Peace and Justice Post

Two soldiers who wrote op-ed that contradicted Patraeus report die in strange accident, while another is shot in the head in case that bears chilling resemblance to Pat Tillman story

By Paul Joseph Watson

Prison Planet, September 14, 2007

The mother of a soldier who died in an apparent vehicle accident shortly after writing a New York Times op-ed critical of the war in Iraq is demanding to know the truth about what happened to her son, while another author of the piece was also shot in the head in a case that bears a sinister resemblance to the murder of Pat Tillman.

Like Tillman, 28-year-old Sergeant Omar Mora enlisted shortly after 9/11 in the belief that he was fighting to protect his country from terrorists.

However, after the invasion of Iraq Mora became increasingly skeptical of the true agenda behind the war and in August he, along with six other active duty soldiers of the 82nd Airborne Division, wrote a stinging New York Times op-ed that slammed the occupation as “flawed,” “absurd,” and concluded that the sentiment of the Iraqi people renders the ultimate withdrawal of American troops inevitable.

Keep reading . . .

ZNet

Just Foreign Policy

Printer Friendly Version
EMail Article to a Friend

In October 2006 researchers from Johns Hopkins University published a peer-reviewed article in The Lancet, one of Europe’s most important and respected medical journals, estimating that 650,000 Iraqis had been killed due to the U.S.-led invasion of their country, 601,000 violently. [1] The report was quickly marginalized in public debate in the United States.

The researchers’ methods were not to blame. They used the method accepted around the world to measure demographics such as birth and death rates in the wake of natural and man-made disasters: a cluster survey. No one found substantive flaws in the way they conducted their research. Instead, their findings were dismissed because they asked the politically charged question of how many Iraqis have died, and the answer they found was unacceptably high.

Since the Lancet estimate was based on a survey completed in July 2006 and no new demographic studies have been conducted since, Just Foreign Policy has created an update of the Lancet estimate to account for the violent deaths that have occurred since, in an effort to put the question of the overall death toll back on the table. We did this by extrapolating from the Lancet estimate using a trend line derived from a database of deaths reported in the Western media, maintained by Iraq Body Count. [2] Our best estimate, which we update regularly, is that over a million Iraqis have been killed violently as a result of the invasion and occupation. [3]

Continued . . .

Information Clearing House

By Paul Craig Roberts

09/14/07 “ICH” — – -The anti-war movement has proven impotent to stop the war in Iraq despite the fact that the war was initiated on the basis of lies and deception. The anti-war movement stands helpless to prevent President Bush from attacking Iran or any other country that he might demonize for harboring a future 9/11 threat.

September 11 enabled Bush to take America to war and to keep America at war even though the government’s explanation of the events of September 11 is mired in controversy and disbelieved by a large percentage of the population.

Although the news media’s investigative arm has withered, other entities and individuals continue to struggle with unanswered questions. In the six years since 9/11, numerous distinguished scientists, engineers, architects, intelligence officers, pilots, military officers, air traffic controllers, and foreign dignitaries have raised serious and unanswered questions about the official story line.

Continue reading . . .

WSWS : News & Analysis : North America

By Barry Grey
14 September 2007

Use this version to print | Send this link by email | Email the author

President Bush’s nationally televised speech, delivered Thursday evening from the Oval Office, was the low point of a week of lies and absurdities designed to justify the United States’ bloody colonial war in Iraq. The ugly farce began with the congressional testimony Monday and Tuesday of Gen. David Petraeus, the top US commander in Iraq, and US Ambassador Ryan Crocker.

Bush cited their fraudulent assessment of the “success” of the military “surge” to outline a perspective for continuing the American occupation of Iraq and transforming the country into a permanent American protectorate, whose vast oil resources will be exploited by US oil companies, and whose territory will be used as a staging ground for military attacks on Iran and a strategic base for American domination of the Middle East.

Bush was, as usual, shameless in his piling up of lie upon lie, beginning with his portrayal of a gradual reduction in the 30,000 additional combat troops sent to Iraq in the military escalation he announced last January as a “new phase” in the war that could see a significant decline in fighting and troop levels. As is well known, the phasing out of the surge is dictated by the lack of additional forces to replace troops whose tours of duty will be coming to an end.

Keep reading . . .

Thursday, September 13, 2007

Israel’s Syria ‘raid’ remains a mystery

During the early hours of last Thursday morning, a number of Israeli jets appear to have entered Syrian air-space from the Mediterranean Sea, possibly penetrating deep into the country. Later unidentified drop tanks, which may have contained fuel for the planes, were found on Turkish soil near the Syrian border, indicating perhaps the Israeli jets’ exit route.

The Syrian authorities are livid. They say that the aircraft were driven off but that they fired their weaponry into a deserted area.

The implication is that the planes effectively dumped their munitions so better to manoeuvre during their escape.

The Syrian government has briefed Western diplomats and complained to the United Nations.

But there have been no images of the empty countryside where the weapons are alleged to have landed.

Israeli sources are saying nothing.

Long-standing contacts are uncharacteristically silent, noting only that Israel’s military censorship on this subject is as tight as they can ever remember.

Mood of satisfaction

From Washington has come some partial illumination of the shadows.

US officials indicate that at least one target in northern Syria was hit and despite the Israeli silence there does seem to be a perceptible mood of satisfaction in Israel; a sense that what they wanted to achieve was carried out.

So what actually went on during the early hours of Thursday morning? Why were Israeli jets over Syria at all?

And if they indeed released weapons, what were they firing at?

Initially experts suggested that this might simply have been an over-flight to trigger air defence radars and gather electronic intelligence.

Such a probe might be linked to new air defence missiles reportedly supplied to Syria by the Russians.

Other pundits wondered if a potential strike path to Iran was being tested out; though a southern route here into US-controlled Iraqi air-space would be more logical.

And neither option would explain why such aircraft might be armed with air to ground weapons.

North Korea link

As far as likely targets of any attack go there are two broad suggestions.

One, cited by the New York Times newspaper quoting a US source, suggests that the attack was in some way linked to North Korea.

The former US ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, in a recent article in the Wall Street Journal, raised the possibility that Syria is sheltering technology or materials relating to North Korea’s nuclear programme.

When I spoke to Mr Bolton in London just the other day he strongly defended this thesis though he would not be drawn on the reliability of his sources.

Another suggestion is that maybe a missile store or factory with weaponry heading to Hezbollah in Lebanon was hit.

Israel has long complained that the Damascus government is at the very least turning a blind eye to such weapons supplies coming from Iran.

Maybe Israel decided to send the Syrian government a message that it would understand.

Muted response

What is intriguing is that the response of both the Syrian and Israeli governments has been muted – in the Israeli case largely mute.

The Syrians, while angry, are clearly embarrassed that something may have occurred that they failed to prevent.

Israel’s deterrent capacity, weakened by the summer 2006 war in Lebanon, is partially restored.

But an explanation too is needed for Israel’s silence.

Maybe it does not want to over-play its hand.

This apparent raid comes after a summer of tensions between the two countries which some feared might lead to open warfare.

During the past few weeks tensions have markedly declined.

Indeed prior to the bombing mission, if that is what it was, Israel reportedly sent messages to Syria via an intermediary, indicating that it was scaling down its forces on the Golan Heights.

Was this an effort to ensure that this “raid” was not interpreted by the Syrians as a prelude to a large-scale Israeli attack?

There are still more questions than answers in this affair. More information is slowly seeping out.

But in many ways it is remarkable that in an age of instant news and the worldwide web spreading information almost at the speed of light, there can still be episodes like this that remain shrouded in so many layers of mystery.

War In Iraq

By: Michael E. Salla, M.A., Ph.D. on: 14.09.2007

Critically exploring whether or not there was a covert attempt to instigate a catastrophic nuclear war against Iran is illuminated through an introduction using the recent B-52 Incident. On August 30, a B-52 bomber armed with five nuclear-tipped Advanced Cruise missiles travelled from Minot Air Force base, North Dakota, to Barksdale Air Force base, Louisiana, in the United States. Each missile had an adjustable yield between five and 150 kilotons of TNT which is at the lower end of the destructive capacities of U.S. nuclear weapons. For example, the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima had a yield of 13 kilotons, while the Bravo Hydrogen bomb test of 1954 had a yield of 15,000 kilotons. The B-52 story was first covered in the Army Times on 5 September after the nuclear armed aircraft was discovered by Airmen. LINK

What made this a very significant event was that it was a violation of U.S. Air Force regulations concerning the transportation of nuclear weapons by air. Nuclear weapons are normally transported by air in specially constructed planes designed to prevent radioactive pollution in case of a crash. Such transport planes are not equipped to launch the nuclear weapons they routinely carry around the U.S. and the world for servicing or positioning.

The discovery of the nuclear armed B-52 was, according to Hans Kristensen, a nuclear weapons expert at the Federation of American Scientists, the first time in 40 years that a nuclear armed plane had been allowed to fly in the U.S. LINK. Since 1968, after a SAC bomber crashed in Greenland, all nuclear armed aircraft have been grounded but were kept on a constant state of alert. After the end of the Cold War, President George H. Bush ordered in 1991 that nuclear weapons were to be removed from all aircraft and stored in nearby facilities.

Continued . . .

IPS News

WASHINGTON, Sep 12 (IPS) – In sharp contrast to the lionisation of Gen. David Petraeus by members of the U.S. Congress during his testimony this week, Petraeus’s superior, Admiral William Fallon, chief of the Central Command (CENTCOM), derided Petraeus as a sycophant during their first meeting in Baghdad last March, according to Pentagon sources familiar with reports of the meeting.

Fallon told Petraeus that he considered him to be “an ass-kissing little chickenshit” and added, “I hate people like that”, the sources say. That remark reportedly came after Petraeus began the meeting by making remarks that Fallon interpreted as trying to ingratiate himself with a superior.

That extraordinarily contentious start of Fallon’s mission to Baghdad led to more meetings marked by acute tension between the two commanders. Fallon went on develop his own alternative to Petraeus’s recommendation for continued high levels of U.S. troops in Iraq during the summer.

Continued . . .

Dissident Voice

by Carolina Saldaña / September 12th, 2007

The Message

Silence, they say, is the voice of complicity.

But silence is impossible.

Silence screams.

Silence is a message,

just as doing nothing is an act.

Let who you are ring out and resonate

in every word and deed.

Yes, become who you are.

There’s no sidestepping your own being

or your own responsibility.

What you do is who you are.

You are your own comeuppance.

You become your own message.

You are the message.

In the spirit of Crazy Horse,

Leonard Peltier

31 years behind bars!

Leonard Peltier will be 63 years old on September 12, 2007. It’s an international day for demanding the immediate, unconditional freedom of this Native American artist, writer, and activist–one of the most widely recognized political prisoners in the world.

Keep reading . . .

Dissident, September 5th, 2007

Signs are emerging of a new wave of U.S.-backed militarism in Latin America.

Two soldiers in Paraguay stand in front of a camera. One of them holds an automatic weapon. John Lennon’s “Imagine” plays in the background. This Orwellian juxtaposition of war and peace is from a new video posted online by U.S. soldiers stationed in Paraguay. The video footage and other military activity in this heart of the continent represent a new wave of U.S.-backed militarism in Latin America.

Note Video : “The War On Democracy by John Pilger” below the article

It’s a reprise of a familiar tune. In the 1970s and 1980s, Paraguay’s longtime dictator, Gen. Alfredo Stroessner, collaborated with the region’s other dictators through Operation Condor, which used kidnapping, torture and murder to squash dissent and political opponents. Stroessner’s human rights record was so bad that even Ronald Reagan distanced himself from the leader. Carrying on this infamous legacy, Paraguay now illustrates four new characteristics of Latin America’s right-wing militarism: joint exercises with the U.S. military in counterinsurgency training, monitoring potential dissidents and social organizations, the use of private mercenaries for security and the criminalization of social protest through “anti-terrorism” tactics and legislation.

Keep reading . . .

Published on Tuesday, September 11, 2007 byCommonDreams.org

by Robert Naiman

Regardless of the spin and counter-spin around the various Iraq reports, a key domestic political fact – perhaps the most fundamental fact – is once again being buried in the debate.It only takes 51 Senators to end the Iraq war, regardless of how many are prepared to cut off funding.

It is obviously true, as many have pointed out, that 51 Senators could cut off funding for the war, simply by not voting to approve it. But to make funding the sole focus significantly understates the case, and contributes to the utterly false and harmful notion that cutting off funding is the only thing Senators can do.

It was clear in previous Senate votes that there were not 51 Senators who were willing to stand firm on any position in effective opposition to the President. There were not 51 Senators willing to stand firm on a timetable for withdrawal, even stated as a goal. There were not 51 Senators willing to stand firm on a popular prohibition against forcing soldiers to serve longer deployments than they spend at home – a prohibition that all sides agreed would force troop withdrawals.

It’s true that under current Senate rules, on a free-standing bill, 60 votes would be needed on an Iraq bill to overcome a filibuster threat. (Why we tolerate that only 51 Senate votes are needed to confirm nominees to the Supreme Court who oppose fundamental civil rights protections for all Americans, but 60 Senate votes are needed to pass free-standing legislation to end the Iraq war, is a question that deserves a great deal of further scrutiny.) But as we saw on the fight over the supplemental, only 51 votes are needed to attach withdrawal language to legislation that continues to fund the war.

Continued . . .