NWO, Police State and Real Options....

[Ice]

So, how is the search in your community for a non-attorney to run for a public office going? Find anyone awake enough to take on the responsibility yet?

Ice

[BOBT12]

Originally Posted by weasel

just got this in an email:

British Special Forces Caught Carrying Out Staged Terror In Iraq?
Media blackout shadows why black op soldiers were arrested

Paul Joseph Watson | September 20 2005


In another example of how the Iraqi quagmire is deliberately designed to degenerate into a chaotic abyss, British SAS were caught attempting to stage a terror attack and the media have dutifully shut up about the real questions surrounding the incident.

What is admitted is that two British soldiers in Arab garb and head dress drove a car towards a group of Iraq police and began firing. According to the Basra governor Mohammed al-Waili, one policeman was shot dead and another was injured. Pictured below are the wigs and clothing that the soldiers were wearing.

The Arab garb is obviously undeniable proof that the operation, whatever its ultimate intention, was staged so that any eyewitnesses would believe it had been carried out by Iraqis.

This has all the indications of a frame up.

weasel, here is follow up to your recent story:

Double Standards in Iraq
Thu, 22 Sep 2005 07:01:26 -0700

To the rescue, 9/18 By Linda Heard

British agents in local drag saved by cavalry

Monday was one of those rare illuminating days. A juxtaposition of events starkly exposed Western double standards and made the Iraqi government's claims of sovereignty even more nonsensical than it already was.

Anyone who tuned into the BBC's HARDtalk program during the day would have been subjected to Iraq's corpulent marionette of a president Jalal Talibani, fresh from groveling around the nether regions of George W.

There he was sporting his omnipresent grin worming his way around Stephen Sackur's questions over Iraq's so-called democracy, the inclusiveness of the draft constitution and his own shilly-shallying over signing Saddam's death warrant.

When the Kurdish politician-<>whose demeanor is more suited to a shisha-puffing carpet trader than a leader-was faced with a query over his government's legitimacy at a time foreign soldiers were still stomping all over his land, he nostalgically looked back to June 2004 when the invaders handed back sovereignty to Iraqis. He thought it was a great day.

Talabani must be one of the few who took the handover seriously, as anyone with an IQ over 80 quickly realized it was yet another Pentagon production on the lines of the rigged toppling of Saddam's statue, the Jessica Lynch fiasco, and Mission Accomplished.

But wait! I'm being too tough on the old warhorse. His pal Hazem al-Shaalan, who was Iyad Allawi's defense minister, obviously believed Iraq was sovereign, too, when he allegedly siphoned off US$1 billion from his procurement budget, which translated means every cent. A patriot, indeed, especially when one remembers how a whopping US$9 billion went walkabout under the watch of Paul L. Bremer.

So let's explore the unlikelihood that HARDtalk viewers were dim enough to swallow Talabani's sales pitch. Let's imagine they bought the purple finger garbage or the new holy grail of a constitution. And, let's suppose they could even dig deep into their hearts to excuse Talabani from his desire to witness Saddam with his neck snapped and his eyes parted from their sockets as long as he wasn't the one signing the order. I'll be absent on that day, he said, with a grin, admitting that task would be left to some subordinate unfortunate.

So let's suppose that after that program we were left with starry eyes and a wellspring of gratitude towards America's compassionate conservative leader for freeing the poor, oppressed, long suffering Iraqis, who thanks to him, have a glorious future in store (those who haven't already been carried off by men in white coats, that is)

The remainder, who had switched off their sets and gone fishing, or used their newspapers for shelf-lining, might still be infused with that rosy Talabani glow. But for newshounds, that glow would swiftly fade into a pallor. Just a few hours after Talabani's schmaltz there came dramatic breaking news.

According to the BBC, two British servicemen dressed like local Shiites drove up to an Iraqi-manned checkpoint near Basra. They were apparently driving a scruffy civilian car and when challenged they opened fire resulting in the deaths of an Iraqi policeman. A confused-looking BBC anchor struggling to make sense of the incident described it as "murky".

Naturally, the sleazy Laurence-emulating pair was carted off to the slammer-<>along with their eclectic arsenal of weaponry and communication devices-where a rioting crowd soon gathered, furious over the killing.

The Basra police told the British army that the soldiers were due to appear before an Iraqi court, which sounds reasonable to me. Isn't this exactly what would happen in any so-called civilized country where the rule of law applies?

But this wasn't good enough for Iraq's Ramboesque British guests, ostensibly there to set this sovereign country on the road to security even when, after heavy diplomatic arm twisting, Iraq's defense minister ordered their guys release.

Last night, British forces used up to 10 tanks supported by helicopters to smash through the walls of the jail and free the two British servicemen, reported the Independent, adding, around 150 prisoners were said to have escaped during the assault, which was condemned as barbaric, savage and irresponsible by Mohammed Al-Waili, the provincial governor.

Then after this Hollywood-style blockbuster-<>thought to have terminally eroded whatever trust there was between the occupation forces in the south and the Iraqi police-the Brits discovered their men had been moved to a private house; the home of a militia-man.

Thank the Lord that the Brits are home and dry and even though a British tank was fired with petrol bombs its occupants have got away with minor injuries. Never mind that three Iraqis lost their lives during those incidents or that 15 were wounded in their own sovereign democracy appears to be the attitude of most media outlets.

The British army in Iraq should be ashamed of itself. Its members have behaved like a gang of thugs who wouldn't look out of place rescuing banditos in a banana republic. But in a way, it's done us all a favor.

We are surely forced to cast off our rose-colored specs mine are terminally grey and face reality. Iraq is still occupied. And its government is made up of employees of the Bush administration, its jump to it allies, and its crony companies. Talabani and crew have clearly sold-out, else they would order yes order—the occupier to sling its hook...

Emphasis added.

http://guerrillanews.com/articles/17...ndards_in_Iraq

So much for bringing liberty and peace to the Iraqi's.


U.S. death toll in Iraq passes 1,900:

http://www.canada.com/nanaimo/story....2-3c71dde6296f

Iraq Body Count (Estimates of Civilian dead are 26000 to 29000):

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

Unofficial death toll is even greater (more, perhaps much more, than 100,000, this is a dated report).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3962969.stm

Can we bring the troops home, NOW? This war is being paid for with a great deal of BLOOD and treasure.

[BOBT12]

I think that this is a very good view on what we should ask of ourselves, and government:

What follows is my text. If you read it yourself, you will see that I went longer than three minutes. I might have just reduced it all to: down with the warfare-welfare state, and up with peace and free trade.

War and Morality

By what ethical standard should we judge the state? One tradition, which we might call anti-liberal, asserts that there are special laws of morality that apply to the state alone. Another tradition, the liberal tradition, says that states must abide by the moral standards that apply to everyone in all times and all places...

Emphasis added.

http://guerrillanews.com/articles/17..._Antiwar_Rally

[BOBT12]

By Ralph Nader
Republished from CounterPunch

Bush's Divorce from Reality

Attention please, good people! Adjust your routines and come to the aid of your country, and your children with your thoughtful patriotism. Don’t just hope for impeachment, demand the resignation now of the mad hatters in the White House—George W. Bush and Richard Cheney.

Already, a large majority of you do not consider this shifty duo trustworthy. By more than two to one you disapprove of Bush’s war in Iraq. Similar majorities believe this is also a President whose administrative incompetence-<>note the post-Katrina debacles compared to his promises last September in that devastated New Orleans-nearly matches his penchant for daily fabrications. [lies to the rest of us]

The precipitous drop in Bush’s polls (Cheney’s are even lower) is not coming from liberals who long ago registered negative in these national surveys. The drop is coming from millions of erstwhile Bush supporters, Bush voters, Bush-loving conservatives.

Why? Just look at or read the news every day. There goes Bush and Cheney insisting that conditions in Iraq are getting better and better, when they are getting worse and worse. And Americans also know this because hundreds of thousands of soldiers and other personnel are rotating from Iraq back into every state and community and telling millions of people the truth.

Repeated reports from diverse official, media and eyewitness accounts say that there is less electricity, more disease, less drinkable water, less housing, far less street security, less health care, less gasoline, fewer jobs and far more violence against civilians after the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld invasion in March 2003 than before the sanctioned, tottering, besieged dictator, Saddam Hussein, was toppled.

[...]Worse still is the delusion that claims the Bush-Cheney War is not generating more terrorists. Mr. Bush doesn’t listen to intelligence, military and diplomatic officials, or even to his CIA Director Porter Goss. Mr. Goss has testified that the U.S. occupation is a magnet and a training ground for even more terrorists from outside and inside Iraq. Thereby, setting up a boomerang against our national security in the future.

One area, however, in Iraq is proceeding on schedule—the building of four massive, permanent super-bases, complete with American suburban amenities such as Pizza Hut, Burger King, miniature golf courses, theaters, swimming pools and even a football field. There is almost a news blackout about Balad Air Base, al-Asad Airbase and others, thought not quite the blockage that the two White House draft-dodgers have placed on reporters trying to cover the return of the fallen soldiers to Dover, Delaware

Emphasis added.

http://www.gnn.tv/headlines/8297/Imp...ck_Your_Poison

It is time to remove the madmen and women from office, and dismantle the war of aggression going on in Iraq.

WAR IS A RACKET
http://www.aposse.org/commons/warisaracket.htm

What say ye?

[BOBT12]

Here is another report regarding the mission accomplished in Iraq:

By Stephen Zunes

Taking stock of a foreign policy disaster

Three years after U.S. forces captured Baghdad, Iraqis are suffering from unprecedented violence and misery. Although Saddam Hussein was indeed one of the world’s most brutal tyrants, the no-fly zones and arms embargo in place for more than a dozen years prior to his ouster had severely weakened his capacity to do violence against his own people. Today, the level of violent deaths is not only far higher than during his final years in power, but the sheer randomness of the violence has left millions of Iraqis in a state of perpetual terror. At least 30,000 Iraqi civilians have died, most of them at the hands of U.S. forces but increasingly from terrorist groups and Iraqi government death squads. Thousands more soldiers and police have also been killed. Violent crime, including kidnapping, rape, and armed robbery, is at record levels. There is a proliferation of small arms, and private militias are growing rapidly. A Lebanon-type multifaceted civil war, only on a much wider and deadlier scale, grows more likely with time.

Over 50,000 Iraqis have been imprisoned by U.S. forces since the invasion, but only 1.5% of them have been convicted of any crime. Currently, U.S. forces hold 15,000 to 18,000 Iraqi prisoners, more than were imprisoned under Saddam Hussein. Amnesty International and other human rights groups have cited U.S. forces with widespread violations of international humanitarian law, including torture and other abuses of prisoners.

It is not just the fear of arrest and torture that have worsened since the U.S. conquest of Iraq three years ago. Although the destruction of the civilian infrastructure during the heavy U.S.-led bombing campaign in 1991 combined with the subsequent economic sanctions led to enormous suffering among ordinary Iraqis, the United Nations’ Oil-for-Food program, despite the abuses, did substantially improve the quality of life in the years preceding the U.S. invasion. Now, deaths from malnutrition and preventable diseases, particularly among children, are again on the increase. The supply of drinking water, reliability of electricity, and effectiveness of sewage disposal are all worse than before the invasion.

[...]Despite all this, a Harris poll at the end of December showed that a majority of Americans believe the Bush administration’s claims that Iraqis are better off now than they were under Saddam Hussein. Most Iraqis polled say just the opposite.

[...]There are many scary scenarios that could result from the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. The country could plunge into full-scale civil war, it might split into three parts (accompanied by ethnic cleansing), fundamentalist Islamic rule may emerge, Iranian extremists could exert undue influence, or this war-torn nation could become a training and logistical base for international terrorism. All of these possibilities should be taken seriously.

Unfortunately, these scenarios may even more likely occur if U.S. forces remain than if they withdraw. Bush’s war in Iraq is creating insurgents, including terrorists, faster than the Pentagon can kill them. The U.S. and British military presence is exacerbating ethnic and sectarian divisions, not lessening them. The overwhelming U.S. domination of the Baghdad government is undermining its sovereignty, weakening its standing with the Iraqi people, and compromising its ability to govern.

[..]Will our lesson be merely a strategic realization that, even if Washington had not made what Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called “thousands” of errors in Iraq, invading and occupying a large Arab Muslim state with a strong history of nationalism is fraught with disaster?

Or will Americans finally embrace what we thought had been learned at the end of World War II* – with the ratification of the United Nations Charter – *that invading another country is just plain wrong?

Emphasis added.

I guess time will tell?

[mrg]

Some quotes from Ron Paul:

Policy is More Important than Personnel

April 24, 2006

President Bush has been under pressure to fire Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, whom many view as the architect of a failed approach in Iraq.

But the issue is not who serves as Secretary of Defense, the issue is how, when, and why the United States uses military force.

It makes no sense simply to replace Mr. Rumsfeld with someone else who holds the same view,

namely that it’s the job of American soldiers and U.S. taxpayers to police the world.

We should be debating the proper foreign policy for our country--

utopian nation building vs. the noninterventionism counseled by our founding fathers

--rather than which individual is best suited to carry it out.

Many people in the Pentagon understand that America’s armed forces are not trained in occupation, policing, and nation building.

The best way to support the troops is through a sensible foreign policy that does not place them in harm’s way unnecessarily or force them into uncomfortable, dangerous roles as occupiers.

It’s interesting to note that our founders warned against maintaining standing armies at all, both because of the taxes required to do so and the threats to liberty posed by a permanent military.

Consider the words of James Madison, often considered the father of the Constitution:

Madison continues:

In other words, Madison understood that large military forces can become the tools of tyrants, and can bankrupt the nations that support them.

Instead of debating who should be Secretary of Defense, we should be studying the writing of our own founding fathers.

Perhaps then we will question the wisdom of an open-ended, vague “war on terror” and the realities of trying to remake whole societies in our image.

Emphasis added.

[BOBT12]

As anyone can see we are in a perpetual war, called war or terror, war on drugs, war on... whatever.

Transforming the World into a War-Zone

There should be little doubt that Don Rumsfeld’s dream of a global military empire, accountable only to the league of corporate mandarins, hasn’t dimmed by his abysmal record of failure in Iraq. Left to his own devices, Rumsfeld is determined to put the US military under private control and turn the world into one massive war zone.

[Posted By ShiftShapers]

[...]By Mike Whitney

Republished from Information Clearing House

“Our enemies never stop trying to come up with new ways to harm our people, and neither do we.” – President George W. Bush

Like everything else, Rumsfeld’s promise to “transform” the military has been a lie. The Defense Secretary never had any intention of converting the military into “smaller, more agile units”. From the very onset his goal has been to create a global strike-force that operates as the enforcement-arm of the multinational corporations.

Rumsfeld has done everything in his power to remove the military from congressional oversight or accountability to the people it is supposed to serve. Under his stewardship, the Pentagon has lurched from one humiliating scandal to the next. From Abu Ghraib to Falluja, from Guantanamo to Bagram; his record has been a dismal chronicle of one disgrace heaped upon another. No wonder the generals are so eager to see him get his walking papers.

An article in Sunday’s Washington Post ‘Rumsfeld OKs wider anti-terror role for Military’ shows that Rumsfeld’s powers are expanding rather than contracting. The article by Ann Scott Tyson outlines the Defense Secretary’s strategy for making the entire world a “free-fire” zone for agents of the empire. The details of the plan are still classified, but the documents envision “a significantly expanded role for the military — and in particular a growing force of elite Special Operations troops — in continuous operations to combat terrorism outside of war zones such as Iraq and Afghanistan. Developed over about three years by the Special Operations Command (SOCOM) in Tampa, Fla., they reflect a beefing up of the Pentagon’s involvement in domains traditionally handled by the CIA and State Department.”

Just as Rumsfeld initiated Northcom and lowered the standards for using the military in domestic affairs (check the debacle in Katrina) so too, he intends to eschew the conventions restricting the use of the military in foreign countries by deploying “small teams of Army Green Berets and other Special Operations troops to U.S. embassies …to conduct military operations where the United States is not at war.”

This ambitious plan has been the military’s “top priority” for over three years and is ready to be activated pending another “terrorist attack” on American soil.

Even Rumsfeld apologists are probably shocked at the breadth and arrogance of this sinister plan. The military is being hijacked in full view of the American people and turned into the world’s most-lethal security apparatus. Under Rumsfeld’s direction, special units operating clandestinely around the globe will perform criminal renditions, assassinations, sabotage, and acts of piracy all in the name of corporate profiteering.

53,000 paramilitaries and Green Berets now operate within Special Operations Command (SOCOM) The next terrorist attack will allow the Pentagon to quickly mobilize these troops to “disrupt and respond” to potential threats across the planet ignoring national sovereignty or the laws of war. The surprise appearance of Bin Laden in a video which aired yesterday on Al Jazeera (another Rumsfeld psy-ops?) must have been warmly received by the Pentagon warlords who would like to see their plan executed pell mell.

There should be little doubt that Don Rumsfeld’s dream of a global military empire, accountable only to the league of corporate mandarins, hasn’t dimmed by his abysmal record of failure in Iraq. Left to his own devices, Rumsfeld is determined to put the US military under private control and turn the world into one massive war zone.

Emphasis added.

http://www.gnn.tv/headlines/8763/Tra...nto_a_War_Zone

We are living under a unjust, defacto government, run by evildoers. mrg is on the right path, Hitler's plan still seems to be in operation: Conquer the World!

Originally Posted by mrg

It is not "law" at all.

It is BS.

You apparently have no idea what "law" is.

Here is a picture of your "law."



FDR (and Churchill) was singing his praises and busily adopting his political and economic solutions to the world wide depression (Germany was first to recover from the "bankster's holidays) until the maritime commerce started to be hampered.

Thank you sir, I will have no more.

http://www.suijuris.net/forum/taxati...essful-10.html

Thanks mrg, a picture is worth one thosand words.

[BOBT12]

Here is a pretty good article regarding war.

By Paul Craig Roberts
Republished from CounterPunch via ICH
Is the Bush Regime a Sponsor of State Terrorism? A powerful case can be made that it is.
In the past three years the Bush Regime has murdered tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians and an unknown number of Afghan ones.
US Marines, our finest and proudest military force, are under criminal investigation for breaking into Iraqi homes and murdering entire families. In an unprecedented event, General Michael Hagee, the Marine Corps commandant, has found it necessary to fly to Iraq to tell our best trained troops to stop murdering civilians.
General Hagee found it necessary to tell the U.S. Marines: “We do not employ force just for the sake of employing force. We use lethal force only when justified, proportional, and most importantly, lawful.”
The war criminals in the Bush Regime have dismissed the murders as “collateral damage,” but they are in fact murders. Otherwise, there would be no criminal investigations, and the Marine commandant would not be burdened with the embarrassment of having to fly to Iraq to lecture US Marines on the lawful use of force.
The criminal Bush Regime has now murdered more Iraqis than Saddam Hussein. The Bush Regime is also responsible for 20,000 US casualties (dead, maimed for life, and wounded).
Bush damns the “axis of evil.” But who has the “axis of evil” attacked? Iran has attacked no one. North Korea has attacked no country for more than a half century. Iraq attacked Kuiwait a decade and a half ago, apparently after securing permission from the US ambassador.
Isn’t the real axis of evil Bush-Blair-Olmert? Bush and Blair have attacked two countries, slaughtering their citizens. Olmert is urging them on to attack a third country—Iran.
Where does the danger to the world reside? In Iran, a small religious country where the family is intact and the government is constrained by religious authority and ancient traditions, or in the US where propaganda rules and the powerful executive branch has removed itself from accountability by breaking the constitutional restraints on its power?
Why is the US superpower orchestrating fear of puny Iran?
The US government has spent the past half century interfering in the internal affairs of other countries, overthrowing or assassinating their chosen leaders and imposing its puppets on foreign peoples. To what country has Iran done this, or Iraq, or North Korea?
Americans think that they are the salt of the earth. The hubris that comes from this self-righteous belief makes Americans blind to the evil of their leaders. How can American leaders be evil when Americans are so good and so wonderful?
How many Serbs were slaughtered by American bombs released from high above the clouds, and for what reason? Who even remembers the propagandistic lies that the Clinton administration told us about why we absolutely had to drop bombs on the Serbs?
Wasn’t it evil for the US to bomb Iraq for a decade and to embargo medicines for children? When US Secretary of State M. Albright was asked if she thought an embargo that resulted in the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children was justified, she replied, “yes.”
The former terrible tyrant ruler of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, is on trial for killing 150 people. The US government murdered 500,000 Iraqi children prior to Bush’s invasion. When the US government murders people, whether Serbs, Branch Davidians at Waco, or Iraqi women and children, it is “collateral damage.” But we put Saddam Hussein on trial for putting down rebellions.
Gentle reader, do you believe that the Bush Regime will not shoot you down in the streets if you have a rebellion?
—
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions. He can be reached at: paulcraigroberts@yahoo.com.

[rottweiler]

Who, what and why.
http://www.opposingdigits.com/openeyes/

[rottweiler]

http://opposingdigits.com/vlog/?p=73