Sunday, September 30, 2007

"If Israel Attacks Syria, We'll Retaliate"

Hizbullah: If Israel Attacks Syria, We'll Respond

Senior members of Lebanese, Palestinian organizations vow to stand by Damascus if Jewish state launches war.

'Doors will be open which have not been open before. Israel will pay a heavy price,' they warn

By Roee Nahmias
Published: 09.27.07, 22:32 /
Israel News

"If Israel dares to make an adventurous move against Syria, it will pay a heavy price," a member of Hizbulla's political council warned Thursday.

In an interview with the Nazareth-based Kul al-Arab newspaper scheduled to be published on Friday, Dr Ahmad Malli warned Israel against considering an attack on Syria, saying that the Lebanese organization would respond to such an offensive with full force.

"I believe that things have changed," Malli explained.

"The times when everyone was afraid of the Israeli threats are over. The Zionist entity knows more than anyone that the price of such adventurousness would be heavy, and the Israelis know the price more than anyone.

"Since 2006 we have begun a new stage in the Arab-Israeli conflict and have demonstrated this during the Israeli aggression in July (the Second Lebanon War). If anyone wants to make an adventurous move, it will baer responsibility for this aggression."

Asked whether he was referring to aggression both against Lebanon and against Syria, Malli replied, "We are all in one Middle East."
Ahmad Jibril, secretary-general of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, also warned Thursday that if Israel attacked Syria or Hizbullah his organization would also respond.

In an interview with the al-Hadat newspaper, which is published in Arabic in the Galilee city of Tamra, Jibril warned that Israel planned to invade Syria in coordination with Arab countries.

The interview is scheduled to be published Friday.

According to Jibril, if such an attack takes place, Iran and Hizbullah will stand by Damascus and respond in full force.

"I believe that the Israelis and the Americans will carry out attacks against Syria as soon as possible, in other words in the near future. I do not reject the possibility that the Israeli aircraft will attack us – the Palestinians in Syria.

"I also do not reject the possibility that they will attack the Palestinian headquarters in Damascus. We, the Palestinians in Syria, will not stand idly by. We will be at the front posts. I also believe that Hizbullah will take part in this war," he said.
Jibril added that Israel's plan was to isolate Syria from Iran and the rest of its allies, after identifying it as the weakest link.

"I stress that the plan to isolate Syria will not go by easily," he declared.

"I am certain that this war will last for months and will open doors which have not been opened in the past."

Israel "Making Excuses For War"

29/09/2007 20:36 - (SA)

Damascus - Syria accused Israel on Saturday of making excuses for war by spreading what it described as false reports that an Israeli air raid targeted a site linked to weapons of mass destruction.

Syrian Deputy President Farouq al-Shara said his country did not want war "in the distant or near future".

"They (Israel) are making up things to justify an aggression in the future. They are playing on public opinion to mislead it," he said, describing the reports as fabrications.

"Everything reported about this raid is wrong and is part of a psychological warfare that will not fool Syria," Shara told reporters after meeting his Iraqi counterpart Adel Abdul-Mahdi.

Damascus says Israel launched the air raid on September 6, bombing an empty area after air defence systems confronted the aircraft.

...Shara said the raid also was aimed at boosting the morale of the Israeli military, which failed to crush the Lebanese movement Hezbollah, an ally of Syria, in last year's war.

"They want to rehabilitate the Israeli army after the Lebanese resistance broke it. But what Israel needs is to rehabilitate the Israeli mind, only then will a real opportunity for genuine peace be created," he said.
...The United States, Israel's chief ally, has said it would invite Syria to an international conference in November to try to revive Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking.

Shara said the meeting would not succeed without pressure on Israel to withdraw from all the Arab land it occupied in 1967 in exchange for peace, including the Golan.

"Anything else and the meeting will be worthless," he said. "We don't need more photo opportunities."

The Media Anesthetizes Our Minds

The Media Anesthetizes Our Minds To Make Us Embrace War As Freedom, and Fraud Aas Fact

By Greg Felton
(Friday, September 28, 2007)

"Political language--and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists--is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”

-- George Orwell, 1946
In his famous novel 1984, George Orwell introduces us to “Newspeak,” the pseudo-language by which the Ingsoc (English Socialist) government of Oceania, led by Big Brother, sabotages independent thought and imposes a repressive conformity on the public.

“The purpose of Newspeak,” wrote Orwell, “was to make all other modes of thought impossible. It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all, and Oldspeak [standard English] forgotten, a heretical thought… would be literally unthinkable.”

For example,

in Newspeak, “liberty and equality,” are reduced to “crimethink”; “free” only has the sense of “without” as in “free from” something; “dissent” is “thoughtcrime.” Syme, a senior editor of the 11th edition of the Newspeak Dictionary proudly describes the purpose behind this linguistic destruction: “The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking—not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.”

When Orwell wrote 1984 the year was 1948, and Ingsoc was understood to be a metaphor for the communist régime of Stalinist Russia, but the origins of Newspeak can be found in an essay Orwell wrote two years earlier called Politics and the English Language, in which Orwell calls for wholesale language reform to rid the language of the generica, clichés, pretentious diction and other forms of lexical dross that obfuscate meaning and inhibit honest speech:

“All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred, and schizophrenia. When the general atmosphere is bad, language must suffer.…But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought. A bad usage can spread by tradition and imitation even among people who should and do know better.”
One would expect people in the media to know better, but the vast majority are in the thought-corruption business and either too lazy or intimidated to use language honestly. It doesn’t take much imagination to see that “lies, evasions, folly, hatred, and schizophrenia” typify the language of “Big Bush.”

Although the debasement of English obviously did not start with Bush and his zionist junta, the last five years of endless war against Arabs and the pending unprovoked attack on Iran have given added import to Orwell’s warnings about the abuse of political language and how it serves as a thought-control mechanism.

Here are some of the more egregious, loaded terms in our modern political argot that, as Orwell would say, anesthetize our minds and inhibit critical thought:


This all-purpose epithet of opprobrium is designed to conflate Israel with World Jewry, thereby implying that to attack one means to attack the other. In truth, the term is meaningless, as I wrote in an earlier essay:

“Strictly speaking, ‘semitic’ is a linguistic term denoting a family of Afro-Asiatic languages, of which we have today Arabic, Hebrew, Maltese, and the South Arabic languages of northern Ethiopia. Ancient semitic languages included Akkadian, Canaanite, Amorite, Ugaritic, Phoenician, Punic, Aramaic, as well as ancient Hebrew and Syriac.”

The unique association of Jews with Semites serves to reinforce the cult of Jewish victimhood and shut down condemnation of Israel.


This expression dates to the Reagan era and is a euphemism for “Christian.” Because religion has both positive and negative connotations and is often an instrument of repression, radical Christians cannot openly advocate their religion against the secular law or other religions.

Also, the U.S. officially has no religion, and the separation of church and state is integral to U.S. democracy. But “faith” affords the illusion of inclusiveness and absolute virtue. Even science has a faith component, albeit a rational one. Thus, expressions like “faith-based schools,” and “faith-based entertainment” covertly and innocuously serve the agenda of anti-democratic Christian religious exclusivity.

Holocaust Denier:

To question is not to deny, yet anyone who doubts any part of the received zionist version of what happened to Europe’s Jews is immediately deemed to have committed crimethink. Nowhere is the brainwashing intent of political language more overt than in this nonsense expression. The Lobby demands unconscious acceptance of its orthodoxy, and its use of this and other biased expressions is clearly designed to make a heretical (independent) thought unthinkable.

Hostile Entity:

This most recent and addition to our political lexicon refers to the new denotation of the Gaza Strip under the elected Hamas government. “Hostile” merely reflects Israel’s bias, so this expression is intellectually corrupt. One cannot say that Israel is a hostile entity (toward Palestine) because that would imply that Palestine has legitimate grievances against Israel. Once stigmatized as hostile, any large-scale violence against the Gaza Strip can be made to appear justifiable.


Though this term’s meaning is not contorted, its use is highly selective. It is used selectively to demonize critical speech, as in the expression, “Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been charged with incitement.” The point is that Ahmadinejad has pointed out the criminality of Israel’s persecution of Palestinians, and underscored the illegitimacy of the state’s founding, and for this he must be punished. Such comments are deemed to be “incitement” against Jews, even though he said no such thing. (see Anti-Semitism above.)

Right To Exist:

This expression has no standing in international law and, like anti-Semitism, is a contrivance to skew our minds toward sympathy for Israel. Nevertheless, it plays effectively on our innate sense of fairness and understanding to make Palestinians appear to be implacably hostile. One never speaks of Palestine’s right to exist, or Syria’s, or Iran’s, or Iraq’s. Like “free” in Newspeak, it has only one use.


This term no longer has any objective meaning. It no longer refers to people or groups who use violence to bring about political change. It now is used to label any person, group or government that opposes U.S. and Israeli conduct in the Middle East. The idea that “terrorists” could be resistance fighters or people trying to defend themselves is not admitted. Because one cannot defend a terrorist, the term precludes rational debate. Therefore, the word is invariably preceded by “Muslim,” Islamic” or “Arab” to ensure that the orthodox, zionist connotation comes across.

Moreover, this term has given rise to the nonsensical epithet “Islamofascism,” based on the fatuous assertion that Arab regimes are akin to Nazi Germany. From here, the term war on terrorism is repeatedly invoked to justify repression and mass murder against Isramerica’s enemies.
What Orwell wrote in Politics regarding the state of English is directly applicable to the above-mentioned examples:

“All these expressions consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness. Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them. Things like… the Russian purges and deportations, the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan, can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with the professed aims of the political parties… Political language--and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists--is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”

For “pure wind” we have the allegations of Saddam Hussein possessing weapons of mass destruction, or Iran planning a nuclear strike on Israel.

Question begging? How about “war on terrorism?” Who is a terrorist and how can terrorism (a physical non-entity) be the object of military policy? Yet, the term is parroted Pavlov-like by our media with the effect of preventing such a question from being asked.

For cloudy vagueness we have “al-Qa‘ida”--a supposed group of radical Sunni Arab militants that has never been proven to exist.
There is some good news, though. Like the Brotherhood in 1984, there are those who resist “Big Bush’s” totalitarian excesses and linguistic perversions but they are punished for committing a modern thoughtcrime.

1. Former president Jimmy Carter has been vilified for his book Palestine--Peace not Apartheid, and after Harvard University invited him to speak, many of the university’s backers withdrew funding.

2. Professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt have been vilified for writing The Israel Lobby and have had speaking engagements cancelled.

3. Professor Norman Finkelstein is denied tenure at DePaul University after a smear campaign orchestrated by Alan Dershowitz.
Orwell, for all of his criticism, was optimistic that the language was not beyond hope. If each of us refused to give in to worn-out expressions and generica, he says we could reform English:

“The fight against bad English is not frivolous and is not the exclusive concern of professional writers.”


but already the Big Bush pro-Israel propaganda machine is pushing the nation to “war” with Iran, as if Iran posed a threat, which it doesn’t.

How many Americans, I wonder, are preparing to buy the lie and chant “Long Live Big Bush!”

My book The Host and the Parasite - How Israel’s Fifth Column Consumed America is available from

DO NOT buy from Dandelion Books. Authors, like me receive no accountings or monies from sales. See Rip-off Record report on Carol Adler


By Courtesy & © 2007 Greg Felton

Will The Real Terrorists Please Stand Up

By Tim Swanson
Sunday, September 30th, 2007

While not entirely surprising, over the weekend, the Iranian parliament “voted to designate the United States’ Central Intelligence Agency and the U.S. Army as terrorist organizations.”

In part they claim that the clandestine unconventional warfare tactics that the CIA and Special Forces use to infiltrate and subjugate areas such as Iraq and Afghanistan is tantamount to terrorism. In addition, they would like the UN to “intervene in the global problem of U.S. prisons in Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib and secret jails in other countries.”

As a result, the popular cliche “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” will undoubtedly be thrown into the echo chamber over the next several weeks.

However is this not merely another case of the pot calling the kettle black?

The initiation of force is arguably unjustifiable by any organizaiton, whether it is the nation-state or religious cult.

Thus, the bigger issue is that war itself is terrorism with a bigger budget.

And as Robert Higgs has noted with the ratchet effect, war is the health of the state (as observed by Randolph Bourne) – therefore the only victors in future invasions, “police actions,” or terroristic acts are members of the political class and military-industrial complex (i.e., the state).

US & Gulf Air Forces Train For War With Iran

By Tim Shipman in Washington
Last Updated: 12:21am BST 30/09/2007

The American air force is working with military leaders from the Gulf to train and prepare Arab air forces for a possible war with Iran, The Sunday Telegraph can reveal.
( Neocons seek to justify action against Teheran )

An air warfare conference in Washington last week was told how American air chiefs have helped to co-ordinate intelligence-sharing with Gulf Arab nations and organise combined exercises designed to make it easier to fight together.
Gen Michael Mosley, the US Air Force chief of staff, used the conference to seek closer links with allies whose support America might need if President George W Bush chooses to bomb Iran.

Pentagon air chiefs have helped set up an air warfare centre in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) where Gulf nations are training their fighter pilots and America has big bases. It is modelled on the US Air Force warfare centre at Nellis air force base in Nevada.
Jordan and the UAE have both taken part in combined exercises designed to make sure their air forces can fly, and fight, together and with American jets.

The conference was long-planned to discuss developments in air warfare technology, but the question of possible hostilities involving Iran was discussed.

Bruce Lemkin, the American air force deputy under-secretary for international affairs, said: "We need friends and partners with the capabilities to take care of their own security and stability in their regions and, through the relationship, the inter-operability and the will to join us in coalitions when appropriate…

"On its most basic level, it's about flying together, operating together and training together so, if we have to, we can fight together."
While it is unlikely that America's Gulf allies would join any US air strike against suspected nuclear targets in Iran, their co-operation might be required to allow passage of warplanes though their airspace. American defence officials are also keen that Iran's Arab neighbours prepare to deal with any Iranian attempt to target them in return.

Lt Gen Prince Faisal bin Al Hussein, who is special assistant to the chief of staff of the Jordanian armed forces, said "concern at Iran's attempt to establish itself as a regional superpower" had led to greater co-operation, "not just at the inter-service level but also at the political level".
He said the new air warfare centre had allowed them to "exchange information and exercise together".

But Air Chief Marshal Sir Glen Torpy, the head of the RAF, voiced the fear of many British officials that America is too devoted to military solutions.

He said: "In an environment like this, we always focus on the part that the military can play in solving security and foreign policy problems, but the military will rarely, if ever, be the solution."

"I Hate All Iranians"

I Hate All Iranians, US Aide Tells MPs

Last Updated at 21:26pm on 29th September 2007

Britsh MPs visiting the Pentagon to discuss America's stance on Iran and Iraq were shocked to be told by one of President Bush's senior women officials: "I hate all Iranians."

And she also accused Britain of "dismantling" the Anglo-US-led coalition in Iraq by pulling troops out of Basra too soon.
The all-party group of MPs say Debra Cagan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Coalition Affairs to Defence Secretary Robert Gates, made the comments this month.

The six MPs were taken aback by the hardline approach of the Pentagon and in particular Ms Cagan, one of Mr Bush's foreign policy advisers.

She made it clear that although the US had no plans to attack Iran, it did not rule out doing so if the Iranians ignored warnings not to develop a nuclear bomb.

It was her tone when they met her on September 11 that shocked them most.

The MPs say that at one point she said: "In any case, I hate all Iranians."

Although it was an aside, it was not out of keeping with her general demeanour.

"She seemed more keen on saying she didn't like Iranians than that the US had no plans to attack Iran," said one MP.

"She did say there were no plans for an attack but the tone did not fit the words."

Another MP said: "I formed the impression that some in America are looking for an excuse to attack Iran. It was very alarming."
Tory Stuart Graham, who was on the ten-day trip, would not discuss Ms Cagan but said: "It was very sobering to hear from the horse's mouth how the US sees the situation."

Ms Cagan, whose job involves keeping the coalition in Iraq together, also criticised Britain for pulling out troops.

"She said if we leave the south of Iraq, the Iranians will take it over," said one MP.

Another said: "She is very forceful and some of my colleagues were intimidated by her muscular style."

The MPs also saw Henry Worcester, Deputy Director of the Office of Iranian Affairs, who said he favoured talks with Iran.

The Pentagon denied Ms Cagan said she "hated" Iranians.

"She doesn't speak that way," said an official.

But when The Mail on Sunday spoke to four of the six MPs, three confirmed privately that she made the remark and one declined to comment. The other two could not be contacted.

Saturday, September 29, 2007

Who Really Rules Israel?

Jewish State Controlled By Four Informal Networks, Not By Government

By Gabriel Sheffer
Published: 09.28.07, 19:04 /
Israel Opinion

In light of the battle between Olmert, Netanyahu and Barak for the next premiership, the public debate focuses on the question on who of these three politicians is the "strong leader" many Israelis yearn for.

At the same time, the failures of all Israeli leaders throughout history and their inability to implement their policies are attributed to a series of elements, including political instability, the plethora of parties, and the low popularity of all government institutions.

However, despite the weakness of leaders and the Knesset, policy is still formulated and decisions are still being taken both on the diplomatic and local level.

This gives rise to the following question: Who rules the State of Israel?

If we closely examine the state of our political system, and particularly the question of who rules Israel in practice, which is something that is not done often, a disturbing picture emerges:

Four informal "networks," which are unelected and often act surreptitiously, rule Israel, with "strong leaders" associated with them to some extent and even being controlled by them. The membership of these networks is not permanent and their makeup changes.

Yet the members of these networks have a joint agenda, common ideological and practical perceptions, joint interests, common ways of acting, and the ability to influence public opinion, and of course influence politicians.

The defense network is made up of senior military officers, both past and present, heads of the secret services and police, and business owners in the security sphere. The members of this network have determined the political and military moves en route to all our wars, and between them. They are both leftist and rightist (as of late, there are more rightist and religious ones) and also took part in important political moves and in the peace process.

In addition, they are also intimately involved in economic, political, and cultural developments that pertain to the defense establishment. It is no secret that most Israeli prime ministers, even if not all of them, were members of this network. There was not always agreement between them and between those serving in the defense establishment during their tenure, but ultimately they acted together – and this can be clearly seen when we examine the evacuation of southern Lebanon, the disengagement from Gaza, the security fence, etc.

The capitalist network is made up of the 12 or 18 wealthiest families in Israel, as well as the large business owners. Its members are interested in the continuation of privatization processes, low taxation levels, low salary levels, etc. The members of this network are connected to senior politicians who enjoy their assistance and are willing to maintain neo-liberal policies, which led to great destruction of the Israeli welfare state and huge gaps between the highest and lowest echelons.

The strictly Orthodox rabbinical network is relatively small, and its members share common interests in all matters pertaining to the relationship between religion and state. They influence, and in fact determine, matters of personal status, yeshiva students' exemption from military service, conversion policy, attitude to foreign workers, and to a growing extent our policy in the territories.

The network of senior bureaucratic officials is particularly important. Its most prominent members include senior Treasury, Bank of Israel, Defense Ministry and Education Ministry officials. On the one hand, they are the ones who determine and formulate most of the important decisions and laws passed by the Knesset, and on the other hand they have the power to torpedo decisions and laws, particularly through inaction.

All Israeli prime ministers and senior ministers in recent decades were connected to or members of these networks.
The three candidates for the next premiership are also connected to these networks: Benjamin Netanyahu is affiliated with the capitalist and Orthodox networks. Ehud Olmert is also affiliated with the capitalist and Orthodox networks. Meanwhile, Ehud Barak is associated with the defense and capitalist networks.

The three of them have attempted to, and will continue to attempt to, cultivate their relations with the network of senior bureaucratic officials.

This is one of the major problems of Israeli democracy.

Until it gives power to the representatives of the genuine sovereign – the people – Israeli democracy will suffer from these ills, and even talented and inspirational leaders who subscribe to ideology that meets the needs of the people won't be able to function properly.
The writer is a professor at the Hebrew University's political science department and a senior research fellow at the Van Leer Institute

Iran Labels CIA "Terrorist Organization"

Last Updated: 29/09/2007 17:53

Iran's parliament approved a non-binding resolution today labeling the CIA and the US Army "terrorist organisations," in apparent response to a US Senate resolution seeking to give a similar designation to Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

The parliament cited US involvement in dropping nuclear bombs in Japan in World War II, using depleted uranium munitions in the Balkans, Afghanistan and Iraq, supporting the killings of Palestinians by Israel, bombing and killing Iraqi civilians, and torturing terror suspects in prisons.

"The aggressor US Army and the Central Intelligence Agency are terrorists and also nurture terror," said a statement by the 215 lawmakers who signed the resolution at an open session of the Iranian parliament. The session was broadcast live on state-run radio.

The resolution, which is seen as a diplomatic offensive against the US, urges Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's government to treat the two as terrorist organisations.

It also paves the way for the resolution to become legislation that - if ratified by the country's hardline constitutional watchdog - would become law.

The government is expected to wait for US reaction before making its decision.
On Wednesday, the US Senate voted 76-22 in favor of a resolution urging the State Department to designate Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organisation.

While the proposal attracted overwhelming bipartisan support, a small group of Democrats said they feared labeling the state-sponsored organisation a terrorist group could be interpreted as a congressional authorization of military force in Iran.

© 2007

Gladio: NATO's False-Flag Terrorism

Operation Gladio (1948-1990): NATO's Terrorists

BBC Timewatch 1992 - State Sponsored Terrorism in Europe.

A truly Shocking & horrific documentary about the network of secret "Left-Behind" agents from France, USA, Italy and Belgium that carried out terror attacks on the European public and blamed the leftwing and communists...
















American Crimes Against Humanity

The government knew Bayer was selling AIDS tainted drugs in Europe and Japan.

American-Sponsored Terrorism

Does the "War on Terror" include our own government Mr. President?

China's Impenetrable Air Defenses

While US Tied Up In Iraq, China Making Big Strides: US Commander In Japan

The Associated Press
Published: September 28, 2007

: While the U.S. has been tied up fighting the war in Iraq, China has made huge gains toward modernizing its military and improving its equipment, and its air defenses are now nearly impenetrable to all but the newest of American fighters, the senior U.S. military official in Japan said.

Lt. Gen. Bruce Wright, commander of the roughly 50,000 U.S. forces in Japan, Washington's biggest ally in Asia, said in an interview this week the Iraq war is reducing the availability of U.S. troops and equipment to meet other contingencies and eating up funds that might be used to replace or upgrade planes that are being pushed to their operational limits.

China, meanwhile, is rapidly filling the skies with newer, Russian-made Sukhoi Su-27 "Flankers" and Su-30s, along with the domestically built J-10, a state-of-the-art fighter that Beijing just rolled out in January.

China has also improved its ballistic missile defenses and its ability to take the fight into space — as it proved by shooting down an old weather satellite at an orbital height similar to that used by the U.S. military.
Wright stressed he is "positive" about the current efforts to increase diplomatic and political engagement with Beijing. But he said the Chinese military buildup is disconcerting.

"Are we in trouble? It depends on the scenario," Wright said in an interview Thursday with The Associated Press.

"But you have to be concerned about the small number of our forces and the age of our forces."
Wright noted the Air Force's fleet is older than ever before.

The average age of the F-15 fighters, for example, is about 24 years, while that of the KC-135 Stratotanker, a mid-air refueling plane that is a key element in the Air Force's ability to conduct long-range missions, is 46 years.

Wright, who was at this air base on Japan's southern island of Okinawa to meet with local commanding officers, said the improvement in Chinese air defenses has made China's airspace "difficult if not impossible" to penetrate with the kind of U.S. fighters — F-15s and F-16s — now deployed in Japan.
Doing so would require the F-22 or the Joint Strike Fighter, which both have stealth capabilities.
The Air Force sent a dozen F-22s to Japan earlier this year, but only for a temporary deployment. It has no plans to bring more here permanently.

The Joint Strike Fighter, or F-35, is not yet combat-ready.

"Our planes are much older than the planes they would be matched against," Wright said.

"For the first time in history, we are seeing another nation, in this case China, with newer fighters than we have. We know that they continue to invest at a level that is unprecedented. We need to be watchful of Chinese military capabilities."
He said the demands of supporting ground troops in Iraq has pushed the Air Force to draw on its fighters from virtually anywhere they can be found. Two U.S. F-16 fighter squadrons from the northern Japan base of Misawa are currently rotating in and out of Iraq.

"The question is how much more are they going to need," he said. "They are already pulling them out of Misawa, so where else are they going to come from?"

Wright noted Beijing is also at an advantage because it is not now at war, and can thus devote more of its resources to building up new capabilities.

"China is not engaged in a tough ground war in southwest Asia so they have the freedom to maneuver to modernize forces that are not current," he said.
Air Force officials have sent up alarms recently regarding funding.

Although the Army and Marines are increasing their troop levels by 92,000, the Air Force had announced plans to cut its costs by reducing 40,000 personnel. That plan had to be scaled back, however, because of the need for support for the larger number of ground troops.

In May, Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne said drastic action was needed.

"I'm concerned for the future," he said. "We're simply not funded to maintain and do everything that everyone wants us to do."
Wright, who is also commander of the 5th Air Force, which is based just outside of Tokyo, said the crunch is being felt in the Pacific.

"It's not just boots on the ground that's fighting the war right now," he said. "There's a funding top line for the Department of Defense, and the Air Force needs more of it."

Taiwan's Cruise Missiles To Reach China

Taiwan Develops Missiles Designed To Reach Targets In China

By David Lague
Published: September 28, 2007

TAIPEI: Faced with a threatening military buildup by China, an increasingly outgunned Taiwan is quietly pushing ahead with plans to develop missiles that could strike the mainland, defense and security experts say.

Taiwan has in recent months tested a land attack cruise missile with a range of 1,000 kilometers, or 621 miles, that could carry a 400-kilogram warhead to targets as distant as Shanghai, according to military analysts.
Some Taiwanese military specialists have argued for decades that Taiwan should develop offensive weapons, including missiles, as a deterrent to the mainland, which has threatened to attack the self-governing island if it moves toward formal independence.

The Pentagon estimates that China has deployed 900 missiles opposite Taiwan.

Taiwan's military currently has no long-range missiles that could be used to attack distant targets in mainland China.

Senior military officials and lawmakers in the governing Democratic Progressive Party of President Chen Shui-bian have confirmed that the land attack cruise missiles were under development.

They said these missiles were essential to Taiwan's defense because China's soaring defense spending was tilting the military balance in the mainland's favor.

"They want to make mainland China hesitate before launching any attack," said Andrei Chang, a Hong Kong-based expert on the Chinese and Taiwanese militaries and editor in chief of Kanwa Defense Review magazine.

"These missiles could not only destroy military targets, but financial and economic targets as well.

"They want to create massive panic," he added.

There have also been unconfirmed news reports in Taiwan that the military is developing short-range ballistic missiles.

Chen's independence-leaning administration refuses to comment on the existence of a ballistic missile program.

The Bush administration has signaled that it opposes Taiwan developing offensive weapons, including missiles.

At a time when Taipei has angered China with a decision to hold a referendum on the island's bid to rejoin the United Nations under the name of Taiwan, the deployment of missiles that could strike the mainland could further increase tensions.

There were reports in the Taiwanese media this month that, under pressure from Washington, the Chen administration had dropped plans to deploy surface-to-surface missiles on Taiwan's outlying island of Matsu near the coast of China's Fujian Province.

Missiles deployed on Matsu would be able to strike targets on the mainland where China has concentrated air, missile and land forces opposite Taiwan.
Taiwan's military refused to comment, but Beijing this week reacted sharply to the reports.

"We sternly warn the Taiwan authorities not to play with fire," Li Weiyi, a spokesman for the Taiwan Affairs Office of the State Council, told a regular news briefing Wednesday, according to a report carried by the official Xinhua news agency.

"Whoever plays with fire will get burned."

But analysts believe it will be difficult for the Bush administration to restrain Taipei while China continues its rapid buildup of missile forces that could be used to conduct strikes against military targets and vital infrastructure facilities on Taiwan.

The U.S. and Taiwan militaries estimate that China adds up to 100 new missiles a year to its forces arrayed against the island.

"Taiwan will go ahead," said Andrew Yang, secretary general of the Chinese Council of Advanced Policy Studies, a Taipei-based security policy institute.

"It sends a signal that Taiwan will not be sitting and waiting for Beijing to conduct a strike against Taiwan."

Chang and other experts are confident that the land attack cruise missile, the Hsiung Feng-2E, developed at the Taiwan military's Chungshan Institute of Science and Technology, could soon be in production.

"I am sure it is almost ready," Chang said.

In March, the Washington-based Defense News newspaper reported that this missile had been tested on Feb. 2 at the Jiupeng testing range in Pingtung County on Taiwan's southeast coast.

The newspaper reported that Taiwan's Defense Ministry had confirmed the test without giving any further details.

Defense analysts note that Taiwan publicly acknowledged for the first time this year that offensive missile strikes were now part of its planned response to an attack from the mainland.

In the first phase of its annual Han Kuang exercise in April, Taiwan's military conducted a computer simulation of an engagement with China in which missiles were fired at military targets on the mainland.

A U.S. delegation including the retired commander of U.S. forces in the Pacific, Admiral Dennis Blair, observed the exercise, Taiwanese defense analysts said.
In the aftermath of the exercise, the Bush administration urged Taipei to avoid destabilizing the Taiwan Strait and concentrate on defensive weapons.

"We think that offensive capabilities on either side of the Taiwan Strait are destabilizing and therefore not in the interests of peace and stability," said Dennis Wilder, senior director of East Asian Affairs at the National Security Council.

Taiwan's Ministry of Defense denied that the missiles still under development were offensive weapons.

It said that if a decision was made to deploy them, they would only be used if the island was attacked.

"Our country would not make provocations on its own," the ministry said in a statement.

"Only if we suffered an enemy attack would we actually strike back."
Yang from the Council of Advanced Policy Studies said Taiwan's decision to develop longer-range missiles was part of a strategic reassessment of the most effective method to counter the firepower of China's improving land, air and sea forces.

The United States and other powers were unwilling to supply these kinds of weapons to Taiwan, so the island had no choice but to develop its own, Yang said.

Research and development teams from Taiwan's military had continued to improve the range, payload and guidance systems of domestically designed anti-ship cruise missiles to the point where they could be used against coastal military targets on the mainland.
Yang said some of the reports about the capabilities of these new cruise missiles could be exaggerated.

He said they had only been tested to ranges of about 300 kilometers, which would only be enough to reach coastal targets on the mainland.

But there was potential for improvement as development continued.

"In five years time, the range could be extended," he said.

Most military experts say it is unlikely that Taiwan's cruise missiles would have a dramatic impact on the military balance across the Taiwan Strait, given the speed and scale of China's military modernization.

But they would allow Taiwan to strike at important military targets, including airfields, missile launch sites, military bases, logistics centers and fuel storage facilities.

Apart from the disruption to mainland military operations, these strikes could deliver a psychological blow to the Chinese population and undermine popular support for an attack on Taiwan.
While the United States continues to oppose Taiwan's offensive missile plans, the Pentagon announced this month that it was preparing to sell Taiwan 12 P-3C Orion anti-submarine aircraft and surface-to-air missiles as part of a $2.2 billion arms package.

This falls far short of an $18 billion arms deal including the P-3C's, conventional submarines and PAC-3 anti-missile batteries that the Bush administration in 2001 said Taiwan needed to increase its defenses.

Taiwan's main opposition party, the Kuomintang, has continually blocked the Chen administration's efforts to approve the budget for the full package, but partial funding was approved in June.

Beijing last week called on the United States to cancel the sale and sever military ties with Taiwan.

Friday, September 28, 2007

U.S. Caused More Iraqi Deaths Than Saddam

Posted: 25 June 2005 0447 hrs

ISTANBUL : The World Tribunal on Iraq (WTI), a grouping of NGOs, intellectuals and writers opposed to the war in Iraq, on Friday accused the United States of causing more deaths in Iraq than ousted president Saddam Hussein.

"With two wars and 13 years of criminal sanctions, the United States have been responsible for more deaths in Iraq than Saddam Hussein,"Larry Everest, a journalist, told hundreds of anti-war activists gathered in Istanbul.
Founded in 2003, the WTI is modelled on the 1960s Russell Tribunal, created by the British philosopher Bertrand Russell to denounce the war in Vietnam. It has held about 20 sessions so far in different locations around the world.

A symbolic verdict was to be handed down on Monday by the 14 "jurors of conscience" -- including the militant Indian novelist Arundhati Roy, winner of the 1997 Booker Prize for "The God of Small Things."

The tribunal has for the past two years been gathering what it says is evidence that the war launched in March 2003 to oust Saddam was illegal, and it has also been gathering evidence of exactions allegedly committed by coalition troops.

Its verdict on Monday after its final session is expected to condemn both the United States and Britain.

Roy told the gathering here:

"The evidence collated in this tribunal should ... be used by the International Criminal Court -- whose jurisdiction the United States does not recognize -- to try as war criminals George Bush, Tony Blair, John Howard, Silvio Berlusconi, and all those government officials, army generals, and corporate CEOs who participated in this war and now benefit from it."

She added that the tribunal was:

"a defense mounted against one of the most cowardly wars ever fought in history."


Hans von Sponeck, former director of the UN's so-called oil-for-food programme for Iraq, told the Istanbul gathering that the humanitarian programme "was totally irrelevant."

Von Sponeck ran the programme until 2000 when he resigned because he said it failed to meet the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people.
The oil-for-food programme ran from 1996 to 2003. It allowed Baghdad to sell oil in exchange for humanitarian goods the country lacked due to international sanctions imposed in 1990 after Iraq invaded Kuwait.

Critics said the sanctions led to the deaths of tens of thousands of children and a drastic decline in living standards for almost the entire Iraqi population.

The Iraqi government under Saddam swindled millions of dollars from the 64-billion-dollar scheme, and the scandal has become a huge embarrassment for the United Nations.

"The UN handling of Iraq will be listed as a massive failure," von Sponeck said.

"We didn't speak out despite knowing what the economic sanctions had created as a human disaster."

He singled out the United States and British governments for allegedly blocking projects that would, he said, have allowed more people to survive.

Some 200 non-governmental organsiations -- including the environmentalist group Greenpeace, the anti-globalization ATTAC and Vietnam Veterans Against the War -- as well as a number of prominent intellectuals such as US linguist Noam Chomsky and Egyptian sociologist Samir Amin are involved in the WTI.

- AFP /ls

Causes Of Suicide Terrorism

Antiwar Radio: Charles Goyette Interviews Robert A. Pape

By Charles Goyette
Thursday, September 27th, 2007

Robert A. Pape, professor of political science at the University of Chicago and author of the study Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism, explains why it is that suicide bombers do what they do:

To rid their land of foreign combat forces. That’s it. Not religion. Not virgins in Heaven. Not Democracy. Not Freedom™. Not women’s rights… Occupation.
MP3 here. (15:25)

Robert A. Pape is Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago specializing in international security affairs.

His publications include:

Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism (Random House 2005); Bombing to Win: Air Power and Coercion in War (Cornell 1996),

“Why Economic Sanctions Do Not Work,” International Security (1997),

“The Determinants of International Moral Action,” International Organization (1999);

“The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism,” American Political Science Review (2003); and

“Soft Balancing against the United States,” International Security (2005).

His commentary on international security policy has appeared in The New York Times, Washington Post, New Republic, Boston Globe, Los Angeles Times, and Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, as well as on Nightline, ABC News, CBS News, CNN, Fox News, and National Public Radio.

Before coming to Chicago in 1999, he taught international relations at Dartmouth College for five years and air power strategy for the USAF’s School of Advanced Airpower Studies for three years.

He received his Ph. D. from the University of Chicago in 1988 and graduated summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa from the University of Pittsburgh in 1982.

His current work focuses on the causes of suicide terrorism and the politics of unipolarity.

U.S. Worried By Iran's Strategic Dominance

US Frets At Iran's 'Strategic Dominance'

By Gareth Porter
Sep. 28, 2007
Original Source: Inter Press Service

WASHINGTON - The George W Bush administration recently concluded that the increase in rocket attacks on coalition targets by Shi'ite forces in Iraq over the summer was a deliberate move by Iran to escalate the war to put pressure on the United States to accept Iranian influence in Iraq, according to a senior US government official.

The reported conclusions reached by administration officials suggest that the advocates of war with Iran, led by Vice President Dick Cheney, have won at least one phase of the policy battle within the administration over the option of broadening the war into Iran.

The official, who spoke to Inter Press Service on the understanding that there would be no identification other than "senior government official", said the increased attacks represent "not just some new kinds of weapons but a new dynamic" in the conflict with Iran over Iraq.

The official said the attacks had a "very specific strategic purpose", which was "at a minimum to push the United States to accept certain Iranian desiderata" - apparently referring to Iranian negotiating aims.

The official did not specify what the administration believed those aims to be.

But it seems likely that the new conclusion refers to long-established Iranian desires to have the US recognize its legitimate geopolitical and religious interests in Iraq.

The Iranian ambassador to Iraq, Hassan Kazemi Qomi, was quite explicit in his May 28 meeting with US Ambassador Ryan Crocker that Iran wanted Washington to accept that Iraq is Iran's "back yard", according to a report on the Iranian Baztab news website in June.

Iran's secret negotiating proposal to the Bush administration in May 2003 included a similar demand for "respect for Iranian national interests in Iraq and religious links to Najaf/Karbala", referring to two holy Shi'ite cities in Iraq.
The Bush administration now believes that Iran's "larger strategic aim" in allegedly providing modern weapons such as 240mm rockets to Shi'ite militias targeting US and coalition forces in Iraq is "to attempt to establish escalation dominance in Iraq and strategic dominance outside", according to the official.

The official said, "Escalation dominance means you can control the pace of escalation." That term has always been used to refer to the ability of the US to threaten another state with overwhelming retaliation to deter it from responding to US force. The official defined "strategic dominance" as meaning that "you are perceived as the dominant center in the region".

The Bush administration has never used the term "strategic dominance" in any public statement on Iran. According to a concept of regional "dominance" defined by perceptions - which would mean the perceptions of Sunni Arab states who are opposed to any Shi'ite influence in the region - Iran could be seen as already having "strategic dominance" in the region.
The reported conclusion that the increased attacks by Shi'ite forces represent an effort to achieve such dominance could be the basis for a new argument that only by reducing Iranian influence in Iraq through military action can the United States avert Iranian "strategic dominance" in the region.

That conclusion about "strategic dominance" thus implies that destroying what is perceived to be the political-military bases of Iranian influence in Iraq has become the key US war aim.
The conclusion that the Shi'ite militias' rocket attacks on coalition targets represent a bid to "control the pace of escalation" could be interpreted as expressing a concern that the US lacks the military capacity to suppress those forces.

That raises the question whether the advocates of war against Iran have introduced the concept of "escalation dominance" as a way of supporting their favorite option - attacking targets inside Iran.

Further evidence that the Bush administration has taken a step closer to geographic escalation of the war came in a September 10 interview by Brit Hume of Fox News with General David Petraeus, the top US commander in Iraq.

Hume, who appeared to have been tipped off to ask about the option of broadening the war into Iran, asked Petraeus whether the "rules of engagement" allowed him to "do what you think you need to do to suppress this activity on the part of Iran, or perhaps do you need assistance from military not under your command to do this?"

Pressed by Hume, Petraeus said, "When I have concerns about something beyond [the border], I take them to my boss ... and in fact, we have shared our concerns with him and with the chain of command, and there is a pretty hard look ongoing at that particular situation."

Joe Cirincione, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, a Washington think-tank, said that if the report of the administration's conclusions about Iranian aims is true, "it is a disturbing sign that the hardliners have regained the pre-eminent policymaking position".

The use of the term "escalation domination" in the Iraq context - suggesting that Iran is responsible for the conflict - is "wildly inappropriate", Cirincione observed.

He said the reported conclusions sound like the viewpoint of a "group of people inside the administration who view Iran as Nazi Germany" and who are "constantly exaggerating" the threat from Iran.

The view that Iraq has become a US-Iranian "proxy war", with Iran pulling the strings in the Shi'ite camp outside the government, was apparently rejected by the US intelligence community in its National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq issued last February.

The brief summary findings statement released to the public stated, "Iraq' s neighbors influence, and are influenced by, events within Iraq, but the involvement of these outside actors is not likely to be a major driver of violence or the prospects of stability because of the self-sustaining character of Iraq's internal sectarian dynamics."
Gareth Porter is a historian and national-security policy analyst. His latest book, Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam, was published in June 2005.

(Inter Press Service)

Physicists Question U.S. European Missile Plan

Associated Press Writer
Thursday, September 27, 2007
13:53 PDT

WASHINGTON, (AP) -- A number of top U.S-based physicists have concluded the United States used inaccurate claims to reassure NATO allies about U.S. missile defense plans in Eastern Europe.

They say the planned Polish-based interceptors and a radar system in the Czech Republic could target and catch Russian missiles, thus threatening Russia's nuclear deterrent.

That view supports Russia's criticism of the system.
Russia adamantly opposes the plan and the dispute has escalated U.S.-Russian tensions to the highest point since the Cold War.

The Pentagon's Missile Defense agency, which oversees the missile program, considers the scientists' analyses flawed. The U.S. says the missile system is intended to counter a threat from Iran and could not take out Russian missiles. U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has dismissed Russia's concerns as "ludicrous."

But the six scientists — whose backgrounds include elite American universities, research labs and high levels of government — said in interviews that Russia's concerns are justified.

"The claim by the Missile Defense Agency is not correct," says Theodore Postol, a physicist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a longtime missile defense critic.

"And it is hard to understand how they could get something so basic wrong."
The agency's claims were made as part of an intensive U.S. diplomatic push early this year.

Senior U.S. officials, including President George W. Bush, traveled to Europe to convince allies that Russian worries about U.S. missile capabilities were unfounded.

The trips followed threats by Russia to retarget its missiles at Europe.

Some European officials had expressed skepticism about the plans and recommended further consultations with Russia.

Public opinion in some countries, including Poland and the Czech Republic, ran against the U.S. plans.
To reassure the foreign governments and the public, Lt. Gen. Henry "Trey" Obering III, director of the Missile Defense Agency, presented slideshows intended to demonstrate that the Europe-based system was designed to counteract missiles only from Iran.

The allies have not challenged the MDA's claims.

The physicists have told The Associated Press that Obering's presentations were misleading and inconsistent on key points.
Postol, a former scientific adviser to the Chief of Naval Operations, and George Lewis, associate director of the Peace Studies Program at Cornell University, have written a study of the MDA claims.

Postol presented their findings Thursday in Washington.

"If the United States does not provide the allies with accurate information about the decisions they are being asked to participate in and that have direct relevance for their national security as well as ours, the credibility of the United States will continue to diminish," he said in his presentation.
Congressional testimony by Postol in 1992 helped rebut government claims of a high success rate in shooting down Iraqi scud missiles with Patriot missiles in the Persian Gulf War.

Pavel Podvig, a researcher at Stanford University's Center for International Security and Cooperation, made his own estimates and confirmed Postol and Lewis' findings.

Podvig, a Russian physicist, has been critical of both U.S. and Russian missile defense claims.

Three other physicists also reviewed Postol's findings and told The Associated Press that they found them accurate:

_Richard Garwin, a National Science Award winner, who is credited with the design of the first hydrogen bomb. Garwin served on the Rumsfeld Commission, an independent panel appointed by Congress in the 1990s to assess the threat to the United States from ballistic missiles.

_Philip Coyle, a former associate director of the National Nuclear Security Administration's Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Coyle was assistant secretary of defense in the Clinton administration in charge of testing weapons systems.

_David Wright, a physicist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nuclear nonproliferation and environmental advocacy group.
The MDA has stood by their claims that the interceptors could not catch Russian intercontinental ballistic missiles, or ICBMs.

"The basic fact of the matter is that we would never make a statement like that unless we knew it was true," said MDA spokesman Rick Lehner.

In one of Obering's slide presentations, labeled "Missile Defense for U.S. allies and Friends," an image illustrates the trajectory of a Russian ICBM from a point east of Moscow toward Washington.

The slide, which also illustrates the Polish interceptors, says in bold script "Interceptors Cannot Catch Russian Missiles."

"The reason we selected Poland and the Czech Republic for the potential positions of these assets is because it was optimum for the Iranian threat," Obering said after a meeting with German officials in Berlin on March 15.

"They are not positioned to where we can even catch the Russian missiles with these interceptors."

The dissenting scientists say that both those claims are incorrect:

the interceptors could catch Russian ICBMs; the interceptors and the radar would be better positioned closer to Iran to counter a threat from its missiles.

Postol concluded that the MDA significantly understated the speed that their interceptors can reach when their boosters burn out and overstated how long they would need to track a missile by launching the interceptors.

While all six scientists are skeptical that the U.S. missile defense system can work, they believe that in terms of raw speed, U.S. interceptors in Poland could catch a Russian ICBM launched from western Russia at any part of the continental United States.

In Postol's model, the intercept would occur at a point over the North Pole.
The Missile Defense Agency says the Polish rockets would reach a burnout speed of 6.3 kilometers (3.9 miles) per second, roughly the speed of the Russian missiles depicted in Obering's slides. At that speed, the interceptors could not catch the Russian missiles.

But Postol says the interceptors could top 9 kilometers (5.6 miles) per second.

Responding to Postol's criticism, the MDA said Postol made assumptions about the interceptors that are based on theory, but in the real world they do not work as well. Not only are the interceptors one-third slower, their rocket motors' thrust is not as efficient when tested, and to get to Russian missiles they would be going through various stresses that exceed what would be considered normal design.

The MDA presented a chart of rocket motor efficiency from tests and noted that Postol's estimates did not reflect what happens in the real world.

But Garwin countered that at least one rocket motor was more efficient than a Postol estimate.

On Thursday, MDA posted a statement on its Web site.

"MDA stands by its figures, which are real, not hypothetical, and are derived from actual hardware and software performance data from actual flight tests," the statement said. The statement also charged that Postol was overly optimistic about the interceptor capabilities.

Obering claimed in slides that the European system would expand protection from a U.S.-based system to parts of East Asia.

Postol said that could not be true if the European interceptors were moving as slowly as the MDA is claiming.
The scientists have not disputed another argument used by U.S. officials that the 10 interceptors planned for Poland would be easily overwhelmed by Russia's vast arsenal, leading one supporter of missile defense to conclude that even if the scientists are correct, the U.S. argument holds up.

"I don't think it changes the basic assertion of the administration that this does not pose a threat to Russia," said Baker Spring, a national security analyst at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.

However, Russia has expressed worries that once the bases are established, they could be expanded with more interceptors and improved capabilities.

A "Pull Out" Bill That Requires NO Pull Out

Modest Bill On Iraq Pullout Plans Gains Support

By Susan Cornwell,
Thu Sep 27, 7:16 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - With the U.S. Senate gridlocked over pulling troops out of Iraq, a more modest House of Representatives proposal gained momentum on Thursday as the chamber's Republican leader said he would likely vote for it.

The proposal, by a bipartisan group of lawmakers, does not mandate any U.S. troop withdrawals but would require the Pentagon to submit regular reports on withdrawal planning to defense committees of Congress.
To read the entire report, kindly click on the above Yahoo link.

IBM's New Mass Surveillance Network

Associated Press Writer
Thu Sep 27, 9:49 AM ET

CHICAGO - A car circles a high-rise three times. Someone leaves a backpack in a park. Such things go unnoticed in big cities every day.

But that could change in Chicago with a new video surveillance system that would recognize such anomalies and alert authorities to take a closer look.

On Thursday, the city and IBM Corp. are announcing the initial phase of what officials say could be the most advanced video security network in any U.S. city.

The City of Broad Shoulders is getting eyes in the back of its head.

"Chicago is really light years ahead of any metropolitan area in the U.S. now," said Sam Docknevich, who heads video-surveillance consulting for IBM.

Chicago already has thousands of security cameras in use by businesses and police — including some equipped with devices that recognize the sound of a gunshot, turn the cameras toward the source and place a 911 call. But the new system would let cameras analyze images in real time 24 hours a day.

"You're talking about creating (something) that knows no fatigue, no boredom and is absolutely focused," said Kevin Smith, spokesman for the city's Office of Emergency Management and Communications.

For example, the system could be programmed to alert the city's emergency center whenever a camera spots a vehicle matching the description of one being sought by authorities.

The system could be programmed to recognize license plates.

It could alert emergency officials if the same car or truck circles the Sears Tower three times or if nobody picks up a backpack in Grant Park for, say, 30 seconds.
IBM says this approach might be more effective than relying on a bleary-eyed employee to monitor video screens. "Studies have shown people fall asleep," Docknevich said.

It is unclear when the system will be fully operational.

Existing cameras could be equipped with the new software, but additional cameras probably will be added as well, Smith said.

"The complexity of the software is going to define how quickly we are able to do this," he said.

Chicago's announcement comes as it is vying to bring the 2016 games to town.

A purportedly security-enhancing surveillance system is something city officials could trumpet to International Olympic Committee.

"The eventual goal is to have elaborate video surveillance well in advance of the 2016 Olympics," said Bo Larsson, CEO of Firetide Inc., the company providing the wireless connectivity for the project.

Neither Smith nor IBM would reveal the cost of the network, but Smith said much of it would be paid by the Department of Homeland Security.

The cost of previous surveillance efforts has run into the millions of dollars. Just adding devices that allow surveillance cameras to turn toward the sound of gunfire was as much as $10,000 per unit.

Some critics question whether such systems are effective and whether they could lead to an unwarranted invasion of privacy.

Jonathan Schachter, a public policy lecturer at Northwestern University, said there are no studies that show cameras reduce crime. And the idea that placing cameras near "strategic assets" would prevent a terrorist attack is "absurd," he said.

Ed Yohnka, spokesman for the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois, said he was concerned that more cameras and more sophisticated technology would lead to abuses of authority.

"It is incumbent on the city to ensure that there are practices and procedures in place to sort of watch the watchers," he said.

Thursday, September 27, 2007

Israel Seeks Exemption From Atomic Rules

Tuesday September 25, 2007 8:16 PM
Associated Press Writer

VIENNA, Austria (AP) - Israel is looking to a U.S.-India nuclear deal to expand its own ties to suppliers, quietly lobbying for an exemption to non-proliferation rules so it can legally import atomic material, according to documents made available Tuesday to The Associated Press.
The move is sure to raise concerns among Arab nations already considering their neighbor the region's atomic arms threat.

Israel has never publicly acknowledged having nuclear weapons but is generally considered to possess them.

The new push is reflected in papers Israel presented earlier this year to the ``Nuclear Suppliers' Group'' - 45 nations that export nuclear fuel and technology under strict rules meant to lessen the dangers of proliferation and trafficking in materials that could be used for a weapons program.

The initiative appeared to be linked to a U.S.-India agreement that would effectively waive the group's rules by allowing the United States to supply India with nuclear fuel despite its refusal both to sign the nonproliferation treaty and allowing the IAEA to inspect all of its nuclear facilities.

Israeli officials began examining how their country could profit from that deal as early as last year, at one point proposing that the U.S. ask for an exemption from restrictions stipulating safeguards by the U.N. nuclear agency on all nuclear facilities, said a diplomat familiar with the issue.
The U.S. rejected that request, he said, demanding anonymity for discussing restricted information.

The diplomat said the Israeli papers were ``acknowledged but definitely not embraced'' by the NSG member nations.

Still, the documents show that Israel has not given up its quest.

Under a cover letter labeled ``confidential,'' the two papers were circulated among the group March 19 by Japan, whose mission to Vienna's International Atomic Energy Agency serves as the liaison office for the group.

Among the hurdles still to be cleared before the U.S.-India pact becomes reality is NSG approval of an exemption for India from group restrictions.

Critics have warned that the deal, if it goes through, will deal a blow to efforts to contain the spread of nuclear arms by effectively rewarding a country that has developed nuclear weapons while evading the nonproliferation pact.
Besides India, only Pakistan and North Korea are known to have nuclear weapons and be outside the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

Israel is considered an undeclared weapons state, with a doctrine of ``nuclear ambiguity.''

In the paper proposing a list of criteria to be used by NSG countries for ``Nuclear Collaboration with non-NPT States,'' Israel inadvertently appeared to touch on the debate over its own status, saying one condition should be application of ``stringent physical protection, control, and accountancy measures to all nuclear weapons ... in its territory.''

The other document urges ``the international community at large and NSG Member States in particular'' to cooperate ``with non-NPT states with strong non-proliferation credentials'' in the ``supply of (nuclear) know-how and equipment.''
Despite close U.S.-Israeli ties, Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns appeared to rule out special treatment for the Jewish state, telling reporters earlier this year that NSG countries needed to know the deal with India ``won't be a precedent to bring other countries in under the same basis.''

But Daryl Kimball, an analyst and executive director of the Arms Control Association, said that - even if unsuccessful - any attempt by Israel to move closer to nations exporting sensitive nuclear technology and material that could potentially be turned into fissile material for warheads would alarm many in the Middle East.

``There is a great deal of tensions between non-nuclear (Arab) weapons states and Israel, and the mere existence of this proposal would exacerbate ... the Middle East situation,'' he said from Washington.
And despite U.S. assurances, ``Israel's proposal illustrates the danger of making exemptions for individual countries from nonproliferation rules and standards,'' he said.

The most recent tensions over Israel's nuclear capabilities surfaced at the IAEA's 148-nation general conference.

On Thursday, the Vienna meeting's penultimate day, only the U.S. and Israel voted against a critical resolution implicitly aimed at the Jewish State for refusing to put its nuclear program under international purview.

U.S. Nuclear Weapons "Guarded" By Israel

By Michael Collins Piper
Thursday, September 27, 2007
American supporters of Israel were delighted to learn that an Israeli company, Magal Security Systems-owned in part by the government of Israel-is in charge of security for the most sensitive nuclear power and weapons storage facilities in the United States.

The largest perimeter security company in the world, Magal started out as a division of Israeli Aircraft Industries (IAI)-which was owned in part by the government of Israel.
In recent years, however, Magal evolved into a publicly-traded company, although IAI (and thus the government of Israel) still holds a substantial share in the highly successful firm.

What all of this means is that the government of Israel will actually have control over the security of America's nuclear weapons.
Supporters of Israel say that this is a splendid idea, since Israel is said to be perhaps America's closest ally on the face of the planet.

However, there are some critics who question the propriety of America's super-sensitive nuclear security being in the hands of any foreign nation, particularly Israel which, even today, officially denies that it is engaged in the production of nuclear arms.
Be that as it may, however, Magal's global interests are quite broad-ranging.

Having secured 90 percent of Israel's borders through a wide-ranging array of super-modern "space age" technology, Magal has now branched out internationally.

Not only does Magal provide security for American nuclear facilities, but it also does likewise for most major nuclear facilities in Western Europe and Asia.

In addition, the Israeli firm also provides security for Chicago's O'Hare Airport and, for the last fifteen years, has kept watch on the Queen of England's famed Buckingham Palace in London.

What's more, Magal provides security for 90% of the American prisons that utilize electronic systems.
Magal brags that its other clients around the globe include: borders, airports, industrial sites, communication centers, military installations, correctional facilities, government agencies, VIP estates and residences, commercial buildings and storage yards.

There is hardly a major country or major enterprise that does not have Magal's security specialists keeping a close watch on their activities.

Clearly, Magal is no small enterprise. While 27% of its total sales are in the Israeli market, its largest market is in North America, which currently accounts for 35% of its sales.

However, Magal's American outreach is expected to increase substantially, especially now that firm has set up a Washington, D.C. office which will promote its products to federal agencies and to the members of Congress who provide funding for federally-supervised security projects across the country at all levels: local, state and national.

And with current U.S. Homeland Security Chief, Michael Chertoff, not only a strong supporter of Israel but also the son of a woman who has strong Israeli ties-even including service with El Al, the national airline of Israel-Magal, owned in party by Israeli Aircraft Industries-will be a clear-cut favorite in the eyes of the power brokers in official Washington who have the power to grant lucrative security contracts.
At the moment, Magal has four U.S.-based subsidiaries: two in California, Stellar Security Products, Inc. and Perimeter Products Inc., as well as the New York-based Smart Interactive Systems, Inc., and the Virginia-based Dominion Wireless, Inc.

All told, the Israeli company holds a 40% share in the worldwide market in perimeter intrusion detection systems and is working to expand its business in the protection of oil pipelines.

Magal is also said to be quite interested in guarding water lines around the globe, particularly in the United States. In fact, Magal may have an inside shot at getting a monopoly in guarding America's water supplies.

On July 19, the Bush administration's Environmental Protection Agency announced a "partnership" with the Israeli Ministry of National Infrastructures to improve what they called "water supply system security in the United States and Israel."
Since Magal is so highly respected in Israel, it's an even bet that Magal will soon be guarding the U.S. water supply.
My Comment:

Remember the U.S.S. Liberty? Good! Never forget that atrocity.

That criminal act was perpetrated by our "dear friend and closest ally," Israel.

It deliberately targeted for destruction that defenseless ship, which was on a surveillance mission, and murdered scores of American technicians.

For those who don't know about that act of war, kindly click on the below link and read for yourselves.

The Liberty Memorial: USSLiberty

You can also search my blog's archive and read what I have posted about that tragedy.

I think that to have an Israeli firm guarding our nukes is a catastrophe.

God help us all if members of that "security" firm or the Israeli government pulls a nuclear false flag terrorism operation.

We Aemricans will pay the price for entrusting them with our nuclear supply.

Also, the Muslims will also pay a hefty retaliatory price (since this act of "terrorism" will be made to look as if the perpetrators were a group of Muslims, or an operation pulled-off by some "pariah Islamic regime.)

Not to mention that this Pariah State is engaged in the production of illegal nuclear weapons, and has amassed about 300 to 400 nuclear warheads.

Therefore, they can steal our nuclear secrets and upgrade their Weapons of Mass Destruction without any IAEA supervision, which won't be allowed any inspections rights, nor shall that atomic agency have any kind of access to Israeli sites, whatsoever.