Leader: Foreigners behind regional terror attacks

Press TV - October 26, 2009 11:16:25 GMT

Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei

Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei says terrorist attacks in Muslim countries like Iran, Iraq and Pakistan are carried out by foreign agents.

"Bloody measures in some Muslim countries such as Iraq and Pakistan and certain parts of Iran are aimed at creating discord and difference among Shia and Sunni Muslims," said Ayatollah Khamenei in a meeting with Iranian officials in charge of organizing Hajj ceremonies on Monday.

"This is why Muslims should pay great attention to the issue of their unity," added the Leader.

"Perpetrators of terrorist and bloody moves are directly or indirectly linked to foreign agents," the Leader said.

Ayatollah Khamenei said that the Hajj pilgrims cannot remain indifferent to events happening in the Muslim world particularly in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine and parts of Pakistan.

"During Hajj ceremonies, [the pilgrims] should be sensitive about moves against the Islamic unity or efforts which aim to offense the flag of the Muslim world which has been hoisted in Iran," added the Leader.

The Leader's remarks came after at least 41 people, including seven senior commanders of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC), were killed in a bombing on October 18 during a unity gathering of Shia and Sunni tribal leaders in the town of Pishin on the Iran-Pakistan border.

The Pakistan-based Jundallah, closely affiliated with the notorious al-Qaeda [CIA] organization, accepted responsibility for the deadly attack.

The Jundallah terrorist group, led by Abdolmalek Rigi, has staged a torrent of terrorist attacks in Iran.

In a recent interview with Press TV, Rigi's brother, Abdulhamid, confirmed that the Jundallah leader had established links with US agents.

Abdulhamid said that at just one of his meetings with the US operatives, Rigi had received $100,000 to foment sectarian strife in Iran.

Meanwhile, synchronized car bombings in Baghdad on Sunday killed more than 160 people and injured over 700 others.

The bombings, detonated within a minute of each other, also damaged the Justice Ministry and Provincial Council complexes.

Police in £9m scheme to log 'domestic extremists'

Thousands of activists monitored on network of overlapping databases

By Paul Lewis, Rob Evans and Matthew Taylor
The Guardian
October 25, 2009

Detailed information about the political activities of campaigners is being stored on IT systems.

Photograph: Fiona Hanson/PA

Police are gathering the personal details of thousands of activists who attend political meetings and protests, and storing their data on a network of nationwide intelligence databases.

The hidden apparatus has been constructed to monitor "domestic extremists", the Guardian can reveal in the first of a three-day series into the policing of protests. Detailed information about the political activities of campaigners is being stored on a number of overlapping IT systems, even if they have not committed a crime.

Senior officers say domestic extremism, a term coined by police that has no legal basis, can include activists suspected of minor public order offences such as peaceful direct action and civil disobedience.

Three national police units responsible for combating domestic extremism are run by the "terrorism and allied matters" committee of the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo). In total, it receives £9m in public funding, from police forces and the Home Office, and employs a staff of 100.

An investigation by the Guardian can reveal:

• The main unit, the National Public Order Intelligence Unit (NPOIU), runs a central database which lists thousands of so-called domestic extremists. It filters intelligence supplied by police forces across England and Wales, which routinely deploy surveillance teams at protests, rallies and public meetings. The NPOIU contains detailed files on individual protesters who are searchable by name.

• Vehicles associated with protesters are being tracked via a nationwide system of automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras. One man, who has no criminal record, was stopped more than 25 times in less than three years after a "protest" marker was placed against his car after he attended a small protest against duck and pheasant shooting. ANPR "interceptor teams" are being deployed on roads leading to protests to monitor attendance.

• Police surveillance units, known as Forward Intelligence Teams (FIT) and Evidence Gatherers, record footage and take photographs of campaigners as they enter and leave openly advertised public meetings. These images are entered on force-wide databases so that police can chronicle the campaigners' political activities. The information is added to the central NPOIU.

• Surveillance officers are provided with "spotter cards" used to identify the faces of target individuals who police believe are at risk of becoming involved in domestic extremism. Targets include high-profile activists regularly seen taking part in protests. One spotter card, produced by the Met to monitor campaigners against an arms fair, includes a mugshot of the comedian Mark Thomas.

• NPOIU works in tandem with two other little-known Acpo branches, the National Extremism Tactical Coordination Unit (Netcu), which advises thousands of companies on how to manage political campaigns, and the National Domestic Extremism Team, which pools intelligence gathered by investigations into protesters across the country.

Denis O'Connor, the chief inspector of constabulary, will next month release the findings of his national review of policing of protests. He has already signalled he anticipates wide scale change. His inspectors, who were asked to review tactics in the wake of the Metropolitan police's controversial handling of the G20 protests, are considering a complete overhaul of the three Acpo units, which they have been told lack statutory accountability.

Acpo's national infrastructure for dealing with domestic extremism was set up with the backing of the Home Office in an attempt to combat animal rights activists who were committing serious crimes. Senior officers concede the criminal activity associated with these groups has receded, but the units dealing with domestic extremism have expanded their remit to incorporate campaign groups across the political spectrum, including anti-war and environmental groups that have only ever engaged in peaceful direct action.

All three units divide their work into four categories of domestic extremism: animal rights campaigns; far-right groups such as the English Defence League; "extreme leftwing" protest groups, including anti-war campaigners; and "environmental extremism" such as Climate Camp and Plane Stupid campaigns.

Anton Setchell, who is in overall command of Acpo's domestic extremism remit, said people who find themselves on the databases "should not worry at all". But he refused to disclose how many names were on the NPOIU's national database, claiming it was "not easy" to count. He estimated they had files on thousands of people. As well as photographs, he said FIT surveillance officers noted down what he claimed was harmless information about people's attendance at demonstrations and this information was fed into the national database.

He said he could understand that peaceful activists objected to being monitored at open meetings when they had done nothing wrong. "What I would say where the police are doing that there would need to be the proper justifications," he said.

Is equality a ‘nightmare’ for liberal Zionists?

by Adam Horowitz on October 24, 2009

Ali Abunimah responds to Jeffrey Goldberg’s interview with Jeremy Ben-Ami:

Here, Jeremy Ben-Ami describes a one-state solution as a "nightmare":

JG: But they’re by no means Zionists. Helena Cobban, who is going to be speaking on this blogger panel, is close to a one-stater, as far as I can tell.

JB: J Street officially will not use the term "One-State Solution." That is an oxymoron because it is a one-state nightmare. That is the thing we are most opposed to — moving in a one-state direction.

JG: A nightmare for practical reasons or a nightmare for moral reasons?

JB: A nightmare for the Jewish people. There would be no more Israel. One state is not a solution, one state is a dissolution.

Look at his words, it’s really amazing. He could be a white supremacist in the south contemplating the end of Jim Crow, or an Afrikaner talking about the end of apartheid. All this is apparently so unremarkable however when it comes to Zionists contemplating the end of Jewish supremacy. This, as well as J Street’s other recent actions, convince me more than ever that this organization will not be part of the solution. It is at best Kadima to AIPAC’s Likud/Yisrael Beitenu. Which means in effect no difference at all. I think there are some sincere people who may have been attracted to J Street, but ultimately there’s no Zionist solution to the Zionist problem, just like there’s no racist solution to the problem of racism.

Another 147 people dead in Baghdad, cui bono?

October 25, 2009 by Notsilvia Night

Once again, in one of the bloodiest attacks ever, two bombings killed and injured over 800 people. (update:In the first reports those were called suicide bombings, now we hear about car-bombs of cars parked in a parking garage.) Nearly a whole street was flattened. This surely is not the kind of destruction which can be caused by a home-made bomb, put together in some basement.

The people behind the attacks, we are told, are supposedly former supporters of the late Saddam Hussein or maybe members of AlQaida or other Sunni radical groups, supported by Syria (What interest would Syria have in destabilizing Iraq, while Syria´s ally Iran is supporting the Shiite dominated government?).

While the attacks were supposedly directed at government buildings, the people killed or maimed were mainly civilians on the street.

What kind of support could Saddam´s supporters possibly gain from the civilian population with this kind of brutal attacks against them. Do they actually think that anyone would vote for them after having lost family or friends in such an attack or being afraid the next attack might kill a loved one?

Saddam Hussein was mainly a secular politician, who opposed the Shiite religious opposition for political, not for religious reasons (the Shiite authorities were close to Iran, while Saddam on the behest of his US-supporters was fighting Iran)

During the early years of the American occupation, while some of the Shiite establishment allied themselves with the Americans, the more radical leaders of both Sunnis and Shiites called for resistance and at the same time national unity across sectarian borders.

It made no sense that Iraqis of either side would attack the civilian population of the other side while they saw the Americans still as their main enemy.
It made no sense at all that a short time into the American occupation supposedly religiously motivated attacks against mosques and public places started.

Iraqi blogger Riverbend wrote:

“Iraqis have intermarried and mixed as Sunnis and Shia for centuries. Many of the larger Iraqi tribes are a complex and intricate weave of Sunnis and Shia. We don’t sit around pointing fingers at each other and trying to prove who is a Muslim and who isn’t and who deserves compassion and who deserves brutalization.”

But they were suicide attacks, were are told, they must be real.
Really?

Here is an article by SOTT Focus on the issue:
Suicide Bombings – A Favourite US Counter-Insurgency Tactic

Roger Trinquier, an immensely influential French counter-insurgency expert, suggested in his book Modern Warfare: A French View of Counterinsurgency (1961) (Available online here) three simple principles of Counter Insurgency:

1. separate the guerrilla from the population that supports him;
2. occupy the zones that the guerrillas previously operated from, making them dangerous for him and turning the people against the guerrilla movement;
3. coordinate actions over a wide area and for a long enough time that the guerrilla is denied access to the population centres that could support him.

Remote controlled bombings masquerading as “suicide bombings” that are carried out by the US, British and Israeli occupation forces fit these principles very neatly. By detonating bombs on a daily basis across Iraq and Afghanistan and via the propaganda organs touting them as being the work of Iraqi/Afghani “suicide bombers” belonging to the insurgency, the occupying military hopes to achieve several goals:
-cut off the widespread support base that the insurgency have amongst the Iraqis
-create tensions between religious lines, especially by ascribing the faked “suicide attacks” to either Shias or Sunnis.
In other words divide and conquer.

Here is a collection of some of the reports of fake attempted “suicide attacks” coming out of Iraq:

In May 2005, former Iraqi exile Imad Khadduri, reported how a driver whose license had been confiscated in Baghdad was questioned for half an hour at an American military camp, informed that there were no charges against him, and then directed to the al-Khadimiya police station to retrieve his license.
“The driver did leave in a hurry, but was soon alarmed with a feeling that his car was…carrying a heavy load, and he also became suspicious of a low flying helicopter that kept hovering overhead, as if trailing him. He stopped the car and … found nearly 100 kilograms of explosives hidden in the back seat…the only feasible explanation for this incident is that the car was indeed booby trapped by the Americans and intended for the al-Khadimiya Shiite district of Baghdad. The helicopter was monitoring his movement and witnessing the anticipated ‘hideous attack by foreign elements’”.

(According to Khadurri, the scenario was repeated again in Mosul, when a driver’s car broke down on the way to the police station where he was sent to reclaim his license. The mechanic he then turned to discovered the spare tire to be laden with explosives.)

In the same month, 64-year-old farmer Haj Haidar, who was taking his tomato load from Hilla to Baghdad, was stopped at an American checkpoint and had his pick-up thoroughly searched. Allowed to go on his way, his 11 year-old grandson then told him he saw one of the American soldiers placing a gray melon-sized object amidst the tomato containers. Realizing the vehicle was his only means of work, Haidar fought his initial impulse to run and removed the object from his truck, placing it in a nearby ditch. He later learned that it had in fact exploded, killing part of a passing shepherd’s flock of sheep.

At this point, legendary Iraqi blogger ‘Riverbend’ reported that many of the supposed suicide bombings were in fact remotely detonated car bombs or time bombs. She related how a man was arrested for allegedly having shot at a National Guardsman after huge blasts struck in west Baghdad. But according the man’s neighbours, far from having shot anyone, he had seen “an American patrol passing through the area and pausing at the bomb site minutes before the explosion. Soon after they drove away, the bomb went off and chaos ensued. He ran out of his house screaming to the neighbors and bystanders that the Americans had either planted the bomb or seen the bomb and done nothing about it. He was promptly taken away.”

In Basra on September 19th 2005, suspicious Iraqi police stopped undercover British soldiers in a Toyota Cressida. The two men then opened fire, killing one policeman and wounding another. Eventually captured, they were identified by the BBC as members of the SAS elite special forces. The soldiers were in wigs and dressed as Arabs and their car was packed with explosives and towing equipment.
Fattah al-Shaykh, a member of the Iraqi National Assembly, told Al-Jazeera TV that the car was meant to explode in the centre of Basra’s popular market. Before his thesis could be confirmed, however, the British army’s tanks flattened the local prison cell and freed their sinister operatives.

In 2005 American and British troops were still very much engaged in fighting the Iraqi insurgency. British and American military planners probably saw it in their interest to make the resistance look bad in the eyes of the Iraqi people.

Today, however, a divided and chaotic Iraq would no longer be in the American interest, since America is busy fighting In Afghanistan and Pakistan two other endless wars.

So in who´s interest would it be?
The “militants”, we are told by Reuters about the bomb attacks on July 31, 2009 against five Shiite mosques,

al Qaeda and other Sunni insurgent groups, most active in ethnically mixed areas north of Baghdad, are trying to reignite the sectarian conflict that brought Iraq to the brink of all-out civil war in 2006 and 2007

Ask yourself who would gain from such a civil war and a divided Iraq?

Who has written policy papers proposing the need for an Iraq divided in 3 parts?

In February 1982 the Israeli policy planner and intellectual Oded Yinon wrote:
A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties

The late human rights activist Israel Shahak, who translated this policy-paper, commented:

The following essay represents, in my opinion, the accurate and detailed plan of the present Zionist regime (of Sharon and Eitan) for the Middle East which is based on the division of the whole area into small states, and the dissolution of all the existing Arab states. I will comment on the military aspect of this plan in a concluding note. Here I want to draw the attention of the readers to several important points:

1. The idea that all the Arab states should be broken down, by Israel, into small units, occurs again and again in Israeli strategic thinking. For example, Ze’ev Schiff, the military correspondent of Ha’aretz (and probably the most knowledgeable in Israel, on this topic) writes about the “best” that can happen for Israeli interests in Iraq: “The dissolution of Iraq into a Shi’ite state, a Sunni state and the separation of the Kurdish part” (Ha’aretz 6/2/1982). Actually, this aspect of the plan is very old.

2. The strong connection with Neo-Conservative thought in the USA is very prominent, especially in the author’s notes. But, while lip service is paid to the idea of the “defense of the West” from Soviet power, the real aim of the author, and of the present Israeli establishment is clear: To make an Imperial Israel into a world power. In other words, the aim of Sharon is to deceive the Americans after he has deceived all the rest.

Some of the above mentioned American Neo-Conservatives then wrote another just as revealing policy-paper for the Israeli Netanyahu government in 1996

“A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm”
5 years before 9/11, this report is calling for an invasion of Iraq.

With contributions from: Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and David Wurmser all members of the “Study Group on a New Israeli Strategy,” and all key Iraq-war players in Bush administration.

The paper b.t.w. also calls for “engaging” Hizbollah (the tactical defense force of southern Lebanon) as well as Syria and Iran militarily.

Source

Israel increasing military build-up near Lebanon

Press TV - October 25, 2009 08:29:32 GMT

Israeli soldiers

Israel is sharply increasing its military build-up at its bases near the border with Lebanon while putting Israeli troops on alert.

Israel has increased its military patrols near the border with Lebanon, including the Golan Heights, IRNA reported on Saturday.

The Israeli forces held military exercises on Saturday in the region and in most of the southern parts of Lebanon explosions due to the exercises could be heard.

Over the past week, Israeli forces have repeatedly violated Lebanon's air space, land and sea territories.

This is while the Lebanese army has taken necessary precautions to confront any Israeli aggression.

In 2006, Israel launched a disproportionate offensive on Lebanon, but the attack was strongly repelled by Lebanon's Hezbollah movement.

AGW has most of the characteristics of an “urban legend”

by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. - October 24, 2009

Urban legend? Gators don't really live in the sewer.

About.com describes an “urban legend” as an apocryphal (of questionable authenticity), secondhand story, told as true and just plausible enough to be believed, about some horrific…series of events….it’s likely to be framed as a cautionary tale. Whether factual or not, an urban legend is meant to be believed. In lieu of evidence, however, the teller of an urban legend is apt to rely on skillful storytelling and reference to putatively trustworthy sources.

I contend that the belief in human-caused global warming as a dangerous event, either now or in the future, has most of the characteristics of an urban legend. Like other urban legends, it is based upon an element of truth. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas whose concentration in the atmosphere is increasing, and since greenhouse gases warm the lower atmosphere, more CO2 can be expected, at least theoretically, to result in some level of warming.

But skillful storytelling has elevated the danger from a theoretical one to one of near-certainty. The actual scientific basis for the plausible hypothesis that humans could be responsible for most recent warming is contained in the cautious scientific language of many scientific papers. Unfortunately, most of the uncertainties and caveats are then minimized with artfully designed prose contained in the Summary for Policymakers (SP) portion of the report of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This Summary was clearly meant to instill maximum alarm from a minimum amount of direct evidence.

Next, politicians seized upon the SP, further simplifying and extrapolating its claims to the level of a “climate crisis”. Other politicians embellished the tale even more by claiming they “saw” global warming in Greenland as if it was a sighting of Sasquatch, or that they felt it when they fly in airplanes.

Just as the tales of marauding colonies of alligators living in New York City sewers are based upon some kernel of truth, so too is the science behind anthropogenic global warming. But there is a big difference between reports of people finding pet alligators that have escaped their owners, versus city workers having their limbs torn off by roving colonies of subterranean monsters.

In the case of global warming, the “putatively trustworthy sources” would be the consensus of the world’s scientists. The scientific consensus, after all, says that global warming is…is what? Is happening? Is severe? Is manmade? Is going to burn the Earth up if we do not act? It turns out that those who claim consensus either do not explicitly state what that consensus is about, or they make up something that supports their preconceived notions.

If the consensus is that the presence of humans on Earth has some influence on the climate system, then I would have to even include myself in that consensus. After all, the same thing can be said of the presence of trees on Earth, and hopefully we have at least the same rights as trees do. But too often the consensus is some vague, fill-in-the-blank, implied assumption where the definition of “climate change” includes the phrase “humans are evil”.

It is a peculiar development that scientific truth is now decided through voting. A relatively recent survey of climate scientists who do climate research found that 97.4% agreed that humans have a “significant” effect on climate. But the way the survey question was phrased borders on meaninglessness. To a scientist, “significant” often means non-zero. The survey results would have been quite different if the question was, “Do you believe that natural cycles in the climate system have been sufficiently researched to exclude them as a potential cause of most of our recent warming?”

And it is also a good bet that 100% of those scientists surveyed were funded by the government only after they submitted research proposals which implicitly or explicitly stated they believed in anthropogenic global warming to begin with. If you submit a research proposal to look for alternative explanations for global warming (say, natural climate cycles), it is virtually guaranteed you will not get funded. Is it any wonder that scientists who are required to accept the current scientific orthodoxy in order to receive continued funding, then later agree with that orthodoxy when surveyed? Well, duh.

In my experience, the public has the mistaken impression that a lot of climate research has gone into the search for alternative explanations for warming. They are astounded when I tell them that virtually no research has been performed into the possibility that warming is just part of a natural cycle generated within the climate system itself.

Too often the consensus is implied to be that global warming is so serious that we must do something now in the form of public policy to avert global catastrophe. What? You don’t believe that there are alligators in New York City sewer system? How can you be so unconcerned about the welfare of city workers that have to risk their lives by going down there every day? What are you, some kind of Holocaust-denying, Neanderthal flat-Earther?

It makes complete sense that in this modern era of scientific advances and inventions that we would so readily embrace a compelling tale of global catastrophe resulting from our own excesses. It’s not a new genre of storytelling, of course, as there were many B-movies in the 1950s whose horror themes were influenced by scientists’ development of the atomic bomb.

Our modern equivalent is the 2004 movie, “Day After Tomorrow”, in which all kinds of physically impossible climatic events occur in a matter of days. In one scene, super-cold stratospheric air descends to the Earth’s surface, instantly freezing everything in its path. The meteorological truth, however, is just the opposite. If you were to bring stratospheric air down to the surface, heating by compression would make it warmer than the surrounding air, not colder.

I’m sure it is just coincidence that “Day After Tomorrow” was directed by Roland Emmerich, who also directed the 2006 movie “Independence Day,” in which an alien invasion nearly exterminates humanity. After all, what’s the difference? Aliens purposely killing off humans, or humans accidentally killing off humans? Either way, we all die.

But a global warming catastrophe is so much more believable. After all, climate change does happen, right? So why not claim that ALL climate change is now the result of human activity? And while we are at it, let’s re-write climate history so that we get rid of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice age, with a new ingenious hockey stick-shaped reconstruction of past temperatures that makes it look like climate never changed until the 20th Century? How cool would that be?

The IPCC thought it was way cool…until it was debunked, after which it was quietly downgraded in the IPCC reports from the poster child for anthropogenic global warming, to one possible interpretation of past climate.

And let’s even go further and suppose that the climate system is so precariously balanced that our injection of a little bit of that evil plant food, carbon dioxide, pushes our world over the edge, past all kinds of imaginary tipping points, with the Greenland ice sheet melting away, and swarms of earthquakes being the price of our indiscretions.

In December, hundreds of bureaucrats from around the world will once again assemble, this time in Copenhagen, in their attempts to forge a new international agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as a successor to the Kyoto Protocol. And as has been the case with every other UN meeting of its type, the participants simply assume that the urban legend is true. Indeed, these politicians and governmental representatives need it to be true. Their careers and political power now depend upon it. And the fact that they hold their meetings in all of the best tourist destinations in the world, enjoying the finest exotic foods, suggests that they do not expect to ever have to be personally inconvenienced by whatever restrictions they try to impose on the rest of humanity.

If you present these people with evidence that the global warming crisis might well be a false alarm, you are rewarded with hostility and insults, rather than expressions of relief. The same can be said for most lay believers of the urban legend. I say “most” because I once encountered a true believer who said he hoped my research into the possibility that climate change is mostly natural will eventually be proved correct.

Unfortunately, just as we are irresistibly drawn to disasters – either real ones on the evening news, or ones we pay to watch in movie theaters – the urban legend of a climate crisis will persist, being believed by those whose politics and worldviews depend upon it. Only when they finally realize what a new treaty will cost them in loss of freedoms and standard of living will those who oppose our continuing use of carbon-based energy begin to lose their religion.

Source

Where is this heading? Read:

US Climate Change Bill Promotes Nuclear Industry

"A new era for the nuclear industry"

Dr. Chu's Energy Bait and Switch

and

(Nuclear) Energy bill moves to the Senate

International day of climate change funded by.....

Kenny's Sideshow
October 24, 2009

Anytime there are world wide organized demonstrations urging action on global warming/climate change, my first question is who funds them and who really benefits.

The Wanaka Wastebusters gather at a local ski mountain in New Zealand to call for 350 to protect their snow.

From seabeds to mountaintops, people around the world were staging a day of demonstrations Saturday to call for urgent action on climate change.

The events were being coordinated by a group called 350.org, whose name refers to the parts per million of carbon dioxide it considers the safe upper limit for our atmosphere.

The group said it wants to "inspire the world to rise to the challenge of the climate crisis" ahead of the United Nations climate change conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, in December.

In all, more than 5,400 rallies and demonstrations were scheduled to take place around the world, all of them centered on the number 350, the group said. {more -CNN}

So if you guessed the name Rockefeller as the major known backer of 350.org, you would be correct.

'350' is a subsidiary of the Sustainable Markets Foundation, an offshoot of The Rockefeller Brothers Fund.

In 2006, David Rockefeller Sr. made a $225 million bequest to the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, a foundation he formed with his four siblings.

This is the same David Rockefeller whose quotes have been well publicized and have exposed his agenda.

We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected the promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world-government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the National auto determination practiced in past centuries.-- David Rockefeller in an address to a Trilateral Commission meeting in June of 1991

This present window of opportunity, during which a truly peaceful and interdependent world order might be built, will not be open for too long - We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order. Sept. 23, 1994

"For more than a century, ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - one world, if you will.

If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it." from David Rockefeller's autobiography 'Memoirs'

So I'm thinking that anything that has to do with Rockefeller's money is never in the best interests of people or the earth. Do these tens of thousands participating in the '350' social engineering 'events' really understand the background of their financial leaders or are they, as Rockefeller's buddy Kissinger might say, 'useful idiots?'

Question: Where are you at the antiwar rallies? The pentagon is the largest polluter on the planet.

A comprehensive list of Rockefeller Brothers Fund grants over $200,000 which in some way aim at “Combating Global Warming”:

Metropolitan Waterfront Alliance, Inc. 6/18/2009 $200,000 Sustainable Development New York City
1Sky Education Fund 6/18/2009 $250,000 Sustainable Development United States
Center for Climate Strategies, Inc. 6/18/2009 $350,000 Sustainable Development United States
Evangelical Environmental Network 6/18/2009 $200,000 Sustainable Development United States
American Council on Renewable Energy 6/18/2009 $350,000 Sustainable Development United States
Sustainable Markets Foundation 3/12/2009 $200,000 Sustainable Development United States
Rockefeller Family Fund, Inc. 3/12/2009 $200,000 Sustainable Development United States
Aspen Institute, Inc., The 11/20/2008 $600,000 Sustainable Development Global
American Council on Renewable Energy 11/20/2008 $250,000 Sustainable Development United States
President and Directors Georgetown College (Georgetown University), The 11/20/2008 $700,000 Sustainable Development United States
Center for American Progress 11/20/2008 $250,000 Sustainable Development United States
Center for Climate Strategies, Inc. 10/7/2008 $350,000 Sustainable Development United States
Resource Media A Nonprofit Corporation 6/19/2008 $200,000 Sustainable Development United States
Corporate Ethics International 6/19/2008 $200,000 Sustainable Development United States
Earth Island Institute 3/13/2008 $350,000 Sustainable Development United States
2030 Inc. 3/13/2008 $250,000 Sustainable Development United States
Better World Fund 3/13/2008 $400,000 Sustainable Development United States
Ceres, Inc 3/13/2008 $500,000 Sustainable Development United States
International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives U.S.A. Inc. 3/13/2008 $650,000 Sustainable Development United States
Regional Plan Association, Inc. 3/13/2008 $200,000 Sustainable Development New York City
1Sky Education Fund 12/13/2007 $1,000,000 Sustainable Development United States
American Council on Renewable Energy 12/13/2007 $500,000 Sustainable Development United States
Corporate Ethics International 12/13/2007 $250,000 Sustainable Development Canada
Public Interest Projects, Inc. 12/13/2007 $350,000 Sustainable Development United States
Center for Climate Strategies, Inc. 12/13/2007 $400,000 Sustainable Development United States
Better World Fund 10/11/2007 $200,000 Sustainable Development United States
Rocky Mountain Institute 6/14/2007 $300,000 Sustainable Development United States
National Environmental Trust 6/14/2007 $300,000 Sustainable Development United States
Regional Plan Association, Inc. 6/14/2007 $200,000 Sustainable Development New York City
National Wildlife Federation 6/14/2007 $250,000 Sustainable Development United States
Rainforest Action Network 6/14/2007 $200,000 Sustainable Development United States
Arabella Legacy Fund 6/14/2007 $300,000 Sustainable Development United States
Clean Energy Group 3/15/2007 $200,000 Sustainable Development United States
SmartPower Connecticut, Inc. 3/15/2007 $200,000 Sustainable Development United States
National Religious Partnership for the Environment Inc. 12/14/2006 $400,000 Sustainable Development United States
Center for Climate Strategies, Inc. 12/14/2006 $550,000 Sustainable Development United States
National Environmental Trust 10/12/2006 $300,000 Sustainable Development United States
Center for Climate Strategies, Inc. 10/12/2006 $350,000 Sustainable Development United States
Resource Media A Nonprofit Corporation 6/15/2006 $300,000 Sustainable Development United States
Earth Island Institute 3/9/2006 $350,000 Sustainable Development United States
Ceres, Inc. 3/9/2006 $500,000 Sustainable Development United States
Better World Fund 3/9/2006 $400,000 Sustainable Development United States
American Council on Renewable Energy 3/9/2006 $500,000 Sustainable Development United States
ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability USA, Inc. 3/9/2006 $400,000 Sustainable Development United States
Climate Change Organisation, The 12/15/2005 $300,000 Sustainable Development Global
Center for Climate Strategies, Inc. 12/15/2005 $250,000 Sustainable Development United States
Rainforest Action Network 6/9/2005 $200,000 Sustainable Development United States
Center for Climate Strategies, Inc. 12/16/2004 $225,000 Sustainable Development United States
World Resources Institute 12/16/2004 $200,000 Sustainable Development Europe
SmartPower Connecticut, Inc. 12/16/2004 $200,000 Sustainable Development United States
Clean Energy Group 12/16/2004 $200,000 Sustainable Development Canada
Climate Change Organisation, The 6/9/2004 $750,000 Sustainable Development Global
National Environmental Trust 12/11/2003 $400,000 Sustainable Development United States
WWF-UK 10/9/2003 $400,000 Sustainable Development Global
Climate Institute 3/13/2003 $200,000 Sustainable Development Caribbean

Link

See also:

Dr. Chu's Energy Bait and Switch

and

US Climate Change Bill Promotes Nuclear Industry
"A new era for the nuclear industry"

and

(Nuclear) Energy bill moves to the Senate

Israeli police invade al-Aqsa Mosque again

Press TV - October 25, 2009 07:12:58 GMT

Al-Aqsa Mosque compound

Israeli police have invaded the al-Aqsa mosque for the second time in recent weeks, which has prompted clashes with Arab worshippers, Israeli and Palestinian officials have said.

Hundreds of Israeli forces have been deployed to seal off the compound confining hundreds of worshippers inside the holy mosque.

Israeli Police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld said 12 arrests were made in and around the compound.

Reports say police threw stun grenades and canisters at worshippers, injuring at least fifteen Palestinians.

Rosenfeld however claimed that Arab youth prompted the clashes after throwing stones and a petrol bomb at Israeli police.

Over the past month, tensions have been high and the compound has been the scene of fighting after Israeli extremist tried to enter the mosque and clashed with Palestinian worshipers.

Israeli police denied Palestinian access to the mosque compound for several days.

The blockade was followed by demonstrations across the Middle East which resulted in the re-opening of the mosque two weeks ago.

The al-Aqsa foundation, in a press release earlier this week, has declared that Israeli fundamentalist groups are calling on their supporters to break into the al-Aqsa Mosque in the old city of Jerusalem (al-Quds).

The foundation had revealed that radical Israeli groups are planning a ceremony on Sunday evening, dedicated to the "Temple Mount" day, during which they would call for breaking into the al-Aqsa Mosque.

Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyah has earlier this month called on Islamic nations to support the al-Aqsa Mosque.

"Islamic nations should fulfill their moral and religious duties to support al-Aqsa Mosque," Haniya had said.

"The real al-Aqsa Mosque fight has started and Arab and Islamic nations should feel responsible for what's going on," he added.

Japan govt coalition partner rejects US base proposal

AFP/File – Japan's Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada

October 24, 2009

TOKYO (AFP) – A coalition partner of Japan's centre-left government on Saturday voiced opposition to a fresh proposal for keeping a controversial US base within the southern Japanese island of Okinawa.

Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada said Friday the Marine Corps Futenma Air Base should not be moved off Okinawa but could be merged with other US military facilities in the island.

But Mizuho Fukushima, head of the Social Democratic Party, one of the two minor coalition parties, rejected the proposal and insisted that the base must be moved off the island.

"I oppose the hasty and coercive proposal," Fukushima told reporters. "We should not be in a hurry even if it takes some time before reaching a final conclusion."

The government has previously said it will review a 2006 agreement to move the base from a crowded urban to a coastal area of Okinawa by 2014, and has even suggested the facility be moved off the island.

A row over the planned relocation cast a shadow on the Japan-US security alliance ahead of the first visit by US President Barack Obama to Japan on November 12-13.

US Defense Secretary Robert Gates bluntly pressed Japan to "move on" quickly with the previously agreed plans to move Futenma operations to the the coastal area near the US Camp Schwab site, central Okinawa.

The United States, which defeated Japan in World War II and then occupied the country, now has 47,000 troops stationed there, more than half of them on Okinawa, the site of one of the bloodiest battles of the war.

Netanyahu insists Israel is only for Jews

Press TV - October 25, 2009 11:06:04 GMT

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has openly voiced the Israeli government's plans to expel indigenous Palestinian Arabs from their occupied lands.

Netanyahu stressed that Palestinians should recognize Israel as a Jewish state in order to end their conflict.

"That's right," Netanyahu told The Washington Post when asked if such recognition was needed.

"Israel is not a bi-national state," AFP quoted Netanyahu as saying on Saturday. "It has non-Jews who live here with full, equal rights, but it has two things that assure its special character."

"It's the homeland of any Jew. And there is a very broad consensus in Israel that the Palestinian refugee problem should be resolved outside Israel's borders," he added.

Netanyahu said Palestinians will have to make a final peace deal with "the Jewish state of Israel."

"Jews come here and Palestinians will go there. So choose. That's the basis of a solution," Netanyahu concluded.