terrorism, could end this terrible calamity.

In just seven years of Bolivarian Revolution, the people of Venezuela can claim important social and economic advances.

One million four hundred and six thousand Venezuelans learned to read and write. We are 25 million total. And the country will-in a few days- be declared illiteracy-free territory. And three million Venezuelans, who had always been excluded because of poverty, are now part of primary, secondary and higher studies.

Seventeen million Venezuelans-almost 70% of the population- are receiving, and for the first time, universal healthcare, including the medicine, and in a few years, all Venezuelans will have free access to an excellent healthcare service. More thatn a million seven hundred tons of food are channeled to over 12 million people at subsidized prices, almost half the population. One million gets them completely free, as they are in a transition period. More than 700 thousand new jobs have been created, thus reducing unemployment by 9 points. All of this amid internal and external aggressions, including a coup d’etat and an oil industry shutdown organized by Washington. Regardless of the conspiracies, the lies spread by powerful media outlets, and the permanent threat of the empire and its allies, they even call for the assassination of a president. The only country where a person is able to call for the assassination of a head of state is the United States. Such was the case of a Reverend called Pat Robertson, very close to the White House: He called for my assassination and he is a free person. That is international terrorism!

We will fight for Venezuela, for Latin American integration and the world. We reaffirm our infinite faith in humankind. We are thirsty for peace and justice in order to survive as species. Simón Bolívar, founding father of our country and guide of our revolution swore to never allow his hands to be idle or his soul to rest until he had broken the shackles which bound us to the empire. Now is the time to not allow our hands to be idle or our souls to rest until we save humanity."