Sunday, March 27, 2005

The Enterprising Dr. Plaut Takes Another Swipe

Kurt Nimmo
March 27, 2005


http://www.toscana-arte.it/images/
pinocchio%20e%20i%20carab%20copia.jpg


It is comforting to read articles by Juan Cole and Justin Raimondo taking the Zionist economics professor and vicious crank Steven Plaut to task for his lies and hateful fabrications. Plaut has attempted to roast me on several occasions, basing his observations of my articles and blog entries on lies and the most fantastic of fabrications crossing over from honest criticism into character assassination, libel, and defamation. For some reason—probably because he is also vicious and unethical—David Horowitz has found it appropriate to post Plaut’s lies about me on at least two occasions (here and here).

As an example of Plaut’s complete lack of regard for truth and fair play, he wrote the following (see the previous link):

Bashar Assad and his Ba’athists can at least count on some devoted friends, namely the columnists at Counterpunch magazine. One of the regular columnists at Counterpunch, Kurt Nimmo, an unemployed photographer-wannabe who used to work as a film developer for Walmart (and blames the neocons for his being unemployed), seems to be leading the campaign for the anti-American Left to promote the Ba’athist colonization of Lebanon. He is now a columnist for the Web site of the Iraqi pro-Saddam Ba’athists, by the way.

I informed Plaut that I have never worked for Walmart and yet he continues to repeat this lie. It is interesting, however, that Plaut considers working for Walmart an insult—thousands of Americans work there at deplorable wages and under less than ideal working conditions because they have no other choice—revealing how much of a snob and elitist (not an uncommon quality for a Zionist) he is.

Incidentally, I am no longer unemployed, as I stated here earlier, but because I understand well the mentality of Plaut and the followers of David Horowitz I would be a fool to mention where I now work. Of course, I am a low flying target on the right-wing hit squad radar screen, if a target at all, but there is no sense taking chances with vicious right-wingers who take certain joy in destroying the careers and lives of those they disagree with.

Indeed, I blame my six month stretch of unemployment on Bush and the neocons. Before Bush was elected—or I should say appointed by a right-wing Supreme Court—the economy was in far better shape than it is now, thanks to Bush’s tax-cuts for the rich and his money-burning war machine. As a so-called economist, one who likes the idea of living on stolen land, Plaut should realize this. No doubt his students are really getting screwed out of their tuition when they enroll in his class.

It sincerely transcends absurdity that Plaut would think I am leading a campaign in support or opposition to anything, least of all supporting Bashar Assad and the Ba’athists of Syria. I have never expressed support for the Ba’athists, although I have pointed out that Zionists such as Plaut and right-wingers such as Horowitz have repeatedly overstated any threat posed to the United States or for that matter Israel by the Syrian government. In fact, the Syrians have a well-founded fear of both Israel and the United States, the former having bombed the sovereign nation of Syria not long ago and continue to hold land stolen from the Arab nation. It should also be noted that the CIA and Britain’s MI6 security forces planned to assassinate Syrian leaders in 1957, according to recently released report authored by Matthew Jones, a specialist in British and US postwar foreign policy at the University of London, who cited the private papers of Duncan Sandys, British prime minister Harold Macmillan’s defense secretary.

In fact, the United States and Britain have posed a serious threat to governments in the Middle East for decades. “The US and Britain had organized the overthrow of the nationalist Iranian government of Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953,” notes Jean Shaoul. “Britain had attempted several times to assassinate President Nasser of Egypt, who had ejected the British military base, nationalized the Suez Canal, and secured aid from the Soviet Union to build the Aswan High Dam. Britain, France and Israel had invaded Egypt in 1956 in an attempt to seize the Canal, overthrow Nasser, and install a more pliant regime.”

Zionists such as Plaut never mention the historical record in regard to Syrian-Israeli relations, going back to the Syrian-Israeli Armistice Accord signed on July 20, 1949. In 1950, Israel drained Alhouleh Lake, a natural barrier in the buffer zone agreed to in the accord, and when Syria complained about this Israel bombed the Syrian city of Alhimmeh. In standard Zionist fashion, the diversion of water from Alhouleh was in keeping with Israel’s plans to steal as much land and water from neighboring Arabs as possible. In fact, Israel grabbed the Golan in 1967 primarily to control its water resources.

Plaut also does not mention the crucial fact that Israel was in favor of Syrian forces inside Lebanon. “Until the last year or so, Israeli officials say, the consensus was different—that Syria, with its reputation for keeping its treaties, was an agent for stability in Lebanon and especially in southern Lebanon, which Hezbollah, not the Lebanese Army, controls,” reports Steven Erlanger for the New York Times. “Another Israeli official acknowledged that there is ’some apprehension about Syria leaving Lebanon, but it’s a calculated risk one has to take to weaken Hezbollah’… As recently as December, the Israeli national security council warned about the destabilizing effect of a Syrian exit from Lebanon, which could give Hezbollah ‘greater freedom of operation to escalate the conflict on Israel’s northern border.’”

In other words, it has nothing to do with Bashar Assad and the Ba’athists and everything to do with Hezbollah, the popular Shia militia that kicked Israel out of Lebanon in 2000. Plaut knows that his own government has supported in varying degrees Syria’s “occupation” in Lebanon for decades but he does not mention this. But then this is precisely the sort of disingenuous behavior we should expect from a rabid, pro-Kahane Zionist (see this remarkable commentary) who thinks Ariel Sharon is a lightweight when it comes to kicking around Palestinians. Steven “Pinocchio” Plaut cannot help but tell historical lies and engage in demeaning character assassination, most recently against Juan Cole, a professor of History at the University of Michigan.

Of course, the Zionists and right-wingers consistently lose any rational discussion that takes the history of the Middle East into account—so instead they engage in telling lies, easily debunked, and go after people like Cole who understands the situation in the Middle East (read his Lebanon: Background and Forecast). But then Steven Plaut is an Israeli Zionist settler with a vested interest in telling lies and distorting the historical record and that is why he attacks Cole and Justin Raimondo, delving into all manner of irrelevant personal speculation about Raimondo’s personal life. It is the only way Plaut can get across his point—and that point is hammered on the fires of Zionism and its long and sordid history of violence, deception, and betrayal.

Eye Robot: Google News Gags on Lawsuit



http://www.geocities.com/Area51/
5555/robot.jpg


All the news robots pick
Stefanie Olsen
Fri Mar 25 04:00:00 PST 2005


Chalk it up to a difficult week for Google's automated news service, which aims to best traditional newspapers with mathematical algorithms and robots crawling the Web.

The Web search giant was hit with a lawsuit from French news agency Agence France Presse, forcing it to start to pull thousands of photos and news stories from its service. Then critics lashed out over its decision to include reports from National Vanguard, a publication that espouses white supremacy. In response, Google said it will remove the publication from its index.

Both are black eyes to Google's theory that computers virtually unassisted by human editors can pick the top stories of the day and beat traditional media at its own craft.

News.context

Right-Wing Disinfo. Campaign Hits the Web Running

Juan Cole
Sunday, March 27, 2005


The Google search has become so popular that prospective couples planning a date will google one another. Mark Levine, a historian at the University of California Irvine, tells the story of how a radio talk show host called him a liar because he referred to an incident that the host could not find on google. That is, if it isn't in google, it didn't happen. (Levine was able to retrieve the incident from Lexis Nexis, a restricted database).

It seems to me that David Horowitz and some far rightwing friends of his have hit upon a new way of discrediting a political opponent, which is the GoogleSmear. It is an easy maneuver for someone like Horowitz, who has extremely wealthy backers, to set up a web magazine that has a high profile and is indexed in google news. Then he just commissions persons to write up lies about people like me (leavened with innuendo and out-of-context quotes). Anyone googling me will likely come upon the smear profiles, and they can be passed around to journalists and politicians as though they were actual information.

Recently Steven Plaut, an Israeli defender, at the University of Haifa, of the terrorist groups around the late extremist Rabbi Meir Kahane, was commissioned by Horowitz (and probably others of that circle) to do yet another hatchet job on me, the second in just a few months. I replied to the earlier smear at my blog.

Plaut cited the earlier smears and rightwing bloggers as authorities. (One smear now becomes a "citation" for the next one!)

The GoogleSmear references a body of falsehoods. It creates a nexus of links that increase the chance that the smear will come to the top of a google search.

Many thanks to Matthew Barganier for pointing out that Plaut just made up allegations against me, of having published an op-ed in the New York Times in which I am supposed to have praised the Syrian elections (?) and spoken against democracy. He must have been imbibing something illegal when he came up with that complete fantasy. Although Plaut at length removed the falsehoods from the page when repeatedly challenged, he did not apologize or issue a formal correction. Moreover, he posted the false allegation to a bulletin board under an assumed name (just to be sure that future GoogleSmears can reference the now-missing paragraph, elsewhere on the Web).

Thanks also to Justin Raimundo for his acerbic dissection of Plaut's tripe.

Naomi Klein Meets Italian Journo Shooting Victim Sgrena

Naomi Klein Reveals New Details About U.S. Military Shooting of Italian War Correspondent in Iraq
Democracy Now!
Friday, March 25th, 2005



Three weeks after being shot by US forces in Iraq, veteran Italian war correspondent Giuliana Sgrena is released from a military hospital. New details are emerging about the killing of the Italian agent who saved her life. We speak with independent journalist Naomi Klein, who just returned from meeting with Sgrena in Rome. -DN![rush transcript]

In Rome, journalist Giuliana Sgrena has been released from a military hospital where she was being treated for a gunshot wound she suffered when US forces shot up the car bringing her to freedom after a month being held hostage in Iraq. The head of Italy's Foreign Military Intelligence Nicola Calipari was killed in the attack when he shielded Sgrena from the bullets.

Yesterday, Italian newspapers reported that the justice minister has asked U.S. authorities to release the car so it can be examined by Italian ballistics experts. The papers said the request came after the U.S. command in Iraq reportedly blocked two Italian policemen from examining the car.


Naomi Klein, award-winning journalist and author of "Fences and Windows: Dispatches From the Front Lines" of the "Globalization Debate and No Logo: Taking Aim at the Brand Bullies." She just met with Giuliana Sgrena in Rome.

[This transcript is available free of charge, however donations help us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution. Donate - $25, $50, $100, more...]


AMY GOODMAN: : We're joined in Washington, D.C. by journalist Naomi Klein, who has just met with Giuliana Sgrena in Rome. Welcome to Democracy Now!, Naomi.

NAOMI KLEIN: Thanks, Amy.

AMY GOODMAN: : Can you talk about what she told you?

NAOMI KLEIN: Yeah. At first I want to say that I know Giuliana really would have liked to have been on the show herself to talk to your listeners and viewers, but one of the things that surprised me when I met with Giuliana is that she was quite a bit sicker than I think we have been led to believe.

Her injuries were described as fairly minor; she was shot in the shoulder. But when I met with her, she was clearly very, very ill, and that's why she's not on the show this morning. She was fired on by a gun at the top of a tank, which means that the artillery was very, very large. It was a four-inch bullet that entered her body and broke apart. And it didn't just injure her shoulder, it punctured her lung. And her lung continues to fill with fluid, and there continues to be complications stemming from that fairly serious injury. So that was one of the details.

She told me a lot about the incident that I had not fully understood from the reports in the press. One of the most – and at first, the other thing I want to be really clear about is that Giuliana is not saying that she's certain in any way that the attack on the car was intentional. She is simply saying that she has many, many unanswered questions, and there are many parts of her direct experience that simply don't coincide with the official U.S. version of the story.

One of the things that we keep hearing is that she was fired on on the road to the airport, which is a notoriously dangerous road. In fact, it's often described as the most dangerous road in the world. So this is treated as a fairly common and understandable incident that there would be a shooting like this on that road. And I was on that road myself, and it is a really treacherous place with explosions going off all the time and a lot of checkpoints.

What Giuliana told me that I had not realized before is that she wasn't on that road at all. She was on a completely different road that I actually didn't know existed. It's a secured road that you can only enter through the Green Zone and is reserved exclusively for ambassadors and top military officials. So, when Calipari, the Italian security intelligence officer, released her from captivity, they drove directly to the Green Zone, went through the elaborate checkpoint process which everyone must go through to enter the Green Zone, which involves checking in obviously with U.S. forces, and then they drove onto this secured road.

And the other thing that Giuliana told me that she's quite frustrated about is the description of the vehicle that fired on her as being part of a checkpoint. She says it wasn't a checkpoint at all. It was simply a tank that was parked on the side of the road that opened fire on them. There was no process of trying to stop the car, she said, or any signals. From her perspective, they were just -- it was just opening fire by a tank.

The other thing she told me that was surprising to me was that they were fired on from behind. Because I think part of what we're hearing is that the U.S. soldiers opened fire on their car, because they didn't know who they were, and they were afraid. It was self-defense, they were afraid. The fear, of course, is that their car might blow up or that they might come under attack themselves. And what Giuliana Sgrena really stressed with me was that she -- the bullet that injured her so badly and that killed Calipari, came from behind, entered the back seat of the car. And the only person who was not severely injured in the car was the driver, and she said that this is because the shots weren't coming from the front or even from the side. They were coming from behind, i.e. they were driving away.

So, the idea that this was an act of self-defense, I think becomes much more questionable. And that detail may explain why there's some reticence to give up the vehicle for inspection. Because if indeed the majority of the gunfire is coming from behind, then clearly, they were firing from -- they were firing at a car that was driving away from them.

AMY GOODMAN: : Now, can you talk about when Nicola Calipari arrived in Baghdad? For people who have not been following this story so much, the U.S. version of events of them driving to the airport very fast on a road with many checkpoints as you pointed out, not the secured road, that the U.S. soldiers fired into the air, tried to stop the vehicle, that they just kept on coming, and so eventually, they shot at them. Can you talk about how the Italian military intelligence official first came to Iraq?

NAOMI KLEIN: My understanding is he came the day before, and that he had checked in. U.S. authorities were aware of his presence. There was some kind of a negotiation process, but these details actually haven't come to light. The details that led to the negotiation, if there was a ransom paid. We don't know those details yet. What Giuliana knows is simply what happened from the moment of her release to this day, and her description is that she didn't see any of those signals, and she really wants people to know that she was not on a road with any checkpoints, and in fact, she told me many times that Iraqis are not in any way able to access this road.

It's not the road that we hear described so many times as being a road with roadside bombs going off all the time, with checkpoints that you have to pass through. It's a completely separate road, actually a Saddam-era road, it would seem, that allowed his vehicles to pass directly from the airport to his palace. And now that is the U.S. military base at the airport directly to the U.S.-controlled Green Zone and the U.S. Embassy.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And Naomi, what did she tell you about Calipari? He was sitting in the car with her in the back, or what happened when the shooting began, and -- with him?

NAOMI KLEIN: Yes. I mean, she feels a tremendous amount of guilt, as you can imagine, and one of the reasons why she feels so much guilt is that Calipari chose to sit with her in the back seat. There were only three of them in the vehicle. So, he could have sat in the front seat with the driver. But because she was so afraid and she had just emerged from this horrifying ordeal of being in captivity for a month, he told Giuliana, let's sit together in the back seat, and I’ll tell you -- she said that he was telling her stories to try to reconnect her with her life, because she had been incredibly disoriented.

One of the things that she has told me was most disorienting about her month in captivity was just that she didn't know what -- the difference between day and night. She didn't have control over the light switches, and because of Baghdad’s constant blackouts, the lights would go on and off at all hours, and she couldn't control the switches. So she really didn't know where she was. She says she has kind of a black hole of that month. She said one of the most terrifying things was that she would often hear U.S. helicopters over the house, and she was obviously very afraid that the house that she was in would come under fire, because obviously it was a resistance house. It was a resistance stronghold. So she had many reasons to fear. She was afraid of her captors. She was afraid of U.S. soldiers.

And so, Calipari sat with her in the back seat, and he just told her stories about all of her friends, about her husband, about everyone who had been worried about her, about Italy, and that was the context in which he was killed. So it was his decision to sit with her in the back seat, and he was telling her these stories and reconnecting her with her past life, with her current life, when he died protecting her from a bullet. And she told me that that moment is really all she's able to remember vividly. That's the only moment that feels real to her is the moment of his death.

In fact, her month in captivity, horrific as it was, she said feels like a far-away dream. All she can think about is the moment where he died really in her arms, protecting her.

JUAN GONZALEZ: What about the driver of the car? Did she tell you anything about what happened with him, or did she recall that part?

NAOMI KLEIN: Well, what she told me, and this is once -- an incident that I know that has been reported on in the Italian press, but not so much in the American press, is that after the shooting, she was very injured. They took her out of the car and lay her down, I think -- I don't know if they had a stretcher, but they -- she was being tended to, her wounds were being tended to. And the driver who was another intelligence officer called Italy and was on the phone, I think, with Berlusconi, she said, and he said, our car has just been fired on by 300 to 400 bullets. And as he was saying this, the U.S. soldiers ordered him to hang up the phone. So, but I asked her whether she had connected with him since the incident, and she said that she had not, with the driver.

AMY GOODMAN: : We're talking to Naomi Klein, independent journalist, who just met with Giuliana Sgrena, saw her in her hospital room in Rome. I'm looking at Jeremy Scahill's piece in the most recent Indypendent called “Checkpoint Killings Unchecked,” that says the Italian government, a close ally of the Bush administration is disputing what the U.S. says.

According to Italy’s foreign minister, Calipari arrived in Baghdad that Friday after making contact with the kidnappers. Calipari and a fellow agent checked in with U.S. authorities at the airport as well as the forces patrolling the area. The agents had been given security badges by the U.S. to allow them to travel freely in the country after picking up Sgrena from the abandoned vehicle where her kidnappers left her. They drove slowly to the airport, keeping the car lights on to help identify themselves at U.S. checkpoints.

It says, news of Sgrena's release was already on the Reuters newswire and on Al-Jazeera. The mood in the car was one of celebration until the vehicle came under intense gunfire. So this is also not only what you and Giuliana Sgrena are saying, but quite something that one of Bush's closest allies to the top, Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi is now refuting his ally's claims and also demanding an investigation that the U.S. is stopping at this point. Naomi?

NAOMI KLEIN: Well, Berlusconi is facing elections at the beginning of April, which is partially why he needs to be seen to be taking somewhat of a tough line with the U.S. He doesn't -- he is not facing presidential elections. That doesn't come for another -- I think until 2007, but there are regional elections, and this was a national, obviously, a national incident, and he needed to be seen to be standing up to the U.S. in some way. But he's really been going back and forth, and this is another thing that Giuliana Sgrena was very frustrated about, because as we know she is very, very opposed and continues to be strongly opposed to the ongoing occupation of Iraq, believes that Italian and all, indeed, all foreign troops should withdraw.

And in the – one thing that she told me that was very moving was, she believes that her release really came as a result of anti-war organizing in Italy across incredible coalitions, and she said that she feels like her life is a testament to what people can do when they get organized, and when they work together. And she is frustrated that that same pressure forced Berlusconi to announce that Italian troops would be withdrawn in September, and she really felt that the left opposition parties should have really maintained pressure on Berlusconi to insist on Italian troop withdrawal now.

But in fact, Berlusconi has been allowed to backpedal on this claim, and now he is saying he didn't really say that; they will withdraw when Iraqi security forces are strong enough. And of course, Iraqi security forces -- it's not a training problem, it's an occupation problem. The reason why Iraqi security forces are not strong enough is because they're being massacred, because they're seen as an extension of the occupation. They don't have independence. And the continued occupation is the greatest problem to Iraqi security independence. It is not helping.

AMY GOODMAN: : Naomi, we have to break. When we come back we will continue this discussion and also talk about Paul Wolfowitz to be President of the World Bank.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: We continue with independent reporter, Naomi Klein. She just met with Giuliana Sgrena, who has just been released from a Rome hospital to her home though she is still very ill, dealing with having been shot on the way to the airport after her release by -- in Iraqi captivity. Naomi Klein, the news that the checkpoint -- that the road that they -- that Calipari was killed on, that she was driving on, Sgrena, when she was being driven to the airport, had been set up for – that there had been a checkpoint set up for the trip of U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte to a dinner that night with General George Casey, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq to provide security. U.S. soldiers established mobile checkpoint, clusters of humvees armed with 50 caliber machine guns on top. It was one of the details that opened fire on the Italians' vehicle. Have you heard anything about this?

NAOMI KLEIN: Well, this would support what Giuliana told me, which is that the road she was on was not the public road that other journalists have traveled on, and that contractors and so on travel on, the very dangerous road. It was a secured road reserved for top Embassy officials, like obviously like Negroponte. But one thing that's very clear is that if she is on this road, and the way she explains it, she had to go through a U.S. checkpoint in order to get into the Green Zone.

You can only access this road through the Green Zone. It's very, very difficult to get into the Green Zone. When I tried to get into the Green Zone, I had to go through six checkpoints -- six different passport checks. So, the idea that the American military didn't know that they were on the road, that they -- that didn't know about their presence is impossible, if she was, in fact, on a road that emerged out of the Green Zone. And I think that the idea that there was a mobile checkpoint set up for Negroponte obviously supports this claim very strongly. What Giuliana was talking about was what she was -- the only thing she could figure out is that the people who they checked in with in the Green Zone, the U.S. soldiers they checked in with in the Green Zone in order to get in, didn't radio ahead to these mobile checkpoints and warn them that they were coming. And from her perspective, that could have either been a mistake, or it could have been some sort of act of vengeance and anger, you know, and we know that there's a lot of anger at the idea that Italians may be paying very large ransoms for the release of prisoners.

She's not alleging some grand conspiracy. There could have just been a broken down communication. But the idea that they didn't know, I think, is impossible, if she was on this secured road, because it emerged out of the Green Zone and you cannot get into the grown zone without passing through a checkpoint.

JUAN GONZALEZ: But even if there was broken down communication, it would seem that the issue of even just firing on a car that is moving away from you and is posing no threat to you on this secured road certainly raises questions of at least extreme negligence on the part of the U.S. soldiers.

NAOMI KLEIN: I think so. And I think that the -- all of these details will obviously emerge from the investigation, and we'll be hearing it directly from Giuliana herself and presumably from the driver.

AMY GOODMAN: Did Giuliana talk about her time in captivity and who held her, Naomi Klein?

NAOMI KLEIN: Yes, she did. I mean, she talked about this incredible disorientation. I think -- I know that you have covered the case on your show, and you have really stressed the fact that Giuliana's experience is not at all unique from the perspective of Iraqis who are living in this sort of pincer of the fear of being caught in a bombing by the resistance or a fear of being shot by U.S. soldiers at a checkpoint, and this is an ongoing fear every time Iraqis leave their home, and we're only hearing about this because there was foreigner involved, because it was such a dramatic incident.

But I think the other part of the story is the implications for journalists and for independent journalists, because Giuliana Sgrena is really a hero, and she is an incredibly committed war correspondent who has put herself in situations of tremendous risk around the world.

She has been to Iraq many, many times. And she went back to Iraq after Simona Pari and Simona Torretta had been kidnapped and released. She told me she has met with the Simonas in her hospital room, as well as several other people who had been kidnapped. She referred to it as the ex-kidnapped club. And she went knowing these risks, but one thing she told me that I think is an issue that you have discussed often on the show is the implications for all of this, for whether independent journalists can do their job in Iraq. And coming from someone who has been willing to take such tremendous risks, she said she just cannot figure out how it's possible at this point. This is because the people who held her made it very clear to her that they don't want independent journalists working in Iraq talking to Iraqis. And this was really one of the most disturbing details and, I think, a very telling detail.

She told them that that made them just like Bush, because the Bush administration has also made it clear that they don't want independent witnesses talking to Iraqis, counting the bodies, highlighting the civilian toll of the war, but there are also clearly some elements of the resistance that feel the same way, and this makes it very, very difficult for independent journalists to do their work.

Saturday, March 26, 2005

Pulling the Mullah's Whiskers: Iran's Military Mobilization


http://www.onsecondthought.net
/images/Ayatollah%20Bush_small.jpg


US Iran Policy:
Newton's Law of Threat and Response At Work


According to a report by the Associated Press, U.S. officials are "concerned" that Iran is reportedly buying and stockpiling high-tech small arms weapons as well as heavier equipment such as tanks, cruise missiles, etc. - Dave Lindorff







Dave Lindorff
http://www.thiscantbehappeining.net
Saturday, March 26, 2005


Well duh!


Way down in the piece it mentions that the U.S. continues to leave open the possibility, raised by President Bush himself, of attacking Iran over its alleged efforts to produce enriched uranium which could be used to make nuclear weapons.


Now, if you go around threatening to invade a nation--especially a nation where you already have a record of having overthrown one government and of having sent in an airborne assault force--and especially if you have just invaded another country, one that is a neighbor of the nation you are now threatening--shouldn't you expect that that nation will be preparing for your attack?


A government that did not take steps to prepare for such a threatened invasion would be derelict in the extreme. Which should have us citizens in the U.S. asking questions about just what the hell our own belligerent government is trying to do here.






Arguably, the reason Iran is working at providing itself with a nuclear capability is precisely because it feels threatened by the U.S., and has noticed that those countries that have nuclear weapons--Israel, Russia, India, Pakistan, China, and North Korea--seem to get treated a lot better by the U.S. than countries like Syria, Iraq and Vietnam, which don't.


As well, arguably Iran could see making trouble on the sly in neighboring Iraq, where the entire U.S. military is now tied down battling a growing insurgency, as its best insurance against being invaded or attacked, since as long as the U.S. is so over-extended there, it would be unlikely to start yet another war with a much larger and more politically unified nation.


If the goal of the U.S. were to enhance the security of the Middle East region, to stabilize and rebuild Iraq, and to enhance the safety of Americans and of American interests, one would think it would be trying to reach some kind of modus vivendi with Iran, as it has done with China and Russia, so as to lesson the perceived need of the Iranians to enhance their military capabilities and screw with Iraq.





That, however, is not what the U.S. is doing. Instead it is blustering, making threats, and acting outraged at efforts made by Iran to protect itself, all of which can only have the effect of making the Iranians even more nervous and anxious to prepare for the worst.



http://www.internetayatollah.nl/
ayatollah.jpg



One would almost think that the U.S. was trying to provoke Iran.


Whatever the neo-con lunatics are thinking over there in the White House basement, the Pentagon and the State Department with regard to Iran, they are certainly operating on a huge double standard.


Here at home, we're told that we need to consider voiding the nuclear test-ban treaty so our scientists can develop new theater nuclear weapons, like bunker-busting mini-nukes. We're told that we should be developing space-based weapons systems that could destroy armies from space without warning. We're told that we should spend billions developing robot warriors so that we can go off into the Third World killing at will without having to sacrifice our own soldiers. But when China, which spends less on its entire military than the U.S. spends on a single weapon system, increases its military spending, the American government starts screaming bloody murder.



We offer almost state-of-the-art F-16 fighter-bombers, capable of delivering nuclear bombs, to Pakistan, a military dictatorship that has the bomb and that is in a simmering, decades-long border conflict with its nuclear neighbor India--an incredibly dangerous provocation--and then cry foul when Ukraine sells a few cruise missiles to Iraq, which doesn't even have nukes at this point.


It wouldn't be so bad if the U.S. media would at least point out the hypocrisy of all this, but that's not what happens. All we get are the reports of alleged bad, threatening behavior by other countries, not the astonishing provocations of our own regime.


12:51 pm pst